The John Calvin Collection: 12 Classic Works

Table of Contents

- The John Calvin Collection

- The Institutes of the Christian Religion

- BOOK 1. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD THE CREATOR.

- CHAPTER 1. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD AND OF OURSELVES MUTUALLY CONNECTED.-NATURE OF THIS CONNECTION.

- CHAPTER 2. WHAT IT IS TO KNOW GOD,—TENDENCY OF THIS KNOWLEDGE.

- CHAPTER 3. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD HAS BEEN NATURALLY IMPLANTED IN THE HUMAN MIND.

- CHAPTER 4. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD STIFLED OR CORRUPTED, IGNORANTLY OR MALICIOUSLY.

- CHAPTER 5. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD CONSPICUOUS IN THE CREATION, AND CONTINUAL GOVERNMENT OF THE WORLD.

- CHAPTER 6. THE NEED OF SCRIPTURE, AS A GUIDE AND TEACHER, IN COMING TO GOD AS CREATOR.

- CHAPTER 7. THE TESTIMONY OF THE SPIRIT NECESSARY TO GIVE FULL AUTHORITY TO SCRIPTURE. THE IMPIETY OF PRETENDING THAT THE CREDIBILITY OF SCRIPTURE DEPENDS ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE CHURCH.

- CHAPTER 8. THE CREDIBILITY OF SCRIPTURE SUFFICIENTLY PROVED IN SO FAR AS NATURAL REASON ADMITS.

- CHAPTER 9. ALL THE PRINCIPLES OF PIETY SUBVERTED BY FANATICS, WHO SUBSTITUTE REVELEVATIONS FOR SCRIPTURE.

- CHAPTER 10. IN SCRIPTURE, THE TRUE GOD OPPOSED, EXCLUSIVELY, TO ALL THE GODS OF THE HEATHEN.

- CHAPTER 11. IMPIETY OF ATTRIBUTING A VISIBLE FORM TO GOD. -THE SETTING UP OF IDOLS A DEFECTION FROM THE TRUE GOD.

- CHAPTER 12. GOD DISTINGUISHED FROM IDOLS, THAT HE MAY BE THE EXCLUSIVE OBJECT OF WORSHIP.

- CHAPTER 13. THE UNITY OF THE DIVINE ESSENCE IN THREE PERSONS TAUGHT, IN SCRIPTURE, FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.

- CHAPTER 14. IN THE CREATION OF THE WORLD, AND ALL THINGS IN IT, THE TRUE GOD DISTINGUISHED BY CERTAIN MARKS FROM FICTITIOUS GODS.

- CHAPTER 15. STATE IN WHICH MAN WAS CREATED. THE FACULTIES OF THE SOUL-THE IMAGE OF GOD-FREE WILL-ORIGINAL RIGHTEOUSNESS.

- CHAPTER 16. THE WORLD, CREATED BY GOD, STILL CHERISHED AND PROTECTED BY HIM. EACH AND ALL OF ITS PARTS GOVERNED BY HIS PROVIDENCE.

- CHAPTER 17. USE TO BE MADE OF THE DOCTRINE OF PROVIDENCE.

- CHAPTER 18. THE INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE WICKED EMPLOYED BY GOD, WHILE HE CONTINUES FREE FROM EVERY TAINT.

- BOOK 2. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD THE REDEEMER IN CHRIST, FIRST DISCLOSED TO THE FATHERS UNDER THE LAW, AND THEN TO US IN THE GOSPEL.

- CHAPTER 1. THROUGH THE FALL AND REVOLT OF ADAM, THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE MADE ACCURSED AND DEGENERATE. OF ORIGINAL SIN.

- CHAPTER 2. MAN NOW DEPRIVED OF FREEDOM OF WILL, AND MISERABLY ENSLAVED.

- CHAPTER 3. EVERY THING PROCEEDING FROM THE CORRUPT NATURE OF MAN DAMNABLE.

- CHAPTER 4. HOW GOD WORKS IN THE HEARTS OF MEN.

- CHAPTER 5. THE ARGUMENTS USUALLY ALLEGED IN SUPPORT OF FREE WILL REFUTED.

- CHAPTER 6. REDEMPTION FOR MAN LOST TO BE SOUGHT IN CHRIST.

- CHAPTER 7. THE LAW GIVEN, NOT TO RETAIN A PEOPLE FOR ITSELF, BUT TO KEEP ALIVE THE HOPE OF SALVATION IN CHRIST UNTIL HIS ADVENT.

- CHAPTER 8. EXPOSITION OF THE MORAL LAW.

- CHAPTER 9. CHRIST, THOUGH KNOWN TO THE JEWS UNDER THE LAW, YET ONLY MANIFESTED UNDER THE GOSPEL.

- CHAPTER 10. THE RESEMBLANCE BETWEEN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW.

- CHAPTER 11. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO TESTAMENTS.

- CHAPTER 12. CHRIST, TO PERFORM THE OFFICE OF MEDIATOR, BEHOVED TO BECOME MAN.

- CHAPTER 13. CHRIST CLOTHED WITH THE TRUE SUBSTANCE OF HUMAN NATURE.

- CHAPTER 14. HOW TWO NATURES CONSTITUTE THE PERSON OF THE MEDIATOR.

- CHAPTER 15. THREE THINGS BRIEFLY TO BE REGARDED IN CHRIST; VIZ., HIS OFFICES OF PROPHET, KING, AND PRIEST.

- CHAPTER 16. HOW CHRIST PERFORMED THE OFFICE OF REDEEMER IN PROCURING OUR SALVATION. THE DEATH, RESURRECTION, AND ASCENSION OF CHRIST.

- CHAPTER 17. CHRIST RIGHTLY AND PROPERLY SAID TO HAVE MERITED GRACE AND SALVATION FOR US.

- BOOK 3. THE WAY IN WHICH WE RECEIVE THE GRACE OF CHRIST: WHAT BENEFITS COME TO US FROM IT, AND WHAT EFFECTS FOLLOW.

- CHAPTER 1. THE BENEFITS OF CHRIST MADE AVAILABLE TO US BY THE SECRET OPERATION OF THE SPIRIT.

- CHAPTER 2. OF FAITH. THE DEFINITION OF IT. ITS PECULIAR PROPERTIES.

- CHAPTER 3. REGENERATION BY FAITH. OF REPENTANCE.

- CHAPTER 4. PENITENCE, AS EXPLAINED IN THE SOPHISTICAL JARGON OF THE SCHOOLMEN, WIDELY DIFFERENT FROM THE PURITY REQUIRED BY THE GOSPEL. OF CONFESSION AND SATISFACTION.

- CHAPTER 5. OF THE MODES OF SUPPLEMENTING SATISFACTION, VIZ., INDULGENCES AND PURGATORY.

- CHAPTER 6. THE LIFE OF A CHRISTIAN MAN. SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS EXHORTING TO IT.

- CHAPTER 7. A SUMMARY OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. OF SELF-DENIAL. [5]

- CHAPTER 8. OF BEARING THE CROSS-ONE BRANCH OF SELF-DENIAL

- CHAPTER 9. OF MEDITATING ON THE FUTURE LIFE.

- CHAPTER 10. HOW TO USE THE PRESENT LIFE, AND THE COMFORTS OF IT.

- CHAPTER 11. OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. BOTH THE NAME AND THE REALITY DEFINED.

- CHAPTER 12. NECESSITY OF CONTEMPLATING THE JUDGMENT-SEAT OF GOD, IN ORDER TO BE SERIOUSLY CONVINCED OF THE DOCTRINE OF GRATUITOUS JUSTIFICATION.

- CHAPTER 13. TWO THINGS TO BE OBSERVED IN GRATUITOUS JUSTIFICATION.

- CHAPTER 14. THE BEGINNING OF JUSTIFICATION. IN WHAT SENSE PROGRESSIVE.

- CHAPTER 15. THE BOASTED MERIT OF WORKS SUBVERSIVE BOTH OF THE GLORY OF GOD, IN BESTOWING RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND OF THE CERTAINTY OF SALVATION.

- CHAPTER 16. REFUTATION OF THE CALUMNIES BY WHICH IT IS ATTEMPTED TO THROW ODIUM ON THIS DOCTRINE.

- CHAPTER 17. THE PROMISES OF THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL RECONCILED.

- CHAPTER 18. THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF WORKS IMPROPERLY INFERRED FROM REWARDS.

- CHAPTER 19. Of Christian Liberty.

- CHAPTER 20. OF PRAYER-A PERPETUAL EXERCISE OF FAITH. THE DAILY BENEFITS DERIVED FROM IT.

- CHAPTER 21. OF THE ETERNAL ELECTION, BY WHICH GOD HAS PREDESTINED SOME TO SALVATION, AND OTHERS TO DESTRUCTION.

- CHAPTER 22. THIS DOCTRINE CONFIRMED BY PROOFS FROM SCRIPTURE.

- CHAPTER 23. REFUTATION OF THE CALUMNIES BY WHICH THIS DOCTRINE IS ALWAYS UNJUSTLY ASSAILED.

- CHAPTER 24. ELECTION CONFIRMED BY THE CALLING OF GOD. THE REPROBATE BRING UPON THEMSELVES THE RIGHTEOUS DESTRUCTION TO WHICH THEY ARE DOOMED.

- CHAPTER 25. OF THE LAST RESURRECTION.

- BOOK 4. THE EXTERNAL MEANS OR AIDS BY WHICH GOD INVITES US INTO THE SOCIETY OF CHRIST AND HOLDS US THEREIN.

- CHAPTER 1. THE TRUE CHURCH WITH WHICH AS MOTHER OF ALL THE GODLY WE MUST KEEP UNITY.

- CHAPTER 2. COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FALSE CHURCH AND THE TRUE

- CHAPTER 3. THE DOCTORS AND MINISTERS OF THE CHURCH, THEIR ELECTION AND OFFICE.

- CHAPTER 4. THE CONDITION OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH, AND THE KIND OF GOVERNMENT IN USE BEFORE THE PAPACY.

- CHAPTER 5. THE ANCIENT FORM OF GOVERNMENT UTTERLY CORRUPTED BY THE TYRANNY OF THE PAPACY.

- CHAPTER 6. THE PRIMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE.

- CHAPTER 7. OF THE BEGINNING AND RISE OF THE ROMISH PAPACY TILL IT ATTAINED A HEIGHT BY WHICH THE LIBERTY OF THE CHURCH WAS DESTROYED, AND ALL TRUE RULE OVERTHROWN.

- CHAPTER 8. OF THE POWER OF THE CHURCH IN ARTICLES OF FAITH. THE UNBRIDLED LICENSE OF THE PAPAL CHURCH IN DESTROYING PURITY OF DOCTRINE.

- CHAPTER 9. OF COUNCILS AND THEIR AUTHORITY.

- CHAPTER 10. OF THE POWER OF MAKING LAWS. THE CRUELTY OF THE POPE AND HIS ADHERENTS, IN THIS RESPECT, IN TYRANNICALLY OPPRESSING AND DESTROYING SOULS.

- CHAPTER 11. OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE CHURCH AND THE ABUSES OF IT, AS EXEMPLIFIED IN THE PAPACY.

- CHAPTER 12. OF THE DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH, AND ITS PRINCIPAL USE IN CENSURES AND EXCOMMUNICATION.

- CHAPTER 13. OF VOWS. THE MISERABLE ENTANGLEMENTS CAUSED BY VOWING RASHLY.

- CHAPTER 14. OF THE SACRAMENTS.

- CHAPTER 15. OF BAPTISM.

- CHAPTER 16. PAEDOBAPTISM. ITS ACCORDANCE WITH THE INSTITUTION OF CHRIST, AND THE NATURE OF THE SIGN.

- CHAPTER 17. OF THE LORD’S SUPPER, AND THE BENEFITS CONFERRED BY IT.

- CHAPTER 18. OF THE POPISH MASS. HOW IT NOT ONLY PROFANES, BUT ANNIHILATES THE LORD’S SUPPER.

- CHAPTER 19. OF THE FIVE SACRAMENTS, FALSELY SO CALLED. THEIR SPURIOUSNESS PROVED, AND THEIR TRUE CHARACTER EXPLAINED.

- CHAPTER 20. OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT.

- Commentaries on Election and Predestination

- 1. ELECTION

- 2. PREDESTINATION

- Commentaries on the Bible

- 1. THE WORD OF GOD

- 2. THE OLD AND THE NEW TESTAMENTS

- 3. THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL

- 4. EXAMPLES OF EXEGESIS

- Commentaries on Jesus Christ

- 1. THE MEDIATOR

- 2. THE PERSON OF CHRIST

- 3. ASCENSION: EXAMPLES OF EXEGESIS

- 4. CHRIST THE KING AND THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST

- Commentaries on the Church

- 1. THE CONDITION OF THE CHURCH

- 2. THE MINISTRY

- 3. PREACHING AND TEACHING

- Commentaries on Christian Life

- 1. SALVATION

- 2. THE CHRISTIAN WARFARE

- 3. THE CROSS AND PERSECUTION

- Commentaries on the Knowledge of God

- THE TEXT

- Commentaries on Providence

- 1. PROVIDENCE AND HUMAN ACTION

- 2. PROVIDENCE AND GOD

- Commentaries on Faith

- 1. ASPECTS OF FAITH

- 2. FAITH AS FAITHFULNESS AND COURAGE

- 3. FAITH AS HUMAN ACT

- Commentaries on Ethics and the Common Life

- 1. WORSHIP AND ETHICS

- 2. FREEDOM, LOVE, EQUALITY

- 3. SOCIAL ETHICS: THE USE OF GOD’S GIFTS

- 4. MARRIAGE

- The Necessity of Reforming the Church

- 1: Introduction, the Evils Which Compelled Us to Seek Remedies

- 2: The Remedies Employed for Correction of the Evils

- 3: Reformation Required Without Delay

- 4: Further Objections Answered

- A Treatise on Relics

- Chapter I: Origin Of The Worship Of Relics And Images In The Christian Church

- Chapter II: Compromise Of The Church With Paganism

- Chapter III: Position Of The First Christian Emperors Towards Paganism, And Their Policy In This Respect

- Chapter IV: Infection Of The Christian Church By Pagan Ideas And Practices During The Fourth And Fifth Centuries

- Chapter V: Reaction Against The Worship Of Images And Other Superstitious Practices By The Iconoclast Emperors Of The East

- Chapter VI: Origin And Development Of The Pious Legends, Or Lives Of Saints, During The Middle Ages

- Chapter VII: Analysis Of The Pagan Rites And Practices Which Have Been Retained By The Roman Catholic As Well As The Græco-Russian Church

- Chapter VIII: Image-Worship And Other Superstitious Practices Of The Graeco-Russian Church

The John Calvin Collection

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

BOOK 1. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD THE CREATOR.

CHAPTER 1. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD AND OF OURSELVES MUTUALLY CONNECTED.-NATURE OF THIS CONNECTION.

Sections.

1. The sum of true wisdom, viz., the knowledge of God and of ourselves. Effects of the latter.

2. Effects of the knowledge of God, in humbling our pride, unveiling our hypocrisy, demonstrating the absolute perfections of God, and our own utter helplessness.

3. Effects of the knowledge of God illustrated by the examples,

1. of holy patriarchs;

2. of holy angels;

3. of the sun and moon.

1.Without knowledge of self there is no knowledge of God

Our wisdom, in so far as it ought to be deemed true and solid Wisdom, consists almost entirely of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But as these are connected together by many ties, it is not easy to determine which of the two precedes and gives birth to the other. For, in the first place, no man can survey himself without forthwith turning his thoughts towards the God in whom he lives and moves; because it is perfectly obvious, that the endowments which we possess cannot possibly be from ourselves; nay, that our very being is nothing else than subsistence in God alone. In the second place, those blessings which unceasingly distil to us from heaven, are like streams conducting us to the fountain. Here, again, the infinitude of good which resides in God becomes more apparent from our poverty. In particular, the miserable ruin into which the revolt of the first man has plunged us, compels us to turn our eyes upwards; not only that while hungry and famishing we may thence ask what we want, but being aroused by fear may learn humility. For as there exists in man something like a world of misery, and ever since we were stript of the divine attire our naked shame discloses an immense series of disgraceful properties every man, being stung by the consciousness of his own unhappiness, in this way necessarily obtains at least some knowledge of God. Thus, our feeling of ignorance, vanity, want, weakness, in short, depravity and corruption, reminds us, (see Calvin on John 4: 10,) that in the Lord, and none but He, dwell the true light of wisdom, solid virtue, exuberant goodness. We are accordingly urged by our own evil things to consider the good things of God; and, indeed, we cannot aspire to Him in earnest until we have begun to be displeased with ourselves. For what man is not disposed to rest in himself? Who, in fact, does not thus rest, so long as he is unknown to himself; that is, so long as he is contented with his own endowments, and unconscious or unmindful of his misery? Every person, therefore, on coming to the knowledge of himself, is not only urged to seek God, but is also led as by the hand to find him.

2.Without knowledge of God there is no knowledge of self

On the other hand, it is evident that man never attains to a true self-knowledge until he have previously contemplated the face of God, and come down after such contemplation to look into himself. For (such is our innate pride) we always seem to ourselves just, and upright, and wise, and holy, until we are convinced, by clear evidence, of our injustice, vileness, folly, and impurity. Convinced, however, we are not, if we look to ourselves only, and not to the Lord also—He being the only standard by the application of which this conviction can be produced. For, since we are all naturally prone to hypocrisy, any empty semblance of righteousness is quite enough to satisfy us instead of righteousness itself. And since nothing appears within us or around us that is not tainted with very great impurity, so long as we keep our mind within the confines of human pollution, anything which is in some small degree less defiled delights us as if it were most pure just as an eye, to which nothing but black had been previously presented, deems an object of a whitish, or even of a brownish hue, to be perfectly white. Nay, the bodily sense may furnish a still stronger illustration of the extent to which we are deluded in estimating the powers of the mind. If, at mid-day, we either look down to the ground, or on the surrounding objects which lie open to our view, we think ourselves endued with a very strong and piercing eyesight; but when we look up to the sun, and gaze at it unveiled, the sight which did excellently well for the earth is instantly so dazzled and confounded by the refulgence, as to oblige us to confess that our acuteness in discerning terrestrial objects is mere dimness when applied to the sun. Thus too, it happens in estimating our spiritual qualities. So long as we do not look beyond the earth, we are quite pleased with our own righteousness, wisdom, and virtue; we address ourselves in the most flattering terms, and seem only less than demigods. But should we once begin to raise our thoughts to God, and reflect what kind of Being he is, and how absolute the perfection of that righteousness, and wisdom, and virtue, to which, as a standard, we are bound to be conformed, what formerly delighted us by its false show of righteousness will become polluted with the greatest iniquity; what strangely imposed upon us under the name of wisdom will disgust by its extreme folly; and what presented the appearance of virtuous energy will be condemned as the most miserable impotence. So far are those qualities in us, which seem most perfect, from corresponding to the divine purity.

3.Man before God’s majesty

Hence that dread and amazement with which as Scripture uniformly relates, holy men were struck and overwhelmed whenever they beheld the presence of God. When we see those who previously stood firm and secure so quaking with terror, that the fear of death takes hold of them, nay, they are, in a manner, swallowed up and annihilated, the inference to be drawn is that men are never duly touched and impressed with a conviction of their insignificance, until they have contrasted themselves with the majesty of God. Frequent examples of this consternation occur both in the Book of Judges and the Prophetical Writings; so much so, that it was a common expression among the people of God, “We shall die, for we have seen the Lord.” Hence the Book of Job, also, in humbling men under a conviction of their folly, feebleness, and pollution, always derives its chief argument from descriptions of the Divine wisdom, virtue, and purity. Nor without cause: for we see Abraham the readier to acknowledge himself but dust and ashes the nearer he approaches to behold the glory of the Lord, and Elijah unable to wait with unveiled face for His approach; so dreadful is the sight. And what can man do, man who is but rottenness and a worm, when even the Cherubim themselves must veil their faces in very terror? To this, undoubtedly, the Prophet Isaiah refers, when he says, (Isaiah 24: 23,) “The moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the Lord of Hosts shall reign;” i. e., when he shall exhibit his refulgence, and give a nearer view of it, the brightest objects will, in comparison, be covered with darkness.

But though the knowledge of God and the knowledge of ourselves are bound together by a mutual tie, due arrangement requires that we treat of the former in the first place, and then descend to the latter.

CHAPTER 2. WHAT IT IS TO KNOW GOD,—TENDENCY OF THIS KNOWLEDGE.

Sections.

1. The knowledge of God the Creator defined. The substance of this knowledge, and the use to be made of it.

2. Further illustration of the use, together with a necessary reproof of vain curiosity, and refutation of the Epicureans. The character of God as it appears to the pious mind,contrasted with the absurd views of the Epicureans. Religion defined.

1.Piety is requisite for the knowledge of God

By the knowledge of God, I understand that by which we not only conceive that there is some God, but also apprehend what it is for our interest, and conducive to his glory, what, in short, it is befitting to know concerning him. For, properly speaking, we cannot say that God is known where there is no religion or piety. I am not now referring to that species of knowledge by which men, in themselves lost and under curse, apprehend God as a Redeemer in Christ the Mediator. I speak only of that simple and primitive knowledge, to which the mere course of nature would have conducted us, had Adam stood upright. For although no man will now, in the present ruin of the human race, perceive God to be either a father, or the author of salvation, or propitious in any respect, until Christ interpose to make our peace; still it is one thing to perceive that God our Maker supports us by his power, rules us by his providence, fosters us by his goodness, and visits us with all kinds of blessings, and another thing to embrace the grace of reconciliation offered to us in Christ. Since, then, the Lord first appears, as well in the creation of the world as in the general doctrine of Scripture, simply as a Creator, and afterwards as a Redeemer in Christ,—a twofold knowledge of him hence arises: of these the former is now to be considered, the latter will afterwards follow in its order.

But although our mind cannot conceive of God, without rendering some worship to him, it will not, however, be sufficient simply to hold that he is the only being whom all ought to worship and adore, unless we are also persuaded that he is the fountain of all goodness, and that we must seek everything in him, and in none but him. My meaning is: we must be persuaded not only that as he once formed the world, so he sustains it by his boundless power, governs it by his wisdom, preserves it by his goodness, in particular, rules the human race with justice and judgement, bears with them in mercy, shields them by his protection; but also that not a particle of light, or wisdom, or justice, or power, or rectitude, or genuine truth, will anywhere be found, which does not flow from him, and of which he is not the cause; in this way we must learn to expect and ask all things from him, and thankfully ascribe to him whatever we receive. For this sense of the divine perfections is the proper master to teach us piety, out of which religion springs. By piety I mean that union of reverence and love to God which the knowledge of his benefits inspires. For, until men feel that they owe everything to God, that they are cherished by his paternal care, and that he is the author of all their blessings, so that nought is to be looked for away from him, they will never submit to him in voluntary obedience; nay, unless they place their entire happiness in him, they will never yield up their whole selves to him in truth and sincerity.

2.Knowledge of God Involves trust and reverance

Those, therefore, who, in considering this question, propose to inquire what the essence of God is, only delude us with frigid speculations,—it being much more our interest to know what kind of being God is, and what things are agreeable to his nature. For, of what use is it to join Epicurus in acknowledging some God who has cast off the care of the world, and only delights himself in ease? What avails it, in short, to know a God with whom we have nothing to do? The effect of our knowledge rather ought to be, first, to teach us reverence and fear; and, secondly, to induce us, under its guidance and teaching, to ask every good thing from him, and, when it is received, ascribe it to him. For how can the idea of God enter your mind without instantly giving rise to the thought, that since you are his workmanship, you are bound, by the very law of creation, to submit to his authority?—that your life is due to him?—that whatever you do ought to have reference to him? If so, it undoubtedly follows that your life is sadly corrupted, if it is not framed in obedience to him, since his will ought to be the law of our lives. On the other hand, your idea of his nature is not clear unless you acknowledge him to be the origin and fountain of all goodness. Hence would arise both confidence in him, and a desire of cleaving to him, did not the depravity of the human mind lead it away from the proper course of investigation.

For, first of all, the pious mind does not devise for itself any kind of God, but looks alone to the one true God; nor does it feign for him any character it pleases, but is contented to have him in the character in which he manifests himself always guarding, with the utmost diligences against transgressing his will, and wandering, with daring presumptions from the right path. He by whom God is thus known perceiving how he governs all things, confides in him as his guardian and protector, and casts himself entirely upon his faithfulness,—perceiving him to be the source of every blessing, if he is in any strait or feels any want, he instantly recurs to his protection and trusts to his aid,—persuaded that he is good and merciful, he reclines upon him with sure confidence, and doubts not that, in the divine clemency, a remedy will be provided for his every time of need,—acknowledging him as his Father and his Lords he considers himself bound to have respect to his authority in all things, to reverence his majesty aim at the advancement of his glory, and obey his commands,—regarding him as a just judge, armed with severity to punish crimes, he keeps the judgement-seat always in his view. Standing in awe of it, he curbs himself, and fears to provoke his anger. Nevertheless, he is not so terrified by an apprehension of judgement as to wish he could withdraw himself, even if the means of escape lay before him; nays he embraces him not less as the avenger of wickedness than as the rewarder of the righteous; because he perceives that it equally appertains to his glory to store up punishment for the one, and eternal life for the other. Besides, it is not the mere fear of punishment that restrains him from sin. Loving and revering God as his father, honouring and obeying him as his master, although there were no hell, he would revolt at the very idea of offending him.

Such is pure and genuine religion, namely, confidence in God coupled with serious fear—fear, which both includes in it willing reverence, and brings along with it such legitimate worship as is prescribed by the law. And it ought to be more carefully considered that all men promiscuously do homage to God, but very few truly reverence him. On all hands there is abundance of ostentatious ceremonies, but sincerity of heart is rare.

CHAPTER 3. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD HAS BEEN NATURALLY IMPLANTED IN THE HUMAN MIND.

Sections

1. The knowledge of God being manifested to all makes the reprobate without excuse. Universal belief and acknowledgement of the existence of God.

2. Objection—that religion and the belief of a Deity are the inventions of crafty politicians. Refutation of the objection. This universal belief confirmed by the examples of wicked men and Atheists.

3. Confirmed also by the vain endeavours of the wicked to banish all fear of God from their minds. Conclusion, that the knowledge of God is naturally implanted in the human mind.

1.The character of this natural endowment

That there exists in the human minds and indeed by natural instinct, some sense of Deity, we hold to be beyond dispute, since God himself, to prevent any man from pretending ignorance, has endued all men with some idea of his Godhead, the memory of which he constantly renews and occasionally enlarges, that all to a man being aware that there is a God, and that he is their Maker, may be condemned by their own conscience when they neither worship him nor consecrate their lives to his service. Certainly, if there is any quarter where it may be supposed that God is unknown, the most likely for such an instance to exist is among the dullest tribes farthest removed from civilisation. But, as a heathen tells us, there is no nation so barbarous, no race so brutish, as not to be imbued with the conviction that there is a God. Even those who, in other respects, seem to differ least from the lower animals, constantly retain some sense of religion; so thoroughly has this common conviction possessed the mind, so firmly is it stamped on the breasts of all men. Since, then, there never has been, from the very first, any quarter of the globe, any city, any household even, without religion, this amounts to a tacit confession, that a sense of Deity is inscribed on every heart.

Nay, even idolatry is ample evidence of this fact. For we know how reluctant man is to lower himself, in order to set other creatures above him. Therefore, when he chooses to worship wood and stone rather than be thought to have no God, it is evident how very strong this impression of a Deity must be; since it is more difficult to obliterate it from the mind of man, than to break down the feelings of his nature,—these certainly being broken down, when, in opposition to his natural haughtiness, he spontaneously humbles himself before the meanest object as an act of reverence to God.

2.Religion is no arbitrary invention

It is most absurd, therefore, to maintain, as some do, that religion was devised by the cunning and craft of a few individuals, as a means of keeping the body of the people in due subjection, while there was nothing which those very individuals, while teaching others to worship God, less believed than the existence of a God. I readily acknowledge, that designing men have introduced a vast number of fictions into religion, with the view of inspiring the populace with reverence or striking them with terror, and thereby rendering them more obsequious; but they never could have succeeded in this, had the minds of men not been previously imbued will that uniform belief in God, from which, as from its seed, the religious propensity springs. And it is altogether incredible that those who, in the matter of religion, cunningly imposed on their ruder neighbours, were altogether devoid of a knowledge of God. For though in old times there were some, and in the present day not a few are found, who deny the being of a God, yet, whether they will or not, they occasionally feel the truth which they are desirous not to know. We do not read of any man who broke out into more unbridled and audacious contempt of the Deity than C. Caligula, and yet none showed greater dread when any indication of divine wrath was manifested. Thus, however unwilling, he shook with terror before the God whom he professedly studied to condemn. You may every day see the same thing happening to his modern imitators. The most audacious despiser of God is most easily disturbed, trembling at the sound of a falling leaf. How so, unless in vindication of the divine majesty, which smites their consciences the more strongly the more they endeavour to flee from it. They all, indeed, look out for hiding-places where they may conceal themselves from the presence of the Lord, and again efface it from their mind; but after all their efforts they remain caught within the net. Though the conviction may occasionally seem to vanish for a moment, it immediately returns, and rushes in with new impetuosity, so that any interval of relief from the gnawing of conscience is not unlike the slumber of the intoxicated or the insane, who have no quiet rest in sleep, but are continually haunted with dire horrific dreams. Even the wicked themselves, therefore, are an example of the fact that some idea of God always exists in every human mind.

3.Actual goodness is impossible

All men of sound judgement will therefore hold, that a sense of Deity is indelibly engraven on the human heart. And that this belief is naturally engendered in all, and thoroughly fixed as it were in our very bones, is strikingly attested by the contumacy of the wicked, who, though they struggle furiously, are unable to extricate themselves from the fear of God. Though Diagoras, and others of like stamps make themselves merry with whatever has been believed in all ages concerning religion, and Dionysus scoffs at the judgement of heaven, it is but a Sardonian grin; for the worm of conscience, keener than burning steel, is gnawing them within. I do not say with Cicero, that errors wear out by age, and that religion increases and grows better day by day. For the world (as will be shortly seen) labours as much as it can to shake off all knowledge of God, and corrupts his worship in innumerable ways. I only say, that, when the stupid hardness of heart, which the wicked eagerly court as a means of despising God, becomes enfeebled, the sense of Deity, which of all things they wished most to be extinguished, is still in vigour, and now and then breaks forth. Whence we infer, that this is not a doctrine which is first learned at school, but one as to which every man is, from the womb, his own master; one which nature herself allows no individual to forget, though many, with all their might, strive to do so.

Moreover, if all are born and live for the express purpose of learning to know God, and if the knowledge of God, in so far as it fails to produce this effect, is fleeting and vain, it is clear that all those who do not direct the whole thoughts and actions of their lives to this end fail to fulfil the law of their being. This did not escape the observation even of philosophers. For it is the very thing which Plato meant (in Phoed. et Theact.) when he taught, as he often does, that the chief good of the soul consists in resemblance to God; i.e., when, by means of knowing him, she is wholly transformed into him. Thus Gryllus, also, in Plutarch, (lib. guod bruta anim. ratione utantur,) reasons most skilfully, when he affirms that, if once religion is banished from the lives of men, they not only in no respect excel, but are, in many respects, much more wretched than the brutes, since, being exposed to so many forms of evil, they continually drag on a troubled and restless existence: that the only thing, therefore, which makes them superior is the worship of God, through which alone they aspire to immortality.

CHAPTER 4. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD STIFLED OR CORRUPTED, IGNORANTLY OR MALICIOUSLY.

Sections.

1. The knowledge of God suppressed by ignorance, many falling away into superstition. Such persons, however, inexcusable, becausetheir error is accompanied with pride and stubbornness.

2. Stubbornness the companion of impiety.

3. No pretext can justify superstition. This proved, first, from reason; and, secondly, from Scripture.

4. The wicked never willingly come into the presence of God. Hence their hypocrisy. Hence, too, their sense of Deity leads to nogood result.

1.Superstition

But though experience testifies that a seed of religion isdivinely sown in all, scarcely one in a hundred is found whocherishes it in his heart, and not one in whom it grows to maturityso far is it from yielding fruit in its season. Moreover, while somelose themselves in superstitious observances, and others, of setpurpose, wickedly revolt from God, the result is, that, in reward tothe true knowledge of him, all are so degenerate, that in no part ofthe world can genuine godliness be found. In saying that some fallaway into superstition, I mean not to insinuate that their excessiveabsurdity frees them from guilt; for the blindness under which theylabour is almost invariably accompanied with vain pride andstubbornness. Mingled vanity and pride appear in this, that whenmiserable men do seek after God, instead of ascending higher thanthemselves as they ought to do, they measure him by their own carnalstupidity, and neglecting solid inquiry, fly off to indulge theircuriosity in vain speculation. Hence, they do not conceive of him inthe character in which he is manifested, but imagine him to bewhatever their own rashness has devised. This abyss standing open,they cannot move one footstep without rushing headlong todestruction. With such an idea of God, nothing which they mayattempt to offer in the way of worship or obedience can have anyvalue in his sight, because it is not him they worship, but, insteadof him, the dream and figment of their own heart. This corruptprocedure is admirably described by Paul, when he says, that"thinking to be wise, they became fools” (Rom. 1: 22.) He hadpreviously said that “they became vain in their imaginations,” butlest any should suppose them blameless, he afterwards adds that theywere deservedly blinded, because, not contented with sober inquiry,because, arrogating to themselves more than they have any title todo, they of their own accord court darkness, nay, bewitch themselveswith perverse, empty show. Hence it is that their folly, the resultnot only of vain curiosity, but of licentious desire and overweeningconfidence in the pursuit of forbidden knowledge, cannot be excused.

2.Conscious turning away from God

The expression of David, (Psalm 14: 1, 53: 1,) “The fool hassaid in his heart, There is no God,” is primarily applied to thosewho, as will shortly farther appear, stifle the light of nature, andintentionally stupefy themselves. We see many, after they havebecome hardened in a daring course of sin, madly banishing allremembrance of God, though spontaneously suggested to them fromwithin, by natural sense. To show how detestable this madness is,the Psalmist introduces them as distinctly denying that there is aGod, because although they do not disown his essence, they rob himof his justice and providence, and represent him as sitting idly inheaven. Nothing being less accordant with the nature of God than tocast off the government of the world, leaving it to chance, and soto wink at the crimes of men that they may wanton with impunity inevil courses; it follows, that every man who indulges in security,after extinguishing all fear of divine judgement, virtually deniesthat there is a God. As a just punishment of the wicked, after theyhave closed their own eyes, God makes their hearts dull and heavy,and hence, seeing, they see not (Matt. 13:14-15; cf. Isa.6: 9-10 and Ps. 17:10). David, indeed, is the best interpreter of his own meaning, when he says elsewhere, the wicked has “no fear of God before his eyes,” (Psalm 36: 1;) and, again, “He has said in his heart, God has forgotten; he hideth his face; he will never see it."(Ps. 10:11)

Thus although they are forced to acknowledgethat there is some God, they, however, rob him of his glory bydenying his power. For, as Paul declares, “If we believe not, heabideth faithful, he cannot deny himself,” (2 Tim. 2: 13; so thosewho feign to themselves a dead and dumb idol, are truly said to denyGod. It is, moreover, to be observed, that though they struggle withtheir own convictions, and would fain not only banish God from theirminds, but from heaven also, their stupefaction is never so completeas to secure them from being occasionally dragged before the divinetribunal. Still, as no fear restrains them from rushing violently inthe face of God, so long as they are hurried on by that blindimpulse, it cannot be denied that their prevailing state of mind inregard to him is brutish oblivion.

3.We are not to fashion God according to our own whim

In this way, the vain pretext which many employ to clothetheir superstition is overthrown. They deem it enough that they havesome kind of zeal for religion, how preposterous soever it may be,not observing that true religion must be conformable to the will ofGod as its unerring standard; that he can never deny himself, and isno spectra or phantom, to be metamorphosed at each individual’scaprice. It is easy to see how superstition, with its false glosses,mocks God, while it tries to please him. Usually fastening merely onthings on which he has declared he sets no value, it eithercontemptuously overlooks, or even undisguisedly rejects, the thingswhich he expressly enjoins, or in which we are assured that he takespleasure. Those, therefore, who set up a fictitious worship, merelyworship and adore their own delirious fancies; indeed, they wouldnever dare so to trifle with God, had they not previously fashionedhim after their own childish conceits. Hence that vague andwandering opinion of Deity is declared by an apostle to be ignoranceof God: “Howbeit, then, when ye knew not God, ye did service untothem which by nature are no gods."(Gal.4:8) And he elsewhere declares, thatthe Ephesians were “without God” (Eph. 2: 12) at the time when theywandered without any correct knowledge of him. It makes littledifference, at least in this respect, whether you hold the existenceof one God, or a plurality of gods, since, in both cases alike, bydeparting from the true God, you have nothing left but an execrableidol. It remains, therefore, to conclude with Lactantius, (Instit.Div. lib i. 2,, 6,) “No religion is genuine that is not inaccordance with truth.”

4.Hypocrisy

To this fault they add a second, viz., that when they dothink of God it is against their will; never approaching him withoutbeing dragged into his presence, and when there, instead of thevoluntary fear flowing from reverence of the divine majesty, feelingonly that forced and servile fear which divine judgement extortsjudgement which, from the impossibility of escape, they arecompelled to dread, but which, while they dread, they at the sametime also hate. To impiety, and to it alone, the saying of Statiusproperly applies: “Fear first brought gods into the world,” (Theb.lib. i.) Those whose inclinations are at variance with the justiceof God, knowing that his tribunal has been erected for thepunishment of transgression, earnestly wish that that tribunal wereoverthrown. Under the influence of this feeling they are actuallywarring against God, justice being one of his essential attributes.Perceiving that they are always within reach of his power, thatresistance and evasion are alike impossible, they fear and tremble.Accordingly, to avoid the appearance of condemning a majesty bywhich all are overawed, they have recourse to some species ofreligious observance, never ceasing meanwhile to defile themselveswith every kind of vice, and add crime to crime, until they havebroken the holy law of the Lord in every one of its requirements,and set his whole righteousness at nought; at all events, they arenot so restrained by their semblance of fear as not to luxuriate andtake pleasure in iniquity, choosing rather to indulge their carnalpropensities than to curb them with the bridle of the Holy Spirit.

But since this shadow of religion (it scarcely even deserves to becalled a shadow) is false and vain, it is easy to infer how muchthis confused knowledge of God differs from that piety which isinstilled into the breasts of believers, and from which alone truereligion springs. And yet hypocrites would fain, by means oftortuous windings, make a show of being near to God at the very timethey are fleeing from him. For while the whole life ought to be oneperpetual course of obedience, they rebel without fear in almost alltheir actions, and seek to appease him with a few paltry sacrifices;while they ought to serve him with integrity of heart and holinessof life, they endeavour to procure his favour by means of frivolousdevices and punctilios of no value. Nay, they take greater licensein their grovelling indulgences, because they imagine that they canfulfil their duty to him by preposterous expiations; in short, whiletheir confidence ought to have been fixed upon him, they put himaside, and rest in themselves or the creatures. At length theybewilder themselves in such a maze of error, that the darkness ofignorance obscures, and ultimately extinguishes, those sparks whichwere designed to show them the glory of God. Still, however, theconviction that there is some Deity continues to exist, like a plantwhich can never be completely eradicated, though so corrupt, that itis only capable of producing the worst of fruit.

Nay, we have still stronger evidence of the proposition for which I now contend, viz.,that a sense of Deity is naturally engraven on the human heart, inthe fact, that the very reprobate are forced to acknowledge it. Whenat their ease, they can jest about God, and talk pertly andloquaciously in disparagement of his power; but should despair, fromany cause, overtake them, it will stimulate them to seek him, anddictate ejaculatory prayers, proving that they were not entirelyignorant of God, but had perversely suppressed feelings which oughtto have been earlier manifested.

CHAPTER 5. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD CONSPICUOUS IN THE CREATION, AND CONTINUAL GOVERNMENT OF THE WORLD.

This chapter consists of two parts:

1. The former, which occupies the first ten sections, divides all the works of God into two great classes, and elucidates the knowledge of God as displayed in each class. The one class is treated of in the first six, and the other in the four following sections;

2. The latter part of the chapter shows, that, in consequence of the extreme stupidity of men, those manifestations of God, however perspicuous, lead to no useful result. This latter part, which commences at the eleventh section, is continued to the end of the chapter.

Sections.

1. The invisible and incomprehensible essence of God, to a certain extent, made visible in his works.

2. This declared by the first class of works, viz., the admirable motions of the heavens and the earth, the symmetry of the human body, and the connection of its parts; in short, the various objects which are presented to every eye.

3. This more especially manifested in the structure of the human body.

4. The shameful ingratitude of disregarding God, who, in such a variety of ways, is manifested within us. The still more shameful ingratitude of contemplating the endowments of the soul, without ascending to Him who gave them. No objection can be founded on any supposed organism in the soul.

5. The powers and actions of the soul, a proof of its separate existence from the body. Proofs of the soul’s immortality. Objection that the whole world is quickened by one soul. Reply to the objection. Its impiety.

6. Conclusion from what has been said, viz., that the omnipotence, eternity, and goodness of God, may be learned from the first class of works, i. e., those which are in accordance with the ordinary course of nature.

7. The second class of works, viz., those above the ordinary course of nature, afford clear evidence of the perfections of God, especially his goodness, justice, and mercy.

8. Also his providence, power, and wisdom.

9. Proofs and illustrations of the divine Majesty. The use of them, viz., the acquisition of divine knowledge in combination with true piety.

10. The tendency of the knowledge of God to inspire the righteous with the hope of future life, and remind the wicked of the punishments reserved for them. Its tendency, moreover, to keep alive in the hearts of the righteous a sense of the divine goodness.

11. The second part of the chapter, which describes the stupidity both of learned and unlearned, in ascribing the whole order of things, and the admirable arrangements of divine Providence, to fortune.

12. Hence Polytheism, with all its abominations, and the endless and irreconcilable opinions of the philosophers concerning God.

13. All guilty of revolt from God, corrupting pure religion, either by following general custom, or the impious consent of antiquity.

14. Though irradiated by the wondrous glories of creation, we cease not to follow our own ways.

15. Our conduct altogether inexcusable, the dullness of perception being attributable to ourselves, while we are fully reminded of the true path, both by the structure and the government of the world.

(God manifested in his created works, 1-10)

1.The clarity of God’s self-disclosure strips us of every excuse

Since the perfection of blessedness consists in the knowledge of God (cf. John 17:3), he has been pleased, in order that none might be excluded from the means of obtaining felicity, not only to deposit in our minds that seed of religion of which we have already spoken, but so to manifest his perfections in the whole structure of the universe, and daily place himself in our view, that we cannot open our eyes without being compelled to behold him. His essence, indeed, is incomprehensible, utterly transcending all human thought; but on each of his works his glory is engraven in characters so bright, so distinct, and so illustrious, that none, however dull and illiterate, can plead ignorance as their excuse. Hence, with perfect truth, the Psalmist exclaims, “He covereth himself with light as with a garment,” (Psalm 104: 2;) as if he had said, that God for the first time was arrayed in visible attire when, in the creation of the world, he displayed those glorious banners, on which, to whatever side we turn, we behold his perfections visibly portrayed. In the same place, the Psalmist aptly compares the expanded heavens to his royal tent, and says, “He layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters, maketh the clouds his chariot, and walketh upon the wings of the wind,” sending forth the winds and lightnings as his swift messengers (Ps.104: 2-4). And because the glory of his power and wisdom is more refulgent in the firmament, it is frequently designated as his palace (Ps. 11:4). And, first, wherever you turn your eyes, there is no portion of the world, however minute, that does not exhibit at least some sparks of beauty; while it is impossible to contemplate the vast and beautiful fabric as it extends around, without being overwhelmed by the immense weight of glory. Hence, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews elegantly describes the visible worlds as images of the invisible, (Heb. 11: 3,) the elegant structure of the world serving us as a kind of mirror, in which we may behold God, though otherwise invisible. For the same reason, the Psalmist attributes language to celestial objects, a language which all nations understand, (Psalm 19: 1,) the manifestation of the Godhead being too clear to escape the notice of any people, however obtuse. The apostle Paul, stating this still more clearly, says, “That which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead,” (Rom. 1: 20.)

2.The divine wisdom displayed for all to see

In attestation of his wondrous wisdom, both the heavens and the earth present us with innumerable proofs not only those more recondite proofs which astronomy, medicine, and all the natural sciences, are designed to illustrate, but proofs which force themselves on the notice of the most illiterate peasant, who cannot open his eyes without beholding them. It is true, indeed, that those who are more or less intimately acquainted with those liberal studies are thereby assisted and enabled to obtain a deeper insight into the secret workings of divine wisdom. No man, however, though he be ignorant of these, is incapacitated for discerning such proofs of creative wisdom as may well cause him to break forth in admiration of the Creator. To investigate the motions of the heavenly bodies, to determine their positions, measure their distances, and ascertain their properties, demands skill, and a more careful examination; and where these are so employed, as the Providence of God is thereby more fully unfolded, so it is reasonable to suppose that the mind takes a loftier flight, and obtains brighter views of his glory. Still, none who have the use of their eyes can be ignorant of the divine skill manifested so conspicuously in the endless variety, yet distinct and well ordered array, of the heavenly host; and, therefore, it is plain that the Lord has furnished every man with abundant proofs of his wisdom. The same is true in regard to the structure of the human frame. To determine the connection of its parts, its symmetry and beauty, with the skill of a Galen, (Lib. De Usu Partium,) requires singular acuteness; and yet all men acknowledge that the human body bears on its face such proofs of ingenious contrivance as are sufficient to proclaim the admirable wisdom of its Maker.

3. Man as the loftiest proof of divine wisdom

Hence certain of the philosophers have not improperly called man a microcosm, (miniature world,) as being a rare specimen of divine power, wisdom, and goodness, and containing within himself wonders sufficient to occupy our minds, if we are willing so to employ them. Paul, accordingly, after reminding the Athenians that they “might feel after God and find him,” immediately adds, that “he is not far from every one of us,” (Acts 17: 27;) every man having within himself undoubted evidence of the heavenly grace by which he lives, and moves, and has his being. But if, in order to apprehend God, it is unnecessary to go farther than ourselves, what excuse can there be for the sloth of any man who will not take the trouble of descending into himself that he may find Him? For the same reason, too, David, after briefly celebrating the wonderful name and glory of God, as everywhere displayed, immediately exclaims, “What is man, that thou art mindful of him?” and again, “Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings thou hast ordained strength,” (Psalm 8: 2, 4.) Thus he declares not only that the human race are a bright mirror of the Creator’s works, but that infants hanging on their mothers’ breasts have tongues eloquent enough to proclaim his glory without the aid of other orators. Accordingly, he hesitates not to bring them forward as fully instructed to refute the madness of those who, from devilish pride, would fain extinguish the name of God. Hence, too, the passage which Paul quotes from Aratus, “We are his offspring,” (Acts 17: 28,) the excellent gifts with which he has endued us attesting that he is our Father. In the same way also, from natural instinct, and, as it were, at the dictation of experience, heathen poets called him the father of men. No one, indeed, will voluntarily and willingly devote himself to the service of God unless he has previously tasted his paternal love, and been thereby allured to love and reverence Him.

4.But man turns ungratefully against God

But herein appears the shameful ingratitude of men. Though they have in their own persons a factory where innumerable operations of God are carried on, and a magazine stored with treasures of inestimable value—instead of bursting forth in his praise, as they are bound to do, they, on the contrary, are the more inflated and swelled with pride. They feel how wonderfully God is working in them, and their own experience tells them of the vast variety of gifts which they owe to his liberality. Whether they will or not, they cannot but know that these are proofs of his Godhead, and yet they inwardly suppress them. They have no occasion to go farther than themselves, provided they do not, by appropriating as their own that which has been given them from heaven, put out the light intended to exhibit God clearly to their minds.

At this day, however, the earth sustains on her bosom many monster minds—minds which are not afraid to employ the seed of Deity deposited in human nature as a means of suppressing the name of God. Can any thing be more detestable than this madness in man, who, finding God a hundred times both in his body and his soul, makes his excellence in this respect a pretext for denying that there is a God? He will not say that chance has made him differ from the brutes that perish; but, substituting nature as the architect of the universe, he suppresses the name of God. The swift motions of the soul, its noble faculties and rare endowments, bespeak the agency of God in a manner which would make the suppression of it impossible, did not the Epicureans, like so many Cyclops, use it as a vantageground, from which to wage more audacious war with God. Are so many treasures of heavenly wisdom employed in the guidance of such a worm as man, and shall the whole universe be denied the same privilege? To hold that there are organs in the soul corresponding to each of its faculties, is so far from obscuring the glory of God, that it rather illustrates it. Let Epicurus tell what concourse of atoms, cooking meat and drink, can form one portion into refuse and another portion into blood, and make all the members separately perform their office as carefully as if they were so many souls acting with common consent in the superintendence of one body.

5.The confusion of creature with Creator

But my business at present is not with that stye: I wish rather to deal with those who, led away by absurd subtleties, are inclined, by giving an indirect turn to the frigid doctrine of Aristotle, to employ it for the purpose both of disproving the immortality of the soul, and robbing God of his rights. Under the pretext that the faculties of the soul are organised, they chain it to the body as if it were incapable of a separate existence, while they endeavour as much as in them lies, by pronouncing eulogiums on nature, to suppress the name of God. But there is no ground for maintaining that the powers of the soul are confined to the performance of bodily functions. What has the body to do with your measuring the heavens, counting the number of the stars, ascertaining their magnitudes, their relative distances, the rate at which they move, and the orbits which they describe? I deny not that Astronomy has its use; all I mean to show is, that these lofty investigations are not conducted by organised symmetry, but by the faculties of the soul itself apart altogether from the body. The single example I have given will suggest many others to the reader. The swift and versatile movements of the soul in glancing from heaven to earth, connecting the future with the past, retaining the remembrance of former years, nay, forming creations of its own—its skill, moreover, in making astonishing discoveries, and inventing so many wonderful arts, are sure indications of the agency of God in man. What shall we say of its activity when the body is asleep, its many revolving thoughts, its many useful suggestions, its many solid arguments, nay, its presentiment of things yet to come? What shall we say but that man bears about with him a stamp of immortality which can never be effaced? But how is it possible for man to be divine, and yet not acknowledge his Creator? Shall we, by means of a power of judging implanted in our breast, distinguish between justice and injustice, and yet there be no judge in heaven? Shall some remains of intelligence continue with us in sleep, and yet no God keep watch in heaven? Shall we be deemed the inventors of so many arts and useful properties that God may be defrauded of his praise, though experience tells us plainly enough, that whatever we possess is dispensed to us in unequal measures by another hand?

The talk of certain persons concerning a secret inspiration quickening the whole world, is not only silly, but altogether profane. Such persons are delighted with the following celebrated passage of Virgil:—

Know, first, that heaven, and earth’s compacted frame,

And flowing waters, and the starry flame,

And both the radiant lights, one common soul

Inspires and feeds—and animates the whole.

This active mind, infused through all the space,

Unites and mingles with the mighty mass:

Hence, men and beasts the breath of life obtain,

And birds of air, and monsters of the main.

Th’ ethereal vigour is in all the same,

And every soul is filled with equal flame.

The meaning of all this is, that the world, which was made to display the glory of God, is its own creator. For the same poet has, in another place, adopted a view common to both Greeks and Latins:—

Hence to the bee some sages have assigned

A portion of the God, and heavenly mind;

For God goes forth, and spreads throughout the whole,

Heaven, earth, and sea, the universal soul;

Each, at its birth, from him all beings share,

Both man and brute, the breath of vital air;

To him return, and, loosed from earthly chain,

Fly whence they sprung, and rest in God again;

Spurn at the grave, and, fearless of decay,

Dwell in high heaven, art star th’ ethereal way.

Here we see how far that jejune speculation, of a universal mind animating and invigorating the world, is fitted to beget and foster piety in our minds. We have a still clearer proof of this in the profane verses which the licentious Lucretius has written as a deduction from the same principle. The plain object is to form an unsubstantial deity, and thereby banish the true God whom we ought to fear and worship. I admit, indeed that the expressions “Nature is God,” may be piously used, if dictated by a pious mind; but as it is inaccurate and harsh, (Nature being more properly the order which has been established by God,) in matters which are so very important, and in regard to which special reverence is due, it does harm to confound the Deity with the inferior operations of his hands.

6.The Creator reveals his lordship over the creation

Let each of us, therefore, in contemplating his own nature, remember that there is one God who governs all natures, and, in governing, wishes us to have respect to himself, to make him the object of our faith, worship, and adoration. Nothing, indeed, can be more preposterous than to enjoy those noble endowments which bespeak the divine presence within us, and to neglect him who, of his own good pleasure, bestows them upon us. In regard to his power, how glorious the manifestations by which he urges us to the contemplation of himself; unless, indeed, we pretend not to know whose energy it is that by a word sustains the boundless fabric of the universe—at one time making heaven reverberate with thunder, sending forth the scorching lightning, and setting the whole atmosphere in a blaze; at another, causing the raging tempests to blow, and forthwith, in one moment, when it so pleases him, making a perfect calm; keeping the sea, which seems constantly threatening the earth with devastation, suspended as it were in air; at one time, lashing it into fury by the impetuosity of the winds; at another, appeasing its rage, and stilling all its waves. Here we might refer to those glowing descriptions of divine power, as illustrated by natural events, which occur throughout Scripture; but more especially in the book of Job, and the prophecies of Isaiah. These, however, I purposely omit, because a better opportunity of introducing them will be found when I come to treat of the Scriptural account of the creation. (Infra, chap. 14 s. 1, 2, 20, sq.) I only wish to observe here, that this method of investigating the divine perfections, by tracing the lineaments of his countenance as shadowed forth in the firmament and on the earth, is common both to those within and to those without the pale of the Church. From the power of God we are naturally led to consider his eternity since that from which all other things derive their origin must necessarily be selfexistent and eternal. Moreover, if it be asked what cause induced him to create all things at first, and now inclines him to preserve them, we shall find that there could be no other cause than his own goodness. But if this is the only cause, nothing more should be required to draw forth our love towards him; every creature, as the Psalmist reminds us, participating in his mercy. “His tender mercies are over all his works,” (Ps. 145: 9.)

7.God’s government and judgment

In the second class of God’s works, namely those which are above the ordinary course of nature, the evidence of his perfections are in every respect equally clear. For in conducting the affairs of men, he so arranges the course of his providence, as daily to declare, by the clearest manifestations, that though all are in innumerable ways the partakers of his bounty, the righteous are the special objects of his favour, the wicked and profane the special objects of his severity. It is impossible to doubt his punishment of crimes; while at the same time he, in no unequivocal manner, declares that he is the protector, and even the avenger of innocence, by shedding blessings on the good, helping their necessities, soothing and solacing their griefs, relieving their sufferings, and in all ways providing for their safety. And though he often permits the guilty to exult for a time with impunity, and the innocent to be driven to and fro in adversity, nay, even to be wickedly and iniquitously oppressed, this ought not to produce any uncertainty as to the uniform justice of all his procedure. Nay, an opposite inference should be drawn. When any one crime calls forth visible manifestations of his anger, it must be because he hates all crimes; and, on the other hand, his leaving many crimes unpunished, only proves that there is a judgement in reserve, when the punishment now delayed shall be inflicted. In like manner, how richly does he supply us with the means of contemplating his mercy when, as frequently happens, he continues to visit miserable sinners with unwearied kindness, until he subdues their depravity, and woos them back with more than a parent’s fondness?

8.God’s sovereign sway over the life of men

To this purpose the Psalmist, (Ps. 107) mentioning how God, in a wondrous manner, often brings sudden and unexpected succour to the miserable when almost on the brink of despair, whether in protecting them when they stray in deserts, and at length leading them back into the right path, or supplying them with food when famishing for want, or delivering them when captive from iron fetters and foul dungeons, or conducting them safe into harbour after shipwreck, or bringing them back from the gates of death by curing their diseases, or, after burning up the fields with heat and drought, fertilising them with the river of his grace, or exalting the meanest of the people, and casting down the mighty from their lofty seats:—the Psalmist, after bringing forward examples of this description, infers that those things which men call fortuitous events, are so many proofs of divine providence, and more especially of paternal clemency, furnishing ground of joy to the righteous, and at the same time stopping the mouths of the ungodly. But as the greater part of mankind, enslaved by error, walk blindfold in this glorious theatre, he exclaims that it is a rare and singular wisdom to meditate carefully on these works of God, which many, who seem most sharp-sighted in other respects, behold without profit. It is indeed true, that the brightest manifestation of divine glory finds not one genuine spectator among a hundred.

Still, neither his power nor his wisdom is shrouded in darkness. His power is strikingly displayed when the rage of the wicked, to all appearance irresistible, is crushed in a single moment; their arrogance subdued, their strongest bulwarks overthrown, their armour dashed to pieces, their strength broken, their schemes defeated without an effort, and audacity which set itself above the heavens is precipitated to the lowest depths of the earth. On the other hand, the poor are raised up out of the dust, and the needy lifted out of the dung hill, (Ps. 113: 7,) the oppressed and afflicted are rescued in extremity, the despairing animated with hope, the unarmed defeat the armed, the few the many, the weak the strong. The excellence of the divine wisdom is manifested in distributing everything in due season, confounding the wisdom of the world (cf. 1 Cor. 1:20), and taking the wise in their own craftiness, (1 Cor. 3: 19; cf. Job 5:13) in short, conducting all things in perfect accordance with reason.

9. We ought not to rack our brains about God; but rather, we should contemplate him in his works

We see there is no need of a long and laborious train of argument in order to obtain proofs which illustrate and assert the Divine Majesty. The few which we have merely touched, show them to be so immediately within our reach in every quarter, that we can trace them with the eye, or point to them with the finger. And here we must observe again, (see chap. 2 s. 2,) that the knowledge of God which we are invited to cultivate is not that which, resting satisfied with empty speculation, only flutters in the brain, but a knowledge which will prove substantial and fruitful wherever it is duly perceived, and rooted in the heart. The Lord is manifested by his perfections. When we feel their power within us, and are conscious of their benefits, the knowledge must impress us much more vividly than if we merely imagined a God whose presence we never felt. Hence it is obvious, that in seeking God, the most direct path and the fittest method is, not to attempt with presumptuous curiosity to pry into his essence, which is rather to be adored than minutely discussed, but to contemplate him in his works, by which he draws near, becomes familiar, and in a manner communicates himself to us. To this the Apostle referred when he said, that we need not go far in search of him, (Acts 17: 27,) because, by the continual working of his power, he dwells in every one of us. Accordingly, David, (Psalm 145, cf. Ps. 40:5) after acknowledging that his greatness is unsearchable, proceeds to enumerate his works, declaring that his greatness will thereby be unfolded. It therefore becomes us also diligently to prosecute that investigation of God which so enraptures the soul with admiration as, at the same time, to make an efficacious impression on it. And, as Augustine expresses it, (in Psalm 144,) since we are unable to comprehend Him, and are, as it were, overpowered by his greatness, our proper course is to contemplate his works, and so refresh ourselves with his goodness.

10.The purpose of this knowledge of God

By the knowledge thus acquired, we ought not only to be stimulated to worship God, but also aroused and elevated to the hope of future life. For, observing that the manifestations which the Lord gives both of his mercy and severity are only begun and incomplete, we ought to infer that these are doubtless only a prelude to higher manifestations, of which the full display is reserved for another state. Conversely, when we see the righteous brought into affliction by the ungodly, assailed with injuries, overwhelmed with calumnies, and lacerated by insult and contumely, while, on the contrary, the wicked flourish, prosper, acquire ease and honour, and all these with impunity, we ought forthwith to infer, that there will be a future life in which iniquity shall receive its punishment, and righteousness its reward. Moreover, when we observe that the Lord often lays his chastening rod on the righteous, we may the more surely conclude, that far less will the righteous ultimately escape the scourges of his anger. There is a well-known passage in Augustine, (De Civitat. Dei, lib. 1 c. 8,) “Were all sin now visited with open punishment, it might be thought that nothing was reserved for the final judgement; and, on the other hand, were no sin now openly punished, it might be supposed there was no divine providence.”

It must be acknowledged, therefore, that in each of the works of God, and more especially in the whole of them taken together, the divine perfections are delineated as in a picture, and the whole human race thereby invited and allured to acquire the knowledge of God, and, in consequence of this knowledge, true and complete felicity. Moreover, while his perfections are thus most vividly displayed, the only means of ascertaining their practical operation and tendency is to descend into ourselves, and consider how it is that the Lord there manifests his wisdom, power, and energy,—how he there displays his justice, goodness, and mercy. For although David (Psalm 92: 6) justly complains of the extreme infatuation of the ungodly in not pondering the deep counsels of God, as exhibited in the government of the human race, what he elsewhere says (Psalm 40) is most true, that the wonders of the divine wisdom in this respect are more in number than the hairs of our head. But I leave this topic at present, as it will be more fully considered afterwards in its own place, (Book I. c. 16, see. 6-9.)

(Man nevertheless, failing to know and worship him, falls into superstition and confusion, 11-12)

11. The evidence of God in creation does not profit us

Bright, however, as is the manifestation which God gives both of himself and his immortal kingdom in the mirror of his works, so great is our stupidity, so dull are we in regard to these bright manifestations, that we derive no benefit from them. For in regard to the fabric and admirable arrangement of the universe, how few of us are there who, in lifting our eyes to the heavens, or looking abroad on the various regions of the earth, ever think of the Creator? Do we not rather overlook Him, and sluggishly content ourselves with a view of his works? And then in regard to supernatural events, though these are occurring every day, how few are there who ascribe them to the ruling providence of God—how many who imagine that they are casual results produced by the blind evolutions of the wheel of chance? Even when under the guidance and direction of these events, we are in a manner forced to the contemplation of God, (a circumstance which all must occasionally experience,) and are thus led to form some impressions of Deity, we immediately fly off to carnal dreams and depraved fictions, and so by our vanity corrupt heavenly truth. This far, indeed, we differ from each other, in that every one appropriates to himself some peculiar error; but we are all alike in this, that we substitute monstrous fictions for the one living and true God—a disease not confined to obtuse and vulgar minds, but affecting the noblest, and those who, in other respects, are singularly acute.

How lavishly in this respect have the whole body of philosophers betrayed their stupidity and want of sense? To say nothing of the others whose absurdities are of a still grosser description, how completely does Plato, the soberest and most religious of them all, lose himself in his round globe? What must be the case with the rest, when the leaders, who ought to have set them an example, commit such blunders, and labour under such hallucinations? In like manner, while the government of the world places the doctrine of providence beyond dispute, the practical result is the same as if it were believed that all things were carried hither and thither at the caprice of chance; so prone are we to vanity and error. I am still referring to the most distinguished of the philosophers, and not to the common herd, whose madness in profaning the truth of God exceeds all bounds.

12.The manifestation of God is choked by human superstition and the error of the philosophers

Hence that immense flood of error with which the whole world is overflowed. Every individual mind being a kind of labyrinth, it is not wonderful, not only that each nation has adopted a variety of fictions, but that almost every man has had his own god. To the darkness of ignorance have been added presumption and wantonness, and hence there is scarcely an individual to be found without some idol or phantom as a substitute for Deity. Like water gushing forth from a large and copious spring, immense crowds of gods have issued from the human mind, every man giving himself full license, and devising some peculiar form of divinity, to meet his own views. It is unnecessary here to attempt a catalogue of the superstitions with which the world was overspread. The thing were endless; and the corruptions themselves, though not a word should be said, furnish abundant evidence of the blindness of the human mind. I say nothing of the rude and illiterate vulgar; but among the philosophers who attempted, by reason and learning, to pierce the heavens, what shameful disagreement! The higher any one was endued with genius, and the more he was polished by science and art, the more specious was the colouring which he gave to his opinions. All these, however, if examined more closely, will be found to be vain show. The Stoics plumed themselves on their acuteness, when they said that the various names of God might be extracted from all the parts of nature, and yet that his unity was not thereby divided: as if we were not already too prone to vanity, and had no need of being presented with an endless multiplicity of gods, to lead us further and more grossly into error. The mystic theology of the Egyptians shows how sedulously they laboured to be thought rational on this subject. And, perhaps, at the first glance, some show of probability might deceive the simple and unwary; but never did any mortal devise a scheme by which religion was not foully corrupted.

This endless variety and confusion emboldened the Epicureans, and other gross despisers of piety, to cut off all sense of God. For when they saw that the wisest contradicted each others they hesitated not to infer from their dissensions, and from the frivolous and absurd doctrines of each, that men foolishly, and to no purpose, brought torment upon themselves by searching for a God, there being none: and they thought this inference safe, because it was better at once to deny God altogether, than to feign uncertain gods, and thereafter engage in quarrels without end. They, indeed, argue absurdly, or rather weave a cloak for their impiety out of human ignorance; though ignorance surely cannot derogate from the prerogatives of God. But since all confess that there is no topic on which such difference exists, both among learned and unlearned, the proper inference is, that the human mind, which thus errs in inquiring after God, is dull and blind in heavenly mysteries. Some praise the answer of Simonides, who being asked by King Hero what God was, asked a day to consider. When the king next day repeated the question, he asked two days; and after repeatedly doubling the number of days, at length replied, “The longer I consider, the darker the subject appears.” He, no doubt, wisely suspended his opinion, when he did not see clearly: still his answer shows, that if men are only naturally taught, instead of having any distinct, solid, or certain knowledge, they fasten only on contradictory principles, and, in consequence, worship an unknown God (cf. Acts 17:23).

(Persistent in error, we are without excuse, 13-15)

13. The Holy Spirit rejects all cults contrived by men

Hence we must hold, that whosoever adulterates pure religion, (and this must be the case with all who cling to their own views,) make a departure from the one God. No doubt, they will allege that they have a different intention; but it is of little consequence what they intend or persuade themselves to believe, since the Holy Spirit pronounces all to be apostates, who, in the blindness of their minds, substitute demons in the place of God (cf. 1 Cor. 10:20). For this reason Paul declares that the Ephesians were “without God,” (Eph. 2: 12,) until they had learned from the Gospel what it is to worship the true God. Nor must this be restricted to one people only, since, in another place, he declares in general, that all men “became vain in their imaginations,"(Rom. 1:21) after the majesty of the Creator was manifested to them in the structure of the world. Accordingly, in order to make way for the only true God, he condemns all the gods celebrated among the Gentiles as lying and false, leaving no Deity anywhere but in Mount Zion where the special knowledge of God was professed, (Hab. 2: 18, 20.) Among the Gentiles in the time of Christ, the Samaritans undoubtedly made the nearest approach to true piety; yet we hear from his own mouth that they worshipped they knew not what, (John 4: 22;) whence it follows that they were deluded by vain errors.

In short, though all did not give way to gross vice, or rush headlong into open idolatry, there was no pure and authentic religion founded merely on common belief. A few individuals may not have gone all insane lengths with the vulgar; still Paul’s declaration remains true, that the wisdom of God was not apprehended by the princes of this world, (1 Cor. 2: 8.) But if the most distinguished wandered in darkness, what shall we say of the refuse? No wonder, therefore, that all worship of man’s device is repudiated by the Holy Spirit as degenerate. Any opinion which man can form in heavenly mysteries, though it may not beget a long train of errors, is still the parent of error. And though nothing worse should happen, even this is no light sin—to worship an unknown God at random. Of this sin, however, we hear from our Saviour’s own mouth, (John 4: 22,) that all are guilty who have not been taught out of the law who the God is whom they ought to worship. Nay, even Socrates in Xenophon, (lib. 1 Memorabilia,) lauds the response of Apollo enjoining every man to worship the gods according to the rites of his country, and the particular practice of his own city. But what right have mortals thus to decide of their own authority in a matter which is far above the world; or who can so acquiesce in the will of his forefathers, or the decrees of the people, as unhesitatingly to receive a god at their hands? Every one will adhere to his own judgement, sooner than submit to the dictation of others. Since, therefore, in regulating the worship of God, the custom of a city, or the consent of antiquity, is a too feeble and fragile bond of piety; it remains that God himself must bear witness to himself from heaven.

14. The manifestation of God in nature speaks to us in vain

In vain for us, therefore, does Creation exhibit so many bright lamps lighted up to show forth the glory of its Author. Though they beam upon us from every quarter, they are altogether insufficient of themselves to lead us into the right path. Some sparks, undoubtedly, they do throw out; but these are quenched before they can give forth a brighter effulgence. Wherefore, the apostle, in the very place where he says that the worlds are images of invisible things, adds that it is by faith we understand that they were framed by the word of God, (Heb. 11: 3;) thereby intimating that the invisible Godhead is indeed represented by such displays, but that we have no eyes to perceive it until they are enlightened through faith by internal revelation from God. When Paul says that that which may be known of God is manifested by the creation of the world, he does not mean such a manifestation as may be comprehended by the wit of man, (Rom. 1: 19;) on the contrary, he shows that it has no further effect than to render us inexcusable, (Acts 17: 27.) And though he says, elsewhere, that we have not far to seek for God, inasmuch as he dwells within us, he shows, in another passage, to what extent this nearness to God is availing. God, says he, “in times past, suffered all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless, he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness,” (Acts 14: 16, 17.) But though God is not left without a witness, while, with numberless varied acts of kindness, he woos men to the knowledge of himself, yet they cease not to follow their own ways, in other words, deadly errors.

15. We have no excuse

But though we are deficient in natural powers which might enable us to rise to a pure and clear knowledge of God, still, as the dullness which prevents us is within, there is no room for excuse. We cannot plead ignorance, without being at the same time convicted by our own consciences both of sloth and ingratitude. It were, indeed, a strange defence for man to pretend that he has no ears to hear the truth, while dumb creatures have voices loud enough to declare it; to allege that he is unable to see that which creatures without eyes demonstrate, to excuse himself on the ground of weakness of mind, while all creatures without reason are able to teach. Wherefore, when we wander and go astray, we are justly shut out from every species of excuse, because all things point to the right path. But while man must bear the guilt of corrupting the seed of divine knowledge so wondrously deposited in his mind, and preventing it from bearing good and genuine fruit, it is still most true that we are not sufficiently instructed by that bare and simple, but magnificent testimony which the creatures bear to the glory of their Creator. For no sooner do we, from a survey of the world, obtain some slight knowledge of Deity, than we pass by the true God, and set up in his stead the dream and phantom of our own brain, drawing away the praise of justice, wisdom, and goodness, from the fountain-head, and transferring it to some other quarter. Moreover, by the erroneous estimate we form, we either so obscure or pervert his daily works, as at once to rob them of their glory and the author of them of his just praise.

CHAPTER 6. THE NEED OF SCRIPTURE, AS A GUIDE AND TEACHER, IN COMING TO GOD AS CREATOR.

Sections.

1. God gives his elect a better help to the knowledge of himself, viz., the Holy Scriptures. This he did from the very first.

2. First, By oracles and visions, and the ministry of the Patriarchs.

Secondly, By the promulgation of the Law, and the preaching of the Prophets. Why the doctrines of religion are committed to writing.

3. This view confirmed,

1. By the depravity of our nature making it necessary in every one who would know God to have recourse to the word;

2. 2. From those passages of the Psalms in which God is introduced as reigning.

4. Another confirmation from certain direct statements in the Psalms. Lastly, From the words of our Saviour.

1.God bestows the actual knowledge of himself upon us only in the Scriptures

Therefore, though the effulgence which is presented to every eye, both in the heavens and on the earth, leaves the ingratitude of man without excuse, since God, in order to bring the whole human race under the same condemnation, holds forth to all, without exception, a mirror of his Deity in his works, another and better help must be given to guide us properly to God as a Creator. Not in vain, therefore, has he added the light of his Word in order that he might make himself known unto salvation, and bestowed the privilege on those whom he was pleased to bring into nearer and more familiar relation to himself. For, seeing how the minds of men were carried to and fro, and found no certain resting-place, he chose the Jews for a peculiar people, and then hedged them in that they might not, like others, go astray. And not in vain does he, by the same means, retain us in his knowledge, since but for this, even those who, in comparison of others, seem to stand strong, would quickly fall away. For as the aged, or those whose sight is defective, when any books however fair, is set before them, though they perceive that there is something written are scarcely able to make out two consecutive words, but, when aided by glasses, begin to read distinctly, so Scripture, gathering together the impressions of Deity, which, till then, lay confused in our minds, dissipates the darkness, and shows us the true God clearly. God therefore bestows a gift of singular value, when, for the instruction of the Church, he employs not dumb teachers merely, but opens his own sacred mouth; when he not only proclaims that some God must be worshipped, but at the same time declares that He is the God to whom worship is due; when he not only teaches his elect to have respect to God, but manifests himself as the God to whom this respect should be paid.

(Two sorts of knowledge of God in Scripture)

The course which God followed towards his Church from the very first, was to supplement these common proofs by the addition of his Word, as a surer and more direct means of discovering himself. And there can be no doubt that it was by this help, Adam, Noah, Abraham, and the other patriarchs, attained to that familiar knowledge which, in a manner, distinguished them from unbelievers. I am not now speaking of the peculiar doctrines of faith by which they were elevated to the hope of eternal blessedness. It was necessary, in passing from death unto life, that they should know God, not only as a Creator, but as a Redeemer also; and both kinds of knowledge they certainly did obtain from the Word. In point of order, however, the knowledge first given was that which made them acquainted with the God by whom the world was made and is governed. To this first knowledge was afterwards added the more intimate knowledge which alone quickens dead souls, and by which God is known not only as the Creator of the worlds and the sole author and disposer of all events, but also as a Redeemer, in the person of the Mediator. But as the fall and the corruption of nature have not yet been considered, I now postpone the consideration of the remedy, (for which, see Book 2 c. 6 &c.) Let the reader then remember, that I am not now treating of the covenant by which God adopted the children of Abraham, or of that branch of doctrine by which, as founded in Christ, believers have, properly speaking, been in all ages separated from the profane heathen. I am only showing that it is necessary to apply to Scripture, in order to learn the sure marks which distinguish God, as the Creator of the world, from the whole herd of fictitious gods. We shall afterward, in due course, consider the work of Redemption. In the meantime, though we shall adduce many passages from the New Testament, and some also from the Law and the Prophets, in which express mention is made of Christ, the only object will be to show that God, the Maker of the world, is manifested to us in Scripture, and his true character expounded, so as to save us from wandering up and down, as in a labyrinth, in search of some doubtful deity.

2.The Word of God as Holy Scripture

Whether God revealed himself to the fathers by oracles and visions, or, by the instrumentality and ministry of men, suggested what they were to hand down to posterity, there cannot be a doubt that the certainty of what he taught them was firmly engraven on their hearts, so that they felt assured and knew that the things which they learnt came forth from God, who invariably accompanied his word with a sure testimony, infinitely superior to mere opinion. At length, in order that, while doctrine was continually enlarged, its truth might subsist in the world during all ages, it was his pleasure that the same oracles which he had deposited with the fathers should be consigned, as it were, to public records. With this view the law was promulgated, and prophets were afterwards added to be its interpreters. For though the uses of the law were manifold, (Book 2 c. 7 and 8,) and the special office assigned to Moses and all the prophets was to teach the method of reconciliation between God and man, (whence Paul calls Christ “the end of the law,” Rom. 10: 4;) still I repeat that, in addition to the proper doctrine of faith and repentance in which Christ is set forth as a Mediator, the Scriptures employ certain marks and tokens to distinguish the only wise and true God, considered as the Creator and Governor of the world, and thereby guard against his being confounded with the herd of false deities. Therefore, while it becomes man seriously to employ his eyes in considering the works of God, since a place has been assigned him in this most glorious theatre that he may be a spectator of them, his special duty is to give ear to the Word, that he may the better profit. Hence it is not strange that those who are born in darkness become more and more hardened in their stupidity; because the vast majority instead of confining themselves within due bounds by listening with docility to the Word, exult in their own vanity. If true religion is to beam upon us, our principle must be, that it is necessary to begin with heavenly teaching, and that it is impossible for any man to obtain even the minutest portion of right and sound doctrine without being a disciple of Scripture. Hence, the first step in true knowledge is taken, when we reverently embrace the testimony which God has been pleased therein to give of himself. For not only does faith, full and perfect faith, but all correct knowledge of God, originate in obedience. And surely in this respect God has with singular Providence provided for mankind in all ages.

3.Without Scripture we fall into error

For if we reflect how prone the human mind is to lapse into forgetfulness of God, how readily inclined to every kind of error, how bent every now and then on devising new and fictitious religions, it will be easy to understand how necessary it was to make such a depository of doctrine as would secure it from either perishing by the neglect, vanishing away amid the errors, or being corrupted by the presumptuous audacity of men. It being thus manifest that God, foreseeing the inefficiency of his image imprinted on the fair form of the universe, has given the assistance of his Word to all whom he has ever been pleased to instruct effectually, we, too, must pursue this straight path, if we aspire in earnest to a genuine contemplation of God;—we must go, I say, to the Word, where the character of God, drawn from his works is described accurately and to the life; these works being estimated, not by our depraved judgement, but by the standard of eternal truth. If, as I lately said, we turn aside from it, how great soever the speed with which we move, we shall never reach the goal, because we are off the course. We should consider that the brightness of the Divine countenance, which even an apostle declares to be inaccessible, (1 Tim. 6: 16,) is a kind of labyrinth,—a labyrinth to us inextricable, if the Word do not serve us as a thread to guide our path; and that it is better to limp in the way, than run with the greatest swiftness out of it. Hence the Psalmist, after repeatedly declaring (Psalm 93, 96, 97, 99, &c.) that superstition should be banished from the world in order that pure religion may flourish, introduces God as reigning; meaning by the term, not the power which he possesses and which he exerts in the government of universal nature, but the doctrine by which he maintains his due supremacy: because error never can be eradicated from the heart of man until the true knowledge of God has been implanted in it.

4.Scripture can communicate to us what the revelation in the creation cannot

Accordingly, the same prophet, after mentioning that the heavens declare the glory of God, that the firmament sheweth forth the works of his hands, that the regular succession of day and night proclaim his Majesty, proceeds to make mention of the Word:—"The law of the Lord,” says he, “is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes,” (Psalm 19: 1-9.) For though the law has other uses besides, (as to which, see Book 2 c. 7, sec. 6, 10, 12,) the general meaning is, that it is the proper school for training the children of God; the invitation given to all nations, to behold him in the heavens and earth, proving of no avail. The same view is taken in the 29th Psalm, where the Psalmist, after discoursing on the dreadful voice of God, which, in thunder, wind, rain, whirlwind, and tempest, shakes the earth, makes the mountains tremble, and breaks the cedars, concludes by saying, “that in his temple does every one speak of his glory,” unbelievers being deaf to all God’s words when they echo in the air. In like manner another Psalm, after describing the raging billows of the sea, thus concludes, “Thy testimonies are very sure; holiness becometh thine house for ever,” (Psalm 93: 5.) To the same effect are the words of our Saviour to the Samaritan woman, when he told her that her nation and all other nations worshipped they knew not what; and that the Jews alone gave worship to the true God, (John 4: 22.) Since the human mind, through its weakness, was altogether unable to come to God if not aided and upheld by his sacred word, it necessarily followed that all mankind, the Jews excepted, inasmuch as they sought God without the Word, were labouring under vanity and error.

CHAPTER 7. THE TESTIMONY OF THE SPIRIT NECESSARY TO GIVE FULL AUTHORITY TO SCRIPTURE. THE IMPIETY OF PRETENDING THAT THE CREDIBILITY OF SCRIPTURE DEPENDS ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE CHURCH.

Section.

1. The authority of Scripture derived not from men, but from the Spirit of God. Objection, That Scripture depends on the decision of the Church. Refutation,

I. The truth of God would thus be subjected to the will of man.

II. It is insulting to the Holy Spirit.

III. It establishes a tyranny in the Church.

IV. It forms a mass of errors.

V. It subverts conscience.

VI. It exposes our faith to the scoffs of the profane.

2. Another reply to the objection drawn from the words of the Apostle Paul. Solution of the difficulties started by opponents. A second objection refuted.

3. A third objection founded on a sentiment of Augustine considered.

4. Conclusion, That the authority of Scripture is founded on its being spoken by God. This confirmed by the conscience of the godly, and the consent of all men of the least candour. A fourth objection common in the mouths of the profane. Refutation.

5. Last and necessary conclusion, That the authority of Scripture is sealed on the hearts of believers by the testimony of the Holy Spirit. The certainty of this testimony. Confirmation of it from a passage of Isaiah, and the experience of believers. Also, fromanother passage of Isaiah.

1.Scripture has its authority from God, not from the church

Before proceeding farther, it seems proper to make some observations on the authority of Scripture, in order that our minds may not only be prepared to receive it with reverence, but be divested of all doubt. When that which professes to be the Word of God is acknowledged to be so, no person, unless devoid of common sense and the feelings of a man, will have the desperate hardihood to refuse credit to the speaker. But since no daily responses are given from heaven, and the Scriptures are the only records in which God has been pleased to consign his truth to perpetual remembrance, the full authority which they ought to possess with the faithful is not recognised, unless they are believed to have come from heaven, as directly as if God had been heard giving utterance to them. This subject well deserves to be treated more at large, and pondered more accurately. But my readers will pardon me for having more regard to what my plan admits than to what the extent of this topic requires.

A most pernicious error has very generally prevailed; viz.,that Scripture is of importance only in so far as conceded to it by the suffrage of the Church; as if the eternal and inviolable truth of God could depend on the will of men. With great insult to the Holy Spirit, it is asked, who can assure us that the Scriptures proceeded from God; who guarantee that they have come down safe and unimpaired to our times; who persuade us that this book is to be received with reverence, and that one expunged from the list, did not the Church regulate all these things with certainty? On the determination of the Church, therefore, it is said, depend both the reverence which is due to Scripture, and the books which are to be admitted into the canon. Thus profane men, seeking, under the pretext of the Church, to introduce unbridled tyranny, care not in what absurdities they entangle themselves and others, provided they extort from the simple this one acknowledgement, viz., that there is nothing which the Church cannot do. But what is to become of miserable consciences in quest of some solid assurance of eternal life, if all the promises with regard to it have no better support than man’s judgement? On being told so, will they cease to doubt and tremble? On the other hand, to what jeers of the wicked is our faith subjected—into how great suspicion is it brought with all, if believed to have only a precarious authority lent to it by the goodwill of men?

2.The church is itself grounded upon Scripture

These ravings are admirably refuted by a single expression of an apostle. Paul testifies that the Church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets,” (Eph. 2: 20.) If the doctrine of the apostles and prophets is the foundation of the Church, the former must have had its certainty before the latter began to exist. Nor is there any room for the cavil, that though the Church derives her first beginning from thence, it still remains doubtful what writings are to be attributed to the apostles and prophets, until her judgement is interposed. For if the Christian Church was founded at first on the writings of the prophets, and the preaching of the apostles, that doctrine, wheresoever it may be found, was certainly ascertained and sanctioned antecedently to the Church, since, but for this, the Church herself never could have existed. Nothings therefore can be more absurd than the fiction, that the power of judging Scripture is in the Church, and that on her nod its certainty depends. When the Church receives it, and gives it the stamp of her authority, she does not make that authentic which was otherwise doubtful or controverted but, acknowledging it as the truth of God, she, as in duty bounds shows her reverence by an unhesitating assent. As to the question, How shall we be persuaded that it came from God without recurring to a decree of the Church? it is just the same as if it were asked, How shall we learn to distinguish light from darkness, white from black, sweet from bitter? Scripture bears upon the face of it as clear evidence of its truth, as white and black do of their colour, sweet and bitter of their taste.

3.Augustine cannot be cited as counterevidence

I am aware it is usual to quote a sentence of Augustine in which he says that he would not believe the gospel, were he not moved by the authority of the Church, (Aug. Cont. Epist. Fundament.c. 5.) But it is easy to discover from the context, how inaccurate and unfair it is to give it such a meaning. He was reasoning against the Manichees, who insisted on being implicitly believed, alleging that they had the truth, though they did not show they had. But as they pretended to appeal to the gospel in support of Manes, he asks what they would do if they fell in with a man who did not even believe the gospel—what kind of argument they would use to bring him over to their opinion. He afterwards adds, “But I would not believe the gospel,” &c.; meaning, that were he a stranger to the faith, the only thing which could induce him to embrace the gospel would be the authority of the Church. And is it any thing wonderful,that one who does not know Christ should pay respect to men?

Augustine, therefore, does not here say that the faith of the godly is founded on the authority of the Church; nor does he mean that the certainty of the gospel depends upon it; he merely says that unbelievers would have no certainty of the gospel, so as thereby to win Christ, were they not influenced by the consent of the Church. And he clearly shows this to be his meaning, by thus expressing himself a little before: “When I have praised my own creed, and ridiculed yours, who do you suppose is to judge between us; or what more is to be done than to quit those who, inviting us to certainty, afterwards command us to believe uncertainty, and follow those who invite us, in the first instance, to believe what we are not yet able to comprehend, that waxing stronger through faith itself, we may become able to understand what we believe—no longer men, but God himself internally strengthening and illuminating our minds?”

These unquestionably are the words of Augustine, (August. Cont. Epist. Fundament. cap. 4;) and the obvious inference from them is, that this holy man had no intention to suspend our faith in Scripture on the nod or decision of the Church, but only to intimate (what we too admit to be true) that those who are not yet enlightened by the Spirit of God, become teachable by reverence for the Church, and thus submit to learn the faith of Christ from the gospel. In this way, though the authority of the Church leads us on, and prepares us to believe in the gospel, it is plain that Augustine would have the certainty of the godly to rest on a very different foundation. At the same time, I deny not that he often presses the Manichees with the consent of the whole Church, while arguing in support of the Scriptures, which they rejected. Hence he upbraids Faustus (lib. 32) for not submitting to evangelical truth—truth so well founded, so firmly established, so gloriously renowned, and handed down by sure succession from the days of the apostles. But he nowhere insinuates that the authority which we give to the Scriptures depends on the definitions or devices of men. He only brings forward the universal judgement of the Church, as a point most pertinent to the cause, and one, moreover, in which he had the advantage of his opponents. Any one who desires to see this morefully proved may read his short treatises De Utilitate Credendi,(The Advantages of Believing,) where it will be found that the only facility of believing which he recommends is that which affords an introduction, and forms a fit commencement to inquiry; while he declares that we ought not to be satisfied with opinion, but to strive after substantial truth.

4. The witness of the Holy Spirit: this is stronger than all proof

It is necessary to attend to what I lately said, that our faith in doctrine is not established until we have a perfect conviction that God is its author. Hence, the highest proof of Scripture is uniformly taken from the character of him whose Word it is. The prophets and apostles boast not their own acuteness or any qualities which win credit to speakers, nor do they dwell on reasons; but they appeal to the sacred name of God, in order that the whole world may be compelled to submission. The next thing to be considered is, how it appears not probable merely, but certain, tha tthe name of God is neither rashly nor cunningly pretended. If, then, we would consult most effectually for our consciences, and save them from being driven about in a whirl of uncertainty, from wavering, and even stumbling at the smallest obstacle, our conviction of the truth of Scripture must be derived from a higher source than human conjectures, judgements, or reasons; namely, the secret testimony of the Spirit. It is true, indeed, that if we choose to proceed in the way of arguments it is easy to establish, by evidence of various kinds, that if there is a God in heaven, the Law, the Prophecies, and the Gospel, proceeded from him. Nay, although learned men, and men of the greatest talent, should take the opposite side, summoning and ostentatiously displaying all the powers of their genius in the discussion; if they are not possessed of shameless effrontery, they will be compelled to confess that the Scripture exhibits clear evidence of its being spoken by God, and, consequently, of its containing his heavenly doctrine. We shall see a little farther on, that the volume of sacred Scripture very far surpasses all other writings. Nay, if we look at it with clear eyes, and unblessed judgement, it will forthwith present itself with a divine majesty which will subdue our presumptuous opposition, and force us to do it homage.

Still, however, it is preposterous to attempt, by discussion, to rear up a full faith in Scripture. True, were I called to contend with the craftiest despisers of God, I trust, though I am not possessed of the highest ability or eloquence, I should not find it difficult to stop their obstreperous mouths; I could, without muchado, put down the boastings which they mutter in corners, were anything to be gained by refuting their cavils. But although we may maintain the sacred Word of God against gainsayers, it does not follow that we shall forthwith implant the certainty which faith requires in their hearts. Profane men think that religion rests only on opinion, and, therefore, that they may not believe foolishly, or on slight grounds, desire and insist to have it proved by reason that Moses and the prophets were divinely inspired. But I answer,that the testimony of the Spirit is superior to reason. For as God alone can properly bear witness to his own words, so these words will not obtain full credit in the hearts of men, until they are sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. The same Spirit, therefore, who spoke by the mouth of the prophets, must penetrate our hearts, in order to convince us that they faithfully delivered the message with which they were divinely entrusted. This connection is most aptly expressed by Isaiah in these words, “My Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever,” (Isa. 59: 21.) Some worthy persons feel disconcerted, because, while the wicked murmur with impunity at the Word of God,they have not a clear proof at hand to silence them, forgetting that the Spirit is called an earnest and seal to confirm the faith of the godly, for this very reason, that, until he enlightens their minds, they are tossed to and fro in a sea of doubts.

5. Scripture bears its own authentication

Let it therefore be held as fixed, that those who are inwardly taught by the Holy Spirit acquiesce implicitly in Scripture; that Scripture carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit. Enlightened by him, we no longer believe, either on our own judgement or that of others, that the Scriptures are from God; but, in a way superior to human judgement, feel perfectly assured—as much so as if we beheld the divine image visibly impressed on it -that it came to us, by the instrumentality of men, from the very mouth of God. We ask not for proofs or probabilities on which torest our judgement, but we subject our intellect and judgement to it as too transcendent for us to estimate. This, however, we do, not in the manner in which some are wont to fasten on an unknown object, which, as soon as known, displeases, but because we have a thorough conviction that, in holding it, we hold unassailable truth; not like miserable men, whose minds are enslaved by superstition, but because we feel a divine energy living and breathing in it—an energy by which we are drawn and animated to obey it, willingly indeed, and knowingly, but more vividly and effectually than could be done by human will or knowledge.

Hence, God most justly exclaims by the mouth of Isaiah, “Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen, that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he,” (Isa. 43: 10.)Such, then, is a conviction which asks not for reasons; such, aknowledge which accords with the highest reason, namely knowledge in which the mind rests more firmly and securely than in any reasons; such in fine, the conviction which revelation from heaven alone can produce. I say nothing more than every believer experiences in himself, though my words fall far short of the reality.

I do not dwell on this subject at present, because we will return to it again: only let us now understand that the only true faith is that which the Spirit of God seals on our hearts. Nay, the modest and teachable reader will find a sufficient reason in the promise contained in Isaiah, that all the children of the renovated Church “shall be taught of the Lord,” (Isaiah 54: 13.) This singular privilege God bestows on his elect only, whom he separates from the rest of mankind. For what is the beginning of true doctrine but prompt alacrity to hear the Word of God? And God, by the mouth of Moses, thus demands to be heard: “It is not in heavens that thous houldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee,in thy mouth and in thy heart,” (Deut. 30: 12, 14.) God having been pleased to reserve the treasure of intelligence for his children, no wonder that so much ignorance and stupidity is seen in the generality of mankind. In the generality, I include even those specially chosen, until they are ingrafted into the body of the Church. Isaiah, moreover, while reminding us that the prophetical doctrine would prove incredible not only to strangers, but also to the Jews, who were desirous to be thought of the household of God, subjoins the reason, when he asks, “To whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (Isaiah 53: 1.) If at any time, then we are troubled at the small number of those who believe, let us, on the other hand, call to mind, that none comprehend the mysteries of God save those to whom it is given.

CHAPTER 8. THE CREDIBILITY OF SCRIPTURE SUFFICIENTLY PROVED IN SO FAR AS NATURAL REASON ADMITS.

This chapter consists of four parts.

The first contains certain general proofs which may be easily gathered out of the writings both of the Old and New Testament, viz., the arrangement of the sacred volume, its dignity, truth, simplicity, efficacy, and majesty, see.1, 2.

The second part contains special proofs taken from the Old Testament, viz., the antiquity of the books of Moses, their authority, his miracles and prophecies, see. 3-7; also, the predictions of the other prophets and their wondrous harmony, see.8. There is subjoined a refutation of two objections to the books of Moses and the Prophets, see. 9, 10.

The third part exhibits proofs gathered out of the New Testament, e. g., the harmony of the Evangelists in their account of heavenly mysteries, the majesty ofthe writings of John, Peter, and Paul, the remarkable calling of the Apostles and conversion of Paul, see. 11.

The last part exhibits the proofs drawn from ecclesiastical history, the perpetual consent of the Church in receiving and preserving divine truth, the invincible force of the truth in defending itself, the agreement of the godly,(though otherwise differing so much from one another,) the pious profession of the same doctrine by many illustrious men; in fine, the more than human constancy of the martyrs, see. 12, 13. This is followed by a conclusion of the particular topic discussed.

Sections.

1. Secondary helps to establish the credibility of Scripture.

I. The arrangement of the sacred volume.

II. Its dignity.

III. Its truth.

IV. Its simplicity.

V. Its efficacy.

2. The majesty conspicuous in the writings of the Prophets.

3. Special proofs from the Old Testament.

I. The antiquity of the Books of Moses.

4. This antiquity contrasted with the dreams of the Egyptians.

II. The majesty of the Books of Moses.

5. The miracles and prophecies of Moses. A profane objection refuted.

6. Another profane objection refuted.

7. The prophecies of Moses as to the sceptre not departing from Judah, and the calling of the Gentiles.

8. The predictions of other prophets. The destruction of Jerusalem; and the return from the Babylonish captivity. Harmony of the Prophets. The celebrated prophecy of Daniel.

9. Objection against Moses and the Prophets. Answer to it.

10. Another objection and answer. Of the wondrous Providence of God in the preservation of the sacred books. The Greek Translation. The carefulness of the Jews.

11. Special proofs from the New Testament.

I. The harmony of the Evangelists, and the sublime simplicity of their writings.

II. The majesty of John, Paul, and Peter.

III. The calling of the Apostles.

IV. The conversion of Paul.

12. Proofs from Church history.

I. Perpetual consent of the Church in receiving and preserving the truth.

II. The invincible power of the truth itself.

III. Agreement among the godly, not withstanding of their many differences in other respects.

13. The constancy of the martyrs. Conclusion. Proofs of this description only of use after the certainty of Scripture has been established in the heart by the Holy Spirit.

(The unique majesty and impressiveness, and the high antiquity, of Scripture, 1-4)

1. Scripture is superior to all human wisdom

In vain were the authority of Scripture fortified by argument, or supported by the consent of the Church, or confirmed by any other helps, if unaccompanied by an assurance higher and stronger than human judgement can give. Till this better foundation has been laid, the authority of Scripture remains in suspense. On the other hand, when recognising its exemption from the common rule, we receive it reverently, and according to its dignity, those proofs which were not so strong as to produce and rivet a full conviction in our minds, become most appropriate helps. For it is wonderful how much we are confirmed in our belief, when we more attentively consider how admirably the system of divine wisdom contained in itis arranged—how perfectly free the doctrine is from every thing that savours of earth—how beautifully it harmonises in all its parts—and how rich it is in all the other qualities which give an air of majesty to composition. Our hearts are still more firmly assured when we reflect that our admiration is elicited more by the dignity of the matter than by the graces of style. For it was not without an admirable arrangement of Providence, that the sublime mysteries of the kingdom of heaven have for the greater part been delivered with a contemptible meanness of words. Had they been adorned with a more splendid eloquence, the wicked might have cavilled, and alleged that this constituted all their force. But now, when an unpolished simplicity, almost bordering on rudeness, makes a deeper impression than the loftiest flights of oratory, what does it indicate if not that the Holy Scriptures are too mighty in the power of truth to need the rhetorician’s art? Hence there was good ground for the Apostle’s declaration, that the faith of the Corinthians was founded not on “the wisdom of men,” but on “the power of God,” (1 Cor. 2: 5,) this speech and preaching among them having been “not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,” (1 Cor. 2: 5.) For the truth is vindicated in opposition to every doubt, when, unsupported by foreign aid, it has its sole sufficiency in itself.

How peculiarly this property belongs to Scripture appears from this, that no human writings, however skilfully composed, are at all capable of affecting us in a similar way. Read Demosthenes or Cicero, read Plato, Aristotle, or any other of that class: you will, I admit, feel wonderfully allured, pleased, moved, enchanted; but turn from them to the reading of the Sacred Volume, and whether you will or not, it will so affect you, so pierce your heart, so work its way into your very marrow, that, in comparison of the impression so produced, that of orators and philosophers will almost disappear; making it manifest that in the Sacred Volume there is a truth divine, a something which makes it immeasurably superior to all the gifts and graces attainable by man.

2.Not style but content is decisive

I confess, however, that in elegance and beauty, nay, splendour, the style of some of the prophets is not surpassed by the eloquence of heathen writers. By examples of this description, the Holy Spirit was pleased to show that it was not from want of eloquence he in other instances used a rude and homely style. But whether you read David, Isaiah, and others of the same class, whose discourse flows sweet and pleasant; or Amos the herdsman, Jeremiah, and Zechariah, whose rougher idiom savours of rusticity; that majesty of the Spirit to which I adverted appears conspicuous in all. I am not unaware, that as Satan often apes God, that he may by a fallacious resemblance the better insinuate himself into the minds of the simple, so he craftily disseminated the impious errors with which he deceived miserable men in an uncouth and semi-barbarous style, and frequently employed obsolete forms of expression in order to cloak his impostures. None possessed of any moderate share of sense need be told how vain and vile such affectation is. But in regard to the Holy Scriptures, however petulant men may attempt to carp at them, they are replete with sentiments which it is clear that man never could have conceived. Let each of the prophets be examined, and not one will be found who does not rise far higher than human reach. Those who feel their works insipid must be absolutely devoid of taste.

3. The great antiquity of Scripture

As this subject has been treated at large by others, it will be sufficient here merely to touch on its leading points. In addition to the qualities already mentioned, great weight is due to the antiquity of Scripture, (Euseb. Prepar. Evang. lib. 2 c. 1.) Whatever fables Greek writers may retail concerning the Egyptian Theology, no monument of any religion exists which is not long posterior to the age of Moses. But Moses does not introduce a new Deity. He only sets forth that doctrine concerning the eternal God which the Israelites had received by tradition from their fathers, by whom it had been transmitted, as it were, from hand to hand, during a long series of ages. For what else does he do than lead them back to the covenant which had been made with Abraham? Had he referred to matters of which they had never heard, he never could have succeeded; but their deliverance from the bondage in which they were held must have been a fact of familiar and universal notoriety, the very mention of which must have immediately aroused the attention of all. It is, moreover, probable, that they were intimately acquainted with the whole period of four hundred years (Gen.15:13; Ex.12:40; Gal.3:17). Now, if Moses (who is so much earlier than all other writers) traces the tradition of his doctrine from so remote a period, it is obvious how far the Holy Scriptures must in point of antiquity surpass all other writings.

4. The truthfulness of Scripture shown by Moses’ example

Some perhaps may choose to credit the Egyptians in carrying back their antiquity to a period of six thousand years before the world was created. But their garrulity, which even some profane authors have held up to derision, it cannot be necessary for me to refute. Josephus, however, in his work against Appion, produces important passages from very ancient writers, implying that the doctrine delivered in the law was celebrated among all nations from the remotest ages, though it was neither read nor accurately known.

And then, in order that the malignant might have no ground for suspicion, and the ungodly no handle for cavil, God has provided, in the most effectual manner, against both dangers. When Moses relates the words which Jacob, under Divine inspiration, uttered concerning his posterity almost three hundred years before, how does he ennoble his own tribe? He stigmatises it with eternal infamy in the person of Levi. “Simon and Levi,” says he, “are brethren; instruments of cruelty are in their habitations. O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly mine honour be not thou united,"(Gen. 49: 5, 6.) This stigma he certainly might have passed in silence, not only that he might spare his own ancestor, but also save both himself and his whole family from a portion of the disgrace. How can any suspicion attach to him, who, by voluntarily proclaiming that the first founder of his family was declared detestable by a Divine oracle, neither consults for his own private interest, nor declines to incur obloquy among his tribe, who must have been offended by his statement of the fact? Again, when he relates the wicked murmuring of his brother Aaron, and his sister Miriam, (Numb. 12: 1,) shall we say that he spoke his own natural feelings, or that he obeyed the command of the Holy Spirit? Moreover, when invested with supreme authority, why does he not bestow the office of High Priest on his sons, instead of consigning them to the lowest place? I only touch on a few points out of many; but the Law itself contains throughout numerous proofs, which fully vindicate the credibility of Moses, and place it beyond dispute, that he was in truth a messenger sent forth from God.

(Refutation of objections regarding miracles and prophecy, 5-10)

5. Miracles strengthen the authority of God’s messengers

The many striking miracles which Moses relates are so many sanctions of the law delivered, and the doctrine propounded, by him. His being carried up into the mount in a cloud; his remaining there forty days separated from human society; his countenance glistening during the promulgation of the law, as with meridian effulgence; the lightnings which flashed on every side; the voices and thunderings which echoed in the air; the clang of the trumpet blown by no human mouth; his entrance into the tabernacle, while a cloud hid him from the view of the people; the miraculous vindication of his authority, by the fearful destruction of Korah, Nathan, and Abiram, and all their impious faction; the stream instantly gushing forth from the rock when struck with his rod; the manna which rained from heaven at his prayer;—did not God by all these proclaim aloud that he was an undoubted prophet? If any one object that I am taking debatable points for granted, the cavil is easily answered. Moses published all these things in the assembly of the people. How, then, could he possibly impose on the very eye-witnesses of what was done? Is it conceivable that he would have come forward, and, while accusing the people of unbelief, obstinacy, ingratitude, and other crimes, have boasted that his doctrine had been confirmed in their own presence by miracles which they never saw?

6. Moses’ miracles are incontestable

For it is also worthy of remark, that the miracles which he relates are combined with disagreeable circumstances, which must have provoked opposition from the whole body of the people, if there had been the smallest ground for it. Hence it is obvious that they were induced to assent, merely because they had been previously convinced by their own experience. But because the fact was too clear to leave it free for heathen writers to deny that Moses did perform miracles, the father of lies suggested a calumny, and ascribed them to magic, (Exod. 9: 11.) But with what probability is a charge of magic brought against him, who held it in such abhorrence, that he ordered every one who should consult soothsayers and magicians to be stoned? (Lev. 30: 6.) Assuredly, no impostor deals in tricks, without studying to raise his reputation by amazing the common people. But what does Moses do? By crying out, that he and Aaron his brother are nothing, (Exod. 16: 7,) that they merely execute what God has commanded, he clears himself from every approach to suspicion. Again, if the facts are considered in themselves, what kind of incantation could cause manna to rain from heaven every day, and in sufficient quantity to maintain a people, while any one, who gathered more than the appointed measure, saw his incredibility that God then suffered his servant to be subjected to so many serious trials, that the ungodly cannot now gain anything by their glamour. When (as often happened) the people proudly and petulantly rose up against him, when individuals conspired, and attempted to overthrow him, how could any impostures have enabled him to elude their rage? The event plainly shows that by these means his doctrine was attested to all succeeding ages.

7. Prophecies that are fulfilled contrary to all human expectation

Moreover, it is impossible to deny that he was guided by a prophetic spirit in assigning the first place to the tribe of Judah in the person of Jacob, especially if we take into view the fact itself, as explained by the event. Suppose that Moses was the inventor of the prophecy, still, after he committed it to writing, four hundred years pass away, during which no mention is made of a sceptre in the tribe of Judah. After Saul is anointed, the kingly office seems fixed in the tribe of Benjamin, (1 Sam. 11: 15; 16:13.) When David is anointed by Samuel, what apparent ground is there for the transference? Who could have looked for a king out of the plebeian family of a herdsman? And out of seven brothers, who could have thought that the honour was destined for the youngest? And then by what means did he afterwards come within reach of the throne? Who dare say that his anointing was regulated by human art, or skill, or prudence, and was not rather the fulfilment of a divine prophecy? In like manner, do not the predictions, though obscure, of the admission of the Gentiles into the divine covenant, seeing they were not fulfilled till almost two thousand years after, make it palpable that Moses spoke under divine inspiration? I omit other predictions which so plainly betoken divine revelation, that all men of sound mind must see they were spoken by God. In short, his Song itself (Deut. 32) is a bright mirror in which God is manifestly seen.

8. God has confirmed the prophetic words

In the case of the other prophets the evidence is even clearer. I will only select a few examples, for it were too tedious to enumerate the whole. Isaiah, in his own day, when the kingdom of Judah was at peace, and had even some ground to confide in the protection of the Chaldeans, spoke of the destruction of the city and the captivity of the people, (Isaiah 39:6-7.) Supposing it not to be sufficient evidence of divine inspiration to foretell, many years before, events which, at the time, seemed fabulous, but which ultimately turned out to be true, whence shall it be said that the prophecies which he uttered concerning their return proceeded, if it was not from God? He names Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1), by whom the Chaldeans were to be subdued and the people restored to freedom. After the prophet thus spoke, more than a hundred years elapsed before Cyrus was born, that being nearly the period which elapsed between the death of the one and the birth of the other. It was impossible at that time to guess that some Cyrus would arise to make war on the Babylonians, and after subduing their powerful monarchy, put an end to the captivity of the children of Israel. Does not this simple, unadorned narrative plainly demonstrate that what Isaiah spoke was not the conjecture of man, but the undoubted oracle of God? Again, when Jeremiah, a considerable time before the people were led away, assigned seventy years as the period of captivity, and fixed their liberation and return (Jer.25:11-12), must not his tongue have been guided by the Spirit of God? What effrontery were it to deny that, by these evidences, the authority of the prophets is established, the very thing being fulfilled to which they appeal in support of their credibility! “Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare; before they spring forth I tell you of them,” (Isaiah 42:9.) I say nothing of the agreement between Jeremiah and Ezekiel, who, living so far apart, and yet prophesying at the same time, harmonise as completely in all they say as if they had mutually dictated the words to one another. What shall I say of Daniel? Did not he deliver prophecies embracing a future period of almost six hundred years, as if he had been writing of past events generally known? (Dan. 9, &c.) If the pious will duly meditate on these things, they will be sufficiently instructed to silence the cavils of the ungodly. The demonstration is too clear to be gains aid.

9. The transmission of the law is to be trusted

I am aware of what is muttered in corners by certain miscreants, when they would display their acuteness in assailing divine truth. They ask, how do we know that Moses and the prophets wrote the books which now bear their names? Nay, they even dare to question whether there ever was a Moses. Were any one to question whether there ever was a Plato, or an Aristotle, or a Cicero, would not the rod or the whip be deemed the fit chastisement of such folly? The law of Moses has been wonderfully preserved, more by divine providence than by human care; and though, owing to the negligence of the priests, it lay for a short time buried,—from the time when it was found by good King Josiah, (2 Kings 22: 8; 2Chron. 34: 15,)—it has continued in the hands of men, and been transmitted in unbroken succession from generation to generation. Nor, indeed, when Josiah brought it forth, was it as a book unknown or new, but one which had always been matter of notoriety, and was then in full remembrance. The original writing had been deposited in the temple, and a copy taken from it had been deposited in the royal archives, (Deut. 17: 18, 19;) the only thing which had occurred was, that the priests had ceased to publish the law itself in due form, and the people also had neglected the wonted reading of it. I may add, that scarcely an age passed during which its authority was not confirmed and renewed. Were the books of Moses unknown to those who had the Psalms of David in their hands? To sum up the whole in one word, it is certain beyond dispute, that these writings passed down, if I may so express it, from hand to hand, being transmitted in an unbroken series from the fathers, who either with their own ears heard them spoken, or learned them from those who had, while the remembrance of them was fresh.

10. God has marvelously preserved the Law and the Prophets

An objection taken from the history of the Maccabees (1 Maccab. 1: 57, 58) to impugn the credibility of Scripture, is, on the contrary, fitted the best possible to confirm it. First, however, let us clear away the gloss which is put upon it: having done so, we shall turn the engine which they erect against us upon themselves. As Antiochus ordered all the books of Scripture to be burnt, it is asked, where did the copies we now have come from? I, in my turn, ask, in what workshop could they have been so quickly fabricated? It is certain that they were in existence the moment the persecution ceased, and that they were acknowledged without dispute by all the pious who had been educated in their doctrine, and were familiarly acquainted with them. Nay, while all the wicked so wantonly insulted the Jews as if they had leagued together for the purpose, not one ever dared to charge them with having introduced spurious books. Whatever, in their opinion, the Jewish religion might be, they acknowledged that Moses was the founder of it. What,then, do those babblers, but betray their snarling petulance infalsely alleging the spuriousness of books whose sacred antiquity is proved by the consent of all history? But not to spend labour in vain in refuting these vile calumnies, let us rather attend to the care which the Lord took to preserve his Word, when against all hope he rescued it from the truculence of a most cruel tyrant as from the midst of the flames—inspiring pious priests and others with such constancy that they hesitated not, though it should have been purchased at the expense of their lives, to transmit this treasure to posterity, and defeating the keenest search of prefects and their satellites. Who does not recognise it as a signal and miraculous work of God, that those sacred monuments which the ungodly persuaded themselves had utterly perished, immediately returned to resume their former rights, and, indeed, in greater honour? For the Greek translation appeared to disseminate them over the whole world.

Nor does it seem so wonderful that God rescued the tables of his covenant from the sanguinary edicts of Antiochus, as that they remained safe and entire amid the manifold disasters by which the Jewish nation was occasionally crushed, devastated, and almost exterminated. The Hebrew language was in no estimation, and almost unknown; and assuredly, had not God provided for religion, it must have utterly perished. For it is obvious from the prophetical writings of that age, how much the Jews, after their return from the captivity, had lost the genuine use of their native tongue. It is of importance to attend to this, because the comparison more clearly establishes the antiquity of the Law and the Prophets. And whom did God employ to preserve the doctrine of salvation contained in the Law and the Prophets, that Christ might manifest it in its own time? The Jews, the bitterest enemies of Christ; and hence Augustine justly calls them the librarians of the Christian Church, because they supplied us with books of which they themselves had not the use.

(Simplicity and heavenly character and authority of the New Testament, 11)

11.

When we proceed to the New Testament, how solid are the pillars by which its truth is supported! Three evangelists give a narrative in a mean and humble style. The proud often eye this simplicity with disdain, because they attend not to the principal heads of doctrine; for from these they might easily infer that these evangelists treat of heavenly mysteries beyond the capacity of man. Those who have the least particle of candour must be ashamed of their fastidiousness when they read the first chapter of Luke. Even our Saviour’s discourses, of which a summary is given by these three evangelists, ought to prevent every one from treating their writings with contempt. John, again, fulminating in majesty, strikes down more powerfully than any thunderbolt the petulance of those who refuse to submit to the obedience of faith. Let all those acute censors, whose highest pleasure it is to banish a reverential regard of Scripture from their own and other men’s hearts, come forward; let them read the Gospel of John, and, willing or unwilling, they will find a thousand sentences which will at least arouse them from their sloth; nay, which will burn into their consciences as with a hot iron, and check their derision. The same thing may be said of Peter and Paul, whose writings, though the greater part read them blindfold, exhibit a heavenly majesty, which in a manner binds and rivets every reader. But one circumstance, sufficient of itself to exalt their doctrine above the world, is, that Matthew, who was formerly fixed down to his money-table, Peter and John, who were employed with their little boats, being all rude and illiterate, had never learned in any human school that which they delivered to others. Paul, moreover, who had not only been an avowed but a cruel and bloody foe, being changed into a new man, shows, by the sudden and unhoped-for change, that a heavenly power had compelled him to preach the doctrine which once he destroyed. Let those dogs deny that the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles, or, if not, let them refuse credit to the history, still the very circumstances proclaim that the Holy Spirit must have been the teacher of those who, formerly contemptible among the people, all of a sudden began to discourse so magnificently of heavenly mysteries.

(Consent of the church, and fidelity of the martyrs, 12-13)

12. Unvarying testimony of the church to the Scripture

Add, moreover, that, for the best of reasons, the consent of the Church is not without its weight. For it is not to be accounted of no consequence, that, from the first publication of Scripture, so many ages have uniformly concurred in yielding obedience to it, and that, not withstanding of the many extraordinary attempts which Satan and the whole world have made to oppress and overthrow it, or completely efface it from the memory of men, it has flourished like the palm tree and continued invincible. Though in old times there was scarcely a sophist or orator of any note who did not exert his powers against it, their efforts proved unavailing.The powers of the earth armed themselves for its destruction, but all their attempts vanished into smoke. When thus powerfully assailed on every side, how could it have resisted if it had trusted only to human aid? Nay, its divine origin is more completely established by the fact, that when all human wishes were against it, it advanced by its own energy. Add that it was not a single city or a single nation that concurred in receiving and embracing it. Its authority was recognised as far and as wide as the world extends—various nations who had nothing else in common entering for this purpose into a holy league. Moreover, while we ought to attach the greatest weight to the agreement of minds so diversified, and in all other things so much at variance with each other—an agreement which a Divine Providence alone could have produced—it adds no small weight to the whole when we attend to the piety of those who thus agree; not of all of them indeed, but of those in whom as lights God was pleased that his Church should shine.

13. Martyrs died firmly for Scripture doctrine

Again, with what confidence does it become us to subscribe to a doctrine attested and confirmed by the blood of so many saints? They, when once they had embraced it, hesitated not boldly and intrepidly, and even with great alacrity, to meet death in its defence. Being transmitted to us with such an earnest, who of us shall not receive it with firm and unshaken conviction? It is therefore no small proof of the authority of Scripture, that it was sealed with the blood of so many witnesses, especially when it is considered that in bearing testimony to the faith, they met death not with fanatical enthusiasm, (as erring spirits are sometimes wont to do,) but with a firm and constant, yet sober godly zeal. There are other reasons, neither few nor feeble, by which the dignity and majesty of the Scriptures may be not only proved to the pious, but also completely vindicated against the cavils of slanderers. These, however, cannot of themselves produce a firm faith in Scripture until our heavenly Father manifest his presence in it, and thereby secure implicit reverence for it. Then only, therefore, does Scripture suffice to give a saving knowledge of God when its certainty is founded on the inward persuasion of the Holy Spirit. Still the human testimonies which go to confirm it will not be without effect, if they are used in subordination to that chief and highest proof, as secondary helps to our weakness. But it is foolish to attempt to prove to infidels that the Scripture is the Word of God. This it cannot be known to be, except by faith. Justly,therefore, does Augustine remind us, that every man who would have any understanding in such high matters must previously possess piety and mental peace.

CHAPTER 9. ALL THE PRINCIPLES OF PIETY SUBVERTED BY FANATICS, WHO SUBSTITUTE REVELEVATIONS FOR SCRIPTURE.

Sections.

1. The temper and error of the Libertines, who take to themselves the name of spiritual, briefly described. Their refutation.

1. The Apostles and all true Christians have embraced the written Word. This confirmed by a passage in Isaiah; also by the example and words of Paul.

2. The Spirit of Christ seals the doctrine of the written Word on the minds of the godly.

2. Refutation continued.

3. The impositions of Satan cannot be detected without the aid of the written Word. First Objection. The Answer to it.

3. Second Objection from the words of Paul as to the letter and spirit. The Answer, with an explanation of Paul’s meaning. How the Spirit and the written Word are indissolubly connected.

1.The fanatics wrongly appeal to the Holy Spirit

Those who, rejecting Scripture, imagine that they have some peculiar way of penetrating to God, are to be deemed not so much under the influence of error as madness. For certain giddy men have lately appeared, who, while they make a great display of the superiority of the Spirit, reject all reading of the Scriptures themselves, and deride the simplicity of those who only delight in what they call the dead and deadly letter. But I wish they would tell me what spirit it is whose inspiration raises them to such a sublime height that they dare despise the doctrine of Scripture as mean and childish. If they answer that it is the Spirit of Christ, their confidence is exceedingly ridiculous; since they will, I presume, admit that the apostles and other believers in the primitive Church were not illuminated by any other Spirit. None of these thereby learned to despise the word of God, but every one was imbued with greater reverence for it, as their writings most clearly testify. And, indeed, it had been so foretold by the mouth of Isaiah. For when he says, “My Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever,” he does not tie down the ancient Church to external doctrine, as he were a mere teacher of elements; he rather shows that, under the reign of Christ, the true and full felicity of the new Church will consist in their being ruled not less by the Word than by the Spirit of God. Hence we infer that these miscreants are guilty of fearful sacrilege in tearing asunder what the prophet joins in indissoluble union. Add to this, that Paul, though carried up even to the third heaven, ceased not to profit by the doctrine of the law and the prophets, while, in like manner, he exhorts Timothy, a teacher of singular excellence, to give attention to reading, (1 Tim. 4: 13.) And the eulogium which he pronounces on Scripture well deserves to be remembered, viz., that “it is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect,” (2 Tim. 3: 16.) What an infatuation of the devil, therefore, to fancy that Scripture, which conducts the sons of God to the final goal, is of transient and temporary use?

Again, I should like those people to tell me whether they have imbibed any other Spirit than that which Christ promised to his disciples. Though their madness is extreme, it will scarcely carry them the length of making this their boast. But what kind of Spirit did our Saviour promise to send? One who should not speak of himself, (John 16: 13,) but suggest and instil the truths which he himself had delivered through the word. Hence the office of the Spirit promised to us, is not to form new and unheard-of revelations, or to coin a new form of doctrine, by which we may be led away from the received doctrine of the gospel, but to seal on our minds the very doctrine which the gospel recommends.

2. The Holy Spirit is recognized in his agreement with Scripture

Hence it is easy to understand that we must give diligent heed both to the reading and hearing of Scripture, if we would obtain any benefit from the Spirit of God, (just as Peter praises those who attentively study the doctrine of the prophets, (2 Pet. 1: 19,) though it might have been thought to be superseded after the gospel light arose,) and, on the contrary, that any spirit which passes by the wisdom of God’s Word, and suggests any other doctrine, is deservedly suspected of vanity and falsehood. Since Satan transforms himself into an angel of light, what authority can the Spirit have with us if he be not ascertained by an infallible mark? And assuredly he is pointed out to us by the Lord with sufficient clearness; but these miserable men err as if bent on their own destruction, while they seek the Spirit from themselves rather than from Him. But they say that it is insulting to subject the Spirit, to whom all things are to be subject, to the Scripture: as if it were disgraceful to the Holy Spirit to maintain a perfect resemblance throughout, and be in all respects without variation consistent with himself. True, if he were subjected to a human, an angelical, or to any foreign standard, it might be thought that he was rendered subordinate, or, if you will, brought into bondage, but so long as he is compared with himself, and considered in himself, how can it be said that he is thereby injured? I admit that he is brought to a test, but the very test by which it has pleased him that his majesty should be confirmed. It ought to be enough for us when once we hear his voice; but lest Satan should insinuate himself under his name, he wishes us to recognise him by the image which he has stamped on the Scriptures. The author of the Scriptures cannot vary, and change his likeness. Such as he there appeared at first, such he will perpetually remain. There is nothing contumelious to him in this, unless we are to think it would be honourable for him to degenerate, and revolt against himself.

3. Word and Spirit belong inseparably together

Their cavil about our cleaving to the dead letter carries with it the punishment which they deserve for despising Scripture. It is clear that Paul is there arguing against false apostles, (2 Cor. 3: 6,) who, by recommending the law without Christ, deprived the people of the benefit of the New Covenant, by which the Lord engages that he will write his law on the hearts of believers, and engrave it on their inward parts. The letter therefore is dead, and the law of the Lord kills its readers when it is dissevered from the grace of Christ, and only sounds in the ear without touching the heart. But if it is effectually impressed on the heart by the Spirit; if it exhibits Christ, it is the word of life converting the soul, and making wise the simple. Nay, in the very same passage, the apostle calls his own preaching the ministration of the Spirit, (2 Cor. 3: 8,) intimating that the Holy Spirit so cleaves to his own truth, as he has expressed it in Scripture, that he then only exerts and puts forth his strength when the word is received with due honour and respect.

There is nothing repugnant here to what was lately said, (chap. 7) that we have no great certainty of the word itself, until it be confirmed by the testimony of the Spirit. For the Lord has so knit together the certainty of his word and his Spirit, that our minds are duly imbued with reverence for the word when the Spirit shining upon it enables us there to behold the face of God; and, on the other hand, we embrace the Spirit with no danger of delusion when we recognise him in his image, that is, in his word. Thus, indeed, it is. God did not produce his word before men for the sake of sudden display, intending to abolish it the moment the Spirit should arrive; but he employed the same Spirit, by whose agency he had administered the word, to complete his work by the efficacious confirmation of the word.

In this way Christ explained to the two disciples, (Luke 24: 27,) not that they were to reject theScriptures and trust to their own wisdom, but that they were tounderstand the Scriptures. In like manner, when Paul says to the Thessalonians, “Quench not the Spirit,” he does not carry them aloft to empty speculation apart from the word; he immediately adds, “Despise not prophesying,” (1 Thess. 5: 19, 20.) By this, doubtless, he intimates that the light of the Spirit is quenched the moment prophesying fall into contempt. How is this answered by those swelling enthusiasts, in whose idea the only true illumination consists, in carelessly laying aside, and bidding adieu to the Word of God, while, with no less confidence than folly, they fasten upon any dreaming notion which may have casually sprung up in their minds? Surely a very different sobriety becomes the children of God. As they feel that without the Spirit of God they are utterly devoid of the light of truth, so they are not ignorant that the word is the instrument by which the illumination of the Spirit is dispensed. They know of no other Spirit than the one who dwelt and spake in the apostles—the Spirit by whose oracles they are daily invited to the hearing of the word.

CHAPTER 10. IN SCRIPTURE, THE TRUE GOD OPPOSED, EXCLUSIVELY, TO ALL THE GODS OF THE HEATHEN.

Sections.

1. Explanation of the knowledge of God resumed. God as manifested in Scripture, the same as delineated in his works.

2. The attributes of God as described by Moses, David, and Jeremiah. Explanation of the attributes. Summary. Uses of this knowledge.

3. Scripture, in directing us to the true God, excludes the gods of the heathen, who, however, in some sense, held the unity of God.

1. The Scriptural doctrine of God the Creator

We formerly observed that the knowledge of God, which, in other respects, is not obscurely exhibited in the frame of the world, and in all the creatures, is more clearly and familiarly explained by the word. It may now be proper to show, that in Scripture the Lord represents himself in the same character in which we have already seen that he is delineated in his works. A full discussion of this subject would occupy a large space. But it will here be sufficient to furnish a kind of index, by attending to which the pious reader may be enabled to understand what knowledge of God he ought chiefly to search for in Scripture, and be directed as to the mode of conducting the search. I am not now adverting to the peculiar covenant by which God distinguished the race of Abraham from the rest of the nations. For when by gratuitous adoption he admitted those who were enemies to the rank of sons, he even then acted in the character of a Redeemer. At present, however, we are employed in considering that knowledge which stops short at the creation of the world, without ascending to Christ the Mediator. But though it will soon be necessary to quote certain passages from the New Testament, (proofs being there given both of the power of God the Creator, and of his providence in the preservation of what he originally created,) I wish the reader to remember what my present purpose is, that he may not wander from the proper subject. Briefly, then, it will be sufficient for him at present to understand how God, the Creator of heaven and earth, governs the world which was made by him. In every part of Scripture we meet with descriptions of his paternal kindness and readiness to do good, and we also meet with examples of severity which show that he is the just punisher of the wicked, especially when they continue obstinate notwithstanding of all his forbearance.

2. The attributes of God according to Scripture agree with those known in his creatures

There are certain passages which contain more vivid descriptions of the divine character, setting it before us as if his genuine countenance were visibly portrayed. Moses, indeed, seems to have intended briefly to comprehend whatever may be known of God by man, when he said, “The Lord, The Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation,” (Ex. 34: 6, 7.) Here we may observe, firsts that his eternity and selfexistence are declared by his magnificent name twice repeated; and, secondly, that in the enumeration of his perfections, he is described not as he is in himself, but in relation to us, in order that our acknowledgement of him may be more a vivid actual impression than empty visionary speculation. Moreover, the perfections thus enumerated are just those which we saw shining in the heavens, and on the earth—compassion, goodness, mercy, justice, judgement, and truth. For power and energy are comprehended under the name Elohim.

Similar epithets are employed by the prophets when they would fully declare his sacred name. Not to collect a great number of passages, it may suffice at present to refer to one Psalm, (145) in which a summary of the divine perfections is so carefully given that not one seems to have been omitted. Still, however, every perfection there set down may be contemplated in creation; and, hence, such as we feel him to be when experience is our guide, such he declares himself to be by his word. In Jeremiah, where God proclaims the character in which he would have us to acknowledge him, though the description is not so full, it is substantially the same. “Let him that glorieth,” says he, “glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord which exercise loving-kindness, judgement, and righteousness, in the earth,” (Jerem. 9: 24.) Assuredly, the attributes which it is most necessary for us to know are these three: Loving-kindness, on which alone our entire safety depends: Judgement, which is daily exercised on the wicked, and awaits them in a severer form, even for eternal destruction: Righteousness, by which the faithful are preserved, and most benignly cherished. The prophet declares, that when you understand these, you are amply furnished with the means of glorying in God. Nor is there here any omission of his truth, or power, or holiness, or goodness. For how could this knowledge of his loving-kindness, judgement, and righteousness, exist, if it were not founded on his inviolable truth? How, again, could it be believed that he governs the earth with judgement and righteousness, without presupposing his mighty power? Whence, too, his loving-kindness, but from his goodness? In fine, if all his ways are loving-kindness, judgement, and righteousness, his holiness also is thereby conspicuous.

Moreover, the knowledge of God, which is set before us in the Scriptures, is designed for the same purpose as that which shines in creation, viz., that we may thereby learn to worship him with perfect integrity of heart and unfeigned obedience, and also to depend entirely on his goodness.

3. Because the unity of God was also not unknown to the heathen, the worshipers of idols are the more inexcusable

Here it may be proper to give a summary of the general doctrine. First, then, let the reader observe that the Scripture, in order to direct us to the true God, distinctly excludes and rejects all the gods of the heathen, because religion was universally adulterated in almost every age. It is true, indeed, that the name of one God was everywhere known and celebrated. For those who worshipped a multitude of gods, whenever they spoke the genuine language of nature, simply used the name god, as if they had thought one god sufficient. And this is shrewdly noticed by Justin Martyr, who, to the same effect, wrote a treatise, entitled, On the Monarchy of God, in which he shows, by a great variety of evidence, that the unity of God is engraven on the hearts of all. Tertullian also proves the same thing from the common forms of speech. But as all, without exception, have in the vanity of their minds rushed or been dragged into lying fictions, these impressions, as to the unity of God, whatever they may have naturally been, have had no further effect than to render men inexcusable. The wisest plainly discover the vague wanderings of their minds when they express a wish for any kind of Deity, and thus offer up their prayers to unknown gods. And then, in imagining a manifold nature in God, though their ideas concerning Jupiter, Mercury, Venus, Minerva, and others, were not so absurd as those of the rude vulgar, they were by no means free from the delusions of the devil. We have elsewhere observed, that however subtle the evasions devised by philosophers, they cannot do away with the charge of rebellion, in that all of them have corrupted the truth of God. For this reason, Habakkuk, (2: 20,) after condemning all idols, orders men to seek God in his temple, that the faithful may acknowledge none but Him, who has manifested himself in his word.

CHAPTER 11. IMPIETY OF ATTRIBUTING A VISIBLE FORM TO GOD. -THE SETTING UP OF IDOLS A DEFECTION FROM THE TRUE GOD.

There are three leading divisions in this chapter.

The first contains a refutation of those who ascribe a visible form to God, (s. 1 and 2,) with an answer to the objection of those who, because it is said that God manifested his presence by certain symbols, use it as a defence of their error, (s. 3 and 4.) Various arguments are afterwards adduced, disposing of the trite objection from Gregory’s expression, that images are the books of the unlearned, (s. 5-7.)

The second division of the chapter relates to the origin of idols or images, and the adoration of them, as approved by the Papists, (s. 8-10.) Their evasion refuted, (s. 11.)

The third division treats of the use and abuse of images, (s. 12.) Whether it is expedient to have them in Christian Churches, (s. 13.) The concluding part contains a refutation of the second Council of Nicea, which very absurdly contends for images in opposition to divine truth, and even to the disparagement of the Christian name.

Sections.

1. God is opposed to idols, that all may know he is the only fit witness to himself. He expressly forbids any attempt to represent him by a bodily shape.

2. Reasons for this prohibition from Moses, Isaiah, and Paul. The complaint of a heathen. It should put the worshipers of idols to shame.

3. Consideration of an objection taken from various passages in Moses. The Cherubim and Seraphim show that images are not fit to represent divine mysteries. The Cherubim belonged to the tutelage of the Law.

4. The materials of which idols are made, abundantly refute the fiction of idolaters. Confirmation from Isaiah and others. Absurd precaution of the Greeks.

5. Objection,—That images are the books of the unlearned. Objection answered,

1. Scripture declares images to be teachers of vanity and lies.

6. Answer continued,

2. Ancient Theologians condemn the formation and worship of idols.

7. Answer continued,

3. The use of images condemned by the luxury and meretricious ornaments given to them in Popish Churches.

4. The Church must be trained in true piety by another method.

8. The second division of the chapter. Origin of idols or images. Its rise shortly after the flood. Its continual progress.

9. Of the worship of images. Its nature. A pretext of idolaters refuted. Pretexts of the heathen. Genius of idolaters

10. Evasion of the Papists. Their agreement with ancient idolaters.

11. Refutation of another evasion or sophism, viz., the distinction of dulia and latria.

12. Third division of the chapter, viz., the use and abuse of images.

13. Whether it is expedient to have images in Christian temples.

14. Absurd defence of the worship of images by the second so-called Council of Nice. Sophisms or perversions of Scripture in defence of images in churches.

15. Passages adduced in support of the worship of images.

16. The blasphemous expressions of some ancient idolaters approved by not a few of the more modern, both in word and deed.

(Scriptural argument for rejecting images in worship, 1-4)

1.We are forbidden every pictorial representation of God

As Scripture, in accommodation to the rude and gross intellect of man, usually speaks in popular terms, so whenever its object is to discriminate between the true God and false deities, it opposes him in particular to idols; not that it approves of what is taught more elegantly and subtilely by philosophers, but that it may the better expose the folly, nay, madness of the world in its inquiries after God, so long as every one clings to his own speculations. This exclusive definition, which we uniformly meet with in Scripture, annihilates every deity which men frame for themselves of their own accord—God himself being the only fit witness to himself.

Meanwhile, seeing that this brutish stupidity has overspread the globe, men longing after visible forms of God, and so forming deities of wood and stone, silver and gold, or of any other dead and corruptible matter, we must hold it as a first principle, that as often as any form is assigned to God, his glory is corrupted by an impious lie. In the Law, accordingly, after God had claimed the glory of divinity for himself alone, when he comes to show what kind of worship he approves and rejects, he immediately adds, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the water under the earth,” (Exod. 20: 4.) By these words he curbs any licentious attempt we might make to represent him by a visible shape, and briefly enumerates all the forms by which superstition had begun, even long before, to turn his truth into a lie. For we know that the Sun was worshipped by the Persian. As many stars as the foolish nations saw in the sky, so many gods they imagined them to be. Then to the Egyptians, every animal was a figure of God. The Greeks, again, plumed themselves on their superior wisdom in worshipping God under the human form, (Maximum Tyrius Platonic. Serm. 38.) But God makes no comparison between images, as if one were more, and another less befitting; he rejects, without exception, all shapes and pictures, and other symbols by which the superstitious imagine they can bring him near to them.

2. Every figurative representation of God contradicts his being

This may easily be inferred from the reasons which he annexes to his prohibition. First, it is said in the books of Moses, (Deut. 4: 15,) “Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude in the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb, out of the midst of the fire, lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure,” &c. We see how plainly God declares against all figures, to make us aware that all longing after such visible shapes is rebellion against him. Of the prophets, it will be sufficient to mention Isaiah, who is the most copious on this subjects (Isaiah 40: 18; 41:7,29; 45:9; 46:5,) in order to show how the majesty of God is defiled by an absurd and indecorous fiction, when he who is incorporeal is assimilated to corporeal matter; he who is invisible to a visible image; he who is a spirit to an inanimate object; and he who fills all space to a bit of paltry wood, or stone, or gold. Paul, too, reasons in the same way, “Forasmuch, then, as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device,” (Acts 17: 29.) Hence it is manifest, that whatever statues are set up or pictures painted to represent God, are utterly displeasing to him, as a kind of insults to his majesty. And is it strange that the Holy Spirit thunders such responses from heaven, when he compels even blind and miserable idolaters to make a similar confession on the earth? Seneca’s complaint, as given by Augustine De Civit. Dei, c. 10, is well known. He says “The sacred immortal, and invisible gods they exhibit in the meanest and most ignoble materials, and dress them in the clothing of men and beasts; some confound the sexes, and form a compound out of different bodies, giving the name of deities to objects, which, if they were met alive, would be deemed monsters.” Hence, again, it is obvious, that the defenders of images resort to a paltry quibbling evasion, when they pretend that the Jews were forbidden to use them on account of their proneness to superstition; as if a prohibition which the Lord founds on his own eternal essences and the uniform course of nature, could be restricted to a single nation. Besides, when Paul refuted the error of giving a bodily shape to God, he was addressing not Jews, but Athenians.

3.Even direct signs of the divine Presence give no justification for images

It is true that the Lord occasionally manifested his presence by certain signs, so that he was said to be seen face to face; but all the signs he ever employed were in apt accordance with the scheme of doctrine, and, at the same time, gave plain intimation of his incomprehensible essence. For the cloud, and smoke, and flame, though they were symbols of heavenly glory, (Deut. 4: 11,) curbed men’s minds as with a bridle, that they might not attempt to penetrate farther. Therefore, even Moses (to whom, of all men, God manifested himself most familiarly) was not permitted though he prayed for it, to behold that face, but received for answer, that the refulgence was too great for man, (Exod. 33: 20.) The Holy Spirit appeared under the form of a dove, but as it instantly vanished, who does not see that in this symbol of a moment, the faithful were admonished to regard the Spirit as invisible, to be contented with his power and grace, and not call for any external figure? God sometimes appeared in the form of a man, but this was in anticipation of the future revelation in Christ, and, therefore, did not give the Jews the least pretext for setting up a symbol of Deity under the human form.

The mercy-seat, also, (Exod. 25: 17,18,21,) where, under the Law, God exhibited the presence of his power, was so framed, as to intimate that God is best seen when the mind rises in admiration above itself: the Cherubim with outstretched wings shaded, and the veil covered it, while the remoteness of the place was in itself a sufficient concealment. It is therefore mere infatuation to attempt to defend images of God and the saints by the example of the Cherubim. For what, pray, did these figures mean, if not that images are unfit to represent the mysteries of God, since they were so formed as to cover the mercy-seat with their wings, thereby concealing the view of God, not only from the eye, but from every human sense, and curbing presumption? To this we may add, that the prophets depict the Seraphim, who are exhibited to us in vision, as having their faces veiled; thus intimating, that the refulgence of the divine glory is so great, that even the angels cannot gaze upon it directly, while the minute beams which sparkle in the face of angels are shrouded from our view. Moreover, all men of sound judgement acknowledge that the Cherubim in question belonged to the old tutelage of the law. It is absurd, therefore, to bring them forward as an example for our age. For that period of puerility, if I may so express it, to which such rudiments were adapted, has passed away. And surely it is disgraceful, that heathen writers should be more skilful interpreters of Scripture than the Papists. Juvenal (Sat. 14) holds up the Jews to derision for worshipping the thin clouds and firmament. This he does perversely and impiously; still, in denying that any visible shape of Deity existed among them, he speaks more accurately than the Papists, who prate about there having been some visible image. In the fact that the people every now and then rushed forth with boiling haste in pursuit of idols, just like water gushing forth with violence from a copious spring, let us learn how prone our nature is to idolatry, that we may not, by throwing the whole blame of a common vice upon the Jews, be led away by vain and sinful enticements to sleep the sleep of death.

4.Images and pictures are contrary to Scripture

To the same effect are the words of the Psalmist, (Psalms 115: 4, 135: 15,) “Their idols are silver and gold, the works of men’s hands.” From the materials of which they are made, he infers that they are not gods, taking it for granted that every human device concerning God is a dull fiction. He mentions silver and gold rather than clay or stone, that neither splendour nor cost may procure reverence to idols. He then draws a general conclusion, that nothing is more unlikely than that gods should be formed of any kind of inanimate matter. Man is forced to confess that he is but the creature of a day, (see Book 3: c. 9 s. 2,) and yet would have the metal which he has deified to be regarded as God. Whence had idols their origin, but from the will of man? There was ground, therefore, for the sarcasm of the heathen poet, (Hor. Sat. I. 8,) “I was once the trunk of a fig-tree, a useless log, when the tradesman, uncertain whether he should make me a stool, &c., chose rather that I should be a god.” In other words, an earth-born creature, who breathes out his life almost every moment, is able by his own device to confer the name and honour of deity on a lifeless trunk. But as that Epicurean poet, in indulging his wit, had no regard for religion, without attending to his jeers or those of his fellows, let the rebuke of the prophet sting, nay, cut us to the heart, when he speaks of the extreme infatuation of those who take a piece of wood to kindle a fire to warm themselves, bake bread, roast or boil flesh, and out of the residue make a god, before which they prostrate themselves as suppliants, (Isaiah 44: 16.) Hence, the same prophet, in another place, not only charges idolaters as guilty in the eye of the law, but upbraids them for not learning from the foundations of the earth, nothing being more incongruous than to reduce the immense and incomprehensible Deity to the stature of a few feet. And yet experience shows that this monstrous proceeding, though palpably repugnant to the order of nature, is natural to man.

It is, moreover, to be observed, that by the mode of expression which is employed, every form of superstition is denounced. Being works of men, they have no authority from God, (Isa. 2: 8, 31: 7; Hos. 14: 3; Mic. 5: 13;) and, therefore, it must be regarded as a fixed principle, that all modes of worship devised by man are detestable. The infatuation is placed in a still stronger light by the Psalmist, (Psalm 115: 8,) when he shows how aid is implored from dead and senseless objects, by beings who have been endued with intelligence for the very purpose of enabling them to know that the whole universe is governed by Divine energy alone. But as the corruption of nature hurries away all mankind collectively and individually into this madness, the Spirit at length thunders forth a dreadful imprecation, “They that make them are like unto them, so is every one that trusteth in them.” And it is to be observed, that the thing forbidden is likeness, whether sculptured or otherwise. This disposes of the frivolous precaution taken by the Greek Church. They think they do admirably, because they have no sculptured shape of Deity, while none go greater lengths in the licentious use of pictures. The Lord, however, not only forbids any image of himself to be erected by a statuary, but to be formed by any artist whatever, because every such image is sinful and insulting to his majesty.

(Pope Gregory’s error in this refuted from Scripture and the fathers, 5-7)

5.Scripture judges otherwise

I am not ignorant, indeed, of the assertion, which is now more than threadbare, “that images are the books of the unlearned.” So said Gregory: a but the Holy Spirit goes a very different decision; and had Gregory got his lesson in this matter in the Spirit’s school, he never would have spoken as he did. For when Jeremiah declares that “the stock is a doctrine of vanities,” (Jer. 10: 8,) and Habakkuk, “that the molten image” is “a teacher of lies,” the general doctrine to be inferred certainly is, that every thing respecting God which is learned from images is futile and false. If it is objected that the censure of the prophets is directed against those who perverted images to purposes of impious superstition, I admit it to be so; but I add, (what must be obvious to all,) that the prophets utterly condemn what the Papists hold to be an undoubted axiom, viz., that images are substitutes for books. For they contrast images with the true God, as if the two were of an opposite nature, and never could be made to agree. In the passages which I lately quoted, the conclusion drawn is, that seeing there is one true God whom the Jews worshipped, visible shapes made for the purpose of representing him are false and wicked fictions; and all, therefore, who have recourse to them for knowledge are miserably deceived. In short, were it not true that all such knowledge is fallacious and spurious, the prophets would not condemn it in such general terms. This at least I maintain, that when we teach that all human attempts to give a visible shape to God are vanity and lies, we do nothing more than state verbatim what the prophets taught.

6. The doctors of the church, too, partly judged otherwise

Moreover, let Lactantius and Eusebius be read on this subject. These writers assume it as an indisputable fact, that all the beings whose images were erected were originally men. In like manner, Augustine distinctly declares, that it is unlawful not only to worship images, but to dedicate them. And in this he says no more than had been long before decreed by the Libertine Council, the thirty-sixth Canon of which is, “There must be no pictures used in churches: Let nothing which is adored or worshipped be painted on walls.” But the most memorable passage of all is that which Augustine quotes in another place from Varro, and in which he expressly concurs:—"Those who first introduced images of the gods both took away fear and brought in error.” Were this merely the saying of Varro, it might perhaps be of little weight, though it might well make us ashamed, that a heathen, groping as it were in darkness, should have attained to such a degree of light, as to see that corporeal images are unworthy of the majesty of God, and that, because they diminish reverential fear and encourage error. The sentiment itself bears witness that it was uttered with no less truth than shrewdness. But Augustine, while he borrows it from Varro, adduces it as conveying his own opinion. At the outset, indeed, he declares that the first errors into which men fell concerning God did not originate with images, but increased with them, as if new fuel had been added. Afterwards, he explains how the fear of God was thereby extinguished or impaired, his presence being brought into contempt by foolish, and childish, and absurd representations. The truth of this latter remark I wish we did not so thoroughly experience. Whosoever, therefore, is desirous of being instructed in the true knowledge of God must apply to some other teacher than images.

7.The images of the papists are entirely inappropriate

Let Papists, then, if they have any sense of shame, henceforth desist from the futile plea, that images are the books of the unlearned—a plea so plainly refuted by innumerable passages of Scripture. And yet were I to admit the plea, it would not be a valid defence of their peculiar idols. It is well known what kind of monsters they obtrude upon us as divine. For what are the pictures or statues to which they append the names of saints, but exhibitions of the most shameless luxury or obscenity? Were any one to dress himself after their model, he would deserve the pillory. Indeed, brothels exhibit their inmates more chastely and modestly dressed than churches do images intended to represent virgins. The dress of the martyrs is in no respect more becoming. Let Papists then have some little regard to decency in decking their idols, if they would give the least plausibility to the false allegation, that they are books of some kind of sanctity.

(There would be no “uneducated” at all if the church had done its duty)

But even then we shall answer, that this is not the method in which the Christian people should be taught in sacred places. Very different from these follies is the doctrine in which God would have them to be there instructed. His injunction is, that the doctrine common to all should there be set forth by the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments,—a doctrine to which little heed can be given by those whose eyes are carried too and fro gazing at idols.

And who are the unlearned, whose rudeness admits of being taught by images only? Just those whom the Lord acknowledges for his disciples; those whom he honours with a revelation of his celestial philosophy, and desires to be trained in the saving mysteries of his kingdom. I confess, indeed, as matters now are, there are not a few in the present day who cannot want such books. But, I ask, whence this stupidity, but just because they are defrauded of the only doctrine which was fit to instruct them? The simple reason why those who had the charge of churches resigned the office of teaching to idols was, because they themselves were dumb. Paul declares, that by the true preaching of the gospel Christ is portrayed and in a manner crucified before our eyes, (Gal. 3: 1.) Of what use, then, were the erection in churches of so many crosses of wood and stone, silver and gold, if this doctrine were faithfully and honestly preached, viz., Christ died that he might bear our curse upon the tree, that he might expiate our sins by the sacrifice of his body, wash them in his blood, and, in short, reconcile us to God the Father? From this one doctrine the people would learn more than from a thousand crosses of wood and stone. As for crosses of gold and silver, it may be true that the avaricious give their eyes and minds to them more eagerly than to any heavenly instructor.

(Origin of the use of images, and consequent corruption of worship, although sculpture and paintings are gifts of God, 8-16)

8. The origin of images: man’s desire for a tangible deity

In regard to the origin of idols, the statement contained in the Book of Wisdom has been received with almost universal consent, viz., that they originated with those who bestowed this honour on the dead, from a superstitious regard to their memory. I admit that this perverse practice is of very high antiquity, and I deny not that it was a kind of torch by which the infatuated proneness of mankind to idolatry was kindled into a greater blaze. I do not, however, admit that it was the first origin of the practice. That idols were in use before the prevalence of that ambitious consecration of the images of the dead, frequently adverted to by profane writers, is evident from the words of Moses, (Gen. 31: 19.) When he relates that Rachel stole her father’s images, he speaks of the use of idols as a common vice. Hence we may infer, that the human mind is, so to speak, a perpetual forge of idols. There was a kind of renewal of the world at the deluge, but before many years elapse, men are forging gods at will. There is reason to believe, that in the holy Patriarch’s lifetime his grandchildren were given to idolatry: so that he must with his own eyes, not without the deepest grief, have seen the earth polluted with idols—that earth whose iniquities God had lately purged with so fearful a judgement. For Joshua testifies, (Josh. 24: 2,) that Torah and Nachor, even before the birth of Abraham, were the worshipers of false gods. The progeny of Shem having so speedily revolted, what are we to think of the posterity of Ham, who had been cursed long before in their father? Thus, indeed, it is. The human mind, stuffed as it is with presumptuous rashness, dares to imagine a god suited to its own capacity; as it labours under dullness, nay, is sunk in the grossest ignorance, it substitutes vanity and an empty phantom in the place of God.

To these evils another is added. The god whom man has thus conceived inwardly he attempts to embody outwardly. The mind, in this way, conceives the idol, and the hand gives it birth. That idolatry has its origin in the idea which men have, that God is not present with them unless his presence is carnally exhibited, appears from the example of the Israelites: “Up,” said they, “make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wet not what is become of him,” (Exod. 22: 1.) They knew, indeed, that there was a God whose mighty power they had experienced in so many miracles, but they had no confidence of his being near to them, if they did not with their eyes behold a corporeal symbol of his presence, as an attestation to his actual government. They desired, therefore, to be assured by the image which went before them, that they were journeying under Divine guidance. And daily experience shows, that the flesh is always restless until it has obtained some figment like itself, with which it may vainly solace itself as a representation of God. In consequence of this blind passion men have, almost in all ages since the world began, set up signs on which they imagined that God was visibly depicted to their eyes.

9. Any use of images leads to idolatry

After such a figment is formed, adoration forthwith ensues: for when once men imagined that they beheld God in images, they also worshipped him as being there. At length their eyes and minds becoming wholly engrossed by them, they began to grow more and more brutish, gazing and wondering as if some divinity were actually before them. It hence appears that men do not fall away to the worship of images until they have imbibed some idea of a grosser description: not that they actually believe them to be gods, but that the power of divinity somehow or other resides in them. Therefore, whether it be God or a creature that is imaged, the moment you fall prostrate before it in veneration, you are so far fascinated by superstition. For this reason, the Lord not only forbade the erection of statues to himself, but also the consecration of titles and stones which might be set up for adoration. For the same reason, also, the second commandment has an additional part concerning adoration. For as soon as a visible form is given to God, his power also is supposed to be annexed to it. So stupid are men, that wherever they figure God, there they fix him, and by necessary consequence proceed to adore him. It makes no difference whether they worship the idol simply, or God in the idol; it is always idolatry when divine honours are paid to an idol, be the colour what it may. And because God wills not to be worshipped superstitiously whatever is bestowed upon idols is so much robbed from him.

Let those attend to this who set about hunting for miserable pretexts in defence of the execrable idolatry in which for many past ages true religion has been buried and sunk. It is said that the images are not accounted gods. Nor were the Jews so utterly thoughtless as not to remember that there was a God whose hand led them out of Egypt before they made the calf. Indeed, Aaron saying, that these were the gods which had brought them out of Egypt, they intimated, in no ambiguous terms, that they wished to retain God, their deliverer, provided they saw him going before them in the calf. Nor are the heathen to be deemed to have been so stupid as not to understand that God was something else than wood and stone. For they changed the images at pleasure, but always retained the same gods in their minds; besides, they daily consecrated new images without thinking they were making new gods. Read the excuses which Augustine tells us were employed by the idolaters of his time, (August. in Ps. 113). The vulgar, when accused, replied that they did not worship the visible object, but the Deity which dwelt in it invisibly. Those, again, who had what he calls a more refined religion, said, that they neither worshipped the image, nor any inhabiting Deity, but by means of the corporeal image beheld a symbol of that which it was their duty to worship. What then? All idolaters whether Jewish or Gentile, were actuated in the very way which has been described. Not contented with spiritual understanding, they thought that images would give them a surer and nearer impression. When once this preposterous representation of God was adopted, there was no limit until, deluded every now and then by new impostures, they came to think that God exerted his power in images. Still the Jews were persuaded, that under such images they worshipped the eternal God, the one true Lord of heaven and earth; and the Gentiles, also, in worshipping their own false gods, supposed them to dwell in heaven.

10. Image worship in the church

It is an impudent falsehood to deny that the thing which was thus anciently done is also done in our day. For why do men prostrate themselves before images? Why, when in the act of praying, do they turn towards them as to the ears of God? It is indeed true, as Augustine says, (in Ps. 113,) that no person thus prays or worships, looking at an image, without being impressed with the idea that he is heard by it, or without hoping that what he wishes will be performed by it. Why are such distinctions made between different images of the same God, that while one is passed by, or receives only common honour, another is worshipped with the highest solemnities? Why do they fatigue themselves with votive pilgrimages to images while they have many similar ones at home? Why at the present time do they fight for them to blood and slaughter, as for their altars and hearths, showing more willingness to part with the one God than with their idols? And yet I am not now detailing the gross errors of the vulgar—errors almost infinite in number, and in possession of almost all hearts. I am only referring to what those profess who are most desirous to clear themselves of idolatry. They say, we do not call them our gods. Nor did either the Jews or Gentiles of old so call them; and yet the prophets never ceased to charge them with their adulteries with wood and stone for the very acts which are daily done by those who would be deemed Christians, namely, for worshipping God carnally in wood and stone.

11. Foolish evasions of the papists

I am not ignorant, however, and I have no wish to disguise the fact, that they endeavour to evade the charge by means of a more subtle distinction, which shall afterwards be fully considered, (see infra, s. 16, and chap. 12 s. 2.) The worship which they pay to their images they cloak with the name of “idolodulia”, and deny to be “idolatria”. So they speaks holding that the worship which they call “dulia” may, without insult to God, be paid to statues and pictures. Hence, they think themselves blameless if they are only the servants, and not the worshipers, of idols; as if it were not a lighter matter to worship than to serve. And yet, while they take refuge in a Greek term, they very childishly contradict themselves. For the Greek word “latreuein” having no other meaning than to worship, what they say is just the same as if they were to confess that they worship their images without worshipping them. They cannot object that I am quibbling upon words. The fact is, that they only betray their ignorance while they attempt to throw dust in the eyes of the simple. But how eloquent soever they may be, they will never prove by their eloquence that one and the same thing makes two. Let them show how the things differ if they would be thought different from ancient idolaters. For as a murderer or an adulterer will not escape conviction by giving some adventitious name to his crime, so it is absurd for them to expect that the subtle device of a name will exculpate them, if they, in fact, differ in nothing from idolaters whom they themselves are forced to condemn. But so far are they from proving that their case is different, that the source of the whole evil consists in a preposterous rivalship with them, while they with their minds devise, and with their hands execute, symbolical shapes of God.

12. The functions and limits of art

I am not, however, so superstitious as to think that all visible representations of every kind are unlawful. But as sculpture and painting are gifts of God, what I insist for is, that both shall be used purely and lawfully,—that gifts which the Lord has bestowed upon us, for his glory and our good, shall not be preposterously abused, nay, shall not be perverted to our destruction. We think it unlawful to give a visible shape to God, because God himself has forbidden it, and because it cannot be done without, in some degree, tarnishing his glory. And lest any should think that we are singular in this opinion, those acquainted with the productions of sound divines will find that they have always disapproved of it. If it be unlawful to make any corporeal representation of God, still more unlawful must it be to worship such a representation instead of God, or to worship God in it. The only things, therefore, which ought to be painted or sculptured, are things which can be presented to the eye; the majesty of God, which is far beyond the reach of any eye, must not be dishonored by unbecoming representations. Visible representations are of two classes, viz., historical, which give a representation of events, and pictorial, which merely exhibit bodily shapes and figures. The former are of some use for instruction or admonition. The latter, so far as I can see, are only fitted for amusement. And yet it is certain, that the latter are almost the only kind which have hitherto been exhibited in churches. Hence we may infer, that the exhibition was not the result of judicious selection, but of a foolish and inconsiderate longing. I say nothing as to the improper and unbecoming form in which they are presented, or the wanton license in which sculptors and painters have here indulged, (a point to which I alluded a little ago, supra, s. 7.) I only say, that though they were otherwise faultless, they could not be of any utility in teaching.

13. As long as doctrine was pure and strong, the church rejected images

But, without reference to the above distinction, let us here consider, whether it is expedient that churches should contain representations of any kind, whether of events or human forms. First, then, if we attach any weight to the authority of the ancient Church, let us remember, that for five hundred years, during which religion was in a more prosperous condition, and a purer doctrine flourished, Christian churches were completely free from visible representations, (see Preface, and Book 4, c. 9 s. 9.) Hence their first admission as an ornament to churches took place after the purity of the ministry had somewhat degenerated. I will not dispute as to the rationality of the grounds on which the first introduction of them proceeded, but if you compare the two periods, you will find that the latter had greatly declined from the purity of the times when images were unknown. What then? Are we to suppose that those holy fathers, if they had judged the thing to be useful and salutary, would have allowed the Church to be so long without it? Undoubtedly, because they saw very little or no advantage, and the greatest danger in it, they rather rejected it intentionally and on rational grounds, than omitted it through ignorance or carelessness. This is clearly attested by Augustine in these words, (Ep. 49. See also De Civit. Dei, lib 4 c. 31) “When images are thus placed aloft in seats of honour, to be beheld by those who are praying or sacrificing, though they have neither sense nor life, yet from appearing as if they had both, they affect weak minds just as if they lived and breathed,” &c. And again, in another passage, (in Ps. 112) he says, “The effect produced, and in a manner extorted, by the bodily shape, is, that the mind, being itself in a body, imagines that a body which is so like its oven must be similarly affected,” &c. A little farther on he says, “Images are more capable of giving a wrong bent to an unhappy soul, from having mouth, eyes, ears, and feet, than of correcting it, as they neither speak, nor see, nor hear, nor walk.”

This undoubtedly is the reason why John (1 John 5: 21) enjoins us to beware, not only of the worship of idols, but also of idols themselves. And from the fearful infatuation under which the world has hitherto laboured, almost to the entire destruction of piety, we know too well from experience that the moment images appear in churches, idolatry has as it were raised its banner; because the folly of manhood cannot moderate itself, but forthwith falls away to superstitious worship. Even were the danger less imminent, still, when I consider the proper end for which churches are erected, it appears to me more unbecoming their sacredness than I well can tell, to admit any other images than those living symbols which the Lord has consecrated by his own word: I mean Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, with the other ceremonies. By these our eyes ought to be more steadily fixed, and more vividly impressed, than to require the aid of any images which the wit of man may devise. Such, then, is the incomparable blessing of images—a blessing, the want of which, if we believe the Papists, cannot possibly be compensated!

14. Childish arguments for images at the Council of Nicea (787)

Enough, I believe, would have been said on this subject, were I not in a manner arrested by the Council of Nice; not the celebrated Council which Constantine the Great assembled, but one which was held eight hundred years ago by the orders and under the auspices of the Empress Irene. This Council decreed not only that images were to be used in churches, but also that they were to be worshipped. Every thing, therefore, that I have said, is in danger of suffering great prejudice from the authority of this Synod. To confess the truth, however, I am not so much moved by this consideration, as by a wish to make my readers aware of the lengths to which the infatuation has been carried by those who had a greater fondness for images than became Christians. But let us first dispose of this matter. Those who defend the use of images appeal to that Synod for support. But there is a refutation extant which bears the name of Charlemagne, and which is proved by its style to be a production of that period. It gives the opinions delivered by the bishops who were present, and the arguments by which they supported them. John, deputy of the Eastern Churches, said, “God created man in his own image,” and thence inferred that images ought to be used. He also thought there was a recommendation of images in the following passage, “Show me thy face, for it is beautiful.” Another, in order to prove that images ought to be placed on altars, quoted the passage, “No man, when he has lighted a candle, putteth it under a bushel.” Another, to show the utility of looking at images, quoted a verse of the Psalms “The light of thy countenance, O Lord, has shone upon us.” Another laid hold of this similitude: As the Patriarchs used the sacrifices of the Gentiles, so ought Christians to use the images of saints instead of the idols of the Gentiles. They also twisted to the same effect the words, “Lord, I have loved the beauty of thy house.” But the most ingenious interpretation was the following, “As we have heard, so also have we seen;” therefore, God is known not merely by the hearing of the word, but also by the seeing of images. Bishop Theodore was equally acute: “God,” says he, “is to be admired in his saints;” and it is elsewhere said, “To the saints who are on earth;” therefore this must refer to images. In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them.

15. Ridiculous misuse of Scripture texts

When they treat of adoration, great stress is laid on the worship of Pharaoh (Gen. 47:10), the staff of Joseph (Gen. 47:31; Heb. 11:21) , and the inscription which Jacob set up (Gen.28:18).

In this last case they not only pervert the meaning of Scripture, but quote what is nowhere to be found. Then the passages, “Worship at his footstool” (Ps. 98:5)—"Worship in his holy mountain” (Ps. 98:9)—"The rulers of the people will worship before thy face,” (Ps. 44:13) seem to them very solid and apposite proofs. Were one, with the view of turning the defenders of images into ridicule, to put words into their mouths, could they be made to utter greater and grosser absurdities? But to put an end to all doubt on the subject of images, Theodosius Bishop of Mira confirms the propriety of worshipping them by the dreams of his archdeacon, which he adduces with as much gravity as if he were in possession of a response from heaven. Let the patrons of images now go and urge us with the decree of this Synod, as if the venerable Fathers did not bring themselves into utter discredit by handling Scripture so childishly, or wresting it so shamefully and profanely.

16. Blasphemous and shocking claims for images

I come now to monstrous impieties, which it is strange they ventured to utter, and twice strange that all men did not protest against with the utmost detestation. It is right to expose this frantic and flagitious extravagance, and thereby deprive the worship of images of that gloss of antiquity in which Papists seek to deck it. Theodosius Bishop of Amora fires oft an anathema at all who object to the worship of images. Another attributes all the calamities of Greece and the East to the crime of not having worshipped them. Of what punishment then are the Prophets, Apostles, and Martyrs worthy, in whose day no images existed? They afterwards add, that if the statue of the Emperor is met with odours and incense, much more are the images of saints entitled to the honour. Constantius, Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, professes to embrace images with reverence, and declares that he will pay them the respect which is due to the ever blessed Trinity: every person refusing to do the same thing he anathematises and classes with Marcionites and Manichees. Lest you should think this the private opinion of an individual, they all assent. Nay, John the Eastern legate, carried still farther by his zeal, declares it would be better to allow a city to be filled with brothels than be denied the worship of images. At last it is resolved with one consent that the Samaritans are the worst of all heretics, and that the enemies of images are worse than the Samaritans. But that the play may not pass off without the accustomed Plaudite, the whole thus concludes, “Rejoice and exult, ye who, having the image of Christ, offer sacrifice to it.” Where is now the distinction of latria and dulia with which they would throw dust in all eyes, human and divine? The Council unreservedly relies as much on images as on the living God.

CHAPTER 12. GOD DISTINGUISHED FROM IDOLS, THAT HE MAY BE THE EXCLUSIVE OBJECT OF WORSHIP.

Sections.

1. Scripture, in teaching that there is but one God, does not make a dispute about words, but attributes all honour and religious worship to him alone. This proved, 1st, By the etymology of the term. 2d, By the testimony of God himself, when he declares that he is a jealous God, and will not allow himself to be confounded with any fictitious Deity.

2. The Papists in opposing this pure doctrine, gain nothing by their distinction of dulia and latria.

3. Passages of Scripture subversive of the Papistical distinction, and proving that religious worship is due to God alone. Perversions of Divine worship.

1. True religion binds us to God as the one and only God

We said at the commencement of our work, (chap. 2,) that the knowledge of God consists not in frigid speculation, but carries worship along with it; and we touched by the way (chap. 5 s. 6, 9, 10) on what will be more copiously treated in other places, (Book 2, chap. 8,) viz., how God is duly worshipped. Now I only briefly repeat, that whenever Scripture asserts the unity of God, it does not contend for a mere name, but also enjoins that nothing which belongs to Divinity be applied to any other; thus making it obvious in what respect pure religion differs from superstition. The Greek word “eusebeia” means “right worship;” for the Greeks, though groping in darkness, were always aware that a certain rule was to be observed, in order that God might not be worshipped absurdly. Cicero truly and shrewdly derives the name “religion” from “relego”, and yet the reason which he assigns is forced and farfetched, viz., that honest worshipers read and read again, and ponder what is true. I rather think the name is used in opposition to vagrant license—the greater part of mankind rashly taking up whatever first comes in their way, whereas piety, that it may stand with a firm step, confines itself within due bounds. In the same way superstition seems to take its name from its not being contented with the measure which reason prescribes, but accumulating a superfluous mass of vanities. But to say nothing more of words, it has been universally admitted in all ages, that religion is vitiated and perverted whenever false opinions are introduced into it, and hence it is inferred, that whatever is allowed to be done from inconsiderate zeal, cannot be defended by any pretext with which the superstitious may choose to cloak it. But although this confession is in every man’s mouth, a shameful stupidity is forthwith manifested, inasmuch as men neither cleave to the one God, nor use any selection in their worship, as we have already observed.

But God, in vindicating his own right, first proclaims that he is a jealous God, and will be a stern avenger if he is confounded with any false god; and thereafter defines what due worship is, in order that the human race may be kept in obedience. Both of these he embraces in his Law when he first binds the faithful in allegiance to him as their only Lawgiver, and then prescribes a rule for worshipping him in accordance with his will. The Law, with its manifold uses and objects, I will consider in its own place; at present I only advert to this one, that it is designed as a bridle to curb men, and prevent them from turning aside to spurious worship. But it is necessary to attend to the observation with which I set out, viz., that unless everything peculiar to divinity is confined to God alone, he is robbed of his honour, and his worship is violated.

It may be proper here more particularly to attend to the subtleties which superstition employs. In revolting to strange gods, it avoids the appearance of abandoning the Supreme God, or reducing him to the same rank with others. It gives him the highest place, but at the same time surrounds him with a tribe of minor deities, among whom it portions out his peculiar offices. In this way, though in a dissembling and crafty manner, the glory of the Godhead is dissected, and not allowed to remain entire. In the same way the people of old, both Jews and Gentiles, placed an immense crowd in subordination to the father and ruler of the gods, and gave them, according to their rank, to share with the supreme God in the government of heaven and earth. In the same way, too, for some ages past, departed saints have been exalted to partnership with God, to be worshipped, invoked, and lauded in his stead. And yet we do not even think that the majesty of God is obscured by this abomination, whereas it is in a great measure suppressed and extinguished—all that we retain being a frigid opinion of his supreme power. At the same time, being deluded by these entanglements, we go astray after divers gods.

2. A distinction without a difference

The distinction of what is called dulia and latria was invented for the very purpose of permitting divine honours to be paid to angels and dead men with apparent impunity. For it is plain that the worship which Papists pay to saints differs in no respect from the worship of God: for this worship is paid without distinction; only when they are pressed they have recourse to the evasion, that what belongs to God is kept unimpaired, because they leave him latria. But since the question relates not to the word, but the thing, how can they be allowed to sport at will with a matter of the highest moment? But not to insist on this, the utmost they will obtain by their distinction is, that they give worship to God, and service to the others. For “latreia” in Greek has the same meaning as worship in Latin; whereas “douleia” properly means service, though the words are sometimes used in Scripture indiscriminately. But granting that the distinction is invariably preserved, the thing to be inquired into is the meaning of each. “Douleia” unquestionably means service, and “latreia” worship. But no man doubts that to serve is something higher than to worship. For it were often a hard thing to serve him whom you would not refuse to reverence. It is, therefore, an unjust division to assign the greater to the saints and leave the less to God. But several of the ancient fathers observed this distinction. What if they did, when all men see that it is not only improper, but utterly frivolous?

3. Honoring images is dishonor to God

Laying aside subtleties, let us examine the thing. When Paul reminds the Galatians of what they were before they came to the knowledge of Gods he says that they “did service unto them which by nature are no gods,” (Gal. 4: 8.) Because he does not say latria, was their superstition excusable? This superstition, to which he gives the name of dulia, he condemns as much as if he had given it the name of latria. When Christ repels Satan’s insulting proposal with the words, “It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve,” (Matth. 4: 10,) there was no question of latria. For all that Satan asked was “proskunesis”, (obeisance.) In like manners when John is rebuked by the angel for falling on his knees before him (Rev. 19: 10; 22: 8, 9,) we ought not to suppose that John had so far forgotten himself as to have intended to transfer the honour due to God alone to an angel. But because it was impossible that a worship connected with religion should not savour somewhat of divine worship, he could not “proskunein” (do obeisance to) the angel without derogating from the glory of God. True, we often read that men were worshipped; but that was, if I may so speak, civil honour. The case is different with religious honour, which, the moment it is conjoined with worship, carries profanation of the divine honour along with it.

The same thing may be seen in the case of Cornelius, (Acts 10: 25.) He had not made so little progress in piety as not to confine supreme worship to God alone. Therefore, when he prostrates himself before Peter, he certainly does it not with the intention of adoring him instead of God. Yet Peter sternly forbids him. And why, but just because men never distinguish so accurately between the worship of God and the creatures as not to transfer promiscuously to the creature that which belongs only to God. Therefore, if we would hav one God, let us remember that we can never appropriate the minutest portion of his glory without retaining what is his due. Accordingly, when Zechariah discourses concerning the repairing of the Church, he distinctly says not only that there would be one God, but also that he would have only one name—the reason being, that he might have nothing in common with idols. The nature of the worship which God requires will be seen in its own place, (Book 2, c. 7: and 8.) He has been pleased to prescribe in his Law what is lawful and right, and thus restrict men to a certain rule, lest any should allow themselves to devise a worship of their own.

But as it is inexpedient to burden the reader by mixing up a variety of topics, I do not now dwell on this one. Let it suffice to remember, that whatever offices of piety are bestowed anywhere else than on God alone, are of the nature of sacrilege. First, superstition attached divine honours to the sun and stars, or to idols: afterwards ambition followed—ambition which, decking man in the spoils of God, dared to profane all that was sacred. And though the principle of worshipping a supreme Deity continued to be held, still the practice was to sacrifice promiscuously to genii and minor gods, or departed heroes: so prone is the descent to this vice of communicating to a crowd that which God strictly claims as his own peculiar right!

CHAPTER 13. THE UNITY OF THE DIVINE ESSENCE IN THREE PERSONS TAUGHT, IN SCRIPTURE, FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.

This chapter consists of two parts.

The former delivers the orthodox doctrine concerning the Holy Trinity. This occupies from sec. 1-21,and may be divided into four heads; the first, treating of the meaning of Person, including both the term and the thing meant by it, sec. 2-6; the second, proving the deity of the Son, sec. 7-13;the third, the deity of the Holy Spirit, sec. 14 and 15; and the fourth, explaining what is to be held concerning the Holy Trinity.

The second part of the chapter refutes certain heresies which have arisen, particularly in our age, in opposition to this orthodox doctrine. This occupies from sec. 21 to the end.

Sections.

1. Scripture, in teaching that the essence of God is immense and spiritual, refutes not only idolaters and the foolish wisdom of the world, but also the Manichees and Anthropomorphites. These latter briefly refuted.

2. In this one essence are three persons, yet so that neither is there a triple God, nor is the simple essence of God divided. Meaning of the word Person in this discussion. Three hypostases in God, or the essence of God.

3. Objection of those who, in this discussion, reject the use of the word Person. Answer

1. That it is not a foreign term, but is employed for the explanation of sacred mysteries.

4. Answer continued,

2. The orthodox compelled to use the terms, Trinity, Subsistence, and Person. Examples from the case of the Asians and Sabellians.

5. Answer continued,

3. The ancient Church, though differing somewhat in the explanation of these terms, agree in substance. Proofs from Hilary, Jerome, Augustine, in their use of the words Essence, Substance, Hypostasis.

4. Provided the orthodox meaning is retained, there should be no dispute about mere terms. But those who object to the terms usually favour the Arian and Sabellian heresy.

6. After the definition of the term follows a definition and explanation of the thing meant by it. The distinction of Persons.

7. Proofs of the eternal Deity of the Son. The Son the “logos” of the Eternal Father, and, therefore, the Son Eternal God. Objection. Reply.

8. Objection, that the Logos began to be when the creating God spoke. Answer confirmed by Scripture and argument.

9. The Son called God and Jehovah. Other names of the Eternal Father applied to him in the Old Testament. He is, therefore, the Eternal God. Another objection refuted. Case of the Jews explained.

10. The angel who appeared to the fathers under the Law asserts that he is Jehovah. That angel was the Logos of the Eternal Father. The Son being that Logos is Eternal God. Impiety of Servetus refuted. Why the Son appeared in the form of an angel.

11. Passages from the New Testament in which the Son is acknowledged to be the Lord of Hosts, the Judge of the world, the God of glory, the Creator of the world, the Lord of angels, the King of the Church, the eternal Logos, God blessed for ever, God manifest in the flesh, the equal of God, the true God and eternal life, the Lord and God of all believers. Therefore, the Eternal God.

12. Christ the Creator, Preserver, Redeemer, and Searcher of hearts. Therefore, the Eternal God.

13. Christ, by his own inherent power, wrought miracles, and bestowed the power of working them on others. Out of the Eternal God there is no salvation, no righteousness, no life. All these are in Christ. Christ, consequently, is the Eternal God. He in whom we believe and hope, to whom we pray, whom the Church acknowledges as the Saviour of the faithful, whom to know is life eternal, in whom the pious glory, and through whom eternal blessings are communicated, is the Eternal God. All these Christ is, and, therefore, he is God.

14. The Divinity of the Spirit proved.

I. He is the Creator and Preserver of the world.

II. He sent the Prophets.

III. He quickeneth all things.

IV. He is everywhere present.

V. He renews the saints, and fits them for eternal life.

VI. All the offices of Deity belong to him.

15. The Divinity of the Spirit continued.

VII. He is called God.

VIII. Blasphemy against him is not forgiven.

16. What view to be taken of the Trinity. The form of Christian baptism proves that there are three persons in one essence. The Arian and Macedonian heresies.

17. Of the distinction of Persons. They are distinct, but not divided. This proved.

18. Analogies taken from human affairs to be cautiously used. Due regard to be paid to those mentioned by Scripture.

19. How the Three Persons not only do not destroy, but constitute the most perfect unity.

20. Conclusion of this part of the chapter, and summary of the true doctrine concerning the unity of Essence and the Three Persons.

21. Refutation of Arian, Macedonian, and Anti Trinitarian heresies. Caution to be observed.

22. The more modern Anti Trinitarians, and especially Servetus, refuted.

23. Other Anti Trinitarians refuted. No good objection that Christ is called the Son of God, since he is also called God. Impious absurdities of some heretics.

24. The name of God sometimes given to the Son absolutely as to the Father. Same as to other attributes. Objections refuted.

25. Objections further refuted. Caution to be used.

26. Previous refutations further explained.

27. Reply to certain passages produced from Irenaeus. The meaning of Irenaeus.

28. Reply to certain passages produced from Tertullian. The meaning of Tertullian.

29. Anti Trinitarians refuted by ancient Christian writers; e. g., Justin, Hilary. Objections drawn from writings improperly attributed to Ignatius. Conclusion of the whole discussion concerning the Trinity.

(Terms used in the doctrine of the Trinity by the orthodox fathers, 1-6)

1. God’s nature is immeasurable and spiritual

The doctrine of Scripture concerning the immensity and the spirituality of the essence of God, should have the effect not only of dissipating the wild dreams of the vulgar, but also of refuting the subtleties of a profane philosophy. One of the ancients though the spake shrewdly when he said that everything we see and everything we do not see is God, (Senec. Praef. lib. 1 Quaest. Nat.) In this way he fancied that the Divinity was transfused into every separate portion of the world. But although God, in order to keep us within the bounds of soberness, treats sparingly of his essence, still, by the two attributes which I have mentioned, he at once suppresses all gross imaginations, and checks the audacity of the human mind. His immensity surely ought to deter us from measuring him by our sense, while his spiritual nature forbids us to indulge in carnal or earthly speculation concerning him. With the same view he frequently represents heaven as his dwelling-place. It is true, indeed, that ashe is incomprehensible, he fills the earth also, but knowing that our minds are heavy and grovel on the earth, he raises us above the worlds that he may shake off our sluggishness and inactivity. And here we have a refutation of the error of the Manichees, who, by adopting two first principles, made the devil almost the equal ofGod. This, assuredly, was both to destroy his unity and restrict his immensity. Their attempt to pervert certain passages of Scripture proved their shameful ignorance, as the very nature of the error did their monstrous infatuation. The Anthropomorphites also, who dreamed of a corporeal God, because mouth, ears, eyes, hands, and feet, are often ascribed to him in Scripture, are easily refuted. For who is so devoid of intellect as not to understand that God, in so speaking, lisps with us as nurses are wont to do with little children? Such modes of expression, therefore, do not so much express what kind of a being God is, as accommodate the knowledge of him to our feebleness. In doing so, he must, of course, stoop far below his proper height.

2. The three “Persons” in God

But there is another special mark by which he designates himself, for the purpose of giving a more intimate knowledge of his nature. While he proclaims his unity, he distinctly sets it before us as existing in three persons. These we must hold, unless the bare and empty name of Deity merely is to flutter in our brain without any genuine knowledge. Moreover, lest any one should dream of a threefold God, or think that the simple essence is divided by the three Persons, we must here seek a brief and easy definition which may effectually guard us from error.

But as some strongly inveigh against the term Person as being merely of human inventions let us first consider how far they have any ground for doing so. When the Apostle calls the Son of God “the express image of his person,” (Heb. 1: 3,) he undoubtedly does assign to the Father some subsistence in which he differs from the Son. For to hold with some interpreters that the term is equivalent to essence, (as if Christ represented the substance of the Father like the impression of a seal upon wax,) were not only harsh but absurd. For the essence of God being simple and undivided, and contained in himself entire, in full perfection, without partition or diminution, it is improper,nay, ridiculous, to call it his express image, (charaktes.) Butbecause the Father, though distinguished by his own peculiarproperties, has expressed himself wholly in the Son, he is said with perfect reason to have rendered his person (hypostasis) manifest in him. And this aptly accords with what is immediately added, viz.,that he is “the brightness of his glory.” The fair inference from the Apostle’s words is, that there is a proper subsistence(hypostasis) of the Father, which shines refulgent in the Son. From this, again it is easy to infer that there is a subsistence(hypostasis) of the Son which distinguishes him from the Father.

The same holds in the case of the Holy Spirit; for we will immediately prove both that he is God, and that he has a separate subsistence from the Father. This, moreover, is not a distinction of essence, which it were impious to multiply. If credit, then, is given to the Apostle’s testimony, it follows that there are three persons(hypostases) in God. The Latins having used the word Persona to express the same thing as the Greek “hupostatis”, it betrays excessive fastidiousness and even perverseness to quarrel with the term. The most literal translation would be subsistence. Many have used substance in the same sense. Nor, indeed, was the use of the term Person confined to the Latin Church. For the Greek Church in like manner, perhaps, for the purpose of testifying their consent, have taught that there are three “prosopa” (aspects) in God. All these, however, whether Greeks or Latins, though differing as to the word, are perfectly agreed in substance.

3. The expression “Trinity” and “Person” aid the interpretation of Scripture and are therefore admissible

Now, then, though heretics may snarl and the excessively fastidious carp at the word Person as inadmissible, in consequence of its human origin, since they cannot displace us from our position that three are named, each of whom is perfect God, and yet that there is no plurality of gods, it is most uncandid to attack the terms which do nothing more than explain what the Scriptures declare and sanction.

“It were better,” they say, “to confine not only our meanings but our words within the bounds of Scripture, and not scatter about foreign terms to become the future seed-beds of brawls and dissensions. In this way, men grow tired of quarrels about words; the truth is lost in altercation, and charity melts away amid hateful strife.”

If they call it a foreign term, because it cannot be pointed out in Scripture in so many syllables, they certainly impose an unjust law—a law which would condemn every interpretation of Scripture that is not composed of other words of Scripture. But if by foreign they mean that which, after being idly devised, is superstitiously defended,—which tends more to strife than edification,—which is used either out of place, or with no benefit which offends pious ears by its harshness, and leads them away from the simplicity of God’s Word, I embrace their soberness with all my heart. For I think we are bound to speak of God as reverently as we are bound to think of him. As our own thoughts respecting him are foolish, so our own language respecting him is absurd. Still, however, some medium must be observed. The unerring standard both of thinking and speaking must be derived from the Scriptures: by it all the thoughts of ours minds, and the words of our mouths, should he tested. But in regard to those parts of Scripture which, to our capacities, are dark and intricate, what forbids us to explain them in clearer terms—terms, however, kept in reverent and faithful subordination to Scripture truth, usedsparingly and modestly, and not without occasion? Of this we are not without many examples. When it has been proved that the Church was impelled, by the strongest necessity, to use the words Trinity and Person, will not he who still inveighs against novelty of terms be deservedly suspected of taking offence at the light of truth, and of having no other ground for his invective, than that the truth is made plain and transparent?

4. The church has regarded expressions like “Trinity”, “Person,” etc., as necessary to unmask false teachers

Such novelty (if novelty it should be called) becomes most requisite, when the truth is to be maintained against false accusers who evade it by quibbling. Of this, we of the present day have too much experience in being constantly called upon to attack the enemies of pure and sound doctrine. These slippery snakes escape by their swift and tortuous windings, if not strenuously pursued, and when caught, firmly held. Thus the early Christians, when harassed with the disputes which heresies produced, were forced to declare their sentiments in terms most scrupulously exact in order that no indirect subterfuges might remain to ungodly men, to whom ambiguity of expression was a kind of hiding-place. Arius confessed that Christ was God, and the Son of God; because the passages of Scripture to this effect were too clear to be resisted, and then, as if he had done well, pretended to concur with others. But, meanwhile, he ceased not to give out that Christ was created, and had a beginning like other creatures. To drag this man of wiles out of his lurking-places, the ancient Church took a further step, and declared that Christ is the eternal Son of the Father, and consubstantial with the Father. The impiety was fully disclosed whenthe Arians began to declare their hatred and utter detestation ofthe term “homo-ousios”. Had their first confession, viz., that Christ was God, been sincere and from the heart, they would not have denied that he was consubstantial with the Father. Who dare charge those ancient writers as men of strife and contention, for having debated so warmly, and disturbed the quiet of the Church for a single word? That little word distinguished between Christians of pure faith and the blasphemous Arians. Next Sabellius arose, who counted the names of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as almost nonentities; maintaining that they were not used to mark out some distinction, but that they were different attributes of God, like many others of a similar kind. When the matter was debated, he acknowledged his belief that the Father was God, the Son God, the Spirit God; but then he had the evasion ready, that he had said nothing more than if he had called God powerful, and just, and wise. Accordingly, he sung another note, viz., that the Father was the Son, and the Holy Spirit the Father, without order or distinction. The worthy doctors who then had the interests of piety at heart, in order to defeat it is man’s dishonesty, proclaimed that three subsistence were to be truly acknowledged in the one God. That they might protect themselves against tortuous craftiness by the simple open truth, they affirmed that a Trinity of Persons subsisted in the one God, or (which is the same thing) in the unity of God.

5. Limits and necessity of theological terms

Where names have not been invented rashly, we must beware lest we become chargeable with arrogance and rashness in rejecting them. I wish, indeed, that such names were buried, provided all would concur in the belief that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are one God, and yet that the Son is not the Father, nor the Spirit the Son ,but that each has his peculiar subsistence.

I am not so minutely precise as to fight furiously for mere words. For I observe, that the writers of the ancient Church, while they uniformly spoke with great reverence on these matters, neither agreed with each other,nor were always consistent with themselves. How strange the formula used by Councils, and defended by Hilary! How extravagant the view which Augustine sometimes takes! How unlike the Greeks are to the Latins! But let one example of variance suffice. The Latins, in translating “homo-ousios” used “consubstantialis” (consubstantial,) intimating that there was one substance of the Father and the Son,and thus using the word Substance for Essence. Hence Jerome, in his Letter to Damasus, says it is profane to affirm that there are three substances in God. But in Hilary you will find it said more than a hundred times that there are three substances in God. Then how greatly is Jerome perplexed with the word Hypostasis! He suspects some lurking poison, when it is said that there are three Hypostases in God. And he does not disguise his belief that the expression, though used in a pious sense, is improper; if, indeed, he was sincere in saying this, and did not rather designedly endeavour, by an unfounded calumny, to throw odium on the Eastern bishops whom he hated. He certainly shows little candour in asserting, that in all heathen schools “ousia” is equivalent to Hypostasis—an assertion completely refuted by trite and common use. More courtesy and moderation is shown by Augustine, (DeTrinity. lib. 5 c. 8 and 9,) who, although he says that Hypostasis in this sense is new to Latin ears, is still so far from objecting to the ordinary use of the term by the Greeks, that he is even tolerant of the Latins, who had imitated the Greek phraseology. The purport of what Socrates says of the term, in the Sixth Book of the Tripartite History, is, that it had been improperly applied to this purpose by the unskilful. Hilary (De Trinitat. lib. 2) charges it upon the heretics as a great crime, that their misconduct had rendered it necessary to subject to the peril of human utterance things which ought to have been reverently confined within the mind, not disguising his opinion that those who do so, do what is unlawful, speak what is ineffable, and pry into what is forbidden. Shortly after, he apologises at great length for presuming to introduce new terms. For, after putting down the natural names of Father, Son, and Spirit, he adds, that all further inquiry transcends the significance of words, the discernment of sense, and the apprehension of intellect. And in another place, (De Conciliis,) he congratulates the Bishops of France in not having framed any other confession, but received, without alteration, the ancient and most simple confession received by all Churches from the days of the Apostles. Not unlike this is the apology of Augustine, that the term had been wrung from him by necessity from the poverty of human language in so high a matter: not that the reality could be thereby expressed, but that he might not pass on in silence without attempting to show how the Father, Son, and Spirit, are three.

The modesty of these holy men should be an admonition to us not instantly to dip our pen in gall, and sternly denounce those who maybe unwilling to swear to the terms which we have devised, provided they do not in this betray pride, or petulance, or unbecoming heat, but are willing to ponder the necessity which compels us so to speak, and may thus become gradually accustomed to a useful form of expression. Let men also studiously beware, that in opposing the Asians on the one hand, and the Sabellians on the other, and eagerly endeavouring to deprive both of any handle for cavil, they do not bring themselves under some suspicion of being the disciples of either Arius or Sabellius. Arius says that Christ is God, and then mutters that he was made and had a beginning. He says, that he is one with the Father; but secretly whispers in the ears of his party, made one, like other believers, though with special privilege. Say,he is consubstantial, and you immediately pluck the mask from this chameleon, though you add nothing to Scripture. Sabellius says that the Father, Son, and Spirit, indicate some distinction in God. Say, they are three, and he will bawl out that you are making three Gods. Say, that there is a Trinity of Persons in one Divine essence, you will only express in one word what the Scriptures say, and stop his empty prattle. Should any be so superstitiously precise as not to tolerate these terms, still do their worst, they will not be able to deny that when one is spoken of, a unity of substance must be understood, and when three in one essence, the persons in this Trinity are denoted. When this is confessed without equivocations we dwell not on words. But I was long ago made aware, and, indeed, on more than one occasion, that those who contend pertinaciously about words are tainted with some hidden poison; and, therefore, that it is more expedient to provoke them purposely, than to court their favour by speaking obscurely.

6. The meaning of the most important conception

But to say nothing more of words, let us now attend to the thing signified. By person, then, I mean a subsistence in the Divine essence,—a subsistence which, while related to the other two, is distinguished from them by incommunicable properties. By subsistence we wish something else to be understood than essence. For if the Word were God simply and had not some property peculiar to himself, John could not have said correctly that he had always been with God.When he adds immediately after, that the Word was God, he calls us back to the one essence. But because he could not be with God without dwelling in the Father, hence arises that subsistence, which, though connected with the essence by an indissoluble tie, being incapable of separation, yet has a special mark by which it is distinguished from it. Now, I say that each of the three subsistences while related to the others is distinguished by its own properties. Here relation is distinctly expressed, because, when God is mentioned simply and indefinitely the name belongs not less to the Son and Spirit than to the Father. But whenever the Father is compared with the Son, the peculiar property of each distinguishes the one from the other. Again, whatever is proper to each I affirm to be incommunicable, because nothing can apply or be transferred to the Son which is attributed to the Father as a mark of distinction. I have no objections to adopt the definition of Tertullian, provided it is properly understood, “that there is in God a certain arrangement or economy, which makes no change on the unity of essence."—Tertull. Lib. contra Praxeam.

(The eternal diety of the Son, 7-13)

7. The deity of the Word

Before proceeding farther, it will be necessary to prove the divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Thereafter, we shall see how they differ from each other.

When the Word of God is set before us in the Scriptures, it were certainly most absurd to imagine that it is only a fleeting and evanescent voice, which is sent out into the air, and comes forth beyond God himself, as was the case with the communications made to the patriarchs, and all the prophecies. The reference is rather to the wisdom ever dwelling with God, and by which all oracles and prophecies were inspired. For, as Peter testifies, (1 Pet. 1: 11,) the ancient prophets spake by the Spirit of Christ just as did the apostles, and all who after them were ministers of the heavenly doctrine. But as Christ was not yet manifested, we necessarily understand that the Word was begotten ofthe Father before all ages. But if that Spirit, whose organs the prophets were, belonged to the Word, the inference is irresistible, that the Word was truly God. And this is clearly enough shown by Moses in his account of the creation, where he places the Word as intermediate. For why does he distinctly narrate that God, in creating each of his works, said, Let there be this—let there be that, unless that the unsearchable glory of God might shine forth in his image? I know prattlers would easily evade this, by saying that Word is used for order or command; but the apostles are better expositors, when they tell us that the worlds were created by the Son, and that he sustains all things by his mighty word, (Heb. 1:2.) For we here see that “word” is used for the nod or command of the Son, who is himself the eternal and essential Word of the Father. And no man of sane mind can have any doubt as to Solomon’ smeaning, when he introduces Wisdom as begotten by God, and presiding at the creation of the world, and all other divine operations,(Prov. 8: 22.) For it were trifling and foolish to imagine any temporary command at a time when God was pleased to execute his fixed and eternal counsel, and something more still mysterious. To this our Saviour’s words refer, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work,” (John 5: 17.) In thus affirming, that from the foundation of the world he constantly worked with the Father, he gives a clearer explanation of what Moses simply touched. The meaning therefore is, that God spoke in such a manner as left the Word his peculiar part in the work, and thus made the operation common to both. But the clearest explanation is given by John, when he states that the Word- which was from the beginning, God and with God, was, together with God the Father, the maker of all things. For he both attributes a substantial and permanent essence to the Word, assigning to it a certain peculiarity, and distinctly showing how God spoke the world into being. Therefore, as all revelations from heaven are duly designated by the title of the Word of God, so the highest place must be assigned to that substantial Word, the source of all inspiration, which, as being liable to no variation, remains forever one and the same with God, and is God.

8.The eternity of the Word

Here an outcry is made by certain men, who, while they dare not openly deny his divinity, secretly rob him of his eternity. For they contend that the Word only began to be when God opened his sacred mouth in the creation of the world. Thus, with excessive temerity, they imagine some change in the essence of God. For as the names of God, which have respect to external work, began to be ascribed to him from the existence of the work, (as when he is called the Creator of heaven and earth,) so piety does not recognise or admit any name which might indicate that a change had taken place in God himself. For if any thing adventitious took place, the saying of James would cease to be true, that “every good gift, and every perfect gift, is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning,"(James 1: 17.) Nothing, therefore, is more intolerable than to fancy a beginning to that Word which was always God, and afterwards was the Creator of the world. But they think they argue acutely, in maintaining that Moses, when he says that God then spoke for the first time, must be held to intimate that till then no Word existed in him. This is the merest trifling. It does not surely follow, that because a thing begins to be manifested at a certain time, it never existed previously. I draw a very different conclusion. Since at the very moment when God said, “Let there be light,” the energy of the Word-was immediately exerted, it must have existed long before. If any inquire how long, he will find it was without beginning. No certain period of time is defined, when he himself says, “Now O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was,” (John 17: 5.) Nor is this omitted by John: for before he descends to the creation of the world (John 1:3), he says, that “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God.” We, therefore, again conclude, that the Word was eternally begotten by God, and dwelt with him from everlasting. In this way, his true essence, his eternity, and divinity, are established.

9. The deity of Christ in the Old Testament

But though I am not now treating of the office of theMediator, having deferred it till the subject of redemption is considered, yet because it ought to be clear and incontrovertible to all, that Christ is that Word become incarnate, this seems the most appropriate place to introduce those passages which assert the Divinity of Christ. When it is said in the forty-fifth Psalm, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,” the Jews quibble that the name Elohim is applied to angels and sovereign powers. But no passage is to be found in Scripture, where an eternal throne is set up for a creature. For he is not called God simply, but also the eternal Ruler. Besides, the title is not conferred on any man, without some addition, as when it is said that Moses would be a God to Pharaoh,(Exod. 7: 1.) Some read as if it were in the genitive case, but this is too insipid. I admit, that anything possessed of singular excellence is often called divine, but it is clear from the context, that this meaning here were harsh and forced, and totally inapplicable.

But if their perverseness still refuses to yield, surely there is no obscurity in Isaiah, where Christ is introduced both as God, and as possessed of supreme powers one of the peculiar attributes of God, “His name shall be called the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace,” (Isa. 9: 6.) Here, too,the Jews object, and invert the passage thus, This is the name by which the mighty God, the Everlasting Father, will call him; so that all which they leave to the Son is, “ Prince of Peace.” But why should so many epithets be here accumulated on God the Father,seeing the prophet’s design is to present the Messiah with certain distinguished properties which may induce us to put our faith in him? There can be no doubt, therefore, that he who a little before was called Emmanuel, is here called the Mighty God. Moreover, there can be nothing clearer than the words of Jeremiah, “This is the namewhereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS,” (Jer. 23:6.) For as the Jews themselves teach that the other names of God are mere epithets, whereas this, which they call the ineffable name, is substantive, and expresses his essence, we infer, that the only begotten Son is the eternal God, who elsewhere declares, “My glory will I not give to another,” (Isa. 42: 8.)

An attempt is made to evade this from the fact, that this name is given by Moses to the altar which he built, and by Ezekiel to the New Jerusalem. But who sees not that the altar was erected as a memorial to show that God was the exalter of Moses, and that the name of God was applied to Jerusalem, merely to testify the Divine presence? For thus the prophet speaks, “The name of the city from that day shall be, The Lord is there,” (Ezek. 48: 35.) In the same way, “Moses built an altar, and called the name of it JEHOVAH-nissi,” (Jehovah my exaltation.) But it would seem the point is still more keenly disputed as to another passage in Jeremiah, where the same title is applied to Jerusalem in these words, “In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely; and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness.” But so far is this passage from being adverse to the truth which we defend, that it rather supports it. The prophet having formerly declared that Christ is the true Jehovah from whom righteousness flows, now declares that the Church would be made so sensible of this as to be able to glory in assuming his very name. In the former passage, therefore, the fountain and cause of righteousness is set down, in the latter, the effect is described.

10. The “Angel of the Eternal God”

But if this does not satisfy the Jews, I know not what cavils will enable them to evade the numerous passages in which Jehovah is said to have appeared in the form of an Angel, (Judges 6:7: 13: 16-23, &c.) This Angel claims for himself the name of the Eternal God. Should it be alleged that this is done in respect of the office which he bears, the difficulty is by no means solved. No servant would rob God of his honour, by allowing sacrifice to be offered to himself. But the Angel, by refusing to eat bread, orders the sacrifice due to Jehovah to be offered to him (Judges 13:16). Thus the fact itself proves that he was truly Jehovah. Accordingly, Manoah and his wife infer from the sign, that they had seen not only an angel, but God. Hence Manoah’s exclamation, “We shall die; for we have seen the Lord."(13:22). When the woman replies, “If Jehovah had wished to slay us, he would not have received the sacrifice at our hand,” she acknowledges that he who is previously called an angel was certainly God. We may add, that the angel’s own reply removes all doubt, “Why do ye ask my name, which is wonderful?” (13:18).

Hence the impiety of Servetus was the more detestable, when he maintained that God was never manifested to Abraham and the Patriarchs, but that an angel was worshipped in his stead. The orthodox doctors of the Church have correctly and wisely expounded, that the Word of God was the supreme angel, who then began, as it were by anticipation, to perform the office of Mediator. For though he were not clothed with flesh, yet he descended as in an intermediate form, that he might have more familiar access to the faithful. This closer intercourse procured for him the name of the Angel; still, however, he retained the character which justly belonged to him—that of the God of ineffable glory. The same thing is intimated by Hosea, who, after mentioning the wrestling of Jacob with the angel, says, “Even the Lord God of hosts; the Lord is his memorial,” (Hosea 12: 5.) Servetus again insinuates that God personated an angel; as if the prophet did not confirm what had been said by Moses, “Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name?” (Gen. 32: 29, 30.) And the confession of the holy Patriarch sufficiently declares that he was not a created angel, but one in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwelt, when he says, “I have seen God face to face.” Hence also Paul’s statement, that Christ led the people in the wilderness, (1Cor. 10: 4. See also Calvin on Acts 7: 30, and infra, chap. 14 s.9.) Although the time of humiliation had not yet arrived, the eternal Word exhibited a type of the office which he was to fulfil. Again, if the first chapter of Zechariah (ver. 9, &c.) and the second (ver. 3, &c.) be candidly considered, it will be seen that the angel who sends the other angel is immediately after declared to be the Lord of hosts, and that supreme power is ascribed to him. I omit numberless passages in which our faith rests secure, though they may not have much weight with the Jews. For when it is said in Isaiah, “Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us; this is the Lord: we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation,” (Isa. 25: 9,) even the blind may see that the God referred to is he who again rises up for the deliverance of his people. And the emphatic description, twice repeated, precludes the idea that reference is made to any other than to Christ. Still clearer and stronger is the passage of Malachi, in which a promise is made that the messenger who was then expected would come to his own temple, (Mal. 3: 1.) The temple certainly was dedicated to Almighty God only, and yet the prophet claims it for Christ. Hence it follows, that he is the God who was always worshipped by the Jews.

11.The divinity of Christ in the New Testament: witness of the apostles

The New Testament teems with innumerable passages, and our object must therefore be, the selection of a few, rather than an accumulation of the whole. But though the Apostles spoke of him after his appearance in the flesh as Mediator, every passage which I adduce will be sufficient to prove his eternal Godhead.

And the first thing deserving of special observation is that predictions concerning the eternal God are applied to Christ, as either already fulfilled in him, or to be fulfilled at some future period. Isaiah prophesies, that “the Lord of Hosts” shall be “for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of offence,” (Isa. 8: 14.) Paul asserts that this prophecy was fulfilled in Christ, (Rom. 9: 33,) and, therefore, declares that Christ is that Lord of Hosts. In like manner, he says in another passage, “We shall all stand before the judgement-seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” Since in Isaiah God predicts this of himself, (Isa. 45: 23,)and Christ exhibits the reality fulfilled in himself, it follows that he is the very God, whose glory cannot be given to another. It is clear also, that the passage from the Psalms (Ps. 68:18) which he quotes in the Epistle to the Ephesians, is applicable only to God, “When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive,” (Eph.4: 8.) Understanding that such an ascension was shadowed forth when the Lord exerted his power, and gained a glorious victory over heathen nations, he intimates that what was thus shadowed was morefully manifested in Christ. So John testifies that it was the glory of the Son which was revealed to Isaiah in a vision, (John 12: 41;Isa. 6: 4,) though Isaiah himself expressly says that what he saw was the Majesty of God. Again, there can be no doubt that those qualities which, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, are applied to the Son, are the brightest attributes of God, “Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth,” &c., and, “Let all the angels of God worship him,” (Heb. 1: 10, 6.) And yet he does not pervert the passages in thus applying them to Christ, since Christ alone performed the things which these passages celebrate. It was he who arose and pitied Zion—he who claimed for himself dominion over all nations and islands. And why should John have hesitated to ascribe the Majesty of God to Christ, after saying in his preface that the Word was God? (John 1: 14.) Why should Paul have feared to place Christ on the judgement-seat of God, (2 Cor. 5: 10,) after he had so openly proclaimed his divinity, when he said that he was God over all, blessed for ever? And to show how consistent he is in this respect, he elsewhere says that “God was manifest in the flesh,” (1Tim. 3: 16.) If he is God blessed for ever, he therefore it is to whom alone, as Paul affirms in another place, all glory and honour is due. Paul does not disguise this, but openly exclaims, that “being in the form of God, (he) thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation,” (Phil. 2: 6.) And lest the wicked should glamour and say that he was a kind of spurious God, John goes farther, and affirms, “This is the true God, and eternal life.” (1 John 5:20). Though it ought to be enough for us that he is called God, especially by a witness who distinctly testifies that we have no more gods than one, Paul says, “Though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one God,” (1 Cor. 8: 5, 6.) When we hear from the same lips that God was manifest in the flesh, that God purchased the Church with his own blood, why do we dream of any second God, to whom he makes not the least allusion? And there is no room to doubt that all the godly entertained the same view. Thomas, by addressing him as his Lord and God, certainly professes that he was the only God whom he had ever adored, (John 20: 28.)

12. The divinity of Christ is demonstrated in his works

The divinity of Christ, if judged by the works which are ascribed to him in Scripture, becomes still more evident. When he said of himself, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work,” the Jews, though most dull in regard to his other sayings, perceived that he was laying claim to divine power. And, therefore, as John relates,(John 5: 17,) they sought the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. What, then, will be our stupidity if we do not perceive from the same passage that his divinity is plainly instructed? To govern the world by his power and providence, and regulate all things by an energy inherent in himself, (this an Apostle ascribes to him, Heb. 1: 3,) surely belongs to none but the Creator. Nor does he merely share the government of the world with the Father, but also each of the other offices, which cannot be communicated to creatures. The Lord proclaims by his prophets “I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake,” (Is. 43: 25.) When, in accordance with this declaration, the Jews thought that injustice was done to God when Christ forgave sins, he not only asserted, in distinct terms, that this power belonged to him, but also proved it by a miracle, (Matth. 9: 6.) We thus see that he possessed in himself not the ministry of forgiving sins, but the inherent power which the Lord declares he will not give to another. What! Is it not the province of God alone to penetrate and interrogate the secret thoughts of the heart? But Christ also had this power, and therefore we infer that Christ is God.

13.The divinity of Christ is demonstrated by his miracles

How clearly and transparently does this appear in his miracles? I admit that similar and equal miracles were performed by the prophets and apostles; but there is this very essential difference, that they dispensed the gifts of God as his ministers, where as he exerted his own inherent might. Sometimes, indeed, he used prayer, that he might ascribe glory to the Father, but we see that for the most part his own proper power is displayed. And how should not he be the true author of miracles, who, of his own authority, commissions others to perform them? For the Evangelist relates that he gave power to the apostles to cast out devils, cure the lepers, raise the dead, &c. And they, by the mode in which they performed this ministry, showed plainly that their whole power was derived from Christ. “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth,” says Peter, (Acts 3: 6,) “rise up and walk.” It is not surprising, then, that Christ appealed to his miracles in order to subdue the unbelief of the Jews, in asmuch as these were performed by his own energy, and therefore bore the most ample testimony to his divinity.

Again, if out of God there is no salvation, no righteousness, no life, Christ, having all these in himself, is certainly God. Let no one object that life or salvation is transfused into him by God. For it is said not that he received, but that he himself is salvation. And if there is none good but God, how could a mere man be pure, how could he be, I say not good and just, but goodness and justice? Then what shall we say to the testimony of the Evangelist, that from the very beginning of the creation “in him was life, and this life was the light of men?” Trusting to such proofs, we can boldly put our hope and faith in him, though we know it is blasphemous impiety to confide in any creature. “Ye believe in God,"says he, “believe also in me,” (John 14: 1.) And so Paul (Rom. 10:11, and 15: 12) interprets two passages of Isaiah “Whose believeth in him shall not be confounded,” (Isa. 28: 16;) and, “In that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek,” (Isa. 11: 10.) But why adduce more passages of Scripture on this head, when we so often meet with the expression, “He that believeth in me has eternal life?” Again, the prayer of faith is addressed to him—prayer, which specially belongs to the divine majesty, if anything so belongs. For the Prophet Joel says, “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord (Jehovah) shall be delivered"(Joel 2: 32.) And another says, “The name of the Lord (Jehovah) is a strong tower; the righteous runneth into it and is safe,” (Prov. 18:10.) But the name of Christ is invoked for salvation, and therefore it follows that he is Jehovah. Moreover, we have an example of invocation in Stephen, when he said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit;” and there after in the whole Church, when Ananias says in the same book, “Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he has done to thy saints at Jerusalem; and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name,"(Acts 9: 13, 14.) And to make it more clearly understood that in Christ dwelt the whole fulness of the Godhead bodily, the Apostle declares that the only doctrine which he professed to the Corinthians, the only doctrine which he taught, was the knowledge of Christ, (1 Cor. 2: 2.)

Consider what kind of thing it is, and how great, that the name of the Son alone is preached to us, though God command us to glory only in the knowledge of himself, (Jer. 9: 24.)Who will dare to maintain that he, whom to know forms our only ground of glorying, is a mere creature? To this we may add, that the salutations prefixed to the Epistles of Paul pray for the same blessings from the Son as from the Father. By this we are taught, not only that the blessings which our heavenly Father bestows come to us through his intercession, but that by a partnership in power, the Son himself is their author. This practical knowledge is doubtless surer and more solid than any idle speculation. For the pious soul has the best view of God, and may almost be said to handle him, when it feels that it is quickened, enlightened, saved, justified, and sanctified by him.

(The eternal deity of the Spirit, 14-15)

14.The divinity of the Spirit is demonstrated in his work

In asserting the divinity of the Spirit, the proof must be derived from the same sources. And it is by no means an obscure testimony which Moses bears in the history of the creation, when he says that the Spirit of God was expanded over the abyss or shapeless matter; for it shows not only that the beauty which the world displays is maintained by the invigorating power of the Spirit, but that even before this beauty existed the Spirit was at work cherishing the confused mass. Again, no cavils can explain away the force of what Isaiah says, “And now the Lord God, and his Spirit, has sent me,” (Isa. 48: 16,) thus ascribing a share in the sovereign power of sending the prophets to the Holy Spirit. (Calvin in Acts 20: 28.) In this his divine majesty is clear. But, as I observed, the best proof to us is our familiar experience. For nothing can be more alien from a creature, than the office which the Scriptures ascribe to him, and which the pious actually feel him discharging,—his being diffused over all space, sustaining, invigorating, and quickening all things, both in heaven and on the earth. The mere fact of his not being circumscribed by any limits raises him above the rank of creatures, while his transfusing vigour into all things, breathing into them being, life, and motion, is plainly divine.

Again, if regeneration to incorruptible life is higher, and much more excellent than any present quickening, what must be thought of him by whose energy it is produced? Now, many passages of Scripture show that he is the author of regeneration, not by a borrowed, but by an intrinsic energy; and not only so, but that he is also the author of future immortality. In short, all the peculiar attributes of the Godhead are ascribed to him in the same way as to the Son. He searches the deep things of Gods (1 Cor. 2:10) and has no counsellor among the creatures (Romans 11:34); he bestows wisdom and the faculty of speech (1 Cor. 12:10), though God declares to Moses (Exod. 4: 11) that this is his own peculiar province. In like manner, by means of him we become partakers of the divine nature, so as in a manner to feel his quickening energy within us. Our justification is his work; from him is power, sanctification, truth, grace, and every good thought, since it is from the Spirit alone that all good gifts proceed. Particular attention is due to Paul’s expression, that though there are diversities of gifts, “all these worketh that one and the self-same Spirit,” (1 Cor. 12: 11,) he being not only the beginning or origin, but also the author; as is even more clearly expressed immediately after in these words “dividing to every man severally as he will.” For were he not something subsisting in God, will and arbitrary disposal would never be ascribed to him. Most clearly, therefore does Paul ascribe divine power to the Spirit, and demonstrate that he dwells hypostatically in God.

15. Express testimonies for the deity of the Spirit

Nor does the Scripture, in speaking of him, withhold the name of God. Paul infers that we are the temple of God, from the fact that “the Spirit of God dwelleth in us,” (1 Cor. 3: 16; 6: 19;and 2 Cor. 6: 16.) Now it ought not to be slightly overlooked, that all the promises which God makes of choosing us to himself as a temple, receive their only fulfilment by his Spirit dwelling in us. Surely, as it is admirably expressed by Augustine, (Ad Maximinum,Ep. 66,) “were we ordered to make a temple of wood and stone to the Spirit, inasmuch as such worship is due to God alone, it would be a clear proof of the Spirit’s divinity; how much clearer a proof in that we are not to make a temple to him, but to be ourselves that temple.” And the Apostle says at one time that we are the temple of God, and at another time, in the same sense, that we are the temple of the Holy Spirit. Peter, when he rebuked Ananias for having lied to the Holy Spirit, said, that he had not lied unto men, but unto God. And when Isaiah had introduced the Lord of Hosts as speaking, Paul says, it was the Holy Spirit that spoke, (Acts 28: 25, 26.) Nay, words uniformly said by the prophets to have been spoken by the Lord of Hosts, are by Christ and his apostles ascribed to the Holy Spirit. Hence it follows that the Spirit is the true Jehovah who dictated the prophecies. Again, when God complains that he was provoked to anger by the stubbornness of the people, in place of Him, Isaiah says that his Holy Spirit was grieved, (Isa. 63: 10.)Lastly, while blasphemy against the Spirit is not forgiven, either in the present life or that which is to come, whereas he who has blasphemed against the Son may obtain pardon, that majesty must certainly be divine which it is an inexpiable crime to offend or impair. I designedly omit several passages which the ancient father sadduced. They thought it plausible to quote from David, “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath (Spirit) of his mouth,” (Ps. 33: 6,) in order to prove that the world was not less the work of the Holy Spirit than of the Son. But seeing it is usual in the Psalms to repeat the same thing twice, and in Isaiah the “spirit” (breath) of the mouth is equivalent to “word”, that proof was weak; and, accordingly, my wish has been to advert briefly to those proofs on which pious minds may securely rest.

(Distinctions and unity of the three Persons, 16-20)

16. Oneness

But as God has manifested himself more clearly by the advent of Christ, so he has made himself more familiarly known in three persons. Of many proofs let this one suffice. Paul connects together these three, God, Faith, and Baptism (Eph. 4:5), and reasons from the one to the other, viz., because there is one faith he infers that there is one God; and because there is one baptism he infers that there is one faith. Therefore, if by baptism we are initiated into the faith and worship of one God, we must of necessity believe that he into whose name we are baptised is the true God. And there cannot be a doubt that our Saviour wished to testify, by a solemn rehearsal, that the perfect light of faith is now exhibited, when he said, “Go and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” (Matth. 28: 19,) since this is the same thing as to be baptised into the name of the one God, who has been fully manifested in the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Hence it plainly appears, that the three persons, in whom alone God is known, subsist in the Divine essence.

And since faith certainly ought not to look hither and thither, or run up and down after various objects, but to look, refer, and cleave to God alone, it is obvious that were there various kinds of faith, there behaved also to be various gods. Then, as the baptism of faith is a sacrament, its unity assures us of the unity of God. Hence also it is proved that it is lawful only to be baptised into one God, because we make a profession of faith in him in whose name we are baptised. What, then, is our Saviour’s meaning in commanding baptism to be administered in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, if it be not that we are to believe with one faith inthe name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit? But is this any thing else than to declare that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are one God? Wherefore, since it must be held certain that there is one God, not more than one, we conclude that the Word and Spirit are of the very essence of God. Nothing could be more stupid than the trifling of the Arians, who, while acknowledging the divinity of the Son, denied his divine essence. Equally extravagant were the ravings of the Macedonians, who insisted that by the Spirit were only meant the gifts of grace poured out upon men. For as wisdom understanding, prudence, fortitude, and the fear of the Lord, proceed from the Spirit, so he is the one Spirit of wisdom, prudence, fortitude, and piety (cf. Isaiah 11:2). He is not divided according to the distribution of his gifts, but, as the Apostle assures us, (1 Cor.12: 11,) however they be divided, he remains one and the same.

17. Threeness

On the other hand, the Scriptures demonstrate that there is some distinction between the Father and the Word, the Word and the Spirit; but the magnitude of the mystery reminds us of the great reverence and soberness which ought to he employed in discussing it. It seems to me, that nothing can be more admirable than the words of Gregory Nanzianzen:

“Ou ftano to ei noesai, kai tois trisiperilampomai; ou ftavo ta tria dielein kai eis to hen anaferomai”,(Greg. Nanzian. in Serm. de Sacro Baptis.) “I cannot think of the unity without being irradiated by the Trinity: I cannot distinguish between the Trinity without being carried up to the unity. “

Therefore, let us beware of imagining such a Trinity of persons as will distract our thoughts, instead of bringing them instantly back to the unity. The words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, certainly indicate a real distinction, not allowing us to suppose that they are merely epithets by which God is variously designated from his works. Still they indicate distinction only, not division. The passages we have already quoted show that the Son has a distinct subsistence from the Father, because the Word could not have been with God unless he were distinct from the Father; nor but for this could he have had his glory with the Father. In like manner, Christ distinguishes the Father from himself when he says that there is another who bears witness of him, (John 5: 32; 8: 16.) To the same effect is it elsewhere said, that the Father made all things by the Word. This could not be, if he were not in some respect distinct from him. Besides, it was not the Father that descended to the earth, but he who came forth from the Father; nor was it the Father that died and rose again, but he whom the Father had sent. This distinction did not take its beginning at the incarnation: for it is clear that the only begotten Son previously existed in the bosom of the Father, (John 1: 18.) For who will dare to affirm that the Son entered his Father’s bosom for the first time, when he came down from heaven to assume human nature? Therefore, he was previously in the bosom of the Father, and had his glory with the Father. Christ intimates the distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Father, when he says that the Spirit proceedeth from the Father, and between the Holy Spirit and himself, when he speaks of him as another as he does when he declares that he will send another Comforter; and in many other passages besides, (John 14:6; 15:26; 14:16.)

18. Difference of Father, Son, and Spirit

I am not sure whether it is expedient to borrow analogies from human affairs to express the nature of this distinction. The ancient fathers sometimes do so, but they at the same time admits that what they bring forward as analogous is very widely different. And hence it is that I have a great dread of any thing like presumption here, lest some rash saying may furnish an occasion of calumny to the malicious, or of delusion to the unlearned. It were unbecoming, however, to say nothing of a distinction which we observe that the Scriptures have pointed out. This distinction is, that to the Father is attributed the beginning of action, the fountain and source of all things; to the Son, wisdom, counsel, and arrangement in action, while the energy and efficacy of action is assigned to the Spirit. Moreover, though the eternity of the Father is also the eternity of the Son and Spirit, since God never could be without his own wisdom and energy; and though in eternity there canbe no room for first or last, still the distinction of order is not unmeaning or superfluous, the Father being considered first, next the Son from him, and then the Spirit from both. For the mind of every man naturally inclines to consider, first, God, secondly, the wisdom emerging from him, and, lastly, the energy by which he executes the purposes of his counsel. For this reason, the Son is said to be of the Father only; the Spirit of both the Father and the Son. This is done in many passages, but in none more clearly than in the eighth chapter to the Romans, where the same Spirit is called indiscriminately the Spirit of Christ, and the Spirit of him who raised up Christ from the dead. And not improperly. For Peter also testifies (2 Pet. 1:21, cf. 1 Peter 1:11) that it was the Spirit of Christ which inspired the prophets, though the Scriptures so often say that it was the Spirit of God the Father.

19. The relationship of Father, Son, and Spirit

Moreover, this distinction is so far from interfering with the most perfect unity of God, that the Son may thereby be proved to be one God with the Father, inasmuch as he constitutes one Spirit with him, and that the Spirit is not different from the Father and the Son, inasmuch as he is the Spirit of the Father and the Son. In each hypostasis the whole nature is understood the only difference being that each has his own peculiar subsistence. The whole Father is in the Son, and the whole Son in the Father, as the Son himself also declares, (John 14: 10,) “I am in the Father, and the Father in me;” nor do ecclesiastical writers admit that the one is separated from the other by any difference of essence. “By those names which denote distinctions” says Augustine “is meant the relation which they mutually bear to each other, not the very substance by which they are one.” In this way, the sentiments of the Fathers, which might sometimes appear to be at variance with each other, are to be reconciled. At one time they teach that the Father is the beginning of the Son, at another they assert that the Son has both divinity and essence from himself, and therefore is one beginning with the Father. The cause of this discrepancy is well and clearly explained by Augustine, when he says, “Christ, as to himself, is called God, as to the Father he is called Son.” And again, “The Father, as to himself, is called God, as to the Son he is called Father. He who, as to the Son, is called Father, is not Son; and he who, as to himself, is called Father, and he who, as to himself, is called Son, is the same God.” Therefore, when we speak of the Son simply, without reference to the Father, we truly and properly affirm that he is of himself, and, accordingly, call him the only beginning; but when we denote the relation which he bears to the Father, we correctly make the Father the beginning of the Son. Augustine’s fifth book On the Trinity is wholly devoted to the explanation of this subject. But it is far safer to rest contented with the relation as taught by him, than get bewildered in vain speculation by subtle prying into a sublime mystery.

20. The triune God

Let those, then, who love soberness, and are contented with the measure of faith, briefly receive what is useful to be known. It is as follows:—When we profess to believe in one God, by the name God is understood the one simple essence, comprehending three persons or hypostases; and, accordingly, whenever the name of God is used indefinitely, the Son and Spirit, not less than the Father, is meant. But when the Son is joined with the Father, relation comes into view, and so we distinguish between the Persons. But as the Personal subsistence carry an order with them, the principle and origin being in the Father, whenever mention is made of the Father and Son, or of the Father and Spirit together, the name of God is specially given to the Father. In this way the unity of essence is retained, and respect is had to the order, which, however derogates in no respect from the divinity of the Son and Spirit. And surely since we have already seen how the apostles declare the Son of God to have been He whom Moses and the prophets declared to be Jehovah, we must always arrive at a unity of essence. We, therefore, hold it detestable blasphemy to call the Son a different God from the Father, because the simple name God admits not of relation, nor can God, considered in himself, be said to be this or that.

Then, that the name Jehovah, taken indefinitely, may be applied to Christ, is clear from the words of Paul, “For this thing I besought the Lord thrice.” After giving the answer, “My grace is sufficient for thee, “he subjoins, “that the power of Christ may rest upon me,” (2 Cor.12:8,9.) For it is certain that the name of Lord (Kuriou) is there put for Jehovah, and, therefore, to restrict it to the person of the Mediator were puerile and frivolous, the words being used absolutely, and not with the view of comparing the Father and the Son. And we know that, in accordance with the received usage of the Greeks, the apostles uniformly substitute the word Kurios for Jehovah. Not to go far for an example, Paul besought the Lord in the same sense in which Peter quotes the passage of Joel, “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved,” (Acts 2:21; Joel 2:32.) Where this name is specially applied to the Son, there is a different ground for it, as will be seen in its own place; at present it is sufficient to remember, that Paul, after praying to God absolutely, immediately subjoins the name of Christ. Thus, too, the Spirit is called God absolutely by Christ himself (John 4:24). For nothing prevents us from holding that he is the entire spiritual essence of God, in which are comprehended Father, Son, and Spirit. This is plain from Scripture. For as God is there called a Spirit, so the Holy Spirit also, in so far as he is a hypostasis of the whole essence, is said to be both of God and from God.

(Refutation of anti-Trinitarian heresies, 21-29)

21. The ground of all heresy: a warning to all

But since Satan, in order to pluck up our faith by the roots, has always provoked fierce disputes, partly concerning the divine essence of the Son and Spirit, and partly concerning the distinction of persons; since in almost every age he has stirred up impious spirits to vex the orthodox doctors on this head, and is attempting in the present day to kindle a new flame out of the old embers, it will be proper here to dispose of some of these perverse dreams. Hitherto our chief object has been to stretch out our hand for the guidance of such as are disposed to learn, not to war with the stubborn and contentious; but now the truth which was calmly demonstrated must be vindicated from the calumnies of the ungodly. Still, however it will be our principal study to provide a sure footing for those whose ears are open to the word of God. Here, if any where, in considering the hidden mysteries of Scripture, we should speculate soberly and with great moderation, cautiously guarding against allowing either our mind or our tongue to go a step beyond the confines of God’s word. For how can the human minds which has not yet been able to ascertain of what the body of the sun consists, though it is daily presented to the eye, bring down the boundless essence of God to its little measure? Nay, how can it, under its own guidance, penetrate to a knowledge of the substance of God while unable to understand its own? Wherefore, let us willingly leave to God the knowledge of himself. In the words of Hilary, (DeTrinity. lib. 1,) “He alone is a fit witness to himself who is known only by himself.” This knowledge, then, if we would leave to God, we must conceive of him as he has made himself known, and in our inquiries make application to no other quarter than his word. On this subject we have five homilies of Chrysostom against the Anomoei, (De Incomprehensit. Dei Natura,) in which he endeavoured, but in vain, to check the presumption of the sophists, and curb their garrulity. They showed no more modesty here than they are wont to do in everything else. The very unhappy results of their temerity should be a warning to us to bring more docility than acumen to the discussion of this question, never to attempt to search after God anywhere but in his sacred word, and never to speak or think of him farther than we have it for our guide. But if the distinction of Father, Son, and Spirit, subsisting in the one Godhead, (certainly a subject of great difficulty,) gives more trouble and annoyance to some intellects than is meet, let us remember that the human mind enters a labyrinth whenever it indulges its curiosity, and thus submit to be guided by the divine oracles, how much soever the mystery may be beyond our reach.

22. Servetus’ contention against the Trinity

It were tedious, and to no purpose toilsome, to form a catalogue of the errors by which, in regard to this branch of doctrine, the purity of the faith has been assailed. The greater part of heretics have with their gross deliriums made a general attack on the glory of God, deeming it enough if they could disturb and shake the unwary. From a few individuals numerous sects have sprung up, some of them rending the divine essence, and others confounding the distinction of Persons. But if we hold, what has already been demonstrated from Scripture, that the essence of the one God, pertaining to the Father, Son, and Spirit, is simple and indivisible, and again, that the Father differs in some special property from the Son, and the Son from the Spirit, the door will be shut against Arius and Sabellius, as well as the other ancient authors of error.

But as in our day have arisen certain frantic men, such as Servetus and others, who, by new devices, have thrown everything into confusion, it may be worthwhile briefly to discuss their fallacies. The name of Trinity was so much disliked, nay detested, by Servetus, that he charged all whom he called Trinitarians with being Atheists. I say nothing of the insulting terms in which he thought proper to make his charges. The sum of his speculations was, that a threefold Deity is introduced wherever three Persons are said to exist in his essence, and that this Triad was imaginary, inasmuch as it was inconsistent with the unity of God. At the same time, he would have it that the Persons are certain external ideas which do not truly subsist in the Divine essence, but only figure God to us under this or that form: that at first, indeed, there was no distinction in God, because originally the Word was the same as the Spirit, but ever since Christ came forth God of God, another Spirit, also a God, had proceeded from him. But although he sometimes cloaks his absurdities in allegory, as when he says that the eternal Word of God was the Spirit of Christ with God, and the reflection of the idea, likewise that the Spirit was a shadow of Deity, he at last reduces the divinity of both to nothing; maintaining that, according to the mode of distribution, there is a part of God as well in the Son as in the Spirit, just as the same Spirit substantially is a portion of God in us, and also in wood and stone. His absurd babbling concerning the person of the mediator will be seen in its own place. The monstrous fiction that a Person is nothing else than a visible appearance of the glory of God, needs not a long refutation. For when John declares that before the world was created the Logos was God, (John 1:1,) he shows that he was something very different from an idea. But if even then, and from the remotest eternity, that Logos, who was God, was with the Father, and had his own distinct and peculiar glory with the Father, (John 17:5,) he certainly could not be an external or figurative splendour, but must necessarily have been a hypostasis which dwelt inherently in God himself.

But although there is no mention made of the Spirit antecedent to the account of the creation, he is not there introduced as a shadow, but as the essential power of God, where Moses relates that the shapeless mass was unborn by him (Gen. 1: 2.) It is obvious that the eternal Spirit always existed in God, seeing he cherished and sustained the confused materials of heaven and earth before they possessed order or beauty. Assuredly he could not then be an image or representation of God, as Servetus dreams. But he is elsewhere forced to make a more open disclosure of his impiety when he says, that God by his eternal reason decreeing a Son to himself, in this way assumed a visible appearance. For if this be true, no other Divinity is left to Christ than is implied in his having been ordained a Son by God’s eternal decree. Moreover, those phantoms which Servetus substitutes for the hypostases he so transforms as to make new changes in God. But the most execrable heresy of all is his confounding both the Son and Spirit promiscuously with all the creatures. For he distinctly asserts, that there are parts and partitions in the essence of God, and that every such portion is God. This he does especially when he says, that the spirits of the faithful are co-eternal and consubstantial with God, although he elsewhere assigns a substantial divinity, not only to the soul of man, but to all created things.

23. The Son is God even as the Father

This pool has bred another monster not unlike the former. For certain restless spirits, unwilling to share the disgrace and obloquy of the impiety of Servetus, have confessed that there were indeed three Persons, but added, as a reason, that the Father, who alone is truly and properly God, transfused his Divinity into the Son and Spirit when he formed them. Nor do they refrain from expressing themselves in such shocking terms as these: that the Father is essentially distinguished from the Son and Spirit by this; that he is the only essentiator. Their first pretext for this is, that Christ is uniformly called the Son of God. From this they infer, that there is no proper God but the Father. But they forget, that although the name of God is common also to the Son, yet it is sometimes, by way of excellence, ascribed to the Father, as being the source and principle of Divinity; and this is done in order to mark the simple unity of essence.

They object, that if the Son is truly God, he must be deemed the Son of a person: which is absurd. I answer, that both are true; namely, that he is the Son of God, because he is the Word, begotten of the Father before all ages; (for we are not now speaking of the Person of the Mediator,) and yet, that for the purpose of explanation, regard must be had to the Person, so that the name God may not be understood in its absolute sense, but as equivalent to Father. For if we hold that there is no other God than the Fathers this rank is clearly denied to the Son. In every case where the Godhead is mentioned, we are by no means to admit that there is an antithesis between the Father and the Son, as if to the former only the name of God could competently be applied. For assuredly, the God who appeared to Isaiah was the one true God, and yet John declares that he was Christ, (Isa. 6; John 12:41.) He who declared, by the mouth of Isaiah, that he was to be “for a stone of stumbling” to the Jews, was the one God; and yet Paul declares that he was Christ, (Isa. 8: 14; Rom. 9: 33.) He who proclaims by Isaiah, “Unto me every knee shall bow,” is the one God; yet Paul again explains that he is Christ, (Isa. 45:23; Rom.14:11.) To this we may add the passages quoted by an Apostle,"Thou, Lord, hast laid the foundations of the earth;” “Let all the angels of God worship him,” (Heb. 1:10; 10:6; Ps. 102:26; 97:7.) All these apply to the one God; and yet the Apostle contends thatthey are the proper attributes of Christ. There is nothing in the cavil, that what proper]y applies to God is transferred to Christ, because he is the brightness of his glory. Since the name of Jehovah is everywhere applied to Christ, it follows that, in regard to Deity, he is of himself. For if he is Jehovah, it is impossible to deny that he is the same God who elsewhere proclaims by Isaiah, “I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God,"(Is. 44: 6.) We would also do well to ponder the words of Jeremiah, “The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth and from under these heavens,” (Jer. 10:11;) whence it follows conversely, that He whose divinity Isaiah repeatedly proves from the creation of the world, is none other than the Son of God.

And how is it possible that the Creator, who gives to all should not be of himself, but should borrow his essence from another? Whosoever says that the Son was essentiated by the Father, denies his self existence. Against this, however, the Holy Spirit protests, when he calls him Jehovah. On the supposition, then, that the whole essence is in the Father only, the essence becomes divisible, or is denied to the Son, who, being thus robbed of his essences will be only a titular God. If we are to believe these triflers, divine essence belongs to the Father only, on the ground that he is sole God, and essentiator of the Son. In this way, the divinity of the Son will be something abstracted from the essence of God, or the derivation of a part from the whole.

On the same principle it must also be conceded, that the Spirit belongs to the Father only. For if the derivation is from the primary essence which is proper to none but the Father, the Spirit cannot justly be deemed the Spirit of the Son. This view, however, is refuted by the testimony of Paul, when he makes the Spirit common both to Christ and the Father (Romans 8:9). Moreover, if the Person of the Father is expunged from the Trinity, in what will he differ from the Son and Spirit, except in being the only God? They confess that Christ is God, and that he differs from the Father. If he differs, there must be some mark of distinction between them. Those who place it in the essence, manifestly reduce the true divinity of Christ to nothing, since divinity cannot exist without essence, and indeed without entire essence. The Father certainly cannot differ from the Son, unless he have something peculiar to himself, and not common to him with the Son. What, then, do these men show as the mark of distinction? If it is in the essence, let them tell whether or not he communicated essence to the Son. This he could not do in part merely, for it were impious to think of a divided God. And besides, on this supposition, there would be a rending of the Divine essence. The whole entire essence must therefore be common to the Father and the Son; and if so, in respect of essence there is no distinction between them. If they reply that the Father, while essentiating, still remains the only God, being the possessor of the essence, then Christ will be a figurative God, one in name or semblance only, and not in reality, because no property can be more peculiar to God than essence, according to the words, “I AM has sent me unto you,” (Ex. 3:4.)

24. The name “God” in Scripture does not refer to the Father alone

The assumption, that whenever God is mentioned absolutely, the Father only is meant, may be proved erroneous by many passages. Even in those which they quote in support of their views they betray a lamentable inconsistency because the name of Son occurs there by way of contrast, showing that the other name God is used relatively, and in that way confined to the person of the Father. Their objection may be disposed of in a single word. Were not the Father alone the true God, he would, say they, be his own Father. But there is nothing absurd in the name of God being specially applied, in respect of order and degree, to him who not only of himself begat his own wisdom, but is the God of the Mediator, as I will more fully show in its own place. For ever since Christ was manifested in the flesh he is called the Son of God, not only because begotten of the Father before all worlds he was the Eternal Word, but because he undertook the person and office of the Mediator that he might unite us to God. Seeing they are so bold in excluding the Son from the honour of God, I would fain know whether, when he declares that there is “none good but one, that is, God,” he deprives himself of goodness. I speak not of his human nature, lest perhaps they should object, that whatever goodness was in it was derived by gratuitous gift: I ask whether the Eternal Word of God is good, yes or no? If they say no, their impiety is manifest; if yes, they refute themselves. Christ’s seeming at the first glance to disclaim the name of good, (Matth. 19: 17,) rather confirms our view. Goodness being the special property of God alone, and yet being at the time applied to him in the ordinary way of salutation, his rejection of false honour intimates that the goodness in which he excels is Divine.

Again, I ask whether, when Paul affirms that God alone is “immortal” (1 Tim. 1:17) “wise” (Rom. 16:27), and “true” (Rom. 3:4), he reduces Christ to the rank of beings mortal, foolish, and false. Is not he immortal, who, from the beginning, had life so as to bestow immortality on angels? Is not he wise who is the eternal wisdom of God? Is not he true who is truth itself? I ask, moreover, whether they think Christ should be worshipped. If he claims justly, that every knee shall bow to him, it follows that he is the God who, in the law, forbade worship to be offered to any but himself. If they insist on applying to the Father only the words of Isaiah, “I am, and besides me there is none else,"(Is. 44: 6,) I turn the passage against themselves, since we see that every property of God is attributed to Christ. There is no room for the cavil that Christ was exalted in the flesh in which he humbled himself, and in respect of which all power is given to him in heaven and on earth. For although the majesty of King and Judge extends to the whole person of the Mediator, yet had he not been God manifested in the flesh, he could not have been exalted to such a height without coming into collision with God. And the dispute is admirably settled by Paul, when he declares that he was equal with God before he humbled himself, and assumed the form of a servants (Phil. 2:6,7.) Moreover, how could such equality exist, if he were not that God whose name is Jah and Jehovah, who rides upon the cherubim, is King of all the earth, and King of ages? Let them glamour as they may, Christ cannot be robbed of the honour described by Isaiah, “Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him,” (Is. 25:9;) for these words describe the advent of God the Redeemer, who was not only to bring back the people from Babylonish captivity, but restore the Church, and make her completely perfect. Nor does another cavil avail them, that Christ was God in his Father.

For though we admit that, in respect of order and gradation, the beginning of divinity is in the Father, we hold it a detestable fiction to maintain that essence is proper to the Father alone, as if he were the deifier of the Son. On this view either the essence is manifold, or Christ is God only in name and imagination. If they grant that the Son is God, but only in subordination to the Father, the essence which in the Father is unformed and unbegotten will in him be formed and begotten. I know that many who would be thought wise deride us for extracting the distinction of persons from the words of Moses when he introduces God as saying, “Let us make man in our own image,” (Gen. 1: 26.) Pious readers, however, see how frigidly and absurdly the colloquy were introduced by Moses, if there were not several persons in the Godhead. It is certain that those whom the Father addresses must have been untreated. But nothing is untreated except the one God. Now then, unless they concede that the power of creating was common to the Father, Son, and Spirit, and the power of commanding common, it will follow that God did not speak thus inwardly with himself, but addressed other extraneous architects. In fine, there is a single passage which will at once dispose of these two objections. The declaration of Christ that “God is a Spirit,” (John 4:24,) cannot be confined to the Father only, as if the Word were not of a spiritual nature. But if the name Spirit applies equally to the Son as to the Father, I infer that under the indefinite name of God the Son is included. He adds immediately after, that the only worshipers approved by the Father are those who worship him in spirit and in truth; and hence I also infer, that because Christ performs the office of teacher under a head, he applies the name God to the Father, not for the purpose of destroying his own Divinity, but for the purpose of raising us up to it as it were step by step.

25. The divine nature is common to all three Persons

The hallucination consists in dreaming of individuals, each of whom possesses a part of the essence. The Scriptures teach that there is essentially but one God, and, therefore, that the essence both of the Son and Spirit is unbegotten; but inasmuch as the Father is first in order, and of himself begat his own Wisdom, he, as we lately observed, is justly regarded as the principle and fountain of all the Godhead. Thus God, taken indefinitely, is unbegotten, and the Father, in respect of his person, is unbegotten. For it is absurd to imagine that our doctrine gives any ground for alleging that we establish a quaternion of gods. They falsely and calumniously ascribe to us the figment of their own brain, as if we virtually held that three persons emanate from one essence, whereas it is plain, from our writings, that we do not disjoin the persons from the essence, but interpose a distinction between the persons residing in it. If the persons were separated from the essence, there might be some plausibility in their argument; as in this way there would be a trinity of Gods, not of persons comprehended in one God.

This affords an answer to their futile question—whether or not the essence concurs in forming the Trinity; as if we imagined that three Gods were derived from it. Their objection, that there would thus be a Trinity without a God, originates in the same absurdity. Although the essence does not contribute to the distinction, as if it were a part or member, the persons are not without it, or external to it; for the Father, if he were not God, could not be the Father; nor could the Son possibly be Son unless he were God. We say, then, that the Godhead is absolutely of itself. And hence also we hold that the Son, regarded as God, and without reference to person, is also of himself; though we also say that, regarded as Son, he is of the Father. Thus his essence is without beginning, while his person has its beginning in God. And, indeed, the orthodox writers who in former times spoke of the Trinity, used this term only with reference to the Persons. To have included the essence in the distinction, would not only have been an absurd error, but gross impiety. For those who class the three thus—Essence, Son, and Spirit—plainly do away with the essence of the Son and Spirit; otherwise the parts being intermingled would merge into each other—a circumstance which would vitiate any distinction. In short, if God and Father were synonymous terms, the Father would be deifier in a sense which would leave the Son nothing but a shadow; and the Trinity would be nothing more than the union of one God with two creatures.

26. The subordination of the incarnate Word to the Father is no counterevidence

To the objection, that if Christ be properly God, he is improperly called the Son of God, it has been already answered, that when one person is compared with another, the name God is not used indefinitely, but is restricted to the Father, regarded as the beginning of the Godhead, not by essentiating, as fanatics absurdly express it, but in respect of order. In this sense are to be understood the words which Christ addressed to the Father, “This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent,” (John 17: 3.) For speaking in the person of the Mediator, he holds a middle place between God and man; yet so that his majesty is not diminished thereby. For though he humbled (emptied) himself (Phil. 2:7), he did not lose the glory which he had with the Father, though it was concealed from the world. So in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 1: 10; 2: 9,) though the apostle confesses that Christ was made a little lower than the angels, he at the same time hesitates not to assert that he is the eternal God who founded the earth.

We must hold, therefore, that as often as Christ, in the character of Mediator, addresses the Father, he, under the term God, includes his own divinity also. Thus, when he says to the apostles, “It is expedient for you that I go away,” “My Father is greater than I,” he does not attribute to himself a secondary divinity merely, as if in regard to eternal essence he were inferior to the Father; but having obtained celestial glory, he gathers together the faithful to share it with him. He places the Father in the higher degree, inasmuch as the full perfection of brightness conspicuous in heaven, differs from that measure of glory which he himself displayed when clothed in flesh. For the same reason Paul says, that Christ will restore “the kingdom to God, even the Father,” “that God may be all in all,” (1 Cor. 15:24,28.) Nothing can be more absurd than to deny the perpetuity of Christ’s divinity. But if he will never cease to be the Son of God, but will ever remain the same that he was from the beginning, it follows that under the name of Father the one divine essence common to both is comprehended. And assuredly Christ descended to us for the very purpose of raising us to the Father, and thereby, at the same time, raising us to himself, inasmuch as he is one with the Father. It is therefore erroneous and impious to confine the name of God to the Father, so as to deny it to the Son. Accordingly, John, declaring that he is the true God, has no idea of placing him beneath the Father in a subordinate rank of divinity. I wonder what these fabricators of new gods mean, when they confess that Christ is truly God, and yet exclude him from the godhead of the Father, as if there could be any true God but the one God, or as if transfused divinity were not a mere modern fiction.

27. Our adversaries falsely appeal to Irenaeus

In the many passages which they collect from Irenaeus, in which he maintains that the Father of Christ is the only eternal God of Israel, they betray shameful ignorance, or very great dishonesty. For they ought to have observed, that that holy man was contending against certain frantic persons, who, denying that the Father of Christ was that God who had in old times spoken by Moses and the prophets, held that he was some phantom or other produced from the pollution of the world. His whole object, therefore, is to make it plain, that in the Scriptures no other God is announced but the Father of Christ; that it is wicked to imagine any other. Accordingly, there is nothing strange in his so often concluding that the God of Israel was no other than he who is celebrated by Christ and the apostles. Now, when a different heresy is to be resisted, we also say with truth, that the God who in old times appeared to the fathers, was no other than Christ. Moreover, if it is objected that he was the Father, we have the answer ready, that while we contend for the divinity of the Son, we by no means exclude the Father. When the reader attends to the purpose of Irenaeus, the dispute is at an end. Indeed, we have only to look to lib. 3 c. 6, where the pious writer insists on this one point, “that he who in Scripture is called God absolutely and indefinitely, is truly the only God; and that Christ is called God absolutely.” Let us remember (as appears from the whole work, and especially from lib. 2 c. 46,) that the point under discussion was, that the name of Father is not applied enigmatically and parabolically to one who was not truly God.

We may adds that in lib. 3 c. 9, he contends that the Son as well as the Father united was the God proclaimed by the prophets and apostles. He afterwards explains (lib. 3 c. 12) how Christ, who is Lord of all, and King and Judge, received power from him who is God of all, namely, in respect of the humiliation by which he humbled himself, even to the death of the cross. At the same time he shortly after affirms, (lib. 3 c. 16,) that the Son is the maker of heaven and earth, who delivered the law by the hand of Moses, and appeared to the fathers. Should any babbler now insist that, according to Irenaeus, the Father alone is the God of Israel, I will refer him to a passage in which Irenaeus distinctly says, (lib. 3 c. 18, 23,) that Christ is ever one and the same, and also applies to Christ the words of the prophecy of Habakkuk, “God cometh from the south.” To the same effect he says, (lib. 4 c. 9,) “Therefore, Christ himself, with the Father, is the God of the living.” And in the 12th chapter of the same book he explains that Abraham believed God, because Christ is the maker of heaven and earth, and very God.

28. The appeal to Tertullian also is of no avail

With no more truth do they claim Tertullian as a patron. Though his style is sometimes rugged and obscure, he delivers the doctrine which we maintain in no ambiguous manner, namely, that while there is one God, his Word, however, is with dispensation or economy; that there is only one God in unity of substance; but that, nevertheless, by the mystery of dispensation, the unity is arranged into Trinity; that there are three, not in state, but in degree -not in substance, but in form—not in power, but in order. He says indeed that he holds the Son to be second to the Father; but he means that the only difference is by distinction. In one place he says the Son is visible; but after he has discoursed on both views, he declares that he is invisible regarded as the Word. In fine, by affirming that the Father is characterised by his own Person, he shows that he is very far from countenancing the fiction which we refute. And although he does not acknowledge any other God than the Father, yet, explaining himself in the immediate context, he shows that he does not speak exclusively in respect of the Son, because he denies that he is a different God from the Father; and, accordingly, that the one supremacy is not violated by the distinction of Person. And it is easy to collect his meaning from the whole tenor of his discourse. For he contends against Praxeas, that although God has three distinct Persons, yet there are not several gods, nor is unity divided. According to the fiction of Praxeas, Christ could not be God without being the Father also; and this is the reason why Tertullian dwells so much on the distinction. When he calls the Word and Spirit a portion of the whole, the expression, though harsh, maybe allowed, since it does not refer to the substance, but only (as Tertullian himself testifies) denotes arrangement and economy which applies to the persons only. Accordingly, he asks, “How many persons, Praxeas, do you think there are, but just as many as there are names for?” In the same way, he shortly after says, “That they may believe the Father and the Son, each in his own name and person.” These things, I think, sufficiently refute the effrontery of those who endeavour to blind the simple by pretending the authority of Tertullian.

29. All acknowledged doctors of the church confirm the doctrine of the Trinity

Assuredly, whosoever will compare the writings of the ancient fathers with each other, will not find any thing in Irenaeus different from what is taught by those who come after him. Justin is one of the most ancient, and he agrees with us out and out. Let them object that, by him and others, the Father of Christ is called the one God. The same thing is taught by Hilary, who uses the still harsher expression, that Eternity is in the Father. Is it that he may withhold divine essence from the Son? His whole work is a defence of the doctrine which we maintain; and yet these men are not ashamed to produce some kind of mutilated excerpts for the purpose of persuading us that Hilary is a patron of their heresy.

With regard to what they pretend as to Ignatius, if they would have it to be of the least importance, let them prove that the apostles enacted laws concerning Lent, and other corruptions. Nothing can be more nauseating, than the absurdities which have been published under the name of Ignatius; and therefore, the conduct of those who provide themselves with such masks for deception is the less entitled to toleration. Moreover, the consent of the ancient fathers clearly appears from this, that in the Council of Nicaea, no attempt was made by Arius to cloak his heresy by the authority of any approved author; and no Greek or Latin writer apologises as dissenting from his predecessors. It cannot be necessary to observe how carefully Augustine, to whom all these miscreants are most violently opposed, examined all ancient writings, and how reverently he embraced the doctrine taught by them, (August. lib. de Trinit. &c.) He is most scrupulous in stating the grounds on which he is forced to differ from them, even in the minutest point. On this subject, too, if he finds any thing ambiguous or obscure in other writers, he does not disguise it. And he assumes it as an acknowledged fact, that the doctrine opposed by the Arians was received without dispute from the earliest antiquity. At the same time, he was not ignorant of what some others had previously taught. This is obvious from a single expression. When he says (De Doct. Christ. lib. 1.) that “unity is in the Father,” will they pretend that he then forgot himself? In another passage, he clears away every such charge, when he calls the Father the beginning of the Godhead, as being from none—thus wisely inferring that the name of God is specially ascribed to the Father, because, unless the beginning were from him, the simple unity of essence could not be maintained.

I hope the pious reader will admit that I have now disposed of all the calumnies by which Satan has hitherto attempted to pervert or obscure the pure doctrine of faith. The whole substance of the doctrine has, I trust, been faithfully expounded, if my readers will set bounds to their curiosity, and not long more eagerly than they ought for perplexing disputation. I did not undertake to satisfy those who delight in speculate views, but I have not designedly omitted any thing which I thought adverse to me. At the same time, studying the edification of the Church, I have thought it better not to touch on various topics, which could have yielded little profit, while they must have needlessly burdened and fatigued the reader. For instance, what avails it to discuss, as Lombard does at length, (lib. 1 dist. 9,)Whether or not the Father always generates? This idea of continual generation becomes an absurd fiction from the moment it is seen, that from eternity there were three persons in one God.

CHAPTER 14. IN THE CREATION OF THE WORLD, AND ALL THINGS IN IT, THE TRUE GOD DISTINGUISHED BY CERTAIN MARKS FROM FICTITIOUS GODS.

In this chapter commences the second part of Book First, viz., the knowledge of man. Certain things premised.

I. The creation of the world generally, (s. 1 and 2.)

II. The subject of angels considered, (s. 3-13.)

III. Of bad angels or devils, (s. 13-20;) and,

IV. The practical use to be made of the history of the creation, (s. 20-22.)

Sections.

1. The mere fact of creation should lead us to acknowledge God, but to prevent our falling away to Gentile fictions, God has been pleased to furnish a history of the creation. An impious objection, Why the world was not created sooner? Answer to it. Shrewd saying of an old man.

2. For the same reason, the world was created, not in an instant, but in six days. The order of creation described, showing that Adam was not created until God had, with infinite goodness made ample provision for him.

3. The doctrine concerning angels expounded.

1. That we may learn from them also to acknowledge God.

2. That we may be put on our guard against the errors of the worshippers of angels and the Manichees. Manicheeism refuted. Rule of piety.

4. The angels created by God. At what time and in what order it is inexpedient to inquire. The garrulity of the Pseudo-Dionysius.

5. The nature, offices, and various names of angels.

6. Angels the dispensers of the divine beneficence to us.

7. A kind of prefects over kingdoms and provinces, but specially the guardians of the elect. Not certain that every believer is under the charge of a single angel. Enough, that all angels watch over the safety of the Church.

8. The number and orders of angels not defined. Why angels said to be winged.

9. Angels are ministering spirits and spiritual essences.

10. The heathen error of placing angels on the throne of God refuted.

1. By passages of Scripture.

11. Refutation continued.

2. By inferences from other passages. Why God employs the ministry of angels.

12. Use of the doctrine of Scripture concerning the holy angels.

13. The doctrine concerning bad angels or devils reduced to four heads.

1. That we may guard against their wiles and assaults.

14. That we may be stimulated to exercises of piety. Why one angel in the singular number often spoken of.

15. The devil being described as the enemy of man, we should perpetually war against him.

16. The wickedness of the devil not by creation but by corruption. Vain and useless to inquire into the mode, time, and character of the fall of angels.

17. Though the devil is always opposed in will and endeavour to the will of God, he can do nothing without his permission and consent.

18. God so overrules wicked spirits as to permit them to try the faithful, and rule over the wicked.

19. The nature of bad angels. They are spiritual essences endued with sense and intelligence.

20. The latter part of the chapter briefly embracing the history of creation, and showing what it is of importance for us to know concerning God.

21. The special object of this knowledge is to prevent us, through ingratitude or thoughtlessness, from overlooking the perfections of God. Example of this primary knowledge.

22. Another object of this knowledge, viz., that perceiving how these things were created for our use, we may be excited to trust in God, pray to him, and love him.

(Creation of the world and of man, 1-2)

1. We cannot and should not go behind God’s act of creation in our speculation

Although Isaiah justly charges the worshipers of false gods with stupidity, in not learning from the foundations of the earth, and the circle of the heavens, who the true God is (Isa. 40: 21;) yet so sluggish and grovelling is our intellect, that it was necessary he should be more clearly depicted, in order that the faithful might not fall away to Gentile fictions. the idea that God is the soul of the world, though the most tolerable that philosophers have suggested, is absurd; and, therefore, it was of importance to furnish us with a more intimate knowledge in order that we might not wander to and fro in uncertainty. Hence God was pleased that a history of the creation should exist—a history on which the faith of the Church might lean without seeking any other God than Him whom Moses sets forth as the Creator and Architect of the world.

First, in that history, the period of time is marked so as to enable the faithful to ascend by an unbroken succession of years to the first origin of their race and of all things. This knowledge is of the highest use not only as an antidote to the monstrous fables which anciently prevailed both in Egypt and the other regions of the world, but also as a means of giving a clearer manifestation of the eternity of God as contrasted with the birth of creation, and thereby inspiring us with higher admiration. We must not be moved by the profane jeer, that it is strange how it did not sooner occur to the Deity to create the heavens and the earth, instead of idly allowing an infinite period to pass away, during which thousands of generations might have existed, while the present world is drawing to a close before it has completed its six thousandth year. Why God delayed so long it is neither fit nor lawful to inquire. Should the human mind presume to do it, it could only fail in the attempt, nor would it be useful for us to know what God, as a trial of the modesty of our faith, has been pleased purposely to conceal. It was a shrewd saying of a good old man, who when some one pertly asked in derision what God did before the world was created, answered he made a hell for the inquisitive, (August. Confess., lib. 11 c. 12.)

This reproof, not less weighty than severe, should repress the tickling wantonness which urges many to indulge in vicious and hurtful speculation. In fine, let us remember that that invisible God, whose wisdom, power, and justice, are incomprehensible, is set before us in the history of Moses as in a mirror, in which his living image is reflected. For as an eye, either dimmed by age or weakened by any other cause, sees nothing distinctly without the aid of glasses, so (such is our imbecility) if Scripture does not direct us in our inquiries after God, we immediately turn vain in our imaginations. Those who now indulge their petulance, and refuse to take warning, will learn, when too late, how much better it had been reverently to regard the secret counsels of God, than to belch forth blasphemies which pollute the face of heaven. Justly does Augustine complain that God is insulted whenever any higher reason than his will is demanded. (Lib. de Gent.) He also in another place wisely reminds us that it is just as improper to raise questions about infinite periods of time as about infinite space. (De Civit. Dei.) However wide the circuit of the heavens may be, it is of some definite extent. But should any one expostulate with God that vacant space remains exceeding creation by a hundred-fold, must not every pious mind detest the presumption? Similar is the madness of those who charge God with idleness in not having pleased them by creating the world countless ages sooner than he did create it. In their cupidity they affect to go beyond the world, as if the ample circumference of heaven and earth did not contain objects numerous and resplendent enough to absorb all our senses; as if, in the period of six thousand years, God had not furnished facts enough to exercise our minds in ceaseless meditation. Therefore, let us willingly remain hedged in by those boundaries within which God has been pleased to confine our persons, and, as it were, enclose our minds, so as to prevent them from losing themselves by wandering unrestrained.

2. The work of the six days show God’s goodness toward men

With the same view Moses relates that the work of creation was accomplished not in one moment, but in six days. By this statement we are drawn away from fiction to the one God who thus divided his work into six days, that we may have no reluctance to devote our whole lives to the contemplation of it. For though our eyes, in what direction soever they turn, are forced to behold the works of God, we see how fleeting our attention is, and holy quickly pious thoughts, if any arise, vanish away. Here, too, objection is taken to these progressive steps as inconsistent with the power of God, until human reason is subdued to the obedience of faith, and learns to welcome the calm quiescence to which the sanctification of the seventh day invited us. In the very order of events, we ought diligently to ponder on the paternal goodness of God toward the human race, in not creating Adam until he had liberally enriched the earth with all good things. Had he placed him on an earth barren and unfurnished; had he given life before light, he might have seemed to pay little regard to his interest. But now that he has arranged the motions of the sun and stars for man’s use, has replenished the air, earth, and water, with living creatures, and produced all kinds of fruit in abundance for the supply of food, by performing the office of a provident and industrious head of a family, he has shown his wondrous goodness toward us. These subjects, which I only briefly touch, if more attentively pondered, will make it manifest that Moses was a sure witness and herald of the one only Creator. I do not repeat what I have already explained, viz., that mention is here made not of the bare essence of God, but that his eternal Wisdom and Spirit are also set before us, in order that we may not dream of any other God than Him who desires to be recognised in that express image.

(The angels, 3-12)

3. God is Lord over all!

But before I begin to treat more fully of the nature of man, (chap. 15 and B. 2 c. 1,) it will be proper to say something of angels. For although Moses, in accommodation to the ignorance of the generality of men, does not in the history of the creation make mention of any other works of God than those which meet our eye, yet, seeing he afterwards introduces angels as the ministers of God, we easily infer that he for whom they do service is their Creator. Hence, though Moses, speaking in popular language, did not at the very commencement enumerate the angels among the creatures of God, nothing prevents us from treating distinctly and explicitly of what is delivered by Scripture concerning them in other places. For if we desire to know God by his works, we surely cannot overlook this noble and illustrious specimen. We may add that this branch of doctrine is very necessary for the refutation of numerous errors. The minds of many are so struck with the excellence of angelic natures, that they would think them insulted in being subjected to the authority of God, and so made subordinate. Hence a fancied divinity has been assigned them.

Manes, too, has arisen with his sect, fabricating to himself two principles—God and the devil, attributing the origin of good things to God, but assigning all bad natures to the devil as their author. Were this delirium to take possession of our minds, God would be denied his glory in the creation of the world. For, seeing there is nothing more peculiar to God than eternity and “autousia”, i. e. self-existence, or existence of himself, if I may so speak, do not those who attribute it to the devil in some degree invest him with the honour of divinity? And where is the omnipotence of God, if the devil has the power of executing whatever he pleases against the will, and notwithstanding of the opposition of God? But the only good ground which the Manichees have, viz., that it were impious to ascribe the creation of any thing bad to a good God, militates in no degree against the orthodox faith, since it is not admitted that there is any thing naturally bad throughout the universe; the depravity and wickedness whether of man or of the devil, and the sins thence resulting, being not from nature, but from the corruption of nature; nor, at first, did anything whatever exist that did not exhibit some manifestation of the divine wisdom and justice. To obviate such perverse imaginations, we must raise our minds higher than our eyes can penetrate. It was probably with this view that the Nicene Creed, in calling God the creator of all things, makes express mention of things invisible. My care, however, must be to keep within the bounds which piety prescribes, lest by indulging in speculations beyond my reach, I bewilder the reader, and lead him away from the simplicity of the faith. And since the Holy Spirit always instructs us in what is useful, but altogether omits, or only touches cursorily on matters which tend little to edification, of all such matters, it certainly is our duty to remain in willing ignorance.

(Creation and functions of angels, 4-12)

4. Also we should not indulge in speculations concerning the angels, but search out the witness of Scripture

Angels being the ministers appointed to execute the commands of God, must, of course, be admitted to be his creatures (Ps. 103:20-21), but to stir up questions concerning the time or order in which they were created, (see Lombard, lib. 2 dist. 2, sqq.,) bespeaks more perverseness than industry. Moses relates that the heavens and the earth were finished (Gen. 2:1), with all their host; what avails it anxiously to inquire at what time other more hidden celestial hosts than the stars and planets also began to be? Not to dwell on this, let us here remember that on the whole subject of religion one rule of modesty and soberness is to be observed, and it is this, in obscure matters not to speak or think, or even long to know, more than the Word of God has delivered. A second rule is, that in reading the Scriptures we should constantly direct our inquiries and meditations to those things which tend to edification, not indulge in curiosity, or in studying things of no use. And since the Lord has been pleased to instruct us, not in frivolous questions, but in solid piety, in the fear of his name, in true faith, and the duties of holiness, let us rest satisfied with such knowledge. Wherefore, if we would be duly wise, we must renounce those vain babblings of idle men, concerning the nature, ranks, and number of angels, without any authority from the Word of God. I know that many fasten on these topics more eagerly, and take greater pleasure in them than in those relating to daily practice. But if we decline not to be the disciples of Christ, let us not decline to follow the method which he has prescribed. In this way, being contented with him for our master, we will not only refrain from, but even feel averse to, superfluous speculations which he discourages.

None can deny that Dionysus (whoever he may have been) has many shrewd and subtle disquisitions in his Celestial Hierarchy, but on looking at them more closely, every one must see that they are merely idle talk. The duty of a Theologian, however, is not to tickle the ear, but confirm the conscience, by teaching what is true, certain, and useful. When you read the work of Dionysus, you would think that the man had come down from heaven, and was relating, not what he had learned, but what he had actually seen. Paul, however, though he was carried to the third heaven, so far from delivering any thing of the kind, positively declares, that it was not lawful for man to speak the secrets which he had seen. Bidding adieu, therefore, to that nugatory wisdom, let us endeavour to ascertain from the simple doctrine of Scripture what it is the Lord’s pleasure that we should know concerning angels.

5. The designation of the angels in Scripture

In Scripture, then, we uniformly read that angels are heavenly spirits, whose obedience and ministry God employs to execute all the purposes which he has decreed (e.g. Ps. 103:20-21), and hence their name as being a kind of intermediate messengers to manifest his will to men. The names by which several of them are distinguished have reference to the same office. They are called hosts (Luke 2:13), because they surround their Prince as his court,—adorn and display his majesty, - like soldiers, have their eyes always turned to their leader’s standard, and are so ready and prompt to execute his orders, that the moment he gives the nod, they prepare for, or rather are actually at work. In declaring the magnificence of the divine throne, similar representations are given by the prophets, and especially by Daniel, when he says, that when God stood up to judgement, “thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him,” (Dan. 7: 10.) As by these means the Lord wonderfully exerts and declares the power and might of his hand, they are called virtues (Eph. 1:21; I Cor. 15:24). Again, as his government of the world is exercised and administered by them, they are called at one time Principalities, at another Powers, at another Dominions, (Col. 1:16; Eph. 1:21; I Cor. 15:24.) Lastly, as the glory of God in some measure dwells in them, they are also termed Thrones (Col. 1:16); though as to this last designation I am unwilling to speak positively, as a different interpretation is equally, if not more congruous. To say nothing, therefore, of the name of Thrones, the former names are often employed by the Holy Spirit in commendation of the dignity of angelic service. Nor is it right to pass by unhonoured those instruments by whom God specially manifests the presence of his power. Nay, they are more than once called Gods (e.g. Ps. 138:1), because the Deity is in some measure represented to us in their service, as in a mirror. I am rather inclined, however, to agree with ancient writers, that in those passages wherein it is stated that the angel of the Lord appeared to Abraham (Gen. 18:1), Jacob (Gen. 32:2,28), and Moses, Christ was that angel (Josh. 5:14; Judg. 6:14;13:10,22). Still it is true, that when mention is made of all the angels, they are frequently so designated. Nor ought this to seem strange. For if princes and rulers have this honour given them, because in their office they are vicegerents of God, the supreme King and Judge, with far greater reason may it be given to angels, in whom the brightness of the divine glory is much more conspicuously displayed.

6. The angels as protectors and helpers of believers

But the point on which the Scriptures specially insist is that which tends most to our comfort, and to the confirmation of our faith, namely, that angels are the ministers and dispensers of the divine bounty towards us. Accordingly, we are told how they watch for our safety, how they undertake our defence, direct our path, and take heed that no evil befall us. There are whole passages which relate, in the first instance, to Christ, the Head of the Church, and after him to all believers. “He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.” (Ps. 90:11-12). Again, “The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them.” (Ps. 34:7p). By these passages the Lord shows that the protection of those whom he has undertaken to defend he has delegated to his angels. Accordingly, an angel of the Lord consoles Hagar in her flight, and bids her be reconciled to her mistress (Gen. 16:9). Abraham promises to his servant that an angel will be the guide of his journey (Gen. 24:7). Jacob, in blessing Ephraim and Manasseh, prays “The angel which redeemed me from all evil bless the lads.” (Gen. 48:16.) So an angel was appointed to guard the camp of the Israelites (Ex. 14:19; 23:20); and as often as God was pleased to deliver Israel from the hands of his enemies, he stirred up avengers by the ministry of angels (Judg. 2:1; 6:11; 13:3-20). Thus, in fine, (not to mention more,) angels ministered to Christ (Matt. 4:11), and were present with him in all straits (Luke 22:43). To the women they announced his resurrection (Matt. 28:5,7; Luke 24:5); to the disciples they foretold his glorious advent (Acts 1:10). In discharging the office of our protectors, they war against the devil and all our enemies, and execute vengeance upon those who afflict us. Thus we read that an angel of the Lord, to deliver Jerusalem from siege, slew one hundred and eighty-five thousand men in the camp of the king of Assyria in a single night (II Kings 19:35; Isaiah 37:36).

7. Guardian angels?

Whether or not each believer has a single angel assigned to him for his defence, I dare not positively affirm. When Daniel introduces the angel of the Persian and the angel of the Greeks (Dan. 10:13,20; 12:1), he undoubtedly intimates that certain angels are appointed as a kind of presidents over kingdoms and provinces. Again, when Christ says that the angels of children always behold the face of his Father (Matt. 18:10), he insinuates that there are certain angels to whom their safety has been entrusted. But I know not if it can be inferred from this, that each believer has his own angel. This, indeed, I hold for certain, that each of us is cared for, not by one angel merely, but that all with one consent watch for our safety. For it is said of all the angels collectively, that they rejoice “over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons which need no repentance.” (Luke 15:7). It is also said, that the angels (meaning more than one) carried the soul of Lazarus into Abraham’s bosom (Luke 16:22p). Nor was it to no purpose that Elisha showed his servant the many chariots of fire which were specially allotted him (II Kings 6:17).

There is one passage which seems to intimate somewhat more clearly that each individual has a separate angel. When Peter, after his deliverance from prison, knocked at the door of the house where the brethren were assembled, being unable to think it could be himself, they said that it was his angel (Acts 12:15). This idea seems to have been suggested to them by a common belief that every believer has a single angel assigned to him. Here, however, it may be alleged, that there is nothing to prevent us from understanding it of any one of the angels to whom the Lord might have given the charge of Peter at that particular time, without implying that he was to be his, perpetual guardian, according to the vulgar imagination, (see Calvin on Mark 5: 9,) that two angels a good and a bad, as a kind of genii, are assigned to each individual. After all, it is not worthwhile anxiously to investigate a point which does not greatly concern us. If any one does not think it enough to know that all the orders of the heavenly host are perpetually watching for his safety, I do not see what he could gain by knowing that he has one angel as a special guardian. Those, again, who limit the care which God takes of each of us to a single angel, do great injury to themselves and to all the members of the Church, as if there were no value in those promises of auxiliary troops, who on every side encircling and defending us, embolden us to fight more manfully.

8. The hierarchy, number, and form of the angels

Those who presume to dogmatize on the ranks and numbers of angels, would do well to consider on what foundation they rest. As to their rank, I admit that Michael is described by David as a mighty Prince (Daniel 12:1), and by Jude as an Archangel (Jude v9). Paul also tells us, that an archangel will blow the trumpet which is to summon the world to judgement (I Thess. 4:16; cf. Ezek. 10:5). But how is it possible from such passages to ascertain the gradations of honour among the angels to determine the insignia, and assign the place and station of each? Even the two names, Michael (Dan. 10:21) and Gabriel (Dan. 8:16; Luke 1:19,26), mentioned in Scripture, or a third (Raphael), if you choose to add it from the history of Tobit (Tobit 12:15), seem to intimate by their meaning that they are given to angels in accommodation to the weakness of our capacity, though I rather choose not to speak positively on the point.

As to the number of angels, we learn from the mouth of our Saviour that there are many legions (Matt. 26:53), and from Daniel that there are many myriads (Dan. 7:10). Elisha’s servant saw a multitude of chariots (II Kings 6:17), and their vast number is declared by the fact, that they encamp round about those that fear the Lord (Ps. 34:7p).

It is certain that spirits have no bodily shape, and yet Scripture, in accommodation to us, describes them under the form of winged Cherubim and Seraphim; not without cause, to assure us that when occasion requires, they will hasten to our aid with incredible swiftness, winging their way to us with the speed of lightning. Farther than this, in regard both to the ranks and numbers of angels, let us class them among those mysterious subjects, the full revelation of which is deferred to the last day, and accordingly refrain from inquiring too curiously, or talking presumptuously.

9. The angels are not mere ideas, but actuality

There is one point, however, which though called into doubt by certain restless individuals, we ought to hold for certain viz., that angels are ministering spirits (Heb. 1: 14;) whose service God employs for the protection of his people, and by whose means he distributes his favours among men, and also executes other works. The Sadducees of old maintained (Acts 23:8), that by angels nothing more was meant than the movements which God impresses on men, or manifestations which he gives of his own power, (Acts 23: 8.) But this dream is contradicted by so many passages of Scriptures that it seems strange how such gross ignorance could have had any countenance among the Jews. To say nothing of the passages I have already quoted, passages which refer to thousands (Rev. 5:11) and legions (Matt. 26:53) of angels, speak of them as rejoicing (Luke 15:10), as bearing up the faithful in their hands (Ps. 91:11; Matt. 4:6; Luke 4:10-11), carrying their souls to rest (Luke 16:22), beholding the face of their Father (Matt. 18:10), and so forth: there are other passages which most clearly prove that they are real beings possessed of spiritual essence. Stephen and Paul say that the Law was enacted in the hands of angels (Acts 7:53; Gal. 3:19). Our Saviour, moreover says that at the resurrection the elect will be like angels (Matt 22:30); that the day of judgement is known not even to the angels (Matt 24:36); that at that time he himself will come with the holy angels (Matt 25:31; Luke 9:26). However much such passages may be twisted, their meaning is plain. In like manner, when Paul beseeches Timothy to keep his precepts (I Tim. 5:21) as before Christ and his elect angels, it is not qualities or inspirations without substance that he speaks of, but true spirits. And when it is said, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that Christ was made more excellent than the angels (Heb. 1:4), that the world was not made subject to them (Heb. 2:5), that Christ assumed not their nature, but that of man (Heb. 2:16), it is impossible to give a meaning to the passages without understanding that angels are blessed spirits, as to whom such comparisons may competently be made. The author of that Epistle declares the same thing when he places the souls of believers and the holy angels together in the kingdom of heaven (Heb. 12:22).

Moreover, in the passages we have already quoted, the angels of children are said to behold the face of God (Matt 18:10), to defend us by their protection (Luke 4:10-11), to rejoice in our salvation (Luke 15:10), to admire the manifold grace of God in the Church, to be under Christ their head. To the same effect is their frequent appearance to the holy patriarchs in human form, their speaking, and consenting to be hospitably entertained (Gen 18:2). Christ, too, in consequence of the supremacy which he obtains as Mediator, is called the Angel, (Mal. 3:1.) It was thought proper to touch on this subject in passing, with the view of putting the simple upon their guard against the foolish and absurd imaginations which, suggested by Satan many centuries ago, are ever and anon starting up anew.

10. The divine glory does not belong to the angels

It remains to give warning against the superstition which usually begins to creep in, when it is said that all blessings are ministered and dispensed to us by angels. For the human mind is apt immediately to think that there is no honour which they ought not to receive, and hence the peculiar offices of Christ and God are bestowed upon them. In this ways the glory of Christ was for several former ages greatly obscured, extravagant eulogiums being pronounced on angels without any authority from Scripture. Among the corruptions which we now oppose, there is scarcely any one of greater antiquity. Even Paul appears to have had a severe contest with some who so exalted angels as to make them almost the superiors of Christ. Hence he so anxiously urges in his Epistle to the Colossians, (Col. 1: 16, 20,) that Christ is not only superior to all angels, but that all the endowments which they possess are derived from him; thus warning us against forsaking him, by turning to those who are not sufficient for themselves, but must draw with us at a common fountain. As the refulgence of the Divine glory is manifested in them, there is nothing to which we are more prone than to prostrate ourselves before them in stupid adoration, and then ascribe to them the blessings which we owe to God alone. Even John confesses in the Apocalypse, (Rev. 19: 10; 22: 8, 9,) that this was his own case, but he immediately adds the answer which was given to him, “See thou do it not; I am thy fellow servant: worship God.”

11. God makes use of the angels, not for his own sake, but for ours

This danger we will happily avoid, if we consider why it is that Gods instead of acting directly without their agency, is wont to employ it in manifesting his power, providing for the safety of his people, and imparting the gifts of his beneficence. This he certainly does not from necessity, as if he were unable to dispense with them. Whenever he pleases, he passes them by, and performs his own work by a single nod: so far are they from relieving him of any difficulty. Therefore, when he employs them it is as a help to our weakness, that nothing may be wanting to elevate our hopes or strengthen our confidence. It ought, indeed, to be sufficient for us that the Lord declares himself to be our protector. But when we see ourselves beset by so many perils, so many injuries, so many kinds of enemies, such is our frailty and effeminacy, that we might at times be filled with alarm, or driven to despair, did not the Lord proclaim his gracious presence by some means in accordance with our feeble capacities. For this reason, he not only promises to take care of us, but assures us that he has numberless attendants, to whom he has committed the charge of our safety, that whatever dangers may impend, so long as we are encircled by their protection and guardianship, we are placed beyond all hazard of evil. I admit that after we have a simple assurance of the divine protection, it is improper in us still to look round for help. But since for this our weakness the Lord is pleased, in his infinite goodness and indulgence, to provide, it would ill become us to overlook the favour. Of this we have an example in the servant of Elisha, (2 Kings 6: 17,) who, seeing the mountain encompassed by the army of the Assyrians, and no means of escape, was completely overcome with terror, and thought it all over with himself and his master. Then Elisha prayed to God to open the eyes of the servant, who forthwith beheld the mountain filled with horses and chariots of fire; in other words, with a multitude of angels, to whom he and the prophet had been given in charge. Confirmed by the vision he received courage, and could boldly defy the enemy, whose appearance previously filled him with dismay.

12. The angels must not divert us from directing our gaze to the Lord alone

Whatever, therefore, is said as to the ministry of angels, let us employ for the purpose of removing all distrust, and strengthening our confidence in God. Since the Lord has provided us with such protection, let us not be terrified at the multitude of our enemies as if they could prevail notwithstanding of his aid, but let us adopt the sentiment of Elisha, that more are for us than against us (II Kings 6:16p). How preposterous, therefore, is it to allow ourselves to be led away from God by angels who have been appointed for the very purpose of assuring us of his more immediate presence to help us? But we are so led away, if angels do not conduct us directly to him - making us look to him, invoke and celebrate him as our only defender—if they are not regarded merely as hands moving to our assistance just as he directs—if they do not direct us to Christ as the only Mediator on whom we must wholly depend and recline, looking towards him, and resting in him. Our minds ought to give thorough heed to what Jacob saw in his vision, (Gen. 28: 12,)—angels descending to the earth to men, and again mounting up from men to heaven, by means of a ladder, at the head of which the Lord of Hosts was seated, intimating that it is solely by the intercession of Christ that the ministry of angels extends to us, as he himself declares, “Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man,” (John 1: 51.) Accordingly, the servant of Abraham, though he had been commended to the guardianship of an angel, (Gen. 24: 7,) does not therefore invoke that angel to be present with him, but trusting to the commendation, pours out his prayers before the Lord, and entreats him to show mercy to Abraham. As God does not make angels the ministers of his power and goodness, that he may share his glory with them, so he does not promise his assistance by their instrumentality, that we may divide our confidence between him and them. Away, then, with that Platonic philosophy of seeking access to God by means of angels and courting them with the view of making God more propitious, (Plat. in Epinomide et Cratylo,)—a philosophy which presumptuous and superstitious men attempted at first to introduce into our religion, and which they persist in even to this day.

(The devils in the purposes of God, 13-19)

13. Scripture forearms us against the adversary

The tendency of all that Scripture teaches concerning devils is to put us on our guard against their wiles and machinations, that we may provide ourselves with weapons strong enough to drive away the most formidable foes. For when Satan is called the god (II Cor. 4:4) and ruler of this world (John 12:31), the strong man armed (Luke 11:21; cf Matt 12:29), the prince of the power of the air (Eph. 2:2), the roaring lion (I Peter 5:8), the object of all these descriptions is to make us more cautious and vigilant, and more prepared for the contest. This is sometimes stated in distinct terms. For Peter, after describing the devil as a roaring lion going about seeking whom he may devour, immediately adds the exhortation, “whom resist steadfast in the faith,” (1 Pet. 5:9.) And Paul, after reminding us that we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities (Eph. 6:12), against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, immediately enjoins us to put on armour equal to so great and perilous a contest, (Ephes. 6:13f.) Wherefore, let this be the use to which we turn all these statements. Being forewarned of the constant presence of an enemy the most daring, the most powerful, the most crafty, the most indefatigable, the most completely equipped with all the engines and the most expert in the science of war, let us not allow ourselves to be overtaken by sloth or cowardice, but, on the contrary, with minds aroused and ever on the alert, let us stand ready to resist; and, knowing that this warfare is terminated only by death, let us study to persevere. Above all, fully conscious of our weakness and want of skill, let us invoke the help of God, and attempt nothing without trusting in him, since it is his alone to supply counsel, and strength, and courage, and arms.

14. The realm of wickedness

That we may feel the more strongly urged to do so, the Scripture declares that the enemies who war against us are not one or two, or few in number, but a great host. Mary Magdalene is said to have been delivered from seven devils by which she was possessed (Mark 16:9; Luke 8:2); and our Saviour assures us that it is an ordinary circumstance, when a devil has been expelled, if access is again given to it, to take seven other spirits, more wicked than itself, and resume the vacant possession (Matt. 12:43-45). Nay, one man is said to have been possessed by a whole legion (Luke 8:30). By this, then, we are taught that the number of enemies with whom we have to war is almost infinite, that we may not, from a contemptuous idea of the fewness of their numbers, be more remiss in the contest, or from imagining that an occasional truce is given us, indulge in sloth.

In one Satan or devil being often mentioned in the singular number, the thing denoted is that domination of iniquity which is opposed to the reign of righteousness. For, as the Church and the communion of saints has Christ for its head, so the faction of the wicked and wickedness itself, is portrayed with its prince exercising supremacy. Hence the expression, “Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels,” (Matt 25:41.)

15. An irreconcilable struggle

One thing which ought to animate us to perpetual contest with the devil is, that he is everywhere called both our adversary and the adversary of God. For, if the glory of God is dear to us, as it ought to be, we ought to struggle with all our might against him who aims at the extinction of that glory. If we are animated with proper zeal to maintain the Kingdom of Christ, v. e must wage irreconcilable war with him who conspires its ruin. Again, if we have any anxiety about our own salvation, we ought to make no peace nor truce with him who is continually laying schemes for its destruction. But such is the character given to Satan in the third chapter of Genesis, where he is seen seducing man from his allegiance to God, that he may both deprive God of his due honour, and plunge man headlong in destruction. Such, too, is the description given of him in the Gospels, (Matt 13: 25,28,39) where he is called the enemy, and is said to sow tares in order to corrupt the seed of eternal life. In one word, in all his actions we experience the truth of our Saviour’s description, that he was “a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth,” (John 8: 44.) Truth he assails with lies, light he obscures with darkness. The minds of men he involves in error; he stirs up hatred, inflames strife and war, and all in order that he may overthrow the kingdom of God, and drown men in eternal perdition with himself. Hence it is evident that his whole nature is depraved, mischievous, and malignant. There must be extreme depravity in a mind bent on assailing the glory of God and the salvation of man. This is intimated by John in his Epistle, when he says that he “sinneth from the beginning,” (1 John 3:8) implying that he is the author, leader, and contriver of all malice and wickedness.

16. The devil is a degenerate creation of God

But as the devil was created by God, we must remember that this malice which we attribute to his nature is not from creation, but from depravation. Every thing damnable in him he brought upon himself, by his revolt and fall. Of this Scripture reminds us, lest, by believing that he was so created at first, we should ascribe to God what is most foreign to his nature. For this reason, Christ declares, (John 8:44p) that Satan, when he lies, “speaketh of his own,” and states the reason, “because he abode not in the truth.”

By saying that he abode not in the truth, he certainly intimates that he once was in the truth, and by calling him the father of lies, he puts it out of his power to charge God with the depravity of which he was himself the cause. But although the expressions are brief and not very explicit, they are amply sufficient to vindicate the majesty of God from every calumny. And what more does it concern us to know of devils? Some murmur because the Scripture does not in various passages give a distinct and regular exposition of Satan’s fall, its cause, mode, date, and nature. But as these things are of no consequence to us, it was better, if not entirely to pass them in silence, at least only to touch lightly upon them. The Holy Spirit could not deign to feed curiosity with idle, unprofitable histories. We see it was the Lord’s purpose to deliver nothing in his sacred oracles which we might not learn for edification. Therefore, instead of dwelling on superfluous matters, let it be sufficient for us briefly to hold, with regard to the nature of devils, that at their first creation they were the angels of God, but by revolting they both ruined themselves, and became the instruments of perdition to others. As it was useful to know this much, it is clearly taught by Peter and Jude; “God,” they say, “spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness to be reserved unto judgement,” (II Pet. 2:4; Jude ver. 6.) And Paul, by speaking of the elect angels (I Tim. 5:21), obviously draws a tacit contrast between them and reprobate angels.

17. The devil stands under God’s power

With regard to the strife and war which Satan is said to wage with God, it must be understood with this qualification, that Satan cannot possibly do anything against the will and consent of God. For we read in the history of Job, that Satan appears in the presence of God to receive his commands (Job 1:6; 2:1), and dares not proceed to execute any enterprise until he is authorised. In the same way, when Ahab was to be deceived, he undertook to be a lying spirit in the mouth of all the prophets; and on being commissioned by the Lord, proceeds to do so (I Kings 22:20-22). For this reason, also, the spirit which tormented Saul is said to be an evil spirit from the Lord, because he was, as it were, the scourge by which the misdeeds of the wicked king were punished (I Sam 16:14; 18:10). In another place it is said that the plagues of Egypt were inflicted by God through the instrumentality of wicked angels (Ps. 78:49). In conformity with these particular examples, Paul declares generally that unbelievers are blinded by God (II Thess 2:11), though he had previously described it as the doing of Satan (II Thess 2:9; cf. II Cor. 4:4; Eph. 2:2). It is evident, therefore, that Satan is under the power of God, and is so ruled by his authority, that he must yield obedience to it. Moreover, though we say that Satan resists God, and does works at variance with His works, we at the same time maintain that this contrariety and opposition depend on the permission of God. I now speak not of Satan’s will and endeavour, but only of the result. For the disposition of the devil being wicked, he has no inclination whatever to obey the divine will, but, on the contrary, is wholly bent on contumacy and rebellion. This much, therefore, he has of himself, and his own iniquity, that he eagerly, and of set purpose, opposes God, aiming at those things which he deems most contrary to the will of God. But as God holds him bound and fettered by the curb of his power, he executes those things only for which permission has been given him, and thus, however unwilling, obeys his Creator, being forced, whenever he is required, to do Him service.

18. Assurance of victory!

God thus turning the unclean spirits hither and thither at his pleasure, employs them in exercising believers by warring against them, assailing them with wiles, urging them with solicitations, pressing close upon them, disturbing, alarming, and occasionally wounding, but never conquering or oppressing them; whereas they hold the wicked in thraldom, exercise dominion over their minds and bodies, and employ them as bond-slaves in all kinds of iniquity. Because believers are disturbed by such enemies, they are addressed in such exhortations as these: “Neither give place to the devil;” “Your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about seeking whom he may devour; whom resist steadfast in the faith,” (Eph. 4:27; I Pet. 5:8.) Paul acknowledges that he was not exempt from this species of contest when he says, that for the purpose of subduing his pride, a messenger of Satan was sent to buffet him, (II Cor. 12:7.) This trial, therefore, is common to all the children of God. But as the promise of bruising Satan’s head (Gen. 3:15) applies alike to Christ and to all his members, I deny that believers can ever be oppressed or vanquished by him. They are often, indeed, thrown into alarm, but never so thoroughly as not to recover themselves. They fall by the violence of the blows, but they get up again; they are wounded, but not mortally. In fine, they labour on through the whole course of their lives, so as ultimately to gain the victory, though they meet with occasional defeats.

We know how David, through the just anger of God, was left for a time to Satan, and by his instigation numbered the people, (II Sam. 24:1;) nor without cause does Paul hold out a hope of pardon in case any should have become ensnared by the wiles of the devil, (II Tim. 2:26.) Accordingly, he elsewhere shows that the promise above quoted commences in this life where the struggle is carried on, and that it is completed after the struggle is ended. His words are, “The God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly,” (Rom. 16:20.) In our Head, indeed, this victory was always perfect, because the prince of the world “had nothing” in him, (John 14:30;) but in us, who are his members, it is now partially obtained, and will be perfected when we shall have put off our mortal flesh, through which we are liable to infirmity, and shall have been filled with the energy of the Holy Spirit.

In this way, when the kingdom of Christ is raised up and established, that of Satan falls, as our Lord himself expresses it, “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven,” (Luke 10:18.) By these words, he confirmed the report which the apostles gave of the efficacy of their preaching. In like manner he says, “When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace. But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils,” (Luke 11:21,22.) And to this end, Christ, by dying, overcame Satan, who had the power of death, (Heb. 2: 14,) and triumphed over all his hosts that they might not injure the Church, which otherwise would suffer from them every moment. For, (such being our weakness, and such his raging fury,) how could we withstand his manifold and unintermitted assaults for any period, however short, if we did not trust to the victory of our leader? God, therefore, does not allow Satan to have dominion over the souls of believers, but only gives over to his sway the impious and unbelieving, whom he deigns not to number among his flock. For the devil is said to have undisputed possession of this world until he is dispossessed by Christ (cf. Luke 11:21). In like manner, he is said to blind all who do not believe the Gospel (II Cor. 4:4), and to do his own work in the children of disobedience (Eph. 2:2). And justly; for all the wicked are vessels of wrath, and, accordingly, to whom should they be subjected but to the minister of the divine vengeance? In fine, they are said to be of their father the devil (John 8:44). For as believers are recognised to be the sons of God by bearing his image, so the wicked are properly regarded as the children of Satan, from having degenerated into his image (I John 3:8-10).

19. Devils are not thoughts, but actualities

Having above refuted that nugatory philosophy concerning the holy angels, which teaches that they are nothing but good motions or inspirations which God excites in the minds of men, we must here likewise refute those who foolishly allege that devils are nothing but bad affections or perturbations suggested by our carnal nature. The brief refutation is to be found in passages of Scripture on this subject, passages neither few nor obscure. First, when they are called unclean spirits and apostate angels, (Matt 12:43; Jude, verse 6,) who have degenerated from their original, the very terms sufficiently declare that they are not motions or affections of the mind, but truly, as they are called, minds or spirits endued with sense and intellect. In like manner, when the children of God are contrasted by John, and also by our Saviour, with the children of the devil, would not the contrast be absurd if the term devil meant nothing more than evil inspirations? And John adds still more emphatically, that the devil sinneth from the beginning, (1 John 3:8.) In like manner, when Jude introduces the archangel Michael contending with the devil, (Jude, verse 9,) he certainly contrasts a wicked and rebellious with a good angel. To this corresponds the account given in the Book of Job, that Satan appeared in the presence of God with the holy angels (Job 1:6; 2:1). But the clearest passages of all are those which make mention of the punishment which, from the judgement of God, they already begin to feel, and are to feel more especially at the resurrection, “What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?” (Matt 8:29) and again, “Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels,” (Matt 25:41.) Again, “If God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness to be reserved unto judgement,” &c., (II Pet. 2:4.)

How absurd the expressions, that devils are doomed to eternal punishment, that fire is prepared for them, that they are even now excruciated and tormented by the glory of Christ, if there were truly no devils at all? But as all discussion on this subject is superfluous for those who give credit to the Word of God, while little is gained by quoting Scripture to those empty speculators whom nothing but novelty can please, I believe I have already done enough for my purpose, which was to put the pious on their guard against the delirious dreams with which restless men harass themselves and the simple. The subject, however, deserved to be touched upon, lest any, by embracing that errors should imagine they have no enemy and thereby be more remiss or less cautious in resisting.

(The spiritual lessons of Creation, 20-22)

20. Greatness and abundance of Creation

Meanwhile, being placed in this most beautiful theatre, let us not decline to take a pious delight in the clear and manifest works of God. For, as we have elsewhere observed, though not the chief, it is, in point of order, the first evidence of faiths to remember to which side soever we turn, that all which meets the eye is the work of God, and at the same time to meditate with pious care on the end which God had in view in creating it. Wherefore, in order that we may apprehend with true faith what it is necessary to know concerning God, it is of importance to attend to the history of the creation, as briefly recorded by Moses (Gen ch.1&2) and afterwards more copiously illustrated by pious writers, more especially by Basil and Ambrose. From this history we learn that God, by the power of his Word and his Spirit, created the heavens and the earth out of nothing; that thereafter he produced things inanimate and animate of every kind, arranging an innumerable variety of objects in admirable order, giving each kind its proper nature, office, place, and station; at the same time, as all things were liable to corruption, providing for the perpetuation of each single species, cherishing some by secret methods, and, as it were, from time to time instilling new vigour into them, and bestowing on others a power of continuing their race, so preventing it from perishing at their own death. Heaven and earth being thus most richly adorned, and copiously supplied with all things, like a large and splendid mansion gorgeously constructed and exquisitely furnished, at length man was made—man, by the beauty of his person and his many noble endowments, the most glorious specimen of the works of God. But, as I have no intention to give the history of creation in detail, it is sufficient to have again thus briefly touched on it in passing. I have already reminded my reader, that the best course for him is to derive his knowledge of the subject from Moses and others who have carefully and faithfully transmitted an account of the creation (Gen ch. 1&2).

21. How should we view God’s works?

It is unnecessary to dwell at length on the end that should be aimed at in considering the works of God. The subject has been in a great measure explained elsewhere, and in so far as required by our present work, may now be disposed of in a few words. Undoubtedly were one to attempt to speak in due terms of the inestimable wisdom, power, justice, and goodness of God, in the formation of the world, no grace or splendour of diction could equal the greatness of the subject. Still there can be no doubt that the Lord would have us constantly occupied with such holy meditation, in order that, while we contemplate the immense treasures of wisdom and goodness exhibited in the creatures as in so many mirrors, we may not only run our eye over them with a hasty, and, as it were, evanescent glance, but dwell long upon them, seriously and faithfully turn them in our minds, and every now and then bring them to recollection. But as the present work is of a didactic nature, we cannot fittingly enter on topics which require lengthened discourse. Therefore, in order to be compendious, let the reader understand that he has a genuine apprehension of the character of God as the Creator of the world; first, if he attends to the general rule, never thoughtlessly or obliviously to overlook the glorious perfections which God displays in his creatures; and, secondly, if he makes a self application of what he sees, so as to fix it deeply on his heart. The former is exemplified when we consider how great the Architect must be who framed and ordered the multitude of the starry host so admirably, that it is impossible to imagine a more glorious sight, so stationing some, and fixing them to particular spots that they cannot move; giving a freer course to others yet setting limits to their wanderings; so tempering the movement of the whole as to measure out day and night, months, years, and seasons, and at the same time so regulating the inequality of days as to prevent every thing like confusion. The former course is, moreover, exemplified when we attend to his power in sustaining the vast mass, and guiding the swift revolutions of the heavenly bodies, &c. These few examples sufficiently explain what is meant by recognising the divine perfections in the creation of the world. Were we to attempt to go over the whole subject we should never come to a conclusion, there being as many miracles of divine power, as many striking evidences of wisdom and goodness, as there are classes of objects, nay, as there are individual objects, great or small, throughout the universe.

22. The contemplation of God’s goodness in his creation will lead us to thankfulness and trust

The other course which has a closer relation to faith remains to be considered, viz., that while we observe how God has destined all things for our good and salvation, we at the same time feel his power and grace, both in ourselves and in the great blessings which he has bestowed upon us; thence stirring up ourselves to confidence in him, to invocation, praise, and love. Moreover, as I lately observed, the Lord himself, by the very order of creation, has demonstrated that he created all things for the sake of man. Nor is it unimportant to observe, that he divided the formation of the world into six days, though it had been in no respect more difficult to complete the whole work, in all its parts, in one moment than by a gradual progression. But he was pleased to display his providence and paternal care towards us in this, that before he formed man, he provided whatever he foresaw would be useful and salutary to him. How ungrateful, then, were it to doubt whether we are cared for by this most excellent Parent, who we see cared for us even before we were born! How impious were it to tremble in distrust, lest we should one day be abandoned in our necessity by that kindness which, antecedent to our existence, displayed itself in a complete supply of all good things! Moreover, Moses tells us that everything which the world contains is liberally placed at our disposal (Gen 1:28; 9:2). This God certainly did not that he might delude us with an empty form of donation. Nothing, therefore, which concerns our safety will ever be wanting.

To conclude, in one word; as often as we call God the Creator of heaven and earth, let us remember that the distribution of all the things which he created are in his hand and power, but that we are his sons, whom he has undertaken to nourish and bring up in allegiance to him, that we may expect the substance of all good from him alone, and have full hope that he will never suffer us to be in want of things necessary to salvation, so as to leave us dependent on some other source; that in everything we desire we may address our prayers to him, and, in every benefit we receive, acknowledge his hand, and give him thanks; that thus allured by his great goodness and beneficence, we may study with our whole heart to love and serve him.

CHAPTER 15. STATE IN WHICH MAN WAS CREATED. THE FACULTIES OF THE SOUL-THE IMAGE OF GOD-FREE WILL-ORIGINAL RIGHTEOUSNESS.

This chapter is thus divided:—

I. The necessary rules to be observed in considering the state of man before the fall being laid down, the point first considered is the creation of the body, and the lesson taught by its being formed out of the earth, and made alive, sec. 1.

II. The immortality of the human soul is proved by various solid arguments, sec. 2.

III. The image of God (the strongest proof of the soul’s immortality) is considered, and various absurd fancies are refuted, sec. 3.

IV. Several errors which obscure the light of truth being dissipated, follows a philosophical and theological consideration of the faculties of the soul before the fall.

Sections.

1. A twofold knowledge of God, viz., before the fall and after it. The former here considered. Particular rules or precautions to be observed in this discussion. What we are taught by a body formed ant of the dust, and tenanted by a spirit.

2. The immortality of the soul proved from,

1. The testimony of conscience.

2. The knowledge of God.

3. The noble faculties with which it is endued.

4. Its activity and wondrous fancies in sleep.

5. Innumerable passages of Scripture.

3. The image of God one of the strongest proofs of the immortality of the soul. What meant by this image. The dreams of Osiander concerning the image of God refuted. Whether any difference between “image” and “likeness.” Another objection of Osiander refuted. The image of God conspicuous in the whole Adam.

4. The image of God is in the soul. Its nature may be learnt from its renewal by Christ. What comprehended under this renewal. What the image of God in man before the fall. In what things it now appears. When and where it will be seen in perfection.

5. The dreams of the Manichees and of Servetus, as to the origin of the soul, refuted. Also of Osiander, who denies that there is any image of God in man without essential righteousness.

6. The doctrine of philosophers as to the faculties of the soul generally discordant, doubtful, and obscure. The excellence of the soul described. Only one soul in each man. A brief review of the opinion of philosophers as to the faculties of the soul. What to be thought of this opinion.

7. The division of the faculties of the soul into intellect and will, more agreeable to Christian doctrine.

8. The power and office of the intellect and will in man before the fall. Man’s free will. This freedom lost by the fall—a fact unknown to philosophers. The delusion of Pelagians and Papists. Objection as to the fall of man when free, refuted.

(Man’s nature deformed; yet his soul bears, though almost obliterated, the image of God, 1-4)

1. Man proceeded spotless from God’s hand; therefore he may not shift the blame for his sins to the Creator

We have now to speak of the creation of man, not only because of all the works of God it is the noblest, and most admirable specimen of his justice, wisdom, and goodness, but, as we observed at the outset, we cannot clearly and properly know God unless the knowledge of ourselves be added. This knowledge is twofold,—relating, first, to the condition in which we were at first created; and, secondly to our condition such as it began to be immediately after Adam’s fall. For it would little avail us to know how we were created if we remained ignorant of the corruption and degradation of our nature in consequence of the fall. At present, however, we confine ourselves to a consideration of our nature in its original integrity. And, certainly, before we descend to the miserable condition into which man has fallen, it is of importance to consider what he was at first. For there is need of caution, lest we attend only to the natural ills of man, and thereby seem to ascribe them to the Author of nature; impiety deeming it a sufficient defence if it can pretend that everything vicious in it proceeded in some sense from God, and not hesitating, when accused, to plead against God, and throw the blame of its guilt upon Him. Those who would be thought to speak more reverently of the Deity catch at an excuse for their depravity from nature, not considering that they also, though more obscurely, bring a charge against God, on whom the dishonour would fall if anything vicious were proved to exist in nature.

Seeing, therefore, that the flesh is continually on the alert for subterfuges, by which it imagines it can remove the blame of its own wickedness from itself to some other quarter, we must diligently guard against this depraved procedure, and accordingly treat of the calamity of the human race in such a way as may cut off every evasion, and vindicate the justice of God against all who would impugn it. We shall afterwards see, in its own place, (Book 2 chap. 1: sec. 3,) how far mankind now are from the purity originally conferred on Adam. And, first, it is to be observed, that when he was formed out of the dust of the ground (Gen 2:7; 18:27) a curb was laid on his pride—nothing being more absurd than that those should glory in their excellence who not only dwell in tabernacles of clay (Job 4:19), but are themselves in part dust and ashes. But God having not only deigned to animate a vessel of clay, but to make it the habitation of an immortal spirit, Adam might well glory in the great liberality of his Maker.

2. Diversity of body and soul

Moreover, there can be no question that man consists of a body and a soul; meaning by soul, an immortal though created essence, which is his nobler part. Sometimes he is called a spirit. But though the two terms, while they are used together differ in their meaning, still, when spirit is used by itself it is equivalent to soul, as when Solomon speaking of death says, that the spirit returns to God who gave it, (Eccles. 12:7.) And Christ, in commending his spirit to the Father (Luke 23:46), and Stephen his to Christ (Acts 7:59), simply mean, that when the soul is freed from the prison-house of the body, God becomes its perpetual keeper. Those who imagine that the soul is called a spirit because it is a breath or energy divinely infused into bodies, but devoid of essence, err too grossly, as is shown both by the nature of the thing, and the whole tenor of Scripture. It is true, indeed, that men cleaving too much to the earth are dull of apprehension, nay, being alienated from the Father of Lights (James 1:17), are so immersed in darkness as to imagine that they will not survive the grave; still the light is not so completely quenched in darkness that all sense of immortality is lost. Conscience, which, distinguishing, between good and evil, responds to the judgement of God, is an undoubted sign of an immortal spirit. How could motion devoid of essence penetrate to the judgement-seat of God, and under a sense of guilt strike itself with terror? The body cannot be affected by any fear of spiritual punishment. This is competent only to the soul, which must therefore be endued with essence. Then the mere knowledge of a God sufficiently proves that souls which rise higher than the world must be immortal, it being impossible that any evanescent vigour could reach the very fountain of life.

In fine, while the many noble faculties with which the human mind is endued proclaim that something divine is engraven on it, they are so many evidences of an immortal essence. For such sense as the lower animals possess goes not beyond the body, or at least not beyond the objects actually presented to it. But the swiftness with which the human mind glances from heaven to earth, scans the secrets of nature, and, after it has embraced all ages, with intellect and memory digests each in its proper order, and reads the future in the past, clearly demonstrates that there lurks in man a something separated from the body. We have intellect by which we are able to conceive of the invisible God and angels—a thing of which body is altogether incapable. We have ideas of rectitude, justice, and honesty—ideas which the bodily senses cannot reach. The seat of these ideas must therefore be a spirit. Nay, sleep itself, which stupefying the man, seems even to deprive him of life, is no obscure evidence of immortality; not only suggesting thoughts of things which never existed, but foreboding future events. I briefly touch on topics which even profane writers describe with a more splendid eloquence. For pious readers, a simple reference is sufficient.

Were not the soul some kind of essence separated from the body, Scripture would not teach that we dwell in houses of clay (Job 4:19), and at death remove from a tabernacle of flesh; that we put off that which is corruptible, in order that, at the last day, we may finally receive according to the deeds done in the body. These, and similar passages which everywhere occur, not only clearly distinguish the soul from the body, but by giving it the name of man, intimate that it is his principal part. Again, when Paul exhorts believers to cleanse themselves from all filthiness of the flesh and the spirit (II Cor. 7:1), he shows that there are two parts in which the taint of sin resides. Peter, also, in calling Christ the Shepherd and Bishop of souls (I Peter 2:25), would have spoken absurdly if there were no souls towards which he might discharge such an office. Nor would there be any ground for what he says concerning the eternal salvation of souls (I Peter 1:9), or for his injunction to purify our souls, or for his assertion that fleshly lusts war against the soul (I Peter 2:11p); neither could the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews say, that pastors watch as those who must give an account for our souls (Heb. 13:17p), if souls were devoid of essence. To the same effect Paul calls God to witness upon his soul (II Cor 1:23), which could not be brought to trial before God if incapable of suffering punishment. This is still more clearly expressed by our Saviour, when he bids us fear him who, after he has killed the body, is able also to cast into hell fire (Matt 10:28; Luke 12:5). Again when the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews distinguishes the fathers of our flesh from God, who alone is the Father of our spirits (Heb. 12:9), he could not have asserted the essence of the soul in clearer terms. Moreover, did not the soul, when freed from the fetters of the body, continue to exist, our Saviour would not have represented the soul of Lazarus as enjoying blessedness in Abraham s bosom, while, on the contrary, that of Dives was suffering dreadful torments (Luke 16:22-23). Paul assures us of the same thing when he says, that so long as we are present in the body, we are absent from the Lord (II Cor. 5:6,8). Not to dwell on a matter as to which there is little obscurity, I will only add, that Luke mentions among the errors of the Sadducees that they believed neither angel nor spirit (Acts 23:8).

3. God’s image and likeness in man

A strong proof of this point may be gathered from its being said, that man was created in the image of God (Gen 1:27). For though the divine glory is displayed in man’s outward appearance, it cannot be doubted that the proper seat of the image is in the soul. I deny not, indeed, that external shape, in so far as it distinguishes and separates us from the lower animals, brings us nearer to God; nor will I vehemently oppose any who may choose to include under the image of God that

While the mute creation downward bend

Their sight, and to their earthly mother tend,

Man looks aloft, and with erected eyes,

Beholds his own hereditary skies.

Only let it be understood, that the image of God which is beheld or made conspicuous by these external marks, is spiritual. For Osiander, (whose writings exhibit a perverse ingenuity in futile devices,) extending the image of God indiscriminately as well to the body as to the soul, confounds heaven with earth. He says, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, placed their image in man, because, even though Adam had stood entire, Christ would still have become man. Thus, according to him, the body which was destined for Christ was a model and type of that corporeal figure which was then formed. But where does he find that Christ is an image of the Spirit? I admit, indeed, that in the person of the Mediator, the glory of the whole Godhead is displayed: but how can the eternal Word, who in order precedes the Spirit, be called his image? In short, the distinction between the Son and the Spirit is destroyed when the former is represented as the image of the latter. Moreover, I should like to know in what respect Christ in the flesh in which he was clothed resembles the Ho]y Spirit, and by what marks, or lineaments, the likeness is expressed. And since the expression, “Let us make man in our own image,” (Gen 1:26) is used in the person of the Son also, it follows that he is the image of himself—a thing utterly absurd. Add that, according to the figment of Osiander, Adam was formed after the model or type of the man Christ. Hence Christ, in as much as he was to be clothed with flesh, was the idea according to which Adam was formed, whereas the Scriptures teach very differently, viz., that he was formed in the image of God. There is more plausibility in the imagination of those who interpret that Adam was created in the image of God, because it was conformable to Christ, who is the only image of God; but not even for this is there any solid foundation.

The “image” and “likeness” has given rise to no small discussion; interpreters searching without cause for a difference between the two terms, since “likeness” is merely added by way of exposition. First, we know that repetitions are common in Hebrew, which often gives two words for one thing; And, secondly, there is no ambiguity in the thing itself, man being called the image of God because of his likeness to God. Hence there is an obvious absurdity in those who indulge in philosophical speculation as to these names, placing the “Zelem”, that is the image, in the substance of the soul, and the “Demuth”, that is the likeness, in its qualities, and so forth. God having determined to create man in his own image, to remove the obscurity which was in this terms adds, by way of explanation, in his likeness, as if he had said, that he would make man, in whom he would, as it were, image himself by means of the marks of resemblance impressed upon him. Accordingly, Moses, shortly after repeating the account, puts down the image of God twice, and makes no mention of the likeness. Osiander frivolously objects that it is not a part of the man, or the soul with its faculties, which is called the image of God, but the whole Adam, who received his name from the dust out of which he was taken. I call the objection frivolous, as all sound readers will judge. For though the whole man is called mortal, the soul is not therefore liable to death, nor when he is called a rational animal is reason or intelligence thereby attributed to the body. Hence, although the soul is not the man, there is no absurdity in holding that he is called the image of God in respect of the soul; though I retain the principle which I lately laid down, that the image of God extends to everything in which the nature of man surpasses that of all other species of animals. Accordingly, by this term is denoted the integrity with which Adam was endued when his intellect was clear, his affections subordinated to reason, all his senses duly regulated, and when he truly ascribed all his excellence to the admirable gifts of his Maker. And though the primary seat of the divine image was in the mind and the heart, or in the soul and its powers, there was no part even of the body in which some rays of glory did not shine. It is certain that in every part of the world some lineaments of divine glory are beheld and hence we may infer, that when his image is placed in man, there is a kind of tacit antithesis, as it were, setting man apart from the crowd, and exalting him above all the other creatures. But it cannot be denied that the angels also were created in the likeness of God, since, as Christ declares, (Matt 22:30,) our highest perfection will consist in being like them. But it is not without good cause that Moses commends the favour of God towards us by giving us this peculiar title, the more especially that he was only comparing man with the visible creation.

4. The true nature of the image of God is to be derived from what Scripture says of its renewal through Christ

But our definition of the image seems not to be complete until it appears more clearly what the faculties are in which man excels, and in which he is to be regarded as a mirror of the divine glory. This, however, cannot be better known than from the remedy provided for the corruption of nature. It cannot be doubted that when Adam lost his first estate he became alienated from God. Wherefore, although we grant that the image of God was not utterly effaced and destroyed in him, it was, however, so corrupted, that any thing which remains is fearful deformity; and, therefore, our deliverance begins with that renovation which we obtain from Christ, who is, therefore, called the second Adam, because he restores us to true and substantial integrity. For although Paul, contrasting the quickening Spirit which believers receive from Christ, with the living soul which Adam was created, (1 Cor. 15:45,) commends the richer measure of grace bestowed in regeneration, he does not, however, contradict the statement, that the end of regeneration is to form us anew in the image of God. Accordingly, he elsewhere shows that the new man is renewed after the image of him that created him (Col. 3:10p.) To this corresponds another passage, “Put ye on the new man, who after God is created,” (Eph. 4: 24.)

We must now see what particulars Paul comprehends under this renovation. In the first place, he mentions knowledge, and in the second, true righteousness and holiness. Hence we infer, that at the beginning the image of God was manifested by light of intellect, rectitude of heart, and the soundness of every part. For though I admit that the forms of expression are elliptical, this principle cannot be overthrown, viz., that the leading feature in the renovation of the divine image must also have held the highest place in its creation. To the same effect Paul elsewhere says, that beholding the glory of Christ with unveiled face, we are transformed into the same image (II Cor 3:18). We now see how Christ is the most perfect image of God, into which we are so renewed as to bear the image of God in knowledge, purity, righteousness, and true holiness.

This being established, the imagination of Osiander, as to bodily form, vanishes of its own accord. As to that passage of St Paul, (1 Cor. 11:7,) in which the man alone to the express exclusion of the woman, is called the image and glory of God, it is evident from the context, that it merely refers to civil order. I presume it has already been sufficiently proved, that the image comprehends everything which has any relation to the spiritual and eternal life. The same thing, in different terms, is declared by St John when he says, that the light which was from the beginning, in the eternal Word of God, was the light of man, (John 1:4.) His object being to extol the singular grace of God in making man excel the other animals, he at the same time shows how he was formed in the image of God, that he may separate him from the common herd, as possessing not ordinary animal existence, but one which combines with it the light of intelligence. Therefore, as the image of God constitutes the entire excellence of human nature, as it shone in Adam before his fall, but was afterwards vitiated and almost destroyed, nothing remaining but a ruin, confused, mutilated, and tainted with impurity, so it is now partly seen in the elect, in so far as they are regenerated by the Spirit. Its full lustre, however, will be displayed in heaven.

But in order to know the particular properties in which it consists, it will be proper to treat of the faculties of the soul. For there is no solidity in Augustine’s speculation, that the soul is a mirror of the Trinity, inasmuch as it comprehends within itself, intellect, will, and memory. Nor is there probability in the opinion of those who place likeness to God in the dominion bestowed upon man, as if he only resembled God in this, that he is appointed lord and master of all things. The likeness must be within, in himself. It must be something which is not external to him but is properly the internal good of the soul.

5. Manichaean error of the soul’s emanation

But before I proceed further, it is necessary to advert to the dream of the Manichees, which Servetus has attempted in our day to revive. Because it is said that God breathed into man’s nostrils the breath of life, (Gen. 2:7,) they thought that the soul was a transmission of the substance of God; as if some portion of the boundless divinity had passed into man. It cannot take long time to show how many gross and foul absurdities this devilish error carries in its train. For if the soul of man is a portion transmitted from the essence of God, the divine nature must not only be liable to passion and change, but also to ignorance, evil desires, infirmity, and all kinds of vice. There is nothing more inconstant than man, contrary movements agitating and distracting his soul. He is ever and anon deluded by want of skill, and overcome by the slightest temptations; while every one feels that the soul itself is a receptacle for all kinds of pollution. All these things must be attributed to the divine nature, if we hold that the soul is of the essence of God, or a secret influx of divinity. Who does not shudder at a thing so monstrous? Paul, indeed, quoting from Aratus, tells us we are his offspring, (Acts 17:28;) not in substance, however, but in quality, in as much as he has adorned us with divine endowments. Meanwhile, to lacerate the essence of the Creator, in order to assign a portion to each individual, is the height of madness. It must, therefore, be held as certain, that souls, notwithstanding of their having the divine image engraven on them, are created just as angels are. Creation, however, is not a transfusion of essence, but a commencement of it out of nothing. Nor, though the spirit is given by God, and when it quits the flesh again returns to him (cf. Eccl 12:7), does it follow that it is a portion withdrawn from his essence. Here, too, Osiander, carried away by his illusions entangled himself in an impious error, by denying that the image of God could be in man without his essential righteousness; as if God were unable, by the mighty power of his Spirit, to render us conformable to himself, unless Christ were substantially transfused into us. Under whatever colour some attempt to gloss these delusions, they can never so blind the eyes of intelligent readers as to prevent them from discerning in them a revival of Manicheism. But from the words of Paul, when treating of the renewal of the image, (II Cor. 3:18,) the inference is obvious, that man was conformable to God, not by an influx of substance, but by the grace and virtue of the Spirit. He says, that by beholding the glory of Christ, we are transformed into the same image as by the Spirit of the Lord; and certainly the Spirit does not work in us so as to make us of the same substance with God.

(Opinions of the philosophers on the soul criticized in view of the fall of Adam, 6-8)

6. The soul and its faculties

It were vain to seek a definition of the soul from philosophers, not one of whom, with the exception of Plato, distinctly maintained its immortality. Others of the school of Socrates, indeed, lean the same way, but still without teaching distinctly a doctrine of which they were not fully persuaded. Plato, however, advanced still further, and regarded the soul as an image of God. Others so attach its powers and faculties to the present life, that they leave nothing external to the body.

Moreover, having already shown from Scripture that the substance of the soul is incorporeal, we must now add, that though it is not properly enclosed by space, it however occupies the body as a kind of habitation, not only animating all its parts, and rendering the organs fit and useful for their actions, but also holding the first place in regulating the conduct. This it does not merely in regard to the offices of a terrestrial life, but also in regard to the service of God. This, though not clearly seen in our corrupt state, yet the impress of its remains is seen in our very vices. For whence have men such a thirst for glory but from a sense of shame? And whence this sense of shame but from a respect for what is honourable? Of this, the first principle and source is a consciousness that they were born to cultivate righteousness,—a consciousness akin to religion. But as man was undoubtedly created to meditate on the heavenly life, so it is certain that the knowledge of it was engraven on the soul. And, indeed, man would want the principal use of his understanding if he were unable to discern his felicity, the perfection of which consists in being united to God. Hence, the principal action of the soul is to aspire thither, and, accordingly, the more a man studies to approach to God, the more he proves himself to be endued with reason.

Though there is some plausibility in the opinion of those who maintain that man has more than one soul, namely, a sentient and a rational, yet as there is no soundness in their arguments, we must reject it, unless we would torment ourselves with things frivolous and useless. They tell us, (see chap. 5 sec. 4,) there is a great repugnance between organic movements and the rational part of the soul. As if reason also were not at variance with herself, and her counsels sometimes conflicting with each other like hostile armies. But since this disorder results from the depravation of nature, it is erroneous to infer that there are two souls, because the faculties do not accord so harmoniously as they ought.

But I leave it to philosophers to discourse more subtilely of these faculties. For the edification of the pious, a simple definition will be sufficient. I admit, indeed, that what they ingeniously teach on the subject is true, and not only pleasant, but also useful to be known; nor do I forbid any who are inclined to prosecute the study. First, I admit that there are five senses, which Plato (in Theaeteto) prefers calling organs, by which all objects are brought into a common sensorium, as into a kind of receptacle: Next comes the imagination, (phantasia,) which distinguishes between the objects brought into the sensorium: Next, reason, to which the general power of judgement belongs: And, lastly, intellect, which contemplates with fixed and quiet look whatever reason discursively revolves. In like manner, to intellect, fancy, and reason, the three cognitive faculties of the soul, correspond three appetite faculties viz., will, whose office is to choose whatever reason and intellect propound; irascibility, which seizes on what is set before it by reason and fancy; and concupiscence, which lays hold of the objects presented by sense and fancy.

Though these things are true, or at least plausible, still, as I fear they are more fitted to entangle, by their obscurity, than to assist us, I think it best to omit them. If any one chooses to distribute the powers of the mind in a different manner, calling one appetive, which, though devoid of reason, yet obeys reason, if directed from a different quarter, and another intellectual, as being by itself participant of reason, I have no great objection. Nor am I disposed to quarrel with the view, that there are three principles of action, viz., sense, intellect, and appetite.

But let us rather adopt a division adapted to all capacities—a thing which certainly is not to be obtained from philosophers. For they, when they would speak most plainly, divide the soul into appetite and intellect, but make both double. To the latter they sometimes give the name of contemplative, as being contented with mere knowledge and having no active powers (which circumstance makes Cicero designate it by the name of intellect, ingenii,) (De Fin. lib. 5.) At other times they give it the name of practical, because it variously moves the will by the apprehension of good or evil. Under this class is included the art of living well and justly. The former viz., appetite, they divide into will and concupiscence, calling it “boulesis”, so whenever the appetite, which they call “horme”, obeys the reason. But when appetite, casting off the yoke of reason, runs to intemperance, they call it “pathos”. Thus they always presuppose in man a reason by which he is able to guide himself aright.

7. Understanding and will as the truly fundamental faculties

From this method of teaching we are forced somewhat to dissent. For philosophers, being unacquainted with the corruption of nature, which is the punishment of revolt, erroneously confound two states of man which are very different from each other. Let us therefore hold, for the purpose of the present work, that the soul consists of two parts, the intellect and the will, (Book 2 chap. 2 sec. 2, 12,)— the office of the intellect being to distinguish between objects, according as they seem deserving of being approved or disapproved; and the office of the will, to choose and follow what the intellect declares to be good, to reject and shun what it declares to be bad, (Plato, in Phaedro.) We dwell not on the subtlety of Aristotle, that the mind has no motion of itself; but that the moving power is choice, which he also terms the appetite intellect. Not to lose ourselves in superfluous questions, let it be enough to know that the intellect is to us, as it were, the guide and ruler of the soul; that the will always follows its beck, and waits for its decision, in matters of desire. For which reason Aristotle truly taught, that in the appetite there is a pursuit and rejection corresponding in some degree to affirmation and negation in the intellect, (Aristot. Ethic. lib. 6 sec. 2.) Moreover, it will be seen in another place, (Book 2 c. 2 see. 12-26,) how surely the intellect governs the will. Here we only wish to observe, that the soul does not possess any faculty which may not be duly referred to one or other of these members. And in this way we comprehend sense under intellect. Others distinguish thus: They say that sense inclines to pleasure in the same way as the intellect to good; that hence the appetite of sense becomes concupiscence and lust, while the affection of the intellect becomes will. For the term appetite, which they prefer, I use that of will, as being more common.

8. Free choice and Adam’s responsibility

Therefore, God has provided the soul of man with intellect, by which he might discern good from evil, just from unjust, and might know what to follow or to shun, reason going before with her lamp; whence philosophers, in reference to her directing power, have called her “to hegemonikon”. To this he has joined will, to which choice belongs. Man excelled in these noble endowments in his primitive condition, when reason, intelligence, prudence, and judgement, not only sufficed for the government of his earthly life, but also enabled him to rise up to God and eternal happiness. Thereafter choice was added to direct the appetites, and temper all the organic motions; the will being thus perfectly submissive to the authority of reason.

In this upright state, man possessed freedom of will, by which, if he chose, he was able to obtain eternal life. It were here unseasonable to introduce the question concerning the secret predestination of God, because we are not considering what might or might not happen, but what the nature of man truly was. Adam, therefore, might have stood if he chose, since it was only by his own will that he fell; but it was because his will was pliable in either directions and he had not received constancy to persevere, that he so easily fell. Still he had a free choice of good and evil; and not only so, but in the mind and will there was the highest rectitude, and all the organic parts were duly framed to obedience, until man corrupted its good properties, and destroyed himself.

Hence the great darkness of philosophers who have looked for a complete building in a ruin, and fit arrangement in disorder. The principle they set out with was, that man could not be a rational animal unless he had a free choice of good and evil. They also imagined that the distinction between virtue and vice was destroyed, if man did not of his own counsel arrange his life. So far well, had there been no change in man. This being unknown to them, it is not surprising that they throw every thing into confusion. But those who, while they profess to be the disciples of Christ, still seek for free-will in man, notwithstanding of his being lost and drowned in spiritual destruction, labour under manifold delusion, making a heterogeneous mixture of inspired doctrine and philosophical opinions, and so erring as to both. But it will be better to leave these things to their own place, (see Book 2 chap. 2) At present it is necessary only to remember, that man, at his first creation, was very different from all his posterity; who, deriving their origin from him after he was corrupted, received a hereditary taint. At first every part of the soul was formed to rectitude. There was soundness of mind and freedom of will to choose the good. If any one objects that it was placed, as it were, in a slippery position, because its power was weak, I answer, that the degree conferred was sufficient to take away every excuse. For surely the Deity could not be tied down to this condition,—to make man such, that he either could not or would not sin. Such a nature might have been more excellent; but to expostulate with God as if he had been bound to confer this nature on man, is more than unjust, seeing he had full right to determine how much or how little He would give. Why He did not sustain him by the virtue of perseverance is hidden in his counsel; it is ours to keep within the bounds of soberness. Man had received the power, if he had the will, but he had not the will which would have given the power; for this will would have been followed by perseverance. Still, after he had received so much, there is no excuse for his having spontaneously brought death upon himself. No necessity was laid upon God to give him more than that intermediate and even transient will, that out of man’s fall he might extract materials for his own glory.

CHAPTER 16. THE WORLD, CREATED BY GOD, STILL CHERISHED AND PROTECTED BY HIM. EACH AND ALL OF ITS PARTS GOVERNED BY HIS PROVIDENCE.

The divisions of this chapter are,

I. The doctrine of the special providence of God over all the creatures, singly and collectively, as opposed to the dreams of the Epicureans about fortune and fortuitous causes.

II. The fiction of the Sophists concerning the omnipotence of God, and the error of philosophers, as to a confused and equivocal government of the world, see. 1-5. All animals, but especially mankind, from the peculiar superintendence exercised over them, are proofs, evidences, and examples of the providence of God, sec. 6, 7.

III. A consideration of fate, fortune, chance, contingence, and uncertain events, (on which the matter here under discussion turns.)

Sections.

1. Even the wicked, under the guidance of carnal sense, acknowledge that God is the Creator. The godly acknowledge not this only, but that he is a most wise and powerful governor and preserver of all created objects. In so doing, they lean on the Word of God, some passages from which are produced.

2. Refutation of the Epicureans, who oppose fortune and fortuitous causes to Divine Providence, as taught in Scripture. The sun, a bright manifestation of Divine Providence.

3. Figment of the Sophists as to an indolent Providence refuted. Consideration of the Omnipotence as combined with the Providence of God. Double benefit resulting from a proper acknowledgement of the Divine Omnipotence. Cavils of Infidelity.

4. A definition of Providence refuting the erroneous dogmas of Philosophers. Dreams of the Epicureans and Peripatetics.

5. Special Providence of God asserted and proved by arguments founded on a consideration of the Divine Justice and Mercy. Proved also by passages of Scripture, relating to the sky, the earth, and animals.

6. Special Providence proved by passages relating to the human race, and the more especially that for its sake the world was created.

7. Special Providence proved, lastly, from examples taken from the history of the Israelites, of Jonah, Jacob, and from daily experience.

8. Erroneous views as to Providence refuted:—

I. The sect of the Stoics.

II. The fortune and chance of the Heathen.

9. How things are said to be fortuitous to us, though done by the determinate counsel of God. Example. Error of separating contingency and event from the secret, but just, and most wise counsel of God. Two examples.

(God’s special providence asserted, against the opinions of philosophers, 1-4)

1. Creation and providence inseparably joined

It were cold and lifeless to represent God as a momentary Creator, who completed his work once for all, and then left it. Here, especially, we must dissent from the profane, and maintain that the presence of the divine power is conspicuous, not less in the perpetual condition of the world then in its first creation. For, although even wicked men are forced, by the mere view of the earth and sky, to rise to the Creator, yet faith has a method of its own in assigning the whole praise of creation to God. To this effect is the passage of the Apostle already quoted that by faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God, (Heb. 11:3) because, without proceeding to his Providence, we cannot understand the full force of what is meant by God being the Creator, how much soever we may seem to comprehend it with our mind, and confess it with our tongue. The carnal mind, when once it has perceived the power of God in the creation, stops there, and, at the farthest, thinks and ponders on nothing else than the wisdom, power, and goodness displayed by the Author of such a work, (matters which rise spontaneously, and force themselves on the notice even of the unwilling,) or on some general agency on which the power of motion depends, exercised in preserving and governing it. In short, it imagines that all things are sufficiently sustained by the energy divinely infused into them at first.

But faith must penetrate deeper. After learning that there is a Creator, it must forthwith infer that he is also a Governor and Preserver, and that, not by producing a kind of general motion in the machine of the globe as well as in each of its parts, but by a special providence sustaining, cherishing, superintending, all the things which he has made, to the very minutest, even to a sparrow. Thus David, after briefly premising that the world was created by God, immediately descends to the continual course of Providence, “By the word of the Lord were the heavens framed, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth;” immediately adding, “The Lord looketh from heaven, he beholdeth the children of men,” (Ps. 33: 6, 13, &c.) He subjoins other things to the same effect. For although all do not reason so accurately, yet because it would not be credible that human affairs were superintended by God, unless he were the maker of the world, and no one could seriously believe that he is its Creator without feeling convinced that he takes care of his works; David with good reason, and in admirable order, leads us from the one to the other. In general, indeed, philosophers teach, and the human mind conceives, that all the parts of the world are invigorated by the secret inspiration of God.

They do not, however reach the height to which David rises taking all the pious along with him, when he says, “These wait all upon thee, that thou mayest give them their meat in due season. That thou givest them they gather: thou openest thine hand, they are filled with good. Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust. Thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are created, and thou renewest the face of the earth,” (Ps. 104:27-30.) Nay, though they subscribe to the sentiment of Paul, that in God “we live, and move, and have our being,” (Acts 17:28) yet they are far from having a serious apprehension of the grace which he commends, because they have not the least relish for that special care in which alone the paternal favour of God is discerned.

2. There is no such thing as fortune and chance

That this distinction may be the more manifest, we must consider that the Providence of God, as taught in Scripture, is opposed to fortune and fortuitous causes. By an erroneous opinion prevailing in all ages, an opinion almost universally prevailing in our own day, viz., that all things happen fortuitously, the true doctrine of Providence has not only been obscured, but almost buried. If one falls among robbers, or ravenous beasts; if a sudden gust of wind at sea causes shipwreck; if one is struck down by the fall of a house or a tree; if another, when wandering through desert paths, meets with deliverance; or, after being tossed by the waves, arrives in port, and makes some wondrous hair-breadth escape from death—all these occurrences, prosperous as well as adverse, carnal sense will attribute to fortune. But whose has learned from the mouth of Christ that all the hairs of his head are numbered, (Matt 10:30) will look farther for the cause, and hold that all events whatsoever are governed by the secret counsel of God. With regard to inanimate objects again we must hold that though each is possessed of its peculiar properties, yet all of them exert their force only in so far as directed by the immediate hand of God. Hence they are merely instruments, into which God constantly infuses what energy he sees meet, and turns and converts to any purpose at his pleasure.

No created object makes a more wonderful or glorious display than the sun. For, besides illuminating the whole world with its brightness, how admirably does it foster and invigorate all animals by its heat, and fertilise the earth by its rays, warming the seeds of grain in its lap, and thereby calling forth the verdant blade! This it supports, increases, and strengthens with additional nurture, till it rises into the stalk; and still feeds it with perpetual moisture, till it comes into flower; and from flower to fruit, which it continues to ripen till it attains maturity. In like manner, by its warmth trees and vines bud, and put forth first their leaves, then their blossom, then their fruit. And the Lord, that he might claim the entire glory of these things as his own, was pleased that light should exist, and that the earth should be replenished with all kinds of herbs and fruits before he made the sun. No pious man, therefore, will make the sun either the necessary or principal cause of those things which existed before the creation of the sun, but only the instrument which God employs, because he so pleases; though he can lay it aside, and act equally well by himself: Again, when we read, that at the prayer of Joshua the sun was stayed in its course, (Josh. 10: 13;) that as a favour to Hezekiah, its shadow receded ten degrees, (2 Kings 20: 11;) by these miracles God declared that the sun does not daily rise and set by a blind instinct of nature, but is governed by Him in its course, that he may renew the remembrance of his paternal favour toward us. Nothing is more natural than for spring, in its turns to succeed winter, summer spring, and autumn summer; but in this series the variations are so great and so unequal as to make it very apparent that every single year, month, and day, is regulated by a new and special providence of God.

3. God’s providence governs all

And truly God claims omnipotence to himself, and would have us to acknowledge it,—not the vain, indolent, slumbering omnipotence which sophists feign, but vigilant, efficacious, energetic, and ever active,—not an omnipotence which may only act as a general principle of confused motion, as in ordering a stream to keep within the channel once prescribed to it, but one which is intent on individual and special movements. God is deemed omnipotent, not because he can act though he may cease or be idle, or because by a general instinct he continues the order of nature previously appointed; but because, governing heaven and earth by his providence, he so overrules all things that nothing happens without his counsel. For when it is said in the Psalms, “He has done whatsoever he has pleased,” (Ps. 115:3 cf. Ps. 113(b):3) the thing meant is his sure and deliberate purpose. It were insipid to interpret the Psalmist’s words in philosophic fashion, to mean that God is the primary agent, because the beginning and cause of all motion. This rather is the solace of the faithful, in their adversity, that every thing which they endure is by the ordination and command of God, that they are under his hand.

But if the government of God thus extends to all his works, it is a childish cavil to confine it to natural influx. Those moreover who confine the providence of God within narrow limits, as if he allowed all things to be borne along freely according to a perpetual law of nature, do not more defraud God of his glory than themselves of a most useful doctrine; for nothing were more wretched than man if he were exposed to all possible movements of the sky, the air, the earth, and the water. We may add, that by this view the singular goodness of God towards each individual is unbecomingly impaired. David exclaims, (Ps. 8:2) that infants hanging at their mothers breasts are eloquent enough to celebrate the glory of God, because, from the very moment of their births they find an aliment prepared for them by heavenly care. Indeed, if we do not shut our eyes and senses to the fact, we must see that some mothers have full provision for their infants, and others almost none, according as it is the pleasure of God to nourish one child more liberally, and another more sparingly.

Those who attribute due praise to the omnipotence of God thereby derive a double benefit. He to whom heaven and earth belong, and whose nod all creatures must obey, is fully able to reward the homage which they pay to him, and they can rest secure in the protection of Him to whose control everything that could do them harm is subject, by whose authority, Satan, with all his furies and engines, is curbed as with a bridle, and on whose will everything adverse to our safety depends. In this way, and in no other, can the immoderate and superstitious fears, excited by the dangers to which we are exposed, be calmed or subdued. I say superstitious fears. For such they are, as often as the dangers threatened by any created objects inspire us with such terror, that we tremble as if they had in themselves a power to hurt us, or could hurt at random or by chance; or as if we had not in God a sufficient protection against them.

For example, Jeremiah forbids the children of God “ to be dismayed at the signs of heaven, as the heathen are dismayed at them,” (Jer. 10:2.) He does not, indeed, condemn every kind of fear. But as unbelievers transfer the government of the world from God to the stars, imagining that happiness or misery depends on their decrees or presages, and not on the Divine will, the consequence is, that their fear, which ought to have reference to him only, is diverted to stars and comets. Let him, therefore, who would beware of such unbelief, always bear in mind, that there is no random power, or agency, or motion in the creatures, who are so governed by the secret counsel of God, that nothing happens but what he has knowingly and willingly decreed.

4. The nature of providence

First, then, let the reader remember that the providence we mean is not one by which the Deity, sitting idly in heaven, looks on at what is taking place in the world, but one by which he, as it were, holds the helms and overrules all events. Hence his providence extends not less to the hand than to the eye. When Abraham said to his son, God will provide, (Gen. 22: 8,) he meant not merely to assert that the future event was foreknown to Gods but to resign the management of an unknown business to the will of Him whose province it is to bring perplexed and dubious matters to a happy result. Hence it appears that providence consists in action. What many talk of bare prescience is the merest trifling. Those do not err quite so grossly who attribute government to God, but still, as I have observed, a confused and promiscuous government which consists in giving an impulse and general movement to the machine of the globe and each of its parts, but does not specially direct the action of every creature. It is impossible, however, to tolerate this error. For, according to its abettors, there is nothing in this providence, which they call universal, to prevent all the creatures from being moved contingently, or to prevent man from turning himself in this direction or in that, according to the mere freedom of his own will. In this ways they make man a partner with God,—God, by his energy, impressing man with the movement by which he can act, agreeably to the nature conferred upon him while man voluntarily regulates his own actions. In short, their doctrine is, that the world, the affairs of men, and men themselves, are governed by the power, but not by the decree of God. I say nothing of the Epicureans, (a pest with which the world has always been plagued,) who dream of an inert and idle God, and others, not a whit sounder, who of old feigned that God rules the upper regions of the air, but leaves the inferior to Fortune. Against such evident madness even dumb creatures lift their voice.

( “General” and “special” providence )

My intention now is, to refute an opinion which has very generally obtained—an opinion which, while it concedes to God some blind and equivocal movement, withholds what is of principal moment, viz., the disposing and directing of every thing to its proper end by incomprehensible wisdom. By withholding government, it makes God the ruler of the world in name only, not in reality. For what, I ask, is meant by government, if it be not to preside so as to regulate the destiny of that over which you preside? I do not, however, totally repudiate what is said of an universal providence, provided, on the other hand, it is conceded to me that the world is governed by God, not only because he maintains the order of nature appointed by him, but because he takes a special charge of every one of his works. It is true, indeed, that each species of created objects is moved by a secret instinct of nature, as if they obeyed the eternal command of God, and spontaneously followed the course which God at first appointed.

And to this we may refer our Saviour’s words, that he and his Father have always been at work from the beginning, (John 5:17;) also the words of Paul, that “in him we live, and move, and have our being,” (Acts 17:28;) also the words of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, who, when wishing to prove the divinity of Christ, says, that he upholdeth “all things by the word of his power,” (Heb. 1:3.) But some, under pretext of the general, hide and obscure the special providence, which is so surely and clearly taught in Scripture, that it is strange how any one can bring himself to doubt of it. And, indeed, those who interpose that disguise are themselves forced to modify their doctrine, by adding that many things are done by the special care of God. This, however, they erroneously confine to particular acts. The thing to be proved, therefore, is, that single events are so regulated by God, and all events so proceed from his determinate counsel, that nothing happens fortuitously.

(Doctrine of special providence supported by the evidence of Scripture, 5-7)

5. God’s providence also directs the individual

Assuming that the beginning of motion belongs to God, but that all things move spontaneously or casually, according to the impulse which nature gives, the vicissitudes of day and nights summer and winter, will be the work of God; inasmuch as he, in assigning the office of each, appointed a certain law, namely, that they should always with uniform tenor observe the same course, day succeeding night, month succeeding month, and year succeeding year. But, as at one time, excessive heat, combined with drought, burns up the fields; at another time excessive rains rot the crops, while sudden devastation is produced by tempests and storms of hail, these will not be the works of God, unless in so far as rainy or fair weather, heat or cold, are produced by the concourse of the stars, and other natural causes. According to this view, there is no place left either for the paternal favour, or the judgements of God. If it is said that God fully manifests his beneficence to the human race, by furnishing heaven and earth with the ordinary power of producing food, the explanation is meagre and heathenish: as if the fertility of one year were not a special blessing, the penury and dearth of another a special punishment and curse from God. But as it would occupy too much time to enumerate all the arguments, let the authority of God himself suffice. In the Law and the Prophets he repeatedly declares, that as often as he waters the earth with dew and rain (Lev. 26:3-4; Deut. 11:13-14, 28:12), he manifests his favour, that by his command the heaven becomes hard as iron (Lev. 26:19), the crops are destroyed by mildew and other evils (Deut. 28:22), that storms and hail, in devastating the fields, are signs of sure and special vengeance (cf. Isa. 28:2; Hag. 2:18). This being admitted, it is certain that not a drop of rain falls without the express command of God.

David, indeed, (Ps. 146: 9,) extols the general providence of God in supplying food to the young ravens that cry to him but when God himself threatens living creatures with famine, does he not plainly declare that they are all nourished by him, at one time with scanty, at another with more ample measure? It is childish, as I have already said, to confine this to particular acts, when Christ says, without reservation, that not a sparrow falls to the ground without the will of his Father, (Matth. 10:29.) Surely, if the flight of birds is regulated by the counsel of God, we must acknowledge with the prophet, that while he “dwelleth on high,” he “humbleth himself to behold the things that are in heaven and in the earth,” (Ps. 113: 5, 6.)

6. God’s providence especially relates to men

But as we know that it was chiefly for the sake of mankind that the world was made, we must look to this as the end which God has in view in the government of it. The prophet Jeremiah exclaims, “O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps,” (Jer. 10:23.) Solomon again says, “Man’s goings are of the Lord: how can a man then understand his own way?” (Prov. 20:24.) Will it now be said that man is moved by God according to the bent of his nature, but that man himself gives the movement any direction he pleases? Were it truly so, man would have the full disposal of his own ways. To this it will perhaps be answered, that man can do nothing without the power of God. But the answer will not avail, since both Jeremiah and Solomon attribute to God not power only, but also election and decree. And Solomon, in another place, elegantly rebukes the rashness of men in fixing their plans without reference to God, as if they were not led by his hand. “The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the Lord,” (Prov. 16:1.) It is a strange infatuation, surely for miserable men, who cannot even give utterance except in so far as God pleases, to begin to act without him!

Scriptures moreover, the better to show that every thing done in the world is according to his decree, declares that the things which seem most fortuitous are subject to him. For what seems more attributable to chance than the branch which falls from a tree, and kills the passing traveller? But the Lord sees very differently, and declares that He delivered him into the hand of the slayer, (Exod. 21: 13.) In like manners who does not attribute the lot to the blindness of Fortune? Not so the Lord, who claims the decision for himself, (Prov. 16: 33.) He says not, that by his power the lot is thrown into the lap, and taken out, but declares that the only thing which could be attributed to chance is from him. To the same effect are the words of Solomon, “The poor and the deceitful man meet together; the Lord lighteneth both their eyes,” (Prov. 29: 13.) For although rich and poor are mingled together in the world, in saying that the condition of each is divinely appointed, he reminds us that God, Who enlightens all, has his own eye always open, and thus exhorts the poor to patient endurance, seeing that those who are discontented with their lot endeavour to shake off a burden which God has imposed upon them. Thus, too, another prophet upbraids the profane, who ascribe it to human industry, or to fortune, that some grovel in the mire while others rise to honour. “Promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south. But God is the judge: he putteth down ones and setteth up another,” (Ps. 75: 6, 7.) Because God cannot divest himself of the office of judge, he infers that to his secret counsel it is owing that some are elevated, while others remain without honour.

7. God’s providence also regulates “natural” occurrences

Nay, I affirm in general, that particular events are evidences of the special providence of God. In the wilderness God caused a south wind to blow, and brought the people a plentiful supply of birds, (Exod. 16:13, Num. 11:31.) When he desired that Jonah should be thrown into the sea, he sent forth a whirlwind (Jonah 1:4). Those who deny that God holds the reins of government will say that this was contrary to ordinary practice, whereas I infer from it that no wind ever rises or rages without his special command. In no way could it be true that “he maketh the winds his messengers, and the flames of fire his ministers;” that “he maketh the clouds his chariot, and walketh upon the wings of the wind,” (Ps. 104:3,4,) did he not at pleasure drive the clouds and winds and therein manifest the special presence of his power. In like manner, we are elsewhere taught, that whenever the sea is raised into a storm, its billows attest the special presence of God. “He commandeth and raiseth the stormy wind, which lifteth up the waves.” “He maketh the storm a calm, so that the waves thereof are still,” (Ps. 107:25,29 ) He also elsewhere declares, that he had smitten the people with blasting and mildew, (Amos 4:9.)

Again while man naturally possesses the power of continuing his species, God describes it as a mark of his special favour, that while some continue childless, others are blessed with offspring: for the fruit of the womb is his gift. Hence the words of Jacob to Rachel, “Am I in God’s stead, who has withheld from thee the fruit of the womb?” (Gen. 30: 2.) To conclude in one word. Nothing in nature is more ordinary than that we should be nourished with bread. But the Spirit declares not only that the produce of the earth is God’s special gift, but “that man does not live by bread only,” (Deut. 8: 3,) because it is not mere fulness that nourishes him but the secret blessing of God. And hence, on the other hand, he threatens to take away “the stay and the staff, the whole stay of bread, and the whole stay of water,” (Is. 3: 1.) Indeed, there could be no serious meaning in our prayer for daily bread, if God did not with paternal hand supply us with food. Accordingly, to convince the faithful that God, in feeding them, fulfils the office of the best of parents, the prophet reminds them that he “giveth food to all flesh,” (Ps. 136: 25.) In fine, when we hear on the one hand, that “the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry,” and, on the other hand, that “the face of the Lord is against them that do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth,” (Ps. 34: 15, 16,) let us be assured that all creatures above and below are ready at his service, that he may employ them in whatever way he pleases. Hence we infer, not only that the general providence of God, continuing the order of nature, extends over the creatures, but that by his wonderful counsel they are adapted to a certain and special purpose.

(Discussion of fortune, chance, and seeming contingency in events, 8-9)

8. The doctrine of providence is no Stoic belief in fate!

Those who would cast obloquy on this doctrine, calumniate it as the dogma of the Stoics concerning fate. The same charge was formerly brought against Augustine, (lib. ad Bonifac. II, c. 6 et alibi.) We are unwilling to dispute about words; but we do not admit the term Fate, both because it is of the class which Paul teaches us to shun, as profane novelties, (1 Tim. 6:20,) and also because it is attempted, by means of an odious term, to fix a stigma on the truth of God. But the dogma itself is falsely and maliciously imputed to us. For we do not with the Stoics imagine a necessity consisting of a perpetual chain of causes, and a kind of involved series contained in nature, but we hold that God is the disposer and ruler of all things,—that from the remotest eternity, according to his own wisdom, he decreed what he was to do, and now by his power executes what he decreed. Hence we maintain, that by his providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.

What, then, you will say, does nothing happen fortuitously, nothing contingently? I answer, it was a true saying of Basil the Great, that Fortune and Chance are heathen terms; the meaning of which ought not to occupy pious minds. For if all success is blessing from God, and calamity and adversity are his curse, there is no place left in human affairs for fortune and chance. We ought also to be moved by the words of Augustine, (Retract. lib. 1 cap. 1,) “In my writings Against the Academics,” says he, “I regret having so often used the term Fortune; although I intended to denote by it not some goddess, but the fortuitous issue of events in external matters, whether good or evil. Hence, too, those words, Perhaps, Perchance, Fortuitously, which no religion forbids us to use, though everything must be referred to Divine Providence. Nor did I omit to observe this when I said, Although, perhaps, that which is vulgarly called Fortune, is also regulated by a hidden order, and what we call Chance is nothing else than that the reason and cause of which is secret. It is true, I so spoke, but I repent of having mentioned Fortune there as I did, when I see the very bad custom which men have of saying, not as they ought to do, ‘So God pleased,’ but, ‘So Fortune pleased.’” In short, Augustine everywhere teaches, that if anything is left to fortune, the world moves at random. And although he elsewhere declares, (Quaestionum, lib. 83.) that all things are carried on, partly by the free will of man, and partly by the Providence of God, he shortly after shows clearly enough that his meaning was, that men also are ruled by Providence, when he assumes it as a principle, that there cannot be a greater absurdity than to hold that anything is done without the ordination of God; because it would happen at random. For which reason, he also excludes the contingency which depends on human will, maintaining a little further on, in clearer terms, that no cause must be sought for but the will of God. When he uses the term permission, the meaning which he attaches to it will best appear from a single passage, (De Trinity. lib. 3 cap. 4,) where he proves that the will of God is the supreme and primary cause of all things, because nothing happens without his order or permission. He certainly does not figure God sitting idly in a watch-tower, when he chooses to permit anything. The will which he represents as interposing is, if I may so express it, active, (actualis,) and but for this could not be regarded as a cause.

9. The true causes of events are hidden to us

But since our sluggish minds rest far beneath the height of Divine Providence, we must have recourse to a distinction which may assist them in rising. I say then, that though all things are ordered by the counsel and certain arrangement of God, to us, however, they are fortuitous,—not because we imagine that Fortune rules the world and mankind, and turns all things upside down at random, (far be such a heartless thought from every Christian breast;) but as the order, method, end, and necessity of events, are, for the most part, hidden in the counsel of God, though it is certain that they are produced by the will of God, they have the appearance of being fortuitous, such being the form under which they present themselves to us, whether considered in their own nature, or estimated according to our knowledge and judgement. Let us suppose, for example, that a merchant, after entering a forest in company with trust-worthy individuals, imprudently strays from his companions and wanders bewildered till he falls into a den of robbers and is murdered. His death was not only foreseen by the eye of God, but had been fixed by his decree. For it is said, not that he foresaw how far the life of each individual should extend, but that he determined and fixed the bounds which could not be passed, (Job 14:5.) Still, in relation to our capacity of discernment, all these things appear fortuitous. How will the Christian feel? Though he will consider that every circumstance which occurred in that person’s death was indeed in its nature fortuitous, he will have no doubt that the Providence of God overruled it and guided fortune to his own end. The same thing holds in the case of future contingencies. All future events being uncertain to us, seem in suspense as if ready to take either direction. Still, however, the impression remains seated in our hearts, that nothing will happen which the Lord has not provided.

In this sense the term “fate” is repeatedly used in Ecclesiastes (ch. 2:14-15; 3:19; 9:2-3,11), because, at the first glance, men do not penetrate to the primary cause which lies concealed. And yet, what is taught in Scripture of the secret providence of God was never so completely effaced from the human heart, as that some sparks did not always shine in the darkness. Thus the soothsayers of the Philistine, though they waver in uncertainty, attribute the adverse “fate” partly to God and partly to chance. If the ark, say they, “Goes up by the way of his own coast to Bethshemish, then he has done us this great evil; but if not, then we shall know that it is not his hand that smote us, it was a chance that happened to us.” (1 Sam. 6:9.) Foolishly, indeed, when divination fails them they flee to fortune. Still we see them constrained, so as not to venture to regard their disaster as fortuitous. But the mode in which God, by the curb of his Providence, turns events in whatever direction he pleases, will appear from a remarkable example. At the very same moment when David was discovered in the wilderness of Maon, the Philistines make an inroad into the country, and Saul is forced to depart, (1 Sam. 23:26,27.) If God, in order to provide for the safety of his servant, threw this obstacle in the way of Saul, we surely cannot say, that though the Philistine took up arms contrary to human expectation, they did it by chance. What seems to us contingence, faith will recognise as the secret impulse of God.

The reason is not always equally apparent, but we ought undoubtedly to hold that all the changes which take place in the world are produced by the secret agency of the hand of God. At the same time, that which God has determined, though it must come to pass, is not, however, precisely, or in its own nature, necessary. We have a familiar example in the case of our Saviour’s bones. As he assumed a body similar to ours, no sane man will deny that his bones were capable of being broken and yet it was impossible that they should be broken, (John 19:33,36.) Hence, again, we see that there was good ground for the distinction which the Schoolmen made between necessity, secundum quid, and necessity absolute, also between the necessity of consequent and of consequence. God made the bones of his Son frangible, though he exempted them from actual fracture; and thus, in reference to the necessity of his counsel, made that impossible which might have naturally taken place.

CHAPTER 17. USE TO BE MADE OF THE DOCTRINE OF PROVIDENCE.

This chapter may be conveniently divided into two parts:—

I. A general explanation is given of the doctrine of Divine Providence, in so far as conducive to the solid instruction and consolation of the godly, sect. 1, and specially sect. 2-12. First, however, those are refuted who deny that the world is governed by the secret and incomprehensible counsel of God; those also who throw the blame of all wickedness upon God, and absurdly pretend that exercises of piety are useless, sect. 2-5. Thereafter is added a holy meditation on Divine Providence, which, in the case of prosperity, is painted to the life, sect. 6-11.

II. A solution of two objections from passages of Scripture, which attribute repentance to God, and speak of something like an abrogation of his decrees.

Sections.

1. Summary of the doctrine of Divine Providence.

1. It embraces the future and the past.

2. It works by means, without means, and against means.

3. Mankind, and particularly the Church, the object of special care.

4. The mode of administration usually secret, but always just. This last point more fully considered.

2. The profane denial that the world is governed by the secret counsel of God, refuted by passages of Scripture. Salutary counsel.

3. This doctrine, as to the secret counsel of God in the government of the world, gives no countenance either to the impiety of those who throw the blame of their wickedness upon God, the petulance of those who reject means, or the error of those who neglect the duties of religion.

4. As regards future events, the doctrine of Divine Providence not inconsistent with deliberation on the part of man.

5. In regard to past events, it is absurd to argue that crimes ought not to be punished, because they are in accordance with the divine decrees.

1. The wicked resist the declared will of God.

2. They are condemned by conscience.

3. The essence and guilt of the crime is in themselves, though God uses them as instruments.

6. A holy meditation on Divine Providence.

1. All events happen by the ordination of God.

2. All things contribute to the advantage of the godly.

3. The hearts of men and all their endeavours are in the hand of God.

4. Providence watches for the safety of the righteous.

5. God has a special care of his elect.

7. Meditation on Providence continued.

6. God in various ways curbs and defeats the enemies of the Church.

7. He overrules all creatures, even Satan himself, for the good of his people.

8. Meditation on Providence continued.

8. He trains the godly to patience and moderation. Examples. Joseph, Job, and David.

9. He shakes off their lethargy, and urges them to repentance.

9. Meditation continued.

10. The right use of inferior causes explained.

11. When the godly become negligent or imprudent in the discharge of duty, Providence reminds them of their fault.

12. It condemns the iniquities of the wicked.

13. It produces a right consideration of the future, rendering the servants of God prudent, diligent, and active.

14. It causes them to resign themselves to the wisdom and omnipotence of God, and, at the same time, makes them diligent in their calling.

10. Meditation continued.

15. Though human life is beset with innumerable evils, the righteous, trusting to Divine Providence, feel perfectly secure.

11. The use of the foregoing meditation.

12. The second part of the chapter, disposing of two objections.

1. That Scripture represents God as changing his purpose, or repenting, and that, therefore, his Providence is not fixed. Answer to this first objection. Proof from Scripture that God cannot repent.

13. Why repentance attributed to God.

14. Second objection, that Scripture speaks of an annulment of the divine decrees. Objection answered. Answer confirmed by an example.

( Interpretation of divine providence with reference to the past and the future, 1-5)

1. The meaning of God’s ways

Moreover, such is the proneness of the human mind to indulge in vain subtleties, that it becomes almost impossible for those who do not see the sound and proper use of this doctrine, to avoid entangling themselves in perplexing difficulties. It will, therefore, be proper here to advert to the end which Scripture has in view in teaching that all things are divinely ordained.

And it is to be observed, first, that the Providence of God is to be considered with reference both to the past and the future; and, secondly, that in overruling all things, it works at one time with means, at another without means, and at another against means. Lastly, the design of God is to show that He takes care of the whole human race, but is especially vigilant in governing the Church, which he favours with a closer inspection. Moreover, we must add, that although the paternal favour and beneficence, as well as the judicial severity of God, is often conspicuous in the whole course of his Providence, yet occasionally as the causes of events are concealed, the thought is apt to rise, that human affairs are whirled about by the blind impulse of Fortune, or our carnal nature inclines us to speak as if God were amusing himself by tossing men up and down like balls. It is true, indeed, that if with sedate and quiet minds we were disposed to learn, the issue would at length make it manifest, that the counsel of God was in accordance with the highest reason, that his purpose was either to train his people to patience, correct their depraved affections, tame their wantonness, inure them to self-denial, and arouse them from torpor; or, on the other hand, to cast down the proud, defeat the craftiness of the ungodly, and frustrate all their schemes. How much soever causes may escape our notice, we must feel assured that they are deposited with him, and accordingly exclaim with David, “Many, O Lord my God, are thy wonderful works which thou hast done, and thy thoughts which are to us-ward: if I would declare and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered,” (Ps. 40:5.) For while our adversities ought always to remind us of our sins, that the punishment may incline us to repentance, we see, moreover, how Christ declares there is something more in the secret counsel of his Father than to chastise every one as he deserves. For he says of the man who was born blind, “Neither has this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him,” (John 9:3.) Here, where calamity takes precedence even of birth, our carnal sense murmurs as if God were unmerciful in thus afflicting those who have not offended. But Christ declares that, provided we had eyes clear enough, we should perceive that in this spectacle the glory of his Father is brightly displayed.

We must use modesty, not as it were compelling God to render an account, but so revering his hidden judgements as to account his will the best of all reasons. When the sky is overcast with dense clouds, and a violent tempest arises, the darkness which is presented to our eye, and the thunder which strikes our ears, and stupefies all our senses with terror, make us imagine that every thing is thrown into confusion, though in the firmament itself all continues quiet and serene. In the same way, when the tumultuous aspect of human affairs unfits us for judging, we should still hold, that God, in the pure light of his justice and wisdom, keeps all these commotions in due subordination, and conducts them to their proper end. And certainly in this matter many display monstrous infatuation, presuming to subject the works of God to their calculation, and discuss his secret counsels, as well as to pass a precipitate judgement on things unknown, and that with greater license than on the doings of mortal men. What can be more preposterous than to show modesty toward our equals, and choose rather to suspend our judgement than incur the blame of rashness, while we petulantly insult the hidden judgements of God, judgements which it becomes us to look up to and revere.

2. God’s rule will be observed with respect!

No man, therefore, will duly and usefully ponder on the providence of God save he who recollects that he has to do with his own Maker, and the Maker of the world, and in the exercise of the humility which becomes him, manifests both fear and reverence. Hence it is, that in the present day so many dogs tear this doctrine with envenomed teeth, or, at least, assail it with their bark, refusing to give more license to God than their own reason dictates to themselves. With what petulance, too, are we assailed for not being contented with the precepts of the Law, in which the will of God is comprehended, and for maintaining that the world is governed by his secret counsels? As if our doctrine were the figment of our own brain, and were not distinctly declared by the Spirit, and repeated in innumerable forms of expression! Since some feeling of shame restrains them from daring to belch forth their blasphemies against heaven, that they may give the freer vent to their rage, they pretend to pick a quarrel with us.

But if they refuse to admit that every event which happens in the world is governed by the incomprehensible counsel of God, let them explain to what effect Scripture declares, that “his judgements are a great deep,” (Ps. 36:6.) For when Moses exclaims that the will of God “is not in heaven that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us? Neither is it beyond the sea that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea and bring it unto us?” (Deut. 30:12,13,) because it was familiarly expounded in the law, it follows that there must be another hidden will which is compared to “ a great deep.” It is of this will Paul exclaims, “O! the depths of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgements, and his ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counsellor?” (Rom. 11:33,34 cf. Isa. 40:13-14.) It is true, indeed, that in the law and the gospel are comprehended mysteries which far transcend the measure of our sense; but since God, to enable his people to understand those mysteries which he has deigned to reveal in his word, enlightens their minds with a spirit of understanding (Job 20:3 or Isa. 11:2), they are now no longer a deep, but a path in which they can walk safely—a lamp to guide their feet (Ps. 118:105)—a light of life (cf. John 1:4, 8:12)—a school of clear and certain truth. But the admirable method of governing the world is justly called a deep, because, while it lies hid from us, it is to be reverently adored.

Both views Moses has beautifully expressed in a few words. “Secret things,” saith he, “belong unto the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever,” (Deut. 29:29.) We see how he enjoins us not only studiously to meditate on the law, but to look up with reverence to the secret Providence of God. The Book of Job also, in order to keep our minds humble, contains a description of this lofty theme. The author of the Book, after taking an ample survey of the universe, and discoursing magnificently on the works of God, at length adds, “Lo, these are parts of his ways: but how little a portion is heard of him?” (Job 26:14.) For which reason he, in another passage, distinguishes between the wisdom which dwells in God, and the measure of wisdom which he has assigned to man, (Job 28:21,28.) After discoursing of the secrets of nature, he says that wisdom “is hid from the eyes of all living;” that “God understandeth the way thereof.” Shortly after he adds, that it has been divulged that it might be investigated; for “unto man he said, Behold the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom.” To this the words of Augustine refer, “As we do not know all the things which God does respecting us in the best order, we ought, with good intention, to act according to the Law, and in some things be acted upon according to the Law, his Providence being a Law immutable,” (August. Quest. lib. 83 c. 27.) Therefore, since God claims to himself the right of governing the world, a right unknown to us, let it be our law of modesty and soberness to acquiesce in his supreme authority regarding his will as our only rule of justice, and the most perfect cause of all things,—not that absolute will, indeed, of which sophists prate, when by a profane and impious divorce, they separate his justice from his power, but that universal overruling Providence from which nothing flows that is not right, though the reasons thereof may be concealed.

3. God’s providence does not relieve us from responsibility

Those who have learned this modesty will neither murmur against God for adversity in time past, nor charge him with the blame of their own wickedness, as Homer’s Agamemnon does.—"Ego d’ ouk haitios eimi, alla Zeus kai moira.” “Blame not me, but Jupiter and fate.” On the other hand, they will note like the youth in Plautus, destroy themselves in despairs as if hurried away by the Fates. “Unstable is the condition of affairs; instead of doing as they list, men only fulfil their fate: I will hie me to a rock, and there end my fortune with my life.” Nor will they, after the example of another, use the name of God as a cloak for their crimes. For in another comedy Lyconides thus expresses himself:—"God was the impeller: I believe the gods wished it. Did they not wish it, it would not be done, I know.” They will rather inquire and learn from Scripture what is pleasing to God, and then, under the guidance of the Spirit, endeavour to attain it. Prepared to follow whithersoever God may call, they will show by their example that nothing is more useful than the knowledge of this doctrine, which perverse men undeservedly assail, because it is sometimes wickedly abused.

The profane make such a bluster with their foolish puerilities, that they almost, according to the expression, confound heaven and earth. If the Lord has marked the moment of our death, it cannot be escaped,—it is vain to toil and use precaution. Therefore, when one ventures not to travel on a road which he hears is infested by robbers; when another calls in the physician, and annoys himself with drugs, for the sake of his health; a third abstains from coarser food, that he may not injure a sickly constitution; and a fourth fears to dwell in a ruinous house; when all, in short, devise, and, with great eagerness of mind, strike out paths by which they may attain the objects of their desire; either these are all vain remedies, laid hold of to correct the will of God, or his certain decree does not fix the limits of life and death, health and sickness, peace and war, and other matters which men, according as they desire and hate, study by their own industry to secure or avoid. Nay, these trifles even infer, that the prayers of the faithful must be perverse, not to say superfluous, since they entreat the Lord to make a provision for things which he has decreed from eternity. And then, imputing whatever happens to the providence of God, they connive at the man who is known to have expressly designed it. Has an assassin slain an honest citizen? He has, say they, executed the counsel of God. Has some one committed theft or adultery? The deed having been provided and ordained by the Lord, he is the minister of his providence. Has a son waited with indifference for the death of his parent, without trying any remedy? He could not oppose God, who had so predetermined from eternity. Thus all crimes receive the name of virtues, as being in accordance with divine ordination.

4. God’s providence does not excuse us from due prudence

As regards future events, Solomon easily reconciles human deliberation with divine providence. For while he derides the stupidity of those who presume to undertake anything without God, as if they were not ruled by his hand, he elsewhere thus expresses himself: “A man’s heart deviseth his ways but the Lord directeth his steps,” (Prov. 16:9;) intimating, that the eternal decrees of God by no means prevent us from proceeding, under his will, to provide for ourselves, and arrange all our affairs. And the reason for this is clear. For he who has fixed the boundaries of our life, has at the same time entrusted us with the care of it, provided us with the means of preserving it, forewarned us of the dangers to which we are exposed, and supplied cautions and remedies, that we may not be overwhelmed unawares. Now, our duty is clear, namely, since the Lord has committed to us the defence of our life,—to defend it; since he offers assistance,—to use it; since he forewarns us of danger, - not to rush on heedless; since he supplies remedies,—not to neglect them. But it is said, a danger that is not fatal will not hurt us, and one that is fatal cannot be resisted by any precaution. But what if dangers are not fatal, merely because the Lord has furnished you with the means of warding them off, and surmounting them? See how far your reasoning accords with the order of divine procedure: You infer that danger is not to be guarded against, because, if it is not fatal, you shall escape without precaution; whereas the Lord enjoins you to guard against its just because he wills it not to be fatal. These insane cavillers overlook what is plainly before their eyes, viz., that the Lord has furnished men with the artful of deliberation and caution, that they may employ them in subservience to his providence, in the preservation of their life; while, on the contrary, by neglect and sloth, they bring upon themselves the evils which he has annexed to them. How comes it that a provident man, while he consults for his safety, disentangles himself from impending evils; while a foolish man, through unadvised temerity, perishes, unless it be that prudence and folly are, in either case, instruments of divine dispensation? God has been pleased to conceal from us all future events that we may prepare for them as doubtful, and cease not to apply the provided remedies until they have either been overcome, or have proved too much for all our care. Hence, I formerly observed, that the Providence of God does not interpose simply; but, by employing means, assumes, as it were, a visible form.

5. God’s providence does not exculpate our wickedness

By the same class of persons, past events are referred improperly and inconsiderately to simple providence. As all contingencies whatsoever depend on it, therefore, neither thefts nor adulteries, nor murders, are perpetrated without an interposition of the divine will. Why, then, they ask, should the thief be punished for robbing him whom the Lord chose to chastise with poverty? Why should the murderer be punished for slaying him whose life the Lord had terminated? If all such persons serve the will of God, why should they be punished? I deny that they serve the will of God. For we cannot say that he who is carried away by a wicked mind performs service on the order of God, when he is only following his own malignant desires. He obeys God, who, being instructed in his will, hastens in the direction in which God calls him. But how are we so instructed unless by his word? The will declared by his word is, therefore, that which we must keep in view in acting, God requires of us nothing but what he enjoins. If we design anything contrary to his precept, it is not obedience, but contumacy and transgression. But if he did not will it, we could not do it. I admit this. But do we act wickedly for the purpose of yielding obedience to him? This, assuredly, he does not command. Nay, rather we rush on, not thinking of what he wishes, but so inflamed by our own passionate lust, that, with destined purpose, we strive against him. And in this way, while acting wickedly, we serve his righteous ordination, since in his boundless wisdom he well knows how to use bad instruments for good purposes. And see how absurd this mode of arguing is. They will have it that crimes ought not to be punished in their authors, because they are not committed without the dispensation of God.

I concede more—that thieves and murderers, and other evil-doers, are instruments of Divine Providence, being employed by the Lord himself to execute the judgements which he has resolved to inflict. But I deny that this forms any excuse for their misdeeds. For how? Will they implicate God in the same iniquity with themselves, or will they cloak their depravity by his righteousness? They cannot exculpate themselves, for their own conscience condemns them: they cannot charge God, since they perceive the whole wickedness in themselves, and nothing in Him save the legitimate use of their wickedness. But it is said he works by their means. And whence, I pray, the fetid odour of a dead body, which has been unconfined and putrefied by the sun’s heat? All see that it is excited by the rays of the sun, but no man therefore says that the fetid odour is in them. In the same way, while the matter and guilt of wickedness belongs to the wicked man, why should it be thought that God contracts any impurity in using it at pleasure as his instrument? Have done, then, with that dog-like petulance which may, indeed, bay from a distance at the justice of God, but cannot reach it!

( Meditation on the ways of God in providence: the happiness of recognizing acts of providence, 6-11)

6. God’s providence as solace of believers

These calumnies, or rather frenzied dreams, will easily be dispelled by a pure and holy meditation on Divine Providence, meditation such as piety enjoins, that we may thence derive the best and sweetest fruit. The Christian, then, being most fully persuaded, that all things come to pass by the dispensation of God, and that nothing happens fortuitously, will always direct his eye to him as the principal cause of events, at the same time paying due regard to inferior causes in their own place. Next, he will have no doubt that a special providence is awake for his preservation, and will not suffer anything to happen that will not turn to his good and safety. But as its business is first with men and then with the other creatures, he will feel assured that the providence of God reigns over both. In regard to men, good as well as bad, he will acknowledge that their counsels, wishes, aims and faculties are so under his hand, that he has full power to turn them in whatever direction, and constrain them as often as he pleases.

The fact that a special providence watches over the safety of believers, is attested by a vast number of the clearest promises. “Cast thy burden upon the Lord, and he shall sustain thee: he shall never suffer the righteous to be moved.” (Ps. 55:22p cf. Ps. 54:23.) “Casting all your care upon him: for he careth for you.” (I Peter 5:7p.) “He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High, shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.” (Ps. 91:1; 90:1.) “He that toucheth you, toucheth the apple of mine eye.” (Zech. 2:8p.) “We have a strong city: salvation will God appoint for walls and bulwarks.” (Gen. 15:1, Jer. 1:18; 15:20.) “Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee.” (Isa. 49:15p.) Nay, the chief aim of the historical books of Scripture is to show that the ways of his saints are so carefully guarded by the Lord, as to prevent them even from dashing their foot against a stone (cf. Ps. 91:12).

Therefore, as we a little ago justly exploded the opinion of those who feign a universal providence, which does not condescend to take special care of every creature, so it is of the highest moment that we should specially recognise this care towards ourselves. Hence, our Saviour, after declaring that even a sparrow falls not to the ground without the will of his Father (Matt 10:29), immediately makes the application, that being more valuable than many sparrows, we ought to consider that God provides more carefully for us (Matt 10:31). He even extends this so far, as to assure us that the hairs of our head are all numbered (Matt 10:30). What more can we wish, if not even a hair of our head can fall, save in accordance with his will? I speak not merely of the human race in general. God having chosen the Church for his abode, there cannot be a doubt, that in governing it, he gives singular manifestations of his paternal care.

7. God’s providence in prosperity

The servant of God being confirmed by these promises and examples, will add the passages which teach that all men are under his power, whether to conciliate their minds, or to curb their wickedness, and prevent it from doing harm. For it is the Lord who gives us favour, not only with those who wish us well, but also in the eyes of the Egyptians, (Exod. 3:21,) in various ways defeating the malice of our enemies. Sometimes he deprives them of all presence of mind, so that they cannot undertake anything soundly or soberly. In this ways he sends Satan to be a lie in the mouths of all the prophets in order to deceive Ahab, (1 Kings 22:22,) by the counsel of the young men he so infatuates Rehoboam, that his folly deprives him of his kingdom, (1 Kings 12:10,15.) Sometimes when he leaves them in possession of intellect, he so fills them with terror and dismays that they can neither will nor plan the execution of what they had designed. Sometimes, too, after permitting them to attempt what lust and rage suggested, he opportunely interrupts them in their career, and allows them not to conclude what they had begun. Thus the counsel of Ahithophel, which would have been fatal to David, was defeated before its time, (2 Sam. 17:7,14.) Thus, for the good and safety of his people, he overrules all the creatures, even the devil himself who, we see, durst not attempt any thing against Job without his permission and command (Job 1:12).

This knowledge is necessarily followed by gratitude in prosperity, patience in adversity, and incredible security for the time to come. Every thing, therefore, which turns out prosperous and according to his wish, the Christian will ascribe entirely to God, whether he has experienced his beneficence through the instrumentality of men, or been aided by inanimate creatures. For he will thus consider with himself: Certainly it was the Lord that disposed the minds of these people in my favour, attaching them to me so as to make them the instruments of his kindness. In an abundant harvest he will think that it is the Lord who listens to the heaven, that the heaven may listen to the earth, and the earth herself to her own offspring; in other cases, he will have no doubt that he owes all his prosperity to the divine blessing, and, admonished by so many circumstances, will feel it impossible to be ungrateful.

8. Certainty about God’s providence helps us in all adversities

If any thing adverse befalls him, he will forthwith raise his mind to God, whose hand is most effectual in impressing us with patience and placid moderation of mind. Had Joseph kept his thoughts fixed on the treachery of his brethren, he never could have resumed fraternal affection for them. But turning toward the Lord, he forgot the injury, and was so inclined to mildness and mercy, that he even voluntarily comforts his brethren, telling them, “Be not grieved nor angry with yourselves that ye sold me hither; for God did send me before you to preserve life.” “As for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good,” (Gen. 45:5; 50:20.) Had Job turned to the Chaldees, by whom he was plundered, he should instantly have been fired with revenge, but recognising the work of the Lord, he solaces himself with this most beautiful sentiment: “The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord,” (Job 1:21.) So when David was assailed by Shimei with stones and curses, had he immediately fixed his eyes on the man, he would have urged his people to retaliate the injury; but perceiving that he acts not without an impulse from the Lord, he rather calms them. “So let him curse,” says he, “because the Lord has said unto him, Curse David.” (II Sam. 16:11.) With the same bridle he elsewhere curbs the excess of his grief, “I was dumb, I opened not my mouth, because thou didst it,” (Ps. 39:9.) If there is no more effectual remedy for anger and impatience, he assuredly has not made little progress who has learned so to meditate on Divine Providence, as to be able always to bring his mind to this, The Lord willed it, it must therefore be borne; not only because it is unlawful to strive with him, but because he wills nothing that is not just and befitting. The whole comes to this. When unjustly assailed by men, overlooking their malice, (which could only aggravate our grief, and whet our minds for vengeance,) let us remember to ascend to God, and learn to hold it for certain, that whatever an enemy wickedly committed against us was permitted, and sent by his righteous dispensation.

Paul, in order to suppress our desire to retaliate injuries, wisely reminds us that we wrestle not with flesh and blood, but with our spiritual enemy the devil, that we may prepare for the contest, (Eph. 6:12.) But to calm all the impulses of passion, the most useful consideration is, that God arms the devil, as well as all the wicked, for conflict, and sits as umpire, that he may exercise our patience.

But if the disasters and miseries which press us happen without the agency of men, let us call to mind the doctrine of the Law, (Deut. 28:1ff,) that all prosperity has its source in the blessing of God, that all adversity is his curse. And let us tremble at the dreadful denunciation, “And if ye will not be reformed by these things, but will walk contrary unto me; then will I also walk contrary unto you,” (Lev. 26: 23, 24.) These words condemn our torpor, when, according to our carnal sense, deeming that whatever happens in any way is fortuitous, we are neither animated by the kindness of God to worship him, nor by his scourge stimulated to repentance. And it is for this reason that Jeremiah, (Lament. 3:38,) and Amos, (Amos 3:6,) expostulated bitterly with the Jews, for not believing that good as well as evil was produced by the command of God. To the same effect are the words in Isaiah, “I form the light and create darkness: I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things,” (Is: 45:7.)

9. No disregard of intermediate causes!

At the same time, the Christian will not overlook inferior causes. For, while he regards those by whom he is benefited as ministers of the divine goodness, he will not, therefore, pass them by, as if their kindness deserved no gratitude, but feeling sincerely obliged to them, will willingly confess the obligation, and endeavour, according to his ability, to return it. In fine, in the blessings which he receives, he will revere and extol God as the principal author, but will also honour men as his ministers, and perceive, as is the truth, that by the will of God he is under obligation to those, by whose hand God has been pleased to show him kindness. If he sustains any loss through negligence or imprudence, he will, indeed, believe that it was the Lord’s will it should so be, but, at the same time, he will impute it to himself. If one for whom it was his duty to care, but whom he has treated with neglect, is carried off by disease, although aware that the person had reached a limit beyond which it was impossible to pass, he will not, therefore, extenuate his fault, but, as he had neglected to do his duty faithfully towards him, will feel as if he had perished by his guilty negligence. Far less where, in the case of theft or murder, fraud and preconceived malice have existed, will he palliate it under the pretext of Divine Providence, but in the same crime will distinctly recognise the justice of God, and the iniquity of man, as each is separately manifested.

But in future events, especially, will he take account of such inferior causes. If he is not left destitute of human aid, which he can employ for his safety, he will set it down as a divine blessing; but he will not, therefore, be remiss in taking measures, or slow in employing the help of those whom he sees possessed of the means of assisting him. Regarding all the aids which the creatures can lend him, as hands offered him by the Lord, he will avail himself of them as the legitimate instruments of Divine Providence. And as he is uncertain what the result of any business in which he engages is to be, (save that he knows, that in all things the Lord will provide for his good,) he will zealously aim at what he deems for the best, so far as his abilities enable him. In adopting his measures, he will not be carried away by his own impressions, but will commit and resign himself to the wisdom of God, that under his guidance he may be led into the right path. However, his confidence in external aid will not be such that the presence of it will make him feel secure, the absence of it fill him with dismay, as if he were destitute. His mind will always be fixed on the Providence of God alone, and no consideration of present circumstances will be allowed to withdraw him from the steady contemplation of it. Thus Joab, while he acknowledges that the issue of the battle is entirely in the hand of God, does not therefore become inactive, but strenuously proceeds with what belongs to his proper calling, “Be of good courage,” says he, “and let us play the men for our people, and for the cities of our God; and the Lord do that which seemeth him good,” (2 Sam. 10:12.) The same conviction keeping us free from rashness and false confidence, will stimulate us to constant prayer, while at the same time filling our minds with good hope, it will enable us to feel secure, and bid defiance to all the dangers by which we are surrounded.

10. Without certainty about God’s providence life would be unbearable

Here we are forcibly reminded of the inestimable felicity of a pious mind. Innumerable are the ills which beset human life, and present death in as many different forms. Not to go beyond ourselves, since the body is a receptacle, nay the nurse, of a thousand diseases, a man cannot move without carrying along with him many forms of destruction. His life is in a manner interwoven with death. For what else can be said where heat and cold bring equal danger? Then, in what direction soever you turn, all surrounding objects not only may do harm, but almost openly threaten and seem to present immediate death. Go on board a ship, you are but a plank’s breadth from death. Mount a horse, the stumbling of a foot endangers your life. Walk along the streets, every tile upon the roofs is a source of danger. If a sharp instrument is in your own hand, or that of a friend, the possible harm is manifest. All the savage beasts you see are so many beings armed for your destruction. Even within a high walled garden, where everything ministers to delight, a serpent will sometimes lurk. Your house, constantly exposed to fire, threatens you with poverty by day, with destruction by night. Your fields, subject to hail, mildew, drought, and other injuries, denounce barrenness, and thereby famine. I say nothing of poison, treachery, robbery, some of which beset us at home, others follow us abroad. Amid these perils, must not man be very miserable, as one who, more dead than alive, with difficulty draws an anxious and feeble breath, just as if a drawn sword were constantly suspended over his neck?

It may be said that these things happen seldom, at least not always, or to all, certainly never all at once. I admit it; but since we are reminded by the example of others, that they may also happen to us, and that our life is not an exception any more than theirs, it is impossible not to fear and dread as if they were to befall us. What can you imagine more grievous than such trepidation? Add that there is something like an insult to God when it is said, that man, the noblest of the creatures, stands exposed to every blind and random stroke of fortune. Here, however, we were only referring to the misery which man should feel, were he placed under the dominion of chance.

11. Certainty about God’s providence puts joyous trust toward God in our hearts

But when once the light of Divine Providence has illumined the believer’s soul, he is relieved and set free, not only from the extreme fear and anxiety which formerly oppressed him, but from all care. For as he justly shudders at the idea of chance, so he can confidently commit himself to God. This, I say, is his comfort, that his heavenly Father so embraces all things under his power—so governs them at will by his nod—so regulates them by his wisdom, that nothing takes place save according to his appointment; that received into his favour, and entrusted to the care of his angels neither fire, nor water, nor sword, can do him harm, except in so far as God their master is pleased to permit. For thus sings the Psalm, “Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence. He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust; his truth shall be thy shield and buckler. Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day; nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday” &c. (Ps. 91: 2-6.) Hence the exulting confidence of the saints, “The Lord is on my side; I will not fear: what can man do unto me? The Lord taketh my part with them that help me.” “Though an host should encamp against me, my heart shall not fear.” “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil.” (Ps. 118: 6; 27: 3; 23: 4.)

How comes it, I ask, that their confidence never fails, but just that while the world apparently revolves at random, they know that God is every where at work, and feel assured that his work will be their safety? When assailed by the devil and wicked men, were they not confirmed by remembering and meditating on Providence, they should, of necessity, forthwith despond. But when they call to mind that the devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are, in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how much soever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay, unless in so far as he commands; that they are not only bound by his fetters, but are even forced to do him service,—when the godly think of all these things they have ample sources of consolation. For, as it belongs to the lord to arm the fury of such foes and turn and destine it at pleasure, so it is his also to determine the measure and the end, so as to prevent them from breaking loose and wantoning as they list. Supported by this conviction,

Paul, who had said in one place that his journey was hindered by Satan, (1 Thess. 2:18,) in another resolves, with the permission of God, to undertake it, (1 Cor. 16:7.) If he had only said that Satan was the obstacle, he might have seemed to give him too much power, as if he were able even to overturn the counsels of God; but now, when he makes God the disposer, on whose permission all journies depend, he shows, that however Satan may contrive, he can accomplish nothing except in so far as He pleases to give the word. For the same reason, David, considering the various turns which human life undergoes as it rolls, and in a manner whirls around, retakes himself to this asylum, “My times are in thy hand,” (Ps. 31:15.) He might have said the course of life or time in the singular number, but by times he meant to express, that how unstable soever the condition of man may be, the vicissitudes which are ever and anon taking place are under divine regulation. Hence Rezin and the king of Israel, after they had joined their forces for the destruction of Israel, and seemed torches which had been kindled to destroy and consume the land, are termed by the prophet “smoking fire brands.” They could only emit a little smoke, (Is. 7: 4.) So Pharaoh, when he was an object of dread to all by his wealth and strength, and the multitude of his troops, is compared to the largest of beasts, while his troops are compared to fishes; and God declares that he will take both leader and army with his hooks, and drag them whither he pleases, (Ezek. 29: 4.) In one word, not to dwell longer on this, give heed, and you will at once perceive that ignorance of Providence is the greatest of all miseries, and the knowledge of it the highest happiness.

( Answer to objections, 12-14)

12. On God’s “repentance”

On the Providence of God, in so far as conducive to the solid instruction and consolation of believers, (for, as to satisfying the curiosity of foolish men, it is a thing which cannot be done, and ought not to be attempted,) enough would have been said, did not a few passages remain which seem to insinuate, contrary to the view which we have expounded, that the counsel of God is not firm and stable, but varies with the changes of sublunary affairs. First, in reference to the Providence of God, it is said that he repented of having made man, (Gen. 6:6,) and of having raised Saul to the kingdom, (1 Sam. 15:11,) and that he will repent of the evil which he had resolved to inflict on his people as soon as he shall have perceived some amendment in them, (Jer. 18:8.) Secondly, his decrees are sometimes said to be annulled. He had by Jonah proclaimed to the Ninevites, “Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown,” but, immediately on their repentance, he inclined to a more merciful sentence, (Jonah 3:4-10.) After he had, by the mouth of Isaiah, given Hezekiah intimation of his death, he was moved by his tears and prayers to defer it, (Is. 38:1,5; 2 Kings 20: 1,5 cf. II Chron. 32:34.) Hence many argue that God has not fixed human affairs by an eternal decree, but according to the merits of each individual, and as he deems right and just, disposes of each single year, and day, and hour.

As to repentance, we must hold that it can no more exist in God than ignorance, or error, or impotence. If no man knowingly or willingly reduces himself to the necessity of repentance, we cannot attribute repentance to God without saying either that he knows not what is to happen, or that he cannot evade it, or that he rushes precipitately and inconsiderately into a resolution, and then forthwith regrets it. But so far is this from the meaning of the Holy Spirit, that in the very mention of repentance he declares that God is not influenced by any feeling of regret, that he is not a man that he should repent. And it is to be observed, that, in the same chapter, both things are so conjoined, that a comparison of the passages admirably removes the appearance of contradiction. When it is said that God repented of having made Saul king, the term change is used figuratively. Shortly after, it is added, “The Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent,” (1 Sam. 15:29.) In these words, his immutability is plainly asserted without figure. Wherefore it is certain that, in administering human affairs, the ordination of God is perpetual and superior to every thing like repentance. That there might be no doubt of his constancy, even his enemies are forced to bear testimony to it. For, Balaam, even against his will, behaved to break forth into this exclamation, “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: has he said, and shall he not do it? or has he spoken, and shall he not make it good?” (Num. 23:19.)

13. Scripture speaks of God’s “repentance” to make allowance for our understanding

What then is meant by the term repentance? The very same that is meant by the other forms of expression, by which God is described to us humanly. Because our weakness cannot reach his height, any description which we receive of him must be lowered to our capacity in order to be intelligible. And the mode of lowering is to represent him not as he really is, but as we conceive of him. Though he is incapable of every feeling of perturbation, he declares that he is angry with the wicked. Wherefore, as when we hear that God is angry, we ought not to imagine that there is any emotion in him, but ought rather to consider the mode of speech accommodated to our sense, God appearing to us like one inflamed and irritated whenever he exercises judgement, so we ought not to imagine any thing more under the term repentance than a change of action, men being wont to testify their dissatisfaction by such a change. Hence, because every change whatever among men is intended as a correction of what displeases, and the correction proceeds from repentance, the same term applied to God simply means that his procedure is changed. In the meantime, there is no inversion of his counsel or will, no change of his affection. What from eternity he had foreseen, approved, decreed, he prosecutes with unvarying uniformity, how sudden soever to the eye of man the variation may seem to be.

14. God firmly executes his plan

Nor does the Sacred History, while it relates that the destruction which had been proclaimed to the Ninevites was remitted (Jonah 3:10), and the life of Hezekiah, after an intimation of death, prolonged, imply that the decrees of God were annulled (Isa. 38:5). Those who think so labour under delusion as to the meaning of threatening, which, though they affirm simply, nevertheless contain in them a tacit condition dependent on the result. Why did the Lord send Jonah to the Ninevites to predict the overthrow of their city? Why did he by Isaiah give Hezekiah intimation of his death? He might have destroyed both them and him without a message to announce the disaster. He had something else in view than to give them a warning of death, which might let them see it at a distance before it came. It was because he did not wish them destroyed but reformed, and thereby saved from destruction. When Jonah prophesies that in forty days Nineveh will be overthrown, he does it in order to prevent the overthrow. When Hezekiah is forbidden to hope for longer life, it is that he may obtain longer life. Who does not now see that, by threatening of this kind, God wished to arouse those to repentance whom he terrified, that they might escape the judgement which their sins deserved? If this is so, the very nature of the case obliges us to supply a tacit condition in a simple denunciation.

This is even confirmed by analogous cases. The Lord rebuking King Abimelech for having carried off the wife of Abraham, uses these words: “Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man’s wife.” But, after Abimelech’s excuse, he thus speaks: “Restore the man his wife, for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live; and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou and all that art thine,” (Gen. 20. 3, 7.) You see that, by the first announcement, he makes a deep impression on his mind, that he may render him eager to give satisfaction, and that by the second he clearly explains his will. Since the other passages may be similarly explained, you must not infer from them that the Lord derogated in any respect from his former counsel, because he recalled what he had promulgated. When, by denouncing punishment, he admonishes to repentance those whom he wishes to spare, he paves the way for his eternal decree, instead of varying it one whit either in will or in language. The only difference is, that he does not express, in so many syllables, what is easily understood. The words of Isaiah must remain true, “The Lord of hosts has purposed, and who shall disannul it? And his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?” (Isaiah 14: 27.)

CHAPTER 18. THE INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE WICKED EMPLOYED BY GOD, WHILE HE CONTINUES FREE FROM EVERY TAINT.

This last chapter of the First Book consists of three parts:

I. It having been said above that God bends all the reprobate, and even Satan himself, at his will, three objections are started. First, that this happens by the permission, not by the will of God. To this objection there is a twofold reply, the one, that angels and men, good and bad, do nothing but what is appointed by God; the second, that all movements are secretly directed to their end by the hidden inspiration of God, sec. 1, 2.

II. A second objection is, that there are two contrary wills in God, if by a secret counsel he decrees what he openly prohibits by his law. This objection refuted, sec. 3.

III. The third objection is, that God is made the author of all wickedness, when he is said not only to use the agency of the wicked, but also to govern their counsels and affections, and that therefore the wicked are unjustly punished. This objection refuted in the last section.

Sections.

1. The carnal mind the source of the objections which are raised against the Providence of God. A primary objection, making a distinction between the permission and the will of God, refuted. Angels and men, good and bad, do nought but what has been decreed by God. This proved by examples.

2. All hidden movements directed to their end by the unseen but righteous instigation of God. Examples, with answers to objections.

3. These objections originate in a spirit of pride and blasphemy. Objection, that there must be two contrary wills in God, refuted. Why the one simple will of God seems to us as if it were manifold.

4. Objection, that God is the author of sin, refuted by examples. Augustine’s answer and admonition.

1. No mere “permission”!

From other passages, in which God is said to draw or bend Satan himself, and all the reprobate, to his will, a more difficult question arises. For the carnal mind can scarcely comprehend how, when acting by their means, he contracts no taint from their impurity, nay, how, in a common operation, he is exempt from all guilt, and can justly condemn his own ministers. Hence a distinction has been invented between doing and permitting because to many it seemed altogether inexplicable how Satan and all the wicked are so under the hand and authority of God, that he directs their malice to whatever end he pleases, and employs their iniquities to execute his judgements. The modesty of those who are thus alarmed at the appearance of absurdity might perhaps be excused, did they not endeavour to vindicate the justice of God from every semblance of stigma by defending an untruth. It seems absurd that man should be blinded by the will and command of God, and yet be forthwith punished for his blindness. Hence, recourse is had to the evasion that this is done only by the permission, and not also by the will of God. He himself, however, openly declaring that he does this, repudiates the evasion. That men do nothing save at the secret instigation of God, and do not discuss and deliberate on any thing but what he has previously decreed with himself and brings to pass by his secret direction, is proved by numberless clear passages of Scripture. What we formerly quoted from the Psalms, to the effect that he does whatever pleases him (Ps. 115:3), certainly extends to all the actions of men. If God is the arbiter of peace and war, as is there said, and that without any exception, who will venture to say that men are borne along at random with a blind impulse, while He is unconscious or quiescent?

But the matter will be made clearer by special examples. From the first chapter of Job we learn that Satan appears in the presence of God to receive his orders, just as do the angels who obey spontaneously (Job 1:6; 2:1). The manner and the end are different, but still the fact is, that he cannot attempt anything without the will of God. But though afterwards his power to afflict the saint seems to be only a bare permission, yet as the sentiment is true, “The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; as it pleased the Lord, so it has been done,” we infer that God was the author of that trial of which Satan and wicked robbers were merely the instruments. Satan’s aim is to drive the saint to madness by despair. The Sabeans cruelly and wickedly make a sudden incursion to rob another of his goods. Job acknowledges that he was deprived of all his property, and brought to poverty, because such was the pleasure of God. Therefore, whatever men or Satan himself devise, God holds the helm, and makes all their efforts contribute to the execution of his judgements. God wills that the perfidious Ahab should be deceived; the devil offers his agency for that purpose, and is sent with a definite command to be a lying spirit in the mouth of all the prophets, (2 Kings 22:20,22.) If the blinding and infatuation of Ahab is a judgement from God, the fiction of bare permission is at an end; for it would be ridiculous for a judge only to permit, and not also to decree, what he wishes to be done at the very time that he commits the execution of it to his ministers.

The Jews purposed to destroy Christ. Pilate and the soldiers indulged them in their fury; yet the disciples confess in solemn prayer that all the wicked did nothing but what the hand and counsel of God had decreed, (Acts 4:28,) just as Peter had previously said in his discourse, that Christ was delivered to death by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, (Acts 2:23;) in other words, that God, to whom all things are known from the beginning, had determined what the Jews had executed. He repeats the same thing elsewhere, “Those things, which God before had showed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he has so fulfilled,” (Acts 3:18.) Absalom incestuously defiling his father’s bed, perpetrates a detestable crime (II Sam. 16:22). God, however, declares that it was his work; for the words are, “Thou midst it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.” (II Sam. 12:12.) The cruelties of the Chaldeans in Judea are declared by Jeremiah to be the work of God (Jer. 1:15; 7:14; 50:25). For which reason, Nebuchadnezzar is called the servant of God (Jer. 25:9; cf. ch. 27:6). God frequently exclaims, that by his hiss (Isa. 7:18 or 5:26), by the clang of his trumpet (Hos. 8:1), by his authority and command, the wicked are excited to war (cf. Zeph. 2:1). He calls the Assyrian the rod of his anger (Isa. 10:5p), and the axe which he wields in his hand (cf. Matt 3:10). The overthrow of the city and downfall of the temple, he calls his own work (Isa. 28:21). David, not murmuring against God, but acknowledging him to be a just judge, confesses that the curses of Shimei are uttered by his orders (II Sam. 16:10). “The Lord,” says he, “has bidden him curse.” (II Sam. 16:11.) Often in sacred history whatever happens is said to proceed from the Lord, as the revolt of the ten tribes (I Kings 11:31), the death of Eli’s sons (I Sam. 2:34), and very many others of a similar description. Those who have a tolerable acquaintance with the Scriptures see that, with a view to brevity, I am only producing a few out of many passages, from which it is perfectly clear that it is the merest trifling to substitute a bare permission for the providence of God, as if he sat in a watch-tower waiting for fortuitous events, his judgements meanwhile depending on the will of man.

2. How does God’s impulse come to pass in men?

With regard to secret movements, what Solomon says of the heart of a king, that it is turned hither and thither, as God sees meet (Prov. 21:1), certainly applies to the whole human race, and has the same force as if he had said, that whatever we conceive in our minds is directed to its end by the secret inspiration of God. And certainly, did he not work internally in the minds of men, it could not have been properly said, that he takes away the lip from the true, and prudence from the aged (Ezek. 7:26)—takes away the heart from the princes of the earth, that they wander through devious paths (Job 12:24; cf. Ps. 107:40; 106:40). To the same effect, we often read that men are intimidated when He fills their hearts with terror (Lev. 26:36). Thus David left the camp of Saul while none knew of its because a sleep from God had fallen upon all (I Sam 26:12). But nothing can be clearer than the many passages which declare, that he blinds the minds of men (Isa. 29:14), and smites them with giddiness (cf. Deut. 28:28; Zech. 12:4), intoxicates them with a spirit of stupor (Isa. 29:10), renders them infatuated (Rom. 1:28), and hardens their hearts (Ex. 14:17). Even these expressions many would confine to permissions as if, by deserting the reprobate, he allowed them to be blinded by Satan. But since the Holy Spirit distinctly says, that the blindness and infatuation are inflicted by the just judgement of God (Rom. 1:20-24), the solution is altogether inadmissible. He is said to have hardened the heart of Pharaoh (Ex. 9:12), to have hardened it yet more (ch. 10:1), and confirmed it (chs. 10:20,27; 11:10; 14:8). Some evade these forms of expression by a silly cavil, because Pharaoh is elsewhere said to have hardened his own heart (Ex. 8:15, 32; 9:34), thus making his will the cause of hardening it; as if the two things did not perfectly agree with each other, though in different senses viz., that man, though acted upon by God, at the same time also acts. But I retort the objection on those who make it. If to harden means only bare permission, the contumacy will not properly belong to Pharaoh. Now, could any thing be more feeble and insipid than to interpret as if Pharaoh had only allowed himself to be hardened? We may add, that Scripture cuts off all handle for such cavils: “I,” saith the Lord, “will harden his heart,” (Exod. 4:21.) So also, Moses says of the inhabitants of the land of Canaan, that they went forth to battle because the Lord had hardened their hearts, (Josh. 11:20 cf. Deut. 2:30.) The same thing is repeated by another prophet, “He turned their hearts to hate his people,” (Psalm 105:25.) In like manner, in Isaiah, he says of the Assyrian, “I will send him against a hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge to take the spoil, and to take the prey,” (Isaiah 10:6;) not that he intends to teach wicked and obstinate man to obey spontaneously, but because he bends them to execute his judgements, just as if they carried their orders engraven on their minds. And hence it appears that they are impelled by the sure appointment of God.

I admit, indeed, that God often acts in the reprobate by interposing the agency of Satan; but in such a manner, that Satan himself performs his part, just as he is impelled, and succeeds only in so far as he is permitted. The evil spirit that troubled Saul is said to be from the Lord, (1 Sam. 16:14,) to intimate that Saul’s madness was a just punishment from God. Satan is also said to blind the minds of those who believe not, (2 Cor. 4:4.) But how so, unless that a spirit of error is sent from God himself, making those who refuse to obey the truth to believe a lie? According to the former view, it is said, “If the prophet be deceived when he has spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet,” (Ezek. 14:9.) According to the latter view, he is said to have given men over to a reprobate mind, (Rom. 1:28,) because he is the special author of his own just vengeance; whereas Satan is only his minister, (see Calv. in Ps. 141: 4.) But as in the Second Book, (Chap. 4: sec. 3, 4,) in discussing the question of man’s freedom, this subject will again be considered, the little that has now been said seems to be all that the occasion requires. The sum of the whole is this,—since the will of God is said to be the cause of all things, all the counsels and actions of men must be held to be governed by his providence; so that he not only exerts his power in the elect, who are guided by the Holy Spirit, but also forces the reprobate to do him service.

3. God’s will is a unity

As I have hitherto stated only what is plainly and unambiguously taught in Scripture, those who hesitate not to stigmatise what is thus taught by the sacred oracles, had better beware what kind of censure they employ. If, under a pretence of ignorance, they seek the praise of modesty, what greater arrogance can be imagined than to utter one word in opposition to the authority of God—to say, for instance, “I think otherwise,"—"I would not have this subject touched?” But if they openly blaspheme, what will they gain by assaulting heaven? Such petulance, indeed, is not new. In all ages there have been wicked and profane men, who rabidly assailed this branch of doctrine. But what the Spirit declared of old by the mouth of David, (Ps. 51:6,) they will feel by experience to be true—God will overcome when he is judged. David indirectly rebukes the infatuation of those whose license is so unbridled, that from their grovelling spot of earth they not only plead against God, but arrogate to themselves the right of censuring him. At the same time, he briefly intimates that the blasphemies which they belch forth against heaven, instead of reaching God, only illustrate his justice, when the mists of their calumnies are dispersed. Even our faith, because founded on the sacred word of God, is superior to the whole world (cf. I John 5:4), and is able from its height to look down upon such mists.

Their first objection—that if nothing happens without the will of God, he must have two contrary wills, decreeing by a secret counsel what he has openly forbidden in his law—is easily disposed of. But before I reply to it, I would again remind my readers, that this cavil is directed not against me, but against the Holy Spirit, who certainly dictated this confession to that holy man Job, “The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away,” (Job 1:21) when, after being plundered by robbers, he acknowledges that their injustice and mischief was a just chastisement from God. And what says the Scripture elsewhere? The sons of Eli “hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the Lord would slay them,” (1 Sam. 2:25.) Another prophet also exclaims, “Our God is in the heavens: he has done whatsoever he has pleased,” (Ps. 115:3.) I have already shown clearly enough that God is the author of all those things which, according to these objectors, happen only by his inactive permission. He testifies that he creates light and darkness, forms good and evil, (Is. 45:7;) that no evil happens which he has not done, (Amos 3:6.) Let them tell me whether God exercises his judgements willingly or unwillingly. As Moses teaches that he who is accidentally killed by the blow of an axe, is delivered by God into the hand of him who smites him, (Deut. 19:5, cf. Ex. 21:13.).

So the Gospel, by the mouth of Luke, declares, that Herod and Pontius Pilate conspired “to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done,” (Acts 4:28.) And, in truth, if Christ was not crucified by the will of God, where is our redemption? Still, however, the will of God is not at variance with itself. It undergoes no change. He makes no pretence of not willing what he wills, but while in himself the will is one and undivided, to us it appears manifold, because, from the feebleness of our intellect, we cannot comprehend how, though after a different manner, he wills and wills not the very same thing. Paul terms the calling of the Gentiles a hidden mystery, and shortly after adds, that therein was manifested the manifold wisdom of God, (Eph. 3:10.) Since, on account of the dullness of our sense, the wisdom of God seems manifold, (or, as an old interpreter rendered it, multiform,) are we, therefore, to dream of some variation in God, as if he either changed his counsel, or disagreed with himself? Nay, when we cannot comprehend how God can will that to be done which he forbids us to do, let us call to mind our imbecility, and remember that the light in which he dwells is not without cause termed inaccessible, (1 Tim. 6:16,) because shrouded in darkness. Hence, all pious and modest men will readily acquiesce in the sentiment of Augustine: “Man sometimes with a good will wishes something which God does not will, as when a good son wishes his father to live, while God wills him to die. Again, it may happen that man with a bad will wishes what God wills righteously, as when a bad son wishes his father to die, and God also wills it. The former wishes what God wills not, the latter wishes what God also wills. And yet the filial affection of the former is more consonant to the good will of God, though willing differently, than the unnatural affection of the latter, though willing the same thing; so much does approbation or condemnation depend on what it is befitting in man, and what in God to will, and to what end the will of each has respect. For the things which God rightly wills, he accomplishes by the evil wills of bad men,"—(August. Enchirid. ad Laurent. cap. 101.) He had said a little before, (cap. 100,) that the apostate angels, by their revolt, and all the reprobate, as far as they themselves were concerned, did what God willed not; but, in regard to his omnipotence, it was impossible for them to do so: for, while they act against the will of God, his will is accomplished in them. Hence he exclaims, “Great is the work of God, exquisite in all he wills! so that, in a manner wondrous and ineffable, that is not done without his will which is done contrary to it, because it could not be done if he did not permit; nor does he permit it unwillingly, but willingly; nor would He who is good permit evil to be done, were he not omnipotent to bring good out of evil,” (Augustin. in Ps. 111: 2.)

4. Even when God uses the deeds of the godless for his purposes, he does not suffer reproach

In the same way is solved, or rather spontaneously vanishes, another objection, viz., If God not only uses the agency of the wicked, but also governs their counsels and affections, he is the author of all their sins; and, therefore, men, in executing what God has decreed, are unjustly condemned, because they are obeying his will. Here “will” is improperly confounded with precept, though it is obvious, from innumerable examples, that there is the greatest difference between them. When Absalom defiled his father’s bed, though God was pleased thus to avenge the adultery of David, he did not therefore enjoin an abandoned son to commit incest, unless, perhaps, in respect of David, as David himself says of Shimei’s curses. For, while he confesses that Shimei acts by the order of God, he by no means commends the obedience, as if that petulant dog had been yielding obedience to a divine command; but, recognising in his tongue the scourge of God, he submits patiently to be chastised. Thus we must hold, that while by means of the wicked God performs what he had secretly decreed, they are not excusable as if they were obeying his precept, which of set purpose they violate according to their lust.

How these things, which men do perversely, are of God, and are ruled by his secret providence, is strikingly shown in the election of King Jeroboam, (1 Kings 12:20,) in which the rashness and infatuation of the people are severely condemned for perverting the order sanctioned by God, and perfidiously revolting from the family of David. And yet we know it was God’s will that Jeroboam should be anointed. Hence the apparent contradiction in the words of Hosea, (Hosea 8:4; 13:11,) because, while God complained that that kingdom was erected without his knowledge, and against his will, he elsewhere declares, that he had given King Jeroboam in his anger. How shall we reconcile the two things,—that Jeroboam’s reign was not of God, and yet God appointed him king? In this way: The people could not revolt from the family of David without shaking off a yoke divinely imposed on them, and yet God himself was not deprived of the power of thus punishing the ingratitude of Solomon. We, therefore, see how God, while not willing treachery, with another view justly wills the revolt; and hence Jeroboam, by unexpectedly receiving the sacred unction, is urged to aspire to the kingdom. For this reason, the sacred history says, that God stirred up an enemy to deprive the son of Solomon of part of the kingdom, (1 Kings 11:23.)

Let the reader diligently ponder both points: how, as it was the will of God that the people should be ruled by the hand of one king, their being rent into two parties was contrary to his will; and yet how this same will originated the revolt. For certainly, when Jeroboam, who had no such thought, is urged by the prophet verbally, and by the oil of unction, to hope for the kingdom, the thing was not done without the knowledge or against the will of God, who had expressly commanded it; and yet the rebellion of the people is justly condemned, because it was against the will of God that they revolted from the posterity of David. For this reason, it is afterwards added, that when Rehoboam haughtily spurned the prayers of the people, “the cause was from the Lord, that he might perform his saying, which the Lord spake by Ahijah,” (I Kings 12:15.) See how sacred unity was violated against the will of God, while, at the same time, with his will the ten tribes were alienated from the son of Solomon. To this might be added another similar example, viz., the murder of the sons of Ahab, and the extermination of his whole progeny by the consent, or rather the active agency, of the people. Jehu says truly “There shall fall unto the earth nothing of the word of the Lord, which the Lord spake concerning the house of Ahab: for the Lord has done that which he spake by his servant Elijah,” (2 Kings 10:10.) And yet, with good reason, he upbraids the citizens of Samaria for having lent their assistance. “Ye be righteous: behold, I conspired against my master, and slew him, but who slew all these?”

If I mistake not, I have already shown clearly how the same act at once betrays the guilt of man, and manifests the righteousness of God. Modest minds will always be satisfied with Augustine’s answer, “Since the Father delivered up the Son, Christ his own body, and Judas his Master, how in such a case is God just, and man guilty, but just because in the one act which they did, the reasons for which they did it are different?” (August. Ep. 48, ad Vincentium.) If any are not perfectly satisfied with this explanation, viz., that there is no concurrence between God and man, when by His righteous impulse man does what he ought not to do, let them give heed to what Augustine elsewhere observes: “Who can refrain from trembling at those judgements when God does according to his pleasure even in the hearts of the wicked, at the same time rendering to them according to their deeds?” (De Grat. et lib. Orbit. ad Valent. c. 20.) And certainly, in regard to the treachery of Judas, there is just as little ground to throw the blame of the crime upon God, because He was both pleased that his Son should be delivered up to death, and did deliver him, as to ascribe to Judas the praise of our redemption. Hence Augustine, in another place, truly observes, that when God makes his scrutiny, he looks not to what men could do, or to what they did, but to what they wished to do, thus taking account of their will and purpose.

Those to whom this seems harsh had better consider how far their captiousness is entitled to any toleration, while, on the ground of its exceeding their capacity, they reject a matter which is clearly taught by Scripture, and complain of the enunciation of truths, which, if they were not useful to be known, God never would have ordered his prophets and apostles to teach. Our true wisdom is to embrace with meek docility, and without reservation, whatever the Holy Scriptures, have delivered. Those who indulge their petulance, a petulance manifestly directed against God, are undeserving of a longer refutation.

BOOK 2. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD THE REDEEMER IN CHRIST, FIRST DISCLOSED TO THE FATHERS UNDER THE LAW, AND THEN TO US IN THE GOSPEL.

CHAPTER 1. THROUGH THE FALL AND REVOLT OF ADAM, THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE MADE ACCURSED AND DEGENERATE. OF ORIGINAL SIN.

I. How necessary the knowledge of ourselves is, its nature, the danger of mistake, its leading parts, sect. 1, 2, 3.

II. The causes of Adam’s fearful fall, sect. 4.

III. The effects of the fall extending to Adam’s posterity, and all the creatures, sect. 5, to the end of the Chapter, where the nature, propagation, and effect of original sin are considered.

Sections.

1. The knowledge of ourselves most necessary. To use it properly we must be divested of pride, and clothed with true humility, which will dispose us to consider our fall, and embrace the mercy of God in Christ.

2. Though there is plausibility in the sentiment which stimulates us to self-admiration, the only sound sentiment is that which inclines us to true humbleness of mind. Pretexts for pride. The miserable vanity of sinful man.

3. Different views taken by carnal wisdom and by conscience, which appeals to divine justice as its standard. The knowledge of ourselves, consisting of two parts, the former of which having already been discussed, the latter is here considered.

4. In considering this latter part, two points to be considered;

1. How it happened that Adam involved himself and the whole human race in this dreadful calamity. This the result not of sensual intemperance, but of infidelity, (the source of other heinous sins,) which led to revolt from God, from whom all true happiness must be derived. An enumeration of the other sins produced by the infidelity of the first man.

5. The second point to be considered is, the extent to which the contagious influence of the fall extends. It extends,

1. To all the creatures, though unoffending; and,

2. To the whole posterity of Adam. Hence hereditary corruption, or original sin, and the depravation of a nature which was previously pure and good. This depravation communicated to the whole posterity of Adam, but not in the way supposed by the Pelagians and Celestians.

6. Depravation communicated not merely by imitation, but by propagation. This proved,

1. From the contrast drawn between Adam and Christ. Confirmation from passages of Scripture;

2. From the general declaration that we are the children of wrath.

7. Objection, that if Adam’s sin is propagated to his posterity, the soul must be derived by transmission. Answer. Another objection, viz., that children cannot derive corruption from pious parents. Answer.

8. Definition of original sin. Two parts in the definition. Exposition of the latter part. Original sin exposes us to the wrath of God. It also produces in us the works of the flesh. Other definitions considered.

9. Exposition of the former part of the definition, viz., that hereditary depravity extends to all the faculties of the soul.

10. From the exposition of both parts of the definition it follows that God is not the author of sin, the whole human race being corrupted by an inherent viciousness.

11. This, however, is not from nature, but is an adventitious quality. Accordingly, the dream of the Manichees as to two principles vanishes.

(A true knowledge of ourselves destroys self-confidence, 1-3)

1. Wrong and right knowledge of self

It was not without reason that the ancient proverb so strongly recommended to man the knowledge of himself. For if it is deemed disgraceful to be ignorant of things pertaining to the business of life, much more disgraceful is selfignorance, in consequence of which we miserably deceive ourselves in matters of the highest moment, and so walk blindfold.

But the more useful the precept is, the more careful we must be not to use it preposterously, as we see certain philosophers have done. For they, when exhorting man to know himself, state the motive to be, that he may not be ignorant of his own excellence and dignity. They wish him to see nothing in himself but what will fill him with vain confidence, and inflate him with pride.

But self-knowledge consists in this, First, When reflecting on what God gave us at our creation, and still continues graciously to give, we perceive how great the excellence of our nature would have been had its integrity remained, and, at the same time, remember that we have nothing of our own, but depend entirely on God, from whom we hold at pleasure whatever he has seen it meet to bestow; secondly When viewing our miserable condition since Adam’s fall, all confidence and boasting are overthrown, we blush for shame, and feel truly humble. For as God at first formed us in his own image, that he might elevate our minds to the pursuit of virtue, and the contemplation of eternal life, so to prevent us from heartlessly burying those noble qualities which distinguish us from the lower animals, it is of importance to know that we were endued with reason and intelligence, in order that we might cultivate a holy and honourable life, and regard a blessed immortality as our destined aim.

At the same time, it is impossible to think of our primeval dignity without being immediately reminded of the sad spectacle of our ignominy and corruption, ever since we fell from our original in the person of our first parent. In this way, we feel dissatisfied with ourselves, and become truly humble, while we are inflamed with new desires to seek after God, in whom each may regain those good qualities of which all are found to be utterly destitute.

2. Man by nature inclined to deluded self-admiration

In examining ourselves, the search which divine truth enjoins, and the knowledge which it demands, are such as may indispose us to every thing like confidence in our own powers, leave us devoid of all means of boasting, and so incline us to submission. This is the course which we must follow, if we would attain to the true goal, both in speculation and practice. I am not unaware how much more plausible the view is, which invites us rather to ponder on our good qualities, than to contemplate what must overwhelm us with shame—our miserable destitution and ignominy. There is nothing more acceptable to the human mind than flattery, and, accordingly, when told that its endowments are of a high order, it is apt to be excessively credulous. Hence it is not strange that the greater part of mankind have erred so egregiously in this matter. Owing to the innate self-love by which all are blinded, we most willingly persuade ourselves that we do not possess a single quality which is deserving of hatred; and hence, independent of any countenance from without, general credit is given to the very foolish idea, that man is perfectly sufficient of himself for all the purposes of a good and happy life. If any are disposed to think more modestly, and concede somewhat to God, that they may not seem to arrogate every thing as their own, still, in making the division, they apportion matters so, that the chief ground of confidence and boasting always remains with themselves.

Then, if a discourse is pronounced which flatters the pride spontaneously springing up in man’s inmost heart, nothing seems more delightful. Accordingly, in every age, he who is most forward in extolling the excellence of human nature, is received with the loudest applause. But be this heralding of human excellence what it may, by teaching man to rest in himself, it does nothing more than fascinate by its sweetness, and, at the same time, so delude as to drown in perdition all who assent to it. For what avails it to proceed in vain confidence, to deliberate, resolve, plan, and attempt what we deem pertinent to the purpose, and, at the very outset, prove deficient and destitute both of sound intelligence and true virtue, though we still confidently persist till we rush headlong on destruction? But this is the best that can happen to those who put confidence in their own powers. Whosoever, therefore, gives heed to those teachers, who merely employ us in contemplating our good qualities, so far from making progress in self knowledge, will be plunged into the most pernicious ignorance.

3. The two chief problems of self-knowledge

While revealed truth concurs with the general consent of mankind in teaching that the second part of wisdom consists in self-knowledge, they differ greatly as to the method by which this knowledge is to be acquired. In the judgement of the flesh man deems his self-knowledge complete, when, with overweening confidence in his own intelligence and integrity, he takes courage, and spurs himself on to virtuous deeds, and when, declaring war upon vice, he uses his utmost endeavour to attain to the honourable and the fair. But he who tries himself by the standard of divine justice, finds nothing to inspire him with confidence; and hence, the more thorough his self-examination, the greater his despondency. Abandoning all dependence on himself, he feels that he is utterly incapable of duly regulating his conduct.

It is not the will of God, however, that we should forget the primeval dignity which he bestowed on our first parents—a dignity which may well stimulate us to the pursuit of goodness and justice. It is impossible for us to think of our first original, or the end for which we were created, without being urged to meditate on immortality, and to seek the kingdom of God. But such meditation, so far from raising our spirits, rather casts them down, and makes us humble. For what is our original? One from which we have fallen. What the end of our creation? One from which we have altogether strayed, so that, weary of our miserable lot, we groan, and groaning sigh for a dignity now lost. When we say that man should see nothing in himself which can raise his spirits, our meaning is, that he possesses nothing on which he can proudly plume himself.

Hence, in considering the knowledge which man ought to have of himself, it seems proper to divide it thus, First, to consider the end for which he was created, and the qualities—by no means contemptible qualities—with which he was endued, thus urging him to meditate on divine worship and the future life; and, secondly, to consider his faculties, or rather want of faculties—a want which, when perceived, will annihilate all his confidence, and cover him with confusion. The tendency of the former view is to teach him what his duty is, of the latter, to make him aware how far he is able to perform it. We shall treat of both in their proper order.

(Adam’s sin entailed loss of man’s original endowment and ruin of the whole human race, 4-7)

4. The history of the Fall shows us what sin is [Gen., ch.3]: unfaithfulness

As the act which God punished so severely must have been not a trivial fault, but a heinous crime, it will be necessary to attend to the peculiar nature of the sin which produced Adam’s fall, and provoked God to inflict such fearful vengeance on the whole human race. The common idea of sensual intemperance is childish. The sum and substance of all virtues could not consist in abstinence from a single fruit amid a general abundance of every delicacy that could be desired, the earth, with happy fertility, yielding not only abundance, but also endless variety.

We must, therefore, look deeper than sensual intemperance. The prohibition to touch the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a trial of obedience, that Adam, by observing it, might prove his willing submission to the command of God. For the very term shows the end of the precept to have been to keep him contented with his lot, and not allow him arrogantly to aspire beyond it. The promise, which gave him hope of eternal life as long as he should eat of the tree of life, and, on the other hand, the fearful denunciation of death the moment he should taste of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, were meant to prove and exercise his faith. Hence it is not difficult to infer in what way Adam provoked the wrath of God. Augustine, indeed, is not far from the mark, when he says, (in Psal. 19,) that pride was the beginning of all evil, because, had not man’s ambition carried him higher than he was permitted, he might have continued in his first estate.

A further definition, however, must be derived from the kind of temptation which Moses describes. When, by the subtlety of the devil, the woman faithlessly abandoned the command of God, her fall obviously had its origin in disobedience. This Paul confirms, when he says, that, by the disobedience of one man, all were destroyed. At the same time, it is to be observed, that the first man revolted against the authority of God, not only in allowing himself to be ensnared by the wiles of the devil, but also by despising the truth, and turning aside to lies. Assuredly, when the word of God is despised, all reverence for Him is gone. His majesty cannot be duly honoured among us, nor his worship maintained in its integrity, unless we hang as it were upon his lips. Hence infidelity was at the root of the revolt. From infidelity, again, sprang ambition and pride, together with ingratitude; because Adam, by longing for more than was allotted him, manifested contempt for the great liberality with which God had enriched him. It was surely monstrous impiety that a son of earth should deem it little to have been made in the likeness, unless he were also made the equal of God. If the apostasy by which man withdraws from the authority of his Maker, nay, petulantly shakes off his allegiance to him, is a foul and execrable crime, it is in vain to extenuate the sin of Adam. Nor was it simple apostasy. It was accompanied with foul insult to God, the guilty pair assenting to Satan’s calumnies when he charged God with malice, envy, and falsehood. In fine, infidelity opened the door to ambition, and ambition was the parent of rebellion, man casting off the fear of God, and giving free vent to his lust. Hence, Bernard truly says, that, in the present day, a door of salvation is opened to us when we receive the gospel with our ears, just as by the same entrance, when thrown open to Satan, death was admitted. Never would Adam have dared to show any repugnance to the command of God if he had not been incredulous as to his word. The strongest curb to keep all his affections under due restraint, would have been the belief that nothing was better than to cultivate righteousness by obeying the commands of God, and that the highest possible felicity was to be loved by him. Man, therefore, when carried away by the blasphemies of Satan, did his very utmost to annihilate the whole glory of God.

5. The first sin as original sin

As Adam’s spiritual life would have consisted in remaining united and bound to his Maker, so estrangement from him was the death of his soul. Nor is it strange that he who perverted the whole order of nature in heaven and earth deteriorated his race by his revolt. “The whole creation groaneth,” saith St Paul, “being made subject to vanity, not willingly,” (Rom. 8: 20,22.) If the reason is asked, there cannot be a doubt that creation bears part of the punishment deserved by man, for whose use all other creatures were made. Therefore, since through man’s fault a curse has extended above and below, over all the regions of the world, there is nothing unreasonable in its extending to all his offspring. After the heavenly image in man was effaced, he not only was himself punished by a withdrawal of the ornaments in which he had been arrayed, viz., wisdom, virtue, justice, truth, and holiness, and by the substitution in their place of those dire pests, blindness, impotence, vanity, impurity, and unrighteousness, but he involved his posterity also, and plunged them in the same wretchedness.

This is the hereditary corruption to which early Christian writers gave the name of Original Sin, meaning by the term the depravation of a nature formerly good and pure. The subject gave rise to much discussion, there being nothing more remote from common apprehension, than that the fault of one should render all guilty, and so become a common sin. This seems to be the reason why the oldest doctors of the church only glance obscurely at the point, or, at least, do not explain it so clearly as it required. This timidity, however, could not prevent the rise of a Pelagius with his profane fiction—that Adam sinned only to his own hurt, but did no hurt to his posterity. Satan, by thus craftily hiding the disease, tried to render it incurable. But when it was clearly proved from Scripture that the sin of the first man passed to all his posterity, recourse was had to the cavil, that it passed by imitation, and not by propagation. The orthodoxy, therefore, and more especially Augustine, laboured to show, that we are not corrupted by acquired wickedness, but bring an innate corruption from the very womb. It was the greatest impudence to deny this. But no man will wonder at the presumption of the Pelagians and Celestians, who has learned from the writings of that holy man how extreme the effrontery of these heretics was. Surely there is no ambiguity in David’s confession, “I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me,” (Ps. 51: 5.) His object in the passage is not to throw blame on his parents; but the better to commend the goodness of God towards him, he properly reiterates the confession of impurity from his very birth. As it is clear, that there was no peculiarity in David’s case, it follows that it is only an instance of the common lot of the whole human race.

All of us, therefore, descending from an impure seed, come into the world tainted with the contagion of sin. Nay, before we behold the light of the sun we are in God’s sight defiled and polluted. “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one,” says the Book of Job, (Job 14: 4.)

6. Original sin does not rest upon imitation

We thus see that the impurity of parents is transmitted to their children, so that all, without exception, are originally depraved. The commencement of this depravity will not be found until we ascend to the first parent of all as the fountain head. We must, therefore, hold it for certain, that, in regard to human nature, Adam was not merely a progenitor, but, as it were, a root, and that, accordingly, by his corruption, the whole human race was deservedly vitiated. This is plain from the contrast which the Apostle draws between Adam and Christ, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned; even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord,” (Rom. 5: 19-21.) To what quibble will the Pelagians here recur? That the sin of Adam was propagated by imitation! Is the righteousness of Christ then available to us only in so far as it is an example held forth for our imitation? Can any man tolerate such blasphemy? But if, out of all controversy, the righteousness of Christ, and thereby life, is ours by communication, it follows that both of these were lost in Adam that they might be recovered in Christ, whereas sin and death were brought in by Adam, that they might be abolished in Christ. There is no obscurity in the words, “As by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” Accordingly, the relation subsisting between the two is this, As Adam, by his ruin, involved and ruined us, so Christ, by his grace, restored us to salvation.

In this clear light of truth I cannot see any need of a longer or more laborious proof. Thus, too, in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, when Paul would confirm believers in the confident hope of the resurrection, he shows that the life is recovered in Christ which was lost in Adam, (1 Cor. 15: 22.) Having already declared that all died in Adam, he now also openly testifies, that all are imbued with the taint of sin. Condemnation, indeed, could not reach those who are altogether free from blame. But his meaning cannot be made clearer than from the other member of the sentence, in which he shows that the hope of life is restored in Christ. Every one knows that the only mode in which this is done is, when by a wondrous communication Christ transfuses into us the power of his own righteousness, as it is elsewhere said, “The Spirit is life because of righteousness,” (1 Cor. 15: 22.) Therefore, the only explanation which can be given of the expression, “in Adam all died,” is, that he by sinning not only brought disaster and ruin upon himself, but also plunged our nature into like destruction; and that not only in one fault, in a matter not pertaining to us, but by the corruption into which he himself fell, he infected his whole seed.

Paul never could have said that all are “by nature the children of wrath,” (Eph. 2: 3,) if they had not been cursed from the womb. And it is obvious that the nature there referred to is not nature such as God created, but as vitiated in Adam; for it would have been most incongruous to make God the author of death. Adam, therefore, when he corrupted himself, transmitted the contagion to all his posterity. For a heavenly Judge, even our Saviour himself, declares that all are by birth vicious and depraved, when he says that “that which is born of the flesh is fleshy” (John 3: 6,) and that therefore the gate of life is closed against all until they have been regenerated.

7. The transmission of sin from one generation to another

To the understanding of this subject, there is no necessity for an anxious discussion, (which in no small degree perplexed the ancient doctors,) as to whether the soul of the child comes by transmission from the soul of the parent. It should be enough for us to know that Adam was made the depository of the endowments which God was pleased to bestow on human nature, and that, therefore, when he lost what he had received, he lost not only for himself but for us all. Why feel any anxiety about the transmission of the soul, when we know that the qualities which Adam lost he received for us not less than for himself, that they were not gifts to a single man, but attributes of the whole human race? There is nothing absurd, therefore, in the view, that when he was divested, his nature was left naked and destitute that he having been defiled by sin, the pollution extends to all his seed. Thus, from a corrupt root corrupt branches proceeding, transmit their corruption to the saplings which spring from them. The children being vitiated in their parent, conveyed the taint to the grandchildren; in other words, corruption commencing in Adam, is, by perpetual descent, conveyed from those preceding to those coming after them. The cause of the contagion is neither in the substance of the flesh nor the soul, but God was pleased to ordain that those gifts which he had bestowed on the first man, that man should lose as well for his descendants as for himself.

The Pelagian cavil, as to the improbability of children deriving corruption from pious parents, whereas, they ought rather to be sanctified by their purity, is easily refuted. Children come not by spiritual regeneration but carnal descent. Accordingly, as Augustine says, “Both the condemned unbeliever and the acquitted believer beget offspring not acquitted but condemned, because the nature which begets is corrupt.” Moreover, though godly parents do in some measure contribute to the holiness of their offspring, this is by the blessing of God; a blessing, however, which does not prevent the primary and universal curse of the whole race from previously taking effect. Guilt is from nature, whereas sanctification is from supernatural grace.

(Original sin defined as a depravity of nature, deserves punishment, but which is not from nature as created, 8-11)

8. The nature of original sin

But lest the thing itself of which we speak be unknown or doubtful, it will be proper to define original sin. (Calvin, in Conc. Trident. 1, Dec. Sess. 5.) I have no intention, however, to discuss all the definitions which different writers have adopted, but only to adduce the one which seems to me most accordant with truth. Original sin, then, may be defined a hereditary corruption and depravity of our nature, extending to all the parts of the soul, which first makes us obnoxious to the wrath of God, and then produces in us works which in Scripture are termed works of the flesh. This corruption is repeatedly designated by Paul by the term sin, (Gal. 5: 19;) while the works which proceed from it, such as adultery, fornication, theft, hatred, murder, revellings, he terms, in the same way, the fruits of sin, though in various passages of Scripture, and even by Paul himself, they are also termed sins.

The two things, therefore, are to be distinctly observed, viz., that being thus perverted and corrupted in all the parts of our nature, we are, merely on account of such corruption, deservedly condemned by God, to whom nothing is acceptable but righteousness, innocence, and purity. This is not liability for another’s fault. For when it is said, that the sin of Adam has made us obnoxious to the justice of God, the meaning is not, that we, who are in ourselves innocent and blameless, are bearing his guilt, but that since by his transgression we are all placed under the curse, he is said to have brought us under obligation. Through him, however, not only has punishment been derived, but pollution instilled, for which punishment is justly due. Hence Augustine, though he often terms it another’s sin, (that he may more clearly show how it comes to us by descent,) at the same time asserts that it is each individual’s own sin. And the Apostle most distinctly testifies, that “death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned,” (Rom. 5: 12;) that is, are involved in original sin, and polluted by its stain. Hence, even infants bringing their condemnation with them from their mother’s womb, suffer not for another’s, but for their own defect. For although they have not yet produced the fruits of their own unrighteousness, they have the seed implanted in them. Nay, their whole nature is, as it were, a seed-bed of sin, and therefore cannot but be odious and abominable to God. Hence it follows, that it is properly deemed sinful in the sight of God; for there could be no condemnation without guilt.

Next comes the other point, viz., that this perversity in us never ceases, but constantly produces new fruits, in other words, those works of the flesh which we formerly described; just as a lighted furnace sends forth sparks and flames, or a fountain without ceasing pours out water. Hence, those who have defined original sin as the want of the original righteousness which we ought to have had, though they substantially comprehend the whole case, do not significantly enough express its power and energy. For our nature is not only utterly devoid of goodness, but so prolific in all kinds of evil, that it can never be idle. Those who term it concupiscence use a word not very inappropriate, provided it were added, (this, however, many will by no means concede,) that everything which is in man, from the intellect to the will, from the soul even to the flesh, is defiled and pervaded with this concupiscence; or, to express it more briefly, that the whole man is in himself nothing else than concupiscence.

9. Sin overturns the whole man

I have said, therefore, that all the parts of the soul were possessed by sin, ever since Adam revolted from the fountain of righteousness. For not only did the inferior appetites entice him, but abominable impiety seized upon the very citadel of the mind, and pride penetrated to his inmost heart, (Rom. 7: 12; Book 4, chap. 15, sec. 10-12,) so that it is foolish and unmeaning to confine the corruption thence proceeding to what are called sensual motions, or to call it an excitement, which allures, excites, and drags the single part which they call sensuality into sin. Here Peter Lombard has displayed gross ignorance, (Lomb., lib. 2 Dist. 31.) When investigating the seat of corruption, he says it is in the flesh, (as Paul declares,) not properly, indeed, but as being more apparent in the flesh. As if Paul had meant that only a part of the soul, and not the whole nature, was opposed to supernatural grace. Paul himself leaves no room for doubt, when he says, that corruption does not dwell in one part only, but that no part is free from its deadly taint. For, speaking of corrupt nature, he not only condemns the inordinate nature of the appetites, but, in particular, declares that the understanding is subjected to blindness, and the heart to depravity, (Eph. 4: 17, 18.)

The third chapter of the Epistle to the Romans is nothing but a description of original sin; The same thing appears more clearly from the mode of renovation. For the spirit, which is contrasted with the old man, and the flesh, denotes not only the grace by which the sensual or inferior part of the soul is corrected, but includes a complete reformation of all its parts, (Eph. 4: 23.) And, accordingly, Paul enjoins not only that gross appetites be suppressed, but that we be renewed in the spirit of our mind, (Eph. 4: 23,) as he elsewhere tells us to be transformed by the renewing of our mind, (Rom. 12: 2.) Hence it follows, that that part in which the dignity and excellence of the soul are most conspicuous, has not only been wounded, but so corrupted, that mere cure is not sufficient. There must be a new nature. How far sin has seized both on the mind and heart, we shall shortly see. Here I only wished briefly to observe, that the whole man, from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot, is so deluged, as it were, that no part remains exempt from sin, and, therefore, everything which proceeds from him is imputed as sin. Thus Paul says, that all carnal thoughts and affections are enmity against God, and consequently death, (Rom. 8:6-7.)

10. Sin is not our nature, but its derangement

Let us have done, then, with those who dare to inscribe the name of God on their vices, because we say that men are born vicious. The divine workmanship, which they ought to look for in the nature of Adam, when still entire and uncorrupted, they absurdly expect to find in their depravity. The blame of our ruin rests with our own carnality, not with God, its only cause being our degeneracy from our original condition.

And let no one here glamour that God might have provided better for our safety by preventing Adam’s fall. This objection, which, from the daring presumption implied in it, is odious to every pious mind, relates to the mystery of predestination, which will afterwards be considered in its own place, (Tertull. de Prescript., Calvin, Lib. de Predest.) Meanwhile let us remember that our ruin is attributable to our own depravity, that we may not insinuate a charge against God himself, the Author of nature. It is true that nature has received a mortal wound, but there is a great difference between a wound inflicted from without, and one inherent in our first condition. It is plain that this wound was inflicted by sin; and, therefore, we have no ground of complaint except against ourselves. This is carefully taught in Scripture. For the Preacher says, “Lo, this only have I found, that God made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions,” (Eccl. 7: 29.) Since man, by the kindness of God, was made upright, but by his oven infatuation fell away unto vanity, his destruction is obviously attributable only to himself, (Athanas. in Orat. Cont. Idola.)

11. “Natural” corruption of the “nature” created by God

We says then that man is corrupted by a natural viciousness, but not by one which proceeded from nature. In saying that it proceeded not from nature, we mean that it was rather an adventitious event which befell man, than a substantial property assigned to him from the beginning. We, however call it natural to prevent any one from supposing that each individual contracts it by depraved habit, whereas all receive it by a hereditary law. And we have authority for so calling it. For, on the same grounds the apostle says, that we are “by nature the children of wrath,” (Eph. 2: 3.) How could God, who takes pleasure in the meanest of his works be offended with the noblest of them all? The offence is not with the work itself, but the corruption of the work. Wherefore, if it is not improper to say, that, in consequence of the corruption of human nature, man is naturally hateful to God, it is not improper to say, that he is naturally vicious and depraved. Hence, in the view of our corrupt nature, Augustine hesitates not to call those sins natural which necessarily reign in the flesh wherever the grace of God is wanting. This disposes of the absurd notion of the Manichees, who, imagining that man was essentially wicked, went the length of assigning him a different Creator, that they might thus avoid the appearance of attributing the cause and origin of evil to a righteous God.

CHAPTER 2. MAN NOW DEPRIVED OF FREEDOM OF WILL, AND MISERABLY ENSLAVED.

Having in the first chapter treated of the fall of man, and the corruption of the human race, it becomes necessary to inquire, Whether the sons of Adam are deprived of all liberty; and if any particle of liberty remains, how far its power extends? The four next chapters are devoted to this question. This second chapter may be reduced to three general heads: -

I. The foundation of the whole discussion.

II. The opinions of others on the subject of human freedom, see. 2-9.

III. The true doctrine on the subject, see. 10-27.

Sections.

1. Connection of the previous with the four following chapters. In order to lay a proper foundation for the discussion of free will, two obstacles in the way to be removed, viz., sloth and pride. The basis and sum of the whole discussion. The solid structure of this basis, and a clear demonstration of it by the argument a majori ad minus. Also from the inconveniences and absurdities arising from the obstacle of pride.

2. The second part of the chapter containing the opinions of others.

1. The opinions of philosophers.

3. The labyrinths of philosophers. A summary of the opinion common to all the philosophers.

4. The opinions of others continued, viz., The opinions of the ancient theologians on the subject of free will. These composed partly of Philosophy and partly of Theology. Hence their falsehood, extravagance, perplexity, variety, and contradiction. Too great fondness for philosophy in the Church has obscured the knowledge of God and of ourselves. The better to explain the opinions of philosophers, a definition of Free Will given. Wide difference between this definition and these opinions.

5. Certain things annexed to Free Will by the ancient theologians, especially the Schoolmen. Many kinds of Free Will according to them.

6. Puzzles of scholastic divines in the explanation of this question.

7. The conclusion that so trivial a matter ought not to be so much magnified. Objection of those who have a fondness for new terms in the Church. Objection answered.

8. Another answer. The Fathers, and especially Augustine, while retaining the term Free Will, yet condemned the doctrine of the heretics on the subject, as destroying the grace of God.

9. The language of the ancient writers on the subject of Free Will is, with the exception of that of Augustine, almost unintelligible. Still they set little or no value on human virtue, and ascribe the praise of all goodness to the Holy Spirit.

10. The last part of the chapter, containing a simple statement of the true doctrine. The fundamental principle is, that man first begins to profit in the knowledge of himself when he becomes sensible of his ruined condition. This confirmed,

1. by passages of Scripture.

11. Confirmed,

2. by the testimony of ancient theologians.

12. The foundation being laid, to show how far the power both of the intellect and will now extends, it is maintained in general, and in conformity with the views of Augustine and the Schoolmen, that the natural endowments of man are corrupted, and the supernatural almost entirely lost. A separate consideration of the powers of the Intellect and the Will. Some general considerations,

1. The intellect possesses some powers of perception. Still it labours under a twofold defect.

13. Man’s intelligence extends both to things terrestrial and celestial. The power of the intellect in regard to the knowledge of things terrestrial.

First, with regard to matters of civil polity.

14. The power of the intellect, secondly, with regard to the arts. Particular gifts in this respect conferred on individuals, and attesting the grace of God.

15. The rise of this knowledge of things terrestrial, first, that we may see how human nature, notwithstanding of its fall, is still adorned by God with excellent endowments.

16. Use of this knowledge continued. Secondly, that we may see that these endowments bestowed on individuals are intended for the common benefit of mankind. They are sometimes conferred even on the wicked.

17. Some portion of human nature still left. This, whatever be the amount of it, should be ascribed entire]y to the divine indulgence. Reason of this. Examples.

18. Second part of the discussion, namely, that which relates to the power of the human intellect in regard to things celestial. These reducible to three heads, namely, divine knowledge, adoption, and will. The blindness of man in regard to these proved and thus tested by a simile.

19. Proved, moreover, by passages of Scripture, showing,

1. That the sons of Adam are endued with some light, but not enough to enable them to comprehend God. Reasons.

20. Adoption not from nature, but from our heavenly Father, being sealed in the elect by the Spirit of regeneration. Obvious from many passages of Scripture, that, previous to regeneration, the human intellect is altogether unable to comprehend the things relating to regeneration. This fully proved.

First argument.

Second argument.

Third argument.

21. Fourth argument. Scripture ascribes the glory of our adoption and salvation to God only. The human intellect blind as to heavenly things until it is illuminated. Disposal of a heretical objection.

22. Human intellect ignorant of the true knowledge of the divine law. This proved by the testimony of an Apostle, by an inference from the same testimony, and from a consideration of the end and definition of the Law of Nature. Plato obviously mistaken in attributing all sins to ignorance.

23. Themistius nearer the truth in maintaining, that the delusion of the intellect is manifested not so much in generals as in particulars. Exception to this rule.

24. Themistius, however, mistaken in thinking that the intellect is so very seldom deceived as to generals. Blindness of the human intellect when tested by the standard of the Divine Law, in regard both to the first and second tables. Examples.

25. A middle view to be taken, viz., that all sins are not imputable to ignorance, and, at the same time, that all sins do not imply intentional malice. All the human mind conceives and plans in this matter is evil in the sight of God. Need of divine direction every moment.

26. The will examined. The natural desire of good, which is universally felt, no proof of the freedom of the human will. Two fallacies as to the use of terms, appetite and good.

27. The doctrine of the Schoolmen on this subject opposed to and refuted by Scripture. The whole man being subject to the power of sin, it follows that the will, which is the chief seat of sin, requires to be most strictly curbed. Nothing ours but sin.

(Perils of this topic: point of view established, I)

1.

Having seen that the dominion of sin, ever since the first man was brought under it, not only extends to the whole race, but has complete possession of every soul, it now remains to consider more closely, whether from the period of being thus enslaved, we have been deprived of all liberty; and if any portion still remains, how far its power extends. In order to facilitate the answer to this questions it may be proper in passing to point out the course which our inquiry ought to take. The best method of avoiding error is to consider the dangers which beset us on either side. (1) Man being devoid of all uprightness, immediately takes occasion from the fact to indulge in sloth, and having no ability in himself for the study of righteousness, treats the whole subject as if he had no concern in it. (2) On the other hand, man cannot arrogate any thing, however minute, to himself, without robbing God of his honour, and through rash confidence subjecting himself to a fall.

To keep free of both these rocks, our proper course will be, first, to show that man has no remaining good in himself, and is beset on every side by the most miserable destitution; and then teach him to aspire to the goodness of which he is devoid, and the liberty of which he has been deprived: thus giving him a stronger stimulus to exertion than he could have if he imagined himself possessed of the highest virtue. How necessary the latter point is, everybody sees. As to the former, several seem to entertain more doubt than they ought. For it being admitted as incontrovertible that man is not to be denied any thing that is truly his own, it ought also to be admitted, that he is to be deprived of every thing like false boasting. If man had no title to glory in himself, when, by the kindness of his Maker, he was distinguished by the noblest ornaments, how much ought he to be humbled now, when his ingratitude has thrust him down from the highest glory to extreme ignominy? At the time when he was raised to the highest pinnacle of honour, all which Scripture attributes to him is, that he was created in the image of God, thereby intimating that the blessings in which his happiness consisted were not his own, but derived by divine communication. What remains, therefore, now that man is stript of all his glory, than to acknowledge the God for whose kindness he failed to be grateful, when he was loaded with the riches of his grace? Not having glorified him by the acknowledgement of his blessings, now, at least, he ought to glorify him by the confession of his poverty.

In truth, it is no less useful for us to renounce all the praise of wisdom and virtue, than to aim at the glory of God. Those who invest us with more than we possess only add sacrilege to our ruin. For when we are taught to contend in our own strength, what more is done than to lift us up, and then leave us to lean on a reed which immediately gives way? Indeed, our strength is exaggerated when it is compared to a reed. All that foolish men invent and prattle on this subject is mere smoke. Wherefore, it is not without reason that Augustine so often repeats the well-known saying, that free will is more destroyed than established by its defenders, (August. in Evang. Joann. Tract. 81.) It was necessary to premise this much for the sake of some who, when they hear that human virtue is totally overthrown, in order that the power of God in man may be exalted, conceive an utter dislike to the whole subject, as if it were perilous, not to say superfluous, whereas it is manifestly both most necessary and most useful.

(Critical discussion of opinions on free will given by philosophers and theologians, 2-9)

2. The philosophers trust in the power of the understanding

Having lately observed, that the faculties of the soul are seated in the mind and the heart, let us now consider how far the power of each extends. Philosophers generally maintain, that reason dwells in the mind like a lamp, throwing light on all its counsels, and like a queen, governing the will—that it is so pervaded with divine light as to be able to consult for the best, and so endued with vigour as to be able perfectly to command; that, on the contrary, sense is dull and short-sighted, always creeping on the ground, grovelling among inferior objects, and never rising to true vision; that the appetite, when it obeys reason, and does not allow itself to be subjugated by sense, is borne to the study of virtue, holds a straight course, and becomes transformed into will; but that when enslaved by sense, it is corrupted and depraved so as to degenerate into lust. In a word, since, according to their opinion, the faculties which I have mentioned above, namely, intellect, sense, and appetite, or will, (the latter being the term in ordinary use,) are seated in the soul, they maintain that the intellect is endued with reason, the best guide to a virtuous and happy life, provided it duly avails itself of its excellence, and exerts the power with which it is naturally endued; that, at the same time, the inferior movement, which is termed sense, and by which the mind is led away to error and delusion, is of such a nature, that it can be tamed and gradually subdued by the power of reason. To the will, moreover, they give an intermediate place between reason and sense, regarding it as possessed of full power and freedom, whether to obey the former, or yield itself up to be hurried away by the latter.

3. Thus, in spite of all, the philosophers assert freedom of the will

Sometimes, indeed, convinced by their own experience, they do not deny how difficult it is for man to establish the supremacy of reason in himself, inasmuch as he is at one time enticed by the allurements of pleasure; at another, deluded by a false semblance of good; and, at another, impelled by unruly passions, and pulled away (to use Plato’s expression) as by ropes or sinews (Plato, De Legibus, lib. 1.)

For this reason, Cicero says, that the sparks given forth by nature are immediately extinguished by false opinions and depraved manners, (Cicero, Tusc, Quest. lib. 3.) They confess that when once diseases of this description have seized upon the mind, their course is too impetuous to be easily checked, and they hesitate not to compare them to fiery steeds, which, having thrown off the charioteer, scamper away without restraint.

At the same time, they set it down as beyond dispute, that virtue and vice are in our own power. For, (say they,) If it is in our choice to do this thing or that, it must also be in our choice not to do it: Again, If it is in our choice not to act, it must also be in our choice to act: But both in doing and abstaining we seem to act from free choice; and, therefore, if we do good when we please, we can also refrain from doing it; if we commit evil, we can also shun the commission of it, (Aristot. Ethic. lib. 3 c. 5.) Nay, some have gone the length of boasting, (Seneca, passim,) that it is the gift of the gods that we live, but our own that we live well and purely. Hence Cicero says, in the person of Cotta, that as every one acquires virtue for himself, no wise man ever thanked the gods for it. “We are praised,” says he, “for virtue, and glory in virtue, but this could not be, if virtue were the gift of God, and not from ourselves,” (Cicero, De Nat. Deorum.) A little after, he adds, “The opinion of all mankind is, that fortune must be sought from God, wisdom from ourselves.” Thus, in short, all philosophers maintain, that human reason is sufficient for right government; that the will, which is inferior to it, may indeed be solicited to evil by sense, but having a free choice, there is nothing to prevent it from following reason as its guide in all things.

4. The church fathers generally show less clarity but a tendency to accept freedom of the will. What is free will?

Among ecclesiastical writers, although there is none who did not acknowledge that sound reason in man was seriously injured by sin, and the will greatly entangled by vicious desires, yet many of them made too near an approach to the philosophers. Some of the most ancient writers appear to me to have exalted human strengths from a fear that a distinct acknowledgement of its impotence might expose them to the jeers of the philosophers with whom they were disputing, and also furnish the flesh, already too much disinclined to good, with a new pretext for sloth. Therefore, to avoid teaching anything which the majority of mankind might deem absurd, they made it their study, in some measure, to reconcile the doctrine of Scripture with the dogmas of philosophy, at the same time making it their special care not to furnish any occasion to sloth. This is obvious from their words. Chrysostom says, “God having placed good and evil in our power, has given us full freedom of choice; he does not keep back the unwilling, but embraces the willing,” (Homil. de Prodit. Judae.) Again, “He who is wicked is often, when he so chooses, changed into good, and he who is good falls through sluggishness, and becomes wicked. For the Lord has made our nature free. He does not lay us under necessity, but furnishing apposite remedies, allows the whole to depend on the views of the patient,” (Homily. 18, in Genesis.) Again, “As we can do nothing rightly until aided by the grace of God, so, until we bring forward what is our own, we cannot obtain favour from above,” (Homily. 52.) He had previously said, “As the whole is not done by divine assistance, we ourselves must of necessity bring somewhat.” Accordingly, one of his common expressions is, “Let us bring what is our own, God will supply the rest.” In unison with this, Jerome says, “It is ours to begin, God’s to finish: it is ours to offer what we can, his to supply what we cannot,” (Dialog. 3 Cont. Pelag.)

From these sentences, you see that they have bestowed on man more than he possesses for the study of virtue, because they thought that they could not shake off our innate sluggishness unless they argued that we sin by ourselves alone. With what skill they have thus argued we shall afterwards see. Assuredly we shall soon be able to show that the sentiments just quoted are most inaccurate.

Moreover although the Greek Fathers, above others, and especially Chrysostom, have exceeded due bounds in extolling the powers of the human will, yet all ancient theologians, with the exception of Augustine, are so confused, vacillating, and contradictory on this subject, that no certainty can be obtained from their writings. It is needless, therefore, to be more particular in enumerating every separate opinion. It will be sufficient to extract from each as much as the exposition of the subject seems to require.

Succeeding writers (every one courting applause for his acuteness in the defence of human nature) have uniformly, one after the other, gone more widely astray, until the common dogma came to be, that man was corrupted only in the sensual part of his nature, that reason remained entire, and will was scarcely impaired. Still the expression was often on their lips, that man’s natural gifts were corrupted, and his supernatural taken away. Of the thing implied by these words, however, scarcely one in a hundred had any distinct idea. Certainly, were I desirous clearly to express what the corruption of nature is, I would not seek for any other expression. But it is of great importance attentively to consider what the power of man now is when vitiated in all the parts of his nature, and deprived of supernatural gifts. Persons professing to be the disciples of Christ have spoken too much like the philosophers on this subject. As if human nature were still in its integrity, the term free will has always been in use among the Latins, while the Greeks were not ashamed to use a still more presumptuous term, viz., “autexousion”, as if man had still full power in himself.

But since the principle entertained by all, even the vulgar, is, that man is endued with free will, while some, who would be thought more skilful, know not how far its power extends; it will be necessary, first to consider the meaning of the term, and afterwards ascertain, by a simple appeal to Scripture, what man’s natural power for good or evil is. The thing meant by free will, though constantly occurring in all writers, few have defined. Origin, however, seems to have stated the common opinion when he said, It is a power of reason to discern between good and evil; of will, to choose the one or other. Nor does Augustine differ from him when he says, It is a power of reason and will to choose the good, grace assisting,—to choose the bad, grace desisting. Bernard, while aiming at greater acuteness, speaks more obscurely, when he describes it as consent, in regard to the indestructible liberty of the wills and the inalienable judgement of reason. Anselm’s definition is not very intelligible to ordinary understandings. He calls it a power of preserving rectitude on its own account. Peter Lombard, and the Schoolmen, preferred the definition of Augustine, both because it was clearer, and did not exclude divine grace, without which they saw that the will was not sufficient of itself. They however add something of their own, because they deemed it either better or necessary for clearer explanation. First, they agree that the term will (arbitrium) has reference to reason, whose office it is to distinguish between good and evil, and that the epithet free properly belongs to the will, which may incline either way. Wherefore, since liberty properly belongs to the will, Thomas Aquinas says, (Part 1 Quast. 83, Art. 3,) that the most congruous definition is to call free will an elective power, combining intelligence and appetite, but inclining more to appetite. We now perceive in what it is they suppose the faculty of free will to consist, viz., in reason and will. It remains to see how much they attribute to each.

5. Different kinds of “will” and of “freedom” in the church fathers

In general, they are wont to place under the free will of man only intermediate things, viz., those which pertain not to the kingdom of God, while they refer true righteousness to the special grace of God and spiritual regeneration. The author of the work, “De Vocatione Gentium,” (On the Calling of the Gentiles,) wishing to show this, describes the will as threefold, viz., sensitive, animal, and spiritual. The two former, he says, are free to man, but the last is the work of the Holy Spirit. What truth there is in this will be considered in its own place. Our intention at present is only to mention the opinions of others, not to refute them. When writers treat of free will, their inquiry is chiefly directed not to what its power is in relation to civil or external actions, but to the obedience required by the divine law. The latter I admit to be the great question, but I cannot think the former should be altogether neglected; and I hope to be able to give the best reason for so thinking, (sec. 12 to 18.)

The schools, however, have adopted a distinction which enumerates three kinds of freedom, (see Lombard, lib. 2 Dist. 25;) the first, a freedom from necessity; the second, a freedom from sin; and the third, a freedom from misery: the first naturally so inherent in man, that he cannot possibly be deprived of it; while through sin the other two have been lost. I willingly admit this distinction, except in so far as it confounds necessity with compulsion. How widely the things differ, and how important it is to attend to the difference, will appear elsewhere.

6. “Operating” and “co-operating” grace?

All this being admitted, it will be beyond dispute, that free will does not enable any man to perform good works, unless he is assisted by grace; indeed, the special grace which the elect alone receive through regeneration. For I stay not to consider the extravagance of those who say that grace is offered equally and promiscuously to all, (Lomb. lib. 2 Dist. 26.) But it has not yet been shown whether man is entirely deprived of the power of well-doing, or whether he still possesses it in some, though in a very feeble and limited degree—a degree so feeble and limited, that it can do nothing of itself, but when assisted by grace, is able also to perform its part. The Master of the Sentences, (Lombard, ibid.) wishing to explain this, teaches that a twofold grace is necessary to fit for any good work. The one he calls Operating. To it, it is owing that we effectually will what is good. The other, which succeeds this good will, and aids it, he calls Co-operating. My objection to this division (see infra, chap. 3 sec. 10, and chap. 7 sec. 9) is, that while it attributes the effectual desire of good to divine grace, it insinuates that man, by his own nature, desires good in some degree, though ineffectually. Thus Bernard, while maintaining that a good will is the work of God, concedes this much to man, viz., that of his own nature he longs for such a good will. This differs widely from the view of Augustine, though Lombard pretends to have taken the division from him. Besides, there is an ambiguity in the second division, which has led to an erroneous interpretation. For it has been thought that we co-operate with subsequent grace, inasmuch as it pertains to us either to nullify the first grace, by rejecting its or to confirm it, by obediently yielding to it. The author of the work De Vocatione Gentium (The Calling of the Gentiles) expresses it thus: It is free to those who enjoy the faculty of reason to depart from grace, so that the not departing is a reward, and that which cannot be done without the co-operation of the Spirit is imputed as merit to those whose will might have made it otherwise, (lib. 2 cap. 4.) It seemed proper to make these two observations in passing, that the reader may see how far I differ from the sounder of the Schoolmen. Still further do I differ from more modern sophists, who have departed even more widely than the Schoolmen from the ancient doctrine. The division, however, shows in what respect free will is attributed to man. For Lombard ultimately declares, (lib. 2 Dist. 25,) that our freedom is not to the extent of leaving us equally inclined to good and evil in act or in thought, but only to the extent of freeing us from compulsion. This liberty is compatible with our being depraved, the servants of sin, able to do nothing but sin.

7. That man is necessarily, but without compulsion, a sinner establishes no doctrine of free will

In this way, then, man is said to have free will, not because he has a free choice of good and evil, but because he acts voluntarily, and not by compulsion. This is perfectly true: but why should so small a matter have been dignified with so proud a title? An admirable freedom! that man is not forced to be the servant of sin, while he is, however, “ethelodoulos”, (a voluntary slave;) his will being bound by the fetters of sin. I abominate mere verbal disputes, by which the Church is harassed to no purpose; but I think we ought religiously to eschew terms which imply some absurdity, especially in subjects where error is of pernicious consequence. How few are there who, when they hear free will attributed to man, do not immediately imagine that he is the master of his mind and will in such a sense, that he can of himself incline himself either to good or evil? It may be said that such dangers are removed by carefully expounding the meaning to the people. But such is the proneness of the human mind to go astray, that it will more quickly draw error from one little word, than truth from a lengthened discourse. Of this, the very term in question furnishes too strong a proof. For the explanation given by ancient Christian writers having been lost sight of, almost all who have come after them, by attending only to the etymology of the term, have been led to indulge a fatal confidence.

8. Augustine’s doctrine of “free will”

As to the Fathers, (if their authority weighs with us,) they have the term constantly in their mouths; but they, at the same time, declare what extent of meaning they attach to it. In particular, Augustine hesitates not to call the will a slave. In another passages he is offended with those who deny free will; but his chief reason for this is explained when he says, “Only lest any one should presume so to deny freedom of will, from a desire to excuse sin.” It is certain he elsewhere admits, that without the Spirit the will of man is not free, inasmuch as it is subject to lusts which chain and master it. And again, that nature began to want liberty the moment the will was vanquished by the revolt into which it fell. Again, that man, by making a bad use of free will, lost both himself and his will. Again, that free will having been made a captive, can do nothing in the way of righteousness. Again, that no will is free which has not been made so by divine grace. Again, that the righteousness of God is not fulfilled when the law orders, and man acts, as it were, by his own strength, but when the Spirit assists, and the will (not the free will of man, but the will freed by God) obeys. He briefly states the ground of all these observations, when he says, that man at his creation received a great degree of free will, but lost it by sinning. In another place, after showing that free will is established by grace, he strongly inveighs against those who arrogate any thing to themselves without grace. His words are, “How much soever miserable men presume to plume themselves on free will before they are made free, or on their strength after they are made free, they do not consider that, in the very expression, free will, liberty is implied. ‘Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty,’ (2 Cor. 3: 17.) If, therefore, they are the servants of sin, why do they boast of free will? He who has been vanquished is the servant of him who vanquished him. But if men have been made free, why do they boast of it as of their own work? Are they so free that they are unwilling to be the servants of Him who has said, ‘Without me ye can do nothing’?” (John 15: 5.)

In another passage he even seems to ridicule the word, when he says, “That the will is indeed free, but not freed—free of righteousness, but enslaved to sin.” The same idea he elsewhere repeats and explains, when he says, “That man is not free from righteousness save by the choice of his will, and is not made free from sin save by the grace of the Saviour.” Declaring that the freedom of man is nothing else than emancipation or manumission from righteousness, he seems to jest at the emptiness of the name. If any one, then, chooses to make use of this terms without attaching any bad meaning to it, he shall not be troubled by me on that account; but as it cannot be retained without very great danger, I think the abolition of it would be of great advantage to the Church. I am unwilling to use it myself; and others if they will take my advice, will do well to abstain from it.

9. Voices of truth among the church fathers

It may, perhaps, seem that I have greatly prejudiced my own view by confessing that all the ecclesiastical writers, with the exception of Augustine, have spoken so ambiguously or inconsistently on this subject, that no certainty is attainable from their writings. Some will interpret this to mean, that I wish to deprive them of their right of suffrage, because they are opposed to me. Truly, however, I have had no other end in view than to consult, simply and in good faith, for the advantage of pious minds, which, if they trust to those writers for their opinion, will always fluctuate in uncertainty. At one time they teach, that man having been deprived of the power of free Will must flee to grace alone; at another, they equip or seem to equip him in armour of his own.

It is not difficult, however, to show, that notwithstanding of the ambiguous manner in which those writers express themselves, they hold human virtue in little or no account, and ascribe the whole merit of all that is good to the Holy Spirit. To make this more manifest, I may here quote some passages from them. What, then, is meant by Cyprian in the passage so often lauded by Augustine, “Let us glory in nothing, because nothing is ours,” unless it be, that man being utterly destitute, considered in himself, should entirely depend on God? What is meant by Augustine and Eucherius, when they expound that Christ is the tree of life, and that whose puts forth his hand to it shall live; that the choice of the will is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and that he who, forsaking the grace of God, tastes of it shall die? What is meant by Chrysostom, When he says, “That every man is not only naturally a sinner, but is wholly sin”? If there is nothing good in us; if man, from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot, is wholly sin; if it is not even lawful to try how far the power of the will extends,—how can it be lawful to share the merit of a good work between God and man? I might quote many passages to the same effect from other writers; but lest any caviller should say, that I select those only which serve my purpose, and cunningly pass by those which are against me, I desist. This much, however, I dare affirm, that though they sometimes go too far in extolling free will, the main object which they had in view was to teach man entirely to renounce all self-confidence, and place his strength in God alone. I now proceed to a simple exposition of the truth in regard to the nature of man.

(We must abandon all self-approbation, 10-11)

10. The doctrine of free will is always in danger of robbing God of his honor

Here however, I must again repeat what I premised at the outset of this chapter, that he who is most deeply abased and alarmed, by the consciousness of his disgrace, nakedness, want, and misery, has made the greatest progress in the knowledge of himself. Man is in no danger of taking too much from himself, provided he learns that whatever he wants is to be recovered in God. But he cannot arrogate to himself one particle beyond his due, without losing himself in vain confidence, and, by transferring divine honour to himself, becoming guilty of the greatest impiety. And, assuredly, whenever our minds are seized with a longing to possess a somewhat of our own, which may reside in us rather than in God, we may rest assured that the thought is suggested by no other counsellor than he who enticed our first parents to aspire to be like gods, knowing good and evil. It is sweet, indeed, to have so much virtue of our own as to be able to rest in ourselves; but let the many solemn passages by which our pride is sternly humbled, deter us from indulging this vain confidence: “Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm.” (Jer. 17: 5.) “He delighteth not in the strength of the horse; he taketh not pleasure in the legs of a man. The Lord taketh pleasure in those that fear him, in those that hope in his mercy,” (Ps. 147: 10, l1.) “He giveth power to the faint; and to them that have no might he increaseth strength. Even the youths shall faint and be weary, and the young men shall utterly fall: But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength,” (Is. 40: 29-31.) The scope of all these passages is that we must not entertain any opinion whatever of our own strength, if we would enjoy the favour of God, who “resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble,” (James 4: 6.) Then let us call to mind such promises as these, “I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground,” (Is. 44: 3;) “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters,” (Is. 55: 1.) These passages declare, that none are admitted to enjoy the blessings of God save those who are pining under a sense of their own poverty. Nor ought such passages as the following to be omitted: “The sun shall no more be thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but the Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory,” (Is. 60: 19.) The Lord certainly does not deprive his servants of the light of the sun or moon, but as he would alone appear glorious in them, he dissuades them from confidence even in those objects which they deem most excellent.

11. True humility gives God alone the honor

I have always been exceedingly delighted with the words of Chrysostom, “The foundation of our philosophy is humility;” and still more with those of Augustine, “As the orator, when asked, What is the first precept in eloquence? answered, Delivery: What is the second? Delivery: What the third? Delivery: so, if you ask me in regard to the precepts of the Christian Religion, I will answer, first, second, and third, Humility.”

By humility he means not when a man, with a consciousness of some virtue, refrains from pride, but when he truly feels that he has no refuge but in humility. This is clear from another passage, “Let no man,” says he, “flatter himself: of himself he is a devil: his happiness he owes entirely to God. What have you of your own but sin? Take your sin which is your own; for righteousness is of God.” Again, “Why presume so much on the capability of nature? It is wounded, maimed, vexed, lost. The thing wanted is genuine confession, not false defence.” “When any one knows that he is nothing in himself, and has no help from himself, the weapons within himself are broken, and the war is ended.” All the weapons of impiety must be bruised, and broken, and burnt in the fire; you must remain unarmed, having no help in yourself. The more infirm you are, the more the Lord will sustain you. So, in expounding the seventieth Psalm, he forbids us to remember our own righteousness, in order that we may recognise the righteousness of God, and shows that God bestows his grace upon us, that we may know that we are nothing; that we stand only by the mercy of God, seeing that in ourselves eve are altogether wicked. Let us not contend with God for our right, as if anything attributed to him were lost to our salvation. As our insignificance is his exaltation, so the confession of our insignificance has its remedy provided in his mercy. I do not ask, however, that man should voluntarily yield without being convinced, or that, if he has any powers, he should shut his eyes to them, that he may thus be subdued to true humility; but that getting quit of the disease of self-love and ambition, “filautia kai filoneikia”, under the blinding influences of which he thinks of himself more highly than he ought to think, he may see himself as he really is, by looking into the faithful mirror of Scripture.

(Man’s natural endowments not wholly extinguished: the understanding, 12-17)

12. Supernatural gifts destroyed; natural gifts corrupted; but enough of reason remains to distinguish man from brute beasts

I feel pleased with the well-known saying which has been borrowed from the writings of Augustine, that man’s natural gifts were corrupted by sin, and his supernatural gifts withdrawn; meaning by supernatural gifts the light of faith and righteousness, which would have been sufficient for the attainment of heavenly life and everlasting felicity. Man, when he withdrew his allegiance to God, was deprived of the spiritual gifts by which he had been raised to the hope of eternal salvation. Hence it follows, that he is now an exile from the kingdom of God, so that all things which pertain to the blessed life of the soul are extinguished in him until he recover them by the grace of regeneration. Among these are faith, love to God, charity towards our neighbour, the study of righteousness and holiness. All these, when restored to us by Christ, are to be regarded as adventitious and above nature. If so, we infer that they were previously abolished. On the other hand, soundness of mind and integrity of heart were, at the same time, withdrawn, and it is this which constitutes the corruption of natural gifts. For although there is still some residue of intelligence and judgement as well as will, we cannot call a mind sound and entire which is both weak and immersed in darkness. As to the will, its depravity is but too well known.

Therefore, since reason, by which man discerns between good and evil, and by which he understands and judges, is a natural gift, it could not be entirely destroyed; but being partly weakened and partly corrupted, a shapeless ruin is all that remains. In this sense it is said, (John 1: 5,) that “the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not;” these words clearly expressing both points, viz., that in the perverted and degenerate nature of man there are still some sparks which show that he is a rational animal, and differs from the brutes, inasmuch as he is endued with intelligence, and yet, that this light is so smothered by clouds of darkness that it cannot shine forth to any good effect.

In like manner, the will, because inseparable from the nature of man, did not perish, but was so enslaved by depraved lusts as to be incapable of one righteous desire. The definition now given is complete, but there are several points which require to be explained.

Therefore, proceeding agreeably to that primary distinction, (Book 1 c. 15 sec. 7 and 8,) by which we divided the soul into intellect and will, we will now inquire into the power of the intellect.

To charge the intellect with perpetual blindness, so as to leave it no intelligence of any description whatever, is repugnant not only to the Word of God, but to common experience. We see that there has been implanted in the human mind a certain desire of investigating truth, to which it never would aspire unless some relish for truth antecedently existed. There is, therefore, now, in the human mind, discernment to this extent, that it is naturally influenced by the love of truth, the neglect of which in the lower animals is a proof of their gross and irrational nature. Still it is true that this love of truth fails before it reaches the goal, forthwith falling away into vanity. As the human mind is unable, from dullness, to pursue the right path of investigation, and, after various wanderings, stumbling every now and then like one groping in darkness, at length gets completely bewildered, so its whole procedure proves how unfit it is to search the truth and find it.

Then it labours under another grievous defect, in that it frequently fails to discern what the knowledge is which it should study to acquire. Hence, under the influence of a vain curiosity, it torments itself with superfluous and useless discussions, either not adverting at all to the things necessary to be known, or casting only a cursory and contemptuous glance at them. At all events, it scarcely ever studies them in sober earnest. Profane writers are constantly complaining of this perverse procedure, and yet almost all of them are found pursuing it. Hence Solomon, throughout the Book of Ecclesiastes, after enumerating all the studies in which men think they attain the highest wisdom, pronounces them vain and frivolous.

13. The power of the understanding with respect to earthly things and the form of the human community

Still, however, man’s efforts are not always so utterly fruitless as not to lead to some result, especially when his attention is directed to inferior objects. Nay, even with regard to superior objects, though he is more careless in investigating them, he makes some little progress. Here, however, his ability is more limited, and he is never made more sensible of his weakness than when he attempts to soar above the sphere of the present life. It may therefore be proper, in order to make it more manifest how far our ability extends in regard to these two classes of objects, to draw a distinction between them. The distinction is, that we have one kind of intelligence of earthly things, and another of heavenly things. By earthly things, I mean those which relate not to God and his kingdom, to true righteousness and future blessedness, but have some connection with the present life, and are in a manner confined within its boundaries. By heavenly things, I mean the pure knowledge of God, the method of true righteousness, and the mysteries of the heavenly kingdom. To the former belong matters of policy and economy, all mechanical arts and liberal studies. To the latter (as to which, see the eighteenth and following sections) belong the knowledge of God and of his will, and the means of framing the life in accordance with them.

As to the former, the view to be taken is this: Since man is by nature a social animal, he is disposed, from natural instinct, to cherish and preserve society; and accordingly we see that the minds of all men have impressions of civil order and honesty. Hence it is that every individual understands how human societies must he regulated by laws, and also is able to comprehend the principles of those laws. Hence the universal agreement in regard to such subjects, both among nations and individuals, the seeds of them being implanted in the breasts of all without a teacher or lawgiver.

The truth of this fact is not affected by the wars and dissensions which immediately arise, while some, such as thieves and robbers, would invert the rules of justice, loosen the bonds of law, and give free scope to their lust; and while others (a vice of most frequent occurrence) deem that to be unjust which is elsewhere regarded as just, and, on the contrary, hold that to be praiseworthy which is elsewhere forbidden. For such persons do not hate the laws from not knowing that they are good and sacred, but, inflamed with headlong passion, quarrel with what is clearly reasonable, and licentiously hate what their mind and understanding approve. Quarrels of this latter kind do not destroy the primary idea of justice. For while men dispute with each other as to particular enactments, their ideas of equity agree in substance. This, no doubt, proves the weakness of the human mind, which, even when it seems on the right path, halts and hesitates. Still, however, it is true, that some principle of civil order is impressed on all. And this is ample proof, that, in regard to the constitution of the present life, no man is devoid of the light of reason.

14. Understanding as regards art and science

Next come manual and liberal arts, in learning which, as all have some degree of aptitude, the full force of human acuteness is displayed. But though all are not equally able to learn all the arts, we have sufficient evidence of a common capacity in the fact, that there is scarcely an individual who does not display intelligence in some particular art. And this capacity extends not merely to the learning of the art, but to the devising of something new, or the improving of what had been previously learned. This led Plato to adopt the erroneous idea, that such knowledge was nothing but recollection. So cogently does it oblige us to acknowledge that its principle is naturally implanted in the human mind. But while these proofs openly attest the fact of a universal reason and intelligence naturally implanted, this universality is of a kind which should lead every individual for himself to recognise it as a special gift of God. To this gratitude we have a sufficient call from the Creator himself, when, in the case of idiots, he shows what the endowments of the soul would be were it not pervaded with his light. Though natural to all, it is so in such a sense that it ought to be regarded as a gratuitous gift of his beneficence to each. Moreover, the invention, the methodical arrangement, and the more thorough and superior knowledge of the arts, being confined to a few individuals cannot be regarded as a solid proof of common shrewdness. Still, however, as they are bestowed indiscriminately on the good and the bad, they are justly classed among natural endowments.

15. Science as God’s gift

Therefore, in reading profane authors, the admirable light of truth displayed in them should remind us, that the human mind, however much fallen and perverted from its original integrity, is still adorned and invested with admirable gifts from its Creator. If we reflect that the Spirit of God is the only fountain of truth, we will be careful, as we would avoid offering insult to him, not to reject or condemn truth wherever it appears. In despising the gifts, we insult the Giver. How, then, can we deny that truth must have beamed on those ancient lawgivers who arranged civil order and discipline with so much equity? Shall we say that the philosophers, in their exquisite researches and skilful description of nature, were blind? Shall we deny the possession of intellect to those who drew up rules for discourse, and taught us to speak in accordance with reason? Shall we say that those who, by the cultivation of the medical art, expended their industry in our behalf were only raving? What shall we say of the mathematical sciences? Shall we deem them to be the dreams of madmen? Nay, we cannot read the writings of the ancients on these subjects without the highest admiration; an admiration which their excellence will not allow us to withhold. But shall we deem anything to be noble and praiseworthy, without tracing it to the hand of God? Far from us be such ingratitude; an ingratitude not chargeable even on heathen poets, who acknowledged that philosophy and laws, and all useful arts were the inventions of the gods. Therefore, since it is manifest that men whom the Scriptures term carnal, are so acute and clear-sighted in the investigation of inferior things, their example should teach us how many gifts the Lord has left in possession of human nature, notwithstanding of its having been despoiled of the true good.

16. Human competence in art and science also derives from the Spirit of God

Moreover, let us not forget that there are most excellent blessings which the Divine Spirit dispenses to whom he will for the common benefit of mankind. For if the skill and knowledge required for the construction of the Tabernacle behaved to be imparted to Bezaleel and Aholiab, by the Spirit of God, (Exod. 31: 2; 35: 30,) it is not strange that the knowledge of those things which are of the highest excellence in human life is said to be communicated to us by the Spirit. Nor is there any ground for asking what concourse the Spirit can have with the ungodly, who are altogether alienated from God? For what is said as to the Spirit dwelling in believers only, is to be understood of the Spirit of holiness by which we are consecrated to God as temples. Notwithstanding of this, He fills, moves, and invigorates all things by the virtue of the Spirit, and that according to the peculiar nature which each class of beings has received by the Law of Creation. But if the Lord has been pleased to assist us by the work and ministry of the ungodly in physics, dialectics, mathematics, and other similar sciences, let us avail ourselves of it, lest, by neglecting the gifts of God spontaneously offered to us, we be justly punished for our sloth. Lest any one, however, should imagine a man to be very happy merely because, with reference to the elements of this world, he has been endued with great talents for the investigation of truth, we ought to add, that the whole power of intellect thus bestowed is, in the sight of God, fleeting and vain whenever it is not based on a solid foundation of truth. Augustine, (supra, sec. 4 and 12,) to whom, as we have observed, the Master of Sentences, (lib. 2 Dist. 25,) and the Schoolmen, are forced to subscribe, says most correctly that as the gratuitous gifts bestowed on man were withdrawn, so the natural gifts which remained were corrupted after the fall. Not that they can be polluted in themselves in so far as they proceed from God, but that they have ceased to be pure to polluted man, lest he should by their means obtain any praise.

17. Summary of 12-16

The sum of the whole is this: From a general survey of the human race, it appears that one of the essential properties of our nature is reason, which distinguishes us from the lower animals, just as these by means of sense are distinguished from inanimate objects. For although some individuals are born without reason, that defect does not impair the general kindness of God, but rather serves to remind us, that whatever we retain ought justly to be ascribed to the Divine indulgence. Had God not so spared us, our revolt would have carried along with it the entire destruction of nature. In that some excel in acuteness, and some in judgement, while others have greater readiness in learning some peculiar art, God, by this variety commends his favour toward us, lest any one should presume to arrogate to himself that which flows from His mere liberality. For whence is it that one is more excellent than another, but that in a common nature the grace of God is specially displayed in passing by many and thus proclaiming that it is under obligation to none. We may add, that each individual is brought under particular influences according to his calling. Many examples of this occur in the Book of Judges, in which the Spirit of the Lord is said to have come upon those whom he called to govern his people, (Judges 6: 34.) In short, in every distinguished act there is a special inspiration. Thus it is said of Saul, that “there went with him a band of men whose hearts the Lord had touched,” (1 Sam. 10: 26.) And when his inauguration to the kingdom is foretold, Samuel thus addresses him, “The Spirit of the Lord will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and shalt be turned into another man,” (1 Sam. 10: 6.) This extends to the whole course of government, as it is afterwards said of David, “The Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward,” (1 Sam. 16: 13.) The same thing is elsewhere said with reference to particular movements. Nay, even in Homer, men are said to excel in genius, not only according as Jupiter has distributed to each, but according as he leads them day by day, “hoion ep hemas ageisi”. And certainly experience shows when those who were most skilful and ingenious stand stupefied, that the minds of men are entirely under the control of God, who rules them every moment. Hence it is said, that “He poureth contempt upon princes, and causeth them to wander in the wilderness where there is no way,” (Job 12:24; Ps. 107: 40.) Still, in this diversity we can trace some remains of the divine image distinguishing the whole human race from other creatures.

(But spiritual discernment is wholly lost until we are regenerated, 18-21)

18. The limits of our understanding

We must now explain what the power of human reason is, in regard to the kingdom of God, and spiritual discernments which consists chiefly of three things—the knowledge of God, the knowledge of his paternal favour towards us, which constitutes our salvation, and the method of regulating of our conduct in accordance with the Divine Law. With regard to the former two, but more properly the second, men otherwise the most ingenious are blinder than moles. I deny not, indeed, that in the writings of philosophers we meet occasionally with shrewd and apposite remarks on the nature of God, though they invariably savour somewhat of giddy imagination. As observed above, the Lord has bestowed on them some slight perception of his Godhead that they might not plead ignorance as an excuse for their impiety, and has, at times, instigated them to deliver some truths, the confession of which should be their own condemnation. Still, though seeing, they saw not. Their discernment was not such as to direct them to the truth, far less to enable them to attain it, but resembled that of the bewildered traveller, who sees the flash of lightning glance far and wide for a moment, and then vanish into the darkness of the night, before he can advance a single step. So far is such assistance from enabling him to find the right path. Besides, how many monstrous falsehoods intermingle with those minute particles of truth scattered up and down in their writings as if by chance. In short, not one of them even made the least approach to that assurance of the divine favour, without which the mind of man must ever remain a mere chaos of confusion. To the great truths, What God is in himself, and what he is in relation to us, human reason makes not the least approach. (See Book 3 c. 2 sec. 14, 15, 16.)

19. Man’s spiritual blindness shown from John 1:4-5

But since we are intoxicated with a false opinion of our own discernment, and can scarcely be persuaded that in divine things it is altogether stupid and blind, I believe the best course will be to establish the fact, not by argument, but by Scripture. Most admirable to this effect is the passage which I lately quoted from John, when he says, “In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not,” (John 1: 4, 5.) He intimates that the human soul is indeed irradiated with a beam of divine light, so that it is never left utterly devoid of some small flame, or rather spark, though not such as to enable it to comprehend God. And why so? Because its acuteness is, in reference to the knowledge of God, mere blindness. When the Spirit describes men under the term “darkness” he declares them void of all power of spiritual intelligence. For this reason, it is said that believers, in embracing Christ, are “born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God,” (John 1: 13;) in other words, that the flesh has no capacity for such sublime wisdom as to apprehend God, and the things of God, unless illumined by His Spirit. In like manner our Saviour, when he was acknowledged by Peter, declared that it was by special revelation from the Father, (Matth. 16: 17.)

20. Man’s knowledge of God is God’s own work

If we were persuaded of a truth which ought to be beyond dispute, viz., that human nature possesses none of the gifts which the elect receive from their heavenly Father through the Spirit of regeneration, there would be no room here for hesitation. For thus speaks the congregation of the faithful, by the mouth of the prophet: “With thee is the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light,” (Ps. 36: 9.) To the same effect is the testimony of the Apostle Paul, when he declares, that “no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost,” (1 Cor. 12: 3.) And John Baptist, on seeing the dullness of his disciples, exclaims, “A man can receive nothing, unless it be given him from heaven,” (John 3: 27.) That the gift to which he here refers must be understood not of ordinary natural gifts, but of special illumination, appears from this—that he was complaining how little his disciples had profited by all that he had said to them in commendation of Christ. “I see,” says he, “that my words are of no effect in imbuing the minds of men with divine things, unless the Lord enlighten their understandings by His Spirit.” Nay, Moses also, while upbraiding the people for their forgetfulness, at the same time observes, that they could not become wise in the mysteries of God without his assistance. “Ye have seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land; the great temptations which thine eyes have seen, the signs, and these great miracles: yet the Lord has not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this, day,” (Deut. 29: 2, 3, 4.) Would the expression have been stronger had he called us mere blocks in regard to the contemplation of divine things? Hence the Lord, by the mouth of the Prophet, promises to the Israelites as a singular favour, “I will give them an heart to know me,” (Jer. 24: 7;) intimating, that in spiritual things the human mind is wise only in so far as he enlightens it.

This was also clearly confirmed by our Saviour when he said, “No man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him,” (John 6: 44.) Nay, is not he himself the living image of his Father, in which the full brightness of his glory is manifested to us? Therefore, how far our faculty of knowing God extends could not be better shown than when it is declared, that though his image is so plainly exhibited, we have not eyes to perceive it. What? Did not Christ descend into the world that he might make the will of his Father manifest to men, and did he not faithfully perform the office? True! He did; but nothing is accomplished by his preaching unless the inner teacher, the Spirit, open the way into our minds. Only those, therefore, come to him who have heard and learned of the Father. And in what is the method of this hearing and learning? It is when the Spirit, with a wondrous and special energy, forms the ear to hear and the mind to understand. Lest this should seem new, our Saviour refers to the prophecy of Isaiah, which contains a promise of the renovation of the Church. “For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee,” (Is. 54: 7.) If the Lord here predicts some special blessing to his elect, it is plain that the teaching to which he refers is not that which is common to them with the ungodly and profane.

It thus appears that none can enter the kingdom of God save those whose minds have been renewed by the enlightening of the Holy Spirit. On this subject the clearest exposition is given by Paul, who, when expressly handling it, after condemning the whole wisdom of the world as foolishness and vanity, and thereby declaring man’s utter destitution, thus concludes, “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned,” (1 Cor. 2: 14.) Whom does he mean by the “natural man”? The man who trusts to the light of nature. Such a man has no understanding in the spiritual mysteries of God. Why so? Is it because through sloth he neglects them? Nay, though he exert himself, it is of no avail; they are “spiritually discerned.” And what does this mean? That altogether hidden from human discernment, they are made known only by the revelation of the Spirit; so that they are accounted foolishness wherever the Spirit does not give light. The Apostle had previously declared, that “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for them that love him;” nay, that the wisdom of the world is a kind of veil by which the mind is prevented from beholding God, (1 Cor. 2: 9.) What would we more? The Apostle declares that God has “made foolish the wisdom of this world,” (1 Cor. 1: 20;) and shall we attribute to it an acuteness capable of penetrating to God, and the hidden mysteries of his kingdom? Far from us be such presumption!

21. Without the light of the Spirit, all is darkness

What the Apostle here denies to man, he, in another place, ascribes to God alone, when he prays, “that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation,” (Eph. 1: 17.) You now hear that all wisdom and revelation is the gift of God. What follows? “The eyes of your understanding being enlightened.” Surely, if they require a new enlightening, they must in themselves be blind. The next words are, “that ye may know what is the hope of his calling,” (Eph. 1: 18.) In other words, the minds of men have not capacity enough to know their calling.

Let no prating Pelagian here allege that God obviates this rudeness or stupidity, when, by the doctrine of his word, he directs us to a path which we could not have found without a guide. David had the law, comprehending in it all the wisdom that could be desired, and yet not contented with this, he prays, “Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law,” (Ps. 119: 18.) By this expression, he certainly intimates, that it is like sunrise to the earth when the word of God shines forth; but that men do not derive much benefit from it until he himself, who is for this reason called the Father of lights (James 1: 17,) either gives eyes or opens them; because, whatever is not illuminated by his Spirit is wholly darkness. The Apostles had been duly and amply instructed by the best of teachers. Still, as they wanted the Spirit of truth to complete their education in the very doctrine which they had previously heard, they were ordered to wait for him, (John 14: 26.) If we confess that what we ask of God is lacking to us, and He by the very thing promised intimates our want, no man can hesitate to acknowledge that he is able to understand the mysteries of God, only in so far as illuminated by his grace. He who ascribes to himself more understanding than this, is the blinder for not acknowledging his blindness.

(Sin is distinct from ignorance [vs. Plato], but may be occasioned by delusion, 22-25)

22. The evidence of God’s will that man possesses makes him in excusable but procures for him no right knowledge

It remains to consider the third branch of the knowledge of spiritual things, viz., the method of properly regulating the conduct. This is correctly termed the knowledge of the works of righteousness, a branch in which the human mind seems to have somewhat more discernment than in the former two, since an Apostle declares, “When the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meantime accusing or else excusing one another” (Rom. 2: 14, 15.) If the Gentiles have the righteousness of the law naturally engraven on their minds, we certainly cannot say that they are altogether blind as to the rule of life.

Nothing, indeed is more common, than for man to be sufficiently instructed in a right course of conduct by natural law, of which the Apostle here speaks. Let us consider, however for what end this knowledge of the law was given to men. For from this it will forthwith appear how far it can conduct them in the way of reason and truth. This is even plain from the words of Paul, if we attend to their arrangement. He had said a little before, that those who had sinned in the law will be judged by the law; and those who have sinned without the law will perish without the law. As it might seem unaccountable that the Gentiles should perish without any previous judgement, he immediately subjoins, that conscience served them instead of the law, and was therefore sufficient for their righteous condemnation. The end of the natural law, therefore, is to render man inexcusable, and may be not improperly defined—the judgement of conscience distinguishing sufficiently between just and unjust, and by convicting men on their own testimony depriving them of all pretext for ignorance. So indulgent is man towards himself, that, while doing evil, he always endeavours as much as he can to suppress the idea of sin. It was this, apparently, which induced Plato (in his Protagoras) to suppose that sins were committed only through ignorance. There might be some ground for this, if hypocrisy were so successful in hiding vice as to keep the conscience clear in the sight of God. But since the sinner, when trying to evade the judgement of good and evil implanted in him, is ever and anon dragged forward, and not permitted to wink so effectually as not to be compelled at times, whether he will or not, to open his eyes, it is false to say that he sins only through ignorance.

23. Judgment of good and evil is unclear, so long as it takes place arbitrarily

Themistius is more accurate in teaching, (Paraphr. in Lib. 3 de Anima, cap. 46,) that the intellect is very seldom mistaken in the general definition or essence of the matter; but that deception begins as it advances farther, namely, when it descends to particulars. That homicide, putting the case in the abstract, is an evil, no man will deny; and yet one who is conspiring the death of his enemy deliberates on it as if the thing was good. The adulterer will condemn adultery in the abstract, and yet flatter himself while privately committing it. The ignorance lies here: that man, when he comes to the particular, forgets the rule which he had laid down in the general case. Augustine treats most admirably on this subject in his exposition of the first verse of the fifty-seventh Psalm.

The doctrine of Themistius, however, does not always hold true: for the turpitude of the crime sometimes presses so on the conscience, that the sinner does not impose upon himself by a false semblance of good, but rushes into sin knowingly and willingly. Hence the expression,—I see the better course, and approve it: I follow the worse, (Medea of Ovid.) For this reason, Aristotle seems to me to have made a very shrewd distinction between incontinence and intemperance, (Ethic. lib. 7 cap. 3) Where incontinence ("akrasia") reigns, he says, that through the passion ("pathos") particular knowledge is suppressed: so that the individual sees not in his own misdeed the evil which he sees generally in similar cases; but when the passion is over, repentance immediately succeeds. Intemperance, ("akolasia"), again, is not extinguished or diminished by a sense of sin, but, on the contrary, persists in the evil choice which it has once made.

24. Human knowledge wholly fails as regards the First Table of the Law; as regards the Second, fails in a critical situation

Moreover, when you hear of a universal judgement in man distinguishing between good and evil, you must not suppose that this judgement is, in every respect, sound and entire. For if the hearts of men are imbued with a sense of justice and injustice, in order that they may have no pretext to allege ignorance, it is by no means necessary for this purpose that they should discern the truth in particular cases. It is even more than sufficient if they understand so far as to be unable to practice evasion without being convicted by their own conscience, and beginning even now to tremble at the judgement-seat of God. Indeed, if we would test our reason by the Divine Law, which is a perfect standard of righteousness, we should find how blind it is in many respects. It certainly attains not to the principal heads in the First Table, such as, trust in God, the ascription to him of all praise in virtue and righteousness, the invocation of his name, and the true observance of his day of rest. Did ever any soul, under the guidance of natural sense, imagine that these and the like constitute the legitimate worship of God? When profane men would worship God, how often soever they may be drawn off from their vain trifling, they constantly relapse into it. They admit, indeed, that sacrifices are not pleasing, to God, unless accompanied with sincerity of mind; and by this they testify that they have some conception of spiritual worship, though they immediately pervert it by false devices: for it is impossible to persuade them that every thing which the law enjoins on the subject is true. Shall I then extol the discernment of a mind which can neither acquire wisdom by itself, nor listen to advice?

As to the precepts of the Second Table, there is considerably more knowledge of them, inasmuch as they are more closely connected with the preservation of civil society. Even here, however, there is something defective. Every man of understanding deems it most absurd to submit to unjust and tyrannical domination, provided it can by any means be thrown off, and there is but one opinion among men, that it is the part of an abject and servile mind to bear it patiently, the part of an honourable and high-spirited mind to rise up against it. Indeed, the revenge of injuries is not regarded by philosophers as a vice. But the Lord condemning this too lofty spirit, prescribes to his people that patience which mankind deem infamous. In regard to the general observance of the law, concupiscence altogether escapes our animadversion. For the natural man cannot bear to recognise diseases in his lusts. The light of nature is stifled sooner than take the first step into this profound abyss. For, when philosophers class immoderate movements of the mind among vices, they mean those which break forth and manifest themselves in grosser forms. Depraved desires, in which the mind can quietly indulge, they regard as nothing, (see infra, chap. 8 sect. 49.)

25. Every day we need the Holy Spirit that we may not mistake our way

As we have above animadverted on Plato’s error, in ascribing all sins to ignorance, so we must repudiate the opinion of those who hold that all sins proceed from preconceived gravity and malice. We know too well from experience how often we fall, even when our intention is good. Our reason is exposed to so many forms of delusion, is liable to so many errors, stumbles on so many obstacles, is entangled by so many snares, that it is ever wandering from the right direction. Of how little value it is in the sight of God, in regard to all the parts of life, Paul shows, when he says, that we are not “sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves,” (2 Cor. 3: 5.) He is not speaking of the will or affection; he denies us the power of thinking aright how any thing cam be duly performed. Is it, indeed, true, that all thought, intelligence, discernment, and industry, are so defective, that, in the sight of the Lord, we cannot think or aim at any thing that is right? To us, who can scarcely bear to part with acuteness of intellect, (in our estimation a most precious endowment,) it seems hard to admit this, whereas it is regarded as most just by the Holy Spirit, who “knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity,” (Ps. 94: 11,) and distinctly declares, that “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually,” (Gen. 6: 5; 8: 21.) If every thing which our mind conceives, meditates plans, and resolves, is always evil, how can it ever think of doing what is pleasing to God, to whom righteousness and holiness alone are acceptable?

It is thus plain, that our mind, in what direction soever it turns, is miserably exposed to vanity. David was conscious of its weakness when he prayed, “Give me understanding, and I shall keep thy law,” (Ps. 119: 34.) By desiring to obtain a new understanding, he intimates that his own was by no means sufficient. This he does not once only, but in one psalm repeats the same prayer almost ten times, the repetition intimating how strong the necessity which urged him to pray. What he thus asked for himself alone, Paul prays for the churches in general. “For this cause,” says he, “we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will, in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; that you might walk worthy of the Lord,” &c., (Col. 1: 9, 10.) Whenever he represents this as a blessing from God, we should remember that he at the same time testifies that it is not in the power of man. Accordingly, Augustine, in speaking of this inability of human reason to understand the things of God, says, that he deems the grace of illumination not less necessary to the mind than the light of the sun to the eye, (August. de Peccat. Merit. et Remiss. lib. 2 cap. 5.) And, not content with this, he modifies his expression, adding, that we open our eyes to behold the light, whereas the mental eye remains shut, until it is opened by the Lord. Nor does Scripture say that our minds are illuminated in a single day, so as afterwards to see of themselves. The passage, which I lately quoted from the Apostle Paul, refers to continual progress and increase. David, too, expresses this distinctly in these words: “With my whole heart have I sought thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments,” (Ps. 119: 10.) Though he had been regenerated, and so had made no ordinary progress in true piety, he confesses that he stood in need of direction every moment, in order that he might not decline from the knowledge with which he had been endued. Hence, he elsewhere prays for a renewal of a right spirit, which he had lost by his sin, (Ps. 51: 12.) For that which God gave at first, while temporarily withdrawn, it is equally his province to restore.

(Man’s inability to will the good, 26-27)

26. The natural instinct that treats the “good” and the “acceptable” alike has nothing to do with freedom

We must now examine the will, on which the question of freedom principally turns, the power of choice belonging to it rather than the intellect, as we have already seen, (supra, sect. 4.) And at the outset, to guard against its being thought that the doctrine taught by philosophers, and generally received, viz., that all things by natural instinct have a desire of good, is any proof of the rectitude of the human will,—let us observe, that the power of free will is not to be considered in any of those desires which proceed more from instinct than mental deliberation. Even the schoolmen admit, (Thomas, Part 1, Quest. 83, art. 3,) that there is no act of free will, unless when reason looks at opposites. By this they mean, that the things desired must be such as may be made the object of choice, and that to pave the way for choice, deliberation must precede. And, undoubtedly, if you attend to what this natural desire of good in man is, you will find that it is common to him with the brutes. They, too, desire what is good; and when any semblance of good capable of moving the sense appears, they follow after it. Here, however, man does not, in accordance with the excellence of his immortal nature, rationally choose, and studiously pursue, what is truly for his good. He does not admit reason to his counsel, nor exert his intellect; but without reason, without counsel, follows the bent of his nature like the lower animals. The question of freedom, therefore, has nothing to do with the fact of man’s being led by natural instinct to desire good. The question is, Does man, after determining by right reason what is good, choose what he thus knows, and pursue what he thus chooses?

Lest any doubt should be entertained as to this, we must attend to the double misnomer. For this appetite is not properly a movement of the will, but natural inclination; and this good is not one of virtue or righteousness, but of condition, viz., that the individual may feel comfortable. In fine, how much soever man may desire to obtain what is good, he does not follow it. There is no man who would not be pleased with eternal blessedness; and yet, without the impulse of the Spirit, no man aspires to it. Since, then, the natural desire of happiness in man no more proves the freedom of the will, than the tendency in metals and stones to attain the perfection of their nature, let us consider, in other respects, whether the will is so utterly vitiated and corrupted in every part as to produce nothing but evil, or whether it retains some portion uninjured, and productive of good desires.

27. Our will cannot long for the good without the Holy Spirit

Those who ascribe our willing effectually, to the primary grace of God (supra, sect. 6,) seem conversely to insinuate that the soul has in itself a power of aspiring to good, though a power too feeble to rise to solid affection or active endeavour. There is no doubt that this opinion, adopted from Origin and certain of the ancient Fathers, has been generally embraced by the schoolmen, who are wont to apply to man in his natural state (in puris naturalibus, as they express it) the following description of the apostle:—"For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.” “To will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not,” (Rom. 7: 15, 18.) But, in this way, the whole scope of Paul’s discourse is inverted. He is speaking of the Christian struggle, (touched on more briefly in the Epistle to the Galatians,) which believers constantly experience from the conflict between the flesh and the Spirit. But the Spirit is not from nature, but from regeneration. That the apostle is speaking of the regenerate is apparent from this, that after saying, “in me dwells no good thing,” he immediately adds the explanation, “in my flesh.” Accordingly, he declares, “It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.” What is the meaning of the correction, “in me, (that is, in my flesh?") It is just as if he had spoken in this way, No good thing dwells in me, of myself, for in my flesh nothing good can be found. Hence follows the species of excuse, It is not I myself that do evil, but sin that dwelleth in me. This applies to none but the regenerate, who, with the leading powers of the soul, tend towards what is good. The whole is made plain by the conclusion, “I delight in the law of God after the inward man: but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind,” (Rom. 7: 22, 23.) Who has this struggle in himself, save those who, regenerated by the Spirit of God, bear about with them the remains of the flesh? Accordingly, Augustine, who had at one time thought that the discourse related to the natural man, (August. ad Bonifac. lib. 1 c. 10,) afterwards retracted his exposition as unsound and inconsistent. And, indeed if we admit that men, without grace, have any motions to good, however feeble, what answer shall we give to the apostles who declares that “we are incapable of thinking a good thought?” (2 Cor. 3: 6.) What answer shall we give to the Lord, who declares, by Moses, that “every imagination of man’s heart is only evil continually?” (Gen. 8: 21.) Since the blunder has thus arisen from an erroneous view of a single passage, it seems unnecessary to dwell upon it. Let us rather give due weight to our Saviour’s words, “Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin,” (John 8: 34.) We are all sinners by nature, therefore we are held under the yoke of sin. But if the whole man is subject to the dominion of sin, surely the will, which is its principal seat, must be bound with the closest chains. And, indeed, if divine grace were preceded by any will of ours, Paul could not have said that “it is God which worketh in us both to will and to do,” (Philip. 2: 13.) Away, then, with all the absurd trifling which many have indulged in with regard to preparation. Although believers sometimes ask to have their heart trained to the obedience of the divine law, as David does in several passages, (Ps. 51: 12,) it is to be observed, that even this longing in prayer is from God. This is apparent from the language used. When he prays, “Create in me a clean heart,” he certainly does not attribute the beginning of the creation to himself. Let us therefore rather adopt the sentiment of Augustine, “God will prevent you in all things, but do you sometimes prevent his anger. How? Confess that you have all these things from God, that all the good you have is from him, all the evil from yourself,” (August. De Verbis Apost. Serm. 10.) Shortly after he says “Of our own we have nothing but sin.”

CHAPTER 3. EVERY THING PROCEEDING FROM THE CORRUPT NATURE OF MAN DAMNABLE.

The principal matters in this chapter are,—

I. A recapitulation of the former chapter, proving, from passages of Scriptures that the intellect and will of man are so corrupted, that no integrity, no knowledge or fear of God, can now be found in him, sect. 1 and 2.

II. Objections to this doctrine, from the virtues which shone in some of the heathen, refuted, sect. 3 and 4.

III. What kind of will remains in man, the slave of sin, sect. 5. The remedy and cure, sect. 6.

IV. The opinion of Neo-Pelagian sophists concerning the preparation and efficacy of the will, and also concerning perseverance and co-operating grace, refuted, both by reason and Scripture, sect. 7-12.

V. Some passages from Augustine confirming the truth of this doctrine, sect. 13 and 14.

Sections.

1. The intellect and will of the whole man corrupt. The term flesh applies not only to the sensual, but also to the higher part of the soul. This demonstrated from Scripture.

2. The heart also involved in corruption, and hence in no part of man can integrity, or knowledge or the fear of God, be found.

3. Objection, that some of the heathen were possessed of admirable endowments, and, therefore, that the nature of man is not entirely corrupt. Answer, Corruption is not entirely removed, but only inwardly restrained. Explanation of this answer.

4. Objection still urged, that the virtuous and vicious among the heathen must be put upon the same level, or the virtuous prove that human nature, properly cultivated, is not devoid of virtue. Answer, That these are not ordinary properties of human nature, but special gifts of God. These gifts defiled by ambition, and hence the actions proceeding from them, however esteemed by man, have no merit with God.

5. Though man has still the faculty of willing there is no soundness in it. He falls under the bondage of sin necessarily, and yet voluntarily. Necessity must be distinguished from compulsion. The ancient Theologians acquainted with this necessity. Some passages condemning the vacillation of Lombard.

6. Conversion to God constitutes the remedy or soundness of the human will. This not only begun, but continued and completed; the beginning, continuance, and completion, being ascribed entirely to God. This proved by Ezekiel’s description of the stony heart, and from other passages of Scripture.

7. Various Objections.—

1. The will is converted by God, but, when once prepared, does its part in the work of conversion. Answer from Augustine.

2. Grace can do nothing without will, nor the will without grace. Answer. Grace itself produces will. God prevents the unwilling, making him willing, and follows up this preventing grace that he may not will in vain. Another answer gathered from various passages of Augustine.

8. Answer to the second Objection continued. No will inclining to good except in the elect. The cause of election out of man. Hence right will, as well as election, are from the good pleasure of God. The beginning of willing and doing well is of faith; faith again is the gift of God; and hence mere grace is the cause of our beginning to will well. This proved by Scripture.

9. Answer to second Objection continued. That good will is merely of grace proved by the prayers of saints.

Three axioms

1. God does not prepare man’s heart, so that he can afterwards do some good of himself, but every desire of rectitude, every inclination to study, and every effort to pursue it, is from Him.

2. This desire, study, and effort, do not stop short, but continue to effect.

3. This progress is constant. The believer perseveres to the end. A third Objection, and three answers to it.

10. A fourth Objection. Answer. Fifth Objection. Answer. Answer confirmed by many passages of Scripture, and supported by a passage from Augustine.

11. Perseverance not of ourselves, but of God. Objection. Two errors in the objection. Refutation of both.

12. An objection founded on the distinction of co-operating grace. Answer. Answer confirmed by the testimony of Augustine and Bernard.

13. Last part of the chapter, in which it is proved by many passages of Augustine, that he held the doctrine here taught.

14. An objection, representing Augustine at variance with himself and other Theologians, removed. A summary of Augustine’s doctrine on free will.

1.

The nature of man, in both parts of his soul, (viz., intellect and will,) cannot be better ascertained than by attending to the epithets applied to him in Scripture. If he is fully depicted (and it may easily be proved that he is) by the words of our Saviour, “that which is born of the flesh is flesh,” (John 3: 6,) he must be a very miserable creature. For, as an apostle declares, “to be carnally minded is death,” (Rom. 8: 8,) “It is enmity against God, and is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” Is it true that the flesh is so perverse, that it is perpetually striving with all its might against God? that it cannot accord with the righteousness of the divine law? that, in short, it can beget nothing but the materials of death? Grant that there is nothing in human nature but flesh, and then extract something good out of it if you can. But it will be said, that the word “flesh” applies only to the sensual, and not to the higher part of the soul. This, however, is completely refuted by the words both of Christ and his apostle. The statement of our Lord is, that a man must be born again, because he is flesh. He requires not to be born again, with reference to the body. But a mind is not born again merely by having some portion of it reformed. It must be totally renewed. This is confirmed by the antithesis used in both passages. In the contrast between the Spirit and the flesh, there is nothing left of an intermediate nature. In this way, everything in man, which is not spiritual, falls under the denomination of carnal. But we have nothing of the Spirit except through regeneration. Everything, therefore, which we have from nature is flesh. Any possible doubt which might exist on the subject is removed by the words of Paul, (Eph. 4: 23,) where, after a description of the old man, who, he says, “is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts,” he bids us “be renewed in the spirit” of our mind. You see that he places unlawful and depraved desires not in the sensual part merely, but in the mind itself, and therefore requires that it should be renewed. Indeed, he had a little before drawn a picture of human nature, which shows that there is no part in which it is not perverted and corrupted. For when he says that the “Gentiles walk in the vanity of their mind, having the understanding darkened being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart,” (Eph. 4: 17, 18,) there can be no doubt that his words apply to all whom the Lord has not yet formed anew both to wisdom and righteousness. This is rendered more clear by the comparison which immediately follows, and by which he reminds believers that they “have not so learned Christ these words implying that the grace of Christ is the only remedy for that blindness and its evil consequences. Thus, too, had Isaiah prophesied of the kingdom of Christ, when the Lord promised to the Church, that though darkness should “cover the earth, and gross darkness the people,” yet that he should “arise” upon it, and “his glory” should be seen upon it, (Isaiah 40: 2.) When it is thus declared that divine light is to arise on the Church alone, all without the Church is left in blindness and darkness. I will not enumerate all that occurs throughout Scripture, and particularly in the Psalms and Prophetical writings, as to the vanity of man. There is much in what David says, “Surely men of low degree are vanity, and men of high degree are a lie: to be laid in the balance, they are altogether lighter than vanity,” (Ps. 62: 10.) The human mind receives a humbling blow when all the thoughts which proceed from it are derided as foolish, frivolous, perverse, and insane.

2.

In no degree more lenient is the condemnation of the heart, when it is described as “deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked,” (Jer. 17: 9.) But as I study brevity, I will be satisfied with a single passage, one, however, in which as in a bright mirror, we may behold a complete image of our nature. The Apostle, when he would humble man’s pride, uses these words: “There is none righteous no, not one: there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that does good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction and misery are in their ways: and the way of peace have they not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes,” (Rom. 3: 10-18.) Thus he thunders not against certain individuals, but against the whole posterity of Adam—not against the depraved manners of any single age, but the perpetual corruption of nature. His object in the passage is not merely to upbraid men in order that they may repent, but to teach that all are overwhelmed with inevitable calamity, and can be delivered from it only by the mercy of God. As this could not be proved without previously proving the overthrow and destruction of nature, he produced those passages to show that its ruin is complete. Let it be a fixed point, then, that men are such as is here described, not by vicious custom, but by depravity of nature. The reasoning of the Apostle, that there is no salvation for man, save in the mercy of God, because in himself he is desperate and undone, could not otherwise stand. I will not here labour to prove that the passages apply, with the view of removing the doubts of any who might think them quoted out of place. I will take them as if they had been used by Paul for the first time, and not taken from the Prophets. First, then, he strips man of righteousness, that is, integrity and purity; and, secondly, he strips him of sound intelligence. He argues, that defect of intelligence is proved by apostasy from God. To seek Him is the beginning of wisdom, and, therefore, such defect must exist in all who have revolted from Him. He subjoins, that all have gone astray, and become as it were mere corruption; that there is none that does good. He then enumerates the crimes by which those who have once given loose to their wickedness pollute every member of their bodies. Lastly, he declares that they have no fear of God, according to whose rule all our steps should be directed. If these are the hereditary properties of the human race, it is vain to look for anything good in our nature. I confess indeed, that all these iniquities do not break out in every individual. Still it cannot be denied that the hydra lurks in every breast. For as a body, while it contains and fosters the cause and matter of disease, cannot be called healthy, although pain is not actually felt; so a soul, while teeming with such seeds of vice, cannot be called sound. This similitude, however, does not apply throughout. In a body however morbid the functions of life are performed; but the soul, when plunged into that deadly abyss, not only labours under vice, but is altogether devoid of good.

3.

Here, again we are met with a question very much the same as that which was previously solved. In every age there have been some who, under the guidance of nature, were all their lives devoted to virtue. It is of no consequence, that many blots may be detected in their conduct; by the mere study of virtue, they evinced that there was somewhat of purity in their nature. The value which virtues of this kind have in the sight of God will be considered more fully when we treat of the merit of works. Meanwhile however, it will be proper to consider it in this place also, in so far as necessary for the exposition of the subject in hand. Such examples, then, seem to warn us against supposing that the nature of man is utterly vicious, since, under its guidance, some have not only excelled in illustrious deeds, but conducted themselves most honourably through the whole course of their lives. But we ought to consider, that, notwithstanding of the corruption of our nature, there is some room for divine grace, such grace as, without purifying it, may lay it under internal restraint. For, did the Lord let every mind loose to wanton in its lusts, doubtless there is not a man who would not show that his nature is capable of all the crimes with which Paul charges it, (Rom. 3 compared with Ps. 14: 3, &c.) What? Can you exempt yourself from the number of those whose feet are swift to shed blood; whose hands are foul with rapine and murder; whose throats are like open sepulchres; whose tongues are deceitful; whose lips are venomous; whose actions are useless, unjust, rotten, deadly; whose soul is without God; whose inward parts are full of wickedness; whose eyes are on the watch for deception; whose minds are prepared for insult; whose every part, in short, is framed for endless deeds of wickedness? If every soul is capable of such abominations, (and the Apostle declares this boldly,) it is surely easy to see what the result would be, if the Lord were to permit human passion to follow its bent. No ravenous beast would rush so furiously, no stream, however rapid and violent, so impetuously burst its banks. In the elect, God cures these diseases in the mode which will shortly be explained; in others, he only lays them under such restraint as may prevent them from breaking forth to a degree incompatible with the preservation of the established order of things. Hence, how much soever men may disguise their impurity, some are restrained only by shame, others by a fear of the laws, from breaking out into many kinds of wickedness. Some aspire to an honest life, as deeming it most conducive to their interest, while others are raised above the vulgar lot, that, by the dignity of their station, they may keep inferiors to their duty. Thus God, by his providence, curbs the perverseness of nature, preventing it from breaking forth into action, yet without rendering it inwardly pure.

4.

The objection, however, is not yet solved. For vie must either put Cataline on the same footing with Camillus, or hold Camillus to be an example that nature, when carefully cultivated, is not wholly void of goodness. I admit that the specious qualities which Camillus possessed were divine gifts, and appear entitled to commendation when viewed in themselves. But in what way will they be proofs of a virtuous nature? Must we not go back to the mind, and from it begin to reason thus? If a natural man possesses such integrity of manners, nature is not without the faculty of studying virtue. But what if his mind was depraved and perverted, and followed anything rather than rectitude? Such it undoubtedly was, if you grant that he was only a natural man. How then will you laud the power of human nature for good, if, even where there is the highest semblance of integrity, a corrupt bias is always detected? Therefore, as you would not commend a man for virtue whose vices impose upon you by a show of virtue, so you will not attribute a power of choosing rectitude to the human will while rooted in depravity, (see August. lib. 4, Cont. Julian.) Still, the surest and easiest answer to the objection is, that those are not common endowments of nature, but special gifts of God, which he distributes in divers forms, and, in a definite measure, to men otherwise profane. For which reason, we hesitate not, in common language, to say, that one is of a good, another of a vicious nature; though we cease not to hold that both are placed under the universal condition of human depravity. All we mean is that God has conferred on the one a special grace which he has not seen it meet to confer on the other. When he was pleased to set Saul over the kingdom, he made him as it were a new man. This is the thing meant by Plato, when, alluding to a passage in the Iliad, he says, that the children of kings are distinguished at their birth by some special qualities—God, in kindness to the human race, often giving a spirit of heroism to those whom he destines for empire. In this way, the great leaders celebrated in history were formed. The same judgement must be given in the case of private individuals. But as those endued with the greatest talents were always impelled by the greatest ambitions (a stain which defiles all virtues and makes them lose all favour in the sight of God,) so we cannot set any value on anything that seems praiseworthy in ungodly men. We may add, that the principal part of rectitude is wanting, when there is no zeal for the glory of God, and there is no such zeal in those whom he has not regenerated by his Spirit. Nor is it without good cause said in Isaiah, that on Christ should rest “the spirit of knowledge, and of the fear of the Lord,” (Isa. 11: 2;) for by this we are taught that all who are strangers to Christ are destitute of that fear of God which is the beginning of wisdom, (Ps. 111: 10.) The virtues which deceive us by an empty show may have their praise in civil society and the common intercourse of life, but before the judgement-seat of God they will be of no value to establish a claim of righteousness.

5.

When the will is enchained as the slave of sin, it cannot make a movement towards goodness, far less steadily pursue it. Every such movement is the first step in that conversion to God, which in Scripture is entirely ascribed to divine grace. Thus Jeremiah prays, “Turn thou me, and I shall be turned,” (Jer. 31: 18.) Hence, too, in the same chapter, describing the spiritual redemption of believers, the Prophet says, “The Lord has redeemed Jacob, and ransomed him from the hand of him that was stronger than he,” (Jer. 31: 11;) intimating how close the fetters are with which the sinner is bound, so long as he is abandoned by the Lord, and acts under the yoke of the devil. Nevertheless, there remains a will which both inclines and hastens on with the strongest affection towards sin; man, when placed under this bondage, being deprived not of will, but of soundness of will. Bernard says not improperly, that all of us have a will; but to will well is proficiency, to will ill is defect. Thus simply to will is the part of man, to will ill the part of corrupt nature, to will well the part of grace. Moreover, when I say that the will, deprived of liberty, is led or dragged by necessity to evil, it is strange that any should deem the expression harsh, seeing there is no absurdity in it, and it is not at variance with pious use. It does, however, offend those who know not how to distinguish between necessity and compulsion. Were any one to ask them, Is not God necessarily good, is not the devil necessarily wicked, what answer would they give? The goodness of God is so connected with his Godhead, that it is not more necessary to be God than to be good; whereas the devil, by his fall, was so estranged from goodness, that he can do nothing but evil. Should any one give utterance to the profane jeer, (see Calvin Adv. Pighium,) that little praise is due to God for a goodness to which he is forced, is it not obvious to every man to reply, It is owing not to violent impulse, but to his boundless goodness, that he cannot do evil? Therefore, if the free will of God in doing good is not impeded, because he necessarily must do good; if the devil, who can do nothing but evil, nevertheless sins voluntarily; can it be said that man sins less voluntarily because he is under a necessity of sinning? This necessity is uniformly proclaimed by Augustine, who, even when pressed by the invidious cavil of Celestius, hesitated not to assert it in the following terms: “Man through liberty became a sinner, but corruption, ensuing as the penalty, has converted liberty into necessity,” (August. lib. de Perf. Justin.) Whenever mention is made of the subject, he hesitates not to speak in this way of the necessary bondage of sin, (August. de Nature et Gratia, et alibi.) Let this, then, be regarded as the sum of the distinction. Man, since he was corrupted by the fall, sins not forced or unwilling, but voluntarily, by a most forward bias of the mind; not by violent compulsion, or external force, but by the movement of his own passion; and yet such is the depravity of his nature, that he cannot move and act except in the direction of evil. If this is true, the thing not obscurely expressed is, that he is under a necessity of sinning. Bernard, assenting to Augustine, thus writes: “Among animals, man alone is free, and yet sin intervening, he suffers a kind of violence, but a violence proceeding from his will, not from nature, so that it does not even deprive him of innate liberty,” (Bernard, Sermo. super Cantica, 81.) For that which is voluntary is also free. A little after he adds, “Thus, by some means strange and wicked, the will itself, being deteriorated by sin, makes a necessity; but so that the necessity, in as much as it is voluntary, cannot excuse the will, and the will, in as much as it is enticed, cannot exclude the necessity.” For this necessity is in a manner voluntary. He afterwards says that “we are under a yoke, but no other yoke than that of voluntary servitude; therefore, in respect of servitude, we are miserable, and in respect of will, inexcusable; because the will, when it was free, made itself the slave of sin.” At length he concludes, “Thus the soul, in some strange and evil way, is held under this kind of voluntary, yet sadly free necessity, both bond and free; bond in respect of necessity, free in respect of will: and what is still more strange, and still more miserable, it is guilty because free, and enslaved because guilty, and therefore enslaved because free.” My readers hence perceive that the doctrine which I deliver is not new, but the doctrine which of old Augustine delivered with the consent of all the godly, and which was afterwards shut up in the cloisters of monks for almost a thousand years. Lombard, by not knowing how to distinguish between necessity and compulsion, gave occasion to a pernicious error.

6.

On the other hand, it may be proper to consider what the remedy is which divine grace provides for the correction and cure of natural corruption. Since the Lord, in bringing assistance, supplies us with what is lacking, the nature of that assistance will immediately make manifest its converse, viz., our penury. When the Apostle says to the Philippians, “Being confident of this very thing, that he which has begun a good work in you, will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ,” (Phil. 1: 6,) there cannot be a doubt, that by the good work thus begun, he means the very commencement of conversion in the will. God, therefore, begins the good work in us by exciting in our hearts a desire, a love, and a study of righteousness, or (to speak more correctly) by turning, training, and guiding our hearts unto righteousness; and he completes this good work by confirming us unto perseverance. But lest any one should cavil that the good work thus begun by the Lord consists in aiding the will, which is in itself weak, the Spirit elsewhere declares what the will, when left to itself, is able to do. His words are, “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgements, and do them,” (Ezek. 36: 26, 27.) How can it be said that the weakness of the human will is aided so as to enable it to aspire effectually to the choice of good, when the fact is, that it must be wholly transformed and renovated? If there is any softness in a stone; if you can make it tender, and flexible into any shape, then it may be said, that the human heart may be shaped for rectitude, provided that which is imperfect in it is supplemented by divine grace. But if the Spirit, by the above similitude, meant to show that no good can ever be extracted from our heart until it is made altogether new, let us not attempt to share with Him what He claims for himself alone. If it is like turning a stone into flesh when God turns us to the study of rectitude, everything proper to our own will is abolished, and that which succeeds in its place is wholly of God. I say the will is abolished, but not in so far as it is will, for in conversion everything essential to our original nature remains: I also say, that it is created anew, not because the will then begins to exist, but because it is turned from evil to good. This, I maintains is wholly the work of God, because, as the Apostle testifies, we are not “sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves,” (2 Cor. 3: 5.) Accordingly, he elsewhere says, not merely that God assists the weak or corrects the depraved will, but that he worketh in us to will, (Philip. 2: 13.) From this it is easily inferred, as I have said, that everything good in the will is entirely the result of grace. In the same sense, the Apostle elsewhere says, “It is the same God which worketh all in all,” (I Cor. 12: 6.) For he is not there treating of universal government, but declaring that all the good qualities which believers possess are due to God. In using the term “all,” he certainly makes God the author of spiritual life from its beginning to its end. This he had previously taught in different terms, when he said that there is “one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him,” (1 Cor. 8: 6;) thus plainly extolling the new creation, by which everything of our common nature is destroyed. There is here a tacit antithesis between Adam and Christ, which he elsewhere explains more clearly when he says, “We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them,” (Eph. 2: 10.) His meaning is to show in this way that our salvation is gratuitous because the beginning of goodness is from the second creation which is obtained in Christ. If any, even the minutest, ability were in ourselves, there would also be some merit. But to show our utter destitution, he argues that we merit nothing, because we are created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has prepared; again intimating by these words, that all the fruits of good works are originally and immediately from God. Hence the Psalmist, after saying that the Lord “has made us,” to deprive us of all share in the work, immediately adds, “not we ourselves.” That he is speaking of regeneration, which is the commencement of the spiritual life, is obvious from the context, in which the next words are, “we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture,” (Psalm 100: 3.) Not contented with simply giving God the praise of our salvation, he distinctly excludes us from all share in it, just as if he had said that not one particle remains to man as a ground of boasting. The whole is of God.

7.

But perhaps there will be some who, while they admit that the will is in its own nature averse to righteousness, and is converted solely by the power of God, will yet hold that, when once it is prepared, it performs a part in acting. This they found upon the words of Augustine, that grace precedes every good work; the will accompanying, not leading; a handmaid, and not a guide, (August. ad Bonifac. Ep. 106.) The words thus not improperly used by this holy writer, Lombard preposterously wrests to the above effect, (Lombard, lib. 2, Dist. 25.) But I maintain, that as well in the words of the Psalmist which I have quoted, as in other passages of Scripture, two things are clearly taught, viz., that the Lord both corrects, or rather destroys, our depraved will, and also substitutes a good will from himself. In as much as it is prevented by grace, I have no objection to your calling it a handmaid; but in as much as when formed again, it is the work of the Lord, it is erroneous to say, that it accompanies preventing grace as a voluntary attendant. Therefore, Chrysostom is inaccurate in saying, that grace cannot do any thing without will, nor will any thing without grace, (Serm. de Invent. Sanct. Crucis;) as if grace did not, in terms of the passage lately quoted from Paul, produce the very will itself. The intention of Augustine, in calling the human will the handmaid of grace, was not to assign it a kind of second place to grace in the performance of good works. His object merely was to refute the pestilential dogma of Pelagius, who made human merit the first cause of salvation. As was sufficient for his purpose at the time, he contends that grace is prior to all merit, while, in the meantime, he says nothing of the other question as to the perpetual effect of grace, which, however, he handles admirably in other places. For in saying, as he often does, that the Lord prevents the unwilling in order to make him willing, and follows after the willing that he may not will in vain, he makes Him the sole author of good works. Indeed, his sentiments on this subject are too clear to need any lengthened illustration. “Men,” says he, “labour to find in our will something that is our own, and not God’s; how they can find it, I wot not,” (August. de Remiss. Peccat., lib. 2 c. 18.) In his First Book against Pelagius and Celestius, expounding the saying of Christ, “Every man therefore that has heard, and has learned of the Father, cometh unto me,” (John 6: 45,) he says, “The will is aided not only so as to know what is to be done, but also to do what it knows.” And thus, when God teaches not by the letter of the Law, but by the grace of the Spirit, he so teaches, that every one who has learned, not only knowing, sees, but also willing, desires, and acting, performs.

8.

Since we are now occupied with the chief point on which the controversy turns, let us give the reader the sum of the matter in a few, and those most unambiguous, passages of Scripture; thereafter, lest any one should charge us with distorting Scripture, let us show that the truth, which we maintain to be derived from Scripture, is not unsupported by the testimony of this holy man, (I mean Augustine.) I deem it unnecessary to bring forward every separate passage of Scripture in confirmation of my doctrine. A selection of the most choice passages will pave the way for the understanding of all those which lie scattered up and down in the sacred volume. On the other hand, I thought it not out of place to show my accordance with a man whose authority is justly of so much weight in the Christian world. It is certainly easy to prove that the commencement of good is only with God, and that none but the elect have a will inclined to good. But the cause of election must be sought out of man; and hence it follows that a right will is derived not from man himself, but from the same good pleasure by which we were chosen before the creation of the world. Another argument much akin to this may be added. The beginning of right will and action being of faith, we must see whence faith itself is. But since Scripture proclaims throughout that it is the free gift of God, it follows, that when men, who are with their whole soul naturally prone to evil, begin to have a good will, it is owing to mere grace. Therefore, when the Lord, in the conversion of his people, sets down these two things as requisite to be done, viz., to take away the heart of stone, and give a heart of flesh, he openly declares, that, in order to our conversion to righteousness, what is ours must be taken away, and that what is substituted in its place is of himself. Nor does he declare this in one passage only. For he says in Jeremiah “I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever;” and a little after he says, “I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me,” (Jer. 32: 39, 40.) Again, in Ezekiel, “I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh,” (Ezek. 11: 19.) He could not more clearly claim to himself, and deny to us, everything good and right in our will, than by declaring, that in our conversion there is the creation of a new spirit and a new heart. It always follows, both that nothing good can proceed from our will until it be formed again, and that after it is formed again in so far as it is good, it is of God, and not of us.

9.

With this view, likewise the prayers of the saints correspond. Thus Solomon prays that the Lord may “incline our hearts unto him, to walk in his ways, and keep his commandments” (1 Kings 8: 58;) intimating that our heart is perverse, and naturally indulges in rebellion against the Divine law, until it be turned. Again, it is said in the Psalms, “Incline my heart unto thy testimonies,” (Ps. 119: 36.) For we should always note the antithesis between the rebellious movement of the heart, and the correction by which it is subdued to obedience. David feeling for the time that he was deprived of directing grace, prays, “Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me,” (Ps. 51: 10.) Is not this an acknowledgement that all the parts of the heart are full of impurity, and that the soul has received a twist, which has turned it from straight to crooked? And then, in describing the cleansing, which he earnestly demands as a thing to be created by God, does he not ascribe the work entirely to Him? If it is objected, that the prayer itself is a symptom of a pious and holy affection, it is easy to reply, that although David had already in some measure repented, he was here contrasting the sad fall which he had experienced with his former state. Therefore, speaking in the person of a man alienated from God, he properly prays for the blessings which God bestows upon his elect in regeneration. Accordingly, like one dead, he desires to be created anew, so as to become, instead of a slave of Satan, an instrument of the Holy Spirit. Strange and monstrous are the longings of our pride. There is nothing which the Lord enjoins more strictly than the religious observance of his Sabbath, in other words resting from our works; but in nothing do we show greater reluctance than to renounce our own works, and give due place to the works of God. Did not arrogance stand in the way, we could not overlook the clear testimony which Christ has borne to the efficacy of his grace. “I,” said he, “am the true vine, and my Father is the husband man.” “As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me,” (John 15: 1, 4.) If we can no more bear fruit of ourselves than a vine can bud when rooted up and deprived of moisture, there is no longer any room to ask what the aptitude of our nature is for good. There is no ambiguity in the conclusion, “For without me ye can do nothing.” He says not that we are too weak to suffice for ourselves; but, by reducing us to nothing, he excludes the idea of our possessing any, even the least ability. If, when engrafted into Christ, we bear fruit like the vine, which draws its vegetative power from the moisture of the ground, and the dew of heaven, and the fostering warmth of the sun, I see nothing in a good work, which we can call our own, without trenching upon what is due to God. It is vain to have recourse to the frivolous cavil, that the sap and the power of producing are already contained in the vine, and that, therefore, instead of deriving everything from the earth or the original root, it contributes something of its own. Our Saviour’s words simply mean, that when separated from him, we are nothing but dry, useless wood, because, when so separated, we have no power to do good, as he elsewhere says, “Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted, shall be rooted up,” (Matth. 15: 13.) Accordingly, in the passage already quoted from the Apostle Paul, he attributes the whole operation to God, “It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure,” (Philip. 2: 13.) The first part of a good work is the will, the second is vigorous effort in the doing of it. God is the author of both. It is, therefore, robbery from God to arrogate anything to ourselves, either in the will or the act. Were it said that God gives assistance to a weak will, something might be left us; but when it is said that he makes the will, every thing good in it is placed without us. Moreover, since even a good will is still weighed down by the burden of the flesh, and prevented from rising, it is added, that, to meet the difficulties of the contest, God supplies the persevering effort until the effect is obtained. Indeed, the Apostle could not otherwise have said, as he elsewhere does, that “it is the same God which worketh all in all,” (1 Cor. 12: 6;) words comprehending, as we have already observed, (sec. 6,) the whole course of the spiritual life. For which reason, David, after praying, “Teach me thy way, O Lord, I will walk in thy truths” adds, “unite my heart to fear thy name,” (Ps. 86: 11;) by these words intimating, that even those who are well-affected are liable to so many distractions that they easily become vain, and fall away, if not strengthened to persevere. And hence, in another passage, after praying, “Order my steps in thy word,” he requests that strength also may be given him to carry on the war, “Let not any iniquity have dominion over me,” (Ps. 119: 133.) In this way, the Lord both begins and perfects the good work in us, so that it is due to Him, first, that the will conceives a love of rectitude, is inclined to desire, is moved and stimulated to pursue it; secondly, that this choice, desire, and endeavour fail not, but are carried forward to effect; and, lastly, that we go on without interruption, and persevere even to the end.

10.

This movement of the will is not of that description which was for many ages taught and believed, viz., a movement which thereafter leaves us the choice to obey or resist it, but one which affects us efficaciously. We must, therefore, repudiate the oft-repeated sentiment of Chrysostom, “Whom he draws, he draws willingly;” insinuating that the Lord only stretches out his hand, and waits to see whether we will be pleased to take his aid. We grant that, as man was originally constituted, he could incline to either side, but since he has taught us by his example how miserable a thing free will is if God works not in us to will and to do, of what use to us were grace imparted in such scanty measure? Nay, by our own ingratitude, we obscure and impair divine grace. The Apostle’s doctrine is not, that the grace of a good will is offered to us if we will accept of it, but that God himself is pleased so to work in us as to guide, turn, and govern our heart by his Spirit, and reign in it as his own possession. Ezekiel promises that a new spirit will be given to the elect, not merely that they may be able to walk in his precepts, but that they may really walk in them, (Ezek. 11: 19; 36: 27.) And the only meaning which can be given to our Saviour’s words, “Every man, therefore, that has heard and learned of the Father, cometh unto me,” (John 6: 45,) is, that the grace of God is effectual in itself. This Augustine maintains in his book De Praedestinatione Sancta. This grace is not bestowed on all promiscuously, according to the common brocard, (of Occam, if I mistake not,) that it is not denied to any one who does what in him lies. Men are indeed to be taught that the favour of God is offered, without exception, to all who ask it; but since those only begin to ask whom heaven by grace inspires, even this minute portion of praise must not be withheld from him. It is the privilege of the elect to be regenerated by the Spirit of God, and then placed under his guidance and government. Wherefore Augustine justly derides some who arrogate to themselves a certain power of willing, as well as censures others who imagine that that which is a special evidence of gratuitous election is given to all, (August. de Verbis Apost. Serm. 21.) He says, “Nature is common to all, but not grace;” and he calls it a showy acuteness “which shines by mere vanity, when that which God bestows, on whom he will is attributed generally to all.” Elsewhere he says, “How came you? By believing. Fear, lest by arrogating to yourself the merit of finding the right way, you perish from the right way. I came, you say, by free choice, came by my own will. Why do you boast? Would you know that even this was given you? Hear Christ exclaiming, ‘No man comets unto me, except the Father which has sent me draw him.’” And from the words of John, (6: 44,) he infers it to be an incontrovertible fact, that the hearts of believers are so effectually governed from above, that they follow with undeviating affection. “Whosoever is born of God does not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him” (I John 3: 9.) That intermediate movement which the sophists imagine, a movement which every one is free to obey or to reject, is obviously excluded by the doctrine of effectual perseverance.

11.

As to perseverance, it would undoubtedly have been regarded as the gratuitous gift of God, had not the very pernicious error prevailed, that it is bestowed in proportion to human merit, according to the reception which each individual gives to the first grace. This having given rise to the idea that it was entirely in our own power to receive or reject the offered grace of God, that idea is no sooner exploded than the error founded on it must fall. The error, indeed, is twofold. For, besides teaching that our gratitude for the first grace and our legitimate use of it is rewarded by subsequent supplies of grace, its abettors add that, after this, grace does not operate alone, but only co-operates with ourselves. As to the former, we must hold that the Lord, while he daily enriches his servants, and loads them with new gifts of his grace, because he approves of and takes pleasure in the work which he has begun, finds that in them which he may follow up with larger measures of grace. To this effect are the sentences, “To him that has shall be given.” “Well done, good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things,” (Matth. 25: 21, 23, 29; Luke 19: 17, 26.) But here two precautions are necessary. It must not be said that the legitimate use of the first grace is rewarded by subsequent measures of grace, as if man rendered the grace of God effectual by his own industry, nor must it be thought that there is any such remuneration as to make it cease to be the gratuitous grace of God. I admit, then, that believers may expect as a blessing from God, that the better the use they make of previous, the larger the supplies they will receive of future grace; but I say that even this use is of the Lord, and that this remuneration is bestowed freely of mere good will. The trite distinction of operating and co-operating grace is employed no less sinistrously than unhappily. Augustine, indeed, used it, but softened it by a suitable definition, viz., that God, by co-operating, perfects what he begins by operating,—that both graces are the same, but obtain different names from the different manner in which they produce their effects. Whence it follows, that he does not make an apportionment between God and man, as if a proper movement on the part of each produced a mutual concurrence. All he does is to mark a multiplication of grace. To this effect, accordingly, he elsewhere says, that in man good will precedes many gifts from God; but among these gifts is this good will itself. (August. Enchiridion ad Laurent. cap. 32.) Whence it follows, that nothing is left for the will to arrogate as its own. This Paul has expressly stated. For, after saying, “It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do,” he immediately adds, “of his good pleasure,” (Philip. 2: 13;) indicating by this expression, that the blessing is gratuitous. As to the common saying, that after we have given admission to the first grace, our efforts co-operate with subsequent grace, this is my answer:—If it is meant that after we are once subdued by the power of the Lord to the obedience of righteousness, we proceed voluntarily, and are inclined to follow the movement of grace, I have nothing to object. For it is most certain, that where the grace of God reigns, there is also this readiness to obey. And whence this readiness, but just that the Spirit of God being everywhere consistent with himself, after first begetting a principle of obedience, cherishes and strengthens it for perseverance? If, again, it is meant that man is able of himself to be a fellow-labourer with the grace of God, I hold it to be a most pestilential delusion.

12.

In support of this view, some make an ignorant and false application of the Apostle’s words: “I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me,” (1 Cor. 15: 10.) The meaning they give them is, that as Paul might have seemed to speak somewhat presumptuously in preferring himself to all the other apostles, he corrects the expression so far by referring the praise to the grace of God, but he, at the same time, calls himself a co-operator with grace. It is strange that this should have proved a stumbling-block to so many writers, otherwise respectable. The Apostle says not that the grace of God laboured with him so as to make him a co-partner in the labour. He rather transfers the whole merit of the labour to grace alone, by thus modifying his first expression, “It was not I,” says he, “that laboured, but the grace of God that was present with me.” Those who have adopted the erroneous interpretation have been misled by an ambiguity in the expression, or rather by a preposterous translation, in which the force of the Greek article is overlooked. For to take the words literally, the Apostle does not say that grace was a fellow-worker with him, but that the grace which was with him was sole worker. And this is taught not obscurely, though briefly, by Augustine when he says, “Good will in man precedes many gifts from God, but not all gifts, seeing that the will which precedes is itself among the number.” He adds the reason, “for it is written, ‘the God of my mercy shall prevent me,’ (Ps. 59: 10,) and ‘Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me,’ (Ps. 23: 6;) it prevents him that is unwilling, and makes him willing; it follows him that is willing, that he may not will in vain.” To this Bernard assents, introducing the Church as praying thus, “Draw me, who am in some measure unwilling, and make me willing; draw me, who am sluggishly lagging, and make me run,” (Serm. 2 in Cantic.)

13.

Let us now hear Augustine in his own words, lest the Pelagians of our age, I mean the sophists of the Sorbonne, charge us after their wont with being opposed to all antiquity. In this indeed they imitate their father Pelagius, by whom of old a similar charge was brought against Augustine. In the second chapter of his Treatise De Correptione et Gratis, addressed to Valentinus, Augustine explains at length what I will state briefly, but in his own words, that to Adam was given the grace of persevering in goodness if he had the will; to us it is given to will, and by will overcome concupiscence: that Adam, therefore, had the power if he had the will, but did not will to have the power, whereas to us is given both the will and the power; that the original freedom of man was to be able not to sin, but that we have a much greater freedom, viz., not to be able to sin. And lest it should be supposed, as Lombard erroneously does, (lib. 2 Dist. 25,) that he is speaking of the perfection of the future state, he shortly after removes all doubt when he says, “For so much is the will of the saints inflamed by the Holy Spirit, that they are able, because they are willing; and willing, because God worketh in them so to will.” For if, in such weakness, (in which, however, to suppress pride, “strength” must be made “perfect,") their own will is left to them, in such sense that, by the help of God, they are able, if they will, while at the same time God does not work in them so as to make them will; among so many temptations and infirmities the will itself would give way, and, consequently, they would not be able to persevere. Therefore, to meet the infirmity of the human will, and prevent it from failing, how weak soever it might be, divine grace was made to act on it inseparably and uninterruptedly. Augustine (ibid. cap. 14.) next entering fully into the question, how our hearts follow the movement when God affects them, necessarily says, indeed, that the Lord draws men by their own wills; wills, however, which he himself has produced. We have now an attestation by Augustine to the truth which we are specially desirous to maintain, viz., that the grace offered by the Lord is not merely one which every individual has full liberty of choosing to receive or reject, but a grace which produces in the heart both choice and will: so that all the good works which follow after are its fruit and effect; the only will which yields obedience being the will which grace itself has made. In another place, Augustine uses these words, “Every good work in us is performed only by grace,” (August. Ep. 105.)

14.

In saying elsewhere that the will is not taken away by grace, but out of bad is changed into good, and after it is good is assisted,—he only means, that man is not drawn as if by an extraneous impulses without the movement of the heart, but is inwardly affected so as to obey from the heart. Declaring that grace is given specially and gratuitously to the elect, he writes in this way to Boniface: “We know that Divine grace is not given to all men, and that to those to whom it is given, it is not given either according to the merit of works, or according to the merit of the will, but by free grace: in regard to those to whom it is not given, we know that the not giving of it is a just judgement from God,” (August. ad Bonifac. Ep. 106.) In the same epistle, he argues strongly against the opinion of those who hold that subsequent grace is given to human merit as a reward for not rejecting the first grace. For he presses Pelagius to confess that gratuitous grace is necessary to us for every action, and that merely from the fact of its being truly grace, it cannot be the recompense of works. But the matter cannot be more briefly summed up than in the eighth chapter of his Treatise De Correptione et Gratia, where he shows, First, that human will does not by liberty obtain grace, but by grace obtains liberty. Secondly, that by means of the same grace, the heart being impressed with a feeling of delight, is trained to persevere, and strengthened with invincible fortitude. Thirdly, that while grace governs the will, it never falls; but when grace abandons it, it falls forthwith. Fourthly, that by the free mercy of God, the will is turned to good, and when turned, perseveres. Fifthly, that the direction of the will to good, and its constancy after being so directed, depend entirely on the will of God, and not on any human merit. Thus the will, (free will, if you choose to call it so,) which is left to man, is, as he in another place (Ep. 46) describes it, a will which can neither be turned to God, nor continue in God, unless by grace; a will which, whatever its ability may be, derives all that ability from grace.

CHAPTER 4. HOW GOD WORKS IN THE HEARTS OF MEN.

The leading points discussed in this chapter are,

I. Whether in bad actions anything is to be attributed to God; if anything, how much. Also, what is to be attributed to the devil and to man, sec. 1-5.

II. In indifferent matters, how much is to be attributed to God, and how much is left to man, sec. 6.

III. Two objections refuted, sec. 7, 8.

Sections.

1. Connection of this chapter with the preceding. Augustine’s similitude of a good and bad rider. Question answered in respect to the devil.

2. Question answered in respect to God and man. Example from the history of Job. The works of God distinguished from the works of Satan and wicked men.

1. By the design or end of acting. How Satan acts in the reprobate.

2. How God acts in them.

3. Old Objection, that the agency of God in such cases is referable to prescience or permission, not actual operation. Answer, showing that God blinds and hardens the reprobate, and this in two ways;

1. By deserting them;

2. By delivering them over to Satan.

4. Striking passages of Scripture, proving that God acts in both ways, and disposing of the objection with regard to prescience. Confirmation from Augustine.

5. A modification of the former answer, proving that God employs Satan to instigate the reprobate, but, at the same time, is free from all taint.

6. How God works in the hearts of men in indifferent matters. Our will in such matters not so free as to be exempt from the overruling providence of God. This confirmed by various examples.

7. Objection, that these examples do not form the rule. An answer, fortified by the testimony of universal experience, by Scripture, and a passage of Augustine.

8. Some, in arguing against the error of free will, draw an argument from the event. How this is to be understood.

1.

That man is so enslaved by the yoke of sin, that he cannot of his own nature aim at good either in wish or actual pursuit, has, I think, been sufficiently proved. Moreover, a distinction has been drawn between compulsion and necessity, making it clear that man, though he sins necessarily, nevertheless sins voluntarily. But since, from his being brought into bondage to the devil, it would seem that he is actuated more by the devil’s will than his own, it is necessary, first, to explain what the agency of each is, and then solve the question. Whether in bad actions anything is to be attributed to God, Scripture intimating that there is some way in which he interferes? Augustine (in Psalm 31 and 33) compares the human will to a horse preparing to start, and God and the devil to riders. “If God mounts, he, like a temperate and skilful rider, guides it calmly, urges it when too slow, reins it in when too fast, curbs its forwardness and over-action, checks its bad temper, and keeps it on the proper course; but if the devil has seized the saddle, like an ignorant and rash rider, he hurries it over broken ground, drives it into ditches, dashes it over precipices, spurs it into obstinacy or fury.” With this simile, since a better does not occur, we shall for the present be contented. When it is said, then, that the will of the natural man is subject to the power of the devil, and is actuated by him, the meaning is not that the wills while reluctant and resisting, is forced to submit, (as masters oblige unwilling slaves to execute their orders,) but that, fascinated by the impostures of Satan, it necessarily yields to his guidance, and does him homage. Those whom the Lord favours not with the direction of his Spirit, he, by a righteous judgement, consigns to the agency of Satan. Wherefore, the Apostle says, that “the god of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine into them.” And, in another passage, he describes the devil as “the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience,” (Eph. 2: 2.) The blinding of the wicked, and all the iniquities consequent upon it, are called the works of Satan; works the cause of which is not to be Sought in anything external to the will of man, in which the root of the evil lies, and in which the foundation of Satan’s kingdom, in other words, sin, is fixed.

2.

The nature of the divine agency in such cases is very different. For the purpose of illustration, let us refer to the calamities brought upon holy Job by the Chaldeans. They having slain his shepherds, carry off his flocks. The wickedness of their deed is manifest, as is also the hand of Satan, who, as the history informs us, was the instigator of the whole. Job, however, recognises it as the work of God, saying, that what the Chaldeans had plundered, “the Lord” had “taken away.” How can we attribute the same work to God, to Satan, and to man, without either excusing Satan by the interference of God, or making God the author of the crime? This is easily done, if we look first to the end, and then to the mode of acting. The Lord designs to exercise the patience of his servant by adversity; Satan’s plan is to drive him to despair; while the Chaldeans are bent on making unlawful gain by plunder. Such diversity of purpose makes a wide distinction in the act. In the mode there is not less difference. The Lord permits Satan to afflict his servant; and the Chaldeans, who had been chosen as the ministers to execute the deed, he hands over to the impulses of Satan, who, pricking on the already depraved Chaldeans with his poisoned darts, instigates them to commit the crime. They rush furiously on to the unrighteous deed, and become its guilty perpetrators. Here Satan is properly said to act in the reprobate, over whom he exercises his sway, which is that of wickedness. God also is said to act in his own way; because even Satan when he is the instrument of divine wrath, is completely under the command of God, who turns him as he will in the execution of his just judgements. I say nothing here of the universal agency of God, which, as it sustains all the creatures, also gives them all their power of acting. I am now speaking only of that special agency which is apparent in every act. We thus see that there is no inconsistency in attributing the same act to God, to Satan, and to man, while, from the difference in the end and mode of action, the spotless righteousness of God shines forth at the same time that the iniquity of Satan and of man is manifested in all its deformity.

3.

Ancient writers sometimes manifest a superstitious dread of making a simple confession of the truth in this matter, from a fear of furnishing impiety with a handle for speaking irreverently of the works of God. While I embrace such soberness with all my heart, I cannot see the least danger in simply holding what Scripture delivers. when Augustine was not always free from this superstition, as when he says, that blinding and hardening have respect not to the operation of God, but to prescience, (Lib. de Predestina. et Gratia.) But this subtilty is repudiated by many passages of Scriptures which clearly show that the divine interference amounts to something more than prescience. And Augustine himself, in his book against Julian, contends at length that sins are manifestations not merely of divine permission or patience, but also of divine power, that thus former sins may be punished. In like manner, what is said of permission is too weak to stand. God is very often said to blind and harden the reprobate, to turn their hearts, to incline and impel them, as I have elsewhere fully explained, (Book 1 c. 18) The extent of this agency can never be explained by having recourse to prescience or permission. We, therefore, hold that there are two methods in which God may so act. When his light is taken away, nothing remains but blindness and darkness: when his Spirit is taken away, our hearts become hard as stones: when his guidance is withdrawn, we immediately turn from the right path: and hence he is properly said to incline, harden, and blind those whom he deprives of the faculty of seeing, obeying, and rightly executing. The second method, which comes much nearer to the exact meaning of the words, is when executing his judgements by Satan as the minister of his anger, God both directs men’s counsels, and excites their wills, and regulates their efforts as he pleases. Thus when Moses relates that Simon, king of the Amorites, did not give the Israelites a passage, because the Lord “had hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate,” he immediately adds the purpose which God had in view, viz., that he might deliver him into their hand, (Deut. 2: 30.) As God had resolved to destroy him, the hardening of his heart was the divine preparation for his ruin.

4.

In accordance with the former methods it seems to be said, “The law shall perish from the priests and counsel from the ancients.” “He poureth contempt upon princes, and causeth them to wander in the wilderness, where there is no way.” Again “O Lord, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy fear?” These passages rather indicate what men become when God deserts them, than what the nature of his agency is when he works in them. But there are other passages which go farther, such as those concerning the hardening of Pharaoh: “I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.” The same thing is afterwards repeated in stronger terms. Did he harden his heart by not softening it? This is, indeed, true; but he did something more: he gave it in charge to Satan to confirm him in his obstinacy. Hence he had previously said, “I am sure he will not let you go.” The people come out of Egypt, and the inhabitants of a hostile region come forth against them. How were they instigated? Moses certainly declares of Sihon, that it was the Lord who “had hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate,” (Deut. 2: 30.) The Psalmists relating the same history says, “He turned their hearts to hate his people,” (Psalm 105: 25.) You cannot now say that they stumbled merely because they were deprived of divine counsel. For if they are hardened and turned, they are purposely bent to the very end in view. Moreover, whenever God saw it meet to punish the people for their transgression, in what way did he accomplish his purpose by the reprobate? In such a way as shows that the efficacy of the action was in him, and that they were only ministers. At one time he declares, “that he will lift an ensign to the nations from far, and will hiss unto them from the end of the earth;” at another, that he will take a net to ensnare them; and at another, that he will be like a hammer to strike them. But he specially declared that he was not inactive among theme when he called Sennacherib an axe, which was formed and destined to be wielded by his own hand. Augustine is not far from the mark when he states the matter thus, That men sin, is attributable to themselves: that in sinning they produce this or that result, is owing to the mighty power of God, who divides the darkness as he pleases, (August. de Praedest. Sanct.)

5.

Moreover, that the ministry of Satan is employed to instigate the reprobate, whenever the Lord, in the course of his providence, has any purpose to accomplish in them, will sufficiently appear from a single passage. It is repeatedly said in the First Book of Samuel, that an evil spirit from the Lord came upon Saul, and troubled him, (1 Sam. 16: 14; 18: 10; 19: 9.) It were impious to apply this to the Holy Spirit. An impure spirit must therefore be called a spirit from the Lord, because completely subservient to his purpose, being more an instrument in acting than a proper agent. We should also add what Paul says, “God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth,” (2 Thess. 2: 11, 12.) But in the same transaction there is always a wide difference between what the Lord does, and what Satan and the ungodly design to do. The wicked instruments which he has under his hand and can turn as he pleases, he makes subservient to his own justice. They, as they are wicked, give effect to the iniquity conceived in their wicked minds. Every thing necessary to vindicate the majesty of God from calumny, and cut off any subterfuge on the part of the ungodly, has already been expounded in the Chapters on Providence, (Book 1 Chapter 16-18.) Here I only meant to show, in a few words, how Satan reigns in the reprobate, and how God works in both.

6.

In those actions, which in themselves are neither good nor bad, and concern the corporeal rather than the spiritual life, the liberty which man possesses, although we have above touched upon it, (supra, Chap. 2 sect. 13-17,) has not yet been explained. Some have conceded a free choice to man in such actions; more, I suppose, because they were unwilling to debate a matter of no great moment, than because they wished positively to assert what they were prepared to concede. While I admit that those who hold that man has no ability in himself to do righteousness, hold what is most necessary to be known for salvation, I think it ought not to be overlooked that we owe it to the special grace of God, whenever, on the one hand, we choose what is for our advantage, and whenever our will inclines in that direction; and on the other, whenever with heart and soul we shun what would otherwise do us harm. And the interference of Divine Providence goes to the extent not only of making events turn out as was foreseen to be expedient, but of giving the wills of men the same direction. If we look at the administration of human affairs with the eye of sense, we will have no doubt that, so far, they are placed at man’s disposal; but if we lend an ear to the many passages of Scripture which proclaim that even in these matters the minds of men are ruled by God, they will compel us to place human choice in subordination to his special influence. Who gave the Israelites such favour in the eyes of the Egyptians, that they lent them all their most valuable commodities? (Exod. 11: 3.) They never would have been so inclined of their own accord. Their inclinations, therefore, were more overruled by God than regulated by themselves. And surely, had not Jacob been persuaded that God inspires men with divers affections as seemeth to him good, he would not have said of his son Joseph, (whom he thought to be some heathen Egyptian,) “God Almighty give you mercy before the man,” (Gen. 43: 14.) In like manner, the whole Church confesses that when the Lord was pleased to pity his people, he made them also to be pitied of all them that carried them captives, (Ps. 106: 46.) In like manner, when his anger was kindled against Saul, so that he prepared himself for battle, the cause is stated to have been, that a spirit from God fell upon him, (1 Sam. 11: 6.) who dissuaded Absalom from adopting the counsel of Ahithophel, which was wont to be regarded as an oracle? (2 Sam. 17: 14.) Who disposed Rehoboam to adopt the counsel of the young men? (1 Kings 12: 10.) Who caused the approach of the Israelites to strike terror into nations formerly distinguished for valour? Even the harlot Rahab recognised the hand of the Lord. Who, on the other hand, filled the hearts of the Israelites with fear and dread, (Lev. 26: 36,) but He who threatened in the Law that he would give them a nn “trembling heart”? (Deut. 28: 65.)

7.

It may be objected, that these are special examples which cannot be regarded as a general rule. They are sufficient, at all events, to prove the point for which I contend, viz., that whenever God is pleased to make way for his providence, he even in external matters so turns and bends the wills of men, that whatever the freedom of their choice may be, it is still subject to the disposal of God. That your mind depends more on the agency of God than the freedom of your own choice, daily experience teaches. Your judgement often fails, and in matters of no great difficulty, your courage flags; at other times, in matters of the greatest obscurity, the mode of explicating them at once suggests itself, while in matters of moment and danger, your mind rises superior to every difficulty. In this way, I interpret the words of Solomon, “The hearing ear, and the seeing eye, the Lord hath made even both of them,” (Prov. 20: 12.) For they seem to me to refer not to their creation, but to peculiar grace in the use of them, when he says, “The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lard as the rivers of water; he turneth it whithersoever he will,” (Prov. 21: l,) he comprehends the whole race under one particular class. If any will is free from subjection, it must be that of one possessed of regal power, and in a manner exercising dominion over other wills. But if it is under the hand of God, ours surely cannot be exempt from it. On this subject there is an admirable sentiment of Augustine, “Scripture, if it be carefully examined, will show not only that the good wills of men are made good by God out of evil, and when so made, are directed to good acts, even to eternal life, but those which retain the elements of the world are in the power of God, to turn them whither he pleases, and when he pleases, either to perform acts of kindness, or by a hidden, indeed, but, at the same time, most just judgement to inflict punishment,” (August. De Gratia et Lib. Arb. ad Valent. cap. 20.)

8.

Let the reader here remember, that the power of the human will is not to be estimated by the event, as some unskilful persons are absurdly wont to do. They think it an elegant and ingenious proof of the bondage of the human will, that even the greatest monarchs are sometimes thwarted in their wishes. But the ability of which we speak must be considered as within the man, not measured by outward success. In discussing the subject of free will, the question is not, whether external obstacles will permit a man to execute what he has internally resolved, but whether, in any matter whatever, he has a free power of judging and of willing. If men possess both of these, Attilius Regulus, shut up in a barrel studded with sharp nails, will have a will no less free than Augustus Caesar ruling with imperial sway over a large portion of the globe.

CHAPTER 5. THE ARGUMENTS USUALLY ALLEGED IN SUPPORT OF FREE WILL REFUTED.

Objections reduced to three principal heads:-

I. Four absurdities advanced by the opponents of the orthodox doctrine concerning the slavery of the will, stated and refuted, sec. 1-5.

II. The passages of Scripture which they pervert in favour of their error, reduced to five heads, and explained, sec. 6-15.

III. Five other passages quoted in defence of free will expounded, sec. 16-19.

Sections.

1. Absurd fictions of opponents first refuted, and then certain passages of Scripture explained. Answer by a negative. Confirmation of the answer.

2. Another absurdity of Aristotle and Pelagius. Answer by a distinction. Answer fortified by passages from Augustine, and supported by the authority of an Apostle.

3. Third absurdity borrowed from the words of Chrysostom. Answer by a negative.

4. Fourth absurdity urged of old by the Pelagians. Answer from the works of Augustine. Illustrated by the testimony of our Saviour. Another answer, which explains the use of exhortations.

5. A third answer, which contains a fuller explanation of the second. Objection to the previous answers. Objection refuted. Summary of the previous answers.

6. First class of arguments which the Neo-Pelagians draw from Scripture in defence of free will.

1. The Law demands perfect obedience and therefore God either mocks us, or requires things which are not in our power. Answer by distinguishing precepts into three sorts. The first of these considered in this and the following section.

7. This general argument from the Law of no avail to the patrons of free will. Promises conjoined with precepts, prove that our sal vation is to be found in the grace of God. Objection, that the Law was given to the persons living at the time. Answer, confirmed by passages from Augustine.

8. A special consideration of the three classes of precepts of no avail to the defenders of free will.

1. Precepts enjoining us to turn to God.

2. Precepts which simply speak of the observance of the Law.

3. Precepts which enjoin us to persevere in the grace of God.

9. Objection. Answer. Confirmation of the answer from Jeremiah. Another objection refuted.

10. A second class of arguments in defence of free will drawn from the promises of God, viz., that the promises which God makes to those who seek him are vain if it is not in our power to do, or not do, the thing required. Answer, which explains the use of promises, and removes the supposed inconsistency.

11. Third class of arguments drawn from the divine upbraidings,— that it is in vain to upbraid us for evils which it is not in our power to avoid. Answer. Sinners are condemned by their own consciences, and, therefore, the divine upbraidings are just. Moreover, there is a twofold use in these upbraidings. Various passages of Scripture explained by means of the foregoing answers.

12. Objection founded on the words of Moses. Refutation by the words of an Apostle. Confirmation by argument.

13. Fourth class of arguments by the defenders of free will. God waits to see whether or not sinners will repent; therefore they can repent. Answer by a dilemma. Passage in Hosea explained.

14. Fifth class of arguments in defence of free will. God and bad works described as our own, and therefore we are capable of both. Answer by an exposition, which shows that this argument is unavailing. Objection drawn from analogy. Answer. The nature and mode of divine agency in the elect.

15. Conclusion of the answer to the last class of arguments.

16. Third and last division of the chapter discussing certain passages of Scripture.

1. A passage from Genesis. Its true meaning explained.

17. 2. Passage from the Epistle to the Romans. Explanation. Refutation of an objection. Another refutation. A third refutation from Augustine.

3. A passage from First Corinthians. Answer to it.

18. 4. A passage from Ecclesiastes. Explanation. Another explanation.

19. 5. A passage from Luke. Explanation. Allegorical arguments weak. Another explanation. A third explanation. A fourth from Augustine. Conclusion and summary of the whole discussion concerning free will.

1.

Enough would seem to have been said on the subject of man’s will, were there not some who endeavour to urge him to his ruin by a false opinion of liberty, and at the same time, in order to support their own opinion, assail ours. First, they gather together some absurd inferences, by which they endeavour to bring odium upon our doctrine, as if it were abhorrent to common sense, and then they oppose it with certain passages of Scripture, (infra, sec. 6.) Both devices we shall dispose of in their order. If sin, say they, is necessary, it ceases to be sin; if it is voluntary, it may be avoided. Such, too, were the weapons with which Pelagius assailed Augustine. But we are unwilling to crush them by the weight of his name, until we have satisfactorily disposed of the objections themselves. I deny, therefore, that sin ought to be the less imputed because it is necessary; and, on the other hand, I deny the inference, that sin may be avoided because it is voluntary. If any one will dispute with God, and endeavour to evade his judgement, by pretending that he could not have done otherwise, the answer already given is sufficient, that it is owing not to creation, but the corruption of nature, that man has become the slave of sin, and can will nothing but evil. For whence that impotence of which the wicked so readily avail themselves as an excuse, but just because Adam voluntarily subjected himself to the tyranny of the devil? Hence the corruption by which we are held bound as with chains, originated in the first man’s revolt from his Maker. If all men are justly held guilty of this revolt, let them not think themselves excused by a necessity in which they see the clearest cause of their condemnation. But this I have fully explained above; and in the case of the devil himself, have given an example of one who sins not less voluntarily that he sins necessarily. I have also shown, in the case of the elect angels, that though their will cannot decline from good, it does not therefore cease to be will. This Bernard shrewdly explains when he says, (Serm. 81, in Cantica,) that we are the more miserable in this, that the necessity is voluntary; and yet this necessity so binds us who are subject to it, that we are the slaves of sin, as we have already observed. The second step in the reasoning is vicious, because it leaps from voluntary to free; whereas we have proved above, that a thing may be done voluntarily, though not subject to free choice.

2.

They add, that unless virtue and vice proceed from free choice, it is absurd either to punish man or reward him. Although this argument is taken from Aristotle, I admit that it is also used by Chrysostom and Jerome. Jerome, however, does not disguise that it was familiar to the Pelagians. He even quotes their words, “If grace acts in us, grace, and not we who do the work, will be crowned,” (Heron. in Ep. ad Ctesiphont. et Dialog. 1) With regard to punishment, I answer, that it is properly inflicted on those by whom the guilt is contracted. What matters it whether you sin with a free or an enslaved judgement, so long as you sin voluntarily, especially when man is proved to be a sinner because he is under the bondage of sin? In regard to the rewards of righteousness, is there any great absurdity in acknowledging that they depend on the kindness of God rather than our own merits? How often do we meet in Augustine with this expression,—"God crowns not our merits but his own gifts; and the name of reward is given not to what is due to our merits, but to the recompense of grace previously bestowed?” Some seem to think there is acuteness in the remark, that there is no place at all for the mind, if good works do not spring from free will as their proper source; but in thinking this so very unreasonable they are widely mistaken. Augustine does not hesitate uniformly to describe as necessary the very thing which they count it impious to acknowledge. Thus he asks, “What is human merit? He who came to bestow not due recompense but free grace, though himself free from sin, and the giver of freedom, found all men sinners,” (Augustin. in Psal. 31.) Again, “If you are to receive your due, you must be punished. What then is done? God has not rendered you due punishment, but bestows upon you unmerited grace. If you wish to be an alien from grace, boast your merits,” (in Psal. 70.) Again, “You are nothing in yourself, sin is yours, merit God’s. Punishment is your due; and when the reward shall come, God shall crown his own gifts, not your merits,” (Ep. 52.) To the same effect he elsewhere says, (De Verb. Apostol. Serm. 15,) that grace is not of merit, but merit of grace. And shortly after he concludes, that God by his gifts anticipates all our merit, that he may thereby manifest his own merit, and give what is absolutely free, because he sees nothing in us that can be a ground of salvation. But why extend the list of quotations, when similar sentiments are ever and anon recurring in his works? The abettors of this error would see a still better refutation of it, if they would attend to the source from which the apostle derives the glory of the saints,—"Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified,” (Rom. 8: 30.) On what ground, then, the apostle being judge, (2 Tim. 4: 8,) are believers crowned? Because by the mercy of God, not their own exertions, they are predestinated, called, and justified. Away, then, with the vain fear, that unless free will stand, there will no longer be any merit! It is most foolish to take alarm, and recoil from that which Scripture inculcates. “If thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it?” (1 Cor. 4: 7.) You see how every thing is denied to free will, for the very purpose of leaving no room for merit. And yet, as the beneficence and liberality of God are manifold and inexhaustible, the grace which he bestows upon us, inasmuch as he makes it our own, he recompenses as if the virtuous acts were our own.

3.

But it is added, in terms which seem to be borrowed from Chrysostom, (Homil. 22, in Genes.,) that if our will possesses not the power of choosing good or evil, all who are partakers of the same nature must be alike good or alike bad. A sentiment akin to this occurs in the work De Vocatione Gentium, (lib. 4 c. 4,) usually attributed to Ambrose, in which it is argued, that no one would ever decline from faith, did not the grace of God leave us in a mutable state. It is strange that such men should have so blundered. How did it fail to occur to Chrysostom, that it is divine election which distinguishes among men? We have not the least hesitation to admit what Paul strenuously maintains, that all, without exception, are depraved and given over to wickedness; but at the same time we add, that through the mercy of God all do not continue in wickedness. Therefore, while we all labour naturally under the same disease, those only recover health to whom the Lord is pleased to put forth his healing hand. The others whom, in just judgement, he passes over, pine and rot away till they are consumed. And this is the only reason why some persevere to the end, and others, after beginning their course, fall away. Perseverance is the gift of God, which he does not lavish promiscuously on all, but imparts to whom he pleases. If it is asked how the difference arises—why some steadily persevere, and others prove deficient in steadfastness, we can give no other reason than that the Lord, by his mighty power, strengthens and sustains the former, so that they perish not, while he does not furnish the same assistance to the latter, but leaves them to be monuments of instability.

4.

Still it is insisted, that exhortations are vain, warnings superfluous, and rebukes absurd, if the sinner possesses not the power to obey. When similar objections were urged against Augustine, he was obliged to write his book, De Correptione et Gratia, where he has fully disposed of them. The substance of his answer to his opponents is this: “O, man! learn from the precept what you ought to do; learn from correction, that it is your own fault you have not the power; and learn in prayer, whence it is that you may receive the power.” Very similar is the argument of his book, De Spiritu et Litera, in which he shows that God does not measure the precepts of his law by human strength, but, after ordering what is right, freely bestows on his elect the power of fulfilling it. The subject, indeed, does not require a long discussion. For we are not singular in our doctrine, but have Christ and all his apostles with us. Let our opponents, then, consider how they are to come off victorious in a contest which they wage with such antagonists. Christ declares, “without me ye can do nothing,” (John 20: 5.) Does he the less censure and chastise those who, without him, did wickedly? Does he the less exhort every man to be intent on good works? How severely does Paul inveigh against the Corinthians for want of charity, (1 Cor. 3: 3;) and yet at the same time, he prays that charity may be given them by the Lord. In the Epistle to the Romans, he declares that “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy,” (Rom. 9: 16.) Still he ceases not to warn, exhort, and rebuke them. Why then do they not expostulate with God for making sport with men, by demanding of them things which he alone can give, and chastising them for faults committed through want of his grace? Why do they not admonish Paul to spare those who have it not in their power to will or to run, unless the mercy of God, which has forsaken them, precede? As if the doctrine were not founded on the strongest reason—reason which no serious inquirer can fail to perceive. The extent to which doctrine, and exhortation, and rebuke, are in themselves able to change the mind, is indicated by Paul when he says, “Neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase,” (1 Cor 3: 7 ) in like manner, we see that Moses delivers the precepts of the Law under a heavy sanction, and that the prophets strongly urge and threaten transgressors though they at the same time confess, that men are wise only when an understanding heart is given them; that it is the proper work of God to circumcise the heart, and to change it from stone into flesh; to write his law on their inward parts; in short, to renew souls so as to give efficacy to doctrine.

5.

What purpose, then, is served by exhortations? It is this: As the wicked, with obstinate heart, despise them, they will be a testimony against them when they stand at the judgement-seat of God; nay, they even now strike and lash their consciences. For, however they may petulantly deride, they cannot disapprove them. But what, you will ask, can a miserable mortal do, when softness of heart, which is necessary to obedience, is denied him? I ask, in reply, Why have recourse to evasion, since hardness of heart cannot be imputed to any but the sinner himself? The ungodly, though they would gladly evade the divine admonitions, are forced, whether they will or not, to feel their power. But their chief use is to be seen in the case of believers, in whom the Lord, while he always acts by his Spirit, also omits not the instrumentality of his word, but employs it, and not without effect. Let this, then, be a standing truth, that the whole strength of the godly consists in the grace of God, according to the words of the prophet, “I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh, that they may walk in my statutes,” (Ezek. 11: 19, 20.) But it will be asked, why are they now admonished of their duty, and not rather left to the guidance of the Spirit? Why are they urged with exhortations when they cannot hasten any faster than the Spirit impels them? and why are they chastised, if at any time they go astray, seeing that this is caused by the necessary infirmity of the flesh? “O, man! who art thou that replies against God?” If, in order to prepare us for the grace which enables us to obey exhortation, God sees meet to employ exhortation, what is there in such an arrangement for you to carp and scoff at? Had exhortations and reprimands no other profit with the godly than to convince them of sin, they could not be deemed altogether useless. Now, when, by the Spirit of God acting within, they have the effect of inflaming their desire of good, of arousing them from lethargy, of destroying the pleasure and honeyed sweetness of sin, making it hateful and loathsome, who will presume to cavil at them as superfluous? Should any one wish a clearer reply, let him take the following:—God works in his elect in two ways: inwardly, by his Spirit; outwardly, by his Word. By his Spirit illuminating their minds, and training their hearts to the practice of righteousness, he makes them new creatures, while, by his Word, he stimulates them to long and seek for this renovation. In both, he exerts the might of his hand in proportion to the measure in which he dispenses them. The Word, when addressed to the reprobate, though not effectual for their amendment, has another use. It urges their consciences now, and will render them more inexcusable on the day of judgement. Thus, our Saviour, while declaring that none can come to him but those whom the Father draws, and that the elect come after they have heard and learned of the Father, (John 6: 44, 45,) does not lay aside the office of teacher, but carefully invites those who must be taught inwardly by the Spirit before they can make any profit. The reprobate, again, are admonished by Paul, that the doctrine is not in vain; because, while it is in them a savour of death unto death, it is still a sweet savour unto God, (2 Cor. 2: 16.)

6.

The enemies of this doctrine are at great pains in collecting passages of Scripture, as if, unable to accomplish any thing by their weight, they were to overwhelm us by their number. But as in battle, when it is come to close quarters, an unwarlike multitude, how great soever the pomp and show they make, give way after a few blows, and take to flight, so we shall have little difficulty here in disposing of our opponents and their host. All the passages which they pervert in opposing us are very similar in their import; and hence, when they are arranged under their proper heads, one answer will suffice for several; it is not necessary to give a separate consideration to each. Precepts seem to be regarded as their stronghold. These they think so accommodated to our abilities, as to make it follow as a matter of course, that whatever they enjoin we are able to perform. Accordingly, they run over all the precepts, and by them fix the measure of our power. For, say they, when God enjoins meekness, submission, love, chastity, piety, and holiness, and when he forbids anger, pride, theft, uncleanness, idolatry, and the like, he either mocks us, or only requires things which are in our power. All the precepts which they thus heap together may be divided into three classes. Some enjoin a first conversion unto God, others speak simply of the observance of the law, and others inculcate perseverance in the grace which has been received. We shall first treat of precepts in general, and then proceed to consider each separate class. That the abilities of man are equal to the precepts of the divine law, has long been a common idea, and has some show of plausibility. It is founded, however, on the grossest ignorance of the law. Those who deem it a kind of sacrilege to say, that the observance of the law is impossible, insist, as their strongest argument, that, if it is so, the Law has been given in vain, (infra, Chap. 7 sec. 5.) For they speak just as if Paul had never said anything about the Law. But what, pray, is meant by saying, that the Law “was added because of transgressions;” “by the law is the knowledge of sin;” “I had not known sin but by the law;” “the law entered that the offence might abound?” (Gal. 3: 19; Rom. 3: 20; 7: 7; 5: 20.) Is it meant that the Law was to be limited to our strength, lest it should be given in vain? Is it not rather meant that it was placed far above us, in order to convince us of our utter feebleness? Paul indeed declares, that charity is the end and fulfilling of the Law, (1 Tim. 1: 5.) But when he prays that the minds of the Thessalonians may be filled with it, he clearly enough acknowledges that the Law sounds in our ears without profit, if God do not implant it thoroughly in our hearts, (1 Thess. 3: 12.)

7.

I admit, indeed, that if the Scripture taught nothing else on the subject than that the Law is a rule of life by which we ought to regulate our pursuits, I should at once assent to their opinion; but since it carefully and clearly explains that the use of the Law is manifold, the proper course is to learn from that explanation what the power of the Law is in man. In regard to the present question, while it explains what our duty is it teaches that the power of obeying it is derived from the goodness of God, and it accordingly urges us to pray that this power may be given us. If there were merely a command and no promise, it would be necessary to try whether our strength were sufficient to fulfil the command; but since promises are annexed, which proclaim not only that aid, but that our whole power is derived from divine grace, they at the same time abundantly testify that we are not only unequal to the observance of the Law, but mere fools in regard to it. Therefore, let us hear no more of a proportion between our ability and the divine precepts, as if the Lord had accommodated the standard of justice which he was to give in the Law to our feeble capacities. We should rather gather from the promises hove ill provided we are, having in everything so much need of grace. But say they, Who will believe that the Lord designed his Law for blocks and stones? There is no wish to make any one believe this. The ungodly are neither blocks nor stones, when, taught by the Law that their lusts are offensive to God, they are proved guilty by their own confession; nor are the godly blocks or stones, when admonished of their powerlessness, they take refuge in grace. To this effect are the pithy sayings of Augustine, “God orders what we cannot do, that we may know what we ought to ask of him. There is a great utility in precepts, if all that is given to free will is to do greater honour to divine grace. Faith acquires what the Law requires; nay, the Law requires, in order that faith may acquire what is thus required; nay, more, God demands of us faith itself, and finds not what he thus demands, until by giving he makes it possible to find it.” Again, he says, “Let God give what he orders, and order what he wills.”

8.

This will be more clearly seen by again attending to the three classes of precepts to which we above referred. Both in the Law and in the Prophets, God repeatedly calls upon us to turn to him. But, on the other hand, a prophet exclaims, “Turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art the Lord my God. Surely after that I was turned, I repented.” He orders us to circumcise the foreskins of our hearts; but Moses declares, that that circumcision is made by his own hand. In many passages he demands a new heart, but in others he declares that he gives it. As Augustine says, “What God promises, we ourselves do not through choice or nature, but he himself does by grace.” The same observation is made, when, in enumerating the rules of Tichonius, he states the third in effect to be—that we distinguish carefully between the Law and the promises, or between the commands and grace, (Augustin. de Doctrine Christiana, lib. 3.) Let them now go and gather from precepts what man’s power of obedience is, when they would destroy the divine grace by which the precepts themselves are accomplished. The precepts of the second class are simply those which enjoin us to worship God, to obey and adhere to his will, to do his pleasure, and follow his teaching. But innumerable passages testify that every degree of purity, piety, holiness, and justices which we possess, is his gift. Of the third class of precepts is the exhortation of Paul and Barnabas to the proselytes, as recorded by Luke; they “persuaded them to continue in the grace of God,” (Acts 13: 43.) But the source from which this power of continuance must be sought is elsewhere explained by Paul, when he says, “Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord,” (Eph. 6: 10.) In another passage he says, “Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption,” (Eph. 4: 30.) But as the thing here enjoined could not be performed by man, he prays in behalf of the Thessalonians, that God would count them “worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power,” (2 Thess. 1: 11.) In the same way, in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, when treating of alms, he repeatedly commends their good and pious inclination. A little farther on, however, he exclaims, “Thanks be to God, which put the same earnest care into the heart of Titus for you. For indeed he accepted the exhortation,” (2 Cor. 8: 16, 17.) If Titus could not even perform the office of being a mouth to exhort others, except in so far as God suggested, how could the others have been voluntary agents in acting, if the Lord Jesus had not directed their hearts?

9.

Some, who would be thought more acute, endeavour to evade all these passages, by the quibble, that there is nothing to hinder us from contributing our part, while God, at the same time, supplies our deficiencies. They, moreover, adduce passages from the Prophets, in which the work of our conversion seems to be shared between God and ourselves; “Turn ye unto me, saith the Lord of hosts, and I will turn unto you, saith the Lord of hosts,” (Zech. 1: 3.) The kind of assistance which God gives us has been shown above, (sect. 7, 8,) and need not now be repeated. One thing only I ask to be conceded to me, that it is vain to think we have a power of fulfilling the Law, merely because we are enjoined to obey it. Since, in order to our fulfilling the divine precepts, the grace of the Lawgiver is both necessary, and has been promised to us, this much at least is clear, that more is demanded of us than we are able to pay. Nor can any cavil evade the declaration in Jeremiah, that the covenant which God made with his ancient people was broken, because it was only of the letter—that to make it effectual, it was necessary for the Spirit to interpose and train the heart to obedience, (Jer. 31: 32.) The opinion we now combat is not aided by the words, “Turn unto me, and I will turn unto you.” The turning there spoken of is not that by which God renews the heart unto repentance; but that in which, by bestowing prosperity, he manifests his kindness and favour, just in the same way as he sometimes expresses his displeasure by sending adversity. The people complaining under the many calamities which befell them, that they were forsaken by God, he answers, that his kindness would not fail them, if they would return to a right course, and to himself, the standard of righteousness. The passage, therefore, is wrested from its proper meaning when it is made to countenance the idea that the work of conversion is divided between God and man, (supra, Chap. 2 sec. 27.) We have only glanced briefly at this subject, as the proper place for it will occur when we come to treat of the Law, (Chap. 7 sec. 2 and 3.)

10.

The second class of objections is akin to the former. They allege the promises in which the Lord makes a paction with our will. Such are the following: “Seek good, and not evil, that ye may live,” (Amos 5: 14.) “If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword; for the mouth of the Lord has spoken it,” (Isaiah 1: 19, 20.) “If thou wilt put away thine abominations out of my sight, then thou shalt not remove,” (Jer. 4: 1.) “It shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe and do all the commandments which I command thee this days that the Lord thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth,” (Deut. 28: 1.) There are other similar passages, (Lev. 26: 3, &c.) They think that the blessings contained in these promises are offered to our will absurdly and in mockery, if it is not in our power to secure or reject them. It is, indeed, an easy matter to indulge in declamatory complaint on this subject, to say that we are cruelly mocked by the Lord, when he declares that his kindness depends on our wills if we are not masters of our wills—that it would be a strange liberality on the part of God to set his blessings before us, while we have no power of enjoying them,—a strange certainty of promises, which, to prevent their ever being fulfilled, are made to depend on an impossibility. Of promises of this description, which have a condition annexed to them, we shall elsewhere speak, and make it plain that there is nothing absurd in the impossible fulfilment of them. In regard to the matter in hand, I deny that God cruelly mocks us when he invites us to merit blessings which he knows we are altogether unable to merit. The promises being offered alike to believers and to the ungodly, have their use in regard to both. As God by his precepts stings the consciences of the ungodly, so as to prevent them from enjoying their sins while they have no remembrance of his judgements, so, in his promises, he in a manner takes them to witness how unworthy they are of his kindness. Who can deny that it is most just and most becoming in God to do good to those who worship him, and to punish with due severity those who despise his majesty? God, therefore, proceeds in due order, when, though the wicked are bound by the fetters of sin, he lays down the law in his promises, that he will do them good only if they depart from their wickedness. This would be right, though His only object were to let them understand that they are deservedly excluded from the favour due to his true worshipers. On the other hand, as he desires by all means to stir up believers to supplicate his grace, it surely should not seem strange that he attempts to accomplish by promises the same thing which, as we have shown, he to their great benefit accomplishes by means of precepts. Being taught by precepts what the will of God is, we are reminded of our wretchedness in being so completely at variance with that will, and, at the same time, are stimulated to invoke the aid of the Spirit to guide us into the right path. But as our indolence is not sufficiently aroused by precepts, promises are added, that they may attract us by their sweetness, and produce a feeling of love for the precept. The greater our desire of righteousness, the greater will be our earnestness to obtain the grace of God. And thus it is, that in the protestations, “if we be willing”, “if thou shalt hearken”, the Lord neither attributes to us a full power of willing and hearkening, nor yet mocks us for our impotence.

11.

The third class of objections is not unlike the other two. For they produce passages in which God upbraids his people for their ingratitude, intimating that it was not his fault that they did not obtain all kinds of favour from his indulgence. Of such passages, the following are examples: “The Amalekites and the Canaanites are before you, and ye shall fall by the sword: because ye are turned away from the Lord, therefore the Lord will not be with you,” (Num. 14: 43.) “Because ye have done all these works, saith the Lord, and I spake unto you, rising up early and speaking, but ye heard not; and I called you, but ye answered not; therefore will I do unto this house, which is called by my name, wherein ye trust, and unto the place which I gave to you and to your fathers, as I have done to Shiloh,” (Jer. 7: 13, 14.) “They obeyed not thy voice, neither walked in thy law; they have done nothing of all that thou commandedst them to do: therefore thou hast caused all this evil to come upon them,” (Jer. 32: 23.) How, they ask, can such upbraiding be directed against those who have it in their power immediately to reply,—Prosperity was dear to us: we feared adversity; that we did not, in order to obtain the one and avoid the other, obey the Lord, and listen to his voice, is owing to its not being free for us to do so in consequence of our subjection to the dominion of sin; in vain, therefore, are we upbraided with evils which it was not in our power to escape. But to say nothing of the pretext of necessity, which is but a feeble and flimsy defence of their conduct, can they, I ask, deny their guilt? If they are held convicted of any fault, the Lord is not unjust in upbraiding them for having, by their own perverseness, deprived themselves of the advantages of his kindness. Let them say, then, whether they can deny that their own will is the depraved cause of their rebellion. If they find within themselves a fountain of wickedness, why do they stand declaiming about extraneous causes, with the view of making it appear that they are not the authors of their own destruction? If it be true that it is not for another’s faults that sinners are both deprived of the divine favour, and visited with punishment, there is good reason why they should hear these rebukes from the mouth of God. If they obstinately persist in their vices, let them learn in their calamities to accuse and detest their own wickedness, instead of charging God with cruelty and injustice. If they have not manifested docility, let them, under a feeling of disgust at the sins which they see to be the cause of their misery and ruin, return to the right path, and, with serious contrition, confess the very thing of which the Lord by his rebuke reminds them. Of what use those upbraidings of the prophets above quoted are to believers, appears from the solemn prayer of Daniel, as given in his ninth chapter. Of their use in regard to the ungodly, we see an example in the Jews, to whom Jeremiah was ordered to explain the cause of their miseries, though the event could not be otherwise than the Lord had foretold. “Therefore thou shalt speak these words unto them; but they will not hearken unto thee: thou shalt also call unto them; but they will not answer thee,” (Jer. 7: 27.) Of what use, then, was it to talk to the deaf? It was, that even against their will they might understand that what they heard was true, and that it was impious blasphemy to transfer the blame of their wickedness to God, when it resided in themselves. These few explanations will make it very easy for the reader to disentangle himself from the immense heap of passages (containing both precepts and reprimands) which the enemies of divine grace are in the habit of piling up, that they may thereon erect their statue of free will. The Psalmist upbraids the Jews as “a stubborn and rebellious generation; a generation that set not their heart aright,” (Psalm 78: 8;) and in another passage, he exhorts the men of his time, “Harden not your heart,” (Psalm 95: 8.) This implies that the whole blame of the rebellion lies in human depravity. But it is foolish thence to infer, that the heart, the preparation of which is from the Lord, may be equally bent in either direction. The Psalmist says, “I have inclined my heart to perform thy statutes alway,” (Psalm 119: 112;) meaning, that with willing and cheerful readiness of mind he had devoted himself to God. He does not boast, however, that he was the author of that disposition, for in the same psalm he acknowledges it to be the gift of God. We must, therefore, attend to the admonition of Paul, when he thus addresses believers, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure,” (Philip. 2: 12, 13.) He ascribes to them a part in acting that they may not indulge in carnal sloth, but by enjoining fear and trembling, he humbles them so as to keep them in remembrance, that the very thing which they are ordered to do is the proper work of God—distinctly intimating, that believers act (if I may so speak) passively in as much as the power is given them from heaven, and cannot in any way be arrogated to themselves. Accordingly, when Peter exhorts us to “add to faith virtue,” (2 Pet. 1: 5,) he does not concede to us the possession of a second place, as if we could do anything separately. He only arouses the sluggishness of our flesh, by which faith itself is frequently stifled. To the same effect are the words of Paul. He says, “Quench not the Spirit,” (1 Thess. 5: 19;) because a spirit of sloth, if not guarded against, is ever and anon creeping in upon believers. But should any thence infer that it is entirely in their own power to foster the offered light, his ignorance will easily be refuted by the fact, that the very diligence which Paul enjoins is derived only from God, (2 Cor. 7: 1.) We are often commanded to purge ourselves of all impurity, though the Spirit claims this as his peculiar office. In fine, that what properly belongs to God is transferred to us only by way of concession, is plain from the words of John, “He that is begotten of God keepeth himself,” (1 John 5: 18.) The advocates of free will fasten upon the expression as if it implied, that we are kept partly by the power of God, partly by our own, whereas the very keeping of which the Apostle speaks is itself from heaven. Hence, Christ prays his Father to keep us from evil, (John 17: 15,) and we know that believers, in their warfare against Satan, owe their victory to the armour of God. Accordingly, Peter, after saying, “Ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth,” immediately adds by way of correction, “through the Spirit,” (1 Pet. 1: 22.) In fine, the nothingness of human strength in the spiritual contest is briefly shown by John, when he says, that “Whosoever is born of God does not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him” (1 John 3: 9.) He elsewhere gives the reasons “This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith,” (1 John 5: 4.)

12.

But a passage is produced from the Law of Moses, which seems very adverse to the view now given. After promulgating the Law, he takes the people to witness in these terms: “This commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it,” (Deut. 30: 11, 12, 14.) Certainly, if this is to be understood of mere precepts, I admit that it is of no little importance to the matter in hand. For, though it were easy to evade the difficulty by saying, that the thing here treated of is not the observance of the law, but the facility and readiness of becoming acquainted with it, some scruple, perhaps, would still remain. The Apostle Paul, however, no mean interpreter, removes all doubt when he affirms, that Moses here spoke of the doctrine of the Gospel, (Rom. 10: 8.) If any one is so refractory as to contend that Paul violently wrested the words in applying them to the Gospel, though his hardihood is chargeable with impiety, we are still able, independently of the authority of the Apostle, to repel the objection. For, if Moses spoke of precepts merely, he was only inflating the people with vain confidence. Had they attempted the observance of the law in their own strength, as a matter in which they should find no difficulty, what else could have been the result than to throw them headlong? Where, then, was that easy means of observing the law, when the only access to it was over a fatal precipice? Accordingly, nothing is more certain than that under these words is comprehended the covenant of mercy, which had been promulgated along with the demands of the law. A few verses before, he had said, “The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live,” (Deut. 30: 6.) Therefore, the readiness of which he immediately after speaks was placed not in the power of man, but in the protection and help of the Holy Spirit, who mightily performs his own work in our weakness. The passage, however, is not to be understood of precepts simply, but rather of the Gospel promises, which, so far from proving any power in us to fulfil righteousness, utterly disprove it. This is confirmed by the testimony of Paul, when he observes that the Gospel holds forth salvation to us, not under the harsh arduous, and impossible terms on which the law treats with us, (namely, that those shall obtain it who fulfil all its demands,) but on terms easy, expeditious, and readily obtained. This passage, therefore, tends in no degree to establish the freedom of the human will.

13.

They are wont also to adduce certain passages in which God is said occasionally to try men, by withdrawing the assistance of his grace, and to wait until they turn to him, as in Hosea, “I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my face,” (Hosea 5: 15.) It were absurd, (say they,) that the Lord should wait till Israel should seek his face, if their minds were not flexible, so as to turn in either direction of their own accord. As if anything were more common in the prophetical writings than for God to put on the semblance of rejecting and casting off his people until they reform their lives. But what can our opponents extract from such threats? If they mean to maintain that a people, when abandoned by God, are able of themselves to think of turning unto him, they will do it in the very face of Scripture. On the other hand, if they admit that divine grace is necessary to conversion, why do they dispute with us? But while they admit that grace is so far necessary, they insist on reserving some ability for man. How do they prove it? Certainly not from this nor any similar passage; for it is one thing to withdraw from man, and look to what he will do when thus abandoned and left to himself, and another thing to assist his powers, (whatever they may be,) in proportion to their weakness. What, then, it will be asked, is meant by such expressions? I answer, just the same as if God were to say, Since nothing is gained by admonishing, exhorting, rebuking this stubborn people, I will withdraw for a little, and silently leave them to be afflicted; I shall see whether, after long calamity, any remembrance of me will return, and induce them to seek my face. But by the departure of the Lord to a distance is meant the withdrawal of prophecy. By his waiting to see what men will do is meant that he, while silent, and in a manner hiding himself, tries them for a season with various afflictions. Both he does that he may humble us the more; for we shall sooner be broken than corrected by the strokes of adversity, unless his Spirit train us to docility. Moreover, when the Lord, offended and, as it were, fatigued with our obstinate perverseness, leaves us for a while, (by withdrawing his word, in which he is wont in some degree to manifest his presence,) and makes trial of what we will do in his absence, from this it is erroneously inferred, that there is some power of free will, the extent of which is to be considered and tried, whereas the only end which he has in view is to bring us to an acknowledgement of our utter nothingness.

14.

Another objection is founded on a mode of speaking which is constantly observed both in Scripture and in common discourse. God works are said to be ours, and we are said to do what is holy and acceptable to God, just as we are said to commit sin. But if sins are justly imputed to us, as proceeding from ourselves, for the same reason (say they) some share must certainly be attributed to us in works of righteousness. It could not be accordant with reason to say, that we do those things which we are incapable of doing of our own motion, God moving us, as if we were stones. These expressions, therefore, it is said, indicate that while, in the matter of grace, we give the first place to God, a secondary place must be assigned to our agency. If the only thing here insisted on were, that good works are termed ours, I, in my turn, would reply, that the bread which we ask God to give us is also termed ours. What, then, can be inferred from the title of possession, but simply that, by the kindness and free gift of Gods that becomes ours which in other respects is by no means due to us? Therefore let them either ridicule the same absurdity in the Lord’s Prayer, or let them cease to regard it as absurd, that good works should be called ours, though our only property in them is derived from the liberality of God. But there is something stronger in the fact, that we are often said in Scripture to worship God, do justice, obey the law, and follow good works. These being proper offices of the mind and will, how can they be consistently referred to the Spirit, and, at the same time, attributed to us, unless there be some concurrence on our part with the divine agency? This difficulty will be easily disposed of if we attend to the manner in which the Holy Spirit acts in the righteous. The similitude with which they invidiously assail us is foreign to the purpose; for who is so absurd as to imagine that movement in man differs in nothing from the impulse given to a stone? Nor can anything of the kind be inferred from our doctrine. To the natural powers of man we ascribe approving and rejecting, willing and not willing, striving and resisting, viz., approving vanity, rejecting solid good, willing evil and not willing good, striving for wickedness and resisting righteousness. What then does the Lord do? If he sees meet to employ depravity of this description as an instrument of his anger, he gives it whatever aim and direction he pleases, that, by a guilty hand, he may accomplish his own good work. A wicked man thus serving the power of God, while he is bent only on following his own lust, can we compare to a stone, which, driven by an external impulse, is borne along without motion, or sense, or will of its own? We see how wide the difference is. But how stands the case with the godly, as to whom chiefly the question is raised? When God erects his kingdom in them, he, by means of his Spirit, curbs their will, that it may not follow its natural bent, and be carried hither and thither by vagrant lusts; bends, frames trains, and guides it according to the rule of his justice, so as to incline it to righteousness and holiness, and establishes and strengthens it by the energy of his Spirit, that it may not stumble or fall. For which reason Augustine thus expresses himself, (De Corrept. et Gratia, cap. 2,) “It will be said we are therefore acted upon, and do not act. Nay, you act and are acted upon, and you then act well when you are acted upon by one that is good. The Spirit of God who actuates you is your helper in acting, and bears the name of helper, because you, too, do something.” In the former member of this sentence, he reminds us that the agency of man is not destroyed by the motion of the Holy Spirit, because nature furnishes the will which is guided so as to aspire to good. As to the second member of the sentence, in which he says that the very idea of help implies that we also do something, we must not understand it as if he were attributing to us some independent power of action; but not to foster a feeling of sloth, he reconciles the agency of God with our own agency, by saying, that to wish is from nature, to wish well is from grace. Accordingly, he had said a little before, “Did not God assist us, we should not only not be able to conquer, but not able even to fight.”

15.

Hence it appears that the grace of God (as this name is used when regeneration is spoken of) is the rule of the Spirit, in directing and governing the human will. Govern he cannot, without correcting, reforming, renovating, (hence we say that the beginning of regeneration consists in the abolition of what is ours;) in like manner, he cannot govern without moving, impelling, urging, and restraining. Accordingly, all the actions which are afterwards done are truly said to be wholly his. Meanwhile, we deny not the truth of Augustine’s doctrine, that the will is not destroyed, but rather repaired, by grace—the two things being perfectly consistent, viz., that the human will may be said to be renewed when its vitiosity and perverseness being corrected, it is conformed to the true standard of righteousness and that, at the same time, the will may be said to be made new, being so vitiated and corrupted that its nature must be entirely changed. There is nothing then to prevent us from saying, that our will does what the Spirit does in us, although the will contributes nothing of itself apart from grace. We must, therefore, remember what we quoted from Augustine, that some men labour in vain to find in the human will some good quality properly belonging to it. Any intermixture which men attempt to make by conjoining the effort of their own will with divine grace is corruption, just as when unwholesome and muddy water is used to dilute wine. But though every thing good in the will is entirely derived from the influence of the Spirit, yet, because we have naturally an innate power of willing, we are not improperly said to do the things of which God claims for himself all the praise; first, because every thing which his kindness produces in us is our own, (only we must understand that it is not of ourselves;) and, secondly, because it is our mind, our will, our study which are guided by him to what is good.

16.

The other passages which they gather together from different quarters will not give much trouble to any person of tolerable understanding, who pays due attention to the explanations already given. They adduce the passage of Genesis, “Unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him,” (Gen. 4: 7.) This they interpret of sin, as if the Lord were promising Cain that the dominion of sin should not prevail over his mind, if he would labour in subduing it. We, however, maintain that it is much more agreeable to the context to understand the words as referring to Abel, it being there the purpose of God to point out the injustice of the envy which Cain had conceived against his brother. And this He does in two ways, by showing, first, that it was vain to think he could, by means of wickedness, surpass his brother in the favour of God, by whom nothing is esteemed but righteousness; and, secondly, how ungrateful he was for the kindness he had already received, in not being able to bear with a brother who had been subjected to his authority. But lest it should be thought that we embrace this interpretation because the other is contrary to our view, let us grant that God does here speak of sin. If so, his words contain either an order or a promise. If an order, we have already demonstrated that this is no proof of man’s ability; if a promise, where is the fulfilment of the promise when Cain yielded to the sin over which he ought to have prevailed? They will allege a tacit condition in the promise, as if it were said that he would gain the victory if he contended. This subterfuge is altogether unavailing. For, if the dominion spoken of refers to sin, no man can have any doubt that the form of expression is imperative, declaring not what we are able, but what it is our duty to do, even if beyond our ability. Although both the nature of the case, and the rule of grammatical construction, require that it be regarded as a comparison between Cain and Abel, we think the only preference given to the younger brother was, that the elder made himself inferior by his own wickedness.

17.

They appeal, moreover, to the testimony of the Apostle Paul, because he says, “It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy,” (Rom. 9: 15.) From this they infer, that there is something in will and endeavour, which, though weak in themselves, still, being mercifully aided by God, are not without some measure of success. But if they would attend in sober earnest to the subject there handled by Paul, they would not so rashly pervert his meaning. I am aware they can quote Origin and Jerome in support of this exposition. To these I might, in my turn, oppose Augustine. But it is of no consequence what they thought, if it is clear what Paul meant. He teaches that salvation is prepared for those only on whom the Lord is pleased to bestow his mercy—that ruin and death await all whom he has not chosen. He had proved the condition of the reprobate by the example of Pharaoh, and confirmed the certainty of gratuitous election by the passage in Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” Thereafter he concludes, that it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy. If these words are understood to mean that the will or endeavour are not sufficient, because unequal to such a task, the Apostle has not used them very appropriately. We must therefore abandon this absurd mode of arguing, “It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth;” therefore, there is some will, some running. Paul’s meaning is more simple—there is no will nor running by which we can prepare the way for our salvation—it is wholly of the divine mercy. He indeed says nothing more than he says to Titus, when he writes, “After that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us,” (Titus 3: 4, 5.) Those who argue that Paul insinuated there was some will and some running when he said, “It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth,” would not allow me to argue after the same fashion, that we have done some righteous works, because Paul says that we have attained the divine favour, “not by works of righteousness which we have done.” But if they see a flaw in this mode of arguing, let them open their eyes, and they will see that their own mode is not free from a similar fallacy. The argument which Augustine uses is well founded, “If it is said, ‘It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth,’ because neither will nor running are sufficient; it may, on the other hand, be retorted, it is not ‘of God that showeth mercy,’ because mercy does not act alone,” (August. Ep. 170, ad Vital. See also Enchirid. ad Laurent. cap. 32.) This second proposition being absurd, Augustine justly concludes the meaning of the words to be, that there is no good will in man until it is prepared by the Lord; not that we ought not to will and run, but that both are produced in us by God. Some, with equal unskilfulness, wrest the saying of Paul, “We are labourers together with God,” (1 Cor. 3: 9.) There cannot be a doubt that these words apply to ministers only, who are called “labourers with God,” not from bringing any thing of their own, but because God makes use of their instrumentality after he has rendered them fit, and provided them with the necessary endowments.

18.

They appeal also to Ecclesiasticus, who is well known to be a writer of doubtful authority. But, though we might justly decline his testimony, let us see what he says in support of free will. His words are, “He himself made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his counsel; If thou wilt, to keep the commandments, and perform acceptable faithfulness. He has set fire and water before thee: stretch forth thy hand unto whether thou wilt. Before man is life and death; and whether him liketh shall be given him,” (Ecclesiasticus 15: 14-17.) Grant that man received at his creation a power of acquiring life or death; what, then, if we, on the other hand, can reply that he has lost it? Assuredly I have no intention to contradict Solomon, who asserts that “God has made man upright;” that “they have sought out many inventions,” (Eccl. 7: 29.) But since man, by degenerating, has made shipwreck of himself and all his blessings, it certainly does not follow, that every thing attributed to his nature, as originally constituted, applies to it now when vitiated and degenerate. Therefore, not only to my opponents, but to the author of Ecclesiasticus himself, (whoever he may have been,) this is my answer: If you mean to tell man that in himself there is a power of acquiring salvation, your authority with us is not so great as, in the least degree, to prejudice the undoubted word of God; but if only wishing to curb the malignity of the fleshy which by transferring the blame of its own wickedness to God, is wont to catch at a vain defence, you say that rectitude was given to man, in order to make it apparent he was the cause of his own destruction, I willingly assent. Only agree with me in this, that it is by his own fault he is stript of the ornaments in which the Lord at first attired him, and then let us unite in acknowledging that what he now wants is a physician, and not a defender.

19.

There is nothing more frequent in their mouths than the parable of the traveller who fell among thieves, and was left half dead, (Luke 10: 32.) I am aware that it is a common idea with almost all writers, that under the figure of the traveller is represented the calamity of the human race. Hence our opponents argue that man was not so mutilated by the robbery of sin and the devil as not to preserve some remains of his former endowments; because it is said he was left half dead. For where is the half living, unless some portion of right will and reason remain? First, were I to deny that there is any room for their allegory, what could they say? There can be no doubt that the Fathers invented it contrary to the genuine sense of the parable. Allegories ought to be carried no further than Scripture expressly sanctions: so far are they from forming a sufficient basis to found doctrines upon. And were I so disposed I might easily find the means of tearing up this fiction by the roots. The Word of God leaves no half life to man, but teaches, that, in regard to life and happiness, he has utterly perished. Paul, when he speaks of our redemption, says not that the half dead are cured (Eph. 2: 5, 30; 5: 14) but that those who were dead are raised up. He does not call upon the half dead to receive the illumination of Christ, but upon those who are asleep and buried. In the same way our Lord himself says, “The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God,” (John 5: 25.) How can they presume to set up a flimsy allegory in opposition to so many clear statements? But be it that this allegory is good evidence, what can they extort out of it? Man is half dead, therefore there is some soundness in him. True! he has a mind capable of understanding, though incapable of attaining to heavenly and spiritual wisdom; he has some discernment of what is honourable; he has some sense of the Divinity, though he cannot reach the true knowledge of God. But to what do these amount? They certainly do not refute the doctrine of Augustine—a doctrine confirmed by the common suffrages even of the Schoolmen, that after the fall, the free gifts on which salvation depends were withdrawn, and natural gifts corrupted and defiled, (supra, chap. 2 sec. 2.) Let it stand, therefore, as an indubitable truth, which no engines can shake, that the mind of man is so entirely alienated from the righteousness of God that he cannot conceive, desire, or design any thing but what is wicked, distorted, foul, impure, and iniquitous; that his heart is so thoroughly envenomed by sin that it can breathe out nothing but corruption and rottenness; that if some men occasionally make a show of goodness, their mind is ever interwoven with hypocrisy and deceit, their soul inwardly bound with the fetters of wickedness.

CHAPTER 6. REDEMPTION FOR MAN LOST TO BE SOUGHT IN CHRIST.

The parts of this chapter are,

I. The excellence of the doctrine of Christ the Redeemer - a doctrine always entertained by the Church, sec. 1.

II. Christ, the Mediator in both dispensations, was offered to the faith of the pious Israelites and people of old, as is plain from the institution of sacrifice, the calling of Abraham’s family, and the elevation of David and his posterity, sec. 2.

III. Hence the consolation, strength, hope, and confidence of the godly under the Law, Christ being offered to them in various ways by their heavenly Father.

Sections.

1. The knowledge of God the Creator of no avail without faith in Christ the Redeemer.

First reason.

Second reason strengthened by the testimony of an Apostle.

Conclusion. This doctrine entertained by the children of God in all ages from the beginning of the world. Error of throwing open heaven to the heathen, who know nothing of Christ. The pretexts for this refuted by passages of Scripture.

2. God never was propitious to the ancient Israelites without Christ the Mediator.

First reason founded on the institution of sacrifice.

Second reason founded on the calling of Abraham.

Third reason founded on the elevation of David’s family to regal dignity, and confirmed by striking passages of Scripture.

3. Christ the solace ever promised to the afflicted; the banner of faith and hope always erected. This confirmed by various passages of Scripture.

4. The Jews taught to have respect to Christ. This teaching sanctioned by our Saviour himself. The common saying, that God is the object of faith, requires to be explained and modified. Conclusion of this discussion concerning Christ. No saving knowledge of God in the heathen.

1.

The whole human race having been undone in the person of Adam, the excellence and dignity of our origin, as already described, is so far from availing us, that it rather turns to our greater disgrace, until God, who does not acknowledge man when defiled and corrupted by sin as his own work, appear as a Redeemer in the person of his only begotten Son. Since our fall from life unto death, all that knowledge of God the Creator, of which we have discoursed, would be useless, were it not followed up by faith, holding forth God to us as a Father in Christ. The natural course undoubtedly was, that the fabric of the world should be a school in which we might learn piety, and from it pass to eternal life and perfect felicity. But after looking at the perfection beheld wherever we turn our eye, above and below, we are met by the divine malediction, which, while it involves innocent creatures in our fault, of necessity fills our own souls with despair. For although God is still pleased in many ways to manifest his paternal favour towards us, we cannot, from a mere survey of the world, infer that he is a Father. Conscience urging us within, and showing that sin is a just ground for our being forsaken, will not allow us to think that God accounts or treats us as sons. In addition to this are our sloth and ingratitude. Our minds are so blinded that they cannot perceive the truth, and all our senses are so corrupt that we wickedly rob God of his glory. Wherefore, we must conclude with Paul, “After that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe,” (1 Cor. 1: 21.) By the “wisdom of God,” he designates this magnificent theatre of heaven and earth replenished with numberless wonders, the wise contemplation of which should have enabled us to know God. But this we do with little profit; and, therefore, he invites us to faith in Christ,—faith which, by a semblance of foolishness, disgusts the unbeliever. Therefore, although the preaching of the cross is not in accordance with human wisdom, we must, however, humbly embrace it if we would return to God our Maker, from whom we are estranged, that he may again become our Father. It is certain that after the fall of our first parent, no knowledge of God without a Mediator was effectual to salvation. Christ speaks not of his own age merely, but embraces all ages, when he says “This is life eternal that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent,” (John 17: 3.) The more shameful therefore is the presumption of those who throw heaven open to the unbelieving and profane, in the absence of that grace which Scripture uniformly describes as the only door by which we enter into life. Should any confine our Saviour’s words to the period subsequent to the promulgation of the Gospel, the refutation is at hand; since on a ground common to all ages and nations, it is declared, that those who are estranged from God, and as such, are under the curse, the children of wrath, cannot be pleasing to God until they are reconciled. To this we may add the answer which our Saviour gave to the Samaritan woman “Ye worship ye know not what; we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews,” (John 4: 22.) By these words, he both charges every Gentile religion with falsehood, and assigns the reason, viz., that under the Law the Redeemer was promised to the chosen people only, and that, consequently, no worship was ever pleasing to God in which respect was not had to Christ. Hence also Paul affirms, that all the Gentiles were “without God,” and deprived of the hope of life. Now, since John teaches that there was life in Christ from the beginning, and that the whole world had lost it, (John 1: 4,) it is necessary to return to that fountain; And, accordingly, Christ declares that inasmuch as he is a propitiator, he is life. And, indeed, the inheritance of heaven belongs to none but the sons of God, (John 15: 6.) Now, it were most incongruous to give the place and rank of sons to any who have not been engrafted into the body of the only begotten Son. And John distinctly testifies that those become the sons of God who believe in his name. But as it is not my intention at present formally to discuss the subject of faith in Christ, it is enough to have thus touched on it in passing.

2.

Hence it is that God never showed himself propitious to his ancient people, nor gave them any hope of grace without a Mediator. I say nothing of the sacrifices of the Law, by which believers were plainly and openly taught that salvation was not to be found anywhere but in the expiation which Christ alone completed. All I maintain is that the prosperous and happy state of the Church was always founded in the person of Christ. For although God embraced the whole posterity of Abraham in his covenant, yet Paul properly argues, (Gal. 3: 16,) that Christ was truly the seed in which all the nations of the earth were to be blessed, since we know that all who were born of Abraham, according to the flesh, were not accounted the seed. To omit Ishmael and others, how came it that of the two sons of Isaac, the twin brothers, Esau and Jacob, while yet in the womb, the one was chosen and the other rejected? Nay, how came it that the first-born was rejected, and the younger alone admitted? Moreover, how happens it that the majority are rejected? It is plain, therefore, that the seed of Abraham is considered chiefly in one head, and that the promised salvation is not attained without coming to Christ, whose office it is to gather together those which were scattered abroad. Thus the primary adoption of the chosen people depended on the grace of the Mediator. Although it is not expressed in very distinct terms in Moses, it, however, appears to have been commonly known to all the godly. For before a king was appointed over the Israelites, Hannah, the mother of Samuel, describing the happiness of the righteous, speaks thus in her song, “He shall give strength unto his king, and exalt the horn of his anointed;” meaning by these words, that God would bless his Church. To this corresponds the prediction, which is afterwards added, “I will raise me up a faithful priest, and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever,” (1 Sam. 2: 10, 35.) And there can be no doubt that our heavenly Father intended that a living image of Christ should be seen in David and his posterity. Accordingly, exhorting the righteous to fear Him, he bids them “Kiss the Son,” (Psalm 2: 12.) Corresponding to this is the passage in the Gospel, “He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father,” (John 5: 23.) Therefore, though the kingdom was broken up by the revolt of the ten tribes, yet the covenant which God had made in David and his successors behaved to stand, as is also declared by his Prophets, “Howbeit I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand: but I will make him prince all the days of his life for David my servant’s sake,” (1 Kings 11: 34.) The same thing is repeated a second and third time. It is also expressly said, “I will for this afflict the seed of David, but not for ever,” (1 Kings 11: 39.) Some time afterwards it was said, “Nevertheless, for David’s sake did the Lord his God give him a lamp in Jerusalem, to set up his son after him, and to establish Jerusalem,” (1 Kings 15: 4.) And when matters were bordering on destruction, it was again said, “Yet the Lord would not destroy Judah for David his servant’s sake, as he had promised to give him alway a light, and to his children,” (2 Kings 8: 19.) The sum of the whole comes to this—David, all others being excluded, was chosen to be the person in whom the good pleasure of the Lord should dwell; as it is said elsewhere, “He forsook the tabernacle of Shiloh;” “Moreover, he refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim;” “But chose the tribe of Judah, the mount Zion which he loved;” “He chose David also his servant, and took him from the sheep folds: from following the ewes great with young he brought him to feed Jacob his people, and Israel his inheritance,” (Ps. 78: 60, 67, 70, 71.) In fine, God, in thus preserving his Church, intended that its security and salvation should depend on Christ as its head. Accordingly, David exclaims, “The Lord is their strength, and he is the saving strength of his anointed;” and then prays “Save thy people, and bless thine inheritance;” intimating, that the safety of the Church was indissolubly connected with the government of Christ. In the same sense he elsewhere says, “Save, Lord: let the king hear us when we call,” (Ps. 20: 9.) These words plainly teach that believers, in applying for the help of God, had their sole confidence in this—that they were under the unseen government of the King. This may be inferred from another psalm, “Save now, I beseech thee O Lord: Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the Lord,” (Ps. 118: 25, 26.) Here it is obvious that believers are invited to Christ, in the assurance that they will be safe when entirely in his hand. To the same effect is another prayer, in which the whole Church implores the divine mercy “Let thy hand be upon the Man of thy right hand, upon the Son of man, whom thou madest strong (or best fitted) for thyself,” (Ps. 80: 17.) For though the author of the psalm laments the dispersion of the whole nations he prays for its revival in him who is sole Head. After the people were led away into captivity, the land laid waste, and matters to appearance desperate, Jeremiah, lamenting the calamity of the Church, especially complains, that by the destruction of the kingdom the hope of believers was cut off; “The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of the Lord, was taken in their pits, of whom we said, Under his shadow we shall live among the heathen,” (Lam. 4: 20.) From all this it is abundantly plain, that as the Lord cannot be propitious to the human race without a Mediator, Christ was always held forth to the holy Fathers under the Law as the object of their faith.

3.

Moreover when comfort is promised in affliction, especially when the deliverance of the Church is described, the banner of faith and hope in Christ is unfurled. “Thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people, even for salvation with thine anointed,” says Habakkuk, (3: 13.) And whenever mention is made in the Prophets of the renovation of the Church, the people are directed to the promise made to David, that his kingdom would be for ever. And there is nothing strange in this, since otherwise there would have been no stability in the covenant. To this purpose is the remarkable prophecy in Isaiah 7: 14. After seeing that the unbelieving king Ahab repudiated what he had testified regarding the deliverance of Jerusalem from siege and its immediate safety, he passes as it were abruptly to the Messiah, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel;” intimating indirectly, that though the king and his people wickedly rejected the promise offered to them, as if they were bent on causing the faith of God to fail, the covenant would not be defeated—the Redeemer would come in his own time. In fine, all the prophets, to show that God was placable, were always careful to bring forward that kingdom of David, on which redemption and eternal salvation depended. Thus in Isaiah it is said, “I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David. Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people,” (Isa. 55: 3, 4;) intimating, that believers, in calamitous circumstances, could have no hope, had they not this testimony that God would be ready to hear them. In the same way, to revive their drooping spirits, Jeremiah says, “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgement and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely,” (Jer. 23: 5, 6.) In Ezekiel also it is said, “I will set up one Shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd. And I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David a prince among them: I the Lord have spoken it. And I will make with them a covenant of peace,” (Ezek. 34: 23, 24, 25.) And again, after discoursing of this wondrous renovation, he says, “David my servant shall be king over them: and they all shall have one shepherd.” “Moreover, I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them,” (Ezek. 37: 24-26.) I select a few passages out of many, because I merely wish to impress my readers with the fact, that the hope of believers was ever treasured up in Christ alone. All the other prophets concur in this. Thus Hosea, “Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head,” (Hosea 1: 11.) This he afterwards explains in clearer terms, “Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their king,” (Hosea 3: 5.) Micas, also speaking of the return of the people, says expressly, “Their king shall pass before them, and the Lord on the head of them,” (Micas 2: 13.) So Amos, in predicting the renovation of the people, says “In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up the ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old,” (Amos 9: 11;) in other words, the only banner of salvation was, the exaltation of the family of David to regal splendour, as fulfilled in Christ. Hence, too, Zechariah, as nearer in time to the manifestation of Christ, speaks more plainly, “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation,” (Zech. 9: 9.) This corresponds to the passage already quoted from the Psalms, “The Lord is their strength, and he is the saving health of their anointed.” Here salvation is extended from the head to the whole body.

4.

By familiarising the Jews with these prophecies, God intended to teach them, that in seeking for deliverance, they should turn their eyes directly towards Christ. And though they had sadly degenerated, they never entirely lost the knowledge of this general principle, that God, by the hand of Christ, would be the deliverer of the Church, as he had promised to David; and that in this way only the free covenant by which God had adopted his chosen people would be fulfilled. Hence it was, that on our Saviour’s entry into Jerusalem, shortly before his death, the children shouted, “Hosannah to the son of David,” (Matth. 21: 9.) For there seems to have been a hymn known to all, and in general use, in which they sung that the only remaining pledge which they had of the divine mercy was the promised advent of a Redeemer. For this reason, Christ tells his disciples to believe in him, in order that they might have a distinct and complete belief in God, “Ye believe in God, believe also in me,” (John 14: 1.) For although, properly speaking, faith rises from Christ to the Father, he intimates, that even when it leans on God, it gradually vanishes away, unless he himself interpose to give it solid strength. The majesty of God is too high to be scaled up to by mortals, who creep like worms on the earth. Therefore, the common saying that God is the object of faith, (Lactantius, lib. 4 c. 16,) requires to be received with some modification. When Christ is called the image of the invisible God, (Col. 1: 15,) the expression is not used without cause, but is designed to remind us that we can have no knowledge of our salvation, until we behold God in Christ. For although the Jewish scribes had by their false glosses darkened what the Prophets had taught concerning the Redeemer, yet Christ assumed it to be a fact, received, as it were, with public consent, that there was no other remedy in desperate circumstances, no other mode of delivering the Church than the manifestation of the Mediator. It is true, that the fact adverted to by Paul was not so generally known as it ought to have been, viz., that Christ is the end of the Law, (Rom. 10: 4,) though this is both true, and clearly appears both from the Law and the Prophets. I am not now, however, treating of faith, as we shall elsewhere have a fitter place, (Book 3 Chap. 2,) but what I wish to impress upon my readers in this way is, that the first step in piety is, to acknowledge that God is a Father, to defend, govern, and cherish us, until he brings us to the eternal inheritance of his kingdom; that hence it is plain, as we lately observed, there is no saving knowledge of God without Christ, and that, consequently, from the beginning of the world Christ was held forth to all the elect as the object of their faith and confidence. In this sense, Irenaeus says, that the Father, who is boundless in himself, is bounded in the Son, because he has accommodated himself to our capacity, lest our minds should be swallowed up by the immensity of his glory, (Irenaeus, lib. 4 cap. 8.) Fanatics, not attending to this, distort a useful sentiment into an impious dream, as if Christ had only a share of the Godhead, as a part taken from a whole; whereas the meaning merely is, that God is comprehended in Christ alone. The saying of John was always true, “whosoever denieth the Son, the same has not the Father,” (1 John 2: 23.) For though in old time there were many who boasted that they worshipped the Supreme Deity, the Maker of heaven and earth, yet as they had no Mediator, it was impossible for them truly to enjoy the mercy of God, so as to feel persuaded that he was their Father. Not holding the head, that is, Christ, their knowledge of God was evanescent; and hence they at length fell away to gross and foul superstitions betraying their ignorance, just as the Turks in the present day, who, though proclaiming, with full throat, that the Creator of heaven and earth is their God, yet by their rejection of Christ, substitute an idol in his place.

CHAPTER 7. THE LAW GIVEN, NOT TO RETAIN A PEOPLE FOR ITSELF, BUT TO KEEP ALIVE THE HOPE OF SALVATION IN CHRIST UNTIL HIS ADVENT.

The divisions of this chapter are,

I. The Moral and Ceremonial Law a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, sec. 1, 2.

II. This true of the Moral Law, especially its conditional promises. These given for the best reasons. In what respect the observance of the Moral Law is said to be impossible, sec. 3-5.

III. Of the threefold office and use of the Moral Law, sec. 6-12. Antinomians refuted, sec. 13.

What the abrogation of the Law, Moral and Ceremonial, sec. 1~17.

Sections.

1. The whole system of religion delivered by the hand of Moses, in many ways pointed to Christ. This exemplified in the case of sacrifices, absolutions, and an endless series of ceremonies. This proved,

1. By the declared purpose of God;

2. By the nature of the ceremonies themselves;

3. From the nature of God;

4. From the grace offered to the Jews;

5. From the consecration of the priests.

2. Proof continued.

6. From a consideration of the kingdom erected in the family of David.

7. From the end of the ceremonies.

8. From the end of the Moral Law.

3. A more ample exposition of the last proof. The Moral Law leads believers to Christ. Showing the perfect righteousness required by God, it convinces us of our inability to fulfil it. It thus denies us life, adjudges us to death, and so urges us to seek deliverance in Christ.

4. The promises of the Law, though conditional, founded on the best reason. This reason explained.

5. No inconsistency in giving a law, the observance of which is impossible. This proved from reason, and confirmed by Scripture. Another confirmation from Augustine.

6. A consideration of the office and use of the Moral Law shows that it leads to Christ. The Law, while it describes the righteousness which is acceptable to God, proves that every man is unrighteous.

7. The Law fitly compared to a mirror, which shows us our wretchedness. This derogates not in any degree from its excellence.

8. When the Law discloses our guilt, we should not despond, but flee to the mercy of God. How this may be done.

9. Confirmation of the first use of the Moral Law from various passages in Augustine.

10. A second use of the Law is to curb sinners. This most necessary for the good of the community at large; and this in respect not only of the reprobate, but also of the elect, previous to regeneration. This confirmed by the authority of an Apostle.

11. The Law showing our wretchedness, disposes us to admit the remedy. It also tends to keep us in our duty. Confirmation from general experience.

12. The third and most appropriate use of the Law respects the elect.

1. It instructs and teaches them to make daily progress in doing the will of God.

2. Urges them by exhortation to obedience. Testimony of David. How he is to be reconciled with the Apostle.

13. The profane heresy of the Antinomians must be exploded. Argument founded on a passage in David, and another in Moses.

14. Last part of the chapter treating of the abrogation of the Law. In what respect any part of the Moral Law abrogated.

15. The curse of the Law how abrogated.

16. Of the abrogation of the Ceremonial Law in regard to the observance only.

17. The reason assigned by the Apostle applicable not to the Moral Law, but to ceremonial observances only. These abrogated, not only because they separated the Jews from the Gentiles, but still more because they were a kind of formal instruments to attest our guilt and impunity. Christ, by destroying these, is justly said to have taken away the handwriting that was against us, and nailed it to his cross.

1.

From the whole course of the observations now made, we may infer, that the Law was not superadded about four hundred years after the death of Abraham in order that it might lead the chosen people away from Christ, but, on the contrary, to keep them in suspense until his advent; to inflame their desire, and confirm their expectation, that they might not become dispirited by the long delay. By the Law, I understand not only the Ten Commandments, which contain a complete rule of life, but the whole system of religion delivered by the hand of Moses. Moses was not appointed as a Lawgiver, to do away with the blessing promised to the race of Abraham; nay, we see that he is constantly reminding the Jews of the free covenant which had been made with their fathers, and of which they were heirs; as if he had been sent for the purpose of renewing it. This is most clearly manifested by the ceremonies. For what could be more vain or frivolous than for men to reconcile themselves to God, by offering him the foul odour produced by burning the fat of beasts? or to wipe away their own impurities by be sprinkling themselves with water or blood? In short, the whole legal worship (if considered by itself apart from the types and shadows of corresponding truth) is a mere mockery. Wherefore, both in Stephen’s address, (Acts 7: 44,) and in the Epistle to the Hebrews, great weight is justly given to the passage in which God says to Moses, “Look that thou make them after the pattern which was showed thee in the mount,” (Exod. 25: 40.) Had there not been some spiritual end to which they were directed, the Jews, in the observance of them, would have deluded themselves as much as the Gentiles in their vanities. Profane men, who have never made religion their serious study, cannot bear without disgust to hear of such a multiplicity of rites. They not merely wonder why God fatigued his ancient people with such a mass of ceremonies, but they despise and ridicule them as childish toys. This they do, because they attend not to the end; from which, if the legal figures are separated, they cannot escape the charge of vanity. But the type shows that God did not enjoin sacrifice, in order that he might occupy his worshippers with earthly exercises, but rather that he might raise their minds to something higher. This is clear even from His own nature. Being a spirit, he is delighted only with spiritual worship. The same thing is testified by the many passages in which the Prophets accuse the Jews of stupidity, for imagining that mere sacrifices have any value in the sight of God. Did they by this mean to derogate in any respect from the Law? By no means; but as interpreters of its true meaning, they wished in this way to turn the attention of the people to the end which they ought to have had in view, but from which they generally wandered. From the grace offered to the Jews we may certainly infer, that the law was not a stranger to Christ. Moses declared the end of the adoption of the Israelites to be, that they should be “a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation,” (Exod. 19: 6.) This they could not attain, without a greater and more excellent atonement than the blood of beasts. For what could be less in accordance with reason, than that the sons of Adams who, from hereditary taint, are all born the slaves of sin, should be raised to royal dignity, and in this way made partakers of the glory of God, if the noble distinction were not derived from some other source? How, moreover, could the priestly office exist in vigour among those whose vices rendered them abominable in the sight of God, if they were not consecrated in a holy head? Wherefore, Peter elegantly transposes the words of Moses, teaching that the fulness of grace, of which the Jews had a foretaste under the Law, is exhibited in Christ, “Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood,” (1 Pet. 2: 9.) The transposition of the words intimates that those to whom Christ has appeared in the Gospel, have obtained more than their fathers, inasmuch as they are all endued with priestly and royal honour, and can, therefore, trusting to their Mediator, appear with boldness in the presence of God.

2.

And it is to be observed, by the way, that the kingdom, which was at length erected in the family of David, is part of the Law, and is comprehended under the dispensation of Moses; whence it follows, that, as well in the whole tribe of Levi as in the posterity of David, Christ was exhibited to the eyes of the Israelites as in a double mirror. For, as I lately observed, (sec. 1,) in no other way could those who were the slaves of sin and death, and defiled with corruption, be either kings or priests. Hence appears the perfect truth of Paul’s statement, “The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ,” “till the seed should come to whom the promise was made” (Gal. 3: 24, 19.) For Christ not yet having been made familiarly known to the Jews, they were like children whose weakness could not bear a full knowledge of heavenly things. How they were led to Christ by the ceremonial law has already been adverted to, and may be made more intelligible by several passages in the Prophets. Although they were required, in order to appease God, to approach him daily with new sacrifices, yet Isaiah promises, that all their sins would be expiated by one single sacrifice, and with this Daniel concurs, (Isa. 53: 5; Dan. 9: 26, 27.) The priests appointed from the tribe of Levi entered the sanctuary, but it was once said of a single priest, “The Lord has sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek,” (Ps. 110: 4.) The unction of oil was then visible, but Daniel in vision declares that there will be another unction. Not to dwell on this, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews proves clearly, and at length, from the fourth to the eleventh chapter, that ceremonies were vain, and of no value, unless as bringing us to Christ. In regard to the Ten Commandments, we must, in like manner, attend to the statement of Paul, that “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth,” (Rom. 10: 4;) and, again, that ministers of the new testament were “not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the split giveth life,” (2 Cor. 3: 6.) The former passage intimates, that it is in vain to teach righteousness by precept, until Christ bestow it by free imputation, and the regeneration of the Spirit. Hence he properly calls Christ the end or fulfilling of the Law, because it would avail us nothing to know what God demands did not Christ come to the succour of those who are labouring, and oppressed under an intolerable yoke and burden. In another place, he says that the Law “was added because of transgressions,” (Gal. 3: 19,) that it might humble men under a sense of their condemnation. Moreover, inasmuch as this is the only true preparation for Christ, the statements, though made in different words, perfectly agree with each other. But because he had to dispute with perverse teachers, who pretended that men merited justification by the works of the Law, he was sometimes obliged, in refuting their error, to speak of the Law in a more restricted sense, merely as law, though, in other respects, the covenant of free adoption is comprehended under it.

3.

But in order that a sense of guilt may urge us to seek for pardon, it is of importance to know how our being instructed in the Moral Law renders us more inexcusable. If it is true, that a perfect righteousness is set before us in the Law, it follows, that the complete observance of it is perfect righteousness in the sight of God; that is, a righteousness by which a man may be deemed and pronounced righteous at the divine tribunal. Wherefore Moses, after promulgating the Law, hesitates not to call heaven and earth to witness, that he had set life and death, good and evil, before the people. Nor can it be denied, that the reward of eternal salvation, as promised by the Lord, awaits the perfect obedience of the Law, (Deut. 30: 19.) Again, however, it is of importance to understand in what way we perform that obedience for which we justly entertain the hope of that reward. For of what use is it to see that the reward of eternal life depends on the observance of the Law, unless it moreover appears whether it be in our power in that way to attain to eternal life? Herein, then, the weakness of the Law is manifested; for, in none of us is that righteousness of the Law manifested, and, therefore, being excluded from the promises of life, we again fall under the curse. I state not only what happens, but what must necessarily happen. The doctrine of the Law transcending our capacity, a man may indeed look from a distance at the promises held forth, but he cannot derive any benefit from them. The only thing, therefore, remaining for him is, from their excellence to form a better estimate of his own misery, while he considers that the hope of salvation is cut off, and he is threatened with certain death. On the other hand, those fearful denunciations which strike not at a few individuals, but at every individual without exceptions rise up; rise up, I says and, with inexorable severity, pursue us; so that nothing but instant death is presented by the Law.

4.

Therefore, if we look merely to the Law, the result must be despondency, confusion, and despair, seeing that by it we are all cursed and condemned, while we are kept far away from the blessedness which it holds forth to its observers. Is the Lord, then, you will ask, only sporting with us? Is it not the next thing to mockery, to hold out the hope of happiness, to invite and exhort us to it, to declare that it is set before us, while all the while the entrance to it is precluded and quite shut up? I answer, Although the promises, in so far as they are conditional, depend on a perfect obedience of the Law, which is nowhere to be found, they have not, however, been given in vain. For when we have learned, that the promises would be fruitless and unavailing, did not God accept us of his free goodness, without any view to our works, and when, having so learned, we, by faith, embrace the goodness thus offered in the gospel, the promises, with all their annexed conditions, are fully accomplished. For God, while bestowing all things upon us freely, crowns his goodness by not disdaining our imperfect obedience; forgiving its deficiencies, accepting it as if it were complete, and so bestowing upon us the full amount of what the Law has promised. But as this point will be more fully discussed in treating of justification by faith, we shall not follow it further at present.

5.

What has been said as to the impossible observance of the Law, it will be proper briefly to explain and confirm, the general opinion being, that nothing can be more absurd. Hence Jerome has not hesitated to denounce anathema against it. What Jerome thought, I care not; let us inquire what is the truth. I will not here enter into a long and intricate discussion on the various kinds of possibility. By impossible, I mean, that which never was, and, being prevented by the ordination and decree of God, never will be. I say, that if we go back to the remotest period, we shall not find a single saint who, clothed with a mortal body, ever attained to such perfection as to love the Lord with all his heart, and soul, and mind, and strength; and, on the other hand, not one who has not felt the power of concupiscence. Who can deny this? I am aware, indeed of a kind of saints whom a foolish superstition imagines, and whose purity the angels of heaven scarcely equal. This, however, is repugnant both to Scripture and experience. But I say further, that no saint ever will attain to perfection, so long as he is in the body. Scripture bears clear testimony to this effect: “There is no man that sinneth not,” saith Solomon (1 Kings 8: 46.) David says, “In thy sight shall no man living be justified,” (Psalm 143: 2.) Job also, in numerous passages, affirms the same thing. But the clearest of all is Paul, who declares that “the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh,” (Gal. 5: 17.) And he proves, that “as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse,” for the simple reason, that it is written, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them,” (Gal. 3: 10; Deut. 27: 26;) intimating, or rather assuming it as confessed, that none can so continue. But whatever has been declared by Scripture must be regarded as perpetual, and hence necessary. The Pelagians annoyed Augustine with the sophism, that it was insulting to God to hold, that he orders more than believers are able, by his grace, to perform; and he, in order to evade it, acknowledged that the Lord was able, if he chose, to raise a mortal man to angelic purity; but that he had never done, and never would do it, because so the Scripture had declared, (Augustine, lib. de Nat. et Grat.) This I deny not: but I add, that there is no use in absurdly disputing concerning the power of God in opposition to his truth; and therefore there is no ground for cavilling, when it is said that that thing cannot be, which the Scriptures declare will never be. But if it is the word that is objected to, I refer to the answer which our Saviour gave to his disciples when they asked, “Who then can be saved?” “With men,” said he, “this is impossible; but with God all things are possible” (Matth. 19: 25.) Augustine argues in the most convincing manner, that while in the flesh, we never can give God the love which we owe him. “Love so follows knowledge, that no man can perfectly love God who has not previously a full comprehension of his goodness,” (Augustin. de Spiritu et Litera, towards the end, and elsewhere.) So long as we are pilgrims in the world, we see through a glass darkly, and therefore our love is imperfect. Let it therefore be held incontrovertible, that, in consequence of the feebleness of our nature, it is impossible for us, so long as we are in the flesh, to fulfil the law. This will also be proved elsewhere from the writings of Paul, (Rom. 8: 3.)

6.

That the whole matter may be made clearer, let us take a succinct view of the office and use of the Moral Law. Now this office and use seems to me to consist of three parts. First, by exhibiting the righteousness of God,—in other words, the righteousness which alone is acceptable to God,—it admonishes every one of his own unrighteousness, certiorates, convicts, and finally condemns him. This is necessary, in order that man, who is blind and intoxicated with self-love, may be brought at once to know and to confess his weakness and impurity. For until his vanity is made perfectly manifest, he is puffed up with infatuated confidence in his own powers, and never can be brought to feel their feebleness so long as he measures them by a standard of his own choice. So soon, however, as he begins to compare them with the requirements of the Law, he has something to tame his presumption. How high soever his opinion of his own powers may be, he immediately feels that they pant under the heavy load, then totter and stumble, and finally fall and give way. He, then, who is schooled by the Law, lays aside the arrogance which formerly blinded him. In like manner must he be cured of pride, the other disease under which we have said that he labours. So long as he is permitted to appeal to his own judgement, he substitutes a hypocritical for a real righteousness, and, contented with this, sets up certain factitious observances in opposition to the grace of God. But after he is forced to weigh his conduct in the balance of the Law, renouncing all dependence on this fancied righteousness, he sees that he is at an infinite distance from holiness, and, on the other hand, that he teems with innumerable vices of which he formerly seemed free. The recesses in which concupiscence lies hid are so deep and tortuous that they easily elude our view; and hence the Apostle had good reason for saying, “I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” For, if it be not brought forth from its lurkingplaces, it miserably destroys in secret before its fatal sting is discerned.

7.

Thus the Law is a kind of mirror. As in a mirror we discover any stains upon our face, so in the Law we behold, first, our impotence; then, in consequence of it, our iniquity; and, finally, the curse, as the consequence of both. He who has no power of following righteousness is necessarily plunged in the mire of iniquity, and this iniquity is immediately followed by the curse. Accordingly, the greater the transgression of which the Law convicts us, the severer the judgement to which we are exposed. To this effect is the Apostle’s declaration, that “by the law is the knowledge of sin,” (Rom. 3: 20.) By these words, he only points out the first office of the Law as experienced by sinners not yet regenerated. In conformity to this, it is said, “the law entered that the offence might abound;” and, accordingly, that it is “the ministration of death;” that it “worketh wrath” and kills, (Rom. 5: 20; 2 Cor. 3: 7; Rom. 4: 15.) For there cannot be a doubt that the clearer the consciousness of guilt, the greater the increase of sin; because then to transgression a rebellious feeling against the Lawgiver is added. All that remains for the Law, is to arm the wrath of God for the destruction of the sinner; for by itself it can do nothing but accuse, condemn, and destroy him. Thus Augustine says, “If the Spirit of grace be absent, the law is present only to convict and slay us.” But to say this neither insults the law, nor derogates in any degree from its excellence. Assuredly, if our whole will were formed and disposed to obedience, the mere knowledge of the law would be sufficient for salvation; but since our carnal and corrupt nature is at enmity with the Divine law, and is in no degree amended by its discipline, the consequence is, that the law which, if it had been properly attended to, would have given life, becomes the occasion of sin and death. When all are convicted of transgression, the more it declares the righteousness of God, the more, on the other hand, it discloses our iniquity; the more certainly it assures us that life and salvation are treasured up as the reward of righteousness, the more certainly it assures us that the unrighteous will perish. So far, however are these qualities from throwing disgrace on the Law, that their chief tendency is to give a brighter display of the divine goodness. For they show that it is only our weakness and depravity that prevents us from enjoying the blessedness which the law openly sets before us. Hence additional sweetness is given to divine grace, which comes to our aid without the law, and additional loveliness to the mercy which confers it, because they proclaim that God is never weary in doing good, and in loading us with new gifts.

8.

But while the unrighteousness and condemnation of all are attested by the law, it does not follow (if we make the proper use of it) that we are immediately to give up all hope and rush headlong on despair. No doubt, it has some such effect upon the reprobate, but this is owing to their obstinacy. With the children of God the effect is different. The Apostle testifies that the law pronounces its sentence of condemnation in order “that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God,” (Rom. 3: 19.) In another place, however, the same Apostle declares, that “God has concluded them all in unbelief;” not that he might destroy all, or allow all to perish, but that “he might have mercy upon all,” (Rom. 11: 32:) in other words, that divesting themselves of an absurd opinion of their own virtue, they may perceive how they are wholly dependent on the hand of God; that feeling how naked and destitute they are, they may take refuge in his mercy, rely upon it, and cover themselves up entirely with it; renouncing all righteousness and merit, and clinging to mercy alone, as offered in Christ to all who long and look for it in true faith. In the precepts of the law, God is seen as the rewarder only of perfect righteousness, (a righteousness of which all are destitute,) and, on the other hand, as the stern avenger of wickedness. But in Christ his countenance beams forth full of grace and gentleness towards poor unworthy sinners.

9.

There are many passages in Augustine, as to the utility of the law in leading us to implore Divine assistance. Thus he writes to Hilary, “The law orders, that we, after attempting to do what is ordered and so feeling our weakness under the law, may learn to implore the help of grace.” In like manner, he writes to Asellius, “The utility of the law is, that it convinces man of his weakness, and compels him to apply for the medicine of grace, which is in Christ.” In like manner, he says to Innocentius Romanus, “The law orders; grace supplies the power of acting.” Again, to Valentinus, “God enjoins what we cannot do, in order that we may know what we have to ask of him.” Again, “The law was given, that it might make you guilty—being made guilty might fear; fearing, might ask indulgence, not presume on your own strength.” Again, “The law was given, in order to convert a great into a little man—to show that you have no power of your own for righteousness; and might thus, poor, needy, and destitute, flee to grace.” He afterwards thus addresses the Almighty, “So do, O Lord, so do, O merciful Lord; command what cannot be fulfilled; nay, command what cannot be fulfilled, unless by thy own grace: so that when men feel they have no strength in themselves to fulfil it, every mouth may be stopped, and no man seem great in his own eyes. Let all be little ones; let the whole world become guilty before God.” But I am forgetting myself in producing so many passages, since this holy man wrote a distinct treatise, which he entitled De Spiritu et Litera. The other branch of this first use he does not describe so distinctly, either because he knew that it depended on the former, or because he was not so well aware of it, or because he wanted words in which he might distinctly and clearly explain its proper meaning. But even in the reprobate themselves, this first office of the law is not altogether wanting. They do not, indeed, proceed so far with the children of God as, after the flesh is cast down, to be renewed in the inner man, and revive again, but stunned by the first terror, give way to despair. Still it tends to manifest the equity of the Divine judgement, when their consciences are thus heaved upon the waves. They would always willingly carp at the judgement of God; but now, though that judgement is not manifested, still the alarm produced by the testimony of the law and of their conscience bespeaks their deserts.

10.

The second office of the Law is, by means of its fearful denunciations and the consequent dread of punishment, to curb those who, unless forced, have no regard for rectitude and justice. Such persons are curbed not because their mind is inwardly moved and affected, but because, as if a bridle were laid upon them, they refrain their hands from external acts, and internally check the depravity which would otherwise petulantly burst forth. It is true, they are not on this account either better or more righteous in the sight of God. For although restrained by terror or shame, they dare not proceed to what their mind has conceived, nor give full license to their raging lust, their heart is by no means trained to fear and obedience. Nay, the more they restrain themselves, the more they are inflamed, the more they rage and boil, prepared for any act or outbreak whatsoever were it not for the terror of the law. And not only so, but they thoroughly detest the law itself, and execrate the Lawgiver; so that if they could, they would most willingly annihilate him, because they cannot bear either his ordering what is right, or his avenging the despisers of his Majesty. The feeling of all who are not yet regenerate, though in some more, in others less lively, is, that in regard to the observance of the law, they are not led by voluntary submission, but dragged by the force of fear. Nevertheless, this forced and extorted righteousness is necessary for the good of society, its peace being secured by a provision but for which all things would be thrown into tumult and confusion. Nay, this tuition is not without its use, even to the children of God, who, previous to their effectual calling, being destitute of the Spirit of holiness, freely indulge the lusts of the flesh. When, by the fear of Divine vengeance, they are deterred from open outbreakings, though, from not being subdued in mind, they profit little at present, still they are in some measure trained to bear the yoke of righteousness, so that when they are called, they are not like mere novices, studying a discipline of which previously they had no knowledge. This office seems to be especially in the view of the Apostle, when he says, “That the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for men-stealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,” (1 Tim. 1: 9, 10.) He thus indicates that it is a restraint on unruly lusts that would otherwise burst all bonds.

11.

To both may be applied the declaration of the Apostle in another place, that “The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ,” (Gal. 3: 24;) since there are two classes of persons, whom by its training it leads to Christ. Some (of whom we spoke in the first place,) from excessive confidence in their own virtue or righteousness, are unfit to receive the grace of Christ, until they are completely humbled. This the law does by making them sensible of their misery, and so disposing them to long for what they previously imagined they did not want. Others have need of a bridle to restrain them from giving full scope to their passions, and thereby utterly losing all desire after righteousness. For where the Spirit of God rules not, the lusts sometimes so burst forth, as to threaten to drown the soul subjected to them in forgetfulness and contempt of God; and so they would, did not God interpose with this remedy. Those, therefore, whom he has destined to the inheritance of his kingdom, if he does not immediately regenerate, he, through the works of the law, preserves in fear, against the time of his visitation, not, indeed, that pure and chaste fear which his children ought to have, but a fear useful to the extent of instructing them in true piety according to their capacity. Of this we have so many proofs, that there is not the least need of an example. For all who have remained for some time in ignorance of God will confess, as the result of their own experience, that the law had the effect of keeping them in some degree in the fear and reverence of God, till, being regenerated by his Spirit, they began to love him from the heart.

12.

The third use of the Law (being also the principal use, and more closely connected with its proper end) has respect to believers in whose hearts the Spirit of God already flourishes and reigns. For although the Law is written and engraven on their hearts by the finger of God, that is, although they are so influenced and actuated by the Spirit, that they desire to obey God, there are two ways in which they still profit in the Law. For it is the best instrument for enabling them daily to learn with greater truth and certainty what that will of the Lord is which they aspire to follow, and to confirm them in this knowledge; just as a servant who desires with all his soul to approve himself to his master, must still observe, and be careful to ascertain his master’s dispositions, that he may comport himself in accommodation to them. Let none of us deem ourselves exempt from this necessity, for none have as yet attained to such a degree of wisdom, as that they may not, by the daily instruction of the Law, advance to a purer knowledge of the Divine will. Then, because we need not doctrine merely, but exhortation also, the servant of God will derive this further advantage from the Law: by frequently meditating upon it, he will be excited to obedience, and confirmed in it, and so drawn away from the slippery paths of sin. In this way must the saints press onward, since, however great the alacrity with which, under the Spirit, they hasten toward righteousness, they are retarded by the sluggishness of the flesh, and make less progress than they ought. The Law acts like a whip to the flesh, urging it on as men do a lazy sluggish ass. Even in the case of a spiritual man, inasmuch as he is still burdened with the weight of the flesh, the Law is a constant stimulus, pricking him forward when he would indulge in sloth. David had this use in view when he pronounced this high eulogium on the Law, “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes,” (Ps. 19: 7, 8.) Again, “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path,” (Ps. 119: 105.) The whole psalm abounds in passages to the same effect. Such passages are not inconsistent with those of Paul, which show not the utility of the law to the regenerate, but what it is able of itself to bestow. The object of the Psalmist is to celebrate the advantages which the Lord, by means of his law, bestows on those whom he inwardly inspires with a love of obedience. And he adverts not to the mere precepts, but also to the promise annexed to them, which alone makes that sweet which in itself is bitter. For what is less attractive than the law, when, by its demands and threatening, it overawes the soul, and fills it with terror? David specially shows that in the law he saw the Mediator, without whom it gives no pleasure or delight.

13.

Some unskilful persons, from not attending to this, boldly discard the whole law of Moses, and do away with both its Tables, imagining it unchristian to adhere to a doctrine which contains the ministration of death. Far from our thoughts be this profane notion. Moses has admirably shown that the Law, which can produce nothing but death in sinners, ought to have a better and more excellent effect upon the righteous. When about to die, he thus addressed the people, “Set your hearts unto all the words which I testify among you this day, which ye shall command your children to observe to do, all the words of this law. For it is not a vain thing for you; because it is your life,” (Deut. 32: 46, 47.) If it cannot be denied that it contains a perfect pattern of righteousness, then, unless we ought not to have any proper rule of life, it must be impious to discard it. There are not various rules of life, but one perpetual and inflexible rule; and, therefore, when David describes the righteous as spending their whole lives in meditating on the Law, (Psalm 1: 2,) we must not confine to a single age, an employment which is most appropriate to all ages, even to the end of the world. Nor are we to be deterred or to shun its instructions, because the holiness which it prescribes is stricter than we are able to render, so long as we bear about the prison of the body. It does not now perform toward us the part of a hard taskmaster, who will not be satisfied without full payment; but, in the perfection to which it exhorts us, points out the goal at which, during the whole course of our lives, it is not less our interest than our duty to aim. It is well if we thus press onward. Our whole life is a race, and after we have finished our course, the Lord will enable us to reach that goal to which, at present, we can only aspire in wish.

14.

Since, in regard to believers, the law has the force of exhortation, not to bind their consciences with a curse, but by urging them, from time to time, to shake off sluggishness and chastise imperfection,—many, when they would express this exemption from the curse, say, that in regard to believers the Law (I still mean the Moral Law) is abrogated: not that the things which it enjoins are no longer right to be observed, but only that it is not to believers what it formerly was; in other words, that it does not, by terrifying and confounding their consciences, condemn and destroy. It is certainly true that Paul shows, in clear terms, that there is such an abrogation of the Law. And that the same was preached by our Lord appears from this, that he would not have refuted the opinion of his destroying the Law, if it had not been prevalent among the Jews. Since such an opinion could not have arisen at random without some pretext, there is reason to presume that it originated in a false interpretation of his doctrine, in the same way in which all errors generally arise from a perversion of the truth. But lest we should stumble against the same stone, let us distinguish accurately between what has been abrogated in the Law, and what still remains in force. When the Lord declares, that he came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil, (Matth. 5: 17;) that until heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or little shall remain unfulfilled; he shows that his advent was not to derogate, in any degree, from the observance of the Law. And justly, since the very end of his coming was to remedy the transgression of the Law. Therefore, the doctrine of the Law has not been infringed by Christ, but remains, that, by teaching, admonishing, rebuking, and correcting, it may fit and prepare us for every good work.

15.

What Paul says, as to the abrogation of the Law, evidently applies not to the Law itself, but merely to its power of constraining the conscience. For the Law not only teaches, but also imperiously demands. If obedience is not yielded, nay, if it is omitted in any degree, it thunders forth its curse. For this reason, the Apostle says, that “as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them,” (Gal. 3: 10; Deut. 27: 26.) Those he describes as under the works of the Law, who do not place righteousness in that forgiveness of sins by which we are freed from the rigour of the Law. He therefore shows, that we must be freed from the fetters of the Law, if we would not perish miserably under them. But what fetters? Those of rigid and austere exaction, which remits not one iota of the demand, and leaves no transgression unpunished. To redeem us from this curse, Christ was made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree, (Deut. 21: 23, compared with Gal. 3: 13, 4: 4.) In the following chapter, indeed, he says, that “Christ was made under the law, in order that he might redeem those who are under the law;” but the meaning is the same. For he immediately adds, “That we might receive the adoption of sons.” What does this mean? That we might not be, all our lifetime, subject to bondage, having our consciences oppressed with the fear of death. Meanwhile, it must ever remain an indubitable truth, that the Law has lost none of its authority, but must always receive from us the same respect and obedience.

16.

The case of ceremonies is different, these having been abrogated not in effect but in use only. Though Christ by his advent put an end to their use, so far is this from derogating from their sacredness, that it rather commends and illustrates it. For as these ceremonies would have given nothing to God’s ancient people but empty show, if the power of Christ’s death and resurrection had not been prefigured by them,—so, if the use of them had not ceased, it would, in the present day, be impossible to understand for what purpose they were instituted. Accordingly, Paul, in order to prove that the observance of them was not only superfluous, but pernicious also, says that they “are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ,” (Col. 2: 17.) We see, therefore, that the truth is made clearer by their abolition than if Christ, who has been openly manifested, were still figured by them as at a distance, and as under a veil. By the death of Christ, the veil of the temple was rent in vain, the living and express image of heavenly things, which had begun to be dimly shadowed forth, being now brought fully into view, as is described by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, (Heb. 10: 1.) To the same effect, our Saviour declares, that “the law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it,” (Luke 16: 16;) not that the holy fathers were left without the preaching of the hope of salvation and eternal life, but because they only saw at a distance, and under a shadow, what we now behold in full light. Why it behaved the Church to ascend higher than these elements, is explained by John the Baptist, when he says, “The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ,” (John 1: 17.) For though it is true that expiation was promised in the ancient sacrifices, and the ark of the covenant was a sure pledge of the paternal favour of God, the whole would have been delusory had it not been founded on the grace of Christ, wherein true and eternal stability is found. It must be held as a fixed point, that though legal rites ceased to be observed, their end serves to show more clearly how great their utility was before the advent of Christ, who, while he abolished the use, sealed their force and effect by his death.

17.

There is a little more difficulty in the following passage of Paul: “You, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, has he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross,” &c., (Col. 2: 13, 14.) He seems to extend the abolition of the Law considerably farther, as if we had nothing to do with its injunctions. Some err in interpreting this simply of the Moral Law, as implying the abolition not of its injunctions, but of its inexorable rigour. Others examining Paul’s words more carefully, see that they properly apply to the Ceremonial Law, and show that Paul repeatedly uses the term ordinance in this sense. He thus writes to the Ephesians: “He is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man,” (Eph. 2: 14.) There can be no doubt that he is there treating of ceremonies, as he speaks of “the middle wall of partition” which separated Jews and Gentiles. I therefore hold that the former view is erroneous; but, at the same time, it does not appear to me that the latter comes fully up to the Apostle’s meaning. For I cannot admit that the two passages are perfectly parallel. As his object was to assure the Ephesians that they were admitted to fellowship with the Jews, he tells them that the obstacle which formerly stood in the way was removed. This obstacle was in the ceremonies. For the rites of ablution and sacrifice, by which the Jews were consecrated to the Lord, separated them from the Gentiles. But who sees not that, in the Epistle to the Colossians, a sublimer mystery is adverted to? No doubt, a question is raised there as to the Mosaic observances, to which false apostles were endeavouring to bind the Christian people. But as in the Epistle to the Galatians he takes a higher view of this controversy, and in a manner traces it to its fountain, so he does in this passage also. For if the only thing considered in rites is the necessity of observing them, of what use was it to call it a handwriting which was contrary to us? Besides, how could the bringing in of it be set down as almost the whole sum of redemption? Wherefore, the very nature of the case clearly shows that reference is here made to something more internal. I cannot doubt that I have ascertained the genuine interpretation, provided I am permitted to assume what Augustine has somewhere most truly affirmed, nay, derived from the very words of the Apostle, viz., that in the Jewish ceremonies there was more a confession than an expiation of sins. For what more was done in sacrifice by those who substituted purifications instead of themselves, than to confess that they were conscious of deserving death? What did these purifications testify but that they themselves were impure? By these means, therefore, the handwriting both of their guilt and impurity was ever and anon renewed. But the attestation of these things was not the removal of them. Wherefore, the Apostle says that Christ is “the mediator of the new testament, - by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament,” (Heb. 9:15.) Justly, therefore, does the Apostle describe these handwritings as against the worshipers, and contrary to them, since by means of them their impurity and condemnation were openly sealed. There is nothing contrary to this in the fact that they were partakers of the same grace with ourselves. This they obtained through Christ, and not through the ceremonies which the Apostle there contrasts with Christ, showing that by the continued use of them the glory of Christ was obscured. We perceive how ceremonies, considered in themselves, are elegantly and appositely termed handwritings, and contrary to the salvation of man, in as much as they were a kind of formal instruments which attested his liability. On the other hand, when false apostles wished to bind them on the Christian Church, Paul, entering more deeply into their signification, with good reason warned the Colossians how seriously they would relapse if they allowed a yoke to be in that way imposed upon them. By so doing, they, at the same time, deprived themselves of all benefit from Christ, who, by his eternal sacrifice once offered, had abolished those daily sacrifices, which were indeed powerful to attest sin, but could do nothing to destroy it.

CHAPTER 8. EXPOSITION OF THE MORAL LAW.

This chapter consists of four parts—

I. Some general observations necessary for the understanding of the subject are made by way of preface, sec. 1-5.

II. Three things always to be attended to in ascertaining and expounding the meaning of the Moral Law, sec. 6-12.

III. Exposition of the Moral Law, or the Ten Commandments, sec. 13-15.

IV. The end for which the whole Law is intended, viz., to teach not only elementary principles, but perfection, sec. 15, to the end of the chapter.

Sections.

1. The Law was committed to writing, in order that it might teach more fully and perfectly that knowledge, both of God and of ourselves, which the law of nature teaches meagrely and obscurely. Proof of this, from an enumeration of the principal parts of the Moral Law; and also from the dictate of natural law, written on the hearts of all, and, in a manner, effaced by sin.

2. Certain general maxims.

1. From the knowledge of God, furnished by the Law, we learn that God is our Father and Ruler. Righteousness is pleasing, iniquity is an abomination in his sight. Hence, how weak soever we may be, our duty is to cultivate the one, and shun the other.

3. From the knowledge of ourselves, furnished by the Law, we learn to discern our own utter powerlessness, we are ashamed; and seeing it is in vain to seek for righteousness in ourselves, are induced to seek it elsewhere.

4. Hence, God has annexed promises and threatening to his promises. These not limited to the present life, but embrace things heavenly and eternal. They, moreover, attest the spotless purity of God, his love of righteousness, and also his kindness towards us.

5. The Law shows, moreover, that there is nothing more acceptable to God than obedience. Hence, all superstitious and hypocritical modes of worship are condemned. A remedy against superstitious worship and human presumption.

6. The second part of the chapter, containing three observations or rules. First rule, Our life must be formed by the Law, not only to external honesty, but to inward and spiritual righteousness. In this respect, the Law of God differs from civil laws, he being a spiritual Lawgiver, man not. This rule of great extent, and not sufficiently attended to.

7. This first rule confirmed by the authority of Christ, and vindicated from the false dogma of Sophists, who say that Christ is only another Moses.

8. Second observation or rule to be carefully attended to, viz., that the end of the command must be inquired into, until it is ascertained what the Lawgiver approves or disapproves. Example. Where the Law approves, its opposite is condemned, and vice versa.

9. Full explanation of this latter point. Example.

10. The Law states what is most impious in each transgression, in order to show how heinous the transgression is. Example.

11. Third observation or rule regards the division of the Law into Two Tables: the former comprehending our duty to God; the latter, our duty to our neighbour. The connection between these necessary and inseparable. Their invariable order. Sum of the Law.

12. Division of the Law into Ten Commandments. Various distinctions made with regard to them, but the best distinction that which divides them into Two Tables. Four commandments belong to the First, and six to the Second Table.

13. The third part of the chapter, containing an exposition of the Decalogue. The preface vindicates the authority of the Law. This it does in three ways. First, by a declaration of its majesty.

14. The preface to the Law vindicates its authority. Secondly, by calling to mind God’s paternal kindness.

15. Thirdly, by calling to mind the deliverance out of the land of Egypt. Why God distinguishes himself by certain epithets. Why mention is made of the deliverance from Egypt. In what way, and how far, the remembrance of this deliverance should still affect us.

16. Exposition of the First Commandment. Its end. What it is to have God, and to have strange gods. Adoration due to God, trust, invocation, thanksgiving, and also true religion, required by the Commandment. Superstition, Polytheism, and Atheism, forbidden. What meant by the words, “before me.”

17. Exposition of the Second Commandment. The end and sum of it. Two parts. Short enumeration of forbidden shapes.

18. Why a threatening is added. Four titles applied to God, to make a deeper impression. He is called Mighty, Jealous, an Avenger, Merciful. Why said to be jealous. Reason drawn from analogy.

19. Exposition of the threatening which is added. First, as to visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children. A misinterpretation on this head refuted, and the genuine meaning of the threatening explained.

20. Whether this visiting of the sins of parents inconsistent with the divine justice. Apparently conflicting passages reconciled.

21. Exposition of the latter part, viz., the showing mercy to thousands. The use of this promise. Consideration of an exception of frequent occurrence. The extent of this blessing.

22. Exposition of the Third Commandment. The end and sum of it. Three parts. These considered. What it is to use the name of God in vain. Swearing. Distinction between this commandment and the Ninth.

23. An oath defined. It is a species of divine worship. This explained.

24. Many modes in which this commandment is violated.

1. By taking God to witness what we know is false. The insult thus offered.

25. Modes of violation continued.

2. Taking God to witness in trivial matters. Contempt thus shown. When and how an oath should be used.

3. Substituting the servants of God instead of himself when taking an oath.

26. The Anabaptists, who condemn all oaths, refuted.

1. By the authority of Christ, who cannot be opposed in anything to the Father. A passage perverted by the Anabaptists explained. The design of our Saviour in the passage. What meant by his there prohibiting oaths.

27. The lawfulness of oaths confirmed by Christ and the apostles. Some approve of public, but not of private oaths. The lawfulness of the latter proved both by reason and example. Instances from Scripture.

28. Exposition of the Fourth Commandment. Its end. Three purposes.

29. Explanation of the first purpose, viz., a shadowing forth of spiritual rest. This the primary object of the precept. God is therein set forth as our sanctifier; and hence we must abstain from work, that the work of God in us may not be hindered.

30. The number seven denoting perfection in Scripture, this commandment may, in that respect, denote the perpetuity of the Sabbath, and its completion at the last day.

31. Taking a simpler view of the commandment, the number is of no consequence, provided we maintain the doctrine of a perpetual rest from all our works, and, at the same time, avoid a superstitious observance of days. The ceremonial part of the commandment abolished by the advent of Christ.

32. The second and third purposes of the Commandment explained. These twofold and perpetual. This confirmed. Of religious assemblies.

33. Of the observance of the Lord’s day, in answer to those who complain that the Christian people are thus trained to Judaism. Objection.

34. Ground of this institution. There is no kind of superstitious necessity. The sum of the Commandment.

35. The Fifth Commandment, (the first of the Second Table,) expounded. Its end and substance. How far honour due to parents. To whom the term father applies.

36. It makes no difference whether those to whom this honour is required are worthy or unworthy. The honour is claimed especially for parents. It consists of three parts.

1. Reverence.

37. Honour due to parents continued.

2. Obedience.

3. Gratitude. Why a promise added. In what sense it is to be taken. The present life a testimony of divine blessing. The reservation considered and explained.

38. Conversely a curse denounced on disobedient children. How far obedience due to parents, and those in the place of parents.

39. Sixth Commandment expounded. Its end and substance. God, as a spiritual Lawgiver, forbids the murder of the heart, and requires a sincere desire to preserve the life of our neighbour.

40. A twofold ground for this Commandment.

1. Man is the image of God.

2. He is our flesh.

41. Exposition of the Seventh Command. The end and substance of it. Remedy against fornication.

42. Continence an excellent gift, when under the control of God only. Altogether denied to some; granted only for a time to others. Argument in favour of celibacy refuted.

43. Each individual may refrain from marriage so long as he is fit to observe celibacy. True celibacy, and the proper use of it. Any man not gifted with continence wars with God and with nature, as constituted by him, in remaining unmarried. Chastity defined.

44. Precautions to be observed in married life. Everything repugnant to chastity here condemned.

45. Exposition of the Eighth Commandment. Its end and substance. Four kinds of theft. The bad acts condemned by this Commandment. Other peculiar kinds of theft.

46. Proper observance of this Commandment. Four heads. Application.

1. To the people and the magistrate.

2. To the pastors of the Church and their flocks.

3. To parents and children.

4. To the old and the young.

5. To servants and masters.

6. To individuals.

47. Exposition of the ninth Commandment. Its end and substance. The essence of the Commandment—detestation of falsehood, and the pursuit of truth. Two kinds of falsehood. Public and private testimony. The equity of this Commandment.

48. How numerous the violations of this Commandment.

1. By detraction.

2. By evil speaking—a thing contrary to the offices of Christian charity.

3. By scurrility or irony.

4. By prying curiosity, and proneness to harsh judgements.

49. Exposition of the Tenth Commandment. Its end and substance. What meant by the term Covetousness. Distinction between counsel and the covetousness here condemned.

50. Why God requires so much purity. Objection. Answer. Charity toward our neighbour here principally commended. Why house, wife, man-servant, maid-servant, ox, and ass, &c., are mentioned. Improper division of this Commandment into two.

51. The last part of the chapter. The end of the Law. Proof. A summary of the Ten Commandments. The Law delivers not merely rudiments and first principles, but a perfect standard of righteousness, modelled on the divine purity.

52. Why, in the Gospels and Epistles, the latter table only mentioned, and not the first. The same thing occurs in the Prophets.

53. An objection to what is said in the former section removed.

54. A conduct duly regulated by the divine Law, characterised by charity toward our neighbour. This subverted by those who give the first place to self-love. Refutation of their opinion.

55. Who our neighbour. Double error of the Schoolmen on this point.

56. This error consists,

I. In converting precepts into counsels to be observed by monks.

57. Refutation of this error from Scripture and the ancient Theologians. Sophistical objection obviated.

58. Error of the Schoolmen consists,

II. In calling hidden impiety and covetousness venial sins. Refutation drawn,

1. From a consideration of the whole Decalogue.

2. The testimony of an Apostle.

3. The authority of Christ.

4. The nature and majesty of God.

5. The sentence pronounced against sin.

Conclusion.

1.

I believe it will not be out of place here to introduce the Ten Commandments of the Law, and give a brief exposition of them. In this way it will be made more clear, that the worship which God originally prescribed is still in force, (a point to which I have already adverted;) and then a second point will be confirmed, viz., that the Jews not only learned from the law wherein true piety consisted, but from feeling their inability to observe it were overawed by the fear of judgements and so drawn, even against their will, towards the Mediator. In giving a summary of what constitutes the true knowledge of God, we showed that we cannot form any just conception of the character of God, without feeling overawed by his majesty, and bound to do him service. In regard to the knowledge of ourselves, we showed that it principally consists in renouncing all idea of our own strength, and divesting ourselves of all confidence in our own righteousness, while, on the other hand, under a full consciousness of our wants, we learn true humility and self-abasement. Both of these the Lord accomplishes by his Law, first, when, in assertion of the right which he has to our obedience, he calls us to reverence his majesty, and prescribes the conduct by which this reverence is manifested; and, secondly, when, by promulgating the rule of his justice, (a rule, to the rectitude of which our nature, from being depraved and perverted, is continually opposed, and to the perfection of which our ability, from its infirmity and nervelessness for good, is far from being able to attain,) he charges us both with impotence and unrighteousness. Moreover, the very things contained in the two tables are, in a manner, dictated to us by that internal law, which, as has been already said, is in a manner written and stamped on every heart. For conscience, instead of allowing us to stifle our perceptions, and sleep on without interruption, acts as an inward witness and monitor, reminds us of what we owe to God, points out the distinction between good and evil, and thereby convicts us of departure from duty. But man, being immured in the darkness of error, is scarcely able, by means of that natural law, to form any tolerable idea of the worship which is acceptable to God. At all events, he is very far from forming any correct knowledge of it. In addition to this, he is so swollen with arrogance and ambition, and so blinded with self-love, that he is unable to survey, and, as it were, descend into himself, that he may so learn to humble and abase himself, and confess his misery. Therefore, as a necessary remedy, both for our dullness and our contumacy, the Lord has given us his written Law, which, by its sure attestations, removes the obscurity of the law of nature, and also, by shaking off our lethargy, makes a more lively and permanent impression on our minds.

2.

It is now easy to understand the doctrine of the law, viz., that God, as our Creator, is entitled to be regarded by us as a Father and Master, and should, accordingly, receive from us fear, love, reverence, and glory; nay, that we are not our own, to follow whatever course passion dictates, but are bound to obey him implicitly, and to acquiesce entirely in his good pleasure. Again, the Law teaches, that justice and rectitude are a delight, injustice an abomination to him, and, therefore, as we would not with impious ingratitude revolt from our Maker, our whole life must be spent in the cultivation of righteousness. For if we manifest becoming reverence only when we prefer his will to our own, it follows, that the only legitimate service to him is the practice of justice, purity, and holiness. Nor can we plead as an excuse, that we want the power, and, like debtors, whose means are exhausted, are unable to pay. We cannot be permitted to measure the glory of God by our ability; whatever we may be, he ever remains like himself, the friend of righteousness, the enemy of unrighteousness, and whatever his demands from us may be, as he can only require what is right, we are necessarily under a natural obligation to obey. Our inability to do so is our own fault. If lust, in which sin has its dominion, so enthrals us, that we are not free to obey our Father, there is no ground for pleading necessity as a defence, since this evil necessity is within, and must be imputed to ourselves.

3.

When, under the guidance of the Law, we have advanced thus far, we must, under the same guidance, proceed to descend into ourselves. In this way, we at length arrive at two results: First, contrasting our conduct with the righteousness of the Law, we see how very far it is from being in accordance with the will of God, and, therefore, how unworthy we are of holding our place among his creatures, far less of being accounted his sons; and, secondly, taking a survey of our powers, we see that they are not only unequal to fulfil the Law, but are altogether null. The necessary consequence must be, to produce distrust of our own ability, and also anxiety and trepidation of mind. Conscience cannot feel the burden of its guilt, without forthwith turning to the judgement of God, while the view of this judgement cannot fail to excite a dread of death. In like manner, the proofs of our utter powerlessness must instantly beget despair of our own strength. Both feelings are productive of humility and abasement, and hence the sinner, terrified at the prospect of eternal death, (which he sees justly impending over him for his iniquities,) turns to the mercy of God as the only haven of safety. Feeling his utter inability to pay what he owes to the Law, and thus despairing of himself, he rethinks him of applying and looking to some other quarter for help.

4.

But the Lord does not count it enough to inspire a reverence for his justice. To imbue our hearts with love to himself, and, at the same time, with hatred to iniquity, he has added promises and threatening. The eye of our mind being too dim to be attracted by the mere beauty of goodness, our most merciful Father has been pleased, in his great indulgence, to allure us to love and long after it by the hope of reward. He accordingly declares that rewards for virtue are treasured up with him, that none who yield obedience to his commands will labour in vain. On the other hand, he proclaims not only that iniquity is hateful in his sight, but that it will not escape with impunity, because he will be the avenger of his insulted majesty. That he may encourage us in every way, he promises present blessings, as well as eternal felicity, to the obedience of those who shall have kept his commands, while he threatens transgressors with present suffering, as well as the punishment of eternal death. The promise, “Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgements; which if a man do, he shall live in them,” (Lev. 18: 5,) and corresponding to this the threatening, “The souls that sinneth, it shall die,” (Ezek. 18: 4, 20;) doubtless point to a future life and death, both without end. But though in every passage where the favour or anger of God is mentioned, the former comprehends eternity of life and the latter eternal destruction, the Law, at the same time, enumerates a long catalogue of present blessings and curses, (Lev. 26: 4; Deut. 28: 1.) The threatening attest the spotless purity of God, which cannot bear iniquity, while the promises attest at once his infinite love of righteousness, (which he cannot leave unrewarded,) and his wondrous kindness. Being bound to do him homage with all that we have, he is perfectly entitled to demand everything which he requires of us as a debt; and as a debt, the payment is unworthy of reward. He therefore foregoes his right, when he holds forth reward for services which are not offered spontaneously, as if they were not due. The amount of these services, in themselves, has been partly described and will appear more clearly in its own place. For the present, it is enough to remember that the promises of the Law are no mean commendation of righteousness as they show how much God is pleased with the observance of them, while the threatening denounced are intended to produce a greater abhorrence of unrighteousness, lest the sinner should indulge in the blandishments of vice, and forget the judgement which the divine Lawgiver has prepared for him.

5.

The Lord, in delivering a perfect rule of righteousness, has reduced it in all its parts to his mere will, and in this way has shown that there is nothing more acceptable to him than obedience. There is the more necessity for attending to this, because the human mind, in its wantonness, is ever and anon inventing different modes of worship as a means of gaining his favour. This irreligious affectation of religion being innate in the human mind, has betrayed itself in every age, and is still doing so, men always longing to devise some method of procuring righteousness without any sanction from the Word of God. Hence in those observances which are generally regarded as good works, the precepts of the Law occupy a narrow space, almost the whole being usurped by this endless host of human inventions. But was not this the very license which Moses meant to curb, when, after the promulgation of the Law, he thus addressed the people: “Observe and hear all these words which I command thee, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee for ever, when thou does that which is good and right in the sight of the Lord thy God.” “What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it,” (Deut 12: 28-32.) Previously, after asking “what nation is there so great, that has statutes and judgements so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?” he had added, “Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life,” (Deut. 4: 8, 9.) God foreseeing that the Israelites would not rest, but after receiving the Law, would, unless sternly prohibited give birth to new kinds of righteousness, declares that the Law comprehended a perfect righteousness. This ought to have been a most powerful restraint, and yet they desisted not from the presumptuous course so strongly prohibited. How do we act? We are certainly under the same obligation as they were; for there cannot be a doubt that the claim of absolute perfection which God made for his Law is perpetually in force. Not contented with it, however, we labour prodigiously in feigning and coining an endless variety of good works, one after another. The best cure for this vice would be a constant and deep-seated conviction that the Law was given from heaven to teach us a perfect righteousness; that the only righteousness so taught is that which the divine will expressly enjoins; and that it is, therefore, vain to attempt, by new forms of worship, to gain the favour of God, whose true worship consists in obedience alone; or rather, that to go a wandering after good works which are not prescribed by the Law of God, is an intolerable violation of true and divine righteousness. Most truly does Augustine say in one place, that the obedience which is rendered to God is the parent and guardian; in another, that it is the source of all the virtues.

6.

After we shall have expounded the Divine Law, what has been previously said of its office and use will be understood more easily, and with greater benefit. But before we proceed to the consideration of each separate commandment, it will be proper to take a general survey of the whole. At the outset, it was proved that in the Law human life is instructed not merely in outward decency but in inward spiritual righteousness. Though none can deny this, yet very few duly attend to it, because they do not consider the Lawgiver, by whose character that of the Law must also be determined. Should a king issue an edict prohibiting murder, adultery, and theft, the penalty, I admit, will not be incurred by the man who has only felt a longing in his mind after these vices, but has not actually committed them. The reason is, that a human lawgiver does not extend his care beyond outward order, and, therefore, his injunctions are not violated without outward acts. But God, whose eye nothing escapes, and who regards not the outward appearance so much as purity of heart, under the prohibition of murder, adultery, and thefts includes wrath, hatred, lust, covetousness, and all other things of a similar nature. Being a spiritual Lawgiver, he speaks to the soul not less than the body. The murder which the soul commits is wrath and hatred; the theft, covetousness and avarice; and the adultery, lust. It may be alleged that human laws have respect to intentions and wishes, and not fortuitous events. I admit this but then these must manifest themselves externally. They consider the animus with which the act was done, but do not scrutinise the secret thoughts. Accordingly, their demand is satisfied when the hand merely refrains from transgression. On the contrary, the law of heaven being enacted for our minds, the first thing necessary to a due observance of the Law is to put them under restraint. But the generality of men, even while they are most anxious to conceal their disregard of the Law, only frame their hands and feet and other parts of their body to some kind of observance, but in the meanwhile keep the heart utterly estranged from everything like obedience. They think it enough to have carefully concealed from man what they are doing in the sight of God. Hearing the commandments, “Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” “Thou shalt not steal,” they do not unsheathe their sword for slaughter, nor defile their bodies with harlots, nor put forth their hands to other men’s goods. So far well; but with their whole soul they breathe out slaughter, boil with lust, cast a greedy eye at their neighbour’s property, and in wish devour it. Here the principal thing which the Law requires is wanting. Whence then, this gross stupidity, but just because they lose sight of the Lawgiver, and form an idea of righteousness in accordance with their own disposition? Against this Paul strenuously protests, when he declares that the “law is spiritual”, (Rom. 7: 14;) intimating that it not only demands the homage of the soul, and mind, and will, but requires an angelic purity, which, purified from all filthiness of the flesh, savours only of the Spirit.

7.

In saying that this is the meaning of the Law, we are not introducing a new interpretation of our own; we are following Christ, the best interpreter of the Law, (Matth. 5: 22, 28, 44.) The Pharisees having instilled into the people the erroneous idea that the Law was fulfilled by every one who did not in external act do anything against the Law, he pronounces this a most dangerous delusion, and declares that an immodest look is adultery, and that hatred of a brother is murder. “Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgement;” whosoever by whispering or murmuring gives indication of being offended, “shall be in danger of the council;” whosoever by reproaches and evil-speaking gives way to open anger, “shall be in danger of hell-fire.” Those who have not perceived this, have pretended that Christ was only a second Moses, the giver of an evangelical, to supply the deficiency of the Mosaic Law. Hence the common axiom as to the perfection of the Evangelical Law, and its great superiority to that of Moses. This idea is in many ways most pernicious. For it will appear from Moses himself, when we come to give a summary of his precepts, that great indignity is thus done to the Divine Law. It certainly insinuates, that the holiness of the fathers under the Law was little else than hypocrisy, and leads us away from that one unvarying rule of righteousness. It is very easy, however, to confute this error, which proceeds on the supposition that Christ added to the Law, whereas he only restored it to its integrity by maintaining and purifying it when obscured by the falsehood, and defiled by the leaven of the Pharisees.

8.

The next observation we would make is, that there is always more in the requirements and prohibitions of the Law than is expressed in words. This, however, must be understood so as not to convert it into a kind of Lesbian code; and thus, by licentiously wresting the Scriptures, make them assume any meaning that we please. By taking this excessive liberty with Scripture, its authority is lowered with some, and all hope of understanding it abandoned by others. We must, therefore, if possible, discover some path which may conduct us with direct and firm step to the will of God. We must consider, I say, how far interpretation can be permitted to go beyond the literal meaning of the words, still making it apparent that no appending of human glosses is added to the Divine Law, but that the pure and genuine meaning of the Lawgiver is faithfully exhibited. It is true that, in almost all the commandments, there are elliptical expressions, and that, therefore, any man would make himself ridiculous by attempting to restrict the spirit of the Law to the strict letter of the words. It is plain that a sober interpretation of the Law must go beyond these, but how far is doubtful, unless some rule be adopted. The best rule, in my opinion, would be, to be guided by the principle of the commandment, viz., to consider in the case of each what the purpose is for which it was given. For example, every commandment either requires or prohibits; and the nature of each is instantly discerned when we look to the principle of the commandment as its end. Thus, the end of the Fifth Commandment is to render honour to those on whom God bestows it. The sum of the commandment, therefore, is, that it is right in itself, and pleasing to God, to honour those on whom he has conferred some distinction; that to despise and rebel against such persons is offensive to Him. The principle of the First Commandment is, that God only is to be worshipped. The sum of the commandment, therefore is that true piety, in other words, the worship of the Deity, is acceptable, and impiety is an abomination, to him. So in each of the commandments we must first look to the matter of which it treats, and then consider its end, until we discover what it properly is that the Lawgiver declares to be pleasing or displeasing to him. Only, we must reason from the precept to its contrary in this way: If this pleases God, its opposite displeases; if that displeases, its opposite pleases: if God commands this, he forbids the opposite; if he forbids that, he commands the opposite.

9.

What is now touched on somewhat obscurely will become perfectly clear as we proceed and get accustomed to the exposition of the Commandments. It is sufficient thus to have adverted to the subject; but perhaps our concluding statement will require to be briefly confirmed, as it might otherwise not be understood, or, though understood mighty perhaps, at the outset appear unsound. There is no need of proving, that when good is ordered the evil which is opposed to it is forbidden. This every one admits. It will also be admitted, without much difficulty, that when evil is forbidden, its opposite is enjoined. Indeed, it is a common saying, that censure of vice is commendation of virtue. We, however, demand somewhat more than is commonly understood by these expressions. When the particular virtue opposed to a particular vice is spoken of, all that is usually meant is abstinence from that vice. We maintain that it goes farther, and means opposite duties and positive acts. Hence the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” the generality of men will merely consider as an injunction to abstain from all injury and all wish to inflict injury. I hold that it moreover means, that we are to aid our neighbour’s life by every means in our power. And not to assert without giving my reasons I prove it thus: God forbids us to injure or hurt a brother, because he would have his life to be dear and precious to us; and, therefore, when he so forbids, he, at the same time, demands all the offices of charity which can contribute to his preservation.

10.

But why did God thus deliver his commandments, as it were, by halves, using elliptical expressions with a larger meaning than that actually expressed? Other reasons are given, but the following seems to me the best:—As the flesh is always on the alert to extenuate the heinousness of sin, (unless it is made, as it were, perceptible to the touch,) and to cover it with specious pretexts, the Lord sets forth, by way of example, whatever is foulest and most iniquitous in each species of transgression, that the delivery of it might produce a shudder in the hearer, and impress his mind with a deeper abhorrence of sin. In forming an estimate of sins, we are often imposed upon by imagining that the more hidden the less heinous they are. This delusion the Lord dispels by accustoming us to refer the whole multitude of sins to particular heads, which admirably show how great a degree of heinousness there is in each. For example, wrath and hatred do not seem so very bad when they are designated by their own names; but when they are prohibited under the name of murder, we understand better how abominable they are in the sight of God, who puts them in the same class with that horrid crime. Influenced by his judgement, we accustom ourselves to judge more accurately of the heinousness of offences which previously seemed trivial.

11.

It will now be proper to consider what is meant by the division of the divine Law into Two Tables. It will be judged by all men of sense from the formal manner in which these are sometimes mentioned, that it has not been done at random, or without reason. Indeed, the reason is so obvious as not to allow us to remain in doubt with regard to it. God thus divided his Law into two parts, containing a complete rule of righteousness, that he might assign the first place to the duties of religion which relate especially to His worship, and the second to the duties of charity which have respect to man. The first foundation of righteousness undoubtedly is the worship of God. When it is subverted, all the other parts of righteousness, like a building rent asunder, and in ruins, are racked and scattered. What kind of righteousness do you call it, not to commit theft and rapine, if you, in the meantime, with impious sacrilege, rob God of his glory? or not to defile your body with fornication, if you profane his holy name with blasphemy? or not to take away the life of man, if you strive to cut off and destroy the remembrance of God? It is vain, therefore, to talk of righteousness apart from religion. Such righteousness has no more beauty than the trunk of a body deprived of its head. Nor is religion the principal part merely: it is the very soul by which the whole lives and breathes. Without the fear of God, men do not even observe justice and charity among themselves. We say, then, that the worship of God is the beginning and foundation of righteousness; and that wherever it is wanting, any degree of equity, or continence, or temperance, existing among men themselves, is empty and frivolous in the sight of God. We call it the source and soul of righteousness, in as much as men learn to live together temperately, and without injury, when they revere God as the judge of right and wrong. In the First Table, accordingly, he teaches us how to cultivate piety, and the proper duties of religion in which his worship consists; in the second, he shows how, in the fear of his name, we are to conduct ourselves towards our fellow-men. Hence, as related by the Evangelists, (Matth. 22: 37; Luke 10: 27,) our Saviour summed up the whole Law in two heads, viz., to love the Lord with all our heart, with all our soul, and with all our strength, and our neighbour as ourselves. You see how, of the two parts under which he comprehends the whole Law, he devotes the one to God, and assigns the other to mankind.

12.

But although the whole Law is contained in two heads, yet, in order to remove every pretext for excuse, the Lord has been pleased to deliver more fully and explicitly in Ten Commandments, every thing relating to his own honour, fear, and love, as well as every thing relating to the charity which, for his sake, he enjoins us to have towards our fellowmen. Nor is it an unprofitable study to consider the division of the commandments, provided we remember that it is one of those matters in which every man should have full freedom of judgement, and on account of which, difference of opinion should not lead to contention. We are, indeed, under the necessity of making this observation, lest the division which we are to adopt should excite the surprise or derision of the reader, as novel or of recent invention. There is no room for controversy as to the fact, that the Law is divided into ten heads since this is repeatedly sanctioned by divine authority. The question, therefore, is not as to the number of the parts, but the method of dividing them. Those who adopt a division which gives three commandments to the First Table, and throws the remaining seven into the Second Table, expunge the commandment concerning images from the list, or at least conceal it under the first, though there cannot be a doubt that it was distinctly set down by the Lord as a separate commandment; whereas the tenth, which prohibits the coveting of what belongs to our neighbour, they absurdly break down into two. Moreover, it will soon appear, that this method of dividing was unknown in a purer age. Others count four commandments in the First Table as we do, but for the first set down the introductory promise, without adding the precept. But because I must hold, unless I am convinced by clear evidence to the contrary, that the “ten words” mentioned by Moses are Ten Commandments and because I see that number arranged in most admirable order, I must, while I leave them to hold their own opinion, follow what appears to me better established, viz., that what they make to be the first commandment is of the nature of a preface to the whole Law, that thereafter follow four commandments in the First Table, and six in the Second, in the order in which they will here be reviewed. This division Origin adopts without discussion, as if it had been every where received in his day. It is also adopted by Augustine, in his book addressed to Boniface, where, in enumerating the commandments, he follows this order, Let one God be religiously obeyed, let no idol be worshipped, let the name of God be not used in vain; while previously he had made separate mention of the typical commandment of the Sabbath. Elsewhere, indeed, he expresses approbation of the first division, but on too slight grounds, because, by the number three, (making the First Table consist of three commandments,) the mystery of the Trinity would be better manifested. Even here, however, he does not disguise his opinion, that in other respects, our division is more to his mind. Besides these, we are supported by the author of an unfinished work on Matthew. Josephus, no doubt with the general consent of his age, assigns five commandments to each table. This, while repugnant to reason, inasmuch as it confounds the distinction between piety and charity, is also refuted by the authority of our Saviour, who in Matthew places the command to honour parents in the list of those belonging to the Second Table, (Matth. 19: 19.) Let us now hear God speaking in his own words.

First commandment.

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

13.

Whether you take the former sentence as a part of the commandment, or read it separately is to me a matter of indifference, provided you grant that it is a kind of preface to the whole Law. In enacting laws, the first thing to be guarded against is their being forthwith abrogated by contempt. The Lord, therefore, takes care, in the first place, that this shall not happen to the Law about to be delivered, by introducing it with a triple sanction. He claims to himself power and authority to command, that he may impress the chosen people with the necessity of obedience; he holds forth a promise of favour, as a means of alluring them to the study of holiness; and he reminds them of his kindness, that he may convict them of ingratitude, if they fail to make a suitable return. By the name, Lord, are denoted power and lawful dominion. If all things are from him, and by him consist, they ought in justice to bear reference to him, as Paul says, (Rom. 11: 36.) This name, therefore, is in itself sufficient to bring us under the authority of the divine majesty: for it were monstrous for us to wish to withdraw from the dominion of him, out of whom we cannot even exist.

14.

After showing that he has a right to command, and to be obeyed, he next, in order not to seem to drag men by mere necessity, but to allure them, graciously declares, that he is the God of the Church. For the mode of expression implies, that there is a mutual relation included in the promise, “I will be their God, and they shall be my people,” (Jer. 31: 33.) Hence Christ infers the immortality of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, from the fact that God had declared himself to be their God, (Matth. 22: 52.) It is, therefore, the same as if he had said, I have chosen you to myself, as a people to whom I shall not only do good in the present life, but also bestow felicity in the life to come. The end contemplated in this is adverted to in the Law, in various passages. For when the Lord condescends in mercy to honour us so far as to admit us to partnership with his chosen people, he chooses us, as Moses says, “to be a holy people,” “a peculiar people unto himself,” to “keep all his commandments,” (Deut. 7: 6; 14: 2; 26: 18.) Hence the exhortation, “Ye shall be holy; for I the Lord your God am holy,” (Lev. 19: 2.) These two considerations form the ground of the remonstrance, “A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master; if then I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear? saith the Lord of hosts,” (Mal. 1: 6.)

15.

Next follows a commemoration of his kindness, which ought to produce upon us an impression strong in proportion to the detestation in which ingratitude is held even among men. It is true, indeed, he was reminding Israel of a deliverance then recent, but one which, on account of its wondrous magnitude, was to be for ever memorable to the remotest posterity. Moreover, it is most appropriate to the matter in hand. For the Lord intimates that they were delivered from miserable bondage, that they might learn to yield prompt submission and obedience to him as the author of their freedom. In like manners to keep us to his true worship, he often describes himself by certain epithets which distinguish his sacred Deity from all idols and fictitious gods. For, as I formerly observed, such is our proneness to vanity and presumption, that as soon as God is named, our minds, unable to guard against error, immediately fly off to some empty delusion. In applying a remedy to this disease, God distinguishes his divinity by certain titles, and thus confines us, as it were, within distinct boundaries, that we may not wander hither and thither, and feign some new deity for ourselves, abandoning the living God, and setting up an idol. For this reason, whenever the Prophets would bring him properly before us, they invest, and, as it were, surround him with those characters under which he had manifested himself to the people of Israel. When he is called the God of Abraham, or the God of Israel, when he is stationed in the temple of Jerusalem, between the Cherubim, these, and similar modes of expression, do not confine him to one place or one people, but are used merely for the purpose of fixing our thoughts on that God who so manifested himself in the covenant which he made with Israel, as to make it unlawful on any account to deviate from the strict view there given of his character. Let it be understood, then, that mention is made of deliverance, in order to make the Jews submit with greater readiness to that God who justly claims them as his own. We again, instead of supposing that the matter has no reference to us, should reflect that the bondage of Israel in Egypt was a type of that spiritual bondage, in the fetters of which we are all bound, until the heavenly avenger delivers us by the power of his own arm, and transports us into his free kingdom. Therefore, as in old times, when he would gather together the scattered Israelites to the worship of his name, he rescued them from the intolerable tyranny of Pharaoh, so all who profess him now are delivered from the fatal tyranny of the devil, of which that of Egypt was only a type. There is no man, therefore, whose mind ought not to be aroused to give heed to the Law, which, as he is told, proceeded from the supreme King, from him who, as he gave all their being, justly destines and directs them to himself as their proper end. There is no man, I say, who should not hasten to embrace the Lawgiver, whose commands, he knows, he has been specially appointed to obey, from whose kindness he anticipates an abundance of all good, and even a blessed immortality, and to whose wondrous power and mercy he is indebted for deliverance from the jaws of death.

16.

The authority of the Law being founded and established, God delivers his First Commandment—

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

The purport of this commandment is, that the Lord will have himself alone to be exalted in his people, and claims the entire possession of them as his own. That it may be so, he orders us to abstain from ungodliness and superstition of every kind, by which the glory of his divinity is diminished or obscured; and, for the same reason, he requires us to worship and adore him with truly pious zeal. The simple terms used obviously amount to this. For seeing we cannot have God without embracing everything which belongs to him, the prohibition against having strange gods means, that nothing which belongs to him is to be transferred to any other. The duties which we owe to God are innumerable, but they seem to admit of being not improperly reduced to four heads: Adoration, with its accessory spiritual submission of conscience, Trust, Invocation, Thanksgiving. By Adoration, I mean the veneration and worship which we render to him when we do homage to his majesty; and hence I make part of it to consist in bringing our consciences into subjection to his Law. Trust, is secure resting in him under a recognition of his perfections, when, ascribing to him all power, wisdom, justice, goodness, and truth, we consider ourselves happy in having been brought into intercourse with him. Invocation, may be defined the retaking of ourselves to his promised aid as the only resource in every case of need. Thanksgiving, is the gratitude which ascribes to him the praise of all our blessings. As the Lord does not allow these to be derived from any other quarter, so he demands that they shall be referred entirely to himself. It is not enough to refrain from other gods. We must, at the same time, devote ourselves wholly to him, not acting like certain impious despisers, who regard it as the shortest method, to hold all religious observance in derision. But here precedence must be given to true religion, which will direct our minds to the living God. When duly imbued with the knowledge of him, the whole aim of our lives will be to revere, fear, and worship his majesty, to enjoy a share in his blessings, to have recourse to him in every difficulty, to acknowledge, laud, and celebrate the magnificence of his works, to make him, as it were, the sole aim of all our actions. Next, we must beware of superstition, by which our minds are turned aside from the true God, and carried to and fro after a multiplicity of gods. Therefore, if we are contented with one God, let us call to mind what was formerly observed, that all fictitious gods are to be driven far away, and that the worship which he claims for himself is not to be mutilated. Not a particle of his glory is to be withheld: everything belonging to him must be reserved to him entire. The words, “before me,” go to increase the indignity, God being provoked to jealousy whenever we substitute our fictions in his stead; just as an unfaithful wife stings her husband’s heart more deeply when her adultery is committed openly before his eyes. Therefore, God having by his present power and grace declared that he had respect to the people whom he had chosen, now, in order to deter them from the wickedness of revolt, warns them that they cannot adopt strange gods without his being witness and spectator of the sacrilege. To the audacity of so doing is added the very great impiety of supposing that they can mock the eye of God with their evasions. Far from this the Lord proclaims that everything which we design, plan, or execute, lies open to his sight. Our conscience must, therefore, keep aloof from the most distant thought of revolt, if we would have our worship approved by the Lord. The glory of his Godhead must be maintained entire and incorrupt, not merely by external profession, but as under his eye, which penetrates the inmost recesses of his heart.

Second commandment

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

17.

As in the first commandment the Lord declares that he is one, and that besides him no gods must be either worshipped or imagined, so he here more plainly declares what his nature is, and what the kind of worship with which he is to be honoured, in order that we may not presume to form any carnal idea of him. The purport of the commandment, therefore, is, that he will not have his legitimate worship profaned by superstitious rites. Wherefore, in general, he calls us entirely away from the carnal frivolous observances which our stupid minds are wont to devise after forming some gross idea of the divine nature, while, at the same time, he instructs us in the worship which is legitimate, namely, spiritual worship of his own appointment. The grossest vice here prohibited is external idolatry. This commandment consists of two parts. The former curbs the licentious daring which would subject the incomprehensible God to our senses, or represent him under any visible shape. The latter forbids the worship of images on any religious ground. There is, moreover, a brief enumeration of all the forms by which the Deity was usually represented by heathen and superstitious nations. By “any thing which is in heaven above” is meant the sun, the moon, and the stars, perhaps also birds, as in Deuteronomy, where the meaning is explained, there is mention of birds as well as stars, (Deut. 4: 15.) I would not have made this observation, had I not seen that some absurdly apply it to the angels. The other particulars I pass, as requiring no explanation. We have already shown clearly enough (Book 1. chap. 11, 12) that every visible shape of Deity which man devises is diametrically opposed to the divine nature; and, therefore, that the moment idols appear, true religion is corrupted and adulterated.

18.

The threatening subjoined ought to have no little effect in shaking off our lethargy. It is in the following terms:—

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

The meaning here is the same as if he had said, that our duty is to cleave to him alone. To induce us to this, he proclaims his authority which he will not permit to be impaired or despised with impunity. It is true, the word used is El, which means God; but as it is derived from a word meaning strength, I have had no hesitations in order to express the sense more fully, so to render it as inserted on the margin. Secondly, he calls himself jealous, because he cannot bear a partner. Thirdly, he declares that he will vindicate his majesty and glory, if any transfer it either to the creatures or to graven images; and that not by a simple punishment of brief duration, but one extending to the third and fourth generation of such as imitate the impiety of their progenitors. In like manner, he declares his constant mercy and kindness to the remote posterity of those who love him, and keep his Law. The Lord very frequently addresses us in the character of a husband; the union by which he connects us with himself, when he receives us into the bosom of the Church, having some resemblance to that of holy wedlock, because founded on mutual faith. As he performs all the offices of a true and faithful husband, so he stipulates for love and conjugal chastity from us; that is, that we do not prostitute our souls to Satan, to be defiled with foul carnal lusts. Hence, when he rebukes the Jews for their apostasy, he complains that they have cast off chastity, and polluted themselves with adultery. Therefore, as the purer and chaster the husband is, the more grievously is he offended when he sees his wife inclining to a rival; so the Lord, who has betrothed us to himself in truth, declares that he burns with the hottest jealousy whenever, neglecting the purity of his holy marriage, we defile ourselves with abominable lusts, and especially when the worship of his Deity, which ought to have been most carefully kept unimpaired, is transferred to another, or adulterated with some superstition; since, in this way, we not only violate our plighted troth, but defile the nuptial couch, by giving access to adulterers.

19.

In the threatening we must attend to what is meant when God declares that he will visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation. It seems inconsistent with the equity of the divine procedure to punish the innocent for another’s fault; and the Lord himself declares, that “the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father,” (Ezek. 18: 20.) But still we meet more than once with a declaration as to the postponing of the punishment of the sins of fathers to future generations. Thus Moses repeatedly addresses the Lord as “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation,” (Num. 14: 18.) In like manner, Jeremiah, “Thou showest loving-kindness unto thousands, and recompenses the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them,” (Jer. 32: 18.) Some feeling sadly perplexed how to solve this difficulty, think it is to be understood of temporal punishments only, which it is said sons may properly bear for the sins of their parents, because they are often inflicted for their own safety. This is indeed true; for Isaiah declared to Hezekiah, that his children should be stript of the kingdom, and carried away into captivity, for a sin which he had committed, (Isa. 39: 7;) and the households of Pharaoh and Abimelech were made to suffer for an injury done to Abraham, (Gen. 12: 17; 20: 3-18.) But the attempt to solve the question in this way is an evasion rather than a true interpretation. For the punishment denounced here and in similar passages is too great to be confined within the limits of the present life. We must therefore understand it to mean, that a curse from the Lord righteously falls not only on the head of the guilty individual, but also on all his lineage. When it has fallen, what can be anticipated but that the father, being deprived of the Spirit of God, will live most flagitiously; that the son, being in like manner forsaken of the Lord, because of his father’s iniquity, will follow the same road to destruction; and be followed in his turn by succeeding generations, forming a seed of evil-doers?

20.

First, let us examine whether such punishment is inconsistent with the divine justice. If human nature is universally condemned, those on whom the Lord does not bestow the communication of his grace must be doomed to destruction; nevertheless, they perish by their own iniquity, not by unjust hatred on the part of God. There is no room to expostulate, and ask why the grace of God does not forward their salvation as it does that of others. Therefore, when God punishes the wicked and flagitious for their crimes, by depriving their families of his grace for many generations, who will dare to bring a charge against him for this most righteous vengeance? But it will be said, the Lord, on the contrary, declares, that the son shall not suffer for the father’s sin, (Ezek. 18: 20.) Observe the scope of that passage. The Israelites, after being subjected to a long period of uninterrupted calamities, had begun to say, as a proverb, that their fathers had eaten the sour grape, and thus set the children’s teeth on edge; meaning that they, though in themselves righteous and innocent, were paying the penalty of sins committed by their parents, and this more from the implacable anger than the duly tempered severity of God. The prophet declares it was not so: that they were punished for their own wickedness; that it was not in accordance with the justice of God that a righteous son should suffer for the iniquity of a wicked father; and that nothing of the kind was exemplified in what they suffered. For, if the visitation of which we now speak is accomplished when God withdraws from the children of the wicked the light of his truth and the other helps to salvation, the only way in which they are accursed for their fathers’ wickedness is in being blinded and abandoned by God, and so left to walk in their parents’ steps. The misery which they suffer in time, and the destruction to which they are finally doomed, are thus punishments inflicted by divine justice, not for the sins of others, but for their own iniquity.

21.

On the other hand, there is a promise of mercy to thousands - a promise which is frequently mentioned in Scripture, and forms an article in the solemn covenant made with the Church—I will be “a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee,” (Gen. 17: 7.) With reference to this, Solomon says, “The just man walketh in his integrity: his children are blessed after him,” (Prov. 20: 7;) not only in consequence of a religious education, (though this certainly is by no means unimportant,) but in consequence of the blessing promised in the covenant, viz., that the divine favour will dwell for ever in the families of the righteous. Herein is excellent consolation to believers, and great ground of terror to the wicked; for if, after death, the mere remembrance of righteousness and iniquity have such an influence on the divine procedure, that his blessing rests on the posterity of the righteous, and his curse on the posterity of the wicked, much more must it rest on the heads of the individuals themselves. Notwithstanding of this, however, the offspring of the wicked sometimes amends, while that of believers degenerates; because the Almighty has not here laid down an inflexible rule which might derogate from his free election. For the consolation of the righteous, and the dismay of the sinner, it is enough that the threatening itself is not vain or nugatory, although it does not always take effect. For, as the temporal punishments inflicted on a few of the wicked are proofs of the divine wrath against sin, and of the future judgement that will ultimately overtake all sinners, though many escape with impunity even to the end of their lives, so, when the Lord gives one example of blessing a son for his father’s sake, by visiting him in mercy and kindness, it is a proof of constant and unfailing favour to his worshipers. On the other hand, when, in any single instance, he visits the iniquity of the father on the son, he gives intimation of the judgement which awaits all the reprobate for their own iniquities. The certainty of this is the principal thing here taught. Moreover, the Lord, as it were by the way, commends the riches of his mercy by extending it to thousands, while he limits his vengeance to four generations.

Third commandment.

Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain.

22.

The purport of this Commandment is, that the majesty of the name of God is to be held sacred. In sum, therefore, it means, that we must not profane it by using it irreverently or contemptuously. This prohibition implies a corresponding precept, viz. that it be our study and care to treat his name with religious veneration. Wherefore it becomes us to regulate our minds and our tongues, so as never to think or speak of God and his mysteries without reverence and great soberness, and never, in estimating his works, to have any feeling towards him but one of deep veneration. We must, I say, steadily observe the three following things:—First, Whatever our mind conceives of him, whatever our tongue utters, must bespeak his excellence, and correspond to the sublimity of his sacred name; in short, must be fitted to extol its greatness. secondly, We must not rashly and preposterously pervert his sacred word and adorable mysteries to purposes of ambition, or avarice, or amusement, but, according as they bear the impress of his dignity, must always maintain them in due honour and esteem. Lastly, We must not detract from or throw obloquy upon his works, as miserable men are wont insultingly to do, but must laud every action which we attribute to him as wise, and just, and good. This is to sanctify the name of God. When we act otherwise, his name is profaned with vain and wicked abuse, because it is applied to a purpose foreign to that to which it is consecrated. Were there nothing worse, in being deprived of its dignity it is gradually brought into contempt. But if there is so much evil in the rash and unseasonable employment of the divine name, there is still more evil in its being employed for nefarious purposes, as is done by those who use it in necromancy, cursing, illicit exorcisms, and other impious incantations. But the Commandment refers especially to the case of oaths, in which a perverse employment of the divine name is particularly detestable; and this it does the more effectually to deter us from every species of profanation. That the thing here commanded relates to the worship of God, and the reverence due to his name, and not to the equity which men are to cultivate towards each other, is apparent from this, that afterwards, in the Second Table, there is a condemnation of the perjury and false testimony by which human society is injured, and that the repetition would be superfluous, if, in this Commandment, the duty of charity were handled. Moreover, this is necessary even for distinction, because, as was observed, God has, for good reason, divided his Law into two tables. The inference then is, that God here vindicates his own right, and defends his sacred name, but does not teach the duties which men owe to men.

23.

In the first place, we must consider what an oath is. An oath, then, is calling God to witness that what we say is true. Execrations being manifestly insulting to God, are unworthy of being classed among oaths. That an oath, when duly taken, is a species of divine worship, appears from many passages of Scripture, as when Isaiah prophesies of the admission of the Assyrians and Egyptians to a participation in the covenant, he says, “In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the Lord of hosts,” (Isaiah 19: 18.) Swearing by the name of the Lord here means, that they will make a profession of religion. In like manner, speaking of the extension of the Redeemer’s kingdom, it is said, “He who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth: and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth,” (Isaiah 65: 16.) In Jeremiah it is said, “If they will diligently learn the ways of my people, to swear by my name, The Lord liveth; as they taught my people to swear by Baal; then shall they be built in the midst of my people,” (Jer. 12: 16.) By appealing to the name of the Lord, and calling him to witness, we are justly said to declare our own religious veneration of him. For we thus acknowledge that he is eternal and unchangeable truth, inasmuch as we not only call upon him, in preference to others, as a fit witness to the truth, but as its only assertor, able to bring hidden things to light, a discerner of the hearts. When human testimony fails, we appeal to God as witness, especially when the matter to be proved lies hid in the conscience. For which reason, the Lord is grievously offended with those who swear by strange gods, and construes such swearing as a proof of open revolt, “Thy children have forsaken me, and sworn by them that are no gods,” (Jer. 5: 7.) The heinousness of the offence is declared by the punishment denounced against it, “I will cut off them that swear by the Lord, and that swear by Malcham,” (Zeph. 1: 4, 5.)

24.

Understanding that the Lord would have our oaths to be a species of divine worship, we must be the more careful that they do not, instead of worship, contain insult, or contempt, and vilification. It is no slight insult to swear by him and do it falsely: hence in the Law this is termed profanation, (Lev. 19: 12.) For if God is robbed of his truth, what is it that remains? Without truth he could not be God. But assuredly he is robbed of his truth, when he is made the approver and attester of what is false. Hence, when Joshua is endeavouring to make Achan confess the truth, he says, “My son, give, I pray thee, glory to the Lord God of Israel,” (Joshua 7: 19;) intimating, that grievous dishonour is done to God when men swear by him falsely. And no wonder; for, as far as in them lies, his sacred name is in a manner branded with falsehood. That this mode of expression was common among the Jews whenever any one was called upon to take an oath, is evident from a similar obtestation used by the Pharisees, as given in John, (John 9: 24;) Scripture reminds us of the caution which we ought to use by employing such expressions as the following:—"As the Lord liveth;” “God do so and more also;” “I call God for a record upon my soul.” Such expressions intimate, that we cannot call God to witness our statement, without imprecating his vengeance for perjury if it is false.

25.

The name of God is vulgarised and vilified when used in oaths, which, though true, are superfluous. This, too, is to take his name in vain. Wherefore, it is not sufficient to abstain from perjury, unless we, at the same time, remember that an oath is not appointed or allowed for passion or pleasure, but for necessity; and that, therefore, a licentious use is made of it by him who uses it on any other than necessary occasions. Moreover, no case of necessity can be pretended, unless where some purpose of religion or charity is to be served. In this matter, great sin is committed in the present day—sin the more intolerable in this, that its frequency has made it cease to be regarded as a fault, though it certainly is not accounted trivial before the judgement-seat of God. The name of God is everywhere profaned by introducing it indiscriminately in frivolous discourse; and the evil is disregarded, because it has been long and audaciously persisted in with impunity. The commandment of the Lord, however, stands; the penalty also stands, and will one day receive effect. Special vengeance will be executed on those who have taken the name of God in vain. Another form of violation is exhibited, when, with manifest impiety, we, in our oaths, substitute the holy servants of God for God himself, thus conferring upon them the glory of his Godhead. It is not without cause the Lord has, by a special commandment, required us to swear by his name, and, by a special prohibition, forbidden us to swear by other gods. The Apostle gives a clear attestation to the same effect, when he says, that “men verily swear by the greater;” but that “when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself;” (Heb. 6: l6, 13.)

26.

The Anabaptists, not content with this moderate use of oaths, condemn all, without exception, on the ground of our Saviour’s general prohibition, “I say unto you, Swear not at all:” “Let your speech be Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil,” (Matth. 5: 34; James 5: 12.) In this way, they inconsiderately make a stumbling-stone of Christ, setting him in opposition to the Father, as if he had descended into the world to annul his decrees. In the Law, the Almighty not only permits an oath as a thing that is lawful, (this were amply sufficient,) but, in a case of necessity, actually commands it, (Exod. 22: 11.) Christ again declares, that he and his Father are one; that he only delivers what was commanded of his Father; that his doctrine is not his own, but his that sent him, (John 10: 18, 30; 7: 16.) What then? Will they make God contradict himself, by approving and commanding at one time, what he afterwards prohibits and condemns? But as there is some difficulty in what our Saviour says on the subject of swearing, it may be proper to consider it a little. Here, however, we shall never arrive at the true meaning, unless we attend to the design of Christ, and the subject of which he is treating. His purpose was, neither to relax nor to curtail the Law, but to restore the true and genuine meaning, which had been greatly corrupted by the false glosses of the Scribes and Pharisees. If we attend to this we shall not suppose that Christ condemned all oaths but those only which transgressed the rule of the Law. It is evident, from the oaths themselves, that the people were accustomed to think it enough if they avoided perjury, whereas the Law prohibits not perjury merely, but also vain and superfluous oaths. Therefore our Lord, who is the best interpreter of the Law, reminds them that there is a sin not only in perjury, but in swearing. How in swearing? Namely, by swearing vainly. Those oaths, however, which are authorised by the Law, he leaves safe and free. Those who condemn oaths think their argument invincible when they fasten on the expression, “not at all”. The expression applies not to the word swear, but to the subjoined forms of oaths. For part of the error consisted in their supposing, that when they swore by the heaven and the earth, they did not touch the name of God. The Lord, therefore, after cutting off the principal source of prevarication, deprives them of all subterfuges, warning them against supposing that they escape guilt by suppressing the name of God, and appealing to heaven and earth. For it ought here to be observed in passing, that although the name of God is not expressed, yet men swear by him in using indirect forms, as when they swear by the light of life, by the bread they eat, by their baptism, or any other pledges of the divine liberality towards them. Some erroneously suppose that our Saviour, in that passage, rebukes superstition, by forbidding men to swear by heaven and earth, and Jerusalem. He rather refutes the sophistical subtilty of those who thought it nothing vainly to utter indirect oaths, imagining that they thus spared the holy name of God, whereas that name is inscribed on each of his mercies. The case is different, when any mortal living or dead, or an angel, is substituted in the place of God, as in the vile form devised by flattery in heathen nations, “By the life or genius of the king”; for, in this case, the false apotheosis obscures and impairs the glory of the one God. But when nothing else is intended than to confirm what is said by an appeal to the holy name of God, although it is done indirectly, yet his majesty is insulted by all frivolous oaths. Christ strips this abuse of every vain pretext when he says “Swear not at all”. To the same effect is the passage in which James uses the words of our Saviour above quoted, (James 5: 12.) For this rash swearing has always prevailed in the world, notwithstanding that it is a profanation of the name of God. If you refer the words, “not at all”, to the act itself, as if every oath, without exception, were unlawful, what will be the use of the explanation which immediately follows—Neither by heaven, neither by the earth, &c.? These words make it clear, that the object in view was to meet the cavils by which the Jews thought they could extenuate their fault.

27.

Every person of sound judgement must now see that in that passage our Lord merely condemned those oaths which were forbidden by the Law. For he who in his life exhibited a model of the perfection which he taught, did not object to oaths whenever the occasion required them; and the disciples, who doubtless in all things obeyed their Master, followed the same rule. Who will dare to say that Paul would have sworn (Rom. 1: 9; 2 Cor. 1: 23) if an oath had been altogether forbidden? But when the occasion calls for it, he adjures without any scruple, and sometimes even imprecates. The question, however, is not yet disposed of. For some think that the only oaths exempted from the prohibition are public oaths, such as those which are administered to us by the magistrate, or independent states employ in ratifying treaties, or the people take when they swear allegiance to their sovereign, or the soldier in the case of the military oath, and others of a similar description. To this class they refer (and justly) those protestations in the writings of Paul, which assert the dignity of the Gospel; since the Apostles, in discharging their office, were not private individuals, but the public servants of God. I certainly deny not that such oaths are the safest because they are most strongly supported by passages of Scripture. The magistrate is enjoined, in a doubtful matter, to put the witness upon oath; and he in his turn to answer upon oath; and an Apostle says, that in this way there is an end of all strife, (Heb. 6: 16.) In this commandment, both parties are fully approved. Nay, we may observe, that among the ancient heathens a public and solemn oath was held in great reverence, while those common oaths which were indiscriminately used were in little or no estimation, as if they thought that, in regard to them, the Deity did not interpose. Private oaths used soberly, sacredly, and reverently, on necessary occasions, it were perilous to condemn, supported as they are by reason and example. For if private individuals are permitted, in a grave and serious matter, to appeal to God as a judge, much more may they appeal to him as a witness. Your brother charges you with perfidy. You, as bound by the duties of charity, labour to clear yourself from the charge. He will on no account be satisfied. If, through his obstinate malice, your good name is brought into jeopardy, you can appeal, without offence, to the judgement of God, that he may in time manifest your innocence. If the terms are weighed, it will be found that it is a less matter to call upon him to be witness; and I therefore see not how it can be called unlawful to do so. And there is no want of examples. If it is pretended that the oath which Abraham and Isaac made with Abimelech was of a public nature, that by which Jacob and Laban bound themselves in mutual league was private. Boaz, though a private man, confirmed his promise of marriage to Ruth in the same way. Obadiah, too, a just man, and one that feared God, though a private individual, in seeking to persuade Elijah, asseverates with an oath. I hold, therefore, that there is no better rule than so to regulate our oaths that they shall neither be rash, frivolous, promiscuous, nor passionate, but be made to serve a just necessity; in other words, to vindicate the glory of God, or promote the edification of a brother. This is the end of the Commandment.

Fourth Commandment.

Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God. In it thou shalt not do any work, &c.

28.

The purport of the commandment is, that being dead to our own affections and works, we meditate on the kingdom of God, and in order to such meditation, have recourse to the means which he has appointed. But as this commandment stands in peculiar circumstances apart from the others, the mode of exposition must be somewhat different. Early Christian writers are wont to call it typical, as containing the external observance of a day which was abolished with the other types on the advent of Christ. This is indeed true; but it leaves the half of the matter untouched. Wherefore, we must look deeper for our exposition, and attend to three cases in which it appears to me that the observance of this commandment consists. First, under the rest of the seventh days the divine Lawgiver meant to furnish the people of Israel with a type of the spiritual rest by which believers were to cease from their own works, and allow God to work in them. Secondly he meant that there should be a stated day on which they should assemble to hear the Law, and perform religious rites, or which, at least, they should specially employ in meditating on his works, and be thereby trained to piety. Thirdly, he meant that servants, and those who lived under the authority of others, should be indulged with a day of rest, and thus have some intermission from labour.

29.

We are taught in many passages that this adumbration of spiritual rest held a primary place in the Sabbath. Indeed, there is no commandment the observance of which the Almighty more strictly enforces. When he would intimate by the Prophets that religion was entirely subverted, he complains that his sabbaths were polluted, violated, not kept, not hallowed; as if, after it was neglected, there remained nothing in which he could be honoured. The observance of it he eulogises in the highest terms, and hence, among other divine privileges, the faithful set an extraordinary value on the revelation of the Sabbath. In Nehemiah, the Levites, in the public assembly, thus speak: “Thou madest known unto them thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant.” You see the singular honour which it holds among all the precepts of the Law. All this tends to celebrate the dignity of the mystery, which is most admirably expressed by Moses and Ezekiel. Thus in Exodus: “Verily my sabbaths shall ye keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that does sanctify you. Ye shall keep my sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever does any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever does any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever,” (Exodus 31: 13-17.) Ezekiel is still more full, but the sum of what he says amounts to this: that the sabbath is a sign by which Israel might know that God is their sanctifier. If our sanctification consists in the mortification of our own will, the analogy between the external sign and the thing signified is most appropriate. We must rest entirely, in order that God may work in us; we must resign our own will, yield up our heart, and abandon all the lusts of the flesh. In short, we must desist from all the acts of our own mind, that God working in us, we may rest in him, as the Apostle also teaches, (Heb. 3: 13; 4: 3, 9.)

30.

This complete cessation was represented to the Jews by the observance of one day in seven, which, that it might be more religiously attended to, the Lord recommended by his own example. For it is no small incitement to the zeal of man to know that he is engaged in imitating his Creator. Should any one expect some secret meaning in the number seven, this being in Scripture the number for perfection, it may have been selected, not without cause, to denote perpetuity. In accordance with this, Moses concludes his description of the succession of day and night on the same day on which he relates that the Lord rested from his works. Another probable reason for the number may be, that the Lord intended that the Sabbath never should be completed before the arrival of the last day. We here begin our blessed rest in him, and daily make new progress in it; but because we must still wage an incessant warfare with the flesh, it shall not be consummated until the fulfilment of the prophecy of Isaiah: “From one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord,” (Isaiah 66: 23;) in other words, when God shall be “all in all,” (I Cor. 15: 28.) It may seem, therefore, that by the seventh day the Lord delineated to his people the future perfection of his sabbath on the last day, that by continual meditation on the sabbath, they might throughout their whole lives aspire to this perfection.

31.

Should these remarks on the number seem to any somewhat far-fetched, I have no objection to their taking it more simply: that the Lord appointed a certain day on which his people might be trained, under the tutelage of the Law, to meditate constantly on the spiritual rest, and fixed upon the seventh, either because he foresaw it would be sufficient, or in order that his own example might operate as a stronger stimulus; or, at least to remind men that the Sabbath was appointed for no other purpose than to render them conformable to their Creator. It is of little consequence which of these be adopted, provided we lose not sight of the principal thing delineated, viz., the mystery of perpetual resting from our works. To the contemplation of this, the Jews were every now and then called by the prophets, lest they should think a carnal cessation from labour sufficient. Beside the passages already quoted, there is the following: “If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord,” (Isaiah 58: 13, 14.) Still there can be no doubt, that, on the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ, the ceremonial part of the commandment was abolished. He is the truth, at whose presence all the emblems vanish; the body, at the sight of which the shadows disappear. He, I say, is the true completion of the sabbath: “We are buried with him by baptism unto death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we should walk in newness of life,” (Rom. 6: 4.) Hence, as the Apostle elsewhere says, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holiday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days; which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ,” (Col. 2: 16, 17;) meaning by body the whole essence of the truth, as is well explained in that passage. This is not contented with one day, but requires the whole course of our lives, until being completely dead to ourselves, we are filled with the life of God. Christians, therefore, should have nothing to do with a superstitious observance of days.

32.

The two other cases ought not to be classed with ancient shadows, but are adapted to every age. The sabbath being abrogated, there is still room among us, first, to assemble on stated days for the hearing of the Word, the breaking of the mystical bread, and public prayer; and, secondly, to give our servants and labourers relaxation from labour. It cannot be doubted that the Lord provided for both in the commandment of the Sabbath. The former is abundantly evinced by the mere practice of the Jews. The latter Moses has expressed in Deuteronomy in the following terms: “The seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant;—that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou,” (Deut. 5: 14.) Likewise in Exodus, “That thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed,” (Exod. 23: 12.) Who can deny that both are equally applicable to us as to the Jews? Religious meetings are enjoined us by the word of God; their necessity, experience itself sufficiently demonstrates. But unless these meetings are stated, and have fixed days allotted to them, how can they be held? We must, as the apostle expresses it, do all things decently and in orders (1 Cor. 14 40.) So impossible, however, would it be to preserve decency and order without this politic arrangements that the dissolution of it would instantly lead to the disturbance and ruin of the Church. But if the reason for which the Lord appointed a sabbath to the Jews is equally applicable to us, no man can assert that it is a matter with which we have nothing to do. Our most provident and indulgent Parent has been pleased to provide for our wants not less than for the wants of the Jews. Why, it may be asked, do we not hold daily meetings, and thus avoid the distinction of days? Would that we were privileged to do so! Spiritual wisdom undoubtedly deserves to have some portion of every day devoted to it. But if, owing to the weakness of many, daily meetings cannot be held, and charity will not allow us to exact more of them, why should we not adopt the rule which the will of God has obviously imposed upon us?

33.

I am obliged to dwell a little longer on this because some restless spirits are now making an outcry about the observance of the Lord’s day. They complain that Christian people are trained in Judaism, because some observance of days is retained. My reply is, That those days are observed by us without Judaism, because in this matter we differ widely from the Jews. We do not celebrate it with most minute formality, as a ceremony by which we imagine that a spiritual mystery is typified, but we adopt it as a necessary remedy for preserving order in the Church. Paul informs us that Christians are not to be judged in respect of its observance, because it is a shadow of something to come, (Col. 2: 16;) and, accordingly, he expresses a fear lest his labour among the Galatians should prove in vain, because they still observed days (Gal. 4: 10, 11.) And he tells the Romans that it is superstitious to make one day differ from another (Rom. 14: 5.) But who, except those restless men, does not see what the observance is to which the Apostle refers? Those persons had no regard to that politic and ecclesiastical arrangement, but by retaining the days as types of spiritual things, they in so far obscured the glory of Christ, and the light of the Gospel. They did not desist from manual labour on the ground of its interfering with sacred study and meditation, but as a kind of religious observance; because they dreamed that by their cessation from labour, they were cultivating the mysteries which had of old been committed to them. It was, I say, against this preposterous observance of days that the Apostle inveighs, and not against that legitimate selection which is subservient to the peace of Christian society. For in the churches established by him, this was the use for which the Sabbath was retained. He tells the Corinthians to set the first day apart for collecting contributions for the relief of their brethren at Jerusalem, (1 Cor. 16: 2.) If superstition is dreaded, there was more danger in keeping the Jewish sabbath than the Lord’s day as Christians now do. It being expedient to overthrow superstition, the Jewish holy day was abolished; and as a thing necessary to retain decency, orders and peace, in the Church, another day was appointed for that purpose.

34.

It was not, however, without a reason that the early Christians substituted what we call the Lord’s day for the Sabbath. The resurrection of our Lord being the end and accomplishment of that true rest which the ancient sabbath typified, this day, by which types were abolished serves to warn Christians against adhering to a shadowy ceremony. I do not cling so to the number seven as to bring the Church under bondage to it, nor do I condemn churches for holding their meetings on other solemn days, provided they guard against superstition. This they will do if they employ those days merely for the observance of discipline and regular order. The whole may be thus summed up: As the truth was delivered typically to the Jews, so it is imparted to us without figure; first, that during our whole lives we may aim at a constant rest from our own works, in order that the Lord may work in us by his Spirit; secondly that every individual, as he has opportunity, may diligently exercise himself in private, in pious meditation on the works of God, and, at the same time, that all may observe the legitimate order appointed by the Church, for the hearing of the word, the administration of the sacraments, and public prayer: And, thirdly, that we may avoid oppressing those who are subject to us. In this way, we get quit of the trifling of the false prophets, who in later times instilled Jewish ideas into the people, alleging that nothing was abrogated but what was ceremonial in the commandment, (this they term in their language the taxation of the seventh day,) while the moral part remains, viz., the observance of one day in seven. But this is nothing else than to insult the Jews, by changing the day, and yet mentally attributing to it the same sanctity; thus retaining the same typical distinction of days as had place among the Jews. And of a truth, we see what profit they have made by such a doctrine. Those who cling to their constitutions go thrice as far as the Jews in the gross and carnal superstition of sabbatism; so that the rebukes which we read in Isaiah (Isa. 1: l3; 58: 13) apply as much to those of the present day, as to those to whom the Prophet addressed them. We must be careful, however, to observe the general doctrine, viz., in order that religion may neither be lost nor languish among us, we must diligently attend on our religious assemblies, and duly avail ourselves of those external aids which tend to promote the worship of God.

Fifth Commandment.

Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

35.

The end of this commandment is, that since the Lord takes pleasure in the preservation of his own ordinance, the degrees of dignity appointed by him must be held inviolable. The sum of the commandment, therefore, will be, that we are to look up to those whom the Lord has set over us, yielding them honour, gratitude, and obedience. Hence it follows, that every thing in the way of contempt, ingratitude, or disobedience, is forbidden. For the term honour has this extent of meaning in Scripture. Thus when the Apostle says, “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour,” (1 Tim. 5: 17,) he refers not only to the reverence which is due to them, but to the recompense to which their services are entitled. But as this command to submit is very repugnant to the perversity of the human mind, (which, puffed up with ambitious longings will scarcely allow itself to be subject,) that superiority which is most attractive and least invidious is set forth as an example calculated to soften and bend our minds to habits of submission. From that subjection which is most easily endured, the Lord gradually accustoms us to every kind of legitimate subjection, the same principle regulating all. For to those whom he raises to eminences he communicates his authority, in so far as necessary to maintain their station. The titles of Father, God, and Lord, all meet in him alone and hence whenever any one of them is mentioned, our mind should be impressed with the same feeling of reverence. Those, therefore, to whom he imparts such titles, he distinguishes by some small spark of his refulgence, so as to entitle them to honour, each in his own place. In this way, we must consider that our earthly father possesses something of a divine nature in him, because there is some reason for his bearing a divine title, and that he who is our prince and ruler is admitted to some communion of honour with God.

36.

Wherefore, we ought to have no doubt that the Lord here lays down this universal rule, viz., that knowing how every individual is set over us by his appointment, we should pay him reverence, gratitude, obedience, and every duty in our power. And it makes no difference whether those on whom the honour is conferred are deserving or not. Be they what they may, the Almighty, by conferring their station upon them, shows that he would have them honoured. The commandment specifies the reverence due to those to whom we owe our being. This Nature herself should in some measure teach us. For they are monsters, and not men, who petulantly and contumeliously violate the paternal authority. Hence, the Lord orders all who rebel against their parents to be put to death, they being, as it where, unworthy of the light in paying no deference to those to whom they are indebted for beholding it. And it is evident, from the various appendices to the Law, that we were correct in stating, that the honour here referred to consists of three parts, reverence, obedience, and gratitude. The first of these the Lord enforces, when he commands that whose curseth his father or his mother shall be put to death. In this way he avenges insult and contempt. The second he enforces, when he denounces the punishment of death on disobedient and rebellious children. To the third belongs our Saviour’s declaration, that God requires us to do good to our parents, (Matth. 15.) And whenever Paul mentions this commandment, he interprets it as enjoining obedience.

37.

A promise is added by way of recommendation, the better to remind us how pleasing to God is the submission which is here required. Paul applies that stimulus to rouse us from our lethargy, when he calls this the first commandment with promise; the promise contained in the First Table not being specially appropriated to any one commandment, but extended to the whole law. Moreover, the sense in which the promise is to be taken is as follows:—The Lord spoke to the Israelites specially of the land which he had promised them for an inheritance. If, then, the possession of the land was an earnest of the divine favour, we cannot wonder if the Lord was pleased to testify his favour, by bestowing long life, as in this way they were able long to enjoy his kindness. The meaning therefore is: Honour thy father and thy mother, that thou may be able, during the course of a long life, to enjoy the possession of the land which is to be given thee in testimony of my favour. But, as the whole earth is blessed to believers, we justly class the present life among the number of divine blessings. Whence this promise has, in like manner, reference to us also, inasmuch as the duration of the present life is a proof of the divine benevolence toward us. It is not promised to us, nor was it promised to the Jews, as if in itself it constituted happiness, but because it is an ordinary symbol of the divine favour to the pious. Wherefore, if any one who is obedient to parents happens to be cut off before mature age, (a thing which not infrequently happens,) the Lord nevertheless adheres to his promise as steadily as when he bestows a hundred acres of land where he had promised only one. The whole lies in this: We must consider that long life is promised only in so far as it is a blessing from God, and that it is a blessing only in so far as it is a manifestation of divine favour. This, however, he testifies and truly manifests to his servants more richly and substantially by death.

38.

Moreover, while the Lord promises the blessing of present life to children who show proper respect to their parents, he, at the same time, intimates that an inevitable curse is impending over the rebellious and disobedient; and, that it may not fail of execution, he, in his Law, pronounces sentence of death upon theme and orders it to be inflicted. If they escape the judgement, he, in some way or other, will execute vengeance. For we see how great a number of this description of individuals fall either in battle or in brawls; others of them are overtaken by unwonted disasters, and almost all are a proof that the threatening is not used in vain. But if any do escape till extreme old age, yet, because deprived of the blessing of God in this life, they only languish on in wickedness, and are reserved for severer punishment in the world to come, they are far from participating in the blessing promised to obedient children. It ought to be observed by the way, that we are ordered to obey parents only in the Lord. This is clear from the principle already laid down: for the place which they occupy is one to which the Lord has exalted them, by communicating to them a portion of his own honour. Therefore the submission yielded to them should be a step in our ascent to the Supreme Parent, and hence, if they instigate us to transgress the law, they deserve not to be regarded as parents, but as strangers attempting to seduce us from obedience to our true Father. The same holds in the case of rulers, masters, and superiors of every description. For it were unbecoming and absurd that the honour of God should be impaired by their exaltation - an exaltation which, being derived from him, ought to lead us up to him.

Sixth commandment.

Thou shalt not kill.

39.

The purport of this commandment is that since the Lord has bound the whole human race by a kind of unity, the safety of all ought to be considered as entrusted to each. In general, therefore, all violence and injustice, and every kind of harm from which our neighbour’s body suffers, is prohibited. Accordingly, we are required faithfully to do what in us lies to defend the life of our neighbour; to promote whatever tends to his tranquillity, to be vigilant in warding off harm, and, when danger comes, to assist in removing it. Remembering that the Divine Lawgiver thus speaks, consider, moreover, that he requires you to apply the same rule in regulating your mind. It were ridiculous, that he, who sees the thoughts of the heart, and has special regard to them, should train the body only to rectitude. This commandment, therefore, prohibits the murder of the heart, and requires a sincere desire to preserve our brother’s life. The hand, indeed, commits the murder, but the mind, under the influence of wrath and hatred, conceives it. How can you be angry with your brother, without passionately longing to do him harm? If you must not be angry with him, neither must you hate him, hatred being nothing but inveterate anger. However you may disguise the fact, or endeavour to escape from it by vain pretexts. Where either wrath or hatred is, there is an inclination to do mischief. If you still persist in tergiversation, the mouth of the Spirit has declared, that “whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer,” (1 John 3: 15;) and the mouth of our Saviour has declared, that “whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgement: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire,” (Matth. 5: 22.)

40.

Scripture notes a twofold equity on which this commandment is founded. Man is both the image of God and our flesh. Wherefore, if we would not violate the image of God, we must hold the person of man sacred—if we would not divest ourselves of humanity we must cherish our own flesh. The practical inference to be drawn from the redemption and gift of Christ will be elsewhere considered. The Lord has been pleased to direct our attention to these two natural considerations as inducements to watch over our neighbour’s preservation, viz., to revere the divine image impressed upon him, and embrace our own flesh. To be clear of the crime of murder, it is not enough to refrain from shedding man’s blood. If in act you perpetrate, if in endeavour you plot, if in wish and design you conceive what is adverse to another’s safety, you have the guilt of murder. On the other hand, if you do not according to your means and opportunity study to defend his safety, by that inhumanity you violate the law. But if the safety of the body is so carefully provided for, we may hence infer how much care and exertion is due to the safety of the soul, which is of immeasurably higher value in the sight of God.

Seventh commandment.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

41.

The purport of this commandment is, that as God loves chastity and purity, we ought to guard against all uncleanness. The substance of the commandment therefore is, that we must not defile ourselves with any impurity or libidinous excess. To this corresponds the affirmative, that we must regulate every part of our conduct chastely and continently. The thing expressly forbidden is adultery, to which lust naturally tends, that its filthiness (being of a grosser and more palpable form, in as much as it casts a stain even on the body) may dispose us to abominate every form of lust. As the law under which man was created was not to lead a life of solitude, but enjoy a help meet for him, and ever since he fell under the curse the necessity for this mode of life is increased; the Lord made the requisite provision for us in this respect by the institution of marriage, which, entered into under his authority, he has also sanctified with his blessing. Hence, it is evident, that any mode of cohabitation different from marriage is cursed in his sight, and that the conjugal relation was ordained as a necessary means of preventing us from giving way to unbridled lust. Let us beware, therefore, of yielding to indulgence, seeing we are assured that the curse of God lies on every man and woman cohabiting without marriage.

42.

Now, since natural feeling and the passions unnamed by the fall make the marriage tie doubly necessary, save in the case of those whom God has by special grace exempted, let every individual consider how the case stands with himself. Virginity, I admit, is a virtue not to be despised; but since it is denied to some, and to others granted only for a season, those who are assailed by incontinence, and unable successfully to war against it, should retake themselves to the remedy of marriage, and thus cultivate chastity in the way of their calling. Those incapable of self-restraint, if they apply not to the remedy allowed and provided for intemperance, war with God and resist his ordinance. And let no man tell me (as many in the present day do) that he can do all things, God helping! The help of God is present with those only who walk in his ways, (Ps. 91: 14,) that is, in his callings from which all withdraw themselves who, omitting the remedies provided by God, vainly and presumptuously strive to struggle with and surmount their natural feelings. That continence is a special gift from God, and of the class of those which are not bestowed indiscriminately on the whole body of the Church, but only on a few of its members, our Lord affirms, (Matth. 19: 12.) He first describes a certain class of individuals who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heavenly sake; that is, in order that they may be able to devote themselves with more liberty and less restraint to the things of heaven. But lest any one should suppose that such a sacrifice was in every man’s power, he had shown a little before that all are not capable, but those only to whom it is specially given from above. Hence he concludes, “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” Paul asserts the same thing still more plainly when he says, “Every man has his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that,” (1 Cor. 7: 7.)

43.

Since we are reminded by an express declaration, that it is not in every man’s power to live chaste in celibacy although it may be his most strenuous study and aim to do so—that it is a special grace which the Lord bestows only on certain individuals, in order that they may be less encumbered in his service, do we not oppose God, and nature as constituted by him, if we do not accommodate our mode of life to the measure of our ability? The Lord prohibits fornication, therefore he requires purity and chastity. The only method which each has of preserving it is to measure himself by his capacity. Let no man rashly despise matrimony as a thing useless or superfluous to him; let no man long for celibacy unless he is able to dispense with the married state. Nor even here let him consult the tranquillity or convenience of the flesh, save only that, freed from this tie, he may be the readier and more prepared for all the offices of piety. And since there are many on whom this blessing is conferred only for a time, let every one, in abstaining from marriage, do it so long as he is fit to endure celibacy. If he has not the power of subduing his passion, let him understand that the Lord has made it obligatory on him to marry. The Apostle shows this when he enjoins: “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife and let every woman have her own husband.” “If they cannot contain, let them marry.” He first intimates that the greater part of men are liable to incontinence; and then of those so liable, he orders all, without exception, to have recourse to the only remedy by which unchastity may be obviated. The incontinent, therefore, neglecting to cure their infirmity by this means, sin by the very circumstance of disobeying the Apostle’s command. And let not a man flatter himself, that because he abstains from the outward act he cannot be accused of unchastity. His mind may in the meantime be inwardly inflamed with lust. For Paul’s definition of chastity is purity of mind, combined with purity of body. “The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit,” (1 Cor. 7: 34.) Therefore when he gives a reason for the former precept, he not only says that it is better to marry than to live in fornication, but that it is better to marry than to burn.

44.

Moreover, when spouses are made aware that their union is blessed by the Lord, they are thereby reminded that they must not give way to intemperate and unrestrained indulgence. For though honourable wedlock veils the turpitude of incontinence, it does not follow that it ought forthwith to become a stimulus to it. Wherefore, let spouses consider that all things are not lawful for them. Let there be sobriety in the behaviour of the husband toward the wife, and of the wife in her turn toward the husband; each so acting as not to do any thing unbecoming the dignity and temperance of married life. Marriage contracted in the Lord ought to exhibit measure and modesty—not run to the extreme of wantonness. This excess Ambrose censured gravely, but not undeservedly, when he described the man who shows no modesty or comeliness in conjugal intercourse, as committing adultery with his wife. Lastly let us consider who the Lawgiver is that thus condemns fornication: even He who, as he is entitled to possess us entirely, requires integrity of body, soul, and spirit. Therefore, while he forbids fornication, he at the same time forbids us to lay snares for our neighbour’s chastity by lascivious attire, obscene gestures, and impure conversation. There was reason in the remark made by Archelaus to a youth clothed effeminately and over-luxuriously, that it mattered not in what part his wantonness appeared. We must have respect to God, who abhors all contaminations whatever be the part of soul or body in which it appears. And that there may be no doubt about it, let us remember, that what the Lord here commends is chastity. If he requires chastity, he condemns every thing which is opposed to it. Therefore, if you aspire to obedience, let not your mind burn within with evil concupiscence, your eyes wanton after corrupting objects, nor your body be decked for allurement; let neither your tongue by filthy speeches, nor your appetite by intemperance, entice the mind to corresponding thoughts. All vices of this description are a kind of stains which despoil chastity of its purity.

Eighth Commandment.

Thou shalt not steal.

45.

The purport is, that injustice being an abomination to God, we must render to every man his due. In substance, then, the commandment forbids us to long after other men’s goods, and, accordingly, requires every man to exert himself honestly in preserving his own. For we must consider, that what each individual possesses has not fallen to him by chance, but by the distribution of the sovereign Lord of all, that no one can pervert his means to bad purposes without committing a fraud on a divine dispensation. There are very many kinds of theft. One consists in violence, as when a man’s goods are forcibly plundered and carried off; another in malicious imposture, as when they are fraudulently intercepted; a third in the more hidden craft which takes possession of them with a semblance of justice; and a fourth in sycophancy, which wiles them away under the pretence of donation. But not to dwell too long in enumerating the different classes, we know that all the arts by which we obtain possession of the goods and money of our neighbours, for sincere affection substituting an eagerness to deceive or injure them in any way, are to be regarded as thefts. Though they may be obtained by an action at law, a different decision is given by God. He sees the long train of deception by which the man of craft begins to lay nets for his more simple neighbour, until he entangles him in its meshes—sees the harsh and cruel laws by which the more powerful oppresses and crushes the feeble—sees the enticements by which the more wily baits the hook for the less wary, though all these escape the judgement of man, and no cognisance is taken of them. Nor is the violation of this commandment confined to money, or merchandise, or lands, but extends to every kind of right; for we defraud our neighbours to their hurt if we decline any of the duties which we are bound to perform towards them. If an agent or an indolent steward wastes the substance of his employer, or does not give due heed to the management of his property; if he unjustly squanders or luxuriously wastes the means entrusted to him; if a servant holds his master in derision, divulges his secrets, or in any way is treacherous to his life or his goods; if, on the other hand, a master cruelly torments his household, he is guilty of theft before God; since every one who, in the exercise of his calling, performs not what he owes to others, keeps back, or makes away with what does not belong to him.

46.

This commandment, therefore, we shall duly obey, if, contented with our own lot, we study to acquire nothing but honest and lawful gain; if we long not to grow rich by injustice, nor to plunder our neighbour of his goods, that our own may thereby be increased; if we hasten not to heap up wealth cruelly wrung from the blood of others; if we do not, by means lawful and unlawful, with excessive eagerness scrape together whatever may glut our avarice or meet our prodigality. On the other hand, let it be our constant aim faithfully to lend our counsel and aid to all so as to assist them in retaining their property; or if we have to do with the perfidious or crafty, let us rather be prepared to yield somewhat of our right than to contend with them. And not only so, but let us contribute to the relief of those whom we see under the pressure of difficulties, assisting their want out of our abundance. Lastly, let each of us consider how far he is bound in duty to others, and in good faith pay what we owe. In the same way, let the people pay all due honour to their rulers, submit patiently to their authority, obey their laws and orders, and decline nothing which they can bear without sacrificing the favour of God. Let rulers, again, take due charge of their people, preserve the public peace, protect the good, curb the bad, and conduct themselves throughout as those who must render an account of their office to God, the Judge of all. Let the ministers of churches faithfully give heed to the ministry of the word, and not corrupt the doctrine of salvation, but deliver it purely and sincerely to the people of God. Let them teach not merely by doctrine, but by example; in short, let them act the part of good shepherds towards their flocks. Let the people, in their turn, receive them as the messengers and apostles of God, render them the honour which their Supreme Master has bestowed on them, and supply them with such things as are necessary for their livelihood. Let parents be careful to bring up, guide, and teach their children as a trust committed to them by God. Let them not exasperate or alienate them by cruelty, but cherish and embrace them with the levity and indulgence which becomes their character. The regard due to parents from their children has already been adverted to. Let the young respect those advanced in years as the Lord has been pleased to make that age honourable. Let the aged also, by their prudence and their experience, (in which they are far superior,) guide the feebleness of youth, not assailing them with harsh and clamorous invectives but tempering strictness with ease and affability. Let servants show themselves diligent and respectful in obeying their masters, and this not with eye-service, but from the heart, as the servants of God. Let masters also not be stern and disobliging to their servants, nor harass them with excessive asperity, nor treat them with insult, but rather let them acknowledge them as brethren and fellow-servants of our heavenly Master, whom, therefore, they are bound to treat with mutual love and kindness. Let every one, I say, thus consider what in his own place and order he owes to his neighbours, and pay what he owes. Moreover, we must always have a reference to the Lawgiver, and so remember that the law requiring us to promote and defend the interest and convenience of our fellow-men, applies equally to our minds and our hands.

Ninth Commandment.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

47.

The purport of the commandment is, since God, who is truth, abhors falsehood, we must cultivate unfeigned truth towards each other. The sum, therefore, will be, that we must not by calumnies and false accusations injure our neighbour’s name, or by falsehood impair his fortunes; in fine, that we must not injure any one from petulance, or a love of evil-speaking. To this prohibition corresponds the command, that we must faithfully assist every one, as far as in us lies, in asserting the truth, for the maintenance of his good name and his estate. The Lord seems to have intended to explain the commandment in these words: “Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness.” “Keep thee far from a false matter,” (Exod. 23: 1, 7.) In another passage, he not only prohibits that species of falsehood which consists in acting the part of tale-bearers among the people, but says, “Neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour,” (Lev. 19: 16.) Both transgressions are distinctly prohibited. Indeed, there can be no doubt, that as in the previous commandment he prohibited cruelty unchastity, and avarice, so here he prohibits falsehood, which consists of the two parts to which we have adverted. By malignant or vicious detraction, we sin against our neighbour’s good name: by lying, sometimes even by casting a slur upon him, we injure him in his estate. It makes no difference whether you suppose that formal and judicial testimony is here intended, or the ordinary testimony which is given in private conversation. For we must always recur to the consideration, that for each kind of transgression one species is set forth by way of example, that to it the others may be referred, and that the species chiefly selected, is that in which the turpitude of the transgression is most apparent. It seems proper, however, to extend it more generally to calumny and sinister insinuations by which our neighbours are unjustly aggrieved. For falsehood in a court of justice is always accompanied with perjury. But against perjury, in so far as it profanes and violates the name of God, there is a sufficient provision in the third commandment. Hence the legitimate observance of this precept consists in employing the tongue in the maintenance of truth, so as to promote both the good name and the prosperity of our neighbour. The equity of this is perfectly clear. For if a good name is more precious than riches, a man, in being robbed of his good name, is no less injured than if he were robbed of his goods; while, in the latter case, false testimony is sometimes not less injurious than rapine committed by the hand.

48.

And yet it is strange, with what supine security men everywhere sin in this respect. Indeed, very few are found who do not notoriously labour under this disease: such is the envenomed delight we take both in prying into and exposing our neighbour’s faults. Let us not imagine it is a sufficient excuse to say that on many occasions our statements are not false. He who forbids us to defame our neighbour’s reputation by falsehood, desires us to keep it untarnished in so far as truth will permit. Though the commandment is only directed against falsehood, it intimates that the preservation of our neighbour’s good name is recommended. It ought to be a sufficient inducement to us to guard our neighbour’s good name, that God takes an interest in it. Wherefore, evil-speaking in general is undoubtedly condemned. Moreover, by evil-speaking, we understand not the rebuke which is administered with a view of correcting; not accusation or judicial decision, by which evil is sought to be remedied; not public censure, which tends to strike terror into other offenders; not the disclosure made to those whose safety depends on being forewarned, lest unawares they should be brought into danger, but the odious crimination which springs from a malicious and petulant love of slander. Nay, the commandment extends so far as to include that scurrilous affected urbanity, instinct with invective, by which the failings of others, under an appearance of sportiveness, are bitterly assailed, as some are wont to do, who court the praise of wit, though it should call forth a blush, or inflict a bitter pang. By petulance of this description, our brethren are sometimes grievously wounded. But if we turn our eye to the Lawgiver, whose just authority extends over the ears and the mind, as well as the tongue, we cannot fail to perceive that eagerness to listen to slander, and an unbecoming proneness to censorious judgements are here forbidden. It were absurd to suppose that God hates the disease of evil-speaking in the tongue, and yet disapproves not of its malignity in the mind. Wherefore, if the true fear and love of God dwell in us, we must endeavour, as far as is lawful and expedient, and as far as charity admits, neither to listen nor give utterance to bitter and acrimonious charges, nor rashly entertain sinister suspicions. As just interpreters of the words and the actions of other men, let us candidly maintain the honour due to them by our judgement, our ear, and our tongue.

Tenth Commandment.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbour’s.

49.

The purport is: Since the Lord would have the whole soul pervaded with love, any feeling of an adverse nature must be banished from our minds. The sum, therefore, will be, that no thought be permitted to insinuate itself into our minds, and inhale them with a noxious concupiscence tending to our neighbour’s loss. To this corresponds the contrary precept, that every thing which we conceive, deliberate, will, or design, be conjoined with the good and advantage of our neighbour. But here it seems we are met with a great and perplexing difficulty. For if it was correctly said above, that under the words adultery and theft, lust and an intention to injure and deceive are prohibited, it may seem superfluous afterwards to employ a separate commandment to prohibit a covetous desire of our neighbour’s goods. The difficulty will easily be removed by distinguishing between design and covetousness. Design, such as we have spoken of in the previous commandments, is a deliberate consent of the will, after passion has taken possession of the mind. Covetousness may exist without such deliberation and assent, when the mind is only stimulated and tickled by vain and perverse objects. As, therefore, the Lord previously ordered that charity should regulate our wishes, studies, and actions, so he now orders us to regulate the thoughts of the mind in the same way, that none of them may be depraved and distorted, so as to give the mind a contrary bent. Having forbidden us to turn and incline our mind to wrath, hatred, adultery, theft, and falsehood, he now forbids us to give our thoughts the same direction.

50.

Nor is such rectitude demanded without reason. For who can deny the propriety of occupying all the powers of the mind with charity? If it ceases to have charity for its aim, who can question that it is diseased? How comes it that so many desires of a nature hurtful to your brother enter your mind, but just because, disregarding him, you think only of yourself? Were your mind wholly imbued with charity, no portion of it would remain for the entrance of such thoughts. In so far, therefore, as the mind is devoid of charity, it must be under the influence of concupiscence. Some one will object that those fancies which casually rise up in the mind, and forthwith vanish away, cannot properly be condemned as concupiscences, which have their seat in the heart. I answer, That the question here relates to a description of fancies which while they present themselves to our thoughts, at the same time impress and stimulate the mind with cupidity, since the mind never thinks of making some choice, but the heart is excited and tends towards it. God therefore commands a strong and ardent affection, an affection not to be impeded by any portion, however minute, of concupiscence. He requires a mind so admirably arranged as not to be prompted in the slightest degree contrary to the law of love. Lest you should imagine that this view is not supported by any grave authority, I may mention that it was first suggested to me by Augustine. But although it was the intention of God to prohibit every kind of perverse desire, he, by way of example, sets before us those objects which are generally regarded as most attractive: thus leaving no room for cupidity of any kind, by the interdiction of those things in which it especially delights and loves to revel. Such, then, is the Second Table of the Law, in which we are sufficiently instructed in the duties which we owe to man for the sake of God, on a consideration of whose nature the whole system of love is founded. It were vain, therefore, to inculcate the various duties taught in this table, without placing your instructions on the fear and reverence to God as their proper foundation. I need not tell the considerate reader, that those who make two precepts out of the prohibition of covetousness, perversely split one thing into two. There is nothing in the repetition of the words, “Thou shalt not covet.” The “house” being first put down, its different parts are afterwards enumerated, beginning with the “wife;” and hence it is clear, that the whole ought to be read consecutively, as is properly done by the Jews. The sum of the whole commandment, therefore, is, that whatever each individual possesses remain entire and secure, not only from injury, or the wish to injure, but also from the slightest feeling of covetousness which can spring up in the mind.

51.

It will not now be difficult to ascertain the general end contemplated by the whole Law, viz., the fulfilment of righteousness, that man may form his life on the model of the divine purity. For therein God has so delineated his own character, that any one exhibiting in action what is commanded, would in some measure exhibit a living image of God. Wherefore Moses, when he wished to fix a summary of the whole in the memory of the Israelites, thus addressed them, “And now, Israel, what does the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, to keep the commandments of the Lord and his statutes which I command thee this day for thy good?” (Deut. 10: 12, 13.) And he ceased not to reiterate the same thing, whenever he had occasion to mention the end of the Law. To this the doctrine of the Law pays so much regard, that it connects man, by holiness of life, with his God; and, as Moses elsewhere expresses it, (Deut. 6: 5; 11: 13,) and makes him cleave to him. Moreover, this holiness of life is comprehended under the two heads above mentioned. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength, and thy neighbour as thyself”. First, our mind must be completely filled with love to God, and then this love must forthwith flow out toward our neighbour. This the Apostle shows when he says, “The end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned,” (1 Tim. 1: 5.) You see that conscience and faith unfeigned are placed at the head, in other words, true piety; and that from this charity is derived. It is a mistake then to suppose, that merely the rudiments and first principles of righteousness are delivered in the Law, to form, as it were, a kind of introduction to good works, and not to guide to the perfect performance of them. For complete perfection, nothing more can be required than is expressed in these passages of Moses and Paul. How far, pray, would he wish to go, who is not satisfied with the instruction which directs man to the fear of God, to spiritual worship, practical obedience; in fine, purity of conscience, faith unfeigned, and charity? This confirms that interpretation of the Law which searches out, and finds in its precepts, all the duties of piety and charity. Those who merely search for dry and meagre elements, as if it taught the will of God only by halves, by no means understand its end, the Apostle being witness.

52.

As, in giving a summary of the Law, Christ and the Apostles sometimes omit the First Table, very many fall into the mistake of supposing that their words apply to both tables. In Matthew, Christ calls “judgement, mercy, and faith,” the “weightier matters of the Law.” I think it clear, that by faith is here meant veracity towards men. But in order to extend the words to the whole Law, some take it for piety towards God. This is surely to no purpose. For Christ is speaking of those works by which a man ought to approve himself as just. If we attend to this, we will cease to wonder why, elsewhere, when asked by the young man, “What good thing shall I do, that 1 may have eternal life?” he simply answers, that he must keep the commandments, “Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” (Matth. 19: 16, 18.) For the obedience of the First Table consisted almost entirely either in the internal affection of the heart, or in ceremonies. The affection of the heart was not visible, and hypocrites were diligent in the observance of ceremonies; but the works of charity were of such a nature as to be a solid attestation of righteousness. The same thing occurs so frequently in the Prophets, that it must be familiar to every one who has any tolerable acquaintance with them. For, almost on every occasion, when they exhort men to repentance, omitting the First Table, they insist on faith, judgement, mercy, and equity. Nor do they, in this way, omit the fear of God. They only require a serious proof of it from its signs. It is well known, indeed, that when they treat of the Law, they generally insist on the Second Table, because therein the cultivation of righteousness and integrity is best manifested. There is no occasion to quote passages. Every one can easily for himself perceive the truth of my observation.

53.

Is it then true, you will ask, that it is a more complete summary of righteousness to live innocently with men, than piously towards God? By no means; but because no man, as a matter of course, observes charity in all respects, unless he seriously fear God, such observance is a proof of piety also. To this we may add, that the Lord, well knowing that none of our good deeds can reach him, (as the Psalmist declares, Psalm 16: 2,) does not demand from us duties towards himself, but exercises us in good works towards our neighbour. Hence the Apostle, not without cause, makes the whole perfection of the saints to consist in charity, (Eph. 3: 19; Col. 3: 14.) And in another passage, he not improperly calls it the “fulfilling of the law,” adding, that “he that loveth another has fulfilled the law,” (Rom. 13: 8.) And again, “All the law is fulfilled in this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” (Gal. 5: 14.) For this is the very thing which Christ himself teaches when he says, “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets,” (Matth. 7: 12.) It is certain that, in the law and the prophets, faith, and whatever pertains to the due worship of God, holds the first place, and that to this charity is made subordinate; but our Lord means, that in the Law the observance of justice and equity towards men is prescribed as the means which we are to employ in testifying a pious fear of God, if we truly possess it.

54.

Let us therefore hold, that our life will be framed in best accordance with the will of God, and the requirements of his Law, when it is, in every respect, most advantageous to our brethren. But in the whole Law, there is not one syllable which lays down a rule as to what man is to do or avoid for the advantage of his own carnal nature. And, indeed, since men are naturally prone to excessive self-love, which they always retain, how great soever their departure from the truth may be, there was no need of a law to inflame a love already existing in excess. Hence it is perfectly plain, that the observance of the Commandments consists not in the love of ourselves, but in the love of God and our neighbour; and that he leads the best and holiest life who as little as may be studies and lives for himself; and that none lives worse and more unrighteously than he who studies and lives only for himself, and seeks and thinks only of his own. Nay, the better to express how strongly we should be inclined to love our neighbour, the Lord has made self-love as it were the standard, there being no feeling in our nature of greater strength and vehemence. The force of the expression ought to be carefully weighed. For he does not (as some sophists have stupidly dreamed) assign the first place to self-love, and the second to charity. He rather transfers to others the love which we naturally feel for ourselves. Hence the Apostle declares, that charity “seeketh not her own,” (1 Cor. 13: 5.) Nor is the argument worth a straw, That the thing regulated must always be inferior to the rule. The Lord did not make self-love the rule, as if love towards others was subordinate to it; but whereas, through natural gravity, the feeling of love usually rests on ourselves, he shows that it ought to diffuse itself in another direction—that we should be prepared to do good to our neighbour with no less alacrity, ardour, and solicitude, than to ourselves.

55.

Our Saviour having shown, in the parable of the Samaritan, (Luke 10: 36,) that the term neighbour comprehends the most remote stranger, there is no reason for limiting the precept of love to our own connections. I deny not that the closer the relation the more frequent our offices of kindness should be. For the condition of humanity requires that there be more duties in common between those who are more nearly connected by the ties of relationship, or friendship, or neighbourhood. And this is done without any offence to God, by whose providence we are in a manner impelled to do it. But I say that the whole human race, without exception, are to be embraced with one feeling of charity: that here there is no distinction of Greek or Barbarian, worthy or unworthy, friend or foe, since all are to be viewed not in themselves, but in God. If we turn aside from this view, there is no wonder that we entangle ourselves in error. Wherefore, if we would hold the true course in love, our first step must be to turn our eyes not to man, the sight of whom might oftener produce hatred than love, but to God, who requires that the love which we bear to him be diffused among all mankind, so that our fundamental principle must ever be, Let a man be what he may, he is still to be loved, because God is loved.

56.

Wherefore, nothing could be more pestilential than the ignorance or wickedness of the Schoolmen in converting the precepts respecting revenge and the love of enemies (precepts which had formerly been delivered to all the Jews, and were then delivered universally to all Christians) into counsels which it was free to obey or disobey, confining the necessary observance of them to the monks, who were made more righteous than ordinary Christians, by the simple circumstance of voluntarily binding themselves to obey counsels. The reason they assign for not receiving them as laws is, that they seem too heavy and burdensome, especially to Christians, who are under the law of grace. Have they, indeed, the hardihood to remodel the eternal law of God concerning the love of our neighbour? Is there a page of the Law in which any such distinction exists; or rather do we not meet in every page with commands which, in the strictest terms, require us to love our enemies? What is meant by commanding us to feed our enemy if he is hungry, to bring back his ox or his ass if we meet it going astray, or help it up if we see it lying under its burden? (Prov. 25: 21; Exod. 23: 4.) Shall we show kindness to cattle for man’s sake, and have no feeling of good will to himself? What? Is not the word of the Lord eternally true: “Vengeance is mine, I will repay?” (Deut. 32: 35.) This is elsewhere more explicitly stated: “Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people,” (Lev. 19: 18.) Let them either erase these passages from the Law, or let them acknowledge the Lord as a Lawgiver, not falsely feign him to be merely a counsellor.

57.

And what, pray, is meant by the following passage, which they have dared to insult with this absurd gloss? “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven,” (Matth. 5: 44, 45.) Who does not here concur in the reasoning of Chrysostom, (lib. de Compunctione Cordis, et ad Rom. 7,) that the nature of the motive makes it plain that these are not exhortations, but precepts? For what is left to us if we are excluded from the number of the children of God? According to the Schoolmen, monks alone will be the children of our Father in heaven—monks alone will dare to invoke God as their Father. And in the meantime, how will it fare with the Church? By the same rule, she will be confined to heathens and publicans. For our Saviour says, “If ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?” It will truly be well with us if we are left only the name of Christians, while we are deprived of the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven! Nor is the argument of Augustine less forcible: “When the Lord forbids adultery, he forbids it in regard to the wife of a foe not less than the wife of a friend; when he forbids theft, he does not allow stealing of any description, whether from a friend or an enemy,” (August. Lib. de Doctr. Christ.) Now, these two commandments, “Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not commit adultery,” Paul brings under the rule of love; nay, he says that they are briefly comprehended in this saying, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” (Rom. 13: 9.) Therefore, Paul must either be a false interpreter of the Law, or we must necessarily conclude, that under this precept we are bound to love our enemies just as our friends. Those, then, show themselves to be in truth the children of Satan who thus licentiously shake off a yoke common to the children of God. It may be doubted whether, in promulgating this dogma, they have displayed greater stupidity or impudence. There is no ancient writer who does not hold it as certain that these are pure precepts. It was not even doubted in the age of Gregory, as is plain from his decided assertion; for he holds it to be incontrovertible that they are precepts. And how stupidly they argue! The burden, say they, were too difficult for Christians to hear! As if any thing could be imagined more difficult than to love the Lord with all the heart, and soul, and strength. Compared with this Law, there is none which may not seem easy, whether it be to love our enemy, or to banish every feeling of revenge from our minds. To our weakness, indeed, every thing, even to the minutest tittle of the Law, is arduous and difficult. In the Lord we have strength. It is his to give what he orders, and to order what he wills. That Christians are under the law of grace, means not that they are to wander unrestrained without law, but that they are engrafted into Christ, by whose grace they are freed from the curse of the Law, and by whose Spirit they have the Law written in their hearts. This grace Paul has termed, but not in the proper sense of the term, a law, alluding to the Law of God, with which he was contrasting it. The Schoolmen, laying hold of the term Law, make it the ground-work of their vain speculations.

58.

The same must be said of their application of the term, venial sin, both to the hidden impiety which violates the First Table, and the direct transgression of the last commandment of the Second Table. They define venial sin to be, desire unaccompanied with deliberate assent, and not remaining long in the heart. But I maintain that it cannot even enter the heart unless through a want of those things which are required in the Law. We are forbidden to have strange gods. When the mind, under the influence of distrust, looks elsewhere or is seized with some sudden desire to transfer its blessedness to some other quarter, whence are these movements, however evanescent, but just because there is some empty corner in the soul to receive such temptations? And, not to lengthen out the discussion, there is a precept to love God with the whole heart, and mind, and soul; and, therefore, if all the powers of the soul are not directed to the love of God, there is a departure from the obedience of the Law; because those internal enemies which rise up against the dominion of God, and countermand his edicts prove that his throne is not well established in our consciences. It has been shown that the last commandment goes to this extent. Has some undue longing sprung up in our mind? Then we are chargeable with covetousness, and stand convicted as transgressors of the Law. For the Law forbids us not only to meditate and plan our neighbour’s loss, but to be stimulated and inflamed with covetousness. But every transgression of the Law lays us under the curse, and therefore even the slightest desires cannot be exempted from the fatal sentence. “In weighing our sins,” says Augustine, “let us not use a deceitful balance, weighing at our own discretion what we will, and how we will, calling this heavy and that light: but let us use the divine balance of the Holy Scriptures, as taken from the treasury of the Lord, and by it weigh every offence, nay, not weigh, but rather recognise what has been already weighed by the Lord,” (August. De Bapt. cont. Donatist. Lib. 2 chap. 6.) And what saith the Scripture? Certainly when Paul says, that “the wages of sin is death,” (Rom. 6: 23,) he shows that he knew nothing of this vile distinction. As we are but too prone to hypocrisy, there was very little occasion for this sop to soothe our torpid consciences.

59.

I wish they would consider what our Saviour meant when he said, “Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven,” (Matth. 5: 19.) Are they not of this number when they presume to extenuate the transgression of the Law, as if it were unworthy of death? The proper course had been to consider not simply what is commanded, but who it is that commands, because every least transgression of his Law derogates from his authority. Do they count it a small matter to insult the majesty of God in any one respect? Again, since God has explained his will in the Law, every thing contrary to the Law is displeasing to him. Will they feign that the wrath of God is so disarmed that the punishment of death will not forthwith follow upon it? He has declared plainly, (if they could be induced to listen to his voice, instead of darkening his clear truth by their insipid subtleties,) “The soul that sinneth it shall die,” (Ezek. 18: 20.) Again, in the passage lately quoted, “The wages of sin is death.” What these men acknowledge to be sin, because they are unable to deny it, they contend is not mortal. Having already indulged this madness too long, let them learn to repent; or, if they persist in their infatuation, taking no further notice of them, let the children of God remember that all sin is mortal, because it is rebellion against the will of God, and necessarily provokes his anger; and because it is a violation of the Law, against every violation of which, without exception, the judgement of God has been pronounced. The faults of the saints are indeed venial, not, however, in their own nature, but because, through the mercy of God, they obtain pardon.

CHAPTER 9. CHRIST, THOUGH KNOWN TO THE JEWS UNDER THE LAW, YET ONLY MANIFESTED UNDER THE GOSPEL.

There are three principal heads in this chapter -

I. Preparatory to a consideration of the knowledge of Christ, and the benefits procured by him; the 1st and 2d sections are occupied with the dispensation of this knowledge, which, after the manifestation of Christ in the flesh, was more clearly revealed than under the Law.

II. A refutation of the profane dream of Servetus, that the promises are entirely abrogated, sec. 3. Likewise, a refutation of those who do not properly compare the Law with the Gospel, sec. 4.

III. A necessary and brief exposition of the ministry of John Baptist, which occupies an intermediate place between the law and the Gospel.

Sections.

1. The holy fathers under the Law saw the day of Christ, though obscurely. He is more fully revealed to us under the Gospel. A reason for this, confirmed by the testimony of Christ and his Apostles.

2. The term Gospel, used in its most extensive sense, comprehends the attestations of mercy which God gave to the fathers. Properly, however, it means the promulgation of grace exhibited in the God-man Jesus Christ.

3. The notion of Servetus, that the promises are entirely abolished, refuted. Why we must still trust to the promises of God. Another reason. Solution of a difficulty.

4. Refutation of those who do not properly compare the Law and the Gospel. Answer to certain questions here occurring. The Law and the Gospel briefly compared.

5. Third part of the chapter. Of the ministry of John the Baptist.

1.

Since God was pleased (and not in vain) to testify in ancient times by means of expiations and sacrifices that he was a Father, and to set apart for himself a chosen people, he was doubtless known even then in the same character in which he is now fully revealed to us. Accordingly Malachi, having enjoined the Jews to attend to the Law of Moses, (because after his death there was to be an interruption of the prophetical office,) immediately after declares that the Sun of righteousness should arise, (Mal. 4: 2;) thus intimating, that though the Law had the effect of keeping the pious in expectation of the coming Messiah, there was ground to hope for much greater light on his advent. For this reason, Peter, speaking of the ancient prophets, says, “Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us, they did minister the things which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you, with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven,” (1 Pet. 1: 12.) Not that the prophetical doctrine was useless to the ancient people, or unavailing to the prophets themselves, but that they did not obtain possession of the treasure which God has transmitted to US by their hands. The grace of which they testified is now set familiarly before our eyes. They had only a slight foretaste; to us is given a fuller fruition. Our Saviour, accordingly, while he declares that Moses testified of him, extols the superior measure of grace bestowed upon us, (John 5: 46.) Addressing his disciples, he says, “Blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them, and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them,” (Matth. 13: 16; Luke 10: 23.) It is no small commendation of the gospel revelation, that God has preferred us to holy men of old, so much distinguished for piety. There is nothing in this view inconsistent with another passage, in which our Saviour says, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad,” (John 8: 56.) For though the event being remote, his view of it was obscure, he had full assurance that it would one day be accomplished; and hence the joy which the holy patriarch experienced even to his death. Nor does John Baptist, when he says, “No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him,” (John 1: 18,) exclude the pious who had previously died from a participation in the knowledge and light which are manifested in the person of Christ; but comparing their condition with ours, he intimates that the mysteries which they only beheld dimly under shadows are made clear to us; as is well explained by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in these words, “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,” (Heb. 1: 1, 2.) Hence, although this only begotten Son, who is now to us the brightness of his Father’s glory and the express image of his person, was formerly made known to the Jews, as we have elsewhere shown from Paul, that he was the Deliverer under the old dispensation; it is nevertheless true, as Paul himself elsewhere declares, that “God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, has shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ,” (2 Cor. 4: 6;) because, when he appeared in this his image, he in a manner made himself visible, his previous appearance having been shadowy and obscure. More shameful and more detestable, therefore, is the ingratitude of those who walk blindfold in this meridian light. Accordingly, Paul says that “the god of this world has blinded their minds, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ should shine unto them,” (2 Cor. 4: 4.)

2.

By the Gospel, I understand the clear manifestation of the mystery of Christ. I confess, indeed, that inasmuch as the term Gospel is applied by Paul to the doctrine of faith, (2 Tim. 4: 10,) it includes all the promises by which God reconciles men to himself, and which occur throughout the Law. For Paul there opposes faith to those terrors which vex and torment the conscience when salvation is sought by means of works. Hence it follows that Gospel, taken in a large sense, comprehends the evidences of mercy and paternal favour which God bestowed on the Patriarchs. Still, by way of excellence, it is applied to the promulgation of the grace manifested in Christ. This is not only founded on general use, but has the sanction of our Saviour and his Apostles. Hence it is described as one of his peculiar characteristics, that he preached the Gospel of the kingdom, (Matth. 4: 23; 9: 35; Mark 1: 14.) Mark, in his preface to the Gospel, calls it “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” There is no use of collecting passages to prove what is already perfectly known. Christ at his advent “brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel,” (2 Tim. 1: l0.) Paul does not mean by these words that the Fathers were plunged in the darkness of death before the Son of God became incarnate; but he claims for the Gospel the honourable distinction of being a new and extraordinary kind of embassy, by which God fulfilled what he had promised, these promises being realised in the person of the Son. For though believers have at all times experienced the truth of Paul’s declaration, that “all the promises of God in him are yea and amen,” inasmuch as these promises were sealed upon their hearts; yet because he has in his flesh completed all the parts of our salvation, this vivid manifestation of realities was justly entitled to this new and special distinction. Accordingly, Christ says, “Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.” For though he seems to allude to the ladder which the Patriarch Jacob saw in vision, he commends the excellence of his advent in this, that it opened the gate of heaven, and gave us familiar access to it.

3.

Here we must guard against the diabolical imagination of Servetus, who, from a wish, or at least the pretence of a wish, to extol the greatness of Christ, abolishes the promises entirely, as if they had come to an end at the same time with the Law. He pretends, that by the faith of the Gospel all the promises have been fulfilled; as if there was no distinction between us and Christ. I lately observed that Christ had not left any part of our salvation incomplete; but from this it is erroneously inferred, that we are now put in possession of all the blessings purchased by him; thereby implying, that Paul was incorrect in saying, “We are saved by hope,” (Rom. 3: 24.) I admit, indeed, that by believing in Christ we pass from death unto life; but we must at the same time remember the words of John, that though we know we are “the sons of God,” “it does not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is,” (1 John 3: 2.) Therefore, although Christ offers us in the Gospel a present fulness of spiritual blessings, fruition remains in the keeping of hope, until we are divested of corruptible flesh, and transformed into the glory of him who has gone before us. Meanwhile, in leaning on the promises, we obey the command of the Holy Spirit, whose authority ought to have weight enough with us to silence all the barkings of that impure dog. We have it on the testimony of Paul, that “Godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come,” (1 Tim. 4: 8;) for which reason, he glories in being “an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 1: 1.) And he elsewhere reminds us, that we have the same promises which were given to the saints in ancient time, (2 Cor. 7: 1.) In fine, he makes the sum of our felicity consist in being sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise. Indeed we have no enjoyment of Christ, unless by embracing him as clothed with his own promises. Hence it is that he indeed dwells in our hearts and yet we are as pilgrims in regard to him, because “we walk by faith, not by sight,” (2 Cor. 5: 6, 7.) There is no inconsistency in the two things, viz., that in Christ we possess every thing pertaining to the perfection of the heavenly life, and yet that faith is only a vision “of things not seen,” (Heb. 11: 1.) Only there is this difference to be observed in the nature or quality of the promises, that the Gospel points with the finger to what the Law shadowed under types.

4.

Hence, also, we see the error of those who, in comparing the Law with the Gospel, represent it merely as a comparison between the merit of works, and the gratuitous imputation of righteousness. The contrast thus made is by no means to be rejected, because, by the term Law, Paul frequently understands that rule of holy living in which God exacts what is his due, giving no hope of life unless we obey in every respect; and, on the other hand, denouncing a curse for the slightest failure. This Paul does when showing that we are freely accepted of God, and accounted righteous by being pardoned, because that obedience of the Law to which the reward is promised is nowhere to be found. Hence he appropriately represents the righteousness of the Law and the Gospel as opposed to each other. But the Gospel has not succeeded the whole Law in such a sense as to introduce a different method of salvation. It rather confirms the Law, and proves that every thing which it promised is fulfilled. What was shadow, it has made substance. When Christ says that the Law and the Prophets were until John, he does not consign the fathers to the curse, which, as the slaves of the Law, they could not escape. He intimates that they were only imbued with the rudiments, and remained far beneath the height of the Gospel doctrine. Accordingly Paul, after calling the Gospel “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth,” shortly after adds, that it was “witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,” (Rom. 1: 16; 3: 21.) And in the end of the same Epistle, though he describes “the preaching of Jesus Christ” as “the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret since the world began,” he modifies the expression by adding, that it is “now made manifest” “by the scriptures of the prophets,” (Rom. 16: 25, 26.) Hence we infer, that when the whole Law is spoken of, the Gospel differs from it only in respect of clearness of manifestation. Still, on account of the inestimable riches of grace set before us in Christ, there is good reason for saying, that by his advent the kingdom of heaven was erected on the earth, (Matth. 12: 28.)

5.

John stands between the Law and the Gospel, holding an intermediate office allied to both. For though he gave a summary of the Gospel when he pronounced Christ to be “the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world,” yet, inasmuch as he did not unfold the incomparable power and glory which shone forth in his resurrection, Christ says that he was not equal to the Apostles. For this is the meaning of the words: “Among them that are born of woman, there has not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding, he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he,” (Matth. 11: 28.) He is not there commending the persons of men, but after preferring John to all the Prophets, he gives the first place to the preaching of the Gospel, which is elsewhere designated by the kingdom of heaven. When John himself, in answer to the Jews, says that he is only “a voice,” (John 1: 23,) as if he were inferior to the Prophets it is not in pretended humility but he means to teach that the proper embassy was not entrusted to him, that he only performed the office of a messenger, as had been foretold by Malachi, “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophets before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord,” (Mal. 4: 5.) And, indeed, during the whole course of his ministry, he did nothing more than prepare disciples for Christ. He even proves from Isaiah that this was the office to which he was divinely appointed. In this sense, he is said by Christ to have been “a burning and a shining light,” (John 5: 35,) because full day had not yet appeared. And yet this does not prevent us from classing him among the preachers of the gospel, since he used the same baptism which was afterwards committed to the Apostles. Still, however, he only began that which had freer course under the Apostles, after Christ was taken up into the heavenly glory.

CHAPTER 10. THE RESEMBLANCE BETWEEN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW.

This chapter consists of four parts.

I. The sum, utility, and necessity of this discussion, sec. 1.

II. A proof that, generally speaking, the old and new dispensations are in reality one, although differently administered. Three points in which the two dispensations entirely agree, sec. 2-4.

III. The Old Testament, as well as the New, had regard to the hope of immortality and a future life, whence two other resemblances or points of agreement follow, viz., that both were established by the free mercy of God, and confirmed by the intercession of Christ. This proved by many arguments, passages of Scripture, and examples, see. 5-23.

IV. Conclusion of the whole chapter, where, for fuller confirmation, certain passages of Scripture are produced. Refutation of the cavils of the Sadducees and other Jews.

Sections.

1. Introduction, showing the necessity of proving the similarity of both dispensations in opposition to Servetus and the Anabaptists.

2. This similarity in general. Both covenants truly one, though differently administered. Three things in which they entirely agree.

3. First general similarity, or agreement, viz., that the Old Testament, equally with the New, extended its promises beyond the present life, and held out a sure hope of immortality. Reason for this resemblance. Objection answered.

4. The other two points of resemblance, viz., that both covenants were established in the mercy of God, and confirmed by the mediation of Christ.

5. The first of these points of resemblance being the foundation of the other two, a lengthened proof is given of it. The first argument taken from a passage, in which Paul, showing that the sacraments of both dispensations had the same meaning, proves that the condition of the ancient church was similar to ours.

6. An objection from John 6: 49, viz., that the Israelites ate manna in the wilderness, and are dead, whereas Christians eat the flesh of Christ, and die not. Answer reconciling this passage of the Evangelist with that of the Apostle.

7. Another proof from the Law and the Prophets, viz., the power of the divine word in quickening souls before Christ was manifested. Hence the believing Jews were raised to the hope of eternal life.

8. Third proof from the form of the covenant, which shows that it was in reality one both before and after the manifestation of Christ in the flesh.

9. Confirmation of the former proof from the clear terms in which the form is expressed. Another confirmation derived from the former and from the nature of God.

10. Fourth proof from examples. Adam, Abel, and Noah, when tried with various temptations, neglecting the present, aspired with living faith and invincible hope to a better life. They, therefore, had the same aim as believers under the Gospel.

11. Continuation of the fourth proof from the example of Abraham, whose call and whole course of life shows that he ardently aspired to eternal felicity. Objection disposed of.

12. Continuation of the fourth proof from the examples of Isaac and Jacob.

13. Conclusion of the fourth proof. Adam, Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and others under the Law, looked for the fulfilment of the divine promises not on the earth, but in heaven. Hence they termed this life an earthly pilgrimage, and desired to be buried in the land of Canaan, which was a figure of eternal happiness.

14. A fifth proof from Jacob’s earnestness to obtain the birth-right. This shows a prevailing desire of future life. This perceived in some degree by Balaam.

15. A sixth proof from David, who expects such great things from the Lord, and yet declares the present life to be mere vanity.

16. A seventh proof also from David. His descriptions of the happiness of believers could only be realised in a future state.

17. An eighth proof from the common feeling and confession of all the pious who sought by faith and hope to obtain in heaven what they did not see in the present shadowy life.

18. A continuation and confirmation of the former proof from the exultation of the righteous, even amid the destruction of the world.

19. A ninth proof from Job, who spoke most distinctly of this hope. Two objections disposed of.

20. A tenth proof from the later Prophets, who taught that the happiness of the righteous was placed beyond the limits of the present life.

21. This clearly established by Ezekiel’s vision of the dry bones, and a passage in Isaiah.

22. Last proof from certain passages in the Prophets, which clearly show the future immortality of the righteous in the kingdom of heaven.

23. Conclusion of the whole discussion concerning the similarity of both dispensations. For fuller confirmation, four passages of Scripture produced. Refutation of the error of the Sadducees and other Jews, who denied eternal salvation and the sure hope of the Church.

1.

From what has been said above, it must now be clear, that all whom, from the beginning of the world, God adopted as his peculiar people, were taken into covenant with him on the same conditions, and under the same bond of doctrine, as ourselves; but as it is of no small importance to establish this point, I will here add it by way of appendix, and show, since the Fathers were partakers with us in the same inheritance, and hoped for a common salvation through the grace of the same Mediator, how far their condition in this respect was different from our own. For although the passages which we have collected from the Law and the Prophets for the purpose of proof, make it plain that there never was any other rule of piety and religion among the people of God; yet as many things are written on the subject of the difference between the Old and New Testaments in a manner which may perplex ordinary readers, it will be proper here to devote a special place to the better and more exact discussion of this subject. This discussion, which would have been most useful at any rate, has been rendered necessary by that monstrous miscreant, Servetus, and some madmen of the sect of the Anabaptists, who think of the people of Israel just as they would do of some herd of swine, absurdly imagining that the Lord gorged them with temporal blessings here, and gave them no hope of a blessed immortality. Let us guard pious minds against this pestilential error, while we at the same time remove all the difficulties which are wont to start up when mention is made of the difference between the Old and the New Testaments. By the way also, let us consider what resemblance and what difference there is between the covenant which the Lord made with the Israelites before the advent of Christ, and that which he has made with us now that Christ is manifested.

2.

It is possible, indeed, to explain both in one word. The covenant made with all the fathers is so far from differing from ours in reality and substance, that it is altogether one and the same: still the administration differs. But because this brief summary is insufficient to give any one a full understanding of the subject, our explanation to be useful must extend to greater length. It were superfluous, however, in showing the similarity, or rather identity, of the two dispensations, again to treat of the particulars which have already been discussed, as it were unseasonable to introduce those which are still to be considered elsewhere. What we propose to insist upon here may be reduced to three heads:—First, That temporal opulence and felicity was not the goal to which the Jews were invited to aspire, but that they were admitted to the hope of immortality, and that assurance of this adoption was given by immediate communications, by the Law and by the Prophets. Secondly, That the covenant by which they were reconciled to the Lord was founded on no merits of their own, but solely on the mercy of God, who called them; and, thirdly, That they both had and knew Christ the Mediator, by whom they were united to God, and made capable of receiving his promises. The second of these, as it is not yet perhaps sufficiently understood, will be fully considered in its own place, (Book 3 chap. 15-18.) For we will prove by many clear passages in the Prophets, that all which the Lord has ever given or promised to his people is of mere goodness and indulgence. The third also has, in various places, been not obscurely demonstrated. Even the first has not been left unnoticed.

3.

As the first is most pertinent to the present subject, and is most controverted, we shall enter more fully into the consideration of it, taking care, at the same time, where any of the others requires explanations to supply it by the way, or afterwards add it in its proper place. The Apostle, indeed, removes all doubt when he says that the Gospel which God gave concerning his Son, Jesus Christ, “he had promised aforetime by his prophets in the holy Scriptures,” (Rom. 1: 2.) And again, that “the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets,” (Rom. 3: 21.) For the Gospel does not confine the hearts of men to the enjoyment of the present life, but raises them to the hope of immortality; does not fix them down to earthly delights, but announcing that there is a treasure laid up in heaven, carries the heart thither also. For in another place he thus explains, “After that ye believed [the Gospel,] ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance unto the redemption of the purchased possession,” (Eph. 1: 13, 14.) Again, “Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints, for the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the Gospel,” (Col. 1: 4.) Again, “Whereunto he called you by our Gospel to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ,” (2 Thess. 2: 14.) Whence also it is called the word of salvation and the power of God, with salvation to every one that believes, and the kingdom of heaven. But if the doctrine of the Gospel is spiritual, and gives access to the possession of incorruptible life, let us not suppose that those to whom it was promised and declared altogether neglected the care of the soul, and lived stupidly like cattle in the enjoyment of bodily pleasures. Let no one here quibble and say, that the promises concerning the Gospel, which are contained in the Law and the Prophets, were designed for a new people. For Paul, shortly after making that statement concerning the Gospel promised in the Law, adds, that “whatsoever things the law saith, it saith to those who are under the law.” I admit, indeed, he is there treating of a different subject, but when he said that every thing contained in the Law was directed to the Jews, he was not so oblivious as not to remember what he had said a few verses before of the Gospel promised in the Law. Most clearly, therefore, does the Apostle demonstrate that the Old Testament had special reference to the future life, when he says that the promises of the Gospel were comprehended under it.

4.

In the same way we infer that the Old Testament was both established by the free mercy of God and confirmed by the intercession of Christ. For the preaching of the Gospel declares nothing more than that sinners, without any merit of their own, are justified by the paternal indulgence of God. It is wholly summed up in Christ. Who, then, will presume to represent the Jews as destitute of Christ, when we know that they were parties to the Gospel covenant, which has its only foundation in Christ? Who will presume to make them aliens to the benefit of gratuitous salvation, when we know that they were instructed in the doctrine of justification by faith? And not to dwell on a point which is clear, we have the remarkable saying of our Lord, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad,” (John 8: 56.) What Christ here declares of Abraham, an apostle shows to be applicable to all believers, when he says that Jesus Christ is the “same yesterday, to-day, and for ever,” (Heb. 13: 8.) For he is not there speaking merely of the eternal divinity of Christ, but of his power, of which believers had always full proof. Hence both the blessed Virgin and Zachariah, in their hymns, say that the salvation revealed in Christ was a fulfilment of the mercy promised “to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever,” (Luke 1: 55, 72.) If, by manifesting Christ, the Lord fulfilled his ancient oath, it cannot be denied that the subject of that oaths must ever have been Christ and eternal life.

5.

Nay, the Apostle makes the Israelites our equals, not only in the grace of the covenant, but also in the signification of the Sacraments. For employing the example of those punishments, which the Scripture states to have been of old inflicted on the Jews, in order to deter the Corinthians from falling into similar wickedness, he begins with premising that they have no ground to claim for themselves any privilege which can exempt them from the divine vengeance which overtook the Jews, since the Lord not only visited them with the same mercies, but also distinguished his grace among them by the same symbols: as if he had said, If you think you are out of danger, because the Baptism which you received, and the Supper of which you daily partake, have excellent promises, and if, in the meantime, despising the goodness of God, you indulge in licentiousness, know that the Jews, on whom the Lord inflicted his severest judgements, possessed similar symbols. They were baptised in passing through the sea, and in the cloud which protected them from the burning heat of the sun. It is said, that this passage was a carnal baptism, corresponding in some degree to our spiritual baptism. But if so, there would be a want of conclusiveness in the argument of the Apostle, whose object is to prevent Christians from imagining that they excelled the Jews in the matter of baptism. Besides, the cavil cannot apply to what immediately follows, viz., that they did “all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ,” (1 Cor. 10: 3, 4.)

6.

To take off the force of this passage of Paul, an objection is founded on the words of our Saviour, “Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.” “If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever,” (John 6: 49, 51.) There is no difficulty in reconciling the two passages. The Lord, as he was addressing hearers who only desired to be filled with earthly food, while they cared not for the true food of the soul, in some degree adapts his speech to their capacity, and, in particular, to meet their carnal view, draws a comparison between manna and his own body. They called upon him to prove his authority by performing some miracle, such as Moses performed in the wilderness when he obtained manna from heaven. In this manna they saw nothing but a relief of the bodily hunger from which the people were then suffering; they did not penetrate to the sublimer mystery to which Paul refers. Christ, therefore, to demonstrate that the blessing which they ought to expect from him was more excellent than the lauded one which Moses had bestowed upon their fathers, draws this comparison: If, in your opinion, it was a great and memorable miracle when the Lord, by Moses, supplied his people with heavenly food that they might be supported for a season, and not perish in the wilderness from famine; from this infer how much more excellent is the food which bestows immortality. We see why our Lord omitted to mention what was of principal virtue in the manna, and mentioned only its meanest use. Since the Jews had, as it were by way of upbraiding, cast up Moses to him as one who had relieved the necessity of the people by means of manna, he answers, that he was the minister of a much larger grace, one compared with which the bodily nourishment of the people, on which they set so high a value, ought to be held worthless. Paul, again, knowing that the Lords when he rained manna from heaven, had not merely supplied their bodies with food, but had also dispensed it as containing a spiritual mystery to typify the spiritual quickening which is obtained in Christ, does not overlook that quality which was most deserving of consideration. Wherefore it is surely and clearly proved, that the same promises of celestial and eternal life, which the Lord now gives to us, were not only communicated to the Jews, but also sealed by truly spiritual sacraments. This subject is copiously discussed by Augustine in his work against Faustus the Manichee.

7.

But if my readers would rather have passages quoted from the Law and the Prophets, from which they may see, as we have already done from Christ and the Apostles, that the spiritual covenant was common also to the Fathers, I will yield to the wish, and the more willingly, because opponents will thus be more surely convinced, that henceforth there will be no room for evasion. And I will begin with a proof which, though I know it will seem futile and almost ridiculous to supercilious Anabaptists, will have very great weight with the docile and sober-minded. I take it for granted that the word of God has such an inherent efficacy, that it quickens the souls of all whom he is pleased to favour with the communication of it. Peter’s statement has ever been true, that it is an incorruptible seed, “which liveth and abideth for ever,” (1 Peter 1: 23,) as he infers from the words of Isaiah, (Is. 40: 6.) Now when God, in ancient times, bound the Jews to him by this sacred bond, there cannot be a doubt that he separated them unto the hope of eternal life. When I say that they embraced the word which brought them nearer to God, I refer not to that general method of communication which is diffused through heaven and earth, and all the creatures of the world, and which, though it quickens all things, each according to its nature, rescues none from the bondage of corruption. I refer to that special mode of communication by which the minds of the pious are both enlightened in the knowledge of God, and, in a manner, linked to him. Adam, Abel, Noah, Abraham, and the other patriarchs, having been united to God by this illumination of the word, I say there cannot be the least doubt that entrance was given them into the immortal kingdom of God. They had that solid participation in God which cannot exist without the blessing of everlasting life.

8.

If the point still seems somewhat involved, let us pass to the form of the covenant, which will not only satisfy calm thinkers, but sufficiently establish the ignorance of gainsayers. The covenant which God always made with his servants was this, “I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people,” (Lev. 26: 12.) These words, even as the prophets are wont to expound them, comprehend life and salvation, and the whole sum of blessedness. For David repeatedly declares, and with good reason, “Happy is that people whose God is the Lord.” “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord; and the people whom he has chosen for his own inheritance,” (Psalm 144: 15; 33: 12;) and this not merely in respect of earthly happiness, but because he rescues from death, constantly preserves, and, with eternal mercy, visits those whom he has adopted for his people. As is said in other prophets, “Art not thou from everlasting, O Lord my God, mine Holy One? we shall not die.” “The Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he will save us” “Happy art thou, O Israel: who is like unto thee, O people saved by the Lord?” (Hab. 1: 12 ; Isaiah 33: 22; Deut. 33: 29.) But not to labour superfluously, the prophets are constantly reminding us that no good thing and, consequently, no assurance of salvation, is wanting, provided the Lord is our God. And justly. For if his face, the moment it hath shone upon us, is a perfect pledge of salvation, how can he manifest himself to any one as his God, without opening to him the treasures of salvation? The terms on which God makes himself ours is to dwell in the midst of us, as he declared by Moses, (Lev. 26: 11.) But such presence cannot be enjoyed without life being, at the same time, possessed along with it. And though nothing more had been expressed, they had a sufficiently clear promise of spiritual life in these words, “I am your God,” (Exod. 6: 7.) For he declared that he would be a God not to their bodies only, but specially to their souls. Souls, however, if not united to God by righteousness, remain estranged from him in death. On the other hand, that union, wherever it exists, will bring perpetual salvation with it.

9.

To this we may add, that he not only declared he was, but also promised that he would be, their God. By this their hope was extended beyond present good, and stretched forward into eternity. Moreover, that this observance of the future had the effect, appears from the many passages in which the faithful console themselves not only in their present evils, but also for the future, by calling to mind that God was never to desert them. Moreover, in regard to the second part of the promise, viz., the blessing of God, its extending beyond the limits of the present life was still more clearly confirmed by the words, I will be the God of your seed after you, (Gen. 17: 7.) If he was to manifest his favour to the dead by doing good to their posterity, much less would he deny his favour to themselves. God is not like men, who transfer their love to the children of their friends, because the opportunity of bestowing kind offices as they wished upon themselves is interrupted by death. But God, whose kindness is not impeded by death, does not deprive the dead of the benefit of his mercy, which, on their account, he continues to a thousand generations. God, therefore, was pleased to give a striking proof of the abundance and greatness of his goodness which they were to enjoy after death, when he described it as overflowing to all their posterity, (Exod. 20: 6.) The truth of this promise was sealed, and in a manner completed, when, long after the death of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, he called himself their God, (Exod. 20: 6.) And why? Was not the name absurd if they had perished? It would have been just the same as if he had said, I am the God of men who exist not. Accordingly, the Evangelists relate that, by this very argument, our Saviour refuted the Sadducees, (Matth. 22: 23; Luke 20: 32,) who were, therefore, unable to deny that the resurrection of the dead was attested by Moses, inasmuch as he had taught them that all the saints are in his hand, (Deut. 33: 3.) Whence it is easy to infer that death is not the extinction of those who are taken under the tutelage, guardianship, and protection of him who is the disposer of life and death.

10.

Let us now see (and on this the controversy principally turns) whether or not believers themselves were so instructed by the Lord, as to feel that they had elsewhere a better life, and to aspire to it while disregarding the present. First, the mode of life which heaven had imposed upon them made it a constant exercise, by which they were reminded, that if in this world only they had hope, they were of all men the most miserable. Adam, most unhappy even in the mere remembrance of his lost felicity, with difficulty supplies his wants by anxious labours; and that the divine curse might not be restricted to bodily labour, his only remaining solace becomes a source of the deepest grief: Of two sons, the one is torn from him by the parricidal hand of his brother; while the other, who survives, causes detestation and horror by his very look. Abel, cruelly murdered in the very flower of his days, is an example of the calamity which had come upon man. While the whole world are securely living in luxury, Noah, with much fatigue, spends a great part of his life in building an ark. He escapes death, but by greater troubles than a hundred deaths could have given. Besides his ten months’ residence in the ark, as in a kind of sepulchre, nothing could have been more unpleasant than to have remained so long pent up among the filth of beasts. After escaping these difficulties he falls into a new cause of sorrow. He sees himself mocked by his own son, and is forced, with his own mouth, to curse one whom, by the great kindness of God, he had received safe from the deluge.

11.

Abraham alone ought to be to us equal to tens of thousands if we consider his faith, which is set before us as the best model of believing, to whose race also we must be held to belong in order that we may be the children of God. What could be more absurd than that Abraham should be the father of all the faithful, and not even occupy the meanest corner among them? He cannot be denied a place in the list; nay, he cannot be denied one of the most honourable places in it, without the destruction of the whole Church. Now, as regards his experience in life, the moment he is called by the command of God, he is torn away from friends, parents, and country, objects in which the chief happiness of life is deemed to consist, as if it had been the fixed purpose of the Lord to deprive him of all the sources of enjoyment. No sooner does he enter the land in which he was ordered to dwell, than he is driven from it by famine. In the country to which he retires to obtain relief, he is obliged, for his personal safety, to expose his wife to prostitution. This must have been more bitter than many deaths. After returning to the land of his habitation, he is again expelled by famine. What is the happiness of inhabiting a land where you must so often suffer from hunger, nay, perish from famine, unless you flee from it? Then, again, with Abimelech, he is reduced to the same necessity of saving his head by the loss of his wife, (Gen. 12: 12.) While he wanders up and down uncertain for many years, he is compelled, by the constant quarrelling of servants to part with his nephew, who was to him as a son. This departure must doubtless have cost him a pang something like the cutting off of a limb. Shortly after, he learns that his nephew is carried off captive by the enemy. Wherever he goes, he meets with savage-hearted neighbours, who will not even allow him to drink of the wells which he has dug with great labour. For he would not have purchased the use from the king of Gerar if he had not been previously prohibited. After he had reached the verge of life, he sees himself childless, (the bitterest and most unpleasant feeling to old age,) until, beyond expectation, Ishmael is born; and yet he pays dearly for his birth in the reproaches of Sarah, as if he was the cause of domestic disturbance by encouraging the contumacy of a female slave. At length Isaac is born, but in return, the first-born Ishmael is displaced, and almost hostilely driven forth and abandoned. Isaac remains alone, and the good man, now worn out with age, has his heart upon him, when shortly after he is ordered to offer him up in sacrifice. What can the human mind conceive more dreadful than for the father to be the murderer of his son? Had he been carried off by disease, who would not have thought the old man much to be pitied in having a son given to him in mockery, and in having his grief for being childless doubled to him? Had he been slain by some stranger, this would, indeed, have been much worse than natural death. But all these calamities are little compared with the murder of him by his father’s hand. Thus, in fine, during the whole course of his life, he was harassed and tossed in such a way, that any one desirous to give a picture of a calamitous life could not find one more appropriate. Let it not be said that he was not so very distressed, because he at length escaped from all these tempests. He is not said to lead a happy life who, after infinite difficulties during a long period, at last laboriously works out his escape, but he who calmly enjoys present blessings without any alloy of suffering.

12.

Isaac is less afflicted, but he enjoys very few of the sweets of life. He also meets with those vexations which do not permit a man to be happy on the earth. Famine drives him from the land of Canaan; his wife is torn from his bosom; his neighbours are ever and anon annoying and vexing him in all kinds of ways, so that he is even obliged to fight for water. At home, he suffers great annoyance from his daughters-in-law; he is stung by the dissension of his sons, and has no other cure for this great evil than to send the son whom he had blessed into exile, (Gen. 26: 27:) Jacob, again, is nothing but a striking example of the greatest wretchedness. His boyhood is passed most uncomfortably at home amidst the threats and alarms of his elder brother, and to these he is at length forced to give way, (Gen. 27: 28:) A fugitive from his parents and his native soil, in addition to the hardships of exile, the treatment he receives from his uncle Laban is in no respect milder and more humane, (Gen. 29.) As if it had been little to spend seven years of hard and rigorous servitude, he is cheated in the matter of a wife. For the sake of another wife, he must undergo a new servitude, during which, as he himself complains, the heat of the sun scorches him by day, while in frost and cold he spends the sleepless night, (Gen. 31: 40, 41.) For twenty years he spends this bitter life, and daily suffers new injuries from his father-in-law. Nor is he quiet at home, which he sees disturbed and almost broken up by the hatreds, quarrels, and jealousies of his wives. When he is ordered to return to his native land, he is obliged to take his departure in a manner resembling an ignominious flight. Even then he is unable to escape the injustice of his father-in-law, but in the midst of his journey is assailed by him with contumely and reproach, (Gen. 31: 20.) By and bye a much greater difficulty befalls him, (Gen. 32, 33.) For as he approaches his brother, he has as many forms of death in prospect as a cruel foe could invent. Hence, while waiting for his arrival, he is distracted and excruciated by direful terrors; and when he comes into his sight, he falls at his feet like one half dead, until he perceives him to be more placable than he had ventured to hope. Moreover, when he first enters the land, he is bereaved of Rachel his only beloved wife. Afterwards he hears that the son whom she had borne him, and whom he loved more than all his other children, is devoured by a wild beast, (Gen. 37: 33.) How deep the sorrow caused by his death he himself evinces, when, after long tears, he obstinately refuses to be comforted, declaring that he will go down to the grave to his son mourning. In the meantime, what vexation, anxiety, and grief, must he have received from the carrying off and dishonour of his daughter, and the cruel revenge of his sons, which not only brought him into bad odour with all the inhabitants of the country, but exposed him to the greatest danger of extermination? (Gen. 34) Then follows the horrid wickedness of Reuben his first-born, wickedness than which none could be committed more grievous, (Gen. 36: 22.) The dishonour of a wife being one of the greatest of calamities, what must be said when the atrocity is perpetrated by a son? Some time after, the family is again polluted with incest, (Gen. 38: 18.) All these disgraces might have crushed a mind otherwise the most firm and unbroken by misfortune. Towards the end of his life, when he seeks relief for himself and his family from famine, he is struck by the announcement of a new misfortune, that one of his sons is detained in prison, and that to recover him he must entrust to others his dearly beloved Benjamin, (Gen. 42, 43.) Who can think that in such a series of misfortunes, one moment was given him in which he could breathe secure? Accordingly, his own best witness, he declares to Pharaoh, “Few and evil have the days of the years of my life been,” (Gen. 47: 9.) In declaring that he had spent his life in constant wretchedness, he denies that he had experienced the prosperity which had been promised him by the Lord. Jacob, therefore, either formed a malignant and ungrateful estimate of the Lord’s favour, or he truly declared that he had lived miserable on the earth. If so, it follows that his hope could not have been fixed on earthly objects.

13.

If these holy Patriarchs expected a happy life from the hand of God, (and it is indubitable that they did,) they viewed and contemplated a different happiness from that of a terrestrial life. This is admirably shown by an Apostle, “By faith he [Abraham] sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: for he looked for a city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God.” “These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he has prepared for them a city,” (Heb. 11: 9, 10, 13-16.) They had been duller than blocks in so pertinaciously pursuing promises, no hope of which appeared upon the earth, if they had not expected their completion elsewhere. The thing which the Apostle specially urges, and not without reason, is, that they called this world a pilgrimage, as Moses also relates, (Gen. 47: 9.) If they were pilgrims and strangers in the land of Canaan, where is the promise of the Lord which appointed them heirs of it? It is clear, therefore, that the promise of possession which they had received looked farther. Hence, they did not acquire a foot breadth in the land of Canaan, except for sepulture; thus testifying that they hoped not to receive the benefit of the promise till after death. And this is the reason why Jacob set so much value on being buried there, that he took Joseph bound by oath to see it done; and why Joseph wished that his bones should some ages later, long after they had mouldered into dust, be carried thither, (Gen. 47: 29, 30; 50: 25.)

14.

In short, it is manifest, that in the whole course of their lives, they had an eye to future blessedness. Why should Jacob have aspired so earnestly to primogeniture, and intrigued for it at so much risk, if it was to bring him only exile and destitution, and no good at all, unless he looked to some higher blessing? And that this was his feeling, he declared in one of the last sentences he uttered, “I have waited for thy salvation, O God,” (Gen. 49: 18.) What salvation could he have waited for, when he felt himself breathing his last, if he did not see in death the beginning of a new life? And why talk of saints and the children of God, when even one, who otherwise strove to resist the truth, was not devoid of some similar impression? For what did Balaam mean when he said, “Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his,” (Num. 23: 10,) unless he felt convinced of what David afterward declares, “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints?” (Ps. 116: 15; 34: 12.) If death were the goal and ultimate limit, no distinction could be observed between the righteous and the wicked. The true distinction is the different lot which awaits them after death.

15.

We have not yet come farther down than the books of Moses, whose only office, according to our opponents, was to induce the people to worship God, by setting before them the fertility of the land, and its general abundance; and yet to every one who does not voluntarily shun the light, there is clear evidence of a spiritual covenant. But if we come down to the Prophets, the kingdom of Christ and eternal life are there exhibited in the fullest splendour. First, David, as earlier in time, in accordance with the order of the Divine procedure, spoke of heavenly mysteries more obscurely than they, and yet with what clearness and certainty does he point to it in all he says. The value he put upon his earthly habitation is attested by these words, “I am a stranger with thee, and a sojourner, as all my fathers were. Verily every man at his best estate is altogether vanity. Surely every man walketh in a vain show. And now, Lord, what wait I for? my hope is in thee,” (Ps. 39: 12, 5, 6, 7.) He who confesses that there is nothing solid or stable on the earth, and yet firmly retains his hope in God, undoubtedly contemplates a happiness reserved for him elsewhere. To this contemplation he is wont to invite believers whenever he would have them to be truly comforted. For, in another passages after speaking of human life as a fleeting and evanescent show, he adds, “The mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him,” (Ps. 103: 17.) To this there is a corresponding passage in another psalm, “Of old thou hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure; yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed; but thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end. The children of thy servants shall continue, and their seed shall be established before thee,” (Ps. 102: 25-28.) If, notwithstanding of the destruction of the heavens and the earth, the godly cease not to be established before God, it follows, that their salvation is connected with his eternity. But this hope could have no existence, if it did not lean upon the promise as expounded by Isaiah, “The heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner; but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished,” (Isa. 51: 6.) Perpetuity is here attributed to righteousness and salvation, not as they reside in God, but as they are experienced by men.

16.

Nor can those things which are everywhere said as to the prosperous success of believers be understood in any other sense than as referring to the manifestation of celestial glory. Of this nature are the following passages: “He preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked. Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart.” “His righteousness endureth for ever; his horn shall be exalted with honour — the desire of the wicked shall perish.” “Surely the righteous shall give thanks unto thy name; the upright shall dwell in thy presence.” “The righteous shall be in everlasting remembrance.” “The Lord redeemeth the soul of his servants.” But the Lord often leaves his servants, not only to be annoyed by the violence of the wicked, but to be lacerated and destroyed; allows the good to languish in obscurity and squalid poverty, while the ungodly shine forth, as it were, among the stars; and even by withdrawing the light of his countenance does not leave them lasting joy. Wherefore, David by no means disguises the fact, that if believers fix their eyes on the present condition of the world, they will be grievously tempted to believe that with God integrity has neither favour nor reward; so much does impiety prosper and flourish, while the godly are oppressed with ignominy, poverty, contempt, and every kind of cross. The Psalmist says, “But as for me, my feet were almost gone; my steps had well nigh slipped. For I was envious of the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked.” At length, after a statement of the case, he concludes, “When I thought to know this, it was too painful for me: until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end,” (Ps. 73: 2, 3, 16, 17.)

17.

Therefore, even from this confession of David, let us learn that the holy fathers under the Old Testament were not ignorant that in this world God seldom or never gives his servants the fulfilment of what is promised them, and therefore has directed their minds to his sanctuary, where the blessings not exhibited in the present shadowy life are treasured up for them. This sanctuary was the final judgement of God, which, as they could not at all discern it by the eye, they were contented to apprehend by faith. Inspired with this confidence, they doubted not that whatever might happen in the world, a time would at length arrive when the divine promises would be fulfilled. This is attested by such expressions as these: “As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness,” (Psalm 17: 15.) “I am like a green olive tree in the house of God,” (Psalm 52: 8.) Again, “The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree: he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon. Those that be planted in the house of the Lord shall flourish in the courts of our God. They shall still bring forth fruit in old age; they shall be fat and flourishing,” (Psalm 92: 12-14.) He had exclaimed a little before “O Lord, how great are thy works! and thy thoughts are very deep.” “When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish: it is that they shall be destroyed for ever.” Where was this splendour and beauty of the righteous, unless when the appearance of this world was changed by the manifestation of the heavenly kingdom? Lifting their eyes to the eternal world, they despised the momentary hardships and calamities of the present life, and confidently broke out into these exclamations: “He shall never suffer the righteous to be moved. But thou, O God, shalt bring them down into the pit of destruction: bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days,” (Psalm 55: 22, 23.) Where in this world is there a pit of eternal destruction to swallow up the wicked, of whose happiness it is elsewhere said, “They spend their days in wealth, and in a moment go down to the grave?” (Job 21: 13.) Where, on the other hand, is the great stability of the saints, who, as David complains, are not only disturbed, but everywhere utterly bruised and oppressed? It is here. He set before his eyes not merely the unstable vicissitudes of the world, tossed like a troubled sea, but what the Lord is to do when he shall one day sit to fix the eternal constitution of heaven and earth, as he in another place elegantly describes: “They that trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches; none of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him.” “For he sees that wise men die, likewise the fool and the brutish person perish, and leave their wealth to others. Their inward thought is, that their houses shall continue for ever, and their dwelling-places to all generations; they call their lands after their own names. Nevertheless, man being in honour abideth not: he is like the beasts that perish. This their way is their folly: yet their posterity approve their sayings. Like sheep they are laid in the grave; death shall feed on them; and the upright shall have dominion over them in the morning; and their beauty shall consume in the grave from their dwelling,” (Psalm 49: 6, 7, 10-14.) By this derision of the foolish for resting satisfied with the slippery and fickle pleasures, of the world, he shows that the wise must seek for a very different felicity. But he more clearly unfolds the hidden doctrine of the resurrection when he sets up a kingdom to the righteous after the wicked are cast down and destroyed. For what, pray, are we to understand by the “morning,” unless it be the revelation of a new life, commencing when the present comes to an end?

18.

Hence the consideration which believers employed as a solace for their sufferings, and a remedy for their patience: “His anger endureth but a moment: in his favour is life,” (Psalm 30: 5.) How did their afflictions, which continued almost throughout the whole course of life, terminate in a moment? Where did they see the long duration of the divine benignity, of which they had only the slightest taste? Had they clung to earth, they could have found nothing of the kind; but looking to heaven, they saw that the period during which the Lord afflicted his saints was but a moment, and that the mercies with which he gathers them are everlasting: on the other hand, they foresaw that for the wicked, who only dreamed of happiness for a day, there was reserved an eternal and never-ending destruction. Hence those expressions: “The memory of the just is blessed, but the name of the wicked shall rot,” (Prov. 10: 7.) “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints,” (Psalm 116: 15.) Again in Samuel: “The Lord will keep the feet of his saints, and the wicked shall be silent in darkness,” (1 Sam. 2: 9;) showing they knew well, that however much the righteous might be tossed about, their latter end was life and peace; that how pleasant soever the delights of the wicked, they gradually lead down to the chambers of death. They accordingly designated the death of such persons as the death “of the uncircumcised,” that is, persons cut off from the hope of resurrection, (Ezek. 28: 10; 31: 18.) Hence David could not imagine a greater curse than this: “Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous,” (Psalm 69: 28.)

19.

The most remarkable passage of all is that of Job: “I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: and though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another,” (Job 19: 25-27.) Those who would make a display of their acuteness, pretend that these words are to be understood not of the last resurrection, but of the day when Job expected that God would deal more gently with him. Granting that this is partly meant, we shall, however, compel them, whether they will or not, to admit that Job never could have attained to such fulness of hope if his thoughts had risen no higher than the earth. It must, therefore, be confessed, that he who saw that the Redeemer would be present with him when lying in the grave, must have raised his eyes to a future immortality. To those who think only of the present life, death is the extremity of despair; but it could not destroy the hope of Job. “Though he slay me,” said he, “yet will I trust in him,” (Job 13: 15.) Let no trifler here burst in with the objection that these are the sayings of a few, and do not by any means prove that there was such a doctrine among the Jews. To this my instant answer is, that these few did not in such passages give utterance to some hidden wisdom, to which only distinguished individuals were admitted privately and apart from others, but that having been appointed by the Holy Spirit to be the teachers of the people, they openly promulgated the mysteries of God, which all in common behaved to learn as the principles of public religion. When, therefore, we hear that those passages in which the Holy Spirit spoke so distinctly and clearly of the spiritual life were public oracles in the Jewish Church, it were intolerably perverse to confine them entirely to a carnal covenant relating merely to the earth and earthly riches.

20.

When we descend to the later prophets, we have it in our power to expatiate freely as in our own field. If, when David, Job, and Samuel, were in question, the victory was not difficult, much easier is it here; for the method and economy which God observed in administering the covenant of his mercy was, that the nearer the period of its full exhibition approached, the greater the additions which were daily made to the light of revelation. Accordingly, at the beginning, when the first promise of salvation was given to Adam, (Gen. 3: 15,) only a few slender sparks beamed forth: additions being afterwards made, a greater degree of light began to be displayed, and continued gradually to increase and shine with greater brightness, until at length all the clouds being dispersed, Christ the Sun of righteousness arose, and with full refulgence illumined all the earth, (Mal. 4.) In appealing to the Prophets, therefore, we can have no fear of any deficiency of proof; but as I see an immense mass of materials, which would occupy us much longer than compatible with the nature of our present work, (the subject, indeed, would require a large volume,) and as I trust, that by what has already been said, I have paved the way, so that every reader of the very least discernment may proceed without stumbling, I will avoid a prolixity, for which at present there is little necessity; only reminding my readers to facilitate the entrance by means of the key which was formerly put into their hands, (supra, Chap. 4 sec. 3, 4;) namely, that whenever the Prophets make mention of the happiness of believers, (a happiness of which scarcely any vestiges are discernible in the present life,) they must have recourse to this distinction: that the better to commend the Divine goodness to the people, they used temporal blessings as a kind of lineaments to shadow it forth, and yet gave such a portrait as might lift their minds above the earth, the elements of this world, and all that will perish, and compel them to think of the blessedness of a future and spiritual life.

21.

One example will suffice. When the Israelites were carried away to Babylon, their dispersion seemed to be the next thing to death, and they could scarcely be dissuaded from thinking that Ezekiel’s prophecy of their restoration (Ezek. 37: 4) was a mere fable, because it seemed to them the same thing as if he had prophesied that putrid caresses would be raised to life. The Lord, in order to show that, even in that case, there was nothing to prevent him from making room for his kindness, set before the prophet in vision a field covered with dry bones, to which, by the mere power of his word, he in one moment restored life and strength. The vision served, indeed, to correct the unbelief of the Jews at the time, but it also reminded them how much farther the power of the Lord extended than to the bringing back of the people, since by a single nod it could so easily give life to dry scattered bones. Wherefore, the passage may be fitly compared with one in Isaiah, “Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead. Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee: hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast. For, behold, the Lord cometh out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain,” (Isa. 26: 19-21.)

22.

It were absurd however to interpret all the passages on a similar principle; for there are several which point without any veil to the future immortality which awaits believers in the kingdom of heaven. Some of them we have already quoted, and there are many others, but especially the following two. The one is in Isaiah, “As the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord. And they shall go forth, and look upon the caresses of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh,” (Isa. 66: 22-24.) The other passage is in Daniel. “At that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as there never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt,” (Dan. 12: 1, 2.)

23.

In proving the two remaining points, viz., that the Patriarchs had Christ as the pledge of their covenant, and placed all their hope of blessing in him, as they are clearer, and not so much controverted, I will be less particular. Let us then lay it down confidently as a truth which no engines of the devil can destroy—that the Old Testament or covenant which the Lord made with the people of Israel was not confined to earthly objects, but contained a promise of spiritual and eternal life, the expectation of which behaved to be impressed on the minds of all who truly consented to the covenant. Let us put far from us the senseless and pernicious notion, that the Lord proposed nothing to the Jews, or that they sought nothing but full supplies of food, carnal delights, abundance of wealth, external influence, a numerous offspring, and all those things which our animal nature deems valuable. For, even now, the only kingdom of heaven which our Lord Jesus Christ promises to his followers, is one in which they may sit down with Abraham, and Isaac and Jacob, (Matth. 8: 11;) and Peter declared of the Jews of his day, that they were heirs of gospel grace because they were the sons of the prophets, and comprehended in the covenant which the Lord of old made with his people, (Acts 3: 25.) And that this might not be attested by words merely, our Lord also approved it by act, (Matth. 27: 52.) At the moment when he rose again, he deigned to make many of the saints partakers of his resurrection, and allowed them to be seen in the city; thus giving a sure earnest, that every thing which he did and suffered in the purchase of eternal salvation belonged to believers under the Old Testament, just as much as to us. Indeed, as Peter testifies, they were endued with the same spirit of faith by which we are regenerated to life, (Acts 15: 8.) When we hear that that spirit, which is, as it were, a kind of spark of immortality in us, (whence it is called the “earnest” of our inheritance, Eph. 1: 14,) dwelt in like manner in them, how can we presume to deny them the inheritance? Hence, it is the more wonderful how the Sadducees of old fell into such a degree of sottishness as to deny both the resurrection and the substantive existence of spirits, both of which where attested to them by so many striking passages of Scripture. Nor would the stupidity of the whole nation in the present day, in expecting an earthly reign of the Messiah, be less wonderful, had not the Scriptures foretold this long before as the punishment which they were to suffer for rejecting the Gospel, God, by a just judgement, blinding minds which voluntarily invite darkness, by rejecting the offered light of heaven. They read, and are constantly turning over the pages of Moses, but a veil prevents them from seeing the light which beams forth in his countenance, (2 Cor. 3: 14;) and thus to them he will remain covered and veiled until they are converted to Christ, between whom and Moses they now study, as much as in them lies, to maintain a separation.

CHAPTER 11. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO TESTAMENTS.

This chapter consists principally of three parts.

I. Five points of difference between the Old and the New Testament, sec. 1-11.

II. The last of these points being, that the Old Testament belonged to the Jews only, whereas the New Testament belongs to all; the calling of the Gentiles is shortly considered, sec. 12.

III. A reply to two objections usually taken to what is here taught concerning the difference between the Old and the New Testaments, sec. 13, 14.

Sections.

1. Five points of difference between the Old and the New Testaments. These belong to the mode of administration rather than the substance. First difference. In the Old Testament the heavenly inheritance is exhibited under temporal blessings; in the New, aids of this description are not employed.

2. Proof of this first difference from the simile of an heir in pupillarity, as in Gal. 4: 1.

3. This the reason why the Patriarchs, under the Law, set a higher value on this life and the blessings of it, and dreaded the punishments, these being even more striking. Why severe and sudden punishments existed under the Law.

4. A second difference. The Old Testament typified Christ under ceremonies. The New exhibits the immediate truth and the whole body. The scope of the Epistle to the Hebrews in explaining this difference. Definition of the Old Testament.

5. Hence the Law our Schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ.

6. Notwithstanding, among those under the Law, some of the strongest examples of faith are exhibited, their equals being scarcely to be found in the Christian Church. The ordinary method of the divine dispensation to be here attended to. These excellent individuals placed under the Law, and aided by ceremonies, that they might behold and hail Christ afar off.

7. Third difference. The Old Testament is literal, the New spiritual. This difference considered first generally.

8. Next treated specially, on a careful examination of the Apostle’s text. A threefold antithesis. The Old Testament is literal, deadly, temporary. The New is spiritual, quickening, eternal. Difference between the letter and the spirit.

9. Fourth difference. The Old Testament belongs to bondage, the New to liberty. This confirmed by three passages of Scripture. Two objections answered.

10. Distinction between the three last differences and the first. Confirmation of the above from Augustine. Condition of the patriarchs under the Old Testament.

11. Fifth difference. The Old Testament belonged to one people only, the New to all.

12. The second part of the chapter depending on the preceding section. Of the calling of the Gentiles. Why the calling of the Gentiles scented to the Apostles so strange and new.

13. The last part of the chapter. Two objections considered.

1. God being immutable, cannot consistently disapprove what he once ordered. Answer confirmed by a passage of Scripture.

14. Objections.

2. God could at first have transacted with the Jews as he now does with Christians. Answer, showing the absurdity of this objection. Another answer founded on a just consideration of the divine will and the dispensation of grace.

1.

What, then? you will say, Is there no difference between the Old and the New Testaments? What is to become of the many passages of Scripture in which they are contrasted as things differing most widely from each other? I readily admit the differences which are pointed out in Scripture, but still hold that they derogate in no respect from their established unity, as will be seen after we have considered them in their order. These differences (so far as I have been able to observe them and can remember) seem to be chiefly four, or, if you choose to add a fifth, I have no objections. I hold and think I will be able to show, that they all belong to the mode of administration rather than to the substance. In this way, there is nothing in them to prevent the promises of the Old and New Testament from remaining the same, Christ being the foundation of both. The first difference then is, that though, in old time, the Lord was pleased to direct the thoughts of his people, and raise their minds to the heavenly inheritance, yet, that their hope of it might be the better maintained, he held it forth, and, in a manner, gave a foretaste of it under earthly blessings, whereas the gift of future life, now more clearly and lucidly revealed by the Gospel, leads our minds directly to meditate upon it, the inferior mode of exercise formerly employed in regard to the Jews being now laid aside. Those who attend not to the divine purpose in this respect, suppose that God’s ancient people ascended no higher than the blessings which were promised to the body. They hear the land of Canaan so often named as the special, and as it were the only, reward of the Divine Law to its worshipers; they hear that the severest punishment which the Lord denounces against the transgressors of the Law is expulsion from the possession of that land and dispersion into other countries; they see that this forms almost the sum of the blessings and curses declared by Moses; and from these things they confidently conclude that the Jews were separated from other nations not on their own account, but for another reason, viz., that the Christian Church might have an emblem in whose outward shape might be seen an evidence of spiritual things. But since the Scripture sometimes demonstrates that the earthly blessings thus bestowed were intended by God himself to guide them to a heavenly hope, it shows great unskilfulness, not to say dullness, not to attend to this mode of dispensation. The ground of controversy is this: our opponents hold that the land of Canaan was considered by the Israelites as supreme and final happiness, and now, since Christ was manifested, typifies to us the heavenly inheritance; whereas we maintain that, in the earthly possession which the Israelites enjoyed, they beheld, as in a mirror, the future inheritance which they believed to be reserved for them in heaven.

2.

This will better appear from the similitude which Paul uses in Galatians, (Gal. 4: 1.) He compares the Jewish nation to an heir in pupillarity, who, as yet unfit to govern himself, follows the direction of a tutor or guide to whose charge he has been committed. Though this simile refers especially to ceremonies, there is nothing to prevent us from applying it most appropriately here also. The same inheritance was destined to them as to us, but from nonage they were incapable of entering to it, and managing it. They had the same Church, though it was still in puerility. The Lord, therefore kept them under this tutelage, giving them spiritual promises, not clear and simple, but typified by earthly objects. Hence, when he chose Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and their posterity, to the hope of immortality, he promised them the land of Canaan for an inheritance, not that it might be the limit of their hopes, but that the view of it might train and confirm them in the hope of that true inheritance, which, as yet, appeared not. And, to guard against delusion, they received a better promise, which attested that this earth was not the highest measure of the divine kindness. Thus, Abraham is not allowed to keep down his thoughts to the promised land: by a greater promise his views are carried upward to the Lord. He is thus addressed, “Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward,” (Gen. 15: l.) Here we see that the Lord is the final reward promised to Abraham that he might not seek a fleeting and evanescent reward in the elements of this world, but look to one which was incorruptible. A promise of the land is afterwards added for no other reason than that it might be a symbol of the divine benevolence, and a type of the heavenly inheritance, as the saints declare their understanding to have been. Thus David rises from temporal blessings to the last and highest of all, “My flesh and my heart faileth: but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever.” “My heart and my flesh crieth out for the living God,” (Ps. 73: 26; 84: 2.) Again, “The Lord is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup: thou maintainest my lot,” (Ps. 16: 5.) Again “I cried unto thee O Lord: I said Thou art my refuge and my portion in the land of the living,” (Ps. 142: 5.) Those who can venture to speak thus, assuredly declare that their hope rises beyond the world and worldly blessings. This future blessedness, however, the prophets often describe under a type which the Lord had taught them. In this way are to be understood the many passages in Job (Job 18: 17) and Isaiah, to the effect, That the righteous shall inherit the earth, that the wicked shall be driven out of it, that Jerusalem will abound in all kinds of riches, and Sion overflow with every species at abundance. In strict propriety, all these things obviously apply not to the land of our pilgrimage, nor to the earthly Jerusalem, but to the true country, the heavenly city of believers, in which the Lord has commanded blessing and life for evermore, (Ps. 133: 3.)

3.

Hence the reason why the saints under the Old Testament set a higher value on this mortal life and its blessings than would now be meet. For, though they well knew, that in their race they were not to halt at it as the goal, yet, perceiving that the Lord, in accommodation to their feebleness, had there imprinted the lineaments of his favour, it gave them greater delight than it could have done if considered only in itself. For, as the Lord, in testifying his good will towards believers by means of present blessings, then exhibited spiritual felicity under types and emblems, so, on the other hand, by temporal punishments he gave proofs of his judgement against the reprobate. Hence, by earthly objects, the favour of the Lord was displayed, as well as his punishment inflicted. The unskilful, not considering this analogy and correspondence (if I may so speak) between rewards and punishments, wonder that there is so much variance in God, that those who, in old time, were suddenly visited for their faults with severe and dreadful punishments, he now punishes much more rarely and less severely, as if he had laid aside his former anger, and, for this reason, they can scarcely help imagining, like the Manichees, that the God of the Old Testament was different from that of the New. But we shall easily disencumber ourselves of such doubts if we attend to that mode of divine administration to which I have adverted—that God was pleased to indicate and typify both the gift of future and eternal felicity by terrestrial blessings, as well as the dreadful nature of spiritual death by bodily punishments, at that time when he delivered his covenant to the Israelites as under a kind of veil.

4.

Another distinction between the Old and New Testaments is in the types, the former exhibiting only the image of truth, while the reality was absent, the shadow instead of the substance, the latter exhibiting both the full truth and the entire body. Mention is usually made of this, whenever the New Testament is contrasted with the Old, but it is no where so fully treated as in the Epistle to the Hebrews, (chap. 7-10.) The Apostle is there arguing against those who thought that the observances of the Mosaic Law could not be abolished without producing the total ruin of religion. In order to refute this error, he adverts to what the Psalmist had foretold concerning the priesthood of Christ, (Ps. 110: 4.) seeing that an eternal priesthood is assigned to him, it is clear that the priesthood in which there was a daily succession of priests is abolished. And he proves that the institution of this new Priest must prevail, because confirmed by an oath. He afterwards adds, that a change of the priest necessarily led to a change of the covenant. And the necessity of this he confirms by the reason, that the weakness of the law was such, that it could make nothing perfect. He then goes on to show in what this weakness consists, namely, that it had external carnal observances which could not render the worshipers perfect in respect of conscience, because its sacrifices of beasts could neither take away sins nor procure true holiness. He therefore concludes that it was a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, and accordingly had no other office than to be an introduction to the better hope which is exhibited in the Gospel. Here we may see in what respect the legal is compared with the evangelical covenant, the ministry of Christ with that of Moses. If the comparison referred to the substance of the promises, there would be a great repugnance between the two covenants; but since the nature of the case leads to a different view, we must follow it in order to discover the truth. Let us, therefore bring forward the covenant which God once ratified as eternal and unending. Its completion, whereby it is fixed and ratified, is Christ. Till such completion takes place, the Lord, by Moses, prescribes ceremonies which are, as it were formal symbols of confirmation. The point brought under discussion was, Whether or not the ceremonies ordained in the Law behaved to give way to Christ. Although these were merely accidents of the covenant, or at least additions and appendages, and, as they are commonly called, accessories, yet because they were the means of administering it, the name of covenant is applied to them, just as is done in the case of other sacraments. Hence, in general, the Old Testament is the name given to the solemn method of confirming the covenant comprehended under ceremonies and sacrifices. Since there is nothing substantial in it, until we look beyond it, the Apostle contends that it behaved to be annulled and become antiquated, (Heb. 7: 22,) to make room for Christ, the surety and mediator of a better covenant, by whom the eternal sanctification of the elect was once purchased, and the transgressions which remained under the Law wiped away. But if you prefer it, take it thus: the covenant of the Lord was old, because veiled by the shadowy and ineffectual observance of ceremonies; and it was therefore temporary, being, as it were in suspense until it received a firm and substantial confirmation. Then only did it become new and eternal when it was consecrated and established in the blood of Christ. Hence the Saviour, in giving the cup to his disciples in the last supper, calls it the cup of the new testament in his blood; intimating, that the covenant of God was truly realised, made new, and eternal, when it was sealed with his blood.

5.

It is now clear in what sense the Apostle said, (Gal. 3: 24; 4: 1,) that by the tutelage of the Law the Jews were conducted to Christ, before he was exhibited in the flesh. He confesses that they were sons and heirs of God, though, on account of nonage, they were placed under the guardianship of a tutor. It was fit, the Sun of Righteousness not yet having risen, that there should neither be so much light of revelation nor such clear understanding. The Lord dispensed the light of his word, so that they could behold it at a distance, and obscurely. Accordingly, this slender measure of intelligence is designated by Paul by the term childhood, which the Lord was pleased to train by the elements of this world, and external observances, until Christ should appear. Through him the knowledge of believers was to be matured. This distinction was noted by our Saviour himself when he said that the Law and the Prophets were until John, that from that time the gospel of the kingdom was preached, (Matth. 11: 13.) What did the Law and the Prophets deliver to the men of their time? They gave a foretaste of that wisdom which was one day to be clearly manifested, and showed it afar off. But where Christ can be pointed to with the finger, there the kingdom of God is manifested. In him are contained all the treasures of wisdom and understanding, and by these we penetrate almost to the very shrine of heaven.

6.

There is nothing contrary to this in the fact, that in the Christian Church scarcely one is to be found who, in excellence of faith, can be compared to Abraham, and that the Prophets were so distinguished by the power of the Spirit, that even in the present day they give light to the whole world. For the question here is, not what grace the Lord conferred upon a few, but what was the ordinary method which he followed in teaching the people, and which even was employed in the case of those very prophets who were endued with special knowledge above others. For their preaching was both obscure as relating to distant objects, and was included in types. Moreover, however wonderful the knowledge displayed in them, as they were under the necessity of submitting to the tutelage common to all the people, they must also be ranked among children. Lastly, none of them ever had such a degree of discernment as not to savour somewhat of the obscurity of the age. Whence the words of our Saviour, “Many kings and prophets have desired to see the things which you see, and have not seen them, and to hear the things which ye hear, and have not heard them. Blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear,” (Matth. 13: 17.) And it was right that the presence of Christ should have this distinguishing feature, that by means of it the revelation of heavenly mysteries should be made more transparent. To the same effect is the passage which we formerly quoted from the First Epistle of Peter, that to them it was revealed that their labour should be useful not so much to themselves as to our age.

7.

I proceed to the third distinction, which is thus expressed by Jeremiah: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt; (which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord;) but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them,” (Jer. 31: 31-34.) From these words, the Apostle took occasion to institute a comparison between the Law and the Gospel, calling the one a doctrine of the letter, the other a doctrine of the spirit; describing the one as formed on tables of stone, the other on tables of the heart; the one the preaching of death, the other of life; the one of condemnation, the other of justification; the one made void, the other permanent, (2 Cor. 3: 5, 6.) The object of the Apostle being to explain the meaning of the Prophet, the worlds of the one furnish us with the means of ascertaining what was understood by both. And yet there is some difference between them. For the Apostle speaks of the Law more disparagingly than the Prophet. This he does not simply in respect of the Law itself, but because there were some false zealots of the Law who, by a perverse zeal for ceremonies, obscured the clearness of the Gospel, he treats of the nature of the Law with reference to their error and foolish affection. It will, therefore, be proper to attend to this peculiarity in Paul. Both, however, as they are contrasting the Old and New Testament, consider nothing in the Law but what is peculiar to it. For example, the Law everywhere contains promises of mercy; but as these are adventitious to it, they do not enter into the account of the Law as considered only in its own nature. All which is attributed to it is, that it commands what is right, prohibits crimes, holds forth rewards to the cultivators of righteousness, and threatens transgressors with punishment, while at the same time it neither changes nor amends that depravity of heart which is naturally inherent in all.

8.

Let us now explain the Apostle’s contrast step by step. The Old Testament is literal, because promulgated without the efficacy of the Spirit: the New spiritual, because the Lord has engraven it on the heart. The second antithesis is a kind of exposition of the first. The Old is deadly, because it can do nothing but involve the whole human race in a curse; the New is the instrument of life, because those who are freed from the curse it restores to favour with God. The former is the ministry of condemnation, because it charges the whole sons of Adam with transgression; the latter the ministry of righteousness, because it unfolds the mercy of God, by which we are justified. The last antithesis must be referred to the Ceremonial Law. Being a shadow of things to come, it behaved in time to perish and vanish away; whereas the Gospel, inasmuch as it exhibits the very body, is firmly established for ever. Jeremiah indeed calls the Moral Law also a weak and fragile covenant; but for another reason, namely, because it was immediately broken by the sudden defection of an ungrateful people; but as the blame of such violation is in the people themselves, it is not properly alleged against the covenant. The ceremonies, again, inasmuch as through their very weakness they were dissolved by the advent of Christ, had the cause of weakness from within. Moreover, the difference between the spirit and the letter must not be understood as if the Lord had delivered his Law to the Jews without any good result; i. e. as if none had been converted to him. It is used comparatively to commend the riches of the grace with which the same Lawgivers assuming, as it were a new characters honoured the preaching of the Gospel. When we consider the multitude of those whom, by the preaching of the Gospel, he has regenerated by his, Spirit, and gathered out of all nations into the communion of his Church, we may say that those of ancient Israel who, with sincere and heartfelt affections embraced the covenant of the Lord, were few or none, though the number is great when they are considered in themselves without comparison.

9.

Out of the third distinction a fourth arises. In Scripture, the term bondage is applied to the Old Testaments because it begets fear, and the term freedom to the New, because productive of confidence and security. Thus Paul says to the Romans, “Ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption whereby we cry, Abba, Father,” (Rom. 8: 15.) To the same effect is the passage in the Hebrews, “For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, and the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard entreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more: (for they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart: and so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake:) but ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem,” &c. (Heb. 12: 18-22.) What Paul briefly touches on in the passage which we have quoted from the Romans, he explains more fully in the Epistles to the Galatians, where he makes an allegory of the two sons of Abraham in this way: “Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all,” (Gal. 4: 25, 26.) As the offspring of Agar was born in slavery, and could never attain to the inheritances while that of Sara was free and entitled to the inheritance, so by the Law we are subjected to slavery, and by the Gospel alone regenerated into liberty. The sum of the matter comes to this: The Old Testament filled the conscience with fear and trembling,- The New inspires it with gladness. By the former the conscience is held in bondage, by the latter it is manumitted and made free. If it be objected, that the holy fathers among the Israelites, as they were endued with the same spirit of faith, must also have been partakers of the same liberty and joy, we answer, that neither was derived from the Law; but feeling that by the Law they were oppressed like slaves, and vexed with a disquieted conscience, they fled for refuge to the (gospel; and, accordingly, the peculiar advantage of the Gospel was, that, contrary to the common rule of the Old Testament, it exempted those who were under it from those evils. Then, again, we deny that they did possess the spirit of liberty and security in such a degree as not to experience some measure of fear and bondage. For however they might enjoy the privilege which they had obtained through the grace of the Gospel, they were under the same bonds and burdens of observances as the rest of their nation. Therefore, seeing they were obliged to the anxious observance of ceremonies, (which were the symbols of a tutelage bordering on slavery, and handwritings by which they acknowledged their guilt, but did not escape from it,) they are justly said to have been, comparatively, under a covenant of fear and bondage, in respect of that common dispensation under which the Jewish people were then placed.

10.

The three last contrasts to which we have adverted, (sec. 4, 7, 9,) are between the Law and the Gospel, and hence in these the Law is designated by the name of the Old, and the Gospel by that of the New Testament. The first is of wider extent, (sec. 1,) comprehending under it the promises which were given even before the Law. When Augustine maintained that these were not to be included under the name of the Old Testament, (August. ad Bonifac. lib. 3 c. 14,) he took a most correct view, and meant nothing different from what we have now taught; for he had in view those passages of Jeremiah and Paul in which the Old Testament is distinguished from the word of grace and mercy. In the same passage, Augustine, with great shrewdness remarks, that from the beginning of the world the sons of promise, the divinely regenerated, who, through faith working by love, obeyed the commandments, belonged to the New Testament; entertaining the hope not of carnal, earthly, temporal, but spiritual, heavenly, and eternal blessings, believing especially in a Mediator, by whom they doubted not both that the Spirit was administered to them, enabling them to do good, and pardon imparted as often as they sinned. The thing which he thus intended to assert was, that all the saints mentioned in Scripture, from the beginning of the world, as having been specially selected by God, were equally with us partakers of the blessing of eternal salvation. The only difference between our division and that of Augustine is, that ours (in accordance with the words of our Saviour, “All the prophets and the law prophesied until John,” Matth. 11: 13) distinguishes between the gospel light and that more obscure dispensation of the word which preceded it, while the other division simply distinguishes between the weakness of the Law and the strength of the Gospel. And here also, with regard to the holy fathers, it is to be observed, that though they lived under the Old Testament, they did not stop there, but always aspired to the New, and so entered into sure fellowship with it. Those who, contented with existing shadows, did not carry their thoughts to Christ, the Apostle charges with blindness and malediction. To say nothing of other matters, what greater blindness can be imagined, than to hope for the expiation of sin from the sacrifice of a beast, or to seek mental purification in external washing with water, or to attempt to appease God with cold ceremonies, as if he were greatly delighted with them? Such are the absurdities into which those fall who cling to legal observances, without respect to Christ.

11.

The fifth distinction which we have to add consists in this, that until the advent of Christ, the Lord set apart one nation, to which he confined the covenant of his grace. Moses says, “When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the Lord’s portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance,” (Deut. 32: 8, 9.) In another passage he thus addresses the people: “Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the Lord’s thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is. Only the Lord had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed, after them, even you, above all people, as it is this day,” (Deut. 10: 14,15.) That people, therefore, as if they had been the only part of mankind belonging to him he favoured exclusively with the knowledge of his name, depositing his covenant, as it were, in their bosom, manifesting to them the presence of his divinity and honouring them with all privileges. But to say nothing of other favours, the only one here considered is his binding them to him by the communion of his word, so that he was called and regarded as their God. Meanwhile, other nations, as if they had had no kind of intercourse with him, he allowed to wander in vanity not even supplying them with the only means of preventing their destructions viz., the preaching of his word. Israel was thus the Lord’s favourite child the others were aliens. Israel was known and admitted to trust and guardianship, the others left in darkness; Israel was made holy, the others were profane; Israel was honoured with the presence of God, the others kept far aloof from him. But on the fulness of the time destined to renew all things, when the Mediator between God and man was manifested the middle wall of partition, which had long kept the divine mercy within the confines of Israel, was broken down, peace was preached to them who were afar off, as well as to those who were nigh, that being, together reconciled to God, they might unite as one people. Wherefore, there is now no respect of Jew or Greek, of circumcision or uncircumcision, but Christ is all and in all. To him the heathen have been given for his inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession, (Ps. 2: 8,) that he may rule without distinction “from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth,” (Ps. 72: 8.)

12.

The calling of the Gentiles, therefore, is a distinguishing feature illustrative of the superiority of the New over the Old Testament. This, it is true, had been previously declared by the prophets, in passages both numerous and clear, but still the fulfilment of it was deferred to the reign of the Messiah. Even Christ did not acknowledge it at the very outset of his ministry, but delayed it until having completed the whole work of redemption in all its parts, and finished the period of his humiliation, he received from the Father “a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,” (Philip. 2: 9, 10.) Hence the period being not yet completed, he declared to the woman of Canaan, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” (Matth. 15: 24.) Nor in his first commission to the Apostles does he permit them to pass the same limits, “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” (Matth. 10: 5, 6.) However plainly the thing may have been declared in numerous passages, when it was announced to the Apostles, it seemed to them so new and extraordinary, that they were horrified at it as something monstrous. At length, when they did act upon it, it was timorously, and not without reluctance. Nor is this strange; for it seemed by no means in accordance with reason, that the Lord, who for so many ages had selected Israel from the rest of the nations should suddenly, as it were, change his purpose, and abandon his choice. Prophecy, indeed, had foretold it, but they could not be so attentive to prophecies, as not to be somewhat startled by the novel spectacle thus presented to their eye. It was not enough that God had in old times given specimens of the future calling of the Gentiles. Those whom he had so called were very few in number, and, moreover, he in a manner adopted them into the family of Abraham, before allowing them to approach his people. But by this public call, the Gentiles were not only made equal to the Jews, but seemed to be substituted into their place, as if the Jews had been dead. We may add, that any strangers whom God had formerly admitted into the body of the Church, had never been put on the same footing with the Jews. Wherefore, it is not without cause that Paul describes it as the mystery which has been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints, (Col. 1: 26.)

13.

The whole difference between the Old and New Testaments has, I think, been fully and faithfully explained, under these four or five heads in so far as requisite for ordinary instruction. But since this variety in governing the Church, this diversity in the mode of teaching, this great change in rites and ceremonies, is regarded by some as an absurdity, we must reply to them before passing to other matters. And this can be done briefly, because the objections are not so strong as to require a very careful refutation. It is unreasonable they say, to suppose that Gods who is always consistent With himself permitted such a change as afterwards to disapprove what he had once ordered and commended. I answer, that God ought not to be deemed mutable, because he adapts different forms to different ages, as he knows to be expedient for each. If the husband man prescribes one set of duties to his household in winter, and another in summer, we do not therefore charge him with fickleness or think he deviates from the rules of good husbandry which depends on the regular course of nature. In like manner, if a father of a family, in educating, governing, and managing his children, pursues one course in boyhood another in adolescence and another in manhood we do not therefore say that he is fickle, or abandons his opinions. Why, then do we charge God with inconstancy when he makes fit and congruous arrangements for diversities of times? The latter similitude ought to be completely satisfactory. Paul likens the Jews to children, and Christians to grown men, (Gal. 4: 1.) What irregularity is there in the Divine arrangement, which confined them to the rudiments which were suitable to their age, and trains us by a firmer and more manly discipline? The constancy of God is conspicuous in this, that he delivered the same doctrine to all ages, and persists in requiring that worship of his name which he commanded at the beginning. His changing the external form and manner does not show that he is liable to change. In so far he has only accommodated himself to the mutable and diversified capacities of man.

14.

But it is said, Wench this diversity, save that God chose to make it? Would it not have been as easy for him from the first, as after the advent of Christ, to reveal eternal life in clear terms without any figures, to instruct his people by a few clear sacraments, to bestow his Holy Spirit, and diffuse his grace over the whole globe? This is very much the same as to bring a charge against God, because he created the world at so late a period, when he could have done it at the first, or because he appointed the alternate changes of summer and winter, of clay and night. With the feeling common to every pious mind, let us not doubt that every thing which God has done has been done wisely and justly, although we may be ignorant of the cause which required that it should be so done. We should arrogate too much to ourselves were we not to concede to God that he may have reasons for his counsel, which we are unable to discern. It is strange, they say, that he now repudiates and abominates the sacrifices of beasts, and the whole apparatus of that Levitical priesthood in which he formerly delighted. As if those external and transient matters could delight God, or affect him in any way! It has already been observed, that he appointed none of these things on his own account, but instituted them all for the salvation of men. If a physician, adopting the best method, effects a cure upon a youth, and afterwards, when the same individual has grown old, and is again subject to the same disease, employs a different method of cure, can it be said that he repudiates the method which he formerly approved? Nay, continuing to approve of it, he only adapts himself to the different periods of life. In like manner, it was necessary in representing Christ in his absence, and predicting his future advent, to employ a different set of signs from those which are employed, now that his actual manifestation is exhibited. It is true, that since the advent of Christ, the calling of God is more widely addressed to all nations, and the graces of the Spirit more liberally bestowed than they had previously been. But who, I ask, can deny the right of God to have the free and uncontrolled disposal of his gifts, to select the nations which he may be pleased to illuminate, the places which he may be pleased to illustrate by the preaching of his word, and the mode and measure of progress and success which he may be pleased to give to his doctrine,—to punish the world for its ingratitude by withdrawing the knowledge of his name for certain ages, and again, when he so pleases, to restore it in mercy? We see, then, that in the calumnies which the ungodly employ in this matter, to perplex the minds of the simple, there is nothing that ought to throw doubt either on the justice of God or the veracity of Scripture.

CHAPTER 12. CHRIST, TO PERFORM THE OFFICE OF MEDIATOR, BEHOVED TO BECOME MAN.

The two divisions of this chapter are,

I. The reasons why our Mediator behoved to be very God, and to become man, see. 1-3.

II. Disposal of various objections by some fanatics, and especially by Osiander, to the orthodox doctrine concerning the Mediator, sec. 4-7.

Sections.

1. Necessary, not absolutely, but by divine decree, that the Mediator should be God, and become man. Neither man nor angel, though pure, could have sufficed. The Son of God behoved to come down. Man in innocence could not penetrate to God without a Mediator, much less could he after the fall.

2. A second reason why the Mediator behoved to be God and man, viz., that he had to convert those who were heirs of hell into children of God.

3. Third reason, that in our flesh he might yield a perfect obedience, satisfy the divine justice, and pay the penalty of sin. Fourth reason, regarding the consolation and confirmation of the whole Church.

4. First objection against the orthodox doctrine: Answer to it. Conformation from the sacrifices of the Law, the testimony of the Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists, and even Christ himself.

5. Second objection: Answer: Answer confirmed. Third objection: Answer. Fourth objection by Osiander: Answer.

6. Fifth objection, forming the basis of Osiander’s errors on this subject: Answer. Nature of the divine image in Adam. Christ the head of angels and men.

7. Sixth objection: Answer. Seventh objection: Answer. Eighth objection: Answer. Ninth objection: Answer. Tenth objection: Answer. Eleventh objection: Answer. Twelfth objection: Answer. The sum of the doctrine.

1.

It deeply concerned us, that he who was to be our Mediator should be very God and very man. If the necessity be inquired into, it was not what is commonly termed simple or absolute, but flowed from the divine decree on which the salvation of man depended. What was best for us, our most merciful Father determined. Our iniquities, like a cloud intervening between Him and us, having utterly alienated us from the kingdom of heaven, none but a person reaching to him could be the medium of restoring peace. But who could thus reach to him? Could any of the sons of Adam? All of them, with their parents, shuddered at the sight of God. Could any of the angels? They had need of a head, by connection with which they might adhere to their God entirely and inseparably. What then? The case was certainly desperate, if the Godhead itself did not descend to us, it being impossible for us to ascend. Thus the Son of God behoved to become our Emmanuel, the God with us; and in such a way, that by mutual union his divinity and our nature might be combined; otherwise, neither was the proximity near enough, nor the affinity strong enough, to give us hope that God would dwell with us; so great was the repugnance between our pollution and the spotless purity of God. Had man remained free from all taint, he was of too humble a condition to penetrate to God without a Mediator. What, then, must it have been, when by fatal ruin he was plunged into death and hell, defiled by so many stains, made loathsome by corruption; in fine, overwhelmed with every curse? It is not without cause, therefore, that Paul, when he would set forth Christ as the Mediator, distinctly declares him to be man. There is, says he, “one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus,” (1 Tim. 2: 5.) He might have called him God, or at least, omitting to call him God he might also have omitted to call him man; but because the Spirit, speaking by his mouth, knew our infirmity, he opportunely provides for it by the most appropriate remedy, setting the Son of God familiarly before us as one of ourselves. That no one, therefore, may feel perplexed where to seek the Mediator, or by what means to reach him, the Spirit, by calling him man, reminds us that he is near, nay, contiguous to us, inasmuch as he is our flesh. And, indeed, he intimates the same thing in another place, where he explains at greater length that he is not a high priest who “cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin,” (Heb. 4: 15.)

2.

This will become still clearer if we reflect, that the work to be performed by the Mediator was of no common description: being to restore us to the divine favour, so as to make us, instead of sons of men, sons of God; instead of heirs of hell, heirs of a heavenly kingdom. Who could do this unless the Son of God should also become the Son of man, and so receive what is ours as to transfer to us what is his, making that which is his by nature to become ours by grace? Relying on this earnest, we trust that we are the sons of God, because the natural Son of God assumed to himself a body of our body, flesh of our flesh, bones of our bones, that he might be one with us; he declined not to take what was peculiar to us, that he might in his turn extend to us what was peculiarly his own, and thus might be in common with us both Son of God and Son of man. Hence that holy brotherhood which he commends with his own lips, when he says, “I ascend to my Father, and your Father, to my God, and your God,” (John 20: 17.) In this way, we have a sure inheritance in the heavenly kingdom, because the only Son of God, to whom it entirely belonged, has adopted us as his brethren; and if brethren, then partners with him in the inheritance, (Rom. 8: 17.) Moreover, it was especially necessary for this cause also that he who was to be our Redeemer should be truly God and man. It was his to swallow up death: who but Life could do so? It was his to conquer sin: who could do so save Righteousness itself? It was his to put to flight the powers of the air and the world: who could do so but the mighty power superior to both? But who possesses life and righteousness, and the dominion and government of heaven, but God alone? Therefore, God, in his infinite mercy, having determined to redeem us, became himself our Redeemer in the person of his only begotten Son.

3.

Another principal part of our reconciliation with God was, that man, who had lost himself by his disobedience, should, by way of remedy, oppose to it obedience, satisfy the justice of God, and pay the penalty of sin. Therefore, our Lord came forth very man, adopted the person of Adam, and assumed his name, that he might in his stead obey the Father; that he might present our flesh as the price of satisfaction to the just judgement of God, and in the same flesh pay the penalty which we had incurred. Finally, since as God only he could not suffer, and as man only could not overcome death, he united the human nature with the divine, that he might subject the weakness of the one to death as an expiation of sin, and by the power of the other, maintaining a struggle with death, might gain us the victory. Those, therefore, who rob Christ of divinity or humanity either detract from his majesty and glory, or obscure his goodness. On the other hand, they are no less injurious to men, undermining and subverting their faith, which, unless it rest on this foundation, cannot stand. Moreover, the expected Redeemer was that son of Abraham and David whom God had promised in the Law and in the Prophets. Here believers have another advantage. Tracing up his origin in regular series to David and Abraham, they more distinctly recognise him as the Messiah celebrated by so many oracles. But special attention must be paid to what I lately explained, namely, that a common nature is the pledge of our union with the Son of God; that, clothed with our flesh, he warred to death with sin that he might be our triumphant conqueror; that the flesh which he received of us he offered in sacrifice, in order that by making expiation he might wipe away our guilt, and appease the just anger of his Father.

4.

He who considers these things with due attention, will easily disregard vague speculations, which attract giddy minds and lovers of novelty. One speculation of this class is, that Christ, even though there had been no need of his interposition to redeem the human race, would still have become man. I admit that in the first ordering of creation, while the state of nature was entire, he was appointed head of angels and men; for which reason Paul designates him “the first-born of every creature,” (Col. 1: 15.) But since the whole Scripture proclaims that he was clothed with flesh in order to become a Redeemer, it is presumptuous to imagine any other cause or end. We know well why Christ was at first promised, viz., that he might renew a fallen world, and succour lost man. Hence under the Law he was typified by sacrifices, to inspire believers with the hope that God would be propitious to them after he was reconciled by the expiation of their sins. Since from the earliest age, even before the Law was promulgated, there was never any promise of a Mediator without blood, we justly infer that he was destined in the eternal counsel of God to purge the pollution of man, the shedding of blood being the symbol of expiation. Thus, too, the prophets, in discoursing of him, foretold that he would be the Mediator between God and man. It is sufficient to refer to the very remarkable prophecy of Isaiah, (Is. 53: 4, 5,) in which he foretells that he was “smitten for our iniquities;” that “the chastisement of our peace was upon him;” that as a priest “he was made an offering for sin;” “that by his stripes we are healed;” that as all “like lost sheep have gone astray,” “it pleased the Lord to bruise him, and put him to grief,” that he might “bear our iniquities.” After hearing that Christ was divinely appointed to bring relief to miserable sinners, whose overleaps these limits gives too much indulgence to a foolish curiosity. Then when he actually appeared, he declared the cause of his advent to be, that by appeasing God he might bring us from death unto life. To the same effect was the testimony of the Apostles concerning him, (John 1: 9; 10: 14.) Thus John, before teaching that the Word was made flesh, narrates the fall of man. But above all, let us listen to our Saviour himself when discoursing of his office: “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Again, “The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.” “I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.” “The Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” Again, “They that be whole need not a physician.” I should never have done were I to quote all the passages. Indeed, the Apostles, with one consent, lead us back to this fountain; and assuredly, if he had not come to reconcile God, the honour of his priesthood would fall, seeing it was his office as priest to stand between God and men, and “offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins,” (Heb. 5: 1;) nor could he be our righteousness, as having been made a propitiation for us in order that God might not impute to us our sins, (2 Cor. 5: 19.) In short, he would be stript of all the titles with which Scripture invests him. Nor could Paul’s doctrine stand “What the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh,” (Rom. 8: 3.) Nor what he states in another passage: “The grace of God that bringeth salvation has appeared to all men,” (Tit. 2: 11.) In fine, the only end which the Scripture uniformly assigns for the Son of God voluntarily assuming our nature, and even receiving it as a command from the Father, is, that he might propitiate the Father to us by becoming a victim. “Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer;"—"and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name.” “Therefore does my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again."—"This commandment have I received of my Father.” “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up.” “Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name.” Here he distinctly assigns as the reason for assuming our nature, that he might become a propitiatory victim to take away sin. For the same reason Zacharias declares, (Luke 1: 79,) that he came “to perform the mercy promised to our fathers,” “to give light to them that sit in darkness, and in the shadow of death.” Let us remember that all these things are affirmed of the Son of God, in whom, as Paul elsewhere declares, were “hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,” and save whom it was his determination “not to know any thing,” (Col. 2: 3; 1 Cor. 2: 2.)

5.

Should any one object, that in this there is nothing to prevent the same Christ who redeemed us when condemned from also testifying his love to us when safe by assuming our nature, we have the brief answer, that when the Spirit declares that by the eternal decree of God the two things were connected together, viz., that Christ should be our Redeemer, and, at the same time, a partaker of our nature, it is unlawful to inquire further. He who is tickled with a desire of knowing something more, not contented with the immutable ordination of God, shows also that he is not even contented with that Christ who has been given us as the price of redemption. And, indeed, Paul not only declares for what end he was sent, but rising to the sublime mystery of predestination, seasonably represses all the wantonness and prurience of the human mind. “He has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he has made us accepted in the Beloved: In whom we have redemption through his blood,” (Eph. 1: 4-7.) Here certainly the fall of Adam is not presupposed as anterior in point of time, but our attention is directed to what God predetermined before all ages, when he was pleased to provide a cure for the misery of the human race. If, again, it is objected that this counsel of God depended on the fall of man, which he foresaw, to me it is sufficient and more to reply, that those who propose to inquire, or desire to know more of Christ than God predestinated by his secret decree, are presuming with impious audacity to invent a new Christ. Paul, when discoursing of the proper office of Christ, justly prays for the Ephesians that God would strengthen them “by his Spirit in the inner man,” that they might “be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth and length, and depth and height; and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge,” (Eph. 3: 16, 18;) as if he intended of set purpose to set barriers around our minds, and prevent them from declining one iota from the gift of reconciliation whenever mention is made of Christ. Wherefore, seeing it is as Paul declares it to be, “a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners,” (1 Tim. 1: 15,) in it I willingly acquiesce. And since the same Apostle elsewhere declares that the grace which is now manifested by the Gospel “was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,” (2 Tim. 1: 9,) I am resolved to adhere to it firmly even to the end. This moderation is unjustly vituperated by Osiander, who has unhappily, in the present day, again agitated this question, which a few had formerly raised. He brings a charge of overweening confidence against those who deny that the Son of God would have appeared in the flesh if Adam had not fallen, because this notion is not repudiated by any passage of Scripture. As if Paul did not lay a curb on perverse curiosity when after speaking of the redemption obtained by Christ, he bids us “avoid foolish questions,” (Tit. 3: 9.) To such insanity have some proceeded in their preposterous eagerness to seem acute, that they have made it a question whether the Son of God might not have assumed the nature of an ass. This blasphemy, at which all pious minds justly shudder with detestation, Osiander excuses by the pretext that it is no where distinctly refuted in Scripture; as if Paul, when he counted nothing valuable or worth knowing “save Jesus Christ and him crucified,” (I Cor. 2: 2,) were admitting, that the author of salvation is an ass. He who elsewhere declares that Christ was by the eternal counsel of the Father appointed “head over all things to the church,” would never have acknowledged another to whom no office of redemption had been assigned.

6.

The principle on which Osiander founds is altogether frivolous. He will have it that man was created in the image of God, inasmuch as he was formed on the model of the future Messiah, in order to resemble him whom the Father had already determined to clothe with flesh. Hence he infers, that though Adam had never fallen from his first and pure original, Christ would still have been man. How silly and distorted this view is, all men of sound judgement at once discern; still he thinks he was the first to see what the image of God was, namely, that not only did the divine glory shine forth in the excellent endowments with which he was adorned, but God dwelt in him essentially. But while I grant that Adam bore the image of God, inasmuch as he was united to God, (this being the true and highest perfection of dignity,) yet I maintain, that the likeness of God is to be sought for only in those marks of superiority with which God has distinguished Adam above the other animals. And likewise, with one consent, acknowledge that Christ was even then the image of God, and, accordingly, whatever excellence was engraven on Adam had its origin in this, that by means of the only begotten Son he approximated to the glory of his Maker. Man, therefore, was created in the image of God, (Gen. 1: 27,) and in him the Creator was pleased to behold, as in a mirror, his own glory. To this degree of honour he was exalted by the kindness of the only begotten Son. But I add, that as the Son was the common head both of men and angels, so the dignity which was conferred on man belonged to the angels also. For when we hear them called the sons of God, (Ps. 82: 6,) it would be incongruous to deny that they were endued with some quality in which they resembled the Father. But if he was pleased that his glory should be represented in men and angels, and made manifest in both natures, it is ignorant trifling in Osiander to say, that angels were postponed to men, because they did not bear the image of Christ. They could not constantly enjoy the immediate presence of God if they were not like to him; nor does Paul teach (Col. 3: 10) that men are renewed in the image of God in any other way than by being associated with angels, that they may be united together under one head. In fine, if we believe Christ, our felicity will be perfected when we shall have been received into the heavens, and made like the angels. But if Osiander is entitled to infer that the primary type of the image of God was in the man Christ, on the same ground may any one maintain that Christ behoved to partake of the angelic nature, seeing that angels also possess the image of God.

7.

Osiander has no reason to fear that God would be found a liar, if the decree to incarnate the Son was not previously immutably fixed in his mind. Even had Adam not lost his integrity, he would, with the angels, have been like to God; and yet it would not therefore have been necessary that the Son of God should become either a man or an angel. In vain does he entertain the absurd fear, that unless it had been determined by the immutable counsel of God, before man was created, that Christ should be born, not as the Redeemer, but as the first man, he might lose his precedence, since he would not have been born, except for an accidental circumstance, namely, that he might restore the lost race of man; and in this way would have been created in the image of Adam. For why should he be alarmed at what the Scripture plainly teaches, that “he was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin?” (Heb. 4: 15.) Hence Luke, also, hesitates not to reckon him in his genealogy as a son of Adam, (Luke 3: 38.) I should like to know why Christ is termed by Paul the second Adam, (1 Cor. 15: 47,) unless it be that a human condition was decreed him, for the purpose of raising up the ruined posterity of Adam. For if in point of order, that condition was antecedent to creation, he ought to have been called the first Adam. Osiander confidently affirms, that because Christ was in the purpose of God foreknown as man, men were formed after him as their model. But Paul, by calling him the second Adam, gives that revolt which made it necessary to restore nature to its primitive condition an intermediate place between its original formation and the restitution which we obtain by Christ: hence it follows, that it was this restitution which made the Son of God be born, and thereby become man. Moreover, Osiander argues ill and absurdly, that as long as Adam maintained his integrity, he would have been the image of himself, and not of Christ. I maintain, on the contrary, that although the Son of God had never become incarnate, nevertheless the image of God was conspicuous in Adam, both in his body and his soul; in the rays of this image it always appeared that Christ was truly head, and had in all things the pre-eminence. In this way we dispose of the futile sophism put forth by Osiander, that the angels would have been without this head, had not God purposed to clothe his Son with flesh, even independent of the sin of Adam. He inconsiderately assumes what no rational person will grant, that Christ could have had no supremacy over the angels, so that they might enjoy him as their prince, unless in so far as he was man. But it is easy to infer from the words of Paul, (Col. 1: 15,) that inasmuch as he is the eternal Word of God, he is the first-born of every creature, not because he is created, or is to be reckoned among the creatures, but because the entire structure of the world, such as it was from the beginning, when adorned with exquisite beauty had no other beginning; then, inasmuch as he was made man, he is the first-born from the dead. For in one short passage, (Col. 1: 16-18,) the Apostle calls our attention to both views: that by the Son all things were created, so that he has dominion over angels; and that he became man, in order that he might begin to be a Redeemer. Owing to the same ignorance, Osiander says that men would not have had Christ for their king unless he had been a man; as if the kingdom of God could not have been established by his eternal Son, though not clothed with human flesh, holding the supremacy while angels and men were gathered together to participate in his celestial life and glory. But he is always deluded, or imposes upon himself by this false principle, that the church would have been “akefalon"—without a head—had not Christ appeared in the flesh. In the same way as angels enjoyed him for their head, could he not by his divine energy preside over men, and by the secret virtue of his Spirit quicken and cherish them as his body, until they were gathered into heaven to enjoy the same life with the angels? The absurdities which I have been refuting, Osiander regards as infallible oracles. Taking an intoxicating delight in his own speculations, his wont is to extract ridiculous plans out of nothing. He afterwards says that he has a much stronger passage to produce, namely, the prophecy of Adam, who, when the woman was brought to him, said, “This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh,” (Gen. 2: 23.) But how does he prove it to be a prophecy? Because in Matthew Christ attributes the same expression to God! as if every thing which God has spoken by man contained a prophecy. On the same principle, as the law proceeded from God, let Osiander in each precept find a prophecy. Add, that our Saviour’s exposition would have been harsh and grovelling, had he confined himself to the literal meaning. He was not referring to the mystical union with which he has honoured the Church, but only to conjugal fidelity, and states, that the reason why God declared man and wife to be one flesh, was to prevent any one from violating that indissoluble tie by divorce. If this simple meaning is too low for Osiander, let him censure Christ for not leading his disciples to the hidden sense, by interpreting his Father’s words with more subtlety. Paul gives no countenance to Osiander’s dream, when, after saying that “we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones,” he immediately adds, “This is a great mystery,” (Eph. 5: 30-32.) For he meant not to refer to the sense in which Adam used the words, but sets forth, under the figure and similitude of marriage, the sacred union which makes us one with Christ. His words have this meaning; for reminding us that he is speaking of Christ and the Church, he, by way of correction, distinguishes between the marriage tie and the spiritual union of Christ with his Church. Wherefore, this subtlety vanishes at once. I deem it unnecessary to discuss similar absurdities: for from this very brief refutation, the vanity of them all will be discovered. Abundantly sufficient for the solid nurture of the children of God is this sober truth, that “when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them who were under the law,” (Gal. 4: 4, 5.)

CHAPTER 13. CHRIST CLOTHED WITH THE TRUE SUBSTANCE OF HUMAN NATURE.

The heads of this chapter are,

I. The orthodoxy doctrine as to the true humanity of our Saviour, proved from many passages of Scripture, sec. 1.

II. Refutation of the impious objections of the Marcionites, Manichees, and similar heretics, sec. 2-4.

Sections.

1. Proof of the true humanity of Christ, against the Manichees and Marcionites.

2. Impious objections of heretics further discussed. Six objections answered.

3. Other eight objections answered.

1.

Of the divinity of Christ, which has elsewhere been established by clear and solid proofs, I presume it were superfluous again to treat. It remains, therefore, to see how, when clothed with our flesh, he fulfilled the office of Mediator. In ancient times, the reality of his human nature was impugned by the Manichees and Marcionites, the latter figuring to themselves a phantom instead of the body of Christ, and the former dreaming of his having been invested with celestial flesh. The passages of Scripture contradictory to both are numerous and strong. The blessing is not promised in a heavenly seed, or the mask of a man, but the seed of Abraham and Jacob; nor is the everlasting throne promised to an aerial man, but to the Son of David, and the fruit of his loins. Hence, when manifested in the flesh, he is called the Son of David and Abraham, not because he was born of a virgin, and yet created in the air, but because, as Paul explains, he was “made of the seed of David, according to the flesh,” (Rom. 1: 3,) as the same apostle elsewhere says, that he came of the Jews, (Rom. 9: 5.) Wherefore, our Lord himself not contented with the name of man, frequently calls himself the Son of man, wishing to express more clearly that he was a man by true human descent. The Holy Spirit having so often, by so many organs, with so much care and plainness, declared a matter which in itself is not abstruse, who could have thought that mortals would have had the effrontery to darken it with their glosses? Many other passages are at hand, were it wished to produce more: for instance, that one of Paul, that “God sent forth his Son, made of a woman,” (Gal. 4: 4,) and innumerable others, which show that he was subject to hunger, thirst, cold, and the other infirmities of our nature. But from the many we must chiefly select those which may conduce to build up our minds in true faith, as when it is said, “Verily, he took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham,” “that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death,” (Heb. 2: 16, 14.) Again, “Both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren.” “Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest.” (Heb. 2: 11, 17.) Again “We have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities,” (Heb. 4: 15,) and the like. To the same effect is the passage to which we lately referred, in which Paul distinctly declares, that the sins of the world behoved to be expiated in our flesh, (Rom. 8: 3.) And certainly every thing which the Father conferred on Christ pertains to us for this reason, that “he is the head,” that from him the whole body is “fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth,” (Eph. 4: 16.) Nay, in no other way could it hold true as is said, that the Spirit was given to him without measure, (John 1: 16,) and that out of his fulness have all we received; since nothing could be more absurd than that God, in his own essence, should be enriched by an adventitious gift. For this reason also, Christ himself elsewhere says, “For their sakes I sanctify myself,” (John 17: 19.)

2.

The passages which they produce in confirmation of their error are absurdly wrested, nor do they gain any thing by their frivolous subtleties when they attempt to do away with what I have now adduced in opposition to them. Marcion imagines that Christ, instead of a body, assumed a phantom, because it is elsewhere said, that he was made in the likeness of man, and found in fashion as a man. Thus he altogether overlooks what Paul is then discussing, (Philip. 2: 7.) His object is not to show what kind of body Christ assumed, but that, when he might have justly asserted his divinity he was pleased to exhibit nothing but the attributes of a mean and despised man. For, in order to exhort us to submission by his example, he shows, that when as God he might have displayed to the world the brightness of his glory, he gave up his right, and voluntarily emptied himself; that he assumed the form of a servant, and, contented with that humble condition, suffered his divinity to be concealed under a veil of flesh. Here, unquestionably, he explains not what Christ was, but in what way he acted. Nay, from the whole context it is easily gathered, that it was in the true nature of man that Christ humbled himself. For what is meant by the words, he was “found in fashion as a man,” but that for a time, instead of being resplendent with divine glory, the human form only appeared in a mean and abject condition? Nor would the words of Peter, that he was “put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirits” (1 Pet. 3: 18,) hold true, unless the Son of God had become weak in the nature of man. This is explained more clearly by Paul, when he declares that “he was crucified through weakness,” (2 Cor. 13: 4.) And hence his exaltation; for it is distinctly said, that Christ acquired new glory after he humbled himself. This could fitly apply only to a man endued with a body and a soul. Manes dreams of an aerial body, because Christ is called the second Adam, the Lord from heaven. But the apostle does not there speak of the essence of his body as heavenly, but of the spiritual life which derived from Christ quickens us, (I Cor. 15: 47.) This life Paul and Peter, as we have seen, separate from his flesh. Nay, that passage admirably confirms the doctrine of the orthodox, as to the human nature of Christ. If his body were not of the same nature with ours, there would be no soundness in the argument which Paul pursues with so much earnestness,—If Christ is risen we shall rise also; if we rise not, neither has Christ risen. Whatever be the cavils by which the ancient Manichees, or their modern disciples, endeavour to evade this, they cannot succeed. It is a frivolous and despicable evasion to say, that Christ is called the Son of man, because he was promised to men; it being obvious that, in the Hebrew idiom, the Son of man means a true man: and Christ, doubtless, retained the idiom of his own tongue. Moreover, there cannot be a doubt as to what is to be understood by the sons of Adam. Not to go farther, a passage in the eighth psalm, which the apostles apply to Christ, will abundantly suffice: “What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him.?” (Pa 8: 4.) Under this figure is expressed the true humanity of Christ. For although he was not immediately descended of an earthly father, yet he originally sprang from Adam. Nor could it otherwise be said in terms of the passage which we have already quoted, “Forasmuch, then, as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same;” these words plainly proving that he was an associate and partner in the same nature with ourselves. In this sense also it is said, that “both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one.” The context proves that this refers to a community of nature; for it is immediately added, “For which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,” (Heb. 2: 11.) Had he said at first that believers are of God, where could there have been any ground for being ashamed of persons possessing such dignity? But when Christ of his boundless grace associates himself with the mean and ignoble, we see why it was said that “he is not ashamed.” It is vain to object, that in this way the wicked will be the brethren of Christ; for we know that the children of God are not born of flesh and blood, but of the Spirit through faith. Therefore, flesh alone does not constitute the union of brotherhood. But although the apostle assigns to believers only the honour of being one with Christ, it does not however follow, that unbelievers have not the same origin according to the flesh; just as when we say that Christ became man, that he might make us sons of God, the expression does not extend to all classes of persons; the intervention of faith being necessary to our being spiritually ingrafted into the body of Christ. A dispute is also ignorantly raised as to the term first-born. It is alleged that Christ ought to have been the first son of Adam, in order that he might be the first-born among the brethren, (Rom. 8: 29.) But primogeniture refers not to age, but to degree of honour and pre-eminence of virtue. There is just as little colour for the frivolous assertion that Christ assumed the nature of man, and not that of angels, (Heb. 2: 16,) because it was the human race that he restored to favour. The apostle, to magnify the honour which Christ has conferred upon us, contrasts us with the angels, to whom we are in this respect preferred. And if due weight is given to the testimony of Moses, (Gen. 3: 15,) when he says that the seed of the woman would bruise the head of the serpent, the dispute is at an end. For the words there used refer not to Christ alone, but to the whole human race. Since the victory was to be obtained for us by Christ, God declares generally, that the posterity of the woman would overcome the devil. From this it follows, that Christ is a descendant of the human race, the purpose of God in thus addressing Eve being to raise her hopes, and prevent her from giving way to despair.

3.

The passages in which Christ is called the seed of Abraham, and the fruit of the loins of David, those persons, with no less folly than wickedness, wrap up in allegory. Had the term seed been used allegorically, Paul surely would not have omitted to notice it, when he affirms clearly, and without figure, that the promise was not given “to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ,” (Gal. 3: 16.) With similar absurdity they pretend that he was called the Son of David for no other reason but because he had been promised, and was at length in due time manifested. For Paul, after he had called him the Son of David, by immediately subjoining “according to the flesh”, certainly designates his nature. So also, (Rom. 9: 5,) while declaring him to be “God blessed for ever,” he mentions separately, that, “as concerning the flesh, he was descended from the Jews.” Again if he had not been truly begotten of the seed of David, what is the meaning of the expression, that he is the “fruit of his loins;” or what the meaning of the promise, “Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne”? (Ps. 132: 11.) Moreover their mode of dealing with the genealogy of Christ, as given by Matthew, is mere sophistry; for though he reckons up the progenitors not of Mary, but of Joseph, yet as he was speaking of a matter then generally understood, he deems it enough to show that Joseph was descended from the seed of David, since it is certain that Mary was of the same family. Luke goes still farther, showing that the salvation brought by Christ is common to the whole human race, inasmuch as Christ, the author of salvation, is descended from Adam, the common father of us all. I confess, indeed, that the genealogy proves Christ to be the Son of David only as being descended of the Virgin; but the new Marcionites, for the purpose of giving a gloss to their heresy, namely to prove that the body which Christ assumed was unsubstantial, too confidently maintain that the expression as to seed is applicable only to males, thus subverting the elementary principles of nature. But as this discussion belongs not to theology, and the arguments which they adduce are too futile to require any laboured refutation, I will not touch on matters pertaining to philosophy and the medical art. It will be sufficient to dispose of the objection drawn from the statement of Scripture, that Aaron and Jehoiadah married wives out of the tribe of Judah, and that thus the distinction of tribes was confounded, if proper descent could come through the female. It is well known, that in regard to civil order, descent is reckoned through the male; and yet the superiority on his part does not prevent the female from having her proper share in the descent. This solution applies to all the genealogies. When Scripture gives a list of individuals, it often mentions males only. Must we therefore say that females go for nothing? Nay, the very children know that they are classified with men. For this reasons wives are said to give children to their husbands, the name of the family always remaining with the males. Then, as the male sex has this privilege, that sons are deemed of noble or ignoble birth, according to the condition of their fathers, so, on the other hand, in slavery, the condition of the child is determined by that of the mother, as lawyers say, partus sequitur ventrem. Whence we may infer, that offspring is partly procreated by the seed of the mother. According to the common custom of nations, mothers are deemed progenitors, and with this the divine law agrees, which could have had no ground to forbid the marriage of the uncle with the niece, if there was no consanguinity between them. It would also be lawful for a brother and sister uterine to intermarry, when their fathers are different. But while I admit that the power assigned to the woman is passive, I hold that the same thing is affirmed indiscriminately of her and of the male. Christ is not said to have been made by a woman, but of a woman, (Gal. 4: 4.) But some of this herd, laying aside all shame, publicly ask whether we mean to maintain that Christ was procreated of the proper seed of a virgin. I, in my turn, asks whether they are not forced to admit that he was nourished to maturity in the Virgin’s womb. Justly, therefore, we infer from the words of Matthew, that Christ, inasmuch as he was begotten of Mary, was procreated of her seed; as a similar generation is denoted when Boaz is said to have been begotten of Rachab, (Matth. 1: 5, 16.) Matthew does not here describe the Virgin as the channel through which Christ flowed, but distinguishes his miraculous from an ordinary birth, in that Christ was begotten by her of the seed of David. For the same reason for which Isaac is said to be begotten of Abraham, Joseph of Jacob, Solomon of David, is Christ said to have been begotten of his mother. The Evangelist has arranged his discourse in this way. Wishing to prove that Christ derives his descent from David, he deems it enough to state, that he was begotten of Mary. Hence it follows, that he assumed it as an acknowledged fact, that Mary was of the same lineage as Joseph.

4.

The absurdities which they wish to fasten upon us are mere puerile calumnies. They reckon it base and dishonouring to Christ to have derived his descent from men; because, in that case, he could not be exempted from the common law which includes the whole offspring of Adam, without exception, under sin. But this difficulty is easily solved by Paul’s antithesis, “As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin"—"even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life,” (Rom. 5: 12, 18.) Corresponding to this is another passage, “The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven,” (1 Cor. 15: 47.) Accordingly, the same apostle, in another passage, teaching that Christ was sent “in the likeness of sinful flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us,” distinctly separates him from the common lot, as being true man, and yet without fault and corruption, (Rom. 8: 3.) It is childish trifling to maintain, that if Christ is free from all taint, and was begotten of the seed of Mary, by the secret operation of the Spirit, it is not therefore the seed of the woman that is impure, but only that of the man. We do not hold Christ to be free from all taint, merely because he was born of a woman unconnected with a man, but because he was sanctified by the Spirit, so that the generation was pure and spotless, such as it would have been before Adam’s fall. Let us always bear in mind, that wherever Scripture adverts to the purity of Christ, it refers to his true human nature, since it were superfluous to say that God is pure. Moreover, the sanctification of which John speaks in his seventeenth chapter is inapplicable to the divine nature. This does not suggest the idea of a twofold seed in Adam, although no contamination extended to Christ, the generation of man not being in itself vicious or impure, but an accidental circumstance of the fall. Hence, it is not strange that Christ, by whom our integrity was to be restored, was exempted from the common corruption. Another absurdity which they obtrude upon us, viz., that if the Word of God became incarnate, it must have been enclosed in the narrow tenement of an earthly body, is sheer petulance. For although the boundless essence of the Word was united with human nature into one person, we have no idea of any enclosing. The Son of God descended miraculously from heaven, yet without abandoning heaven; was pleased to be conceived miraculously in the Virgin’s womb, to live on the earth, and hang upon the cross, and yet always filled the world as from the beginning.

CHAPTER 14. HOW TWO NATURES CONSTITUTE THE PERSON OF THE MEDIATOR.

This chapter contains two principal heads:

I. A brief exposition of the doctrine of Christ’s two natures in one person, sec. 1-4.

II. A refutation of the heresies of Servetus, which destroy the distinction of natures in Christ, and the eternity of the divine nature of the Son.

Sections.

1. Proof of two natures in Christ—a human and a divine. Illustrated by analogy, from the union of body and soul. Illustration applied.

2. Proof from passages of Scripture which distinguish between the two natures. Proof from the communication of properties.

3. Proof from passages showing the union of both natures. A rule to be observed in this discussion.

4. Utility and use of the doctrine concerning the two natures. The Nestorians. The Eutychians. Both justly condemned by the Church.

5. The heresies of Servetus refuted. General answer or sum of the orthodox doctrine concerning Christ. What meant by the hypostatic union. Objections of Servetus to the deity of Christ. Answer.

6. Another objection and answer. A twofold filiation of Christ.

7. Other objections answered.

8. Conclusion of the former objections. Other pestilential heresies of Servetus.

1.

When it is said that the Word was made flesh, we must not understand it as if he were either changed into flesh, or confusedly intermingled with flesh, but that he made choice of the Virgin’s womb as a temple in which he might dwell. He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For we maintain, that the divinity was so conjoined and united with the humanity, that the entire properties of each nature remain entire, and yet the two natures constitute only one Christ. If, in human affairs, any thing analogous to this great mystery can be found, the most apposite similitudes seems to be that of man, who obviously consists of two substances, neither of which however is so intermingled with the other as that both do not retain their own properties. For neither is soul body, nor is body soul. Wherefore that is said separately of the soul which cannot in any way apply to the body; and that, on the other hand, of the body which is altogether inapplicable to the soul; and that, again, of the whole man, which cannot be affirmed without absurdity either of the body or of the soul separately. Lastly, the properties of the soul are transferred to the body, and the properties of the body to the soul, and yet these form only one man, not more than one. Such modes of expression intimate both that there is in man one person formed of two compounds, and that these two different natures constitute one person. Thus the Scriptures speak of Christ. They sometimes attribute to him qualities which should be referred specially to his humanity and sometimes qualities applicable peculiarly to his divinity, and sometimes qualities which embrace both natures, and do not apply specially to either. This combination of a twofold nature in Christ they express so carefully, that they sometimes communicate them with each other, a figure of speech which the ancients termed “idiomaton koinonia”, (a communication of properties.)

2.

Little dependence could be placed on these statements, were it not proved by numerous passages throughout the sacred volume that none of them is of man’s devising. What Christ said of himself, “Before Abraham was I am,” (John 13: 58,) was very foreign to his humanity. I am not unaware of the cavil by which erroneous spirits distort this passage, viz., that he was before all ages, inasmuch as he was foreknown as the Redeemer, as well in the counsel of the Father as in the minds of believers. But seeing he plainly distinguishes the period of his manifestation from his eternal existence, and professedly founds on his ancient government, to prove his precedence to Abraham, he undoubtedly claims for himself the peculiar attributes of divinity. Paul’s assertion that he is “the first-born of every creature,” that “he is before all things, and by him all things consist,” (Col. 1: 15, 17;) his own declaration, that he had glory with the Father before the world was, and that he worketh together with the Father, are equally inapplicable to man. These and similar properties must be specially assigned to his divinity. Again, his being called the servant of the Father, his being said to grow in stature, and wisdom, and favour with God and man, not to seek his own glory, not to know the last day, not to speak of himself, not to do his own will, his being seen and handled, apply entirely to his humanity; since, as God, he cannot be in any respect said to grow, works always for himself, knows every thing, does all things after the counsel of his own will, and is incapable of being seen or handled. And yet he not merely ascribes these things separately to his human nature, but applies them to himself as suitable to his office of Mediator. There is a communication of “idiomata”, or properties, when Paul says, that God purchased the Church “with his own blood,” (Acts 20: 28,) and that the Jews crucified the Lord of glory, (1 Cor. 2: 8.) In like manner, John says, that the Word of God was “handled.” God certainly has no blood, suffers not, cannot be touched with hands; but since that Christ, who was true God and true man, shed his blood on the cross for us, the acts which were performed in his human nature are transferred improperly, but not ceaselessly, to his divinity. We have a similar example in the passage where John says that God laid down his life for us, (1 John 3: 16.) Here a property of his humanity is communicated with his other nature. On the other hand, when Christ, still living on the earth, said, “No man has ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man, which is in heaven,” (John 3: 13,) certainly regarded as man in the flesh which he had put on, he was not then in heaven, but inasmuch as he was both God and man, he, on account of the union of a twofold nature, attributed to the one what properly belonged to the other.

3.

But, above all, the true substance of Christ is most clearly declared in those passages which comprehend both natures at once. Numbers of these exist in the Gospel of John. What we there read as to his having received power from the Father to forgive sins; as to his quickening whom he will; as to his bestowing righteousness, holiness, and salvation; as to his being appointed judge both of the quick and the dead; as to his being honoured even as the Father, are not peculiar either to his Godhead or his humanity, but applicable to both. In the same way he is called the Light of the world, the good Shepherd, the only Door, the true Vine. With such prerogatives the Son of God was invested on his manifestation in the flesh, and though he possessed the same with the Father before the world was created, still it was not in the same manner or respect; neither could they be attributed to one who was a man and nothing more. In the same sense we ought to understand the saying of Paul, that at the end Christ shall deliver up “the kingdom to God, even the Father,” (1 Cor. 15: 24.) The kingdom of God assuredly had no beginning, and will have no end: but because he was hid under a humble clothing of flesh, and took upon himself the form of a servant, and humbled himself, (Phil. 2: 8,) and, laying aside the insignia of majesty, became obedient to the Father; and after undergoing this subjection was at length crowned with glory and honour, (Heb. 2: 7,) and exalted to supreme authority, that at his name every knee should bow, (Phil. 2: 10;) so at the end he will subject to the Father both the name and the crown of glory, and whatever he received of the Father, that God may be all in all, (1 Cor. 15: 28.) For what end were that power and authority given to him, save that the Father might govern us by his hand? In the same sense, also, he is said to sit at the right hand of the Father. But this is only for a time, until we enjoy the immediate presence of his Godhead. And here we cannot excuse the error of some ancient writers, who, by not attending to the office of Mediator, darken the genuine meaning of almost the whole doctrine which we read in the Gospel of John, and entangle themselves in many snares. Let us, therefore, regard it as the key of true interpretation, that those things which refer to the office of Mediator are not spoken of the divine or human nature simply. Christ, therefore, shall reign until he appear to judge the world, inasmuch as, according to the measure of our feeble capacity, he now connects us with the Father. But when, as partakers of the heavenly glory, we shall see God as he is, then Christ, having accomplished the office of Mediator, shall cease to be the vicegerent of the Father, and will be content with the glory which he possessed before the world was. Nor is the name of Lord specially applicable to the person of Christ in any other respect than in so far as he holds a middle place between God and us. To this effect are the words of Paul, “To us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him,” (1 Cor. 8: 6;) that is, to the latter a temporary authority has been committed by the Father until his divine majesty shall be beheld face to face. His giving up of the kingdom to the Father, so far from impairing his majesty, will give a brighter manifestation of it. God will then cease to be the head of Christ, and Christ’s own Godhead will then shine forth of itself, whereas it is now in a manner veiled.

4.

This observation, if the readers apply it properly, will be of no small use in solving a vast number of difficulties. For it is strange how the ignorant, nay, some who are not altogether without learning, are perplexed by these modes of expression which they see applied to Christ, without being properly adapted either to his divinity or his humanity, not considering their accordance with the character in which he was manifested as God and man, and with his office of Mediator. It is very easy to see how beautifully they accord with each other, provided they have a sober interpreter, one who examines these great mysteries with the reverence which is meet. But there is nothing which furious and frantic spirits cannot throw into confusion. They fasten on the attributes of humanity to destroy his divinity; and, on the other hand, on those of his divinity to destroy his humanity: while those which, spoken conjointly of the two natures, apply to neither, they employ to destroy both. But what else is this than to contend that Christ is not man because he is God, not God because he is man, and neither God nor man because he is both at once. Christ, therefore, as God and man, possessing natures which are united, but not confused, we conclude that he is our Lord and the true Son of God, even according to his humanity, though not by means of his humanity. For we must put far from us the heresy of Nestorius, who, presuming to dissect rather than distinguish between the two natures, devised a double Christ. But we see the Scripture loudly protesting against this, when the name of the Son of God is given to him who is born of a Virgin, and the Virgin herself is called the mother of our Lord, (Luke 1: 32, 43.) We must beware also of the insane fancy of Eutyches, lest, when we would demonstrate the unity of person, we destroy the two natures. The many passages we have already quoted, in which the divinity is distinguished from the humanity, and the many other passages existing throughout Scripture, may well stop the mouth of the most contentious. I will shortly add a few observations, which will still better dispose of this fiction. For the present, one passage will suffice—Christ would not have called his body a temple, (John 2: 19,) had not the Godhead distinctly dwelt in it. Wherefore, as Nestorius had been justly condemned in the Council of Ephesus, so afterwards was Eutyches in those of Constantinople and Chalcedony, it being not more lawful to confound the two natures of Christ than to divide them.

5.

But in our age, also, has arisen a not less fatal monster, Michael Servetus, who for the Son of God has substituted a figment composed of the essence of God, spirit, flesh, and three untreated elements. First, indeed, he denies that Christ is the Son of God, for any other reason than because he was begotten in the womb of the Virgin by the Holy Spirit. The tendency of this crafty device is to make out, by destroying the distinction of the two natures, that Christ is somewhat composed of God and man, and yet is not to be deemed God and man. His aim throughout is to establish, that before Christ was manifested in the flesh there were only shadowy figures in God, the truth or effect of which existed for the first time, when the Word who had been destined to that honour truly began to be the Son of God. We indeed acknowledge that the Mediator who was born of the Virgin is properly the Son of God. And how could the man Christ be a mirror of the inestimable grace of God, had not the dignity been conferred upon him both of being and of being called the only-begotten Son of God? Meanwhile, however, the definition of the Church stands unmoved, that he is accounted the Son of God, because the Word begotten by the Father before all ages assumed human nature by hypostatic union,—a term used by ancient writers to denote the union which of two natures constitutes one person, and invented to refute the dream of Nestorius, who pretended that the Son of God dwelt in the flesh in such a manner as not to be at the same time man. Servetus calumniously charges us with making the Son of God double, when we say that the eternal Word before he was clothed with flesh was already the Son of God: as if we said anything more than that he was manifested in the flesh. Although he was God before he became man, he did not therefore begin to be a new God. Nor is there any greater absurdity in holding that the Son of God, who by eternal generation ever had the property of being a Son, appeared in the flesh. This is intimated by the angel’s word to Mary: “That holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God,” (Luke 1: 35;) as if he had said that the name of Son, which was more obscure under the law, would become celebrated and universally known. Corresponding to this is the passage of Paul, that being now the sons of God by Christ, we “have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father,” (Rom. 8: 15.) Were not also the holy patriarchs of old reckoned among the sons of God? Yea, trusting to this privilege, they invoked God as their Father. But because ever since the only-begotten Son of God came forth into the world, his celestial paternity has been more clearly manifested, Paul assigns this to the kingdom of Christ as its distinguishing feature. We must, however, constantly hold, that God never was a Father to angels and men save in respect of his only-begotten Son: that men, especially, who by their iniquity were rendered hateful to God, are sons by gratuitous adoption, because he is a Son by nature. Nor is there anything in the assertion of Servetus, that this depends on the filiation which God had decreed with himself. Here we deal not with figures, as expiation by the blood of beasts was shown to be; but since they could not be the sons of God in reality, unless their adoption was founded in the head, it is against all reason to deprive the head of that which is common to the members. I go farther: since the Scripture gives the name of sons of God to the angels, whose great dignity in this respect depended not on the future redemption, Christ must in order take precedence of them that he may reconcile the Father to them. I will again briefly repeat and add the same thing concerning the human race. Since angels as well as men were at first created on the condition that God should be the common Father of both; if it is true, as Paul says, that Christ always was the head, “the first-born of every creature—that in all things he might have the pre- eminence,” (Col. 1: 15,18,) I think I may legitimately infer, that he existed as the Son of God before the creation of the world.

6.

But if his filiation (if I may so express it) had a beginning at the time when he was manifested in the flesh, it follows that he was a Son in respect of human nature also. Servetus, and others similarly frenzied, hold that Christ who appeared in the flesh is the Son of God, inasmuch as but for his incarnation he could not have possessed this name. Let them now answer me, whether, according to both natures, and in respect of both, he is a Son? So indeed they prate; but Paul’s doctrine is very different. We acknowledge, indeed, that Christ in human nature is called a Son, not like believers by gratuitous adoption merely, but the true, natural, and, therefore, only Son, this being the mark which distinguishes him from all others. Those of us who are regenerated to a new life God honours with the name of sons; the name of true and only-begotten Son he bestows on Christ alone. But how is he an only Son in so great a multitude of brethren, except that he possesses by nature what we acquire by gift? This honour we extend to his whole character of Mediator, so that He who was born of a Virgin, and on the cross offered himself in sacrifice to the Father, is truly and properly the Son of God; but still in respect of his Godhead: as Paul teaches when he says, that he was “separated unto the gospel of God, (which he had promised afore by his prophets in the Holy Scriptures,) concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power,” (Rom. 1: 1-4.) When distinctly calling him the Son of David according to the flesh, why should he also say that he was “declared to be the Son of God,” if he meant not to intimate, that this depended on something else than his incarnation? For in the same sense in which he elsewhere says, that “though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God,” (2 Cor. 13: 4,) so he now draws a distinction between the two natures. They must certainly admit, that as on account of his mother he is called the Son of David, so, on account of his Father, he is the Son of God, and that in some respect differing from his human nature. The Scripture gives him both names, calling him at one time the Son of God, at another the Son of Man. As to the latter, there can be no question that he is called a Son in accordance with the phraseology of the Hebrew language, because he is of the offspring of Adam. On the other hand, I maintain that he is called a Son on account of his Godhead and eternal essence, because it is no less congruous to refer to his divine nature his being called the Son of God, than to refer to his human nature his being called the Son of Man. In fine, in the passage which I have quoted, Paul does not mean, that he who according to the flesh was begotten of the seed of David, was declared to be the Son of God in any other sense than he elsewhere teaches that Christ, who descended of the Jews according to the flesh, is “over all, God blessed for ever,” (Rom. 9: 5.) But if in both passages the distinction of two natures is pointed out, how can it be denied, that he who according to the flesh is the Son of Man, is also in respect of his divine nature the Son of God?

7.

They indeed find a blustering defence of their heresy in its being said, that “God spared not his own Son,” and in the communication of the angel, that He who was to be born of the Virgin should be called the “Son of the Highest,” (Rom. 8: 32; Luke 1: 32.) But before pluming themselves on this futile objection, let them for a little consider with us what weight there is in their argument. If it is legitimately concluded, that at conception he began to be the Son of God, because he who has been conceived is called a Son, it will follow, that he began to be the Word after his manifestation in the flesh, because John declares, that the Word of life of which he spoke was that which “our hands have handled,” (1 John 1: 1.) In like manner we read in the prophet, “Thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Israel, yet out of thee shall he come forth that is to be a ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting,” (Mic. 5: 2.) How will they be forced to interpret if they will follow such a method of arguing? I have declared that we by no means assent to Nestorius, who imagined a twofold Christ, when we maintain that Christ, by means of brotherly union, made us sons of God with himself, because in the flesh, which he took from us, he is the only-begotten Son of God. And Augustine wisely reminds us, that he is a bright mirror of the wonderful and singular grace of God, because as man he obtained honour which he could not merit. With this distinction, therefore, according to the flesh, was Christ honoured even from the womb, viz., to be the Son of God. Still, in the unity of person we are not to imagine any intermixture which takes away from the Godhead what is peculiar to it. Nor is it more absurd that the eternal Word of God and Christ, uniting the two natures in one person, should in different ways be called the Son of God, than that he should in various respects be called at one time the Son of God, at another the Son of Man. Nor are we more embarrassed by another cavil of Servetus, viz., that Christ, before he appeared in the flesh, is nowhere called the Son of God, except under a figure. For though the description of him was then more obscure, yet it has already been clearly proved, that he was not otherwise the eternal God, than as he was the Word begotten of the eternal Father. Nor is the name applicable to the office of Mediator which he undertook, except in that he was God manifest in the flesh. Nor would God have thus from the beginning been called a Father, had there not been even then a mutual relation to the Son, “of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,” (Eph. 3: 15.) Hence it is easy to infer, that under the Law and the Prophets he was the Son of God before this name was celebrated in the Church. But if we are to dispute about the word merely, Solomon, speaking of the incomprehensibility of God, affirms that his Son is like himself, incomprehensible: “What is his name, and what is his Son’s name, if thou canst tell?” (Prov. 30: 4.) I am well aware that with the contentious this passage will not have sufficient weight; nor do I found much upon it, except as showing the malignant cavils of those who affirm that Christ is the Son of God only in so far as he became man. We may add, that all the most ancient writers, with one mouth and consent, testified the same thing so plainly, that the effrontery is no less ridiculous than detestable, which dares to oppose us with Irenaeus and Tertullian, both of whom acknowledge that He who was afterwards visibly manifested was the invisible Son of God.

8.

But although Servetus heaped together a number of horrid dogmas, to which, perhaps, others would not subscribe, you will find, that all who refuse to acknowledge the Son of God except in the flesh, are obliged, when urged more closely, to admit that he was a Son, for no other reason than because he was conceived in the womb of the Virgin by the Holy Spirit; just like the absurdity of the ancient Manichees, that the soul of man was derived by transfusion from God, from its being said, that he breathed into Adam’s nostrils the breath of life, (Gen. 2: 7.) For they lay such stress on the name of Son that they leave no distinction between the natures, but babblingly maintain that the man Christ is the Son of God, because, according to his human nature, he was begotten of God. Thus, the eternal generation of Wisdom, celebrated by Solomon, (Prov. 8: 22, seq.) is destroyed, and no kind of Godhead exists in the Mediator: or a phantom is substituted instead of a man. The grosser delusions of Servetus, by which he imposed upon himself and some others, it were useful to refute, that pious readers might be warned by the example, to confine themselves within the bounds of soberness and modesty: however, I deem it superfluous here, as I have already done it in a special treatise. The whole comes to this, that the Son of God was from the beginning an idea, and was even then a preordained man, who was to be the essential image of God. nor does he acknowledge any other word of God except in external splendour. The generation he interprets to mean, that from the beginning a purpose of generating the Son was begotten in God, and that this purpose extended itself by act to creation. Meanwhile, he confounds the Spirit with the Word, saying that God arranged the invisible Word and Spirit into flesh and soul. In short, in his view the typifying of Christ occupies the place of generation; but he says, that he who was then in appearance a shadowy Son, was at length begotten by the Word, to which he attributes a generating power. From this it will follow, that dogs and swine are not less sons of God, because created of the original seed of the Divine Word. But although he compounds Christ of three untreated elements, that he may be begotten of the essence of God, he pretends that he is the first-born among the creatures, in such a sense that, according to their degree, stones have the same essential divinity. But lest he should seem to strip Christ of his Deity, he admits that his flesh is “homo-ousion”, of the same substance with God, and that the Word was made man, by the conversion of flesh into Deity. Thus, while he cannot comprehend that Christ was the Son of God, until his flesh came forth from the essence of God and was converted into Deity, he reduces the eternal personality (hypostasis) of the Word to nothing, and robs us of the Son of David, who was the promised Redeemer. It is true, he repeatedly declares that the Son was begotten of God by knowledge and predestination, but that he was at length made man out of that matter which, from the beginning, shone with God in the three elements, and afterwards appeared in the first light of the world, in the cloud and pillar of fire. How shamefully inconsistent with himself he ever and anon becomes, it were too tedious to relate. From this brief account sound readers will gather, that by the subtle ambiguities of this infatuated man, the hope of salvation was utterly extinguished. For if the flesh were the Godhead itself, it would cease to be its temple. Now, the only Redeemer we can have is He who being begotten of the seed of Abraham and David according to the flesh, truly became man. But he erroneously insists on the expression of John, “The Word was made flesh.” As these words refute the heresy of Nestorius, so they give no countenance to the impious fiction of which Eutyches was the inventor, since all that the Evangelist intended was to assert a unity of person in two natures.

CHAPTER 15. THREE THINGS BRIEFLY TO BE REGARDED IN CHRIST; VIZ., HIS OFFICES OF PROPHET, KING, AND PRIEST.

The principal parts of this chapter are -

I. Of the Prophetical Office of Christ, its dignity and use, sec. 1, 2.

II. The nature of the Kingly power of Christ, and the advantage we derive from it, sec. 3-5.

III. Of the Priesthood of Christ, and the efficacy of it, sec. 6.

Sections.

1. Among heretics and false Christians, Christ is found in name only; but by those who are truly and effectually called of God, he is acknowledged as a Prophet, King, and Priest. In regard to the Prophetical Office, the Redeemer of the Church is the same from whom believers under the Law hoped for the full light of understanding.

2. The unction of Christ, though it has respect chiefly to the Kingly Office, refers also to the Prophetical and Priestly Offices. The dignity, necessity, and use of this unction.

3. From the spirituality of Christ’s kingdom its eternity is inferred. This twofold, referring both to the whole body of the Church, and to its individual members.

4. Benefits from the spiritual kingdom of Christ.

1. It raises us to eternal life.

2. It enriches us with all things necessary to salvation.

3. It makes us invincible by spiritual foes.

4. It animates us to patient endurance.

5. It inspires confidence and triumph.

6. It supplies fortitude and love.

5. The unction of our Redeemer heavenly. Symbol of this unction. A passage in the apostle reconciled with others previously quoted, to prove the eternal kingdom of Christ.

6. What necessary to obtain the benefit of Christ’s Priesthood. We must set out with the death of Christ. From it follows,

1. His intercession for us.

2. Confidence in prayer.

3. Peace of conscience.

4. Through Christ, Christians themselves become priests. Grievous sin of the Papists in pretending to sacrifice Christ.

1.

Though heretics pretend the name of Christ, truly does Augustine affirm, (Enchir. ad Laurent. cap. 5,) that the foundation is not common to them with the godly, but belongs exclusively to the Church: for if those things which pertain to Christ be diligently considered, it will be found that Christ is with them in name only, not in reality. Thus in the present day, though the Papists have the words, Son of God, Redeemer of the world, sounding in their mouths, yet, because contented with an empty name, they deprive him of his virtue and dignity; what Paul says of “not holding the head,” is truly applicable to them, (Col. 2: 19.) Therefore, that faith may find in Christ a solid ground of salvation, and so rest in him, we must set out with this principle, that the office which he received from the Father consists of three parts. For he was appointed both Prophet, King, and Priest; though little were gained by holding the names unaccompanied by a knowledge of the end and use. These too are spoken of in the Papacy, but frigidly, and with no great benefit, the full meaning comprehended under each title not being understood. We formerly observed, that though God, by supplying an uninterrupted succession of prophets, never left his people destitute of useful doctrine, such as might suffice for salvation; yet the minds of believers were always impressed with the conviction that the full light of understanding was to be expected only on the advent of the Messiah. This expectation, accordingly, had reached even the Samaritans, to whom the true religion had never been made known. This is plain from the expression of the woman, “I know that Messiah cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things,” (John 4: 25.) Nor was this a mere random presumption which had entered the minds of the Jews. They believed what sure oracles had taught them. One of the most remarkable passages is that of Isaiah, “Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people,” (Is. 54: 4;) that is, in the same way in which he had previously in another place styled him “Wonderful, Counsellor,” (Is. 9: 6.) For this reason, the apostle commending the perfection of gospel doctrine, first says that “God, at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the prophets,” and then adds, that he “has in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,” (Heb. 1: 1, 2.) But as the common office of the prophets was to hold the Church in suspense, and at the same time support it until the advent of the Mediator; we read, that the faithful, during the dispersion, complained that they were deprived of that ordinary privilege. “We see not our signs: there is no more any prophet, neither is there among us any that knoweth how long,” (Ps. 74: 9.) But when Christ was now not far distant, a period was assigned to Daniel “to seal up the vision and prophecy,” (Daniel 9: 24,) not only that the authority of the prediction there spoken of might be established, but that believers might, for a time, patiently submit to the want of the prophets, the fulfilment and completion of all the prophecies being at hand.

2.

Moreover, it is to be observed, that the name Christ refers to those three offices: for we know that under the law, prophets as well as priests and kings were anointed with holy oil. Whence, also, the celebrated name of Messiah was given to the promised Mediator. But although I admit (as, indeed, I have elsewhere shown) that he was so called from a view to the nature of the kingly office, still the prophetical and sacerdotal unctions have their proper place, and must not be overlooked. The former is expressly mentioned by Isaiah in these words: “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me: because the Lord has anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he has sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captive, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,” (Is. 60: 1, 2.) We see that he was anointed by the Spirit to be a herald and witness of his Father’s grace, and not in the usual way; for he is distinguished from other teachers who had a similar office. And here, again, it is to be observed, that the unction which he received, in order to perform the office of teacher, was not for himself, but for his whole body, that a corresponding efficacy of the Spirit might always accompany the preaching of the Gospel. This, however, remains certain, that by the perfection of doctrine which he brought, an end was put to all the prophecies, so that those who, not contented with the Gospel, annex somewhat extraneous to it, derogate from its authority. The voice which thundered from heaven, “This is my beloved Son, hear him” gave him a special privilege above all other teachers. Then from him, as head, this unction is diffused through the members, as Joel has foretold, “Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions,” (Joel 2: 28.) Paul’s expressions, that he was “made unto us wisdom,” (1 Cor. 1: 30,) and elsewhere, that in him “are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,” (Col. 2: 3,) have a somewhat different meaning, namely, that out of him there is nothing worth knowing, and that those who, by faith, apprehend his true character, possess the boundless immensity of heavenly blessings. For which reason, he elsewhere says, “I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ and him crucified,” (1 Cor. 2: 2.) And most justly: for it is unlawful to go beyond the simplicity of the Gospel. The purpose of this prophetical dignity in Christ is to teach us, that in the doctrine which he delivered is substantially included a wisdom which is perfect in all its parts.

3.

I come to the Kingly office, of which it were in vain to speak, without previously reminding the reader that its nature is spiritual; because it is from thence we learn its efficacy, the benefits it confers, its whole power and eternity. Eternity, moreover, which in Daniel an angel attributes to the office of Christ, (Dan. 2: 44,) in Luke an angel justly applies to the salvation of his people, (Luke 1: 33.) But this is also twofold, and must be viewed in two ways; the one pertains to the whole body of the Church the other is proper to each member. To the former is to be referred what is said in the Psalms, “Once have I sworn by my holiness, that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established for ever, as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven,” (Ps. 89: 35, 37.) There can be no doubt that God here promises that he will be, by the hand of his Son, the eternal governor and defender of the Church. In none but Christ will the fulfilment of this prophecy be found; since immediately after Solomon’s death the kingdom in n great measure lost its dignity, and, with ignominy to the family of David, was transferred to a private individual. Afterwards decaying by degrees, it at length came to a sad and dishonourable end. In the same sense are we to understand the exclamation of Isaiah, “Who shall declare his generation?” (Isaiah 53: 8.) For he asserts that Christ will so survive death as to be connected with his members. Therefore, as often as we hear that Christ is armed with eternal power, let us learn that the perpetuity of the Church is thus effectually secured; that amid the turbulent agitations by which it is constantly harassed, and the grievous and fearful commotions which threaten innumerable disasters, it still remains safe. Thus, when David derides the audacity of the enemy who attempt to throw off the yoke of God and his anointed, and says, that kings and nations rage “in vain,” (Ps. 2: 2-4,) because he who sitteth in the heaven is strong enough to repel their assaults, assuring believers of the perpetual preservation of the Church, he animates them to have good hope whenever it is occasionally oppressed. So, in another place, when speaking in the person of God, he says, “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool,” (Ps. 110: 1,) he reminds us, that however numerous and powerful the enemies who conspire to assault the Church, they are not possessed of strength sufficient to prevail against the immortal decree by which he appointed his Son eternal King. Whence it follows that the devil, with the whole power of the world, can never possibly destroy the Church, which is founded on the eternal throne of Christ. Then in regard to the special use to be made by each believer, this same eternity ought to elevate us to the hope of a blessed immortality. For we see that every thing which is earthly, and of the world, is temporary, and soon fades away. Christ, therefore, to raise our hope to the heavens, declares that his kingdom is not of this world, (John 18: 36.) In fine, let each of us, when he hears that the kingdom of Christ is spiritual, be roused by the thought to entertain the hope of a better life, and to expect that as it is now protected by the hand of Christ, so it will be fully realised in a future life.

4.

That the strength and utility of the kingdom of Christ cannot, as we have said, be fully perceived without recognising it as spiritual, is sufficiently apparent, even from this, that having during the whole course of our lives to war under the cross, our condition here is bitter and wretched. What then would it avail us to be ranged under the government of a heavenly King, if its benefits were not realised beyond the present earthly life? We must, therefore, know that the happiness which is promised to us in Christ does not consist in external advantages—such as leading a joyful and tranquil life, abounding in wealth, being secure against all injury, and having an affluence of delights, such as the flesh is wont to long for—but properly belongs to the heavenly life. As in the world the prosperous and desirable condition of a people consists partly in the abundance of temporal good and domestic peace, and partly in the strong protection which gives security against external violence; so Christ also enriches his people with all things necessary to the eternal salvation of their souls and fortifies them with courage to stand unassailable by all the attacks of spiritual foes. Whence we infer, that he reigns more for us than for himself, and that both within us and without us; that being replenished, in so far as God knows to be expedient, with the gifts of the Spirit, of which we are naturally destitute, we may feel from their first fruits, that we are truly united to God for perfect blessedness; and then trusting to the power of the same Spirit, may not doubt that we shall always be victorious against the devil, the world, and every thing that can do us harm. To this effect was our Saviour’s reply to the Pharisees, “The kingdom of God is within you.” “The kingdom of God cometh not with observation,” (Luke 17: 21, 22.) It is probable that on his declaring himself to be that King under whom the highest blessing of God was to be expected, they had in derision asked him to produce his insignia. But to prevent those who were already more than enough inclined to the earth from dwelling on its pomp, he bids them enter into their consciences, for “the kingdom of God” is “righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost,” (Rom. 14: 17.) These words briefly teach what the kingdom of Christ bestows upon us. Not being earthly or carnal, and so subject to corruption, but spiritual, it raises us even to eternal life, so that we can patiently live at present under toil, hunger, cold, contempt, disgrace, and other annoyances; contented with this, that our King will never abandon us, but will supply our necessities until our warfare is ended, and we are called to triumph: such being the nature of his kingdom, that he communicates to us whatever he received of his Father. Since then he arms and equips us by his power, adorns us with splendour and magnificence, enriches us with wealth, we here find most abundant cause of glorying, and also are inspired with boldness, so that we can contend intrepidly with the devil, sin, and death. In fine, clothed with his righteousness, we can bravely surmount all the insults of the world: and as he replenishes us liberally with his gifts, so we can in our turn bring forth fruit unto his glory.

5.

Accordingly, his royal unction is not set before us as composed of oil or aromatic perfumes; but he is called the Christ of God, because “the Spirit of the Lord” rested upon him; “the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord,” (Isaiah 11: 2.) This is the oil of joy with which the Psalmist declares that he was anointed above his fellows, (Ps. 45: 7.) For, as has been said, he was not enriched privately for himself, but that he might refresh the parched and hungry with his abundance. For as the Father is said to have given the Spirit to the Son without measure, (John 3: 34,) so the reason is expressed, that we might all receive of his fulness, and grace for grace, (John 1: 16.) From this fountain flows the copious supply (of which Paul makes mention, Eph. 4: 7) by which grace is variously distributed to believers according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Here we have ample confirmation of what I said, that the kingdom of Christ consists in the Spirit, and not in earthly delights or pomp, and that hence, in order to be partakers with him, we must renounce the world. A visible symbol of this grace was exhibited at the baptism of Christ, when the Spirit rested upon him in the form of a dove. To designate the Spirit and his gifts by the term “unction” is not new, and ought not to seem absurd (see 1 John 2: 20, 27,) because this is the only quarter from which we derive life; but especially in what regards the heavenly life, there is not a drop of vigour in us save what the Holy Spirit instils, who has chosen his seat in Christ, that thence the heavenly riches, of which we are destitute, might flow to us in copious abundance. But because believers stand invincible in the strength of their King, and his spiritual riches abound towards them, they are not improperly called Christians. Moreover, from this eternity of which we have spoken, there is nothing derogatory in the expression of Paul, “Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father,” (1 Cor. 15: 24;) and also, “Then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in and” (1 Cor. 15: 28;) for the meaning merely is, that, in that perfect glory, the administration of the kingdom will not be such as it now is. For the Father has given all power to the Son, that by his hand he may govern, cherish, sustain us, keep us under his guardianship, and give assistance to us. Thus, while we wander far as pilgrims from God, Christ interposes, that he may gradually bring us to full communion with God. And, indeed, his sitting at the right hand of the Father has the same meaning as if he was called the vicegerent of the Father, entrusted with the whole power of government. For God is pleased, mediately (so to speak) in his person to rule and defend the Church. Thus also his being seated at the right hand of the Father is explained by Paul, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, to mean, that “he is the head over all things to the Church, which is his body,” (Eph. 1: 20, 22.) Nor is this different in purport from what he elsewhere teaches, that God has “given him a name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father,” (Phil. 2: 9-11.) For in these words, also, he commends an arrangement in the kingdom of Christ, which is necessary for our present infirmity. Thus Paul rightly infers that God will then be the only Head of the Church, because the office of Christ, in defending the Church, shall then have been completed. For the same reason, Scripture throughout calls him Lord, the Father having appointed him over us for the express purpose of exercising his government through him. For though many lordships are celebrated in the world, yet Paul says, “To us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him,” (1 Cor. 8: 6.) Whence it is justly inferred that he is the same God, who, by the mouth of Isaiah, declared, “The Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our Lawgiver, the Lord is our King: he will save us,” (Isaiah 33: 22.) For though he every where describes all the power which he possesses as the benefit and gift of the Father, the meaning simply is, that he reigns by divine authority, because his reason for assuming the office of Mediator was, that descending from the bosom and incomprehensible glory of the Father, he might draw near to us. Wherefore there is the greater reason that we all should with one consent prepare to obey, and with the greatest alacrity yield implicit obedience to his will. For as he unites the offices of King and Pastor towards believers, who voluntarily submit to him, so, on the other hand, we are told that he wields an iron sceptre to break and bruise all the rebellious like a potter’s vessel, (Ps. 2: 9.) We are also told that he will be the Judge of the Gentiles, that he will cover the earth with dead bodies, and level down every opposing height, (Ps. 110: 6.) Of this examples are seen at present, but full proof will be given at the final judgement, which may be properly regarded as the last act of his reign.

6.

With regard to his Priesthood, we must briefly hold its end and use to be, that as a Mediator, free from all taint, he may by his own holiness procure the favour of God for us. But because a deserved curse obstructs the entrance, and God in his character of Judge is hostile to us, expiation must necessarily intervene, that as a priest employed to appease the wrath of God, he may reinstate us in his favour. Wherefore, in order that Christ might fulfil this office, it behoved him to appear with a sacrifice. For even under the law of the priesthood it was forbidden to enter the sanctuary without blood, to teach the worshipper that however the priest might interpose to deprecate, God could not be propitiated without the expiation of sin. On this subject the Apostle discourses at length in the Epistle to the Hebrews, from the seventh almost to the end of the tenth chapter. The sum comes to this, that the honour of the priesthood was competent to none but Christ, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he wiped away our guilt, and made satisfaction for sin. Of the great importance of this matter, we are reminded by that solemn oath which God uttered, and of which he declared he would not repent, “Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek,” (Ps. 110: 4.) For, doubtless, his purpose was to ratify that point on which he knew that our salvation chiefly hinged. For, as has been said, there is no access to God for us or for our prayers until the priest, purging away our defilements, sanctify us, and obtain for us that favour of which the impurity of our lives and hearts deprives us. Thus we see, that if the benefit and efficacy of Christ’s priesthood is to reach us, the commencement must be with his death. Whence it follows, that he by whose aid we obtain favour, must be a perpetual intercessor. From this again arises not only confidence in prayer, but also the tranquillity of pious minds, while they recline in safety on the paternal indulgence of God, and feel assured, that whatever has been consecrated by the Mediator is pleasing to him. But since God under the Law ordered sacrifices of beasts to be offered to him, there was a different and new arrangement in regard to Christ, viz., that he should be at once victim and priest, because no other fit satisfaction for sin could be found, nor was any one worthy of the honour of offering an only begotten son to God. Christ now bears the office of priest, not only that by the eternal law of reconciliation he may render the Father favourable and propitious to us, but also admit us into this most honourable alliance. For we though in ourselves polluted, in him being priests, (Rev. 1: 6,) offer ourselves and our all to God, and freely enter the heavenly sanctuary, so that the sacrifices of prayer and praise which we present are grateful and of sweet odour before him. To this effect are the words of Christ, “For their sakes I sanctify myself,” (John 17: 19;) for being clothed with his holiness, inasmuch as he has devoted us to the Father with himself, (otherwise we were an abomination before him,) we please him as if we were pure and clean, nay, even sacred. Hence that unction of the sanctuary of which mention is made in Daniel, (Dan. 9: 24.) For we must attend to the contrast between this unction and the shadowy one which was then in use; as if the angel had said, that when the shadows were dispersed, there would be a clear priesthood in the person of Christ. The more detestable, therefore, is the fiction of those who, not content with the priesthood of Christ, have dared to take it upon themselves to sacrifice him, a thing daily attempted in the Papacy, where the mass is represented as an immolation of Christ.

CHAPTER 16. HOW CHRIST PERFORMED THE OFFICE OF REDEEMER IN PROCURING OUR SALVATION. THE DEATH, RESURRECTION, AND ASCENSION OF CHRIST.

This chapter contains four leading heads—

I. A general consideration of the whole subject, including a discussion of a necessary question concerning the justice of God and his mercy in Christ, sec. 1-4.

II. How Christ fulfilled the office of Redeemer in each of its parts, sec. 5-17. His death, burial, descent to hell, resurrection, ascension to heaven, seat at the right hand of the Father, and return to judgement.

III. A great part of the Creed being here expounded, a statement is given of the view which ought to be taken of the Creed commonly ascribed to the Apostles, sec. 18.

IV. Conclusion, setting forth the doctrine of Christ the Redeemer, and the use of the doctrine, sec. 19.

Sections.

1. Every thing needful for us exists in Christ. How it is to be obtained.

2. Question as to the mode of reconciling the justice with the mercy of God. Modes of expression used in Scripture to teach us how miserable our condition is without Christ.

3. Not used improperly; for God finds in us ground both of hatred and love.

4. This confirmed from passages of Scripture and from Augustine.

5. The second part of the chapter, treating of our redemption by Christ. First generally. Redemption extends to the whole course of our Saviour’s obedience, but is specially ascribed to his death. The voluntary subjection of Christ. His agony. His condemnation before Pilate. Two things observable in his condemnation.

1. That he was numbered among transgressors.

2. That he was declared innocent by the judge. Use to be made of this.

6. Why Christ was crucified. This hidden doctrine typified in the Law, and completed by the Apostles and Prophets. In what sense Christ was made a curse for us. The cross of Christ connected with the shedding of his blood.

7. Of the death of Christ. Why he died. Advantages from his death. Of the burial of Christ. Advantages.

8. Of the descent into hell. This article gradually introduced into the Church. Must not be rejected, nor confounded with the previous article respecting burial.

9. Absurd exposition concerning the Limbus Patrum. This fable refuted.

10. The article of the descent to hell more accurately expounded. A great ground of comfort.

11. Confirmation of this exposition from passages of Scripture and the works of ancient Theologians. An objection refuted. Advantages of the doctrine.

12. Another objection that Christ is insulted, and despair ascribed to him in its being said that he feared. Answer, from the statements of the Evangelists, that he did fear, was troubled in spirit, amazed, and tempted in all respects as we are, yet without sin. Why Christ was pleased to become weak. His fear without sin. Refutation of another objection, with an answer to the question, Did Christ fear death, and why? When did Christ descend to hell, and how? What has been said refutes the heresy of Apollinaris and of the Monothelites.

13. Of the resurrection of Christ. The many advantages from it.

1. Our righteousness in the sight of God renewed and restored.

2. His life the basis of our life and hope, also the efficacious cause of new life in us.

3. The pledge of our future resurrection.

14. Of the ascension of Christ. Why he ascended. Advantages derived from it.

15. Of Christ’s seat at the Father’s right hand. What meant by it.

16. Many advantages from the ascension of Christ.

1. He gives access to the kingdom which Adam had shut up.

2. He intercedes for us with the Father.

3. His virtue being thence transfused into us, he works effectually in us for salvation.

17. Of the return of Christ to judgement. Its nature. The quick and dead who are to be judged. Passages apparently contradictory reconciled. Mode of judgement.

18. Advantages of the doctrine of Christ’s return to judgement. Third part of the chapter, explaining the view to be taken of the Apostles’ Creed. Summary of the Apostles’ Creed.

19. Conclusion of the whole chapter, showing that in Christ the salvation of the elect in all its parts is comprehended.

1.

All that we have hitherto said of Christ leads to this one result, that condemned, dead, and lost in ourselves, we must in him seek righteousness, deliverance, life and salvation, as we are taught by the celebrated words of Peter, “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved,” (Acts 4: 12.) The name of Jesus was not given him at random, or fortuitously, or by the will of man, but was brought from heaven by an angel, as the herald of the supreme decree; the reason also being added, “for he shall save his people from their sins,” (Matt. 1: 21.) In these words attention should be paid to what we have elsewhere observed, that the office of Redeemer was assigned him in order that he might be our Saviour. Still, however, redemption would be defective if it did not conduct us by an uninterrupted progression to the final goal of safety. Therefore, the moment we turn aside from him in the minutest degree, salvation, which resides entirely in him, gradually disappears; so that all who do not rest in him voluntarily deprive themselves of all grace. The observation of Bernard well deserves to be remembered: The name of Jesus is not only light but food also, yea, oil, without which all the food of the soul is dry; salt, without which as a condiment whatever is set before us is insipid; in fine, honey in the mouth, melody in the ear, joy in the heart, and, at the same time, medicine; every discourse where this name is not heard is absurd, (Bernard in Cantica., Serm. 15.) But here it is necessary diligently to consider in what way we obtain salvation from him, that we may not only be persuaded that he is the author of it, but having embraced whatever is sufficient as a sure foundation of our faith, may eschew all that might make us waver. For seeing no man can descend into himself, and seriously consider what he is, without feeling that God is angry and at enmity with him, and therefore anxiously longing for the means of regaining his favour, (this cannot be without satisfaction,) the certainty here required is of no ordinary description,—sinners, until freed from guilt, being always liable to the wrath and curse of God, who, as he is a just judge, cannot permit his law to be violated with impunity, but is armed for vengeance.

2.

But before we proceed farther, we must see in passing, how can it be said that God, who prevents us with his mercy, was our enemy until he was reconciled to us by Christ. For how could he have given us in his only-begotten Son a singular pledge of his love, if he had not previously embraced us with free favour? As there thus arises some appearance of contradiction, I will explain the difficulty. The mode in which the Spirit usually speaks in Scripture is, that God was the enemy of men until they were restored to favour by the death of Christ, (Rom. 5: 10;) that they were cursed until their iniquity was expiated by the sacrifice of Christ, (Gal. 3: 10, 13;) that they were separated from God, until by means of Christ’s body they were received into union, (Col. 1: 21, 22.) Such modes of expression are accommodated to our capacity, that we may the better understand how miserable and calamitous our condition is without Christ. For were it not said in clear terms, that Divine wrath, and vengeance, and eternal death, lay upon us, we should be less sensible of our wretchedness without the mercy of God, and less disposed to value the blessing of deliverance. For example, let a person be told, Had God at the time you were a sinner hated you, and cast you off as you deserved, horrible destruction must have been your doom; but spontaneously and of free indulgence he retained you in his favour, not suffering you to be estranged from him, and in this way rescued you from danger,—the person will indeed be affected, and made sensible in some degree how much he owes to the mercy of God. But again, let him be told, as Scripture teaches, that he was estranged from God by sin, an heir of wrath, exposed to the curse of eternal death, excluded from all hope of salvation, a complete alien from the blessing of God, the slave of Satan, captive under the yoke of sin; in fine, doomed to horrible destruction, and already involved in it; that then Christ interposed, took the punishment upon himself and bore what by the just judgement of God was impending over sinners; with his own blood expiated the sins which rendered them hateful to God, by this expiation satisfied and duly propitiated God the Father, by this intercession appeased his anger, on this basis founded peace between God and men, and by this tie secured the Divine benevolence toward them; will not these considerations move him the more deeply, the more strikingly they represent the greatness of the calamity from which he was delivered? In short, since our mind cannot lay hold of life through the mercy of God with sufficient eagerness, or receive it with becoming gratitude, unless previously impressed with fear of the Divine anger, and dismayed at the thought of eternal death, we are so instructed by divine truth, as to perceive that without Christ God is in a manner hostile to us, and has his arm raised for our destruction. Thus taught, we look to Christ alone for divine favour and paternal love.

3.

Though this is said in accommodation to the weakness of our capacity, it is not said falsely. For God, who is perfect righteousness, cannot love the iniquity which he sees in all. All of us, therefore, have that within which deserves the hatred of God. Hence, in respect, first, of our corrupt nature; and, secondly, of the depraved conduct following upon it, we are all offensive to God, guilty in his sight, and by nature the children of hell. But as the Lord wills not to destroy in us that which is his own, he still finds something in us which in kindness he can love. For though it is by our own fault that we are sinners, we are still his creatures; though we have brought death upon ourselves he had created us for life. Thus, mere gratuitous love prompts him to receive us into favour. But if there is a perpetual and irreconcilable repugnance between righteousness and iniquity, so long as we remain sinners we cannot be completely received. Therefore, in order that all ground of offence may be removed, and he may completely reconcile us to himself, he, by means of the expiation set forth in the death of Christ, abolishes all the evil that is in us, so that we, formerly impure and unclean, now appear in his sight just and holy. Accordingly, God the Father, by his love, prevents and anticipates our reconciliation in Christ. Nay, it is because he first loves us, that he afterwards reconciles us to himself. But because the iniquity, which deserves the indignation of God, remains in us until the death of Christ comes to our aid, and that iniquity is in his sight accursed and condemned, we are not admitted to full and sure communion with God, unless, in so far as Christ unites us. And, therefore, if we would indulge the hope of having God placable and propitious to us, we must fix our eyes and minds on Christ alone, as it is to him alone it is owing that our sins, which necessarily provoked the wrath of God, are not imputed to us.

4.

For this reason Paul says, that God “has blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: according as he has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world,” (Eph. 1: 3, 4.) These things are clear and conformable to Scripture, and admirably reconcile the passages in which it is said, that “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,” (John 3: 16;) and yet that it was “when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son,” (Rom. 5: 10.) But to give additional assurance to those who require the authority of the ancient Church, I will quote a passage of Augustine to the same effect: “Incomprehensible and immutable is the love of God. For it was not after we were reconciled to him by the blood of his Son that he began to love us, but he loved us before the foundation of the world, that with his only begotten Son we too might be sons of God before we were any thing at all. Our being reconciled by the death of Christ must not be understood as if the Son reconciled us, in order that the Father, then hating, might begin to love us, but that we were reconciled to him already, loving, though at enmity with us because of sin. To the truth of both propositions we have the attestation of the Apostle, ‘God commendeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us,’ (Rom. 5: 8.) Therefore he had this love towards us even when, exercising enmity towards him, we were the workers of iniquity. Accordingly in a manner wondrous and divine, he loved even when he hated us. For he hated us when we were such as he had not made us, and yet because our iniquity had not destroyed his work in every respect, he knew in regard to each one of us, both to hate what we had made, and love what he had made.” Such are the words of Augustine, (Tract in Jo. 110.)

5.

When it is asked then how Christ, by abolishing sin, removed the enmity between God and us, and purchased a righteousness which made him favourable and kind to us, it may be answered generally, that he accomplished this by the whole course of his obedience. This id proved by the testimony of Paul, “As by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous,” (Rom. 5: 19.) And indeed he elsewhere extends the ground of pardon which exempts from the curse of the law to the whole life of Christ, “When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law,” (Gal. 4: 4, 5.) Thus even at his baptism he declared that a part of righteousness was fulfilled by his yielding obedience to the command of the Father. In short, from the moment when he assumed the form of a servant, he began, in order to redeem us, to pay the price of deliverance. Scripture, however, the more certainly to define the mode of salvation, ascribes it peculiarly and specially to the death of Christ. He himself declares that he gave his life a ransom for many, (Matth. 20: 28.) Paul teaches that he died for our sins (Rom. 4: 25.) John Baptist exclaimed, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world,” (John 1: 29.) Paul in another passage declares, “that we are justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood,” (Rom. 3: 25.) Again, being justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him” (Rom. 5: 9.) Again “He has made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,” (2 Cor. 5: 21.) I will not search out all the passages, for the list would be endless, and many are afterwards to be quoted in their order. In the Confession of Faith, called the Apostles’ Creed, the transition is admirably made from the birth of Christ to his death and resurrection, in which the completion of a perfect salvation consists. Still there is no exclusion of the other part of obedience which he performed in life. Thus Paul comprehends, from the beginning even to the end, his having assumed the form of a servant, humbled himself, and become obedient to death, even the death of the cross, (Phil. 2: 7.) And, indeed, the first step in obedience was his voluntary subjection; for the sacrifice would have been unavailing to justification if not offered spontaneously. Hence our Lord, after testifying, “I lay down my life for the sheep,” distinctly adds, “No man taketh it from me,” (John 10: 15, 18.) In the same sense Isaiah says, “ Like a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth,” (Is. 53: 7.) The Gospel History relates that he came forth to meet the soldiers; and in presence of Pilate, instead of defending himself, stood to receive judgement. This, indeed, he did not without a struggle, for he had assumed our infirmities also, and in this way it behoved him to prove that he was yielding obedience to his Father. It was no ordinary example of incomparable love towards us to struggle with dire terrors, and amid fearful tortures to cast away all care of himself that he might provide for us. We must bear in minds that Christ could not duly propitiate God without renouncing his own feelings and subjecting himself entirely to his Father’s will. To this effect the Apostle appositely quotes a passage from the Psalms, “Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God,” (Heb. 10: 5; Ps. 40: 7, 8.) Thus, as trembling consciences find no rest without sacrifice and ablution by which sins are expiated, we are properly directed thither, the source of our life being placed in the death of Christ. Moreover, as the curse consequent upon guilt remained for the final judgement of God, one principal point in the narrative is his condemnation before Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea, to teach us, that the punishment to which we were liable was inflicted on that Just One. We could not escape the fearful judgement of God; and Christ, that he might rescue us from it, submitted to be condemned by a mortal, nay, by a wicked and profane man. For the name of Governor is mentioned not only to support the credibility of the narrative, but to remind us of what Isaiah says, that “the chastisement of our peace was upon him;” and that “with his stripes we are healed,” (Is. 53: 5.) For, in order to remove our condemnation, it was not sufficient to endure any kind of death. To satisfy our ransom, it was necessary to select a mode of death in which he might deliver us, both by giving himself up to condemnations and undertaking our expiation. Had he been cut off by assassins, or slain in a seditious tumult, there could have been no kind of satisfaction in such a death. But when he is placed as a criminal at the bar, where witnesses are brought to give evidence against him, and the mouth of the judge condemns him to die, we see him sustaining the character of an offender and evil-doer. Here we must attend to two points which had both been foretold by the prophets, and tend admirably to comfort and confirm our faith. When we read that Christ was led away from the judgement-seat to execution, and was crucified between thieves, we have a fulfilment of the prophecy which is quoted by the Evangelist, “He was numbered with the transgressors,” (Is. 53: 12; Mark 15: 28.) Why was it so? That he might bear the character of a sinner, not of a just or innocent person, inasmuch as he met death on account not of innocence, but of sin. On the other hand, when we read that he was acquitted by the same lips that condemned him, (for Pilate was forced once and again to bear public testimony to his innocence,) let us call to mind what is said by another prophet, “I restored that which I took not away,” (Ps. 69: 4.) Thus we perceive Christ representing the character of a sinner and a criminal, while, at the same time, his innocence shines forth, and it becomes manifest that he suffers for another’s and not for his own crime. He therefore suffered under Pontius Pilate, being thus, by the formal sentence of the judge, ranked among criminals, and yet he is declared innocent by the same judge, when he affirms that he finds no cause of death in him. Our acquittal is in this that the guilt which made us liable to punishment was transferred to the head of the Son of God, (Is. 53: 12.) We must specially remember this substitution in order that we may not be all our lives in trepidation and anxiety, as if the just vengeance which the Son of God transferred to himself, were still impending over us.

6.

The very form of the death embodies a striking truth. The cross was cursed not only in the opinion of men, but by the enactment of the Divine Law. Hence Christ, while suspended on it, subjects himself to the curse. And thus it behoved to be done, in order that the whole curse, which on account of our iniquities awaited us, or rather lay upon us, might be taken from us by being transferred to him. This was also shadowed in the Law, since “‘ashamot”, the word by which sin itself is properly designated, was applied to the sacrifices and expiations offered for sin. By this application of the term, the Spirit intended to intimate, that they were a kind of “katarmaton”, (purifications,) bearing, by substitutions the curse due to sin. But that which was represented figuratively in the Mosaic sacrifices is exhibited in Christ the archetype. Wherefore, in order to accomplish a full expiation, he made his soul to “‘asham”, i. e., a propitiatory victim for sin, (as the prophet says, Is. 53: 5, 10,) on which the guilt and penalty being in a manner laid, ceases to be imputed to us. The Apostle declares this more plainly when he says, that “he made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,” (2 Cor. 5: 21.) For the Son of God, though spotlessly pure, took upon him the disgrace and ignominy of our iniquities, and in return clothed us with his purity. To the same thing he seems to refer, when he says, that he “condemned sin in the flesh,” (Rom. 8: 3,) the Father having destroyed the power of sin when it was transferred to the flesh of Christ. This term, therefore, indicates that Christ, in his death, was offered to the Father as a propitiatory victim; that, expiation being made by his sacrifice, we might cease to tremble at the divine wrath. It is now clear what the prophet means when he says, that “the Lord has laid upon him the iniquity of us all,” (Is. 53: 6;) namely, that as he was to wash away the pollution of sins, they were transferred to him by imputation. Of this the cross to which he was nailed was a symbol, as the Apostle declares, “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ,” (Gal. 3: 13, 14.) In the same way Peter says, that he “bare our sins in his own body on the tree,” (1 Peter 2: 24,) inasmuch as from the very symbol of the curse, we perceive more clearly that the burden with which we were oppressed was laid upon him. Nor are we to understand that by the curse which he endured he was himself overwhelmed, but rather that by enduring it he repressed broke, annihilated all its force. Accordingly, faith apprehends acquittal in the condemnation of Christ, and blessing in his curse. Hence it is not without cause that Paul magnificently celebrates the triumph which Christ obtained upon the cross, as if the cross, the symbol of ignominy, had been converted into a triumphal chariot. For he says, that he blotted out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross: that “having spoiled principalities and powers he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it,” (Col. 2: 14, 15.) Nor is this to be wondered at; for, as another Apostle declares, Christ, “through the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God,” (Heb. 9: 14,) and hence that transformation of the cross which were otherwise against its nature. But that these things may take deep root and have their seat in our inmost hearts, we must never lose sight of sacrifice and ablution. For, were not Christ a victim, we could have no sure conviction of his being “apolutrosis, antilutron, kai hilasterion”, our substitute-ransom and propitiation. And hence mention is always made of blood whenever scripture explains the mode of redemption: although the shedding of Christ’s blood was available not only for propitiation, but also acted as a laver to purge our defilements.

7.

The Creed next mentions that he “was dead and buried”. Here again it is necessary to consider how he substituted himself in order to pay the price of our redemption. Death held us under its yoke, but he in our place delivered himself into its power, that he might exempt us from it. This the Apostle means when he says, “that he tasted death for every man,” (Heb. 2: 9.) By dying he prevented us from dying; or (which is the same thing) he by his death purchased life for us, (see Calvin in Psychopann.) But in this he differed from us, that in permitting himself to be overcome of death, it was not so as to be engulfed in its abyss but rather to annihilate it, as it must otherwise have annihilated us; he did not allow himself to be so subdued by it as to be crushed by its power; he rather laid it prostrate, when it was impending over us, and exulting over us as already overcome. In fine, his object was, “that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage,” (Heb. 2: 14, 15.) This is the first fruit which his death produced to us. Another is, that by fellowship with him he mortifies our earthly members that they may not afterwards exert themselves in action, and kill the old man, that he may not hereafter be in vigour and bring forth fruit. An effect of his burials moreover is that we as his fellows are buried to sin. For when the Apostle says, that we are ingrafted into the likeness of Christ’s deaths and that we are buried with him unto sin, that by his cross the world is crucified unto us and we unto the world, and that we are dead with him, he not only exhorts us to manifest an example of his death, but declares that there is an efficacy in it which should appear in all Christians, if they would not render his death unfruitful and useless. Accordingly in the death and burial of Christ a twofold blessing is set before us, viz., deliverance from death, to which we were enslaved, and the mortification of our flesh, (Rom. 6: 5; Gal. 2: 19, 6: 14; Col. 3: 3.)

8.

Here we must not omit the descent to hell, which was of no little importance to the accomplishment of redemption. For although it is apparent from the writings of the ancient Fathers, that the clause which now stands in the Creed was not formerly so much used in the churches, still, in giving a summary of doctrine, a place must be assigned to it, as containing a matter of great importance which ought not by any means to be disregarded. Indeed, some of the ancient Fathers do not omit it, and hence we may conjecture, that having been inserted in the Creed after a considerable lapse of time, it came into use in the Church not immediately but by degrees. This much is uncontroverted, that it was in accordance with the general sentiment of all believers, since there is none of the Fathers who does not mention Christ’s descent into hell, though they have various modes of explaining it. But it is of little consequence by whom and at what time it was introduced. The chief thing to be attended to in the Creed is, that it furnishes us with a full and every way complete summary of faith, containing nothing but what has been derived from the infallible word of God. But should any still scruple to give it admission into the Creed, it will shortly be made plain, that the place which it holds in a summary of our redemption is so important, that the omission of it greatly detracts from the benefit of Christ’s death. There are some again who think that the article contains nothing new, but is merely a repetition in different words of what was previously said respecting burial, the word Hell (Infernis) being often used in Scripture for sepulchre. I admit the truth of what they allege with regard to the not infrequent use of the term infernos for sepulchre; but I cannot adopt their opinion, for two obvious reasons. First, What folly would it have been, after explaining a matter attended with no difficulty in clear and unambiguous terms, afterwards to involve rather than illustrate it by clothing it in obscure phraseology? When two expressions having the same meaning are placed together, the latter ought to be explanatory of the former. But what kind of explanation would it be to say, the expression, “Christ was buried”, means, that “he descended into hell”? My second reason is the improbability that a superfluous tautology of this description should have crept into this compendium, in which the principal articles of faith are set down summarily in the fewest possible number of words. I have no doubt that all who weigh the matter with some degree of care will here agree with me.

9.

Others interpret differently, viz., That Christ descended to the souls of the Patriarchs who died under the law, to announce his accomplished redemption, and bring them out of the prison in which they were confined. To this effect they wrest the passage in the Psalms “He has broken the gates of brass, and cut the bars of iron in sunder.” (Ps. 107: 16;) and also the passage in Zechariah, “I have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water,” (Zech. 9: 11.) But since the psalm foretells the deliverance of those who were held captive in distant lands, and Zechariah comparing the Babylonish disaster into which the people had been plunged to a deep dry well or abyss, at the same time declares, that the salvation of the whole Church was an escape from a profound pit, I know not how it comes to pass, that posterity imagined it to be a subterraneous cavern, to which they gave the name of Limbus. Though this fable has the countenance of great authors, and is now also seriously defended by many as truth, it is nothing but a fable. To conclude from it that the souls of the dead are in prison is childish. And what occasion was there that the soul of Christ should go down thither to set them at liberty? I readily admit that Christ illumined them by the power of his Spirit, enabling them to perceive that the grace of which they had only had a foretaste was then manifested to the world. And to this not improbably the passage of Peter may be applied, wherein he says, that Christ “went and preached to the spirits that were in prison,” (or rather “a watch-tower,") (I Pet. 3: 19.) The purport of the context is, that believers who had died before that time were partakers of the same grace with ourselves: for he celebrates the power of Christ’s death, in that he penetrated even to the dead, pious souls obtaining an immediate view of that visitation for which they had anxiously waited; while, on the other hand, the reprobate were more clearly convinced that they were completely excluded from salvation. Although the passage in Peter is not perfectly definite, we must not interpret as if he made no distinction between the righteous and the wicked: he only means to intimate, that the death of Christ was made known to both.

10.

But, apart from the Creed, we must seek for a surer exposition of Christ’s descent to hell: and the word of God furnishes us with one not only pious and holy, but replete with excellent consolation. Nothing had been done if Christ had only endured corporeal death. In order to interpose between us and God’s anger, and satisfy his righteous judgement, it was necessary that he should feel the weight of divine vengeance. Whence also it was necessary that he should engage, as it were, at close quarters with the powers of hell and the horrors of eternal death. We lately quoted from the Prophet, that the “chastisement of our peace was laid upon him” that he “was bruised for our iniquities” that he “bore our infirmities;” expressions which intimate, that, like a sponsor and surety for the guilty, and, as it were, subjected to condemnation, he undertook and paid all the penalties which must have been exacted from them, the only exception being, that the pains of death could not hold him. Hence there is nothing strange in its being said that he descended to hell, seeing he endured the death which is inflicted on the wicked by an angry God. It is frivolous and ridiculous to object that in this way the order is perverted, it being absurd that an event which preceded burial should be placed after it. But after explaining what Christ endured in the sight of man, the Creed appropriately adds the invisible and incomprehensible judgement which he endured before God, to teach us that not only was the body of Christ given up as the price of redemption, but that there was a greater and more excellent price—that he bore in his soul the tortures of condemned and ruined man.

11.

In this sense, Peter says that God raised up Christ, “having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible he should be holden of it,” (Acts 2: 24.) He does not mention death simply, but says that the Son of God endured the pains produced by the curse and wrath of God, the source of death. How small a matter had it been to come forth securely, and as it were in sport to undergo death. Herein was a true proof of boundless mercy, that he shunned not the death he so greatly dreaded. And there can be no doubt that, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apostle means to teach the same thing, when he says that he “was heard in that he feared,” (Heb. 5: 7.) Some instead of “feared,” use a term meaning reverence or piety, but how inappropriately, is apparent both from the nature of the thing and the form of expression. Christ then praying in a loud voice, and with tears, is heard in that he feared, not so as to be exempted from death, but so as not to be swallowed up of it like a sinner, though standing as our representative. And certainly no abyss can be imagined more dreadful than to feel that you are abandoned and forsaken of God, and not heard when you invoke him, just as if he had conspired your destruction. To such a degree was Christ dejected, that in the depth of his agony he was forced to exclaim, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” The view taken by some, that he here expressed the opinion of others rather than his own conviction, is most improbable; for it is evident that the expression was wrung from the anguish of his inmost soul. We do not, however, insinuate that God was ever hostile to him or angry with him. How could he be angry with the beloved Son, with whom his soul was well pleased? or how could he have appeased the Father by his intercession for others if He were hostile to himself? But this we say, that he bore the weight of the divine anger, that, smitten and afflicted, he experienced all the signs of an angry and avenging God. Hence Hilary argues, that to this descent we owe our exemption from death. Nor does he dissent from this view in other passages, as when he says, “The cross, death, hell, are our life.” And again, “The Son of God is in hell, but man is brought back to heaven.” And why do I quote the testimony of a private writer, when an Apostle asserts the same thing, stating it as one fruit of his victory that he delivered “them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage?” (Heb. 2: 15.) He behoved therefore, to conquer the fear which incessantly vexes and agitates the breasts of all mortals; and this he could not do without a contest. Moreover it will shortly appear with greater clearness that his was no common sorrow, was not the result of a trivial cause. Thus by engaging with the power of the devil, the fear of death, and the pains of hell, he gained the victory, and achieved a triumph, so that we now fear not in death those things which our Prince has destroyed.

12.

Here some miserable creatures, who, though unlearned, are however impelled more by malice than ignorance, cry out that I am offering an atrocious insult to Christ, because it were most incongruous to hold that he feared for the safety of his soul. And then in harsher terms they urge the calumnious charge that I attribute despair to the Son of God, a feeling the very opposite of faith. First, they wickedly raise a controversy as to the fear and dread which Christ felt, though these are openly affirmed by the Evangelists. For before the hour of his death arrived, he was troubled in spirit, and affected with grief; and at the very onset began to be exceedingly amazed. To speak of these feelings as merely assumed, is a shameful evasion. It becomes us, therefore, (as Ambrose truly teaches,) boldly to profess the agony of Christ, if we are not ashamed of the cross. And certainly had not his soul shared in the punishment, he would have been a Redeemer of bodies only. The object of his struggle was to raise up those who were lying prostrate; and so far is this from detracting from his heavenly glory, that his goodness, which can never be sufficiently extolled, becomes more conspicuous in this, that he declined not to bear our infirmities. Hence also that solace to our anxieties and griefs which the Apostle sets before us: “We have not an high priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all respects tempted like as we are, yet without sin,” (Heb. 4: 15.) These men pretend that a thing in its nature vicious is improperly ascribed to Christ; as if they were wiser than the Spirit of God, who in the same passage reconciles the two things, viz., that he was tempted in all respects like as we are, and yet was without sin. There is no reason, therefore, to take alarm at infirmity in Christ, infirmity to which he submitted not under the constraint of violence and necessity, but merely because he loved and pitied us. Whatever he spontaneously suffered, detracts in no degree from his majesty. One thing which misleads these detractors is, that they do not recognise in Christ an infirmity which was pure and free from every species of taint, inasmuch as it was kept within the limits of obedience. As no moderation can be seen in the depravity of our nature, in which all affections with turbulent impetuosity exceed their due bounds, they improperly apply the same standard to the Son of God. But as he was upright, all his affections were under such restraint as prevented every thing like excess. Hence he could resemble us in grief, fear, and dread, but still with this mark of distinction. Thus refuted, they fly off to another cavil, that although Christ feared death, yet he feared not the curse and wrath of God, from which he knew that he was safe. But let the pious reader consider how far it is honourable to Christ to make him more effeminate and timid than the generality of men. Robbers and other malefactors contumaciously hasten to death, many men magnanimously despise it, others meet it calmly. If the Son of God was amazed and terror-struck at the prospect of it, where was his firmness or magnanimity? We are even told, what in a common death would have been deemed most extraordinary, that in the depth of his agony his sweat was like great drops of blood falling to the ground. Nor was this a spectacle exhibited to the eyes of others, since it was from a secluded spot that he uttered his groans to his Father. And that no doubt may remain, it was necessary that angels should come down from heaven to strengthen him with miraculous consolation. How shamefully effeminate would it have been (as I have observed) to be so excruciated by the fear of an ordinary death as to sweat drops of blood, and not even be revived by the presence of angels? What? Does not that prayer, thrice repeated, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me,” (Matth. 26: 39,) a prayer dictated by incredible bitterness of soul, show that Christ had a fiercer and more arduous struggle than with ordinary death? Hence it appears that these triflers, with whom I am disputing, presume to talk of what they know not, never having seriously considered what is meant and implied by ransoming us from the justice of God. It is of consequence to understand aright how much our salvation cost the Son of God. If any one now ask, Did Christ descend to hell at the time when he deprecated death? I answer, that this was the commencement, and that from it we may infer how dire and dreadful were the tortures which he endured when he felt himself standing at the bar of God as a criminal in our stead. And although the divine power of the Spirit veiled itself for a moment, that it might give place to the infirmity of the flesh, we must understand that the trial arising from feelings of grief and fear was such as not to be at variance with faith. And in this was fulfilled what is said in Peter’s sermon as to having been loosed from the pains of death, because “it was not possible he could be holden of it,” (Acts 2: 24.) Though feeling, as it were, forsaken of God, he did not cease in the slightest degree to confide in his goodness. This appears from the celebrated prayer in which, in the depth of his agony, he exclaimed, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matth. 27: 46.) Amid all his agony he ceases not to call upon his God, while exclaiming that he is forsaken by him. This refutes the Apollinarian heresy as well as that of those who are called Monothelites. Apollinaris pretended, that in Christ the eternal Spirit supplied the place of a soul, so that he was only half a man; as if he could have expiated our sins in any other way than by obeying the Father. But where does the feeling or desire of obedience reside but in the soul? And we know that his soul was troubled in order that ours, being free from trepidation, might obtain peace and quiet. Moreover, in opposition to the Monothelites, we see that in his human he felt a repugnance to what he willed in his divine nature. I say nothing of his subduing the fear of which we have spoken by a contrary affection. This appearance of repugnance is obvious in the words, “Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name,” (John 12: 27, 28.) Still, in this perplexity, there was no violent emotion, such as we exhibit while making the strongest endeavours to subdue our own feelings.

13.

Next follows the resurrection from the dead, without which all that has hitherto been said would be defective. For seeing that in the cross, death, and burial of Christ, nothing but weakness appears, faith must go beyond all these, in order that it may be provided with full strength. Hence, although in his death we have an effectual completion of salvation, because by it we are reconciled to God, satisfaction is given to his justice, the curse is removed, and the penalty paid; still it is not by his death, but by his resurrection, that we are said to be begotten again to a living hope, (1 Pet. 1: 3;) because, as he, by rising again, became victorious over death, so the victory of our faith consists only in his resurrection. The nature of it is better expressed in the words of Paul, “Who (Christ) was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification,” (Rom. 4: 25;) as if he had said, By his death sin was taken away, by his resurrection righteousness was renewed and restored. For how could he by dying have freed us from death, if he had yielded to its power? how could he have obtained the victory for us, if he had fallen in the contest? Our salvation may be thus divided between the death and the resurrection of Christ: by the former sin was abolished and death annihilated; by the latter righteousness was restored and life revived, the power and efficacy of the former being still bestowed upon us by means of the latter. Paul accordingly affirms, that he was declared to be the Son of God by his resurrection, (Rom. 1: 4,) because he then fully displayed that heavenly power which is both a bright mirror of his divinity, and a sure support of our faith; as he also elsewhere teaches, that “though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God,” (2 Cor. 13: 4.) In the same sense, in another passage, treating of perfection, he says, “That I may know him and the power of his resurrection,” (Phil. 3: 10.) Immediately after he adds, “being made conformable unto his death.” In perfect accordance with this is the passage in Peter, that God “raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory, that your faith and hope might be in God,” ( 1 Pet. 1: 21.) Not that faith founded merely on his death is vacillating, but that the divine power by which he maintains our faith is most conspicuous in his resurrection. Let us remember, therefore, that when death only is mentioned, everything peculiar to the resurrection is at the same time included, and that there is a like synecdoche in the term resurrection, as often as it is used apart from death, everything peculiar to death being included. But as, by rising again, he obtained the victory, and became the resurrection and the life, Paul justly argues, “If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins,” (1 Cor. 15: 17.) Accordingly, in another passage, after exulting in the death of Christ in opposition to the terrors of condemnation, he thus enlarges, “Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us,” (Rom. 8: 34.) Then, as we have already explained that the mortification of our flesh depends on communion with the cross, so we must also understand, that a corresponding benefit is derived from his resurrection. For as the Apostle says, “Like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life,” (Rom. 6: 4.) Accordingly, as in another passage, from our being dead with Christ, he inculcates, “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth,” (Col. 3: 5;) so from our being risen with Christ he infers, “seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God,” (Col. 3: 1.) In these words we are not only urged by the example of a risen Saviour to follow newness of life, but are taught that by his power we are renewed unto righteousness. A third benefit derived from it is, that, like an earnest, it assures us of our own resurrection, of which it is certain that his is the surest representation. This subject is discussed at length, (1 Cor. 15.) But it is to be observed, in passing, that when he is said to have “risen from the dead,” these terms express the reality both of his death and resurrection, as if it had been said, that he died the same death as other men naturally die, and received immortality in the same mortal flesh which he had assumed.

14.

The resurrection is naturally followed by the ascension into heaven. For although Christ, by rising again, began fully to display his glory and virtue, having laid aside the abject and ignoble condition of a mortal life, and the ignominy of the cross, yet it was only by his ascension to heaven that his reign truly commenced. This the Apostle shows, when he says he ascended “that he might fill all things,” (Eph. 4: 10;) thus reminding us, that under the appearance of contradiction, there is a beautiful harmony, inasmuch as though he departed from us, it was that his departure might be more useful to us than that presence which was confined in a humble tabernacle of flesh during his abode on the earth. Hence John, after repeating the celebrated invitation, “If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink,” immediately adds, “the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified,” (John 7: 37, 39.) This our Lord himself also declared to his disciples, “It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away the Comforter will not come unto you,” (John 16: 7.) To console them for his bodily absence, he tells them that he will not leave them comfortless, but will come again to them in a manner invisible indeed, but more to be desired, because they were then taught by a surer experience that the government which he had obtained, and the power which he exercises would enable his faithful followers not only to live well, but also to die happily. And, indeed we see how much more abundantly his Spirit was poured out, how much more gloriously his kingdom was advanced, how much greater power was employed in aiding his followers and discomfiting his enemies. Being raised to heaven, he withdrew his bodily presence from our sight, not that he might cease to be with his followers, who are still pilgrims on the earth, but that he might rule both heaven and earth more immediately by his power; or rather, the promise which he made to be with us even to the end of the world, he fulfilled by this ascension, by which, as his body has been raised above all heavens, so his power and efficacy have been propagated and diffused beyond all the bounds of heaven and earth. This I prefer to explain in the words of Augustine rather than my own: “Through death Christ was to go to the right hand of the Father, whence he is to come to judge the quick and the dead, and that in corporal presence, according to the sound doctrine and rule of faith. For, in spiritual presence, he was to be with them after his ascension,” (August. Tract. in Joann. 109.) In another passage he is more full and explicit: “In regard to ineffable and invisible grace, is fulfilled what he said, Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world, (Matth. 28: 20;) but in regard to the flesh which the Word assumed in regard to his being born of a Virgin, in regard to his being apprehended by the Jews, nailed to the tree, taken down from the cross, wrapt in linen clothes, laid in the sepulchre, and manifested on his resurrection, it may be said, Me ye have not always with you. Why? because, in bodily presence, he conversed with his disciples forty days, and leading them out where they saw, but followed not, he ascended into heaven, and is not here: for there he sits at the right hand of the Father: and yet he is here, for the presence of his Godhead was not withdrawn. Therefore, as regards his divine presence, we have Christ always: as regards his bodily presence, it was truly said to the disciples, Me ye have not always. For a few days the Church had him bodily present. Now, she apprehends him by faith, but sees him not by the eye,” (August. Tract. 51.)

15.

Hence it is immediately added, that he “sitteth at the right hand of God the Father;” a similitude borrowed from princes, who have their assessors to whom they commit the office of ruling and issuing commands. Thus Christ, in whom the Father is pleased to be exalted, and by whose hand he is pleased to reign, is said to have been received up, and seated on his right hand, (Mark 16: 19;) as if it had been said, that he was installed in the government of heaven and earth, and formally admitted to possession of the administration committed to him, and not only admitted for once, but to continue until he descend to judgement. For so the Apostle interprets, when he says, that the Father “set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named not only in this world, but also in that which is to come; and has put all things under his feet, and given him to be the head over all things to the Church.” You see to what end he is so seated namely, that all creatures both in heaven and earth should reverence his majesty, be ruled by his hand, do him implicit homage, and submit to his power. All that the Apostles intends when they so often mention his seat at the Father’s hand, is to teach, that every thing is placed at his disposal. Those, therefore, are in error, who suppose that his blessedness merely is indicated. We may observe, that there is nothing contrary to this doctrine in the testimony of Stephen, that he saw him standing, (Acts 7: 56,) the subject here considered being not the position of his body, but the majesty of his empire, sitting meaning nothing more than presiding on the judgement-seat of heaven.

16.

From this doctrine faith derives manifold advantages. First, it perceives that the Lord, by his ascension to heaven, has opened up the access to the heavenly kingdom, which Adam had shut. For having entered it in our flesh, as it were in our name, it follows, as the Apostle says, that we are in a manner now seated in heavenly places, not entertaining a mere hope of heaven, but possessing it in our head. Secondly, faith perceives that his seat beside the Father is not without great advantage to us. Having entered the temple not made with hands, he constantly appears as our advocate and intercessor in the presence of the Father; directs attention to his own righteousness, so as to turn it away from our sins; so reconciles him to us, as by his intercession to pave for us a way of access to his throne, presenting it to miserable sinners, to whom it would otherwise be an object of dread, as replete with grace and mercy. Thirdly, it discerns his power, on which depend our strength, might, resources, and triumph over hell, “When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive,” (Eph. 4: 8.) Spoiling his foes, he gave gifts to his people, and daily loads them with spiritual riches. He thus occupies his exalted seat, that thence transferring his virtue unto us, he may quicken us to spiritual life, sanctify us by his Spirit, and adorn his Church with various graces, by his protection preserve it safe from all harm, and by the strength of his hand curb the enemies raging against his cross and our salvation; in fine, that he may possess all power in heaven and earth, until he have utterly routed all his foes, who are also ours and completed the structure of his Church. Such is the true nature of the kingdom, such the power which the Father has conferred upon him, until he arrive to complete the last act by judging the quick and the dead.

17.

Christ, indeed, gives his followers no dubious proofs of present power, but as his kingdom in the world is in a manner veiled by the humiliation of a carnal condition, faith is most properly invited to meditate on the visible presence which he will exhibit on the last day. For he will descend from heaven in visible form, in like manner as he was seen to ascend, and appear to all, with the ineffable majesty of his kingdom, the splendour of immortality, the boundless power of divinity, and an attending company of angels. Hence we are told to wait for the Redeemer against that day on which he will separate the sheep from the goats and the elect from the reprobate, and when not one individual either of the living or the dead shall escape his judgement. From the extremities of the universe shall be heard the clang of the trumpet summoning all to his tribunal; both those whom that day shall find alive, and those whom death shall previously have removed from the society of the living. There are some who take the words, quick and dead, in a different sense; and, indeed, some ancient writers appear to have hesitated as to the exposition of them; but our meaning being plain and clear, is much more accordant with the Creed which was certainly written for popular use. There is nothing contrary to it in the Apostle’s declaration, that it is appointed unto all men once to die. For though those who are surviving at the last day shall not die after a natural manner, yet the change which they are to undergo, as it shall resemble, is not improperly called, death, (Heb. 9: 27.) “We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,” (1 Cor. 15: 51.) What does this mean? Their mortal life shall perish and be swallowed up in one moment, and be transformed into an entirely new nature. Though no one can deny that that destruction of the flesh will be death, it still remains true that the quick and the dead shall be summoned to judgement, (1 Thess. 4: 16:) for “the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the lord in the air.” Indeed, it is probable, that these words in the Creed were taken from Peter’s sermon as related by Luke, (Acts 10: 42,) and from the solemn charge of Paul to Timothy, (2 Tim. 4: 1.)

18.

It is most consolatory to think, that judgement is vested in him who has already destined us to share with him in the honour of judgement, (Matth. 19: 28;) so far is it from being true, that he will ascend the judgement-seat for our condemnation. How could a most merciful prince destroy his own people? how could the head disperse its own members? how could the advocate condemn his clients? For if the Apostle, when contemplating the interposition of Christ, is bold to exclaim, “Who is he that condemneth?” (Rom. 8: 33,) much more certain is it that Christ, the intercessor, will not condemn those whom he has admitted to his protection. It certainly gives no small security, that we shall be sisted at no other tribunal than that of our Redeemer, from whom salvation is to be expected; and that he who in the Gospel now promises eternal blessedness, will then as judge ratify his promise. The end for which the Father has honoured the Son by committing all judgement to him, (John 5: 22,) was to pacify the consciences of his people when alarmed at the thought of judgement. Hitherto I have followed the order of the Apostles’ Creed, because it states the leading articles of redemption in a few words, and may thus serve as a tablet in which the points of Christian doctrine, most deserving of attention, are brought separately and distinctly before us. I call it the Apostles’ Creed, though I am by no means solicitous as to its authorship. The general consent of ancient writers certainly does ascribe it to the Apostles, either because they imagined it was written and published by them for common use, or because they thought it right to give the sanction of such authority to a compendium faithfully drawn up from the doctrine delivered by their hands. I have no doubt, that, from the very commencement of the Church, and, therefore, in the very days of the Apostles, it held the place of a public and universally received confession, whatever be the quarter from which it originally proceeded. It is not probable that it was written by some private individual, since it is certain that, from time immemorial, it was deemed of sacred authority by all Christians. The only point of consequence we hold to be incontrovertible, viz., that it gives, in clear and succinct order, a full statement of our faith, and in every thing which it contains is sanctioned by the sure testimony of Scripture. This being understood, it were to no purpose to labour anxiously, or quarrel with any one as to the authorship, unless, indeed, we think it not enough to possess the sure truth of the Holy Spirit, without, at the same time, knowing by whose mouth it was pronounced, or by whose hand it was written.

19.

When we see that the whole sum of our salvation, and every single part of it, are comprehended in Christ, we must beware of deriving even the minutes portion of it from any other quarter. If we seek salvation, we are taught by the very name of Jesus that he possesses it; if we seek any other gifts of the Spirit, we shall find them in his unction; strength in his government; purity in his conception; indulgence in his nativity, in which he was made like us in all respects, in order that he might learn to sympathise with us: if we seek redemption, we shall find it in his passion; acquittal in his condemnation; remission of the curse in his cross; satisfaction in his sacrifice; purification in his blood; reconciliation in his descent to hell; mortification of the flesh in his sepulchre; newness of life in his resurrection; immortality also in his resurrection; the inheritance of a celestial kingdom in his entrance into heaven; protection, security, and the abundant supply of all blessings, in his kingdom; secure anticipation of judgement in the power of judging committed to him. In fine, since in him all kinds of blessings are treasured up, let us draw a full supply from him, and none from any other quarter. Those who, not satisfied with him alone, entertain various hopes from others, though they may continue to look to him chiefly, deviate from the right path by the simple fact, that some portion of their thought takes a different direction. No distrust of this description can arise when once the abundance of his blessings is properly known.

CHAPTER 17. CHRIST RIGHTLY AND PROPERLY SAID TO HAVE MERITED GRACE AND SALVATION FOR US.

The three leading divisions of this chapter are,—

I. A proof from reason and from Scripture that the grace of God and the merit of Christ (the prince and author of our salvation) are perfectly compatible, sec. 1 and 2.

II. Christ, by his obedience, even to the death of the cross, (which was the price of our redemption,) merited divine favour for us, sec. 3-5.

III. The presumptuous rashness of the Schoolmen in treating this branch of doctrine.

Sections.

1. Christ not only the minister, but also the author and prince of salvation. Divine grace not obscured by this mode of expression. The merit of Christ not opposed to the mercy of God, but depends upon it.

2. The compatibility of the two proved by various passages of Scripture.

3. Christ by his obedience truly merited divine grace for us.

4. This grace obtained by the shedding of Christ’s blood, and his obedience even unto death.

5. In this way he paid our ransom.

6. The presumptuous manner in which the Schoolmen handle this subject.

1.

A question must here be considered by way of supplement. Some men too much given to subtilty, while they admit that we obtain salvation through Christ, will not hear of the name of merit, by which they imagine that the grace of God is obscured; and therefore insist that Christ was only the instrument or minister, not the author or leader, or prince of life, as he is designated by Peter, (Acts 3: 15.) I admit that were Christ opposed simply, and by himself, to the justice of God, there could be no room for merit, because there cannot be found in man a worth which could make God a debtor; nay, as Augustine says most truly, “The Saviour, the man Christ Jesus, is himself the brightest illustration of predestination and grace: his character as such was not procured by any antecedent merit of works or faith in his human nature. Tell me, I pray, how that man, when assumed into unity of person by the Word, co-eternal with the Father, as the only begotten Son at God, could merit this."—"Let the very fountain of grace, therefore, appear in our head, whence, according to the measure of each, it is diffused through all his members. Every man, from the commencement of his faith, becomes a Christian, by the same grace by which that man from his formation became Christ.” Again, in another passage, “There is not a more striking example of predestination than the mediator himself. He who made him (without any antecedent merit in his will) of the seed of David a righteous man never to be unrighteous, also converts those who are members of his head from unrighteous into righteous” and so forth. Therefore when we treat of the merit of Christ, we do not place the beginning in him, but we ascend to the ordination of God as the primary cause, because of his mere good pleasure he appointed a Mediator to purchase salvation for us. Hence the merit of Christ is inconsiderately opposed to the mercy of God. It is a well known rule, that principal and accessory are not incompatible, and therefore there is nothing to prevent the justification of man from being the gratuitous result of the mere mercy of God, and, at the same time, to prevent the merit of Christ from intervening in subordination to this mercy. The free favour of God is as fitly opposed to our works as is the obedience of Christ, both in their order: for Christ could not merit anything save by the good pleasure of God, but only inasmuch as he was destined to appease the wrath of God by his sacrifice, and wipe away our transgressions by his obedience: in one word, since the merit of Christ depends entirely on the grace of God, (which provided this mode of salvation for us,) the latter is no less appropriately opposed to all righteousness of men than is the former.

2.

This distinction is found in numerous passages of Scripture: “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish,” (John 3: 16.) We see that the first place is assigned to the love of God as the chief cause or origin, and that faith in Christ follows as the second and more proximate cause. Should any one object that Christ is only the formal cause, he lessens his energy more than the words justify. For if we obtain justification by a faith which leans on him, the groundwork of our salvation must be sought in him. This is clearly proved by several passages: “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins,” (1 John 4: 10.) These words clearly demonstrate that God, in order to remove any obstacle to his love towards us, appointed the method of reconciliation in Christ. There is great force in this word “propitiation”; for in a manner which cannot be expressed, God, at the very time when he loved us, was hostile to us until reconciled in Christ. To this effect are all the following passages: “He is the propitiation for our sins;” “It pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell, and having made peace by the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself;” “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them;” “He has made us accepted in the Beloved,” “That he might reconcile both into one body by the cross.” The nature of this mystery is to be learned from the first chapter to the Ephesians, where Paul, teaching that we were chosen in Christ, at the same time adds, that we obtained grace in him. How did God begin to embrace with his favour those whom he had loved before the foundation of the world, unless in displaying his love when he was reconciled by the blood of Christ? As God is the fountain of all righteousness, he must necessarily be the enemy and judge of man so long as he is a sinner. Wherefore, the commencement of love is the bestowing of righteousness, as described by Paul: “He has made him to be sin for us who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,” (2 Cor. 5: 21.) He intimates, that by the sacrifice of Christ we obtain free justification, and become pleasing to God, though we are by nature the children of wrath, and by sin estranged from him. This distinction is also noted whenever the grace of Christ is connected with the love of God, (2 Cor. 13: 13;) whence it follows, that he bestows upon us of his own which he acquired by purchase. For otherwise there would be no ground for the praise ascribed to him by the Father, that grace is his, and proceeds from him.

3.

That Christ, by his obedience, truly purchased and merited grace for us with the Father, is accurately inferred from several passages of Scripture. I take it for granted, that if Christ satisfied for our sins, if he paid the penalty due by us, if he appeased God by his obedience; in fine, if he suffered the just for the unjust, salvation was obtained for us by his righteousness; which is just equivalent to meriting. Now, Paul’s testimony is, that we were reconciled, and received reconciliation through his death, (Rom. 5: 11.) But there is no room for reconciliation unless where offence has preceded. The meaning, therefore, is, that God, to whom we were hateful through sin, was appeased by the death of his Son, and made propitious to us. And the antithesis which immediately follows is carefully to be observed, “As by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous,” (Rom. 5: 19.) For the meaning is—As by the sin of Adam we were alienated from God and doomed to destruction, so by the obedience of Christ we are restored to his favour as if we were righteous. The future tense of the verb does not exclude present righteousness, as is apparent from the context. For he had previously said, “the free gift is of many offences unto justification.”

4.

When we say, that grace was obtained for us by the merit of Christ, our meaning is, that we were cleansed by his blood, that his death was an expiation for sin, “His blood cleanses us from all sin.” “This is my blood, which is shed for the remission of sins,” (1 John 1: 7; Luke 22: 20.) If the effect of his shed blood is, that our sins are not imputed to us, it follows, that by that price the justice of God was satisfied. To the same effect are the Baptist’s words, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world,” (John 1: 29.) For he contrasts Christ with all the sacrifices of the Law, showing that in him alone was fulfilled what these figures typified. But we know the common expression in Moses—Iniquity shall be expiated, sin shall be wiped away and forgiven. In short, we are admirably taught by the ancient figures what power and efficacy there is in Christ’s death. And the Apostle, skilfully proceeding from this principle, explains the whole matter in the Epistle to the Hebrews, showing that without shedding of blood there is no remission, (Heb. 9: 22.) From this he infers, that Christ appeared once for all to take away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Again, that he was offered to bear the sins of many, (Heb. 9: 12.) He had previously said, that not by the blood of goats or of heifers, but by his own blood, he had once entered into the holy of holies, having obtained eternal redemption for us. Now, when he reasons thus, “If the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself to God, purge your consciences from dead works to serve the living God?” (Heb. 9: 13, 14,) it is obvious that too little effect is given to the grace of Christ, unless we concede to his sacrifice the power of expiating, appeasing, and satisfying: as he shortly after adds, “For this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of his death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance,” (Heb. 9: 15.) But it is especially necessary to attend to the analogy which is drawn by Paul as to his having been made a curse for us, (Gal. 3: 13.) It had been superfluous and therefore absurd, that Christ should have been burdened with a curse, had it not been in order that, by paying what others owed, he might acquire righteousness for them. There is no ambiguity in Isaiah’s testimony, “He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was laid upon him; and with his stripes we are healed,” (Is. 53: 5.) For had not Christ satisfied for our sins, he could not be said to have appeased God by taking upon himself the penalty which we had incurred. To this corresponds what follows in the same place, “for the transgression of my people was he stricken,” (Is. 53: 8.) We may add the interpretation of Peter, who unequivocally declares, that he “bare our sins in his own body on the tree,” (1 Pet. 2: 24,) that the whole burden of condemnation, of which we were relieved, was laid upon him.

5.

The Apostles also plainly declare that he paid a price to ransom us from death: “Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood,” (Rom. 3: 24, 25.) Paul commends the grace of God, in that he gave the price of redemption in the death of Christ; and he exhorts us to flee to his blood, that having obtained righteousness, we may appear boldly before the judgement-seat of God. To the same effect are the words of Peter: “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold,” “but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot,” (1 Pet. 1: 18,19.) The antithesis would be incongruous if he had not by this price made satisfaction for sins. For which reason, Paul says, “Ye are bought with a price.” Nor could it be elsewhere said, there is “one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all,” (1 Tim. 2: 5, 6,) had not the punishment which we deserved been laid upon him. Accordingly, the same Apostle declares, that “we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins,” (Col. 1: 14;) as if he had said, that we are justified or acquitted before God, because that blood serves the purpose of satisfaction. With this another passage agrees, viz., that he blotted out “the handwriting of ordinances which was against us, which was contrary to us,” (Col. 2: 14.) These words denote the payment or compensation which acquits us from guilt. There is great weight also in these words of Paul: “If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain,” (Gal. 2: 21.) For we hence infer, that it is from Christ we must seek what the Law would confer on any one who fulfilled it; or, which is the same thing, that by the grace of Christ we obtain what God promised in the Law to our works: “If a man do, he shall live in them,” (Lev. 18: 5.) This is no less clearly taught in the discourse at Antioch, when Paul declares, “That through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses,” (Acts 13: 38, 39.) For if the observance of the Law is righteousness, who can deny that Christ, by taking this burden upon himself, and reconciling us to God, as if we were the observers of the Law, merited favour for us? Of the same nature is what he afterwards says to the Galatians: “God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law,” (Gal. 4: 4, 5.) For to what end that subjection, unless that he obtained justification for us by undertaking to perform what we were unable to pay? Hence that imputation of righteousness without works, of which Paul treats, (Rom. 4: 5,) the righteousness found in Christ alone being accepted as if it were ours. And certainly the only reason why Christ is called our “meat,” (John 6: 55,) is because we find in him the substance of life. And the source of this efficacy is just that the Son of God was crucified as the price of our justification; as Paul says, Christ “has given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour,” (Eph. 5: 2;) and elsewhere, he “was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification,” (Rom. 4: 25.) Hence it is proved not only that salvation was given us by Christ, but that on account of him the Father is now propitious to us. For it cannot be doubted that in him is completely fulfilled what God declares by Isaiah under a figure, “I will defend this city to save it for mine own sakes and for my servant David’s sake,” (Isaiah 37: 35.) Of this the Apostle is the best witness when he says “Your sins are forgiven you for his name’s sake,” (1 John 2: 12.) For although the name of Christ is not expressed, John, in his usual manner, designates him by the pronoun “He,” ("autos”.) In the same sense also our Lord declares, “As the living Father has sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me,” (John 6: 57.) To this corresponds the passage of Paul, “Unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for his sake,” (Phil. 1: 29.)

6.

To inquire, as Lombard and the Schoolmen do, (Sent. Lib. 3 Dist. 18,) whether he merited for himself, is foolish curiosity. equally rash is their decision when they answer in the affirmative. How could it be necessary for the only Son of God to come down in order to acquire some new quality for himself? The exposition which God gives of his own purpose removes all doubt. The Father is not said to have consulted the advantage of his Son in his services, but to have given him up to death, and not spared him, because he loved the world, (Rom. 8.) The prophetical expressions should be observed: “To us a Son is born;” “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion: shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee,” (Isaiah 9: 6; Zech. 9: 9.) It would otherwise be a cold commendation of love which Paul describes, when he says, “God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us,” (Rom. 5: 8.) Hence, again, we infer that Christ had no regard to himself; and this he distinctly affirms, when he says, “For their sakes I sanctify myself,” (John 17: 19.) He who transfers the benefit of his holiness to others, testifies that he acquires nothing for himself. And surely it is most worthy of remark, that Christ, in devoting himself entirely to our salvation, in a manner forgot himself. It is absurd to wrest the testimony of Paul to a different effect: “Wherefore God has highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name,” (Phil. 2: 9.) By what services could a man merit to become the judge of the world, the head of angels, to obtain the supreme government of God, and become the residence of that majesty of which all the virtues of men and angels cannot attain one thousandth part? The solution is easy and complete. Paul is not speaking of the cause of Christ’s exaltation, but only pointing out a consequence of it by way of example to us. The meaning is not much different from that of another passage: “Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?” (Luke 24: 26.)

BOOK 3. THE WAY IN WHICH WE RECEIVE THE GRACE OF CHRIST: WHAT BENEFITS COME TO US FROM IT, AND WHAT EFFECTS FOLLOW.

CHAPTER 1. THE BENEFITS OF CHRIST MADE AVAILABLE TO US BY THE SECRET OPERATION OF THE SPIRIT.

The three divisions of this chapter are, -

I. The secret operation of the Holy Spirit, which seals our salvation, should be considered first in Christ the Mediator as our Head, sec. 1 and 2.

II. The titles given to the Holy Spirit show that we become members of Christ by his grace and energy, sec. 3.

III. As the special influence of the Holy Spirit is manifested in the gift of faith, the former is a proper introduction to the latter, and thus prepares for the second chapter, sec. 4.

Sections.

1. The Holy Spirit the bond which unites us with Christ. This the result of faith produced by the secret operation of the Holy Spirit. This obvious from Scripture.

2. In Christ the Mediator the gifts of the Holy Spirit are to be seen in all their fulness. To what end. Why the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Father and the Son.

3. Titles of the Spirit,—

1. The Spirit of adoption.

2. An earnest and seal.

3. Water.

4. Life.

5. Oil and unction.

6. Fire.

7. A fountain.

8. The word of God. Use of these titles.

4. Faith being the special work of the Holy Spirit, the power and efficacy of the Holy Spirit usually ascribed to it.

1. The Holy Spirit as the bond that unites us to Christ

We must now see in what way we become possessed of the blessings which God has bestowed on his only-begotten Son, not for private use, but to enrich the poor and needy. And the first thing to be attended to is, that so long as we are without Christ and separated from him, nothing which he suffered and did for the salvation of the human race is of the least benefit to us. To communicate to us the blessings which he received from the Father, he must become ours and dwell in us. Accordingly, he is called our Head, and the first-born among many brethren, while, on the other hand, we are said to be ingrafted into him and clothed with him, all which he possesses being, as I have said, nothing to us until we become one with him. And although it is true that we obtain this by faith, yet since we see that all do not indiscriminately embrace the offer of Christ which is made by the gospel, the very nature of the case teaches us to ascend higher, and inquire into the secret efficacy of the Spirit, to which it is owing that we enjoy Christ and all his blessings.

I have already treated of the eternal essence and divinity of the Spirit, (Book 1 chap. 13 sect. 14, 15;) let us at present attend to the special point, that Christ came by water and blood, as the Spirit testifies concerning him, that we might not lose the benefits of the salvation which he has purchased. For as there are said to be three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, so there are also three on the earth, namely, water, blood, and Spirit. It is not without cause that the testimony of the Spirit is twice mentioned, a testimony which is engraven on our hearts by way of seal, and thus seals the cleansing and sacrifice of Christ For which reason, also, Peter says, that believers are “elect” “through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ,” (1 Pet. 1: 2.) By these words he reminds us, that if the shedding of his sacred blood is not to be in vain, our souls must be washed in it by the secret cleansing of the Holy Spirit. For which reason, also, Paul, speaking of cleansing and purification, says, “but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God,” (1 Cor. 6: 11.) The whole comes to this that the Holy Spirit is the bond by which Christ effectually binds us to himself. Here we may refer to what was said in the last Book concerning his anointing.

2. How and why Christ was endowed with the Holy Spirit

But in order to have a clearer view of this most important subjects we must remember that Christ came provided with the Holy Spirit after a peculiar manner, namely, that he might separate us from the world, and unite us in the hope of an eternal inheritance. Hence the Spirit is called the Spirit of sanctification, because he quickens and cherishes us, not merely by the general energy which is seen in the human race, as well as other animals, but because he is the seed and root of heavenly life in us. Accordingly, one of the highest commendations which the prophets give to the kingdom of Christ is, that under it the Spirit would be poured out in richer abundance. One of the most remarkable passages is that of Joel, “It shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh,” (Joel 2: 2S.) For although the prophet seems to confine the gifts of the Spirit to the office of prophesying, he yet intimates under a figure, that God will, by the illumination of his Spirit, provide himself with disciples who had previously been altogether ignorant of heavenly doctrine.

Moreover, as it is for the sake of his Son that God bestows the Holy Spirit upon us, and yet has deposited him in all his fulness with the Son, to be the minister and dispenser of his liberality, he is called at one time the Spirit of the Father, at another the Spirit of the Son: “Ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now, if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his,” (Rom. 8: 9;) and hence he encourages us to hope for complete renovation: “If the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you,” (Rom. 8: 11.) There is no inconsistency in ascribing the glory of those gifts to the Father, inasmuch as he is the author of them, and, at the same time, ascribing them to Christ, with whom they have been deposited, that he may bestow them on his people. Hence he invites all the thirsty to come unto him and drink, (John 7: 37.) And Paul teaches, that “unto every one of us is given grace, according to the measure of the gift of Christ,” (Eph. 4: 7.) And we must remember, that the Spirit is called the Spirit of Christ, not only inasmuch as the eternal Word of God is with the Father united with the Spirit, but also in respect of his office of Mediator; because, had he not been endued with the energy of the Spirit, he had come to us in vain. In this sense he is called the “last Adam,” and said to have been sent from heaven “a quickening Spirit,” (1 Cor. 15: 45,) where Paul contrasts the special life which Christ breathes into his people, that they may be one with him with the animal life which is common even to the reprobate. In like manner, when he prays that believers may have “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God,” he at the same time adds, “the communion of the Holy Ghost,” without which no man shall ever taste the paternal favor of God, or the benefits of Christ. Thus, also, in another passage he says, “The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us,” (Rom. 5: 5.)

3. Titles of the Holy Spirit in Scripture

Here it will be proper to point out the titles which the Scripture bestows on the Spirit, when it treats of the commencement and entire renewal of our salvation.

First, he is called the “Spirit of adoption,” because he is witness to us of the free favor with which God the Father embraced us in his well-beloved and only-begotten Son, so as to become our Fathers and give us boldness of access to him; nays he dictates the very words, so that we can boldly cry, “Abba, Father.”

For the same reason, he is said to have “sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts,” because, as pilgrims in the world, and persons in a manner dead, he so quickens us from above as to assure us that our salvation is safe in the keeping of a faithful God. Hence, also, the Spirit is said to be “life because of righteousness.”

But since it is his secret irrigation that makes us bud forth and produce the fruits of righteousness, he is repeatedly described as water. Thus in Isaiah “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters.” Again, “I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground.” Corresponding to this are the words of our Savior, to which I lately referred, “If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink.” Sometimes, indeed, he receives this name from his energy in cleansing and purifying, as in Ezekiel, where the Lord promises, “Then will I sprinkle you with clean water, and ye shall be clean.”

As those sprinkled with the Spirit are restored to the full vigor of life, he hence obtains the names of “Oil” and “Unction.”

On the other hand, as he is constantly employed in subduing and destroying the vices of our concupiscence, and inflaming our hearts with the love of God and piety, he hence receives the name of Fire.

In fine, he is described to us as a Fountain, whence all heavenly riches flow to us; or as the Hand by which God exerts his power, because by his divine inspiration he so breathes divine life into us, that we are no longer acted upon by ourselves, but ruled by his motion and agency, so that everything good in us is the fruit of his grace, while our own endowments without him are mere darkness of mind and perverseness of heart.

Already, indeed, it has been clearly shown, that until our minds are intent on the Spirit, Christ is in a manner unemployed, because we view him coldly without us, and so at a distance from us. Now we know that he is of no avail save only to those to whom he is a head and the first-born among the brethren, to those, in fine, who are clothed with him. To this union alone it is owing that in regard to us, the Savior has not come in vain. To this is to be referred that sacred marriage, by which we become bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh, and so one with him, (Eph. 5: 30,) for it is by the Spirit alone that he unites himself to us. By the same grace and energy of the Spirit we become his members, so that he keeps us under him, and we in our turn possess him.

4. Faith as the work of the Spirit

But as faith is his principal work, all those passages which express his power and operations are, in a great measure, referred to it, as it is, only by faith that he brings us to the light of the Gospel, as John teaches, that to those who believe in Christ is given the privilege “to become the sons of God, even to them that believe in his name, which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God,” (John 1: 12.) Opposing God to flesh and blood, he declares it to be a supernatural gift, that those who would otherwise remain in unbelief, receive Christ by faith. Similar to this is our Savior’s reply to Peter, “Flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven,” (Matt. 16: 17.) These things I now briefly advert to, as I have fully considered them elsewhere. To the same effect Paul says to the Ephesians, “Ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise,” (Eph. 1: 13;) thus showing that he is the internal teacher, by whose agency the promise of salvation, which would otherwise only strike the air or our ears, penetrates into our minds. In like manner, he says to the Thessalonians, “God has from the beginning chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth,” (2 Thess. 2: 13;) by this passage briefly reminding us, that faith itself is produced only by the Spirit. This John explains more distinctly, “We know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he has given us;” again, “Hereby know we that we dwell in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit,” (1 John 3: 24; 4: 13.) Accordingly to make his disciples capable of heavenly wisdom, Christ promised them “the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive,” (John 14: 17.) And he assigns it to him, as his proper office, to bring to remembrance the things which he had verbally taught; for in vain were light offered to the blind, did not that Spirit of understanding open the intellectual eye; so that he himself may be properly termed the key by which the treasures of the heavenly kingdom are unlocked, and his illumination, the eye of the mind by which we are enabled to see: hence Paul so highly commends the ministry of the Spirit, (2 Cor. 3: 6,) since teachers would cry aloud to no purpose, did not Christ, the internal teacher, by means of his Spirit, draw to himself those who are given him of the Father. Therefore, as we have said that salvation is perfected in the person of Christ, so, in order to make us partakers of it, he baptizes us “with the Holy Spirit and with fire,” (Luke 3: 16,) enlightening us into the faith of his Gospel, and so regenerating us to be new creatures. Thus cleansed from all pollution, he dedicates us as holy temples to the Lord.

CHAPTER 2. OF FAITH. THE DEFINITION OF IT. ITS PECULIAR PROPERTIES.

This chapter consists of three principal parts.—

I. A brief explanation of certain matters pertaining to the doctrine of Faith, sec. 1-14. First, of the object of faith, sec. 1. Second, of Implicit Faith, sec. 2-6. Third, Definition of Faith, sec. 7. Fourth, the various meanings of the term Faith, sec. 8-13.

II. A full exposition of the definition given in the seventh section, sec. 14-40.

III. A brief confirmation of the definition by the authority of an Apostle. The mutual relation between faith, hope, and charity, sec. 41-43.

Sections.

1. A brief recapitulation of the leading points of the whole discussion. The scope of this chapter. The necessity of the doctrine of faith. This doctrine obscured by the Schoolmen, who make God the object of faith, without referring to Christ. The Schoolmen refuted by various passages.

2. The dogma of implicit faith refuted. It destroys faith, which consists in a knowledge of the divine will. What this will is, and how necessary the knowledge of it.

3. Many things are and will continue to be implicitly believed. Faith, however, consists in the knowledge of God and Christ, not in a reverence for the Church. Another refutation from the absurdities to which this dogma leads.

4. In what sense our faith may be said to be implicit. Examples in the Apostles, in the holy women, and in all believers.

5. In some, faith is implicit, as being a preparation for faith. This, however, widely different from the implicit faith of the Schoolmen.

6. The word of God has a similar relation to faith, the word being, as it were, the source and basis of faith, and the mirror in which it beholds God. Confirmation from various passages of Scripture. Without the knowledge of the word there can be no faith. Sum of the discussion of the Scholastic doctrine of implicit faith.

7. What faith properly has respect to in the word of God, namely, the promise of grace offered in Christ, provided it be embraced with faith. Proper definition of faith.

8. Scholastic distinction between faith formed and unformed, refuted by a consideration of the nature of faith, which, as the gift of the Spirit, cannot possibly be disjoined from pious affection.

9. Objection from a passage of Paul. Answer to it. Error of the Schoolmen in giving only one meaning to faith, whereas it has many meanings. The testimony of faith improperly ascribed to two classes of men.

10. View to be taken of this. Who those are that believe for a time. The faith of hypocrites. With whom they may be compared.

11. Why faith attributed to the reprobate. Objection. Answer. What perception of grace in the reprobate. How the elect are distinguished from the reprobate.

12. Why faith is temporary in the reprobate, firm and perpetual in the elect. Reason in the case of the reprobate. Example. Why God is angry with his children. In what sense many are said to fall from faith.

13. Various meanings of the term faith.

1. Taken for soundness in the faith.

2. Sometimes restricted to a particular object.

3. Signifies the ministry or testimony by which we are instructed in the faith.

14. Definition of faith explained under six principal heads.

1. What meant by Knowledge in the definition.

15. Why this knowledge must be sure and firm. Reason drawn from the consideration of our weakness. Another reason from the certainty of the promises of God.

16. The leading point in this certainty. Its fruits. A description of the true believer.

17. An objection to this certainty. Answer. Confirmation of the answer from the example of David. This enlarged upon from the opposite example of Ahab. Also from the uniform experience and the prayers of believers.

18. For this reason the conflict between the flesh and the Spirit in the soul of the believer described. The issue of this conflict, the victory of faith.

19. On the whole, the faith of the elect certain and indubitable. Conformation from analogy.

20. Another confirmation from the testimony of an Apostle, making it apparent, that, though the faith of the elect is as yet imperfect, it is nevertheless firm and sure.

21. A fuller explanation of the nature of faith.

1. When the believer is shaken with fear, he retakes himself to the bosom of a merciful God.

2. He does not even shun God when angry, but hopes in him.

3. He does not suffer unbelief to reign in his heart.

4. He opposes unbelief, and is never finally lost.

5. Faith, however often assailed, at length comes off victorious.

22. Another species of fear, arising from a consideration of the judgment of God against the wicked. This also faith overcomes. Examples of this description, placed before the eyes of believers, repress presumption, and fix their faith in God.

23. Nothing contrary to this in the exhortation of the Apostle to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. Fear and faith mutually connected. Confirmation from the words of a Prophet.

24. This doctrine gives no countenance to the error of those who dream of a confidence mingled with incredulity. Refutation of this error, from a consideration of the dignity of Christ dwelling in us. The argument retorted. Refutation confirmed by the authority of an Apostle. What we ought to hold on this question.

25. Confirmation of the preceding conclusion by a passage from Bernard.

26. True fear caused in two ways, viz., when we are required to reverence God as a Father, and also to fear him as Lord.

27. Objection from a passage in the Apostle John. Answer founded on the distinction between filial and servile fear.

28. How faith is said to have respect to the divine benevolence. What comprehended under this benevolence. Confirmation from David and Paul.

29. Of the Free Promise which is the foundation of Faith. Reason. Confirmation.

30. Faith not divided in thus seeking a Free Promise in the Gospel. Reason. Conclusion confirmed by another reason.

31. The word of God the prop and root of faith. The word attests the divine goodness and mercy. In what sense faith has respect to the power of God. Various passages of Isaiah, inviting the godly to behold the power of God, explained. Other passages from David. We must beware of going beyond the limits prescribed by the word, lest false zeal lead us astray, as it did Sarah, Rebekah, and Isaac. In this way faith is obscured, though not extinguished. We must not depart one iota from the word of God.

32. All the promises included in Christ. Two objections answered. A third objection drawn from example. Answer explaining the faith of Naaman, Cornelius, and the Eunuch.

33. Faith revealed to our minds, and sealed on our hearts, by the Holy Spirit.

1. The mind is purified so as to have a relish for divine truth.

2. The mind is thus established in the truth by the agency of the Holy Spirit.

34. Proof of the former.

1. By reason.

2. By Scripture.

3. By example.

4. By analogy.

35. 5. By the excellent qualities of faith.

6. By a celebrated passage from Augustine.

36. Proof of the latter by the argument a minore ad majus. Why the Spirit is called a seal, an earnest, and the Spirit of promise.

37. Believers sometimes shaken, but not so as to perish finally. They ultimately overcome their trials, and remain steadfast. Proofs from Scripture.

38. Objection of the Schoolmen. Answer. Attempt to support the objection by a passage in Ecclesiastes. Answer, explaining the meaning of the passage.

39. Another objection, charging the elect in Christ with rashness and presumption. Answer. Answer confirmed by various passages from the Apostle Paul. Also from John and Isaiah.

40. A third objection, impugning the final perseverance of the elect. Answer by an Apostle. Summary of the refutation.

41. The definition of faith accords with that given by the Apostle in the Hebrews. Explanation of this definition. Refutation of the scholastic error, that charity is prior to faith and hope.

42. Hope the inseparable attendant of true faith. Reason. Connection between faith and hope. Mutually support each other. Obvious from the various forms of temptation, that the aid of hope necessary to establish faith.

43. The terms faith and hope sometimes confounded. Refutation of the Schoolmen, who attribute a twofold foundation to hope, viz., the grace of God and the merit of works.

1.

All these things will be easily understood after we have given a clearer definition of faith, so as to enable the readers to apprehend its nature and power. Here it is of importance to call to mind what was formerly taught, first, That since God by his Law prescribes what we ought to do, failure in any one respect subjects us to the dreadful judgment of eternal death, which it denounces. Secondly, Because it is not only difficult, but altogether beyond our strength and ability, to fulfill the demands of the Law, if we look only to ourselves and consider what is due to our merits, no ground of hope remains, but we lie forsaken of God under eternal death. Thirdly, That there is only one method of deliverance which can rescue us from this miserable calamity, viz., when Christ the Redeemer appears, by whose hand our heavenly Father, out of his infinite goodness and mercy, has been pleased to succor us, if we with true faith embrace this mercy, and with firm hope rest in it. It is now proper to consider the nature of this faith, by means of which, those who are adopted into the family of God obtain possession of the heavenly kingdom. For the accomplishment of so great an end, it is obvious that no mere opinion or persuasion is adequate. And the greater care and diligence is necessary in discussing the true nature of faith, from the pernicious delusions which many, in the present day, labour under with regard to it. Great numbers, on hearing the term, think that nothing more is meant than a certain common assent to the Gospel History; nay, when the subject of faith is discussed in the Schools, by simply representing God as its object, they by empty speculation, as we have elsewhere said, (Book 2, chap. 6, sec. 4,) hurry wretched souls away from the right mark instead of directing them to it. For seeing that God dwells in light that is inaccessible, Christ must intervene. Hence he calls himself “the light of the world;” and in another passage, “the way, the truth, and the life.” None cometh to the Father (who is the fountain of life) except by him; for “no man knoweth who the Father is but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.” For this reason, Paul declares, “I count all things as loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord.” In the twentieth chapter of the Acts, he states that he preached “faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ;” and in another passage, he introduces Christ as thus addressing him: “I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness;” “delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,"—"that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified through faith which is in me.” Paul further declares, that in the person of Christ the glory of God is visibly manifested to us, or, which is the same thing, we have “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” It is true, indeed, that faith has respect to God only; but to this we should add, that it acknowledges Jesus Christ whom he has sent. God would remain far off, concealed from us, were we not irradiated by the brightness of Christ. All that the Father had, he deposited with his only begotten Son, in order that he might manifest himself in him, and thus by the communication of blessings express the true image of his glory. Since, as has been said, we must be led by the Spirit, and thus stimulated to seek Christ, so must we also remember that the invisible Father is to be sought nowhere but in this image. For which reason Augustine treating of the object of faith, (De Civitate Dei, lib. 11, ch. 2,) elegantly says, “The thing to be known is, whither we are to go, and by what way;” and immediately after infers, that “the surest way to avoid all errors is to know him who is both God and man. It is to God we tend, and it is by man we go, and both of these are found only in Christ.” Paul, when he preaches faith towards God, surely does not intend to overthrow what he so often inculcates, viz., that faith has all its stability in Christ. Peter most appropriately connects both, saying, that by him “we believe in God,” (1 Pet. 1: 21.)

2.

This evil, therefore, must, like innumerable others, be attributed to the Schoolmen, who have in a manner drawn a veil over Christ, to whom, if our eye is not directly turned, we must always wander through many labyrinths. But besides impairing, and almost annihilating, faith by their obscure definition, they have invented the fiction of implicit faith, with which name decking the grossest ignorance, they delude the wretched populace to their great destruction. Nay, to state the fact more truly and plainly, this fiction not only buries true faith, but entirely destroys it. Is it faith to understand nothing, and merely submit your convictions implicitly to the Church? Faith consists not in ignorance, but in knowledge—knowledge not of God merely, but of the divine will. We do not obtain salvation either because we are prepared to embrace every dictate of the Church as true, or leave to the Church the province of inquiring and determining; but when we recognize God as a propitious Father through the reconciliation made by Christ, and Christ as given to us for righteousness, sanctification, and life. By this knowledge, I say, not by the submission of our understanding, we obtain an entrance into the kingdom of heaven. For when the Apostle says, “With the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation,” (Rom. 10: 10;) he intimates, that it is not enough to believe implicitly without understanding, or even inquiring. The thing requisite is an explicit recognition of the divine goodness, in which our righteousness consists.

3.

I indeed deny not, (so enveloped are we in ignorance,) that to us very many things now are and will continue to be completely involved until we lay aside this weight of flesh, and approach nearer to the presence of God. In such cases the fittest course is to suspend our judgment, and resolve to maintain unity with the Church. But under this pretext, to honor ignorance tempered with humility with the name of faith, is most absurd. Faith consists in the knowledge of God and Christ, (John 17: 3,) not in reverence for the Church. And we see what a labyrinth they have formed out of this implicit faith—every thing, sometimes even the most monstrous errors, being received by the ignorant as oracles without any discrimination, provided they are prescribed to them under the name of the Church. This inconsiderate facility, though the surest precipice to destruction, is, however, excused on the ground that it believes nothing definitely, but only with the appended condition, if such is the faith of the Church. Thus they pretend to find truth in error, light in darkness, true knowledge in ignorance. Not to dwell longer in refuting these views, we simply advise the reader to compare them with ours. The clearness of truth will itself furnish a sufficient refutation. For the question they raise is not, whether there may be an implicit faith with many remains of ignorance, but they maintain, that persons living and even indulging in a stupid ignorance duly believe, provided, in regard to things unknown, they assent to the authority and judgment of the Church: as if Scripture did not uniformly teach, that with faith understanding is conjoined.

4.

We grant, indeed, that so long as we are pilgrims in the world faith is implicit, not only because as yet many things are hidden from us, but because, involved in the mists of error, we attain not to all. The highest wisdom, even of him who has attained the greatest perfection, is to go forward, and endeavor in a calm and teachable spirit to make further progress. Hence Paul exhorts believers to wait for further illumination in any matter in which they differ from each other, Phil. 3: 15.) And certainly experience teaches, that so long as we are in the flesh, our attainments are less than is to be desired. In our daily reading we fall in with many obscure passages which convict us of ignorance. With this curb God keeps us modest, assigning to each a measure of faith, that every teacher, however excellent, may still be disposed to learn. Striking examples of this implicit faith may be observed in the disciples of Christ before they were fully illuminated. We see with what difficulty they take in the first rudiments, how they hesitate in the minutest matters, how, though hanging on the lips of their Master, they make no great progress; nay, even after running to the sepulchre on the report of the women, the resurrection of their Master appears to them a dream. As Christ previously bore testimony to their faith, we cannot say that they were altogether devoid of it; nay, had they not been persuaded that Christ would rise again, all their zeal would have been extinguished. Nor was it superstition that led the women to prepare spices to embalm a dead body of whose revival they had no expectation; but, although they gave credit to the words of one whom they knew to be true, yet the ignorance which still possessed their minds involved their faith in darkness, and left them in amazement. Hence they are said to have believed only when, by the reality, they perceive the truth of what Christ had spoken; not that they then began to believe, but the seed of a hidden faith, which lay as it were dead in their hearts, then burst forth in vigor. They had, therefore, a true but implicit faith, having reverently embraced Christ as the only teacher. Then, being taught by him, they felt assured that he was the author of salvation: in fine, believed that he had come from heaven to gather disciples, and take them thither through the grace of the Father. There cannot be a more familiar proof of this, than that in all men faith is always mingled with incredulity.

5.

We may also call their faith implicit, as being properly nothing else than a preparation for faith. The Evangelists describe many as having believed, although they were only roused to admiration by the miracles, and went no farther than to believe that Christ was the promised Messiah, without being at all imbued with Evangelical doctrine. The reverence which subdued them, and made them willingly submit to Christ, is honored with the name of faith, though it was nothing but the commencement of it. Thus the nobleman who believed in the promised cure of his son, on returning home, is said by the Evangelist (John 4: 53) to have again believed; that is, he had first received the words which fell from the lips of Christ as an oracular response, and thereafter submitted to his authority and received his doctrine. Although it is to be observed that he was docile and disposed to learn, yet the word “believed” in the former passage denotes a particular faith, and in the latter gives him a place among those disciples who had devoted themselves to Christ. Not unlike this is the example which John gives of the Samaritans who believed the women, and eagerly hastened to Christ; but, after they had heard him, thus express themselves, “Now we believe, not because of thy saying, for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world,” (John 4: 42.) From these passages it is obvious, that even those who are not yet imbued with the first principles, provided they are disposed to obey, are called believers, not properly indeed, but inasmuch as God is pleased in kindness so highly to honor their pious feeling. But this docility, with a desire of further progress, is widely different from the gross ignorance in which those sluggishly indulge who are contented with the implicit faith of the Papists. If Paul severely condemns those who are “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth,” how much more sharply ought those to be rebuked who avowedly affect to know nothing?

6.

The true knowledge of Christ consists in receiving him as he is offered by the Father, namely, as invested with his Gospel. For, as he is appointed as the end of our faith, so we cannot directly tend towards him except under the guidance of the Gospel. Therein are certainly unfolded to us treasures of grace. Did these continue shut, Christ would profit us little. Hence Paul makes faith the inseparable attendant of doctrine in these words, “Ye have not so learned Christ; if so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus,” (Eph. 4: 20, 21.) Still I do not confine faith to the Gospel in such a sense as not to admit that enough was delivered to Moses and the Prophets to form a foundation of faith; but as the Gospel exhibits a fuller manifestation of Christ, Paul justly terms it the doctrine of faith, (1 Tim. 4: 6.) For which reason, also he elsewhere says, that, by the coming of faith, the Law was abolished, (Rom. 10: 4,) including under the expression a new and unwonted mode of teaching, by which Christ, from the period of his appearance as the great Master, gave a fuller illustration of the Father’s mercy, and testified more surely of our salvation. But an easier and more appropriate method will be to descend from the general to the particular. First, we must remember, that there is an inseparable relation between faith and the word, and that these can no more be disconnected from each other than rays of light from the sun. Hence in Isaiah the Lord exclaims, “Hear, and your soul shall live,” (Is. 4: 3.) And John points to this same fountain of faith in the following words, “These are written that ye might believe,” (John 20: 31.) The Psalmist also exhorting the people to faith says, “To-day, if ye will hear his voice,” (Ps. 95: 7,) to hear being uniformly taken for to believe. In fine, in Isaiah the Lord distinguishes the members of the Church from strangers by this mark, “All thy children shall be taught of the Lord,” (Is. 54: 13;) for if the benefit was indiscriminate, why should he address his words only to a few? Corresponding with this, the Evangelists uniformly employ the terms believers and disciples as synonymous. This is done especially by Luke in several passages of the Acts. He even applies the term disciple to a woman, (Acts 9: 36.) Wherefore, if faith declines in the least degree from the mark at which it ought to aim, it does not retain its nature, but becomes uncertain credulity and vague wandering of mind. The same word is the basis on which it rests and is sustained. Declining from it, it falls. Take away the word, therefore, and no faith will remain. We are not here discussing, whether, in order to propagate the word of God by which faith is engendered, the ministry of man is necessary, (this will be considered elsewhere;) but we say that the word itself, whatever be the way in which it is conveyed to us, is a kind of mirror in which faith beholds God. In this, therefore, whether God uses the agency of man, or works immediately by his own power, it is always by his word that he manifests himself to those whom he designs to draw to himself. Hence Paul designates faith as the obedience which is given to the Gospel, (Rom. 1: 5;) and writing to the Philippians, he commends them for the obedience of faith, (Phil. 2: 17.) For faith includes not merely the knowledge that God is, but also, nay chiefly, a perception of his will toward us. It concerns us to know not only what he is in himself, but also in what character he is pleased to manifest himself to us. We now see, therefore, that faith is the knowledge of the divine will in regard to us, as ascertained from his word. And the foundation of it is a previous persuasion of the truth of God. So long as your mind entertains any misgivings as to the certainty of the word, its authority will be weak and dubious, or rather it will have no authority at all. Nor is it sufficient to believe that God is true, and cannot lie or deceive, unless you feel firmly persuaded that every word which proceeds from him is sacred, inviolable truth.

7.

But since the heart of man is not brought to faith by every word of God, we must still consider what it is that faith properly has respect to in the word. The declaration of God to Adam was, “Thou shalt surely die,” (Gen. 2: 17;) and to Cain, “The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground,” (Gen. 4: 10;) but these, so far from being fitted to establish faith, tend only to shake it. At the same time, we deny not that it is the office of faith to assent to the truth of God whenever, whatever, and in whatever way he speaks: we are only inquiring what faith can find in the word of God to lean and rest upon. When conscience sees only wrath and indignation, how can it but tremble and be afraid? and how can it avoid shunning the God whom it thus dreads? But faith ought to seek God, not shun him. It is evident, therefore, that we have not yet obtained a full definition of faith, it being impossible to give the name to every kind of knowledge of the divine will. Shall we, then, for “will”, which is often the messenger of bad news and the herald of terror, substitute the benevolence or mercy of God? In this way, doubtless, we make a nearer approach to the nature of faith. For we are allured to seek God when told that our safety is treasured up in him; and we are confirmed in this when he declares that he studies and takes an interest in our welfare. Hence there is need of the gracious promise, in which he testifies that he is a propitious Father; since there is no other way in which we can approach to him, the promise being the only thing on which the heart of man can recline. For this reason, the two things, mercy and truth, are uniformly conjoined in the Psalms as having a mutual connection with each other. For it were of no avail to us to know that God is true, did He not in mercy allure us to himself; nor could we of ourselves embrace his mercy did not He expressly offer it. “I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy loving-kindness and thy truth. Withhold not thy tender mercies from me, O Lord: let thy loving-kindness and thy truth continually preserve me,” (Ps. 40: 10,11.) “Thy mercy, O Lord, is in the heavens; and thy faithfulness reacheth unto the clouds,” (Ps. 36: 5.) “All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies,” (Ps. 25: 10.) “His merciful kindness is great toward us: and the truth of the Lord endureth for ever,” (Ps. 117: 2.) “I will praise thy name for thy loving-kindness and thy truth,” (Ps. 138: 2.) I need not quote what is said in the Prophets, to the effect that God is merciful and faithful in his promises. It were presumptuous in us to hold that God is propitious to us, had we not his own testimony, and did he not prevent us by his invitation, which leaves no doubt or uncertainty as to his will. It has already been seen that Christ is the only pledge of love, for without him all things, both above and below speak of hatred and wrath. We have also seen, that since the knowledge of the divine goodness cannot be of much importance unless it leads us to confide in it, we must exclude a knowledge mingled with doubt,—a knowledge which, so far from being firm, is continually wavering. But the human mind, when blinded and darkened, is very far from being able to rise to a proper knowledge of the divine will; nor can the heart, fluctuating with perpetual doubt, rest secure in such knowledge. Hence, in order that the word of God may gain full credit, the mind must be enlightened, and the heart confirmed, from some other quarter. We shall now have a full definition of faith, if we say that it is a firm and sure knowledge of the divine favor toward us, founded on the truth of a free promise in Christ, and revealed to our minds, and sealed on our hearts, by the Holy Spirit.

8.

But before I proceed farther, it will be necessary to make some preliminary observations for the purpose of removing difficulties which might otherwise obstruct the reader. And first, I must refute the nugatory distinction of the Schoolmen as to formed and unformed faith. For they imagine that persons who have no fear of God, and no sense of piety, may believe all that is necessary to be known for salvation; as if the Holy Spirit were not the witness of our adoption by enlightening our hearts unto faith. Still, however, though the whole Scripture is against them, they dogmatically give the name of faith to a persuasion devoid of the fear of God. It is unnecessary to go farther in refuting their definition, than simply to state the nature of faith as declared in the word of God. From this it will clearly appear how unskillfully and absurdly they babble, rather than discourse, on this subject. I have already done this in part, and will afterwards add the remainder in its proper place. At present, I say that nothing can be imagined more absurd than their fiction. They insist that faith is an assent with which any despiser of God may receive what is delivered by Scripture. But we must first see whether any one can by his own strength acquire faith, or whether the Holy Spirit, by means of it, becomes the witness of adoption. Hence it is childish trifling in them to inquire whether the faith formed by the supervening quality of love be the same, or a different and new faith. By talking in this style, they show plainly that they have never thought of the special gift of the Spirit; since one of the first elements of faith is reconciliation implied in man’s drawing near to God. Did they duly ponder the saying of Paul, “With the heart man believeth unto righteousness,” (Rom. 10: 10,) they would cease to dream of that frigid quality. There is one consideration which ought at once to put an end to the debate, viz., that assent itself (as I have already observed, and will afterwards more fully illustrate) is more a matter of the heart than the head, of the affection than the intellect. For this reason, it is termed “the obedience of faith,” (Rom. 1: 5,) which the Lord prefers to all other service, and justly, since nothing is more precious to him than his truth, which, as John Baptist declares, is in a manner signed and sealed by believers, (John 3: 33.) As there can be no doubt on the matter, we in one word conclude, that they talk absurdly when they maintain that faith is formed by the addition of pious affection as an accessory to assent, since assent itself, such at least as the Scriptures describe, consists in pious affection. But we are furnished with a still clearer argument. Since faith embraces Christ as he is offered by the Father, and he is offered not only for justification, for forgiveness of sins and peace, but also for sanctification, as the fountain of living waters, it is certain that no man will ever know him aright without at the same time receiving the sanctification of the Spirit; or, to express the matter more plainly, faith consists in the knowledge of Christ; Christ cannot be known without the sanctification of his Spirit: therefore faith cannot possibly be disjoined from pious affection.

9.

In their attempt to mar faith by divesting it of love, they are wont to insist on the words of Paul, “Though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing,” (1 Cor. 13: 2.) But they do not consider what the faith is of which the Apostle there speaks. Having, in the previous chapter, discoursed of the various gifts of the Spirit, (1 Cor. 12: 10,) including diversity of tongues, miracles, and prophecy, and exhorted the Corinthians to follow the better gifts, in other words, those from which the whole body of the Church would derive greater benefit, he adds, “Yet show I unto you a more excellent way,” (1 Cor. 12: 30.) All other gifts, how excellent soever they may be in themselves, are of no value unless they are subservient to charity. They were given for the edification of the Church, and fail of their purpose if not so applied. To prove this he adopts a division, repeating the same gifts which he had mentioned before, but under different names. Miracles and faith are used to denote the same thing, viz., the power of working miracles. Seeing, then, that this miraculous power or faith is the particular gift of God, which a wicked man may possess and abuse, as the gift of tongues, prophecy, or other gifts, it is not strange that he separates it from charity. Their whole error lies in this, that while the term faith has a variety of meanings, overlooking this variety, they argue as if its meaning were invariably one and the same. The passage of James, by which they endeavor to defend their error, will be elsewhere discussed, (infra, chap. 17, sec. 11.) Although, in discoursing of faith, we admit that it has a variety of forms; yet, when our object is to show what knowledge of God the wicked possess, we hold and maintain, in accordance with Scripture, that the pious only have faith. Multitudes undoubtedly believe that God is, and admit the truth of the Gospel History, and the other parts of Scripture, in the same way in which they believe the records of past events, or events which they have actually witnessed. There are some who go even farther: they regard the Word of God as an infallible oracle; they do not altogether disregard its precepts, but are moved to some degree by its threatening and promises. To such the testimony of faith is attributed, but by catachresis; because they do not with open impiety impugn, reject, or condemn, the Word of God, but rather exhibit some semblance of obedience.

10.

But as this shadow or image of faith is of no moment, so it is unworthy of the name. How far it differs from true faith will shortly be explained at length. Here, however, we may just indicate it in passing. Simon Magus is said to have believed, though he soon after gave proof of his unbelief, (Acts 8: 13-18.) In regard to the faith attributed to him, we do not understand with some, that he merely pretended a belief which had no existence in his heart: we rather think that, overcome by the majesty of the Gospel, he yielded some kind of assent, and so far acknowledged Christ to be the author of life and salvation, as willingly to assume his name. In like manner, in the Gospel of Luke, those in whom the seed of the word is choked before it brings forth fruit, or in whom, from having no depth of earth, it soon withereth away, are said to believe for a time. Such, we doubt not, eagerly receive the word with a kind of relish, and have some feeling of its divine power, so as not only to impose upon men by a false semblance of faith, but even to impose upon themselves. They imagine that the reverence which they give to the word is genuine piety, because they have no idea of any impiety but that which consists in open and avowed contempt. But whatever that assent may be, it by no means penetrates to the heart, so as to have a fixed seat there. Although it sometimes seems to have planted its roots, these have no life in them. The human heart has so many recesses for vanity, so many lurking places for falsehood, is so shrouded by fraud and hypocrisy, that it often deceives itself. Let those who glory in such semblances of faith know that, in this respect, they are not a whit superior to devils. The one class, indeed, is inferior to them, inasmuch as they are able without emotion to hear and understand things, the knowledge of which makes devils tremble, (James 2: 19.) The other class equals them in this, that whatever be the impression made upon them, its only result is terror and consternation.

11.

I am aware it seems unaccountable to some how faith is attributed to the reprobate, seeing that it is declared by Paul to be one of the fruits of election; and yet the difficulty is easily solved: for though none are enlightened into faith, and truly feel the efficacy of the Gospel, with the exception of those who are fore-ordained to salvation, yet experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect, that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith, is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption. Should it be objected, that believers have no stronger testimony to assure them of their adoption, I answer, that though there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect of God and those who are impressed for a time with a fading faith, yet the elect alone have that full assurance which is extolled by Paul, and by which they are enabled to cry, Abba, Father. Therefore, as God regenerates the elect only for ever by incorruptible seed, as the seed of life once sown in their hearts never perishes, so he effectually seals in them the grace of his adoption, that it may be sure and steadfast. But in this there is nothing to prevent an inferior operation of the Spirit from taking its course in the reprobate. Meanwhile, believers are taught to examine themselves carefully and humbly, lest carnal security creep in and take the place of assurance of faith. We may add, that the reprobate never have any other than a confused sense of grace, laying hold of the shadow rather than the substance, because the Spirit properly seals the forgiveness of sins in the elect only, applying it by special faith to their use. Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy, they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their minds to this extent, that they recognize his grace; but that conviction he distinguishes from the peculiar testimony which he gives to his elect in this respect, that the reprobate never attain to the full result or to fruition. When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. He only gives them a manifestation of his present mercy. In the elect alone he implants the living root of faith, so that they persevere even to the end. Thus we dispose of the objection, that if God truly displays his grace, it must endure for ever. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.

12.

Although faith is a knowledge of the divine favor towards us, and a full persuasion of its truth, it is not strange that the sense of the divine love, which though akin to faith differs much from it, vanishes in those who are temporarily impressed. The will of God is, I confess, immutable, and his truth is always consistent with itself; but I deny that the reprobate ever advance so far as to penetrate to that secret revelation which Scripture reserves for the elect only. I therefore deny that they either understand his will considered as immutable, or steadily embrace his truth, inasmuch as they rest satisfied with an evanescent impression; just as a tree not planted deep enough may take root, but will in process of time wither away, though it may for several years not only put forth leaves and flowers, but produce fruit. In short, as by the revolt of the first man, the image of God could be effaced from his mind and soul, so there is nothing strange in His shedding some rays of grace on the reprobate, and afterwards allowing these to be extinguished. There is nothing to prevent His giving some a slight knowledge of his Gospel, and imbuing others thoroughly. Meanwhile, we must remember that however feeble and slender the faith of the elect may be, yet as the Spirit of God is to them a sure earnest and seal of their adoption, the impression once engraven can never be effaced from their hearts, whereas the light which glimmers in the reprobate is afterwards quenched. Nor can it be said that the Spirit therefore deceives, because he does not quicken the seed which lies in their hearts so as to make it ever remain incorruptible as in the elect. I go farther: seeing it is evident, from the doctrine of Scripture and from daily experience, that the reprobate are occasionally impressed with a sense of divine grace, some desire of mutual love must necessarily be excited in their hearts. Thus for a time a pious affection prevailed in Saul, disposing him to love God. Knowing that he was treated with paternal kindness, he was in some degree attracted by it. But as the reprobate have no rooted conviction of the paternal love of God, so they do not in return yield the love of sons, but are led by a kind of mercenary affection. The Spirit of love was given to Christ alone, for the express purpose of conferring this Spirit upon his members; and there can be no doubt that the following words of Paul apply to the elect only: “The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us,” (Rom. 5: 5;) namely, the love which begets that confidence in prayer to which I have above adverted. On the other hand, we see that God is mysteriously offended with his children, though he ceases not to love them. He certainly hates them not, but he alarms them with a sense of his anger, that he may humble the pride of the flesh, arouse them from lethargy, and urge them to repentance. Hence they, at the same instant, feel that he is angry with them or their sins, and also propitious to their persons. It is not from fictitious dread that they deprecate his anger, and yet they retake themselves to him with tranquil confidence. It hence appears that the faith of some, though not true faith, is not mere pretence. They are borne along by some sudden impulse of zeal, and erroneously impose upon themselves, sloth undoubtedly preventing them from examining their hearts with due care. Such probably was the case of those whom John describes as believing on Christ; but of whom he says, “Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man,” (John 2: 24, 25.) Were it not true that many fall away from the common faith, (I call it common, because there is a great resemblance between temporary and living, everduring faith,) Christ would not have said to his disciples, “If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free,” (John 8: 31, 32.) He is addressing those who had embraced his doctrine, and urging them to progress in the faith, lest by their sluggishness they extinguish the light which they have received. Accordingly, Paul claims faith as the peculiar privilege of the elect, intimating that many, from not being properly rooted, fall away, (Tit. 1: 1.) In the same way, in Matthew, our Savior says, “Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted shall be rooted up,” (Matth. 16: 13.) Some who are not ashamed to insult God and man are more grossly false. Against this class of men, who profane the faith by impious and lying pretence, James inveighs, (James 2: 14.) Nor would Paul require the faith of believers to be unfeigned, (1 Tim. 1: 5,) were there not many who presumptuously arrogate to themselves what they have not, deceiving others, and sometimes even themselves, with empty show. Hence he compares a good conscience to the ark in which faith is preserved, because many, by falling away, have in regard to it made shipwreck.

13.

It is necessary to attend to the ambiguous meaning of the term: for faith is often equivalent in meaning to sound doctrine, as in the passage which we lately quoted, and in the same epistle where Paul enjoins the deacons to hold “the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience;” in like manner, when he denounces the defection of certain from the faith. The meaning again is the same, when he says that Timothy had been brought up in the faith; and in like manner, when he says that profane babblings and oppositions of science, falsely so called, lead many away from the faith. Such persons he elsewhere calls reprobate as to the faith. On the other hand, when he enjoins Titus, “Rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;” by soundness he means purity of doctrine, which is easily corrupted, and degenerates through the fickleness of men. And indeed, since in Christ, as possessed by faith, are “hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,” (Col. 1: 2, 3,) the term faith is justly extended to the whole sum of heavenly doctrine, from which it cannot be separated. On the other hand, it is sometimes confined to a particular object, as when Matthew says of those who let down the paralytic through the roof, that Jesus saw their faith, (Matth. 9: 2;) and Jesus himself exclaims in regard to the centurion, “I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel,” (Matth. 8: 10.) Now, it is probable that the centurion was thinking only of the cure of his son, by whom his whole soul was engrossed; but because he is satisfied with the simple answer and assurance of Christ, and does not request his bodily presence, this circumstance calls forth the eulogium on his faith. And we have lately shown how Paul uses the term faith for the gift of miracles—a gift possessed by persons who were neither regenerated by the Spirit of God, nor sincerely reverenced him. In another passage, he uses faith for the doctrine by which we are instructed in the faith. For when he says, that “that which is in part shall be done away,” (1 Cor. 13: 10,) there can be no doubt that reference is made to the ministry of the Church, which is necessary in our present imperfect state; in these forms of expression the analogy is obvious. But when the name of faith is improperly transferred to a false profession or lying assumption, the catachresis ought not to seem harsher than when the fear of God is used for vicious and perverse worship; as when it is repeatedly said in sacred history, that the foreign nations which had been transported to Samaria and the neighbouring districts, feared false gods and the God of Israel: in other words, confounded heaven with earth. But we have now been inquiring what the faith is, which distinguishes the children of God from unbelievers, the faith by which we invoke God the Father, by which we pass from death unto life, and by which Christ our eternal salvation and life dwells in us. Its power and nature have, I trust, been briefly and clearly explained.

14.

Let us now again go over the parts of the definition separately: I should think that, after a careful examination of them, no doubt will remain. By knowledge we do not mean comprehension, such as that which we have of things falling under human sense. For that knowledge is so much superior, that the human mind must far surpass and go beyond itself in order to reach it. Nor even when it has reached it does it comprehend what it feels, but persuaded of what it comprehends not, it understands more from mere certainty of persuasion than it could discern of any human matter by its own capacity. Hence it is elegantly described by Paul as ability “to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge,” (Eph. 3: 18, 19.) His object was to intimate, that what our mind embraces by faith is every way infinite, that this kind of knowledge far surpasses all understanding. But because the “mystery which has been hid from ages and from generations” is now “made manifest to the saints,” (Col. 1: 26,) faith is, for good reason, occasionally termed in Scripture understanding, (Col. 2: 2;) and knowledge, as by John, (1 John 3: 2,) when he declares that believers know themselves to be the sons of God. And certainly they do know, but rather as confirmed by a belief of the divine veracity than taught by any demonstration of reason. This is also indicated by Paul when he says, that “whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight,)” (2 Cor. 5: 6, 7:) thus showing, that what we understand by faith is yet distant from us and escapes our view. Hence we conclude that the knowledge of faith consists more of certainty than discernment.

15.

We add, that it is sure and firm, the better to express strength and constancy of persuasion. For as faith is not contented with a dubious and fickle opinion, so neither is it contented with an obscure and ill-defined conception. The certainty which it requires must be full and decisive, as is usual in regard to matters ascertained and proved. So deeply rooted in our hearts is unbelief, so prone are we to it, that while all confess with the lips that God is faithful, no man ever believes it without an arduous struggle. Especially when brought to the test, we by our wavering betray the vice which lurked within. Nor is it without cause that the Holy Spirit bears such distinguished testimony to the authority of God, in order that it may cure the disease of which I have spoken, and induce us to give full credit to the divine promises: “The words of the Lord” (says David, Ps. 12: 6) “are pure words, as silver tried in a furnace of earth purified seven times:” “The word of the Lord is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him,” (Ps. 18: 30.) And Solomon declares the same thing almost in the same words, “Every word of God is pure,” (Prov. 30: 5.) But further quotation is superfluous, as the 119th Psalm is almost wholly occupied with this subject. Certainly, whenever God thus recommends his word, he indirectly rebukes our unbelief, the purport of all that is said being to eradicate perverse doubt from our hearts. There are very many also who form such an idea of the divine mercy as yields them very little comfort. For they are harassed by miserable anxiety while they doubt whether God will be merciful to them. They think, indeed, that they are most fully persuaded of the divine mercy, but they confine it within too narrow limits. The idea they entertain is, that this mercy is great and abundant, is shed upon many, is offered and ready to be bestowed upon all; but that it is uncertain whether it will reach to them individually, or rather whether they can reach to it. Thus their knowledge stopping short leaves them only mid-way; not so much confirming and tranquilizing the mind as harassing it with doubt and disquietude. Very different is that feeling of full assurance ("pleroforia") which the Scriptures uniformly attribute to faith—an assurance which leaves no doubt that the goodness of God is clearly offered to us. This assurance we cannot have without truly perceiving its sweetness, and experiencing it in ourselves. Hence from faith the Apostle deduces confidence, and from confidence boldness. His words are, “In whom (Christ) we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him,” (Eph. 3: 12:) thus undoubtedly showing that our faith is not true unless it enables us to appear calmly in the presence of God. Such boldness springs only from confidence in the divine favor and salvation. So true is this, that the term faith is often used as equivalent to confidence.

16.

The principal hinge on which faith turns is this: We must not suppose that any promises of mercy which the Lord offers are only true out of us, and not at all in us: we should rather make them ours by inwardly embracing them. In this way only is engendered that confidence which he elsewhere terms peace, (Rom. 5: 1;) though perhaps he rather means to make peace follow from it. This is the security which quiets and calms the conscience in the view of the judgment of God, and without which it is necessarily vexed and almost torn with tumultuous dread, unless when it happens to slumber for a moment, forgetful both of God and of itself. And verily it is but for a moment. It never long enjoys that miserable obliviousness, for the memory of the divine judgment, ever and anon recurring, stings it to the quick. In one word, he only is a true believer who, firmly persuaded that God is reconciled, and is a kind Father to him, hopes everything from his kindness, who, trusting to the promises of the divine favor, with undoubting confidence anticipates salvation; as the Apostle shows in these words, “We are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end,” (Heb. 3: 14.) He thus holds, that none hope well in the Lord save those who confidently glory in being the heirs of the heavenly kingdom. No man, I say, is a believer but he who, trusting to the security of his salvation, confidently triumphs over the devil and death, as we are taught by the noble exclamation of Paul, “I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord,” (Rom. 8: 38.) In like manner, the same Apostle does not consider that the eyes of our understanding are enlightened unless we know what is the hope of the eternal inheritance to which we are called, (Eph. 1: 18.) Thus he uniformly intimates throughout his writings, that the goodness of God is not properly comprehended when security does not follow as its fruit.

17.

But it will be said that this differs widely from the experience of believers, who, in recognizing the grace of God toward them, not only feel disquietude, (this often happens,) but sometimes tremble, overcome with terror, so violent are the temptations which assail their minds. This scarcely seems consistent with certainty of faith. It is necessary to solve this difficulty, in order to maintain the doctrine above laid down. When we say that faith must be certain and secure, we certainly speak not of an assurance which is never affected by doubt, nor a security which anxiety never assails; we rather maintain that believers have a perpetual struggle with their own distrust, and are thus far from thinking that their consciences possess a placid quiet, uninterrupted by perturbation. On the other hand, whatever be the mode in which they are assailed, we deny that they fall off and abandon that sure confidence which they have formed in the mercy of God. Scripture does not set before us a brighter or more memorable example of faith than in David, especially if regard be had to the constant tenor of his life. And yet how far his mind was from being always at peace is declared by innumerable complaints, of which it will be sufficient to select a few. When he rebukes the turbulent movements of his soul, what else is it but a censure of his unbelief? “Why art thou cast down, my soul? and why art thou disquieted in me? hope thou in God,” (Psalm 42: 6.) His alarm was undoubtedly a manifest sign of distrust, as if he thought that the Lord had forsaken him. In another passage we have a fuller confession: “I said in my haste, I am cut off from before thine eyes,” (Psalm 31: 22.) In another passage, in anxious and wretched perplexity, he debates with himself, nay, raises a question as to the nature of God: “Has God forgotten to be gracious? has he in anger shut up his tender mercies?” (Psalm 77: 9.) What follows is still harsher: “I said this is my infirmity; but I will remember the years of the right hand of the Most High.” As if desperate, he adjudges himself to destruction. He not only confesses that he is agitated by doubt, but as if he had fallen in the contest, leaves himself nothing in reserve,—God having deserted him, and made the hand which was wont to help him the instrument of his destruction. Wherefore, after having been tossed among tumultuous waves, it is not without reason he exhorts his soul to return to her quiet rest, (Psalm 116: 7.) And yet (what is strange) amid those commotions, faith sustains the believer’s heart, and truly acts the part of the palm tree, which supports any weights laid upon it, and rises above them; thus David, when he seemed to be overwhelmed, ceased not by urging himself forward to ascend to God. But he who anxiously contending with his own infirmity has recourse to faith, is already in a great measure victorious. This we may infer from the following passage, and others similar to it: “Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart: wait, I say, on the Lord,” (Psalm 27: 14.) He accuses himself of timidity, and repeating the same thing twice, confesses that he is ever and anon exposed to agitation. Still he is not only dissatisfied with himself for so feeling, but earnestly labors to correct it. Were we to take a nearer view of his case, and compare it with that of Ahaz, we should find a great difference between them. Isaiah is sent to relieve the anxiety of an impious and hypocritical king, and addresses him in these terms: “Take heed, and be quiet; fear not,” &c., (Isaiah 7: 4.) How did Ahab act? As has already been said, his heart was shaken as a tree is shaken by the wind: though he heard the promise, he ceased not to tremble. This, therefore, is the proper hire and punishment of unbelief, so to tremble as in the day of trial to turn away from God, who gives access to himself only by faith. On the other hand, believers, though weighed down and almost overwhelmed with the burden of temptation, constantly rise up, though not without toil and difficulty; hence, feeling conscious of their own weakness, they pray with the Prophet, “Take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouths” (Psalm 119: 43.) By these words, we are taught that they at times become dumb, as if their faith were overthrown, and yet that they do not withdraw or turn their backs, but persevere in the contest, and by prayer stimulate their sluggishness, so as not to fall into stupor by giving way to it. (See Calv. in Psalm 8: 16.)

18.

To make this intelligible, we must return to the distinction between flesh and spirit, to which we have already adverted, and which here becomes most apparent. The believer finds within himself two principles: the one filling him with delight in recognizing the divine goodness, the other filling him with bitterness under a sense of his fallen state; the one leading him to recline on the promise of the Gospel, the other alarming him by the conviction of his iniquity; the one making him exult with the anticipation of life, the other making him tremble with the fear of death. This diversity is owing to imperfection of faith, since we are never so well in the course of the present life as to be entirely cured of the disease of distrust, and completely replenished and engrossed by faith. Hence those conflicts: the distrust cleaving to the remains of the flesh rising up to assail the faith enlisting in our hearts. But if in the believer’s mind certainty is mingled with doubt, must we not always be carried back to the conclusion, that faith consists not of a sure and clear, but only of an obscure and confused, understanding of the divine will in regard to us? By no means. Though we are distracted by various thoughts, it does not follow that we are immediately divested of faith. Though we are agitated and carried to and fro by distrust, we are not immediately plunged into the abyss; though we are shaken, we are not therefore driven from our place. The invariable issue of the contest is, that faith in the long run surmounts the difficulties by which it was beset and seemed to be endangered.

19.

The whole, then, comes to this: As soon as the minutest particle of faith is instilled into our minds, we begin to behold the face of God placid, serene, and propitious; far off, indeed, but still so distinctly as to assure us that there is no delusion in it. In proportion to the progress we afterwards make, (and the progress ought to be uninterrupted,) we obtain a nearer and surer view, the very continuance making it more familiar to us. Thus we see that a mind illumined with the knowledge of God is at first involved in much ignorance,—ignorance, however, which is gradually removed. Still this partial ignorance or obscure discernment does not prevent that clear knowledge of the divine favor which holds the first and principal part in faith. For as one shut up in a prison, where from a narrow opening he receives the rays of the sun indirectly and in a manner divided, though deprived of a full view of the sun, has no doubt of the source from which the light comes, and is benefited by it; so believers, while bound with the fetters of an earthly body, though surrounded on all sides with much obscurity, are so far illumined by any slender light which beams upon them and displays the divine mercy as to feel secure.

20.

The Apostle elegantly adverts to both in different passages. When he says, “We know in part, and we prophesy in part;” and “Now we see through a glass darkly,” (1 Cor. 13: 9, 12,) he intimates how very minute a portion of divine wisdom is given to us in the present life. For although those expressions do not simply indicate that faith is imperfect so long as we groan under a height of flesh, but that the necessity of being constantly engaged in learning is owing to our imperfection, he at the same time reminds us, that a subject which is of boundless extent cannot be comprehended by our feeble and narrow capacities. This Paul affirms of the whole Church, each individual being retarded and impeded by his own ignorance from making so near an approach as were to be wished. But that the foretaste which we obtain from any minute portion of faith is certain, and by no means fallacious, he elsewhere shows, when he affirms that “We all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image, from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord,” (2 Cor. 3: 18.) In such degrees of ignorance much doubt and trembling is necessarily implied, especially seeing that our heart is by its own natural bias prone to unbelief. To this we must add the temptations which, various in kind and infinite in number, are ever and anon violently assailing us. In particular, conscience itself, burdened with an incumbent load of sins, at one time complains and groans, at another accuses itself; at one time murmurs in secret, at another openly rebels. Therefore, whether adverse circumstances betoken the wrath of God, or conscience finds the subject and matter within itself, unbelief thence draws weapons and engines to put faith to flight, the aim of all its efforts being to make us think that God is adverse and hostile to us, and thus, instead of hoping for any assistance from him, to make us dread him as a deadly foe.

21.

To withstand these assaults, faith arms and fortifies itself with the word of God. When the temptation suggested is, that God is an enemy because he afflicts, faith replies, that while he afflicts he is merciful, his chastening proceeding more from love than anger. To the thought that God is the avenger of wickedness, it opposes the pardon ready to be bestowed on all offences whenever the sinner retakes himself to the divine mercy. Thus the pious mind, how much soever it may be agitated and torn, at length rises superior to all difficulties, and allows not its confidence in the divine mercy to be destroyed. Nay, rather, the disputes which exercise and disturb it tend to establish this confidence. A proof of this is, that the saints, when the hand of God lies heaviest upon them, still lodge their complaints with him, and continue to invoke him, when to all appearance he is least disposed to hear. But of what use were it to lament before him if they had no hope of solace? They never would invoke him did they not believe that he is ready to assist them. Thus the disciples, while reprimanded by their Master for the weakness of their faith in crying out that they were perishing, still implored his aid, (Matth. 8: 25.) And he, in rebuking them for their want of faith, does not disown them or class them with unbelievers, but urges them to shake off the vice. Therefore, as we have already said, we again maintain, that faith remaining fixed in the believer’s breast never can be eradicated from it. However it may seem shaken and bent in this direction or in that, its flame is never so completely quenched as not at least to lurk under the embers. In this way, it appears that the word, which is an incorruptible seed, produces fruit similar to itself. Its germ never withers away utterly and perishes. The saints cannot have a stronger ground for despair than to feel, that, according to present appearances, the hand of God is armed for their destruction; and yet Job thus declares the strength of his confidence: “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him.” The truth is, that unbelief reigns not in the hearts of believers, but only assails them from without; does not wound them mortally with its darts, but annoys them, or, at the utmost, gives them a wound which can be healed. Faith, as Paul (declares, (Eph. 6: 16,) is our shield, which receiving these darts, either wards them off entirely, or at least breaks their force, and prevents them from reaching the vitals. Hence when faith is shaken, it is just as when, by the violent blow of a javelin, a soldier standing firm is forced to step back and yield a little; and again when faith is wounded, it is as if the shield were pierced, but not perforated by the blow. The pious mind will always rise, and be able to say with David, “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me,” (Psalm 23: 4.) Doubtless it is a terrific thing to walk in the darkness of death, and it is impossible for believers, however great their strength may be, not to shudder at it; but since the prevailing thought is that God is present and providing for their safety, the feeling of security overcomes that of fear. As Augustine says,—whatever be the engines which the devil erects against us, as he cannot gain the heart where faith dwells, he is cast out. Thus, if we may judge by the event, not only do believers come off safe from every contest so as to be ready, after a short repose, to descend again into the arena, but the saying of John, in his Epistle, is fulfilled, “This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith,” (1 John 5: 4.) It is not said that it will be victorious in a single fight, or a few, or some one assault, but that it will be victorious over the whole world, though it should be a thousand times assailed.

22.

There is another species of fear and trembling, which, so far from impairing the security of faith, tends rather to establish it; namely, when believers, reflecting that the examples of the divine vengeance on the ungodly are a kind of beacons warning them not to provoke the wrath of God by similar wickedness keep anxious watch, or, taking a view of their own inherent wretchedness, learn their entire dependence on God, without whom they feel themselves to be fleeting and evanescent as the wind. For when the Apostle sets before the Corinthians the scourges which the Lord in ancient times inflicted on the people of Israel, that they might be afraid of subjecting themselves to similar calamities, he does not in any degree destroy the ground of their confidence; he only shakes off their carnal torpor which suppresses faith, but does not strengthen it. Nor when he takes occasion from the case of the Israelites to exhort, “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall,” (1 Cor. 10: 12,) he does not bid us waver, as if we had no security for our steadfastness: he only removes arrogance and rash confidence in our strength, telling the Gentiles not to presume because the Jews had been cast off, and they had been admitted to their place, (Rom. 11: 20.) In that passage, indeed, he is not addressing believers only, but also comprehends hypocrites, who gloried merely in external appearance; nor is he addressing individuals, but contrasting the Jews and Gentiles, he first shows that the rejection of the former was a just punishment of their ingratitude and unbelief, and then exhorts the latter to beware lest pride and presumption deprive them of the grace of adoption which had lately been transferred to them. For as in that rejection of the Jews there still remained some who were not excluded from the covenant of adoptions so there might be some among the Gentiles who, possessing no true faith, were only puffed up with vain carnal confidence, and so abused the goodness of God to their own destruction. But though you should hold that the words were addressed to elect believers, no inconsistency will follow. It is one thing, in order to prevent believers from indulging vain confidence, to repress the temerity which, from the remains of the flesh, sometimes gains upon them, and it is another thing to strike terror into their consciences, and prevent them from feeling secure in the mercy of God.

23.

Then, when he bids us work out our salvation with fear and trembling, all he requires is, that we accustom ourselves to think very meanly of our own strength, and confide in the strength of the Lord. For nothing stimulates us so strongly to place all our confidence and assurance on the Lord as self diffidence, and the anxiety produced by a consciousness of our calamitous condition. In this sense are we to understand the words of the Psalmist: “I will come into thy house in the multitude of thy mercy: and in thy fear will I worship toward thy holy temples” (Ps. 5: 7.) Here he appropriately unites confident faith leaning on the divine mercy with religious fear, which of necessity we must feel whenever coming into the presence of the divine majesty we are made aware by its splendor of the extent of our own impurity. Truly also does Solomon declare: “Happy is the man that feareth alway; but he that hardeneth his heart falleth into mischief,” (Prov. 28: 14.) The fear he speaks of is that which renders us more cautious, not that which produces despondency, the fear which is felt when the mind confounded in itself resumes its equanimity in God, downcast in itself, takes courage in God, distrusting itself, breathes confidence in God. Hence there is nothing inconsistent in believers being afraid, and at the same time possessing secure consolation as they alternately behold their own vanity, and direct their thoughts to the truth of God. How, it will be asked, can fear and faith dwell in the same mind? Just in the same way as sluggishness and anxiety can so dwell. The ungodly court a state of lethargy that the fear of God may not annoy them; and yet the judgment of God so urges that they cannot gain their desire. In the same way God can train his people to humility, and curb them by the bridle of modesty, while yet fighting bravely. And it is plain, from the context, that this was the Apostle’s meaning, since he states, as the ground of fear and trembling, that it is God who worketh in us to will and to do of his good pleasure. In the same sense must we understand the words of the Prophet, “The children of Israel” “shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter days,” (Hos. 3: 5.) For not only does piety beget reverence to God, but the sweet attractiveness of grace inspires a man, though desponding of himself, at once with fear and admiration, making him feel his dependence on God, and submit humbly to his power.

24.

Here, however, we give no countenance to that most pestilential philosophy which some semi-papists are at present beginning to broach in corners. Unable to defend the gross doubt inculcated by the Schoolmen, they have recourse to another fiction, that they may compound a mixture of faith and unbelief. They admit, that whenever we look to Christ we are furnished with full ground for hope; but as we are ever unworthy of all the blessings which are offered us in Christ, they will have us to fluctuate and hesitate in the view of our unworthiness. In short, they give conscience a position between hope and fear, making it alternate, by successive turns, to the one and the other. Hope and fear, again, they place in complete contrast,—the one falling as the other rises, and rising as the other falls. Thus Satan, finding the devices by which he was wont to destroy the certainty of faith too manifest to be now of any avail, is endeavoring, by indirect methods, to undermine it. But what kind of confidence is that which is ever and anon supplanted by despair? They tell you, if you look to Christ salvation is certain; if you return to yourself damnation is certain. Therefore, your mind must be alternately ruled by diffidence and hope; as if we were to imagine Christ standing at a distance, and not rather dwelling in us. We expect salvation from him—not because he stands aloof from us, but because ingrafting us into his body he not only makes us partakers of all his benefits, but also of himself. Therefore, I thus retort the argument, If you look to yourself damnation is certain: but since Christ has been communicated to you with all his benefits, so that all which is his is made yours, you become a member of him, and hence one with him. His righteousness covers your sins—his salvation extinguishes your condemnation; he interposes with his worthiness, and so prevents your unworthiness from coming into the view of God. Thus it truly is. It will never do to separate Christ from us, nor us from him; but we must, with both hands, keep firm hold of that alliance by which he has riveted us to himself. This the Apostle teaches us: “The body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness,” (Rom. 8: 10.) According to the frivolous trifling of these objectors, he ought to have said, Christ indeed has life in himself, but you, as you are sinners, remain liable to death and condemnation. Very different is his language. He tells us that the condemnation which we of ourselves deserve is annihilated by the salvation of Christ; and to confirm this he employs the argument to which I have referred, viz., that Christ is not external to us, but dwells in us; and not only unites us to himself by an undivided bond of fellowship, but by a wondrous communion brings us daily into closer connection, until he becomes altogether one with us. And yet I deny not, as I lately said, that faith occasionally suffers certain interruptions when, by violent assault, its weakness is made to bend in this direction or in that; and its light is buried in the thick darkness of temptation. Still happen what may, faith ceases not to long after God.

25.

The same doctrine is taught by Bernard when he treats professedly on this subject in his Fifth Homily on the Dedication of the Temple: “By the blessing of God, sometimes meditating on the soul, methinks, I find in it as it were two contraries. When I look at it as it is in itself and of itself, the truest thing I can say of it is, that it has been reduced to nothing. What need is there to enumerate each of its miseries? how burdened with sin, obscured with darkness, ensnared by allurements, teeming with lusts, ruled by passion, filled with delusions, ever prone to evil, inclined to every vice; lastly, full of ignominy and confusion. If all its righteousnesses, when examined by the light of truth, are but as filthy rags, (Is. 64: 6,) what must we suppose its unrighteousness to be? ‘If, therefore, the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness?’ (Matth. 6: 23.) What then? man doubtless has been made subject to vanity—man here been reduced to nothing—man is nothing. And yet how is he whom God exalts utterly nothing? How is he nothing to whom a divine heart has been given? Let us breathe again, brethren. Although we are nothing in our hearts, perhaps something of us may lurk in the heart of God. O Father of mercies! O Father of the miserable! how plantest thou thy heart in us? Where thy heart is, there is thy treasure also. But how are we thy treasure if we are nothing? All nations before thee are as nothing. Observe, before thee; not within thee. Such are they in the judgment of thy truth, but not such in regard to thy affection. Thou callest the things which be not as though they were; and they are not, because thou callest them ‘things that be not:’ and yet they are because thou callest them. For though they are not as to themselves, yet they are with thee according to the declaration of Paul: ‘Not of works, but of him that calleth,’” (Rom. 9: 11.) He then goes on to say that the connection is wonderful in both points of view. Certainly things which are connected together do not mutually destroy each other. This he explains more clearly in his conclusion in the following terms: “If, in both views, we diligently consider what we are,—in the one view our nothingness, in the other our greatness,—I presume our glorying will seem restrained; but perhaps it is rather increased and confirmed, because we glory not in ourselves, but in the Lord. Our thought is, if he determined to save us we shall be delivered; and here we begin again to breathe. But, ascending to a loftier height, let us seek the city of God, let us seek the temple, let us seek our home, let us seek our spouse. I have not forgotten myself when, with fear and reverence, I say, We are,—are in the heart of God. We are, by his dignifying, not by our own dignity.”

26.

Moreover, the fear of the Lord, which is uniformly attributed to all the saints, and which, in one passage, is called “the beginning of wisdom,” in another wisdom itself, although it is one, proceeds from a twofold cause. God is entitled to the reverence of a Father and a Lord. Hence he who desires duly to worship him, will study to act the part both of an obedient son and a faithful servant. The obedience paid to God as a Father he by his prophet terms honor; the service performed to him as a master he terms fear. “A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master. If then I be a father, where is mine honor? and if I be a master, where is my fear?” But while he thus distinguishes between the two, it is obvious that he at the same time confounds them. The fear of the Lord, therefore, may be defined reverence mingled with honor and fear. It is not strange that the same mind can entertain both feelings; for he who considers with himself what kind of a father God is to us, will see sufficient reason, even were there no hell, why the thought of offending him should seem more dreadful than any death. But so prone is our carnal nature to indulgence in sin, that, in order to curb it in every way, we must also give place to the thought that all iniquity is abomination to the Master under whom we live; that those who, by wicked lives, provoke his anger, will not escape his vengeance.

27.

There is nothing repugnant to this in the observation of John: “There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear has torment,” (1 John 4: 18.) For he is speaking of the fear of unbelief, between which and the fear of believers there is a wide difference. The wicked do not fear God from any unwillingness to offend him, provided they could do so with impunity; but knowing that he is armed with power for vengeance, they tremble in dismay on hearing of his anger. And they thus dread his anger, because they think it is impending over them, and they every moment expect it to fall upon their heads. But believers, as has been said, dread the offense even more than the punishment. They are not alarmed by the fear of punishment, as if it were impending over them, but are rendered the more cautious of doing anything to provoke it. Thus the Apostle addressing believers says, “Let no man deceive you with vain words; for because of these things, the wrath of God cometh upon the children of disobedience,” (Eph. 5: 6; Col. 3: 6.) He does not threaten that wrath will descend upon them; but he admonishes them, while they think how the wrath of God is prepared for the wicked, on account of the crimes which he had enumerated, not to run the risk of provoking it. It seldom happens that mere threatening have the effect of arousing the reprobate; nay, becoming more callous and hardened when God thunders verbally from heaven, they obstinately persist in their rebellion. It is only when actually smitten by his hand that they are forced, whether they will or not, to fear. This fear the sacred writers term servile, and oppose to the free and voluntary fear which becomes sons. Some, by a subtle distinction, have introduced an intermediate species, holding that that forced and servile fear sometimes subdues the mind, and leads spontaneously to proper fear.

28.

The divine favor to which faith is said to have respect, we understand to include in it the possession of salvation and eternal life. For if, when God is propitious, no good thing can be wanting to us, we have ample security for our salvation when assured of his love. “Turn us again, O God, and cause thy face to shine,” says the Prophet, “and we shall be saved,” (Ps. 80: 3.) Hence the Scriptures make the sum of our salvation to consist in the removal of all enmity, and our admission into favor; thus intimating, that when God is reconciled all danger is past, and every thing good will befall us. Wherefore, faith apprehending the love of God has the promise both of the present and the future life, and ample security for all blessings, (Eph. 2: 14.) The nature of this must be ascertained from the word. Faith does not promise us length of days, riches and honors, (the Lord not having been pleased that any of these should be appointed us;) but is contented with the assurance, that however poor we may be in regard to present comforts, God will never fail us. The chief security lies in the expectation of future life, which is placed beyond doubt by the word of God. Whatever be the miseries and calamities which await the children of God in this world, they cannot make his favor cease to be complete happiness. Hence, when we were desirous to express the sum of blessedness, we designated it by the favor of God, from which, as their source, all kinds of blessings flow. And we may observe throughout the Scriptures, that they refer us to the love of God, not only when they treat of our eternal salvation, but of any blessing whatever. For which reason David sings, that the loving-kindness of God experienced by the pious heart is sweeter and more to be desired than life itself, (Ps. 63: 3.) In short, if we have every earthly comfort to a wish, but are uncertain whether we have the love or the hatred of God, our felicity will be cursed, and therefore miserable. But if God lift on us the light of his fatherly countenance, our very miseries will be blessed, inasmuch as they will become helps to our salvation. Thus Paul, after bringing together all kinds of adversity, boasts that they cannot separate us from the love of God: and in his prayers he uniformly begins with the grace of God as the source of all prosperity. In like manner, to all the terrors which assail us, David opposes merely the favor of God,—"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me,” (Ps. 23: 4.) And we feel that our minds always waver until, contented with the grace of God, we in it seek peace, and feel thoroughly persuaded of what is said in the psalm, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, and the people whom he has chosen for his own inheritance,” (Ps. 33: 12.)

29.

Free promise we make the foundation of faith, because in it faith properly consists. For though it holds that God is always true, whether in ordering or forbidding, promising or threatening; though it obediently receive his commands, observe his prohibitions, and give heed to his threatening; yet it properly begins with promise, continues with it, and ends with it. It seeks life in God, life which is not found in commands or the denunciations of punishment, but in the promise of mercy. And this promise must be gratuitous; for a conditional promise, which throws us back upon our works, promises life only in so far as we find it existing in ourselves. Therefore, if we would not have faith to waver and tremble, we must support it with the promise of salvation, which is offered by the Lord spontaneously and freely, from a regard to our misery rather than our worth. Hence the Apostle bears this testimony to the Gospel, that it is the word of faith, (Rom. 10: 8.) This he concedes not either to the precepts or the promises of the Law, since there is nothing which can establish our faith, but that free embassy by which God reconciles the world to himself. Hence he often uses faith and the Gospel as correlative terms, as when he says, that the ministry of the Gospel was committed to him for “obedience to the faith;” that “it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth;” that “therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith,” (Rom. 1: 5, 16,17.) No wonder: for seeing that the Gospel is “the ministry of reconciliation,” (2 Cor. 5: 18,) there is no other sufficient evidence of the divine favor, such as faith requires to know. Therefore, when we say, that faith must rest on a free promise, we deny not that believers accept and embrace the word of God in all its parts, but we point to the promise of mercy as its special object. Believers, indeed, ought to recognize God as the judge and avenger of wickedness; and yet mercy is the object to which they properly look, since he is exhibited to their contemplation as “good and ready to forgive,” “plenteous in mercy,” “slow to anger,” “good to all,” and shedding “his tender mercies over all his works”. Ps. 86: 5; 103: 8; 145: 8, 9.)

30.

I stay not to consider the rabid objections of Pighius, and others like-minded, who inveigh against this restriction, as rending faith, and laying hold of one of its fragments. I admit, as I have already said, that the general object of faith (as they express it) is the truth of God, whether he threatens or gives hope of his favor. Accordingly, the Apostle attributes it to faith in Noah, that he feared the destruction of the world, when as yet it was not seen, (Heb. 11: 17.) If fear of impending punishment was a work of faith, threatening ought not to be excluded in defining it. This is indeed true; but we are unjustly and calumniously charged with denying that faith has respect to the whole word of God. We only mean to maintain these two points,—that faith is never decided until it attain to a free promise; and that the only way in which faith reconciles us to God is by uniting us with Christ. Both are deserving of notice. We are inquiring after a faith which separates the children of God from the reprobate, believers from unbelievers. Shall every man, then, who believes that God is just in what he commands, and true in what he threatens, be on that account classed with believers? Very far from it. Faith, then, has no firm footing until it stand in the mercy of God. Then what end have we in view in discoursing of faith? Is it not that we may understand the way of salvation? But how can faith be saving, unless in so far as it in grafts us into the body of Christ? There is no absurdity, therefore, when, in defining it, we thus press its special object, and, by way of distinction, add to the generic character the particular mark which distinguishes the believer from the unbeliever. In short, the malicious have nothing to carp at in this doctrine, unless they are to bring the same censure against the Apostle Paul, who specially designates the Gospel as “the word of faith,” (Rom. 10: 8.)

31.

Hence again we infer, as has already been explained, that faith has no less need of the word than the fruit of a tree has of a living root; because, as David testifies, none can hope in God but those who know his name, (Ps. 9: 10.) This knowledge, however, is not left to every man’s imagination, but depends on the testimony which God himself gives to his goodness. This the same Psalmist confirms in another passage, “Thy salvation according to thy word,” (Ps. 119: 41.) Again, “Save me,” “I hoped in thy word,” (Ps. 119: 146, 147.) Here we must attend to the relation of faith to the word, and to salvation as its consequence. Still, however, we exclude not the power of God. If faith cannot support itself in the view of this power, it never will give Him the honor which is due. Paul seems to relate a trivial or very ordinary circumstance with regard to Abraham, when he says, that he believed that God, who had given him the promise of a blessed seed, was able also to perform it, (Rom. 4: 21.) And in like manner, in another passage, he says of himself, “I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day,” (2 Tim. 1: 12.) But let any one consider with himself, how he is ever and anon assailed with doubts in regard to the power of God, and he will readily perceive, that those who duly magnify it have made no small progress in faith. We all acknowledge that God can do whatsoever he pleases; but while every temptation, even the most trivial, fills us with fear and dread, it is plain that we derogate from the power of God, by attaching less importance to his promises than to Satan’s threatening against them. This is the reason why Isaiah, when he would impress on the hearts of the people the certainty of faith, discourses so magnificently of the boundless power of God. He often seems, after beginning to speak of the hope of pardon and reconciliation, to digress, and unnecessarily take a long circuitous course, describing how wonderfully God rules the fabric of heaven and earth, with the whole course of nature; and yet he introduces nothing which is not appropriate to the occasion; because unless the power of God, to which all things are possible is presented to our eye, our ears malignantly refuse admission to the word, or set no just value upon it. We may add, that an effectual power is here meant; for piety, as it has elsewhere been seen, always makes a practical application of the power of God; in particular, keeps those works in view in which he has declared himself to be a Father. Hence the frequent mention in Scripture of redemption; from which the Israelites might learn, that he who had once been the author of salvation would be its perpetual guardian. By his own example, also, David reminds us, that the benefits which God has bestowed privately on any individual, tend to confirm his faith for the time to come; nay, that when God seems to have forsaken us, we ought to extend our view farther, and take courage from his former favors, as is said in another psalm, “I remember the days of old: I meditate on all thy works,” (Ps. 143: 5.) Again “I will remember the works of the Lord; surely I will remember thy wonders of old” (Ps. 77: 11.) But because all our conceptions of the power and works of God are evanescent without the word, we are not rash in maintaining, that there is no faith until God present us with clear evidence of his grace. Here, however, a question might be raised as to the view to be taken of Sarah and Rebekah, both of whom, impelled as it would seem by zeal for the faith, went beyond the limits of the word. Sarah, in her eager desire for the promised seed, gave her maid to her husband. That she sinned in many respects is not to be denied; but the only fault to which I now refer is her being carried away by zeal, and not confining herself within the limits prescribed by the Word. It is certain, however, that her desire proceeded from faith. Rebekah, again, divinely informed of the election of her son Jacob, procures the blessing for him by a wicked stratagem; deceives her husband, who was a witness and minister of divine grace; forces her son to lie; by various frauds and impostures corrupts divine truth; in fine, by exposing his promise to scorn, does what in her lies to make it of no effect. And yet this conduct, however vicious and reprehensible, was not devoid of faith. She must have overcome many obstacles before she obtained so strong a desire of that which, without any hope of earthly advantage, was full of difficulty and danger. In the same way, we cannot say that the holy patriarch Isaac was altogether void of faith, in that, after he had been similarly informed of the honor transferred to the younger son, he still continues his predilection in favor of his first-born, Esau. These examples certainly show that error is often mingled with faith; and yet that when faith is real, it always obtains the preeminence. For as the particular error of Rebekah did not render the blessing of no effect, neither did it nullify the faith which generally ruled in her mind, and was the principle and cause of that action. In this, nevertheless, Rebekah showed how prone the human mind is to turn aside whenever it gives itself the least indulgence. But though defect and infirmity obscure faith, they do not extinguish it. Still they admonish us how carefully we ought to cling to the word of God, and at the same time confirm what we have taught, viz., that faith gives way when not supported by the word, just as the minds of Sarah, Isaac, and Rebekah, would have lost themselves in devious paths, had not the secret restraint of Providence kept them obedient to the word.

32.

On the other hand, we have good ground for comprehending all the promises in Christ, since the Apostle comprehends the whole Gospel under the knowledge of Christ, and declares that all the promises of God are in him yea, and amen. The reason for this is obvious. Every promise which God makes is evidence of his good will. This is invariably true, and is not inconsistent with the fact, that the large benefits which the divine liberality is constantly bestowing on the wicked are preparing them for heavier judgment. As they neither think that these proceed from the hand of the Lord, nor acknowledge them as his, or if they do so acknowledge them, never regard them as proofs of his favor, they are in no respect more instructed thereby in his mercy than brute beasts, which, according to their condition, enjoy the same liberality, and yet never look beyond it. Still it is true, that by rejecting the promises generally offered to them, they subject themselves to severer punishment. For though it is only when the promises are received in faith that their efficacy is manifested, still their reality and power are never extinguished by our infidelity or ingratitude. Therefore, when the Lord by his promises invites us not only to enjoy the fruits of his kindness, but also to meditate upon them, he at the same time declares his love. Thus we are brought back to our statement, that every promise is a manifestation of the divine favor toward us. Now, without controversy, God loves no man out of Christ. He is the beloved Son, in whom the love of the Father dwells, and from whom it afterwards extends to us. Thus Paul says “In whom he has made us accepted in the Beloved,” (Eph. 1: 6.) It is by his intervention, therefore, that love is diffused so as to reach us. Accordingly, in another passage, the Apostle calls Christ “our peace,” (Eph. 2: 14,) and also represents him as the bond by which the Father is united to us in paternal affection, (Rom. 8: 3.) It follows, that whenever any promise is made to us, we must turn our eyes toward Christ. Hence, with good reasons Paul declares that in him all the promises of God are confirmed and completed, (Rom. 15: 8.) Some examples are brought forward as repugnant to this view. When Naaman the Syrian made inquiry at the prophet as to the true mode of worshipping God, we cannot (it is said) suppose that he was informed of the Mediator, and yet he is commended for his piety, (2 Kings 5: 17-19.) Nor could Cornelius, a Roman heathen, be acquainted with what was not known to all the Jews, and at best known obscurely. And yet his alms and prayers were acceptable to God, (Acts 10: 31,) while the prophet by his answer approved of the sacrifices of Naaman. In both, this must have been the result of faith. In like manner, the eunuch to whom Philip was sent, had he not been endued with some degree of faith, never would have incurred the fatigue and expense of a long and difficult journey to obtain an opportunity of worship, (Acts 8: 27, 31;) and yet we see how, when interrogated by Philip, he betrays his ignorance of the Mediator. I admit that, in some respect, their faith was not explicit either as to the person of Christ, or the power and office assigned him by the Father. Still it is certain that they were imbued with principles which might give some, though a slender, foretaste of Christ. This should not be thought strange; for the eunuch would not have hastened from a distant country to Jerusalem to an unknown God; nor could Cornelius, after having once embraced the Jewish religion, have lived so long in Judea without becoming acquainted with the rudiments of sound doctrine. In regard to Naaman, it is absurd to suppose that Elisha, while he gave him many minute precepts, said nothing of the principal matter. Therefore, although their knowledge of Christ may have been obscure, we cannot suppose that they had no such knowledge at all. They used the sacrifices of the Law, and must have distinguished them from the spurious sacrifices of the Gentiles, by the end to which they referred, viz., Christ.

33.

A simple external manifestation of the word ought to be amply sufficient to produce faith, did not our blindness and perverseness prevent. But such is the proneness of our mind to vanity, that it can never adhere to the truth of God, and such its dullness, that it is always blind even in his light. Hence without the illumination of the Spirit the word has no effect; and hence also it is obvious that faith is something higher than human understanding. Nor were it sufficient for the mind to be illumined by the Spirit of God unless the heart also were strengthened and supported by his power. Here the Schoolmen go completely astray, dwelling entirely in their consideration of faith, on the bare simple assent of the understanding, and altogether overlooking confidence and security of heart. Faith is the special gift of God in both ways,—in purifying the mind so as to give it a relish for divine truth, and afterwards in establishing it therein. For the Spirit does not merely originate faith, but gradually increases it, until by its means he conducts us into the heavenly kingdom. “That good thing which was committed unto thee,” says Paul, “keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us,” (2 Tim. 1: 14.) In what sense Paul says, (Gal. 3: 2,) that the Spirit is given by the hearing of faith, may be easily explained. If there were only a single gift of the Spirit, he who is the author and cause of faith could not without absurdity be said to be its effect; but after celebrating the gifts with which God adorns his church, and by successive additions of faith leads it to perfection, there is nothing strange in his ascribing to faith the very gifts which faith prepares us for receiving. It seems to some paradoxical, when it is said that none can believe Christ save those to whom it is given; but this is partly because they do not observe how recondite and sublime heavenly wisdom is, or how dull the mind of man in discerning divine mysteries, and partly because they pay no regard to that firm and stable constancy of heart which is the chief part of faith.

34.

But as Paul argues, “What man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God,” (1 Cor. 2: 11.) If in regard to divine truth we hesitate even as to those things which we see with the bodily eye, how can we be firm and steadfast in regard to those divine promises which neither the eye sees nor the mind comprehends? Here human discernment is so defective and lost, that the first step of advancement in the school of Christ is to renounce it, (Matth. 11: 25; Luke 10: 21.) Like a veil interposed, it prevents us from beholding divine masteries, which are revealed only to babes. “Flesh and blood” does not reveal them, (Matth. 16: 17.) “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned,” (I Cor. 2: 14.) The supplies of the Holy Spirit are therefore necessary, or rather his agency is here the only strength. “For who has known the mind of the Lord? or who has been his counselor?” (Rom. 11: 34;) but “The Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God,” (1 Cor. 2: 10.) Thus it is that we attain to the mind of Christ: “No man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.” “Every man therefore that has heard, and learned of the Father, cometh unto me. Not that any man has seen the Father, save he which is of God, he has seen the Father,” (John 6: 44, 45, 46.) Therefore, as we cannot possibly come to Christ unless drawn by the Spirit, so when we are drawn we are both in mind and spirit exalted far above our own understanding. For the soul, when illumined by him, receives as it were a new eye, enabling it to contemplate heavenly mysteries, by the splendor of which it was previously dazzled. And thus, indeed, it is only when the human intellect is irradiated by the light of the Holy Spirit that it begins to have a taste of those things which pertain to the kingdom of God; previously it was too stupid and senseless to have any relish for them. Hence our Savior, when clearly declaring the mysteries of the kingdom to the two disciples, makes no impression till he opens their minds to understand the Scriptures, (Luke 24: 27, 45.) Hence also, though he had taught the Apostles with his own divine lips, it was still necessary to send the Spirit of truth to instill into their minds the same doctrine which they had heard with their ears. The word is, in regard to those to whom it is preached, like the sun which shines upon all, but is of no use to the blind. In this matter we are all naturally blind; and hence the word cannot penetrate our mind unless the Spirit, that internal teacher, by his enlightening power make an entrance for it.

35.

Having elsewhere shown more fully, when treating of the corruption of our nature, how little able men are to believe, (Book 2, c. 2, 3,) I will not fatigue the reader by again repeating it. Let it suffice to observe, that the spirit of faith is used by Paul as synonymous with the very faith which we receive from the Spirit, but which we have not naturally, (2 Cor. 4: 13.) Accordingly, he prays for the Thessalonians, “that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfill all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power,” (2 Thess. 1: 2.) Here, by designating faith the work of God, and distinguishing it by way of epithet, appropriately calling it his good pleasure, he declares that it is not of man’s own nature; and not contented with this, he adds, that it is an illustration of divine power. In addressing the Corinthians, when he tells them that faith stands not “in the wisdom of man, but in the power of God,” (1 Cor. 2: 4,) he is no doubt speaking of external miracles; but as the reprobate are blinded when they behold them, he also includes that internal seal of which he elsewhere makes mention. And the better to display his liberality in this most excellent gift, God does not bestow it upon all promiscuously, but, by special privilege, imparts it to whom he will. To this effect we have already quoted passages of Scripture, as to which Augustine, their faithful expositor, exclaims, (De Verbo Apost. Serm. 2) “Our Savior, to teach that faith in him is a gift, not a merit, says, ‘No man can come to me, except the Father, which has sent me, draw him,’ (John 6: 44.) It is strange when two persons hear, the one despises, the other ascends. Let him who despises impute it to himself; let him who ascends not arrogate it to himself’ In another passage he asks, “Wherefore is it given to the one, and not to the other? I am not ashamed to say, This is one of the deep things of the cross. From some unknown depth of the judgments of God, which we cannot scrutinize, all our ability proceeds. I see that I am able; but how I am able I see not:—this far only I see, that it is of God. But why the one, and not the other? This is too great for me: it is an abyss a depth of the cross. I can cry out with wonder; not discuss and demonstrate.” The whole comes to this, that Christ, when he produces faith in us by the agency of his Spirit, at the same time ingrafts us into his body, that we may become partakers of all blessings.

36.

The next thing necessary is, that what the mind has imbibed be transferred into the heart. The word is not received in faith when it merely flutters in the brain, but when it has taken deep root in the heart, and become an invincible bulwark to withstand and repel all the assaults of temptation. But if the illumination of the Spirit is the true source of understanding in the intellect, much more manifest is his agency in the confirmation of the heart; inasmuch as there is more distrust in the heart than blindness in the mind; and it is more difficult to inspire the soul with security than to imbue it with knowledge. Hence the Spirit performs the part of a seal, sealing upon our hearts the very promises, the certainty of which was previously impressed upon our minds. It also serves as an earnest in establishing and confirming these promises. Thus the Apostle says, “In whom also, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance,” (Eph. 1: 13, 14.) You see how he teaches that the hearts of believers are stamped with the Spirit as with a seal, and calls it the Spirit of promise, because it ratifies the gospel to us. In like manner he says to the Corinthians, “God has also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts,” (2 Cor. 1: 22.) And again, when speaking of a full and confident hope, he founds it on the “earnest of the Spirit,” (2 Cor. 5: 5.)

37.

I am not forgetting what I formerly said, and experience brings daily to remembrance; viz., that faith is subject to various doubts, so that the minds of believers are seldom at rest, or at least are not always tranquil. Still, whatever be the engines by which they are shaken, they either escape from the whirlpool of temptation, or remain steadfast in their place. Faith finds security and protection in the words of the Psalm, “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble; therefore will not we fear, though the earth be removed, and the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea,” (Ps. 46: 1, 2.) This delightful tranquillity is elsewhere described: “I laid me down and slept; I awaked, for the Lord sustained me,” (Ps. 3: 5.) Not that David was uniformly in this joyful frame; but in so far as the measure of his faith made him sensible of the divine favor, he glories in intrepidly despising every thing that could disturb his peace of mind. Hence the Scripture, when it exhorts us to faith, bids us be at peace. In Isaiah it is said, “In quietness and in confidence shall be your strength,” (Is. 30: 15;) and in the psalm, “Rest in the Lord, and wait patiently for him.” Corresponding to this is the passage in the Hebrews, “Ye have need of patience,” &c., (Heb. 10: 36.)

38.

Hence we may judge how pernicious is the scholastic dogma, that we can have no stronger evidence of the divine favor toward us than moral conjecture, according as each individual deems himself not unworthy of it. Doubtless, if we are to determine by our works in what way the Lord stands affected towards us, I admit that we cannot even get the length of a feeble conjecture: but since faith should accord with the free and simple promise, there is no room left for ambiguity. With what kind of confidence, pray, shall we be armed if we reason in this way—God is propitious to us, provided we deserve it by the purity of our lives? But since we have reserved this subject for discussion in its proper place, we shall not prosecute it farther at present, especially seeing it is already plain that nothing is more adverse to faith than conjecture, or any other feeling akin to doubt. Nothing can be worse than their perversion of the passage of Ecclesiastes, which is ever in their mouths: “No man knoweth either love or hatred by all that is before them,” (Eccl. 9: 1.) For without insisting that the passage is erroneously rendered in the common version—even a child cannot fail to perceive what Solomon’s meaning is,—viz., that any one who would ascertain, from the present state of things, who are in the favor or under the displeasure of God, labors in vain, and torments himself to no useful purpose, since “All things come alike to all;” “to him that sacrificeth, and to him that sacrificeth not:” and hence God does not always declare his love to those on whom he bestows uninterrupted prosperity, nor his hatred against those whom he afflicts. And it tends to prove the vanity of the human intellect, that it is so completely in the dark as to matters which it is of the highest importance to know. Thus Solomon had said a little before, “That which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other,” (Eccl. 3: 19.) Were any one thence to infer that we hold the immortality of the soul by conjecture merely, would he not justly be deemed insane? Are those then sane who cannot obtain any certainty of the divine favor, because the carnal eye is now unable to discern it from the present appearance of the world?

39.

But, they say, it is rash and presumptuous to pretend to an undoubted knowledge of the divine will. I would grant this, did we hold that we were able to subject the incomprehensible counsel of God to our feeble intellect. But when we simply say with Paul, “We have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God,” (1 Cor. 2: 12,) what can they oppose to this, without offering insult to the Spirit of God? But if it is Sacrilege to charge the revelation which he has given us with falsehood, or uncertainty, or ambiguity, how can we be wrong in maintaining its certainty? But they still exclaim, that there is great temerity in our presuming to glory in possessing the Spirit of God. Who could believe that these men, who desire to be thought the masters of the world, could be so stupid as to err thus grossly in the very first principles of religion? To me, indeed, it would be incredible, did not their own writings make it manifest. Paul declares that those only are the sons of God who are led by his Spirit, (Rom. 8: 14;) these men would have those who are the sons of God to be led by their own, and void of the divine Spirit. He tells us that we call God our Father in terms dictated by the Spirit, who alone bears witness with our spirit that we are the sons of God, (Rom. 8: 16;) they, though they forbid us not to invoke God, withdraw the Spirit, by whose guidance he is duly invoked. He declares that those only are the servants of Christ who are led by the Spirit of Christ, (Rom. 8: 9;) they imagine a Christianity which has no need of the Spirit of Christ. He holds out the hope of a blessed resurrection to those only who feel His Spirit dwelling in them, (Rom. 8: 11;) they imagine hope when there is no such feeling. But perhaps they will say, that they deny not the necessity of being endued with the Spirit, but only hold it to be the part of modesty and humility not to recognize it. What, then, does Paul mean, when he says to the Corinthians, “Examine yourselves whether ye be in the faith: prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?” (2 Cor. 13: 5.) John, moreover, says, “Hereby we know that he abideth in us by the Spirit which he has given us,” (1 John 3: 24.) And what else is it than to bring the promises of Christ into doubt, when we would be deemed servants of Christ without having his Spirit, whom he declared that he would pour out on all his people? (Isa. 44: 3.) What! do we not insult the Holy Spirit, when we separate faith, which is his peculiar work, from himself? These being the first rudiments of religion, it is the most wretched blindness to charge Christians with arrogance, for presuming to glory in the presence of the Holy Spirit; a glorying without which Christianity itself does not exist. The example of these men illustrates the truth of our Savior’s declaration, that his Spirit “the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him; but ye know him, for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you,” (John 14: 17.)

40.

That they may not attempt to undermine the certainty of faith in one direction only, they attack it in another, viz., that though it be lawful for the believer, from his actual state of righteousness, to form a judgment as to the favor of God, the knowledge of final perseverance still remains in suspense. An admirable security, indeed, is left us, if, for the present moment only, we can judge from moral conjecture that we are in grace, but know not how we are to be to-morrow! Very different is the language of the Apostle, “I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord,” (Rom. 8: 38.) They endeavor to evade the force of this by frivolously pretending that the Apostle had this assurance by special revelation. They are too well caught thus to escape; for in that passage he is treating not of his individual experience, but of the blessings which all believers in common derive from faith. But then Paul in another passage alarms us by the mention of our weakness and inconstancy, “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall,” (1 Cor. 10: 12.) True; but this he says not to inspire us with terror, but that we may learn to humble ourselves under the mighty hand of God, as Peter explains, (1 Pet. 5: 6.) Then how preposterous is it to limit the certainty of faith to a point of time; seeing it is the property of faith to pass beyond the whole course of this life, and stretch forward to a future immortality? Therefore since believers owe it to the favor of God, that, enlightened by his Spirit, they, through faith, enjoy the prospect of heavenly life; there is so far from an approach to arrogance in each glorying, that any one ashamed to confess it, instead of testifying modesty or submission, rather betrays extreme ingratitude, by maliciously suppressing the divine goodness.

41.

Since the nature of faith could not be better or more clearly evinced than by the substance of the promise on which it leans as its proper foundation, and without which it immediately falls or rather vanishes away, we have derived our definition from it—a definition, however, not at all at variance with that definition, or rather description, which the Apostle accommodates to his discourse, when he says that faith is “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen,” (Heb. 11: 1.) For by the term substance, ("hupostasis”,) he means a kind of prop on which the pious mind rests and leans. As if he had said, that faith is a kind of certain and secure possession of those things which are promised to us by God; unless we prefer taking “hupostasis” for confidence. I have no objection to this, though I am more inclined to adopt the other interpretation, which is more generally received. Again, to intimate that until the last day, when the books will be opened, (Dan. 7: 10; Rev. 20: 12,) the things pertaining to our salvation are too lofty to be perceived by our sense, seen by our eyes, or handled by our hands, and that in the meantime there is no possible way in which these can be possessed by us, unless we can transcend the reach of our own intellect, and raise our eye above all worldly objects; in short, surpass ourselves, he adds that this certainty of possession relates to things which are only hoped for, and therefore not seen. For as Paul says, (Rom. 8: 24,) “A hope that is seen is not hope,” that we “hope for that we see not.” When he calls it the evidence or proof, or, as Augustine repeatedly renders it, (see Hom. in Joann. 79 and 95,) the conviction of things not present, the Greek term being “elengchos”, it is the same as if he had called it the appearance of things not apparent, the sight of things not seen, the clearness of things obscure, the presence of things absent, the manifestation of things hid. For the mysteries of God (and to this class belong the things which pertain to our salvation) cannot be discerned in themselves, or, as it is expressed, in their own nature; but we behold them only in his word, of the truth of which we ought to be as firmly persuaded as if we held that every thing which it says were done and completed. But how can the mind rise to such a perception and foretaste of the divine goodness, without being at the same time wholly inflamed with love to God? The abundance of joy which God has treasured up for those who fear him cannot be truly known without making a most powerful impression. He who is thus once affected is raised and carried entirely towards him. Hence it is not strange that no sinister perverse heart ever experiences this feeling, by which, transported to heaven itself, we are admitted to the most hidden treasures of God, and the holiest recesses of his kingdom, which must not be profaned by the entrance of a heart that is impure. For what the Schoolmen say as to the priority of love to faith and hope is a mere dream, (see Sent. Lib. 3 Dist. 25, &c.,) since it is faith alone that first engenders love. How much better is Bernard, “The testimony of conscience, which Paul calls ‘the rejoicing’ of believers, I believe to consist in three things. It is necessary, first of all, to believe that you cannot have remission of sins except by the indulgence of God; secondly, that you cannot have any good work at all unless he also give it; lastly, that you cannot by any works merit eternal life unless it also be freely given,” (Bernard, Serm. 1 in Annuntiatione.) Shortly after he adds, “These things are not sufficient, but are a kind of commencement of faith; for while believing that your sins can only be forgiven by God, you must also hold that they are not forgiven until persuaded by the testimony of the Holy Spirit that salvation is treasured up for us; that as God pardons sins, and gives merits, and after merits rewards, you cannot halt at that beginning.” But these and other topics will be considered in their own place; let it suffice at present to understand what faith is.

42.

Wherever this living faith exists, it must have the hope of eternal life as its inseparable companion, or rather must of itself beget and manifest it; where it is wanting, however clearly and elegantly we may discourse of faith, it is certain we have it not. For if faith is (as has been said) a firm persuasion of the truth of God—a persuasion that it can never be false, never deceive, never be in vain, those who have received this assurance must at the same time expect that God will perform his promises, which in their conviction are absolutely true; so that in one word hope is nothing more than the expectation of those things which faith previously believes to have been truly promised by God. Thus, faith believes that God is true; hope expects that in due season he will manifest his truth. Faith believes that he is our Father; hope expects that he will always act the part of a Father towards us. Faith believes that eternal life has been given to us; hope expects that it will one day be revealed. Faith is the foundation on which hope rests; hope nourishes and sustains faith. For as no man can expect any thing from God without previously believing his promises, so, on the other hand, the weakness of our faith, which might grow weary and fall away, must be supported and cherished by patient hope and expectation. For this reason Paul justly says, “We are saved by hope,” (Rom. 8: 24.) For while hope silently waits for the Lord, it restrains faith from hastening on with too much precipitation, confirms it when it might waver in regard to the promises of God or begin to doubt of their truth, refreshes it when it might be fatigued, extends its view to the final goal, so as not to allow it to give up in the middle of the course, or at the very outset. In short, by constantly renovating and reviving, it is ever and anon furnishing more vigor for perseverance. On the whole, how necessary the reinforcements of hope are to establish faith will better appear if we reflect on the numerous forms of temptation by which those who have embraced the word of God are assailed and shaken. First, the Lord often keeps us in suspense, by delaying the fulfillment of his promises much longer than we could wish. Here the office of hope is to perform what the prophet enjoins, “Though it tarry, wait for it,” (Hab. 2: 3.) Sometimes he not only permits faith to grow languid, but even openly manifests his displeasure. Here there is still greater necessity for the aid of hope, that we may be able to say with another prophet, “I will wait upon the Lord that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him,” (Isaiah 8: 17.) Scoffers also rise up, as Peter tells us, and asks where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation,” (2 Pet. 3: 4.) Nay, the world and the flesh insinuate the same thing. Here faith must be supported by the patience of hope, and fixed on the contemplation of eternity, consider that “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day,” (2 Pet. 3: 8; Ps. 90: 4.)

43.

On account of this connection and affinity Scripture sometimes confounds the two terms faith and hope. For when Peter says that we are “kept by the power of God through faith until salvation, ready to be revealed in the last times” (1 Pet. 1: 5,) he attributes to faith what more properly belongs to hope. And not without cause, since we have already shown that hope is nothing else than the food and strength of faith. Sometimes the two are joined together, as in the same Epistles “That your faith and hope might be in God,” (1 Pet. 1: 21.) Paul, again, in the Epistle to the Philippians, from hope deduces expectation, (Phil. 1: 20,) because in hoping patiently we suspend our wishes until God manifest his own time. The whole of this subject may be better understood from the tenth chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, to which I have already adverted. Paul, in another passage, though not in strict propriety of speech, expresses the same thing in these words, “For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith,” (Gal. 5: 5;) that is, after embracing the testimony of the Gospel as to free love, we wait till God openly manifest what is now only an object of hope. It is now obvious how absurdly Peter Lombard lays down a double foundation of hope, viz., the grace of God and the merit of works, (Sent. Lib. 3, Dist. 26.) Hope cannot have any other object than faith has. But we have already shown clearly that the only object of faith is the mercy of God, to which, to use the common expression, it must look with both eyes. But it is worth while to listen to the strange reason which he adduces. If you presume, says he, to hope for any thing without merit, it should be called not hope, but presumption. Who, dear reader, does not execrate the gross stupidity which calls, it rashness, and presumption to confide in the truth of God? The Lord desires us to expect every thing from his goodness and yet these men tell us, it is presumption to rest in it. O teacher, worthy of the pupils, whom you found in these insane raving schools! Seeing that, by the oracles of God, sinners are enjoined to entertain the hope of salvation, let us willingly presume so far on his truth as to cast away all confidence in our works, and trusting in his mercy, venture to hope. He who has said, “According to your faith be it unto you,” (Matth. 9: 29,) will never deceive.

CHAPTER 3. REGENERATION BY FAITH. OF REPENTANCE.

This chapter is divided into five parts.

I. The title of the chapter seems to promise a treatise on Faith, but the only subject here considered is Repentance, the inseparable attendant of faith. And, first, various opinions on the subject of repentance are stated, sec. 1-4.

II. An exposition of the orthodox doctrine of Repentance, sec. 5-9.

III. Reasons why repentance must be prolonged to the last moment of life, sec. 10-14.

IV. Of the fruits of repentance, or its object and tendency, sec. 15-20.

V. The source whence repentance proceeds, sec. 21-24. Of the sin against the Holy Spirit, and the impenitence of the reprobate, sec. 25.

Sections.

1. Connection of this chapter with the previous one and the subsequent chapters. Repentance follows faith, and is produced by it. Reason. Error of those who take a contrary view.

2. Their First Objection. Answer. In what sense the origin of Repentance ascribed to Faith. Cause of the erroneous idea that faith is produced by repentance. Refutation of it. The hypocrisy of Monks and Anabaptists in assigning limits to repentance exposed.

3. A second opinion concerning repentance considered.

4. A third opinion, assigning two forms to repentance, a legal and an Evangelical. Examples of each.

5. The orthodox doctrine of Repentance.

1. Faith and Repentance to be distinguished, not confounded or separated.

2. A consideration of the name.

3. A definition of the thing, or what repentance is. Doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles.

6. Explanation of the definition. This consists of three parts.

1. Repentance is a turning of our life unto God. This described and enlarged upon.

7. 2. Repentance produced by fear of God. Hence the mention of divine judgment by the Prophets and Apostles. Example. Exposition of the second branch of the definition from a passage in Paul. Why the fear of God is the first part of Repentance.

8. 3. Repentance consists in the mortification of the flesh and the quickening of the Spirit. These required by the Prophets. They are explained separately.

9. How this mortification and quickening are produced. Repentance just a renewal of the divine image in us. Not completed in a moment, but extends to the last moment of life.

10. Reasons why repentance must so extend. Augustine’s opinion as to concupiscence in the regenerate examined. A passage of Paul which seems to confirm that opinion.

11. Answer. Confirmation of the answer by the Apostle himself. Another confirmation from a precept of the law. Conclusion.

12. Exception, that those desires only are condemned which are repugnant to the order of God. Desires not condemned in so far as natural, but in so far as inordinate. This held by Augustine.

13. Passages from Augustine to show that this was his opinion. Objection from a passage in James.

14. Another objection of the Anabaptists and Libertines to the continuance of repentance throughout the present life. An answer disclosing its impiety. Another answer, founded on the absurdities to which it leads. A third answer, contrasting sincere Christian repentance with the erroneous view of the objectors. Conformation from the example and declaration of an Apostle.

15. Of the fruits of repentance. Carefulness. Excuse. Indignation. Fear. Desire. Zeal. Revenge. Moderation to be observed, as most sagely counseled by Bernard.

16. Internal fruits of Repentance.

1. Piety towards God.

2. Charity towards man.

3. Purity of life.

How carefully these fruits are commended by the Prophets. External fruits of repentance. Bodily exercises too much commended by ancient writers. Twofold excess in regard to them.

17. Delusion of some who consider these external exercises as the chief part of Repentance. Why received in the Jewish Church. The legitimate use of these exercises in the Christian Church.

18. The principal part of repentance consists in turning to God. Confession and acknowledgment of sins. What their nature should be. Distinction between ordinary and special repentance. Use of this distinction.

19. End of Repentance. Its nature shown by the preaching of John Baptist, our Savior, and his Apostles. The sum of this preaching.

20. Christian repentance terminates with our life.

21. Repentance has its origin in the grace of God, as communicated to the elect, whom God is pleased to save from death. The hardening and final impenitence of the reprobate. A passage of an Apostle as to voluntary reprobates, gives no countenance to the Novatians.

22. Of the sin against the Holy Ghost. The true definition of this sin as proved and explained by Scripture. Who they are that sin against the Holy Spirit. Examples:—

1. The Jews resisting Stephen.

2. The Pharisees. Definition confirmed by the example of Paul.

23. Why that sin unpardonable. The paralogism of the Novatians in wresting the words of the Apostle examined. Two passages from the same Apostle.

24. First objection to the above doctrine. Answer. Solution of a difficulty founded on the example of Esau and the threatening of a Prophet. Second objection.

25. Third objection, founded on the seeming approval of the feigned repentance of the ungodly, as Ahab. Answer. Confirmation from the example of Esau. Why God bears for a time with the ungodly, pretending repentance. Exception.

1.

Although we have already in some measure shown how faith possesses Christ, and gives us the enjoyment of his benefits, the subject would still be obscure were we not to add an exposition of the effects resulting from it. The sum of the Gospel is, not without good reason, made to consist in repentance and forgiveness of sins; and, therefore, where these two heads are omitted, any discussion concerning faith will be meager and defective, and indeed almost useless. Now, since Christ confers upon us, and we obtain by faith, both free reconciliation and newness of life, reason and order require that I should here begin to treat of both. The shortest transition, however, will be from faith to repentance; for repentance being properly understood it will better appear how a man is justified freely by faith alone, and yet that holiness of life, real holiness, as it is called, is inseparable from the free imputation of righteousness. That repentance not only always follows faith, but is produced by it, ought to be without controversy, (see Calvin in Joann. 1: 13.) For since pardon and forgiveness are offered by the preaching of the Gospel, in order that the sinner, delivered from the tyranny of Satan, the yoke of sin, and the miserable bondage of iniquity, may pass into the kingdom of God, it is certain that no man can embrace the grace of the Gospel without retaking himself from the errors of his former life into the right path, and making it his whole study to practice repentance. Those who think that repentance precedes faith instead of flowing from, or being produced by it, as the fruit by the tree, have never understood its nature, and are moved to adopt that view on very insufficient grounds.

2.

Christ and John, it is said, in their discourses first exhort the people to repentance, and then add, that the kingdom of heaven is at hand, (Matth. 3: 2; 4: 17.) Such too, is the message which the Apostles received and such the course which Paul followed, as is narrated by Luke, (Acts 20: 21.) But clinging superstitiously to the juxtaposition of the syllables, they attend not to the coherence of meaning in the words. For when our Lord and John begin their preaching thus “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,” (Matth. 3: 2,) do they not deduce repentance as a consequence of the offer of grace and promise of salvation? The force of the words, therefore, is the same as if it were said, As the kingdom of heaven is at hand, for that reason repent. For Matthew, after relating that John so preached, says that therein was fulfilled the prophecy concerning the voice of one crying in the desert, “Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God,” (Isaiah 40: 3.) But in the Prophet that voice is ordered to commence with consolation and glad tidings. Still, when we attribute the origin of repentance to faith, we do not dream of some period of time in which faith is to give birth to it: we only wish to show that a man cannot seriously engage in repentance unless he know that he is of God. But no man is truly persuaded that he is of God until he have embraced his offered favor. These things will be more clearly explained as we proceed. Some are perhaps misled by this, that not a few are subdued by terror of conscience, or disposed to obedience before they have been imbued with a knowledge, nay, before they have had any taste of the divine favor, (see Calvin in Acts 20: 21.) This is that initial fear which some writers class among the virtues, because they think it approximates to true and genuine obedience. But we are not here considering the various modes in which Christ draws us to himself, or prepares us for the study of piety: All I say is, that no righteousness can be found where the Spirit, whom Christ received in order to communicate it to his members, reigns not. Then, according to the passage in the Psalms, “There is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared,” (Psalm 130: 4,) no man will ever reverence God who does not trust that God is propitious to him, no man will ever willingly set himself to observe the Law who is not persuaded that his services are pleasing to God. The indulgence of God in tolerating and pardoning our iniquities is a sign of paternal favor. This is also clear from the exhortation in Hosea, “Come, and let us return unto the Lord: for he has torn, and he will heal us; he has smitten, and he will bind us up,” (Hos. 6: 1;) the hope of pardon is employed as a stimulus to prevent us from becoming reckless in sin. But there is no semblance of reason in the absurd procedure of those who, that they may begin with repentance, prescribe to their neophytes certain days during which they are to exercise themselves in repentance, and after these are elapsed, admit them to communion in Gospel grace. I allude to great numbers of Anabaptists, those of them especially who plume themselves on being spiritual, and their associates the Jesuits, and others of the same stamp. Such are the fruits which their giddy spirit produces, that repentance, which in every Christian man lasts as long as life, is with them completed in a few short days.

3.

Certain learned men, who lived long before the present days and were desirous to speak simply and sincerely according to the rule of Scripture, held that repentance consists of two parts, mortification and quickening. By mortification they mean, grief of soul and terror, produced by a conviction of sin and a sense of the divine judgment. For when a man is brought to a true knowledge of sin, he begins truly to hate and abominate sin. He also is sincerely dissatisfied with himself, confesses that he is lost and undone, and wishes he were different from what he is. Moreover, when he is touched with some sense of the divine justice, (for the one conviction immediately follows the other,) he lies terrorstruck and amazed, humbled and dejected, desponds and despairs. This, which they regarded as the first part of repentance, they usually termed contrition. By quickening they mean, the comfort which is produced by faith, as when a man prostrated by a consciousness of sin, and smitten with the fear of God, afterwards beholding his goodness, and the mercy, grace, and salvation obtained through Christ, looks up, begins to breathe, takes courage, and passes, as it were, from death unto life. I admit that these terms, when rightly interpreted, aptly enough express the power of repentance; only I cannot assent to their using the term quickening, for the joy which the soul feels after being calmed from perturbation and fear. It more properly means, that desire of pious and holy living which springs from the new birth; as if it were said, that the man dies to himself that he may begin to live unto God.

4.

Others seeing that the term is used in Scripture in different senses, have set down two forms of repentance, and, in order to distinguish them, have called the one Legal repentance; or that by which the sinner, stung with a sense of his sin, and overwhelmed with fear of the divine anger, remains in that state of perturbation, unable to escape from it. The other they term Evangelical repentance; or that by which the sinner, though grievously downcast in himself, yet looks up and sees in Christ the cure of his wound, the solace of his terror; the haven of rest from his misery. They give Cain, Saul and Judas, as examples of legal repentance. Scripture, in describing what is called their repentance, means that they perceived the heinousness of their sins, and dreaded the divine anger; but, thinking only of God as a judge and avenger, were overwhelmed by the thought. Their repentance, therefore, was nothing better than a kind of threshold to hell, into which having entered even in the present life, they began to endure the punishment inflicted by the presence of an offended God. Examples of evangelical repentance we see in all those who, first stung with a sense of sin, but afterwards raised and revived by confidence in the divine mercy, turned unto the Lord. Hezekiah was frightened on receiving the message of his death, but praying with tears, and beholding the divine goodness, regained his confidence. The Ninevites were terrified at the fearful announcement of their destruction; but clothing themselves in sackcloth and ashes, they prayed, hoping that the Lord might relent and avert his anger from them. David confessed that he had sinned greatly in numbering the people, but added “Now, I beseech thee O Lord, take away the iniquity of thy servant.” When rebuked by Nathan, he acknowledged the crime of adultery, and humbled himself before the Lord; but he, at the same time, looked for pardon. Similar was the repentance of those who, stung to the heart by the preaching of Peter, yet trusted in the divine goodness, and added, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Similar was the case of Peter himself, who indeed wept bitterly, but ceased not to hope.

5.

Though all this is true, yet the term repentance (in so far as I can ascertain from Scripture) must be differently taken. For in comprehending faith under repentance, they are at variance with what Paul says in the Acts, as to his “testifying both to the Jews and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ,” (Acts 20: 21.) Here he mentions faith and repentance as two different things. What then? Can true repentance exist without faith? By no means. But although they cannot be separated, they ought to be distinguished. As there is no faith without hope, and yet faith and hope are different, so repentance and faith, though constantly linked together, are only to be united, not confounded. I am not unaware that under the term repentance is comprehended the whole work of turning to God, of which not the least important part is faith; but in what sense this is done will be perfectly obvious, when its nature and power shall have been explained. The term repentance is derived in the Hebrew from conversion, or turning again; and in the Greek from a change of mind and purpose; nor is the thing meant inappropriate to both derivations, for it is substantially this, that withdrawing from ourselves we turn to God, and laying aside the old, put on a new mind. Wherefore, it seems to me, that repentance may be not inappropriately defined thus: A real conversion of our life unto God, proceeding from sincere and serious fear of God; and consisting in the mortification of our flesh and the old man, and the quickening of the Spirit. In this sense are to be understood all those addresses in which the prophets first, and the apostles afterwards, exhorted the people of their time to repentance. The great object for which they labored was, to fill them with confusion for their sins and dread of the divine judgment, that they might fall down and humble themselves before him whom they had offended, and, with true repentance, retake themselves to the right path. Accordingly, they use indiscriminately in the same sense, the expressions turning, or returning to the Lord; repenting, doing repentance. Whence, also, the sacred history describes it as repentance towards God, when men who disregarded him and wantoned in their lusts begin to obey his word, and are prepared to go whithersoever he may call them. And John Baptist and Paul, under the expression, bringing forth fruits meet for repentance, described a course of life exhibiting and bearing testimony, in all its actions, to such a repentance.

6.

But before proceeding farther, it will be proper to give a clearer exposition of the definition which we have adopted. There are three things, then, principally to be considered in it. First, in the conversion of the life to God, we require a transformation not only in external works, but in the soul itself, which is able only after it has put off its old habits to bring forth fruits conformable to its renovation. The prophet, intending to express this, enjoins those whom he calls to repentance to make them “a new heart and a new spirit,” (Ezek. 38: 31.) Hence Moses, on several occasions, when he would show how the Israelites were to repent and turn to the Lord, tells them that it must be done with the whole heart, and the whole soul, (a mode of expression of frequent recurrence in the prophets,) and by terming it the circumcision of the heart, points to the internal affections. But there is no passage better fitted to teach us the genuine nature of repentance than the following: “If thou wilt return, O Israel, saith the Lord, return unto me.” “Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns. Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart,” (Jer. 4: 1-4.) See how he declares to them that it will be of no avail to commence the study of righteousness unless impiety shall first have been eradicated from their inmost heart. And to malice the deeper impression, he reminds them that they have to do with God, and can gain nothing by deceit, because he hates a double heart. For this reason Isaiah derides the preposterous attempts of hypocrites, who zealously aimed at an external repentance by the observance of ceremonies, but in the meanwhile cared not “to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free,” (Isaiah 58: 6.) In these words he admirably shows wherein the acts of unfeigned repentance consist.

7.

The second part of our definition is, that repentance proceeds from a sincere fear of God. Before the mind of the sinner can be inclined to repentance, he must be aroused by the thought of divine judgment; but when once the thought that God will one day ascend his tribunal to take an account of all words and actions has taken possession of his mind, it will not allow him to rest, or have one moment’s peace, but will perpetually urge him to adopt a different plan of life, that he may be able to stand securely at that judgment-seat. Hence the Scripture, when exhorting to repentance, often introduces the subject of judgment, as in Jeremiah, “Lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings,” (Jer. 4: 4.) Paul, in his discourse to the Athenians says, “The times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: because he has appointed a day in the which he will judge the world in righteousness,” (Acts 17: 30, 31.) The same thing is repeated in several other passages. Sometimes God is declared to be a judge, from the punishments already inflicted, thus leading sinners to reflect that worse awaits them if they do not quickly repent. There is an example of this in the 29th chapter of Deuteronomy. As repentance begins with dread and hatred of sin, the Apostle sets down godly sorrow as one of its causes, (2 Cor. 7: 10.) By godly sorrow he means when we not only tremble at the punishment, but hate and abhor the sin, because we know it is displeasing to God. It is not strange that this should be, for unless we are stung to the quick, the sluggishness of our carnal nature cannot be corrected; nay, no degree of pungency would suffice for our stupor and sloth, did not God lift the rod and strike deeper. There is, moreover, a rebellious spirit which must be broken as with hammers. The stern threatening which God employs are extorted from him by our depraved dispositions. For while we are asleep it were in vain to allure us by soothing measures. Passages to this effect are everywhere to be met with, and I need not quote them. But there is another reason why the fear of God lies at the root of repentance, viz., that though the life of man were possessed of all kinds of virtue, still if they do not bear reference to God, how much soever they may be lauded in the world, they are mere abomination in heaven, inasmuch as it is the principal part of righteousness to render to God that service and honor of which he is impiously defrauded, whenever it is not our express purpose to submit to his authority.

8.

We must now explain the third part of the definition, and show what is meant when we say that repentance consists of two parts, viz., the mortification of the flesh, and the quickening of the Spirit. The prophets, in accommodation to a carnal people, express this in simple and homely terms, but clearly, when they say, “Depart from evil, and do good,” (Ps. 34: 14.) “Wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well; seek judgment; relieve the oppressed,” &c., (Isaiah 1: 16, 17.) In dissuading us from wickedness they demand the entire destruction of the flesh, which is full of perverseness and malice. It is a most difficult and arduous achievement to renounce ourselves, and lay aside our natural disposition. For the flesh must not be thought to be destroyed unless every thing that we have of our own is abolished. But seeing that all the desires of the flesh are enmity against God, (Rom. 8: 7,) the first step to the obedience of his law is the renouncement of our own nature. Renovation is afterwards manifested by the fruits produced by it, viz., justice, judgment, and mercy. Since it were not sufficient duly to perform such acts, were not the mind and heart previously endued with sentiments of justice, judgment, and mercy this is done when the Holy Spirit, instilling his holiness into our souls, so inspired them with new thoughts and affections, that they may justly be regarded as new. And, indeed, as we are naturally averse to God, unless self-denial precede, we shall never tend to that which is right. Hence we are so often enjoined to put off the old man, to renounce the world and the flesh, to forsake our lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of our mind. Moreover, the very name mortification reminds us how difficult it is to forget our former nature, because we hence infer that we cannot be trained to the fear of God, and learn the first principles of piety, unless we are violently smitten with the sword of the Spirit and annihilated, as if God were declaring, that to be ranked among his sons there must be a destruction of our ordinary nature.

9.

Both of these we obtain by union with Christ. For if we have true fellowship in his death, our old man is crucified by his power, and the body of sin becomes dead, so that the corruption of our original nature is never again in full vigor, (Rom. 6: 5, 6.) If we are partakers in his resurrection, we are raised up by means of it to newness of life, which conforms us to the righteousness of God. In one word, then, by repentance I understand regeneration, the only aim of which is to form in us anew the image of God, which was sullied, and all but effaced by the transgression of Adam. So the Apostle teaches when he says, “We all with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord.” Again, “Be renewed in the spirit of your minds” and “put ye on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.” Again, “Put ye on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him.” Accordingly through the blessing of Christ we are renewed by that regeneration into the righteousness of God from which we had fallen through Adam, the Lord being pleased in this manner to restore the integrity of all whom he appoints to the inheritance of life. This renewal, indeed, is not accomplished in a moment, a day, or a year, but by uninterrupted, sometimes even by slow progress God abolishes the remains of carnal corruption in his elect, cleanses them from pollution, and consecrates them as his temples, restoring all their inclinations to real purity, so that during their whole lives they may practice repentance, and know that death is the only termination to this warfare. The greater is the effrontery of an impure raver and apostate, named Staphylus, who pretends that I confound the condition of the present life with the celestial glory, when, after Paul, I make the image of God to consist in righteousness and true holiness; as if in every definition it were not necessary to take the thing defined in its integrity and perfection. It is not denied that there is room for improvement; but what I maintain is, that the nearer any one approaches in resemblance to God, the more does the image of God appear in him. That believers may attain to it, God assigns repentance as the goal towards which they must keep running during the whole course of their lives.

10.

By regeneration the children of God are delivered from the bondage of sin, but not as if they had already obtained full possession of freedom, and no longer felt any annoyance from the flesh. Materials for an unremitting contest remain, that they may be exercised, and not only exercised, but may better understand their weakness. All writers of sound judgment agree in this, that, in the regenerate man, there is still a spring of evil which is perpetually sending forth desires that allure and stimulate him to sin. They also acknowledge that the saints are still so liable to the disease of concupiscence, that, though opposing it, they cannot avoid being ever and anon prompted and incited to lust, avarice, ambition, or other vices. It is unnecessary to spend much time in investigating the sentiments of ancient writers. Augustine alone may suffice, as he has collected all their opinions with great care and fidelity. Any reader who is desirous to know the sense of antiquity may obtain it from him. There is this difference apparently between him and us, that while he admits that believers, so long as they are in the body, are so liable to concupiscence that they cannot but feel it, he does not venture to give this disease the name of sin. He is contented with giving it the name of infirmity, and says, that it only becomes sin when either external act or consent is added to conception or apprehension; that is, when the will yields to the first desire. We again regard it as sin whenever man is influenced in any degree by any desire contrary to the law of God; nay, we maintain that the very gravity which begets in us such desires is sin. Accordingly, we hold that there is always sin in the saints until they are freed from their mortal frame, because depraved concupiscence resides in their flesh, and is at variance with rectitude. Augustine himself dose not always refrain from using the name of sin, as when he says, “Paul gives the name of sin to that carnal concupiscence from which all sins arise. This in regard to the saints loses its dominion in this world, and is destroyed in heaven.” In these words he admits that believers, in so far as they are liable to carnal concupiscence, are chargeable with sin.

11.

When it is said that God purifies his Church, so as to be “holy and without blemish,” (Eph. 5: 26, 27,) that he promises this cleansing by means of baptism, and performs it in his elect, I understand that reference is made to the guilt rather than to the matter of sin. In regenerating his people God indeed accomplishes this much for them; he destroys the dominion of sin, by supplying the agency of the Spirit, which enables them to come off victorious from the contest. Sin, however, though it ceases to reign, ceases not to dwell in them. Accordingly, though we say that the old man is crucified, and the law of sin is abolished in the children of God, (Rom. 6: 6,) the remains of sin survive, not to have dominion, but to humble them under a consciousness of their infirmity. We admit that these remains, just as if they had no existence, are not imputed, but we, at the same time, contend that it is owing to the mercy of God that the saints are not charged with the guilt which would otherwise make them sinners before God. It will not be difficult for us to confirm this view, seeing we can support it by clear passages of Scripture. How can we express our view more plainly than Paul does in Rom. 7: 6? We have elsewhere shown and Augustine by solid reasons proves, that Paul is there speaking in the person of a regenerated man. I say nothing as to his use of the words evil and sin. However those who object to our view may quibble on these words, can any man deny that aversion to the law of God is an evil, and that hindrance to righteousness is sin? In short, who will not admit that there is guilt where there is spiritual misery? But all these things Paul affirms of this disease. Again, the law furnishes us with a clear demonstration by which the whole question may be quickly disposed of. We are enjoined to love God with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our strength. Since all the faculties of our soul ought thus to be engrossed with the love of God, it is certain that the commandment is not fulfilled by those who receive the smallest desire into their heart, or admit into their minds any thought whatever which may lead them away from the love of God to vanity. What then? Is it not through the faculties of mind that we are assailed with sudden motions, that we perceive sensual, or form conceptions of mental objects? Since these faculties give admission to vain and wicked thoughts, do they not show that to that extent they are devoid of the love of God? He, then, who admits not that all the desires of the flesh are sins, and that that disease of concupiscence, which they call a stimulus, is a fountain of sin, must of necessity deny that the transgression of the law is sin.

12.

If any one thinks it absurd thus to condemn all the desires by which man is naturally affected, seeing they have been implanted by God the author of nature, we answer, that we by no means condemn those appetites which God so implanted in the mind of man at his first creation, that they cannot be eradicated without destroying human nature itself, but only the violent lawless movements which war with the order of God. But as, in consequence of the corruption of nature, all our faculties are so vitiated and corrupted, that a perpetual disorder and excess is apparent in all our actions, and as the appetites cannot be separated from this excess, we maintain that therefore they are vicious; or, to give the substance in fewer words, we hold that all human desires are evil, and we charge them with sin not in as far as they are natural, but because they are inordinate, and inordinate because nothing pure and upright can proceed from a corrupt and polluted nature. Nor does Augustine depart from this doctrine in reality so much as in appearance. From an excessive dread of the invidious charge with which the Pelagians assailed him, he sometimes refrains from using the term sin in this sense; but when he says (ad Bonif.) that the law of sin remaining in the saints, the guilt only is taken away, he shows clearly enough that his view is not very different from ours.

13.

We will produce some other passages to make it more apparent what his sentiments were. In his second book against Julian, he says, “This law of sin is both remitted in spiritual regeneration and remains in the mortal flesh; remitted, because the guilt is forgiven in the sacrament by which believers are regenerated, and yet remains, inasmuch as it produces desires against which believers fight.” Again, “Therefore the law of sin (which was in the members of this great Apostle also) is forgiven in baptism, not ended.” Again, “The law of sin, the guilt of which, though remaining, is forgiven in baptism, Ambrose called iniquity, for it is iniquitous for the flesh to lust against the Spirit.” Again, “Sin is dead in the guilt by which it bound us; and until it is cured by the perfection of burial, though dead it rebels.” In the fifth book he says still more plainly, “As blindness of heart is the sin by which God is not believed; and the punishment of sin, by which a proud heart is justly punished; and the cause of sin, when through the error of a blinded heart any evil is committed: so the lust of the flesh, against which the good Spirit wars, is also sin, because disobedient to the authority of the mind; and the punishment of sin, because the recompense rendered for disobedience; and the cause of sin, consenting by revolt or springing up through contamination.” He here without ambiguity calls it sin, because the Pelagian heresy being now refuted, and the sound doctrine confirmed, he was less afraid of calumny. Thus, also, in his forty-first Homily on John, where he speaks his own sentiments without controversy, he says, “If with the flesh you serve the law of sin, do what the Apostle himself says, ‘Let not sin, therefore, reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof,’ (Rom. 6: 12.) He does not say, Let it not be, but Let it not reign. As long as you live there must be sin in your members; but at least let its dominion be destroyed; do not what it orders.” Those who maintain that concupiscence is not sin, are wont to found on the passage of James, “Then, when lust has conceived, it bringeth forth sin,” (James 1: 15.) But this is easily refuted: for unless we understand him as speaking only of wicked works or actual sins, even a wicked inclination will not be accounted sin. But from his calling crimes and wicked deeds the fruits of lust, and also giving them the name of sins, it does not follow that the lust itself is not an evil, and in the sight of God deserving of condemnation.

14.

Some Anabaptists in the present age mistake some indescribable sort of frenzied excess for the regeneration of the Spirit, holding that the children of God are restored to a state of innocence, and, therefore, need give themselves no anxiety about curbing the lust of the flesh; that they have the Spirit for their guide, and under his agency never err. It would be incredible that the human mind could proceed to such insanity, did they not openly and exultingly give utterance to their dogma. It is indeed monstrous, and yet it is just, that those who have resolved to turn the word of God into a lie, should thus be punished for their blasphemous audacity. Is it indeed true, that all distinction between base and honorable, just and unjust, good and evil, virtue and vice, is abolished? The distinction, they say, is from the curse of the old Adam, and from this we are exempted by Christ. There will be no difference, then, between whoredom and chastity, sincerity and craft, truth and falsehood, justice and robbery. Away with vain fear! (they say,) the Spirit will not bid you do any thing that is wrong, provided you sincerely and boldly leave yourself to his agency. Who is not amazed at such monstrous doctrines? And yet this philosophy is popular with those who, blinded by insane lusts, have thrown off common sense. But what kind of Christ, pray, do they fabricate? what kind of Spirit do they belch forth? We acknowledge one Christ, and his one Spirit, whom the prophets foretold and the Gospel proclaims as actually manifested, but we hear nothing of this kind respecting him. That Spirit is not the patron of murder, adultery, drunkenness, pride, contention, avarice, and fraud, but the author of love, chastity, sobriety, modesty, peace, moderation, and truth. He is not a Spirit of giddiness, rushing rashly and precipitately, without regard to right and wrong, but full of wisdom and understanding, by which he can duly distinguish between justice and injustice. He instigates not to lawless and unrestrained licentiousness, but, discriminating between lawful and unlawful, teaches temperance and moderation. But why dwell longer in refuting that brutish frenzy? To Christians the Spirit of the Lord is not a turbulent phantom, which they themselves have produced by dreaming, or received ready-made by others; but they religiously seek the knowledge of him from Scripture, where two things are taught concerning him; first, that he is given to us for sanctification, that he may purge us from all iniquity and defilement, and bring us to the obedience of divine righteousness, an obedience which cannot exist unless the lusts to which these men would give loose reins are tamed and subdued; secondly that though purged by his sanctification, we are still beset by many vices and much weakness, so long as we are enclosed in the prison of the body. Thus it is, that placed at a great distance from perfection, we must always be endeavoring to make some progress, and daily struggling with the evil by which we are entangled. Hence, too, it follows, that, shaking off sloth and security, we must be intently vigilant, so as not to be taken unawares in the snares of our flesh; unless, indeed, we presume to think that we have made greater progress than the Apostle, who was buffeted by a messenger of Satan, in order that his strength might be perfected in weakness,, and who gives in his own person a true, not a fictitious representation, of the strife between the Spirit and the flesh, (2 Cor. 12: 7, 9; Rom. 7: 6.)

15.

The Apostle, in his description of repentance, (2 Cor. 7: 2,) enumerates seven causes, effects, or parts belonging to it, and that on the best grounds. These are carefulness, excuse, indignation fear, desire, zeal, revenge. It should not excite surprise that I venture not to determine whether they ought to be regarded as causes or effects: both views may be maintained. They may also be called affections conjoined with repentance; but as Paul’s meaning may be ascertained without entering into any of these questions, we shall be contented with a simple exposition. He says then that godly sorrow produces carefulness. He who is really dissatisfied with himself for sinning against his God, is, at the same time, stimulated to care and attention, that he may completely disentangle himself from the chains of the devil, and keep a better guard against his snares, so as not afterwards to lose the guidance of the Holy Spirit, or be overcome by security. Next comes excuse, which in this place means not defense, in which the sinner to escape the judgment of God either denies his fault or extenuates it, but apologizing, which trusts more to intercession than to the goodness of the cause; just as children not altogether abandoned, while they acknowledge and confess their errors yet employ deprecation; and to make room for it, testify, by every means in their power, that they have by no means cast off the reverence which they owe to their parents; in short, endeavor by excuse not to prove themselves righteous and innocent, but only to obtain pardon. Next follows indignation, under which the sinner inwardly murmurs expostulates, and is offended with himself on recognizing his perverseness and ingratitude to God. By the term fear is meant that trepidation which takes possession of our minds whenever we consider both what we have deserved, and the fearful severity of the divine anger against sinners. Accordingly, the exceeding disquietude which we must necessarily feel, both trains us to humility and makes us more cautious for the future. But if the carefulness or anxiety which he first mentioned is the result of fear, the connection between the two becomes obvious. Desire seems to me to be used as equivalent to diligence in duty, and alacrity in doing service, to which the sense of our misdeeds ought to be a powerful stimulus. To this also pertains zeal, which immediately follows; for it signifies the ardor with which we are inflamed when such goads as these are applied to us. “What have I done? Into what abyss had I fallen had not the mercy of God prevented?” The last of all is revenge, for the stricter we are with ourselves, and the severer the censure we pass upon our sins, the more ground we have to hope for the divine favor and mercy. And certainly when the soul is overwhelmed with a dread of divine judgment, it cannot but act the part of an avenger in inflicting punishment upon itself. Pious men, doubtless, feel that there is punishment in the shame, confusion, groans, self-displeasure, and other feelings produced by a serious review of their sins. Let us remember, however, that moderation must be used, so that we may not be overwhelmed with sadness, there being nothing to which trembling consciences are more prone than to rush into despair. This, too, is one of Satan’s artifices. Those whom he sees thus overwhelmed with fear he plunges deeper and deeper into the abyss of sorrow, that they may never again rise. It is true that the fear which ends in humility without relinquishing the hope of pardon cannot be in excess. And yet we must always beware, according to the apostolic injunction, of giving way to extreme dread, as this tends to make us shun God while he is calling us to himself by repentance. Wherefore, the advice of Bernard is good, “Grief for sins is necessary, but must not be perpetual. My advice is to turn back at times from sorrow and the anxious remembrance of your ways, and escape to the plain, to a calm review of the divine mercies. Let us mingle honey with wormwood, that the salubrious bitter may give health when we drink it tempered with a mixture of sweetness: while you think humbly of yourselves, think also of the goodness of the Lord,” (Bernard in Cant. Serm. 11.)

16.

We can now understand what are the fruits of repentance; viz., offices of piety towards God, and love towards men, general holiness and purity of life. In short, the more a man studies to conform his life to the standard of the divine law, the surer signs he gives of his repentance. Accordingly, the Spirit, in exhorting us to repentance, brings before us at one time each separate precept of the law; at another the duties of the second table; although there are also passages in which, after condemning impurity in its fountain in the heart, he afterwards descends to external marks, by which repentance is proved to be sincere. A portraiture of this I will shortly set before the eye of the reader when I come to describe the Christian life, (infra, chapter 6) I will not here collect the passages from the prophets in which they deride the frivolous observances of those who labour to appease God with ceremonies, and show that they are mere mockery; or those in which they show that outward integrity of conduct is not the chief part of repentance, seeing that God looks at the heart. Any one moderately versant in Scripture will understand by himself, without being reminded by others, that when he has to do with God, nothing is gained without beginning with the internal affections of the heart. There is a passage of Joel which will avail not a little for the understanding of others: “Rend your heart, and not your garments,” (Joel 2: 13.) Both are also briefly expressed by James in these words: “Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double-minded,” (James 4: 8.) Here, indeed, the accessory is set down first; but the source and principle is afterwards pointed out, - viz., that hidden defilements must be wiped away, and an altar erected to God in the very heart. There are, moreover, certain external exercises which we employ in private as remedies to humble us and tame our flesh, and in public, to testify our repentance. These have their origin in that revenge of which Paul speaks, (2 Cor. 7: 2,) for when the mind is distressed, it naturally expresses itself in sackcloth, groans, and tears, shuns ornament and every kind of show, and abandons all delights. Then he who feels how great an evil the rebellion of the flesh is, tries every means of curbing it. Besides, he who considers aright how grievous a thing it is to have offended the justice of God, cannot rest until, in his humility, he have given glory to God. Such exercises are often mentioned by ancient writers when they speak of the fruits of repentance. But although they by no means place the power of repentance in them, yet my readers must pardon me for saying what I think—they certainly seem to insist on them more than is right. Any one who judiciously considers the matter will, I trust, agree with me that they have exceeded in two ways; first, by so strongly urging and extravagantly commending that corporal discipline, they indeed succeeded in making the people embrace it with greater zeal; but they in a manner obscured what they should have regarded as of much more serious moment. Secondly, the inflictions which they enjoined were considerably more rigorous than ecclesiastical mildness demands, as will be elsewhere shown.

17.

But as there are some who, from the frequent mention of sackcloth, fasting, and tears, especially in Joel, (2: 12,) think that these constitute the principal part of repentance, we must dispel their delusion. In that passage the proper part of repentance is described by the words, “turn ye even to me with your whole heart;” “rend your heart, and not your garments.” The “fastings”, “weeping,” and “mourning,” are introduced not as invariable or necessary effects, but as special circumstances. Having foretold that most grievous disasters were impending over the Jews, he exhorts them to turn away the divine anger not only by repenting, but by giving public signs of sorrow. For as a criminal, to excite the commiseration of the judge, appears in a supplicating posture, with a long beard, uncombed hair, and coarse clothing, so should those who are charged at the judgment-seat of God deprecate his severity in a garb of wretchedness. But although sackcloth and ashes were perhaps more conformable to the customs of these times, yet it is plain that weeping and fasting are very appropriate in our case whenever the Lord threatens us with any defeat or calamity. In presenting the appearance of danger, he declares that he is preparing, and, in a manner, arming himself for vengeance. Rightly, therefore, does the Prophet exhort those, on whose crimes he had said a little before that vengeance was to be executed, to weeping and fasting,—that is, to the mourning habit of criminals. Nor in the present day do ecclesiastical teachers act improperly when, seeing ruin hanging over the necks of their people, they call aloud on them to hasten with weeping and fasting: only they must always urge, with greater care and earnestness, “rend your hearts, and not your garments.” It is beyond doubt that fasting is not always a concomitant of repentance, but is specially destined for seasons of calamity. Hence our Savior connects it with mourning, (Matth. 9: 15,) and relieves the Apostles of the necessity of it until, by being deprived of his presence, they were filled with sorrow. I speak of formal fasting. For the life of Christians ought ever to be tempered with frugality and sobriety, so that the whole course of it should present some appearance of fasting. As this subject will be fully discussed when the discipline of the Church comes to be considered, I now dwell less upon it.

18.

This much, however, I will add: when the name repentance is applied to the external profession, it is used improperly, and not in the genuine meaning as I have explained it. For that is not so much a turning unto God as the confession of a fault accompanied with deprecation of the sentence and punishment. Thus to repent in sackcloth and ashes, (Matth. 11: 21; Luke 10: 13,) is just to testify self dissatisfaction when God is angry with us for having grievously offended him. It is, indeed, a kind of public confession by which, condemning ourselves before angels and the world, we prevent the judgment of God. For Paul, rebuking the sluggishness of those who indulge in their sins, says, “If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged,” (1 Cor. 11: 31.) It is not always necessary, however, openly to inform others, and make them the witnesses of our repentance; but to confess privately to God is a part of true repentance which cannot be omitted. Nothing were more incongruous than that God should pardon the sins in which we are flattering ourselves, and hypocritically cloaking that he may not bring them to light. We must not only confess the sins which we daily commit, but more grievous lapses ought to carry us farther, and bring to our remembrance things which seemed to have been long ago buried. Of this David sets an example before us in his own person, (Ps. 51.) Filled with shame for a recent crime he examines himself, going back to the womb, and acknowledging that even then he was corrupted and defiled. This he does not to extenuate his fault, as many hide themselves in the crowd, and catch at impunity by involving others along with them. Very differently does David, who ingenuously makes it an aggravation of his sin, that being corrupted from his earliest infancy he ceased not to add iniquity to iniquity. In another passage, also, he takes a survey of his past life, and implores God to pardon the errors of his youth, (Ps. 25: 7.) And, indeed, we shall not prove that we have thoroughly shaken off our stupor until, groaning under the burden, and lamenting our sad condition, we seek relief from God. It is, moreover to be observed, that the repentance which we are enjoined assiduously to cultivate, differs from that which raises, as it were, from death those who had fallen more shamefully, or given themselves up to sin without restraint, or by some kind of open revolt, had thrown off the authority of God. For Scripture, in exhorting to repentance, often speaks of it as a passage from death unto life, and when relating that a people had repented, means that they had abandoned idolatry, and other forms of gross wickedness. For which reason Paul denounces woe to sinners, “who have not repented of the uncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness which they have committed,” (2 Cor. 12: 21.) This distinction ought to be carefully observed, lest when we hear of a few individuals having been summoned to repent we indulge in supine security, as if we had nothing to do with the mortification of the flesh; whereas, in consequence of the depraved desires which are always enticing us, and the iniquities which are ever and anon springing from them, it must engage our unremitting care. The special repentance enjoined upon those whom the devil has entangled in deadly snares, and withdrawn from the fear of God, does not abolish that ordinary repentance which the corruption of nature obliges us to cultivate during the whole course of our lives.

19.

Moreover if it is true, and nothing can be more certain, than that a complete summary of the Gospel is included under these two heads, viz., repentance and the remission of sins, do we not see that the Lord justifies his people freely, and at the same time renews them to true holiness by the sanctification of his Spirit? John, the messenger sent before the face of Christ to prepare his ways, proclaimed, “repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,” (Matth. 11: 10; 3: 2.) By inviting them to repentance, he urged them to acknowledge that they were sinners, and in all respects condemned before God, that thus they might be induced earnestly to seek the mortification of the flesh, and a new birth in the Spirit. By announcing the kingdom of God he called for faith, since by the kingdom of God which he declared to be at hand, he meant forgiveness of sins, salvation, life, and every other blessing which we obtain in Christ; wherefore we read in the other Evangelists, “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins,” (Mark 1: 4; Luke 3: 3.) What does this mean, but that, weary and oppressed with the burden of sin, they should turn to the Lord, and entertain hopes of forgiveness and salvation? Thus, too, Christ began his preaching, “The kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the Gospel,” (Mark 1: 10.) First, he declares that the treasures of the divine mercy were opened in him; next, he enjoins repentance; and, lastly, he encourages confidence in the promises of God. Accordingly, when intending to give a brief summary of the whole Gospel, he said that he behaved “to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations,” (Luke 24: 26, 46.) In like manner, after his resurrection the Apostles preached, “Him has God exalted with his right hand, to be a Prince and a Savior, for to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins,” (Acts 5: 31.) repentance is preached in the name of Christ, when men learn, through the doctrines of the Gospel, that all their thoughts, affections, and pursuits, are corrupt and vicious; and that, therefore, if they would enter the kingdom of God they must be born again. Forgiveness of sins is preached when men are taught that Christ “is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption,” (1 Cor. 1: 30,) that on his account they are freely deemed righteous and innocent in the sight of God. Though both graces are obtained by faith, (as has been shown elsewhere,) yet as the goodness of God, by which sins are forgiven, is the proper object of faith, it was proper carefully to distinguish it from repentance.

20.

Moreover, as hatred of sin, which is the beginning of repentance, first gives us access to the knowledge of Christ, who manifests himself to none but miserable and afflicted sinners, groaning, laboring, burdened, hungry, and thirsty, pining away with grief and wretchedness, so if we would stand in Christ, we must aim at repentance, cultivate it during our whole lives, and continue it to the last. Christ came to call sinners, but to call them to repentance. He was sent to bless the unworthy, but by “turning away every one” “from his iniquities.” The Scripture is full of similar passages. Hence, when God offers forgiveness of sins, he in return usually stipulates for repentance, intimating that his mercy should induce men to repent. “Keep ye judgment,” saith he, “and do justice: for my salvation is near to come.” Again, “The Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob.” Again, “Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near. Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him.” “Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.” Here, however, it is to be observed, that repentance is not made a condition in such a sense as to be a foundation for meriting pardon; nay, it rather indicates the end at which they must aim if they would obtain favor, God having resolved to take pity on men for the express purpose of leading them to repent. Therefore, so long as we dwell in the prison of the body, we must constantly struggle with the vices of our corrupt nature, and so with our natural disposition. Plato sometimes says, that the life of the philosopher is to meditate on death. More truly may we say, that the life of a Christian man is constant study and exercise in mortifying the flesh, until it is certainly slain, and the Spirit of God obtains dominion in us. Wherefore, he seems to me to have made most progress who has learned to be most dissatisfied with himself. He does not, however, remain in the miry clay without going forward; but rather hastens and sighs after God, that, ingrafted both into the death and the life of Christ, he may constantly meditate on repentance. Unquestionably those who have a genuine hatred of sin cannot do otherwise: for no man ever hated sin without being previously enamored of righteousness. This view, as it is the simplest of all, seemed to me also to accord best with Scripture truth.

21.

Moreover, that repentance is a special gift of God, I trust is too well understood from the above doctrine to require any lengthened discourse. Hence the Church’ extols the goodness of God, and looks on in wonder, saying, “Then has God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life,” (Acts 11: 18;) and Paul enjoining Timothy to deal meekly and patiently with unbelievers, says, “If God per adventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil,” (2 Tim. 2: 25, 26.) God indeed declares, that he would have all men to repent, and addresses exhortations in common to all; their efficacy, however, depends on the Spirit of regeneration. It were easier to create us at first, than for us by our own strength to acquire a more excellent nature. Wherefore, in regard to the whole process of regeneration, it is not without cause we are called God’s “workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them,” (Eph. 2: 10.2) Those whom God is pleased to rescue from death, he quickens by the Spirit of regeneration; not that repentance is properly the cause of salvation, but because, as already seen, it is inseparable from the faith and mercy of God; for, as Isaiah declares, “The Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob.” This, indeed, is a standing truth, that wherever the fear of God is in vigor, the Spirit has been carrying on his saving work. Hence, in Isaiah, while believers complain and lament that they have been forsaken of God, they set down the supernatural hardening of the heart as a sign of reprobation. The Apostle, also, intending to exclude apostates from the hope of salvation, states, as the reason, that it is impossible to renew them to repentance, (Heb. 6: 6;) that is, God by renewing those whom he wills not to perish, gives them a sign of paternal favor, and in a manner attracts them to himself, by the beams of a calm and reconciled countenance; on the other hand, by hardening the reprobate, whose impiety is not to be forgiven, he thunders against them. This kind of vengeance the Apostle denounces against voluntary apostates, (Heb. 10: 29,) who, in falling away from the faith of the gospel, mock God, insultingly reject his favor, profane and trample under foot the blood of Christ, nay, as far as in them lies, crucify him afresh. Still, he does not, as some austere persons preposterously insist, leave no hope of pardon to voluntary sins, but shows that apostasy being altogether without excuse, it is not strange that God is inexorably rigorous in punishing sacrilegious contempt thus shown to himself. For, in the same Epistle, he says, that “it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away to renew them again to repentance, seeing they crucify the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame,” (Heb. 7: 4-6.) And in another passage, “If we sin willingly, after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment,” &c. (Heb. 11: 25, 26.) There are other passages, from a misinterpretation of which the Novatians of old extracted materials for their heresy; so much so, that some good men taking offense at their harshness, have deemed the Epistle altogether spurious, though it truly savors in every part of it of the apostolic spirit. But as our dispute is only with those who receive the Epistle, it is easy to show that those passages give no support to their error. First, the Apostle must of necessity agree with his Master, who declares, that “all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men,” “neither in this world, neither in the world to come,” (Matth. 12: 31; Luke 12: 10.) We must hold that this was the only exception which the Apostle recognized, unless we would set him in opposition to the grace of God. Hence it follows, that to no sin is pardon denied save to one, which proceeding from desperate fury cannot be ascribed to infirmity, and plainly shows that the man guilty of it is possessed by the devil.

22.

Here, however, it is proper to consider what the dreadful iniquity is which is not to be pardoned. The definition which Augustine somewhere gives,—viz., that it is obstinate perverseness, with distrust of pardon, continued till death,—scarcely agrees with the words of Christ, that it shall not be forgiven in this world. For either this is said in vain, or it may be committed in this world. But if Augustine’s definition is correct, the sin is not committed unless persisted in till death. Others say, that the sin against the Holy Spirit consists in envying the grace conferred upon a brother; but I know not on what it is founded. Here, however, let us give the true definition, which, when once it is established by sound evidence, will easily of itself overturn all the others. I say therefore that he sins against the Holy Spirit who, while so constrained by the power of divine truth that he cannot plead ignorance, yet deliberately resists, and that merely for the sake of resisting. For Christ, in explanation of what he had said, immediately adds, “Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him,” (Matth. 12: 31.) And Matthew uses the term spirit of blasphemy for blasphemy against the Spirit. How can any one insult the Son, without at the same time attacking the Spirit? In this way. Those who in ignorance assail the unknown truth of God, and yet are so disposed that they would be unwilling to extinguish the truth of God when manifested to them, or utter one word against him whom they knew to be the Lord’s Anointed, sin against the Father and the Son. Thus there are many in the present day who have the greatest abhorrence to the doctrine of the Gospel, and yet, if they knew it to be the doctrine of the Gospel, would be prepared to venerate it with their whole heart. But those who are convinced in conscience that what they repudiate and impugn is the word of God, and yet cease not to impugn it, are said to blaspheme against the Spirit, inasmuch as they struggle against the illumination which is the work of the Spirit. Such were some of the Jews, who, when they could not resist the Spirit speaking by Stephen, yet were bent on resisting, (Acts 6: 10.) There can be no doubt that many of them were carried away by zeal for the law; but it appears that there were others who maliciously and impiously raged against God himself, that is, against the doctrine which they knew to be of God. Such, too, were the Pharisees, on whom our Lord denounced woe. To depreciate the power of the Holy Spirit, they defamed him by the name of Beelzebub, (Matth. 9: 3, 4; 12: 24.) The spirit of blasphemy, therefore, is, when a man audaciously, and of set purpose, rushes forth to insult his divine name. This Paul intimates when he says, “but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief;” otherwise he had deservedly been held unworthy of the grace of God. If ignorance joined with unbelief made him obtain pardon, it follows, that there is no room for pardon when knowledge is added to unbelief.

23.

If you attend properly, you will perceive that the Apostle speaks not of one particular lapse or two, but of the universal revolt by which the reprobate renounce salvation. It is not strange that God should be implacable to those whom John, in his Epistle, declares not to have been of the elect, from whom they went out, (1 John 2: 19.) For he is directing his discourse against those who imagined that they could return to the Christian religion though they had once revolted from it. To divest them of this false and pernicious opinion, he says, as is most true, that those who had once knowingly and willingly cast off fellowship with Christ, had no means of returning to it. It is not, however so cast off by those who merely, by the dissoluteness of their lives, transgress the word of the Lord, but by those who avowedly reject his whole doctrine. There is a paralogism in the expression casting off and sinning. Casting off, as interpreted by the Novatians, is when any one, notwithstanding of being taught by the Law of the Lord not to steal or commit adultery, refrains not from theft or adultery. On the contrary, I hold that there is a tacit antithesis, in which all the things, contrary to those which had been said, must be held to be repeated, so that the thing expressed is not some particular vice, but universal aversion to God, and (so to speak) the apostasy of the whole man. Therefore, when he speaks of those falling away “who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted of the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,” we must understand him as referring to those who, with deliberate impiety, have quenched the light of the Spirit, tasted of the heavenly word and spurned it, alienated themselves from the sanctification of the Spirit, and trampled under foot the word of God and the powers of a world to come. The better to show that this was the species of impiety intended, he afterwards expressly adds the term willfully. For when he says, “If we sin willfully, after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,” he denies not that Christ is a perpetual victim to expiate the transgressions of saints, (this the whole Epistle, in explaining the priesthood of Christ, distinctly proclaims,) but he says that there remains no other sacrifice after this one is abandoned. And it is abandoned when the truth of the Gospel is professedly abjured.

24.

To some it seems harsh, and at variance with the divine mercy, utterly to deny forgiveness to any who retake themselves to it. This is easily disposed of. It is not said that pardon will be refused if they turn to the Lord, but it is altogether denied that they can turn to repentance, inasmuch as for their ingratitude they are struck by the just judgment of God with eternal blindness. There is nothing contrary to this in the application which is afterwards made of the example of Esau, who tried in vain, by crying and tears, to recover his lost birthright; nor in the denunciation of the Prophet, “They cried, and I would not hear.” Such modes of expression do not denote true conversion or calling upon God, but that anxiety with which the wicked, when in calamity, are compelled to see what they before securely disregarded, viz., that nothing can avail but the assistance of the Lord. This, however, they do not so much implore as lament the loss of. Hence all that the Prophet means by crying, and the apostle by tears, is the dreadful torment which stings and excruciates the wicked in despair. It is of consequence carefully to observe this: for otherwise God would be inconsistent with himself when he proclaims through the Prophet, that “If the wicked will turn from all his sins that he has committed,"—"he shall surely live, he shall not die,” (Ezek. 18: 21, 22.) And (as I have already said) it is certain that the mind of man cannot be changed for the better unless by his preventing grace. The promise as to those who call upon him will never fail; but the names of conversion and prayer are improperly given to that blind torment by which the reprobate are distracted when they see that they must seek God if they would find a remedy for their calamities, and yet shun to approach him.

25.

But as the Apostle declares that God is not appeased by feigned repentance, it is asked how Ahab obtained pardon, and averted the punishment denounced against him, (1 Kings 21: 28, 29,) seeing, it appears, he was only amazed on the sudden, and afterwards continued his former course of life. He, indeed, clothed himself in sackcloth, covered himself with ashes, lay on the ground, and (as the testimony given to him bears) humbled himself before God. It was a small matter to rend his garments while his heart continued obstinate and swollen with wickedness, and yet we see that God was inclined to mercy. I answer, that though hypocrites are thus occasionally spared for a time, the wrath of God still lies upon them, and that they are thus spared not so much on their own account as for a public example. For what did Ahab gain by the mitigation of his punishment except that he did not suffer it alive on the earth? The curse of God, though concealed, was fixed on his house, and he himself went to eternal destruction. We may see the same thing in Esau, (Gen. 27: 38, 39.) For though he met with a refusal, a temporal blessing was granted to his tears. But as, according to the declaration of God, the spiritual inheritance could be possessed only by one of the brothers, when Jacob was selected instead of Esau, that event excluded him from the divine mercy; but still there was given to him, as a man of a groveling nature, this consolation, that he should be filled with the fulness of the earth and the dew of heaven. And this, as I lately said, should be regarded as done for the example of others, that we may learn to apply our minds, and exert ourselves with greater alacrity, in the way of sincere repentance, as there cannot be the least doubt that God will be ready to pardon those who turn to him truly and with the heart, seeing his mercy extends even to the unworthy though they bear marks of his displeasure. In this way also, we are taught how dreadful the judgment is which awaits all the rebellious who with audacious brow and iron heart make it their sport to despise and disregard the divine threatening. God in this way often stretched forth his hand to deliver the Israelites from their calamities, though their cries were pretended, and their minds double and perfidious, as he himself complains in the Psalms, that they immediately returned to their former course, (Psalm 78: 36, 37.) But he designed thus by kindness and forbearance to bring them to true repentance, or leave them without excuse. And yet by remitting the punishment for a time, he does not lay himself under any perpetual obligation. He rather at times rises with greater severity against hypocrites, and doubles their punishment, that it may thereby appear how much hypocrisy displeases him. But, as I have observed, he gives some examples of his inclination to pardon, that the pious may thereby be stimulated to amend their lives, and the pride of those who petulantly kick against the pricks be more severely condemned.

CHAPTER 4. PENITENCE, AS EXPLAINED IN THE SOPHISTICAL JARGON OF THE SCHOOLMEN, WIDELY DIFFERENT FROM THE PURITY REQUIRED BY THE GOSPEL. OF CONFESSION AND SATISFACTION.

The divisions of this chapter are,—

I. The orthodox doctrine of repentance being already expounded, the false doctrine is refuted in the present chapter; a general summary survey being at the same time taken of the doctrine of the Schoolmen, sec. 1, 2.

II. Its separate parts are afterwards examined. Contrition, sec. 2 and 3. Confession, sec. 4-20. Sanctification, from sec. 20 to the end of the chapter.

Sections.

1. Errors of the Schoolmen in delivering the doctrine of repentance.

1. Errors in defining it. Four different definitions considered.

2. Absurd division.

3. Vain and puzzling questions.

4. Mode in which they entangle themselves.

2. The false doctrine of the Schoolmen necessary to be refuted. Of contrition. Their view of it examined.

3. True and genuine contrition.

4. Auricular confession. Whether or not of divine authority. Arguments of Canonists and Schoolmen. Allegorical argument founded on Judaism. Two answers. Reason why Christ sent the lepers to the priests.

5. Another allegorical argument. Answer.

6. A third argument from two passages of Scripture. These passages expounded.

7. Confession proved not to be of divine authority. The use of it free for almost twelve hundred years after Christ. Its nature. When enacted into a law. Confirmation from the history of the Church. A representation of the ancient auricular confession still existing among the Papists, to bear judgment against them. Confession abolished in the Church of Constantinople.

8. This mode of confession disapproved by Chrysostom, as shown by many passages.

9. False confession being thus refuted, the confession enjoined by the word of God is considered. Mistranslation in the old version. Proof from Scripture that confession should be directed to God alone.

10. Effect of secret confession thus made to God. Another kind of confession made to men.

11. Two forms of the latter confession, viz., public and private. Public confession either ordinary or extraordinary. Use of each. Objection to confession and public prayer. Answer.

12. Private confession of two kinds.

1. On our own account.

2. On account of our neighbor. Use of the former. Great assistance to be obtained from faithful ministers of the Church. Mode of procedure. Caution to be used.

13. The use of the latter recommended by Christ. What comprehended under it. Scripture sanctions no other method of confession.

14. The power of the keys exercised in these three kinds of confession. The utility of this power in regard to public confession and absolution. Caution to be observed.

15. Popish errors respecting confession.

1. In enjoining on all the necessity of confessing every sin.

2. Fictitious keys.

3. Pretended mandate to loose and bind.

4. To whom the office of loosing and binding committed.

16. Refutation of the first error, from the impossibility of so confessing, as proved by the testimony of David.

17. Refuted farther from the testimony of conscience. Impossible to observe this most rigid obligation. Necessarily leads to despair or indifference. Confirmation of the preceding remarks by an appeal to conscience.

18. Another refutation of the first error from analogy. Sum of the whole refutation. Third refutation, laying down the surest rule of confession. Explanation of the rule. Three objections answered.

19. Fourth objection, viz., that auricular confession does no harm, and is even useful. Answer, unfolding the hypocrisy, falsehood, impiety, and monstrous abominations of the patrons of this error.

20. Refutation of the second error.

1. Priests not successors of the Apostles.

2. They have not the Holy Spirit, who alone is arbiter of the keys.

21. Refutation of the third error.

1. They are ignorant of the command and promise of Christ. By abandoning the word of God they run into innumerable absurdities.

22. Objection to the refutation of the third error. Answers, reducing the Papists to various absurdities.

23. Refutation of the fourth error.

1. Petitio principii.

2. Inversion of ecclesiastical discipline.

Three objections answered.

24. Conclusion of the whole discussion against this fictitious confession.

25. Of satisfaction, to which the Sophists assign the third place in repentance. Errors and falsehoods. These views opposed by the terms,—

1. Forgiveness.

2. Free forgiveness.

3. God destroying iniquities.

4. By and on account of Christ. No need of our satisfaction.

26. Objection, confining the grace and efficacy of Christ within narrow limits. Answers by both John the Evangelist and John the Baptist. Consequence of these answers.

27. Two points violated by the fiction of satisfaction. First, the honor of Christ impaired. Secondly, the conscience cannot find peace. Objection, confining the forgiveness of sins to Catechumens, refuted.

28. Objection, founded on the arbitrary distinction between venial and mortal sins. This distinction insulting to God and repugnant to Scripture. Answer, showing the true distinction in regard to venial sin.

29. Objection, founded on a distinction between guilt and the punishment of it. Answer, illustrated by various passages of Scripture. Admirable saying of Augustine.

30. Answer, founded on a consideration of the efficacy of Christ’s death, and the sacrifices under the law. Our true satisfaction.

31. An objection, perverting six passages of Scripture. Preliminary observations concerning a twofold judgment on the part of God.

1. For punishment.

2. For correction.

32. Two distinctions hence arising. Objection, that God is often angry with his elect. Answer, God in afflicting his people does not take his mercy from them. This confirmed by his promise, by Scripture, and the uniform experience of the Church. Distinction between the reprobate and the elect in regard to punishment.

33. Second distinction. The punishment of the reprobate a commencement of the eternal punishment awaiting them; that of the elect designed to bring them to repentance. This confirmed by passages of Scripture and of the Fathers.

34. Two uses of this doctrine to the believer. In affliction he can believe that God, though angry, is still favourable to him. In the punishment of the reprobate, he sees a prelude to their final doom.

35. Objection, as to the punishment of David, answered. Why all men here subjected to chastisement.

36. Objections, founded on five other passages, answered.

37. Answer continued.

38. Objection, founded on passages in the Fathers. Answer, with passages from Chrysostom and Augustine.

39. These satisfactions had reference to the peace of the Church, and not to the throne of God. The Schoolmen have perverted the meaning of some absurd statements by obscure monks.

1.

I come now to an examination of what the scholastic sophists teach concerning repentance. This I will do as briefly as possible; for I leave no intention to take up every point, lest this work, which I am desirous to frame as a compendium of doctrine, should exceed all bounds. They have managed to envelop a matter, otherwise not much involved, in so many perplexities, that it will be difficult to find an outlet if once you get plunged but a little way into their mire. And, first, in giving a definition, they plainly show they never understood what repentance means. For they fasten on some expressions in the writings of the Fathers which are very far from expressing the nature of repentance. For instance, that to repent is to deplore past sins and not commit what is to be deplored. Again that it is to bewail past evils and not to sin to do what is to be bewailed. Again, that it is a kind of grieving revenge, punishing in itself what it grieves to have committed. Again, that it is sorrow of heart and bitterness of soul for the evils which the individual has committed, or to which he has consented. Supposing we grant that these things were well said by Fathers, (though, if one were inclined to dispute, it were not difficult to deny it,) they were not, however said with the view of describing repentance but only of exhorting penitents not again to fall into the same faults from which they had been delivered. But if all descriptions of this kind are to be converted into definitions, there are others which have as good a title to be added. For instance, the following sentence of Chrysostom: “Repentance is a medicine for the cure of sin, a gift bestowed from above, an admirable virtue, a grace surpassing the power of laws.” Moreover, the doctrine which they afterwards deliver is somewhat worse than their definition. For they are so keenly bent on external exercises, that all you can gather from immense volumes is, that repentance is a discipline, and austerity, which serves partly to subdue the flesh, partly to chasten and punish sins: of internal renovation of mind, bringing with it true amendment of life, there is a strange silence. No doubt, they talk much of contrition and attrition, torment the soul with many scruples, and involve it in great trouble and anxiety; but when they seem to have deeply wounded the heart, they cure all its bitterness by a slight sprinkling of ceremonies. Repentance thus shrewdly defined, they divide into contrition of the heart, confession of the mouth, and satisfaction of works. This is not more logical than the definition, though they would be thought to have spent their whole lives in framing syllogisms. But if any one argues from the definition (a mode of argument prevalent with dialecticians) that a man may weep over his past sins and not commit things that cause weeping; may bewail past evils, and not commit things that are to be bewailed; may punish what he is grieved for having committed, though he does not confess it with the mouth,—how will they defend their division? For if he may be a true penitent and not confess, repentance can exist without confession. If they answer, that this division refers to repentance regarded as a sacrament, or is to be understood of repentance in its most perfect form, which they do not comprehend in their definitions, the mistake does not rest with me: let them blame themselves for not defining more purely and clearly. When any matter is discussed, I certainly am dull enough to refer everything to the definition as the hinge and foundation of the whole discussion. But granting that this is a license which masters have, let us now survey the different parts in their order. In omitting as frivolous several things which they vend with solemn brow as mysteries, I do it not from ignorance. It were not very difficult to dispose of all those points which they plume themselves on their acuteness and subtilty in discussing; but I consider it a sacred duty not to trouble the reader to no purpose with such absurdities. It is certainly easy to see from the questions which they move and agitate, and in which they miserably entangle themselves, that they are pealing of things they know not. Of this nature are the following: Whether repentance of one sin is pleasing to God, while there is an obstinate adherence to other sins. Again, whether punishments divinely indicted are available for satisfaction. Again, whether repentance can be several times repeated for mortal sins, whereas they grossly and wickedly define that daily repentance has to do with none but venial sins. In like manner, with gross error, they greatly torment themselves with a saying of Jerome, that repentance is a second plank after shipwreck. Herein they show that they have never awoke from brutish stupor, so as to obtain a distant view of the thousandth part of their sins.

2.

I would have my readers to observe, that the dispute here relates not to a matter of no consequence; but to one of the most important of all, viz., the forgiveness of sins. For while they require three things in repentance, viz., compunction of heart, confession of the mouth, and satisfaction of work, they at the same time teach that these are necessary to obtain the pardon of sins. If there is any thing in the whole compass of religion which it is of importance to us to know, this certainly is one of the most important, viz., to perceive and rightly hold by what means, what rule, what terms, with what facility or difficulty, forgiveness of sins may be obtained. Unless our knowledge here is clear and certain, our conscience can have no rest at all, no peace with God, no confidence or security, but is continually trembling, fluctuating, boiling, and distracted; dreads, hates, and shuns the presence of God. But if forgiveness of sins depends on the conditions to which they bind it, nothing can be more wretched and deplorable than our situation. Contrition they represent as the first step in obtaining pardon; and they exact it as due, that is, full and complete: meanwhile, they decide not when one may feel secure of having performed this contrition in due measure. I admit that we are bound strongly and incessantly to urge every man bitterly to lament his sins, and thereby stimulate himself more and more to dislike and hate them. For this is the “repentance to salvation not to be repented of,” (2 Cor. 7: 10.) But when such bitterness of sorrow is demanded as may correspond to the magnitude of the offense, and be weighed in the balance with confidence of pardon, miserable consciences are sadly perplexed and tormented when they see that the contrition due for sin is laid upon them, and yet that they have no measure of what is due, so as to enable them to determine that they have made full payment. If they say, we are to do what in us lies, we are always brought back to the same point; for when will any man venture to promise himself that he has done his utmost in bewailing sin? Therefore, when consciences, after a lengthened struggle and long contests with themselves, find no haven in which they may rest, as a means of alleviating their condition in some degree, they extort sorrow and wring out tears, in order to perfect their contrition.

3.

If they say that this is calumny on my part, let them come forward and point out a single individual who, by this doctrine of contrition, has not either been driven to despair, or has not, instead of true, opposed pretended fear to the justice of God. We have elsewhere observed, that forgiveness of sins never can be obtained without repentance, because none but the afflicted, and those wounded by a consciousness of sins, can sincerely implore the mercy of God; but we, at the same time, added, that repentance cannot be the cause of the forgiveness of sins: and we also did away with that torment of souls—the dogma that it must be performed as due. Our doctrine was, that the soul looked not to its own compunction or its own tears, but fixed both eyes on the mercy of God alone. Only we observed, that those who labour and are heavy laden are called by Christ, seeing he was sent “to preach good tidings to the meek;” “to bind up the broken-hearted; to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;” “to comfort all that mourn.” Hence the Pharisees were excluded, because, full of their own righteousness, they acknowledged not their own poverty; and despisers, because, regardless of the divine anger, they sought no remedy for their wickedness. Such persons neither labour nor are heavy laden, are not broken-hearted, bound, nor in prison. But there is a great difference between teaching that forgiveness of sins is merited by a full and complete contrition, (which the sinner never can give,) and instructing him to hunger and thirst after the mercy of God, that recognizing his wretchedness, his turmoil, weariness, and captivity, you may show him where he should seek refreshment, rest, and liberty; in fine, teach him in his humility to give glory to God.

4.

Confession has ever been a subject of keen contest between the Canonists and the Scholastic Theologians; the former contending that confession is of divine authority—the latter insisting, on the contrary, that it is merely enjoined by ecclesiastical constitution. In this contest great effrontery has been displayed by the Theologians, who have corrupted and violently wrested every passage of Scripture they have quoted in their favour. And when they saw that even thus they could not gain their object, those who wished to be thought particularly acute had recourse to the evasion that confession is of divine authority in regard to the substance, but that it afterwards received its form from positive enactment. Thus the silliest of these quibblers refer the citation to divine authority, from its being said, “Adam, where art thou?” (Gen. 3: 9, 12;) and also the exception from Adam having replied as if excepting, “The women whom thou gavest to be with me,” &c.; but say that the form of both was appointed by civil law. Let us see by what arguments they prove that this confession, formed or unformed, is a divine commandment. The Lord, they say, sent the lepers to the priests, (Matth. 8: 4.) What? did he send them to confession? Who ever heard tell that the Levitical priests were appointed to hear confession? Here they resort to allegory. The priests were appointed by the Mosaic law to discern between leper and leper: sin is spiritual leprosy; therefore it belongs to the priests to decide upon it. Before I answer, I would ask, in passing, why, if this passage makes them judges of spiritual leprosy, they claim the cognizance of natural and carnal leprosy? This, for sooth, is not to play upon Scripture! The law gives the cognizance of leprosy to the Levitical priests: let us usurp this to ourselves. Sin is spiritual leprosy: let us also have cognizance of sin. I now give my answer: There being a change of the priesthood, there must of necessity be a change of the law. All the sacerdotal functions were transferred to Christ, and in him fulfilled and ended, (Heb. 7: 12.) To him alone, therefore, all the rights and honors of the priesthood have been transferred. If they are so fond then of hunting out allegories, let them set Christ before them as the only priest, and place full and universal jurisdiction on his tribunal: this we will readily admit. Besides, there is an incongruity in their allegory: it classes a merely civil enactment among ceremonies. Why, then, does Christ send the lepers to the priests? Lest the priests should be charged with violating the law, which ordained that the person cured of leprosy should present himself before the priest, and be purified by the offering of a sacrifice, he orders the lepers who had been cleansed to do what the law required. “Go and show thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing according as Moses commanded for a testimony unto them.” (Luke 5: 17.) And assuredly this miracle would be a testimony to them: they had pronounced them lepers; they now pronounce them cured. Whether they would or not, they are forced to become witnesses to the miracles of Christ. Christ allows them to examine the miracle, and they cannot deny it: yet, as they still quibble, they have need of a testimony. So it is elsewhere said, “This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world, for a witness unto all nations,” (Matth. 24: 14.) Again, “Ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles,” (Matth. 10: 18;) that is, in order that, in the judgment of Gods they might be more filly convicted. But if they prefer taking the view of Chrysostom, (Hom. 12 de Muliere Cananaea,) he shows that this was done by Christ for the sake of the Jews also, that he might not be regarded as a violator of the law. But we are ashamed to appeal to the authority of any man in a matter so clear, when Christ declares that he left the legal right of the priests entire, as professed enemies of the Gospel, who were always intent on making a clamour if their mouths were not stopped. Wherefore, let the Popish priests, in order to retain this privilege, openly make common cause with those whom it was necessary to restrain, by forcible means, from speaking evil of Christ. For there is here no reference to his true ministers.

5.

They draw their second argument from the same fountain,—I mean allegory; as if allegories were of much avail in confirming any doctrine. But, indeed, let them avail, if those which I am able to produce are not more specious than theirs. They say, then, that the Lord, after raising Lazarus, commanded his disciples to “loose him and let him go,” (John 11: 44.) Their first statement is untrue: we nowhere read that the Lord said this to the disciples; and it is much more probable that he spoke to the Jews who were standing by, that from there being no suspicion of fraud the miracle might be more manifest, and his power might be the more conspicuous from his raising the dead without touching him, by a mere word. In the same way, I understand that our Lord, to leave no ground of suspicion to the Jews, wished them to roll back the stone, feel the stench, perceive the sure signs of death, see him rise by the mere power of a word, and first handle hint when alive. And this is the view of Chrysostom, (Serm. C. Jud. Gent. et Haeret.) But granting that it was said to the disciples, what can they gain by it? That the Lord gave the apostles the power of loosing? How much more aptly and dexterously might we allegorize and say, that by this symbol the Lord designed to teach his followers to loose those whom he raises up; that is, not to bring to remembrance the sins which he himself had forgotten, not to condemn as sinners those whom he had acquitted, not still to upbraid those whom he had pardoned, not to be stern and severe in punishing, while he himself was merciful and ready to forgive. Certainly nothing should more incline us to pardon than the example of the Judge who threatens that he will be inexorable to the rigid and inhumane. Let them go now and vend their allegories.

6.

They now come to closer quarters, while they support their view by passages of Scripture which they think clearly in their favour. Those who came to John’s baptism confessed their sins, and James bids us confess our sins one to another, (James 5: 16.) It is not strange that those who wished to be baptized confessed their sins. It has already been mentioned, that John preached the baptism of repentance, baptized with water unto repentance. Whom then could he baptize, but those who confessed that they were sinners? Baptism is a symbol of the forgiveness of sins; and who could be admitted to receive the symbol but sinners acknowledging themselves as such? They therefore confessed their sins that they might be baptized. Nor without good reason does James enjoin us to confess our sins one to another. But if they would attend to what immediately follows, they would perceive that this gives them little support. The words are, “Confess your sins one to another, and pray one for another.” He joins together mutual confession and mutual prayer. If, then, we are to confess to priests only, we are also to pray for them only. What? It would even follow from the words of James, that priests alone can confess. In saying that we are to confess mutually, he must be addressing those only who can hear the confession of others. He says, “allelous”, mutually, by turns, or, if they prefer it, reciprocally. But those only can confess reciprocally who are fit to hear confession. This being a privilege which they bestow upon priests only, we also leave them the office of confessing to each other. Have done then with such frivolous absurdities, and let us receive the true meaning of the apostle, which is plain and simple; first, That we are to deposit our infirmities in the breasts of each other, with the view of receiving mutual counsel, sympathy, and comfort; and, secondly, That mutually conscious of the infirmities of our brethren we are to pray to the Lord for them. Why then quote James against us who so earnestly insist on acknowledgment of the divine mercy? No man can acknowledge the mercy of God without previously confessing his own misery. Nay, we pronounce every man to be anathema who does not confess himself a sinner before God, before his angels, before the Church; in short, before all men. “The Scripture has concluded all under sin,” “that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God,” that God alone may be justified and exalted, (Gal. 3: 22; Rom. 3: 9, 19.)

7.

I wonder at their effrontery in venturing to maintain that the confession of which they speak is of divine authority. We admit that the use of it is very ancient; but we can easily prove that at one time it was free. It certainly appears, from their own records, that no law or constitution respecting it was enacted before the days of Innocent III. Surely if there had been a more ancient law they would have fastened on it, instead of being satisfied with the decree of the Council of Lateral, and so making themselves ridiculous even to children. In other matters, they hesitate not to coin fictitious decrees, which they ascribe to the most ancient Councils, that they may blind the eyes of the simple by veneration for antiquity. In this instance it has not occurred to them to practice this deception, and hence, themselves being witnesses, three centuries have not yet elapsed since the bridle was put, and the necessity of confession imposed by Innocent III. And to say nothing of the time, the mere barbarism of the terms used destroys the authority of the law. For when these worthy fathers enjoin that every person of both sexes (utriusque sexus) must once a year confess his sins to his own priest, men of wit humorously object that the precept binds hermaphrodites only, and has no application to any one who is either a male or a female. A still grosser absurdity has been displayed by their disciples, who are unable to explain what is meant by one’s own priest, (proprius sacerdos.) Let all the hired ravers of the Pope babble as they may, we hold that Christ is not the author of this law, which compels men to enumerate their sins; nay, that twelve hundred years elapsed after the resurrection of Christ before any such law was made, and that, consequently, this tyranny was not introduced until piety and doctrine were extinct, and pretended pastors had usurped to themselves unbridled license. There is clear evidence in historians, and other ancient writers, to show that this was a politic discipline introduced by bishops, not a law enacted by Christ or the Apostles. Out of many I will produce only one passage, which will be no obscure proof. Sozomen relates, that this constitution of the bishops was carefully observed in the Western churches, but especially at Rome; thus intimating that it was not the universal custom of all churches. He also says, that one of the presbyters was specially appointed to take charge of this duty. This abundantly confutes their falsehood as to the keys being given to the whole priesthood indiscriminately for this purpose, since the function was not common to all the priests, but specially belonged to the one priest whom the bishop had appointed to it. He it was (the same who at present in each of the cathedral churches has the name of penitentiary) who had cognizance of offenses which were more heinous, and required to be rebuked for the sake of example. He afterwards adds, that the same custom existed at Constantinople, until a certain matron, while pretending to confess, was discovered to have used it as a cloak to cover her intercourse with a deacon. In consequence of that crime, Nectarius, the bishop of that church—a man famous for learning and sanctity—abolished the custom of confessing. Here, then, let these asses prick up their ears. If auricular confession was a divine law, how could Nectarius have dared to abolish or remodel it? Nectarius, a holy man of God, approved by the suffrage of all antiquity, will they charge with heresy and schism? With the same vote they will condemn the church of Constantinople, in which Sozomen affirms that the custom of confessing was not only disguised for a time, but even in his own memory abolished. Nay, let them charge with defections not only Constantinople but all the Eastern churches, which (if they say true) disregarded an inviolable law enjoined on all Christians.

8.

This abrogation is clearly attested in so many passages by Chrysostom, who lived at Constantinople, and was himself prelate of the church, that it is strange they can venture to maintain the contrary: “Tell your sins”, says he, “that you may efface them: if you blush to tell another what sins you have committed, tell them daily in your soul. I say not, tell them to your fellow-servant who may upbraid you, but tell them to God who cures them. Confess your sins upon your bed, that your conscience may there daily recognize its iniquities.” Again, “Now, however, it is not necessary to confess before witnesses; let the examination of your faults be made in your own thought: let the judgment be without a witness: let God alone see you confessing.” Again, “I do not lead you publicly into the view of your fellow servants; I do not force you to disclose your sins to men; review and lay open your conscience before God. Show your wounds to the Lord, the best of physicians, and seek medicine from him. Show to him who upbraids not, but cures most kindly.” Again, “Certainly tell it not to man lest he upbraid you. Nor must you confess to your fellow servant, who may make it public; but show your wounds to the Lord, who takes care of you, who is kind and can cure.” He afterwards introduces God speaking thus: “I oblige you not to come into the midst of a theatre, and have many witnesses; tell your sins to me alone in private, that I may cure the ulcer.” Shall we say that Chrysostom, in writing these and similar passages, carried his presumption so far as to free the consciences of men from those chains with which they are bound by the divine law? By no means; but knowing that it was not at all prescribed by the word of God, he dares not exact it as necessary.

9.

But that the whole matter may be more plainly unfolded, we shall first honestly state the nature of confession as delivered in the word of God, and thereafter subjoin their inventions—not all of them indeed, (who could drink up that boundless sea?) but those only which contain summary of their secret confession. Here I am grieved to mention how frequently the old interpreter has rendered the word confess instead of praise, a fact notorious to the most illiterate, were it not fitting to expose their effrontery in transferring to their tyrannical edict what was written concerning the praises of God. To prove that confession has the effect of exhilarating the mind, they obtrude the passage in the psalm, “with the voice of joy and praise,” (Vulgate, confessionis,) (Ps. 42: 4.) But if such a metamorphosis is valid, any thing may be made of any thing. But, as they have lost all shame, let pious readers reflect how, by the just vengeance of God, they have been given over to a reprobate mind, that their audacity may be the more detestable. If we are disposed to acquiesce in the simple doctrine of Scripture, there will be no danger of our being misled by such glosses. There one method of confessing is prescribed; since it is the Lord who forgives, forgets and wipes away sins, to him let us confess them, that we may obtain pardon. He is the physician, therefore let us show our wounds to him. He is hurt and offended, let us ask peace of him. He is the discerner of the heart, and knows all one thoughts; let us hasten to pour out our hearts before him. He it is, in fine, who invites sinners; let us delay not to draw near to him. “I acknowledge my sin unto thee,” says David; “and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin,” (Ps. 32: 5.) Another specimen of David’s confessions is as follows: “Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy loving kindness,” (Ps. 51: 1.) The following is Daniel’s confession: “We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from thy precepts and thy judgments,” (Dan. 9: 5.) Other examples every where occur in Scripture: the quotation of them would almost fill a volume. “If we confess our sins,” says John, “he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins,” (1 John 1: 9.) To whom are we to confess? to Him surely;—that is, we are to fall down before him with a grieved and humbled heart, and sincerely accusing and condemning ourselves, seek forgiveness of his goodness and mercy.

10.

He who has adopted this confession from the heart and as in the presence of God, will doubtless have a tongue ready to confess whenever there is occasion among men to publish the mercy of God. He will not be satisfied to whisper the secret of his heart for once into the ear of one individual, but will often, and openly, and in the hearing of the whole world, ingenuously make mention both of his own ignominy, and of the greatness and glory of the Lord. In this way David, after he was accused by Nathan, being stung in his conscience, confesses his sin before God and men. “I have sinned unto the Lord,” says he, (2 Sam. 12: 13;) that is, I have now no excuse, no evasion; all must judge me a sinner; and that which I wished to be secret with the Lord must also be made manifest to men. Hence the secret confession which is made to God is followed by voluntary confession to men, whenever that is conducive to the divine glory or our humiliation. For this reason the Lord anciently enjoined the people of Israel that they should repeat the words after the priest, and make public confession of their iniquities in the temple; because he foresaw that this was a necessary help to enable each one to form a just idea of himself. And it is proper that by confession of our misery, we should manifest the mercy of our God both among ourselves and before the whole world.

11.

It is proper that this mode of confession should both be ordinary in the Church, and also be specially employed on extraordinary occasions, when the people in common happen to have fallen into any fault. Of this latter description we have an example in the solemn confession which the whole people made under the authority and guidance of Ezra and Nehemiah, (Neh. 1: 6, 7.) For their long captivity, the destruction of the temple, and suppression of their religion, having been the common punishment of their defection, they could not make meet acknowledgment of the blessing of deliverance without previous confession of their guilt. And it matters not though in one assembly it may sometimes happen that a few are innocent, seeing that the members of a languid and sickly body cannot boast of soundness. Nay, it is scarcely possible that these few have not contracted some taint, and so bear part of the blame. Therefore, as often as we are afflicted with pestilence, or war, or famine, or any other calamity whatsoever, if it is our duty to retake ourselves to mourning, fasting, and other signs of guiltiness, confession also, on which all the others depend, is not to be neglected. That ordinary confession which the Lord has moreover expressly commended, no sober man, who has reflected on its usefulness, will venture to disapprove. Seeing that in every sacred assembly we stand in the view of God and angels, in what way should our service begin but in acknowledging our own unworthiness? But this you will say is done in every prayer; for as often as we pray for pardon, we confess our sins. I admit it. But if you consider how great is our carelessness, or drowsiness, or sloth, you will grant me that it would be a salutary ordinance if the Christian people were exercised in humiliation by some formal method of confession. For though the ceremony which the Lord enjoined on the Israelites belonged to the tutelage of the Law, yet the thing itself belongs in some respect to us also. And, indeed, in all well ordered churches, in observance of an useful custom, the minister, each Lord’s day, frames a formula of confession in his own name and that of the people, in which he makes a common confession of iniquity, and supplicates pardon from the Lord. In short, by this key a door of prayer is opened privately for each, and publicly for all.

12.

Two other forms of private confession are approved by Scripture. The one is made on our own account, and to it reference is made in the passage in James, “Confess your sins one to another,” (James 5: 16;) for the meaning is, that by disclosing our infirmities to each other, we are to obtain the aid of mutual counsel and consolation. The other is to be made for the sake of our neighbor, to appease and reconcile him if by our fault he has been in any respect injured. In the former, although James, by not specifying any particular individual into whose bosom we are to disburden our feelings, leaves us the free choice of confessing to any member of the church who may seem fittest; yet as for the most part pastors are to be supposed better qualified than others, our choice ought chiefly to fall upon them. And the ground of preference is, that the Lord, by calling them to the ministry, points them out as the persons by whose lips we are to be taught to subdue and correct our sins, and derive consolation from the hope of pardon. For as the duty of mutual admonition and correction is committed to all Christians, but is specially enjoined on ministers, so while we ought all to console each other mutually and confirm each other in confidence in the divine mercy, we see that ministers, to assure our consciences of the forgiveness of fins, are appointed to be the witnesses and sponsors of it, so that they are themselves said to forgive sins and loose souls (Matth. 16: 19; 18: 18.) When you hear this attributed to them, reflect that it is for your use. Let every believer, therefore, remember, that if in private he is so agonized and afflicted by a sense of his sins that he cannot obtain relief without the aid of others, it is his duty not to neglect the remedy which God provides for him, viz., to have recourse for relief to a private confession to his own pastor, and for consolation privately implore the assistance of him whose business it is, both in public and private, to solace the people of God with Gospel doctrine. But we are always to use moderation, lest in a matter as to which God prescribes no certain rule, our consciences be burdened with a certain yoke. Hence it follows first, that confession of this nature ought to be free so as not to be exacted of all, but only recommended to those who feel that they have need of it; and, secondly, even those who use it according to their necessity must neither be compelled by any precept, nor artfully induced to enumerate all their sins, but only in so far as they shall deem it for their interest, that they may obtain the full benefit of consolation. Faithful pastors, as they would both eschew tyranny in their ministry, and superstition in the people, must not only leave this liberty to churches, but defend and strenuously vindicate it.

13.

Of the second form of confession, our Savior speaks in Matthew. “If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there remember that thy brother has ought against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift,” (Matth. 5: 23, 24.) Thus love, which has been interrupted by our fault, must be restored by acknowledging and asking pardon for the fault. Under this head is included the confession of those who by their sin have given offense to the whole Church, (supra, sec. 10.) For if Christ attaches so much importance to the offense of one individual, that he forbids the sacrifice of all who have sinned in any respect against their brethren, until by due satisfaction they have regained their favor, how much greater reason is there that he, who by some evil example has offended the Church should be reconciled to it by the acknowledgment of his fault? Thus the member of the Church of Corinth was restored to communion after he had humbly submitted to correction, (2 Cor. 2: 6.) This form of confession existed in the ancient Christian Church, as Cyprian relates: “They practice repentance,” says he, “for a proper time, then they come to confession, and by the laying on of the hands of the bishop and clergy, are admitted to communion.” Scripture knows nothing of any other form or method of confessing, and it belongs not to us to bind new chains upon consciences which Christ most strictly prohibits from being brought into bondage. Meanwhile, that the flock present themselves before the pastor whenever they would partake of the Holy Supper, I am so far from disapproving, that I am most desirous it should be everywhere observed. For both those whose conscience is hindered may thence obtain singular benefit, and those who require admonition thus afford an opportunity for it; provided always no countenance is given to tyranny and superstition.

14.

The power of the keys has place in the three following modes of confession,—either when the whole Church, in a formal acknowledgment of its defects, supplicates pardon; or when a private individual, who has given public offense by some notable delinquency, testifies his repentance; or when he who from disquiet of conscience needs the aid of his minister, acquaints him with his infirmity. With regard to the reparation of offense, the case is different. For though in this also provision is made for peace of conscience, yet the principal object is to suppress hatred, and reunite brethren in the bond of peace. But the benefit of which I have spoken is by no means to be despised, that we may the more willingly confess our sins. For when the whole Church stands as it were at the bar of God, confesses her guilt, and finds her only refuge in the divine mercy, it is no common or light solace to have an ambassador of Christ present, invested with the mandate of reconciliations by whom she may hear her absolution pronounced. Here the utility of the keys is justly commended when that embassy is duly discharged with becoming order and reverence. In like manner, when he who has as it were become an alien from the Church receives pardon, and is thus restored to brotherly unity, how great is the benefit of understanding that he is pardoned by those to whom Christ said, “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them,” (John 20: 23.) Nor is private absolution of less benefit or efficacy when asked by those who stand in need of a special remedy for their infirmity. It not seldom happens, that he who hears general promises which are intended for the whole congregation of the faithful, nevertheless remains somewhat in doubts, and is still disquieted in mind, as if his own remission were not yet obtained. Should this individual lay open the secret wound of his soul to his pastor, and hear these words of the Gospel specially addressed to him, “Son, be of good cheer, thy sins be forgiven thee,” (Matth. 9: 2,) his mind will feel secure, and escape from the trepidation with which it was previously agitated. But when we treat of the keys, us must always beware of dreaming of any power apart from the preaching of the Gospel. This subject will be more fully explained when we come to treat of the government of the Church, (Book 4 chap. 11, 12) There we shall see, that whatever privilege of binding and loosing Christ has bestowed on his Church is annexed to the word. This is especially true with regard to the ministry of the keys, the whole power of which consists in this, that the grace of the Gospel is publicly and privately sealed on the minds of believers by means of those whom the Lord has appointed; and the only method in which this can be done is by preaching.

15.

What say the Roman theologians? That all persons of both sexes, so soon as they shall have reached the years of discretion, must, once a year at least, confess all their sins to their own priest; that the sin is not discharged unless the resolution to confess has been firmly conceived; that if this resolution is not carried into effect when an opportunity offers, there is no entrance into Paradise; that the priest, moreover has the power of the keys, by which he can loose and bind the sinner; because the declaration of Christ is not in vain: “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,” (Matth. 18: 18.) Concerning this power, however they wage a fierce war among themselves. Some say there is only one key essentially, viz., the power of binding and loosing; that knowledge, indeed, is requisite for the proper use of it, but only as an accessory, not as essentially inherent in it. Others seeing that this gave too unrestrained license, have imagined two keys, viz., discernment and power. Others, again, seeing that the license of priests was curbed by such restraint, have forged other keys, (infra, sec. 21,) the authority of discerning to be used in defining, and the power to carry their sentences into execution; and to these they add knowledge as a counselor. This binding and loosing, however, they do not venture to interpret simply, to forgive and wipe away sins, because they hear the Lord proclaiming by the prophet, “I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no savior.” “I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions,” (Isaiah 43: 11, 25.) But they say it belongs to the priest to declare who are bound or loosed, and whose sins are remitted or retained; to declare, moreover, either by confession, when he absolves and retains sins, or by sentence, when he excommunicates or admits to communion in the Sacraments. Lastly, perceiving that the knot is not yet untied, because it may always be objected that persons are often undeservedly bound and loosed, and therefore not bound or loosed in heaven; as their ultimate resource, they answer, that the conferring of the keys must be taken with limitations because Christ has promised that the sentence of the priest, properly pronounced, will be approved at his judgment-seat according as the bound or loosed asked what they merited. They say, moreover, that those keys which are conferred by bishops at ordination were given by Christ to all priests but that the free use of them is with those only who discharge ecclesiastical functions; that with priests excommunicated or suspended the keys themselves indeed remain, but tied and rusty. Those who speak thus may justly be deemed modest and sober compared with others, who on a new anvil have forged new keys, by which they say that the treasury of heaven is locked up: these we shall afterwards consider in their own place, (chap. 5 sec. 2.)

16.

To each of these views I will briefly reply. As to their binding the souls of believers by their laws, whether justly or unjustly, I say nothing at present, as it will be seen at the proper place; but their enacting it as a law, that all sins are to be enumerated; their denying that sin is discharged except under the condition that the resolution to confess has been firmly conceived; their pretence that there is no admission into Paradise if the opportunity of confession has been neglected, are things which it is impossible to bear. Are all sins to be enumerated? But David, who, I presume, had honestly pondered with himself as to the confession of his sins, exclaimed, “Who can understand his errors? Cleanse thou me from secret faults,” (Ps. 19: 12;) and in another passage, “Mine iniquities are gone over my head: as a heavy burden they are too heavy for me,” (Ps. 38: 4.) He knew how deep was the abyss of our sins, how numerous the forms of wickedness, how many heads the hydra carried, how long a tail it drew. Therefore, he did not sit down to make a catalogue, but from the depth of his distress cried unto the Lord, “I am overwhelmed, and buried, and sore vexed; the gates of hell have encircled me: let thy right hand deliver me from the abyss into which I am plunged, and from the death which I am ready to die.” Who can now think of a computation of his sins when he sees David’s inability to number his?

17.

By this ruinous procedure, the souls of those who were affected with some sense of God have been most cruelly racked. First, they retook themselves to calculation, proceeding according to the formula given by the Schoolmen, and dividing their sins into boughs, branches, twigs, and leaves; then they weighed the qualities, quantities, and circumstances; and in this way, for some time, matters proceeded. But after they had advanced farther, when they looked around, nought was seen but sea and sky; no road, no harbor. The longer the space they ran over, a longer still met the eye; nay, lofty mountains began to rise, and there seemed no hope of escape; none at least till after long wanderings. They were thus brought to a dead halt, till at length the only issue was found in despair. Here these cruel murderers, to ease the wounds which they had made, applied certain fomentations. Every one was to do his best. But new cares again disturbed, nay, new torments excruciated their souls. “I have not spent enough of time; I have not exerted myself sufficiently: many things I have omitted through negligence: forgetfulness proceeding from want of care is not excusable.” Then new drugs were supplied to alleviate their pains. “Repent of your negligence; and provided it is not done supinely, it will be pardoned.” All these things, however, could not heal the wound, being not so much alleviations of the sore as poison besmeared with honey, that its bitterness might not at once offend the taste, but penetrate to the vitals before it could be detected. The dreadful voice, therefore, was always heard pealing in their ears, “Confess all your sins,” and the dread thus occasioned could not be pacified without sure consolation. Here let my readers consider whether it be possible to take an account of the actions of a whole year, or even to collect the sins committed in a single day, seeing every man’s experience convinces him that at evening, in examining the faults of that single day, memory gets confused, so great is the number and variety presented. I am not speaking of dull and heartless hypocrites, who, after animadverting on three or four of their grosser offenses, think the work finished; but of the true worshipers of God, who, after they have performed their examination, feeling themselves overwhelmed, still add the words of John: “If our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things,” (1 John 3: 20;) and, therefore, tremble at the thought of that Judge whose knowledge far surpasses our comprehension.

18.

Though a good part of the world rested in these soothing suggestions, by which this fatal poison was somewhat tempered, it was not because they thought that God was satisfied, or they had quite satisfied themselves; it was rather like an anchor cast out in the middle of the deep, which for a little interrupts the navigation, or a weary, worn-out traveler, who lies down by the way. I give myself no trouble in proving the truth of this fact. Every one can be his own witness. I will mention generally what the nature of this law is. First. The observance of it is simply impossible; and hence its only results to destroy, condemn, confound, to plunge into ruin and despair. Secondly, By withdrawing sinners from a true sense of their sins, it makes them hypocritical, and ignorant both of God and themselves. For, while they are wholly occupied with the enumeration of their sins, they lose sight of that lurking hydra, their secret iniquities and internal defilements, the knowledge of which would have made them sensible of their misery. But the surest rule of confession is, to acknowledge and confess our sins to be an abyss so great as to exceed our comprehension. On this rule we see the confession of the publican was formed, “God be merciful to me, a sinner,” (Luke 18: 13;) as if he had said, How great, how very great a sinner, how utterly sinful I am! the extent of my sins I can neither conceive nor express. Let the depth of thy mercy engulf the depth of sin! What! you will say, are we not to confess every single sin? Is no confession acceptable to God but that which is contained in the words, “I am a sinner”? Nay, our endeavor must rather be, as much as in us lies, to pour out our whole heart before the Lord. Nor are we only in one word to confess ourselves sinners, but truly and sincerely acknowledge ourselves as such; to feel with our whole soul how great and various the pollutions of our sins are; confessing not only that we are impure, but what the nature of our impurity is, its magnitude and its extent; not only that we are debtors, but what the debts are which burden us, and how they were incurred; not only that we are wounded, but how numerous and deadly are the wounds. When thus recognizing himself, the sinner shall have poured out his whole heart before God, let him seriously and sincerely reflect that a greater number of sins still remains, and that their recesses are too deep for him thoroughly to penetrate. Accordingly, let him exclaim with David, “Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults,” (Ps. 19: 12.) But when the Schoolmen affirm that sins are not forgiven, unless the resolution to confess has been firmly conceived, and that the gate of Paradise is closed on him who has neglected the opportunity of confessing when offered, far be it from us to concede this to them. The remission of sins is not different now from what it has ever been. In all the passages in which we read that sinners obtained forgiveness from God, we read not that they whispered into the ear of some priest. Indeed they could not then confess, as priests were not then confessionaries, nor did the confessional itself exist. And for many ages afterwards, this mode of confession, by which sins were forgiven on this condition, was unheard of: But not to enter into a long discussion, as if the matter were doubtful, the word of God, which abideth for ever, is plain, “When the wicked shall turn away from all his sins that he has committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die,” (Ezek. 18: 21.) He who presumes to add to this declaration binds not sins, but the mercy of God. When they contend that judgment cannot be given unless the case is known, the answer is easy, that they usurp the right of judging, being only self-created judges. And it is strange, how confidently they lay down principles, which no man of sound mind will admit. They give out, that the office of binding and loosing has been committed to them, as a kind of jurisdiction annexed to the right of inquiry. That the jurisdiction was unknown to the Apostles their whole doctrine proclaims. Nor does it belong to the priest to know for certainty whether or not a sinner is loosed, but to Him from whom acquittal is asked; since he who only hears can ever know whether or not the enumeration is full and complete. Thus there would be no absolution, without restricting it to the words of him who is to be judged. We may add, that the whole system of loosing depends on faith and repentance, two things which no man can know of another, so as to pronounce sentence. It follows, therefore, that the certainty of binding and loosing is not subjected to the will of an earthly judge, because the minister of the word, when he duly executes his office, can only acquit conditionally, when, for the sake of the sinner, he repeats the words, “Whose soever sins ye remit;” lest he should doubt of the pardon, which, by the command and voice of God, is promised to be ratified in heaven.

19.

It is not strange, therefore, that we condemn that auricular confession, as a thing pestilent in its nature, and in many ways injurious to the Church, and desire to see it abolished. But if the thing were in itself indifferent, yet, seeing it is of no use or benefit, and has given occasion to so much impiety, blasphemy, and error, who does not think that it ought to be immediately abolished? They enumerate some of its uses, and boast of them as very beneficial, but they are either fictitious or of no importance. One thing they specially commend, that the blush of shame in the penitent is a severe punishment, which makes him more cautious for the future, and anticipates divine punishment, by his punishing himself. As if a man was not sufficiently humbled with shame when brought under the cognizance of God at his supreme tribunal. Admirable proficiency—if we cease to sin because we are ashamed to make one man acquainted with it, and blush not at having God as the witness of our evil conscience! The assertion, however, as to the effect of shame, is most unfounded, for we may every where see, that there is nothing which gives men greater confidence and license in sinning than the idea, that after making confession to priests, they can wipe their lip, and say, I have not done it. And not only do they during the whole year become bolder in sin, but, secure against confession for the remainder of it, they never sigh after God, never examine themselves, but continue heaping sins upon sins, until, as they suppose, they get rid of them all at once. And when they have got rid of them, they think they are disburdened of their load, and imagine they have deprived God of the right of judging, by giving it to the priest; have made God forgetful, by making the priest conscious. Moreover, who is glad when he sees the day of confession approaching? Who goes with a cheerful mind to confess, and does not rather, as if he were dragged to prison with a rope about his neck, go unwillingly, and, as it were, struggling against it? with the exception, perhaps, of the priests themselves, who take a fond delight in the mutual narrative of their own misdeeds, as a kind of merry tales. I will not pollute my page by retailing the monstrous abominations with which auricular confession teems; I only say, that if that holy man (Nectarius, of whom supra sec. 7) did not act unadvisedly when for one rumour of whoredom he banished confession from his church, or rather from the memory of his people, the innumerable acts of prostitution, adultery, and incest, which it produces in the present day, warn us of the necessity of abolishing it.

20.

As to the pretence of the confessionaries respecting the power of the keys, and their placing in it, so to speak, the sum and substance of their kingdom, we must see what force it ought to have. Were the keys then, (they ask,) given without a cause? Was it said without a cause, “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven?” (Matth. 18: 18.) Do we make void the word of Christ? I answer, that there was a weighty reason for giving the keys, as I lately explained, and will again show at greater length when I come to treat of Excommunication, (Book 4, cap. 12.) But what if I should cut off the handle for all such questions with one sword, viz., that priests are neither vicars nor successors of the Apostles? But that also will be elsewhere considered, (Book 4, 6.) Now, at the very place where they are most desirous to fortify themselves, they erect a battering-ram, by which all their own machinations are overthrown. Christ did not give his Apostles the power of binding and loosing before he endued them with the Holy Spirit. I deny, therefore, that any man, who has not previously received the Holy Spirit, is competent to possess the power of the keys. I deny that any one can use the keys, unless the Holy Spirit precede, teaching and dictating what is to be done. They pretend, indeed, that they have the Holy Spirit, but by their works deny him; unless, indeed, we are to suppose that the Holy Spirit is some vain thing of no value, as they certainly do feign, but we will not believe them. With this engine they are completely overthrown; whatever be the door of which they boast of having the key, we must always ask, whether they have the Holy Spirit, who is arbiter and ruler of the keys? If they reply, that they have, we must again ask, whether the Holy Spirit can err? This they will not venture to say distinctly, although by their doctrine they indirectly insinuate it. Therefore, we must infer, that no priestlings have the power of the keys, because they every where and indiscriminately loose what the Lord was pleased should be bound, and bind what he has ordered to be loosed.

21.

When they see themselves convicted on the clearest evidence, of loosing and binding worthy and unworthy without distinction, they lay claim to power without knowledge. And although they dare not deny that knowledge is requisite for the proper use, they still affirm that the power itself has been given to bad administrators. This, however, is the power, “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Either the promise of Christ must be false, or those who are endued with this power bind and loose properly. There is no room for the evasion, that the words of Christ are limited, according to the merits of him who is loosed or bound. We admit, that none can be bound or loosed but those who are worthy of being bound or loosed. But the preachers of the Gospel and the Church have the word by which they can measure this worthiness. By this word preachers of the Gospel can promise forgiveness of sins to all who are in Christ by faith, and can declare a sentence of condemnation against all, and upon all, who do not embrace Christ. In this word the Church declares, that “neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,” “nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God,” (1 Cor. 6: 9, 10.) Such it binds in sure fetters. By the same word it looses and consoles the penitent. But what kind of power is it which knows not what is to be bound or loosed? You cannot bind or loose without knowledge. Why, then, do they say, that they absolve by authority given to them, when absolution is uncertain? As regards us, this power is merely imaginary, if it cannot be used. Now, I holds either that there is no use, or one so uncertain as to be virtually no use at all. For when they confess that a good part of the priests do not use the keys duly, and that power without the legitimate use is ineffectual, who is to assure me, that the one by whom I am loosed is a good dispenser of the keys? But if he is a bad one, what better has he given me than this nugatory dispensation,—What is to be bound or loosed in you I know not, since I have not the proper use of the keys; but if you deserve it, I absolve you? As much might be done, I say not by a laic, (since they would scarcely listen to such a statement,) but by the Turk or the devil. For it is just to say, I have not the word of God, the sure rule for loosing, but authority has been given me to absolve you, if you deserve it. We see, therefore, what their object was, when they defined (see sec. 16) the keys as authority to discern and power to execute; and said, that knowledge is added as a counselor, and counsels the proper use; their object was to reign libidinously and licentiously, without God and his word.

22.

Should any one object, first, that the lawful ministers of Christ will be no less perplexed in the discharge of their duty, because the absolution, which depends on faith, will always be equivocal; and, secondly, that sinners will receive no comfort at all, or cold comfort, because the minister, who is not a fit judge of their faith, is not certain of their absolution, we are prepared with an answer. They say that no sins are remitted by the priest, but such sins as he is cognizant of; thus, according to them, remission depends on the judgment of the priest, and unless he accurately discriminate as to who are worthy of pardon, the whole procedure is null and void. In short, the power of which they speak is a jurisdiction annexed to examination, to which pardon and absolution are restricted. Here no firm footing can be found, nay, there is a profound abyss; because, where confession is not complete, the hope of pardon also is defective; next, the priest himself must necessarily remain in suspense, while he knows not whether the sinner gives a faithful enumeration of his sins; lastly, such is the rudeness and ignorance of priests, that the greater part of them are in no respect fitter to perform this office than a cobbler to cultivate the fields, while almost all the others have good reason to suspect their own fitness. Hence the perplexity and doubt as to the Popish absolution, from their choosing to found it on the person of the priest, and not on his person only, but on his knowledge, so that he can only judge of what is laid before him investigated, and ascertained. Now, if any should ask at these good doctors, whether the sinner is reconciled to God when some sins are remitted? I know not what answer they could give, unless that they should be forced to confess, that whatever the priest pronounces with regard to the remission of sins which have been enumerated to him will be unavailing, so long as others are not exempted from condemnation. On the part of the penitent, again, it is hence obvious in what a state of pernicious anxiety his conscience will be held; because, while he leans on what they call the discernment of the priest, he cannot come to any decision from the word of God. From all these absurdities the doctrine which we deliver is completely free. For absolution is conditional, allowing the sinner to trust that God is propitious to him, provided he sincerely seek expiation in the sacrifice of Christ, and accept of the grace offered to him. Thus, he cannot err who, in the capacity of a herald, promulgates what has been dictated to him from the word of God. The sinner, again, can receive a clear and sure absolution when, in regard to embracing the grace of Christ, the simple condition annexed is in terms of the general rule of our Master himself,—a rule impiously spurned by the Papacy,—"According to your faith be it unto you,” (Matth. 9: 29.)

23.

The absurd jargon which they make of the doctrine of Scripture concerning the power of the keys, I have promised to expose elsewhere; the proper place will be in treating of the Government of the Church, (Book 4, c. 12.) Meanwhile, let the reader remember how absurdly they wrest to auricular and secret confession what was said by Christ partly of the preaching of the Gospel, and partly of excommunication. Wherefore, when they object that the power of loosing was given to the Apostles, and that this power priests exercise by remitting sins acknowledged to them, it is plain that the principle which they assume is false and frivolous: for the absolution which is subordinate to faith is nothing else than an evidence of pardon, derived from the free promise of the Gospel, while the other absolution, which depends on the discipline of the Church, has nothing to do with secret sins; but is more a matter of example for the purpose of removing the public offense given to the Church. As to their diligence in searching up and down for passages by which they may prove that it is not sufficient to confess sins to God alone, or to laymen, unless the priest take cognizance, it is vile and disgraceful. For when the ancient fathers advise sinners to disburden themselves to their pastor, we cannot understand them to refer to a recital which was not then in use. Then, so unfair are Lombard and others like-minded, that they seem intentionally to have devoted themselves to spurious books, that they might use them as a cloak to deceive the simple. They, indeed, acknowledge truly, that as forgiveness always accompanies repentance, no obstacle properly remains after the individual is truly penitent, though he may not have actually confessed; and, therefore, that the priest does not so much remit sins, as pronounce and declare that they are remitted; though in the term declaring, they insinuate a gross error, surrogating ceremony in place of doctrine. But in pretending that he who has already obtained pardon before God is acquitted in the face of the Church, they unseasonably apply to the special use of every individual, that which we have already said was designed for common discipline when the offense of a more heinous and notorious transgression was to be removed. Shortly after they pervert and destroy their previous moderation, by adding that there is another mode of remission, namely, by the infliction of penalty and satisfaction, in which they arrogate to their priests the right of dividing what God has every where promised to us entire. While He simply requires repentance and faith, their division or exception is altogether blasphemous. For it is just as if the priest, assuming the office of tribune, were to interfere with God, and try to prevent him from admitting to his favor by his mere liberality any one who had not previously lain prostrate at the tribunicial bench, and there been punished.

24.

The whole comes to this, when they wish to make God the author of this fictitious confession their vanity is proved as I have shown their falsehood in expounding the few passages which they cite. But while it is plain, that the law was imposed by men, I say that it is both tyrannical and insulting to God, who, in binding consciences to his word, would have them free from human rule. Then when confession is prescribed as necessary to obtain pardon, which God wished to be free, I say that the sacrilege is altogether intolerable, because nothing belongs more peculiarly to God than the forgiveness of sins, in which our salvation consists. I have, moreover, shown that this tyranny was introduced when the world was sunk in shameful barbarism. Besides, I have proved that the law is pestiferous, inasmuch as when the fear of God exists, it plunges men into despair, and when there is security soothing itself with vain flattery, it blunts it the more. Lastly, I have explained that all the mitigations which they employ have no other tendency than to entangle, obscure, and corrupt the pure doctrine, and cloak their iniquities with deceitful colors.

25.

In repentance they assign the third place to satisfaction, all their absurd talk as to which can be refuted in one word. They say, that it is not sufficient for the penitent to abstain from past sins, and change his conduct for the better, unless he satisfy God for what he has done; and that there are many helps by which we may redeem sins, such as tears, fastings oblations, and offices of charity; that by them the Lord is to be propitiated; by them the debts due to divine justice are to be paid; by them our faults are to be compensated; by them pardon is to be deserved: for though in the riches of his mercy he has forgiven the guilt, he yet, as a just discipline, retains the penalty, and that this penalty must be bought off by satisfaction. The sum of the whole comes to this: that we indeed obtain pardon of our sins from the mercy of God, but still by the intervention of the merit of works, by which the evil of our sins is compensated, and due satisfaction made to divine justice. To such false views I oppose the free forgiveness of sins, one of the doctrines most clearly taught in Scripture. First, what is forgiveness but a gift of mere liberality? A creditor is not said to forgive when he declares by granting a discharge, that the money has been paid to him; but when, without any payment, through voluntary kindness, he expunges the debt. And why is the term gratis (free) afterwards added, but to take away all idea of satisfaction? With what confidence, then, do they still set up their satisfactions, which are thus struck down as with a thunderbolt? What? When the Lord proclaims by Isaiah, “I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins,” does he not plainly declare, that the cause and foundation of forgiveness is to be sought from his goodness alone? Besides, when the whole of Scripture bears this testimony to Christ, that through his name the forgiveness of sins is to be obtained, (Acts 10: 43,) does it not plainly exclude all other names? How then do they teach that it is obtained by the name of satisfaction? Let them not deny that they attribute this to satisfactions, though they bring them in as subsidiary aids. For when Scripture says, by the name of Christ, it means, that we are to bring nothing, pretend nothing of our own, but lean entirely on the recommendation of Christ. Thus Paul, after declaring that “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them,” immediately adds the reason and the method, “For he has made him to be sin for us who knew no sin,” (2 Cor. 5: 19, 20.)

26.

But with their usual perverseness, they maintain that both the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation take place at once when we are received into the favor of God through Christ in baptism; that in lapses after baptism we must rise again by means of satisfactions; that the blood of Christ is of no avail unless in so far as it is dispensed by the keys of the Church. I speak not of a matter as to which there can be any doubt; for this impious dogma is declared in the plainest terms, in the writings not of one or two, but of the whole Schoolmen. Their master, (Sent. Lib. 3, Dist. 9,) after acknowledging, according to the doctrine of Peter, that Christ “bare our sins in his own body on the tree,” (1 Pet. 2: 24,) immediately modifies the doctrine by introducing the exception, that in baptism all the temporal penalties of sin are relaxed; but that after baptism they are lessened by means of repentance, the cross of Christ and our repentance thus co-operating together. St. John speaks very differently, “If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the propitiation for our sins.” “I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name’s sake,” (1 John 2: l, 2, 12.) He certainly is addressing believers, and while setting forth Christ as the propitiation for sins, shows them that there is no other satisfaction by which an offended God can be propitiated or appeased. He says not: God was once reconciled to you by Christ; now, seek other methods; but he makes him a perpetual advocate, who always, by his intercession, reinstates us in his Fathered favour—a perpetual propitiation by which sins are expiated. For what was said by another John will ever hold true, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world,” (John 1: 29.) He, I say, took them away, and no other; that is, since he alone is the Lamb of God, he alone is the offering for our sins; he alone is expiation; he alone is satisfaction. For though the right and power of pardoning properly belongs to the Father, when he is distinguished from the Son, as has already been seen, Christ is here exhibited in another view, as transferring to himself the punishment due to us, and wiping away our guilt in the sight of God. Whence it follows that we could not be partakers of the expiation accomplished by Christ, were he not possessed of that honor of which those who try to appease God by their compensations seek to rob him.

27.

Here it is necessary to keep two things in view: that the honor of Christ be preserved entire and unimpaired, and that the conscience, assured of the pardon of sin, may have peace with God. Isaiah says that the Farther “has laid on him the iniquity of us all;” that “with his stripes we are healed,” (Isa. 53: 5, 6.) Peter repeating the same thing, in other words says, that he “bare our sins in his own body on the tree,” (1 Pet. 2: 24.) Paul’s words are, “God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh,” “being made a curse for us,” (Rom. 8: 3; Gal. 3: 13;) in other words, the power and curse of sin was destroyed in his flesh when he was offered as a sacrifice, on which the whole weight of our sins was laid, with their curse and execration, with the fearful judgment of God, and condemnation to death. Here there is no mention of the vain dogma, that after the initial cleansing no man experiences the efficacy of Christ’s passion in any other way than by means of satisfying penance: we are directed to the satisfaction of Christ alone for every fall. Now call to mind their pestilential dogma: that the grace of God is effective only in the first forgiveness of sins; but if we afterwards fall, our works co-operate in obtaining the second pardon. If these things are so, do the properties above attributed to Christ remain entire? How immense the difference between the two propositions—that our iniquities were laid upon Christ, that in his own person he might expiate them, and that they are expiated by our works; that Christ is the propitiation for our sins, and that God is to be propitiated by works. Then, in regard to pacifying the conscience, what pacification will it be to be told that sins are redeemed by satisfactions? How will it be able to ascertain the measure of satisfaction? It will always doubt whether God is propitious; will always fluctuate, always tremble. Those who rest satisfied with petty satisfactions form too contemptible an estimate of the justice of God, and little consider the grievous heinousness of sin, as shall afterwards be shown. Even were we to grant that they can buy off some sins by due satisfaction, still what will they do while they are overwhelmed with so many sins that not even a hundred lives, though wholly devoted to the purpose, could suffice to satisfy for them? We may add, that all the passages in which the forgiveness of sins is declared refer not only to catechumens, but to the regenerate children of God; to those who have long been nursed in the bosom of the Church. That embassy which Paul so highly extols, “we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God,” (2 Cor. 5: 20,) is not directed to strangers, but to those who had been regenerated long before. Setting satisfactions altogether aside, he directs us to the cross of Christ. Thus when he writes to the Colossians that Christ had “made peace through the blood of his cross,” “to reconcile all things unto himself,” he does not restrict it to the moment at which we are received into the Church but extends it to our whole course. This is plain from the context, where he says that in him “we have redemption by his blood, even the forgiveness of sins,” (Col. 1: 14.) It is needless to collect more passages, as they are ever occurring.

28.

Here they take refuge in the absurd distinction that some sins are venial and others mortal; that for the latter a weighty satisfaction is due, but that the former are purged by easier remedies; by the Lord’s Prayer, the sprinkling of holy water, and the absolution of the Mass. Thus they insult and trifle with God. And yet, though they have the terms venial and mortal sin continually in their mouth, they have not yet been able to distinguish the one from the other, except by making impiety and impurity of hearts to be venial sin. We, on the contrary, taught by the Scripture standard of righteousness and unrighteousness, declare that “the wages of sin is death;” and that “the soul that sinneth, it shall die,” (Rom. 6: 23; Ezek. 18: 20.) The sins of believers are venial, not because they do not merit death, but because by the mercy of God there is “now no condemnation to those which are in Christ Jesus” their sin being not imputed, but effaced by pardon. I know how unjustly they calumniate this our doctrine; for they say it is the paradox of the Stoics concerning the equality of sins: but we shall easily convict them out of their own mouths. I ask them whether, among those sins which they hold to be mortal, they acknowledge a greater and a less? If so, it cannot follow, as a matter of course, that all sins which are mortal are equal. Since Scripture declares that the wages of sin is death,—that obedience to the law is the way to life,—the transgression of it the way to death,—they cannot evade this conclusion. In such a mass of sins, therefore, how will they find an end to their satisfactions? If the satisfaction for one sin requires one day, while preparing it they involve themselves in more sins; since no man, however righteous, passes one day without falling repeatedly. While they prepare themselves for their satisfactions, number, or rather numbers without number, will be added. Confidence in satisfaction being thus destroyed, what more would they have? How do they still dare to think of satisfying?

29.

They endeavor, indeed, to disentangle themselves, but it is impossible. They pretend a distinction between penalty and guilt, holding that the guilt is forgiven by the mercy of God; but that though the guilt is remitted, the punishment which divine justice requires to be paid remains. Satisfactions then properly relate to the remission of the penalty. How ridiculous this levity! They now confess that the remission of guilt is gratuitous; and yet they are ever and anon telling as to merit it by prayers and tears, and other preparations of every kind. Still the whole doctrine of Scripture regarding the remission of sins is diametrically opposed to that distinction. But although I think I have already done more than enough to establish this, I will subjoin some other passages, by which these slippery snakes will be so caught as to be afterwards unable to writhe even the tip of their tail: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah.” “I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more,” (Jer. 31: 31, 34.) What this means we learn from another Prophet, when the Lord says, “When the righteous turneth away from his righteousness” “all his righteousness that he has done shall not be mentioned.” “Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he has committed, and does that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive,” (Ezek. 18: 24, 27.) When he declares that he will not remember righteousness, the meaning is, that he will take no account of it to reward it. In the same way, not to remember sins is not to bring them to punishment. The same thing is denoted in other passages, by casting them behind his back, blotting them out as a cloud, casting them into the depths of the sea, not imputing them, hiding them. By such forms of expression the Holy Spirit has explained his meaning not obscurely, if we would lend a willing ear. Certainly if God punishes sins, he imputes them; if he avenges, he remembers; if he brings them to judgment, he has not hid them; if he examines, he has not cast them behind his back; if he investigates, he has not blotted them out like a cloud; if he exposes them, he has not thrown them into the depths of the sea. In this way Augustine clearly interprets: “If God has covered sins, he willed not to advert to them; if he willed not to advert, he willed not to animadvert; if he willed not to animadvert, he willed not to punish: he willed not to take knowledge of them, he rather willed to pardon them. Why then did he say that sins were hid? Just that they might not be seen. What is meant by God seeing sins but punishing them?” (August. in Ps. 32: 1.) But let us hear from another prophetical passage on what terms the Lord forgives sins: “Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool,” (Isa. 1: 18.) In Jeremiah again we read: “In those days, and in that time, saith the Lord, the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for, and there shall be none; and the sins of Judah, they shall not be found: for I will pardon them whom I reserve,” (Jer. 50: 20.) Would you briefly comprehend the meaning of these words? Consider what, on the contrary, is meant by these expressions, “that transgression is sealed up in a bag;” “that the iniquity of Ephraim is bound up; his sin is hid;” that “the sin of Judah is written with a pen of iron, and with the point of a diamond.” If they mean, as they certainly do, that vengeance will be recompensed, there can be no doubt that, by the contrary passages, the Lord declares that he renounces all thought of vengeance. Here I must entreat the reader not to listen to any glosses of mine, but only to give some deference to the word of God.

30.

What, pray, did Christ perform for us if the punishment of sin is still exacted? For when we say that he “bare our sins in his own body on the tree,” (1 Pet. 2: 24,) all we mean is, that he endured the penalty and punishment which was due to our sins. This is more significantly declared by Isaiah, when he says that the “chastisement (or correction) of our peace was upon him,” (Isaiah 53: 5.) But what is the correction of our peace, unless it be the punishment due to our sins, and to be paid by us before we could be reconciled to God, had he not become our substitute? Thus you clearly see that Christ bore the punishment of sin that he might thereby exempt his people from it. And whenever Paul makes mention of the redemption procured by him, he calls it “apolutrosis”, by which he does not simply mean redemption, as it is commonly understood, but the very price and satisfaction of redemption. For which reason, he also says, that Christ gave himself an “antilutron” (ransoms for us. “What is propitiation with the Lord (says Augustine) but sacrifice? And what is sacrifice but that which was offered for us in the death of Christ?” But we have our strongest argument in the injunctions of the Mosaic Law as to expiating the guilt of sin. The Lord does not there appoint this or that method of satisfying, but requires the whole compensation to be made by sacrifice, though he at the same time enumerates all the rites of expiation with the greatest care and exactness. How comes it that he does not at all enjoin works as the means of procuring pardon, but only requires sacrifices for expiation, unless it were his purpose thus to testify that this is the only kind of satisfaction by which his justice is appeased? For the sacrifices which the Israelites then offered were not regarded as human works, but were estimated by their anti type, that is, the sole sacrifice of Christ. The kind of compensation which the Lord receives from us is elegantly and briefly expressed by Hosea: “Take with you words, and turn to the Lord: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously,” here is remission: “so will we render the calves of our lips,” here is satisfaction, (Hos. 14: 2.) I know that they have still a more subtile evasion, by making a distinction between eternal and temporal punishment; but as they define temporal punishment to be any kind of infliction with which God visits either the body or the soul, eternal death only excepted, this restriction avails them little. The passages which we have quoted above say expressly that the terms on which God receives us into favor are these, viz., he remits all the punishment which we deserved by pardoning our guilt. And whenever David or the other prophets ask pardon for their sins, they deprecate punishment. Nay, a sense of the divine justice impels them to this. On the other hand, when they promise mercy from the Lord, they almost always discourse of punishments and the forgiveness of them. Assuredly, when the Lord declares in Ezekiel, that he will put an end to the Babylonish captivity, not “for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name’s sake,” (Ezek. 36: 22,) he sufficiently demonstrates that both are gratuitous. In short, if we are freed from guilt by Christ, the punishment consequent upon guilt must cease with it.

31.

But since they also arm themselves with passages of Scripture, let us see what the arguments are which they employ. David, they say, when upbraided by Nathan the Prophet for adultery and murder, receives pardon of the sin, and yet by the death of the son born of adultery is afterwards punished (2 Sam. 12: 13, 14.) Such punishments which were to be inflicted after the remission of the guilt, we are taught to ransom by satisfactions. For Daniel exhorted Nebuchadnezzar: “Break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by showing mercy to the poor,” (Dan. 4: 27.) And Solomon says, “by mercy and truth iniquity is purged” (Prov. 16: 6;) and again, “love covereth all sins,” (Prov. 10: 12.) This sentiment is confirmed by Peter, (1 Pet. 4: 8.) Also in Luke, our Lord says of the woman that was a sinner, “Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much,” (Luke 7: 47.) How perverse and preposterous the judgment they ever form of the doings of God! Had they observed, what certainly they ought not to have overlooked, that there are two kinds of divine judgment, they would have seen in the correction of David a very different form of punishment from that which must be thought designed for vengeance. But since it in no slight degree concerns us to understand the purpose of God in the chastisements by which he animadverts upon our sins and how much they differ from the exemplary punishments which he indignantly inflicts on the wicked and reprobate, I think it will not be improper briefly to glance at it. For the sake of distinction, we may call the one kind of judgment punishment, the other chastisement. In judicial punishment, God is to be understood as taking vengeance on his enemies, by displaying his anger against them, confounding, scattering, and annihilating them. By divine punishment, properly so called, let us then understand punishment accompanied with indignation. In judicial chastisement, he is offended, but not in wrath; he does not punish by destroying or striking down as with a thunderbolt. Hence it is not properly punishment or vengeance, but correction and admonition. The one is the act of a judge, the other of a father. When the judge punishes a criminal, he animadverts upon the crime, and demands the penalty. When a father corrects his son sharply, it is not to mulct or avenge, but rather to teach him, and make him more cautious for the future. Chrysostom in his writings employs a simile which is somewhat different, but the same in purport. He says, “A son is whipt, and a slave is whipt, but the latter is punished as a slave for his offense: the former is chastised as a free-born son, standing in need of correction.” The correction of the latter is designed to prove and amend him; that of the former is scourging and punishment.

32.

To have a short and clear view of the whole matter, we must make two distinctions. First, whenever the infliction is designed to avenge, then the curse and wrath of God displays itself. This is never the case with believers. On the contrary, the chastening of God carries his blessing with it, and is an evidence of love, as Scripture teaches. This distinction is plainly marked throughout the word of God. All the calamities which the wicked suffer in the present life are depicted to us as a kind of anticipation of the punishment of hell. In these they already see, as from a distance, their eternal condemnation; and so far are they from being thereby reformed, or deriving any benefit, that by such preludes they are rather prepared for the fearful doom which finally awaits them. The Lord chastens his servants sore, but does not give them over unto death, (Ps. 118: 18.) When afflicted, they acknowledge it is good for them, that they may learn his statutes, (Ps. 119: 71.) But as we everywhere read that the saints received their chastisements with placid mind, so inflictions of the latter kind they always most earnestly deprecated. “O Lord, correct me,” says Jeremiah, “but with judgment; not in thine anger, lest thou bring me to nothing. Pour out thy furry upon the heathen that know thee not, and upon the families that call not on thy name,” (Jer. 10: 24-25.) David says “O Lord, rebuke me not in thine anger, neither chasten me in thy hot displeasure” (Ps. 6: 1.) There is nothing inconsistent with this in its being repeatedly said, that the Lord is angry with his saints when he chastens them for their sins, (Ps. 38: 7.) In like manner, in Isaiah, “And in that day thou shalt say, O Lord, I will praise thee: though thou west angry with me, thine anger is turned away, and thou comfortedst me,” (Isa. 12: 1.) Likewise in Habakkuk, “In wrath remember mercy,” (Hab. 3: 2;) and in Micah, “I will bear the indignation of the Lord, because I have sinned against him,” (Mic. 7: 9.) Here we are reminded not only that those who are justly punished gain nothing by murmuring, but that believers obtain a mitigation of their pain by reflecting on the divine intention. For the same reason, he is said to profane his inheritance; and yet we know that he will never profane it. The expression refers not to the counsel or purpose of God in punishing, but to the keen sense of pain, endured by those who are visited with any measure of divine severity. For the Lord not only chastens his people with a slight degree of austerity, but sometimes so wounds them, that they seem to themselves on the very eve of perdition. He thus declares that they have deserved his anger, and it is fitting so to do, that they may be dissatisfied with themselves for their sins, may be more careful in their desires to appease God, and anxiously hasten to seek his pardon; still, at this very time, he gives clearer evidence of his mercy than of his anger. For He who cannot deceive has declared, that the covenant made with us in our true Solomon stands fast and will never be broken, “If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments; if they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments; then will I visit their transgressions with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless, my loving-kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail,” (Ps. 89: 31-34.) To assure us of this mercy, he says, that the rod with which he will chastise the posterity of Solomon will be the “rod of men,” and “the stripes of the children of men,” (2 Sam. 7: 14.) While by these terms he denotes moderation and levity, he, at the same time, intimates, that those who feel the hand of God opposed to them cannot but tremble and be confounded. How much regard he has to this levity in chastening his Israel he shows by the Prophet, “Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction,” (Isa. 48: 10.) Although he tells them that they are chastisements with a view to purification, he adds, that even these are so tempered, that they are not to be too much crushed by them. And this is very necessary, for the more a man reveres God, and devotes himself to the cultivation of piety, the more tender he is in bearing his anger, (Ps. 90: 11; and ibid. Calv.) The reprobate, though they groan under the lash, yet because they weigh not the true cause, but rather turn their back, as well upon their sins as upon the divine judgment, become hardened in their stupor; or, because they murmur and kick, and so rebel against their judge, their infatuated violence fills them with frenzy and madness. Believers, again, admonished by the rod of God, immediately begin to reflect on their sins, and, struck with fear and dread, retake themselves as suppliants to implore mercy. Did not God mitigate the pains by which wretched souls are excruciated, they would give way a hundred times, even at slight signs of his anger.

33.

The second distinction is, that when the reprobate are brought under the lash of God, they begin in a manner to pay the punishment due to his justice; and though their refusal to listen to these proofs of the divine anger will not escape with impunity, still they are not punished with the view of bringing them to a better mind, but only to teach them by dire experience that God is a judge and avenger. The sons of God are beaten with rods, not that they may pay the punishment due to their faults, but that they may thereby be led to repent. Accordingly, we perceive that they have more respect to the future than to the past. I prefer giving this in the words of Chrysostom rather than my own: “His object in imposing a penalty upon us, is not to inflict punishment on our sins but to correct us for the future,” (Chrysost. Serm. de Poenit. et Confess.) So also Augustine, “The suffering at which you cry, is medicine, not punishment; chastisement, not condemnation. Do not drive away the rod, if you would not be driven away from the inheritance. Know, brethren, that the whole of that misery of the human race, under which the world groans, is a medicinal pain, not a penal sentence,” (August. in Psal. 102, circa finem.) It seemed proper to quote these passages, lest any one should think the mode of expression which I have used to be novel or uncommon. To the same effect are the indignant terms in which the Lord expostulates with his people, for their ingratitude in obstinately despising all his inflictions. In Isaiah he says, “Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more. The whole head is sick and the whole heart faint,” (Isa. 1: 5, 6.) But as such passages abound in the Prophets, it is sufficient briefly to have shown, that the only purpose of God in punishing his Church is to subdue her to repentance. Thus, when he rejected Saul from the kingdoms he punished in vengeance, (1 Sam. 15: 23;) when he deprived David of his child, he chastised for amendment, (2 Sam. 12: 18.) In this sense Paul is to be understood when he says, “When we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world,” (1 Cor. 11: 32;) that is, while we as sons of God are afflicted by our heavenly Father’s hand, it is not punishment to confound, but only chastisement to train us. On this subject Augustine is plainly with us, (De Peccator. Meritis ac Remiss. Lib. 2 cap. 33, 34.) For he shows that the punishments with which men are equally chastened by God are to be variously considered; because the saints after the forgiveness of their sins have struggles and exercises, the reprobate without forgiveness are punished for their iniquity. Enumerating the punishments inflicted on David and other saints, he says, it was designed, by thus humbling them, to prove and exercise their piety. The passage in Isaiah, in which it is said, “Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished that her iniquity is pardoned; for she has received of the Lord’s hands double for all her sins,” (Isa. 40: 2,) proves not that the pardon of sin depends on freedom from punishment. It is just as if he had said, Sufficient punishment has now been exacted; as for their number and heinousness you have long been oppressed with sorrow and mourning, it is time to send you a message of complete mercy, that your minds may be filled with joy on feeling me to be a Father. For God there assumes the character of a father who repents even of the just severity which he has been compelled to us, towards his son.

34.

These are the thoughts with which the believer ought to be provided in the bitterness of affliction, “The time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God,” “the city which is called by my name,” (1 Pet. 4: 17; Jer. 25: 29.) What could the sons of God do, if they thought that the severity which they feel was vengeance? He who, smitten by the hand of God, thinks that God is a judge inflicting punishment, cannot conceive of him except as angry and at enmity with him; cannot but detest the rod of God as curse and condemnation; in short, Can never persuade himself that he is loved by God, while he feels that he is still disposed to inflict punishment upon him. He only profits under the divine chastening who considers that God, though offended with his sins, is still propitious and favorable to him. Otherwise, the feeling must necessarily be what the Psalmist complains that he had experienced, “Thy wrath lieth hard upon me, and thou hast afflicted me with all thy waves.” Also what Moses says, “For we are consumed by thine anger, and by thy wrath we are troubled. Thou hast set our iniquities before thee, our secret sins in the light of thy countenance. For all our days are passed away in thy wrath; we spend our years as a tale that is told,” (Ps. 90: 7-9.) On the other hand, David speaking of fatherly chastisements, to show how believers are more assisted than oppressed by them, thus sings “Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O Lord, and teachest him out of thy law; that thou mayest give him rest from the days of adversity, until the pit be digged for the wicked,” (Ps. 94: 12,13.) It is certainly a sore temptation, when God, sparing unbelievers and overlooking their crimes, appears more rigid towards his own people. Hence, to solace them, he adds the admonition of the law which teaches them, that their salvation is consulted when they are brought back to the right path, whereas the wicked are borne headlong in their errors, which ultimately lead to the pit. It matters not whether the punishment is eternal or temporary. For disease, pestilence, famine, and war, are curses from God, as much as even the sentence of eternal death, whenever their tendency is to operate as instruments of divine wrath and vengeance against the reprobate.

35.

All, if I mistake not, now see what view the Lord had in chastening David, namely, to prove that murder and adultery are most offensive to God, and to manifest this offensiveness in a beloved and faithful servant, that David himself might be taught never again to dare to commit such wickedness; still, however, it was not a punishment designed in payment of a kind of compensation to God. In the same way are we to judge of that other correction, in which the Lord subjects his people to a grievous pestilence, for the disobedience of David in forgetting himself so far as to number the people. He indeed freely forgave David the guilt of his sin; but because it was necessary, both as a public example to all ages and also to humble David himself, not to allow such an offense to go unpunished, he chastened him most sharply with his whip. We ought also to keep this in view in the universal curse of the human race. For since after obtaining grace we still continue to endure the miseries denounced to our first parent as the penalty of transgression, we ought thereby to be reminded, how offensive to God is the transgression of his law, that thus humbled and dejected by a consciousness of our wretched condition, we may aspire more ardently to true happiness. But it were most foolish in any one to imagine, that we are subjected to the calamities of the present life for the guilt of sin. This seems to me to have been Chrysostom’s meaning when he said, “If the purpose of God in inflicting punishment is to bring those persisting in evil to repentance, when repentance is manifested punishment would be superfluous,” (Chrysos. Homily. 3 de Provid.) Wherefore, as he knows what the disposition of each requires, he treats one with greater harshness and another with more indulgence. Accordingly, when he wishes to show that he is not excessive in exacting punishment, he upbraids a hard hearted and obstinate people, because, after being smitten, they still continued in sin, (Jer. 5: 3.) In the same sense he complains, that “Ephraim is a cake not turned” (Hos. 7: 8,) because chastisement did not make a due impression on their minds, and, correcting their vices, make them fit to receive pardon. Surely he who thus speaks shows, that as soon as any one repents he will be ready to receive him, and that the rigor which he exercises in chastising faults is wrung from him by our perverseness, since we should prevent him by a voluntary correction. Such, however, being the hardness and rudeness of all hearts, that they stand universally in need of castigation, our infinitely wise Parent has seen it meet to exercise all without exception, during their whole lives, with chastisement. It is strange how they fix their eyes so intently on the one example of David, and are not moved by the many examples in which they might have beheld the free forgiveness of sins. The publican is said to have gone down from the temple justified (Luke 18: 14;) no punishment follows. Peter obtained the pardon of his sin, (Luke 22: 61.) “We read of his tears,” says Ambrose, (Serm. 46, De Poenit. Petri,) “we read not of satisfaction.” To the paralytic it is said, “Son, be of good cheer; thy sina be forgiven thee,” (Matth. 9: 2;) no penance is enjoined. All the acts of forgiveness mentioned in Scripture are gratuitous. The rule ought to be drawn from these numerous examples, rather than from one example which contains a kind of specialty.

36.

Daniel, in exhorting Nebuchadnezzar to break off his sins by righteousness, and his iniquities by showing mercy to the poor, (Dan. 4: 27,) meant not to intimate, that righteousness and mercy are able to propitiate God and redeem from punishment, (far be it from us to suppose that there ever was any other “apolutrosis” (ransom) than the blood of Christ;) but the breaking off referred to in that passage has reference to man rather than to God: as if he had said, O king, you have exercised an unjust and violent domination, you have oppressed the humble, spoiled the poor, treated your people harshly and unjustly; instead of unjust exaction, instead of violence and oppression, now practice mercy and justice. In like manner, Solomon says, that love covers a multitude of sins; not, however, with God, but among men. For the whole verse stands thus, “Hatred stirreth up strifes; but love covereth all sins,” (Prov. 10: 12.) Here, after his manner, he contrasts the evils produced by hatred with the fruits of charity, in this sense, Those who hate are incessantly biting, carping at, upbraiding, lacerating each other, making every thing a fault; but those who love mutually conceal each other’s faults, wink at many, forgive many: not that the one approves the vices of the other, but tolerates and cures by admonishing, rather than exasperates by assailing. That the passage is quoted by Peter (1 Pet. 4: 8) in the same sense we cannot doubt, unless we would charge him with corrupting or craftily wresting Scripture. When it is said, that “by mercy and truth iniquity is purged,” (Prov. 16: 6,) the meaning is, not that by them compensation is made to the Lord, so that he being thus satisfied remits the punishment which he would otherwise have exacted; but intimation is made after the familiar manner of Scripture, that those who, forsaking their vices and iniquities turn to the Lord in truth and piety, will find him propitious: as if he had said, that the wrath of God is calmed, and his judgment is at rest, whenever we rest from our wickedness. But, indeed, it is not the cause of pardon that is described, but rather the mode of true conversion; just as the Prophets frequently declare, that it is in vain for hypocrites to offer God fictitious rites instead of repentance, seeing his delight is in integrity and the duties of charity. In like manner, also, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, commending kindness and humanity, reminds us, that “with such sacrifices God is well pleased,” (Heb. 13: 16.) And indeed when Christ, rebuking the Pharisees because, intent merely on the outside of the cup and platter, they neglected purity of heart, enjoins them, in order that they may be clean in all respects, to give alms, does he exhort them to give satisfaction thereby? He only tells them what the kind of purity is which God requires. Of this mode of expression we have treated elsewhere, (Matth. 23: 25; Luke 11: 39-41; see Calv. in Harm. Evang.)

37.

In regard to the passage in Luke, (Luke 7: 36, sq.) no man of sober judgment, who reads the parable there employed by our Lord, will raise any controversy with us. The Pharisee thought that the Lord did not know the character of the woman whom he had so easily admitted to his presence. For he presumed that he would not have admitted her if he had known what kind of a sinner she was; and from this he inferred, that one who could be deceived in this way was not a prophet. Our Lord, to show that she was not a sinner, inasmuch as she had already been forgiven, spake this parable: “There was a certain creditor which had two debtors; the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty. And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me, therefore, which of them will love him most? The Pharisee answers: “I suppose that he to whom he forgave most.” Then our Savior rejoins: “Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much.” By these words it is plain he does not make love the cause of forgiveness, but the proof of it. The similitude is borrowed from the case of a debtor, to whom a debt of five hundred pence had been forgiven. It is not said that the debt is forgiven because he loved much, but that he loved much because it was forgiven. The similitude ought to be applied in this way: You think this woman is a sinner; but you ought to have acknowledged her as not a sinner, in respect that her sins have been forgiven her. Her love ought to have been to you a proof of her having obtained forgiveness, that love being an expression of gratitude for the benefit received. It is an argument a posteriori, by which something is demonstrated by the results produced by it. Our Lord plainly attests the ground on which she had obtained forgiveness, when he says, “Thy faith has saved thee.” By faith, therefore, we obtain forgiveness: by love we give thanks, and bear testimony to the loving-kindness of the Lord.

38.

I am little moved by the numerous passages in the writings of the Fathers relating to satisfaction. I see indeed that some (I will frankly say almost all whose books are extant) have either erred in this matter, or spoken too roughly and harshly; but I cannot admit that they were so rude and unskillful as to write these passages in the sense in which they are read by our new satisfactionaries. Chrysostom somewhere says, “When mercy is implored interrogation ceases; when mercy is asked, judgment rages not; when mercy is sought, there is no room for punishment; where there is mercy, no question is asked; where there is mercy, the answer gives pardon,” (Chrysos. Hom. 2 in Psal. 50.) How much soever these words may be twisted, they can never be reconciled with the dogmas of the Schoolmen. In the book De Dogmatibus Ecclesiasticis, which is attributed to Augustine, you read, (cap. 54,) “The satisfaction of repentance is to cut off the causes of sins, and not to indulge an entrance to their suggestions.” From this it appears that the doctrine of satisfaction, said to be paid for sins committed, was every where derided in those ages; for here the only satisfaction referred to is caution, abstinence from sin for the future. I am unwilling to quote what Chrysostom says, (Hom. 10 in Genes.) that God requires nothing more of us than to confess our faults before him with tears, as similar sentiments abound both in his writings and those of others. Augustine indeed calls works of mercy remedies for obtaining forgiveness of sins, (Enchir. ad Laur.;) but lest any one should stumble at the expression, he himself, in another passage, obviates the difficulty. “The flesh of Christ,” says he, “is the true and only sacrifice for sins—not only for those which are all effaced in baptism, but those into which we are afterwards betrayed through infirmity, and because of which the whole Church daily cries, ‘Forgive us our debts,’ (Matth. 6: 12.) And they are forgiven by that special sacrifice.”

39.

By satisfaction, however, they, for the most part, meant not compensation to be paid to God, but the public testimony, by which those who had been punished with excommunication, and wished again to be received into communion, assured the Church of their repentance. For those penitents were enjoined certain fasts and other things, by which they might prove that they were truly, and from the heart, weary of their former life, or rather might obliterate the remembrance of their past deeds: in this way they were said to give satisfaction, not to God, but to the Church. The same thing is expressed by Augustine in a passage in his Enchiridion ad Laurentium, cap. 65. From that ancient custom the satisfactions and confessions now in use took their rise. It is indeed a viperish progeny, not even a vestige of the better form now remaining. I know that ancient writers sometimes speak harshly; nor do I deny, as I lately said, that they have perhaps erred; but dogmas, which were tainted with a few blemishes now that they have fallen into the unwashed hands of those men, are altogether defiled. And if we were to decide the contest by authority of the Fathers, what kind of Fathers are those whom they obtrude upon us? A great part of those, from whom Lombard their Coryphaeus framed his centos, are extracted from the absurd dreams of certain monks passing under the names of Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and Chrysostom. On the present subject almost all his extracts are from the book of Augustine De Paenitentia, a book absurdly compiled by some rhapsodist, alike from good and bad authors—a book which indeed bears the name of Augustine, but which no person of the least learning would deign to acknowledge as his. Wishing to save my readers trouble, they will pardon me for not searching minutely into all their absurdities. For myself it were not very laborious, and might gain some applause, to give a complete exposure of dogmas which have hitherto been vaunted as mysteries; but as my object is to give useful instruction, I desist.

CHAPTER 5. OF THE MODES OF SUPPLEMENTING SATISFACTION, VIZ., INDULGENCES AND PURGATORY.

Divisions of the chapter, -

I. A summary description and refutation of Popish indulgences, sec. 1, 2.

II. Confutation by Leo and Augustine. Answer to two objections urged in support of them, sec. 3, 4. A profane love of filthy lucre on the part of the Pope. The origin of indulgences unfolded, sec. 5.

III. An examination of Popish purgatory. Its horrible impiety, sec. 6. An explanation of five passages of Scripture by which Sophists endeavor to support that dream, sec. 7, 8. Sentiments of the ancient Theologians concerning purgatory, sec. 10.

Sections.

1. The dogma of satisfaction the parent of indulgences. Vanity of both. The reason of it. Evidence of the avarice of the Pope and the Romish clergy: also of the blindness with which the Christian world was smitten.

2. View of indulgences given by the Sophists. Their true nature. Refutation of them. Refutation confirmed by seven passages of Scripture.

3. Confirmed also by the testimony of Leo, a Roman Bishop, and by Augustine. Attempts of the Popish doctors to establish the monstrous doctrine of indulgences, and even support it by Apostolical authority. First answer.

4. Second answer to the passage of an Apostle adduced to support the dogma of indulgences. Answer confirmed by a comparison with other passages, and from a passage in Augustine, explaining the Apostle’s meaning. Another passage from the same Apostle confirming this view.

5. The Pope’s profane thirst for filthy lucre exposed. The origin of indulgences.

6. Examination of the fictitious purgatory of the Papists.

1. From the nature of the thing itself.

2. From the authority of God.

3. From the consideration of the merit of Christ, which is destroyed by this fiction. Purgatory, what it is.

4. From the impiety teeming from this fountain.

7. Exposition of the passages of Scripture quoted in support of purgatory.

1. Of the Impardonable sin, from which it is inferred that there are some sins afterwards to be forgiven.

2. Of the passage as to paying the last farthing.

8. 3. The passage concerning the bending of the knee to Christ by things under the earth.

4. The example of Judas Maccabaeus in sending an oblation for the dead to Jerusalem.

9. 5. Of the fire which shall try every man’s work. The sentiment of the ancient theologians. Answer, containing a reduction ad absurdum. Confirmation by a passage of Augustine. The meaning of the Apostle. What to be understood by fire. A clear exposition of the metaphor. The day of the Lord. How those who suffer loss are saved by fire.

10. The doctrine of purgatory ancient, but refuted by a more ancient Apostle. Not supported by ancient writers, by Scripture, or solid argument. Introduced by custom and a zeal not duly regulated by the word of God. Ancient writers, as Augustine, speak doubtfully in commending prayer for the dead. At all events, we must hold by the word of God, which rejects this fiction. A vast difference between the more ancient and the more modern builders of purgatory. This shown by comparing them.

(The erroneous doctrine of indulgences and its evil consequences, 1-5)

1. Indulgences according to Romanist doctrine, and the mischief caused by them

From this dogma of satisfaction that of indulgences takes its rise. For the pretence is, that what is wanting to our own ability is hereby supplied; and they go the insane length of defining them to be a dispensation of the merits of Christ, and the martyrs which the Pope makes by his bulls. Though they are fitter for hellebore than for argument,—and it is scarcely worth while to refute these frivolous errors, which, already battered down, begin of their own accord to grow antiquated, and totter to their fall;—yet, as a brief refutation may be useful to some of the unlearned, I will not omit it.

Indeed, the fact that indulgences have so long stood safe and with impunity, and wantoned with so much fury and tyranny, may be regarded as a proof into how deep a night of ignorance mankind were for some ages plunged. They saw themselves insulted openly, and without disguise, by the Pope and his bull-bearers; they saw the salvation of the soul made the subject of a lucrative traffic, salvation taxed at a few pieces of money, nothing given gratuitously; they saw what was squeezed from them in the form of oblations basely consumed on strumpets, pimps and gluttony, the loudest trumpeters of indulgences being the greatest despisers; they saw the monster stalking abroad, and every day luxuriating with greater license, and that without end, new bulls being constantly issued, and new sums extracted. Still indulgences were received with the greatest reverence, worshipped, and bought. Even those who saw more clearly than others deemed them pious frauds, by which, even in deceiving, some good was gained. Now, at length, that a considerable portion of the world have begun to rethink themselves, indulgences grow cool, and gradually even begin to freeze, preparatory to their final extinction.

2. Indulgences contrary to Scripture

But since very many who see the vile imposture, theft, and rapine, (with which the dealers in indulgences have hitherto deluded and sported with us,) are not aware of the true source of the impiety, it may be proper to show not only what indulgences truly are, but also that they are polluted in every part. They give the name of treasury of the Church to the merits of Christ, the holy Apostles and Martyrs. They pretend, as I have said, that the radical custody of the granary has been delivered to the Roman bishop, to whom the dispensation of these great blessings belongs in such a sense, that he can both exercise it by himself, and delegate the power of exercising it to others. Hence we have from the Pope at one time plenary indulgences, at another for certain years; from the cardinals for a hundred days, and from the bishops for forty.

These, to describe them truly, are a profanation of the blood of Christ, and a delusion of Satan, by which the Christian people are led away from the grace of God and the life which is in Christ, and turned aside from the true way of salvation. For how could the blood of Christ be more shamefully profaned than by denying its sufficiency for the remission of sins, for reconciliation and satisfaction, unless its defects, as if it were dried up and exhausted, are supplemented from some other quarter? Peter’s words are: “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins,” (Acts 10: 43;) but indulgences bestow the remission of sins through Peter, Paul, and the Martyrs. “The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin,” says John, (1 John 1: 7.) Indulgences make the blood of the martyrs an ablution of sins. “He has made him to be sin (i. e. a satisfaction for sin) for us who knew no sin,” says Paul, (2 Cor. 5: 21,) “that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” Indulgences make the satisfaction of sin to depend on the blood of the martyrs. Paul exclaimed and testified to the Corinthians, that Christ alone was crucified, and died for them, (1 Cor. 1: 13.) Indulgences declare that Paul and others died for us. Paul elsewhere says that Christ purchased the Church with his own blood, (Acts 20: 28.) Indulgences assign another purchase to the blood of martyrs. “By one offering he has perfected for ever them that are sanctified,” says the Apostle, (Heb. 10: 14.) Indulgences, on the other hand, insist that sanctification, which would otherwise be insufficient, is perfected by martyrs. John says that all the saints “have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb,” (Rev. 7: 14.) Indulgences tell us to wash our robes in the blood of saints.

3. Authorities against indulgences and merits of martyrs

There is an admirable passage in opposition to their blasphemies in Leo, a Roman Bishop, (ad Palaestinos, Ep. 81.) “Although the death of many saints was precious in the sight of the Lord, (Ps. 116: 15,) yet no innocent man’s slaughter was the propitiation of the world. The just received crowns did not give them; and the fortitude of believers produced examples of patience, not gifts of righteousness: for their deaths were for themselves; and none by his final end paid the debt of another, except Christ our Lord, in whom alone all are crucified—all dead, buried, and raised up.” This sentiment, as it was of a memorable nature, he has elsewhere repeated, (Epist. 95.) Certainly one could not desire a clearer confutation of this impious dogma. Augustine introduces the same sentiment not less appositely: “Although brethren die for brethren, yet no martyr’s blood is shed for the remission of sins: this Christ did for us, and in this conferred upon us not what we should imitate, but what should make us grateful,” (August. Tract. in Joann. 84.) Again, in another passage: “As he alone became the Son of God and the Son of man, that he might make us to be with himself sons of God, so he alone, without any ill desert, undertook the penalty for us, that through him we mighty without good desert, obtain undeserved favor,” (ad Bonif. Lib. 4, cap. 4.)

Indeed, as their whole doctrine is a patchwork of sacrilege and blasphemy, this is the most blasphemous of the whole. Let them acknowledge whether or not they hold the following dogmas: That the martyrs, by their death, performed more to God, and merited more than was necessary for themselves, and that they have a large surplus of merits which may be applied to others; that in order that this great good may not prove superfluous, their blood is mingled with the blood of Christ, and out of both is formed the treasury of the Church, for the forgiveness and satisfaction of sins; and that in this sense we must understand the words of Paul: “Who now rejoice in my sufferings, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the Church,” (Col. 1: 24.)

What is this but merely to leave the name of Christ, and at the same time make him a vulgar saintling, who can scarcely be distinguished in the crowd? He alone ought to be preached, alone held forth, alone named, alone looked to, whenever the subject considered is the obtaining of the forgiveness of sins, expiation, and sanctification. But let us hear their propositions. That the blood of martyrs may not be shed without fruit, it must be employed for the common good of the Church. Is it so? Was there no fruit in glorifying God by death? in sealing his truth with their blood? in testifying, by contempt of the present life, that they looked for a better? in confirming the faith of the Church, and at the same time disabling the pertinacity of the enemy by their constancy? But thus it is. They acknowledge no fruit if Christ is the only propitiation, if he alone died for our sins, if he alone was offered for our redemption. Nevertheless, they say, Peter and Paul would have gained the crown of victory though they had died in their beds a natural death. But as they contended to blood, it would not accord with the justice of God to leave their doing so barren and unfruitful. As if God were unable to augment the glory of his servants in proportion to the measure of his gifts. The advantage derived in common by the Church is great enough, when, by their triumphs, she is inflamed with zeal to fight.

4. Refutation of opposing Scriptural proofs

How maliciously they wrest the passage in which Paul says, that he supplies in his body that which was lacking in the sufferings of Christ! (Col. 1: 24.) That defect or supplement refers not to the work of redemption, satisfaction, or expiation, but to those afflictions with which the members of Christ, in other words, all believers, behave to be exercised, so long as they are in the flesh. He says, therefore, that part of the sufferings of Christ still remains, viz., that what he suffered in himself he daily suffers in his members. Christ so honors us as to regard and count our afflictions as his own. By the additional words—for the Church, Paul means not for the redemptions or reconciliations or satisfaction of the Church, but for edification and progress. As he elsewhere says, “I endure all things for the elect’s sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory” (2 Tim. 2: 10.) He also writes to the Corinthians: “Whether we be afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation, which is effectual in the enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer,” (2 Cor. 1: 6.)

In the same place he immediately explains his meaning by adding, that he was made a minister of the Church, not for redemption, but according to the dispensation which he received to preach the gospel of Christ.

But if they still desire another interpreter, let them hear Augustine: “The sufferings of Christ are in Christ alone, as in the head; in Christ and the Church as in the whole body. Hence Paul, being one member says, ‘I fill up in my body that which is behind of the sufferings of Christ.’ Therefore O hearers whoever you be, if you are among the members of Christ, whatever you suffer from those who are not members of Christ, was lacking to the sufferings of Christ,” (August. in Ps. 16.) He elsewhere explains the end of the sufferings of the Apostles undertaken for Christ: “Christ is my door to you, because ye are the sheep of Christ purchased by his blood: acknowledge your price, which is not paid by me, but preached by me,” (August. Tract. in Joann. 47.) He afterwards adds, “As he laid down his life, so ought we to lay down our lives for the brethren, to build up peace and maintain faith.” Thus far Augustine. Far be it from us to imagine that Paul thought any thing was wanting to the sufferings of Christ in regard to the complete fulness of righteousness, salvation, and life, or that he wished to make any addition to it, after showing so clearly and eloquently that the grace of Christ was poured out in such rich abundance as far to exceed all the power of sin, (Rom. 5: 15.) All saints have been saved by it alone, not by the merit of their own life or death, as Peter distinctly testifies, (Acts 15: 11;) so that it is an insult to God and his Anointed to place the worthiness of any saint in any thing save the mercy of God alone. But why dwell longer on this, as if the matter were obscure, when to mention these monstrous dogmas is to refute them?

5. Indulgences oppose the unity and comprehensive activity of the grace of Christ

Moreover, to say nothing of these abominations, who taught the Pope to enclose the grace of Jesus Christ in lead and parchment, grace which the Lord is pleased to dispense by the word of the Gospel? Undoubtedly either the Gospel of God or indulgences must be false. That Christ is offered to us in the Gospel with all the abundance of heavenly blessings, with all his merits, all his righteousness, wisdom, and grace, without exception, Paul bears witness when he says, “Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he has made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,” (2 Cor. 5: 20, 21.) And what is meant by the fellowship (koinonia) of Christ, which according to the same Apostle (1 Cor. 1: 9) is offered to us in the Gospel, all believers know. On the contrary, indulgences, bringing forth some portion of the grace of God from the armory of the Pope, fix it to lead, parchment, and a particular place, but dissever it from the word of God.

When we inquire into the origin of this abuse, it appears to have arisen from this, that when in old times the satisfactions imposed on penitents were too severe to be borne, those who felt themselves burdened beyond measure by the penance imposed, petitioned the Church for relaxation. The remission so given was called indulgence. But as they transferred satisfactions to God, and called them compensations by which men redeem themselves from the justice of God, they in the same way transferred indulgences, representing them as expiatory remedies which free us from merited punishment. The blasphemies to which we have referred have been feigned with so much effrontery that there is not the least pretext for them.

(Refutation of the doctrine of purgatory by an exposition of the Scriptural passages adduced to support it, 6-10)

6. Refutation of the doctrine of purgatory is necessary

Their purgatory cannot now give us much trouble, since with this ax we have struck it, thrown it down, and overturned it from its very foundations. I cannot agree with some who think that we ought to dissemble in this matter, and make no mention of purgatory, from which (as they say) fierce contests arise, and very little edification can be obtained. I myself would think it right to disregard their follies did they not tend to serious consequences. But since purgatory has been reared on many, and is daily propped up by new blasphemies; since it produces many grievous offenses, assuredly it is not to be connived at, however it might have been disguised for a time, that without any authority from the word of God, it was devised by prying audacious rashness, that credit was procured for it by fictitious revelations, the wiles of Satan, and that certain passages of Scripture were ignorantly wrested to its support. Although the Lord bears not that human presumption should thus force its way to the hidden recesses of his judgments; although he has issued a strict prohibition against neglecting his voice, and making inquiry at the dead, (Deut. 18: 11,) and permits not his word to be so erroneously contaminated.

Let us grant, however, that all this might have been tolerated for a time as a thing of no great moment; yet when the expiation of sins is sought elsewhere than in the blood of Christ, and satisfaction is transferred to others, silence were most perilous. We are bound, therefore, to raise our voice to its highest pitch, and cry aloud that purgatory is a deadly device of Satan; that it makes void the cross of Christ; that it offers intolerable insult to the divine mercy; that it undermines and overthrows our faith. For what is this purgatory but the satisfaction for sin paid after death by the souls of the dead? Hence when this idea of satisfaction is refuted, purgatory itself is forthwith completely overturned. But if it is perfectly clear, from what was lately said, that the blood of Christ is the only satisfaction, expiation, and cleansing for the sins of believers, what remains but to hold that purgatory is mere blasphemy, horrid blasphemy against Christ? I say nothing of the sacrilege by which it is daily defended, the offenses which it begets in religion, and the other innumerable evils which we see teeming forth from that fountain of impiety.

7. Alleged proofs of purgatory from the Gospels

Those passages of Scripture on which it is their wont falsely and iniquitously to fasten, it may be worth while to wrench out of their hands.

When the Lord declares that the sin against the Holy Ghost will not be forgiven either in this world or the world to come, he thereby intimates (they say) that there is a remission of certain sins hereafter. But who sees not that the Lord there speaks of the guilt of sin? But if this is so, what has it to do with their purgatory, seeing they deny not that the guilt of those sins, the punishment of which is there expiated, is forgiven in the present life? Lest, however, they should still object, we shall give a plainer solution. Since it was the Lord’s intention to cut off all hope of pardon from this flagitous wickedness, he did not consider it enough to say, that it would never be forgiven, but in the way of amplification employed a division by which he included both the judgment which every man’s conscience pronounces in the present life, and the final judgment which will be publicly pronounced at the resurrection; as if he had said, Beware of this malignant rebellion, as you would of instant destruction; for he who of set purpose endeavors to extinguish the offered light of the Spirit, shall not obtain pardon either in this life, which has been given to sinners for conversion, or on the last day when the angels of God shall separate the sheep from the goats, and the heavenly kingdom shall be purged of all that offends (Cf. Matt. 25:32-33).

The next passage they produce is the parable in Matthew: “Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily, I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost earthing,” (Matth. 5: 25, 26.) If in this passage the judge means God, the adversary the devil, the officer an angel, and the prison purgatory, I give in at once. But if every man sees that Christ there intended to show to how many perils and evils those expose themselves who obstinately insist on their utmost right, instead of being satisfied with what is fair and equitable, that he might thereby the more strongly exhort his followers to concord, where, I ask, are we to find their purgatory?

8.From Philippians, Revelation, and 2nd Maccabees

They seek an argument in the passage in which Paul declares, that all things shall bow the knee to Christ, “things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth,” (Phil. 2: 10.) They take it for granted, that by “things under the earth,” cannot be meant those who are doomed to eternal damnation, and that the only remaining conclusion is, that they must be souls suffering in purgatory. They would not reason very ill if, by the bending of the knee, the Apostle designated true worship; but since he simply says that Christ has received a dominion to which all creatures are subject, what prevents us from understanding those “under the earth” to mean the devils, who shall certainly be sisted before the judgment-seat of God, there to recognize their Judge with fear and trembling? In this way Paul himself elsewhere interprets the same prophecy: “We shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God,” (Rom. 14: 10, 11.)

But we cannot in this way interpret what is said in the Apocalypse: “Every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, heard I saying, Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever,” (Rev. 5: 13.) This I readily admit; but what kinds of creatures do they suppose are here enumerated? It is absolutely certain, that both irrational and inanimate creatures are comprehended. All, then, which is affirmed is, that every part of the universe, from the highest pinnacle of heaven to the very centre of the earth, each in its own way proclaims the glory of the Creator.

To the passage which they produce from the history of the Maccabees, (1 Maccab. 12: 43,) I will not deign to reply, lest I should seem to include that work among the canonical books. But Augustine holds it to be canonical. First, with what degree of confidence? “The Jews,” says he, “do not hold the book of the Maccabees as they do the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, to which the Lord bears testimony as to his own witnesses, saying, Ought not all things which are written in the Law, and the Psalms, and the Prophets, concerning me be fulfilled? (Luke 24: 44.) But it has been received by the Church not uselessly, if it be read or heard with soberness.” Jerome, however, unhesitatingly affirms, that it is of no authority in establishing doctrine; and from the ancient little book, De Expositione Symboli; which bears the name of Cyprian, it is plain that it was in no estimation in the ancient Church. And why do I here contend in vain? As if the author himself did not sufficiently show what degree of deference is to be paid him, when in the end he asks pardon for any thing less properly expressed, (2 Maccab. 15: 38.) He who confesses that his writings stand in need of pardon, certainly proclaims that they are not oracles of the Holy Spirit. We may add, that the piety of Judas is commended for no other reason than for having a firm hope of the final resurrection, in sending his oblation for the dead to Jerusalem. For the writer of the history does not represent what he did as furnishing the price of redemption, but merely that they might be partakers of eternal life, with the other saints who had fallen for their country and religion. The act, indeed, was not free from superstition and misguided zeal; but it is mere fatuity to extend the legal sacrifice to us, seeing we are assured that the sacrifices then in use ceased on the advent of Christ.

9. The crucial passage in I Cor. ch. 3

But, it seems, they find in Paul an invincible support, which cannot be so easily overthrown. His words are, “Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work shall be burnt, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire,” (1 Cor. 3: 12-l5.) What fire (they ask) can that be but the fire of purgatory, by which the defilements of sin are wiped away, in order that we may enter pure into the kingdom of God? But most of the Fathers give it a different meaning, viz., the tribulation or cross by which the Lord tries his people, that they may not rest satisfied with the defilements of the flesh. This is much more probable than the fiction of a purgatory. I do not, however, agree with them, for I think I see a much surer and clearer meaning to the passage.

But, before I produce it, I wish they would answer me, whether they think the Apostle and all the saints have to pass through this purgatorial fire? I am aware they will say, no; for it were too absurd to hold that purification is required by those whose superfluous merits they dream of as applicable to all the members of the Church. But this the Apostle affirms; for he says, not that the works of certain persons, but the works of all will be tried. And this is not my argument, but that of Augustine, who thus impugns that interpretation. And (what makes the thing more absurd) he says, not that they will pass through fire for certain works, but that even if they should have edified the Church with the greatest fidelity, they will receive their reward after their works shall have been tried by fire.

First, we see that the Apostle used a metaphor when he gave the names of wood, hay, and stubble, to doctrines of man’s device. The ground of the metaphor is obvious, viz., that as wood when it is put into the fire is consumed and destroyed, so neither will those doctrines be able to endure when they come to be tried. Moreover, every one sees that the trial is made by the Spirit of God. Therefore, in following out the thread of the metaphor, and adapting its parts properly to each other, he gave the name of fire to the examination of the Holy Spirit. For, just as silver and gold, the nearer they are brought to the fire, give stronger proof of their genuineness and purity, so the Lord’s truth, the more thoroughly it is submitted to spiritual examination, has its authority the better confirmed. As hay, wood, and stubble, when the fire is applied to them, are suddenly consumed, so the inventions of man, not founded on the word of God, cannot stand the trial of the Holy Spirit, but forthwith give way and perish. In fine, if spurious doctrines are compared to wood, hay, and stubble, because, like wood, hay, and stubble, they are burned by fire and fitted for destruction, though the actual destruction is only completed by the Spirit of the Lord, it follows that the Spirit is that fire by which they will be proved. This proof Paul calls the day of the Lord; using a term common in Scripture. For the day of the Lord is said to take place whenever he in some way manifests his presence to men, his face being specially said to shine when his truth is manifested. It has now been proved, that Paul has no idea of any other fire than the trial of the Holy Spirit.

But how are those who suffer the loss of their works saved by fire? This it will not be difficult to understand, if we consider of what kind of persons he speaks. For he designates them builders of the Church, who, retaining the proper foundation, build different materials upon it; that is, who, not abandoning the principal and necessary articles of faith, err in minor and less perilous matters, mingling their own fictions with the word of God. Such, I say, must suffer the loss of their work by the destruction of their fictions. They themselves, however, are saved, yet so as by fire; that is, not that their ignorance and delusions are approved by the Lord, but they are purified from them by the grace and power of the Holy Spirit. All those, accordingly, who have tainted the golden purity of the divine word with the pollution of purgatory must necessarily suffer the loss of their work.

10. The appeal to the early church cannot help the Romanists

But the observance of it in the Church is of the highest antiquity. This objection is disposed of by Paul, when, including even his own age in the sentence, he declares, that all who in building the Church have laid upon it something not conformable to the foundation, must suffer the loss of their work (1 Cor. 3:11-15).

When, therefore, my opponents object, that it has been the practice for thirteen hundred years to offer prayers for the dead, I, in return, ask them, by what word of God, by what revelation, by what example it was done? For here not only are passages of Scripture wanting, but in the examples of all the saints of whom we read, nothing of the kind is seen. We have numerous, and sometimes long narratives, of their mourning and sepulchral rites, but not one word is said of prayers. But the more important the matter was, the more they ought to have dwelt upon it. Even those who in ancient times offered prayers for the dead, saw that they were not supported by the command of God and legitimate example. Why then did they presume to do it? I hold that herein they suffered the common lot of man, and therefore maintain, that what they did is not to be imitated. Believers ought not to engage in any work without a firm conviction of its propriety, as Paul enjoins, (Rom. 14: 23;) and this conviction is expressly requisite in prayer. It is to be presumed, however, that they were influenced by some reason; they sought a solace for their sorrow, and it seemed cruel not to give some attestation of their love to the dead, when in the presence of God. All know by experience how natural it is for the human mind thus to feel.

Received custom too was a kind of torch, by which the minds of many were inflamed. We know that among all the Gentiles, and in all ages, certain rites were paid to the dead, and that every year lustrations were performed for their manes. Although Satan deluded foolish mortals by these impostures, yet the means of deceiving were borrowed from a sound principle, viz., that death is not destruction, but a passages from this life to another. And there can be no doubt that superstition itself always left the Gentiles without excuse before the judgment-seat of God, because they neglected to prepare for that future life which they professed to believe. Thus, that Christians might not seem worse than heathens, they felt ashamed of paying no office to the dead, as if they had been utterly annihilated. Hence their ill advised assiduity; because they thought they would expose themselves to great disgrace, if they were slow in providing funeral feasts and oblations. What was thus introduced by perverse rivalship, ever and anon received new additions, until the highest holiness of the Papacy consisted in giving assistance to the suffering dead. But far better and more solid comfort is furnished by scripture when it declares, “Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord;” and adds the reason, “for they rest from their labors,” (Rev. 14: 13.) We ought not to indulge our love so far as to set up a perverse mode of prayer in the Church.

Surely every person possessed of the least prudence easily perceives, that whatever we meet with on this subject in ancient writers, was in deference to public custom and the ignorance of the vulgar. I admit they were themselves also carried away into error, the usual effect of rash credulity being to destroy the judgment. Meanwhile the passages themselves show, that when they recommended prayer for the dead it was with hesitation. Augustine relates in his Confessions, that his mother, Monica, earnestly entreated to be remembered when the solemn rites at the altar were performed; doubtless an old woman’s wish, which her son did not bring to the test of Scripture, but from natural affection wished others to approve. His book, De Cura pro Mortals Agenda, On showing Care for the Dead, is so full of doubt, that its coldness may well extinguish the heat of a foolish zeal. Should any one, in pretending to be a patron of the dead, deal merely in probabilities, the only effect will be to make those indifferent who were formerly solicitous.—The only support of this dogma is, that as a custom of praying for the dead prevailed, the duty ought not to be despised.

But granting that ancient ecclesiastical writers deemed it a pious thing to assist the dead, the rule which can never deceive is always to be observed, viz., that we must not introduce anything of our own into our prayers, but must keep all our wishes in subordination to the word of God, because it belongs to Him to prescribe what he wishes us to ask. Now, since the whole Law and Gospel do not contain one syllable which countenances the right of praying for the dead, it is a profanation of prayer to go one step farther than God enjoins.

But, lest our opponents boast of sharing their error with the ancient Church, I say, that there is a wide difference between the two. The latter made a commemoration of the dead, that they might not seem to have cast off all concern for them; but they, at the same time, acknowledged that they were doubtful as to their state; assuredly they made no such assertion concerning purgatory as implied that they did not hold it to be uncertain. The former insist, that their dream of purgatory shall be received without question as an article of faith. The latter sparingly and in a perfunctory manner only commended their dead to the Lord, in the communion of the holy supper. The former are constantly urging the care of the dead, and by their importunate preaching of it, make out that it is to be preferred to all the offices of charity.

But it would not be difficult for us to produce some passages from ancient writers, which clearly overturn all those prayers for the dead which were then in use. Such is the passage of Augustine, in which he shows that the resurrection of the flesh and eternal glory is expected by all, but that rest which follows death is received by every one who is worthy of it when he dies. Accordingly, he declares that all the righteous, not less than the Apostles, Prophets, and Martyrs, immediately after death enjoy blessed rest. If such is their condition, what, I ask, will our prayers contribute to them?

I say nothing of those grosser superstitions by which they have fascinated the minds of the simple; and yet they are innumerable, and most of them so monstrous, that they cannot cover them with any cloak of decency. I say nothing, moreover, of those most shameful traffickings, which they plied as they listed while the world was stupefied. For I would never come to an end; and, without enumerating them, the pious reader will here find enough to establish his conscience.

CHAPTER 6. THE LIFE OF A CHRISTIAN MAN. SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS EXHORTING TO IT.

This and the four following chapters treat of the Life of the Christian, and are so arranged as to admit of being classed under two principal heads.

First, it must be held to be an universally acknowledged point, that no man is a Christian who does not feel some special love for righteousness, chap. 6.

Secondly, in regard to the standard by which every man ought to regulate his life, although it seems to be considered in chap. 7 only, yet the three following chapters also refer to it. For it shows that the Christian has two duties to perform. First, the observance being so arduous, he needs the greatest patience. Hence chap. 8 treats professedly of the utility of the cross, and chap. 9 invites to meditation on the future life. Lastly, chap. 10 clearly shows, as in no small degree conducive to this end, how we are to use this life and its comforts without abusing them.

This sixth chapter consists of two parts,—

I. Connection between this treatise on the Christian Life and the doctrine of Regeneration and Repentance. Arrangement of the treatise, sec. 1-3.

II. Extremes to be avoided;

1. False Christians denying Christ by their works condemned, sec. 4.

2. Christians should not despair, though they have not attained perfection, provided they make daily progress in piety and righteousness.

Sections.

1. Connection between this chapter and the doctrine of Regeneration. Necessity of the doctrine concerning the Christian Life. The brevity of this treatise. The method of it. Plainness and unadorned simplicity of the Scripture system of morals.

2. Two divisions. First, Personal holiness.

1. Because God is holy.

2. Because of our communion with his saints.

3. Second division, relating to our Redemption. Admirable moral system of Scripture. Five special inducements or exhortations to a Christian Life.

4. False Christians who are opposed to this life censured

1. They have not truly learned Christ.

2. The Gospel not the guide of their words or actions.

3. They do not imitate Christ the Master.

4. They would separate the Spirit from his word.

5. Christians ought not to despond: Provided

1. They take the word of God for their guide.

2. Sincerely cultivate righteousness.

3. Walk, according to their capacity, in the ways of the Lord.

4. Make some progress.

5. Persevere.

1. Plan of the treatise

We have said that the object of regeneration is to bring the life of believers into concord and harmony with the righteousness of God, and so confirm the adoption by which they have been received as sons.

But although the law comprehends within it that new life by which the image of God is restored in us, yet, as our sluggishness stands greatly in need both of helps and incentives it will be useful to collect out of Scripture a true account of this reformations lest any who have a heartfelt desire of repentance should in their zeal go astray.

Moreover, I am not unaware that, in undertaking to describe the life of the Christian, I am entering on a large and extensive subject, one which, when fully considered in all its parts, is sufficient to fill a large volume. We see the length to which the Fathers in treating of individual virtues extend their exhortations. This they do, not from mere loquaciousness; for whatever be the virtue which you undertake to recommend, your pen is spontaneously led by the copiousness of the matter so to amplify, that you seem not to have discussed it properly if you have not done it at length. My intention, however, in the plan of life which I now propose to give, is not to extend it so far as to treat of each virtue specially, and expatiate in exhortation. This must be sought in the writings of others, and particularly in the Homilies of the Fathers[1]. For me it will be sufficient to point out the method by which a pious man may be taught how to frame his life aright, and briefly lay down some universal rule by which he may not improperly regulate his conduct. I shall one day possibly find time for more ample discourse, (or leave others to perform an office for which I am not so fit. I have a natural love of brevity, and, perhaps, any attempt of mine at copiousness would not succeed. Even if I could gain the highest applause by being more prolix, I would scarcely be disposed to attempt it,[2]) while the nature of my present work requires me to glance at simple doctrine with as much brevity as possible.

As philosophers have certain definitions of rectitude and honesty, from which they derive particular duties and the whole train of virtues; so in this respect Scripture is not without order, but presents a most beautiful arrangement, one too which is every way much more certain than that of philosophers. The only difference is, that they, under the influence of ambition, constantly affect an exquisite perspicuity of arrangement, which may serve to display their genius, whereas the Spirit of God, teaching without affectation, is not so perpetually observant of exact method, and yet by observing it at times sufficiently intimates that it is not to be neglected.

2. Motives for the Christian Life

The Scripture system of which we speak aims chiefly at two objects. The former is, that the love of righteousness, to which we are by no means naturally inclined, may be instilled and implanted into our minds. The latter is, (see chap. 2:,) to prescribe a rule which will prevent us while in the pursuit of righteousness from going astray.

It has numerous admirable methods of recommending righteousness[3]. Many have been already pointed out in different parts of this work; but we shall here also briefly advert to some of them. With what better foundation can it begin than by reminding us that we must be holy, because “God is holy?” (Lev. 19: 1; 1 Pet. 1: 16.) For when we were scattered abroad like lost sheep, wandering through the labyrinth of this world, he brought us back again to his own fold. When mention is made of our union with God, let us remember that holiness must be the bond; not that by the merit of holiness we come into communion with him, (we ought rather first to cleave to him, in order that, pervaded with his holiness, we may follow whither he calls,) but because it greatly concerns his glory not to have any fellowship with wickedness and impurity. Wherefore he tells us that this is the end of our calling, the end to which we ought ever to have respect, if we would answer the call of God. For to what end were we rescued from the iniquity and pollution of the world into which we were plunged, if we allow ourselves, during our whole lives, to wallow in them? Besides, we are at the same time admonished, that if we would be regarded as the Lord’s people, we must inhabit the holy city Jerusalem, (Isaiah rev. 8, et alibi;) which, as he hath consecrated it to himself, it were impious for its inhabitants to profane by impurity. Hence the expressions, “Who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness,” (Ps. 15: 1, 2; 24: 3, 4;) for the sanctuary in which he dwells certainly ought not to be like an unclean stall.

3. The Christian life receives its strongest motive to God’s work through the person and redemptive act of Christ

The better to arouse us, it exhibits God the Father, who, as he hath reconciled us to himself in his Anointed, has impressed his image upon us, to which he would have us to be conformed, (Rom. 5: 4.) Come, then, and let them show me a more excellent system among philosophers, who think that they only have a moral philosophy duly and orderly arranged. They, when they would give excellent exhortations to virtue, can only tell us to live agreeably to nature. Scripture derives its exhortations from the true source,[4] when it not only enjoins us to regulate our lives with a view to God its author to whom it belongs; but after showing us that we have degenerated from our true origin, viz., the law of our Creator, adds, that Christ, through whom we have returned to favour with God, is set before us as a model, the image of which our lives should express. What do you require more effectual than this? Nay, what do you require beyond this? If the Lord adopts us for his sons on the condition that our life be a representation of Christ, the bond of our adoption,—then, unless we dedicate and devote ourselves to righteousness, we not only, with the utmost perfidy, revolt from our Creator, but also abjure the Saviour himself.

Then, from an enumeration of all the blessings of God, and each part of our salvation, it finds materials for exhortation. Ever since God exhibited himself to us as a Father, we must be convicted of extreme ingratitude if we do not in turn exhibit ourselves as his sons. Ever since Christ purified us by the laver of his blood, and communicated this purification by baptism, it would ill become us to be defiled with new pollution. Ever since he ingrafted us into his body, we, who are his members, should anxiously beware of contracting any stain or taint. Ever since he who is our head ascended to heaven, it is befitting in us to withdraw our affections from the earth, and with our whole soul aspire to heaven. Ever since the Holy Spirit dedicated us as temples to the Lord, we should make it our endeavour to show forth the glory of God, and guard against being profaned by the defilement of sin. Ever since our soul and body were destined to heavenly incorruptibility and an unfading crown, we should earnestly strive to keep them pure and uncorrupted against the day of the Lord. These, I say, are the surest foundations of a well-regulated life, and you will search in vain for any thing resembling them among philosophers, who, in their commendation of virtue, never rise higher than the natural dignity of man.

4. The Christian Life is not a matter of the tongue but of the inmost heart

This is the place to address those who, having nothing of Christ but the name and sign, would yet be called Christians. How dare they boast of this sacred name? None have intercourse with Christ but those who have acquired the true knowledge of him from the Gospel. The Apostle denies that any man truly has learned Christ who has not learned to put off “the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and put on Christ,” (Eph. 4: 22.) They are convicted, therefore, of falsely and unjustly pretending a knowledge of Christ, whatever be the volubility and eloquence with which they can talk of the Gospel. Doctrine is not an affair of the tongue, but of the life; is not apprehended by the intellect and memory merely, like other branches of learning; but is received only when it possesses the whole soul, and finds its seat and habitation in the inmost recesses of the heart. Let them, therefore, either cease to insult God, by boasting that they are what they are not, or let them show themselves not unworthy disciples of their divine Master. To doctrine in which our religion is contained we have given the first place, since by it our salvation commences; but it must be transfused into the breast, and pass into the conduct, and so transform us into itself, as not to prove unfruitful. If philosophers are justly offended, and banish from their company with disgrace those who, while professing an art which ought to be the mistress of their conduct, convert it into mere loquacious sophistry, with how much better reason shall we detest those flimsy sophists who are contented to let the Gospel play upon their lips, when, from its efficacy, it ought to penetrate the inmost affections of the heart, fix its seat in the soul, and pervade the whole man a hundred times more than the frigid discourses of philosophers?

5. Imperfection and endeavor of the Christian Life

I insist not that the life of the Christian shall breathe nothing but the perfect Gospel, though this is to be desired, and ought to be attempted. I insist not so strictly on evangelical perfection, as to refuse to acknowledge as a Christian any man who has not attained it. In this way all would be excluded from the Church, since there is no man who is not far removed from this perfection, while many, who have made but little progress, would be undeservedly rejected.

What then? Let us set this before our eye as the end at which we ought constantly to aim. Let it be regarded as the goal towards which we are to run. For you cannot divide the matter with God, undertaking part of what his word enjoins, and omitting part at pleasure. For, in the first place, God uniformly recommends integrity as the principal part of his worship, meaning by integrity real singleness of mind, devoid of gloss and fiction, and to this is opposed a double mind; as if it had been said, that the spiritual commencement of a good life is when the internal affections are sincerely devoted to God, in the cultivation of holiness and justice.

But seeing that, in this earthly prison of the body, no man is supplied with strength sufficient to hasten in his course with due alacrity, while the greater number are so oppressed with weakness, that hesitating, and halting, and even crawling on the ground, they make little progress, let every one of us go as far as his humble ability enables him, and prosecute the journey once begun. No one will travel so badly as not daily to make some degree of progress. This, therefore, let us never cease to do, that we may daily advance in the way of the Lord; and let us not despair because of the slender measure of success. How little soever the success may correspond with our wish, our labour is not lost when to-day is better than yesterday, provided with true singleness of mind we keep our aim, and aspire to the goal, not speaking flattering things to ourselves, nor indulging our vices, but making it our constant endeavour to become better, until we attain to goodness itself. If during the whole course of our life we seek and follow, we shall at length attain it, when relieved from the infirmity of flesh we are admitted to full fellowship with God.

Notes

[1]The French adds, “C’est a dire, sermons populaires ;"—that is to say, popular sermons.

[2]The passage in brackets is omitted in the French.

[3]The French begins the sentence thus, “Quant est du premier poinct;—As to the former point.

[4]Mal. 1: 6; Eph. 5: 1; 1 John 3: 1, 3; Eph. 5: 26; Rom. 6: 1- 4; 1 Cor. 6: 11; 1 Pet. 1: 15, 19; 1 Cor. 6: 15; John 15: 3; Eph. 5: 2, 3; Col. 3: 1, 2; 1 Cor. 3: 16; 6: 17; 2 Cor. 6: 16; 1 Thess. 5: 23.

CHAPTER 7. A SUMMARY OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. OF SELF-DENIAL. [5]

The divisions of the chapter are, -

I. The rule which permits us not to go astray in the study of righteousness, requires two things, viz., that man, abandoning his own will, devote himself entirely to the service of God; whence it follows, that we must seek not our own things, but the things of God, sec. 1, 2.

II. A description of this renovation or Christian life taken from the Epistle to Titus, and accurately explained under certain special heads, sec. 3 to end.

Sections.

1. Consideration of the second general division in regard to the Christian life. Its beginning and sum. A twofold respect.

1. We are not our own. Respect to both the fruit and the use. Unknown to philosophers, who have placed reason on the throne of the Holy Spirit.

2. Since we are not our own, we must seek the glory of God, and obey his will. Self-denial recommended to the disciples of Christ. He who neglects it, deceived either by pride or hypocrisy, rushes on destruction.

3. Three things to be followed, and two to be shunned in life. Impiety and worldly lusts to be shunned. Sobriety, justice, and piety, to be followed. An inducement to right conduct.

4. Self-denial the sum of Paul’s doctrine. Its difficulty. Qualities in us which make it difficult. Cures for these qualities.

1. Ambition to be suppressed.

2. Humility to be embraced.

3. Candour to be esteemed.

4. Mutual charity to be preserved.

5. Modesty to be sincerely cultivated.

5. The advantage of our neighbour to be promoted. Here self- denial most necessary, and yet most difficult. Here a double remedy.

1. The benefits bestowed upon us are for the common benefit of the Church.

2. We ought to do all we can for our neighbour. This illustrated by analogy from the members of the human body. This duty of charity founded on the divine command.

6. Charity ought to have for its attendants patience and kindness. We should consider the image of God in our neighbours, and especially in those who are of the household of faith. Hence a fourfold consideration which refutes all objections. A common objection refuted.

7. Christian life cannot exist without charity. Remedies for the vices opposed to charity.

1. Mercy.

2. Humility.

3. Modesty.

4. Diligence.

5. Perseverance.

8. Self-denial, in respect of God, should lead to equanimity and tolerance.

1. We are always subject to God.

2. We should shun avarice and ambition.

3. We should expect all prosperity from the blessing of God, and entirely depend on him.

9. We ought not to desire wealth or honours without the divine blessing, nor follow the arts of the wicked. We ought to cast all our care upon God, and never envy the prosperity of others.

10. We ought to commit ourselves entirely to God. The necessity of this doctrine. Various uses of affliction. Heathen abuse and corruption.

(The Christian philosophy of unworldliness and self-denial; we are not our own, we are God’s, 1-3)

1. We are not our own master’s, but belong to God

Although the Law of God contains a perfect rule of conduct admirably arranged, it has seemed proper to our divine Master to train his people by a more accurate method, to the rule which is enjoined in the Law; and the leading principle in the method is, that it is the duty of believers to present their “bodies a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable unto God, which is their reasonable service,” (Rom. 12: 1.) Hence he draws the exhortation: “Be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God.” The great point, then, is, that we are consecrated and dedicated to God, and, therefore, should not henceforth think, speak, design, or act, without a view to his glory. What he hath made sacred cannot, without signal insult to him, be applied to profane use.

But if we are not our own, but the Lord’s, it is plain both what error is to be shunned, and to what end the actions of our lives ought to be directed.

We are not our own; therefore, neither is our own reason or will to rule our acts and counsels. We are not our own; therefore, let us not make it our end to seek what may be agreeable to our carnal nature. We are not our own; therefore, as far as possible, let us forget ourselves and the things that are ours.

On the other hand, we are God’s; let us, therefore, live and die to him (Rom. 14: 8.) We are God’s; therefore, let his wisdom and will preside over all our actions. We are God’s; to him, then, as the only legitimate end, let every part of our life be directed. O how great the proficiency of him who, taught that he is not his own, has withdrawn the dominion and government of himself from his own reason that he may give them to God! For as the surest source of destruction to men is to obey themselves, so the only haven of safety is to have no other will, no other wisdom, than to follow the Lord wherever he leads.

Let this, then be the first step, to abandon ourselves, and devote the whole energy of our minds to the service of God. By service, I mean not only that which consists in verbal obedience, but that by which the mind, divested of its own carnal feelings, implicitly obeys the call of the Spirit of God. This transformation, (which Paul calls the renewing of the mind, Rom. 12: 2; Eph. 4: 23,) though it is the first entrance to life, was unknown to all the philosophers. They give the government of man to reason alone, thinking that she alone is to be listened to; in short, they assign to her the sole direction of the conduct. But Christian philosophy bids her give place, and yield complete submission to the Holy Spirit, so that the man himself no longer lives, but Christ lives and reigns in him, (Gal. ii. 20.)

2. Self-denial through devotion to God

Hence follows the other principle, that we are not to seek our own, but the Lord’s will, and act with a view to promote his glory. Great is our proficiency, when, almost forgetting ourselves, certainly postponing our own reason, we faithfully make it our study to obey God and his commandments. For when Scripture enjoins us to lay aside private regard to ourselves, it not only divests our minds of an excessive longing for wealth, or power, or human favour, but eradicates all ambition and thirst for worldly glory, and other more secret pests. The Christian ought, indeed, to be so trained and disposed as to consider, that during his whole life he has to do with God. For this reason, as he will bring all things to the disposal and estimate of God, so he will religiously direct his whole mind to him. For he who has learned to look to God in everything he does, is at the same time diverted from all vain thoughts. This is that self-denial which Christ so strongly enforces on his disciples from the very outset, (Matth. xvi. 24,) which, as soon as it takes hold of the mind, leaves no place either, first, for pride, show, and ostentation; or, secondly, for avarice, lust, luxury, effeminacy, or other vices which are engendered by self love. On the contrary, wherever it reigns not, the foulest vices are indulged in without shame; or, if there is some appearance of virtue, it is vitiated by a depraved longing for applause. Show me, if you can, an individual who, unless he has renounced himself in obedience to the Lord’s command, is disposed to do good for its own sake. Those who have not so renounced themselves have followed virtue at least for the sake of praise. The philosophers who have contended most strongly that virtue is to be desired on her own account, were so inflated with arrogance as to make it apparent that they sought virtue for no other reason than as a ground for indulging in pride. So far, therefore, is God from being delighted with these hunters after popular applause with their swollen breasts, that he declares they have received their reward in this world, (Matth. 6: 2,) and that harlots and publicans are nearer the kingdom of heaven than they, (Matth. 21: 31.) We have not yet sufficiently explained how great and numerous are the obstacles by which a man is impeded in the pursuit of rectitude, so long as he has not renounced himself. The old saying is true, There is a world of iniquity treasured up in the human soul. Nor can you find any other remedy for this than to deny yourself, renounce your own reason, and direct your whole mind to the pursuit of those things which the Lord requires of you, and which you are to seek only because they are pleasing to Him.

3. Self-renunciation according to Titus, ch.2

In another passage, Paul gives a brief, indeed, but more distinct account of each of the parts of a well-ordered life: “The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearance of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify to himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works,” (Tit. 2: 11-14.) After holding forth the grace of God to animate us, and pave the way for His true worship, he removes the two greatest obstacles which stand in the way, viz., ungodliness, to which we are by nature too prone, and worldly lusts, which are of still greater extent. Under ungodliness, he includes not merely superstition, but everything at variance with the true fear of God. Worldly lusts are equivalent to the lusts of the flesh. Thus he enjoins us, in regard to both tables of the Law, to lay aside our own mind, and renounce whatever our own reason and will dictate. Then he reduces all the actions of our lives to three branches, sobriety, righteousness, and godliness. Sobriety undoubtedly denotes as well chastity and temperance as the pure and frugal use of temporal goods, and patient endurance of want. Righteousness comprehends all the duties of equity, in every one his due. Next follows godliness, which separates us from the pollutions of the world, and connects us with God in true holiness. These, when connected together by an indissoluble chain, constitute complete perfection. But as nothing is more difficult than to bid adieu to the will of the flesh, subdue, nay, abjure our lusts, devote ourselves to God and our brethren, and lead an angelic life amid the pollutions of the world, Paul, to set our minds free from all entanglements, recalls us to the hope of a blessed immortality, justly urging us to contend, because as Christ has once appeared as our Redeemer, so on his final advent he will give full effect to the salvation obtained by him. And in this way he dispels all the allurements which becloud our path, and prevent us from aspiring as we ought to heavenly glory; nay, he tells us that we must be pilgrims in the world, that we may not fail of obtaining the heavenly inheritance.

(The principle of self-denial in our relations with our fellow men, 4-7)

4. Self-denial gives us the right attitude toward our fellow men

Moreover, we see by these words that self-denial has respect partly to men and partly (more especially) to God, (sec. 8-10.)

For when Scripture enjoins us, in regard to our fellow men, to prefer them in honour to ourselves, and sincerely labour to promote their advantages (Rom. 12: 10; Phil. 2: 3,) he gives us commands which our mind is utterly incapable of obeying until its natural feelings are suppressed. For so blindly do we all rush in the direction of self- love, that every one thinks he has a good reason for exalting himself and despising all others in comparison. If God has bestowed on us something not to be repented of, trusting to it, we immediately become elated, and not only swell, but almost burst with pride. The vices with which we abound we both carefully conceal from others, and flatteringly represent to ourselves as minute and trivial, nay, sometimes hug them as virtues. When the same qualities which we admire in ourselves are seen in others, even though they should be superior, we, in order that we may not be forced to yield to them, maliciously lower and carp at them; in like manner, in the case of vices, not contented with severe and keen animadversion, we studiously exaggerate them. Hence the insolence with which each, as if exempted from the common lot, seeks to exalt himself above his neighbour, confidently and proudly despising others, or at least looking down upon them as his inferiors. The poor man yields to the rich, the plebeian to the noble, the servant to the master, the unlearned to the learned, and yet every one inwardly cherishes some idea of his own superiority.

Thus each flattering himself, sets up a kind of kingdom in his breast; the arrogant, to satisfy themselves, pass censure on the minds and manners of other men, and when contention arises, the full venom is displayed. Many bear about with them some measure of mildness so long as all things go smoothly and lovingly with them, but how few are there who, when stung and irritated, preserve the same tenor of moderation? For this there is no other remedy than to pluck up by the roots those most noxious pests, self-love and love of victory, (filoneicia cai filantia.) This the doctrine of Scripture does. For it teaches us to remember, that the endowments which God has bestowed upon us are not our own, but His free gifts, and that those who plume themselves upon them betray their ingratitude. “Who maketh thee to differ,” saith Paul, “and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?” (1 Cor. 4: 7.)

Then by a diligent examination of our faults let us keep ourselves humble. Thus while nothing will remain to swell our pride, there will be much to subdue it. Again, we are enjoined, whenever we behold the gifts of God in others, so to reverence and respect the gifts, as also to honour those in whom they reside. God having been pleased to bestow honour upon them, it would ill become us to deprive them of it. Then we are told to overlook their faults, not, indeed, to encourage by flattering them, but not because of them to insult those whom we ought to regard with honour and good will.[6] In this way, with regard to all with whom we have intercourse, our behaviour will be not only moderate and modest, but courteous and friendly. The only way by which you can ever attain to true meekness, is to have your heart imbued with a humble opinion of yourself and respect for others.

5. Self-renunciation leads to proper helpfulness toward our neighbors

How difficult it is to perform the duty of seeking the good of our neighbour! Unless you leave off all thought of yourself and in a manner cease to be yourself, you will never accomplish it. How can you exhibit those works of charity which Paul describes unless you renounce yourself, and become wholly devoted to others? “Charity (says he, 1 Cor. 13: 4) suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked &c. Were it the only thing required of us to seek not our own, nature would not have the least power to comply: she so inclines us to love ourselves only, that she will not easily allow us carelessly to pass by ourselves and our own interests that we may watch over the interests of others, nay, spontaneously to yield our own rights and resign it to another. But Scripture, to conduct us to this, reminds us, that whatever we obtain from the Lord is granted on the condition of our employing it for the common good of the Church, and that, therefore, the legitimate use of all our gifts is a kind and liberal communication of them with others. There cannot be a surer rule, nor a stronger exhortation to the observance of it, than when we are taught that all the endowments which we possess are divine deposits entrusted to us for the very purpose of being distributed for the good of our neighbour (cf. I Peter 4:10).

But Scripture proceeds still farther when it likens these endowments to the different members of the body, (1 Cor. 12: 12.) No member has its function for itself, or applies it for its own private use, but transfers it to its fellow- members; nor does it derive any other advantage from it than that which it receives in common with the whole body. Thus, whatever the pious man can do, he is bound to do for his brethren, not consulting his own interest in any other way than by striving earnestly for the common edification of the Church. Let this, then, be our method of showing good-will and kindness, considering that, in regard to everything which God has bestowed upon us, and by which we can aid our neighbour, we are his stewards, and are bound to give account of our stewardship; moreover, that the only right mode of administration is that which is regulated by love. In this way, we shall not only unite the study of our neighbour’s advantage with a regard to our own, but make the latter subordinate to the former.

And lest we should have omitted to perceive that this is the law for duly administering every gift which we receive from God, he of old applied that law to the minutest expressions of his own kindness. He commanded the first-fruits to be offered to him as an attestation by the people that it was impious to reap any advantage from goods not previously consecrated to him, (Exod. 22: 29; 23: 19.) But if the gifts of God are not sanctified to us until we have with our own hand dedicated them to the Giver, it must be a gross abuse that does not give signs of such dedication. It is in vain to contend that you cannot enrich the Lord by your offerings. Though, as the Psalmist says “Thou art my Lord: my goodness extendeth not unto thee,” yet you can extend it “to the saints that are in the earth,” (Ps. 16: 2, 3;) and therefore a comparison is drawn between sacred oblations and alms as now corresponding to the offerings under the Law (Heb. 13:16).[7]

6. Love of neighbor is not dependent upon manner of men but looks to God

Moreover, that we may not weary in well-doing, (as would otherwise forthwith and infallibly be the case,) we must add the other quality in the Apostle’s enumeration, “Charity suffiereth long, and is kind, is not easily provoked,” (1 Cor. 13: 4.) The Lord enjoins us to do good to all without exception, though the greater part, if estimated by their own merit, are most unworthy of it. But Scripture subjoins a most excellent reason, when it tells us that we are not to look to what men in themselves deserve, but to attend to the image of God, which exists in all, and to which we owe all honour and love. But in those who are of the household of faith, the same rule is to be more carefully observed, inasmuch as that image is renewed and restored in them by the Spirit of Christ. Therefore, whoever be the man that is presented to you as needing your assistance, you have no ground for declining to give it to him. Say he is a stranger. The Lord has given him a mark which ought to be familiar to you: for which reason he forbids you to despise your own flesh, (Gal. 6: 10.) Say he is mean and of no consideration. The Lord points him out as one whom he has distinguished by the lustre of his own image, (Isaiah 58: 7.) Say that you are bound to him by no ties of duty. The Lord has substituted him as it were into his own place, that in him you may recognize the many great obligations under which the Lord has laid you to himself. Say that he is unworthy of your least exertion on his account; but the image of God, by which he is recommended to you, is worthy of yourself and all your exertions. But if he not only merits no good, but has provoked you by injury and mischief, still this is no good reason why you should not embrace him in love, and visit him with offices of love. He has deserved very differently from me, you will say. But what has the Lord deserved?[8] Whatever injury he has done you, when he enjoins you to forgive him, he certainly means that it should be imputed to himself. In this way only we attain to what is not to say difficult but altogether against nature,[9] to love those that hate us, render good for evil, and blessing for cursing, remembering that we are not to reflect on the wickedness of men, but look to the image of God in them, an image which, covering and obliterating their faults, should by its beauty and dignity allure us to love and embrace them.

7.The outward work of love is not sufficient, but it is intention that counts!

We shall thus succeed in mortifying ourselves if we fulfil all the duties of charity. Those duties, however, are not fulfilled by the mere discharge of them, though none be omitted, unless it is done from a pure feeling of love. For it may happen that one may perform every one of these offices, in so far as the external act is concerned, and be far from performing them aright. For you see some who would be thought very liberal, and yet accompany every thing they give with insult, by the haughtiness of their looks, or the violence of their words. And to such a calamitous condition have we come in this unhappy age, that the greater part of men never almost give alms without contumely. Such conduct ought not to have been tolerated even among the heathen; but from Christians something more is required than to carry cheerfulness in their looks, and give attractiveness to the discharge of their duties by courteous language. First, they should put themselves in the place of him whom they see in need of their assistance, and pity his misfortune as if they felt and bore it, so that a feeling of pity and humanity should incline them to assist him just as they would themselves.

He who is thus minded will go and give assistance to his brethren, and not only not taint his acts with arrogance or upbraiding but will neither look down upon the brother to whom he does a kindness, as one who needed his help, or keep him in subjection as under obligation to him, just as we do not insult a diseased member when the rest of the body labours for its recovery, nor think it under special obligation to the other members, because it has required more exertion than it has returned. A communication of offices between members is not regarded as at all gratuitous, but rather as the payment of that which being due by the law of nature it were monstrous to deny. For this reason, he who has performed one kind of duty will not think himself thereby discharged, as is usually the case when a rich man, after contributing somewhat of his substance, delegates remaining burdens to others as if he had nothing to do with them. Every one should rather consider, that however great he is, he owes himself to his neighbours, and that the only limit to his beneficence is the failure of his means. The extent of these should regulate that of his charity.

(The principle of self-denial in our relation to God, 8-10)

8.Self-denial toward God: devotion to his will!

The principal part of self-denial, that which as we have said has reference to God, let us again consider more fully. Many things have already been said with regard to it which it were superfluous to repeat; and, therefore, it will be sufficient to view it as forming us to equanimity and endurance.

First, then, in seeking the convenience or tranquillity of the present life, Scripture calls us to resign ourselves, and all we have, to the disposal of the Lord, to give him up the affections of our heart, that he may tame and subdue them. We have a frenzied desire, an infinite eagerness, to pursue wealth and honour, intrigue for power, accumulate riches, and collect all those frivolities which seem conducive to luxury and splendour. On the other hand, we have a remarkable dread, a remarkable hatred of poverty, mean birth, and a humble condition, and feel the strongest desire to guard against them. Hence, in regard to those who frame their life after their own counsel, we see how restless they are in mind, how many plans they try, to what fatigues they submit, in order that they may gain what avarice or ambition desires, or, on the other hand, escape poverty and meanness.

To avoid similar entanglements, the course which Christian men must follow is this: first, they must not long for, or hope for, or think of any kind of prosperity apart from the blessing of God; on it they must cast themselves, and there safely and confidently recline. For, however much the carnal mind may seem sufficient for itself when in the pursuit of honour or wealth, it depends on its own industry and zeal, or is aided by the favour of men, it is certain that all this is nothing, and that neither intellect nor labour will be of the least avail, except in so far as the Lord prospers both. On the contrary, his blessing alone makes a way through all obstacles, and brings every thing to a joyful and favourable issue. Secondly, though without this blessing we may be able to acquire some degree of fame and opulence, (as we daily see wicked men loaded with honours and riches,) yet since those on whom the curse of God lies do not enjoy the least particle of true happiness, whatever we obtain without his blessing must turn out ill. But surely men ought not to desire what adds to their misery.

9. Trust in God’s blessing only

Therefore, if we believe that all prosperous and desirable success depends entirely on the blessing of God, and that when it is wanting all kinds of misery and calamity await us, it follows that we should not eagerly contend for riches and honours, trusting to our own dexterity and assiduity, or leaning on the favour of men, or confiding in any empty imagination of fortune; but should always have respect to the Lord, that under his auspices we may be conducted to whatever lot he has provided for us. First, the result will be, that instead of rushing on regardless of right and wrong, by wiles and wicked arts, and with injury to our neighbours, to catch at wealth and seize upon honours, we will only follow such fortune as we may enjoy with innocence.

Who can hope for the aid of the divine blessing amid fraud, rapine, and other iniquitous arts? As this blessing attends him only who thinks purely and acts uprightly, so it calls off all who long for it from sinister designs and evil actions. Secondly, a curb will be laid upon us, restraining a too eager desire of becoming rich, or an ambitious striving after honour. How can any one have the effrontery to expect that God will aid him in accomplishing desires at variance with his word? What God with his own lips pronounces cursed, never can be prosecuted with his blessing. Lastly, if our success is not equal to our wish and hope, we shall, however, be kept from impatience and detestation of our condition, whatever it be, knowing that so to feel were to murmur against God, at whose pleasure riches and poverty, contempt and honours, are dispensed. In shorts he who leans on the divine blessing in the way which has been described, will not, in the pursuit of those things which men are wont most eagerly to desire, employ wicked arts which he knows would avail him nothing; nor when any thing prosperous befalls him will he impute it to himself and his own diligence, or industry, or fortune, instead of ascribing it to God as its author. If, while the affairs of others flourish, his make little progress, or even retrograde, he will bear his humble lot with greater equanimity and moderation than any irreligious man does the moderate success which only falls short of what he wished; for he has a solace in which he can rest more tranquilly than at the very summit of wealth or power, because he considers that his affairs are ordered by the Lord in the manner most conducive to his salvation. This, we see, is the way in which David was affected, who, while he follows God and gives up himself to his guidance, declares, “Neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me. Surely I have behaved and quieted myself as a child that is weaned of his mother,” (Ps. 131: 1, 2.)

10. Self-denial helps us bear adversity

Nor is it in this respect only that pious minds ought to manifest this tranquillity and endurance; it must be extended to all the accidents to which this present life is liable. He alone, therefore, has properly denied himself, who has resigned himself entirely to the Lord, placing all the course of his life entirely at his disposal. Happen what may, he whose mind is thus composed will neither deem himself wretched nor murmur against God because of his lot. How necessary this disposition is will appear, if you consider the many accidents to which we are liable. Various diseases ever and anon attack us: at one time pestilence rages; at another we are involved in all the calamities of war. Frost and hail, destroying the promise of the year, cause sterility, which reduces us to penury; wife, parents, children, relatives, are carried off by death; our house is destroyed by fire. These are the events which make men curse their life, detest the day of their birth, execrate the light of heaven, even censure God, and (as they are eloquent in blasphemy) charge him with cruelty and injustice. The believer must in these things also contemplate the mercy and truly paternal indulgence of God. Accordingly, should he see his house by the removal of kindred reduced to solitude even then he will not cease to bless the Lord; his thought will be, Still the grace of the Lord, which dwells within my house, will not leave it desolate. If his crops are blasted, mildewed, or cut off by frost, or struck down by hail,[10] and he sees famine before him, he will not however despond or murmur against God, but maintain his confidence in him; “We thy people, and sheep of thy pasture, will give thee thanks for ever,” (Ps. 79: 13;) he will supply me with food, even in the extreme of sterility. If he is afflicted with disease, the sharpness of the pain will not so overcome him, as to make him break out with impatience, and expostulate with God; but, recognising justice and lenity in the rod, will patiently endure. In short, whatever happens, knowing that it is ordered by the Lord, he will receive it with a placid and grateful mind, and will not contumaciously resist the government of him, at whose disposal he has placed himself and all that he has.

Especially let the Christian breast eschew that foolish and most miserable consolation of the heathen, who, to strengthen their mind against adversity, imputed it to fortune, at which they deemed it absurd to feel indignant, as she was ascopoV (aimless) and rash, and blindly wounded the good equally with the bad. On the contrary, the rule of piety is, that the hand of God is the ruler and arbiter of the fortunes of all, and, instead of rushing on with thoughtless violence, dispenses good and evil with perfect regularity.

Notes

[5]On this and the three following chapters, which contain the second part of the Treatise on the Christian Life, see Augustine, De Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae, and Calvin de Scandalis.

[6]Calvin. de Sacerdotiis Eccles. Papal. in fine.

[7]Heb. 13: 16; 2 Cor.ix. 12.

[8]French, “Car si nous disons qu’ il n’a merite que mal de nous; Dieu nous pourra demander quel mal il nous a fait, lui dont nous tenons tout notre bien;"—For if we say that he has deserved nothing of us but evil, God may ask us what evil he has done us, he of whom we hold our every blessing.

[9]Matth. 5: 44; 6: 14; 18: 35; Luke 17: 3.

[10]The French is, “Soit que ses bleds et vignes soyent gastees et destruites par gelee, gresle, ou autre tempeste;"—whether his corn and vines are hurt and destroyed by frost, hail, or other tempest.

CHAPTER 8. OF BEARING THE CROSS-ONE BRANCH OF SELF-DENIAL

The four divisions of this chapter are, -

I. The nature of the cross, its necessity and dignity, sec. 1, 2.

II. The manifold advantages of the cross described, sec. 3-6.

III. The form of the cross the most excellent of all, and yet it by no means removes all sense of pain, sec. 7, 8.

IV. A description of warfare under the cross, and of true patience, (not that of philosophers,) after the example of Christ, sec. 9-11.

Sections.

1. What the cross is. By whom, and on whom, and for what cause imposed. Its necessity and dignity.

2. The cross necessary.

1. To humble our pride.

2. To make us apply to God for aid. Example of David.

3. To give us experience of God’s presence.

Manifold uses of the cross:

1. Produces patience, hope, and firm confidence in God, gives us victory and perseverance. Faith invincible.

4. 2. Frames us to obedience. Example of Abraham. This training how useful.

5. The cross necessary to subdue the wantonness of the flesh. This portrayed by an apposite simile. Various forms of the cross.

6. 3. God permits our infirmities, and corrects past faults, that he may keep us in obedience. This confirmed by a passage from Solomon and an Apostle.

7. Singular consolation under the cross, when we suffer persecution for righteousness. Some parts of this consolation.

8. This form of the cross most appropriate to believers, and should be borne willingly and cheerfully. This cheerfulness is not unfeeling hilarity, but, while groaning under the burden, waits patiently for the Lord.

9. A description of this conflict. Opposed to the vanity of the Stoics. Illustrated by the authority and example of Christ.

10. Proved by the testimony and uniform experience of the elect. Also by the special example of the Apostle Peter. The nature of the patience required of us.

11. Distinction between the patience of Christians and philosophers. The latter pretend a necessity which cannot be resisted. The former hold forth the justice of God and his care of our safety. A full exposition of this difference.

(We are to take up our cross, as followers of Christ, 1-2)

1.Christ’s cross and ours

The pious mind must ascend still higher, namely, whither Christ calls his disciples when he says, that every one of them must “take up his cross,” (Matth. 16: 24.) Those whom the Lord has chosen and honoured with his intercourse must prepare for a hard, laborious, troubled life, a life full of many and various kinds of evils; it being the will of our heavenly Father to exercise his people in this way while putting them to the proof. Having begun this course with Christ the first-born, he continues it towards all his children. For though that Son was dear to him above others, the Son in whom he was “well pleased,” yet we see, that far from being treated gently and indulgently, we may say, that not only was he subjected to a perpetual cross while he dwelt on earth, but his whole life was nothing else than a kind of perpetual cross. The Apostle assigns the reason, “Though he was a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered,” (Heb. 5: 8.)

Why then should we exempt ourselves from that condition to which Christ our Head behoved to submit; especially since he submitted on our account, that he might in his own person exhibit a model of patience? Wherefore, the Apostle declares, that all the children of God are destined to be conformed to him. Hence it affords us great consolation in hard and difficult circumstances, which men deem evil and adverse, to think that we are holding fellowship with the sufferings of Christ; that as he passed to celestial glory through a labyrinth of many woes, so we too are conducted thither through various tribulations. For, in another passage, Paul himself thus speaks, “we must through much tribulation enter the kingdom of God,” (Acts 14: 22;) and again, “that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death,” (Rom 8: 29.) How powerfully should it soften the bitterness of the cross, to think that the more we are afflicted with adversity, the surer we are made of our fellowship with Christ; by communion with whom our sufferings are not only blessed to us, but tend greatly to the furtherance of our salvation.

2.The cross leads us to perfect trust in God’s power

We may add, that the only thing which made it necessary for our Lord to undertake to bear the cross, was to testify and prove his obedience to the Father; whereas there are many reasons which make it necessary for us to live constantly under the cross. Feeble as we are by nature, and prone to ascribe all perfection to our flesh, unless we receive as it were ocular demonstration of our weakness, we readily estimate our virtue above its proper worth, and doubt not that, whatever happens, it will stand unimpaired and invincible against all difficulties. Hence we indulge a stupid and empty confidence in the flesh, and then trusting to it wax proud against the Lord himself; as if our own faculties were sufficient without his grace.

This arrogance cannot be better repressed than when He proves to us by experience, not only how great our weakness, but also our frailty is. Therefore, he visits us with disgrace, or poverty, or bereavement, or disease, or other afflictions. Feeling altogether unable to support them, we forthwith, in so far as regards ourselves, give way, and thus humbled learn to invoke his strength, which alone can enable us to bear up under a weight of affliction. Nay, even the holiest of men, however well aware that they stand not in their own strength, but by the grace of God, would feel too secure in their own fortitude and constancy, were they not brought to a more thorough knowledge of themselves by the trial of the cross. This feeling gained even upon David, “In my prosperity I Said, I shall never be moved. Lord, by thy favour thou hast made my mountain to stand strong: thou didst hide thy face, and I was troubled,” (Ps. 30: 6, 7.) He confesses that in prosperity his feelings were dulled and blunted, so that, neglecting the grace of God, on which alone he ought to have depended, he leant to himself, and promised himself perpetuity. If it so happened to this great prophet, who of us should not fear and study caution?

Though in tranquillity they flatter themselves with the idea of greater constancy and patience, yet, humbled by adversity, they learn the deception. Believers, I say, warned by such proofs of their diseases, make progress in humility, and, divesting themselves of a depraved confidence in the flesh, betake themselves to the grace of God, and, when they have so betaken themselves, experience the presence of the divine power, in which is ample protection.

(This is needful to teach us patience and obedience, 3-6)

3. The cross permits us to experience God’s faithfulness and gives us hope for the future

This Paul teaches when he says that tribulation worketh patience, and patience experience. God having promised that he will be with believers in tribulation, they feel the truth of the promise; while supported by his hand, they endure patiently. This they could never do by their own strength. Patience, therefore, gives the saints an experimental proof that God in reality furnishes the aid which he has promised whenever there is need. Hence also their faith is confirmed, for it were very ungrateful not to expect that in future the truth of God will be, as they have already found it, firm and constant. We now see how many advantages are at once produced by the cross. Overturning the overweening opinion we form of our own virtue, and detecting the hypocrisy in which we delight, it removes our pernicious carnal confidence, teaching us, when thus humbled, to recline on God alone, so that we neither are oppressed nor despond. Then victory is followed by hope, inasmuch as the Lord, by performing what he has promised, establishes his truth in regard to the future. Were these the only reasons, it is surely plain how necessary it is for us to bear the cross.

It is of no little importance to be rid of your self-love, and made fully conscious of your weakness; so impressed with a sense of your weakness as to learn to distrust yourself—to distrust yourself so as to transfer your confidence to God, reclining on him with such heartfelt confidence as to trust in his aid, and continue invincible to the end, standing by his grace so as to perceive that he is true to his promises, and so assured of the certainty of his promises as to be strong in hope.

4. The cross trains us to patience and obedience

Another end which the Lord has in afflicting his people is to try their patience, and train them to obedience—not that they can yield obedience to him except in so far as he enables them; but he is pleased thus to attest and display striking proofs of the graces which he has conferred upon his saints, lest they should remain within unseen and unemployed. Accordingly, by bringing forward openly the strength and constancy of endurance with which he has provided his servants, he is said to try their patience. Hence the expressions that God tempted Abraham, (Gen. 21: 1, 12,) and made proof of his piety by not declining to sacrifice his only son. Hence, too, Peter tells us that our faith is proved by tribulation, just as gold is tried in a furnace of fire. But who will say it is not expedient that the most excellent gift of patience which the believer has received from his God should be applied to uses by being made sure and manifest? Otherwise men would never value it according to its worth.

But if God himself, to prevent the virtues which he has conferred upon believers from lurking in obscurity, nay, lying useless and perishing, does aright in supplying materials for calling them forth, there is the best reason for the afflictions of the saints, since without them their patience could not exist. I say, that by the cross they are also trained to obedience, because they are thus taught to live not according to their own wish, but at the disposal of God. Indeed, did all things proceed as they wish, they would not know what it is to follow God. Seneca mentions (De Vit. Beata, cap. 15:) that there was an old proverb when any one was exhorted to endure adversity, “Follow God;” thereby intimating, that men truly submitted to the yoke of God only when they gave their back and hand to his rod. But if it is most right that we should in all things prove our obedience to our heavenly Father, certainly we ought not to decline any method by which he trains us to obedience.

5. The cross as medicine

Still, however, we see not how necessary that obedience is, unless we at the same time consider how prone our carnal nature is to shake off the yoke of God whenever it has been treated with some degree of gentleness and indulgence. It just happens to it as with refractory horses, which, if kept idle for a few days at hack and manger, become ungovernable, and no longer recognize the rider, whose command before they implicitly obeyed. And we invariably become what God complains of in the people of Israel—waxing gross and fat, we kick against him who reared and nursed us, (Deut. 32: 15.) The kindness of God should allure us to ponder and love his goodness; but since such is our malignity, that we are invariably corrupted by his indulgence, it is more than necessary for us to be restrained by discipline from breaking forth into such petulance. Thus, lest we become emboldened by an over-abundance of wealth; lest elated with honour, we grow proud; lest inflated with other advantages of body, or mind, or fortune, we grow insolent, the Lord himself interferes as he sees to be expedient by means of the cross, subduing and curbing the arrogance of our flesh, and that in various ways, as the advantage of each requires. For as we do not all equally labour under the same disease, so we do not all need the same difficult cure. Hence we see that all are not exercised with the same kind of cross. While the heavenly Physician treats some more gently, in the case of others he employs harsher remedies, his purpose being to provide a cure for all. Still none is left free and untouched, because he knows that all, without a single exception, are diseased.

6. The cross as fatherly chastisement

We may add, that our most merciful Father requires not only to prevent our weakness, but often to correct our past faults, that he may keep us in due obedience. Therefore, whenever we are afflicted we ought immediately to call to mind our past life. In this way we will find that the faults which we have committed are deserving of such castigation. And yet the exhortation to patience is not to be founded chiefly on the acknowledgment of sin. For Scripture supplies a far better consideration when it says, that in adversity “we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world,” (1 Cor. 11: 32.) Therefore, in the very bitterness of tribulation we ought to recognise the kindness and mercy of our Father, since even then he ceases not to further our salvation. For he afflicts, not that he may ruin or destroy but rather that he may deliver us from the condemnation of the world. Let this thought lead us to what Scripture elsewhere teaches: “My son, despise not the chastening of the Lord; neither be weary of his correction: For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth,” (Prov. iii 11, 12.) When we perceive our Father’s rod, is it not our part to behave as obedient docile sons rather than rebelliously imitate desperate men, who are hardened in wickedness? God dooms us to destruction, if he does not, by correction, call us back when we have fallen off from him, so that it is truly said, “If ye be without chastisement,” “then are ye bastards, and not sons,” (Heb. 12: 8.) We are most perverse then if we cannot bear him while he is manifesting his good-will to us, and the care which he takes of our salvation. Scripture states the difference between believers and unbelievers to be, that the latter, as the slaves of inveterate and deep-seated iniquity, only become worse and more obstinate under the lash; whereas the former, like free-born sons turn to repentance. Now, therefore, choose your class. But as I have already spoken of this subject, it is sufficient to have here briefly adverted to it.

(Bearing the cross in persecution and other calamities, 7-8)

7. Suffering for righteousness’ sake

There is singular consolation, moreover, when we are persecuted for righteousness’ sake. For our thought should then be, How high the honour which God bestows upon us in distinguishing us by the special badge of his soldiers. By suffering persecution for righteousness’ sake, I mean not only striving for the defence of the Gospel, but for the defence of righteousness in any way. Whether, therefore, in maintaining the truth of God against the lies of Satan, or defending the good and innocent against the injuries of the bad, we are obliged to incur the offence and hatred of the world, so as to endanger life, fortune, or honour, let us not grieve or decline so far to spend ourselves for God; let us not think ourselves wretched in those things in which he with his own lips has pronounced us blessed, (Matth. 5: 10.) Poverty, indeed considered in itself, is misery; so are exile, contempt, imprisonment, ignominy: in fine, death itself is the last of all calamities. But when the favour of God breathes upon is, there is none of these things which may not turn out to our happiness. Let us then be contented with the testimony of Christ rather than with the false estimate of the flesh, and then, after the example of the Apostles, we will rejoice in being “counted worthy to suffer shame for his name,” (Acts 5: 41.) For why? If, while conscious of our innocence, we are deprived of our substance by the wickedness of man, we are, no doubt, humanly speaking, reduced to poverty; but in truth our riches in heaven are increased: if driven from our homes we have a more welcome reception into the family of God; if vexed and despised, we are more firmly rooted in Christ; if stigmatised by disgrace and ignominy, we have a higher place in the kingdom of God; and if we are slain, entrance is thereby given us to eternal life. The Lord having set such a price upon us, let us be ashamed to estimate ourselves at less than the shadowy and evanescent allurements of the present life.

8. Suffering under the cross, the Christian finds consolation in God

Since by these, and similar considerations, Scripture abundantly solaces us for the ignominy or calamities which we endure in defence of righteousness, we are very ungrateful if we do not willingly and cheerfully receive them at the hand of the Lord, especially since this form of the cross is the most appropriate to believers, being that by which Christ desires to be glorified in us, as Peter also declares, (1 Pet. 4: 11, 14.) But as to ingenuous natures, it is more bitter to suffer disgrace than a hundred deaths, Paul expressly reminds us that not only persecution, but also disgrace awaits us, “because we trust in the living God,” (1 Tim. 4: 10.) So in another passage he bids us, after his example, walk “by evil report and good report,” (2 Cor. vi. 8.)

The cheerfulness required, however, does not imply a total insensibility to pain. The saints could show no patience under the cross if they were not both tortured with pain and grievously molested. Were there no hardship in poverty, no pain in disease, no sting in ignominy, no fear in death, where would be the fortitude and moderation in enduring them? But while every one of these, by its inherent bitterness, naturally vexes the mind, the believer in this displays his fortitude, that though fully sensible of the bitterness and labouring grievously, he still withstands and struggles boldly; in this displays his patience, that though sharply stung, he is however curbed by the fear of God from breaking forth into any excess; in this displays his alacrity, that though pressed with sorrow and sadness, he rests satisfied with spiritual consolation from God.

(The Christian meets suffering as sent by God, but with no Stoic insensibility, 9-11)

9. The Christian, unlike the Stoic, gives expression to his pain and sorrow

This conflict which believers maintain against the natural feeling of pain, while they study moderation and patience, Paul elegantly describes in these words: “We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed,” (2 Cor. 4: 8, 9.) You see that to bear the cross patiently is not to have your feelings altogether blunted, and to be absolutely insensible to pain, according to the absurd description which the Stoics of old gave of their hero as one who, divested of humanity, was affected in the same way by adversity and prosperity, grief and joy; or rather, like a stone, was not affected by anything. And what did they gain by that sublime wisdom? they exhibited a shadow of patience, which never did, and never can, exist among men. Nay, rather by aiming at a too exact and rigid patience, they banished it altogether from human life.

Now also we have among Christians a new kind of Stoics, who hold it vicious not only to groan and weep, but even to be sad and anxious. These paradoxes are usually started by indolent men who, employing themselves more in speculation than in action, can do nothing else for us than beget such paradoxes. But we have nothing to do with that iron philosophy which our Lord and Master condemned - not only in word, but also by his own example. For he both grieved and shed tears for his own and others’ woes. Nor did he teach his disciples differently: “Ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice,” (John 16: 20.) And lest any one should regard this as vicious, he expressly declares, “Blessed are they that mourn,” (Matth. 5: 4.) And no wonder. If all tears are condemned, what shall we think of our Lord himself, whose “sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground?” (Luke 22: 44; Matth. 26: 38.) If every kind of fear is a mark of unbelief, what place shall we assign to the dread which, it is said, in no slight degree amazed him; if all sadness is condemned, how shall we justify him when he confesses, “My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death?”

10. Real sorrow and real patience in conflict with each other

I wished to make these observations to keep pious minds from despair, lest, from feeling it impossible to divest themselves of the natural feeling of grief, they might altogether abandon the study of patience. This must necessarily be the result with those who convert patience into stupor, and a brave and firm man into a block. Scripture gives saints the praise of endurance when, though afflicted by the hardships they endure, they are not crushed; though they feel bitterly, they are at the same time filled with spiritual joy; though pressed with anxiety, breathe exhilarated by the consolation of God. Still there is a certain degree of repugnance in their hearts, because natural sense shuns and dreads what is adverse to it, while pious affection, even through these difficulties, tries to obey the divine will. This repugnance the Lord expressed when he thus addressed Peter: “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself and walkedst whither thou wouldst; but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee; and carry thee whither thou wouldest not,” (John 21: 18.) It is not probable, indeed, that when it became necessary to glorify God by death he was driven to it unwilling and resisting; had it been so, little praise would have been due to his martyrdom. But though he obeyed the divine ordination with the greatest alacrity of heart, yet, as he had not divested himself of humanity, he was distracted by a double will. When he thought of the bloody death which he was to die, struck with horror, he would willingly have avoided it: on the other hand, when he considered that it was God who called him to it, his fear was vanquished and suppressed, and he met death cheerfully. It must therefore be our study, if we would be disciples of Christ, to imbue our minds with such reverence and obedience to God as may tame and subjugate all affections contrary to his appointment. In this way, whatever be the kind of cross to which we are subjected, we shall in the greatest straits firmly maintain our patience. Adversity will have its bitterness, and sting us. When afflicted with disease, we shall groan and be disquieted, and long for health; pressed with poverty, we shall feel the stings of anxiety and sadness, feel the pain of ignominy, contempt, and injury, and pay the tears due to nature at the death of our friends: but our conclusion will always be, The Lord so willed it, therefore let us follow his will. Nay, amid the pungency of grief, among groans and tears this thought will necessarily suggest itself and incline us cheerfully to endure the things for which we are so afflicted.

11. Patience according to philosophic and Christian understanding

But since the chief reason for enduring the cross has been derived from a consideration of the divine will, we must in few words explain wherein lies the difference between philosophical and Christian patience. Indeed, very few of the philosophers advanced so far as to perceive that the hand of God tries us by means of affliction, and that we ought in this matter to obey God. The only reason which they adduce is, that so it must be. But is not this just to say, that we must yield to God, because it is in vain to contend against him? For if we obey God only because it is necessary, provided we can escape, we shall cease to obey him. But what Scripture calls us to consider in the will of God is very different, namely, first justice and equity, and then a regard to our own salvation. Hence Christian exhortations to patience are of this nature, Whether poverty, or exile, or imprisonment, or contumely, or disease, or bereavement, or any such evil affects us, we must think that none of them happens except by the will and providence of God; moreover, that every thing he does is in the most perfect order. What! do not our numberless daily faults deserve to be chastised, more severely, and with a heavier rod than his mercy lays upon us? Is it not most right that our flesh should be subdued, and be, as it were, accustomed to the yoke, so as not to rage and wanton as it lists? Are not the justice and the truth of God worthy of our suffering on their account? [11] But if the equity of God is undoubtedly displayed in affliction, we cannot murmur or struggle against them without iniquity. We no longer hear the frigid cant, Yield, because it is necessary; but a living and energetic precept, Obey, because it is unlawful to resist; bear patiently, because impatience is rebellion against the justice of God.

Then as that only seems to us attractive which we perceive to be for our own safety and advantage, here also our heavenly Father consoles us, by the assurance, that in the very cross with which he afflicts us he provides for our salvation. But if it is clear that tribulations are salutary to us, why should we not receive them with calm and grateful minds?

In bearing them patiently we are not submitting to necessity but resting satisfied with our own good. The effect of these thoughts is, that to whatever extent our minds are contracted by the bitterness which we naturally feel under the cross, to the same extent will they be expanded with spiritual joy. Hence arises thanksgiving, which cannot exist unless joy be felt. But if the praise of the Lord and thanksgiving can emanate only from a cheerful and gladdened breasts and there is nothing which ought to interrupt these feelings in us, it is clear how necessary it is to temper the bitterness of the cross with spiritual joy.

Notes

[11] See end of sec. 4, and sec. 5, 7, 8.

CHAPTER 9. OF MEDITATING ON THE FUTURE LIFE.

The three divisions of this chapter, -

I. The principal use of the cross is, that it in various ways accustoms us to despise the present, and excites us to aspire to the future life, sec. 1, 2.

II. In withdrawing from the present life we must neither shun it nor feel hatred for it; but desiring the future life, gladly quit the present at the command of our sovereign Master, see. 3, 4.

III. Our infirmity in dreading death described. The correction and safe remedy, sec. 6.

Sections.

1. The design of God in afflicting his people.

1. To accustom us to despise the present life. Our infatuated love of it. Afflictions employed as the cure.

2. To lead us to aspire to heaven.

2. Excessive love of the present life prevents us from duly aspiring to the other. Hence the disadvantages of prosperity. Blindness of the human judgment. Our philosophizing on the vanity of life only of momentary influence. The necessity of the cross.

3. The present life an evidence of the divine favour to his people; and therefore, not to be detested. On the contrary, should call forth thanksgiving. The crown of victory in heaven after the contest on earth.

4. Weariness of the present life how to be tempered. The believer’s estimate of life. Comparison of the present and the future life. How far the present life should be hated.

5. Christians should not tremble at the fear of death. Two reasons. Objection. Answer. Other reasons.

6. Reasons continued. Conclusion.

(By our tribulations God weans us from excessive love of this present life, 1-2)

1.The vanity of this life

Whatever be the kind of tribulation with which we are afflicted, we should always consider the end of it to be, that we may be trained to despise the present, and thereby stimulated to aspire to the future life. For since God well knows how strongly we are inclined by nature to a slavish love of this world, in order to prevent us from clinging too strongly to it, he employs the fittest reason for calling us back, and shaking off our lethargy. Every one of us, indeed, would be thought to aspire and aim at heavenly immortality during the whole course of his life. For we would be ashamed in no respect to excel the lower animals; whose condition would not be at all inferior to ours, had we not a hope of immortality beyond the grave. But when you attend to the plans, wishes, and actions of each, you see nothing in them but the earth. Hence our stupidity; our minds being dazzled with the glare of wealth, power, and honours, that they can see no farther. The heart also, engrossed with avarice, ambition, and lust, is weighed down and cannot rise above them. In short, the whole soul, ensnared by the allurements of the flesh, seeks its happiness on the earth. To meet this disease, the Lord makes his people sensible of the vanity of the present life, by a constant proof of its miseries. Thus, that they may not promise themselves deep and lasting peace in it, he often allows them to be assailed by war, tumult, or rapine, or to be disturbed by other injuries. That they may not long with too much eagerness after fleeting and fading riches, or rest in those which they already possess, he reduces them to want, or, at least, restricts them to a moderate allowance, at one time by exile, at another by sterility, at another by fire, or by other means. That they may not indulge too complacently in the advantages of married life, he either vexes them by the misconduct of their partners, or humbles them by the wickedness of their children, or afflicts them by bereavement. But if in all these he is indulgent to them, lest they should either swell with vain-glory, or be elated with confidence, by diseases and dangers he sets palpably before them how unstable and evanescent are all the advantages competent to mortals.

We duly profit by the discipline of the cross, when we learn that this life, estimated in itself, is restless, troubled, in numberless ways wretched, and plainly in no respect happy; that what are estimated its blessings are uncertain, fleeting, vain, and vitiated by a great admixture of evil. From this we conclude, that all we have to seek or hope for here is contest; that when we think of the crown we must raise our eyes to heaven. For we must hold, that our mind never rises seriously to desire and aspire after the future, until it has learned to despise the present life.

2. Our tendency to leave unnoticed the vanity of this life

For there is no medium between the two things: the earth must either be worthless in our estimation, or keep us enslaved by an intemperate love of it. Therefore, if we have any regard to eternity, we must carefully strive to disencumber ourselves of these fetters. Moreover, since the present life has many enticements to allure us, and great semblance of delight, grace, and sweetness to soothe us, it is of great consequence to us to be now and then called off from its fascinations. [12] For what, pray, would happen, if we here enjoyed an uninterrupted course of honour and felicity, when even the constant stimulus of affliction cannot arouse us to a due sense of our misery?

That human life is like smoke or a shadow, is not only known to the learned; there is not a more trite proverb among the vulgar. Considering it a fact most useful to be known, they have recommended it in many well-known expressions. Still there is no fact which we ponder less carefully, or less frequently remember. For we form all our plans just as if we had fixed our immortality on the earth. If we see a funeral, or walk among graves, as the image of death is then present to the eye, I admit we philosophise admirably on the vanity of life. We do not indeed always do so, for those things often have no effect upon us at all. But, at the best, our philosophy is momentary. It vanishes as soon as we turn our back, and leaves not the vestige of remembrance behind; in short, it passes away, just like the applause of a theatre at some pleasant spectacle. Forgetful not only of death, but also of mortality itself, as if no rumour of it had ever reached us, we indulge in supine security as expecting a terrestrial immortality. Meanwhile, if any one breaks in with the proverb, that man is the creature of a day, [13] we indeed acknowledge its truth, but, so far from giving heed to it, the thought of perpetuity still keeps hold of our minds. Who then can deny that it is of the highest importance to us all, I say not, to be admonished by words, but convinced by all possible experience of the miserable condition of our earthly life; since even when convinced we scarcely cease to gaze upon it with vicious, stupid admiration, as if it contained within itself the sum of all that is good? But if God finds it necessary so to train us, it must be our duty to listen to him when he calls, and shakes us from our torpor, that we may hasten to despise the world, and aspire with our whole heart to the future life.

(A right estimate of the present life, which is transient and unsatisfying, leads us to meditate on the life to come, 3-6)

3. Gratitude for earthly life!

Still the contempt which believers should train themselves to feel for the present life, must not be of a kind to beget hatred of it or ingratitude to God. This life, though abounding in all kinds of wretchedness, is justly classed among divine blessings which are not to be despised. Wherefore, if we do not recognize the kindness of God in it, we are chargeable with no little ingratitude towards him. To believers, especially, it ought to be a proof of divine benevolence, since it is wholly destined to promote their salvation. Before openly exhibiting the inheritance of eternal glory, God is pleased to manifest himself to us as a Father by minor proofs, viz., the blessings which he daily bestows upon us. Therefore, while this life serves to acquaint us with the goodness of God, shall we disdain it as if it did not contain one particle of good? We ought, therefore, to feel and be affected towards it in such a manner as to place it among those gifts of the divine benignity which are by no means to be despised. Were there no proofs in Scripture, (they are most numerous and clear,) yet nature herself exhorts us to return thanks to God for having brought us forth into light, granted us the use of it, and bestowed upon us all the means necessary for its preservation.

And there is a much higher reason when we reflect that here we are in a manner prepared for the glory of the heavenly kingdom. For the Lord hath ordained, that those who are ultimately to be crowned in heaven must maintain a previous warfare on the earth, that they may not triumph before they have overcome the difficulties of war, and obtained the victory.

Another reason is, that we here begin to experience in various ways a foretaste of the divine benignity, in order that our hope and desire may be whetted for its full manifestation. When once we have concluded that our earthly life is a gift of the divine mercy, of which, agreeably to our obligation, it behoves us to have a grateful remembrance, we shall then properly descend to consider its most wretched condition, and thus escape from that excessive fondness for it, to which, as I have said, we are naturally prone.

4. The right longing for eternal life

In proportion as this improper love diminishes, our desire of a better life should increase. I confess, indeed, that a most accurate opinion was formed by those who thought, that the best thing was not to be born, the next best to die early. For, being destitute of the light of God and of true religion, what could they see in it that was not of dire and evil omen? Nor was it unreasonable for those [14] who felt sorrow and shed tears at the birth of their kindred, to keep holiday at their deaths. But this they did without profit; because, devoid of the true doctrine of faith, they saw not how that which in itself is neither happy nor desirable turns to the advantage of the righteous: and hence their opinion issued in despair.

Let believers, then, in forming an estimate of this mortal life, and perceiving that in itself it is nothing but misery, make it their aim to exert themselves with greater alacrity, and less hinderance, in aspiring to the future and eternal life. When we contrast the two, the former may not only be securely neglected, but, in comparison of the latter, be disdained and contemned. If heaven is our country, what can the earth be but a place of exile? If departure from the world is entrance into life, what is the world but a sepulchre, and what is residence in it but immersion in death? If to be freed from the body is to gain full possession of freedom, what is the body but a prison? If it is the very summit of happiness to enjoy the presence of God, is it not miserable to want it? But “whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord,” (2 Cor. 5: 6.) Thus when the earthly is compared with the heavenly life, it may undoubtedly be despised and trampled under foot. We ought never, indeed, to regard it with hatred, except in so far as it keeps us subject to sin; and even this hatred ought not to be directed against life itself. At all events, we must stand so affected towards it in regard to weariness or hatred as, while longing for its termination, to be ready at the Lord’s will to continue in it, keeping far from everything like murmuring and impatience. For it is as if the Lord had assigned us a post, which we must maintain till he recalls us. Paul, indeed, laments his condition, in being still bound with the fetters of the body, and sighs earnestly for redemption, (Rom. 7: 24;) nevertheless, he declared that, in obedience to the command of Gods he was prepared for both courses, because he acknowledges it as his duty to God to glorify his name whether by life or by death, while it belongs to God to determine what is most conducive to His glory, (Phil. 1: 20-24.) Wherefore, if it becomes us to live and die to the Lord, let us leave the period of our life and death at his disposal. Still let us ardently long for death, and constantly meditate upon it, and in comparison with future immortality, let us despise life, and, on account of the bondage of sin, long to renounce it whenever it shall so please the Lord.

5. Against the fear of death!

But, most strange to say, many who boast of being Christians, instead of thus longing for death, are so afraid of it that they tremble at the very mention of it as a thing ominous and dreadful. We cannot wonder, indeed, that our natural feelings should be somewhat shocked at the mention of our dissolution. But it is altogether intolerable that the light of piety should not be so powerful in a Christian breast as with greater consolation to overcome and suppress that fear. For if we reflect that this our tabernacle, unstable, defective, corruptible, fading, pining, and putrid, is dissolved, in order that it may forthwith be renewed in sure, perfect, incorruptible, in fine, in heavenly glory, will not faith compel us eagerly to desire what nature dreads? If we reflect that by death we are recalled from exile to inhabit our native country, a heavenly country, shall this give us no comfort?

But everything longs for permanent existence. I admit this, and therefore contend that we ought to look to future immortality, where we may obtain that fixed condition which nowhere appears on the earth. For Paul admirably enjoins believers to hasten cheerfully to death, not because they a would be unclothed, but clothed upon,” (2 Cor. 5: 2.) Shall the lower animals, and inanimate creatures themselves even wood and stone, as conscious of their present vanity, long for the final resurrection, that they may with the sons of God be delivered from vanity, (Rom. viii. 19;) and shall we, endued with the light of intellect, and more than intellect, enlightened by the Spirit of God, when our essence is in question, rise no higher than the corruption of this earth?

But it is not my purpose, nor is this the place, to plead against this great perverseness. At the outset, I declared that I had no wish to engage in a diffuse discussion of common-places. My advice to those whose minds are thus timid is to read the short treatise of Cyprian De Mortalitate, unless it be more accordant with their deserts to send them to the philosophers, that by inspecting what they say on the contempt of death, they may begin to blush.

This, however let us hold as fixed, that no man has made much progress in the school of Christ who does not look forward with joy to the day of death and final resurrection, (2 Tim. 4: 18; Tit. 2: 13:) for Paul distinguishes all believers by this mark; and the usual course of Scripture is to direct us thither whenever it would furnish us with an argument for substantial joy. “Look up,” says our Lord, “and lift up your heads: for your redemption draweth nigh,” (Luke 21: 28.) Is it reasonable, I ask, that what he intended to have a powerful effect in stirring us up to alacrity and exultation should produce nothing but sadness and consternation? If it is so, why do we still glory in him as our Master? Therefore, let us come to a sounder mind, and how repugnant so ever the blind and stupid longing of the flesh may be, let us doubt not to desire the advent of the Lord not in wish only, but with earnest sighs, as the most propitious of all events. He will come as a Redeemer to deliver us from an immense abyss of evil and misery, and lead us to the blessed inheritance of his life and glory.

6. The comfort prepared for believers by aspiration for the life to come

Thus, indeed, it is; the whole body of the faithful, so long as they live on the earth, must be like sheep for the slaughter, in order that they may be conformed to Christ their head, (Rom. 8: 36.) Most deplorable, therefore, would their situation be did they not, by raising their mind to heaven, become superior to all that is in the world, and rise above the present aspect of affairs, (1 Cor. 15: l9.) On the other hand, when once they have raised their head above all earthly objects, though they see the wicked flourishing in wealth and honour, and enjoying profound peace, indulging in luxury and splendour, and revelling in all kinds of delights, though they should moreover be wickedly assailed by them, suffer insult from their pride, be robbed by their avarice, or assailed by any other passion, they will have no difficulty in bearing up under these evils. They will turn their eye to that day, (Isaiah 25: 8; Rev. 7: 17,) on which the Lord will receive his faithful servants, wipe away all tears from their eyes, clothe them in a robe of glory and joy, feed them with the ineffable sweetness of his pleasures, exalt them to share with him in his greatness; in fine, admit them to a participation in his happiness. But the wicked who may have flourished on the earth, he will cast forth in extreme ignominy, will change their delights into torments, their laughter and joy into wailing and gnashing of teeth, their peace into the gnawing of conscience, and punish their luxury with unquenchable fire. He will also place their necks under the feet of the godly, whose patience they abused. For, as Paul declares, “it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; and to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven,” (2 Thess. 1: 6, 7.)

This, indeed, is our only consolation; deprived of it, we must either give way to despondency, or resort to our destruction to the vain solace of the world. The Psalmist confesses, “My feet were almost gone: my steps had well nigh slipt: for I was envious at the foolish when I saw the prosperity of the wicked,” (Psalm 73: 3, 4;) and he found no resting- place until he entered the sanctuary, and considered the latter end of the righteous and the wicked. To conclude in one word, the cross of Christ then only triumphs in the breasts of believers over the devil and the flesh, sin and sinners, when their eyes are directed to the power of his resurrection.

Notes

[12] French, “Or pource que la vie presente a tousiours force de delices pour nous attraire, et a grande apparence d’amenite, de grace et de douceur pour nous amieller, il nous est bien mestier d’estre retire d’heure en d’heure, a ce que nous ne soyons point abusez, et comme ensorcelez de telles flatteries;"—Now because the present life has always a host of delights to attract us, and has great appearance of amenity, grace, and sweetness to entice us, it is of great importance to us to be hourly withdrawn, in order that we may not be deceived, and, as it were, bewitched with such flattery.

[13] Latin, “ Animal esse efhmeron;"—is an ephemereal animal.

[14] French, “Le peuple des Scythes;"—the Scythians.

CHAPTER 10. HOW TO USE THE PRESENT LIFE, AND THE COMFORTS OF IT.

The divisions of this chapter are, -

I. The necessity and usefulness of this doctrine. Extremes to be avoided, if we would rightly use the present life and its comforts, sec. 1, 2.

II. One of these extremes, viz, the intemperance of the flesh, to be carefully avoided. Four methods of doing so described in order, sec. 3-6.

Sections.

1. Necessity of this doctrine. Use of the goods of the present life. Extremes to be avoided.

1. Excessive austerity.

2. Carnal intemperance and lasciviousness.

2. God, by creating so many mercies, consulted not only for our necessities, but also for our comfort and delight. Confirmation from a passage in the Psalms, and from experience.

3. Excessive austerity, therefore, to be avoided. So also must the wantonness of the flesh.

1. The creatures invite us to know, love, and honour the Creator.

2. This not done by the wicked, who only abuse these temporal mercies.

4. All earthly blessings to be despised in comparison of the heavenly life. Aspiration after this life destroyed by an excessive love of created objects. First, Intemperance.

5. Second, Impatience and immoderate desire. Remedy of these evils. The creatures assigned to our use. Man still accountable for the use he makes of them.

6. God requires us in all our actions to look to his calling. Use of this doctrine. It is full of comfort.

(The good things of this life are to be enjoyed as gifts of God, 1-2)

1. Double danger: mistaken strictness and mistaken laxity

By such rudiments we are at the same time well instructed by Scripture in the proper use of earthly blessings, a subject which, in forming a scheme of life, is by no mean to be neglected. For if we are to live, we must use the necessary supports of life; nor can we even shun those things which seem more subservient to delight than to necessity. We must therefore observe a mean, that we may use them with a pure conscience, whether for necessity or for pleasure. This the Lord prescribes by his word, when he tells us that to his people the present life is a kind of pilgrimage by which they hasten to the heavenly kingdom. If we are only to pass through the earth, there can be no doubt that we are to use its blessings only in so far as they assist our progress, rather than retard it. Accordingly, Paul, not without cause, admonishes us to use this world without abusing it, and to buy possessions as if we were selling them, (1 Cor. 7: 30, 31.)

But as this is a slippery place, and there is great danger of falling on either side, let us fix our feet where we can stand safely. There have been some good and holy men who, when they saw intemperance and luxury perpetually carried to excess, if not strictly curbed, and were desirous to correct so pernicious an evil, imagined that there was no other method than to allow man to use corporeal goods only in so far as they were necessaries: a counsel pious indeed, but unnecessarily austere; for it does the very dangerous thing of binding consciences in closer fetters than those in which they are bound by the word of God. Moreover, necessity, according to them, [15] was abstinence from every thing which could be wanted, so that they held it scarcely lawful to make any addition to bread and water. Others were still more austere, as is related of Cratetes the Theban, who threw his riches into the sea, because he thought, that unless he destroyed them they would destroy him.

Many also in the present day, while they seek a pretext for carnal intemperance in the use of external things, and at the same time would pave the way for licentiousness, assume for granted, what I by no means concede, that this liberty is not to be restrained by any modification, but that it is to be left to every man’s conscience to use them as far as he thinks lawful. I indeed confess that here consciences neither can nor ought to be bound by fixed and definite laws; but that Scripture having laid down general rules for the legitimate uses we should keep within the limits which they prescribe.

2. The main principle

Let this be our principle, that we err not in the use of the gifts of Providence when we refer them to the end for which their author made and destined them, since he created them for our good, and not for our destruction. No man will keep the true path better than he who shall have this end carefully in view. Now then, if we consider for what end he created food, we shall find that he consulted not only for our necessity, but also for our enjoyment and delight. Thus, in clothing, the end was, in addition to necessity, comeliness and honour; and in herbs, fruits, and trees, besides their various uses, gracefulness of appearance and sweetness of smell. Were it not so, the Prophet would not enumerate among the mercies of God “wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine,” (Ps. 104: 15.) The Scriptures would not everywhere mention, in commendation of his benignity, that he had given such things to men. The natural qualities of things themselves demonstrate to what end, and how far, they may be lawfully enjoyed. Has the Lord adorned flowers with all the beauty which spontaneously presents itself to the eye, and the sweet odour which delights the sense of smell, and shall it be unlawful for us to enjoy that beauty and this odour? What? Has he not so distinguished colours as to make some more agreeable than others? Has he not given qualities to gold and silver, ivory and marble, thereby rendering them precious above other metals or stones? In short, has he not given many things a value without having any necessary use?

(We are not to use these blessings indulgently, or to seek wealth greedily, but to serve dutifully in our calling, 3-6)

3. A look at the Giver of the gifts prevents narrow-mindedness and immoderation

Have done, then, with that inhuman philosophy which, in allowing no use of the creatures but for necessity, not only maliciously deprives us of the lawful fruit of the divine beneficence, but cannot be realised without depriving man of all his senses, and reducing him to a block.

But, on the other hand, let us with no less care guard against the lusts of the flesh, which, if not kept in order, break through all bounds, and are, as I have said, advocated by those who, under pretence of liberty, allow themselves every sort of license. First one restraint is imposed when we hold that the object of creating all things was to teach us to know their author, and feel grateful for his indulgence. Where is the gratitude if you so gorge or stupify yourself with feasting and wine as to be unfit for offices of piety, or the duties of your calling? Where the recognition of God, if the flesh, boiling forth in lust through excessive indulgences infects the mind with its impurity, so as to lose the discernment of’ honour and rectitude? Where thankfulness to God for clothing, if on account of sumptuous raiment we both admire ourselves and disdain others? if, from a love of show and splendour, we pave the way for immodesty? Where our recognition of God, if the glare of these things captivates our minds? For many are so devoted to luxury in all their senses that their mind lies buried: many are so delighted with marble, gold, and pictures, that they become marble-hearted—are changed as it were into metal, and made like painted figures. The kitchen, with its savoury smells, so engrosses them that they have no spiritual savour. The same thing may be seen in other matters. Wherefore, it is plain that there is here great necessity for curbing licentious abuse, and conforming to the rule of Paul, “make not provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof,” (Rom. 13: 14.) Where too much liberty is given to them, they break forth without measure or restraint.

4. Aspiration to eternal life also determines aright our outward conduct of life

There is no surer or quicker way of accomplishing this than by despising the present life and aspiring to celestial immortality. For hence two rules arise: First, “it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;” “and they that use this world, as not abusing it,” (1 Cor. 7: 29, 31.) Secondly, we must learn to be no less placid and patient in enduring penury, than moderate in enjoying abundance. He who makes it his rule to use this world as if he used it not, not only cuts off all gluttony in regard to meat and drink, and all effeminacy, ambition, pride, excessive shows and austerity, in regard to his table, his house, and his clothes, but removes every care and affection which might withdraw or hinder him from aspiring to the heavenly life, and cultivating the interest of his soul. [16] It was well said by Cato: Luxury causes great care, and produces great carelessness as to virtue; and it is an old proverb,—Those who are much occupied with the care of the body, usually give little care to the soul.

Therefore while the liberty of the Christian in external matters is not to be tied down to a strict rule, it is, however, subject to this law—he must indulge as little as possible; on the other hand, it must be his constant aims not only to curb luxury, but to cut off all show of superfluous abundance, and carefully beware of converting a help into an hinderance.

5. Frugality, earthly possessions held in trust

Another rule is, that those in narrow and slender circumstances should learn to bear their wants patiently, that they may not become immoderately desirous of things, the moderate use of which implies no small progress in the school of Christ. For in addition to the many other vices which accompany a longing for earthly good, he who is impatient under poverty almost always betrays the contrary disease in abundance. By this I mean, that he who is ashamed of a sordid garment will be vain-glorious of a splendid one; he who not contented with a slender, feels annoyed at the want of a more luxurious supper, will intemperately abuse his luxury if he obtains it; he who has a difficulty, and is dissatisfied in submitting to a private and humble condition, will be unable to refrain from pride if he attain to honour. Let it be the aim of all who have any unfeigned desire for piety to learn, after the example of the Apostle, “both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need,” (Philip. 4: 12.)

Scripture, moreover, has a third rule for modifying the use of earthly blessings. We have already adverted to it when considering the offices of charity. For it declares that they have all been given us by the kindness of God, and appointed for our use under the condition of being regarded as trusts, of which we must one day give account. We must, therefore, administer them as if we constantly heard the words sounding in our ears, “Give an account of your stewardship.” At the same time, let us remember by whom the account is to be taken, viz., by him who, while he so highly commends abstinence, sobriety, frugality, and moderation, abominates luxury, pride, ostentation, and vanity; who approves of no administration but that which is combined with charity, who with his own lips has already condemned all those pleasures which withdraw the heart from chastity and purity, or darken the intellect.

6. The Lord’s calling a basis of our way of life

The last thing to be observed is, that the Lord enjoins every one of us, in all the actions of life, to have respect to our own calling. He knows the boiling restlessness of the human mind, the fickleness with which it is borne hither and thither, its eagerness to hold opposites at one time in its grasp, its ambition. Therefore, lest all things should be thrown into confusion by our folly and rashness, he has assigned distinct duties to each in the different modes of life. And that no one may presume to overstep his proper limits, he has distinguished the different modes of life by the name of callings. Every man’s mode of life, therefore, is a kind of station assigned him by the Lord, that he may not be always driven about at random. So necessary is this distinction, that all our actions are thereby estimated in his sight, and often in a very different way from that in which human reason or philosophy would estimate them. There is no more illustrious deed even among philosophers than to free one’s country from tyranny, and yet the private individual who stabs the tyrant is openly condemned by the voice of the heavenly Judge (I Sam. 24: 7,11; 26:9).

But I am unwilling to dwell on particular examples; it is enough to know that in every thing the call of the Lord is the foundation and beginning of right action. He who does not act with reference to it will never, in the discharge of duty, keep the right path. He will sometimes be able, perhaps, to give the semblance of something laudable, but whatever it may be in the sight of man, it will be rejected before the throne of God; and besides, there will be no harmony in the different parts of his life. Hence, he only who directs his life to this end will have it properly framed; because free from the impulse of rashness, he will not attempt more than his calling justifies, knowing that it is unlawful to overleap the prescribed bounds. He who is obscure will not decline to cultivate a private life, that he may not desert the post at which God has placed him. Again, in all our cares, toils, annoyances, and other burdens, it will be no small alleviation to know that all these are under the superintendence of God. The magistrate will more willingly perform his office, and the father of a family confine himself to his proper sphere. Every one in his particular mode of life will, without repining, suffer its inconveniences, cares, uneasiness, and anxiety, persuaded that God has laid on the burden. This, too, will afford admirable consolation, that in following your proper calling, no work will be so mean and sordid as not to have a splendour and value in the eye of God.

Notes

[15]See Chrysost. ad Heb. Hi. As to Cratetes the Theban, see Plutarch, Lib. de Vitand. aere alien. and Philostratus in Vita Apollonii.

[16]French, “Parer notre ame de ses vrais ornemens;"—deck our soul with its true ornaments.

CHAPTER 11. OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. BOTH THE NAME AND THE REALITY DEFINED.

In this chapter and the seven which follow, the doctrine of Justification by Faith is expounded, and opposite errors refuted. The following may be regarded as the arrangement of these chapters: - Chapter 11 states the doctrine, and the four subsequent chapters, by destroying the righteousness of works, confirm the righteousness of faith, each in the order which appears in the respective titles of these chapters. In Chapter 12 the doctrine of Justification is confirmed by a description of perfect righteousness; in Chapter 13 by calling attention to two precautions; in Chapter 14 by a consideration of the commencement and progress of regeneration in the regenerate; and in Chapter 15 by two very pernicious effects which constantly accompany the righteousness of works. The three other chapters are devoted to refutation; Chapter 16 disposes of the objections of opponents; Chapter 17 replies to the arguments drawn from the promises of the Law or the Gospel; Chapter 18 refutes what is said in support of the righteousness of faith from the promise of reward.

There are three principal divisions in the Eleventh Chapter:

I. The terms used in this discussion are explained, sec. 1-4.

II. Osiander’s dream as to essential righteousness impugned, sec. 5-13.

III. The righteousness of faith established in opposition to the righteousness of works.

Sections.

1. Connection between the doctrine of Justification and that of Regeneration. The knowledge of this doctrine very necessary for two reasons.

2. For the purpose of facilitating the exposition of it, the terms are explained.

1. What it is to be justified in the sight of God.

2. To be justified by works.

3. To be justified by faith. Definition.

3. Various meanings of the term Justification.

1. To give praise to God and truth.

2. To make a vain display of righteousness.

3. To impute righteousness by faith, by and on account of Christ. Confirmation from an expression of Paul, and another of our Lord.

4. Another confirmation from a comparison with other expressions, in which justification means free righteousness before God through faith in Jesus Christ.

1. Acceptance.

2. Imputation of righteousness.

3. Remission of sins.

4. Blessedness.

5. Reconciliation with God.

6. Righteousness by the obedience of Christ.

5. The second part of the chapter. Osiander’s dream as to essential righteousness refuted.

1. Osiander’s argument: Answer.

2. Osiander’s second argument: Answer. Third argument: Answer.

6. Necessity of this refutation. Fourth argument: Answer. Confirmation: Another answer. Fifth and sixth arguments and answers.

7. Seventh and eighth arguments.

8. Ninth argument: Answer.

9. Tenth argument: Answer.

10. In what sense Christ is said to be our righteousness. Eleventh and twelfth arguments and answers.

11. Thirteenth and fourteenth arguments: Answers. An exception by Osiander. Imputed and begun righteousness to be distinguished. Osiander confounds them. Fifteenth argument: Answer.

12. Sixteenth argument, a dream of Osiander: Answer. Other four arguments and answers. Conclusion of the refutation of Osiander’s errors.

13. Last part of the chapter. Refutation of the Sophists pretending a righteousness compounded partly of faith and partly of works.

14. Sophistical evasion by giving the same name to different things: Two answers.

15. Second evasion: Two answers. First answer. Pernicious consequences resulting from this evasion.

16. Second answer, showing wherein, according to Scripture, Justification consists.

17. In explanation of this doctrine of Justification, two passages of Scripture produced.

18. Another passage of Scripture.

19. Third evasion. Papistical objection to the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone: Three answers. Fourth evasion: Three answers.

20. Fifth evasion, founded on the application of the term Righteousness to good works, and also on their reward: Answer, confirmed by the invincible argument of Paul. Sixth evasion: Answer.

21. Osiander and the Sophists being thus refuted, the accuracy of the definition of Justification by Faith established.

22. Definition confirmed.

1. By passages of Scripture.

2. By the writings of the ancient Fathers.

23. Man justified by faith, not because by it he obtains the Spirit, and is thus made righteous, but because by faith he lays hold of the righteousness of Christ. An objection removed. An example of the doctrine of Justification by Faith from the works of Ambrose.

(Justification and regeneration, the terms defined, 1-4)

1. Place and meaning of the doctrine of “justification”.

I trust I have now sufficiently shown how man’s only resource for escaping from the curse of the law, and recovering salvation, lies in faith; and also what the nature of faith is, what the benefits which it confers, and the fruits which it produces. The whole may be thus summed up: Christ given to us by the kindness of God is apprehended and possessed by faith, by means of which we obtain in particular a twofold benefit; first, being reconciled by the righteousness of Christ, God becomes, instead of a judge, an indulgent Father; and, secondly, being sanctified by his Spirit, we aspire to integrity and purity of life. This second benefit, viz., regeneration, appears to have been already sufficiently discussed. On the other hand, the subject of justification was discussed more cursorily, because it seemed of more consequence first to explain that the faith by which alone, through the mercy of God, we obtain free justification, is not destitute of good works; and also to show the true nature of these good works on which this question partly turns. The doctrine of Justification is now to be fully discussed, and discussed under the conviction, that as it is the principal ground on which religion must be supported, so it requires greater care and attention. For unless you understand first of all what your position is before God, and what the judgment which he passes upon you, you have no foundation on which your salvation can be laid, or on which piety towards God can be reared. The necessity of thoroughly understanding this subject will become more apparent as we proceed with it.

2. The concept of justification.

Lest we should stumble at the very threshold, (this we should do were we to begin the discussion without knowing what the subject is,) let us first explain the meaning of the expressions, To be justified in the sight of God, to be Justified by faith or by works. A man is said to be justified in the sight of God when in the judgment of God he is deemed righteous, and is accepted on account of his righteousness; for as iniquity is abominable to God, so neither can the sinner find grace in his sight, so far as he is and so long as he is regarded as a sinner. Hence, wherever sin is, there also are the wrath and vengeance of God. He, on the other hand, is justified who is regarded not as a sinner, but as righteous, and as such stands acquitted at the judgment-seat of God, where all sinners are condemned. As an innocent man, when charged before an impartial judge, who decides according to his innocence, is said to be justified by the judge, as a man is said to be justified by God when, removed from the catalogue of sinners, he has God as the witness and assertor of his righteousness. In the same manner, a man will be said to be justified by works, if in his life there can be found a purity and holiness which merits an attestation of righteousness at the throne of God, or if by the perfection of his works he can answer and satisfy the divine justice. On the contrary, a man will be justified by faith when, excluded from the righteousness of works, he by faith lays hold of the righteousness of Christ, and clothed in it appears in the sight of God not as a sinner, but as righteous.

Thus we simply interpret justification, as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favor as if we were righteous; and we say that this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, (see sec. 21 and 23.)

3. Scriptural Usage

In confirmation of this there are many clear passages of Scripture. First, it cannot be denied that this is the proper and most usual signification of the term. But as it were too tedious to collect all the passages, and compare them with each other, let it suffice to have called the reader’s attention to the fact: he will easily convince himself of its truth. I will only mention a few passages in which the justification of which we speak is expressly handled.

First, when Luke relates that all the people that heard Christ “justified God,” (Luke 7: 29,) and when Christ declares, that “Wisdom is justified of all her children,” (Luke 7: 35,) Luke means not that they conferred righteousness which always dwells in perfection with God, although the whole world should attempt to wrest it from him, nor does Christ mean that the doctrine of salvation is made just: this it is in its own nature; but both modes of expression are equivalent to attributing due praise to God and his doctrine. On the other hand, when Christ upbraids the Pharisees for justifying themselves, (Luke 16: 15,) he means not that they acquired righteousness by acting properly, but that they ambitiously courted a reputation for righteousness of which they were destitute. Those acquainted with Hebrew understand the meaning better: for in that language the name of wicked is given not only to those who are conscious of wickedness, but to those who receive sentence of condemnation. Thus, when Bathsheba says, “I and my son Solomon shall be counted offenders,” she does not acknowledge a crime, but complains that she and her son will be exposed to the disgrace of being numbered among reprobates and criminals, (1 Kings 1: 21.) It is, indeed, plain from the context, that the term even in Latin must be thus understood, viz., relatively, and does not denote any quality.

In regard to the use of the term with reference to the present subject, when Paul speaks of the Scripture, “foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith,” (Gal. 3: 8,) what other meaning can you give it than that God imputes righteousness by faith? Again, when he says, “that he (God) might be just, and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus,” (Rom. 3: 26,) what can the meaning be, if not that God, in consideration of their faith, frees them from the condemnation which their wickedness deserves? This appears still more plainly at the conclusion, when he exclaims, “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us, (Rom. 8: 33, 34.) For it is just as if he had said, Who shall accuse those whom God has acquitted? Who shall condemn those for whom Christ pleads? To justify therefore, is nothing else than to acquit from the charge of guilt, as if innocence were proved. Hence, when God justifies us through the intercession of Christ, he does not acquit us on a proof of our own innocence, but by an imputation of righteousness, so that though not righteous in ourselves, we are deemed righteous in Christ. Thus it is said, in Paul’s discourse in the Acts, “Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses,” (Acts 13: 38, 39.) You see that after remission of sins justification is set down by way of explanation; you see plainly that it is used for acquittal; you see how it cannot be obtained by the works of the law; you see that it is entirely through the interposition of Christ; you see that it is obtained by faith; you see, in fine, that satisfaction intervenes, since it is said that we are justified from our sins by Christ. Thus when the publican is said to have gone down to his house “justified,” (Luke 18: 14,) it cannot be held that he obtained this justification by any merit of works. All that is said is, that after obtaining the pardon of sins he was regarded in the sight of God as righteous. He was justified, therefore, not by any approval of works, but by gratuitous acquittal on the part of God. Hence Ambrose elegantly terms confession of sins “legal justification,” (Ambrose on Psalm 118 Serm. 10).

4. Justification as gracious acceptance by God and as forgiveness of sins.

Without saying more about the term, we shall have no doubt as to the thing meant if we attend to the description which is given of it. For Paul certainly designates justification by the term acceptance, when he says to the Ephesians, “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he has made us accepted in the Beloved,” (Eph. 1: 5, 6.) His meaning is the very same as where he elsewhere says, “being justified freely by his grace,” (Rom. 3: 24.) In the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, he first terms it the imputation of righteousness, and hesitates not to place it in forgiveness of sins: “Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven,” &c., (Rom. 4: 6-8.) There, indeed, he is not speaking of a part of justification, but of the whole. He declares, moreover, that a definition of it was given by David, when he pronounced him blessed who has obtained the free pardon of his sins. Whence it appears that this righteousness of which he speaks is simply opposed to judicial guilt. But the most satisfactory passage on this subject is that in which he declares the sum of the Gospel message to be reconciliation to God, who is pleased, through Christ, to receive us into favor by not imputing our sins, (2 Cor. 5: 18-21.) Let my readers carefully weigh the whole context. For Paul shortly after adding, by way of explanation, in order to designate the mode of reconciliation, that Christ who knew no sin was made sin for us, undoubtedly understands by reconciliation nothing else than justification. Nor, indeed, could it be said, as he elsewhere does, that we are made righteous “by the obedience” of Christ, (Rom. 5: 19,) were it not that we are deemed righteous in the sight of God in him and not in ourselves.

(Refutation of Osiander’s doctrine of “essential righteousness,” 5-12)

5. Osiander’s doctrine of essential righteousness.

But as Osiander has introduced a kind of monstrosity termed essential righteousness, by which, although he designed not to abolish free righteousness, he involves it in darkness, and by that darkness deprives pious minds of a serious sense of divine grace; before I pass to other matters, it may be proper to refute this delirious dream.

And, first, the whole speculation is mere empty curiosity. He indeed, heaps together many passages of scripture showing that Christ is one with us, and we likewise one with him, a point which needs no proof; but he entangles himself by not attending to the bond of this unity. The explanation of all difficulties is easy to us, who hold that we are united to Christ by the secret agency of his Spirit, but he had formed some idea akin to that of the Manichees, desiring to transfuse the divine essence into men.

Hence his other notion, that Adam was formed in the image of God, because even before the fall Christ was destined to be the model of human nature. But as I study brevity, I will confine myself to the matter in hand.

He says, that we are one with Christ. This we admit, but still we deny that the essence of Christ is confounded with ours. Then we say that he absurdly endeavors to support his delusions by means of this principle: that Christ is our righteousness, because he is the eternal God, the fountain of righteousness, the very righteousness of God. My readers will pardon me for now only touching on matters which method requires me to defer to another place. But although he pretends that, by the term essential righteousness, he merely means to oppose the sentiment that we are reputed righteous on account of Christ, he however clearly shows, that not contented with that righteousness, which was procured for us by the obedience and sacrificial death of Christ, he maintains that we are substantially righteous in God by an infused essence as well as quality. For this is the reason why he so vehemently contends that not only Christ but the Father and the Spirit dwell in us. The fact I admit to be true, but still I maintain it is wrested by him. He ought to have attended to the mode of dwelling, viz., that the Father and the Spirit are in Christ; and as in him the fulness of the Godhead dwells, so in him we possess God entire. Hence, whatever he says separately concerning the Father and the Spirit, has no other tendency than to lead away the simple from Christ.

Then he introduces a substantial mixture, by which God, transfusing himself into us, makes us as it were a part of himself. Our being made one with Christ by the agency of the Spirit, he being the head and we the members, he regards as almost nothing unless his essence is mingled with us. But, as I have said, in the case of the Father and the Spirit, he more clearly betrays his views, namely, that we are not justified by the mere grace of the Mediator, and that righteousness is not simply or entirely offered to us in his person, but that we are made partakers of divine righteousness when God is essentially united to us.

6.Osiander erroneously mixes forgiveness of sins with rebirth.

Had he only said, that Christ by justifying us becomes ours by an essential union, and that he is our head not only in so far as he is man, but that as the essence of the divine nature is diffused into us, he might indulge his dreams with less harm, and, perhaps, it were less necessary to contest the matter with him; but since this principle is like a cuttle-fish, which, by the ejection of dark and inky blood, conceals its many tails, if we would not knowingly and willingly allow ourselves to be robbed of that righteousness which alone gives us full assurance of our salvation, we must strenuously resist. For, in the whole of this discussion, the noun righteousness and the verb to justify, are extended by Osiander to two parts; to be justified being not only to be reconciled to God by a free pardon, but also to be made just; and righteousness being not a free imputation, but the holiness and integrity which the divine essence dwelling in us inspires. And he vehemently asserts (see sec. 8) that Christ is himself our righteousness, not in so far as he, by expiating sins, appeased the Father, but because he is the eternal God and life.

To prove the first point, viz., that God justifies not only by pardoning but by regenerating, he asks, whether he leaves those whom he justifies as they were by nature, making no change upon their vices? The answer is very easy: as Christ cannot be divided into parts, so the two things, justification and sanctification, which we perceive to be united together in him, are inseparable. Whomsoever, therefore, God receives into his favor, he presents with the Spirit of adoption (Romans 8:15), whose agency forms them anew into his image. But if the brightness of the sun cannot be separated from its heat, are we therefore to say, that the earth is warmed by light and illumined by heat? Nothing can be more apposite to the matter in hand than this simile. The sun by its heat quickens and fertilizes the earth; by its rays enlightens and illumines it. Here is a mutual and undivided connection, and yet reason itself prohibits us from transferring the peculiar properties of the one to the other. In the confusion of a twofold grace, which Osiander obtrudes upon us, there is a similar absurdity. Because those whom God freely regards as righteous, he in fact renews to the cultivation of righteousness, Osiander confounds that free acceptance with this gift of regeneration, and contends that they are one and the same. But Scriptures while combining both, classes them separately, that it may the better display the manifold grace of God. Nor is Paul’s statement superfluous, that Christ is made unto us “righteousness and sanctification,” (1 Cor. 1: 30.) And whenever he argues from the salvation procured for us, from the paternal love of God and the grace of Christ, that we are called to purity and holiness, he plainly intimates, that to be justified is something else than to be made new creatures.

Osiander on coming to Scripture corrupts every passage which he quotes. Thus when Paul says, “to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness,” (Romans 4:4-5) he expounds justifying as making just. With the same rashness he perverts the whole of the fourth chapter to the Romans. He hesitates not to give a similar gloss to the passage which I lately quoted, “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.” Here it is plain that guilt and acquittal simply are considered, and that the Apostle’s meaning depends on the antithesis. Therefore his futility is detected both in his argument and his quotations for support from Scripture.

He is not a whit sounder in discussing the term righteousness, when it is said, that faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness after he had embraced Christ, (who is the righteousness of Gad and God himself) and was distinguished by excellent virtues. Hence it appears that two things which are perfect are viciously converted by him into one which is corrupt. For the righteousness which is there mentioned pertains not to the whole course of life; or rather, the Spirit testifies, that though Abraham greatly excelled in virtue, and by long perseverance in it had made so much progress, the only way in which he pleased God was by receiving the grace which was offered by the promise, in faith. From this it follows, that, as Paul justly maintains, there is no room for works in justification.

7. The significance of faith for justification.

When he objects that the power of justifying exists not in faith, considered in itself, but only as receiving Christ, I willingly admit it. For did faith justify of itself, or (as it is expressed) by its own intrinsic virtue, as it is always weak and imperfect, its efficacy would be partial, and thus our righteousness being maimed would give us only a portion of salvation. We indeed imagine nothing of the kind, but say, that, properly speaking, God alone justifies. The same thing we likewise transfer to Christ, because he was given to us for righteousness; while we compare faith to a kind of vessel, because we are incapable of receiving Christ, unless we are emptied and come with open mouth to receive his grace. Hence it follows, that we do not withdraw the power of justifying from Christ, when we hold that, previous to his righteousness, he himself is received by faith. Still, however, I admit not the tortuous figure of the sophist, that faith is Christ; as if a vessel of clay were a treasure, because gold is deposited in it. And yet this is no reason why faith, though in itself of no dignity or value, should not justify us by giving Christ; Just as such a vessel filled with coin may give wealth. I say, therefore, that faith, which is only the instrument for receiving justification, is ignorantly confounded with Christ, who is the material cause, as well as the author and minister of this great blessing. This disposes of the difficulty, viz., how the term faith is to be understood when treating of justification.

8. Osiander’s doctrine that Christ is, according to his divine nature, our righteousness.

Osiander goes still farther in regard to the mode of receiving Christ, holding, that by the ministry of the external word the internal word is received; that he may thus lead us away from the priesthood of Christ, and his office of Mediator, to his eternal divinity. We, indeed, do not divide Christ, but hold that he who, reconciling us to God in his flesh, bestowed righteousness upon us, is the eternal Word of God; and that he could not perform the office of Mediator, nor acquire righteousness for us, if he were not the eternal God. Osiander will have it, that as Christ is God and man, he was made our righteousness in respect not of his human but of his divine nature. But if this is a peculiar property of the Godhead, it will not be peculiar to Christ, but common to him with the Father and the Spirit, since their righteousness is one and the same. Thus it would be incongruous to say, that that which existed naturally from eternity was made ours. But granting that God was made unto us righteousness, what are we to make of Paul’s interposed statement, that he was so made by God? This certainly is peculiar to the office of mediator, for although he contains in himself the divine nature, yet he receives his own proper title, that he may be distinguished from the Father and the Spirit. But he makes a ridiculous boast of a single passage of Jeremiah, in which it is said, that Jehovah will be our righteousness, (Jer. 23: 6; 33: 16.) But all he can extract from this is, that Christ, who is our righteousness, was God manifest in the flesh. We have elsewhere quoted from Paul’s discourse, that God purchased the Church with his own blood, (Acts 20: 28.) Were any one to infer from this that the blood by which sins were expiated was divine, and of a divine nature, who could endure so foul a heresy? But Osiander, thinking that he has gained the whole cause by this childish cavil, swells, exults, and stuffs whole pages with his bombast, whereas the solution is simple and obvious, viz., that Jehovah, when made of the seed of David, was indeed to be the righteousness of believers, but in what sense Isaiah declares, “By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many,” (Isa. 53: 11.) Let us observe that it is the Father who speaks. He attributes the office of justifying to the Son, and adds the reason,—because he is “righteous.” He places the method, or medium, (as it is called,) in the doctrine by which Christ is known. For the word “da’at” is more properly to be understood in a passive sense. Hence I infer, first, that Christ was made righteousness when he assumed the form of a servant; secondly, that he justified us by his obedience to the Father; and, accordingly that he does not perform this for us in respect of his divine nature, but according to the nature of the dispensation laid upon him. For though God alone is the fountain of righteousness, and the only way in which we are righteous is by participation with him, yet, as by our unhappy revolt we are alienated from his righteousness, it is necessary to descend to this lower remedy, that Christ may justify us by the power of his death and resurrection.

9. Justification as a work of the Mediator.

If he objects that this work by its excellence transcends human, and therefore can only be ascribed to the divine nature; I concede the former point, but maintain, that on the latter he is ignorantly deluded. For although Christ could neither purify our souls by his own blood, nor appease the Father by his sacrifice, nor acquit us from the charge of guilt, nor, in short, perform the office of priest, unless he had been very God, because no human ability was equal to such a burden, it is however certain, that he performed all these things in his human nature. If it is asked, in what way we are justified? Paul answers, by the obedience of Christ. Did he obey in any other way than by assuming the form of a servant? We infer, therefore, that righteousness was manifested to us in his flesh. In like manner, in another passage, (which I greatly wonder that Osiander does not blush repeatedly to quote,) he places the fountain of righteousness entirely in the incarnation of Christ, “He has made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,” (2 Cor. 5: 21.) Osiander in turgid sentences lays hold of the expression, righteousness of God, and shouts victory! as if he had proved it to be his own phantom of essential righteousness, though the words have a very different meaning, viz., that we are justified through the expiation made by Christ. That the righteousness of God is used for the righteousness which is approved by God, should be known to mere tyros, as in John, the praise of God is contrasted with the praise of men, (John 12: 43.) I know that by the righteousness of God is sometimes meant that of which God is the author, and which he bestows upon us; but that here the only thing meant is, that being supported by the expiation of Christ, we are able to stand at the tribunal of God, sound readers perceive without any observation of mine. The word is not of so much importance, provided Osiander agrees with us in this, that we are justified by Christ in respect he was made an expiatory victim for us. This he could not be in his divine nature. For which reason also, when Christ would seal the righteousness and salvation which he brought to us, he holds forth the sure pledge of it in his flesh. He indeed calls himself “living bread,” but, in explanation of the mode, adds, “my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed,” (John 6: 55.) The same doctrine is clearly seen in the sacraments; which, though they direct our faith to the whole, not to a part of Christ, yet, at the same time, declare that the materials of righteousness and salvation reside in his flesh; not that the mere man of himself justifies or quickens, but that God was pleased, by means of a Mediator, to manifest his own hidden and incomprehensible nature. Hence I often repeat, that Christ has been in a manner set before us as a fountain, whence we may draw what would otherwise lie without use in that deep and hidden abyss which streams forth to us in the person of the Mediator. In this way, and in this meaning, I deny not that Christ, as he is God and man, justifies us; that this work is common also to the Father and the Holy Spirit; in fine, that the righteousness of which God makes us partakers is the eternal righteousness of the eternal God, provided effect is given to the clear and valid reasons to which I have adverted.

10. What is the nature of our union with Christ?

Moreover, lest by his cavils he deceive the unwary, I acknowledge that we are devoid of this incomparable gift until Christ become ours. Therefore, to that union of the head and members, the residence of Christ in our hearts, in fine, the mystical union, we assign the highest rank, Christ when he becomes ours making us partners with him in the gifts with which he was endued. Hence we do not view him as at a distance and without us, but as we have put him on, and been ingrafted into his body, he deigns to make us one with himself, and, therefore, we glory in having a fellowship of righteousness with him. This disposes of Osiander’s calumny, that we regard faith as righteousness; as if we were robbing Christ of his rights when we say, that, destitute in ourselves, we draw near to him by faith, to make way for his grace, that he alone may fill us. But Osiander, spurning this spiritual union, insists on a gross mixture of Christ with believers; and, accordingly, to excite prejudice, gives the name of Zwinglians to all who subscribe not to his fanatical heresy of essential righteousness, because they do not hold that, in the supper, Christ is eaten substantially. For my part, I count it the highest honor to be thus assailed by a haughty man, devoted to his own impostures; though he assails not me only, but writers of known reputation throughout the world, and whom it became him modestly to venerate. This, however, does not concern me, as I plead not my own cause, and plead the more sincerely that I am free from every sinister feeling. In insisting so vehemently on essential righteousness, and an essential inhabitation of Christ within us, his meaning is, first, that God by a gross mixture transfuses himself into us, as he pretends that there is a carnal eating in the supper; And, secondly that by instilling his own righteousness into us, he makes us really righteous with himself since, according to him, this righteousness is as well God himself as the probity, or holiness, or integrity of God. I will not spend much time in disposing of the passages of Scripture which he adduces, and which, though used in reference to the heavenly life, he wrests to our present state. Peter says, that through the knowledge of Christ “are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises, that by them ye might be partakers of the divine nature,” (2 Pet. 1: 4;) as if we now were what the gospel promises we shall be at the final advent of Christ; nay, John reminds us, that “when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is”, (1 John 3: 2.) I only wished to give my readers a slender specimen of Osiander, it being my intention to decline the discussion of his frivolities, not because there is any difficulty in disposing of them, but because I am unwilling to annoy the reader with superfluous labour.

11. Osiander’s doctrine of the essential righteousness nullifies the certainty of salvation.

But more poison lurks in the second branch, when he says that we are righteous together with God. I think I have already sufficiently proved, that although the dogma were not so pestiferous, yet because it is frigid and jejune, and falls by its own vanity, it must justly be disrelished by all sound and pious readers. But it is impossible to tolerate the impiety which, under the pretence of a twofold righteousness, undermines our assurance of salvation, and hurrying us into the clouds, tries to prevent us from embracing the gift of expiation in faith, and invoking God with quiet minds. Osiander derides us for teaching, that to be justified is a forensic term, because it behaves us to be in reality just: there is nothing also to which he is more opposed than the idea of our being justified by a free imputation. Say, then, if God does not justify us by acquitting and pardoning, what does Paul mean when he says “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them”? “He made him to be sin for us who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,” (2 Cor. 5: 19, 21.) Here I learn, first, that those who are reconciled to God are regarded as righteous: then the method is stated, God justifies by pardoning; and hence, in another place, justification is opposed to accusation, (Rom. 8: 33;) this antithesis clearly demonstrating that the mode of expression is derived from forensic use. And, indeed, no man, moderately verdant in the Hebrew tongue, (provided he is also of sedate brain,) is ignorant that this phrase thus took its rise, and thereafter derived its tendency and force. Now, then, when Paul says that David “describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven,” (Rom. 4: 6, 7; Ps. 32: 1,) let Osiander say whether this is a complete or only a partial definition. He certainly does not adduce the Psalmist as a witness that pardon of sins is a part of righteousness, or concurs with something else in justifying, but he includes the whole of righteousness in gratuitous forgiveness, declaring those to be blessed “whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered,” and “to whom the Lord will not impute sin.” He estimates and judges of his happiness from this that in this way he is righteous not in reality, but by imputation.

Osiander objects that it would be insulting to God, and contrary to his nature, to justify those who still remain wicked. But it ought to be remembered, as I already observed, that the gift of justification is not separated from regeneration, though the two things are distinct. But as it is too well known by experience, that the remains of sin always exist in the righteous, it is necessary that justification should be something very different from reformation to newness of life. This latter God begins in his elect, and carries on during the whole course of life, gradually and sometimes slowly, so that if placed at his judgment-seat they would always deserve sentence of death. He justifies not partially, but freely, so that they can appear in the heavens as if clothed with the purity of Christ. No portion of righteousness could pacify the conscience. It must be decided that we are pleasing to God, as being without exception righteous in his sight. Hence it follows that the doctrine of justification is perverted and completely overthrown whenever doubt is instilled into the mind, confidence in salvation is shaken, and free and intrepid prayer is retarded; yea, whenever rest and tranquillity with spiritual joy are not established. Hence Paul argues against objectors, that “if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise,” (Gal. 3: 18.) that in this way faith would be made vain; for if respect be had to works it fails, the holiest of men in that case finding nothing in which they can confide. This distinction between justification and regeneration (Osiander confounding the two, calls them a twofold righteousness) is admirably expressed by Paul. Speaking of his real righteousness, or the integrity bestowed upon him, (which Osiander terms his essential righteousness,) he mournfully exclaims, “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” (Rom. 7: 24;) but retaking himself to the righteousness which is founded solely on the mercy of God, he breaks forth thus magnificently into the language of triumph: “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.” “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?” (Rom. 8: 33, 35.) He clearly declares that the only righteousness for him is that which alone suffices for complete salvation in the presence of God, so that that miserable bondage, the consciousness of which made him a little before lament his lot, derogates not from his confidence, and is no obstacle in his way. This diversity is well known, and indeed is familiar to all the saints who groan under the burden of sin, and yet with victorious assurance rise above all fears. Osiander’s objection as to its being inconsistent with the nature of God, falls back upon himself; for though he clothes the saints with a twofold righteousness as with a coat of skins, he is, however, forced to admit, that without forgiveness no man is pleasing to God. If this be so, let him at least admit, that with reference to what is called the proportion of imputation, those are regarded as righteous who are not so in reality. But how far shall the sinner extend this gratuitous acceptance, which is substituted in the room of righteousness? Will it amount to the whole pound, or will it be only an ounce? He will remain in doubt, vibrating to this side and to that, because he will be unable to assume to himself as much righteousness as will be necessary to give confidence. It is well that he who would prescribe a law to God is not the judge in this cause. But this saying will ever stand true, “That thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judges,” (Ps. 51: 4.) What arrogance to condemn the Supreme Judge when he acquits freely, and try to prevent the response from taking affect: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” And yet the intercession of Moses, which God calmed by this answer, was not for pardon to some individual, but to all alike, by wiping away the guilt to which all were liable. And we, indeed, say, that the lost are justified before God by the burial of their sins; for (as he hates sin) he can only love those whom he justifies. But herein is the wondrous method of justification, that, clothed with the righteousness of Christ, they dread not the judgment of which they are worthy, and while they justly condemn themselves, are yet deemed righteous out of themselves.

12. Refutation of Osiander

I must admonish the reader carefully to attend to the mystery which he boasts he is unwilling to conceal from them. For after contending with great prolixity that we do not obtain favor with God through the mere imputation of the righteousness of Christ, because (to use his own words) it were impossible for God to hold those as righteous who are not so, he at length concludes that Christ was given to us for righteousness, in respect not of his human, but of his divine nature; and though this can only be found in the person of the Mediator, it is, however, the righteousness not of man, but of God. He does not now twist his rope of two righteousnesses, but plainly deprives the human nature of Christ of the office of justifying. It is worth while to understand what the nature of his argument is. It is said in the same passage that Christ is made unto us wisdom, (1 Cor. 1: 30;) but this is true only of the eternal Word, and, therefore, it is not the man Christ that is made righteousness. I answer, that the only begotten Son of God was indeed his eternal wisdom, but that this title is applied to him by Paul in a different way, viz., because “in him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and righteousness,” (Col. 2: 3.) That, therefore, which he had with the Father he manifested to us; and thus Paul’s expression refers not to the essence of the Son of God, but to our use, and is fitly applied to the human nature of Christ; for although the light shone in darkness before he was clothed with flesh, yet he was a hidden light until he appeared in human nature as the Sun of Righteousness, and hence he calls himself the light of the world. It is also foolishly objected by Osiander, that justifying far transcends the power both of men and angels, since it depends not on the dignity of any creature, but on the ordination of God. Were angels to attempt to give satisfaction to God, they could have no success, because they are not appointed for this purpose, it being the peculiar office of Christ, who “has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us,” (Gal. 3: 13.) Those who deny that Christ is our righteousness, in respect of his divine nature, are wickedly charged by Osiander with leaving only a part of Christ, and (what is worse) with making two Gods; because, while admitting that God dwells in us, they still insist that we are not justified by the righteousness of God. For though we call Christ the author of life, inasmuch as he endured death that he might destroy him who had the power of death, (Heb. 2: 14,) we do not thereby rob him of this honor, in his whole character as God manifested in the flesh. We only make a distinction as to the manner in which the righteousness of God comes to us, and is enjoyed by us,—a matter as to which Osiander shamefully erred. We deny not that that which was openly exhibited to us in Christ flowed from the secret grace and power of God; nor do we dispute that the righteousness which Christ confers upon us is the righteousness of God, and proceeds from him. What we constantly maintain is, that our righteousness and life are in the death and resurrection of Christ. I say nothing of that absurd accumulation of passages with which without selection or common understanding, he has loaded his readers, in endeavoring to show, that whenever mention is made of righteousness, this essential righteousness of his should be understood; as when David implores help from the righteousness of God. This David does more than a hundred times, and as often Osiander hesitates not to pervert his meaning. Not a whit more solid is his objection, that the name of righteousness is rightly and properly applied to that by which we are moved to act aright, but that it is God only that worketh in us both to will and to do, (Phil. 2: 13.) For we deny not that God by his Spirit forms us anew to holiness and righteousness of life; but we must first see whether he does this of himself, immediately, or by the hand of his Son, with whom he has deposited all the fulness of the Holy Spirit, that out of his own abundance he may supply the wants of his members. When, although righteousness comes to us from the secret fountain of the Godhead, it does not follow that Christ, who sanctified himself in the flesh on our account, is our righteousness in respect of his divine nature, (John 17: 19.) Not less frivolous is his observation, that the righteousness with which Christ himself was righteous was divine; for had not the will of the Father impelled him, he could not have fulfilled the office assigned him. For although it has been elsewhere said that all the merits of Christ flow from the mere good pleasure of God, this gives no countenance to the phantom by which Osiander fascinates both his own eyes and those of the simple. For who will allow him to infer, that because God is the source and commencement of our righteousness, we are essentially righteous, and the essence of the divine righteousness dwells in us? In redeeming us, says Isaiah, “he (God) put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation upon his head,” (Isaiah 59: 17,) was this to deprive Christ of the armour which he had given him, and prevent him from being a perfect Redeemer? All that the Prophet meant was, that God borrowed nothing from an external quarter, that in redeeming us he received no external aid. The same thing is briefly expressed by Paul in different terms, when he says that God set him forth “to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins.” This is not the least repugnant to his doctrine: in another place, that “by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous,” (Rom. 5: 19.) In short, every one who, by the entanglement of a twofold righteousness, prevents miserable souls from resting entirely on the mere mercy of God, mocks Christ by putting on him a crown of plaited thorns.

(Refutation of Scholastic doctrines of good works as effective for justification, 13-20)

13. Righteousness by faith and righteousness by works.

But since a great part of mankind imagine a righteousness compounded of faith and works let us here show that there is so wide a difference between justification by faith and by works, that the establishment of the one necessarily overthrows the other. The Apostle says, “Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith,” (Phil. 3: 8, 9.) You here see a comparison of contraries, and an intimation that every one who would obtain the righteousness of Christ must renounce his own. Hence he elsewhere declares the cause of the rejection of the Jews to have been, that “they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God,” (Rom. 10: 3.) If we destroy the righteousness of God by establishing our own righteousness, then, in order to obtain his righteousness, our own must be entirely abandoned. This also he shows, when he declares that boasting is not excluded by the Law, but by faith, (Rom. 3: 27.) Hence it follows, that so long as the minutes portion of our own righteousness remains, we have still some ground for boasting. Now if faith utterly excludes boasting, the righteousness of works cannot in any way be associated with the righteousness of faith. This meaning is so clearly expressed in the fourth chapter to the Romans as to leave no room for cavil or evasion. “If Abraham were justified by works he has whereof to glory;” and then it is added, “but not before God,” (Rom. 4: 2.) The conclusion, therefore, is, that he was not justified by works. He then employs another argument from contraries, viz., when reward is paid to works, it is done of debt, not of grace; but the righteousness of faith is of grace: therefore it is not of the merit of works. Away, then, with the dream of those who invent a righteousness compounded of faith and works, (see Calvin. ad Concilium Tridentinum.)

14. Likewise, the works of the regenerated can procure no justification.

The Sophists, who delight in sporting with Scripture and in empty cavils, think they have a subtle evasion when they expound works to mean, such as unregenerated men do literally, and by the effect of free will, without the grace of Christ, and deny that these have any reference to spiritual works. Thus according to them, man is justified by faith as well as by works, provided these are not his own works, but gifts of Christ and fruits of regeneration; Paul’s only object in so expressing himself being to convince the Jews, that in trusting to their ohm strength they foolishly arrogated righteousness to themselves, whereas it is bestowed upon us by the Spirit of Christ alone, and not by studied efforts of our own nature. But they observe not that in the antithesis between Legal and Gospel righteousness, which Paul elsewhere introduces, all kinds of works, with whatever name adorned, are excluded, (Gal. 3: 11, 12.) For he says that the righteousness of the Law consists in obtaining salvation by doing what the Law requires, but that the righteousness of faith consists in believing that Christ died and rose again, (Rom. 10: 5-9.) Moreover, we shall afterwards see, at the proper place, that the blessings of sanctification and justification, which we derive from Christ, are different. Hence it follows, that not even spiritual works are taken into account when the power of justifying is ascribed to faith. And, indeed, the passage above quoted, in which Paul declares that Abraham had no ground of glorying before God, because he was not justified by works, ought not to be confined to a literal and external form of virtue, or to the effort of free will. The meaning is, that though the life of the Patriarch had been spiritual and almost angelic, yet he could not by the merit of works have procured justification before God.

15. The Roman doctrine of grace and good works

The Schoolmen treat the matter somewhat more grossly by mingling their preparations with it; and yet the others instill into the simple and unwary a no less pernicious dogma, when, under cover of the Spirit and grace, they hide the divine mercy, which alone can give peace to the trembling soul. We, indeed, hold with Paul, that those who fulfill the Law are justified by God, but because we are all far from observing the Law, we infer that the works which should be most effectual to justification are of no avail to us, because we are destitute of them. In regard to vulgar Papists or Schoolmen, they are here doubly wrong, both in calling faith assurance of conscience while waiting to receive from God the reward of merits, and in interpreting divine grace to mean not the imputation of gratuitous righteousness, but the assistance of the Spirit in the study of holiness. They quote from an Apostle: “He that comes to God must believe that he is, and that he is the rewarder of them that diligently seek him,” (Heb. 11: 6.) But they observe not what the method of seeking is. Then in regard to the term grace, it is plain from their writings that they labour under a delusion. For Lombard holds that justification is given to us by Christ in two ways. “First,” says he, (Lombard, Sent. Lib. 3, Dist. 16, c. 11,) “the death of Christ justifies us when by means of it the love by which we are made righteous is excited in our hearts; and, secondly, when by means of it sin is extinguished, sin by which the devil held us captive, but by which he cannot now procure our condemnation.” You see here that the chief office of divine grace in our justification he considers to be its directing us to good works by the agency of the Holy Spirit. He intended, no doubt, to follow the opinion of Augustine, but he follows it at a distance, and even wanders far from a true imitation of him both obscuring what was clearly stated by Augustine, and making what in him was less pure more corrupt. The Schools have always gone from worse to worse, until at length, in their downward path, they have degenerated into a kind of Pelagianism. Even the sentiment of Augustine, or at least his mode of expressing it, cannot be entirely approved of. For although he is admirable in stripping man of all merit of righteousness, and transferring the whole praise of it to God, yet he classes the grace by which we are regenerated to newness of life under the head of sanctification.

16. Our justification according to the judgment of Scripture

Scripture, when it treats of justification by faith, leads us in a very different direction. Turning away our view from our own works, it bids us look only to the mercy of God and the perfection of Christ. The order of justification which it sets before us is this: first, God of his mere gratuitous goodness is pleased to embrace the sinner, in whom he sees nothing that can move him to mercy but wretchedness, because he sees him altogether naked and destitute of good works. He, therefore, seeks the cause of kindness in himself, that thus he may affect the sinner by a sense of his goodness, and induce him, in distrust of his own works, to cast himself entirely upon his mercy for salvation. This is the meaning of faith by which the sinner comes into the possession of salvation, when, according to the doctrine of the Gospel, he perceives that he is reconciled by God; when, by the intercession of Christ, he obtains the pardon of his sins, and is justified; and, though renewed by the Spirit of God, considers that, instead of leaning on his own works, he must look solely to the righteousness which is treasured up for him in Christ. When these things are weighed separately, they will clearly explain our view, though they may be arranged in a better order than that in which they are here presented. But it is of little consequence, provided they are so connected with each other as to give us a full exposition and solid confirmation of the whole subject.

17. Faith righteousness and law righteousness according to Paul

Here it is proper to remember the relation which we previously established between faith and the Gospel; faith being said to justify because it receives and embraces the righteousness offered in the Gospel. By the very fact of its being said to be offered by the Gospel, all consideration of works is excluded. This Paul repeatedly declares, and in two passages, in particular, most clearly demonstrates. In the Epistle to the Romans, comparing the Law and the Gospel, he says, “Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which does those things shall live by them. But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise,—If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God has raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved,” (Rom. 10: 5, 6: 9.) Do you see how he makes the distinction between the Law and the Gospel to be, that the former gives justification to works, whereas the latter bestows it freely without any help from works? This is a notable passage, and may free us from many difficulties if we understand that the justification which is given us by the Gospel is free from any terms of Law. It is for this reason he more than once places the promise in diametrical opposition to the Law. “If the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise,” (Gal. 3: 18.) Expressions of similar import occur in the same chapter. Undoubtedly the Law also has its promises; and, therefore, between them and the Gospel promises there must be some distinction and difference, unless we are to hold that the comparison is inept. And in what can the difference consist unless in this that the promises of the Gospel are gratuitous, and founded on the mere mercy of God, whereas the promises of the Law depend on the condition of works? But let no pester here allege that only the righteousness which men would obtrude upon God of their own strength and free will is repudiated; since Paul declares, without exceptions that the Law gained nothing by its commands, being such as none, not only of mankind in general, but none even of the most perfect, are able to fulfill. Love assuredly is the chief commandment in the Law, and since the Spirit of God trains us to love, it cannot but be a cause of righteousness in us, though that righteousness even in the saints is defective, and therefore of no value as a ground of merit.

18. Justification not the wages of works, but a free gift.

The second passage is, “That no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that does them shall live in them,” (Gal. 3: 11, 12; Hab. 2: 4.) How could the argument hold unless it be true that works are not to be taken into account, but are to be altogether separated? The Law, he says, is different from faith. Why? Because to obtain justification by it, works are required; and hence it follows, that to obtain justification by the Gospel they are not required. From this statement, it appears that those who are justified by faith are justified independent of, nay, in the absence of, the merit of works, because faith receives that righteousness which the Gospel bestows. But the Gospel differs from the Law in this, that it does not confine justification to works, but places it entirely in the mercy of God. In like manner, Paul contends, in the Epistle to the Romans, that Abraham had no ground of glorying, because faith was imputed to him for righteousness, (Rom. 4: 2;) and he adds in confirmation, that the proper place for justification by faith is where there are no works to which reward is due. “To him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.” What is given to faith is gratuitous, this being the force of the meaning of the words which he there employs. Shortly after he adds, “Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace,” (Rom. 4: 16;) and hence infers that the inheritance is gratuitous because it is procured by faith. How so but just because faiths without the aid of works leans entirely on the mercy of God? And in the same sense, doubtless, he elsewhere teaches, that the righteousness of God without the Law was manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, (Rom. 3: 21;) for excluding the Law, he declares that it is not aided by worlds, that we do not obtain it by working, but are destitute when we draw near to receive it.

19. Through “faith alone”

The reader now perceives with what fairness the Sophists of the present day cavil at our doctrine, when we say that a man is justified by faith alone, (Rom. 4: 2.) They dare not deny that he is justified by faith, seeing Scripture so often declares it; but as the word alone is nowhere expressly used they will not tolerate its being added. Is it so? What answer, then will they give to the words of Paul, when he contends that righteousness is not of faith unless it be gratuitous? How can it be gratuitous, and yet by works? By what cavils, moreover, will they evade his declaration in another place, that in the Gospel the righteousness of God is manifested? (Rom. 1: 17.) If righteousness is manifested in the Gospel, it is certainly not a partial or mutilated, but a full and perfect righteousness. The Law, therefore, has no part in its and their objection to the exclusive word alone is not only unfounded, but is obviously absurd. Does he not plainly enough attribute everything to faith alone when he disconnects it with works? What I would ask, is meant by the expressions, “The righteousness of God without the law is manifested;” “Being justified freely by his grace;” “Justified by faith without the deeds of the law?” (Rom. 3: 21, 24, 28.) Here they have an ingenious subterfuge, one which, though not of their own devising but taken from Origin and some ancient writers, is most childish. They pretend that the works excluded are ceremonial, not moral works. Such profit do they make by their constant wrangling, that they possess not even the first elements of logic. Do they think the Apostle was raving when he produced, in proof of his doctrine, these passages? “The man that does them shall live in them,” (Gal. 3: 12.) “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them,” (Gal. 3: 10.) Unless they are themselves raving, they will not say that life was promised to the observers of ceremonies, and the curse denounced only against the transgressors of them. If these passages are to be understood of the Moral Law, there cannot be a doubt that moral works also are excluded from the power of justifying. To the same effect are the arguments which he employs. “By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin,” (Rom. 3: 20.) “The law worketh wrath,” (Rom. 4: 15,) and therefore not righteousness. “The law cannot pacify the conscience,” and therefore cannot confer righteousness. “Faith is imputed for righteousness,” and therefore righteousness is not the reward of works, but is given without being due. Because “we are justified by faith,” boasting is excluded. “Had there been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the Scripture has concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe,” (Gal. 3: 21, 22.) Let them maintain, if they dare, that these things apply to ceremonies, and not to morals, and the very children will laugh at their effrontery. The true conclusion, therefore, is, that the whole Law is spoken of when the power of justifying is denied to it.

20. “Works of the Law”

Should any one wonder why the Apostle, not contented with having named works, employs this addition, the explanation is easy. However highly works may be estimated, they have their whole value more from the approbation of God than from their own dignity. For who will presume to plume himself before God on the righteousness of works, unless in so far as He approves of them? Who will presume to demand of Him a reward except in so far as He has promised it? It is owing entirely to the goodness of God that works are deemed worthy of the honor and reward of righteousness; and, therefore, their whole value consists in this, that by means of them we endeavor to manifest obedience to God. Wherefore, in another passage, the Apostle, to prove that Abraham could not be justified by works, declares, “that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect,” (Gal. 3: 17.) The unskillful would ridicule the argument that there could be righteous works before the promulgation of the Law, but the Apostle, knowing that works could derive this value solely from the testimony and honor conferred on them by God, takes it for granted that, previous to the Law, they had no power of justifying. We see why he expressly terms them works of Law when he would deny the power of justifying to theme viz., because it was only with regard to such works that a question could be raised; although he sometimes, without addition, excepts all kinds of works whatever, as when on the testimony of David he speaks of the man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works, (Rom. 4: 5, 6.) No cavils, therefore, can enable them to prove that the exclusion of works is not general. In vain do they lay hold of the frivolous subtilty, that the faith alone, by which we are justified, “worketh by love,” and that love, therefore, is the foundation of justification. We, indeed, acknowledge with Paul, that the only faith which justifies is that which works by love, (Gal. 5: G;) but love does not give it its justifying power. Nay, its only means of justifying consists in its bringing us into communication with the righteousness of Christ. Otherwise the whole argument, on which the Apostle insists with so much earnestness, would fall. to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” Could he express more clearly than in this word, that there is justification in faith only where there are no works to which reward is due, and that faith is imputed for righteousness only when righteousness is conferred freely without merit?

(Sins are remitted only through the righteousness of Christ, 21-23)

21. Justification, reconciliation, forgiveness of sins

Let us now consider the truth of what was said in the definition, viz., that justification by faith is reconciliation with God, and that this consists solely in the remission of sins. We must always return to the axioms that the wrath of God lies upon all men so long as they continue sinners. This is elegantly expressed by Isaiah in these words: “Behold, the Lord’s hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: but your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear,” (Isaiah 59: 1, 2.) We are here told that sin is a separation between God and man; that His countenance is turned away from the sinner; and that it cannot be otherwise, since, to have any intercourse with sin is repugnant to his righteousness. Hence the Apostle shows that man is at enmity with God until he is restored to favour by Christ, (Rom. 5: 8-l0.) When the Lord, therefore, admits him to union, he is said to justify him, because he can neither receive him into favor, nor unite him to himself, without changing his condition from that of a sinner into that of a righteous man. We adds that this is done by remission of sins. For if those whom the Lord has reconciled to himself are estimated by works, they will still prove to be in reality sinners, while they ought to be pure and free from sin. It is evident therefore, that the only way in which those whom God embraces are made righteous, is by having their pollutions wiped away by the remission of sins, so that this justification may be termed in one word the remission of sins.

22. Scriptural proof for the close relation between justification and forgiveness of sins

Both of these become perfectly clear from the words of Paul: “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and has committed unto us the word of reconciliation.” He then subjoins the sum of his embassy: “He has made him to be sin for us who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,” (2 Cor. 5: l9-21.) He here uses righteousness and reconciliation indiscriminately, to make us understand that the one includes the other. The mode of obtaining this righteousness he explains to be, that our sins are not imputed to us. Wherefore, you cannot henceforth doubt how God justifies us when you hear that he reconciles us to himself by not imputing our faults. In the same manner, in the Epistle to the Romans, he proves, by the testimony of David, that righteousness is imputed without works, because he declares the man to be blessed “whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered,” and “unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity,” (Rom. 4: 6; Ps. 32: 1, 2.) There he undoubtedly uses blessedness for righteousness; and as he declares that it consists in forgiveness of sins, there is no reason why we should define it otherwise. Accordingly, Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, sings that the knowledge of salvation consists in the forgiveness of sins, (Luke 1: 77.) The same course was followed by Paul when, in addressing the people of Antioch, he gave them a summary of salvation. Luke states that he concluded in this way: “Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins, and by him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses,” (Acts 12: 38, 39.) Thus the Apostle connects forgiveness of sins with justification in such a way as to show that they are altogether the same; and hence he properly argues that justification, which we owe to the indulgence of God, is gratuitous. Nor should it seem an unusual mode of expression to say that believers are justified before God not by works, but by gratuitous acceptance, seeing it is frequently used in Scripture, and sometimes also by ancient writers. Thus Augustine says: “The righteousness of the saints in this world consists more in the forgiveness of sins than the perfection of virtue,” (August. de Civitate Dei, lib. 19, cap. 27.) To this corresponds the well-known sentiment of Bernard: “Not to sin is the righteousness of God, but the righteousness of man is the indulgence of God,” (Bernard, Serm. 22, 23 in Cant.) He previously asserts that Christ is our righteousness in absolution, and, therefore, that those only are just who have obtained pardon through mercy.

23. Righteous—not in ourselves but in Christ

Hence also it is proved, that it is entirely by the intervention of Christ’s righteousness that we obtain justification before God. This is equivalent to saying that man is not just in himself, but that the righteousness of Christ is communicated to him by imputation, while he is strictly deserving of punishment. Thus vanishes the absurd dogma, that man is justified by faith, inasmuch as it brings him under the influence of the Spirit of God by whom he is rendered righteous. This is so repugnant to the above doctrine that it never can be reconciled with it. There can be no doubt that he who is taught to seek righteousness out of himself does not previously possess it in himself. This is most clearly declared by the Apostle, when he says, that he who knew no sin was made an expiatory victim for sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him (2 Cor. 5: 21.) You see that our righteousness is not in ourselves, but in Christ; that the only way in which we become possessed of it is by being made partakers with Christ, since with him we possess all riches. There is nothing repugnant to this in what he elsewhere says: “God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us,” (Rom. 8: 3, 4.) Here the only fulfillment to which he refers is that which we obtain by imputation. Our Lord Jesus Christ communicates his righteousness to us, and so by some wondrous ways in so far as pertains to the justice of Gods transfuses its power into us. That this was the Apostle’s view is abundantly clear from another sentiment which he had expressed a little before: “As by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous,” (Rom. 5: 19.) To declare that we are deemed righteous, solely because the obedience of Christ is imputed to us as if it where our own, is just to place our righteousness in the obedience of Christ. Wherefore, Ambrose appears to me to have most elegantly adverted to the blessing of Jacob as an illustration of this righteousness, when he says that as he who did not merit the birthright in himself personated his brother, put on his garments which gave forth a most pleasant odour, and thus introduced himself to his father that he might receive a blessing to his own advantage, though under the person of another, so we conceal ourselves under the precious purity of Christ, our first-born brother, that we may obtain an attestation of righteousness from the presence of God. The words of Ambrose are,—"Isaac’s smelling the odour of his garments, perhaps means that we are justified not by works, but by faith, since carnal infirmity is an impediment to works, but errors of conduct are covered by the brightness of faith, which merits the pardon of faults,” (Ambrose de Jacobo et Vita Beats, Lib. 2, c. 2.) And so indeed it is; for in order to appear in the presence of God for salvation, we must send forth that fragrant odour, having our vices covered and buried by his perfection.

CHAPTER 12. NECESSITY OF CONTEMPLATING THE JUDGMENT-SEAT OF GOD, IN ORDER TO BE SERIOUSLY CONVINCED OF THE DOCTRINE OF GRATUITOUS JUSTIFICATION.

The divisions of this chapter are, -

I. A consideration of the righteousness of God overturns the righteousness of works, as is plain from passages of Scripture, and the confession and example of the saints, sec. 1-3.

II. The same effect produced by a serious examination of the conscience, and a constant citation to the divine tribunal, sec. 4 and 5.

III. Hence arises, in the hearts of the godly, not hypocrisy, or a vain opinion of merit, but true humility. This illustrated by the authority of Scripture and the example of the Publican, sec. 6, 7.

IV. Conclusion—arrogance and security must be discarded, every man throwing an impediment in the way of the divine goodness in proportion as he trusts to himself.

Sections.

1. Source of error on the subject of Justification. Sophists speak as if the question were to be discussed before some human tribunal. It relates to the majesty and justice of God. Hence nothing accepted without absolute perfection. Passages confirming this doctrine. If we descend to the righteousness of the Law, the curse immediately appears.

2. Source of hypocritical confidence. Illustrated by a simile. Exhortation. Testimony of Job, David, and Paul.

3. Confession of Augustine and Bernard.

4. Another engine overthrowing the righteousness of works, viz., a serious examination of the conscience, and a comparison between the perfection of God and the imperfection of man.

5. How it is that we so indulge this imaginary opinion of our own works. The proper remedy to be found in a consideration of the majesty of God and our own misery. A description of this misery.

6. Christian humility consists in laying aside the imaginary idea of our own righteousness, and trusting entirely to the mercy of God, apprehended by faith in Christ. This humility described. Proved by passages of Scripture.

7. The parable of the Publican explained.

8. Arrogance, security, and self-confidence, must be renounced. General rule, or summary of the above doctrine.

(Justification in the light of the majesty and perfection of God, 1-3)

1. No one is righteous before God’s judgment seat

Although the perfect truth of the above doctrine is proved by clear passages of Scripture, yet we cannot clearly see how necessary it is, before we bring distinctly into view the foundations on which the whole discussion ought to rest. First, then, let us remember that the righteousness which we are considering is not that of a human, but of a heavenly tribunal; and so beware of employing our own little standard to measure the perfection which is to satisfy the justice of God. It is strange with what rashness and presumption this is commonly defined. Nay, we see that none talk more confidently, or, so to speak, more blusteringly, of the righteousness of works than those whose diseases are most palpable, and blemishes most apparent. This they do because they reflect not on the righteousness of Christ, which, if they had the slightest perception of it, they would never treat with so much insult. It is certainly undervalued, if not recognized to be so perfect that nothing can be accepted that is not in every respect entire and absolute, and tainted by no impurity; such indeed as never has been, and never will be, found in man. It is easy for any man, within the precincts of the schools, to talk of the sufficiency of works for justification; but when we come into the presence of God there must be a truce to such talk. The matter is there discussed in earnest, and is no longer a theatrical logomachy. Hither must we turn our minds if we would inquire to any purpose concerning true righteousness; the question must be: How shall we answer the heavenly Judge when he calls us to account? Let us contemplate that Judge, not as our own unaided intellect conceives of him, but as he is portrayed to us in Scripture, (see especially the Book of Job,) with a brightness which obscures the stars, a strength which melts the mountains, an anger which shakes the earth, a wisdom which takes the wise in their own craftiness, a purity before which all things become impure, a righteousness to which not even angels are equal, (so far is it from making the guilty innocent,) a vengeance which once kindled burns to the lowest hell, (Exod. 34: 7; Nahum 1: 3; Deut. 32: 22.) Let Him, I say, sit in judgment on the actions of men, and who will feel secure in sisting himself before his throne? “Who among us,” says the prophets “shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings? He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly,” &c., (Isaiah 33: 14, 15.) Let whoso will come forth. Nay, the answer shows that no man can. For, on the other hand, we hear the dreadful voice: “If thou, Lord, shouldst mark our iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?” (Ps. 130: 3.) All must immediately perish, as Job declares, “Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his Maker? Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly: How much less in them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust, which are crushed before the moth? They are destroyed from morning to evening,” (Job 4: 17-20.) Again, “Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight. How much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water?” (Job 15: 15, 16.)

I confess, indeed, that in the Book of Job reference is made to a righteousness of a more exalted description than the observance of the Law. It is of importance to attend to this distinction; for even could a man satisfy the Law, he could not stand the scrutiny of that righteousness which transcends all our thoughts. Hence, although Job was not conscious of offending, he is still dumb with astonishment, because he sees that God could not be appeased even by the sanctity of angels, were their works weighed in that supreme balance. But to advert no farther to this righteousness, which is incomprehensible, I only say, that if our life is brought to the standard of the written law, we are lethargic indeed if we are not filled with dread at the many maledictions which God has employed for the purpose of arousing us, and among others, the following general one: “Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them,” (Deut. 27: 26.) In short, the whole discussion of this subject will be insipid and frivolous, unless we sist ourselves before the heavenly Judge, and anxious for our acquittal, voluntarily humble ourselves, confessing our nothingness.

2. Righteousness before men and righteousness before God

Thus then must we raise our eyes that we may learn to tremble instead of vainly exulting. It is easy, indeed, when the comparison is made among men, for every one to plume himself on some quality which others ought not to despise; but when we rise to God, that confidence instantly falls and dies away. The case of the soul with regard to God is very analogous to that of the body in regard to the visible firmament. The bodily eye, while employed in surveying adjacent objects, is pleased with its own perspicacity; but when directed to the sun, being dazzled and overwhelmed by the refulgence, it becomes no less convinced of its weakness than it formerly was of its power in viewing inferior objects. Therefore, lest we deceive ourselves by vain confidence, let us recollect that even though we deem ourselves equal or superior to other men, this is nothing to God, by whose judgment the decision must be given. But if our presumption cannot be tamed by these considerations, he will answer us as he did the Pharisees, “Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God,” (Luke 16: 15.) Go now and make a proud boast of your righteousness among men, while God in heaven abhors it.

But what are the feelings of the servants of God, of those who are truly taught by his Spirit? “Enter not into judgment with thy servant; for in thy sight shall no man living be justified,” (Ps. 143: 2.) Another, though in a sense somewhat different, says, “How should man be just with God? If he will contend with him he cannot answer him one of a thousand,” (Job 9: 2, 3.) Here we are plainly told what the righteousness of God is, namely, a righteousness which no human works can satisfy which charges us with a thousand sins, while not one sin can be excused. Of this righteousness Paul, that chosen vessel of God, had formed a just idea, when he declared, “I know nothing by myself, yet am I not hereby justified,” (1 Cor. 4: 4.)

3. Augustine and Bernard of Clairvaux as witnesses of true righteousness

Such examples exist not in the sacred volume only; all pious writers show that their sentiment was the same. Thus Augustine says, “Of all pious men groaning under this burden of corruptible flesh, and the infirmities of this life, the only hope is, that we have one Mediator Jesus Christ the righteous, and that he intercedes for our sins,” (August. ad Bonif. lib. 3, c. 5.) What do we hear? If this is their only hope, where is their confidence in works? When he says only, he leaves no other. Bernard says, “And, indeed, where have the infirm firm security and safe rest, but in the wounds of the Savior? Hold it then the more securely, the more powerful he is to save. The world frowns, the body presses, the devil lays snares: I fall not, because I am founded on a firm rock. I have sinned a grievous sin: conscience is troubled, but it shall not be overwhelmed, for I will remember the wounds of the Lord.” He afterwards concludes, “My merit, therefore, is the compassion of the Lord; plainly I am not devoid of merit so long as he is not devoid of commiseration. But if the mercies of the Lord are many, equally many are my merits. Shall I sing of my own righteousness? O Lord, I will make mention of thy righteousness alone. That righteousness is mine also, being made mine by God,” (Bernard, Serm. 61, in Cantic.) Again, in another passage, “Man’s whole merit is to place his whole hope in him who makes the whole man safe,” (in Psal. Qui Habitat. Serm. 15.) In like manner, reserving peace to himself, he leaves the glory to God: “Let thy glory remain unimpaired: it is well with me if I have peace; I altogether abjure boasting, lest if I should usurp what is not mine, I lose also what is offered,” (Serm. 13, in Cantic.) He says still more plainly in another place: “Why is the Church solicitous about merits? God purposely supplies her with a firmer and more secure ground of boasting. There is no reason for asking by what merits may we hope for blessings, especially when you hear in the prophet, ‘Thus saith the Lord God, I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name’s sake,’ (Ezek. 36: 22, 32.) It is sufficient for merit to know that merits suffice not; but as it is sufficient for merit not to presume on merit, so to be without merits is sufficient for condemnation,” (Bernard, Serm. 68.) The free use of the term merits for good works must be pardoned to custom. Bernard’s purpose was to alarm hypocrites, who turned the grace of God into licentiousness, as he shortly after explains: “Happy the church which neither wants merit without presumption, nor presumption without merit. It has ground to presume, but not merit. It has merit, merit to deserve, not presume. Is not the absence of presumption itself a merit? He, therefore, to whom the many mercies of the Lord furnish ample grounds of boasting, presumes the more securely that he presumes not,” (Bernard, Serm. 68.)

(Conscience and self-criticism before God deprive us of all claim to good works and lead us to embrace God’s mercy, 4-8)

4. The gravity of God’s judgment puts an end to all self-deception

Thus, indeed, it is. Aroused consciences, when they have to do with God, feel this to be the only asylum in which they can breathe safely. For if the stars which shine most brightly by night lose their brightness on the appearance of the sun, what think we will be the case with the highest purity of man when contrasted with the purity of God? For the scrutiny will be most strict, penetrating to the most hidden thoughts of the heart. As Paul says, it “will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and will make manifest the counsels of the heart,” (1 Cor. 4: 5;) will compel the reluctant and dissembling conscience to bring forward every thing, even things which have now escaped our memory. The devil, aware of all the iniquities which he has induced us to perpetrate, will appear as accuser; the external show of good works, the only thing now considered, will then be of no avail; the only thing demanded will be the true intent of the will. Hence hypocrisy, not only that by which a man, though consciously guilty before God, affects to make an ostentatious display before man, but that by which each imposes upon himself before God, (so prone are we to soothe and flatter ourselves,) will fall confounded, how much soever it may now swell with pride and presumption. Those who do not turn their thoughts to this scene may be able for the moment calmly and complacently to rear up a righteousness for themselves; but this the judgment of God will immediately overthrow, just as great wealth amassed in a dream vanishes the moment we awake. Those who, as in the presence of God, inquire seriously into the true standard of righteousness, will certainly find that all the works of men, if estimated by their own worth, are nothing but vileness and pollution, that what is commonly deemed justice is with God mere iniquity; what is deemed integrity is pollution; what deemed glory is ignominy.

5. Away with all self-admiration!

Let us not decline to descend from this contemplation of the divine perfection, to look into ourselves without flattery or blind self-love. It is not strange that we are so deluded in this matter, seeing none of us can avoid that pestilential self-indulgence, which, as Scripture proclaims, is naturally inherent in all: “Every way of a man is right in his own eyes,” says Solomon, (Prov. 21: 2.) And again, “All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes,” (Prov. 16: 2.) What then? does this hallucination excuse him? No, indeed, as Solomon immediately adds, “The Lord weigheth the spirits;” that is, while man flatters himself by wearing an external mask of righteousness, the Lord weighs the hidden impurity of the heart in his balance. Seeing, therefore, that nothing is gained by such flattery, let us not voluntarily delude ourselves to our own destruction. To examine ourselves properly, our conscience must be called to the judgment-seat of God. His light is necessary to disclose the secret recesses of wickedness which otherwise lie too deeply hid. Then only shall we clearly perceive what the value of our works is; that man, so far from being just before God, is but rottenness and a worm, abominable and vain, drinking in “iniquity like water.” For “who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one,” (Job 14: 5.) Then we shall experience the truth of what Job said of himself: “If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: if I say I am perfect, it shall prove me perverse,” (Job 9: 20.) Nor does the complaint which the prophet made concerning Israel apply to one age only. It is true of every age, that “all we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way,” (Isaiah 53: 6.) Indeed, he there comprehends all to whom the gift of redemption was to come. And the strictness of the examination ought to be continued until it have completely alarmed us, and in that way prepared us for receiving the grace of Christ. For he is deceived who thinks himself capable of enjoying it, until he have laid aside all loftiness of mind. There is a well-known declaration, “God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble,” (1 Pet. 5: 5.)

6. What humility before God is

But what means is there of humbling us if we do not make way for the mercy of God by our utter indigence and destitution? For I call it not humility, so long as we think there is any good remaining in us. Those who have joined together the two things, to think humbly of ourselves before God and yet hold our own righteousness in some estimation, have hitherto taught a pernicious hypocrisy. For if we confess to God contrary to what we feel, we wickedly lie to him; but we cannot feel as we ought without seeing that every thing like a ground of boasting is completely crushed. Therefore, when you hear from the prophets “thou wilt save the afflicted people; but wilt bring down high looks” (Ps. 28: 27,) consider, first, that there is no access to salvation unless all pride is laid aside and true humility embraced; secondly, that that humility is not a kind of moderation by which you yield to God some article of your right, (thus men are called humble in regard to each other when they neither conduct themselves haughtily nor insult over other, though they may still entertain some consciousness of their own excellence,) but that it is the unfeigned submission of a mind overwhelmed by a serious conviction of its want and misery. Such is the description every where given by the word of God.

When in Zephaniah the Lord speaks thus, “I will take away out of the midst of thee them that rejoice in thy pride, and thou shalt no more be haughty because of my holy mountain. I will also leave in the midst of thee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in the name of the Lord,” (Zeph. 3: 11, 12,) does he not plainly show who are the humble, viz., those who lie afflicted by a knowledge of their poverty? On the contrary, he describes the proud as rejoicing, such being the mode in which men usually express their delight in prosperity. To the humble, whom he designs to save, he leaves nothing but hope in the Lord. Thus, also, in Isaiah, “To this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word,” (Isaiah 66: 2.) again, “Thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones,” (Isaiah 57: 15.)

By the term contrition which you so often hear, understand a wounded heart, which, humbling the individual to the earth, allows him not to rise. With such contrition must your heart be wounded, if you would, according to the declaration of God, be exalted with the humble. If this is not your case, you shall be humbled by the mighty hand of God to your shame and disgrace.

7. Christ calls sinners, not the righteous

Our divine Master, not confining himself to words, has by a parable set before us, as in a picture, a representation of true humility. He brings forward a publican, who standing afar off, and not daring to lift up his eyes to heaven, smites upon his breast, laments aloud, and exclaims, “ God be merciful to me a sinner,” (Luke 18: 13.) Let us not suppose that he gives the signs of a fictitious modesty when he dares not come near or lift up his eyes to heaven, but, smiting upon his breast, confesses himself a sinner; let us know that these are the evidences of his internal feeling. With him our Lord contrasts the Pharisee, who thanks God “I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.” In this public confession he admits that the righteousness which he possesses is the gift of God; but because of his confidence that he is righteous, he departs from the presence of God unaccepted and abominated. The publican acknowledging his iniquity is justified. Hence we may see how highly our humility is valued by the Lord: our breast cannot receive his mercy until deprived completely of all opinion of its own worth. When such an opinion is entertained, the door of mercy is shut. That there might be no doubt on this matter, the mission on which Christ was sent into the world by his Father was “to preach good tidings to the meek,” “to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; to appoint unto them that mourn in Zion to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness,” (Isa. 69: 1-3.) In fulfillment of that mission, the only persons whom he invites to share in his beneficence are the “weary and heavy laden.” In another passage he says, “ I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance,” (Matth. 11: 28; 9: 13.)

8. Arrogance and complacency before God block our way to Christ

Therefore if we would make way for the call of Christ, we must put far from us all arrogance and confidence. The former is produced by a foolish persuasion of self-righteousness, when a man thinks that he has something in himself which deservedly recommends him to God; the latter may exist without any confidence in works. For many sinners, intoxicated with the pleasures of vice, think not of the judgment of God. Lying stupefied, as it were, by a kind of lethargy, they aspire not to the offered mercy. It is not less necessary to shake off torpor of this description than every kind of confidence in ourselves, in order that we may haste to Christ unencumbered, and while hungry and empty be filled with his blessings. Never shall we have sufficient confidence in him unless utterly distrustful of ourselves; never shall we take courage in him until we first despond of ourselves; never shall we have full consolation in him until we cease to have any in ourselves.

When we have entirely discarded all self-confidence, and trust solely in the certainty of his goodness, we are fit to apprehend and obtain the grace of God. “When,” (as Augustine says,) “forgetting our own merits, we embrace the gifts of Christ, because if he should seek for merits in us we should not obtain his gifts,” (August. de Verb. Apost. 8.) With this Bernard admirably accords, comparing the proud who presume in the least on their merits, to unfaithful servants, who wickedly take the merit of a favor merely passing through them, just as if a wall were to boast of producing the ray which it receives through the window, (Bernard, Serm. 13, in Cant.) Not to dwell longer here, let us lay down this short but sure and general rule, That he is prepared to reap the fruits of the divine mercy who has thoroughly emptied himself, I say not of righteousness, (he has none,) but of a vain and blustering show of righteousness; for to whatever extent any man rests in himself, to the same extent he impedes the beneficence of God.

CHAPTER 13. TWO THINGS TO BE OBSERVED IN GRATUITOUS JUSTIFICATION.

The divisions of this chapter are, -

I. The glory of God, and peace of conscience, both secured by gratuitous justification. An insult to the glory of God to glory in ourselves and seek justification out of Christ, whose righteousness, apprehended by faith, is imputed to all the elect for reconciliation and eternal salvation, sec. 1, 2.

II. Peace of conscience cannot be obtained in any other way than by gratuitous justification. This fully proved, sec. 3-5.

Sections.

1. The glory of God remains untarnished, when he alone is acknowledged to be just. This proved from Scripture.

2. Those who glory in themselves glory against God. Objection. Answer, confirmed by the authority of Paul and Peter.

3. Peace of conscience obtained by free justification only. Testimony of Solomon, of conscience itself, and the Apostle Paul, who contends that faith is made vain if righteousness come by the law.

4. The promise confirmed by faith in the mercy of Christ. This is confirmed by Augustine and Bernard, is in accordance with what has been above stated, and is illustrated by clear predictions of the prophets.

5. Farther demonstration by an Apostle. Refutation of a sophism.

1. Justification serves God’s honor; and revelation, his justice

Here two ends must be kept specially in view, namely, that the glory of God be maintained unimpaired, and that our consciences, in the view of his tribunal, be secured in peaceful rest and calm tranquillity.

When the question relates to righteousness, we see how often and how anxiously Scripture exhorts us to give the whole praise of it to God. Accordingly, the Apostle testifies that the purpose of the Lord in conferring righteousness upon us in Christ, was to demonstrate his own righteousness. The nature of this demonstration he immediately subjoins, viz., “that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus,” (Rom. 3: 25.) Observe, that the righteousness of God is not sufficiently displayed, unless He alone is held to be righteous, and freely communicates righteousness to the undeserving. For this reason it is his will, that “every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God,” (Rom. 3: 19.) For so long as a man has any thing, however small, to say in his own defense, so long he deducts somewhat from the glory of God. Thus we are taught in Ezekiel how much we glorify his name by acknowledging our iniquity: “Then shall ye remember your ways and all your doings, wherein ye have been defiled; and ye shall loathe yourselves in your own sight, for all your evils that ye have committed. And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have wrought with you for my name’s sake, not according to your wicked ways, nor according to your corrupt doings,” (Ezek. 20: 43, 44.)

If part of the true knowledge of God consists in being oppressed by a consciousness of our own iniquity, and in recognizing him as doing good to those who are unworthy of it, why do we attempt, to our great injury, to steal from the Lord even one particle of the praise of unmerited kindness? In like manner, when Jeremiah exclaims, “Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: but let him that glorieth glory” in the Lord, (Jer. 9: 23, 24,) does he not intimate, that the glory of the Lord is infringed when man glories in himself? To this purpose, indeed, Paul accommodates the words when he says, that all the parts of our salvation are treasured up with Christ, that we may glory only in the Lord, (1 Cor. 1: 29.) For he intimates, that whosoever imagines he has any thing of his own, rebels against God, and obscures his glory.

2. He who glories in his own righteousness robs God of his honor

Thus, indeed, it is: we never truly glory in him until we have utterly discarded our own glory. It must, therefore, be regarded as an universal proposition, that whoso glories in himself glories against God. Paul indeed considers, that the whole world is not made subject to God until every ground of glorying has been withdrawn from men, (Rom. 3: 19.) Accordingly, Isaiah, when he declares that “in the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified” adds, “and shall glory (Isa. 45: 25 ,) as if he had said that the elect are justified by the Lord, in order that they may glory in him, and in none else. The way in which we are to glory in the Lord he had explained in the preceding verse, “Unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear;” “Surely, shall one say, in the Lord have I righteousness and strength, even to him shall men come.” Observe, that the thing required is not simple confession, but confession confirmed by an oath, that it might not be imagined that any kind of fictitious humility might suffice. And let no man here allege that he does not glory, when without arrogance he recognizes his own righteousness; such a recognition cannot take place without generating confidence, nor such confidence without begetting boasting.

Let us remember, therefore, that in the whole discussion concerning justification the great thing to be attended to is, that God’s glory be maintained entire and unimpaired; since as the Apostle declares, it was in demonstration of his own righteousness that he shed his favor upon us; it was “that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus,” (Rom. 3: 26.) Hence, in another passage, having said that the Lord conferred salvation upon us, in order that he might show forth the glory of his name, (Eph. 1: 6,) he afterwards, as if repeating the same thing, adds, “By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast,” (Eph. 2: 8.) And Peter, when he reminds us that we are called to the hope of salvation, “that ye should show forth the praises of him who has called you out of darkness into his marvelous light,” (1 Pet. 2: 9,) doubtless intends thus to proclaim in the ears of believers only the praises of God, that they may bury in profound silence all arrogance of the flesh. The sum is, that man cannot claim a single particle of righteousness to himself, without at the same time detracting from the glory of the divine righteousness.

3. A glance at one’s own righteousness provides no peace for the conscience

If we now inquire in what way the conscience can be quieted as in the view of God, we shall find that the only way is by having righteousness bestowed upon us freely by the gift of God. Let us always remember the words of Solomon, “Who can say I have made my heart clean, I am free from my sin?’ (Prov. 20: 9.) Undoubtedly there is not one man who is not covered with infinite pollutions. Let the most perfect man descend into his own conscience, and bring his actions to account, and what will the result be? Will he feel calm and quiescent, as if all matters were well arranged between himself and God; or will he not rather be stung with dire torment, when he sees that the ground of condemnation is within him if he be estimated by his works? Conscience, when it beholds God, must either have sure peace with his justice, or be beset by the terrors of hell. We gain nothing, therefore, by discoursing of righteousness, unless we hold it to be a righteousness stable enough to support our souls before the tribunal of God. When the soul is able to appear intrepidly in the presence of God, and receive his sentence without dismay, then only let us know that we have found a righteousness that is not fictitious. It is not, therefore, without cause, that the Apostle insists on this matter. I prefer giving it in his words rather than my own: “If they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of no effect,” (Rom. 4: 14.) He first infers that faith is made void if the promise of righteousness has respect to the merit of our works, or depends on the observance of the law. Never could any one rest securely in it, for never could he feel fully assured that he had fully satisfied the law; and it is certain that no man ever fully satisfied it by works. Not to go far for proof of this, every one who will use his eyes aright may be his own witness.

Hence it appears how deep and dark the abyss is into which hypocrisy plunges the minds of men, when they indulge so securely as, without hesitations to oppose their flattery to the judgment of God, as if they were relieving him from his office as judge. Very different is the anxiety which fills the breasts of believers, who sincerely examine themselves. Every mind, therefore, would first begin to hesitate, and at length to despair, while each determined for itself with how great a load of debt it was still oppressed, and how far it was from coming up to the enjoined condition. Thus, then, faith would be oppressed and extinguished. To have faith is not to fluctuate, to vary, to be carried up and down, to hesitate, remain in suspense, vacillate, in fine, to despair; it is to possess sure certainty and complete security of mind, to have whereon to rest and fix your foot (cf. I Cor. 2:5; II Cor. 13:4).

4. Attention to one’s own righteousness also nullifies the promises

Paul, moreover, adds, that the promise itself would be rendered null and void. For if its fulfillment depends on our merits when pray, will we be able to come the length of meriting the favor of God? Nay, the second clause is a consequence of the former, since the promise will not be fulfilled unless to those who put faith in it. Faith therefore failing, no power will remain in the promise. “Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace, to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed,” (Rom. 4: 16.) It was abundantly confirmed when made to rest on the mercy of God alone, for mercy and truth are united by an indissoluble tie; that is, whatever God has mercifully promised he faithfully performs. Thus David, before he asks salvation according to the word of God, first places the source of it in his mercy. “Let, I pray thee, thy merciful kindness be for my comfort, according to thy word unto thy servant,” (Ps. 119: 76.) And justly, for nothing but mere mercy induces God to promise. Here, then, we must place, and, as it were, firmly fix our whole hope, paying no respect to our works, and asking no assistance from them.

And lest you should suppose that there is any thing novel in what I say, Augustine also enjoins us so to act. “Christ,” says he, “will reign forever among his servants. This God has promised, God has spoken; if this is not enough, God has sworn. Therefore, as the promise stands firm, not in respect of our merits, but in respect of his mercy, no one ought to tremble in announcing that of which he cannot doubt,” (August. in Ps. 88, Tract. 50.) Thus Bernard also, “Who can be saved? ask the disciples of Christ. He replies, With men it is impossible, but not with God. This is our whole confidence, this our only consolation; this the whole ground of our hope: but being assured of the possibility, what are we to say as to his willingness? Who knows whether he is deserving of love or hatred? (Eccles. 9: 1.) ‘Who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?’ (1 Cor. 2: 16.) Here it is plain, faith must come to our aid: here we must have the assistance of truth, in order that the secret purpose of the Father respecting us may be revealed by the Spirit, and the Spirit testifying may persuade our hearts that we are the sons of God. But let him persuade by calling and justifying freely by faith: in these there is a kind of transition from eternal predestination to future glory,” (Bernard, Sermon on the Dedication of a Church v.6)

Let us thus briefly conclude: Scripture indicates that the promises of God are not surer unless they are apprehended with full assurance of conscience; it declares that wherever there is doubt or uncertainty, the promises are made void; on the other hand, that they can only waver and fluctuate if they depend on our works. Therefore, either our righteousness must perish, or without any consideration of our works, place must be given to faith alone, whose nature it is to prick up the ear, and shut the eye; that is, to be intent on the promise only, to give up all idea of any dignity or merit in man. Thus is fulfilled the celebrated prophecy of Zechariah: “I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day. In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbor under the vine, and under the fig-tree,” (Zech. 3: 9, 10.) Here the prophet intimates that the only way in which believers can enjoy true peace, is by obtaining the remission of their sins. For we must attend to this peculiarity in the prophets, that when they discourse of the kingdom of Christ, they set forth the external mercies of God as types of spiritual blessings. Hence Christ is called the Prince of Peace, and our peace, Isaiah 9: 6; Eph. 2: 14,) because he calms all the agitations of conscience. If the method is asked, we must come to the sacrifice by which God was appeased, for no man will ever cease to tremble, until he hold that God is propitiated solely by that expiation in which Christ endured his anger. In short, peace must be sought nowhere but in the agonies of Christ our Redeemer.

5. Faith in God’s free grace alone gives us peace of conscience and gladness in prayer

But why employ a more obscure testimony? Paul uniformly declares that the conscience can have no peace or quiet joy until it is held for certain that we are justified by faith. And he at the same time declares whence this certainty is derived, viz., when “the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost,” (Rom. 5: 5;) as if he had said that our Souls cannot have peace until we are fully assured that we are pleasing to God. Hence he elsewhere exclaims in the person of believers in general, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” (Rom. 8: 35.) Until we have reached that haven, the slightest breeze will make us tremble, but so long as the Lord is our Shepherd, we shall walk without fear in the valley of the shadow of death, (Ps. 23.) Thus those who pretend that justification by faith consists in being regenerated and made just, by living spiritually, have never tasted the sweetness of grace in trusting that God will be propitious. Hence also, they know no more of praying aright than do the Turks or any other heathen people. For, as Paul declares, faith is not true, unless it suggest and dictate the delightful name of Father; nay, unless it open our mouths and enable us freely to cry, Abba, Father. This he expresses more clearly in another passage, “In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him,” (Eph. 3: 12.) This, certainly, is not obtained by the gift of regeneration, which, as it is always defective in the present state, contains within it many grounds of doubt. Wherefore, we must have recourse to this remedy; we must hold that the only hope which believers have of the heavenly inheritance is, that being in grafted into the body of Christ, they are justified freely. For, in regard to justification, faith is merely passives bringing nothing of our own to procure the favor of God, but receiving from Christ every thing that we want.

CHAPTER 14. THE BEGINNING OF JUSTIFICATION. IN WHAT SENSE PROGRESSIVE.

To illustrate what has been already said, and show what kind of righteousness man can have during the whole course of his life, mankind are divided into four classes.

I. First class considered, sec. 1-6.

II. Second and third classes considered together, sec. 7,8.

III. Fourth class considered, sec. 9 to end.

Sections.

1. Men either idolatrous, profane, hypocritical, or regenerate.

1. Idolaters void of righteousness, full of unrighteousness, and hence in the sight of God altogether wretched and undone.

2. Still a great difference in the characters of men. This difference manifested.

1. In the gifts of God.

2. In the distinction between honorable and base.

3. In the blessings of the present life.

3. All human virtue, how praiseworthy soever it may appear, is corrupted.

1. By impurity of heart.

2. By the absence of a proper nature.

4. By the want of Christ, without whom there is no life.

5. Natural condition of man as described by Scripture. All men dead in sins before regeneration.

6. Passages of Scripture to this effect. Vulgar error confounding the righteousness of works with the redemption purchased by Christ.

7. The second and third classes of men, comprehending hypocrites and Christians in name only. Every action of theirs deserves condemnation. Passage from Haggai. Objection. Answer.

8. Other passages. Quotations from Augustine and Gregory.

9. The fourth class, viz., the regenerate. Though guided by the Spirit, corruption adheres to all they do, especially when brought to the bar of God.

10. One fault sufficient to efface all former righteousness. Hence they cannot possibly be justified by works.

11. In addition to the two former arguments, a third adduced against the Sophists, to show that whatever be the works of the regenerate, they are justified solely by faith and the free imputation of Christ’s righteousness.

12. Sophism of the Schoolmen in opposition to the above doctrine. Answer.

13. Answer explained. Refutation of the fiction of partial righteousness, and compensation by works of supererogation. This fiction necessarily falls with that of satisfaction.

14. Statement of our Savior, viz., that after we have done all, we are still unprofitable servants.

15. Objection founded on Paul’s boasting. Answer, showing the Apostle’s meaning. Other answers, stating the general doctrine out of Chrysostom. Third answer, showing that supererogation is the merest vanity.

16. Fourth answer, showing how Scripture dissuades us from all confidence in works. Fifth answer, showing that we have no ground of boasting.

17. Sixth answer, showing, in regard to four different classes, that works have no part in procuring our salvation.

1. The efficient cause is the free love of the Father.

2. The material cause is Christ acquiring righteousness for us.

3. The instrumental cause is faith.

4. The final cause the display of the divine justice and praise of the divine goodness.

18. A second objection, founded on the glorying of saints. An answer, explaining these modes of expression. How the saints feel in regard to the certainty of salvation. The opinion they have of their own works as in the sight of God.

19. Another answer, viz., that the elect, by this kind of glorying, refer only to their adoption by the Father as proved by the fruits of their calling. The order of this glorying. Its foundation, structure, and parts.

20. Conclusion. The saints neither attribute anything to the merits of works, nor derogate in any degree from the righteousness which they obtain in Christ. Confirmation from a passage of Augustine, in which he gives two reasons why no believer will presume to boast before God of his works.

21. A third objection, viz., that the good works of believers are the causes of divine blessings. Answer. There are inferior causes, but these depend on free justification, which is the only true cause why God blesses us. These modes of expression designate the order of sequence rather than the cause.

(Man in his natural state dead in sins and in need of redemption, 1-6)

1. Four classes of men with regard to justification

In farther illustration of the subject, let us consider what kind of righteousness man can have, during the whole course of his life, and for this purpose let us make a fourfold division. Mankind, either endued with no knowledge of God, are sunk in idolatry; or, initiated in the sacraments, but by the impurity of their lives denying him whom they confess with their mouths, are Christians in name only; or they are hypocrites, who with empty glosses hide the iniquity of the heart; or they are regenerated by the Spirit of God, and aspire to true holiness.

In the first place, when men are judged by their natural endowments, not a iota of good will be found from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot, unless we are to charge Scripture with falsehood, when it describes all the sons of Adam by such terms as these: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.” “The imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” “The Lord knoweth the thoughts of man that they are vanity.” “They are all gone aside: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that does good, no, not one.” In short, that they are flesh, under which name are comprehended all those works which are enumerated by Paul; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness idolatry witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulation, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and all kinds of pollution and abomination which it is possible to imagine. Such, then, is the worth on which men are to plume themselves.

But if any among them possess an integrity of manners which presents some semblance of sanctity among men, yet because we know that God regards not the outward appearance, we must penetrate to the very source of action, if we would see how far works avail for righteousness. We must, I say, look within, and see from what affection of the heart these works proceed. This is a very wide field of discussion, but as the matter may be explained in few words, I will use as much brevity as I can.

2. The virtues of unbelievers are God-given

First, then, I deny not, that whatever excellent endowments appear in unbelievers are divine gifts. Nor do I set myself so much in opposition to common sense, as to contend that there was no difference between the justice, moderation, and equity of Titus and Trojan, and the rage, intemperance, and cruelty of Caligula, Nero, and Domitian; between the continence of Vespasian, and the obscene lusts of Tiberius; and (not to dwell on single virtues and vices) between the observance of law and justice, and the contempt of them. So great is the difference between justice and injustice, that it may be seen even where the former is only a lifeless image. For what order would remain in the world if we were to confound them? Hence this distinction between honorable and base actions God has not only engraven on the minds of each, but also often confirms in the administration of his providence. For we see how he visits those who cultivate virtue with many temporal blessings. Not that that external image of virtue in the least degree merits his favor, but he is pleased thus to show how much he delights in true righteousness, since he does not leave even the outward semblance of it to go unrewarded. Hence it follows, as we lately observed, that those virtues, or rather images of virtues, of whatever kind, are divine gifts, since there is nothing in any degree praiseworthy which proceeds not from him.

3. No true virtue without true faith

Still the observation of Augustine is true, that all who are strangers to the true God, however excellent they may be deemed on account of their virtues are more deserving of punishment than of reward, because, by the pollution of their heart, they contaminate the pure gifts of God, (August. contra Julia. Lib. 4.) For though they are instruments of God to preserve human society by justice, continence, friendship, temperance, fortitude, and prudence, yet they execute these good works of God in the worst manner, because they are kept from acting ill, not by a sincere love of goodness, but merely by ambition or self-love, or some other sinister affection. Seeing then that these actions are polluted as in their very source, by impurity of heart, they have no better title to be classed among virtues than vices, which impose upon us by their affinity or resemblance to virtue. In short, when we remember that the object at which righteousness always aims is the service of God, whatever is of a different tendency deservedly forfeits the name. Hence, as they have no regard to the end which the divine wisdom prescribes, although from the performance the act seems good, yet from the perverse motive it is sin. Augustine, therefore, concludes that all the Fabriciuses, the Scipios, and Catos, in their illustrious deeds, sinned in this, that, wanting the light of faith, they did not refer them to the proper end, and that, therefore, there was no true righteousness in them, because duties are estimated not by acts but by motives.

4. Without Christ there is no true holiness

Besides, if it is true, as John says, that there is no life without the Son of God, (1 John 5: 12,) those who have no part in Christ, whoever they be, whatever they do or devise, are hastening on, during their whole career, to destruction and the judgment of eternal death. For this reason, Augustine says, “Our religion distinguishes the righteous from the wicked, by the law, not of works but of faith, without which works which seem good are converted into sins,” (August. ad Bonif. Lib. 3, c. 5.) He finely expresses the same idea in another passage, when he compares the zeal of such men to those who in a race mistake the course, (August. Praef in Ps. 31.) He who is off the course, the more swiftly he runs is the more distant from the goal and, therefore, the more unhappy. It is better to limp in the way than run out of the way. Lastly, as there is no sanctification without union with Christ, it is evident that they are bad trees which are beautiful and fair to look upon, and may even produce fruit, sweet to the taste, but are still very far from good. Hence we easily perceive that every thing which man thinks, designs, and performs, before he is reconciled to God by faith, is cursed, and not only of no avail for justification, but merits certain damnation. And why do we talk of this as if it were doubtful, when it has already been proved by the testimony of an apostle, that “without faith it is impossible to please God?” (Heb. 11: 6.)

5. Righteousness before God comes not from works, though ever so good, but from grace

But the proof will be still clearer if divine grace is set in opposition to the natural condition of man. For Scripture everywhere proclaims that God finds nothing in man to induce him to show kindness, but that he prevents him by free liberality. What can a dead man do to obtain life? But when he enlightens us with the knowledge of himself, he is said to raise us from the dead, and make us new creatures, (John 5: 25.) On this ground we see that the kindness of God toward us is often commended, especially by the apostle: “God,” says he, “who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, has quickened us together with Christ,” (Eph. 2: 4.) In another passage, when treating of the general call of believers under the type of Abraham, he says, “God quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were,” (Rom. 4: 17.) If we are nothing, what, pray, can we do? Wherefore, in the Book of Job the Lord sternly represses all arrogance in these words, “Who has prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine,” (Job 41: 11.) Paul explaining this sentence applies it in this way, - Let us not imagine that we bring to the Lord any thing but the mere disgrace of want and destitution, (Rom. 11: 35.)

Wherefore, in the passage above quoted, to prove that we attain to the hope of salvation, not by works but only by grace, he affirms that “we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them,” (Eph. 2: 10;) as if he had said, “Who of us can boast of having challenged God by his righteousness, seeing our first power to act aright is derived from regeneration? For, as we are formed by nature, sooner shall oil be extracted from stone than good works from us. It is truly strange how man, convicted of such ignominy, dares still to claim any thing as his own. Let us acknowledge, therefore, with that chosen vessel, that God “has called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace;” and “that the kindness and love of God our Savior toward men appeared not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us;” that being justified by his grace, we might become the heirs of everlasting life, (2 Tim. 1: 9; Tit. 3: 4, 5.) By this confession we strip man of every particle of righteousness, until by mere mercy he is regenerated unto the hope of eternal life, since it is not true to say we are justified by grace, if works contribute in any degree to our justification. The apostle undoubtedly had not forgotten himself in declaring that justification is gratuitous, seeing he argues in another place, that if works are of any avail, “grace is no more grace,” (Rom. 11: 6.) And what else does our Lord mean, when he declares, “I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance?” (Matth. 9: 13.) If sinners alone are admitted, why do we seek admission by means of fictitious righteousness?

6. Man can contribute nothing to his own righteousness

The thought is ever and anon recurring to me, that I am in danger of insulting the mercy of God by laboring with so much anxiety to maintain it, as if it were doubtful or obscure. Such, however, is our malignity in refusing to concede to God what belongs to him until most strongly urged that I am obliged to insist at greater length. But as Scripture is clear enough on this subject, I shall contend in its words rather than my own. Isaiah, after describing the universal destruction of the human race, finely subjoins the method of restitution. “The Lord saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment. And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him” (Isaiah 59: 15, 16.) Where is our righteousness, if the prophet says truly, that no man in recovering salvation gives any assistance to the Lord? Thus another prophet, introducing the Lord as treating concerning the reconciliation of sinners, says, “I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in loving-kindness, and in mercies.” “I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy,” (Hosea 2: 19, 23.) If a covenant of this kind, evidently forming our first union with God, depends on mercy, there is no foundation left for our righteousness.

And, indeed, I would fain know, from those who pretend that man meets God with some righteousness of works, whether they imagine there is any kind of righteousness save that which is acceptable to Him. If it were insane to think so, can any thing agreeable to God proceed from his enemies, whom he abominates with all their deeds? Truth declares that we are all the avowed and inveterate enemies of God until we are justified and admitted to his friendship, (Rom. 5: 6; Col. 1: 21.) If justification is the beginning of love, how can the righteousness of works precede it? Hence John, to put down the arrogant idea, carefully reminds us that God first loved us, (1 John 4: 10.) The Lord had formerly taught the same thing by his Prophet: “I will love them freely: for mine anger is turned away from him,” (Hosea 14: 4.) Assuredly he is not influenced by works if his love turns to us spontaneously.

But the rude and vulgar idea entertained is, that we did not merit the interposition of Christ for our redemption, but that we are aided by our works in obtaining possession of it. On the contrary, though we may be redeemed by Christ, still, until we are ingrafted into union with him by the calling of the Father, we are darkness, the heirs of death, and the enemies of God. For Paul declares that we are not purged and washed from our impurities by the blood of Christ until the Spirit accomplishes that cleansing in us, (1 Cor. 6: 11.) Peter, intending to say the same thing, declares that the sanctification of the Spirit avails “unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ,” (1 Pet. 1: 2.) If the sprinkling of the blood of Christ by the Spirit gives us purification, let us not think that, previous to this sprinkling, we are anything but sinners without Christ. Let us, therefore, hold it as certain, that the beginning of our salvation is as it were a resurrection from death unto life, because, when it is given us on behalf of Christ to believe on him, (Phil. 1: 29,) then only do we begin to pass from death unto life.

(Hypocrites and nominal Christians, under condemnation, 7-8)

7. Righteousness is a thing of the heart!

Under this head the second and third class of men noted in the above division is comprehended. Impurity of conscience proves that as yet neither of these classes is regenerated by the Spirit of God. And, again, their not being regenerated proves their want of faith. Whence it is clear that they are not yet reconciled, not yet justified, since it is only by faith that these blessings are obtained. What can sinners, alienated from God, produce save that which is abominable in his sight? Such, however, is the stupid confidence entertained by all the wicked, and especially by hypocrites, that however conscious that their whole heart teems with impurity, they yet deem any spurious works which they may perform as worthy of the approbation of God. Hence the pernicious consequence, that though convicted of a wicked and impious minds they cannot be induced to confess that they are devoid of righteousness. Even acknowledging themselves to be unrighteous, because they cannot deny it, they yet arrogate to themselves some degree of righteousness.

This vanity the Lord admirably refutes by the prophet: “Ask now the priests concerning the law, saying, If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, or wine, or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy? And the priests answered and said, No. Then said Haggai, If one that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean? And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean. Then answered Haggai, and said, So is this people, and so is this nation before me, saith the Lord; and so is every work of their hands; and that which they offer there is unclean,” (Haggai 2: 11-14.) I wish these sentiments could obtain full credit with us, and be deeply fixed on our memories. For there is no man, however flagitous the whole tenor of his life may be, who will allow himself to be convinced of what the Lord here so clearly declares. As soon as any person, even the most wicked, has performed some one duty of the law, he hesitates not to impute it to himself for righteousness; but the Lord declares that no degree of holiness is thereby acquired, unless the heart has previously been made pure. And not contented with this, he declares that all the works performed by sinners are contaminated by impurity of heart. Let us cease then to give the name of righteousness to works which the mouth of the Lord condemns as polluted. How well is this shown by that elegant similitude? It might be objected, that what the Lord has commanded is inviolably holy. But he, on the contrary, replies, that it is not strange that those things which are sanctified in the law are contaminated by the impurity of the wicked, the unclean hand profaning that which is sacred by handling it.

8. Person and work

The same argument is admirably followed out by Isaiah: “Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my foul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. And when ye spread forth your hands I will hide mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes,” (Isaiah 1: 13-16, compared with ch. 58) What is meant by the Lord thus nauseating the observance of his law? Nay, indeed, he does not repudiate any thing relating to the genuine observance of the law, the beginning of which is as he uniformly declares the sincere fear of his name. When this is wanting, all the services which are offered to him are not only nugatory but vile and abominable.

Let hypocrites now go, and while keeping depravity wrapt up in their heart, study to lay God under obligation by their works. In this way they will only offend him more and more. “The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord; but the prayer of the upright is his delight,” (Prov. 15: 8. ) We hold it, therefore, as indubitable, indeed it should be notorious to all tolerably verdant with Scriptures that the most splendid works performed by men, who are not yet truly sanctified, are so far from being righteousness in the sight of the Lord, that he regards them as sins.

And, therefore it is taught with perfect truth, that no man procures favor with God by means of works, but that, on the contrary, works are not pleasing to God unless the person has previously found favor in his sight. Here we should carefully observe the order which scripture sets before us. Moses says that “the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering,” (Gen. 4: 4.) Observe how he says that the Lord was propitious (had respect) to Abel, before he had respect to his works. Wherefore, purification of heart ought to precede, in order that the works performed by us may be graciously accepted by God: for the saying of Jeremiah is always true, “O Lord, are not thine eyes upon the truth?” (Jer. 5: 3.) Moreover the Holy Spirit declared by the mouth of Peter, that it is by faith alone the heart is purified, (Acts 15: 9.) Hence it is evident, that the primary foundation is in true and living faith.

(Those who are regenerated, justified by faith alone, 9-11)

9. Also, true believers do no good works of themselves

Let us now see what kind of righteousness belongs to those persons whom we have placed in the fourth class. We admits that when God reconciles us to himself by the intervention of the righteousness of Christ, and bestowing upon us the free pardon of sins regards us as righteous, his goodness is at the same time conjoined with mercy, so that he dwells in us by means of his Holy Spirit, by whose agency the lusts of our flesh are every day more and more mortified while that we ourselves are sanctified; that is consecrated to the Lord for true purity of life, our hearts being trained to the obedience of the law. It thus becomes our leading desire to obey his will, and in all things advance his glory only.

Still, however while we walk in the ways of the Lord, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, lest we should become unduly elated, and forget ourselves, we have still remains of imperfection which serve to keep us humble: “There is no man that sinneth not,” saith Scripture, (1 Kings 8: 46.) What righteousness then can men obtain by their works? First, I say, that the best thing which can be produced by them is always tainted and corrupted by the impurity of the flesh, and has, as it were, some mixture of dross in it. Let the holy servant of God, I say, select from the whole course of his life the action which he deems most excellent, and let him ponder it in all its parts; he will doubtless find in it something that savors of the rottenness of the flesh, since our alacrity in well-doing is never what it ought to be, but our course is always retarded by much weakness. Although we see theft the stains by which the works of the righteous are blemished, are by no means unapparent, still, granting that they are the minutest possible, will they give no offense to the eye of God, before which even the stars are not clean? We thus see, that even saints cannot perform one work which, if judged on its own merits, is not deserving of condemnation.

10. He who thinks he has his own righteousness misunderstands the severity of the law

Even were it possible for us to perform works absolutely pure, yet one sin is sufficient to efface and extinguish all remembrance of former righteousness, as the prophet says, (Ezek. 18: 24.) With this James agrees, “Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, is guilty of all,” (James 2: 10.) And since this mortal life is never entirely free from the taint of sin, whatever righteousness we could acquire would ever and anon be corrupted, overwhelmed, and destroyed, by subsequent sins, so that it could not stand the scrutiny of God, or be imputed to us for righteousness.

In short, whenever we treat of the righteousness of works, we must look not to the legal work but to the command. Therefore, when righteousness is sought by the Law, it is in vain to produce one or two single works; we must show an uninterrupted obedience. God does not (as many foolishly imagine) impute that forgiveness of sins once for all, as righteousness; so that having obtained the pardon of our past life we may afterwards seek righteousness in the Law. This were only to mock and delude us by the entertainment of false hopes. For since perfection is altogether unattainable by us, so long as we are clothed with flesh, and the Law denounces death and judgment against all who have not yielded a perfect righteousness, there will always be ground to accuse and convict us unless the mercy of God interpose, and ever and anon absolve us by the constant remission of sins. Wherefore the statement which we set out is always true, If we are estimated by our own worthiness, in every thing that we think or devise, with all our studies and endeavors we deserve death and destruction.

11. Believers’ righteousness is always faith righteousness

We must strongly insist on these two things: That no believer ever performed one work which, if tested by the strict judgment of God, could escape condemnation; and, moreover, that were this granted to be possible, (though it is not,) yet the act being vitiated and polluted by the sins of which it is certain that the author of it is guilty, it is deprived of its merit.

This is the cardinal point of the present discussion. There is no controversy between us and the sounder Schoolmen as to the beginning of justification. They admit that the sinner, freely delivered from condemnation, obtains justification, and that by forgiveness of sins; but under the term justification they comprehend the renovation by which the Spirit forms us anew to the obedience of the Law; and in describing the righteousness of the regenerate man, maintain that being once reconciled to God by means of Christ, he is afterwards deemed righteous by his good works, and is accepted in consideration of them. The Lord, on the contrary, declares, that he imputed Abraham’s faith for righteousness, (Rom. 4: 3,) not at the time when he was still a worshipper of idols, but after he had been many years distinguished for holiness. Abraham had long served God with a pure heart, and performed that obedience of the Law which a mortal man is able to perform: yet his righteousness still consisted in faith. Hence we infer, according to the reasoning of Paul, that it was not of works. In like manners when the prophet says, “The just shall live by his faith,” (Hab. 2: 4,) he is not speaking of the wicked and profane, whom the Lord justifies by converting them to the faith: his discourse is directed to believers, and life is promised to them by faith. Paul also removes every doubt, when in confirmation of this sentiment he quotes the words of David, “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered,” (Ps. 32: 1.) It is certain that David is not speaking of the ungodly but of believers such as he himself was, because he was giving utterance to the feelings of his own mind. Therefore we must have this blessedness not once only, but must hold it fast during our whole lives. Moreover, the message of free reconciliation with God is not promulgated for one or two days, but is declared to be perpetual in the Church, (2 Cor. 5: 18, 19.) Hence believers have not even to the end of life any other righteousness than that which is there described. Christ ever remains a Mediator to reconcile the Father to us, and there is a perpetual efficacy in his death, viz., ablution, satisfaction, expiation; in short, perfect obedience, by which all our iniquities are covered. In the Epistle to the Ephesians, Paul says not that the beginning of salvation is of grace, but “by grace are ye saved,” “not of works, lest any man should boast,” (Eph. 2: 8, 9.)

(Scholastic objections to justification by faith, and doctrine of the supererogatory merits of the saints examined and refuted, 12-21)

12. Evasions of opponents

The subterfuges by which the Schoolmen here endeavor to escape will not disentangle them. They say that good works are not of such intrinsic worth as to be sufficient to procure justification, but it is owing to accepting grace that they have this effect. Then because they are forced to confess that here the righteousness of works is always imperfect, they grant that so long as we are in this life we stand in need of the forgiveness of sin in order to supply the deficiency of works, but that the faults which are committed are compensated by works of supererogation.

I answer, that the grace which they call “accepting”, is nothing else than the free goodness with which the Father embraces us in Christ when he clothes us with the innocence of Christ, and accepts it as ours, so that in consideration of it he regards us as holy, pure, and innocent. For the righteousness of Christ (as it alone is perfect, so it alone can stand the scrutiny of God) must be sisted for us, and as a surety represent us judicially. Provided with this righteousness, we constantly obtain the remission of sins through faith. Our imperfection and impurity, covered with this purity, are not imputed but are as it were buried, so as not to come under judgment until the hour arrive when the old man being destroyed, and plainly extinguished in us, the divine goodness shall receive us into beatific peace with the new Adam, there to await the day of the Lord, on which, being clothed with incorruptible bodies, we shall be translated to the glory of the heavenly kingdom.

13. One who speaks of “supererogatory” works misunderstands the sharpness of God’s demand and the gravity of sin

If these things are so, it is certain that our works cannot in themselves make us agreeable and acceptable to God, and even cannot please God, except in so far as being covered with the righteousness of Christ we thereby please him and obtain forgiveness of sins. God has not promised life as the reward of certain works, but only declares, “which if a man do, he shall live in them,” (Lev. 18: 5,) denouncing the well-known curse against all who do not continue in all things that are written in the book of the Law to do them. In this way is completely refuted the fiction of a partial righteousness, the only righteousness acknowledged in heaven being the perfect observance of the Law.

There is nothing more solid in their dogma of compensation by means of works of supererogation. For must they not always return to the proposition which has already been disproved, viz., that he who observes the Law in part is so far justified by works? This, which no man of sound judgment will concede to them, they are not ashamed to take for granted. The Lord having so often declared that he recognizes no justification by works unless they be works by which the Law is perfectly fulfilled, - how perverse is it, while we are devoid of such works, to endeavor to secure some ground of glorying to ourselves; that is not to yield it entirely to God, by boasting of some kind of fragments of works, and trying to supply the deficiency by other satisfactions?

Satisfactions have already been so completely disposed of, that we ought never again even to dream of them. Here all I say is, that those who thus trifle with sin do not at all consider how execrable it is in the sight of God; if they did, they would assuredly understand, that all the righteousness of men collected into one heap would be inadequate to compensate for a single sin. For we see that by one sin man was so cast off and forsaken by God, that he at the same time lost all power of recovering salvation. He was, therefore, deprived of the power of giving satisfaction. Those who flatter themselves with this idea will never satisfy God, who cannot possibly accept or be pleased with anything that proceeds from his enemies. But all to whom he imputes sin are enemies, and, therefore, our sins must be covered and forgiven before the Lord has respect to any of our works. From this it follows, that the forgiveness of sins is gratuitous, and this forgiveness is wickedly insulted by those who introduce the idea of satisfaction. Let us, therefore, after the example of the Apostle, “forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,” “press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Jesus Christ,” (Philip. 3:13,14.)

14. Even the perfect fulfillment of our obligation would bring us no glory; but this also is not at all possible!

How can boasting in works of supererogation agree with the command given to us: “When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do?” (Luke 17: 10.) To say or speak in the presence of God is not to feign or lie, but to declare what we hold as certain. Our Lord, therefore, enjoins us sincerely to feel and consider with ourselves that we do not perform gratuitous duties, but pay him service which is due. And truly. For the obligations of service under which we lie are so numerous that we cannot discharge them though all our thoughts and members were devoted to the observance of the Law; and, therefore, when he says “When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you,” it is just as if he had said that all the righteousness of men would not amount to one of these things. Seeing, then, that every one is very far distant from that goal, how can we presume to boast of having accumulated more than is due?

It cannot be objected that a person, though failing in some measure in what is necessary, may yet in intention go beyond what is necessary. For it must ever be held that in whatever pertains to the worship of God, or to charity, nothing can ever be thought of that is not comprehended under the Law. But if it is part of the Law, let us not boast of voluntary liberality in matters of necessary obligation.

15. God is entitled to all that we are and have; hence there can be no supererogatory works

On this subject, they ceaselessly allege the boast of Paul, that among the Corinthians he spontaneously renounced a right which, if he had otherwise chosen, he might have exercised, (1 Cor. 9: 15;) thus not only paying what he owed them in duty, but gratuitously bestowing upon them more than duty required. They ought to have attended to the reason there expressed, that his object was to avoid giving offense to the weak. For wicked and deceitful workmen employed this pretence of kindness that they might procure favor to their pernicious dogmas, and excite hatred against the Gospel, so that it was necessary for Paul either to peril the doctrine of Christ, or to thwart their schemes. Now, if it is a matter of indifference to a Christian man whether or not he cause a scandal when it is in his power to avoid it, then I admit that the Apostle performed a work of supererogation to his Master; but if the thing which he did was justly required in a prudent minister of the Gospel, then I say he did what he was bound to do. In short, even when no such reason appears, yet the saying of Chrysostom is always true, that everything which we have is held on the same condition as the private property of slaves; it is always due to our Master. Christ does not disguise this in the parable, for he asks in regard to the master who, on return from his labour, requires his servant to gird himself and serve him, “Does he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not,” (Luke 17: 9.) But possibly the servant was more industrious than the master would have ventured to exact. Be it so: still he did nothing to which his condition as a servant did not bind him, because his utmost ability is his master’s.

I say nothing as to the kind of supererogations on which these men would plume themselves before God. They are frivolities which he never commanded, which he approves not, and will not accept when they come to give in their account. The only sense in which we admit works of supererogation is that expressed by the prophet, when he says, “Who has required this at your hand?” (Isaiah 1: 12.) But let them remember what is elsewhere said of them: “Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not?” (Isaiah 55: 2.) It is, indeed, an easy matter for these indolent Rabbis to carry on such discussions sitting in their soft chairs under the shade, but when the Supreme Judge shall sit on his tribunal, all these blustering dogmas will behave to disappear. This, this I say, was the true question: not what we can fable and talk in schools and corners, but what ground of defense we can produce at his judgment-seat.

16. No trust in works and no glory in works!

In this matter the minds of men must be specially guarded against two pestiferous dogmas, viz., against putting any confidence in the righteousness of works, or ascribing any glory to them.

From all such confidence the Scriptures uniformly dissuade us when they declare that our righteousness is offensive in the sight of God unless it derives a sweet odour from the purity of Christ: that it can have no other effect than to excite the divine vengeance unless sustained by his indulgent mercy. Accordingly, the only thing they leave to us is to deprecate our Judge with that confession of David: “Enter not into judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no living be justified,” (Psalm 143: 2.) And when Job says, “If I be wicked, woe unto me: and if I be righteous, yet will I not lift up my head,” (Job 10: 15.) Although he refers to that spotless righteousness of God, before which even angels are not clean, he however shows, that when brought to the bar of Gods all that mortals can do is to stand dumb. He does not merely mean that he chooses rather to give way spontaneously than to risk a contest with the divine severity, but that he was not conscious of possessing any righteousness that would not fall the very first moment it was brought into the presence of God.

Confidence being banished, all glorying must necessarily cease. For who can attribute any merit of righteousness to works, which instead of giving confidence, only make us tremble in the presence of God? We must, therefore, come to what Isaiah invites us: “In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory,” (Isaiah 45: 25;) for it is most true, as he elsewhere says, that we are “the planting of the Lord, that he might be glorified,” (Isaiah 61: 3.) Our soul, therefore, will not be duly purified until it ceases to have any confidence, or feel any exultation in works. Foolish men are puffed up to this false and lying confidence by the erroneous idea that the cause of their salvation is in works.

17. In no respect can works serve as the cause of our holiness

But if we attend to the four kinds of causes which philosophers bring under our view in regard to effects, we shall find that not one of them is applicable to works as a cause of salvation. The efficient cause of our eternal salvation the Scripture uniformly proclaims to be the mercy and free love of the heavenly Father towards us; the material cause to be Christ, with the obedience by which he purchased righteousness for us; and what can the formal or instrumental cause be but faith? John includes the three in one sentence when he says, “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life,” (John 3: 16.) The Apostle, moreover, declares that the final cause is the demonstration of the divine righteousness and the praise of his goodness. There also he distinctly mentions the other three causes; for he thus speaks to the Romans: “All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by his grace,” (Rom. 3: 23, 24.) You have here the head and primary source—God has embraced us with free mercy. The next words are, “through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;” this is as it were the material cause by which righteousness is procured for us. “Whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith.” Faith is thus the instrumental cause by which righteousness is applied to us. He lastly subjoins the final cause when he says, “To declare at this time his righteousness; that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.” And to show by the way that this righteousness consists in reconciliation, he says that Christ was “set forth to be a propitiation.” Thus also, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, he tells us that we are received into the favor of God by mere mercy; that this is done by the intervention of Christ; that it is apprehended by faith; the end of all being that the glory of the divine goodness may be fully displayed. When we see that all the parts of our salvation thus exist without us, what ground can we have for glorying or confiding in our works? Neither as to the efficient nor the final cause can the most sworn enemies of divine grace raise any controversy with us unless they would abjure the whole of Scripture. In regard to the material or formal cause they make a gloss, as if they held that our works divide the merit with faith and the righteousness of Christ. But here also Scripture reclaims, simply affirming that Christ is both righteousness and life, and that the blessing of justification is possessed by faith alone.

18. The sight of good works, however, can strengthen faith

When the saints repeatedly confirm and console themselves with the remembrance of their innocence and integrity, and sometimes even abstain not from proclaiming them, it is done in two ways: either because by comparing their good cause with the bad cause of the ungodly, they thence feel secure of victory, not so much from commendation of their own righteousness, as from the just and merited condemnation of their adversaries; or because, reviewing themselves before God, even without any comparison with others the purity of their conscience gives them some comfort and security.

The former reason will afterwards be considered, (chap. 17, sec. 14, and chap. 20, sec. 10;) let us now briefly show, in regard to the latter, how it accords with what we have above said, that we can have no confidence in works before the bar of God, that we cannot glory in any opinion of their worth. The accordance lies here, that when the point considered is the constitution and foundation of salvation, believers, without paying any respect to works, direct their eyes to the goodness of God alone. Nor do they turn to it only in the first instance, as to the commencement of blessedness, but rest in it as the completion. Conscience being thus founded, built up, and established is farther established by the consideration of works, inasmuch as they are proofs of God dwelling and reigning in us. Since, then, this confidence in works has no place unless you have previously fixed your whole confidence on the mercy of God, it should not seem contrary to that on which it depends. Wherefore, when we exclude confidence in works, we merely mean, that the Christian mind must not turn back to the merit of works as an aid to salvation, but must dwell entirely on the free promise of justification. But we forbid no believer to confirm and support this faith by the signs of the divine favor towards him. For if when we call to mind the gifts which God has bestowed upon us, they are like rays of the divine countenance, by which we are enabled to behold the highest light of his goodness; much more is this the case with the gift of good works, which shows that we have received the Spirit of adoption (Rom. 8:15).

19. Works as fruits of the call

When believers therefore feel their faith strengthened by a consciousness of integrity, and entertain sentiments of exultation, it is just because the fruits of their calling convince them that the Lord has admitted them to a place among his children. Accordingly, when Solomon says, “In the fear of the Lord is strong confidence,” (Prov. 14: 26,) and when the saints sometimes beseech the Lord to hear them, because they walked before his face in simplicity and integrity, (Gen. 24: 10; 2 Kings 20: 3,) these expressions apply not to laying the foundation of a firm conscience, but are of force only when taken a posteriori. For there is no where such a fear of God as can give full security, and the saints are always conscious that any integrity which they may possess is mingled with many remains of the flesh. But as the fruits of regeneration furnish them with a proof of the Holy Spirit dwelling in them, experiencing God to be a Father in a matter of so much moment, they are strengthened in no slight degree to wait for his assistance in all their necessities. Even this they could not do, had they not previously perceived that the goodness of God is sealed to them by nothing but the certainty of the promise. Should they begin to estimate it by their good works, nothing will be weaker or more uncertain; works, when estimated by themselves, no less proving the divine displeasure by their imperfection, than his good-will by their incipient purity.

In short, while proclaiming the mercies of the Lord, they never lose sight of his free favor, with all its “breadth and length, and depth and height,” testified by Paul, (Eph. 3: 18;) as if he had said, Whithersoever the believer turns, however loftily he climbs, however far and wide his thoughts extend, he must not go farther than the love of Christ, but must be wholly occupied in meditating upon it, as including in itself all dimensions. Accordingly, he declares that it “passeth knowledge,” that “to know the love of Christ” is to “be filled with all the fulness of God,” (Eph. 3: 19.) In another passage, where he glories that believers are victorious in every contest, he adds the reason, “through him that loved us,” (Rom. 8: 37.)

20. Works are God’s gift and cannot become the foundation of self-confidence for believers

We now see that believers have no such confidence in works as to attribute any merit to them, (since they regard them only as divine gifts, in which they recognize his goodness, and signs of calling, in which they discern their election;) nor such confidence as to derogate in any respect from the free righteousness of Christ; since on this it depends, and without this cannot subsist. The same thing is briefly but elegantly expressed by Augustine when he says, “I do not say to the Lord, Despise not the works of my hands; I have sought the Lord with my hands, and have not been deceived. But I commend not the works of my hands, for I fear that when thou examinest them thou wilt find more faults than merits. This only I say, this asks this desire, Despise not the works of thy hands. See in me thy work, not mine. If thou sees mine, thou condemnest; if thou sees thine own, thou crownest. Whatever good works I have are of thee,” (August. in Ps. 137.) He gives two reasons for not venturing to boast of his works before God: first, that if he has any good works, he does not see in them any thing of his own; and, secondly, that these works are overwhelmed by a multitude of sins. Whence it is, that the conscience derives from them more fear and alarm than security. Therefore, the only way in which he desires God to look at any work which he may have done aright is, that he may therein see the grace of his calling, and perfect the work which he has begun.

21. Sense in which good works are sometimes spoken of as a reason for divine benefits

Moreover, when Scripture intimates that the good works of believers are causes why the Lord does them good, we must still understand the meaning so as to hold unshaken what has previously been said, viz., that the efficient cause of our salvation is placed in the love of God the Father; the material cause in the obedience of the Son; the instrumental cause in the illumination of the Spirit, that is, in faith; and the final cause in the praise of the divine goodness. In this, however, there is nothing to prevent the Lord from embracing works as inferior causes. But how so? In this way: Those whom in mercy he has destined for the inheritance of eternal life, he, in his ordinary administration, introduces to the possession of it by means of good works. What precedes in the order of administration is called the cause of what follows. For this reason, he sometimes makes eternal life a consequent of works; not because it is to be ascribed to them, but because those whom he has elected he justifies, that he may at length glorify, (Rom. 8: 30;) he makes the prior grace to be a kind of cause, because it is a kind of step to that which follows. But whenever the true cause is to be assigned, he enjoins us not to take refuge in works, but to keep our thoughts entirely fixed on the mercy of God; “The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life,” (Rom. 6: 23.) Why, as he contrasts life with death, does he not also contrast righteousness with sin? Why, when setting down sin as the cause of death, does he not also set down righteousness as the cause of life? The antithesis which would otherwise be complete is somewhat marred by this variation; but the Apostle employed the comparison to express the fact, that death is due to the deserts of men, but that life was treasured up solely in the mercy of God.

In short, by these expressions, the order rather than the cause is noted. The Lord adding grace to grace, takes occasion from a former to add a subsequent, so that he may omit no means of enriching his servants. Still, in following out his liberality, he would have us always look to free election as its source and beginning. For although he loves the gifts which he daily bestows upon us, inasmuch as they proceed from that fountain, still our duty is to hold fast by that gratuitous acceptance, which alone can support our souls; and so to connect the gifts of the Spirit, which he afterwards bestows, with their primary cause, as in no degree to detract from it.

CHAPTER 15. THE BOASTED MERIT OF WORKS SUBVERSIVE BOTH OF THE GLORY OF GOD, IN BESTOWING RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND OF THE CERTAINTY OF SALVATION.

The divisions of this chapter are, -

I. To the doctrine of free justification is opposed the question, Whether or not works merit favor with God, sec. 1. This question answered, sec. 2 and 3.

II. An exposition of certain passages of Scripture produced in support of the erroneous doctrine of merit, sec. 4 and 5.

III. Sophisms of Semipelagian Schoolmen refuted, sec. 6 and 7.

IV. Conclusion, proving the sufficiency of the orthodox doctrine, sec. 8.

Sections.

1. After a brief recapitulation, the question, Whether or not good works merit favor with God, considered.

2. First answer, fixing the meaning of the term Merit. This term improperly applied to works, but used in a good sense, as by Augustine, Chrysostom, Bernard.

3. A second answer to the question. First by a negative, then by a concession. In the rewarding of works what to be attributed to God, and what to man. Why good works please God, and are advantageous to those who do them. The ingratitude of seeking righteousness by works. This shown by a double similitude.

4. First objection taken from Ecclesiasticus. Second objection from the Epistle to the Hebrews. Two answers to both objections. A weak distinction refuted.

5. A third and most complete answer, calling us back to Christ as the only foundation of salvation. How Christ is our righteousness. Whence it is manifest that we have all things in Christ and he nothing in us.

6. We must abhor the sophistry which destroys the merit of Christ, in order to establish that of man. This impiety refuted by clear passages of Scripture.

7. Errors, of the younger Sophists extracted from Lombard. Refuted by Augustine. Also by Scripture.

8. Conclusion, showing that the foundation which has been laid is sufficient for doctrine, exhortation, and comfort. Summery of the orthodox doctrine of Justification.

(Doctrine of human merit in justification opposed by Augustine and Bernard as well as by Scripture, 1-4)

1. False and true questioning

The principal point in this subject has been now explained: as justifications if dependent upon works, cannot possibly stand in the sight of God, it must depend solely on the mercy of God and communion with Christ, and therefore on faith alone. But let us carefully attend to the point on which the whole subject hinges, lest we get entangled in the common delusion, not only of the vulgar, but of the learned. For the moment the question is raised as to the justification by faith or works, they run off to those passages which seem to ascribe some merit to works in the sight of God, just as if justification by works were proved whenever it is proved that works have any value with God.

Above we have clearly shown that justification by works consists only in a perfect and absolute fulfillment of the law, and that, therefore, no man is justified by works unless he has reached the summit of perfection, and cannot be convicted of even the smallest transgression. But there is another and a separate question, Though works by no means suffice to justify, do they not merit favor with God?

2. “Merit,” an unscriptural and dangerous word!

First, I must premise with regard to the term Merit, that he, whoever he was, that first applied it to human works, viewed in reference to the divine tribunal, consulted very ill for the purity of the faith. I willingly abstain from disputes about words, but I could wish that Christian writers had always observed this soberness - that when there was no occasion for it, they had never thought of using terms foreign to the Scriptures—terms which might produce much offense, but very little fruit. I ask, what need was there to introduce the word Merit, when the value of works might have been fully expressed by another term, and without offense? The quantity of offense contained in it the world shows to its great loss. It is certain that, being a high sounding term, it can only obscure the grace of God, and inspire men with pernicious pride.

I admit it was used by ancient ecclesiastical writers, and I wish they had not by the abuse of one term furnished posterity with matter of heresy, although in some passages they themselves show that they had no wish to injure the truth. For Augustine says, “Let human merits, which perished by Adam, here be silent, and let the grace of God reign by Jesus Christ,” (August. de Praedest. Sanct.) Again, “The saints ascribe nothing to their merits; every thing will they ascribe solely to thy mercy, O God,” (August. in Psal. 139.) Again, “And when a man sees that whatever good he has he has not of himself, but of his God, he sees that every thing in him which is praised is not of his own merits, but of the divine mercy,” (August. in Psal. 88.) You see how he denies man the power of acting aright, and thus lays merit prostrate. Chrysostom says, “If any works of ours follow the free calling of God, they are return and debt; but the gifts of God are grace, and beneficence, and great liberality.”

But to say nothing more of the name, let us attend to the thing. I formerly quoted a passage from Bernard: “As it is sufficient for merit not to presume on merit, so to be without merit is sufficient for condemnation,” (Bernard in Cantic. Serm. 98.) He immediately adds an explanation which softens the harshness of the expression, when he says, “Hence be careful to have merits; when you have them, know that they were given; hope for fruit from the divine mercy, and you have escaped all the perils of poverty, ingratitude, and presumption. Happy the Church which neither wants merit without presumption, nor presumption without merit.” A little before he had abundantly shown that he used the words in a sound sense, saying, “Why is the Church anxious about merits? God has furnished her with a firmer and surer ground of boasting. God cannot deny himself; he will do what he has promised. Thus there is no reason for asking by what merits may we hope for blessings; especially when you hear, ‘Thus saith the Lord God; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name’s sake,’ (Ezek. 36: 22.) It suffices for merit to know that merits suffice not.”

3. The whole value of good works comes from God’s grace

What all our works can merit Scripture shows when it declares that they cannot stand the view of God, because they are full of impurity; it next shows what the perfect observance of the law (if it can any where be found) will merit when it enjoins, “So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants, we have done that which was our duty to do,” (Luke 17: 10;) because we make no free-offering to God, but only perform due service by which no favor is deserved.

And yet those good works which the Lord has bestowed upon us he counts ours also, and declares, that they are not only acceptable to him, but that he will recompense them. It is ours in return to be animated by this great promise, and to keep up our courage, that we may not weary in well-doing, but feel duly grateful for the great kindness of God. There cannot be a doubt, that every thing in our works which deserves praise is owing to divine grace, and that there is not a particle of it which we can properly ascribe to ourselves. If we truly and seriously acknowledge this, not only confidence, but every idea of merit vanishes. I say we do not, like the Sophists share the praise of works between God and man, but we keep it entire and unimpaired for the Lord. All we assign to man is that, by his impurity he pollutes and contaminates the very works which were good. The most perfect thing which proceeds from man is always polluted by some stain. Should the Lords therefore bring to judgment the best of human works, he would indeed behold his own righteousness in them; but he would also behold man’s dishonor and disgrace. Thus good works please God, and are not without fruit to their authors, since, by way of recompense, they obtain more ample blessings from God, not because they so deserve, but because the divine benignity is pleased of itself to set this value upon them. Such, however is our malignity, that not contented with this liberality on the part of God, which bestows rewards on works that do not at all deserve them, we with profane ambition maintain that that which is entirely due to the divine munificence is paid to the merit of works.

Here I appeal to every man’s common sense. If one who by another’s liberality possesses the usufruct of a field, rear up a claim to the property of it, does he not by his ingratitude deserve to lose the possession formerly granted? In like manner, if a slave, who has been manumitted, conceals his humble condition of freedman, and gives out that he was free-born, does he not deserve to be reduced to his original slavery? A benefit can only be legitimately enjoyed when we neither arrogate more to our selves than has been given, nor defraud the author of it of his due praise; nay, rather when we so conduct ourselves as to make it appear that the benefit conferred still in a manner resides with him who conferred it. But if this is the moderation to be observed towards men, let every one reflect and consider for himself what is due to God.

4. Defense against counterevidence

I know that the Sophists abuse some passages in order to prove that the Scriptures use the term merit with reference to God. They quote a passage from Ecclesiasticus: “Mercy will give place to every man according to the merit of his works,” (Ecclesiasticus 16: 14;) and from the Epistle to the Hebrews: “To do good and communicate forget not; for with such sacrifices God is well pleased,” (Heb. 13: 16.)

I now renounce my right to repudiate the authority of Ecclesiasticus; but I deny that the words of Ecclesiasticus, whoever the writer may have been, are faithfully quoted. The Greek is as follows: “Pasei ele-emosunei poiesei topon; hekastos gar kata ta erga houtou heuresei”. “He will make room for all mercy: for each shall find according to his works.” That this is the genuine reading, and has been corrupted in the Latin version, is plain, both from the very structure of the sentence, and from the previous context.

In the Epistle to the Hebrews there is no room for their quibbling on one little word, for in the Greek the Apostle simply says, that such sacrifices are pleasing and acceptable to God.

This alone should amply suffice to quell and beat down the insolence of our pride, and prevent us from attaching value to works beyond the rule of Scripture. It is the doctrine of Scripture, moreover, that our good works are constantly covered with numerous stains by which God is justly offended and made angry against us, so far are they from being able to conciliate him, and call forth his favor towards us; and yet because of his indulgence, he does not examine them with the utmost strictness, he accepts them just as if they were most pure; and therefore rewards them, though undeserving, with innumerable blessings, both present and future. For I admit not the distinction laid down by otherwise learned and pious men, that good works merit the favors which are conferred upon us in this life, whereas eternal life is the reward of faith only. The recompense of our toils, and crown of our contest, our Lord almost uniformly places in heaven. On the other hand, to attribute to the merit of works, so as to deny it to grace, that we are loaded with other gifts from the Lord, is contrary to the doctrine of Scripture. For though Christ says, “Unto every one that has shall be given;” “thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things,” (Matth. 25: 29, 21,) he, at the same time, shows that all additional gifts to believers are of his free benignity: “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that has no money, come ye, buy, and eat: yea, come, buy wine and milk, without money and without price,” (Isaiah 55: 1.) Therefore, every help to salvation bestowed upon believers, and blessedness itself, are entirely the gift of God, and yet in both the Lord testifies that he takes account of works, since to manifest the greatness of his love toward us, he thus highly honors not ourselves only, but the gifts, which he has bestowed upon us.

(Rejection of the substitution of man’s merit for Christ’s, 5-8)

5. Christ as the sole foundation, as beginner and perfecter

Had these points been duly handled and digested in past ages, never could so many tumults and dissensions have arisen. Paul says, that in the architecture of Christian doctrine, it is necessary to retain the foundation which he had laid with the Corinthians, “Other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,” (1 Cor. 3: 11.) What then is our foundation in Christ? Is it that he begins salvation and leaves us to complete it? Is it that he only opened up the way, and left us to follow it in our own strength? By no means, but as Paul had a little before declared, it is to acknowledge that he has been given us for righteousness. No man, therefore, is well founded in Christ who has not entire righteousness in him, since the Apostle says not that he was sent to assist us in procuring, but was himself to be our righteousness. Thus, it is said that God “has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world,” not according to our merit, but “according to the good pleasure of his will;” that in him “we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins;” that peace has been made “through the blood of his cross;” that we are reconciled by his blood; that, placed under his protection, we are delivered from the danger of finally perishing; that thus ingrafted into him we are made partakers of eternal life, and hope for admission into the kingdom of God. Nor is this all. Being admitted to participation in him, though we are still foolish, he is our wisdom; though we are still sinners he is our righteousness; though we are unclean, he is our purity; though we are weak, unarmed, and exposed to Satan, yet ours is the power which has been given him in heaven and in earth, to bruise Satan under our feet, and burst the gates of hell, (Matth. 28: 18;) though we still bear about with us a body of death, he is our life; in short, all things of his are ours, we have all things in him, he nothing in us. On this foundation, I say, we must be built, if we would grow up into a holy temple in the Lord.

6. Roman theology curtails Christ’s might and honor

For a long time the world has been taught very differently. A kind of good works called moral has been found out, by which men are rendered agreeable to God before they are ingrafted into Christ; as if Scripture spoke falsely when it says, “He that has the Son has life, and he that has not the Son of God has not life,” (1 John 5: 12.) How can they produce the materials of life if they are dead? Is there no meaning in its being said that “whatsoever is not of faith is sin?” (Rom. 14: 23;) or can good fruit be produced from a bad tree? What have these most pestilential Sophists left to Christ on which to exert his virtue? They say that he merited for us the first grace, that is, the occasion of meriting, and that it is our part not to let slip the occasion thus offered. O the daring effrontery of impiety! Who would have thought that men professing the name of Christ would thus strip him of his power, and all but trample him under foot? The testimony uniformly borne to him in Scripture is that whose believeth in him is justified; the doctrine of these men is, that the only benefit which proceeds from him is to open up a way for each to justify himself. I wish they could get a taste of what is meant by these passages: “He that has the Son has life.” “He Hedthat hearth my word, and believeth on him that sent me,” “is passed from death unto life.” Whose believeth in him “is passed from death unto life.” “Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” “He that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him.” God “has raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ.” “Who has delivered us from the power of darkness, and has translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son.” There are similar passages without number. Their meaning is not, that by faith in Christ an opportunity is given us of procuring justifications or acquiring salvation, but that both are given us. Hence, so soon as you are ingrafted into Christ by faith, you are made a son of God, an heir of heaven, a partaker of righteousness, a possessor of life, and (the better to manifest the false tenets of these men) you have not obtained an opportunity of meriting, but all the merits of Christ, since they are communicated to you.

7. Roman theology understands neither Augustine nor Scripture

In this way the schools of Sorbonne, the parents of all heresies, have deprived us of justification by faith, which lies at the root of all godliness. They confess, indeed, in word, that men are justified by a formed faith, but they afterwards explain this to mean that of faith they have good works which avail to justification, so that they almost seem to use the term faith in mockery, because they were unable, without incurring great obloquy, to pass it in silence, seeing it is so often repeated by Scripture.

And yet not contented with this, they by the praise of good works transfer to man what they steal from God. And seeing that good works give little ground for exultation, and are not even properly called merits, if they are regarded as the fruits of divine grace, they derive them from the power of free-will; in other words extract oil out of stone. They deny not that the principal cause is in grace; but they contend that there is no exclusion of free-will through which all merit comes. This is the doctrine, not only of the later Sophists, but of Lombard their Pythagoras, (Sent. Lib. 2, Dist. 28,) who, in comparison of them, may be called sound and sober. It was surely strange blindness, while he had Augustine so often in his mouth, not to see how cautiously he guarded against ascribing a single particle of praise to man because of good works. Above, when treating of free-will, we quoted some passages from him to this effect, and similar passages frequently occur in his writings, (see in Psal. 104; Ep. 105,) as when he forbids us ever to boast of our merits, because they themselves also are the gifts of God, and when he says that all our merits are only of grace, are not provided by our sufficiency, but are entirely the production of grace, &c.

It is less strange that Lombard was blind to the light of Scripture, in which it is obvious that he had not been a very successful student. Still there cannot be a stronger declaration against him and his disciples than the words of the Apostles who, after interdicting all Christians from glorying, subjoins the reason why glorying is unlawful: “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them,” (Eph. 2: 10.) Seeing, then, that no good proceeds from us unless in so far as we are regenerated—and our regeneration is without exception wholly of God—there is no ground for claiming to ourselves one iota in good works.

Lastly, while these men constantly inculcate good works, they, at the same time, train the conscience in such a way as to prevent it from venturing to confide that works will render God favorable and propitious. We, on the contrary, without any mention of merit, give singular comfort to believers when we teach them that in their works they please, and doubtless are accepted of God. Nay, here we even insist that no man shall attempt or enter upon any work without faith, that is, unless he previously have a firm conviction that it will please God.

8. Admonition and comfort on the basis of right doctrine

Wherefore, let us never on any account allow ourselves to be drawn away one nail’s breadth from that only foundation. After it is laid, wise architects build upon it rightly and in order.

For whether there is need of doctrine or exhortation, they remind us that “for this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil;” that “whosoever is born of God does not commit sin;” that “the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles;” that the elect of God are vessels of mercy, appointed “to honor,” purged, “sanctified, and meet for the Master’s use, and prepared unto every good work.” The whole is expressed at once, when Christ thus describes his disciples, “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.” He who has denied himself has cut off the root of all evils so as no longer to seek his own; he who has taken up his cross has prepared himself for all meekness and endurance. The example of Christ includes this and all offices of piety and holiness. He obeyed his Father even unto death; his whole life was spent in doing the works of God; his whole soul was intent on the glory of his Father; he laid down his life for the brethren; he did good to his enemies, and prayed for them.

And when there is need of comfort, it is admirably afforded in these words: “We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body.” “ For if we be dead with him we shall also live with him; if we suffer, we shall also reign with him;” by means of “the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;” the Father having predestinated us “to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren.” Hence it is, that “neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord;” nay, rather all things will work together for our good. See how it is that we do not justify men before God by works, but say, that all who are of God are regenerated and made new creatures, so that they pass from the kingdom of sin into the kingdom of righteousness. In this way they make their calling sure, and, like trees, are judged by their fruits.

CHAPTER 16. REFUTATION OF THE CALUMNIES BY WHICH IT IS ATTEMPTED TO THROW ODIUM ON THIS DOCTRINE.

The divisions of this chapter are, -

I. The calumnies of the Papists against the orthodox doctrine of Justification by Faith are reduced to two classes. The first class, with its consequences, refuted, sec. 1-3.

II. The second class, which is dependent on the first, refuted in the last section.

Sections.

1. Calumnies of the Papists.

1. That we destroy good works, and give encouragement to sin.

Refutation of the first calumny.

1. Character of those who censure us.

2. Justification by faith establishes the necessity of good works.

2. Refutation of a consequent of the former calumny, viz., that men are dissuaded from well-doing when we destroy merit. Two modes of refutation. First mode confirmed by many invincible arguments.

3. The Apostles make no mention of merit, when they exhort us to good works. On the contrary, excluding merit, they refer us entirely to the mercy of God. Another mode of refutation.

4. Refutation of the second calumny and of an inference from it, viz., that the obtaining righteousness is made too easy, when it is made to consist in the free remission of sins.

1. Does the doctrine of justification do away with good works?

Our last sentence may refute the impudent calumny of certain ungodly men, who charge us, first, with destroying good works and leading men away from the study of them, when we say, that men are not justified, and do not merit salvation by works; and, secondly, with making the means of justification too easy, when we say that it consists in the free remission of sins, and thus alluring men to sin to which they are already too much inclined. These calumnies, I say, are sufficiently refuted by that one sentence; however, I will briefly reply to both. The allegation is that justification by faith destroys good works.

I will not describe what kind of zealots for good works the persons are who thus charge us. We leave them as much liberty to bring the charge, as they take license to taint the whole world with the pollution of their lives. They pretend to lament, that when faith is so highly extolled works are deprived of their proper place. But what if they are rather ennobled and established? We dream not of a faith which is devoid of good works, nor of a justification which can exist without them: the only difference is, that while we acknowledge that faith and works are necessarily connected, we, however, place justification in faith, not in works. How this is done is easily explained, if we turn to Christ only, to whom our faith is directed and from whom it derives all its power.

Why, then, are we justified by faith? Because by faith we apprehend the righteousness of Christ, which alone reconciles us to God. This faith, however, you cannot apprehend without at the same time apprehending sanctification; for Christ “is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption,” (1 Cor. 1: 30.) Christ, therefore, justifies no man without also sanctifying him. These blessings are conjoined by a perpetual and inseparable tie. Those whom he enlightens by his wisdom he redeems; whom he redeems he justifies; whom he justifies he sanctifies.

But as the question relates only to justification and sanctification, to them let us confine ourselves. Though we distinguish between them, they are both inseparably comprehended in Christ. Would ye then obtain justification in Christ? You must previously possess Christ. But you cannot possess him without being made a partaker of his sanctification: for Christ cannot be divided. Since the Lord, therefore, does not grant us the enjoyment of these blessings without bestowing himself, he bestows both at once but never the one without the other. Thus it appears how true it is that we are justified not without, and yet not by works, since in the participation of Christ, by which we are justified, is contained not less sanctification than justification.

2. Does the doctrine of justification stifle zeal for good works?

It is also most untrue that men’s minds are withdrawn from the desire of well-doing when we deprive them of the idea of merit. Here, by the way, the reader must be told that those men absurdly infer merit from reward, as I will afterwards more clearly explain. They thus infer, because ignorant of the principle that God gives no less a display of his liberality when he assigns reward to works, than when he bestows the faculty of well-doing. This topic it will be better to defer to its own place.

At present, let it be sufficient merely to advert to the weakness of their objection. This may be done in two ways. For, first, they are altogether in error when they say that, unless a hope of reward is held forth, no regard will be had to the right conduct of life. For if all that men do when they serve God is to look to the reward, and hire out or sell their labour to him, little is gained: he desires to be freely worshipped, freely loved: I say he approves the worshipper who, even if all hope of reward were cut off, would cease not to worship him.

Moreover, when men are to be urged, there cannot be a stronger stimulus than that derived from the end of our redemption and calling, such as the word of God employs when it says, that it were the height of impiety and ingratitude not to “love him who first loved us;” that by “the blood of Christ” our conscience is purged “from dead works to serve the living God;” that it were impious sacrilege in any one to count “the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing;” that we have been “delivered out of the hands of our enemies,” that we “might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life;” that being “made free from sin,” we “become the servants of righteousness;” “that our old man is crucified with him,” in order that we might rise to newness of life. Again, “if ye then be risen with Christ, (as becomes his members,) seek those things which are above,” living as pilgrims in the world, and aspiring to heaven, where our treasure is. “The grace of God has appeared to all men, bringing salvation, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ.” “For God has not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.” “Know ye not that ye are the temples of the Holy Spirit,” which it were impious to profane? “Ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as the children of light.” “God has not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.” “For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain” from all illicit desires: ours is a “holy calling,” and we respond not to it except by purity of life. “Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.” Can there be a stronger argument in eliciting us to charity than that of John? “If God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.” “In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever does not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. Similar is the argument of Paul, “Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ?” “For as the body is one, and has many members, and all the members of that one body being many, are one body, so also is Christ.” Can there be a stronger incentive to holiness than when we are told by John, “Every man that has this hope in him purifieth himself; even as he is pure?” and by Paul, “Having, therefore, these promises, dearly beloved, cleanse yourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit;” or when we hear our Savior hold forth himself as an example to us that we should follow his steps?

3. God’s honor and God’s mercy as motives for action: subordination of works

I have given these few passages merely as a specimen; for were I to go over them all, I should form a large volume. All the Apostles abound in exhortations, admonitions and rebukes, for the purpose of training the man of God to every good work, and that without any mention of merit. Nay, rather their chief exhortations are founded on the fact, that without any merit of ours, our salvation depends entirely on the mercy of God. Thus Paul, who during a whole Epistle had maintained that there was no hope of life for us save in the righteousness of Christ, when he comes to exhortations beseeches us by the mercy which God has bestowed upon us, (Rom. 12: 1.) Andy indeed this one reason ought to have been sufficient, that God may be glorified in us. But if any are not so ardently desirous to promote the glory of God, still the remembrance of his kindness is most sufficient to incite them to do good, (see Chrysost. Homily. in Genes.) But those men, because, by introducing the idea of merit, they perhaps extract some forced and servile obedience of the Law, falsely allege, that as we do not adopt the same course, we have no means of exhorting to good works. As if God were well pleased with such services when he declares that he loves a cheerful giver, and forbids any thing to be given him grudgingly or of necessity, (2 Cor. 9: 7.)

I say not that I would reject that or omit any kind of exhortation which Scripture employs, its object being not to leave any method of animating us untried. For it states, that the recompense which God will render to every one is according to his deeds; but, first, I deny that that is the only, or, in many instances, the principal motive; and, secondly, I admit not that it is the motive with which we are to begin. Moreover, I maintain that it gives not the least countenance to those merits which these men are always preaching. This will afterwards be seen. Lastly, there is no use in this recompense, unless we have previously embraced the doctrine that we are justified solely by the merits of Christ as apprehended by faith, and not by any merit of works; because the study of piety can be fitly prosecuted only by those by whom this doctrine has been previously imbibed.

This is beautifully intimated by the Psalmist when he thus addresses God, “There is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared,” (Ps. 130: 4.) For he shows that the worship of God cannot exist without acknowledging his mercy, on which it is founded and established. This is specially deserving of notice, as showing us not only that the beginning of the due worship of God is confidence in his mercy; but that the fear of God (which Papists will have to be meritorious) cannot be entitled to the name of merit, for this reason, that it is founded on the pardon and remission of sins.

4. The doctrine of justification as incitement to the sinful

But the most futile calumny of all is, that men are invited to sin when we affirm that the pardon in which we hold that justification consists is gratuitous. Our doctrine is, that justification is a thing of such value, that it cannot be put into the balance with any good quality of ours; and, therefore, could never be obtained unless it were gratuitous: moreover, that it is gratuitous to us, but not also to Christ, who paid so dearly for it; namely his own most sacred blood, out of which there was no price of sufficient value to pay what was due to the justice of God. When men are thus taught they are reminded that it is owing to no merit of theirs that the shedding of that most sacred blood is not repeated every time they sin. Moreover, we say that our pollution is so great, that it can never be washed away save in the fountain of his pure blood. Must not those who are thus addressed conceive a greater horror of sin than if it were said to be wiped off by a sprinkling of good works? If they have any reverence for God, how can they, after being once purified, avoid shuddering at the thought of again wallowing in the mire, and as much as in them lies troubling and polluting the purity of this fountain? “I have washed my feet,” (says the believing soul in the Song of Solomon, 5: 3,) “how shall I defile them?”

It is now plain which of the two makes the forgiveness of sins of less value, and derogates from the dignity of justification. They pretend that God is appeased by their frivolous satisfactions; in other words, by mere dross. We maintain that the guilt of sin is too heinous to be so frivolously expiated; that the offense is too grave to be forgiven to such valueless satisfactions; and, therefore, that forgiveness is the prerogative of Christ’s blood alone. They say that righteousness, wherever it is defective, is renewed and repaired by works of satisfaction. We think it too precious to be balanced by any compensation of works, and, therefore, in order to restore it, recourse must be had solely to the mercy of God. For the other points relating to the forgiveness of sins, see the following chapter.

CHAPTER 17. THE PROMISES OF THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL RECONCILED.

In the following chapter, the arguments of Sophists, who would destroy or impair the doctrine of Justification by Faith, are reduced to two classes. The former is general, the latter special, and contains some arguments peculiar to itself.

I. The first class, which is general, and in a manner contains the foundation of all the arguments, draws an argument from the promises of the law. This is considered from sec. 1-3.

II. The second class following from the former, and containing special proofs. An argument drawn from the history of Cornelius explained, sec. 4, 5.

III. A full exposition of those passages of Scripture which represent God as showing mercy and favor to the cultivators of righteousness, sec. 6.

IV. A third argument from the passages which distinguish good works by the name of righteousness, and declare that men are justified by them, sec. 7, 8.

V. The adversaries of justification by faith placed in a dilemma. Their partial righteousness refuted, sec. 9, 10.

VI. A fourth argument, setting the Apostle James in opposition to Paul, considered, sec. 11, 12.

VII. Answer to a fifth argument, that, according to Paul, not the hearers but the doors of the law are justified, sec. 13.

VIII. Consideration of a sixth argument, drawn from those passages in which believers boldly submit their righteousness to the judgment of God, and ask him to decide according to it, sec. 14.

IX. Examination of the last argument, drawn from passages which ascribe righteousness and life to the ways of believers, sec. 15.

Sections.

1. Brief summary of Chapters 15 and 16. Why justification is denied to works. Argument of opponents founded on the promises of the law. The substance of this argument. Answer. Those who would be justified before God must be exempted from the power of the law. How this is done.

2. Confirmation of the answer ab impossibili, and from the testimony of an Apostle and of David.

3. Answer to the objection, by showing why these promises were given. Refutation of the sophistical distinction between the intrinsic value of works, and their value er parts.

4. Argument from the history of Cornelius. Answer, by distinguishing between two kinds of acceptance. Former kind. Sophistical objection refuted.

5. Latter kind. Plain from this distinction that Cornelius was accepted freely before his good works could be accepted. Similar explanations to be given of the passage in which God is represented as merciful and propitious to the cultivators of righteousness.

6. Exposition of these passages. Necessary to observe whether the promise is legal or evangelical. The legal promise always made under the condition that we “do,” the evangelical under the condition that we “believe.”

7. Argument from the passages which distinguish good works by the name of righteousness, and declare that man is justified by them. Answer to the former part of the argument respecting the name. Why the works of the saints called works of righteousness. Distinction to be observed.

8. Answer to the second part of the argument, viz., that man is justified by works. Works of no avail by themselves; we are justified by faith only. This kind of righteousness defined. Whence the value set on good works.

9. Answer confirmed and fortified by a dilemma.

10. In what sense the partial imperfect righteousness of believers accepted. Conclusion of the refutation.

11. Argument founded on the Epistle of James. First answer. One Apostle cannot be opposed to another. Second answer. Third answer, from the scope of James. A double paralogism in the term Faith. In James the faith said not to justify is a mere empty opinion; in Paul it is the instrument by which we apprehend Christ our righteousness.

12. Another paralogism on the word justify. Paul speaks of the cause, James of the effects, of justification. Sum of the discussion.

13. Argument founded on Rom. 2:13. Answer, explaining the Apostles meaning. Another argument, containing a reduction ad impossibili. Why Paul used the argument.

14. An argument founded on the passages in which believers confidently appeal to their righteousness. Answer, founded on a consideration of two circumstances.

1. They refer only to a special cause.

2. They claim righteousness in comparison with the wicked.

15. Last argument from those passages which ascribe righteousness and life to the ways of believers. Answer. This proceeds from the paternal kindness of God. What meant by the perfection of saints.

(Works as related to the law: the instance of Cornelius, 1-5)

1. Scholastic arguments stated and confuted

Let us now consider the other arguments which Satan by his satellites invents to destroy or impair the doctrine of Justification by Faith. I think we have already put it out of the power of our calumniators to treat us as if we were the enemies of good works—justification being denied to works not in order that no good works may be done or that those which are done may be denied to be good; but only that we may not trust or glory in them, or ascribe salvation to them. Our only confidence and boasting, our only anchor of salvation is, that Christ the Son of God is ours, and that we are in him sons of God and heirs of the heavenly kingdom, being called, not by our worth, but the kindness of God, to the hope of eternal blessedness.

But since, as has been said, they assail us with other engines, let us now proceed to demolish them also. First, they recur to the legal promises which the Lord proclaimed to the observers of the law, and they ask us whether we hold them to be null or effectual. Since it were absurd and ridiculous to say they are null, they take it for granted that they have some efficacy. Hence they infer that we are not justified by faith only. For the Lord thus speaks: “Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep and do them, that the Lord thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers; and he will love thee, and bless thee and multiply thee,” (Deut. 7: 12, 13.) Again, “If ye thoroughly amend your ways and your doings; if ye thoroughly execute judgment between a man and his neighbor; if ye oppress not the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place, neither walk after other gods to your hurt: then will I cause you to dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers, for ever and ever,” (Jer. 7: 5-7.) It were to no purpose to quote a thousand similar passages, which, as they are not different in meaning, are to be explained on the same principle. In substance, Moses declares that in the law is set down “a blessing and a curse,” life and death, (Deut. 11: 26;) and hence they argue, either that that blessing is become inactive and unfruitful, or that justification is not by faith only.

We have already shown, that if we cleave to the law we are devoid of every blessing, and have nothing but the curse denounced on all transgressors. The Lord does not promise any thing except to the perfect observers of the law; and none such are any where to be found. The results therefore is that the whole human race is convicted by the law, and exposed to the wrath and curse of God: to be saved from this they must escape from the power of the law, and be as it were brought out of bondage into freedom,—not that carnal freedom which indisposes us for the observance of the law, tends to licentiousness, and allows our passions to wanton unrestrained with loosened reins; but that spiritual freedom which consoles and raises up the alarmed and smitten conscience, proclaiming its freedom from the curse and condemnation under which it was formerly held bound. This freedom from subjection to the law, this manumission, if I may so express it, we obtain when by faith we apprehend the mercy of God in Christ, and are thereby assured of the pardon of sins, with a consciousness of which the law stung and tortured us.

2. We cannot bring the promises of the law to fulfillment through our works

For this reason, the promises offered in the law would all be null and ineffectual, did not God in his goodness send the gospel to our aid, since the condition on which they depend, and under which only they are to be performed, viz., the fulfillment of the law, will never be accomplished. Still, however the aid which the Lord gives consists not in leaving part of justification to be obtained by works, and in supplying part out of his indulgence, but in giving us Christ as in himself alone the fulfillment of righteousness. For the Apostle, after premising that he and the other Jews, aware that “a man is not justified by the works of the law,” had “believed in Jesus Christ,” adds as the reason, not that they might be assisted to make up the sum of righteousness by faith in Christ, but that they “might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law,” (Gal. 2: 16.) If believers withdraw from the law to faith, that in the latter they may find the justification which they see is not in the former, they certainly disclaim justification by the law. Therefore, whose will, let him amplify the rewards which are said to await the observer of the law, provided he at the same time understand, that owing to our depravity, we derive no benefit from them until we have obtained another righteousness by faith. Thus David after making mention of the reward which the Lord has prepared for his servants, (Ps. 25 almost throughout,) immediately descends to an acknowledgment of sins, by which the reward is made void. In Psalm 19, also, he loudly extols the benefits of the law; but immediately exclaims, “Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults,” (Ps. 19: 12.) This passage perfectly accords with the former, when, after saying, “the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies,” he adds, “For thy name’s sake, O Lord, pardon mine iniquity: for it is great,” (Ps. 25: 10, 11.) Thus, too, we ought to acknowledge that the favor of God is offered to us in the law, provided by our works we can deserve it; but that it never actually reaches us through any such desert.

3. The promises of the law are put into effect through the gospel

What then? Were the promises given that they might vanish away without fruit? I lately declared that this is not my opinion. I say, indeed, that their efficacy does not extend to us so long as they have respect to the merit of works, and, therefore, that, considered in themselves, they are in some sense abolished. Hence the Apostle shows, that the celebrated promise, “Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them,” (Levit. 18: 5; Ezek. 20: 10,) will, if we stop at it, be of no avail, and will profit us not a whit more than if it were not given, being inaccessible even to the holiest servants of God, who are all far from fulfilling the law, being encompassed with many infirmities. But when the gospel promises are substituted, promises which announce the free pardon of sins, the result is not only that our persons are accepted of God, but his favor also is shown to our works, and that not only in respect that the Lord is pleased with them, but also because he visits them with the blessings which were due by agreement to the observance of his law. I admit, therefore, that the works of the faithful are rewarded with the promises which God gave in his law to the cultivators of righteousness and holiness; but in this reward we should always attend to the cause which procures favor to works.

This cause, then, appears to be threefold. First, God turning his eye away from the works of his servants which merit reproach more than praise, embraces them in Christ, and by the intervention of faith alone reconciles them to himself without the aid of works. Secondly the works not being estimated by their own worth, he, by his fatherly kindness and indulgence, honors so far as to give them some degree of value. Thirdly, he extends his pardon to them, not imputing the imperfection by which they are all polluted, and would deserve to be regarded as vices rather than virtues.

Hence it appears how much Sophists were deluded in thinking they admirably escaped all absurdities when they said, that works are able to merit salvation, not from their intrinsic worth, but according to agreement, the Lord having, in his liberality, set this high value upon them. But, meanwhile, they observed not how far the works which they insisted on regarding as meritorious must be from fulfilling the condition of the promises, were they not preceded by a justification founded on faith alone, and on forgiveness of sins—a forgiveness necessary to cleanse even good works from their stains. Accordingly, of the three causes of divine liberality to which it is owing that good works are accepted, they attended only to one: the other two, though the principal causes, they suppressed.

4. The twofold acceptance of man before God

They quote the saying of Peter as given by Luke in the Acts, “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him” (Acts 10: 34, 35.) And hence they infer, as a thing which seems to them beyond a doubt, that if man by right conduct procures the favor of God, his obtaining salvation is not entirely the gift of God. Nay, that when God in his mercy assists the sinner, he is inclined to mercy by works.

There is no way of reconciling the passages of Scripture, unless you observe that man’s acceptance with God is twofold.

As man is by nature, God finds nothing in him which can incline him to mercy, except merely big wretchedness. If it is clear then that man, when God first interposes for him, is naked and destitute of all good, and, on the other hand, loaded and filled with all kinds of evil,—for what quality, pray, shall we say that he is worthy of the heavenly kingdom? Where God thus clearly displays free mercy, have done with that empty imagination of merit. Another passage in the same book, viz., where Cornelius hears from the lips of an angel, “Thy prayer and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God,” (Acts 10: 4,) is miserably wrested to prove that man is prepared by the study of good works to receive the favor of God. Cornelius being endued with true wisdom, in other words, with the fear of God, must have been enlightened by the Spirit of wisdom, and being an observer of righteousness, must have been sanctified by the same Spirit; righteousness being, as the Apostle testifies, one of the most certain fruits of the Spirit, (Gal. 5: 5.) Therefore, all those qualities by which he is said to have pleased God he owed to divine grace: so far was he from preparing himself by his own strength to receive it. Indeed, not a syllable of Scripture can be produced which does not accord with the doctrine, that the only reason why God receives man into his favor is, because he sees that he is in every respect lost when left to himself; lost, if he does not display his mercy in delivering him. We now see that in thus accepting, God looks not to the righteousness of the individual, but merely manifests the divine goodness towards miserable sinners, who are altogether undeserving of this great mercy.

5. In what sense the Lord is pleased with the good works of the regenerate

But after the Lord has withdrawn the sinner from the abyss of perdition, and set him apart for himself by means of adoption, having begotten him again and formed him to newness of life, he embraces him as a new creature, and bestows the gifts of his Spirit. This is the acceptance to which Peter refers, and by which believers after their calling are approved by God even in respect of works; for the Lord cannot but love and delight in the good qualities which he produces in them by means of his Spirit. But we must always bear in mind, that the only way in which men are accepted of God in respect of works is, that whatever good works he has conferred upon those whom he admits to favor, he by an increase of liberality honors with his acceptance. For whence their good works, but just that the Lord having chosen them as vessels of honor, is pleased to adorn them with true purity? And how are their actions deemed good as if there was no deficiency in them, but just that their merciful Father indulgently pardons the spots and blemishes which adhere to them? In one word, the only meaning of acceptance in this passage is, that God accepts and takes pleasure in his children, in whom he sees the traces and lineaments of his own countenance. We have else here said, that regeneration is a renewal of the divine image in us. Since God, therefore, whenever he beholds his own face, justly loves it and holds it in honor, the life of believers, when formed to holiness and justice, is said, not without cause, to be pleasing to him.

But because believers, while encompassed with mortal flesh, are still sinners, and their good works only begun savor of the corruption of the flesh, God cannot be propitious either to their persons or their works, unless he embraces them more in Christ than in themselves. In this way are we to understand the passages in which God declares that he is clement and merciful to the cultivators of righteousness. Moses said to the Israelites, “Know, therefore, that the Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations.” These words afterwards became a common form of expression among the people. Thus Solomon in his prayer at the dedication says, “Lord God of Israel, there is no God like thee, in heaven above, or on earth beneath, who keepest covenant and mercy with thy servants that walk before thee with all their heart,” (1 Kings 8: 23.) The same words are repeated by Nehemiah, (Neh. 1: 5.)

As the Lord in all covenants of mercy stipulates on his part for integrity and holiness of life in his servants, (Deut. 29: 18,) lest his goodness might be held in derision, or any one, puffed up with exultation in it, might speak flatteringly to his soul while walking in the depravity of his heart, so he is pleased that in this way those whom he admits to communion in the covenant should be kept to their duty. Still, however, the covenant was gratuitous at first, and such it ever remains. Accordingly, while David declares, “according to the cleanness of my hands has he recompensed me,” yet does he not omit the fountain to which I have referred; “he delivered me, because he delighted in me,” (2 Sam. 22: 20, 21.) In commending the goodness of his cause, he derogates in no respect from the free mercy which takes precedence of all the gifts of which it is the origin.

(Passages that relate justification to works examined, 6-15)

6. The promises of grace of the Old Covenant as distinct from the promises of the law

Here, by the way, it is of importance to observe how those forms of expression differ from legal promises. By legal promises, I mean not those which lie scattered in the books of Moses, (for there many Evangelical promises occur,) but those which properly belong to the legal dispensation. All such promises, by whatever name they may be called, are made under the condition that the reward is to be paid on the things commanded being done.

But when it is said that the Lord keeps a covenant of mercy with those who love him, the words rather demonstrate what kind of servants those are who have sincerely entered into the covenant, than express the reason why the Lord blesses them. The nature of the demonstration is this: As the end for which God bestows upon us the gift of eternal life is, that he may be loved, feared, and worshipped by us, so the end of all the promises of mercy contained in Scripture justly is that we may reverence and serve their author. Therefore, whenever we hear that he does good to those that observe his law, let us remember that the sons of God are designated by the duty which they ought perpetually to observe, that his reason for adopting us is, that we may reverence him as a father. Hence, if we would not deprive ourselves of the privilege of adoption, we must always strive in the direction of our calling.

On the other hand, however, let us remember, that the completion of the Divine mercy depends not on the works of believers, but that God himself fulfill the promise of salvation to those who by right conduct correspond to their calling, because he recognizes the true badges of sons in those only who are directed to good by his Spirit. To this we may refer what is said of the members of the Church, “Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart,” &c., (Ps. 15: 1, 2.) Again, in Isaiah, “Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings? He that walketh righteously,” &c., (Isa. 33: 14, 15.) For the thing described is not the strength with which believers can stand before the Lord, but the manner in which our most merciful Father introduces them into his fellowship, and defends and confirms them therein. For as he detests sin and loves righteousness, so those whom he unites to himself he purifies by his Spirit, that he may render them conformable to himself and to his kingdom. Therefore, if it be asked, What is the first cause which gives the saints free access to the kingdom of God, and a firm and permanent footing in it? the answer is easy. The Lord in his mercy once adopted and ever defends them. But if the question relates to the manner, we must descend to regeneration, and the fruits of it, as enumerated in the fifteenth Psalm.

7. Does not Scripture speak of the “righteousness” of the works of the law?

There seems much more difficulty in those passages which distinguish good works by the name of righteousness, and declare that man is justified by them. The passages of the former class are very numerous, as when the observance of the commandments is termed justification or righteousness. Of the other classes we have a description in the words of Moses, “It shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments,” (Deut. 6: 25.) But if you object, that it is a legal promise, which, having an impossible condition annexed to it, proves nothing, there are other passages to which the same answer cannot be made; for instance, “If the man be poor,” “thou shalt deliver him the pledge again when the sun goes down:” “and it shall be righteousness unto thee before the Lord thy God,” (Deut. 24: 13.) Likewise the words of the prophet, “Then stood up Phinehas, and executed judgment: and so the plague was stayed. And that was counted unto him for righteousness unto all generations for evermore,” (Psal. 106: 30,, 31.)

Accordingly the Pharisees of our day think they have here full scope for exultation. For, as we say, that when justification by faith is established, justification by works falls; they argue on the same principle, If there is a justification by works, it is false to say that we are justified by faith only.

When I grant that the precepts of the law are termed righteousness, I do nothing strange: for they are so in reality. I must, however, inform the reader, that the Hebrew word “chukim” has been rendered by the Septuagint, not very appropriately, “dikaiomata”, justifications, instead of edicts. But I readily give up any dispute as to the word.

Nor do I deny that the Law of God contains a perfect righteousness. For although we are debtors to do all the things which it enjoins, and, therefore, even after a full obedience, are unprofitable servants; yet, as the Lord has deigned to give it the name of righteousness, it is not ours to take from it what he has given. We readily admit, therefore, that the perfect obedience of the law is righteousness, and the observance of any precept a part of righteousness, the whole substance of righteousness being contained in the remaining parts. But we deny that any such righteousness ever exists. Hence we discard the righteousness of the law, not as being in itself maimed and defective, but because of the weakness of our flesh it nowhere appears.

But then Scripture does not merely call the precepts of the law righteousness, it also gives this name to the works of the saints: as when it states that Zacharias and his wife “were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless,” (Luke 1: 6.) Surely when it thus speaks, it estimates works more according to the nature of the law than their own proper character. And here, again, I must repeat the observation which I lately made, that the law is not to be ascertained from a careless translation of the Greek interpreter. Still, as Luke chose not to make any change on the received version, I will not contend for this. The things contained in the law God enjoined upon man for righteousness but that righteousness we attain not unless by observing the whole law: every transgression whatever destroys it. While, therefore, the law commands nothing but righteousness, if we look to itself, every one of its precepts is righteousness: if we look to the men by whom they are performed, being transgressors in many things, they by no means merit the praise of righteousness for one work, and that a work which, through the imperfection adhering to it, is always in some respect vicious.

8. Twofold value of work before God

I come to the second class, (sec. 1, 7, ad init.,) in which the chief difficulty lies. Paul finds nothing stronger to prove justification by faith than that which is written of Abraham, he “believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness,” (Rom. 4: 3; Gal. 3: 6.) Therefore, when it is said that the achievement of Phinehas “was counted unto him for righteousness,” (Psal. 106: 30, Al,) we may argue that what Paul contends for respecting faith applies also to works. Our opponents, accordingly, as if the point were proved, set it down that though we are not justified without faith, it is not by faith only; that our justification is completed by works. Here I beseech believers, as they know that the true standard of righteousness must be derived from Scripture alone, to consider with me seriously and religiously, how Scripture can be fairly reconciled with that view.

Paul, knowing that justification by faith was the refuge of those who wanted righteousness of their own, confidently infers, that all who are justified by faith are excluded from the righteousness of works. But as it is clear that this justification is common to all believers, he with equal confidence infers that no man is justified by works; nay, more, that justification is without any help from works. But it is one thing to determine what power works have in themselves, and another to determine what place they are to hold after justification by faith has been established.

If a price is to be put upon works according to their own worth, we hold that they are unfit to appear in the presence of God: that man, accordingly, has no works in which he can glory before God, and that hence, deprived of all aid from works, he is justified by faith alone. Justification, moreover, we thus define: The sinner being admitted into communion with Christ is, for his sake, reconciled to God; when purged by his blood he obtains the remission of sins, and clothed with righteousness, just as if it were his own, stands secure before the judgment-seat of heaven.

Forgiveness of sins being previously given, the good works which follow have a value different from their merit, because whatever is imperfect in them is covered by the perfection of Christ, and all their blemishes and pollutions are wiped away by his purity, so as never to come under the cognizance of the divine tribunal. The guilt of all transgressions, by which men are prevented from offering God an acceptable service, being thus effaced, and the imperfection which is wont to sully even good works being buried, the good works which are done by believers are deemed righteous, or; which is the same thing, are imputed for righteousness.

9. Justification by faith is the basis of works righteousness

Now, should any one state this to me as an objection to justification by faith, I would first ask him, Whether a man is deemed righteous for one holy work or two, while in all the other acts of his life lie is a transgressor of the law? This were, indeed, more than absurd. I would next ask, Whether he is deemed righteous on account of many good works if he is guilty of transgression in some one part? Even this he will not venture to maintain in opposition to the authority of the law, which pronounces, “Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them,” (Deut. 27: 26.) I would go still farther and ask, Whether there be any work which may not justly be convicted of impurity or imperfection? How, then, will it appear to that eye before which even the heavens are not clean, and angels are chargeable with folly? (Job 4: 18.) Thus he will be forced to confess that no good work exists that is not defiled, both by contrary transgression and also by its own corruption, so that it cannot be honored as righteousness. But if it is certainly owing to justification by faith that works, otherwise impure, unclean, defective, unworthy of the sight, not to say of the love of God, are imputed for righteousness, why do they by boasting of this imputation aim at the destruction of that justification, but for which the boast were vain?

Are they desirous of having a viper’s birth? To this their ungodly language tends. They cannot deny that justification by faith is the beginning, the foundation, the cause, the subject, the substance, of works of righteousness, and yet they conclude that justification is not by faith, because good works are counted for righteousness.

Let us have done then with this frivolity, and confess the fact as it stands; if any righteousness which works are supposed to possess depends on justification by faith, this doctrine is not only not impaired, but on the contrary confirmed, its power being thereby more brightly displayed. Nor let us suppose, that after free justification works are commended, as if they afterwards succeeded to the office of justifying, or shared the office with faith. For did not justification by faith always remain entire, the impurity of works would be disclosed. There is nothing absurd in the doctrine, that though man is justified by faith, he is himself not only not righteous, but the righteousness attributed to his works is beyond their own deserts.

10. Works acceptable only when sins have been pardoned

In this way we can admit not only that there is a partial righteousness in works, (as our adversaries maintain,) but that they are approved by God as if they were absolutely perfect. If we remember on what foundation this is rested, every difficulty will be solved. The first time when a work begins to be acceptable is when it is received with pardon. And whence pardon, but just because God looks upon us and all that belongs to us as in Christ? Therefore, as we ourselves when ingrafted into Christ appear righteous before God, because our iniquities are covered with his innocence; so our works are, and are deemed righteous, because every thing otherwise defective in them being buried by the purity of Christ is not imputed. Thus we may justly say, that not only ourselves, but our works also, are justified by faith alone. Now, if that righteousness of works, whatever it be, depends on faith and free justification, and is produced by it, it ought to be included under it and, so to speak, made subordinate to it, as the effect to its cause; so far is it from being entitled to be set up to impair or destroy the doctrine of justification.

Thus Paul, to prove that our blessedness depends not on our works, but on the mercy of God, makes special use of the words of David, “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered;” “Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity.” Should any one here obtrude the numberless passages in which blessedness seems to be attributed to works, as, “Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord;” “He that has mercy on the poor, happy is he;” “Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly,” and “that endureth temptation;” “Blessed are they that keep judgment,” that are “pure in heart,” “meek,” “merciful,” &c., they cannot make out that Paul’s doctrine is not true. For seeing that the qualities thus extolled never all so exist in man as to obtain for him the approbation of God, it follows, that man is always miserable until he is exempted from misery by the pardon of his sins. Since, then, all the kinds of blessedness extolled in the Scripture are vain so that man derives no benefit from them until he obtains blessedness by the forgiveness of sins, a forgiveness which makes way for them, it follows that this is not only the chief and highest, but the only blessedness, unless you are prepared to maintain that it is impaired by things which owe their entire existence to it.

There is much less to trouble us in the name of righteous which is usually given to believers. I admit that they are so called from the holiness of their lives, but as they rather exert themselves in the study of righteousness than fulfill righteousness itself, any degree of it which they possess must yield to justification by faith, to which it is owing that it is what it is.

11. James against Paul?

But they say that we have a still more serious business with James, who in express terms opposes us. For he asks, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works?” and adds “You see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only,” (James 2: 21, 24.) What then? Will they engage Paul in a quarrel with James? If they hold James to be a servant of Christ, his sentiments must be understood as not dissenting from Christ speaking by the mouth of Paul. By the mouth of Paul the Spirit declares that Abraham obtained justification by faith, not by works; we also teach that all are justified by faith without the works of the law. By James the same Spirit declares that both Abraham’s justification and ours consists of works, and not of faith only. It is certain that the Spirit cannot be at variance with himself. Where, then, will be the agreement?

It is enough for our opponents, provided they can tear up that justification by faith which we regard as fixed by the deepest roots: to restore peace to the conscience is to them a matter of no great concern. Hence you may see, that though they indeed carp at the doctrine of justification by faith, they meanwhile point out no goal of righteousness at which the conscience may rest. Let them triumph then as they will, so long as the only victory they can boast of is, that they have deprived righteousness of all its certainty. This miserable victory they will indeed obtain when the light of truth is extinguished, and the Lord permits them to darken it with their lies. But wherever the truth of God stands they cannot prevail.

I deny, then, that the passage of James which they are constantly holding up before us as if it were the shield of Achilles, gives them the slightest countenance. To make this plain, let us first attend to the scope of the Apostle, and then show wherein their hallucination consists.

As at that time (and the evil has existed in the Church ever since) there were many who, while they gave manifest proof of their infidelity, by neglecting and omitting all the works peculiar to believers, ceased not falsely to glory in the name of faith, James here dissipates their vain confidence. His intention therefore is, not to derogate in any degree from the power of true faith, but to show how absurdly these triflers laid claim only to the empty name, and resting satisfied with it, felt secure in unrestrained indulgence in vice.

This state of matters being understood, it will be easy to see where the error of our opponents lies. They fall into a double paralogism, the one in the term faith, the other in the term justifying.

The Apostle, in giving the name of faith to an empty opinion altogether differing from true faith, makes a concession which derogates in no respect from his case. This he demonstrates at the outset by the words, “What does it profit, my brethren, though a man say he has faith, and have not works?” (James 2: 14.) He says not, “If a man have faith without works,” but “if he say that he has.” This becomes still clearer when a little after he derides this faith as worse than that of devils, and at last when he calls it “dead.” You may easily ascertain his meaning by the explanation, “Thou believest that there is one God.” Surely if a11 which is contained in that faith is a belief in the existence of God, there is no wonder that it does not justify. The denial of such a power to it cannot be supposed to derogate in any degree from Christian faith, which is of a very different description. For how does true faith justify unless by uniting us to Christ, so that being made one with him, we may be admitted to a participation in his righteousness? It does not justify because it forms an idea of the divine existence, but because it reclines with confidence on the divine mercy.

12. The word “justify” used by James in a sense different from Paul’s

We have not made good our point until we dispose of the other paralogism: since James places a part of justification in works. If you would make James consistent with the other Scriptures and with himself, you must give the word justify, as used by him, a different meaning from what it has with Paul. In the sense of Paul we are said to be justified when the remembrance of our unrighteousness is obliterated and we are counted righteous. Had James had the same meaning it would have been absurd for him to quote the words of Moses, “Abraham believed God,” &c. The context runs thus: “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness.” If it is absurd to say that the effect was prior to its cause, either Moses falsely declares in that passage that Abraham’s faith was imputed for righteousness or Abraham, by his obedience in offering up Isaac, did not merit righteousness. Before the existence of Ishmael, who was a grown youth at the birth of Isaac, Abraham was justified by his faith. How thee can we say that he obtained justification by an obedience which followed long after? Wherefore, either James erroneously inverts the proper order, (this it were impious to suppose,) or he meant not to say that he was justified, as if he deserved to be deemed just. What then? It appears certain that he is speaking of the manifestation, not of the imputation of righteousness, as if he had said, Those who are justified by true faith prove their justification by obedience and good works, not by a bare and imaginary semblance of faith. In one word, he is not discussing the mode of justification, but requiring that the justification of believers shall be operative. And as Paul contends that men are justified without the aid of works, so James will not allow any to be regarded as justified who are destitute of good works.

Due attention to the scope will thus disentangle every doubt; for the error of our opponents lies chiefly in this, that they think James is defining the mode of justification, whereas his only object is to destroy the depraved security of those who vainly pretended faith as an excuse for their contempt of good works. Therefore, let them twist the words of James as they may, they will never extract out of them more than the two propositions: That an empty phantom of faith does not justify, and that the believer, not contented with such an imagination, manifests his justification by good works.

13. Romans 2:13

They gain nothing by quoting from Paul to the same effect, that “not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified,” (Rom. 2: 13.) I am unwilling to evade the difficulty by the solution of Ambrose, that Paul spoke thus because faith in Christ is the fulfillment of the law. This I regard as a mere subterfuge, and one too for which there is no occasion, as the explanation is perfectly obvious. The Apostle’s object is to suppress the absurd confidence of the Jews who gave out that they alone had a knowledge of the law, though at the very time they where its greatest despisers. That they might not plume themselves so much on a bare acquaintance with the law, he reminds them that when justification is sought by the law, the thing required is not the knowledge but the observance of it. We certainly mean not to dispute that the righteousness of the law consists in works, and not only so, but that justification consists in the dignity and merits of works. But this proves not that we are justified by works unless they can produce some one who has fulfilled the law.

That Paul had no other meaning is abundantly obvious from the context. After charging Jews and Gentiles in common with unrighteousness, he descends to particulars and says, that “as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law,” referring to the Gentiles, and that “as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law,” referring to the Jews. Moreover, as they, winking at their transgressions, boasted merely of the law, he adds most appropriately, that the law was passed with the view of justifying not those who only heard it, but those only who obeyed it; as if he had said, Do you seek righteousness in the law? do not bring forward the mere hearing of it, which is in itself of little weight, but bring works by which you may show that the law has not been given to you in vain. Since in these they were all deficient, it followed that they had no ground of boasting in the law. Paul’s meaning, therefore, rather leads to an opposite argument. The righteousness of the law consists in the perfection of works; but no man can boast of fulfilling the law by works, and, therefore, there is no righteousness by the law.

14. What does it mean when before God believers appeal to their works?

They now retake themselves to those passages in which believers boldly submit their righteousness to the judgment of God, and wish to be judged accordingly; as in the following passages: “Judge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness, and according to mine integrity that is in me.” Again, “Hear the right, O Lord;” “Thou hast proved mine heart; thou hast visited me in the night; thou hast tried me, and shalt find nothing.” Again “The Lord regarded me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands has he recompensed me. For I have kept the ways of the Lord, and have not wickedly departed from my God.” “I was also upright before him, and I kept myself from mine iniquity.” Again, “Judge me, O Lord; for I have walked in mine integrity;” “I have not sat with vain persons; neither will I go in with dissemblers;” “Gather not my soul with sinners, nor my life with bloody men; in whose hands is mischief, and their right hand is full of bribes. But as for me, I will walk in mine integrity.”

I have already spoken of the confidence which the saints seem to derive simply from works. The passages now quoted will not occasion much difficulty, if we attend to their “peristasis”, their connection, or (as it is commonly called) special circumstances. These are of two kinds; for those who use them have no wish that their whole life should be brought to trial, so that they may be acquitted or condemned according to its tenor; all they wish is, that a decision should be given on the particular case; and even here the righteousness which they claim is not with reference to the divine perfection, but only by comparison with the wicked and profane.

When the question relates to justification, the thing required is not that the individual have a good ground of acquittal in regard to some particular matter, but that his whole life be in accordance with righteousness. But when the saints implore the divine justice in vindication of their innocence, they do not present themselves as free from fault, and in every respect blameless but while placing their confidence of salvation in the divine goodness only, and trusting that he will vindicate his poor when they are afflicted contrary to justice and equity, they truly commit to him the cause in which the innocent are oppressed.

And when they sist themselves with their adversaries at the tribunal of God, they pretend not to an innocence corresponding to the divine purity were inquiry strictly made, but knowing that in comparison of the malice, dishonesty, craft, and iniquity of their enemies, their sincerity justice, simplicity, and purity, are ascertained and approved by God, they dread not to call upon him to judge between them. Thus when David said to Saul, “The Lord render to every man his righteousness and his faithfulness,” (1 Sam. 26: 23,) he meant not that the Lord should examine and reward every one according to his deserts, but he took the Lord to witness how great his innocence was in comparison of Saul’s injustice. Paul, too, when he indulges in the boast, “Our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward,” (2 Cor. 1: 12,) means not to call for the scrutiny of God, but compelled by the calumnies of the wicked he appeals, in contradiction of all their slanders, to his faith and probity, which he knew that God had indulgently accepted. For we see how he elsewhere says, “I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified,” (1 Cor. 4: 4;) in other words, he was aware that the divine judgment far transcended the blind estimate of man. Therefore, however believers may, in defending their integrity against the hypocrisy of the ungodly, appeal to God as their witness and judge, still when the question is with God alone, they all with one mouth exclaim, “If thou, Lord, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?” Again, “Enter not into judgment with thy servant; for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.” Distrusting their own words, they gladly exclaim, “Thy loving-kindness is better than life,” (Ps. 130:3; 143:2; 63:3.)

15. Perfection of believers?

There are other passages not unlike those quoted above, at which some may still demur. Solomon says, “The just man walketh in his integrity,” (Prov. 20: 7.) Again, “In the way of righteousness is life; and in the pathway thereof there is no death,” (Prov. 12: 28.) For this reason Ezekiel says, He that “has walked in my statutes, and has kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live,” (Ezek. 18: 9, 21; 23: 15.) None of these declarations do we deny or obscure. But let one of the sons of Adam come forward with such integrity. If there is none, they must perish from the presence of God, or retake themselves to the asylum of mercy.

Still we deny not that the integrity of believers, though partial and imperfect, is a step to immortality. How so, but just that the works of those whom the Lord has assumed into the covenant of grace, he tries not by their merit, but embraces with paternal indulgence. By this we understand not with the Schoolmen, that works derive their value from accepting grace. For their meaning is, that works otherwise unfit to obtain salvation in terms of law, are made fit for such a purpose by the divine acceptance. On the other hand, I maintain that these works being sullied both by other transgressions and by their own deficiencies, have no other value than this, that the Lord indulgently pardons them; in other words, that the righteousness which he bestows on man is gratuitous.

Here they unseasonably obtrude those passages in which the Apostle prays for all perfection to believers, “To the end he may establish your hearts unblamable in holiness before God, even our Father,” (1 Thess. 3: 13, and elsewhere.) These words were strongly urged by the Celestines of old, in maintaining the perfection of holiness in the present life. To this we deem it sufficient briefly to reply with Augustine, that the goal to which all the pious ought to aspire is, to appear in the presence of God without spot and blemish; but as the course of the present life is at best nothing more than progress, we shall never reach the goal until we have laid aside the body of sin, and been completely united to the Lord. If any one choose to give the name of perfection to the saints, I shall not obstinately quarrel with him, provided he defines this perfection in the words of Augustine, “When we speak of the perfect virtue of the saints, part of this perfection consists in the recognition of our imperfection both in truth and in humility,” (August. ad Bonif. lib. 3, c. 7.)

CHAPTER 18. THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF WORKS IMPROPERLY INFERRED FROM REWARDS.

There are three divisions in this chapter, -

I. A solution of two general objections which are urged in support of justification by works. First, That God will render to every one according to his works, sec. 1. Second, That the reward of works is called eternal, sec. 2-6.

II. Answer to other special objections derived from the former, and a perversion of passages of Scripture, sec. 6-9.

III. Refutation of the sophism that faith itself is called a work, and, therefore, justification by it is by works, sec. 10.

Sections.

1. Two general objections. The former solved and explained. What meant by the term working.

2. Solution of the second general objection.

1. Works not the cause of salvation. This shown from the name and nature of inheritance.

2. A striking example that the Lord rewards the works of believers with blessings which he had promised before the works were thought of.

3. First reason why eternal life said to be the reward of works. This confirmed by passages of Scripture. The concurrence of Ambrose. A rule to be observed. Declarations of Christ and an Apostle.

4. Other four reasons. Holiness the way to the kingdom, not the cause of obtaining it. Proposition of the Sophists.

5. Objection that God crowns the works of his people. Three answers from Augustine. A fourth from Scripture.

6. First special objection, viz., that we are ordered to lay up treasure in heaven. Answer, showing in what way this can be done.

7. Second objection, viz., that the righteous enduring affliction are said to be worthy of the kingdom of heaven. Answer. What meant by righteousness.

8. A third objection founded on three passages of Paul. Answer.

9. Fourth objection founded on our Savior’s words, “If ye would enter into life, keep the commandments.” Answer, giving an exposition of the passage.

10. Last objection, viz., that faith itself is called a work. Answer —it is not as a work that faith justifies.

(Passages referring to reward do not make works the cause of salvation, 1-4)

1. What does “recompense according to works” mean?

Let us now proceed to those passages which affirm that God will render to every one according to his deeds (Matt. 16:27). Of this description are the following: “We must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he has done, whether it be good or bad;"(II Cor. 5:10) “Who will render to every man according to his deeds: to them who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory, and honor, and immortality, eternal life;” but “tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that does evil;"(see Rom. 2:10,9 and John 5:29) “They that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation;” “Come, ye blessed of my Father;” “For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink,” &c (Matt. 25:34-35).

To these we may add the passages which describe eternal life as the reward of works, such as the following: “The recompense of a man’s hands shall be rendered unto him;"(Prov. 12:14, conflated with Isa. 3:11) “He that feareth the commandment shall be rewarded;"(Prov. 13:13) “Rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven;"(Matt. 5:12, Luke 6:23) “Every man shall receive his own rewards according to his own labour” (I Cor. 3:8).

The passages in which it is said that God will reward every man according to his works are easily disposed of (Rom. 2:6). For that mode of expression indicates not the cause but the order of sequence. Now, it is beyond a doubt that the steps by which the Lord in his mercy consummates our salvation are these, “Whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified” (Rom. 8: 30.) But though it is by mercy alone that God admits his people to life, yet as he leads them into possession of it by the course of good works, that he may complete his work in them in the order which he has destined, it is not strange that they are said to be crowned according to their works, since by these doubtless they are prepared for receiving the crown of immortality. Nay, for this reason they are aptly said to work out their own salvation, (Phil. 2: 12,) while by exerting themselves in good works they aspire to eternal life, just as they are elsewhere told to labour for the meat which perisheth not, (John 6: 27,) while they acquire life for themselves by believing in Christ; and yet it is immediately added, that this meat “the Son of man shall give unto you.” Hence it appears, that working is not at all opposed to grace, but refers to pursuit, and, therefore, it follows not that believers are the authors of their own salvation, or that it is the result of their works. What then? The moment they are admitted to fellowship with Christ, by the knowledge of the gospel, and the illumination of the Holy Spirit, their eternal life is begun, and then He which has begun a good work in them “will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ,” (Phil. 1: 6.) And it is performed when in righteousness and holiness they bear a resemblance to their heavenly Father, and prove that they are not degenerate sons.

2. Rewards as “inheritance”

There is nothing in the term reward to justify the inference that our works are the cause of salvation. First, let it be a fixed principle in our hearts, that the kingdom of heaven is not the hire of servants, but the inheritance of sons, (Eph. 1: 18;) an inheritance obtained by those only whom the Lord has adopted as sons, and obtained for no other cause than this adoption, “The son of the bond-women shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman,” (Gal. 4: 30.) And hence in those very passages in which the Holy Spirit promises eternal glory as the reward of works, by expressly calling it an inheritance, he demonstrates that it comes to us from some other quarter. Thus Christ enumerates the works for which he bestows heaven as a recompense, while he is calling his elect to the possession of it, but he at the same time adds, that it is to be possessed by right of inheritance, (Matth. 25: 34.) Paul, too, encourages servants, while faithfully doing their duty, to hope for reward from the Lord, but adds, “of the inheritance,” (Col. 3: 24.) You see how, as it were, in formal terms they carefully caution us to attribute eternal blessedness not to works, but to the adoption of God.

Why, then, do they at the same time make mention of works? This question will be elucidated by an example from Scripture, (Gen. 15: 5; 17: 1.) Before the birth of Isaac, Abraham had received promise of a seed in whom all the families of the earth should be blessed; the propagation of a seed that for number should equal the stars of heaven, and the sand of the sea, &c. Many years after he prepares, in obedience to a divine message, to sacrifice his son. Having done this act of obedience, he receives the promise, “By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son; that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea-shore, and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed my voice,” (Gen. 22: 16-18.) What is it we hear? Did Abraham by his obedience merit the blessing which had been promised him before the precept was given? Here assuredly we see without ambiguity that God rewards the works of believers with blessings which he had given them before the works were thought of, there still being no cause for the blessings which he bestows but his own mercy.

3. Reward as grace

And yet the Lord does not act in vain, or delude us when he says, that he renders to works what he had freely given previous to works. As he would have us to be exercised in good works, while aspiring to the manifestation, or, if I may so speak, the fruition of the things which he has promised, and by means of them to hasten on to the blessed hope set before us in heaven, the fruit of the promises is justly ascribed to those things by which it is brought to maturity. Both things were elegantly expressed by the Apostle, when he told the Colossians to study the offices of charity, “for the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel,” (Col. 1: 5.) For when he says that the gospel informed them of the hope which was treasured up for them in heaven, he declares that it depends on Christ alone, and not at all upon works. With this accords the saying of Peter, that believers “are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation, ready to be revealed in the last time,” (1 Pet. 1: 5.) When he says that they strive on account of it, he intimates that believers must continue running during the whole course of their lives in order that they may attain it.

But to prevent us from supposing that the reward which is promised becomes a kind of merit, our Lord introduced a parable, in which he represented himself as a householder, who sent all the laborers whom he met to work in his vineyard, some at the first hour of the day, others at the second, others at the third, some even at the eleventh; at evening he paid them all alike. The interpretation of this parable is briefly and truly given by that ancient writer (whoever he was) who wrote the book De Vocatione Gentium, which goes under the name of Ambrose. I will give it in his words rather than my own: “By means of this comparison, our Lord represented the many various modes of calling as pertaining to grace alone, where those who were introduced into the vineyard at the eleventh hour and made equal to those who had toiled the whole day, doubtless represent the case of those whom the indulgence of God, to commend the excellence of grace, has rewarded in the decline of the day and the conclusion of life; not paying the price of labor, but shedding the riches of his goodness on those whom he chose without works; in order that even those who bore the heat of the day, and yet received no more than those who came last, may understand that they received a gift of grace, not the hire of works,” (Pseudo-Ambrose, The Call of the Gentiles I. v(MPL 17.1091). The text of Prosper in MPL 51 does not contain these sentences. Cf.II.ii. 5, note 27.)

Lastly, it is also worthy of remark, that in those passages in which eternal life is called the reward of works, it is not taken simply for that communion which we have with God preparatory to a blessed immortality, when with paternal benevolence he embraces us in Christ, but for the possession, or, as it is called, the fruition of blessedness, as the very words of Christ express it, “in the world to come eternal life,” (Mark 10: 30,) and elsewhere, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom,” &c., (Matth. 25: 34.) For this reasons also, Paul gives the name of adoption to that revelation of adoption which shall be made at the resurrection; and which adoption he afterwards interprets to mean, the redemption of our body, (Rom. 8: 23.) But, otherwise, as alienation from God is eternal death,—so when man is received into favor by God that he may enjoy communion with him and become one with him, he passes from death unto life. This is owing to adoption alone. Although after their manner they pertinaciously urge the term reward, we can always carry them back to the declaration of Peter, that eternal life is the reward of faith, (1 Pet. 1: 9.)

4. The purpose of the promise of reward

Let us not suppose, then, that the Holy Spirit, by this promise, commends the dignity of our works, as if they were deserving of such a reward. For Scripture leaves us nothing of which we may glory in the sight of God. Nay, rather its whole object is to repress, humble, cast down, and completely crush our pride. But in this way help is given to our weakness, which would immediately give way were it not sustained by this expectation, and soothed by this comfort.

First, let every man reflect for himself how hard it is not only to leave all things, but to leave and abjure one’s self. And yet this is the training by which Christ initiates his disciples, that is, all the godly. Secondly, he thus keeps them all their lifetime under the discipline of the cross, lest they should allow their heart to long for or confide in present good. In short, his treatment is usually such, that wherever they turn their eyes, as far as this world extends, they see nothing before them but despair; and hence Paul says “If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable,” (1 Cor. 15: 19.) That they may not fail in these great straits, the Lord is present reminding them to lift their head higher and extend their view farther, that in him they may find a happiness which they see not in the world: to this happiness he gives the name of reward, hire, recompense, not as estimating the merit of works, but intimating that it is a compensation for their straits, sufferings, and affronts, &c. Wherefore, there is nothing to prevent us from calling eternal life a recompense after the example of Scripture, because in it the Lord brings his people from labour to quiet, from affliction to a prosperous and desirable condition, from sorrow to joy, from poverty to affluence, from ignominy to glory; in short, exchanges all the evils which they endured for blessings. Thus there will be no impropriety in considering holiness of life as the way, not indeed the way which gives access to the glory of the heavenly kingdom; but a way by which God conducts his elect to the manifestation of that kingdom, since his good pleasure is to glorify those whom he has sanctified, (Rom. 8: 30.)

Only let us not imagine that merit and hire are correlative terms, a point on which the Sophists absurdly insist, from not attending to the end to which we have adverted. How preposterous is it when the Lord calls us to one end to look to another? Nothing is clearer than that a reward is promised to good works, in order to support the weakness of our flesh by some degree of comfort; but not to inflate our minds with vain glory. He, therefore, who from merit infers reward, or weighs works and reward in the same balance, errs very widely from the end which God has in view.

(Answers to objections against this view, 5-10)

5. Reward rests upon forgiveness

Accordingly, when the Scripture speaks of “a crown of righteousness which God the righteous Judge shall give” “at that day,” (2 Tim. 4: 8,) I not only say with Augustine, “To whom could the righteous Judge give the crown if the merciful Father had not given grace, and how could there have been righteousness but for the precedence of grace which justified the ungodly? how could these be paid as things due were not things not due previously given?” (Angust. ad Valent. de Grat. et Lib. Art.;) but I also add, how could he impute righteousness to our works, did not his indulgence hide the unrighteousness that is in them? How could he deem them worthy of reward, did he not with boundless goodness destroy what is unworthy in them? Augustine is wont to give the name of grace to eternal life, because, while it is the recompense of works, it is bestowed by the gratuitous gifts of God. But Scripture humbles us more, and at the same time elevates us. For besides forbidding us to glory in works, because they are the gratuitous gifts of God, it tells us that they are always defiled by some degrees of impurity, so that they cannot satisfy God when they are tested by the standard of his justice; but that lest our activity should be destroyed, they please merely by pardon. But though Augustine speaks somewhat differently from us, it is plain from his words that the difference is more apparent than real. After drawing a contrast between two individuals the one with a life holy and perfect almost to a miracle; the other honest indeed, and of pure morals, yet not so perfect as not to leave much room for desiring better, he at length infers, “He who seems inferior in conduct, yet on account of the true faith in God by which he lives, (Hab. 2: 4,) and in conformity to which he accuses himself in all his faults, praises God in all his good works, takes shame to himself, and ascribes glory to God, from whom he receives both forgiveness for his sins, and the love of well-doing, the moment he is set free from this life is translated into the society of Christ. Why, but just on account of his faith? For though it saves no man without works, (such faith being reprobate and not working by love,) yet by means of it sins are forgiven; for the just lives by faith: without it works which seem good are converted into sins,” (August. ad Bonifac., Lib. 3, c. 5.) Here he not obscurely acknowledges what we so strongly maintains that the righteousness of good works depends on their being approved by God in the way of pardon.

6. On “treasures in heaven”

In a sense similar to the above passages our opponents quote the following: “Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations,” (Luke 16: 9.) “Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy: that they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life,” (1 Tim. 6: 17-19.) For the good works which we enjoy in eternal blessedness are compared to riches. I answer, that we shall never attain to the true knowledge of these passages unless we attend to the scope of the Spirit in uttering them. If it is true, as Christ says, “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also,” (Matth. 6: 21,) then, as the children of the world are intent on providing those things which form the delight of the present life, so it is the duty of believers, after they have learned that this life will shortly pass away like a dream, to take care that those things which they would truly enjoy be transmitted thither where their entire life is to be spent.

We must, therefore, do like those who begin to remove to any place where they mean to fix their abode. As they send forward their effects, and grudge not to want them for a season, because they think the more they have in their future residence, the happier they are; so, if we think that heaven is our country, we should send our wealth thither rather than retain it here, where on our sudden departure it will be lost to us. But how shall we transmit it? By contributing to the necessities of the poor, the Lord imputing to himself whatever is given to them. Hence that excellent promise, “He that has pity on the poor lendeth to the Lord,” (Prov. 19: 17; Matth. 25: 40;) and again, “He which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully,” (2 Cor. 9: 6.) What we give to our brethren in the exercise of charity is a deposit with the Lord, who, as a faithful depositary, will ultimately restore it with abundant interest. Are our duties, then, of such value with God that they are as a kind of treasure placed in his hand? Who can hesitate to say so when Scripture so often and so plainly attests it?

But if any one would leap from the mere kindness of God to the merit of works, his error will receive no support from these passages. For all you can properly infer from them is the inclination on the part of God to treat us with indulgence. For, in order to animate us in well-doing, he allows no act of obedience, however unworthy of his eye, to pass unrewarded.

7. Reward for tribulation endured?

But they insist more strongly on the words of the apostle when, in consoling the Thessalonians under their tribulations, he tells them that these were sent, “that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer; seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; and to you who are troubled, rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,” (2 Thess. 1: 6-7.) The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews says, “God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have showed towards his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister,” (Heb. 6: 10.)

To the former passage I answer, that the worthiness spoken of is not that of merit, but as God the Father would have those whom he has chosen for sons to be conformed to Christ the first born, and as it behaved him first to suffer, and then to enter into his glory, so we also, through much tribulation, enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, while we suffer tribulation for the name of Christ, we in a manner receive the marks with which God is wont to stamp the sheep of his flock, (Gal. 6: 17.) Hence we are counted worthy of the kingdom of God, because we bear in our body the marks of our Lord and Master, these being the insignia of the children of God. In this sense are we to understand the passages: “Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body,” (2 Cor. 4: 10.) “That I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death,” (Phil. 3: 10.)

The reason which is subjoined (by Paul) is intended not to prove any merit, but to confirm our hope of the kingdom of God; as if he had said, As it is befitting the just judgment of God to take vengeance on your enemies for the tribulation which they have brought upon you, so it is also befitting to give you release and rest from these tribulations. The other passage, which speaks as if it were becoming the justice of God not to overlook the services of his people, and almost insinuates that it were unjust to forget them, is to be thus explained: God, to arouse us from sloth, assures us that every labour which we undertake for the glory of his name shall not be in vain. Let us always remember that this promise, like all other promises, will be of no avail unless it is preceded by the free covenant of mercy, on which the whole certainty of our salvation depends. Trusting to it, however, we ought to feel secure that however unworthy our services, the liberality of God will not allow them to pass unrewarded. To confirm us in this expectation, the Apostle declares that God is not unrighteous; but will act consistently with the promise once given. Righteousness, therefore, refers rather to the truth of the divine promise than to the equity of paying what is due. In this sense there is a celebrated saying of Augustine, which, as containing a memorable sentiment, that holy man declined not repeatedly to employ, and which I think not unworthy of being constantly remembered: “Faithful is the Lord, who has made himself our debtor, not by receiving any thing from us, but by promising us all things,” (August. in Ps. 32, 109, et alibi.)

8. Justification through love

Our opponents also adduce the following passages from Paul: “Though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing,” (1 Cor. 13: 2.) Again, “Now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity,” (1 Cor. 13: 13.) “Above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness,” (Col. 3: 14.) From the two first passages our Pharisees contend that we are justified by charity rather than by faith, charity being, as they say, the better virtue. This mode of arguing is easily disposed of I have elsewhere shown that what is said in the first passage refers not to true faith. In the second passage we admit that charity is said to be greater than true faith, but not because charity is more meritorious, but because it is more fruitful, because it is of wider extent, of more general service, and always flourishes, whereas the use of faith is only for a time. If we look to excellence, the love of God undoubtedly holds the first place. Of it, however, Paul does not here speak; for the only thing he insists on is, that we should by mutual charity edify one another in the Lord. But let us suppose that charity is in every respect superior to faith, what man of sound judgment, nay, what man with any soundness in his brain, would argue that it therefore does more to justify? The power of justifying which belongs to faith consists not in its worth as a work. Our justification depends entirely on the mercy of God and the merits of Christ: when faith apprehends these, it is said to justify.

Now, if you ask our opponents in what sense they ascribe justification to charity, they will answer, Being a duty acceptable to God, righteousness is in respect of its merit imputed to us by the acceptance of the divine goodness. Here you see how beautifully the argument proceeds. We say that faith justifies not because it merits justification for us by its own worth, but because it is an instrument by which we freely obtain the righteousness of Christ. They overlooking the mercy of God, and passing by Christ, the sum of righteousness, maintain that we are justified by charity as being superior to faith; just as if one were to maintain that a king is fitter to make a shoe than a shoemaker, because the king is infinitely the superior of the two. This one syllogism is ample proof that all the schools of Sorbonne have never had the slightest apprehension of what is meant by justification by faith.

Should any disputant here interpose, and ask why we give different meanings to the term faith as used by Paul in passages so near each other, I can easily show that I have not slight grounds for so doing. For while those gifts which Paul enumerates are in some degree subordinate to faith and hope, because they relate to the knowledge of God, he by way of summary comprehends them all under the name of faith and hope; as if he had said, Prophecy and tongues, and the gift of interpreting, and knowledge, are all designed to lead us to the knowledge of God. But in this life it is only by faith and hope that we acknowledge God. Therefore, when I name faith and hope, I at the same time comprehend the whole. “Now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three;” that is, how great soever the number of the gifts, they are all to be referred to them; but “the greatest of these is charity. (I Cor. 13:13)”

From the third passage they infer: If charity is the bond of perfection (Col. 3:14), it must be the bond of righteousness, which is nothing else than perfection. First, without objecting that the name of perfection is here given by Paul to proper union among the members of a rightly constituted church, and admitting that by charity we are perfected before God, what new result do they gain by it? I will always object in reply, that we never attain to that perfection unless we fulfill all the parts of charity; and will thence infer, that as all are most remote from such fulfillment, the hope of perfection is excluded.

9. Matthew 19:17

I am unwilling to discuss all the things which the foolish Sorbonnists have rashly laid hold of in Scripture as it chanced to come in their way, and throw out against us. Some of them are so ridiculous, that I cannot mention them without laying myself open to a charge of trifling. I will, therefore, conclude with an exposition of one of our Savior’s expressions with which they are wondrously pleased. When the lawyer asked him, “Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?” he answers, “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments,” (Matth. 19: 16, 17.) What more (they ask) would we have, when the very author of grace bids us acquire the kingdom of heaven by the observance of the commandments? As if it were not plain that Christ adapted his answers to the characters of those whom he addressed. Here he is questioned by a Doctor of the Law as to the means of obtaining eternal life; and the question is not put simply, but is, What can men do to attain it? Both the character of the speaker and his question induced our Lord to give this answer. Imbued with a persuasion of legal righteousness, the lawyer had a blind confidence in works. Then all he asked was, what are the works of righteousness by which salvation is obtained? Justly, therefore, is he referred to the law, in which there is a perfect mirror of righteousness.

We also distinctly declare, that if life is sought in works, the commandments are to be observed. And the knowledge of this doctrine is necessary to Christians; for how should they retake themselves to Christ, unless they perceived that they had fallen from the path of life over the precipice of death? Or how could they understand how far they have wandered from the way of life unless they previously understand what that way is? Then only do they feel that the asylum of safety is in Christ when they see how much their conduct is at variance with the divine righteousness, which consists in the observance of the law.

The sum of the whole is this, If salvation is sought in works, we must keep the commandments, by which we are instructed in perfect righteousness. But we cannot remain here unless we would stop short in the middle of our course; for none of us is able to keep the commandments. Being thus excluded from the righteousness of the law, we must retake ourselves to another remedy, viz., to the faith of Christ. Wherefore, as a teacher of the law, whom our Lord knew to be puffed up with a vain confidence in works, was here directed by him to the law, that he might learn he was a sinner exposed to the fearful sentence of eternal death; so others, who were already humbled with this knowledge, he elsewhere solaces with the promise of grace, without making any mention of the law. “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls,” (Matth. 11: 28, 29.)

10. Righteousness and unrighteousness are not comparable with each other by the same rule

At length, after they have wearied themselves with perverting Scripture, they have recourse to subtleties and sophisms. One cavil is, that faith is somewhere called a work, (John 6: 29;) hence they infer that we are in error in opposing faith to works; as if faith, regarded as obedience to the divine will, could by its own merit procure our justification, and did not rather, by embracing the mercy of God, thereby seal upon our hearts the righteousness of Christ, which is offered to us in the preaching of the gospel. My readers will pardon me if I stay not to dispose of such absurdities; their own weakness, without external assault, is sufficient to destroy them.

One objection, however, which has some semblance of reason, it will be proper to dispose of in passing, lest it give any trouble to those less experienced. As common sense dictates that contraries must be tried by the same rule, and as each sin is charged against us as unrighteousness, so it is right (say our opponents) that each good work should receive the praise of righteousness. The answer which some give, that the condemnation of men proceeds on unbelief alone, and not on particular sins does not satisfy me. I agree with them, indeed, that infidelity is the fountain and root of all evil; for it is the first act of revolt from God, and is afterwards followed by particular transgressions of the law. But as they seem to hold, that in estimating righteousness and unrighteousness, the same rule is to be applied to good and bad works, in this I dissent from them. The righteousness of works consists in perfect obedience to the law. Hence you cannot be justified by works unless you follow this straight line (if I may so call it) during the whole course of your life. The moment you decline from it you have fallen into unrighteousness. Hence it appears, that righteousness is not obtained by a few works, but by an indefatigable and inflexible observance of the divine will. But the rule with regard to unrighteousness is very different. The adulterer or the thief is by one act guilty of death, because he offends against the majesty of God. The blunder of these arguers of ours lies here: they attend not to the words of James, “Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill,” &c., (James 2: 10, 11.) Therefore, it should not seem absurd when we say that death is the just recompense of every sin, because each sin merits the just indignation and vengeance of God. But you reason absurdly if you infer the converse, that one good work will reconcile a man to God notwithstanding of his meriting wrath by many sins.

CHAPTER 19. Of Christian Liberty.

The three divisions of this chapter are,—I. Necessity of the

doctrine of Christian Liberty, sec. 1. The principal parts of this

liberty explained, sec. 2-8. II. The nature and efficacy of this

liberty against the Epicureans and others who take no account

whatever of the weak, sec. 9 and 10. III. Of offense given and

received. A lengthened and not unnecessary discussion of this

subject, sec. 11-16.

Sections.

1. Connection of this chapter with the previous one on

Justification. A true knowledge of Christian liberty useful and

necessary. 1. It purifies the conscience. 2. It checks

licentiousness. 3. It maintains the merits of Christ, the truth

of the Gospel, and the peace of the soul.

2. This liberty consists of three parts. First, Believers renouncing

the righteousness of the law, look only to Christ. Objection.

Answer, distinguishing between Legal and Evangelical

righteousness.

3. This first part clearly established by the whole Epistle to the

Galatians.

4. The second part of Christian liberty, viz., that the conscience,

freed from the yoke of the law, voluntarily obeys the will of

God. This cannot be done so long as we are under the law.

Reason.

5. When freed from the rigorous exactions of the law, we can

cheerfully and with much alacrity answer the call of God.

6. Proof of this second part from an Apostle. The end of this

liberty.

7. Third part of liberty, viz., the free rise of things indifferent.

The knowledge of this part necessary to remove despair and

superstition. Superstition described.

8. Proof of this third part from the Epistle to the Romans. Those

who observe it not only use evasion. 1. Despisers of God. 2.

The desperate. 3. The ungrateful. The end and scope of this

third part.

9. Second part of the chapter, showing the nature and efficacy of

Christian liberty, in opposition to the Epicureans. Their

character described. Pretext and allegation. Use of things

indifferent. Abuse detected. Mode of correcting it.

10. This liberty maintained in opposition to those who pay no regard

to the weak. Error of this class of men refuted. A most

pernicious error. Objection. Reply.

11. Application of the doctrine of Christian liberty to the subject

of offenses. These of two kinds. Offense given. Offense

received. Of offense given, a subject comprehended by few. Of

Pharisaical offense, or offense received.

12. Who are to be regarded as weak and Pharisaical. Proved by

examples and the doctrine of Paul. The just moderation of

Christian liberty. necessity of vindicating it. No regard to be

paid to hypocrites. Duty of edifying our weak neighbors.

18. Application of the doctrine to things indifferent. Things

necessary not to be omitted from any fear of offense.

14. Refutation of errors in regard to Christian liberty. The

consciences of the godly not to be fettered by human traditions

in matters of indifference.

15. Distinction to be made between Spiritual and Civil government.

These must not be confounded. How far conscience can be bound

by human constitutions. Definition of conscience. Definition

explained by passages from the Apostolic writings.

16. The relation which conscience bears to external obedience;

first, in things good and evil; secondly, in things

indifferent.

1. We are now to treat of Christian Liberty, the explanation

of which certainly ought not to be omitted by any one proposing to

give a compendious summary of Gospel doctrine. For it is a matter of

primary necessity, one without the knowledge of which the conscience

can scarcely attempt any thing without hesitation, in many must

demur and fluctuate, and in all proceed with fickleness and

trepidation. In particular, it forms a proper appendix to

Justification, and is of no little service in understanding its

force. Nay, those who seriously fear God will hence perceive the

incomparable advantages of a doctrine which wicked scoffers are

constantly assailing with their jibes; the intoxication of mind

under which they labour leaving their petulance without restraint.

This, therefore, seems the proper place for considering the subject.

Moreover, though it has already been occasionally adverted to, there

was an advantage in deferring the fuller consideration of it till

now, for the moment any mention is made of Christian liberty lust

begins to boil, or insane commotions arise, if a speedy restraint is

not laid on those licentious spirits by whom the best things are

perverted into the worst. For they either, under pretext of this

liberty, shake off all obedience to God, and break out into

unbridled licentiousness, or they feel indignant, thinking that all

choice, order, and restraint, are abolished. What can we do when

thus encompassed with straits? Are we to bid adieu to Christian

liberty, in order that we may cut off all opportunity for such

perilous consequences? But, as we have said, if the subject be not

understood, neither Christ, nor the truth of the Gospel, nor the

inward peace of the soul, is properly known. Our endeavor must

rather be, while not suppressing this very necessary part of

doctrine, to obviate the absurd objections to which it usually gives

rise.

2. Christian liberty seems to me to consist of three parts.

First, the consciences of believers, while seeking the assurance of

their justification before God, must rise above the law, and think

no more of obtaining justification by it. For while the law, as has

already been demonstrated, (supra, chap. 17, sec. 1,) leaves not one

man righteous, we are either excluded from all hope of

justification, or we must be loosed from the law, and so loosed as

that no account at all shall be taken of works. For he who imagines

that in order to obtain justification he must bring any degree of

works whatever, cannot fix any mode or limit, but makes himself

debtor to the whole law. Therefore, laying aside all mention of the

law, and all idea of works, we must in the matter of justification

have recourse to the mercy of God only; turning away our regard from

ourselves, we must look only to Christ. For the question is, not how

we may be righteous, but how, though unworthy and unrighteous, we

may be regarded as righteous. If consciences would obtain any

assurance of this, they must give no place to the law. Still it

cannot be rightly inferred from this that believers have no need of

the law. It ceases not to teach, exhort, and urge them to good,

although it is not recognized by their consciences before the

judgment-seat of God. The two things are very different, and should

be well and carefully distinguished. The whole lives of Christians

ought to be a kind of aspiration after piety, seeing they are called

unto holiness, (Eph. 1: 4; 1 Thess. 4: 5.) The office of the law is

to excite them to the study of purity and holiness, by reminding

them of their duty. For when the conscience feels anxious as to how

it may have the favor of God, as to the answer it could give, and

the confidence it would feel, if brought to his judgment-seat, in

such a case the requirements of the law are not to be brought

forward, but Christ, who surpasses all the perfection of the law, is

alone to be held forth for righteousness.

3. On this almost the whole subject of the Epistle to the

Galatians hinges; for it can be proved from express passages that

those are absurd interpreters who teach that Paul there contends

only for freedom from ceremonies. Of such passages are the

following: “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being

made a curse for us.” “Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty

wherewith Christ has made us free, and be not entangled again with

the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be

circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to

every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole

law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are

justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace,” (Gal. 3: 13; 5: 1-

4.) These words certainly refer to something of a higher order than

freedom from ceremonies. I confess, indeed, that Paul there treats

of ceremonies, because he was contending with false apostles, who

were plotting, to bring back into the Christian Church those ancient

shadows of the law which were abolished by the advent of Christ.

But, in discussing this question, it was necessary to introduce

higher matters, on which the whole controversy turns. First, because

the brightness of the Gospel was obscured by those Jewish shadows,

he shows that in Christ we have a full manifestation of all those

things which were typified by Mosaic ceremonies. Secondly, as those

impostors instilled into the people the most pernicious opinion,

that this obedience was sufficient to merit the grace of God, he

insists very strongly that believers shall not imagine that they can

obtain justification before God by any works, far less by those

paltry observances. At the same time, he shows that by the cross of

Christ they are free from the condemnation of the law, to which

otherwise all men are exposed, so that in Christ alone they can rest

in full security. This argument is pertinent to the present subject,

(Gal. 4: 5, 21, &c.) Lastly, he asserts the right of believers to

liberty of conscience, a liberty which may not be restrained without

necessity.

4. Another point which depends on the former is, that

consciences obey the law, not as if compelled by legal necessity;

but being free from the yoke of the law itself, voluntarily obey the

will of God. Being constantly in terror so long as they are under

the dominion of the law, they are never disposed promptly to obey

God, unless they have previously obtained this liberty. Our meaning

shall be explained more briefly and clearly by an example. The

command of the law is, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all

thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might,” (Deut.

6: 5.) To accomplish this, the soul must previously be divested of

every other thought and feeling, the heart purified from all its

desires, all its powers collected and united on this one object.

Those who, in comparison of others, have made much progress in the

way of the Lord, are still very far from this goal. For although

they love God in their mind, and with a sincere affection of heart,

yet both are still in a great measure occupied with the lusts of the

flesh, by which they are retarded and prevented from proceeding with

quickened pace towards God. They indeed make many efforts, but the

flesh partly enfeebles their strength, and partly binds them to

itself. What can they do while they thus feel that there is nothing

of which they are less capable than to fulfill the law? They wish,

aspire, endeavor; but do nothing with the requisite perfection. If

they look to the law, they see that every work which they attempt or

design is accursed. Nor can any one deceive himself by inferring

that the work is not altogether bad, merely because it is imperfect,

and, therefore, that any good which is in it is still accepted of

God. For the law demanding perfect love condemns all imperfection,

unless its rigor is mitigated. Let any man therefore consider his

work which he wishes to be thought partly good, and he will find

that it is a transgression of the law by the very circumstance of

its being imperfect.

5. See how our works lie under the curse of the law if they are

tested by the standard of the law. But how can unhappy souls set

themselves with alacrity to a work from which they cannot hope to

gain any thing in return but cursing? On the other hand, if freed

from this severe exaction, or rather from the whole rigor of the

law, they hear themselves invited by God with paternal levity, they

will cheerfully and alertly obey the call, and follow his guidance.

In one word, those who are bound by the yoke of the law are like

servants who have certain tasks daily assigned them by their

masters. Such servants think that nought has been done; and they

dare not come into the presence of their masters until the exact

amount of labour has been performed. But sons who are treated in a

more candid and liberal manner by their parents, hesitate not to

offer them works that are only begun or half finished, or even with

something faulty in them, trusting that their obedience and

readiness of mind will be accepted, although the performance be less

exact than was wished. Such should be our feelings, as we certainly

trust that our most indulgent Parent will approve our services,

however small they may be, and however rude and imperfect. Thus He

declares to us by the prophet, “I will spare them as a man spareth

his own son that serveth him,” (Gal. 3: 17;) where the word spare

evidently means indulgence, or connivance at faults, while at the

same time service is remembered. This confidence is necessary in no

slight degree, since without it every thing should be attempted in

vain; for God does not regard any sock of ours as done to himself,

unless truly done from a desire to serve him. But how can this be

amidst these terrors, while we doubt whether God is offended or

served by our work?

6. This is the reason why the author of the Epistle to the

Hebrews ascribes to faith all the good works which the holy

patriarchs are said to have performed, and estimates them merely by

faith, (Heb. 11: 2.) In regard to this liberty there is a remarkable

passage in the Epistle to the Romans, where Paul argues, “Sin shall

not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under

grace,” (Rom. 6: 14.) For after he had exhorted believers, “Let not

sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in

the lusts thereof: Neither yield ye your members as instruments of

unrighteousness unto sin; but yield yourselves unto God, as those

that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of

righteousness unto God;” they might have objected that they still

bore about with them a body full of lust, that sin still dwelt in

them. He therefore comforts them by adding, that they are freed from

the law; as if he had said, Although you feel that sin is not yet

extinguished, and that righteousness does not plainly live in you,

you have no cause for fear and dejection, as if God were always

offended because of the remains of sin, since by grace you are freed

from the law, and your works are not tried by its standard. Let

those, however who infer that they may sin because they are not

under the law, understand that they have no right to this liberty,

the end of which is to encourage us in well-doing.

7. The third part of this liberty is that we are not bound

before God to any observance of external things which are in

themselves indifferent, ("adiafora") but that we are now at full

liberty either to use or omit them. The knowledge of this liberty is

very necessary to us; where it is wanting our consciences will have

no rest, there will be no end of superstition. In the present day

many think us absurd in raising a question as to the free eating of

flesh, the free use of dress and holidays, and similar frivolous

trifles, as they think them; but they are of more importance than is

commonly supposed. For when once the conscience is entangled in the

net, it enters a long and inextricable labyrinth, from which it is

afterwards most difficult to escape. When a man begins to doubt

whether it is lawful for him to use linen for sheets, shirts,

napkins, and handkerchiefs, he will not long be secure as to hemp,

and will at last have doubts as to tow; for he will revolve in his

mind whether he cannot sup without napkins, or dispense with

handkerchiefs. Should he deem a daintier food unlawful, he will

afterwards feel uneasy for using loafbread and common eatables,

because he will think that his body might possibly be supported on a

still meaner food. If he hesitates as to a more genial wine, he will

scarcely drink the worst with a good conscience; at last he will not

dare to touch water if more than usually sweet and pure. In fine, he

will come to this, that he will deem it criminal to trample on a

straw lying in his way. For it is no trivial dispute that is here

commenced, the point in debate being, whether the use of this thing

or that is in accordance with the divine will, which ought to take

precedence of all our acts and counsels. Here some must by despair

be hurried into an abyss, while others, despising God and casting

off his fear, will not be able to make a way for themselves without

ruin. When men are involved in such doubts whatever be the direction

in which they turn, every thing they see must offend their

conscience.

8. “I know,” says Paul, “that there is nothing unclean of

itself,” (by unclean meaning unholy;) “but to him that esteemeth any

thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean,” (Rom. 14: 14.) By these

words he makes all external things subject to our liberty, provided

the nature of that liberty approves itself to our minds as before

God. But if any superstitious idea suggests scruples, those things

which in their own nature were pure are to us contaminated.

Wherefore the apostle adds, “Happy is he that condemneth not himself

in that which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat,

because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is

sin,” (Rom. 14: 22, 23.) When men, amid such difficulties, proceed

with greater confidence, securely doing whatever pleases them, do

they not in so far revolt from God? Those who are thoroughly

impressed with some fear of God, if forced to do many things

repugnant to their consciences are discouraged and filled with

dread. All such persons receive none of the gifts of God with

thanksgiving, by which alone Paul declares that all things are

sanctified for our use, (1 Tim. 4: 5.) By thanksgiving I understand

that which proceeds from a mind recognizing the kindness and

goodness of God in his gifts. For many, indeed, understand that the

blessings which they enjoy are the gifts of God, and praise God in

their words; but not being persuaded shalt these have been given to

them, how can they give thanks to God as the giver? In one word, we

see whither this liberty tends viz., that we are to use the gifts of

God without any scruple of conscience, without any perturbation of

mind, for the purpose for which he gave them: in this way our souls

may both have peace with him, and recognize his liberality towards

us. For here are comprehended all ceremonies of free observance, so

that while our consciences are not to be laid under the necessity of

observing them, we are also to remember that, by the kindness of

God, the use of them is made subservient to edification.

9. It is, however, to be carefully observed, that Christian

liberty is in all its parts a spiritual matter, the whole force of

which consists in giving peace to trembling consciences, whether

they are anxious and disquieted as to the forgiveness of sins, or as

to whether their imperfect works, polluted by the infirmities of the

flesh, are pleasing to God, or are perplexed as to the use of things

indifferent. It is, therefore, perversely interpreted by those who

use it as a cloak for their lusts, that they may licentiously abuse

the good gifts of God, or who think there is no liberty unless it is

used in the presence of men, and, accordingly, in using it pay no

regard to their weak brethren. Under this head, the sins of the

present age are more numerous. For there is scarcely any one whose

means allow him to live sumptuously, who does not delight in

feasting, and dress, and the luxurious grandeur of his house, who

wishes not to surpass his neighbor in every kind of delicacy, and

does not plume himself amazingly on his splendor. And all these

things are defended under the pretext of Christian liberty. They say

they are things indifferent: I admit it, provided they are used

indifferently. But when they are too eagerly longed for, when they

are proudly boasted of, when they are indulged in luxurious

profusion, things which otherwise were in themselves lawful are

certainly defiled by these vices. Paul makes an admirable

distinction in regard to things indifferent: “Unto the pure all

things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is

nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled” (Tit.

1: 15.) For why is a woe pronounced upon the rich who have received

their consolation? (Luke 6: 24,) who are full, who laugh now, who

“lie upon beds of ivory and stretch themselves upon their couches;”

“join house to house,” and “lay field to field;” “and the harp and

the viol, the tablet and pipe, and wine, are in their feasts,” (Amos

6: 6; Isa. 5: 8, 10.) Certainly ivory and gold, and riches, are the

good creatures of God, permitted, nay destined, by divine providence

for the use of man; nor was it ever forbidden to laugh, or to be

full, or to add new to old and hereditary possessions, or to be

delighted with music, or to drink wine. This is true, but when the

means are supplied to roll and wallow in luxury, to intoxicate the

mind and soul with present and be always hunting after new

pleasures, is very far from a legitimate use of the gifts of God.

Let them, therefore, suppress immoderate desire, immoderate

profusion, vanity, and arrogance, that they may use the gifts of God

purely with a pure conscience. When their mind is brought to this

state of soberness, they will be able to regulate the legitimate

use. On the other hand, when this moderation is wanting, even

plebeian and ordinary delicacies are excessive. For it is a true

saying, that a haughty mind often dwells in a coarse and homely

garb, while true humility lurks under fine linen and purple. Let

every one then live in his own station, poorly or moderately, or in

splendor; but let all remember that the nourishment which God gives

is for life, not luxury, and let them regard it as the law of

Christian liberty, to learn with Paul in whatever state they are,

“therewith to be content,” to know “both how to be abased,” and “how

to abound,” “to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to

suffer need,” (Phil. 4: 11.)

10. Very many also err in this: as if their liberty were not

safe and entire, without having men to witness it, they use it

indiscriminately and imprudently, and in this way often give offense

to weak brethren. You may see some in the present day who cannot

think they possess their liberty unless they come into possession of

it by eating flesh on Friday. Their eating I blame not, but this

false notion must be driven from their minds: for they ought to

think that their liberty gains nothing new by the sight of men, but

is to be enjoyed before God, and consists as much in abstaining as

in using. If they understand that it is of no consequence in the

sight of God whether they eat flesh or eggs, whether they are

clothed in red or in black, this is amply sufficient. The conscience

to which the benefit of this liberty was due is loosed. Therefore,

though they should afterwards, during their whole life, abstain from

flesh, and constantly wear one color, they are not less free. Nay,

just because they are free, they abstain with a free conscience. But

they err most egregiously in paying no regard to the infirmity of

their brethren, with which it becomes us to bear, so as not rashly

to give them offense. But it is sometimes also of consequence that

we should assert our liberty before men. This I admit: yet must we

use great caution in the mode, lest we should cast off the care of

the weak whom God has specially committed to us.

11. I will here make some observations on offenses, what

distinctions are to be made between them, what kind are to be

avoided and what disregarded. This will afterwards enable us to

determine what scope there is for our liberty among men. We are

pleased with the common division into offense given and offense

taken, since it has the plain sanction of Scripture, and not

improperly expresses what is meant. If from unseasonable levity or

wantonness, or rashness, you do any thing out of order or not in its

own place, by which the weak or unskillful are offended, it may be

said that offense has been given by you, since the ground of offense

is owing to your fault. And in general, offense is said to be given

in any matter where the person from whom it has proceeded is in

fault. Offense is said to be taken when a thing otherwise done, not

wickedly or unseasonably, is made an occasion of offense from

malevolence or some sinister feeling. For here offense was not

given, but sinister interpreters ceaselessly take offense. By the

former kind, the weak only, by the latter, the ill-tempered and

Pharisaical are offended. Wherefore, we shall call the one the

offense of the weak, the other the offense of Pharisees, and we will

so temper the use of our liberty as to make it yield to the

ignorance of weak brethren, but not to the austerity of Pharisees.

What is due to infirmity is fully shown by Paul in many passages.

“Him that is weak in the faith receive ye.” Again, “Let us not judge

one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a

stumbling-block, or an occasion to fall, in his brother’s way;” and

many others to the same effect in the same place, to which, instead

of quoting them here, we refer the reader. The sum is, “We then that

are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to

please ourselves. Let every one of us please his neighbor for his

good to edification.” elsewhere he says, “Take heed lest by any

means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to them that

are weak.” Again “Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat,

asking no question for conscience sake.” “Conscience, I say, not

thine own, but of the other.” Finally, “Give none offense, neither

to the Jews nor to the Gentiles nor to the Church of God.” Also in

another passage, “Brethren, ye have been called into liberty, only

use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one

another.” Thus, indeed, it is: our liberty was not given us against

our weak neighbors, whom charity enjoins us to serve in all things,

but rather that, having peace with God in our minds, we should live

peaceably among men. What value is to be set upon the offense of the

Pharisees we learn from the words of our Lord, in which he says,

“Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind,” (Matth. 15:

14.) The disciples had intimated that the Pharisees were offended at

his words. He answers that they are to be let alone that their

offense is not to be regarded.

12. The matter still remains uncertain, unless we understand

who are the weak and who the Pharisees: for if this distinction is

destroyed, I see not how, in regard to offenses, any liberty at all

would remain without being constantly in the greatest danger. But

Paul seems to me to have marked out most clearly, as well by example

as by doctrine, how far our liberty, in the case of offense, is to

be modified or maintained. When he adopts Timothy as his companion,

he circumcises him: nothing can induce him to circumcise Titus,

(Acts 16: 3; Gal. 2: 3.) The acts are different, but there is no

difference in the purpose or intention; in circumcising Timothy, as

he was free from all men, he made himself the servant of all: “Unto

the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that

are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are

under the law; to them that are without law, as without law, (being

not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might

gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak that I

might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might

by all means save some” (1 Cor. 9: 20-22.) We have here the proper

modification of liberty, when in things indifferent it can be

restrained with some advantage. What he had in view in firmly

resisting the circumcision of Titus, he himself testifies when he

thus writes: “But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was

compelled to be circumcised: and that because of false brethren

unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty

which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into

bondage: to whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour,

that the truth of the gospel might continue with you,” (Gal. 2:

3-5.) We here see the necessity of vindicating our liberty when, by

the unjust exactions of false apostles, it is brought into danger

with weak consciences. In all cases we must study charity, and look

to the edification of our neighbor. “All things are lawful for me,”

says he, “but all things are not expedient; all things are lawful

for me, but all things edify not. Let no man seek his own, but every

man another’s wealth,” (1 Cor. 10: 23, 24.) There is nothing plainer

than this rule, that we are to use our liberty if it tends to the

edification of our neighbor, but if inexpedient for our neighbor, we

are to abstain from it. There are some who pretend to imitate this

prudence of Paul by abstinence from liberty, while there is nothing

for which they less employ it than for purposes of charity.

Consulting their own ease, they would have all mention of liberty

buried, though it is not less for the interest of our neighbor to

use liberty for their good and edification, than to modify it

occasionally for their advantage. It is the part of a pious man to

think, that the free power conceded to him in external things is to

make him the readier in all offices of charity.

13. Whatever I have said about avoiding offenses, I wish to be

referred to things indifferent. Things which are necessary to be

done cannot be omitted from any fear of offense. For as our liberty

is to be made subservient to charity, so charity must in its turn be

subordinate to purity of faith. Here, too, regard must be had to

charity, but it must go as far as the altar; that is, we must not

offend God for the sake of our neighbor. We approve not of the

intemperance of those who do every thing tumultuously, and would

rather burst through every restraint at once than proceed step by

step. But neither are those to be listened to who, while they take

the lead in a thousand forms of impiety, pretend that they act thus

to avoid giving offense to their neighbor, as if in the meantime

they did not train the consciences of their neighbors to evil,

especially when they always stick in the same mire without any hope

of escape. When a neighbor is to be instructed, whether by doctrine

or by example, then smooth-tongued men say that he is to be fed with

milk, while they are instilling into him the worst and most

pernicious opinions. Paul says to the Corinthians, “I have fed you

with milk, and not with meat,” (1 Cor. 3: 2;) but had there then

been a Popish mass among them, would he have sacrificed as one of

the modes of giving them milk? By no means: milk is not poison. It

is false then to say they nourish those whom, under a semblance of

soothing they cruelly murder. But granting that such dissimulation

may be used for a time, how long are they to make their pupils drink

that kind of milk? If they never grow up so as to be able to bear at

least some gentle food, it is certain that they have never been

reared on milk. Two reasons prevent me from now entering farther

into contest with these people, first, their follies are scarcely

worthy of refutation, seeing all men of sense must nauseate them;

and, secondly, having already amply refuted them in special

treatises, I am unwilling to do it over again. Let my readers only

bear in mind, first, that whatever be the offenses by which Satan

and the world attempt to lead us away from the law of God, we must,

nevertheless, strenuously proceed in the course which he prescribes;

and, secondly, that whatever dangers impend, we are not at liberty

to deviate one nail’s breadth from the command of God, that on no

pretext is it lawful to attempt any thing but what he permits.

14. Since by means of this privilege of liberty which we have

described, believers have derived authority from Christ not to

entangle themselves by the observance of things in which he wished

them to be free, we conclude that their consciences are exempted

from all human authority. For it were unbecoming that the gratitude

due to Christ for his liberal gift should perish or that the

consciences of believers should derive no benefit from it. We must

not regard it as a trivial matter when we see how much it cost our

Savior, being purchased not with silver or gold, but with his own

blood, (1 Pet. 1: 18, 19;) so that Paul hesitates not to say that

Christ has died in vain, if we place our souls under subjection to

men, (Gal. 5: 1, 4; 1 Cor. 7: 23.) Several chapters of the Epistle

to the Galatians are wholly occupied with showing that Christ is

obscured, or rather extinguished to us, unless our consciences

maintain their liberty; from which they have certainly fallen, if

they can be bound with the chains of laws and constitutions at the

pleasure of men. But as the knowledge of this subject is of the

greatest importance, so it demands a longer and clearer exposition.

For the moment the abolition of human constitutions is mentioned,

the greatest disturbances are excited, partly by the seditious, and

partly by calumniators, as if obedience of every kind were at the

same time abolished and overthrown.

15. Therefore, lest this prove a stumbling-block to any, let us

observe that in man government is twofold: the one spiritual, by

which the conscience is trained to piety and divine worship; the

other civil, by which the individual is instructed in those duties

which, as men and citizens, we are bold to performs (see Book 4,

chap. 10, sec. 3-6.) To these two forms are commonly given the not

inappropriate names of spiritual and temporal jurisdiction,

intimating that the former species has reference to the life of the

soul, while the latter relates to matters of the present life, not

only to food and clothing, but to the enacting of laws which require

a man to live among his fellows purely honorably, and modestly. The

former has its seat within the soul, the latter only regulates the

external conduct. We may call the one the spiritual, the other the

civil kingdom. Now, these two, as we have divided them, are always

to be viewed apart from each other. When the one is considered, we

should call off our minds, and not allow them to think of the other.

For there exists in man a kind of two worlds, over which different

kings and different laws can preside. By attending to this

distinction, we will not erroneously transfer the doctrine of the

gospel concerning spiritual liberty to civil order, as if in regard

to external government Christians were less subject to human laws,

because their consciences are unbound before God, as if they were

exempted from all carnal service, because in regard to the Spirit

they are free. Again because even in those constitutions which seem

to relate to the spiritual kingdom, there may be some delusion, it

is necessary to distinguish between those which are to be held

legitimate as being agreeable to the Word of God, and those, on the

other hand, which ought to have no place among the pious. We shall

elsewhere have an opportunity of speaking of civil government, (see

Book 4, chap. 20.) For the present, also, I defer speaking of

ecclesiastical laws, because that subject will be more fully

discussed in the Fourth Book when we come to treat of the Power of

the Church. We would thus conclude the present discussion. The

question, as I have said, though not very obscure, or perplexing in

itself, occasions difficulty to many, because they do not

distinguish with sufficient accuracy between what is called the

external forum, and the forum of conscience. What increases the

difficulty is, that Paul commands us to obey the magistrate, “not

only for wrath, but also for conscience sake,” (Rom. 13: 1, 5.)

Whence it follows that civil laws also bind the conscience. Were

this so, then what we said a little ago, and are still to say of

spiritual governments would fall. To solve this difficulty, the

first thing of importance is to understand what is meant by

conscience. The definition must be sought in the etymology of the

word. For as men, when they apprehend the knowledge of things by the

mind and intellects are said to know, and hence arises the term

knowledge or science, so when they have a sense of the divine

justice added as a witness which allows them not to conceal their

sins, but drags them forward as culprits to the bar of God, that

sense is called conscience. For it stands as it were between God and

man, not suffering man to suppress what he knows in himself; but

following him on even to conviction. It is this that Paul means when

he says, “Their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts

the meanwhile accusing, or else excusing one another,” (Rom. 2: 15.)

Simple knowledge may exist in man, as it were shut up; therefore

this sense, which sists man before the bar of God, is set over him

as a kind of sentinel to observe and spy out all his secrets, that

nothing may remain buried in darkness. Hence the ancient proverb,

Conscience is a thousand witnesses. For the same reason Peter also

employs the expression, “the answer of a good conscience,” (1 Pet.

3: 21,) for tranquillity of mind; when persuaded of the grace of

Christ, we boldly present ourselves before God. And the author of

the Epistle to the Hebrews says, that we have “no more conscience of

sins,” (Heb. 10: 2,) that we are held as freed or acquitted, so that

sin no longer accuses us.

16. Wherefore, as works have respect to men, so conscience

bears reference to God, a good conscience being nothing else than

inward integrity of heart. In this sense Paul says that “the end of

the commandment is charity, out of a pure heart, and of a good

consciences and of faith unfeigned” (1 Tim. 1: 5.) He afterwards, in

the same chapter, shows how much it differs from intellect when he

speaks of “holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having

put away, have made shipwreck,” (1 Tim. 1: 19.) For by these words

he intimates, that it is a lively inclination to serve God, a

sincere desire to live in piety and holiness. Sometimes, indeed, it

is even extended to men, as when Paul testifies, “Herein do I

exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offense toward

God, and toward men,” (Acts 24: 16.) He speaks thus, because the

fruits of a good conscience go forth and reach even to men. But, as

I have said, properly speaking, it refers to God only. Hence a law

is said to bind the conscience, because it simply binds the

individual, without looking at men, or taking any account of them.

For example, God not only commands us to keep our mind chaste and

pure from lust, but prohibits all external lasciviousness or

obscenity of language. My conscience is subjected to the observance

of this law, though there were not another man in the world, and he

who violates it sins not only by setting a bad example to his

brethren, but stands convicted in his conscience before God. The

same rule does not hold in things indifferent. We ought to abstain

from every thing that produces offense, but with a free conscience.

Thus Paul, speaking of meat consecrated to idols, says, “If any man

say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for

his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake:” “Conscience, I

say, not thine own, but of the other,” (1 Cor. 10: 28, 29.) A

believer, after being previously admonished, would sin were he still

to eat meat so offered. But though abstinence, on his part, is

necessary, in respect of a brother, as it is prescribed by God,

still he ceases not to retain liberty of conscience. We see how the

law, while binding the external act, leaves the conscience unbound.

CHAPTER 20. OF PRAYER-A PERPETUAL EXERCISE OF FAITH. THE DAILY BENEFITS DERIVED FROM IT.

The principal divisions of this chapter are,— I. Connection of

the subject of prayer with the previous chapters. The nature of

prayer, and its necessity as a Christian exercise, sec. 1, 2. II. To

whom prayer is to be offered. Refutation of an objection which is

too apt to present itself to the mind, sec. 3. III. Rules to be

observed in prayer, sec. 4-16. IV. Through whom prayer is to be

made, sec. 17-19. V. Refutation of an error as to the doctrine of

our Mediator and Intercessor, with answers to the leading arguments

urged in support of the intercession of saints, sec. 20-27. VI. The

nature of prayer, and some of its accidents, sec. 28-33. VII. A

perfect form of invocation, or an exposition of the Lord’s Prayer,

sec. 34-50. VIII. Some rules to be observed with regard to prayer,

as time, perseverance, the feeling of the mind, and the assurance of

faith, sec. 50-52.

Sections.

1. A general summary of what is contained in the previous part of

the work. A transition to the doctrine of prayer. Its

connection with the subject of faith.

2. Prayer defined. Its necessity and use.

3. Objection, that prayer seems useless, because God already knows

our wants. Answer, from the institution and end of prayer.

Confirmation by example. Its necessity and propriety.

Perpetually reminds us of our duty, and leads to meditation on

divine providence. Conclusion. Prayer a most useful exercise.

This proved by three passages of Scripture.

4. Rules to be observed in prayer. First, reverence to God. How the

mind ought to be composed.

5. All giddiness of mind must be excluded, and all our feelings

seriously engaged. This confirmed by the form of lifting the

hand in prayer. We must ask only in so far as God permits. To

help our weakness, God gives the Spirit to be our guide in

prayer. What the office of the Spirit in this respect. We must

still pray both with the heart and the lips.

6. Second rule of prayer, a sense of our want. This rule violated,

1. By perfunctory and formal prayer 2. By hypocrites who have

no sense of their sins. 3. By giddiness in prayer. Remedies.

7. Objection, that we are not always under the same necessity of

praying. Answer, we must pray always. This answer confirmed by

an examination of the dangers by which both our life and our

salvation are every moment threatened. Confirmed farther by the

command and permission of God, by the nature of true

repentance, and a consideration of impenitence. Conclusion.

8. Third rule, the suppression of all pride. Examples. Daniel,

David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch.

9. Advantage of thus suppressing pride. It leads to earnest entreaty

for pardon, accompanied with humble confession and sure

confidence in the Divine mercy. This may not always be

expressed in words. It is peculiar to pious penitents. A

general introduction to procure favour to our prayers never to

be omitted.

10. Objection to the third rule of prayer. Of the glorying of the

saints. Answer. Confirmation of the answer.

11. Fourth rule of prayer,—a sure confidence of being heard

animating us to prayer. The kind of confidence required, viz.,

a serious conviction of our misery, joined with sure hope. From

these true prayer springs. How diffidence impairs prayer. In

general, faith is required.

12. This faith and sure hope regarded by our opponents as most

absurd. Their error described and refuted by various passages

of Scripture, which show that acceptable prayer is accompanied

with these qualities. No repugnance between this certainty and

an acknowledgment of our destitution.

13. To our unworthiness we oppose, 1. The command of God. 2. The

promise. Rebels and hypocrites completely condemned. Passages

of Scripture confirming the command to pray.

14. Other passages respecting the promises which belong to the pious

when they invoke God. These realized though we are not

possessed of the same holiness as other distinguished servants

of God, provided we indulge no vain confidence, and sincerely

betake ourselves to the mercy of God. Those who do not invoke

God under urgent necessity are no better than idolaters. This

concurrence of fear and confidence reconciles the different

passages of Scripture, as to humbling ourselves in prayer, and

causing our prayers to ascend.

15. Objection founded on some examples, viz., that prayers have

proved effectual, though not according to the form prescribed.

Answer. Such examples, though not given for our imitation, are

of the greatest use. Objection, the prayers of the faithful

sometimes not effectual. Answer confirmed by a noble passage of

Augustine. Rule for right prayer.

16. The above four rules of prayer not so rigidly exacted, as that

every prayer deficient in them in any respect is rejected by

God. This shown by examples. Conclusion, or summary of this

section.

17. Through whom God is to be invoked, viz., Jesus Christ. This

founded on a consideration of the divine majesty, and the

precept and promise of God himself. God therefore to be invoked

only in the name of Christ.

18. From the first all believers were heard through him only: yet

this specially restricted to the period subsequent to his

ascension. The ground of this restriction.

19. The wrath of God lies on those who reject Christ as a Mediator.

This excludes not the mutual intercession of saints on the

earth.

20. Refutation of errors interfering with the intercession of

Christ. 1. Christ the Mediator of redemption; the saints

mediators of intercession. Answer confirmed by the clear

testimony of Scripture, and by a passage from Augustine. The

nature of Christ’s intercession.

21. Of the intercession of saints living with Christ in heaven.

Fiction of the Papists in regard to it. Refuted. 1. Its

absurdity. 2. It is no where mentioned by Scripture. 3. Appeal

to the conscience of the superstitious. 4. Its blasphemy.

Exception. Answers.

22. Monstrous errors resulting from this fiction. Refutation.

Exception by the advocates of this fiction. Answer.

23. Arguments of the Papists for the intercession of saints. 1. From

the duty and office of angels. Answer. 2. From an expression of

Jeremiah respecting Moses and Samuel. Answer, retorting the

argument. 3. The meaning of the prophet confirmed by a similar

passage in Ezekiel, and the testimony of an apostle.

24. 4. Fourth Papistical argument from the nature of charity, which

is more perfect in the saints in glory. Answer.

25. Argument founded on a passage in Moses. Answer.

26. Argument from its being said that the prayers of saints are

heard. Answer, confirmed by Scripture, and illustrated by

examples.

27. Conclusion, that the saints cannot be invoked without impiety.

1. It robs God of his glory. 2. Destroys the intercession of

Christ. 3. Is repugnant to the word of God. 4. Is opposed to

the due method of prayer. 5. Is without approved example. 6.

Springs from distrust. Last objection. Answer.

28. Kinds of prayer. Vows. Supplications. Petitions. Thanksgiving.

Connection of these, their constant use and necessity.

Particular explanation confirmed by reason, Scripture, and

example. Rule as to supplication and thanksgiving.

29. The accidents of prayer, viz., private and public, constant, at

stated seasons, &c. Exception in time of necessity. Prayer

without ceasing. Its nature. Garrulity of Papists and

hypocrites refuted. The scope and parts of prayer. Secret

prayer. Prayer at all places. Private and public prayer.

30. Of public places or churches in which common prayers are offered

up. Right use of churches. Abuse.

31. Of utterance and singing. These of no avail if not from the

heart. The use of the voice refers more to public than private

prayer.

32. Singing of the greatest antiquity, but not universal. How to be

performed.

33. Public prayers should be in the vulgar, not in a foreign tongue.

Reason, 1. The nature of the Church. 2. Authority of an

apostle. Sincere affection always necessary. The tongue not

always necessary. Bending of the knee, and uncovering of the

head.

34. The form of prayer delivered by Christ displays the boundless

goodness of our heavenly Father. The great comfort thereby

afforded.

35. Lord’s Prayer divided into six petitions. Subdivision into two

principal parts, the former referring to the glory of God, the

latter to our salvation.

36. The use of the term Father implies, 1. That we pray to God in

the name of Christ alone. 2. That we lay aside all distrust. 3.

That we expect every thing that is for our good.

37. Objection, that our sins exclude us from the presence of him

whom we have made a Judge, not a Father. Answer, from the

nature of God, as described by an apostle, the parable of the

prodigal son, and from the expression, _Our_ Father. Christ the

earnest, the Holy Spirit the witness, of our adoption.

38. Why God is called generally, Our Father.

39. We may pray specially for ourselves and certain others, provided

we have in our mind a general reference to all.

40. In what sense God is said to be _in heaven_. A threefold use of

this doctrine for our consolation. Three cautions. Summary of

the preface to the Lord’s Prayer.

41. The necessity of the first petition a proof of our

unrighteousness. What meant by the name of God. How it is

hallowed. Parts of this hallowing. A deprecation of the sins by

which the name of God is profaned.

42. Distinction between the first and second petitions. The kingdom

of God, what. How said to come. Special exposition of this

petition. It reminds us of three things. Advent of the kingdom

of God in the world.

43. Distinction between the second and third petitions. The will

here meant not the secret will or good pleasure of God, but

that manifested in the word. Conclusion of the three first

petitions.

44. A summary of the second part of the Lord’s Prayer. Three

petitions. What contained in the first. Declares the exceeding

kindness of God, and our distrust. What meant by _bread_. Why

the petition for bread precedes that for the forgiveness of

sins. Why it is called ours. Why to be sought _this day_, or

_daily_. The doctrine resulting from this petition, illustrated

by an example. Two classes of men sin in regard to this

petition. In what sense it is called, our bread. Why we ask God

to give it to us.

45. Close connection between this and the subsequent petition. Why

our sins are called debts. This petition violated, 1. By those

who think they can satisfy God by their own merits, or those of

others. 2. By those who dream of a perfection which makes

pardon unnecessary. Why the elect cannot attain perfection in

this life. Refutation of the libertine dreamers of perfection.

Objection refuted. In what sense we are said to forgive those

who have sinned against us. How the condition is to be

understood.

46. The sixth petition reduced to three heads. 1. The various forms

of temptation. The depraved conceptions of our minds. The wiles

of Satan, on the right hand and on the left. 2. What it is to

be led into temptation. We do not ask not to be tempted of God.

What meant by evil, or the evil one. Summary of this petition.

How necessary it is. Condemns the pride of the superstitious.

Includes many excellent properties. In what sense God may be

said to lead us into temptation.

47. The three last petitions show that the prayers of Christians

ought to be public. The conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer. Why

the word Amen is added.

48. The Lord’s Prayer contains every thing that we can or ought to

ask of God. Those who go beyond it sin in three ways.

49. We may, after the example of the saints, frame our prayers in

different words, provided there is no difference in meaning.

50. Some circumstances to be observed. Of appointing special hours

of prayer. What to be aimed at, what avoided. The will of God,

the rule of our prayers.

51. Perseverance in prayer especially recommended, both by precept

and example. Condemnatory of those who assign to God a time and

mode of hearing.

52. Of the dignity of faith, through which we always obtain, in

answer to prayer, whatever is most expedient for us. The

knowledge of this most necessary.

1. From the previous part of the work we clearly see how

completely destitute man is of all good, how devoid of every means

of procuring his own salvation. Hence, if he would obtain succour in

his necessity, he must go beyond himself, and procure it in some

other quarter. It has farther been shown that the Lord kindly and

spontaneously manifests himself in Christ, in whom he offers all

happiness for our misery, all abundance for our want, opening up the

treasures of heaven to us, so that we may turn with full faith to

his beloved Son, depend upon him with full expectation, rest in him,

and cleave to him with full hope. This, indeed, is that secret and

hidden philosophy which cannot be learned by syllogisms: a

philosophy thoroughly understood by those whose eyes God has so

opened as to see light in his light (Ps. 36: 9.) But after we have

learned by faith to know that whatever is necessary for us or

defective in us is supplied in God and in our Lord Jesus Christ, in

whom it hath pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell, that

we may thence draw as from an inexhaustible fountain, it remains for

us to seek and in prayer implore of him what we have learned to be

in him. To know God as the sovereign disposer of all good, inviting

us to present our requests, and yet not to approach or ask of him,

were so far from availing us, that it were just as if one told of a

treasure were to allow it to remain buried in the ground. Hence the

Apostle, to show that a faith unaccompanied with prayer to God

cannot be genuine, states this to be the order: As faith springs

from the Gospel, so by faith our hearts are framed to call upon the

name of God, (Rom. 10: 14.) And this is the very thing which he had

expressed some time before, viz., that the _Spirit of adoption_,

which seals the testimony of the Gospel on our hearts, gives us

courage to make our requests known unto God, calls forth groanings

which cannot be uttered, and enables us to cry, Abba, Father, (Rom.

8: 26.) This last point, as we have hitherto only touched upon it

slightly in passing, must now be treated more fully.

2. To _prayer_, then, are we indebted for penetrating to those

riches which are treasured up for us with our heavenly Father. For

there is a kind of intercourse between God and men, by which, having

entered the upper sanctuary, they appear before Him and appeal to

his promises, that when necessity requires they may learn by

experiences that what they believed merely on the authority of his

word was not in vain. Accordingly, we see that nothing is set before

us as an object of expectation from the Lord which we are not

enjoined to ask of Him in prayer, so true it is that prayer digs up

those treasures which the Gospel of our Lord discovers to the eye of

faith. The necessity and utility of this exercise of prayer no words

can sufficiently express. Assuredly it is not without cause our

heavenly Father declares that our only safety is in calling upon his

name, since by it we invoke the presence of his providence to watch

over our interests, of his power to sustain us when weak and almost

fainting, of his goodness to receive us into favour, though

miserably loaded with sin; in fine, call upon him to manifest

himself to us in all his perfections. Hence, admirable peace and

tranquillity are given to our consciences; for the straits by which

we were pressed being laid before the Lord, we rest fully satisfied

with the assurance that none of our evils are unknown to him, and

that he is both able and willing to make the best provision for us.

3. But some one will say, Does he not know without a monitor

both what our difficulties are, and what is meet for our interest,

so that it seems in some measure superfluous to solicit him by our

prayers, as if he were winking, or even sleeping, until aroused by

the sound of our voice?[1] Those who argue thus attend not to the

end for which the Lord taught us to pray. It was not so much for his

sake as for ours. He wills indeed, as is just, that due honour be

paid him by acknowledging that all which men desire or feel to be

useful, and pray to obtain, is derived from him. But even the

benefit of the homage which we thus pay him redounds to ourselves.

Hence the holy patriarchs, the more confidently they proclaimed the

mercies of God to themselves and others felt the stronger incitement

to prayer. It will be sufficient to refer to the example of Elijah,

who being assured of the purpose of God had good ground for the

promise of rain which he gives to Ahab, and yet prays anxiously upon

his knees, and sends his servant seven times to inquire, (1 Kings

18: 42;) not that he discredits the oracle, but because he knows it

to be his duty to lay his desires before God, lest his faith should

become drowsy or torpid. Wherefore, although it is true that while

we are listless or insensible to our wretchedness, he wakes and

watches for use and sometimes even assists us unasked; it is very

much for our interest to be constantly supplicating him; first, that

our heart may always be inflamed with a serious and ardent desire of

seeking, loving and serving him, while we accustom ourselves to have

recourse to him as a sacred anchor in every necessity; secondly,

that no desires, no longing whatever, of which we are ashamed to

make him the witness, may enter our minds, while we learn to place

all our wishes in his sight, and thus pour out our heart before him;

and, lastly, that we may be prepared to receive all his benefits

with true gratitude and thanksgiving, while our prayers remind us

that they proceed from his hand. Moreover, having obtained what we

asked, being persuaded that he has answered our prayers, we are led

to long more earnestly for his favour, and at the same time have

greater pleasure in welcoming the blessings which we perceive to

have been obtained by our prayers. Lastly, use and experience

confirm the thought of his providence in our minds in a manner

adapted to our weakness, when we understand that he not only

promises that he will never fail us, and spontaneously gives us

access to approach him in every time of need, but has his hand

always stretched out to assist his people, not amusing them with

words, but proving himself to be a present aid. For these reasons,

though our most merciful Father never slumbers nor sleeps, he very

often seems to do so, that thus he may exercise us, when we might

otherwise be listless and slothful, in asking, entreating, and

earnestly beseeching him to our great good. It is very absurd,

therefore, to dissuade men from prayer, by pretending that Divine

Providence, which is always watching over the government of the

universes is in vain importuned by our supplications, when, on the

contrary, the Lord himself declares, that he is “nigh unto all that

call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth, (Ps. 145: 18.) No

better is the frivolous allegation of others, that it is superfluous

to pray for things which the Lord is ready of his own accord to

bestow; since it is his pleasure that those very things which flow

from his spontaneous liberality should be acknowledged as conceded

to our prayers. This is testified by that memorable sentence in the

psalms to which many others corresponds: “The eyes of the Lord are

upon the righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry,” (Ps. 34:

15.) This passage, while extolling the care which Divine Providence

spontaneously exercises over the safety of believers, omits not the

exercise of faith by which the mind is aroused from sloth. The eyes

of God are awake to assist the blind in their necessity, but he is

likewise pleased to listen to our groans, that he may give us the

better proof of his love. And thus both things are true, “He that

keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep,” (Ps. 121: 4;) and

yet whenever he sees us dumb and torpid, he withdraws as if he had

forgotten us.

4. Let the first rule of right prayer then be, to have our

heart and mind framed as becomes those who are entering into

converse with God. This we shall accomplish in regard to the mind,

if, laying aside carnal thoughts and cares which might interfere

with the direct and pure contemplation of God, it not only be wholly

intent on prayer, but also, as far as possible, be borne and raised

above itself. I do not here insist on a mind so disengaged as to

feel none of the gnawings of anxiety; on the contrary, it is by much

anxiety that the fervor of prayer is inflamed. Thus we see that the

holy servants of God betray great anguish, not to say solicitude,

when they cause the voice of complaint to ascend to the Lord from

the deep abyss and the jaws of death. What I say is, that all

foreign and extraneous cares must be dispelled by which the mind

might be driven to and fro in vague suspense, be drawn down from

heaven, and kept groveling on the earth. When I say it must be

raised above itself, I mean that it must not bring into the presence

of God any of those things which our blind and stupid reason is wont

to devise, nor keep itself confined within the little measure of its

own vanity, but rise to a purity worthy of God.

5. Both things are specially worthy of notice. First, let every

one in professing to pray turn thither all his thoughts and

feelings, and be not (as is usual) distracted by wandering thoughts;

because nothing is more contrary to the reverence due to God than

that levity which bespeaks a mind too much given to license and

devoid of fear. In this matter we ought to labour the more earnestly

the more difficult we experience it to be; for no man is so intent

on prayer as not to feel many thoughts creeping in, and either

breaking off the tenor of his prayer, or retarding it by some

turning or digression. Here let us consider how unbecoming it is

when God admits us to familiar intercourse to abuse his great

condescension by mingling things sacred and profane, reverence for

him not keeping our minds under restraint; but just as if in prayer

we were conversing with one like ourselves forgetting him, and

allowing our thoughts to run to and fro. Let us know, then, that

none duly prepare themselves for prayer but those who are so

impressed with the majesty of God that they engage in it free from

all earthly cares and affections. The ceremony of lifting up our

hands in prayer is designed to remind us that we are far removed

from God, unless our thoughts rise upward: as it is said in the

psalm, “Unto thee, O Lord, do I lift up my soul,” (Psalm 25: 1.) And

Scripture repeatedly uses the expression to _raise our prayers_

meaning that those who would be heard by God must not grovel in the

mire. The sum is, that the more liberally God deals with us,

condescendingly inviting us to disburden our cares into his bosom,

the less excusable we are if this admirable and incomparable

blessing does not in our estimation outweigh all other things, and

win our affection, that prayer may seriously engage our every

thought and feeling. This cannot be unless our mind, strenuously

exerting itself against all impediments, rise upward. Our second

proposition was, that we are to ask only in so far as God permits.

For though he bids us pour out our hearts, (Ps. 62: 8) he does not

indiscriminately give loose reins to foolish and depraved

affections; and when he promises that he will grant believers their

wish, his indulgence does not proceed so far as to submit to their

caprice. In both matters grievous delinquencies are everywhere

committed. For not only do many without modesty, without reverence,

presume to invoke God concerning their frivolities, but impudently

bring forward their dreams, whatever they may be, before the

tribunal of God. Such is the folly or stupidity under which they

labour, that they have the hardihood to obtrude upon God desires so

vile, that they would blush exceedingly to impart them to their

fellow men. Profane writers have derided and even expressed their

detestation of this presumption, and yet the vice has always

prevailed. Hence, as the ambitious adopted Jupiter as their patron;

the avaricious, Mercury; the literary aspirants, Apollo and Minerva;

the warlike, Mars; the licentious, Venus: so in the present day, as

I lately observed, men in prayer give greater license to their

unlawful desires than if they were telling jocular tales among their

equals. God does not suffer his condescension to be thus mocked, but

vindicating his own light, places our wishes under the restraint of

his authority. We must, therefore, attend to the observation of

John: “This is the confidence that we have in him, that if we ask

any thing according to his will, he heareth us,” (1 John 5: 14.) But

as our faculties are far from being able to attain to such high

perfection, we must seek for some means to assist them. As the eye

of our mind should be intent upon God, so the affection of our heart

ought to follow in the same course. But both fall far beneath this,

or rather, they faint and fail, and are carried in a contrary

direction. To assist this weakness, God gives us the guidance of the

Spirit in our prayers to dictate what is right, and regulate our

affections. For seeing “we know not what we should pray for as we

ought,” “the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings

which cannot be uttered,” (Rom. 8: 26) not that he actually prays or

groans, but he excites in us sighs, and wishes, and confidence,

which our natural powers are not at all able to conceive. Nor is it

without cause Paul gives the name of _groanings which cannot be

uttered_ to the prayers which believers send forth under the

guidance of the Spirit. For those who are truly exercised in prayer

are not unaware that blind anxieties so restrain and perplex them,

that they can scarcely find what it becomes them to utter; nay, in

attempting to lisp they halt and hesitate. Hence it appears that to

pray aright is a special gift. We do not speak thus in indulgence to

our sloth, as if we were to leave the office of prayer to the Holy

Spirit, and give way to that carelessness to which we are too prone.

Thus we sometimes hear the impious expression, that we are to wait

in suspense until he take possession of our minds while otherwise

occupied. Our meaning is, that, weary of our own heartlessness and

sloth, we are to long for the aid of the Spirit. Nor, indeed, does

Paul, when he enjoins us to pray _in the Spirit_, (1 Cor. 14: 15,)

cease to exhort us to vigilance, intimating, that while the

inspiration of the Spirit is effectual to the formation of prayer,

it by no means impedes or retards our own endeavours; since in this

matter God is pleased to try how efficiently faith influences our

hearts.

6. Another rule of prayer is, that in asking we must always

truly feel our wants, and seriously considering that we need all the

things which we ask, accompany the prayer with a sincere, nay,

ardent desire of obtaining them. Many repeat prayers in a

perfunctory manner from a set form, as if they were performing a

task to God, and though they confess that this is a necessary remedy

for the evils of their condition, because it were fatal to be left

without the divine aid which they implore, it still appears that

they perform the duty from custom, because their minds are meanwhile

cold, and they ponder not what they ask. A general and confused

feeling of their necessity leads them to pray, but it does not make

them solicitous as in a matter of present consequence, that they may

obtain the supply of their need. Moreover, can we suppose anything

more hateful or even more execrable to God than this fiction of

asking the pardon of sins, while he who asks at the very time either

thinks that he is not a sinner, or, at least, is not thinking that

he is a sinner; in other words, a fiction by which God is plainly

held in derision? But mankind, as I have lately said, are full of

depravity, so that in the way of perfunctory service they often ask

many things of God which they think come to them without his

beneficence, or from some other quarter, or are already certainly in

their possession. There is another fault which seems less heinous,

but is not to be tolerated. Some murmur out prayers without

meditation, their only principle being that God is to be propitiated

by prayer. Believers ought to be specially on their guard never to

appear in the presence of God with the intention of presenting a

request unless they are under some serious impression, and are, at

the same time, desirous to obtain it. Nay, although in these things

which we ask only for the glory of God, we seem not at first sight

to consult for our necessity, yet we ought not to ask with less

fervor and vehemence of desire. For instance, when we pray that his

name be hallowed—that hallowing must, so to speak, be earnestly

hungered and thirsted after.

7. If it is objected, that the necessity which urges us to pray

is not always equal, I admit it, and this distinction is profitably

taught us by James: “Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is

any merry? let him sing psalms,” (James 5: 13.) Therefore, common

sense itself dictates, that as we are too sluggish, we must be

stimulated by God to pray earnestly whenever the occasion requires.

This David calls a time when God “may be found,” (a seasonable

time;) because, as he declares in several other passages, that the

more hardly grievances, annoyances, fears, and other kinds of trial

press us, the freer is our access to God, as if he were inviting us

to himself. Still not less true is the injunction of Paul to pray

“always,” (Eph. 6: 18;) because, however prosperously according to

our view, things proceed, and however we may be surrounded on all

sides with grounds of joy, there is not an instant of time during

which our want does not exhort us to prayer. A man abounds in wheat

and wine; but as he cannot enjoy a morsel of bread, unless by the

continual bounty of God, his granaries or cellars will not prevent

him from asking for daily bread. Then, if we consider how many

dangers impend every moment, fear itself will teach us that no time

ought to be without prayer. This, however, may be better known in

spiritual matters. For when will the many sins of which we are

conscious allow us to sit secure without suppliantly entreating

freedom from guilt and punishment? When will temptation give us a

truce, making it unnecessary to hasten for help? Moreover, zeal for

the kingdom and glory of God ought not to seize us by starts, but

urge us without intermission, so that every time should appear

seasonable. It is not without cause, therefore, that assiduity in

prayer is so often enjoined. I am not now speaking of perseverance,

which shall afterwards be considered; but Scripture, by reminding us

of the necessity of constant prayer, charges us with sloth, because

we feel not how much we stand in need of this care and assiduity. By

this rule hypocrisy and the device of lying to God are restrained,

nay, altogether banished from prayer. God promises that he will be

near to those who call upon him in truth, and declares that those

who seek him with their whole heart will find him: those, therefore,

who delight in their own pollution cannot surely aspire to him. One

of the requisites of legitimate prayer is repentance. Hence the

common declaration of Scripture, that God does not listen to the

wicked; that their prayers, as well as their sacrifices, are an

abomination to him. For it is right that those who seal up their

hearts should find the ears of God closed against them, that those

who, by their hardheartedness, provoke his severity should find him

inflexible. In Isaiah he thus threatens: “When ye make many prayers,

I will not hear: your hands are full of blood,” (Isaiah 1: 15.) In

like manner, in Jeremiah, “Though they shall cry unto me, I will not

hearken unto them,” (Jer. 11: 7, 8, 11;) because he regards it as

the highest insult for the wicked to boast of his covenant while

profaning his sacred name by their whole lives. Hence he complains

in Isaiah: “This people draw near to me with their mouth, and with

their lips do honour me; but have removed their heart far from men”

(Isaiah 29: 13.) Indeed, he does not confine this to prayers alone,

but declares that he abominates pretense in every part of his

service. Hence the words of James, “Ye ask and receive note because

ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts,” (James iv.

3.) It is true, indeed, (as we shall again see in a little,) that

the pious, in the prayers which they utter, trust not to their own

worth; still the admonition of John is not superfluous: “Whatsoever

we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments,” (1

John 3: 22;) an evil conscience shuts the door against us. Hence it

follows, that none but the sincere worshippers of God pray aright,

or are listened to. Let every one, therefore, who prepares to pray

feel dissatisfied with what is wrong in his condition, and assume,

which he cannot do without repentance, the character and feelings of

a poor suppliant.

8. The third rule to be added is: that he who comes into the

presence of God to pray must divest himself of all vainglorious

thoughts, lay aside all idea of worth; in short, discard all self-

confidence, humbly giving God the whole glory, lest by arrogating

any thing, however little, to himself, vain pride cause him to turn

away his face. Of this submission, which casts down all haughtiness,

we have numerous examples in the servants of God. The holier they

are, the more humbly they prostrate themselves when they come into

the presence of the Lord. Thus Daniel, on whom the Lord himself

bestowed such high commendation, says, “We do not present our

supplications before thee for our righteousness but for thy great

mercies. O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do;

defer not, for thine own sake, O my God: for thy city and thy people

are called by thy name.” This he does not indirectly in the usual

manner, as if he were one of the individuals in a crowd: he rather

confesses his guilt apart, and as a suppliant betaking himself to

the asylum of pardon, he distinctly declares that he was confessing

his own sin, and the sin of his people Israel, (Dan. 9: 18-20.)

David also sets us an example of this humility: “Enter not into

judgment with thy servant: for in thy sight shall no man living be

justified,” (Psalm 143: 2.) In like manner, Isaiah prays, “Behold,

thou art wroth; for we have sinned: in those is continuance, and we

shall be saved. But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our

righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf;

and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. And there is

none that calleth upon thy name, that stirreth up himself to take

hold of thee: for thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast consumed

us, because of our iniquities. But now, O Lord, thou art our Father;

we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy

hand. Be not wroth very sore, O Lord, neither remember iniquity for

ever: Behold, see, we beseech thee, we are all thy people.” (Isa.

64: 5-9.) You see how they put no confidence in any thing but this:

considering that they are the Lord’s, they despair not of being the

objects of his care. In the same way, Jeremiah says, “O Lord, though

our iniquities testify against us, do thou it for thy name’s sake,”

(Jer. 14: 7.) For it was most truly and piously written by the

uncertain author (whoever he may have been) that wrote the book

which is attributed to the prophet Baruch,[2] “But the soul that is

greatly vexed, which goeth stooping and feeble, and the eyes that

fail, and the hungry soul, will give thee praise and righteousness,

O Lord. Therefore, we do not make our humble supplication before

thee, O Lord our God, for the righteousness of our fathers, and of

our kings.” “Hear, O Lord, and have mercy; for thou art merciful:

and have pity upon us, because we have sinned before thee,” (Baruch

2: 18, 19; 3: 2.)

9. In fine, supplication for pardon, with humble and ingenuous

confession of guilt, forms both the preparation and commencement of

right prayer. For the holiest of men cannot hope to obtain any thing

from God until he has been freely reconciled to him. God cannot be

propitious to any but those whom he pardons. Hence it is not strange

that this is the key by which believers open the door of prayer, as

we learn from several passages in The Psalms. David, when presenting

a request on a different subject, says, “Remember not the sins of my

youth, nor my transgressions; according to thy mercy remember me,

for thy goodness sake, O Lord,” (Psalm 25: 7.) Again, “Look upon my

affliction and my pain, and forgive my sins,” (Psalm 25: 18.) Here

also we see that it is not sufficient to call ourselves to account

for the sins of each passing day; we must also call to mind those

which might seem to have been long before buried in oblivion. For in

another passage the same prophet, confessing one grievous crime,

takes occasion to go back to his very birth, “I was shapen in

iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me,” (Psalm 51: 5;) not

to extenuate the fault by the corruption of his nature, but as it

were to accumulate the sins of his whole life, that the stricter he

was in condemning himself, the more placable God might be. But

although the saints do not always in express terms ask forgiveness

of sins, yet if we carefully ponder those prayers as given in

Scripture, the truth of what I say will readily appear; namely, that

their courage to pray was derived solely from the mercy of God, and

that they always began with appeasing him. For when a man

interrogates his conscience, so far is he from presuming to lay his

cares familiarly before God, that if he did not trust to mercy and

pardon, he would tremble at the very thought of approaching him.

There is, indeed, another special confession. When believers long

for deliverance from punishment, they at the same time pray that

their sins may be pardoned;[3] for it were absurd to wish that the

effect should be taken away while the cause remains. For we must

beware of imitating foolish patients who, anxious only about curing

accidental symptoms, neglect the root of the disease.[4] Nay, our

endeavour must be to have God propitious even before he attests his

favour by external signs, both because this is the order which he

himself chooses, and it were of little avail to experience his

kindness, did not conscience feel that he is appeased, and thus

enable us to regard him as altogether lovely. Of this we are even

reminded by our Savior’s reply. Having determined to cure the

paralytic, he says, “Thy sins are forgiven thee;” in other words, he

raises our thoughts to the object which is especially to be desired,

viz. admission into the favour of God, and then gives the fruit of

reconciliation by bringing assistance to us. But besides that

special confession of present guilt which believers employ, in

supplicating for pardon of every fault and punishment, that general

introduction which procures favour for our prayers must never be

omitted, because prayers will never reach God unless they are

founded on free mercy. To this we may refer the words of John, “If

we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins

and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness,” (1 John 1: 9.) Hence,

under the law it was necessary to consecrate prayers by the

expiation of blood, both that they might be accepted, and that the

people might be warned that they were unworthy of the high privilege

until, being purged from their defilements, they founded their

confidence in prayer entirely on the mercy of God.

10. Sometimes, however, the saints in supplicating God, seem to

appeal to their own righteousness, as when David says, “Preserve my

soul; for I am holy,” (Ps. 86: 2.) Also Hezekiah, “Remember now, O

Lord, I beseech thee how I have walked before thee in truth, and

with a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in thy

sight,” (Is. 38. 2.) All they mean by such expressions is, that

regeneration declares them to be among the servants and children to

whom God engages that he will show favour. We have already seen how

he declares by the Psalmist that his eyes “are upon the righteous,

and his ears are open unto their cry,” (Ps. 34: 16:) and again by

the apostle, that “whatsoever we ask of him we obtain, because we

keep his commandments,” (John 3: 22.) In these passages he does not

fix a value on prayer as a meritorious work, but designs to

establish the confidence of those who are conscious of an unfeigned

integrity and innocence, such as all believers should possess. For

the saying of the blind man who had received his sight is in perfect

accordance with divine truth, And God heareth not sinners (John 9:

31;) provided we take the term sinners in the sense commonly used by

Scripture to mean those who, without any desire for righteousness,

are sleeping secure in their sins; since no heart will ever rise to

genuine prayer that does not at the same time long for holiness.

Those supplications in which the saints allude to their purity and

integrity correspond to such promises, that they may thus have, in

their own experience, a manifestation of that which all the servants

of God are made to expect. Thus they almost always use this mode of

prayer when before God they compare themselves with their enemies,

from whose injustice they long to be delivered by his hand. When

making such comparisons, there is no wonder that they bring forward

their integrity and simplicity of heart, that thus, by the justice

of their cause, the Lord may be the more disposed to give them

succour. We rob not the pious breast of the privilege of enjoying a

consciousness of purity before the Lord, and thus feeling assured of

the promises with which he comforts and supports his true

worshippers, but we would have them to lay aside all thought of

their own merits and found their confidence of success in prayer

solely on the divine mercy.

11. The fourth rule of prayer is, that notwithstanding of our

being thus abased and truly humbled, we should be animated to pray

with the sure hope of succeeding. There is, indeed, an appearance of

contradiction between the two things, between a sense of the just

vengeance of God and firm confidence in his favour, and yet they are

perfectly accordant, if it is the mere goodness of God that raises

up those who are overwhelmed by their own sins. For, as we have

formerly shown (chap. 3: sec. 17 2) that repentance and faith go

hand in hand, being united by an indissoluble tie, the one causing

terror, the other joy, so in prayer they must both be present. This

concurrence David expresses in a few words: “But as for me, I will

come into thy house in the multitude of thy mercy, and in thy fear

will I worship toward thy holy temple,” (Ps. 5: 7.) Under the

goodness of God he comprehends faith, at the same time not excluding

fear; for not only does his majesty compel our reverence, but our

own unworthiness also divests us of all pride and confidence, and

keeps us in fear. The confidence of which I speak is not one which

frees the mind from all anxiety, and soothes it with sweet and

perfect rest; such rest is peculiar to those who, while all their

affairs are flowing to a wish are annoyed by no care, stung with no

regret, agitated by no fear. But the best stimulus which the saints

have to prayer is when, in consequence of their own necessities,

they feel the greatest disquietude, and are all but driven to

despair, until faith seasonably comes to their aid; because in such

straits the goodness of God so shines upon them, that while they

groan, burdened by the weight of present calamities, and tormented

with the fear of greater, they yet trust to this goodness, and in

this way both lighten the difficulty of endurance, and take comfort

in the hope of final deliverance. It is necessary therefore, that

the prayer of the believer should be the result of both feelings,

and exhibit the influence of both; namely, that while he groans

under present and anxiously dreads new evils, he should, at the same

times have recourse to God, not at all doubting that God is ready to

stretch out a helping hand to him. For it is not easy to say how

much God is irritated by our distrust, when we ask what we expect

not of his goodness. Hence, nothing is more accordant to the nature

of prayer than to lay it down as a fixed rule, that it is not to

come forth at random, but is to follow in the footsteps of faith. To

this principle Christ directs all of us in these words, “Therefore,

I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe

that ye receive them, and ye shall have them,” (Mark 11: 24.) The

same thing he declares in another passage, “All things, whatsoever

ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive,” (Matth. 21.

22.) In accordance with this are the words of James, “If any of you

lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally,

and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him. But let him ask in

faith, nothing wavering,” (James 1: 5.) He most aptly expresses the

power of faith by opposing it to wavering. No less worthy of notice

is his additional statement, that those who approach God with a

doubting, hesitating mind, without feeling assured whether they are

to be heard or not, gain nothing by their prayers. Such persons he

compares to a wave of the sea, driven with the wind and tossed.

Hence, in another passage he terms genuine prayer “the prayer of

faith,” (James 5: 15.) Again, since God so often declares that he

will give to every man according to his faith he intimates that we

cannot obtain any thing without faith. In short, it is faith which

obtains every thing that is granted to prayer. This is the meaning

of Paul in the well known passage to which dull men give too little

heed, “How then shall they call upon him in whom they have not

believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not

heard?” “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of

God,” (Rom. 10: 14,17.) Gradually deducing the origin of prayer from

faith, he distinctly maintains that God cannot be invoked sincerely

except by those to whom, by the preaching of the Gospel, his mercy

and willingness have been made known, nay, familiarly explained.

12. This necessity our opponents do not at all consider.

Therefore, when we say that believers ought to feel firmly assured,

they think we are saying the absurdest thing in the world. But if

they had any experience in true prayer, they would assuredly

understand that God cannot be duly invoked without this firm sense

of the Divine benevolence. But as no man can well perceive the power

of faith, without at the same time feeling it in his heart, what

profit is there in disputing with men of this character, who plainly

show that they have never had more than a vain imagination? The

value and necessity of that assurance for which we contend is

learned chiefly from prayer. Every one who does not see this gives

proof of a very stupid conscience. Therefore, leaving those who are

thus blinded, let us fix our thoughts on the words of Paul, that God

can only be invoked by such as have obtained a knowledge of his

mercy from the Gospel, and feel firmly assured that that mercy is

ready to be bestowed upon them. What kind of prayer would this be?

“O Lord, I am indeed doubtful whether or not thou art inclined to

hear me; but being oppressed with anxiety I fly to thee that if I am

worthy, thou mayest assist me.” None of the saints whose prayers are

given in Scripture thus supplicated. Nor are we thus taught by the

Holy Spirit, who tells us to “come boldly unto the throne of grace,

that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need,”

(Heb. 4: 16;) and elsewhere teaches us to “have boldness and access

with confidence by the faith of Christ,” (Eph. 3: 12.) This

confidence of obtaining what we ask, a confidence which the Lord

commands, and all the saints teach by their example, we must

therefore hold fast with both hands, if we would pray to any

advantage. The only prayer acceptable to God is that which springs

(if I may so express it) from this presumption of faith, and is

founded on the full assurance of hope. He might have been contented

to use the simple name of faith, but he adds not only confidence,

but liberty or boldness, that by this mark he might distinguish us

from unbelievers, who indeed like us pray to God, but pray at

random. Hence, the whole Church thus prays “Let thy mercy O Lord, be

upon us, according as we hope in thee,” (Ps. 33: 22.) The same

condition is set down by the Psalmist in another passage, “When I

cry unto thee, then shall mine enemies turn back: this I know, for

God is for me,” (Ps. 56: 9.) Again, “In the morning will I direct my

prayer unto thee, and will look up,” (Ps. 5: 3.) From these words we

gather, that prayers are vainly poured out into the air unless

accompanied with faith, in which, as from a watchtower, we may

quietly wait for God. With this agrees the order of Paul’s

exhortation. For before urging believers to pray in the Spirit

always, with vigilance and assiduity, he enjoins them to take “the

shield of faith,” “the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the

Spirit, which is the word of God,” (Eph. vi. 16-18.) Let the reader

here call to mind what I formerly observed, that faith by no means

fails though accompanied with a recognition of our wretchedness,

poverty, and pollution. How much soever believers may feel that they

are oppressed by a heavy load of iniquity, and are not only devoid

of every thing which can procure the favour of God for them, but

justly burdened with many sins which make him an object of dread,

yet they cease not to present themselves, this feeling not deterring

them from appearing in his presence, because there is no other

access to him. Genuine prayer is not that by which we arrogantly

extol ourselves before God, or set a great value on any thing of our

own, but that by which, while confessing our guilt, we utter our

sorrows before God, just as children familiarly lay their complaints

before their parents. Nay, the immense accumulation of our sins

should rather spur us on and incite us to prayer. Of this the

Psalmist gives us an example, “Heal my soul: for I have sinned

against thee,” (Ps. 41: 4.) I confess, indeed, that these stings

would prove mortal darts, did not God give succour; but our heavenly

Father has, in ineffable kindness, added a remedy, by which, calming

all perturbation, soothing our cares, and dispelling our fears he

condescendingly allures us to himself; nay, removing all doubts, not

to say obstacles, makes the way smooth before us.

13. And first, indeed in enjoining us to pray, he by the very

injunction convicts us of impious contumacy if we obey not. He could

not give a more precise command than that which is contained in the

psalms: “Call upon me in the day of trouble,” (Ps. 50: 15.) But as

there is no office of piety more frequently enjoined by Scripture,

there is no occasion for here dwelling longer upon it. “Ask,” says

our Divine Master, “and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall

find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you,” (Matth. 7: 7.) Here,

indeed, a promise is added to the precept, and this is necessary.

For though all confess that we must obey the precept, yet the

greater part would shun the invitation of God, did he not promise

that he would listen and be ready to answer. These two positions

being laid down, it is certain that all who cavillingly allege that

they are not to come to God directly, are not only rebellious and

disobedient but are also convicted of unbelief, inasmuch as they

distrust the promises. There is the more occasion to attend to this,

because hypocrites, under a pretense of humility and modesty,

proudly contemn the precept, as well as deny all credit to the

gracious invitation of God; nay, rob him of a principal part of his

worship. For when he rejected sacrifices, in which all holiness

seemed then to consist, he declared that the chief thing, that which

above all others is precious in his sight, is to be invoked in the

day of necessity. Therefore, when he demands that which is his own,

and urges us to alacrity in obeying, no pretexts for doubt, how

specious soever they may be, can excuse us. Hence, all the passages

throughout Scripture in which we are commanded to pray, are set up

before our eyes as so many banners, to inspire us with confidence.

It were presumption to go forward into the presence of God, did he

not anticipate us by his invitation. Accordingly, he opens up the

way for us by his own voice, “I will say, It is my people: and they

shall say, The Lord is my God,” (Zech. 13: 9.) We see how he

anticipates his worshippers, and desires them to follow, and

therefore we cannot fear that the melody which he himself dictates

will prove unpleasing. Especially let us call to mind that noble

description of the divine character, by trusting to which we shall

easily overcome every obstacle: O thou that hearest prayer, unto

thee shall all flesh come,” (Ps. 65: 2.) What can be more lovely or

soothing than to see God invested with a title which assures us that

nothing is more proper to his nature than to listen to the prayers

of suppliants? Hence the Psalmist infers, that free access is given

not to a few individuals, but to all men, since God addresses all in

these terms, “Call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver

thee, and thou shalt glorify me,” (Ps. 50: 15.) David, accordingly,

appeals to the promise thus given in order to obtain what he asks:

“Thou, O Lord of hosts, God of Israel, hast revealed to thy servant,

saying, I will build thee an house: therefore hath thy servant found

in his heart to pray this prayer unto thee” (2 Sam. 7: 27.) Here we

infer, that he would have been afraid but for the promise which

emboldened him. So in another passage he fortifies himself with the

general doctrine, “He will fulfill the desire of them that fear

him,” (Ps. 145: 19.) Nay, we may observe in The Psalms how the

continuity of prayer is broken, and a transition is made at one time

to the power of God, at another to his goodness, at another to the

faithfulness of his promises. It might seem that David, by

introducing these sentiments, unseasonably mutilates his prayers;

but believers well know by experience, that their ardor grows

languid unless new fuel be added, and, therefore, that meditation as

well on the nature as on the word of God during prayer, is by no

means superfluous. Let us not decline to imitate the example of

David, and introduce thoughts which may reanimate our languid minds

with new vigor.

14. It is strange that these delightful promises affect us

coldly, or scarcely at all, so that the generality of men prefer to

wander up and down, forsaking the fountain of living waters, and

hewing out to themselves broken cisterns, rather than embrace the

divine liberality voluntarily offered to them (Jer. 2:13). “The name

of the Lord,” says Solomon, “is a strong tower; the righteous

runneth into it, and is safe.” (Pr. 18:10) Joel, after predicting

the fearful disaster which was at hand, subjoins the following

memorable sentence: “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall

call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered.” (Joel 2: 32) This

we know properly refers to the course of the Gospel. Scarcely one in

a hundred is moved to come into the presence of God, though he

himself exclaims by Isaiah, “And it shall come to pass, that before

they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will

hear.” (Is. 65: 24) This honour he elsewhere bestows upon the whole

Church in general, as belonging to all the members of Christ: “He

shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I will be with him in

trouble; I will deliver him, and honour him.” (Ps. 91:15) My

intention, however, as I already observed, is not to enumerate all,

but only select some admirable passages as a specimen how kindly God

allures us to himself, and how extreme our ingratitude must be when

with such powerful motives our sluggishness still retards us.

Wherefore, let these words always resound in our ears: “The Lord is

nigh unto all them that call upon him, to all that call upon him in

truth,” (Ps. 145: 18.) Likewise those passages which we have quoted

from Isaiah and Joel, in which God declares that his ear is open to

our prayers, and that he is delighted as with a sacrifice of sweet

savour when we cast our cares upon him. The special benefit of these

promises we receive when we frame our prayer, not timorously or

doubtingly, but when trusting to his word whose majesty might

otherwise deter us, we are bold to call him Father, he himself

deigning to suggest this most delightful name. Fortified by such

invitations it remains for us to know that we have therein

sufficient materials for prayer, since our prayers depend on no

merit of our own, but all their worth and hope of success are

founded and depend on the promises of God, so that they need no

other support, and require not to look up and down on this hand and

on that. It must therefore be fixed in our minds, that though we

equal not the lauded sanctity of patriarchs, prophets, and apostles,

yet as the command to pray is common to us as well as them, and

faith is common, so if we lean on the word of God, we are in respect

of this privilege their associates. For God declaring, as has

already been seen, that he will listen and be favourable to all,

encourages the most wretched to hope that they shall obtain what

they ask; and, accordingly, we should attend to the general forms of

expression, which, as it is commonly expressed, exclude none from

first to last; only let there be sincerity of heart, self-

dissatisfaction humility, and faith, that we may not, by the

hypocrisy of a deceitful prayer, profane the name of God. Our most

merciful Father will not reject those whom he not only encourages to

come, but urges in every possible way. Hence David’s method of

prayer to which I lately referred: “And now, O Lord God, thou art

that God, and thy words be true, and thou hast promised this

goodness unto thy servant, that it may continue for ever before

thee” (2 Sam. 7: 28.) So also, in another passage, “Let, I pray

thee, thy merciful kindness be for my comfort, according to thy word

unto thy servant,” (Psalm 119: 76.) And the whole body of the

Israelites, whenever they fortify themselves with the remembrance of

the covenant, plainly declare, that since God thus prescribes they

are not to pray timorously, (Gen. 32: 13.) In this they imitated the

example of the patriarchs, particularly Jacob, who, after confessing

that he was unworthy of the many mercies which he had received of

the Lord’s hand, says, that he is encouraged to make still larger

requests, because God had promised that he would grant them. But

whatever be the pretexts which unbelievers employ, when they do not

flee to God as often as necessity urges, nor seek after him, nor

implore his aid, they defraud him of his due honour just as much as

if they were fabricating to themselves new gods and idols, since in

this way they deny that God is the author of all their blessings. On

the contrary, nothing more effectually frees pious minds from every

doubt, than to be armed with the thought that no obstacle should

impede them while they are obeying the command of God, who declares

that nothing is more grateful to him than obedience. Hence, again,

what I have previously said becomes still more clear, namely, that a

bold spirit in prayer well accords with fear, reverence, and

anxiety, and that there is no inconsistency when God raises up those

who had fallen prostrate. In this way forms of expression apparently

inconsistent admirably harmonize. Jeremiah and David speak of humbly

laying their supplications[5] before God (Jer. 42: 9; Dan. 9: 18.)

In another passage Jeremiah says “Let, we beseech thee, our

supplication be accepted before thee, and pray for us unto the Lord

thy God, even for all this remnant.” (Jer. 42: 2) On the other hand,

believers are often said to _lift up prayer_. Thus Hezekiah speaks,

when asking the prophet to undertake the office of interceding (2

Kings 19: 4.) And David says, “Let my prayer be set forth before

thee as incense; and the lifting up of my hands as the evening

sacrifice.” (Ps. 141: 2) The explanation is, that though believers,

persuaded of the paternal love of God, cheerfully rely on his

faithfulness, and have no hesitation in imploring the aid which he

voluntarily offers, they are not elated with supine or presumptuous

security; but climbing up by the ladder of the promises, still

remain humble and abased suppliants.

15. Here, by way of objection, several questions are raised.

Scripture relates that God sometimes complied with certain prayers

which had been dictated by minds not duly calmed or regulated. It is

true, that the cause for which Jotham imprecated on the inhabitants

of Shechem the disaster which afterwards befell them was well

founded; but still he was inflamed with anger and revenge, (Judges

9: 20;) and hence God, by complying with the execration, seems to

approve of passionate impulses. Similar fervor also seized Samson,

when he prayed, “Strengthen me, I pray thee, only this once, O God,

that I may be at once avenged of the Philistines for my two eyes,”

(Judges 16: 28.) For although there was some mixture of good zeal,

yet his ruling feeling was a fervid, and therefore vicious longing

for vengeance. God assents, and hence apparently it might be

inferred that prayers are effectual, though not framed in conformity

to the rule of the word. But I answer, _first_, that a perpetual law

is not abrogated by singular examples; and, _secondly_, that special

suggestions have sometimes been made to a few individuals, whose

case thus becomes different from that of the generality of men. For

we should attend to the answer which our Saviour gave to his

disciples when they inconsiderately wished to imitate the example of

Elias, “Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of,” (Luke ix. 55.)

We must, however, go farther and say, that the wishes to which God

assents are not always pleasing to him; but he assents, because it

is necessary, by way of example, to give clear evidence of the

doctrine of Scripture, viz., that he assists the miserable, and

hears the groans of those who unjustly afflicted implore his aid:

and, accordingly, he executes his judgments when the complaints of

the needy, though in themselves unworthy of attention, ascend to

him. For how often, in inflicting punishment on the ungodly for

cruelty, rapine, violence, lust, and other crimes, in curbing

audacity and fury, and also in overthrowing tyrannical power, has he

declared that he gives assistance to those who are unworthily

oppressed though they by addressing an unknown deity only beat the

air? There is one psalm which clearly teaches that prayers are not

without effect, though they do not penetrate to heaven by faith,

(Ps. 107: 6,13,19.) For it enumerates the prayers which, by natural

instinct, necessity extorts from unbelievers not less than from

believers, and to which it shows by the event, that God is,

notwithstanding, propitious. Is it to testify by such readiness to

hear that their prayers are agreeable to him? Nay; it is, first, to

magnify or display his mercy by the circumstance, that even the

wishes of unbelievers are not denied; and, secondly, to stimulate

his true worshippers to more urgent prayer, when they see that

sometimes even the wailings of the ungodly are not without avail.

This, however, is no reason why believers should deviate from the

law divinely imposed upon them, or envy unbelievers, as if they

gained much in obtaining what they wished. We have observed, (chap.

3: sec. 25,) that in this way God yielded to the feigned repentance

of Ahab, that he might show how ready he is to listen to his elect

when, with true contrition, they seek his favour. Accordingly, he

upbraids the Jews, that shortly after experiencing his readiness to

listen to their prayers, they returned to their own perverse

inclinations. It is also plain from the Book of Judges that,

whenever they wept, though their tears were deceitful, they were

delivered from the hands of their enemies. Therefore, as God sends

his sun indiscriminately on the evil and on the good, so he despises

not the tears of those who have a good cause, and whose sorrows are

deserving of relief. Meanwhile, though he hears them, it has no more

to do with salvation than the supply of food which he gives to other

despisers of his goodness. There seems to be a more difficult

question concerning Abraham and Samuel, the one of whom, without any

instruction from the word of God, prayed in behalf of the people of

Sodom, and the other, contrary to an express prohibition, prayed in

behalf of Saul, (Gen. 18: 23; 1 Sam. 15. 11.) Similar is the case of

Jeremiah, who prayed that the city might not be destroyed, (Jer. 32:

16ff.) It is true their prayers were refused, but it seems harsh to

affirm that they prayed without faith. Modest readers will, I hope,

be satisfied with this solution, viz., that leaning to the general

principle on which God enjoins us to be merciful even to the

unworthy, they were not altogether devoid of faith, though in this

particular instance their wish was disappointed. Augustine shrewdly

remarks, “How do the saints pray in faith when they ask from God

contrary to what he has decreed? Namely, because they pray according

to his will, not his hidden and immutable will, but that which he

suggests to them, that he may hear them in another manner; as he

wisely distinguishes,” (August. de Civit. Dei, Lib. 22: 100: 2.)

This is truly said: for, in his incomprehensible counsel, he so

regulates events, that the prayers of the saints, though involving a

mixture of faith and error, are not in vain. And yet this no more

sanctions imitation than it excuses the saints themselves, who I

deny not exceeded due bounds. Wherefore, whenever no certain promise

exists, our request to God must have a condition annexed to it. Here

we may refer to the prayer of David, “Awake for me to the judgment

that thou hast commanded,” (Ps. vii. 6;) for he reminds us that he

had received special instruction to pray for a temporal blessing.[6]

16. It is also of importance to observe, that the four laws of

prayer of which I have treated are not so rigorously enforced, as

that God rejects the prayers in which he does not find perfect faith

or repentance, accompanied with fervent zeal and wishes duly framed.

We have said, (sec. 4,) that though prayer is the familiar

intercourse of believers with God, yet reverence and modesty must be

observed: we must not give loose reins to our wishes, nor long for

any thing farther than God permits; and, moreover, lest the majesty

of God should be despised, our minds must be elevated to pure and

chaste veneration. This no man ever performed with due perfection.

For, not to speak of the generality of men, how often do David’s

complaints savour of intemperance? Not that he actually means to

expostulate with God, or murmur at his judgments, but failing,

through infirmity, he finds no better solace than to pour his griefs

into the bosom of his heavenly Father. Nay, even our stammering is

tolerated by God, and pardon is granted to our ignorance as often as

any thing rashly escapes us: indeed, without this indulgence, we

should have no freedom to pray. But although it was David’s

intention to submit himself entirely to the will of God, and he

prayed with no less patience than fervor, yet irregular emotions

appear, nay, sometimes burst forth,-emotions not a little at

variance with the first law which we laid down. In particular, we

may see in a clause of the thirty-ninth Psalm, how this saint was

carried away by the vehemence of his grief, and unable to keep

within bounds. “O spare me,[7] that I may recover strength, before I

go hence, and be no more,” (Ps. 39: 13.) You would call this the

language of a desperate man, who had no other desire than that God

should withdraw and leave him to relish in his distresses. Not that

his devout mind rushes into such intemperance, or that, as the

reprobate are wont, he wishes to have done with God; he only

complains that the divine anger is more than he can bear. During

those trials, wishes often escape which are not in accordance with

the rule of the word, and in which the saints do not duly consider

what is lawful and expedient. Prayers contaminated by such faults,

indeed, deserve to be rejected; yet provided the saints lament,

administer self-correction and return to themselves, God pardons.

Similar faults are committed in regard to the second law, (as to

which, see sec. 6,) for the saints have often to struggle with their

own coldness, their want and misery not urging them sufficiently to

serious prayer. It often happens, also, that their minds wander, and

are almost lost; hence in this matter also there is need of pardon,

lest their prayers, from being languid or mutilated, or interrupted

and wandering, should meet with a refusal. One of the natural

feelings which God has imprinted on our mind is, that prayer is not

genuine unless the thoughts are turned upward. Hence the ceremony of

raising the hands, to which we have adverted, a ceremony known to

all ages and nations, and still in common use. But who, in lifting

up his hands, is not conscious of sluggishness, the heart cleaving

to the earth? In regard to the petition for remission of sins, (sec.

8,) though no believer omits it, yet all who are truly exercised in

prayer feel that they bring scarcely a tenth of the sacrifice of

which David speaks, “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a

broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise,” (Ps. 51:

17.) Thus a twofold pardon is always to be asked; first, because

they are conscious of many faults the sense of which, however, does

not touch them so as to make them feel dissatisfied with themselves

as they ought; and, secondly, in so far as they have been enabled to

profit in repentance and the fear of God, they are humbled with just

sorrow for their offenses, and pray for the remission of punishment

by the judge. The thing which most of all vitiates prayer, did not

God indulgently interpose, is weakness or imperfection of faith; but

it is not wonderful that this defect is pardoned by God, who often

exercises his people with severe trials, as if he actually wished to

extinguish their faith. The hardest of such trials is when believers

are forced to exclaim, “O Lord God of hosts, how long wilt thou be

angry against the prayer of thy people?” (Ps. 80: 4,) as if their

very prayers offended him. In like manner, when Jeremiah says “Also

when I cry and shout, he shutteth out my prayers (Lam. 3: 8,) there

cannot be a doubt that he was in the greatest perturbation.

Innumerable examples of the same kind occur in the Scriptures, from

which it is manifest that the faith of the saints was often mingled

with doubts and fears, so that while believing and hoping, they,

however, betrayed some degree of unbelief, But because they do not

come so far as were to be wished, that is only an additional reason

for their exerting themselves to correct their faults, that they may

daily approach nearer to the perfect law of prayer, and at the same

time feel into what an abyss of evils those are plunged, who, in the

very cures they use, bring new diseases upon themselves: since there

is no prayer which God would not deservedly disdain, did he not

overlook the blemishes with which all of them are polluted. I do not

mention these things that believers may securely pardon themselves

in any faults which they commit, but that they may call themselves

to strict account, and thereby endeavour to surmount these

obstacles; and though Satan endeavours to block up all the paths in

order to prevent them from praying, they may, nevertheless, break

through, being firmly persuaded that though not disencumbered of all

hindrances, their attempts are pleasing to God, and their wishes are

approved, provided they hasten on and keep their aim, though without

immediately reaching it.

17. But since no man is worthy to come forward in his own name,

and appear in the presence of God, our heavenly Father, to relieve

us at once from fear and shame, with which all must feel

oppressed,[8] has given us his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, to be our

Advocate and Mediator, that under his guidance we may approach

securely, confiding that with him for our Intercessor nothing which

we ask in his name will be denied to us, as there is nothing which

the Father can deny to him, (1 Tim. 2: 5; 1 John 2: 1; see sec. 36,

37.) To this it is necessary to refer all that we have previously

taught concerning faith; because, as the promise gives us Christ as

our Mediator, so, unless our hope of obtaining what we ask is

founded on him, it deprives us of the privilege of prayer. For it is

impossible to think of the dread majesty of God without being filled

with alarm; and hence the sense of our own unworthiness must keep us

far away, until Christ interpose, and convert a throne of dreadful

glory into a throne of grace, as the Apostle teaches that thus we

can “come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy,

and find grace to help in time of need,” (Heb. 4: 16.) And as a rule

has been laid down as to prayer, as a promise has been given that

those who pray will be heard, so we are specially enjoined to pray

in the name of Christ, the promise being that we shall obtain what

we ask in his name. “Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name,” says our

Saviour, “that will I do; that the Father may be glorified in the

Son;” “Hitherto ye have asked nothing in my name; ask, and ye shall

receive, that your joy may be full,” (John 14: 13; 16: 24.) Hence it

is incontrovertibly clear that those who pray to God in any other

name than that of Christ contumaciously falsify his orders, and

regard his will as nothing, while they have no promise that they

shall obtain. For, as Paul says “All the promises of God in him are

yea, and in him amen;” (2 Cor. 1: 20,) that is, are confirmed and

fulfilled in him.

18. And we must carefully attend to the circumstance of time.

Christ enjoins his disciples to have recourse to his intercession

after he shall have ascended to heaven: “At that day ye shall ask in

my name,” (John 16: 26.) It is certain, indeed, that from the very

first all who ever prayed were heard only for the sake of the

Mediator. For this reason God had commanded in the Law, that the

priest alone should enter the sanctuary, bearing the names of the

twelve tribes of Israel on his shoulders, and as many precious

stones on his breast, while the people were to stand at a distance

in the outer court, and thereafter unite their prayers with the

priest. Nay, the sacrifice had even the effect of ratifying and

confirming their prayers. That shadowy ceremony of the Law therefore

taught, first, that we are all excluded from the face of God, and,

therefore, that there is need of a Mediator to appear in our name,

and carry us on his shoulders and keep us bound upon his breast,

that we may be heard in his person; And secondly, that our prayers,

which, as has been said, would otherwise never be free from

impurity, are cleansed by the sprinkling of his blood. And we see

that the saints, when they desired to obtain any thing, founded

their hopes on sacrifices, because they knew that by sacrifice all

prayers were ratified: “Remember all thy offerings,” says David,

“and accept thy burnt sacrifice,” (Ps. 20: 3.) Hence we infer, that

in receiving the prayers of his people, God was from the very first

appeased by the intercession of Christ. Why then does Christ speak

of a new period ("at that day") when the disciples were to begin to

pray in his name, unless it be that this grace, being now more

brightly displayed, ought also to be in higher estimation with us?

In this sense he had said a little before, “Hitherto ye have asked

nothing in my name; ask.” Not that they were altogether ignorant of

the office of Mediator, (all the Jews were instructed in these first

rudiments,) but they did not clearly understand that Christ by his

ascent to heaven would be more the advocate of the Church than

before. Therefore, to solace their grief for his absence by some

more than ordinary result, he asserts his office of advocate, and

says, that hitherto they had been without the special benefit which

it would be their privilege to enjoy, when aided by his intercession

they should invoke God with greater freedom. In this sense the

Apostle says that we have “boldness to enter into the holiest by the

blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated

for us,” (Heb. 10: 19, 20.) Therefore, the more inexcusable we are,

if we do not with both hands (as it is said) embrace the inestimable

gift which is properly destined for us.

19. Moreover since he himself is the only way and the only

access by which we can draw near to God, those who deviate from this

way, and decline this access, have no other remaining; his throne

presents nothing but wrath, judgment, and terror. In short, as the

Father has consecrated him our guide and head, those who abandon or

turn aside from him in any way endeavour, as much as in them lies,

to sully and efface the stamp which God has impressed. Christ,

therefore, is the only Mediator by whose intercession the Father is

rendered propitious and exorable, (1 Tim. 2: 5.) For though the

saints are still permitted to use intercessions, by which they

mutually beseech God in behalf of each others salvation, and of

which the Apostle makes mention, (Eph. 6: 18, 19; 1 Tim. 2: 1;) yet

these depend on that one intercession, so far are they from

derogating from it. For as the intercessions which, as members of

one body we offer up for each other, spring from the feeling of

love, so they have reference to this one head. Being thus also made

in the name of Christ, what more do they than declare that no man

can derive the least benefit from any prayers without the

intercession of Christ? As there is nothing in the intercession of

Christ to prevent the different members of the Church from offering

up prayers for each other, so let it be held as a fixed principle,

that all the intercessions thus used in the Church must have

reference to that one intercession. Nay, we must be specially

careful to show our gratitude on this very account, that God

pardoning our unworthiness, not only allows each individual to pray

for himself, but allows all to intercede mutually for each other.

God having given a place in his Church to intercessors who would

deserve to be rejected when praying privately on their own account,

how presumptuous were it to abuse this kindness by employing it to

obscure the honour of Christ?

20. Moreover, the Sophists are guilty of the merest trifling

when they allege that Christ is the Mediator of _redemption_, but

that believers are mediators of _intercession_; as if Christ had

only performed a temporary mediation, and left an eternal and

imperishable mediation to his servants. Such, forsooth, is the

treatment which he receives from those who pretend only to take from

him a minute portion of honour. Very different is the language of

Scripture, with whose simplicity every pious man will be satisfied,

without paying any regard to those importers. For when John says,

“If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ

the righteous,” (1 John 2: 1,) does he mean merely that we once had

an advocate; does he not rather ascribe to him a perpetual

intercession? What does Paul mean when he declares that he “is even

at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us”?

(Rom. 8: 32.) But when in another passage he declares that he is the

only Mediator between God and man, (1 Tim. 2: 5,) is he not

referring to the supplications which he had mentioned a little

before? Having previously said that prayers were to be offered up

for all men, he immediately adds, in confirmation of that statement,

that there is one God, and one Mediator between God and man. Nor

does Augustine give a different interpretation when he says,

“Christian men mutually recommend each other in their prayers. But

he for whom none intercedes, while he himself intercedes for all, is

the only true Mediator. Though the Apostle Paul was under the head a

principal member, yet because he was a member of the body of Christ,

and knew that the most true and High Priest of the Church had

entered not by figure into the inner veil to the holy of holies, but

by firm and express truth into the inner sanctuary of heaven to

holiness, holiness not imaginary, but eternal (Heb 9: 11, 24), he

also commends himself to the prayers of the faithful (Rom. 15: 30;

Eph. 6:19; Col. 4: 3.) He does not make himself a mediator between

God and the people, but asks that all the members of the body of

Christ should pray mutually for each other, since the members are

mutually sympathetic: if one member suffers, the others suffer with

it (1 Cor. 12: 26.) And thus the mutual prayers of all the members

still laboring on the earth ascend to the Head, who has gone before

into heaven, and in whom there is propitiation for our sins. For if

Paul were a mediator, so would also the other apostles, and thus

there would be many mediators, and Paul’s statement could not stand,

‘There is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man

Christ Jesus;’ (1 Tim. 2: 5) in whom we also are one (Rom. 12: 5) if

we keep the unity of the faith in the bond of peace (Eph. 4: 3),”

(August. Contra Parmenian, Lib. 2: cap. 8.) Likewise in another

passage Augustine says, “If thou requirest a priest, he is above the

heavens, where he intercedes for those who on earth died for thee,”

(August. in Ps. 94:) We imagine not that he throws himself before

his Father’s knees, and suppliantly intercedes for us; but we

understand with the Apostle, that he appears in the presence of God,

and that the power of his death has the effect of a perpetual

intercession for us; that having entered into the upper sanctuary,

he alone continues to the end of the world to present the prayers of

his people, who are standing far off in the outer court.

21. In regard to the saints who having died in the body live in

Christ, if we attribute prayer to them, let us not imagine that they

have any other way of supplicating God than through Christ who alone

is the way, or that their prayers are accepted by God in any other

name. Wherefore, since the Scripture calls us away from all others

to Christ alone, since our heavenly Father is pleased to gather

together all things in him, it were the extreme of stupidity, not to

say madness, to attempt to obtain access by means of others, so as

to be drawn away from him without whom access cannot be obtained.

But who can deny that this was the practice for several ages, and is

still the practice, wherever Popery prevails? To procure the favour

of God, human merits are ever and anon obtruded, and very frequently

while Christ is passed by, God is supplicated in their name. I ask

if this is not to transfer to them that office of sole intercession

which we have above claimed for Christ? Then what angel or devil

ever announced one syllable to any human being concerning that

fancied intercession of theirs? There is not a word on the subject

in Scripture. What ground then was there for the fiction? Certainly,

while the human mind thus seeks help for itself in which it is not

sanctioned by the word of God, it plainly manifests its distrust,

(see s. 27.) But if we appeal to the consciences of all who take

pleasure in the intercession of saints, we shall find that their

only reason for it is, that they are filled with anxiety, as if they

supposed that Christ were insufficient or too rigorous. By this

anxiety they dishonour Christ, and rob him of his title of sole

Mediator, a title which being given him by the Father as his special

privilege, ought not to be transferred to any other. By so doing

they obscure the glory of his nativity and make void his cross; in

short, divest and defraud of due praise everything which he did or

suffered, since all which he did and suffered goes to show that he

is and ought to be deemed sole Mediator. At the same time, they

reject the kindness of God in manifesting himself to them as a

Father, for he is not their Father if they do not recognize Christ

as their brother. This they plainly refuse to do if they think not

that he feels for them a brother’s affection; affection than which

none can be more gentle or tender. Wherefore Scripture offers him

alone, sends us to him, and establishes us in him. “He,” says

Ambrose, “is our mouth by which we speak to the Father; our eye by

which we see the Father; our right hand by which we offer ourselves

to the Father. Save by his intercession neither we nor any saints

have any intercourse with God,” (Ambros. Lib. de Isaac et Anima.) If

they object that the public prayers which are offered up in churches

conclude with the words, _through Jesus Christ our Lord_, it is a

frivolous evasion; because no less insult is offered to the

intercession of Christ by confounding it with the prayers and merits

of the dead, than by omitting it altogether, and making mention only

of the dead. Then, in all their litanies, hymns, and proses where

every kind of honour is paid to dead saints, there is no mention of

Christ.

22. But here stupidity has proceeded to such a length as to

give a manifestation of the genius of superstition, which, when once

it has shaken off the rein, is wont to wanton without limit. After

men began to look to the intercession of saints, a peculiar

administration was gradually assigned to each, so that, according to

diversity of business, now one, now another, intercessor was

invoked. Then individuals adopted particular saints, and put their

faith in them, just as if they had been tutelar deities. And thus

not only were gods set up according to the number of the cities,

(the charge which the prophet brought against Israel of old, Jer. 2:

28; 11: 13,) but according to the number of individuals. But while

the saints in all their desires refer to the will of God alone, look

to it, and acquiesce in it, yet to assign to them any other prayer

than that of longing for the arrival of the kingdom of God, is to

think of them stupidly, carnally, and even insultingly. Nothing can

be farther from such a view than to imagine that each, under the

influence of private feeling, is disposed to be most favourable to

his own worshippers. At length vast numbers have fallen into the

horrid blasphemy of invoking them not merely as helping but

presiding over their salvation. See the depth to which miserable men

fall when they forsake their proper station, that is, the word of

God. I say nothing of the more monstrous specimens of impiety in

which, though detestable to God, angels, and men, they themselves

feel no pain or shame. Prostrated at a statue or picture of Barbara

or Catherine, and the like, they mutter a _Pater Noster_;[9] and so

far are their pastors[10] from curing or curbing this frantic

course, that, allured by the scent of gain, they approve and applaud

it. But while seeking to relieve themselves of the odium of this

vile and criminal procedure, with what pretext can they defend the

practice of calling upon Eloy (Eligius) or Medard to look upon their

servants, and send them help from heaven, or the Holy Virgin to

order her Son to do what they ask?[11] The Council of Carthage

forbade direct prayer to be made at the altar to saints. It is

probable that these holy men, unable entirely to suppress the force

of depraved custom, had recourse to this check, that public prayers

might not be vitiated with such forms of expression as _Sancte

Petre, ora pro nobis— St Peter, pray for us_. But how much farther

has this devilish extravagance proceeded when men hesitate not to

transfer to the dead the peculiar attributes of Christ and God?

23. In endeavouring to prove that such intercession derives

some support from Scripture they labour in vain. We frequently read

(they say) of the prayers of angels, and not only so, but the

prayers of believers are said to be carried into the presence of God

by their hands. But if they would compare saints who have departed

this life with angels, it will be necessary to prove that saints are

ministering spirits, to whom has been delegated the office of

superintending our salvation, to whom has been assigned the province

of guiding us in all our ways, of encompassing, admonishing, and

comforting us, of keeping watch over us. All these are assigned to

angels, but none of them to saints. How preposterously they confound

departed saints with angels is sufficiently apparent from the many

different offices by which Scripture distinguishes the one from the

other. No one unless admitted will presume to perform the office of

pleader before an earthly judge; whence then have worms such license

as to obtrude themselves on God as intercessors, while no such

office has been assigned them? God has been pleased to give angels

the charge of our safety. Hence they attend our sacred meetings, and

the Church is to them a theatre in which they behold the manifold

wisdom of God, (Eph. 3: 10.) Those who transfer to others this

office which is peculiar to them, certainly pervert and confound the

order which has been established by God and ought to be inviolable.

With similar dexterity they proceed to quote other passages. God

said to Jeremiah, “Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my

mind could not be toward this people,” (Jer. 15: 1.) How (they ask)

could he have spoken thus of the dead but because he knew that they

interceded for the living? My inference, on the contrary, is this:

since it thus appears that neither Moses nor Samuel interceded for

the people of Israel, there was then no intercession for the dead.

For who of the saints can be supposed to labour for the salvation of

the peoples while Moses who, when in life, far surpassed all others

in this matter, does nothing? Therefore, if they persist in the

paltry quibble, that the dead intercede for the living, because the

Lord said, “_If they stood before me_,” (_intercesserint_,) I will

argue far more speciously in this way: Moses, of whom it is said,

“_if he interceded_,,” did not intercede for the people in their

extreme necessity: it is probable, therefore, that no other saint

intercedes, all being far behind Moses in humanity, goodness, and

paternal solicitude. Thus all they gain by their caviling is to be

wounded by the very arms with which they deem themselves admirably

protected. But it is very ridiculous to wrest this simple sentence

in this manner; for the Lord only declares that he would not spare

the iniquities of the people, though some Moses or Samuel, to whose

prayers he had shown himself so indulgent, should intercede for

them. This meaning is most clearly elicited from a similar passage

in Ezekiel: “Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in

it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness,

saith the Lord God,” (Ezek. 14: 14.) Here there can be no doubt that

we are to understand the words as if it had been said, If two of the

persons named were again to come alive; for the third was still

living, namely, Daniel, who it is well known had then in the bloom

of youth given an incomparable display of piety. Let us therefore

leave out those whom Scripture declares to have completed their

course. Accordingly, when Paul speaks of David, he says not that by

his prayers he assisted posterity, but only that he “served his own

generation,” (Acts 13: 36.)

24. They again object, Are those, then, to be deprived of every

pious wish, who, during the whole course of their lives, breathed

nothing but piety and mercy? I have no wish curiously to pry into

what they do or meditate; but the probability is, that instead of

being subject to the impulse of various and particular desires,

they, with one fixed and immovable will, long for the kingdom of

God, which consists not less in the destruction of the ungodly than

in the salvation of believers. If this be so, there cannot be a

doubt that their charity is confined to the communion of Christ’s

body, and extends no farther than is compatible with the nature of

that communion. But though I grant that in this way they pray for

us, they do not, however, lose their quiescence so as to be

distracted with earthly cares: far less are they, therefore, to be

invoked by us. Nor does it follow that such invocation is to be used

because, while men are alive upon the earth, they can mutually

commend themselves to each other’s prayers. It serves to keep alive

a feeling of charity when they, as it were, share each other’s

wants, and bear each other’s burdens. This they do by the command of

the Lord, and not without a promise, the two things of primary

importance in prayer. But all such reasons are inapplicable to the

dead, with whom the Lord, in withdrawing them from our society, has

left us no means of intercourse, (Eccles. 9: 5, 6,) and to whom, so

far as we can conjecture, he has left no means of intercourse with

us. But if any one allege that they certainly must retain the same

charity for us, as they are united with us in one faith, who has

revealed to us that they have ears capable of listening to the

sounds of our voice, or eyes clear enough to discern our

necessities? Our opponents, indeed, talk in the shade of their

schools of some kind of light which beams upon departed saints from

the divine countenance, and in which, as in a mirror, they, from

their lofty abode, behold the affairs of men; but to affirm this

with the confidence which these men presume to use, is just to

desire, by means of the extravagant dreams of our own brain, and

without any authority, to pry and penetrate into the hidden

judgments of God, and trample upon Scripture, which so often

declares that the wisdom of our flesh is at enmity with the wisdom

of God, utterly condemns the vanity of our mind, and humbling our

reason, bids us look only to the will of God.

25. The other passages of Scripture which they employ to defend

their error are miserably wrested. Jacob (they say) asks for the

sons of Joseph, “Let my name be named on them, and the name of my

fathers, Abraham and Isaac,” (Gen. 48: 16.) First, let us see what

the nature of this invocation was among the Israelites. They do not

implore their fathers to bring succour to them, but they beseech God

to remember his servants, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Their example,

therefore, gives no countenance to those who use addresses to the

saints themselves. But such being the dullness of these blocks, that

they comprehend not what it is to invoke the name of Jacob, nor why

it is to be invoked, it is not strange that they blunder thus

childishly as to the mode of doing it. The expression repeatedly

occurs in Scripture. Isaiah speaks of women being called by the name

of men, when they have them for husbands and live under their

protection, (Isa. 4: 1.) The calling of the name of Abraham over the

Israelites consists in referring the origin of their race to him,

and holding him in distinguished remembrance as their author and

parent. Jacob does not do so from any anxiety to extend the

celebrity of his name, but because he knows that all the happiness

of his posterity consisted in the inheritance of the covenant which

God had made with them. Seeing that this would give them the sum of

all blessings, he prays that they may be regarded as of his race,

this being nothing else than to transmit the succession of the

covenant to them. They again, when they make mention of this subject

in their prayers, do not betake themselves to the intercession of

the dead, but call to remembrance that covenant in which their most

merciful Father undertakes to be kind and propitious to them for the

sake of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. How little, in other respects,

the saints trusted to the merits of their fathers, the public voice

of the Church declares in the prophets “Doubtless thou art our

Father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us

not; thou, O Lord, art our Father, our Redeemer,” (Isa. 63: 16.) And

while the Church thus speaks, she at the same time adds, “Return for

thy servants’ sake,” not thinking of any thing like intercession,

but adverting only to the benefit of the covenant. Now, indeed, when

we have the Lord Jesus, in whose hand the eternal covenant of mercy

was not only made but confirmed, what better name can we bear before

us in our prayers? And since those good Doctors would make out by

these words that the Patriarchs are intercessors, I should like them

to tell me why, in so great a multitude,[12] no place whatever is

given to Abraham, the father of the Church? We know well from what a

crew they select their intercessors.[13] Let them then tell me what

consistency there is in neglecting and rejecting Abraham, whom God

preferred to all others, and raised to the highest degree of honour.

The only reason is, that as it was plain there was no such practice

in the ancient Church, they thought proper to conceal the novelty of

the practice by saying nothing of the Patriarchs: as if by a mere

diversity of names they could excuse a practice at once novel and

impure. They sometimes, also, object that God is entreated to have

mercy on his people “for David’s sake,” (Ps. 132: 10; see Calv.

Com.) This is so far from supporting their error, that it is the

strongest refutation of it. We must consider the character which

David bore. He is set apart from the whole body of the faithful to

establish the covenant which God made in his hand. Thus regard is

had to the covenant rather than to the individual. Under him as a

type the sole intercession of Christ is asserted. But what was

peculiar to David as a type of Christ is certainly inapplicable to

others.

26. But some seem to be moved by the fact, that the prayers of

saints are often said to have been heard. Why? Because they prayed.

“They cried unto thee,” (says the Psalmist,) “and were delivered:

they trusted in thee, and were not confounded,” (Ps. 22: 5.) Let us

also pray after their example, that like them we too may be heard.

Those men, on the contrary, absurdly argue that none will be heard

but those who have been heard already. How much better does James

argue, “Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he

prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the

earth by the space of three years and six months. And he prayed

again and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her

fruit.” (James 5: 17, 18.) What? Does he infer that Elias possessed

some peculiar privilege, and that we must have recourse to him for

the use of it? By no means. He shows the perpetual efficacy of a

pure and pious prayer, that we may be induced in like manner to

pray. For the kindness and readiness of God to hear others is

malignantly interpreted, if their example does not inspire us with

stronger confidence in his promise, since his declaration is not

that he will incline his ear to one or two, or a few individuals,

but to all who call upon his name. In this ignorance they are the

less excusable, because they seem as it were avowedly to contemn the

many admonitions of Scripture. David was repeatedly delivered by the

power of God. Was this to give that power to him that we might be

delivered on his application? Very different is his affirmation:

“The righteous shall compass me about; for thou shalt deal

bountifully with me,” (Ps. 142: 7.) Again, “The righteous also shall

see, and fear, and shall laugh at him,” (Ps. 52: 6.) “This poor man

cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his

troubles,” (Ps. 34: 6.) In The Psalms are many similar prayers, in

which David calls upon God to give him what he asks, for this

reason, viz., that the righteous may not be put to shame, but by his

example encouraged to hope. Here let one passage suffice, “For this

shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a time when thou

mayest be found,” (Ps. 32: 6, Calv. Com.) This passage I have quoted

the more readily, because those ravers who employ their hireling

tongues in defense of the Papacy, are not ashamed to adduce it in

proof of the intercession of the dead. As if David intended any

thing more than to show the benefit which he shall obtain from the

divine clemency and condescension when he shall have been heard. In

general, we must hold that the experience of the grace of God, as

well towards ourselves as towards others, tends in no slight degree

to confirm our faith in his promises. I do not quote the many

passages in which David sets forth the loving-kindness of God to him

as a ground of confidence, as they will readily occur to every

reader of The Psalms. Jacob had previously taught the same thing by

his own example, “I am not worthy of the least of all thy mercies,

and of all the truth which thou hast showed unto thy servant: for

with my staff l passed over this Jordan; and now I am become two

bands,” (Gen. 32: 10.) He indeed alleges the promise, but not the

promise only; for he at the same time adds the effect, to animate

him with greater confidence in the future kindness of God. God is

not like men who grow weary of their liberality, or whose means of

exercising it become exhausted; but he is to be estimated by his own

nature, as David properly does when he says, “Thou hast redeemed me,

O Lord God of truth,” (Ps 31: 5.) After ascribing the praise of his

salvation to God, he adds that he is true: for were he not ever like

himself, his past favour would not be an infallible ground for

confidence and prayer. But when we know that as often as he assists

us, he gives us a specimen and proof of his goodness and

faithfulness, there is no reason to fear that our hope will be

ashamed or frustrated.

27. On the whole, since Scripture places the principal part of

worship in the invocation of God, (this being the office of piety

which he requires of us in preference to all sacrifices,) it is

manifest sacrilege to offer prayer to others. Hence it is said in

the psalm: “If we have forgotten the name of our God, or stretched

out our hands to a strange god, shall not God search this out?” (Ps.

44: 20, 21.) Again, since it is only in faith that God desires to be

invoked, and he distinctly enjoins us to frame our prayers according

to the rule of his word: in fine, since faith is founded on the

word, and is the parent of right prayer, the moment we decline from

the word, our prayers are impure. But we have already shown, that if

we consult the whole volume of Scripture, we shall find that God

claims this honour to himself alone. In regard to the office of

intercession, we have also seen that it is peculiar to Christ, and

that no prayer is agreeable to God which he as Mediator does not

sanctify. And though believers mutually offer up prayers to God in

behalf of their brethren, we have shown that this derogates in no

respect from the sole intercession of Christ, because all trust to

that intercession in commending themselves as well as others to God.

Moreover, we have shown that this is ignorantly transferred to the

dead, of whom we nowhere read that they were commanded to pray for

us. The Scripture often exhorts us to offer up mutual prayers; but

says not one syllable concerning the dead; nay, James tacitly

excludes the dead when he combines the two things, to “confess our

sins one to another, and to pray one for another,” (James v. 16.)

Hence it is sufficient to condemn this error, that the beginning of

right prayer springs from faith, and that faith comes by the hearing

of the word of God, in which there is no mention of fictitious

intercession, superstition having rashly adopted intercessors who

have not been divinely appointed. While the Scripture abounds in

various forms of prayer, we find no example of this intercession,

without which Papists think there is no prayer. Moreover, it is

evident that this superstition is the result of distrust, because

they are either not contented with Christ as an intercessor, or have

altogether robbed him of this honour. This last is easily proved by

their effrontery in maintaining, as the strongest of all their

arguments for the intercession of the saints, that we are unworthy

of familiar access to God. This, indeed, we acknowledge to be most

true, but we thence infer that they leave nothing to Christ, because

they consider his intercession as nothing, unless it is supplemented

by that of George and Hypolyte, and similar phantoms.

28. But though prayer is properly confined to vows and

supplications, yet so strong is the affinity between petition and

thanksgiving, that both may be conveniently comprehended under one

name. For the forms which Paul enumerates (1 Tim. 2: 1) fall under

the first member of this division. By prayer and supplication we

pour out our desires before God, asking as well those things which

tend to promote his glory and display his name, as the benefits

which contribute to our advantage. By thanksgiving we duly celebrate

his kindnesses toward us, ascribing to his liberality every blessing

which enters into our lot. David accordingly includes both in one

sentence, “Call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee,

and thou shalt glorify me,” (Ps. 50: 15.) Scripture, not without

reason, commands us to use both continually. We have already

described the greatness of our want, while experience itself

proclaims the straits which press us on every side to be so numerous

and so great, that all have sufficient ground to send forth sighs

and groans to God without intermission, and suppliantly implore him.

For even should they be exempt from adversity, still the holiest

ought to be stimulated first by their sins, and, secondly, by the

innumerable assaults of temptation, to long for a remedy. The

sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving can never be interrupted

without guilt, since God never ceases to load us with favour upon

favour, so as to force us to gratitude, however slow and sluggish we

may be. In short, so great and widely diffused are the riches of his

liberality towards us, so marvellous and wondrous the miracles which

we behold on every side, that we never can want a subject and

materials for praise and thanksgiving. To make this somewhat

clearer: since all our hopes and resources are placed in God, (this

has already been fully proved,) so that neither our persons nor our

interests can prosper without his blessing, we must constantly

submit ourselves and our all to him. Then whatever we deliberate,

speak, or do, should be deliberated, spoken, and done under his hand

and will; in fine, under the hope of his assistance. God has

pronounced a curse upon all who, confiding in themselves or others,

form plans and resolutions, who, without regarding his will, or

invoking his aid, either plan or attempt to execute, (James 4: 14;

Isaiah 30: 1; 31. 1.) And since, as has already been observed, he

receives the honour which is due when he is acknowledged to be the

author of all good, it follows that, in deriving all good from his

hand, we ought continually to express our thankfulness, and that we

have no right to use the benefits which proceed from his liberality,

if we do not assiduously proclaim his praise, and give him thanks,

these being the ends for which they are given. When Paul declares

that every creature of God “is sanctified by the word of God and

prayers” (1 Tim. 4: 5,) he intimates that without the word and

prayers none of them are holy and pure, _word_ being used

metonymically for _faith_. Hence David, on experiencing the loving-

kindness of the Lord, elegantly declares, “He hath put a new song in

my mouth,” (Ps. 40: 3;) intimating, that our silence is malignant

when we leave his blessings unpraised, seeing every blessing he

bestows is a new ground of thanksgiving. Thus Isaiah, proclaiming

the singular mercies of God, says, “Sing unto the Lord a new song

(Is. 42: 10.)” In the same sense David says in another passage, “O

Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall show forth thy praise,”

(Ps. 51: 15.) In like manner, Hezekiah and Jonah declare that they

will regard it as the end of their deliverance “to celebrate the

goodness of God with songs in his temple,” (Is. 38: 20; Jonah 2:

10.) David lays down a general rule for all believers in these

words, “What shall I render unto the Lord for all his benefits

toward me? I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name

of the Lord,” (Ps. 116: 12, 13.) This rule the Church follows in

another psalm, “Save us, O Lord our God, and gather us from among

the heathen, to give thanks unto thy holy name, and to triumph in

thy praise,” (Ps. 106: 47.) Again, “He will regard the prayer of the

destitute, and not despise their prayer. This shall be written for

the generation to come: and the people which shall be created shall

praise the Lord.” “To declare the name of the Lord in Zion, and his

praise in Jerusalem,” (Ps. 102: 18, 21.) Nay, whenever believers

beseech the Lord to do anything _for his own name’s sake_, as they

declare themselves unworthy of obtaining it in their own name, so

they oblige themselves to give thanks, and promise to make the right

use of his lovingkindness by being the heralds of it. Thus Hosea,

speaking of the future redemption of the Church, says, “Take away

all iniquity, and receive us graciously; so will we render the

calves of our lips,” (Hos. 14: 2.) Not only do our tongues proclaim

the kindness of God, but they naturally inspire us with love to him.

“I love the Lord, because he hath heard my voice and my

supplications,” (Ps. 116: 1.) In another passage, speaking of the

help which he had experienced, he says, “I will love thee, O Lord,

my strength,” (Ps. 18: 1.) No praise will ever please God that does

not flow from this feeling of love. Nay, we must attend to the

declaration of Paul, that all wishes are vicious and perverse which

are not accompanied with thanksgiving. His words are, “In everything

by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be

made known unto God,” (Phil. 4: 6.) Because many, under the

influence of moroseness, weariness, impatience, bitter grief and

fear, use murmuring in their prayers, he enjoins us so to regulate

our feelings as cheerfully to bless God even before obtaining what

we ask. But if this connection ought always to subsist in full vigor

between things that are almost contrary, the more sacred is the tie

which binds us to celebrate the praises of God whenever he grants

our requests. And as we have already shown that our prayers, which

otherwise would be polluted) are sanctified by the intercession of

Christ, so the Apostle, by enjoining us “to offer the sacrifice of

praise to God continually” by Christ, (Heb. 13: 15,) reminds us,

that without the intervention of his priesthood our lips are not

pure enough to celebrate the name of God. Hence we infer that a

monstrous delusion prevails among Papists, the great majority of

whom wonder when Christ is called an intercessor. The reason why

Paul enjoins, “Pray without ceasing; in every thing give thanks,” (1

Thess. 5: 17, 18,) is, because he would have us with the utmost

assiduity, at all times, in every place, in all things, and under

all circumstances, direct our prayers to God, to expect all the

things which we desire from him, and when obtained ascribe them to

him; thus furnishing perpetual grounds for prayer and praise.

29. This assiduity in prayer, though it specially refers to the

peculiar private prayers of individuals, extends also in some

measure to the public prayers of the Church. These, it may be said,

cannot be continual, and ought not to be made, except in the manner

which, for the sake of order, has been established by public

consent. This I admit, and hence certain hours are fixed beforehand,

hours which, though indifferent in regard to God, are necessary for

the use of man, that the general convenience may be consulted, and

all things be done in the Church, as Paul enjoins, “decently and in

order,” (1 Cor. 14: 40.) But there is nothing in this to prevent

each church from being now and then stirred up to a more frequent

use of prayer and being more zealously affected under the impulse of

some greater necessity. Of perseverance in prayer, which is much

akin to assiduity, we shall speak towards the close of the chapter,

(sec. 51, 52.) This assiduity, moreover, is very different from the

BATTOLOGIAN (Greek—English “yammering"), _vain speaking_, which our

Saviour has prohibited, (Matth. 6: 7.) For he does not there forbid

us to pray long or frequently, or with great fervor, but warns us

against supposing that we can extort anything from God by

importuning him with garrulous loquacity, as if he were to be

persuaded after the manner of men. We know that hypocrites, because

they consider not that they have to do with God, offer up their

prayers as pompously as if it were part of a triumphal show. The

Pharisee, who thanked God that he was not as other men, no doubt

proclaimed his praises before men, as if he had wished to gain a

reputation for sanctity by his prayers. Hence that vain speaking,

which for a similar reason prevails so much in the Papacy in the

present day, some vainly spinning out the time by a reiteration of

the same frivolous prayers, and others employing a long series of

verbiage for vulgar display.[14] This childish garrulity being a

mockery of God, it is not strange that it is prohibited in the

Church, in order that every feeling there expressed may be sincere,

proceeding from the inmost heart. Akin to this abuse is another

which our Saviour also condemns, namely, when hypocrites for the

sake of ostentation court the presence of many witnesses, and would

sooner pray in the market-place than pray without applause. The true

object of prayer being, as we have already said, (sec. 4, 5,) to

carry our thoughts directly to God, whether to celebrate his praise

or implore his aid, we can easily see that its primary seat is in

the mind and heart, or rather that prayer itself is properly an

effusion and manifestation of internal feeling before Him who is the

searcher of hearts. Hence, (as has been said,) when our divine

Master was pleased to lay down the best rule for prayer, his

injunction was, “Enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy

door, pray to thy Father which is in secret, and thy Father which

seeth in secret shall reward thee openly,” (Matth. 6: 6.) Dissuading

us from the example of hypocrites, who sought the applause of men by

an ambitious ostentation in prayer, he adds the better course—enter

thy chamber, shut thy door, and there pray. By these words (as I

understand them) he taught us to seek a place of retirement which

might enable us to turn all our thoughts inwards and enter deeply

into our hearts, promising that God would hold converse with the

feelings of our mind, of which the body ought to be the temple. He

meant not to deny that it may be expedient to pray in other places

also, but he shows that prayer is somewhat of a secret nature,

having its chief seat in the mind, and requiring a tranquillity far

removed from the turmoil of ordinary cares. And hence it was not

without cause that our Lord himself, when he would engage more

earnestly in prayer, withdrew into a retired spot beyond the bustle

of the world, thus reminding us by his example that we are not to

neglect those helps which enable the mind, in itself too much

disposed to wander, to become sincerely intent on prayer. Meanwhile,

as he abstained not from prayer when the occasion required it,

though he were in the midst of a crowd, so must we, whenever there

is need, lift up “pure hands” (1 Tim. 2: 8) at all places. And hence

we must hold that he who declines to pray in the public meeting of

the saints, knows not what it is to pray apart, in retirement, or at

home. On the other hand, he who neglects to pray alone and in

private, however sedulously he frequents public meetings, there

gives his prayers to the wind, because he defers more to the opinion

of man than to the secret judgment of God. Still, lest the public

prayers of the Church should be held in contempt, the Lord anciently

bestowed upon them the most honourable appellation, especially when

he called the temple the “_house of prayer_,” (Isa. 56: 7.) For by

this expression he both showed that the duty of prayer is a

principal part of his worship, and that to enable believers to

engage in it with one consent his temple is set up before them as a

kind of banner. A noble promise was also added, “Praise waiteth for

thee, O God, in Sion: and unto thee shall the vow be performed,”

(Ps. 65: 1.)[15] By these words the Psalmist reminds us that the

prayers of the Church are never in vain; because God always

furnishes his people with materials for a song of joy. But although

the shadows of the law have ceased, yet because God was pleased by

this ordinance to foster the unity of the faith among us also, there

can be no doubt that the same promise belongs to us—a promise which

Christ sanctioned with his own lips, and which Paul declares to be

perpetually in force.

30. As God in his word enjoins common prayer, so public temples

are the places destined for the performance of them, and hence those

who refuse to join with the people of God in this observance have no

ground for the pretext, that they enter their chamber in order that

they may obey the command of the Lord. For he who promises to grant

whatsoever two or three assembled in his name shall ask, (Matth. 18:

20,) declares, that he by no means despises the prayers which are

publicly offered up, provided there be no ostentation, or catching

at human applause, and provided there be a true and sincere

affection in the secret recesses of the heart.[16] If this is the

legitimate use of churches, (and it certainly is,) we must, on the

other hand, beware of imitating the practice which commenced some

centuries ago, of imagining that churches are the proper dwellings

of God, where he is more ready to listen to us, or of attaching to

them some kind of secret sanctity, which makes prayer there more

holy. For seeing we are the true temples of God, we must pray in

ourselves if we would invoke God in his holy temple. Let us leave

such gross ideas to the Jews or the heathen, knowing that we have a

command to pray without distinction of place, “in spirit and in

truth,” (John 4: 23.) It is true that by the order of God the temple

was anciently dedicated for the offering of prayers and sacrifices,

but this was at a time when the truth (which being now fully

manifested, we are not permitted to confine to any material temple)

lay hid under the figure of shadows. Even the temple was not

represented to the Jews as confining the presence of God within its

walls, but was meant to train them to contemplate the image of the

true temple. Accordingly, a severe rebuke is administered both by

Isaiah and Stephen, to those who thought that God could in any way

dwell in temples made with hands, (Isa. 66: 2; Acts 7: 48.)

31. Hence it is perfectly clear that neither words nor singing

(if used in prayer) are of the least consequence, or avail one iota

with God, unless they proceed from deep feeling in the heart. Nay,

rather they provoke his anger against us, if they come from the lips

and throat only, since this is to abuse his sacred name, and hold

his majesty in derision. This we infer from the words of Isaiah,

which, though their meaning is of wider extent, go to rebuke this

vice also: “Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth,

and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far

from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:

therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this

people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their

wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men

shall be hid,” (Isa. 29: 13.) Still we do not condemn words or

singing, but rather greatly commend them, provided the feeling of

the mind goes along with them. For in this way the thought of God is

kept alive on our minds, which, from their fickle and versatile

nature, soon relax, and are distracted by various objects, unless

various means are used to support them. Besides, since the glory of

God ought in a manner to be displayed in each part of our body, the

special service to which the tongue should be devoted is that of

singing and speaking, inasmuch as it has been expressly created to

declare and proclaim the praise of God. This employment of the

tongue is chiefly in the public services which are performed in the

meeting of the saints. In this way the God whom we serve in one

spirit and one faith, we glorify together as it were with one voice

and one mouth; and that openly, so that each may in turn receive the

confession of his brother’s faith, and be invited and incited to

imitate it.

32. It is certain that the use of singing in churches (which I

may mention in passing) is not only very ancient, but was also used

by the Apostles, as we may gather from the words of Paul, “I will

sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also,”

(1 Cor. 14: 15.) In like manner he says to the Colossians, “Teaching

and admonishing one another in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual

songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord,” (Col. 3: 16.)

In the former passage, he enjoins us to sing with the voice and the

heart; in the latter, he commends spiritual Songs, by which the

pious mutually edify each other. That it was not an universal

practice, however, is attested by Augustine, (Confess. Lib. 9: cap.

7,) who states that the church of Milan first began to use singing

in the time of Ambrose, when the orthodox faith being persecuted by

Justina, the mother of Valentinian, the vigils of the people were

more frequent than usual;[17] and that the practice was afterwards

followed by the other Western churches. He had said a little before

that the custom came from the East.[18] He also intimates (Retract.

Lib. 2:) that it was received in Africa in his own time. His words

are, “Hilarius, a man of tribunitial rank, assailed with the

bitterest invectives he could use the custom which then began to

exist at Carthage, of singing hymns from the book of Psalms at the

altar, either before the oblation, or when it was distributed to the

people; I answered him, at the request of my brethren."[19] And

certainly if singing is tempered to a gravity befitting the presence

of God and angels, it both gives dignity and grace to sacred

actions, and has a very powerful tendency to stir up the mind to

true zeal and ardor in prayer. We must, however, carefully beware,

lest our ears be more intent on the music than our minds on the

spiritual meaning of the words. Augustine confesses (Confess. Lib.

10: cap. 33) that the fear of this danger sometimes made him wish

for the introduction of a practice observed by Athanasius, who

ordered the reader to use only a gentle inflection of the voice,

more akin to recitation than singing. But on again considering how

many advantages were derived from singing, he inclined to the other

side.[20] If this moderation is used, there cannot be a doubt that

the practice is most sacred and salutary. On the other hand, songs

composed merely to tickle and delight the ear are unbecoming the

majesty of the Church, and cannot but be most displeasing to God.

33. It is also plain that the public prayers are not to be

couched in Greek among the Latins, nor in Latin among the French or

English, (as hitherto has been every where practised,) but in the

vulgar tongue, so that all present may understand them, since they

ought to be used for the edification of the whole Church, which

cannot be in the least degree benefited by a sound not understood.

Those who are not moved by any reason of humanity or charity, ought

at least to be somewhat moved by the authority of Paul, whose words

are by no means ambiguous: “When thou shalt bless with the spirit,

how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say, Amen, at

thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?

For thou verily givest thanks, but the other is not edified,” (1

Cor. 14: 16, 17.) How then can one sufficiently admire the unbridled

license of the Papists, who, while the Apostle publicly protests

against it, hesitate not to bawl out the most verbose prayers in a

foreign tongue, prayers of which they themselves sometimes do not

understand one syllable, and which they have no wish that others

should understand?[21] Different is the course which Paul

prescribes, “What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I

will pray with the understanding also; I will sing with the spirit,

and I will sing with the understanding also:” meaning by the

_spirit_ the special gift of tongues, which some who had received it

abused when they dissevered it from the mind, that is, the

understanding. The principle we must always hold is, that in all

prayer, public and private, the tongue without the mind must be

displeasing to God. Moreover, the mind must be so incited, as in

ardor of thought far to surpass what the tongue is able to express.

Lastly, the tongue is not even necessary to private prayer, unless

in so far as the internal feeling is insufficient for incitement, or

the vehemence of the incitement carries the utterance of the tongue

along with it. For although the best prayers are sometimes without

utterance, yet when the feeling of the mind is overpowering, the

tongue spontaneously breaks forth into utterance, and our other

members into gesture. Hence that dubious muttering of Hannah, (1

Sam. 1: 13,) something similar to which is experienced by all the

saints when concise and abrupt expressions escape from them. The

bodily gestures usually observed in prayer, such as kneeling and

uncovering of the head, (Calv. in Acts 20: 36,) are exercises by

which we attempt to rise to higher veneration of God.

34. We must now attend not only to a surer method, but also

form of prayer, that, namely, which our heavenly Father has

delivered to us by his beloved Son, and in which we may recognize

his boundless goodness and condescension, (Matth. 6: 9; Luke 11: 2.)

Besides admonishing and exhorting us to seek him in our every

necessity, (as children are wont to betake themselves to the

protection of their parents when oppressed with any anxiety,) seeing

that we were not fully aware how great our poverty was, or what was

right or for our interest to ask, he has provided for this

ignorance; that wherein our capacity failed he has sufficiently

supplied. For he has given us a form in which is set before us as in

a picture every thing which it is lawful to wish, every thing which

is conducive to our interest, every thing which it is necessary to

demand. From his goodness in this respect we derive the great

comfort of knowing, that as we ask almost in his words, we ask

nothing that is absurd, or foreign, or unseasonable; nothing, in

short, that is not agreeable to him. Plato, seeing the ignorance of

men in presenting their desires to God, desires which if granted

would often be most injurious to them, declares the best form of

prayer to be that which an ancient poet has furnished: “O king

Jupiter, give what is best, whether we wish it or wish it not; but

avert from us what is evil even though we ask it,” (Plato, Alcibiad.

2:) This heathen shows his wisdom in discerning how dangerous it is

to ask of God what our own passion dictates; while, at the same

time, he reminds us of our unhappy condition in not being able to

open our lips before God without dangers unless his Spirit instruct

us how to pray aright, (Rom. 8: 26.) The higher value, therefore,

ought we to set on the privilege, when the only begotten Son of God

puts words into our lips, and thus relieves our minds of all

hesitation.

35. This form or rule of prayer is composed of _six petitions_.

For I am prevented from agreeing with those who divide it into

_seven_ by the adversative mode of diction used by the Evangelist,

who appears to have intended to unite the two members together; as

if he had said, Do not allow us to be overcome by temptation, but

rather bring assistance to our frailty, and deliver us that we may

not fall. Ancient writers[22] also agree with us, that what is added

by Matthew as a seventh head is to be considered as explanatory of

the sixth petition.[23] But though in every part of the prayer the

first place is assigned to the glory of God, still this is more

especially the object of the three first petitions, in which we are

to look to the glory of God alone, without any reference to what is

called our own advantage. The three remaining petitions are devoted

to our interest, and properly relate to things which it is useful

for us to ask. When we ask that the name of God may be hallowed, as

God wishes to prove whether we love and serve him freely, or from

the hope of reward, we are not to think at all of our own interest;

we must set his glory before our eyes, and keep them intent upon it

alone. In the other similar petitions, this is the only manner in

which we ought to be affected. It is true, that in this way our own

interest is greatly promoted, because, when the name of God is

hallowed in the way we ask, our own sanctification also is thereby

promoted. But in regard to this advantage, we must, as I have said,

shut our eyes, and be in a manner blind, so as not even to see it;

and hence were all hope of our private advantage cut off, we still

should never cease to wish and pray for this hallowing, and every

thing else which pertains to the glory of God. We have examples in

Moses and Paul, who did not count it grievous to turn away their

eyes and minds from themselves, and with intense and fervent zeal

long for death, if by their loss the kingdom and glory of God might

be promoted, (Exod. 32: 32; Rom. 9: 3.) On the other hand, when we

ask for daily bread, although we desire what is advantageous for

ourselves, we ought also especially to seek the glory of God, so

much so that we would not ask at all unless it were to turn to his

glory. Let us now proceed to an exposition of the Prayer.  OUR

FATHER WHICH ART IN HEAVEN.

36. The first thing suggested at the very outset is, as we have

already said, (sec. 17-19,) that all our prayers to God ought only

to be presented in the name of Christ, as there is no other name

which can recommend them. In calling God our Father, we certainly

plead the name of Christ. For with what confidence could any man

call God his Father? Who would have the presumption to arrogate to

himself the honour of a son of God were we not gratuitously adopted

as his sons in Christ? He being the true Son, has been given to us

as a brother, so that that which he possesses as his own by nature

becomes ours by adoption, if we embrace this great mercy with firm

faith. As John says, “As many as received him, to them gave he power

to become the sons of God, even to them that believe in his name,”

(John 1: 12.) Hence he both calls himself our Father, and is pleased

to be so called by us, by this delightful name relieving us of all

distrust, since no where can a stronger affection be found than in a

father. Hence, too, he could not have given us a stronger testimony

of his boundless love than in calling us his sons. But his love

towards us is so much the greater and more excellent than that of

earthly parents, the farther he surpasses all men in goodness and

mercy, (Isaiah 63: 16.) Earthly parents, laying aside all paternal

affection, might abandon their offspring; he will never abandon us,

(Ps. 27: 10,) seeing he cannot deny himself. For we have his

promise, “If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto

your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven

give good things to them that ask him?” (Matth. 7: 11.) In like

manner in the prophet, “Can a woman forget her sucking child, that

she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? Yea, they may

forget, yet will not I forget thee,” (Isaiah 49: 15.) But if we are

his sons, then as a son cannot betake himself to the protection of a

stranger and a foreigner without at the same time complaining of his

father’s cruelty or poverty, so we cannot ask assistance from any

other quarter than from him, unless we would upbraid him with

poverty, or want of means, or cruelty and excessive austerity.

37. Nor let us allege that we are justly rendered timid by a

consciousness of sin, by which our Father, though mild and merciful,

is daily offended. For if among men a son cannot have a better

advocate to plead his cause with his father, and cannot employ a

better intercessor to regain his lost favour, than if he come

himself suppliant and downcast, acknowledging his fault, to implore

the mercy of his father, whose paternal feelings cannot but be moved

by such entreaties, what will that “Father of all mercies, and God

of all comfort,” do? (2 Cor. i. 3.) Will he not rather listen to the

tears and groans of his children, when supplicating for themselves,

(especially seeing he invites and exhorts us to do so,) than to any

advocacy of others to whom the timid have recourse, not without some

semblance of despair, because they are distrustful of their father’s

mildness and clemency? The exuberance of his paternal kindness he

sets before us in the parable, (Luke 15: 20; see Calv. Comm.) when

the father with open arms receives the son who had gone away from

him, wasted his substance in riotous living, and in all ways

grievously sinned against him. He waits not till pardon is asked in

words, but, anticipating the request, recognizes him afar off, runs

to meet him, consoles him, and restores him to favour. By setting

before us this admirable example of mildness in a man, he designed

to show in how much greater abundance we may expect it from him who

is not only a Father, but the best and most merciful of all fathers,

however ungrateful, rebellious, and wicked sons we may be, provided

only we throw ourselves upon his mercy. And the better to assure us

that he is such a Father if we are Christians, he has been pleased

to be called not only a Father, but our Father, as if we were

pleading with him after this manner, O Father, who art possessed of

so much affection for thy children, and art so ready to forgive, we

thy children approach thee and present our requests, fully persuaded

that thou hast no other feelings towards us than those of a father,

though we are unworthy of such a parent.[24] But as our narrow

hearts are incapable of comprehending such boundless favour, Christ

is not only the earnest and pledge of our adoption, but also gives

us the Spirit as a witness of this adoption, that through him we may

freely cry aloud, Abba, Father. Whenever, therefore, we are

restrained by any feeling of hesitation, let us remember to ask of

him that he may correct our timidity, and placing us under the

magnanimous guidance of the Spirit, enable us to pray boldly.

38. The instruction given us, however, is not that every

individual in particular is to call him Father, but rather that we

are all in common to call him Our Father. By this we are reminded

how strong the feeling of brotherly love between us ought to be,

since we are all alike, by the same mercy and free kindness, the

children of such a Father. For if He from whom we all obtain

whatever is good is our common Father, (Matth. 23: 9,) every thing

which has been distributed to us we should be prepared to

communicate to each other, as far as occasion demands. But if we are

thus desirous as we ought, to stretch out our hands and give

assistance to each other, there is nothing by which we can more

benefit our brethren than by committing them to the care and

protection of the best of parents, since if He is propitious and

favourable nothing more can be desired. And, indeed, we owe this

also to our Father. For as he who truly and from the heart loves the

father of a family, extends the same love and good-will to all his, so the zeal and affection which we feel for our heavenly

Parent it becomes us to extend towards his people, his family, and,

in fine, his heritage, which he has honoured so highly as to give

them the appellation of the “fulness” of his only begotten Son,”

(Eph. 1: 23.) Let the Christian, then, so regulate his prayers as to

make them common, and embrace all who are his brethren in Christ;

not only those whom at present he sees and knows to be such, but all

men who are alive upon the earth. What God has determined with

regard to them is beyond our knowledge, but to wish and hope the

best concerning them is both pious and humane. Still it becomes us

to regard with special affection those who are of the household of

faith, and whom the Apostle has in express terms recommended to our

care in every thing, (Gal. 6: 10.) In short, all our prayers ought

to bear reference to that community which our Lord has established

in his kingdom and family.

39. This, however, does not prevent us from praying specially

for ourselves, and certain others, provided our mind is not

withdrawn from the view of this community, does not deviate from it,

but constantly refers to it. For prayers, though couched in special

terms, keeping that object still in view, cease not to be common.

All this may easily be understood by analogy. There is a general

command from God to relieve the necessities of all the poor, and yet

this command is obeyed by those who with that view give succour to

all whom they see or know to be in distress, although they pass by

many whose wants are not less urgent, either because they cannot

know or are unable to give supply to all. In this way there is

nothing repugnant to the will of God in those who, giving heed to

this common society of the Church, yet offer up particular prayers,

in which, with a public mind, though in special terms, they commend

to God themselves or others, with whose necessity he has been

pleased to make them more familiarly acquainted. It is true that

prayer and the giving of our substance are not in all respects

alike. We can only bestow the kindness of our liberality on those of

whose wants we are aware, whereas in prayer we can assist the

greatest strangers, how wide soever the space which may separate

them from us. This is done by that general form of prayer which,

including all the sons of God, includes them also. To this we may

refer the exhortation which Paul gave to the believers of his age,

to lift up “holy hands without wrath and doubting,” (1 Tim. 2: 8.)

By reminding them that dissension is a bar to prayer, he shows it to

be his wish that they should with one accord present their prayers

in common.

40. The next words are, WHICH ART IN HEAVEN. From this we are

not to infer that he is enclosed and confined within the

circumference of heaven, as by a kind of boundaries. Hence Solomon

confesses, “The heaven of heavens cannot contain thee,” (1 Kings 8:

27;) and he himself says by the Prophet, “The heaven is my throne,

and the earth is my footstool,” (Isa. 66: 1;) thereby intimating,

that his presence, not confined to any region, is diffused over all

space. But as our gross minds are unable to conceive of his

ineffable glory, it is designated to us by _heaven_, nothing which

our eyes can behold being so full of splendor and majesty. While,

then, we are accustomed to regard every object as confined to the

place where our senses discern it, no place can be assigned to God;

and hence, if we would seek him, we must rise higher than all

corporeal or mental discernment. Again, this form of expression

reminds us that he is far beyond the reach of change or corruption,

that he holds the whole universe in his grasp, and rules it by his

power. The effect of the expressions therefore, is the same as if it

had been said, that he is of infinite majesty, incomprehensible

essence, boundless power, and eternal duration. When we thus speak

of God, our thoughts must be raised to their highest pitch; we must

not ascribe to him any thing of a terrestrial or carnal nature, must

not measure him by our little standards, or suppose his will to be

like ours. At the same time, we must put our confidence in him,

understanding that heaven and earth are governed by his providence

and power. In short, under the name of Father is set before us that

God, who hath appeared to us in his own image, that we may invoke

him with sure faith; the familiar name of Father being given not

only to inspire confidence, but also to curb our minds, and prevent

them from going astray after doubtful or fictitious gods. We thus

ascend from the only begotten Son to the supreme Father of angels

and of the Church. Then when his throne is fixed in heaven, we are

reminded that he governs the world, and, therefore, that it is not

in vain to approach him whose present care we actually experience.

“He that cometh to God,” says the Apostle, “must believe that he is,

and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him,” (Heb.

11: 6.) Here Christ makes both claims for his Father, _first_, that

we place our faith in him; and, _secondly_ ,that we feel assured

that our salvation is not neglected by him, inasmuch as he

condescends to extend his providence to us. By these elementary

principles Paul prepares us to pray aright; for before enjoining us

to make our requests known unto God, he premises in this way, “The

Lord is at hand. Be careful for nothing,” (Phil. 4: 5, 6.) Whence it

appears that doubt and perplexity hang over the prayers of those in

whose minds the belief is not firmly seated, that “the eyes of the

Lord are upon the righteous,” (Ps. 34: 15.)

41. The first petition is, HALLOWED BE THY NAME. The necessity

of presenting it bespeaks our great disgrace. For what can be more

unbecoming than that our ingratitude and malice should impair, our

audacity and petulance should as much as in them lies destroy, the

glory of God? But though all the ungodly should burst with

sacrilegious rage, the holiness of God’s name still shines forth.

Justly does the Psalmist exclaim, “According to thy name, O God, so

is thy praise unto the ends of the earth,” (Ps. 48: 10.) For

wherever God hath made himself known, his perfections must be

displayed, his power, goodness, wisdom, justice, mercy, and truth,

which fill us with admiration, and incite us to show forth his

praise. Therefore, as the name of God is not duly hallowed on the

earth, and we are otherwise unable to assert it, it is at least our

duty to make it the subject of our prayers. The sum of the whole is,

It must be our desire that God may receive the honour which is his

due: that men may never think or speak of him without the greatest

reverence. The opposite of this reverence is profanity, which has

always been too common in the world, and is very prevalent in the

present day. Hence the necessity of the petition, which, if piety

had any proper existence among us, would be superfluous. But if the

name of God is duly hallowed only when separated from all other

names it alone is glorified, we are in the petition enjoined to ask

not only that God would vindicate his sacred name from all contempt

and insult, but also that he would compel the whole human race to

reverence it. Then since God manifests himself to us partly by his

word, and partly by his works, he is not sanctified unless in regard

to both of these we ascribe to him what is due, and thus embrace

whatever has proceeded from him, giving no less praise to his

justice than to his mercy. On the manifold diversity of his works he

has inscribed the marks of his glory, and these ought to call forth

from every tongue an ascription of praise. Thus Scripture will

obtain its due authority with us, and no event will hinder us from

celebrating the praises of God, in regard to every part of his

government. On the other hand, the petition implies a wish that all

impiety which pollutes this sacred name may perish and be

extinguished, that every thing which obscures or impairs his glory,

all detraction and insult, may cease; that all blasphemy being

suppressed, the divine majesty may be more and more signally

displayed.

42. The second petition is, THY KINGDOM COME. This contains

nothing new, and yet there is good reason for distinguishing it from

the first. For if we consider our lethargy in the greatest of all

matters, we shall see how necessary it is that what ought to be in

itself perfectly known should be inculcated at greater length.

Therefore, after the injunction to pray that God would reduce to

order, and at length completely efface every stain which is thrown

on his sacred name, another petition, containing almost the same

wish, is added, viz., Thy kingdom come. Although a definition of

this kingdom has already been given, I now briefly repeat that God

reigns when men, in denial of themselves and contempt of the world

and this earthly life, devote themselves to righteousness and aspire

to heaven, (see Calvin, Harm. Matth. 6:) Thus this kingdom consists

of two parts; the first is, when God by the agency of his Spirit

corrects all the depraved lusts of the flesh, which in bands war

against Him; and the second, when he brings all our thoughts into

obedience to his authority. This petition, therefore, is duly

presented only by those who begin with themselves; in other words,

who pray that they may be purified from all the corruptions which

disturb the tranquillity and impair the purity of God’s kingdom.

Then as the word of God is like his royal sceptre, we are here

enjoined to pray that he would subdue all minds and hearts to

voluntary obedience. This is done when by the secret inspiration of

his Spirit he displays the efficacy of his word, and raises it to

the place of honour which it deserves. We must next descend to the

wicked, who perversely and with desperate madness resist his

authority. God, therefore, sets up his kingdom, by humbling the

whole world, though in different ways, taming the wantonness of

some, and breaking the ungovernable pride of others. We should

desire this to be done every day, in order that God may gather

churches to himself from all quarters of the world, may extend and

increase their numbers, enrich them with his gifts, establish due

order among them; on the other hand, beat down all the enemies of

pure doctrine and religion, dissipate their counsels, defeat their

attempts. Hence it appears that there is good ground for the precept

which enjoins daily progress, for human affairs are never so

prosperous as when the impurities of vice are purged away, and

integrity flourishes in full vigor. The completion, however, is

deferred to the final advent of Christ, when, as Paul declares, “God

will be all in all,” (1 Cor. 15: 28.) This prayer, therefore, ought

to withdraw us from the corruptions of the world which separate us

from God, and prevent his kingdom from flourishing within us;

secondly, it ought to inflame us with an ardent desire for the

mortification of the flesh; and, lastly, it ought to train us to the

endurance of the cross; since this is the way in which God would

have his kingdom to be advanced. It ought not to grieve us that the

outward man decays provided the inner man is renewed. For such is

the nature of the kingdom of God, that while we submit to his

righteousness he makes us partakers of his glory. This is the case

when continually adding to his light and truth, by which the lies

and the darkness of Satan and his kingdom are dissipated,

extinguished, and destroyed, he protects his people, guides them

aright by the agency of his Spirit, and confirms them in

perseverance; while, on the other hand, he frustrates the impious

conspiracies of his enemies, dissipates their wiles and frauds,

prevents their malice and curbs their petulance, until at length he

consume Antichrist “with the spirit of his mouth,” and destroy all

impiety “with the brightness of his coming,” (2 Thess. 2: 8, Calv.

Com.)

43. The third petition is, THY WILL BE DONE ON EARTH AS IT IS

IN HEAVEN. Though this depends on his kingdom, and cannot be

disjoined from it, yet a separate place is not improperly given to

it on account of our ignorance, which does not at once or easily

apprehend what is meant by God reigning in the world. This,

therefore, may not improperly be taken as the explanation, that God

will be King in the world when all shall subject themselves to his

will. We are not here treating of that secret will by which he

governs all things, and destines them to their end, (see chap. 24:

s. 17.) For although devils and men rise in tumult against him, he

is able by his incomprehensible counsel not only to turn aside their

violence, but make it subservient to the execution of his decrees.

What we here speak of is another will of God, namely, that of which

voluntary obedience is the counterpart; and, therefore, heaven is

expressly contrasted with earth, because, as is said in The Psalms,

the angels “do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his

word,” (Ps. 103: 20.) We are, therefore, enjoined to pray that as

everything done in heaven is at the command of God, and the angels

are calmly disposed to do all that is right, so the earth may be

brought under his authority, all rebellion and depravity having been

extinguished. In presenting this request we renounce the desires of

the flesh, because he who does not entirely resign his affections to

God, does as much as in him lies to oppose the divine will, since

everything which proceeds from us is vicious. Again, by this prayer

we are taught to deny ourselves, that God may rule us according to

his pleasure; and not only so, but also having annihilated our own

may create new thoughts and new minds so that we shall have no

desire save that of entire agreement with his will; in short, wish

nothing of ourselves, but have our hearts governed by his Spirit,

under whose inward teaching we may learn to love those things which

please and hate those things which displease him. Hence also we must

desire that he would nullify and suppress all affections which are

repugnant to his will. Such are the three first heads of the prayer,

in presenting which we should have the glory of God only in view,

taking no account of ourselves, and paying no respect to our own

advantage, which, though it is thereby greatly promoted, is not here

to be the subject of request. And though all the events prayed for

must happen in their own time, without being either thought of,

wished, or asked by us, it is still our duty to wish and ask for

them. And it is of no slight importance to do so, that we may

testify and profess that we are the servants and children of God,

desirous by every means in our power to promote the honour due to

him as our Lord and Father, and truly and thoroughly devoted to his

service. Hence if men, in praying that the name of God may be

hallowed, that his kingdom may come, and his will be done, are not

influenced by this zeal for the promotion of his glory, they are not

to be accounted among the servants and children of God; and as all

these things will take place against their will, so they will turn

out to their confusion and destruction.

44. Now comes the second part of the prayer, in which we

descend to our own interests, not, indeed, that we are to lose sight

of the glory of God, (to which, as Paul declares, we must have

respect even in meat and drink, 1 Cor. 10: 31,) and ask only what is

expedient for ourselves; but the distinction, as we have already

observed, is this: God claiming the three first petitions as

specially his own, carries us entirely to himself, that in this way

he may prove our piety. Next he permits us to look to our own

advantage, but still on the condition, that when we ask anything for

ourselves it must be in order that all the benefits which he confers

may show forth his glory, there being nothing more incumbent on us

than to live and die to him. By the first petition of the second

part, GIVE US THIS DAY OUR DAILY BREAD, we pray in general that God

would give us all things which the body requires in this sublunary

state, not only food and clothing, but everything which he knows

will assist us to eat our bread in peace. In this way we briefly

cast our care upon him, and commit ourselves to his providence, that

he may feed, foster, and preserve us. For our heavenly Father

disdains not to take our body under his charge and protection, that

he may exercise our faith in those minute matters, while we look to

him for everything, even to a morsel of bread and a drop of water.

For since, owing to some strange inequality, we feel more concern

for the body than for the soul, many who can trust the latter to God

still continue anxious about the former, still hesitate as to what

they are to eat, as to how they are to be clothed, and are in

trepidation whenever their hands are not filled with corn, and wine,

and oil, so much more value do we set on this shadowy, fleeting

life, than on a blessed immortality. But those who, trusting to God,

have once cast away that anxiety about the flesh, immediately look

to him for greater gifts, even salvation and eternal life. It is no

slight exercise of faith, therefore, to hope in God for things which

would otherwise give us so much concern; nor have we made little

progress when we get quit of this unbelief, which cleaves, as it

were, to our very bones. The speculations of some concerning

supersubstantial bread seem to be very little accordant with our

Savior’s meaning; for our prayer would be defective were we not to

ascribe to God the nourishment even of this fading life. The reason

which they give is heathenish, viz., that it is inconsistent with

the character of sons of God, who ought to be spiritual, not only to

occupy their mind with earthly cares, but to suppose God also

occupied with them. As if his blessing and paternal favour were not

eminently displayed in giving us food, or as if there were nothing

in the declaration that godliness hath “the promise of the life that

now is, and of that which is to come,” (1 Tim. 4: 8.) But although

the forgiveness of sins is of far more importance than the

nourishment of the body, yet Christ has set down the inferior in the

prior place, in order that he might gradually raise us to the other

two petitions, which properly belong to the heavenly life,—in this

providing for our sluggishness. We are enjoined to ask _our bread_,

that we may be contented with the measure which our heavenly Father

is pleased to dispense, and not strive to make gain by illicit arts.

Meanwhile, we must hold that the title by which it is ours is

donation, because, as Moses says, (Levit. 26: 20, Deut. 8: 17,)

neither our industry, nor labour, nor hands, acquire any thing for

us, unless the blessing of God be present; nay, not even would

abundance of bread be of the least avail were it not divinely

converted into nourishment. And hence this liberality of God is not

less necessary to the rich than the poor, because, though their

cellars and barns were full, they would be parched and pine with

want did they not enjoy his favour along with their bread. The terms

_this day_, or, as it is in another Evangelist, _daily_, and also

the epithet _daily_, lay a restraint on our immoderate desire of

fleeting good—a desire which we are extremely apt to indulge to

excess, and from which other evils ensue: for when our supply is in

richer abundance we ambitiously squander it in pleasure, luxury,

ostentation, or other kinds of extravagance. Wherefore, we are only

enjoined to ask as much as our necessity requires, and as it were

for each day, confiding that our heavenly Father, who gives us the

supply of to-day, will not fail us on the morrow. How great soever

our abundance may be, however well filled our cellars and granaries,

we must still always ask for daily bread, for we must feel assured

that all substance is nothing, unless in so far as the Lord, by

pouring out his blessing, make it fruitful during its whole

progress; for even that which is in our hand is not ours except in

so far as he every hour portions it out, and permits us to use it.

As nothing is more difficult to human pride than the admission of

this truth, the Lord declares that he gave a special proof for all

ages, when he fed his people with manna in the desert, (Deut. 8: 3,)

that he might remind us that “man shall not live by bread alone, but

by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God,” (Matth. 4:

4.) It is thus intimated, that by his power alone our life and

strength are sustained, though he ministers supply to us by bodily

instruments. In like manner, whenever it so pleases, he gives us a

proof of an opposite description, by breaking the strength, or, as

he himself calls it, the _staff_ of bread, (Levit. 26: 26,) and

leaving us even while eating to pine with hunger, and while drinking

to be parched with thirst. Those who, not contented with daily

bread, indulge an unrestrained insatiable cupidity, or those who are

full of their own abundance, and trust in their own riches, only

mock God by offering up this prayer. For the former ask what they

would be unwilling to obtain, nay, what they most of all abominate,

namely, daily bread only, and as much as in them lies disguise their

avarice from God, whereas true prayer should pour out the whole soul

and every inward feeling before him. The latter, again, ask what

they do not at all expect to obtain, namely, what they imagine that

they in themselves already possess. In its being called _ours_, God,

as we have already said, gives a striking display of his kindness,

making that to be ours to which we have no just claim. Nor must we

reject the view to which I have already adverted, viz., that this

name is given to what is obtained by just and honest labour, as

contrasted with what is obtained by fraud and rapine, nothing being

our own which we obtain with injury to others. When we ask God to

_give us_, the meaning is, that the thing asked is simply and freely

the gift of God, whatever be the quarter from which it comes to us,

even when it seems to have been specially prepared by our own art

and industry, and procured by our hands, since it is to his blessing

alone that all our labors owe their success.

45. The next petition is, FORGIVE ITS OUR DEBTS. In this and

the following petition our Saviour has briefly comprehended whatever

is conducive to the heavenly life, as these two members contain the

spiritual covenant which God made for the salvation of his Church,

“I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it on their

hearts.” “I will pardon all their iniquities,” (Jer. 31: 33; 33: 8.)

Here our Saviour begins with the forgiveness of sins, and then adds

the subsequent blessing, viz., that God would protect us by the

power, and support us by the aid of his Spirit, so that we may stand

invincible against all temptations. To sins he gives the name of

_debts_, because we owe the punishment due to them, a debt which we

could not possibly pay were we not discharged by this remission, the

result of his free mercy, when he freely expunges the debt,

accepting nothing in return; but of his own mercy receiving

satisfaction in Christ, who gave himself a ransom for us, (Rom. 3:

24.) Hence, those who expect to satisfy God by merits of their own

or of others, or to compensate and purchase forgiveness by means of

satisfactions, have no share in this free pardon, and while they

address God in this petition, do nothing more than subscribe their

own accusation, and seal their condemnation by their own testimony.

For they confess that they are debtors, unless they are discharged

by means of forgiveness. This forgiveness, however, they do not

receive, but rather reject, when they obtrude their merits and

satisfactions upon God, since by so doing they do not implore his

mercy, but appeal to his justice. Let those, again, who dream of a

perfection which makes it unnecessary to seek pardon, find their

disciples among those whose itching ears incline them to

imposture,[25] (see Calv. on Dan. 9: 20;) only let them understand

that those whom they thus acquire have been carried away from

Christ, since he, by instructing all to confess their guilt,

receives none but sinners, not that he may soothe, and so encourage

them in their sins, but because he knows that believers are never so

divested of the sins of the flesh as not to remain subject to the

justice of God. It is, indeed, to be wished, it ought even to be our

strenuous endeavour, to perform all the parts of our duty, so as

truly to congratulate ourselves before God as being pure from every

stain; but as God is pleased to renew his image in us by degrees, so

that to some extent there is always a residue of corruption in our

flesh, we ought by no means to neglect the remedy. But if Christ,

according to the authority given him by his Father, enjoins us,

during the whole course of our lives, to implore pardon, who can

tolerate those new teachers who, by the phantom of perfect

innocence, endeavour to dazzle the simple, and make them believe

that they can render themselves completely free from guilt? This, as

John declares, is nothing else than to make God a liar, (1 John 1:

10.) In like manner, those foolish men mutilate the covenant in

which we have seen that our salvation is contained by concealing one

head of it, and so destroying it entirely; being guilty not only of

profanity in that they separate things which ought to be

indissolubly connected; but also of wickedness and cruelty in

overwhelming wretched souls with despair—of treachery also to

themselves and their followers, in that they encourage themselves in

a carelessness diametrically opposed to the mercy of God. It is

excessively childish to object, that when they long for the advent

of the kingdom of God, they at the same time pray for the abolition

of sin. In the former division of the prayer absolute perfection is

set before us; but in the latter our own weakness. Thus the two

fitly correspond to each other—we strive for the goal, and at the

same time neglect not the remedies which our necessities require. In

the next part of the petition we pray to be forgiven, “_as we

forgive our debtors;_” that is, as we spare and pardon all by whom

we are in any way offended, either in deed by unjust, or in word by

contumelious treatment. Not that we can forgive the guilt of a fault

or offense; this belongs to God only; but we can forgive to this

extent: we can voluntarily divest our minds of wrath, hatred, and

revenge, and efface the remembrance of injuries by a voluntary

oblivion. Wherefore, we are not to ask the forgiveness of our sins

from God, unless we forgive the offenses of all who are or have been

injurious to us. If we retain any hatred in our minds, if we

meditate revenge, and devise the means of hurting; nay, if we do not

return to a good understanding with our enemies, perform every kind

of friendly office, and endeavour to effect a reconciliation with

them, we by this petition beseech God not to grant us forgiveness.

For we ask him to do to us as we do to others. This is the same as

asking him not to do unless we do also. What, then, do such persons

obtain by this petition but a heavier judgment? Lastly, it is to be

observed that the condition of being forgiven as we forgive our

debtors, is not added because by forgiving others we deserve

forgiveness, as if the cause of forgiveness were expressed; but by

the use of this expression the Lord has been pleased partly to

solace the weakness of our faith, using it as a sign to assure us

that our sins are as certainly forgiven as we are certainly

conscious of having forgiven others, when our mind is completely

purged from all envy, hatred, and malice; and partly using as a

badge by which he excludes from the number of his children all who,

prone to revenge and reluctant to forgive, obstinately keep up their

enmity, cherishing against others that indignation which they

deprecate from themselves; so that they should not venture to invoke

him as a Father. In the Gospel of Luke, we have this distinctly

stated in the words of Christ.

46. The sixth petition corresponds (as we have observed) to the

promise[26] of _writing the law upon our hearts_; but because we do

not obey God without a continual warfare, without sharp and arduous

contests, we here pray that he would furnish us with armour, and

defend us by his protection, that we may be able to obtain the

victory. By this we are reminded that we not only have need of the

gift of the Spirit inwardly to soften our hearts, and turn and

direct them to the obedience of God, but also of his assistance, to

render us invincible by all the wiles and violent assaults of Satan.

The forms of temptation are many and various. The depraved

conceptions of our minds provoking us to transgress the law—

conceptions which our concupiscence suggests or the devil excites,

are temptations; and things which in their own nature are not evil,

become temptations by the wiles of the devil, when they are

presented to our eyes in such a way that the view of them makes us

withdraw or decline from God.[27] These temptations are both on the

right hand and on the left.[28] On the right, when riches, power,

and honours, which by their glare, and the semblance of good which

they present, generally dazzle the eyes of men, and so entice by

their blandishments, that, caught by their snares, and intoxicated

by their sweetness, they forget their God: on the left, when

offended by the hardship and bitterness of poverty, disgrace,

contempt, afflictions, and other things of that description, they

despond, cast away their confidence and hope, and are at length

totally estranged from God. In regard to both kinds of temptation,

which either enkindled in us by concupiscence) or presented by the

craft of Satan’s war against us, we pray God the Father not to allow

us to be overcome, but rather to raise and support us by his hand,

that strengthened by his mighty power we may stand firm against all

the assaults of our malignant enemy, whatever be the thoughts which

he sends into our minds; next we pray that whatever of either

description is allotted us, we may turn to good, that is, may

neither be inflated with prosperity, nor cast down by adversity.

Here, however, we do not ask to be altogether exempted from

temptation, which is very necessary to excite, stimulate, and urge

us on, that we may not become too lethargic. It was not without

reason that David wished to be tried,[29] nor is it without cause

that the Lord daily tries his elect, chastising them by disgrace,

poverty, tribulation, and other kinds of cross.[30] But the

temptations of God and Satan are very different: Satan tempts, that

he may destroy, condemn, confound, throw headlong; God, that by

proving his people he may make trial of their sincerity, and by

exercising their strength confirm it; may mortify, tame, and

cauterize their flesh, which, if not curbed in this manner, would

wanton and exult above measure. Besides, Satan attacks those who are

unarmed and unprepared, that he may destroy them unawares; whereas

whatever God sends, he “will with the temptation also make a way to

escape, that ye may be able to bear it."[31] Whether by the term

evil we understand the devil or sin, is not of the least

consequence. Satan is indeed the very enemy who lays snares for our

life,[32] but it is by sin that he is armed for our destruction. Our

petition, therefore, is, that we may not be overcome or overwhelmed

with temptation, but in the strength of the Lord may stand firm

against all the powers by which we are assailed; in other words, may

not fall under temptation: that being thus taken under his charge

and protection, we may remain invincible by sin, death, the gates of

hell, and the whole power of the devil; in other words, be delivered

from evil. Here it is carefully to be observed, that we have no

strength to contend with such a combatant as the devil, or to

sustain the violence of his assault. Were it otherwise, it would be

mockery of God to ask of him what we already possess in ourselves.

Assuredly those who in self-confidence prepare for such a fight, do

not understand how bold and well-equipped the enemy is with whom

they have to do. Now we ask to be delivered from his power, as from

the mouth of some furious raging lion, who would instantly tear us

with his teeth and claws, and swallow us up, did not the Lord rescue

us from the midst of death; at the same time knowing that if the

Lord is present and will fight for us while we stand by, through him

“we shall do valiantly,” (Ps. 60: 12.) Let others if they will

confide in the powers and resources of their free will which they

think they possess; enough for us that we stand and are strong in

the power of God alone. But the prayer comprehends more than at

first sight it seems to do. For if the Spirit of God is our strength

in waging the contest with Satan, we cannot gain the victory unless

we are filled with him, and thereby freed from all infirmity of the

flesh. Therefore, when we pray to be delivered from sin and Satan,

we at the same time desire to be enriched with new supplies of

divine grace, until completely replenished with them, we triumph

over every evil. To some it seems rude and harsh to ask God not to

lead us into temptation, since, as James declares (James 1: 13,) it

is contrary to his nature to do so. This difficulty has already been

partly solved by the fact that our concupiscence is the cause, and

therefore properly bears the blame of all the temptations by which

we are overcome. All that James means is, that it is vain and unjust

to ascribe to God vices which our own consciousness compels us to

impute to ourselves. But this is no reason why God may not when he

sees it meet bring us into bondage to Satan, give us up to a

reprobate mind and shameful lusts, and so by a just, indeed, but

often hidden judgment, lead us into temptation. Though the cause is

often concealed from men, it is well known to him. Hence we may see

that the expression is not improper, if we are persuaded that it is

not without cause he so often threatens to give sure signs of his

vengeance, by blinding the reprobate, and hardening their hearts.

47. These three petitions, in which we specially commend

ourselves and all that we have to God, clearly show what we formerly

observed (sec. 38, 39,) that the prayers of Christians should be

public, and have respect to the public edification of the Church and

the advancement of believers in spiritual communion. For no one

requests that anything should be given to him as an individual, but

we all ask in common for daily bread and the forgiveness of sins,

not to be led into temptation, but delivered from evil. Moreover,

there is subjoined the reason for our great boldness in asking and

confidence of obtaining, (sec. 11, 36.) Although this does not exist

in the Latin copies, yet as it accords so well with the whole, we

cannot think of omitting it. The words are, THINE IS THE KINGDOM,

AND THE POWER, AND THE GLORY, FOR EVER. Here is the calm and firm

assurance of our faith. For were our prayers to be commended to God

by our own worth, who would venture even to whisper before him? Now,

however wretched we may be, however unworthy, however devoid of

commendation, we shall never want a reason for prayer, nor a ground

of confidence, since the kingdom, power, and glory, can never be

wrested from our Father. The last word is AMEN, by which is

expressed the eagerness of our desire to obtain the things which we

ask, while our hope is confirmed, that all things have already been

obtained and will assuredly be granted to us, seeing they have been

promised by God, who cannot deceive. This accords with the form of

expression to which we have already adverted: “Grant, O Lord, for

thy name’s sake, not on account of us or of our righteousness.” By

this the saints not only express the end of their prayers, but

confess that they are unworthy of obtaining did not God find the

cause in himself and were not their confidence founded entirely on

his nature.

48. All things that we ought, indeed all that we are able, to

ask of God, are contained in this formula, and as it were rule, of

prayer delivered by Christ, our divine Master, whom the Father has

appointed to be our teacher, and to whom alone he would have us to

listen, (Matth. 17. 5.) For he ever was the eternal wisdom of the

Father, and being made man, was manifested as the Wonderful, the

Counselor, (Isa. 11: 2; ix. 6.) Accordingly, this prayer is complete

in all its parts, so complete, that whatever is extraneous and

foreign to it, whatever cannot be referred to it, is impious and

unworthy of the approbation of God. For he has here summarily

prescribed what is worthy of him, what is acceptable to him, and

what is necessary for us; in short, whatever he is pleased to grant.

Those, therefore, who presume to go further and ask something more

from God, first seek to add of their own to the wisdom of God, (this

it is insane blasphemy to do;) secondly, refusing to confine

themselves within the will of God, and despising it, they wander as

their cupidity directs; lastly, they will never obtain anything,

seeing they pray without faith. For there cannot be a doubt that all

such prayers are made without faith, because at variance with the

word of God, on which if faith do not always lean it cannot possibly

stand. Those who, disregarding the Master’s rule, indulge their own

wishes, not only have not the word of God, but as much as in them

lies oppose it. Hence Tertullian (De Fuga in Persequutione) has not

less truly than elegantly termed it _Lawful Prayer_, tacitly

intimating that all other prayers are lawless and illicit.

49. By this, however, we would not have it understood that we

are so restricted to this form of prayer as to make it unlawful to

change a word or syllable of it. For in Scripture we meet with many

prayers differing greatly from it in word, yet written by the same

Spirit, and capable of being used by us with the greatest advantage.

Many prayers also are continually suggested to believers by the same

Spirit, though in expression they bear no great resemblance to it.

All we mean to say is, that no man should wish, expect, or ask

anything which is not summarily comprehended in this prayer. Though

the words may be very different, there must be no difference in the

sense. In this way, all prayers, both those which are contained in

the Scripture, and those which come forth from pious breasts, must

be referred to it, certainly none can ever equal it, far less

surpass it in perfection. It omits nothing which we can conceive in

praise of God, nothing which we can imagine advantageous to man, and

the whole is so exact that all hope of improving it may well be

renounced. In short, let us remember that we have here the doctrine

of heavenly wisdom. God has taught what he willed; he willed what

was necessary.

50. But although it has been said above, (sec. 7, 27, &c.,)

that we ought always to raise our minds upwards towards God, and

pray without ceasing, yet such is our weakness, which requires to be

supported, such our torpor, which requires to be stimulated, that it

is requisite for us to appoint special hours for this exercise,

hours which are not to pass away without prayer, and during which

the whole affections of our minds are to be completely occupied;

namely, when we rise in the morning, before we commence our daily

work, when we sit down to food, when by the blessing of God we have

taken it, and when we retire to rest. This, however, must not be a

superstitious observance of hours, by which, as it were, performing

a task to God, we think we are discharged as to other hours; it

should rather be considered as a discipline by which our weakness is

exercised, and ever and anon stimulated. In particular, it must be

our anxious care, whenever we are ourselves pressed, or see others

pressed by any strait, instantly to have recourse to him not only

with quickened pace, but with quickened minds; and again, we must

not in any prosperity of ourselves or others omit to testify our

recognition of his hand by praise and thanksgiving. Lastly, we must

in all our prayers carefully avoid wishing to confine God to certain

circumstances, or prescribe to him the time, place, or mode of

action. In like manner, we are taught by this prayer not to fix any

law or impose any condition upon him, but leave it entirely to him

to adopt whatever course of procedure seems to him best, in respect

of method, time, and place. For before we offer up any petition for

ourselves, we ask that his will may be done, and by so doing place

our will in subordination to his, just as if we had laid a curb upon

it, that, instead of presuming to give law to God, it may regard him

as the ruler and disposer of all its wishes.

51. If, with minds thus framed to obedience, we allow ourselves

to be governed by the laws of Divine Providence, we shall easily

learn to persevere in prayer, and suspending our own desires wait

patiently for the Lord, certain, however little the appearance of it

may be, that he is always present with us, and will in his own time

show how very far he was from turning a deaf ear to prayers, though

to the eyes of men they may seem to be disregarded. This will be a

very present consolation, if at any time God does not grant an

immediate answer to our prayers, preventing us from fainting or

giving way to despondency, as those are wont to do who, in invoking

God, are so borne away by their own fervor, that unless he yield on

their first importunity and give present help, they immediately

imagine that he is angry and offended with them and abandoning all

hope of success cease from prayer. On the contrary, deferring our

hope with well tempered equanimity, let us insist with that

perseverance which is so strongly recommended to us in Scripture. We

may often see in The Psalms how David and other believers, after

they are almost weary of praying, and seem to have been beating the

air by addressing a God who would not hear, yet cease not to pray

because due authority is not given to the word of God, unless the

faith placed in it is superior to all events. Again, let us not

tempt God, and by wearying him with our importunity provoke his

anger against us. Many have a practice of formally bargaining with

God on certain conditions, and, as if he were the servant of their

lust, binding him to certain stipulations; with which if he do not

immediately comply, they are indignant and fretful, murmur,

complain, and make a noise. Thus offended, he often in his anger

grants to such persons what in mercy he kindly denies to others. Of

this we have a proof in the children of Israel, for whom it had been

better not to have been heard by the Lord, than to swallow his

indignation with their flesh, (Num. 11: 18, 33.)

52. But if our sense is not able till after long expectation to

perceive what the result of prayer is, or experience any benefit

from it, still our faith will assure us of that which cannot be

perceived by sense, viz., that we have obtained what was fit for us,

the Lord having so often and so surely engaged to take an interest

in all our troubles from the moment they have been deposited in his

bosom. In this way we shall possess abundance in poverty, and

comfort in affliction. For though all things fail, God will never

abandon us, and he cannot frustrate the expectation and patience of

his people. He alone will suffice for all, since in himself he

comprehends all good, and will at last reveal it to us on the day of

judgment, when his kingdom shall be plainly manifested. We may add,

that although God complies with our request, he does not always give

an answer in the very terms of our prayers but while apparently

holding us in suspense, yet in an unknown way, shows that our

prayers have not been in vain. This is the meaning of the words of

John, “If we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that

we have the petitions that we desired of him,” (1 John 5: 15.) It

might seem that there is here a great superfluity of words, but the

declaration is most useful, namely, that God, even when he does not

comply with our requests, yet listens and is favourable to our

prayers, so that our hope founded on his word is never disappointed.

But believers have always need of being supported by this patience,

as they could not stand long if they did not lean upon it. For the

trials by which the Lord proves and exercises us are severe, nay, he

often drives us to extremes, and when driven allows us long to stick

fast in the mire before he gives us any taste of his sweetness. As

Hannah says, “The Lord killeth, and maketh alive; he bringeth down

to the grave, and bringeth up,” (1 Sam. 2: 6.) What could they here

do but become dispirited and rush on despair, were they not, when

afflicted, desolate, and half dead, comforted with the thought that

they are regarded by God, and that there will be an end to their

present evils. But however secure their hopes may stand, they in the

meantime cease not to pray, since prayer unaccompanied by

perseverance leads to no result.

Notes

[1] French, “Dont il sembleroit que ce fust chose supeflue de le

soliciter par prieres; veu que nous avons accoustume de soliciter

ceux qui ne pensent a nostre affaire, et qui sont endormis."—Whence

it would seem that it was a superfluous matter to solicit him by

prayer; seeing we are accustomed to solicit those who think not of

our business and who are slumbering.

[2] French, “Pourtant ce qui est escrit en la prophetie qu’on

attribue a Baruch, combien que l’autheur soit incertain, est tres

sainctement dit;"—However, what is written in the prophecy which is

attributed to Baruch, though the author is uncertain, is very holily

said.

[3] French, “il reconoissent le chastisement qu’ils ont merite;"—

they acknowledge the punishment which they have deserved.

[4] The French adds, “Ils voudront qu’on leur oste le mal de tests

et des reins, et seront contens qu’on ne touche point a la fievre;"-

-They would wish to get quit of the pain in the head and the loins,

and would be contented to leave the fever untouched.

[5] Latin, “prosternere preces.” French, “mettent bas leurs

prieres;” — lay low their prayers.

[6] The French adds, “duquel id n’eust pas autrement este asseure;"-

-of which he would not otherwise have felt assured.

[7] Latin, “Desine a me.” French, “Retire-toy;"—Withdraw from me.

[8] French, “Confusion que nous avons, ou devons avoir en

nousmesmes;"— confusion which we have, or ought to have, in

ourselves.

[9] Erasmus, though stumbling and walking blindfold in clear light,

ventures to write thus in a letter to Sadolet, 1530: “Primum,

constat nullum esse locum in divinis voluminibus, qui permittat

invocare divos nisi fortasse detorquere huc placet, quod dives in

Evangelica parabola implorat opem Abrahae. Quanquam autem in re

tanta novare quicquam praeter auctoritatem Scripturae, merito

periculosum videri possit, tamen invocationem divorum nusquam

improbo,” &c.—First, it is clear that there is no passage in the

Sacred Volume which permits the invocation of saints, unless we are

pleased to wrest to this purpose what is said in the parable as to

the rich man imploring the help of Abraham. But though in so weighty

a matter it may justly seem dangerous to introduce anything without

the authority of Scripture, I by no means condemn the invocation of

saints, &c.

[10] Latin, “Pastores;"—French, “ceux qui se disent prelats, cures,

ou precheurs;"—those who call themselves prelates, curates, or

preachers.

[11] French, “Mais encore qu’ils taschent de laver leur mains d’un

si vilain sacrilege, d’autant qu’il ne se commet point en leurs

messes ni en leurs vespres; sous quelle couleur defendront ils ces

blasphemes qu’il lisent a pleine gorge, ou ils prient St Eloy ou St

Medard, de regarder du ciel leurs serviteurs pour les aider? mesmes

ou ils supplient la vierge Marie de commander a son fils qu’il leur

ottroye leur requestes?"—But although they endeavour to wash their

hands of the vile sacrilege, inasmuch as it is not committed in

their masses or vespers, under what pretext will they defend those

blasphemies which they repeat with full throat, in which they pray

St Eloy or St Medard to look from heaven upon their servants and

assist them; even supplicate the Virgin Mary to command her Son to

grant their requests?

[12] The French adds, “et quasi en une fourmiliere de saincts;"—and

as it were a swarm of saints.

[13] French, “C’est chose trop notoire de quel bourbieu ou de quelle

racaille ils tirent leur saincts."-It is too notorious out of what

mire or rubbish they draw their saints.

[14] French, “Cette longueur de priere a aujourd’hui sa vogue en la

Papaute, et procede de cette mesme source; c’est que les uns

barbotant force Ave Maria, et reiterant cent fois un chapelet,

perdent une partie du temps; les autres, comme les chanoines et

caphars, en abayant le parchemin jour et nuict, et barbotant leur

breviaire vendent leur coquilles au peuple."—This long prayer is at

present in vogue among the Papists, and proceeds from the same

cause: some muttering a host of Ave Marias, and going over their

beads a hundred times, lose part of their time; others, as the

canons and monks grumbling over their parchment night and day, and

muttering their breviary, sell their cockleshells to the people.

[15] Calvin translates, “Te expectat Deus, laus in Sion,"—God, the

praise in Sion waiteth for thee.

[16] See Book 1: chap. 11: sec. 7,13, on the subject of images in

churches. Also Book 4: chap. 4: sec. 8, and chap. 5: sec. 18, as to

the ornaments of churches.

[17] This clause of the sentence is omitted in the French.

[18] The French adds, “ou on en avoit tousjours use;"—where it had

always been used.

[19] The whole of this quotation is omitted in the French.

[20] French, “Mais il adjouste d’autre part, que quand il se

souvenoit du fruict et de l’edification qu’il avoit recue en oyant

chanter a l’Eglise il enclinoit plus a l’autre partie, c’est,

approuver le chant;"—but he adds on the other hand that when he

called to mind the fruit and edification which he had received from

hearing singing in the church, he inclined more to the other side;

that is, to approve singing.

[21] French, “Qui est-ce donc qui se pourra assez esmerveiller d’une

audace tant effrenee qu’ont eu les Papistes et ont encore, qui

contre la defense de l’Apostre, chantent et brayent de langue

estrange et inconnue, en laquelle le plus souvent ils n’entendent

pas eux mesmes une syllabe, et ne veulent que les autres y

entendent?"—Who then can sufficiently admire the unbridled audacity

which the Papists have had, and still have, who, contrary to the

prohibition of the Apostle, chant and bray in a foreign and unknown

tongue, in which, for the most part, they do not understand one

syllable, and which they have no wish that others understand?

[22] Augustine in Enchiridion ad Laurent. 30: 116. Pseudo-Chrysost.

in Homilies on Matthew, hom. 14: See end of sec. 53.

[23] “Dont il est facile de juger que ce qui est adjouste en S.

Matthieu, et qu’aucuns ont pris pour une septieme requeste, n’est

qu’un explication de la sixieme, et se doit a icelle rapporter;"—

Whence it is easy to perceive that what is added in St Matthew, and

which some have taken for a seventh petition, is only an explanation

of the sixth, and ought to be referred to it.

[24] French, “Quelque mauvaistie qu’ayons eue, ou quelque

imperfection ou pourete qui soit en nous;"-whatever wickedness we

may have done, or whatever imperfection or poverty there may be in

us.

[25] French, “Telles disciples qu’ils voudront;"—such disciples as

they will.

[26] The French adds, “que Dieu nous a donnee et faite;"—which God

has given and performed to us.

[27] James 1: 2, 14; Matth. 4: 1, 3; I Thess. 3: 5.

[28] 2 Cor. 6: 7, 8.

[29] Ps. 26: 2

[30] Gen. 22: 1; Deut. 8: 2; 13: 3. For the sense in which God is

said to lead us into temptation. see the end of this section.

[31] 1 Cor. 10: 13; 2 Pet. 2: 9

[32] 1 Pet. 5: 8

CHAPTER 21. OF THE ETERNAL ELECTION, BY WHICH GOD HAS PREDESTINED SOME TO SALVATION, AND OTHERS TO DESTRUCTION.

The divisions of this chapter are,—I. The necessity and

utility of the doctrine of eternal Election explained. Excessive

curiosity restrained, sec. l, 2. II. Explanation to those who

through false modesty shun the doctrine of Predestination, sec. 3,

4. III. The orthodox doctrine expounded.

Sections.

l. The doctrine of Election and Predestination. It is useful,

necessary, and most sweet. Ignorance of it impairs the glory of

God, plucks up humility by the roots, begets and fosters pride.

The doctrine establishes the certainty of salvation, peace of

conscience, and the true origin of the Church. Answer to two

classes of men: 1. The curious.

2. A sentiment of Augustine confirmed by an admonition of our Savior

and a passage of Solomon.

3. An answer to a second class, viz., those who are unwilling that

the doctrine should be adverted to. An objection founded on a

passage of Solomon, solved by the words of Moses.

4. A second objection, viz., That this doctrine is a stumbling-block

to the profane. Answer 1. The same may be said of many other

heads of doctrine. 2. The truth of God will always defend

itself. Third objection, viz., That this doctrine is dangerous

even to believers. Answer 1. The same objection made to

Augustine. 2. We must not despise anything that God has

revealed. Arrogance and blasphemy of such objections.

5. Certain cavils against the doctrine. 1. Prescience regarded as

the cause of predestination. Prescience and predestination

explained. Not prescience, but the good pleasure of God the

cause of predestination. This apparent from the gratuitous

election of the posterity of Abraham and the rejection of all

others.

6. Even of the posterity of Abraham some elected and others rejected

by special grace.

7. The Apostle shows that the same thing has been done in regard to

individuals under the Christian dispensation.

1. The covenant of life is not preached equally to all, and

among those to whom it is preached, does not always meet with the

same reception. This diversity displays the unsearchable depth of

the divine judgment, and is without doubt subordinate to God’s

purpose of eternal election. But if it is plainly owing to the mere

pleasure of God that salvation is spontaneously offered to some,

while others have no access to it, great and difficult questions

immediately arise, questions which are inexplicable, when just views

are not entertained concerning election and predestination. To many

this seems a perplexing subject, because they deem it most

incongruous that of the great body of mankind some should be

predestinated to salvation, and others to destruction. How

ceaselessly they entangle themselves will appear as we proceed. We

may add, that in the very obscurity which deters them, we may see

not only the utility of this doctrine, but also its most pleasant

fruits. We shall never feel persuaded as we ought that our salvation

flows from the free mercy of God as its fountain, until we are made

acquainted with his eternal election, the grace of God being

illustrated by the contrast, viz., that he does not adopt all

promiscuously to the hope of salvation, but gives to some what he

denies to others. It is plain how greatly ignorance of this

principle detracts from the glory of God, and impairs true humility.

But though thus necessary to be known, Paul declares that it cannot

be known unless God, throwing works entirely out of view, elect

those whom he has predestined. His words are, “Even so then at this

present time also, there is a remnant according to the election of

grace. And if by grace, then it is no more of works: otherwise grace

is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace:

otherwise work is no more work,” (Rom. 11: 6.) If to make it appear

that our salvation flows entirely from the good mercy of God, we

must be carried back to the origin of election, then those who would

extinguish it, wickedly do as much as in them lies to obscure what

they ought most loudly to extol, and pluck up humility by the very

roots. Paul clearly declares that it is only when the salvation of a

remnant is ascribed to gratuitous election, we arrive at the

knowledge that God saves whom he wills of his mere good pleasure,

and does not pay a debt, a debt which never can be due. Those who

preclude access, and would not have any one to obtain a taste of

this doctrine, are equally unjust to God and men, there being no

other means of humbling us as we ought, or making us feel how much

we are bound to him. Nor, indeed, have we elsewhere any sure ground

of confidence. This we say on the authority of Christ, who, to

deliver us from all fear, and render us invincible amid our many

dangers, snares and mortal conflicts, promises safety to all that

the Father has taken under his protection, (John 10: 26.) From this

we infer, that all who know not that they are the peculiar people of

God, must be wretched from perpetual trepidation, and that those

therefore, who, by overlooking the three advantages which we have

noted, would destroy the very foundation of our safety, consult ill

for themselves and for all the faithful. What? Do we not here find

the very origin of the Church, which, as Bernard rightly teaches,

(Serm. in Cantic.) could not be found or recognized among the

creatures, because it lies hid (in both cases wondrously) within the

lap of blessed predestination, and the mass of wretched

condemnation?

But before I enter on the subject, I have some remarks to

address to two classes of men. The subject of predestination, which

in itself is attended with considerable difficulty is rendered very

perplexed and hence perilous by human curiosity, which cannot be

restrained from wandering into forbidden paths and climbing to the

clouds determined if it can that none of the secret things of God

shall remain unexplored. When we see many, some of them in other

respects not bad men, every where rushing into this audacity and

wickedness, it is necessary to remind them of the course of duty in

this matter. First, then, when they inquire into predestination, let

then remember that they are penetrating into the recesses of the

divine wisdom, where he who rushes forward securely and confidently,

instead of satisfying his curiosity will enter in inextricable

labyrinth. For it is not right that man should with impunity pry

into things which the Lord has been pleased to conceal within

himself, and scan that sublime eternal wisdom which it is his

pleasure that we should not apprehend but adore, that therein also

his perfections may appear. Those secrets of his will, which he has

seen it meet to manifest, are revealed in his word—revealed in so

far as he knew to be conducive to our interest and welfare.

2. “We have come into the way of faith,” says Augustine: “let

us constantly adhere to it. It leads to the chambers of the king, in

which are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. For our

Lord Jesus Christ did not speak invidiously to his great and most

select disciples when he said, ‘I have yet many things to say unto

you, but ye cannot bear them now,’ (John 16: 12.) We must walk,

advance, increase, that our hearts may be able to comprehend those

things which they cannot now comprehend. But if the last day shall

find us making progress, we shall there learn what here we could

not,” (August. Hom. in Joann.) If we give due weight to the

consideration, that the word of the Lord is the only way which can

conduct us to the investigation of whatever it is lawful for us to

hold with regard to him—is the only light which can enable us to

discern what we ought to see with regard to him, it will curb and

restrain all presumption. For it will show us that the moment we go

beyond the bounds of the word we are out of the course, in darkness,

and must every now and then stumble, go astray, and fall. Let it,

therefore, be our first principle that to desire any other knowledge

of predestination than that which is expounded by the word of God,

is no less infatuated than to walk where there is no path, or to

seek light in darkness. Let us not be ashamed to be ignorant in a

matter in which ignorance is learning. Rather let us willingly

abstain from the search after knowledge, to which it is both foolish

as well as perilous, and even fatal to aspire. If an unrestrained

imagination urges us, our proper course is to oppose it with these

words, “It is not good to eat much honey: so for men to search their

own glory is not glory,” (Prov. 25: 27.) There is good reason to

dread a presumption which can only plunge us headlong into ruin.

3. There are others who, when they would cure this disease,

recommend that the subject of predestination should scarcely if ever

be mentioned, and tell us to shun every question concerning it as we

would a rock. Although their moderation is justly commendable in

thinking that such mysteries should be treated with moderation, yet

because they keep too far within the proper measure, they have

little influence over the human mind, which does not readily allow

itself to be curbed. Therefore, in order to keep the legitimate

course in this matter, we must return to the word of God, in which

we are furnished with the right rule of understanding. For Scripture

is the school of the Holy Spirit, in which as nothing useful and

necessary to be known has been omitted, so nothing is taught but

what it is of importance to know. Every thing, therefore delivered

in Scripture on the subject of predestination, we must beware of

keeping from the faithful, lest we seem either maliciously to

deprive them of the blessing of God, or to accuse and scoff at the

Spirit, as having divulged what ought on any account to be

suppressed. Let us, I say, allow the Christian to unlock his mind

and ears to all the words of God which are addressed to him,

provided he do it with this moderation, viz., that whenever the Lord

shuts his sacred mouth, he also desists from inquiry. The best rule

of sobriety is, not only in learning to follow wherever God leads,

but also when he makes an end of teaching, to cease also from

wishing to be wise. The danger which they dread is not so great that

we ought on account of it to turn away our minds from the oracles of

God. There is a celebrated saying of Solomon, “It is the glory of

God to conceal a thing,” (Prov. 25: 2.) But since both piety and

common sense dictate that this is not to be understood of every

thing, we must look for a distinction, lest under the pretence of

modesty and sobriety we be satisfied with a brutish ignorance. This

is clearly expressed by Moses in a few words, “The secret things

belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed

belong unto us, and to our children for ever,” (Deut. 29: 29.) We

see how he exhorts the people to study the doctrine of the law in

accordance with a heavenly decree, because God has been pleased to

promulgate it, while he at the same time confines them within these

boundaries, for the simple reason that it is not lawful for men to

pry into the secret things of God.

4. I admit that profane men lay hold of the subject of

predestination to carp, or cavil, or snarl, or scoff. But if their

petulance frightens us, it will be necessary to conceal all the

principal articles of faith, because they and their fellows leave

scarcely one of them unassailed with blasphemy. A rebellious spirit

will display itself no less insolently when it hears that there are

three persons in the divine essence, than when it hears that God

when he created man foresaw every thing that was to happen to him.

Nor will they abstain from their jeers when told that little more

than five thousand years have elapsed since the creation of the

world. For they will ask, Why did the power of God slumber so long

in idleness? In short, nothing can be stated that they will not

assail with derision. To quell their blasphemies, must we say

nothing concerning the divinity of the Son and Spirit? Must the

creation of the world be passed over in silence? No! The truth of

God is too powerful, both here and everywhere, to dread the slanders

of the ungodly, as Augustine powerfully maintains in his treatise,

De Bono Perseverantiae, (cap. 14—20.) For we see that the false

apostles were unable, by defaming and accusing the true doctrine of

Paul, to make him ashamed of it. There is nothing in the allegation

that the whole subject is fraught with danger to pious minds, as

tending to destroy exhortation, shake faith, disturb and dispirit

the heart. Augustine disguises not that on these grounds he was

often charged with preaching the doctrine of predestination too

freely, but, as it was easy for him to do, he abundantly refutes the

charge. As a great variety of absurd objections are here stated, we

have thought it best to dispose of each of them in its proper place,

(see chap. 23.) Only I wish it to be received as a general rule,

that the secret things of God are not to be scrutinized, and that

those which he has revealed are not to be overlooked, lest we may,

on the one hand, be chargeable with curiosity, and, on the other,

with ingratitude. For it has been shrewdly observed by Augustine,

(de Genesi ad Literam, Lib. 5,) that we can safely follow Scripture,

which walks softly, as with a mother’s step, in accommodation to our

weakness. Those, however, who are so cautious and timid, that they

would bury all mention of predestination in order that it may not

trouble weak minds, with what color, pray, will they cloak their

arrogance, when they indirectly charge God with a want of due

consideration, in not having foreseen a danger for which they

imagine that they prudently provide? Whoever, therefore, throws

obloquy on the doctrine of predestination, openly brings a charge

against God, as having inconsiderately allowed something to escape

from him which is injurious to the Church.

5. The predestination by which God adopts some to the hope of

life, and adjudges others to eternal death, no man who would be

thought pious ventures simply to deny; but it is greatly caviled at,

especially by those who make prescience its cause. We, indeed,

ascribe both prescience and predestination to God; but we say, that

it is absurd to make the latter subordinate to the former, (see

chap. 22 sec. 1.) When we attribute prescience to God, we mean that

all things always were, and ever continue, under his eye; that to

his knowledge there is no past or future, but all things are

present, and indeed so present, that it is not merely the idea of

them that is before him, (as those objects are which we retain in

our memory,) but that he truly sees and contemplates them as

actually under his immediate inspection. This prescience extends to

the whole circuit of the world, and to all creatures. By

predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he

determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to

every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are

preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and,

accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these

ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.

This God has testified, not only in the case of single individuals;

he has also given a specimen of it in the whole posterity of

Abraham, to make it plain that the future condition of each nation

lives entirely at his disposal: “When the Most High divided to the

nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he

set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children

of Israel. For the Lord’s portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of

his inheritance,” (Deut. 32: 8, 9.) The separation is before the

eyes of all; in the person of Abraham, as in a withered stock, one

people is specially chosen, while the others are rejected; but the

cause does not appear, except that Moses, to deprive posterity of

any handle for glorying, tells them that their superiority was owing

entirely to the free love of God. The cause which he assigns for

their deliverance is, “Because he loved thy fathers, therefore he

chose their seed after them,” (Deut. 4: 37;) or more explicitly in

another chapter, “The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose

you, because you were more in number than any people: for ye were

the fewest of all people: but because the Lord loved you,” (Deut. 7:

7, 8.) He repeatedly makes the same intimations, “Behold, the

heaven, and the heaven of heavens is the Lord’s thy God, the earth

also, with all that therein is. Only the Lord had a delight in thy

fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them,” (Deut.

10: 14, 15.) Again, in another passage, holiness is enjoined upon

them, because they have been chosen to be a peculiar people; while

in another, love is declared to be the cause of their protection,

(Deut. 23: 5.) This, too, believers with one voice proclaim, “He

shall choose our inheritance for us, the excellency of Jacob, whom

he loved,” (Ps. 47: 4.) The endowments with which God had adorned

them, they all ascribe to gratuitous love, not only because they

knew that they had not obtained them by any merit, but that not even

was the holy patriarch endued with a virtue that could procure such

distinguished honor for himself and his posterity. And the more

completely to crush all pride, he upbraids them with having merited

nothing of the kind, seeing they were a rebellious and stiff-necked

people, (Deut. 9: 6.) Often, also, do the prophets remind the Jews

of this election by way of disparagement and opprobrium, because

they had shamefully revolted from it. Be this as it may, let those

who would ascribe the election of God to human worth or merit come

forward. When they see that one nation is preferred to all others,

when they hear that it was no feeling of respect that induced God to

show more favor to a small and ignoble body, nay, even to the wicked

and rebellious, will they plead against him for having chosen to

give such a manifestation of mercy? But neither will their

obstreperous words hinder his work, nor will their invectives, like

stones thrown against heaven, strike or hurt his righteousness; nay,

rather they will fall back on their own heads. To this principle of

a free covenant, moreover, the Israelites are recalled whenever

thanks are to be returned to God, or their hopes of the future to be

animated. “The Lord he is God,” says the Psalmist; “it is he that

has made us, and not we ourselves: we are his people, and the sheep

of his pasture,” (Ps. 100: 3; 95: 7.) The negation which is added,

“not we ourselves,” is not superfluous, to teach us that God is not

only the author of all the good qualities in which men excel, but

that they originate in himself, there being nothing in them worthy

of so much honor. In the following words also they are enjoined to

rest satisfied with the mere good pleasure of God: “O ye seed of

Abraham, his servant; ye children of Jacob, his chosen,” (Ps. 105:

6.) And after an enumeration of the continual mercies of God as

fruits of election, the conclusion is, that he acted thus kindly

because he remembered his covenant. With this doctrine accords the

song of the whole Church, “They got not the land in possession by

their own sword, neither did their own arm save them; but thy right

hand, and thine arm, and the light of thy countenance, because thou

hadst a favor unto them,” (Ps. 44: 3.) It is to be observed, that

when the land is mentioned, it is a visible symbol of the secret

election in which adoption is comprehended. To like gratitude David

elsewhere exhorts the people, “Blessed is the nation whose God is

the Lord, and the people whom he has chosen for his own

inheritance,” (Ps. 33: 12.) Samuel thus animates their hopes, “The

Lord will not forsake his people for his great name’s sake: because

it has pleased the Lord to make you his people,” (1 Sam. 12: 22.)

And when David’s faith is assailed, how does he arm himself for the

battle? “Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causes to

approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts,” (Ps. 65: 4.)

But as the hidden election of God was confirmed both by a first and

second election, and by other intermediate mercies, Isaiah thus

applies the terms “The Lord will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet

choose Israel,” (Isa. 14: 1.) Referring to a future period, the

gathering together of the dispersion, who seemed to have been

abandoned, he says, that it will be a sign of a firm and stable

election, notwithstanding of the apparent abandonment. When it is

elsewhere said, “I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away,” (Isa.

41: 9,) the continual course of his great liberality is ascribed to

paternal kindness. This is stated more explicitly in Zechariah by

the angel, the Lord “shall choose Jerusalem again,” as if the

severity of his chastisements had amounted to reprobation, or the

captivity had been an interruption of election, which, however,

remains inviolable, though the signs of it do not always appear.

6. We must add a second step of a more limited nature, or one

in which the grace of God was displayed in a more special form, when

of the same family of Abraham God rejected some, and by keeping

others within his Church showed that he retained them among his

sons. At first Ishmael had obtained the same rank with his brother

Isaac, because the spiritual covenant was equally sealed in him by

the symbol of circumcision. He is first cut off, then Esau, at last

an innumerable multitude, almost the whole of Israel. In Isaac was

the seed called. The same calling held good in the case of Jacob.

God gave a similar example in the rejection of Saul. This is also

celebrated in the psalm, “Moreover he refused the tabernacle of

Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim: but chose the tribe of

Judah,” (Ps. 78: 67, 68.) This the sacred history sometimes repeats

that the secret grace of God may be more admirably displayed in that

change. I admit that it was by their own fault Ishmael, Esau, and

others, fell from their adoption; for the condition annexed was,

that they should faithfully keep the covenant of God, whereas they

perfidiously violated it. The singular kindness of God consisted in

this, that he had been pleased to prefer them to other nations; as

it is said in the psalm, “He has not dealt so with any nation: and

as for his judgments, they have not known them,” (Ps. 147: 20.) But

I had good reason for saying that two steps are here to be observed;

for in the election of the whole nation, God had already shown that

in the exercise of his mere liberality he was under no law but was

free, so that he was by no means to be restricted to an equal

division of grace, its very inequality proving it to be gratuitous.

Accordingly, Malachi enlarges on the ingratitude of Israel, in that

being not only selected from the whole human race, but set

peculiarly apart from a sacred household; they perfidiously and

impiously spurn God their beneficent parent. “Was not Esau Jacob’s

brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau,” (Mal.

1: 2, 3.) For God takes it for granted, that as both were the sons

of a holy father, and successors of the covenant, in short, branches

from a sacred root, the sons of Jacob were under no ordinary

obligation for having been admitted to that dignity; but when by the

rejection of Esau the first born, their progenitor though inferior

in birth was made heir, he charges them with double ingratitude, in

not being restrained by a double tie.

7. Although it is now sufficiently plain that God by his secret

counsel chooses whom he will while he rejects others, his gratuitous

election has only been partially explained until we come to the case

of single individuals, to whom God not only offers salvation, but so

assigns it, that the certainty of the result remains not dubious or

suspended. These are considered as belonging to that one seed of

which Paul makes mention, (Rom. 9: 8; Gal. 3: 16, &c.) For although

adoption was deposited in the hand of Abraham, yet as many of his

posterity were cut off as rotten members, in order that election may

stand and be effectual, it is necessary to ascend to the head in

whom the heavenly Father has connected his elect with each other,

and bound them to himself by an indissoluble tie. Thus in the

adoption of the family of Abraham, God gave them a liberal display

of favor which he has denied to others; but in the members of Christ

there is a far more excellent display of grace, because those

ingrafted into him as their head never fail to obtain salvation.

Hence Paul skillfully argues from the passage of Malachi which I

quoted, (Rom. 9: 13; Mal. 1: 2,) that when God, after making a

covenant of eternal life, invites any people to himself, a special

mode of election is in part understood, so that he does not with

promiscuous grace effectually elect all of them. The words, “Jacob

have I loved,” refer to the whole progeny of the patriarch, which

the prophet there opposes to the posterity of Esau. But there is

nothing in this repugnant to the fact, that in the person of one man

is set before us a specimen of election, which cannot fail of

accomplishing its object. It is not without cause Paul observes,

that these are called a remnants (Rom. 9: 27; 11: 5;) because

experience shows that of the general body many fall away and are

lost, so that often a small portion only remains. The reason why the

general election of the people is not always firmly ratified,

readily presents itself, viz., that on those with whom God makes the

covenant, he does not immediately bestow the Spirit of regeneration,

by whose power they persevere in the covenant even to the end. The

external invitation, without the internal efficacy of grace which

would have the effect of retaining them, holds a kind of middle

place between the rejection of the human race and the election of a

small number of believers. The whole people of Israel are called the

Lord’s inheritance, and yet there were many foreigners among them.

Still, because the covenant which God had made to be their Father

and Redeemer was not altogether null, he has respect to that free

favor rather than to the perfidious defection of many; even by them

his truth was not abolished, since by preserving some residue to

himself, it appeared that his calling was without repentance. When

God ever and anon gathered his Church from among the sons of Abraham

rather than from profane nations, he had respect to his covenant,

which, when violated by the great body, he restricted to a few, that

it might not entirely fail. In short, that common adoption of the

seed of Abraham was a kind of visible image of a greater benefit

which God deigned to bestow on some out of many. This is the reason

why Paul so carefully distinguishes between the sons of Abraham

according to the flesh and the spiritual sons who are called after

the example of Isaac. Not that simply to be a son of Abraham was a

vain or useless privilege, (this could not be said without insult to

the covenant,) but that the immutable counsel of God, by which he

predestinated to himself whomsoever he would, was alone effectual

for their salvation. But until the proper view is made clear by the

production of passages of Scripture, I advise my readers not to

prejudge the question. We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves

this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined

once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to

salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to

doom to destruction. We maintain that this counsel, as regards the

elect, is founded on his free mercy, without any respect to human

worth, while those whom he dooms to destruction are excluded from

access to life by a just and blameless, but at the same time

incomprehensible judgment. In regard to the elect, we regard calling

as the evidence of election, and justification as another symbol of

its manifestation, until it is fully accomplished by the attainment

of glory. But as the Lord seals his elect by calling and

justification, so by excluding the reprobate either from the

knowledge of his name or the sanctification of his Spirit, he by

these marks in a manner discloses the judgment which awaits them. I

will here omit many of the fictions which foolish men have devised

to overthrow predestination. There is no need of refuting objections

which the moment they are produced abundantly betray their

hollowness. I will dwell only on those points which either form the

subject of dispute among the learned, or may occasion any difficulty

to the simple, or may be employed by impiety as specious pretexts

for assailing the justice of God.

CHAPTER 22. THIS DOCTRINE CONFIRMED BY PROOFS FROM SCRIPTURE.

The divisions of this chapter are,—I. A confirmation of the

orthodox doctrine in opposition to two classes of individuals. This

confirmation founded on a careful exposition of our Savior’s words,

and passages in the writings of Paul, sec. 1-7. II. A refutation of

some objections taken from ancient writers, Thomas Aquinas, and more

modern writers, sec. 8-10. III. Of reprobation, which is founded

entirely on the righteous will of God, sec. 11.

Sections.

1. Some imagine that God elects or reprobates according to a

foreknowledge of merit. Others make it a charge against God

that he elects some and passes by others. Both refuted, 1. By

invincible arguments; 2. By the testimony of Augustine.

2. Who are elected, when, in whom, to what, for what reason.

3. The reason is the good pleasure of God, which so reigns in

election that no works, either past or future, are taken into

consideration. This proved by notable declarations of one

Savior and passages of Paul.

4. Proved by a striking discussion in the Epistle to the Romans. Its

scope and method explained. The advocates of foreknowledge

refuted by the Apostle, when he maintains that election is

special and wholly of grace.

5. Evasion refuted. A summary and analysis of the Apostle’s

discussion.

6. An exception, with three answers to it. The efficacy of

gratuitous election extends only to believers, who are said to

be elected according to foreknowledge. This foreknowledge or

prescience is not speculative but active.

7. This proved from the words of Christ. Conclusion of the answer,

and solution of the objection with regard to Judas.

8. An objection taken from the ancient fathers. Answer from

Augustine, from Ambrose, as quoted by Augustine, and an

invincible argument by an Apostle. Summary of this argument.

9. Objection from Thomas Aquinas. Answer.

10. Objection of more modern writers. Answers. Passages in which

there is a semblance of contradiction reconciled. Why many

called and few chosen. An objection founded on mutual consent

between the word and faith. Solution confirmed by the words of

Paul, Augustine, and Bernard. A clear declaration by our

Savior.

11. The view to be taken of reprobation. It is founded on the

righteous will of God.

1. Many controvert all the positions which we have laid down,

especially the gratuitous election of believers, which, however,

cannot be overthrown. For they commonly imagine that God

distinguishes between men according to the merits which he foresees

that each individual is to have, giving the adoption of sons to

those whom he foreknows will not be unworthy of his grace, and

dooming those to destruction whose dispositions he perceives will be

prone to mischief and wickedness. Thus by interposing foreknowledge

as a veil, they not only obscure election, but pretend to give it a

different origin. Nor is this the commonly received opinion of the

vulgar merely, for it has in all ages had great supporters, (see

sec. 8.) This I candidly confess, lest any one should expect greatly

to prejudice our cause by opposing it with their names. The truth of

God is here too certain to be shaken, too clear to be overborne by

human authority. Others who are neither versed in Scripture, nor

entitled to any weight, assail sound doctrine with a petulance and

improbity which it is impossible to tolerate. Because God of his

mere good pleasure electing some passes by others, they raise a plea

against him. But if the fact is certain, what can they gain by

quarreling with God? We teach nothing but what experience proves to

be true, viz., that God has always been at liberty to bestow his

grace on whom he would. Not to ask in what respect the posterity of

Abraham excelled others if it be not in a worth, the cause of which

has no existence out of God, let them tell why men are better than

oxen or asses. God might have made them dogs when he formed them in

his own image. Will they allow the lower animals to expostulate with

God, as if the inferiority of their condition were unjust? It is

certainly not more equitable that men should enjoy the privilege

which they have not acquired by any merit, than that he should

variously distribute favors as seems to him meet. If they pass to

the case of individuals where inequality is more offensive to them,

they ought at least, in regard to the example of our Savior, to be

restrained by feelings of awe from talking so confidently of this

sublime mystery. He is conceived a mortal man of the seed of David;

what, I would ask them, are the virtues by which he deserved to

become in the very womb, the head of angels the only begotten Son of

God, the image and glory of the Father, the light, righteousness,

and salvation of the world? It is wisely observed by Augustine, that

in the very head of the Church we have a bright mirror of free

election, lest it should give any trouble to us the members, viz.,

that he did not become the Son of God by living righteously, but was

freely presented with this great honor, that he might afterwards

make others partakers of his gifts. Should any one here ask, why

others are not what he was, or why we are all at so great a distance

from him, why we are all corrupt while he is purity, he would not

only betray his madness, but his effrontery also. But if they are

bent on depriving God of the free right of electing and reprobating,

let them at the same time take away what has been given to Christ.

It will now be proper to attend to what Scripture declares

concerning each. When Paul declares that we were chosen in Christ

before the foundation of the world, (Eph. 1: 4,) he certainly shows

that no regard is had to our own worth; for it is just as if he had

said, Since in the whole seed of Adam our heavenly Father found

nothing worthy of his election, he turned his eye upon his own

Anointed, that he might select as members of his body those whom he

was to assume into the fellowship of life. Let believers, then, give

full effect to this reason, viz., that we were in Christ adopted

unto the heavenly inheritance, because in ourselves we were

incapable of such excellence. This he elsewhere observes in another

passage, in which he exhorts the Colossians to give thanks that they

had been made meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints,

(Col. 1: 12.) If election precedes that divine grace by which we are

made fit to obtain immortal life, what can God find in us to induce

him to elect us? What I mean is still more clearly explained in

another passage: God, says he, “has chosen us in him before the

foundation of the world, that we might be holy and without blame

before him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of

children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure

of his will,” (Eph. 1: 4, 5.) Here he opposes the good pleasure of

God to our merits of every description.

2. That the proof may be more complete, it is of importance to

attend to the separate clauses of that passage. When they are

connected together they leave no doubt. From giving them the name of

elect, it is clear that he is addressing believers, as indeed he

shortly after declares. It is, therefore, a complete perversion of

the name to confine it to the age in which the gospel was published.

By saying they were elected before the foundation of the world, he

takes away all reference to worth. For what ground of distinction

was there between persons who as yet existed not, and persons who

were afterwards like them to exist in Adam? But if they were elected

in Christ, it follows not only that each was elected on some

extrinsic ground, but that some were placed on a different footing

from others, since we see that all are not members of Christ. In the

additional statement that they were elected that they might be holy,

the apostle openly refutes the error of those who deduce election

from prescience, since he declares that whatever virtue appears in

men is the result of election. Then, if a higher cause is asked,

Paul answers that God so predestined, and predestined according to

the good pleasure of his will. By these words, he overturns all the

grounds of election which men imagine to exist in themselves. For he

shows that whatever favors God bestows in reference to the spiritual

life flow from this one fountain, because God chose whom he would,

and before they were born had the grace which he designed to bestow

upon them set apart for their use.

3. Wherever this good pleasure of God reigns, no good works are

taken into account. The Apostle, indeed, does not follow out the

antithesis, but it is to be understood, as he himself explains it in

another passage, “Who has called us with a holy calling, not

according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace,

which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,” (1 Tim.

2: 9.) We have already shown that the additional words, “that we

might be holy,” remove every doubt. If you say that he foresaw they

would be holy, and therefore elected them, you invert the order of

Paul. You may, therefore, safely infer, If he elected us that we

might be holy, he did not elect us because he foresaw that we would

be holy. The two things are evidently inconsistent, viz., that the

pious owe it to election that they are holy, and yet attain to

election by means of works. There is no force in the cavil to which

they are ever recurring, that the Lord does not bestow election in

recompense of preceding, but bestows it in consideration of future

merits. For when it is said that believers were elected that they

might be holy, it is at the same time intimated that the holiness

which was to be in them has its origin in election. And how can it

be consistently said, that things derived from election are the

cause of election? The very thing which the Apostle had said, he

seems afterwards to confirm by adding, “According to his good

pleasure which he has purposed in himself,” (Eph. 1: 9;) for the

expression that God “purposed in himself,” is the same as if it had

been said, that in forming his decree he considered nothing external

to himself; and, accordingly, it is immediately subjoined, that the

whole object contemplated in our election is, that “we should be to

the praise of his glory.” Assuredly divine grace would not deserve

all the praise of election, were not election gratuitous; and it

would not be gratuitous did God in electing any individual pay

regard to his future works. Hence, what Christ said to his disciples

is found to be universally applicable to all believers, “Ye have not

chosen me, but I have chosen you,” (John 15: 16.) Here he not only

excludes past merits, but declares that they had nothing in

themselves for which they could be chosen except in so far as his

mercy anticipated. And how are we to understand the words of Paul,

“Who has first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him

again?” (Rom. 11: 35.) His meaning obviously is, that men are

altogether indebted to the preventing goodness of God, there being

nothing in them, either past or future, to conciliate his favor.

4. In the Epistle to the Romans, (Rom. 9: 6,) in which he again

treats this subject more reconditely and at greater length, he

declares that “they are not all Israel which are of Israel;” for

though all were blessed in respect of hereditary rights yet all did

not equally obtain the succession. The whole discussion was

occasioned by the pride and vain-glorying of the Jews, who, by

claiming the name of the Church for themselves, would have made the

faith of the Gospel dependent on their pleasure; just as in the

present day the Papists would fain under this pretext substitute

themselves in place of God. Paul, while he concedes that in respect

of the covenant they were the holy offspring of Abraham, yet

contends that the greater part of them were strangers to it, and

that not only because they were degenerate, and so had become

bastards instead of sons, but because the principal point to be

considered was the special election of God, by which alone his

adoption was ratified. If the piety of some established them in the

hope of salvation, and the revolt of others was the sole cause of

their being rejected, it would have been foolish and absurd in Paul

to carry his readers back to a secret election. But if the will of

God (no cause of which external to him either appears or is to be

looked for) distinguishes some from others, so that all the sons of

Israel are not true Israelites, it is vain for any one to seek the

origin of his condition in himself. He afterwards prosecutes the

subject at greater length, by contrasting the cases of Jacob and

Esau. Both being sons of Abraham, both having been at the same time

in the womb of their mother, there was something very strange in the

change by which the honor of the birthright was transferred to

Jacob, and yet Paul declares that the change was an attestation to

the election of the one and the reprobation of the other.

The question considered is the origin and cause of election.

The advocates of foreknowledge insist that it is to be found in the

virtues and vices of men. For they take the short and easy method of

asserting, that God showed in the person of Jacob, that he elects

those who are worthy of his grace; and in the person of Esau, that

he rejects those whom he foresees to be unworthy. Such is their

confident assertion; but what does Paul say? “For the children being

not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose

of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him

that calleth; it was said unto her, [Rebecca,] The elder shall serve

the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I

hated,” (Rom. 9: 11-13.) If foreknowledge had anything to do with

this distinction of the brothers, the mention of time would have

been out of place. Granting that Jacob was elected for a worth to be

obtained by future virtues, to what end did Paul say that he was not

yet born? Nor would there have been any occasion for adding, that as

yet he had done no good, because the answer was always ready, that

nothing is hid from God, and that therefore the piety of Jacob was

present before him. If works procure favor, a value ought to have

been put upon them before Jacob was born, just as if he had been of

full age. But in explaining the difficulty, the Apostle goes on to

show, that the adoption of Jacob proceeded not on works but on the

calling of God. In works he makes no mention of past or future, but

distinctly opposes them to the calling of God, intimating, that when

place is given to the one the other is overthrown; as if he had

said, The only thing to be considered is what pleased God, not what

men furnished of themselves. Lastly, it is certain that all the

causes which men are wont to devise as external to the secret

counsel of God, are excluded by the use of the terms purpose and

election.

5. Why should men attempt to darken these statements by

assigning some place in election to past or future works? This is

altogether to evade what the Apostle contends for, viz., that the

distinction between the brothers is not founded on any ground of

works, but on the mere calling of God, inasmuch as it was fixed

before the children were born. Had there been any solidity in this

subtlety, it would not have escaped the notice of the Apostle, but

being perfectly aware that God foresaw no good in man, save that

which he had already previously determined to bestow by means of his

election, he does not employ a preposterous arrangement which would

make good works antecedent to their cause. We learn from the

Apostle’s words, that the salvation of believers is founded entirely

on the decree of divine election, that the privilege is procured not

by works but free calling. We have also a specimen of the thing

itself set before us. Esau and Jacob are brothers, begotten of the

same parents, within the same womb, not yet born. In them all things

are equal, and yet the judgment of God with regard to them is

different. He adopts the one and rejects the other. The only right

of precedence was that of primogeniture; but that is disregarded,

and the younger is preferred to the elder. Nay, in the case of

others, God seems to have disregarded primogeniture for the express

purpose of excluding the flesh from all ground of boasting.

Rejecting Ishmael he gives his favor to Isaac, postponing Manasseh

he honors Ephraim.

6. Should any one object that these minute and inferior favors

do not enable us to decide with regard to the future life, that it

is not to be supposed that he who received the honor of

primogeniture was thereby adopted to the inheritance of heaven;

(many objectors do not even spare Paul, but accuse him of having in

the quotation of these passages wrested Scripture from its proper

meaning;) I answer as before, that the Apostle has not erred through

inconsideration, or spontaneously misapplied the passages of

Scripture; but he saw (what these men cannot be brought to consider)

that God purposed under an earthly sign to declare the spiritual

election of Jacob, which otherwise lay hidden at his inaccessible

tribunal. For unless we refer the primogeniture bestowed upon him to

the future world, the form of blessing would be altogether vain and

ridiculous, inasmuch as he gained nothing by it but a multitude of

toils and annoyances, exile, sharp sorrows, and bitter cares.

Therefore, when Paul knew beyond a doubt that by the external, God

manifested the spiritual and unfading blessings, which he had

prepared for his servant in his kingdom, he hesitated not in proving

the latter to draw an argument from the former. For we must remember

that the land of Canaan was given in pledge of the heavenly

inheritance; and that therefore there cannot be a doubt that Jacob

was like the angels ingrafted into the body of Christ, that he might

be a partaker of the same life. Jacob, therefore, is chosen, while

Esau is rejected; the predestination of God makes a distinction

where none existed in respect of merit. If you ask the reason the

Apostle gives it, “For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom

I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have

compassion” (Rom. 9: 15.) And what pray, does this mean? It is just

a clear declaration by the Lord that he finds nothing in men

themselves to induce him to show kindness, that it is owing entirely

to his own mercy, and, accordingly, that their salvation is his own

work. Since God places your salvation in himself alone, why should

you descend to yourself? Since he assigns you his own mercy alone,

why will you recur to your own merits? Since he confines your

thoughts to his own mercy why do you turn partly to the view of your

own works?

We must therefore come to that smaller number whom Paul

elsewhere describes as foreknown of God, (Rom. 11: 2;) not

foreknown, as these men imagine, by idle, inactive contemplations

but in the sense which it often bears. For surely when Peter says

that Christ was “delivered by the determinate counsel and

foreknowledge of God,” (Acts 2: 23,) he does not represent God as

contemplating merely, but as actually accomplishing our salvation.

Thus also Peter, in saying that the believers to whom he writes are

elect “according to the foreknowledge of God,” (1 Pet. 1: 2,)

properly expresses that secret predestination by which God has

sealed those whom he has been pleased to adopt as sons. In using the

term purpose as synonymous with a term which uniformly denotes what

is called a fixed determination, he undoubtedly shows that God, in

being the author of our salvation, does not go beyond himself. In

this sense he says in the same chapters that Christ as “a lamb” “was

foreordained before the creation of the world,” (1 Pet. 1: 19, 20.)

What could have been more frigid or absurd than to have represented

God as looking from the height of heaven to see whence the salvation

of the human race was to come? By a people foreknown, Peter means

the same thing as Paul does by a remnant selected from a multitude

falsely assuming the name of God. In another passage, to suppress

the vain boasting of those who, while only covered with a mask,

claim for themselves in the view of the world a first place among

the godly, Paul says, “The Lord knoweth them that are his,” (2 Tim.

2: 19.) In short, by that term he designates two classes of people,

the one consisting of the whole race of Abraham, the other a people

separated from that race, and though hidden from human view, yet

open to the eye of God. And there is no doubt that he took the

passage from Moses, who declares that God would be merciful to

whomsoever he pleased (although he was speaking of an elect people

whose condition was apparently equal;) just as if he had said, that

in a common adoption was included a special grace which he bestows

on some as a holier treasure, and that there is nothing in the

common covenant to prevent this number from being exempted from the

common order. God being pleased in this matter to act as a free

dispenser and disposer, distinctly declares, that the only ground on

which he will show mercy to one rather than to another is his

sovereign pleasure; for when mercy is bestowed on him who asks it,

though he indeed does not suffer a refusal, he, however, either

anticipates or partly acquires a favour, the whole merit of which

God claims for himself.

7. Now, let the supreme Judge and Master decide on the whole

case. Seeing such obduracy in his hearers, that his words fell upon

the multitude almost without fruit, he to remove this

stumbling-block exclaims, “All that the Father giveth me shall come

to me.” “And this is the Father’s will which has sent me, that of

all which he has given me I should lose nothing,” (John 6: 37, 39.)

Observe that the donation of the Father is the first step in our

delivery into the charge and protection of Christ. Some one,

perhaps, will here turn round and object, that those only peculiarly

belong to the Father who make a voluntary surrender by faith. But

the only thing which Christ maintains is that though the defections

of vast multitudes should shake the world, yet the counsel of God

would stand firm, more stable than heaven itself, that his election

would never fail. The elect are said to have belonged to the Father

before he bestowed them on his only begotten Son. It is asked if

they were his by nature? Nay, they were aliens, but he makes them

his by delivering them. The words of Christ are too clear to be

rendered obscure by any of the mists of caviling. “No man can come

to me except the Father which has sent me draw him.” “Every man,

therefore, that has heard and learned of the Father comes unto me,”

(John 6: 44, 45.) Did all promiscuously bend the knee to Christ,

election would be common; whereas now in the small number of

believers a manifest diversity appears. Accordingly our Savior,

shortly after declaring that the disciples who were given to him

were the common property of the Father, adds, “I pray not for the

world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine,”

(John 17: 9.) Hence it is that the whole world no longer belongs to

its Creator, except in so far as grace rescues from malediction,

divine wrath, and eternal death, some, not many, who would otherwise

perish, while he leaves the world to the destruction to which it is

doomed. Meanwhile, though Christ interpose as a Mediator, yet he

claims the right of electing in common with the Father, “I speak not

of you all: I know whom I have chosen” (John 13: 18.) If it is asked

whence he has chosen them, he answers in another passages “Out of

the world;” which he excludes from his prayers when he commits his

disciples to the Father, (John 15: 19.) We must, indeed hold, when

he affirms that he knows whom he has chosen, first, that some

individuals of the human race are denoted; and, secondly, that they

are not distinguished by the quality of their virtues, but by a

heavenly decree. Hence it follows, that since Christ makes himself

the author of election, none excel by their own strength or

industry. In elsewhere numbering Judas among the elect, though he

was a devil, (John 6: 70,) he refers only to the apostolical office,

which though a bright manifestation of divine favor, (as Paul so

often acknowledges it to be in his own person,) does not, however,

contain within itself the hope of eternal salvation. Judas,

therefore, when he discharged the office of Apostle perfidiously,

might have been worse than a devil; but not one of those whom Christ

has once ingrafted into his body will he ever permit to perish, for

in securing their salvation, he will perform what he has promised;

that is, exert a divine power greater than all, (John 10: 28.) For

when he says, “Those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of

them is lost but the son of perdition,” (John 17: 12,) the

expression, though there is a catachresis in it, is not at all

ambiguous. The sum is, that God by gratuitous adoption forms those

whom he wishes to have for sons; but that the intrinsic cause is in

himself, because he is contented with his secret pleasure.

8. But Ambrose, Origin, and Jerome, were of opinion, that God

dispenses his grace among men according to the use which he foresees

that each will make of it. It may be added, that Augustine also was

for some time of this opinion; but after he had made greater

progress in the knowledge of Scripture, he not only retracted it as

evidently false, but powerfully confuted it, (August. Retract. Lib.

1, c. 13.) Nay, even after the retractation, glancing at the

Pelagians who still persisted in that error, he says, “Who does not

wonder that the Apostle failed to make this most acute observation?

For after stating a most startling proposition concerning those who

were not yet born, and afterwards putting the question to himself by

way of objection, ‘What then? Is there unrighteousness with God?’ he

had an opportunity of answering, that God foresaw the merits of

both, he does not say so, but has recourse to the justice and mercy

of God,” (August. Epist. 106, ad Sixtum.) And in another passage,

after excluding all merit before election, he says, “Here,

certainly, there is no place for the vain argument of those who

defend the foreknowledge of God against the grace of God, and

accordingly maintain that we were elected before the foundation of

the world, because God foreknow that we would be good, not that he

himself would make us good. This is not the language of him who

says, ‘Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you,’ (John 15: 16.)

For had he chosen us because he foreknow that we would be good, he

would at the same time also have foreknown that we were to choose

him,” (August. in Joann. 8, see also what follows to the same

effect.) Let the testimony of Augustine prevail with those who

willingly acquiesce in the authority of the Fathers: although

Augustine allows not that he differs from the others, but shows by

clear evidence that the difference which the Pelagians invidiously

objected to him is unfounded. For he quotes from Ambrose, (Lib. de

Praedest. Sanct. cap. 19,) “Christ calls whom he pities.” Again,

“Had he pleased he could have made them devout instead of undevout;

but God calls whom he deigns to call, and makes religious whom he

will.” Were we disposed to frame an entire volume out of Augustine,

it were easy to show the reader that I have no occasion to use any

other words than his: but I am unwilling to burden him with a prolix

statement. But assuming that the fathers did not speak thus, let us

attend to the thing itself. A difficult question had been raised,

viz., Did God do justly in bestowing his grace on certain

individuals? Paul might have disencumbered himself of this question

at once by saying, that God had respect to works. Why does he not do

so? Why does he rather continue to use a language which leaves him

exposed to the same difficulty? Why, but just because it would not

have been right to say it? There was no obliviousness on the part of

the Holy Spirit, who was speaking by his mouth. He, therefore,

answers without ambiguity, that God favors his elect, because he is

pleased to do so, and shows mercy because he is pleased to do so.

For the words, “I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and

show mercy on whom I will show mercy,” (Exod. 33: 19,) are the same

in effect as if it had been said, God is moved to mercy by no other

reason than that he is pleased to show mercy. Augustine’s

declaration, therefore, remains true. The grace of God does not

find, but makes persons fit to be chosen.

9. Nor let us be detained by the subtlety of Thomas, that the

foreknowledge of merit is the cause of predestination, not, indeed,

in respect of the predestinating act, but that on our part it may in

some sense be so called, namely, in respect of a particular estimate

of predestination; as when it is said, that God predestinates man to

glory according to his merit, inasmuch as he decreed to bestow upon

him the grace by which he merits glory. For while the Lord would

have us to see nothing more in election than his mere goodness, for

any one to desire to see more is preposterous affectation. But were

we to make a trial of subtlety, it would not be difficult to refute

the sophistry of Thomas. He maintains that the elect are in a manner

predestinated to glory on account of their merits, because God

predestines to give them the grace by which they merit glory. What

if I should, on the contrary, object that predestination to grace is

subservient to election unto life, and follows as its handmaid; that

grace is predestined to those to whom the possession of glory was

previously assigned the Lord being pleased to bring his sons by

election to justification? For it will hence follow that the

predestination to glory is the cause of the predestination to grace,

and not the converse. But let us have done with these disputes as

superfluous among those who think that there is enough of wisdom for

them in the word of God. For it has been truly said by an old

ecclesiastical writer, Those who ascribe the election of God to

merits, are wise above what they ought to be, (Ambrose. de Vocat.

Gentium, lib. 1, c. 2.)

10. Some object that God would be inconsistent with himself, in

inviting all without distinction while he elects only a few. Thus,

according to them, the universality of the promise destroys the

distinction of special grace. Some moderate men speak in this way,

not so much for the purpose of suppressing the truth, as to get quit

of puzzling questions, and curb excessive curiosity. The intention

is laudable, but the design is by no means to be approved,

dissimulation being at no time excusable. In those Again who display

their petulance, we see only a vile cavil or a disgraceful error.

The mode in which Scripture reconciles the two things, viz., that by

external preaching all are called to faith and repentance, and that

yet the Spirit of faith and repentance is not given to all, I have

already explained, and will again shortly repeat. But the point

which they assume I deny as false in two respects: for he who

threatens that when it shall rain on one city there will be drought

in another, (Amos 4: 7;) and declares in another passage, that there

will be a famine of the word, (Amos 8: 11,) does not lay himself

under a fixed obligation to call all equally. And he who, forbidding

Paul to preach in Asian and leading him away from Bithynia, carries

him over to Macedonia, (Acts 16: 6,) shows that it belongs to him to

distribute the treasure in what way he pleases. But it is by Isaiah

he more clearly demonstrates how he destines the promises of

salvation specially to the elect, (Isa. 8: 16;) for he declares that

his disciples would consist of them only, and not indiscriminately

of the whole human race. Whence it is evident that the doctrine of

salvation, which is said to be set apart for the sons of the Church

only, is abused when it is represented as effectually available to

all. For the present let it suffice to observe, that though the word

of the gospel is addressed generally to all, yet the gift of faith

is rare. Isaiah assigns the cause when he says that the arm of the

Lord is not revealed to all, (Isa. 53: 1.) Had he said, that the

gospel is malignantly and perversely condemned, because many

obstinately refuse to hear, there might perhaps be some color for

this universal call. It is not the purpose of the Prophet, however,

to extenuate the guilt of men, when he states the source of their

blindness to be, that God deigns not to reveal his arm to them; he

only reminds us that since faith is a special gift, it is in vain

that external doctrine sounds in the ear. But I would fain know from

those doctors whether it is mere preaching or faith that makes men

sons of God. Certainly when it is said, “As many as received him, to

them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that

believe on his name,” (John 1: 12,) a confused mass is not set

before us, but a special order is assigned to believers, who are

“born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of

man, but of God.”

But it is said, there is a mutual agreement between faith and

the word. That must be wherever there is faith. But it is no new

thing for the seed to fall among thorns or in stony places; not only

because the majority appear in fact to be rebellious against God,

but because all are not gifted with eyes and ears. How, then, can it

consistently be said, that God calls while he knows that the called

will not come? Let Augustine answer for me: “Would you dispute with

me? Wonder with me, and exclaim, O the depth! Let us both agree in

dread, lest we perish in error,” (August. de Verb. Apost. Serm. 11.)

Moreover, if election is, as Paul declares, the parent of faith, I

retort the argument, and maintain that faith is not general, since

election is special. For it is easily inferred from the series of

causes and effects, when Paul says, that the Father “has blessed us

with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ, according

as he has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world,”

(Eph. 1: 3, 4,) that these riches are not common to all, because God

has chosen only whom he would. And the reason why in another passage

he commends the faith of the elect is, to prevent any one from

supposing that he acquires faith of his own nature; since to God

alone belongs the glory of freely illuminating those whom he had

previously chosen, (Tit. 1: 1.) For it is well said by Bernard, “His

friend hear apart when he says to them, Fear not, little flock: to

you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom. Who are these?

Those whom he foreknew and predestinated to be conformed to the

image of his Son. He has made known his great and secret counsel.

The Lord knoweth them that are his, but that which was known to God

was manifested to men; nor, indeed, does he deign to give a

participation in this great mystery to any but those whom he

foreknew and predestinated to be his own,” (Bernard. ad Thomas

Praepos. Benerlae. Epist. 107.) Shortly after he concludes, “The

mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that

fear him; from everlasting through predestination, to everlasting

through glorification: the one knows no beginning, the other no

end.” But why cite Bernard as a witness, when we hear from the lips

of our Master, “Not that any man has seen the Father, save he which

is of God”? (John 6: 46.) By these words he intimates that all who

are not regenerated by God are amazed at the brightness of his

countenance. And, indeed, faith is aptly conjoined with election,

provided it hold the second place. This order is clearly expressed

by our Savior in these words, “This is the Father’s will which has

sent me, that of all which he has given me I should lose nothing;”

“And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which sees

the Son, and believes on him, may have everlasting life,” (John 6:

39, 40.) If he would have all to be saved, he would appoint his Son

their guardian, and would ingraft them all into his body by the

sacred bond of faith. It is now clear that faith is a singular

pledge of paternal love, treasured up for the sons whom he has

adopted. Hence Christ elsewhere says, that the sheep follow the

shepherd because they know his voice, but that they will not follow

a stranger, because they know not the voice of strangers, (John 10:

4.) But whence that distinction, unless that their ears have been

divinely bored? For no man makes himself a sheep, but is formed by

heavenly grace. And why does the Lord declare that our salvation

will always be sure and certain, but just because it is guarded by

the invincible power of God? (John 10: 29.) Accordingly, he

concludes that unbelievers are not of his sheep, (John 10: 16.) The

reason is, because they are not of the number of those who, as the

Lord promised by Isaiah, were to be his disciples. Moreover, as the

passages which I have quoted imply perseverance, they are also

attestations to the inflexible constancy of election.

11. We come now to the reprobate, to whom the Apostle at the

same time refers, (Rom. 9: 13.) For as Jacob, who as yet had merited

nothing by good works, is assumed into favor; so Esau, while as yet

unpolluted by any crime, is hated. If we turn our view to works, we

do injustice to the Apostle, as if he had failed to see the very

thing which is clear to us. Moreover, there is complete proof of his

not having seen it, since he expressly insists that when as yet they

had done neither good nor evil, the one was elected, the other

rejected, in order to prove that the foundation of divine

predestination is not in works. Then after starting the objection,

Is God unjust? instead of employing what would have been the surest

and plainest defense of his justice, viz., that God had recompensed

Esau according to his wickedness, he is contented with a different

solution, viz., that the reprobate are expressly raised up, in order

that the glory of God may thereby be displayed. At last, he

concludes that God has mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he

will he hardeneth, (Rom. 9: 18.) You see how he refers both to the

mere pleasure of God. Therefore, if we cannot assign any reason for

his bestowing mercy on his people, but just that it so pleases him,

neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his

will. When God is said to visit in mercy or harden whom he will, men

are reminded that they are not to seek for any cause beyond his

will.

CHAPTER 23. REFUTATION OF THE CALUMNIES BY WHICH THIS DOCTRINE IS ALWAYS UNJUSTLY ASSAILED.

This chapter consists of four parts, which refute the principal

objections to this doctrine, and the various pleas and exceptions

founded on these objections. These are preceded by a refutation of

those who hold election but deny reprobation, sec. 1. Then follows,

I. A refutation of the first objection to the doctrine of

reprobation and election, sec. 2-5. II. An answer to the second

objection, sec. 6-9. III. A refutation of the third objection. IV. A

refutation of the fourth objection; to which is added a useful and

necessary caution, sec. 12-14.

Sections.

1. Error of those who deny reprobation. 1. Election opposed to

reprobation. 2. Those who deny reprobation presumptuously plead

with God, whose counsels even angels adore. 3. They murmur

against God when disclosing his counsels by the Apostle.

Exception and answer. Passage of Augustine.

2. First objection, viz., that God is unjustly offended with those

whom he dooms to destruction without their own desert. First

answer, from the consideration of the divine will. The nature

of this will, and how to be considered.

3. Second answer. God owes nothing to man. His hatred against those

who are corrupted by sin is most just. The reprobate convinced

in their own consciences of the just judgment of God.

4. Exception, viz., that the reprobate seem to have been preordained

to sin. Answer. Passage of the Apostle vindicated from calumny.

5. Answer, confirmed by the authority of Augustine. Illustration.

Passage of Augustine.

6. Objection, that God ought not to impute the sins rendered

necessary by his predestination. First answer, by ancient

writers. This not valid. Second answer also defective. Third

answer, proposed by Valla, well founded.

7. Objection, that God did not decree that Adam should perish by his

fall, refuted by a variety of reasons. A noble passage of

Augustine.

8. Objection, that the wicked perish by the permission, not by the

will of God. Answer. A pious exhortation.

9. Objection and answer.

10. Objection, that, according to the doctrine of predestination,

God is a respecter of persons. Answer.

11. Objection, that sinners are to be punished equally, or the

justice of God is unequal. Answer. Confirmed by passages of

Augustine.

12. Objection, that the doctrine of predestination produces

overweening confidence and impiety. Different answers.

13. Another objection, depending on the former. Answer. The doctrine

of predestination to be preached, not passed over in silence.

14. How it is to be preached and delivered to the people. Summary of

the orthodox doctrine of predestination, from Augustine.

1. The human mind, when it hears this doctrine, cannot restrain

its petulance, but boils and rages as if aroused by the sound of a

trumpet. Many professing a desire to defend the Deity from an

invidious charge admit the doctrine of election, but deny that any

one is reprobated, (Bernard. in Die Ascensionis, Serm. 2.) This they

do ignorantly and childishly since there could be no election

without its opposite reprobation. God is said to set apart those

whom he adopts for salvation. It were most absurd to say, that he

admits others fortuitously, or that they by their industry acquire

what election alone confers on a few. Those, therefore, whom God

passes by he reprobates, and that for no other cause but because he

is pleased to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines

to his children. Nor is it possible to tolerate the petulance of

men, in refusing to be restrained by the word of God, in regard to

his incomprehensible counsel, which even angels adore. We have

already been told that hardening is not less under the immediate

hand of God than mercy. Paul does not, after the example of those

whom I have mentioned, labour anxiously to defend God, by calling in

the aid of falsehood; he only reminds us that it is unlawful for the

creature to quarrel with its Creator. Then how will those who refuse

to admit that any are reprobated by God explain the following words

of Christ? “Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted

shall be rooted up,” (Matth. 15: 13.) They are plainly told that all

whom the heavenly Father has not been pleased to plant as sacred

trees in his garden, are doomed and devoted to destruction. If they

deny that this is a sign of reprobation, there is nothing, however

clear, that, can be proved to them. But if they will still murmur,

let us in the soberness of faith rest contented with the admonition

of Paul, that it can be no ground of complaint that God, “willing to

show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much

long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction: and that

he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy,

which he had store prepared unto glory,” (Rom. 9: 22, 23.) Let my

readers observe that Paul, to cut off all handle for murmuring and

detraction, attributes supreme sovereignty to the wrath and power of

God; for it were unjust that those profound judgments, which

transcend all our powers of discernment, should be subjected to our

calculation. It is frivolous in our opponents to reply, that God

does not altogether reject those whom in levity he tolerates, but

remains in suspense with regard to them, if per adventure they may

repent; as if Paul were representing God as patiently waiting for

the conversion of those whom he describes as fitted for destruction.

For Augustine, rightly expounding this passage, says that where

power is united to endurance, God does not permit, but rules

(August. Cont. Julian., Lib. 5, c. 5.) They add also, that it is not

without cause the vessels of wrath are said to be fitted for

destruction, and that God is said to have prepared the vessels of

mercy, because in this way the praise of salvation is claimed for

God, whereas the blame of perdition is thrown upon those who of

their own accord bring it upon themselves. But were I to concede

that by the different forms of expression Paul softens the harshness

of the former clause, it by no means follows, that he transfers the

preparation for destruction to any other cause than the secret

counsel of God. This, indeed, is asserted in the preceding context,

where God is said to have raised up Pharaoh, and to harden whom he

will. Hence it follows, that the hidden counsel of God is the cause

of hardening. I at least hold with Augustine that when God makes

sheep out of wolves, he forms them again by the powerful influence

of grace, that their hardness may thus be subdued, and that he does

not convert the obstinate, because he does not exert that more

powerful grace, a grace which he has at command, if he were disposed

to use it, (August. de Praedest. Sanct., Lib. 1, c. 2.)

2. These observations would be amply sufficient for the pious

and modest, and such as remember that they are men. But because many

are the species of blasphemy which these virulent dogs utter against

God, we shall, as far as the case admits, give an answer to each.

Foolish men raise many grounds of quarrel with God, as if they held

him subject to their accusations. First, they ask why God is

offended with his creatures who have not provoked him by any

previous offense; for to devote to destruction whomsoever he

pleases, more resembles the caprice of a tyrant than the legal

sentence of a judge; and, therefore, there is reason to expostulate

with God, if at his mere pleasure men are, without any desert of

their own, predestinated to eternal death. If at any time thoughts

of this kind come into the minds of the pious, they will be

sufficiently armed to repress them, by considering how sinful it is

to insist on knowing the causes of the divine will, since it is

itself, and justly ought to be, the cause of all that exists. For if

his will has any cause, there must be something antecedent to it,

and to which it is annexed; this it were impious to imagine. The

will of God is the supreme rule of righteousness, so that everything

which he wills must be held to be righteous by the mere fact of his

willing it. Therefore, when it is asked why the Lord did so, we must

answer, Because he pleased. But if you proceed farther to ask why he

pleased, you ask for something greater and more sublime than the

will of God, and nothing such can be found. Let human temerity then

be quiet, and cease to inquire after what exists not, lest perhaps

it fails to find what does exist. This, I say, will be sufficient to

restrain any one who would reverently contemplate the secret things

of God. Against the audacity of the wicked, who hesitate not openly

to blaspheme, God will sufficiently defend himself by his own

righteousness, without our assistance, when depriving their

consciences of all means of evasion, he shall hold them under

conviction, and make them feel their guilt. We, however, give no

countenance to the fiction of absolute power, which, as it is

heathenish, so it ought justly to be held in detestation by us. We

do not imagine God to be lawless. He is a law to himself; because,

as Plato says, men laboring under the influence of concupiscence

need law; but the will of God is not only free from all vice, but is

the supreme standard of perfection, the law of all laws. But we deny

that he is bound to give an account of his procedure; and we

moreover deny that we are fit of our own ability to give judgment in

such a case. Wherefore, when we are tempted to go farther than we

ought, let this consideration deter us, Thou shalt be “justified

when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judges,” (Ps. 51: 4.)

3. God may thus quell his enemies by silence. But lest we

should allow them with impunity to hold his sacred name in derision,

he supplies us with weapons against them from his word. Accordingly,

when we are accosted in such terms as these, Why did God from the

first predestine some to death, when, as they were not yet in

existence, they could not have merited sentence of death? let us by

way of reply ask in our turn, What do you imagine that God owes to

man, if he is pleased to estimate him by his own nature? As we are

all vitiated by sin, we cannot but be hateful to God, and that not

from tyrannical cruelty, but the strictest justice. But if all whom

the Lord predestines to death are naturally liable to sentence of

death, of what injustice, pray, do they complain? Should all the

sons of Adam come to dispute and contend with their Creator, because

by his eternal providence they were before their birth doomed to

perpetual destruction, when God comes to reckon with them, what will

they be able to mutter against this defense? If all are taken from a

corrupt mass, it is not strange that all are subject to

condemnation. Let them not, therefore, charge God with injustice, if

by his eternal judgment they are doomed to a death to which they

themselves feel that whether they will or not they are drawn

spontaneously by their own nature. Hence it appears how perverse is

this affectation of murmuring, when of set purpose they suppress the

cause of condemnation which they are compelled to recognize in

themselves, that they may lay the blame upon God. But though I

should confess a hundred times that God is the author, (and it is

most certain that he is,) they do not, however, thereby efface their

own guilt, which, engraven on their own consciences, is ever and

anon presenting itself to their view.

4. They again object, Were not men predestinated by the

ordination of God to that corruption which is now held forth as the

cause of condemnation? If so, when they perish in their corruptions

they do nothing else than suffer punishment for that calamity, into

which, by the predestination of God, Adam fell, and dragged all his

posterity headlong with him. Is not he, therefore, unjust in thus

cruelly mocking his creatures? I admit that by the will of God all

the sons of Adam fell into that state of wretchedness in which they

are now involved; and this is just what I said at the first, that we

must always return to the mere pleasure of the divine will, the

cause of which is hidden in himself. But it does not forthwith

follow that God lies open to this charge. For we will answer with

Paul in these words, “Nay but, O man, who art thou that replies

against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why

hast thou made me thus? Has not the potter power over the clay, of

the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto

dishonor?” (Rom. 9: 20, 21.) They will deny that the justice of God

is thus truly defended, and will allege that we seek an evasion,

such as those are wont to employ who have no good excuse. For what

more seems to be said here than just that the power of God is such

as cannot be hindered, so that he can do whatsoever he pleases? But

it is far otherwise. For what stronger reason can be given than when

we are ordered to reflect who God is? How could he who is the Judge

of the world commit any unrighteousness? If it properly belongs to

the nature of God to do judgment, he must naturally love justice and

abhor injustice. Wherefore, the Apostle did not, as if he had been

caught in a difficulty, have recourse to evasion; he only intimated

that the procedure of divine justice is too high to be scanned by

human measure, or comprehended by the feebleness of human intellect.

The Apostle, indeed, confesses that in the divine judgments there is

a depth in which all the minds of men must be engulfed if they

attempt to penetrate into it. But he also shows how unbecoming it is

to reduce the works of God to such a law as that we can presume to

condemn them the moment they accord not with our reason. There is a

well-known saying of Solomon, (which, however, few properly

understand,) “The great God that formed all things both rewardeth

the fool and rewardeth transgressors,” (Prov. 26: 10.) For he is

speaking of the greatness of God, whose pleasure it is to inflict

punishment on fools and transgressors though he is not pleased to

bestow his Spirit upon them. It is a monstrous infatuation in men to

seek to subject that which has no bounds to the little measure of

their reason. Paul gives the name of elect to the angels who

maintained their integrity. If their steadfastness was owing to the

good pleasure of God, the revolt of the others proves that they were

abandoned. Of this no other cause can be adduced than reprobation,

which is hidden in the secret counsel of God.

5. Now, should some Manes or Coelestinus come forward to

arraign Divine Providence, (see sec. 8,) I say with Paul, that no

account of it can be given, because by its magnitude it far

surpasses our understanding. Is there any thing strange or absurd in

this? Would we have the power of God so limited as to be unable to

do more than our mind can comprehend? I say with Augustine, that the

Lord has created those who, as he certainly foreknow, were to go to

destruction, and he did so because he so willed. Why he willed it is

not ours to ask, as we cannot comprehend, nor can it become us even

to raise a controversy as to the justice of the divine will.

Whenever we speak of it, we are speaking of the supreme standard of

justice. (See August. Ep. 106.) But when justice clearly appears,

why should we raise any question of injustice? Let us not,

therefore, be ashamed to stop their mouths after the example of

Paul. Whenever they presume to carp, let us begin to repeat: Who are

ye, miserable men, that bring an accusation against God, and bring

it because he does not adapt the greatness of his works to your

meagre capacity? As if every thing must be perverse that is hidden

from the flesh. The immensity of the divine judgments is known to

you by clear experience. You know that they are called “a great

deep”, (Ps. 36: 6.) Now, look at the narrowness of your own minds

and say whether it can comprehend the decrees of God. Why then

should you, by infatuated inquisitiveness, plunge yourselves into an

abyss which reason itself tells you will prove your destruction? Why

are you not deterred, in some degree at least, by what the Book of

Job, as well as the Prophetical books declare concerning the

incomprehensible wisdom and dreadful power of God? If your mind is

troubled, decline not to embrace the counsel of Augustine, “You a

man expect an answer from me: I also am a man. Wherefore, let us

both listen to him who says, ‘O man, who art thou?’ Believing

ignorance is better than presumptuous knowledge. Seek merits; you

will find nought but punishment. O the height! Peter denies, a thief

believes. O the height! Do you ask the reason? I will tremble at the

height. Reason you, I will wonder; dispute you, I will believe. I

see the height; I cannot sound the depth. Paul found rest, because

he found wonder. He calls the judgments of God ‘unsearchable;’ and

have you come to search them? He says that his ways are ‘past

finding out,’ and do you seek to find them out?” (August. de Verb.

Apost. Serm. 20.) We shall gain nothing by proceeding farther. For

neither will the Lord satisfy the petulance of these men, nor does

he need any other defense than that which he used by his Spirit, who

spoke by the mouth of Paul. We unlearn the art of speaking well when

we cease to speak with God.

6. Impiety starts another objection, which, however, seeks not

so much to criminate God as to excuse the sinner; though he who is

condemned by God as a sinner cannot ultimately be acquitted without

impugning the judge. This, then is the scoffing language which

profane tongues employ. Why should God blame men for things the

necessity of which he has imposed by his own predestination? What

could they do? Could they struggle with his decrees? It were in vain

for them to do it, since they could not possibly succeed. It is not

just, therefore, to punish them for things the principal cause of

which is in the predestination of God. Here I will abstain from a

defense to which ecclesiastical writers usually recur, that there is

nothing in the prescience of God to prevent him from regarding; man

as a sinner, since the evils which he foresees are man’s, not his.

This would not stop the caviler, who would still insist that God

might, if he had pleased, have prevented the evils which he foresaw,

and not having done so, must with determinate counsel have created

man for the very purpose of so acting on the earth. But if by the

providence of God man was created on the condition of afterwards

doing whatever he does, then that which he cannot escape, and which

he is constrained by the will of God to do, cannot be charged upon

him as a crime. Let us, therefore, see what is the proper method of

solving the difficulty. First, all must admit what Solomon says,

“The Lord has made all things for himself; yea, even the wicked for

the day of evil,” (Prov. 16: 4.) Now, since the arrangement of all

things is in the hand of God, since to him belongs the disposal of

life and death, he arranges all things by his sovereign counsel, in

such a way that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb

to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction. If

any one alleges that no necessity is laid upon them by the

providence of God, but rather that they are created by him in that

condition, because he foresaw their future depravity, he says

something, but does not say enough. Ancient writers, indeed,

occasionally employ this solution, though with some degree of

hesitation. The Schoolmen, again, rest in it as if it could not be

gainsaid. I, for my part, am willing to admit, that mere prescience

lays no necessity on the creatures; though some do not assent to

this, but hold that it is itself the cause of things. But Valla,

though otherwise not greatly skilled in sacred matters, seems to me

to have taken a shrewder and more acute view, when he shows that the

dispute is superfluous since life and death are acts of the divine

will rather than of prescience. If God merely foresaw human events,

and did not also arrange and dispose of them at his pleasure, there

might be room for agitating the question, how far his foreknowledge

amounts to necessity; but since he foresees the things which are to

happen, simply because he has decreed that they are so to happen, it

is vain to debate about prescience, while it is clear that all

events take place by his sovereign appointment.

7. They deny that it is ever said in distinct terms, God

decreed that Adam should perish by his revolt. As if the same God,

who is declared in Scripture to do whatsoever he pleases, could have

made the noblest of his creatures without any special purpose. They

say that, in accordance with free-will, he was to be the architect

of his own fortune, that God had decreed nothing but to treat him

according to his desert. If this frigid fiction is received, where

will be the omnipotence of God, by which, according to his secret

counsel on which every thing depends, he rules over all? But whether

they will allow it or not, predestination is manifest in Adam’s

posterity. It was not owing to nature that they all lost salvation

by the fault of one parent. Why should they refuse to admit with

regard to one man that which against their will they admit with

regard to the whole human race? Why should they in caviling lose

their labour? Scripture proclaims that all were, in the person of

one, made liable to eternal death. As this cannot be ascribed to

nature, it is plain that it is owing to the wonderful counsel of

God. It is very absurd in these worthy defenders of the justice of

God to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. I again ask how it is

that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant

children in eternal death without remedy unless that it so seemed

meet to God? Here the most loquacious tongues must be dumb. The

decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that

God foreknow what the end of man was to be before he made him, and

foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree. Should any one

here inveigh against the prescience of God, he does it rashly and

unadvisedly. For why, pray, should it be made a charge against the

heavenly Judge, that he was not ignorant of what was to happen?

Thus, if there is any just or plausible complaint, it must be

directed against predestination. Nor ought it to seem absurd when I

say, that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him

the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it.

For as it belongs to his wisdom to foreknow all future events, so it

belongs to his power to rule and govern them by his hand. This

question, like others, is skillfully explained by Augustine: “Let us

confess with the greatest benefit, what we believe with the greatest

truth, that the God and Lord of all things who made all things very

good, both foreknow that evil was to arise out of good, and knew

that it belonged to his most omnipotent goodness to bring good out

of evil, rather than not permit evil to be, and so ordained the life

of angels and men as to show in it, first, what free-will could do;

and, secondly, what the benefit of his grace and his righteous

judgment could do,” (August. Enchir. ad Laurent.)

8. Here they recur to the distinction between will and

permission, the object being to prove that the wicked perish only by

the permission, but not by the will of God. But why do we say that

he permits, but just because he wills? Nor, indeed, is there any

probability in the thing itself, viz., that man brought death upon

himself merely by the permission, and not by the ordination of God;

as if God had not determined what he wished the condition of the

chief of his creatures to be. I will not hesitate, therefore, simply

to confess with Augustine that the will of God is necessity, and

that every thing is necessary which he has willed; just as those

things will certainly happen which he has foreseen, (August. de Gen.

ad Lit., Lib. 6, cap. 15.) Now, if in excuse of themselves and the

ungodly, either the Pelagians, or Manichees, or Anabaptists, or

Epicureans (for it is with these four sects we have to discuss this

matter,) should object the necessity by which they are constrained,

in consequence of the divine predestination, they do nothing that is

relevant to the cause. For if predestination is nothing else than a

dispensation of divine justice, secret indeed, but unblamable,

because it is certain that those predestinated to that condition

were not unworthy of it, it is equally certain, that the destruction

consequent upon predestination is also most just. Moreover, though

their perdition depends on the predestination of God, the cause and

matter of it is in themselves. The first man fell because the Lord

deemed it meet that he should: why he deemed it meet, we know not.

It is certain, however, that it was just, because he saw that his

own glory would thereby be displayed. When you hear the glory of God

mentioned, understand that his justice is included. For that which

deserves praise must be just. Man therefore falls, divine providence

so ordaining, but he falls by his own fault. The Lord had a little

before declared that all the things which he had made were very

good, (Gen. 1: 31.) Whence then the depravity of man, which made him

revolt from God? Lest it should be supposed that it was from his

creation, God had expressly approved what proceeded from himself

Therefore man’s own wickedness corrupted the pure nature which he

had received from God, and his ruin brought with it the destruction

of all his posterity. Wherefore, let us in the corruption of human

nature contemplate the evident cause of condemnation, (a cause which

comes more closely home to us,) rather than inquire into a cause

hidden and almost incomprehensible in the predestination of God. Nor

let us decline to submit our judgment to the boundless wisdom of

God, so far as to confess its insufficiency to comprehend many of

his secrets. Ignorance of things which we are not able, or which it

is not lawful to know, is learning, while the desire to know them is

a species of madness.

9. Someone, perhaps, will say, that I have not yet stated

enough to refute this blasphemous excuse. I confess that it is

impossible to prevent impiety from murmuring and objecting; but I

think I have said enough not only to remove the ground, but also the

pretext for throwing blame upon God. The reprobate would excuse

their sins by alleging that they are unable to escape the necessity

of sinning, especially because a necessity of this nature is laid

upon them by the ordination of God. We deny that they can thus be

validly excused, since the ordination of God, by which they complain

that they are doomed to destruction, is consistent with equity,—an

equity, indeed, unknown to us, but most certain. Hence we conclude,

that every evil which they bear is inflicted by the most just

judgment of God. Next we have shown that they act preposterously

when, in seeking the origin of their condemnation, they turn their

view to the hidden recesses of the divine counsel, and wink at the

corruption of nature, which is the true source. They cannot impute

this corruption to God, because he bears testimony to the goodness

of his creation. For though, by the eternal providence of God, man

was formed for the calamity under which he lies, he took the matter

of it from himself, not from God, since the only cause of his

destruction was his degenerating from the purity of his creation

into a state of vice and impurity.

10. There is a third absurdity by which the adversaries of

predestination defame it. As we ascribe it entirely to the counsel

of the divine will, that those whom God adopts as the heirs of his

kingdom are exempted from universal destruction, they infer that he

is an acceptor of persons; but this Scripture uniformly denies: and,

therefore Scripture is either at variance with itself, or respect is

had to merit in election. First, the sense in which Scripture

declares that God is not an acceptor of persons, is different from

that which they suppose: since the term person means not man, but

those things which when conspicuous in a man, either procure favor,

grace, and dignity, or, on the contrary, produce hatred, contempt,

and disgrace. Among, these are, on the one hand, riches, wealth,

power, rank, office, country, beauty, &c.; and, on the other hand,

poverty, want, mean birth, sordidness, contempt, and the like. Thus

Peter and Paul say, that the Lord is no acceptor of persons, because

he makes no distinction between the Jew and the Greek; does not make

the mere circumstance of country the ground for rejecting, one or

embracing the other, (Acts 10: 34; Rom. 2: 10, Gal. 3: 28.) Thus

James also uses the same words, when he would declare that God has

no respect to riches in his judgment, (James 2: 5.) Paul also says

in another passage, that in judging God has no respect to slavery or

freedom, (Eph. 6: 9; Col. 3: 25.) There is nothing inconsistent with

this when we say, that God, according to the good pleasure of his

will, without any regard to merit, elects those whom he chooses for

sons, while he rejects and reprobates others. For fuller

satisfaction the matter may be thus explained, (see August. Epist.

115, et ad Bonif., Lib. 2, cap. 7.) It is asked, how it happens that

of two, between whom there is no difference of merit, God in his

election adopts the one, and passes by the other? I, in my turn,

ask, Is there any thing in him who is adopted to incline God towards

him? If it must be confessed that there is nothing. it will follow,

that God looks not to the man, but is influenced entirely by his own

goodness to do him good. Therefore, when God elects one and rejects

another, it is owing not to any respect to the individual, but

entirely to his own mercy which is free to display and exert itself

when and where he pleases. For we have elsewhere seen, that in order

to humble the pride of the flesh, “not many wise men after the

flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called,” (1 Cor. 1: 26;)

so far is God in the exercise of his favor from showing any respect

to persons.

11. Wherefore, it is false and most wicked to charge God with

dispensing justice unequally, because in this predestination he does

not observe the same course towards all. If (say they) he finds all

guilty, let him punish all alike: if he finds them innocent, let him

relieve all from the severity of judgment. But they plead with God

as if he were either interdicted from showing mercy, or were

obliged, if he show mercy, entirely to renounce judgment. What is it

that they demand? That if all are guilty all shall receive the same

punishment. We admit that the guilt is common, but we say, that God

in mercy succors some. Let him (they say) succor all. We object,

that it is right for him to show by punishing that he is a just

judge. When they cannot tolerate this, what else are they attempting

than to deprive God of the power of showing mercy; or, at least, to

allow it to him only on the condition of altogether renouncing

judgment? Here the words of Augustine most admirably apply: “Since

in the first man the whole human race fell under condemnation, those

vessels which are made of it unto honor, are not vessels of

self-righteousness, but of divine mercy. When other vessels are made

unto dishonor, it must be imputed not to injustice, but to

judgment,” (August. Epist. 106, De Praedest. et Gratia; De Bone

Persever., cap. 12.) Since God inflicts due punishment on those whom

he reprobates, and bestows unmerited favor on those whom he calls,

he is free from every accusation; just as it belongs to the creditor

to forgive the debt to one, and exact it of another. The Lord

therefore may show favor to whom he will, because he is merciful;

not show it to all, because he is a just judge. In giving to some

what they do not merit, he shows his free favor; in not giving to

all, he declares what all deserve. For when Paul says, “God has

concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all,”

it ought also to be added, that he is debtor to none; for “who has

first given to him and it shall be recompensed unto him again?”

(Rom. 11: 32, 33.)

12. Another argument which they employ to overthrow

predestination is that if it stand, all care and study of well doing

must cease. For what man can hear (say they) that life and death are

fixed by an eternal and immutable decree of God, without immediately

concluding that it is of no consequence how he acts, since no work

of his can either hinder or further the predestination of God? Thus

all will rush on, and like desperate men plunge headlong wherever

lust inclines. And it is true that this is not altogether a fiction;

for there are multitudes of a swinish nature who defile the doctrine

of predestination by their profane blasphemies, and employ them as a

cloak to evade all admonition and censure. “God knows what he has

determined to do with regard to us: if he has decreed our salvation,

he will bring us to it in his own time; if he has doomed us to

death, it is vain for us to fight against it.” But Scripture, while

it enjoins us to think of this high mystery with much greater

reverence and religion, gives very different instruction to the

pious, and justly condemns the accursed license of the ungodly. For

it does not remind us of predestination to increase our audacity,

and tempt us to pry with impious presumption into the inscrutable

counsels of God, but rather to humble and abase us, that we may

tremble at his judgment, and learn to look up to his mercy. This is

the mark at which believers will aim. The grunt of these filthy

swine is duly silenced by Paul. They say that they feel secure in

vices because, if they are of the number of the elect, their vices

will be no obstacle to the ultimate attainment of life. But Paul

reminds us that the end for which we are elected is, “that we should

be holy, and without blame before him,” (Eph. 1: 4.) If the end of

election is holiness of life, it ought to arouse and stimulate us

strenuously to aspire to it, instead of serving as a pretext for

sloth. How wide the difference between the two things, between

ceasing from well-doing because election is sufficient for

salvation, and its being the very end of election, that we should

devote ourselves to the study of good works. Have done, then, with

blasphemies which wickedly invert the whole order of election. When

they extend their blasphemies farther, and say that he who is

reprobated by God will lose his pains if he studies to approve

himself to him by innocence and probity of life, they are convicted

of the most impudent falsehood. For whence can any such study arise

but from election? As all who are of the number of the reprobate are

vessels formed unto dishonor, so they cease not by their perpetual

crimes to provoke the anger of God against them, and give evident

signs of the judgment which God has already passed upon them; so far

is it from being true that they vainly contend against it.

13. Another impudent and malicious calumny against this

doctrine is, that it destroys all exhortations to a pious life. The

great odium to which Augustine was at one time subjected on this

head he wiped away in his treatise De Correptione et Gratia, to

Valentinus, a perusal of which will easily satisfy the pious and

docile. Here, however, I may touch on a few points, which will, I

hope, be sufficient for those who are honest and not contentious. We

have already seen how plainly and audibly Paul preaches the doctrine

of free election: is he, therefore, cold in admonishing and

exhorting? Let those good zealots compare his vehemence with theirs

and they will find that they are ice, while he is all fervor. And

surely every doubt on this subject should be removed by the

principles which he lays down, that God has not called us to

uncleanness; that every one should possess his vessel in honor; that

we are the workmanship of God, “created in Christ Jesus unto good

works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them,”

(1 Thess. 4: 4, 7; Eph. 2: 10.) In one word, those who have any

tolerable acquaintance with the writings of Paul will understand,

without a long demonstration, how well he reconciles the two things

which those men pretend to be contradictory to each other. Christ

commands us to believe in him, and yet there is nothing false or

contrary to this command in the statement which he afterwards makes:

“No man can come unto me, except it were given him of my Father,”

(John 6: 65.) Let preaching then have its free course, that it may

lead men to faith, and dispose them to persevere with uninterrupted

progress. Nor, at the same time, let there be any obstacle to the

knowledge of predestination, so that those who obey may not plume

themselves on anything of their own, but glory only in the Lord. It

is not without cause our Savior says, “Who has ears to hear, let him

hear,” (Matth. 13: 9.) Therefore, while we exhort and preach, those

who have ears willingly obey: in those again, who have no ears is

fulfilled what is written: “Hear ye indeed, but understand not,”

(Isaiah 6: 9.) “But why (says Augustine) have some ears, and others

not? Who has known the mind of the Lord? Are we, therefore, to deny

what is plain because we cannot comprehend what is hid?” This is a

faithful quotation from Augustine; but because his words will

perhaps have more authority than mine, let us adduce the following

passage from his treatise, De Bone Persever., cap. 15.

“Should some on hearing this turn to indolence and sloth, and

leaving off all exertion, rush headlong into lust, are we, therefore

to suppose that what has been said of the foreknowledge of God is

not true? If God foreknew that they would be good, will they not be

good, however great their present wickedness? and if God foreknow

that they would be wicked, will they not be wicked, how great soever

the goodness now seen in them? For reasons of this description, must

the truth which has been stated on the subject of divine

foreknowledge be denied or not mentioned? and more especially when,

if it is not stated, other errors will arise?” In the sixteenth

chapter he says, “The reason for not mentioning the truth is one

thing, the necessity for telling the truth is another. It were

tedious to inquire into all the reasons for silence. One, however,

is, lest those who understand not become worse, while we are

desirous to make those who understand better informed. Now such

persons, when we say anything of this kind, do not indeed become

better informed, but neither do they become worse. But when the

truth is of such a nature, that he who cannot comprehend it becomes

worse by our telling it, and he who can comprehend it becomes worse

by our not telling it, what think ye ought we to do? Are we not to

tell the truth, that he who can comprehend may comprehend, rather

than not tell it, and thereby not only prevent both from

comprehending, but also make the more intelligent of the two to

become worse, whereas if he heard and comprehended others might

learn through him? And we are unwilling to say what, on the

testimony of Scripture, it is lawful to say. For we fear lest, when

we speak, he who cannot comprehend may be offended; but we have no

fear lest while we are silent, he who can comprehend the truth be

involved in falsehood.” In chapter twentieth, glancing again at the

same view, he more clearly confirms it. “Wherefore, if the apostles

and teachers of the Church who came after them did both; if they

discoursed piously of the eternal election of God, and at the same

time kept believers under the discipline of a pious life, how can

those men of our day, when shut up by the invincible force of truth,

think they are right in saying, that what is said of predestination,

though it is true, must not be preached to the people? Nay, it ought

indeed to be preached, that whoso has ears to hear may hear. And who

has ears if he has not received them from him who has promised to

give them? Certainly, let him who receives not, reject. Let him who

receives, take and drink, drink and live. For as piety is to be

preached, that God may be duly worshipped; so predestination also is

to be preached, that he who has ears to hear may, in regard to

divine grace, glory not in himself, but in God.”

14. And yet as that holy man had a singular desire to edify, he

so regulates his method of teaching as carefully, and as far as in

him lay, to avoid giving offense. For he reminds us, that those

things which are truly should also be fitly spoken. Were any one to

address the people thus: If you do not believe, the reason is,

because God has already doomed you to destruction: he would not only

encourage sloth, but also give countenance to wickedness. Were any

one to give utterance to the sentiment in the future tense, and say,

that those who hear will not believe because they are reprobates, it

were imprecation rather than doctrine. Wherefore, Augustine not

undeservedly orders such, as senseless teachers or minister and

ill-omened prophets, to retire from the Church. He, indeed,

elsewhere truly contends that “a man profits by correction only when

He who causes those whom He pleases to profit without correction,

pities and assists. But why is it thus with some, and differently

with others? Far be it from us to say that it belongs to the clay

and not to the potter to decide.” He afterwards says, “When men by

correction either come or return to the way of righteousness, who is

it that works salvation in their hearts but he who gives the

increase, whoever it be that plants and waters? When he is pleased

to save, there is no free-will in man to resist. Wherefore, it

cannot be doubted that the will of God (who has done whatever he has

pleased in heaven and in earth, and who has even done things which

are to be) cannot be resisted by the human will, or prevented from

doing what he pleases, since with the very wills of men he does so.”

Again, “When he would bring men to himself, does he bind them with

corporeal fetters? He acts inwardly, inwardly holds, inwardly moves

their hearts, and draws them by the will, which he has wrought in

them.” What he immediately adds must not be omitted: “because we

know not who belongs to the number of the predestinated, or does not

belong, our desire ought to be that all may be saved; and hence

every person we meet, we will desire to be with us a partaker of

peace. But our peace will rest upon the sons of peace. Wherefore, on

our part, let correction be used as a harsh yet salutary medicine

for all, that they may neither perish, nor destroy others. To God it

will belong to make it available to those whom he has foreknown and

predestinated.”

CHAPTER 24. ELECTION CONFIRMED BY THE CALLING OF GOD. THE REPROBATE BRING UPON THEMSELVES THE RIGHTEOUS DESTRUCTION TO WHICH THEY ARE DOOMED.

The title of this chapter shows that it consists of two parts,

- I. The case of the Elect, from sec. 1-11. II. The case of the

Reprobate, from sec. 12-17.

Sections.

1. The election of God is secret, but is manifested by effectual

calling. The nature of this effectual calling. How election and

effectual calling are founded on the free mercy of God. A cavil

of certain expositors refuted by the words of Augustine. An

exception disposed of.

2. Calling proved to be free, 1. By its nature and the mode in which

it is dispensed. 2. By the word of God. 3. By the calling of

Abraham, the father of the faithful. 4. By the testimony of

John. 5. By the example of those who have been called.

3. The pure doctrine of the calling of the elect misunderstood, 1.

By those who attribute too much to the human will. 2. By those

who make election dependent on faith. This error amply refuted.

4. In this and the five following sections the certainty of election

vindicated from the assaults of Satan. The leading arguments

are: 1. Effectual calling. 2. Christ apprehended by faith. 3.

The protection of Christ, the guardian of the elect. We must

not attempt to penetrate to the hidden recesses of the divine

wisdom, in order to learn what is decreed with regard to us at

the judgment-seat. We must begin and end with the call of God.

This confirmed by an apposite saying of Bernard.

5. Christ the foundation of this calling and election. He who does

not lean on him alone cannot be certain of his election. He is

the faithful interpreter of the eternal counsel in regard to

our salvation.

6. Another security of our election is the protection of Christ our

Shepherd. How it is manifested to us. Objection 1. As to the

future state. 2. As to perseverance. Both objections refuted.

7. Objection, that those who seem elected sometimes fall away.

Answer. A passage of Paul dissuading us from security

explained. The kind of fear required in the elect.

8. Explanation of the saying, that many are called, but few chosen.

A twofold call.

9. Explanation of the passage, that none is lost but the son of

perdition. Refutation of an objection to the certainty of

election.

10. Explanation of the passages urged against the certainty of

election. Examples by which some attempt to prove that the seed

of election is sown in the hearts of the elect from their very

birth. Answer. 1. One or two examples do not make the rule. 2.

This view opposed to Scripture. 3. Is expressly opposed by an

apostle.

11. An explanation and confirmation of the third answer.

12. Second part of the chapter, which treats of the reprobate. Some

of them God deprives of the opportunity of hearing his word.

Others he blinds and stupefies the more by the preaching of it.

13. Of this no other account can be given than that the reprobate

are vessels fitted for destruction. This confirmed by the case

of the elect; of Pharaoh and of the Jewish people both before

and after the manifestation of Christ.

14. Question, Why does God blind the reprobate? Two answers. These

confirmed by different passages of Scripture. Objection of the

reprobate. Answer.

15. Objection to this doctrine of the righteous rejection of the

reprobate. The first founded on a passage in Ezekiel. The

passage explained.

16. A second objection founded on a passage in Paul. The apostle’s

meaning explained. A third objection and fourth objection

answered.

17. A fifth objection, viz., that there seems to be a twofold will

in God. Answer. Other objections and answers. Conclusion.

1. But that the subject may be more fully illustrated, we must

treat both of the calling of the elect, and of the blinding and

hardening of the ungodly. The former I have already in some measure

discussed, (chap. 22, sec. 10, 11,) when refuting the error of those

who think that the general terms in which the promises are made

place the whole human race on a level. The special election which

otherwise would remain hidden in God, he at length manifests by his

calling. “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be

conformed to the image of his Son.” Moreover, “whom he did

predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also

justified,” that he may one day glorify, (Rom. 8: 29, 30.) Though

the Lord, by electing his people, adopted them as his sons, we,

however, see that they do not come into possession of this great

good until they are called; but when called, the enjoyment of their

election is in some measure communicated to them. For which reason

the Spirit which they receive is termed by Paul both the “Spirit of

adoption,” and the “seal” and “earnest” of the future inheritance;

because by his testimony he confirms and seals the certainty of

future adoption on their hearts. For although the preaching of the

gospel springs from the fountain of election, yet being common to

them with the reprobate, it would not be in itself a solid proof.

God, however, teaches his elect effectually when he brings them to

faith, as we formerly quoted from the words of our Savior, “Not that

any man has seen the Father, save he which is of God, he has seen

the Father,” (John 6: 46.) Again, “I have manifested thy name unto

the men which thou gavest me out of the world,” (John 17: 6.) He

says in another passage, “No man can come to me, except the Father

which has sent me draw him,” (John 6: 44.) This passage Augustine

ably expounds in these words: “If (as Truth says) every one who has

learned comes, then every one who does not come has not learned. It

does not therefore follows that he who can come does come, unless he

have willed and done it; but every one who has learned of the

Father, not only can come, but also comes; the antecedence of

possibility the affection of will, and the effect of action being

now present,” (August. de Grat. Chr. Cont. Pelag., Lib. 1, c. 14,

31.) In another passage, he says still more clearly, “What means,

Every one that has heard and learned of the Father comes unto me,

but just that there is no one who hears and learns of the Father

that does not come to me? For if every one who has heard and

learned, comes; assuredly every one who does not come, has neither

heard nor learned of the Father: for if he had heard and learned, he

would come. Far removed from carnal sense is this school in which

the Father is heard and teaches us to come to the Son,” (August. de

Praedes. Sanct. c. 8.) Shortly after, he says, “This grace, which is

secretly imparted to the hearts of men, is not received by any hard

heart; for the reason for which it is given is, that the hardness of

the heart may first be taken away. Hence, when the Father is heard

within, he takes away the stony heart, and gives a heart of flesh.

Thus he makes them sons of promise and vessels of mercy, which he

has prepared for glory. Why then does he not teach all to come to

Christ, but just because all whom he teaches he teaches in mercy,

while those whom he teaches not he teaches not in judgment? for he

pities whom he will, and hardens whom he will.” Those, therefore,

whom God has chosen he adopts as sons, while he becomes to them a

Father. By calling, moreover, he admits them to his family, and

unites them to himself, that they may be one with him. When calling

is thus added to election, the Scripture plainly intimates that

nothing is to be looked for in it but the free mercy of God. For if

we ask whom it is he calls, and for what reason, he answers, it is

those whom he had chosen. When we come to election, mercy alone

everywhere appears; and, accordingly, in this the saying of Paul is

truly realized, “So then, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him

that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy,” (Rom. 9: 16;) and that

not as is commonly understood by those who share the result between

the grace of God and the will and agency of man. For their

exposition is, that the desire and endeavor of sinners are of no

avail by themselves, unless accompanied by the grace of God, but

that when aided by his blessing, they also do their part in

procuring salvation. This cavil I prefer refuting in the words of

Augustine rather than my own: “If all that the apostle meant is,

that it is not alone of him that willeth, or of him that runneth,

unless the Lord be present in mercy, we may retort and hold the

converse, that it is not of mercy alone, unless willing and running

be present,” (August. Enchir. ad Laurent., c. 31.) But if this is

manifestly impious, let us have no doubt that the apostle attributes

all to the mercy of the Lord, and leaves nothing to our wills or

exertions. Such were the sentiments of that holy man. I set not the

value of a straw on the subtlety to which they have recourse, viz.,

that Paul would not have spoken thus had there not been some will

and effort on our part. For he considered not what might be in man;

but seeing that certain persons ascribed a part of salvation to the

industry of man, he simply condemned their error in the former

clause, and then claimed the whole substance of salvation for the

divine mercy. And what else do the prophets than perpetually

proclaim the free calling of God?

2. Moreover, this is clearly demonstrated by the nature and

dispensation of calling, which consists not merely of the preaching

of the word, but also of the illumination of the Spirit. Who those

are to whom God offers his word is explained by the prophet, “I am

sought of them that asked not for me: I am found of them that sought

me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not

called by my name,” (Isaiah 65: 1.) And lest the Jews should think

that that mercy applied only to the Gentiles, he calls to their

remembrance whence it was he took their father Abraham when he

condescended to be his friend, (Isaiah 41: 8;) namely, from the

midst of idolatry, in which he was plunged with all his people. When

he first shines with the light of his word on the undeserving, he

gives a sufficiently clear proof of his free goodness. Here,

therefore, boundless goodness is displayed, but not so as to bring

all to salvation, since a heavier judgment awaits the reprobate for

rejecting the evidence of his love. God also, to display his own

glory, withholds from them the effectual agency of his Spirit.

Therefore, this inward calling is an infallible pledge of salvation.

Hence the words of John, “Hereby we know that he abideth in us by

the Spirit which he has given us,” (1 John 3: 24.) And lest the

flesh should glory, in at least responding to him, when he calls and

spontaneously offers himself, he affirms that there would be no ears

to hear, no eyes to see, did not he give them. And he acts not

according to the gratitude of each, but according to his election.

Of this you have a striking example in Luke, when the Jews and

Gentiles in common heard the discourse of Paul and Barnabas. Though

they were all instructed in the same word, it is said, that “as many

as were ordained to eternal life believed,” (Acts 13: 48.) How can

we deny that calling is gratuitous, when election alone reigns in it

even to its conclusion?

3. Two errors are here to be avoided. Some make man a

fellow-worker with God in such a sense, that man’s suffrage ratifies

election, so that, according to them, the will of man is superior to

the counsel of God. As if Scripture taught that only the power of

being able to believe is given us, and not rather faith itself.

Others, although they do not so much impair the grace of the Holy

Spirit, yet, induced by what means I know not, make election

dependent on faith, as if it were doubtful and ineffectual till

confirmed by faith. There can be no doubt, indeed, that in regard to

us it is so confirmed. Moreover, we have already seen, that the

secret counsel of God, which lay concealed, is thus brought to

light, by this nothing more being understood than that that which

was unknown is proved, and as it were sealed. But it is false to say

that election is then only effectual after we have embraced the

gospel, and that it thence derives its vigor. It is true that we

must there look for its certainty, because, if we attempt to

penetrate to the secret ordination of God, we shall be engulfed in

that profound abyss. But when the Lord has manifested it to us, we

must ascend higher in order that the effect may not bury the cause.

For what can be more absurd and unbecoming, than while Scripture

teaches that we are illuminated as God has chosen us, our eyes

should be so dazzled with the brightness of this light, as to refuse

to attend to election? Meanwhile, I deny not that, in order to be

assured of our salvation, we must begin with the word, and that our

confidence ought to go no farther than the word when we invoke God

the Father. For some to obtain more certainty of the counsel of God,

(which is nigh us in our mouth, and in our heart, Deut. 30: 14,)

absurdly desire to fly above the clouds. We must, therefore, curb

that temerity by the soberness of faith, and be satisfied to have

God as the witness of his hidden grace in the external word;

provided always that the channel in which the water flows, and out

of which we may freely drink, does not prevent us from paying due

honor to the fountain.

4. Therefore as those are in error who make the power of

election dependent on the faith by which we perceive that we are

elected, so we shall follow the best order, if, in seeking the

certainty of our election, we cleave to those posterior signs which

are sure attestations to it. Among the temptations with which Satan

assaults believers, none is greater or more perilous, than when

disquieting them with doubts as to their election, he at the same

time stimulates them with a depraved desire of inquiring after it

out of the proper way. (See Luther in Genes. cap. 26.) By inquiring

out of the proper way, I mean when puny man endeavors to penetrate

to the hidden recesses of the divine wisdom, and goes back even to

the remotest eternity, in order that he may understand what final

determination God has made with regard to him. In this way he

plunges headlong into an immense abyss, involves himself in

numberless inextricable snares, and buries himself in the thickest

darkness. For it is right that the stupidity of the human mind

should be punished with fearful destruction, whenever it attempts to

rise in its own strength to the height of divine wisdom. And this

temptation is the more fatal, that it is the temptation to which of

all others almost all of us are most prone. For there is scarcely a

mind in which the thought does not sometimes rise, Whence your

salvation but from the election of God? But what proof have you of

your election? When once this thought has taken possession of any

individual, it keeps him perpetually miserable, subjects him to dire

torment, or throws him into a state of complete stupor. I cannot

wish a stronger proof of the depraved ideas, which men of this

description form of predestination, than experience itself

furnishes, since the mind cannot be infected by a more pestilential

error than that which disturbs the conscience, and deprives it of

peace and tranquillity in regard to God. Therefore, as we dread

shipwreck, we must avoid this rock, which is fatal to every one who

strikes upon it. And though the discussion of predestination is

regarded as a perilous sea, yet in sailing over it the navigation is

calm and safe, nay pleasant, provided we do not voluntarily court

danger. For as a fatal abyss engulfs those who, to be assured of

their election, pry into the eternal counsel of God without the

word, yet those who investigate it rightly, and in the order in

which it is exhibited in the word, reap from it rich fruits of

consolation.

Let our method of inquiry then be, to begin with the calling of

God and to end with it. Although there is nothing in this to prevent

believers from feeling that the blessings which they daily receive

from the hand of God originate in that secret adoption, as they

themselves express it in Isaiah, “Thou hast done wonderful things;

thy counsels of old are faithfulness and truth,” (Isa. 25: 1.) For

with this as a pledge, God is pleased to assure us of as much of his

counsel as can be lawfully known. But lest any should think that

testimony weak, let us consider what clearness and certainty it

gives us. On this subject there is an apposite passage in Bernard.

After speaking of the reprobate, he says, “The purpose of God

stands, the sentence of peace on those that fear him also stands, a

sentence concealing their bad and recompensing their good qualities;

so that, in a wondrous manner, not only their good but their bad

qualities work together for good. Who will lay any thing to the

charge of God’s elect? It is completely sufficient for my

justification to have him propitious against whom only I have

sinned. Every thing which he has decreed not to impute to me, is as

if it had never been.” A little after he says, “O the place of true

rest, a place which I consider not unworthy of the name of

inner-chamber, where God is seen, not as if disturbed with anger, or

distracted by care, but where his will is proved to be good, and

acceptable, and perfect. That vision does not terrify but soothe,

does not excite restless curiosity but calms it, does not fatigue

but tranquilizes the senses. Here is true rest. A tranquil God

tranquilizes all things; and to see him at rest, is to be at rest,”

(Bernard, super Cantic. Serm. 14.)

5. First, if we seek for the paternal mercy and favor of God,

we must turn our eyes to Christ, in whom alone the Father is well

pleased, (Matth. 3: 17.) When we seek for salvation, life, and a

blessed immortality, to him also must we retake ourselves, since he

alone is the fountain of life and the anchor of salvation, and the

heir of the kingdom of heaven. Then what is the end of election, but

just that, being adopted as sons by the heavenly Father, we may by

his favor obtain salvation and immortality? How much soever you may

speculate and discuss you will perceive that in its ultimate object

it goes no farther. Hence, those whom God has adopted as sons, he is

said to have elected, not in themselves, but in Christ Jesus, (Eph.

1: 4;) because he could love them only in him, and only as being

previously made partakers with him, honor them with the inheritance

of his kingdom. But if we are elected in him, we cannot find the

certainty of our election in ourselves; and not even in God the

Father, if we look at him apart from the Son. Christ, then, is the

mirror in which we ought, and in which, without deception, we may

contemplate our election. For since it is into his body that the

Father has decreed to ingraft those whom from eternity he wished to

be his, that he may regard as sons all whom he acknowledges to be

his members, if we are in communion with Christ, we have proof

sufficiently clear and strong that we are written in the Book of

Life. Moreover, he admitted us to sure communion with himself, when,

by the preaching of the gospel, he declared that he was given us by

the Father, to be ours with all his blessings,(Rom. 8: 32.) We are

said to be clothed with him, to be one with him, that we may live,

because he himself lives. The doctrine is often repeated, “God so

loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever

believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life,”

(John 3: 16.) He who believes in him is said to have passed from

death unto life, (John 5: 24.) In this sense he calls himself the

bread of life, of which if a man eat, he shall never die, (John 6:

35.) He, I say, was our witness, that all by whom he is received in

faith will be regarded by our heavenly Father as sons. If we long

for more than to be regarded as sons of God and heirs, we must

ascend above Christ. But if this is our final goal, how infatuated

is it to seek out of him what we have already obtained in him, and

can only find in him? Besides, as he is the Eternal Wisdom, the

Immutable Truth, the Determinate Counsel of the Father, there is no

room for fear that any thing which he tells us will vary in the

minutes degree from that will of the Father after which we inquire.

Nay, rather he faithfully discloses it to us as it was from the

beginning, and always will be. The practical influence of this

doctrine ought also to be exhibited in our prayers. For though a

belief of our election animates us to involve God, yet when we frame

our prayers, it were preposterous to obtrude it upon God, or to

stipulate in this way, “O Lord, if I am elected, hear me.” He would

have us to rest satisfied with his promises, and not to inquire

elsewhere whether or not he is disposed to hear us. We shall thus be

disentangled from many snares, if we know how to make a right use of

what is rightly written; but let us not inconsiderately wrest it to

purposes different from that to which it ought to be confined.

6. Another confirmation tending to establish our confidence is,

that our election is connected with our calling. For those whom

Christ enlightens with the knowledge of his name, and admits into

the bosom of his Church, he is said to take under his guardianship

and protection. All whom he thus receives are said to be committed

and entrusted to him by the Father, that they may be kept unto life

eternal. What would we have? Christ proclaims aloud that all whom

the Father is pleased to save he has delivered into his protection,

(John 6: 37-39, 17: 6, 12.) Therefore, if we would know whether God

cares for our salvation, let us ask whether he has committed us to

Christ, whom he has appointed to be the only Savior of all his

people. Then, if we doubt whether we are received into the

protection of Christ, he obviates the doubt when he spontaneously

offers himself as our Shepherd, and declares that we are of the

number of his sheep if we hear his voice, (John 10: 3, 16.) Let us,

therefore, embrace Christ, who is kindly offered to us, and comes

forth to meet us: he will number us among his flock, and keep us

within his fold. But anxiety arises as to our future state. For as

Paul teaches, that those are called who were previously elected, so

our Savior shows that many are called, but few chosen, (Matth. 22:

14.) Nay, even Paul himself dissuades us from security, when he

says, “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall,” (1

Cor. 10: 12.) And again, “Well, because of unbelief they were broken

off, and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear: for

if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare

not thee,” (Rom. 11: 20, 21.) In fine, we are sufficiently taught by

experience itself, that calling and faith are of little value

without perseverance, which, however, is not the gift of all. But

Christ has freed us from anxiety on this head; for the following

promises undoubtedly have respect to the future: “All that the

Father giveth me shall come to me, and him that comes to me I will

in no wise cast out.” Again, “This is the will of him that sent me,

that of all which he has given me I should lose nothing; but should

raise it up at the last day,” (John 6: 37, 39.) Again “My sheep hear

my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them

eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any man

pluck them out of my hand. My Father which gave them me is greater

than all: and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand,”

(John 10: 27, 28.) Again when he declares, Every plant which my

heavenly Father has not planted shall be rooted up,” (Matth. 15:

13,) he intimates conversely that those who have their root in God

can never be deprived of their salvation. Agreeable to this are the

words of John, “If they had been of us, they would no doubt have

continued with us,” (1 John 2: 19.) Hence, also, the magnificent

triumph of Paul over life and death, things present, and things to

come, (Rom. 8: 38.) This must be founded on the gift of

perseverance. There is no doubt that he employs the sentiment as

applicable to all the elect. Paul elsewhere says, “Being confident

of this very thing, that he who has begun a good work in you will

perform it until the day of Jesus Christ,” (Phil. 1: 6.) David,

also, when his faith threatened to fail, leant on this support,

“Forsake not the works of thy hands.” Moreover, it cannot be

doubted, that since Christ prays for all the elect, he asks the same

thing for them as he asked for Peter, viz., that their faith fail

not, (Luke 22: 32.) Hence we infer, that there is no danger of their

falling away, since the Son of God, who asks that their piety may

prove constant, never meets with a refusal. What then did our Savior

intend to teach us by this prayer, but just to confide, that

whenever we are his our eternal salvation is secure?

7. But it daily happens that those who seemed to belong to

Christ revolt from him and fall away: Nay, in the very passage where

he declares that none of those whom the Father has given to him have

perished, he excepts the son of perdition. This, indeed, is true;

but it is equally true that such persons never adhered to Christ

with that heartfelt confidence by which I say that the certainty of

our election is established: “They went out from us,” says John,

“but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would, no

doubt, have continued with us,” (1 John 2: 19.) I deny not that they

have signs of calling similar to those given to the elect; but I do

not at all admit that they have that sure confirmation of election

which I desire believers to seek from the word of the gospel.

Wherefore, let not examples of this kind move us away from tranquil

confidence in the promise of the Lord, when he declares that all by

whom he is received in true faith have been given him by the Father,

and that none of them, while he is their Guardian and Shepherd, will

perish, (John 3: 16; 6: 39.) Of Judas we shall shortly speak, (sec.

9.) Paul does not dissuade Christians from security simply, but from

careless, carnal security, which is accompanied with pride,

arrogance, and contempt of others, which extinguishes humility and

reverence for God, and produces a forgetfulness of grace received,

(Rom. 11: 20.) For he is addressing the Gentiles, and showing them

that they ought not to exult proudly and cruelly over the Jews, in

consequence of whose rejection they had been substituted in their

stead. He also enjoins fear, not a fear under which they may waver

in alarm, but a fear which, teaching us to receive the grace of God

in humility, does not impair our confidence in it, as has elsewhere

been said. We may add, that he is not speaking to individuals, but

to sects in general, (see 1 Cor. 10: 12.) The Church having been

divided into two parties, and rivalship producing dissension, Paul

reminds the Gentiles that their having been substituted in the place

of a peculiar and holy people was a reason for modesty and fear. For

there were many vain-glorious persons among them, whose empty

boasting it was expedient to repress. But we have elsewhere seen,

that our hope extends into the future, even beyond death, and that

nothing is more contrary to its nature than to be in doubt as to our

future destiny.

8. The expression of our Savior, “Many are called, but few are

chosen,” (Matth. 22: 14,) is also very improperly interpreted, (see

Book 3, chap. 2, sec. 11, 12.) There will be no ambiguity in it, if

we attend to what our former remarks ought to have made clear, viz.,

that there are two species of calling: for there is an universal

call, by which God, through the external preaching of the word,

invites all men alike, even those for whom he designs the call to be

a savor of death, and the ground of a severer condemnation. Besides

this there is a special call which, for the most part, God bestows

on believers only, when by the internal illumination of the Spirit

he causes the word preached to take deep root in their hearts.

Sometimes, however, he communicates it also to those whom he

enlightens only for a time, and whom afterwards, in just punishment

for their ingratitude, he abandons and smites with greater

blindness. Now, our Lord seeing that the gospel was published far

and wide, was despised by multitudes, and justly valued by few,

describes God under the character of a King, who, preparing a great

feast, sends his servants all around to invite a great multitude,

but can only obtain the presence of a very few, because almost all

allege causes of excuse; at length, in consequence of their refusal,

he is obliged to send his servants out into the highways to invite

every one they meet. It is perfectly clear, that thus far the

parable is to be understood of external calling. He afterwards adds,

that God acts the part of a kind entertainer, who goes round his

table and affably receives his guests; but still if he finds any one

not adorned with the nuptial garment, he will by no means allow him

to insult the festivity by his sordid dress. I admit that this

branch of the parable is to be understood of those who, by a

profession of faith, enter the Church, but are not at all invested

with the sanctification of Christ. Such disgraces to his Church,

such cankers God will not always tolerate, but will cast them forth

as their turpitude deserves. Few, then, out of the great number of

called are chosen; the calling, however, not being of that kind

which enables believers to judge of their election. The former call

is common to the wicked, the latter brings with it the spirit of

regeneration, which is the earnest and seal of the future

inheritance by which our hearts are sealed unto the day of the Lord,

(Eph. 1: 13, 14.) In one word, while hypocrites pretend to piety,

just as if they were true worshipers of God, Christ declares that

they will ultimately be ejected from the place which they improperly

occupy, as it is said in the psalm, “Lord, who shall abide in thy

tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill? He that walketh

uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his

heart,” (Psalm 15: 1, 2.) Again in another passage, “This is the

generation of them that seek him, that seek thy face, O Jacob,”

(Psalm 24: 6.) And thus the Spirit exhorts believers to patience,

and not to murmur because Ishmaelites are mingled with them in the

Church since the mask will at length be torn off, and they will be

ejected with disgrace.

9. The same account is to be given of the passage lately

quoted, in which Christ says, that none is lost but the son of

perdition, (John 17: 12.) The expression is not strictly proper; but

it is by no means obscure: for Judas was not numbered among the

sheep of Christ, because he was one truly, but because he held a

place among them. Then, in another passage, where the Lord says,

that he was elected with the apostles, reference is made only to the

office, “Have I not chosen you twelve,” says he, “and one of you is

a devil?” (John 6: 70.) That is, he had chosen him to the office of

apostle. But when he speaks of election to salvation, he altogether

excludes him from the number of the elect, “I speak not of you all:

I know whom I have chosen,” (John 13: 18.) Should any one confound

the term elect in the two passages, he will miserably entangle

himself; whereas if he distinguish between them, nothing can be

plainer. Gregory, therefore, is most grievously and perniciously in

error; when he says that we are conscious only of our calling, but

are uncertain of our election; and hence he exhorts all to fear and

trembling, giving this as the reason, that though we know what we

are to-day, yet we know not what we are to be, (Gregor. Hom. 38.)

But in that passage he clearly shows how he stumbled on that stone.

By suspending election on the merit of works, he had too good a

reason for dispiriting the minds of his readers, while, at the same

time, as he did not lead them away from themselves to confidence in

the divine goodness, he was unable to confirm them. Hence believers

may in some measure perceive the truth of what we said at the

outset, viz., predestination duly considered does not shake faith,

but rather affords the best confirmation of it. I deny not, however,

that the Spirit sometimes accommodates his language to our feeble

capacity; as when he says, “They shall not be in the assembly of my

people, neither shall they be written in the writing of the house of

Israel,” (Ezek. 13: 9.) As if God were beginning to write the names

of those whom he counts among his people in the Book of Life;

whereas we know, even on the testimony of Christ, that the names of

the children of God were written in the Book of Life from the

beginning, (Luke 10: 20.) The words simply indicate the abandonment

of those who seemed to have a chief place among the elect, as is

said in the psalm, “Let them be blotted out of the Book of the

Living, and not be written with the righteous,” (Psalm 69: 28.)

10. For the elect are brought by calling into the fold of

Christ, not from the very womb, nor all at the same time, but

according as God sees it meet to dispense his grace. Before they are

gathered to the supreme Shepherd they wander dispersed in a common

desert, and in no respect differ from others, except that by the

special mercy of God they are kept from rushing to final

destruction. Therefore, if you look to themselves, you will see the

offspring of Adam giving token of the common corruption of the mass.

That they proceed not to extreme and desperate impiety is not owing

to any innate goodness in them, but because the eye of God watches

for their safety, and his hand is stretched over them. Those who

dream of some seed of election implanted in their hearts from their

birth, by the agency of which they are ever inclined to piety and

the fear of God, are not supported by the authority of Scripture,

but refuted by experience. They, indeed, produce a few examples to

prove that the elect before they were enlightened were not aliens

from religion; for instance, that Paul led an unblemished life

during his Pharisaism, that Cornelius was accepted for his prayers

and alms, and so forth, (Phil. 3: 5; Acts 10: 2.) The case of Paul

we admit, but we hold that they are in error as to Cornelius; for it

appears that he was already enlightened and regenerated, so that all

which he wanted was a clear revelation of the Gospel. But what are

they to extract from these few examples? Is it that all the elect

were always endued with the spirit of piety? Just as well might any

one, after pointing to the integrity of Aristides, Socrates,

Xenocrates, Scipio, Curios, Camillus, and others, (see Book 2, c. 4,

sec. 4,) infer that all who are left in the blindness of idolatry

are studious of virtue and holiness. Nay, even Scripture is plainly

opposed to them in more passages than one. The description which

Paul gives of the state of the Ephesians before regeneration shows

not one grain of this seed. His words are, “You has he quickened,

who were dead in trespasses and sins; wherein in time past ye walked

according to the course of this world, according to the prince of

the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of

disobedience: among whom also we all had our conversation in times

past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh

and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as

others,” (Eph. 2: 1-3.) And again, “At that time ye were without

Christ,” “having no hope, and without God in the world,” (Eph. 2:

12.) Again, “Ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the

Lord: walk as children of light,” (Eph. 5: 8.) But perhaps they will

insist that in this last passage reference is made to that ignorance

of the true God, in which they deny not that the elect lived before

they were called. Though this is grossly inconsistent with the

Apostle’s inference, that they were no longer to lie or steal, (Eph.

4: 28.) What answer will they give to other passages; such as that

in which, after declaring to the Corinthians that “neither

fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor

abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor

drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom

of God,” he immediately adds, “Such were some of you: but ye are

washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of

the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God”? (1 Cor. 6: 9-11.)

Again he says to the Romans, “As ye have yielded your members

servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now

yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. For when

ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. What

fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed?” (Rom.

6: 19-21.)

11. Say, then, what seed of election germinated in those who,

contaminated in various ways during their whole lives, indulged as

with desperate wickedness in every kind of abomination? Had Paul

meant to express this view, he ought to have shown how much they

then owed to the kindness of God, by which they had been preserved

from falling into such pollution. Thus, too, Peter ought to have

exhorted his countrymen to gratitude for a perpetual seed of

election. On the contrary, his admonition is, “The time past of our

life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles,” (1

Pet. 4: 3.) What if we come to examples? Was there any germ of

righteousness in Rahab the harlot before she believed? (Josh. 2: 4;)

in Manasseh when Jerusalem was dyed and almost deluged with the

blood of the prophets? (2 Kings 23: 16;) in the thief who only with

his last breath thought of repentance? (Luke 23: 42.) Have done,

then, with those arguments which curious men of themselves rashly

devise without any authority from Scripture. But let us hold fast

what Scripture states viz., that “All we like sheep have gone

astray, we have turned every one to his own way,” (Isa. 53: 6;) that

is to perdition. In this gulf of perdition God leaves those whom he

has determined one day to deliver until his own time arrive; he only

preserves them from plunging into irremediable blasphemy.

12. As the Lord by the efficacy of his calling accomplishes

towards his elect the salvation to which he had by his eternal

counsel destined them, so he has judgments against the reprobate, by

which he executes his counsel concerning them. Those, therefore,

whom he has created for dishonor during life and destruction at

death, that they may be vessels of wrath and examples of severity,

in bringing to their doom, he at one time deprives of the means of

hearing his word, at another by the preaching of it blinds and

stupefies them the more. The examples of the former case are

innumerable, but let us select one of the most remarkable of all.

Before the advent of Christ, about four thousand years passed away,

during which he hid the light of saving doctrine from all nations.

If any one answer, that he did not put them in possession of the

great blessing, because he judged them unworthy, then their

posterity will be in no respect more worthy. Of this in addition to

experience, Malachi is a sufficient witness; for while charging them

with mixed unbelief and blasphemy, he yet declares that the Redeemer

will come. Why then is he given to the latter rather than to the

former? They will in vain torment themselves in seeking for a deeper

cause than the secret and inscrutable counsel of God. And there is

no occasion to fear lest some disciple of Porphyry with impunity

arraign the justice of God, while we say nothing in its defense. For

while we maintain that none perish without deserving it, and that it

is owing to the free goodness of God that some are delivered, enough

has been said for the display of his glory; there is not the least

occasion for our caviling. The supreme Disposer then makes way for

his own predestination, when depriving those whom he has reprobated

of the communication of his light, he leaves them in blindness.

Every day furnishes instances of the latter case, and many of them

are set before us in Scripture. Among a hundred to whom the same

discourse is delivered, twenty, perhaps, receive it with the prompt

obedience of faith; the others set no value upon it, or deride, or

spurn, or abominate it. If it is said that this diversity is owing

to the malice and perversity of the latter, the answer is not

satisfactory: for the same wickedness would possess the minds of the

former, did not God in his goodness correct it. And hence we will

always be entangled until we call in the aid of Paul’s question,

“Who maketh thee to differ?” (1 Cor. 4: 7,) intimating that some

excel others, not by their own virtue, but by the mere favour of

God.

13. Why, then, while bestowing grace on the one, does he pass

by the other? In regard to the former, Luke gives the reason,

Because they “were ordained to eternal life,” (Acts 13: 48.) What,

then, shall we think of the latter, but that they are vessels of

wrath unto dishonor? Wherefore, let us not decline to say with

Augustine, “God could change the will of the wicked into good,

because he is omnipotent. Clearly he could. Why, then, does he not

do it? Because he is unwilling. Why he is unwilling remains with

himself,” (August. de Genes. ad Lit. Lib. 2.) We should not attempt

to be wise above what is meet, and it is much better to take

Augustine’s explanation, than to quibble with Chrysostom, “that he

draws him who is willing, and stretching forth his hand,” (Chrysost.

Hom. de Convers. Pauli,) lest the difference should seem to lie in

the judgment of God, and not in the mere will of man. So far is it,

indeed, from being placed in the mere will of man, that we may add,

that even the pious, and those who fear God, need this special

inspiration of the Spirit. Lydia, a seller of purple, feared God,

and yet it was necessary that her heart should be opened, that she

might attend to the doctrine of Paul, and profit in it, (Acts 16:

14.) This was not said of one woman only but to teach us that all

progress in piety is the secret work of the Spirit. Nor can it be

questioned, that God sends his word to many whose blindness he is

pleased to aggravate. For why does he order so many messages to be

taken to Pharaoh? Was it because he hoped that he might be softened

by the repetition? Nay, before he began he both knew and had

foretold the result: “The Lord said unto Moses, When thou goest to

return into Egypt see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh,

which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he

will not let the people go,” (Exod. 4: 21.) So when he raises up

Ezekiel, he forewarns him, “I send thee to the children of Israel,

to a rebellious nation that has rebelled against me.” “Be not afraid

of their words.” “Thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house,

which has eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear

not,” (Ezek. 2: 3, 6; 12: 2.) Thus he foretells to Jeremiah that the

effect of his doctrine would be, “to root out, and pull down, and to

destroy,” (Jer. 1: 10.) But the prophecy of Isaiah presses still

more closely; for he is thus commissioned by the Lord, “Go and tell

this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not, and see ye indeed

but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their

ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and

hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert

and be healed,” (Isa. 6: 9,10.) Here he directs his voice to them,

but it is that they may turn a deafer ear; he kindles a light, but

it is that they may become more blind; he produces a doctrine, but

it is that they may be more stupid; he employs a remedy, but it is

that they may not be cured. And John, referring to this prophecy,

declares that the Jews could not believe the doctrine of Christ,

because this curse from God lay upon them. It is also

incontrovertible, that to those whom God is not pleased to illumine,

he delivers his doctrine wrapt up in enigmas, so that they may not

profit by it, but be given over to greater blindness. Hence our

Savior declares that the parables in which he had spoken to the

multitude he expounded to the Apostles only, “because it is given

unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them

it is not given,” (Matth. 13: 1l.) What, you will ask, does our Lord

mean, by teaching those by whom he is careful not to be understood?

Consider where the fault lies, and then cease to ask. How obscure

soever the word may be, there is always sufficient light in it to

convince the consciences of the ungodly.

14. It now remains to see why the Lord acts in the manner in

which it is plain that he does. If the answer be given, that it is

because men deserve this by their impiety, wickedness, and

ingratitude, it is indeed well and truly said; but still, because it

does not yet appear what the cause of the difference is, why some

are turned to obedience, and others remain obdurate we must, in

discussing it, pass to the passage from Moses, on which Paul has

commented, namely, “Even for this same purpose have I raised thee

up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be

declared throughout all the earth,” (Rom. 9: 17.) The refusal of the

reprobate to obey the word of God when manifested to them, will be

properly ascribed to the malice and depravity of their hearts,

provided it be at the same time added that they were adjudged to

this depravity, because they were raised up by the just but

inscrutable judgment of God, to show forth his glory by their

condemnation. In like manner, when it is said of the sons of Eli,

that they would not listen to salutary admonitions “because the Lord

would slay them,” (1 Sam. 2: 25,) it is not denied that their

stubbornness was the result of their own iniquity; but it is at the

same time stated why they were left to their stubbornness, when the

Lord might have softened their hearts: namely, because his immutable

decree had once for all doomed them to destruction. Hence the words

of John, “Though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they

believed not on him; that the saying of Esaias the prophet might be

fulfilled which he spake, Lord, who has believed our report?” (John

12: 37, 38;) for though he does not exculpate their perverseness, he

is satisfied with the reason that the grace of God is insipid to

men, until the Holy Spirit gives it its savor. And Christ, in

quoting the prophecy of Isaiah, “They shall be all taught of God,”

(John 6: 45,) designs only to show that the Jews were reprobates and

aliens from the Church, because they would not be taught: and gives

no other reason than that the promise of God does not belong to

them. Confirmatory of this are the words of Paul, “Christ crucified”

was “unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks

foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks,

Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God,” (1 Cor. 1: 23.) For

after mentioning the usual result wherever the gospel is preached,

that it exasperates some, and is despised by others, he says, that

it is precious to them only who are called. A little before he had

given them the name of believers, but he was unwilling to refuse the

proper rank to divine grace, which precedes faith; or rather, he

added the second term by way of correction, that those who had

embraced the gospel might ascribe the merit of their faith to the

calling of God. Thus, also, he shortly after shows that they were

elected by God. When the wicked hear these things, they complain

that God abuses his inordinate power; to make cruel sport with the

miseries of his creatures. But let us, who know that all men are

liable on so many grounds to the judgment of God, that they cannot

answer for one in a thousand of their transgressions, (Job 9: 3,)

confess that the reprobate suffer nothing which is not accordant

with the most perfect justice. When unable clearly to ascertain the

reason, let us not decline to be somewhat in ignorance in regard to

the depths of the divine wisdom.

15. But since an objection is often founded on a few passages

of Scripture, in which God seems to deny that the wicked perish

through his ordination, except in so far as they spontaneously bring

death upon themselves in opposition to his warning, let us briefly

explain these passages, and demonstrate that they are not adverse to

the above view. One of the passages adduced is, “have I any pleasure

at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God; and not that

he should return from his ways and live?” (Ezek. 18: 23.) If we are

to extend this to the whole human race, why are not the very many

whose minds might be more easily bent to obey urged to repentance,

rather than those who by his invitations become daily more and more

hardened? Our Lord declares that the preaching of the gospel and

miracles would have produced more fruit among the people of Nineveh

and Sodom than in Judea, (Matth. 13: 23.) How comes its then, that

if God would have all to be saved he does not open a door of

repentance for the wretched, who would more readily have received

grace? Hence we may see that the passage is violently wrested, if

the will of God, which the prophet mentions, is opposed to his

eternal counsel, by which he separated the elect from the reprobate.

Now, if the genuine meaning of the prophet is inquired into, it will

be found that he only means to give the hope of pardon to them who

repent. The sum is, that God is undoubtedly ready to pardon whenever

the sinner turns. Therefore, he does not will his death, in so far

as he wills repentance. But experience shows that this will, for the

repentance of those whom he invites to himself, is not such as to

make him touch all their hearts. Still, it cannot be said that he

acts deceitfully; for though the external word only renders, those

who hear its and do not obey it, inexcusable, it is still truly

regarded as an evidence of the grace by which he reconciles men to

himself. Let us therefore hold the doctrine of the prophet, that God

has no pleasure in the death of the sinner; that the godly may feel

confident that whenever they repent God is ready to pardon them; and

that the wicked may feel that their guilt is doubled, when they

respond not to the great mercy and condescension of God. The mercy

of God, therefore will ever be ready to meet the penitent; but all

the prophets, and apostles, and Ezekiel himself, clearly tell us who

they are to whom repentance is given.

16. The second passage adduced is that in which Paul says that

“God will have all men to be saved,” (1 Tim. 2: 4.) Though the

reason here differs from the former, they have somewhat in common. I

answer, first, That the mode in which God thus wills is plain from

the context; for Paul connects two things, a will to be saved, and

to come to the knowledge of the truth. If by this they will have it

to be fixed by the eternal counsel of God that they are to receive

the doctrine of salvation, what is meant by Moses in these words,

“What nation is there so great, who has God so nigh unto them?”

(Deut. 4: 7.) How comes it that many nations are deprived of that

light of the Gospel which others enjoy? How comes it that the pure

knowledge of the doctrine of godliness has never reached some, and

others have scarcely tasted some obscure rudiments of it? It will

now be easy to extract the purport of Paul’s statement. He had

commanded Timothy that prayers should be regularly offered up in the

church for kings and princes; but as it seemed somewhat absurd that

prayer should be offered up for a class of men who were almost

hopeless, (all of them being not only aliens from the body of

Christ, but doing their utmost to overthrow his kingdom,) he adds,

that it was acceptable to God, who will have all men to be saved. By

this he assuredly means nothing more than that the way of salvation

was not shut against any order of men; that, on the contrary, he had

manifested his mercy in such a way, that he would have none debarred

from it. Other passages do not declare what God has, in his secret

judgment, determined with regard to all, but declare that pardon is

prepared for all sinners who only turn to seek after it. For if they

persist in urging the words, “God has concluded all in unbelief,

that he might have mercy upon all,” (Rom. 11: 32,) I will, on the

contrary, urge what is elsewhere written, “Our God is in the

heavens: he has done whatsoever he has pleased,” (Ps. 115: 3.) we

must, therefore, expound the passage so as to reconcile it with

another, I “will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will

show mercy on whom I will show mercy,” (Exod. 33: 19.) He who

selects those whom he is to visit in mercy does not impart it to

all. But since it clearly appears that he is there speaking not of

individuals, but of orders of men, let us have done with a longer

discussion. At the same time, we ought to observe, that Paul does

not assert what God does always, everywhere, and in all

circumstances, but leaves it free to him to make kings and

magistrates partakers of heavenly doctrine, though in their

blindness they rage against it. A stronger objection seems to be

founded on the passage in Peter; the Lord is “not willing that any

should perish, but that all should come to repentance,” (2 Pet. 3:

9.) But the solution of the difficulty is to be found in the second

branch of the sentence, for his will that they should come to

repentance cannot be used in any other sense than that which is

uniformly employed. Conversion is undoubtedly in the hand of God,

whether he designs to convert all can be learned from himself, when

he promises that he will give some a heart of flesh, and leave to

others a heart of stone, (Ezek. 36: 26.) It is true, that if he were

not disposed to receive those who implore his mercy, it could not

have been said, “Turn ye unto me, saith the Lord of Hosts, and I

will turn unto you, saith the Lord of Hosts,” (Zech. 1: 3;) but I

hold that no man approaches God unless previously influenced from

above. And if repentance were placed at the will of man, Paul would

not say, “If God per adventure will give them repentance,” (2 Tim.

2: 25.) Nay, did not God at the very time when he is verbally

exhorting all to repentance, influence the elect by the secret

movement of his Spirit, Jeremiah would not say, “Turn thou me, and I

shall be turned; for thou art the Lord my God. Surely after that I

was turned, I repented,” (Jer. 31: 18.)

17. But if it is so, (you will say,) little faith can be put in

the Gospel promises, which, in testifying concerning the will of

God, declare that he wills what is contrary to his inviolable

decree. Not at all; for however universal the promises of salvation

may be, there is no discrepancy between them and the predestination

of the reprobate, provided we attend to their effect. We know that

the promises are effectual only when we receive them in faith, but,

on the contrary, when faith is made void, the promise is of no

effect. If this is the nature of the promises, let us now see

whether there be any inconsistency between the two things, viz.,

that God, by an eternal decree, fixed the number of those whom he is

pleased to embrace in love, and on whom he is pleased to display his

wrath, and that he offers salvation indiscriminately to all. I hold

that they are perfectly consistent, for all that is meant by the

promise is, just that his mercy is offered to all who desire and

implore it, and this none do, save those whom he has enlightened.

Moreover, he enlightens those whom he has predestinated to

salvation. Thus the truth of the promises remains firm and unshaken,

so that it cannot be said there is any disagreement between the

eternal election of God and the testimony of his grace which he

offers to believers. But why does he mention all men? Namely that

the consciences of the righteous may rest the more secure when they

understand that there is no difference between sinners, provided

they have faith, and that the ungodly may not be able to allege that

they have not an asylum to which they may retake themselves from the

bondage of sin, while they ungratefully reject the offer which is

made to them. Therefore, since by the Gospel the mercy of God is

offered to both, it is faith, in other words, the illumination of

God, which distinguishes between the righteous and the wicked, the

former feeling the efficacy of the Gospel, the latter obtaining no

benefit from it. Illumination itself has eternal election for its

rule.

Another passage quoted is the lamentation of our Savior, “O

Jerusalem Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thy children

together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and

ye would not!” (Matth. 23: 37;) but it gives them no support. I

admit that here Christ speaks not only in the character of man, but

upbraids them with having, in every age, rejected his grace. But

this will of God, of which we speak, must be defined. For it is well

known what exertions the Lord made to retain that people, and how

perversely from the highest to the lowest they followed their own

wayward desires, and refused to be gathered together. But it does

not follow that by the wickedness of men the counsel of God was

frustrated. They object that nothing is less accordant with the

nature of God than that he should have a double will. This I

concede, provided they are sound interpreters. But why do they not

attend to the many passages in which God clothes himself with human

affections, and descends beneath his proper majesty? He says, “I

have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people,”

(Isa. 65: 1,) exerting himself early and late to bring them back.

Were they to apply these qualities without regarding the figure,

many unnecessary disputes would arise which are quashed by the

simple solution, that what is human is here transferred to God.

Indeed, the solution which we have given elsewhere (see Book 1, c.

18, sec. 3; and Book 3, c. 20, sec. 43) is amply sufficient, viz.,

that though to our apprehension the will of God is manifold, yet he

does not in himself will opposites, but, according to his manifold

wisdom, (so Paul styles it, Eph. 3: 10,) transcends our senses,

until such time as it shall be given us to know how he mysteriously

wills what now seems to be adverse to his will. They also amuse

themselves with the cavil, that since God is the Father of all, it

is unjust to discard any one before he has by his misconduct merited

such a punishment. As if the kindness of God did not extend even to

dogs and swine. But if we confine our view to the human race, let

them tell why God selected one people for himself and became their

father, and why, from that one people, he plucked only a small

number as if they were the flower. But those who thus charge God are

so blinded by their love of evil speaking, that they consider not

that as God “maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good,”

(Matth. 5: 45,) so the inheritance is treasured up for a few to whom

it shall one day be said, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit

the kingdom,” &c., (Matth. 25: 34.) They object, moreover, that God

does not hate any of the things which he has made. This I concede,

but it does not affect the doctrine which I maintain, that the

reprobate are hateful to God, and that with perfect justice, since

those destitute of his Spirit cannot produce any thing that does not

deserve cursing. They add, that there is no distinction of Jew and

Gentile, and that, therefore, the grace of God is held forth to all

indiscriminately: true, provided they admit (as Paul declares) that

God calls as well Jews as Gentiles, according to his good pleasure,

without being astricted to any. This disposes of their gloss upon

another passage, “God has concluded all in unbelief, that he might

have mercy upon all,” (Rom. 11: 32;) in other words, he wills that

all who are saved should ascribe their salvation to his mercy,

although the blessing of salvation is not common to all. Finally,

after all that has been adduced on this side and on that, let it be

our conclusion to feel overawed with Paul at the great depth, and if tongues will still murmur, let us not be ashamed to join in

his exclamation, “Nay, but, O man, who art thou that replies against

God?” (Rom. 9: 20.) Truly does Augustine maintain that it is

perverse to measure divine by the standard of human justice, (De

Praedest. et Gra. c. 2.)

CHAPTER 25. OF THE LAST RESURRECTION.

There are four principal heads in this chapter,—I. The

utility, necessity, truth, and irrefragable evidence of the orthodox

doctrine of a final resurrection—a doctrine unknown to

philosophers, sec. 1-4. II. Refutation of the objections to this

doctrine by Atheists, Sadducees, Chiliasts, and other fanatics, sec.

5-7. III. The nature of the final resurrection explained, sec. 8, 9.

IV. Of the eternal felicity of the elect, and the everlasting misery

of the reprobate.

Sections.

1. For invincible perseverance in our calling, it is necessary to be

animated with the blessed hope of our Savior’s final advent.

2. The perfect happiness reserved for the elect at the final

resurrection unknown to philosophers.

3. The truth and necessity of this doctrine of a final resurrection.

To confirm our belief in it we have, 1. The example of Christ;

and, 2. The omnipotence of God. There is an inseparable

connection between us and our risen Savior. The bodies of the

elect must be conformed to the body of their Head. It is now in

heaven. Therefore, our bodies also must rise, and, reanimated

by their souls, reign with Christ in heaven. The resurrection

of Christ a pledge of ours.

4. As God is omnipotent, he can raise the dead. Resurrection

explained by a natural process. The vision of dry bones.

5. Second part of the chapter, refuting objections to the doctrine

of resurrection. 1. Atheists. 2. Sadducees. 3. Chiliasts. Their

evasion. Various answers. 4. Universalists. Answer.

6.. Objections continued. 5. Some speculators who imagine that death

destroys the whole man. Refutation. The condition and abode of

souls from death till the last day. What meant by the bosom of

Abraham.

7. Refutation of some weak men and Manichees, pretending that new

bodies are to be given. Refutation confirmed by various

arguments and passages of Scripture.

8. Refutation of the fiction of new bodies continued.

9. Shall the wicked rise again? Answer in the affirmative. Why the

wicked shall rise again. Why resurrection promised to the elect

only.

10 The last part of the chapter, treating of eternal felicity; 1 Its

excellence transcends our capacity. Rules to be observed. The

glory of all the saints will not be equal.

11. Without rewarding questions which merely puzzle, an answer given

to some which are not without use.

12. As the happiness of the elect, so the misery of the reprobate,

will be without measure, and without end.

1. Although Christ, the Sun of righteousness, shining upon us

through the gospel, has, as Paul declares, after conquering death,

given us the light of life; and hence on believing we are said to

have passed from “death unto life,” being no longer strangers and

pilgrims, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household

of God, who has made us sit with his only begotten Son in heavenly

places, so that nothing is wanting to our complete felicity; yet,

lest we should feel it grievous to be exercised under a hard

warfare, as if the victory obtained by Christ had produced no fruit,

we must attend to what is elsewhere taught concerning the nature of

hope. For since we hope for what we see not, and faith, as is said

in another passage, is “the evidence of things not seen” so long as

we are imprisoned in the body we are absent from the Lord. For which

reason Paul says, “Ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in

God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also

appear with him in glory.” Our present condition, therefore,

requires us to “live soberly, righteously, and godly;” “looking for

that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and

our Savior Jesus Christ.” Here there is need of no ordinary

patience, lest, worn out with fatigue, we either turn backwards or

abandon our post. Wherefore, all that has hitherto been said of our

salvation calls upon us to raise our minds towards heaven, that, as

Peter exhorts, though we now see not Christ, “yet believing,” we may

“rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory,” receiving the end

of our faith, even the salvation of our souls. For this reason Paul

says, that the faith and charity of the saints have respect to the

faith and hope which is laid up for them in heaven, (Col. 1: 5.)

When we thus keep our eyes fixed upon Christ in heaven, and nothing

on earth prevents us from directing them to the promised

blessedness, there is a true fulfillment of the saying, “where your

treasure is, there will your heart be also,” (Matth. 6: 21.) Hence

the reason why faith is so rare in the world; nothing being more

difficult for our sluggishness than to surmount innumerable

obstacles in striving for the prize of our high calling. To the

immense load of miseries which almost overwhelm us, are added the

jeers of profane men, who assail us for our simplicity, when

spontaneously renouncing the allurements of the present life we

seem, in seeking a happiness which lies hid from us, to catch at a

fleeting shadow. In short, we are beset above and below, behind and

before, with violent temptations, which our minds would be

altogether unable to withstand, were they not set free from earthly

objects and devoted to the heavenly life, though apparently remote

from us. Wherefore, he alone has made solid progress in the Gospel

who has acquired the habit of meditating continually on a blessed

resurrection.

2. In ancient times philosophers discoursed, and even debated

with each other, concerning the chief good: none, however, except

Plato acknowledged that it consisted in union with God. He could

not, however, form even an imperfect idea of its true nature; nor is

this strange, as he had learned nothing of the sacred bond of that

union. We even in this our earthly pilgrimage know wherein our

perfect and only felicity consists,—a felicity which, while we

long for it, daily inflames our hearts more and more, until we

attain to full fruition. Therefore I said, that none participate in

the benefits of Christ save those who raise their minds to the

resurrection. This, accordingly, is the mark which Paul sets before

believers, and at which he says they are to aim, forgetting every

thing until they reach its (Phil. 3: 8.) The more strenuously,

therefore, must we contend for it, lest if the world engross us we

be severely punished for our sloth. Accordingly, he in another

passage distinguishes believers by this mark, that their

conversation is in heaven, from whence they look for the Savior,

(Phil. 3: 20.) And that they may not faint in their course, he

associates all the other creatures with them. As shapeless ruins are

everywhere seen, he says, that all things in heaven and earth

struggle for renovation. For since Adam by his fall destroyed the

proper order of nature, the creatures groan under the servitude to

which they have been subjected through his sin; not that they are at

all endued with sense, but that they naturally long for the state of

perfection from which they have fallen. Paul therefore describes

them as groaning and travailing in pain, (Rom. 8: 19;) so that we

who have received the first-fruits of the Spirit may be ashamed to

grovel in our corruption, instead of at least imitating the

inanimate elements which are bearing the punishment of another’s

sin. And in order that he may stimulate us the more powerfully, he

terms the final advent of Christ our redemption. It is true, indeed,

that all the parts of our redemption are already accomplished; but

as Christ was once offered for sins, (Heb. 9: 28,) so he shall again

appear without sin unto salvation. Whatever, then, be the

afflictions by which we are pressed, let this redemption sustain us

until its final accomplishment.

3. The very importance of the subject ought to increase our

ardor. Paul justly contends, that if Christ rise not the whole

gospel is delusive and vain, (1 Cor. 15: 13-17;) for our condition

would be more miserable than that of other mortals, because we are

exposed to much hatred and insult, and incur danger every hour; nay,

are like sheep destined for slaughter; and hence the authority of

the gospel would fail, not in one part merely, but in its very

essence, including both our adoption and the accomplishment of our

salvation. Let us, therefore, give heed to a matter of all others

the most serious, so that no length of time may produce weariness. I

have deferred the brief consideration to be given of it to this

place, that my readers may learn, when they have received Christ,

the author of perfect salvation, to rise higher, and know that he is

clothed with heavenly immortality and glory in order that the whole

body may be rendered conformable to the Head. For thus the Holy

Spirit is ever setting before us in his person an example of the

resurrection. It is difficult to believe that after our bodies have

been consumed with rottenness, they sill rise again at their

appointed time. And hence, while many of the philosophers maintained

the immortality of the soul, few of them assented to the

resurrection of the body. Although in this they were inexcusable, we

are thereby reminded that the subject is too difficult for human

apprehension to reach it. To enable faith to surmount the great

difficulty, Scripture furnishes two auxiliary proofs, the one the

likeness of Christ’s resurrection, and the other the omnipotence of

God. Therefore, whenever the subject of the resurrection is

considered, let us think of the case of our Savior, who, having

completed his mortal course in our nature which he had assumed,

obtained immortality, and is now the pledge of our future

resurrection. For in the miseries by which we are beset, we always

bear “about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life

also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh,” (2 Cor.

4: 10.) It is not lawful, it is not even possible, to separate him

from us, without dividing him. Hence Paul’s argument, “If there be

no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen,” (1 Cor. 15:

13;) for he assumes it as an acknowledged principle, that when

Christ was subjected to death, and by rising gained a victory over

death, it was not on his own account, but in the Head was begun what

must necessarily be fulfilled in all the members, according to the

degree and order of each. For it would not be proper to be made

equal to him in all respects. It is said in the psalm, “Neither wilt

thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption,” (Ps. 16: 10.)

Although a portion of this confidence appertain to us according to

the measure bestowed on us, yet the full effect appeared only in

Christ, who, free from all corruption, resumed a spotless body.

Then, that there may be no doubt as to our fellowship with Christ in

a blessed resurrection, and that we may be contented with this

pledge, Paul distinctly affirms that he sits in the heavens, and

will come as a judge on the last day for the express purpose of

changing our vile body, “that it may be fashioned like unto his

glorious body,” (Phil. 3: 21.) For he elsewhere says that God did

not raise up his Son from death to give an isolated specimen of his

mighty power, but that the Spirit exerts the same efficacy in regard

to them that believe; and accordingly he says, that the Spirit when

he dwells in us is life, because the end for which he was given is

to quicken our mortal body, (Rom. 8: 10, 11; Col. 3: 4.) I briefly

glance at subjects which might be treated more copiously, and

deserve to be adorned more splendidly, and yet in the little I have

said I trust pious readers will find sufficient materials for

building up their faith. Christ rose again that he might have us as

partakers with him of future life. He was raised up by the Father,

inasmuch as he was the Head of the Church, from which he cannot

possibly be dissevered. He was raised up by the power of the Spirit,

who also in us performs the office of quickening. In fine, he was

raised up to be the resurrection and the life. But as we have said,

that in this mirror we behold a living image of the resurrection, so

it furnishes a sure evidence to support our minds, provided we faint

not, nor grow weary at the long delay, because it is not ours to

measure the periods of time at our own pleasure; but to rest

patiently till God in his own time renew his kingdom. To this Paul

refers when he says, “But every man in his own order: Christ the

first-fruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming,” (1

Cor. 15: 23.)

But lest any question should be raised as to the resurrection

of Christ on which ours is founded, we see how often and in what

various ways he has borne testimony to it. Scoffing men will deride

the narrative which is given by the Evangelist as a childish fable.

For what importance will they attach to a message which timid women

brings and the disciples almost dead with fear, afterwards confirm?

Why does not Christ rather place the illustrious trophies of his

victory in the midst of the temple and the forum? Why does he not

come forth, and in the presence of Pilate strike terror? Why does he

not show himself alive again to the priests and all Jerusalem?

Profane men will scarcely admit that the witnesses whom he selects

are well qualified. I answer, that though at the commencement their

infirmity was contemptible, yet the whole was directed by the

admirable providence of God, so that partly from love to Christ and

religious zeal, partly from incredulity, those who were lately

overcome with fear now hurry to the sepulchre, not only that they

might be eye-witnesses of the fact, but that they might hear angels

announce what they actually saw. How can we question the veracity of

those who regarded what the women told them as a fable, until they

saw the reality? It is not strange that the whole people and also

the governor, after they were furnished with sufficient evidence for

conviction, were not allowed to see Christ or the other signs,

(Matth. 27: 66; 28: 11.) The sepulchre is sealed, sentinels keep

watch, on the third day the body is not found. The soldiers are

bribed to spread the report that his disciples had stolen the body.

As if they had had the means of deforming a band of soldiers, or

been supplied with weapons, or been trained so as to make such a

daring attempt. But if the soldiers had not courage enough to repel

them, why did they not follow and apprehend some of them by the aid

of the populace? Pilate, therefore, in fact, put his signet to the

resurrection of Christ, and the guards who were placed at the

sepulchre by their silence or falsehood also became heralds of his

resurrection. Meanwhile, the voice of angels was heard, “He is not

here, but is risen,” (Luke 24: 6.) The celestial splendor plainly

shows that they were not men but angels. Afterwards, if any doubt

still remained, Christ himself removed it. The disciples saw him

frequently; they even touched his hands and his feet, and their

unbelief is of no little avail in confirming our faith. He

discoursed to them of the mysteries of the kingdom of God, and at

length, while they beheld, ascended to heaven. This spectacle was

exhibited not to eleven apostles only, but was seen by more than

five hundred brethren at once, (1 Cor. 15: 6.) Then by sending the

Holy Spirit he gave a proof not only of life but also of supreme

power, as he had foretold, “It is expedient for you that I go away:

for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you,” (John

16: 7.) Paul was not thrown down on the way by the power of a dead

man, but felt that he whom he was opposing was possessed of

sovereign authority. To Stephen he appeared for another purpose,

viz., that he might overcome the fear of death by the certainty of

life. To refuse assent to these numerous and authentic proofs is not

diffidence, but depraved and therefore infatuated obstinacy.

4. We have said that in proving the resurrection our thoughts

must be directed to the immense power of God. This Paul briefly

teaches, when he says that the Lord Jesus Christ “shall change our

vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body,

according to the working of that mighty power whereby he is able

even to subdue all things unto himself,” (Phil. 3: 21.) Wherefore,

nothing can be more incongruous than to look here at what can be

done naturally when the subject presented to us is an inestimable

miracle, which by its magnitude absorbs our senses. Paul, however,

by producing a proof from nature, confutes the senselessness of

those who deny the resurrection. “Thou fool, that which thou sowest

is not quickened except it die,” &c., (1 Cor. 15: 36.) He says that

in seed there is a species of resurrection, because the crop is

produced from corruption. Nor would the thing be so difficult of

belief were we as attentive as we ought to be to the wonders which

meet our eye in every quarter of the world. But let us remember that

none is truly persuaded of the future resurrection save he who,

carried away with admiration gives God the glory.

Elated with this convictions Isaiah exclaims, “Thy dead men

shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and

sing, ye that dwell in dust,” (Isaiah 26: 19.) In desperate

circumstances he rises to God, the author of life, in whose hand are

“the issues from death,” (Psalm 68: 20.) Job also, when liker a dead

body than a living being, trusting to the power of God, hesitates

not as if in full vigor to rise to that day: “I know that my

Redeemer liveth, and that he will stand at the latter day upon the

earth;” (that is, that he will there exert his power:) “and though

after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see

God; whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and

not another,” (Job 19: 25-27.) For though some have recourse to a

more subtle interpretation, by which they wrest these passages, as

if they were not to be understood of the resurrection, they only

confirm what they are desirous to overthrow; for holy men, in

seeking consolation in their misfortunes, have recourse for

alleviation merely to the similitude of a resurrection. This is

better learned from a passage in Ezekiel. When the Jews scouted the

promise of return, and objected that the probability of it was not

greater than that of the dead coming forth from the tomb, there is

presented to the prophet in vision a field covered with dry bones,

which at the command of God recover sinews and flesh. Though under

that figure he encourages the people to hope for return, yet the

ground of hope is taken from the resurrection, as it is the special

type of all the deliverances which believers experience in this

world. Thus Christ declares that the voice of the Gospel gives life;

but because the Jews did not receive it, he immediately adds,

“Marvel not at this; for the hour is coming in which all that are in

the grave shall hear his voice, and shall come forth,” (John 5: 28,

29.) Wherefore, amid all our conflicts let us exult after the

example of Paul, that he who has promised us future life “is able to

keep that” which “is committed unto him,” and thus glory that there

is laid up for us “a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the

righteous judge, shall give,” (2 Tim. 1: 12; 4: 8.) Thus all the

hardships which we may endure will be a demonstration of our future

life, “seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense

tribulation to them that trouble you; and to you who are troubled

rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with

his mighty angels, in flaming fire,” (2 Thess. 1: 6-8.) But we must

attend to what he shortly after adds, viz., that he “shall come to

be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that

believe,” by receiving the Gospel.

5. Although the minds of men ought to be perpetually occupied

with this pursuits yet as if they actually resolved to banish all

remembrance of the resurrection, they have called death the end of

all things, the extinction of man. For Solomon certainly expresses

the commonly received opinion when he says “A living dog is better

than a dead lion,” (Eccl. 9: 4.) And again, “Who knoweth the spirit

of man that goes upward, and the spirit of the beast that goes

downward to the earth?” In all ages a brutish stupor has prevailed,

and, accordingly, it has made its way into the very Church; for the

Sadducees had the hardihood openly to profess that there was no

resurrection, nay, that the soul was mortal, (Mark 12: 18; Luke 20:

27.) But that this gross ignorance might be no excuse, unbelievers

have always by natural instinct had an image of the resurrection

before their eyes. For why the sacred and inviolable custom of

burying, but that it might be the earnest of a new life? Nor can it

be said that it had its origin in error, for the solemnity of

sepulture always prevailed among the holy patriarchs, and God was

pleased that the same custom should continue among the Gentiles, in

order that the image of the resurrection thus presented might shake

off their torpor. But although that ceremony was without profit, yet

it is useful to us if we prudently consider its end; because it is

no feeble refutation of infidelity that all men agreed in professing

what none of them believed. But not only did Satan stupefy the

senses of mankind, so that with their bodies they buried the

remembrance of the resurrection; but he also managed by various

fictions so to corrupt this branch of doctrine that it at length was

lost. Not to mention that even in the days of Paul he began to

assail it, (1 Cor. 15,) shortly after the Chiliasts arose, who

limited the reign of Christ to a thousand years. This fiction is too

puerile to need or to deserve refutation. Nor do they receive any

countenance from the Apocalypse, from which it is known that they

extracted a gloss for their error, (Rev. 20: 4,) since the thousand

years there mentioned refer not to the eternal blessedness of the

Church, but only to the various troubles which await the Church

militant in this world. The whole Scripture proclaims that there

will be no end either to the happiness of the elect, or the

punishment of the reprobate. Moreover, in regard to all things which

lie beyond our sight, and far transcend the reach of our intellect,

belief must either be founded on the sure oracles of God, or

altogether renounced. Those who assign only a thousand years to the

children of God to enjoy the inheritance of future life, observe not

how great an insult they offer to Christ and his kingdom. If they

are not to be clothed with immortality, then Christ himself, into

whose glory they shall be transformed, has not been received into

immortal glory; if their blessedness is to have an end, the kingdom

of Christ, on whose solid structure it rests, is temporary. In

short, they are either most ignorant of all divine things or they

maliciously aim at subverting the whole grace of God and power of

Christ, which cannot have their full effects unless sin is

obliterated, death swallowed up, and eternal life fully renewed. How

stupid and frivolous their fear that too much severity will be

ascribed to God, if the reprobate are doomed to eternal punishment,

even the blind may see. The Lord, forsooth, will be unjust if he

exclude from his kingdom those who, by their ingratitude shall have

rendered themselves unworthy of it. But their sins are temporary,

(see Bernard, Epist. 254.) I admit it; but then the majesty of God,

and also the justice which they have violated by their sins, are

eternal. Justly, therefore, the memory of their iniquity does not

perish. But in this way the punishment will exceed the measure of

the fault. It is intolerable blasphemy to hold the majesty of God in

so little estimation, as not to regard the contempt of it as of

greater consequence than the destruction of a single soul. But let

us have done with these triflers, that we may not seem (contrary to

what we first observed) to think their dreams deserving of

refutation.

6. Besides these, other two dreams have been invented by men

who indulge a wicked curiosity. Some, under the idea that the whole

man perishes, have thought that the soul will rise again with the

body; while others, admitting that spirits are immortal, hold that

they will be clothed with new bodies, and thus deny the resurrection

of the flesh. Having already adverted to the former point when

speaking of the creation of man, it will be sufficient again to

remind the reader how groveling an error it is to convert a spirit,

formed after the image of God, into an evanescent breath, which

animates the body only during this fading life, and to reduce the

temple of the Holy Spirit to nothing; in short, to rob of the badge

of immortality that part of ourselves in which the divinity is most

Refulgent and the marks of immortality conspicuous, so as to make

the condition of the body better and more excellent than that of the

soul. Very different is the course taken by Scripture, which

compares the body to a tabernacle, from which it describes us as

migrating when we die, because it estimates us by that part which

distinguishes us from the lower animals. Thus Peter, in reference to

his approaching death, says, “Knowing that shortly I must put off

this my tabernacle,” (2 Pet. 1: 14.) Paul, again, speaking of

believers, after saying, “If our earthly house of this tabernacle

were dissolved, we have a building of God,” adds, “Whilst we are at

home in the body, we are absent from the Lord,” (2 Cor. 5: 1, 6.)

Did not the soul survive the body, how could it be present with the

Lord on being separated from the body? But an Apostle removes all

doubt when he says that we go “to the spirits of just men made

perfect,” (Heb. 12: 23;) by these words meaning, that we are

associated with the holy patriarchs, who, even when dead, cultivate

the same piety, so that we cannot be the members of Christ unless we

unite with them. And did not the soul, when unclothed from the body,

retain its essence, and be capable of beatific glory, our Savior

would not have said to the thief, “Today shalt thou be with me in

paradise,” (Luke 23: 43.) Trusting to these clear proofs, let us

doubt not, after the example of our Savior, to commend our spirits

to God when we come to die, or after the example of Stephen, to

commit ourselves to the protection of Christ, who, with good reason,

is called “The Shepherd and Bishop” of our souls, (Acts 7: 59; 1

Pet. 2: 25.) Moreover, to pry curiously into their intermediate

state is neither lawful nor expedient, (see Calv. Psychopannychia.)

Many greatly torment themselves with discussing what place they

occupy, and whether or not they already enjoy celestial glory. It is

foolish and rash to inquire into hidden things, farther than God

permits us to know. Scripture, after telling that Christ is present

with them, and receives them into paradise, (John 12: 32,) and that

they are comforted, while the souls of the reprobate suffer the

torments which they have merited goes no farther. What teacher or

doctor will reveal to us what God has concealed? As to the place of

abode, the question is not less futile and inept, since we know that

the dimension of the soul is not the same as that of the body. When

the abode of blessed spirits is designated as the bosom of Abraham,

it is plain that, on quitting this pilgrimage, they are received by

the common father of the faithful, who imparts to them the fruit of

his faith. Still, since Scripture uniformly enjoins us to look with

expectation to the advent of Christ, and delays the crown of glory

till that period, let us be contented with the limits divinely

prescribed to us, viz., that the souls of the righteous, after their

warfare is ended, obtain blessed rest where in joy they wait for the

fruition of promised glory, and that thus the final result is

suspended till Christ the Redeemer appear. There can be no doubt

that the reprobate have the same doom as that which Jude assigns to

the devils, they are “reserved in everlasting chains under darkness

unto the judgment of the great day,” (Jude ver. 6.)

7. Equally monstrous is the error of those who imagine that the

soul, instead of resuming the body with which it is now clothed,

will obtain a new and different body. Nothing can be more futile

than the reason given by the Manichees, viz., that it were

incongruous for impure flesh to rise again: as if there were no

impurity in the soul; and yet this does not exclude it from the hope

of heavenly life. It is just as if they were to say, that what is

infected by the taint of sin cannot be divinely purified; for I now

say nothing to the delirious dream that flesh is naturally impure as

having been created by the devil. I only maintain, that nothing in

us at present, which is unworthy of heaven, is any obstacle to the

resurrection. But, first, Paul enjoins believers to purify

themselves from “all filthiness of the flesh and spirit,” (2 Cor. 7:

l;) and then denounces the judgment which is to follow, that every

one shall “receive the things done in his body, according to that he

has done, whether it be good or bad,” (2 Cor. 5: 10.) With this

accords what he says to the Corinthians, “That the life also of

Jesus might be made manifest in our body,” (2 Cor. 4: 10.) For which

reason he elsewhere says, “I pray God your whole spirit and soul and

body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus

Christ,” (1 Thess. 5: 23.) He says “body” as well as “spirit and

soul,” and no wonder; for it were most absurd that bodies which God

has dedicated to himself as temples should fall into corruption

without hope of resurrection. What? are they not also the members of

Christ? Does he not pray that God would sanctify every part of them,

and enjoin them to celebrate his name with their tongues, lift up

pure hands, and offer sacrifices? That part of man, therefore, which

the heavenly Judge so highly honors, what madness is it for any

mortal man to reduce to dust without hope of revival? In like

manner, when Paul exhorts, “glorify God in your body, and in your

spirit, which are God’s,” he certainly does not allow that that

which he claims for God as sacred is to be adjudged to eternal

corruption. Nor, indeed, on any subject does Scripture furnish

clearer explanation than on the resurrection of our flesh. “This

corruptible (says Paul) must put on incorruption, and this mortal

must put on immortality,” (1 Cor. 15: 53.) If God formed new bodies,

where would be this change of quality? If it were said that we must

be renewed, the ambiguity of the expression might, perhaps, afford

room for cavil; but here pointing with the finger to the bodies with

which we are clothed, and promising that they shall be

incorruptible, he very plainly affirms that no new bodies are to be

fabricated. “Nay,” as Tertullian says, “he could not have spoken

more expressly, if he had held his skin in his hands,” (Tertull. de

Resurrect. Carnis.) Nor can any cavil enable them to evade the force

of another passage, in which saying that Christ will be the Judge of

the world, he quotes from Isaiah, “As I live, saith the Lord, every

knee shall bow to me,” (Rom. 14: 11; Isa. 45: 23;) since he openly

declares that those whom he was addressing will have to give an

account of their lives. This could not be true if new bodies were to

be sisted to the tribunal. Moreover, there is no ambiguity in the

words of Daniel, “Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth

shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and

everlasting contempt,” (Dan. 12: 2;) since he does not bring new

matter from the four elements to compose men, but calls forth the

dead from their graves. And the reason which dictates this is plain.

For if death, which originated in the fall of man, is adventitious,

the renewal produced by Christ must be in the same body which began

to be mortal. And, certainly, since the Athenians mocked Paul for

asserting the resurrection, (Acts 17: 32,) we may infer what his

preaching was: their derision is of no small force to confirm our

faith. The saying of our Savior also is worthy of observation, “Fear

not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but

rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in

hell,” (Matth. 10: 28.) Here there would be no ground for fear; were

not the body which we now have liable to punishment. Nor is another

saying of our Savior less obscure, “The hour is coming, in the which

all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come

forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and

they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation,” (John

5: 28, 29.) Shall we say that the soul rests in the grave, that it

may there hear the voice of Christ, and not rather that the body

shall at his command resume the vigor which it had lost? Moreover,

if we are to receive new bodies, where will be the conformity of the

Head and the members? Christ rose again. Was it by forming for

himself a new body? Nay, he had foretold, “Destroy this temple, and

in three days I will raise it up,” (John 2: 19.) The mortal body

which he had formerly carried he again received; for it would not

have availed us much if a new body had been substituted, and that

which had been offered in expiatory sacrifice been destroyed. We

must, therefore, attend to that connection which the Apostle

celebrates, that we rise because Christ rose, (1 Cor. 15: 12;)

nothing being less probable than that the flesh in which we bear

about the dying of Christ, shall have no share in the resurrection

of Christ. This was even manifested by a striking example, when, at

the resurrection of Christ, many bodies of the saints came forth

from their graves. For it cannot be denied that this was a prelude,

or rather earnest, of the final resurrection for which we hope, such

as already existed in Enoch and Elijah, whom Tertullian calls

candidates for resurrection, because, exempted from corruption, both

in body and soul, they were received into the custody of God.

8. I am ashamed to waste so many words on so clear a matter;

but my readers will kindly submit to the annoyance, in order that

perverse and presumptuous minds may not be able to avail themselves

of any flaw to deceive the simple. The volatile spirits with whom I

now dispute adduce the fiction of their own brain, that in the

resurrection there will be a creation of new bodies. Their only

reason for thinking so is, that it seems to them incredible that a

dead body, long wasted by corruption, should return to its former

state. Therefore, mere unbelief is the parent of their opinion. The

Spirit of God, on the contrary, uniformly exhorts us in Scripture to

hope for the resurrection of our flesh. For this reason Baptism is,

according to Paul, a seal of our future resurrection; and in like

manner the holy Supper invites us confidently to expect it, when

with our mouths we receive the symbols of spiritual grace. And

certainly the whole exhortation of Paul, “Yield ye your members as

instruments of righteousness unto God,” (Rom. 6: 13,) would be

frigid, did he not add, as he does in another passage, “He that

raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal

bodies,” (Rom. 8: 11.) For what would it avail to apply feet, hands,

eyes, and tongues, to the service of God, did not these afterwards

participate in the benefit and reward? This Paul expressly confirms

when he says, “The body is not for fornication, but for the Lord;

and the Lord for the body. And God has both raised up the Lord, and

will also raise up us by his own power,” (1 Cor. 6: 13, 14.) The

words which follow are still clearer, “Know ye not that your bodies

are the members of Christ?” “Know ye not that your body is the

temple of the Holy Ghost?” (1 Cor. 6: 15, l9.) Meanwhile, we see how

he connects the resurrection with chastity and holiness, as he

shortly after includes our bodies in the purchase of redemption. It

would be inconsistent with reason, that the body, in which Paul bore

the marks of his Savior, and in which he magnificently extolled him,

(Gal. 6: 17,) should lose the reward of the crown. Hence he glories

thus, “Our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for

the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body,

that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body,” (Phil. 3: 20,

21.) As it is true, “That we must through much tribulation enter

into the kingdom of God,” (Acts 14: 22;) so it were unreasonable

that this entrance should be denied to the bodies which God

exercises under the banner of the cross and adorns with the palm of

victory.

Accordingly, the saints never entertained any doubt that they

would one day be the companions of Christ, who transfers to his own

person all the afflictions by which we are tried, that he may show

their quickening power. Nay, under the law, God trained the holy

patriarch in this belief, by means of an external ceremony. For to

what end was the rite of burial, as we have already seen, unless to

teach that new life was prepared for the bodies thus deposited?

Hence, also, the spices and other symbols of immortality, by which

under the law the obscurity of the doctrine was illustrated in the

same way as by sacrifices. That custom was not the offspring of

superstition, since we see that the Spirit is not less careful in

narrating burials than in stating the principal mysteries of the

faith. Christ commends these last offices as of no trivial

importance, (Matth. 16: 10,) and that, certainly, for no other

reason than just that they raise our eyes from the view of the tombs

which corrupts and destroys all things, to the prospect of

renovation. Besides, that careful observance of the ceremony for

which the patriarchs are praised, sufficiently proves that they

found in it a special and valuable help to their faith. Nor would

Abraham have been so anxious about the burial of his wife, (Gen. 23:

4, 19,) had not the religious views and something superior to any

worldly advantage, been present to his mind; in other words, by

adorning her dead body with the insignia of the resurrection, he

confirmed his own faith, and that of his family. A clearer proof of

this appears in the example of Jacob, who, to testify to his

posterity that even death did not destroy the hope of the promised

land, orders his bones to be carried thither. Had he been to be

clothed with a new body would it not have been ridiculous in him to

give commands concerning a dust which was to be reduced to nothing?

Wherefore, if Scripture has any authority with us, we cannot desire

a clearer or stronger proof of any doctrine. Even tyros understand

this to be the meaning of the words, resurrection, and raising up. A

thing which is created for the first time cannot be said to rise

again; nor could our Savior have said, “This is the Father’s will

which has sent me, that of all which he has given me I should lose

nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day,” (John 6:

39.) The same is implied in the word sleeping, which is applicable

only to the body. Hence, too, the name of cemetery, applied to

burying-grounds.

It remains to make a passing remark on the mode of

resurrection. I speak thus because Paul, by styling it a mystery,

exhorts us to soberness, in order that he may curb a licentious

indulgence in free and subtle speculation. First, we must hold, as

has already been observed, that the body in which we shall rise will

be the same as at present in respect of substance, but that the

quality will be different; just as the body of Christ which was

raised up was the same as that which had been offered in sacrifice,

and yet excelled in other qualities, as if it had been altogether

different. This Paul declares by familiar examples, (1 Cor. 15: 39.)

For as the flesh of man and of beasts is the same in substance, but

not in quality: as all the stars are made of the same matter, but

have different degrees of brightness: so he shows, that though we

shall retain the substance of the body, there will be a change, by

which its condition will become much more excellent. The corruptible

body, therefore, in order that we may be raised, will not perish or

vanish away, but, divested of corruption, will be clothed with

incorruption. Since God has all the elements at his disposal, no

difficulty can prevent him from commanding the earth, the fire, and

the water, to give up what they seem to have destroyed. This, also,

though not without figure, Isaiah testifies, “Behold, the Lore comes

out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their

iniquity: the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more

cover her slain,” (Isa. 26: 21.) But a distinction must be made

between those who died long ago, and those who on that day shall be

found alive. For as Paul declares, “We shall not all sleep, but we

shall all be changed,” (1 Cor. 15: 51;) that is, it will not be

necessary that a period should elapse between death and the

beginning of the second life, for in a moment of time, in the

twinkling of an eye, the trumpet shall sound, raising up the dead

incorruptible, and, by a sudden change, fitting those who are alive

for the same glory. So, in another passage, he comforts believers

who were to undergo death, telling them that those who are then

alive shall not take precedence of the dead, because those who have

fallen asleep in Christ shall rise first, (1 Thess. 4: 15.) Should

any one urge the Apostle’s declaration, “It is appointed unto all

men once to die,” (Heb. 9: 27,) the solution is easy, that when the

natural state is changed there is an appearance of death, which is

fitly so denominated, and, therefore, there is no inconsistency in

the two things, viz., that all when divested of their mortal body

shall be renewed by death; and yet that where the change is sudden,

there will be no necessary separation between the soul and the body.

9. But a more difficult question here arises, How can the

resurrection, which is a special benefit of Christ, be common to the

ungodly, who are lying under the curse of God? We know that in Adam

all died. Christ has come to be the resurrection and the life, (John

11: 25.) is it to revive the whole human race indiscriminately? But

what more incongruous than that the ungodly in their obstinate

blindness should obtain what the pious worshipers of God receive by

faith only? It is certain, therefore, that there will be one

resurrection to judgment, and another to life, and that Christ will

come to separate the kids from the goats, (Matth. 25: 32.) I

observe, that this ought not to seem very strange, seeing something

resembling it occurs every day. We know that in Adam we were

deprived of the inheritance of the whole world, and that the same

reason which excludes us from eating of the tree of life excludes us

also from common food. How comes it, then, that God not only makes

his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, but that, in regard to

the uses of the present life, his inestimable liberality is

constantly flowing forth in rich abundance? Hence we certainly

perceive, that things which are proper to Christ and his members,

abound to the wicked also; not that their possession is legitimate,

but that they may thus be rendered more inexcusable. Thus the wicked

often experience the beneficence of God, not in ordinary measures,

but such as sometimes throw all the blessings of the godly into the

shade, though they eventually lead to greater damnation. Should it

be objected, that the resurrection is not properly compared to

fading and earthly blessings, I again answer, that when the devils

were first alienated from God, the fountain of life, they deserved

to be utterly destroyed; yet, by the admirable counsel of God, an

intermediate state was prepared, where without life they might live

in death. It ought not to seem in any respect more absurd that there

is to be an adventitious resurrection of the ungodly which will drag

them against their will before the tribunal of Christ, whom they now

refuse to receive as their master and teacher. To be consumed by

death would be a light punishment were they not, in order to the

punishment of their rebellion, to be sisted before the Judge whom

they have provoked to a vengeance without measure and without end.

But although we are to hold, as already observed and as is contained

in the celebrated confession of Paul to Felix, “That there shall be

a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust,” (Acts 24:

15;) yet Scripture more frequently sets forth the resurrection as

intended, along with celestial glory, for the children of God only:

because, properly speaking, Christ comes not for the destruction,

but for the salvation of the world: and, therefore, in the Creed the

life of blessedness only is mentioned.

10. But since the prophecy that death shall be swallowed up in

victory, (Hosea 13: 14,) will then only be completed, let us always

remember that the end of the resurrection is eternal happiness, of

whose excellence scarcely the minutes part can be described by all

that human tongues can say. For though we are truly told that the

kingdom of God will be full of light, and gladness, and felicity,

and glory, yet the things meant by these words remain most remote

from sense, and as it were involved in enigma, until the day arrive

on which he will manifest his glory to us face to face, (l Cor. 15:

54.) “Now” says John, “are we the sons of God; and it does not yet

appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we

shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is,” (1 John 3: 2.)

Hence, as the prophets were unable to give a verbal description of

that spiritual blessedness, they usually delineated it by corporeal

objects. On the other hand, because the fervor of desire must be

kindled in us by some taste of its sweetness, let us specially dwell

upon this thought, If God contains in himself as an inexhaustible

fountain all fulness of blessing, those who aspire to the supreme

good and perfect happiness must not long for any thing beyond him.

This we are taught in several passages, “Fear not, Abraham; I am thy

shield, and thy exceeding great reward,” (Gen. 15: 1.) With this

accords David’s sentiment, “The Lord is the portion of mine

inheritance, and of my cup: thou maintainest my lot. The lines are

fallen unto me in pleasant places,” (Ps. 16: 5, 6.) Again, “I shall

be satisfied when I awake with thy likeness,” (Ps. 17: 15.) Peter

declares that the purpose for which believers are called is, that

they may be “partakers of the divine nature,” (2 Pet. 1: 4.) How so?

Because “he shall come to be glorified in his saints and to be

admired in all them that believe,” (2 Thess. 1: 10.) If our Lord

will share his glory, power, and righteousness, with the elect, nay,

will give himself to be enjoyed by them; and what is better still,

will, in a manner, become one with them, let us remember that every

kind of happiness is herein included. But when we have made great

progress in thus meditating, let us understand that if the

conceptions of our minds be contrasted with the sublimity of the

mystery, we are still halting at the very entrance. The more

necessary is it for us to cultivate sobriety in this matter, lest

unmindful of our feeble capacity we presume to take too lofty a

flight, and be overwhelmed by the brightness of the celestial glory.

We feel how much we are stimulated by an excessive desire of knowing

more than is given us to know, and hence frivolous and noxious

questions are ever and anon springing forth: by frivolous, I mean

questions from which no advantage can be extracted. But there is a

second class which is worse than frivolous; because those who

indulge in them involve themselves in hurtful speculations. Hence I

call them noxious. The doctrine of Scripture on the subject ought

not to be made the ground of any controversy, and it is that as God,

in the varied distribution of gifts to his saints in this world,

gives them unequal degrees of light, so when he shall crown his

gifts, their degrees of glory in heaven will also be unequal. When

Paul says, “Ye are our glory and our joy,” (2 Thess. 2: 19,) his

words do not apply indiscriminately to all; nor do those of our

Savior to his apostles, “Ye also shall sit on twelve thrones judging

the twelve tribes of Israel,” (Matth. 19: 28.) But Paul, who knew

that as God enriches the saints with spiritual gifts in this world,

he will in like manner adorn them with glory in heaven, hesitates

not to say, that a special crown is laid up for him in proportion to

his labors. Our Savior, also, to commend the dignity of the office

which he had conferred on the apostles, reminds them that the fruit

of it is laid up in heaven. This, too, Daniel says, “They that be

wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that

turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever,” (Dan.

12: 3.) Any one who attentively considers the Scriptures will see

net only that they promise eternal life to believers, but a special

reward to each. Hence the expression of Paul, “The Lord grant unto

him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day,” (2 Tim. 1: 18;

4: 14.) This is confirmed by our Savior’s promise, that they “shall

receive an hundredfold and shall inherit everlasting life,” (Matth.

19: 29.) In short, as Christ, by the manifold variety of his gifts,

begins the glory of his body in this world, and gradually increases

it, so he will complete it in heaven.

1l. While all the godly with one consent will admit this,

because it is sufficiently attested by the word of God, they will,

on the other hand, avoid perplexing questions which they feel to be

a hindrance in their way, and thus keep within the prescribed

limits. In regard to myself, I not only individually refrain from a

superfluous investigation of useless matters, but also think myself

bound to take care that 1 do not encourage the levity of others by

answering them. Men puffed up with vain science are often inquiring

how great the difference will be between prophets and apostles, and

again, between apostles and martyrs; by how many degrees virgins

will surpass those who are married; in short, they leave not a

corner of heaven untouched by their speculations. Next it occurs to

them to inquire to what end the world is to be repaired, since the

children of God will not be in want of any part of this great and

incomparable abundance, but will be like the angels, whose

abstinence from food is a symbol of eternal blessedness. I answer,

that independent of use, there will be so much pleasantness in the

very sight, so much delight in the very knowledge, that this

happiness will far surpass all the means of enjoyment which are now

afforded. Let us suppose ourselves placed in the richest quarter of

the globe, where no kind of pleasure is wanting, who is there that

is not ever and anon hindered and excluded by disease from enjoying

the gifts of God? who does not oftentimes interrupt the course of

enjoyment by intemperance? Hence it follows, that fruition, pure and

free from all defect, though it be of no use to a corruptible life,

is the summit of happiness. Others go further, and ask whether dross

and other impurities in metals will have no existence at the

restitution, and are inconsistent with it. Though I should go so far

as concede this to them, yet I expect with Paul a reparation of

those defects which first began with sin, and on account of which

the whole creation groaneth and travaileth with pain, (Rom. 8: 22.)

Others go a step further, and ask, What better condition can await

the human race, since the blessing of offspring shall then have an

end? The solution of this difficulty also is easy. When Scripture so

highly extols the blessing of offspring, it refers to the progress

by which God is constantly urging nature forward to its goal; in

perfection itself we know that the case is different. But as such

alluring speculations instantly captivate the unwary, who are

afterwards led farther into the labyrinth, until at length, every

one becoming pleased with his own views there is no limit to

disputation, the best and shortest course for us will be to rest

contented with seeing through a glass darkly until we shall see face

to face. Few out of the vast multitude of mankind feel concerned how

they are to get to heaven; all would fain know before the time what

is done in heaven. Almost all, while slow and sluggish in entering

upon the contest, are already depicting to themselves imaginary

triumphs.

12. Moreover, as language cannot describe the severity of the

divine vengeance on the reprobate, their pains and torments are

figured to us by corporeal things, such as darkness, wailing and

gnashing of teeth, inextinguishable fire, the ever-gnawing worm,

(Matth. 8: 12; 22: 13; Mark 9: 43; Isa. 66: 24.) It is certain that

by such modes of expression the Holy Spirit designed to impress all

our senses with dread, as when it is said, “Tophet is ordained of

old; yea, for the king it is prepared: he has made it deep and

large; the pile thereof is fire and much wood; the breath of the

Lord, like a stream of brimstone, does kindle it,” (Isa. 30: 33.) As

we thus require to be assisted to conceive the miserable doom of the

reprobate, so the consideration on which we ought chiefly to dwell

is the fearful consequence of being estranged from all fellowship

with God, and not only so, but of feeling that his majesty is

adverse to us, while we cannot possibly escape from it. For, first,

his indignation is like a raging fire, by whose touch all things are

devoured and annihilated. Next, all the creatures are the

instruments of his judgment, so that those to whom the Lord will

thus publicly manifest his anger will feel that heaven, and earth,

and sea, all beings, animate and inanimate, are, as it were,

inflamed with dire indignation against them, and armed for their

destruction. Wherefore, the Apostle made no trivial declaration,

when he said that unbelievers shall be “punished with everlasting

destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his

power,” (2 Thess. 1: 9.) And whenever the prophets strike terror by

means of corporeal figures, although in respect of our dull

understanding there is no extravagance in their language, yet they

give preludes of the future judgment in the sun and the moon, and

the whole fabric of the world. Hence unhappy consciences find no

rest, but are vexed and driven about by a dire whirlwind, feeling as

if torn by an angry God, pierced through with deadly darts,

terrified by his thunderbolts and crushed by the weight of his hand;

so that it were easier to plunge into abysses and whirlpools than

endure these terrors for a moment. How fearful, then, must it be to

be thus beset throughout eternity! On this subject there is a

memorable passage in the ninetieth Psalm: Although God by a mere

look scatters all mortals, and brings them to nought, yet as his

worshippers are more timid in this world, he urges them the more,

that he may stimulate then, while burdened with the cross to press

onward until he himself shall be all in all.

BOOK 4. THE EXTERNAL MEANS OR AIDS BY WHICH GOD INVITES US INTO THE SOCIETY OF CHRIST AND HOLDS US THEREIN.

CHAPTER 1. THE TRUE CHURCH WITH WHICH AS MOTHER OF ALL THE GODLY WE MUST KEEP UNITY.

The three divisions of this chapter are,

I. The article of the Creed concerning the Holy Catholic Church and the Communion of Saints briefly expounded. The grounds on which the Church claims our reverence, sec. 1-6.

II. Of the marks of the Church, sec. 7-9.

III. The necessity of cleaving to the holy Catholic Church and the Communion of Saints. Refutation of the errors of the Novatians, Anabaptists, and other schismatics, in regard to this matter, sec. 10-29.

Sections.

1. The Church now to be considered. With her God has deposited whatever is necessary to faith and good order. A summary of what is contained in this Book. Why it begins with the Church.

2. In what sense the article of the Creed concerning the Church is to be understood. Why we should say, “I believe the Church,” not “I believe in the Church.” The purport of this article. Why the Church is called Catholic or Universal.

3. What meant by the Communion of Saints. Whether it is inconsistent with various gifts in the saints, or with civil order. Uses of this article concerning the Church and the Communion of Saints. Must the Church be visible in order to our maintaining unity with her?

4. The name of Mother given to the Church shows how necessary it is to know her. No salvation out of the Church.

5. The Church is our mother, inasmuch as God has committed to her the kind office of bringing us up in the faith until we attain full age. This method of education not to be despised. Useful to us in two ways. This utility destroyed by those who despise the pastors and teachers of the Church. The petulance of such despisers repressed by reason and Scripture. For this education of the Church her children enjoined to meet in the sanctuary. The abuse of churches both before and since the advent of Christ. Their proper use.

6. Her ministry effectual, but not without the Spirit of God. Passages in proof of this.

7. Second part of the Chapter. Concerning the marks of the Church. In what respect the Church is invisible. In what respect she is visible.

8. God alone knoweth them that are his. Still he has given marks to discern his children.

9. These marks are the ministry of the word, and administration of the sacraments instituted by Christ. The same rule not to be followed in judging of individuals and of churches.

10. We must on no account forsake the Church distinguished by such marks. Those who act otherwise are apostates, deserters of the truth and of the household of God, deniers of God and Christ, violators of the mystical marriage.

11. These marks to be the more carefully observed, because Satan strives to efface them, or to make us revolt from the Church. The twofold error of despising the true, and submitting to a false Church.

12. Though the common profession should contain some corruption, this is not a sufficient reason for forsaking the visible Church. Some of these corruptions specified. Caution necessary. The duty of the members.

13. The immoral lives of certain professors no ground for abandoning the Church. Error on this head of the ancient and modern Cathari. Their first objection. Answer to it from three of our Saviour’s parables.

14. Second objection. Answer from a consideration of the state of the Corinthian Church, and the Churches of Galatia.

15. Third objection and answer.

16. The origin of these objections. A description of Schismatics. Their portraiture by Augustine. A pious counsel respecting these scandals and a safe remedy against them.

17. fourth objection and answer. Answer confirmed by the divine promises.

18. Another confirmation from the example of Christ and of the faithful servants of God. The appearance of the Church in the days of the prophets.

19. Appearance of the Church in the days of Christ and the apostles, and their immediate followers.

20. Fifth objection. Answer to the ancient and modern Cathari, and to the Novatians, concerning the forgiveness of sins.

21. Answer to the fifth objection continued. By the forgiveness of sins believers are enabled to remain perpetually in the Church.

22. The keys of the Church given for the express purpose of securing this benefit. A summary of the answer to the fifth objection.

23. Sixth objection, formerly advanced by the Novatians, and renewed by the Anabaptists. This error confuted by the Lord’s Prayer.

24. A second answer, founded on some examples under the Old Testament.

25. A third answer, confirmed by passages from Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Solomon. A fourth answer, derived from sacrifices.

26. A fifth answer, from the New Testament. Some special examples.

27. General examples. A celebrated passage. The arrangement of the Creed.

28. Objection, that voluntary transgression excludes from the Church.

29. Last objection of the Novatians, founded on the solemn renewal of repentance required by the Church for more heinous offences. Answer.

(The Holy Catholic Church, our mother, 1-4)

1.The Necessity of the church

In the last Book, it has been shown that by the faith of the gospel Christ becomes ours, and we are made partakers of the salvation and eternal blessedness procured by him. But as our ignorance and sloth (I may add, the vanity of our mind) stand in need of external helps, by which faith may be begotten in us, and may increase and make progress until its consummation, God, in accommodation to our infirmity has added much helps, and secured the effectual preaching of the gospel, by depositing this treasure with the Church. He has appointed pastors and teachers, by whose lips he might edify his people, (Eph. 4: 11;) he has invested them with authority, and, in short, omitted nothing that might conduce to holy consent in the faith, and to right order. In particular, he has instituted sacraments, which we feel by experience to be most useful helps in fostering and confirming our faith. For seeing we are shut up in the prison of the body, and have not yet attained to the rank of angels, God, in accommodation to our capacity, has in his admirable providence provided a method by which, though widely separated, we might still draw near to him.

Wherefore, due order requires that we first treat of the Church, of its Government, Orders, and Power; next, of the Sacraments; and, lastly, of Civil Government;—at the same time guarding pious readers against the corruptions of the Papacy, by which Satan has adulterated all that God had appointed for our salvation.

I will begin with the Church, into whose bosom God is pleased to collect his children, not only that by her aid and ministry they may be nourished so long as they are babes and children, but may also be guided by her maternal care until they grow up to manhood, and, finally, attain to the perfection of faith. What God has thus joined let not man put asunder (Mark 10: 9:) to those to whom he is a Father, the Church must also be a mother. This was true not merely under the Law, but even now after the advent of Christ; since Paul declares that we are the children of a new, even a heavenly Jerusalem, (Gal. 4: 26.)

2.What is the relatioship of church and creed?

When in the Creed we profess to believe the Church, reference is made not only to the visible Church of which we are now treating, but also to all the elect of God, including in the number even those who have departed this life. And, accordingly, the word used is “believe,” because oftentimes no difference can be observed between the children of God and the profane, between his proper flock and the untamed herd. The particle “in” is often interpolated, but without any probable ground. I confess, indeed, that it is the more usual form, and is not unsupported by antiquity, since the Nicene Creed, as quoted in Ecclesiastical History, adds the preposition. At the same time, we may perceive from early writers, that the expression received without controversy in ancient times was to believe “the Church,” and not “in the Church.” This is not only the expression used by Augustine, and that ancient writer, whoever he may have been, whose treatise, De Symboli Expositione, is extant under the name of Cyprian, but they distinctly remark that the addition of the preposition would make the expression improper, and they give good grounds for so thinking. We declare that we believe in God, both because our mind reclines upon him as true, and our confidence is fully satisfied in him. This cannot be said of the Church, just as it cannot be said of the forgiveness of sins, or the resurrection of the body. Wherefore, although I am unwilling to dispute about words, yet I would rather keep to the proper form, as better fitted to express the thing that is meant, than affect terms by which the meaning is ceaselessly obscured.

The object of the expression is to teach us, that though the devil leaves no stone unturned in order to destroy the grace of Christ, and the enemies of God rush with insane violence in the same direction, it cannot be extinguished,—the blood of Christ cannot be rendered barren, and prevented from producing fruit. Hence, regard must be had both to the secret election and to the internal calling of God, because he alone “knoweth them that are his,” (2 Tim. 2: 19;) and as Paul expresses it, holds them as it were enclosed under his seal (Eph.1:13), although, at the same time, they wear his insignia, and are thus distinguished from the reprobate. But as they are a small and despised number, concealed in an immense crowd, like a few grains of wheat buried among a heap of chaff, to God alone must be left the knowledge of his Church, of which his secret election forms the foundation. Nor is it enough to embrace the number of the elect in thought and intention merely. By the unity of the Church we must understand an unity into which we feel persuaded that we are truly ingrafted. For unless we are united with all the other members under Christ our head, no hope of the future inheritance awaits us.

Hence the Church is called Catholic or Universal, (August. Ep. 48,) for two or three cannot be invented without dividing Christ; and this is impossible. All the elect of God are so joined together in Christ, that as they depend on one head, so they are as it were compacted into one body, being knit together like its different members; made truly one by living together under the same Spirit of God in one faith, hope, and charity, called not only to the same inheritance of eternal life, but to participation in one God and Christ. For although the sad devastation which everywhere meets our view may proclaim that no Church remains, let us know that the death of Christ produces fruit, and that God wondrously preserves his Church, while placing it as it were in concealment. Thus it was said to Elijah, “Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel,” (1 Kings 19: 18.)

3."The communion of saints”

Moreover this article of the Creed relates in some measure to the external Church, that every one of us must maintain brotherly concord with all the children of God, give due authority to the Church, and, in short, conduct ourselves as sheep of the flock. And hence the additional expression, the “communion of saints;” for this clause, though usually omitted by ancient writers, must not be overlooked, as it admirably expresses the quality of the Church; just as if it had been said, that saints are united in the fellowship of Christ on this condition, that all the blessings which God bestows upon them are mutually communicated to each other. This, however, is not incompatible with a diversity of graces, for we know that the gifts of the Spirit are variously distributed; nor is it incompatible with civil order, by which each is permitted privately to possess his own means, it being necessary for the preservation of peace among men that distinct rights of property should exist among them. Still a community is asserted, such as Luke describes when he says, “The multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul,” (Acts 4: 32;) and Paul, when he reminds the Ephesians, “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling,” (Eph. 4: 4.) For if they are truly persuaded that God is the common Father of them all, and Christ their common head, they cannot but be united together in brotherly love, and mutually impart their blessings to each other.

Then it is of the highest importance for us to know what benefit thence redounds to us. For when we believe the Church, it is in order that we may be firmly persuaded that we are its members. In this way our salvation rests on a foundation so firm and sure, that though the whole fabric of the world were to give way, it could not be destroyed. First, it stands with the election of God, and cannot change or fail, any more than his eternal providence. Next, it is in a manner united with the stability of Christ, who will no more allow his faithful followers to be dissevered from him, than he would allow his own members to be torn to pieces. We may add, that so long as we continue in the bosom of the Church, we are sure that the truth will remain with us.

Lastly, we feel that we have an interest in such promises as these, “In Mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance,” (Joel 2: 32; Obad. 17;) “God is in the midst of her, she shall not be moved,” (Ps. 46: 5.) So available is communion with the Church to keep us in the fellowship of God. In the very term, communion, there is great consolation; because, while we are assured that every thing which God bestows on his members belongs to us, all the blessings conferred upon them confirm our hope.

But in order to embrace the unity of the Church in this manner, it is not necessary, as I have observed, to see it with our eyes, or feel it with our hands. Nay, rather from its being placed in faith, we are reminded that our thoughts are to dwell upon it, as much when it escapes our perception as when it openly appears. Nor is our faith the worse for apprehending what is unknown, since we are not enjoined here to distinguish between the elect and the reprobate, (this belongs not to us, but to God only,) but to feel firmly assured in our minds, that all those who, by the mercy of God the Father, through the efficacy of the Holy Spirit, have become partakers with Christ, are set apart as the proper and peculiar possession of God, and that as we are of the number, we are also partakers of this great grace.

4.The visible church as mother of believers

But as it is now our purpose to discourse of the visible Church, let us learn, from her single title of Mother, how useful, nay, how necessary the knowledge of her is, since there is no other means of entering into life unless she conceive us in the womb and give us birth, unless she nourish us at her breasts, and, in short, keep us under her charge and government, until, divested of mortal flesh, we become like the angels, (Matth. 22: 30.) For our weakness does not permit us to leave the school until we have spent our whole lives as scholars. Moreover, beyond the pale of the Church no forgiveness of sins, no salvation, can be hoped for, as Isaiah and Joel testify, (Isa. 37: 32; Joel 2: 32.) To their testimony Ezekiel subscribes, when he declares, “They shall not be in the assembly of my people, neither shall they be written in the writing of the house of Israel,” (Ezek. 13: 9;) as, on the other hand, those who turn to the cultivation of true piety are said to inscribe their names among the citizens of Jerusalem. For which reason it is said in the psalm, “Remember me, O Lord, with the favour that thou bearest unto thy people: O visit me with thy salvation; that I may see the good of thy chosen, that I may rejoice in the gladness of thy nation, that I may glory with thine inheritance,” (Ps. 106: 4, 6.) By these words the paternal favour of God and the special evidence of spiritual life are confined to his peculiar people, and hence the abandonment of the Church is always fatal.

(Her ministers, speaking for God, not to be despised, 5-6)

5. Education through the church, its value and its obligation

But let us proceed to a full exposition of this view. Paul says that our Saviour “ascended far above all heavens, that he might fill all things. And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ,” (Eph. 4: 10-13.) We see that God, who might perfect his people in a moment, chooses not to bring them to manhood in any other way than by the education of the Church. We see the mode of doing it expressed; the preaching of celestial doctrine is committed to pastors. We see that all without exception are brought into the same order, that they may with meek and docile spirit allow themselves to be governed by teachers appointed for this purpose. Isaiah had long before given this as the characteristic of the kingdom of Christ, “My Spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever,” (Isa. 59: 21.) Hence it follows, that all who reject the spiritual food of the soul divinely offered to them by the hands of the Church, deserve to perish of hunger and famine. God inspires us with faith, but it is by the instrumentality of his gospel, as Paul reminds us, “Faith comes by hearing,” (Rom. 10: 17.) God reserves to himself the power of maintaining it, but it is by the preaching of the gospel, as Paul also declares, that he brings it forth and unfolds it.

With this view, it pleased him in ancient times that sacred meetings should be held in the sanctuary, that consent in faith might be nourished by doctrine proceeding from the lips of the priest. Those magnificent titles, as when the temple is called God’s rest, his sanctuary, his habitation, and when he is said to dwell between the cherubim, (Ps. 132: 13, 14; 80: 1,) are used for no other purpose than to procure respect, love, reverence, and dignity to the ministry of heavenly doctrine, to which otherwise the appearance of an insignificant human being might be in no slight degree derogatory. Therefore, to teach us that the treasure offered to us in earthen vessels is of inestimable value, (2 Cor. 4: 7,) God himself appears, and as the author of this ordinance requires his presence to be recognised in his own institution.

Accordingly, after forbidding his people to give heed to familiar spirits, wizards, and other superstitions, (Lev. 19: 30, 31,) he adds, that he will give what ought to be sufficient for all, namely, that he will never leave them without prophets. For, as he did not commit his ancient people to angels, but raised up teachers on the earth to perform a truly angelical office, so he is pleased to instruct us in the present day by human means. But as anciently he did not confine himself to the law merely, but added priests as interpreters, from whose lips the people might inquire after his true meaning, so in the present day he would not only have us to be attentive to reading, but has appointed masters to give us their assistance. In this there is a twofold advantage. For, on the one hand, he by an admirable test proves our obedience when we listen to his ministers just as we would to himself; while, on the other hand, he consults our weakness in being pleased to address us after the manner of men by means of interpreters, that he may thus allure us to himself, instead of driving us away by his thunder. How well this familiar mode of teaching is suited to us all the godly are aware, from the dread with which the divine majesty justly inspires them.

Those who think that the authority of the doctrine is impaired by the insignificance of the men who are called to teach betray their ingratitude; for among the many noble endowments with which God has adorned the human race, one of the most remarkable is, that he deigns to consecrate the mouths and tongues of men to his service, making his own voice to be heard in them. Wherefore, let us not on our part decline obediently to embrace the doctrine of salvation, delivered by his command and mouth; because, although the power of God is not confined to external means, he has, however, confined us to his ordinary method of teaching, which method, when fanatics refuse to observe, they entangle themselves in many fatal snares. Pride, or fastidiousness, or emulation, induces many to persuade themselves that they can profit sufficiently by reading and meditating in private, and thus to despise public meetings, and deem preaching superfluous. But since as much as in them lies they loose or burst the sacred bond of unity, none of them escapes the just punishment of this impious divorce, but become fascinated with pestiferous errors, and the foulest delusions. Wherefore, in order that the pure simplicity of the faith may flourish among us, let us not decline to use this exercise of piety, which God by his institution of it has shown to be necessary, and which he so highly recommends. None, even among the most petulant of men, would venture to say, that we are to shut our ears against God, but in all ages prophets and pious teachers have had a difficult contest to maintain with the ungodly, whose perverseness cannot submit to the yoke of being taught by the lips and ministry of men. This is just the same as if they were to destroy the impress of God as exhibited to us in doctrine. For no other reason were believers anciently enjoined to seek the face of God in the sanctuary, (Ps. 105: 4,) (an injunction so often repeated in the Law,) than because the doctrine of the Law, and the exhortations of the prophets, were to them a living image of God. Thus Paul declares that in his preaching the glory of God shone in the face of Jesus Christ, (2 Cor. 4: 6.)

The more detestable are the apostates who delight in producing schisms in churches, just as if they wished to drive the sheep from the fold, and throw them into the jaws of wolves. Let us hold, agreeably to the passage we quoted from Paul, that the Church can only be edified by external preaching, and that there is no other bond by which the saints can be kept together than by uniting with one consent to observe the order which God has appointed in his Church for learning and making progress. For this end, especially, as I have observed, believers were anciently enjoined under the Law to flock together to the sanctuary; for when Moses speaks of the habitation of God, he at the same time calls it the place of the name of God, the place where he will record his name, (Exod. 20: 24;) thus plainly teaching that no use could be made of it without the doctrine of godliness. And there can be no doubt that, for the same reason, David complains with great bitterness of soul, that by the tyrannical cruelty of his enemies he was prevented from entering the tabernacle, (Psalm 89.) To many the complaint seems childish, as if no great loss were sustained, not much pleasure lost, by exclusion from the temple, provided other amusements were enjoyed. David, however, laments this one deprivation, as filling him with anxiety and sadness, tormenting, and almost destroying him. This he does because there is nothing on which believers set a higher value than on this aid, by which God gradually raises his people to heaven.

For it is to be observed, that he always exhibited himself to the holy patriarchs in the mirror of his doctrine in such a way as to make their knowledge spiritual. Whence the temple is not only styled his face, but also, for the purpose of removing all superstition, is termed his footstool, (Psalm 132: 7; 99: 5.) Herein is the unity of the faith happily realised, when all, from the highest to the lowest, aspire to the head. All the temples which the Gentiles built to God with a different intention were a mere profanation of his worship,—a profanation into which the Jews also fell, though not with equal grossness. With this Stephen upbraids them in the words of Isaiah when he says, “Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the Prophet, Heaven is my throne,” &c., (Acts 7: 48.) For God only consecrates temples to their legitimate use by his word. And when we rashly attempt anything without his order, immediately setting out from a bad principle, we introduce adventitious fictions, by which evil is propagated without measure.

It was inconsiderate in Xerxes when, by the advice of the magians, he burnt or pulled down all the temples of Greece, because he thought it absurd that God, to whom all things ought to be free and open, should be enclosed by walls and roofs, as if it were not in the power of God in a manner to descend to us, that he may be near to us, and yet neither change his place nor affect us by earthly means, but rather, by a kind of vehicles, raise us aloft to his own heavenly glory, which, with its immensity, fills all things, and in height is above the heavens.

6.Meaning and limits of the ministry

Moreover, as at this time there is a great dispute as to the efficacy of the ministry, some extravagantly overrating its dignity, and others erroneously maintaining, that what is peculiar to the Spirit of God is transferred to mortal man, when we suppose that ministers and teachers penetrate to the mind and heart, so as to correct the blindness of the one, and the hardness of the other; it is necessary to place this controversy on its proper footing.

The arguments on both sides will be disposed of without trouble, by distinctly attending to (1) the passages in which God, the author of preaching, connects his Spirit with it, and then promises a beneficial result; or (2), on the other hand, to the passages in which God, separating himself from external means, claims for himself alone both the commencement and the whole course of faith.

(1) The office of the second Elias was, as Malachi declares, to “turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers” (Mal. 4: 6.) Christ declares that he sent the Apostles to produce fruit from his labours, (John 15: 16.) What this fruit is Peter briefly defines, when he says that we are begotten again of incorruptible seed, (1 Pet. 1: 23.) Hence Paul glories, that by means of the Gospel he had begotten the Corinthians, who were the seals of his apostleship, (1 Cor. 4: 15;) moreover, that his was not a ministry of the letter, which only sounded in the ear, but that the effectual agency of the Spirit was given to him, in order that his doctrine might not be in vain, (1 Cor. 9: 2; 2 Cor. 3: 6.) In this sense he elsewhere declares that his Gospel was not in word, but in power, (1 Thess. 1: 5.) He also affirms that the Galatians received the Spirit by the hearing of faith, (Gal. 3: 2.) In short, in several passages he not only makes himself a fellow-worker with God, but attributes to himself the province of bestowing salvation, (1 Cor. 3: 9.)

(2) All these things he certainly never uttered with the view of attributing to himself one iota apart from God, as he elsewhere briefly explains. “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but (as it is in truth) the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe,” (1 Thess. 2: 13.) Again, in another place, “He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles,” (Gal. 2: 8.) And that he allows no more to ministers, is obvious from other passages. “So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase,” (1 Cor. 3: 7.) Again, “I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me,” (1 Cor. 15: ]0.) And it is indeed necessary to keep these sentences in view, since God, in ascribing to himself the illumination of the mind and renewal of the heart, reminds us that it is sacrilege for man to claim any part of either to himself.

Still every one who listens with docility to the ministers whom God appoints, will know by the beneficial result, that for good reason God is pleased with this method of teaching, and for good reason has laid believers under this modest yoke.

(The visible church: its membership and the marks by which it is recognized, 7-9)

7. Invisible and visible church

The judgement which ought to be formed concerning the visible Church which comes under our observation, must, I think, be sufficiently clear from what has been said. I have observed that the Scriptures speak of the Church in two ways. Sometimes when they speak of the Church they mean the Church as it really is before God - the Church into which none are admitted but those who by the gift of adoption are sons of God, and by the sanctification of the Spirit true members of Christ. In this case it not only comprehends the saints who dwell on the earth, but all the elect who have existed from the beginning of the world. Often, too, by the name of Church is designated the whole body of mankind scattered throughout the world, who profess to worship one God and Christ, who by baptism are initiated into the faith; by partaking of the Lord’s Supper profess unity in true doctrine and charity, agree in holding the word of the Lord, and observe the ministry which Christ has appointed for the preaching of it. In this Church there is a very large mixture of hypocrites, who have nothing of Christ but the name and outward appearance: of ambitious avaricious, envious, evil-speaking men, some also of impure lives, who are tolerated for a time, either because their guilt cannot be legally established, or because due strictness of discipline is not always observed.

Hence, as it is necessary to believe the invisible Church, which is manifest to the eye of God only, so we are also enjoined to regard this Church which is so called with reference to man, and to cultivate its communion.

8. The limitation of our judgment

Accordingly, inasmuch as it was of importance to us to recognise it, the Lord has distinguished it by certain marks, and as it were symbols. It is, indeed, the special prerogative of God to know those who are his, as Paul declares in the passage already quoted, (2 Tim. 2: 19.) And doubtless it has been so provided as a check on human rashness the experience of every day reminding us how far his secret judgements surpass our apprehension. For even those who seemed most abandoned, and who had been completely despaired of, are by his goodness recalled to life, while those who seemed most stable often fall. Hence, as Augustine says, “In regard to the secret predestination of God, there are very many sheep without, and very many wolves within,” (August. Hom. in Joan. 45.) For he knows, and has his mark on those who know neither him nor themselves. Of those again who openly bear his badge, his eyes alone see who of them are unfeignedly holy, and will persevere even to the end (Matt.24:13) , which alone is the completion of salvation.

On the other hand, foreseeing that it was in some degree expedient for us to know who are to be regarded by us as his sons, he has in this matter accommodated himself to our capacity. But as here full certainty was not necessary, he has in its place substituted the judgement of charity, by which we acknowledge all as members of the Church who by confession of faith, regularity of conduct, and participation in the sacraments, unite with us in acknowledging the same God and Christ.

The knowledge of his body, inasmuch as he knew it to be more necessary for our salvation, he has made known to us by surer marks.

9. The marks of the church and our application of them to judgment

Hence the form of the Church appears and stands forth conspicuous to our view. Wherever we see the word of God sincerely preached and heard, wherever we see the sacraments administered according to the institution of Christ, there we cannot have any doubt that the Church of God has some existence, since his promise cannot fail, “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them,” (Matth. 18: 20.)

But that we may have a clear summary of this subject, we must proceed by the following steps:—The Church universal is the multitude collected out of all nations, who, though dispersed and far distant from each other, agree in one truth of divine doctrines and are bound together by the tie of a common religion. In this way it comprehends single churches, which exist in different towns and villages, according to the wants of human society, so that each of them justly obtains the name and authority of the Church; and also comprehends single individuals, who by a religious profession are accounted to belong to such churches, although they are in fact aliens from the Church, but have not been cut off by a public decision.

There is, however, a slight difference in the mode of judging of individuals and of churches. For it may happen in practice that those whom we deem not altogether worthy of the fellowship of believers, we yet ought to treat as brethren and regard as believers on account of the common consent of the Church in tolerating and bearing with them in the body of Christ. Such persons we do not approve by our suffrage as members of the Church, but we leave them the place which they hold among the people of God, until they are legitimately deprived of it.

With regard to the general body we must feel differently; if they have the ministry of the word, and honour the administration of the sacraments, they are undoubtedly entitled to be ranked with the Church, because it is certain that these things are not without a beneficial result. Thus we both maintain the Church universal in its unity, which malignant minds have always been eager to dissever, and deny not due authority to lawful assemblies distributed as circumstances require.

(A church with these marks, however defective, is not to be forsaken: the sin of schism, 10-16)

10. Marks and authority of the church

We have said that the symbols by which the Church is discerned are the preaching of the word and the observance of the sacraments, for these cannot any where exist without producing fruit and prospering by the blessing of God. I say not that wherever the word is preached fruit immediately appears; but that in every place where it is received, and has a fixed abode, it uniformly displays its efficacy. Be this as it may, when the preaching of the gospel is reverently heard, and the sacraments are not neglected, there for the time the face of the Church appears without deception or ambiguity; and no man may with impunity spurn her authority, or reject her admonitions, or resist her counsels, or make sport of her censures, far less revolt from her, and violate her unity, (see Chap. 2 sec. 1, 10, and Chap. 3. sec. 12.) For such is the value which the Lord sets on the communion of his Church, that all who contumaciously alienate themselves from any Christian society, in which the true ministry of his word and sacraments is maintained, he regards as deserters of religion. So highly does he recommend her authority, that when it is violated he considers that his own authority is impaired.

For there is no small weight in the designation given to her, “the house of God,” “the pillar and ground of the truth,” (1 Tim. 3: 15.) By these words Paul intimates, that to prevent the truth from perishing in the world, the Church is its faithful guardian, because God has been pleased to preserve the pure preaching of his word by her instrumentality, and to exhibit himself to us as a parent while he feeds us with spiritual nourishment, and provides whatever is conducive to our salvation. Moreover, no mean praise is conferred on the Church when she is said to have been chosen and set apart by Christ as his spouse, “not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing,” (Eph. 5: 27,) as “his body, the fulness of him that fillets all in all,” (Eph. 1: 23.) Whence it follows, that revolt from the Church is denial of God and Christ. Wherefore there is the more necessity to beware of a dissent so iniquitous; for seeing by it we aim as far as in us lies at the destruction of God’s truth, we deserve to be crushed by the full thunder of his anger. No crime can be imagined more atrocious than that of sacrilegiously and perfidiously violating the sacred marriage which the only begotten Son of God has condescended to contract with us.

11. The inviolable validity of the marks

Wherefore let these marks be carefully impressed upon our minds, and let us estimate them as in the sight of the Lord. There is nothing on which Satan is more intent than to destroy and efface one or both of them—at one time to delete and abolish these marks, and thereby destroy the true and genuine distinction of the Church; at another, to bring them into contempt, and so hurry us into open revolt from the Church. To his wiles it was owing that for several ages the pure preaching of the word disappeared, and now, with the same dishonest aim, he labours to overthrow the ministry, which, however, Christ has so ordered in his Church, that if it is removed the whole edifice must fall. How perilous, then, nay, how fatal the temptation, when we even entertain a thought of separating ourselves from that assembly in which are beheld the signs and badges which the Lord has deemed sufficient to characterise his Church! We see how great caution should be employed in both respects. That we may not be imposed upon by the name of Church, every congregation which claims the name must be brought to that test as to a Lydian stone. If it holds the order instituted by the Lord in word and sacraments there will be no deception; we may safely pay it the honour due to a church: on the other hand, if it exhibit itself without word and sacraments we must in this case be no less careful to avoid the imposture than we were to shun pride and presumption in the other.

12. Heeding the marks guards against capricious separation

When we say that the pure ministry of the word and pure celebration of the sacraments is a fit pledge and earnest, so that we may safely recognise a church in every society in which both exists our meaning is that we are never to discard it so-long as these remain, though it may otherwise teem with numerous faults.

Nay, even in the administration of word and Sacraments defects may creep in which ought not to alienate us from its communion. For all the heads of true doctrine are not in the same position. Some are so necessary to be known, that all must hold them to be fixed and undoubted as the proper essentials of religion: for instance, that God is one, that Christ is God, and the Son of God, that our salvation depends on the mercy of God, and the like. Others, again, which are the subject of controversy among the churches, do not destroy the unity of the faith ; for why should it be regarded as a ground of dissension between churches, if one, without any spirit of contention or perverseness in dogmatising, hold that the soul on quitting the body flies to heaven, and another, without venturing to speak positively as to the abode, holds it for certain that it lives with the Lord? The words of the apostle are, “Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you,” (Phil. 3: 15.) Does he not sufficiently intimate that a difference of opinion as to these matters which are not absolutely necessary, ought not to be a ground of dissension among Christians? The best thing, indeed, is to be perfectly agreed, but seeing there is no man who is not involved in some mist of ignorance, we must either have no church at all or pardon delusion in those things of which one may be ignorant, without violating the substance of religion and forfeiting salvation.

Here, however, I have no wish to patronise even the minutest errors, as if I thought it right to foster them by flattery or connivance; what I say is, that we are not on account of every minute difference to abandon a church, provided it retain sound and unimpaired that doctrine in which the safety of piety consists, and keep the use of the sacraments instituted by the Lord. Meanwhile, if we strive to reform what is offensive, we act in the discharge of duty. To this effect are the words of Paul, “If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace,” (1 Cor. 14: 30.) From this it is evident that to each member of the Church, according to his measure of grace, the study of public edification has been assigned, provided it be done decently and in order. In other words, we must neither renounce the communion of the Church, nor, continuing in it, disturb peace and discipline when duly arranged.

13. Scandal in the church no occasion for leaving it

Our indulgence ought to extend much farther in tolerating imperfection of conduct. Here there is great danger of falling, and Satan employs all his machinations to ensnare us. For there always have been persons who, imbued with a false persuasion of absolute holiness, as if they had already become a kind of aerial spirits, spurn the society of all in whom they see that something human still remains. Such of old were the Cathari and the Donatists, who were similarly infatuated. Such in the present day are some of the Anabaptists, who would be thought to have made superior progress.

Others, again, sin in this respect, not so much from that insane pride as from inconsiderate zeal. Seeing that among those to whom the gospel is preached, the fruit produced is not in accordance with the doctrine, they forthwith conclude that there no church exists. The offence is indeed well founded, and it is one to which in this most unhappy age we give far too much occasion. It is impossible to excuse our accursed sluggishness, which the Lord will not leave unpunished, as he is already beginning sharply to chastise us. Woe then to us who, by our dissolute license of wickedness, cause weak consciences to be wounded! Still those of whom we have spoken sin in their turn, by not knowing how to set bounds to their offence. For where the Lord requires mercy they omit it, and give themselves up to immoderate severity. Thinking there is no church where there is not complete purity and integrity of conduct, they, through hatred of wickedness, withdraw from a genuine church, while they think they are shunning the company of the ungodly.

They allege that the Church of God is holy (Eph.5:26). But that they may at the same time understand that it contains a mixture of good and bad, let them hear from the lips of our Saviour that parable in which he compares the Church to a net in which all kinds of fishes are taken, but not separated until they are brought ashore. Let them hear it compared to a field which planted with good seed, is by the fraud of an enemy mingled with tares, and is not freed of them until the harvest is brought into the barn. Let them hear, in fine, that it is a thrashing floor in which the collected wheat lies concealed under the chaff, until, cleansed by the fanners and the sieve, it is at length laid up in the granary. If the Lord declares that the Church will labour under the defect of being burdened with a multitude of wicked until the day of judgement, it is in vain to look for a church altogether free from blemish, (Math. 13.)

14. Paul and the needs of his congregations

They exclaim that it is impossible to tolerate the vice which everywhere stalks abroad like a pestilence. What if the apostle’s sentiment applies here also? Among the Corinthians it was not a few that erred, but almost the whole body had become tainted; there was not one species of sin merely, but a multitude, and those not trivial errors but some of them execrable crimes. There was not only corruption in manners, but also in doctrine. What course was taken by the holy apostle, in other words, by the organ of the heavenly Spirit, by whose testimony the Church stands and falls? Does he seek separation from them? Does he discard them from the kingdom of Christ? Does he strike them with the thunder of a final anathema? He not only does none of these things, but he acknowledges and heralds them as a Church of Christ, and a society of saints. If the Church remains among the Corinthians, where envyings, divisions, and contentions rage; where quarrels, lawsuits and avarice prevail; where a crime, which even the gentiles would execrate, is openly approved; where the name of Paul, whom they ought to have honoured as a father, is petulantly assailed; where some hold the resurrection of the dead in derision, though with it the whole gospel must fall; where the gifts of God are made subservient to ambition, not to charity; where many things are done neither decently nor in order. If there the Church still remains, simply because the ministration of word and sacrament is not rejected, who will presume to deny the title of church to those to whom a tenth part of these crimes cannot be imputed? How, I ask, would those who act so morosely against present churches have acted to the Galatians, who had done all but abandon the gospel, (Gal. 1: 2,) and yet among them the same apostle found churches?

15. Fellowship with wicked persons

They also object, that Paul sharply rebukes the Corinthians for permitting an heinous offender in their communion, and then lays down a general sentence, by which he declares it unlawful even to eat bread with a man of impure life, (1 Cor. 5: 11, 12.) Here they exclaim, If it is not lawful to eat ordinary bread, how can it be lawful to eat the Lord’s bread?

I admit, that it is a great disgrace if dogs and swine are admitted among the children of God; much more, if the sacred body of Christ is prostituted to them. And, indeed, when churches are well regulated, they will not bear the wicked in their bosom, nor will they admit the worthy and unworthy indiscriminately to that sacred feast. But because pastors are not always sedulously vigilant, are sometimes also more indulgent than they ought, or are prevented from acting so strictly as they could wish; the consequence is, that even the openly wicked are not always excluded from the fellowship of the saints. This I admit to be a vice, and I have no wish to extenuate it, seeing that Paul sharply rebukes it in the Corinthians. But although the Church fail in her duty, it does not therefore follow that every private individual is to decide the question of separation for himself. I deny not that it is the duty of a pious man to withdraw from all private intercourse with the wicked, and not entangle himself with them by any voluntary tie; but it is one thing to shun the society of the wicked, and another to renounce the communion of the Church through hatred of them.

Those who think it sacrilege to partake the Lord’s bread with the wicked are in this more rigid than Paul. For when he exhorts us to pure and holy communion, he does not require that we should examine others, or that every one should examine the whole church, but that each should examine himself, (1 Cor. 11: 28, 29.) If it were unlawful to communicate with the unworthy, Paul would certainly have ordered us to take heed that there were no individual in the whole body by whose impurity we might be defiled, but now that he only requires each to examine himself, he shows that it does no harm to us though some who are unworthy present themselves along with us. To the same effect he afterwards adds, “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself.” He says not to others, but to himself. And justly; for the right of admitting or excluding ought not to be left to the decision of individuals. Cognisance of this point, which cannot be exercised without due orders as shall afterwards be more fully shown, belongs to the whole church. It would therefore be unjust to hold any private individual as polluted by the unworthiness of another, whom he neither can nor ought to keep back from communion.

16. The false claim of perfection comes from distorted opinion

Still, however even the good are sometimes affected by this inconsiderate zeal for righteousness, though we shall find that this excessive moroseness is more the result of pride and a false idea of sanctity, than genuine sanctity itself, and true zeal for it. Accordingly, those who are the most forward, and as it were, leaders in producing revolt from the Church, have, for the most part, no other motive than to display their own superiority by despising all other men. Well and wisely, therefore, does Augustine say, “Seeing that pious reason and the mode of ecclesiastical discipline ought specially to regard the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, which the Apostle enjoins us to keep, by bearing with one another, (for if we keep it not, the application of medicine is not only superfluous but pernicious, and, therefore, proves to be no medicine;) those bad sons who, not from hatred of other men’s iniquities, but zeal for their own contentions, attempt altogether to draw away, or at least to divide, weak brethren ensnared by the glare of their name, while swollen with pride, stuffed with petulance, insidiously calumnious, and turbulently seditious, use the cloak of a rigorous severity, that they may not seem devoid of the light of truth, and pervert to sacrilegious schism, and purposes of excision, those things which are enjoined in the Holy Scriptures, (due regard being had to sincere love, and the unity of peace,) to correct a brother’s faults by the appliance of a immoderate cure,” (August. Cont. Parmen. cap. 1.) To the pious and placid his advice is, mercifully to correct what they can, and to bear patiently with what they cannot correct, in love lamenting and mourning until God either reform or correct, or at the harvest root up the tares, and scatter the chaff, (ibid. cap. 2.)

Let all the godly study to provide themselves with these weapons, lest, while they deem themselves strenuous and ardent defenders of righteousness, they revolt from the kingdom of heaven, which is the only kingdom of righteousness. For as God has been pleased that the communion of his Church shall be maintained in this external society, any one who, from hatred of the ungodly, violates the bond of this society, enter on a downward course, in which he incurs great danger of cutting himself off from the communion of saints.

Let them reflect, that in a numerous body there are several who may escape their notice, and yet are truly righteous and innocent in the eyes of the Lord. Let them reflect, that of those who seem diseased, there are many who are far from taking pleasure or flattering themselves in their faults, and who, ever and anon aroused by a serious fear of the Lord, aspire to greater integrity. Let them reflect, that they have no right to pass judgement on a man for one act, since the holiest sometimes make the moat grievous fall. Let them reflect, that in the ministry of the word and participation of the sacraments, the power to collect the Church is too great to be deprived of all efficacy, by the fault of some ungodly men. Lastly, let them reflect, that in estimating the Church, divine is of more force than human judgement.

(The imperfect holiness of the church does not justify schism, but affords occasion for the exercise within it of the forgiveness of sins, 17-22)

17. The holiness of the church

Since they also argue that there is good reason for the Church being called holy, it is necessary to consider what the holiness is in which it excels, lest by refusing to acknowledge any church, save one that is completely perfect, we leave no church at all. It is true, indeed, as Paul says, that Christ “loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish,” (Eph. 5: 25-27.) Nevertheless, it is true, that the Lord is daily smoothing its wrinkles and wiping away its spots. Hence it follows that its holiness is not yet perfect. Such, then, is the holiness of the Church: it makes daily progress, but is not yet perfect; it daily advances, but as yet has not reached the goal, as will elsewhere be more fully explained.

Therefore, when the Prophets foretell, “Then shall Jerusalem be holy, and there shall no strangers pass through her any more;"—"It shall be called, The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it,” (Joel 3: 17; Isa. 35: 8,) let us not understand it as if no blemish remained in the members of the Church; but only that with their whole heart they aspire after holiness and perfect purity: and hence, that purity which they have not yet fully attained is, by the kindness of God, attributed to them. And though the indications of such a kind of holiness existing among men are too rare, we must understand, that at no period since the world began has the Lord been without his Church, nor ever shall be till the final consummation of all things. For although, at the very outset, the whole human race was vitiated and corrupted by the sin of Adam, yet of this kind of polluted mass he always sanctifies some vessels to honour, that no age may be left without experience of his mercy. This he has declared by sure promises, such as the following: “I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant, Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations,” (Ps. 89: 3, 4.) “The Lord has chosen Zion; he has desired it for his habitation. This is my rest for ever; here will I dwell,” (Ps. 132: 13,14.) “Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The Lord of hosts is his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever,” (Jer. 31: 35, 36.)

18. The examples of the prophets

On this head, Christ himself, his apostles, and almost all the prophets, have furnished us with examples. Fearful are the descriptions in which Isaiah, Jeremiah, Joel, Habakkuk, and others, deplore the diseases of the Church of Jerusalem. In the people, the rulers, and the priests, corruption prevailed to such a degree, that Isaiah hesitates not to liken Jerusalem to Sodom and Gomorrah, (Isa. 1: 10.) Religion was partly despised, partly adulterated, while in regard to morals, we every where meet with accounts of theft, robbery, perfidy, murder, and similar crimes. The prophets, however, did not therefore either form new churches for themselves, or erect new altars on which they might have separate sacrifices, but whatever their countrymen might be, reflecting that the Lord had deposited his word with them, and instituted the ceremonies by which he was then worshipped, they stretched out pure hands to him, though amid the company of the ungodly. Certainly, had they thought that they thereby contracted any pollution, they would have died a hundred deaths sooner than suffer themselves to be dragged thither. nothing, therefore, prevented them from separating themselves, but a desire of preserving unity. But if the holy prophets felt no obligation to withdraw from the Church on account of the very numerous and heinous crimes, not of one or two individuals, but almost of the whole people, we arrogate too much to ourselves, if we presume forthwith to withdraw from the communion of the Church, because the lives of all accord not with our judgement, or even with the Christian profession.

19. The example of Christ and of the apostles

Then what kind of age was that of Christ and the apostles? Yet neither could the desperate impiety of the Pharisees, nor the dissolute licentiousness of manners which everywhere prevailed, prevent them from using the same sacred rites with the people, and meeting in one common temple for the public exercises of religion. And why so, but just because they knew that those who joined in these sacred rites with a pure conscience were not at all polluted by the society of the wicked?

If any one is little moved by prophets and apostles, let him at least defer to the authority of Christ. Well, therefore, does Cyprian say, “Although tares or unclean vessels are seen in the Church, that is no reason why we ourselves should withdraw from the Church; we must only labour that we may be able to be wheat; w e must give our endeavour, and strive as far as we can, to be vessels of gold or silver. But to break the earthen vessels belongs to the Lord alone, to whom a rod of iron has been given: let no one arrogate to himself what is peculiar to the Son alone, and think himself sufficient to winnow the floor and cleanse the chaff, and separate all the tares by human judgement. What depraved zeal thus assumes to itself is proud obstinacy and sacrilegious presumption,” (Cyprian, lib. 3. Ep. 5.)

Let both points therefore, be regarded as fixed; first, there is no excuse for him who spontaneously abandons the external communion of a church in which the word of God is preached and the sacraments are administered; secondly, that notwithstanding of the faults of a few or of many, there is nothing to prevent us from there duly professing our faith in the ordinances instituted by God, because a pious conscience is not injured by the unworthiness of another, whether he be a pastor or a private individual; and sacred rites are not less pure and salutary to a man who is holy and upright, from being at the same time handled by the impure.

20. Forgiveness of sins and the church

Their moroseness and pride proceed even to greater lengths. Refusing to acknowledge any church that is not pure from the minutes blemish, they take offence at sound teachers for exhorting believers to make progress, and so teaching them to groan during their whole lives under the burden of sins and flee for pardon. For they pretend, that in this way believers are led away from perfection.

I admit that we are not to labour feebly or coldly in urging perfection, far less to desist from urging it; but I hold that it is a device of the devil to fill our minds with a confident belief of it while we are still in our course. Accordingly, in the Creed forgiveness of sins is appropriately subjoined to belief as to the Church, because none obtain forgiveness but those who are citizens, and of the household of the Church, as we read in the Prophet, (Is. 33: 24.) The first place, therefore, should be given to the building of the heavenly Jerusalem, in which God afterwards is pleased to wipe away the iniquity of all who retake themselves to it. I say, however, that the Church must first be built; not that there can be any church without forgiveness of sins, but because the Lord has not promised his mercy save in the communion of saints. Therefore, our first entrance into the Church and the kingdom of God is by forgiveness of sins, without which we have no covenant nor union with God. For thus he speaks by the Prophet, “In that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break the bow, and the sword, and the battle, out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely. And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgement, and in loving-kindness, and in mercies,” (Hos. 2: 18, 19.) We see in what way the Lord reconciles us to himself by his mercy. So in another passage, where he foretells that the people whom he had scattered in anger will again be gathered together, “I will cleanse them from all their iniquity whereby they have sinned against me,” (Jer. 33: 8.) Wherefore, our initiation into the fellowship of the Church is, by the symbol of ablution, to teach us that we have no admission into the family of God, unless by his goodness our impurities are previously washed away.

21. Lasting forgiveness for the members of the church!

Nor by remission of sins does the Lord only once for all elect and admit us into the Church, but by the same means he preserves and defends us in it. For what would it avail us to receive a pardon of which we were afterwards to have no use? That the mercy of the Lord would be vain and delusive if only granted once, all the godly can bear witness; for there is none who is not conscious, during his whole life, of many infirmities which stand in need of divine mercy. And truly it is not without cause that the Lord promises this gift specially to his own household, nor in vain that he orders the same message of reconciliation to be daily delivered to them. Wherefore, as during our whole lives we carry about with us the remains of sin, we could not continue in the Church one single moment were we not sustained by the uninterrupted grace of God in forgiving our sins. On the other hand, the Lord has called his people to eternal salvation, and, therefore, they ought to consider that pardon for their sins is always ready. Hence let us surely hold that if we are admitted and ingrafted into the body of the Church, the forgiveness of sins has been bestowed, and is daily bestowed on us, in divine liberality, through the intervention of Christ’s merits and the sanctification of the Spirit.

22. The power of the keys

To impart this blessing to us, the keys have been given to the Church, (Matth. 16: 19; 18: 18.) For when Christ gave the command to the apostles, and conferred the power of forgiving sins, he not merely intended that they should loose the sins of those who should be converted from impiety to the faith of Christ; but, moreover, that they should perpetually perform this office among believers. This Paul teaches, when he says that the embassy of reconciliation has been committed to the ministers of the Church, that they may ever and anon in the name of Christ exhort the people to be reconciled to God, (2 Cor. 5: 20.) Therefore, in the communion of saints our sins are constantly forgiven by the ministry of the Church, when presbyters or bishops, to whom the office has been committed, confirm pious consciences, in the hope of pardon and forgiveness by the promises of the gospel, and that as well in public as in private, as the case requires. For there are many who, from their infirmity, stand in need of special pacification, and Paul declares that he testified of the grace of Christ not only in the public assembly, but from house to house, reminding each individually of the doctrine of salvation, (Acts 20: 20, 21.)

Three things are here to be observed. First, Whatever be the holiness which the children of God possess, it is always under the condition, that so long as they dwell in a mortal body, they cannot stand before God without forgiveness of sins. Secondly, This benefit is so peculiar to the Church, that we cannot enjoy it unless we continue in the communion of the Church. Thirdly, It is dispensed to us by the ministers and pastors of the Church, either in the preaching of the Gospel or the administration of the Sacraments, and herein is especially manifested the power of the keys, which the Lord has bestowed on the company of the faithful. Accordingly, let each of us consider it to be his duty to seek forgiveness of sins only where the Lord has placed it. Of the public reconciliation which relates to discipline, we shall speak at the proper place.

(Incidents illustrating forgiveness within the community of believers, 23-29)

23. All believers are to seek forgiveness of their sins

But since those frantic spirits of whom I have spoken attempt to rob the Church of this the only anchor of salvation, consciences must be more firmly strengthened against this pestilential opinion. The Novatians, in ancient times, agitated the Churches with this dogma, but in our day, not unlike the Novatians are some of the Anabaptists, who have fallen into the same delirious dreams. For they pretend that in Baptism, the people of God are regenerated to a pure and angelical life, which is not polluted by any carnal defilements. But if a man sin after baptism, they leave him nothing except the inexorable judgement of God. In short, to the sinner who has lapsed after receiving grace they give no hope of pardon, because they admit no other forgiveness of sins save that by which we are first regenerated.

But although no falsehood is more clearly refuted by Scripture, yet as these men find means of imposition, (as Novatus also of old had very many followers,) let us briefly slow how much they rave, to the destruction both of themselves and others.

In the first place, since by the command of our Lord the saints daily repeat this prayer, “Forgive us our debts,” (Matth. 6: 12,) they confess that they are debtors. Nor do they ask in vain; for the Lord has only enjoined them to ask what he will give. Nay, while he has declared that the whole prayer will be heard by his Father, he has sealed this absolution with a peculiar promise. What more do we wish? The Lord requires of his saints confession of sins during their whole lives, and that without ceasing, and promises pardon. How presumptuous, then, to exempt them from sin, or when they have stumbled, to exclude them altogether from grace? Then whom does he enjoin us to pardon seventy and seven times? Is it not our brethren? (Matth. 18: 22.) And why has he so enjoined but that we may imitate his clemency? He therefore pardons not once or twice only, but as often as, under a sense of our faults, we feel alarmed, and sighing call upon him.

24. God’s abundant grace to sinful believers under the Old Covenant: the Law

And to begin almost with the very first commencement of the Church: the Patriarchs had been circumcised, admitted to a participation in the covenant, and doubtless instructed by their father’s care in righteousness and integrity, when they conspired to commit fratricide. The crime was one which the most abandoned robbers would have abominated. At length, softened by the remonstrances of Judah, they sold him; this also was intolerable cruelty. Simon and Levi took a nefarious revenge on the sons of Sichem, one, too, condemned by the judgement of their father. Reuben, with execrable lust, defiled his father’s bed. Judah, when seeking to commit whoredom, sinned against the law of nature with his daughter-in-law. But so far are they from being expunged from the chosen people, that they are rather raised to be its heads.

What, moreover, of David? when on the throne of righteousness, with what iniquity did he make way for blind lust, by the shedding of innocent blood? He had already been regenerated, and, as one of the regenerated, received distinguished approbation from the Lord. But he perpetrated a crime at which even the gentiles would have been horrified, and yet obtained pardon.

And not to dwell on special examples, all the promises of divine mercy extant in the Law and the Prophets are so many proofs that the Lord is ready to forgive the offences of his people. For why does Moses promise a future period, when the people who had fallen into rebellion should return to the Lord? “Then the Lord thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations whither the Lord thy God has scattered thee,” (Deut. 30: 3.)

25. God’s abundant grace to sinful believers under the Old Covenant: the Prophets

But I am unwilling to begin an enumeration which never could be finished. The prophetical books are filled with similar promises, offering mercy to a people covered with innumerable transgressions. What crime is more heinous than rebellion? It is styled divorce between God and the Church, and yet, by his goodness, it is surmounted. They say, “If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man’s, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? But thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again unto me, saith the Lord.” “Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the Lord; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you; for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger for ever,” (Jer. 3: 1, 12.) And surely he could not have a different feeling who declares, “I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth;” “Wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye,” (Ezek. 18: 23, 32.) Accordingly, when Solomon dedicated the temple, one of the uses for which it was destined was, that prayers offered up for the pardon of sin, might there be heard. “If they sin against thee, (for there is no man that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captive unto the land of the enemy, far or near; yet if they shall rethink themselves in the land whither they were carried captives, and repent, and make supplication unto thee in the land of them that carried them captives, saying, We have sinned, and have done perversely, we have committed wickedness; and so return unto thee with all their heart, and with all their soul, in the land of their enemies which led them away captive, and pray unto thee towards their land, which thou gavest unto their fathers, the city which thou hast chosen, and the house which I have built for thy name: then hear thou their prayer and their supplication in heaven thy dwellingplace, and maintain their cause, and forgive thy people that have sinned against thee, and all their transgressions wherein they have transgressed against thee,” (1 Kings 8: 46-50.) Nor in vain in the Law did God ordain a daily sacrifice for sins. Had he not foreseen that his people were constantly to labour under the disease of sin, he never would have appointed these remedies.

26. God’s abundant grace to sinful believers under the New Covenant

Did the advent of Christ, by which the fulness of grace was displayed, deprive believers of this privilege of supplicating for the pardon of their sins? If they offended against the Lords were they not to obtain any mercy? What were it but to say that Christ came not for the salvation, but for the destruction of his people, if the divine indulgence in pardoning sin, which was constantly provided for the saints under the Old Testament, is now declared to have been taken away? But if we give credit to the Scriptures, when distinctly proclaiming that in Christ alone the grace and loving-kindness of the Lord have fully appeared, the riches of his mercy been poured out, reconciliation between God and man accomplished, (Tit. 2: 11; 3: 4; 2 Tim. 1: 9, 10,) let us not doubt that the clemency of our heavenly Father, instead of being cut off or curtailed is in much greater exuberance.

Nor are proofs of this wanting. Peter, who had heard our Saviour declare that he who did not confess his name before men would be denied before the angels of God, denied him twice in one night, and not without execration; yet he is not denied pardon, (Mark 8: 38.) Those who lived disorderly among the Thessalonians, though chastised, are still invited to repentance, (2 Thess. 3: 6.) Not even is Simon Magus thrown into despair. He is rather told to hope, since Peter invites him to have recourse to prayer, (Acts 8: 22.)

27. God’s abundant grace toward delinquent churches

What shall we say to the fact, that occasionally whole churches have been implicated in the grossest sins, and yet Paul, instead of giving them over to destruction, rather mercifully extricated them? The defection of the Galatians was no trivial fault, the Corinthians were still less excusable the iniquities prevailing among them being more numerous and not less heinous, yet neither are excluded from the mercy of the Lord. Nay, the very persons who had sinned above others in uncleanness and fornication are expressly invited to repentance. The covenant of the Lord remains, and ever will remain, inviolable, that covenant which he solemnly ratified with Christ the true Solomon, and his members, in these words: “If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgements; if they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments; then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless, my loving-kindness will I not utterly take from him”, (Ps. 89: 30-33.) In short, by the very arrangement of the Creed, we are reminded that forgiveness of sins always resides in the Church of Christ, for after the Church is as it were constituted, forgiveness of sins is subjoined.

28. Are only unconscious sins forgivable?

Some persons who have somewhat more discernment, seeing that the dogma of Novatus is so clearly refuted in scripture, do not make every fault unpardonable, but that voluntary transgression of the Law into which a man falls knowingly and willingly. Those who speak thus allow pardon to those sins only that have been committed through ignorance. But since the Lord has in the Law ordered some sacrifices to be offered in expiation of the voluntary sins of believers, and others to redeem sins of ignorance, (Lev. 4) how perverse is it to concede no expiation to a voluntary sin? I hold nothing to be more plain, than that the one sacrifice of Christ avails to remit the voluntary sins of believers, the Lord having attested this by carnal sacrifices as emblems.

Then how is David, who was so well instructed in the Law, to be excused by ignorance? Did David, who was daily punishing it in others, not know how heinous a crime murder and adultery was? Did the patriarchs deem fratricide a lawful act? Had the Corinthians made so little proficiency as to imagine that God was pleased with lasciviousness, impurity, whoredom, hatred, and strife? Was Peter, after being so carefully warned, ignorant how heinous it was to forswear his Master? Therefore, let us not by our malice shut the door against the divine mercy, when so benignly manifested.

29. The question of “second repentance” in the ancient church

I am not unaware, that by the sins which are daily forgiven to believers ancient writers have understood the lighter errors which creep in through the infirmity of the flesh, while they thought that the formal repentance which was then exacted for more heinous crimes was no more to be repeated than Baptism. This opinion is not to be viewed as if they wished to plunge those into despair who had fallen from their first repentance, or to extenuate those errors as if they were of no account before God. For they knew that the saints often stumble through unbelief, that superfluous oaths occasionally escape them, that they sometimes boil with anger, nay, break out into open invectives, and labour, besides, under other evils, which are in no slight degree offensive to the Lord; but they so called them to distinguish them from public crimes, which came under the cognisance of the Church, and produced much scandal. The great difficulty they had in pardoning those who had done something that called for ecclesiastical animadversion, was not because they thought it difficult to obtain pardon from the Lord, but by this severity they wished to deter others from rushing precipitately into crimes, which by their demerits would alienate them from the communion of the Church. Still the word of the Lord, which here ought to be our only rule, certainly prescribes greater moderation, since it teaches that the rigour of discipline must not be stretched so far as to overwhelm with grief the individual for whose benefit it should specially be designed (2 Cor. 2: 7,) as we have above discoursed at greater length.

CHAPTER 2. COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FALSE CHURCH AND THE TRUE

The divisions of the chapter are,—

I. Description of a spurious Church, resembling the Papacy vaunting of personal succession, of which a refutation is subjoined, sec. 1-4.

II. An answer, in name of the orthodox Churches, to the Popish accusations of heresy and schism. A description of the Churches existing at present under the Papacy.

Sections.

1. Recapitulation of the matters treated in the previous chapter. Substance of the present chapter, viz.: Where lying and falsehood prevail, no Church exists. There is falsehood wherever the pure doctrine of Christ is not in vigour.

2. This falsehood prevails under the Papacy. Hence the Papacy is not a Church. Still the Papists extol their own Church, and charge those who dissent from it with heresy and schism. They attempt to defend their vaunting by the name of personal succession. A succession which abandons the truth of Christ proved to be of no importance.

3. This proof confirmed,

1. By examples and passages of Scripture;

2. By reason and the authority of Augustine.

4. Whatever the Papists may pretend, there is no Church where the word of God appears not.

5. The objection of personal succession, and the charge of heresy and schism, refuted, both from Scripture and Augustine.

6. The same thing confirmed by the authority of Cyprian. The anathemas of the Papists of no consequence.

7. The churches of the Papists in the same situation as those of the Israelites, which revolted to superstition and idolatry under Jeroboam.

8. The character of those Israelitish churches.

9. Hence the Papists act unjustly when they would compel us to communion with their Church. Their two demands. Answer to the first. Sum of the question. Why we cannot take part in the external worship of the Papists.

10. Second demand of the Papists answered.

11. Although the Papacy cannot properly be called a Church, still, against the will of Antichrist himself, there is some vestige of a Church in the Papacy, as Baptism and some other remnants.

12. The name of Church not conceded to the Papacy, though under its domination there have been some kind of churches. Herein is a fulfilment of Paul’s prophecy, that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God. Deplorable condition of such churches. Summary of this chapter.

(Departure from true doctrine and worship invalidates the Roman Church’s claim to be the true church, 1-6)

1. The basic distinction

How much the ministry of the word and sacraments should weigh with us, and how far reverence for it should extend, so as to be a perpetual badge for distinguishing the Church, has been explained; for we have shown, first, that wherever it exists entire and unimpaired no errors of conduct, no defects should prevent us from giving the name of Church; and, secondly, that trivial errors in this ministry ought not to make us regard it as illegitimate. Moreover, we have shown that the errors to which such pardon is due, are those by which the fundamental doctrine of religion is not injured, and by which those articles of religion, in which all believers should agree, are not suppressed, while, in regard to the sacraments, the defects are such as neither destroy nor impair the legitimate institution of their Author. But as soon as falsehood has forced its way into the citadel of religion, as soon as the sum of necessary doctrine is inverted, and the use of the sacraments is destroyed, the death of the Church undoubtedly ensues, just as the life of man is destroyed when his throat is pierced, or his vitals mortally wounded. This is clearly evinced by the words of Paul when he says, that the Church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone,” (Eph. 2: 20.) If the Church is founded on the doctrine of the apostles and prophets, by which believers are enjoined to place their salvation in Christ alone, then if that doctrine is destroyed, how can the Church continue to stand? The Church must necessarily fall whenever that sum of religion which alone can sustain it has given way. Again, if the true Church is the pillar and ground of the truth,” (1 Tim. 3: 15,) it is certain that there is no Church where lying and falsehood have usurped the ascendancy.

2. The Roman Church and its claim

Since this is the state of matters under the Papacy, we can understand how much of the Church there survives. There, instead of the ministry of the word, prevails a perverted government, compounded of lies, a government which partly extinguishes, partly suppresses, the pure light. In place of the Lord’s Supper, the foulest sacrilege has entered, the worship of God is deformed by a varied mass of intolerable superstitions; doctrine (without which Christianity exists not) is wholly buried and exploded, the public assemblies are schools of idolatry and impiety. Wherefore, in declining fatal participation in such wickedness, we run no risk of being dissevered from the Church of Christ. The communion of the Church was not instituted to be a chain to bind us in idolatry, impiety, ignorance of God, and other kinds of evil, but rather to retain us in the fear of God and obedience of the truth.

They, indeed, vaunt loudly of their Church, as if there was not another in the world; and then, as if the matter were ended, they make out that all are schismatic who withdraw from obedience to that Church which they thus depicts that all are heretics who presume to whisper against its doctrine, (see sec. 5.) But by what arguments do they prove their possession of the true Church? They appeal to ancient records which formerly existed in Italy, France, and Spain, pretending to derive their origin from those holy men, who, by sound doctrine, founded and raised up churches, confirmed the doctrine, and reared the edifice of the Church with their blood; they pretend that the Church thus consecrated by spiritual gifts and the blood of martyrs was preserved from destruction by a perpetual succession of bishops. They dwell on the importance which Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origin, Augustine, and others, attached to this succession, (see sec. 3.)

How frivolous and plainly ludicrous these allegations are, I will enable any, who will for a little consider the matter with me, to understand without any difficulty. I would also exhort our opponents to give their serious attention, if I had any hope of being able to benefit them by instruction; but since they have laid aside all regard to truth, and make it their only aim to prosecute their own ends in whatever way they can, I will only make a few observations by which good men and lovers of truth may disentangle themselves from their quibbles.

First, I ask them why they do not quote Africa, and Egypt, and all Asia, just because in all those regions there was a cessation of that sacred succession, by the aid of which they vaunt of having continued Churches. They therefore fall back on the assertion, that they have the true Church, because ever since it began to exist it was never destitute of bishops, because they succeeded each other in an unbroken series. But what if I bring Greece before them? Therefore, I again ask them, Why they say that the Church perished among the Greeks, among whom there never was any interruption in the succession of bishops—a succession, in their opinion, the only guardian and preserver of the Church? They make the Greeks schismatic. Why? because, by revolting from the Apostolic See, they lost their privilege. What? Do not those who revolt from Christ much more deserve to lose it? It follows, therefore, that the pretence of succession is vain, if posterity do not retain the truth of Christ, which was handed down to them by their fathers, safe and uncorrupted, and continue in it.

3. The false church, despite its high pretensions, shows that it does not hear God’s Word

In the present day, therefore, the pretence of the Romanists is just the same as that which appears to have been formerly used by the Jews, when the Prophets of the Lord charged them with blindness, impiety, and idolatry. For as the Jews proudly vaunted of their temple, ceremonies, and priesthood, by which, with strong reason, as they supposed, they measured the Church, so, instead of the Church, we are presented by the Romanists with certain external masks, which often are far from being connected with the Church and without which the Church can perfectly exist. Wherefore, we need no other argument to refute them than that with which Jeremiah opposed the foolish confidence of the Jews, namely, “Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord are these,” (Jer. 7: 4.) The Lord recognises nothing as his owns save when his word is heard and religiously observed. Thus, though the glory of God sat in the sanctuary between the cherubim, (Ezek. 10: 4,) and he had promised that he would there have his stated abode, still when the priests corrupted his worship by depraved superstitions, he transferred it elsewhere, and left the place without any sanctity. If that temple which seemed consecrated for the perpetual habitation of God, could be abandoned by God and become profane, the Romanists have no ground to pretend that God is so bound to persons or places, and fixed to external observances, that he must remain with those who have only the name and semblance of a Church (Rom.9:6).

This is the question which Paul discusses in the Epistle to the Romans, from the ninth to the twelfth chapter. Weak consciences were greatly disturbed when those who seemed to be the people of God not only rejected, but even persecuted the doctrine of the Gospel. Therefore, after expounding doctrine, he removes this difficulty, denying that those Jews, the enemies of the truth, were the Church, though they wanted nothing which might otherwise have been desired to the external form of the Church. The ground of his denial is, that they did not embrace Christ. In the Epistle to the Galatians, when comparing Ishmael with Isaac, he says still more expressly, that many hold a place in the Church to whom the inheritance does not belong, because they were not the offspring of a free parent. From this he proceeds to draw a contrast between two Jerusalems, because, as the Law was given on Mount Sinai, but the Gospel proceeded from Jerusalem, so many who were born and brought up in servitude confidently boast that they are the sons of God and of the Church; nay, while they are themselves degenerate, proudly despise the genuine sons of God. Let us also, in like manner, when we hear that it was once declared from heaven, “Cast out the handmaid and her son,” trust to this inviolable decree, and boldly despise their unmeaning boasts. For if they plume themselves on external profession, Ishmael also was circumcised: if they found on antiquity, he was the first-born: and yet we see that he was rejected. If the reason is asked, Paul assigns it, (Rom. 9: 6,) that those only are accounted sons who are born of the pure and legitimate seed of doctrine.

On this ground God declares that he was not astricted to impious priests, though he had made a covenant with their father Levi, to be their angel, or interpreter, (Mal. 2: 4;) nay, he retorts the false boast by which they were wont to rise against the Prophets, namely, that the dignity of the priesthood was to be held in singular estimation. This he himself willingly admits: and he disputes with them, on the ground that he is ready to fulfil the covenant, while they, by not fulfilling it on their part, deserve to be rejected. Here, then, is the value of succession when not conjoined with imitation and corresponding conduct: posterity, as soon as they are convicted of having revolted from their origin, are deprived of all honour; unless, indeed, we are prepared to say, that because Caiaphas succeeded many pious priests, (nay, the series from Aaron to him was continuous,) that accursed assembly deserved the name of Church. Even in earthly governments, no one would bear to see the tyranny of Caligula, Nero, Heliogabalus, and the like, described as the true condition of a republic, because they succeeded such men as Brutes, Scipio, and Camillus. That in the government of the Church especially, nothing is more absurd than to disregard doctrines and place succession in persons.

Nor, indeed was any thing farther from the intention of the holy teachers, whom they falsely obtrude upon us, than to maintain distinctly that churches exist, as by hereditary right, wherever bishops have been uniformly succeeded by bishops. But while it was without controversy that no change had been made in doctrine from the beginning down to their day, they assumed it to be a sufficient refutation of all their errors, that they were opposed to the doctrine maintained constantly, and with unanimous consent, even by the apostles themselves. They have, therefore, no longer any ground for proceeding to make a gloss of the name of Church, which we regard with due reverence; but when we come to definition, not only (to use the common expression) does the water adhere to them, but they stick in their own mire, because they substitute a vile prostitute for the sacred spouse of Christ. That the substitution may not deceive us, let us, among other admonitions, attend to the following from Augustine. Speaking of the Church, he says, “She herself is sometimes obscured, and, as it were, beclouded by a multitude of scandals; sometimes, in a time of tranquillity, she appears quiet and free; sometimes she is covered and tossed by the billows of tribulation and trial."—(August. ad Vincent. Epist. 48.) As instances, he mentions that the strongest pillars of the Church often bravely endured exile for the faith, or lay hid throughout the world.

4. The church is founded upon God’s Word

In this way the Romanists assail us in the present day, and terrify the unskilful with the name of Church, while they are the deadly adversaries of Christ. Therefore, although they exhibit a temple, a priesthood, and other similar masks, the empty glare by which they dazzle the eyes of the simple should not move us in the least to admit that there is a Church where the word of God appears not. The Lord furnished us with an unfailing test when he said, “Every one that is of the truth hearth my voice,” (John 18: 37.) Again, “I am the good shepherds and know my sheep, and am known of mine.” “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.” A little before he had said, when the shepherd “putteth forth his own sheep he goes before them, and the sheep follow him; for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers,” (John 10: 14, 4, 5.) Why then do we, of our own accord, form so infatuated an estimate of the Church, since Christ has designated it by a sign in which is nothing in the least degree equivocal, a sign which is every where seen, the existence of which infallibly proves the existence of the Church, while its absence proves the absence of every thing that properly bears the name of Church? Paul declares that the Church is not founded either upon the judgements of men or the priesthood, but upon the doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets, (Eph. 2: 20.) Nay, Jerusalem is to be distinguished from Babylon, the Church of Christ from a conspiracy of Satan, by the discriminating test which our Saviour has applied to them, “He that is of God, hears God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God,” (John 8: 47.)

In short, since the Church is the kingdom of Christ, and he reigns only by his word, can there be any doubt as to the falsehood of those statements (cf. Jer.7:4) by which the kingdom of Christ is represented without his sceptre, in other words, without his sacred word?

5. Defense against the charge of schism and heresy

As to their charge of heresy and schism, because we preach a different doctrine, and submit not to their laws and meet apart from them for Prayer, Baptism, the administration of the Supper, and other sacred rites, it is indeed a very serious accusation, but one which needs not a long and laboured defence.

The name of heretics and schismatics is applied to those who, by dissenting from the Church, destroy its communion. This communion is held together by two chains, viz., consent in sound doctrine and brotherly charity. Hence the distinction which Augustine makes between heretics and schismatics is, that the former corrupt the purity of the faith by false dogmas, whereas the latter sometimes, even while holding the same faith, break the bond of union, (August. Lib. Quaest. in Evang. Matth.)

But the thing to be observed is, that this union of charity so depends on unity of faith, as to have in it its beginning, its end, in fine, its only rule. Let us therefore remember, that whenever ecclesiastical unity is commended to us, the thing required is, that while our minds consent in Christ, our wills also be united together by mutual good-will in Christ. Accordingly, Paul, when he exhorts us to it, takes for his fundamental principle that there is “one God, one faith, one baptism,” (Eph. 4: 5.) Nay, when he tells us to be “of one accord, of one mind,” he immediately adds, “Let this mind be in you which has also in Christ Jesus,” (Phil. 2: 2, 5;) intimating, that where the word of the Lord is not, it is not a union of believers, but a faction of the ungodly.

6. Christ’s headship the condition of unity

Cyprian, also, following Paul, derives the fountain of ecclesiastical concord from the one bishopric of Christ, and afterwards adds, “There is one Church, which by increase from fecundity is more widely extended to a multitude, just as there are many rays of the sun, but one light, and many branches of a tree, but one trunk upheld by the tenacious root. When many streams flow from one fountain, though there seems wide spreading numerosity from the overflowing copiousness of the supply, yet unity remains in the origin. Pluck a ray from the body of the sun, and the unity sustains no division. Break a branch from a tree, and the branch will not germinate. Cut off a stream from a fountain, that which is thus cut off dries up. So the Church, pervaded by the light of the Lord, extends over the whole globe, and yet the light which is everywhere diffused is one,” (Cyprian, de Simplicit. Praelat.) Words could not more elegantly express the inseparable connection which all the members of Christ have with each other. We see how he constantly calls us back to the head. Accordingly, he declares that when heresies and schisms arise, it is because men return not to the origin of the truth, because they seek not the head, because they keep not the doctrine of the heavenly Master.

Let them now go and clamour against us as heretics for having withdrawn from their Church, since the only cause of our estrangement is, that they cannot tolerate a pure profession of the truth. I say nothing of their having expelled us by anathemas and curses. The fact is more than sufficient to excuse us, unless they would also make schismatics of the apostles, with whom we have a common cause. Christ, I say, forewarned his apostles, “they shall put you out of the synagogues,” (John 16: 2.) The synagogues of which he speaks were then held to be lawful churches. Seeing then it is certain that we were cast out, and we are prepared to show that this was done for the name of Christ, the cause should first be ascertained before any decision is given either for or against us. This, however, if they choose, I am willing to leave to them; to me it is enough that we behaved to withdraw from them in order to draw near to Christ.

(The Roman Church compared with ancient Israel as to worship and jurisdiction, 7-11)

7. The condition of the Roman Church resembles that of Israel under Jeroboam

The place which we ought to assign to all the churches on which the tyranny of the Romish idol has seized will better appear if we compare them with the ancient Israelitish Church, as delineated by the prophets. So long as the Jews and Israelites persisted in the laws of the covenant, a true Church existed among them; in other words, they by the kindness of God obtained the benefits of a Church. True doctrine was contained in the law, and the ministry of it was committed to the prophets and priests. They were initiated in religion by the sign of circumcision, and by the other sacraments trained and confirmed in the faith. There can be no doubt that the titles with which the Lord honoured his Church were applicable to their society. After they forsook the law of the Lord, and degenerated into idolatry and superstition, they partly lost the privilege. For who can presume to deny the title of the Church to those with whom the Lord deposited the preaching of his word and the observance of his mysteries? On the other hand, who may presume to give the name of Church, without reservation, to that assembly by which the word of God is openly and with impunity trampled under foot—where his ministry, its chief support, and the very soul of the Church, is destroyed?

8. Despite the idolatry of the Jews, their church remained

What then? (some one will say;) was there not a particle of the Church left to the Jews from the date of their revolt to idolatry? The answer is easy. First, I say that in the defection itself there were several gradations; for we cannot hold that the lapses by which both Judas and Israel turned aside from the pure worship of God were the same. Jeroboam, when he fabricated the calves against the express prohibition of God, and dedicated an unlawful place for worship, corrupted religion entirely. The Jews became degenerate in manners and superstitious opinions before they made any improper change in the external form of religion. For although they had adopted many perverse ceremonies under Rehoboam, yet, as the doctrine of the law and the priesthood, and the rites which God had instituted, continued at Jerusalem the pious still had the Church in a tolerable state. In regard to the Israelites, matters which, up to the time of Ahab, had certainly not been reformed, then became worse. Those who succeeded him, until the overthrow of the kingdom, were partly like him, and partly (when they wished to be somewhat better) followed the example of Jeroboam, while and without exceptions were wicked and idolatrous. In Judea different changes now and then took place, some kings corrupting the worship of God by false and superstitious inventions, and others attempting to reform it, until, at length, the priests themselves polluted the temple of God by profane and abominable rites.

9. The papal church corrupt and to be repudiated

Now then let the Papists, in order to extenuate their vices as much as possible, deny if they can, that the state of religion is as much vitiated and corrupted with them as it was in the kingdom of Israel under Jeroboam. They have a grosser idolatry, and in doctrine are not one whit more pure, rather perhaps they are even still more impure. God, nay, even those possessed of a moderate degree of judgement, will bear me witness, and the thing itself is too manifest to require me to enlarge upon it.

When they would force us to the communion of their Church, they make two demands upon us—first, that we join in their prayers, their sacrifices, and all their ceremonies; and, secondly, that whatever honour, power, and jurisdiction, Christ has given to his Church, the same we must attribute to theirs.

In regard to the first, I admit that all the prophets who were at Jerusalem, when matters there were very corrupt, neither sacrificed apart nor held separate meetings for prayer. For they had the command of God, which enjoined them to meet in the temple of Solomon, and they knew that the Levitical priests, whom the Lord had appointed over sacred matters, and who were not yet discarded, how unworthy soever they might be of that honour, were still entitled to hold it, (Exod. 29: 9.) But the principal point in the whole question is, that they were not compelled to any superstitious worship, nay, they undertook nothing but what had been instituted by God.

But in these men, I mean the Papists, where is the resemblance? Scarcely can we hold any meeting with them without polluting ourselves with open idolatry. Their principal bond of communion is undoubtedly in the Mass, which we abominate as the greatest sacrilege. Whether this is justly or rashly done will be elsewhere seen, (see chap. 18; see also Book 2, chap. 15, sec. 6.) It is now sufficient to show that our case is different from that of the prophets, who, when they were present at the sacred rites of the ungodly, were not obliged to witness or use any ceremonies but those which were instituted by God.

But if we would have an example in all respects similar, let us take one from the kingdom of Israel. Under the ordinance of Jeroboam, circumcision remained, sacrifices were offered, the law was deemed holy, and the God whom they had received from their fathers was worshipped; but in consequence of invented and forbidden modes of worship, everything which was done there God disapproved and condemned. Show me one prophet or pious man who once worshipped or offered sacrifice in Bethel. They knew that they could not do it without defiling themselves with some kind of sacrilege. We hold, therefore, that the communion of the Church ought not to be carried so far by the godly as to lay them under a necessity of following it when it has degenerated to profane and polluted rites.

10. Why we must separate from the corrupted church

With regard to the second point, our objections are still stronger. For when the Church is considered in that particular point of view as the Church, whose judgement we are bound to revere, whose authority acknowledge, whose admonitions obey, whose censures dread, whose communion religiously cultivate in every respect, we cannot concede that they have a Church, without obliging ourselves to subjection and obedience. Still we are willing to concede what the Prophets conceded to the Jews and Israelites of their day, when with them matters were in a similar, or even in a better condition. For we see how they uniformly exclaim against their meetings as profane conventicles, to which it is not more lawful for them to assent than to abjure God, (Isa. 1: 14.) And certainly if those were churches, it follows, that Elijah, Micaiah, and others in Israel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, and those of like character in Judah, whom the prophets, priests, and people of their day, hated and execrated more than the uncircumcised, were aliens from the Church of God. If those were churches, then the Church was no longer the pillar of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15), but the stay of falsehood, not the tabernacle of the living God, but a receptacle of idols. They were, therefore, under the necessity of refusing consent to their meetings, since consent was nothing else than impious conspiracy against God.

For this same reason, should any one acknowledge those meetings of the present day, which are contaminated by idolatry, superstition, and impious doctrine, as churches, full communion with which a Christian must maintain so far as to agree with them even in doctrine, he will greatly err. For if they are churches, the power of the keys belongs to them, whereas the keys are inseparably connected with the word which they have put to flight. Again, if they are churches, they can claim the promise of Christ, “Whatsoever ye bind,” &c.; whereas, on the contrary, they discard from their communion all who sincerely profess themselves the servants of Christ. Therefore, either the promise of Christ is vain, or in this respect, at least, they are not churches. In fine, instead of the ministry of the word, they have schools of impiety, and sinks of all kinds of error. Therefore, in this point of view, they either are not churches, or no badge will remain by which the lawful meetings of the faithful can be distinguished from the meetings of Turks.

11. Vestiges of the church under the papacy

Still, as in ancient times, there remained among the Jews certain special privileges of a Church, so in the present day we deny not to the Papists those vestiges of a Church which the Lord has allowed to remain among them amid the dissipation. When the Lord had once made his covenant with the Jews, it was preserved not so much by them as by its own strength, supported by which it withstood their impiety. Such, then, is the certainty and constancy of the divine goodness, that the covenant of the Lord continued there, and his faith could not be obliterated by their perfidy; nor could circumcision be so profaned by their impure hands as not still to be a true sign and sacrament of his covenant. Hence the children who were born to them the Lord called his own, (Ezek. 16: 20,) though, unless by special blessing, they in no respect belonged to him. So having deposited his covenant in Gaul, Italy, Germany, Spain, and England, when these countries were oppressed by the tyranny of Antichrist, He, in order that his covenant might remain inviolable, first preserved baptism there as an evidence of the covenant;—baptism, which, consecrated by his lips, retains its power in spite of human depravity; secondly, He provided by his providence that there should be other remains also to prevent the Church from utterly perishing. But as in pulling down buildings the foundations and ruins are often permitted to remain, so he did not suffer Antichrist either to subvert his Church from its foundation, or to level it with the ground, (though, to punish the ingratitude of men who had despised his word, he allowed a fearful shaking and dismembering to take place,) but was pleased that amid the devastation the edifice should remain, though half in ruins.

12. The sound elements do not make the corrupted church a true church

Therefore while we are unwilling simply to concede the name of Church to the Papists we do not deny that there are churches among them. The question we raise only relates to the true and legitimate constitution of the Church, implying communion in sacred rites, which are the signs of profession, and especially in doctrine. Daniel and Paul foretold that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God, (Dan. 9: 27; 2 Thess. 2: 4;) we regard the Roman Pontiff as the leader and standard-bearer of that wicked and abominable kingdom. By placing his seat in the temple of God, it is intimated that his kingdom would not be such as to destroy the name either of Christ or of his Church. Hence, then, it is obvious, that we do not at all deny that churches remain under his tyranny; churches, however, which by sacrilegious impiety he has profaned, by cruel domination has oppressed, by evil and deadly doctrines like poisoned potions has corrupted and almost slain; churches where Christ lies half-buried, the gospel is suppressed, piety is put to flight, and the worship of God almost abolished; where, in short, all things are in such disorder as to present the appearance of Babylon rather than the holy city of God. In one word, I call them churches, inasmuch as the Lord there wondrously preserves some remains of his people, though miserably torn and scattered, and inasmuch as some symbols of the Church still remain—symbols especially whose efficacy neither the craft of the devil nor human depravity can destroy. But as, on the other hand, those marks to which we ought especially to have respect in this discussion are effaced, I say that the whole body, as well as every single assembly, want the form of a legitimate Church.

CHAPTER 3. THE DOCTORS AND MINISTERS OF THE CHURCH, THEIR ELECTION AND OFFICE.

The three heads of this chapter are,—

I. A few preliminary remarks on Church order, on the end, utility, necessity, and dignity of the Christian ministry, sec. 1-3.

II. A separate consideration of the persons performing Ecclesiastical functions, sec. 4-9.

III. Of the Ordination or calling of the ministers of the Church, sec. 10-16.

Sections.

1. Summary of the chapter. Reasons why God, in governing the Church, rises the ministry of men.

1. To declare his condescension.

2. To train us to humility and obedience.

3. To bind us to each other in mutual charity. These reasons confirmed by Scripture.

2. This ministry of men most useful to the whole Church. Its advantages enumerated.

3. The honourable terms in which the ministry is spoken of. Its necessity established by numerous examples.

4. Second part of the chapter, treating of Ecclesiastical office-bearers in particular. Some of them, as Apostles, Prophets, and Evangelists, temporary. Others, as Pastors and Teachers, perpetual and indispensable.

5. Considering the office of Evangelist and Apostle as one, we have Pastors corresponding with Apostles, and Teachers with Prophets. Why the name of Apostles specially conferred on the twelve.

6. As to the Apostles so also to Pastors the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments has been committed. How the Word should be preached.

7. Regularly every Pastor should have a separate church assigned to him. This, however, admits of modification, when duly and regularly made by public authority.

8. Bishops, Presbyters, Pastors, and Ministers, are used by the Apostles as one and the same. Some functions, as being temporary, are omitted. Two, namely, those of Elders and Deacons, as pertaining to the ministry of the Word, are retained.

9. Distinction between Deacons. Some employed in distributing alms, others in taking care of the poor.

10. Third part of the chapter, treating of the Ordination or calling of the ministers of the Church.

11. A twofold calling, viz., an external and an internal. Mode in which both are to be viewed.

12. 1. Who are to be appointed ministers?

2. Mode of appointment.

13. 3. By whom the appointment is to be made. Why the Apostles were elected by Christ alone. Of the calling and election of St. Paul.

14. Ordinary Pastors are designated by other Pastors. Why certain of the Apostles also were designated by men.

15. The election of Pastors does not belong to one individual. Other Pastors should preside, and the people consent and approve.

16. Form in which the ministers of the Church are to be ordained. No express precept but one. Laying on of hands.

(The ministry given by God: its high and necessary functions, 1-3)

1. Why does God need men’s service?

We are now to speak of the order in which the Lord has been pleased that his Church should be governed. For though it is right that he alone should rule and reign in the Church, that he should preside and be conspicuous in it, and that its government should be exercised and administered solely by his word; yet as he does not dwell among us in visible presence (Matt.26:11), so as to declare his will to us by his own lips, he in this (as we have said) uses the ministry of men, by making them, as it were his substitutes, not by transferring his right and honour to them, but only doing his own work by their lips, just as an artifices uses a tool for any purpose.

What I have previously expounded (chap. 1 sec. 5) I am again forced to repeat. God might have acted, in this respect, by himself, without any aid or instrument, or might even have done it by angels; but there are several reasons why he rather chooses to employ men.

First, in this way he declares his condescension towards us, employing men to perform the function of his ambassadors in the world (cf. II Cor.5:20), to be the interpreters of his secret will; in short, to represent his own person. Thus he shows by experience that it is not to no purpose he calls us his temples (I Cor.3:16-17, 6:19; II Cor.6:16), since by man’s mouth he gives responses to men as from a sanctuary.

Secondly, it forms a most excellent and useful training to humility, when he accustoms us to obey his word though preached by men like ourselves, or, it may be, our inferiors in worth. Did he himself speak from heaven, it were no wonder if his sacred oracles were received by all ears and minds reverently and without delay. For who would not dread his present power? Who would not fall prostrate at the first view of his great majesty? Who would not be overpowered by that immeasurable splendour? But when a feeble man, sprung from the dust, speaks in the name of God, we give the best proof of our piety and obedience, by listening with docility to his servant, though not in any respect our superior. Accordingly, he hides the treasure of his heavenly wisdom in frail earthen vessels, (2 Cor. 4: 7,) that he may have a more certain proof of the estimation in which it is held by us.

Moreover, nothing was fitter to cherish mutual charity than to bind men together by this tie, appointing one of them as a pastor to teach the others who are enjoined to be disciples, and receive the common doctrine from a single mouth. For did every man suffice for himself, and stand in no need of another’s aid, (such is the pride of the human intellect,) each would despise all others, and be in his turn despised. The Lord, therefore, has astricted his Church to what he foresaw would be the strongest bond of unity when he deposited the doctrine of eternal life and salvation with men, that by their hands he might communicate it to others. To this Paul had respect when he wrote to the Ephesians, “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave some, apostles; and some prophets; and some evangelists; and some pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love,” (Eph. 4: 4-16.)

2. The significance of the ministry for the church

By these words he shows that the ministry of men, which God employs in governing the Church, is a principal bond by which believers are kept together in one body. He also intimates, that the Church cannot be kept safe, unless supported by those guards to which the Lord has been pleased to commit its safety. Christ “ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things,” (Eph. 4: 10.) The mode of filling is this: By the ministers to whom he has committed this office, and given grace to discharge it, he dispenses and distributes his gifts to the Church, and thus exhibits himself as in a manner actually present by exerting the energy of his Spirit in this his institution, so as to prevent it from being vain or fruitless. In this way, the renewal of the saints is accomplished, and the body of Christ is edified; in this way we grow up in all things unto Him who is the Head, and unite with one another; in this way we are all brought into the unity of Christ, provided prophecy flourishes among us, provided we receive his apostles, and despise not the doctrine which is administered to us. Whoever, therefore, studies to abolish this order and kind of government of which we speak, or disparages it as of minor importance, plots the devastation, or rather the ruin and destruction, of the Church. For neither are the light and heat of the sun, nor meat and drink, so necessary to sustain and cherish the present life, as is the apostolical and pastoral office to preserve a Church in the earth.

3. The prestige of the preaching office in Scripture

Accordingly, I have observed above, that God has repeatedly commended its dignity by the titles which he has bestowed upon it, in order that we might hold it in the highest estimation, as among the most excellent of our blessings. He declares, that in raising up teachers he confers a special benefit on men, when he bids his prophet exclaim, “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace,” (Isa. 3: 7;) when he calls the apostles the light of the world and the salt of the earth, (Matth. 5: 13, 14.) Nor could the office be more highly eulogised than when he said, “He that hearth you hearth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me,” (Luke 10: 16.) But the most striking passage of all is that in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, where Paul treats as it were professedly of this question. He contends, that there is nothing in the Church more noble and glorious than the ministry of the Gospel, seeing it is the administration of the Spirit of righteousness and eternal life. These and similar passages should have the effect of preventing that method of governing and maintaining the Church by ministers, a method which the Lord has ratified for ever, from seeming worthless in our eyes, and at length becoming obsolete by contempt.

How very necessary it is, he has declared not only by words but also by examples. When he was pleased to shed the light of his truth in greater effulgence on Cornelius, he sent an angel from heaven to dispatch Peter to him, (Acts 10: 3-6). When he was pleased to call Paul to the knowledge of himself, and ingraft him into the Church, he does not address him with his own voice, but sends him to a man from whom he may both obtain the doctrine of salvation and the sanctification of baptism, (Acts 9: 6-20.) If it was not by mere accident that the angel, who is the interpreter of God, abstains from declaring the will of God, and orders a man to be called to declare it; that Christ, the only Master of believers, commits Paul to the teaching of a man, that Paul whom he had determined to carry into the third heaven, and honour with a wondrous revelation of things that could not be spoken, (2 Cor. 12: 2,) who will presume to despise or disregard as superfluous that ministry, whose utility God has been pleased to attest by such evidence?

(The Scriptural offices of the ministry described, 4-9)

4. The several sorts of officers according to Ephesians, ch.4

Those who preside over the government of the Church, according to the institution of Christ, are named by Paul, first, Apostles; secondly, Prophets; thirdly, Evangelists; fourthly, Pastors; and, lastly, Teachers; (Eph. 4: 11.) Of these, only the two last have an ordinary office in the Church. The Lord raised up the other three at the beginning of his kingdom, and still occasionally raises them up when the necessity of the times requires.

The nature of the apostolic function is clear from the command, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature,” (Mark 16: 15.) No fixed limits are given them, but the whole world is assigned to be reduced under the obedience of Christ, that by spreading the Gospel as widely as they could, they might every where erect his kingdom. Accordingly, Paul, when he would approve his apostleship, does not say that he had acquired some one city for Christ, but had propagated the Gospel far and wide—had not built on another man’s foundation, but planted churches where the name of his Lord was unheard. The apostles, therefore, were sent forth to bring back the world from its revolt to the true obedience of God, and every where stablish his kingdom by the preaching of the Gospel; or, if you choose, they were like the first architects of the Church, to lay its foundations throughout the world (I Cor.3:10).

By Prophets, he means not all interpreters of the divine will, but those who excelled by special revelation; none such now exist, or they are less manifest.

By Evangelists, I mean those who, while inferior in rank to the apostles, were next them in office, and even acted as their substitutes. Such were Luke, Timothy, Titus, and the like; perhaps also, the seventy (disciples whom our Saviour appointed in the second place to the apostles, (Luke 10: 1.)

According to this interpretation, which appears to me consonant both to the words and the meaning of Paul, those three functions were not instituted in the Church to be perpetual, but only to endure so long as churches were to be formed where none previously existed, or at least where churches were to be transferred from Moses to Christ; although I deny not, that afterward God occasionally raised up Apostles, or at least Evangelists, in their stead, as has been done in our time. For such were needed to bring back the Church from the revolt of Antichrist. The office I nevertheless call extraordinary, because it has no place in churches duly constituted.

Next come Pastors and Teachers, with whom the Church never can dispense, and between whom, I think, there is this difference, that teachers preside not over discipline, or the administration of the sacraments, or admonitions, or exhortations, but the interpretation of Scripture only, in order that pure and sound doctrine may be maintained among believers. But all these are embraced in the pastoral office.

5. Temporary and permanent offices

We now understand what offices in the government of the Church were temporary, and what offices were instituted to be of perpetual duration. But if we class evangelists with apostles, we shall have two like offices in a manner corresponding to each other. For the same resemblance which our teachers have to the ancient prophets pastors have to the apostles. The prophetical office was more excellent in respect of the special gift of revelation which accompanied it, but the office of teachers was almost of the same nature, and had altogether the same end. In like manner, the twelve, whom the Lord chose to publish the new preaching of the Gospel to the world, (Luke 6: 13,) excelled others in rank and dignity. For although, from the nature of the case, and etymology of the word, all ecclesiastical officers may be properly called apostles, because they are all sent by the Lord and are his messengers, yet as it was of great importance that a sure attestation should be given to the mission of those who delivered a new and extraordinary message, it was right that the twelve (to the number of whom Paul was afterwards added) should be distinguished from others by a peculiar title. The same name, indeed, is given by Paul to Andronicus and Junta, who, he says, were “of note among the apostles,” (Rom. 16: 7;) but when he would speak properly he confines the term to that primary order. And this is the common use of Scripture. Still pastors (except that each has the government of a particular church assigned to him) have the same function as apostles. The nature of this function let us now see still more clearly.

6. Apostles and pastors

When our Lord sent forth the apostles, he gave them a commission (as has been lately said) to preach the Gospel, and baptise those who believed for the remission of sins. He had previously commanded that they should distribute the sacred symbols of his body and blood after his example, (Matth. 28: 19; Luke 22: 19.) Such is the sacred, inviolable, and perpetual law, enjoined on those who succeed to the place of the apostles,—they receive a commission to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments. Whence we infer that those who neglect both of these falsely pretend to the office of apostles.

But what shall we say of pastors? Paul speaks not of himself only but of all pastors, when he says, “Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God,” (1 Cor. 4: 1.) Again, in another passage, he describes a bishop as one “holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and convince the gainsayers,” (Tit. 1: 9.) From these and similar passages which everywhere occur, we may infer that the two principal parts of the office of pastors are to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments. But the method of teaching consists not merely in public addresses, it extends also to private admonitions. Thus Paul takes the Ephesians to witness, “I kept back nothing that was profitable to you, but have showed you, and have taught you publicly, and from house to house, testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” A little after he says, “Remember, that, for the space of three years, I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears,” (Acts 20: 20, 31.) Our present purpose, however, is not to enumerate the separate qualities of a good pastor, but only to indicate what those profess who call themselves pastors, viz., that in presiding over the Church they have not an indolent dignity, but must train the people to true piety by the doctrine of Christ, administer the sacred mysteries, preserve and exercise right discipline. To those who are set as watchmen in the Church the Lord declares, “When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand,” (Ezek. 3: 18.) What Paul says of himself is applicable to all pastors: “For though I preach the Gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me if I preach not the Gospel,” (1 Cor. 9: 16.) In short, what the apostles did to the whole world, every pastor should do to the flock over which he is appointed.

7. The pastor is bound to his church

While we assign a church to each pastor, we deny not that he who is fixed to one church may assist other churches, whether any disturbance has occurred which requires his presence, or his advice is asked on some doubtful matter. But because that policy is necessary to maintain the peace of the Church each has his proper duty assigned, lest all should become disorderly, run up and down without any certain vocation, flock together promiscuously to one spot, and capriciously leave the churches vacant, being more solicitous for their own convenience than for the edification of the Church. This arrangement ought, as far as possible, to be commonly observed, that every one, content with his own limits, may not encroach on another’s province.

Nor is this a human invention. It is an ordinance of God. For we read that Paul and Barnabas appointed presbyters over each of the churches of Lystra, Antioch, and Iconium, (Acts 14: 23;) and Paul himself enjoins Titus to ordain presbyters in every town, (Tit. 1: 5.) In like manner, he mentions the bishops of the Philippians, and Archippus, the bishop of the Colossians, (Phil. 1: l; Col. 4: 17.) And in the Acts we have his celebrated address to the presbyters of the Church of Ephesus, (Acts 20: 28.)

Let every one then, who undertakes the government and care of one church, know that he is bound by this law of divine vocation, not that he is astricted to the soil, (as lawyers speak,) that is, enslaved, and, as it were, fixed, as to be unable to move a foot if public utility so require, and the thing is done duly and in order; but he who has been called to one place ought not to think of removing, nor seek to be set free when he deems it for his own advantage. Again, if it is expedient for any one to be transferred to another place, he ought not to attempt it of his own private motive, but to wait for public authority.

8. The designation of ministers of the Word: presbyters

In giving the name of bishops, presbyters, and pastors, indiscriminately to those who govern churches, I have done it on the authority of Scripture, which uses the words as synonymous. To all who discharge the ministry of the word it gives the name of bishops. Thus Paul, after enjoining Titus to ordain elders in every city, immediately adds, “A bishop must be blameless,” &c., (Tit. 1: 5, 7.) So in another place he salutes several bishops in one church, (Phil. 1: 1.) And in the Acts, the elders of Ephesus, whom he is said to have called together, he, in the course of his address, designates as bishops, (Acts 20: 17.)

Here it is to be observed, that we have hitherto enumerated those offices only which consist in the ministry of the word; nor does Paul make mention of any others in the passage which we have quoted from the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians. But in the Epistle to the Romans, and the First Epistle to the Corinthians he enumerates other offices, as powers, gifts of healing, interpretation, government, care of the poor, (Rom. 12: 7; 1 Cor. 12: 28.) As to those which were temporary, I say nothing, for it is not worth while to dwell upon them. But there are two of perpetual duration, viz., government and care of the poor. By these governors (I Cor. 12:28) I understand seniors selected from the people to unite with the bishops in pronouncing censures and exercising discipline. For this is the only meaning which can be given to the passage, “He that ruleth, with diligence,” (Rom. 12: 8.) From the beginning, therefore, each church had its senate, composed of pious, grave, and venerable men, in whom was lodged the power of correcting faults. Of this power we shall afterwards speak. Moreover, experience shows that this arrangement was not confined to one age, and therefore we are to regard the office of government as necessary for all ages.

9. The deacons

The care of the poor was committed to deacons, of whom two classes are mentioned by Paul in the Epistle to the Romans, “He that giveth, let him do it with simplicity;” “he that showeth mercy, with cheerfulness,” (Rom. 12: 8.) As it is certain that he is here speaking of public offices of the Church, there must have been two distinct classes. If I mistake not, he in the former clause designates deacons, who administered alms; in the latter, those who had devoted themselves to the care of the poor and the sick. Such were the widows of whom he makes mention in the Epistle to Timothy, (1 Tim. 5: 10.) For there was no public office which women could discharge save that of devoting themselves to the service of the poor. If we admit this, (and it certainly ought to be admitted,) there will be two classes of deacons, the one serving the Church by administering the affairs of the poor; the other, by taking care of the poor themselves. For although the term “diakonia” has a more extensive meaning, Scripture specially gives the name of deacons to those whom the Church appoints to dispense alms, and take care of the poor; constituting them as it were stewards of the public treasury of the poor. Their origin, institution, and office, is described by Luke, (Acts 6: 3.) When a murmuring arose among the Greeks, because in the administration of the poor their widows were neglected, the apostles, excusing themselves that they were unable to discharge both offices, to preach the word and serve tables, requested the multitude to elect seven men of good reports to whom the office might be committed. Such deacons as the Apostolic Church had, it becomes us to have after her example.

(The calling, authorization, and ordination of ministers, 10-16)

10. Orderly calling is requisite

Now seeing that in the sacred assembly all things ought to be done decently and in order, (1 Cor. 14: 40,) there is nothing in which this ought to be more carefully observed than in settling government, irregularity in any respect being nowhere more perilous. Wherefore, lest restless and turbulent men should presumptuously push themselves forward to teach or rule, (an event which actually was to happen,) it was expressly provided that no one should assume a public office in the Church without a call, (Heb. 5: 4; Jer. 17: 16.) Therefore, if any one would be deemed a true minister at the Church, he must first be duly called; and, secondly, he must answer to his calling; that is, undertake and execute the office assigned to him. This may often be observed in Paul, who, when he would approve his apostleship, almost always alleges a call, together with his fidelity in discharging the office. If so great a minister of Christ dares not arrogate to himself authority to be heard in the Church, unless as having been appointed to it by the command of his Lord, and faithfully performing what has been intrusted to him, how great the effrontery for any man, devoid of one or both of them, to demand for himself such honour. But as we have already touched on the necessity of executing the office, let us now treat only of the call.

11. Outer and inner call

The subject is comprehended under four heads, viz., (1) who are to be appointed ministers, (2) in what way, (3) by whom, and (4) with what rite or initiatory ceremony.

I am speaking of the external and formal call which relates to the public order of the Church, while I say nothing of that secret call of which every minister is conscious before God, but has not the Church as a witness of it; I mean, the good testimony of our heart, that we undertake the offered office neither from ambition nor avarice, nor any other selfish feeling, but a sincere fear of God and desire to edify the Church. This, as I have said, is indeed necessary for every one of us, if we would approve our ministry to God.

Still, however, a man may have been duly called by the Church, though he may have accepted with a bad conscience, provided his wickedness is not manifest. It is usual also to say, that private men are called to the ministry when they seem fit and apt to discharge it; that is, because learning, conjoined with piety and the other endowments of a good pastor, is a kind of preparation for the office. For those whom the Lord has destined for this great office he previously provides with the armour which is requisite for the discharge of it, that they may not come empty and unprepared. Hence Paul, in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, when treating of the offices, first enumerates the gifts in which those who performed the offices ought to excel. But as this is the first of the four heads which I mentioned, let us now proceed to it.

12. Who can become a minister of the church? How this takes place

What persons should be elected bishops is treated at length by Paul in two passages, (Tit. 1: 7; 1 Tim. 3: 1.) The substance is, that none are to be chosen save those who are of sound doctrine and holy lives, and not notorious for any defect which might destroy their authority and bring disgrace on the ministry. The description of deacons and elders is entirely similar, (see chapter 4 sec. 10-13.) We must always take care that they are not unfit for or unequal to the burden imposed upon them; in other words, that they are provided with the means which will be necessary to fulfil their office. Thus our Saviour, when about to send his apostles, provided them with the arms and instruments which were indispensably requisite. And Paul, after portraying the character of a good and genuine bishop, admonishes Timothy not to contaminate himself by choosing an improper person for the office.

The expression, “in what way”, I use not in reference to the rite of choosing, but only to the religious fear which is to be observed in election. Hence the fastings and prayers which Luke narrates that the faithful employed when they elected presbyters, (Acts 14: 23.) For, understanding that the business was the most serious in which they could engage, they did not venture to act without the greatest reverence and solicitude. But above all, they were earnest in prayer, imploring from God the spirit of wisdom and discernment.

13. Who should choose ministers?

The third division which we have adopted is, by whom ministers are to be chosen. A certain rule on this head cannot be obtained from the appointment of the apostles, which was somewhat different from the common call of others. As theirs was an extraordinary ministry, in order to render it conspicuous by some more distinguished mark, those who were to discharge it behaved to be called and appointed by the mouth of the Lord himself. It was not, therefore, by any human election, but at the sole command of God and Christ, that they prepared themselves for the work. Hence, when the apostles were desirous to substitute another in the place of Judah, they did not venture to nominate any one certainly but brought forward two, that the Lord might declare by lot which of them he wished to succeed, (Acts 1: 23.) In this way we ought to understand Paul’s declaration, that he was made an apostles “not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father,” (Gal. 1: 1.) The former viz., “not of men” he had in common with all the pious ministers of the word, for no one could duly perform the office unless called by God. The other was proper and peculiar to him. And while he glories in it, he boasts that he had not only what pertains to a true and lawful pastor, but he also brings forward the insignia of his apostleship. For when there were some among the Galatians who, seeking to disparage his authority, represented him as some ordinary disciple, substituted in place of the primary apostles, he, in order to maintain unimpaired the dignity of his ministry, against which he knew that these attempts were made, felt it necessary to show that he was in no respect inferior to the other apostles. Accordingly, he affirms that he was not chosen by the judgement of men, like some ordinary bishop, but by the mouth and manifest oracle of the Lord himself.

14. Human agency

But no sober person will deny that the regular mode of lawful calling is, that bishops should be designated by men, since there are numerous passages of Scripture to this effect. Nor, as has been said, is there any thing contrary to this in Paul’s protestation, that he was not sent either of man, or by man, seeing he is not there speaking of the ordinary election of ministers but claiming for himself what was peculiar to the apostles: although the Lord in thus selecting Paul by special privilege, subjected him in the meantime to the discipline of an ecclesiastical call: for Luke relates, “As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them,” (Acts 13: 2.) Why this separation and laying on of hands after the Holy Spirit had attested their election, unless that ecclesiastical discipline might be preserved in appointing ministers by men? God could not give a more illustrious proof of his approbation of this order, than by causing Paul to be set apart by the Church after he had previously declared that he had appointed him to be the Apostle of the Gentiles. The same thing we may see in the election of Matthias. As the apostolic office was of such importance that they did not venture to appoint any one to it of their own judgement, they bring forward two, on one of whom the lot might fall, that thus the election might have a sure testimony from heavens and, at the same time, the policy of the Church might not be disregarded.

15. The vote of the people

The next question is, Whether a minister should be chosen by the whole Church, or only by colleagues and elders, who have the charge of discipline; or whether they may be appointed by the authority of one individual?

Those who attribute this right to one individual quote the words of Paul to Titus, “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city,” (Tit. 1: 5;) and also to Timothy, “Lay hands suddenly on no man,” (1 Tim. 5: 22.) But they are mistaken if they suppose that Timothy so reigned at Ephesus, and Titus in Crete, as to dispose of all things at their own pleasure. They only presided by previously giving good and salutary counsels to the people, not by doing alone whatever pleased them, while all others were excluded.

Lest this should seem to be a fiction of mine, I will make it plain by a similar example. Luke relates that Barnabas and Paul ordained elders throughout the churches, but he at the same time marks the plan or mode when he says that it was done by suffrage. The words are, “Cheirotonesantes presbuterous kat’ ekklesian”, (Acts 14: 23.) They therefore selected (creabant) two; but the whole body as was the custom of the Greeks in elections, declared by a show of hands which of the two they wished to have. Thus it is not uncommon for Roman historians to say, that the consul who held the comitia elected the new magistrates for no other reason but because he received the suffrages, and presided over the people at the election.

Certainly it is not credible that Paul conceded more to Timothy and Titus than he assumed to himself. Now we see that his custom was to appoint bishops by the suffrages of the people. We must therefore interpret the above passages, so as not to infringe on the common right and liberty of the Church. Rightly, therefore, does Cyprian contend for it as of divine authority, that the priest be chosen in presence of the people, before the eyes of all, and be approved as worthy and fit by public judgement and testimony, (Cyprian, lib. 1 Ep. 3.) Indeed, we see that by the command of the Lord, the practice in electing the Levitical priests was to bring them forward in view of the people before consecration. Nor is Matthias enrolled among the number of the apostles nor are the seven deacons elected in any other way, than at the sight and approval of the people, (Acts 6: 2.) “Those examples,” says Cyprian, “show that the ordination of a priest behaved not to take place, unless under the consciousness of the people assisting, so that that ordination was just and legitimate which was vouched by the testimony of all.”

We see then, that ministers are legitimately called according to the word of God, when those who may have seemed fit are elected on the consent and approbation of the people. Other pastors, however, ought to preside over the election, lest any error should be committed by the general body either through levity, or bad passion, or tumult.

16. Ordination

It remains to consider the form of ordination, to which we have assigned the last place in the call, (see chap. 4, sec. 14, 15.) It is certain, that when the apostles appointed any one to the ministry, they used no other ceremony than the laying on of hands. This form was derived, I think, from the custom of the Jews, who, by the laying on of hands, in a manner presented to God whatever they wished to be blessed and consecrated. Thus Jacob, when about to bless Ephraim and Manasseh, placed his hands upon their heads, (Gen. 48: 14.) The same thing was done by our Lord, when he prayed over the little children, (Matth. 14: 15.) With the same intent, (as I imagine,) the Jews, according to the injunction of the law, laid hands upon their sacrifices. Wherefore, the apostles, by the laying on of hands, intimated that they made an offering to God of him whom they admitted to the ministry, though they also did the same thing over those on whom they conferred the visible gifts of the Spirit, (Acts 8: 17; 19: 6.) However this be, it was the regular form, whenever they called any one to the sacred ministry. In this way they consecrated pastors and teachers, in this way they consecrated deacons.

But though there is no fixed precept concerning the laying on of hands, yet as we see that it was uniformly observed by the apostles, this careful observance ought to be regarded by us in the light of a precept, (see chap. 14, sec. 29; chap. 19, sec. 31.) And it is certainly useful, that by such a symbol the dignity of the ministry should be commended to the people, and he who is ordained, reminded that he is no longer his own, but is bound in service to God and the Church. Besides, it will not prove an empty sign, if it be restored to its genuine origin. For if the Spirit of God has not instituted any thing in the Church in vain, this ceremony of his appointment we shall feel not to be useless, provided it be not superstitiously abused. Lastly, it is to be observed, that it was not the whole people, but only pastors, who laid hands on ministers, though it is uncertain whether or not several always laid their hands: it is certain, that in the case of the deacons, it was done by Paul and Barnabas, and some few others, (Acts 6: 6; 13: 3.) But in another place, Paul mentions that he himself, without any others, laid hands on Timothy. “Wherefore, I put thee in remembrance, that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands,” (2 Tim. 1: 6.) For what is said in the First Epistle, of the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, I do not understand as if Paul were speaking of the college of Elders. By the expression, I understand the ordination itself; as if he had said, Act so, that the gift which you received by the laying on of hands, when I made you a presbyter, may not be in vain.

CHAPTER 4. THE CONDITION OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH, AND THE KIND OF GOVERNMENT IN USE BEFORE THE PAPACY.

The divisions of this chapter are,—

I. The mode of government in the primitive Church, sec. 1-10.

II. The formal ordination of Bishops and Ministers in the primitive Church, sec. 10-15.

Sections.

1. The method of government in the primitive Church. Not in every respect conformable to the rule of the word of God. Three distinct orders of Ministers.

2. First, the Bishop, for the sake of preserving order, presided over the Presbyters or Pastors. The office of Bishop. Presbyter and Bishop the same. The institution of this order ancient.

3. The office of Bishop and Presbyters. Strictly preserved in the primitive Church.

4. Of Archbishops and Patriarchs. Very seldom used. For what end instituted. Hierarchy an improper name, and not used in Scripture.

5. Deacons, the second order of Ministers in the primitive Church. Their proper office. The Bishop their inspector. Subdeacons, their assistants. Archdeacons, their presidents. The reading of the Gospel, an adventitious office conferred in honour on the Deacons.

6. Mode in which the goods of the Church were anciently dispensed. 1. The support of the poor. 2. Due provision for the ministers of the Church.

7. The administration at first free and voluntary. The revenues of the Church afterwards classed under four heads.

8. A third part of the revenues devoted to the fabric of churches. To this, however, when necessary, the claim of the poor was preferred. Sayings, testimonies, and examples to this effect, from Cyril, Acatius, Jerome, Exuperius, Ambrose.

9. The Clerics, among whom were the Doorkeepers and Acolytes, were. the names given to exercises used as a kind of training for tyros.

10. Second part of the chapter, treating of the calling of Ministers. Some error introduced in course of time in respect to celibacy from excessive strictness. In regard to the ordination of Ministers, full regard not always paid to the consent of the people. Why the people less anxious to maintain their right. Ordinations took place at stated times.

11. In the ordination of Bishops the liberty of the people maintained.

12. Certain limits afterwards introduced to restrain the inconsiderate license of the multitude.

13. This mode of election long prevailed. Testimony of Gregory. nothing repugnant to this in the decretals of Gratian.

14. The form of ordination in the ancient Church.

15. This form gradually changed.

(Historical development of the ministry; three classes of ministers: teaching and ruling presbyters: one presbyter selected to be bishop: the archbishop, 1-4)

1. Fidelity of the ancient church to the Scriptural archetype

Hitherto we have discoursed of the order of church government as delivered to us in the pure word of God, and of ministerial offices as instituted by Christ, (chap. 1 sec. 5, 6; chap. 3.) Now that the whole subject may be more clearly and familiarly explained, and also better fixed in our minds, it will be useful to attend to the form of the early Church, as this will give us a kind of visible representation of the divine institution. For Al though the bishops of those times published many canons, in which they seemed to express more than is expressed by the sacred volume, yet they were so cautious in framing all their economy on the word of God, the only standard, that it is easy to see that they scarcely in any respect departed from it. Even if something may be wanting in these enactments, still, as they were sincerely desirous to preserve the divine institution, and have not strayed far from it, it will be of great benefit here briefly to explain what their observance was.

As we have stated that three classes of ministers are set before us in Scripture, so the early Church distributed all its ministers into three orders. For from the order of presbyters, (1) part were selected as pastors and teachers, (2) while to the remainder was committed the censure of manners and discipline. (3) To the deacons belonged the care of the poor and the dispensing of alms.

Readers and Acolytes were not the names of certain offices; but those whom they called clergy, they accustomed from their youth to serve the Church by certain exercises, that they might the better understand for what they were destined, and afterwards come better prepared for their duty, as I will shortly show at greater length.

Accordingly, Jerome, in setting forth five orders in the Church, enumerates Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, Believers, Catechumens: to the other Clergy and Monks he gives no proper place, (Hieron. in Jes. c. 9.)

2. The position of the bishop

All, therefore, to whom the office of teaching was committed, they called presbyters, and in each city these presbyters selected one of their number to whom they gave the special title of bishop, lest, as usually happens, from equality dissension should arise. The bishop, however, was not so superior in honour and dignity as to have dominion over his colleagues, but as it belongs to a president in an assembly to bring matters before them, collect their opinions, take precedence of others in consulting, advising, exhorting, guide the whole procedure by his authority, and execute what is decreed by common consent, a bishop held the same office in a meeting of presbyters.

And the ancients themselves confess that this practice was introduced by human arrangement, according to the exigency of the times. Thus Jerome, on the Epistle to Titus, cap. 1 says, “A bishop is the same as a presbyter. And before dissensions were introduced into religion by the instigation of the devil, and it was said among the people, I am of Paul, and I of Cephas, churches were governed by a common council of presbyters. Afterwards, that the seeds of dissension might be plucked up, the whole charge was devolved upon one. Therefore, as presbyters know that by the custom of the Church they are subject to him who presides, so let bishops know that they are greater than presbyters more by custom than in consequence of our Lord’s appointment, and ought to rule the Church for the common good.” In another place he shows how ancient the custom was, (Hieron. Epist. ad Evang.) For he says that at Alexandria, from Mark the Evangelist, as far down as Heraclas and Dionysius, presbyters always placed one, selected from themselves, in a higher rank, and gave him the name of bishop.

Each city, therefore, had a college of presbyters, consisting of pastors and teachers. For they all performed to the people that office of teaching, exhorting, and correcting, which Paul enjoins on bishops, (Tit. 1: 9;) and that they might leave a seed behind them, they made it their business to train the younger men who had devoted themselves to the sacred warfare.

To each city was assigned a certain district which took presbyters from it, and was considered as it were incorporated into that church. Each presbyter, as I have said, merely to preserve order and peace, was under one bishop, who, though he excelled others in dignity, was subject to the meeting of the brethren. But if the district which was under his bishopric was too large for him to be able to discharge all the duties of bishop, presbyters were distributed over it in certain places to act as his substitutes in minor matters. These were called Chorepiscopi, (rural bishops,) because they represented the bishops throughout the province.

3. The chief duty of bishop and presbyters

But, in regard to the office of which we now treat, the bishop as well as the presbyters behoved to employ themselves in the administration of word and sacraments. For, at Alexandria only, (as Arius had there troubled the Church,) it was enacted, that no presbyter should deliver an address to the people, as Socrates says, Tripartite. Hist. Lib. 9. Jerome does not conceal his dissatisfaction with the enactment, (Hieron. Epist. ad Evagr.)

It certainly would have been deemed monstrous for one to give himself out as a bishop, and yet not show himself a true bishop by his conduct. Such, then, was the strictness of those times, that all ministers were obliged to fulfil the office as the Lord requires of them. Nor do I refer to the practice of one age only, since not even in the time of Gregory, when the Church had almost fallen, (certainly had greatly degenerated from ancient purity,) would any bishop have been tolerated who abstained from preaching. In some part of his twenty-fourth Epistle he says, “The priest dies when no sound is heard from him: for he calls forth the wrath of the unseen Judge against him if he walks without the sound of preaching.” elsewhere he says, “When Paul testifies that he is pure from the blood of all men, (Acts 20: 26,) by his words, we, who are called priests, are charged, are arraigned, are shown to be guilty, since to those sins which we have of our own we add the deaths of other men, for we commit murder as often as lukewarm and silent we see them daily going to destruction,” (Gregor. Hom. in Ezek. 11: 26.) He calls himself and others silent when less assiduous in their work than they ought to be. Since he does not spare even those who did their duty partially, what think you would he do in the case of those who entirely neglected it? For a long time, therefore, it was regarded in the Church as the first duty of a bishop to feed the people by the word of God, or to edify the Church, in public and private, with sound doctrine.

4. Archbishops and patriarchs

As to the fact, that each province had an archbishop among the bishops, (see chap. 7 sec. 15,) and, moreover, that, in the Council of Nice, patriarchs were appointed to be superior to archbishops, in order and dignity, this was designed for the preservation of discipline, although, in treating of the subject here, it ought not to be omitted, that the practice was very rare. The chief reason for which these orders were instituted was, that if any thing occurred in any church which could not well be explicated by a few, it might be referred to a provincial synod. If the magnitude or difficulty of the case demanded a larger discussion, patriarchs were employed along with synods, and from them there was no appeal except to a General Council. To the government thus constituted some gave the name of Hierarchy—a name, in my opinion, improper, certainly one not used by Scripture. For the Holy Spirit designed to provide that no one should dream of primacy or domination in regard to the government of the Church. But if, disregarding the term, we look to the thing, we shall find that the ancient bishops had no wish to frame a form of church government different from that which God has prescribed in his word.

(Deacons and archdeacons: the administration of property and alms: minor clerics, 5-9)

5. The office of deacon

Nor was the case of deacons then different from what it had been under the apostles, (chap. 3 sec. 6.) For they received the daily offerings of the faithful, and the annual revenues of the Church, that they might apply them to their true uses; in other words, partly in maintaining ministers, and partly in supporting the poor; at the sight of the bishop, however, to whom they every year gave an account of their stewardship. For, although the canons uniformly make the bishop the dispenser of all the goods of the Church, this is not to be understood as if he by himself undertook that charge, but because it belonged to him to prescribe to the deacon who were to be admitted to the public alimony of the Church, and point out to what persons, and in what portions, the residue was to be distributed, and because he was entitled to see whether the deacon faithfully performed his office. Thus, in the canons which they ascribe to the apostles, it is said, “We command that the bishop have the affairs of the Church under his control. For if the souls of men, which are more precious, have been intrusted to him, much more is he entitled to have the charge of money matters, so that under his control all may be dispensed to the poor by the presbyters and deacons, that the ministration may be made reverently and with due care.” And in the Council of Antioch, it was decreed, (cap. 35,) that bishops, who intermeddled with the effects of the Church, without the knowledge of the presbyters and deacons, should be restrained. But there is no occasion to discuss this point farther, since it is evident, from many of the letters of Gregory, that even at that time, when the ecclesiastical ordinances were otherwise much vitiated, it was still the practice for the deacons to be under the bishops the stewards of the poor.

It is probable that at the first subdeacons were attached to the deacons, to assist them in the management of the poor; but the distinction was gradually lost.

Archdeacons began to be appointed when the extent of the revenues demanded a new and more exact method of administration, though Jerome mentions that it already existed in his day. To them belonged the amount of revenues, possessions, and furniture, and the charge of the daily offerings. Hence Gregory declares to the Archdeacon Solitanus, that the blame rested with him, if any of the goods of the Church perished through his fraud or negligence. The reading of the word to the people, and exhortation to prayer, was assigned to them, and they where permitted, moreover, to give the cup in the sacred Supper; but this was done for the purpose of honouring their office, that they might perform it with greater reverence, when they were reminded by such symbols that what they discharged was not some profane stewardship, but a spiritual function dedicated to God.

6. The use of church possessions

Hence, also, we may judge what was the use, and of what nature was the distribution of ecclesiastical goods. You may every where find, both from the decrees of synods, and from ancient writers, that whatever the Church possessed, either in lands or in money, was the patrimony of the poor. Accordingly, the saying is ever and anon sounded in the ears of bishops and deacons, Remember that you are not handling your own property, but that destined for the necessities of the poor; if you dishonestly conceal or dilapidate it, you will be guilty of blood. Hence they are admonished to distribute them to those to whom they are due, with the greatest fear and reverence, as in the sight of God, without respect of persons. Hence, also, in Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, and other like bishops, those grave obtestations in which they assert their integrity before the people.

But since it is just in itself, and was sanctioned by a divine law, that those who devote their labour to the Church shall be supported at the public expense (I Cor.9:14; Gal.6:6) of the Church, and some presbyters in that age having consecrated their patrimony to God, had become voluntarily poor, the distribution was so made that aliment was afforded to ministers, and the poor were not neglected. Meanwhile, it was provided that the ministers themselves, who ought to be an example of frugality to others, should not have so much as might be abused for luxury or delicacy; but only what might be needful to support their wants: “For those clergy, who can be supported by their own patrimony,” says Jerome, “commit sacrilege if they accept what belongs to the poor, and by such abuse eat and drink judgement to themselves.”

7. Fourfold division of revenues

At first the administration was free and voluntary, when bishops and deacons were faithful of their own accord, and when integrity of conscience and purity of life supplied the place of laws. Afterwards, when, from the cupidity and depraved desires of some, bad examples arose, Canons were framed, to correct these evils, and divided the revenues of the Church into four parts, assigning one to the clergy, another to the poor, another to the repair of churches and other edifices, a fourth to the poor whether strangers or natives.

For though other canons attribute this last part to the bishop, it differs in no respect from the division which I have mentioned. For they do not mean that it is his property, which he may devour alone or squander in any way he pleases, but that it may enable him to use the hospitality which Paul requires in that order, (1 Tim. 3: 2.) This is the interpretation of Gelasius and Gregory. For the only reason which Gelasius gives why the bishop should claim any thing to himself is that he may be able to bestow it on captives and strangers. Gregory speaks still more clearly: “It is the custom of the Apostolic See,” says he, “to give command to the bishop who has been ordained, to divide all the revenues into four portions, namely, one to the bishop and his household for hospitality and maintenance, another to the clergy, a third to the poor, a fourth to the repair of churches.” The bishop, therefore, could not lawfully take for his own use more than was sufficient for moderate and frugal food and clothing. When any one began to wanton either in luxury or ostentation and show, he was immediately reprimanded by his colleagues, and if he obeyed not, was deprived of his honours.

8. Church treasure distributed to the poor

Moreover the sum expended on the adorning of churches was at first very trifling, and even afterwards, when the Church had become somewhat more wealthy, they in that matter observed mediocrity. Still, whatever money was then collected was reserved for the poor, when any greater necessity occurred. Thus Cyril, when a famine prevailed in the province of Jerusalem, and the want could not otherwise be supplied, took the vessels and robes and sold them for the support of the poor. In like manner, Acatius, Bishop of Amida, when a great multitude of the Persian were almost destroyed by famine, having assembled the clergy, and delivered this noble address, “Our God has no need either of chalices or salvers, for he neither eats nor drinks,” (Tripart. Hist. Lib. 5 and Lib. 6 c. 16,) melted down the plate, that he might be able to furnish food and obtain the means of ransoming the miserable. Jerome also, while inveighing against the excessive splendour of churches relates that Exuperius, Bishop of Tholouse, in his day, though he carried the body of the Lord in a wicker basket, and his blood in a glass, nevertheless suffered no poor man to be hungry, (Hieron. ad Nepotian.) What I lately said of Acatius, Ambrose relates of himself. For when the Asians assailed him for having broken down the sacred vessels for the ransom of captives, he made this most admirable excuse: “He who sent the apostles without gold has also gathered churches without gold. The Church has gold not to keep but to distribute, and give support in necessity. What need is there of keeping what is of no benefit? Are we ignorant how much gold and silver the Assyrians carried off from the temple of the Lord? Is it not better for a priest to melt them for the support of the poor, if other means are wanting, than for a sacrilegious enemy to carry them away? Would not the Lord say, Why have you suffered so many poor to die of hunger, and you certainly had gold wherewith to minister to their support? Why have so many captives been carried away and not redeemed? Why have so many been slain by the enemy? It had been better to preserve living than metallic vessels. These charges you will not be able to answer: for what could you say? I feared lest the temple of God should want ornament. He would answer, Sacraments require not gold, and things which are not bought with gold please not by gold. The ornament of the Sacraments is the ransom of captives,” (Ambrose. de Office. Lib. 2 c. 28.) In a word, we see the exact truth of what he elsewhere says, viz., that whatever the Church then possessed was the revenue of the needy. Again, A bishop has nothing but what belongs to the poor, (Ambrose. Lib. 5 Ep. 31, 33.)

9. The preparatory stages of the office

We have now reviewed the ministerial offices of the ancient Church. For others, of which ecclesiastical writers make mention, were rather exercises and preparations than distinct offices. These holy men, that they might leave a nursery of the Church behind them, received young men, who, with the consent and authority of their parents, devoted themselves to the spiritual warfare under their guardianship and training, and so formed them from their tender years, that they might not enter on the discharge of the office as ignorant novices. All who received this training were designated by the general name of Clerks. I could wish that some more appropriate name had been given them, for this appellation had its origin in error, or at least improper feeling, since the whole Church is by Peter denominated “kleros” (clerus,) that is, the inheritance of the Lord, (1 Pet. 5: 3.) It was in itself however a most sacred and salutary institutions that those who wished to devote themselves and their labour to the Church should be brought up under the charge of the bishop; so that no one should minister in the Church unless he had been previously well trained, unless he had in early life imbibed sound doctrine, unless by stricter discipline he had formed habits of gravity and severer morals, been withdrawn from ordinary business, and accustomed to spiritual cares and studies. For as lyres in the military art are trained by mock fights for true and serious warfare, so there was a rudimental training by which they were exercised in clerical duty before they were actually appointed to office. First, then, they intrusted them with the opening and shutting of the church, and called them Ostiarii. Next, they gave the name of Acolytes to those who assisted the bishop in domestic services, and constantly attended him, first, as a mark of respect; and, secondly that no suspicion might arise. Moreover, that they might gradually become known to the people, and recommend themselves to them, and at the same time might learn to stand the gaze of all, and speak before all, that they might not, when appointed presbyters, be overcome with shame when they came forward to teach, the office of reading in the desk was given them. In this way they were gradually advanced, that they might prove their carefulness in separate exercises, until they were appointed subdeacons. All I mean by this is, that these were rather the rudimentary exercises of lyres than functions which were accounted among the true ministries of the Church.

(History of changes in the election and ordination of ministers: consent of the magistrates, clergy, and people in the election of bishops, 10-15)

10. Paul’s directions mainly followed: consent of the people

In regard to what we have set down as the first and second heads in the calling of ministers, viz., the persons to be elected and the religious care to be therein exercised, the ancient Church followed the injunction of Paul, and the examples of the apostles. For they were accustomed to meet for the election of pastors with the greatest reverence, and with earnest prayer to God. Moreover, they had a form of examination by which they tested the life and doctrine of those who were to be elected by the standard of Paul, (1 Tim. 3: 2-7) only here they sometimes erred from excessive strictness, by exacting more of a bishop than Paul requires, and especially, in process of time, by exacting celibacy: but in other respects their practice corresponded with Paul’s description.

In regard to our third head, however, viz., Who were entitled to appoint ministers? they did not always observe the same rule. Anciently none were admitted to the number of the clergy without the consent of the whole people: and hence Cyprian makes a laboured apology for having appointed Aurelius a reader without consulting the Church, because, although done contrary to customs it was not done without reason. He thus premises: “In ordaining clergy, dearest brethren, we are wont previously to consult you, and weigh the manners and merits of each by the common advice,” (Cyprian. Lib. 2. Ep. 5.) But as in these minor exercises there was no great danger, inasmuch as they were appointed to a long probation and unimportant function, the consent of the people ceased to be asked.

Afterwards, in other orders also, with the exception of the bishopric, the people usually left the choice and decision to the bishop and presbyters, who thus determined who were fit and worthy, unless, perhaps, when new presbyters were appointed to parishes, for then the express consent of the inhabitants of the place behaved to be given. Nor is it strange that in this matter the people were not very anxious to maintain their right, for no subdeacon was appointed who had not given a long proof of his conduct in the clerical office, agreeably to the strictness of discipline then in use. After he had approved himself in that degree he was appointed deacon, and thereafter, if he conducted himself faithfully, he attained to the honour of a presbyter. Thus none were promoted whose conduct had not, in truth, been tested for many years under the eye of the people. There were also many canons for punishing their faults, so that the Church, if she did not neglect the remedies, was not burdened with bad presbyters or deacons. In the case of presbyters, indeed, the consent of the citizens was always required, as is attested by the canon, (Primus Distinct. 67,) which is attributed to Anacletus. In fine, all ordinations took place at stated periods of the year, that none might creep in stealthily without the consent of the faithful, or be promoted with too much facility without witnesses.

11. Consent in episcopal elections, to the time of Theodoret

In electing bishops, the people long retained their right of preventing any one from being intruded who was not acceptable to all. Accordingly, it was forbidden by the Council of Antioch to induct any one on the unwilling. This also Leo I carefully confirms. Hence these passages: “Let him be elected whom the clergy and people or the majority demand.” Again, “Let him who is to preside over all be elected by all,” (Leo, Ep. 90, cap. 2.) He, therefore, who is appointed while unknown and unexamined, must of necessity be violently intruded. Again, “Let him be elected who is chosen by the clergy, and called by the people, and let him be consecrated by the provincials with the judgement of the metropolitan.” So careful were the holy fathers that this liberty of the people should on no account be diminished, that when a general council, assembled at Constantinople, were ordaining Nectarius, they declined to do it without the approbation of the whole clergy and people, as their letter to the Roman synod testified. Accordingly, when any bishop nominated his successor, the act was not ratified without consulting the whole people. Of this you have not only an example, but the form, in Augustine, in the nomination of Radius, (August. Ep. 110.) And Theodore, after relating that Peter was the successor nominated by Athanasius, immediately adds, that the sacerdotal order ratified it, that the magistracy, chief men, and whole people, by their acclamation approved.

12. Balance between people and clergy

It was, indeed, decreed (and I admit on the best grounds) by the Council of Laodicea, (Can. 18) that the election should not be left to crowds. For it scarcely ever happens that so many heads, with one consent, settle any affair well. It generally holds true, “Incertum scindi studia in contraria vulgus;"—"Opposing wishes rend the fickle crowd.” For, first, the clergy alone selected, and presented him whom they had selected to the magistrate, or senate, and chief men. These, after deliberation, put their signature to the election, if it seemed proper, if not, they chose another whom they more highly approved. The matter was then laid before the multitude, who, although not bound by those previous proceedings, were less able to act tumultuously. Or, if the matter began with the multitude, it was only that it might be known whom they were most desirous to have; the wishes of the people being heard, the clergy at length elected. Thus it was neither lawful for the clergy to appoint whom they chose, nor were they, however, under the necessity of yielding to the foolish desires of the people. Leo sets down this order, when he says, “The wishes of the citizens, the testimonies of the people, the choice of the honourable, the election of the clergy, are to be waited for,” (Leo, Ep. 87.) Again, “Let the testimony of the honourable, the subscription of the clergy, the consent of the magistracy and people, be obtained; otherwise (says he) it must on no account be done.” Nor is any thing more intended by the decree of the Council of Laodicea, than that the clergy and rulers were not to allow themselves to be carried away by the rash multitude, but rather by their prudence and gravity to repress their foolish desires whenever there was occasion.

13. Clergy and political leaders

This mode of election was still in force in the time of Gregory, and probably continued to a much later period. Many of his letters which are extant clearly prove this, for whenever a new bishop is to be elected, his custom is to write to the clergy, magistrates, and people; sometimes also to the governor, according to the nature of the government. But if, on account of the unsettled state of the Church, he gives the oversight of the election to a neighbouring bishop, he always requires a formal decision confirmed by the subscriptions of all. Nay, when one Constantius was elected Bishop of Milan, and in consequence of the incursions of the Barbarians many of the Milanese had fled to Genoa, he thought that the election would not be lawful unless they too were called together and gave their assent, (Gregor. Lib. 2 Ep. 69.) Nay, five hundred years have not elapsed since Pope Nicholas fixed the election of the Roman Pontiff in this way, first, that the cardinals should precede; next, that they should join to themselves the other clergy; and, lastly, that the election should be ratified by the consent of the people. And in the end he recites the decree of Leo, which I lately quoted, and orders it to be enforced in future. But should the malice of the wicked so prevail that the clergy are obliged to quit the city, in order to make a pure election, he, however, orders that some of the people shall, at the same time, be present.

The suffrage of the Emperor, as far as we can understand, was required only in two churches, those of Rome and Constantinople, these being the two seats of empire. For when Ambrose was sent by Valentinianus to Milan with authority to superintend the election of a new bishop, it was an extraordinary proceeding, in consequence of the violent factions which raged among the citizens. But at Rome the authority of the Emperor in the election of the bishop was so great, that Gregory says he was appointed to the government of the Church by his order, (Gregor. Lib. 1 Ep. 5,) though he had been called by the people in regular form. The custom, however, was, that when the magistrates, clergy, and people, nominated any one, he was forthwith presented to the Emperor, who either by approving ratified, or by disapproving annulled the election. There is nothing contrary to this practice in the decretals which are collected by Gratian, where all that is said is, that it was on no account to be tolerated that canonical election should be abolished, and a king should at pleasure appoint a bishop, and that one thus promoted by violent authority was not to be consecrated by the metropolitans. For it is one thing to deprive the Church of her rights and transfer it entirely to the caprice of a single individual; it is another thing to assign to a king or emperor the honour of confirming a legitimate election by his authority.

14. The procedure in ordination

It now remains to treat of the form by which the ministers of the ancient Church were initiated to their office after election. This was termed by the Latins, Ordination or consecration, and by the Greeks “cheirotonia”, sometimes also “cheirotesia”, though “cheirotonia” properly denotes that mode of election by which suffrages are declared by a show of hands. There is extant a decree of the Council of Nice, to the effect that the metropolitans, with all the bishops of the province, were to meet to ordain him who was chosen. But if, from distance, or sickness, or any other necessary cause, part were prevented, three at least should meet, and those who were absent signify their consent by letter. And this canon, after it had fallen into desuetude, was afterwards renewed by several councils. All, or at least all who had not an excuse, were enjoined to be present, in order that a stricter examination might be had of the life and doctrine of him who was to be ordained; for the thing was not done without examination. And it appears, from the words of Cyprian, that, in old time, they were not wont to be called after the election, but to be present at the election, and with the view of their acting as moderators, that no disorder might be committed by the crowd. For after saying that the people had the power either of choosing worthy or refusing unworthy priests, he immediately adds, “For which reason, we must carefully observe and hold by the divine and apostolic tradition, (which is observed by us also, and almost by all the provinces) that for the due performance of ordinations all the nearest bishops of the province should meet with the people over whom the person is proposed to be ordained, and the bishop should be elected in presence of the people. But as they were sometimes too slowly assembled, and there was a risk that some might abuse the delay for purposes of intrigue, it was thought that it would be sufficient if they came after the designation was made and on due investigation consecrated him who had been approved.

15. Consecration by the metropolitan

While this was done every where without exception, a different custom gradually gained ground, namely, that those who were elected should go to the metropolitan to obtain ordination. This was owing more to ambition, and the corruption of the ancient customs than to any good reason. And not long after, the authority of the Romish See being now increased, another still worse custom was introduced, of applying to it for the consecration of the bishops of almost all Italy. This we may observe from the letters of Gregory, (Lib. 2 Ep. 69, 76.) The ancient right was preserved by a few cities only which had not yielded so easily; for instance, Milan. Perhaps metropolitan sees only retained their privilege. For, in order to consecrate an archbishop, it was the practice for all the provincial bishops to meet in the metropolitan city.

The form used was the laying on of hands, (chap. 19. sec. 28, 31.) I do not read that any other ceremonies were used, except that, in the public meeting, the bishops had some dress to distinguish them from the other presbyters. Presbyters, also, and deacons, were ordained by the laying on of hands; but each bishop, with the college of presbyters, ordained his own presbyters. But though they all did the same act, yet because the bishop presided, and the ordination was performed as it were under his auspices, it was said to be his. Hence ancient writers often say that a presbyter does not differ in any respect from a bishop except in not having the power of ordaining.

CHAPTER 5. THE ANCIENT FORM OF GOVERNMENT UTTERLY CORRUPTED BY THE TYRANNY OF THE PAPACY.

This chapter consists of two parts, -

I. Who are called to the ministry under the Papacy, their character, and the ground of their appointment, sec. 1-7.

II. How far they fulfil their office, sec. 8-19.

Sections.

1. Who and what kind of persons are uniformly appointed bishops in the Papacy.

1. No inquiry into doctrine.

2. In regard to character, the unlearned and dissolute, boys, or men of wicked lives, chosen.

2. The right of the people taken away, though maintained by Leo, Cyprian, and Councils. It follows, that there is no Canonical election in the Papacy. Two objections answered. Papal elections, what kind of persons elected.

3. A fuller explanation of the answer to the second objection, unfolding the errors of people, bishops, and princes.

4. No election of presbyters and deacons in the Papacy.

1. Because they are ordained for a different end.

2. Contrary to the command of Scripture and the Council of Chalcedony, no station is assigned them.

3. Both the name and thing adulterated by a thousand frauds.

5. Refutation of those corruptions. Proper end of ordination. Of trial, and other necessary things. For these, wicked and sanguinary men have substituted vain show and deplorable blindness.

6. Second corruption relating to the assignation of benefices which they call collation. Manifold abuses here exposed. Why the offices of priests are in the Papacy called benefices.

7. One individual appointed over five or six churches. This most shameful corruption severely condemned by many Councils.

8. Second part of the chapter, viz., how the office is discharged. Monks who have no place among Presbyters. Objection answered.

9. Presbyters divided into beneficiaries and mercenaries. The beneficiaries are bishops, parsons, canons, chaplains, abbots, priors. The mercenaries condemned by the word of God.

10. The name of beneficiaries given to idle priests who perform no office in the church. Objection answered. What kind of persons the canons should be. Another objection answered. The beneficiaries not true presbyters.

11. The bishops and rectors of parishes, by deserting their churches, glory only in an empty name.

12. The seeds of this evil in the age of Gregory, who inveighs against mercenaries. More sharply rebuked by Bernard.

13. The supreme Popish administration described. Ridiculous allegation of those so-called ministers of the Church. Answer.

14. Their shameful morals. Scarcely one who would not have been excommunicated or deposed by the ancient canons.

15. No true diaconate existing in the Papacy, though they have still the shadow of it. Corruption of the practice of the primitive Church in regard to deacons.

16. Ecclesiastical property, which was formerly administered by the deacons, plundered by bishops and canons, in defraud of the poor.

17. Blasphemous defence of these robbers. Answer. Kings doing homage to Christ. Theodosius. A saying of Ambrose.

18. Another defence with regard to the adorning of churches. Answer.

19. Concluding answer, showing that the diaconate is completely subverted by the Papacy.

(Appointment of unqualified persons without vote of the people, 1-3)

1. Scandalous neglect of requirements for the episcopate

It may now be proper to bring under the eye of the reader the order of church government observed by the Roman See and all its satellites and the whole of that hierarchy, which they have perpetually in their mouths, and compare it with the description we have given of the primitive and early Church, that the contrast may make it manifest what kind of church those have who plume themselves on the very title, as sufficient to outweighs or rather overwhelm us.

It will be best to begin with the call, that we may see who are called to the ministry, with what character, and on what grounds. Thereafter we will consider how far they faithfully fulfil their office.

We shall give the first place to the bishops; would that they could claim the honour of holding the first rank in this discussion! But the subject does not allow me even to touch it lightly without exposing their disgrace. Stills let me remember in what kind of writing I am engaged and not allow my discourse, which ought to be framed for simple teaching, to wander beyond its proper limits.

But let any of them, who have not laid aside all modesty, tell me what kind of bishops are uniformly elected in the present day!

Any examination of doctrine is too old-fashioned, but if any respect is had to doctrine, they make choice of some lawyer who knows better how to plead in the forum than to preach in the church. This much is certain, that for a hundred years, scarcely one in a hundred has been elected who had any acquaintance with sacred doctrine. I do not spare former ages because they were much better, but because the question now relates only to the present Church. If morals be inquired into, we shall find few or almost none whom the ancient canons would not have judged unworthy. If one was not a drunkard, he was a fornicator; if one was free from this vice, he was either a gambler or sportsman, or a loose liver in some respect. For there are lighter faults which, according to the ancient canons, exclude from the episcopal office. But the most absurd thing of all is, that even boys scarcely ten years of age are, by the permission of the Pope, made bishops. Such is the effrontery and stupidity to which they have arrived, that they have no dread even of that last and monstrous iniquity, which is altogether abhorrent even from natural feeling. Hence it appears what kind of elections these must have been, when such supine negligence existed.

2. The community deprived of the right to elect its bishop

Then in election, the whole right has been taken from the people. Vows, assents, subscriptions, and all things of this sort, have disappeared; the whole power has been given to the canons alone. First, they confer the episcopal office on whomsoever they please; by and by, they bring him forth into the view of the people, but it is to be adored, not examined.

But Leo protests that no reason permits this, and declares it to be a violent imposition, (Leo, Ep. 90, cap. 2.) Cyprian, after declaring it to be of divine authority, that election should not take place without the consent of the people, shows that a different procedure is at variance with the word of God. Numerous decrees of councils most strictly forbid it to be otherwise done, and if done, order it to be null. If this is true, there is not throughout the whole Papacy in the present day any canonical election in accordance either with divine or ecclesiastical law.

Now, were there no other evil in this, what excuse can they give for having robbed the Church of her right? But the corruption of the times required, (they say,) that since hatred and party-spirit prevailed with the people and magistrates in the election of bishops more than right and sound judgement, the determination should be confined to a few. Allow that this was the last remedy in desperate circumstances. When the cure was seen to be more hurtful than the disease, why was not a remedy provided for this new evil? But it is said that the course which the Canons must follow is strictly prescribed. But can we doubt, that even in old times the people, on meeting to elect a bishop, were aware that they were bound by the most sacred laws, when they saw a rule prescribed by the word of God? That one sentence in which God describes the true character of a bishop ought justly to be of more weight than ten thousand canons. Nevertheless, carried away by the worst of feelings, they had no regard to law or equity. So in the present day, though most excellent laws have been made, they remain buried in writing. Meanwhile, the general and approved practice is, (and it is carried on as it were systematically,) that drunkards, fornicators, gamblers, are everywhere promoted to this honour; nay, this is little: bishoprics are the rewards of adulterers and panders: for when they are given to hunters and hawkers, things may be considered at the best. To excuse such unworthy procedure in any way, were to be wicked over much. The people had a most excellent canon prescribed to them by the word of God, viz., that a bishop must be blameless, apt to teach, not a brawler, &c. (1 Tim. 3: 2.) Why, then, was the province of electing transferred from the people to these men? Just because among the tumults and factions of the people the word of God was not heard. And, on the other hand, why is it not in the present day transferred from these men, who not only violate all laws, but having cast off shame, libidinously, avariciously, and ambitiously, mix and confound things human and divine?

3. Neglect has led to the intervention of princes

But it is not true to say that the thing was devised as a remedy. We read, that in old times tumults often arose in cities at the election of bishops; yet no one ever ventured to think of depriving the citizens of their right: for they had other methods by which they could either prevent the fault, or correct it when committed. I will state the matter as it truly is.

When the people began to be negligent in making their choice, and left the business, as less suited to them, to the presbyters, these abused the opportunity to usurp a domination, which they afterwards established by putting forth new canons.

Ordination is now nothing else than a mere mockery. For the kind of examination of which they make a display is so empty and trifling, that it even entirely wants the semblance.

Therefore, when sovereigns, by faction with the Roman Pontiffs, obtained for themselves the right of nominating bishops, the Church sustained no new injury, because the canons were merely deprived of an election which they had seized without any right, or acquired by stealth. Nothing, indeed, can be more disgraceful, than that bishops should be sent from courts to take possession of churches, and pious princes would do well to desist from such corruption. For there is an impious spoliation of the Church whenever any people have a bishop intruded whom they have not asked, or at least freely approved. But that disorderly practice, which long existed in churches, gave occasion to sovereigns to assume to themselves the presentation of bishops. They wished the benefice to belong to themselves, rather than to those who had no better right to it, and who equally abused it.

(Abuses associated with collation to clerical benefices, 4-7)

4. Abuses in the appointment of the presbyter ("priest") and deacon

Such is the famous call, on account of which bishops boast that they are the successors of the apostles. They say, moreover, that they alone can competently appoint presbyters. But herein they most shamefully corrupt the ancient institution, that they by their ordination appoint not presbyters to guide and feed the people, but priests to sacrifice. In like manner, when they consecrate deacons, they pay no regard to their true and proper office, but only ordain to certain ceremonies concerning the cup and paten.

But in the Council of Chalcedony it was, on the contrary, decreed that there should be no absolute ordinations, that is, ordinations without assigning to the ordained a place where they were to exercise their office. This decree is most useful for two reasons; first, That churches may not be burdened with superfluous expense, nor idle men receive what ought to be distributed to the poor; and, secondly, That those who are ordained may consider that they are not promoted merely to an honourary office, but intrusted with a duty which they are solemnly bound to discharge.

But the Roman authorities (who think that nothing is to be cared for in religion but their belly) consider the first title to be a revenue adequate to their support, whether it be from their own patrimony or from the priesthood. Accordingly, when they ordain presbyters or deacons, without any anxiety as to where they ought to minister, they confer the order, provided those ordained are sufficiently rich to support themselves. But what man can admit that the title which the decree of the council requires is an annual revenue for sustenance? Again, when more recent canons made bishops liable in the support of those whom they had ordained without a fit title, that they might thus repress too great facility, a method was devised of eluding the penalty. For he who is ordained promises that whatever be the title named he will be contented with it. In this way he is precluded from an action for aliment. I say nothing of the thousand frauds which are here committed, as when some falsely claim the empty titles of benefices, from which they cannot obtain a sixpence of revenue, and others by secret stipulation obtain a temporary appointment, which they promise that they will immediately restore, but sometimes do not. There are still more mysteries of the same kind.

5. Ordination is travestied

But although these grosser abuses were removed, is it not at all times absurd to appoint a presbyter without assigning him a locality? For when they ordain it is only to sacrifice. But the legitimate ordination of a presbyter is to the government of the Church, while deacons are called to the charge of alms. It is true, many pompous ceremonies are used to disguise the act, that mere show may excite veneration in the simple; but what effect can these semblances have upon men of sound minds, when beneath them there is nothing solid or true? They used ceremonies either borrowed from Judaism or devised by themselves; from these it were better if they would abstain.

Of the trial, (for it is unnecessary to say anything of the shadow which they retain,) of the confident of the people, of other necessary things, there is no mention. By shadow, I mean those ridiculous gesticulations framed in inept and frigid imitation of antiquity. The bishops have their vicars, who, previous to ordination, inquire into doctrine. But what is the inquiry? Is it whether they are able to read their Missals, or whether they can decline some common noun which occurs in the lesson, or conjugate a verb, or give the meaning of some one word? For it is not necessary to give the sense of a single sentence. And yet even those who are deficient in these puerile elements are not repelled, provided they bring the recommendation of money or influence. Of the same nature is the question which is thrice put in an unintelligible voice, when the persons who are to be ordained are brought to the altar, viz., Are they worthy of the honour? One (who never saw them, but has his part in the play, that no form may be wanting) answers, They are worthy. What can you accuse in these venerable fathers save that, by indulging in such sacrilegious sport, they shamelessly laugh at God and man? But as they have long been in possession of the thing, they think they have now a legal title to it. For any one who ventures to open his lips against these palpable and flagrant iniquities is hurried off to a capital trial, like one who had in old time divulged the mysteries of Ceres. Would they act thus if they had any belief in a God?

6. The nature of benefices

Then in the collation of benefices, (which was formerly conjoined with ordination, but is now altogether separate,) how much better do they conduct themselves? But they have many reasons to give, for it is not bishops alone who confer the office of priests, (and even in their case, where they are called Collators, they have not always the full right,) but others have the presentation, while they only retain the honourary title of collations. To these are added nominations from schools, resignations, either simple or by way of exchange, commendatory rescripts, preventions, and the like. But they all conduct themselves in such a way that one cannot upbraid another. I maintain that, in the Papacy in the present day, scarcely one benefice in a hundred is conferred without Simon, as the ancients have defined it, (Calv. in Art. 8: 21.) I say not that all purchase for a certain sum; but show me one in twenty who does not attain to the priesthood by some sinister method. Some owe their promotion to kindred or affinity, others to the influence of their parents, while others procure favour by obsequiousness. In abort, the end for which the offices are conferred is, that provision may be made not for churches, but for those who receive them. Accordingly, they call them benefices, by which name they sufficiently declare, that they look on them in no other light than as the largesses by which princes either court the favour or reward the services of their soldiers. I say nothing of the fact, that these rewards are conferred on barbers, cooks, grooms, and dross of that sort. At present, indeed, there are no cases in law courts which make a greater noise than those concerning sacerdotal offices, so that you may regard them as nothing else than game set before dogs to be hunted. Is it tolerable even to hear the name of pastors given to those who have forced their way into the possession of a church as into an enemy’s country? who have evicted it by forensic brawls? who have bought it for a price? who have laboured for it by sordid sycophancy? who, while scarcely lisping boys, have obtained it like heritage from uncles and relatives? Sometimes even bastards obtain it from their fathers.

7. Monstrous abuses

Was the licentiousness of the people, however corrupt and lawless ever carried to such a height? But a more monstrous thing still is, that one man (I say not what kind of man, but certainly one who cannot govern himself) is appointed to the charge of five or six churches. In the courts of princes in the present day, you may see youths who are thrice abbots, twice bishops, once archbishops. Everywhere are Canons loaded with five, six or seven cures, of not one of which they take the least charge, except to draw the income. I will not object that the word of God cries aloud against this: it has long ceased to have the least weight with them. I will not object that many councils denounce the severest punishment against this dishonest practice; these, too, when it suits them, they boldly condemn. But I say that it is monstrous wickedness, altogether opposed to God, to nature, and to ecclesiastical government, that one thief should lie brooding over several churches, that the name of pastor should be given to one who, even if he were willing, could not be present among his flock, and yet (such is their impudence) they cloak these abominations with the name of church, that they may exempt them from all blame. Nay, if you please, in these iniquities is contained that sacred succession to which, as they boast, it is outing that the Church does not perish.

(Negligence and idleness of monks, canons, and others holding clerical office, 8-10)

8. Monks as “presbyters”

Let us now see, as the second mark for estimating a legitimate pastor, how faithfully they discharge their office.

Of the priests who are there elected, some are called monks, others seculars.

The former herd was unknown to the early Church; even to hold such a place in the Church is so repugnant to the monastic profession, that in old times, when persons were elected out of monasteries to clerical offices, they ceased to be monks. And, accordingly, Gregory, though in his time there were many abuses, did not suffer the offices to be thus confounded, (Gregor. Lib. 3 Ep. 11.) For he insists that those who have been appointed abbots shall resign the clerical office, because no one can be properly at the same time a monk and a clerk, the one being an obstacle to the other. Now, were I to ask how he can well fulfil his office who is declared by the canons to be unfit, what answer, pray, will they give? They will quote those abortive decrees of Innocent and Boniface, by which monks are admitted to the honour and power of the priesthood, though they remain in their monasteries. But is it at all reasonable that any unlearned ass, as soon as he has seized upon the Roman see, may by one little word overturn all antiquity? But of this matter afterwards. Let it now suffice, that in the purer times of the Church it was regarded as a great absurdity for a monk to hold the office of priest. For Jerome declares that he does not the office of priest while he is living among monks, and ranks himself as one of the people to be governed by the priests. But to concede this to them, what duty do they perform? Some of the mendicants preach, while all the other monks chant or mutter masses in their cells; as if either our Saviour had wished, or the nature of the office permits, presbyters to be made for such a purpose. When Scripture plainly testifies that it is the duty of a presbyter to rule his own church, (Acts 20: 28,) is it not impious profanation to transfer it to another purpose, nay, altogether to change the sacred institution of God? For when they are ordained, they are expressly forbidden to do what God enjoins on all presbyters. For this is their cant, Let a monk, contented with his cell, neither presume to administer the sacraments, nor hold any other public office. Let them deny, if they can, that it is open mockery of God when any one is appointed a presbyter in order to abstain from his proper and genuine office, and when he who has the name is not able to have the thing.

9. Beneficed and hired priests

I come to the seculars, some of whom are (as they speak) beneficiaries; that is, have offices by which they are maintained, while others let out their services, day by day, to chant or say masses, and live in a manner on a stipend thus collected.

Benefices either have a cure of souls, as bishoprics and parochial charges, or they are the stipends of delicate men, who gain a livelihood by chanting; as prebends, canonries, parsonships, deaneries, chaplainships, and the like; although, things being now turned upside down, the offices of abbot and prior are not only conferred on secular presbyters, but on boys also by privilege, that is, by common and usual custom.

In regard to the mercenaries who seek their food from day to day, what else could they do than they actually do, in other words, prostitute themselves in an illiberal and disgraceful manner for gain, especially from the vast multitude of them with which the world now teems? Hence, as they dare not beg openly, or think that in this way they would gain little, they go about like hungry dogs, and by a kind of barking importunity extort from the unwilling what they may deposit in their hungry stomachs. Were I here to attempt to describe how disgraceful it is to the Church, that the honour and office of a presbyter should come to this, I should never have done. My readers, therefore, must not expect from me a discourse which can fully represent this flagitous indignity. I briefly say, that if it is the office of a presbyter (and this both the word of God prescribes (1 Cor. 4: 1) and the ancient canons enjoin) to feed the Church, and administer the spiritual kingdom of Christ, all those priests who have no work or stipend, save in the traffic of masses, not only fail in their office, but have no lawful office to discharge. No place is given them to teach, they have no people to govern. In short, nothing is left them but an altar on which to sacrifice Christ; this is to sacrifice not to God but to demons, as we shall afterwards show, (see chap. 18 sec. 3, 9,14.)

10. Pretenses of the clerical orders

I am not here touching on extraneous faults, but only on the intestine evil which lies at the root of the very institution. I will add a sentence which will sound strange in their ears, but which, as it is true, it is right to express, that canons, deans, chaplains, provosts, and all who are maintained in idle offices of priesthood, are to be viewed in the same light. For what service can they perform to the Church? The preaching of the word, the care of discipline, and the administration of the sacraments, they have shaken off as burdens too grievous to be borne. What then remains on which they can plume themselves as being true presbyters? Merely chanting and pompous ceremonies. But what is this to the point? If they allege customs use, or the long prescription, I, on the contrary appeal to the definition by which our Saviour has described true presbyters, and shown the qualities of those who are to be regarded as presbyters. But if they cannot endure the hard law of submitting to the rule of Christ, let them at least allow the cause to be decided by the authority of the primitive Church. Their condition will not be one whit improved when decided according to the ancient canons. Those who have degenerated into Canons ought to be presbyters, as they former1y were, to rule the Church in common with the bishop, and be, as it were, his colleagues in the pastoral office. What they call deaneries of the chapter have no concern with the true government of the Church, much less chaplainships and other similar worthless names. In what light then are they all to be regarded? Assuredly, both the word of Christ and the practice of the primitive Church exclude them from the honour of presbyters. They maintain, however, that they are presbyters; but we must unmask them, and we shall find that their whole profession is most alien from the office of presbyters, as that office is described to us by the apostles, and was discharged in the primitive Church. All such offices, therefore, by whatever titles they are distinguished, as they are novelties, and certainly not supported either by the institution of God or the ancient practice of the Church, ought to have no place in a description of that spiritual government which the Church received, and was consecrated by the mouth of the Lord himself. Or, (if they would have me express it in ruder and coarser terms,) since chaplains, canons, deans, provosts, and such like lazy- bellies, do not even, with one finger, touch a particle of the office, which is necessarily required in presbyters, they must not be permitted falsely to usurp the honour, and thereby violate the holy institution of Christ.

(Corruption and covetousness prevail in the ranks of bishops, pastors, and deacons, 11-19)

11. Bishops and parish priests

There still remain bishops and rectors of parishes; and I wish that they would contend for the maintenance of their office. I would willingly grant that they have a pious and excellent office if they would discharge it; but when they desert the churches committed to them, and throwing the care upon others, would still be considered pastors, they just act as if the office of pastor were to do nothing. If any usurer, who never stirs from the city, were to give himself out as a ploughman or vine-dresser; or a soldier, who has constantly been in the field or the camp, and has never seen books or the forum, to pass for a lawyer, who could tolerate the absurdity? Much more absurdly do those act who would be called and deemed lawful pastors of the Church, and are unwilling so to be. How few are those who in appearance even take the superintendence of their church? Many spend their lives in devouring the revenues of churches which they never visit even for the purpose of inspection. Some once a year go themselves or send a steward, that nothing may be lost in the letting of them. When the corruption first crept in, those who wished to enjoy this kind of vacation pleaded privilege, but it is now a rare case for any one to reside in his church. They look upon them merely in the light of farms, over which they appoint their vicars as grieves or husbandmen. But it is repugnant to common sense to regard him as a shepherd who has never seen a sheep of his flock.

12. Early stages of this evil: Gregory and Bernard

It appears that in the time of Gregory some of the seeds of this corruption existed, the rulers of churches having begun to be more negligent in teaching; for he thus bitterly complains: “The world is full of priests, and yet labourers in the harvest are rare, for we indeed undertake the office of the priesthood, but we perform not the work of the office,” (Gregor. Hom. 17.) Again, “As they have no bowels of love, they would be thought lords, but do not at all acknowledge themselves to be fathers. They change a post of humility into the elevation of ascendancy.” Again “But we, O pastors! what are we doing, we who obtain the hire but are not labourers? We have fallen off to extraneous business; we undertake one thing, we perform another; we leave the ministry of the word, and, to our punishment, as I see, are called bishops, holding the honour of the name, not the power.” Since he uses such bitterness of expression against those who were only less diligent or sedulous in their office, what, pray, would he have said if he had seen that very few bishops, if any at all, and scarcely one in a hundred of the other clergy, mounted the pulpit once in their whole lifetime? For to such a degree of infatuation have men come, that it is thought beneath the episcopal dignity to preach a sermon to the people. In the time of Bernard things had become still worse. Accordingly, we see how bitterly he inveighs against the whole order, and yet there is reason to believe that matters were then in a much better state than now.

13. Claims and actuality

Whoever will duly examine and weigh the whole form of ecclesiastical government as now existing in the Papacy, will find that there is no kind of spoliation in which robbers act more licentiously, without law or measure. Certainly all things are so unlike, nay, so opposed to the institution of Christ, have so degenerated from the ancient customs and practices of the Church, are so repugnant to nature and reason, that a greater injury cannot be done to Christ than to use his name in defending this disorderly rule. We (say they) are the pillars of the Church, the priests of religion, the vicegerents of Christ, the heads of the faithful, because the apostolic authority has come to us by succession. As if they were speaking to stocks, they perpetually plume themselves on these absurdities. Whenever they make such boasts, I, in my turn, will ask, What have they in common with the apostles? We are not now treating of some hereditary honour which can come to men while they are asleep, but of the office of preaching, which they so greatly shun. In like manner, when we maintain that their kingdom is the tyranny of Antichrist, they immediately object that their venerable hierarchy has often been extolled by great and holy men, as if the holy fathers, when they commended the ecclesiastical hierarchy or spiritual government handed down to them by the apostles, ever dreamed of that shapeless and dreary chaos where bishoprics are held for the most part by ignorant asses, who do not even know the first and ordinary rudiments of the faith, or occasionally by boys who have just left their nurse; or if any are more learned, (this, however, is a rare case,) they regard the episcopal office as nothing else than a title of magnificence and splendour; where the rectors of churches no more think of feeding the flock than a cobbler does of sloughing, where all things are so confounded by a confusion worse than that of Babel, that no genuine trace of paternal government is any longer to be seen.

14. The priest’s moral conduct

But if we descend to conduct, where is that light of the world which Christ requires, where the salt of the earth, where that sanctity which might operate as a perpetual censorship? In the present day, there is no order of men more notorious for luxury, effeminacy, delicacy, and all kinds of licentiousness; in no order are more apt or skilful teachers of imposture, fraud, treachery, and perfidy; nowhere is there more skill or audacity in mischief, to say nothing of ostentation, pride, rapacity, and cruelty. In bearing these the world is so disgusted, that there is no fear lest I seem to exaggerate. One thing I say, which even they themselves will not be able to deny: Among bishops there is scarcely an individual, and among the parochial clergy not one in a hundred, who, if sentence were passed on his conduct according to the ancient canons, would not deserve to be excommunicated, or at least deposed from his office. I seem to say what is almost incredible, so completely has that ancient discipline which enjoined strict censure of the morals of the clergy become obsolete; but such the fact really is. Let those who serve under the banner and auspices of the Romish See now go and boast of their sacerdotal order. It is certain that that which they have is neither from Christ, nor his apostles, nor the fathers, nor the early Church.

15. The deacons

Let the deacons now come forward and show their most sacred distribution of ecclesiastical goods, (see chap. 19 sec. 32.) Although their deacons are not at all elected for that purpose, for the only injunction which they lay upon them is to minister at the altar, to read the Gospel, or chant and perform I know not what frivolous acts. Nothing is said of alms, nothing of the care of the poor, nothing at all of the function which they formerly performed. I am speaking of the institution itself; for if we look to what they do, theirs in fact, is no office, but only a step to the priesthood. In one thing, those who hold the place of deacons in the mass exhibit an empty image of antiquity, for they receive the offerings previous to consecration. Now, the ancient practice was, that before the communion of the Supper the faithful mutually kissed each other, and offered alms at the altar; thus declaring their love, first by symbol, and afterwards by an act of beneficence. The deacon, who was steward of the poor, received what was given that he might distribute it. Now, of these alms no more comes to the poor than if they were cast into the sea. They, therefore delude the Church by that lying deaconship. Assuredly in this they have nothing resembling the apostolical institution or the ancient practice. The very distribution of goods they have transferred elsewhere, and have so settled it that nothing can be imagined more disorderly. For as robbers, after murdering their victims, divide the plunder, so these men, after extinguishing the light of God’s word, as if they had murdered the Church, have imagined that whatever had been dedicated to pious uses was set down for prey and plunder. Accordingly, they have made a division, each seizing for himself as much as he could.

16. Distribution of church income

All those ancient methods which we have explained are not only disturbed but altogether disguised and expunged. The chief part of the plunder has gone to bishops and city presbyters, who, having thus enriched themselves, have been converted into canons. That the partition was a mere scramble is apparent from this, that even to this day they are litigating as to the proportions. Be this as it may, the decision has provided that out of all the goods of the Church not one penny shall go to the poor, to whom at least the half belonged. The canons expressly assign a fourth part to them, while the other fourth they destine to the bishops, that they may expend it in hospitality and other offices at kindness. I say nothing as to what the clergy ought to do with their portions or the use to which they ought to apply it, for it has been clearly shown that what is set apart for churches, buildings, and other expenditure, ought in necessity to be given to the poor. If they had one spark of the fear of God in their heart, could they, I ask, bear the consciousness that all their food and clothing is the produce of theft, nay, of sacrilege? But as they are little moved by the judgement of God, they should at least reflect that those whom they would persuade that the orders of their Church are so beautiful and well arranged as they are wont to boast, are men endued with sense and reason. Let them briefly answer whether the diaconate is a license to rob and steal. If they deny this, they will be forced to confess that no diaconate remains among them, since the whole administration of their ecclesiastical resources has been openly converted into sacrilegious depredation.

17. False and true splendor of the church

But here they use a very fair gloss, for they say that the dignity of the Church is not unbecomingly maintained by this magnificence. And certain of their sect are so impudent as to dare openly to boast that thus only are fulfilled the prophecies, in which the ancient prophets describe the splendour of Christ’s kingdom, where the sacerdotal order is exhibited in royal attire, that it was not without cause that God made the following promises to his Church: “All kings shall fall down before him: all nations shall serve him,” (Ps. 72: 11.) “Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city,” (Isa. 3: 1.) “All they from Sheba shall come; they shall bring gold and incense, and they shall show forth the praises of the Lord. All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto thee,” (Isa. 60: 6, 7.) I fear I should seem childish were I to dwell long in refuting this dishonesty. I am unwilling, therefore, to use words unnecessarily; I ask, however were any Jew to misapply these passages, what answer would they give? They would rebuke his stupidity in making a carnal and worldly application of things spiritually said of Christ’s spiritual kingdom. For we know that under the image of earthly objects the prophets have delineated to us the heavenly glory which ought to shine in the Church. For in those blessings which these words literally express, the Church never less abounded than under the apostles; and yet all admit that the power of Christ’s kingdom was then most flourishing. What, then, is the meaning of the above passages? That every thing, which is precious, sublime, and illustrious ought to be made subject to the Lord. As to its being said expressly of kings, that they will submit to Christ, that they will throw their diadems at his feet, that they sill dedicate their resources to the Church when was this more truly and fully manifested than when Theodosius, having thrown aside the purple and left the insignia of empire, like one of the people humbled himself before God and the Church in solemn repentance? than when he and other like pious princes made it their study and their care to preserve pure doctrine in the Church, to cherish and protect sound teachers? But that priests did not then luxuriate in superfluous wealth is sufficiently declared by this one sentence of the Council of Aquileia, over which Ambrose presided, “Poverty in the priests of the Lord is glorious.” It is certain that the bishops then had some means by which they might have rendered the glory of the Church conspicuous, if they had deemed them the true ornaments of the Church. But knowing that nothing was more adverse to the duty of pastors than to plume themselves on the delicacies of the table, on splendid clothes, numerous attendants, and magnificent palaces, they cultivated and followed the humility and modesty, nay, the very poverty, which Christ has consecrated among his servants.

18. Fraudulent and honest expenditure of church funds

But not to be tedious, let us again briefly sum up and show how far that distribution, or rather squandering, of ecclesiastical goods which now exists differs from the true diaconate, which both the word of God recommends and the ancient Church observed, (Book 1 chap. 11 sec. 7, 13; Book 3 chap. 20 sec. 30; supra, chap. 4 sec. 8.) I says that what is employed on the adorning of churches is improperly laid out, if not accompanied with that moderation which the very nature of sacred things prescribes, and which the apostles and other holy fathers prescribed, both by precept and example. But is anything like this seen in churches in the present day? Whatever accords, I do not say with that ancient frugality, but with decent mediocrity, is rejected. Nought pleases but what savours of luxury and the corruption of the times. Meanwhile, so far are they from taking due care of living temples, that they would allow thousands of the poor to perish sooner than break down the smallest cup or platter to relieve their necessity. That I may not decide too severely at my own hand, I would only ask the pious reader to consider what Exuperius, the Bishop of Thoulouse, whom we have mentioned, what Acatius, or Ambrose or any one like minded, if they were to rise from the dead, would say? Certainly, while the necessities of the poor are so great, they would not approve of their funds being carried away from them as superfluous; not to mention that, even were there no poor, the uses to which they are applied are noxious in many respects and useful in none. But I appeal not to men. These goods have been dedicated to Christ, and ought to be distributed at his pleasure. In vain, however, will they make that to be expenditure for Christ which they have squandered contrary to his commands, though, to confess the truth, the ordinary revenue of the Church is not much curtailed by these expenses. No bishoprics are so opulent, no abbacies so productive, in short, no benefices so numerous and ample, as to suffice for the gluttony of priests. But while they would spare themselves, they induce the people by superstition to employ what ought to have been distributed to the poor in building temples, erecting statues, buying plate, and providing costly garments. Thus the daily alms are swallowed up in this abyss.

19. Clerical possessions and power

Of the revenue which they derive from lands and property, what else can I say than what I have already said, and is manifest before the eyes of all? We see with what kind of fidelity the greatest portion is administered by those who are called bishops and abbots. What madness is it to seek ecclesiastical order here? Is it becoming in those whose life ought to have been a singular example of frugality, modesty, continence, and humility, to rival princes in the number of their attendants, the splendour of their dwellings, the delicacies of dressing and feasting? Can anything be more contrary to the duty of those whom the eternal and inviolable edict of God forbids to long for filthy lucre, and orders to be contented with simple food, not only to lay hands on villages and castles, but also invade the largest provinces and even seize on empire itself? If they despise the word of God, what answer will they give to the ancient canons of councils, which decree that the bishop shall have a little dwelling not far from the church, a frugal table and furniture? (Conc. Carth. cap. 14, 15.) What answer will they give to the declaration of the Council of Aquileia, in which poverty in the priests of the Lord is pronounced glorious? For, the injunction which Jerome gives to Nepotian, to make the poor and strangers acquainted with his table, and have Christ with them as a guest, they would, perhaps, repudiate as too austere. What he immediately adds it would shame them to acknowledge, viz., that the glory of a bishop is to provide for the sustenance of the poor, that the disgrace of all priests is to study their own riches. This they cannot admit without covering themselves with disgrace. But it is unnecessary here to press them so hard, since all we wished was to demonstrate that the legitimate order of deacons has long ago been abolished, and that they can no longer plume themselves on this order in commendation of their Church. This, I think, has been completely established.

CHAPTER 6. THE PRIMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE.

The divisions of this chapter are,—

I. Question stated, and an argument for the primacy of the Roman Pontiff drawn from the Old Testament refuted, sec. 1, 2.

II. Reply to various arguments in support of the Papacy founded on the words, “Thou art Peter,” &c., sec. 3-17.

Sections.

1. Brief recapitulation. Why the subject of primacy not yet mentioned. Represented by Papists as the bond at ecclesiastical unity. Setting out with this axiom, they begin to debate about their hierarchy.

2. Question stated. An attempted proof from the office of High Priest among the Jews. Two answers.

3. Arguments for primacy from the New Testament. Two answers.

4. Another answer. The keys given to the other Apostles as well as to Peter. Other two arguments answered by passages of Cyprian and Augustine.

5. Another argument answered.

6. Answer to the argument that the Church is founded on Peter, from its being said, “Upon this rock I will build my Church.”

7. Answer confirmed by passages of Scripture.

8. Even allowing Peter’s superiority in some respect, this is no proof of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. Other arguments answered.

9. Distinction between civil and ecclesiastical government. Christ alone the Head of the Church. Argument that there is still a ministerial head answered.

10. Paul, in giving a representation of the Church, makes no mention of this ministerial head.

11. Even though Peter were ministerial head, it does not follow that the Pope is so also. Argument founded on Paul’s having lived and died at Rome.

12. On the hypothesis of the Papists, the primacy belongs to the Church of Antioch.

13. Absurdity of the Popish hypothesis.

14. Peter was not the Bishop of Rome.

15. Same subject continued.

16. Argument that the unity of the Church cannot be maintained without a supreme head on earth. Answer, stating three reasons why great respect was paid in early times to the See of Rome.

17. Opinion of early times on the subject of the unity of the Church. No primacy attributed to the Church of Rome. Christ alone regarded as the Head of the Universal Church.

(Refutation of assumptions regarding the primacy of Peter, 1-7)

1. The requirement of submission to Rome

Hitherto we have reviewed those ecclesiastical orders which existed in the government of the primitive Church; but afterwards corrupted by time, and thereafter more and more vitiated, now only retain the name in the Papal Church, and are, in fact, nothing but mere masks, so that the contrast will enable the pious reader to judge what kind of Church that is, for revolting from which we are charged with schism.

But, on the head and crown of the whole matter, I mean the primacy of the Roman See, from which they undertake to prove that the Catholic Church is to be found only with them, we have not yet touched, because it did not take its origin either in the institution of Christ, or the practice of the early Church, as did those other parts, in regard to which we have shown, that though they were ancient in their origin, they in process of time altogether degenerated, nay, assumed an entirely new form.

And yet they endeavour to persuade the world that the chief and only bond of ecclesiastical unity is to adhere to the Roman See, and continue in subjection to it. I say, the prop on which they chiefly lean, when they would deprive us of the Church, and arrogate it to themselves, is, that they retain the head on which the unity of the Church depends, and without which it must necessarily be rent and go to pieces. For they regard the Church as a kind of mutilated trunk if it be not subject to the Romish See as its head. Accordingly, when they debate about their hierarchy they always set out with the axiom: The Roman Pontiff (as the vicar of Christ, who is the Head of the Church) presides in his stead over the universal Church, and the Church is not rightly constituted unless that See hold the primacy over all others. The nature of this claim must, therefore, be considered, that we may not omit any thing which pertains to the proper government of the Church.

2. The office of high priest of the Old Covenant cannot be cited as evidence for papal supremacy

The question, then, may be thus stated, Is it necessary for the true order of the hierarchy, (as they term it,) or of ecclesiastical order, that one See should surpass the others in dignity and power, so as to be the head of the whole body? We subject the Church to unjust laws if we lay this necessity upon her without sanction from the word of God. Therefore, if our opponents would prove what they maintain, it behaves them first of all to show that this economy was instituted by Christ.

For this purpose, they refer to the office of high priest under the law, and the supreme jurisdiction which God appointed at Jerusalem. But the solution is easy, and it is manifold if one does not satisfy them. First, no reason obliges us to extend what was useful in one nation to the whole world; nay, the cases of one nation and of the whole world are widely different. Because the Jews were hemmed in on every side by idolaters, God fixed the seat of his worship in the central region of the earth, that they might not be distracted by a variety of religions; there he appointed one priest to whom they might all look up, that they might be the better kept in unity. But now when the true religion has been diffused over the whole globe, who sees not that it is altogether absurd to give the government of East and West to one individual?

It is just as if one were to contend that the whole world ought to be governed by one prefect, because one district has not several prefects. But there is still another reason why that institution ought not to be drawn into a precedent. Every one knows that the high priest was a type of Christ; now, the priesthood being transferred, that right must also be transferred. To whom, then, was it transferred? certainly not to the Pope, as he dares impudently to boast when he arrogates this title to himself, but to Christ, who, as he alone holds the office without vicar or successor, does not resign the honour to any other. For this priesthood consists not in doctrine only, but in the propitiation which Christ made by his death, and the intercession which he now males with the Father, (Heb. 7: 11.)

3. Jesus’ word to Peter did not establish this lordship of the church

That example, therefore, which is seen to have been temporary, they have no right to bind upon us as by a perpetual law.

In the New Testament there is nothing which they can produce in confirmation of their opinion, but its having been said to one, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” (Matth. 16: 18.) Again, “Simon son of Jonas lovest thou me?” “Feed my lambs” (John 21: 15.)

But to give strength to these proofs, they must, in the first place, show, that to him who is ordered to feed the flock of Christ power is given over all churches, and that to bind and loose is nothing else than to preside over the whole world.

But as Peter had received a command from the Lord, so he exhorts all other presbyters to feed the Church, (1 Pet. 5: 2.) Hence we are entitled to infer, that, by that expression of Christ, nothing more was given to Peter than to the others, or that the right which Peter had received he communicated equally to others. But not to argue to no purpose, we elsewhere have, from the lips of Christ himself, a clear exposition of what it is to bind and loose. It is just to retain and remit sins, (John 20: 23.) The mode of loosing and binding is explained throughout Scripture; but especially in that passage in which Paul declares that the ministers of the Gospel are commissioned to reconcile men to God, and at the same time to exercise discipline over those who reject the benefit, (2 Cor. 5: 18; 10: 16.)

4. Perverse claim concerning the keys

How unbecomingly they wrest the passages of binding and loosing I have elsewhere glanced at, and will in a short time more fully explain. It may now be worth while merely to see what they can extract from our Saviour’s celebrated answer to Peter. He promised him the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and said, that whatever things he bound on earth should be bound in heaven, (Matth. 16: 19.) The moment we are agreed as to the meaning of the keys, and the mode of binding, all dispute will cease. For the Pope will willingly omit that office assigned to the apostles, which, full of labour and toil, would interfere with his luxuries without giving any gain.

Since heaven is opened to us by the doctrine of the Gospel, it is by an elegant metaphor distinguished by the name of keys. Again, the only mode in which men are bound and loosed is, in the latter case, when they are reconciled to God by faith, and in the former, more strictly bound by unbelief. Were this all that the Pope arrogated to himself, I believe there would be none to envy him or stir the question.

But because this laborious and very far from lucrative succession is by no means pleasing to the Pope, the dispute immediately arises as to what it was that Christ promised to Peter. From the very nature of the case, I infer that nothing more is denoted than the dignity which cannot be separated from the burden of the apostolic office. For, admitting the definition which I have given, (and it cannot without effrontery be rejected,) nothing is here given to Peter that was not common to him with his colleagues. - On any other view, not only would injustice be done to their persons, but the very majesty of the doctrine would be impaired.

They object; but what, pray, is gained by striking against this stone? The utmost they can make out is, that as the preaching of the same gospel was enjoined on all the apostles, so the power of binding and loosing was bestowed upon them in common. Christ (they say) constituted Peter prince of the whole Church when he promised to give him the keys. But what he then promised to one he elsewhere delivers, and as it were hands over, to all the rest. If the same right, which was promised to one, is bestowed upon all, in what respect is that one superior to his colleagues? He excels (they say) in this, that he receives both in common, and by himself, what is given to the others in common only. What if I should answer with Cyprian, and Augustine, that Christ did not do this to prefer one to the other, but in order to commend the unity of his Church? For Cyprian thus speaks: “In the person of one man he gave the keys to all, that he might denote the unity of all; the rest, therefore, were the same that Peter was, being admitted to an equal participation of honour and power, but a beginning is made from unity that the Church of Christ may be shown to be one,” (Cyprian, de Simplic. Praelat.) Augustine’s words are, “Had not the mystery of the Church been in Peter, our Lord would not have said to him, I will give thee the keys. For if this was said to Peter, the Church has them not; but if the Church has them, then when Peter received the keys he represented the whole Church,” (August. Hom. in Joann. 50.) Again, “All were asked, but Peter alone answers, Thou art the Christ; and it is said to him, I will give thee the keys; as if he alone had received the power of loosing and binding; whereas he both spoke for all, and received in common with and being, as it were the representative of unity. One received for and because there is unity in all,” (Hom. 124.)

5. Honor, not power, accorded to Peter

But we no where read of its being said to any other, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church!” (Matth. 16: 10;) as if Christ then affirmed any thing else of Peter, than Paul and Peter himself affirm of all Christians (Eph. 2: 20; 1 Peter 2: 5.) The former describes Christ as the chief corner-stone, on whom are built all who grow up into a holy temple in the Lord; the latter describes us as living stones who are founded on that elect and precious stone, and being so joined and compacted, are united to our God, and to each other. Peter (they say) is above others, because the name was specially given to him. I willingly concede to Peter the honour of being placed among the first in the building of the Church, or (if they prefer it) of being the first among the faithful; but I will not allow them to infer from this that he has a primacy over others. For what kind of inference is this? Peter surpasses others in fervid zeal in doctrine, and magnanimity, therefore, he has power over them: as if we might not with greater plausibility infer, that Andrew is prior to Peter in order, because he preceded him in time, and brought him to Christ, (John 1: 40, 42;) but this I omit. Let Peter have the pre-eminence, still there is a great difference between the honour of rank and the possession of power. We see that the Apostles usually left it to Peter to address the meeting, and in some measure take precedence in relating, exhorting, admonishing, but we no where read any thing at all of power.

6. The one foundation

Though we are not yet come to that part of the discussion, I would merely observe at present, how futilely those argue who, out of the mere name of Peter, would rear up a governing power over the whole Church. For the ancient quibble which they at first used to give a colour, viz., The Church is founded upon Peter, because it is said, “On this rock,” &c., is undeserving of notice, not to say of refutation. Some of the Fathers so expounded! But when the whole of Scripture is repugnant to the exposition, why is their authority brought forward in opposition to God? nay, why do we contend about the meaning of these words, as if it were obscure or ambiguous when nothing can be more clear and certain? Peter had confessed in his own name, and that of his brethren, that Christ was the Son of God, (Matth. 16: 16.) On this rock Christ builds his Church, because it is the only foundation; as Paul says, “Other foundation than this can no man lay,” (1 Cor. 3: 11.) Therefore I do not here repudiate the authority of the Fathers, because I am destitute of passages from them to prove what I say, were I disposed to quote them; but as I have observed, I am unwilling to annoy my readers by debating so clear a matter, especially since the subject has long ago been fully handled and expounded by our writers.

7. The place of Peter among the apostles according to the account of Scripture

And yet, in truth, none can solve this question better than scripture, if we compare all the passages in which it shows what office and power Peter held among the apostles how he acted among them, how he was received by them, (Acts 15: 7.) Run over all these passages, and the utmost you will find is, that Peter was one of twelve, their equal and colleague, not their master. He indeed brings the matter before the council when anything is to be done, and advises as to what is necessary, but he, at the same time, listens to the others, not only conceding to them an opportunity of expressing their sentiments but allowing them to decide; and when they have decided he follows and obeys. When he writes to pastors, he does not command authoritatively as a superior, but makes them his colleagues, and courteously advises as equals are wont to do, (1 Pet. 5: 1.) When he is accused of having gone in to the Gentiles, though the accusation is unfounded, he replies to it, and clears himself, (Acts 11: 3.) Being ordered by his colleagues to go with John into Samaria, he declines not, (Acts 8: 14.) The apostles, by sending him, declare that they by no means regard him as a superior, while he, by obeying and undertaking the embassy committed to him, confesses that he is associated with them, and has no authority over them.

But if none of these facts existed, the one Epistle to the Galatians would easily remove all doubt, there being almost two chapters in which the whole for which Paul contends is, that in regard to the honour of the apostleship, he is the equal of Peter; (Gal. 1: 18; 2: 8.) Hence he states, that he went to Peter, not to acknowledge subjection, but only to make their agreement in doctrine manifest to all; that Peter himself asked no acknowledgement of the kind, but gave him the right hand of fellowship, that they might be common labourers in the vineyard; that not less grace was bestowed on him among the Gentiles than on Peter among the Jews: in fine, that Peter, when he was not acting with strict fidelity, was rebuked by him, and submitted to the rebuke, (Gal. 2: 11-14.) All these things make it manifest, either that there was an equality between Paul and Peter, or, at least, that Peter had no more authority over the rest than they had over him. This point, as I have said Paul handles professedly, in order that no one might give a preference over him, in respect of apostleship, to Peter or John, who were colleagues not masters.

(Monarchy in the church to be accorded to Christ alone, 8-10)

8. The church can have no human head

But were I to concede to them what they ask with regard to Peter, viz., that he was the chief of the apostles, and surpassed the others in dignity, there is no ground for making an universal rule out of a special example, or wresting a single fact into a perpetual enactment, seeing that the two things are widely different. One was chief among the apostles, just because they were few in number. If one man presided over twelve, will it follow that one ought to preside over a hundred thousand? That twelve had one among them to direct all is nothing strange. Nature admits, the human mind requires, that in every meeting, though all are equal in power, there should be one as a kind of moderator to whom the others should look up. There is no senate without a consul, no bench of judges without a president or chancellor, no college without a provost, no company without a master. Thus there would be no absurdity, were we to confess that the apostles had conferred such a primacy on Peter.

But an arrangement, which is effectual among a few must not be forthwith transferred to the whole world, which no one man is able to govern. But (say they) it is observed that not less in nature as a whole, than in each of its parts, there is one supreme head. Proof of this it pleases them to derive from cranes and bees, which always place themselves under the guidance of one, not of several. I admit the examples which they produce; but do bees flock together from all parts of the world to choose one queen? Each queen is contented with her own hive. So among cranes, each flock has its own king. What can they prove from this, except that each church ought to have its bishop? They refer us to the examples of states, quoting from Homer, “ouk agaton polukoiranie”, “a many- headed rule is not good;” and other passages to the same effect from heathen writers in commendation of monarchy. The answer is easy. Monarchy is not lauded by Homer’s Ulysses, or by others, as if one individual ought to govern the whole world; but they mean to intimate that one kingdom does not admit of two kings, and that empire, as one expresses it, (Lucan. Lib. 1,) cannot bear a partner.

9. Christ’s headship not transferable

Be it, however, as they will have it, (though the thing is most absurd; be it,) that it were good and useful for the whole world to be under one monarchy, I will not, therefore, admit that the same thing should take effect in the government of the Church. Her only Head is Christ, under whose government we are all united to each other, according to that order and form of policy which he himself has prescribed. Wherefore they offer an egregious insult to Christ, when under this pretext they would have one man to preside over the whole Church, seeing the Church can never be without a head, “even Christ, from whom the whole body fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body,” (Eph. 4: 15,16.) See how all men, without exception, are placed in the body while the honour and name of Head is left to Christ alone. See how to each member is assigned a certain measure, a finite and limited function, while both the perfection of grace and the supreme power of government reside only in Christ.

I am not unaware of the cavilling objection which they are wont to urge, viz., that Christ is properly called the only Head, because he alone reigns by his own authority and in his own name; but that there is nothing in this to prevent what they call another ministerial head from being under him, and acting as his substitute. But this cavil cannot avail them, until they previously show that this office was ordained by Christ. For the apostle teaches, that the whole subministration is diffused through the members while the power flows from one celestial Head (Eph. 4:16); or, if they will have it more plainly, since Scripture testifies that Christ is Head, and claims this honour for himself alone, it ought not to be transferred to any other than him whom Christ himself has made his vicegerent. But not only is there no passage to this effect, but it can be amply refuted by many passages (Eph. 1:22; 4:15; 5:23; Col. 1:18; 2:10).

10. Unity in Christ, not in a human monarch

Paul sometimes depicts a living image of the Church, but makes no mention of a single head. On the contrary we may infer from his description, that it is foreign to the institution of Christ. Christ, by his ascension, took away his visible presence from us, and yet he ascended that he might fill all things: now, therefore, he is present in the Church and always will be. When Paul would show the mode in which he exhibits himself, he calls our attention to the ministerial offices which he employs: “Unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ;” “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.” Why does he not say, that one presided over all to act as his substitute? The passage particularly required this and it ought not on any account to have been omitted if it had been true. Christ, he says, is present with us. How? By the ministry of men whom he appointed over the government of the Church. Why not rather by a ministerial head whom he appointed his substitute? He speaks of unity, but it is in God and in the faith of Christ. He attributes nothing to men but a common ministry, and a special mode to each. Why, when thus commending unity, does he not, after saying, “one body, one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your callings one Lord, one faith, one baptisms” (Eph. 4: 4,) immediately add, one Supreme Pontiff to keep the Church in unity? Nothing could have been said more aptly if the case had really been so. Let that passage be diligently pondered, and there will be no doubt that Paul there meant to give a complete representation of that sacred and ecclesiastical government to which posterity have given the name of hierarchy. Not only does he not place a monarchy among ministers, but even intimates that there is none. There can also be no doubt, that he meant to express the mode of connection by which believers unite with Christ the Head. There he not only makes no mention of a ministerial head, but attributes a particular operation to each of the members, according to the measure of grace distributed to each. Nor is there any ground for subtle philosophical comparisons between the celestial and the earthly hierarchy. For it is not safe to be wise above measure with regard to the former, and in constituting the latter the only type which it behaves us to follow is that which our Lord himself has delineated in his own word.

(Admission that Peter was bishop in Rome does not establish Rome’s perpetual primacy, 11-13)

11. If Peter himself had had supremacy, Rome could not claim it

I will now make them another concession, which they will never obtain from men of sound mind, viz., that the primacy of the Church was fixed in Peter, with the view of remaining for ever by perpetual succession. Still how will they prove that his See was so fixed at Rome, that whosoever becomes bishop of that city is to preside over the whole world? By what authority do they annex: this dignity to a particular place, when it was given without any mention of place? Peter, they say, lived and died at Rome. What did Christ himself do? Did he not discharge his episcopates while he lived, and complete the office of the priesthood by dying at Jerusalem? The Prince of pastors, the chief Shepherd, the Head of the Church, could not procure honour for a place, and Peter, so far his inferior, could! Is not this worse than childish trifling? Christ conferred the honour of primacy on Peter. Peter had his See at Rome, therefore, he fixed the seat of the primacy there. In this way the Israelites of old must have placed the seat of the primacy in the wilderness, where Moses, the chief teacher and prince of prophets, discharged his ministry and died.

12. Alleged transfer of the primacy from Antioch

Let us see, however, how admirably they reason. Peter, they say, had the first place among the apostles; therefore, the church in which he sat ought to have the privilege. But where did he first sit? At Antioch, they say. Therefore, the church of Antioch justly claims the primacy. They acknowledge that she was once the first, but that Peter, by removing from it, transferred the honour which he had brought with him to Rome. For there is extant, under the name of Pope Marcellus, a letter to the presbyters of Antioch, in which he says, “The See of Peter, at the outset, was with you, and was afterwards, by the order of the Lord, translated hither.” Thus the church of Antioch, which was once the first, yielded to the See of Rome. But by what oracle did that good man learn that the Lord had so ordered? For if the question is to be determined in regular forms they must say whether they hold the privilege to be personal, or real, or mixed. One of the three it must be. If they say personal, then it has nothing to do with place; if real, then when once given to a place it is not lost by the death or departure of the person. It remains that they must hold it to be mixed; then the mere consideration of place is not sufficient unless the person also correspond. Let them choose which they will, I will forthwith infer, and easily prove, that Rome has no ground to arrogate the primacy.

13. Ranking of the other patriarchates

However, be it so. Let the primacy have been (as they vainly allege) transferred from Antioch to Rome. Why did not Antioch retain the second place? For if Rome has the first, simply because Peter had his See there at the end of his life, to which place should the second be given sooner than to that where he first had his See? How comes it, then, that Alexandria takes precedence of Antioch? How can the church of a disciple be superior to the See of Peter? If honour is due to a church according to the dignity of its founder, what shall we say of other churches? Paul names three individuals who seemed to be pillars, viz., James, Peter, and John, (Gal. 2: 9.) If, in honour of Peter, the first place is given to the Roman See, do not the churches of Ephesus and Jerusalem where John and James were fixed, deserve the second and third places? But in ancient times Jerusalem held the last place among the Patriarchates, and Ephesus was not able to secure even the lowest corner. Other churches too have passed away, churches which Paul founded, and over which the apostles presided. The See of Mark, who was only one of the disciples, has obtained honour. Let them either confess that that arrangement was preposterous, or let them concede that it is not always true that each church is entitled to the degree of honour which its founder possessed.

(Peter’s presence in Rome unproved, while Paul’s is beyond doubt, 14-15)

14. On the sojourn of Peter in Rome

But I do not see that any credit is due to their allegation of Peter’s occupation of the Roman See. Certain it is that the statement of Eusebius, that he presided over it for twenty-five years, is easily refuted. For it appears from the first and second chapters of Galatians, that he was at Jerusalem about twenty years after the death of Christ, and afterwards came to Antioch. How long he remained here is uncertain; Gregory counts seven, and Eusebius twenty-five years. But from our Saviour’s death to the end of Nero’s reign, (under which they state that he was put to death,) will be found only thirty-seven years. For our Lord suffered in the eighteenth year of the reign of Tiberius. If you cut off the twenty years, during which, as Paul testifies, Peter dwelt at Jerusalem, there will remain at most seventeen years; and these must be divided between his two episcopates. If he dwelt long at Antioch, his See at Rome must have been of short duration. This we may demonstrate still more clearly. Paul wrote to the Romans while he was on his journey to Jerusalem, where he was apprehended and conveyed to Rome, (Rom. 15: 15, 16.) It is therefore probable that this letter was written four years before his arrival at Rome. Still there is no mention of Peter, as there certainly would have been if he had been ruling that church. Nay, in the end of the Epistles where he enumerates a long list of individuals whom he orders to be saluted, and in which it may be supposed he includes all who were known to him, he says nothing at all of Peter. To men of sound judgement, there is no need here of a long and subtle demonstration: the nature of the case itself, and the whole subject of the Epistle, proclaim that he ought not to have passed over Peter if he had been at Rome.

15. Slender and inconclusive evidence

Paul is afterwards conveyed as a prisoner to Rome. Luke relates that he was received by the brethren but says nothing of Peter. From Rome he writes to many churches. He even sends salutations from certain individuals, but does not by a single word intimate that Peter was then there. Who, pray, will believe that he would have said nothing of him if he had been present? Nay, in the Epistle to the Philippians, after saying that he had no one who cared for the work of the Lord so faithfully as Timothy he complains that “all seek their owns” (Phil. 2: 20.) And to Timothy he makes the more grievous complaint, that no man was present at his first defence, that all men forsook him, (2 Tim. 4: 16.) Where then was Peter? If they say that he was at Rome, how disgraceful the charge which Paul brings against him of being a deserter of the Gospel! For he is speaking of believers, since he adds, “The Lord lay it not to their charge.” At what time, therefore, and how long, did Peter hold that See? The uniform opinion of authors is, that he governed that church until his death. But these authors are not agreed as to who was his successor. Some say Linus, others Clement. And they relate many absurd fables concerning a discussion between him and Simon Magus. Nor does Augustine, when treating of superstition, disguise the fact, that owing to an opinion rashly entertained, it had become customary at Rome to fast on the day on which Peter carried away the palm from Simon Magus, (August. ad Januar. Ep. 2.)

In short, the affairs of that period are so involved from the variety of opinions, that credit is not to be given rashly to any thing we read concerning it. And yet, from this agreement of authors, I do not dispute that he died there, but that he was bishop, particularly for a long period, I cannot believe. I do not, however, attach much importance to the point, since Paul testifies, that the apostleship of Peter pertained especially to the Jews, but his own specially to us. Therefore, in order that that compact which they made between themselves, nay, that the arrangement of the Holy Spirit may be firmly established among us, we ought to pay more regard to the apostleship of Paul than to that of Peter, since the Holy Spirit, in allotting them different provinces, destined Peter for the Jews and Paul for us. Let the Romanists, therefore, seek their primacy somewhere else than in the word of God, which gives not the least foundation for it.

(Roman church honored but not as unifying head, 16-17)

16. The significance of the church at Rome during the earliest period

Let us now come to the Primitive Church that it may also appear that our opponents plume themselves on its support, not less falsely and unadvisedly than on the testimony of the word of God. When they lay it down as an axiom, that the unity of the Church cannot be maintained unless there be one supreme head on earth whom all the members should obey; and that, accordingly, our Lord gave the primacy to Peter, and thereafter, by right of succession, to the See of Rome, there to remain even to the end, they assert that this has always been observed from the beginning. But since they improperly wrest many passages, I would first premise, that I deny not that the early Christians uniformly give high honour to the Roman Church, and speak of it with reverence. This, I think, is owing chiefly to three causes.

The opinion which had prevailed, (I know not how,) that that Church was founded and constituted by the ministry of Peter, had great effect in procuring influence and authority. Hence, in the East, it was, as a mark of honour, designated the apostolic See.

Secondly as the seat of empire was there, and it was for this reason to be presumed, that the most distinguished for learning, prudence, skill, and experience, were there more than elsewhere, account was justly taken of the circumstances lest the celebrity of the city, and the much more excellent gifts of God also, might seem to be despised.

To these was added a third cause, that when the churches of the East, of Greece and of African were kept in a constant turmoil by differences of opinion, the Church of Rome was calmer and less troubled. To this it was owing, that pious and holy bishops, when driven from their sees, often retook themselves to Rome as an asylum or haven. For as the people of the West are of a less acute and versatile turn of mind than those of Asia or Africa, so they are less desirous of innovations. It therefore added very great authority to the Roman Church, that in those dubious times it was not so much unsettled as others, and adhered more firmly to the doctrine once delivered, as shall immediately be better explained. For these three causes, I say, she was held in no ordinary estimation, and received many distinguished testimonies from ancient writers.

17. According to early church teaching, the unity of the church plainly required no universal bishop

But since on this our opponents would rear up a primacy and supreme authority over other churches, they, as I have said, greatly err. That this may better appear, I will first briefly show what the views of early writers are as to this unity which they so strongly urge. Jerome, in writing to Nepotian, after enumerating many examples of unity, descends at length to the ecclesiastical hierarchy. He says, “Every bishop of a church, every archpresbyter, every archdeacon, and the whole ecclesiastical order, depends on its own rulers.” Here a Roman presbyter speaks and commends unity in ecclesiastical order. Why does he not mention that all the churches are bound together by one Head as a common bond? There was nothing more appropriate to the point in hand, and it cannot be said that he omitted it through forgetfulness; there was nothing he would more willingly have mentioned had the fact permitted. He therefore undoubtedly owns, that the true method of unity is that which Cyprian admirably describes in these words: “The episcopate is one, part of which is held entire by each bishop, and the Church is one, which by the increase of fecundity, extends more widely in numbers. As there are many rays of the sun and one light, many branches of a tree and one trunk, upheld by its tenacious roots and as very many streams flow from one fountain, and though numbers seem diffused by the largeness of the overflowing supply, yet unity is preserved entire in the source, so the Church, pervaded with the light of the Lord, sends her rays over the whole globe, and yet is one light, which is everywhere diffused without separating the unity of the body, extends her branches over the whole globe, and sends forth flowing streams; still the head is one, and the source one,” (Cyprian, de Simplic. Praelat.) Afterwards he says, “The spouse of Christ cannot be an adulteress: she knows one house, and with chaste modesty keeps the sanctity of one bed.” See how he makes the bishopric of Christ alone universal, as comprehending under it the whole Church: See how he says that part of it is held entire by all who discharge the episcopal office under this head. Where is the primacy of the Roman See, if the entire bishopric resides in Christ alone, and a part of it is held entire by each? My object in these remarks is, to show the reader, in passing, that that axiom of the unity of an earthly kind in the hierarchy, which the Romanists assume as confessed and indubitable, was altogether unknown to the ancient Church.

CHAPTER 7. OF THE BEGINNING AND RISE OF THE ROMISH PAPACY TILL IT ATTAINED A HEIGHT BY WHICH THE LIBERTY OF THE CHURCH WAS DESTROYED, AND ALL TRUE RULE OVERTHROWN.

There are five heads in this chapter.

I. The Patriarchate given and confirmed to the Bishop of Rome, first by the Council of Nice, and afterwards by that of Chalcedony, though by no means approved of by other bishops, was the commencement of the Papacy, sec. 1-4.

II. The Church at Rome, by taking pious exiles under its protection, and also thereby protecting wicked men who fled to her, helped forward the mystery of iniquity, although at that time neither the ordination of bishops, nor admonitions and censures, nor the right of convening Councils, nor the right of receiving appeals, belonged to the Roman Bishop, whose profane meddling with these things was condemned by Gregory, sec. 5-13.

III. After the Council of Turin, disputes arose as to the authority of Metropolitans. Disgraceful strife between the Patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople. The vile assassin Phocas put an end to these brawls at the instigation of Boniface, sec. 14-18.

IV. To the dishonest arts of Boniface succeeded fouler frauds devised in more modern times, and expressly condemned by Gregory and Bernard, sec. 19-21.

V. The Papacy at length appeared complete in all its parts, the seat of Antichrist. Its impiety, execrable tyranny, and wickedness, portrayed, sec. 23-30.

Sections.

1. First part of the chapter, in which the commencement of the Papacy is assigned to the Council of Nicaea. In subsequent Councils other bishops presided. No attempt then made to claim the first place.

2. Though the Roman Bishop presided in the Council of Chalcedony, this was owing to special circumstances. The same right not given to his successors in other Councils.

3. The ancient Fathers did not give the title of Primate to the Roman Bishop.

4. Gregory was vehement in opposition to the title when claimed by the Bishop of Constantinople, and did not claim it for himself.

5. Second part of the chapter, explaining the ambitious attempts of the Roman See to obtain the primacy. Their reception of pious exiles. Hearing the appeals and complaints of heretics. Their ambition in this respect offensive to the African Church.

6. The power of the Roman Bishops in ordaining bishops, appointing councils, deciding controversies, &c., confined to their own Patriarchate.

7. If they censured other bishops, they themselves were censured in their turn.

8. They had no right of calling provincial councils except within their own boundaries. The calling of a universal council belonged solely to the Emperor.

9. Appeal to the Roman See not acknowledged by other bishops. Stoutly resisted by the Bishops of France and Africa. The impudence and falsehood of the Roman Pontiff detected.

10. Proof from history that the Roman had no jurisdiction over other churches.

11. The decretal epistles of no avail in support of this usurped jurisdiction.

12. The authority of the Roman Bishop extended in the time of Gregory. Still it only consisted in aiding other bishops with their own consent, or at the command of the Emperor.

13. Even the extent of jurisdiction, thus voluntarily conferred, objected to by Gregory as interfering with better duties.

14. Third part of the chapter, showing the increase of the power of the Papacy in defining the limits of Metropolitans. This gave rise to the decree of the Council of Turin. This decree haughtily annulled by Innocent.

15. Hence the great struggle for precedence between the Sees of Rome and Constantinople. The pride and ambition of the Roman Bishops unfolded.

16. Many attempts of the Bishop of Constantinople to deprive the Bishop of Rome of the primacy.

17. Phocas murders the Emperor, and gives Rome the primacy.

18. The Papal tyranny shortly after established. Bitter complaints by Bernard.

19. Fourth part of the chapter. Altered appearance of the Roman See since the days of Gregory.

20. The present demands of the Romanists not formerly conceded. Fictions of Gregory IX and Martin.

21. Without mentioning the opposition of Cyprian, of councils, and historical facts, the claims now made were condemned by Gregory himself.

22. The abuses of which Gregory and Bernard complained now increased and sanctioned.

23. The fifth and last part of the chapter, containing the chief answer to the claims of the Papacy, viz., that the Pope is not a bishop in the house of God. This answer confirmed by an enumeration of the essential parts of the episcopal office.

24. A second confirmation by appeal to the institution of Christ. A third confirmation e contrario, viz., That in doctrine and morals the Roman Pontiff is altogether different from a true bishop. Conclusion, that Rome is not the Apostolic See, but the Papacy.

25. Proof from Daniel and Paul that the Pope is Antichrist.

26. Rome could not now claim the primacy, even though she had formerly been the first See, especially considering the base trafficking in which she has engaged.

27. Personal character of Popes. Irreligious opinions held by some of them.

28. John XXII heretical in regard to the immortality of the soul. His name, therefore, ought to be expunged from the catalogue of Popes or rather, there is no foundation for the claim of perpetuity of faith in the Roman See.

29. Some Roman Pontiffs atheists, or sworn enemies of religion. Their immoral lives. Practice of the Cardinals and Romish clergy.

30. Cardinals were formerly merely presbyters of the Roman Church, and far inferior to bishops. As they now are, they have no true and legitimate office in the Church. Conclusion.

(Modest position of the Roman See in early times, 1-4)

1. Position of the Roman see in the Councils of Nicaea and Ephesus

In regard to the antiquity of the primacy of the Roman See, there is nothing in favour of its establishment more ancient than the decree of the Council of Nicaea, by which the first place among the Patriarchs is assigned to the Bishop of Rome, and he is enjoined to take care of the suburban churches. While the council, in dividing between him and the other Patriarchs, assigns the proper limits of each, it certainly does not appoint him head of all, but only one of the chief. Vitus and Vincentius attended on the part of Julius, who then governed the Roman Church and to them the fourth place was given. I ask, if Julius was acknowledged the head of the Church, would his legates have been consigned to the fourth place? Would Athanasius have presided in the council where a representative of the hierarchal order should have been most conspicuous? In the Council of Ephesus, it appears that Celestinus (who was then Roman Pontiff) used a cunning device to secure the dignity of his See. For when he sent his deputies, he made Cyril of Alexandria, who otherwise would have presided, his substitute. Why that commission, but just that his name might stand connected with the first See? His legates sit in an inferior place, are asked their opinion along with others, and subscribe in their order, while, at the same time, his name is coupled with that of the Patriarch of Alexandria.

What shall I say of the second Council of Ephesus, where, while the deputies of Leo were present, the Alexandria Patriarch Dioscorus presided as in his own right? They will object that this was not an orthodox council, since by it the venerable Flavianus was condemned, Eutyches acquitted, and his heresy approved. Yet when the council was met, and the bishops distributed the places among themselves, the deputies of the Roman Church sat among the others just as in a sacred and lawful Council. Still they contend not for the first place, but yield it to another: this they never would have done if they had thought it their own by right. For the Roman bishops were never ashamed to stir up the greatest strife in contending for honours, and for this cause alone, to trouble and harass the Church with many pernicious contests; but because Leo saw that it would be too extravagant to ask the first place for his legates, he omitted to do it.

2.In the Council of Chalcedon and the Fifth of Constantinople

Next came the Council of Chalcedony, in which, by concession of the Emperor, the legates of the Roman Church occupied the first place. But Leo himself confesses that this was an extraordinary privilege; for when he asks it of the Emperor Martian and Pulcheria Augusta, he does not maintain that it is due to him, but only pretends that the Eastern bishops who presided in the Council of Ephesus had thrown all into confusion, and made a bad use of their power. Therefore, seeing there was need of a grave moderator, and it was not probable that those who had once been so fickle and tumultuous would be fit for this purpose, he requests that, because of the fault and unfitness of others, the office of governing should be transferred to him. That which is asked as a special privilege, and out of the usual order, certainly is not due by a common law. When it is only pretended that there is need of a new president, because the former ones had behaved themselves improperly, it is plain that the thing asked was not previously done, and ought not to be made perpetual, being done only in respect of a present danger. The Roman Pontiff, therefore, holds the first place in the Council of Chalcedony, not because it is due to his See, but because the council is in want of a grave and fit moderator, while those who ought to have presided exclude themselves by their intemperance and passion.

This statement the successor of Leo approved by his procedure. For when he sent his legates to the fifth Council, that of Constantinople, which was held long after he did not quarrel for the first seat, but readily allowed Mennas, the patriarch of Constantinople, to preside. In like manner, in the Council of Carthage, at which Augustine was present, we perceive that not the legates of the Roman See, but Aurelius, the archbishop of the place, presided, although there was then a question as to the authority of the Roman Pontiff. Nay, even in Italy itself, an universal council was held, (that of Aquileia,) at which the Roman Bishop was not present. Ambrose, who was then in high favour with the Emperor presided, and no mention is made of the Roman Pontiff. Therefore, owing to the dignity of Ambrose, the See of Milan was then more illustrious than that of Rome.

3. The proud titles of the later Roman bishops not yet known in the early period

In regard to the mere title of primate and other titles of pride, of which that pontiff now makes a wondrous boast, it is not difficult to understand how and in what way they crept in. Cyprian often makes mention of Cornelius, (Cyprian. Lib. 2 Ep. 2; Lib. 4 Ep. 6,) nor does he distinguish him by any other name than that of brother, or fellow bishop, or colleague. When he writes to Stephen, the successor of Cornelius, he not only makes him the equal of himself and others, but addresses him in harsh terms, charging him at one time with presumption, at another with ignorance. After Cyprian, we have the judgement of the whole African church on the subject. For the Council of Carthage enjoined that none should be called chief of the priests, or first bishop, but only bishop of the first See. But any one who will examine the more ancient records will find that the Roman Pontiff was then contented with the common appellation of brother. Certainly, as long as the true and pure form of the Church continued, all these names of pride on which the Roman See afterwards began to plume itself, were altogether unheard of; none knew what was meant by the supreme Pontiff, and the only head of the Church on earth. Had the Roman Bishop presumed to assume any such title, there were right-hearted men who would immediately have repressed his folly. Jerome, seeing he was a Roman presbyter, was not slow to proclaim the dignity of his church, in as far as fact and the circumstances of the times permitted, and yet we see how he brings it under due subordination. “If authority is asked, the world is greater than a city. Why produce to me the custom of one city? Why vindicate a small number with whom superciliousness has originated against the laws of the Church? Wherever the bishop be, whether at Rome, or Eugubium, or Constantinople, or Rhenium, the merit is the same, and the priesthood the same. The power of riches, or the humbleness of poverty, do not make a bishop superior or inferior,” (Hieron. Ep. ad Evagr.)

4.Gregory I refused the title “Universal Bishop”

The controversy concerning the title of universal bishop arose at length in the time of Gregory, and was occasioned by the ambition of John of Constantinople. For he wished to make himself universal, a thing which no other had ever attempted. In that controversy, Gregory does not allege that he is deprived of a right which belonged to him but he strongly insists that the appellation is profane, nay, blasphemous, nay, the forerunner of Antichrist. “The whole Church falls from its state, if he who is called universal falls,” (Greg. Lib. 4 Ep. 76.) Again, “It is very difficult to bear patiently that one who is our brother and fellow bishop should alone be called bishop, while all others are despised. But in this pride of his, what else is intimated but that the days of Antichrist are already near? For he is imitating him, who, despising the company of angels, attempted to ascend the pinnacle of greatness,” (Lib. 4 Ep. 76.) He elsewhere says to Eulogies of Alexandria and Anastasius of Antioch: “None of my predecessors ever desired to use this profane term: for if one patriarch is called universal, it is derogatory to the name of patriarch in others. But far be it from any Christian mind to wish to arrogate to itself that which would in any degree, however slight, impair the honour of his brethren,” (Lib. 4 Ep. 80.) “To consent to that impious term is nothing else than to lose the faith,” (Lib. 4 Ep. 83.) “What we owe to the preservation of the unity of the faith is one thing, what we owe to the suppression of pride is another. I speak with confidence, for every one that calls himself, or desires to be called universal priest, is by his pride a forerunner of Antichrist, because he acts proudly in preferring himself to others,” (Lib. 7 Ep. 154.) Thus, again, in a letter to Anastasius of Antioch, “I said, that he could not have peace with us unless he corrected the presumption of a superstitious and haughty term which the first apostate invented; and (to say nothing of the injury to your honour) if one bishop is called universal, the whole Church goes to ruin when that universal bishop falls,” (Lib. 6 Ep. 188.)

But when he writes, that this honour was offered to Leo in the Council of Chalcedony, (Lib. 4 Ep. 76, 80; Lib. 7 Ep. 76;,) he says what has no semblance of truth; nothing of the kind is found among the acts of that council. And Leo himself, who, in many letters, impugns the decree which was then made in honour of the See of Constantinople, undoubtedly would not have omitted this argument, which was the most plausible of all, if it was true that he himself repudiated what was given to him. One who, in other respects, was rather too desirous of honour, would not have omitted what would have been to his praise. Gregory, therefore, is incorrect in saying, that that title was conferred on the Roman See by the Council of Chalcedony; not to mention how ridiculous it is for him to says that it proceeded from that sacred council, and yet to term it wicked, profane, nefarious, proud, and blasphemous, nay, devised by the devil, and promulgated by the herald of Antichrist. And yet he adds, that his predecessor refused it, lest by that which was given to one individually all priests should be deprived of their due honour. In another place, he says, “None ever wished to be called by such a name; none arrogated this rash name to himself, lest, by seizing on the honour of supremacy in the office of the Pontificate, he might seem to deny it to all his brethren,” (Gregor. Lib. 4 Ep. 82.)

(Limitations of its authority in relation to that of emperors and metropolitans, 5-10)

5. Origin of Roman jurisdiction

I come now to jurisdiction, which the Roman Pontiff asserts as an incontrovertible proposition that he possesses over all churches. I am aware of the great disputes which anciently existed on this subject: for there never was a time when the Roman See did not aim at authority over other churches. And here it will not be out of place to investigate the means by which she gradually attained to some influence. I am not now referring to that unlimited power which she seized at a comparatively recent period. The consideration of that we shall defer to its own place. But it is worth while here briefly to show in what way, and by what means, she formerly raised herself, so as to arrogate some authority over other churches.

When the churches of the East were troubled and rent by the factions of the Asians, under the Emperors Constantius and Constans, sons of Constantine the Great; and Athanasius, the principal defender of the orthodox faith, had been driven from his see, the calamity obliged him to come to Rome, in order that by the authority of this see he might both repress the rage of his enemies, and confirm the orthodox under their distress. He was honourably received by Julius, who was then bishop, and engaged those of the West to undertake the defence of his cause. Therefore, when the orthodox stood greatly in need of external aid, and perceived that their chief protection lay in the Roman See, they willingly bestowed upon it all the authority they could. But the utmost extent of this was, that its communion was held in high estimations and it was deemed ignominious to be excommunicated by it.

Dishonest bad men afterwards added much to its authority, for when they wished to escape lawful tribunals, they retook themselves to Rome as an asylum. Accordingly, if any presbyter was condemned by his bishop, or if any bishop was condemned by the synod of his province, he appealed to Rome. These appeals the Roman bishops received more eagerly than they ought, because it seemed a species of extraordinary power to interpose in matters with which their connection was so very remote. Thus, when Eutyches was condemned by Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople, he complained to Leo that the sentence was unjust. He, nothing loth, no less presumptuously than abruptly, undertook the patronage of a bad cause, and inveighed bitterly against Flavianus, as having condemned an innocent man without due investigation: and thus the effect of Leo’s ambition was, that for some time the impiety of Eutyches was confirmed.

It is certain that in Africa the same thing repeatedly occurred, for whenever any miscreant had been condemned by his ordinary judge, he fled to Rome, and brought many calumnious charges against his own people. The Roman See was always ready to interpose. This dishonesty obliged the African bishops to decree that no one should carry an appeal beyond sea under pain of excommunication.

6. The peculiar features of the Roman power of that time

Be this as it may, let us consider what right or authority the Roman See then possessed. Ecclesiastical power may be reduced to four heads, viz., ordination of bishops, calling of councils, hearing of appeals, (or jurisdiction,) inflicting monitory chastisements or censures.

All ancient councils enjoin that bishops shall be ordained by their own Metropolitans; they nowhere enjoin an application to the Roman Bishop, except in his own patriarchate. Gradually however, it became customary for all Italian bishops to go to Rome for consecration, with the exception of the Metropolitans, who did not allow themselves to be thus brought into subjection; but when any Metropolitan was to be ordained, the Roman Bishop sent one of his presbyters merely to be present, but not to preside. An example of this kind is extant in Gregory, (Lib. 2 Ep. 68, 70,) in the consecration of Constantius of Milan, after the death of Laurence. I do not, however, think that this was a very ancient custom. At first, as a mark of respect and good will, they sent deputies to one another to witness the ordination, and attest their communion. What was thus voluntary afterwards began to be regarded as necessary. However this be, it is certain that anciently the Roman Bishop had no power of ordaining except within the bounds of his own patriarchate, that is, as a, canon of the Council of Nicaea expresses it, in suburban churches.

To ordination was added the sending of a synodical epistle, but this implied no authority. The patriarchs were accustomed, immediately after consecration, to attest their faith by a formal writing, in which they declared that they assented to sacred and orthodox councils. Thus, by rendering an account of their faith, they mutually approved of each other. If the Roman Bishop had received this confession from others, and not given it, he would therein have been acknowledged superior; but when it behoved to give as well as to receive, and to be subject to the common law, this was a sign of equality, not of lordship. Of this we have an example in a letter of Gregory to Anastasius and Cyriac of Constantinople, and in another letter to all the patriarchs together, (Gregor. Lib. 1 Ep. 24, 25; Lib. 6 Ep. 169.)

7. Mutual admonition

Next come admonitions or censures. These the Roman Bishops anciently employed towards others, and in their turn received. Irenaeus sharply rebuked Victor for rashly troubling the Church with a pernicious schism, for a matter of no moment. He submitted without objecting. Holy bishops were then wont to use the freedom as brethren of admonishing and rebuking the Roman Prelate when he happened to err. He in his turn, when the case required, reminded others of their duty, and reprimanded them for their faults. For Cyprian, when he exhorts Stephen to admonish the bishops of France, does not found on his larger power, but on the common right which priests have in regard to each other, (Cyprian. Lib. 3 Ep. 13.) I ask if Stephen had then presided over France, would not Cyprian have said, “Check them, for they are yours?” but his language is very different. “The brotherly fellowship which binds us together requires that we should mutually admonish each other,” (Cyprian. ad Pomp. Cont. Epist. Steph.) And we see also with what severity of expressions a man otherwise of a mild temper, inveighs against Stephen himself when he thinks him chargeable with insolence. Therefore, it does not yet appear in this respect that the Roman Bishop possessed any jurisdiction over those who did not belong to his province.

8. Authority in the convening of synods

In regard to calling of councils, it was the duty of every Metropolitan to assemble a provincial synod at stated times. Here the Roman Bishop had no jurisdiction, while the Emperor alone could summon a general council. Had any of the bishops attempted this, not only would those out of the province not have obeyed the call, but a tumult would instantly have arisen. Therefore the Emperor gave intimation to all alike to attend. Socrates, indeed, relates that Julius expostulated with the Eastern bishops for not having called him to the Council of Antioch, seeing it was forbidden by the canons that any thing should be decided without the knowledge of the Roman Bishop, (Tripart. Hist. Lib. 4). But who does not perceive that this is to be understood of those decrees which bind the whole Church? At the same time, it is not strange if, in deference both to the antiquity and largeness of the city, and the dignity of the see, no universal decree concerning religion should be made in the absence of the Bishop of Rome, provided he did not refuse to be present. But what has this to do with the dominion of the whole Church? For we deny not that he was one of the principal bishops though we are unwilling to admit what the Romanists now contend for, viz., that he had power over all.

9. Use of forged documents

The fourth remaining species of power is that of hearing appeals. It is evident that the supreme power belongs to him to whose tribunal appeals are made. Many had repeatedly appealed to the Roman Pontiff. He also had endeavoured to bring causes under his cognisance, but he had always been derided whenever he went beyond his own boundaries. I say nothing of the East and of Greece, but it is certain, that the bishops of France stoutly resisted when he seemed to assume authority over them.

In African the subject was long disputed, for in the Council of Milevita, at which Augustine was present, when those who carried appeals beyond seas were excommunicated, the Roman Pontiff attempted to obtain an alteration of the decree, and sent legates to show that the privilege of hearing appeals was given him by the Council of Nicaea. The legates produced acts of the council drawn from the armoury of their church. The African bishops resisted and maintained, that credit was not to be given to the Bishop of Rome in his own cause; accordingly, they said that they would send to Constantinople, and other cities of Greece, where less suspicious copies might be had. It was found that nothing like what the Romanists had pretended was contained in the acts, and thus the decree which abrogated the supreme jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff was confirmed. In this matter was manifested the egregious effrontery of the Roman Pontiff. For when he had fraudulently substituted the Council of Sardis for that of Nicaea, he was disgracefully detected in a palpable falsehood; but still greater and more impudent was the iniquity of those who added a fictitious letter to the Council, in which some Bishop of Carthage condemns the arrogance of Aurelius his predecessor, in promising to withdraw himself from obedience to the Apostolic See, and making a surrender of himself and his church, suppliantly prays for pardon.

These are the noble records of antiquity on which the majesty of the Roman See is founded, while, under the pretext of antiquity, they deal in falsehoods so puerile, that even a blind man might feel them. “Aurelius, (says he,) elated by diabolical audacity and contumacy, was rebellious against Christ and St Peter, and, accordingly, deserved to be anathematised.” What does Augustine say? and what the many Fathers who were present at the Council of Milevita? But what need is there to give a lengthened refutation of that absurd writing, which not even Romanists, if they have any modesty left them, can look at without a deep feeling of shame? Thus Gratian, whether through malice or ignorance, I know not, after quoting the decree, That those are to be deprived of communion who carry appeals beyond seas, subjoins the exception, Unless, perhaps, they have appealed to the Roman See, (Grat. 2, Quest. 4, cap. Placuit.) What can you make of creatures like these who are so devoid of common sense, that they set down as an exception from the law the very thing on account of which, as every body sees, the law was made? For the Council, in condemning transmarine appeals, simply prohibits an appeal to Rome. Yet this worthy expounder excepts Rome from the common law.

10. Constantine, Bishop Melchiades, and the Synod of Arles

But (to end the question at once) the kind of jurisdiction which belonged to the Roman Bishop one narrative will make manifest. Donates of Casa Nigra had accused Cecilianus the Bishop of Carthage. Cecilianus was condemned without a hearing: for, having ascertained that the bishops had entered into a conspiracy against him, he refused to appear. The case was brought before the Emperor Constantine, who, wishing the matter to be ended by an ecclesiastical decision, gave the cognisance of it to Melciades, the Roman Bishop, appointing as his colleagues some bishops from Italy, France, and Spain. If it formed part of the ordinary jurisdiction of the Roman see to hear appeals in ecclesiastical causes, why did he allow others to be conjoined with him at the Emperor’s discretion? nay, why does he undertake to decide more from the command of the Emperor than his own office? But let us hear what afterwards happened, (see August. Ep. 162, et alibi.) Cecilianus prevails. Donates of Casa Nigra is thrown in his calumnious action and appeals. Constantine devolves the decision of the appeal on the Bishop of Arles, who sits as judge, to give sentence after the Roman Pontiff. If the Roman See has supreme power not subject to appeal, why does Melciades allow himself to be so greatly insulted as to have the Bishop of Arles preferred to him? And who is the Emperor that does this? Constantine, who they boast not only made it his constant study, but employed all the resources of the empire to enlarge the dignity of that see. We see, therefore, how far in every way the Roman Pontiff was from that supreme dominion, which he asserts to have been given him by Christ over all churches, and which he falsely alleges that he possessed in all ages, with the consent of the whole world.

(Attitude of fifth- and sixth-century popes: Rome vs. Constantinople, 11-16)

11. Falsification and usurpation

I know how many epistles there are, how many rescripts and edicts in which there is nothing which the pontiffs do not ascribe and confidently arrogate to themselves. But all men of the least intellect and learning know, that the greater part of them are in themselves so absurd, that it is easy at the first sight to detect the forge from which they have come. Does any man of sense and soberness think that Anacletus is the author of that famous interpretation which is given in Gratian, under the name of Anacletus, viz., that Cephas is head? (Dist. 22 cap. Sacrosancta.) Numerous follies of the same kind which Gratian has heaped together without judgement, the Romanists of the present day employ against us in defence of their see. The smoke, by which, in the former days of ignorance, they imposed upon the ignorant, they would still vend in the present light. I am unwilling to take much trouble in refuting things which, by their esteems absurdity, plainly refute themselves.

I admit the existence of genuine epistles by ancient Pontiffs, in which they pronounce magnificent eulogiums on the extent of their see. Such are some of the epistles of Leo. For as he possessed learning and eloquence, so he was excessively desirous of glory and dominion; but the true question is, whether or not, when he thus extolled himself, the churches gave credit to his testimony? It appears that many were offended with his ambition, and also resisted his cupidity. He in one place appoints the Bishop of Thessalonica his vicar throughout Greece and other neighbouring regions, (Leo, Ep. 85,) and elsewhere gives the same office to the Bishop of Arles or some other throughout France, (Ep. 83.) In like manner, he appointed Hormisdas, Bishop of Hispala, his vicar throughout Spain, but he uniformly makes this reservation, that in giving such commissions, the ancient privileges of the Metropolitans were to remain safe and entire. These appointments, therefore, were made on the condition, that no bishop should be impeded in his ordinary jurisdiction, no metropolitan in taking cognisance of appeals, no provincial council in constituting churches. But what else was this than to decline all jurisdiction, and to interpose for the purpose of settling discord only, in so far as the law and nature of ecclesiastical communion admit?

12. Papal power at the time of Gregory I

In the time of Gregory, that ancient rule was greatly changed. For when the empire was convulsed and torn, when France and Spain were suffering from the many disasters which they ever and anon received, when Illyricum was laid waste, Italy harassed, and Africa almost destroyed by uninterrupted calamities, in order that, during these civil convulsions, the integrity of the faith might remain, or at least not entirely perish, the bishops in all quarters attached themselves more to the Roman Pontiff. In this way, not only the dignity, but also the power of the see, exceedingly increased, although I attach no great importance to the means by which this was accomplished. It is certain, that it was then greater than in former ages. And yet it was very different from the unbridled dominion of one ruling others as he pleased. Still the reverence paid to the Roman See was such that by its authority it could guide and repress those whom their own colleagues were unable to keep to their duty; for Gregory is careful ever and anon to testify that he was not less faithful in preserving the rights of others, than in insisting that his own should be preserved. “I do not,” says he, “under the stimulus of ambition, derogate from any man’s right, but desire to honour my brethren in all things,” (Gregor. Lib. 2 Ep. 68.) There is no sentence in his writings in which he boasts more proudly of the extent of his primacy than the following: “I know not what bishop is not subject to the Roman See, when he is discovered in a fault,” (Leo, Lib. 2, Epist. 68.) However, he immediately adds, “Where faults do not call for interference, all are equal according to the rule of humility.” He claims for himself the right of correcting those who have sinned; if all do their duty, he puts himself on a footing of equality. He, indeed, claimed this right, and those who chose assented to it, while those who were not pleased with it were at liberty to object with impunity; and it is known that the greater part did so. We may add, that he is then speaking of the primate of Byzantium, who, when condemned by a provincial synod, repudiated the whole judgement. His colleagues had informed the Emperor of his contumacy, and the Emperor had given the cognisance of the matter to Gregory. We see, therefore, that he does not interfere in any way with the ordinary jurisdiction, and that, in acting as a subsidiary to others, he acts entirely by the Emperor’s command.

13. Limitations of the office under Gregory

At this time, therefore, the whole power of the Roman Bishop consisted in opposing stubborn and ungovernable spirits, where some extraordinary remedy was required, and this in order to assist other bishops, not to interfere with them. Therefore, he assumes no more power over others than he elsewhere gives others over himself, when he confesses that he is ready to be corrected by all, amended by all, (Lib. 2 Ep. 37.) So, in another place, though he orders the Bishop of Aquileia to come to Rome to plead his cause in a controversy as to doctrine which had arisen between himself and others, he thus orders not of his own authority, but in obedience to the Emperor’s command. Nor does he declare that he himself will be sole judge, but promises to call a synod, by which the whole business may be determined. But although the moderation was still such, that the power of the Roman See had certain limits which it was not permitted to overstep, and the Roman Bishop himself was not more above than under others, it appears how much Gregory was dissatisfied with this state of matters.

For he ever and anon complains, that he, under the colour of the episcopates, was brought back to the world, and was more involved in earthly cares than when living as a laic; that he, in that honourable office, was oppressed by the tumult of secular affairs. Elsewhere he says, “So many burdensome occupations depress me, that my mind cannot at all rise to things above. I am shaken by the many billows of causes, and after they are quieted, am afflicted by the tempests of a tumultuous life, so that I may truly say I am come into the depths of the sea, and the flood has overwhelmed me.” From this I infer what he would have said if he had fallen on the present times. If he did not fulfil, he at least did the duty of a pastor. He declined the administration of civil power, and acknowledged himself subject, like others, to the Emperor. He did not interfere with the management of other churches, unless forced by necessity. And yet he thinks himself in a labyrinth, because he cannot devote himself entirely to the duty of a bishop.

14. Rome and Constantinople in conflict over supremacy

At that time, as has already been said, the Bishop of Constantinople was disputing with the Bishop of Rome for the primacy. For after the seat of empire was fixed at Constantinople, the majesty of the empire seemed to demand that that church should have the next place of honour to that of Rome. And certainly, at the outset, nothing had tended more to give the primacy to Rome, than that it was then the capital of the empire. In Gratian, (Dist. 80,) there is a rescript under the name of Pope Lucius, to the effect that the only way in which the cities where Metropolitans and Primates ought to preside were distinguished, was by means of the civil government which had previously existed. There is a similar rescript under the name of Pope Clement, in which he says that patriarchs were appointed in those cities which had previously had the first flames. Although this is absurd, it was borrowed from what was true. For it is certain, that in order to make as little change as possible, provinces were distributed according to the state of matters then existing, and Primates and Metropolitans were placed in those cities which surpassed others in honours and power. Accordingly, it was decreed in the Council of Turin, that the cities of every province which were first in the civil government should be the first sees of bishops. But if it should happen that the honour of civil government was transferred from one city to another, then the right of the metropolis should be at the same time transferred thither. But Innocent, the Roman Pontiff, seeing that the ancient dignity of the city had been decaying ever since the seat of empire had been transferred to Constantinople, and fearing for his see, enacted a contrary law, in which he denies the necessity of changing metropolitan churches as imperial metropolitan cities were changed. But the authority of a synod is justly to be preferred to the opinion of one individual, and Innocent himself should be suspected in his own cause. However this be, he by his caveat shows the original rule to have been, that Metropolitans should be distributed according to the order of the empire.

15. How Leo resented recognition of Constantinople

Agreeably to this ancient custom, the first Council of Constantinople decreed that the bishop of that city should take precedence after the Roman Pontiff, because it was a new Rome. But long after, when a similar decree was made at Chalcedony, Leo keenly protested, (Socrat. Hist. Trop. Lib. 9 cap. 13.) And not only did he permit himself to set at nought what six hundred bishops or more had decreed, but he even assailed them with bitter reproaches, because they had derogated from other sees in the honour which they had presumed to confer on the Church of Constantinople, (in Decr. 22, Distinct. cap. Constantinop.) What, pray, could have incited the man to trouble the world for so small an affair but mere ambition? He says, that what the Council of Nice had once sanctioned ought to have been inviolable; as if the Christian faith was in any danger if one church was preferred to another; or as if separate Patriarchates had been established on any other grounds than that of policy. But we know that policy varies with times, nay, demands various changes. It is therefore futile in Leo to pretend that the See of Constantinople ought not to receive the honour which was given to that of Alexandria, by the authority of the Council of Nice. For it is the dictate of common sense, that the decree was one of those which might be abrogated, in respect of a change of times. What shall we say to the fact, that none of the Eastern churches, though chiefly interested, objected? Proterius, who had been appointed at Alexandria instead of Dioscorus, was certainly present; other patriarchs whose honour was impaired were present.

It belonged to them to interfere, not to Leo, whose station remained entire. While all of them are silent, many assent, and the Roman Bishop alone resists, it is easy to judge what it is that moves him; just because he foresaw what happened not long after, that when the glory of ancient Rome declined, Constantinople, not contented with the second place, would dispute the primacy with her. And yet his glamour was not so successful as to prevent the decree of the council from being ratified. Accordingly, his successors seeing themselves defeated, quietly desisted from that petulance, and allowed the Bishop of Constantinople to be regarded as the second Patriarch.

16. Pride of John the Faster, and modesty of Gregory

But shortly after, John, who, in the time of Gregory, presided over the church of Constantinople, went so far as to say that he was universal Patriarch. Here Gregory, that he might not be wanting to his See in a most excellent cause, constantly opposed. And certainly it was impossible to tolerate the pride and madness of John, who wished to make the limits of his bishopric equal to the limits of the empire. This, which Gregory denies to another, he claims not for himself, but abominates the title by whomsoever used, as wicked, impious, and nefarious. Nay, he is offended with Eulogies, Bishop of Alexandria, who had honoured him with this title, “See (says he, Lib. 7 Ep. 30) in the address of the letter which you have directed to me, though I prohibited you, you have taken care to write a word of proud signification by calling me universal Pope. What I ask is, that your holiness do not go farther, because, whatever is given to another more than reason demands is withdrawn from you. I do not regard that as honour by which I see that the honour of my brethren is diminished. For my honour is the universal honour of the Church, and entire prerogative of my brethren. If your holiness calls me universal Pope, it denies itself to be this whole which it acknowledges me to be.”

The cause of Gregory was indeed good and honourable; but John, aided by the favour of the Emperor Maurice, could not be dissuaded from his purpose. Cyriac also, his successor, never allowed himself to be spoken to on the subject.

(Rome’s jurisdiction enhanced through relations with the usurpers Phocas and Pepin, and thereafter established to the injury of the church, 17-18)

17. The eventual establishment of the papal supremacy

At length Phocas, who had slain Maurice, and usurped his place, (more friendly to the Romans, for what reason I know not, or rather because he had been crowned king there without opposition,) conceded to Boniface III what Gregory by no means demanded, viz., that Rome should be the head of all the churches. In this way the controversy was ended.

And yet this kindness of the Emperor to the Romans would not have been of very much avail had not other circumstances occurred. For shortly after Greece and all Asia were cut off from his communion, while all the reverence which he received from France was obedience only in so far as she pleased. She was brought into subjection for the first time when Pepin got possession of the throne. For Zachary, the Roman Pontiff, having aided him in his perfidy and robbery when he expelled the lawful sovereign, and seized upon the kingdom, which lay exposed as a kind of prey, was rewarded by having the jurisdiction of the Roman See established over the churches of France. In the same way as robbers are wont to divide and share the common spoil, those two worthies arranged that Pepin should have the worldly and civil power by spoiling the true prince, while Zachary should become the head of all the bishops, and have the spiritual power.

This, though weak at the first, (as usually happens with new power,) was afterwards confirmed by the authority of Charlemagne for a very similar cause. For he too was under obligation to the Roman Pontiff, to whose zeal he was indebted for the honour of empire.

Though there is reason to believe that the churches had previously been greatly altered, it is certain that the ancient form of the Church was then only completely effaced in Gaul and Germany. There are still extant among the archives of the Parliament of Paris short commentaries on those times, which, in treating of ecclesiastical affairs, make mention of the compacts both of Pepin and Charlemagne with the Roman Pontiff. Hence we may infer that the ancient state of matters was then changed.

18. The decay of the church until the time of Bernard of Clairvaux

From that time, while everywhere matters were becoming daily worse, the tyranny of the Roman Bishop was established, and ever and anon increased, and this partly by the ignorance, partly by the sluggishness, of the bishops. For while he was arrogating everything to himself, and proceeding more and more to exalt himself without measure, contrary to law and right, the bishops did not exert themselves so zealously as they ought in curbing his pretensions. And though they had not been deficient in spirit, they were devoid of true doctrine and experience, so that they were by no means fit for so important an effort. Accordingly, we see how great and monstrous was the profanation of all sacred things, and the dissipation of the whole ecclesiastical order at Rome, in the age of Bernard. He complains (Lib. 1 de Consider. ad Eugene.) that the ambitious, avaricious, demoniacal, sacrilegious, fornicators, incestuous and similar miscreants, flocked from all quarters of the world to Rome, that by apostolic authority they might acquire or retain ecclesiastical honours: that fraud, circumvention, and violence, prevailed. The mode of judging causes then in use he describes as execrable, as disgraceful, not only to the Church, but the bar. He exclaims that the Church is filled with the ambitious: that not one is more afraid to perpetrate crimes than robbers in their den when they share the spoils of the traveller. “Few (says he) look to the mouth of the legislator, but all to his hands. Not without cause, however: for their hands do the whole business of the Pope. What kind of thing is it when those are bought by the spoils of the Church, who say to you, Well done, well done? The life of the poor is sown in the highways of the rich: silver glitters in the mire: they run together from all sides: it is not the poorer that takes it up, but the stronger, or, perhaps, he who runs fastest. That custom, however, or rather that death, comes not of you: I wish it would end in you. While these things are going on, you, a pastor, come forth robed in much costly clothing. If I might presume to say it, this is more the pasture of demons than of sheep. Peter, forsooth, acted thus; Paul sported thus. Your court has been more accustomed to receive good men than to make them. The bad do not gain much there, but the good degenerate.” Then when he describes the abuses of appeals, no pious man can read them without being horrified. At length, speaking of the unbridled cupidity of the Roman See in usurping jurisdiction, he thus concludes, (Lib. 3 de Council.,) “I express the murmur and common complaint of the churches. Their cry is that they are maimed and dismembered. There are none, or very few, who do not lament or fear that plague. Do you ask what plague? Abbots are encroached upon by bishops, bishops by archbishops, &c. It is strange if this can be excused. By thus acting, you prove that you have the fulness of power, but not the fulness of righteousness. You do this because you are able; but whether you also ought to do it is the question. You are appointed to preserve, not to envy, the honour and rank of each.”

I have thought it proper to quote these few passages out of many, partly that my readers may see how grievously the Church had then fallen, partly, too, that they may see with what grief and lamentation all pious men beheld this calamity.

(Later papal claims contrary to the principles of Gregory I and Bernard, 19-22)

19. The present-day papacy in its claims to power

But though we were to concede to the Roman Pontiff of the present day the eminence and extent of jurisdiction which his see had in the middle ages, as in the time of Leo and Gregory, what would this be to the existing Papacy? I am not now speaking of worldly dominion, or of civil power, which will afterwards be explained in their own place, (chap. 11 sec. 8-14;) but what resemblance is there between the spiritual government of which they boast and the state of those times? The only definition which they give of the Pope is, that he is the supreme head of the Church on earth, and the universal bishop of the whole globe. The Pontiffs themselves, when they speak of their authority, declare with great superciliousness that the power of commanding belongs to them,—that the necessity of obedience remains with others,—that all their decrees are to be regarded as confirmed by the divine voice of Peter,—that provincial synods, from not having the presence of the Pope, are deficient in authority,—that they can ordain the clergy of any church,—and can summon to their See any who have been ordained elsewhere. Innumerable things of this kind are contained in the farrago of Gratian, which I do not mention, that I may not be tedious to my readers. The whole comes to this, that to the Roman Pontiff belongs the supreme cognisance of all ecclesiastical causes, whether in determining and defining doctrines, or in enacting laws, or in appointing discipline, or in giving sentences.

It were also tedious and superfluous to review the privileges which they assume to themselves in what they call reservations. But the most intolerable of all things is their leaving no judicial authority in the world to restrain and curb them when they licentiously abuse their immense power. “No man (say they) is entitled to alter the judgement of this See, on account of the primacy of the Roman Church.” Again, “The judge shall not be judged either by the emperor, or by kings, or by the clergy, or by the people.” It is surely imperious enough for one man to appoint himself the judge of all, while he will not submit to the judgement of any. But what if he tyrannises over the people of God? if he dissipates and lays waste the kingdom of Christ? if he troubles the whole Church? if he convert the pastoral office into robbery? Nay, though he should be the most abandoned of all, he insists that none can call him to account. The language of Pontiffs is, “God has been pleased to terminate the causes of other men by men, but the Prelate of this See he has reserved unquestioned for his own judgement.” Again, “The deeds of subjects are judged by us; ours by God only.”

20. New forgeries support extravagant claims

And in order that edicts of this kind might have more weight, they falsely substituted the names of ancient Pontiffs, as if matters had been so constituted from the beginning, while it is absolutely certain that whatever attributes more to the Pontiff than we have stated to have been given to him by ancient councils, is new and of recent fabrication. Nay, they have carried their effrontery so far as to publish a rescript under the name of Anastasius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, in which he testifies that it was appointed by ancient regulations, that nothing should be done in the remotest provinces without being previously referred to the Roman See. Besides its extreme folly, who can believe it credible that such an eulogium on the Roman See proceeded from an opponent and rival of its honour and dignity? But doubtless it was necessary that those Antichrists should proceed to such a degree of madness and blindness, that their iniquity might be manifest to all men of sound mind who will only open their eyes. The decretal epistles collected by Gregory IX, also the Clementines and Extravagants of Martin, breathe still more plainly, and in more bombastic terms bespeak this boundless ferocity and tyranny, as it were, of barbarian kings. But these are the oracles out of which the Romanists would have their Papacy to be judged. Hence have sprung those famous axioms which have the force of oracles throughout the Papacy in the present day, viz., that the Pope cannot err; that the Pope is superior to councils, that the Pope is the universal bishop of all churches, and the chief Head of the Church on earth. I say nothing of the still greater absurdities which are babbled by the foolish canonists in their schools, absurdities, however, which Roman theologians not only assent to, but even applaud in flattery of their idol.

21. Gregory condemned what popes now affirm

I will not treat with them on the strictest terms. In opposition to their great insolence, some would quote the language which Cyprian used to the bishops in the council over which he presided: “None of us styles himself bishop of bishops, or forces his colleagues to the necessity of obeying by the tyranny of terror.” Some might object what was long after decreed at Carthage, “Let no one be called the prince of priests or first bishop;” and might gather many proofs from history, and canons from councils, and many passages from ancient writers, which bring the Roman Pontiff into due order.

But these I omit, that I may not seem to press too hard upon them. However, let these worthy defenders of the Roman See tell me with what face they can defend the title of universal bishop, while they see it so often anathematised by Gregory. If effect is to be given to his testimony, then they, by making their Pontiff universal, declare him to be Antichrist.

The name of head was not more approved. For Gregory thus speaks: “Peter was the chief member in the body, John, Andrew, and James, the heads of particular communities. All, however, are under one head members of the Church: nay, the saints before the law, the saints under the law, the saints under grace, all perfecting the body of the Lord, are constituted members: none of them ever wished to be styled universal,” (Gregor. Lib. 4 Ep. 83.)

When the Pontiff arrogates to himself the power of ordering, he little accords with what Gregory elsewhere says. For Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria, having said that he had received an order from him, he replies in this manner: “This word ‘order’ I beg you to take out of my hearing, for I know who I am, and who you are: in station you are my brethren, in character my fathers. I therefore did not order, but took care to suggest what seemed useful,” (Gregor. Lib. 7 Ep. 30.)

When the Pope extends his jurisdiction without limit, he does great and atrocious injustice not only to other bishops, but to each single church, tearing and dismembering them, that he may build his see upon their ruins.

When he exempts himself from all tribunals, and wishes to reign in the manner of a tyrant, holding his own caprice to be his only law, the thing is too insulting, and too foreign to ecclesiastical rule, to be on any account submitted to. It is altogether abhorrent, not only from pious feeling, but also from common sense.

22. The corruption of the present-day papacy

But that I may not be forced to discuss and follow out each point singly, I again appeal to those who, in the present day, would be thought the best and most faithful defenders of the Roman See, whether they are not ashamed to defend the existing state of the Papacy, which is clearly a hundred times more corrupt than in the days of Gregory and Bernard, though even then these holy men were so much displeased with it. Gregory every where complains (Lib. 1 Ep. 5; item, Ep. 7, 25, &c.) that he was distracted above measure by foreign occupations: that under colour of the episcopates he was taken back to the world, being subject to more worldly cares than he remembered to have ever had when a laic; that he was so oppressed by the trouble of secular affairs, as to be unable to raise his mind to things above; that he was so tossed by the many billows of causes, and afflicted by the tempests of a tumultuous life, that he might well say, “I am come into the depths of the sea.” It is certain, that amid these worldly occupations, he could teach the people in sermons, admonish in private, and correct those who required it; order the Church, give counsel to his colleagues, and exhort them to their duty. Moreover, some time was left for writing, and yet he deplores it as his calamity, that he was plunged into the very deepest sea. If the administration at that time was a sea, what shall we say of the present Papacy? For what resemblance is there between the periods? Now there are no sermons, no care for discipline, no zeal for churches, no spiritual function; nothing, in short, but the world. And yet this labyrinth is lauded as if nothing could be found better ordered and arranged.

What complaints also does Bernard pour forth, what groans does he utter, when he beholds the vices of his own age? What then would he have done on beholding this iron, or, if possible, worse than iron, age of ours? How dishonest, therefore, not only obstinately to defend as sacred and divine what all the saints have always with one mouth disapproved, but to abuse their testimony in favour of the Papacy, which, it is evident, was altogether unknown to them? Although I admit, in respect to the time of Bernard, that all things were so corrupt as to make it not unlike our own. But it betrays a want of all sense of shame to seek any excuse from that middle period, namely, from that of Leo, Gregory, and the like, for it is just as if one were to vindicate the monarchy of the Caesar by lauding the ancient state of the Roman empire; in other words, were to borrow the praises of liberty in order to eulogise tyranny.

(Arraignment of the later papacy, 23-30)

23. Does there exist in Rome any church or bishopric at all?

Lastly, Although all these things were granted, an entirely new question arises, when we deny that there is at Rome a Church in which privileges of this nature can reside; when we deny that there is a bishop to sustain the dignity of these privileges. Assume, therefore, that all these things are true, (though we have already extorted the contrary from them,) that Peter was by the words of Christ constituted head of the universal Church, and that the honour thus conferred upon him he deposited in the Roman See, that this was sanctioned by the authority of the ancient Church, and confirmed by long use; that supreme power was always with one consent devolved by all on the Roman Pontiff, that while he was the judge of all causes and all men, he was subject to the judgement of none. Let even more be conceded to them if they will, I answer, in one word, that none of these things avail if there be not a Church and a Bishop at Rome. They must of necessity concede to me that she is not a mother of Churches who is not herself a church, that he cannot be the chief of bishops who is not himself a bishop. Would they then have the Apostolic See at Rome? Let them give me a true and lawful apostleship. Would they have a supreme pontiff, let them give me a bishop. But how? Where will they show me any semblance of a church? They, no doubt, talk of one, and have it ever in their mouths. But surely the Church is recognised by certain marks, and bishopric is the name of an office. I am not now speaking of the people but of the government, which ought perpetually to be conspicuous in the Church. Where then is a ministry such as the institution of Christ requires? Let us remember what wars formerly said of the duty of presbyters and bishops. If we bring the office of cardinals to that test, we will acknowledge that they are nothing less than presbyters. But I should like to know what one quality of a bishop the Pope himself has? The first point in the office of a bishop is to instruct the people in the word of God; the second and next to it is to administer the sacraments; the third is to admonish and exhort, to correct those who are in faults and restrain the people by holy discipline. Which of these things does he do? Nay, which of these things does he pretend to do? Let them say, then, on what ground they will have him to be regarded as a bishop, who does not even in semblance touch any part of the duty with his little finger.

24. The apostacy

It is not with a bishop as with a king; the latter, though he does not execute the proper duty of a king, nevertheless retains the title and the honour; but in deciding on a bishop respect is had to the command of Christ, to which effect ought always to be given in the Church. Let the Romanists then untie this knot. I deny that their pontiff is the prince of bishops, seeing he is no bishop. This allegation of mine they must prove to be false if they would succeed in theirs. What then do I maintain? That he has nothing proper to a bishop, but is in all things the opposite of a bishop. But with what shall I here begin? With doctrine or with morals? What shall I say, or what shall I pass in silence, or where shall I end? This I maintain: while in the present day the world is so inundated with perverse and impious doctrines, so full of all kinds of superstition, so blinded by error and sunk in idolatry, there is not one of them which has not emanated from the Papacy or at least been confirmed by it. Nor is there any other reason why the pontiffs are so enraged against the reviving doctrine of the Gospel, why they stretch every nerve to oppress it, and urge all kings and princes to cruelty, than just that they see their whole dominion tottering and falling to pieces the moment the Gospel of Christ prevails. Leo was cruel and Clement sanguinary, Paul is truculent. But in assailing the truth, it is not so much natural temper that impels them as the conviction that they have no other method of maintaining their power. Therefore, seeing they cannot be safe unless they put Christ to flight, they labour in this cause as if they were fighting for their altars and hearths, for their own lives and those of their adherents. What then? Shall we recognise the Apostolic See where we see nothing but horrible apostasy? Shall he be the vicar of Christ who, by his furious efforts in persecuting the Gospel, plainly declares himself to be Antichrist? Shall he be the successor of Peter who goes about with fire and sword demolishing everything that Peter built? Shall he be the Head of the Church who, after dissevering the Church from Christ, her only true Head, tears and lacerates her members? Rome, indeed, was once the mother of all the churches, but since she began to be the seat of Antichrist she ceased to be what she was.

25. The kingdom of Antichrist

To some we seem slanderous and petulant, when we call the Roman Pontiff Antichrist. But those who think so perceive not that they are bringing a charge of intemperance against Paul, alter whom we speak, nay, in whose very words we speak. But lest any one object that Paul’s words have a different meaning, and are wrested by us against the Roman Pontiff, I will briefly show that they can only be understood of the Papacy. Paul says that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God, (2 Thess. 2: 4.) In another passage, the Spirit, portraying him in the person of Antiochus, says that his reign would be with great swelling words of vanity, (Dan. 7: 25.) Hence we infer that his tyranny is more over souls than bodies, a tyranny set up in opposition to the spiritual kingdom of Christ. Then his nature is such, that he abolishes not the name either of Christ or the Church, but rather uses the name of Christ as a pretext, and lurks under the name of Church as under a mask. But though all the heresies and schisms which have existed from the beginning belong to the kingdom of Antichrist, yet when Paul foretells that defection will come, he by the description intimates that that seat of abomination will be erected, when a kind of universal defection comes upon the Church, though many members of the Church scattered up and down should continue in the true unity of the faith. But when he adds, that in his own time, the mystery of iniquity, which was afterwards to be openly manifested, had begun to work in secret, we thereby understand that this calamity was neither to be introduced by one man, nor to terminate in one man, (see Calv. in 2 Thess. 2: 3; Dan. 7: 9.) Moreover, when the mark by which he distinguishes Antichrist is, that he would rob God of his honour and take it to himself, he gives the leading feature which we ought to follow in searching out Antichrist; especially when pride of this description proceeds to the open devastation of the Church. Seeing then it is certain that the Roman Pontiff has impudently transferred to himself the most peculiar properties of God and Christ, there cannot be a doubt that he is the leader and standard-bearer of an impious and abominable kingdom.

26. The papacy far removed from a true church order

Let the Romanists now go and oppose us with antiquity; as if, amid such a complete change in every respect, the honour of the See can continue where there is no See. Eusebius says that God, to make way for his vengeance, transferred the Church which was at Jerusalem to Pella, (Euseb. Lib. 3 cap. 5.) What we are told was once done may have been done repeatedly. Hence it is too absurd and ridiculous so to fix the honour of the primacy to a particular spot, as that he who is in fact the most inveterate enemy of Christ, the chief adversary of the gospel, the greatest devastator and waster of the Church, the most cruel slayer and murderer of the saints, should be, nevertheless, regarded as the vicegerent of Christ, the successor of Peter, the first priest of the Church, merely because he occupies what was formerly the first of all sees. I do not say how great the difference is between the chancery of the Pope and well regulated order in the Church; although this one fact might well set the question at rest. For no man of sound mind will include the episcopate in lead and bulls, much less in that administration of captions and circumscriptions, in which the spiritual government of the Pope is supposed to consist. It has therefore been elegantly said, that that vaunted Roman Church was long ago converted into a temporal court, the only thing which is now seen at Rome. I am not here speaking of the vices of individuals, but demonstrating that the Papacy itself is diametrically opposed to the ecclesiastical system.

27. The wicked behavior and the heretical teachings of the popes stand in stark contrast to their claims

But if we come to individuals, it is well known what kind of vicars of Christ we shall find. No doubt, Julius and Leo, and Clement and Paul, will be pillars of the Christian faith, the first interpreters of religion, though they knew nothing more of Christ than they had learned in the school of Lucia. But why give the names of three or four pontiffs? as if there were any doubt as to the kind of religion professed by pontiffs, with their College of Cardinals, and professors, in the present day. The first head of the secret theology which is in vogue among them is, that there is no God. Another, that whatever things have been written and are taught concerning Christ are lies and imposture. A third, that the doctrine of a future life and final resurrection is a mere fable. All do not think, few speak thus; I confess it. Yet it is long since this began to be the ordinary religion of pontiffs; and though the thing is notorious to all who know Rome, Roman theologians cease not to boast that by special privilege our Saviour has provided that the Pope cannot err, because it was said to Peter, “I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not,” (Luke 22: 32.) What, pray, do they gain by their effrontery, but to let the whole world understand that they have reached the extreme of wickedness, so as neither to fear God nor regard man?

28. Apostacy of John XXII

But let us suppose that the iniquity of these pontiffs whom I have mentioned is not known as they have not published it either in sermons or writings, but betrayed it only at table or in their chamber, or at least within the walls of their court. But if they would have the privilege which they claim to be confirmed, they must expunge from their list of pontiffs John XXII, who publicly maintained that the soul is mortal, and perishes with the body till the day of resurrection. And to show you that the whole See with its chief props then utterly fell, none of the Cardinals opposed his madness, only the Faculty of Paris urged the king to insist on a recantation. The king interdicted his subjects from communion with him, unless he would immediately recant, and published his interdict in the usual way by a herald. Thus necessitated, he abjured his error. This example relieves me from the necessity of disputing further with my opponents, when they say that the Roman See and its pontiffs cannot err in the faith, from its being said to Peter, “I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not.” Certainly by this shameful lapse he fell from the faith, and became a noted proof to posterity, that all are not Peters who succeed Peter in the episcopates; although the thing is too childish in itself to need an answer: for if they insist on applying every thing that was said to Peter to the successors of Peter, it will follow, that they are all Satans, because our Lord once said to Peter, “Get thee behind me, Satan, thou art an offence unto me.” It is as easy for us to retort the latter saying as for them to adduce the former.

29. Moral abandonment of the popes

But I have no pleasure in this absurd mode of disputation, and therefore return to the point from which I digressed. To fix down Christ and the Holy Spirit and the Church to a particular spot, so that every one who presides in it, should he be a devil, must still be deemed vicegerent of Christ, and the head of the Church, because that spot was formerly the See of Peter, is not only impious and insulting to Christ, but absurd and contrary to common sense. For a long period, the Roman Pontiffs have either been altogether devoid of religion, or been its greatest enemies. The see which they occupy, therefore, no more makes them the vicars of Christ, than it makes an idol to become God, when it is placed in the temple of God, (2 Thess. 2: 4.) Then, if manners be inquired into, let the Popes answer for themselves, what there is in them that can make them be recognised for bishops. First, the mode of life at Rome, while they not only connive and are silent, but also tacitly approve, is altogether unworthy of bishop, whose duty it is to curb the license of the people by the strictness of discipline. But I will not be so rigid with them as to charge them with the faults of others. But when they with their household, with almost the whole College of Cardinals, and the whole body of their clergy, are so devoted to wickedness, obscenity, uncleanness, iniquity, and crime of every description, that they resemble monsters more than men, they herein betray that they are nothing less than bishops. They need not fear that I will make a farther disclosure of their turpitude. For it is painful to wade through such filthy mire, and I must spare modest ears. But I think I have amply demonstrated what I proposed viz., that though Rome was formerly the first of churches, she deserves not in the present day to be regarded as one of her minutest members.

30. The cardinals

In regard to those whom they call Cardinals, I know not how it happened that they rose so suddenly to such a height. In the age of Gregory, the name was applied to bishops only, (Gregor. Lib. 2 Ep. 15, 77, 79; Ep. 6, 25.) For whenever he makes mention of cardinals, he assigns them not only to the Roman Church, but to every other church, so that, in short, a Cardinal priest is nothing else than a bishop. I do not find the name among the writers of a former age. I see, however, that they were inferior to bishops, whom they now far surpass. There is a well known passage in Augustine: “Although, in regard to terms of honour which custom has fixed in the Church, the office of bishop is greater than that of presbyter, yet in many things, Augustine is inferior to Jerome,” (August. ad Heron. Ep. 19.) Here, certainly, he is not distinguishing a presbyter of the Roman Church from other presbyters, but placing all of them alike after bishops. And so strictly was this observed that at the Council of Carthage, when two legates of the Roman See were present, one a bishop, and the other a presbyter, the latter was put in the lowest place. But not to dwell too much on ancient times, we have account of a Council held at Rome, under Gregory, at which the presbyters sit in the lowest place, and subscribe by themselves, while deacons do not subscribe at all. And, indeed, they had no office at that time, unless to be present under the bishop, and assist him in the administration of word and sacraments. So much is their lot now changed, that they have become associates of kings and Cedars. And there can be no doubt that they have grown gradually with their head, until they reached their present pinnacle of dignity.

This much it seemed proper to say in passing, that my readers may understand how very widely the Roman See, as it now exists, differs from the ancient See, under which it endeavours to cloak and defend itself. But whatever they were formerly, as they have no true and legitimate office in the Church, they only retain a colour and empty mask; nay, as they are in all respects the opposite of true ministers, the thing which Gregory so often writes must, of necessity, have befallen them. His words are, “Weeping, I say, groaning, I declare it; when the sacerdotal order has fallen within, it cannot long stand without,” (Gregor. Lib. 4 Ep. 55, 56; Lib. 5 Ep. 7.) Nay, rather what Malachi says of such persons must be fulfilled in them: “Ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of hosts. Therefore have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people,” (Mal. 2: 8, 9.) I now leave all the pious to judge what the supreme pinnacle of the Roman hierarchy must be, to which the Papists, with nefarious effrontery, hesitate not to subject the word of God itself, that word which should be venerable and holy in earth and heaven, to men and angels.

CHAPTER 8. OF THE POWER OF THE CHURCH IN ARTICLES OF FAITH. THE UNBRIDLED LICENSE OF THE PAPAL CHURCH IN DESTROYING PURITY OF DOCTRINE.

This chapter is divided into two parts,—

I. The limits within which the Church ought to confine herself in matters of this kind, sec. 1-9.

II. The Roman Church convicted of having transgressed these limits, sec. 10-16.

Sections.

1. The marks and government of the Church having been considered in the seven previous chapters, the power of the Church is now considered under three heads,

viz., Doctrine, Legislation, Jurisdiction.

2. The authority and power given to Church-officers not given to themselves, but their office. This shown in the case of Moses and the Levitical priesthood.

3. The same thing shown in the case of the Prophets.

4. Same thing shown in the case of the Apostles, and of Christ himself.

5. The Church astricted to the written Word of God. Christ the only teacher of the Church. From his lips ministers must derive whatever they teach for the salvation of others. Various modes of divine teaching.

1. Personal revelations.

6. Second mode of teaching, viz., by the Law and the Prophets. The Prophets were, in regard to doctrine, the expounders of the Law. To these were added Historical Narratives and the Psalms.

7. Last mode of teaching by our Saviour himself manifested in the flesh. Different names given to this dispensation, to show that we are not to dream of any thing more perfect than the written word.

8. Nothing can be lawfully taught in the Church, that is not contained in the writings of the Prophets and Apostles, as dictated by the Spirit of Christ.

9. Neither the Apostles, nor apostolic men, nor the whole Church, allowed to overstep these limits. This confirmed by passages of Peter and Paul. Argument a fortiori.

10. The Roman tyrants have taught a different doctrine, viz., that Councils cannot err, and, therefore, may coin new dogmas.

11. Answer to the Papistical arguments for the authority of the Church. Argument, that the Church is to be led into all truth. Answer. This promise made not only to the whole Church, but to every individual believer.

12. Answers continued.

13. Answers continued.

14. Argument, that the Church should supply the deficiency of the written word by traditions. Answer.

15. Argument founded on Matth 18: 17. Answer.

16. Objections founded on Infant Baptism, and the Canon of the Council of Nicaea, as to the consubstantiality of the Son. Answer.

(Ecclesiastical power limited by the Word of God, 1-9)

1. Task and limits of the church’s doctrinal authority

We come now to the third division, viz., the Power of the Church, as existing either in individual bishops, or in councils, whether provincial or general. I speak only of the spiritual power which is proper to the Church, and which consists either in doctrine, or jurisdiction, or in enacting laws. In regard to doctrine, there are two divisions, viz., the authority of delivering dogmas, and the interpretation of them.

Before we begin to treat of each in particular, I wish to remind the pious reader, that whatever is taught respecting the power of the Church, ought to have reference to the end for which Paul declares (2 Cor. 10: 8; 13: 10) that it was given namely for edification, and not for destruction, those who use it lawfully deeming themselves to be nothing more than servants of Christ, and, at the same time, servants of the people in Christ. Moreover, the only mode by which ministers can edify the Church is, by studying to maintain the authority of Christ, which cannot be unimpaired, unless that which he received of the Father is left to him, viz., to be the only Master of the Church. For it was not said of any other but of himself alone, “Hear him,” (Matth. 17: 5.)

Ecclesiastical power, therefore, is not to be mischievously adorned, but is to be confined within certain limits, so as not to be drawn hither and thither at the caprice of men. For this purpose, it will be of great use to observe how it is described by Prophets and Apostles. For if we concede unreservedly to men all the power which they think proper to assume, it is easy to see how soon it will degenerate into a tyranny which is altogether alien from the Church of Christ.

2. The doctrinal authority of Moses and the priests

Therefore, it is here necessary to remember, that what ever authority and dignity the Holy Spirit in Scripture confers on priests, or prophets, or apostles, or successors of apostles, is wholly given not to men themselves, but to the ministry to which they are appointed; or, to speak more plainly, to the word, to the ministry of which they are appointed. For were we to go over the whole in order, we should find that they were not invested with authority to teach or give responses, save in the name and word of the Lord. For whenever they are called to office, they are enjoined not to bring anything of their own, but to speak by the mouth of the Lord. Nor does he bring them forward to be heard by the people, before he has instructed them what they are to speak, lest they should speak anything but his own word.

Moses, the prince of all the prophets, was to be heard in preference to others, (Exod. 3: 4; Deut. 17: 9;) but he is previously furnished with his orders, that he may not be able to speak at all except from the Lord. Accordingly, when the people embraced his doctrine, they are said to have believed the Lord, and his servant Moses, (Exod. 14: 31.)

It was also provided under the severest sanctions, that the authority of the priests should not be despised, (Deut. 17: 9.) But the Lord, at the same time, shows in what terms they were to be heard, when he says that he made his covenant with Levi, that the law of truth might be in his mouth, (Mal. 2: 4-6.) A little after he adds, “The priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.” Therefore, if the priest would be heard, let him show himself to be the messenger of God; that is, let him faithfully deliver the commands which he has received from his Maker. When the mode of hearing, then, is treated of, it is expressly said, “According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee,” (Deut. 17: 10-11.)

3. The doctrinal authority of the prophets

The nature of the power conferred upon the prophets in general is elegantly described by Ezekiel: “Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me,” (Ezek. 3: 17.) Is not he who is ordered to hear at the mouth of the Lord prohibited from devising anything of himself? And what is meant by giving a warning from the Lord, but just to speak so as to be able confidently to declare that the word which he delivers is not his own but the Lord’s? The same thing is expressed by Jeremiah in different terms, “The prophet that has a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that has my word, let him speak my word faithfully,” (Jer. 23: 28.) Surely God here declares the law to all, and it is a law which does not allow any one to teach more than he has been ordered. He afterwards gives the name of chaff to whatever has not proceeded from himself alone. Accordingly, none of the prophets opened his mouth unless preceded by the word of the Lord. Hence we so often meet with the expressions, “The word of the Lord, The burden of the Lord, Thus saith the Lord, The mouth of the Lord has spoken it.” And justly, for Isaiah exclaims that his lips are unclean (Isa. 6: 5;) and Jeremiah confesses that he knows not how to speak because he is a child, (Jer. 1: 6.) Could anything proceed from the unclean lips of the one, and the childish lips of the other, if they spoke their own language, but what was unclean or childish? But their lips were holy and pure when they began to be organs of the Holy Spirit. The prophets, after being thus strictly bound not to deliver anything but what they received, are invested with great power and illustrious titles. For when the Lord declares, “See, I have this day set thee over the nations, and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant,” he at the same time gives the reason, “Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth,” (Jer 1: 9, 10.)

4. The doctrinal authority of the apostles

Now, if you look to the apostles, they are commended by many distinguished titles, as the Light of the world, and the Salt of the earth, to be heard in Christ’s stead, whatever they bound or loosed on earth being bound or loosed in heaven, (Math. 5: 13, 14; Luke 10: 16; John 20: 23.) But they declare in their own name what the authority was which their office conferred on them, viz., if they are apostles they must not speak their own pleasure, but faithfully deliver the commands of him by whom they are sent. The words in which Christ defined their embassy are sufficiently clear, “Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you,” (Matth. 28: 19, 20.) Nay, that none might be permitted to decline this law, he received it and imposed it on himself. “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me,” (John 7: 16.) He who always was the only and eternal counsellor of the Father, who by the Father was constituted Lord and Master, and yet because he performed the ministry of teaching, prescribed to all ministers by his example the rule which they ought to follow in teaching. The power of the Church, therefore, is not infinite, but is subject to the word of the Lord, and, as it were, included in it.

5. Unity and multiplicity of revelation

But though the rule which always existed in the Church from the beginning, and ought to exist in the present day, is, that the servants of God are only to teach what they have learned from himself, yet, according to the variety of times, they have had different methods of learning. The mode which now exists differs very much from that of former times.

First, if it is true, as Christ says, “Neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him,” (Matth. 11: 27,) then those who wish to attain to the knowledge of God behaved always to be directed by that eternal wisdom. For how could they have comprehended the mysteries of God in their mind, or declared them to others, unless by the teaching of him, to whom alone the secrets of the Father are known? The only way, therefore, by which in ancient times holy men knew God, was by beholding him in the Son as in a mirror. When I say this, I mean that God never manifested himself to men by any other means than by his Son, that is, his own only wisdom, light, and truth. From this fountain Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and others, drew all the heavenly doctrine which they possessed. From the same fountain all the prophets also drew all the heavenly oracles which they published.

For this wisdom did not always display itself in one manner. With the patriarchs he employed secret revelations, but, at the same time, in order to confirm these, had recourse to signs so as to make it impossible for them to doubt that it was God that spake to them. What the patriarchs received they handed down to posterity, for God had, in depositing it with them, bound them thus to propagate it, while their children and descendants knew by the inward teaching of God, that what they heard was of heaven and not of earth.

6. Scriptural foundation of the Word of God in the Old Covenant

But when God determined to give a more illustrious form to the Church, he was pleased to commit and consign his word to writing, that the priests might there seek what they were to teach the people, and every doctrine delivered be brought to it as a test, (Mal. 2: 7.) Accordingly, after the promulgation of the Law, when the priests are enjoined to teach from the mouth of the Lord, the meaning is, that they are not to teach anything extraneous or alien to that kind of doctrine which God had summed up in the Law, while it was unlawful for them to add to it or take from it (Deut. 4:2; 13:1).

Next followed the prophets, by whom God published the new oracles which were added to the Law, not so new, however, but that they flowed from the Law, and had respect to it. For in so far as regards doctrine, they were only interpreters of the Law, adding nothing to it but predictions of future events. With this exception, all that they delivered was pure exposition of the Law. But as the Lord was pleased that doctrine should exist in a clearer and more ample form, the better to satisfy weak consciences, he commanded the prophecies also to be committed to writings and to be held part of his word. To these at the game time were added historical details, which are also the composition of prophets, but dictated by the Holy Spirit; I include the Psalms among the Prophecies, the quality which we attribute to the latter belonging also to the former.

The whole body, therefore, composed of the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms, and Histories, formed the word of the Lord to his ancient people, and by it as a standard, priests and teachers, before the advent of Christ, were bound to test their doctrine, nor was it lawful for them to turn aside either to the right hand or the left, because their whole office was confined to this—to give responses to the people from the mouth of God. This is gathered from a celebrated passage of Malachi, in which it is enjoined to remember the Law, and give heed to it until the preaching of the Gospel, (Mal. 4: 4.) For he thus restrains men from all adventitious doctrines, and does not allow them to deviate in the least from the path which Moses had faithfully pointed out. And the reason why David so magnificently extols the Law, and pronounces so many encomiums on it, (Ps. 19, 119,) was, that the Jews might not long after any extraneous aid, all perfection being included in it.

7. “The Word became flesh”

But when at length the Wisdom of God was manifested in the flesh, he fully unfolded to us all that the human mind can comprehend, or ought to think of the heavenly Father. Now, therefore, since Christ, the Sun of Righteousness, has arisen, we have the perfect refulgence of divine truth, like the brightness of noon-day, whereas the light was previously dim. It was no ordinary blessing which the apostle intended to publish when he wrote: “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,” (Heb. 1: 1, 2;) for he intimates, nay, openly declares, that God will not henceforth, as formerly, speak by this one and by that one, that he will not add prophecy to prophecy, or revelation to revelation, but has so completed all the parts of teaching in the Son, that it is to be regarded as his last and eternal testimony. For which reason, the whole period of the new dispensation, from the time when Christ appeared to us with the preaching of his Gospel, until the day of judgement, is designated by the last hour, the last times, the last days, that, contented with the perfection of Christ’s doctrine, we may learn to frame no new doctrine for ourselves, or admit any one devised by others.

With good cause, therefore, the Father appointed the Son our teacher, with special prerogative, commanding that he and no human being should be heard. When he said, “Hear him,” (Matth. 17: 5,) he commended his office to us, in few words, indeed, but words of more weight and energy than is commonly supposed, for it is just as if he had withdrawn us from all doctrines of man, and confined us to him alone, ordering us to seek the whole doctrine of salvation from him alone, to depend on him alone, and cleave to him alone; in short, (as the words express,) to listen only to his voice. And, indeed, what can now be expected or desired from man, when the very Word of life has appeared before us, and familiarly explained himself? Nay, every mouth should be stopped when once he has spoken, in whom, according to the pleasure of our heavenly Father, “are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,” (Col. 2: 3,) and spoken as became the Wisdom of God (which is in no part defective) and the Messiah, (from whom the revelation of all things was expected,) (John 4: 25;) in other words, has so spoken as to leave nothing to be spoken by others after him.

8. The apostles authorized to teach what Christ commanded

Let this then be a sure axiom—that there is no word of God to which place should be given in the Church save that which is contained, first, in the Law and the Prophets; and, secondly, in the writings of the Apostles, and that the only due method of teaching in the Church is according to the prescription and rule of his word.

Hence also we infer that nothing else was permitted to the apostles than was formerly permitted to the prophets, namely, to expound the ancient Scriptures, and show that the things there delivered are fulfilled in Christ: this, however, they could not do unless from the Lord; that is, unless the Spirit of Christ went before, and in a manner dictated words to them. For Christ thus defined the terms of their embassy, when he commanded them to go and teach, not what they themselves had at random fabricated, but whatsoever he had commanded, (Matth. 28: 20.) And nothing can be plainer than his words in another passage, “Be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ,” (Matth. 23: 8-10.) To impress this more deeply in their minds, he in the same place repeats it twice. And because from ignorance they were unable to comprehend the things which they had heard and learned from the lips of their Master, the Spirit of truth is promised to guide them unto all truth, (John 14: 26; 16: 13.) The restriction should be carefully attended to. The office which he assigns to the Holy Spirit is to bring to remembrance what his own lips had previously taught.

9. Not even the apostles were free to go beyond the Word: much less their successors

Accordingly Peters who was perfectly instructed by his Master as to the extent of what was permitted to him, leaves nothing more to himself or others than to dispense the doctrine delivered by God. “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God,” (1 Peter 4: 11;) that is, not hesitatingly, as those are wont whose convictions are imperfect, but with the full confidence which becomes a servant of God, provided with a sure message. What else is this than to banish all the inventions of the human mind, (whatever be the head which may have devised them,) that the pure word of God may be taught and learned in the Church of the faithful,—than to discard the decrees, or rather fictions of men, (whatever be their rank,) that the decrees of God alone may remain stedfast? These are “the weapons of our warfare,” which “are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ,” (2 Cor. 10: 4, 5.) Here is the supreme power with which pastors of the Church, by whatever name they are called, should be invested, namely, to dare all boldly for the word of God, compelling all the virtue, glory, wisdom, and rank of the world to yield and obey its majesty; to command all from the highest to the lowest trusting to its power to build up the house of Christ and overthrow the house of Satan; to feed the sheep and chase away the wolves; to instruct and exhort the docile, to accuse, rebuke, and subdue the rebellious and petulant, to bind and loose; in fine, if need be, to fire and fulminate, but all in the word of God.

Although, as I have observed, there is this difference between the apostles and their successors, they were sure and authentic amanuenses of the Holy Spirit; and, therefore, their writings are to be regarded as the oracles of God, whereas others have no other office than to teach what is delivered and sealed in the holy Scriptures. We conclude, therefore, that it does not now belong to faithful ministers to coin some new doctrine, but simply to adhere to the doctrine to which all, without exceptions are made subject. When I say this, I mean to show not only what each individual, but what the whole Church, is bound to do. In regard to individuals, Paul certainly had been appointed an apostle to the Corinthians, and yet he declares that he has no dominion over their faith, (2 Cor. 1: 24.) Who will now presume to arrogate a dominion to which the apostle declares that he himself was not competent? But if he had acknowledged such license in teaching, that every pastor could justly demand implicit faith in whatever he delivered, he never would have laid it down as a rule to the Corinthians, that while two or three prophets spoke, the others should judge, and that, if anything was revealed to one sitting by, the first should be silent, (1 Cor. 14: 29, 30.) Thus he spared none, but subjected the authority of all to the censure of the word of God.

But it will be said, that with regard to the whole Church the case is different. I answer, that in another place Paul meets the objection also when he says, that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, (Rom. 10: 17.) In other words, if faith depends upon the word of God alone, if it regards and reclines on it alone, what place is left for any word of man? He who knows what faith is can never hesitate here, for it must possess a strength sufficient to stand intrepid and invincible against Satan, the machinations of hell and the whole world. This strength can be found only in the word of God. Then the reason to which we ought here to have regard is universal: God deprives man of the power of producing any new doctrine, in order that he alone may be our master in spiritual teaching, as he alone is true, and can neither lie nor deceive. This reason applies not less to the whole Church than to every individual believer.

(Rejection of claims of doctrinal infallibility apart from the Word, 10-16)

10. The Roman claim

But if this power of the Church which is here described be contrasted with that which spiritual tyrants, falsely styling themselves bishops and religious prelates, have now for several ages exercised among the people of God, there will be no more agreement than that of Christ with Belial (II Cor. 6:15). It is not my intention here to unfold the manner, the unworthy manner, in which they have used their tyranny; I will only state the doctrine which they maintain in the present day, first, in writing, and then, by fire and sword.

Taking it for granted, that a universal council is a true representation of the Church, they set out with this principle, and, at the same time, lay it down as incontrovertible, that such councils are under the immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit, and therefore cannot err. But as they rule councils, nay, constitute them, they in fact claim for themselves whatever they maintain to be due to councils. Therefore, they will have our faith to stand and fall at their pleasure, so that whatever they have determined on either side must be firmly seated in our minds; what they approve must be approved by us without any doubt; what they condemn we also must hold to be justly condemned. Meanwhile, at their own caprice, and in contempt of the word of God, they coin doctrines to which they in this way demand our assent, declaring that no man can be a Christian unless he assent to all their dogmas, affirmative as well as negative, if not with explicit, yet with implicit faith, because it belongs to the Church to frame new articles of faith.

11. The presence of Christ in his church does not annul its bond to the Word

First, let us hear by what arguments they prove that this authority was given to the Church, and then we shall see how far their allegations concerning the Church avail them.

The Church, they say, has the noble promise that she will never be deserted by Christ her spouse, but be guided by his Spirit into all truth. But of the promises which they are wont to allege, many were given not less to private believers than to the whole Church. For although the Lord spake to the twelve apostles, when he said, “Lo! I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world,” (Matth. 28: 20;) and again, “I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever: even the Spirit of truth,” (John 14: 16, 17,) he made these promises not only to the twelve, but to each of them separately, nay, in like manner, to other disciples whom he already had received or was afterwards to receive. When they interpret these promises, which are replete with consolation, in such a way as if they were not given to any particular Christian but to the whole Church together, what else is it but to deprive Christians of the confidence which they ought thence to have derived, to animate them in their course? I deny not that the whole body of the faithful is furnished with a manifold variety of gifts and endued with a far larger and richer treasure of heavenly wisdom than each Christian apart; nor do I mean that this was said of believers in general, as implying that all possess the spirit of wisdom and knowledge in an equal degree: but we are not to give permission to the adversaries of Christ to defend a bad cause, by wresting Scripture from its proper meaning.

Omitting this, however, I simply hold what is true, viz., that the Lord is always present with his people, and guides them by his Spirit. He is the Spirit, not of error, ignorance, falsehood, or darkness, but of sure revelation, wisdom, truth, and light, from whom they can, without deception, learn the things which have been given to them, (1 Cor. 2: 12;) in other words, “what is the hope of their calling, and what the riches of the glory of their inheritance in the saints,” (Eph. 1: 18.) But while believers, even those of them who are endued with more excellent graces, obtain in the present life only the first-fruits, and, as it were, a foretaste of the Spirit, nothing better remains to them than, under a consciousness of their weakness, to confine themselves anxiously within the limits of the word of God, lest, in following their own sense too far, they forthwith stray from the right path, being left without that Spirit, by whose teaching alone truth is discerned from falsehood. For all confess with Paul, that “they have not yet reached the goal,” (Phil. 3: 12.) Accordingly, they rather aim at daily progress than glory in perfection.

12. The church not infallible

But it will be objected, that whatever is attributed in part to any of the saints, belongs in complete fulness to the Church. Although there is some semblance of truth in this, I deny that it is true. God, indeed, measures out the gifts of his Spirit to each of the members, so that nothing necessary to the whole body is wanting, since the gifts are bestowed for the common advantage. The riches of the Church, however, are always of such a nature, that much is wanting to that supreme perfection of which our opponents boast. Still the Church is not left destitute in any part, but always has as much as is sufficient, for the Lord knows what her necessities require. But to keep her in humility and pious modesty, he bestows no more on her than he knows to be expedient.

I am aware it is usual here to object, that Christ has cleansed the Church “with the washing of water by the word: that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle,” (Eph. 5: 26, 27,) and that it is therefore called the “pillar and ground of the truth,” ( 1 Tim. 3: 15.)

But the former passage rather shows what Christ daily performs in it, than what he has already perfected. For if he daily sanctifies all his people, purifies, refines them, and wipes away their stains, it is certain that they have still some spots and wrinkles, and that their sanctification is in some measure defective. How vain and fabulous is it to suppose that the Church, all whose members are somewhat spotted and impure, is completely holy and spotless in every part? It is true, therefore, that the Church is sanctified by Christ, but here the commencement of her sanctification only is seen; the end and entire completion will be effected when Christ, the Holy of holies, shall truly and completely fill her with his holiness. It is true also, that her stains and wrinkles have been effaced, but so that the process is continued every day, until Christ at his advent will entirely remove every remaining defect. For unless we admit this we shall be constrained to hold with the Pelagians, that the righteousness of believers is perfected in this life: like the Cathari and Donatists we shall tolerate no infirmity in the Church.

The other passage, as we have elsewhere seen, (chap. 1 sec. 10,) has a very different meaning from what they put upon it. For when Paul instructed Timothy, and trained him to the office of a true bishop, he says, he did it in order that he might learn how to behave himself in the Church of God. And to make him devote himself to the work with greater seriousness and zeal, he adds, that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth (I Tim. 3:15). And what else do these words mean, than just that the truth of God is preserved in the Church, and preserved by the instrumentality of preaching; as he elsewhere says that Christ “gave some apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;” (Eph. 4:11) “that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, who is the head, even Christ?” (Eph. 4: 11, 14, 15.) The reason, therefore, why the truth, instead of being extinguished in the world, remains unimpaired, is, because he has the Church as a faithful guardian, by whose aid and ministry it is maintained. But if this guardianship consists in the ministry of the Prophets and Apostles, it follows, that the whole depends upon this, viz., that the word of the Lord is faithfully preserved and maintained in purity.

13. Word and Spirit belong inseparably together

And that my readers may the better understand the hinge on which the question chiefly turns, I will briefly explain what our opponents demand, and what we resist. When they deny that the Church can err, their end and meaning are to this effect: Since the Church is governed by the Spirit of God, she can walk safely without the word; in whatever direction she moves, she cannot think or speak any thing but the truth, and hence, if she determines any thing without or beside the word of God, it must be regarded in no other light than if it were a divine oracle.

If we grant the first point, viz., that the Church cannot err in things necessary to salvation, our meaning is, that she cannot err, because she has altogether discarded her own wisdom, and submits to the teaching of the Holy Spirit through the word of God. Here then is the difference. They place the authority of the Church without the word of God; we annex it to the word, and allow it not to be separated from it.

And is it strange if the spouse and pupil of Christ is so subject to her lord and master as to hang carefully and constantly on his lips? In every well-ordered house the wife obeys the command of her husband, in every well-regulated school the doctrine of the master only is listened to. Wherefore, let not the Church be wise in herself, nor think any thing of herself, but let her consider her wisdom terminated when he ceases to speak.

In this way she will distrust all the inventions of her own reason; and when she leans on the word of God, will not waver in diffidence or hesitations but rest in full assurance and unwavering constancy. Trusting to the liberal promises which she has received, she will have the means of nobly maintaining her faith, never doubting that the Holy Spirit is always present with her to be the perfect guide of her path. At the same time, she will remember the use which God wishes to be derived from his Spirit. “When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth,” (John 16: 13.) How? “He shall bring to your remembrance all things whatsoever I have said unto you.” (John 14:26) He declares, therefore, that nothing more is to be expected of his Spirit than to enlighten our minds to perceive the truth of his doctrine. Hence Chrysostom most shrewdly observes, “Many boast of the Holy Spirit, but with those who speak their own it is a false pretence. As Christ declared that he spoke not of himself, (John 12: 49; 14: 10,) because he spoke according to the Law and the Prophets; so, if any thing contrary to the Gospel is obtruded under the name of the Holy Spirit, let us not believe it. For as Christ is the fulfilment of the Law (Rom. 10:4) and the Prophets, so is the Spirit the fulfilment of the Gospel,” (Chrysost. Serm. de Sancto et Adorando Spiritu.) Thus far Chrysostom.

We may now easily infer how erroneously our opponents act in vaunting of the Holy Spirit, for no other end than to give the credit of his name to strange doctrines, extraneous to the word of God, whereas he himself desires to be inseparably connected with the word of God; and Christ declares the same thing of him, when he promises him to the Church. And so indeed it is. The soberness which our Lord once prescribed to his Church, he wishes to be perpetually observed. He forbade that any thing should be added to his word, and that any thing should be taken from it. This is the inviolable decree of God and the Holy Spirit, a decree which our opponents endeavour to annul when they pretend that the Church is guided by the Spirit without the word.

14. Tradition subordinate to Scripture?

Here again they mutter that the Church behaved to add something to the writings of the apostles, or that the apostles themselves behaved orally to supply what they had less clearly taught, since Christ said to them, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now,” (John 16: 12,) and that these are the points which have been received, without writing, merely by use and custom. But what effrontery is this? The disciples, I admit, were ignorant and almost indocile when our Lord thus addressed them, but were they still in this condition when they committed his doctrine to writing, so as afterwards to be under the necessity of supplying orally that which, through ignorance, they had omitted to write? If they were guided by the Spirit of truth unto all truth when they published their writings, what prevented them from embracing a full knowledge of the Gospel, and consigning it therein? But let us grant them what they ask, provided they point out the things which behaved to be revealed without writing. Should they presume to attempt this, I will address them in the words of Augustine, “When the Lord is silent, who of us may say, this is, or that is? or if we should presume to say it, how do we prove it?” (August. in Joann. 96.) But why do I contend superfluously? Every child knows that in the writings of the apostles, which these men represent as mutilated and incomplete, is contained the result of that revelation which the Lord then promised to them.

15. Contradiction in doctrinal decrees of the church

What, say they, did not Christ declare that nothing which the Church teaches and decrees can be gainsaid, when he enjoined that every one who presumes to contradict should be regarded as a heathen man and a publican? (Matth. 18: 17.) First, there is here no mention of doctrine, but her authority to censure, for correction is asserted, in order that none who had been admonished or reprimanded might oppose her judgement. But to say nothing of this, it is very strange that those men are so lost to all sense of shame, that they hesitate not to plume themselves on this declaration. For what, pray, will they make of it, but just that the consent of the Church, a consent never given but to the word of God, is not to be despised? The Church is to be heard, say they. Who denies this? since she decides nothing but according to the word of God. If they demand more than this, let them know that the words of Christ give them no countenance.

I ought not to seem contentious when I so vehemently insist that we cannot concede to the Church any new doctrine; in other words, allow her to teach and oracularly deliver more than the Lord has revealed in his word. Men of sense see how great the danger is if so much authority is once conceded to men. They see also how wide a door is opened for the jeers and cavils of the ungodly, if we admit that Christians are to receive the opinions of men as if they were oracles.

We may add, that our Saviour, speaking according to the circumstances of his times, gave the name of Church to the Sanhedrin, that the disciples might learn afterwards to revere the sacred meetings of the Church. Hence it would follow, that single cities and districts would have equal liberty in coining dogmas.

16. Feebleness of our opponents’ examples

The examples which they bring do not avail them. They say that paedobaptism proceeds not so much on a plain command of Scripture, as on a decree of the Church. It would be a miserable asylum if, in defence of paedobaptism, we were obliged to retake ourselves to the bare authority of the Church; but it will be made plain enough elsewhere, (chap. 16) that it is far otherwise. In like manner, when they object that we nowhere find in the Scriptures what was declared in the Council of Nicaea, viz., that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, (see August. Ep. 178,) they do a grievous injustice to the Fathers, as if they had rashly condemned Arius for not swearing to their words, though professing the whole of that doctrine which is contained in the writings of the Apostles and Prophets. I admit that the expression does not exist in Scripture, but seeing it is there so often declared that there is one God, and Christ is so often called true and eternal God, one with the Father, what do the Nicene Fathers do when they affirm that he is of one essence, than simply declare the genuine meaning of Scripture? Theodore relates that Constantine, in opening their meeting, spoke as follows: “In the discussion of divine matters, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit stands recorded. The Gospels and apostolical writings, with the oracles of the prophets, fully show us the meaning of the Deity. Therefore, laying aside discord, let us take the exposition of questions from the words of the Spirit,” (Theodore. Hist. Eccles. Lib. 1 c. 5.) There was none who opposed this sound advice; none who objected that the Church could add something of her own, that the Spirit did not reveal all things to the apostles, or at least that they did not deliver them to posterity, and so forth. If the point on which our opponents insist is true, Constantine, first, was in error in robbing the Church of her power; and, secondly, when none of the bishops rose to vindicate it, their silence was a kind of perfidy, and made them traitors to Ecclesiastical law. But since Theodore relates that they readily embraced what the Emperor said, it is evident that this new dogma was then wholly unknown.

CHAPTER 9. OF COUNCILS AND THEIR AUTHORITY.

Since Papists regard their Councils as expressing the sentiment and consent of the Church, particularly as regards the authority of declaring dogmas and the exposition of them, it was necessary to treat of Councils before proceeding to consider that part of ecclesiastical power which relates to doctrine.

I. First, the authority of Councils in delivering dogmas is discussed, and it is shown that the Spirit of God is not so bound to the Pastors of the Church as opponents suppose. Their objections refuted, sec. 1-7.

II. The errors, contradictions, and weaknesses, of certain Councils exposed. A refutation of the subterfuge, that those set over us are to be obeyed without distinction, sec. 8-12.

III. Of the authority of Councils as regards the interpretation of Scripture, sec. 13,14.

Sections.

1. The true nature of Councils.

2. Whence the authority of Councils is derived. What meant by assembling in the name of Christ.

3. Objection, that no truth remains in the Church if it be not in Pastors and Councils. Answer, showing by passages from the Old Testament that Pastors were often devoid of the spirit of knowledge and truth.

4. Passages from the New Testament showing that our times were to be subject to the same evil. This confirmed by the example of almost all ages.

5. All not Pastors who pretend to be so.

6. Objection, that General Councils represent the Church. Answer, showing the absurdity of this objection from passages in the Old Testament.

7. Passages to the same effect from the New Testament.

8. Councils have authority only in so far as accordant with Scripture. Testimony of Augustine. Councils of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus. Subsequent Councils more impure, and to be received with limitation.

9. Contradictory decisions of Councils. Those agreeing with divine truth to be received. Those at variance with it to be rejected. This confirmed by the example of the Council of Constantinople and the Council of Nice; also of the Council of Chalcedony, and second Council of Ephesus.

10. Errors of purer Councils. Four causes of these errors. An example from the Council of Nicaea.

11. Another example from the Council of Chalcedony. The same errors in Provincial Councils.

12. Evasion of the Papists. Three answers. Conclusion of the discussion as to the power of the Church in relation to doctrine.

13. Last part of the chapter. Power of the Church in interpreting Scripture. From what source interpretation is to be derived. Means of preserving unity in the Church.

14. Impudent attempt of the Papists to establish their tyranny refuted. Things at variance with Scripture sanctioned by their Councils. Instance in the prohibition of marriage and communion in both kinds.

(True authority of church councils, 1-2)

1. Two prefatory remarks

Were I now to concede all that they ask concerning the Church, it would not greatly aid them in their object. For everything that is said of the Church they immediately transfer to councils, which, in their opinions represent the Church. Nay, when they contend so doggedly for the power of the Church, their only object is to devolve the whole which they extort on the Roman Pontiff and his conclave.

Before I begin to discuss this question, two points must be briefly premised.

First, though I mean to be more rigid in discussing this subject, it is not because I set less value than I ought on ancient councils. I venerate them from my heart, and would have all to hold them in due honour. But there must be some limitation, there must be nothing derogatory to Christ. Moreover it is the right of Christ to preside over all councils, and not share the honour with any man. Now, I hold that he presides only when he governs the whole assembly by his word and Spirit.

Secondly in attributing less to councils than my opponents demand, it is not because I have any fear that councils are favourable to their cause and adverse to ours. For as we are amply provided by the word of the Lord with the means of proving our doctrine and overthrowing the whole Papacy, and thus have no great need of other aid, so, if the case required it, ancient councils furnish us in a great measure with what might be sufficient for both purposes.

2. True and false councils

Let us now proceed to the subject itself. If we consult Scripture on the authority of councils, there is no promise more remarkable than that which is contained in these words of our Saviour, “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” But this is just as applicable to any particular meeting as to an universal council. And yet the important part of the question does not lie here, but in the condition which is added, viz., that Christ will be in the midst of a council, provided it be assembled in his name. Wherefore, though our opponents should name councils of thousands of bishops it will little avail them; nor will they induce us to believe that they are, as they maintain, guided by the Holy Spirit, until they make it credible that they assemble in the name of Christ: since it is as possible for wicked and dishonest to conspire against Christ, as for good and honest bishops to meet together in his name. Of this we have a clear proof in very many of the decrees which have proceeded from councils. But this will be afterwards seen. At present I only reply in one word, that our Saviour’s promise is made to those only who assemble in his name. How, then, is such an assembly to be defined? I deny that those assemble in the name of Christ who, disregarding his command by which he forbids anything to be added to the word of God or taken from it, determine everything at their own pleasure, who, not contented with the oracles of Scripture, that is, with the only rule of perfect wisdom, devise some novelty out of their own head, (Deut. 4: 2; Rev. 22: 18.) Certainly, since our Saviour has not promised to be present with all councils of whatever description, but has given a peculiar mark for distinguishing true and lawful councils from others, we ought not by any means to lose sight of the distinction. The covenant which God anciently made with the Levitical priests was to teach at his mouth, (Mal. 2: 7.) This he always required of the prophets, and we see also that it was the law given to the apostles. On those who violate this covenant God bestows neither the honour of the priesthood nor any authority. Let my opponents solve this difficulty if they would subject my faith to the decrees of man, without authority from the word of God.

(Defects of pastors render their councils fallible, 3-7)

3. The truth can also support and assert itself in the church without and against the “pastors”

Their idea that the truth cannot remain in the Church unless it exist among pastors, and that the Church herself cannot exist unless displayed in general councils, is very far from holding true if the prophets have left us a correct description of their own times. In the time of Isaiah there was a Church at Jerusalem which the Lord had not yet abandoned. But of pastors he thus speaks: “His watchmen are blind; they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber. Yea, they are greedy dogs which never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way,” (Isa. 56: 10, 11.) In the same way Hosea says, “The watchman of Ephraim was with my God: but the prophet is a snare of a fowler in all his ways, and hatred in the house of his God,” (Hosea 9: 8.) Here, by ironically connecting them with God, he shows that the pretext of the priesthood was vain. There was also a Church in the time of Jeremiah. Let us hear what he says of pastors: “From the prophet even unto the priest, every one dealeth falsely.” Again, “The prophets prophesy lies in my name: I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them,” (Jer. 6: 13; 14: 14.) And not to be prolix with quotations, read the whole of his thirty-third and fortieth chapters. Then, on the other hand, Ezekiel inveighs against them in no milder terms. “There is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof, like a roaring lion ravening the prey; they have devoured souls.” “Her priests have violated my law, and profaned mine holy things,” (Ezek. 22: 25, 26.) There is more to the same purpose. Similar complaints abound throughout the prophets; nothing is of more frequent recurrence.

4. Defection of the pastors foretold

But perhaps, though this great evil prevailed among the Jews, our age is exempt from it. Would that it were so; but the Holy Spirit declared that it would be otherwise. For Peter’s words are clear, “But there were false prophets among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily will bring in damnable heresies” (2 Peter 2: 1.) See how he predicts impending danger, not from ordinary believers, but from those who should plume themselves on the name of pastors and teachers. Besides, how often did Christ and his apostles foretell that the greatest dangers with which the Church was threatened would come from pastors? (Matth. 24: 11, 24.) Nay, Paul openly declares, that Antichrist would have his seat in the temple of God, (2 Thess. 2: 4;) thereby intimating, that the fearful calamity of which he was speaking would come only from those who should have their seat in the Church as pastors. And in another passage he shows that the introduction of this great evil was almost at hand. For in addressing the elders of Ephesus, he says, “I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them,” (Acts 20: 29, 30.) How great corruption might a long series of years introduce among pastors, when they could degenerate so much within so short a time? And not to fill my pages with details, we are reminded by the examples of almost every age, that the truth is not always cherished in the bosoms of pastors, and that the safety of the Church depends not on their state. It was becoming that those appointed to preserve the peace and safety of the Church should be its presidents and guardians; but it is one thing to perform what you owe, and another to owe what you do not perform.

5. The need to judge them with discrimination

Let no man, however, understand me as if I were desirous in every thing rashly and unreservedly to overthrow the authority of pastors. All I advise is to exercise discrimination, and not suppose, as a matter of course, that all who call themselves pastors are so in reality. But the Pope, with the whole crew of his bishops, for no other reason but because they are called pastors, shake off obedience to the word of God, invert all things, and turn them hither and thither at their pleasure; meanwhile, they insist that they cannot be destitute of the light of truth, that the Spirit of God perpetually resides in them, that the Church subsists in them, and dies with them, as if the Lord did not still inflict his judgements, and in the present day punish the world for its wickedness, in the same way in which he punished the ingratitude of the ancient people, namely, by smiting pastors with astonishment and blindness, (Zech. 12: 4.) These stupid men understand not that they are just chiming in with those of ancient times who warred with the word of God. For the enemies of Jeremiah thus set themselves against the truth, “Come, and let us devise devices against Jeremiah; for the law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet,” (Jer. 18: 18.)

6. The truth can also stand against councils

Hence it is easy to reply to their allegation concerning general councils. It cannot be denied, that the Jews had a true Church under the prophets. But had a general council then been composed of the priests, what kind of appearance would the Church have had? We hear the Lord denouncing not against one or two of them, but the whole order: “The priests shall be astonished, and the prophets shall wonder,” (Jer. 4: 9.) Again, “The law shall perish from the priest, and counsel from the ancients,” (Ezek. 7: 26.) Again, “Therefore night shall be unto you, that ye shall not have a vision; and it shall be dark unto you, that ye shall not divine; and the sun shall go down over the prophets, and the day shall be dark over them,” &c., (Micah 3: 6.) Now, had all men of this description been collected together, what spirit would have presided over their meeting? Of this we have a notable instance in the council which Ahab convened, (1 Kings 22: 6, 22.) Four hundred prophets were present. But because they had met with no other intention than to flatter the impious king, Satan is sent by the Lord to be a lying spirit in all their mouths. The truth is there unanimously condemned. Micaiah is judged a heretic, is smitten, and cast into prison. So was it done to Jeremiah (Jer. 20:2; 32:2; 37:15f), and so to the other prophets (cf. Matt. 21:35; 23:29f).

7. Example from John 11:47

But there is one memorable example which may suffice for all. In the council which the priests and Pharisees assembled at Jerusalem against Christ, (John 11: 47,) what is wanting, in so far as external appearance is concerned? Had there been no Church then at Jerusalem, Christ would never have joined in the sacrifices and other ceremonies. A solemn meeting is held; the high priest presides; the whole sacerdotal order take their seats, and yet Christ is condemned, and his doctrine is put to flight. This atrocity proves that the Church was not at all included in that council. But there is no danger that any thing of the kind will happen with us. Who has told us so? Too much security in a matter of so great importance lies open to the charge of sluggishness. Nay, when the Spirit, by the mouth of Paul, foretells, in distinct terms, that a defection will take place, a defection which cannot come until pastors first forsake God, (2 Thess. 2: 3,) why do we spontaneously walk blindfold to our own destruction? Wherefore, we cannot on any account admit that the Church consists in a meeting of pastors, as to whom the Lord has no where promised that they would always be good, but has sometimes foretold that they would be wicked. When he warns us of danger, it is to make us use greater caution.

(Departing from Scripture, councils have deteriorated, but even those of Nicaea and Chalcedon were defective, 8-11)

8. The validity of conciliar decisions

What, then, you will say, is there no authority in the definitions of councils? Yes, indeed; for I do not contend that all councils are to be condemned, and all their acts rescinded, or, as it is said, made one complete erasure. But you are bringing them all (it will be said) under subordination, and so leaving every one at liberty to receive or reject the decrees of councils as he pleases. By no means; but whenever the decree of a council is produced, the first thing I would wish to be done is, to examine at what time it was held, on what occasion, with what intention, and who were present at it; next I would bring the subject discussed to the standard of Scripture. And this I would do in such a way, that the decision of the council should have its weight, and be regarded in the light of a prior judgement, yet not so as to prevent the application of the test which I have mentioned.

I wish all had observed the method which Augustine prescribes in his Third Book against Maximinus, when he wished to silence the cavils of this heretic against the decrees of councils, “I ought not to oppose the Council of Nice to you, nor ought you to oppose that of Ariminum to me, as prejudging the question. I am not bound by the authority of the latter, nor you by that of the former. Let thing contend with thing, cause with cause, reason with reason, on the authority of Scripture, an authority not peculiar to either, but common to all.”

In this way, councils would be duly respected, and yet the highest place would be given to Scripture, every thing being brought to it as a test. Thus those ancient Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, the first of Ephesus, Chalcedony, and the like, which were held for refuting errors, we willingly embrace, and reverence as sacred, in so far as relates to doctrines of faith, for they contain nothing but the pure and genuine interpretation of Scripture, which the holy Fathers with spiritual prudence adopted to crush the enemies of religion who had then arisen. In some later councils, also, we see displayed a true zeal for religion, and moreover, unequivocal marks of genius, learning, and prudence. But as matters usually become worse and worse, it is easy to see in more modern councils how much the Church gradually degenerated from the purity of that golden age.

I doubt not, however that even in those more corrupt ages, councils had their bishops of better character. But it happened with them as the Roman senators of old complained in regard to their decrees. Opinions being numbered, not weighed, the better were obliged to give way to the greater number. They certainly put forth many impious sentiments. There is no need here to collect instances, both because it would be tedious, and because it has been done by others so carefully as not to leave much to be added.

9. Councils against councils!

Moreover, why should I review the contests of council with council? Nor is there any ground for whispering to me, that when councils are at variance, one or other of them is not a lawful council. For how shall we ascertain this? Just, if I mistake not, by judging from Scripture that the decrees are not orthodox. For this alone is the sure law of discrimination.

It is now about nine hundred years since the Council of Constantinople, convened under the Emperor Leo, determined that the images set up in temples were to be thrown down and broken to pieces. Shortly after, the Council of Nice, which was assembled by Irene, through dislike of the former, decreed that images were to be restored. Which of the two councils shall we acknowledge to be lawful? The latter has usually prevailed, and secured a place for images in churches. But Augustine maintains that this could not be done without the greatest danger of idolatry. Epiphanies, at a later period, speaks much more harshly, (Epist. ad Joann. Hierosolym. et Lib. 3 contra Haeres.) For he says, it is an unspeakable abomination to see images in a Christian temple. Could those who speak thus approve of that council if they were alive in the present day? But if historians speak true, and we believe their acts, not only images themselves, but the worship of them, were there sanctioned. Now it is plain that this decree emanated from Satan. Do they not show, by corrupting and wresting Scripture, that they held it in derision? This I have made sufficiently clear in a former part of the work, (see Book 1 chap. 11. sec. 14.) Be this as it may, we shall never be able to distinguish between contradictory and dissenting councils, which have been many, unless we weigh them all in that balance for men and angels, I mean, the word of God. Thus we embrace the Council of Chalcedony, and repudiate the second of Ephesus, because the latter sanctioned the impiety of Eutyches, and the former condemned it. The judgement of these holy men was founded on the Scriptures, and while we follow it, we desire that the word of God, which illuminated them, may now also illuminate us. Let the Romanists now go and boast after their manner, that the Holy Spirit is fixed and tied to their councils.

10. Human failings in the councils

Even in their ancient and purer councils there is something to be desiderated, either because the otherwise learned and prudent men who attended, being distracted by the business in hand, did not attend to many things beside; or because, occupied with grave and more serious measures, they winked at some of lesser moment; or simply because, as men, they were deceived through ignorance, or were sometimes carried headlong by some feeling in excess. Of this last case (which seems the most difficult of all to avoid) we have a striking example in the Council of Nice, which has been unanimously received, as it deserves, with the utmost veneration. For when the primary article of our faith was there in peril, and Arius, its enemy, was present, ready to engage any one in combat, and it was of the utmost moment that those who had come to attack Arius should be agreed, they nevertheless, feeling secure amid all these dangers, nay, as it were, forgetting their gravity, modesty, and politeness, laying aside the discussion which was before them, (as if they had met for the express purpose of gratifying Alias,) began to give way to intestine dissensions, and turn the pen, which should have been employed against Arius, against each other. Foul accusations were heard, libels flew up and down, and they never would have ceased from their contention until they had stabbed each other with mutual wounds, had not the Emperor Constantine interfered, and declaring that the investigation of their lives was a matter above his cognisance, repressed their intemperance by flattery rather than censure. In how many respects is it probable that councils, held subsequently to this, have erred? Nor does the fact stand in need of a long demonstration; any one who reads their acts will observe many infirmities, not to use a stronger term.

11. Human fallibility in the councils

Even Leo, the Roman Pontiff, hesitates not to charge the Council of Chalcedony, which he admits to be orthodox in its doctrines, with ambition and inconsiderate rashness. He denies not that it was lawful, but openly maintains that it might have erred. Some may think me foolish in labouring to point out errors of this description, since my opponents admit that councils may err in things not necessary to salvation. My labour, however, is not superfluous. For although compelled, they admit this in word, yet by obtruding upon us the determination of all councils, in all matters without distinction, as the oracles of the Holy Spirit, they exact more than they had at the outset assumed. By thus acting what do they maintain, but just that councils cannot err, or if they err, it is unlawful for us to perceive the truth, or refuse assent to their errors? At the same time, all I mean to infer from what I have said is, that though councils, otherwise pious and holy, were governed by the Holy Spirit, he yet allowed them to share the lot of humanity, lest we should confide too much in men. This is a much better view than that of Gregory Nanzianzen, who says, (Ep. 55,) that he never saw any council end well. In asserting that all, without exception, ended ill, he leaves them little authority.

There is no necessity for making separate mention of provincial councils, since it is easy to estimate, from the case of general councils, how much authority they ought to have in framing articles of faith, and deciding what kind of doctrine is to be received.

(We must not obey blind guides; decisions of later councils faulty in the light of Scripture, 12-14)

12. No blind obedience

But our Romanists, when, in defending their cause, they see all rational grounds slip from beneath them, retake themselves to a last miserable subterfuge. Although they should be dull in intellect and counsel, and most depraved in heart and will, still the word of the Lord remains, which commands us to obey those who have the rule over us, (Heb. 13: 17.) Is it indeed so? What if I should deny that those who act thus have the rule over us? They ought not to claim for themselves more than Joshua had, who was both a prophet of the Lord and an excellent pastor. Let us then hear in what terms the Lord introduced him to his office. “This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then shalt thou make thy way prosperous, and thou shalt have good success,” (Josh. 1: 7, 8.) Our spiritual rulers, therefore, will be those who turn not from the law of the Lord to the right hand or the left. But if the doctrine of all pastors is to be received without hesitation, why are we so often and so anxiously admonished by the Lord not to give heed to false prophets? “Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you; they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord,” (Jer. 23: 16.) Again, “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves,” (Matth. 7: 15.) In vain also would John exhort us to try the spirits whether they be of God, (1 John 4: 1.) From this judgement not even angels are exempted, (Gal. 1: 8 ,) far less Satan with his lies. And what is meant by the expression, “If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch?” (Matth. 15: 14.) Does it not sufficiently declare that there is a great difference among the pastors who are to be heard, that all are not to be heard indiscriminately? Wherefore they have no ground for deterring us by their names in order to draw us into a participation of their blindness, since we see, on the contrary, that the Lord has used special care to guard us from allowing ourselves to be led away by the errors of others, whatever be the mask under which they may lurk. For if the answer of our Saviour is true, blind guides, whether high priests prelates, or pontiffs, can do nothing more than hurry us over the same precipice with themselves. Wherefore, }et no names of councils, pastors, and bishops, (which may be used on false pretences as well as truly,) hinder us from giving heed to the evidence both of words and facts, and bringing all spirits to the test of the divine word, that we may prove whether they are of God.

13. The actual significance of councils for the interpretation of Scripture

Having proved that no power was given to the Church to set up any new doctrine, let us now treat of the power attributed to them in the interpretation of Scripture.

We readily admit, that when any doctrine is brought under discussion, there is not a better or surer remedy than for a council of true bishops to meet and discuss the controverted point. There will be much more weight in a decision of this kind, to which the pastors of churches have agreed in common after invoking the Spirit of Christ, than if each, adopting it for himself, should deliver it to his people, or a few individuals should meet in private and decide. Secondly, When bishops have assembled in one place, they deliberate more conveniently in common, fixing both the doctrine and the form of teaching it, lest diversity give offence. Thirdly, Paul prescribes this method of determining doctrine. For when he gives the power of deciding to a single church, he shows what the course of procedure should be in more important cases, namely, that the churches together are to take common cognisance. And the very feeling of piety tells us, that if any one trouble the Church with some novelty in doctrine, and the matter be carried so far that there is danger of a greater dissension, the churches should first meet, examine the question, and at length, after due discussion, decide according to Scripture, which may both put an end to doubt in the people, and stop the mouths of wicked and restless men, so as to prevent the matter from proceeding farther.

Thus when Arius arose, the Council of Nicaea was convened, and by its authority both crushed the wicked attempts of this impious man, and restored peace to the churches which he had vexed and asserted the eternal divinity of Christ in opposition to his sacrilegious dogma. Thereafter, when Eunomius and Macedonius raised new disturbances, their madness was met with a similar remedy by the Council of Constantinople; the impiety of Nestorius was defeated by the Council of Ephesus. In short, this was from the first the usual method of preserving unity in the Church whenever Satan commenced his machinations.

But let us remember, that all ages and places are not favoured with an Athanasius, a Basil, a Cyril, and like vindicators of sound doctrine, whom the Lord then raised up. Nay, let us consider what happened in the second Council of Ephesus when the Eutychian heresy prevailed. Flavianus, of holy memory, with some pious men, was driven into exile, and many similar crimes were committed, because, instead of the Spirit of the Lord, Dioscorus, a factious man, of a very bad disposition, presided. But the Church was not there. I admit it; for I always hold that the truth does not perish in the Church though it be oppressed by one council, but is wondrously preserved by the Lord to rise again, and prove victorious in his own time. I deny, however, that every interpretation of Scripture is true and certain which has received the votes of a council.

14. False evaluation of conciliar decisions on the part of the Roman Church

But the Romanists have another end in view when they say that the power of interpreting Scripture belongs to councils; and that without challenge. For they employ it as a pretext for giving the name of an interpretation of Scripture to everything which is determined in councils. Of purgatory, the intercession of saints, and auricular confession, and the like, not one syllable can be found in Scripture. But as all these have been sanctioned by the authority of the Church, or, to speak more correctly, have been received by opinion and practice, every one of them is to be held as an interpretation of Scripture. And not only so, but whatever a council has determined against Scripture is to have the name of an interpretation. Christ bids all drink of the cup which he holds forth in the Supper. The Council of Constance prohibited the giving of it to the people, and determined that the priest alone should drink. Though this is diametrically opposed to the institution of Christ, (Matth. 26: 26,) they will have it to be regarded as his interpretation. Paul terms the prohibition of marriage a doctrine of devils (1 Tim. 4: 1, 3;) and the Spirit elsewhere declares that “marriage is honourable in all,” (Heb. 13: 4.) Having afterwards interdicted their priests from marriage, they insist on this as a true and genuine interpretation of Scripture, though nothing can be imagined more alien to it. Should any one venture to open his lips in opposition, he will be judged a heretic, since the determination of the Church is without challenge, and it is unlawful to have any doubt as to the accuracy of her interpretation. Why should I assail such effrontery? to point to it is to condemn it.

Their dogma with regard to the power of approving Scripture I intentionally omit. For to subject the oracles of God in this way to the censure of men, and hold that they are sanctioned because they please men, is a blasphemy which deserves not to be mentioned. Besides, I have already touched upon it, (Book 1 chap. 7, 8, sec. 9.) I will ask them one questions however, If the authority of Scripture is founded on the approbation of the Church, will they quote the decree of a council to that effect? I believe they cannot. Why, then, did Arius allow himself to be vanquished at the Council of Nice by passages adduced from the Gospel of John? According to these, he was at liberty to repudiate them, as they had not previously been approved by any general council. They allege an old catalogue, which they call the Canon, and say that it originated in a decision of the Church. But I again ask, In what council was that Canon published? Here they must be dumb. Besides, I wish to know what they believe that Canon to be. For I see that the ancients are little agreed with regard to it. If effect is to be given to what Jerome says, (Praef. in Lib. Salom.) the Maccabees, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, and the like, must take their place in the Apocryphal: but this they will not tolerate on any account.

CHAPTER 10. OF THE POWER OF MAKING LAWS. THE CRUELTY OF THE POPE AND HIS ADHERENTS, IN THIS RESPECT, IN TYRANNICALLY OPPRESSING AND DESTROYING SOULS.

This chapter treats,—

I. Of human constitutions in general. Of the distinction between Civil and Ecclesiastical Laws. Of conscience, why and in what sense ministers cannot impose laws on the conscience, sec. 1-8.

II. Of traditions or Popish constitutions relating to ceremonies and discipline. The many vices inherent in them, sec. 9-17. Arguments in favour of those traditions refuted, sec. 17-26.

III. Of Ecclesiastical constitutions that are good and lawful, sec. 27-32.

Sections.

1. The power of the Church in enacting laws. This made a source of human traditions. Impiety of these traditions.

2. Many of the Papistical traditions not only difficult, but impossible to be observed.

3. That the question may be more conveniently explained, nature of conscience must be defined.

4. Definition of conscience explained. Examples in illustration of the definition.

5. Paul’s doctrine of submission to magistrates for conscience sake, gives no countenance to the Popish doctrine of the obligation of traditions.

6. The question stated. A brief mode of deciding it.

7. A perfect rule of life in the Law. God our only Lawgiver.

8. The traditions of the Papacy contradictory to the Word of God.

9. Ceremonial traditions of the Papists. Their impiety. Substituted for the true worship of God.

10. Through these ceremonies the commandment of God made void.

11. Some of these ceremonies useless and childish. Their endless variety. Introduce Judaism.

12. Absurdity of these ceremonies borrowed from Judaism and Paganism.

13. Their intolerable number condemned by Augustine.

14. Injury thus done to the Church. They cannot be excused.

15. Mislead the superstitious. Used as a kind of show and for incantation. Prostituted to gain.

16. All such traditions liable to similar objections.

17. Arguments in favour of traditions answered.

18. Answer continued.

19. Illustration taken from the simple administration of the Lord’s Supper, under the Apostles, and the complicated ceremonies of the Papists.

20. Another illustration from the use of Holy Water.

21. An argument in favour of traditions founded on the decision of the Apostles and elders at Jerusalem. This decision explained.

22. Some things in the Papacy may be admitted for a time for the sake of weak brethren.

23. Observance of the Popish traditions inconsistent with Christian liberty, torturing to the conscience, and insulting to God.

24. All human inventions in religion displeasing to God. Reason. Confirmed by an example.

25. An argument founded on the examples of Samuel and Manoah. Answer.

26. Argument that Christ wished such burdens to be borne. Answer.

27. Third part of the chapter, treating of lawful Ecclesiastical arrangements. Their foundation in the general axiom, that all things be done decently and in order. Two extremes to be avoided.

28. All Ecclesiastical arrangements to be thus tested. What Paul means by things done decently and in order.

29. Nothing decent in the Popish ceremonies. Description of true decency. Examples of Christian decency and order.

30. No arrangement decent and orderly, unless founded on the authority of God, and derived from Scripture. Charity the best guide in these matters.

31. Constitutions thus framed not to be neglected or despised.

32. Cautions to be observed in regard to such constitutions.

(Church laws and traditions, and the Christian’s conscience before God, 1-4)

1. The basic question

We come now to the second part of power, which, according to them, consists in the enacting of laws, from which source innumerable traditions have arisen, to be as many deadly snares to miserable souls. For they have not been more scrupulous than the Scribes and Pharisees in laying burdens on the shoulders of others which they would not touch with their fingers (Matth. 23: 4; Luke 11: 16.) I have elsewhere shown (Book 3 chap. 4 sec. 4-7) how cruel murder they commit by their doctrine of auricular confession. The same violence is not apparent in other laws, but those which seem most tolerable press tyrannically on the conscience. I say nothing as to the mode in which they adulterate the worship of God, and rob God himself who is the only Lawgivers of his right.

The power we have now to consider is, whether it be lawful for the Church to bind laws upon the conscience? In this discussion, civil order is not touched; but the only point considered is, how God may be duly worshipped according to the rule which he has prescribed, and how our spiritual liberty, with reference to God, may remain unimpaired.

In ordinary language, the name of human traditions is given to all decrees concerning the worship of God, which men have issued without the authority of his word. We contend against these, not against the sacred and useful constitutions of the Church, which tend to preserve discipline, or decency, or peace. Our aim is to curb the unlimited and barbarous empire usurped over souls by those who would be thought pastors of the Church, but who are in fact its most cruel murderers. They say that the laws which they enact are spiritual, pertaining to the soul, and they affirm that they are necessary to eternal life. But thus the kingdom of Christ, as I lately observed, is invaded; thus the liberty, which he has given to the consciences of believers, is completely oppressed and overthrown. I say nothing as to the great impiety with which, to sanction the observance of their laws, they declare that from it they seek forgiveness of sins, righteousness and salvation, while they make the whole sum of religion and piety to consist in it. What I contend for is, that necessity ought not to be laid on consciences in matters in which Christ has made them free; and unless freed, cannot, as we have previously shown, (Book 3 chap. 19:,) have peace with God. They must acknowledge Christ their deliverer, as their only king, and be ruled by the only law of liberty, namely, the sacred word of the Gospel, if they would retain the grace which they have once received in Christ: they must be subject to no bondage, be bound by no chains.

2. The Roman constitutions enslave consciences

These Solons, indeed, imagine that their constitutions are laws of liberty, a pleasant yoke, a light burden; but who sees not that this is mere falsehood? They themselves, indeed, feel not the burden of their laws. Having cast off the fear of God, they securely and assiduously disregard their own laws as well as those which are divine. Those, however, who feel any interest in their salvation, are far from thinking themselves free so long as they are entangled in these snares. We see how great caution Paul employed in this matter, not venturing to impose a fetter in any one thing, and with good reason: he certainly foresaw how great a wound would be inflicted on the conscience if these things should be made necessary which the Lord had left free. On the contrary it is scarcely possible to count the constitutions which these men have most grievously enforced, under the penalty of eternal death, and which they exact with the greatest rigour, as necessary to salvation. And while very many of them are most difficult of observance, the whole taken together are impossible; so great is the mass. How, then, possibly can those, on whom this mountain of difficulty lies, avoid being perplexed with extreme anxiety, and filled with terror?

My intention here then is, to impugn constitutions of this description; constitutions enacted for the purpose of binding the conscience inwardly before God, and imposing religious duties as if they enjoined things necessary to salvation.

3. The nature of conscience

Many are greatly puzzled with this question, from not distinguishing, with sufficient care, between what is called the external forum and the forum of conscience, (Book 3 chap. 19 sec. 15.) Moreover the difficulty is increased by the terms in which Paul enjoins obedience to magistrates, “not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake,” (Rom. 13: 5;) and from which it would follow, that civil laws also bind the conscience. But if this were so, nothing that we have said of spiritual government, in the last chapter, and are to say in this, would stand.

To solve this difficulty, we must first understand what is meant by conscience. The definition must be derived from the etymology of the term. As when men, with the mind and intellect, apprehend the knowledge of things, they are thereby said to know, and hence the name of science or knowledge is used; so, when they have, in addition to this, a sense of the divine judgement, as a witness not permitting them to hide their sins, but bringing them as criminals before the tribunal of the judge that sense is called conscience. For it occupies a kind of middle place between God and man, not suffering man to suppress what he knows in himself, but following him out until it bring him to conviction. This is what Paul means when he says that conscience bears witness, “our thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing each other,” (Rom. 2: 15.) Simple knowledge, therefore, might exist in a man, as it were, shut up, and therefore the sense which sists men before the judgement-seat of God has been placed over him as a sentinel, to observe and spy out all his secrets, that nothing may remain buried in darkness. Hence the old proverb, Conscience is a thousand witnesses. For this reason, Peter also uses the “answer of a good conscience towards God,” (1 Pet. 3: 21;) for tranquillity of mind; when, persuaded of the grace of Christ, we with boldness present ourselves before God. And the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews says, that we have “no more conscience of sins,” that we are freed or acquitted, so that ain no longer accuses us, (Heb. 10: 2.).

4. Bondage and freedom of conscience

Wherefore, as works have respect to men, so conscience bears reference to God; and hence a good conscience is nothing but inward integrity of heart. In this sense, Paul says, that “the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned,” (1 Tim. 1: 5.) He afterward, in the same chapter, shows how widely it differs from intellect, saying, that “some having put away” a good conscience, “concerning faith have made shipwreck” (I Tim. 1:19). For by these words he intimates, that it is a living inclination to worship God, a sincere desire to live piously and holily.

Sometimes, indeed, it is extended to men also, as when Paul declares, “Herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men,” (Acts 24: 16.) But this is said because the benefits of a good conscience flow forth and reach even to men. Properly speaking, however, it respects God alone, as I have already said.

Hence a law may be said to bind the conscience when it simply binds a man without referring to men, or taking them into account. For example, God enjoins us not only to keep our mind chaste and pure from all lust, but prohibits every kind of obscenity in word, and all external lasciviousness. This law my conscience is bound to observe, though there were not another man in the world. Thus he who behaves intemperately not only sins by setting a bad example to his brethren, but stands convicted in his conscience before God.

Another rule holds in the case of things which are in themselves indifferent. For we ought to abstain when they give offence, but conscience is free. Thus Paul says of meat consecrated to idols, “If any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake;” “conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other,” (1 Cor. 10: 28, 29.) A believer would sin, if, after being warned, he should still eat such kind of meat. But however necessary abstinence may be in respect of a brother, as prescribed by the Lord, conscience ceases not to retain its liberty. We see how the law, while binding the external work, leaves the conscience free.

(Conscience in relation to human and papal laws: God the only lawgiver, 5-8)

5. The meaning of human laws for the conscience

Let us now return to human laws. If they are imposed for the purpose of forming a religious obligation, as if the observance of them was in itself necessary, we say that the restraint thus laid on the conscience is unlawful. Our consciences have not to do with men but with God only. Hence the common distinction between the earthly forum and the forum of conscience. When the whole world was enveloped in the thickest darkness of ignorance, it was still held like a small ray of light which remained unextinguished) that conscience was superior to all human judgements. Although this, which was acknowledged in word, was afterwards violated in fact, yet God was pleased that there should even then exist an attestation to liberty, exempting the conscience from the tyranny of man.

But we haven’t yet explained the difficulty which arises from the words of Paul. For if we must obey princes not only from fear of punishment but for conscience sake, it seems to follow, that the laws of princes have dominion over the conscience. If this is true, the same thing must be affirmed of ecclesiastical laws.

I answer, that the first thing to be done here is to distinguish between the genus and the species. For though individual laws do not reach the conscience, yet we are bound by the general command of God, which enjoins us to submit to magistrates. And this is the point on which Paul’s discussion turns, viz., that magistrates are to be honoured, because they are ordained of God, (Rom. 13: 1.) Meanwhile, he does not at all teach that the laws enacted by them reach to the internal government of the soul, since he everywhere proclaims that the worship of God, and the spiritual rule of living righteously, are superior to all the decrees of men.

Another thing also worthy of observation, and depending on what has been already said, is, that human laws, whether enacted by magistrates or by the Church, are necessary to be observed, (I speak of such as are just and good,) but do not therefore in themselves bind the conscience, because the whole necessity of observing them respects the general end, and consists not in the things commanded. Very different, however, is the case of those which prescribe a new form of worshipping God, and introduce necessity into things that are free.

6. The church has no right to set up independent constitutions to bind consciences

Such, however, are what in the present day are called ecclesiastical constitutions by the Papacy, and are brought forward as part of the true and necessary worship of God. But as they are without number, so they form innumerable fetters to bind and ensnare the soul. Though, in expounding the law, we have adverted to this subject, (Book 3 chap. 4, 5,) yet as this is more properly the place for a full discussion of it, I will now study to give a summary of it as carefully as I can. I shall, however omit the branch relating to the tyranny with which false bishops arrogate to themselves the right of teaching whatever they please, having already considered it as far as seemed necessary, but shall treat at length of the power which they claim of enacting laws.

The pretext, then, on which our false bishops burden the conscience with new laws is, that the Lord has constituted then spiritual legislators, and given them the government of the Church. Hence they maintain that every thing which they order and prescribe must, of necessity, be observed by the Christian people, that he who violates their commands is guilty of a twofold disobedience, being a rebel both against God and the church.

Assuredly, if they were true bishops, I would give them some authority in this matter, not so much as they demand, but so much as is requisite for duly arranging the polity of the Church; but since they are any thing but what they would be thought, they cannot possibly assume any thing to themselves, however little, without being in excess.

But as this also has been elsewhere shown, let us grant for the present, that whatever power true bishops possess justly belongs to them, still I deny that they have been set over believers as legislators to prescribe a rule of life at their own hands, or bind the people committed to them to their decrees. When I say this, I mean that they are not at all entitled to insist that whatever they devise without authority from the word of God shall be observed by the Church as matter of necessity. Since such power was unknown to the apostles, and was so often denied to the ministers of the Church by our Lord himself, I wonder how any have dared to usurp, and dare in the present day to defend it, without any precedent from the apostles, and against the manifest prohibition of God.

7. All arbitrary lordship is an encroachment upon God’s Kingdom

Everything relating to a perfect rule of life the Lord has so comprehended in his law, that he has left nothing for men to add to the summary there given. His object in doing this was, first, that since all rectitude of conduct consists in regulating all our actions by his will as a standard, he alone should be regarded as the master and guide of our life; and, secondly, that he might show that there is nothing which he more requires of us than obedience. For this reason James says, “He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law:” “There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy,” (James 4: 11,12 ) We hear how God claims it as his own peculiar privilege to rule us by his laws. This had been said before by Isaiah, though somewhat obscurely, “The Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he will save us,” (Isa. 33: 22.) Both passages show that the power of life and death belongs to him who has power over the soul. Nay, James clearly expresses this. This power no man may assume to himself. God, therefore, to whom the power of saving and destroying belongs, must be acknowledged as the only King of souls, or, as the words of Isaiah express it, he is our king and judge, and lawgiver and saviour. So Peter, when he reminds pastors of their duty, exhorts them to feed the flock without larding it over the heritage, (1 Pet. 5: 2;) meaning by heritage the body of believers. If we duly consider that it is unlawful to transfer to man what God declares to belong only to himself, we shall see that this completely cuts off all the power claimed by those who would take it upon them to order any thing in the Church without authority from the word of God.

8. Directions to determine which human constitutions are inadmissible

Moreover, since the whole question depends on this, that God being the only lawgiver, it is unlawful for men to assume that honour to themselves, it will be proper to keep in mind the two reasons for which God claims this solely for him self. The one reason is, that his will is to us the perfect rule of all righteousness and holiness, and that thus in the knowledge of it we have a perfect rule of life. The other reason is, that when the right and proper method of worshipping him is in question, he whom we ought to obey, and on whose will we ought to depend, alone has authority over our souls.

When these two reasons are attended to, it will be easy to decide what human constitutions are contrary to the word of the Lord. Of this description are all those which are devised as part of the true worship of God, and the observance of which is bound upon the conscience, as of necessary obligation. Let us remember then to weigh all human laws in this balance, if we would have a sure test which will not allow us to go astray.

The former reason is urged by Paul in the Epistle to the Colossians against the false apostles who attempted to lay new burdens on the churches. The second reason he more frequently employs in the Epistle to the Galatians in a similar case. In the Epistle to the Colossians, then, he maintains that the doctrine of the true worship of God is not to be sought from men, because the Lord has faithfully and fully taught us in what way he is to be worshipped. To demonstrate this, he says in the first chapter, that in the gospel is contained all wisdom, that the man of God may be made perfect in Christ. In the beginning of the second chapter, he says that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ, and from this he concludes that believers should beware of being led away from the flock of Christ by vain philosophy, according to the constitutions of men, (Col. 2: 10.) In the end of the chapter, he still more decisively condemns all “ethelothreskeias”, that is, fictitious modes of worship which men themselves devise or receive from others, and all precepts whatsoever which they presume to deliver at their own hand concerning the worship of God. We hold, therefore, that all constitutions are impious in the observance of which the worship of God is pretended to be placed. The passages in the Galatians, in which he insists that fetters are not to be bound on the conscience, (which ought to be ruled by God alone,) are sufficiently plain, especially chapter 5 (Gal. 5:1-12). Let it, therefore, suffice to refer to them.

(Ecclesiastical constitutions authorizing ceremonies in worship are tyrannous, frivolous, and contrary to Scripture, 9-18)

9. The Roman constitutions are, according to the foregoing principles, to be rejected

But that the whole matter may be made plainer by examples, it will be proper, before we proceed, to apply the doctrine to our own times. The constitutions which they call ecclesiastical, and by which the Pope, with his adherents, burdens the Church, we hold to be pernicious and impious, while our opponents defend them as sacred and salutary. Now there are two kinds of them, some relating to ceremonies and rites, and others more especially to discipline. Have we, then, any just cause for impugning both? Assuredly a juster cause than we could wish.

First, do not their authors themselves distinctly declare that the very essence of the worship of God (so to speak) is contained in them? For what end do they bring forward their ceremonies but just that God may be worshipped by them? Nor is this done merely by error in the ignorant multitude, but with the approbation of those who hold the place of teachers. I am not now adverting to the gross abominations by which they have plotted the adulteration of all godliness, but they would not deem it to be so atrocious a crime to err in any minute tradition, did they not make the worship of God subordinate to their fictions. Since Paul then declares it to be intolerable that the legitimate worship of God should be subjected to the will of men, wherein do we err when we are unable to tolerate this in the present day? especially when we are enjoined to worship God according to the elements of this world - a thing which Paul declares to be adverse to Christ, (Col. 2: 20.) On the other hand, the mode in which they lay consciences under the strict necessity of observing whatever they enjoin, is not unknown. When we protest against this, we make common cause with Paul, who will on no account allow the consciences of believers to be brought under human bondage.

10. The papal constitutions deny God’s law

Moreover the worst of all is that when once religion begins to be composed of such vain fictions, the perversion is immediately succeeded by the abominable depravity with which our Lord upbraids the Pharisees of making the commandment of God void through their traditions, (Matth. 15: 3.) I am unwilling to dispute with our present legislators in my own words;—let them gain the victory if they can clear themselves from this accusation of Christ. But how can they do so, seeing they regard it as immeasurably more wicked to allow the year to pass without auricular confession, than to have spent it in the greatest iniquity: to have infected their tongue with a slight tasting of flesh on Friday, than to have daily polluted the whole body with whoredom: to have put their hand to honest labour on a day consecrated to some one or other of their saintlings, than to have constantly employed all their members in the greatest crimes: for a priest to be united to one in lawful wedlock, than to be engaged in a thousand adulteries: to have failed in performing a votive pilgrimage, than to have broken faith in every promise: not to have expended profusely on the monstrous, superfluous, and useless luxury of churches, than to have denied the poor in their greatest necessities: to have passed an idol without honour, than to have treated the whole human race with contumely: not to have muttered long unmeaning sentences at certain times, than never to have framed one proper prayer? What is meant by making the word of God void by tradition, if this is not done when recommending the ordinances of God only frigidly and perfunctorily, they nevertheless studiously and anxiously urge strict obedience to their own ordinances, as if the whole power of piety was contained in them;—when vindicating the transgression of the divine Law with trivial satisfactions, they visit the minutest violation of one of their decrees with no lighter punishment than imprisonment, exile, fire, or sword?—When neither severe nor inexorable against the despisers of God, they persecute to extremity, with implacable hatred, those who despise themselves, and so train all those whose simplicity they hold in thraldom, that they would sooner see the whole law of God subverted than one iota of what they call the precepts of the Church infringed. First, there is a grievous delinquency in this, that one condemns, judges, and casts off his neighbour for trivial matters,—matters which, if the judgement of God is to decide, are free. But now as if this were a small evil, those frivolous elements of this world (as Paul terms them in his Epistle to the Galatians, Gal. 4: 9) are deemed of more value than the heavenly oracles of God. He who is all but acquitted for adultery is judged in meat; and he to whom whoredom is permitted is forbidden to marry. This, forsooth, is all that is gained by that prevaricating obedience, which only turns away from God to the same extent that it inclines to men.

11. Roman constitutions meaningless and useless

There are other two grave vices which we disapprove in these constitutions. First, They prescribe observances which are in a great measure useless, and are sometimes absurd; secondly, by the vast multitude of them, pious consciences are oppressed, and being carried back to a kind of Judaism, so cling to shadows that they cannot come to Christ.

My allegation that they are useless and absurd will, I know, scarcely be credited by carnal wisdom, to which they are so pleasing, that the Church seems to be altogether defaced when they are taken away. But this is just what Paul says, that they “have indeed a show of wisdom in will-worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body,” (Col. 2: 23;) a most salutary admonition, of which we ought never to lose sight. Human tradition,, he says, deceive by an appearance of wisdom. Whence this show? Just that being framed by men, the human mind recognises in them that which is its own, and embraces it when recognised more willingly than anything, however good, which is less suitable to its vanity.

Secondly, That they seem to be a fit training to humility, while they keep the minds of men grovelling on the ground under their yoke; hence they have another recommendation. Lastly, Because they seem to leave a tendency to curb the will of the flesh, and to subdue it by the rigour of abstinence, they seem to be wisely devised. But what does Paul say to all this? Does he pluck off those masks lest the simple should be deluded by a false pretext? Deeming it sufficient for their refutation to say that they were devices of men, he passes all these things without refutation, as things of no value. Nay, because he knew that all fictitious worship is condemned in the Church, and is the more suspected by believers, the more pleasing it is to the human mind—because he knew that this false show of outward humility differs so widely from true humility that it can be easily discerned;—finally, because he knew that this tutelage is valued at no more than bodily exercise, he wished the very things which commended human traditions to the ignorant to be regarded by believers as the refutation of them.

12. Their mysteries are mockeries

Thus, in the present day, not only the unlearned vulgar, but every one in proportion as he is inflated by worldly wisdom, is wonderfully captivated by the glare of ceremonies, while hypocrites and silly women think that nothing can be imagined better or more beautiful. But those who thoroughly examine them, and weigh them more truly according to the rule of godliness, in regard to the value of all such ceremonies, know, first, that they are trifles of no utility; secondly, that they are impostures which delude the eyes of the spectators with empty show. I am speaking of those ceremonies which the Roman masters will have to be great mysteries, while we know by experience that they are mere mockery. Nor is it strange that their authors have gone the length of deluding themselves and others by mere frivolities, because they have taken their model partly from the dreams of the Gentiles, partly, like apes, have rashly imitated the ancient rites of the Mosaic Law, with which we have nothing more to do than with the sacrifices of animals and other similar things. Assuredly were there no other proof, no sane man would expect any good from such an ill-assorted farrago. And the case itself plainly demonstrates that very many ceremonies have no other use than to stupefy the people rather than teach them. In like manner, to those new canons which pervert discipline rather than preserve it, hypocrites attach much importance; but a closer examination will show that they are nothing but the shadowy and evanescent phantom of discipline.

13. The Roman Church constitutions, through their senseless accumulation, bring Jewish vexations upon the conscience

To come to the second fault, who sees not that ceremonies, by being heaped one upon another, have grown to such a multitude, that it is impossible to tolerate them in the Christian Church? Hence it is, that in ceremonies a strange mixture of Judaism is apparent, while other observances prove a deadly snare to pious minds. Augustine complained that in his time, while the precepts of God were neglected, prejudice everywhere prevailed to such an extent, that he who touched the ground barefoot during his octave was censured more severely than he who buried his wits in wine. He complained that the Church, which God in mercy wished to be free, was so oppressed that the condition of the Jews was more tolerable, (August. Ep. 119.) Had that holy man fallen on our day, in what terms would he have deplored the bondage now existing? For the number is tenfold greater, and each iota is exacted a hundred times more rigidly than then. This is the usual course; when once those perverse legislators have usurped authority, they make no end of their commands and prohibitions until they reach the extreme of harshness. This Paul elegantly intimated by these words,—"If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances? Touch not, taste not, handle not,” (Col. 2: 20, 21.) For while the word “haptesthai” signifies both to eat and to touch, it is doubtless taken in the former sense, that there may not be a superfluous repetition. Here, therefore, he most admirably describes the progress of false apostles. The way in which superstition begins is this; they forbid not only to eat, but even to chew gently; after they have obtained this, they forbid even to taste. This also being yielded to them, they deem it unlawful to touch even with the finger.

14. Ceremonies to show forth Christ, not to hide him

We justly condemn this tyranny in human constitutions, in consequence of which miserable consciences are strangely tormented by innumerable edicts, and the excessive exaction of them. Of the canons relating to discipline, we have spoken elsewhere, (supra, sec. 12; also chapter 12.) What shall I say of ceremonies, the effect of which has been, that we have almost buried Christ, and returned to Jewish figures? “Our Lord Christ (says Augustine, Ep. 118) bound together the society of his new people by sacraments, very few in number, most excellent in signification, most easy of observance.” How widely different this simplicity is from the multitude and variety of rites in which we see the Church entangled in the present day, cannot well be told.

I am aware of the artifice by which some acute men excuse this perverseness. They say that there are numbers among us equally rude as any among the Israelitish people, and that for their sakes has been introduced this tutelage, which, though the stronger may do without, they, however, ought not to neglect, seeing that it is useful to weak brethren. I answer, that we are not unaware of what is due to the weakness of brethren, but, on the other hand, we object that the method of consulting for the weak is not to bury them under a great mass of ceremonies. It was not without cause that God distinguished between us and his ancient people, by training them like children by means of signs and figures, and training us more simply, without so much external show. Paul’s words are, “The heir, as long as he is a child,"—"is under tutors and governors” (Gal. 4: 1-3.) This was the state of the Jews under the law. But we are like adults who, being freed from tutors and curators, have no need of puerile rudiments. God certainly foresaw what kind of people he was to have in his Church, and in what way they were to be governed. Now, he distinguished between us and the Jews in the way which has been described. Therefore, it is a foolish method of consulting for the ignorant to set up the Judaism which Christ has abrogated. This dissimilitude between the ancient and his new people Christ expressed when he said to the woman of Samaria, “The hour comes, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,” (John 4: 23.) This, no doubt, had always been done; but the new worshipers differ from the old in this, that while under Moses the spiritual worship of God was shadowed, and, as it were, entangled by many ceremonies, these have been abolished, and worship is now more simple. Those, accordingly, who confound this distinction, subvert the order instituted and sanctioned by Christ.

Therefore you will ask, Are no ceremonies to be given to the more ignorant as a help to their ignorance? I do not say so; for I think that help of this description is very useful to them. All I contend for is the employment of such a measure as may illustrate, not obscure Christ. Hence a few ceremonies have been divinely appointed, and these by no means laborious, in order that they may evince a present Christ. To the Jews a greater number were given, that they might be images of an absent Christ. In saying he was absent, I mean not in power, but in the mode of expression. Therefore, to secure due moderation, it is necessary to retain that fewness in number, facility in observance, and significance of meaning which consists in clearness. Of what use is it to say that this is not done? The fact is obvious to every eye.

15. Corruption of ceremonies regarded as expiatory sacrifices

I here say nothing of the pernicious opinions with which the minds of men are imbued, as that these are sacrifices by which propitiation is made to God, by which sins are expiated, by which righteousness and salvation are procured. It will be maintained that things good in themselves are not vitiated by errors of this description, since in acts expressly enjoined by God similar errors may be committed. There is nothing, however, more unbecoming than the fact, that works devised by the will of man are held in such estimation as to be thought worthy of eternal life. The works commanded by God receive a reward, because the Lawgiver himself accepts of them as marks of obedience. They do not, therefore, take their value from their own dignity or their own merit, but because God sets this high value on our obedience toward him. I am here speaking of that perfection of works which is commanded by God, but is not performed by men. The works of the law are accepted merely by the free kindness of God, because the obedience is infirm and defective. But as we are not here considering how far works avail without Christ, let us omit that question. I again repeat, as properly belonging to the present subject, that whatever commendation works have, they have it in respect of obedience, which alone God regards, as he testifies by the prophet, “I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices: but this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice,” (Jer. 7: 22.) Of fictitious works he elsewhere speaks, “Wherefore do you spend your money for that which is not bread?” (Isa. 55: 2; 29: 13.) Again, “In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men,” (Matth. 15: 9.) They cannot, therefore, excuse themselves from the charge of allowing wretched people to seek in these eternal frivolities a righteousness which they may present to God, and by which they may stand before the celestial tribunal.

Besides, is it not a fault deservedly stigmatised, that they exhibit unmeaning ceremonies as a kind of stage-play or magical incantation? For it is certain that all ceremonies are corrupt and noxious which do not direct men to Christ. But the ceremonies in use in the Papacy are separated from doctrine, so that they confine men to signs altogether devoid of meaning.

Lastly, (as the belly is an ingenious contriver,) it is clear, that many of their ceremonies have been invented by greedy priests as lures for catching money. But whatever be their origin, they are all so prostituted to filthy lucre, that a great part of them must be rescinded if we would prevent a profane and sacrilegious traffic from being carried on in the Church.

16. General application of common insights

Although I seem not to be delivering the general doctrine concerning human constitutions, but adapting my discourse wholly to our own age, yet nothing has been said which may not be useful to all ages. For whenever men begin the superstitious practice of worshipping God with their own fictions, all the laws enacted for this purpose forthwith degenerate into those gross abuses. For the curse which God denounces, viz., to strike those who worship him with the doctrines of men with stupor and blindness, is not confined to any one age, but applies to all ages. The uniform result of this blindness is, that there is no kind of absurdity escaped by those who, despising the many admonitions of God, spontaneously entangle themselves in these deadly fetters. But if, without any regard to circumstances, you would simply know the character belonging at all times to those human traditions which ought to be repudiated by the Church, and condemned by all the godly, the definition which we formerly gave is clear and certain, viz., That they include all the laws enacted by men, without authority from the word of God, for the purpose either of prescribing the mode of divine worship, or laying a religious obligation on the conscience, as enjoining things necessary to salvation. If to one or both of these are added the other evils of obscuring the clearness of the Gospel by their multitude, of giving no edification, of being useless and frivolous occupations rather than true exercises of piety, of being set up for sordid ends and filthy lucre, of being difficult of observance, and contaminated by pernicious superstitions, we shall have the means of detecting the quantity of mischief which they occasion.

17. The Roman constitutions cannot, as they assume, count as church constitutions

I understand what their answer will be, viz., that these traditions are not from themselves, but from God. For to prevent the Church from erring, it is guided by the holy Spirit, whose authority resides in them. This being conceded, it at the same time follows, that their traditions are revelations by the Holy Spirit, and cannot be disregarded without impiety and contempt of God. And that they may not seem to have attempted anything without high authority, they will have it to be believed that a great part of their observances is derived from the apostles. For they contend, that in one instance they have a sufficient proof of what the apostles did in other cases. The instance is, when the apostles assembled in council, announced to all the Gentiles as the opinion of the council, that they should “abstain from pollution of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood,” (Acts 15: 20, 29.)

We have already explained, how, in order to extol themselves, they falsely assume the name of Church, (Chap. 8 sec. 10-13.) If, in regard to the present cause, we remove all masks and glosses, (a thing, indeed, which ought to be our first care, and also is our highest interest,) and consider what kind of Church Christ wishes to have, that we may form and adapt ourselves to it as a standard, it will readily appear that it is not a property of the Church to disregard the limits of the word of God, and wanton and luxuriate in enacting new laws. Does not the law which was once given to the Church endure for ever? “What things soever command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it,” (Deut. 12: 32.) And in another place, “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar,” (Prov. 30: 6.) Since they cannot deny that this was said to the Church, what else do they proclaim but their contumacy, when, notwithstanding of such prohibitions, they profess to add to the doctrine of God, and dare to intermingle their own with it? Far be it from us to assent to the falsehood by which they offer such insult to the Church. Let us understand that the name of Church is falsely pretended wherever men contend for that rash human license which cannot confine itself within the boundaries prescribed by the word of God, but petulantly breaks out, and has recourse to its own inventions. In the above passage there is nothing involved, nothing obscure, nothing ambiguous; the whole Church is forbidden to add to, or take from the word of God, in relation to his worship and salutary precepts. But that was said merely of the Law, which was succeeded by the Prophets and the whole Gospel dispensation! This I admit, but I at the same time add, that these are fulfilments of the Law, rather than additions or diminutions. Now if the Lord does not permit any thing to be added to, or take from the ministry of Moses though wrapt up, if I may so speak, in many folds of obscurity, until he furnish a clearer doctrine by his servants the Prophets and at last by his beloved Son, why should we not suppose that we are much more strictly prohibited from making any addition to the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms, and the Gospel? The Lord cannot forget himself, and it is long since he declared that nothing is so offensive to him as to be worshipped by human inventions. Hence those celebrated declarations of the Prophets which ought continually to ring in our ears “I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices: but this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you,” (Jer. 7: 22, 23.) “I earnestly protested unto your fathers, in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, even unto this day, rising early and protesting, saying, Obey my voice,” (Jer. 11: 7.) There are other passages of the same kind, but the most noted of all is, “Has the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry,” (1 Sam. 15: 22, 23.) It is easy, therefore to prove, that whenever human inventions in this respect are defended by the authority of the Church, they cannot be vindicated from the charge of impiety, and that the name of Church is falsely assumed.

18. The Roman constitutions do not reach back to the apostles, or even to the “apostolic tradition”

For this reason, we freely inveigh against that tyranny of human traditions which is haughtily obtruded upon us in the name of the Church. Nor do we hold the Church in derision, (as our adversaries, for the purpose of producing obloquy, unjustly accuse us,) but we attribute to her the praise of obedience, than which there is none which she acknowledges to be greater. They themselves rather are emphatically injurious to the Church in representing her as contumacious to her Lord, when they pretend that she goes farther than the word of God allows, to say nothing of their combined impudence and malice in continually vociferating about the power of the Church, while they meanwhile disguise both the command which the Lord has given her, and the obedience which she owes to the command.

But if our wish is as it ought to be, to agree with the Church it is of more consequence to consider and remember the injunction which the Lord has given both to us and to the Church to obey him with one consent. For there can be no doubt that we shall best agree with the Church when we show ourselves obedient to the Lord in all things.

But to ascribe the origin of the traditions by which the Church has hitherto been oppressed to the apostles is mere imposition, since the whole substance of the doctrine of the apostles is, that conscience must not be burdened with new observances, nor the worship of God contaminated by our inventions. Then, if any credit is to be given to ancient histories and records, what they attribute to the apostles was not only unknown to them, but was never heard by them. Nor let them pretend that most of their decrees, though not delivered in writing, were received by use and practice, being things which they could not understand while Christ was in the world, but which they learned after his ascensions by the revelation of the Holy Spirit. The meaning of that passage has been explained elsewhere, (Chap. 8 sec. 14.) In regard to the present question, they make themselves truly ridiculous, seeing it is manifest that all those mysteries which so long were undiscovered by the apostles, are partly Jewish or Gentile observances, the former of which had anciently been promulgated among the Jews and the latter among all the Gentiles, partly absurd gesticulations and empty ceremonies, which stupid priests, who have neither sense nor letters, can duly perform; nay, which children and mountebanks perform so appropriately, that it seems impossible to have fitter priests for such sacrifices. If there were no records, men of sense would judge from the very nature of the case, that such a mass of rites and observances did not rush into the Church all at once, but crept in gradually. For though the venerable bishops, who were nearest in time to the apostles, introduced some things pertaining to order and discipline, those who came after them, and those after them again had not enough of consideration, while they had too much curiosity and cupidity, he who came last always vying in foolish emulation with his predecessors, so as not to be surpassed in the invention of novelties. And because there was a danger that these inventions, from which they anticipated praise from posterity, might soon become obsolete, they were much more rigorous in insisting on the observance of them. This false zeal has produced a great part of the rites which these men represent as apostolical. This history attests.

(Accumulation of useless rites falsely called “apostolic”: obligation to weak consciences, 19-22)

19. Post-apostolic accumulation of useless rites

And not to become prolix, by giving a catalogue of all, we shall be contented with one example. Under the apostles there was great simplicity in administering the Lord’s Supper. Their immediate successors made some additions to the dignity of the ordinance, which are not to be disapproved. Afterwards came foolish imitators, who, by ever and anon patching various fragments together, have left us those sacerdotal vestments which we see in the mass, those altar ornaments, those gesticulations, and whole farrago of useless observances.

But they object, that in old time the persuasion was, that those things which were done with the consent of the whole Church proceeded from the apostles. Of this they quote Augustine as a witness. I will give the explanation in the very words of Augustine. “Those things which are observed over the whole world we may understand to have been appointed either by the apostles themselves, or by general councils, whose authority in the Church is most beneficial, as the annual solemn celebration of our Lord’s passion, resurrection, and ascension to heaven, and of the descent of the Holy Spirit, and any other occurrence observed by the whole Church wherever it exists” (August. Ep. 118.) In giving so few examples, who sees not that he meant to refer the observances then in use to authors deserving of faith and reverence,—observances few and sober, by which it was expedient that the order of the Church should be maintained? How widely does this differ from the view of our Roman masters, who insist that there is no paltry ceremony among them which is not apostolical?

20. Augustine interpreted

Not to be tedious, I will give only one example. Should any one ask them where they get their holy water, they will at once answer,—from the apostles. As if I did not know who the Roman bishop is, to whom history ascribes the invention, and who, if he had admitted the apostles to his council, assuredly never would have adulterated baptism by a foreign and unseasonable symbol, although it does not seem probable to me that the origin of that consecration is so ancient as is there recorded. For when Augustine says (Ep. 118) that certain churches in his day rejected the formal imitation of Christ in the washing of feet, lest that rite should seem to pertain to baptism, he intimates that there was then no kind of washing which had any resemblance to baptism. Be this as it may, I will never admit that the apostolic spirit gave rise to that daily sign by which baptism, while brought back to remembrance, is in a manner repeated. I attach no importance to the fact, that Augustine elsewhere ascribes other things to the apostles. For as he has nothing better than conjecture, it is not sufficient for forming a judgement concerning a matter of so much moment. Lastly, though we should grant that the things which he mentions are derived from the apostolic age, there is a great difference between instituting some exercise of piety, which believers may use with a free conscience, or may abstain from if they think the observance not to be useful, and enacting a law which brings the conscience into bondage. Now, indeed, whoever is the author from whom they are derived, since we see the great abuses to which they have led, there is nothing to prevent us from abrogating them without any imputation on him, since he never recommended them in such a way as to lay us under a fixed and immovable obligation to observe them.

21. The decree of Acts 15:20

It gives them no great help, in defending their tyranny, to pretend the example of the apostles. The apostles and elders of the primitive Church, according to them, sanctified a decree without any authority from Christ, by which they commanded all the Gentiles to abstain from meat offered to idols, from things strangled, and from blood, (Acts 15: 20.) If this was lawful for them, why should not their successors be allowed to imitate the example as often as occasion requires? Would that they would always imitate them both in this and in other matters! For I am ready to prove, on valid grounds, that here nothing new has been instituted or decreed by the apostles. For when Peter declares in that council, that God is tempted if a yoke is laid on the necks of the disciples, he overthrows his own argument if he afterwards allows a yoke to be imposed on them. But it is imposed if the apostles, on their own authority, prohibit the Gentiles from touching meat offered to idols, things strangled, and blood. The difficulty still remains, that they seem nevertheless to prohibit them. But this will easily be removed by attending more closely to the meaning of their decree. The first thing in order, and the chief thing in importance, is, that the Gentiles were to retain their liberty, which was not to be disturbed, and that they were not to be annoyed with the observances of the Law. As yet, the decree is all in our favour. The reservation which immediately follows is not a new law enacted by the apostles, but a divine and eternal command of God against the violation of charity, which does not detract one iota from that liberty. It only reminds the Gentiles how they are to accommodate themselves to their brother, and not to abuse their liberty for an occasion of offence. Let the second head, therefore, be, that the Gentiles are to use an innoxious liberty, giving no offence to the brethren. Still, however, they prescribe some certain thing, viz., they show and point out, as was expedient at the time, what those things are by which they may give offence to their brethren, that they may avoid them; but they add no novelty of their own to the eternal law of God, which forbids the offence of brethren.

22. Obligation to weak brethren

As in the case where faithful pastors, presiding over churches not yet well constituted, should intimate to their flocks not to eat flesh on Friday until the weak among whom they live become strong or to work on a holiday, or any other similar things, although, when superstition is laid aside, these matters are in themselves indifferent still, where offence is given to the brethren, they cannot be done without sin; so there are times when believers cannot set this example before weak brethren without most grievously wounding their consciences. Who but a slanderer would say that a new law is enacted by those who, it is evident, only guard against scandals which their Master has distinctly forbidden? But nothing more than this can be said of the apostles, who had no other end in view, in removing grounds of offence, than to enforce the divine Law, which prohibits offence; as if they had said, The Lord has commanded you not to hurt a weak brother; but meats offered to idols, things strangled, and blood, ye cannot eat, without offending weak brethren; we, therefore, require you, in the word of the Lord, not to eat with offence. And to prove that the apostles had respect to this, the best witness is Paul, who writes as follows, undoubtedly according to the sentiments of the council: “As concerning, therefore, the eating of those things which are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one."—"Howbeit, there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled."—"But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to them that are weak” (1 Cor. 8: 4-9.) Any one who duly considers these things will not be imposed upon by the gloss which these men employ when, as a cloak to their tyranny, they pretend that the apostles had begun by their decree to infringe the liberty of the Church.

But that they may be unable to escape without confessing the accuracy of this explanation, let them tell me by what authority they have dared to abrogate this very decree. It was, it seems, because there was no longer any danger of those offences and dissensions which the apostles wished to obviate, and they knew that the law was to be judged by its end. Seeing, therefore, the law was passed with a view to charity, there is nothing prescribed in it except in so far as required by charity. In confessing that the transgression of this law is nothing but a violation of charity, do they not at the same time acknowledge that it was not some adventitious supplement to the law of God, but a genuine and simple adaptation of it to the times and manners for which it was destined?

(Traditions and human inventions in worship condemned in Scripture and by Christ himself, 23-26)

23. The appeal to the authority of the church contradicts the evidence of Scripture

But though such laws are hundreds of times unjust and injurious to us, still they contend that they are to be heard without exception; for the thing asked of us is not to consent to errors, but only to submit to the strict commands of those set over us,—commands which we are not at liberty to decline, (1 Pet. 2: 18.)

But here also the Lord comes to the succour of his word, and frees us from this bondage by asserting the liberty which he has purchased for us by his sacred blood, and the benefit of which he has more than once attested by his word. For the thing required of us is not (as they maliciously pretence) to endure some grievous oppression in our body, but to be tortured in our consciences, and brought into bondage: in other words, robbed of the benefits of Christ’s blood.

Let us omit this, however, as if it were irrelevant to the point. Do we think it a small matter that the Lord is deprived of his kingdom which he so strictly claims for himself? Now he is deprived of it as often as he is worshipped with laws of human invention, since his will is to be sole legislator of his worship. And lest any one should consider this as of small moment, let us hear how the Lord himself estimates it. “Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among the people, even a marvellous work and a wonder; for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid,” (Isaiah 29: 13, 14.) And in another place, “But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men,” (Matth. 15: 9.) And, indeed, when the children of Israel polluted themselves with manifold idolatries, the cause of the whole evil is ascribed to that impure mixture caused by their disregarding the commandments of God, and framing new modes of worship. Accordingly, sacred history relates that the new inhabitants who had been brought by the king of Assyria from Babylon to inhabit Samaria, were torn and destroyed by wild beasts, because they knew not the judgement or statutes of the God of that land, (2 Kings 17: 24-34.) Though they had done nothing wrong in ceremonies, still their empty show could not have been approved by God. Meanwhile he ceased not to punish them for the violation of his worship by the introduction of fictions alien from his word. Hence it is afterwards said that terrified by the punishments they adopted the rites prescribed in the Law; but as they did not yet worship God purely, it is twice repeated that they feared him and feared not. Hence we infer that part of the reverence due to him consists in worshipping him simply in the way which he commands, without mingling any inventions of our own. And, accordingly, pious princes are repeatedly praised (2 Kings 22: l, &c.) for acting according to all his precepts, and not declining either to the right hand or the left. I go further: although there be no open manifestation of impiety in fictitious worship, it is strictly condemned by the Spirit, inasmuch as it is a departure from the command of God. The altar of Ahab, a model of which had been brought from Damascus, (2 Kings 16: 10,) might have seemed to give additional ornament to the temple, seeing it was his intention there to offer sacrifices to God only, and to do it more splendidly than at the first ancient altar; yet we see how the Spirit detests the audacious attempt, for no other reason but because human inventions are in the worship of God impure corruptions. And the more clearly the will of God has been manifested to us, the less excusable is our petulance in attempting anything. Accordingly, the guilt of Manasseh is aggravated by the circumstance of having erected a new altar at Jerusalem, of which the Lord said, “In Jerusalem will I put my name,” (2 Kings 21: 3, 4,) because the authority of God was thereby professedly rejected.

24. Perverse worship an abomination to God

Many wonder why God threatens so sternly that he will bring astonishment on the people who worship him with the commandments of men, and declares that it is in vain to worship him with the commandments, of men. But if they would consider what it is in the matter of religion, that is, of heavenly wisdom, to depend on God alone, they would, at the same time, see that it is not on slight grounds the Lord abominates perverse service of this description, which is offered him at the caprice of the human will. For although there is some show of humility in the obedience of those who obey such laws in worshipping God, yet they are by no means humble, since they prescribe to him the very laws which they observe. This is the reason why Paul would have us so carefully to beware of being deceived by the traditions of men, and what is called “ethelothreskeia”, that is, voluntary worship, worship devised by men without sanction from God. Thus it is, indeed: we must be fools in regard to our own wisdom, and all the wisdom of men, in order that we may allow him alone to be wise. This course is by no means observed by those who seek to approve themselves to him by paltry observances of man’s devising, and, as it were, against his will, obtrude upon him a prevaricating obedience which is yielded to men. This is the course which has been pursued for several ages and within our own recollection, and is still pursued in the present day in those places in which the power of the creature is more than that of the Creator, where religion (if religion it deserves to be called) is polluted with more numerous and more absurd superstitions, than ever Paganism was. For what could human sense produce but things carnal and fatuous, and savouring of their authors?

25. Refutation to Romanist counterevidence

When the patrons of superstition cloak them, by pretending that Samuel sacrificed in Ramath, and though he did so contrary to the Law, yet pleased God, (1 Sam. 7: 17,) it is easy to answer, that he did not set up any second altar in opposition to the only true one; but, as the place for the Ark of the Covenant had not been fixed, he sacrificed in the town where he dwelt, as being the most convenient. It certainly never was the intention of the holy prophet to make any innovation in sacred things, in regard to which the Lord had so strictly forbidden addition or diminution. The case of Manoah I consider to have been extraordinary and special. He, though a private man, offered sacrifice to God, and did it not without approbation, because he did it not from a rash movement of his own mind, but by divine inspiration, (Judges 13: 19.) How much God abominates all the devices of men in his worship, we have a striking proof in the case of one not inferior to Manoah, viz., Gideon, whose ephod brought ruin not only on himself and his family, but on the whole people, (Judges 8: 27.) In short, every adventitious invention, by which men desire to worship God, is nothing else than a pollution of true holiness.

26. Christ’s warning against the leaven of the Pharisees

Why, then, they ask, did Christ say that the intolerable burdens, imposed by Scribes and Pharisees, were to be borne? (Matth. 23: 3.) Nay, rather, why did he say in another place that we were to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees? (Matth. 16: 6,) meaning by leaven, as the Evangelist Matthew explains it, whatever of human doctrine is mingled with the pure word of God. What can be plainer than that we are enjoined to shun and beware of their whole doctrine? From this it is most certain, that in the other passage our Lord never meant that the consciences of his people were to be harassed by the mere traditions of the Pharisees. And the word themselves, unless when wrested, have no such meaning. Our Lord, indeed, beginning to inveigh against the manners of the Pharisees, first instructs his hearers simply, that though they saw nothing to follow in the lives of the Pharisees, they should not, however, cease to do what they verbally taught when they sat in the seat of Moses, that is, to expound the Law. All he meant therefore was to guard the common people against being led by the bad example of their teachers to despise doctrine. But as some are not at all moved by reason, and always require authority, I will quote a passage from Augustine, in which the very same thing is expressed. “The Lord’s sheep fold has persons set over it, of whom some are faithful, others hirelings. Those who are faithful are true shepherds; learn, however, that hirelings also are necessary. For many in the Church, pursuing temporal advantages, preach Christ, and the voice of Christ is heard by them, and the sheep follow not a hireling, but the shepherd by means of a hireling. Learn that hirelings were pointed out by the Lord himself. The Scribes and Pharisees, says he, sit in Moses’ seat, what they tell you, do, but what they do, do ye not. What is this but to say, Hear the voice of the shepherd by means of hirelings? Sitting in the chair, they teach the Law of God, and therefore God teaches by them; but if they choose to teach their own, hear not, do not.” Thus far Augustine. (August. in Joann. Tract. 46.)

(Right ordering of church government and worship: decency, love, and a free conscience, 27-32)

27. Necessity of church constitutions

But as very many ignorant persons, on hearing that it is impious to bind the conscience, and vain to worship God with human traditions, apply one blot to all the laws by which the order of the Church is established, it will be proper to obviate their error. Here, indeed, the danger of mistake is great: for it is not easy to see at first sight how widely the two things differ. But I will, in a few words, make the matter so clear, that no one will be imposed upon by the resemblance.

First, then, let us understand, that if in every human society some kind of government is necessary to ensure the common peace and maintain concord, if in transacting business some form must always be observed, which public decency, and hence humanity itself, require us not to disregard, this ought especially to be observed in churches which are best sustained by a constitution in all respects well ordered, and without which concord can have no existence. Wherefore, if we would provide for the safety of the Church, we must always carefully attend to Paul’s injunction, that all things be done decently and in order, (1 Cor. 14: 40.)

But seeing there is such diversity in the manners of men, such variety in their minds, such repugnance in their judgements and dispositions, no policy is sufficiently firm unless fortified by certain laws, nor can any rite be observed without a fixed form. So far, therefore, are we from condemning the laws which conduce to this, that we hold that the removal of them would unnerve the Church, deface and dissipate it entirely. For Paul’s injunction, that all things be done decently and in order, cannot be observed unless order and decency be secured by the addition of ordinances, as a kind of bonds.

In these ordinances, however, we must always attend to the exception, that they must not be thought necessary to salvation, nor lay the conscience under a religion obligation; they must not be compared to the worship of God, nor substituted for piety.

28. The problem of right church constitutions

We have, therefore, a most excellent and sure mark to distinguish between those impious constitutions (by which as we have said, true religion is overthrown, and conscience subverted) and the legitimate observances of the Church, if we remember that one of two things, or both together, are always intended, viz., that in the sacred assembly of the faithful, all things may be done decently, and with becoming dignity, and that human society may be maintained in order by certain bonds, as it were, of moderation and humanity. For when a law is understood to have been made for the sake of public decency, there is no room for the superstition into which those fall who measure the worship of God by human inventions. On the other hand, when a law is known to be intended for common use, that false idea of its obligation and necessity, which gives great alarm to the conscience, when traditions are deemed necessary to salvation, is overthrown; since nothing here is sought but the maintenance of charity by a common office.

But it may be proper to explain more clearly what is meant by the decency which Paul commends, and also what is comprehended under order (I Cor. 14:40).

And the object of decency is, partly that by the use of rites which produce reverence in sacred matters, we may be excited to piety, and partly that the modesty and gravity which ought to be seen in all honourable actions may here especially be conspicuous. In order, the first thing is, that those who preside know the law and rule of right government, while those who are governed be accustomed to obedience and right discipline. The second thing is, that by duly arranging the state of the Church, provision be made for peace and tranquillity.

29. True decorum in worship, not theatrical show

We shall not, therefore, give the name of decency to that which only ministers an empty pleasure; such, for example, as is seen in that theatrical display which the Papists exhibit in their public service, where nothing appears but a mask of useless splendour, and luxury without any fruit. But we give the name of decency to that which, suited to the reverence of sacred mysteries, forms a fit exercise for piety, or at least gives an ornament adapted to the action, and is not without fruit, but reminds believers of the great modesty, seriousness, and reverence, with which sacred things ought to be treated. Moreover ceremonies, in order to be exercises of piety, must lead us directly to Christ.

In like manner, we shall not make order consist in that nugatory pomp, which gives nothing but evanescent splendour, but in that arrangement which removes all confusion, barbarism, contumacy, all turbulence and dissension.

Of the former class we have examples, (1 Cor. 11: 5, 21,) where Paul says that profane entertainments must not be intermingled with the sacred Supper of the Lord; that women must not appear in public uncovered. And there are many other things which we have in daily practice, such as praying on our knees and with our head uncovered, administering the sacraments of the Lord, not sordidly, but with some degree of dignity; employing some degree of solemnity in the burial of our dead, and so forth. In the other class are the hours set apart for public prayer, sermons and solemn services; during sermon, quiet and silence, fixed places, singing of hymns, days set apart for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, the prohibition of Paul against women teaching in the Church, and such like. To the same list especially may be referred those things which preserve discipline, as catechising, ecclesiastical censures, excommunication, fastings, &c.

Thus all ecclesiastical constitutions, which we admit to be sacred and salutary, may be reduced to two heads, the one relating to rites and ceremonies, the other to discipline and peace.

30. Bondage and freedom of church constitutions

But as there is here a danger, on the one hand, lest false bishops should thence derive a pretext for their impious and tyrannical laws, and, on the other, lest some, too apt to take alarm, should, from fear of the above evils, leave no place for laws, however holy, it may here be proper to declare, that I approve of those human constitutions only which are founded on the authority of God, and derived from Scripture, and are therefore altogether divine.

Let us take, for example, the bending of the knee which is made in public prayer. It is asked, whether this is a human tradition, which any one is at liberty to repudiate or neglect? I say, that it is human, and that at the same time it is divine. It is of God, inasmuch as it is a part of that decency, the care and observance of which is recommended by the apostle; and it is of men, inasmuch as it specially determines what was indicated in general, rather than expounded.

From this one example, we may judge what is to be thought of the whole class, viz., that the whole sum of righteousness, and all the parts of divine worship, and everything necessary to salvation, the Lord has faithfully comprehended, and clearly unfolded, in his sacred oracles, so that in them he alone is the only Master to be heard. But as in external discipline and ceremonies, he has not been pleased to prescribe every particular that we ought to observe, (he foresaw that this depended on the nature of the times, and that one form would not suit all ages,) in them we must have recourse to the general rules which he has given, employing them to test whatever the necessity of the Church may require to be enjoined for order and decency. Lastly, as he has not delivered any express command, because things of this nature are not necessary to salvation, and, for the edification of the Church, should be accommodated to the varying circumstances of each age and nation, it will be proper, as the interest of the Church may require, to change and abrogate the old, as well as to introduce new forms. I confess, indeed, that we are not to innovate rashly or incessantly, or for trivial causes. Charity is the best judge of what tends to hurt or to edify: if we allow her to be guide, all things will be safe.

31. Bondage and freedom over against church constitutions

Things which have been appointed according to this rule, it is the duty of the Christian people to observe with a free conscience indeed, and without superstition, but also with a pious and ready inclination to obey. They are not to hold them in contempt, nor pass them by with careless indifference, far less openly to violate them in pride and contumacy.

You will ask, What liberty of conscience will there be in such cautious observances? Nay, this liberty will admirably appear when we shall hold that these are not fixed and perpetual obligations to which we are astricted, but external rudiments for human infirmity which, though we do not all need, we, however all use, because we are bound to cherish mutual charity towards each other. This we may recognise in the examples given above. What? Is religion placed in a woman’s bonnet, so that it is unlawful for her to go out with her head uncovered? Is her silence fixed by a decree which cannot be violated without the greatest wickedness? Is there any mystery in bending the knee, or in burying a dead body, which cannot be omitted without a crime? By no means. For should a woman require to make such haste in assisting a neighbour that she has not time to cover her head, she sins not in running out with her head uncovered. And there are some occasions on which it is not less seasonable for her to speak than on others to be silent. Nothing, moreover, forbids him who, from disease, cannot bend his knees to pray standing. In fine, it is better to bury a dead man quickly, than from want of grave-clothes, or the absence of those who should attend the funeral, to wait till it rot away unburied. Nevertheless, in those matters the custom and institutions of the country, in short, humanity and the rules of modesty itself, declare what is to be done or avoided. Here, if any error is committed through imprudence or forgetfulness, no crime is perpetrated; but if this is done from contempt, such contumacy must be disapproved. In like manner, it is of no consequence what the days and hours are, what the nature of the edifices, and what psalms are sung on each day. But it is proper that there should be certain days and stated hours, and a place fit for receiving all, if any regard is had to the preservation of peace. For what a seed-bed of quarrels will confusion in such matters be, if every one is allowed at pleasure to alter what pertains to common order? All will not be satisfied with the same course if matters, placed as it were on debatable ground, are left to the determination of individuals. But if any one here becomes clamorous, and would be wiser than he ought, let him consider how he will approve his moroseness to the Lord. Paul’s answer ought to satisfy us, “If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God."(I Cor. 11:16).

32. Observances should be few and edifying

Moreover, we must use the utmost diligence to prevent any error from creeping in which may either taint or sully this pure use. In this we shall succeed, if whatever observances we use are manifestly useful, and very few in number; especially if to this is added the teaching of a faithful pastor, which may prevent access to erroneous opinions. The effect of this procedure is, that in all these matters each retains his freedom, and yet at the same time voluntarily subjects it to a kind of necessity, in so far as the decency of which we have spoken or charity demands. Next, that in the observance of these things we may not fall into any superstition, nor rigidly require too much from others, let us not imagine that the worship of God is improved by a multitude of ceremonies: let not church despise church because of a difference in external discipline. Lastly, instead of here laying down any perpetual law for ourselves, let us refer the whole end and use of observances to the edification of the Church, at whose request let us without offence allow not only something to be changed, but even observances which were formerly in use to be inverted. For the present age is a proof that the nature of times allows that certain rites, not otherwise impious or unbecoming, may be abrogated according to circumstances. Such was the ignorance and blindness of former times, with such erroneous ideas and pertinacious zeal did churches formerly cling to ceremonies, that they can scarcely be purified from monstrous superstitions without the removal of many ceremonies which were formerly established, not without cause, and which in themselves are not chargeable with any impiety.

CHAPTER 11. OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE CHURCH AND THE ABUSES OF IT, AS EXEMPLIFIED IN THE PAPACY.

This chapter may be conveniently comprehended under two heads,-

I. Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, its necessity, origin, description, and essential parts, viz., the sacred ministry of the word, and discipline of excommunication, of which the aim, use, and abuse, are explained, sec. 1-8.

II. Refutation of the arguments advanced by Papists in defence of the tyranny of Pontiffs, the right of both swords, imperial pomp and dignity, foreign jurisdiction, and immunity from civil jurisdiction, sec. 9-16.

Sections.

1. The power of the Church in regard to jurisdiction. The necessity, origin, and nature of this jurisdiction. The power of the keys to be considered in two points of view. The first view expounded.

2. Second view expounded. How the Church binds and looses in the way of discipline. Abuse of the keys in the Papacy.

3. The discipline of excommunication of perpetual endurance. Distinction between civil and ecclesiastical power.

4. The perpetual endurance of the discipline of excommunication confirmed. Duly ordered under the Emperors and Christian magistrates.

5. The aim and use of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the primitive Church. Spiritual power was kept entirely distinct from the power of the sword.

6. Spiritual power was not administered by one individual, but by a lawful consistory. Gradual change. First, the clergy alone interfered in the judicial proceedings of the Church. The bishop afterwards appropriated them to himself.

7. The bishops afterwards transferred the rights thus appropriated to their officials, and converted spiritual jurisdiction into a profane tribunal.

8. Recapitulation. The Papal power confuted. Christ wished to debar the ministers of the word from civil rule and worldly power.

9. Objections of the Papists.

1. By this external splendour the glory of Christ is displayed.

2. It does not interfere with the duties of their calling. Both objections answered.

10. The commencement and gradual progress Of the Papistical tyranny. Causes:

1. Curiosity;

2. Ambition;

3. Violence;

4. Hypocrisy;

5. Impiety.

11. Last cause, the mystery of iniquity and the Satanic fury of Antichrist usurping worldly dominion. The Pope claims both swords.

12. The pretended donation of Constantine. Its futility exposed.

13. When, and by what means, the Roman Pontiffs attained to imperial dignity. Hildebrand its founder.

14. By what acts they seized on Rome and other territories. Disgraceful rapacity.

15. Claim of immunity from civil jurisdiction. Contrast between this pretended immunity and the moderation of the early bishops.

16. What end the early bishops aimed at in steadfastly resisting civil encroachment.

(Jurisdiction and discipline: the power of the keys and the civil magistracy, 1-5)

1. The basis of church jurisdiction in the power of the keys

It remains to consider the third, and, indeed, when matters are well arranged, the principal part of ecclesiastical power, which, as we have said consists in jurisdiction. Now, the whole jurisdiction of the Church relates to discipline, of which we are shortly to treat. For as no city or village can exist without a magistrate and government, so the Church of Gods as I have already taught, but am again obliged to repeat, needs a kind of spiritual government. This is altogether distinct from civil government, and is so far from impeding or impairing it, that it rather does much to aid and promote it. Therefore, this power of jurisdiction is, in one word, nothing but the order provided for the preservation of spiritual polity.

To this end, there were established in the Church from the firsts tribunals which might take cognisance of morals, animadvert on vices, and exercise the office of the keys. This order is mentioned by Paul in the First Epistle to the Corinthians under the name of governments, (1 Cor. 12: 28;) in like manner, in the Epistle to the Romans, when he says, “He that ruleth, with diligence,” (Rom. 12: 8.) For he is not addressing magistrates, none of whom were then Christians, but those who were joined with pastors in the spiritual government of the Church. In the Epistle to Timothy, also, he mentions two kinds of presbyters, some who labour in the word, and others who do not perform the office of preaching, but rule well, (1 Tim. 5: 17.) By this latter class there is no doubt he means those who were appointed to the inspection of manners, and the whole use of the keys. For the power of which we speak wholly depends on the keys which Christ bestowed on the Church in the eighteenth chapter of Matthew, where he orders that those who despise private admonition should be sharply rebuked in public, and if they persist in their contumacy, be expelled from the society of believers. Moreover, those admonitions and corrections cannot be made without investigation, and hence the necessity of some judicial procedure and order. Wherefore, if we would not make void the promise of the keys, and abolish altogether excommunication, solemn admonitions, and everything of that description, we must, of necessity, give some jurisdiction to the Church. Let the reader observe that we are not here treating of the general authority of doctrine, as in Matt. 16:19 and John 20:23, but maintaining that the right of the Sanhedrin is transferred to the fold of Christ. Till that time, the power of government had belonged to the Jews. This Christ establishes in his Church, in as far as it was a pure institution, and with a heavy sanction. Thus it behaved to be, since the judgement of a poor and despised Church might otherwise be spurned by rash and haughty men.

And lest it occasion any difficulty to the reader, that Christ in the same words makes a considerable difference between the two things, it will here be proper to explain. There are two passages which speak of binding and loosing. The one is Matth. 16, where Christ, after promising that he will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter, immediately adds, “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,” (Matth. 16: 19.) These words have the very same meaning as those in the Gospel of John, where, being about to send forth the disciples to preach, after breathing on them, he says, “Whose soever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain they are retained,” (John 20: 23.) I will give an interpretation, not subtle, not forced, not wrested, but genuine, natural, and obvious. This command concerning remitting and retaining sins, and that promise made to Peter concerning binding and loosing, ought to be referred to nothing but the ministry of the word. When the Lord committed it to the apostles, he, at the same time, provided them with this power of binding and loosing. For what is the sum of the gospel, but just that all being the slaves of sin and death, are loosed and set free by the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, while those who do not receive and acknowledge Christ as a deliverer and redeemer are condemned and doomed to eternal chains? When the Lord delivered this message to his apostles, to be carried by them into all nations in order to prove that it was his own message, and proceeded from him, he honoured it with this distinguished testimony, and that as an admirable confirmation both to the apostles themselves, and to all those to whom it was to come. It was of importance that the apostles should have a constant and complete assurance of their preaching, which they were not only to exercise with infinite labour, anxiety, molestation, and peril, but ultimately to seal with their blood. That they might know that it was not vain or void, but full of power and efficacy it was at importance, I say, that amidst all their anxieties, dangers, and difficulties, they might feel persuaded that they were doing the work of God; that though the whole world withstood and opposed them, they might know that God was for them; that not having Christ the author of their doctrine bodily present on the earth, they might understand that he was in heaven to confirm the truth of the doctrine which he had delivered to them. On the other hand, it was necessary that their hearers should be most certainly assured that the doctrine of the gospel was not the word of the apostles, but of God himself; not a voice rising from the earth, but descending from heaven. For such things as the forgiveness of sins, the promise of eternal life, and message of salvation, cannot be in the power of man. Christ therefore testified, that in the preaching of the gospel the apostles only acted ministerially; that it was he who, by their mouths as organs, spoke and promised all; that, therefore, the forgiveness of sins which they announced was the true promise of God; the condemnation which they pronounced, the certain judgement of God. This attestation was given to all ages, and remains firm, rendering all certain and secure, that the word of the gospel, by whomsoever it may be preached, is the very word of God, promulgated at the supreme tribunals written in the book of life, ratified firm and fixed in heaven. We now understand that the power of the keys is simply the preaching of the gospel in those places and in so far as men are concerned, it is not so much power as ministry. Properly speaking, Christ did not give this power to men but to his word, of which he made men the ministers.

2. The power of binding and loosing

The other passage, in which binding and loosing are mentioned, is in the eighteenth chapter of Matthew, where Christ says, “If he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Church: but if he neglect to hear the Church let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,” (Matth. 18: 17, 18.) This passage is not altogether similar to the former, but is to be understood somewhat differently. But in saying that they are different, I do not mean that there is not much affinity between them. First, they are similar in this, that they are both general statements, that there is always the same power of binding and loosing, (namely, by the word of God,) the same command, the same promise. They differ in this, that the former passage relates specially to the preaching which the ministers of the word perform, the latter relates to the discipline of excommunication which has been committed to the Church. Now, the Church binds him whom she excommunicates, not by plunging him into eternal ruin and despair, but condemning his life and manners, and admonishing him, that, unless he repent, he is condemned. She looses him whom she receives into communion, because she makes him, as it were, a partaker of the unity which she has in Christ Jesus. Let no one, therefore, contumaciously despise the judgement of the Church, or account it a small matter that he is condemned by the suffrages of the faithful. The Lord testifies that such judgement of the faithful is nothing else than the promulgation of his own sentence, and that what they do on earth is ratified in heaven. For they have the word of God by which they condemn the perverse: they have the word by which they take back the penitent into favour. Now, they cannot err nor disagree with the judgement of God, because they judge only according to the law of God, which is not an uncertain or worldly opinion, but the holy will of God, an oracle of heaven.

On these two passages, which I think I have briefly, as well as familiarly and truly expounded, these madmen, without any discrimination, as they are borne along by their spirit of giddiness, attempt to found at one time confession, at another excommunication, at another jurisdiction, at another the right of making laws, at another indulgences. The former passage they adduce for the purpose of rearing up the primacy of the Roman See. So well known are the keys to those who have thought proper to fit them with locks and doors, that you would say their whole life had been spent in the mechanic art.

3. Civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction

Some, in imagining that all these things were temporary, as magistrates were still strangers to our profession of religion, are led astray, by not observing the distinction and dissimilarity between ecclesiastical and civil power. For the Church has not the right of the sword to punish or restrain, has no power to coerce, no prison nor other punishments which the magistrate is wont to inflict. Then the object in view is not to punish the sinner against his will, but to obtain a profession of penitence by voluntary chastisement. The two things, therefore, are widely different, because neither does the Church assume anything to herself which is proper to the magistrate, nor is the magistrate competent to what is done by the Church. This will be made clearer by an example. Does any one get intoxicated? In a well ordered city his punishment will be imprisonment. Has he committed whoredom? The punishment will be similar, or rather more severe. Thus satisfaction will be given to the laws, the magistrates, and the external tribunals. But the consequence will be, that the offender will give no signs of repentance, but will rather fret and murmur. Will the Church not here interfere? Such persons cannot be admitted to the Lord’s Supper without doing injury to Christ and his sacred institution. Reason demands that he who, by a bad example, gives offence to the Church, shall remove the offence which he has caused by a formal declaration of repentance.

The reason adduced by those who take a contrary view is frigid. Christ, they say, gave this office to the Church when there were no magistrates to execute it. But it often happens that the magistrate is negligent, nay, sometimes himself requires to be chastised: as was the case with the Emperor Theodosius. Moreover, the same thing may be said regarding the whole ministry of the word. Now, therefore, according to that view, let pastors cease to censure manifest iniquities, let them cease to chide, accuse, and rebuke. For there are Christian magistrates who ought to correct these things by the laws and the sword. But as the magistrate ought to purge the Church of offences by corporal punishment and coercion, so the minister ought, in his turn, to assist the magistrate in diminishing the number of offenders. Thus they ought to combine their efforts, the one being not an impediment but a help to the other.

4. The church and the Christian magistrate

And, indeed, on attending more closely to the words of Christ, it will readily appear that the state and order of the Church there described is perpetual, not temporary. For it were incongruous that those who refuse to obey our admonitions should be transferred to the magistrate—a course, however, which would be necessary if he were to succeed to the place of the Church. Why should the promise, “Verily I say unto you, What thing soever ye shall bind on earth,” be limited to one, or to a few years? Moreover, Christ has here made no new enactment, but followed the custom always observed in the Church of his ancient people, thereby intimating, that the Church cannot dispense with the spiritual jurisdiction which existed from the beginning. This has been confirmed by the consent of all times. For when emperors and magistrates began to assume the Christian name, spiritual jurisdiction was not forthwith abolished, but was only so arranged as not in any respect to impair civil jurisdiction, or be confounded with it. And justly. For the magistrate, if he is pious, will have no wish to exempt himself from the common subjection of the children of God, not the least part of which is to subject himself to the Church, judging according to the word of God; so far is it from being his duty to abolish that judgement. For, as Ambrose says, “that more honourable title can an emperor have than to be called a son of the Church? A good emperor is within the Church, not above the Church,” (Ambrose. ad Valent. Ep. 32.) Those, therefore, who to adorn the magistrate strip the Church of this power, not only corrupt the sentiment of Christ by a false interpretation, but pass no light condemnation on the many holy bishops who have existed since the days of the apostles, for having on a false pretext usurped the honour and office of the civil magistrate.

5. The spiritual character of ecclesiastical jurisdiction

But, on the other hand, it will be proper to see what was anciently the true use of ecclesiastical discipline, and how great the abuses which crept in, that we may know what of ancient practice is to be abolished, and what restored, if we would, after overthrowing the kingdom of Antichrist, again set up the true kingdom of Christ.

First, the object in view is to prevent the occurrence of scandals, and when they arise, to remove them. In the use two things are to be considered: first, that this spiritual power be altogether distinct from the power of the sword; secondly, that it be not administered at the will of one individual, but by a lawful consistory, (1 Cor. 5: 4.) Both were observed in the purer times of the Church.

For holy bishops did not exercise their power by fine, imprisonment, or other civil penalties but as became them, employed the word of God only. For the severest punishment of the Church, and, as it were, her last thunderbolt, is excommunication, which is not used unless in necessity. This, moreover, requires neither violence nor physical force, but is contented with the might of the word of God. In short, the jurisdiction of the ancient Church was nothing else than (if I may so speak) a practical declaration of what Paul teaches concerning the spiritual power of pastors. “The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; and having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience,” (2 Cor. 10: 4-6.) As this is done by the preaching of doctrine, so in order that doctrine may not be held in derision, those who profess to be of the household of faith ought to be judged according to the doctrine which is taught. Now this cannot be done without connecting with the office of the ministry a right of summoning those who are to be privately admonished or sharply rebuked, a right, moreover, of keeping back from the communion of the Lord’s Supper, those who cannot be admitted without profaning this high ordinance. Hence, when Paul elsewhere asks “What have I to do to judge them also that are without?” (1 Cor. 5: 12,) he makes the members of the Church subject to censures for the correction of their vices, and intimates the existence of tribunals from which no believer is exempted.

(Abuses caused by the unwarranted assumption of power by the bishops, 6-10)

6. Administration of justice in the ancient church was not the function of an individual

This power, as we have already stated, did not belong to an individual who could exercise it as he pleased, but belonged to the consistory of elders, which was in the Church what a council is in a city. Cyprian, when mentioning those by whom it was exercised in his time, usually associates the whole clergy with the bishop, (Cyprian, Lib. 3 Ep. 14, l9.) In another place, he shows that though the clergy presided, the people, at the same time, were not excluded from cognisance: for he thus writes:—"From the commencement of my bishopric, I determined to do nothing without the advice of the clergy, nothing without the consent of the people.” But the common and usual method of exercising this jurisdiction was by the council of presbyters, of whom, as I have said, there were two classes. Some were for teaching, others were only censors of manners. This institution gradually degenerated from its primitive form, so that, in the time of Ambrose, the clergy alone had cognisance of ecclesiastical causes. Of this he complains in the following terms: - “The ancient synagogue, and afterwards the Church, had elders, without whose advice nothing was done: this has grown obsolete, by whose fault I know not, unless it be by the sloth, or rather the pride, of teachers, who would have it seem that they only are somewhat,” (Ambrose. in 1 Tim. 5) We see how indignant this holy man was because the better state was in some degree impaired, and yet the order which then existed was at least tolerable. What, then, had he seen those shapeless ruins which exhibit no trace of the ancient edifice? How would he have lamented? First, contrary to what was right and lawful, the bishop appropriated to himself what was given to the whole Church. For this is just as if the consul had expelled the senate, and usurped the whole empire. For as he is superior in rank to the others, so the authority of the consistory is greater than that of one individual. It was, therefore, a gross iniquity, when one man, transferring the common power to himself, paved the way for tyrannical license, robbed the Church of what was its own, suppressed and discarded the consistory ordained by the Spirit of Christ.

7. Deterioration of jurisdiction and discipline

But as evil always produces evil, the bishops, disdaining this jurisdiction as a thing unworthy of their care, devolved it on others. Hence the appointment of officials to supply their place. I am not now speaking of the character of this class of persons; all I say is, that they differ in no respect from civil judges. And yet they call it spiritual jurisdiction, though all the litigation relates to worldly affairs. Were there no other evil in this, how can they presume to call a litigious forum a church court?

But there are admonitions; there is excommunication. This is the way in which God is mocked. Does some poor man owe a sum of money? He is summoned: if he appears, he is found liable; when found liable if he pays not, he is admonished. After the second admonition, the next step is excommunication. If he appears not, he is admonished to appear; if he delays, he is admonished, and by and by excommunicated. I ask, is there any resemblance whatever between this and the institution of Christ, or ancient custom or ecclesiastical procedure?

But there, too, vices are censured. Whoredom, lasciviousness, drunkenness, and similar iniquities, they not only tolerate, but by a kind of tacit approbation encourage and confirm, and that not among the people only, but also among the clergy. Out of many they summon a few either that they may not seem to wink too strongly or that they may mulct them in money. I say nothing of the plunder, rapine, peculation, and sacrilege, which are there committed. I say nothing of the kind of persons who are for the most part appointed to the office. It is enough, and more than enough that when the Romanists boast of their spiritual jurisdiction, we are ready to show that nothing is more contrary to the procedure instituted by Christ, that it has no more resemblance to ancient practice than darkness has to light.

8. The worldly power of the bishops contradicts the meaning of this office

Although we have not said all that might here be adduced, and even what has been said is only briefly glanced at, enough, I trust, has been said to leave no man in doubt that the spiritual power on which the Pope plumes himself, with all his adherents, is impious contradiction of the word of God, and unjust tyranny against his people. Under the name of spiritual power, I include both their audacity in framing new doctrines, by which they led the miserable people away from the genuine purity of the word of God, the iniquitous traditions by which they ensnared them, and the pseudo ecclesiastical jurisdiction which they exercise by suffragans and officials. For if we allow Christ to reign amongst us, the whole of that domination cannot but immediately tumble and fall.

The right of the sword which they also claim for themselves, not being exercised against consciences, does not fall to be considered in this place. Here, however, it is worth while to observe, that they are always like themselves, there being nothing which they less resemble than that which they would be thought to be, viz., pastors of the Church.

I speak not of the vices of particular men, but of the common wickedness, and, consequently, the pestiferous nature of the whole order, which is thought to be mutilated, if not distinguished by wealth and haughty titles. If in this matter we seek the authority of Christ, there can be no doubt that he intended to debar the ministers of his word from civil domination and worldly power when he said, “The princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you,” (Matt. 20: 25, 26.) For he intimates not only that the office of pastor is distinct from the office of prince, but that the things differ so widely that they cannot be united in the same individual.

Moses indeed held both, (Exod. 18: 16;) but, first, this was the effect of a rare miracle; and, secondly, it was temporary, until matters should be better arranged. For when a certain form is prescribed by the Lord, the civil government is left to Moses, and he is ordered to resign the priesthood to his brother. And justly; for it is more than nature can do, for one man to bear both burdens.

This has in all ages been carefully observed in the Church. Never did any bishop, so long as any true appearance of a church remained, think of usurping the right of the sword: so that, in the age of Ambrose it was a common proverb, that emperors longed more for the priesthood than priests for imperial power. For the expression which he afterwards adds was fixed in all minds, Palaces belong to the emperor, churches to the priest.

9. Assumption of princely powers by the bishops

But after a method was devised by which bishops might hold the title, honour, and wealth of their office without burden and solicitude, that they might be left altogether idle, the right of the sword was given them, or rather, they themselves usurped it. With what pretext will they defend this effrontery? Was it the part of bishops to entangle themselves with the cognisance of causes, and the administration of states and provinces, and embrace occupations so very alien to them—of bishops, who require so much time and labour in their own office, that though they devote themselves to it diligently and entirely, without distraction from other avocations, they are scarcely sufficient?

But such is their perverseness, that they hesitate not to boast that in this way the dignity of Christ’s kingdom is duly maintained, and they, at the same time, are not withdrawn from their own vocation.

In regard to the former allegation, if it is a comely ornament of the sacred office, that those holding it be so elevated as to become formidable to the greatest monarchs, they have ground to expostulate with Christ, who in this respect has grievously curtailed their honour. For what, according to their view, can be more insulting than these words, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise authority over them?” “But ye shall not be so,” (Luke 22: 25, 26.) And yet he imposes no harder law on his servants than he had previously laid on himself. “Who,” says he, “made me a judge or divider over you?” (Luke 12: 14.) We see that he unreservedly refuses the office of judging; and this he would not have done if the thing had been in accordance with his office. To the subordination to which the Lord thus reduced himself will his servants not submit?

The other point I wish they would prove by experience as easily as they allege it. But as it seemed to the apostles not good to leave the word of God and serve tables, so these men are thereby forced to admit, though they are unwilling to be taught that it is not possible for the same person to be a good bishop and a good prince. For if those who, in respect of the largeness of the gifts with which they were endued, were able for much more numerous and weighty cares than any who have come after them, confessed that they could not serve the ministry of the word and of tables, without giving way under the burden, how are these, who are no men at all when compared with the apostles possibly to surpass them a hundred times in diligence? The very attempt is most impudent and audacious presumption. Still we see the thing done; with what success is plain. The result could not but be that they have deserted their own functions, and removed to another camp.

10. How has this worldly power of the bishop come about?

There can be no doubt that this great progress has been made from slender beginnings. They could not reach so far at one step, but at one time by craft and wily art, secretly raised themselves before any one foresaw what was to happen; at another time, when occasion offered by means of threats and terror, extorted some increase of power from princes; at another time, when they saw princes disposed to give liberally, they abused their foolish and inconsiderate facility.

The godly in ancient times, when any dispute arose, in order to escape the necessity of a lawsuit, left the decision to the bishop, because they had no doubt of his integrity. The ancient bishops were often greatly dissatisfied at being entangled in such matters, as Augustine somewhere declares; but lest the parties should rush to some contentious tribunal, unwillingly submitted to the annoyance. These voluntary decisions, which altogether differed from forensic strife, these men have converted into ordinary jurisdiction.

As cities and districts, when for some time pressed with various difficulties, retook themselves to the patronage of the bishops, and threw themselves on their protection, these men have, by a strange artifice, out of patrons made themselves masters.

That they have seized a good part by the violence of faction cannot be denied. The princes, again, who spontaneously conferred jurisdiction on bishops, were induced to it by various causes. Though their indulgence had some appearance of piety they did not by this preposterous liberality consult in the best manner for the interests of the Church, whose ancient and true discipline they thus corrupted, nay, to tell the truth, completely abolished. Those bishops who abused the goodness of princes to their own advantage, gave more than sufficient proof by this one specimen of their conduct, that they were not at all true bishops. Had they had one spark of the apostolic spirit, they would doubtless have answered in the words of Paul, “The weapons of our warfare are not carnal,” but spiritual, (2 Cor. 10: 4.) But hurried away by blind cupidity, they lost themselves and posterity, and the Church.

(Inordinate and fraudulent claims of the papacy and its usurpation of worldly powers, 11-16)

11. The origin of papal world supremacy

At length the Roman Pontiff, not content with moderate districts, laid hands first on kingdoms, and thereafter on empire. And that he may on some pretext or other retain possession, secured by mere robbery, he boasts at one time that he holds it by divine right, at another, he pretends a donation from Constantine, at another, some different title. First, I answer with Bernard, “Be it that on some ground or other he can claim it, it is not by apostolic right. For Peter could not give what he had not, but what he had he gave to his successors, viz., care of the churches. But when our Lord and Master says that he was not appointed a judge between two, the servant and disciple ought not to think it unbecoming not to be judge of all,” (Bernard. de Considerat. Lib. 2.) Bernard is speaking of civil judgements for he adds, “Your power then is in sins, not in rights of property, since for the former and not the latter you received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Which of the two seems to you the higher dignity, the forgiving of sins or the dividing of lands? There is no comparison. These low earthly things have for their judges the kings and princes of the earth. Why do you invade the territories of others?” &c. Again, “You are made superior,” (he is addressing Pope Eugenius,) “for what? not to domineer, I presume. Let us therefore remember, however highly we think of ourselves, that a ministry is laid upon us, not a dominion given to us. Learn that you have need of a slender rod, not of a sceptre, to do the work of a prophet.” Again, “It is plain that the apostles are prohibited to exercise dominion. Go you, therefore, and dare to usurp for yourself, either apostleship with dominion, or dominion with apostleship.” Immediately after he says, “The apostolic form is this; dominion is interdicted, ministry is enjoined.” Though Bernard speaks thus, and so speaks as to make it manifest to all that he speaks truth, nay, though without a word the thing itself is manifest, the Roman Pontiff was not ashamed at the Council of Arles to decree that the supreme right of both swords belonged to him of divine right.

12. The Donation of Constantine fraudulent and absurd

As far as pertains to the donation of Constantine, those who are moderately verdant in the history of the time have no need of being told, that the claim is not only fabulous but also absurd. But to say nothing of history, Gregory alone is a fit and most complete witness to this effect. For wherever he speaks of the emperor he calls him His Most Serene Lord, and himself his unworthy servant. Again, in another passage he says, “Let not our Lord in respect of worldly power be too soon offended with priests, but with excellent consideration, on account of him whose servants they are, let him while ruling them also pay them due reverence.” We see how in a common subjection he desires to be accounted one of the people. For he there pleads not another’s but his own cause. Again, “I trust in Almighty God that he will give long life to pious rulers, and place us under your hand according to his mercy.” I have not adduced these things here from any intention thoroughly to discuss the question of Constantine’s donation, but only to show my readers by the way, how childishly the Romanists tell lies when they attempt to claim an earthly empire for their Pontiff.

The more vile the impudence of Augustine Steuchus, who, in so desperate a cause, presumed to lend his labour and his tongue to the Roman Pontiff. Valla, as was easy for a man of learning and acuteness to do, had completely refuted this fable. And yet as he was little verdant in ecclesiastical affairs he had not said all that was relevant to the subject. Steuchus breaks in, and scatters his worthless quibbles, trying to bury the clear light. And certainly he pleads the cause of his master not less frigidly than some wit might, under pretence of defending the same view, support that of Valla. But the cause is a worthy one which the Pope may well hire such patrons to defend; equally worthy are the hired ravers whom the hope of gain may deceive, as was the case with Eugubinus.

13. The relationship of Henry IV and Hildebrand

Should any one ask at what period this fictitious empire began to emerge, five hundred years have not yet elapsed since the Roman Pontiffs were under subjection to the emperors, and no pontiff was elected without the emperor’s authority. An occasion of innovating on this order was given to Gregory VII by Henry IV, a giddy and rash man, of no prudence, great audacity, and a dissolute life. When he had the whole bishoprics of Germany in his court partly for sale, and partly exposed to plunder, Hildebrand, who had been provoked by him, seized the plausible pretext for asserting his claim. As his cause seemed good and pious, it was viewed with great favour, while Henry, on account of the insolence of his government, was generally hated by the princes. At length Hildebrand, who took the name of Gregory VII, an impure and wicked man, betrayed his sinister intentions. On this he was deserted by many who had joined him in his conspiracy. He gained this much, however, that his successors were not only able to shake off the yoke with impunity, but also to bring the emperors into subjection to them. Moreover, many of the subsequent emperors were liker Henry than Julius Caesar. These it was not difficult to overcome while they sat at home sluggish and secure, instead of vigorously exerting themselves, as was most necessary, by all legitimate means to repress the cupidity of the pontiffs. We see what colour there is for the grand donation of Constantine, by which the Pope pretends that the western empire was given to him.

14. Appropriations anathematized under Gregory the Great

Meanwhile the pontiff ceased note either by frauds or by perfidy, or by arms to invade the dominions of others. Rome itself, which was then free, they, about an hundred and thirty years ago, reduced under their power. At length, they obtained the dominion which they now possess, and to retain or increase which, now for two hundred years (they had begun before they usurped the dominion of the city,) they have so troubled the Christian world, that they have almost destroyed it.

Formerly, when in the time of Gregory, the guardians of ecclesiastical property seized upon lands which they considered to belong to the Church, and, after the manner of the exchequer, affixed their seals, in attestation of their claim, Gregory having assembled a council of bishops, and bitterly inveighed against that profane custom, asked whether they would not anathematise the churchman who, of his own accord, attempted to seize some possession by the inscription of a title, and in like manner, the bishop who should order it to be done, or not punish it when done without his order. All pronounced the anathema. If it is a crime deserving of anathema for a churchman to claim a property by the inscription of a title—then, now that for two hundred years, the pontiffs meditate nothing but war and bloodshed, the destruction of armies, the plunder of cities, the destruction or overthrow of nations, and the devastation of kingdoms, only that they may obtain possession of the property of others—what anathemas can sufficiently punish such conduct? Surely it is perfectly obvious that the very last thing they aim at is the glory of Christ. For were they spontaneously to resign every portion of secular power which they possess, no peril to the glory of God, no peril to sound doctrine, no peril to the safety of the Church ensues; but they are borne blind and headlong by a lust for power, thinking that nothing can be safe unless they rule, as the prophet says, “with force and with cruelty,” (Ezek. 34: 4.)

15. Immunities of the Roman clergy

To jurisdiction is annexed the immunity claimed by the Romish clergy. They deem it unworthy of them to answer before a civil judge in personal causes; and consider both the liberty and dignity of the Church to consist in exemption from ordinary tribunals and laws.

But the ancient bishops, who otherwise were most resolute in asserting the rights of the Church, did not think it any injury to themselves and their order to act as subjects. Pious emperors also, as often as there was occasion, summoned clergy to their tribunals, and met with no opposition. For Constantine, in a letter to the Nicomedians, thus speaks:—"Should any of the bishops unadvisedly excite tumult, his audacity shall be restrained by the minister of God, that is, by my executive,” (Theodore. Lib. 1 c. 20.) Valentinian says, “Good bishops throw no obloquy on the power of the emperor, but sincerely keep the commandments of God, the great King, and obey our laws,” (Theodore. Lib. 4 c. 8.) This was unquestionably the view then entertained by all.

Ecclesiastical causes, indeed, were brought before the episcopal court; as when a clergyman had offended, but not against the laws, he was only charged by the Canons; and instead of being cited before the civil court, had the bishop for his judge in that particular case. In like manners when a question of faith was agitated, or one which properly pertained to the Church, cognisance was left to the Church. In this sense the words of Ambrose are to be understood: “Your father, of august memory, not only replied verbally, but enacted by law, that, in a question of faith, the judge should be one who was neither unequal from office, nor incompetent from the nature of his jurisdiction,” (Ambrose. Ep. 32.) Again, “If we attend to the Scriptures, or to ancient examples, who can deny that in a question of faith, a question of faith, I say, bishops are wont to judge Christian emperors not emperors to judge bishops?” Again, “I would have come before your consistory, O emperor, would either the bishops or the people have allowed me to come: they say that a question of faith should be discussed in the Church before the people.” He maintains, indeed, that a spiritual cause, that is, one pertaining to religion, is not to be brought before the civil court, where worldly disputes are agitated. His firmness in this respect is justly praised by all. And yet, though he has a good cause, he goes so far as to say, that if it comes to force and violence, he will yield. “I will not desert the post committed to me, but, if forced, I will not resist: prayers and tears are our weapons,” (Ambrose. Hom. de Basilic. Traden.) Let us observe the singular moderation of this holy man, his combination of prudence, magnanimity, and boldness. Justina, the mother of the emperor, unable to bring him over to the Arian party, sought to drive him from the government of the Church. And this would have been the result had he, when summoned, gone to the palace to plead his cause. He maintains therefore, that the emperor is not fit to decide such a controversy. This both the necessity of the times and the very nature of the thing, demanded. He thought it were better for him to die than consent to transmit such an example to posterity; and yet if violence is offered, he thinks not of resisting. For he says, it is not the part of a bishop to defend the faith and rights of the Church by arms. But in all other causes he declares himself ready to do whatever the emperor commands. “If he asks tribute, we deny it not: the lands of the Church pay tribute. If he asks lands, he has the power of evicting them; none of us interposes.” Gregory speaks in the same manner. “I am not ignorant of the mind of my most serene lord: he is not wont to interfere in sacerdotal causes, lest he may in some degree burden himself with our sins.” He does not exclude the emperor generally from judging priests, but says that there are certain causes which he ought to leave to the ecclesiastical tribunal.

16. Bishops subject to secular courts

And hence all that these holy men sought by this exception was, to prevent irreligious princes from impeding the Church in the discharge of her duty, by their tyrannical caprice and violence. They did not disapprove when princes interposed their authority in ecclesiastical affairs, provided this was done to preserve, not to disturb, the order of the Church, to establish, not to destroy discipline. For, seeing the Church has not, and ought not to wish to have, the power of compulsion, (I speak of civil coercion,) it is the part of pious kings and princes to maintain religion by laws, edicts, and sentences. In this way, when the Emperor Maurice had commanded certain bishops to receive their neighbouring colleagues, who had been expelled by the Barbarians, Gregory confirms the order, and exhorts them to obey. He himself, when admonished by the same emperor to return to a good understanding with John, Bishop of Constantinople, endeavours to show that he is not to be blamed; but so far from boasting of immunity from the secular forum, rather promises to comply as far as conscience would permit: he at the same time says that Maurice had acted as became a religious prince, in giving these commands to priests.

CHAPTER 12. OF THE DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH, AND ITS PRINCIPAL USE IN CENSURES AND EXCOMMUNICATION.

This chapter consists of two parts:—

I. The first part of ecclesiastical discipline which respects the people, and is called common, consists of two parts, the former depending on the power of the keys, which is considered, sec. 1-14; the latter consisting in the appointment of times for fasting and prayer, sec. 14-21.

II. The second part of ecclesiastical discipline relating to the clergy, sec. 22-28.

Sections.

1. Of the power of the keys, or the common discipline of the Church. Necessity and very great utility of this discipline.

2. Its various degrees.

1. Private admonition.

2. Rebukes before witnesses.

3. Excommunication.

3. Different degrees of delinquency. Modes of procedure in both kinds of chastisement.

4. Delicts to be distinguished from flagitous wickedness. The last to be more severely punished.

5. Ends of this discipline.

1. That the wicked may not, by being admitted to the Lord’s Table, put insult on Christ.

2. That they may not corrupt others.

3. That they themselves may repent.

6. In what way sins public as well as secret are to be corrected. Trivial and grave offences.

7. No person, not even the sovereign, exempted from this discipline. By whom and in what way it ought to be exercised.

8. In what spirit discipline is to be exercised. In what respect some of the ancient Christians exercised it too rigorously. This done more from custom than in accordance with their own sentiments. This shown from Cyprian, Chrysostom, and Augustine.

9. Moderation to be used, not only by the whole Church, but by each individual member.

10. Our Saviour’s words concerning binding and loosing wrested if otherwise understood. Difference between anathema and excommunication. Anathema rarely if ever to be used.

11. Excessive rigour to be avoided, as well by private individuals as by pastors.

12. In this respect the Donatists erred most grievously, as do also the Anabaptists in the present day. Portraiture by Augustine.

13. Moderation especially to be used when not a few individuals, but the great body of the people, have gone astray.

14. A second part of common discipline relating to fastings, prayer, and other holy exercises. These used by believers under both dispensations. To what purposes applied. Of Fasting.

15. Three ends of fasting. The first refers more especially to private fasting. Second and third ends.

16. Public fasting and prayer appointed by pastors on any great emergency.

17. Examples of this under the Law.

18. Fasting consists chiefly in three things, viz., time, the quality, and sparing use of food.

19. To prevent superstition, three things to be inculcated.

1. The heart to be rent, not the garments.

2. Fasting not to be regarded as a meritorious work or kind of divine worship.

3. Abstinence must not be immoderately extolled.

20. Owing to an excess of this kind the observance of Lent was established. This superstitious observance refuted by three arguments. It was indeed used by the ancients, but on different grounds.

21. Laws afterwards made to regulate the choice of food. Various abuses even in the time of Jerome. Practically there is no common ecclesiastical discipline in the Papacy.

22. The second part of discipline having reference to the clergy. What its nature, and how strict it formerly was. How miserably neglected in the present day. An example which may suit the Papists.

23. Of the celibacy of priests, in which Papists place the whole force of ecclesiastical discipline. This impious tyranny refuted from Scripture. An objection of the Papists disposed of.

24. An argument for the celibacy of priests answered.

25. Another argument answered.

26. Another argument answered.

27. An argument drawn from the commendation of virginity as superior to marriage. Answer.

28. The subject of celibacy concluded. This error not favoured by all ancient writers.

(Discussion of power of the keys in true discipline: the ends and processes of discipline, 1-7)

1. Necessity and nature of church discipline

The discipline of the Church, the consideration of which has been deferred till now, must be briefly explained, that we may be able to pass to other matters. Now discipline depends in a very great measure on the power of the keys and on spiritual jurisdiction. That this may be more easily understood let us divide the Church into two principal classes viz., clergy and people. The term clergy I use in the common acceptation for those who perform a public ministry in the Church. We shall speak first of the common discipline to which all ought to be subject, and then proceed to the clergy, who have besides that common discipline one peculiar to themselves.

But as some, from hatred of discipline, are averse to the very name, for their sake we observe,—If no society, nay, no house with even a moderate family can be kept in a right state without discipline, much more necessary is it in the Church, whose state ought to be the best ordered possible. Hence as the saving doctrine of Christ is the life of the Church, so discipline is, as it were, its sinews; for to it, it is owing that the members of the body adhere together, each in its own place. Wherefore, all who either wish that discipline were abolished, or who impede the restoration of it, whether they do this of design or through thoughtlessness, certainly aim at the complete devastation of the Church. For what will be the result if every one is allowed to do as he pleases? But this must happen if to the preaching of the gospel are not added private admonition, correction, and similar methods of maintaining doctrine, and not allowing it to become lethargic. Discipline, therefore, is a kind of curb to restrain and tame those who war against the doctrine of Christ, or it is a kind of stimulus by which the indifferent are aroused; sometimes, also, it is a kind of fatherly rod, by which those who have made some more grievous lapse are chastised in mercy with the meekness of the spirit of Christ. Since, then, we already see some beginnings of a fearful devastation in the Church from the total want of care and method in managing the people, necessity itself cries aloud that there is need of a remedy. Now the only remedy is this which Christ enjoins, and the pious have always had in use.

2. Stages of church discipline

The first foundation of discipline is to provide for private admonition; that is, if any one does not do his duty spontaneously, or behaves insolently, or lives not quite honestly, or commits something worthy of blame, he must allow himself to be admonished; and every one must study to admonish his brother when the case requires. Here especially is there occasion for the vigilance of pastors and presbyters, whose duty is not only to preach to the people, but to exhort and admonish from house to house, whenever their hearers have not profited sufficiently by general teaching; as Paul shows, when he relates that he taught “publicly, and from house to house,” and testifies that he is “pure from the blood of all men,” because he had not shunned to declare “all the counsel of God,” (Acts 20: 20, 26, 27.) Then does doctrine obtain force and authority, not only when the minister publicly expounds to all what they owe to Christ, but has the right and means of exacting this from those whom he may observe to be sluggish or disobedient to his doctrine.

Should any one either perversely reject such admonitions, or by persisting in his faults, show that he condemns them, the injunction of Christ is that after he has been a second time admonished before witnesses, he is to be summoned to the bar of the Church, which is the consistory of elders, and there admonished more sharply, as by public authority, that if he reverence the Church he may submit and obey, (Matth. 18: 15, 17.) If even in this way he is not subdued, but persists in his iniquity, he is then, as a despiser of the Church, to be debarred from the society of believers.

3. Concealed and open sins

But as our Saviour is not there speaking of secret faults merely we must attend to the distinction that some sins are private, others public, or openly manifest. Of the former, Christ says to every private individual, “go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone,” (Matth. 18: 15.) Of open sins Paul says to Timothy, “Those that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear,” (1 Tim. 5: 20.) Our Saviour had previously used the words, “If thy brother shall trespass against thee.” This clause, unless you would be captious, you cannot understand otherwise than, If this happens in a manner known to yourself, others not being privy to it. The injunction which Paul gave to Timothy to rebuke those openly who sin openly, he himself followed with Peter, (Gal. 2: 14.) For when Peter sinned so as to give public offence, he did not admonish him apart, but brought him forward in face of the Church.

The legitimate course, therefore, will be to proceed in correcting secret faults by the steps mentioned by Christ, and in open sins, accompanied with public scandal, to proceed at once to solemn correction by the Church.

4. Light and grave sins

Another distinction to be attended to is, that some sins are mere delinquencies, others crimes and flagrant iniquities. In correcting the latter, it is necessary to employ not only admonition or rebuke, but a sharper remedy, as Paul shows when he not only verbally rebukes the incestuous Corinthian, but punishes him with excommunication, as soon as he was informed of his crime, (1 Cor. 5: 3f.) Now then we begin better to perceive how the spiritual jurisdiction of the Church, which animadverts on sins according to the word of the Lord, is at once the best help to sound doctrine, the best foundation of order, and the best bond of unity. Therefore, when the Church banishes from its fellowship open adulterers, fornicators, thieves, robbers, the seditious, the perjured, false witnesses, and others of that description; likewise the contumacious, who, when duly admonished for lighter faults hold God and his tribunal in derision, instead of arrogating to itself anything that is unreasonable, it exercises a jurisdiction which it has received from the Lord. Moreover, lest any one should despise the judgement of the Church, or count it a small matter to be condemned by the suffrages of the faithful, the Lord has declared that it is nothing else than the promulgation of his own sentence, and that that which they do on earth is ratified in heaven. For they act by the word of the Lord in condemning the perverse, and by the word of the Lord in taking the penitent back into favour, (John 20: 23.) Those, I say, who trust that churches can long stand without this bond of discipline are mistaken unless indeed we can with impunity dispense with a help which the Lord foresaw would be necessary. And, indeed the greatness of the necessity will be better perceived by its manifold uses.

5. The purpose of church discipline

There are three ends to which the Church has respect in thus correcting and excommunicating. The first is, that God may not be insulted by the name of Christians being given to those who lead shameful and flagitous lives, as if his holy Church were a combination of the wicked and abandoned. For seeing that the Church is the body of Christ, she cannot be defiled by such fetid and putrid members, without bringing some disgrace on her Head. Therefore, that there may be nothing in the Church to bring disgrace on his sacred name, those whose turpitude might throw infamy on the name must be expelled from his family. And here, also, regard must be had to the Lord’s Supper, which might be profaned by a promiscuous admission. For it is most true, that he who is intrusted with the dispensation of it, if he knowingly and willingly admits any unworthy person whom he ought and is able to repel, is as guilty of sacrilege as if he had cast the Lord’s body to dogs. Wherefore, Chrysostom bitterly inveighs against priests, who, from fear of the great, dare not keep any one back. “Blood (says he, Hom. 83, in Matth.) will be required at your hands. If you fear man, he will mock you, but if you fear God, you will be respected also by men. Let us not tremble at farces, purple, or diadems; our power here is greater. Assuredly I will sooner give up my body to death, and allow my blood to be shed, than be a partaker of that pollution.” Therefore, lest this most sacred mystery should be exposed to ignominy, great selection is required in dispensing it, and this cannot be except by the jurisdiction of the Church.

A second end of discipline is, that the good may not, as usually happens, be corrupted by constant communication with the wicked. For such is our proneness to go astray, that nothing is easier than to seduce us from the right course by bad example. To this use of discipline the apostle referred when he commanded the Corinthians to discard the incestuous man from their society. “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump,” (1 Cor. 5: 6.) And so much danger did he foresee here, that he prohibited them from keeping company with such persons. “If any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one, no not to eat,” (1 Cor. 5: 11.) A third end of discipline is, that the sinner may be ashamed, and begin to repent of his turpitude. Hence it is for their interest also that their iniquity should be chastised that whereas they would have become more obstinate by indulgence, they may be aroused by the rod. This the apostle intimates when he thus writes “If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him that he may be ashamed,” (2 Thess. 3: 14.) Again, when he says that he had delivered the Corinthian to Satan, “that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus,” (1 Cor. 5: 5;) that is as I interpret it, he gave him over to temporal condemnation, that he might be made safe for eternity. And he says that he gave him over to Satan because the devil is without the Church, as Christ is in the Church. Some interpret this of a certain infliction on the flesh, but this interpretation seems to me most improbable. (August. de Verb. Apostol. Serm. 68.)

6. The handling of church discipline in the various cases

These being the ends proposed, it remains to see in what way the Church is to execute this part of discipline, which consists in jurisdiction.

And, first, let us remember the division above laid down, that some sins are public, others private or secret. Public are those which are done not before one or two witnesses, but openly, and to the offence of the whole Church. By secret, I mean not such as are altogether concealed from men, such as those of hypocrites, (for these fall not under the judgement of the Church,) but those of an intermediate description, which are not without witnesses, and yet are not public.

The former class requires not the different steps which Christ enumerates; but whenever any thing of the kind occurs, the Church ought to do her duty by summoning the offender, and correcting him according to his fault.

In the second class, the matter comes not before the Church, unless there is contumacy, according to the rule of Christ. In taking cognisance of offences, it is necessary to attend to the distinction between delinquencies and flagrant iniquities. In lighter offences there is not so much occasion for severity, but verbal chastisement is sufficient, and that gentle and fatherly, so as not to exasperate or confound the offender, but to bring him back to himself, so that he may rather rejoice than be grieved at the correction. Flagrant iniquities require a sharper remedy. It is not sufficient verbally to rebuke him who, by some open act of evil example, has grievously offended the Church; but he ought for a time to be denied the communion of the Supper, until he gives proof of repentance. Paul does not merely administer a verbal rebuke to the Corinthians, but discards him from the Church, and reprimands the Corinthians for having borne with him so long, (1 Cor. 5: 1-7.)

This was the method observed by the ancient and purer Church, when legitimate government vas in vigour. When any one was guilty of some flagrant iniquity, and thereby caused scandal, he was first ordered to abstain from participation in the sacred Supper, and thereafter to humble himself before God, and testify his penitence before the Church. There were, moreover, solemn rites which, as indications of repentance, were wont to be prescribed to those who had lapsed. When the penitent had thus made satisfaction to the Church, he was received into favour by the laying on of hands. This admission often receives the name of peace from Cyprian, who briefly describes the formal “They act as penitents for a certain time, next they come to confession, and receive the right of communion by the laying on of hands of the bishop and clergy.” Although the bishop with the clergy thus superintended the restoration of the penitent, the consent of the people was at the same time required, as he elsewhere explains.

7. In the ancient church, discipline to all offenders alike

So far was any one from being exempted from this discipline, that even princes submitted to it in common with their subjects; and justly, since it is the discipline of Christ, to whom all sceptres and diadems should be subject. Thus Theodosius, when excommunicated by Ambrose, because of the slaughter perpetrated at Thessalonica, laid aside all the royal insignia with which he was surrounded and publicly in the Church bewailed the sin into which he had been betrayed by the fraud of others, with groans and tears imploring pardon. Great kings should not think it a disgrace to them to prostrate themselves suppliantly before Christ, the King of kings; nor ought they to be displeased at being judged by the Church. For seeing they seldom hear any thing in their courts but mere flattery, the more necessary is it that the Lord should correct them by the mouth of his priests. Nay, they ought rather to wish the priests not to spare them, in order that the Lord may spare.

I here say nothing as to those by whom the jurisdiction ought to be exercised, because it has been said elsewhere, (Chap. 11 sec. 5, 6.) I only add, that the legitimate course to be taken in excommunication, as shown by Paul, is not for the elders alone to act apart from others, but with the knowledge and approbation of the Church, so that the body of the people, without regulating the procedure, may, as witnesses and guardians, observe it, and prevent the few from doing any thing capriciously. Throughout the whole procedure, in addition to invocation of the name of God, there should be a gravity bespeaking the presence of Christ, and leaving no room to doubt that he is presiding over his own tribunal.

(Moderation in discipline enjoined, and rigorists confuted, 8-13)

8. Severity and mildness in church discipline

It ought not, however, to be omitted, that the Church, in exercising severity, ought to accompany it with the spirit of meekness. For, as Paul enjoins, we must always take care that he on whom discipline is exercised be not “swallowed up with overmuch sorrow,” (2 Cor. 2: 7:) for in this way, instead of cure there would be destruction. The rule of moderation will be best obtained from the end contemplated. For the object of excommunication being to bring the sinner to repentance and remove bad examples, in order that the name of Christ may not be evil spoken of, nor others tempted to the same evil courses: if we consider this, we shall easily understand how far severity should be carried, and at what point it ought to cease. Therefore, when the sinner gives the Church evidence of his repentance, and by this evidence does what in him lies to obliterate the offence, he ought not on any account to be urged farther. If he is urged, the rigour now exceeds due measure.

In this respect it is impossible to excuse the excessive austerity of the ancients, which was altogether at variance with the injunction of our Lord, and strangely perilous. For when they enjoined a formal repentance, and excluded from communion for three, or four, or seven years, or for life, what could the result be, but either great hypocrisy or very great despair? In like manner, when any one who had again lapsed was not admitted to a second repentance, but ejected from the Church, to the end of his life, (August. Ep. 54,) this was neither useful nor agreeable to reason. Whosoever, therefore, looks at the matter with sound judgement, will here regret a want of prudence.

Here, however, I rather disapprove of the public custom, than blame those who complied with it. Some of them certainly disapproved of it, but submitted to what they were unable to correct. Cyprian, indeed, declares that it was not with his own will he was thus rigorous. “Our patience, facility, and humanity, (he says, Lib. 1 Ep. 3,) are ready to all who come. I wish all to be brought back into the Church: I wish all our fellow-soldiers to be contained within the camp of Christ and the mansions of God the Father. I forgive all; I disguise much; from an earnest desire of collecting the brotherhood, I do not minutely scrutinise all the faults which have been committed against God. I myself often err, by forgiving offences more than I ought. Those returning in repentance, and those confessing their sins with simple and humble satisfaction, I embrace with prompt and full delight.” Chrysostom, who is somewhat more severe, still speaks thus: “If God is so kind, why should his priest wish to appear austere?” We know, moreover, how indulgently Augustine treated the Donatists; not hesitating to admit any who returned from schism to their bishopric, as soon as they declared their repentance. But, as a contrary method had prevailed, they were compelled to follow it, and give up their own judgement.

9. The limits of our judgment according to church discipline

But as the whole body of the Church are required to act thus mildly, and not to carry their rigour against those who have lapsed to an extreme, but rather to act charitably towards them, according to the precept of Paul, so every private individual ought proportionately to accommodate himself to this clemency and humanity (II Cor. 2:8). Such as have, therefore, been expelled from the Church, it belongs not to us to expunge from the number of the elect, or to despair of, as if they were already lost. We may lawfully judge them aliens from the Church, and so aliens from Christ, but only during the time of their excommunication. If then, also, they give greater evidence of petulance than of humility, still let us commit them to the judgement of the Lord, hoping better of them in future than we see at present, and not ceasing to pray to God for them. And (to sum up in one word) let us not consign to destruction their person, which is in the hand, and subject to the decision, of the Lord alone; but let us merely estimate the character of each man’s acts according to the law of the Lord. In following this rule, we abide by the divine judgement rather than give any judgement of our own. Let us not arrogate to ourselves greater liberty in judging, if we would not limit the power of God, and give the law to his mercy. Whenever it seems good to Him, the worst are changed into the best; aliens are ingrafted, and strangers are adopted into the Church. This the Lord does, that he may disappoint the thoughts of men, and confound their rashness; a rashness which, if not curbed, would usurp a power of judging to which it has no title.

10. Excommunication is corrective

For when our Saviour promises that what his servants bound on earth should be bound in heaven, (Matth. 18: 18,) he confines the power of binding to the censure of the Church, which does not consign those who are excommunicated to perpetual ruin and damnation, but assures them, when they hear their life and manners condemned, that perpetual damnation will follow if they do not repent. Excommunication differs from anathema in this, that the latter completely excluding pardon, dooms and devotes the individual to eternal destruction, whereas the former rather rebukes and animadverts upon his manners; and although it also punishes, it is to bring him to salvation, by forewarning him of his future doom. If it succeeds, reconciliation and restoration to communion are ready to be given. Moreover, anathema is rarely if ever to be used. Hence, though ecclesiastical discipline does not allow us to be on familiar and intimate terms with excommunicated persons, still we ought to strive by all possible means to bring them to a better mind, and recover them to the fellowship and unity of the Church: as the apostle also says, “Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother,” (2 Thess. 3: 15.) If this humanity be not observed in private as well as public, the danger is, that our discipline shall degenerate into destruction.

11. Against willful excess in demanding church discipline

Another special requisite to moderation of discipline is as Augustine discourses against the Donatists, that private individuals must not, when they see vices less carefully corrected by the Council of Elders immediately separate themselves from the Church; nor must pastors themselves, when unable to reform all things which need correction to the extent which they could wish, cast up their ministry or by unwonted severity throw the whole Church into confusion. What Augustine says is perfectly true: “Whoever corrects what he can, by rebuking it, or without violating the bond of peace, excludes what he cannot correct, or justly condemns while he patiently tolerates what he is unable to exclude without violating the bond of peace, is free and exempted from the curse,” (August. contra Parmen. Lib. 2 c. 4.) He elsewhere gives the reason. “Every pious reason and mode of ecclesiastical discipline ought always to have regard to the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. This the apostle commands us to keep by bearing mutually with each other. If it is not kept, the medicine of discipline begins to be not only superfluous, but even pernicious, and therefore ceases to be medicine,” (Ibid. Lib. 3 c. 1.) “He who diligently considers these things neither in the preservation of unity neglects strictness of discipline, nor by intemperate correction bursts the bond of society,” (Ibid. cap. 2.) He confesses, indeed, that pastors ought not only to exert themselves in removing every defect from the Church, but that every individual ought to his utmost to do so; nor does he disguise the fact, that he who neglects to admonish, accuse, and correct the bad, although he neither favours them, nor sins with them, is guilty before the Lord; and if he conducts himself so that though he can exclude them from partaking of the Supper, he does it not, then the sin is no longer that of other men, but his own. Only he would have that prudence used which our Lord also requires, “lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them,” (Matth. 13: 29.) Hence he infers from Cyprian, “Let a man then mercifully correct what he can; what he cannot correct, let him bear patiently, and in love bewail and lament.”

12. Disruptive severity: Donatists and Anabaptists

This he says on account of the moroseness of the Donatists, who, when they saw faults in the Church which the bishops indeed rebuked verbally, but did not punish with excommunication, (because they did not think that any thing would be gained in this way,) bitterly inveighed against the bishops as traitors to discipline, and by an impious schism separated themselves from the flock of Christ. Similar, in the present day, is the conduct of the Anabaptists, who, acknowledging no assembly of Christ unless conspicuous in all respects for angelic perfection, under pretence of zeal overthrow every thing which tends to edification. “Such, (says Augustin. contra Parmen. Lib. 3 c. 4,) not from hatred of other men’s iniquity, but zeal for their own disputes ensnaring the weak by the credit of their name, attempt to draw them entirely away, or at least to separate them; swollen with pride, raving with petulance insidious in calumny, turbulent in sedition. That it may not be seen how void they are of the light of truth, they cover themselves with the shadow of a stern severity: the correction of a brother’s fault, which in Scripture is enjoined to be done with moderation, without impairing the sincerity of love or breaking the bond of peace, they pervert to sacrilegious schism and purposes of excision. Thus Satan transforms himself into an angel of light, (2 Cor. 11: 14,) when, under pretext of a just severity, he persuades to savage cruelty, desiring nothing more than to violate and burst the bond of unity and peace; because, when it is maintained, all his power of mischief is feeble, his wily traps are broken and his schemes of subversion vanish.”

13. Augustine requires discrimination in discipline

One thing Augustine specially commends, viz., that if the contagion of sin has seized the multitude, mercy must accompany living discipline. “For counsels of separation are vain, sacrilegious, and pernicious because impious and proud and do more to disturb the weak good than to correct the wicked proud,” (August. Ep. 64.) This which he enjoins on others he himself faithfully practised. For, writing to Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage, he complains that drunkenness, which is so severely condemned in Scripture, prevails in Africa with impunity, and advises a council of bishops to be called for the purpose of providing a remedy. He immediately adds, “In my opinion, such things are not removed by rough, harsh, and imperious measures, but more by teaching than commanding, more by admonishing than threatening. For thus ought we to act with a multitude of offenders. Severity is to be exercised against the sins of a few,” (August. Ep. 64.) He does not mean, however, that the bishops where to wink or be silent because they are unable to punish public offences severely, as he himself afterwards explains. But he wishes to temper the mode of correction, so as to give soundness to the body rather than cause destruction. And, accordingly, he thus concludes: “Wherefore, we must on no account neglect the injunction of the apostle, to separate from the wicked, when it can be done without the risk of violating peace, because he did not wish it to be done otherwise, (1 Cor. 5: 13;) we must also endeavour, by bearing with each other, to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace,” (Eph. 4: 2.)

(The use and purpose of fasting, private and public: principles to be guarded in it, 14-18)

14. Public and mutual practice of penance

The remaining part of discipline, which is not, strictly speaking, included in the power of the keys, is when pastors, according to the necessity of the times, exhort the people either to fasting and solemn prayer, or to other exercises of humiliation, repentance, and faith, the time, mode, and form of these not being prescribed by the Word of God, but left to the judgement of the Church. As the observance of this part of discipline is useful, so it was always used in the Church, even from the days of the apostles. Indeed, the apostles themselves were not its first authors, but borrowed the example from the Law and Prophets. For we there see, that as often as any weighty matter occurred the people were assembled and supplication and fasting appointed. In this, therefore, the apostles followed a course which was not new to the people of God, and which they foresaw would be useful. A similar account is to be given of the other exercises by which the people may either be aroused to duty, or kept in duty and obedience. We every where meet with examples in Sacred History, and it is unnecessary to collect them. In general, we must hold that whenever any religious controversy arises, which either a council or ecclesiastical tribunal behaves to decide; whenever a minister is to be chosen; whenever, in short, any matter of difficulty and great importance is under consideration: on the other hand, when manifestations of the divine anger appear, as pestilence, war, and famine, the sacred and salutary custom of all ages has been for pastors to exhort the people to public fasting and extraordinary prayer. Should any one refuse to admit the passages which are adduced from the Old Testament, as being less applicable to the Christian Church, it is clear that the apostles also acted thus; although, in regard to prayer, I scarcely think any one will be fold to stir the question. Let us, therefore, make some observations on fastings since very many, not understanding what utility there can be in it, judge it not to be very necessary, while others reject it altogether as superfluous. Where its use is not well known it is easy to fall into superstition.

15. The purpose of fasting

A holy and lawful fast has three ends in view. We use it either to mortify and subdue the flesh, that it may not wanton, or to prepare the better for prayer and holy meditation; or to give evidence of humbling ourselves before God, when we would confess our guilt before him.

The first end is not very often regarded in public fasting, because all have not the same bodily constitution, nor the same state of health, and hence it is more applicable to private fasting.

The second end is common to both, for this preparation for prayer is requisite for the whole Church, as well as for each individual member.

The same thing may be said of the third. For it sometimes happens that God smites a nation with war or pestilence, or some kind of calamity. In this common chastisement it behaves the whole people to plead guilty, and confess their guilt. Should the hand of the Lord strike any one in private, then the same thing is to be done by himself alone, or by his family. The thing, indeed, is properly a feeling of the mind. But when the mind is affected as it ought, it cannot but give vent to itself in external manifestation, especially when it tends to the common edification, that all, by openly confessing their sin, may render praise to the divine justice, and by their example mutually encourage each other.

16. Fasting and prayer

Hence fasting, as it is a sign of humiliation, has a more frequent use in public than among private individuals, although, as we have said, it is common to both. In regard, then, to the discipline of which we now treat, whenever supplication is to be made to God on any important occasion, it is befitting to appoint a period for fasting and prayer. Thus when the Christians of Antioch laid hands on Barnabas and Paul, that they might the better recommend their ministry, which was of so great importance, they joined fasting and prayer, (Acts 13: 3.) Thus these two apostles afterwards, when they appointed ministers to churches, were wont to use prayer and fasting, (Acts 14: 23.) In general, the only object which they had in fasting was to render themselves more alert and disencumbered for prayer. We certainly experience that after a full meal the mind does not so rise toward God as to be borne along by an earnest and fervent longing for prayer, and perseverance in prayer. In this sense is to be understood the saying of Luke concerning Anna, that she “served God with fastings and prayers, night and day,” (Luke 2: 37.) For he does not place the worship of God in fasting, but intimates that in this way the holy woman trained herself to assiduity in prayer. Such was the fast of Nehemiah, when with more intense zeal he prayed to God for the deliverance of his people, (Neh. 1: 4.) For this reason Paul says, that married believers do well to abstain for a season, (1 Cor. 7: 5,) that they may have greater freedom for prayer and fasting, when by joining prayer to fasting, by way of help, he reminds us it is of no importance in itself, save in so far as it refers to this end. Again, when in the same place he enjoins spouses to render due benevolence to each other, it is clear that he is not referring to daily prayers but prayers which require more than ordinary attention.

17. Fasting and the practice of penance

On the other hand, when pestilence begins to stalk abroad, or famine or war, or when any other disaster seems to impend over a province and people, (Esther 4: 16,) then also it is the duty of pastors to exhort the Church to fasting, that she may suppliantly deprecate the Lord’s anger. For when he makes danger appear, he declares that he is prepared and in a manner armed for vengeance. In like manner, therefore, as persons accused were anciently wont, in order to excite the commiseration of the judge, to humble themselves suppliantly with long beard, dishevelled hair, and coarse garments, so when we are charged before the divine tribunal, to deprecate his severity in humble raiment is equally for his glory and the public edification, and useful and salutary to ourselves. And that this was common among the Israelites we may infer from the words of Joel. For when he says, “Blow the trumpet in Zion, sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly,” &c., (Joel 2: 15,) he speaks as of things received by common custom. A little before he had said that the people were to be tried for their wickedness, and that the day of judgement was at hand, and he had summoned them as criminals to plead their cause; then he exclaims that they should hasten to sackcloth and ashes, to weeping and fasting; that is humble themselves before God with external manifestations. The sackcloth and ashes, indeed, were perhaps more suitable for those times, but the assembly, and weeping and fasting, and the like, undoubtedly belong, in an equal degrees to our age, whenever the condition of our affairs so requires. For seeing it is a holy exercise both for men to humble themselves, and confess their humility, why should we in similar necessity use this less than did those of old? We read not only that the Israelitish Church, formed and constituted by the word of God, fasted in token of sadness, but the Ninevites also, whose only teaching had been the preaching of Jonah. Why, therefore should not we do the same?

But it is an external ceremony, which, like other ceremonies terminated in Christ. Nay, in the present day it is an admirable help to believers, as it always was, and a useful admonition to arouse them, lest by too great security and sloth they provoke the Lord more and more when they are chastened by his rod. Accordingly, when our Saviour excuses his apostles for not fasting, he does not say that fasting was abrogated, but reserves it for calamitous times, and conjoins it with mourning. “The days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken from them,” (Matth. 9: 35; Luke 5: 34.)

18. The nature of fasting

But that there may be no error in the name, let us define what fasting is; for we do not understand by it simply a restrained and sparing use of food, but something else. The life of the pious should be tempered with frugality and sobriety, so as to exhibit, as much as may be, a kind of fasting during the whole course of life. But there is another temporary fast, when we retrench somewhat from our accustomed mode of living, either for one day or a certain period, and prescribe to ourselves a stricter and severer restraint in the use of that ordinary food. This consists in three things, viz., the time, the quality of food, and the sparing use of it. By the time I mean, that while fasting we are to perform those actions for the sake of which the fast is instituted. For example, when a man fasts because of solemn prayer, he should engage in it without having taken food. The quality consists in putting all luxury aside, and, being contented with common and meaner food, so as not to excite our palate by dainties. In regard to quantity, we must eat more lightly and sparingly only for necessity and not for pleasure.

(Danger of superstition, notions of merit, and hypocrisy in fasting and the observance of Lent, 19-21)

19. Misconceptions of fasting

But the first thing always to be avoided is, the encroachment of superstition, as formerly happened, to the great injury of the Church. It would have been much better to have had no fasting at all, than have it carefully observed, but at the same time corrupted by false and pernicious opinions into which the world is ever and anon falling unless pastors obviate them by the greatest fidelity and prudence.

The first thing is constantly to urge the injunction of Joel, “Rend your heart, and not your garments,” (Joel 2: 13;) that is, to remind the people that fasting in itself is not of great value in the sight of God, unless accompanied with internal affection of the heart, true dissatisfaction with sin and with one’s self true humiliation, and true griefs from the fear of God; nay, that fasting is useful for no other reasons than because it is added to these as an inferior help. There is nothing which God more abominates than when men endeavour to cloak themselves by substituting signs and external appearance for integrity of heart. Accordingly, Isaiah inveighs most bitterly against the hypocrisy of the Jews in thinking that they had satisfied God when they had merely fasted, whatever might be the impiety and impure thoughts which they cherished in their hearts. “Is it such a fast that I have chosen?” (Isa. 58: 5.) See also what follows. The fast of hypocrites is, therefore, not only useless and superfluous fatigue, but the greatest abomination.

Another evil akin to this, and greatly to be avoided, is, to regard fasting as a meritorious work and species of divine worship. For seeing it is a thing which is in itself indifferent, and has no importance except on account of those ends to which it ought to have respect, it is a most pernicious superstition to confound it with the works enjoined by God, and which are necessary in themselves without reference to any thing else. Such was anciently the dream of the Manichees, in refuting whom Augustine clearly shows that fasting is to be estimated entirely by those ends which I have mentioned, and cannot be approved by God, unless in so far as it refers to them.

Another error, not indeed so impious, but perilous, is to exact it with greater strictness and severity as one of the principal duties, and extol it with such extravagant encomiums as to make men imagine that they have done something admirable when they have fasted. In this respect I dare not entirely excuse ancient writers from having sown some seeds of superstition, and given occasion to the tyranny which afterwards arose. We sometimes meet with sound and prudent sentiments on fasting, but we also ever and anon meet with extravagant praises, lauding it as one of the cardinal virtues.

20. Degeneration of fasting in the history of the church

Then the superstitious observance of Lent had everywhere prevailed: for both the vulgar imagined that they thereby performed some excellent service to God, and pastors commended it as a holy imitation of Christ; though it is plain that Christ did not fast to set an example to others, but, by thus commencing the preaching of the gospel, meant to prove that his doctrine was not of men, but had come from heaven. And it is strange how men of acute judgement could fall into this gross delusion, which so many clear reasons refute: for Christ did not fast repeatedly, (which he must have done had he meant to lay down a law for an anniversary fast,) but once only, when preparing for the promulgation of the gospel. Nor does he fast after the manner of men, as he would have done had he meant to invite men to imitation; he rather gives an example, by which he may raise all to admire rather than study to imitate him. In short, the nature of his fast is not different from that which Moses observed when he received the law at the hand of the Lord, (Exod. 24: 18; 34: 28.) For, seeing that that miracle was performed in Moses to establish the law, it behaved not to be omitted in Christ, lest the gospel should seem inferior to the law. But from that day, it never occurred to any one, under pretence of imitating Moses, to set up a similar form of fast among the Israelites. Nor did any of the holy prophets and fathers follow it, though they had inclination and zeal enough for all pious exercises: for though it is said of Elijah that he passed forty days without meat and drink, (1 Kings 19: 8,) this was merely in order that the people might recognise that he was raised up to maintain the law, from which almost the whole of Israel had revolted.

It was therefore merely false zeal, replete with superstition, which set up a fast under the title and pretext of imitating Christ; although there was then a strange diversity in the mode of the fasts as is related by Cassiodorus in the ninth book of the History of Socrates: “The Romans,” says he, “had only three weeks, but their fast was continuous, except on the Lord’s day and the Sabbath. The Greeks and Illyrians had, some six, others seven, but the fast was at intervals. Nor did they differ less in the kind of food: some used only bread and water, others added vegetables; others had no objection to fish and fowls; others made no difference in their food.” Augustine also makes mention of this difference in his latter epistle to Januarius.

21. Depraved indulgence in seasons of fasting

Worse times followed. To the absurd zeal of the vulgar were added rudeness and ignorance in the bishops, lust of power, and tyrannical rigour. Impious laws were passed, binding the conscience in deadly chains. The eating of flesh was forbidden, as if a man were contaminated by it. Sacrilegious opinions were added, one after another, until all became an abyss of error. And that no kind of depravity might be omitted, they began under a most absurd pretence of abstinence, to make a mock of God; for in the most exquisite delicacies they seek the praise of fasting: no dainties now suffice; never was there greater abundance or variety or savouriness of food. In this splendid display they think that they serve God. I do not mention that at no time do those who would be thought the holiest of them wallow more foully. In short, the highest worship of God is to abstain from flesh, and, with this reservation, to indulge in delicacies of every kind. On the other hand, it is the greatest impiety, impiety scarcely to be expiated by death, for any one to taste the smallest portion of bacon or rancid flesh with his bread. Jerome, writing to Nepotian, relates, that even in his day there were some who mocked God with such follies: those who would not even put oil in their food caused the greatest delicacies to be procured from every quarter; nay, that they might do violence to nature, abstained from drinking water, and caused sweet and costly potions to be made for them, which they drank not out of a cup, but a shell. What was then the fault of a few is now common among all the rich: they do not fast for any other purpose than to feast more richly and luxuriously. But I am unwilling to waste many words on a subject as to which there can be no doubt. All I say is, that, as well in fasts as in all other parts of discipline, the Papists are so far from having anything right, anything sincere, anything duly framed and ordered, that they have no occasion to plume themselves as if anything was left them that is worthy of praise.

(Requirement of clerical celibacy a harmful innovation, 22-28)

22. The discipline of the clergy and its degeneration

We come now to the second part of discipline, which relates specially to the clergy. It is contained in the canons, which the ancient bishops framed for themselves and their order: for instance, let no clergyman spend his time in hunting in gaming or in feasting; let none engage in usury or in trade; let none be present at lascivious dances and the like. Penalties also were added to give a sanction to the authority of the canons, that none might violate them with impunity. With this view, each bishop was intrusted with the superintendence of his own clergy, that he might govern them according to the canons, and keep them to their duty. For this purpose, certain annual visitations and synods were appointed that if any one was negligent in his office he might be admonished; if any one sinned, he might be punished according to his fault. The bishops also had their provincial synods once, anciently twice, a-year, by which they were tried, if they had done anything contrary to their duty. For if any bishop had been too harsh or violent with his clergy, there was an appeal to the synod, though only one individual complained. The severest punishment was deposition from office, and exclusion, for a time, from communion. But as this was the uniform arrangement, no synod rose without fixing the time and place of the next meeting. To call an universal council belonged to the emperor alone as all the ancient summoning testify.

As long as this strictness was in force, the clergy demanded no more in word from the people than they performed in act and by example; nay, they were more strict against themselves than the vulgar; and, indeed, it is becoming that the people should be ruled by a kindlier, and, if I may so speak, laxer discipline; that the clergy should be stricter in their censures, and less indulgent to themselves than to others.

How this whole procedure became obsolete it is needless to relate, since, in the present day, nothing can be imagined more lawless and dissolute than this order, whose licentiousness is so extreme that the whole world is crying out. I admit that, in order not to seem to have lost all sight of antiquity, they, by certain shadows, deceive the eyes of the simple; but these no more resemble ancient customs than the mimicry of an ape resembles what men do by reason and counsel. There is a memorable passage in Xenophon, in which he mentions, that when the Persian had shamefully degenerated from the customs of their ancestors, and had fallen away from an austere mode of life to luxury and effeminacy, they still, to hide the disgrace, were sedulously observant of ancient rites, (Cyrop. Lib. 8.) For while, in the time of Cyrus, sobriety and temperance so flourished that no Persian required to wipe his nose, and it was even deemed disgraceful to do so, it remained with their posterity, as a point of religion, not to remove the mucus from the nostril, though they were allowed to nourish within, even to putridity, those fetid humours which they had contracted by gluttony. In like manner, according to the ancient custom, it was unlawful to use cups at table; but it was quite tolerable to swallow wine so as to make it necessary to be carried off drunk. It was enjoined to use only one meal a day: this these good successors did not abrogate, but they continued their surfeit from midday to midnight. To finish the day’s march, fasting, as the law enjoined it, was the uniform custom; but in order to avoid lassitude, the allowed and usual custom was to limit the march to two hours. As often as the degenerate Papists obtrude their rules that they may show their resemblance to the holy fathers, this example will serve to expose their ridiculous imitation. Indeed, no painter could paint them more to the life.

23. Priestly celibacy and its contradiction of Scripture

In one thing they are more than rigid and inexorable,—in not permitting priests to marry. It is of no consequence to mention with what impunity whoredom prevails among them, and how, trusting to their vile celibacy, they have become callous to all kinds of iniquity. The prohibition, however, clearly shows how pestiferous all traditions are, since this one has not only deprived the Church of fit and honest pastors, but has introduced a fearful sink of iniquity, and plunged many souls into the gulf of despair. Certainly, when marriage was interdicted to priests, it was done with impious tyranny, not only contrary to the word of God, but contrary to all justice. First, men had no title whatever to forbid what God had left free; secondly it is too clear to make it necessary to give any lengthened proof that God has expressly provided in his Word that this liberty shall not be infringed. I omit Paul’s injunction, in numerous passages, that a bishop be the husband of one wife; but what could be stronger than his declaration, that in the latter days there would be impious men “forbidding to marry?” (1 Tim. 4: 3.) Such persons he calls not only impostors, but devils. We have therefore a prophecy, a sacred oracle of the Holy Spirit, intended to warn the Church from the outset against perils and declaring that the prohibition of marriage is a doctrine of devils.

They think that they get finely off when they wrest this passage, and apply it to Montanus, the Tatians, the Encratites, and other ancient heretics. These (they say) alone condemned marriage; we by no means condemn it, but only deny it to the ecclesiastical order, in whom we think it not befitting. As if, even granting that this prophecy was primarily fulfilled in those heretics, it is not applicable also to themselves; or, as if one could listen to the childish quibble, that they do not forbid marriage, because they do not forbid it to all. This is just as if a tyrant were to contend that a law is not unjust because its injustice presses only on a part of the state.

24. Marriage enjoined and spiritually interpreted

They object that there ought to be some distinguishing mark between the clergy and the people; as if the Lord had not provided the ornaments in which priests ought to excel. Thus they charge the apostle with having disturbed the ecclesiastical order, and destroyed its ornament, when, in drawing the picture of a perfect bishop, he presumed to set down marriage among the other endowments which he required of them. I am aware of the mode in which they expound this, viz., that no one was to be appointed a bishop who had a second wife. This interpretation, I admit, is not new; but its unsoundness is plain from the immediate context, which prescribes the kind of wives whom bishops and deacons ought to have. Paul enumerates marriage among the qualities of a bishop; those men declare that, in the ecclesiastical order, marriage is an intolerable vice; and, indeed, not content with this general vituperation, they term it, in their canons, the uncleanness and pollution of the flesh, (Siric. ad Episc. Hispaniar.) Let every one consider with himself from what forge these things have come. Christ deigns, so to honour marriage as to make it an image of his sacred union with the Church. What greater eulogy could be pronounced on the dignity of marriage? How, then, dare they have the effrontery to give the name of unclean and polluted to that which furnishes a bright representation of the spiritual grace of Christ?

25. Refutation of an opposing Scriptural argument

Though their prohibition is thus clearly repugnant to the word of God, they, however, find something in the Scriptures to defend it. The Levitical priests, as often as their ministerial course returned, behaved to keep apart from their wives, that they might be pure and immaculate in handling sacred things; and it were therefore very indecorous that our sacred things, which are more noble, and are ministered every day, should be handled by those who are married: as if the evangelical ministry were of the same character as the Levitical priesthood. These, as types, represented Christ, who, as mediator between God and men, was, by his own spotless purity, to reconcile us to the Father. But as sinners could not in every respect exhibit a type of his holiness, that they mighty however shadow it forth by certain lineaments, they were enjoined to purify themselves beyond the manner of men when they approached the sanctuary inasmuch as they then properly prefigured Christ appearing in the tabernacle, an image of the heavenly tribunal, as pacificators, to reconcile men to God. As ecclesiastical pastors do not sustain this character in the present day, the comparison is made in vain. Wherefore, the apostle declares distinctly, without reservation, “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge,” (Heb. 13: 4.) And the apostles showed, by their own example, that marriage is not unbefitting the holiness of any function, however excellent; for Paul declares, that they not only retained their wives but led them about with them, (1 Cor. 9: 5.)

26. The ancient church and celibacy

Then how great the effrontery when, in holding forth this ornament of chastity as a matter of necessity, they throw the greatest obloquy on the primitive Church, which, while it abounded in admirable divine erudition, excelled more in holiness. For if they pay no regard to the apostles, (they are sometimes wont strenuously to condemn them,) what, I ask, will they make of all the ancient fathers, who, it is certain, not only tolerated marriage in the episcopal order, but also approved it? They forsooth, encouraged a foul profanation of sacred things when the mysteries of the Lord were thus irregularly performed by them. In the Council of Nice, indeed there was some question of proclaiming celibacy: as there are never wanting little men of superstitious minds, who are always devising some novelty as a means of gaining admiration for themselves. What was resolved? The opinion of Paphnutius was adopted, who pronounced legitimate conjugal intercourse to be chastity, (Hist. Trip. Lib. 2 c. 14.) The marriage of priests, therefore, continued sacred, and was neither regarded as a disgrace, nor thought to cast any stain on their ministry.

27. Late development of the requirement of celibacy

In the times which succeeded, a too superstitious admiration of celibacy prevailed. Hence, ever and anon, unmeasured encomiums were pronounced on virginity so that it became the vulgar belief that scarcely any virtue was to be compared to it. And although marriage was not condemned as impurity, yet its dignity was lessened, and its sanctity obscured; so that he who did not refrain from it was deemed not to have a mind strong enough to aspire to perfection. Hence those canons which enacted, first, that those who had attained the priesthood should not contract marriage; and, secondly, that none should be admitted to that order but the unmarried, or those who, with the consent of their wives, renounced the marriage-bed. These enactments, as they seemed to procure reverence for the priesthood, were, I admit, received even in ancient times with great applause. But if my opponents plead antiquity, my first answer is, that both under the apostles, and for several ages after, bishops were at liberty to have wives: that the apostles themselves, and other pastors of primitive authority, who succeeded them, had no difficulty in using this liberty, and that the example of the primitive Church ought justly to have more weight than allow us to think that what was then received and used with commendation is either illicit or unbecoming. My second answer is, that the age, which, from an immoderate affection for virginity, began to be less favourable to marriage, did not bind a law of celibacy on the priests, as if the thing were necessary in itself, but gave a preference to the unmarried over the married. My last answer is, that they did not exact this so rigidly as to make continence necessary and compulsory on those who were unfit for it. For while the strictest laws were made against fornication, it was only enacted with regard to those who contracted marriage that they should be superseded in their office.

28. Abuses under the rule of celibacy

Therefore, as often as the defenders of this new tyranny appeal to antiquity in defence of their celibacy, so often should we call upon them to restore the ancient chastity of their priests, to put away adulterers and whoremongers, not to allow those whom they deny an honourable and chaste use of marriage, to rush with impunity into every kind of lust, to bring back that obsolete discipline by which all licentiousness is restrained, and free the Church from the flagitous turpitude by which it has long been deformed. When they have conceded this, they will next require to be reminded not to represent as necessary that which, being in itself free, depends on the utility of the Church.

I do not, however, speak thus as if I thought that on any condition whatever effect should be given to those canons which lay a bond of celibacy on the ecclesiastical orders but that the better-hearted may understand the effrontery of our enemies in employing the name of antiquity to defame the holy marriage of priests.

In regard to the Fathers, whose writings are extant, none of them, when they spoke their own mind, with the exception of Jerome, thus malignantly detracted from the honour of marriage. We will be contented with a single passage from Chrysostom, because he being a special admirer of virginity, cannot be thought to be more lavish than others in praise of matrimony. Chrysostom thus speaks: “The first degree of chastity is pure virginity; the second, faithful marriage. Therefore, a chaste love of matrimony is the second species of virginity,” (Chrysost. Hom. de Invent. Crucis.)

CHAPTER 13. OF VOWS. THE MISERABLE ENTANGLEMENTS CAUSED BY VOWING RASHLY.

This chapter consists of two parts,—

I. Of vows in general, sec. 1-8.

II. Of monastic vows, and specially of the vow of celibacy, sec. 8-21.

Sections.

1. Some general principles with regard to the nature of vows. Superstitious errors not only of the heathen, but of Christians, in regard to vows.

2. Three points to be considered with regard to vows. First, To whom the vow is made viz., to God. Nothing to be vowed to him but what he himself requires.

3. Second, Who we are that vow. We must measure our strengths and have regard to our calling. Fearful errors of the Popish clergy by not attending to this. Their vow of celibacy.

4. Third point to be attended to, viz., the intention with which the vow is made. Four ends in vowing. Two of them refer to the past, and two to the future. Examples and use of the former class.

5. End of vows which refer to the future.

6. The doctrine of vows in general. Common vow of Christians in Baptism, &c. This vow sacred and salutary. Particular vows how to be tested.

7. Great prevalence of superstition with regard to vows.

8. Vows of monks. Contrast between ancient and modern monasticism.

9. Portraiture of the ancient monks by Augustine.

10. Degeneracy of modern monks.

1. Inconsiderate rigour.

2. Idleness.

3. False boast of perfection.

11. This idea of monastic perfection refuted.

12. Arguments for monastic perfection. First argument answered.

13. Second argument answered.(Matthew 19:21)

14. Absurdity of representing the monastic profession as a second baptism.

15. Corrupt manners of monks.

16. Some defects in ancient monasticism.

17. General refutation of monastic vows.

18. Refutation continued.

19. Refutation continued.

20. Do such vows of celibacy bind the conscience? This question answered.

21. Those who abandon the monastic profession for an honest living, unjustly accused of breaking their faith.

(The nature of vows, and prevalent errors concerning them, 1-7)

1. Degeneration and dangers

It is indeed deplorable that the Church, whose freedom was purchased by the inestimable price of Christ’s blood, should have been thus oppressed by a cruel tyranny, and almost buried under a huge mass of traditions; but, at the same time, the private infatuation of each individual shows that not without just cause has so much power been given from above to Satan and his ministers. It was not enough to neglect the command of Christ, and bear any burdens which false teachers might please to impose, but each individual behaved to have his own peculiar burdens, and thus sink deeper by digging his own cavern. This has been the result when men set about devising vows, by which a stronger and closer obligation might be added to common ties. Having already shown that the worship of God was vitiated by the audacity of those who, under the name of pastors, domineered in the Church, when they ensnared miserable souls by their iniquitous laws, it will not be out of place here to advert to a kindred evil, to make it appear that the world, in accordance with its depraved disposition, has always thrown every possible obstacle in the way of the helps by which it ought to have been brought to God. Moreover, that the very grievous mischief introduced by such vows may be more apparent, let the reader attend to the principles formerly laid down.

First we showed (Book 3 chap. 8 sec. 4) that everything requisite for the ordering of a pious and holy life is comprehended in the law. Secondly, we showed that the Lord, the better to dissuade us from devising new works, included the whole of righteousness in simple obedience to his will (Book 3 chap.8 sec.5). If these positions are true, it is easy to see that all fictitious worship, which we ourselves devise for the purpose of serving God, is not in the least degree acceptable to him, how pleasing soever it may be to us. And, unquestionably, in many passages the Lord not only openly rejects, but grievously abhors such worship.

Hence arises a doubt with regard to vows which are made without any express authority from the word of God; in what light are they to be viewed? Can they be duly made by Christian men, and to what extent are they binding?

What is called a promise among men is a vow when made to God. Now, we promise to men either things which we think will be acceptable to them, or things which we in duty owe them. Much more careful, therefore, ought we to be in vows which are directed to God, with whom we ought to act with the greatest seriousness.

Here superstition has in all ages strangely prevailed; men at once, without judgement and without choice, vowing to God whatever came into their minds, or even rose to their lips. Hence the foolish vows, nay, monstrous absurdities, by which the heathen insolently sported with their gods. Would that Christians had not imitated them in this their audacity! Nothing, indeed, could be less becoming; but it is obvious that for some ages nothing has been more usual than this misconduct—the whole body of the people everywhere despising the Law of God, and burning with an insane zeal of vowing according to any dreaming notion which they had formed. I have no wish to exaggerate invidiously, or particularise the many grievous sins which have here been committed; but it seemed right to advert to it in passing, that it may the better appear, that when we treat of vows we are not by any means discussing a superfluous question.

2. God as the One to whom we make our vows

If we would avoid error in deciding what vows are legitimate, and what preposterous, three things must be attended to, viz., who he is to whom the vow is made; who we are that make it; and, lastly, with what intention we make it.

In regard to the first, we should consider that we have to do with God, whom our obedience so delights, that he abominates all will-worship, how specious and splendid soever it may be in the eyes of men, (Col. 2: 23.) If all will worship, which we devise without authority, is abomination to God, it follows that no worship can be acceptable to him save that which is approved by his word. Therefore, we must not arrogate such license to ourselves as to presume to vow anything to God without evidence of the estimation in which he holds it. For the doctrine of Paul, that whatsoever is not of faith is sin, (Rom. 14: 23,) while it extends to all actions of every kind, certainly applies with peculiar force in the case where the thought is immediately turned towards God. Nay, if in the minutes matters (Paul was then speaking of the distinction of meats) we err or fall, where the sure light of faith shines not before us, how much more modesty ought we to use when we attempt a matter of the greatest weight? For in nothing ought we to be more serious than in the duties of religion. In vows, then, our first precaution must be, never to proceed to make any vow without having previously determined in our conscience to attempt nothing rashly. And we shall be safe from the danger of rashness when we have God going before, and, as it were, dictating from his word what is good, and what is useless.

3. The man who makes the vow

In the second point which we have mentioned as requiring consideration is implied, that we measure our strength, that we attend to our vocation so as not to neglect the blessing of liberty which God has conferred upon us. For he who vows what is not within his means, or is at variance with his calling, is rash, while he who condemns the beneficence of God in making him lord of all things is ungrateful. When I speak thus, I mean not that any thing is so placed in our hand, that, leaning on our own strength, we may promise it to God. For in the Council of Arausica, (cap. 11,) it was most truly decreed, that nothing is duly vowed to God save what we have received from his hand, since all things which are offered to him are merely his gifts. But seeing that some things are given to us by the goodness of God, and others withheld by his justice, every man should have respect to the measure of grace bestowed on him, as Paul enjoins, (Rom. 12: 3; 1 Cor. 12: 11.)

All then I mean here is, that your vows should be adapted to the measure which God by his gifts prescribes to you, lest by attempting more than he permits, you arrogate too much to yourself and fall headlong. For example, when the assassins, of whom mention is made in the Acts, vowed “that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul,” (Acts 23: 12,) though it had not been an impious conspiracy, it would still have been intolerably presumptuous, as subjecting the life and death of a man to their own power. Thus Jephthah suffered for his folly, when with precipitate fervour he made a rash vow, (Judges 11: 30-31.) Of this class, the first place of insane audacity belongs to celibacy. Priests, monks, and nuns, forgetful of their infirmity, are confident of their fitness for celibacy. But by what oracle have they been instructed, that the chastity which they vow to the end of life, they will be able through life to maintain? They hear the voice of God concerning the universal condition of mankind, “It is not good that the man should be alone,” (Gen. 2: 18.) They understand, and I wish they did not feel that the sin remaining in us is armed with the sharpest stings. How can they presume to shake off the common feelings of their nature for a whole lifetime, seeing the gift of continence is often granted for a certain time as occasion requires?

In such perverse conduct they must not expect God to be their helper; let them rather remember the words, “Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God,” (Deut. 6: 16; Matt. 4:7.) But it is to tempt the Lord to strive against the nature implanted by him, and to spurn his present gifts as if they did not appertain to us. This they not only do, but marriage, which God did not think it unbecoming his majesty to institute (cf. Gen. 2:22), which he pronounced honourable in all (Heb. 13:4), which Christ our Lord sanctified by his presence, and which he deigned to honour with his first miracle (John 2:2,6-11), they presume to stigmatise as pollution, so extravagant are the terms in which they eulogise every kind of celibacy; as if in their own life they did not furnish a clear proof that celibacy is one thing and chastity another. This life, however, they most impudently style angelical, thereby offering no slight insult to the angels of God, to whom they compare whoremongers and adulterers, and something much worse and fouler still. And, indeed there is here very little occasion for argument, since they are abundantly refuted by fact. For we plainly see the fearful punishments with which the Lord avenges this arrogance and contempt of his gifts from overweening confidence. More hidden crimes I spare through shame, what is known of them is too much.

Beyond all controversy, we ought not to vow anything which will hinder us in fulfilling our vocation; as if the father of a family were to vow to leave his wife and children and undertake other burdens; or one who is fit for a public office should, when elected to it, vow to live private.

But the meaning of what we have said as to not despising our liberty may occasion some difficulty if not explained. Wherefore, understand it briefly thus: since God has given us dominion over all things, and so subjected them to us that we may use them for our convenience, we cannot hope that our service will be acceptable to God if we bring ourselves into bondage to external things, which ought to be subservient to us. I say this, because some aspire to the praise of humility, for entangling themselves in a variety of observances from which God for good reason wished us to be entirely free. Hence, if we would escape this danger, let us always remember that we are by no means to withdraw from the economy which God has appointed in the Christian Church.

4. Vows classified according to intention

I come now to my third position, viz., that if you would approve your vow to God, the mind in which you undertake it is of great moment. For seeing that God looks not to the outward appearance but to the heart, the consequence is, that according to the purpose which the mind has in view, the same thing may at one time please and be acceptable to him, and at another be most displeasing. If you vow abstinence from wine, as if there were any holiness in so doing, you are superstitious; but if you have some end in view which is not perverse, no one can disapprove.

Now, as far as I can see, there are four ends to which our vows may be properly directed; two of these, for the sake of order, I refer to the past, and two to the future.

To the past belong vows by which we either testify our gratitude toward God for favours received, or in order to deprecate his wrath, inflict punishment on ourselves for faults committed. The former, let us if you please call acts of thanksgiving, the latter, acts of repentance.

Of the former class, we have an example in the tithes which Jacob vowed (Gen. 28: 20,) if the Lord would conduct him safely home from exile; and also in the ancient peace-offerings which pious kings and commanders, when about to engage in a just war, vowed that they would give if they were victorious, or, at least, if the Lord would deliver them when pressed by some greater difficulty. Thus are to be understood all the passages in the Psalms which speak of vows, (Ps. 22: 26; 56: 13; 116: 14, 18.) Similar vows may also be used by us in the present day, whenever the Lord has rescued us from some disaster or dangerous disease, or other peril. For it is not abhorrent from the office of a pious man thus to consecrate a votive offering to God as a formal symbol of acknowledgement that he may not seem ungrateful for his kindness.

The nature of the second class it will be sufficient to illustrate merely by one familiar example. Should any one, from gluttonous indulgence, have fallen into some iniquity, there is nothing to prevent him, with the view of chastising his intemperance, from renouncing all luxuries for a certain time, and in doing so, from employing a vow for the purpose of binding himself more firmly. And yet I do not lay down this as an invariable law to all who have similarly offended; I merely show what may be lawfully done by those who think that such a vow will be useful to them. Thus while I hold it lawful so to vow, I at the same time leave it free.

5. Vows of future reference

The vows which have reference to the future tend partly, as we have said, to render us more cautious, and partly to act as a kind of stimulus to the discharge of duty.

A man sees that he is so prone to a certain vice, that in a thing which is otherwise not bad he cannot restrain himself from forthwith falling into evil: he will not act absurdly in cutting off the use of that thing for some time by a vow. If, for instance, one should perceive that this or that bodily ornament brings him into peril, and yet allured by cupidity he eagerly longs for it, what can he do better than by throwing a curb upon himself, that is, imposing the necessity of abstinence, free himself from all doubt?

In like manner, should one be oblivious or sluggish in the necessary duties of piety, why should he not, by forming a vow, both awaken his memory and shake off his sloth?

In both, I confess, there is a kind of tutelage, but in as much as they are helps to infirmity, they are used not without advantage by the ignorant and imperfect.

Hence we hold that vows which have respect to one of these ends, especially in external things, are lawful, provided they are supported by the approbation of God, are suitable to our calling, and are limited to the measure of grace bestowed upon us.

6. Lawful vows in general

It is not now difficult to infer what view on the whole ought to be taken of vows. There is one vow common to all believers, which taken in baptism we confirm, and as it were sanction, by our Catechism, and partaking of the Lord’s Supper. For the sacraments are a kind of mutual contracts by which the Lord conveys his mercy to us, and by it eternal life, while we in our turn promise him obedience. The formula, or at least substance, of the vow is, That renouncing Satan we bind ourselves to the service of God, to obey his holy command, and no longer follow the depraved desires of our flesh. It cannot be doubted that this vow, which is sanctioned by Scripture, nay, is exacted from all the children of God, is holy and salutary. There is nothing against this in the fact, that no man in this life yields that perfect obedience to the law, which God requires of us. This stipulation being included in the covenant of grace, comprehending forgiveness of sins and the spirit of holiness, the promise which we there make is combined both with entreaty for pardon and petition for assistance.

It is necessary, in judging of particular vows, to keep the three former rules in remembrance: from them any one will easily estimate the character of each single vow. Do not suppose, however, that I so commend the vows which I maintain to be holy that I would have them made every day. For though I dare not give any precept as to time or number, yet if any one will take my advice, he will not undertake any but what are sober and temporary. If you are ever and anon launching out into numerous vows, the whole solemnity will be lost by the frequency, and you will readily fall into superstition. If you bind yourself by a perpetual vow, you will have great trouble and annoyance in getting free, or, worn out by length of time, you will at length make bold to break it.

7. Perverse vows

It is now easy to see under how much superstition the world has laboured in this respect for several ages. One vowed that he would be abstemious as if abstinence from wine were in itself an acceptable service to God. Another bound himself to fast, another to abstain from flesh on certain days, which he had vainly imagined to be more holy than other days. Things much more boyish were vowed, though not by boys. For it was accounted great wisdom to undertake votive pilgrimages to holy places, and sometimes to perform the journey on foot, or with the body half naked, that the greater merit might be acquired by the greater fatigue. These and similar things, for which the world has long bustled with incredible zeal, if tried by the rules which we formerly laid down, will be discovered to be not only empty and nugatory, but full of manifest impiety. Be the judgement of the flesh what it may, there is nothing which God more abhors than fictitious worship. To these are added pernicious and damnable notions, hypocrites, after performing such frivolities, thinking that they have acquired no ordinary righteousness, placing the substance of piety in external observances, and despising all others who appear less careful in regard to them.

(Monastic vows and the decline of monastic life, 8-10),

8. The monasticism of the ancient church

It is of no use to enumerate all the separate forms. But as monastic vows are held in great veneration, because they seem to be approved by the public judgement of the Church, I will say a few words concerning them.

And, first, lest any one defend the monarchism of the present day on the ground of the long prescription, it is to be observed, that the ancient mode of living in monasteries was very different. The persons who retired to them were those who wished to train themselves to the greatest austerity and patience. The discipline practised by the monks then resembled that which the Lacedemonians are said to have used under the laws of Lycurgus, and was even much more rigorous. They slept on the ground, their drink was water, their food bread, herbs, and roots, their chief luxuries oil and pulse. From more delicate food and care of the body they abstained. These things might seem hyperbolical were they not vouched by experienced eye-witnesses, as Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, and Chrysostom. By such rudimentary training they prepared themselves for greater offices. For of the fact that monastic colleges were then a kind of seminaries of the ecclesiastical order, both those whom we lately named are very competent witnesses, (they were all brought up in monasteries, and thence called to the episcopal office,) as well as several other great and excellent men of their age. Augustine also shows that in his time the monasteries were wont to furnish the Church with clergy. For he thus addresses the monks of the island of Caprae: “We exhort you, brethren in the Lord, to keep your purpose, and persevere to the end; and if at any time our mother Church requires your labour, you will neither undertake it with eager elation, nor reject it from the blandishment of sloth, but with meek hearts obey God. You will not prefer your own ease to the necessities of the Church. Had no good men been willing to minister to her when in travail, it would have been impossible for you to be born,” (August. Ep. 82.) He is speaking of the ministry by which believers are spiritually born again. In like manner, he says to Aurelius, (Ep. 76,) “It is both an occasion of lapse to them, and a most unbecoming injury to the clerical order, if the deserters of monasteries are elected to the clerical warfare, since from those who remain in the monastery our custom is to appoint to the clerical office only the better and more approved. Unless, perhaps, as the vulgar say, A bad chorister is a good symphonist, so, in like manner, it will be jestingly said of us, A bad monk is a good clergyman. There will be too much cause for grief if we stir up monks to such ruinous pride, and deem the clergy deserving of so grave an affront, seeing that sometimes a good monk scarcely makes a good clerk; he may have sufficient continence, but be deficient in necessary learning.” From these passages, it appears that pious men were wont to prepare for the government of the Church by monastic discipline, that thus they might be more apt and better trained to undertake the important office: not that all attained to this object, or even aimed at it, since the great majority of monks were illiterate men. Those who were fit were selected.

9. Augustine’s description of monasticism

Augustine, in two passages in particular, gives a portraiture of the form of ancient monasticism. The one is in his book, De Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae, (On the Manners of the Catholic Church,) where he maintains the holiness of that profession against the calumnies of the Manichees; the other in a treatise, entitled, De Opera Monachorum, (On the Work of Monks) where he inveighs against certain degenerate monks who had begun to corrupt that institution. I will here give a summary of what he there delivers, and, as far as I can, in his own words: “Despising the allurements of this world, and congregated in common for a most chaste and most holy life, they pass their lives together, spending their time in prayer, reading, and discourse, not swollen with pride, not turbulent through petulance, not livid with envy. No one possesses anything of his own: no one is burdensome to any man. They labour with their hands in things by which the body may be fed, and the mind not withdrawn from God. The fruit of their labour they hand over to those whom they call deans. Those deans, disposing of the whole with great care, render an account to one whom they call father. These fathers, who are not only of the purest morals, but most distinguished for divine learning, and noble in all things, without any pride, consult those whom they call their sons, though the former have full authority to command, and the latter a great inclination to obey. At the close of the day they assemble each from his cell, and without having broken their fast, to hear their father, and to the number of three thousand at least (he is speaking of Egypt and the East) they assemble under each father. Then the body is refreshed, so far as suffices for safety and health, every one curbing his concupiscence so as not to be profuse in the scanty and very mean diet which is provided. Thus they not only abstain from flesh and wine for the purpose of subduing lust, but from those things which provoke the appetite of the stomach and gullet more readily, from seeming to some, as it were, more refined. In this way the desire of exquisite dainties, in which there is no flesh, is wont to be absurdly and shamefully defended. Any surplus, after necessary food, (and the surplus is very great from the labour of their hands and the frugality of their meals,) is carefully distributed to the needy, the more carefully that it was not procured by those who distribute. For they never act with the view of having abundance for themselves, but always act with the view of allowing no superfluity to remain with them,” (August. De Mor. Eccl. Cath. C. 31.) Afterwards describing their austerity, of which he had himself seen instances both at Milan and elsewhere, he says, “Meanwhile, no one is urged to austerities which he is unable to bear: no one is obliged to do what he declines, nor condemned by the others, whom he acknowledges himself too weak to imitate. For they remember how greatly charity is commended: they remember that to the pure all things are pure, (Tit. 1: 15.) Wherefore, all their vigilance is employed, not in rejecting kinds of food as polluted, but in subduing concupiscence, and maintaining brotherly love. They remember, ‘Meats for the belly and the belly for meats,’ &c., (1 Cor. 6: 13.) Many, however strong, abstain because of the weak. In many this is not the cause of action: they take pleasure in sustaining themselves on the meanest and least expensive food. Hence the very persons who in health restrain themselves, decline not in sickness to use what their health requires. Many do not drink wine, and yet do not think themselves polluted by it, for they most humanely cause it to be given to the more sickly, and to those whose health requires it; and some who foolishly refuse they fraternally admonish, lest by vain superstition they sooner become more weak than more holy. Thus they sedulously practice piety, while they know that bodily exercise is only for a short time. Charity especially is observed: their food is adapted to charity, their speech to charity, their dress to charity, their looks to charity. They go together, and breathe only charity: they deem it as unlawful to offend charity as to offend God; if any one opposes it, he is cast out and shunned; if any one offends it, he is not permitted to remain one day,” (August. De Moribus Eccl. Cath. C. 33.)

Since this holy man appears in these words to have exhibited the monastic life of ancient times as in a picture, I have thought it right to insert them here, though somewhat long, because I perceive that I would be considerably longer if I collected them from different writers, however compendious I might study to be.

10. Comparison of earlier with later monasticism

Here, however, I had no intention to discuss the whole subject. I only wished to show, by the way, what kind of monks the early Church had, and what the monastic profession then was, that from the contrast sound readers might judge how great the effrontery is of those who allege antiquity in support of present monkism. Augustine, while tracing out a holy and legitimate monasticism, would keep away all rigorous exaction of those things which the word of the Lord has left free.

But in the present day nothing is more rigorously exacted. For they deem it an inexpiable crime if any one deviates in the least degree from the prescribed form in colour or species of dress, in the kind of food, or in other frivolous and frigid ceremonies. Augustine strenuously contends that it is not lawful for monks to live in idleness on other men’s means. (August. De Oper. Monach.) He denies that any such example was to be found in his day in a well regulated monastery. Our monks place the principal part of their holiness in idleness. For if you take away their idleness, where will be that contemplative life by which they glory that they excel all others, and make a near approach to the angels? Augustine, in fine, requires a monasticism which may be nothing else than a training and assistant to the offices of piety which are recommended to all Christians. What? When he makes charity its chief and almost its only rule, do we think he praises that combination by which a few men, bound to each other, are separated from the whole body of the Church? Nay, he wishes them to set an example to others of preserving the unity of the Church. So different is the nature of present monarchism in both respects, that it would be difficult to find any thing so dissimilar, not to say contrary. For our monks, not satisfied with that piety, on the study of which alone Christ enjoins his followers to be intent, imagine some new kind of piety, by aspiring to which they are more perfect than all other men.

(The erroneous claim of monastic perfection, 11-14)

11. Monasticism—a state of perfection?

If they deny this, I should like to know why they honour their own order only with the title of perfection, and deny it to all other divine callings. I am not unaware of the sophistical solution that their order is not so called because it contains perfection in itself, but because it is the best of all for acquiring perfection. When they would extol themselves to the people; when they would lay a snare for rash and ignorant youth; when they would assert their privileges and exalt their own dignity to the disparagement of others, they boast that they are in a state of perfection. When they are too closely pressed to be able to defend this vain arrogance, they retake themselves to the subterfuge that they have not yet obtained perfection, but that they are in a state in which they aspire to it more than others; meanwhile, the people continue to admire as if the monastic life alone were angelic, perfect, and purified from every vice. Under this pretence they ply a most gainful traffic, while their moderation lies buried in a few volumes. Who sees not that this is intolerable trifling? But let us treat with them as if they ascribed nothing more to their profession than to call it a state for acquiring perfection. Surely by giving it this name, they distinguish it by a special mark from other modes of life. And who will allow such honour to be transferred to an institution of which not one syllable is said in approbation, while all the other callings of God are deemed unworthy of the same, though not only commanded by his sacred lips, but adorned with distinguished titles? And how great the insult offered to God, when some device of man is preferred to all the modes of life which he has ordered, and by his testimony approved?

12. Christ’s rule of life is for all Christians

But let them say I calumniated them when I declared that they were not contented with the rule prescribed by God. Still, though I were silent, they more than sufficiently accuse themselves; for they plainly declare that they undertake a greater burden than Christ has imposed on his followers, since they promise that they will keep evangelical counsels regarding the love of enemies, the suppression of vindictive feelings, and abstinence from swearing, counsels to which Christians are not commonly astricted. In this what antiquity can they pretend? None of the ancients ever thought of such a thing: all with one voice proclaim that not one syllable proceeded from Christ which it is not necessary to obey. And the very things which these worthy expounders pretend that Christ only counselled, they uniformly declare, without any doubt, that he expressly enjoined. But as we have shown above that this is a most pestilential error, let it suffice here to have briefly observed that monasticism, as it now exists, is founded on an idea which all pious men ought to execrate; namely, the pretence that there is some more perfect rule of life than that common rule which God has delivered to the whole Church. Whatever is built on this foundation cannot but be abominable.

13. The meaning of Matt. 19:21

But they produce another argument for their perfection, and deem it invincible. Our Lord said to the young man who put a question to him concerning the perfection of righteousness, “If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor,” (Matth. 19: 21.)

Whether they do so, I do not now dispute. Let us grant for the present that they do. They boast, then, that they have become perfect by abandoning their all. If the sum of perfection consists in this, what is the meaning of Paul’s doctrine, that though a man should give all his goods to feed the poor, and have not charity, he is nothing? (1 Cor. 13: 3.) What kind of perfection is that, which, if charity be wanting is with the individual himself reduced to nothing? Here they must of necessity answer that it is indeed the highest, but is not the only work of perfection. But here again Paul interposes, and hesitates not to declare that charity, without any renunciation of that sort, is the “bond of perfectness,” (Col. 3: 14.) If it is certain that there is no disagreement between the scholar and the master, and the latter clearly denies that the perfection of a man consists in renouncing all his goods, and on the other hand asserts that perfection may exist without it, we must see in what sense we should understand the words of Christ, “If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast.”

Now, there will not be the least obscurity in the meaning if we consider (this ought to be attended to in all our Saviour’s discourses) to whom the words are addressed, (Luke 10: 25.) A young man asks by what works he shall enter into eternal life. Christ, as he was asked concerning works, refers him to the law (Matt. 19:17-19). And justly; for, considered in itself, it is the way of eternal life, and its inefficacy to give eternal life is owing to our depravity. By this answer Christ declared that he did not deliver any other rule of life than that which had formerly been delivered in the law of the Lord. Thus he both bore testimony to the divine law, that it was a doctrine of perfect righteousness, and at the same time met the calumnious charge of seeming, by some new rule of life, to incite the people to revolt from the law.

The young man, who was not ill-disposed, but was puffed up with vain-confidence, answers that he had observed all the precepts of the law from his youth. It is absolutely certain that he was immeasurably distant from the goal which he boasted of having reached. Had his boast been true, he would have wanted nothing of absolute perfection. For it has been demonstrated above, that the law contains in it a perfect righteousness. This is even obvious from the fact, that the observance of it is called the way to eternal life. To show him how little progress he had made in that righteousness which he too boldly answered that he had fulfilled, it was right to bring before him his besetting sin. Now, while he abounded in riches, he had his heart set upon them. Therefore, because he did not feel this secret wound, it is probed by Christ—"Go,” says he, “and sell that thou hast.” Had he been as good a keeper of the law as he supposed, he would not have gone away sorrowful on hearing these words. For he who loves God with his whole heart, not only regards everything which wars with his love as dross, but hates it as destruction, (Phil. 3: 8.)

Therefore, when Christ orders a rich miser to leave all that he has, it is the same as if he had ordered the ambitious to renounce all his honours, the voluptuous all his luxuries, the unchaste all the instruments of his lust. Thus consciences, which are not reached by any general admonition, are to be recalled to a particular feeling of their particular sin. In vain, therefore, do they wrest that special case to a general interpretation, as if Christ had decided that the perfection of man consists in the abandonment of his goods, since he intended nothing more by the expression than to bring a youth who was out of measure satisfied with himself to feel his sore, and so understand that he was still at a great distance from that perfect obedience of the law which he falsely ascribed to himself.

I admit that this passage was ill understood by some of the Fathers; and hence arose an affectation of voluntary poverty, those only being thought blest who abandoned all earthly goods, and in a state of destitution devoted themselves to Christ. But I am confident that, after my exposition, no good and reasonable man will have any dubiety here as to the mind of Christ.

14. Monastic sectarianism

Still there was nothing which the Fathers less intended than to establish that kind of perfection which was afterwards fabricated by cowled monks, in order to rear up a species of double Christianity. For as yet the sacrilegious dogma was not broached which compares the profession of monasticism to baptism, nay, plainly asserts that it is the form of a second baptism. Who can doubt that the Fathers with their whole hearts abhorred such blasphemy?

Then what need is there to demonstrate, by words, that the last quality which Augustine mentions as belonging to the ancient monks, viz., that they in all things accommodated themselves to charity, is most alien from this new profession? The thing itself declares that all who retire into monasteries withdraw from the Church. For how? Do they not separate themselves from the legitimate society of the faithful, by acquiring for themselves a special ministry and private administration of the sacraments? What is meant by destroying the communion of the Church if this is not? And to follow out the comparison with which I began, and at once close the point, what resemblance have they in this respect to the ancient monks? These, though they dwelt separately from others, had not a separate Church; they partook of the sacraments with others, they attended public meetings, and were then a part of the people. But what have those men done in erecting a private altar for themselves but broken the bond of unity? For they have excommunicated themselves from the whole body of the Church, and condemned the ordinary ministry by which the Lord has been pleased that peace and charity should be preserved among his followers. Wherefore I hold that as many monasteries as there are in the present day, so many conventicles are there of schismatics, who have disturbed ecclesiastical order, and been cut off from the legitimate society of the faithful. And that there might be no doubt as to their separation, they have given themselves the various names of factions. They have not been ashamed to glory in that which Paul so execrates, that he is unable to express his detestation too strongly. Unless, indeed, we suppose that Christ was not divided by the Corinthians, when one teacher set himself above another, (1 Cor. 1: 12, 13; 3: 4;) and that now no injury is done to Christ when, instead of Christians, we hear some called Benedictine, others Franciscans, others Dominicans, and so called, that while they affect to be distinguished from the common body of Christians, they proudly substitute these names for a religious profession.

(Differences of ancient and monastic profession: New Testament widows and deaconesses were not nuns, 15-19)

15. The degeneration of the conduct of monks

The differences which I have hitherto pointed out between the ancient monks and those of our age are not in manners, but in profession. Hence let my readers remember that I have spoken of monarchism rather than of monks; and marked, not the vices which cleave to a few, but vices which are inseparable from the very mode of life.

In regard to manners, of what use is it to particularise and show how great the difference? this much is certain, that there is no order of men more polluted by all kinds of vicious turpitude; nowhere do faction, hatred, party-spirit, and intrigue, more prevail. In a few monasteries, indeed, they live chastely, if we are to call it chastity, where lust is so far repressed as not to be openly infamous; still you will scarcely find one in ten which is not rather a brothel than a sacred abode of chastity. But how frugally they live? Just like swine wallowing in their sties. But lest they complain that I deal too unmercifully with them, I go no farther; although any one who knows the case will admit, that in the few things which I have said, I have not spoken in the spirit of an accuser.

Augustine, though he testifies that the monks excelled so much in chastity, yet complains that there were many vagabonds, who, by wicked arts and impostures, extracted money from the more simple, plying a shameful traffic, by carrying about the relics of martyrs, and vending any dead man’s bones for relics, bringing ignominy on their order by many similar iniquities. As he declares that he had seen none better than those who had profited in monasteries; so he laments that he had seen none worse than those who had backslidden in monasteries. What would he say were he, in the present day, to see now almost all monasteries overflowing, and in a manner bursting, with numerous deplorable vices?

I say nothing but what is notorious to all; and yet this charge does not apply to all without a single exception; for, as the rule and discipline of holy living was never so well framed in monasteries as that there were not always some drones very unlike the others; so I hold that, in the present day, monks have not so completely degenerated from that holy antiquity as not to have some good men among them; but these few lie scattered up and down among a huge multitude of wicked and dishonest men, and are not only despised, but even petulantly assailed, sometimes even treated cruelly by the others, who, according to the Milesian proverb, think they ought to have no good man among them.

16. Considerations against ancient monasticism

By this contrast between ancient and modern monasticism, I trust I have gained my object, which was to show that our cowled monks falsely pretend the example of the primitive Church in defence of their profession; since they differ no less from the monks of that period than apes do from men.

Meanwhile, I disguise not that even in that ancient form which Augustine commends, there was something which little pleases me. I admit that they were not superstitious in the external exercises of a more rigorous discipline, but I say that they were not without a degree of affectation and false zeal. It was a fine thing, to cast away their substance, and free themselves from all worldly cares; but God sets more value on the pious management of a household, when the head of it, discarding all avarice, ambition, and other lusts of the flesh, makes it his purpose to serve God in some particular vocation. It is fine to philosophise in seclusion, far away from the intercourse of society; but it ill accords with Christian meekness for any one, as if in hatred of the human race, to fly to the wilderness and to solitude, and at the same time desert the duties which the Lord has especially commanded. Were we to grant that there was nothing worse in that profession, there is certainly no small evil in its having introduced a useless and perilous example into the Church.

17. Monastic vows, especially the vow of chastity

Now, then, let us see the nature of the vows by which the monks of the present day are initiated into this famous order.

First, as their intention is to institute a new and fictitious worship with a view to gain favour with God, I conclude from what has been said above, that every thing which they vow is abomination to God.

Secondly, I hold that as they frame their own mode of life at pleasure, without any regard to the calling of God, or to his. approbation, the attempt is rash and unlawful; because their conscience has no ground on which it can support itself before God; and “whatsoever is not of faith is sin,” (Rom. 14: 23.)

Moreover, I maintain that in astricting themselves to many perverse and impious modes of worship, such as are exhibited in modern monasticism, they consecrate themselves not to God but to the devil. For why should the prophets have been permitted to say that the Israelites sacrificed their sons to devils and not to God, (Deut. 32: 17; Ps. 106: 37,) merely because they had corrupted the true worship of God by profane ceremonies; and we not be permitted to say the same thing of monks who, along with the cowl, cover themselves with the net of a thousand impious superstitions?

Then what is their species of vows? They offer God a promise of perpetual virginity, as if they had previously made a compact with him to free them from the necessity of marriage. They cannot allege that they make this vow trusting entirely to the grace of God; for, seeing he declares this to be a special gift not given to all, (Matth. 19: 11,) no man has a right to assume that the gift will be his. Let those who have it use it; and if at any time they feel the infirmity of the flesh, let them have recourse to the aid of him by whose power alone they can resist. If this avails not, let them not despise the remedy which is offered to them. If the faculty of continence is denied, the voice of God distinctly calls upon them to marry. By continence I mean not merely that by which the body is kept pure from fornication, but that by which the mind keeps its chastity untainted. For Paul enjoins caution not only against external lasciviousness, but also burning of mind, (1 Cor. 7: 9.) It has been the practice (they say) from the remotest period, for those who wished to devote themselves entirely to God, to bind themselves by a vow of continence. I confess that the custom is ancient, but I do not admit that the age when it commenced was so free from every defect that all that was then done is to be regarded as a rule. Moreover, the inexorable rigour of holding that after the vow is conceived there is no room for repentance, crept in gradually. This is clear from Cyprian. “If virgins have dedicated themselves to Christ in faith, let them live modestly and chastely, without pretence. Thus strong and stable, let them wait for the reward of virginity. But if they will not, or cannot persevere, it is better to marry, than by their faults to fall into the fire.” In the present day, with what invectives would they not lacerate any one who should seek to temper the vow of continence by such an equitable course? Those, therefore, have wandered far from the ancient custom who not only use no moderation, and grant no pardon when any one proves unequal to the performance of his vow, but shamelessly declare that it is a more heinous sin to cure the intemperance of the flesh by marriage, than to defile body and soul by whoredom.

18. The case of the widows in I Tim. 5:12

But they still insist and attempt to show that this vow was used in the days of the apostles, because Paul says that widows who marry after having once undertaken a public office, “cast off their first faith,” (1 Tim. 5: 11-12.) I by no means deny that widows who dedicated themselves and their labours to the Church, at the same time came under an obligation of perpetual celibacy, not because they regarded it in the light of a religious duty, as afterwards began to be the case, but because they could not perform their functions unless they had their time at their own command, and were free from the nuptial tie. But if, after giving their pledge, they began to look to a new marriage, what else was this but to shake off the calling of God? It is not strange, therefore, when Paul says that by such desires they grow wanton against Christ. In further explanation he afterwards adds, that by not performing their promises to the Church, they violate and nullify their first faith given in baptism; one of the things contained in this first faith being, that every one should correspond to his calling. Unless you choose rather to interpret that, having lost their modesty, they afterwards cast off all care of decency, prostituting themselves to all kinds of lasciviousness and pertness, leading licentious and dissolute lives, than which nothing can less become Christian women. I am much pleased with this exposition.

Our answer then is, that those widows who were then admitted to a public ministry came under an obligation of perpetual celibacy, and hence we easily understand how, when they married, they threw off all modesty, and became more insolent than became Christian women; that in this way they not only sinned by violating the faith given to the Church, but revolted from the common rule of pious women. But first, I deny that they had any other reason for professing celibacy than just because marriage was altogether inconsistent with the function which they undertook. Hence they bound themselves to celibacy only in so far as the nature of their function required. Secondly, I do not admit that they were bound to celibacy in such a sense that it was not better for them to marry than to suffer by the incitements of the flesh, and fall into uncleanness. Thirdly, I hold that what Paul enjoined was in the common case free from danger, because he orders the selection to be made from those who, contented with one marriage, had already given proof of continence. Our only reason for disapproving of the vow of celibacy is, because it is improperly regarded as an act of worship, and is rashly undertaken by persons who have not the power of keeping it.

19. Nuns are very different

But what ground can there be for applying this passage to nuns? For deaconesses were appointed, not to soothe God by chanting or unintelligible murmurs, and spend the rest of their time in idleness; but to perform a public ministry of the Church toward the poor, and to labour with all zeal, assiduity and diligence, in offices of charity. They did not vow celibacy, that they might thereafter exhibit abstinence from marriage as a kind of worship rendered to God, but only that they might be freer from encumbrance in executing their office. In fine, they did not vow on attaining adolescence, or in the bloom of life, and so afterwards learn, by too late experience, over what a precipice they had plunged themselves, but after they were thought to have surmounted all danger, they took a vow not less safe than holy. But not to press the two former points, I say that it was unlawful to allow women to take a vow of continence before their sixtieth year, since the apostle admits such only, and enjoins the younger to marry and beget children. Therefore, it is impossible, on any ground, to excuse the deduction, first of twelve, then of twenty, and, lastly, of thirty years. Still less possible is it to tolerate the case of miserable girls, who, before they have reached an age at which they can know themselves, or have any experience of their character, are not only induced by fraud, but compelled by force and threats, to entangle themselves in these accursed snares.

I will not enter at length into a refutation of the other two vows. This only I say, that besides involving (as matters stand in the present day) not a few superstitions, they seem to be purposely framed in such a manner, as to make those who take them mock God and men. But lest we should seem, with too malignant feeling, to attack every particular point, we will be contented with the general refutation which has been given above.

(Unlawful and superstitious vows are not binding, 20-21)

20. Are inadmissible vows binding?

The nature of the vows which are legitimate and acceptable to God, I think I have sufficiently explained. Yet, because some ill-informed and timid consciences, even when a vow displeases, and is condemned, nevertheless hesitate as to the obligations and are grievously tormented shuddering at the thought of violating a pledge given to God. And, on the other hand, fearing to sin more by keeping it,—we must here come to their aid, and enable them to escape from this difficulty.

And to take away all scruple at once, I say that all vows not legitimate, and not duly conceived, as they are of no account with God, should be regarded by us as null. (See Calv. ad Council. Trident.) For if, in human contracts, those promises only are binding in which he with whom we contract wishes to have us bound, it is absurd to say that we are bound to perform things which God does not at all require of us, especially since our works can only be right when they please God, and have the testimony of our consciences that they do please him. For it always remains fixed, that “whatsoever is not of faith is sin,” (Rom. 14: 23.) By this Paul means, that any work undertaken in doubt is vicious, because at the root of all good works lies faith, which assures us that they are acceptable to God. Therefore, if Christian men may not attempt anything without this assurance, why, if they have undertaken anything rashly through ignorance, may they not afterwards be freed, and desist from their error? Since vows rashly undertaken are of this description, they not only oblige not, but must necessarily be rescinded. What, then when they are not only of no estimation in the sight of God, but are even an abomination, as has already been demonstrated? It is needless farther to discuss a point which does not require it. To appease pious consciences, and free them from all doubt, this one argument seems to me sufficient, viz., that all works whatsoever which flow not from a sure fountain, and are not directed to a proper end, are repudiated by God, and so repudiated that he no less forbids us to continue than to begin them. Hence it follows, that vows dictated by error and superstition are of no weight with God, and ought to be abandoned by us.

21. On the breaking of monastic vows

He who understands this solution is furnished with the means of repelling the calumnies of the wicked against those who withdraw from monasticism to some honest kind of livelihood. They are grievously charged with having perjured themselves, and broken their faith, because they have broken the bond (vulgarly supposed to be indissoluble) by which they had bound themselves to God and the Church. But I say, first, there is no bond when that which man confirms God abrogates: and, secondly, even granting that they were bound when they remained entangled in ignorance and error, now, since they have been enlightened by the knowledge of the truth, I hold that they are, at the same time, free by the grace of Christ. For if such is the efficacy of the cross of Christ, that it frees us from the curse of the divine law by which we were held bound, how much more must it rescue us from extraneous chains, which are nothing but the wily nets of Satan? There can be no doubt, therefore, that all on whom Christ shines with the light of his Gospel, he frees from all the snares in which they had entangled themselves through superstition.

At the same time, they have another defence if they were unfit for celibacy. For if an impossible vow is certain destruction to the soul, which God wills to be saved and not destroyed, it follows, that it ought by no means to be adhered to. Now, how impossible the vow of continence is to those who have not received it by special gift, we have shown, and experience, even were I silent, declares: while the great obscenity with which almost all monasteries teem is a thing not unknown. If any seem more decent and modest than others, they are not, however, chaste. The sin of unchastity urges, and lurks within. Thus it is that God, by fearful examples, punishes the audacity of men, when, unmindful of their infirmity, they, against nature, affect that which has been denied to them, and despising the remedies which the Lord has placed in their hands, are confident in their ability to overcome the disease of incontinence by contumacious obstinacy. For what other name can we give it, when a man, admonished of his need of marriage, and of the remedy with which the Lord has thereby furnished, not only despises it, but binds himself by an oath to despise it?

CHAPTER 14. OF THE SACRAMENTS.

This chapter consists of two principal parts,—

I. Of sacraments in general. The sum of the doctrine stated, sec. 1-6. Two classes of opponents to be guarded against, viz., those who undervalue the power of the sacraments, sec. 7-13; and those who attribute too much to the sacraments, sec. 14-17.

II. Of the sacraments in particular, both of the Old and the New Testament. Their scope and meaning. Refutation of those who have either too high or too low ideas of the sacraments.

Sections.

1. Of the sacraments in general. A sacrament defined.

2. Meaning of the word sacrament.

3. Definition explained. Why God seals his promises to us by sacraments.

4. The word which ought to accompany the element, that the sacrament may be complete.

5. Error of those who attempt to separate the word, or promise of God, from the element.

6. Why sacraments are called Signs of the Covenant.

7. They are such signs, though the wicked should receive them, but are signs of grace only to believers.

8. Objections to this view answered.

9. No secret virtue in the sacraments. Their whole efficacy depends on the inward operation of the Spirit.

10. Objections answered. Illustrated by a simile.

11. Of the increase of faith by the preaching of the word.

12. In what way, and how far, the sacraments are confirmations of our faith.

13. Some regard the sacraments as mere signs. This view refuted.

14. Some again attribute too much to the sacraments. Refutation.

15. Refutation confirmed by a passage from Augustine.

16. Previous views more fully explained.

17. The matter of the sacrament always present when the sacrament is duly administered.

18. Extensive meaning of the term sacrament.

19. The ordinary sacraments in the Church. How necessary they are.

20. The sacraments of the Old and of the New Testament. The end of both the same, viz., to lead us to Christ.

21. This apparent in the Sacraments of the Old Testament.

22. Apparent also in the Sacraments of the New Testament.

23. Impious doctrine of the Schoolmen as to the difference between the Old and the New Testaments.

24. Scholastic objection answered.

25. Another objection answered.

26. Sacraments of the New Testament sometimes excessively extolled by early Theologians. Their meaning explained.

(The word “sacrament” explained: sacraments are signs of God’s covenants, 1-6)

1. Definition

Akin to the preaching of the gospel, we have another help to our faith in the sacraments in regard to which, it greatly concerns us that some sure doctrine should be delivered, informing us both of the end for which they were instituted, and of their present use.

First, we must attend to what a sacrament is. It seems to me, then, a simple and appropriate definition to say, that it is an external sign, by which the Lord seals on our consciences his promises of good-will toward us, in order to sustain the weakness of our faith, and we in our turn testify our piety towards him, both before himself and before angels as well as men. We may also define more briefly by calling it a testimony of the divine favour toward us, confirmed by an external sign, with a corresponding attestation of our faith towards Him. You may make your choice of these definitions, which, in meaning, differ not from that of Augustine, which defines a sacrament to be a visible sign of a sacred thing, or a visible form of an invisible grace, but does not contain a better or surer explanation. As its brevity makes it somewhat obscure, and thereby misleads the more illiterate, I wished to remove all doubt, and make the definition fuller by stating it at greater length.

2. The word “sacrament”

The reason why the ancients used the term in this sense is not obscure. The old interpreter, whenever he wished to render the Greek term “musterion” into Latin, especially when it was used with reference to divine things, used the word sacramentum. Thus in Ephesians, “Having made known unto us the mystery (sacramentum) of his will;” and again, “If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God, which is given me to you-wards, how that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery” (sacramentum,) (Eph. 1: 9; 3: 2.) In the Colossians, “Even the mystery which has been hid from ages and from generations, but is now made manifest to his saints, to whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery,” (sacramentum,) (Col. 1: 26.) Also in the First Epistle to Timothy, “Without controversy, great is the mystery (sacramentum) of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh,” (1 Tim. 3: 16.) He was unwilling to use the word arcanum, (secret,) lest the word should seem beneath the magnitude of the thing meant. When the thing, therefore, was sacred and secret, he used the term sacramentum. In this sense it frequently occurs in ecclesiastical writers. And it is well known, that what the Latins call sacramental the Greeks call “musteria” (mysteries.) The sameness of meaning removes all dispute. Hence it is that the term was applied to those signs which gave an august representation of things spiritual and sublime. This is also observed by Augustine, “It were tedious to discourse of the variety of signs; those which relate to divine things are called sacraments,” (August. Ep. 5. ad Marcell.)

3. Word and sign

From the definition which we have given, we perceive that there never is a sacrament without an antecedent promise, the sacrament being added as a kind of appendix, with the view of confirming and sealing the promise, and giving a better attestation, or rather, in a manner, confirming it. In this way God provides first for our ignorance and sluggishness and, secondly, for our infirmity; and yet, properly speaking, it does not so much confirm his word as establish us in the faith of it. For the truth of God is in itself sufficiently stable and certain, and cannot receive a better confirmation from any other quarter than from itself. But as our faith is slender and weak, so if it be not propped up on every side, and supported by all kinds of means, it is forthwith shaken and tossed to and fro, wavers, and even falls. And here, indeed, our merciful Lord, with boundless condescension, so accommodates himself to our capacity, that seeing how from our animal nature we are always creeping on the ground, and cleaving to the flesh, having no thought of what is spiritual, and not even forming an idea of it, he declines not by means of these earthly elements to lead us to himself, and even in the flesh to exhibit a mirror of spiritual blessings. For, as Chrysostom says, (Hom. 60, ad Popul.) “Were we incorporeal, he would give us these things in a naked and incorporeal form. Now because our souls are implanted in bodies, he delivers spiritual things under things visible. Not that the qualities which are set before us in the sacraments are inherent in the nature of the things, but God gives them this signification.”

4. The word must explain the sign

This is commonly expressed by saying that a sacrament consists of the word and the external sign. By the word we ought to understand not one which, muttered without meaning and without faith, by its sound merely, as by a magical incantation, has the effect of consecrating the element, but one which, preached, makes us understand what the visible sign means.

The thing, therefore, which was frequently done, under the tyranny of the Pope, was not free from great profanation of the mystery, for they deemed it sufficient if the priest muttered the formula of consecration, while the people, without understanding, looked stupidly on. Nay, this was done for the express purpose of preventing any instruction from thereby reaching the people: for all was said in Latin to illiterate hearers. Superstition afterwards was carried to such a height, that the consecration was thought not to be duly performed except in a low grumble, which few could hear.

Very different is the doctrine of Augustine concerning the sacramental word. “Let the word be added to the element, and it will become a sacrament. For whence can there be so much virtue in water as to touch the body and cleanse the heart, unless by the agency of the word, and this not because it is said, but because it is believed? For even in the word the transient sound is one thing, the permanent power another. This is the word of faith which we preach, says the Apostle, (Rom. 10: 8.) Hence, in the Acts of the Apostles, we have the expressions “Purifying their hearts by faith,” (Acts 15: 9.) And the Apostle Peter says, “The like figure whereunto even baptism does now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience,") (1 Pet. 3: 21.) “This is the word of faith which we preach: by which word doubtless baptism also, in order that it may be able to cleanse, is consecrated,” (August. Hom. in Joann. 13.)

You see how he requires preaching to the production of faith. And we need not labour to prove this, since there is not the least room for doubt as to what Christ did and commanded us to do, as to what the apostles followed and a purer Church observed. Nay, it is known that, from the very beginning of the world, whenever God offered any sign to the holy Patriarchs, it was inseparably attached to doctrine, without which our senses would gaze bewildered on an unmeaning object. Therefore, when we hear mention made of the sacramental word, let us understand the promise which, proclaimed aloud by the minister, leads the people by the hand to that to which the sign tends and directs us.

5. The sacraments as seals

Nor are those to be listened to who oppose this view with a more subtle than solid dilemma. They argue thus: We either know that the word of God which precedes the sacrament is the true will of God, or we do not know it. If we know it, we learn nothing new from the sacrament which succeeds. If we do not know it, we cannot learn it from the sacrament, whose whole efficacy depends on the word. Our brief reply is: The seals which are affixed to diplomas, and other public deeds, are nothing considered in themselves, and would be affixed to no purpose if nothing was written on the parchment, and yet this does not prevent them from sealing and confirming when they are appended to writings. It cannot be alleged that this comparison is a recent fiction of our own, since Paul himself used it, terming circumcision a seal, (Rom. 4: 11,) where he expressly maintains that the circumcision of Abraham was not for justifications but was an attestation to the covenant, by the faith of which he had been previously justified. And how, pray, can any one be greatly offended when we teach that the promise is sealed by the sacrament, since it is plain, from the promises themselves, that one promise confirms another? The clearer any evidence is, the fitter is it to support our faith. But sacraments bring with them the clearest promises, and, when compared with the word, have this peculiarity, that they represent promises to the life, as if painted in a picture. Nor ought we to be moved by an objection founded on the distinction between sacraments and the seals of documents, viz., that since both consist of the carnal elements of this world, the former cannot be sufficient or adequate to seal the promises of God, which are spiritual and eternal, though the latter may be employed to seal the edicts of princes concerning fleeting and fading things. But the believer, when the sacraments are presented to his eye, does not stop short at the carnal spectacle, but by the steps of analogy which I have indicated, rises with pious consideration to the sublime mysteries which lie hidden in the sacraments.

6. The sacraments as signs of a covenant

As the Lord calls his promises covenants, (Gen. 6: 18; 9: 9; 17: 2,) and sacraments signs of the covenants, so something similar may be inferred from human covenants. What could the slaughter of a hog effect, unless words were interposed or rather preceded? Swine are often killed without any interior or occult mystery. What could be gained by pledging the right hand, since hands are not infrequently joined in giving battle? But when words have preceded, then by such symbols of covenant sanction is given to laws, though previously conceived, digested, and enacted by words. Sacraments, therefore, are exercises which confirm our faith in the word of God; and because we are carnal, they are exhibited under carnal objects, that thus they may train us in accommodation to our sluggish capacity, just as nurses lead children by the hand. And hence Augustine calls a sacrament a visible word, (August. In Joann. Hom. 89,) because it represents the promises of God as in a picture, and places them in our view in a graphic bodily form, (August. cont. Faust. Lib. 19.)

We might refer to other similitudes, by which sacraments are more plainly designated, as when they are called the pillars of our faith. For just as a building stands and leans on its foundation, and yet is rendered more stable when supported by pillars, so faith leans on the word of God as its proper foundation, and yet when sacraments are added leans more firmly, as if resting on pillars. Or we may call them mirrors, in which we may contemplate the riches of the grace which God bestows upon us. For then, as has been said, he manifests himself to us in as far as our dullness can enable us to recognise him, and testifies his love and kindness to us more expressly than by word.

(They confirm faith, not of themselves, but as agencies of the Holy Spirit and in association with the Word; and they are distinguishing marks of our profession of faith before men, 7-13)

7. The reception of the sacraments by the wicked is no evidence against their importance

It is irrational to contend that sacraments are not manifestations of divine grace toward us, because they are held forth to the ungodly also, who, however, so far from experiencing God to be more propitious to them, only incur greater condemnation. By the same reasoning, the gospel will be no manifestation of the grace of God, because it is spurned by many who hear it; nor will Christ himself be a manifestation of grace, because of the many by whom he was seen and known, very few received him.

Something similar may be seen in public enactments. A great part of the body of the people deride and evade the authenticating seal, though they know it was employed by their sovereign to confirm his will; others trample it under foot, as a matter by no means appertaining to them; while others even execrate it: so that, seeing the condition of the two things to be alike, the appropriateness of the comparison which I made above ought to be more readily allowed.

It is certain, therefore, that the Lord offers us his mercy, and a pledge of his grace, both in his sacred word and in the sacraments; but it is not apprehended save by those who receive the word and sacraments with firm faith: in like manner as Christ, though offered and held forth for salvation to all, is not, however, acknowledged and received by all. Augustine, when intending to intimate this, said that the efficacy of the word is produced in the sacrament not because it is spoken, but because it is believed.

Hence Paul, addressing believers, includes communion with Christ in the sacraments, as when he says, “As many of you as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ,” (Gal. 3: 27.) Again, “For by one Spirit we are all baptised into one body,” (1 Cor. 12: 13.) But when he speaks of a preposterous use of the sacraments, he attributes nothing more to them than to frigid empty figures; thereby intimating, that however the ungodly and hypocrites may, by their perverseness either suppress, or obscure, or impede the effect of divine grace in the sacraments, that does not prevent them, where and whenever God is so pleased, from giving a true evidence of communion with Christ, or prevent them from exhibiting, and the Spirit of God from performing, the very thing which they promise. We conclude, therefore, that the sacraments are truly termed evidences of divine grace, and, as it were, seals of the goodwill which he entertains toward us. They, by sealing it to us, sustain, nourish, confirm, and increase our faith.

The objections usually urged against this view are frivolous and weak. They say, that our faith, if it is good, cannot be made better; for there is no faith save that which leans unshakingly, firmly and undividedly, on the mercy of God. It had been better for the objectors to pray, with the apostles, “Lord, increase our faith,” (Luke 17: 5,) than confidently to maintain a perfection of faith which none of the sons of men ever attained, none ever shall attain in this life.

Let them explain what kind of faith his was who said, “Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief,” (Mark 9: 24.) That faith, though only commenced, was good, and might, by the removal of the unbelief be made better. But there is no better argument to refute them than their own consciousness. For if they confess themselves sinners, (this, whether they will or not, they cannot deny,) then they must of necessity impute this very quality to the imperfection of their faith.

8. To what extent can we speak of a confirmation of faith through the sacraments?

But Philip, they say, replied to the eunuch who asked to be baptised, “If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest,” (Acts 8: 37). What room is there for a confirmation of baptism when faith fills the whole heart? I, in my turn, ask them, Do they not feel that a good part of their heart is void of faith,—do they not perceive new additions to it every day? There was one who boasted that he grew old while learning. Thrice miserable then, are we Christians if we grow old without making progress, we whose faith ought to advance through every period of life until it grows up into a perfect man, (Eph. 4: 13.) In this passage, therefore to believe with the whole heart, is not to believe Christ perfectly, but only to embrace him sincerely with heart and soul; not to be filled with him, but with ardent affection to hunger and thirst, and sigh after him. It is usual in Scripture to say that a thing is done with the whole heart, when it is done sincerely and cordially. Of this description are the following passages:—"With my whole heart have I sought thee,” (Ps. 119: 10;) “I will confess unto thee with my whole heart,” &c. In like manner, when the fraudulent and deceitful are rebuked it is said, “with flattering lips, and with a double heart, do they speak,” (Ps. 12: 2.)

The objectors next add—"If faith is increased by means of the sacraments, the Holy Spirit is given in vain, seeing it is his office to begin, sustain, and consummate our faith.” I admit, indeed, that faith is the proper and entire sock of the Holy Spirit, enlightened by whom we recognise God and the treasures of his grace, and without whose illumination our mind is so blind that it can see nothing, so stupid that it has no relish for spiritual things. But for the one Divine blessing which they proclaim we count three. For, first, the Lord teaches and trains us by his word; next, he confirms us by his sacraments; lastly, he illumines our mind by the light of his Holy Spirit, and opens up an entrance into our hearts for his word and sacraments, which would otherwise only strike our ears, and fall upon our sight, but by no means affect us inwardly.

9. The Holy Spirit in the sacraments

Wherefore, with regard to the increase and confirmation of faith, I would remind the reader, (though I think I have already expressed it in unambiguous terms,) that in assigning this office to the sacraments, it is not as if I thought that there is a kind of secret efficacy perpetually inherent in them, by which they can of themselves promote or strengthen faith, but because our Lord has instituted them for the express purpose of helping to establish and increase our faith.

The sacraments duly perform their office only when accompanied by the Spirit, the internal Master, whose energy alone penetrates the heart, stirs up the affections, and procures access for the sacraments into our souls. If he is wanting, the sacraments can avail us no more than the sun shining on the eyeballs of the blind, or sounds uttered in the ears of the deaf. Wherefore, in distributing between the Spirit and the sacraments I ascribe the whole energy to him, and leave only a ministry to them; this ministry, without the agency of the Spirit, is empty and frivolous, but when he acts within, and exerts his power, it is replete with energy.

It is now clear in what way, according to this vies, a pious mind is confirmed in faith by means of the sacraments, viz., in the same way in which the light of the sun is seen by the eye, and the sound of the voice heard by the ear; the former of which would not be at all affected by the light unless it had a pupil on which the light might fall; nor the latter reached by any sound, however loud were it not naturally adapted for hearing. But if it is true, as has been explained, that in the eye it is the power of vision which enables it to see the light, and in the ear the power of hearing which enables it to perceive the voice, and that in our hearts it is the work of the Holy Spirit to commence, maintain, cherish, and establish faith, then it follows both that the sacraments do not avail one iota without the energy of the Holy Spirit; and that yet in hearts previously taught by that preceptor, there is nothing to prevent the sacraments from strengthening and increasing faith. There is only this difference, that the faculty of seeing and hearing is naturally implanted in the eye and ear; whereas, Christ acts in our minds above the measure of nature by special grace.

10. Illustration from human persuasion

In this way, also, we dispose of certain objections by which some anxious minds are annoyed. If we ascribe either an increase or confirmation of faith to creatures, injustice is done to the Spirit of God, who alone ought to be regarded as its author. But we do not rob him of the merit of confirming and increasing faith; nay, rather, we maintain that that which confirms and increases faith, is nothing else than the preparing of our minds by his internal illumination to receive that confirmation which is set forth by the sacraments.

But if the subject is still obscure, it will be made plain by the following similitude: Were you to begin to persuade a person by word to do something you would think of all the arguments by which he may be brought over to your view, and in a manner compelled to serve your purpose. But nothing is gained if the individual himself possess not a clear and acute judgement, by which he may be able to weigh the value of your arguments; if, moreover he is not of a docile disposition, and ready to listen to doctrine; if, in fine, he has no such idea of your faith and prudence as in a manner to prejudice him in your favour, and secure his assent. For there are many obstinate spirits who are not to be bent by any arguments; and where faith is suspected, or authority condemned, little progress is made even with the docile. On the other hand, when opposite feelings exist, the result will be, that the person whose interests you are consulting will acquiesce in the very counsels which he would otherwise have derided. The same work is performed in us by the Spirit. That the word may not fall upon our ear, or the sacraments be presented to our eye in vain, he shows that it is God who there speaks to us, softens our obdurate hearts, and frames them to the obedience which is due to his word; in short, transmits those external words and sacraments from the ear to the soul.

Both word and sacraments, therefore, confirm our faith, bringing under view the kind intentions of our heavenly Father, in the knowledge of which the whole assurance of our faith depends, and by which its strength is increased; and the Spirit also confirms our faith when by engraving that assurance on our minds, he renders it effectual. Meanwhile, it is easy for the Father of lights, in like manner as he illumines the bodily eye by the rays of the sun, to illumine our minds by the sacraments, as by a kind of intermediate brightness.

11. Word and sacrament work equally in the confirming of our faith

This property our Lord showed to belong to the external word, when, in the parable, he compared it to seed, (Matth. 13: 4; Luke 8: 15.) For as the seed, when it falls on a deserted and neglected part of the field, can do nothing but die, but when thrown into ground properly laboured and cultivated, will yield a hundred-fold; so the word of God, when addressed to any stubborn spirit, will remain without fruit, as if thrown upon the barren waste, but when it meets with a soul which the hand of the heavenly Spirit has subdued, will be most fruitful. But if the case of the seed and of the word is the same, and from the seed corn can grow and increase, and attain to maturity, why may not faith also take its beginning, increase, and completion from the word?

Both things are admirably explained by Paul in different passages. For when he would remind the Corinthians how God had given effect to his labours, he boasts that he possessed the ministry of the Spirit, (1 Cor. 2: 4;) just as if his preaching were inseparably connected with the power of the Holy Spirit, in inwardly enlightening the mind, and stimulating it. But in another passage, when he would remind them what the power of the word is in itself, when preached by man, he compares ministers to husbandmen, who, after they have expended labour and industry in cultivating the ground, have nothing more that they can do. For what would sloughing, and sowing, and watering avail, unless that which was sown should, by the kindness of Heaven vegetate? Wherefore, he concludes, that he that planteth and he that watereth, is nothing, but that the whole is to be ascribed to God, who alone gives the increase. The apostle, therefore, exert the power of the Spirit in their preaching, inasmuch as God uses them as instruments which he has ordained for the unfolding of his spiritual grace. Still, however, we must not lose sight of the distinction, but remember what man is able of himself to do, and what is peculiar to God.

12. Sacramental elements have value only as God’s instruments

The sacraments are confirmations of our faith in such a sense, that the Lord, sometimes, when he sees meet to withdraw our assurance of the things which he had promised in the sacraments, takes away the sacraments themselves. When he deprives Adam of the gift of immortality, and expels him from the garden, “lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and live for ever,” (Gen. 3: 22.) What is this we hear? Could that fruit have restored Adam to the immortality from which he had already fallen? By no means. It is just as if he had said, Lest he indulge in vain confidence, if allowed to retain the symbol of my promise, let that be withdrawn which might give him some hope of immortality. On this ground, when the apostle urges the Ephesians to remember, that they “were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world,” (Eph. 2: 12,) he says that they were not partakers of circumcision. He thus intimates metonimically, that all were excluded from the promise who had not received the badge of the promise.

To the other objection, viz., that when so much power is attributed to creatures, the glory of God is bestowed upon them, and thereby impaired, it is obvious to reply, that we attribute no power to the creatures. All we say is, that God uses the means and instruments which he sees to be expedient, in order that all things may be subservient to his glory, he being the Lord and disposer of all. Therefore, as by bread and other ailment he feeds our bodies, and by the sun he illumines, and by fire gives warmth to the world, and yet bread, sun, and fire, are nothing, save inasmuch as they are instruments under which he dispenses his blessings to us; so in like manner he spiritually nourishes our faith by means of the sacraments, whose only office is to make his promises visible to our eye, or rather, to be pledges of his promises. And as it is our duty in regard to the other creatures which the divine liberality and kindness has destined for our use, and by whose instrumentality he bestows the gifts of his goodness upon us, to put no confidence in them, nor to admire and extol them as the causes of our mercies; so neither ought our confidence to be fixed on the sacraments, nor ought the glory of God to be transferred to them, but passing beyond them all, our faith and confession should rise to Him who is the Author of the sacraments and of all things.

13. The word sacramentum

There is nothing in the argument which some found on the very term sacrament. This term, they say, while it has many significations in approved authors, has only one which is applicable to signs, namely, when it is used for the formal oath which the soldier gives to his commander on entering the service. For as by that military oath recruits bind themselves to be faithful to their commander, and make a profession of military service: so by our signs we acknowledge Christ to be our commander, and declare that we serve under his standard. They add similitudes, in order to make the matter more clear. As the toga distinguished the Romans from the Greeks, who wore the gallium; and as the different orders of Romans were distinguished from each other by their peculiar insignia; e.g., the senatorial from the equestrian by purple, and crescent shoes, and the equestrian from the plebeian by a ring, so we wear our symbols to distinguish us from the profane.

But it is sufficiently clear from what has been said above, that the ancients, in giving the name of sacraments to signs, had not at all attended to the use of the term by Latin writers, but had, for the sake of convenience, given it this new signification, as a means of simply expressing sacred signs.

But were we to argue more subtilely, we might say that they seem to have given the term this signification in a manner analogous to that in which they employ the term faith in the sense in which it is now used. For while faith is truth in performing promises, they have used it for the certainty or firm persuasion which is had of the truth. In this way, while a sacrament is the act of the soldier when he vows obedience to his commander, they made it the act by which the commander admits soldiers to the ranks. For in the sacraments the Lord promises that he will be our God, and we that we will be his people (II Cor. 6:16; Ezek. 37:27).

But we omit such subtleties, since I think I have shown by arguments abundantly plain, that all which ancient writers intended was to intimate, that sacraments are the signs of sacred and spiritual things. The similitudes which are drawn from external objects, (chap. 15 sec. 1,) we indeed admit; but we approve not, that that which is a secondary thing in sacraments is by them made the first, and indeed the only thing. The first thing is, that they may contribute to our faith in God; the secondary, that they may attest our confession before men. These similitudes are applicable to the secondary reason. Let it therefore remain a fixed point, that mysteries would be frigid, (as has been seen,) were they not helps to our faith, and adjuncts annexed to doctrine for the same end and purpose.

(They do not of themselves impart grace, but, like the Word, hold forth Christ, 14-17)

14. The error of a magical conception of the sacraments

On the other hand, it is to be observed, that as these objectors impair the force, and altogether overthrow the use of the sacraments, so there are others who ascribe to the sacraments a kind of secret virtue, which is nowhere said to have been implanted in them by God. By this error the more simple and unwary are perilously deceived while they are taught to seek the gifts of God where they cannot possibly be found, and are insensibly withdrawn from God, so as to embrace instead of his truth mere vanity. For the schools of the Sophists have taught with general consent that the sacraments of the new law, in other words, those now in use in the Christian Church, justify, and confer grace, provided only that we do not interpose the obstacle of mortal sin. It is impossible to describe how fatal and pestilential this sentiment is, and the more so, that for many ages it has, to the great loss of the Church, prevailed over a considerable part of the world. It is plainly of the devil: for, first, in promising a righteousness without faith, it drives souls headlong on destruction; secondly, in deriving a cause of righteousness from the sacraments, it entangles miserable minds, already of their own accord too much inclined to the earth, in a superstitious idea, which makes them acquiesce in the spectacle of a corporeal object rather than in God himself. I wish we had not such experience of both evils as to make it altogether unnecessary to give a lengthened proof of them. For what is a sacrament received without faith, but most certain destruction to the Church? For, seeing that nothing is to be expected beyond the promise, and the promise no less denounces wrath to the unbeliever than offers grace to the believer, it is an error to suppose that anything more is conferred by the sacraments than is offered by the word of God, and obtained by true faith.

From this another thing follows, viz., that assurance of salvation does not depend on participation in the sacraments, as if justification consisted in it. This, which is treasured up in Christ alone, we know to be communicated, not less by the preaching of the Gospel than by the seal of a sacrament, and may be completely enjoyed without this seal. So true is it, as Augustine declares, that there may be invisible sanctification without a visible sign, and, on the other hand, a visible sign without true sanctification, (August. de Quest. Vet. Test. Lib. 3.) For as he elsewhere says, “Men put on Christ, sometimes to the extent of partaking in the sacrament, and sometimes to the extent of holiness of life,” (August. de Bapt. Cont. Donat. cap. 24.) The former may be common to the good and the bad, the latter is peculiar to the good.

15. Matter and sign to be distinguished

Hence the distinction, if properly understood, repeatedly made by Augustine between the sacrament and the matter of the sacrament. For he does not mean merely that the figure and truth are therein contained, but that they do not so cohere as not to be separable, and that in this connection it is always necessary to distinguish the thing from the sign, so as not to transfer to the one what belongs to the other.

Augustine speaks of the separation when he says that in the elect alone the sacraments accomplish what they represent, (Augustin. de Bapt. Parvul.) Again, when speaking of the Jews, he says, “Though the sacraments were common to and the grace was not common: yet grace is the virtue of the sacraments. Thus, too, the laver of regeneration is now common to all, but the grace by which the members of Christ are regenerated with their head is not common to all,” (August. in Ps. 78.) Again, in another place, speaking of the Lord’s Supper, he says “We also this day receive visible food; but the sacrament is one thing, the virtue of the sacrament another. Why is it that many partake of the altar and die, and die by partaking? For even the cup of the Lord was poison to Judas, not because he received what was evil, but being wicked he wickedly received what was good,” (August. in Joann. Hom. 26.) A little after, he says, “The sacrament of this thing, that is, of the unity of the body and blood of Christ, is in some places prepared every day, in others at certain intervals at the Lord’s table, which is partaken by some unto life, by others unto destruction. But the thing itself, of which there is a sacrament, is life to all, and destruction to none who partake of it.” Some time before he had said, “He who may have eaten shall not die, but he must be one who attains to the virtue of the sacrament, not to the visible sacrament; who eats inwardly not outwardly; who eats with the heart, and not with the teeth.” Here you are uniformly told that a sacrament is so separated from the reality by the unworthiness of the partaker, that nothing remains but an empty and useless figure. Now, in order that you may have not a sign devoid of truth, but the thing with the sign, the Word which is included in it must be apprehended by faith. Thus, in so far as by means of the sacraments you will profit in the communion of Christ, will you derive advantage from them.

16. The sacraments have significance for us in faith in Christ

If this is obscure from brevity, I will explain it more at length. I say that Christ is the matter, or, if you rather choose it, the substance of all the sacraments, since in him they have their whole solidity, and out of him promise nothing. Hence the less toleration is due to the error of Peter Lombard, who distinctly makes them causes of the righteousness and salvation of which they are parts, (Sent. Lib. 4 Dist. 1.) Bidding adieu to all other causes of righteousness which the wit of man devises, our duty is to hold by this only. In so far, therefore, as we are assisted by their instrumentality in cherishing, confirming, and increasing the true knowledge of Christ, so as both to possess him more fully, and enjoy him in all his richness, so far are they effectual in regard to us. This is the case when that which is there offered is received by us in true faith.

Therefore, you will ask, Do the wicked, by their ingratitude, make the ordinance of God fruitless and void? I answer, that what I have said is not to be understood as if the power and truth of the sacrament depended on the condition or pleasure of him who receives it. That which God instituted continues firm, and retains its nature, however men may vary; but since it is one thing to offer, and another to receive, there is nothing to prevent a symbol, consecrated by the word of the Lord, from being truly what it is said to be, and preserving its power, though it may at the same time confer no benefit on the wicked and ungodly. This question is well solved by Augustine in a few words: “If you receive carnally, it ceases not to be spiritual, but it is not spiritual to you,” (August. Hom. in Joan 26.)

But as Augustine shows in the above passages that a sacrament is a thing of no value if separated from its truth; so also, when the two are conjoined, he reminds us that it is necessary to distinguish, in order that we may not cleave too much to the external sign. “As it is servile weakness to follow the latter, and take the signs for the thing signified, so to interpret the signs as of no use is an extravagant error,” (August. de Doct. Christ. Lib. 3 c. 9.) He mentions two faults which are here to be avoided; the one when we receive the signs as if they had been given in vain, and by malignantly destroying or impairing their secret meanings, prevent them from yielding any fruit—the other, when by not raising our minds beyond the visible sign, we attribute to it blessings which are conferred upon us by Christ alone, and that by means of the holy Spirit, who makes us to be partakers of Christ, external signs assisting if they invite us to Christ; whereas, when wrested to any other purpose, their whole utility is overthrown.

17. True office of the sacraments

Wherefore, let it be a fixed point, that the office of the sacraments differs not from the word of God; and this is to hold forth and offer Christ to us, and, in him, the treasures of heavenly grace. They confer nothing, and avail nothing, if not received in faith, just as wine and oil, or any other liquor, however large the quantity which you pour out, will run away and perish unless there be an open vessel to receive it. When the vessel is not open, though it may be sprinkled all over, it will nevertheless remain entirely empty.

We must beware of being led into a kindred error by the terms, somewhat too extravagant, which ancient Christian writers have employed in extolling the dignity of the sacraments. We must not suppose that there is some latent virtue inherent in the sacraments, by which they, in themselves confer the gifts of the Holy Spirit upon us, in the same way in which wine is drunk out of a cup, since the only office divinely assigned them is to attest and ratify the benevolence of the Lord towards us; and they avail no farther than accompanied by the Holy Spirit to open our minds and hearts, and make us capable of receiving this testimony, in which various distinguished graces are clearly manifested. For the sacraments, as we lately observed, (chap. 13 sec. 6; and 14 sec. 6, 7,) are to us what messengers of good news are to men, or earnests in ratifying pactions. They do not of themselves bestow any grace, but they announce and manifest it, and, like earnests and badges, give a ratification of the gifts which the Divine liberality has bestowed upon us. The Holy Spirit, whom the sacraments do not bring promiscuously to all, but whom the Lord especially confers on his people, brings the gifts of God along with him, makes way for the sacraments, and causes them to bear fruit.

But though we deny not that God, by the immediate agency of his Spirit, countenances his own ordinance, preventing the administration of the sacraments which he has instituted from being fruitless and vain, still we maintain that the internal grace of the Spirit, as it is distinct from the external ministration, ought to be viewed and considered separately. God, therefore, truly performs whatever he promises and figures by signs; nor are the signs without effect, for they prove that he is their true and faithful author. The only question here is, whether the Lord works by proper and intrinsic virtue, (as it is called,) or resigns his office to external symbols?

We maintain, that whatever organs he employs detract nothing from his primary operation. In this doctrine of the sacraments, their dignity is highly extolled, their use plainly shown, their utility sufficiently proclaimed, and moderation in all things duly maintained; so that nothing is attributed to them which ought not to be attributed, and nothing denied them which they ought to possess. Meanwhile, we get rid of that fiction by which the cause of justification and the power of the Holy Spirit are included in elements as vessels and vehicles, and the special power which was overlooked is distinctly explained.

Here, also, we ought to observe, that what the minister figures and attests by outward action, God performs inwardly, lest that which God claims for himself alone should be ascribed to mortal man. This Augustine is careful to observe: “How does both God and Moses sanctify? Not Moses for God, but Moses by visible sacraments through his ministry, God by invisible grace through the Holy Spirit. Herein is the whole fruit of visible sacraments; for what do these visible sacraments avail without that sanctification of invisible grace?”

(Wide application of the term to Scriptural incidents and its restriction to the ordinary sacraments of the church, 18-20)

18. Sacraments in the wider sense

The term “sacrament”, in the view we have hitherto taken of it, includes, generally, all the signs which God ever commanded men to use, that he might make them sure and confident of the truth of his promises. These he was pleased sometimes to place in natural objects—sometimes to exhibit in miracles.

Of the former class we have an example, in his giving the tree of life to Adam and Eve, as an earnest of immortality, that they might feel confident of the promise as often as they ate of the fruit. Another example was, when he gave the bow in the cloud to Noah and his posterity, as a memorial that he would not again destroy the earth by a flood. These were to Adam and Noah as sacraments: not that the tree could give Adam and Eve the immortality which it could not give to itself; or the bow (which is only a reflection of the solar rays on the opposite clouds) could have the effect of confining the waters; but they had a mark engraven on them by the word of God, to be proofs and seals of his covenant. The tree was previously a tree, and the bow a bow; but when they were inscribed with the word of God, a new form was given to them: they began to be what they previously were not. Lest any one suppose that these things were said in vain, the bow is even in the present day a witness to us of the covenant which God made with Noah, (Calv. in Gen. 9: 6.) As often as we look upon it, we read this promise from God, that the earth will never be destroyed by a flood. Wherefore, if any philosophizer, to deride the simplicity of our faith, shall contend that the variety of colours arises naturally from the rays reflected by the opposite cloud, let us admit the fact; but, at the same time, deride his stupidity in not recognising God as the Lord and governor of nature, who, at his pleasure, makes all the elements subservient to his glory. If he had impressed memorials of this description on the sun, the star, the earth, and stones, they would all have been to us as sacraments. For why is the shapeless and the coined silver not of the same value, seeing they are the same metal? Just because the former has nothing but its own nature, whereas the latter, impressed with the public stamp, becomes money, and receives a new value. And shall the Lord not be able to stamp his creatures with his word, that things which were formerly bare elements may become sacraments?

Examples of the second class were given when he showed light to Abraham in the smoking furnace, (Gen. 15: 17,) when he covered the fleece with dew while the ground was dry; And, on the other hand, when the dew covered the ground while the fleece was untouched, to assure Gideon of victory, (Judges 6: 37;) also, when he made the shadow go back ten degrees on the dial, to assure Hezekiah of his recovery, (2 Kings 20: 9; Isa. 38: 7.) These things, which were done to assist and establish their faith, were also sacraments.

19. Ordinary sacraments of the church

But my present purpose is to discourse especially of those sacraments which the Lord has been pleased to institute as ordinary sacraments in his Church, to bring up his worshipers and servants in one faith, and the confession of one faith. For, to use the words of Augustine, “In no name of religion, true or false, can men be assembled, unless united by some common use of visible signs or sacraments,” (August. cont. Faustum, Lib. 9 c. 11.) Our most merciful Father, foreseeing this necessity, from the very first appointed certain exercises of piety to his servants; these, Satan, by afterwards transferring, to impious and superstitious worship, in many ways corrupted and depraved. Hence those initiations of the Gentiles into their mysteries, and other degenerate rites. Yet, although they were full of error and superstitions they were, at the same time, an indication that men could not be without such external signs of religion. But, as they were neither founded on the word of God, nor bore reference to that truth which ought to be held forth by all signs, they are unworthy of being named when mention is made of the sacred symbols which were instituted by God, and have not been perverted from their end, viz., to be helps to true piety.

And they consist not of simple signs, like the rainbow and the tree of life, but of ceremonies, or (if you prefer it) the signs here employed are ceremonies. But since, as has been said above, they are testimonies of grace and salvation from the Lord, so, in regard to us, they are marks of profession by which we openly swear by the name of God, binding ourselves to be faithful to him. Hence Chrysostom somewhere shrewdly gives them the name of factions, by which God enters into covenant with us, and we become bound to holiness and purity of life, because a mutual stipulation is here interposed between God and us. For as God there promises to cover and efface any guilt and penalty which we may have incurred by transgression, and reconciles us to himself in his only begotten Son; so we, in our turn, oblige ourselves by this profession to the study of piety and righteousness. And hence it may be justly said, that such sacraments are ceremonies, by which God is pleased to train his people, first, to excite, cherish, and strengthen faith within; and, secondly, to testify our religion to men.

20. Christ promised in the Old Testament sacraments

Now, these have been different at different times, according to the dispensation which the Lord has seen meet to employ in manifesting himself to men. Circumcision was enjoined on Abraham and his posterity, and to it were afterwards added purifications and sacrifices and other rites of the mosaic Law. These were the sacraments of the Jews even until the advent of Christ. After these were abrogated the two sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which the Christian Church now employs, were instituted. I speak of those which were instituted for the use of the whole Church. For the laying on of hands, by which the ministers of the Church are initiated into their office, though I have no objection to its being called a sacrament, I do not number among ordinary sacraments. The place to be assigned to the other commonly reputed sacrament, we shall see by and by.

Still the ancient sacraments had the same end in view as our own, viz., to direct and almost lead us by the hand to Christ, or rather, were like images to represent him and hold him forth to our knowledge. But as we have already shown that sacraments are a kind of seals of the promises of God, so let us hold it as a most certain truth, that no divine promise has ever been offered to man except in Christ, and that hence when they remind us of any divine promise, they must of necessity exhibit Christ. Hence that heavenly pattern of the tabernacle and legal worship which was shown to Moses in the mount. There is only this difference, that while the former shadowed forth a promised Christ while be was still expected, the latter bear testimony to him as already come and manifested.

(Sacraments of the Old Testament closely related to those of the New as foreshadowing the full manifestation of Christ, 21-26)

21. Circumcision, purifications, sacrifices, point to Christ

When these things are explained singly and separately, they will be much clearer.

Circumcision was a sign by which the Jews were reminded that whatever comes of the seed of man—in other words, the whole nature of man—is corrupt, and requires to be cut off; moreover, it was a proof and memorial to confirm them in the promise made to Abraham, of a seed in whom all the nations of the earth should be blessed, and from whom they themselves were to look for a blessing. That saving seed, as we are taught by Paul, (Gal. 5: 16,) was Christ, in whom alone they trusted to recover what they had lost in Adam. Wherefore, circumcision was to them what Paul say, it was to Abraham, viz., a sign of the righteousness of faith, (Rom. 4: 11;) viz., a seal by which they were more certainly assured that their faith in waiting for the Lord would be accepted by God for righteousness. But we shall have a better opportunity elsewhere (chap. 16 sec. 3, 4) of following out the comparison between circumcision and baptism.

Their washings and purifications placed under their eye the uncleanness, defilement, and pollution with which they were naturally contaminated, and promised another laver in which all their impurities might be wiped and washed away (Heb. 9:10,14). This laver was Christ, washed by whose blood (I John 1:7; Rev. 1:5) we bring his purity into the sight of God, that he may cover all our defilements.

The sacrifices convicted them of their unrighteousness, and at the same time taught that there was a necessity for paying some satisfaction to the justice of God; and that, therefore, there must be some high priest, some mediator between God and man, to satisfy God by the shedding of blood, and the immolation of a victim which might suffice for the remission of sins. The high priest was Christ: he shed his own blood, he was himself the victim: for, in obedience to the Father, he offered himself to death, and by this obedience abolished the disobedience by which man had provoked the indignation of God, (Phil. 2: 8; Rom. 5: 19.)

22. Christ more fully expressed in the Christian sacraments

In regard to our sacraments, they present Christ the more clearly to us, the more familiarly he has been manifested to man, ever since he was exhibited by the Father, truly as he had been promised. For Baptism testifies that we are washed and purified; the Supper of the Eucharist that we are redeemed. Ablution is figured by water, satisfaction by blood. Both are found in Christ, who, as John says, “came by water and blood;” that is, to purify and redeem. Of this the Spirit of God also is a witness. Nay, there are three witnesses in one, water, Spirit, and blood. In the water and blood we have an evidence of purification and redemption, but the Spirit is the primary witness who gives us a full assurance of this testimony. This sublime mystery was illustriously displayed on the cross of Christ, when water and blood flowed from his sacred side, (John 19: 34;) which, for this reasons Augustine justly termed the fountain of our sacraments, (August. Hom. in Joann. 26.)

Of these we shall shortly treat at greater length. There is no doubt that, if you compare time with time, the grace of the Spirit is now more abundantly displayed. For this forms part of the glory of the kingdom of Christ, as we gather from several passages, and especially from the seventh chapter of John. In this sense are we to understand the words of Paul, that the law was “a shadow of good things to come, but the body is of Christ,” (Col. 2: 17.) His purpose is not to declare the inefficacy of those manifestations of grace in which God was pleased to prove his truth to the patriarchs, just as he proves it to us in the present day in Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but to contrast the two, and show the great value of what is given to us, that no one may think it strange that by the advent of Christ the ceremonies of the law have been abolished.

23. Similarity and dissimilarity of the old and new sacraments

The Scholastic dogma, (to glance at it in passing,) by which the difference between the sacraments of the old and the new dispensation is made so great, that the former did nothing but shadow forth the grace of God, while the latter actually confer it, must be altogether exploded. Since the apostle speaks in no higher terms of the one than of the other, when he says that the fathers ate of the same spiritual food, and explains that that food was Christ, (1 Cor. 10: 3,) who will presume to regard as an empty sign that which gave a manifestation to the Jews of true communion with Christ? And the state of the case which the apostle is there treating militates strongly for our view. For to guard against confiding in a frigid knowledge of Christ, an empty title of Christianity and external observances, and thereby daring to condemn the judgement of God, he exhibits signal examples of divine severity in the Jews, to make us aware that if we indulge in the same vices, the same punishments which they suffered are impending over us. Now, to make the comparison appropriate, it was necessary to show that there is no inequality between us and them in those blessings in which he forbade us to glory. Therefore, he first makes them equal to us in the sacraments, and leaves us not one iota of privilege which could give us hopes of impunity. Nor can we justly attribute more to our baptism than he elsewhere attributes to circumcision, when he terms it a seal of the righteousness of faith, (Rom. 4: 11.) Whatever, therefore, is now exhibited to us in the sacraments, the Jews formerly received in theirs, viz., Christ, with his spiritual riches. The same efficacy which ours possess they experienced in theirs, viz., that they were seals of the divine favour toward them in regard to the hope of eternal salvation. Had the objectors been sound expounders of the Epistle to the Hebrews, they would not have been so deluded, but reading therein that sins were not expiated by legal ceremonies, nay, that the ancient shadows were of no importance to justification, they overlooked the contrast which is there drawn, and fastening on the single point, that the law in itself was of no avail to the worshipped, thought that they were mere figures, devoid of truth. The purpose of the apostle is to show that there is nothing in the ceremonial law until we arrive at Christ, on whom alone the whole efficacy depends.

24. Paul’s teaching on the value of circumcision

But they will found on what Paul says of the circumcision of the letter, and object that it is in no esteem with God; that it confers nothing, is empty; that passages such as these seem to set it far beneath our baptism (cf. Rom. 2:25-29; Gal. 5:6; 6:15; I Cor. 7:19). But by no means. For the very same thing might justly be said of baptism. Indeed, it is said; first by Paul himself, when he shows that God regards not the external ablution by which we are initiated into religion (cf. I Cor. 10:5), unless the mind is purified inwardly, and maintains its purity to the end; and, secondly, by Peter, when he declares that the reality of baptism consists not in external ablution, but in the testimony of a good conscience (I Peter 3:21).

But it seems that in another passage he speaks with the greatest contempt of circumcision made with hands, when he contrasts it with the circumcision made by Christ. I answer, that not even in that passage is there any thing derogatory to its dignity. Paul is there disputing against those who insisted upon it as necessary, after it had been abrogated. He therefore admonishes believers to lay aside ancient shadows, and cleave to truth. These teachers, he says, insist that your bodies shall be circumcised. But you have been spiritually circumcised both in soul and body. You have, therefore, a manifestation of the reality, and this is far better than the shadow. Still any one might have answered, that the figure was not to be despised because they had the reality, since among the fathers also was exemplified that putting off of the old man of which he was speaking, and yet to them external circumcision was not superfluous. This objection he anticipates, when he immediately adds, that the Colossians were buried together with Christ by baptism (Col. 2:12), thereby intimating that baptism is now to Christians what circumcision was to those of ancient times; and that the latter, therefore, could not be imposed on Christians without injury to the former.

25. New Testament disparagement of Jewish ceremonies explained

But there is more difficulty in explaining the passage which follows, and which I lately quoted, viz., that all the Jewish ceremonies were shadows of things to come, but the body is of Christ, (Col. 2: 17.) The most difficult point of all, however, is that which is discussed in several chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews, namely, that the blood of beasts did not reach to the conscience (Heb. 9:12f); that the law was a shadow of good things to come, but not the very image of the things, (Heb. 8:4-5; 10: 1;) that worshipers under the Mosaic ceremonies obtained no degree of perfection (Heb. 7:19; 9:9; 10:1), and so forth. I repeat what I have already hinted, that Paul does not represent the ceremonies as shadowy, because they had nothing solid in them, but because their completion was in a manner suspended until the manifestation of Christ. Again, I hold that the words are to be understood not of their efficiency, but rather of the mode of significance. For until Christ was manifested in the flesh, all signs shadowed him as absent, however he might inwardly exert the presence of his power, and consequently of his person on believers. But the most important observation is, that in all these passages Paul does not speak simply, but by way of reply. He was contending with false apostles, who maintained that piety consisted in mere ceremonies, without any respect to Christ: for their refutation it was sufficient merely to consider what effect ceremonies have in themselves. This, too, was the scope of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Let us remember, therefore, that he is here treating of ceremonies not taken in their true and native signification, but when wrested to a false and vicious interpretation, not of the legitimate use, but of the superstitious abuse of them. What wonder, then, if ceremonies, when separated from Christ, are devoid of all virtue? All signs become null when the thing signified is taken a away. Thus Christ, when addressing those who thought that manna was nothing more than food for the body, accommodates his language to their gross opinion, and says, that he furnished a better food, one which fed souls for immortality (John 6:27).

But if you require a clearer solution, the substance comes to this: First, the whole apparatus of ceremonies under the Mosaic law, unless directed to Christ, is evanescent and null. Secondly, these ceremonies had such respect to Christ, that they had their fulfilment only when Christ was manifested in the flesh. Lastly, at his advent they behaved to disappear, just as the shadow vanishes in the clear light of the sun. But I now touch more briefly on the point, because I defer the future consideration of it till I come to the place where I intend to compare baptism with circumcision.

26. Similarity and difference: Augustine’s distinctions

Those wretched sophists are perhaps deceived by the extravagant eulogiums on our signs which occur in ancient writers: for instance, the following passage of Augustine: “The sacraments of the old law only promised a Saviour, whereas ours give salvation,” (August. Proem. in Ps. 73.) Not perceiving that these and similar figures of speech are hyperbolical, they too have promulgated their hyperbolical dogmas, but in a sense altogether alien from that of ancient writers. For Augustine means nothing more than in another place where he says, “The sacraments of the Mosaic law foretold Christ, ours announce him,” (Quest. sup. Numer. C. 33.) And again, “Those were promises of things to be fulfilled these indications of the fulfilments” (Contra Faustum, Lib 19 c. 14;) as if he had said, Those figured him when he was still expected, ours, now that he has arrived, exhibit him as present. Moreover, with regard to the mode of signifying, he says, as he also elsewhere indicates, “The Law and the Prophets had sacraments foretelling a thing future, the sacraments of our time attest that what they foretold as to come has come,” (Cont. Liter. Petit. Lib. 2. C. 37.) His sentiments concerning the reality and efficacy, he explains in several passages, as when he says, “The sacraments of the Jews were different in the signs, alike in the things signified; different in the visible appearance, alike in spiritual power,” (Hom. in Joann. 26.) Again, “In different signs there was the same faith: it was thus in different signs as in different words, because the words change the sound according to times, and yet words are nothing else than signs. The fathers drank of the same spiritual drink, but not of the same corporeal drink. See then how, while faith remains, signs vary. There the rock was Christ; to us that is Christ which is placed on the altar. They as a great sacrament drank of the water flowing from the rock: believers know what we drink. If you look at the visible appearance there was a difference; if at the intelligible signification, they drank of the same spiritual drink.” Again, “In this mystery their food and drink are the same as ours: the same in meaning, not in form, for the same Christ was figured to them in the rock; to us he here been manifested in the flesh,” (in Ps. 77.)

Though we grant that in this respect also there is some difference. Both testify that the paternal kindness of God, and the graces of the spirit, are offered us in Christ, but ours more clearly and splendidly. In both there is an exhibition of Christ, but in ours it is more full and complete, in accordance with that distinction between the Old and New Testament, of which we have discoursed above. And this is the meaning of Augustine, (whom we quote more frequently, as being the best and most faithful witness of all antiquity,) where he says that after Christ was revealed, sacraments were instituted, fewer in number, but of more august significance and more excellent power, (De Doct. Christ. Lib. 3:; et Ep. ad Januar.)

It is here proper to remind the reader, that all the trifling talk of the sophists concerning the opus operatum, is not only false, but repugnant to the very nature of sacraments, which God appointed in order that believers, who are void and in want of all good, might bring nothing of their own, but simply beg. Hence it follows, that in receiving them, they do nothing which deserves praise, and that in this action (which in respect of them is merely passive) no work can be ascribed to them.

CHAPTER 15. OF BAPTISM.

There are two parts of this chapter,

I. Dissertation on the two ends of Baptism, sec. 1-13.

II. The second part may be reduced to four heads:

1. Of the use of Baptism, sec. 14, 15.

2. Of the worthiness or unworthiness of the minister, sec. 16-18.

3. Of the corruptions by which this sacrament was polluted, sec. 19.

4. To whom reference is had in the dispensation, sec. 20-22.

Sections.

1. Baptism defined. Its primary object. This consists of three things.

1. To attest the forgiveness of sins.

2. Passages of Scripture proving the forgiveness of sins.

3. Forgiveness not only of past but also of future sins. This no encouragement to license in sin.

4. Refutation of those who share forgiveness between Baptism and Repentance.

5. Second thing in Baptism, viz., to teach that we are ingrafted into Christ for mortification and newness of life.

6. Third thing in Baptism, viz., to teach us that we are united to Christ so as to be partakers of all his blessings. Second and third things conspicuous in the baptism both of John and the apostles.

7. Identity of the baptism of John and the apostles.

8. An objection to this refuted.

9. The benefits of baptism typified to the Israelites by the passage of the Red Sea and the pillar of cloud.

10. Objection of those who imagine that there is some kind of perfect renovation after baptism. Original depravity remains after baptism. Its existence in infants. The elect after baptism are righteous in this life only by imputation.

11. Original corruption trying to the pious during the whole course of their lives. They do not, on this account, seek a license for sin. They rather walk more cautiously and safely in the ways of the Lord.

12. The trouble occasioned by corruption, shown by the example and testimony of the Apostle Paul.

13. Another end of baptism is to serve as our confession to men.

14. Second part of the chapter. Of baptism as a confirmation of our faith.

15. This illustrated by the examples of Cornelius and Paul. Of the use of baptism as a confessions of faith.

16. Baptism not affected by the worthiness or unworthiness of the minister. Hence no necessity to rebaptise those who were baptised under the Papacy.

17. Nothing in the argument that those so baptised remained some years blind and unbelieving. The promise of God remains firm. God, in inviting the Jews to repentance, does not enjoins them to be again circumcised.

18. No ground to allege that Paul rebaptised certain of John’s disciples. The baptism of John. What it is to be baptised in the name of Christ.

19. The corruptions introduced into baptism. The form of pure Christian baptism. Immersion or sprinkling should be left free.

20. To whom the dispensation of baptism belongs. Not to private individuals or women, but to the ministers of the Church. Origin of the baptism of private individuals and women. An argument in favour of it refuted.

21. Exploded also by Tertullian and Epiphanies.

22. Objection founded on the case of Zipporah. Answer. Children dying before baptism not excluded from heaven, provided the want of it was not caused by negligence or contempt.

(Baptism a sign of our forgiveness, of our participation in Christ’s death and resurrection and also in his blessings, 1-6)

1. The meaning of baptism

Baptism is the initiatory sign by which we are admitted to the fellowship of the Church, that being ingrafted into Christ we may be accounted children of God. Moreover, the end for which God has given it (this I have shown to be common to all mysteries) is, first, that it may be conducive to our faith in him, and secondly, that it may serve the purpose of a confession among men. The nature of both institutions we shall explain in order. Baptism contributes to our faith three things, which require to be treated separately. The first object, therefore, for which it is appointed by the Lord, is to be a sign and evidence of our purification, or (better to explain my meaning) it is a kind of sealed instrument by which he assures us that all our sins are so deleted, covered, and effaced, that they will never come into his sight, never be mentioned, never imputed. For it is his will that all who have believed be baptised for the remission of sins (Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38).

Hence those who have thought that baptism is nothing else than the badge and mark by which we profess our religion before men, in the same way as soldiers attest their profession by bearing the insignia of their commander, have not attended to what was the principal thing in baptism; and this is, that we are to receive it in connection with the promise, “He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved,” (Mark 16: 16.)

2. Its virtue not in water without the Word

In this sense is to be understood the statement of Paul, that “Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,” (Eph. 5: 25, 26;) and again, “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost,” (Titus 3: 5.) Peter also says that “baptism also does now save us,” (1 Peter 3: 21.)

For he did not mean to intimate that our ablution and salvation are perfected by water, or that water possesses in itself the virtue of purifying, regenerating, and renewing; nor does he mean that it is the cause of salvation, but only that the knowledge and certainty of such gifts are perceived in this sacrament. This the words themselves evidently show. For Paul connects together the word of life and baptism of water, as if he had said, by the gospel the message of our ablution and sanctification is announced; by baptism this message is sealed. And Peter immediately subjoins, that that baptism is “ not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, which is of faith.” Nay, the only purification which baptism promises is by means of the sprinkling of the blood of Christ, who is figured by water from the resemblance to cleansing and washing. Who, then, can say that we are cleansed by that water which certainly attests that the blood of Christ is our true and only laver? So that we cannot have a better argument to refute the hallucination of those who ascribe the whole to the virtue of water than we derive from the very meaning of baptism, which leads us away as well from the visible element which is presented to our eye, as from all other means, that it may fix our minds on Christ alone.

3. Token of cleansing for the whole of life!

Nor is it to be supposed that baptism is bestowed only with reference to the past, so that, in regard to new lapses into which we fall after baptism, we must seek new remedies of expiation in other so-called sacraments, just as if the power of baptism had become obsolete. To this error, in ancient times, it was owing that some refused to be initiated by baptism until their life was in extreme danger, and they were drawing their last breath, that they might thus obtain pardon for all the past. Against this preposterous precaution ancient bishops frequently inveigh in their writings. We ought to consider that at whatever time we are baptised, we are washed and purified once for the whole of life. Wherefore, as often as we fall, we must recall the remembrance of our baptism, and thus fortify our minds, so as to feel certain and secure of the remission of sins. For though, when once administered, it seems to have passed, it is not abolished by subsequent sins. For the purity of Christ was therein offered to us, always is in force, and is not destroyed by any stain: it wipes and washes away all our defilements.

Nor must we hence assume a license of sinning for the future, (there is certainly nothing in it to countenance such audacity;) but this doctrine is intended only for those who, when they have sinned, groan under their sins burdened and oppressed, that they may have wherewith to support and console themselves, and not rush headlong into despair. Thus Paul says that Christ was made a propitiation for us for the remission of sins that are past, (Rom. 3: 25.) By this he denies not that constant and perpetual forgiveness of sins is thereby obtained even till death: he only intimates that it is designed by the Father for those poor sinners who, wounded by remorse of conscience, sigh for the physician. To these the mercy of God is offered. Those who, from hopes of impunity, seek a license for sin, only provoke the wrath and justice of God.

4. True relationship of baptism and repentance

I know it is a common belief that forgiveness, which at our first regeneration we receive by baptism alone, is after baptism procured by means of penitence and the keys, (see chap. 19 sec. 17.) But those who entertain this fiction err from not considering that the power of the keys, of which they speak, so depends on baptism that it ought not on any account to be separated from it. The sinner receives forgiveness by the ministry of the Church; in other words, not without the preaching of the gospel. And of what nature is this preaching? That we are washed from our sins by the blood of Christ. And what is the sign and evidence of that washing if it be not baptism? We see, then, that that forgiveness has reference to baptism.

This error had its origin in the fictitious sacrament of penance, on which I have already touched. What remains will be said at the proper place. There is no wonder if men who, from the grossness of their minds, are excessively attached to external things, have here also betrayed the defect,—if not contented with the pure institution of God, they have introduced new helps devised by themselves, as if baptism were not itself a sacrament of penance. But if repentance is recommended during the whole of life, the power of baptism ought to have the same extent. Wherefore, there can be no doubt that all the godly may, during the whole course of their lives, whenever they are vexed by a consciousness of their sins, recall the remembrance of their baptism, that they may thereby assure themselves of that sole and perpetual ablution which we have in the blood of Christ.

5. Baptism as token of mortification and renewal in Christ

Another benefit of baptism is, that it shows us our mortification in Christ and new life in him. “Know ye not,” says the apostle, “that as many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ, were baptised into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death,” that we “should walk in newness of life,” (Rom. 6: 3, 4.) By these words, he not only exhorts us to imitation of Christ, as if he had said, that we are admonished by baptism, in like manner as Christ died, to die to our lusts, and as he rose, to rise to righteousness; but he traces the matter much higher, that Christ by baptism has made us partakers of his death, in grafting us into it (Rom. 6:5). And as the twig derives substance and nourishment from the root to which it is attached, so those who receive baptism with true faith truly feel the efficacy of Christ’s death in the mortification of their flesh, and the efficacy of his resurrection in the quickening of the Spirit (Rom. 6:8). On this he founds his exhortation, that if we are Christians we should be dead unto sin, and alive unto righteousness (Rom. 6:11). He elsewhere uses the same argument, viz., that we are circumcised, and put off the old man, after we are buried in Christ by baptism, (Col. 2: 11-12.) And in this sense, in the passage which we formerly quoted, he calls it “ the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost,” (Tit. 3: 5.) We are promised, first, the free pardon of sins and imputation of righteousness; and, secondly, the grace of the Holy Spirit, to form us again to newness of life.

6. Baptism as token of our union with Christ

The last advantage which our faith receives from baptism is its assuring us not only that we are ingrafted into the death and life of Christ, but so united to Christ himself as to be partakers of all his blessings. For he consecrated and sanctified baptism in his own body (Matt. 3:13), that he might have it in common with us as the firmest bond of union and fellowship which he deigned to form with us; and hence Paul proves us to be the sons of God, from the fact that we put on Christ in baptism, (Gal. 3: 26-27.) Thus we see the fulfilment of our baptism in Christ, whom for this reason we call the proper object of baptism. Hence it is not strange that the apostles are said to have baptised in the name of Christ, though they were enjoined to baptise in the name of the Father and Spirit also, (Acts 8: 16; 19: 5; Matth. 28: 19.) For all the divine gifts held forth in baptism are found in Christ alone. And yet he who baptises into Christ cannot but at the same time invoke the name of the Father and the Spirit. For we are cleansed by his blood, just because our gracious Father, of his incomparable mercy, willing to receive us into favour, appointed him Mediator to effect our reconciliation with himself. Regeneration we obtain from his death and resurrection only, when sanctified by his Spirit we are imbued with a new and spiritual nature. Wherefore we obtain, and in a manner distinctly perceive, in the Father the cause, in the Son the matter, and in the Spirit the effect of our purification and regeneration. Thus first John baptised, and thus afterwards the apostles by the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Matt. 3:6; 11; Luke 3:16; John 3:23; 4:1; Acts 2:38-41), understanding by the term “repentance”, regeneration, and by the “remission of sins”, cleansing.

(The baptism of John not different from that of the apostles: its meaning symbolized to the Israelites in the exodus, 7-9)

7. John’s baptism and Christian baptism

This makes it perfectly certain that the ministry of John was the very same as that which was afterwards delegated to the apostles. For the different hands by which baptism is administered do not make it a different baptism, but sameness of doctrine proves it to be the same. John and the apostles agreed in one doctrine. Both baptised unto repentance, both for remission of sins, both in the name of Christ, from whom repentance and remission of sins proceed. John pointed to him as the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world, (John 1: 29,) thus describing him as the victim accepted of the Father, the propitiation of righteousness, and the author of salvation. What could the apostles add to this confession?

Wherefore, let no one be perplexed because ancient writers labour to distinguish the one from the other. Their views ought not to be in such esteem with us as to shake the certainty of Scripture. For who would listen to Chrysostom denying that remission of sins was included in the baptism of John, (Hom. in Matth. 1: 14,) rather than to Luke asserting, on the contrary, that John preached “the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins?” (Luke 3: 3.) Nor can we admit Augustine’s subtlety, that by the baptism of John sins were forgiven in hope, but by the baptism of Christ are forgiven in reality. For seeing the Evangelist clearly declares that John in his baptism promised the remission of sins, why detract from this eulogium when no necessity compels it?

Should any one ask what difference the word of God makes, he will find it to be nothing more than that John baptised in the name of him who was to come, the apostles in the name of him who was already manifested, (Luke 3: 16; Acts 19: 4.)

8. Disparity in personality, not in baptism

This fact, that the gifts of the Spirit were more liberally poured out after the resurrection of Christ, does not go to establish a diversity of baptisms. For baptism, administered by the apostles while he was still on the earth, was called his baptism, and yet the Spirit was not poured out in larger abundance on it than on the baptism of John. Nay, not even after the ascension did the Samaritans receive the Spirit above the ordinary measure of former believers, till Peter and John where sent to lay hands on them, (Acts 8: 14-17.)

I imagine that the thing which imposed on ancient writers, and made them say that the one baptism was only a preparative to the other, was, because they read that those who had received the baptism of John were again baptised by Paul, (Acts 19: 3-5; Matth. 3: 11.) How greatly they are mistaken in this will be most clearly explained in its own place.

Why, then, did John say that he baptised with water, but there was one coming who would baptise with the Holy Ghost and with fire? This may be explained in a few words. He did not mean to distinguish the one baptism from the other, but he contrasted his own person with the person of Christ, saying, that while he was a minister of water, Christ was the giver of the Holy Spirit, and would declare this virtue by a visible miracle on the day on which he would send the Holy Spirit on the apostles, under the form of tongues of fire. What greater boast could the apostles make, and what greater those who baptise in the present day? For they are only ministers of the external sign, whereas Christ is the Author of internal grace, as those same ancient writers uniformly teach, and, in particular, Augustine, who, in his refutation of the Donatists, founds chiefly on this axiom, Whoever it is that baptises Christ alone presides.

9. Prototype of baptism in the Old Covenant

The things which we have said, both of mortification and ablution, were adumbrated among the people of Israel, who, for that reason, are described by the apostle as having been baptised in the cloud and in the sea, (1 Cor. 10: 2.) Mortification was figured when the Lord, vindicating them from the hand of Pharaoh and from cruel bondage, paved a way for them through the Red Sea, and drowned Pharaoh himself and their Egyptian foes, who were pressing close behind, and threatening them with destruction. For in this way also he promises us in baptism, and shows by a given sign that we are led by his might, and delivered from the captivity of Egypt, that is, from the bondage of sin, that our Pharaoh is drowned; in other words, the devil, although he ceases not to try and harass us. But as that Egyptian was not plunged into the depth of the sea, but cast out upon the shore, still alarmed the Israelites by the terror of his look, though he could not hurt them, so our enemy still threatens, shows his arms and is felt, but cannot conquer.

The cloud was a symbol of purification, (Num. 9: 18.) For as the Lord then covered them by an opposite cloud, and kept them cool, that they might not faint or pine away under the burning rays of the sun; so in baptism we perceive that we are covered and protected by the blood of Christ, lest the wrath of God, which is truly an intolerable flame, should lie upon us.

Although the mystery was then obscure, and known to few, yet as there is no other method of obtaining salvation than in those two graces, God was pleased that the ancient fathers, whom he had adopted as heirs, should be furnished with both badges.

(We are not by the rite of baptism set free from original sin, but by it we make confession of faith before men, 10-13)

10. Baptism, original sin, and new righteousness

It is now clear, how false the doctrine is which some long ago taught, and others still persist in, that by baptism we are exempted and set free from original sin, and from the corruption which was propagated by Adam to all his posterity, and that we are restored to the same righteousness and purity of nature which Adam would have had if he had maintained the integrity in which he was created. This class of teachers never understand what is meant by original sin, original righteousness, or the grace of baptism. Now, it has been previously shown (Book 2: chap. 1: sec. 8,) that original sin is the depravity and corruption of our nature, which first makes us liable to the wrath of God, and then produces in us works which Scripture terms the works of the flesh, (Gal. 5: 19.)

The two things, therefore, must be distinctly observed, viz., that we are vitiated and perverted in all parts of our nature, and then, on account of this corruption, are justly held to be condemned and convicted before God, to whom nothing is acceptable but purity, innocence, and righteousness. And hence, even infants bring their condemnation with them from their mother’s womb, for although they have not yet brought forth the fruits of their unrighteousness, they have its seed included in them. Nay, their whole nature is, as it were, a seed of sin, and, therefore, cannot but be odious and abominable to God. Believers become assured by baptism, that this condemnation is entirely withdrawn from them, since (as has been said) the Lord by this sign promises that a full and entire remission has been made, both of the guilt which was imputed to us, and the penalty incurred by the guilt. They also apprehend righteousness, but such righteousness as the people of God can obtain in this life, viz., by imputation only, God, in his mercy, regarding them as righteous and innocent.

11. We must strive to overcome persistent sin

Another point is, that this corruption never ceases in us, but constantly produces new fruits, viz., those works of the flesh which we previously described, just as a burning furnace perpetually sends forth flame and sparks, or a fountain is ever pouring out water. For concupiscence never wholly dies or is extinguished in men, until, freed by death from the body of death, they have altogether laid aside their own nature, (Book 3: chap. 3: sec. 10-13.) Baptism, indeed, tells us that our Pharaoh is drowned and sin mortified; not so, however, as no longer to exist, or give no trouble, but only so as not to have dominion. For as long as we live shut up in this prison of the body, the remains of sin dwell in us, but if we faithfully hold the promise which God has given us in baptism, they will neither rule nor reign.

But let no man deceive himself, let no man look complacently on his disease, when he hears that sin always dwells in us. When we say so, it is not in order that those who are otherwise too prone to sin may sleep securely in their sins, but only that those who are tried and stung by the flesh may not faint and despond. Let them rather reflect that they are still on the way, and think that they have made great progress when they feel that their concupiscence is somewhat diminished from day to day, until they shall have reached the point at which they aim, viz., the final death of the flesh; a death which shall be completed at the termination of this mortal life. Meanwhile, let them cease not to contend strenuously, and animate themselves to further progress, and press on to complete victory. Their efforts should be stimulated by the consideration, that after a lengthened struggle much still remains to be done. We ought to hold that we are baptised for the mortification of our flesh, which is begun in baptism, is prosecuted every day, and will be finished when we depart from this life to go to the Lord.

12. Paul’s inner struggle (Romans ch. 7)

Here we say nothing more than the apostle Paul expounds most clearly in the sixth and seventh chapters of the Epistle to the Romans. He had discoursed of free justification, but as some wicked men thence inferred that they were to live as they listed, because their acceptance with God was not procured by the merit of works (Rom. 6:1,15), he adds, that all who are clothed with the righteousness of Christ are at the same time regenerated by the Spirit, and that we have an earnest of this regeneration in baptism (Rom. 6:3f). Hence he exhorts believers not to allow sin to reign in their members (Rom. 6:12). And because he knew that there is always some infirmity in believers, lest they should be cast down on this account, he adds, for their consolation, that they are not under the law (Rom. 6:14). Again, as there may seem a danger that Christians might grow presumptuous because they were not under the yoke of the law, he shows what the nature of the abrogation is (Rom. 7:1-6), and at the same time what the use of the law is (Rom. 7:7-13). This question he had already postponed a second time (Rom. 2:12-24). The substance is, that we are freed from the rigour of the law in order that we may adhere to Christ, and that the office of the law is to convince us of our depravity, and make us confess our impotence and wretchedness. Moreover, as this malignity of nature is not so easily apparent in a profane man who, without fear of God, indulges his passions, he gives an example in the regenerate man, in other words, in himself. He therefore says that he had a constant struggle with the remains of his flesh, and was kept in miserable bondage, so as to be unable to devote himself entirely to the obedience of the divine law (Rom. 7:18-23). Hence he is forced to groan and exclaim, “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” (Rom. 7: 24.) But if the children of God are kept captive in prison as long as they live, they must necessarily feel very anxious at the thought of their danger, unless their fears are allayed. For this single purpose, then, he subjoins the consolation, that there is “now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,” (Rom. 8: 1.) Hence he teaches that those whom the Lord has once admitted into favour, and ingrafted into communion with Christ, and received into the fellowship of the Church by baptism, are freed from guilt and condemnation while they persevere in the faith of Christ, though they may be beset by sin, and thus bear sin about with them. If this is the simple and genuine interpretation of Paul’s meaning, we cannot think that there is any thing strange in the doctrine which he here delivers.

13. Baptism as token of confession

Baptism serves as our confession before men, in as much as it is a mark by which we openly declare that we wish to be ranked among the people of God, by which we testify that we concur with all Christians in the worship of one God, and in one religion; by which, in short, we publicly assert our faith, so that not only do our hearts breathe, but our tongues also, and all the members of our body, in every way they can, proclaim the praise of God. In this way, as is meet, every thing we have is made subservient to the glory of God, which ought everywhere to be displayed, and others are stimulated by our example to the same course. To this Paul referred when he asked the Corinthians whether or not they had been baptised in the name of Christ, (1 Cor. 1: 13;) intimating, that by the very circumstance of having been baptised in his name, they had devoted themselves to him, had sworn and bound themselves in allegiance to him before men, so that they could no longer confess any other than Christ alone, unless they would abjure the confession which they had made in baptism.

(Baptism to be received with trust in the promise of which it is a sign, and not repeated, 14-18)

14. Sign and thing

Now that the end to which the Lord had regard in the institution of baptism has been explained, it is easy to judge in what way we ought to use and receive it. For inasmuch as it is appointed to elevate, nourish, and confirm our faith, we are to receive it as from the hand of its author, being firmly persuaded that it is himself who speaks to us by means of the sign; that it is himself who washes and purifies us, and effaces the remembrance of our faults; that it is himself who makes us the partakers of his death, destroys the kingdom of Satan, subdues the power of concupiscence, nay, makes us one with himself, that being clothed with him we may be accounted the children of God. These things I say, we ought to feel as truly and certainly in our mind as we see our body washed, immersed, and surrounded with water. For this analogy or similitude furnishes the surest rule in the sacraments, viz., that in corporeal things we are to see spiritual, just as if they were actually exhibited to our eye, since the Lord has been pleased to represent them by such figures; not that such graces are included and bound in the sacrament, so as to be conferred by its efficacy, but only that by this badge the Lord declares to us that he is pleased to bestow all these things upon us. Nor does he merely feed our eyes with bare show; he leads us to the actual object, and effectually performs what he figures.

15. Baptism as confirming faith

We have a proof of this in Cornelius, the centurion, who, after he had been previously endued with the graces of the Holy Spirit, was baptised for the remission of sins, not seeking a fuller forgiveness from baptism, but a surer exercise of faith; nay, an argument for assurance from a pledge. It will, perhaps, be objected, Why did Ananias say to Paul that he washed away his sins by baptism, (Acts 22:16; cf. ch 9:17-18) if sins are not washed away by the power of baptism? I answer, we are said to receive, procure, and obtain, whatever according to the perception of our faith is exhibited to us by the Lord, whether he then attests it for the first time, or gives additional confirmation to what he had previously attested. All then that Ananias meant to say was, Be baptised, Paul, that you may be assured that your sins are forgiven you. In baptism, the Lord promises forgiveness of sins: receive it, and be secure.

I have no intention however, to detract from the power of baptism. I would only add to the sign the substance and reality, inasmuch as God works by external means. But from this sacrament, as from all others, we gain nothing, unless in so far as we receive in faith. If faith is wanting, it will be an evidence of our ingratitude by which we are proved guilty before God, for not believing the promise there given.

In so far as it is a sign of our confession, we ought thereby to testify that we confide in the mercy of God, and are pure, through the forgiveness of sins which Christ Jesus has procured for us; that we have entered into the Church of God, that with one consent of faith and love we may live in concord with all believers. This last was Paul’s meaning, when he said that “by one Spirit are we all baptised into one body,” (1 Cor. 12: 13.)

16. Baptism does not depend upon the merit of him who administers it

Moreover, if we have rightly determined that a sacrament is not to be estimated by the hand of him by whom it is administered, but is to be received as from the hand of God himself, from whom it undoubtedly proceeded, we may hence infer that its dignity neither gains nor loses by the administrator. And, just as among men, when a letter has been sent, if the hand and seal is recognised, it is not of the least consequence who or what the messenger was; so it ought to be sufficient for us to recognise the hand and seal of our Lord in his sacraments, let the administrator be who he may.

This confutes the error of the Donatists, who measured the efficacy and worth of the sacrament by the dignity of the minister. Such in the present day are our Catabaptists, who deny that we are duly baptised, because we were baptised in the Papacy by wicked men and idolaters; hence they furiously insist on anabaptism.

Against these absurdities we shall be sufficiently fortified if we reflect that by baptism we were initiated not into the name of any man, but into the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and, therefore, that baptism is not of man, but of God, by whomsoever it may have been administered. Be it that those who baptised us were most ignorant of God and all piety, or were despisers, still they did not baptise us into a fellowship with their ignorance or sacrilege, but into the faith of Jesus Christ, because the name which they invoked was not their own but God’s, nor did they baptise into any other name. But if baptism was of God, it certainly included in it the promise of forgiveness of sin, mortification of the flesh, quickening of the spirit, and communion with Christ. Thus it did not harm the Jews that they were circumcised by impure and apostate priests. It did not nullify the symbol so as to make it necessary to repeat it. It was enough to return to its genuine origin.

The objection that baptism ought to be celebrated in the assembly of the godly, does not prove that it loses its whole efficacy because it is partly defective. When we show what ought to be done to keep baptism pure and free from every taint, we do not abolish the institution of God though idolaters may corrupt it. Circumcision was anciently vitiated by many superstitions, and yet ceased not to be regarded as a symbol of grace; nor did Josiah and Hezekiah, when they assembled out of all Israel those who had revolted from God, call them to be circumcised anew.

17. Baptism not invalidated by the delay of repentance

Then, again, when they ask us what faith for several years followed our baptism, that they may thereby prove that our baptism was in vain, since it is not sanctified unless the word of the promise is received with faith, our answer is, that being blind and unbelieving, we for a long time did not hold the promise which was given us in baptism, but that still the promise, as it was of God, always remained fixed, and firm, and true. Although all men should be false and perfidious, yet God ceases not to be true, (Rom. 3: 3, 4;) though all were lost, Christ remains safe. We acknowledge, therefore, that at that time baptism profited us nothing, since in us the offered promise, without which baptism is nothing, lay neglected. Now, when by the grace of God we begin to repent, we accuse our blindness and hardness of heart in having been so long ungrateful for his great goodness. But we do not believe that the promise itself has vanished, we rather reflect thus: God in baptism promises the remission of sins, and will undoubtedly perform what he has promised to all believers. That promise was offered to us in baptism, let us therefore embrace it in faith. In regard to us, indeed, it was long buried on account of unbelief; now, therefore, let us with faith receive it.

Wherefore, when the Lord invites the Jewish people to repentance, he gives no injunction concerning another circumcision, though (as we have said) they were circumcised by a wicked and sacrilegious hand, and had long lived in the same impiety. All he urges is conversion of heart. For how much soever the covenant might have been violated by them, the symbol of the covenant always remained, according to the appointment of the Lord, firm and inviolable. Solely, therefore, on the condition of repentance, were they restored to the covenant which God had once made with them in circumcision, though this which they had received at the hand of a covenant-breaking priest, they had themselves as much as in them lay polluted and extinguished.

18. Paul did not rebaptize

But they seem to think the weapon which they brandish irresistible, when they allege that Paul rebaptised those who had been baptised with the baptism of John, (Acts 19: 3, 5.) For if, by our confession, the baptism of John was the same as ours, then, in like manner as those who had been improperly trained, when they learned the true faith were rebaptised into it, ought that baptism which was without true doctrine to be accounted as nothing, and hence we ought to be baptised anew into the true religion with which we are now, for the first time, imbued?

It seems to some that it was a foolish imitator of John, who, by a former baptism, had initiated them into vain superstition. This, it is thought, may be conjectured from the fact, that they acknowledge their entire ignorance of the Holy Spirit, an ignorance in which John never would have left his disciples. But it is not probable that the Jews, even though they had not been baptised at all, would have been destitute of all knowledge of the Spirit, who is celebrated in so many passages of Scripture. Their answer, therefore, that they know not whether there was a Spirit, must be understood as if they had said, that they had not yet heard whether or not the gifts of the Spirit, as to which Paul questioned them, were given to the disciples of Christ. I grant that John’s was a true baptism, and one and the same with the baptism of Christ. But I deny that they were rebaptised, (see Calv. Instruct. adv. Anabapt.) What then is meant by the words, “They were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus?” Some interpret that they were only instructed in sound doctrine by Paul; but I would rather interpret more simply, that the baptism of the Holy Spirit, in other words, the visible gifts of the Holy Spirit, were given by the laying on of hands. These are sometimes designated under the name of baptism. Thus, on the day of Pentecost, the apostles are said to have remembered the words of the Lord concerning the baptism of the Spirit and of fire (Acts 1:5). And Peter relates that the same words occurred to him when he saw these gifts poured out on Cornelius and his family and kindred (Acts 11:16).

There is nothing repugnant to this interpretation in its being afterwards added, “When Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy ghost came on them,” (Acts 19: 6.) For Luke does not narrate two different things, but follows the form of narrative common to the Hebrews, who first give the substance, and then explain more fully. This any one may perceive from the mere context. For he says, “When they heard this they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them.” In this last sentence is described what the nature of the baptism was.

But if ignorance vitiates a former, and requires to be corrected by a second baptism, the apostles should first of all have been rebaptised, since for more than three full years after their baptism they had scarcely received any slender portion of purer doctrine. Then so numerous being the acts of ignorance which by the mercy of God are daily corrected in us, what rivers would suffice for so many repeated baptisms?

(Objections to ceremonial accretions and to baptism by women, 19-21)

19. Erroneous and correct baptismal usage

The force, dignity, utility and end of the sacrament must now, if I mistake not, be sufficiently clear. In regard to the external symbol, I wish the genuine institution of Christ had been maintained as fit to repress the audacity of men. As if to be baptised with water, according to the precept of Christ, had been a contemptible thing, a benediction, or rather incantation, was devised to pollute the true consecration of water. There was afterwards added the taper and chrism, while exorcism was thought to open the door for baptism. Though I am not unaware how ancient the origin of this adventitious farrago is, still it is lawful for me and all the godly to reject whatever men have presumed to add to the institution of Christ. When Satan saw that by the foolish credulity of the world his impostures were received almost without objection at the commencement of the gospel, he proceeded to grosser mockery: hence spittle and other follies, to the open disgrace of baptism, were introduced with unbridled license. From our experience of them, let us learn that there is nothing holier, or better, or safer, than to be contented with the authority of Christ alone.

How much better, therefore, is it to lay aside all theatrical pomp, which dazzles the eyes of the simple, and dulls their minds, and when any one is to be baptised to bring him forward and present him to God, the whole Church looking on as witnesses, and praying over him; to recite the Confession of Faith, in which the catechumen has been instructed, explain the promises which are given in baptism, then baptise in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and conclude with prayer and thanksgiving. In this way, nothing which is appropriate would be omitted, and the one ceremony, which proceeded from its divine Author, would shine forth most brightly, not being buried or polluted by extraneous observances.

Whether the person baptised is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either according to the diversity of climates, although it is evident that the term baptise means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive Church.

20. Against “emergency” baptism

It is here also pertinent to observe, that it is improper for private individuals to take upon themselves the administration of baptism; for it, as well as the dispensation of the Supper, is part of the ministerial office. For Christ did not give command to any men or women whatever to baptise, but to those whom he had appointed apostles. And when, in the administration of the Supper (Matt. 28:19), he ordered his disciples to do what they had seen him do, (he having done the part of a legitimate dispenser,) he doubtless meant that in this they should imitate his example.

The practice which has been in use for many ages, and even almost from the very commencement of the Church, for laics to baptise, in danger of death, when a minister could not be present in time, cannot, it appears to me, be defended on sufficient grounds. Even the early Christians who observed or tolerated this practice were not clear whether it were rightly done. This doubt is expressed by Augustine when he says, “Although a laic have given baptism when compelled by necessity, I know not whether any one can piously say that it ought to be repeated. For if it is done without any necessity compelling it, it is usurpation of another’s office; but if necessity urges, it is either no fault, or a venial one,” (August. Cont. Exist. Parmen. Lib. 2 c. 13.) With regard to women, it was decreed, without exception, in the Council of Carthage, (cap. 100,) that they were not to presume to baptise at all.

But there is a danger that he who is sick may be deprived of the gift of regeneration if he decease without baptism! By no means. Our children, before they are born, God declares that he adopts for his own when he promises that he will be a God to us, and to our seed after us. In this promise their salvation is included. None will dare to offer such an insult to God as to deny that he is able to give effect to his promise. How much evil has been caused by the dogma, ill expounded, that baptism is necessary to salvation, few perceive, and, therefore, think caution the less necessary.

For when the opinion prevails that all are lost who happen not to be dipped in water, our condition becomes worse than that of God’s ancient people, as if his grace were more restrained than under the Law. In that case, Christ will be thought to have come not to fulfil, but to abolish the promises, since the promise, which was then effectual in itself to confer salvation before the eighth day, would not now be effectual without the help of a sign.

21. Women not permitted to baptize

What the custom was before Augustine’s day is gathered, first, from Tertullian, who says, that a woman is not permitted to speak in the Church, nor yet to teach, or baptise, or offer, that she may not claim to herself any office of the man, not to say of the priest, (Tertull. Cont. Haeres. Lib. 1.) Of the same thing we have a sufficient Witness in Epiphanius, when he upbraids Martian with giving permission to women to baptise.

I am not unaware of the answer given by those who take an opposite view, viz., that common use is very different from an extraordinary remedy used under the pressure of extreme necessity; but since he declares it mockery to allow women to baptise, and makes no exception, it is sufficiently plain that the corruption is condemned as inexcusable on any pretext. In his Third Book, also, when he says that it was not even permitted to the holy mother of Christ, he makes no reservation.

22. Zipporah’s circumcision of her son no precedent for baptism by women

The example of Zipporah (Exod. 4: 25) is irrelevantly quoted. Because the angel of God was appeased after she took a stone and circumcised her son, it is erroneously inferred that her act was approved by God. Were it so, we must say that God was pleased with a worship which Gentiles brought from Assyria, and set up in Samaria (II Kings 17:32-33).

But other valid reasons prove, that what a foolish woman did is ignorantly drawn into a precedent. Were I to say that there was something special in the case, making it unfit for a precedent—and especially as we nowhere read that the command to circumcise was specially given to priests, the cases of baptism and circumcision are different—I should give a sufficient refutation. For the words of Christ are plain: “Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them,” (Matth. 28: 19.) Since he appointed the same persons to be preachers of the Gospel, and dispensers of baptism—and in the Church, “no man taketh this honour unto himself,” as the apostle declares, (Heb. 5: 4,) “but he that is called of God, as was Aaron"—any one who baptises without a lawful call usurps another’s office (cf. I Peter 4:15).

Paul declares, that whatever we attempt with a dubious conscience, even in the minutes matters, as in meat and drink, is sin, (Rom. 14: 23.) Therefore, in baptism by women, the sin is the greater, when it is plain that the rule delivered by Christ is violated, seeing we know it to be unlawful to put asunder what God has joined (Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9).

But all this I pass; only I would have my readers to observe, that the last thing intended by Zipporah was to perform a service to God. Seeing her son in danger, she frets and murmurs, and, not without indignation, throws down the foreskin on the ground; thus upbraiding her husband, and taking offence at God. In short, it is plain that her whole procedure is dictated by passion: she complains both against her husband and against God, because she is forced to spill the blood of her son. We may add, that however well she might have conducted herself in all other respects, yet her presumption is inexcusable in this, in circumcising her son while her husband is present, and that husband not a mere private individual, but Moses, the chief prophet of God, than whom no greater ever arose in Israel. This was no more allowable in her, than it would be for women in the present day under the eye of a bishop.

But this controversy will at once be disposed of when we maintain, that children who happen to depart this life before an opportunity of immersing them in water, are not excluded from the kingdom of heaven. Now, it has been seen, that unless we admit this position, great injury is done to the covenant of God, as if in itself it were weak, whereas its effect depends not either on baptism, or on any accessaries. The sacrament is afterwards added as a kind of seal, not to give efficacy to the promise, as if in itself invalid, but merely to confirm it to us. Hence it follows, that the children of believers are not baptised, in order that though formerly aliens from the Church, they may then, for the first time, become children of God, but rather are received into the Church by a formal sign, because, in virtue of the promise, they previously belonged to the body of Christ.

Hence if, in omitting the sign, there is neither sloth, nor contempt, nor negligence, we are safe from all danger. By far the better course, therefore is to pay such respect to the ordinance of God as not to seek the sacraments in any other quarter than where the Lord has deposited them. When we cannot receive them from the Church, the grace of God is not so inseparably annexed to them that we cannot obtain it by faith, according to his word.

CHAPTER 16. PAEDOBAPTISM. ITS ACCORDANCE WITH THE INSTITUTION OF CHRIST, AND THE NATURE OF THE SIGN.

Divisions of this chapter,—

I. Confirmation of the orthodox doctrine of paedobaptism, sec. 1-9.

II. Refutation of the arguments which the Anabaptists urge against paedobaptism, sec. 10-30.

III. Special objections of Servetus refuted, sec. 31, 32

Sections.

1. Paedobaptism. The consideration of the question necessary and useful. Paedobaptism of divine origin.

2. This demonstrated from a consideration of the promises. These explain the nature and validity of paedobaptism.

3. Promises annexed to the symbol of water cannot be better seen than in the institution of circumcision.

4. The promise and thing figured in circumcision and baptism one and the same. The only difference in the external ceremony.

5. Hence the baptism of the children of Christian parents as competent as the circumcision of Jewish children. An objection founded on a stated day for circumcision refuted.

6. An argument for paedobaptism founded on the covenant which God made with Abraham. An objection disposed of. The grace of God not diminished by the advent of Christ.

7. Argument founded on Christ’s invitation to children. Objection answered.

8. Objection, that no infants were baptised by the apostles. Answer. Objection, that paedobaptism is a novelty. Answer.

9. Twofold use and benefit of paedobaptism in respect,

1. Of parents.

2. Of children baptised.

10. Second part of the chapter, stating the arguments of Anabaptists. Alleged dissimilitude between baptism and circumcision. First answer.

11. Second answer. The covenant in baptism and circumcision not different.

12. Third answer.

13. Infants, both Jewish and Christian, comprehended in the covenant.

14. Objection considered.

15. The Jews being comprehended in the covenant, no substantial difference between baptism and circumcision.

16. Another argument of the Anabaptists considered.

17. Argument that children are not fit to understand baptism, and, therefore, should not be baptised.

18. Answer continued.

19. Answer continued.

20. Answer continued.

21. Answer continued.

22. Argument, that baptism being appointed for the remission of sins, infants, not having sinned, ought not to be baptised. Answer.

23. Argument against paedobaptism, founded on the practice of the apostles. Answer.

24. Answer continued.

25. Argument founded on a saying of our Lord to Nicodemus. Answer.

26. Error of those who adjudge all who die unbaptised to eternal destruction.

27. Argument against paedobaptism, founded on the precept and example of our Saviour, in requiring instruction to precede baptism. Answer.

28. Answer continued.

29. Answer continued.

30. Argument, that there is no stronger reason for giving baptism to children than for giving them the Lord’s Supper. Answer.

31. Last part of the chapter; refuting the arguments of Servetus.

32. Why Satan so violently assails paedobaptism.

(Infant baptism, considered in relation to what it typifies, corresponds to circumcision and is authorized in the covenant with Abraham, 1-6)

1. The attack on infant baptism

But since in this age, certain frenzied spirits have raised, and even now continue to raise, great disturbance in the Church on account of paedobaptism, I cannot avoid here, by way of appendix, adding something to restrain their fury. Should any one think me more prolix than the subject is worthy let him reflect that in a matter of the greatest moment, so much is due to the peace and purity of the Church, that we should not fastidiously object to whatever may be conducive to both. I may add, that I will study so to arrange this discussion, that it will tend, in no small degree, still farther to illustrate the subject of baptism. The argument by which paedobaptism is assailed is, no doubt, specious, viz., that it is not founded on the institution of God, but was introduced merely by human presumption and depraved curiosity, and afterwards, by a foolish facility, rashly received in practice; whereas a sacrament has not a thread to hang upon, if it rest not on the sure foundation of the word of God. But what if, when the matter is properly attended to, it should be found that a calumny is falsely and unjustly brought against the holy ordinance of the Lord? First, then, let us inquire into its origin. Should it appear to have been devised merely by human rashness, let us abandon it, and regulate the true observance of baptism entirely by the will of the Lord; but should it be proved to be by no means destitute of his sure authority, let us beware of discarding the sacred institutions of God, and thereby insulting their Author.

2. The meaning of baptism determined

In the first place, then, it is a well-known doctrine, and one as to which all the pious are agreed,—that the right consideration of signs does not lie merely in the outward ceremonies but depends chiefly on the promise and the spiritual mysteries, to typify which, the ceremonies themselves are appointed. He, therefore, who would thoroughly understand the effect of baptism—its object and true character—must not stop short at the element and corporeal object, but look forward to the divine promises which are therein offered to us, and rise to the internal secrets which are therein represented. He who understands these has reached the solid truth, and, so to speak, the whole substance of baptism, and will thence perceive the nature and use of outward sprinkling. On the other hand, he who passes them by in contempt, and keeps his thoughts entirely fixed on the visible ceremony, will neither understand the force, nor the proper nature of baptism, nor comprehend what is meant, or what end is gained by the use of water. This is confirmed by passages of Scripture too numerous and too clear to make it necessary here to discuss them more at length. It remains, therefore, to inquire into the nature and efficacy of baptism, as evinced by the promises therein given. Scripture shows, first, that it points to that cleansing from sin which we obtain by the blood of Christ; and, secondly, to the mortification of the flesh, which consists in participation in his death, by which believers are regenerated to newness of life, and thereby to the fellowship of Christ. To these general heads may be referred all that the Scriptures teach concerning baptism, with this addition, that it is also a symbol to testify our religion to men.

3. Baptism and circumcision

Now, since prior to the institution of baptism, the people of God had circumcision in its stead, let us see how far these two signs differ, and how far they resemble each other. In this way it will appear what analogy there is between them. When the Lord enjoins Abraham to observe circumcision, (Gen. 17: 10,) he premises that he would be a God unto him and to his seed, adding, that in himself was a perfect sufficiency of all things, and that Abraham might reckon on his hand as a fountain of every blessing. These words include the promise of eternal life, as our Saviour interprets when he employs it to prove the immortality and resurrection of believers: “God,” says he, “is not the God of the dead, but of the living,” (Matth. 22: 32.) Hence, too, Paul, when showing to the Ephesians how great the destruction was from which the Lord had delivered them, seeing that they had not been admitted to the covenant of circumcision, infers that at that time they were aliens from the covenant of promise, without God, and without hope, (Eph. 2: 12,) all these being comprehended in the covenant. Now, the first access to God, the first entrance to immortal life, is the remission of sins. Hence it follows, that this corresponds to the promise of our cleansing in baptism. The Lord afterwards covenants with Abraham, that he is to walk before him in sincerity and innocence of heart: this applies to mortification or regeneration. And lest any should doubt whether circumcision were the sign of mortification, Moses explains more clearly elsewhere when he exhorts the people of Israel to circumcise the foreskin of their heart, because the Lord had chosen them for his own people, out of all the nations of the earth. As the Lord, in choosing the posterity of Abraham for his people, commands them to be circumcised, so Moses declares that they are to be circumcised in heart, thus explaining what is typified by that carnal circumcision. Then, lest any one should attempt this in his own strength, he shows that it is the work of divine grace. All this is so often inculcated by the prophets, that there is no occasion here to collect the passages which everywhere occur. We have, therefore, a spiritual promise given to the fathers in circumcision, similar to that which is given to us in baptism, since it figured to them both the forgiveness of sins and the mortification of the flesh. Besides, as we have shown that Christ, in whom both of these reside, is the foundation of baptism, so must he also be the foundation of circumcision. For he is promised to Abraham, and in him all nations are blessed. To seal this grace, the sign of circumcision is added.

4. The difference is in externals only

There is now no difficulty in seeing wherein the two signs agree, and wherein they differ. The promise, in which we have shown that the power of the signs consists, is one in both, viz., the promise of the paternal favour of God, of forgiveness of sins, and eternal life. And the thing figured is one and the same, viz., regeneration. The foundation on which the completion of these things depends is one in both. Wherefore, there is no difference in the internal meaning, from which the whole power and peculiar nature of the sacrament is to be estimated. The only difference which remains is in the external ceremony, which is the least part of it, the chief part consisting in the promise and the thing signified. Hence we may conclude, that every thing applicable to circumcision applies also to baptism, excepting always the difference in the visible ceremony. To this analogy and comparison we are led by that rule of the apostle, in which he enjoins us to bring every interpretation of Scripture to the analogy of faith, (Rom. 12: 3, 6.) And certainly in this matter the truth may almost be felt. For just as circumcision, which was a kind of badge to the Jews, assuring them that they were adopted as the people and family of God, was their first entrance into the Church, while they, in their turn, professed their allegiance to God, so now we are initiated by baptism, so as to be enrolled among his people, and at the same time swear unto his name. Hence it is incontrovertible, that baptism has been substituted for circumcision, and performs the same office.

5. Infants are participants in the covenant

Now, if we are to investigate whether or not baptism is justly given to infants, will we not say that the man trifles, or rather is delirious, who would stop short at the element of water, and the external observance, and not allow his mind to rise to the spiritual mystery? If reason is listened to, it will undoubtedly appear that baptism is properly administered to infants as a thing due to them. The Lord did not anciently bestow circumcision upon them without making them partakers of all the things signified by circumcision. He would have deluded his people with mere imposture, had he quieted them with fallacious symbols: the very idea is shocking. I is distinctly declares, that the circumcision of the infant will be instead of a seal of the promise of the covenant. But if the covenant remains firm and fixed, it is no less applicable to the children of Christians in the present day, than to the children of the Jews under the Old Testament. Now, if they are partakers of the thing signified, how can they be denied the sign? If they obtain the reality, how can they be refused the figure? The external sign is so united in the sacrament with the word, that it cannot be separated from it; but if they can be separated, to which of the two shall we attach the greater value? Surely, when we see that the sign is subservient to the word, we shall say that it is subordinate, and assign it the inferior place. Since, then, the word of baptism is destined for infants why should we deny them the signs which is an appendage of the word? This one reason, could no other be furnished, would be amply sufficient to refute all gainsayers. The objection, that there was a fixed day for circumcision, is a mere quibble. We admit that we are not now, like the Jews, tied down to certain days; but when the Lord declares that though he prescribes no day, yet he is pleased that infants shall be formally admitted to his covenant, what more do we ask?

6. Difference in the mode of confirmation only

Scripture gives us a still clearer knowledge of the truth. For it is most evident that the covenant, which the Lord once made with Abraham (cf. Gen. 17:14), is not less applicable to Christians now than it was anciently to the Jewish people, and, therefore, that word has no less reference to Christians than to Jews. Unless, indeed, we imagine that Christ, by his advent, diminished or curtailed the grace of the Father—an idea not free from execrable blasphemy. Wherefore, both the children of the Jews, because, when made heirs of that covenant, they were separated from the heathen, were called a holy seed (Ezra 9:2; Isaiah 6:13), and for the same reason the children of Christians, or those who have only one believing parent, are called holy, and, by the testimony of the apostle, differ from the impure seed of idolaters (I Cor. 7:14). Then, since the Lord, immediately after the covenant was made with Abraham ordered it to be sealed, infants by an outward sacrament (Gen. 17:12), how can it be said that Christians are not to attest it in the present day, and seal it in their children?

Let it not be objected that the only symbol by which the Lord ordered his covenant to be confirmed was that of circumcision, which was long ago abrogated. It is easy to answer, that in accordance with the form of the old dispensation, he appointed circumcision to confirm his covenant, but that it being abrogated, the same reason for confirmation still continues, a reason which we have in common with the Jews. Hence it is always necessary carefully to consider what is common to both, and wherein they differed from us. The covenant is common, and the reason for confirming it is common. The mode of confirming it is so far different that they had circumcision, instead of which we now have baptism. Otherwise, if the testimony by which the Jews were assured of the salvation of their seed is taken from us, the consequence will be, that, by the advent of Christ, the grace of God, which was formerly given to the Jews, is more obscure and less perfectly attested to us. If this cannot be said without extreme insult to Christ, by whom the infinite goodness of the Father has been more brightly and benignly than ever shed upon the earth, and declared to men, it must be confessed that it cannot be more confined, and less clearly manifested, than under the obscure shadows of the law.

(Christ invited and blessed little children: we should not exclude them from the sign, and the benefit, of baptism, 7-9)

7. Jesus and the children

Hence our Lord Jesus Christ, to give an example from which the world might learn that he had come to enlarge rather than to limit the grace of the Father, kindly takes the little children in his arms, and rebukes his disciples for attempting to prevent them from coming, (Matth. 19: 13,) because they were keeping those to whom the kingdom of heaven belonged away from him, through whom alone there is access to heaven. But it will be asked, What resemblance is there between baptism and our Saviour embracing little children? He is not said to have baptised, but to have received, embraced, and blessed them; and, therefore, if we would imitate his example, we must give infants the benefit of our prayers, not baptise them. But let us attend to the act of our Saviour a little more carefully than these men do. For we must not lightly overlook the fact, that our Saviour, in ordering little children to be brought to him, adds the reason, “of such is the kingdom of heaven.” And he afterwards testifies his good will by act, when he embraces them, and with prayer and benediction commends them to his Father. If it is right that children should be brought to Christ, why should they not be admitted to baptism, the symbol of our communion and fellowship with Christ? If the kingdom of heaven is theirs, why should they be denied the sign by which access, as it were, is opened to the Church, that being admitted into it they may be enrolled among the heirs of the heavenly kingdom? How unjust were we to drive away those whom Christ invites to himself, to spoil those whom he adorns with his gifts, to exclude those whom he spontaneously admits. But if we insist on discussing the difference between our Saviour’s act and baptism, in how much higher esteem shall we hold baptism, (by which we testify that infants are included in the divine covenant,) than the taking up, embracing, laying hands on children, and praying over them, acts by which Christ, when present, declares both that they are his, and are sanctified by him? By the other cavils by which the objectors endeavour to evade this passage, they only betray their ignorance: they quibble that, because our Saviour says, “Suffer little children to come,” they must have been several years old, and fit to come. But they are called by the Evangelists “brethe kai paidia”, terms which denote infants still at their mothers’ breasts. The term “come” is used simply for “approach.” See the quibbles to which men are obliged to have recourse when they have hardened themselves against the truth! There is nothing more solid in their allegation, that the kingdom of heaven is not assigned to children, but to those like children, since the expression is, “of such,” not “of themselves.” If this is admitted, what will be the reason which our Saviour employs to show that they are not strangers to him from nonage? When he orders that little children shall be allowed to come to him, nothing is plainer than that mere infancy is meant. Lest this should seem absurd, he adds, “Of such is the kingdom of heaven.” But if infants must necessarily be comprehended the expression, “of such,” clearly shows that infants themselves, and those like them, are intended.

8. The silence of Scripture on the practice of infant baptism

Every one must now see that paedobaptism, which receives such strong support from Scripture, is by no means of human invention. Nor is there anything plausible in the objection, that we no where read of even one infant having been baptised by the hands of the apostles. For although this is not expressly narrated by the Evangelists, yet as they are not expressly excluded when mention is made of any baptised family, (Acts 16: 15, 32,) what man of sense will argue from this that they were not baptised? If such kinds of argument were good, it would be necessary, in like manner, to interdict women from the Lord’s Supper, since we do not read that they were ever admitted to it in the days of the apostles. But here we are contented with the rule of faith. For when we reflect on the nature of the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, we easily judge who the persons are to whom the use of it is to be communicated. The same we observe in the case of baptism. For, attending to the end for which it was instituted, we clearly perceive that it is not less applicable to children than to those of more advanced years and that therefore, they cannot be deprived of it without manifest fraud to the will of its divine Author. The assertion which they disseminate among the common people, that a long series of years elapsed after the resurrection at Christ, during which paedobaptism was unknown, is a shameful falsehood, since there is no writer, however ancient, who does not trace its origin to the days of the apostles.

9. The blessing of infant baptism

It remains briefly to indicate what benefit redounds from the observance, both to believers who bring their children to the church to be baptised, and to the infants themselves, to whom the sacred water is applied, that no one may despise the ordinance as useless or superfluous: though any one who would think of ridiculing baptism under this pretence, would also ridicule the divine ordinance of circumcision: for what can they adduce to impugn the one, that may not be retorted against the other? Thus the Lord punishes the arrogance of those who forthwith condemn whatever their carnal sense cannot comprehend. But God furnishes us with other weapons to repress their stupidity. His holy institution, from which we feel that our faith derives admirable consolation, deserves not to be called superfluous. For the divine symbol communicated to the child, as with the impress of a seal, confirms the promise given to the godly parent, and declares that the Lord will be a God not to him only but to his seed: not merely visiting him with his grace and goodness, but his posterity also to the thousandth generation. When the infinite goodness of God is thus displayed, it, in the first place, furnishes most ample materials for proclaiming his glory, and fills pious breasts with no ordinary joy, urging them more strongly to love their affectionate Parent, when they see that, on their account, he extends his care to their posterity.

I am not moved by the objection, that the promise ought to be sufficient to confirm the salvation of our children. It has seemed otherwise to God, who, seeing our weakness, has herein been pleased to condescend to it. Let those, then, who embrace the promise of mercy to their children, consider it as their duty to offer them to the Church, to be sealed with the symbol of mercy, and animate themselves to surer confidence, on seeing with the bodily eye the covenant of the Lord engraven on the bodies of their children. On the other hand, children derive some benefit from their baptism, when, being ingrafted into the body of the church, they are made an object of greater interest to the other members. Then when they have grown up, they are thereby strongly urged to an earnest desire of serving God, who has received them as sons by the formal symbol of adoption, before, from nonage, they were able to recognise him as their Father. In fine, we ought to stand greatly in awe of the denunciations that God will take vengeance on every one who despises to impress the symbol of the covenant on his child, (Gen. 17: 15,) such contempt being a rejection, and, as it were, abjuration of the offered grace.

(Answer to the Anabaptists argument that baptism is not to be associated with circumcision, 10-16)

10. Differences falsely alleged

Let us now discuss the arguments by which some furious madmen cease not to assail this holy ordinance of God. And, first, feeling themselves pressed beyond measure by the resemblance between baptism and circumcision, they contend that there is a wide difference between the two signs, that the one has nothing in common with the other. They maintain that the things meant are different, that the covenant is altogether different, and that the persons included under the name of children are different. When they first proceed to the proof, they pretend that circumcision was a figure of mortification, not of baptism. This we willingly concede to them, for it admirably supports our view, in support of which the only proof we use is, that baptism and circumcision are signs of mortification. Hence we conclude that the one was substituted for the other, baptism representing to us the very thing which circumcision signified to the Jews. In asserting a difference of covenant, with what barbarian audacity do they corrupt and destroy scripture? and that not in one passage only, but so as not to leave any passage safe and entire. The Jews they depict as so carnal as to resemble brutes more than men, representing the covenant which was made with them as reaching no farther than a temporary life, and the promises which were given to them as dwindling down into present and corporeal blessings. If this dogma is received, what remains but that the Jewish nation was overloaded for a time with divine kindness, (just as swine are gorged in their stye,) that they might at last perish eternally? Whenever we quote circumcision and the promises annexed to it, they answer, that circumcision was a literal sign, and that its promises were carnal.

11. The promises were spiritual

Certainly, if circumcision was a literal sign, the same view must be taken of baptism, since, in the second chapter to the Colossians, the apostle makes the one to be not a whit more spiritual than the other. For he says that in Christ we “are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ."(Col. 2:11). In explanation of his sentiment he immediately adds, that we are “buried with him in baptism."(Col. 2:12). What do these words mean, but just that the truth and completion of baptism is the truth and completion of circumcision, since they represent one thing? For his object is to show that baptism is the same thing to Christians that circumcision formerly was to the Jews. Now, since we have already clearly shown that the promises of both signs, and the mysteries which are represented by them, agree, we shall not dwell on the point longer at present. I would only remind believers to reflect, without anything being said by me, whether that is to be regarded as an earthly and literal sign, which has nothing heavenly or spiritual under it. But lest they should blind the simple with their smoke, we shall, in passing, dispose of one objection by which they cloak this most impudent falsehood. It is absolutely certain that the original promises comprehending the covenant which God made with the Israelites under the old dispensation were spiritual, and had reference to eternal life, and were, of course, in like manner spiritually received by the fathers, that they might thence entertain a sure hope of immortality, and aspire to it with their whole soul. Meanwhile, we are far from denying that he testified his kindness to them by carnal and earthly blessings; though we hold that by these the hope of spiritual promises was confirmed. In this manner, when he promised eternal blessedness to his servant Abraham, he, in order to place a manifest indication of favour before his eye, added the promise of possession of the land of Canaan (Gen. 15:1,18). In the same way we should understand all the terrestrial promises which were given to the Jewish nation, the spiritual promise, as the head to which the others bore reference, always holding the first place. Having handled this subject fully when treating of the difference between the old and the hew dispensations, I now only glance at it.

12. Physical and spiritual infancy

Under the appellation of “children” the difference they observe is this that the children of Abraham, under the old dispensation, were those who derived their origin from his seed, but that the appellation is now given to those who imitate his faith, and therefore that carnal infancy, which was ingrafted into the fellowship of the covenant by circumcision, typified the spiritual children of the new covenant, who are regenerated by the word of God to immortal life. In these words we indeed discover a small spark of truth, but these giddy spirits err grievously in this, that laying hold of whatever comes first to their hand, when they ought to proceed farther and compare many things together; they obstinately fasten upon one single word. Hence it cannot but happen that they are every now and then deluded, because they do not exert themselves to obtain a full knowledge of any subject. We certainly admit that the carnal seed of Abraham for a time held the place of the spiritual seed, which is ingrafted into him by faith, (Gal. 4: 28; Rom. 4: 12.) For we are called his sons, though we have no natural relationship with him. But if they mean, as they not obscurely show, that the spiritual promise was never made to the carnal seed of Abraham, they are greatly mistaken. We must, therefore, take a better aim, one to which we are directed by the infallible guidance of Scripture. The Lord therefore promises to Abraham that he shall have a seed in whom all the nations of the earth will be blessed, and at the same time assures him that he will be a God both to him and his seed (Gen. 17:7). All who in faith receive Christ as the author of the blessing are the heirs of this promise, and accordingly are called the children of Abraham.

13. Abraham was father of all who believe

Although, after the resurrection of Christ, the boundaries of the kingdom of God began to be extended far and wide into all nations indiscriminately, so that, according to the declaration of Christ, believers were collected from all quarters to sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven, (Matth. 8: 11,) still, for many ages before, the Jews had enjoyed this great mercy. And as he had selected them (while passing by all other nations) to be for a time the depositaries of his favour, he designated them as his peculiar purchased people, (Exod. 19:5; 15:16)

In attestation of this kindness, he appointed circumcision, by which symbol the Jews were taught that God watched over their safety, and they were thereby raised to the hope of eternal life. For what can ever be wanting to him whom God has once taken under his protection? Wherefore the apostle, to prove that the Gentiles, as well as the Jews, were the children of Abraham, speaks in this way: “Faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcisions or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed to them also: and the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had yet being uncircumcised,” (Rom. 4: 9-12.) Do we not see that both are made equal in dignity? For, to the time appointed by the divine decree, he was the father of circumcision. But when, as the apostle elsewhere writes, (Eph. 2: 14,) the wall of partition, which separated the Gentiles from the Jews was broken down, to them, also, access was given to the kingdom of God, and he became their fathers and that without the sign of circumcisions, its place being supplied by baptism. In saying expressly that Abraham was not the feather of those who were of the circumcision only, his object was to repress the superciliousness of some who, laying aside all regard to godliness, plumed themselves on mere ceremonies. In like manner, we may, in the present day, refute the vanity of those who, in baptism, seek nothing but water.

14. Covenant with the Jews not made void

But in opposition to this is produced a passage from the Epistle to the Romans, in which the apostle says, that those who are of the flesh are not the children of Abraham, but that those only who are the children of promise are considered as the seed, (Rom. 9: 7.) For he seems to insinuate, that carnal relationship to Abraham, which we think of some consequence, is nothing.

But we must attend carefully to the subject which the apostle is there treating. His object being to show to the Jews that the goodness of God was not restricted to the seed of Abraham, nay, that of itself it contributes nothing, produces, in proof of the fact, the cases of Ishmael and Esau (Rom. 9:6-13). These being rejected, just as if they had been strangers, although, according to the flesh, they were the genuine offspring of Abraham, the blessing resides in Isaac and Jacob. This proves what he afterwards affirms, viz., that salvation depends on the mercy which God bestows on whomsoever he pleases (Rom. 9:15-16), but that the Jews have no ground to glory or plume themselves on the name of the covenant, unless they keep the law of the covenant, that is, obey the word.

On the other hand, after casting down their vain confidence in their origin, because he was aware that the covenant which had been made with the posterity of Abraham could not properly prove fruitless, he declares, that due honour should still be paid to carnal relationship to Abraham, in consequence of which, the Jews were the primary and native heirs of the gospel, unless in so far as they were, for their ingratitude, rejected as unworthy, and yet rejected so as not to leave their nations utterly destitute of the heavenly blessing. For this reason, though they were contumacious breakers of the covenant, he styles them holy, (such respect does he pay to the holy generation which God had honoured with his sacred covenant,) while we, in comparison of them, are termed posthumous, or abortive children of Abraham and that not by nature, but by adoption, just as if a twig were broken from its own tree, and ingrafted on another stock. Therefore, that they might not be defrauded of their privilege, it was necessary that the gospel should first be preached to them. For they are, as it were, the first-born in the family of God. The honour due, on this account, must therefore be paid them, until they have rejected the offer, And, by their ingratitude, caused it to be transferred to the Gentiles. Nor, however great the contumacy with which they persist in warring against the gospel, are we therefore to despise them. We must consider, that in respect of the promise, the blessing of God still resides among them; And, as the apostle testifies, will never entirely depart from them, seeing that “the gifts and calling of God are without repentance,” (Rom. 11:29.)

15. The promise to be fulfilled not allegorically but literally

Such is the value of the promise given to the posterity of Abraham,—such the balance in which it is to be weighed. Hence though we have no doubt that in distinguishing the children of God from bastards and foreigners, that the election of God reigns freely, we, at the same time, perceive that he was pleased specially to embrace the seed of Abraham with his mercy, and, for the better attestation of it, to seal it by circumcision. The case of the Christian Church is entirely of the same description; for as Paul there declares that the Jews are sanctified by their parents, so he elsewhere say s that the children of Christians derive sanctification from their parents (I Cor. 7:14). Hence it is inferred that those who are chargeable with impurity (I Cor. 7:15) are justly separated from others.

Now who can have any doubt as to the falsehood of their subsequent averments viz., that the infants who were formerly circumcised only typified the spiritual infancy which is produced by the regeneration of the word of God? When the apostle says, that “Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers,” (Rom. 15: 8,) he does not philosophise subtilely, as if he had said, Since the covenant made with Abraham has respect unto his seed, Christ, in order to perform and discharge the promise made by the Father, came for the salvation of the Jewish nation. Do you see how he considers that, after the resurrection of Christ, the promise is to be fulfilled to the seed of Abraham, not allegorically, but literally, as the words express? To the same effect is the declaration of Peter to the Jews: “The promise is unto you and to your children,” (Acts 2: 39;) and in the next chapters he calls them the children of the covenant, that is, heirs. Not widely different from this is the other passage of the apostle, above quoted, in which he regards and describes circumcision performed on infants as an attestation to the communion which they have with Christ (Eph. 2:11-13).

And, indeed, if we listen to the absurdities of those men, what will become of the promise by which the Lord, in the second commandment of his law, engages to be gracious to the seed of his servants for a thousand generations (Ex. 20:6)? Shall we here have recourse to allegory? This were the merest nibble. Shall we say that it has been abrogated? In this way, we should do away with the law which Christ came not to destroy, but to fulfil (Matt. 5:17), inasmuch as it turns to our everlasting good. Therefore, let it be without controversy, that God is so good and liberal to his people, that he is pleased, as a mark of his favour, to extend their privileges to the children born to them.

16. Further apparent differences between baptism and circumcision

The distinctions which these men attempt to draw between baptism and circumcision are not only ridiculous, and void of all semblance of reason, but at variance with each other. For, when they affirm that baptism refers to the first day of spiritual contest, and circumcision to the eighth day, mortification being already accomplished they immediately forget the distinction, and change their song, representing circumcision as typifying the mortification of the flesh, and baptism as the burial, which is given to none but those who are already dead. What are these giddy contradictions but frenzied dreams? According to the former view, baptism ought to precede circumcision; according to the latter, it should come after it. It is not the first time we have seen the minds of men wander to and fro when they substitute their dreams for the infallible word of God.

We hold, therefore, that their former distinction is a mere imagination. Were we disposed to make the allegory of the eighth day, theirs would not be the proper mode of it. It were much better with the early Christians to refer the number eight to the resurrection, which took place on the eighth day, and on which we know that newness of life depends, or to the whole course of the present life, during which, mortification ought to be in progress, only terminating when life itself terminates; although it would seem that God intended to provide for the tenderness of infancy by deferring circumcision to the eighth day, as the wound would have been more dangerous if inflicted immediately after birth.

How much more rational is the declaration of Scripture, that we, when already dead, are buried by baptism, (Rom. 6: 4;) since it distinctly states, that we are buried into death that we may thoroughly die, and thenceforth aim at that mortification?

Equally ingenious is their cavil, that women should not be baptised if baptism is to be made conformable to circumcision. For if it is most certain that the sanctification of the seed of Israel was attested by the sign of circumcision, it cannot be doubted that it was appointed alike for the sanctification of males and females. But though the rite could only be performed on males, yet the females were, through them, partners and associates in circumcision. Wherefore, disregarding all such quibbling distinctions, let us fix on the very complete resemblance between baptism and circumcision, as seen in the internal office, the promise, the use, and the effect.

(Answer to the argument that infants are incapable of faith, 17-20)

17. Children should also have life in Christ

They seem to think they produce their strongest reason for denying baptism to children, when they allege, that they are as yet unfit, from nonage, to understand the mystery which is there sealed, viz., spiritual regeneration, which is not applicable to earliest infancy. Hence they infer, that children are only to be regarded as sons of Adam until they have attained an age fit for the reception of the second birth. But all this is directly opposed to the truth of God. For if they are to be accounted sons of Adam, they are left in death, since, in Adam, we can do nothing but die (Rom. 5:12f). On the contrary, Christ bids them be brought to him (Matt. 19:14). Why so? Because he is life. Therefore, that he may quicken them, he makes them partners with himself; whereas these men would drive them away from Christ, and adjudge them to death.

For if they pretend that infants do not perish when they are accounted the sons of Adam, the error is more than sufficiently confuted by the testimony of Scripture, (1 Cor. 15: 22.) For, seeing it declares that in Adam all die, it follows, that no hope of life remains unless in Christ. Therefore that we may become heirs of life, we must communicate with him. Again, seeing it is elsewhere written that we are all by nature the children of wrath, (Eph. 2: 3,) and conceived in sin, (Ps. 51: 5,) of which condemnation is the inseparable attendant, we must part with our own nature before we have any access to the kingdom of God. And what can be clearer than the expression, “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God?” (1 Cor. 15: 50.) Therefore, let every thing that is our own be abolished, (this cannot be without regeneration,) and then we shall perceive this possession of the kingdom. In fine, if Christ speaks truly when he declares that he is life (John 11:25; 14:6), we must necessarily be ingrafted into him by whom we are delivered from the bondage of death.

But how, they ask, are infants regenerated, when not possessing a knowledge of either good or evil? We answer, that the work of God, though beyond the reach of our capacity, is not therefore null. Moreover, infants who are to be saved (and that some are saved at this age is certain) must, without question, be previously regenerated by the Lord. For if they bring innate corruption with them from their mother’s womb, they must be purified before they can be admitted into the kingdom of God, into which shall not enter any thing that defileth, (Rev. 21: 27.) If they are born sinners, as David and Paul affirm, they must either remain unaccepted and hated by God, or be justified. And why do we ask more, when the Judge himself publicly declares, that “except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God?” (John 3: 3.)

But to silence this class of objectors, God gave, in the case of John the Baptist, whom he sanctified from his mother’s womb, (Luke 1: 15,) a proof of what he might do in others. They gain nothing by the quibble to which they here resort, viz., that this was only once done, and, therefore, it does not forthwith follow that the Lord always acts thus with infants. That is not the mode in which we reason. Our only object is to show, that they unjustly and malignantly confine the power of God within limits, within which it cannot be confined. As little weight is due to another subterfuge. They allege that, by the usual phraseology of Scriptures “from the womb,” has the same meaning as “from childhood.” But it is easy to see that the angel had a different meaning when he announced to Zacharias that the child not yet born would be filled with the Holy Spirit. Instead of attempting to give a law to God, let us hold that he sanctifies whom he pleases in the way in which he sanctified John, seeing that his power is not impaired.

18. Argument from the infancy of Christ

And, indeed, Christ was sanctified from earliest infancy, that he might sanctify his elect in himself at any age, without distinction. For as he, in order to wipe away the guilt of disobedience which had been committed in our flesh, assumed that very flesh, that in it he might, on our account, and in our stead, perform a perfect obedience, so he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, that, completely pervaded with his holiness in the flesh which he had assumed he might transfuse it into us. If in Christ we have a perfect pattern of all the grace, which God bestows on all his children, in this instance we have a proof that the age of infancy is not incapable of receiving sanctification.

This, at least, we set down as incontrovertible, that none of the elect is called away from the present life without being previously sanctified and regenerated by the Spirit of God. As to their objection that, in Scriptures the Spirit acknowledges no sanctification save that from incorruptible seed, that is, the word of God, they erroneously interpret Peter’s words, in which he comprehends only believers who had been taught by the preaching of the gospel, (1 Pet. 1: 23.) We confess, indeed, that the word of the Lord is the only seed of spiritual regeneration; but we deny the inference that, therefore, the power of God cannot regenerate infants. This is as possible and easy for him as it is wondrous and incomprehensible to us. It were dangerous to deny that the Lord is able to furnish them with the knowledge of himself in any way he pleases.

19. Objection: infants cannot understand preaching

But faith, they says comes by hearing (Rom. 10:17), the use of which infants have not yet obtained, nor can they be fit to know God, being, as Moses declares, without the knowledge of good and evil, (Deut. 1: 39.) But they observe not that where the apostle makes hearing the beginning of faith, he is only describing the usual economy and dispensation which the Lord is wont to employ in calling his people, and not laying down an invariable rule, for which no other method can be substituted. Many he certainly has called and endued with the true knowledge of himself by internal means, by the illumination of the Spirit, without the intervention of preaching. But since they deem it very absurd to attribute any knowledge of God to infants, whom Moses makes void of the knowledge of good and evil, let them tell me where the danger lies if they are said now to receive some part of that grace, of which they are to have the full measure shortly after. For if fulness of life consists in the perfect knowledge of God, since some of those whom death hurries away in the first moments of infancy pass into life eternal, they are certainly admitted to behold the immediate presence of God. Those therefore whom the Lord is to illumine with the full brightness of his light, why may he not, if he so pleases, irradiate at present with some small beam, especially if he does not remove their ignorance before he delivers them from the prison of the flesh? I would not rashly affirm that they are endued with the same faith which we experience in ourselves or have any knowledge at all resembling faith, (this I would rather leave undecided;) but I would somewhat curb the stolid arrogance of those men who, as with inflated cheeks affirm or deny whatever suits them.

20. Objection: infants are capable neither of repentance nor of faith

In order to gain a stronger footing here, they add, that baptism is a sacrament of penitence and faith, and as neither of these is applicable to tender infancy we must beware of rendering its meaning empty and vain, by admitting infants to the communion of baptism. But these darts are directed more against God than against us; since the fact that circumcision was a sign of repentance is completely established by many passages of Scripture, (Jer. 4: 4; 9:25; cf. Deut. 10:16; 30:6.) Thus Paul terms it a seal of the righteousness of faiths (Rom. 4: 11.) Let God, then, be demanded why he ordered circumcision to be performed on the bodies of infants? For baptism and circumcision being here in the same case, they cannot give any thing to the latter without conceding it to the former. If they recur to their usual evasion, that, by the age of infancy, spiritual infants were then figured, we have already closed this means of escape against them. We say then that since God imparted circumcision, the sign of repentance and faith, to infants, it should not seem absurd that they are now made partakers of baptisms unless men choose to glamour against an institution of God. But as in all his acts, so here also enough of wisdom and righteousness shines forth to repress the slanders of the ungodly. For although infants, at the moment when they were circumcised, did not comprehend what the sign meant, still they were truly circumcised for the mortification of their corrupt and polluted nature,—a mortification at which they afterwards aspired when adults. In fine, the objection is easily disposed of by the fact, that children are baptised for future repentance and faith. Though these are not yet formed in them, yet the seed of both lies hid in them by the secret operation of the Spirit.

This answer at once overthrows all the objections which are twisted against us out of the meaning of baptism; for instance, the title by which Paul distinguishes it when he terms it the “washing of regeneration and renewing,” (Tit. 3: 5.) Hence they argue, that it is not to be given to any but to those who are capable of such feelings. But we, on the other hand, may object, that neither ought circumcision, which is designated regeneration, to be conferred on any but the regenerate. In this way, we shall condemn a divine institution. Thus, as we have already hinted, all the arguments which tend to shake circumcision are of no force in assailing baptism. Nor can they escape by saying, that everything which rests on the authority of God is absolutely fixed, though there should be no reason for it, but that this reverence is not due to paedobaptism, nor other similar things which are not recommended to us by the express word of God. They always remain caught in this dilemma. The command of God to circumcise infants was either legitimate and exempt from cavil, or deserved reprehension. If there was nothing incompetent or absurd in it, no absurdity can be shown in the observance of paedobaptism.

(Operation of the Spirit in baptized children, 21-22)

21. The child grows into an understanding of his baptism

The charge of absurdity with which they attempt to stigmatise it, we thus dispose of. If those on whom the Lord has bestowed his election, after receiving the sign of regeneration, depart this life before they become adults, he, by the incomprehensible energy of his Spirit, renews them in the way which he alone sees to be expedient. Should they reach an age when they can be instructed in the meaning of baptism, they will thereby be animated to greater zeal for renovation, the badge of which they will learn that they received in earliest infancy, in order that they might aspire to it during their whole lives.

To the same effect are the two passages in which Paul teaches, that we are buried with Christ by baptism, (Rom. 6: 4; Col. 2: 12.) For by this he means not that he who is to be initiated by baptism must have previously been buried with Christ, he simply declares the doctrine which is taught by baptism, and that to those already baptised: so that the most senseless cannot maintain from this passage that it ought to precede baptism. In this way, Moses (Deut. 10:16) and the prophets reminded the people of the thing meant by circumcision, which however infants received.

To the same effect, Paul says to the Galatians, “As many of you as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ,” (Gal. 3: 27.) Why so? That they might thereafter live to Christ, to whom previously they had not lived. And though, in adults, the receiving of the sign ought to follow the understanding of its meaning, yet, as will shortly be explained, a different rule must be followed with children.

No other conclusion can be drawn from a passage in Peter, on which they strongly found. He says, that baptism is “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” (1 Pet. 3: 21.) From this they contend that nothing is left for paedobaptism, which becomes mere empty smoke, as being altogether at variance with the meaning of baptism. But the delusion which misleads them is, that they would always have the thing to precede the sign in the order of time. For the truth of circumcision consisted in the same answer of a good conscience; but if the truth must necessarily have preceded, infants would never have been circumcised by the command of God. But he himself, showing that the answer of a good conscience forms the truth of circumcision, and, at the same time, commanding infants to be circumcised, plainly intimates that, in their case, circumcision had reference to the future. Wherefore, nothing more of present effect is to be required in paedobaptism, than to confirm and sanction the covenant which the Lord has made with them. The other part of the meaning of the sacrament will follow at the time which God himself has provided.

22. This thing is a comfort for children; hence, they must not be deprived of the sign

Every one must, I think, clearly perceive, that all arguments of this stamp are mere perversions of Scripture. The other remaining arguments akin to these we shall cursorily examine. They object, that baptism is given for the remission of sins. When this is conceded, it strongly supports our view; for, seeing we are born sinners, we stand in need of forgiveness and pardon from the very womb. Moreover, since God does not preclude this age from the hope of mercy, but rather gives assurance of it, why should we deprive it of the sign, which is much inferior to the reality? The arrow, therefore, which they aim at us, we throw back upon themselves. Infants receive forgiveness of sins; therefore, they are not to be deprived of the sign.

They adduce the passage from the Ephesians, that Christ gave himself for the Church, “that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,” (Eph. 5: 26.) Nothing could be quoted more appropriate than this to overthrow their error: it furnishes us with an easy proof. If, by baptism, Christ intends to attest the ablution by which he cleanses his Church, it would seem not equitable to deny this attestation to infants, who are justly deemed part of the Church, seeing they are called heirs of the heavenly kingdom. For Paul comprehends the whole Church when he says that it was cleansed by the washing of water.

In like manner, from his expression in another place, that by baptism we are ingrafted into the body of Christ, (1 Cor. 12: 13,) we infer, that infants, whom he enumerates among his members, are to be baptised, in order that they may not be dissevered from his body.

See the violent onset which they make with all their engines on the bulwarks of our faith!

(Infant baptism in the beginning of the church, 23-24)

23. Scriptural statements which refer to adults should not without further evidence be applied to children

They now come down to the custom and practice of the apostolic age, alleging that there is no instance of any one having been admitted to baptism without a previous profession of faith and repentance. For when Peter is asked by his hearers, who were pricked in their heart, “What shall we do?” his advice is, “Repent, and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins,” (Acts 2: 37, 38.) In like manner, when Philip was asked by the eunuch to baptise him, he answered, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.” Hence they think they can make out that baptism cannot be lawfully given to any one without previous faith and repentance. If we yield to this argument, the former passage, in which there is no mention of faith, will prove that repentance alone is sufficient, and the latter, which makes no requirement of repentance, that there is need only of faith. They will object, I presume, that the one passage helps the other, and that both, therefore, are to be connected. I, in my turn, maintain that these two must be compared with other passages which contribute somewhat to the solution of this difficulty. There are many passages of Scripture whose meaning depends on their peculiar position. Of this we have an example in the present instance. Those to whom these things are said by Peter and Philip are of an age fit to aim at repentance, and receive faith. We strenuously insist that such men are not to be baptised unless their conversion and faith are discerned, at least in as far as human judgement can ascertain it. But it is perfectly clear that infants must be placed in a different class. For when any one formerly joined the religious communion of Israel, he behaved to be taught the covenant, and instructed in the law of the Lord, before he received circumcision, because he was of a different nation; in other words, an alien from the people of Israel, with whom the covenant, which circumcision sanctioned, had been made.

24. Abraham and Isaac exemplify the difference of adults and infants

Thus the Lord, when he chose Abraham for himself, did not commence with circumcision, in the meanwhile concealing what he meant by that sign, but first announced that he intended to make a covenant with him, and, after his faith in the promise, made him partaker of the sacrament. Why does the sacrament come after faith in Abraham, and precede all intelligence in his son Isaac? It is right that he who, in adult age, is admitted to the fellowship of a covenant by one from whom he had hitherto been alienated, should previously learn its conditions; but it is not so with the infant born to him. He, according to the terms of the promise, is included in the promise by hereditary right from his mother’s womb. Or, to state the matter more briefly and more clearly, If the children of believers, without the help of understanding, are partakers of the covenant, there is no reason why they should be denied the sign, because they are unable to swear to its stipulations. This undoubtedly is the reason why the Lord sometimes declares that the children born to the Israelites are begotten and born to him, (Ezek. 16: 20; 23: 37.) For he undoubtedly gives the place of sons to the children of those to whose seed he has promised that he will be a Father. But the child descended from unbelieving parents is deemed an alien to the covenant until he is united to God by faith. Hence, it is not strange that the sign is withheld when the thing signified would be vain and fallacious. In that view, Paul says that the Gentiles, so long as they were plunged in idolatry, were strangers to the covenants (Eph. 2: 11.) The whole matter may, if I mistake not, be thus briefly and clearly expounded: Those who, in adult age, embrace the faith of Christ, having hitherto been aliens from the covenant, are not to receive the sign of baptism without previous faith and repentance. These alone can give them access to the fellowship of the covenant, whereas children, deriving their origin from Christians, as they are immediately on their birth received by God as heirs of the covenant, are also to be admitted to baptism. To this we must refer the narrative of the Evangelist, that those who were baptised by John confessed their sins, (Matth. 3: 6.) This example, we hold, ought to be observed in the present day. Were a Turk to offer himself for baptism, we would not at once perform the rite without receiving a confession which was satisfactory to the Church.

(Certain passages adduced against infant baptism interpreted: those who die unbaptized not all condemned, 25-30)

25. Reborn “of water and the Spirit”

Another passage which they adduce is from the third chapter of John, where our Saviour’s words seem to them to imply that a present regeneration is required in baptism, “Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” (John 3: 5.) See, they say, how baptism is termed regeneration by the lips of our Lord himself, and on what pretext, therefore, with what consistency is baptism given to those who, it is perfectly obvious, are not at all capable of regeneration?

First, they are in error in imagining that there is any mention of baptism in this passage, merely because the word water is used. Nicodemus, after our Saviour had explained to him the corruption of nature, and the necessity of being born again, kept dreaming of a corporeal birth, and hence our Saviour intimates the mode in which God regenerates use viz., by water and the Spirit; in other words, by the Spirit, who, in irrigating and cleansing the soul of believers, operates in the manner of water. By “water and the Spirit,” therefore, I simply understand the Spirit, which is water. Nor is the expression new. It perfectly accords with that which is used in the third chapter of Matthew, “He that comes after me is mightier than I;” “he shall baptise you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire,” (Matth. 3: 11.) Therefore, as to baptise with the Holy Spirit, and with fire, is to confer the Holy Spirit, who, in regeneration, has the office and nature of fire, so to be born again of water, and of the Spirit, is nothing else than to receive that power of the Spirit, which has the same effect on the soul that water has on the body. I know that a different interpretation is given, but I have no doubt that this is the genuine meaning, because our Saviour’s only purpose was to teach, that all who aspire to the kingdom of heaven must lay aside their own disposition.

And yet were we disposed to imitate these men in their mode of cavilling, we might easily, after conceding what they wish, reply to them, that baptism is prior to faith and repentance, since, in this passage, our Saviour mentions it before the Spirit. This certainly must be understood of spiritual gifts, and if they follow baptism, I have gained all I contend for. But, cavilling aside, the simple interpretation to be adopted is, that which I have given viz., that no man, until renewed by living water, that is, by the Spirit, can enter the kingdom of God.

26. Not all the unbaptized are lost

This, moreover, plainly explodes the fiction of those who consign all the unbaptised to eternal death. Let us suppose, then, that as they insist, baptism is administered to adults only. What will they make of a youth who, after being imbued duly and properly with the rudiments of piety, while waiting for the day of baptism, is unexpectedly carried off by sudden death? The promise of our Lord is clear, “He that hearth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life,” (John 5: 24.) We nowhere read of his having condemned him who was not yet baptised. I would not be understood as insinuating that baptism may be condemned with impunity. So far from excusing this contempt, I hold that it violates the covenant of the Lord. The passage only serves to show, that we must not deem baptism so necessary as to suppose that every one who has lost the opportunity of obtaining it has forthwith perished. By assenting to their fiction, we should condemn all, without exception, whom any accident may have prevented from procuring baptism, how much soever they may have been endued with the faith by which Christ himself is possessed. Moreover, baptism being, as they hold, necessary to salvation, they, in denying it to infants, consign them all to eternal death. Let them now consider what kind of agreement they have with the words of Christ, who says that “of such is the kingdom of heaven,” (Matth. 19: 14.) And though we were to concede every thing to them, in regard to the meaning of this passage, they will extract nothing from it, until they have previously overthrown the doctrine which we have already established concerning the regeneration of infants.

27. Jesus’ baptismal words

But they boast of having their strongest bulwark in the very institution of baptism, which they find in the last chapter of Matthew, where Christ, sending his disciples into all the world, commands them to teach and then baptise (Matt. 28:19). Then in the last chapter of Mark, it is added “He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved,” (Mark 16: 16.) What more (say they) do we ask, since the words of Christ distinctly declare, that teaching must precede baptism, and assign to baptism the place next to faith? Of this arrangement our Lord himself gave an example, in choosing not to be baptised till his thirtieth year (Matt. 3:13; Luke 3:21-22).

In how many ways do they here entangle themselves, and betray their ignorance! They err more than childishly in this, that they derive the first institution of baptism from this passage, whereas Christ had from the commencement of his ministry, ordered it to be administered by the apostles. There is no ground, therefore, for contending that the law and rule of baptism is to be sought from these two passages, as containing the first institution.

But to indulge them in their error, how nerveless is this mode of arguing? Were I disposed to evasion, I have not only a place of escape, but a wide field to expatiate in. For when they cling so desperately to the order of the words, insisting that because it is said, “Go, preach and baptise,” and again, “Whosoever believes and is baptised,” they must preach before baptising, and believe before being baptised, why may not we in our turn object, that they must baptise before teaching the observance of those things which Christ commanded, because it is said, “Baptise, teaching whatsoever I have commanded you?” The same thing we observed in the other passage in which Christ speaks of the regeneration of water and of the Spirit. For if we interpret as they insist, then baptism must take precedence of spiritual regeneration, because it is first mentioned. Christ teaches that we are to be born again, not of the Spirit and of water, but of water and of the Spirit.

28. Infants not referred to in Mark 16:16

This unassailable argument, in which they confide so much, seems already to be considerably shaken; but as we have sufficient protection in the simplicity of truth, I am unwilling to evade the point by paltry subtleties. Let them, therefore, have a solid answer. The command here given by Christ relates principally to the preaching of the gospel: to it baptism is added as a kind of appendage. Then he merely speaks of baptism in so far as the dispensation of it is subordinate to the fiction of teaching. For Christ sends his disciples to publish the gospel to all nations of the World, that by the doctrine of salvation they may gather men, who were previously lost into his kingdom. But who or what are those men? It is certain that mention is made only of those who are fit to receive his doctrine. He subjoins, that such, after being taught, were to be baptised, adding the promise, Whosoever believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved. Is there one syllable about infants in the whole discourse? What, then, is the form of argument with which they assail us? Those who are of adult age are to be instructed and brought to the faith, before being baptised, and, therefore, it is unlawful to make baptism common to infants. They cannot, at the very utmost, prove any other thing out of this passage, than that the gospel must be preached to those who are capable of hearing it before they are baptised: for of such only the passage speaks. From this let them, if they can, throw an obstacle in the way of baptising infants.

29. Jesus as prototype of adult baptism

But I will make their fallacies palpable even to the blind, by a very plain similitude. Should any one insist that infants are to be deprived of food, on the pretence that the apostle permits none to eat but those who labour, (2 Thess. 3: 10,) would he not deserve to be scouted by all? Why so? Because that which was said of a certain class of men, and a certain age, he wrests and applies to all indifferently. The dexterity of these men in the present instance is no greater. That which every one sees to be intended for adult age merely, they apply to infants, subjecting them to a rule which was laid down only for those of riper years.

With regard to the example of our Saviour, it gives no countenance to their case. He was not baptised before his thirtieth year. This is, indeed, true, but the reason is obvious; because he then determined to lay the solid foundation of baptism by his preaching, or rather to confirm the foundation which John had previously laid. Therefore when he was pleased with his doctrine to institute baptism, that he might give the greater authority to his institution, he sanctified it in his own person, and that at the most befitting time, namely, the commencement of his ministry. In fine, they can prove nothing more than that baptism received its origin and commencement with the preaching of the gospel. But if they are pleased to fix upon the thirtieth year, why do they not observe it, but admit any one to baptism according to the view which they may have formed of his proficiency? Nay, even Servetus, one of their masters, although he pertinaciously insisted on this period, had begun to act the prophet in his twenty-first year; as if any man could be tolerated in arrogating to himself the office of a teacher in the Church before he was a member of the Church.

30. Baptism and Lord’s Supper

At length they object, that there is not greater reason for admitting infants to baptism than to the Lord’s Supper, to which, however, they are never admitted: as if Scripture did not in every way draw a wide distinction between them. In the early Church, indeed, the Lord’s Supper was frequently given to infants, as appears from Cyprian and Augustine, (August. ad Bonif. Lib. 1;) but the practice justly became obsolete. For if we attend to the peculiar nature of baptism, it is a kind of entrance, and as it were initiation into the Church, by which we are ranked among the people of God, a sign of our spiritual regeneration, by which we are again born to be children of God, whereas on the contrary the Supper is intended for those of riper years, who, having passed the tender period of infancy, are fit to bear solid food.

This distinction is very clearly pointed out in Scripture. For there, as far as regards baptism, the Lord makes no selection of age, whereas he does not admit all to partake of the Supper, but confines it to those who are fit to discern the body and blood of the Lord, to examine their own conscience, to show forth the Lord’s death, and understand its power. Can we wish anything clearer than what the apostle says, when he thus exhorts, “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup?” (1 Cor. 11: 28.) Examination, therefore, must precede, and this it were vain to expect from infants. Again, “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.” If they cannot partake worthily without being able duly to discern the sanctity of the Lord’s body, why should we stretch out poison to our young children instead of vivifying food? Then what is our Lord’s injunction? “Do this in remembrance of me.” And what the inference which the apostle draws from this? “As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come.” How, pray, can we require infants to commemorate any event of which they have no understanding; how require them to “show forth the Lord’s death,” of the nature and benefit of which they have no idea? Nothing of the kind is prescribed by baptism. Wherefore, there is the greatest difference between the two signs. This also we observe in similar signs under the old dispensation. Circumcision, which, as is well known, corresponds to our baptism, was intended for infants, but the Passover, for which the Supper is substituted, did not admit all kinds of guests promiscuously, but was duly eaten only by those who were of an age sufficient to ask the meaning of it, (Exod. 12: 26.) Had these men the least particle of soundness in their brain, would they be thus blind as to a matter so very clear and obvious?

(Answers to arguments of Servetus, and conclusion, 31-32)

31. Servetus’ objections

Though I am unwilling to annoy the reader with the series of conceits which Servetus, not the least among the Anabaptists, nay, the great honour of this crew, when girding himself for battle, deemed, when he adduced them, to be specious arguments, it will be worth while briefly to dispose of them.

1. He pretends that as the symbols of Christ are perfect, they require persons who are perfect, or, at least, capable of perfection. But the answer is plain. The perfection of baptism, which extends even to death, is improperly restricted to one moment of time; moreover, perfection, in which baptism invites us to make continual progress during life, is foolishly exacted by him all at once.

2. He objects, that the symbols of Christ were appointed for remembrance, that every one may remember that he was buried together with Christ. I answer, that what he coined out of his own brain does not need refutation, nay, that which he transfers to baptism properly belongs to the Supper, as appears from Paul’s words, “Let a man examine himself, (I Cor. 11:28)” words similar to which are nowhere used with reference to baptism. Whence we infer, that those who from nonage are incapable of examination are duly baptised.

3. His third point is, That all who believe not in the Son remain in death, the wrath of God abideth on them, (John 3: 36;) and, therefore, infants who are unable to believe lie under condemnation. I answer, that Christ does not there speak of the general guilt in which all the posterity of Adam are involved, but only threatens the despisers of the gospel, who proudly and contumaciously spurn the grace which is offered to them. But this has nothing to do with infants. At the same time, I meet him with the opposite argument. Every one whom Christ blesses is exempted from the curse of Adam, and the wrath of God. Therefore, seeing it is certain that infants are blessed by him, it follows that they are freed from death. He next falsely quotes a passage which is nowhere found, Whosoever is born of the Spirit, hears the voice of the Spirit. Though we should grant that such a passage occurs in Scripture, all he can extract from it is, that believers, according as the Spirit works in them, are framed to obedience. But that which is said of a certain number, it is illogical to apply to all alike.

4. His fourth objection is, As that which precedes is animal, (1 Cor. 15: 46,) we must wait the full time for baptism, which is spiritual. But while I admit that all the posterity of Adam, born of the flesh, bear their condemnation with them from the womb, I hold that this is no obstacle to the immediate application of the divine remedy. Servetus cannot show that by divine appointment, several years must elapse before the new spiritual life begins. Paul’s testimony is, that though lost by nature, the children of believers are holy by supernatural grace.

5. He afterwards brings forward the allegory that David when going up into mount Zion, took with him neither the blind nor the lame, but vigorous soldiers, (2 Sam. 5: 8.) But what if I meet this with the parable in which God invites to the heavenly feast the lame and the blind? In what way will Servetus disentangle this knot? I ask, moreover whether the lame and the maimed had not previously served with David? But it is superfluous to dwell longer on this argument, which as the reader will learn from the sacred history, is founded on mere misquotation.

6. He adds another allegory, viz., that the apostles were fishers of men, not of children. I ask, then, What does our Saviour mean when he says that in the net are caught all kinds of fishes? (Matth. 4: 19; 13: 47.) But as I have no pleasure in sporting with allegory, I answer, that when the office of teaching was committed to the apostles they were not prohibited from baptising infants. Moreover, I should like to know why, when the Evangelist uses the term “anthropous”, (which comprehends the whole human race without exception,) he denies that infants are included.

7. His seventh argument is, Since spiritual things accord with spiritual, (l Cor. 2: 13,) infants, not being spiritual, are unfit for baptism. It is plain how perversely he wrests this passage of Paul. It relates to doctrine. The Corinthians, pluming themselves excessively on a vain acuteness, Paul rebukes their folly, because they still required to be imbued with the first rudiments of heavenly doctrine. Who can infer from this that baptism is to be denied to infants, whom, when begotten of the flesh, the Lord consecrates to himself by gratuitous adoption?

8. His objection, that if they are new men, they must be fed with spiritual food, is easily obviated. By baptism they are admitted into the fold of Christ, and the symbol of adoption is sufficient for them, until they grow up and become fit to bear solid food. We must, therefore, wait for the time of examination, which God distinctly demands in the sacred Supper.

9. His next objection is, that Christ invites all his people to the sacred supper. But as it is plain that he admits those only who are prepared to celebrate the commemoration of his death, it follows that infants whom he honoured with his embrace, remain in a distinct and peculiar position until they grow up, and yet are not aliens. When he objects, that it is strange why the infant does not partake of the Supper, I answer, that souls are fed by other food than the external eating of the Supper, and that accordingly Christ is the food of infants though they partake not of the symbol. The case is different with baptism, by which the door of the Church is thrown open to them.

10. He again objects that a good householder distributes meat to his household in due season, (Matth. 24: 45.) This I willingly admit; but how will he define the time of baptism, so as to prove that it is not seasonably given to infants? He, moreover, adduces Christ’s command to the apostles to make haste, because the fields are already white to the harvest, (John 4: 35.) Our Saviour only means that the apostles, seeing the present fruit of their labour, should bestir themselves with more alacrity to teach. Who will infer from this, that harvest only is the fit time for baptism?

11. His eleventh argument is, That in the primitive Church, Christians and disciples were the same; but we have already seen that he argues unskilfully from the part to the whole. The name of disciples is given to men of full age, who had already been taught, and had assumed the name of Christ, just as the Jews behaved to be disciples under the law of Moses. Still none could rightly infer from this that infants, whom the Lord declared to be of his household, were strangers.

12. Moreover he alleges that all Christians are brethren and that infants cannot belong to this class, so long as we exclude them from the Supper. But I return to my position, first, that none are heirs of the kingdom of heaven but those who are the members of Christ; and, secondly, that the embracing of Christ was the true badge of adoption, in which infants are joined in common with adults, and that temporary abstinence from the Supper does not prevent them from belonging to the body of the Church. The thief on the cross, when converted, became the brother of believers, though he never partook of the Lord’s Supper.

13. Servetus afterwards adds, that no man becomes our brother unless by the Spirit of adoption (Rom. 8:15), who is only conferred by the hearing of faith (Gal. 3:2). I answer, that he always falls back into the same paralogism, because he preposterously applies to infants what is said only of adults. Paul there teaches that the ordinary way in which God calls his elect, and brings them to the faith, is by raising up faithful teachers, and thus stretching out his hand to them by their ministry and labours. Who will presume from this to give the law to God, and say that he may not ingraft infants into Christ by some other secret method?

14. He objects, that Cornelius was baptised after receiving the Holy Spirit; but how absurdly he would convert a single example into a general rule, is apparent from the case of the Eunuch and the Samaritans, in regard to whom, the Lord observed a different order, baptism preceding the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

15. The fifteenth argument is more than absurd. He says that we become gods by regeneration, but that they are gods to whom the word of God is sent, (John 10: 35; 2 Pet. 1: 4,) a thing not possible to infant children. The attributing of deity to believers is one of his ravings which this is not the proper place to discuss; but it betrays the utmost effrontery to wrest the passage in the psalm (Ps. 82:6) to a meaning so alien to it. Christ says, that kings and magistrates are called gods by the prophet, because they perform an office divinely appointed them. This dexterous interpreter transfers what is addressed by special command to certain individuals to the doctrine of the Gospel, so as to exterminate infants from the Church.

16. Again, he objects, that infants cannot be regarded as new men, because they are not begotten by the word. But what I have said again and again I now repeat, that, for regenerating us, doctrine is an incorruptible seed, if indeed we are fit to perceive it; but when, from nonage, we are incapable of being taught, God takes his own methods of regenerating.

17. He afterwards returns to his allegories, and says, that under the law, the sheep and the goat were not offered in sacrifice the moment they were dropt, (Exod. 12: 5.) Were I disposed to deal in figures, I might obviously reply, first, that all the first-born, on opening the matrix, were sacred to the Lord, (Exod. 13: 12;) and, secondly, that a lamb of a year old was to be sacrificed: whence it follows, that it was not necessary to wait for mature age, the young and tender offspring having been selected by God for sacrifice.

18. He contends, moreover, that none could come to Christ but those who were previously prepared by John; as if John’s ministry had not been temporary. But, to omit this, assuredly there was no such preparation in the children whom Christ took up in his arms and blessed. Wherefore let us have done with his false principle.

19. He at length calls in the assistance of Trismegistus and the Sibyls, to prove that sacred ablutions are fit only for adults. See how honourably he thinks of Christian baptism, when he tests it by the profane rites of the Gentiles, and will not have it administered except in the way pleasing to Trismegistus. We defer more to the authority of God, who has seen it meet to consecrate infants to himself, and initiate them by a sacred symbol, the significance of which they are unable from nonage to understand. We do not think it lawful to borrow from the expiations of the Gentiles, in order to change, in our baptism, that eternal and inviolable law which God enacted in circumcision.

20. His last argument is, If infants, without understanding, may be baptised, baptism may be mimicked and jestingly administered by boys in sport. Here let him plead the matter with God, by whose command circumcision was common to infants before they received understanding. Was it, then, a fit matter for ridicule or boyish sport, to overthrow the sacred institution of God? But no wonder that these reprobate spirits, as if they were under the influence of frenzy, introduce the grossest absurdities in defence of their errors, because God, by this spirit of giddiness, justly avenges their pride and obstinacy. I trust I have made it apparent how feebly Servetus has supported his friends the Anabaptists.

32. Gratitude due for God’s care of our children

No sound man, I presume, can now doubt how rashly the Church is disturbed by those who excite quarrels and disturbances because of paedobaptism. For it is of importance to observe what Satan means by all this craft, viz., to rob us of the singular blessing of confidence and spiritual joy, which is hence to be derived, and in so far to detract from the glory of the divine goodness. For how sweet is it to pious minds to be assured not only by word, but even by ocular demonstration, that they are so much in favour with their heavenly Father, that he interests himself in their posterity! Here we may see how he acts towards us as a most provident parent, not ceasing to care for us even after our death, but consulting and providing for our children. Ought not our whole heart to be stirred up within us, as David’s was, (Ps. 48: 11,) to bless his name for such a manifestation of goodness? Doubtless, the design of Satan in assaulting paedobaptism with all his forces is to keep out of view, and gradually efface, that attestation of divine grace which the promise itself presents to our eyes. In this way, not only would men be impiously ungrateful for the mercy of God, but be less careful in training their children to piety. For it is no slight stimulus to us to bring them up in the fear of God, and the observance of his law, when we reflect, that from their birth they have been considered and acknowledged by him as his children. Wherefore, if we would not maliciously obscure the kindness of God, let us present to him our infants, to whom he has assigned a place among his friends and family that is, the members of the Church.

CHAPTER 17. OF THE LORD’S SUPPER, AND THE BENEFITS CONFERRED BY IT.

This chapter is divided into two principal heads.—

I. The first part shows what it is that God exhibits in the Holy Supper, sec. 1-4; and then in what way and how far it becomes ours, sec. 5-11.

II. The second part is chiefly occupied with a refutation of the errors which superstition has introduced in regard to the Lord’s Supper:

• And, first, Transubstantiation is refuted, sec. 12-15.

• Next, Consubstantiation and Ubiquity, sec. 16-19.

• Thirdly, It is shown that the institution itself is opposed to those hyperbolical doctors, sec. 20-25.

• Fourth, The orthodox view is confirmed by other arguments derived from Scripture, sec. 26, 27.

• Fifth, The authority of the Fathers is shown to support the same view.

• Sixth, The presence for which opponents contend is overthrown, and another presence established, sec. 29-32.

• Seventh, What the nature of our communion ought to be, sec. 33, 34.

• Eighth, The adoration introduced by opponents refuted. For what end the Lord’s Supper was instituted, sec. 35-39.

• Lastly, The examination of communicants is considered, sec. 40-42. Of the eternal rites to be observed. Of frequent communion in both kinds. Objections refuted, sec. 43-50.

Sections.

1. Why the Holy Supper was instituted by Christ. The knowledge of the sacrament, how necessary. The signs used. Why there are no others appointed.

2. The manifold uses and advantages of this sacrament to the pious.

3. The Lords Supper exhibits the great blessings of redemption, and even Christ himself. This even evident from the words of the institution. The thing specially to be considered in them. Congruity of the signs and the things signified.

4. The chief parts of this sacrament.

5. How Christ, the Bread of Life, is to be received by us. Two faults to be avoided. The receiving of it must bear reference both to faith and the effect of faith. What meant by eating Christ. In what sense Christ the bread of life.

6. This mode of eating confirmed by the authority of Augustine and Chrysostom.

7. It is not sufficient, while omitting all mention of flesh and blood, to recognise this communion merely as spiritual. It is impossible fully to comprehend it in the present life.

8. In explanation of it, it may be observed,

I. There is no life at all save in Christ.

II. Christ has life in a twofold sense; first, in himself; as he is God; and, secondly, by transfusing it into the flesh which he assumed, that he might thereby communicate life to us.

9. This confirmed from Cyril, and by a familiar example. How the flesh of Christ gives life, and what the nature of our communion with Christ.

10. No distance of place can impede it. In the Supper it is not presented as an empty symbol, but, as the apostle testifies, we receive the reality. Objection, that the expression is figurative. Answer. A sure rule with regard to the sacraments.

11. Conclusion of the first part of the chapter. The sacrament of the Supper consists of two parts, viz., corporeal signs, and spiritual truth. These comprehend the meaning, matter, and effect. Christ truly exhibited to us by symbols.

12. Second part of the chapter, reduced to nine heads. The transubstantiation of the Papists considered and refuted. Its origin and absurdity. Why it should be exploded.

13. Transubstantiation as feigned by the Schoolmen. Refutation. The many superstitions introduced by their error.

14. The fiction of transubstantiation why invented contrary to Scripture, and the consent of antiquity. The term transubstantiation never used in the early Church. Objection. Answer.

15. The error of transubstantiation favoured by the consecration, which was a kind of magical incantation. The bread is not a sacrament to itself, but to those who receive it. The changing of the rod of Moses into a serpent gives no countenance to Popish transubstantiation. No resemblance between it and the words of institution in the Supper. Objection. Answer.

16. Refutation of consubstantiation; whence the idea of ubiquity.

17. This ubiquity confounds the natures of Christ. Subtleties answered.

18. Absurdities collected with consubstantiation. Candid exposition of the orthodox view.

19. The nature of the true presence of Christ in the Supper. The true and substantial communion of the body and blood of the Lord. This orthodox view assailed by turbulent spirits.

20. This view vindicated from their calumnies. The words of the institution explained in opposition to the glosses of transubstantiators and consubstantiators. Their subterfuges and absurd blasphemies.

21. Why the name of the thing signified is given to the sacramental symbols. This illustrated by passages of Scripture; also by a passage of Augustine.

22. Refutation of an objection founded on the words, “This is”. Objection answered.

23. Other objections answered.

24. Other objections answered. No question here as to the omnipotence of God.

25. Other objections answered.

26. The orthodox view further confirmed. I. By a consideration of the reality of Christ’s body. II. From our Saviour’s declaration that he would always be in the world. This confirmed by the exposition of Augustine.

27. Refutation of the sophisms of the Ubiquitists. The evasion of visible and invisible presence refuted.

28. The authority of Fathers not in favour of these errors as to Christ’s presence. Augustine opposed to them.

29. Refutation of the invisible presence maintained by opponents. Refutation from Tertullian, from a saying of Christ after his resurrection, from the definition of a true body, and from different passages of Scripture.

30. Ubiquity refuted by various arguments.

31. The imaginary presence of Transubstantiators, Consubstantiators, and Ubiquitists, contrasted with the orthodox doctrine.

32. The nature of our Saviour’s true presence explained. The mode of it incomprehensible.

33. Our communion in the blood and flesh of Christ. Spiritual not oral, and yet real. Erroneous view of the Schoolmen.

34. This view not favoured by Augustine. How the wicked eat the body of Christ. Cyril’s sentiments as to the eating of the body of Christ.

35. Absurdity of the adoration of sacramental symbols.

36. This adoration condemned.

I. By Christ himself.

II. By the Council of Nicaea.

III. By ancient custom.

IV. By Scripture. This adoration is mere idolatry.

37. This adoration inconsistent with the nature and institution of the sacrament. Ends for which the sacrament was instituted.

38. Ends for which the sacrament was instituted.

39. True nature of the sacrament contrasted with the Popish observance of it.

40. Nature of an unworthy approach to the Lord’s table. The great danger of it. The proper remedy in serious self-examination.

41. The spurious examination introduced by the Papists. Refutation.

42. The nature of Christian examination.

43. External rites in the administration of the Supper. Many of them indifferent.

44. Duty of frequent communion. This proved by the practice of the Church in its purer state, and by the canons of the early bishops.

45. Frequent communion in the time of Augustine. The neglect of it censured by Chrysostom.

46. The Popish injunction to communicate once a year an execrable invention.

47. Communion in one kind proved to be an invention of Satan.

48. Subterfuges of the Papists refuted.

49. The practice of the early Church further considered.

50. Conclusion.

(The Lord’s Supper, with the signs of bread and wine, provides spiritual food, 1-3)

1. Sign and thing

After God has once received us into his family, it is not that he may regard us in the light of servants, but of sons, performing the part of a kind and anxious parent, and providing for our maintenance during the whole course of our lives. And, not contented with this, he has been pleased by a pledge to assure us of his continued liberality. To this end, he has given another sacrament to his Church by the hand of his only begotten Son, viz., a spiritual feast, at which Christ testifies that he himself is living bread, (John 6: 51,) on which our souls feed, for a true and blessed immortality.

Now, as the knowledge of this great mystery is most necessary, and, in proportion to its importance, demands an accurate exposition, and Satan, in order to deprive the Church of this inestimable treasure, long ago introduced, first, mists, and then darkness, to obscure its light, and stirred up strife and contention to alienate the minds of the simple from a relish for this sacred food, and in our age, also, has tried the same artifice, I will proceed, after giving a simple summary adapted to the capacity of the ignorant, to explain those difficulties by which Satan has tried to ensnare the world.

First, then, the signs are bread and wine, which represent the invisible food which we receive from the body and blood of Christ. For as God, regenerating us in baptism, ingrafts us into the fellowship of his Church, and makes us his by adoption, so we have said that he performs the office of a provident parent, in continually supplying the food by which he may sustain and preserve us in the life to which he has begotten us by his word.

Moreover, Christ is the only food of our soul, and, therefore, our heavenly Father invites us to him, that, refreshed by communion with him, we may ever and anon gather new vigour until we reach the heavenly immortality.

But as this mystery of the secret union of Christ with believers is incomprehensible by nature, he exhibits its figure and image in visible signs adapted to our capacity, nay, by giving, as it were, earnests and badges, he makes it as certain to us as if it were seen by the eye; the familiarity of the similitude giving it access to minds however dull, and showing that souls are fed by Christ just as the corporeal life is sustained by bread and wine. We now therefore, understand the end which this mystical benediction has in view, viz., to assure us that the body of Christ was once sacrificed for us, so that we may now eat it, and, eating, feel within ourselves the efficacy of that one sacrifice,—that his blood was once shed for us so as to be our perpetual drink. This is the force of the promise which is added, “Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you,” (Matth. 26: 26, &c.) The body which was once offered for our salvation we are enjoined to take and eat, that, while we see ourselves made partakers of it, we may safely conclude that the virtue of that death will be efficacious in us. Hence he terms the cup the covenant in his blood. For the covenant which he once sanctioned by his blood he in a manner renews, or rather continues, in so far as regards the confirmation of our faith, as often as he stretches forth his sacred blood as drink to us.

2. Union with Christ as the special fruit of the Lord’s Supper

Pious souls can derive great confidence and delight from this sacrament, as being a testimony that they form one body with Christ, so that every thing which is his they may call their own. Hence it follows, that we can confidently assure ourselves, that eternal life, of which he himself is the heir, is ours, and that the kingdom of heaven, into which he has entered, can no more be taken from us than from him; on the other hand, that we cannot be condemned for our sins, from the guilt of which he absolves us, seeing he has been pleased that these should be imputed to himself as if they were his own. This is the wondrous exchange made by his boundless goodness. Having become with us the Son of Man, he has made us with himself sons of God. By his own descent to the earth he has prepared our ascent to heaven. Having received our mortality, he has bestowed on us his immortality. Having undertaken our weakness, he has made us strong in his strength. Having submitted to our poverty, he has transferred to us his riches. Having taken upon himself the burden of unrighteousness with which we were oppressed, he has clothed us with his righteousness.

3. The Spiritual presence of Christ

To all these things we have a complete attestation in this sacrament, enabling us certainly to conclude that they are as truly exhibited to us as if Christ were placed in bodily presence before our view, or handled by our hands. For these are words which can never lie nor deceive—Take, eat, drink. This is my body, which is broken for you: this is my blood, which is shed for the remission of sins. In bidding us take, he intimates that it is ours: in bidding us eat, he intimates that it becomes one substance with us: in affirming of his body that it was broken, and of his blood that it was shed for us, he shows that both were not so much his own as ours, because he took and laid down both, not for his own advantage, but for our salvation.

And we ought carefully to observe, that the chief, and almost the whole energy at the sacrament consists in these words, It is broken for you; it is shed for you. It would not be of much importance to us that the body and blood of the Lord are now distributed, had they not once been set forth for our redemption and salvation. Wherefore they are represented under bread and wine, that we may learn that they are not only ours but intended to nourish our spiritual life; that is, as we formerly observed, by the corporeal things which are produced in the sacrament, we are by a kind of analogy conducted to spiritual things.

Thus when bread is given as a symbol of the body of Christ, we must immediately think of this similitude. As bread nourishes, sustains, and protects our bodily life, so the body of Christ is the only food to invigorate and keep alive the soul. When we behold wine set forth as a symbol of blood, we must think that such use as wine serves to the body, the same is spiritually bestowed by the blood of Christ; and the use is to foster, refresh, strengthen, and exhilarate. For if we duly consider what profit we have gained by the breaking of his sacred body and the shedding of his blood, we shall clearly perceive that these properties of bread and wine, agreeably to this analogy, most appropriately represent it when they are communicated to us.

(The promise sealed in the Supper as we are made partakers of Christ’s flesh—a mystery felt rather than explained, 4-7)

4. The meaning of the promise of the Lord’s Supper

Therefore, it is not the principal part of a sacrament simply to hold forth the body of Christ to us without any higher consideration, but rather to seal and confirm that promise by which he testifies that his flesh is meat indeed, and his blood drink indeed, nourishing us unto life eternal, and by which he affirms that he is the bread of life, of which, whosoever shall eat, shall live for ever—I say, to seal and confirm that promise, and in order to do so, it sends us to the cross of Christ, where that promise was performed and fulfilled in all its parts. For we do not eat Christ duly and savingly unless as crucified, while with lively apprehension we perceive the efficacy of his death. When he called himself the bread of life, he did not take that appellation from the sacrament, as some perversely interpret; but such as he was given to us by the Father, such he exhibited himself when becoming partaker of our human mortality he made us partakers of his divine immortality; when offering himself in sacrifice, he took our curse upon himself, that he might cover us with his blessing, when by his death he devoured and swallowed up death, when in his resurrection he raised our corruptible flesh, which he had put on, to glory and incorruption.

5. How are we partakers by faith

It only remains that the whole become ours by application. This is done by means of the gospel, and more clearly by the sacred Supper, where Christ offers himself to us with all his blessings, and we receive him in faith. The sacrament, therefore, does not make Christ become for the first time the bread of life; but, while it calls to remembrance that Christ was made the bread of life that we may constantly eat him, it gives us a taste and relish for that bread, and makes us feel its efficacy. For it assures us, first, that whatever Christ did or suffered was done to give us life; and, secondly, that this quickening is eternal; by it we are ceaselessly nourished, sustained, and preserved in life. For as Christ could not have been the bread of life to us if he had not been born, if he had not died and risen again; so he could not now be the bread of life, were not the efficacy and fruit of his nativity death, and resurrection, eternal. All this Christ has elegantly expressed in these words, “The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world,” (John 6: 51; cf. ch.6:52) doubtless intimating, that his body will be as bread in regard to the spiritual life of the soul, because it was to be delivered to death for our salvation, and that he extends it to us for food when he makes us partakers of it by faith. Wherefore he once gave himself that he might become bread, when he gave himself to be crucified for the redemption of the world; and he gives himself daily, when in the word of the gospel he offers himself to be partaken by us, inasmuch as he was crucified, when he seals that offer by the sacred mystery of the Supper, and when he accomplishes inwardly what he externally designates.

Moreover, two faults are here to be avoided. We must neither, by setting too little value on the signs, dissever them from their meanings to which they are in some degree annexed, nor by immoderately extolling them, seem somewhat to obscure the mysteries themselves.

That Christ is the bread of life by which believers are nourished unto eternal life, no man is so utterly devoid of religion as not to acknowledge. But all are not agreed as to the mode of partaking of him. For there are some who define the eating of the flesh of Christ, and the drinking of his blood, to be, in one word, nothing more than believing in Christ himself. But Christ seems to me to have intended to teach something more express and more sublime in that noble discourse, in which he recommends the eating of his flesh, viz., that we are quickened by the true partaking of him, which he designated by the terms eating and drinking, lest any one should suppose that the life which we obtain from him is obtained by simple knowledge. For as it is not the sight but the eating of bread that gives nourishment to the body, so the soul must partake of Christ truly and thoroughly, that by his energy it may grow up into spiritual life.

Meanwhile, we admit that this is nothing else than the eating of faith, and that no other eating can be imagined. but there is this difference between their mode of speaking and mine. According to them, to eat is merely to believe; while I maintain that the flesh of Christ is eaten by believing, because it is made ours by faith, and that that eating is the effect and fruit of faith; or, if you will have it more clearly, according to them, eating is faith, whereas it rather seems to me to be a consequence of faith. The difference is little in words, but not little in reality. For, although the apostle teaches that Christ dwells in our hearts by faith, (Eph. 3: 17,) no one will interpret that dwelling to be faith. All see that it explains the admirable effect of faith, because to it, it is owing that believers have Christ dwelling in them. In this way, the Lord was pleased, by calling himself the bread of life, not only to teach that our salvation is treasured up in the faith of his death and resurrection, but also, by virtue of true communication with him, his life passes into us and becomes ours, just as bread when taken for food gives vigour to the body.

6. Augustine and Chrysostom on this

When Augustine, whom they claim as their patron, wrote, that we eat by believing, all he meant was to indicate that that eating is of faith, and not of the mouth. This I deny not; but I at the same time add, that by faith we embrace Christ, not as appearing at a distance, but as uniting himself to us, he being our head, and we his members. I do not absolutely disapprove of that mode of speaking; I only deny that it is a full interpretation, if they mean to define what it is to eat the flesh of Christ. I see that Augustine repeatedly used this form of expression, as when he said, (De Doct. Christ. Lib. 3,) “Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man” is a figurative expression enjoining us to have communion with our Lord’s passion, and sweetly and usefully to treasure in our memory that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us.” Also when he says, “These three thousand men who were converted at the preaching of Peter, (Acts 2: 41,) by believing, drank the blood which they had cruelly shed.” But in very many other passages he admirably commends faith for this, that by means of it our souls are not less refreshed by the communion of the blood of Christ, than our bodies with the bread which they eat. The very same thing is said by Chrysostom, “Christ makes us his body, not by faith only, but in reality.” He does not mean that we obtain this blessing from any other quarter than from faith: he only intends to prevent any one from thinking of mere imagination when he hears the name of faith.

I say nothing of those who hold that the Supper is merely a mark of external professions because I think I sufficiently refuted their error when I treated of the sacraments in general, (Chap. 14. sec. 13.) Only let my readers observe, that when the cup is called the covenant in blood, (Luke 22: 20,) the promise which tends to confirm faith is expressed. Hence it follows, that unless we have respect to God, and embrace what he offers, we do not make a right use of the sacred Supper.

7. Thought and words inadequate

I am not satisfied with the view of those who, while acknowledging that we have some kind of communion with Christ, only make us partakers of the Spirit, omitting all mention of flesh and blood. As if it were said to no purpose at all, that his flesh is meat indeed, and his blood is drink indeed; that we have no life unless we eat that flesh and drink that blood; and so forth. Therefore, if it is evident that full communion with Christ goes beyond their description, which is too confined, I will attempt briefly to show how far it extends, before proceeding to speak of the contrary vice of excess. For I shall have a longer discussion with these hyperbolical doctors, who, according to their gross ideas, fabricate an absurd mode of eating and drinking, and transfigure Christ, after divesting him of his flesh, into a phantom: if, indeed, it be lawful to put this great mystery into words, a mystery which I feel, and therefore freely confess that I am unable to comprehend with my mind, so far am I from wishing any one to measure its sublimity by my feeble capacity. Nay, I rather exhort my readers not to confine their apprehension within those too narrow limits, but to attempt to rise much higher than I can guide them. For whenever this subject is considered, after I have done my utmost, I feel that I have spoken far beneath its dignity. And though the mind is more powerful in thought than the tongue in expression, it too is overcome and overwhelmed by the magnitude of the subject. All then that remains is to break forth in admiration of the mystery, which it is plain that the mind is inadequate to comprehends or the tongue to express. I will, however, give a summary of my view as I best can, not doubting its truth, and therefore trusting that it will not be disapproved by pious breasts.

(This life-giving communion is brought about by the Holy Spirit, 8-10)

8. Christ makes his abode in our flesh

First of all, we are taught by the Scriptures that Christ was from the beginning the living Word of the Father (John 1:1), the fountain and origin of life, from which all things should always receive life. Hence John at one time calls him the Word of life (I John 1:1), and at another says, that in him was life (John 1:4); intimating, that he, even then pervading all creatures, instilled into them the power of breathing and living.

He afterwards adds, that the life was at length manifested, when the Son of God, assuming our nature, exhibited himself in bodily form to be seen and handled (I John 1:2). For although he previously diffused his virtue into the creatures, yet as man, because alienated from God by sin, had lost the communication of life, and saw death on every side impending over him, he behaved, in order to regain the hope of immortality, to be restored to the communion of that Word. How little confidence can it give you, to know that the Word of God, from which you are at the greatest distance, contains within himself the fulness of life, whereas in yourself, in whatever direction you turn, you see nothing but death? But ever since that fountain of life began to dwell in our nature, he no longer lies hid at a distance from us, but exhibits himself openly for our participation. Nay, the very flesh in which he resides he makes vivifying to us, that by partaking of it we may feed for immortality. “I,” says he, “am that bread of life;” “I am the living bread which came down from heaven;” “And the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world,” (John 6: 48, 51.) By these words he declares, not only that he is life, inasmuch as he is the eternal Word of God who came down to us from heaven, but, by coming down, gave vigour to the flesh which he assumed, that a communication of life to us might thence emanate.

Hence, too, he adds, that his flesh is meat indeed, and that his blood is drink indeed: by this food believers are reared to eternal life. The pious, therefore, have admirable comfort in this, that they now find life in their own flesh. For they not only reach it by easy access, but have it spontaneously set forth before them. Let them only throw open the door of their hearts that they may take it into their embrace, and they will obtain it.

9. Sense in which Christ’s body is life-giving

The flesh of Christ, however, has not such power in itself as to make us live, seeing that by its own first condition it was subject to mortality, and even now, when endued with immortality, lives not by itself. Still it is properly said to be life-giving, as it is pervaded with the fulness of life for the purpose of transmitting it to us. In this sense I understand our Saviour’s words as Cyril interprets them, “As the Father has life in himself, so has he given to the Son to have life in himself,” (John 5: 26.) For there properly he is speaking not of the properties which he possessed with the Father from the beginning, but of those with which he was invested in the flesh in which he appeared. Accordingly, he shows that in his humanity also fulness of life resides, so that every one who communicates in his flesh and blood, at the same time enjoys the participation of life.

The nature of this may be explained by a familiar example. As water is at one time drunk out of the fountain, at another drawn, at another led away by conduits to irrigate the fields, and yet does not flow forth of itself for all these uses, but is taken from its source, which, with perennial flow, ever and anon sends forth a new and sufficient supply; so the flesh of Christ is like a rich and inexhaustible fountain, which transfuses into us the life flowing forth from the Godhead into itself. Now, who sees not that the communion of the flesh and blood of Christ is necessary to all who aspire to the heavenly life?

Hence those passages of the apostle: The Church is the “body” of Christ; his “fulness.” He is “the head,” “from whence the whole body fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth,” “maketh increase of the body,” (Eph. 1: 23; 4: 15, 16.) Our bodies “are the members of Christ,” (1 Cor. 6: 15.) We perceive that all these things cannot possibly take place unless he adheres to us wholly in body and spirit. But the very close connection which unites us to his flesh, he illustrated with still more splendid epithets, when he said that we “are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones,” (Eph. 5: 30.) At length, to testify that the matter is too high for utterance, he concludes with exclaiming, “This is a great mystery,” (Eph. 5: 32.) It were, therefore, extreme infatuation not to acknowledge the communion of believers with the body and blood of the Lord, a communion which the apostle declares to be so great, that he chooses rather to marvel at it than to explain it.

10. The presence of Christ’s body in the Lord’s Supper

The sum is, that the flesh and blood of Christ feed our souls just as bread and wine maintain and support our corporeal life. For there would be no aptitude in the sign, did not our souls find their nourishment in Christ. This could not be, did not Christ truly form one with us, and refresh us by the eating of his flesh, and the drinking of his blood.

But though it seems an incredible thing that the flesh of Christ, while at such a distance from us in respect of place, should be food to us, let us remember how far the secret virtue of the Holy Spirit surpasses all our conceptions, and how foolish it is to wish to measure its immensity by our feeble capacity. Therefore, what our mind does not comprehend let faith conceive, viz., that the Spirit truly unites things separated by space.

That sacred communion of flesh and blood by which Christ transfuses his life into us, just as if it penetrated our bones and marrow, he testifies and seals in the Supper, and that not by presenting a vain or empty sign, but by there exerting an efficacy of the Spirit by which he fulfils what he promises. And truly the thing there signified he exhibits and offers to all who sit down at that spiritual feast, although it is beneficially received by believers only who receive this great benefit with true faith and heartfelt gratitude.

For this reason the apostle said, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10: 16.) There is no ground to object that the expression is figurative, and gives the sign the name of the thing signified. I admit, indeed, that the breaking of bread is a symbol, not the reality. But this being admitted, we duly infer from the exhibition of the symbol that the thing itself is exhibited. For unless we would charge God with deceit, we will never presume to say that he holds forth an empty symbol. Therefore, if by the breaking of bread the Lord truly represents the partaking of his body, there ought to be no doubt whatever that he truly exhibits and performs it. The rule which the pious ought always to observe is, whenever they see the symbols instituted by the Lord, to think and feel surely persuaded that the truth of the thing signified is also present. For why does the Lord put the symbol of his body into your hands, but just to assure you that you truly partake of him? If this is true, let us feel as much assured that the visible sign is given us in seal of an invisible gift as that his body itself is given to us.

(Relation of the outward sign and invisible reality variously misstated by the Schoolmen, and in the doctrine of transubstantiation, 11-15)

11. Signification, matter, and effect of the Sacrament

I hold then, (as has always been received in the Church, and is still taught by those who feel aright,) that the sacred mystery of the Supper consists of two things—the corporeal signs, which, presented to the eye, represent invisible things in a manner adapted to our weak capacity, and the spiritual truth, which is at once figured and exhibited by the signs.

When attempting familiarly to explain its nature, I am accustomed to set down three things—the thing meant, the matter which depends on it, and the virtue or efficacy consequent upon both. The thing meant consists in the promises which are in a manner included in the sign. By the matter, or substance, I mean Christ, with his death and resurrection. By the effect, I understand redemption, justification, sanctification, eternal life, and all the other benefits which Christ bestows upon us.

Moreover, though all these things have respect to faith, I leave no room for the cavil, that when I say Christ is conceived by faith, I mean that he is only conceived by the intellect and imagination. He is offered by the promises not that we may stop short at the sight, or mere knowledge of him, but that we may enjoy true communion with him. And, indeed, I see not how any one can expect to have redemption and righteousness in the cross of Christ, and life in his death, without trusting first of all to true communion with Christ himself. Those blessings could not reach us, did not Christ previously make himself ours.

I say then, that in the mystery of the Supper, by the symbols of bread and wine, Christ, his body and his blood, are truly exhibited to us, that in them he fulfilled all obedience, in order to procure righteousness for us, first, that we might become one body with him; and, secondly, that being made partakers of his substance, we might feel the result of this fact in the participation of all his blessings.

12. Spatial presence of Christ’s body?

I now come to the hyperbolical mixtures which superstition has introduced. Here Satan has employed all his wiles, withdrawing the minds of men from heaven, and imbuing them with the perverse error that Christ is annexed to the element of bread.

And, first, we are not to dream of such a presence of Christ in the sacrament as the artifices of the Romish court have imagined, as if the body of Christ, locally present, were to be taken into the hand, and chewed by the teeth, and swallowed by the throat. This was the form of Palinode, which Pope Nicholas dictated to Berengarius, in token of his repentance, a form expressed in terms so monstrous, that the author of the Gloss exclaims, that there is danger, if the reader is not particularly cautious, that he will be led by it into a worse heresy than was that of Berengarius, (Distinct. 2 c. Ego Berengarius.) Peter Lombard, though he labours much to excuse the absurdity, rather inclines to a different opinion.

As we cannot at all doubt that it is bounded according to the invariable rule in the human body, and is contained in heaven, where it was once received, and will remain till it return to judgement, so we deem it altogether unlawful to bring it back under these corruptible elements, or to imagine it everywhere present.

And, indeed, there is no need of this, in order to our partaking of it, since the Lord by his Spirit bestows upon us the blessing of being one with him in soul, body, and spirit. The bond of that connection, therefore, is the Spirit of Christ, who unites us to him and is a kind of channel by which everything that Christ has and is, is derived to us. For if we see that the sun, in sending forth its rays upon the earth, to generate, cherish, and invigorate its offspring, in a manner transfuses its substance into it, why should the radiance of the Spirit be less in conveying to us the communion of his flesh and blood? Wherefore, the Scripture, when it speaks of our participation with Christ, refers its whole efficacy to the Spirit. Instead of many, one passage will suffice. Paul, in the Epistle to the Romans, (Rom. 8: 9-1l,) shows that the only way in which Christ dwells in us is by his Spirit. By this, however, he does not take away that communion of flesh and blood of which we now speak, but shows that it is owing to the Spirit alone that we possess Christ wholly, and have him abiding in us.

13. Error of the Schoolmen: bread mistaken for God

The Schoolmen, horrified at this barbarous impiety, speak more modestly, though they do nothing more than amuse themselves with more subtle delusions. They admit that Christ is not contained in the sacrament circumscriptively, or in a bodily manner, but they afterwards devise a method which they themselves do not understand, and cannot explain to others. It, however, comes to this, that Christ may be sought in what they call the species of bread. What? When they say that the substance of bread is converted into Christ, do they not attach him to the white colour, which is all they leave of it? But they say, that though contained in the sacrament, he still remains in heaven, and has no other presence there than that of abode.

But, whatever be the terms in which they attempt to make a gloss, the sum of all is, that that which was formerly bread, by consecration becomes Christ: so that Christ thereafter lies hid under the colour of bread. This they are not ashamed distinctly to express. For Lombard’s words are, “The body of Christ, which is visible in itself, lurks and lies covered after the act of consecration under the species of bread,” (Lombard. Sent. Lib. 4 Dist. 12.) Thus the figure of the bread is nothing but a mask which conceals the view of the flesh from our eye. But there is no need of many conjectures to detect the snare which they intended to lay by these words, since the thing itself speaks clearly. It is easy to see how great is the superstition under which not only the vulgar, but the leaders also, have laboured for many ages, and still labour, in Popish Churches. Little solicitous as to true faith, (by which alone we attain to the fellowship of Christ, and become one with him,) provided they have his carnal presence, which they have fabricated without authority from the word, they think he is sufficiently present. Hence we see, that all which they have gained by their ingenious subtlety is to make bread to be regarded as God.

14. Transubstantiation

Hence proceeded that fictitious transubstantiation for which they fight more fiercely in the present day than for all the other articles of their faith. For the first architects of local presence could not explain how the body of Christ could be mixed with the substance of bread, without forthwith meeting with many absurdities. Hence it was necessary to have recourse to the fiction, that there is a conversion of the bread into body, not that properly instead of bread it becomes body, but that Christ, in order to conceal himself under the figure, reduces the substance to nothing.

It is strange that they have fallen into such a degree of ignorance, nay, of stupor, as to produce this monstrous fiction not only against Scripture, but also against the consent of the ancient Church.

I admit, indeed, that some of the ancients occasionally used the term conversion, not that they meant to do away with the substance in the external signs, but to teach that the bread devoted to the sacrament was widely different from ordinary bread, and was now something else. All clearly and uniformly teach that the sacred Supper consists of two parts, an earthly and a heavenly. The earthly they without dispute interpret to be bread and wine.

Certainly, whatever they may pretend, it is plain that antiquity, which they often dare to oppose to the clear word of God, gives no countenance to that dogma. It is not so long since it was devised; indeed it was unknown not only to the better ages, in which a purer doctrine still flourished, but after that purity was considerably impaired. There is no early Christian writer who does not admit in distinct terms that the sacred symbols of the Supper are bread and wine, although, as has been said, they sometimes distinguish them by various epithets, in order to recommend the dignity of the mystery. For when they say that a secret conversion takes place at consecration, so that it is now something else than bread and wine, their meaning, as I already observed is not that these are annihilated but that they are to be considered in a different light from common food, which is only intended to feed the body whereas in the former the spiritual food and drink of the mind are exhibited. This we deny not.

But, say our opponents, if there is conversion, one thing must become another. If they mean that something becomes different from what it was before, I assent. If they will wrest it in support of their fiction, let them tell me of what kind of change they are sensible in baptism. For here also, the Fathers make out a wonderful conversion, when they say that out of the corruptible element is made the spiritual laver of the soul, and yet no one denies that it still remains water. But say they, there is no such expression in Baptism as that in the Supper, This is my body; as if we were treating of these words, which have a meaning sufficiently clear, and not rather of that term “conversion”, which ought not to mean more in the Supper than in Baptism. Have done, then, with those quibbles upon words, which betray nothing but their silliness.

The meaning would have no congruity, unless the truth which is there figured had a living image in the external sign. Christ wished to testify by an external symbol that his flesh was food. If he exhibited merely an empty show of bread, and not true bread, where is the analogy or similitude to conduct us from the visible thing to the invisible? For, in order to make all things consistent, the meaning cannot extend to more than this, that we are fed by the species of Christ’s flesh; just as, in the case of baptism, if the figure of water deceived the eye, it would not be to us a sure pledge of our ablution; nay, the fallacious spectacle would rather throw us into doubt. The nature of the sacrament is therefore overthrown if in the mode of signifying the earthly sign corresponds not to the heavenly reality; And, accordingly, the truth of the mystery is lost if true bread does not represent the true body of Christ. I again repeat, since the Supper is nothing but a conspicuous attestation to the promise which is contained in the sixth chapter of John, viz., that Christ is the bread of life, who came down from heaven, that visible bread must intervene, in order that that spiritual bread may be figured, unless we would destroy all the benefits with which God here favours us for the purpose of sustaining our infirmity. Then on what ground could Paul infer that we are all one bread, and one body in partaking together of that one bread, if only the semblance of bread, and not the natural reality, remained?

15. The actual basis of the doctrine of transubstantiation and the arguments adduced for it

They could not have been so shamefully deluded by the impostures of Satan had they not been fascinated by the erroneous idea, that the body of Christ included under the bread is transmitted by the bodily mouth into the belly. The cause of this brutish imagination was, that consecration had the same effect with them as magical incantation. They overlooked the principle, that bread is a sacrament to none but those to whom the word is addressed just as the water of baptism is not changed in itself, but begins to be to us what it formerly was not, as soon as the promise is annexed.

This will better appear from the example of a similar sacrament. The water gushing from the rock in the desert was to the Israelites a badge and sign of the same thing that is figured to us in the Supper by wine. For Paul declares that they drank the same spiritual drink, (1 Cor. 10: 4.) But the water was common to the herds and flocks of the people. Hence it is easy to infer, that in the earthly elements, when employed for a spiritual use, no other conversion takes place than in respect of men, inasmuch as they are to them seals of promises.

Moreover, since it is the purpose of God, as I have repeatedly inculcated, to raise us up to himself by fit vehicles, those who indeed call us to Christ, but to Christ lurking invisibly under bread, impiously, by their perverseness, defeat this object. For it is impossible for the mind of man to disentangle itself from the immensity of space, and ascend to Christ even above the heavens. What nature denied them, they attempted to gain by a noxious remedy. Remaining on the earth, they felt no need of a celestial proximity to Christ. Such was the necessity which impelled them to transfigure the body of Christ.

In the age of Bernard, though a harsher mode of speech had prevailed, transubstantiation was not yet recognised. And in all previous ages, the similitude in the mouths of all was, that a spiritual reality was conjoined with bread and wine in this sacrament.

As to the terms, they think they answer acutely, though they adduce nothing relevant to the case in hand.

The rod of Moses, (they say,) when turned into a serpent, though it acquires the name of a serpent, still retains its former name, and is called a rod; and thus, according to them, it is equally probable that though the bread passes into a new substance, it is still called by catachresis, and not inaptly, what it still appears to the eye to be. But what resemblance, real or apparent, do they find between an illustrious miracle and their fictitious illusion, of which no eye on the earth is witness? The magi by their impostures had persuaded the Egyptians, that they had a divine power above the ordinary course of nature to change created beings. Moses comes forth, and after exposing their fallacies, shows that the invincible power of God is on his side, since his rod swallows up all the other rods. But as that conversion was visible to the eye, we have already observed, that it has no reference to the case in hand. Shortly after the rod visibly resumed its form. It may be added, that we know not whether this was an extemporary conversion of substance. For we must attend to the allusion to the rods of the magicians, which the prophet did not choose to term serpents, lest he might seem to insinuate a conversion which had no existence, because those impostors had done nothing more than blind the eyes of the spectators. But what resemblance is there between that expression and the following? “The bread which we break;"—"As often as ye eat this bread;"—"They communicated in the breaking of bread;” and so forth. It is certain that the eye only was deceived by the incantation of the magicians. The matter is more doubtful with regard to Moses, by whose hand it was not more difficult for God to make a serpent out of a rod, and again to make a rod out of a serpent, than to clothe angels with corporeal bodies, and a little after unclothe them. If the case of the sacrament were at all akin to this, there might be some colour for their explanation. Let it, therefore, remain fixed that there is no true and fit promise in the Supper, that the flesh of Christ is truly meat, unless there is a correspondence in the true substance of the external symbol.

But as one error gives rise to another, a passage in Jeremiah has been so absurdly wrested, to prove transubstantiation, that it is painful to refer to it. The prophet complains that wood was placed in his bread (Jer. 11:19), intimating that by the cruelty of his enemies his bread was infected with bitterness, as David by a similar figure complains, “They gave me also gall for my meat: and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink,” (Psalm 69: 21.) These men would allegorise the expressions to mean, that the body of Christ was nailed to the wood of the cross. But some of the Fathers thought so! As if we ought not rather to pardon their ignorance and bury the disgrace, than to add impudence, and bring them into hostile conflict with the genuine meaning of the prophet.

(Arguments for rejection of the doctrine of the ubiquity of the body as narrowly literal, together with exposition of the spiritual view of communion with Christ with heaven, 16-31)

16. The opposing statement

Some, who see that the analogy between the sign and the thing signified cannot be destroyed without destroying the truth of the sacrament, admit that the bread of the Supper is truly the substance of an earthly and corruptible element, and cannot suffer any change in itself, but must have the body of Christ included under it.

If they would explain this to mean, that when the bread is held forth in the sacrament, an exhibition of the body is annexed, because the truth is inseparable from its sign, I would not greatly object. But because fixing the body itself in the bread, they attach to it an ubiquity contrary to its nature, and by adding, “under” the bread, will have it that it lies hid under it, I must employ a short time in exposing their craft, and dragging them forth from their concealments. Here, however, it is not my intention professedly to discuss the whole case; I mean only to lay the foundations of a discussion which will afterwards follow in its own place. They insist, then, that the body of Christ is invisible and immense, so that it may be hid under bread, because they think that there is no other way by which they can communicate with him than by his descending into the bread, though they do not comprehend the mode of descent by which he raises us up to himself. They employ all the colours they possibly can, but after they have said all, it is sufficiently apparent that they insist on the local presence of Christ. How so? Because they cannot conceive any other participation of flesh and blood than that which consists either in local conjunction and contact, or in some gross method of enclosing.

17. The doctrine of our opponents cancel the true corporeality of Christ

Some, in order obstinately to maintain the error which they have once rashly adopted, hesitate not to assert that the dimensions of Christ’s flesh are not more circumscribed than those of heaven and earth. His birth as an infant, his growth, his extension on the cross, his confinement in the sepulchre, were effected, they say, by a kind of dispensation, that he might perform the offices of being born, of dying, and of other human acts: his being seen with his wonted bodily appearance after the resurrection (Acts 1:3; cf. I Cor.15:5), his ascension into heaven (Acts 1:9; Luke 24:51; Mark 16:19), his appearance, after his ascension, to Stephen (Acts 7:55) and Paul (Acts 9:3), were the effect of the same dispensation, that it might be made apparent to the eye of man that he was constituted King in heaven. What is this but to call forth Marcion from his grave? For there cannot be a doubt that the body of Christ, if so constituted, was a phantasm, or was phantastical.

Some employ a rather more subtle evasion, That the body which is given in the sacrament is glorious and immortal, and that, therefore, there is no absurdity in its being contained under the sacrament in various places, or in no place, and in no form.

But, I ask, what did Christ give to his disciples the day before he suffered? Do not the words say that he gave the mortal body, which was to be delivered shortly after? But, say they, he had previously manifested his glory to the three disciples on the mount, (Matth. 17: 2.) This is true; but his purpose was to give them for the time a taste of immortality. Still they cannot find there a twofold body, but only the one which he had assumed, arrayed in new glory. When he distributed his body in the first Supper, the hour was at hand in which he was “stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted,” (Isa. 53: 4.) So far was he from intending at that time to exhibit the glory of his resurrection. And here what a door is opened to Marcion, if the body of Christ was seen humble and mortal in one place, glorious and immortal in another! And yet, if their opinion is well founded, the same thing happens every day, because they are forced to admit that the body of Christ, which is in itself visible, lurks invisibly under the symbol of bread. And yet those who send forth such monstrous dogmas, so far from being ashamed at the disgrace, assail us with virulent invectives for not subscribing to them.

18. The presence is known when our minds are lifted up to heaven

But assuming that the body and blood of Christ are attached to the bread and wine, then the one must necessarily be dissevered from the other. For as the bread is given separately from the cup, so the body, united to the bread, must be separate from the blood, included in the cup. For since they affirm that the body is in the bread, and the blood is in the cup, while the bread and wine are, in regard to space, at some distance from each other, they cannot, by any quibble, evade the conclusion that the body must be separated from the blood.

Their usual pretence, viz., that the blood is in the body, and the body again in the blood, by what they call concomitance, is more than frivolous, since the symbols in which they are included are thus distinguished.

But if we are carried to heaven with our eyes and minds, that we may there behold Christ in the glory of his kingdom, as the symbols invite us to him in his integrity, so, under the symbol of bread, we must feed on his body, and, under the symbol of wine, drink separately of his blood, and thereby have the full enjoyment of him. For though he withdrew his flesh from us, and with his body ascended to heaven, he, however, sits at the right hand of the Father; that is, he reigns in power and majesty, and the glory of the Father. This kingdom is not limited by any intervals of space, nor circumscribed by any dimensions. Christ can exert his energy wherever he pleases, in earth and heaven, can manifest his presence by the exercise of his power, can always be present with his people, breathing into them his own life, can live in them, sustain, confirm, and invigorate them, and preserve them safe, just as if he were with them in the body; in fine, can feed them with his own body, communion with which he transfuses into them. After this manner, the body and blood of Christ are exhibited to us in the sacrament.

19. How is the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper to be thought of?

The presence of Christ in the Supper we must hold to be such as neither affixes him to the element of bread, nor encloses him in bread, nor circumscribes him in any way, (this would obviously detract from his celestial glory;) and it must, moreover, be such as neither divests him of his just dimensions, nor dissevers him by differences of place, nor assigns to him a body of boundless dimensions, diffused through heaven and earth. All these things are clearly repugnant to his true human nature. Let us never allow ourselves to lose sight of the two restrictions. First, Let there be nothing derogatory to the heavenly glory of Christ. This happens when ever he is brought under the corruptible elements of this world, or is affixed to any earthly creatures. Secondly, Let no property be assigned to his body inconsistent with his human nature. This is done when it is either said to be infinite, or made to occupy a variety of places at the same time.

But when these absurdities are discarded, I willingly admit any thing which helps to express the true and substantial communication of the body and blood of the Lord, as exhibited to believers under the sacred symbols of the Supper, understanding that they are received not by the imagination or intellect merely, but are enjoyed in reality as the food of eternal life.

For the odium with which this view is regarded by the world, and the unjust prejudice incurred by its defence, there is no cause, unless it be in the fearful fascinations of Satan. What we teach on the subject is in perfect accordance with Scripture, contains nothing absurd, obscure, or ambiguous, is not unfavourable to true piety and solid edification; in short, has nothing in it to offend, save that, for some ages, while the ignorance and barbarism of sophists reigned in the Church, the clear light and open truth were unbecomingly suppressed. And yet as Satan, by means of turbulent spirits, is still, in the present day, exerting himself to the utmost to bring dishonour on this doctrine by all kinds of calumny and reproach, it is right to assert and defend it with the greatest care.

20. The words of institution

Before we proceed farther, we must consider the ordinance itself, as instituted by Christ, because the most plausible objection of our opponents is, that we abandon his words. To free ourselves from the obloquy with which they thus load us, the fittest course will be to begin with an interpretation of the words. Three Evangelists and Paul relate that our Saviour took bread, and after giving thanks, brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take, eat: this is my body which is given or broken for you. Of the cup, Matthew and Mark say, “This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins,” (Matt 26: 26; Mark 14: 22.) Luke and Paul say, “This cup is the new testament in my blood,” (Luke 22: 20, 1 Cor. 11: 25.)

The advocates of transubstantiation insist, that by the pronoun, “this”, is denoted the appearance of bread, because the whole complexion of our Saviour’s address is an act of consecration, and there is no substance which can be demonstrated. But if they adhere so religiously to the words, inasmuch as that which our Saviour gave to his disciples he declared to be his body, there is nothing more alien from the strict meaning of the words than the fiction, that what was bread is now body. What Christ takes into his hands, and gives to the apostles, he declares to be his body; but he had taken bread, and, therefore, who sees not that what is given is still bread? Hence, nothing can be more absurd than to transfer what is affirmed of bread to the species of bread.

Others, in interpreting the particle “is”, as equivalent to being transubstantiated, have recourse to a gloss which is forced and violently wrested. They have no ground, therefore, for pretending that they are moved by a reverence for the words. The use of the term is, for being inverted into something else, is unknown to every tongue and nation.

With regard to those who leave the bread in the Supper, and affirm that it is the body of Christ, there is great diversity among them. Those who speak more modestly, though they insist upon the letter, “This is my body”, afterwards abandon this strictness, and observe that it is equivalent to saying that the body of Christ is with the bread, in the bread, and under the bread. To the reality which they affirm, we have already adverted, and will by and by, at greater length. I am now only considering the words by which they say they are prevented from admitting that the bread is called body, because it is a sign of the body. But if they shun every thing like metaphor, why do they leap from the simple demonstration of Christ to modes of expression which are widely different? For there is a great difference between saying that the bread is the body, and that the body is with the bread. But seeing it impossible to maintain the simple proposition that the bread is the body, they endeavoured to evade the difficulty by concealing themselves under those forms of expression.

Others, who are bolder, hesitate not to assert that, strictly speaking, the bread is body, and in this way prove that they are truly of the letter. If it is objected that the bread, therefore, is Christ, and, being Christ, is God,—they will deny it, because the words of Christ do not expressly say so. But they gain nothing by their denial, since all agree that the whole Christ is offered to us in the Supper. It is intolerable blasphemy to affirm, without figure, of a fading and corruptible element, that it is Christ. I now ask them, if they hold the two propositions to be identical, Christ is the Son of God, and Bread is the body of Christ? If they concede that they are different, (and this, whether they will or not, they will be forced to do,) let them tell wherein is the difference. All which they can adduce is, I presume, that the bread is called body in a sacramental manner. Hence it follows, that the words of Christ are not subject to the common rule, and ought not to be tested grammatically. I ask all these rigid and obstinate exactors of the letter, whether, when Luke and Paul call the cup “the testament in blood”, they do not express the same thing as in the previous clause, when they call bread the body? There certainly was the same solemnity in the one part of the mystery as in the other, and, as brevity is obscure, the longer sentence better elucidates the meaning. As often, therefore, as they contend, from the one expression, that the bread is body, I will adduce an apt interpretation from the longer expression, That it is a testament in the body. What? Can we seek for surer or more faithful expounders than Luke and Paul?

I have no intention, however, to detract, in any respect, from the communication of the body of Christ, which I have acknowledged. I only meant to expose the foolish perverseness with which they carry on a war of words. The bread I understand, on the authority of Luke and Paul, to be the body of Christ, because it is a covenant in the body. If they impugn this, their quarrel is not with me, but with the Spirit of God. However often they may repeat, that reverence for the words of Christ will not allow them to give a figurative interpretation to what is spoken plainly, the pretext cannot justify them in thus rejecting all the contrary arguments which we adduce.

Meanwhile, as I have already observed, it is proper to attend to the force of what is meant by a testament in the body and blood of Christ. The covenant, ratified by the sacrifice of death, would not avail us without the addition of that secret communication, by which we are made one with Christ.

21. The figurative interpretation of the decisive words

It remains, therefore, to hold, that on account of the affinity which the things signified have with their signs, the name of the thing itself is given to the sign figuratively, indeed, but very appropriately. I say nothing of allegories and parables, lest it should be alleged that I am seeking subterfuges, and slipping out of the present question.

I say that the expression which is uniformly used in Scripture, when the sacred mysteries are treated of, is metonymical. For you cannot otherwise understand the expressions, that circumcision is a “covenant” (Gen. 17:13)—that the lamb is the Lord’s “passover” (Ex. 12:11)—that the sacrifices of the law are expiations (Lev. 17:11; Heb. 9:22)—that the rock from which the water flowed in the desert (Ex. 17:6) was Christ,(I Cor. 10:4)—unless you interpret them metonymically. Nor is the name merely transferred from the superior to the inferior, but, on the contrary, the name of the visible sign is given to the thing signified, as when God is said to have appeared to Moses in the bush (Ex. 3:2); the ark of the covenant is called God, and the face of God (Ps. 84:8; 42:3), and the dove is called the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:16). For although the sign differs essentially from the thing signified, the latter being spiritual and heavenly, the former corporeal and visible,—yet, as it not only figures the thing which it is employed to represent as a naked and empty badge, but also truly exhibits it, why should not its name be justly applied to the thing? But if symbols humanly devised, which are rather the images of absent than the marks of present things, and of which they are very often most fallacious types, are sometimes honoured with their names,—with much greater reason do the institutions of God borrow the names of things, of which they always bear a sure, and by no means fallacious signification, and have the reality annexed to them. So great, then, is the similarity, and so close the connection between the two, that it is easy to pass from the one to the other.

Let our opponents, therefore, cease to indulge their mirth in calling us Tropists, when we explain the sacramental mode of expression according to the common use of Scripture. For, while the sacraments agree in many things, there is also, in this metonymy, a certain community in all respects between them. As, therefore, the apostle says that the rock from which spiritual water lowed forth to the Israelites was Christ, (1 Cor. 10: 4,) and was thus a visible symbol under which that spiritual drink was truly perceived, though not by the eye, so the body of Christ is now called bread, inasmuch as it is a symbol under which our Lord offers us the true eating of his body.

Lest any one should despise this as a novel invention, the view which Augustine took and expressed was the same: “Had not the sacraments a certain resemblance to the things of which they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all. And from this resemblance, they generally have the names of the things themselves. This, as the sacrament of the body of Christ, is, after a certain manner, the body of Christ, and the sacrament of Christ is the blood of Christ; so the sacrament of faith is faith,” (August. Ep. 23, ad Bonifac.) He has many similar passages, which it would be superfluous to collect, as that one may suffice. I need only remind my readers, that the same doctrine is taught by that holy man in his Epistle to Evodius.

Where Augustine teaches that nothing is more common than metonymy in mysteries, it is a frivolous quibble to object that there is no mention of the Supper. Were this objection sustained, it would follow, that we are not entitled to argue from the genus to the species; e. g., Every animal is endued with motion; and, therefore, the horse and the ox are endued with motion. Indeed, longer discussion is rendered unnecessary by the words of the Saint himself, where he says, that when Christ gave the symbol of his body, he did not hesitate to call it his body, (August. Cont. Adimantum, cap. 12.) He elsewhere says “Wonderful was the patience of Christ in admitting Judas to the feast, in which he committed and delivered to the disciples the symbol of his body and blood,” (August. in Ps. 3.)

22. The word “is”

Should any morose person, shutting his eyes to every thing else, insist upon the expression, “This is”, as distinguishing this mystery from all others, the answer is easy. They say that the substantive verb is so emphatic, as to leave no room for interpretation. Though I should admit this, I answer, that the substantive verb occurs in the words of Paul, (1 Cor. 10: 16,) where he calls the bread the communion of the body of Christ. But communion is something different from the body itself.

Nay, when the sacraments are treated of, the same word occurs: “My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant,” (Gen. 17: 13.) “This is the ordinance of the passover,” (Exod. 12: 43.) To say no more, when Paul declares that the rock was Christ, (1 Cor. 10: 4,) why should the substantive verb, in that passage, be deemed less emphatic than in the discourse of Christ? When John says, “The Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified,” (John 7: 39,) I should like to know what is the force of the substantive verb? If the rule of our opponents is rigidly observed, the eternal essence of the Spirit will be destroyed, as if he had only begun to be after the ascension of Christ. Let them tell me, in fine, what is meant by the declaration of Paul, that baptism is “the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost,” (Tit. 3: 5;) though it is certain that to many it was of no use.

But they cannot be more effectually refuted than by the expression of Paul, that the Church is Christ. For, after introducing the similitude of the human body, he adds, “So also is Christ,” (1 Cor. 12: 12,) when he means not the only begotten Son of God in himself, but in his members.

I think I have now gained this much, that all men of sense and integrity will be disgusted with the calumnies of our enemies, when they give out that we discredit the words of Christ; though we embrace them not less obediently than they do, and ponder them with greater reverence. Nay, their supine security proves that they do not greatly care what Christ meant, provided it furnishes them with a shield to defend their obstinacy, while our careful investigation should be an evidence of the authority which we yield to Christ.

They invidiously pretend that human reason will not allow us to believe what Christ uttered with his sacred mouth; but how naughtily they endeavour to fix this odium upon us, I have already in a great measure, shown, and will still show more clearly. Nothing, therefore, prevents us from believing Christ speaking, and from acquiescing in everything to which he intimates his assent. The only question here is, whether it be unlawful to inquire into the genuine meaning?

23. The impossibility of a purely literal interpretation

Those worthy masters, to show that they are of the letter, forbid us to deviate, in the least, from the letter. On the contrary, when Scripture calls God a man of war, as I see that the expression would be too harsh if not interpreted, I have no doubt that the similitude is taken from man.

And, indeed, the only pretext which enabled the Anthropomorphites to annoy the orthodox Fathers was by fastening on the expressions, “The eyes of God see” (Deut. 11:12; I Kings 8:29; Job 7:8; etc.); “It ascended to his ears” (Num. 11:18; II Sam. 22:7; II Kings 19:28; etc.); “His hand is stretched out” (Isa. 5:25; 23:11; Jer. 1:9;6:12; etc.); “The earth is his footstool” (Isa. 66:1; Matt. 5:35; Acts 7:49);— and exclaimed, that God was deprived of the body which Scripture assigns to him. Were this rule admitted, complete barbarism would bury the whole light of faith. What monstrous absurdities shall fanatical men not be able to extract, if they are allowed to urge every knotty point in support of their dogmas?

Their objection, that it is not probable that when Christ was providing special comfort for the apostles in adversity, he spoke enigmatically or obscurely,—supports our view. For, had it not occurred to the apostles that the bread was called the body figuratively, as being a symbol of the body, the extraordinary nature of the thing would doubtless have filled them with perplexity. For, at this very period, John relates, that the slightest difficulties perplexed them, (John 14: 5, 8; 16: 17.) They debate, among themselves, how Christ is to go to the Father, and not understanding that the things which were said referred to the heavenly Father, raise a question as to how he is to go out of the world until they shall see him? How, then could they have been so ready to believe what is repugnant to all reason, viz., that Christ was seated at table under their eye, and yet was contained invisible under the bread? As they attest their consent by eating this bread without hesitation, it is plain that they understood the words of Christ in the same sense as we do, considering, what ought not to seem unusual when mysteries are spoken of, that the name of the thing signified was transferred to the sign. There was therefore to the disciples, as there is to us, clear and sure consolation, not involved in any enigma; and the only reason why certain persons reject our interpretation is, because they are blinded by a delusion of the devil to introduce the darkness of enigma, instead of the obvious interpretation of an appropriate figure.

Besides, if we insist strictly on the words, our Saviour will be made to affirm erroneously something of the bread different from the cup. He calls the bread body, and the wine blood. There must either be a confusion in terms, or there must be a division separating the body from the blood. Nay, “ This is my body,” may be as truly affirmed of the cup as of the bread; and it may in turn be affirmed that the bread is the blood. If they answer, that we must look to the end or use for which symbols were instituted, I admit it; but still they will not disencumber themselves of the absurdity which their error drags along with it, viz., that the bread is blood, and the wine is body.

Then I know not what they mean when they concede that bread and body are different things, and yet maintain that the one is predicated of the other, properly and without figure, as if one were to say that a garment is different from a man, and yet is properly called a man. Still, as if the victory depended on obstinacy and invective, they say that Christ is charged with falsehood when it is attempted to interpret his words.

It will now be easy for the reader to understand the injustice which is done to us by those carpers at syllables, when they possess the simple with the idea that we bring discredit on the words of Christ; words which, as we have shown, are madly perverted and confounded by them, but are faithfully and accurately expounded by us.

24. Defense against the reproach that our interpretation is dictated by reason

This infamous falsehood cannot be completely wiped away without disposing of another charge. They give out that we are so wedded to human reason, that we attribute nothing more to the power of God than the order of nature admits, and common sense dictates. From these wicked calumnies, I appeal to the doctrine which I have delivered,—a doctrine which makes it sufficiently clear that I by no means measure this mystery by the capacity of human reason, or subject it to the laws of nature. I ask whether it is from physics we have learned that Christ feeds our souls from heaven with his flesh, just as our bodies are nourished by bread and wine? How has flesh this virtue of giving life to our souls? All will say, that it is not done naturally. Not more agreeable is it to human reason to hold that the flesh of Christ penetrates to us, so as to be our food. In short, every one who may have tasted our doctrine, will be carried away with admiration of the secret power of God.

But these worthy zealots fabricate for themselves a miracle, and think that without it God himself and his power vanish away.

I would again admonish the reader carefully to consider the nature of our doctrine, whether it depends on common apprehension, or whether, after having surmounted the world on the wings of faith, it rises to heaven. We say that Christ descends to us, as well by the external symbol as by his Spirit, that he may truly quicken our souls by the substance of his flesh and blood. He who feels not that in these few words are many miracles is more than stupid, since nothing is more contrary to nature than to derive the spiritual and heavenly life of the soul from flesh, which received its origin from the earth, and was subjected to death, nothing more incredible than that things separated by the whole space between heaven and earth should, notwithstanding of the long distance, not only be collected, but united, so that souls receive ailment from the flesh of Christ. Let preposterous men, then, cease to assail us with the vile calumny, that we malignantly restrict the boundless power of God. They either foolishly err, or wickedly lie.

The question here is not, What could God do? But, What has he been pleased to do? We affirm that he has done what pleased him, and it pleased him that Christ should be in all respects like his brethren, “yet without sin,” (Heb. 4: 15.) What is our flesh? Is it not that which consists of certain dimensions? is confined within a certain place? is touched and seen? And why, say they, may not God make the same flesh occupy several different places so as not to be confined to any particular place, and so as to have neither measure nor species? Fool! why do you require the power of God to make a thing to be at the same time flesh and not flesh? It is just as if you were to insist on his making light to be at the same time light and darkness. He wills light to be light, darkness to be darkness, and flesh to be flesh. True, when he so chooses, he will convert darkness into light, and light into darkness: but when you insist that there shall be no difference between light and darkness, what do you but pervert the order of the divine wisdom? Flesh must therefore be flesh, and spirit spirit; each under the law and condition on which God has created them. How the condition of flesh is, that it should have one certain place, its own dimension, its own form. On that condition, Christ assumed the flesh, to which, as Augustine declares, (Ep. ad Dardan.,) he gave incorruption and glory, but without destroying its nature and reality.

25. The word requires understanding and interpretation

They object that they have the word by which the will of God has been openly manifested; that is, if we permit them to banish from the Church the gift of interpretation (I. Cor. 12:10), which should throw light upon the word.

I admit that they have the word, but just as the Anthropomorphites of old had it, when they made God corporeal; just as Marcion and the Manichees had it when they made the body of Christ celestial or phantastical. They quoted the passages, “The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven,” (1 Cor. 15: 47:) Christ “made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men,” (Phil. 2: 7.)

But these vain boasters think that there is no power of God unless they fabricate a monster in their own brains, by which the whole order of nature is subverted. This rather is to circumscribe the power of God, to attempt to try, by our fictions, what he can do. From this word, they have assumed that the body of Christ is visible in heaven, and yet lurks invisible on the earth under innumerable bits of bread. They will say that this is rendered necessary, in order that the body of Christ may be given in the Supper. In other words, because they have been pleased to extract a carnal eating from the words of Christ, carried away by their own prejudice, they have found it necessary to coin this subtlety, which is wholly repugnant to Scripture.

That we detract, in any respect, from the power of God, is so far from being true, that our doctrine is the loudest in extolling it. But as they continue to charge us with robbing God of his honour, in rejecting what, according to common apprehension, it is difficult to believe, though it had been promised by the mouth of Christ; I answer, as I lately did, that in the mysteries of faith we do not consult common apprehension, but, with the placid docility and spirit of meekness which James recommends, (James 1: 21,) receive the doctrine which has come from heaven.

Wherein they perniciously err, I am confident that we follow a proper moderation. On hearing the words of Christ, This is my body, they imagine a miracle most remote from his intention; and when, from this fiction, the grossest absurdities arise, having already, by their precipitate haste, entangled themselves with snares, they plunge themselves into the abyss of the divine omnipotence, that, in this way, they may extinguish the light of truth. Hence the supercilious moroseness. We have no wish to know how Christ is hid under the bread: we are satisfied with his own words, “This is my body.” We again study, with no less obedience than care, to obtain a sound understanding of this passages as of the whole of Scripture. We do not, with preposterous fervour, rashly, and without choice, lay hold on whatever first presents itself to our minds; but, after careful meditation, embrace the meaning which the Spirit of God suggests. Trusting to him, we look down, as from a height, on whatever opposition may be offered by earthly wisdom. Nay, we hold our minds captive, not allowing one word of murmur, and humble them, that they may not presume to gainsay. In this way, we have arrived at that exposition of the words of Christ, which all who are moderately verdant in Scripture know to be perpetually used with regard to the sacraments. Still, in a matter of difficulty, we deem it not unlawful to inquire, after the example of the blessed virgin, “How shall this be?” (Luke 1: 34.)

26. The body of Christ is in heaven

But as nothing will be more effectual to confirm the faith of the pious than to show them that the doctrine which we have laid down is taken from the pure word of God, and rests on its authority, I will make this plain with as much brevity as I can. The body with which Christ rose is declared, not by Aristotle, but by the Holy Spirit, to be finite, and to be contained in heaven until the last day (cf. Acts 3:21). I am not unaware how confidently our opponents evade the passages which are quoted to this effect. Whenever Christ says that he will leave the world and go away, (John 14: 2, 28,) they reply, that that departure was nothing more than a change of mortal state. Were this so, Christ would not substitute the Holy Spirit, to supply, as they express it, the defect of his absence, since he does not succeed in place of him, nor, on the other hand, does Christ himself descend from the heavenly glory to assume the condition of a mortal life. Certainly the advent of the Spirit and the ascension of Christ are set against each other, and hence it necessarily follows that Christ dwells with us according to the flesh, in the same way as that in which he sends his Spirit.

Moreover, he distinctly says that he would not always be in the world with his disciples, (Matth. 26: 11.) This saying, also, they think they admirably dispose of, as if it were a denial by Christ that he would always be poor and mean, or liable to the necessities of a fading life. But this is plainly repugnant to the context, since reference is made not to poverty and want, or the wretched condition of an earthly life, but to worship and honour. The disciples were displeased with the anointing by Mary because they thought it a superfluous and useless expenditure, akin to luxury, and would therefore have preferred that the price which they thought wasted should have been expended on the poor. Christ answers, that he will not be always with them to receive such honour.

No different exposition is given by Augustine, whose words are by no means ambiguous. When Christ said, “Me ye have not always,” he spoke of his bodily presence. In regard to his majesty, in regard to his providence, in regard to his ineffable and invisible grace, is fulfilled what he said: “Lo, I am with you always even unto the end of the world,” (Matt. 28: 20;) but in regard to the flesh which the Word assumed—in regard to that which was born of the Virgin—in regard to that which was apprehended by the Jews, nailed to the tree, suspended on the cross, wrapt in linen clothes, laid in the tomb, and manifested in the resurrection,—"Me ye have not always.” Why? Since he conversed with his disciples in bodily presence for forty days, and, going out with them, ascended while they saw but followed not. He is not here, for he sits there, at the right hand of the Father (Mark 16:19). And yet he is here: for the presence of his majesty is not withdrawn (Heb. 1:3). Otherwise, as regards the presence of his majesty, we have Christ always; while, in regard to his bodily presence, it was rightly said, “Me ye have not always."(Matt. 26:11). In respect of bodily presence, the Church had him for a few days: now she holds him by faith, but sees him not with the eye, (August. Tract. in Joann. 50.)

Here (that I may briefly note this) he makes him present with us in three ways in majesty providence, and ineffable grace; under which I comprehend that wondrous communion of his body and blood, provided we understand that it is effected by the power of the Holy Spirit, and not by that fictitious enclosing of his body under the element, since our Lord declared that he had flesh and bones which could be handled and seen (John 20:27).

Going away, and ascending, intimate, not that he had the appearance of one going away and ascending, but that he truly did what the words express. Some one will ask, Are we then to assign a certain region of heaven to Christ? I answer with Augustine that this is a curious and superfluous questions provided we believe that he is in heaven.

27. The meaning of the ascension for the above-mentioned question

What? Does not the very name of ascension, so often repeated, intimate removal from one place to another? This they deny because by height, according to them, the majesty of empire only is denoted. But what was the very mode of ascending? Was he not carried up while the disciples looked on? Do not the Evangelists clearly relate that he was carried into heaven? These acute Sophists reply, that a cloud intervened, and took him out of their sight, to teach the disciples that he would not afterwards be visible in the world. As if he ought not rather to have vanished in a moment, to make them believe in his invisible presence, or the cloud to have gathered around him before he moved a step. When he is carried aloft into the air, and the interposing cloud shows that he is no more to be sought on earth, we safely infer that his dwelling now is in the heavens, as Paul also asserts, bidding us to look for him frown thence, (Phil. 3: 20.) For this reason, the angels remind the disciples that it is vain to keep gazing up into heaven, because Jesus, who was taken up, would come in like manner as they had seen him ascend (Acts 1:11).

Here the adversaries of sound doctrine escape, as they think, by the ingenious quibble, that he will come in visible form, though he never departed from the earth, but remained invisible among his people. As if the angels had insinuated a twofold presence, and not simply made the disciples eye-witnesses of the ascent, that no doubt might remain. It was just as if they had said, By ascending to heaven, while you looked on, he has asserted his heavenly power: it remains for you to wait patiently until he again arrive to judge the world. He has not entered into heaven to occupy it alone, but to gather you and all the pious along with him.

28. The witness of Augustine

Since the advocates of this spurious dogma are not ashamed to honour it with the suffrages of the ancients, and especially of Augustine, how perverse they are in the attempt I will briefly explain. Pious and learned men have collected the passages, and, therefore, I am unwilling to plead a concluded cause: any one who wishes may consult their writings. I will not even collect from Augustine what might be pertinent to the matter, but will be contented to show briefly, that without all controversy he is wholly ours.

The pretence of our opponents, when they would wrest him from us, that throughout his works the flesh and blood of Christ are said to be dispensed in the Supper, namely the victim once offered on the cross, is frivolous, seeing he, at the same time, calls it either the eucharist or sacrament of the body. But it is unnecessary to go far to find the sense in which he uses the terms flesh and blood, since he himself explains saying, (Ep. 23, ad Bonif.) that the sacraments receive names from their similarity to the things which they designate; and that, therefore, the sacrament of the body is after a certain manner the body. With this agrees another well-known passage, “The Lord hesitated not to say, This is my body when he gave the sign,” (Cont. Adimant. Manich. cap. 12.)

They again object that Augustine says distinctly that the body of Christ falls upon the earth, and enters the mouth. But this is in the same sense in which he affirms that it is consumed, for he conjoins both at the same time. There is nothing repugnant to this in his saying that the bread is consumed after the mystery is performed: for he had said a little before “As these things are known to men, when they are done by men they may receive honour as being religious, but not as being wonderful,” (De Trinity. Lib. 3 c. 10.)

His meaning is not different in the passage which our opponents too rashly appropriate to themselves, viz., that Christ in a manner carried himself in his own hands when he held out the mystical bread to his disciples. For by interposing the expressions “in a manner”, he declares that he was not really or truly included under the bread. Nor is it strange, since he elsewhere plainly contends, that bodies could not be without particular localities, and being nowhere would have no existence. It is a paltry cavil that he is not there treating of the Supper, in which God exerts a special power. The question had been raised as to the flesh of Christ, and the holy man professedly replying, says, “Christ gave immortality to his flesh, but did not destroy its nature. In regard to this form, we are not to suppose that it is everywhere diffused; for we must beware not to rear up the divinity of the man, so as to take away the reality of the body. It does not follow that that which is in God is everywhere as God,” (Ep. ad Dardan.) He immediately subjoins the reason, “One person is God and man, and both one Christ, everywhere, inasmuch as he is God, and in heaven, inasmuch as he is man.” How careless would it have been not to except the mystery of the Supper, a matter so grave and serious, if it was in any respect adverse to the doctrine which he was handling? And yet, if any one will attentively read what follows shortly after, he will find that under that general doctrine the Supper also is comprehended, that Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and also Son of man, is everywhere wholly present as God, in the temple of God, that is, in the Church, as an inhabiting God, and in some place in heaven, because of the dimensions of his real body. We see how, in order to unite Christ with the Church, he does not bring his body out of heaven. This he certainly would have done had the body of Christ not been truly our food, unless when included under the bread.

Elsewhere, explaining how believers now possess Christ, he says, “You have him by the sign of the cross, by the sacrament of baptism, by the meat and drink of the altar,” (Tract. in Joann. 50.) How rightly he enumerates a superstitious rite, among the symbols of Christ’s presence, I dispute not; but in comparing the presence of the flesh to the sign of the cross, he sufficiently shows that he has no idea of a twofold body of Christ, one lurking concealed under the bread, and another sitting visible in heaven. If there is any need of explanation, it is immediately added, “In respect of the presence of his majesty, we have Christ always: in respect of the presence of his flesh, it is rightly said, ‘Me ye have not always.’”

They object that he also adds, “In respect of ineffable and invisible grace is fulfilled what was said by him, ‘I am with you always, even to the end of the world.’” (Matt. 28:20). But this is nothing in their favour. For it is at length restricted to his majesty, which is always opposed to body while the flesh is expressly distinguished from grace and virtue. The same antithesis elsewhere occurs, when he says that “Christ left the disciples in bodily presence, that he might be with them in spiritual presence.” Here it is clear that the essence of the flesh is distinguished from the virtue of the Spirit, which conjoins us with Christ, when, in respect of space, we are at a great distance from him. He repeatedly uses the same mode of expression, as when he says, “He is to come to the quick and the dead in bodily presence, according to the rule of faith and sound doctrine: for in spiritual presence he was to come to them, and to be with the whole Church in the world until its consummation. Therefore, this discourse is directed to believers, whom he had begun already to save by corporeal presence, and whom he was to leave in corporeal absence, that by spiritual presence he might preserve them with the Father.” By corporeal to understand visible is mere trifling, since he both opposes his body to his divine power, and by adding, that he might “preserve them with the Father,” clearly expresses that he sends his grace to us from heaven by means of the Spirit.

29. On the reality of Christ’s body

Since they put so much confidence in this hiding place of invisible presence, let us see how well they conceal themselves in it.

First, they cannot produce a syllable from Scripture to prove that Christ is invisible; but they take for granted what no sound man will admit, that the body of Christ cannot be given in the Supper, unless covered with the mask of bread. This is the very point in dispute, so far is it from occupying the place of a first principle.

And while they thus prate, they are forced to give Christ a twofold body, because, according to them, it is visible in itself in heaven, but in the Supper is invisible, by a special mode of dispensation. The beautiful consistency of this may easily be judged, both from other passages of Scripture, and from the testimony of Peter. Peter says that the heavens must receive, or contain Christ, till he come again, (Acts 3: 21.) These men teach that he is in every place, but without form. They say that it is unfair to subject a glorious body to the ordinary laws of nature.

But this answer draws along with it the delirious dream of Servetus, which all pious minds justly abhor, that his body was absorbed by his divinity. I do not say that this is their opinion; but if it is considered one of the properties of a glorified body to fill all things in an invisible manner, it is plain that the corporeal substance is abolished, and no distinction is left between his Godhead and his human nature.

Again, if the body of Christ is so multiform and diversified, that it appears in one place, and in another is invisible, where is there any thing of the nature of body with its proper dimensions, and where is its unity? Far more correct is Tertullian, who contends that the body of Christ was natural and real, because its figure is set before us in the mystery of the Supper, as a pledge and assurance of spiritual life, (Tertull. Cont. Marc. Lib. 4.) And certainly Christ said of his glorified body, “Handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones, as ye see me have,” (Luke 24: 39.) Here, by the lips of Christ himself, the reality of his flesh is proved, by its admitting of being seen and handled. Take these away and it will cease to be flesh.

They always retake themselves to their lurkingplace of dispensations which they have fabricated. But it is our duty so to embrace what Christ absolutely declares, as to give it an unreserved assent. He proves that he is not a phantom, because he is visible in his flesh. Take away what he claims as proper to the nature of his body, and must not a new definition of body be devised?

Then, however they may turn themselves about they will not find any place for their fictitious dispensation in that passage, in which Paul says, that “our conversation is in heaven; from whence we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body,” (Phil. 3: 20, 21.) We are not to hope for conformity to Christ in these qualities which they ascribe to him as a body, without bounds, and invisible. They will not find any one so stupid as to be persuaded of this great absurdity. Let them not, therefore, set it down as one of the properties of Christ’s glorious body, that it is, at the same time, in many places, and in no place. In short, let them either openly deny the resurrection of his flesh, or admit that Christ, when invested with celestial glory did not lay aside his flesh, but is to make us, in our flesh, his associates, and partakers of the same glory, since we are to have a common resurrection with him. For what does Scripture throughout deliver more clearly than that, as Christ assumed our flesh when he was born of the virgin, and suffered in our true flesh when he made satisfaction for us, so on rising again he resumed the same true flesh, and carried it with him to heaven? The hope of our resurrection, and ascension to heaven, is, that Christ rose again and ascended, and, as Tertullian says, (De Resurrect. Carnis,) “Carried an earnest of our resurrection along with him into heaven.” Moreover, how weak and fragile would this hope be, had not this very flesh of ours in Christ been truly raised up, and entered into the kingdom of heaven. But the essential properties of a body are to be confined by space, to have dimension and form. Have done then with that foolish fiction, which affixes the minds of men, as well as Christ, to bread.

For to what end this occult presence under the bread, save that those who wish to have Christ conjoined with them may stop short at the symbol? But our Lord himself wished us to withdraw not only our eyes but all our senses from the earth, forbidding the woman to touch him until he had ascended to the Father, (John 20: 17.) When he sees Mary, with pious reverential zeal hastening to kiss his feet, there could be no reason for his disapproving and forbidding her to touch him before he had ascended to heaven, unless he wished to be sought nowhere else.

The objection, that he afterwards appeared to Stephen (Acts 7:55), is easily answered. It was not necessary for our Saviour to change his place, as he could give the eyes of his servant a power of vision which could penetrate to heaven. The same account is to be given of the case of Paul (Acts 9:4).

The objection, that Christ came forth from the closed sepulchre, and came in to his disciples while the doors were shut, (Matth. 28: 6; John 20: 19,) gives no better support to their error. For as the water, just as if it had been a solid pavement, furnished a path to our Saviour when he walked on it, (Matt. 14,) so it is not strange that the hard stone yielded to his step; although it is more probable that the stone was removed at his command, and forthwith, after giving him a passage, returned to its place. To enter while the doors were shut, was not so much to penetrate through solid matter, as to make a passage for himself by divine power, and stand in the midst of his disciples in a most miraculous manner.

They gain nothing by quoting the passage from Luke, in which it is said, that Christ suddenly vanished from the eyes of the disciples, with whom he had journeyed to Emmaus, (Luke 24: 31.) In withdrawing from their sight, he did not become invisible: he only disappeared. Thus Luke declares that, on the journey with them, he did not assume a new form, but that “their eyes were holden.” But these men not only transform Christ that he may live on the earth, but pretend that there is another elsewhere of a different description. In short, by thus trifling, they, not in direct terms indeed, but by a circumlocution, make a spirit of the flesh of Christ; and, not contented with this, give him properties altogether opposite. Hence it necessarily follows that he must be twofold.

30. The ubiquity of Christ’s body rejected

Granting what they absurdly talk of the invisible presence, it will still be necessary to prove the immensity, without which it is vain to attempt to include Christ under the bread. Unless the body of Christ can be everywhere without any boundaries of space, it is impossible to believe that he is hid in the Supper under the bread. Hence they have been under the necessity of introducing the monstrous dogma of ubiquity.

But it has been demonstrated by strong and clear passages of Scripture, first, that it is bounded by the dimensions of the human body; and, secondly, that its ascension into heaven made it plain that it is not in all places, but on passing to a new one, leaves the one formerly occupied.

The promise to which they appeal, “I am with you always, even to the end of the world,” is not to be applied to the body. First, then, a perpetual connection with Christ could not exist, unless he dwells in us corporally, in depend entry of the use of the Supper; and, therefore, they have no good ground for disputing so bitterly concerning the words of Christ, in order to include him under the bread in the Supper. Secondly, the context proves that Christ is not speaking at all of his flesh, but promising the disciples his invincible aid to guard and sustain them against all the assaults of Satan and the world. For, in appointing them to a difficult office, he confirms them by the assurance of his presence, that they might neither hesitate to undertake it, nor be timorous in the discharge of it; as if he had said, that his invincible protection would not fail them. Unless we would throw every thing into confusion, must it not be necessary to distinguish the mode of presence?

And, indeed, some, to their great disgrace, choose rather to betray their ignorance than give up one iota of their error. I speak not of Papists, whose doctrine is more tolerable, or at least more modest; but some are so hurried away by contention as to say, that on account of the union of natures in Christ, wherever his divinity is, there his flesh, which cannot be separated from it, is also; as if that union formed a kind of medium of the two natures, making him to be neither God nor man. So held Eutyches, and after him Servetus. But it is clearly gathered from Scripture that the one person of Christ is composed of two natures, but so that each has its peculiar properties unimpaired. That Eutyches was justly condemned, they will not have the hardihood to deny. It is strange that they attend not to the cause of condemnation, viz., that destroying the distinction between the natures, and insisting only on the unity of person, he converted God into man and man into God. What madness, then, is it to confound heaven with earth, sooner than not withdraw the body of Christ from its heavenly sanctuary?

In regard to the passages which they adduce, “No man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven,” John 3: 13;) “The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father; he has declared him (John 1: 18,) they betray the same stupidity, scouting the communion of properties, (idiomatum, koinonian,) which not without reason was formerly invented by holy Fathers. Certainly when Paul says of the princes of this world that they “crucified the Lord of glory,” (1 Cor. 2: 8) he means not that he suffered anything in his divinity, but that Christ, who was rejected and despised, and suffered in the flesh, was likewise God and the Lord of glory. In this way, both the Son of man was in heaven because he was also Christ; and he who, according to the flesh, dwelt as the Son of man on earth, was also God in heaven. For this reason, he is said to have descended from heaven in respect of his divinity, not that his divinity quitted heaven to conceal itself in the prison of the body, but because, although he filled all things, it yet resided in the humanity of Christ corporeally, that is, naturally, and in an ineffable manner. There is a trite distinction in the schools which I hesitate not to quote. Although the whole Christ is everywhere, yet everything which is in him is not everywhere. I wish the Schoolmen had duly weighed the force of this sentence, as it would have obviated their absurd fiction of the corporeal presence of Christ. Therefore, while our whole Mediator is everywhere, he is always present with his people, and in the Supper exhibits his presence in a special manner; yet so, that while he is wholly present, not everything which is in him is present, because, as has been said, in his flesh he will remain in heaven till he come to judgement.

31. Christ not brought down to us; we are lifted up to him

They are greatly mistaken in imagining that there is no presence of the flesh of Christ in the Supper, unless it be placed in the bread. They thus leave nothing for the secret operation of the Spirit, which unites Christ himself to us. Christ does not seem to them to be present unless he descends to us, as if we did not equally gain his presence when he raises us to himself. The only question, therefore, is as to the mode, they placing Christ in the breads while we deem it unlawful to draw him down from heaven. Which of the two is more correct, let the reader judge. Only have done with the calumny that Christ is withdrawn from his Supper if he lurk not under the covering of bread. For seeing this mystery is heavenly, there is no necessity to bring Christ on the earth that he may be connected with us.

(The true nature of the corporeal presence in which believers partake through the Spirit, 32-34)

32. Involved solutions of the mystery rejected

Now, should any one ask me as to the mode, I will not be ashamed to confess that it is too high a mystery either for my mind to comprehend or my words to express; and to speak more plainly I rather feel than understand it. The truth of God, therefore, in which I can safely rest, I here embrace without controversy. He declares that his flesh is the meat, his blood the drink, of my soul (John 6:53f); I give my soul to him to be fed with such food. In his sacred Supper he bids, me take, eat, and drink his body and blood under the symbols of bread and wine. I have no doubt that he will truly give and I receive.

Only, I reject the absurdities which appear to be unworthy of the heavenly majesty of Christ, and are inconsistent with the reality of his human nature. Since they must also be repugnant to the word of God, which teaches both that Christ was received into the glory of the heavenly kingdom, so as to be exalted above all the circumstances of the world, (Luke 24: 26,) and no less carefully ascribes to him the properties belonging to a true human nature.

This ought not to seem incredible or contradictory to reason, (Iren. Lib. 4 cap. 34;) because as the whole kingdom of Christ is spiritual, so whatever he does in his Church is not to be tested by the wisdom of this world; or, to use the words of Augustine “this mystery is performed by man like the others, but in a divine manner, and on earth, but in a heavenly manner.” Such, I say, is the corporeal presence which the nature of the sacrament requires, and which we say is here displayed in such power and efficacy, that it not only gives our minds undoubted assurance of eternal life, but also secures the immortality of our flesh, since it is now quickened by his immortal flesh, and in a manner shines in his immortality.

Those who are carried beyond this with their hyperboles, do nothing more by their extravagancies than obscure the plain and simple truth. If any one is not yet satisfied, I would have him here to consider with himself that we are speaking of the sacrament, every part of which ought to have reference to faith. Now by participation of the body, as we have explained, we nourish faith not less richly and abundantly then do those who drag Christ himself from heaven.

Still I am free to confess that that mixture or transfusion of the flesh of Christ with our souls which they teach I repudiate, because it is enough for us, that Christ, out of the substance of his flesh, breathes life into our souls, nay, diffuses his own life into us, though the real flesh of Christ does not enter us. I may add, that there can be no doubt that the analogy of faith by which Paul enjoins us to test every interpretation of Scripture (Rom. 12:3,6), is clearly with us in this matter. Let those who oppose a truth so clear, consider to what standard of faith they conform themselves: “Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God,” (1 John 4: 23; 2 John ver. 7.) These men, though they disguise the fact, or perceive it not, rob him of his flesh.

33. Spiritual and, hence, actual partaking of Christ; partaking of the Lord’s Supper by unbelievers

The same view must be taken of communion, which, according to them, has no existence unless they swallow the flesh of Christ under the bread. But no slight insult is offered to the Spirit if we refuse to believe that it is by his incomprehensible agency that we communicate in the body and blood of Christ. Nay, if the nature of the mystery, as delivered to us, and known to the ancient Church for four hundred years, had been considered as it deserves, there was more than enough to satisfy us; the door would have been shut against many disgraceful errors. These have kindled up fearful dissensions, by which the Church both anciently and in our own times, has been miserably vexed; curious men insisting on an extravagant mode of presence to which Scripture gives no countenance. And for a matter thus foolishly and rashly devised they keep up a turmoil, as if the including of Christ under the bread were, so to speak, the beginning and end of piety. It was of primary importance to know how the body of Christ once delivered to us becomes ours and how we become partakers of his shed blood, because this is to possess the whole of Christ crucified, so as to enjoy all his blessings. But overlooking these points, in which there was so much importance, nay, neglecting and almost suppressing them, they occupy themselves only with this one perplexing question, How is the body of Christ hidden under the bread, or under the appearance of bread?

They falsely pretend that all which we teach concerning spiritual eating is opposed to true and what they call real eating, since we have respect only to the mode of eating. This according to them, is carnal, since they include Christ under the bread, but according to us is spiritual, inasmuch as the sacred agency of the Spirit is the bond of our union with Christ.

No better founded is the other objection, that we attend only to the fruit or effect which believers receive from eating the flesh of Christ. We formerly said, that Christ himself is the matter of the Supper, and that the effect follows from this, that by the sacrifice of his death our sins are expiated, by his blood we are washed, and by his resurrection we are raised to the hope of life in heaven. But a foolish imagination, of which Lombard was the author, perverts their minds, while they think that the sacrament is the eating of the flesh of Christ. His words are, “The sacrament and not the thing are the forms of bread and wine; the sacrament and the thing are the flesh and blood of Christ; the thing and not the sacrament is his mystical flesh,” (Lombard, Lib. 4: Dist. 8.) again a little after, “The thing signified and contained is the proper flesh of Christ; the thing signified and not contained is his mystical body.” To his distinction between the flesh of Christ and the power of nourishing which it possesses, I assent; but his maintaining it to be a sacrament, and a sacrament contained under the bread, is an error not to be tolerated.

Hence has arisen that false interpretation of sacramental eating, because it was imagined that even the wicked and profane, however much alienated from Christ, eat his body.

But the very flesh of Christ in the mystery of the Supper is no less a spiritual matter than eternal salvation. Whence we infer, that all who are devoid of the Spirit of Christ can no more eat the flesh of Christ than drink wine that has no savour. Certainly Christ is shamefully lacerated, when his body, as lifeless and without any vigour, is prostituted to unbelievers. This is clearly repugnant to his words, “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him,” (John 6: 56.) They object, that he is not there speaking of sacramental eating; this I admit, provided they will not ever and anon stumble on this stone, that his flesh itself is eaten without any benefit.

I should like to know how they confine it after they have eaten. Here, in my opinion, they will find no outlet. But they object, that the ingratitude of man cannot in any respect detract from, or interfere with, faith in the promises of God. I admit and hold that the power of the sacrament remains entire, however the wicked may labour with all their might to annihilate it. Still, it is one thing to be offered, another to be received. Christ gives this spiritual food and holds forth this spiritual drink to all. Some eat eagerly, others superciliously reject it. Will their rejection cause the meat and drink to lose their nature? They will say that this similitude supports their opinion, viz., that the flesh of Christ, though it be without taste, is still flesh. But I deny that it can be eaten without the taste of faith, or, (if it is more agreeable to speak with Augustine,) I deny that men carry away more from the sacrament than they collect in the vessel of faith. Thus nothing is detracted from the sacrament, nay, its reality and efficacy remain unimpaired, although the wicked, after externally partaking of it, go away empty.

If, again, they object, that it derogates from the expression, “This is my body,” if the wicked receive corruptible bread and nothing besides, it is easy to answer, that God wills not that his truth should be recognised in the mere reception, but in the constancy of his goodness, while he is prepared to perform, nay, liberally offers to the unworthy what they reject. The integrity of the sacrament, an integrity which the whole world cannot violate, lies here, that the flesh and blood of Christ are not less truly given to the unworthy than to the elect believers of God; and yet it is true, that just as the rain falling on the hard rock runs away, because it cannot penetrate, so the wicked by their hardness repel the grace of God, and prevent it from reaching them. We may add, that it is no more possible to receive Christ without faith, than it is for seed to germinate in the fire.

They ask how Christ can have come for the condemnation of some, unless they unworthily receive him; but this is absurd, since we nowhere read that they bring death upon themselves by receiving Christ unworthily, but by rejecting him.

They are not aided by the parable in which Christ says, that the seed which fell among thorns sprang up, but was afterwards choked, (Matth. 13: 7,) because he is there speaking of the effect of a temporary faith, a faith which those who place Judas in this respect on a footing with Peter, do not think necessary to the eating of the flesh and the drinking of the blood of Christ. Nay, their error is refuted by the same parable, when Christ says that some seed fell upon the wayside, and some on stony ground, and yet neither took root. Hence it follows that the hardness of believers is an obstacle which prevents Christ from reaching them.

All who would have our salvation to be promoted by this sacrament, will find nothing more appropriate than to conduct believers to the fountain (cf. John 4:6-15), that they may draw life from the Son of God. The dignity is amply enough commended when we hold, that it is a help by which we may be ingrafted into the body of Christ, or, already ingrafted, may be more and more united to him, until the union is completed in heaven. They object, that Paul could not have made them guilty of the body and blood of the Lord if they had not partaken of them, (1 Cor. 11: 27;) I answer, that they were not condemned for having eaten, but only for having profaned the ordinance lay trampling under foot the pledge, which they ought to have reverently received, the pledge of sacred union with God.

34. Partaking of the Lord’s Supper by unbelievers, according to Augustine

Moreover, as among ancient writers, Augustine especially maintained this head of doctrine, that the grace figured by the sacraments is not impaired or made void by the infidelity or malice of men, it will be useful to prove clearly from his words, how ignorantly and erroneously those who cast forth the body of Christ to be eaten by dogs, wrest them to their present purpose. Sacramental eating, according to them, is that by which the wicked receive the body and blood of Christ without the agency of the Spirit, or any gracious effect. Augustine, on the contrary, prudently pondering the expression, “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, has eternal life,” (John 6: 54,) says: “That is the virtue of the sacrament, and not merely the visible sacrament: the sacrament of him who eats inwardly, not of him who eats outwardly, or merely with the teeth,” (Hom. in Joann. 26.) Hence he at length concludes, that the sacrament of this thing, that is, of the unity of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, is set before some for life, before others for destruction; while the matter itself, of which it is the sacraments is to all for life, to none for destruction, whoever may have been the partaker. Lest any one should here cavil that by “thing” not meant body, but the grace of the Spirit, which may be separated from it, he dissipates these mists by the antithetical epithets, Visible and Invisible. For the body of Christ cannot be included under the former. Hence it follows, that unbelievers communicate only in the visible symbol; and the better to remove all doubt, after saying that this bread requires an appetite in the inner man, he adds, (Hom. in Joann. 59,) “Moses, and Aaron, and Phinehas, and many others who ate manna, pleased God. Why? Because the visible food they understood spiritually, hungered for spiritually, tasted spiritually, and feasted on spiritually. We, too, in the present day, have received visible food: but the sacrament is one thing, the virtue of the sacrament is another.” A little after, he says: “And hence, he who remains not in Christ, and in whom Christ remains not, without doubt neither spiritually eats his flesh, nor drinks his blood, though with his teeth he may carnally and visibly press the symbol of his body and blood.” again, we are told that the visible sign is opposed to spiritual eating. This refutes the error that the invisible body of Christ is sacramentally eaten in reality, although not spiritually. We are told, also, that nothing is given to the impure and profane beyond the visible taking of the sign. Hence his celebrated saying, that the other disciples ate bread which was the Lord, whereas Judas ate the bread of the Lord, (Hom. in Joann. 62.) By this he clearly excludes unbelievers from participation in his body and blood. He has no other meaning when he says, “Why do you wonder that the bread of Christ was given to Judas, though he consigned him to the devil, when you see, on the contrary, that a messenger of the devil was given to Paul to perfect him in Christ?"(II Cor. 12:7) (August. de Bapt. Cont. Donat. Lib. 5.) He indeed says elsewhere, that the bread of the Supper was the body of Christ to those to whom Paul said, “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself; and that it does not follow that they received nothing because they received unworthily."(I Cor. 11:29). But in what sense he says this, he explains more fully in another passage, (De Civit. Dei, Lib. 21 c. 25.) For undertaking professedly to explains how the wicked and profane, who, with the mouth, profess the faith of Christ, but in act deny him, eat the body of Christ; and, indeed, refuting the opinion of some who thought that they ate not only sacramentally, but really, he says: “Neither can they be said to eat the body of Christ, because they are not to be accounted among the members of Christ. For, not to mention other reasons, they cannot be at the same time the members of Christ and the members of a harlot (I Cor. 6:15). In fine, when Christ himself says, “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him,” (John 6: 56,) he shows what it is to eat the body of Christ, not sacramentally, but in reality. It is to abide in Christ, that Christ may abide in him. For it is just as if he had said, Let not him who abides not in me, and in whom I abide not, say or think that he eats my body or drinks my blood.”

Let the reader attend to the antithesis between eating sacramentally and eating really, and there will be no doubt. The same thing he confirms not less clearly in these words: “Prepare not the jaws, but the heart; for which alone the Supper is appointed. We believe in Christ when we receive him in faith; in receiving, we allow what we think: we receive a small portion, but our heart is filled: it is not therefore that which is seen, but that which is believed, that feeds,” (August. Cont. Faust. Lib. 13 c. 16.) Here, also, he restricts what the wicked take to the visible sign, and shows that the only way of receiving Christ is by faith. So, also, in another passage, declaring distinctly that the good and the bad communicate by signs, he excludes the latter from the true eating of the flesh of Christ. For had they received the reality, he would not have been altogether silent as to a matter which was pertinent to the case. In another passage, speaking of eating, and the fruit of it, he thus concludes: “Then will the body and blood of Christ be life to each, if that which is visibly taken in the sacrament is in reality spiritually eaten, spiritually drunk,” (De Verb. Apost. Serm. 2.) Let those, therefore, who make unbelievers partakers of the flesh and blood of Christ, if they would agree with Augustine, set before us the visible body of Christ, since, according to him the whole truth is spiritual. And certainly his words imply that sacramental eating when unbelief excludes the entrance of the reality, is only equivalent to visible or external eating. But if the body of Christ may be truly and yet not spiritually eaten, what could he mean when he elsewhere says: “Ye are not to eat this body which you see, nor to drink the blood which will be shed by those who are to crucify me? I have committed a certain sacrament to you: it is the spiritual meaning which will give you life,” (August. in Ps. 98.) He certainly meant not to deny that the body offered in the Supper is the same as that which Christ offered in sacrifice; but he adverted to the mode of eating, viz., that the body, though received into the celestial glory, breathes life into us by the secret energy of the Spirit. I admit, indeed, that he often uses the expression, “that the body of Christ is eaten by unbelievers;” but he explains himself by adding, “in the sacrament.” And he elsewhere speaks of a spiritual eating, in which our teeth do not chew grace, (Hom. in Joann. 27.) And, lest my opponents should say that I am trying to overwhelm them with the mass of my quotations, I would ask how they get over this one sentence: “In the elect alone, the sacraments effect what they figure.” Certainly they will not venture to deny, that by the bread in the Supper, the body of Christ is figured. Hence it follows, that the reprobate are not allowed to partake of it. That Cyril did not think differently, is clear from these words: “As one in pouring melted wax on melted wax mixes the whole together, so it is necessary, when one receives the body and blood of the Lord, to be conjoined with him, that Christ may be found in him, and he in Christ.” From these words, I think it plain that there is no true and real eating by those Who only eat the body of Christ sacramentally, seeing the body cannot be separated from its virtue, and that the promises of God do not fail, though, while he ceases not to rain from heaven, rocks and stones are not penetrated by the moisture.

(Superstitious adoration of the elements excluded, 35-37)

35. Adoration of the elements rejected

This consideration will easily dissuade us from that carnal adoration which some men have, with perverse temerity, introduced into the sacrament, reasoning thus with themselves: If it is body, then it is also soul and divinity which go along with the body and cannot be separated from it, and, therefore, Christ must there be adored.

First, if we deny their pretended concomitance, what will they do? For, as they chiefly insist on the absurdity of separating the body of Christ from his soul and divinity, what sane and sober man can persuade himself that the body of Christ is Christ? They think that they completely establish this by their syllogisms. But since Christ speaks separately of his body and blood, without describing the mode of his presence, how can they in a doubtful matter arrive at the certainty which they wish? What then? Should their consciences be at any time exercised with some more grievous apprehension, will they forthwith set them free, and dissolve the apprehension by their syllogisms? In other words, when they see that no certainty is to be obtained from the word of God, in which alone our minds can rest, and without which they go astray the very first moment when they begin to reason, when they see themselves opposed by the doctrine and practice of the apostles, and that they are supported by no authority but their own, how will they feel? To such feelings other sharp stings will be added. What? Was it a matter of little moment to worship God under this form without any express injunction? In a matter relating to the true worship of God, were we thus lightly to act without one Word of Scripture? Had all their thoughts been kept in due subjection to the word of God, they certainly would have listened to what he himself has said, “Take, eat, and drink,” and obeyed the command by which he enjoins us to receive the sacrament, not worship it.

Those who receive, without adoration, as commanded by God, are secure that they deviate not from the command. In commencing any work, nothing is better than this security. They have the example of the apostles, of whom we read not that they prostrated themselves and worshipped, but that they sat down, took and ate. They have the practice of the apostolic Church, where, as Luke relates, believers communicated not in adoration, but in the breaking of bread, (Acts 2: 42.) They have the doctrine of the apostles as taught to the Corinthian Church by Paul, who declares that what he delivered he had received of the Lord, (1 Cor. 11: 23.)

36. Superstition and idolatry in such adoration

The object of these remarks is to lead pious readers to reflect how dangerous it is in matters of such difficulty to wander from the simple word of God to the dreams of our own brain. What has been said above should free us from all scruple in this matter. That the pious soul may duly apprehend Christ in the sacrament, it must rise to heaven. But if the office of the sacrament is to aid the infirmity of the human mind, assisting it in rising upwards, so as to perceive the height of spiritual mysteries those who stop short at the external sign stray from the right path of seeking Christ. What then? Can we deny that the worship is superstitious when men prostrate themselves before bread that they may therein worship Christ? The Council of Nice undoubtedly intended to meet this evil when it forbade us to give humble heed to the visible signs. And for no other reason was it formerly the custom, previous to consecration, to call aloud upon the people to raise their hearts, “sursum corda”. Scripture itself, also, besides carefully narrating the ascension of Christ, by which he withdrew his bodily presence from our eye and company, that it might make us abandon all carnal thoughts of him, whenever it makes mention of him, enjoins us to raise our minds upwards and seek him in heaven, seated at the right hand of the Father, (Col. 3: 2.) According to this rule, we should rather have adored him spiritually in the heavenly glory, than devised that perilous species of adoration replete with gross and carnal ideas of God.

Those, therefore, who devised the adoration of the sacrament, not only dreamed it of themselves without any authority from Scripture, where no mention of it can be shown, (it would not have been omitted, had it been agreeable to God;) but, disregarding scripture, forsook the living God, and fabricated a god for themselves, after the lust of their own hearts. For what is idolatry if it is not to worship the gifts instead of the giver? Here the sin is twofold. The honour robbed from God is transferred to the creature, and God moreover, is dishonoured by the pollution and profanation of his own goodness, while his holy sacrament is converted into an execrable idol. Let us, on the contrary, that we may not fall into the same pit, wholly confine our eyes, ears, hearts, minds, and tongues, to the sacred doctrine of God. For this is the school of the Holy Spirit, that best of masters, in which such progress is made, that while nothing is to be acquired any where else, we must willingly be ignorant of whatever is not there taught.

37. Superstitious rites with the consecrated host

Then, as superstition, when once it has passed the proper bounds, has no end to its errors, men went much farther; for they devised rites altogether alien from the institution of the Supper, and to such a degree that they paid divine honours to the sign. They say that their veneration is paid to Christ. First, if this were done in the Supper, I would say that that adoration only is legitimate which stops not at the sign, but rises to Christ sitting in heaven. Now, under what pretext do they say that they honour Christ in that bread, when they have no promise of this nature? They consecrate the host, as they call it, and carry it about in solemn show, and formally exhibit it to be admired, reverenced, and invoked. I ask by what virtue they think it duly consecrated? They will quote the words, “This is my body.” I, on the contrary, will object, that it was at the same time said, “Take, eat.” Nor will I count the other passage as nothing; for I hold that since the promise is annexed to the command, the former is so included under the latter, that it cannot possibly be separated from it. This will be made clearer by an example. God gave a command when he said, “Call upon me,” and added a promise, “I will deliver thee,” (Psal. 50: 15.) Should any one invoke Peter or Paul, and found on this promise, will not all exclaim that he does it in error? And what else, pray, do those do who, disregarding the command to eat, fasten on the mutilated promise, “This is my body,” that they may pervert it to rites alien from the institution of Christ? Let us remember, therefore, that this promise has been given to those who observe the command connected with it, and that those who transfer the sacrament to another end, have no countenance from the word of God.

We formerly showed how the mystery of the sacred Supper contributes to our faith in God. But since the Lord not only reminds us of this great gift of his goodness, as we formerly explained, but passes it, as it were, from hand to hand, and urges us to recognise it, he, at the same time, admonishes us not to be ungrateful for the kindness thus bestowed, but rather to proclaim it with such praise as is meet, and celebrate it with thanksgiving. Accordingly, when he delivered the institution of the sacrament to the apostles, he taught them to do it in remembrance of him, which Paul interprets, “to show forth his death,” (1 Cor. 11: 26.) And this is that all should publicly and with one mouth confess that all our confidence of life and salvation is placed in our Lord’s death, that we ourselves may glorify him by our confession, and by our example excite others also to give him glory. Here, again, we see what the aim of the sacrament is, namely, to keep us in remembrance of Christ’s death. When we are ordered to show forth the Lord’s death till he come again, all that is meant is, that we should with confession of the mouth, proclaim what our faith has recognised in the sacrament, viz., that the death of Christ is our life. This is the second use of the sacrament, and relates to outward confession.

(Points of special emphasis: mutual love; the accompaniment of preaching; medicine for sick souls; worthy partaking; suitable form and the frequency of administration, 38-46)

38. The Lord’s Supper implies mutual love

Thirdly, The Lord intended it to be a kind of exhortation, than which no other could urge or animate us more strongly, both to purity and holiness of life, and also to charity, peace, and concord. For the Lord there communicates his body so that he may become altogether one with us, and we with him. Moreover, since he has only one body of which he makes us all to be partakers, we must necessarily, by this participation, all become one body. This unity is represented by the bread which is exhibited in the sacrament. As it is composed of many grains, so mingled together, that one cannot be distinguished from another; so ought our minds to be so cordially united, as not to allow of any dissension or division. This I prefer giving in the words of Paul: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many, are one bread and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread,” (1 Cor. 10: 15, 16.) We shall have profited admirably in the sacrament, if the thought shall have been impressed and engraven on our minds, that none of our brethren is hurt, despised, rejected, injured, or in any way offended, without our, at the same time, hurting, despising, and injuring Christ; that we cannot have dissension with our brethren, without at the same time dissenting from Christ; that we cannot love Christ without loving our brethren; that the same care we take of our own body we ought to take of that of our brethren, who are members of our body; that as no part of our body suffers pain without extending to the other parts, so every evil which our brother suffers ought to excite our compassion. Wherefore Augustine not inappropriately often terms this sacrament the bond of charity. What stronger stimulus could be employed to excite mutual charity, than when Christ, presenting himself to us, not only invites us by his example to give and devote ourselves mutually to each other, but inasmuch as he makes himself common to all, also makes us all to be one in him.

39. The Lord’s Supper cannot exist apart from the Word

This most admirably confirms what I elsewhere said, viz., that there cannot be a right administration of the Supper without the word. And utility which we derive from the Supper requires the word. Whether we are to be confirmed in faith, or exercised in confession, or aroused to duty, there is need of preaching. Nothing, therefore, can be more preposterous than to convert the Supper into a dumb action. This is done under the tyranny of the Pope, the whole effect of consecration being made to depend on the intention of the priest, as if it in no way concerned the people, to whom especially the mystery ought to have been explained. This error has originated from not observing that those promises by which consecration is effected are intended not for the elements themselves, but for those who receive them. Christ does not address the bread and tell it to become his body but bids his disciples eat, and promises them the communion of his body and blood. And, according to the arrangement which Paul makes, the promises are to be offered to believers along with the bread and the cup. Thus, indeed, it is. We are not to imagine some magical incantation, and think it sufficient to mutter the words, as if they were heard by the elements; but we are to regard those words as a living sermon, which is to edify the hearers, penetrate their minds, be impressed and seated in their hearts, and exert its efficacy in the fulfilment of that which it promises.

For these reasons, it is clear that the setting apart of the sacrament, as some insist, that an extraordinary distribution of it may be made to the sick, is useless. They will either receive it without hearing the words of the institution read, or the minister will conjoin the true explanation of the mystery with the sign. In the silent dispensation, there is abuse and defect. If the promises are narrated, and the mystery is expounded, that those who are to receive may receive with advantage, it cannot be doubted that this is the true consecration. What then becomes of that other consecration, the effect of which reaches even to the sick? But those who do so have the example of the early Church. I confess it; but in so important a matter, where error is so dangerous, nothing, is safer than to follow the truth.

40. Of unworthy partaking of the Sacrament

Moreover, as we see that this sacred bread of the Lord’s Supper is spiritual food, is sweet and savoury, not less than salutary, to the pious worshipers of God; on tasting which they feel that Christ is their life, are disposed to give thanks, and exhorted to mutual love; so, on the other hand, it is converted into the most noxious poison to all whom it does not nourish and confirm in the faith, nor urge to thanksgiving and charity. For, just as corporeal food, when received into a stomach subject to morbid humours, becomes itself vitiated and corrupted, and rather hurts than nourishes, so this spiritual food also, if given to a soul polluted with malice and wickedness, plunges it into greater ruin, not indeed by any defect in the food, but because to the “defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure,” (Titus 1: 15,) however much it may be sanctified by the blessing of the Lord. For, as Paul says, “Whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord;” “eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body,” (1 Cor. 11: 27, 29.) For men of this description, who without any spark of faith, without any zeal for charity, rush forward like swine to seize the Lord’s Supper, do not at all discern the Lord’s body. For, inasmuch as they do not believe that body to be their life, they put every possible affront upon it, stripping it of all its dignity, and profane and contaminate it by so receiving; inasmuch as while alienated and estranged from their brethren, they dare to mingle the sacred symbol of Christ’s body with their dissensions. No thanks to them if the body of Christ is not rent and torn to pieces. Wherefore they are justly held guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, which, with sacrilegious impiety, they so vilely pollute. By this unworthy eating, they bring judgement on themselves. For while they have no faith in Christ, yet, by receiving the sacrament, they profess to place their salvation only in him and abjure all other confidence. Wherefore they themselves are their own accusers; they bear witness against themselves; they seal their own condemnation. Next being divided and separated by hatred and ill-will from their brethren that is from the members of Christ, they have no part in Christ, and yet they declare that the only safety is to communicate with Christ, and be united to him.

For this reason Paul commands a man to examine himself before he eats of that bread, and drinks of that cup, (1 Cor. 11: 28.) By this, as I understand, he means that each individual should descend into himself, and consider, first, whether, with inward confidence of heart, he leans on the salvation obtained by Christ, and, with confession of the mouth, acknowledges it; and, secondly, whether with zeal for purity and holiness he aspires to imitate Christ; whether, after his example, he is prepared to give himself to his brethren, and to hold himself in common with those with whom he has Christ in common; whether, as he himself is regarded by Christ, he in his turn regards all his brethren as members of his body, or, like his members, desires to cherish, defend, and assist them, not that the duties of faith and charity can now be perfected in us, but because it behaves us to contend and seek, with all our heart, daily to increase our faith.

41. Who is “worthy”?

In seeking to prepare for eating, worthily, men have often dreadfully harassed and tortured miserable consciences, and yet have in no degree attained the end. They have said that those eat unworthily who are in a state of grace. Being in a state of grace, they have interpreted to be pure and free from all sin. By this definition, all the men that ever have been and are upon the earth, were debarred from the use of this sacrament. For if we are to seek our worthiness from ourselves, it is all over with us; only despair and fatal ruin await us. Though we struggle to the utmost, we will not only make no progress, but then be most unworthy after we have laboured most to make ourselves worthy.

To cure this ulcer, they have devised a mode of procuring worthiness viz., after having, as far as we can, made an examination, and taken an account of all our actions, to expiate our unworthiness by contrition, confession, and satisfaction. Of the nature of this expiation we have spoken at the proper place, (Book 3 chap. 4 sec. 2, 17, 27.) As far as regards our present object, I say that such things give poor and evanescent comfort to alarmed and downcast consciences, struck with terror at their sins. For if the Lord, by his prohibition, admits none to partake of his Supper but the righteous and innocent, every man would require to be cautious before feeling secure of that righteousness of his own which he is told that God requires. But how are we to be assured that those who have done what in them lay, have discharged their duty to God? Even were we assured of this who would venture to assure himself that he had done what in him lay? Thus there being no certain security for our worthiness, access to the Supper would always be excluded by the fearful interdict, “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself.”

42. Faith and love requisite, but not perfection

It is now easy to judge what is the nature, and who is the author, of that doctrine which prevails in the Papacy, and which by its inhuman austerity deprives and robs wretched sinners, oppressed with sorrow and trembling, of the consolation of this sacrament, a sacrament in which all that is delightful in the gospel was set before them. Certainly the devil could have no shorter method of destroying men than by thus infatuating them, and so excluding them from the taste and savour of this food with which their most merciful Father in heaven had been pleased to feed them. Therefore, lest we should rush over such a precipice, let us remember that this sacred feast is medicine to the sick, comfort to the sinner, and bounty to the poor; while to the healthy, the righteous, and the rich, if any such could be found, it would be of no value. For while Christ is therein given us for food, we perceive that without him we fail, pine, and waste away, just as hunger destroys the vigour of the body. Next, as he is given for life, we perceive that without him we are certainly dead. Wherefore, the best and only worthiness which we can bring to God, is to offer him our own vileness, and, if I may so speak, unworthiness that his mercy may make us worthy; to despond in ourselves, that we may be consoled in him; to humble ourselves, that we may be elevated by him; to accuse ourselves, that we may be justified by him; to aspire, moreover, to the unity which he recommends in the Supper; and, as he makes us all one in himself, to desire to have all one soul, one heart, one tongue. If we ponder and meditate on these things, we may be shaken but will never be overwhelmed by such considerations as these, how shall we, who are devoid of all good, polluted by the defilements of sin, and half dead, worthily eat the body of the Lord? We shall rather consider that we, who are poor, are coming to a benevolent giver, sick to a physician, sinful to the author of righteousness, in fine, dead to him who gives life; that worthiness which is commanded by God, consists especially in faith, which places all things in Christ, nothing in ourselves, and in charity, charity which, though imperfect, it may be sufficient to offer to God, that he may increase it, since it cannot be fully rendered.

Some, concurring with us in holding that worthiness consists in faith and charity, have widely erred in regard to the measure of worthiness, demanding a perfection of faith to which nothing can be added, and a charity equivalent to that which Christ manifested towards us. And in this way, just as the other class, they debar all men from access to this sacred feast. For, were their view well founded, every one who receives must receive unworthily, since all, without exception, are guilty, and chargeable with imperfection. And certainly it were too stupid, not to say idiotical, to require to the receiving of the sacrament a perfection which would render the sacrament vain and superfluous, because it was not instituted for the perfect, but for the infirm and weak, to stir up, excite, stimulate, exercise the feeling of faith and charity, and at the same time correct the deficiency of both.

43. On the proper celebration of the Lord’s Supper

In regard to the external form of the ordinance, whether or not believers are to take into their hands and divide among themselves, or each is to eat what is given to him; whether they are to return the cup to the deacon or hand it to their neighbour; whether the bread is to be leavened or unleavened, and the wine to be red or white, is of no consequence. These things are indifferent, and left free to the Church, though it is certain that it was the custom of the ancient Church for all to receive into their hand. And Christ said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves” (Luke 22: 17.)

History relates that leavened and ordinary bread was used before the time of Alexander the Bishop of Rome, who was the first that was delighted with unleavened bread: for what reason I see not, unless it was to draw the wondering eyes of the populace by the novelty of the spectacle, more than to train them in sound religion. I appeal to all who have the least zeal for piety, whether they do not evidently perceive both how much more brightly the glory of God is here displayed and how much more abundant spiritual consolation is felt by believers than in these frigid and histrionic follies, which have no other use than to impose on the gazing populace. They call it restraining the people by religion, when, stupid and infatuated, they are drawn hither and thither by superstition. Should any one choose to defend such inventions by antiquity, I am not unaware how ancient is the use of Christ and exorcism in baptism, and how, not long after the age of the apostles, the Supper was tainted with adulteration; such, indeed, is the forwardness of human confidence, which cannot restrain itself, but is always sporting and wantoning in the mysteries of God. But let us remember that God sets so much value on obedience to his word, that, by it, he would have us to judge his angels and the whole world (I Cor. 6:2-3; Gal. 1:8).

All this mass of ceremonies being abandoned, the sacrament might be celebrated in the most becoming manner, if it were dispensed to the Church very frequently, at least once a week. The commencement should be with public prayer; next a sermon should be delivered: then the minister, having placed bread and wine on the table, should read the institution of the Supper. He should next explain the promises which are therein given; and, at the same time, keep back from communion all those who are debarred by the prohibition of the Lord. He should afterwards pray that the Lord, with the kindness with which he has bestowed this sacred food upon us, would also form and instruct us to receive it with faith and gratitude; and, as we are of ourselves unworthy, would make us worthy of the feast by his mercy. Here, either a psalm should be sung, or something read, while the faithful, in order, communicate at the sacred feast, the minister breaking the bread, and giving it to the people. The Supper being ended, an exhortation should be given to sincere faith, and confession of faith, to charity, and lives becoming Christians. Lastly, thanks should be offered, and the praises of God should be sung. This being done, the Church should be dismissed in peace.

44. The Lord’s Supper should be celebrated frequently

What we have hitherto said of the sacrament, abundantly shows that it was not instituted to be received once a year, and that perfunctorily, (as is now commonly the custom;) but that all Christians might have it in frequent use, and frequently call to mind the sufferings of Christ, thereby sustaining and confirming their faith: stirring themselves up to sing the praises of God, and proclaim his goodness; cherishing and testifying towards each other that mutual charity, the bond of which they see in the unity of the body of Christ. As often as we communicate in the symbol of our Saviour’s body, as if a pledge were given and received, we mutually bind ourselves to all the offices of love, that none of us may do anything to offend his brother, or omit anything by which he can assist him when necessity demands, and opportunity occurs.

That such was the practice of the Apostolic Church, we are informed by Luke in the Acts, when he says that “they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers,” (Acts 2: 42.) Thus we ought always to provide that no meeting of the Church is held without the word, prayer, the dispensation of the Supper, and alms. We may gather from Paul that this was the order observed by the Corinthians, and it is certain that this was the practice many ages after.

Hence, by the ancient canons, which are attributed to Anacletus and Calixtus, after the consecration was made, all were to communicate who did not wish to be without the pale of the Church. And in those ancient canons, which bear the name of Apostolical, it is said, that those who continue not to the end, and partake not of the sacred communion, are to be corrected as causing disquiet to the Church. In the Council of Antioch it was decreed, that those who enter the Church, hear the Scriptures, and abstain from communion, are to be removed from the Church until they amend their fault. And although, in the first Council of Tholouse, this was mitigated, or at least stated in milder terms, yet there also it was decreed, that those who, after hearing the sermon, never communicated, were to be admonished, and if they still abstained after admonition, were to be excluded.

45. Augustine and Chrysostom on the duty of participation

By these enactments, holy men wished to retain and ensure the use of frequent communion, as handed down by the apostles themselves; and which, while it was most salutary to believers, they saw gradually falling into desuetude by the negligence of the people. Of his own age, Augustine testifies: “The sacrament of the unity of our Lord’s body is, in some places, provided daily, and in others at certain intervals, at the Lord’s table; and at that table some partake to life, and others to destruction,” (August. Tract. 26, in Joann. 6.) And in the first Epistle to Januarius he says: “Some communicate daily in the body and blood of the Lord; others receive it on certain days: in some places, not a day intervenes on which it is not offered; in others, it is offered only on the Sabbath and the Lord’s day: in others, on the Lord’s day only.” But since, as we have said, the people were sometimes remiss, holy men urged them with severe rebukes, that they might not seem to connive at their sluggishness. Of this we have an example in Chrysostom, on the Epistle to the Ephesians, (Hom. 26.) “It was not said to him who dishonoured the feast, Why have you taken your seat? But how camest thou in?” (Matth. 22: 12.) Whoever partakes not of the sacred rites is wicked and impudent in being present: should any one who was invited to a feast come in, wash his hands, take his seat, and seem to prepare to eat, and thereafter taste nothing, would he not, I ask, insult both the feast and the entertainer? So you, standing among those who prepare themselves by prayer to take the sacred food, profess to be one of the number by the mere fact of your not going away, and yet you do not partake,—would it not have been better not to have made your appearance? I am unworthy, you say. Then neither were you worthy of the communion of prayer, which is the preparation for taking the sacred mystery.”

46. Communicating only once a year condemned

Most assuredly, the custom which prescribes communion once a year is an invention of the devil, by what instrumentality soever it may have been introduced. They say that Zephyrinus was the author of the decree, though it is not possible to believe that it was the same as we now have it. It may be, that as times then were, he did not, by his ordinance, consult ill for the Church. For there cannot be a doubt that at that time the sacred Supper was dispensed to the faithful at every meeting; nor can it be doubted that a great part of them communicated. But as it scarcely ever happened that all could communicate at the same time, and it was necessary that those who were mingled with the profane and idolaters, should testify their faith by some external symbol, this holy man, with a view to order and government, had appointed that day, that on it the whole of Christendom might give a confession of their faith by partaking of the Lord’s Supper. The ordinance of Zephyrinus, which was otherwise good, posterity perverted, when they made a fixed law of one communion in the year. The consequence is, that almost all, when they have once communicated as if they were discharged as to all the rest of the year, sleep on secure. It ought to have been far otherwise. Each week, at least, the table of the Lord ought to have been spread for the company of Christians, and the promises declared on which we might then spiritually feed. No one, indeed, ought to be forced, but all ought to be exhorted and stimulated; the torpor of the sluggish, also ought to be rebuked that all, like persons famishing, should come to the feast. It was not without cause, therefore, I complained, at the outset, that this practice had been introduced by the wile of the devil; a practice which, in prescribing one day in the year, makes the whole year one of sloth. We see, indeed, that this perverse abuse had already crept in in the time of Chrysostom; but we, also, at the same time, see how much it displeased him. For he complains in bitter terms, in the passage which I lately quoted, that there is so great an inequality in this matter, that they did not approach often, at other times of the year, even when prepared, but only at Easter, though unprepared. Then he exclaims: “O custom! O presumption! In vain then, is the daily oblation made: in vain do we stand at the altar. There is none who partakes along with us.” So far is he from having approved the practice by interposing his authority to it.

(Withdrawal of the cup from the lay people condemned, 47-50)

47. Refutation of “communion in one kind”

From the same forge proceeded another constitution, which snatched or robbed a half of the Supper from the greater part of the people of God, namely the symbol of blood, which, interdicted to laics and profane, (such are the titles which they give to God’s heritage (I Peter 5:3),) became the peculiar possession of a few shaven and anointed individuals. The edict of the eternal God is, that all are to drink (Matt. 26:27). This an upstart dares to antiquate and abrogate by a new and contrary law, proclaiming that all are not to drink.

And that such legislators may not seem to fight against their God without any ground, they make a pretext of the dangers which might happen if the sacred cup were given indiscriminately to all: as if these had not been observed and provided for by the eternal wisdom of God.

Then they reason acutely, forsooth, that the one is sufficient for the two. For if the body is, as they say, the whole Christ, who cannot be separated from his body, then the blood includes the body by concomitance. Here we see how far our sense accords with God, when to any extent whatever it begins to rage and wanton with loosened reins. The Lord pointing to the bread says, “This is my body.” Then pointing to the cup, he calls it his blood. The audacity of human reason objects and says, The bread is the blood, the wine is the body, as if the Lord had without reason distinguished his body from his blood, both by words and signs; and it had ever been heard that the body of Christ or the blood is called God and man. Certainly, if he had meant to designate himself wholly he might have said, It is I, according to the Scriptural mode of expression, and not “This is my body,” “This is my blood.” But wishing to succour the weakness of our faith, he placed the cup apart from the bread, to show that he suffices not less for drink than for food. Now, if one part be taken away, we can only find the half of the elements in what remains. Therefore, though it were true, as they pretend, that the blood is in the bread, and, on the other hand, the body in the cup, by concomitance, yet they deprive the pious of that confirmation of faith which Christ delivered as necessary. Bidding adieu, therefore, to their subtleties, let us retain the advantage which, by the ordinance of Christ, is obtained by a double pledge.

48.False argument that the apostles only as “sacrificers” received the cup

I am aware, indeed, how the ministers of Satan, whose usual practice is to hold the Scriptures in derisions here cavil. First, they allege that from a simple fact we are not to draw a rule which is to be perpetually obligatory on the Church. But they state an untruth when they call it a simple fact. For Christ not only gave the cup, but appointed that the apostles should do so in future. For his words contain the command, “Drink ye all of it.” And Paul relates, that it was so done, and recommends it as a fixed institution (I Cor. 11:25).

Another subterfuge is, that the apostles alone were admitted by Christ to partake of this sacred Supper, because he had already selected and chosen them to the priesthood.

I wish they would answer the five following questions, which they cannot evade, and which easily refute them and their lies.

First, By what oracle was this solution so much at variance with the word of God revealed to them? Scripture mentions twelve who sat down with Jesus, but it does not so derogate from the dignity of Christ as to call them priests. Of this appellation we shall afterwards speak in its own place. Although he then gave to twelve, he commanded them to “do this;” in other words, to distribute thus among themselves.

Secondly, Why during that purer age, from the days of the apostles downward for a thousand years, did all, without exception, partake of both symbols? Did the primitive Church not know who the guests were whom Christ would have admitted to his Supper? It were the most shameless impudence to carp and quibble here. We have extant ecclesiastical histories, we have the writings of the Fathers, which furnish clear proofs of this fact. “The flesh,” says Tertullian, “feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul may be satiated by God,” (Tertull. de Resort. Carnis.) “How,” said Ambrose to Theodosius, “will you receive the sacred body of the Lord with such hands? how will you have the boldness to put the cup of precious blood to your lips?” Jerome speaks of “the priests who perform the Eucharist and distribute the Lord’s blood to the people,” (Heron. in Malach. cap. 2.) Chrysostom says, “Not as under the ancient law the priest ate a part and the people a part, but one body and one cup is set before all. All the things which belong to the Eucharist are common to the priest and the people,” (Chrysost. in Cor. cap. 8, Hom. 18.) The same thing is attested by Augustine in numerous passages.

49. Reception by laymen maintained to a late date

But why dispute about a fact which is perfectly notorious? Look at all Greek and Latin writers. Passages of the same kind everywhere occur. Nor did this practice fall into desuetude so long as there was one particle of integrity in the Church. Gregory, whom you may with justice call the last Bishop of Rome, says that it was observed in his age. “What the blood of the Lamb is you have learned, not by hearing, but by drinking it. His blood is poured into the mouths of the faithful.” Nay, four hundred years after his death, when all things had degenerated, the practice still remained. Nor was it regarded as the custom merely, but as an inviolable law. Reverence for the divine institution was then maintained, and they had no doubt of its being sacrilege to separate what the Lord had joined. For Gelasius thus speaks: “We find that some taking only a portion of the sacred body, abstain from the cup. Undoubtedly let those persons, as they seem entangled by some strange superstition, either receive the whole sacrament, or be debarred from the whole. For the division of this mystery is not made without great sacrilege,” (De Consec. Dist. 2.) Reasons were given by Cyprian, which surely ought to weigh with Christian minds. “How,” says he, “do we teach or incite them to shed their blood in confessing Christ, if we deny his blood to those who are to serve; or how do we make them fit for the cup of martyrdom, if we do not previously admit them by right of communion in the Church, to drink the cup of the Lord?” (Cyprian, Serm. 5, de Lapses.) The attempt of the Canonists to restrict the decree of Gelasius to priests is a cavil too puerile to deserve refutation.

50. The words of Scripture plainly accord the cup to all

Thirdly, Why did our Saviour say of the bread simply, “Take, eat,” and of the cup, “drink ye all of it,” as if he had purposely intended to provide against the wile of Satan?

Fourthly, If, as they will have it, the Lord honoured priests only with his Supper, what man would ever have dared to call strangers, whom the Lord had excluded, to partake of it, and to partake of a gift which he had not in his power, without any command from him who alone could give it? Nay, what presumption do they show in the present day in distributing the symbol of Christ’s body to the common people, if they have no command or example from the Lord?

Fifthly, Did Paul lie when he said to the Corinthians, “I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you?” (1 Cor. 11: 23.) The thing delivered, he afterwards declares to be, that all should communicate promiscuously in both symbols. But if Paul received of the Lord that all were to be admitted without distinction, let those who drive away almost the whole people of God see from whom they have received, since they cannot now pretend to have their authority from God, with whom there is not “yea and nay,” (2 Cor. 1: 19, 20.) And yet these abominations they dare to cloak with the name of the Church, and defend under this pretence, as if those Antichrists were the Church who so licentiously trample under foot, waste, and abrogate the doctrine and institutions of Christ, or as if the Apostolic Church, in which religion flourished in full vigour, were not the Church.

CHAPTER 18. OF THE POPISH MASS. HOW IT NOT ONLY PROFANES, BUT ANNIHILATES THE LORD’S SUPPER.

The principal heads of this chapter are,—

I. The abomination of the Mass, sec. 1. Its manifold impiety included under five heads, sec. 2-7. Its origin described, sec. 8, 9.

II. Of the name of sacrifice which the ancients gave to the holy Supper, sec. 10-12. An apposite discussion on sacrifice, refitting the arguments of the Papists for the sacrifice of the Mass, sec. 13-18.

III. A summary of the doctrine of the Christian Church respecting the sacraments, paving the way for the subsequent discussion of the five sacraments, falsely so called, sec. 19, 20.

Sections.

1. The chief of all the abominations set up in opposition to the Lord’s Supper is the Papal Mass. A description of it.

2. Its impiety is five-fold.

1. Its intolerable blasphemy in substituting priests to him the only Priest. Objections of the Papists answered.

3. Impiety of the Mass continued.

2. It overthrows the cross of Christ by setting up an altar. Objections answered.

4. Other objections answered.

5. Impiety of the Mass continued.

3. It banishes the remembrance of Christ’s death. It crucifies Christ afresh. Objections answered.

6. Impiety of the Mass continued.

4. It robs us of the benefit of Christ’s death.

7. Impiety of the Mass continued.

5. It abolishes the Lord’s Supper. In the Supper the Father offers Christ to us; in the Mass, priestlings offer Christ to the Father. The Supper is a sacrament common to all Christians; the Mass confined to one priest.

8. The origin of the Mass. Private masses an impious profanation of the Supper.

9. This abomination unknown to the purer Church. It has no foundation in the word of God.

10. Second part of the chapter. Some of the ancients call the Supper a sacrifice, but not propitiatory, as the Papists do the Mass. This proved by passages from Augustine.

11. Some of the ancients seem to have declined too much to the shadows of the law.

12. Great distinction to be made between the Mosaic sacrifices and the Lord’s Supper, which is called a eucharistic sacrifice. Same rule in this discussion.

13. The terms sacrifice and priest. Different kinds of sacrifices.

1. Propitiatory.

2. Eucharistic.

None propitiatory but the death of Christ.

14. The Lord’s Supper not properly called a propitiatory sacrifice, still less can the Popish Mass be so called. Those who mutter over the Mass cannot be called priests.

15. Their vanity proved even by Plato.

16. To the Eucharistic class of sacrifice belong all offices of piety and charity. This species of sacrifice has no connection with the appeasing of God.

17. Prayer, thanksgiving, and other exercises of piety, called sacrifices. In this sense the Lord’s Supper called the eucharist. In the same sense all believers are priests.

18. Conclusion. Names given to the Mass.

19. Last part of the chapter, recapitulating the views which ought to be held concerning Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Why the Lord’s Supper is, and Baptism is not, repeated.

20. Christians should be contented with these two sacraments. They are abolished by the sacraments decreed by men.

(Rejection of the Mass as sacrilegious and as a nullification of the Lord’s Supper, 1-7)

1. The Romanist doctrine

By these and similar inventions, Satan has attempted to adulterate and envelop the sacred Supper of Christ as with thick darkness, that its purity might not be preserved in the Church. But the head of this horrid abomination was, when he raised a sign by which it was not only obscured and perverted, but altogether obliterated and abolished, vanished away and disappeared from the memory of man; namely, when, with most pestilential error, he blinded almost the whole world into the belief that the Mass was a sacrifice and oblation for obtaining the remission of sins.

I say nothing as to the way in which the sounder schoolmen at first received this dogma. I leave them with their puzzling subtleties which, however they may be defended by cavilling, are to be repudiated by all good men, because all they do is to envelop the brightness of the Supper in great darkness. Bidding adieu to them, therefore, let my readers understand that I am here combating that opinion with which the Roman Antichrist and his prophets have imbued the whole world, viz., that the mass is a work by which the priest who offers Christ, and the others who in the oblation receive him, gain merit with God, or that it is an expiatory victim by which they regain the favour of God.

And this is not merely the common opinion of the vulgar, but the very act has been so arranged as to be a kind of propitiation, by which satisfaction is made to God for the living and the dead. This is also expressed by the words employed, and the same thing may be inferred from daily practice. I am aware how deeply this plague has struck its roots; under what a semblance of good it conceals its true character, bearing the name of Christ before it, and making many believe that under the single name of Mass is comprehended the whole sum of faith.

But when it shall have been most clearly proved by the word of God, that this mass, however glossed and splendid, offers the greatest insult to Christ, suppresses and buries his cross, consigns his death to oblivion, takes away the benefit which it was designed to convey, enervates and dissipates the sacrament, by which the remembrance of his death was retained, will its roots be so deep that this most powerful axe, the word of God, will not cut it down and destroy it? Will any semblance be so specious that this light will not expose the lurking evil?

2. The Mass as blasphemy against Christ

Let us show, therefore as was proposed in the first place, that in the mass intolerable blasphemy and insult are offered to Christ. For he was not appointed Priest and Pontiff by the Fathers for a time merely, as priests were appointed under the Old Testament. Since their life was mortal, their priesthood could not be immortal, and hence there was need of successors, who might ever and anon be substituted in the room of the dead. But Christ being immortal, had not the least occasion to have a vicar substituted for him. Wherefore he was appointed by his Father a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek, that he might eternally exercise a permanent priesthood (Heb. 5:6,10; 7:17,21; 9:11; 10:21; Ps. 110:4; Gen. 14:18). This mystery had been typified long before in Melchizedek, whom Scripture, after once introducing as the priest of the living God, never afterwards mentions, as if he had had no end of life. In this way Christ is said to be a priest after his order.

But those who sacrifice daily must necessarily give the charge of their oblations to priests, whom they surrogate as the vicars and successors of Christ. By this subrogation they not only rob Christ of his honour, and take from him the prerogative of an eternal priesthood, but attempt to remove him from the right hand of his Father, where he cannot sit immortal without being an eternal priest. Nor let them allege that their priestlings are not substituted for Christ, as if he were dead, but are only substitutes in that eternal priesthood, which therefore ceases not to exist. The words of the apostle are too stringent to leave them any means of evasion, viz., “They truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: but this man, because he continueth ever, has an unchangeable priesthood,” (Heb. 7: 23, 24.) Yet such is their dishonesty, that to defend their impiety they arm themselves with the example of Melchizedek. As he is said to have “brought forth (obtulisse) bread and wine,” (Gen. 14: 18,) they infer that it was a prelude to their mass, as if there was any resemblance between him and Christ in the offering of bread and wine. This is too silly and frivolous to need refutation. Melchizedek gave bread and wine to Abraham and his companions, that he might refresh them when worn out with the march and the battle. What has this to do with sacrifice? The humanity of the holy king is praised by Moses: these men absurdly coin a mystery of which there is no mention. They, however, put another gloss upon their error, because it is immediately added, he was “priest of the most high God.” I answer, that they erroneously wrest to bread and wine what the apostle refers to blessing. “This Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham,” “and blessed him.” Hence the same apostle (and a better interpreter cannot be desired) infers his excellence. “Without all contradiction, the less is blessed of the better.” But if the oblation of Melchizedek was a figure of the sacrifice of the mass, I ask, would the apostle, who goes into the minutes details, have forgotten a matter so grave and serious? Now, however they quibble, it is in vain for them to attempt to destroy the argument which is adduced by the apostle himself viz., that the right and honour of the priesthood has ceased among mortal men, because Christ, who is immortal, is the one perpetual priest (Heb. 7:17-19).

3. The Mass as suppression of Christ’s Passion

Another iniquity chargeable on the mass is, that it sinks and buries the cross and passion of Christ. This much, indeed, is most certain,—the cross of Christ is overthrown the moment an altar is erected. For if, on the cross, he offered himself in sacrifice that he might sanctify us for ever, and purchase eternal redemption for us (Heb. 9:12), undoubtedly the power and efficacy of his sacrifice continues without end. Otherwise, we should not think more honourably of Christ than of the oxen and calves which were sacrificed under the law, the offering of which is proved to have been weak and inefficacious because often repeated. Wherefore, it must be admitted, either that the sacrifice which Christ offered on the cross wanted the power of eternal cleansing, or that he performed this once for ever by his one sacrifice. Accordingly, the apostle says, “Now once in the end of the world has he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” Again: “By the which act we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” (Heb. 10:10). Again: “For by one offering he has perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” (Heb. 10:14). To this he subjoins the celebrated passage: “Now, where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.” (Heb. 10:18; cf. v.26). The same thing Christ intimated by his latest voice, when, on giving up the ghost, he exclaimed, “It is finished.” (John 19:30). We are accustomed to observe the last words of the dying as oracular. Christ, when dying, declares, that by his one sacrifice is perfected and fulfilled whatever was necessary to our salvation. To such a sacrifice, whose perfection he so clearly declared, shall we, as if it were imperfect, presume daily to append innumerable sacrifices? Since the sacred word of God not only affirms, but proclaims and protests, that this sacrifice was once accomplished, and remains eternally in force, do not those who demand another charge it with imperfection and weakness? But to what tends the mass which has been established, that a hundred thousand sacrifices may be performed every day, but just to bury and suppress the passion of our Lord, in which he offered himself to his Father as the only victim? Who but a blind man does not see that it was Satanic audacity to oppose a truth so clear and transparent? I am not unaware of the impostures by which the father of lies is wont to cloak his frauds viz., that the sacrifices are not different or various, but that the one sacrifice is repeated. Such smoke is easily dispersed. The apostle, during his whole discourse, contends not only that there are no other sacrifices, but that that one was once offered, and is no more to be repeated. The more subtle try to make their escape by a still narrower loophole, viz., that it is not repetition, but application. But there is no more difficulty in confuting this sophism also. For Christ did not offer himself once, in the view that his sacrifice should be daily ratified by new oblations, but that by the preaching of the gospel and the dispensation of the sacred Supper, the benefit of it should be communicated to us. Thus Paul says, that “Christ, our passover, is sacrificed for us,” and bids us “keep the feast,” (1 Cor. 5: 7, 8.) The method, I say, in which the cross of Christ is duly applied to us is when the enjoyment is communicated to us, and we receive it with true faith.

4. The argument from Malachi 1:11

But it is worth while to hear on what other foundation besides they rear up their sacrifice of the mass. To this end they drag in the prophecy of Malachi, in which the Lord promises that “in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering,” (Mal. 1: 11.) As if it were new or unusual for the prophets, when they speak of the calling of the Gentiles, to designate the spiritual worship of God to which they call them, by the external rites of the law, more familiarly to intimate to the men of their age that they were to be called into the true fellowship of religion, just as in general they are wont to describe the truth which has been exhibited by the gospel by the types of their own age. Thus they use going up to Jerusalem for conversion to the Lord, the bringing of all kinds of gifts for the adoration of God—dreams and visions for the more ample knowledge with which believers were to he endued in the kingdom of Christ. The passage they quote from Malachi resembles one in Isaiah, in which the prophet speaks of three altars to be erected in Assyria, Egypt, and Judea. First, I ask, whether or not they grant that this prophecy is fulfilled in the kingdom of Christ? Secondly, Where are those altars, or when were they ever erected? Thirdly, Do they suppose that a single temple is destined for a single kingdom, as was that of Jerusalem? If they ponder these things, they will confess I think, that the prophets under types adapted to his age, prophesied concerning the propagation of the spiritual worship of God over the whole world. This is the answer which we give them; but, as obvious examples everywhere occur in the Scripture, I am not anxious to give a longer enumeration; although they are miserably deluded in this also, that they acknowledge no sacrifice but that of the mass, whereas in truth believers now sacrifice to God and offer him a pure offering, of which we shall speak by and by.

5. The Mass brings forgetfulness of Christ’s death

I now come to the third part of the mass, in regard to which, we are to explain how it obliterates the true and only death of Christ, and drives it from the memory of men. For as among men, the confirmation of a testament depends upon the death of the testator, so also the testament by which he has bequeathed to us remission of sins and eternal righteousness (Heb. 9:15-17), our Lord has confirmed by his death. Those who dare to make any change or innovation on this testament deny his death, and hold it as of no moment. Now, what is the mass but a new and altogether different testament? What? Does not each mass promise a new forgiveness of sins, a new purchase of righteousness so that now there are as many testaments as there are masses? Therefore, let Christ come again, and, by another death, make this new testament; or rather, by innumerable deaths, ratify the innumerable testaments of the mass. Said I not true, then, at the outset, that the only true death of Christ is obliterated by the mass? For what is the direct aim of the mass but just to put Christ again to death, if that were possible? For, as the apostle says, “Where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator,” (Heb. 9: 16.) The novelty of the mass bears, on the face of it, to be a testament of Christ, and therefore demands his death. Besides, it is necessary that the victim which is offered be slain and immolated. If Christ is sacrificed at each mass, he must be cruelly slain every moment in a thousand places. This is not my argument, but the apostle’s: “Nor yet that he should offer himself often;” “for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world,” (Heb. 9: 25, 26.) I admit that they are ready with an answer, by which they even charge us with calumny; for they say that we object to them what they never thought, and could not even think. We know that the life and death of Christ are not at all in their hand. Whether they mean to slay him, we regard not: our intention is only to show the absurdity consequent on their impious and accursed dogma. This I demonstrate from the mouth of the apostle. Though they insist a hundred times that this sacrifice is bloodless, ("anaimakton”,) I will reply, that it depends not on the will of man to change the nature of sacrifice, for in this way the sacred and inviolable institution of God would fall. Hence it follows, that the principle of the apostle stands firm, “without shedding of blood is no remission,” (Heb. 9: 22.)

6. The Mass robs us of the benefit of Christ’s death

The fourth property of the mass which we are to consider is, that it robs us of the benefit which redounded to us from the death of Christ, while it prevents us from recognising it and thinking of it. For who can think that he has been redeemed by the death of Christ when he sees a new redemption in the mass? Who can feel confident that his sins have been remitted when he sees a new remission? It will not do to say that the only ground on which we obtain forgiveness of sins in the mass is, because it has been already purchased by the death of Christ. For this is just equivalent to saying that we are redeemed by Christ on the condition that we redeem ourselves. For the doctrine which is disseminated by the ministers of Satan, and which, in the present day, they defend by clamour, fire, and sword, is, that when we offer Christ to the Father in the mass, we, by this work of oblation, obtain remission of sins, and become partakers of the sufferings of Christ. What is now left for the sufferings of Christ, but to be an example of redemption, that we may thereby learn to be our own redeemers? Christ himself when he seals our assurance of pardon in the Supper, does not bid his disciples stop short at that act, but sends them to the sacrifice of his death; intimating, that the Supper is the memento or, as it is commonly expressed, the memorial from which they may learn that the expiatory victim by which God was to be appeased was to be offered only once. For it is not sufficient to hold that Christ is the only victim, without adding that his is the only immolation, in order that our faith may be fixed to his cross.

7. The Mass as nullification of the Lord’s Supper

I come now to the crowning point, viz., that the sacred Supper, on which the Lord left the memorial of his passion formed and engraved, was taken away, hidden and destroyed when the mass was erected. While the Supper itself is a gift of God, which was to be received with thanksgiving, the sacrifice of the mass pretends to give a price to God to be received as satisfaction. As widely as giving differs from receiving, does sacrifice differ from the sacrament of the Supper. But herein does the wretched ingratitude of man appear,—that wile a the liberality of the divine goodness ought to have been recognised, and thanks returned, he makes God to be his debtor. The sacrament promised that by the death of Christ we were not only restored to life once but constantly quickened, because all the parts of our salvation were then completed. The sacrifice of the mass uses a very different language, viz., that Christ must be sacrificed daily, in order that he may lend something to us. The Supper was to be dispensed at the public meeting of the Church, to remind us of the communion by which we are all united in Christ Jesus. This communion the sacrifice of the mass dissolves, and tears asunder. For after the heresy prevailed that there behaved to be priests to sacrifice for the people, as if the Supper had been handed over to them, it ceased to be communicated to the assembly of the faithful according to the command of the Lord. Entrance has been given to private masses, which more resemble a kind of excommunication than that communion ordained by the Lord, when the priestling, about to devour his victim apart, separates himself from the whole body of the faithful. That there may be no mistake, I call it a private mass whenever there is no partaking of the Lord’s Supper among believers, though, at the same time, a great multitude of persons may be present.

(Early practice and the rise of misconceptions, 8-11)

8. Private masses a repudiation of communion

The origin of the name of Mass I have never been able certainly to ascertain. It seems probable that it was derived from the offerings which were collected. Hence the ancients usually speak of it in the plural number. But without raising any controversy as to the name, I hold that private masses are diametrically opposed to the institution at Christ, and are, therefore, an impious profanation of the sacred Supper. For what did the Lord enjoin? Was it not to take and divide amongst ourselves (Luke 22:17)? What does Paul teach as to the observance of this command? Is it not that the breaking of bread is the communion of body and blood? (1 Cor. 10: 16.) Therefore, when one person takes without distributing, where is the resemblance? But that one acts in the name of the whole Church. By what command? Is it not openly to mock God when one privately seizes for himself what ought to have been distributed among a number? But as the words both of our Saviour and of Paul, are sufficiently clear, we must briefly conclude, that wherever there is no breaking of bread for the communion of the faithful, there is no Supper of the Lord, but a false and preposterous imitation at the Supper. But false imitation is adulteration. Moreover, the adulteration of this high ordinance is not without impiety. In private masses, therefore, there is an impious abuse: and as in religion, one fault ever and anon begets another, after that custom of offering without communion once crept in, they began gradually to make innumerable masses in all the separate corners of the churches, and to draw the people hither and thither, when they ought to have formed one meeting, and thus recognised the mystery of their unity. Let them now go and deny their idolatry when they exhibit the bread in their masses, that it may be adored for Christ. In vain do they talk of those promises of the presence of Christ, which, however they may be understood, were certainly not given that impure and profane men might form the body of Christ as often as they please, and for whatever abuse they please; but that believers, while, with religious observance, they follow the command of Christ in celebrating the Supper, might enjoy the true participation of it.

9. The Mass not Scriptural and not primitive

We may add, that this perverse course was unknown to the purer Church. For however the more impudent among our opponents may attempt to gloss the matter, it is absolutely certain that all antiquity is opposed to them, as has been above demonstrated in other instances, and may be more surely known by the diligent reading of the Fathers. But before I conclude, I ask our missal doctors, seeing they know that obedience is better than sacrifice, and God commands us to listen to his voice rather than to offer sacrifice, (1 Sam. 15: 22,)—how they can believe this method of sacrificing to be pleasing, to God, since it is certain that he does not command it, and they cannot support it by one syllable of Scripture? Besides, when they hear the apostle declaring that “no man taketh this honour to himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron,” so also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest, but he that said unto him, “Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten thee,” (Heb. 5: 4, 5.) They must either prove God to be the author and founder of their priesthood, or confess that there is no honour from God in an office, into which, without being called, they have rushed with wicked temerity. They cannot produce one iota of Scripture in support of their priesthood. And must not the sacrifices be vain, since they cannot be offered without a priest?

10. Did the church fathers look upon the Mass as a sacrifice?

Should any one here obtrude concise sentences of the ancients, and contend, on their authority, that the sacrifice which is performed in the Supper is to be understood differently from what we have explained it, let this be our brief reply,—that if the question relates to the approval of the fiction of sacrifice, as imagined by Papists in the mass, there is nothing in the Fathers to countenance the sacrilege. They indeed use the term sacrifice, but they, at the same time, explain that they mean nothing more than the commemoration of that one true sacrifice which Christ, our only sacrifice, (as they themselves everywhere proclaim,) performed on the cross. “The Hebrews,” says Augustine, (Cont. Faust. Lib. 20 c, 18,) “in the victims of beasts which they offered to God, celebrated the prediction of the future victim which Christ offered: Christians now celebrate the commemoration of a finished sacrifice by the sacred oblation and participation of the body of Christ.” Here he certainly teaches the same doctrine which is delivered at greater length in the book Concerning Faith to Peter the Deacon, whoever may have been the author. The words are, “Hold most firmly and have no doubt at all, that the Only Begotten became incarnate for us, that he offered himself for us, an offering and sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour; to whom, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, in the time of the Old Testament, animals were sacrificed, and to whom now, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, (with whom there is one Godhead,) the holy Church, throughout the whole world, ceases not to offer the sacrifice of bread and wine. For, in those carnal victims, there was a typifying of the flesh of Christ, which he himself was to offer for our sins, and of the blood which he was to shed for the forgiveness of sins. But in that sacrifice there is thanksgiving and commemoration of the flesh of Christ which he offered for us, and of the blood which he shed for us.” Hence Augustine himself, in several passages, (Ep. 120, ad Honorat. Cont. Advers. Legis.,) explains, that it is nothing else than a sacrifice of praise. In short, you will find in his writings, passim, that the only reason for which the Lord’s Supper is called a sacrifice is, because it is a commemoration, an image, a testimonial of that singular, true, and only sacrifice by which Christ expiated our guilt. For there is a memorable passage, (De Trinitate, Lib. 4 c. 24, {On the Trinity}) where, after discoursing of the only sacrifice, he thus concludes: “Since, in a sacrifice, four things are considered, viz., to whom it is offered, by whom, what and for whom, the same one true Mediator, reconciling us to God by the sacrifice of peace, remains one with him to whom he offered, made himself one with those for whom he offered, is himself the one who offered, and the one thing which he offered.” Chrysostom speaks to the same effect. They so strongly claim the honour of the priesthood for Christ alone, that Augustine declares it would be equivalent to Antichrist for any one to make a bishop to be an intercessor between God and man, (August. Cont. Parmen. Lib. 2 c. 8.)

11. Church fathers deviate from the divine institution

And yet we deny not that in the Supper the sacrifice of Christ is so vividly exhibited as almost to set the spectacle of the cross before our eyes, just as the apostle says to the Galatians, that Jesus Christ had been evidently set forth before their eyes, when the preaching of the crossway delivered to them, (Gal. 3: 1.) But because I see that those ancient writers have wrested this commemoration to a different purpose than was accordant to the divine institution, (the Supper somehow seemed to them to present the appearance of a repeated or at least renewed, immolation,) nothing can be safer for the pious than to rest satisfied with the pure and simple ordinance of God, whose Supper it is said to be just because his authority alone ought to appear in it. Seeing that they retained a pious and orthodoxy view of the whole ordinance, and I cannot discover that they wished to derogate in the least from the one sacrifice of the Lord, I cannot charge them with any impiety, and yet I think they cannot be excused from having erred somewhat in the mode of action. They imitated the Jewish mode of sacrificing more closely than either Christ had ordained, or the nature of the gospel allowed. The only thing, therefore for which they may be justly censured is, that preposterous analogy, that, not contented with the simple and genuine institution of Christ, they declined too much to the shadows of the law.

(The idea of sacrifice in the Eucharist, and Scriptural use of the word “sacrifice”; the Mass a sacrilege, 12-18)

12. The oblation of the Old Covenant and the Lord’s Supper

Any who will diligently consider, will perceive that the word of the Lord makes this distinction between the Mosaic sacrifices and our eucharist—that while the former represented to the Jewish people the same efficacy of the death of Christ which is now exhibited to us, in the Supper (Lev. 1:5), yet the form of representation was different. There the Levitical priests were ordered to typify the sacrifice which Christ was to accomplish; a victim was placed to act as a substitute for Christ himself; an altar was erected on which it was to be sacrificed; the whole, in short, was so conducted as to bring under the eye an image of the sacrifice which was to be offered to God in expiation. But now that the sacrifice has been performed, the Lord has prescribed a different method to us, viz., to transmit the benefit of the sacrifice offered to him by his Son to his believing people, The Lord, therefore, has given us a table at which we may feast, not an altar on which a victim may be offered; he has not consecrated priests to sacrifice, but ministers to distribute a sacred feast. The more sublime and holy this mystery is the more religiously and reverently ought it to be treated. Nothing, therefore, is, safer than to banish all the boldness of human sense, and adhere solely to what Scripture delivers. And certainly, if we reflect that it is the Supper of the Lord and not of men, why do we allow ourselves to be turned aside one nail’s-breadth from Scripture by any authority of man, or length of prescription? Accordingly, the apostle, in desiring completely to remove the vices which had crept into the Church of Corinth, as the most expeditious method recalls them to the institution itself, showing that thence a perpetual rule ought to be derived (I Cor. 11:20f).

13. The nature of sacrifice

Lest any quarrelsome person should raise a dispute with us as to the terms, “sacrifice” and “priest”, I will briefly explain what in the whole of this discussion we mean by “sacrifice”, and what by “priest”.

Some, on what rational ground I see not, extend the term sacrifice to all sacred ceremonies and religious acts.

We know that by the uniform use of Scripture, the name of sacrifice is given to what the Greeks call at one time “thusia”, at another “prosfora”, at another “telete”. This, in its general acceptation, includes everything whatever that is offered to God. Wherefore, we ought to distinguish, but so that the distinction may derive its analogy from the sacrifices of the Mosaic Law, under whose shadows the Lord was pleased to represent to his people the whole reality of sacrifices. Though these were various in form, they may all be referred to two classes. For either an oblation for sin was made by a certain species of satisfaction, by which the penalty was redeemed before God, or it was a symbol and attestation of religion and divine worship, at one time in the way of supplication to demand the favour of God; at another, by way of thanksgiving, to testify gratitude to God for benefits received; at another as a simple exercise of piety to renew the sanction of the covenant, to which latter branch, burnt-offerings, and libations, oblations, first fruits, and peace-offerings, referred.

Hence, let us also distribute them into two classes. The other class, with the view of explaining, let us call “latreutikon”, and “sebastikon”, as consisting of the veneration and worship which believers both owe and render to God; or, if you prefer it, let us call it “eucharistikon”, since it is exhibited to God by none but those who, enriched with his boundless benefits, offer themselves and all their actions to him in return.

The other class let us call propitiatory or expiatory. A sacrifice of expiation is one whose object is to appease the wrath of God, to satisfy his justice, and thereby wipe and wash away the sins, by which the sinner being cleansed and restored to purity, may return to favour with God. Hence the name which was given in the Law to the victims which were offered in expiation of sin, (Exod. 29: 36;) not that they were adequate to regain the favour of God, and wipe away guilt, but because they typified the true sacrifice of this nature, which was at length performed in reality by Christ alone; by him alone, because no other could, and once, because the efficacy and power of the one sacrifice performed by Christ is eternal, as he declared by his voice, when he said, “It is finished;” that is, that everything necessary to regain the favour of the Father, to procure forgiveness of sins, righteousness and salvation, that all this was performed and consummated by his one oblation, and that hence nothing was wanting. No place was left for another sacrifice.

14. The sale of masses

Wherefore, I conclude, that it is an abominable insult and intolerable blasphemy, as well against Christ as the sacrifice, which, by his death, he performed for us on the cross, for any one to think of repeating the oblation, of purchasing the forgiveness of sins, of propitiating God, and obtaining justification. But what else is done in the Mass than to make us partakers of the sufferings of Christ by means of a new oblation? And that there might be no limit to their extravagance, they have deemed it little to say, that it properly becomes a common sacrifice for the whole Church, without adding, that it is at their pleasure to apply it specially to this one or that, as they choose; or rather, to any one who is willing to purchase their merchandise from them for a price paid. Moreover, as they could not come up to the estimate of Judas, still, that they might in some way refer to their author, they make the resemblance to consist in the member. He sold for thirty pieces of silver: they, according to the French method of computation, sell for thirty pieces of brass. He did it once: they as often as a purchaser is met with.

We deny that they are priests in this sense, namely, that by such oblations they intercede with God for the people, that by propitiating God they make expiation for sins. Christ is the only Pontiff and Priest of the New Testament (cf. Heb. ch.9): to him all priestly offices were transferred, and in him they closed and terminated. Even had Scripture made no mention of the eternal priesthood of Christ, yet, as God, after abolishing those ancient sacrifices, appointed no new priest, the argument of the apostle remains invincible, “No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron,” (Heb. 5: 4.) How, then, can those sacrilegious men, who by their own account are murderers of Christ, dare to call themselves the priests of the living God?

15. Plato’s remarks on similar pretense and delusion

There is a most elegant passage in the second book of Plato’s Republic. Speaking of ancient expiations, and deriding the foolish confidence of wicked and iniquitous men, who thought that by them, as a kind of veils, they concealed their crimes from the gods; and, as if they had made a paction with the gods, indulged themselves more securely, he seems accurately to describe the use of the expiation of the mass, as it exists in the world in the present day. All know that it is unlawful to defraud and circumvent another. To do injustice to widows, to pillage pupils, to molest the poor, to seize the goods of others by wicked arts, to get possession of any mans succession by fraud and perjury, to oppress by violence and tyrannical terror, all admit to be impious. How then do so many, as if assured of impunity, dare to do all those things? Undoubtedly, if we duly consider, we will find that the only thing which gives them so much courage is, that by the sacrifice of the mass as a price paid, they trust that they will satisfy God, or at least will easily find a means of transacting with him.

Plato next proceeds to deride the gross stupidity of those who think by such expiations to redeem the punishments which they must otherwise suffer after death. And what is meant by anniversaries and the greater part of masses in the present day, but just that those who through life have been the most cruel tyrants, or most rapacious plunderers or adepts in all kinds of wickedness, may, as if redeemed at this price, escape the fire of purgatory?

16. The “thank offering” of the Christian church

Under the other kind of sacrifice, which we have called eucharistic, are included all the offices of charity, by which, while we embrace our brethren, we honour the Lord himself in his members; in fine, all our prayers, praises, thanksgivings, and every act of worship which we perform to God. All these depend on the greater sacrifice with which we dedicate ourselves, soul and body, to be a holy temple to the Lord (I Cor. 3:16). For it is not enough that our external acts be framed to obedience, but we must dedicate and consecrate first ourselves, and, secondly, all that we have, so that all which is in us may be subservient to his glory, and be stirred up to magnify it.

This kind of sacrifice has nothing to do with appeasing God, with obtaining remission of sins, with procuring justification, but is wholly employed in magnifying and extolling God, since it cannot be grateful and acceptable to God unless at the hand of those who, having received forgiveness of sins, have already been reconciled and freed from guilt.

This is so necessary to the Church, that it cannot be dispensed with. Therefore, it will endure for ever, so long as the people of God shall endure, as we have already seen above from the prophet. For in this sense we may understand the prophecy, “From the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts,” (Malachi 1: 11;) so far are we from doing away with this sacrifice. Thus Paul beseeches us, by the mercies of God, to present our bodies “a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God,” our “reasonable service,” (Rom. 12: 1; cf. I Peter 2:5-6). Here he speaks very significantly when he adds, that this service is reasonable, for he refers to the spiritual mode of worshipping God, and tacitly opposes it to the carnal sacrifices of the Mosaic Law. Thus to do good and communicate are called sacrifices with which God is well-pleased, (Heb. 13: 16.) Thus the kindness of the Philippians in relieving Paul’s want is called “an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God,” (Phil. 4: 18;) and thus all the good works of believers are called spiritual sacrifices.

17. Scriptural phrases illustrate the sacrifices of praise

And why do I enumerate? This form of expression is constantly occurring in Scripture. Nay, even while the people of God were kept under the external tutelage of the law, the prophets clearly expressed that under these carnal sacrifices there was a reality which is common both to the Jewish people and the Christian Church. For this reason David prayed, “Let my prayer ascend forth before thee as incense,” (Psalm 141: 2.) And Hosea gives the name of “calves of the lips” (Hos. 14: 3) to thanksgivings, which David elsewhere calls “sacrifices of praise;” the apostle imitating him, speaks of offering “the sacrifice of praise,” which he explains to mean, “the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his name,” (Heb. 13: 15.) This kind of sacrifice is indispensable in the Lord’s Supper, in which, while we show forth his death, and give him thanks, we offer nothing but the sacrifice of praise. From this office of sacrificing, all Christians are called “a royal priesthood,” because by Christ we offer that sacrifice of praise of which the apostle speaks, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his name, (1 Peter 2: 9; Heb. 13: 15.) We do not appear with our gifts in the presence of God without an intercessor. Christ, our Mediator, by whose intervention we offer ourselves and our all to the Father; he is our High Priest, who, having entered into the upper sanctuary, opens up an access for us; he the altar on which we lay our gifts, that whatever we do attempts we may attempt in him; he it is, I say, who “has made us kings and priests unto God and his Father,” (Rev. 1: 6.)

18. The Mass itself, apart from its profanation, is sacrilege

What remains but for the blind to see, the deaf to hear, children even to perceive this abomination of the mass, which, held forth in a golden cup, has so intoxicated all the kings and nations of the earth, from the highest to the lowest; so struck them with stupor and giddiness, that, duller than the lower animals, they have placed the vessel of their salvation in this fatal vortex. Certainly Satan never employed a more powerful engine to assail and storm the kingdom of Christ. This is the Helen for whom the enemies of the truth in the present day fight with so much rage, fury, and atrocity; and truly the Helen with whom they commit spiritual whoredom, the most execrable of all. I am not here laying my little finger on those gross abuses by which they might pretend that the purity of their sacred mass is profaned; on the base traffic which they ply; the sordid gain which they make; the rapacity with which they satiate their avarice. I only indicate, and that in few and simple terms, how very sacred the sanctity of the mass is, how well it has for several ages deserved to be admired and held in veneration! It were a greater work to illustrate these great mysteries as they deserve, and I am unwilling to meddle with their obscene impurities, which are daily before the eyes and faces of all, that it may be understood that the mass, taken in the most choice form in which it can be exhibited, without any appendages, teems from head to foot with all kinds of impiety, blasphemy, idolatry, and sacrilege.

(Conclusion of chapters 17 and 18: two Christian sacraments only, 19-20)

19. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are the only sacraments

My readers have here a compendious view of all that I have thought it of importance to know concerning these two sacraments which have been delivered to the Christian Church, to be used from the beginning of the new dispensation to the end of the world, Baptism being a kind of entrance into the Church, an initiation into the faith, and the Lord’s Supper the constant ailment by which Christ spiritually feeds his family of believers. Wherefore, as there is but one God, one faith, one Christ, one Church, which is his body, so Baptism is one, and is not repeated. But the Supper is ever and anon dispensed, to intimate, that those who are once allured into the Church are constantly fed by Christ.

Besides these two, no other has been instituted by God, and no other ought to be recognised by the assembly of the faithful. That sacraments are not to be instituted and set up by the will of men, is easily understood by him who remembers what has been above with sufficient plainness expounded, viz., that the sacraments have been appointed by God to instruct us in his promise, and testify his good-will towards us; and who, moreover, considers, that the Lord has no counsellor, (Isa. 40: 13; Rom. 11: 34;) who can give us any certainty as to his will, or assure us how he is disposed towards us, what he is disposed to give, and what to deny? From this it follows, that no one can set forth a sign which is to be a testimonial of his will, and of some promise. He alone can give the sign, and bear witness to himself. I will express it more briefly perhaps in homelier, but also in clearer terms,—There never can be a sacrament without a promise of salvation. All men collected into one cannot, of themselves give us any promise of salvation. And, therefore, they cannot, of themselves, give out and set up a sacrament.

20. The addition of sacraments not permitted

With these two, therefore, let the Christian Church be contented, and not only not admit or acknowledge any third at present, but not even desire or expect it even until the end of the world.

For though to the Jews were given, besides his ordinary sacraments, others differing somewhat according to the nature of the times, (as the manna (Ex. 16:13; I Cor. 10:3), the water gushing from the rock (Ex. 17:6; I Cor. 10:4), the brazen serpent (Num. 21:8; John 3:14), and the like,) by this variety they were reminded not to stop short at such figures, the state of which could not be durable, but to expect from God something better, to endure without decay and without end.

Our case is very different. To us Christ has been revealed. In him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, (Col. 2: 3,) in such richness and abundance, that to ask or hope for any new addition to these treasures is truly to offend God and provoke him against us. It behaves us to hunger after Christ only, to seek him, look to him, learn of him, and learn again, until the arrival of the great day on which the Lord will fully manifest the glory of his kingdom (cf. I Cor. 15:24), and exhibit himself as he is to our admiring eyes (1 John 3: 2.) And, for this reason, this age of ours is designated in Scriptures by the “last hour” (I John 2:18), the “last days” (Heb. 1:2), the “last times” (I Peter 1:20), that no one may deceive himself with the vain expectation of some new doctrine or revelations. Our heavenly Father, who “at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken unto us” by his beloved Son (Heb. 1:1-2), who alone can manifest, and, in fact, has fully manifested, the Father (Luke 10:22), in so far as is of importance to us, while we now see him through a mirror (I Cor. 13:12).

Now since men have been denied the power of making new sacraments in the Church of God, it were to be wished that in those which are of God, there should be the least possible admixture of human invention. For just as when water is infused the wine is diluted and when leaven is put in, the whole mass is leavened, so the purity of the ordinances of God is impaired, whenever man makes any addition of his own.

And yet we see how far the sacraments as at present used have degenerated from their genuine purity. There is everywhere more than enough of pomp, ceremony and gesticulation, while no account is taken or mention made, of the word of God, without which, even the sacraments themselves are not sacraments. Nay, in such a crowd, the very ceremonies ordained by God cannot raise their head, but lie as it were oppressed. In Baptism, as we have elsewhere justly complained, how little is seen of that which alone ought to shine and be conspicuous there, I mean Baptism itself? The Supper was altogether buried when it was turned into the Mass. The utmost is that it is seen once a year, but in a garbled, mutilated, and lacerated form.

CHAPTER 19. OF THE FIVE SACRAMENTS, FALSELY SO CALLED. THEIR SPURIOUSNESS PROVED, AND THEIR TRUE CHARACTER EXPLAINED.

There are two divisions of this chapter,—

I. A general discussion of these five sacraments, sec. 1-3.

II. A special consideration of each.

1. Of Confirmation, sec. 4-13.

2. Of Penance, sec. 14-17.

3. Of Extreme Unction, sec. 18-21.

4. Of Order, in which the seven so-called sacraments have originated, sec. 22-33.

5. Of Marriage, sec. 34-37.

Sections.

1. Connection of the present discussion with that concerning Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Impiety of the Popish teachers in attributing, more to human rites than to the ordinances of God.

2. Men cannot institute sacraments. Necessary to keep up a distinction between sacraments and other ceremonies.

3. Seven sacraments not to be found in ecclesiastical writers. Augustine, who may represent all the others, acknowledged two Sacraments only.

4. Nature of confirmation in ancient times. The laying on of hands.

5. This kind of confirmation afterwards introduced. It is falsely called a sacrament.

6. Popish argument for confirmation answered.

7. Argument confirmed by the example of Christ. Absurdity and impiety of Papists in calling their oil the oil of salvation.

8. Papistical argument, that Baptism cannot be complete without conformation. Answered.

9. Argument, that without confirmation we cannot be fully Christians. Answer.

10. Argument, that the Unction in confirmation is more excellent than Baptism. Answer.

11. Answer continued. Argument, that confirmation has greater virtue.

12. Argument from the practice of antiquity. Augustine’s view of conformation.

13. The ancient confirmation very praiseworthy. Should be restored in churches in the present day.

14. Of Penitence. Confused and absurd language of the Popish doctors. Impositions of hands in ancient times. This made by the Papists a kind of foundation of the sacrament of Penance.

15. Disagreement among Papists themselves, as to the grounds on which penance is regarded as a sacrament.

16. More plausibility in calling the absolution of the priest, than in calling penance a sacrament.

17. Penance not truly a sacrament. Baptism the sacrament of penitence.

18. Extreme Unction described. No foundation for it in the words of James.

19. No better ground for making this unction a sacrament, than any of the other symbols mentioned in Scripture.

20. Insult offered by this unction to the Holy Spirit. It cannot be a sacrament, as it was not instituted by Christ, and has no promise annexed to it.

21. No correspondence between the unction enjoined by James and the anointing of the Papists.

22. Of ecclesiastical orders. Two points for discussion. Absurdities here introduced. Whether ecclesiastical order is a sacrament. Papists not agreed as to holy orders.

23. Insult to Christ in attempting to make him their colleague.

24. The greater part of these orders empty names implying no certain office. Popish exorcists.

25. Absurdity of the tonsure.

26. The Judaizing nature of the tonsure. Why Paul shaved his head in consequence of a vow.

27. Origin of this clerical tonsure as given by Augustine. Absurd ceremonies in consecrating Doorkeepers, Readers, Exorcists, and Acolytes.

28. Of the higher class of orders called Holy Orders. Insult offered to Christ when ministers are regarded as priests. Holy orders have nothing of the nature of a sacrament.

29. Absurd imitation of our Saviour in breathing on his apostles.

30. Absurdity of the anointing employed.

31. Imposition of hands. Absurdity of, in Papistical ordination.

32. Ordination of deacons. Absurd forms of Papists.

33. Of sub-deacons.

34. Marriage not a sacrament.

35. Nothing in Scripture to countenance the idea that marriage is a sacrament.

36. Origin of the notion that marriage is a sacrament.

37. Practical abuses from this erroneous idea of marriage. Conclusion.

(Five alleged sacraments, not authorized by God’s Word or used in the early church, 1-3)

1. It is not merely a matter of the term “sacrament”

The above discourse concerning the sacraments might have the effect, among the docile and sober-minded of preventing them from indulging their curiosity or from embracing without authority from the word, any other sacraments than those two which they know to have been instituted by the Lord. But since the idea of seven sacraments almost common in the mouths of all, and circulated in all schools and sermons, by mere antiquity, has struck its roots, and is even now seated in the minds of men, I thought it might be worth while to give a separate and closer consideration of the other five, which are vulgarly classed with the true and genuine sacraments of the Lord, and, after wiping away every gloss, to hold them up to the view of the simple, that they may see what their true nature is, and how falsely they have hitherto been regarded as sacraments.

Here, at the outset, I would declare to all the pious, that I engage not in this dispute about a word from a love of wrangling, but am induced, by weighty causes, to impugn the abuse of it. I am not unaware that Christians are the masters of words, as they are of all things, and that, therefore, they may at pleasure adapt words to things, provided a pious meaning is retained, though there should be some impropriety in the mode of expression. All this I concede, though it were better to make words subordinate to things than things to words. But in the name of sacrament, the case is different. For those who set down seven sacraments, at the same time give this definition to all, viz., that they are visible forms of invisible grace; and at the same time, make them all vehicles of the holy Spirit, instruments for conferring righteousness, causes of procuring grace.

Accordingly, the Master of Sentences himself denies that the sacraments of the Mosaic Law are properly called by this name, because they exhibited not what they figured. Is it tolerable, I ask, that the symbols which the Lord has consecrated with his own lips, which he has distinguished by excellent promises, should be regarded as no sacraments and that, meanwhile, this honour should be transferred to those rites which men have either devised of themselves, or at least observe without any express command from God? Therefore, let them either change the definition, or refrain from this use of the word, which may afterwards give rise to false and absurd opinions. Extreme unction, they say, is a figure and cause of invisible grace, because it is a sacrament. If we cannot possibly admit the inference, we must certainly meet them on the subject of the name, that we may not receive it on terms which may furnish occasion for such an error. On the other hand, when they prove it to be a sacrament, they add the reason, because it consists of the external sign and the word. If we find neither command nor promise, what else can we do than protest against it?

2. God alone can establish a sacrament

It now appears that we are not quarrelling about a word, but raising a not unnecessary discussion as to the reality. Accordingly, we most strenuously maintain what we formerly confirmed by invincible argument, that the power of instituting a sacrament belongs to God alone, since a sacrament ought by the sure promise of God, to raise up and comfort the consciences of believers, which could never receive this assurance from men. A sacrament ought to be a testimony of the good-will of God toward us. Of this no man or angel can be witness, since God has no counsellor, (Isa. 40: 13; Rom. 11: 34.) He himself alone, with legitimate authority, testifies of himself to us by his word. A sacrament is a seal of the attestation or promise of God. None, it could not be sealed by corporeal things or the elements of this world, unless they were confirmed and set apart for this purpose by the will of God. Man, therefore, cannot institute a sacrament, because it is not in the power of man to make such divine mysteries lurk under things so abject. The word of God must precede to make a sacrament to be a sacrament, as Augustine most admirably shows, (Hom. in Joann. 80.)

Moreover, it is useful to keep up some distinction between sacraments and other ceremonies, if we would not fall into many absurdities. The apostles prayed on their bended knees; therefore our knees may not be bent without a sacrament, (Acts 9: 20; 20: 36.) The disciples are said to have prayed toward the east; thus looking at the east is a sacrament. Paul would have men in every place to lift up pure hands, (1 Tim. 2: 8;) and it is repeatedly stated that the saints prayed with uplifted hands, let the out stretching, therefore, of hands also become a sacrament; in short, let all the gestures of saints pass into sacraments, though I should not greatly object to this, provided it was not connected with those greater inconveniences.

3. That the sacraments are seven in number was unknown in the ancient church

If they would press us with the authority of the ancient Church, I say that they are using a gloss. This number seven is nowhere found in ecclesiastical writers, nor is it well ascertained at what time it crept in. I confess, indeed, that they sometimes use freedom with the term sacraments but what do they mean by it? All ceremonies, external rites, and exercises of piety. But when they speak of those signs which ought to be testimonies of the divine favour toward us, they are contented with those two, Baptism and the Eucharist.

Lest any one suppose that this is falsely alleged by me, I will here give a few passages from Augustine. “First, I wish you to hold that the principal point in this discussion is that our Lord Jesus Christ (as he himself says in the gospel) has placed us under a yoke which is easy, and a burden which is light. Hence he has knit together the society of his new people by sacraments, very few in number, most easy of observance, and most excellent in meaning; such is baptisms consecrated by the name of the Trinity; such is the communion of the body and blood of the Lord, and any other, if recommended in the canonical Scriptures,” (August. ad Januar. Ep. 118.) Again, “After the resurrection of our Lord, our Lord himself, and apostolic discipline, appointed, instead of many, a few signs, and these most easy of performance, most august in meaning, most chaste in practice; such is baptism and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord,” (August. De Doct. Christ. Lib. 3 cap. 9.) Why does he here make no mention of the sacred number, I mean seven? Is it probable that he would have omitted it if it had then been established in the Church, especially seeing he is otherwise more curious in observing numbers than might be necessary? Nay, when he makes mention of Baptism and the Supper, and is silent as to others, does he not sufficiently intimate that these two ordinances excel in special dignity, and that other ceremonies sink down to an inferior place? Wherefore, I say, that those sacramentary doctors are not only unsupported by the word of God, but also by the consent of the early Church, however much they may plume themselves on the pretence that they have this consent. But let us now come to particulars.

Of Confirmation.

(Confirmation not a sacrament: early practice of reception after instruction should be restored, 4-13)

4. Custom of the ancient church

It was anciently customary for the children of Christians, after they have grown up, to appear before the bishop to fulfil that duty which was required of such adults as presented themselves for baptism. These sat among the catechumens until they were duly instructed in the mysteries of the faith, and could make a confession of it before bishop and people. The infants, therefore, who had been initiated by baptism, not having then given a confession of faith to the Church, were again, toward the end of their boyhood, or on adolescence, brought forward by their parents, and were examined by the bishop in terms of the Catechism which was then in common use. In order that this act, which otherwise justly required to be grave and holy, might have more reverence and dignity, the ceremony of laying on of hands was also used. Thus the boy, on his faith being approved, was dismissed with a solemn blessing.

Ancient writers often made mention of this custom. Pope Leo says, (Ep 39,) “If any one returns from heretics, let him not be baptised again, but let that which was there wanting to him, viz., the virtue of the Spirit, be conferred by the laying on of the hands of the bishop.” Our opponents will here exclaim, that the name of sacrament is justly given to that by which the Holy Spirit is conferred. But Leo elsewhere explains what he means by these words, (Ep 77 j) “Let not him who was baptised by heretics be rebaptised, but be confirmed by the laying on of hands with the invocation of the Holy Spirit, because he received only the form of baptism without sanctification.” Jerome also mentions it, (Contra Luciferan) Now, though I deny not that Jerome is somewhat under delusion when he says that the observance is apostolical, he is, however, very far from the follies of these men. And he softens the expression when he adds, that this benediction is given to bishops only, more in honour of the priesthood than from any necessity of law. This laying on of hands, which is done simply by way of benediction, I commend, and would like to see restored to its pure use in the present day.

5. Full development and meaning of confirmation according to Romanist teaching

A later age having almost obliterated the reality, introduced a kind of fictitious confirmation as a divine sacrament. They feigned that the virtue of confirmation consisted in conferring the Holy Spirit, for increase of grace, on him who had been prepared in baptism for righteousness, and in confirming for contest those who in baptism were regenerated to life. This confirmation is performed by unction, and the following form of words:—"I sign thee with the sign of the holy cross, and confirm thee with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” All fair and venerable. But where is the word of God which promises the presence of the Holy Spirit here? Not one iota can they allege. How will they assure us thus their chrism is a vehicle of the Holy Spirit? We see oil, that is, a thick and greasy liquid, but nothing more. “Let the word be added to the element,” says Augustine, “and it will become a sacrament.” Let them, I say, produce this word if they would have us to see any thing more in the oil than oil. But if they would show themselves to be ministers of the sacraments as they ought, there would be no room for further dispute. The first duty of a minister is not to do anything without a command. Come, then, and let them produce some command for this ministry, and I will not add a word. If they have no command, they cannot excuse their sacrilegious audacity. For this reason cur Saviour interrogated the Pharisees as to the baptism of John, “Was it from heavens or of men?” (Matth. 21: 25.) If they had answered, Of men, he held them confessed that it was frivolous and vain; if of heaven, they were forced to acknowledge the doctrine of John. Accordingly, not to be too contumelious to John, they did not venture to say that it was of men. Therefore, if confirmation is of men, it is proved to be frivolous and vain; if they would persuade us that it is of heaven, let them prove it.

6. Appeal to apostolic laying on of hands is unfounded

They indeed defend themselves by the example of the apostles, who, they presume, did nothing rashly. In this they are right, nor would they be blamed by us if they showed themselves to be imitators of the apostles. But what did the apostles do? Luke narrates, (Acts 8: 15, 17,) that the apostles who were at Jerusalem, when they heard that Samaria had received the word of God, sent thither Peter and John, that Peter and John prayed for the Samaritans, that they might receive the Holy Spirit, who had not yet come upon any of them, they having only been baptised in the name of Jesus; that after prayer they laid their hands upon them, and that by this laying on of hands the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit. Luke repeatedly mentions this laying on of hands.

I hear what the apostles did, that is, they faithfully executed their ministry. It pleased the Lord that those visible and admirable gifts of the Holy Spirit, which he then poured out upon his people, should be administered and distributed by his apostles by the laying on of hands. I think that there was no deeper mystery under this laying on of hands, but I interpret that this kind of ceremony was used by them to intimate, by the outward acts that they commended to God, and, as it were, offered him on whom they laid hands.

Did this ministry which the apostles then performed, still remain in the Church, it would also behave us to observe the laying on of hands; but since that gift has ceased to be conferred, to what end is the laying on of hands? Assuredly the Holy Spirit is still present with the people of God; without his guidance and direction the Church of God cannot subsist. For we have a promise of perpetual duration, by which Christ invites the thirsty to come to him, that they may drink living water, (John 7: 37.) But those miraculous powers and manifest operations, which were distributed by the laying on of hands, have ceased. They were only for a time. For it was right that the new preaching of the gospel, the new kingdom of Christ, should be signalised and magnified by unwonted and unheard-of miracles. When the Lord ceased from these, he did not forthwith abandon his Church but intimated that the magnificence of his kingdom, and the dignity of his word, had been sufficiently manifested. In what respect then can these stage-players say that they imitate the apostles? The object of the laying on of hands was, that the evident power of the Holy Spirit might be immediately exerted. This they effect not. Why then do they claim to themselves the laying on of hands, which is indeed said to have been used by the apostles, but altogether to a different end?

7. Anointing with oil is a counterfeit sacrament

The same account is to be given were any one to insist that the breathing of our Lord upon his disciples (John 20: 22) is a sacrament by which the Holy Spirit is conferred. But the Lord did this once for all, and did not also wish us to do it. In the same way, also, the apostles laid their hands, agreeably to that time at which it pleased the Lord that the visible gifts of the Spirit should be dispensed in answer to their prayers; not that posterity might, as those apes do, mimic the empty and useless sign without the reality.

But if they prove that they imitate the apostles in the laying on of hands, (though in this they have no resemblance to the apostles, except it be in manifesting some absurd false zeal,) where did they get their oil which they call the oil of salvation? Who taught them to seek salvation in oil? Who taught them to attribute to it the power of strengthening? Was it Paul, who draws us far away from the elements of this world, and condemns nothing more than clinging to such observances? This I boldly declare, not of myself but from the Lord: Those who call oil the oil of salvation abjure the salvation which is in Christ, deny Christ, and have no part in the kingdom of God. Oil for the belly, and the belly for oil, but the Lord will destroy both. For all these weak elements, which perish even in the using, have nothing to do with the kingdom of God, which is spiritual, and will never perish. What, then, some one will say, do you apply the same rule to the water by which we are baptised, and the bread and wine under which the Lord’s Supper is exhibited? I answer, that in the sacraments of divine appointment, two things are to be considered: the substance of the corporeal thing which is set before us, and the form which has been impressed upon it by the word of God, and in which its whole force lies. In as far, then, as the bread, wine, and water, which are presented to our view in the sacraments, retain their substance, Paul’s declaration applies, “meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them,” (1 Cor. 6: 13.) For they pass and vanish away with the fashion at this world. But in as far as they are sanctified by the word of God to be sacraments, they do not confine us to the flesh, but teach truly and spiritually.

8. Confirmation as the devaluation of baptism

But let us make a still closer inspection, and see how many monsters this greasy oil fosters and nourishes. Those anointers say that the Holy Spirit is given in baptism for righteousness, and in confirmation, for increase of grace, that in baptism we are regenerated for life, and in confirmation, equipped for contest. And, accordingly, they are not ashamed to deny that baptism can be duly completed without confirmation. How nefarious! Are we not, then, buried with Christ by baptism, and made partakers of his death, that we may also be partners of his resurrection (Rom. 6:4-5)? This fellowship with the life and death of Christ, Paul interprets to mean the mortification of our flesh, and the quickening of the Spirit, our old man being crucified in order that we may walk in newness of life, (Rom. 6: 6.) What is it to be equipped for contest, if this is not?

But if they deemed it as nothing to trample on the word of God, why did they not at least reverence the Church, to which they would be thought to be in everything so obedient? What heavier charge can be brought against their doctrine than the decree of the Council of Melita? “Let him who says that baptism is given for the remission of sins only, and not in aid of future grace, be anathema.”

When Luke, in the passage which we have quoted, says, that the Samaritans were only “baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus,” (Acts 8: 16,) but had not received the Holy Spirit, he does not say absolutely that those who believed in Christ with the heart, and confessed him with the mouth, were not endued with any gift of the Spirit. He means that receiving of the Spirit by which miraculous power and visible graces were received. Thus the apostles are said to have received the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, (Acts 2: 4,) whereas Christ had long before said to them, “It is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you,” (Matth. 10: 20.) Ye who are of God see the malignant and pestiferous wile of Satan. What was truly given in baptism, is falsely said to be given in the confirmation of it, that he may stealthily lead away the unwary from baptism. Who can now doubt that this doctrine, which dissevers the proper promises of baptism from baptism, and transfers them elsewhere, is a doctrine of Satan? We have discovered on what foundation this famous unction rests. The word of God says, that as many as have been baptised into Christ, have put on Christ with his gifts, (Gal. 3: 27.) The word of the anointers says that they received no promise in baptism to equip them for contest, (De Consecr. Dist. 5, cap. Spit. Sanct.) The former is the word of truth, the latter must be the word of falsehood. I can define this baptism more truly than they themselves have hitherto defined it, viz., that it is a noted insult to baptism, the use of which it obscures, nay abolishes: that it is a false suggestion of the devil, which draws us away from the truth of God; or, if you prefer it, that it is oil polluted with a lie of the devil, deceiving the minds of the simple by shrouding them, as it were, in darkness.

9. The doctrine of the necessity of confirmation for salvation is nonsense

They adds moreover, that all believers ought, after baptism, to receive the holy Spirit by the laying on of hands, that they may become complete Christians, inasmuch as there never can be a Christians who has not been chrismed by episcopal confirmation. These are their exact words. I thought that everything pertaining to Christianity was prescribed and contained in Scripture. Now I see that the true form of religion must be sought and learned elsewhere than in Scripture. Divine wisdom, heavenly truth, the whole doctrine of Christ, only begins the Christian; it is the oil that perfects him. By this sentence are condemned all the apostles and the many martyrs who, it is absolutely certain, were never chrismed, the oil not yet being made, besmeared with which, they might fulfil all the parts of Christianity, or rather become Christians, which, as yet, they were not.

Though I were silent, they abundantly refute themselves. How small the proportion of the people whom they anoint after baptism? Why, then, do they allow among their flock so many half Christians, whose imperfection they might easily remedy? Why, with such supine negligence, do they allow them to omit what cannot be omitted without grave offence? Why do they not more rigidly insist on a matter so necessary, that, without it, salvation cannot be obtained unless, perhaps, when the act has been anticipated by sudden death? When they allow it to be thus licentiously despised they tacitly confess that it is not of the importance which they pretend.

10. The papists would put confirmation above baptism

Lastly, they conclude that this sacred unction is to be held in greater veneration than baptism, because the former is specially administered by the higher order of priests, whereas the latter is dispensed in common by all priests whatever, (Distinct. 5, De his vero.) What can you here say, but that they are plainly mad in thus pluming themselves on their own inventions, while, in comparison with these, they carelessly condemn the sacred ordinances of God? Sacrilegious mouth! dare you oppose oil merely polluted with your fetid breath, and charmed by your muttered words, to the sacrament of Christ, and compare it with water sanctified by the word of God? But even this was not enough for your improbity: you must also prefer it. Such are the responses of the holy see, such the oracles of the apostolic tripod.

But some of them have begun to moderate this madness, which, even in their own opinion, was carried too far, (Lombard. Sent. Lib. 4 Dist. 7, c. 2.) It is to be held in greater veneration, they say, not, perhaps, because of the greater virtue and utility which it confers, but because it is given by more dignified persons, and in a more dignified part of the body, the forehead; or because it gives a greater increase of virtue, though baptism is more effectual for forgiveness.

But do they not, by their first reason, prove themselves to be Donatists, who estimate the value of the sacrament by the dignity of the minister? Grant, however, that confirmation may be called more dignified from the dignity of the bishop’s hand, still should any one ask how this great prerogative was conferred on the bishops, what reason can they give but their own caprice? The right was used only by the apostles, who alone dispensed the Holy spirit. Are bishops alone apostles? Are they apostles at all? However, let us grant this also; why do they not, on the same grounds, maintain that the sacrament of blood in the Lord’s Supper is to be touched only by bishops? Their reason for refusing it to take is that it was given by our Lord to the apostles only. If to the apostles only, why not infer then to bishops only? But in that place, they make the apostles simple Presbyters whereas here another vertigo seizes them, and they suddenly elect them bishops. Lastly, Ananias was not an apostle, and yet Paul was sent to him to receive his sight, to be baptised and filled with the Holy Spirit, (Acts 9: 17.) I will add, though cumulatively, if, by divine right, this office was peculiar to bishops, why have they dared to transfer it to plebeian Presbyters, as we read in one of the Epistles of Gregory? (Dist. 95, cap. Pervenis.)

11. Frivolous arguments for esteeming confirmation above baptism

How frivolous, inept, and stolid the other reasons that their confirmation is worthier than the baptism of God, because in confirmation it is the forehead that is besmeared with oil, and in baptism the cranium. As if baptism were performed with oil, and not with water. I take all the pious to witness whether it be not the one aim of these miscreants to adulterate the purity of the sacraments by their leaven. I have said elsewhere, that what is of God in the sacraments, can scarcely be got a glimpse of among the crowd of human inventions. If any did not then give me credit for the fact, let them now give it to their own teachers. Here, passing over water, and making it of no estimation, they set a great value on oil alone in baptism. We maintain, against them that in baptism also the forehead is sprinkled with water, in comparison with which, we do not value your oil one straw, whether in baptism or in confirmation. But if any one alleges that oil is sold for more, I answer, that by this accession of value any good which might otherwise be in it is vitiated, so far is it from being lawful fraudulently to vend this most vile imposture.

They betray their impiety by the third reason, when they pretend that a greater increase of virtue is conferred in confirmation than in baptism. By the laying on of hands the apostles dispensed the visible gifts of the Spirit. In what respect does the oil of these men prove its fecundity? But have done with these guides, who cover one sacrilege with many acts of sacrilege. It is a Gordian knot, which it is better to cut than to lose so much labour in untying.

12. Confirmation cannot be upheld by the practice of the ancient church

When they see that the word of God, and every thing like plausible argument, fail them, they pretend, as usual, that the observance is of the highest antiquity, and is confirmed by the consent of many ages. Even were this true, they gain nothing by it. A sacrament is not of earth, but of heaven; not of men, but of God only. They must prove God to be the author of their confirmation, if they would have it to be regarded as a sacrament.

But why obtrude antiquity, seeing that ancient writers, whenever they would speak precisely, nowhere mention more than two sacraments? Were the bulwark of our faith to be sought from men, we have an impregnable citadel in this, that the fictitious sacraments of these men were never recognised as sacraments by ancient writers. They speak of the laying on of hands, but do they call it a sacrament? Augustine distinctly affirms that it is nothing, but prayer, (De Bapt. cont. Donat. Lib. 3 cap. 16.) Let them not here yelp out one of their vile distinctions, that the laying on of hands to which Augustine referred was not the confirmatory, but the curative or reconciliatory. His book is extant and in men’s hands; if I wrest it to any meaning different from that which Augustine himself wrote it, they are welcome not only to load me with reproaches after their wonted manner, but to spit upon me. He is speaking of those who returned from schism to the amity of the Church. He says that they have no need of a repetition of baptism, for the laying on of hands is sufficient, that the Lord may bestow the Holy Spirit upon them by the bond of peace. But as it might seem absurd to repeat laying on of hands more than baptism, he shows the difference.—"What,” he asks, “is the laying on of hands but prayer over the man?” That this is his meaning is apparent from another passages where he says, “Because of the bond of charity, which is the greatest gift of the Holy Spirit, without which all the other holy qualities which a man may possess are ineffectual for salvation, the hand is laid on reformed heretics,” (Lib. 5 cap. 23.)

13. True confirmation

I wish we could retain the custom, which as I have observed, existed in the early Church, before this abortive mask of a sacrament appeared. It would not be such a confirmation as they pretend, one which cannot even be named without injury to baptism, but catechising by which those in boyhood, or immediately beyond it, would give an account of their faith in the face of the Church. And the best method of catechising would be, if a form were drawn up for this purpose, containing, and briefly explaining, the substance of almost all the heads of our religion, in which the whole body of the faithful ought to concur without controversy. A boy of ten years of age would present himself to the Church, to make a profession of faith, would be questioned on each head, and give answers to each. If he was ignorant of any point, or did not well understand it, he would be taught. Thus while the whole Church looked on and witnessed, he would profess the one true sincere faith with which the body of the faithful, with one accord, worship one God.

Were this discipline in force in the present day, it would undoubtedly whet the sluggishness of certain parents, who carelessly neglect the instruction of their children, as if it did not at all belong to them, but who could not then omit it without public disgrace; there would be greater agreement in faith among the Christian people, and not so much ignorance and rudeness; some persons would not be so readily carried away by new and strange dogmas; in fine, it would furnish all with a methodical arrangement of Christian doctrine.

Of Penance.

(Penance fails to answer the definition of a sacrament, 14-17)

14. The practice of penance in the ancient church

The next place they give to Penitence of which they discourse so confusedly and unmethodically, that consciences cannot derive anything certain or solid from their doctrine. In another place, (Book 3 chap. 3 and 4) we have explained at length, first, what the Scriptures teach concerning repentance, and, secondly, what these men teach concerning it. All we leave now to advert to is the grounds of that opinion of it as a sacrament which has long prevailed in schools and churches.

First, however, I will speak briefly of the rite of the early Church, which those men have used as a pretext for establishing their fiction. By the order observed in public repentance, those who had performed the satisfactions imposed upon them were reconciled by the formal laying on of hands. This was the symbol of absolution by which the sinner himself regained his confidence of pardon before God, and the Church was admonished to lay aside the remembrance of the offence, and kindly receive him into favour. This Cyprian often terms “to give peace”. In order that the act might have more weight and estimation with the people, it was appointed that the authority of the bishop should always be interposed. Hence the decree of the second Council of Carthage, “No presbyter may publicly at mass reconcile a penitent;” and another, of the Council of Arausica, “Let those who are departing this life, at the time of penitence, be admitted to communion without the reconciliatory laying on of hands; if they recover from the disease, let them stand in the order of penitents, and after they have fulfilled their time, receive the reconciliatory laying on of hands from the bishop.” Again, in the third Council of Carthage, “A presbyter may not reconcile a penitent without the authority of the bishop.” The object of all these enactments was to prevent the strictness, which they wished to be observed in that matter, from being lost by excessive laxity. Accordingly, they wished cognisance to be taken by the bishop, who, it was probable, would be more circumspect in examining. Although Cyprian somewhere says that not the bishop only laid hands, but also the whole clergy. For he thus speaks, “They do penitence for a proper time; next they come to communion, and receive the right of communion by the laving on of the hands of the bishop and clergy,” (Lib. 3 Ep. 14.)

Afterwards in process of time, the matter came to this, that they used the ceremony in private absolutions also without public penitence. Hence the distinction in Gratian (Decret. 26, Quest. 6) between public and private reconciliation.

I consider that ancient observance of which Cyprian speaks to have been holy and salutary to the Church, and I could wish it restored in the present day. The more modern form, though I dare not disapprove, or at least strongly condemn, I deem to be less necessary. Be this as it may, we see that the laying on of hands in penitence was a ceremony ordained by men, not by God, and is to be ranked among indifferent things, and external exercises, which indeed are not to be despised, but occupy an inferior place to those which have been recommended to us by the word of the Lord.

15. Penance is no sacrament

The Romanists and Schoolmen, whose wont it is to corrupt all things by erroneous interpretation, anxiously labour to find a sacrament here, and it cannot seem wonderful, for they seek a thing where it is not. At best, they leave the matter involved, undecided, uncertain, confused, and confounded by the variety of opinions. Accordingly, they say, (Sent. Lib. 4 Dist. 22, cap. 3,) either that external penitence is a sacrament, and, if so, ought to he regarded as a sign of internal penitence; i. e., contrition of heart, which will be the matter of the sacrament, or that both together make a sacrament, not two, but one complete; but that the external is the sacrament merely, the internal, the matter, and the sacrament, whereas the forgiveness of sins is the matter only, and not the sacrament.

Let those who remember the definition of a sacrament, which we have given above, test by it that which they say is a sacrament, and it will be found that it is not an external ceremony appointed by God for the confirmation of our faith. But if they allege that my definition is not a law which they are necessarily bound to obey, let them hear Augustine whom they pretend to regard as a saint. “Visible sacraments were instituted for the sake of carnal men, that by the ladder of sacraments they may be conveyed from those things which are seen by the eye, to those which are perceived by the understanding,” (August. Quaest. Vet. Test. Lib. 3.) Do they themselves see, or can they show to others, any thing like this in that which they call the sacrament of penance? In another passage, he says, “It is called a sacrament, because in it one thing is seen, another thing is understood. What is seen has bodily appearance, what is understood has spiritual fruit,” (Serm. de Bapt. Infant.) These things in no way apply to the sacrament of penance, as they feign it; there, there is no bodily form to represent spiritual fruit.

16. Why not make absolution the sacrament?

And (to despatch these beasts in their own arena) if any sacrament is sought here, would it not have been much more plausible to maintain that the absolution of the priest is a sacrament, than penitence either external or internal? For it might obviously have been said that it is a ceremony to confirm our faith in the forgiveness of sins, and that it has the promise of the keys, as they describe them; “Whatsoever ye shall bind or loose on earth, shall be bound or loosed in heaven.” But some one will object that to most of those who are absolved by priests, nothing of the kind is given by the absolution, whereas according to their dogma, the sacraments of the new dispensation ought to effect what they figure. This is ridiculous. As in the eucharist, they make out a twofold eating, a sacramental, which is common to the good and the bad alike, and a spiritual, which is proper only to the good, why should they not also pretend that absolution is given in two ways? And yet I have never been able to understand what they meant by their dogma. How much it is at variance with the truth of God, we showed when we formally discussed that subject. Here I only wish to show that no scruple should prevent them from giving the name of a sacrament to the absolution of the priest. For they might have answered by the mouth of Augustine, that there is a sanctification without a visible sacrament, and a visible sacrament without internal sanctification. Again, that in the elect alone, sacraments effect what they figure. Again, that some put on Christ so far as the receiving of the sacrament, and others so far as sanctification; that the former is done equally by the good and the bad, the latter by the good only. Surely they were more deluded than children, and blind in the full light of the sun, when they toiled with so much difficulty, and perceived not a matter so plain and obvious to every man.

17. Baptism the sacrament of repentance

Lest they become elated, however, whatever be the part in which they place the sacrament, I deny that it can justly be regarded as a sacrament; first, because there exists not to this effect any special promise of God, which is the only ground of a sacrament; and, secondly, because whatever ceremony is here used is a mere intention of man; whereas, as has already been shown, the ceremonies of sacraments can only be appointed by God. Their fiction of the sacrament of penance, therefore, was falsehood and imposture.

This fictitious sacrament they adorned with the befitting eulogium, that it was the second plank in the case of shipwreck, because, if any one had, by sin, injured the garment of innocence received in baptism, he might repair it by penitence. This was a saying of Jerome. Let it be whose it may, as it is plainly impious, it cannot be excused if understood in this sense; as if baptism were effaced by sin, and were not rather to be recalled to the mind of the sinner whenever he thinks of the forgiveness of sins, that he may thereby recollect himself, regain courage, and be confirmed in the belief that he shall obtain the forgiveness of sins which was promised him in baptism. What Jerome said harshly and improperly, viz., that baptism, which is fallen from by those who deserve to be excommunicated from the Church, is repaired by penitence, these worthy expositors wrest to their own impiety.

You will speak most correctly, therefore, if you call baptism the sacrament of penitence, seeing it is given to those who aim at repentance to confirm their faith and seal their confidence. But lest you should think this our invention, it appears that besides being conformable to the words of Scripture, it was generally regarded in the early Church as an indubitable axiom. For in the short Treatise on Faith addressed to Peter, and bearing the name of Augustine, it is called, The sacrament of faith and repentance. But why have recourse to doubtful writings, as if any thing can be required more distinct than the statement of the Evangelist, that John preached “the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins?” (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3.)

Of Extreme Unction, so called.

(Extreme unction rests upon a misuse of James 5:14-15 and is no sacrament, 18-21)

18. Alleged Scripture on extreme unction rejected

The third fictitious sacrament is Extreme Unction, which is performed only by a priest, and, as they express it, in extremis, with oil consecrated by the bishop, and with this form of words, “By this holy unction, and his most tender mercy, may God forgive you whatever sin you have committed, by the eye, the ear, the smell, the touch, the taste,” (see Calv. Epist. de Fugiend. Illicit. Sac.) They pretend that there are two virtues in it—the forgiveness of sins, and relief of bodily disease, if so expedient; if not expedient, the salvation of the soul.

For they say, that the institution was set down by James, whose words are, “Is any sick among you? let him send for the elders of the Church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him” (James 5: 14.) The same account is here to be given of this unction as we lately gave of the laying on of hands; in other words it is mere hypocritical stage-play, by which, without reason or result, they would resemble the apostles.

Mark relates that the apostles, on their first mission, agreeably to the command which they had received of the Lord, raised the dead, cast out devils, cleansed lepers, healed the sick, and, in healing, used oil. He says, they “anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them,” (Mark 6: 13.) To this James referred when he ordered the presbyters of the Church to be called to anoint the sick.

That no deeper mystery lay under this ceremony will easily be perceived by those who consider how great liberty both our Lord and his apostles used in those external things. Our Lord, when about to give sight to the blind man, spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle; some he cured by a touch, others by a word. In like manner the apostles cured some diseases by word only, others by touch, others by anointing.

But it is probable that neither this anointing nor any of the other things were used at random. I admit this; not, however, that they were instruments of the cure, but only symbols to remind the ignorant whence this great virtue proceeded, and prevent them from ascribing the praise to the apostles. To designate the Holy Spirit and his gifts by oil is trite and common, (Ps. 45:7.)

But the gift of healing disappeared with the other miraculous powers which the Lord was pleased to give for a time, that it might render the new preaching of the gospel for ever wonderful. Therefore, even were we to grant that anointing was a sacrament of those powers which were then administered by the hands of the apostles, it pertains not to us, to whom no such powers have been committed.

19. Extreme unction is no sacrament

And what better reason have they for making a sacrament of this unction, than of any of the other symbols which are mentioned in Scripture? Why do they not dedicate some pool of Siloam, into which, at certain seasons, the sick may plunge themselves? That, they say, were done in vain. Certainly not more in vain than unction Why do they not lay themselves on the dead, seeing that Paul, in raising up the dead youth, lay upon him? Why is not clay made of dust and spittle a sacrament? The other cases were special, but this is commanded by James. In other words, James spake agreeably to the time when the Church still enjoyed this blessing from God. They affirm, indeed, that there is still the same virtue in their unction, but we experience differently. Let no man now wonder that they have with so much confidence deluded souls, which they knew to be stupid and blind, because deprived of the word of God, that is, of his light and life, seeing they blush not to attempt to deceive the bodily perceptions of those who are alive, and have all their senses about them. They make themselves ridiculous, therefore, by pretending that they are endued with the gift of healing. The Lord, doubtless, is present with his people in all ages, and cures their sicknesses as often as there is need, not less than formerly; and yet he does not exert those manifest powers, nor dispense miracles by the hands of apostles, because that gift was temporary, and owing, in some measure, to the ingratitude of men, immediately ceased.

20. Unction has no divine authorization or promise

Wherefore, as the apostles, not without cause, openly declared, by the symbol of oil, that the gift of healing committed to them was not their own, but the power of the Holy Spirit; so, on the other hand, these men insult the Holy Spirit by making his power consist in a filthy oil of no efficacy. It is just as if one were to say that all oil is the power of the Holy Spirit, because it is called by that name in Scripture, and that every dove is the Holy Spirit, because he appeared in that form. Let them see to this: it is sufficient for us that we perceive, with absolute certainty, that their unction is no sacrament, as it is neither a ceremony appointed by God, nor has any promise. For when we require, in a sacrament, these two things, that it be a ceremony appointed by God, and have a promise from God, we at the same time demand that that ceremony be delivered to us, and that that promise have reference to us. No man contends that circumcision is now a sacrament of the Christian Church, although it was both an ordinance of God, and had his promise annexed to it, because it was neither commanded to us, nor was the promise annexed to it given us on the same condition. The promise of which they vaunt so much in unction, as we have clearly demonstrated, and they themselves show by experience, has not been given to us. The ceremony behaved to be used only by those who had been endued with the gift of healing, not by those murderers who do more by slaying and butchering than by curing.

21. The papists do not proceed at all according to James’s “words of institution”

Even were it granted that this precept of unction, which has nothing to do with the present age, were perfectly adapted to it, they will not even thus have advanced much in support of their unction, with which they have hitherto besmeared us. James would have all the sick to be anointed: these men besmear, with their oil, not the sick, but half-dead carcasses, when life is quivering on the lips, or, as they say, in extremis. If they have a present cure in their sacrament, with which they can either alleviate the bitterness of disease, or at least give some solace to the soul, they are cruel in never curing in time. James would have the sick man to be anointed by the elders of the Church. They admit no anointer but a priestling. When they interpret the elders of James to be priests, and allege that the plural number is used for honour, the thing is absurd; as if the Church had at that time abounded with swarms of priests, so that they could set out in long procession, bearing a dish of sacred oil. James, in ordering simply that the sick be anointed, seems to me to mean no other anointing than that of common oil, nor is any other mentioned in the narrative of Mark. These men deign not to use any oil but that which has been consecrated by a bishop, that is warmed with much breath, charmed by much muttering, and saluted nine times on bended knee, Thrice Hail, holy oil! thrice Hail, holy chrism! thrice Hail, holy balsam! From whom did they derive these exorcisms? James says, that when the sick man shall have been anointed with oil, and prayer shall have been made over him if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him, viz., that his guilt being forgiven, he shall obtain a mitigation of the punishment, not meaning that sins are effaced by oil, but that the prayers by which believers commended their afflicted brother to God would not be in vain. These men are impiously false in saying that sins are forgiven by their sacred, that is, abominable unction. See how little they gain, even when they are allowed to abuse the passage of James as they list. And to save us the trouble of a laborious proof, their own annals relieve us from all difficulty; for they relate that Pope Innocent, who presided over the church of Rome in the age of Augustine, ordained, that not elders only but all Christians, should use oil in anointing, in their own necessity, or in that of their friends. Our authority for this is Sigebert, in his Chronicles.

Of Ecclesiastical Orders.

(The alleged sacrament of holy orders complicated by the seven ranks of clergy; the ceremonies of institution and functions of these criticized, 22-33)

22. One sacrament—or seven?

The fourth place in their catalogue is held by the sacrament of Orders, one so prolific, as to beget of itself seven lesser sacraments. It is very ridiculous that after affirming that there are seven sacraments, when they begin to count, they make out thirteen. It cannot be alleged that they are one sacrament, because they all tend to one priesthood, and are a kind of steps to the same thing. For while it is certain that the ceremonies in each are different, and they themselves say that the graces are different, no man can doubt that if their dogmas are admitted, they ought to be called seven sacraments. And why debate it as a doubtful matter, when they themselves plainly and distinctly declare that they are seven?

First, then we shall glance at them in passing, and show to how many absurdities they introduce us when they would recommend their orders to us as sacraments; and, secondly, we shall see whether the ceremony which churches use in ordaining ministers ought at all to be called a sacrament.

They make seven ecclesiastical orders, or degrees, which they distinguish by the title of a sacrament. These are, Doorkeepers, Readers, Exorcists, Acolytes, Subdeacons, Deacons, and Priests. And they say that they are seven, because of the seven kinds of graces of the Holy Spirit with which those who are promoted to them ought to be endued. This grace is increased and more liberally accumulated on promotion.

The mere number has been consecrated by a perversion of Scripture, because they think they read in Isaiah that there are seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, whereas truly not more than six are mentioned by Isaiah who, however, meant not to include all in that passage. For, in other passages are mentioned the spirit of life, of sanctification, of the adoption of sons, as well as there, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge, and of the fear of the Lord.

Although others who are more acute make not seven orders, but nine, in imitation, as they say, of the Church triumphant. But among theses also, there is a contest; because some insist that the clerical tonsure is the first order of all, and the episcopates the last; while others, excluding the tonsure, class the office of archbishop among the orders. Isiodorus distinguishes differently, for he makes Psalmists and Readers different. To the former, he gives the charge of chanting, to the latter, that of reading the Scriptures for the instruction of the common people. And this distinction is observed by the canons.

In this great variety, what would they have us to follow or to avoid? Shall we, say that there are seven orders? So the master of the school teaches, but the most illuminated doctors determine otherwise. On the other hand, they are at variance among themselves. Besides, the most sacred canons call us in a different direction. Such, indeed, is the concord of men when they discuss divine things apart from the word of God.

23. Christ must have occupied all seven offices

But the crowning folly of all is, that in each of these they make Christ their colleague. First, they say, he performed the office of Doorkeeper when, with a whip of small cords he drove the buyers and sellers from the temple. He intimates that he is a Doorkeeper when he says, “I am the door.” He assumed the office of Reader, when he read Isaiah in the synagogue. He performed the office of Exorcist when, touching the tongue and ears of the deaf and dumb man with spittle, he restored his hearing. He declared that he was an Acolyte by the words, “He that followeth me shall not walk in darkness.” He performed the office of Subdeacon, when, girding himself with a towel, he washed the feet of his disciples. He acted the part of a Deacon, when he distributed his body and blood in the Supper. He performed the part of a Priest, when, on the cross, he offered himself in sacrifice to the Father. As these things cannot be heard without laughter, I wonder how they could have been written without laughter, if, indeed, they were men who wrote them. But their most notable subtlety is that in which they speculate on the name of Acolyte, calling him Ceroferarius, a magical term, I presume, one certainly unknown to all nations and tongues; “akolouthos”, in Greek, meaning simply attendant. Were I to stop and seriously refute these things, I might myself justly be laughed at, so frivolous are they and ludicrous.

24. The holders of the lower orders do not practice their office at all

Still, lest they should be able to impose on silly women, their vanity must be exposed in passing. With great pomp and solemnity they elect their readers, psalmists, doorkeepers, acolytes, to perform those services which they give in charge, either to boys, or at least to those whom they call laics. Who, for the most part, lights the tapers, who pours wine and water from the pitcher, but a boy or some mean person among laics, who gains his bread by so doing? Do not the same persons chant? Do they not open and shut the doors of churches? Who ever saw, in their churches, either an acolyte or doorkeeper performing his office? Nay, when he who as a boy performed the office of acolyte, is admitted to the order of acolyte, he ceases to be the very thing he begins to be called, so that they seem professedly to wish to cast away the office when they assume the title. See why they hold it necessary to be consecrated by sacraments, and to receive the Holy Spirit! It is just to do nothing.

If they pretend that this is the defect of the times, because they neglect and abandon their offices, let them, at the same time, confess that there is not in the Church, in the present day, any use or benefit of these sacred orders which they wondrously extol, and that their whole Church is full of anathema, since the tapers and flagons, which none are worthy to touch but those who have been consecrated acolytes, she allows to be handled by boys and profane persons; since her chants, which ought to be heard only from consecrated lips, she delegates to children.

And to what end, pray, do they consecrate exorcists? I hear that the Jews had their exorcists, but I see they were so called from the exorcisms which they practised, (Acts 19: 13.) Who ever heard of those fictitious exorcists having given one specimen of their profession? It is pretended that power has been given them to lay their hands on energumens, catechumens, and demoniacs, but they cannot persuade demons that they are endued with such power, not only because demons do not submit to their orders, but even command themselves. Scarcely will you find one in ten who is not possessed by a wicked spirit. All, then, which they babble about their paltry orders is a compound of ignorant and stupid falsehoods. Of the ancient acolytes, doorkeepers, and readers, we have spoken when explaining the government of the Church. All that we here proposed was to combat that novel invention of a sevenfold sacrament in ecclesiastical orders, of which we nowhere read except among silly raving Sorbonnists and Canonists.

25. The ceremonies of consecration, especially the tonsure

Let us now attend to the ceremonies which they employ. And first, all whom they enrol among their militia they initiate into the clerical status by a common symbol. They shave them on the top of the head, that the crown may denote regal honour, because clergy ought to be kings in governing themselves and others. Peter thus speaks of them: “Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people,” (1 Pet. 2: 9.) But it was sacrilege in them to arrogate to themselves alone what is given to the whole Church, and proudly to glory in a title of which they had robbed the faithful. Peter addresses the whole Church: these men wrest it to a few shaven crowns, as if it had been said to them alone, Be ye holy: as if they alone had been purchased by the blood of Christ: as if they alone had been made by Christ kings and priests unto God. Then they assign other reasons, (Sent. Lib. 4 Dist. 24.) The top of the head is bared, that their mind may be shown to be free, with unveiled face, to behold the glory of God; or that they may be taught to cut off the vices of the eye and the lip. Or the shaving of the head is the laying aside of temporal things, while the circumference of the crown is the remnants of good which are retained for support. Everything is in figure, because, forsooth, the veil of the temple is not yet rent. Accordingly, persuaded that they have excellently performed their part because they have figured such things by their crown, they perform none of them in reality. How long will they delude us with such masks and impostures? The clergy, by shaving off some hair, intimate (Sent. loco cit.) that they have cast away abundance of temporal good—that they contemplate the glory of God—that they have mortified the concupiscence of the ear and the eye: but no class of men is more rapacious, more stupid, more libidinous. Why do they not rather exhibit true sanctity, than give a hypocritical semblance of it in false and lying signs?

26. To cite the Nazarites and Paul is beside the point

Moreover, when they say that the clerical crown has its origin and nature from the Nazarene, what else do they say than that their mysteries are derived from Jewish ceremonies, or rather are mere Judaism?

When they add that Priscilla, Aquila, and Paul himself, after they had taken a vow, shaved their head that they might be purified, they betray their gross ignorance. For we nowhere read this of Priscilla, While, with regard to Aquila, it is uncertain, since that tonsure may refer equally well to Paul as to Aquila, (Acts 18: 18.) But not to leave them in possession of what they ask, viz., that they have an example in Paul, it is to be observed, to the more simple, that Paul never shaved his head for any sanctification, but only in subservience to the weakness of brethren. Vows of this kind I am accustomed to call vows of charity not of piety: in other words, vows not undertaken for divine worship, but only in deference to the infirmity of the weak, as he himself says, that to the Jews he became a Jew, (1 Cor. 9: 20.) This therefore, he did, and that once and for a short time, that he might accommodate himself for a little to the Jews. When these men would, for no end, imitate the purifications of the Nazarene, (Num. 6: 18,) what else do they than set up a new, while they improperly affect to rival the ancient Judaism?

In the same spirit the Decretal Epistle was composed, which enjoins the clergy, after the apostle, not to nourish their hair, but to shave it all round, (Cap. Prohibitur, Dist. 24;) as if the apostle, in showing what is comely for all men, had been solicitous for the spherical tonsure of the clergy. Hence, let my readers consider what kind of force or dignity there can be in the subsequent mysteries, to which this is the introduction.

27. Historical interpretation of the tonsure

Whence the clerical tonsure had its origin, is abundantly clear from Augustine alone, (De Opera. Monaco. et Retract.) While in that age none wore long hair but the effeminate and those who affected an unmanly beauty and elegance, it was thought to be of bad example to allow the clergy to do so. They were therefore enjoined either to cut or shave their hair, that they might not have the appearance of effeminate indulgence. And so common was the practice, that some monks, to appear more sanctimonious than others by a notable difference in dress, let their locks hang loose. But when hair returned to use, and some nations, which had always worn long hair, as France, Germany and England, embraced Christianity, it is probable that the clergy everywhere shaved the head, that they might not seem to affect ornament. At length, in a more corrupt age, when all ancient customs were either changed, or had degenerated into superstition, seeing no reason for the clerical tonsure, (they had retained nothing but a foolish imitation,) they retook themselves to mystery, and now superstitiously obtrude it upon us in support of their sacrament.

The Doorkeepers, on consecration, receive the keys of the Church, by which it is understood that the custody of it is committed to them; the readers receive the Holy Bible; the Exorcists, forms of exorcism which they use over the possessed and catechumens; the Acolytes, tapers and the flagon. Such are the ceremonies which, it would seem, possess so much secret virtue, that they cannot only be signs and badges, but even causes of invisible grace. For this, according to their definition, they demand, when they would have them to be classed among sacraments.

But to dispatch the matter in a few words, I say that it is absurd for schools and canons to make sacraments of those minor orders, since, even by the confession of those who do so, they were unknown to the primitive Church, and were devised many ages after. But sacraments as containing a divine promise ought not to be appointed, either by angels or men, but by God only, to whom alone it belongs to give the promise.

28. “Priest” and “presbyter”

There remain the three orders which they call “major”. Of these, what they call the subdeacon ate was transferred to this class, after the crowd of minor began to be prolific. But as they think they have authority for these from the word of God, they honour them specially with the name of Holy Orders. Let us see how they wrest the ordinances of God to their own ends.

We begin with the order of presbyter or priest. To these two names they give one meaning, understanding by them, those to whom as they say, it pertains to offer the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood on the altar, to frame prayers, and bless the gifts of God. Hence, at ordination, they receive the patena with the host, as symbols of the power conferred upon them of offering sacrifices to appease God, and their hands are anointed, this symbol being intended to teach that they have received the power of consecrating. But of the ceremonies afterwards. Of the thing itself, I say that it is so far from having, as they pretend, one particle of support from the word of God, that they could not more wickedly corrupt the order which he has appointed.

And first, it ought to be held as confessed, (this we maintained when treating of the Papal Mass,) that all are injurious to Christ who call themselves priests in the sense of offering expiatory victims. He was constituted and consecrated Priest by the Father, with an oath, after the order of Melchizedek, without end and without successor, (Psalm 110: 4; Heb. 5: 6; 7: 3.) He once offered a victim of eternal expiation and reconciliation, and now also having entered the sanctuary of heaven, he intercedes for us. In him we all are priests, but to offer praise and thanksgiving, in fine, ourselves, and all that is ours to God. It was peculiar to him alone to appease God and expiate sins by his oblation. When these men usurp it to themselves, what follows, but that they have an impious and sacrilegious priesthood? It is certainly wicked overmuch to dare to distinguish it with the title of sacrament.

In regard to the true office of presbyter, which was recommended to us by the lips of Christ, I willingly give it that place. For in it there is a ceremony which, first, is taken from the Scriptures; and, secondly, is declared by Paul to be not empty or superfluous, but to be a faithful symbol of spiritual grace, (1 Tim. 4: 14.) My reason for not giving a place to the third is, because it is not ordinary or common to all believers, but is a special rite for a certain function. But while this honour is attributed to the Christian ministry, Popish priests may not plume themselves upon it. Christ ordered dispensers of his gospel and his sacred mysteries to be ordained, not sacrificers to be inaugurated, and his command was to preach the gospel and feed the flock, not to immolate victims. He promised the gift of the Holy Spirit, not to make expiation for sins, but duly to undertake and maintain the government of the Church, (Matth. 28: 19; Mark 16: 15; John 21: 15.)

29. The ceremonies in ordaining priests

With the reality the ceremonies perfectly agree. When our Lord commissioned the apostles to preach the gospel, he breathed upon them, (John 20: 22.) By this symbol he represented the gift of the Holy Spirit which he bestowed upon them. This breathing these worthy men have retained; and, as if they were bringing the Holy Spirit from their throat, mutter over their priestlings, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” Accordingly, they omit nothing which they do not preposterously mimic. I say not in the manner of players, (who have art and meaning in their gestures,) but like apes who imitate at random without selection. We observe, say they, the example of the Lord. But the Lord did many things which he did not intend to be examples to us. Our Lord said to his disciples, “Receive the Holy Spirit,” (John 20: 22.) He said also to Lazarus, “Lazarus, come forth,” (John 11: 43.) He said to the paralytic, “Rise, take up thy bed, and walk,” (John 5: 8.) Why do they not say the same to all the dead and paralytic? He gave a specimen of his divine power when, in breathing on the apostles, he filled them with the gift of the Holy Spirit. If they attempt to do the same, they rival God, and do all but challenge him to the contest. But they are very far from producing the effect, and only mock Christ by that absurd gesture. Such, indeed, is the effrontery of some, that they dare to assert that the Holy Spirit is conferred by them; but what truth there is in this, we learn from experience, which cries aloud that all who are consecrated priests, of horses become asses, and of fools madmen. And yet it is not here that I am contending against them; I am only condemning the ceremony itself, which ought not to be drawn into a precedent, since it was used as the special symbol of a miracle, so far is it from furnishing them with an example for imitation.

30. Christ’s priesthood supersedes that of Aaron

But from whom, pray, did they receive their unction? They answer, that they received it from the sons of Aaron, from whom also their order derived its origin, (Sent. Lib. 4 Dist. 14, cap. 8, et in Canon. Dist. 21, cap. 1.) Thus they constantly choose to defend themselves by perverse examples, rather then confess that any of their rash practices is of their own devising. Meanwhile, they observe not that in professing to be the successors of the sons of Aaron, they are injurious to the priesthood of Christ, which alone was adumbrated and typified by all ancient priesthoods. In him, therefore, they were all concluded and completed, in him they ceased, as we have repeatedly said, and as the Epistle to the Hebrews, unaided by any gloss, declares. But if they are so much delighted with Mosaic ceremonies, why do they not hurry oxen, calves, and lambs, to their sacrifices? They have, indeed, a great part of the ancient tabernacle, and of the whole Jewish worship. The only thing wanted to their religion is, that they do not sacrifice oxen and calves. Who sees not that this practice of unction is much more pernicious than circumcision, especially when to it is added superstition and a Pharisaical opinion of the ment of the work? The Jews placed their confidence of justification in circumcision, these men look for spiritual gifts in unction. Therefore, in desiring to be rivals of the Levites, they become apostates from Christ, and discard themselves from the pastoral office.

31. Anointing belongs with the outworn ceremonies

It is, if you please, the sacred oil which impresses an indelible character. As if oil could not be washed away by sand and salt, or if it sticks the closer, with soap. But that character is spiritual. What has oil to do with the soul? Have they forgotten what they quote from Augustine, that if the word be withdrawn from the water, there will be nothing but water, but that it is owing to the word that it is a sacrament? What word can they show in their oil? Is it because Moses was commanded to anoint the sons of Aaron? (Exod. 30: 30.) But he there receives command concerning the tunic, the ephod, the breastsplate, the mitre, the crown of holiness with which Aaron was to be adorned; and concerning the tunics, belts, and mitres which his sons were to wear. He receives command about sacrificing the calf, burning its fat, about cutting and burning rams about sanctifying earrings and vestments with the blood of one of the rams, and innumerable other observances. Having passed over all these, I wonder why the unction of oil a!one pleases them. If they delight in being sprillkled, why are they sprinkled with oil rather than with blood? They are attempting, forsooth, an ingenious device; they are trying, by a kind of patchwork, to make one religion out of Christianity, Judaism, and Paganism. Their unction, therefore, is without savor; it wants salt, that is, the word of God.(Leviticus 8).

There remains the laying on of hands which, though I admit it to be a sacrament in true and legitimate ordination, I do deny to have any such place in this fable, where they neither obey the command of Christ, nor look to the end to which the promise ought to lead us. If they would not have the sign denied them, they must adapt it to the reality to which it is dedicated.

32. The deacons

As to the order of the diaconate, I would raise no dispute, if the office which existed under the apostles, and a purer Church, were restored to its integrity. But what resemblance to it do we see in their fictitious deacons? I speak not of the men, lest they should complain that I am unjustly judging their doctrine by the vices of those who profess it; but I contend that those whom their doctrine declares to us, derive no countenance from those deacons whom the apostolic Church appointed. They say that it belongs to their deacons to assist the priests, and minister at all the things which are done in the sacraments, as in baptism, in chrism, the patena, and chalice, to bring the offerings and lay them on the altar, to prepare and dress the table of the Lord, to carry the cross, announce and read out the gospel and epistle to the people, (Sent. Lib. 4 Dist. 24, cap. 8; Item, Cap. Perlectis,Dist. 25.) Is there here one word about the true office of deacon?

Let us now attend to the appointment. The bishop alone lays hands on the deacon who is ordained; he places the prayer book and stole upon his left shoulder, that he may understand that he has received the easy yoke of the Lord, in order that he may subject to the fear of the Lord every thing pertaining to the left side: he gives him a text of the gospel, to remind him that he is its herald. What have these things to do with deacons? But they act just as if one were to say he was ordaining apostles, when he was only appointing persons to kindle the incense, clean the images, sweep the churches, set traps for mice, and put out dogs. Who can allow this class of men to be called apostles, and to be compared with the very apostles of Christ? After this, let them not pretend that those whom they appoint to mere stage-play are deacons. Nay, they even declare, by the very name, what the nature of the office is. For they call them Levites, and wish to trace their nature and origin to the sons of Levi. As far as I am concerned, they are welcome, provided they do not afterwards deck themselves in borrowed feathers.

33. Subdeacons

What use is there in speaking of subdeacons? For, whereas in fact they anciently had the charge of the poor, they attribute to them some kind of nugatory function, as carrying the chalice and patena, the pitcher with water, and the napkin to the altar, pouring out water for the hands, &c. Then, by the offerings which they are said to receive and bring in, they mean those which they swallow up, as if they had been destined to anathema.

There is an admirable correspondence between the office and the mode of inducting to it, viz., receiving from the bishop the patena and chalice, and from the archdeacon the pitcher with water, the manual and trumpery of this kind. They call upon us to admit that the Holy Spirit is included in these frivolities. What pious man could be induced to grant this? But to have done at once, we may conclude the same of this as of the others and there is no need to repeat at length what has been explained above.

To the modest and docile (it is such I have undertaken to instruct,) it will be enough that there is no sacrament of God, unless where a ceremony is shown annexed to a promise, or rather where a promise is seen in a ceremony. Here there is not one syllable of a certain promise, and it is vain, therefore, to seek for a ceremony to confirm the promise. On the other hand, we read of no ceremony appointed by God in regard to those usages which they employ, and, therefore, there can be no sacrament.

Of Marriage.

(Erroneous claim that marriage is a sacrament from misunderstanding of Eph. 5:28 and other passages: abuses connected with marriage, 34-37)

34. Marriage is no sacrament

The last of all is Marriage, which, while all admit it to be an institution of God (Gen. 2:21-24; Matt. 19:4), no man ever saw to be a sacrament, until the time of Gregory. And would it ever have occurred to the mind of any sober man? It is a good and holy ordinance of God. And agriculture, architecture, shoemaking, and shaving, are lawful ordinances of God; but they are not sacraments. For in a sacrament, the thing required is not only that it be a work of God, but that it be an external ceremony appointed by God to confirm a promise. That there is nothing of the kind in marriage, even children can judge.

But it is a sign, they say, of a sacred thing, that is, of the spiritual union of Christ with the Church. If by the term sign they understand a symbol set before us by God to assure us of our faith, they wander widely from the mark. If they mean merely a sign because it has been employed as a similitude, I will show how acutely they reason. Paul says, “One star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead,” (1 Cor. 15: 41, 42.) Here is one sacrament. Christ says, “The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard-seed,” (Matth. 13: 31.) Here is another sacrament. Again, “The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven,” (Matth. 13: 33.) Here is a third sacrament. Isaiah says, “He shall feed his flock like a shepherd,” (Isaiah 40: 11.) Here is a fourth sacrament. In another passage he says, “The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man,” (Isaiah 42: 13.) Here is a fifth sacrament. And where will be the end or limit? Every thing in this way will be a sacrament. All the parables and similitudes in Scripture will be so many sacraments. Nay, even theft will be a sacrament, seeing it is written, “The day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night,” (1 Thess. 5: 2.) Who can tolerate the ignorant garrulity of these sophists?

I admit, indeed, that whenever we see a vine, the best thing is to call to mind what our Saviour says, “ I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.” “I am the vine, ye are the branches,” (John 15: 1, 6.) And whenever we meet a shepherd with his flock, it is good also to remember, “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine,” (John 10: 14.) But any man who would class such similitudes with sacraments should be sent to bedlam.

35. They misapply Eph. 5:28

They adduce the words of Paul, by which they say that the name of a sacrament is given to marriage, “He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the Church: for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the Church,” (Eph. 5: 28, 32.) To treat Scripture thus is to confound heaven and earth. Paul, in order to show husbands how they ought to love their wives, sets Christ before them as an example. As he shed his bowels of affection for the Church, which he had espoused to himself, so he would have every one to feel affected toward his wife. Then he adds, “He that loveth his wife loveth himself,” “even as the Lord the Church.” Moreover, to show how Christ loved the Church as himself, nay, how he made himself one with his spouse the Church, he applies to her what Moses relates that Adam said of himself. For after Eve was brought into his presence, knowing that she had been formed out of his side, he exclaimed, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh,” (Gen. 2: 23.) That all this was spiritually fulfilled in Christ, and in us, Paul declares when he says, that we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones, and so one flesh with him. At length he breaks out into the exclamation, “This is a great mystery;” and lest any one should be misled by the ambiguity, he says that he is not speaking of the connection between husband and wife, but of the spiritual marriage of Christ and the Church. And truly it is a great mystery that Christ allowed a rib to be taken from himself, of which we might be formed; that is that when he was strong, he was pleased to become weak, that we might be strengthened by his strength, and should no longer live ourselves, but he live in us, (Gal. 2: 20.)

36. This confusion arises from the translation of “mystery” and their low view of marriage

The thing which misled them was the term sacrament. But, was it right that the whole Church should be punished for the ignorance of these men? Paul called it a mystery. When the Latin interpreter might have abandoned this mode of expression as uncommon to Latin ears, or converted it into “secret,” he preferred calling it sacramentum, but in no other sense than the Greek term “musterion” was used by Paul. Let them go now and clamour against skill in languages, their ignorance of which leads them most shamefully astray in a matter easy and obvious to every one. But why do they so strongly urge the term sacrament in this one passage, and in others pass it by with neglect? For both in the First Epistle to Timothy, (1 Tim. 3: 9, 16,) and also in the Epistle to the Ephesians, it is used by the Vulgate interpreter, and in every instance, for mystery. Let us, however, pardon them this lapses, though liars ought to have good memories.

Marriage being thus recommended by the title of a sacrament, can it be anything but vertiginous levity afterwards to call it uncleanness, and pollution, and carnal defilement? How absurd is it to debar priests from a sacrament? If they say that they debar not from a sacrament but from carnal connection, they will not thus escape me. They say that this connection is part of the sacrament, and thereby figures the union which we have with Christ in conformity of nature, inasmuch as it is by this connection that husband and wife become one flesh; although some have here found two sacraments, the one of God and the souls in bridegroom and bride, another of Christ and the Church, in husband and wife. Be this as it may, this connection is a sacrament from which no Christian can lawfully be debarred, unless, indeed, the sacraments of Christians accord so ill that they cannot stand together. There is also another absurdity in these dogmas. They affirm that in a sacrament the gift of the Holy Spirit is conferred; this connection they hold to be a sacrament, and yet they deny that in it the Holy Spirit is ever present.

37. Oppressive consequences of the Roman doctrine

And, that they might not delude the Church in this matter merely, what a long series of errors, lies, frauds, and iniquities have they appended to one error? So that you may say they sought nothing, but a hiding-place for abominations when they converted marriage into a sacrament. When once they obtained this they appropriated to themselves the cognisance of conjugal causes: as the thing was spiritual, it was not to be intermeddled with by profane judges. Then they enacted laws by which they confirmed their tyranny,—laws partly impious toward God, partly fraught with injustice toward men; such as, that marriages contracted between minors, without the consent of their parents, should be valid; that no lawful marriages can be contracted between relations within the seventh degree, and that such marriages if contracted, should be dissolved. Moreover, they frame degrees of kindred contrary to the laws of all nations and even the polity of Moses, and enact that a husband who has repudiated an adulteress may not marry again—that spiritual kindred cannot be joined in marriage—that marriage cannot be celebrated from Septuagesimo to the Octaves of Easter, three weeks before the nativity of John, nor from Advent to Epiphany, and innumerable others which it were too tedious to mention. We must now get out of their mire, in which our discourse has stuck longer than our inclination. Methinks, however, that much has been gained if I have, in some measure, deprived these asses of their lion’s skin.

CHAPTER 20. OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT.

This chapter consists of two principal heads,—

I. General discourse on the necessity, dignity, and use of Civil Government, in opposition to the frantic proceedings of the Anabaptists, sec. 1-3.

II. A special exposition of the three leading parts of which Civil Government consists, sec. 4-32.

The first part treats of the function of Magistrates, whose authority and calling is proved, sec. 4-7. Next, the three forms of civil government are added, sec. 8. Thirdly, Consideration of the office of the civil magistrate in respect of piety and righteousness. Here, of rewards and punishments, viz., punishing the guilty, protecting the innocent, repressing the seditious, managing, the affairs of peace and war, sec. 9-13.

The second part treats of Laws, their utility, necessity, form, authority, constitution, and scope, sec. 14-16. The last part relates to the People, and explains the use of laws, courts, and magistrates, to the common society of Christians, sec. 17-21. Deference which private individuals owe to magistrates, and how far obedience ought to be carried, sec. 22-32.

Sections.

1. Last part of the whole work, relating to the institution of Civil Government. The consideration of it necessary,

1. To refute the Anabaptists.

2. To refute the flatterers of princes.

3. To excite our gratitude to God.

Civil government not opposed to Christian liberty. Civil government to be distinguished from the spiritual kingdom of Christ.

2. Objections of the Anabaptists,

1. That civil government is unworthy of a Christian man.

2. That it is diametrically repugnant to the Christian profession. Answer.

3. The answer confirmed. Discourse reduced to three heads,

1. Of Laws.

2. Of Magistrates.

3. Of the People.

4. The office of Magistrates approved by God.

1. They are called Gods.

2. They are ordained by the wisdom of God. Examples of pious Magistrates.

5. Civil government appointed by God for Jews, not Christians. This objection answered.

6. Divine appointment of Magistrates. Effect which this ought to have on Magistrates themselves.

7. This consideration should repress the fury of the Anabaptists.

8. Three forms of civil government, Monarchy, Aristocracy, Democracy. Impossible absolutely to say which is best.

9. Of the duty of Magistrates. Their first care the preservation of the Christian religion and true piety. This proved.

10. Objections of Anabaptists to this view. These answered.

11. Lawfulness of War.

12. Objection that the lawfulness of War is not taught in Scripture. Answer.

13. Right of exacting tribute and raising revenues.

14. Of Laws, their necessity and utility. Distinction between the Moral, Ceremonial, and Judicial Law of Moses.

15. Sum and scope of the Moral Law. Of the Ceremonial and Judicial Law. Conclusion.

16. All laws should be just. Civil law of Moses; how far in force, and how far abrogated.

17. Of the People, and of the use of laws as respects individuals.

18. How far litigation lawful.

19. Refutation of the Anabaptists, who condemn all judicial proceedings.

20. Objection, that Christ forbids us to resist evil. Answer.

21. Objection, that Paul condemns law-suits absolutely. Answer.

22. Of the respect and obedience due to Magistrates.

23. Same subject continued.

24. How far submission due to tyrants.

25. Same continued.

26. Proof from Scripture.

27. Proof Continued. (from Jeremiah 27)

28. Objections answered.

29. Considerations to curb impatience under tyranny.

30. Considerations considered.

31. General submission due by private individuals.

32. Obedience due only in so far as compatible with the word of God.

(How civil and spiritual government are related, 1-3)

1. Differences betweeen spiritual and civil government

Having shown above that there is a twofold government in man, and having fully considered the one which, placed in the soul or inward man, relates to eternal life, we are here called to say something of the other, which pertains only to civil institutions and the external regulation of manners.

For although this subject seems from its nature to be unconnected with the spiritual doctrine of faith, which I have undertaken to treat, it will appear, as we proceed, that I have properly connected them, nay, that I am under the necessity Of doing so, especially while, on the one hand, frantic and barbarous men are furiously endeavouring to overturn the order established by God, and, on the other, the flatterers of princess extolling their power without measure, hesitate not to oppose it to the government of God. Unless we meet both extremes, the purity of the faith will perish. We may add, that it in no small degree concerns us to know how kindly God has here consulted for the human race, that pious zeal may the more strongly urge us to testify our gratitude.

And first, before entering on the subject itself, it is necessary to attend to the distinction which we formerly laid down, (Book 3 Chap. 19 sec. 16;, et supra, Chap. 10:,) lest, as often happens to many, we imprudently confound these two things, the nature of which is altogether different. For some, on hearing that liberty is promised in the gospel, a liberty which acknowledges no king and no magistrate among men, but looks to Christ alone, think that they can receive no benefit from their liberty so long as they see any power placed over them. Accordingly, they think that nothing will be safe until the whole world is changed into a new form, when there will be neither courts, nor laws nor magistrates, nor anything of the kind to interfere, as they suppose, with their liberty. But he who knows to distinguish between the body and the soul, between the present fleeting life and that which is future and eternal, will have no difficulty in understanding that the spiritual kingdom of Christ and civil government are things very widely separated. Seeing, therefore, it is a Jewish vanity to seek and include the kingdom of Christ under the elements of this world, let us, considering, as Scripture clearly teaches, that the blessings which we derive from Christ are spiritual, remember to confine the liberty which is promised and offered to us in him within its proper limits. For why is it that the very same apostle which bids us “stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and be not again entangled with the yoke of bondage,” (Gal. 5: l,) in another passage forbids slaves to be solicitous about their state, (1 Cor. 7: 21,) unless it be that spiritual liberty is perfectly compatible with civil servitude? In this sense the following passages are to be understood: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female,” (Gal. 3: 28.) Again:” There is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all and in all,” (Col. 3: 11.) It is thus intimated that it matters not what your condition is among men, nor under what laws you live, since in them the kingdom of Christ does not at all consist.

2. The two “governments” are not antithetical

Still the distinction does not go so far as to justify us in supposing that the whole scheme of civil government is matter of pollution, with which Christian men have nothing to do. Fanatics, indeed delighting in unbridled license, insist and vociferate that after we are dead by Christ to the elements of this world, and being translated into the kingdom of God sit among the celestial, it is unworthy of us, and far beneath our dignity to be occupied with those profane and impure cares which relate to matters alien from a Christian man. To what ends they say, are laws without courts and tribunals? But what has a Christian man to do with courts? Nay, if it is unlawful to kill, what have we to do with laws and courts? But as we lately taught that that kind of government is distinct from the spiritual and internal kingdom of Christ, so we ought to know that they are not adverse to each other. The former, in some measure, begins the heavenly kingdom in us, even now upon earth, and in this mortal and evanescent life commences immortal and incorruptible blessedness, while to the latter it is assigned, so long as we live among men, to foster and maintain the external worship of God, to defend sound doctrine and the condition of the Church, to adapt our conduct to human society, to form our manners to civil justice, to conciliate us to each other, to cherish common peace and tranquillity. All these I confess to be superfluous, if the kingdom of God, as it now exists within us, extinguishes the present life. But if it is the will of God that while we aspire to true piety we are pilgrims upon the earth, and if such pilgrimage stands in need of such aids, those who take them away from man rob him of his humanity. As to their allegation, that there ought to be such perfection in the Church of God that her guidance should suffice for law, they stupidly imagine her to be such as she never can he found in the community of men. For while the insolence of the wicked is so great, and their iniquity so stubborn, that it can scarcely be curbed by any severity of laws, what do we expect would be done by those whom force can scarcely repress from doing ill, were they to see perfect impunity for their wickedness?

(Necessity and divine sanction of civil government, 3-7)

3. The chief tasks and burdens of civil government

But we shall have a fitter opportunity of speaking of the use of civil government. All we wish to be understood at present is, that it is perfect barbarism to think of exterminating it, its use among men being not less than that of bread and water, light and air, while its dignity is much more excellent. Its object is not merely, like those things, to enable men to breathe, eat, drink, and be warmed, (though it certainly includes all these, while it enables them to live together;) this, I say, is not its only object, but it is that no idolatry, no blasphemy against the name of God, no calumnies against his truth, nor other offences to religion, break out and be disseminated among the people; that the public quiet be not disturbed, that every man’s property be kept secure, that men may carry on innocent commerce with each other, that honesty and modesty be cultivated; in short, that a public form of religion may exist among Christians, and humanity among men.

Let no one be surprised that I now attribute the task of constituting religion aright to human polity, though I seem above to have placed it beyond the will of man, since I no more than formerly allow men at pleasure to enact laws concerning religion and the worship of God, when I approve of civil order which is directed to this end, viz., to prevent the true religion, which is contained in the law of God, from being with impunity openly violated and polluted by public blasphemy.

But the reader, by the help of a perspicuous arrangement, will better understand what view is to be taken of the whole order of civil government, if we treat of each of its parts separately. Now these are three: The Magistrate, who is president and guardian of the laws; the Laws, according to which he governs; and the People, who are governed by the laws, and obey the magistrate. Let us consider then, first, What is the function of the magistrate? Is it a lawful calling approved by God? What is the nature of his duty? What the extent of his power? Secondly, What are the laws by which Christian polity is to be regulated?. And, lastly, What is the use of laws as regards the people? And, What obedience is due to the magistrate?

4. The magistracy is ordained by God

With regard to the function of magistrates, the Lord has not only declared that he approves and is pleased with it, but, moreover has strongly recommended it to us by the very honourable titles which he has conferred upon it. To mention a few. When those who bear the office of magistrate are called gods, let no one suppose that there is little weight in that appellation. It is thereby intimated that they have a commission from God, that they are invested with divine authority and, in fact, represent the person of God, as whose substitutes they in a manner act. This is not a quibble of mine, but is the interpretation of Christ. “If Scriptures” says He, “called them gods to whom the word of God came.” What is this but that the business was committed to them by Gods to serve him in their office, and (as Moses and Jehoshaphat said to the judges whom they were appointing over each of the cities of Judah) to exercise judgement, not for man, but for God? To the same effect Wisdom affirms, by the mouth of Solomon, “By me kings reigns and princes decree Justice. By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth,” (Prov. 8: 15, 16.) For it is just as if it had been said, that it is not owing to human perverseness that supreme power on earth is lodged in kings and other governors, but by Divine Providence, and the holy decree of Him to whom it has seemed good so to govern the affairs of men, since he is present, and also presides in enacting laws and exercising judicial equity. This Paul also plainly teaches when he enumerates offices of rule among the gifts of God, which, distributed variously, according to the measure of grace, ought to be employed by the servants of Christ for the edification of the Church, (Rom. 12: 8.) In that place, however, he is properly speaking of the senate of grave men who were appointed in the primitive Church to take charge of public discipline. This office, in the Epistle to the Corinthians he calls “kuberneseis”, governments, (1 Cor. 12: 28.) Still, as we see that civil power has the same end in view, there can be no doubt that he is recommending every kind of just government.

He speaks much more clearly when he comes to a proper discussion of the subject. For he says that “there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God;” that rulers are the ministers of God, “not a terror to good works, but to the evil,” (Rom. 13: 1, 3.) To this we may add the examples of saints, some of whom held the offices of kings, as David, Josiah, and Hezekiah; others of governors, as Joseph and Daniel; others of civil magistrates among a free people, as Moses, Joshua and the Judges. Their functions were expressly approved by the Lord. Wherefore no man can doubt that civil authority is in the sight of God, not only sacred and lawful, but the most sacred and by far the most honourable, of all stations in mortal life.

5. Against the “Christian” denial or rejection of magistracy

Those who are desirous to introduce anarchy object that, though anciently kings and judges presided over a rude people, yet that, in the present day that servile mode of governing does not at all accord with the perfection which Christ brought with his gospel. Herein they betray not only their ignorance, but their devilish pride, arrogating to themselves a perfection of which not even a hundredth part is seen in them. But be they what they may, the refutation is easy. For when David says, “Be wise now therefore O you kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth,” “kiss the son, lest he be angry” (Psalm 2: 10, 12,) he does not order them to lay aside their authority and return to private life, but to make the power with which they are invested subject to Christ, that he may rule over all. In like manner, when Isaiah predicts of the Church, “Kings shall be thy nursing-fathers, and their queens and nursing- mothers,” (Isaiah 49: 23,) he does not bid them abdicate their authority; he rather gives them the honourable appellation of patrons of the pious worshipers of God; for the prophecy refers to the advent of Christ. I intentionally omit very many passages which occur throughout Scripture, and especially in the Psalms, in which the due authority of all rulers is asserted. The most celebrated passage of all is that in which Paul admonishing Timothy, that prayers are to be offered up in the public assembly for kings, subjoins the reason, “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty,” (1 Tim. 2: 2.) In these words, he recommends the condition of the Church to their protection and guardianship.

6. Magistrates should be faithful as God’s deputies

This consideration ought to be constantly present to the minds of magistrates since it is fitted to furnish a strong stimulus to the discharge of duty, and also afford singular consolation, smoothing the difficulties of their office, which are certainly numerous and weighty. What zeal for integrity, prudence, meekness, continence, and innocence ought to sway those who know that they have been appointed ministers of the divine justice! How will they dare to admit iniquity to their tribunal, when they are told that it is the throne of the living God? How will they venture to pronounce an unjust sentence with that mouth which they understand to be an ordained organ of divine truth? With what conscience will they subscribe impious decrees with that hand which they know has been appointed to write the acts of God? In a word, if they remember that they are the vicegerents of God, it behaves them to watch with all care, diligences and industry, that they may in themselves exhibit a kind of image of the Divine Providence, guardianship, goodness, benevolence, and justice. And let them constantly keep the additional thought in view, that if a curse is pronounced on him that “does the work of the Lord deceitfully” a much heavier curse must lie on him who deals deceitfully in a righteous calling. Therefore, when Moses and Jehoshaphat would urge their judges to the discharge of duty, they had nothing by which they could more powerfully stimulate their minds than the consideration to which we have already referred,—"Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for the Lord, who is with you in the judgement. Wherefore now let the fear of the Lord be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the Lord our God, nor respect of persons nor taking of gifts,” (2 Chron. 19: 6, 7, compared with Deut. 1: 16, &c.) And in another passage it is said, “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods,” (Psalm 82: 1; Isaiah 3: 14,) that they may be animated to duty when they hear that they are the ambassadors of God, to whom they must one day render an account of the province committed to them. This admonition ought justly to have the greatest effect upon them; for if they sin in any respect, not only is injury done to the men whom they wickedly torment, but they also insult God himself, whose sacred tribunals they pollute. On the other hand, they have an admirable source of comfort when they reflect that they are not engaged in profane occupations, unbefitting a servant of God, but in a most sacred office, inasmuch as they are the ambassadors of God.

7. The coercive character of magistracy does not hinder its recognition

In regard to those who are not debarred by all these passages of Scripture from presuming to inveigh against this sacred ministry, as if it were a thing abhorrent from religion and Christian piety, what else do they than assail God himself, who cannot but be insulted when his servants are disgraced? These men not only speak evil of dignities, but would not even have God to reign over them, (1 Sam. 8:7.) For if this was truly said of the people of Israel, when they declined the authority of Samuel, how can it be less truly said in the present day of those who allow themselves to break loose against all the authority established by God? But it seems that when our Lord said to his disciples, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that does serve,” (Luke 22: 25, 26;) he by these words prohibited all Christians from becoming kings or governors. Dexterous expounders! A dispute had arisen among the disciples as to which of them should be greatest. To suppress this vain ambition, our Lord taught them that their ministry was not like the power of earthly sovereigns, among whom one greatly surpasses another. What, I ask, is there in this comparison disparaging to royal dignity? nay, what does it prove at all unless that the royal office is not the apostolic ministry? Besides though among magisterial offices themselves there are different forms, there is no difference in this respect, that they are all to be received by us as ordinances of God. For Paul includes all together when he says that “there is no power but of God,” and that which was by no means the most pleasing of all, was honoured with the highest testimonial, I mean the power of one. This as carrying with it the public servitude of all, (except the one to whose despotic will all is subject,) was anciently disrelished by heroic and more excellent matures. But Scripture, to obviate these unjust judgements, affirms expressly that it is by divine wisdom that “kings reign,” (cf. Prov. 8:15) and gives special command “to honour the king,” (Prov. 24:21; 1 Peter 2:17.)

(Forms of government, and duties of magistrates. Issues of war and taxation, 8-13)

8. The diversity of forms of government

And certainly it were a very idle occupation for private men to discuss what would be the best form of polity in the place where they live, seeing these deliberations cannot have any influence in determining any public matter. Then the thing itself could not be defined absolutely without rashness, since the nature of the discussion depends on circumstances. And if you compare the different states with each other, without regard to circumstances, it is not easy to determine which of these has the advantage in point of utility; so equal are the terms on which they meet. Monarchy is prone to tyranny. In an aristocracy, again, the tendency is not less to the faction of a few, while in popular ascendancy there is the strongest tendency to sedition. When these three forms of government, of which philosophers treat, are considered in themselves, I, for my part, am far from denying that the form which greatly surpasses the others is aristocracy, either pure or modified by popular government, not indeed in itself, but because it very rarely happens that kings so rule themselves as never to dissent from what is just and right, or are possessed of so much acuteness and prudence as always to see correctly. Owing, therefore, to the vices or defects of men, it is safer and more tolerable when several bear rule, that they may thus mutually assist, instruct, and admonish each other, and should any one be disposed to go too far, the others are censors and masters to curb his excess. This has already been proved by experience, and confirmed also by the authority of the Lord himself, when he established an aristocracy bordering on popular government among the Israelites, keeping them under that as the best form, until he exhibited an image of the Messiah in David. And as I willingly admit that there is no kind of government happier than where liberty is framed with becoming moderation, and duly constituted so as to be durable, so I deem those very happy who are permitted to enjoy that form, and I admit that they do nothing at variance with their duty when they strenuously and constantly labour to preserve and maintain it. Nay, even magistrates ought to do their utmost to prevent the liberty, of which they have been appointed guardians from being impaired, far less violated. If in this they are sluggish or little careful, they are perfidious traitors to their office and their country.

But should those to whom the Lord has assigned one form of government, take it upon them anxiously to long for a change, the wish would not only be foolish and superfluous, but very pernicious. If you fix your eyes not on one state merely, but look around the world, or at least direct your view to regions widely separated from each other, you will perceive that divine Providence has not, without good cause, arranged that different countries should be governed by different forms of polity. For as only elements of unequal temperature adhere together so in different regions a similar inequality in the form of government is best. All this, however, is said unnecessarily to those to whom the will of God is a sufficient reason. For if it has pleased him to appoint kings over kingdoms and senates or burgomasters over free states, whatever be the form which he has appointed in the places in which we live, our duty is to obey and submit.

9. Concern for both Tables of the Law

The duty of magistrates, its nature, as described by the word of God, and the things in which it consists, I will here indicate in passing. That it extends to both tables of the law, did Scripture not teach, we might learn from profane writers, for no man has discoursed of the duty of magistrates, the enacting of laws, and the common weal, without beginning with religion and divine worship. Thus all have confessed that no polity can be successfully established unless piety be its first care, and that those laws are absurd which disregard the rights of God, and consult only for men. Seeing then that among philosophers religion holds the first place, and that the same thing has always been observed with the universal consent of nations, Christian princes and magistrates may be ashamed of their heartlessness if they make it not their care. We have already shown that this office is specially assigned them by God, and indeed it is right that they exert themselves in asserting and defending the honour of Him whose vicegerents they are, and by whose favour they rule.

Hence in Scripture holy kings are especially praised for restoring the worship of God when corrupted or overthrown, or for taking care that religion flourished under them in purity and safety. On the other hand, the sacred history sets down anarchy among the vices, when it states that there was no king in Israel, and, therefore, every one did as he pleased, (Judges 21: 25.)

This rebukes the folly of those who would neglect the care of divine things, and devote themselves merely to the administration of justice among men; as if God had appointed rulers in his own name to decide earthly controversies, and omitted what was of far greater moment, his own pure worship as prescribed by his law. Such views are adopted by turbulent men, who, in their eagerness to make all kinds of innovations with impunity, would fain get rid of all the vindicators of violated piety.

In regard to the second table of the law, Jeremiah addresses rulers, “Thus saith the Lord, Execute ye judgement and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood,” (Jer. 22: 3.) To the same effect is the exhortation in the Psalm, “Defend the poor and fatherless; do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy; rid them out of the hand of the wicked,” (Psalm 82: 3, 4.) Moses also declared to the princes whom he had substituted for himself, “Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgement; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great: ye shall not be afraid of the face of man, for the judgement is God’s,” (Deut. 1: 16.) I say nothing as to such passages as these, “He shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt;” “neither shall he multiply wives to himself; neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold;” “he shall write him a copy of this law in a book;” “and it shall be with him and he shall read therein all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God;” “that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren,” (Deut. 17: 16-20.) In here explaining the duties of magistrates, my exposition is intended not so much for the instruction of magistrates themselves, as to teach others why there are magistrates, and to what end they have been appointed by God. We say, therefore, that they are the ordained guardians and vindicators of public innocence, modesty, honour, and tranquillity, so that it should be their only study to provide for the common peace and safety. Of these things David declares that he will set an example when he shall have ascended the throne. “A froward heart shall depart from me: I will not know a wicked person. Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him will I cut off: him that has an high look and a proud heart will not I suffer. Mine eyes shall be upon the faithful of the land, that they may dwell with me: he that walketh in a perfect way, he shall serve me,” (Psalm 101: 4-6.)

But as rulers cannot do this unless they protect the good against the injuries of the bad, and give aid and protection to the oppressed, they are armed with power to curb manifest evildoers and criminals, by whose misconduct the public tranquillity is disturbed or harassed. For we have full experience of the truth of Solon’s saying, that all public matters depend on reward and punishment; that where these are wanting, the whole discipline of states totters and falls to pieces. For in the minds of many the love of equity and justice grows cold, if due honour be not paid to virtue, and the licentiousness of the wicked cannot be restrained, without strict discipline and the infliction of punishment. The two things are comprehended by the prophet when he enjoins kings and other rulers to execute “judgement and righteousness,” (Jer. 21: 12; 22: 3.) It is righteousness (justice) to take charge at the innocent, to defend and avenge them, and set them free: it is judgement to withstand the audacity of the wicked, to repress their violence and punish their faults.

10. The magistrates’ exercise of force is compatible with piety

But here a difficulty and, as it seems, a perplexing question arises. If all Christians are forbidden to kill, and the prophet predicts concerning the holy mountain of the Lords that is, the Church, “They shall not hurt or destroy,” how can magistrates be at once pious and yet shedders at blood?

But if we understand that the magistrate, in inflicting punishment, acts not of himself, but executes the very judgements of God, we shall be disencumbered of every doubt. The law of the Lord forbids to kill; but, that murder may not go unpunished, the Lawgiver himself puts the sword into the hands of his ministers, that they may employ it against all murderers. It belongs not to the pious to afflict and hurt, but to avenge the afflictions of the pious, at the command of God, is neither to afflict nor hurt. I wish it could always be present to our mind, that nothing is done here by the rashness of man, but all in obedience to the authority of God. When it is the guide, we never stray from the right path, unless, indeed, divine justice is to be placed under restraint, and not allowed to take punishment on crimes. But if we dare not give the law to it, why should we bring a charge against its ministers? “He beareth not the sword in vain,” says Paul, “for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath on him that does evil,” (Rom. 13: 4.) Wherefore, if princes and other rulers know that nothing will be more acceptable to God than their obedience, let them give themselves to this service if they are desirous, to approve their piety, justice, and integrity to God.

This, was the feeling of Moses when, recognising himself as destined to deliver his people by the power of the Lord, he laid violent hands on the Egyptian, and afterwards took vengeance on the people for sacrilege, by slaying three thousand of them in one day. This was the feeling of David also, when, towards the end of his life, he ordered his son Solomon to put Joab and Shimei to death. Hence, also, in an enumeration of the virtues of a king, one is to cut off the wicked from the earth, and banish all workers of iniquity from the city of God. To the same effect is the praise which is bestowed on Solomon, “Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness.”

How is it that the meek and gentle temper of Moses becomes so exasperated, that, besmeared and reeking with the blood of his brethren, he runs through the camp making new slaughter? How is it that David, who, during his whole life, showed so much mildness, almost at his last breath leaves with his son the bloody testament, not to allow the grey hairs of Joab and Shimei to go to the grave in peace? Both, by their sternness, sanctified the hands which they would have polluted by showing mercy, inasmuch as they executed the vengeance committed to them by God. Solomon says, “It is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness; for the throne is established by righteousness.” Again, “A king that sitteth in the throne of judgement, scattereth away all evil with his eyes.” Again, “A wise king scattereth the wicked, and bringeth the wheel over them.” Again, “Take away the dross from the silver, and there shall come forth a vessel for the finer. Take away the wicked from before the king, and his throne shall be established in righteousness.” Again “He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord.” Again, “An evil man seeketh only rebellion, therefore an evil messenger shall be sent against him.” Again, “He that saith unto the wicked, Thou art righteous; him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him.”

Now, if it is true justice in them to pursue the guilty and impious with drawn sword, to sheath the sword, and keep their hands pure from blood, while nefarious men wade through murder and slaughter, so far from redounding to the praise of their goodness and justice, would be to incur the guilt of the greatest impiety; provided, always, they eschew reckless and cruel asperity, and that tribunal which may be justly termed a rock on which the accused must founder. For I am not one of those who would either favour an unseasonable severity, or think that any tribunal could be accounted just that is not presided over by mercy, that best and surest counsellor of kings, and, as Solomon declares, “upholder of the throne,” (Prov. 20: 28.) This, as was truly said by one of old, should be the primary endowment of princes.

The magistrate must guard against both extremes; he must neither, by excessive severity, rather wound than cure, nor by a superstitious affectation of clemency, fall into the most cruel inhumanity, by giving way to soft and dissolute indulgence to the destruction of many. It was well said by one under the empire of Nerva, It is indeed a bad thing to live under a prince with whom nothing is lawful, but a much worse to live under one with whom all things are lawful.

11. On the right of the government to wage war

As it is sometimes necessary for kings and states to take up arms in order to execute public vengeance, the reason assigned furnishes us with the means of estimating how far the wars which are thus undertaken are lawful. For if power has been given them to maintain the tranquillity of their subjects, repress the seditious movements of the turbulent, assist those who are violently oppressed, and animadvert on crimes, can they rise it more opportunely than in repressing the fury of him who disturbs both the ease of individuals and the common tranquillity of all; who excites seditious tumult, and perpetrates acts of violent oppression and gross wrongs? If it becomes them to be the guardians and maintainers of the laws, they must repress the attempts of all alike by whose criminal conduct the discipline of the laws is impaired. Nay, if they justly punish those robbers whose injuries have been inflicted only on a few, will they allow the whole country to be robbed and devastated with impunity? Since it makes no difference whether it is by a king or by the lowest of the people that a hostile and devastating inroad is made into a district over which they have no authority, all alike are to be regarded and punished as robbers. Natural equity and duty, therefore, demand that princes be armed not only to repress private crimes by judicial inflictions, but to defend the subjects committed to their guardianship whenever they are hostilely assailed. Such even the Holy Spirit, in many passages of Scripture, declares to be lawful.

12. Restraint and humanity in war

But if it is objected that in the New Testament there is no passage or example teaching that war is lawful for Christians, I answer, first, that the reason for carrying on war, which anciently existed, still exists in the present day, and that, on the other hand, there is no ground for debarring, magistrates from the defence of those under them; And, secondly, that in the Apostolical writings we are not to look for a distinct exposition of those matters, their object being not to form a civil polity but to establish the spiritual kingdom of Christ; lastly, that there also it is indicated, in passing, that our Saviour, by his advent, made no change in this respect. For (to use the words of Augustine) “if Christian discipline condemned all wars, when the soldiers asked counsel as to the way of salvation, they would have been told to cast away their arms, and withdraw altogether from military service. Whereas it was said, (Luke 3: 14,) Concuss no one, do injury to no one, be contented with your pay. Those who he orders to be contented with their pay he certainly does not forbid to serve,” (August. Ep. 5 ad Marcell.)

But all magistrates must here be particularly cautious not to give way, in the slightest degree, to their passions. Or rather, whether punishments are to be inflicted, they must not be borne headlong by anger, nor hurried away by hatred, nor burn with implacable severity; they must, as Augustine says, (De Civil. Dei, Lib. 5 cap. 24,) “even pity a common nature in him in whom they punish an individual fault;” or whether they have to take up arms against an enemy, that is, an armed robber, they must not readily catch at the opportunity, nay, they must not take it when offered, unless compelled by the strongest necessity. For if we are to do far more than that heathen demanded who wished war to appear as desired peace, assuredly all other means must be tried before having recourse to arms. In fine, in both cases, they must not allow themselves to be carried away by any private feeling, but be guided solely by regard for the public. Acting otherwise, they wickedly abuse their power which was given them, not for their own advantage, but for the good and service of others.

On this right of war depends the right of garrisons, leagues, and other civil munitions. By garrisons, I mean those which are stationed in states for defence of the frontiers; by leagues, the alliances which are made by neighbouring princess on the ground that if any disturbance arise within their territories, they will mutually assist each other, and combine their forces to repel the common enemies of the human race; under civil munitions I include every thing pertaining to the military art.

13. Concerning the right of the government to levy tribute

Lastly, we think it proper to add, that taxes and imposts are the legitimate revenues of princes, which they are chiefly to employ in sustaining the public burdens of their office. Theses however, they may use for the maintenance of their domestic state, which is in a manner combined with the dignity of the authority which they exercise. Thus we see that David, Hezekiah, Josiah, Jehoshaphat, and other holy kings, Joseph also and Daniel, in proportion to the office which they sustained, without offending piety, expended liberally of the public funds; and we read in Ezekiel, that a very large extent of territory was assigned to kings, (Ezek. 48: 21.) In that passage, indeed, he is depicting the spiritual kingdom of Christ, but still he borrows his representation from lawful dominion among men.

Princes, however, must remember, in their turn, that their revenues are not so much private chests as treasuries of the whole people, (this Paul testifies, Rom. 13: 6,) which they cannot, without manifest injustice, squander or dilapidate; or rather, that they are almost the blood of the people, which it were the harshest inhumanity not to spare. They should also consider that their levies and contributions, and other kinds of taxes, are merely subsidies of the public necessity, and that it is tyrannical rapacity to harass the poor people with them without cause.

These things do not stimulate princes to profusion and luxurious expenditure, (there is certainly no need to inflame the passions, when they are already, of their own accord, inflamed more than enough,) but seeing it is of the greatest consequence that, whatever they venture to do, they should do with a pure conscience, it is necessary to teach them how far they can lawfully go, lest, by impious confidence, they incur the divine displeasure. Nor is this doctrine superfluous to private individuals, that they may not rashly and petulantly stigmatise the expenditure of princes, though it should exceed the ordinary limits.

(Public law and judicial procedures, as related to Christian duty, 14-21)

14. Old Testament law and the law of nations

In states, the thing next in importance to the magistrates is laws, the strongest sinews of government, or, as Cicero calls them after Plato, the soul, without which, the office of the magistrate cannot exist; just as, on the other hand, laws have no vigour without the magistrate. Hence nothing could be said more truly than that the law is a dumb magistrate, the magistrate a living law.

As I have undertaken to describe the laws by which Christian polity is to be governed, there is no reason to expect from me a long discussion on the best kind of laws. The subject is of vast extent, and belongs not to this place. I will only briefly observe, in passing, what the laws are which may be piously used with reference to God, and duly administered among men.

This I would rather have passed in silence, were I not aware that many dangerous errors are here committed. For there are some who deny that any commonwealth is rightly framed which neglects the law of Moses, and is ruled by the common law of nations. How perilous and seditious these views are, let others see: for me it is enough to demonstrate hat they are stupid and false.

We must attend to the well-known division which distributes the whole law of God, as promulgated by Moses, into the moral, the ceremonial, and the judicial law, and we must attend to each of these parts, in order to understand how far they do, or do not, pertain to us. Meanwhile, let no one be moved by the thought that the judicial and ceremonial laws relate to morals. For the ancients who adopted this division, though they were not unaware that the two latter classes had to do with morals, did not give them the name of moral, because they might be changed and abrogated without affecting morals. They give this name specially to the first class, without which, true holiness of life and an immutable rule of conduct cannot exist.

15. Moral, ceremonial, and judicial law distinguished

The moral law, then, (to begin with it,) being contained under two heads, the one of which simply enjoins us to worship God with pure faith and piety, the other to embrace men with sincere affection, is the true and eternal rule of righteousness prescribed to the men of all nations and of all times, who would frame their life agreeably to the will of God. For his eternal and immutable will is, that we are all to worship him, and mutually love one another.

The ceremonial law of the Jews was a tutelage by which the Lord was pleased to exercise, as it were, the childhood of that people, until the fulness of the time should come when he was fully to manifest his wisdom to the world, and exhibit the reality of those things which were then adumbrated by figures, (Gal. 3: 24; 4: 4.)

The judicial law, given them as a kind of polity, delivered certain forms of equity and justice, by which they might live together innocently and quietly.

And as that exercise in ceremonies properly pertained to the doctrine of piety, inasmuch as it kept the Jewish Church in the worship and religion of God, yet was still distinguishable from piety itself, so the judicial form, though it looked only to the best method of preserving that charity which is enjoined by the eternal law of God, was still something distinct from the precept of love itself. Therefore, as ceremonies might be abrogated without at all interfering with piety, so also, when these judicial arrangements are removed, the duties and precepts of charity can still remain perpetual.

But if it is true that each nation has been left at liberty to enact the laws which it judges to be beneficial, still these are always to be tested by the rule of charity, so that while they vary in form, they must proceed on the same principle. Those barbarous and savage laws, for instance, which conferred honour on thieves, allowed the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, and other things even fouler and more absurd, I do not think entitled to be considered as laws, since they are not only altogether abhorrent to justice, but to humanity and civilised life.

16. Unity and diversity of laws

What I have said will become plain if we attend, as we ought, to two things connected with all laws, viz., the enactment of the law, and the equity on which the enactment is founded and rests. Equity, as it is natural, cannot but be the same in all, and therefore ought to be proposed by all laws, according to the nature of the thing enacted. As constitutions have some circumstances on which they partly depend, there is nothing to prevent their diversity, provided they all alike aim at equity as their end.

Now, as it is evident that the law of God which we call moral, is nothing else than the testimony of natural law, and of that conscience which God has engraven on the minds of men, the whole of this equity of which we now speak is prescribed in it. Hence it alone ought to be the aim, the rule, and the end of all laws.

Wherever laws are formed after this rule, directed to this aim, and restricted to this end, there is no reason why they should be disapproved by us, however much they may differ from the Jewish law, or from each other, (August. de Civil. Dei, Lib. 19 c. 17.)

The law of God forbids to steal. The punishment appointed for theft in the civil polity of the Jews may be seen in Exodus 22. Very ancient laws of other nations punished theft by exacting the double of what was stolen, while subsequent laws made a distinction between theft manifest and not manifest. Other laws went the length of punishing with exile, or with branding, while others made the punishment capital. Among the Jews, the punishment of the false witness was to “do unto him as he had thought to have done with his brothers” (Deut. 19: 19.) In some countries, the punishment is infamy, in others, hanging; in others, crucifixion. All laws alike avenge murder with blood, but the kinds of death are different. In some countries, adultery was punished more severely, in others more leniently. Yet we see that amid this diversity they all tend to the same end. For they all with one mouth declare against those crimes which are condemned by the eternal law at God, viz., murder, theft, adultery, and false witness; though they agree not as to the mode of punishment. This is not necessary, nor even expedient. There may be a country which, if murder were not visited with fearful punishments, would instantly become a prey to robbery and slaughter. There may be an age requiring that the severity of punishments should be increased. If the state is in a troubled condition, those things from which disturbances usually arise must be corrected by new edicts. In time of war, civilisation would disappear amid the noise of arms, were not men overawed by an unwonted severity of punishment. In sterility, in pestilence, were not stricter discipline employed, all things would grow worse. One nation might be more prone to a particular vice, were it not most severely repressed. How malignant were it, and invidious of the public good, to be offended at this diversity, which is admirably adapted to retain the observance of the divine law.

The allegation, that insult is offered to the law of God enacted by Moses, where it is abrogated and other new laws are preferred to it, is most absurd. Others are not preferred when they are more approved, not absolutely, but from regard to time and place, and the condition of the people, or when those things are abrogated which were never enacted for us. The Lord did not deliver it by the hand of Moses to be promulgated in all countries, and to be everywhere enforced; but having taken the Jewish nation under his special care, patronage, and guardianship, he was pleased to be specially its legislator, and as became a wise legislator, he had special regard to it in enacting laws.

17. Christians may use the law courts, but without hatred and revenge

It now remains to see, as was proposed in the last place, what use the common society of Christians derive from laws, judicial proceedings, and magistrates. With this is connected another question, viz., What deference ought private individuals to pay to magistrates, and how far ought obedience to proceed? To very many it seems that among Christians the office of magistrate is superfluous, because they cannot piously implore his aid, inasmuch as they are forbidden to take revenge, cite before a judge, or go to law. But when Paul, on the contrary, clearly declares that he is the minister of God to us for good, (Rom. 13: 4,) we thereby understand that he was so ordained of God, that, being defended by his hand and aid against the dishonesty and injustice of wicked men, we may live quiet and secure. But if he would have been appointed over us in vain, unless we were to use his aid, it is plain that it cannot be wrong to appeal to it and implore it.

Here, indeed, I have to do with two classes of men. For there are very many who boil with such a rage for litigation, that they never can be quiet with themselves unless they are fighting with others. Law-suits they prosecute with the bitterness of deadly hatred, and with an insane eagerness to hurt and revenge, and they persist in them with implacable obstinacy, even to the ruin of their adversary. Meanwhile, that they may be thought to do nothing but what is legal, they use this pretext of judicial proceedings as a defence of their perverse conduct. But if it is lawful for brother to litigate with brother, it does not follow that it is lawful to hate him, and obstinately pursue him with a furious desire to do him harm.

18. The Christian’s motives in litigation

Let such persons then understand that judicial proceedings are lawful to him who makes a right use of them; and the right use, both for the pursuer and for the defender, is for the latter to sist himself on the day appointed, and, without bitterness, urge what he can in his defence, but only with the desire of justly maintaining his right; and for the pursuer, when undeservedly attacked in his life or fortunes, to throw himself upon the protection of the magistrate, state his complaint, and demand what is just and good; while, far from any wish to hurt or take vengeance—far from bitterness and hatred—far from the Armour of strife, he is rather disposed to yield and suffer somewhat than to cherish hostile feelings towards his opponent. On the contrary when minds are filled with malevolence, corrupted by envy, burning with anger, breathing revenge, or, in fine, so inflamed by the heat of the contest, that they, in some measure, lay aside charity, the whole pleading, even of the justest cause, cannot but be impious. For it ought to be an axiom among all Christians, that no plea, however equitable, can be rightly conducted by any one who does not feel as kindly towards his opponent as if the matter in dispute were amicably transacted and arranged. Some one, perhaps, may here break in and say, that such moderation in judicial proceedings is so far from being seen, that an instance of it would be a kind of prodigy. I confess that in these times it is rare to meet with an example of an honest litigant; but the thing itself, untainted by the accession of evil, ceases not to be good and pure. When we hear that the assistance of the magistrate is a sacred gift from God, we ought the more carefully to beware of polluting it by our fault.

19. Against the rejection of the judicial process

Let those who distinctly condemn all judicial discussion know, that they repudiate the holy ordinance of God, and one of those gifts which to the pure are pure (Titus 1:15), unless, indeed, they would charge Paul with a crime, because he repelled the calumnies of his accusers, exposing their craft and wickedness (Acts 24:12f), and, at the tribunal, claimed for himself the privilege of a Roman citizen (Acts 16:37; 22:1,25), appealing, when necessary, from the governor to Caesar’s judgement-seat (Acts 25:10-11).

There is nothing contrary to this in the prohibition, which binds all Christians to refrain from revenge, a feeling which we drive far away from all Christian tribunals (Lev. 19:18; Matt. 5:39; Deut. 32:35; Rom. 12:19). For whether the action be of a civil nature, he only takes the right course who, with innocuous simplicity, commits his cause to the judge as the public protector, without any thought of returning evil for evil (Rom. 12:17), (which is, the feeling of revenge;) or whether the action is of a graver nature, directed against a capital offence, the accuser required is not one who comes into court, carried away by some feeling of revenge or resentment from some private injury, but one whose only object is to prevent the attempts of some bad man to injure the commonweal. But if you take away the vindictive mind, you offend in no respect against that command which forbids Christians to indulge revenge.

But they are not only forbidden to thirst for revenge, they are also enjoined to wait for the hand of the Lord, who promises that he will be the avenger of the oppressed and afflicted. But those who call upon the magistrate to give assistance to themselves or others, anticipate the vengeance of the heavenly Judge. By no means, for we are to consider that the vengeance of the magistrate is the vengeance not of man, but of God, which, as Paul says, he exercises by the ministry of man for our good, (Rom. 13: 4.)

20. The Christian endures insults, but with amity and equity defends the public interest

No more are we at variance with the words of Christ, who forbids us to resist evil, and adds, “Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also” (Matth. 5: 39, 40.) He would have the minds of his followers to be so abhorrent to everything like retaliation, that they would sooner allow the injury to be doubled than desire to repay it. From this patience we do not dissuade them. For verily Christians were to be a class of men born to endure affronts and injuries, and be exposed to the iniquity, imposture, and derision of abandoned men, and not only so, but were to be tolerant of all these evils; that is, so composed in the whole frame of their minds, that, on receiving one offence, they were to prepare themselves for another, promising themselves nothing during the whole of life but the endurance of a perpetual cross. Meanwhile, they must do good to those who injure them, and pray for those who curse them, and (this is their only victory) strive to overcome evil with good, (Rom. 12: 20, 21.) Thus affected, they will not seek eye for eye, and tooth for tooth, (as the Pharisees taught their disciples to long for vengeance,) but (as we are instructed by Christ) they will allow their body to be mutilated, and their goods to be maliciously taken from them, prepared to remit and spontaneously pardon those injuries the moment they have been inflicted.

This equity and moderation, however, will not prevent them, with entire friendship for their enemies, from using the aid of the magistrate for the preservation of their goods, or, from zeal for the public interest, to call for the punishment of the wicked and pestilential man, whom they know nothing will reform but death. All these precepts are truly expounded by Augustine, as tending to prepare the just and pious man patiently to sustain the malice of those whom he desires to become good, that he may thus increase the number of the good, not add himself to the number of the bad by imitating their wickedness. Moreover, it pertains more to the preparation of the heart which is within, than to the work which is done openly, that patience and good-will may he retained within the secret of the heart, and that may be done openly which we see may do good to those to whom we ought to wish well, (August. Ep. 5: ad Marcell.)

21. Paul condemns a litigious spirit, but not all litigation

The usual objection, that law-suits are universally condemned by Paul, (1 Cor. 6: 6,) is false. It may easily be understood front his words, that a rage for litigation prevailed in the church of Corinth to such a degree, that they exposed the gospel of Christ, and the whole religion which they professed, to the calumnies and cavils of the ungodly. Paul rebukes them, first for traducing the gospel to unbelievers by the intemperance of their dissensions; and, secondly, for so striving with each other while they were brethren. For so far were they from bearing injury from another, that they greedily coveted each other’s effects, and voluntarily provoked and injured them. He inveighs, therefore, against that madness for litigation, and not absolutely against all kinds of disputes.

He declares it to be altogether a vice or infirmity, that they do not submit to the loss of their effects, rather than strive, even to contention, in preserving them; in other words, seeing they were so easily moved by every kind of loss, and on every occasion, however slight, ran off to the forum and to law-suits, he says, that in this way they showed that they were of too irritable a temper, and not prepared for patience. Christians should always feel disposed rather to give up part of their right than to go into court, out of which they can scarcely come without a troubled mind, a mind inflamed with hatred of their brother. But when one sees that his property, the want of which he would grievously feel, he is able, without any loss of charity, to defend, if he should do so, he offends in no respect against that passage of Paul. In short, as we said at first, every man’s best adviser is charity. Every thing in which we engage without charity, and all the disputes which carry us beyond it, are unquestionably unjust and impious.

(Obedience, with reverence, due even unjust rulers, 22-29)

22. Deference

The first duty of subjects towards their rulers, is to entertain the most honourable views of their office, recognising it as a delegated jurisdiction from God, and on that account receiving and reverencing them as the ministers and ambassadors of God. For you will find some who show themselves very obedient to magistrates, and would be unwilling that there should be no magistrates to obey, because they know this is expedient for the public good, and yet the opinion which those persons have of magistrates is that they are a kind of necessary evils. But Peter requires something more of us when he says, “Honour the king,” (1 Pet. 2: 17;) and Solomon, when he says, “My son, fear thou the Lord and the king,” (Prov. 24: 21.) For, under the term honour, the former includes a sincere and candid esteem, and the latter, by joining the king with God, shows that he is invested with a kind of sacred veneration and dignity. We have also the remarkable injunction of Paul, “Be subject not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake,” (Rom. 13: 5.) By this he means, that subjects, in submitting to princes and governors, are not to be influenced merely by fear, (just as those submit to an armed enemy who see vengeance ready to be executed if they resist,) but because the obedience which they yield is rendered to God himself, inasmuch as their power is from God.

I speak not of the men as if the mask of dignity could cloak folly, or cowardice, or cruelty, or wicked and flagitous manners, and thus acquire for vice the praise of virtue; but I say that the station itself is deserving of honour and reverence, and that those who rule should, in respect of their office, be held by us in esteem and veneration.

23.Obedience

From this, a second consequence is, that we must with ready minds prove our obedience to them, whether in complying with edicts, or in paying tribute, or in undertaking public offices and burdens which relate to the common defence, or in executing any other orders. “Let every soul”, says Paul, “be subject unto the higher powers.” “Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God,” (Rom. 13: 1, 2.) Writing to Titus, he says, “Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,” (Tit. 3: 1.) Peter also says, “Submit yourselves to every human creature,” (or rather, as I understand it, “ordinance of man,") “for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well,” (1 Pet. 2: 13.) Moreover, to testify that they do not feign subjection, but are sincerely and cordially subject, Paul adds, that they are to commend the safety and prosperity of those under whom they live to God. “I exhort, therefore,” says he, “that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority: that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty,” (1 Tim. 2: 1, 2.)

Let no man here deceive himself, since we cannot resist the magistrate without resisting God. For, although an unarmed magistrate may seem to be despised with impunity, yet God is armed, and will signally avenge this contempt.

Under this obedience, I comprehend the restraint which private men ought to impose on themselves in public, not interfering with public business, or rashly encroaching on the province of the magistrate, or attempting any thing at all of a public nature. If it is proper that any thing in a public ordinance should be corrected, let them not act tumultuously, or put their hands to a work where they ought to feel that their hands are tied, but let them leave it to the cognisance of the magistrate, whose hand alone here is free. My meaning is, let them not dare to do it without being ordered. For when the command of the magistrate is given, they too are invested with public authority. For as, according to the common saying, the eyes and ears of the prince are his counsellors, so one may not improperly say that those who, by his command, have the charge of managing affairs, are his hands.

24. Obedience is also due the unjust magistrate

But as we have hitherto described the magistrate who truly is what he is called, viz., the father of his country, and (as the Poet speaks) the pastor of the people, the guardian of peace, the president of justice, the vindicator of innocence, he is justly to be deemed a madman who disapproves of such authority.

And since in almost all ages we see that some princes, careless about all their duties on which they ought to have been intent, live, without solicitude, in luxurious sloth, others, bent on their own interests venally prostitute all rights, privileges, judgements, and enactments; others pillage poor people of their money, and afterwards squander it in insane largesses; others act as mere robbers, pillaging houses, violating matrons and slaying the innocent; many cannot be persuaded to recognise such persons for princes, whose command, as far as lawful, they are bound to obey.

For while in this unworthy conduct, and among atrocities so alien, not only from the duty of the magistrate, but also of the man, they behold no appearance of the image of God, which ought to be conspicuous in the magistrates while they see not a vestige of that minister of God, who was appointed to be a praise to the good and a terror to the bad, they cannot recognise the ruler whose dignity and authority Scripture recommends to us. And, undoubtedly, the natural feeling of the human mind has always been not less to assail tyrants with hatred and execrations than to look up to just kings with love and veneration.

25. The wicked ruler a judgment of God

But it we have respect to the word of God, it will lead us farther, and make us subject not only to the authority of those princes who honestly and faithfully perform their duty toward us, but all princes, by whatever means they have so become, although there is nothing they less perform than the duty of princes. For though the Lord declares that ruler to maintain our safety is the highest gift of his beneficence, and prescribes to rulers themselves their proper sphere, he at the same time declares, that of whatever description they may be, they derive their power from none but him. Those, indeed, who rule for the public good, are true examples and specimens of big beneficence, while those who domineer unjustly and tyrannically are raised up by him to punish the people for their iniquity. Still all alike possess that sacred majesty with which he has invested lawful power.

I will not proceed further without subjoining some distinct passages to this effect. We need not labour to prove that an impious king is a mark of the Lord’s anger, since I presume no one will deny it, and that this is not less true of a king than of a robber who plunders your goods, an adulterer who defiles your bed, and an assassin who aims at your life, since all such calamities are classed by Scripture among the curses of God.

But let us insist at greater length in proving what does not so easily fall in with the views of men, that even an individual of the worst character, one most unworthy of all honour, if invested with public authority, receives that illustrious divine power which the Lord has by his word devolved on the ministers of his justice and judgement, and that, accordingly, in so far as public obedience is concerned, he is to be held in the same honour and reverence as the best of kings.

26. Obedience to bad kings required in Scripture

And, first, I would have the reader carefully to attend to that Divine Providence which, not without cause, is so often set before us in Scripture, and that special act of distributing kingdoms, and setting up as kings whomsoever he pleases. In Daniel it is said, “He changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings,” (Dan. 2: 21, 37.) Again, “That the living may know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will,” (Dan. 4: 17, 20.) Similar sentiments occur throughout Scripture, but they abound particularly in the prophetical books. What kind of king Nebuchadnezzar, he who stormed Jerusalem, was, is well known. He was an active invader and devastator of other countries. Yet the Lord declares in Ezekiel that he had given him the land of Egypt as his hire for the devastation which he had committed. Daniel also said to him, “Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven has given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven has he given into thine hand, and has made thee ruler over them all,” (Dan. 2: 37, 38.) Again, he says to his son Belshazzar, “The most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour: and for the majesty that he gave him, all people, nations, and languages, trembled and feared before him,” (Dan. 5: 18, 19.) When we hear that the king was appointed by God, let us, at the same time, call to mind those heavenly edicts as to honouring and fearing the king, and we shall have no doubt that we are to view the most iniquitous tyrant as occupying the place with which the Lord has honoured him. When Samuel declared to the people of Israel what they would suffer from their kings, he said, “This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectioneries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your olive yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your men-servants, and your maid-servants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants,” (1 Sam. 8: 11-17.) Certainly these things could not be done legally by kings, whom the law trained most admirably to all kinds of restraint; but it was called justice in regard to the people, because they were bound to obey, and could not lawfully resist: as if Samuel had said, To such a degree will kings indulge in tyranny, which it will not be for you to restrain. The only thing remaining for you will be to receive their commands, and be obedient to their words.

27. The case of Nebuchadnezzar in Jeremiah ch. 27

But the most remarkable and memorable passage is in Jeremiah. Though it is rather long, I am not indisposed to quote it, because it most clearly settles this whole question. “I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power, and by my outstretched arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me. And now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon my servant; and the beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him. And all nations shall serve him, and his son, and his son’s son, until the very time of his land come: and then many nations and great kings shall serve themselves of him. And it shall come to pass, that the nation and kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish, saith the Lord, with the sword, and with famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand,” (Jer. 27: 5-8.) Therefore “bring your necks under the yoke of the king of Babylon, and serve him and his people, and live,” (v. 12.) We see how great obedience the Lord was pleased to demand for this dire and ferocious tyrant, for no other reason than just that he held the kingdom. In other words, the divine decree had placed him on the throne of the kingdom, and admitted him to regal majesty, which could not be lawfully violated. If we constantly keep before our eyes and minds the fact, that even the most iniquitous kings are appointed by the same decree which establishes all regal authority, we will never entertain the seditious thought, that a king is to be treated according to his deserts, and that we are not bound to act the part of good subjects to him who does not in his turn act the part of a king to us.

28. General testimonies of Scripture on the sanctity of the royal person

It is vain to object, that that command was specially given to the Israelites. For we must attend to the ground on which the Lord places it—"I have given the kingdom to Nebuchadnezzar; therefore serve him and live."(Jer. 27). Let us doubt not that on whomsoever the kingdom has been conferred, him we are bound to serve. Whenever God raises any one to royal honour, he declares it to be his pleasure that he should reign. To this effect we have general declarations in Scripture. Solomon says—"For the transgression of a land, many are the princes thereof,” (Prov. 28: 2.) Job says “He looseth the bond of kings, and girdeth their loins with a girdle,” (Job 12: 18.) This being confessed, nothing remains for us but to serve and live.

There is in Jeremiah another command in which the Lord thus orders his people—"Seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the Lord for it: for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace,” (Jer. 29: 7.) Here the Israelites, plundered of all their property, torn from their homes, driven into exile, thrown into miserable bondage, are ordered to pray for the prosperity of the victor, not as we are elsewhere ordered to pray for our persecutors, but that his kingdom may be preserved in safety and tranquillity, that they too may live prosperously under him. Thus David, when already king elect by the ordination of God, and anointed with his holy oil, though ceaselessly and unjustly assailed by Saul, holds the life of one who was seeking his life to be sacred, because the Lord had invested him with royal honour. “The Lord forbid that I should do this thing unto my master, the Lord’s anointed, to stretch forth mine hand against him seeing he is the anointed of the Lord.” “Mine eye spared thee; and I said, I will not put forth mine hand against my lord; for he is the Lord’s anointed,” (1 Sam. 24: 6, 11.) Again,—"Who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord’s anointed, and be guiltless?” “As the Lord liveth, the Lord shall smite him, or his day shall come to die, or he shall descend into battle, and perish. The Lord forbid that I should stretch forth mine hand against the Lord’s anointed,” (1 Sam. 26: 9-11.)

29. It is not the part of subjects but of God to vindicate the right

This feeling of reverence, and even of piety, we owe to the utmost to all our rulers, be their characters what they may. This I repeat the softener, that we may learn not to consider the individuals themselves, but hold it to be enough that by the will of the Lord they sustain a character on which he has impressed and engraven inviolable majesty.

But rulers, you will say, owe mutual duties to those under them. This I have already confessed. But if from this you conclude that obedience is to be returned to none but just governors, you reason absurdly. Husbands are bound by mutual duties to their wives, and parents to their children. Should husbands and parents neglect their duty; should the latter be harsh and severe to the children whom they are enjoined not to provoke to anger (Eph. 6:4), and by their severity harass them beyond measure; should the former treat with the greatest contumely the wives whom they are enjoined to love (Eph. 5:25) and to spare as the weaker vessels (I Peter 3:7); would children be less bound in duty to their parents, and wives to their husbands? They are made subject to the froward and undutiful.

Nay, since the duty of all is not to look behind them, that is, not to inquire into the duties of one another but to submit each to his own duty, this ought especially to be exemplified in the case of those who are placed under the power of others. Wherefore, if we are cruelly tormented by a savage, if we are rapaciously pillaged by an avaricious or luxurious, if we are neglected by a sluggish, if, in short, we are persecuted for righteousness’ sake by an impious and sacrilegious prince, let us first call up the remembrance of our faults, which doubtless the Lord is chastising by such scourges. In this way humility will curb our impatience. And let us reflect that it belongs not to us to cure these evils, that all that remains for us is to implore the help of the Lord, in whose hands are the hearts of kings, and inclinations of kingdoms (Prov. 21:1). “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.” (Ps. 82:1). Before his face shall fall and be crushed all kings and judges of the earth, who have not kissed his anointed, who have enacted unjust laws to oppress the poor in judgement, and do violence to the cause of the humble, to make widows a prey, and plunder the fatherless (Isa. 10:1-2).

(Constitutional magistrates, however, ought to check the tyranny of kings; obedience to God comes first, 30-31)

30. When God intervenes, it is sometimes by unwitting agents

Herein is the goodness, power, and providence of God wondrously displayed. At one time he raises up manifest avengers from among his own servants and gives them his command to punish accursed tyranny and deliver his people from calamity when they are unjustly oppressed; at another time he employs, for this purpose, the fury of men who have other thoughts and other aims. Thus he rescued his people Israel from the tyranny of Pharaoh by Moses; from the violence of Chusa, king of Syria, by Othniel; and from other bondage by other kings or judges. Thus he tamed the pride of Tyre by the Egyptians; the insolence of the Egyptians by the Assyrians; the ferocity of the Assyrians by the Chaldeans; the confidence of Babylon by the Medes and Persians,—Cyrus having previously subdued the Medes, while the ingratitude of the kings of Judah and Israel, and their impious contumacy after all his kindness, he subdued and punished,—at one time by the Assyrians, at another by the Babylonians. All these things however were not done in the same way.

The former class of deliverers being brought forward by the lawful call of God to perform such deeds, when they took up arms against kings, did not at all violate that majesty with which kings are invested by divine appointment, but armed from heaven, they, by a greater power, curbed a less, just as kings may lawfully punish their own satraps. The latter class, though they were directed by the hand of God, as seemed to him good, and did his work without knowing it, had nought but evil in their thoughts.

31. Constitutional defenders of the people’s freedom

But whatever may be thought of the acts of the men themselves, the Lord by their means equally executed his own work, when he broke the bloody sceptres of insolent kings, and overthrew their intolerable dominations. Let princes hear and be afraid; but let us at the same time guard most carefully against spurning or violating the venerable and majestic authority of rulers, an authority which God has sanctioned by the surest edicts, although those invested with it should be most unworthy of it, and, as far as in them lies, pollute it by their iniquity. Although the Lord takes vengeance on unbridled domination, let us not therefore suppose that that vengeance is committed to us, to whom no command has been given but to obey and suffer.

I speak only of private men. For when popular magistrates have been appointed to curb the tyranny of kings, (as the Ephori, who were opposed to kings among the Spartans, or Tribunes of the people to consuls among the Romans, or Demarchs to the senate among the Athenians; and, perhaps, there is something similar to this in the power exercised in each kingdom by the three orders, when they hold their primary diets.) So far am I from forbidding these officially to check the undue license of kings, that if they connive at kings when they tyrannise and insult over the humbler of the people, I affirm that their dissimulation is not free from nefarious perfidy, because they fraudulently betray the liberty of the people, while knowing that, by the ordinance of God, they are its appointed guardians.

32. Obedience to man must not become disobedience to God

But in that obedience which we hold to be due to the commands of rulers, we must always make the exception, nay, must be particularly careful that it is not incompatible with obedience to Him to whose will the wishes of all kings should be subject, to whose decrees their commands must yield, to whose majesty their sceptres must bow. And, indeed, how preposterous were it, in pleasing men, to incur the offence of Him for whose sake you obey men! The Lord, therefore, is King of kings. When he opens his sacred mouth, he alone is to be heard, instead of all and above all. We are subject to the men who rule over us, but subject only in the Lord. If they command any thing against Him, let us not pay the least regard to it, nor be moved by all the dignity which they possess as magistrates—a dignity to which, no injury is done when it is subordinated to the special and truly supreme power of God. On this ground Daniel denies that he had sinned in any respect against the king when he refused to obey his impious decree, (Dan. 6: 22,) because the king had exceeded his limits, and not only been injurious to men, but, by raising his horn against God, had virtually abrogated his own power. On the other hand, the Israelites are condemned for having too readily obeyed the impious edict of the king. For, when Jeroboam made the golden calf, they forsook the temple of God, and, in submissiveness to him, revolted to new superstitions, (1 Kings 12: 28.) With the same facility posterity had bowed before the decrees of their kings. For this they are severely upbraided by the Prophet, (Hosea 5: 11.) So far is the praise of modesty from being due to that pretence by which flattering courtiers cloak themselves, and deceive the simple, when they deny the lawfulness of declining any thing imposed by their kings, as if the Lord had resigned his own rights to mortals by appointing them to rule over their fellows or as if earthly power were diminished when it is subjected to its author, before whom even the principalities of heaven tremble as suppliants. I know the imminent peril to which subjects expose themselves by this firmness, kings being most indignant when they are condemned. As Solomon says, “The wrath of a king is as messengers of death,” (Prov. 16: 14.) But since Peter, one of heaven’s heralds, has published the edict, “We ought to obey God rather than men,” (Acts 5: 29,) let us console ourselves with the thought, that we are rendering the obedience which the Lord requires when we endure anything rather than turn aside from piety. And that our courage may not fail, Paul stimulates us by the additional considerations (1 Cor. 7: 23,) that we were redeemed by Christ at the great price which our redemption cost him, in order that we might not yield a slavish obedience to the depraved wishes of men, far less do homage to their impiety.

Commentaries on Election and Predestination

1. ELECTION

Malachi — introduction.

Next comes the book of Malachi. Many imagine him to have been an angel, for we know that an angel is called mala’k in Hebrew. But it is easy to see what an absurdity that idea is. At that time, God did not send angels to announce his oracles, but used the regular ministry of men. And since the i, yod, is added at the end of the name, as is usual in proper names, we may conclude that Malachi was the man’s name. But I readily admit that there may have been a reason for the name which today escapes us. I am more ready to agree with others who say that he was Ezra and that Malachi is a second name given him because God had called him for a splendid and magnificent work.

But whatever the fact may be, he was certainly one of the prophets and we can assume with reason that he was the last. In the end of the book he urges the people to stand fast in the pure teaching of the law; and this he does because thereafter God was not to continue sending a succession of prophets as he had done before. . . . Now I come to his words:

The burden of the word of the Lord to Israel by the hand of Malachi. Mal. 1:1.

Those who explain massa’ as simply another word for prophecy are mistaken, as I have said elsewhere. Not every prophecy is called a burden. Further, whenever the word is used, some impending judgment of God follows, and it is clear enough from Jeremiah (23:36) that the word was generally detested. Godless people, when they wanted to insult the prophets, used to say as a common proverb, “This is a burden,” implying that you could expect nothing from prophets but threats and terrors; that it was better to shut one’s ears and to avoid all prophecies as omens of evil. Malachi’s teaching is properly called a burden, because, as I have said and explained more fully elsewhere, it was necessary to summon the people to God’s judgment court, on account of the infamy which was once again rampant and had to be stopped. Therefore he says that God’s judgment is upon them. . . .

Hand, as we have seen, means service. It means that this teaching is from God, with Malachi as the intermediary. The prophet is bringing nothing of his own; he is faithfully reporting as God, the author [of the prophecy], has commanded him.

I loved you, saith the Lord. And you said, How didst thou love us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the Lord. And I loved Jacob, and Esau I held in hatred. . . . A son honoreth his father, and a servant his master. And if I am a father, where is my honor? And if I am a master, where is my fear? saith the Lord of hosts. Mal. 1:2–6. (Calvin’s wording).

I am compelled to read all these verses together because otherwise the meaning of the passage would not be clear. God is here remonstrating with a perverse and ungrateful people who doubly deny him his right since they neither love him nor fear him. He rightly claims the name and position of both Father and Lord. When the Jews show him no reverence, he reproaches them for denying him a father’s right; and when there is no fear of him, he accuses them again because they do not recognize him as Lord, although they cannot elude his authority. But before he comes to the accusation, he shows that he is both Lord and Father. And above all he shows that he is a father, in that he has loved them freely. . . .

God could have appealed to the Jews on other grounds. Even if he did not love them, they were bound to him by his sovereignty. However, here God is not speaking of his universal love toward the whole human race. He is reproaching the Jews because, having been freely adopted by him as a holy and special people, they had forgotten his honor and despised him and had paid no heed to his teaching. When, therefore, God says that he loved the Jews, we can see that in this way he wants to convict them of ingratitude because they have spurned the singular favor by which he had honored them alone, rather than to convince them of his universal Kingdom to which all men are subject.

God could have said to them: “I created you and I am your father who feeds you. The sun shines daily upon you and the earth bears its fruits. In fact I hold you bound to me by the innumerable benefits I confer upon you by my kindness.” God could have dealt with them in that way; but as I have already pointed out, he preferred to bring before them the free adoption of Abraham’s seed. The disloyalty of the Jews was all the more intolerable because they were rejecting an incomparable favor. For God had raised them above all nations not because of any merit or worth of their own, but because he was pleased to do so.

The prophet begins by saying that God loved the Jews in order to make them realize that their scorn for God’s teaching was the worst possible response to his love. This is the first point.

Next, it is obvious that he is indirectly reproaching their ingratitude when he makes them say, How didst thou love us? With this God implies, “If you should say, or rather, should ask, In what way have I loved you? my answer is, Truly in that I set aside Esau and chose your father Jacob, although they were brothers. . . .” We see, as I mentioned above, that the prophet reminds the Jews of the free covenant to leave them no excuse for their wickedness in repaying God so badly for his special grace toward them.

He does not accuse them because they were created like the rest of mankind, or because God has given them the light of his sun, and provided them with food out of the ground. He says that if they have been set above other peoples, it is not by their own merit but because God had seen fit to choose their father, Jacob. The prophet could have named Abraham; but since Jacob and Esau were both descended from Abraham, with whom God had made his covenant, God’s gracious favor was the more conspicuous in Jacob. First, God chose Abraham alone, and put the other families of mankind aside. Then, out of this one family whom God had adopted, one man was chosen and the other rejected.

The point is not merely that Esau and Jacob were brothers. We must notice other facts which the prophet does not state because everybody knew them. . . . All the Jews knew that Esau was the first-born, and that it was contrary to nature for Jacob to obtain the first-born’s right. . . . But Jacob was divinely chosen and his brother, the first-born, was rejected.

If we seek the reason for this, we shall not find it in a difference of root or origin. The two men were brothers; and even before they came out of their mother’s womb, God had already declared by oracle that Jacob would be the greater of the two. So we see that the primary source of every good we find in the descendants of Abraham was derived solely from the free love of God. Indeed Moses says often, Not because you excelled other nations, or were more numerous, did God honor you with so many kindnesses, but because he loved your fathers (Deut. 7:7). The Jews were continually warned not to look for the reason for their adoption elsewhere than in God’s free favor. He had seen fit to choose them; this alone was the source of their security.

After having briefly recalled the benefits which should have filled the Jews with shame, the prophet comes to his main point, which is, as I said above, that God declares himself defrauded of his right in two ways: the Jews neither revere him as Father nor fear him as Lord. He could indeed, by right of creation, call himself both Father and Lord, but I have already explained that he refers rather to their adoption because God’s grace is the more striking when he out of all mankind chooses some few to be his own people. . . . Those whom he honors with such an election he binds to himself with a most holy chain; and if they desert him, there is no excuse whatever for their treachery.

Since we now understand the prophet’s purpose and the aim of the whole reproof, it remains to adapt his teaching to our own use. We are not descendants of Abraham or of Jacob, according to the flesh; but God has given us sure evidence of his adoption, which singles us out from other peoples whom we in no way excel. Clearly, then, if we do not respond to God’s call, we are found no less guilty than the Jews. I am touching on this briefly now, to point out that this teaching has no less importance for us today than it did for the Jews at that time.

Although the method of our adoption differs from that which affected one seed or one family, it is true of us as it was of them that we are raised above others not by our own worth but because God has freely chosen us for his people. Since he has so chosen us, we belong to him, more especially because he has bought us by the blood of his Son. By granting us participation in his inestimable grace through the gospel, he has made us both sons and servants. Therefore, unless we honor him as Father and fear him as Lord, the same (and no less) ingratitude will be found in us as was found in that ancient people.

Today I dealt with the main points of this passage in a summary way; tomorrow I shall speak of election, as the text itself requires. It was necessary to discuss first the prophet’s purpose, which I have done. Next I will treat single topics more fully so far as necessary.

Prayer

Grant, Almighty God, who hast not only given us life in common with all men in this world, but hast also separated us and illuminated us by the Sun of Righteousness, thine only-begotten Son, in order to lead us into the inheritance of eternal salvation, grant I beseech thee that since we have been rescued from the darkness of death, we may ever attend to that heavenly light by which thou guidest and invitest us to thyself. May we walk as children of light, and never wander from our holy calling, but continually go forward in it, until we shall at length reach the goal which thou hast set before us, so that we may put off the uncleanness of the flesh and be transformed into that ineffable glory of which we have now the image in thine only-begotten Son. Amen.

Yesterday we explained the purpose of Malachi the prophet. . . . But to appreciate the justice of his remonstrance, first, we must consider under what obligation we are to God, because he created us as men, in his own image and likeness, for he could equally well have created dogs and donkeys instead of men. We know that Adam was made of the earth as were the other animals, and therefore as to body there was no real difference between men and the dumb beasts. God is said to have breathed the breath of life into men, but we should not take this as the Manichaeans dream about it, as though men receive their souls by way of transplantation. (By using this word, they teach that the human soul is of the substance of God.) Moses on the contrary means that the human soul was created out of nothing. We are born by generation, but our origin is clay. Still, there is something special in us, a creation from nothing which is the soul. We see, therefore, that we differ from the beasts only because God by his gracious favor willed to create us men. Therefore, if we do not worship him, he has every right to charge us with ingratitude, since we were created in his image for this very purpose.

This passage, however, has to do with the special favor of God in taking the seed of Abraham to himself. As the Song of Moses declares, All peoples belong to God; and yet he has thrown a rope and separated Israel for himself (Deut. 32:9). Calvin’s paraphrase bears little verbal resemblance to anything in Deut., ch. 32, although the main point is made in the Song. With the whole earth under his dominion, he pleased to choose one family as his own.

If we look for a reason for this, we shall not find it in men. All men alike were created out of the earth, and all had souls created from nothing put into their bodies. If this be so, we see that when God gives precedence to one race over others, the distinction among them must have its source in his gracious favor. . . . The prophet speaks here of the third step in election by which God set apart a branch of Abraham’s descendants. But we must keep in mind the first step, by which mankind was bound to God in a special way, because while he could have created them donkeys and dogs, he chose to form them after his own image. The second step was his choice of the race of Abraham, although his power extended over all peoples without exception. . . . In the third stage, to which Malachi refers, we must note that, having promised to be the God of Abraham and his seed, God distinguished also between the sons of Abraham, rejecting some, taking others for his own. This is emphasized by Paul in the ninth chapter of Romans. . . .

Now upon the third step follows a fourth. From the sons of Jacob, God chose whom he would, and rejected others. The Scripture is full of statements like the words of Moses (Deut. 9:6), “I did not choose you from other nations because of your virtue, for I knew that you were a rebellious people, stiff-necked and obstinate.” Even while God knew the perverse spirit of this people, he chose to reveal in them an example of his wonderful kindness. Therefore, we must not look for the cause of their adoption outside of God.

But if the election of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was a free act of God, we must conclude that the individuals whom God singles out from the whole body are freely chosen. And so I come to the fourth step. . . . For when many who are descended from Jacob according to the flesh are rejected no less than Esau, it is clear that when God elects individual men his choice is governed by his free favor and pure compassion. This is the line of argument which the apostle follows in the letter to the Romans.

It seems harsh to many to think that God chooses some and rejects others, and does not consider men’s worth, that by his own free will he chooses whom he pleases and moreover rejects others. But what is this scruple except a desire to call God to order and subject him to their judgment? We must return to the first step. If it is unreasonable for God to choose one of two men and reject the other, how can we defend God’s justice in creating a donkey and a man — if it needs defense? For as I said the bodies of donkeys and men come from the same clay. And all of a donkey’s strength and energy he possesses because he was so created by the secret life-giving power of God. As for man’s soul, although it is immortal, it is also a creation from nothing. Now let these good critics explain what wrong they think is done to God, and how he is slandered by the statement that the salvation of men depends on God’s will to reject some and choose others. For, if they wish to satisfy human judgment, they have the same problem in the universal election of men and beasts at their creation.

As we have said, there is no real difference among men, except in their hidden election. Some theologians would make foreknowledge the mother of election, and that very foolishly and childishly. They say that some men are chosen and others rejected by God, because God, from whom nothing is hidden, foresees of what sort each man will be. But I ask, Whence comes virtue to one and vice to the other? If they say, “From free will,” surely creation was before free will. This is one point. Besides, we know that all men were created alike in the person of Adam. . . . And what does this mean except that the condition of all who come from the one root is the same?

I am not discussing “special gifts.” I admit that if our nature had not been corrupted and we all had the same assurance of blessedness, we would be endowed with a variety of gifts. . . . But since in Adam all are sinners, deserving of eternal death, it is obvious that nothing but sin will be found in men. Therefore, God’s foreknowledge cannot be the reason of our election, because when God [looks into the future and] surveys all mankind, he will find them all, from the first to the last, under the same curse. So we see how foolishly triflers prattle when they ascribe to mere naked foreknowledge what must be founded on God’s good pleasure. . . .

When Moses prays to God not to break his covenant with Abraham, God answers, “I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” What does he mean? He means that the reason for God’s keeping some for himself and rejecting others is to be sought nowhere but in God himself. When he says, “I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion,” the repetition may seem empty and dull; but it is in reality emphatic. . . . The reason for compassion is compassion itself.

At that time, Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, O Father, so it seemed good in thy sight. Matt. 11:25–26.

It is certain that he gave thanks to the Father on their behalf and for their sakes, so that they might not be offended because the church appears so lowly and mean. We are always looking for splendor, and nothing seems more absurd than that the Heavenly Kingdom of the Son of God, the glory of which is celebrated with such magnificence by the prophets, should consist of the dregs and nobodies of low-class peoples. And surely it is an amazing counsel of God that when he had the whole earth in his hands he chose his people out of the contemptible folk, rather than out of the upper classes who might have brought the name of Christ greater credit through their own excellencies. But here Christ sets his disciples apart from the proud, from the high and mighty, so that they will not dare to despise the mean and obscure condition of the church with which he himself is well pleased and happy. Besides, in order to suppress more effectively the curiosity which is constantly creeping into people’s minds, he goes beyond the realm of cause and effect, and contemplates the secret judgments of God, in order to lead others to wonder at them with him. Even though God’s judgment shows him certainly to be of a mind quite different from our own, our pride is nonetheless insanely blind if we cry out against God’s judgment while Christ who is our Head bows his head to it and adores it. But let us consider further the statement, I acknowledge to thee, O Father. With these words, he testifies to his acquiescence in the decree of the Father, which accords so ill with the mind of man. There is here a hidden contrast between the praise which he renders to God and the malicious calumnies, and even the insolent barkings, of the world. It is clear that he glorifies the Father, because even though he is the Lord of the whole world, he has preferred babies and simple folk to those who are wise. Now, in this context, it is not without significance that he calls the Father the Lord of heaven and earth. In this way he declares that the distinction between the wise who act as blind men, and the uncouth and ignorant who embrace the mysteries of the gospel, depends on nothing else than the will of God. There are many other passages of this kind, where God shows that those who attain salvation are the ones whom he himself has chosen freely; for he is the Creator and Fashioner of the world, and all nations are his own.

This verse is impressive in two respects. The fact that not all receive the gospel is not due to the impotence of God, who could readily make all creatures submit to his empire. Secondly, that some arrive at faith, while others remain stupefied and obstinate, is due to his free election. He draws some to himself and passes others by; and in so doing, he himself distinguishes among men, whose situation by nature is the same. It is for his own glory that he elects little children rather than the wise. The flesh is much too zealous to set itself up. If clever and learned men were to have an advantage, then everybody would assume that faith is acquired by human skill, or industry, or knowledge. There is no other way in which the mercy of God can stand out more clearly than in God’s way of choosing; for thus it becomes evident that men come to God empty-handed. Therefore, it is right that the wisdom of men should be overthrown; because in this way it will not obscure the glory of God’s grace.

But someone will ask, Whom does Christ call the wise, and whom, little children? Experience teaches us clearly that not all those who are ignoramuses and uncultivated men receive the light and believe; and not all who are prudent or literate are left to their blindness. Therefore, they who are here called prudent and wise are those who, inflated with the devil’s own arrogance, cannot bear to hear Christ speaking to them from his own height. And yet, as we are taught by the example of Paul whose fierce zeal was overcome by Christ, it is not always the case that God reprobates those who have too high an opinion of themselves. And when we go down and look at the uncultivated crowd, we find that the majority of them are poisonously mean, and left for destruction together with those who are great men and noble. . . . Christ is the master of the humble, and the first principle of faith is, “Let none be wise in his own eyes.” But what matters is not the willingness of men to become like children. Rather, Christ’s discourse enlarges upon the grace of the Father, who does not disdain to go down to the weak, and to pull the paupers out of their filth. . . .

Even so, Father. These words remove every excuse for the kind of unlawful nosiness which always pleases us. Nothing is more difficult for God than to draw out of us an unquestioning acceptance of his will as rational and just. He teaches us often that his judgments are a deep abyss; and still we are impetuous enough to plunge headlong into its depths. And when anything does not suit us, we growl and murmur against him; and many break out in open blasphemy. Against all this, God has laid down the rule that we accept whatever pleases him as right. Sober wisdom is precisely this, that one good pleasure of God is more than a thousand reasons. Christ certainly could have brought out many reasons for the distinctions God makes among the people. But, satisfied with God’s good pleasure, he did not search further into God’s calling children rather than others to salvation; nor did he ask why God wills to fill his Kingdom with these sheep and nobodies. It is evident from this that people rage against Christ himself when they raise a hue and cry upon hearing that by the will of God some are freely chosen and others are rejected; they do it because they cannot bear to let God have his way.

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. Matt. 25:34.

. . . Christ does not invite the believers to possess the Kingdom as though they were fit for it by their own merits. He says explicitly that it shall be given to the heirs (of God’s promise). He has also another purpose in saying these words. Since the life of the godly is nothing but an exile full of sorrow and misery, so that the earth itself can hardly bear them; since they are hard pressed by want, and are covered with shame and other afflictions — the Lord testifies to them of a Kingdom all ready for them, so that with fortified and buoyant spirit, they may be able to overcome these odds against them. For it is no common inducement to patience that men be persuaded with certainty that they are not walking in vain. Therefore, if our souls are not to be cast down by the pride of the godless in which they now exult before our face; if our hope is not to be turned into despair by the troubles we undergo — we must always keep in mind our inheritance in heaven, which depends not upon doubtful contingencies, but was prepared for us by God before we were born. This I say to each one of the elect, for it is he whom Christ calls the blessed of the Father. It is no contradiction that here we read from the foundation of the world, and elsewhere, before the creation of heaven and earth. Here Christ is not fixing the exact time when the eternal inheritance was destined for the sons of God. He rather calls us back to the Fatherly care and protection of God which embraced us before we were even born; he confirms the certainty of our hope by reminding us that all the turbulent agitations of this world shall not have the force to make our lives sway and come down in ruins.

What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it; and the rest are blinded. Rom. 11:7.

Since the elect alone by God’s grace are drawn away from destruction, it follows that those who are not elected, in the nature of the case, remain in their blindness. With regard to the rejected, Paul means that those who are left aside by God have the principle of their ruin and damnation from themselves. The Scriptural proofs which he puts together, from not one but several places, when examined in their proper context, do not seem to serve his purpose; for in all these passages, the scourges of God, such as blindness and hardening, are visited upon those who are already wicked. Paul, on the other hand, is trying in this place to prove that the blinded are not those who deserve it through their wickedness, but those who have been rejected of God before the creation of the world.

Let us untie this knot briefly as follows: the source of wickedness which in itself provokes the wrath of God is in the perversity of natures which God has left alone. Therefore, it is not without reason that, according to Paul, such natures proceed from the eternal rejection of God as fruit from the tree or a river from its source. It is true that the godless are punished by God justly with blindness because they are wicked. But if we look for the source of their ruin, we must ultimately come to this, that being cursed by God, all that they do, say, or intend, only furthers and increases their curse. Yet, the cause of eternal rejection is so hidden that there is nothing left for us to do but to be amazed at the incomprehensible mind of God, as will appear finally from the conclusion of this passage. It is stupid, as soon as an immediate cause is mentioned, to make this an excuse for trying to deny the ultimate cause which is hidden from our view; as though, because God condemns the corrupt and depraved seed of Adam, and then repays individuals with the reward of their crimes, according to their deserts, God had not freely ordained, before the Fall of Adam, what seemed good to him for the whole human race.

What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. Rom. 9:30.

Nothing seemed more absurd and less congruous [with justice] than that the Gentiles, who cared nothing for righteousness and wallowed in the debauchery of the flesh, should have been called to partake in salvation and obtain righteousness, and that the Jews, on the contrary, who gave themselves wholeheartedly to doing the works prescribed by the law, should have been deprived of every reward due to the righteous. Paul states this amazing paradox boldly so that he may temper its bitterness with the reason he gives for it: namely, that the righteousness which the Gentiles acquired was by faith, which depends not upon human worth but upon the mercy of God. The zeal with which the Jews plied the law was preposterous, because they sought to be justified by their works; they strove after what no man can attain. What is more, they stumbled at Christ, who alone opened the way by which we obtain righteousness.

In the first part of this verse, the apostle intended to exalt the marvelous grace of God; he looks for the reason behind the call of the Gentiles nowhere except in that God deigned to embrace those who were unworthy of his favor. He speaks particularly of that righteousness without which there is no salvation. But by saying that this righteousness consists in faith, he means that the righteousness of the Gentiles is effected by the free act of God which reconciles them to him. For, if anyone fancies that their own faith prepared the Gentiles for regeneration by the Spirit, he is far from what Paul is talking about. It could not have been true that they had attained what they did not even seek after, unless God had freely taken hold of them while they themselves were lost and wandering, unless God had offered them a righteousness which they could neither have pursued nor practiced, because they were ignorant of it. Whence it must be noticed that the Gentiles were made fit for righteousness by faith, because God had anticipated their faith with his grace. And if it is by faith that they first aspired after righteousness, it was by faith also that they followed it. Thus faith itself was an element in grace.

Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if thy mighty works, which have been done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. Matt. 11:21.

Since Tyre and Sidon, being nearby, were infamous for their godlessness, their pride, debauchery, and other vices, Christ draws this comparison between their works and those of the Jews, so as to pierce more deeply into the hearts of his countrymen. There was not one among the latter who did not blame the people of Tyre and Sidon for their wicked contempt of God. Therefore, Christ intensified his curse greatly when he said that there was more hope for repentance in those godless places than in Judea itself.

However, to avoid thorny questions about the secret judgments of God, let us hold that this discourse of our Lord is intended to apply to the common mentality of men. By comparing the people of Bethsaida and their neighbors with those of Tyre and Sidon, he is not arguing that God foresaw what these or those would do; he is simply stating what the latter would have done, so far as one can see from the facts of the case. The corrupt ways of their cities and their unbridled profligacies could be explained as due to ignorance, because they had not heard the voice of God, and no miracles had been performed to bring them to their senses. On the other hand, the cities of Galilee which Christ upbraids had shown a more than iron obstinacy, which had led the people to witness a multitude of miracles without learning anything from them. In short, the words of Christ mean nothing except that, in malice and incurable contempt of God, Tyre and Sidon were surpassed by Bethsaida and Chorazin.

And yet, we are in no position to bring a case against God, because, neglecting some from whom more might have been hoped for, he revealed his power among those who were worse and altogether hopeless. God is just when he destines for perdition those who are not worthy of his mercy. Who is to blame God with injustice, because he withholds his Word from some and allows them to perish, whereas he seeks others out in various ways and calls them to repentance to make the latter all the more inexcusable? Therefore, knowing our weakness, let us learn to contemplate this high matter with reverence. We must not tolerate in the least the pride and ill-humor of those who cannot bring themselves to pay the tribute of praise to God’s righteousness, except in so far as their mind can grasp it, who spurn with disdain those mysteries which they should in justice adore, because the reason for them is not obvious.

For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout the earth. Rom. 9:17.

Now he comes to the second part, which is the rejection of the ungodly. Since this seems to be quite absurd, the apostle not only tries to make it plainer than ever that God is without blame in his willing to reject (reprobando), but also shows the excellence of his wisdom and justice. Therefore, he makes use of the witness of Ex. 9:16, where the Lord asserts that it was he who had stirred up Pharaoh and that his purpose in so doing was to give evidence of his invincible arm, which he did when he overcame and overthrew Pharaoh, who was obstinate enough to make a great show of resisting the power of God. There is no power of man which can stand up under the power of God, much less break it down. God used Pharaoh as an example.

Wherefore, there are two things to be considered: first, the predestination of Pharaoh to destruction, which must be referred to the just but hidden counsel of God; and secondly, its purpose, which was to declare the name of God. It is the latter that Paul wants primarily to bring out. If God’s purpose in hardening Pharaoh’s heart was to declare his name, it is wicked to construe this work of God as unjust. Considering its purpose, it was quite the contrary.

Since many interpreters pervert this passage by trying to soften it, let us notice in the first place that the Hebrew word for stir up means appoint. God wanted to show that in spite of Pharaoh’s obstinate resistance, He would make his people free: not only that He had foreseen the Pharaoh’s obduracy and was ready with the means of restraining it, but that He himself had ordained it, with the purpose of establishing a shining evidence of his own power. . . .

But let no one imagine that the Pharaoh acted by an ordinary and indefinite prodding from God. We must keep in mind the particular reason and purpose in this matter. This verse means that God not only knew what Pharaoh would do, but also destined his deed for the special use of declaring God’s glory. It follows that it is futile to quarrel with him, as though he were bound to give a reason for his ways. In fact, he presents himself to us and, anticipating our objection, declares that the reprobate appear by his providence, so that by them he may glorify his name among the people.

For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counselor? Rom. 11:34.

Therefore, since we are utterly incapable of exploring the secrets of God with our own faculties, we are admitted to a certain and clear knowledge of them by the grace of the Holy Spirit. And if we are to follow his guidance, where he puts us there we ought to stop and there as it were put down our foot. And if anyone sets out to know more than God has revealed, he shall be overwhelmed by the infinite brightness of his inaccessible light. We must be sure to bear in mind the distinction I made above, between God’s secret counsel and the will of God revealed in Scripture. Although the doctrine of Scripture is too high for human ingenuity, still believers are not excluded from access to it when they follow the guidance of the Spirit with sobriety and reverence. But the secret counsel of God is something else. It is so deep and so high that no exploration can attain to it.

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; in so much that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Matt. 24:24.

This is added to fill the faithful with fear, and so to make them more watchful and on their guard. For, when false prophets are given unbridled freedom and allowed to flourish, and when they are even given power enough to deceive, the careless are readily caught in the net of their frauds. Christ therefore calls and arouses his disciples to stay at their posts. Besides, he admonishes them not to be troubled when they see the strange spectacle of many all around abducted into error. As he invites them to be watchful, so that Satan may not come upon them in their sleep, he adds ample ground for confidence and peace by promising them that by the help and protection of God they shall be safe against all the snares of Satan. Therefore, no matter how weak and slippery the condition of the godly, here they shall find a firm support upon which to stand, for it is not possible that those who have the Son of God as their faithful protector should fall away from salvation. It is not that they have at their disposal arms enough to resist the armaments of Satan, but rather that they are Christ’s sheep, whom no one shall be able to snatch away from his hands (John 10:28). But we are not to forget that the stability of our salvation is not in us but in the secret election of God.

2. PREDESTINATION

And this is the will of him that sent me. . . . John 6:40.

Having said that he had a mandate from the Father to watch over our salvation, Jesus now sets down the way of salvation, which is obedience to the gospel of Christ. He had touched on this earlier; now he explains what he had left obscure. Since God wills that his elect should be saved by faith, and ratifies and executes his eternal decree in this manner, anyone who is not content with Christ, and pries into eternal predestination, takes it upon himself to be saved apart from God’s counsel. Divine election is in itself hidden and secret. The Lord reveals it to us in the calling with which he honors us.

Those who seek their or others’ salvation in the labyrinth of predestination, while they move out of the way of faith set before them, are insane, by such absurd speculation, they even try to do away with the power and effect of predestination. For, if God elected us for faith, take away faith, and election itself is mutilated. It is in fact wicked to break up the continuity and order of God’s counsel, with its beginning and its end. Moreover, since election carries calling with itself and is inseparable from it, and since it is by calling us that God makes faith in Christ effective in us, our call should be to us sufficient evidence of our salvation as though it were his seal cut into us. For the witness of the Spirit is none other than the sealing of our adoption. Therefore faith is strong enough proof of God’s eternal predestination. It is a sacrilege to inquire further, because he who refuses simply to accept the testimony of the Holy Spirit, offers him insult with injury.

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love, having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. Eph. 1:4–6.

The ground and first cause of our calling, as well as of all the good things we receive from God, the apostle presents as the eternal election of God. Therefore, if anyone asks why God has called us to share in the gospel, why he honors us with so many blessings every day, why he opens heaven itself before us, we must always come back to this same principle: that clearly, before the foundation of the world, he has elected us. But, from the time of election itself, we gather that it is free. For, how could we have possessed worth, or how could there have been merit in us, before the world itself was created? It is a childish cavil devised by sophistry to say, “We were not chosen because we were worthy, but because God foresaw that we would be worthy!” For we are all lost in Adam. Unless God himself had by his election redeemed us from ruin, there would have been nothing but ruin to foresee. . . .

In the second place, he confirms that our election is free by adding in Christ. For if we are chosen in Christ, the reason for our election is outside of us; that is, our Heavenly Father has included us in the body of Christ, not because he saw that we are worthy of it, but by the favor of adoption. For, if as he says we are chosen in Christ, it follows that we in ourselves are unworthy of our election.

That we should be holy. Here he considers the proximate, not the ultimate, purpose of election. For it is not absurd that the same thing should have two objectives. For instance, the purpose of a building is that it be a house. But this is the proximate purpose: the ultimate purpose is that it be used as a home. We touch upon this in passing because Paul speaks constantly of another purpose, which is the glory of God. There is no contradiction here. Our sanctification is subordinate to the highest end of election, that is, the glory of God. Moreover, this leads us to conclude that sanctity, innocence, and every virtue among men, is the fruit of election. Therefore once again, with this phrase [as he has chosen us], Paul expressly sets aside every thought of merit. If God foresaw something in us worthy of election, Paul would have said the contrary of what we read in this place; which is, in effect, that a holy and innocent life comes from the election of God. For, how does it happen that some men live a godly life in the fear of the Lord, and others prostitute themselves to all manner of wickedness? Certainly, if we are to believe Paul, there is no other reason for this except that the latter follow their own disposition, whereas the others are elected for holiness. Surely, the cause does not come after the effect! Therefore, as Paul testifies, election, which is the cause of good works, does not depend upon men.

Besides, this verse means that election does not give men any occasion for license. Impious people blaspheme, saying; “Let us live as we please. We are safe. For, if we are elect, it is impossible that we should perish.” But Paul protests that it is vicious to separate the holiness of life from the grace of election; because those whom God elects, he also calls and justifies. On the other hand, the long-standing inference made from this verse, by Catharists, Celestines, and Donatists,   Catharists (Cathari) was a name given to members of various heretical sects of the Middle Ages, including the Albigenses and the Bogomils. They were dualistic and ascetic and in many ways resembled the earlier Manichaeans. Their leaders were known as the Perfect, who were supposedly free from all the sins of the flesh and had become the dwelling of the Holy Spirit.

The Donatists were a schismatic church originating in North Africa at the time of the Diocletian persecution. They believed that the sacraments valid only when administered by clergy who had remained wholly faithful to their trust.

Celestines. Calvin probably meant not the Benedictine Order founded by Pope Celestine V in 1, but an extreme group of the Spiritual Franciscans, who took the name in gratitude for the permission to live as hermits given them by the same pope. They were persecuted after his abdication and continued under the ban of the Roman church until 1466.

All three groups assumed the possibility of perfection in this life that we can be perfect in this life, is without any weight whatever. Perfection is the goal toward which we strive throughout the course of our lives, and do not attain until the race is done. Where are the men who abhor the doctrine of predestination and run away from it as from a dreadful labyrinth, who consider it not only useless but downright harmful? [Let them come forward!] On the contrary, no other part of our doctrine is more useful, provided we treat it in a judicious and sober way, as does Paul, whose use of it invites us to consider the infinite goodness of God and moves us to gratitude. This, therefore, is the true fountain from which we are to draw the knowledge of the mercy of God. Even if men should evade all other arguments, election shuts their mouths, so that they neither dare nor can claim anything for themselves. But let us remember for what purpose Paul here argues about predestination, so that we may not dispute from other points of view, and thus fall into dangerous errors. . . .

Who has predestined us. What follows is a further and greater commendation of the grace of God. We have already said why it was that Paul impressed so zealously upon the Ephesians the gratuity of their adoption, and the eternal election which preceded it. Since there is in truth no other place in which the mercy of God is declared with such magnificence, we must begin with a close look at this passage. Here the apostle presents us with three causes of our salvation, and he soon after adds a fourth; the efficient cause is the good pleasure of the will of God; the material cause Aristotle’s classification of causes. See note 1, Chapter V is Christ; the final cause is the praise of God’s grace. Let us now see what he says of each of these.

To the first belongs the following complex of ideas: God in himself, by the good pleasure of his will, has predestined us for adoption, and has, by his grace, received us to his favor. In the word predestine we must again notice the sequence. We did not exist when we were predestined; hence, our merit also was nonexistent! Therefore, the cause of our salvation could not have been from us, but was from God alone. Paul, still not satisfied, adds in himself, which in Greek is εἰς αὐτὸν and means the same as ἐν αὐτῷ. By this he means that God did not look for a cause outside himself, but predestined us because it was his will to do it. But this is still clearer from what follows: according to the good pleasure of his will. The word will would have been enough for Paul’s purpose; it is the word he used habitually to contrast the will of God with all other causes by which men commonly think they can induce God to act. But to avoid all ambiguity, he adds good pleasure, which expressly sets aside all notion of merit. Therefore, in choosing us, the Lord does not consider what kind of people we are, neither is he reconciled to us because of our worth. The only ground of our reconciliation is his eternal good pleasure by which he predestines us (for holiness). Why then are the sophists not ashamed of confusing matters with alien considerations, when Paul forbids with such zeal any concern except for God’s good pleasure? . . .

Meanwhile, he presents Christ, whom he calls “the beloved,” as the material cause of eternal election as well as of the love now revealed in him. Thus we are to know that the love of God is poured out upon us through Christ; for he is well beloved, so that he may reconcile us to God. And immediately Paul adds the highest and ultimate purpose of election, which is that we glorify God by praising his wonderful grace toward us. Anyone, therefore, who obscures the glory of God, puts himself in the position of striving to subvert the eternal purpose of God. . . .

We know that all things work together for good in them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he did also predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren. Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, he also glorified. Rom. 8:28–30.

Now we know. From the preceding he now concludes that the bitter things of this life, far from hindering our salvation, rather help us on our way. It is no objection that Paul uses the illative particle (δὲ, autem), because it is nothing new for him to use adverbs in a confusing way. In any case, with this conclusion, he anticipates an objection. The sensibility of the flesh cries out, saying that God does not hear our cry and troubles keep forever coming the same old way. This is what concerns the apostle. He says that, even though God does not do away with the troubles of his people as soon as they occur, he does not really forsake them. He has a wonderful way of turning the hardship they experience into a means of their salvation. If anyone prefers to read this sentence by itself, as a new argument, taking Paul to mean that we must not be troubled and bitter about hardships which in fact are helps toward our salvation, I do not object. However, there is nothing obscure about Paul’s meaning. Even though the elect and the reprobate are liable without distinction to the same evils, there is a great difference between the sufferings of the two; for, by means of afflictions, God trains the faithful and oversees their salvation.

But we must recognize that here Paul is speaking only of adversities. What he is saying is that, whatever comes to believers, even if it be harm as the world sees it, God intervenes in their behalf; and the outcome shows that it was useful for them. Even though it is true, as Augustine says, that by the guiding providence of God even the sins of believers, instead of harming them, serve rather the purpose of their salvation — this has nothing to do with this passage, which concerns rather the cross. . . .

To them who according to his purpose. This phrase seems to be added as a correction, in order to keep one from thinking that the good fruit which the faithful gather from their adversities is due to any merit in their love for God. For we know that when it comes to salvation, men are all too inclined to begin with themselves, and to fancy that they have gone ahead of God’s grace with preparations of their own. This is why Paul teaches that those whom he calls true worshipers of God have already been elected by him. Surely this is why the sequence in this passage is brought to our attention. We are to know that all things which issue in the salvation of the saints depend upon the free election of God as their first cause. Certainly, Paul intends to show that believers do not love God before they are called by him, as in another place he points out that the Galatians were known of God before they knew him (Gal. 4:9). Indeed, for Paul it is true that afflictions further the salvation of none except those who love God. But equally true is the statement of John that we begin to love God only when he precedes us with his own unmerited love. . . .

The word purpose clearly excludes everything that might be imagined as devised among men. Thus Paul denies that the causes of our election can be sought anywhere except in the hidden good pleasure of God. This is even clearer in the first chapter of Ephesians and the first of 2 Timothy, where the contrast between God’s purpose and the righteousness of man is expressly and clearly stated. However, no doubt when Paul here says explicitly that our salvation is founded upon the election of God, he does so in order to go on to the next point, which he adds immediately: namely, that our sufferings which conform us to Christ have been obviously appointed for us by the same heavenly decree as our election, so that our salvation might be connected necessarily with carrying the cross.

For whom he had foreknown. He then shows, by the sequence in election, that all the sufferings of the faithful are nothing but the way in which they are led to conform to Christ; and he has already testified that such conformity is essential to the Christian life. Therefore, we are not to be sorrowful, or to suffer with heavy hearts or in bitterness, unless we would despise the election of the Lord by which we have been foreordained for life, or unless we cannot bear to have in us the image of the Son of God which prepares us for his heavenly glory. The foreknowledge of God, therefore, which Paul mentions here, is not a mere knowing beforehand, as some ignorant people imagine in their stupid way. It is rather the act of adoption, by which God has always distinguished his children from those who are reprobate. In this same sense, Peter says that believers have been elected for the sanctification of the Spirit according to the foreknowledge of God. Whence, those mentioned above reason foolishly when they infer that God has elected those whom he foresaw as worthy of his grace. Peter does not flatter the believers, as though each one of them owed his election to his own merit. On the contrary, by recalling them to the eternal counsel of God, he denies that they are worthy of God’s grace. So, Paul here repeats with other words what he had said about God’s purpose elsewhere. It follows that God’s knowing the elect rests upon his own good pleasure, because he foreknew nothing outside of himself which led him to will the adoption of sons. He marked some for election according to his own good pleasure.

The verb προορίζειν, which some translate as to predestinate, must be understood in the context of this passage. Paul means no more and no less than that, by God’s arrangement, those who are adopted must bear the image of Christ, that they must conform to the image of Christ, and not merely to Christ. In this way he teaches that in Christ God has put before us a living and visible example, who must be imitated by all God’s children. In short then, free adoption in which our salvation consists is inseparable from that other decree which demands that we carry the cross [of Christ]; because no one who does not first conform to the only-begotten Son of God can inherit the heavenly life. . . .

And those whom he has predestined (praefinivit), them he has also called. He now proceeds step by step to establish with a clearer argument the truth that, if we are to be saved, we must conform to the humiliation of Christ. He teaches us that our call, and our justification, and finally our glory, are bound up with our association with the cross and cannot by any means be separated from it.

To make sure that the reader understands the mind of the apostle better, it is well to repeat and remind him of what I have stated before: that the word predestinate refers not to election but to that decree or purpose of God by which he has ordained that his own bear the cross. In teaching that they are now actually called, he brings out that God has not kept his purpose concerning them hidden in his own hands, but has rather laid it open that they may submit to the rule imposed upon them with a calm and good-tempered spirit. For, calling is here distinguished from hidden election as coming after it. Now, someone may object that a man cannot ascertain for himself what destiny God has appointed for him. The apostle answers that God himself has testified openly concerning his secret counsel through our call. This testimony of God is given truly not only through external preaching, but also through the accompanying power of the Spirit. Here we have to do with the elect, whom God does not so much compel with an outward voice as draw to himself from within.

Justification may rightly be extended to the uninterrupted continuance of God’s grace, from our calling to our death. But since, throughout the epistle, Paul uses this word for the free imputation of righteousness, there is no necessity for turning aside from this meaning of it. The real purpose of Paul is to show that we stand to gain much more through suffering than by avoidance of it. For what is more to be desired than that by reconciliation with God our miseries should not any longer signify a curse, or lead us to destruction?

Therefore, he adds immediately that those who at the present time are weighed down by the cross shall be glorified, that they shall lose nothing by the bitter trials they now suffer. Although so far our Head alone is glorified, we already discern in him somewhat the inheritance of life eternal; his glory brings us such assurance of our own coming glory that it is right to regard our hope as the equivalent of a present possession.

We may add that Paul, following the Hebrew style, puts his verbs in the past tense instead of the present. But certainly there is no doubt that he is speaking of a continued action. What he means is: those whom God now exercises under the cross, according to his purpose, are at the same time called and justified, in the hope of salvation; even while they are humiliated, they suffer no loss of glory. Even though their present miseries disfigure their glory in the sight of the world, yet before God and the angels it shines without diminution.

Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ. . . . 2 Tim. 1:9–10.

This gift of grace, of which Paul reminds us, is nothing other than the predestination by which we are adopted to become sons of God. With regard to this matter, I have wanted to bring to the attention of my readers that often God is said to give his grace when we perceive its effect. But here Paul is speaking of it [grace] as God has had it from the beginning. . . .

But is now made manifest. Notice how properly he ties up the faith we have through the gospel with the secret election of God, and assigns to each its proper place. Now, God calls us through the gospel because he has set himself to the purpose of saving us, not suddenly and without forethought, but from the beginning in eternity. And now Christ has appeared for our salvation, not because he has just received the power to save us, but because before the foundation of the world this grace had been bestowed upon him for our sakes; but this we know by faith. The apostle is wise to connect the gospel with the most ancient promises of God; otherwise it would be treated with contempt as a novelty. But someone will say: “Was grace concealed from the fathers who lived under the law? For if it is revealed only with the coming of Christ, it follows that formerly it was hidden.” I reply that Paul is speaking of the full revelation of the grace upon which depended also the faith of the fathers. Therefore, nothing is detracted from them. Hence Abel, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and all the godly, obtained the same salvation with us, because they put their trust in this manifestation [in Christ]. Therefore, when he says that grace appeared to us with the revelation of Christ, he does not exclude the fathers from communion with that grace, because their faith made them partakers with us of this same appearance. For Christ was yesterday as he is today (Heb. 13:8). But he did not manifest himself, by his death and resurrection, before the time appointed by the Father. The faith of the fathers was turned toward this manifestation, as is also ours, as to the one common pledge and fulfillment of salvation.

In the hope of eternal life (or, according to the hope) which God, who cannot lie, promised before the times of the ages (ante tempora saecularia). Titus 1:2. (Calvin’s wording.)

Which God promised. Because Augustine understood eternity as prior to the temporal ages, he troubled himself a great deal about the eternity of times, and finally explained eternal times as preceding all antiquity.

Although I do not reject this exposition, when I weigh everything properly, I am forced to take a different view of the matter: that eternal life was promised to men many ages ago not only for those who lived at that time, but for our generation as well. It was not only for Abraham that God said: “All the nations shall be blessed in thy seed” (Gen. 22:18); it was also for all those who came after. And this is not inconsistent with the first chapter of 2 Timothy where, in another sense, salvation is said to have been given “before the times of the ages” (pro tempera saecularia). Nonetheless the word means the same thing in both places. Now, since the Greek word αἰών means the series of times which follow one another from the beginning till the end of the world, we understand Paul to say in the letter to Timothy that salvation was given or ordained for the elect of God before the times began to flow. But in this place we have to do with God’s promise. Here all ages is intended not to take us beyond the creation of the world, but to tell us that many ages have gone by since the premise of our salvation.

If anyone prefers, in short, the times of the ages may be taken to mean the ages themselves. Since salvation was given by the eternal election of God before it was promised, in the passage in Timothy it is said to have been given before all ages; then the word “all” is implicit. But here, “the times of the ages” means nothing but that the promise is older than the long succession of the ages, because it began forthwith at the creation of the world. In the same sense, Paul teaches in Rom. 1:2 that the gospel which was to be published with the resurrection o Christ from the dead, had been promised by the prophets is the Scriptures.

Commentaries on the Bible

1. THE WORD OF GOD

I spake not unto your fathers. . . concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. But this thing I commanded them, saying, Obey my voice. Jer 7:22–23.

We know that from the beginning God desired spiritual worship, and that he has not changed his nature. Today he approves nothing but spiritual worship, for he is Spirit. But equally under the law, he wished to be worshiped with a sincere heart. . . . That is why the prophets speak harshly of sacrifice. This clear statement removes all ambiguity: God sets obedience against sacrifice (even though sacrifice was a part of obedience).

Now we can continue with the content of the teaching, holding firmly to the principle that true religion is founded upon obedience. Unless God sheds light for us from his Word, there is among us not true religion, but mere sham and superstition. This is how we can distinguish true religion from superstition: when the Word of God directs us, there is true religion; but when each man follows his own opinion, or when men join together to follow an opinion they hold in common, the result is always concocted superstition.

After we grasp the principle that God cannot be worshiped unless we listen to his voice, we must consider, as I said, what God’s voice prescribes to us. Since he is Spirit, he demands the sincere love of the heart. And we know also how he has revealed to us that he desires us to put our confidence in his free kindness; that he wishes us to depend wholly on his Fatherly compassion; that he wishes us to call upon him for help, and to offer to him the sacrifice of praise.

But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. Ps. 1:2.

This verse does not simply declare (as I have said elsewhere) that those who fear God are blessed; it equates religion with the study of the law. It teaches that God is rightly worshiped only if his Word is obeyed. Therefore, men are not free to model a religion, each after his own idea. The standard for religion must be taken from God’s Word.

The law only is mentioned here: but we are not to suppose that the rest of Scripture is ignored, since all of it is really an interpretation of the law and so is included under that title. The prophet is commending the law with its supplement. Indeed, as I just said, the faithful are here urged to read The Psalms.

But the first thing required of the faithful is delight in the law of the Lord. These words show us that compulsory or slavish worship is not at all acceptable to God. Only those who come happily to the study of the law, who enjoy its teaching, who think nothing more worthwhile or pleasanter than to make progress in it, are qualified students of the law.

From this love of the law comes constant meditation on it, as the prophet immediately adds. Only those inspired by this love can devote themselves to its constant study.

He will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths. Micah 4:2.

Here in a few words the prophet defines true worship of God. For it would not be enough for the nations to come together to one place to confess that they are worshipers of one God if they did not also show real obedience. True obedience depends on faith, as faith depends on the Word. It is, therefore, especially worthy of note that the prophet here sets God’s Word in the center to show us that religion is founded on obedience in faith, and that God can be worshiped only when he himself teaches his people and tells them what they ought to do. When God’s will is revealed to us, we can truly adore him. When the Word is taken away, some form of worship of God remains, but there is no real religion which could please God.

Hence we conclude that the church of God can be established only where the Word of God rules, where God shows by his voice the way of salvation. Therefore, until true doctrine sheds its light, men cannot be gathered in one place to constitute the true body of the church. Clearly, then, where the teaching is corrupt or is despised, there is no religion approved by God.

Men can, indeed, take God’s name boastfully on their lips; but before God, there is no religion except what is measured by the rule of the Word. It follows then that there is no church which is not subject to God’s Word and is not ruled by it. The prophet here defines both true religion and the way in which God gathers his church.

He twill teach us of his ways. Here we have a third point. God is robbed of his right and honor when men usurp the power of teaching. For it belongs to God alone to teach his people. There were at that time priests and prophets. But Micah here reduces both to their proper place and shows that the right and the office of teaching belong to God alone. It is clear that God claims this work for himself, to prevent us from wavering and from being pulled around by different teachers; to keep us in simple obedience to his Word, so that he alone may rule over us. In a word, God is not God and head of the church, if he is not the chief and only teacher.

Now when the prophet says that God will teach us his ways, this must mean that he will show the nature of his ways; he means, “The perfect wisdom of the people is to know what pleases God and what his will is.” This is all I need to say.

There follows: Let us walk in his ways. By this clause we are warned that God’s teaching is not theoretical, as they say, but full of energizing power. When God speaks, he does not only intend men to know that what is announced by him is true; he also requires their obedience. We shall be truly taught by God only if we walk in his ways.

For it is silly for us to wag our ears like assess and confess God with mouth and lips only. Men truly progress in God’s school when they form their lives by his teaching, when they have their feet ready to walk, to follow wherever he calls.

If ye will not hearken to me to walk in my law, which I have set before you, to hearken to the words of my servants the prophets whom I sent unto you. Jer. 26:4–5.

The prophet here sums up briefly the teaching which he was commanded to bring to the people. There is no doubt that he used many words whenever it was necessary; but here he holds a few words to be enough to state what he has been told. He declares that unless the Jews begin to listen and to follow the law, and unless they obey the prophets, the final destruction of the Temple and the city is at hand. This is the sum of what he teaches here. But we should note the details.

By the words unless you hear and walk in my law, God shows that his chief demand is for obedience. . . . We see that the one and only specific rule for living devoutly, rightly, holily, and perfectly is to surrender ourselves to God’s piloting. This is his only command.

But what follows should also be noted: that you walk in my law. For here God testifies that his will is not ambiguous, for in his law he has stated what is right. If God should descend from heaven a hundred times, he would reveal nothing we need to know in addition to what he has said. His law is perfect wisdom. If he had said only hear me, men could evade by declaring themselves ready to be taught by him. God checks these hypocrites by saying that there will be no word from him other than that they should follow his law. And for the same purpose he adds which I have set before your eyes. This phrase means that there is nothing obscure or uncertain about the teaching of the law. As Moses said (Deut. 30:19), I call to witness today heaven and earth that I have set before your eyes life and death; and in another place (Deut. 30:14), The word is in your heart and your mouth — that is, God takes every excuse away from you. There is no reason for uncertainty after he has spoken plainly to you and explained fully what is necessary.

Here is the refutation of that impious popish blasphemy which prattles that not only the law but even the gospel is obscure. But Paul claims that the gospel is plain except to those who are perishing (2 Cor. 4:3); over them a veil is thrown because they deserve to be blind (2 Cor. 3:14–15). But, as we see, Jeremiah here affirms that the law, even though it is less clear than the gospel, is set plainly before the eyes of all, and that all may learn from it exactly what pleases God and what is right.

Now we must consider carefully the statement which follows in the next verse; for it unquestionably belongs with the previous one. God demands nothing except that men obey his laws, and yet he wishes his servants, the prophets, to be heard: That you may hear the words of my prophets whom I send to you (he uses the second person, you). Here there seems to be a kind of inconsistency. For if the law of God is sufficient, why is hearing the prophets added to it? But the two commands are really in perfect agreement. The law alone must be heard, and with it the prophets who continually interpret it. For God did not send his prophets to correct the law, to change something in it, to add to it or subtract from it. There was an inviolable decree neither to add nor take away (Deut. 12:32). What then was the purpose of prophecy? Truly, it was to explain the law more and more fully, and also to fit it to the immediate need of the people. Since, then, the prophets do not invent any new teaching, but are faithful interpreters of the law, God is not combining here two separate commands. He wishes his law and his prophets to be heard simultaneously. The majesty of the law does not lessen the authority of the prophets. For the prophets uphold the law; they in no way subtract anything from it.

So this passage teaches that all those who reject the daily exercise of learning the Scriptures are godless men and quench, so far as it is within their power, the grace of the Spirit. In our day there are many of the Anabaptists Anabaptists is a loose and derogatory term applied to radical sects of the Reformation era. Calvin was especially opposed to them; not so much because they opposed infant baptism as because they claimed revelation beyond Scripture and because they advocated a complete separation of church and state. who act in this way, rejecting all teaching. They say this [Scripture] is “the letter,” and they dream that the Holy Spirit is injured when men attend to “the letter.” And some dare to utter uglier blasphemies. They say that all the Scripture we need is the two commands, “Fear God” and “Love your neighbor.”

But as I have already said, we must consider how it is that God has spoken through the law, and whether [it is not true that] our way to him would have been blocked had he not explained his will more clearly through the prophets; for it is through the prophets that God adapts to our need whatever might seem to us remote and of no concern to us. Surely since God gave his law and then added to it his prophets, it is obvious that anyone who rejects God’s prophets puts no real confidence in God’s law. So today those who scorn to go to school to Christ and to train themselves in listening to the Word, really mock God himself and judge both the law and the prophets — and even the gospel itself — as without value.

Therefore, this passage is of the highest importance. God wishes his law to be our guide and rule, and he binds it to his prophets.

But the word of the Lord endured forever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. 1 Peter 1:25.

The prophet teaches us, not what the Word of God is in itself, but how we are to think of it. Since man has emptied himself of life, he must look for it outside of himself. And Peter tells us on the authority of the prophet, that God’s Word alone possesses the energy and efficacy to bestow upon us whatever is solid and eternal. For the prophet knew that our lives have no stability except in God, and except as he communicates it to us by his Word. Since man’s nature is in itself perishing, the Word himself invests it with eternal life, and restores it by a new creation.

And this is the word declared to you. Peter first warns us that when the Word of God is mentioned, we do wrong to imagine something far away, up in the air or in heaven beyond; for the Lord himself has shown it to us. What then is the Word of God which gives us life; what but the law, the prophets, and the gospel? Anyone who wanders away from this revelation will find, instead of God’s Word, nothing but Satan’s impostures and madness. Therefore, we must keep carefully in mind that godless and devilish men have a crafty way of pretending to honor God’s Word, when they turn us away from the Scriptures; like that dirty dog Agrippa, Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim of Cologne (1486–1535). A man in the stereotype Renaissance style. He was a Neoplatonist and worked at “occult philosophy.” His unorthodoxy and skepticism aroused the ire of the Catholics, and the Protestant Reformers regarded him as a heretic and a charlatan. who praised the eternity of God’s Word to high heaven, and at the same time heaped mockery on the prophets and the apostles; in his deceitful way, he covered the Word of God with derision.

In short, as I have already told you, nothing is said here of a Word shut up in God’s bosom. We have to do with the Word which came forth from God’s mouth and was given to us. So once again, we are to acknowledge that God’s will is to speak to us by the mouths of the apostles and prophets, and that their mouths are to us as the mouth of the only true God.

Therefore, when Peter says, the word which has been declared to you, he means that we must not look for the Word of God anywhere except in the preaching of the gospel; and that we cannot know the power of its eternity except by faith. But we do not believe unless we know that the Word was destined for us.

And, behold, the Lord stood above it, and said, I am the Lord God of Abraham thy father and the God of Isaac. Gen. 28:13.

Here is the third point which I said must be noted. Silent visions are cold, and the Word of God is the breath which gives them life. The symbol of the ladder is a less important adjunct, with which the Word of God illustrates and embellishes itself for the sake of greater clarity — not for greater authority. Hence we judge the papal sacraments to be frivolous, since in them the voice of God is not heard for the upbuilding of souls.

We should note, therefore, that whenever God showed himself to the patriarchs, he spoke; for a silent vision would have left them dangling in uncertainty.

By the name YHWH, Jehovah, God proclaims that he alone is the maker of the world, and that Jacob must seek for himself no other gods. But because in itself God’s majesty is incomprehensible, he adds immediately, adapting himself to the capacity of his servant, that he is the God of Abraham and Isaac. It is necessary to believe that the God whom we worship is he who alone is God; but when our minds seek to attain his height, they faint at the very start. We need to cultivate moderation and sobriety, and we should not attempt to know more of him than he reveals to us. He himself, in his great kindness, accommodates himself to our little mold, and he leaves out nothing which helps toward our salvation.

When he says that he had made a special covenant with Abraham and Isaac, and proclaims himself as their God, he calls his servant Jacob back to the real beginning of faith and keeps him within the eternal covenant. This is the holy bond of faithfulness by which all the sons of God are bound together. They hear the same promise of salvation, from the first to the last, and they agree together in one hope.

All Scripture is given by the inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Tim. 3:16–17.

All Scripture, or the whole of it; both phrases mean the same. He now continues with his praise of Scripture which had been much too brief. He commends first its authority, and then the usefulness which proceeds from it. He asserts its authority by teaching that it is inspired by God. If this is the case, men should receive it reverently and without further argument. Our religion is distinguished from all others in that the prophets have spoken not of themselves, but as instruments of the Holy Spirit; and what they have brought to us, they received by heavenly commission. Any man then who would profit by the Scriptures, must hold first of all and firmly that the teaching of the law and the prophets came to us not by the will of man, but as dictated by the Holy Spirit.

Somebody may object: But how do we know all this? I answer, the self-same Spirit revealed both to the disciples and to the teachers (doctorem) that the author of the Scriptures is God. Neither Moses nor the prophets brought to us by chance the things we have received at their hands; they spoke as moved by God, and testified with confidence and courage that God’s very mouth had spoken. The same Spirit who made Moses and the prophets certain of their calling, has now testified to our own hearts that he used them as his servants for our instruction. It is not surprising that many have doubts as to the author of Scripture. For, even though the majesty of God is displayed by it, only those illumined by the Spirit have the eyes to see what should be evident to all men, but in fact is seen only by the elect. So, the first point is that we treat Scripture with the same reverence that we do God, because it is from God alone, and unmixed with anything human.

And is profitable. The second part of this praise of Scripture follows from the first; that it contains the perfect rule of a good and happy life. He means that Scripture is useful because it is free from the kind of corruption which comes with the abuse of God’s Word by sinful men. Thus he indirectly rebukes those woolly-headed men who feed the people with empty speculations as with wind. For this reason, today, we ought to condemn all those who make it their business not to build up the people but to arouse them with questions which are as childish as they are clever. Whenever men come to us with such clever trifles, we must repel them with the principle that the Scripture is for upbuilding. Consequently, it is unlawful to handle it as a useless thing. God gave us Scripture for our good, and not to satisfy our curiosity, or to indulge our desire for showing off, or to give us material for babble and fable. Therefore, to use Scripture rightly is at all times to profit by it. . . .

That the man of God may be whole. Whole means perfect, in the sense of unmutilated. He asserts simply that Scripture is adequate and sufficient for our perfecting. Therefore, anyone who is not satisfied with Scripture, hopes to know more than he needs or than is good for him. But now comes a serious objection. Since Paul means by Scripture the Old Testament, how are we to believe that it makes us perfect? If the Old Testament makes us perfect, then the apostolic additions are superfluous. I answer that, as to substance, the apostles added nothing. The writings of the apostles contain nothing that is not simply a natural explanation of the law and the prophets, together with a straightforward presentation of what they contain. Therefore, Paul’s praise of the Old Testament was not wrong. And since its teaching is understood more fully and shines more brightly now that the gospel has been added to it, must we not hope that the value of Scripture, of which Paul speaks, shall be all the more displayed, if only we will try living by it and take hold of it?

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try spirits whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 1 John 4:1.

Many, as I said before, are so troubled by the discords and wranglings in the church that, in their dismay, they run away from the gospel. But the Spirit prescribes an altogether different way: that believers be watchful not to accept any doctrine lightly and without judgment. We should be careful not to be offended by the variety of opinion in the church; we should rather discriminate between teachers, with the Word of God as our only norm. It is enough to make it our rule not to listen indiscriminately to everyone that comes along.

I take the word spirit as a metaphor, as meaning a man who claims the gift of the Spirit, so that he may assume the office of a prophet. Since nobody ought to speak in his own name, we must not trust those who do not speak as instruments of the Spirit. The prophets spoke with authority because God himself honored them with this title, and in so doing, set them apart from all other men. These men were called spirit because they gave utterance to the oracles of the Spirit, and by their ministry represented God’s own person. They offered nothing out of their own heads, neither did they come forth among the people in their own names. They were given this high title, in order that their own insignificance might not take away from the reverence that is due to the Word of God. God has willed it that we always receive his Word from the lips of men, as though he himself had appeared from heaven.

But now Satan interferes. He not only places false teachers among the people, so as to corrupt the Word of God, but he also calls them prophets, so that the people fall [into error] all the more easily. These arrogant pseudoprophetic windbags are in the habit of snatching an honor which God bestowed upon his own servants. The apostle uses the word spirits purposely, to keep us from being deceived by those who pretend falsely to speak in God’s name; for in our own day we see many who are stupid enough to be so overcome by the mere title of “the church,” that they take sides with the pope, and would be damned forever rather than raise a finger against his authority.

It should be noticed that the apostle did not deny outright the claim of these men to be prophets. He might have said simply that they ought not to be believed. When these false teachers lyingly claimed that they had the Spirit, he let them have their way; only he warned that their claim was both fictitious and foolish unless they could come forth with the reality of prophecy. It is silly to be so taken in by a high-sounding title that one does not even dare to see if there be anything behind it.

Try the spirits. Since not everyone who calls himself a prophet is one, the apostle says here that he should be put to a test; not only by the church at large, but also by individual believers. But the question arises, Where do we get our discernment? When some say that we should judge men’s words by the Word of God, they are right so far; but that does not settle the matter. I admit readily that men’s teachings should be tested by the Word of God. But the truth is that without the good sense we receive from the Spirit, it helps us little or nothing to have the Word of God in our hands; for its meaning is bound to escape us. For instance, gold is tested with fire or touchstone; but only by those who know how to do it. What use is fire or touchstone to the ignorant? In the same way, we are fit to judge only when we receive discretion from the Spirit and are guided by him. Since we could not follow the apostle’s precept, unless the power of judging were added to it, certainly the godly shall not be left without the Spirit of sound judgment, provided they seek him from the Lord. But it is also true that the Spirit will lead us to true discretion only when we bring all our thoughts under subjection to the Word of God; for, as we said above, it is, so to speak, our touchstone, which should be most precious to us, since it is the only source of sound teaching.

But here comes a difficult question. If everyone has a right to be a judge and arbiter in this matter, nothing can be set down as certain; and our whole religion will be full of uncertainty. I reply that we must test doctrines in a twofold way: private and public. By private testing, each one establishes his own faith, and accepts only the teaching which he knows to be from God. For our conscience cannot find security and peace except in God. Public testing of doctrine has to do with the common consent and polity of the church. Since there is a danger that fanatical men may rise up and boast rashly that they have the Spirit of God, believers should seek a remedy by coming together and reasoning their way to an honest and godly agreement. The old proverb is right when it says, “So many heads, so many minds.” Therefore, it is a marvelous work of God that, overcoming all our perversity, he makes us of one mind, and unites us together in a pure unity of faith.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation. 2 Peter 1:20.

Here Peter begins to teach how our minds must be prepared if we would make proper progress in Scripture. There is in this verse a word which may mean one of two things. If you read it ἐπηλὐσεως, as some do, it means an impulsion. But if you read it ἐπιλὐσεως, as I do, it means interpretation. In either case, almost all agree that we should not rush at reading Scripture rashly, trusting our own wits; because the Spirit who has spoken by the prophets is his own interpreter.

This explanation contains a true, godly, and useful doctrine. The only way to read the prophets to advantage is to set aside the mind of the flesh and to submit to the authority of the Holy Spirit. It is godless profanity to set up our own acumen as capable of understanding Scripture, which contains mysteries of God hidden to our flesh and sublime treasures of life which are far beyond our powers. This is why we say that the light which shines in it comes only to the lowly.

But the papists are foolish when they conclude that no private interpretation by an individual is valid. They abuse Peter’s testimony, in order to give their councils alone the right to interpret Scripture. But this is childish. When Peter speaks of private interpretation, he does not refer to individuals; neither does he forbid them to interpret Scripture. He means that it is not godly for them to come out with something out of their own heads. Even if all men in the world were to agree and be of one mind, the outcome would still be private, of their own. The word private is here set against divine revelation; for the believers, illumined inwardly by the Holy Spirit, know as truth only what God says by his Word.

However, I think the simpler meaning of Peter’s statement is that Scripture is not of men, or by the initiative of men. You will never come to it well prepared to read it, unless you bring reverence, obedience, and teachableness with you. But reverence comes from the knowledge that it is God who speaks to us and not mortal men. Therefore, Peter in the first place urges us to believe without doubting that the prophecies are God’s oracles; which means that they were not set in motion by men’s own action.

What comes next means the same thing. The holy men spoke as they were moved by the Spirit of God; that is, they did not babble out fables, moved by their own impulse and as they willed. In short, the first step in right understanding is that we believe the holy prophets of God as we do him. The apostle calls them holy men of God because they performed faithfully the task which was laid upon them; and in this service, they were surrogates for the person of God. Peter says they were moved, not because they were bereft of their own minds (as the Gentiles imagined their prophets to have been during their “enthusiasm”), but because they did not dare to say anything of their own. They followed the Spirit as their guide and obeyed him to such an extent that their mouths became his temple, and he ruled in them.

The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. John 19:7.

The Jews explain that they are pursuing Christ out of regard for the law, and not from passion or hatred. For they realize that they are being indirectly held in check by Pilate. Knowing that Pilate is ignorant of the law, they as much as say to him: “We have a right to live according to our customs. Our religion does not suffer a man to give himself airs as the Son of God.” Besides, this accusation was not groundless; but they were altogether wrong in the deduction they made [from the law]. The general thesis was, of course, correct. It was not right for any man to assume divine honor; and anyone who took for himself what is God’s alone, was worthy of death. Their error was that they applied the law to Christ; for they did not consider with what praise Scripture itself had predicted the Messiah. If they had done so, they would have inferred readily that he was the Son of God. Thus it is evident that having started with a true principle, they were led by bad reasoning to a false conclusion.

Let us be warned by this example to distinguish carefully between general doctrine and the particular inferences we make from it. This we should do for the sake of inexperienced and simple people who, when deceived by some pretended truth, reject even the fundamental doctrines of Scripture; and there is too much of this kind of thing going on in our world today. Let us, therefore, be careful to shun fallacies, so that truth may remain inviolate and faith in Scripture may be not overthrown.

If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? John 3:12.

Christ concludes that if Nicodemus and his like do not make progress in the knowledge of the gospel, it is their fault. He shows that since he has come down to earth itself, he is not to be blamed if not everybody learns his doctrine properly. It is too common a vice among men that they want to be taught in a subtle and ingenious way: hence most of them are very happy with deep and abstruse speculations; for the same reason, many do not think much of the gospel: in it they do not find the kind of pompous discourse with which they like to fill their ears. They do not care to sink so low as to waste their time with the rude and lowly teaching of the gospel. But, it is most stupid not to honor the Word of God, because he has lowered himself to the level of our ignorance. When we find God prattling to us in the Bible in an uncultivated and vulgar style, let us remember that he does it for our sake. Anyone who presumes or pretends to be offended by the condescension of God so that he will not submit to God’s Word, is a liar. Anyone who cannot bear to lay hold of God as he comes down to him will still less soar up to him beyond the clouds.

Some explain earthly things as the ABC of spiritual truth, and speak of self-denial as the first step in godliness. But I prefer the view of those who think this phrase has to do with Christ’s way of teaching. For even though Christ’s discourse as a whole was heavenly, he spoke plainly, as it were in an earthly way. Furthermore, this is not true of one discourse only. In this verse, Christ’s habitually simple and popular way of teaching is contrasted with ambitious men’s addiction to speech that is full of pomp and splendor.

And thou, Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda; for out of thee shall come a governor, that shall rule my people Israel. Matt. 2:6.

There is no doubt that the scribes quoted the words of this passage (Micah 5:2) in their own tongue, faithfully, as found in the prophet. But Matthew was satisfied to refer to it. Because he wrote in Greek, he followed the commonly accepted reading of it. From this place and others like it, we can readily gather that Matthew did not compose his Gospel in Hebrew. Moreover, one must always notice that when the apostles quote a Scriptural testimony, they do not give it word for word, and sometimes depart quite far from its language; they nevertheless accommodate it (accommodare) in a fitting and proper way to their own purpose. Let the readers always keep in mind the purpose of the Evangelists in bringing forward passages of Scripture, so that they will not insist upon dwelling upon mere words, but will be content with the fact that the Evangelists never torture Scripture into a false meaning, and apply (aptare) it properly to a genuine use. Since the latter intended to feed infants and novices in the faith with milk, because these were as yet incapable of taking solid food, there is no reason why the children of God should have scruples against a diligent and exact inquiry into the contents of Scripture, so that the taste offered them by the apostles may lead them to the fountain [of God’s Word].

2. THE OLD AND THE NEW TESTAMENTS

Now all these things happened unto them in examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. 1 Cor. 10:11.

Now he repeats that all these things happened to the Israelites to serve us as types, examples by which God sets his judgments before our eyes. I am aware that others philosophize more subtly over these words; but I think I have understood the mind of the apostle when I say that by these examples, as by painted pictures, we are taught what judgment is waiting for idolaters, fornicators, and others who treat God with contempt; they are living images which present God to us as angry with such sins. This explanation, besides being simple and valid, has the advantage of shutting the mouth of those madmen who twist this passage to prove that the people in old times were given nothing but [empty] shadows. First they assume that the people of Israel were only a figure [form without content] of the church: and from this they conclude that everything God promised and did among them, every good, every punishment, was a mere figure of that which was to become actual after the coming of Christ. This is but a pestilential madness, an atrocious injury to the holy fathers, and a more atrocious injury to God. The people [of Israel] was a figure of the Christian church; but it was itself the true church; its condition was a sketch of our own; but as such it had even at that time the proper character of the church. The promises made to it anticipated the gospel, so as in fact to include it; its sacraments served as figures of our own, but even in that age the inherent efficacy of their presence made them true sacraments. In short, those who used rightly the doctrines and the signs given them were endowed with the same spirit of faith as we ourselves. These words of Paul, therefore, give no support to those insane people who would have it that the things done at that time were types in the sense of unreal and empty shows. Nay, more, as we have explained, they teach us plainly that these types are pictures which depict events useful for our admonition.

They were written for our admonition. This second phrase clarifies the former. It was not for the sake of the Israelites, but for ours, that these things were kept in remembrance. It does not follow that punishments they suffered were not real warnings from God and valid for their own correction; and yet when God exercised his judgments at that time, he intended that there should be a perpetual remembrance of them for our instruction. What use is history for those who are dead? And what good is it to the living, except as they are warned by the example of others, and come to their senses? And now, the apostle confesses the principle with which all believers should agree: that there is nothing put forth in Scripture which it is not profitable to know.

Upon whom the ends of the world are come. τέλη elsewhere means mysteries; and perhaps that meaning would not be unsuitable for this passage. However, I follow the common rendering, because it is simpler. He says that the end of all the ages has come to pass among us and all things are fulfilled and come to a head in this age, because it is now the fullness of time. For the chief end toward which the law and all the prophets looked is the Kingdom of Christ.

But this statement of Paul contradicts the popular opinion that God, under the Old Testament, was more rigid, always armed and ready to punish wickedness; that now he has begun to be lenient, and ignores [evil] much more readily. Our living under the law of grace is interpreted to mean that we have a God who is much more easy to please than the God of the ancients. But what does Paul say about all this? If God punished them, he will not spare us any more than he did them. Away then with the error of those who reason that God is now less strict in exacting the punishment of crimes! I must confess that, since the coming of Christ, God’s goodness has been poured upon men more strikingly and in more abundance; but how does this change the impunity of the wicked who abuse his grace? Only, we must notice that today God punishes differently. For, as formerly God showed his Fatherly love to the godly with great outward blessings, he showed his wrath with severe bodily punishments; now, on the other hand, in the fuller revelation which we have, it is not often that he inflicts visible punishments: nor does he send physical punishment immediately even upon the wicked. About this matter you will find a great deal in our Institutes. Bk. II, ch. ii, par. 3.

Of which salvation the prophets inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: searching what, or in what time, the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify. 1 Peter 1:10–11.

Peter sets high the value of salvation, by referring to the prophets who had been intent upon it with all their zeal; since the prophets sought for it with burning hearts, he regards it as a thing of great and singular excellence. And the goodness of God toward us is all the greater and shines all the more brightly, because much more has been revealed to us than was sought after by the prophets so long and so eagerly.

At the same time, Peter establishes the certainty of salvation from its very antiquity, because from the very beginning of the world it has received the true witness of the Holy Spirit.

These two things must be kept clearly in mind. He affirms that more is given to us than to the ancient fathers; and by this comparison, he magnifies the grace of the gospel. Further, what is preached to us concerning our salvation cannot be suspected of novelty, because the Spirit, by the prophets, has borne witness to it through the ages. Therefore, when he says that the prophets sought and searched ceaselessly, he refers not to their teachings or writings, but to the inner yearning which agitated them. He deals with their public activity in what follows.

If we would understand the particulars of the verse more clearly, we need to break it down into several parts. First, when the prophets prophesied of the grace which Christ exhibited to us by his coming, they were anxious to know the time of full revelation. Secondly, the Spirit of Christ foretold, through them, the true state of the coming reign of Christ, partly as they already discerned it, and partly as they looked forward to it in hope; they predicted that both Christ and his universal body were destined to enter into glory by way of many sufferings. Thirdly, the prophets as they received God’s revelation ministered to us more than to their own age; because the things of God revealed to them by way of obscure images were exhibited in their solid reality in Christ alone. In the fourth place, the gospel, in which the Spirit himself speaks, contains not only a clear confirmation of prophetic teachings, but also a much fuller and plainer explanation of them. For the salvation to which he pointed through the prophets from afar off, he now presents to us openly and as it were to our very eyes. The last statement [in this passage] adequately confirms the marvelous glory of the salvation promised us in the gospel, since even the angels who enjoyed the vision of God in heaven, burned with the desire to see it. And what all this amounts to is that Christians, raised to such a height of blessedness, ought to overcome all the obstacles which the world sets before them; for what [suffering] is there that is not mitigated by such an incomparable blessing?

Of which salvation. But did not the fathers have the same salvation in common with us? Why then does he say that the fathers inquired, as though they did not have what is now offered to us? The answer is easy; in my view, salvation means the clear and visible manifestation of it which we have in the coming of Christ. These words of Peter mean nothing else than those spoken by Christ: Many kings and prophets have desired to see the things which you see, and have not seen them. Blessed therefore are your eyes, etc. (Matt. 13:17). Since the prophets had only a small taste of the grace which Christ brought to us, their desire turned rightly toward a different manner of revelation. When Simeon saw Christ, he made ready for death with a calm and peaceful spirit; which shows that he was previously anxious and disquieted. Such was the state of all believers [before Christ].

He indicates how [the fathers] searched, when he adds the phrase, in what, or in what manner of time. The difference between the law and the gospel is that, under the former, there is a veil interposed, which kept the fathers from seeing the nearness of the things which are set before the eyes of us [who live under the gospel]. Nor was it indeed proper that when Christ, the Son of Righteousness, was yet absent, the fullness of light should have shined as at noontime. But though it was necessary for the fathers to stay within their prescribed limits, yet they were not rash when they sighed with desire for a closer sight of salvation. Even while they yearned for the speedy coming of salvation, and for a sight of it, their eagerness did not keep them from waiting with patience so long as it pleased God to delay it.

Also we have a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star rise in your hearts. 2 Peter 1:19.

Also we have. Here he teaches that the truth of the gospel is certain because it is founded upon the oracles of the prophets; and he does this so that those who embrace the gospel may be free of doubt and subject themselves totally to Christ. For anyone who wavers in this matter cannot but be lax in his spirit.

We have may refer to himself and other teachers, as well as to their disciples. The apostles regarded the prophets as surety of their own teaching; the believers also found the confirmation of the gospel in the prophets. So, I am inclined to the view that the apostle is speaking of the whole church, and including himself in it. Still, he is speaking particularly of the Jews, who were familiar with the doctrine of the prophets. In my opinion, this is why he says that the gospel is more sure. Those who understand this comparison as establishing the superiority of the gospel to the prophets do not pay enough attention to its context. It is tortuous to make this phrase mean more sure than the words of the prophets, because the gospel is in fact the fulfillment of the promises which God made to them concerning his Son. It is enough to establish the truth of the gospel in two ways: by God’s own high and solemn praise and approval of Christ, and by the fact that all the prophecies of the prophets were made with regard to Christ.

On the other hand, anyone can see immediately how absurd it is that the word of the prophets should be more sure than any other word spoken by the mouth of our Holy God! First, the authority of God’s Word is from the beginning and always the same. Secondly, the coming of Christ established it more firmly than ever, as The Epistle to the Hebrews tells us at length. But it is not hard to untie this knot. The apostle is speaking to his own people, who were passionately attached to the prophets, so that the teaching of the latter was beyond controversy among them. Since there was no doubt among the Jews that whatever the prophets taught was from the Lord, we should not be surprised at Peter’s saying that word of the latter was more sure. Therefore, here the question is not whether the prophets deserve to be believed more than the gospel. Peter was pointing out the great deference the Jews paid to the prophets, whom they accepted without question as servants of God, and in whose school they had been educated from their very childhood. . . . We must remember that Peter was speaking to these people. He was not instructing ignorant novices who knew only the rudiments [of the faith]. He had previously testified that his hearers had already received the precious things of the faith and had been confirmed in the truth which he was presenting to them. Surely such a people could not have been said to be in the gross darkness of ignorance. . . . Therefore, as the context makes it clear, Peter was speaking to these men; and this statement was necessarily made to believers who had received Christ’s name and were made partakers of the true light. I, therefore, extend this darkness spoken of by Peter to the whole of our lives, and interpret [this statement to mean] that the day will shine upon us only when we see face to face what now we see in a mirror and darkly. Of course, Christ, the Sun of Righteousness, does shine in the gospel. But, until we are brought out of the prison of the flesh and taken up to heaven, our minds shall at all times be in part occupied by the darkness of death.

In short, Peter warns that so long as we walk in this world, we need the teaching of the prophets for a directing light; because without this light we can do nothing but live in darkness and go astray. He is not, therefore, separating the prophets from the gospel; he tells us that they shine for us to show us the way. His point is that throughout the whole course of our life we ought to be directed by the Word of God, because otherwise we shall be enveloped on all sides with the darkness of ignorance. The Lord does not shine upon us unless we see by his Word as our light.

This passage is significant in that it tells us how God directs us. The papists have it always on their tongue that the church cannot err. They forget the Word and pretend to be guided by the Spirit. Peter, on the contrary, claims that all those who disregard the light of the Word are buried in darkness. Therefore, if you do not want, of your own will, to lose yourself in a labyrinth, do your very best to avoid rejecting the guidance of the Word even in the smallest matter. The church cannot follow God as its guide, unless it observes this rule. With this statement Peter condemns all the wisdom of men, in order that we may learn not to seek the true rule of understanding in our own minds. Without the Word, there is nothing left for us but darkness.

It is worth noting that here he speaks of the clarity of the Scripture. For his eulogy would be false, unless Scripture were apt and able to show us the way clearly and certainly. Anyone, therefore, who opens his eyes with the obedience of faith shall know by experience that Scripture has not been called light in vain. It is indeed obscure to the unbelievers; but those who are given up to destruction blind themselves. The blasphemy of the papists is damnable, when they pretend that the light of Scripture merely dazzles the eye. This is their way of keeping the simple people from reading it. But, of course, we need not wonder that the proud, inflated with the wind of a perverse self-confidence, cannot see the light with which the Lord favours only those who are humble as a child (Matt. 11:25). David praises the law of God in a similar vein (Ps. 19 and 119).

But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth. . . . John 4:23.

Now there follows the second part, which has to do with the annulling of the cultic laws. When Christ says, the hour is coming, or is come, he teaches that the Mosaic order is in no way permanent. When he says, the hour now is, he puts an end to the ceremonies, and in this way declares that the time of training is now over. Still, he puts his approval on the Temple, the priesthood, and all the rites that went with them, in so far as these were useful in the past (Heb. 9:10). Besides, in order to show that God does not wish to be worshiped [exclusively] either in Jerusalem or on Mount Gerizim, he appeals to a higher principle: namely, that a true worship of God must be done in the spirit; from which it follows that men may call upon him in all places.

But we must first ask why and in what sense the worship of God is called spiritual. If we are to understand this, we must know the difference between the spirit and external forms as the difference between shadow and reality. The worship of God is said to be in the spirit, because nothing can take the place of the inward faith of the heart, which makes us call on God, or of purity of conscience and self-denial, by which we may give ourselves to the obedience of God as holy sacrifice.

From this arises another question: Did not the fathers, while under the law, worship God spiritually? I answer that since God is always the same, from the very beginning of the world, he could not have approved any kind of worship except the spiritual, which alone is compatible with his nature. Moses himself bears abundant witness to this, when he declares the end of the law to be none other than that his people cleave to God in faith and a pure conscience. In fact, the same thing is expressed in even a more telling way by the prophets, when they inveigh against the hypocrisy of the people who thought they could satisfy God by killing their sacrificial beasts and making a big show of it. There is no need to produce the many proofs, which are found everywhere, the most significant of them being Psalm 50; Isaiah 1, 58, 66; Micah 5; Amos 7.

However, even though the worship of God under the law was spiritual, since it was hidden under a multitude of external ceremonies it had the taste of something carnal and worldly. This is why Paul speaks of ceremonies as flesh and beggarly elements of the world (Gal. 4:9). In the same way, the writer of The Epistle to the Hebrews says that the ancient sanctuary, with its appendages, was earthly (Heb. 9:1). Thus we say properly that the cult of the law was spiritual in substance, but with respect to its form somewhat carnal and earthly. Therefore, the whole apparatus of the cult, the reality of which is now manifest, was a thing of shadows.

Now we see what the Jews had in common with us, and how they differed from us. In every age, God desired to be worshiped by faith, prayer, acts of thanksgiving, purity of heart, and innocence of life; and at no time was he pleased with other sacrifices; but under the law there were various additions made, and the Spirit and truth were covered over and hidden. Now that the veil of the Temple is torn, nothing is hidden or obscure. We also today have some external exercises of piety, which we need because of our inaptitude: but they are characterized by sobriety, and do not obscure the naked truth of Christ. In short, what was shadowy to the fathers, we now have openly and clearly.

For if the blood of bulls and of goats. . . sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge our conscience from dead works, to serve the living God? Heb. 9:13–14.

This passage has led many people astray, because they have forgotten that it has to do with sacraments, which have a spiritual meaning. They have talked about the cleansing of the flesh, such as was practiced by the heathen, who tried to blot out infamous crimes by offering some sacrifice of expiation. Such an interpretation of this passage is the height of profanity: for it is an insult to God that we should limit his promises to merely secular or civic matters. Moses teaches often that when sacrifice is offered properly, iniquity itself is expiated. Therefore, the doctrine of our faith is spiritual. The ultimate purpose of all sacrificial killing was to lead us to Christ; it was a testimony to the salvation of our souls in Christ, which alone is eternal. Therefore, how could the apostle have spoken of “the purification of the flesh” except in a spiritual, or sacramental, sense? If even the blood of beasts was a symbol of true purification, so that it did cleanse in a sacramental way, how much more shall Christ, who is the truth, not merely testify to purification by external rites, but rather establish its reality in our consciences! So the argument of this verse is from the sign to the reality signified by it; for the effectiveness of reality takes precedence by far over the validity of the sign.

Through the eternal Spirit. Now he shows clearly that the death of Christ is to be understood not in terms of outward act, but of the power of the Spirit. Christ suffered as a man. If his death has the power to save us, it is by the efficacy of the Spirit; for the sacrifice which brought us eternal expiation was more than a human act. And the apostle calls the Spirit eternal, to teach us that the reconciliation which He works is itself eternal. . . .

By the works of death we may understand either works which produce death, or works which are the fruit of death. Since the life of the soul is bound to God, those who are by sin alienated from him are to be regarded as dead.

But let us consider the end of our purification, which is the service of the living God. We are washed by Christ, not immediately to bury ourselves once again in filth, but so that our purity may serve the glory of God. Besides, the apostle teaches us that nothing from us will please God, unless we are purged by the blood of Christ. Since before we are reconciled with God we all are enemies to him, all our works are worthless before him. Therefore, the beginning of the true worship of God is reconciliation. Besides, since no act of ours is pure, free from all spot, it cannot please God; it must, therefore, be purified by the blood of Christ which blots out all our spots. And, of course, the contrast between dead works and the living God is beautiful.

Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves, and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Heb. 9:18–20.

The apostle wants us to attend not to words but to the substance of what is being said. He has found the word testament in the Greek language in which he is writing. Since the [Hebrew] word for covenant often becomes testimony in Greek, he takes advantage of this fact, and turns it to his own use. He eulogizes God’s covenant as a testimony, which is one way of speaking of it; and why not, since angels from heaven and so many gifted men on earth, that is, all the holy prophets, apostles, and a multitude of martyrs, have been witness to it, and at the last, the Son of God himself has sponsored it? Hence there is nothing absurd in the apostle’s use of the word testament. It is true that the Hebrew word toude does not in fact mean covenant; but since nothing which the apostle says is inconsistent with it, we must not be tied down to the exact meaning of the word.

The apostle says that the Old Testament was dedicated with blood; this he takes as a warning to the people that it was effective and stable only by the interposition of death. But he denies that the blood of beasts was a valid confirmation of the eternal covenant. This becomes clearer when we consider the rite of sprinkling enjoined by Moses, as described in our text. The apostle tells us, in the first place, that the covenant was sanctified, not because it was in itself profane, but because nothing is so sacred that the people would not profane it by their own impurities, unless it were restored by God himself. Therefore, the dedication was on men’s account, and only because they were unclean.

He then adds that the tabernacle with all its vessels, and also the Book of the Law itself, were sprinkled. By this rite the people were taught that God cannot be sought, or found, for salvation, and neither can he be worshiped truly, unless faith at all times uses the requisite blood. It is only right that we should find the majesty of God dreadful, and the way to it a hopeless labyrinth, unless we know that he turns to us with favor through the blood of Christ, and that through this same blood we have an easy access to him. Therefore, all worship is unclean and wicked unless purified by the sprinkling of the blood of Christ.

The tabernacle stood for a visible image of God. The vessels of the ministry set aside for the service of God were symbols of true worship. But since they were without blood useless for salvation, it is evident that unless Christ himself appears with his blood, we have no part in God. Even doctrine itself, in spite of God’s constant will [to save us], is without power or benefit, unless sanctified with blood. Our verse makes this perfectly clear.

I know that others understand this passage differently. They say that the tabernacle is the body of the church; and the vessels, the faithful whom God uses in his service. But my view of the matter is far more suitable. Whenever the people called on God, they turned to the sanctuary; and it was a common saying that when they appeared in the Temple, they stood before the face of the Lord.

This is the blood of the testament. . . . This means that the testament is not ratified without blood, and that the blood works no expiation without the testament. Therefore, the two must go together. We see that the symbol was added after the law was explained: for what is a sacrament unless the Word come before it? Therefore, the symbol is an accessory to the Word. And mark you, the Word was not murmured as a magical incantation, but spoken with a loud and clear voice, because it was meant for the people, so that the words of the covenant, which God has commanded you, might ring out. Therefore, it is a perverse misuse of the sacrament, and an ungodly corruption of it, when no one hears the exposition of God’s commandment, which is, as it were, the very soul of the sacrament. Therefore, the papists who separate the sign from a true understanding of its substance have nothing left but the dead letter.

Moreover, this passage warns us that we receive God’s promises only when they are confirmed by the blood of Christ. All God’s promises are Yea and Amen, as Paul testifies in 2 Cor. 1:20, only when by the blood of Christ they are inscribed on our hearts as a seal; for, we hear God speaking to us only when we see Christ offering himself as a pledge in what is said to us. If we could only get it into our heads that the Word of God we read is written not so much with ink as with the blood of the Son of God; or that when the gospel is preached, his own blood is poured with the voice we hear — we would pay far more attention and that with far greater reverence. The sprinkling spoken of by Moses was a symbol for the reality which we have just explained.

Of course, all this (which the apostle tells us) is not contained in the words of Moses. Moses does not tell us that either the Book or the people were sprinkled. He does not tell us that the sprinkling included the goats, or the scarlet wool, or the hyssop. We cannot even be sure that he sprinkled the Book, even though we may guess that he probably did so, since he brought it out before the people after the sacrifice, when he bound them to God by a solemn compact. As for the rest (the goats, the scarlet wool, the hyssop), it seems to me that the apostle has thrown them together as several kinds of offering having the same expiatory purpose. And after all, there is nothing absurd in this, since he was dealing with the general question of purification under the old covenant. What matters is that the whole thing was done with blood. As to the sprinkling with hyssop, and scarlet wool, it doubtless represented the mystical sprinkling by the Spirit. We know that hyssop has a singular power to purify and make clean. Therefore, Christ in turn sprinkles us with his Spirit, to wash us with his blood; to convert our minds to true repentance; to make us clean of the lusts of our depraved flesh; and to make us beautiful with the hues of his own wonderful righteousness. Indeed, it was not for nothing that God commanded this practice of sprinkling. Let us remember the words of David in Ps. 51:7, Sprinkle me, O Lord, with hyssop, and I shall be clean. That is enough for anyone who is minded to philosophize soberly.

3. THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL

Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father; there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. John 5:45.

It is a mistake to think that this verse sets the office of Moses against that of Christ; even though it is the peculiar function of the law to convict unbelievers of sin. This was not the intention of Christ; it was rather to disarm the hypocrites who gloried in Moses with a false reverence. It is like telling the papists today that the holy doctors of the church, behind whom they hide, are their worst opponents. Besides, this verse teaches us that our boasting in Scripture does us no good unless we worship the Son with the true obedience of faith; for, in the last day, all those whom God shall raise as witnesses to Christ shall come forth to accuse us. When Christ says that his hearers hope in Moses, he does not accuse them of superstition, or of thinking that Moses was their Savior. He is rather pointing out the folly of their taking refuge in Moses, as though they had his backing in their wicked and arrogant rebellion.

This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with an angel which spake to him in Mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us. Acts 7:38.

Who received living oracles. Erasmus translates this as “the living word” ! But those who know their Greek must agree that I have given a better rendition of what Stephen said; for oracles have more majesty than words. What I say is words, but what comes out of the mouth of the Lord is an oracle. Besides, these words of Stephen are intended to establish the authority of Moses’ teaching, and to impress upon the people that Moses spoke only what was from God; from which it followed that in rebelling against Moses, they had rebelled not against him but against God; hence, their effrontery was obviously all the more brazen. (And, in general, the right way to establish [true] doctrine is for men to teach nothing they have not been commanded from God.) For, how could any man have dared to look down on Moses, who, as the Spirit says, had a right to be believed because he explained to the people faithfully the doctrine which he had received from God!

But someone may ask, Why does he call the law a “living word” ? Such praise may seem to fit poorly with Paul’s statement that the law is minister of death and works wrath, and that it makes us to sin (2 Cor. 3:7). If anyone understands “the living word” to mean a word that is valid and effective in spite of men’s contempt for it, I will not contradict him, but on my part, I interpret “living” as that which is active. Since the law is the perfect rule of a godly and holy life, and sets forth the righteousness of God, it is rightly thought of as the doctrine of life and salvation; and it is to this that Moses bears witness, as he swears by heaven and earth, when he presents the law to the people as the way of life and death. In the same way, in Ezekiel, chapter 20, God complains that the people have violated his law which is good, and his precepts concerning which he had said, Any one who does them, shall live in them. The law, therefore, contains life in itself. If anyone prefers to interpret “living” as efficacious and full of power, I shall not object too strenuously.

When Paul calls the law the minister of death, he speaks of a characteristic which it has contingently, because of the corrupt nature of man. The law itself does not produce sin; it finds sin in us. It offers life to us; but we, being evil, derive nothing but death from it. Hence, the law works death only in relation to man. In this verse, Stephen refers to something more than the bare commandments of the law; he speaks of the teaching of Moses as a whole, which includes the promises God has made freely, and therefore Christ himself, who alone is the life and salvation of men.

And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. John 5:38.

We profit from the Word of God only when it takes root in us, and is so fixed in our hearts that it remains there. Christ denied that the Jews possessed the heavenly doctrine, because they did not receive the Son of God who is proclaimed everywhere in it. And he rejected them with good reason. God did not speak through Moses and the prophets for nothing. His only purpose in speaking to Moses was that he might call everyone to Christ. Therefore, it is clear that those who repudiate Christ are no disciples of Moses. After all, how can the Word of life be and remain in anyone who pushes aside life itself? How does any man hold to the teaching of the law when he does his best to extinguish the Spirit of the law? For the law without Christ has nothing solid about it, and in fact avails us nothing. Therefore, progress in the Word of God goes with a right knowledge of Christ.

Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me. John 5:39.

As we have pointed out, Christ’s previous statement that the Father is his witness in heaven, applies also to Moses and the prophets. Now Christ explains the matter more clearly by saying that the Scripture itself is his witness. He again attacks the stupidity of those who declared loudly that the Scriptures gave them life, while they treated them as dead letter. He does not judge them because they sought life in the Scriptures; the Scriptures were given to be used for this purpose. But the Jews thought the Scriptures gave them life when they had no sense of their true meaning, and had even put out the light of life in them. How can the law make alive, when Christ alone gives it life?

Moreover, this passage teaches us that if we would know Christ, we must seek him in the Scriptures. Anyone who imagines Christ as he will, gets nothing but a mere blur (umbratile spectrum). So, we must first hold that Christ is known rightly nowhere but in Scripture. If this be so, our chief purpose in reading the Scriptures must be to arrive at a right knowledge of Christ. Whoever turns aside from this aim, even though he wear himself out with learning all his life, will never arrive at truth; for what wisdom can we attain apart from the wisdom of God? Moreover, since we are commanded to seek Christ in the Scriptures, he declares that our zeal in this matter shall not be in vain; for the Father himself testifies that in them he shall certainly reveal his Son to us. Many are deprived of this blessing, because they neglect reading the Scriptures, or do it cursorily and superficially. But it deserves utmost attention that Christ himself commands us to probe deeply into this hidden treasure. It was sheer apathy that led the Jews, who had the law in their very hands, to abhor Christ. The glory of God shone brightly in Moses, but they put up a veil and darkened it. In this place, Scripture means obviously the Old Testament. It is not true that Christ appears first in the gospel. It is rather that after the witness of the Law and the Prophets, he appeared in the gospel for everyone to see.

But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Matt. 19:17.

Some ancients, and the papists after them, have misinterpreted this verse so as to make Christ promise that if we observe the law we shall have eternal life. Christ was not talking about what man can do; he was answering a question as to right conduct or what the law defines as righteous. Certainly, God gave his law as the way of a right and holy life, which includes righteousness. It is not for nothing that Moses made the statement, Anyone who does these things, shall live by them; again, I call heaven and earth to witness that today I have put before you life. Therefore, it cannot be denied that the keeping of the law is righteousness, and that anyone who keeps it perfectly, obtains life. But, since we all are destitute of the glory of God [righteousness], in the law we find nothing but a curse; there is nothing left for us to do but to fly to a righteousness which shall be given us freely. Therefore, Paul presents us with two kinds of righteousness: of the law and of faith; the former he makes to consist in works, and the latter in the mere grace of Christ.

From this we gather that the reply of Christ was correct. He had first to answer the young man who asked about the right thing to do; for no man is righteous before God unless he satisfies the law (which is impossible). He did this in order that the young man might acknowledge his inability, and look to faith for help. Therefore, I admit that since God has promised the reward of eternal life to those who keep the law, it would be right, if it were not for the weakness of our flesh, for us to follow this way [to expect life through our good works]. But Scripture itself teaches us that we must be given what we cannot acquire through our own merit. If anyone object that it is frustrating to be confronted with righteousness through obedience to the law, if nobody has it in him to achieve it, I answer that the law is only the beginning of this matter, and that it is by no means futile if it leads us to pray for righteousness. For this reason, where Paul says that those who do the law are justified, he also denies that anyone can be justified through the law (Rom. 2:13; 3:9–10).

This passage abolishes all the fictions which the papists have invented in order to obtain salvation. Their error is not merely that by their good works they want to bind God, and make him grant them salvation as a matter of debt; but also that when they gird themselves to do good, they set aside the teaching of the law, and become intent upon fictions which they call their “devotions.” In this way, they not only repudiate the law of God, but also far prefer their human traditions. But what else does Christ say, except that God approves only of that worship which he himself has prescribed? For, obedience is better to him than all slaughtered sacrifice. So then, let the papists be occupied with their silly traditions; if anyone would be serious about ordering his life so as to live in obedience to Christ, let him devote his whole attention to obeying the commandments of the law.

Who hath also made us able ministers of the new testament, not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, . . . which glory was to be done away, how shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. . 2 Cor. 3:6–10.

Paul had before touched upon the comparison between the law and the gospel; now he pursues the matter further. However, the occasion for this argument is not certain; was it that he saw some Corinthians make a perverse use of the law, or was it something else that started him? For my part, I see no evidence that false apostles were comparing the law with the gospel. I think it is more probable that he had in mind chatterboxes whose lifeless rhetoric had the kind of glitter which swept the Corinthians off their feet. He wanted to show the latter that the chief glory of the gospel and the chief praise of its ministers is the power of the Spirit. It seems to me that he embarked upon the following comparison of the law with the gospel because it was a good way of proving his point.

However, there is no doubt that by the letter he meant the Old Testament, as by the word Spirit he means the gospel; for, when he calls himself a minister of the new covenant, he also adds immediately that he is a minister of the Spirit; and it is in this connection that he contrasts the letter with the Spirit.

We must now look into the reason for his use of these words. Origen’s invention in this matter has become well established as truth: that the letter means the grammatical and genuine meaning of Scripture, or as they say, the literal; and that Spirit means the allegorical meaning, which is commonly called the spiritual. Thus, through the centuries, it has been commonly accepted and passed around that here Paul has provided us with a key for the allegorical interpretation of Scripture. But nothing was further from his mind. By the word letter Paul means preaching which is external and does not reach the heart; by Spirit he means teaching which is alive, which works mightily in the souls of men by the grace of the Spirit. Letter, therefore, means literal, that is, dead and ineffective preaching, which is heard only by the ear. Spirit, on the other hand, means spiritual teaching, which is not merely a matter of mouthing words, but rather has the power to penetrate the soul and bring it to life. Paul had in mind the verse from Jeremiah which I cited before, there the Lord says that his law had been given by word of mouth, and that it had neither lasted long, nor had it been received by the people with their hearts; therefore, he promises the Spirit of regeneration in the reign of Christ, who will write the gospel, that is the new covenant, in their hearts (Jer. 31:31). Now, it is Paul’s boast that this prophecy has been fulfilled in his preaching. He would have the Corinthians know that the bombast of the loud mouths amounts to nothing, because it lacks the power of the Spirit.

Now let us consider if, under the Old Testament, God spoke merely with an outward voice, or if he did not speak inwardly by his Spirit to the hearts of the godly. I answer, in the first place, that Paul here has in mind the peculiar function of the law. In so far as God worked by his Spirit, he did so not by the ministry of Moses, but by the grace of Christ. As we learn from John 1:17, the law was by Moses, but grace and truth by Jesus Christ. Of course, all that time, the grace of God was not inactive; but also, clearly enough, it did not work by the law. Moses’ part was done when he gave the way of life, with the threats and promises. Paul calls the law letter because in itself it is dead preaching; and he calls the gospel “Spirit,” because its ministry is alive and makes alive.

Secondly, I answer that Paul is speaking of the law and the gospel not in general, but in so far as they are opposed one to the other. Even the gospel itself is not always Spirit. Still, when it comes to a comparison between the two, one must say truly and properly that the nature of the law is such that it teaches the letter, without penetrating beyond the ear; on the other hand, it is the nature of the gospel to teach spiritually, because it is the instrument of the grace of Christ. God has ordained it so, for it has pleased him to reveal the power of the Spirit more through the gospel than through the law; and it is the Spirit alone that can teach the spirits of men. . . .

For the letter kills. First Origen, and then others, distorted this phrase badly, to give it a corrupted meaning; and so arose the most pernicious error that Scripture is not only useless but even harmful unless it is turned into elaborate allegories. This error became a source of much evil. It not only gave license for corrupting the true meaning of Scripture, but also led to the notion that the more unprincipled the allegorizer, the more expert he was as interpreter of Scripture. So, many of the ancients threw the sacred Word of God around as though it were a tennis ball. In this way, the heretics too were unbridled and found occasion to trouble the church. Now, anybody could do anything, and many did; there was no madness so absurd or so great but it could be practiced in the name of some allegory. Even good people were caught, and invented many false notions, because they were deceived by their fondness for allegory. . . .

But if the ministration of death. He now magnifies the dignity of the gospel so much the more, by insisting that God has conferred great honor upon the law, which is as nothing in comparison with the gospel. The prestige of the law was established by many miracles. But Paul touches upon one: namely, that Moses’ face was bright with such splendor as to dazzle the eyes of all those around him — a splendor which was a symbol of the glory of the law. So he argues from the lesser to the greater, and presents the glory of the gospel as all the more magnificent since it is far superior to the law. First, he calls the law the ministry of death; secondly, he says that the doctrine of the law consisted in letter, and was done with ink; thirdly, that it was written on stones; fourthly, that it was not to last forever, but was temporary and meant to pass away; in the fifth place, once again he calls it the ministry of condemnation.

To make the antithesis complete, he should have used the same number of points on the opposite side with regard to the gospel; but he calls the latter simply the ministry of the Spirit, and of righteousness, which is to remain valid at all times. In terms of words, the comparison is not carried through; but as to the substance of the matter, what he says is adequate, for he has already said that the Spirit gives life; and further, he has pointed out that now men’s hearts take the place of stones and inner disposition takes the place of ink.

Let us now examine briefly the characteristics of the law and the gospel. But let us remember that the point at issue is neither the whole of the teaching we find in the Law and the Prophets, nor the experience of the fathers under the Old Testament; but rather the peculiar function of the ministry of Moses [or the law]. The law was chiseled upon stones; therefore, its teaching was one of the letter. This defect of the law had to be corrected by the gospel, since, the law having been consigned to tablets of stone, it could not but be breakable. The gospel, therefore, is a holy and inviolable covenant because under God it was hewed out by the Spirit. It follows that the law was the ministry of condemnation and death; for when men were told their duty, they also heard that anyone who does not satisfy God’s justice is cursed, and ends in sin and death. Therefore, men get nothing from the law but condemnation, for in the law God demands his due, but does not confer the power to pay it properly. The gospel, on the other hand, which regenerates us and reconciles us with God through the free forgiveness of sins, is the ministry of righteousness, and consequently, of life itself.

But now arises the question: If the gospel be to some a deadly odor of death, and if Christ be the rock of offense and the stone of stumbling set for the ruin of many, why is it that the law alone is blamed for what it has in common with the gospel (2 Cor. 2:16, Luke 2:34, 1 Peter 2:8)? If one answers that the gospel does not work death in itself, or that it is the occasion rather than the cause of death, since its own nature is to save all men, one does not get rid of the difficulty, because the same is true of the law. Moses himself argued that he set life and death before the people (Deut. 30:15); and Paul also said, in Rom. 7:10, that the law is turned into a source of ruin for us, not because it is evil but because we are wicked. Therefore, since neither the law nor the gospel leads to condemnation in itself, our knot is still with us.

My answer is that, in spite of all this, there is a great difference between the law and the gospel. Even though the gospel is an occasion for condemnation to many, it is rightly regarded as the doctrine of life, because it is the means of regeneration and offers us free reconciliation with God. The law, on the other hand, even though it prescribes the rule of a good life, does not change the heart for a righteous obedience; and in declaring eternal death to sinners, it can do nothing but condemn them. To put it another way, it is the function of the law to uncover the disease; it gives us no hope of its cure. It is the function of the gospel to bring healing to those who are without hope. The law, in so far as it leads men to put their confidence in it, consigns them necessarily to death. The gospel, on the other hand, leads us to Christ and thus opens the gate to life. Thus, in one word, the property of the law by which it kills, even though not essential to it, is permanent and inseparable from it; for, as the apostle says elsewhere, all those who remain under the law are subject to the curse (Gal. 3:10). On the other hand, it is not true of the gospel that it kills always, because in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; and, therefore, it is the saving power of God to all those who believe (Rom. 1:16–17).

It remains to consider the last contrast made by the apostle when he says that the law was for a time, and to be abolished, whereas the gospel is for perpetuity. There are many reasons why the ministry of Moses was for a season. Shadows had to cease with the coming of Christ. But the statement applies beyond the shadows, to the Law and the Prophets until John (Matt. 11:13). It means that Christ put an end to the ministry of Moses, in all that was peculiar to it and apart from the gospel. Finally, in Jer. 31:31–32, the Lord bears witness to the weakness of the old covenant because it was not inscribed upon the hearts of men. I interpret the abolition of the law mentioned in this place as referring to the whole of the old covenant in so far as it was opposed to the gospel; and that includes the Law and the Prophets until John. The context of the present statement requires this interpretation. Paul is not arguing only about the ceremonies; his point is that the Spirit of God exercises his energy far more powerfully under the gospel than he did long ago under the law. . . .

This is no denial of what is said above, but rather a confirmation of it; for Paul means that where the gospel appears, the glory of the law is extinguished. As the moon and the stars, which have light enough to illumine the whole earth, disappear before the splendor of the sun, so also the law, whatever glory it might have in itself, is as nothing before the refulgence of the gospel. Hence, it follows that we cannot magnify enough, or treat with too much reverence, the glory of Christ which shines in the gospel, as the brightness of the sun shines in its rays. It is in bad taste, and a foolish profanation of the gospel, when the power and majesty of the Spirit, which draw the minds and hearts of men to heaven, are withheld from the people.

But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which veil is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart; nevertheless, when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 2 Cor. 3:14–17.

He puts the whole blame upon them [the Jews]; for it was because of their blindness that they were unable to benefit from the teaching of the law. . . .

He now gives the reason for their continued blindness in the midst of light. The law in itself is a source of light: but we enjoy its brightness only when Christ appears to us in it. The Jews do all they can to turn their eyes away from Christ: it is therefore not surprising that they see nothing, since they will not turn to the Sun. This blindness on the part of God’s chosen people, especially since it has lasted so long, should warn us that we ought to rely upon God’s favors toward us, and not be lifted up with pride. (On this, see Rom. 11:20.) And let the reason for blindness given in this passage keep us from a contempt of Christ, which exposes us to the awful vengeance of God. In the meantime, we should learn that there is no light in the law, or even in the whole Word of God, without Christ who is the Sun of Righteousness.

But when it shall have turned to the Lord. So far, this passage has been seriously misunderstood; both the Greek and the Latin interpreters When Calvin speaks roundly of Greek and Latin interpreters, he means primarily Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augustine, whose works were continually before him. But he knew many of the other fathers of the ancient church (see Introduction, p. 22) have thought that it refers to Israel. But Paul is speaking of Moses. He had said that when the Jews read Moses, a veil was thrown over their hearts. Now he continues that as soon as their heart is turned to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away. Who cannot see, as I said, that when he speaks of Moses, he is speaking of the law? Since Christ is the end (or fulfillment) of the law, the Jews ought to have accepted the truth that the law refers them to Christ; when they shut out Christ, they turned the law in another direction. Since in reading the law they wandered aimlessly, the law itself has become to them a complicated thing, like a labyrinth; and it will remain such until it is turned toward its fulfillment, who is Christ. If the Jews seek Christ in the law, God’s truth will appear to them clearly; while they continue to seek wisdom without Christ, they shall lose their way in darkness and never arrive at the true meaning of the law. What is said of the law applies to the whole of Scripture: when it is not directed toward Christ as its one aim, it is tortured badly and twisted.

The Lord is the Spirit. This passage also has been interpreted badly, so as to make Paul mean that Christ is of a spiritual essence; people do this by tying it up with John 4:24, where we read God is a Spirit. As a matter of fact, this statement has nothing to do with Christ’s essence; it simply points out his office. It goes with what Paul said above: namely, that the teaching of the law is literal, not only dead but also a source of death. Conversely, he now calls Christ the Spirit of the law, which means that the law is living and life-giving only in so far as it receives the breath of Christ. When the soul is united with the body, there is a living man, endowed with intelligence and perception, competent for living behavior; take the soul away from the body, and what do you have but a useless corpse, empty of all sensibility?

This verse is of particular value; for it tells us how we are to reconcile the praises with which David commends the law to us (in Ps. 19:7–8: “the law of the Lord converts the soul, enlightens the eyes, and imparts wisdom to babes,” and other statements like it) with Paul’s statements which apparently contradict them: that the law is the ministry of sin and death, which only kills (2 Cor. 3:7). When Christ gives life to the law, David’s praises apply to it; when Christ is taken away, the law is altogether as Paul describes it. Therefore, Christ is the life of the law.

Where the Spirit of the Lord. Now Paul describes the way Christ gives life to the law, which is, by giving it his Spirit. The meaning of the word Spirit here is not the same as it is in the previous verse. There it means soul, and is used as a metaphor for Christ; here, it refers to the Holy Spirit himself, who is the gift of Christ to us. In regenerating us, Christ brings the law itself to life, and reveals himself as the fountain of life. He acts like the human soul, which is the source of all human vitality. Therefore, Christ is (so to speak) the soul of all beings; not as their essence, but by the action of his grace. Or, if you prefer it, Christ is the Spirit because he makes us alive by the vivifying power of his Spirit.

And of his fullness have we all received, grace for grace; for the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. John 1:16–17.

Now John embarks upon the mission of Christ, which contains the abundance of all blessings, for there is not a thing belonging to our salvation which we need seek elsewhere. God indeed is the fountain of life, and righteousness, and power, and wisdom; but he is a fountain hidden and inaccessible to us. All these blessings are presented to us in Jesus Christ in all fullness, so that we may look for them in him. And he is ready to make them flow upon us, if by faith we build the proper pipeline. In short, in every part of this sentence John makes but one point, namely, that we must not look for any good outside of Christ. First, he makes it clear that we are utterly destitute and empty of all spiritual good. For if Christ himself abounds, it is to fill our emptiness, to relieve our poverty, and to satisfy us who are hungry and thirsty. Secondly, the writer warns us that no sooner do we turn away from Christ than we look in vain for a single drop of good; because it was God’s will that every good should reside in him. Therefore, we find men and angels dry, the heaven empty and the earth sterile, when we try to have a part in God’s gifts by any means but Christ. In the third place, he assures us that we shall want nothing whatsoever if we draw upon the fullness of Christ, which is in every respect so rich that we shall never be able to drain it off. John includes himself with all men, not because of modesty, but to make it clear that no one is excepted.

There is some doubt as to whether John speaks of mankind in general or only of those who, after Christ’s coming in the flesh, have shared more fully in his blessings. It is certain that those who lived under the law drew from the fullness of Christ. But since John distinguishes between the time before the Advent and the time after, he is more probably speaking of the new abundance of good which Christ at his coming brought with him. We know that when Christ appeared in the flesh, the benefits which were enjoyed in a limited way under the law were, so to speak, scattered abroad with a full hand; so that we have more than enough. This does not mean that each and every one of us is superior to Abraham in the grace of the Spirit. I am speaking of the greater extent to which God now distributes his gifts, and of the way and manner in which he does it. John’s purpose in emphasizing all men’s poverty with regard to the good offered us richly in Christ, was to invite his disciples to him the more persuasively. At the same time, it would not be absurd to extend the meaning of this statement further. In fact, the context itself justifies us in adding that all the fathers, since the beginning of the world, have drawn every good they have enjoyed from Christ. Since Moses gave them the law, they received grace from another hand. But I have already stated the interpretation I prefer: which is that John compares us with the fathers, in order to impress upon us the riches of the gift we have in Christ Jesus.

And grace for grace. Augustine’s exposition of this verse is well known. The anti-Pelagian writings, De gratia et libero arbitrio, ch. 21, and De correptione et gratia, ch. 41. See also his Tractates on the Gospel of John, No. 3, Sec. 9. He says that the continued blessings of God, and finally life eternal itself, are not rewards due us because of our merits, but acts of divine generosity with which by grace God rewards what we do and crowns his own gifts to us. All this is intelligently said; but it has nothing to do with this verse. We would get its simple meaning if we took ἀντὶ in a comparative sense, which would give us the statement: All the graces alike which God showers upon us come to us from the same source (which is Christ). This verse might also be taken to point out that grace is given us for salvation, which is the completion of grace. But I myself agree with those who believe that it refers to the graces which are poured out in Christ, and over us like water upon a dry land. But, even while we receive these graces from Christ, he does not act as God (who is the source), but rather as the channel through which the bountiful Father pours them upon us. So it is that he was anointed for our sake, to anoint us all with him: wherefore, he was called Christ and we, Christians.

For the law came by Moses. Here he anticipates a likely objection. The Jews had such a high regard for Moses that they would admit nothing as true if it differed from his teaching. The Evangelist, therefore, shows how inferior the ministry of Moses was to the power of Christ. At the same time, this comparison sheds no little light on the authority of Christ. Since there was no deference the Jews did not pay Moses, the Evangelist points out that what he brought was little when compared with the grace of Christ.

Another difficulty was that the Jews thought they received from the law what is not given us except in Christ. Therefore, the Evangelist contrasts the law with grace and truth, and implies that both were lacking in the law. Truth, in my judgment, indicates a fixed and firm stability in things. By grace I understand the spiritual fulfillment of the things which the law contains as mere letter. And these two words may be said to be figures of speech with the same meaning: namely, that the truth of the law consists in the grace which was exhibited in Christ. It does not much matter whether these two words are put together or separated one from the other, for either way the sense of the statement is the same. This much is certain: according to John, the law contained the shadowy image of the spiritual goods which we find in Christ; from which it follows that when the law is separated from Christ, nothing is left but empty forms. This is why Paul said that the law is shadows, Christ the substance (Col. 2:17). But we must not imagine that the law gives us only falsehood; because even though the law in itself is dead, Christ himself is the soul of the law and makes it alive. Still the question here has to do with the power of the law apart from Christ; and the Evangelist asserts that without Christ the law is nothing but a shadow, without substance and without power. This truth consists in the fact that through Christ we obtain a grace which is not available through the law. By grace in general, I understand the free forgiveness of sins and the renewal of the heart. With this word John states briefly the distinction between the Old and the New Testaments (which was done more fully in Jer. 31:31), and includes in it all that has to do with spiritual righteousness. But this righteousness consists of two parts: namely, that God is reconciled to us freely, not imputing our sins to us; and that he has engraved his law within us and renewed us by his Spirit for obedience to it. It follows that the law is expounded wrongly and falsely when it keeps us to itself and even prevents our access to Christ.

4. EXAMPLES OF EXEGESIS

When was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, In Rama there was a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not. Matt. 2:17–18.

It is certain that the prophet was describing the destruction of the tribe of Benjamin as it occurred in his time (Jer. 31:15). He had already predicted the destruction of Judah, to which had been attached half the tribe of Benjamin. He put this mourning in dead Rachel’s mouth by way of personification (prosopopoeia), which is very effective in rousing the feelings. Jeremiah did not use rhetoric merely to embellish his speech. He did it because there was no way to correct the stupidity and hard-heartedness of the living, except by calling the dead out of their graves, to weep over the chastisements of God which most people laughed at.

Since the prediction of the prophet had already been fulfilled, Matthew did not take it as a prophecy of what Herod was going to do; rather he meant that with the coming of Christ there was to be a recurrence of the affliction which the Benjamites suffered many centuries before. He wanted to meet an objection which might have troubled and shaken the believers’ minds: for how could one hope to be saved by a man because of whom, and at whose very birth, there had been a massacre of infants? It was surely a dark and dreadful omen that the birth of Christ kindled a flaming fire of such fury as we do not meet even in wars of greatest cruelty! But as Jeremiah promises a restoration after the slaughter of the people down to the infants, so Matthew argues that in spite of Herod’s wholesale murder, Christ would surely come forth as the Redeemer of the nation. We know that in the same chapter of Jeremiah (31), mourning is followed by tender words of comfort. For immediately after the mournful complaint come the words: “Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears; for thy work shall be rewarded, and there is hope at the end,” etc. Such then was the likeness between the former calamity suffered by the tribe of Benjamin and this latter one [which occurred under Herod]; and they both were preludes to the restoration of well-being which was soon to follow.

And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. Matt. 2:23.

Matthew does not derive “Nazarene” from “Nazareth,” as though there were a real and certain and etymological connection between the two words. What we have here is a mere allusion. Nazir means holy and devoted to God, and is otherwise derived from nazar, which means to separate. It is true that the Hebrews called a certain flower (or rather, the insignia of the royal diadem) a nazar. But there is no doubt that Matthew used the word as meaning holy. We read nowhere of the Nazarenes as flourishing; but we do read, as in Num. 6:4, that they were consecrated to God as prescribed by law. We are, therefore, to understand Matthew’s statement as follows: Although it was fear that drove Joseph to a corner of Galilee, God had a higher purpose; for Nazareth was ordained to be Christ’s home, so that he might bear the name of Nazarene which was rightly his.

But it might be asked what prophet gave this name to Christ; for there is in fact no such testimony in Scripture. Some think it is enough to answer that Scripture often calls him holy; but this is a poor solution of the problem. Matthew, as we have seen, emphasizes the word Nazarene, and by it refers to the ancient Nazarenes, who were considered especially holy. He as much as says that the holiness foreshadowed in the Nazarenes, as selected firstfruits before God, was perfected in the person of Christ.

But we must still face the question as to where the prophets gave this name to Christ. Chrysostom, John Chrysostom (347–407), the bishop of Constantinople, was a man much after Calvin’s heart. He was a powerful preacher who aimed at reform. He practiced “lucidity and brevity” in his voluminous Biblical homilies and commentaries. He was a brave critic of the mighty both in the church and in the state. He made many enemies and ended in exile. who was unable to unravel the knot, settled the matter by saying that many books of the prophets have perished. But this is a careless answer. For even though the Lord punished his ancient people by depriving them of a part of Scripture, or suppressed those parts which were of lesser importance, nothing has been lost since the coming of Christ. People have been misled on this point by a passage in Josephus, Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37–95?), Jewish antiquarian and historian, has put all subsequent historians of the Bible in his debt. His two books, On the Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities, have been “primary sources” for our knowledge of events, places, parties, etc., having to do with the New Testament. Calvin seems to have had his works before him as he dictated his New Testament Commentaries at home. where he says that Ezekiel left behind two books. But Josephus may have been referring to Ezekiel’s prophecy of the new Temple and new Kingdom, which is obviously distinct from his former prophecies, and amounts to a new book. In any case, we still have safe and sound all the books which were extant in Matthew’s time, and they are preserved in good condition. Therefore, somewhere we should come across his citation from the testimony of the prophets.

I think Bucer’s judgment with regard to this matter is the best. He thinks we find the reference we need in Judg. 13:5. Bucer’s In sacra quatuor evangelia, enarrationes perpetua, 1536, on Matt. 2:23. This verse has to do with Samson, who is called deliverer in so far as he prefigured Christ; and the salvation which came by his hand and ministry was a shadowy prelude to the fullness of salvation which was exhibited to the world in the Son of God. Anything good said about Samson in Scripture must by right be transferred to Christ. If anyone prefers it that way, Christ is the original exemplar, and Samson is the inferior copy (antitype). We must understand that when Samson was invested with the honors due to the person of the Savior, the titles which adorn that high and truly divine office were intended not for him but for Christ. The fathers had only a taste of that grace of redemption which we who are in Christ have received in full.

It is easy to see why Matthew spoke of prophets in the plural: The Book of Judges was composed by a number of prophets. But I think that the reference to the prophets in this place has a wider significance. For, the patriarch Joseph, who was called a Nazarene by his brothers, was a temporal savior of the church; he was in many respects a type of Christ, and even his living image (Gen. 49:26, Deut. 33:16). God, therefore, intended that the high dignity conferred upon Joseph should have reappeared in the person of Samson, who therefore received the title Nazarene. In all this, it was God’s purpose to provide for the training of the faithful: to fix their hearts upon the Redeemer to come, who was set apart from all men, to be the firstborn among many brothers.

And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots. Matt. 27:35.

It is quite certain that it was the custom of the soldiers to divide the spoils of a condemned man among themselves; even though it was perhaps unusual to cast lots for a seamless coat. So, nothing happened to Christ that did not happen to all condemned men. And yet this story deserves utmost attention. The Evangelists present us with a Christ stripped naked of his clothes, to impress upon us that by his nakedness we are covered with riches which adorn us before God. The Son was stripped by God’s will, to clothe us with his righteousness and an abundance of all wealth. So it is that whereas before our rags and filth made us unfit for heaven, now we all can appear with God’s angels, in his presence, boldly and without fear. Christ himself let the soldiers tear his seamless coat in pieces, like beasts at their prey to enrich us with the riches of his victory.

Moreover, as Matthew says, this happened in fulfillment of David’s prophecy, They divided my garments among them (Ps. 22:18). This bitter complaint is a metaphor, and its language is figurative. But as applied to Christ, its meaning is, as we say, literal; for it states a matter of fact. By garments, David means his wealth and honor; he means that he had been a prey to his enemies, who had in his own lifetime and under his very eyes despoiled his house of everything he possessed, and gone so far as to ravish his wife. When he writes that his garments were divided by lot, he is using a metaphor to express the cruelty of his enemies.

Since David was an image and foreshadowing of Christ, he was endowed with the Spirit of prophecy, and predicted the sufferings of Christ. We must not forget that when the soldiers robbed Christ of his garment, they did this outrage according to signs and tokens indicated a long time before. When we see this, we are no longer troubled by the scandal Christ’s nakedness causes to the carnal mind. We now understand that he suffered everything rightly and properly as the Redeemer, and as prophesied and declared by the Spirit.

Commentaries on Jesus Christ

1. THE MEDIATOR

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever. Heb. 13:8.

The only way to continue in the right faith is to keep to the foundation and not to turn away from it a single inch. If a man does not hold on to Christ, his wisdom is mere folly, even though he comprehend heaven and earth; for all the treasures of heavenly wisdom are contained in Christ. Therefore, this is a remarkable verse, because from it we see that there is no other rule of true wisdom except to set our whole minds on Christ alone. And, since the writer had to do with the Jews, he teaches that Christ has at all times in the past reigned as he does today, and that he will reign till the end of the world as he has reigned to the present time. Yesterday he says, today, and the same also forever; by these words he means that Christ, who is now manifested to the world, has reigned from the beginning of the world, and that, when we come to him, we must go no further. Yesterday therefore, includes the whole duration of the Old Testament. The word is used to establish that, even though the gospel has been preached but recently, this does not justify jumping to the conclusion that it will soon disappear; in fact, Christ has been revealed recently for the very purpose that men might know him from that time on and ever after. From this it is evident that the apostle is speaking not of Christ as he is in eternity, but of our knowledge of him, which the godly have always had, and which is at all times the foundation of the church. Of course it is true that Christ was, before he revealed his power. But about what is the apostle speaking? I say that in this verse he is speaking not of Christ’s being but, so to say, of his quality (or of how he acts towards us); the question is not his eternal presence before the Father, but what men have known of him. Moreover, even though, with regard to external form and manner, Christ was manifested differently under the law and in our time, the apostle nonetheless speaks truly and properly when he says that the faithful have always had their eyes fixed upon Christ.

The sun of righteousness shall rise to you who fear my name, and with healing in his wings; and you will go forth and leap like well-fed (or fattened) young bulls. Mal. 4:2. (Calvin’s wording.)

Now the prophet directs his words to the faithful. Up to this point, he had been threatening the hypocrites who arrogantly claimed holiness for themselves alone, although they had never ceased to provoke God’s anger. Now, as I said before, he is addressing the others when he says shall rise to you. He distinguishes those who fear God or worship him purely from the multitude with which he has so far been disputing.

The antithesis is important. Although the people as a whole had been infected with the general disgrace, God had kept a few untouched by it. He had been contending with the majority of the people; now he gathers the chosen apart by themselves and promises that for them Christ will be the author of true salvation. We know that the faithful would be terrified at God’s threats of punishment and would almost cease to breathe, if God did not soften the severity of his condemnation. Whenever he announces punishment to sinners, most of them either laugh, or become angry, or else pay no attention at all. So it happens that the wicked continue securely in their crimes, while God thunders. But the faithful are terrified at one word from him and would be wholly discouraged if God did not bring some remedy.

Therefore the prophet softens the harshness of the preceding threat, as if to say that he had not proclaimed the terror of Christ’s coming with the purpose of filling their hearts with fear. Its dreadfulness did not concern them; he had described it only to frighten the wicked.

This, then, is what he means: “Come near, you who fear the Lord, for I have a different word for you. The Sun of Righteousness will rise and will bring healing in his wings. Let those perish who despise God, who even fight against him and wish to hold him in subjection to themselves. But you, lift up your heads and wait patiently for that day. In the hope of it, endure all misfortunes calmly.”

Now we come to the high point of the verse. There is no  doubt that Malachi here calls Christ the Sun of Righteousness, and the words appear especially appropriate when we consider how the situation of the fathers differed from our own. God always gave light to his church, but the full light was brought by Christ; as Isaiah also taught (60:1 ff.), The Lord will shine upon you and the glory of God will be seen among you. This is fulfilled only in the person of Christ. Then behold shadows will cover the earth. . . and the Lord will shine upon thee; and also, There will be no sun and moon by day or night, but God alone will shine. All these passages show that the name of sun is appropriate to Christ because God the Father shines upon us so much more brightly in his person than formerly in the law and all the additions to the law.

For the same reason Christ calls himself the light of the world. Not that the fathers wandered like blind men in a mist, but that they had to be content with the light of early dawn or with the moon and stars. We know how obscure the teaching of the law was, so that it is truly called a “shadow.” But when the heavens were finally opened by the gospel, then indeed did the sun rise; and when the risen sun gives light the full day comes. It is Christ’s true office to give light. Therefore John begins by saying that the true light was from the beginning and lights every man coming into the world; and that the light itself shines in darkness. For some sparks of reason remain in men even when they have become blind by Adam’s Fall and the corruption of their nature.

But Christ is fittingly called light in relation to the faithful whom he has rescued from their natural blindness and has raised up to be ruled by his Spirit. This is the meaning of sun when the name is given metaphorically to Christ. He is called sun because without him we can only wander and go wrong, but when He leads us we keep on the right road; as he says, Who follows me does not walk in darkness.

It must be noted that this promise is not restricted to the physical presence of Christ, but refers also to the gospel; as Paul says, Wake, you who sleep, and rise from darkness and Christ will give you light (Eph. 5:14). Every day, Christ enlightens us by his teaching and his Spirit; and although we do not see him with our eyes we know by experience that he is our sun.

Further, he is called in the Hebrew sun of righteousness, that is perfection of justice, either because in him nothing will be incomplete or because the righteousness of God will be seen in him. But in order to comprehend the light which we enjoy through him and which comes to us from him to shine upon us, we must  keep our eyes not on temporary advantages but on the spiritual life. This is the one requirement. Christ acts as our sun, not to direct our hands and feet in earthly actions, but to bring to us the light which shows the road to heaven and the direction by which we come to a happy and eternal life.

Also we must note that this spiritual light cannot be separated from righteousness. In what sense is Christ our sun? Because he rescues us from the shame of the world and transforms us to the image of God. This is the force of the word righteousness.

The prophet adds healing in his wings, calling the rays of the sun wings. This metaphor has much charm, because it is taken from nature itself and is beautifully suited to Christ. For we know that nothing is more health-giving than the sun’s rays. We should be overcome in a short time — even in one day — by evil smells, if the sun did not cleanse the earth of its refuse. Without the sun, we could not breathe.

Also we feel a lift of the spirit at sunrise. For night is like a burden to us, and when the sun sets we feel a heaviness in all our limbs. But in the morning, even the sick are encouraged and feel some change just from the effect of the sun’s nearness, because it does indeed bring healing in its wings.

But the prophet is here saying more than that a bright sun in a clear sky brings health. There is also an implicit contrast between storm clouds and fair, clear weather. In good weather we feel much more alive — I mean all men, both sick and well. There is no one who does not get some sense of revival from a clear sky; but when the weather is cloudy even the strongest of us feel some discomfort. In this sense, Malachi says that healing will be in the wings of Christ, although we must still bear many ills.

If we think back to the history of those times, we realize that the condition of the people was most miserable. The prophet now promises them a change, [a time] when the restoration of the church will bring them joy. We see then how he understands the healing in Christ’s wings. Christ will disperse the darkness, and bring back from behind the clouds a serene sky, giving courage to the minds of the faithful.

To call the faithful those who fear God is an ordinary usage in Scripture; for, as we have said, the center of righteousness and holiness is the worship of God. But here something new is expressed. It is the mark of true religion that men submit themselves to God although he is not seen, and although he does not speak face to face, and does not openly show his hand  holding the scourge. When men willingly honor God’s glory and acknowledge the world to be ruled by him and themselves to be under his authority, then they give true evidence of religion. This is what the prophet means by fear my name. Those who fear the name of God, do not desire to bring him out of heaven, nor do they demand obvious signs of his presence; they are content to show their faith by adoring and serving God, although they do not see him face to face, but only in a mirror or a riddle, or through his righteous and powerful judgments and the other great acts which he presents to our eyes.

After saying that the sun of righteousness will rise for the Jews, Malachi adds that this will give them joy. As sadness oppresses the faithful when they are without Christ, or think him to be far away, so his favor is their greatest happiness and a solid delight. Therefore the angels proclaiming Christ’s birth to the shepherds began, Behold I give you tidings of great joy. And although the metaphor may seem harsh, the prophet has a good reason for saying that the Jews will be like fattened calves. He is describing an unbelievable change and he must put it before them in vivid terms, to give them the greater hope.

A contrast is implied in the verb go out. Their anxiety had long held them captive; now there would be freedom to go out. When things change for the better with us, we show the joy of our hearts openly to others, and seek a stage on which to express our feelings. Now we can see why the prophet says the Jews will go out. They have before been shut in by hard times. Now God will grant them room for lively rejoicing. So Paul says (2 Cor. 3:17), Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

And he dreamed, and behold, a ladder was set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it. Gen. 28:12.

Behold a ladder. Here we have the description of a vision in which form and content are closely related. God showed himself perched upon a ladder, the ends of which touched heaven and earth. And angels were using it to go back and forth between heaven and earth.

The ladder is taken by some Jewish commentators as a symbol of divine Providence which includes both heaven and earth under its direction. This interpretation is not satisfactory, for God would have given a more suitable symbol.

But for us who hold the truth that the covenant of God was founded on Christ and that Christ was always the same eternal image of the Father and revealed himself to the holy patriarchs, nothing in this vision is perplexing or ambiguous. For men are separated from God by sin, although his power fills and sustains all things; and we do not see the line of communication which draws us towards him. Rather there is between us such a gulf that we flee from him, believing him to be hostile to us. The angels who are assigned the guardianship of the human race do not deal with us in a way which makes us familiar with their nearness and reveals it to our senses.

It is Christ alone who joins heaven to earth. He alone is Mediator, reaching from heaven to the earth. He it is through whom the fullness of all heavenly gifts flows down to us and through whom we on our part may ascend to God. . . . Therefore, if we say that the ladder is a symbol of Christ, the interpretation is not forced. For the metaphor of a ladder is most suited to a Mediator through whom the service of angels, righteousness, and truth, and all the spirits of holy grace descend to us step by step. We, on our part, who are firmly fixed not only upon the earth but in the abyss of the curse, and are submerged in hell itself, through him climb up to God.

Moreover the God of hosts tops the ladder because the divine fullness dwells in Christ, who therefore reaches heaven. For although all power was given by the Father to Christ’s human nature, yet he would not be the support of our faith if he were not God manifest in the flesh. The fact that the body of Christ is finite in no way prevents his filling the heavens, since his grace and power is spread over all. To this Paul bears witness when he says that Christ ascended to heaven to fill all things.

Those who translate ’al as near wholly distort the meaning [of this verse], for Moses wished to say that full deity dwelt in Christ. In fact, Christ does not so much come to us as become encumbered with our nature to make us one with him.

Confirmation of the ladder as a symbol of Christ is found also in this consideration (and nothing has been more fully agreed by all): God sanctified his eternal covenant with his servant Jacob in his Son. And incalculable joy comes to us when we hear that Christ who excels all creation is joined to us. Indeed the majesty of God, plainly shown in his Son, must inspire terror so that every knee bows to Christ, all creatures pray to him and adore him, and all flesh is silent before him. Yet at the same time Christ shows himself to us as friendly and gentle, and he makes known to us by his descent that heaven is open to us and the angels are made our companions; with them we have a brotherly communion, because our common Head took his place on earth.

The angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads. Gen. 48:16.

Jacob joins the angel to God as an equal. He worships him and asks from him the same things he asked from God (v. 15). If you take this verse as a reference to an ordinary angel, the words are absurd. . . . It is necessary to understand them of Christ, who is intentionally given the title of angel because he has been the perpetual Mediator. Paul testifies that He was the leader and guide of the journey of his ancient people [through the wilderness].

Christ had not yet been sent by the Father to take on our flesh that he might come nearer to us; but he was always the link joining men to God, and God did not reveal himself otherwise than through him. Therefore he is rightly called angel, messenger. . . . For there has always been between God and man a distance too great for any communication to be possible without a mediator.

But although Christ has appeared in the form of an angel, we must hold to what is said in Heb. 2:16; he did not put on the nature of an angel and become one of the angels, as he did become true man. When the angels are clothed with a human body, they do not become men.

Moreover we are taught by these words that the true gift of Christ to us is that he guards us and rescues us from all evils. And we must therefore take heed that our faithless forgetfulness does not bury this gift, which has been shown to us more clearly than it was formerly to the saints under the law. For Christ proclaimed openly that the faithful are given into his custody and that no one of them will perish. Therefore trust in his guardianship ought to flourish better in our hearts, and we ought to celebrate it with fitting praise. And also we should be roused to seek primarily the help of our best Guardian.

His help is indeed especially necessary for us today. For if we think over all the dangers which surround us, we can find scarcely a day on which we were not rescued from a thousand deaths. And how does this happen except that we are under the care of God’s Son, who took us over from his father’s hand to watch over us.

. . . The first tabernacle was yet standing, which was a figure for the times then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience. . . . But Christ being come as a high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. Heb. 9:8–9,11–12.

The Greek word for figure is παραβολὴ which in my judgment is about the same as ἀντίτυπον. The apostle means that the Tabernacle was a secondary exemplar which corresponded to the original; as the picture of a man ought to correspond to himself, so that when we see it we are immediately reminded of him.

Besides, when he says that the first Tabernacle was a likeness for that time, he means that it was valid so long as the external observances were in force. In this way, he restricts its use to the period of ancient law. This is almost the same as what he says soon after: that the ceremonies were in effect until the time of reformation (under the gospel). . . .

As pertaining to conscience. This means that the ancient gifts and sacrifices could not penetrate the soul so as to make it truly holy. Some use here the word perfect, which I do not reject; but I think sanctify fits the context better. Notice the contrast with the King James Version. But, if the reader is to understand the words of the apostle, he had better watch the contrast between the flesh and the conscience. What the apostle does is to deny that the legal sacrifices cleansed inwardly and spiritually those who performed them; and the reason he gives for his denial is that all the rites of the first Tabernacle were of the flesh or carnal. Then what good were they? There is a common notion that they were intended to teach people honesty and good manners. But those who think this way forget the promises which were added to these observances. Therefore we must reject their invention. It is all wrong and absurd to think that the flesh itself was justified by these rites, as though they were good only for the cleansing and purity of the body! The apostle’s judgment is that they were earthly symbols which failed to penetrate to the soul. They were testimonies to perfect holiness, even though they neither contained it nor could confer it on men. They were helps given to the faithful, which laid hold of their hands and led them to Christ, to seek in him what was lacking in the symbols.

But, someone will ask, Why did the apostle show so little respect for sacraments instituted by God, treating them with contempt, and going even so far as to rob them of all power? He did so, because he was thinking of them as they are when separated from Christ. We know that considered in themselves, they are niggardly elements of this world, as Paul himself called them (Gal 4:9). . . .

But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands. . .

He now presents us with the reality behind the symbols of the law, in order to turn our eyes to it. For, anyone who believes that the things foreshadowed [in the law] have been revealed truly in Christ, will no longer hold on to the shadows. He will embrace the substance in all its solid reality.

Nevertheless, we must see carefully and in detail how he compares Christ with the ancient high priest. He has already said that the high priest alone entered the sanctuary once a year, carrying blood with which to expiate sins. Christ is like the ancient high priest, in that He alone is honored with this dignity and office; but he is different in that he brings with him gifts which are eternal and establish his priesthood forever. Secondly, the ancient high priest and our own are alike in that they both entered the Holy of Holies through the sanctuary; but they differ in that Christ alone entered heaven by way of the temple of his own body. Even though the Holy of Holies was opened to the high priest once a year for a solemn performance of expiation, this was only a poor figure for the matchless [self-] offering of Christ. Indeed, they both went in. But the one entered into an earthly place; the other, into heaven, forever, even to the end of the world. Both offered blood, but there is all the difference in the world between blood and blood; the ancient high priest offered the blood of cattle, Christ offered his own. They both made expiation; but the one made under the law was ineffectual and had to be repeated each year; Christ’s expiation kept its vigor forever, and is the source of our salvation in eternity. Hence, every word of the apostle is heavily weighted. Some change Christ being come to “Christ being nearby.” But this does no justice to the apostle’s thought. What he means is that after the Levitical priests had performed their office, at a fixed time they were removed, and Christ was chosen in their place. But this is obvious from ch. 7 of this epistle.

Of good things to come means of things eternal. As μέλλον καιρὸς is set against τὸν ἐνεστήκοτι, so future goods are opposed to the present. In short, the priestly work of Christ brings us to the heavenly Kingdom of God, and makes us to partake in spiritual righteousness and eternal life: therefore, no good comes from looking for something better. We need not go beyond Christ, because he himself possesses all that we need, and he will fill us.

And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which were called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. Heb. 9:15.

He concludes that there is no further need for another priest, because Christ himself fulfills this function under the New Testament. Besides, he does not claim the title of Mediator for Christ to let others share it with him; on the contrary, he contends that when this office was attached to Christ, all other mediators were repudiated. . . . He confirms this more fully when he states specifically how Christ discharged the office of the Mediator by the intercession of his death. If this happened only in Christ, and in no one else, it follows that he alone is the true Mediator. . . .

Now, if anyone asks whether the sins of the fathers were forgiven under the law, the answer is the same as I gave before: they were forgiven, but through the benefit of Christ; in terms of the physical acts of expiation, we must always hold and maintain that they remained guilty. For this reason, Paul says that the law is a handwriting against us (Col. 2:14). When a sinner came forward, confessing openly that he had done evil before God and killed an innocent animal, he admitted that he was worthy of eternal death. And what did his victim do for him except that by it he sealed his own death as it were by his own handwriting? In short, only those who looked at Christ found peace in the forgiveness of sins. If looking to Christ only takes away sins, those who remain under the law do not find freedom. David himself declares, Blessed is the man to whom sins are not imputed (Ps. 32:2); but if a man is to share in this blessing, he must, setting aside the law, fix his eyes on Christ; for if he stays with the law, he is not set free from guilt.

For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground; he hath no form nor comeliness, and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. Isa. 53:2.

This statement turns our minds to what we said before: namely, that Christ at the beginning [of his life on earth] is to show neither splendor nor beauty before men, but before God he will nonetheless be highly exalted and beloved. Hence we see that the glory of Christ must not be judged by human eyes. What the holy books teach about him must be understood by faith. Therefore, the phrase before him is to be contrasted with the human senses which cannot grasp the wonder of Christ.

The prophet used a similar metaphor in ch. 11:1: a branch will come from the trunk of Jesse. He compared the house of David to a dry trunk with no strength in it and no beauty; and he did not name the royal house, but Jesse whose name by itself was obscure. Here he adds in desert ground, by which he means that Christ’s strength will come not like a tree from the humidity of the soil, but from outside the ordinary course of nature.

Those who philosophize from this passage about the Virgin Mary, supposing that she was called desert ground because she conceived from the Holy Spirit and not from man’s seed, are beside the point. For the passage deals not with the birth of Christ but with his whole reign. It states that he will be like a branch growing from dry ground, which is not expected to reach the right size.

We should think of the whole history of his planting, of the men whose work he has used, of the small beginnings of the church and of the many adversaries who oppose it. Then we can easily see that all things happened as predicted. What kind of men were the apostles who could subdue so many kings and nations by the sword of the Word? Are they not deservedly compared to branches in a desert? The prophet is describing the ways by which the Kingdom of Christ was founded and established, so that all men may not judge it by human reason.

The ugliness which he next mentions ought also to be understood not only of the person of Christ who was despised by the world and condemned to a shameful death, but of his whole reign. For that reign has had, in men’s eyes, neither beauty nor splendor nor magnificence. In fact, it has nothing which could by its appearance attract men or charm their eyes. And although Christ rose from the dead, the Jews think of him always as crucified and dishonored, and look on him with disgust and contempt.

But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. Isa. 53:5.

In order to counteract the offense which people might take, the prophet repeats the reason for Christ’s great suffering. The sight of the cross of Christ offends many so long as they consider only what their eyes see, and pay no attention to the purpose. But all offense is certainly taken away when we understand that by this death our sins are atoned for, and salvation is won for us.

Chastisement of our peace. Some think this is called chastisement of our peace because men feel so secure and remain so stupefied in their evil ways that Christ’s suffering was required to move them. Others apply peace to conscience. Christ suffered that we might have a quiet conscience; as Paul said (Rom. 5:1), We, justified through Christ by faith, have peace with God.

But I take it simply as reconciliation. Christ paid the price of our chastisement, that is, the chastisement due to us. By him, God’s anger, which was inflamed against us, was appeased. The peace in which we are reconciled came from him who is the Mediator. Thus we have the general doctrine that we are freely reconciled to God because Christ paid the price of our peace.

This doctrine, indeed, the papists confess, but then they restrict it to original sin; as if after baptism there were no more place for free reconciliation, and satisfaction were to be made by our merits and works. But the prophet here is not treating of a single aspect of forgiveness; he extends God’s forgiving kindness through the whole course of our lives. Therefore the doctrine cannot be attenuated or restricted to any specific time without great sacrilege. . . . Our prophet teaches plainly that the penalty for our sins was transferred to Christ. What then are the papists claiming for themselves but equality with Christ and a share in his authority as his partners?

With his stripes. Again we are recalled to Christ, called to flee to his wounds if we wish to regain life. Here he is set in contrast to us. In us are only destruction and death; in Christ alone is life and safety. He alone brings us a remedy. He provides health for us by his weakness, and wins our life by his death. He alone satisfies the Father; he alone reconciles us to him.

We could say many things here about the fruit of Christ’s suffering, but our task is to interpret, not to preach; and we must be content to state the plain meaning [of the verse]. Let each one of you take comfort for himself from this passage and fit its use to his own need. For these words were spoken not only publicly to all, but to each man individually.

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way, and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. Isa. 53:6.

In order to impress on our minds the greatness of the blessing given us in Christ’s death, he shows us how great is our need for healing. For unless we realize our own helpless misery, we shall never know how much we need the remedy which Christ brings, nor come to him with the fervent love we owe him. But as soon as we know ourselves to be lost and realize our own wretchedness, we rush eagerly to seize the remedy, which otherwise we should hold in contempt. To know the true flavor of Christ, we must each of us carefully examine ourselves, and each must know himself condemned until he is vindicated by Christ. No one is exempt. The prophet includes all. If Christ had not brought help, the whole human race would perish. . . .

The prophet makes the comparison with sheep, not to lighten our guilt, as if straying were a minor misdemeanor; but to teach more plainly that it was the work of Christ to gather those who were scattered like foolish animals.

By adding each to the general statement including all men, he appeals to every individual to ponder whether this is not true of himself. For we are little moved by a generalization unless each one of us separately feels that it applies to him. Therefore let every one of us rouse his own conscience and take his place before God’s tribunal. Then will each one of us know his own bankruptcy.

Next the prophet declares more plainly what this wandering is: every one has followed the way of his own choice; he has chosen to live as it pleased him. This means that there is only one way of living rightly; and if any man turn away from it, he can find nothing but ways which send him in the wrong direction. He is not speaking so much of actions as of our nature itself, which always sends us wandering. For if by natural instinct or wisdom we could bring ourselves back to the road and escape from error, we would have no need for Christ. But we all by ourselves perish unless we are freed by Christ our Savior. The more we trust our own wisdom and industry, the more quickly we rush to ruin. Here the prophet has shown us what sort of creatures we should be if Christ had not redeemed us. And all are included in the same condemnation. There is no one who is righteous; no one who understands; no one who inquires of God. All have gone astray and become unprofitable. There is none who does well, not one, as Paul said more at length (Rom. 3:10).

And the Lord hath laid on him. Here we have a beautiful antithesis. In ourselves we are scattered, in Christ we are collected; by nature we go astray and are driven headlong to destruction, in Christ we find the road by which we are led to the gate of salvation. Our sins overwhelm us; but they are transferred to Christ, in whom we are acquitted. When we were perishing, separated from God and hastening to hell, Christ took upon himself the filth of our iniquities and rescued us from eternal destruction. (This refers of course only to the punishment of sin, for he was free from all guilt.) Let each one of us weigh his own sins carefully, that he may truly taste the grace [of Christ] and begin to see the fruit of his death.

He shall see the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Isa. 53:11.

Isaiah continues the same theme. Now he declares that Christ, after he has suffered, will see the reward of his death in the salvation of men. For, to He will see, we must add the “fruit” or the “result” [of his labor]. These words are full of comfort. For Isaiah could not have expressed better the greatness of Christ’s love for us than by saying that his delight will be in our safety; that he will be content with the fruit of his labor, like a man whose one wish and longing has been fulfilled. No man is satisfied except when he obtains the one thing he has most desired; then he disregards all else and is content with it alone.

Afterwards the prophet shows the way or method by which we may rightly appreciate the force and efficiency of Christ’s death and realize its fruit. The way he shows is the knowledge of him. I admit that the word da’ath can be read passively or actively, as knowledge of him or his knowledge. Whichever way we take it, it is easy to see what the prophet means. However insolently the Jews may quibble and in spite of their objections, we need not twist the meaning of what is here said plainly: that Christ alone is both master and author of man’s justification.

The work of Christ is stated in the words He will justify many; which mean that in the school of Christ, men are not merely taught about justification; they are made just by what he has done for them. And this is the difference between justification by law and justification by faith. For although the law shows what it is to be righteous, as Paul says, it cannot produce righteousness; and experience shows the same thing. The law is for us a mirror showing us our own unrighteousness. But the way to obtain righteousness, as taught by Christ, is simply to know him; and this is faith. In faith we lay hold on the benefit of his death and find full rest in him.

The philosophers have given many excellent rules by which they think righteousness may be established; but they cannot give righteousness to anyone. For who by their rules has achieved the good life? And it is of little help to know what righteousness is, if we remain without it.

But let us leave the philosophers aside. The law itself, which contains the most perfect rule of life, could not, as we said, confer righteousness. Not that there was anything lacking in the law; Moses declared that he set before the people good and evil, life and death. But because of the corruption of our nature the law was not enough to insure righteousness. Even as Paul taught (Rom. 8:3), the defect was in our flesh, not in the law. When the law speaks, nature drives us in the opposite direction, and our desires break out with the greater force, like untamed wild elephants, against God’s command. Thus the law works wrath rather than righteousness. The law holds all guilty, and by exposing sin takes away from men every excuse. Therefore we must seek another way to righteousness: the way which is in Christ, whom the law itself set forth as its fulfillment.

The righteousness of the law said, Who does these commandments, shall live in them (Lev. 18:5). But none did them. Therefore there had to be another righteousness; one that Paul taught, from Moses himself: The word is near, in your mouth and in your heart; this is the word of faith which we preach (Rom. 10:8). It is this doctrine that justifies us — not the bare doctrine, but because it offers us the fruit of Christ’s death, by which our sins are forgiven and we are reconciled to God. For if by faith we grasp this gift, we are counted as righteous before God.

The prophet expresses this teaching clearly and shows its meaning. For these two clauses belong together: He will justify by his doctrine or by the knowledge of him, and He will bear our iniquities. He made atonement for us once for all; but now, by the teaching of the gospel, he is inviting us to accept the fruit of his death. Therefore the death of Christ is the substance of the doctrine that he justifies us. Paul adhered closely to the prophet’s word when he taught that Christ was offered as sacrifice for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God; to which he added that Christ is our advocate, and urged us to be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:20).

My righteous servant. The prophet teaches that Christ justifies 157us not only as God, but also as man, since he won righteousness for us in his flesh. For the words are not my son but my servant. Therefore, let us not think of Christ only as God, but let us study his human nature in which he practiced the obedience by which we are forgiven before God. For this, the sacrifice of himself which he offered, is the foundation of our salvation. As he himself said, I consecrated myself for them that they themselves might be holy (John 17:19).

Therefore will I divide for him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he has poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressor. Isa. 53:12.

Here the figure is changed to one drawn from the customary celebration of military triumphs, where the leaders are generally received and honored with a magnificent exhibition of the spoils of victory. So Christ like a strong and noble general triumphs over his conquered enemies. The second clause has the same meaning as the first, for such repetition is usual in Hebrew. Those whom he first calls great he next calls powerful or strong. Those who translate rabbim as “many” in my opinion misinterpret the prophet’s meaning. There is only this difference between the two clauses: in the first, God states what he will give to Christ; the second adds that Christ will rejoice in the gift. Christ rejoices not for his own sake but for ours, since he gives the fruits of his victory to us. For us, Christ conquered death, the world, and the devil.

He prayed for the transgressors. It is Christ’s prayer to the Father in our behalf which ratifies the forgiveness won for us by his death. Therefore this addition is essential. In the old law the priest, who did not come to the altar without the blood of sacrifice, prayed there for the people; and so he foreshadowed what was fulfilled in Christ. For first Christ offered the sacrifice of his body, and poured out his blood to pay the penalty which we owed. Then to make the atonement effective, he performed the work of advocate and made intercession for all who in faith accepted for themselves his sacrifice. To this he testified in the words written for us by the hand of John: I pray not for these only, but for all who believe in me by their word (John 17:20). If we are to be numbered with the faithful, let us not doubt that Christ suffered for us and that even now we receive the fruits of his death.

2. THE PERSON OF CHRIST

And thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the works of thine hands; they shall perish, but thou remainest. . . . Heb. 1:10–11.

At first this testimony may seem not to fit the case of Christ, since it has to do with the creation of heaven and earth. But this whole passage has to do with the glory not of God but of Christ. It is true that the psalm is a celebration of God’s majesty, and makes no mention of Christ. I admit this. At the same time, it is clearly a public praise of God’s Kingdom, and everything that is said in it fits Christ very well. For, where are the following prophecies fulfilled except in Christ: “Thou shalt arise and have mercy on Zion, that the nations may fear thy name, and all the kings of the earth thy glory” ; or again, “When the people shall be gathered together, and the kingdom, to serve the Lord.” Where except in Christ are we to look for this God by whom the whole world shall be united in one faith and worship of God? All the rest of the psalm fits the person of Christ; among other things, because he is the eternal God, the Creator of heaven and earth, everlasting and changeless; therefore, high and lifted up in majesty, and set apart from all that has been created. David declares that the heavens shall pass away; but some get around this statement by making him say, “should the heavens pass away,” as though he had made no positive assertion. But what reason is there for such a strained exposition? After all, we know that everything comes to an end. And why do even the heavens yearn and travail with hope for a renewal, unless they are marked for destruction? Besides, the eternity of Christ affords no small comfort to the believers who, according to the psalm, shall participate in it as Christ communicates himself and all his riches to his body.

And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. John 17:5.

He declares that he has no desire except for what is his own; that he only wants to be seen in the flesh with the glory which was his before the world was made; or, more plainly, that the divine majesty which was eternally his might shine in the person of the Mediator and in the human flesh he has put on. This is a striking passage which teaches us that Christ is not an upstart and temporary God. For as his glory was eternal, so he himself always was. Add to this that there is here a distinction made 159between him and the Father; which means that he is not only God eternal but also the eternal Word of God begotten of the Father before all ages.

Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. John 1:45.

Many argue deeply about Christ, but they get so subtle and involved that they can never find him. So it is with the papists who refuse to call Christ the son of Joseph. They are particular about his name: but yet they so empty him of his power, that in Christ’s place they have a ghost. Were it not better to babble crudely with Philip and hold on to the real Christ, rather than with clever and high-sounding talk end up with only a fiction? There are many poor dunces today who, even though they speak as rude and ignorant men, teach Christ much more faithfully than the theologians of the pope, with their deep speculations. So we are warned that when we hear simple and ignorant men speak inaptly, we should not take offense and reject them, provided they lead us to Christ. However, we must seek pure knowledge from the Law and the Prophets, in order that we may not be driven away from Christ by falsehoods invented by men.

Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of Man shall give unto you; for him hath the Father sealed. John 6:27.

He confirms the first part of this verse by saying that the Father has appointed him for this end (to give us an imperishable food). The ancient fathers tortured and misused this verse in order to prove the divine essence of Christ; as though sealed here meant that Christ bore the stamp of the Father. But he speaks here, not subtly of his eternal essence, but of his mandate and mission in our behalf, and of what we are to hope and expect from him. By an apt metaphor, he refers to the ancient custom of sealing with a ring, which made an agreement authoritative and binding. Christ’s intention is to declare that his task was imposed upon him by the Father, and that the appointment of the Father is as a seal engraved upon him. In this way, he emphasizes that all he has is from the Father. In short, it is not for everybody to feed souls with incorruptible food, when Christ comes forth with the promise of so great a blessing. He adds that he has God’s approval and has been sent to us with God’s own seal as the mark of his mission.

I and my Father are one. John 10:30.

He sets out to meet the mockery of the wicked, who claimed that he was in no position to protect his disciples, since he did not possess God’s power. He, therefore, testifies that his business and the Father’s are one; which means that the Father will never deny his help to him or to his sheep. The ancient fathers misused this verse when they brought it up as proof that Christ is ὁμοούσιος (of one essence) with the Father. Christ is not here arguing that he is one substance with the Father, but that he is of one mind with him; which means that whatever Christ does has behind it the power of God.

Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself. John 14:10.

These words refer not to Christ’s divine essence, but to the manner of revelation. For, as to his secret deity, Christ is known to us no better than the Father. He is rightly called the express image of God, for the Father revealed himself totally in the Son: but in the sense that God’s unbounded goodness, wisdom, and power appeared in him. Therefore, the fathers were not wrong when they found in this verse a basis for asserting the divinity of Christ. Still, since Christ is here speaking not of what he is in himself, but of what he is toward us, it is a question of power rather than of essence. The Father therefore is said to be in Christ because the fullness of Divinity dwells in him, and manifests his power in him. On the other hand, Christ is said to be in the Father, because by his divine power he shows that he is one with the Father.

The words which I speak to you. He proves by the effects of his words that we should seek God nowhere but in him. He contends that his teaching, which is heavenly and truly divine, is evidence and the brilliant reflection of God’s own presence. If anyone objects that the prophets also were sons of God, because, inspired by the Spirit, they spoke in a divine manner, so that God was the author also of their teaching — the answer is easy. We should consider the content of their teaching: the prophets send their disciples to someone else; Christ on the other hand holds them as his own. We must keep in mind what the apostle says in the first chapter of Hebrews: namely, that God spoke by the mouth of his Son from heaven; whereas he spoke by Moses, as it were, from the earth.

Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away and come again unto you. If ye loved me, you would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father; for my Father is greater than I. John 14:28.

This passage has been variously distorted. The Arians, in order to prove that Christ is beneath (second to) God, objected that he is less than the Father. The orthodox fathers, in order to cut such calumny short, said that this statement refers to Christ’s human nature. Even though the Arians abused this statement wickedly, the answer given by the fathers was neither right nor relevant. It is a question neither of the human nature of Christ nor of his eternal divinity, but of mediation between us and God because of our own weakness. Since it is not given to us to go up to the height of God, Christ came down to us in order to raise us there. Rejoice, he says, because I return to the Father; because this is the ultimate destination at which you yourselves ought to aim. With these words he does not show how he differs from the Father; he tells us that he descended to us, to unite us with God. Unless we arrive at this point, we remain stranded midway. Unless he lead us to God, we only imagine a mutilated Christ, cut into half.

Of a similar import is 1 Cor. 15:24, where Paul says that Christ will turn over the Kingdom to God and the Father, that he be all in all. Obviously, Christ does reign not only in his human nature, but as God manifest in the flesh. How then will he put aside his Kingship? Plainly, the divinity which we now discern only on the face of Christ will then be seen openly and conspicuously in him as his. The only difference is that Paul is here referring to the ultimate and perfect manifestation of divine brightness, whose rays began to shine when Christ ascended to heaven. To make the matter more plain, let us speak more bluntly. Here Christ does not compare the divinity of the Father with his own; neither does he compare his human nature with the divine essence of the Father. But rather, he contrasts his present state with the glory of heaven where he was soon to be received again. What he means is, “You want to keep me in this world, but it is better that I ascend to heaven.” So therefore let us see Christ emptied of the flesh, that he may lead us to the fountainhead of blessed immortality. He is our leader, not in order to raise us to the sun or to the moon, but to unite us with God the Father.

Jesus answered, and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go: but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go. John 8:14.

Though I testify. Christ answers that the authority of his witness is sufficient as the ground for faith, because the status (persona) he bears is very different from that of a private man picked out of a crowd of common people. He sets himself apart from the common run of men by saying that he knows where he comes from and where he is going. What he means is that although we must suspect an ordinary man who pleads his own cause, and although our own laws warn us not to believe a man who speaks on his own behalf, we are not to apply such reservations to the Son of God who has a pre-eminence above the whole world. Christ, who has the privilege from the Father to bring all men in line (ordo) by his mere word, must not be reckoned as of the order (ordino) of men.

I know whence I came. By these words he discloses that he is not of this world, but has come from the Father; and that for this reason it is foolish and wicked to subject his teaching, which is from God, to human standards. These people treated him with contempt because he had put on our lowly flesh and was among them in the form of a servant; therefore, he turns their attention to the future glory of his resurrection, in which his divinity, now hidden and unknown, was to shine forth in all its proper glory. The lowly position of Christ among them should not have prevented the Jews from submitting to the unique Ambassador of God, who had been promised shortly before in the law itself.

When he says that he knows and they do not know, he means that their unbelief does not in the least take away from his glory. Besides, since he has given the same testimony to us, faith ought to despise all the chicaneries and vicious outcries of wicked men; for, if it is founded upon God, it is far above the loftiness of the world. Moreover, if the majesty of his gospel is to remain before us, we need to see him always in his heavenly glory; we need so to hear him speaking in the world that we may keep in mind where he came from and what sovereignty he has obtained, now that his work as ambassador is finished. For, as he humbled himself for a season, so he now sits at the right hand of the Father, that every knee may bow to him.

And the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me. John 14:24.

No matter how great, therefore, the mad insolence of the world, let us follow the teaching of Christ which rises high above heaven and earth. When Christ denies that the word is his own, it is for his disciples’ sake. He means that the Word is not from man, and that he teaches by the authority of the Father. Still we know that since he is the eternal wisdom of God, he is the foundation of all doctrine; and all prophets since the beginning have spoken by his Spirit.

And the Word was made flesh. John 1:14.

The Evangelist has already spoken of Christ’s coming. He now tells us he came putting on our flesh and showing himself openly to the world. He touches briefly upon the ineffable mystery that the Son of God put on human nature. Even though brief, he is astonishingly clear. At this point, some mad people amuse themselves with frivolous subtleties and make fools of themselves. They say, The Word is said to have been made flesh in the sense that God conceived the Son in his own mind and then sent him into the world as a man; as though the Word were I do not know what sort of shadowy image. But we have shown that the statement refers to a real hypostasis in the essence of God.

By saying “flesh,” the writer expresses himself more forcibly than if he had said He was made man. He means to state that the Son of God, for our sakes, left the height of his heavenly glory and humbled himself to a state at once low and abject. When Scripture speaks of man with contempt, it calls him flesh. In spite of the vast distance between the spiritual glory of the Word of God and the stink of our filthy flesh, the Son of God stooped so low as to take upon himself this same flesh which is subject to so many miseries. Flesh here means not, as so often with Paul, our nature corrupted by sin, but mortal men in general. Still, it refers to our nature with disdain as frail and perishing; so we read in Scripture in Ps. 78:39, Thou art mindful that they are flesh, and in Isa. 40:6, All flesh is grass. (There are other passages of this kind.) At the same time, however, we must notice that this is a figure of speech: [flesh] which is one part of man, stands for him as a whole. Therefore Apollinaris Apollinaris (d. 392) taught that Christ had a human body and the life of a man, but that in him the rational soul or mind was replaced by the λόγος. Thus he represented Christ as neither God nor man, but a mixture (mi/jic) of the two. He was repudiated, but orthodoxy was permanently infected by him. was foolish to fancy that Christ put on a human body without the soul.

Now my soul is troubled. . . . John 12:27.

At first this verse seems to differ greatly from the preceding discourse. There he showed more than heroic courage in exhorting his disciples not only to undergo death, but to face it willingly and eagerly whenever needful. But now he shrinks from death and seems to go soft. However, here we do not read anything that does not agree with the believers’ own experience. If scoffers laugh at this, it is no wonder; one cannot understand it except by experience.

Besides, it was necessary for our salvation that the Son of God should have been affected in this way. In his death, we must first consider the work of expiation which appeased the wrath and curse of God; this he certainly could not have done unless our sin had been transferred to him. The death, therefore, to which he was subjected had to be dreadful even to him, because he could not have made satisfaction for us unless he had known God’s dreadful judgment; we know better the enormity of sin because the Heavenly Father exacted such a dire punishment of his only-begotten Son. Therefore, we must realize that death was not a pleasure or a game for Christ, and that he suffered excruciation to the utmost for our sakes.

And it was not absurd that the Son of God should have been thus troubled. In the act of expiation, the secret divinity of the Son was quiescent and did not exercise its power. Christ in fact put on not only our flesh but also our human feeling; and this he did voluntarily. He was afraid not by constraint, but because he willingly subjected himself to fear. It must be firmly held that his fear was real and not fictitious. But he was unlike the rest of mankind in that, as we have said elsewhere, his feelings were tempered by obedience to the righteous God.

Christ’s humanity in feeling has a further value for us. If Christ had not been troubled by the fear of death, which of us would take his example seriously? It is not given to us that we should face death without a troubled mind; so, when we hear that he was not made of iron, we gather our forces and set out to follow him; and the weakness of our flesh which troubles us at death does not hinder us from joining our Leader in battle.

Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, and saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down; for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee; and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Again the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. . . . Matt. 4:5–8.

It is no great matter that Luke puts this temptation second, while Matthew puts it last. The Evangelists did not arrange their stories exactly in time, but so as to put together, as in a mirror or picture, the main events which are most useful for our knowledge of Christ. It is enough to learn that there were three temptations of Christ. It is foolish to worry our heads over which came second and which third. In this exposition, I shall follow Matthew’s text.

It is said that Christ was placed on the pinnacle of the Temple. But the question is whether he was actually lifted up there, or whether this happened in a vision. There are many who assert obstinately that Christ was taken up there, as we say, really and truly; because, they say, it was unworthy of Christ that he should have been subject to delusion at the hand of Satan. This objection is easily disposed of, since it would by no means have been absurd for Christ to have been tempted with God’s permission and his own willing subjection [to God’s will], provided he did not yield inside himself, that is, in his mind and spirit. And what is said further, namely, that he was shown all the kingdoms of the world, or, as Luke has it, that in the twinkling of an eye he was carried to faraway places, fits best the supposition that all this happened in visions. In a doubtful matter like this, where ignorance does no harm, I prefer to pass no judgment, rather than to provide contentious people with something to quarrel about. It is in fact probable that the second temptation was not continuous with the first, or the third with the second. It may well be that some time elapsed between the first temptation and the second, and the second and the third. This may be so in spite of Luke’s saying that Christ rested awhile, which suggests that the time in question was short.

He will charge his angels concerning thee. Satan’s malice should not escape us. He misuses the testimony of Scripture, to make the life (Scripture) deadly for Christ, or to turn bread itself into poison. He does not cease using the same trick daily. When the Son of God chose to submit to this trial in his own person, he became an example to all believers, so that they may carefully avoid falling into Satan’s snares by a wrong use of Scripture. And without a doubt, the Lord gives our enemy so much leeway, not to put us at our ease and make us lazy, but that we may rather be on our guard. We must be especially careful not to be like those preposterous people who, just because Satan corrupts Scripture, throw it aside as much too doubtful. According to this rule we should stop eating, since there is always danger of being poisoned. Satan does profane the Word of God and twist it around for our undoing; but still Scripture was ordained for our salvation. Shall God’s purpose become invalid, just because our own indolence keeps us from using it for our good?

There is no need to argue this point at length. Let us only see what Christ prescribes by his example, which is the rule we are to follow. Does he yield when Satan gives Scripture a wicked twist? Seeing that Satan had armed himself with Scripture, does he let him hold on to it and make away with it? On the contrary, he in turn takes up Scripture, and with it refutes the wicked calumnies which Satan had thrown at him. In the same way, when Satan hides his deceptions under Scripture, or when godless men attack us and try to subvert our faith under the pretext of using Scripture, we should borrow our arms from Scripture alone, and so defend our faith.

Now, even though the promise, He shall charge his angels concerning thee, belongs to all the faithful, it applies peculiarly to Christ; because as the head of the church, he has authority over the angels, and they watch over us by his command. Satan was not wrong in using this text to show that the angels were given to Christ as his servants, to protect him and bear him upon their hands. He was wrong in presenting angelic protection as something vague and haphazard; on the contrary, it is promised to the children of God only as they keep to the way which leads to the fulfillment of God’s purpose for them. Whatever the force of the phrase in all thy ways (Ps. 91:11), Satan wickedly corrupts and mutilates the prophet’s words, and both tortures and confuses them when he makes them include any kind of way, however wrong and errant. God commands us to walk in the ways he has set before us, and in this connection declares that his angels shall protect us. When Satan brings up the matter of angelic protection, his intention is to make Christ walk into any danger that comes along; what he says amounts to this: “If you throw yourself at death in defiance of God, his angels will defend your life!”

It is written, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Christ answered most aptly that believers cannot hope to receive the promise of God’s help except as they humbly let him guide them. We are in no position to rely upon God’s promises unless we obey his commandments. Now, we tempt God in many ways. But here to tempt is to neglect the means he puts in our hands. This is what men do when they make trial of God’s power and prowess, at the same time that they set aside the means provided by God; this is like cutting off a man’s hand and arms, and then telling him to do something! In short, whoever desires to experiment with God’s power unnecessarily, tempts God by subjecting his promises to unlawful scrutiny.

The devil takes him to a high mountain. As I have said before, we must remember that Satan had this power over Christ’s eyes not because of a weakness in his nature, but by a free purpose and permission. Even though Christ’s senses were affected and moved by the glory of the kingdoms presented to him, no inward lustful desire pierced his soul; quite otherwise the lusts of the flesh lay hold of us like powerful beasts, and drag us to the things that give us pleasure. Christ had our feelings, but not our unruly appetites. Now, the temptation put before Christ was to seek the inheritance God has promised his children elsewhere than in God. And the daring sacrilege of the devil appears in his seeking to rob God of his empire and to usurp it for himself. “All these things,” he said, “are mine; and no one can have them except by my power.”

We ourselves have to struggle with the same imposture, which every believer knows within himself, and which we see even more clearly in the whole life of the ungodly. For, even though we know that we owe our security, goods, and comforts to the blessing of God, our senses flatter and bewitch us into seeking Satan’s help, as though God were not enough for us. Therefore, the greater part of mankind deny God’s authority and sovereignty over the whole world, and imagine that the giver of every good thing is Satan. For, how does it come about that men are universally addicted to evil machinations, to rapine and fraud, if not because they credit Satan with what God alone can do; namely, enriching us by his benediction and according to his good pleasure. They say with their mouth that God gives them their daily bread; but with their mouth only. In fact, they set Satan up as one who dispenses all the riches of the world.

3. ASCENSION: EXAMPLES OF EXEGESIS

Then the disciples went away again unto their own homes. But Mary stood without at the sepulcher, weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulcher, and seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. John 20:10–12.

It may well be that when the disciples returned home, they were full of doubt and hesitation. Although John says that they believed, it is evident that their faith was not firm. They had a confused feeling that a miracle had happened; but they went about as it were in a trance, until something better confirmed them in their faith. It is evident that the sight they saw was not enough in itself to produce solid faith. What is more, Christ did not reveal himself to them until they were aroused from the stupidity of the flesh. When they ran to the sepulcher, they did indeed give a praiseworthy evidence of their zeal; still, Christ hid himself from them because their search for him was much too superstitious.

But Mary stood. Now the Evangelist begins to tell the story of how, when Christ testified to his resurrection, he appeared to the women as well as to the disciples. Even though here Mary alone is mentioned, it seems to me probable that the other women were with her. It is not rational to suppose that these other women had fainted out of fear. The writers who take this view try to escape a contradiction in our story which, as I have shown, does not exist.

We need not praise the women because they remained at the sepulcher, while the disciples returned home; for the latter went home comforted and full of joy, whereas the women indulged themselves in stupid and pointless weeping. What kept them at the grave was mere superstition, together with the feelings of the flesh.

And seeth two angels. What wonderful forbearance our Lord shows toward Mary and her companions in putting up with their many faults! He does them no small honor by sending them his angels and then by showing himself to them — an honor which was denied even to the disciples. Even while the apostles and the women labored with the same disease, the stupidity of the former was the less excusable because they had learned so little from the careful and exact teaching of Christ. Certainly, it was to shame them that Christ chose to show himself first to the women.

It is not certain whether Mary recognized the angel or took him for a man. We know that white garments symbolize heavenly glory. When Christ revealed his majesty to his three disciples on top of the mountain, there he also was clothed in such white garments. Luke says the same thing of the angel who appeared to Cornelius. I do not deny that Mary might have taken the angel for a man, because Eastern peoples often wore white garments. But the garments with which God adorned his angels were peculiar to them; they were marks by which men might see and recognize them. Besides, Matthew compares to lightning the countenance of the angel who spoke to the women. But still, probably the women’s wonder worked only fear; they seem to have stood there struck with stupor and beside themselves.

Moreover, when we read that angels appeared in the visible form of men and clothed in garments, we must remember that this was done to offset human weakness. I have no doubt angels were at times clothed with a body; but as to whether these particular two angels merely appeared to have bodies, that is not the main question, and I shall not settle it. For me it is enough that the Lord gave them a human form, so that they might be seen and heard by the women. They were covered with uncommon splendor, so that they might be distinguished from human beings and show forth what is heavenly and from God.

One at the head, and the other at the foot. The fact that Matthew mentions only one angel does not contradict John’s story. Both angels did not speak to Mary at once; this was done by the one who was commissioned for it. There is not much to Augustine’s allegory that the position of these angels indicates the course of the future preaching of the gospel, from the place where the sun rises to the place where it goes under. In this place, it is more worth-while to notice the auspices under which Christ ushered in the glory of his Kingdom. When the angels honored Christ’s grave [with their presence], they exhibited his celestial majesty. But they did so without abolishing the ignominy of the cross.

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. John 20:17.

This does not seem to agree with the account in Matthew (28:9): for he writes openly that the women embraced the feet of Christ. Now, since Christ allowed himself to be touched by his disciples, why did he forbid Mary? The answer is easy, if we only remember that Jesus did not repel them until they overdid their desire to touch him. When it was a matter of removing doubt, then surely he did not forbid them. But when he saw that they held on to his feet, he calmed their excessive zeal, and corrected it. They clung to his bodily presence, because they knew only an earthly way of enjoying him. The truth is that Jesus did not forbid them to touch him until he saw their stupid and excited desire to keep him here on earth. Let us note therefore the reason he gave for the prohibition: for I am not yet ascended to the Father. By these words, he commanded the women to control themselves until he was received into heavenly glory. Finally, in this way, he pointed out that the purpose of his resurrection was quite different from their fancy about it. He was come to life again not to triumph in the world, but rather to ascend to heaven and to take possession of the Kingdom which had been promised to him; to reign over the church at the right hand of God, by the power of his Spirit. . . .

I ascend unto my Father. With the word ascend, he confirms what I have said before. For certainly he rose from the dead not to linger awhile longer on earth, but so that, having entered the heavenly life, he might draw the faithful to him. In short, with this word the apostle forbids us merely to stop with resurrection. He bids us to go forward until we arrive at the spiritual Kingdom, at heavenly glory, at God himself. Therefore this word, ascend, is very emphatic; Christ stretches out his hand to his own, so that they may seek their happiness nowhere but in heaven. For where our treasure is, there also must our heart be (Matt. 6:21). Now, Christ declares that he is about to ascend on high; therefore, let us also rise with him, if we would not be separated from him. Furthermore, when he adds that he will ascend, he quickly dispels the sadness and anxiety of his disciples because he was to leave them behind. He wants them to know that by his divine power he will always be with them. Ascend indeed implies distant places; but even though Christ is absent bodily, because he is with God, his spiritual power, which works everywhere, shows clearly that he is present with us. Why indeed did he ascend to the Father, except, seated at his right hand, to reign in heaven and on earth? Finally, with this statement Jesus intended to commend the divine power of his reign, so that his bodily absence might not trouble his disciples.

And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. Rom. 1:4.

If you prefer, “designated” to be the Son, etc. (definitus). He means that the power of the resurrection, by which he was pronounced the Son of God, was as it were a decree; as in Ps. 2:7, I have this day begotten thee. “Begotten” in this verse means actually “made known.” Some find in this verse three evidences of the divinity of Christ: his power for working miracles, the witness of the Spirit, and his resurrection from the dead. I prefer to put the three together into one as follows: Christ was designated the Son of God when he rose from the dead, by an open exercise of true heavenly power, which was the power of the Spirit; but the knowledge of this power is sealed in our hearts by the same Spirit. The language of the apostle agrees well with this interpretation. The power with which he was declared, or the power which shone forth in Christ, that is, in his resurrection, was God’s own power; and this proves that he was God. The same point becomes clear in another place where Paul confesses that Christ’s death revealed him as subject to the infirmity of the flesh, and extols the power of the Spirit in his resurrection (2 Cor. 13:4). But this glorious work cannot be known by us unless the Spirit himself impresses it upon our hearts. The very fact that Paul calls the Spirit the Spirit of holiness, shows that in his mind the same wonderful efficacy of the Spirit revealed in the resurrection of Christ from the dead is to be seen in the witness which individual believers know in their hearts. He means that as the Spirit sanctifies, he shows and ratifies the power which he exercised once before in raising Christ from the dead. The various titles which Scripture gives to the Spirit fortify the present argument. For instance, our Lord calls him the Spirit of truth, because he effects truth in believers (John 14:17).

Besides, the power shown forth in Christ’s resurrection was his own as well as God’s; as is evident from the sayings: Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up (John 2:19); and, No one takes my life; of myself, etc. (John 10:18). For he did not beg his victory over death (to which he yielded by the infirmity of the flesh) from another, but achieved it by the working of his own Spirit.

Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) Eph. 4:8–10.

Because Paul makes this testimony fit his purpose by turning it aside from its original meaning, the wicked accuse him of abusing Scripture. And the Jews go further. They are malicious enough to pervert the natural meaning of this verse, so as to lend color to their calumny that what is said here of God, applies to David and the people of Israel! David, they say, or the people, ascended up on high, when, elated by many victories, they were set high above their enemies. But when one weighs carefully what the psalm as a whole says, it becomes clear that the above words apply only to God. The whole psalm is as it were an epinicion, a song of triumph, which David sings to God, celebrating the victories given him by God. He makes the recital of his own exploits in this psalm an occasion for commemorating God’s own wonderful acts in the deliverance of his people. His aim is to open the eyes of the people to God’s glorious power and goodness in the Church. And so, among other things, he says, He ascended up on high. When God does not exercise his judgment in an obvious way, the mind of the flesh thinks that he is idle or gone to sleep. So, according to the judgment of men, when the church is oppressed, God himself is brought low. But when he stretches out his arm in vengeance, he is said to arise and ascend to his judgment seat. This way of speaking is common and well known; so the deliverance of the church is called the ascension of God.

When Paul saw that in this psalm David celebrated the triumphs of God with which he wrought salvation in the church, he rightly applied this verse about the ascension of God to the person of Christ. The greatest victory of God took place when Christ, having overcome sin, conquered death, and put Satan to flight, was lifted up to heaven in majesty, that he might reign gloriously over the church. Therefore, there is no reason why anyone should object that Paul’s use of this prophecy was contrary to the mind of the psalmist. Since David saw the glory of God in the continuance of the church, it is evident that no ascent of God shall be more victorious and memorable than that which occurred when Christ ascended to the right hand of the Father, to bring to subjection all principalities and dominations, and then to become in eternity the defender and protector of the church.

He led captivity captive. Captivity here is a collective noun for captive enemies. It means simply that the mighty God has overcome his enemies; but this was done more thoroughly in Christ than in any other way. He has overthrown not only the devil, sin, death, and all hell, but also the lust of our flesh, thus by his word making us rebels into an obedient people. On the other hand, he binds his enemies, that is, all the wicked, with chains of iron, and restrains their fury by his power, so that they can do no more than he permits.

The next phrase, and gave gifts to men, is especially difficult. According to the psalmist, God receives gifts. Paul speaks of giving gifts, which seems to be quite the opposite of what the psalmist says. Still, this is not absurd. Paul is not interested in quoting Scripture word for word. All he wants to do is get at the real meaning of the passage he mentions. Certainly God received the gifts David speaks of, not for himself but for his people, A little before, the psalm itself had said that the spoils of war had been divided among the families of Israel. Since God received in order to give, even though Paul altered the wording of the psalm he did not depart from its meaning.

At the same time, I am inclined towards another opinion; namely, that Paul changed the word received intentionally. When he did this, he intended not to misquote the psalm but to coin an expression of his own which would serve his present purpose. Having quoted a few words from the psalm, with regard to Christ’s exaltation, he added that he gave gifts. He wanted to show that God’s ascent in Christ’s person was more excellent than his victories in the ancient church [Israel]. What he does is to compare the lesser with the greater; for after all, when a victor gives freely and bountifully to all his men the spoil taken from his vanquished enemies, his glory is greater than if he gathered it up for himself. The view of others who say that Christ gave us what he received from the Father is forced and has nothing to do with this verse. Thus, in my judgment, the most natural explanation of this passage is that, after quoting the psalm briefly, Paul takes the liberty of adding a phrase of his own, because it is suitable for Christ. The point is that the ascension of Christ is more excellent and wonderful than God’s glorious deeds as recounted by David.

Now that he ascended. Now the false accusers belabor Paul again, saying, What frivolous and childish argument is this that forces a figure of speech about the manifestation of divine glory, to apply to the real ascension of Christ! Who does not know, they say, that the word ascended is a metaphor? And why infer that he must have first descended? My answer is this. Paul does not here argue like a logician about what follows necessarily or what we may infer from the words of the prophet. He knew very well that what David said of God’s ascension was metaphorical. But still, it cannot be denied that God’s exaltation indicates a previous humiliation. Paul has a good reason for inferring the descent from the ascent. And when did God come down lower than he did when Christ emptied himself? If God was ever brought down ingloriously, and then ascended with glory, it was when Christ, from the depths of our condition, was received to the glory of heaven.

In short, here we must not look for a careful and literal interpretation of the psalm. What we have is a mere allusion to the word of the prophet. Paul does the same thing in Rom. 10:6, when he turns a passage from Moses to his own use (Deut. 30:12). If there be any doubt about the rightness and propriety of Paul’s application of this passage to the person of Christ, it is removed by the evidence of the psalm itself, which is a song in celebration of his Kingdom; because, for one thing, it contains a distinct prophecy of the calling of the nations.

Into the lower parts of the earth. There is no sense in torturing this phrase to make it mean purgatory, or hell. Paul is speaking simply about our condition in the present life. The argument from the comparative lower is very weak. What we have here is not a comparison of one part of the earth with another, but of the whole earth with heaven. He means that Christ left his exalted seat and came all the way down into our own deep abyss.

He . . . ascended up above all heavens: that is, beyond the created world. When we say Christ is in heaven, we must not imagine that he is somewhere among the cosmic spheres, counting the stars! Heaven means a place far beyond all the spheres, destined for the Son of God after his resurrection. When we speak of it as another place outside the universe, we do so because we must speak of the Kingdom of God using the only language which we have. There are those who claim that no space separates Christ from us, because, they say, above all heavens and ascended into heaven amount to the same thing! But they forget that whether he be above heavens or in heaven, he is beyond everything under the sun and stars, beyond all the spheres which surround the earth, beyond the whole machinery of the visible world.

That he might fill all things. Since to fill often means to accomplish, we may so understand it in this place. When Christ ascended to heaven, he came into possession of the dominion given him by the Father, to rule and direct all things by his power. I think we might arrive at an even more beautiful conception if we put together two ideas which, contradictory though they seem, are in fact perfectly congruous one with the other. So soon as we hear that Christ is ascended, we fancy that he is far away from us; as he indeed is in his humanity or in the body. But Paul reminds us that although he is absent from us bodily, he nevertheless fills all things by the power of his Spirit. Whenever the right hand of God, which embraces heaven and earth, is revealed, Christ’s spiritual presence fills all things with the exercise of his boundless power. And this is so, even though, according to Peter, his body is and remains in heaven (Acts 3:21).

Thus, we see that Paul, by indulging in an apparent contradiction, added not a little to the grace of his exposition. Christ, who was before enclosed in a narrow space, ascended to fill heaven and earth. But, did he not do this before? Yes, I admit, he did it before in his divinity. But, after he took possession of his Kingdom, he began to exercise the power of his Spirit in a new way; and in the same Spirit, he revealed his presence among us. As John says: The Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified (7:39); and again, It is expedient for you that I go away; for, if I go not away, the Comforter will not come to you (16:7). In short, when he began to sit at the right hand of the Father, he began also to fill all things.

But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God. Acts 7:55–56.

He saw the glory of God. As I said before, Luke means that when Stephen raised his eyes to heaven, immediately Christ appeared to him. But before that he tells us that Stephen was given other than earthly eyes, whose vision enabled him to rise as far as the glory of God. From this we receive the general consolation that God shall be no less with us, provided, leaving the world behind, all our senses seek after him; not that he will appear to us in an external vision as he did to Stephen, but that he will so reveal himself within us as to give us a true knowledge of his presence. And this way of seeing should be enough for us, since, by his grace and power, God not only shows that he is near us, but also proves that he lives in us.

Behold, I see the heavens. God did not intend to have only private dealings with his servant. He wanted to trouble and vex his enemies. For, when Stephen declares openly that he was given this miracle, he offers them a powerful insult. But it may be asked, How were the heavens opened? So far as I am concerned, I judge that nothing was changed as to the nature of the heavens, but that Stephen was given a new sharpness of vision which, overcoming all obstacles, penetrated to the invisible Kingdom of Heaven. For, even if heaven had been torn apart, no human eye could have reached so high as to see it. Therefore, only Stephen saw the glory of God. As to the wicked who stood there, not only was this spectacle hidden from them, but also they were so blinded within themselves as not to perceive the open light of truth. Therefore, he says that the heavens were opened to him, because nothing prevented him from seeing the glory of God. From this it follows that the miracle was wrought not in the sky, but in his eyes. Therefore, we should not dispute about a physical vision, because certainly Christ did not appear to him in a way and order that is natural, but in a new and singular fashion. And, pray tell me, what were the colors of God’s glory that they might have affected naturally the eyes of flesh? Therefore in this vision we should consider nothing but what belongs to God. Besides, it is very much worth noting that the glory of God appeared to Stephen not strictly as it was but in so far as a man is capable of seeing it. For the immeasurableness of God’s glory cannot be comprehended by the measure of the creature.

4. CHRIST THE KING AND THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST

Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel. John 1:49.

It is not surprising that Nathanael knows Jesus as the Son of God because of his divine power. But why does he call him the King of Israel? For, these two things do not seem to be related. But Nathanael is looking deeper. He had heard that Christ is the Messiah; and now he confirms this doctrine which was given [by the prophets], with the further statement that He is the Son of God. Moreover, he reminds himself of the self-evident truth that the Son of God shall appear to become King over God’s people. He is therefore right in confessing that the Son of God is also the King of Israel. Faith not only should be fixed upon the essence of Christ (as they say), but should also attend to his mission and power. It avails little to know who Christ is, without knowing also what his will for us was to be and to what end he was sent by the Father. This is why the papists have but the shadow of Christ; they care only to know his bare essence, and neglect his Kingship which consists in his power to save us.

Moreover, when Nathanael calls him the King of Israel, he shows that he is of little faith; because the Kingship of Christ extends to the ends of the world. His faith had not made enough progress for him to realize that Christ was destined to be the King of the whole world, or that the children of Abraham would be gathered together from all parts, so that the whole world might be the Israel of God.

For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? Heb. 1:5.

Thou art my Son. It cannot be denied that this was spoken of David, but in so far as Christ was in him; Literally, he bare the Person of Christ. therefore, the things we find in this psalm were foreshadowed in David, but manifested in Christ. When David conquered the many enemies surrounding his kingdom and enlarged its borders, there was a foreshadowing of the fulfillment of the promise, I shall give the nations for thine inheritance. But how little this was compared with the Kingdom of Christ, which extends from East to West! Again, David was called the Son of God because he was called to do great things. But his glory was a mere spark compared with that which shone forth in Christ, who bore the very image of the Father. Christ alone deserves the singular honor of bearing the name Son because the Father has sealed him alone, and no one else, with his image. Therefore, it is blasphemous to give the title Son to anyone but Christ.

But the argument of the apostle does not seem to be very strong. He claims that Christ is superior to the angels because he is called the Son. But Christ has this name in common with the princes and all those who are high in power, of whom it is written: Ye are gods, and the sons of the most high. Besides, the prophet conferred a greater honor upon the whole people of Israel when he called them the first-born of God (Jer. 31:9). In fact, in Scripture they are often called sons. Again, elsewhere, David calls the angels also sons of God; as when he says, in Ps. 89:6, Who is like the Lord among the sons of God? But, the answer to all this is not difficult. The princes are given this name because of their peculiar position; Israel, because by God’s grace they were his chosen people; the angels are called sons of the gods figuratively, because they are heavenly spirits and taste of divinity in their blessed immortality. But when David, representing Christ’s Person, calls himself without qualification the Son of God, he means something unique, an honor far above that of the princes, or of the angels, or of the whole people of Israel. But it were most inapt and improper to set Christ above all others as the Son of God, if he had nothing more than they. For the expression Son of God sets him apart from the class and number of all other beings. Since thou art my Son is spoken to Christ alone, it follows that no angel shares this honor with him.

If again someone takes exception to this argument and says that it raises David above the angels, I reply: It is not absurd that David should be set above the angels, in so far as he is the image of Christ; just as it was not an insult to the angels that the high priest who expiated sins was called a mediator. Neither David nor the high priest received the title for himself; but in pointing to the Kingdom of Christ, each derived his title from Him. The sacraments also, which are in themselves without life, are honored with titles which even the angels cannot claim without blasphemy. Hence it is clear that the argument from the use of the word Son is valid.

As to Christ’s being begotten, briefly speaking, I take it that in this verse it has to do with his relationship to us. Augustine’s subtle reasoning, according to which today means in eternity or perpetuity, is frivolous. Of course, Christ is the eternal Son of God, because he is the wisdom of God begotten before time. But this has nothing to do with our verse, which expresses the truth that men know Christ as the Son of God because the Father has revealed him as his Son. Similarly, the declaration mentioned by Paul in Rom. 1:4, was, so to speak, a kind of outward begetting. The secret and inward begetting which went before, was beyond human knowledge; it was above our understanding, until God gave us visible evidence of it.

I will be to him a Father. The same is true with regard to this second testimony, which refers to Solomon. Although Solomon was inferior to the angels, yet when God promises to be his Father, he was set apart from the commonality of men. God was to be a Father to him, not as to one of the sons of Abraham, or to one of the princes, but as to one who had pre-eminence over all the rest. The same preference which made him a Son, excluded all others from an equal honor. But now, the context of this verse makes it clear that Solomon is declared the Son, not in himself but as a figure, an exemplar of Christ. The universal kingship here mentioned as destined for the Son, is also said to be a kingdom without end. The kingdom of Solomon, on the contrary, was narrowly bounded; and it was far from being perpetual, since it was divided soon after his death; and a little while after it fell. Besides, in that psalm, the Lord makes a vow, with the sun and moon as witnesses, that so long as they shall shine in the heavens, his Kingdom shall stand. But this does not apply to David’s kingdom which collapsed in a short while and finally was utterly destroyed. Further, we may gather readily from many passages in the prophets, that such promises belong to no one but Christ. And let nobody cavil that this is a new invention of ours. For, the Jews called Christ, commonly and usually, the Son of David.

But to which of his angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? Heb. 1:13.

Again, he exalts the superiority of Christ by another testimony, in order to show the pre-eminence of Christ over the angels.

This verse is taken from Ps. 110, which can be made to apply only to Christ. We know very well from the story of Uzziah’s leprosy, that even the kings had no right to act as priests (2 Chron. 26:18). Since it is clear that neither David nor the kings who followed him were ordained to be priests, it follows that here we have a prophecy of a new kingship and a new priesthood, in which king and priest were to be one. Besides, the eternal priesthood spoken of in this psalm fits the case of Christ alone.

Now, at the beginning of the psalm, he is put at God’s right hand; which means, as I have said, that he is given a position second only to the Father. What we have here is a metaphor which signifies that Christ is the Father’s agent and his head ambassador who exercises his power, so that the Father reigns by his hand. No angel was ever honored in this way. Christ therefore is exalted far above the host of angels.

Until I make. Since there never is any dearth of Christ’s enemies who set themselves against his Kingdom, the church is always in peril; especially because his foes, who seek to overthrow it, are among the great men of this world; men who both resort to artifice and attack repeatedly with fury and violence. When we look at what is before our eyes, we cannot but conclude that the Kingdom of Christ is about to fall in ruin. But the promise made in this psalm takes away all our fear, because Christ shall not leave his seat [at the Father’s right hand] until he has prostrated his last enemy to the ground. There are two things to keep in mind. First, there shall never be quietness for the Kingdom of Christ in this world, because it will always be infested and troubled by its enemies. Secondly, no matter what evils they perpetrate, the enemies of Christ shall not prevail, because Christ sits at God’s right hand, not for a time but in eternity. Therefore, all those who do not submit to his sovereignty shall be thrown down and trodden under his feet.

That I may lead forth a people, blind who have eyes and deaf who have ears. Isa. 43:8. (Calvin’s wording.)

The brevity of this verse makes its meaning unclear. There are some who translate “I will bring forth the blind and him who has eyes” ; that is, both the blind and the seeing, both the deaf and the hearing. Others explain blind as those who have eyes, but eyes which are too dim to be able to perceive the secrets of heavenly wisdom. But taking everything into consideration, I prefer to separate the two parts. “I will lead forth the blind, and restore sight to them; I will free the deaf, and they will regain their ears.” So the words run: lead forth the blind, and they will have eyes; the deaf, and they will have ears.

The content of this verse requires careful consideration. First the people are freed; then eyes and ears are restored to them. The Lord fulfilled this promise when he led his people from Babylon, but the prophecy certainly extends beyond that to the Kingdom of Christ. For in his Kingdom the faithful have been gathered not only from Chaldea, but also from all parts of the earth. This began conspicuously long ago at the time of Peter’s first speech (Acts 2:41), when great numbers from different countries joined in one confession of faith. But later others, who seemed wholly alien, joined with the same body and showed themselves sons of Abraham.

Therefore if we seek the full truth of this prophecy we must come to Christ, by whom alone we are delivered from slavery to the devil and confirmed in liberty. He restores eyes and ears to us who were formerly by nature both blind and deaf.

Further we must remember, as I have emphasized rather often, that the return of the people from exile is connected with the restoration of the church accomplished by Christ. For what God began when he brought the people out of exile, he continued and fulfilled in the coming of Christ. So the redemption is one. And hence it follows that the blessing here described cannot be limited to any one short period of time.

And in mercy shall the throne be established; and he shall sit upon it securely in the tabernacle of David, judging, and seeking judgment, and hasting righteousness. Isa. 16:5.

The Hebrews apply the whole verse to Hezekiah, but this interpretation is by no means acceptable. The prophet is describing a greater restoration of the church. (Besides, the Moabites did not suffer punishment in the time of Hezekiah, nor did God’s blessing then begin to shine among the Judeans.) What he means is: All the enemies of the chosen people are planning the destruction of the Kingdom which God had promised would be firm forever. But the faithful must not lose courage when they are miserably scattered; they must remember this well-known oracle which attests the continuance of God’s Kingdom. And this passage can be interpreted as referring to none other than Christ; although I admit that Hezekiah stands as a symbol of Christ, as did David and his other successors. But all these [men] point us to Christ himself, who alone redeems and leads his people, who alone gathers his scattered remnant.

In this way the prophet recalls the faithful to Christ; it is as if he said: “You know the God whom you serve. He declares himself the guardian of your safety to keep you always secure and unharmed under his protection. And if all things have slid down to disaster, he has promised you a Redeemer under whom a wholly new happiness will rise and prevail. At the very moment of despair the Redeemer of the church will come and restore you to the full flower of freedom. Therefore be perfectly calm and wait for him, even when you see the church poor and scattered.”

We must note these words carefully. All other comforts are temporary and illusory unless we depend wholly upon Christ. Therefore if we wish to be blessed and happy let our eyes be fixed upon him. He has promised that we shall be blessed even under the cross; that crucifixion and torture will be the door to a blessed life; that whatever hardships we suffer will end for us with the fullness of felicity.

In mercy. As Isaiah shows, this is no human achievement, but results from the goodness of God who is its sole architect. Therefore we must acknowledge his free favor, and accent the establishment of this holy throne among us as his gift. This the prophet asserts plainly. We should seek no other reason for God’s kindness to us except his pure compassion; and truly there is no other cause for it.

Neither honor nor merits (of which surely there are none) can be brought forward as a reason for God’s raising again the throne which had fallen through the guilt and the crimes of the people. Quite otherwise, when he saw that those whom he had chosen were lost, he willed to give an example of his infinite goodness. If God is the maker of this throne, by whom can it be overturned? Are the wicked stronger than he?

He will sit firmly in the tent of David. Almost every separate word has its own force, and this little clause is worth careful study. I like the allusion to the tent here because Christ was certainly a man of the common people before he was called to his throne. Also the prophet wishes to give a picture of the church which bears no resemblance to the thrones of kings and princes, and does not glitter with gold and gems. And in addition to presenting the spiritual rule of Christ under a humble and inglorious aspect, he declares at the same time that it will be revealed on earth and among men. For if he had said only that the throne of Christ would be erected, we could wonder if it would be located in heaven or on earth. When he says in the tent of David, he shows that Christ reigns not only among angels but also among men. Therefore, we should not think that we must penetrate the heavens to seek him.

The ungodly think that what we proclaim about the reign of Christ is ridiculous; as if it were some phantasm of our own imagination. They wish to see with their eyes something open to their senses. But we have no need to receive any physical sign from him, and are content with his power and goodness.

In firmness (firmly). ’emeth means sometimes certainty, sometimes truth. Here the prophet means that Christ’s Kingdom will be firm and enduring, even as Daniel (2:44; 7:14) bore witness, and the Evangelist also: Of his kingdom there will be no end (Luke 1:33). This permanence distinguishes it from the ordinary kingdoms. For although they are established with great and plentiful resources, they totter or sink by their own weight, so that they are no firmer than images of melting wax.

But Isaiah declares that the empire of Christ, although threatened often by destruction, will endure forever because it will be upheld by God’s hand. We must keep his testimony on hand as a weapon against the temptations which arise when Christ’s Kingdom is attacked by so many mighty enemies that it seems about to fall. For although the world plots [against it] in every way, and hell itself pours out fire and flame against it, the promise stands.

Who will judge. I take judge (shaphat) as “govern” ; as if the line ran “who will govern.” We often see a magnificent throne without an occupant; and it often happens that kings are either figureheads or cattle, so that they are without good judgment, or prudence, or wisdom. But on this throne, the prophet says, will sit one who truly fulfills the office of Governor. Then he makes a further addition to assure us that Christ will be our protector. For when he attributes justice and righteousness to him, he displays the royal banner under the protection of which Christ receives us and which he will not allow to be violated. And so long as we give ourselves to faith in him, with calm and quiet minds, he will not permit the wicked to injure us with impunity.

The word hasten is used to teach us that our reward will be swift and prompt; and this speed must be set against our impatience. For he never seems to us to bring aid quickly enough. But when we are tormented with fervent longing, let us remember that we suffer from impatience because we do not give room enough to his Providence. When to our carnal mind he seems slow, he is really fitting his acts of judgment to the time which he best knows. Let us then submit to his will.

He will judge among many peoples and accuse (or blame) strong nations afar off; and they will beat their swords into plowshares and their lances into sickles. They shall not lift the sword, nation against nation, and they will no more be accustomed to war. Micah. 4:3. (Calvin’s wording.)

Here the prophet describes the fruits of the teaching of God’s word. God will recall all peoples to gentleness, so that they will strive to promote brotherly peace among themselves and will lay aside all desire to inflict injuries. As he said before, the church of God can be established in no other way than by the Word. True service of God cannot be begun, nor can it endure, except where God is served by the obedience of faith. Now he shows the goal to which the teaching leads. Those who once lived in mutual hostility and burned with the desire to hurt one another, now, with character transformed, are wholly intent on mutual kindness.

But before the prophet comes to this point, he says he will Judge among many peoples and accuse strong nations. The word judge, shaphat, in Hebrew also means govern. God is certainly the subject of the sentence. The prophet is saying that although formerly men did not obey God, they will in the future know him as King and concede supreme power to him. God indeed has always governed the world by his hidden providence and so governs it now. However much the devil and wicked men may rage, however much they boil with their own unrestrained anger, there is no doubt that God checks and curbs their madness with a hidden bridle.

The Scripture speaks in two ways of God’s rule. God governs the devil and all the wicked, but not by his Word nor by the Spirit’s sanctification. They obey God against their wish and will. God’s special rule applies to his church alone, where God by his Word and Spirit turns the hearts of men to obedience, so that they follow him freely and voluntarily. They are thoroughly taught within and without; within, by the inspiration of the Spirit, without, by the preaching of the Word. Then, as Ps. 110:3 says, your willing people will assemble. Such is the Kingdom of God, which the prophet here describes.

God will judge, not as he now governs the whole world, but in a special way he will subject the faithful to himself so that they desire nothing so much as to surrender themselves wholly to him.

But because men must be subjugated before they offer such submission to God, the prophet has added in plain terms He will convict (or accuse) many people. And this addition must be carefully noted, because from it we learn that our inborn pride is too great for anyone, unless mastered by force, to be ready to be God’s pupil. The teaching by itself would congeal in the great corruption of our nature, if God did not convict us, that is, unless he prepared us beforehand by force and violence. Now we see the prophet’s wisdom in including correction in God’s rule. The verb yakach means sometimes “remonstrate with,” “accuse,” sometimes “convict.” In any case, it here implies the wickedness and perversity of our flesh, since even the best of men never surrender themselves to God until they are subdued. Subdued how? Truly by God’s use of force in their correction.

Such are the beginnings of the reign of Christ. The prophet speaks here of strong peoples to glorify that reign and to illuminate it by his words. We see here the power of the teaching of the Word, because, after receiving its correction, strong men offer themselves without any hesitation to be ruled by God. The correction is very necessary, but God does not use external force nor any armed soldiers when he wishes to subdue his church. And yet he gathers in it strong men. The power of the teaching is therefore undeniable. For among men, where there is strength, there also is assurance and pride, and afterwards rebellion. But the Word, without any external aid, corrects men’s obstinacy, and we see that God works in an unbelievable way when he gathers his church.

There is certainly no doubt that this passage must refer to the Person of Christ. Micah speaks of God without specific mention of Christ, because Christ had not yet been manifested in the flesh. But we know that God’s rule of the world and the submission of the peoples of the whole earth to him had its fulfillment in Christ. Also we have affirmed that Christ is true God, for he was not called his Father’s servant like Moses or the other prophets. He was supreme King of his church.

But before I come to the fruits of Christ’s reign, the phrase inserted here, ’ad rachoq, must be noted. Both length of time and distance of place can be so expressed. The Targum of Jonathan8484The Targums are Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Old Testament. Such translations were first made orally in the synagogues to convey the meaning of the Hebrew text to the Aramaic-speaking congregations (cf. Ezra 4:7; Neh. 8:7). Later, written translations were made. That of Onkelos on the Pentateuch is a very literal and exact translation; but the Targum of Jonathan on the Prophets is an edifying paraphrase rather than a translation. It was probably written in the first century A.D., although the tradition of interpretation which it represents is much older. takes it as length of time, because God accuses people through the ages. But I have no doubt that the prophet wished to include far-separated regions; as if he said, God would be King not of one people only: his Kingdom would be extended to the farthest ends of the earth. Therefore he will convict nations afar off.

Then the prophet describes the consummation: They will beat their swords into plowshares and their lances into sickles. I have already stated briefly his meaning. He speaks of the great change which will come when the nations have been taught the Word of God. Then all will strive to devote their work and their kindly acts to their neighbors. When he talks of swords and lances, he shows with few words that men have always been prone to unjust violence until they were tamed by the Word of God. Such a change would be impossible while every man followed his own nature. There is no one who does not want his own private comforts; so insatiable is man’s greed. Therefore, when all are so intent on gain, when each one is blinded by his self-love, cruelty bursts out from this evil source. Men cannot cultivate peace among themselves, because each one wishes to be first, and snatches everything for himself. No one yields willingly. Thence come disagreements, and from disagreements, wars. This the prophet knows. Yet he adds that as the result of Christ’s teaching those who had before then been bristling brutes would become tame. Therefore they will beat their swords into plowshares and their lances into sickles. They will not, he says, draw sword, nation against nation, and they will practice war no more.

This puts more clearly what I said before. The gospel of Christ will be like a signal of peace for the nations. When a battle standard is displayed, the soldiers gather for the fight and their ardor is kindled. Micah ascribes the opposite result to the gospel of Christ. It will recall men, formerly bent on evil-doing, to a desire for peace and concord. When he says they will not draw swords, nation against nation, he shows, as I have said, that where Christ does not reign men are wolves to men. Each one would gladly devour all the others.

By nature, men rush blindly to attack one another, and the prophet says this madness can be corrected, so that wars cease and men refrain from doing injury, only when Christ is made their teacher. For by the word lamad, he means that in general men are always struggling with one another and are always ready to inflict injuries unless they change their natures. Whence is gentleness born? Truly from the teaching of the gospel. This passage is memorable because we learn from it that the truth of the gospel has not reached us, unless mutual love and friendliness prevail among us, and the desire to do kindness.

And although today the pure gospel is preached among us, yet if we consider how little each one of us practices brotherly love, we shall rightly be ashamed of our negligence. Daily God declares himself reconciled to us in his Son. Christ bears witness in this law of love that he is [the giver of] peace with God. He offers himself for us, so that we may willingly and quickly be brothers to one another. And we desire indeed to be enrolled as sons of God; we desire to enjoy the reconciliation won for us by the blood of Christ. But meanwhile we tear at one another; we sharpen our teeth; our minds are wholly ruthless. If we wish to prove ourselves disciples of Christ we must heed this part of his teaching and each one of us strive to help his neighbors.

Now this cannot be done without opposition from the flesh; for we are prone to love ourselves and to seek too much our own private advantage. We must shed these immoderate and hurtful emotions of self-interest, if brotherly love is to take their place. We are warned here that it is not enough to refrain from doing injury; a man must be helpful to his brothers. The prophet could have said simply “they will break their swords and lances and refrain from inflicting further damage.” But he does not say merely this; he adds, They will turn (or beat) their swords into plowshares and lances into sickles. That is: when they have ceased doing evil, they will desire to concern themselves with acts of kindness. So Paul (Eph. 4:28) urges those who steal to steal no more and also to work with their hands to serve others Therefore unless we want to help our brothers’ need and to offer them our aid, we are only half converted. Many people are not cruel, they rob nobody, they give nobody reason to complain; but they live for themselves and enjoy a useless leisure. This idleness the prophet indirectly condemns when he speaks of plows and sickles.

But the question may be raised: How has this been fulfilled by Christ’s coming? The prophet is not describing here the state of the church at any time; he is showing what Christ’s Kingdom will be like at the end. Moreover we know that when the gospel was first preached, the whole world was more savagely embroiled in war than ever before; and now, although in many places the pure gospel is preached, disagreements and quarrels do not cease. We see greed, ambition, covetousness flourishing; and from them arise both dissensions and bloody wars. Yet it would seem to be an absurdity for the prophet to speak this way about the reign of Christ, if God did not mean to execute in reality what was predicted. I answer, the reign of Christ had already begun when God wished the gospel to be preached everywhere, and today it is still in progress and not yet complete. Consequently what the prophet describes here does not yet appear before our eyes. And because the number of the faithful is small and the majority of men despise and reject the gospel, robbery and evil deeds do not cease in the world. Do you ask why?

The prophet speaks of Christ’s followers. He shows the fruit of the teaching. And truly it bears fruit wherever it takes good root. But the teaching of the gospel takes root in hardly one out of a hundred. We must look at the amount of progress. For in so far as any man has taken hold of the teaching of the gospel he becomes gentle and desires to help his neighbors. But since we still carry around with us in our flesh the remains of sin, and a perfect knowledge of the gospel does not exist in us, it is not strange that no one has rid himself wholly of the unrighteous and stupid desires of his flesh.

Hence it is easy to see how limited is the imagination of those who on the basis of the gospel wish to remove the use of the sword from the world. We know how the Anabaptists have clamored that the whole political order is the enemy of Christ’s Kingdom; as if the Kingdom of Christ were bound up in one doctrine — there shall be no use of force. This teaching would indeed hold, if in this world we were angels. But as I have said the number of the faithful is small and therefore it is necessary that the rest of the crowd be restrained by a forcible curb. For the sons of God are intermingled with great, savage beasts, or with wolves and false men. For some are openly rebellious against God and others are hypocrites. Therefore the use of the sword will continue until the end of the world.

Now we must notice under what circumstances our prophet was speaking. Isaiah used the same words, and it is probable that Micah was Isaiah’s disciple. For although they held their prophetic office at the same time, Isaiah was the elder. But Micah was not ashamed to follow Isaiah and to borrow words from him. Nor was he so concerned for his own importance that he had to produce everything himself. He conformed to what Isaiah had done, and repeated his words exactly, showing the agreement between himself and God’s illustrious servant, in order to give the teaching greater authority. We recognize his humility when he gave no thought to ill-natured and spiteful men who might say: “What! He’s only repeating somebody else’s words.” He cared nothing for such slander, and was content to affirm faithfully what God commanded.

The words afar off are not in Isaiah, but otherwise the two passages agree.

Behold the days will come, saith the Lord, and I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he will reign as king and act wisely (or prosper). He will do judgment and righteousness on the earth. Jer. 23:5. (Calvin’s wording.)

The prophet confirms what he has just said about the restoration of the church. For it would not have been enough to promise shepherds who would faithfully perform their duty, if that one Shepherd on whom God’s covenant was founded had not been assured to them. For, the fulfillment of every good for which men can hope must be sought in him.

It is usual for all the prophets, whenever they want to give the people hope of a happy future, to declare the coming Messiah. For in him have always been all the promises of God, now and forever, amen. This appears more clearly in the gospel; but the faith of the fathers could be complete only when they turned their thoughts to the Messiah. For apart from Christ, the fathers could not have had assurance of the love of God, or sure evidence of his kindness and fatherly goodness. This is the reason the prophets set Christ before men’s eyes when they wish to inspire good hope in the distressed, who would otherwise be overcome by their sorrow and yield to despair.

We should notice how often the prophets do this, so that we may realize how cold God’s promises would be to us, how they would hang in the air or vanish completely if we do not turn our minds to Christ, and seek in him the answer we shall find nowhere else.

There follows: He will act wisely (or prosper), and will establish righteousness and judgment on the earth. Shakal has both meanings, “act wisely” and “prosper,” but the prophet seems to be speaking of just judgment rather than of good success, because the two clauses should be read together: “The Messiah will act wisely and then establish righteous judgment.” He apparently means that Christ will be endowed with both wisdom and a spirit of right and justice, and so will fulfill all the requirements for a good and perfect king. And the first necessity is wisdom; for honesty is not enough in a king (indeed even among private citizens it gets only moderate praise); if he lacks intelligence, his honesty is of little use. Therefore the prophet here praises Christ for his true wisdom and then speaks of his love for justice and right.

These words are not adequate for honoring Christ. But the figure is taken from human experience; and it is true that the first gift of kings is wisdom, the second integrity. We know that Christ is often compared to earthly kings, or the picture of an earthly king is drawn for us to help us see Christ. For God adapts himself to our dull capacity. Since we cannot comprehend the unthinkable justice or wisdom of Christ, God brings us by easy steps to the knowledge of him by giving us a shadow of him in these similes. . . .

But the difference between the justice of Christ and the justice of other kings must be thoroughly understood. Those who rule well among men can exercise justice and judgment when they try to gave every man his just due, by restraining the boldness of the wicked and protecting the good and harmless. This is all that can be asked of earthly kings.

But Christ is altogether different. Not only is he wise to perceive what is best and right, but also he endows his servants with wisdom and insight. He not only does judgment and justice by defending the harmless and aiding the oppressed, by helping the poor and checking the wicked; but also he establishes justice in regenerating us by his Spirit. And, he establishes justice further by putting a bridle on the devil.

Now we see what I meant when I said that we must attend to both Christ’s unlikeness and his likeness to earthly kings. His unlikeness is exceedingly great; yet the comparison has value for us.

And on that day, Israel will be, with Egypt and Assyria, a third blessing in the midst of the earth. For the Lord of hosts will bless saying, Blessed be my people Egypt, and Assyria the work of my hand, and Israel my inheritance. Isa. 19:24–25. (Calvin’s wording.)

Isaiah ends the promise with the addition that there will certainly be a blessing for Egypt and Assyria as well as for Israel. Earlier God’s grace was in a sense limited to Israel, because with them the Lord had entered into a covenant. For the Lord had extended his cord to Jacob, as Moses and David say (Deut. 32:9; Ps. 147:20). He hath not so dealt with every nation and revealed to them his judgments. The blessing of God dwelt in Judea alone.

But the prophet says this blessing would in the future belong also to the Egyptians and the Assyrians. Under these names he includes all nations. He specifies these two, not to honor them, but because, since they had been continual enemies of God, they seemed the most alien and the farthest from hope of favor. God had earlier adopted only the sons of Abraham; he now wished to be called the Father of all nations without distinction.

The third. The interpretation of some that Israel will have third place does not please me. For since the Hebrew word is feminine, it ought to be joined to barakah, blessing. This blessing is to be understood as an example or mirror of all blessings.

Because he will bless. The repetition serves to explain the preceding. The prophet teaches that by God’s free kindness, Assyria and Egypt will be united and associated with the chosen people. He means, “Although this title belonged only to Israel, it will be given also to other nations whom the Lord shall adopt for his own.” There is a mutual relation between God and his people. They whom God by his own mouth names a holy people rightly call him their God. And this public naming is now extended to Egyptians and Assyrians.

But although the prophet meant to unite distant nations with the Jews, he differentiates their appropriate positions with suitable labels. By calling the Egyptians the people of God, he means that they will share the distinction with which God had formerly honored the Jews alone. By calling the Assyrians the work of his hands, he distinguishes them by the praise suited to God’s church. We have said elsewhere that the church is called τὸ ποίημα of God (Eph. 2:10), or his work, because the faithful are remade by the spirit of regeneration and bear the image of God. The prophet means by the work of God’s hands, not that we were first created by God, but that we who are separated from the world and are made new creatures, are transformed for a new life. As we well know, nothing in that new life is to be ascribed to us; for we know it all to be God’s work.

Israel he honors with its own unique privilege. Because it is God’s inheritance, it keeps the right and honor of the first-born among its new brethren. Certainly God’s covenant, which he first made with them, gave to them a priority which not even their own ingratitude could erase.

Commentaries on the Church

1. THE CONDITION OF THE CHURCH

On the next day much people that were come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna! Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord. And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written, Fear not daughter of Lion; behold thy king cometh, sitting on an ass’s colt. John 12:12–15.

Branches of palm trees. Among the ancients, the palm was a symbol of victory and peace. Moreover, they used palm branches when they invested someone with sovereignty, or when they came as suppliants before a victorious king or general. But these folk carried palm branches as a sign of festive joy at the coming of the new King.

They shouted, Hosanna! and so shouting, they voiced their conviction that Jesus Christ was the Messiah, promised by the fathers of old, their hope of deliverance and salvation. For Psalm 118, from which this exclamation is taken, was written about the Messiah, to the end that the saints might ardently hope for and continually desire his coming, and that they might receive him with reverence when he appeared. Therefore, it is a probable, if not a certain inference, that this prayer was common among the Jews, and was in everybody’s mouth. Therefore, the Spirit of God moved these people to address their prayer to Christ; and they thus became his chosen heralds to testify that the Messiah had come. Hosanna is made up of two Hebrew words, which mean, “save, I pray Thee.” The Hebrews pronounce it Hoshia-nna. The sound of words is often corrupted when transliterated into another language. Yet the Evangelists, who wrote in Greek, purposely kept the Hebrew word, to express properly the fact that the crowd used a solemn form of prayer which had come down from David and was kept by the people of God through the ages for the special and sacred purpose of blessing the Kingdom of Christ. The words which come next, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord, were used to the same end. For this is a propitious prayer for the joyful and prosperous success of Christ’s Kingdom, upon which depends the restoration and the happiness of the church of God.

And now we have to untie the knot that in this psalm David speaks of himself rather than of Christ; and this won’t be too difficult. We know that a kingdom was established in the hands of David and his posterity, in anticipation of that everlasting Kingdom which was to appear in its own time. We do not need to believe that David was thinking only of himself. What is more, the Lord himself sent prophets who turned the eyes of the godly in another direction. Therefore, what David sings about himself is rightly applied to the Redeemer who was to come from his seed. . . .

That cometh in the name of the Lord. We must first understand the meaning of this expression. A man comes in the name of the Lord when he neither rashly pushes himself forward, nor usurps honor under false pretenses, but when he has been called by God, accepts him as the author and the guide of his actions. This eulogy applies to all the true servants of God. A prophet comes in the name of the Lord, directed by the Spirit of God; and delivers to men the pure doctrine which he receives from heaven. So also, a king comes in the name of the Lord, when God governs his people by his hand. But since the Spirit of the Lord rested upon Christ, and since he is the Head of the church, all those who have ever been ordained to rule over the church are subject to him; they are indeed as streams flowing from a Fountain. Christ is said properly to have come in the name of the Lord; not only because he excels all others in authority, but also because God has totally revealed himself in Christ. For in him dwells the fullness of Deity bodily, as Paul says in Col. 2:9; and he himself is the living image of God; in short, he is truly Immanuel. He has a special right to this eulogy, because God manifested himself in him wholly, and not partially as he had done by the prophets. Therefore, if we want to honor God’s servants, we ought to start with the Head.

Rejoice, thou barren who didst not bear, rejoice and be glad, thou who hadst no children! For the sons of the widowed are more than the sons of the wife, saith the Lord. Enlarge the space of your tents and extend your tent cords. Isa. 54:1–2. (Calvin’s wording.)

After speaking of the death of Christ, the prophet rightly turns to the church to give us a better understanding of what Christ’s death has done and accomplished for us. There would be no such understanding if Christ’s death were considered by itself. Therefore we must turn to his body which is the church. Christ suffered for the church — not for himself.

The same order is followed in the Creed of our faith. After we confess that we believe in Christ who suffered for us and was crucified, we continue by affirming that we believe in the church which, as it were, flowed from his side. So Isaiah, after speaking of the death, resurrection, and triumph of Christ, rightly comes down to the church which is never to be separated from its Head. In this way, each one of the faithful may learn from his own experience that Christ did not suffer in vain.

If this teaching had been omitted, the faithful could not fortify their hearts with the hope of the restoration of the church. But the congratulation in these verses shows plainly that when Christ comes forth from death as conqueror, he conquers not for himself alone, but also to breathe life into his body, which is the church. . . .

Tents. The metaphor is taken from a kind of dwelling common in that region. The church is compared to tents because it has no solid structure in the world. It always appears unsettled and wandering, and is moved here and there in various migrations, as necessity requires. But I am sure the prophet was also thinking of that earlier liberation of God’s people, when they were led through the desert and lived in tents forty years. In memory of that liberation, they later held yearly a solemn feast, according to God’s commandment. And as we have said, the prophets habitually refer to it.

Someone will object that the structure built by the ministers of the Word is too solid to be compared to a tent. But I answer: The likeness to a tent refers to the external appearance of the church rather than to its spiritual or essential (if I may use the word) existence. The true structure of the church is the Kingdom of God, and this is neither frail nor like a tent in any way. But in the meantime, the external church is moved here and there because it has no firm habitation in which it can abide. It is more solid and stronger than the best-fortified citadels because, relying on God’s unconquerable power, it scorns all peril. But it is like a tent because it is not supported by earthly resources, wealth, and power.

Next we come to the reason the prophet orders that the cords be lengthened to enlarge the tent; obviously because no ordinary sized place was sufficient to hold the people whom God was going to gather from all parts of the world into one church.

Thus saith the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One, to the despicable of soul, to the abominable race, to the slave of masters: Kings will see and princes will stand up and adore, because of the Lord; because faithful is the Holy One of Israel and he who chose thee. Isa. 49:7. (Calvin’s wording.)

Isaiah continues the same theme to enable the people, who are suffering from a heavy disaster, to take hold of the hope of a better future. To strengthen their hope the more, he calls God who promises them deliverance, the Redeemer and the Holy One of Israel.

Someone will object that this is a contradiction. God is called the Redeemer of the very people whom he has abandoned to oppression. Where is the redemption, where is the holiness, when the people could see that they were wretched and ruined? I answer, The prophet reminds them of their past history as a ground for confidence and hope. Since the Jews were overwhelmed with despair, the prophet protested and argued that the God who had formerly redeemed their fathers was still mighty and still possessed the same power as of old. Therefore, although he had for a time hidden his salvation in order to exercise the faith of the godly, believers were commanded to stand firm with uplifted hearts, because their redemption by God’s hand was sure. Meanwhile, it was necessary for them to think thoughts far removed from the experience of the senses.

This passage is important for us, because from it we learn how great is the faith we need when God speaks to us. For his promises are not fulfilled immediately, and he lets us suffer and endure affliction for a long time.

Some translate bezoh as “despised,” and some as “despicable.” I prefer the latter. God adds to the people’s misery by declaring that their souls are despicable in his sight. Many who are despised by others are still worthy of honor because they are gifted men; such people do not cease to swell with pride, and they trample down the pride of those who despise them with their own greater pride. But God says here that he himself despises this people no less than they are despised by their fellow men. But his purpose in describing the extremity of their disgrace and misery is to assure them that the time of their deepest humiliation will also be the acceptable time when he shall bring them his help.

The abominable nation. I see no reason why some change the number of nation, goy, to the plural when the prophet uses the singular. It is certain that these words are addressed especially to the race of Abraham.

He adds serve masters, that is, “be oppressed by strong tyrants” for meshalim means those who have so much strength and power that it is not easy to escape from their hands.

When God says that kings shall see, he speaks magnificently of the liberation of his people; yet meanwhile he permits them to be tried in a fiery furnace, to make trial of their patience and faith. For if what God promised occurred immediately, before he had even finished speaking, there would be no place for the exercise of faith.

The repetition in naming the rulers is customary in Hebrew. We should say “kings and princes shall see; they shall stand up and adore.” The verb adore explains stand up. (Today we stand up to honor someone.) Briefly, the greatest princes of the world shall stand up, as they testify that the restoration of God’s people is God’s own glorious work, worthy of reverence

Because he is faithful. This is the reason for the admiration and honor which the princes show to God. They will come to know God’s faithfulness and constancy with regard to his promises. Moreover, God wishes to be known as true, not as an abstract concept, but through the experience of the way he preserves the people whom he has adopted. Therefore, let us learn that the promises of God are not to be estimated by our [immediate] situation, but by his truth. When nothing but destruction and death hangs over us, let us remember these words by which God constrained a despicable and contemptible people.

Also, we must realize how great and wonderful is God’s work in liberating the church. Proud kings who think nothing worth looking at or valuable are compelled to see, to wonder, to be amazed, and even against their will to reverence God. This new and unprecedented work of God is especially commended to us, and our own judgment tells us what and how great it is; for even if we ignore past history, we know our own liberation from the miserable tyranny of Antichrist. When we consider our own situation carefully, it must, in the psalmist’s words, seem to us a dream (Ps. 126:1). God has done a stupendous and incredible work in us who bear Christ’s name.

And who hath chosen thee. At the end of the verse the prophet repeats what he had mentioned before, that this people had been set apart by God. But we must realize that election is the beginning of sanctification. This people was God’s holy inheritance only because God had of his mere good pleasure thought it good to choose them, therefore [in these words], Isaiah points to the hidden will of God as the source from which sanctification flows. He thus prevents Israel from thinking themselves separated from others on account of their own merit; it is as though he had said, “The Lord who chose you confirmed his choice by his own work in you, and demonstrated it by its effects.” In the same way, God’s faithfulness must be known in our salvation, and our salvation must equally be ascribed to his election. Meanwhile, let all who desire to share in this great good become a part of Israel, that is, of the church, outside of which there can be neither salvation nor truth.

For behold, in those days, and in the time, when I bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem, then I will also gather all nations, and I will bring them down to the valley of Jehoshaphat. . . . Joel 3:1–2.

The prophet said this when the Jews were an object of hatred to all peoples and were, so to speak, the dregs and filth of the whole world. The enemies of the Jews were as many as there were nations under the sky. And the Jews, seeing the hostility of the whole world, were likely to slip into complete despair. They would think: “Even if God wishes to save us, there are so many obstacles that we are certain to perish. The Assyrians are not our only enemies; we have met still greater hatred from all our neighbors.” For we know that the Moabites and Ammonites, Tyrians, Sidonians, Philistines, in fact whatever peoples were in that region, had been most hostile to the Jews. And since all roads to their country were closed [to the exiled Jews], it was difficult for them to imagine any hope except by the inspiration of the Lord himself.

For this reason, the prophet said that God would be the judge of the whole world, and that it is within his will and power to summon all nations. . . .

Moreover he says this summons will occur in those days and at that time when the Lord brings back the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem. Christian scholars force this into a prophecy of Christ’s coming. But they twist the words away from the sense which the context demands. For there is no doubt that the prophet here spoke of the return [from the exile]. Yet he included [in his prophecy] also the Kingdom of Christ. And as we have said elsewhere, this was a very common and frequent practice. When the prophets testified that God would be the Redeemer of his people and promised liberation from the Babylonian exile, they also led the faithful to Christ’s Kingdom as if by a continuous pull toward it.

For what was the restoration [from exile] but the prelude of the true and real redemption truly manifested in the person of Christ? Therefore, the prophet does not speak exclusively of the coming of Christ, nor of the return of the Jewish people; he embraces the whole process of redemption, which had only begun when God led his people back from the Babylonian exile, and continues from Christ’s first coming to the Last Day. And when it is said that God will redeem his people, we are not to think this redemption will be a brief and instantaneous act God will continue to exercise his grace until he has exacted the penalty from all the enemies of his church. . . . In brief, the prophet does not reveal God as a halfway redeemer. God will not make an end until he has finished whatever belongs to the felicity of his church and has perfected it in all things. . . .

Joel is saying: “God will not pour out a thin stream of grace. He will bring full redemption to his people. When the whole world rises against them, he will prevail because he himself will undertake to protect his church and defend the safety of his own.” Therefore, those who strive to delay or hinder the restoration of the church will accomplish nothing. God is its vindicator, and he will judge all peoples.

Now we must see why the prophet names the Valley of Jehoshaphat. Many think that valley was mentioned because it had been called the “valley of blessing” (2 Chron. 20:26). There, as we know, Jehoshaphat had won a great victory with only a small force, although many peoples had joined together against him. When he had fought against a great army and had conquered marvelously (for his followers were few), the people blessed God there, and the name Blessing was given to the place. Therefore, many think that the valley was mentioned here to recall to the Jews’ remembrance how wonderfully they had been saved in the past. For the memory of that would surely turn their minds to hope. . . . And this seems to me a probable explanation.

Some locate the Valley of Jehoshaphat between the Mount of Olives and the city; but I do not know how probable that conjecture is. In my judgment, the important point is that the text reminds the people of God’s past goodness so as to inspire the faithful in all ages to hope for their own salvation.

Others indeed prefer to interpret Jehoshaphat from the meaning of the root from which it is derived. (And certainly Jeho-shaphat means “the judgment of God.”) They translate it as “the valley of God’s judgment.” If you prefer this meaning, I do not object. Certainly the name is appropriate, and even if the prophet is here speaking of the holy king in order to encourage the Jews to follow his example, there is no doubt that he is also referring to the judgment of God or to the verdict he will deliver in favor of his people. For the next words are I will decide upon them there; and the verb, like the name, is from the root shaphat. Clearly, if the name belongs to the place and was also the name of the king, the prophet wished to enlarge its meaning; it is as if he had said, “When God dwells in the midst of his people, he will call all nations to judgment; and this is what he now wills to declare and establish.”

Some twist the passage into a reference to the Last Judgment — but that is violently forced. From that misinterpretation arose the idea that the whole world will gather in the Valley of Jehoshaphat. But we know such mad dreams filled the world when the light of sane teaching was quenched. It is not strange, after the world had so profaned the worship of God, that all men became fascinated with crude absurdities. But when we consider the prophet’s purpose, there is no doubt that he names the Valley of Jehoshaphat to give hope to the Jews that God himself will guard their safety. He says frequently that God will live among them; later in this very chapter we read, And God will live in the midst of you.

And I fed the flock of slaughter, truly (or therefore) the poor of the flock; and I took for myself two staffs, the one I called Elegance (or Beauty) and the other I called Cords (or as some translate, Destroyers. This we shall discuss); and I fed the flock. Zech. 11:7. (Calvin’s wording.)

Here the prophet continues an earlier theme and clarifies what had not been sufficiently explained: namely, that the ingratitude of the people, especially since it was combined with obstinacy, was worthy of death and left no room for pardon. God’s Fatherly care had been basely and dishonorably rejected, as well as the gracious kindness which he had shown to the people.

God declares that he has fed the flock. Others take Zechariah as the subject; but as I said, God is enumerating the favors which in time of peace he had conferred on the people until he saw that they were unworthy of any kindness. We should remember that the prophet is speaking to the remnant. He is not here recounting God’s ancient favors to Israel, but describing the state of the people after their return from the exile in Babylon. In an earlier passage, God seemed to entrust this fraction of the people to Zechariah to feed. But as I have said, this whole address is intended to make it obvious that all guilt belonged to the people who had rejected God’s kindness and stubbornly fought against him, leaving no room or entryway for his mercy. This remonstrance is therefore in the name of God himself.

Truly the poor. Some translate because of. The word lakhen may introduce an explanation, or we may take the phrase to mean especially the poor. In any case, what the prophet means is that God had looked after the whole people because he hoped there were some sheep left who deserved mercy. God says that because he hoped there were some poor little sheep among the corrupt flock, he did not deem it hard or troublesome to lead his people as their shepherd. I fed the flock of slaughter, truly, he says, because there were in the flock some poor sheep whom I was unwilling to desert. I preferred to try everything rather than abandon one small sheep if there was one in the whole flock.

He says he took two staffs, one called no’am, the other hobelim. Those who translate the second “destroyers” do indeed interpret the Hebrew word literally if we stick to the vowel points. But since hebel and the plural habalim means “ropes” or cords,” I have no doubt that the prophet means here “small cords” or “binding twine.” You say, “But the grammar does not permit that!” As if Zechariah had written the vowel points, which were not then in use! I know, of course, the great care with which the ancient scribes worked out the points, when the language was no longer in ordinary and familiar use. And those who neglect the points or reject them entirely are certainly lacking in sense and good judgment. But some right of choice must be allowed. If we read destroyers here, the words make no sense; and if we read cords we alter only the two vowel points, and not a single letter. Since the context itself requires “cords,” I am astonished that interpreters have slavishly allowed themselves to be coerced [by two vowel points] and have not seen what the prophet was talking about.

Now the prophet says He took two staffs, but obviously not to do the ordinary work of a shepherd. Any shepherd is content with one crook. (Staff here means a shepherd’s crook.) And each shepherd works with his own crook. But here the prophet says that two crooks or shepherd’s staffs were needed, because when God leads his people his care of them surpasses that of any human shepherd.

But I leave the rest for tomorrow.

Yesterday we said that the name habalim, by which Zechariah called the second staff, ought not to be translated “destroyers,” as do all the Hebrews. God here teaches that he has done everything which can be done by a good and faithful shepherd, and that his people were perishing by their own fault. Now since God himself was discharging the duties of a shepherd, he could not have been carrying a staff for destruction. Besides, it is obvious that the prophet has put this word (habalim) together with the other, no’am. And finally, he says that the staff called habalim was broken to annul the brotherhood between Israel and Judah. What connection is there between “destroy” and “unite” ? It is correct therefore to take the name hobelim or habalim as “cords.”

Now we must see why the prophet names one staff Elegance or Beauty and the other Cords. Some think the no’am stands for natural law and habalim for the law of Moses. And those who translate “cords” (as Jerome rightly does here) think that since the law bound the ancient people to a hard yoke, it was called a rope because it constrained them. Others, like Jerome himself, refer to the words of Moses, When the Lord cast his cord, he chose a place in Israel, etc. (Deut. 32:8). And therefore they think that the cord stands for “inheritance.” But the first interpretation is too farfetched and forced. And at variance with the second is the prophet’s use of the word in the plural which is not consistent with inheritance. From the context it can be assumed, as we said yesterday, that cords are to be understood as union. Therefore, the text means that God had fulfilled the office of shepherd towards his chosen people and had prescribed for them the best possible order. This I understand from no’am. For nothing could more perfectly exemplify the beauty of order than the rule of life which God used for Israel. With good reason, therefore, he compares his shepherd’s crook to Beauty; as if he said that the rule had been so perfectly fashioned that nothing better could be imagined.

For the second staff he takes Unity or Concord, and this marked the height of his favor; for he had gathered together the scattered Israelites that they might once again be one people. It is true that few from the Kingdom of Israel had returned to their homeland; but it is clear that not all of the remnant was only from Judah, Benjamin, and the Levites; there were others mixed in with them. Therefore, the appropriate interpretation of this verse is that God had not only established a most beautiful order [of government], but had also added brotherly unity so that the sons of Abraham were joined together in one spirit and one soul.

Therefore, since theirs was so good a shepherd, their ingratitude was the more shameful and unendurable when they threw off his yoke and refused to be guided by his staff. Now we see why the prophet used these words Beauty and Union, when he described God as carrying two staffs.

Its waters will roar and toss tumultuously, and the mountains will be shaken with its swelling. Selah.

The streamlets of her river will make glad the city of God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the Most High.

God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved. Ps. 46:3–5. (Calvin’s wording.)

To understand the full meaning of this [third] verse, we should read it with what follows. Although the waters of the sea roar and roll wildly, and the mountains themselves shake at the violent impact, the City of God in the midst of such dreadful turmoil lies happy and calm, content with its narrow streams. The prophet means that the narrow channel of a small river is enough to give complete joy to the Holy City, even if the whole world should quake. I have mentioned before how useful a teaching this passage contains. Our faith is truly tested when in a time of great conflict hell seems ready to engulf us. And here we have pictured for us the victory of our faith over the whole world, whenever faith rises to conquer all fears amid confusion and threats of complete destruction. The sons of God do not find danger laughable, nor do they jest at death; but in danger they rejoice because they know that God’s promised aid outweighs all the evils which inspire terror. The sentiment of Horace appears very noble when he says of the righteous man, conscious of his own innocence:

Si fractus illabitur orbis

Impavidum ferient ruinae.

(When all the bulwarks of the earth crash suddenly to pieces he will face without fear the falling fragments.) But since no one has ever found a man such as Horace imagines, the words are empty. True courage is founded altogether in God’s protection; and those who rely upon God can boast not only that they are unafraid, but that they will be safe and secure when ruin overtakes the whole world. The prophet says explicitly that the City of God will be happy, although it does not possess a tumultuous sea which can throw its ever-surging waves against the assaults [of its enemies]. All it has is a little river. The prophet is referring to the brook which flowed from Siloah and went past Jerusalem. I have no doubt that he here blames obliquely the false confidence of those who are fortified with earthly resources and dream that they are beyond the reach of hostile weapons. Those who anxiously gather invincible garrisons appear indeed to be able to prevent invasion by foreign enemies, as though they were protected on all sides by the sea; but it often happens that they are overwhelmed by their own weapons as a tempest devastates and submerges an island in a flood. But those who trust themselves to God, although in the eyes of the world they are exposed to all kinds of injuries and have no defense to ward off attacks, nonetheless rest in security. For this reason, Isaiah (8:6) blames the Jews for despising the gently flowing waters of Siloah and seeking for deep and rapid rivers. . . .

In the same way today also, the Spirit encourages and inspires us to the same constancy: to despise the forces of those who march against us in splendor and confidence, to stand tranquil among all commotions and disturbances. Nor need we be ashamed of our nakedness if God’s hand is outstretched to preserve us. Therefore, although God’s help drips in a small stream like a rivulet, it brings us more of tranquillity than if all the powers of the world were all heaped up together at one time for helping us.

God in the midst of her. Now he shows how great the security of the church is, because God dwells in the midst of it. The verb will be moved is feminine in Hebrew and cannot refer to God as if he were going to remain stationary in the future. The statement means simply that the Holy City shall not be moved from its place because God dwells in it and is always ready to bring it help.

But ye shall be named the priests of the Lord. Isa. 61:6.

With these words the prophet shows the people how much more glorious their condition would be than it had been before; he means, “Up to now the Lord has chosen you for his own, but in the future he will honor you with much more splendid gifts, for he will elevate you all to priestly honor.” As we know although the whole people was called a priestly Kingdom, only the tribe of Levi performed the priestly office. The prophet here announces that in the future all will be priests. But this did not become manifest until the reign of Christ, although the restoration of the church began when the people returned from Babylon. At the coming of Christ, all the faithful were honored and exalted with priestly dignity.

We should consider the nature of this priesthood carefully. Animals are no longer to be slain as sacrifices to God; it is human beings that are to be brought as sacrifice — that is brought to obedience to Christ — as Paul said he did when by the sword of the gospel, he made an offering of the Gentiles that they might obey God (Rom. 15:16).

See then how childishly the papists misinterpret this passage when they use it to prove their own priesthood. Priests are set up by the pope and his followers to sacrifice Christ, not to teach the people. But Christ offered himself as a sacrifice for men’s eternal redemption and he alone officiated in that priestly act. He simply orders the fruit of his sacrifice to be brought to us in the teaching of the gospel. Those who usurp his office and wish to repeat the offering which he completed are sacrilegious.

But every one of us ought to offer himself and all his possessions to God in sacrifice, and so to perform his rightful priestly office. Secondly, ministers who are especially called to the office of teaching should use the sword of the Word to make men a sacrifice and to consecrate them to God. True ministers, certainly, are those who try or undertake nothing of themselves, but carry out faithfully and resolutely the commands which they have received from God.

And thou shalt be a crown of glory in the hand of the Lord, and a royal diadem in the hand of thy God. Isa. 62:3.

A royal diadem. He calls the church God’s crown because God wishes his glory to shine in us. When we read this, we must see and wonder at the inconceivable goodness of God. For although we are by nature filthy and corrupt and more foul than the mire of the streets, he adorns us bounteously and desires to have us as the diadem of his Kingdom.

2. THE MINISTRY

From the Introduction to the Commentary on Isaiah.

It is usual to cover many subjects in discussing the office of the prophet. But no summary (or explanation) of it pleases me better than one which relates the prophets to the law from which they drew their teaching as brooks flow from their source. Since the prophets set the law as the rule for themselves and copied it, they may properly be called and counted its interpreters. There is no separation between the two.

The law contains three most important divisions: first, the teaching of the way of life; second, threats and promises; third, the covenant of grace, founded in Christ and including in itself all special promises. The sections dealing with ceremonies were exercises by which the people were kept to the worship of God and religion, and were appendixes to the first table.

The prophets explained the teaching of the law more extensively than was done in the law itself and interpreted more fully what the two tables covered in few words; and they made clear what the Lord particularly required at the moment. The threats and promises which Moses stated in general, they fitted to their own time and made specific. Finally, what related to Christ and his Kingdom, expressed rather obscurely by Moses, the prophets announced more plainly, bearing fuller and richer witness to the covenant of grace.

If we are to understand the relationship between the prophets and the law, we must discuss the matter in more detail. God established the law itself as the perpetual rule of his church, to be always in the hands of men, and to be followed by all posterity. But he saw the danger that the teaching transmitted by Moses would not be enough for a rude and unruly people. And further, he saw that the people themselves could scarcely be restrained except by a tighter rein. Therefore, since, he had forbidden them to consult either magi or soothsayers, either astrologers or observers of animals’ entrails, and had required them to be satisfied with his teaching alone, he added the promise that a prophet would never be wanting in Israel (Deut. 18:15).

He did this with the purpose of meeting the anticipated complaint of the people that their situation was worse than that of any of the heathen, for the latter had their divining priests, pontiffs, interpreters of omens, casters of lots, astrologers, soothsayers, and such like, to whom they could go for advice; but they themselves had nobody to help them in case of doubt and uncertainty. To remove every excuse for their polluting themselves with the accursed rites of the nations, God promised to raise up prophets through whom he would disclose his purpose; they would faithfully proclaim whatever he commanded so that in the future the people could not complain of lacking anything.

The promise of a prophet is an exchange of number, ἑτερώσις (the singular stands for the plural). For although the passage looks ahead to (Fr. applies to) Christ, as Peter clearly, most appropriately and emphatically, interprets it (Acts 3:22), and although Christ is the chief of the prophets and on him all depend in their teaching and to him all with one consent look, yet the words apply also to the other prophets who are included collectively in the singular noun. Therefore, when God promised prophets through whom he would disclose his mind and purpose, he ordered the people to assent to their interpretations [of the law] and to their teaching.

God did not intend the prophets to add anything to the law. They were to interpret it faithfully and establish its authority. So when Malachi (in ch. 4) urges the people to be constant in sincere faith, and orders them to continue in the teaching of their religion, he says, Remember the law of Moses, my servant, which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel. He recalls them to the one law of God and commands them to be content with it. Does Malachi wish the prophets to be ignored? By no means! But since the prophets are dependent on the law, and the law summarily includes everything, his statement is sufficiently inclusive. Those who believe the teaching of the law in its main divisions and devote themselves to them will not neglect the prophets. It is absurd to boast of zeal for the law, when one neglects the divine interpretation of it. So today, many insolent men boast of their zeal for the Word, while they in no way accept the pious counsel and warnings drawn from the teaching of the Word.

When the prophets dealt with morals, they brought forward nothing new; they clarified the things in the law which were wrongly understood. For example, the people thought that when they offered sacrifices and kept the external ceremonies they had done their duty perfectly. For the world measured God by its own notions and worshiped him with material gifts. The prophets condemned this attitude severely and showed that all the ceremonies without sincerity of heart are worthless, that God is worshiped when men call upon him with true faith. Of course the law itself bears sufficient witness to this truth. But it needed to be taught more diligently and oftener brought to the people’s attention. Besides, it was necessary to expose the hypocrisy which leads men to cover themselves with the concealing garments of ceremonies. As for the second table of the law, it is from there that the prophets draw when they exhort men to desist from all injury, violence, and fraud. Thus they do nothing else but keep the people to the obedience of the law.

The prophets have a special task with regard to threats and promises. They note specifically, as if with a pointing finger, what Moses stated in general terms. Besides, they have their own vision by which the Lord unveils the future so that they may apply the promises and threats to the immediate need of the people, and bear witness more definitely and certainly to the will of God. Moses threatens, God will pursue you in battle. . . . The prophets say, Behold God will arm the Assyrians; he will hiss for the Egyptians.

Also the prophets are much more clear when they speak of the covenant of grace, and they establish the people more firmly in it. For they always call the people back to it when they wish to comfort them. And they set before them the coming of Christ, who was both the foundation of the covenant and the bond of mutual communion between God and the people. Therefore the whole sum of the promises must be referred to Christ. Anyone who believes this will easily understand what to look for in the prophets and what their purpose was in writing as they did. For the present, it is enough to point it out.

From the prophets, therefore, we should learn how we are to carry out the teaching of the Word. We must imitate them in seeking from the Word advice, judgment, threats, and consolations which are suited to the people in their present situation. For although the revelation given to us is not such that we can presume to predict the future, yet our teaching is valid when we exhibit the judgments of God from the history and example of the ancient people by comparing the ways of men in our time with those of theirs.

For what God formerly punished, he will punish no less today, since he is forever like himself. Let wise teachers keep this insight if they wish to treat the teaching of the prophets fruitfully.

And the Lord put out his hand and touched my mouth; and the Lord said to me, Behold, I have put my words in your mouth.

See, I have appointed you (or set you) today over nations and kingdoms.

And you, gird up your loins and rise, and speak. . . and fear not before them. Jer. 1:9–10, 17. (Calvin’s wording.)

Jeremiah is here describing his call so that his teaching may not be ignored as if it came from a man in his private capacity. He asserts that he did not come forward of his own accord, but was sent by God and instructed in his duty as prophet by Him. He says that for this purpose God put His words in his mouth.

This passage should be carefully studied, since Jeremiah here describes briefly how anyone who accepts the office of a teacher in the church ought to decide concerning his call. He must bring to his work nothing of his own. So Peter also says in his first letter, If any man speak, let him speak as it were the oracles of God (1 Peter 4:11); that is, he should not speak uncertainly as if he were giving out comments of his own, but he should be able to speak out confidently without hesitation in the name of God; just as Jeremiah in this passage demands to be heard because, as he declares, God has put his words in his mouth. We can be sure that whatever comes from man’s own cleverness may be ignored. God demands for himself alone the honor of being heard in his church (as I said yesterday).

Hence it follows that none should be recognized as servants of God, none should be counted just and faithful prophets or teachers, unless God is speaking through them, unless they invent nothing by themselves and teach nothing by their own will, but preach only what God commands.

For Jeremiah, a visible symbol was added to give greater assurance of his vocation. However, this is not to be made a general rule as if it were necessary for the tongues of all teachers to be touched by God’s hand. Here the reality is combined with the external sign. It is the reality which gives to all the servants of God the rule not to express their own comments but simply to transmit, as if from hand to hand, what they have received from God. It was peculiar to Jeremiah that God stretched out his hand and touched his mouth to show plainly that the prophet’s mouth was consecrated to God. For us, it is enough to understand clearly how important it is that the tongues of ministers of the Word are consecrated to God and that they are not to mix their own theories with his pure doctrine. In the person of Jeremiah, God intended to give us a visible sign of this consecration, by reaching out his hand to touch his mouth.

After God has testified that Jeremiah’s tongue is consecrated to Him and set apart from common and profane use, God assigns him his authority. See, he says, I have set you over nations and kingdoms. With these words, God shows the great reverence which he wishes done to his Word, even when delivered by mortal men. There is no one who does not profess that he is willing to obey God, but there is scarcely one in a hundred who welcomes his Word. As soon as it is spoken, men raise violent objections; or if they do not dare to show their fury and hostility, we see how they resist it, some by excuses, some by silence. Therefore the authority which God gives to his Word should be well noted.

God says, Behold, I have appointed you, and thus encourages the prophet to be high-minded, to remember his vocation, and not to flatter men slavishly nor comply with their selfish desires. See, he says. By this word we should understand that teachers cannot pursue their calling with full vigor unless the majesty of God stands vividly before their eyes. For they can despise whatever splendor and power and pomp they find among men only when they compare them with God’s glory. Experience teaches that when we turn our eyes on men, whatever dignity they possess, even though it be small, inspires us with fear.

Why are prophets and teachers sent? Truly to call the whole world to order; not to spare their hearers but to denounce them freely whenever there is need, even to threaten them when they appear obstinate. If the teacher allows himself to be impressed with any sort of superiority in men, he will not dare to offend those whom he thinks distinguished by power or wealth, or by some reputation for wisdom or honor. There is no remedy against such fears, except for teachers to keep God before their eyes and to be assured that he is the author of their words. When their minds are raised to God, they can look down on all human heights and excellencies. This is the purpose of the words God uses, See, I have appointed you over nations and kingdoms. Here God affirms that the authority of his Word is so great that it makes subject to itself whatever is high and mighty upon earth — even kings not excepted.

But what God has joined together, man may not separate. It is true that God here exalts his prophets above the whole world, even above kings. But just before, he had said, Lo, I put my words in your mouth. Therefore, whoever would claim such great authority for himself must proclaim God’s Word and prove himself to be a prophet in reality by injecting no comments of his own into it. . . . To conclude — we see from the context that it is not men who are so highly exalted, even if they are true ministers of the heavenly doctrine, but the content of the teaching itself. God here claims supreme authority for his Word, even though its ministers are men, ordinary, despised, poor, and with no superiority in themselves.

I have already explained that our text says this to give courage to true prophets and teachers, and to enable them to oppose kings and people boldly, because they are armed with the power of heavenly doctrine.

Rise and speak. We see that the reason God spoke privately to his servant Jeremiah was to enable him to assume publicly the office of teacher. Hence we conclude that those who are called to direct the church of God cannot be acquitted of guilt if they do not preach sincerely and boldly whatever is commanded them. Therefore Paul says that he is free from bloodguilt because he has spoken from house to house and in public whatever he received from God (Acts 20:26 f.). And elsewhere he says, Woe to me if I preach not the gospel, for the duty is laid upon me (1 Cor. 9:16).

When God orders the prophet to gird up his loins, this must refer to the garments worn in the Orient, then as now. Men wore long robes and whenever they began to work, or undertook some hard labor, they used to tuck them up. When God says, Gird your loins, he means, “Begin the course which I have enjoined upon you.” God requires hard work from his servant, and he is to go at it unhampered. . . .

Fear not before them. This exhortation was very necessary since Jeremiah was undertaking a most abhorrent task. He was to act as a herald, and to declare war against his people in the name of God. Jeremiah stated specifically that this calamity was the people’s own making, because their obstinacy had been so great that God now refused all leniency. This was a hard word to accept — especially when we remember the great pride of the Jews. They gloried in their holy race and further, as we shall see later, the Temple was in their minds an impregnable citadel, even against God himself. Sent to such a people, the prophet had no small need of being strengthened by God if he was to enter upon his work fearlessly. . . .

This passage contains a teaching which is useful to us. From it we learn that courage never fails God’s servants when their strength of heart comes from the knowledge that God himself has called them. When their hearts are lifted up by this assurance, God supplies them with indomitable strength and bravery, and they become formidable to the whole world. But if they are inhibited and timid, and shift back and forth, and are influenced by fear of men, God makes them contemptible and causes them to tremble at the slightest breath, and to waste away inwardly.

Why? Because they are not worthy that God should exalt them and reach out his hand to them, and arm them with his weapons, and give them a courage which could frighten both the devil and the whole world.

Truly, I am filled with power by the Spirit of the Lord, and with judgment and courage, to announce to Jacob his crime, to Israel his sin. Micah 3:8. (Calvin’s wording.)

Here Micah with heroic courage stands alone against all the false teachers, even though he is met with a multitude of them who, as usual, find their shield in their great number. He says, I am filled with power by the Spirit of the Lord. Such confidence befits all the servants of God and prevents them from yielding to the empty and windy boasts of their opponents who are upsetting the whole order of the church.

Whenever God for a time permits pure doctrine to be perverted by false teachers whom he allows to prevail because of their rank or number, we must turn our thoughts to this memorable example and keep our minds unperturbed, our firmness unwavering, and the power of the Holy Spirit indomitable in our hearts. Then we may continue on the way of our vocation and learn how to set the name of God against all human fallacies — provided we know that our obedience to God is approved by him as being faithful.

Therefore, when Micah says that he is filled with power, it is evident that he is taking his stand before the eyes of the whole nation, and that alone, by himself, he is challenging a great throng. False teachers were running around everywhere. The devil always has seed enough, when God lets him loose. Therefore their number was not small; yet Micah did not hesitate to come forward. “I myself,” he said (for the pronoun ’anokî is emphatic); “you despise me as only one man (or with a few others); you may imagine that I who serve God am alone. But I myself alone am enough for a thousand, or rather for numbers beyond counting, because God stands on my side, and approves of my ministry because it is his service. For I offer you nothing except what he has commanded.”

Then he expresses still more confidence by the word ’ulam. Truly, he says, I am filled. That word truly counters those magniloquent boasts by which false prophets are always winning fame and glory with the crowd. For Micah means that whatever they belch forth is empty wind. “You,” he says, “are wonderful prophets! You are certainly above the angels if your words are to be believed. But prove to us that what you boast of is real. Bring some sign which validates your calling. There is none. Therefore it follows that you are full of wind and not of the Spirit. What you boast of, I possess.”

Undoubtably Micah means that he was endowed with no common and ordinary power to meet the need of the time. As God uses the work of his servants, so also he is present with them and arms them with a stronger defense. When a man is performing the work of teaching without any great opposition, an ordinary measure of the Spirit is enough for doing his duty. But when anyone is drawn into a hard and difficult contest, he is at once armed by God. We see examples of this daily. For many simple men who had never tasted learning have been endowed, when their warfare began, with the Heavenly Spirit so that they shut the mouths of celebrated teachers who seemed to be oracles. By such evidence God testifies plainly today that he is the same God who formerly gave his servant Micah such rare and incredible power. This is why the prophet says he is filled with power.

Afterwards he adds by the Spirit of the Lord. Here he excludes every charge of pride and every appearance of claiming something for himself. He declares all to be a divine gift.

Now we must carefully note Micah’s situation. Although he rightly and deservedly claimed the title of teacher, yet he had nothing to distinguish him from the others in the eyes of the world. All his opponents had exercised the same office and had obtained the honor due to it. So much was common to all. But Micah was either alone or with Isaiah and a few more. And when he dared to set himself in opposition to the others, we see that it is not the vocation alone which must be considered. We know the greatness of Satan’s malice as he attacks Christ’s Kingdom. We also know the pride and ferocity of false teachers. Since both the devil’s fury and the pride of false teachers are well enough known, there is no reason why the faithful should take bare titles seriously. If the people who lived at that time claimed, as the papists do today, that they did not possess the discrimination or the judgment to decide between impostors and God’s servant, what was to be done? Micah was alone, and the others were very numerous. Besides, the others were prophets or at least had that title and reputation. As I said, this situation is worth considering. The vocation was common to them all. But the others were lying when they pretended to follow it; Micah alone, or with a few others, carried out faithfully whatever God commanded. And Micah alone is counted prophet and teacher.

Finally, the only way the false teachers can make sail against us is by appearing to be endowed with the Spirit of God. But whoever desires to be counted a servant of God and a teacher of the church should have the seal which Micah offers. If he is endowed with the Spirit of God, the honor belongs to God. On the other hand, if a man has nothing to show but the title, anybody can see how trifling a thing that is in God’s sight.

Then the prophet adds with judgment and courage. By judgment, he doubtless means all uprightness; that is a common meaning of the word. Then he adds courage, because these two qualities are especially necessary for all ministers of the Word. They must have great wisdom and must hold fast to what is true and right; they must be endowed with inflexible firmness to overcome Satan and the whole world, and not to swerve from their course though the devil mobilize all things against them. We see then what these two words express. First he put koach, power; then he put geburah, courage or strength of mind. By the word power, he means in general the gifts with which those who undertake the office of teaching should be endowed. The first requirement of a teacher is general ability. Micah divides the ability of the prophets into two parts: first, wisdom or judgment, and second, courage, so that they may understand what God demands and be effective in teaching. Then they must be firm, so that they may not yield to every breeze, nor be overcome by threats and terrors, nor be swayed back and forth by the favor of the world. They should yield to no seductions. Therefore, courage is added to judgment.

Afterwards he adds to announce to Jacob his crime and to Israel his sin. Here we see that a prophet does not seek the favor of the people. To gain favor, it was necessary to flatter with nice words people who sought adulation, the very ones who, corrupted by hatred and malice, had rejected Micah. It would have been necessary for him to please them with soft words; and he does not do it. In one place he says: “They sell their blessings to you and deceive you with the hope of peace. They declare war if their greed is not satisfied. They flatter you because you like it, and you seek teachers who promise you wine and strong drink. But I was sent to you for a different purpose. For God has not committed flatteries to me to make pleasant songs for you; he gave me reproofs and threats. I will therefore publish your sins and will not hesitate to condemn you before the whole world, because you deserve it.” Now we understand why the prophet says he was endowed with courage to announce his sin to Jacob.

From this we conclude that when we deal with wicked and criminal men, we need the support of heaven’s own constancy. And this is the almost universal and perpetual situation of all the servants of God. For those who are sent to teach the world are sent into warfare. It is not enough to teach faithfully what God commands unless we also contend. Although the wicked rise up against us with violence, let us be of a bronze countenance, as Ezekiel says (3:8 f.). Let us not yield to their fury, but present to it unconquered constancy. Since our battle is with the devil, with the world and all the wicked, if we wish to do our duty faithfully we need to be endowed with the courage of which Micah speaks. And as I have shown, the servants of God ought to persist in this firmness no matter by what obstacles Satan attempts to delay them or turn them back.

This doctrine should be taught to all the faithful so that they may distinguish wisely between the faithful servants of God and impostors who falsely claim his name. So it is that no one who truly and from his heart desires to obey God shall be deceived. For God will always give a spirit of judgment and discretion. But today unhappy souls are dragged to perpetual ruin, because in fact they shut their eyes, or blink voluntarily, or willingly involve themselves in obscurities, saying: “I cannot judge; I see on both sides learned or famous men, or at least men of some reputation and importance. Some call me to the right, others to the left. Where should I go? I prefer to shut my mouth and my ears.” Thus many make ignorance a pretext for inaction.

But we know that when God exercises our faith and tests it our eyes ought to be open. For this purpose it is that he allows dissensions and quarrels to rise in the midst of the church, with some men proposing one thing and some another. When God loosens Satan’s rein so that contests of this kind and disturbances are produced in the bosom of the church, we have no real excuse for not following whatever the Lord commands, because he always guides us by his Spirit — only we must not keep hugging our own indolence.

O sword (or spear), awake above my shepherd and above the man who is my associate, saith the Lord. Zech. l3:7. (Calvin’s wording.)

The word ’myth (’amith) some translate “relative,” some “kinsman,” some “one who adheres to God,” because they are sure that this passage can be understood only as referring to Christ. But, as I have already said, they have followed a false principle of interpretation. The Greek translation is τὸν πολίτην, “citizen.” Others translate, as does Theodotian, σύμθυλον, that is “relative.” Jerome preferred “one who adheres to me.”

But ’amith in Hebrew means “associate,” “neighbor,” or “close friend,” in fact anyone united to us for any reason. I have no doubt that God by this title refers to the pastors of the church, because they are his representatives to the people; and as we know, the better pastor one is, the nearer he is to God, Similarly, kings and judges who exercise sovereignty are called God’s sons. Thus also, pastors are called God’s associates because they have a part in God’s work of building the church. God is the head Shepherd, but he uses his ministers to carry out his work. They are called his associates, because they are coworkers with God, as Paul also taught. To conclude: the prophet calls the pastors God’s associates in the same sense in which Paul called them συνεργοὺς (1 Cor. 3:9).

Therefore I have also made you contemptible and base before all the people, according as ye have not kept my ways, but have been partial in the law. Mal. 2:9.

The prophet ends by saying that the priests glory in the honor of their office without reason, because they have ceased to be priests of God.

Now let us go back to the beginning. Let us have in mind the prophet’s purpose in this discussion. He attacks the priests particularly because they wished to reserve for themselves a special privilege which would set them above all criticism, and also because if the priests themselves are not kept in order, ordinary and common men are deprived of true doctrine. There is no doubt that the priests were flattering the people, and attempting to destroy their reverence for the prophets and to put an end to the influence of prophetic teaching. This is why our prophet denounces them so severely. . . . Now that we understand his purpose, it is easy to grasp the meaning of the whole matter.

But before I go further, we should note that in this passage [as a whole] we have a description of true and legitimate priesthood. The prophet does not argue here about the priestly office; he sets before our eyes a living picture which we cannot fail to understand, and from which those who are engaged in a pastor’s work may learn what it is that God requires of them.

Here I am omitting what I discussed in the first place: that God meant his priests to be feared; and I have already explained sufficiently that they ought not to abuse their authority as if unlimited power had been allowed them. God does not wish his church to be subjected to tyranny. He wills to be its only ruler, by the ministry of men. . . .

But we must now attend to the words of the prophet: Levi executed his office with good faith and from the heart because the law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in him. To this we should add the statement which follows immediately after, For the lips of the priest should keep knowledge (v. 7). This rule cannot be set aside. Those who are priests or pastors in the church must be teachers. And Gregory wisely applies the above rule figuratively to teaching. We know that little bells were to be fastened on the priest’s robe, and Moses says specifically that the priest never walks but the bells tinkle. Gregory, whom I just mentioned, applies this to the matter of teaching. “Woe to us,” he says, “if we walk without sound, that is, if we boast of being shepherds and are only dumb dogs. For nothing is more unendurable than to count a man as a pastor in the church who does not speak, and whose voice does not ring out clearly for the upbuilding of the people.” This is what a Roman pope said. Let those who boast, proudly and with full mouths, of being his successors at least produce some sound so that we can hear their teaching. But since they exercise all their authority like barbarians, anybody can see how faithful they are in guarding God’s covenant!

But I come back to the words of our prophet. He says that this rule, prescribed by God, was not to be broken at man’s pleasure, or by any custom. The priest should keep knowledge on his lips. Malachi explains further and shows that the priest is the guardian of knowledge, not to keep it in private for his own benefit, but to teach it to the whole people. He says they will ask the law at his mouth (v. 7). This is one point.

Secondly, he restricts the word knowledge to the true doctrine which flows from the law of God; for that is the only fountain of truth. . . . Therefore, it is not enough for a man to keep his mouth open and be ready to teach everybody unless what he teaches is the pure doctrine. We see then that it is not just any kind of sermon which is required of priests, but the pure Word proceeding from the mouth of God himself, as is said in Ezekiel (3:17): You will take the word from my mouth and announce it to them from me. Here God shows that priests do not have the power and authority to come out with every useless thing that comes into their noddles, or with everything they think is fitting. They will be good teachers just so far as they are God’s pupils. . . .

Finally we ought to consider because the priest is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. These words may appear designed to honor the priesthood; but the prophet means that the priests have nothing of their own or apart from God. Therefore whatever reverence is due them belongs to God whose ministers they are. As I said, he is reasoning from the above definition, and as if that stated specifically, “Whoever wishes to be counted priest, let him also be a teacher.” And at the same time we must also realize that the prophet implies a certain relationship between God and priest, as though he had said, “Priests can take no more on themselves than to be God’s interpreters. . . .”

We see, therefore, how much the prophet has included in these few words. First, there is no priesthood without teaching; nor is there any true priest who does not sincerely perform the duty of teaching. Secondly, he shows that God’s right and power is in no way diminished when priests preside in the church, since God has assigned that office to them by the same law which also affirms that authority always belongs to God alone. Otherwise, the priest would not be the messenger of the God of hosts.

At the same time the prophet requires of priests also sincerity in the performance of their duties. For we know that many apparently excel, and teach eloquently, and even expend much energy eagerly in their work; but some of these are impelled by ambition and others by avarice. Therefore the prophet appends here another rule, that they walk uprightly before God: that is, that they do not seek to satisfy men or receive the world’s applause, but do their work with a clear conscience.

So I have shown that the prophet sets here an example before us, to show us what God demands of us, whom he has appointed pastors of his church.

And the angel of the Lord bore witness to Joshua, saying: If you walk in my ways and keep my watch, you also will judge (or rule) my house (dwn means judge, but the word is used for any kind of government, therefore rule my house is preside over my temple). And you will keep my porch and I will give you passage among those who stand by. Zech. 3:6–7. (Calvin’s wording.)

. . . This whole passage has to do with the glory and worship of God, for it is profaned if it is applied to ourselves. We must especially guard against applying it to the church and its government. For we know how ready men are to divert to their own tyrannical use whatever power God assigns to his church.

Of course God wishes to be heard when he speaks through his servants and those whom he has made teachers. But we can now see how from the beginning of the world ambitious and proud men have used this as a pretext for gaining authority for themselves, and have expelled God from his own dominion. In fact, the regiments of Satan claim for themselves full and unlimited power over all the faithful on the ground that God wishes the priesthood to be honored and prescribes that it rule over his church. Since, therefore, in all ages Satan has misused the glorious praise with which God has honored his church, we must always add the caution as the prophet does here that God had no intention, such as some individual man might have, of exalting men by abdicating his own rank and position. The whole glory of the church is here presented to insure the pure worship of God and the submission of all in the church to God’s own dominion — not only of the common people but also of the priest himself. Whatever excellence there may be in the church God will have everything to be so ordered that he alone is supreme. And this is as it should be.

We now understand the prophet’s purpose. And to give this teaching the more weight, he says, the angel bore witness. The word he uses is a legal term. A man bears witness when he takes a solemn oath that he is speaking the truth. . . . The Holy Spirit intends by this word to make us more attentive, to show us that this is no ordinary matter, and to persuade us to have greater reverence for this command, since God himself introduces it by an oath or something similar. . . .

The angel teaches briefly that priests are not given their preeminence to enable them to run riot with their own lusts. The law is interposed to constrain them to do their duty faithfully and to obey God’s voice. We see therefore that there are two things which go together: the dignity of the priesthood and the faith shown by God’s servants who are called to that office. Those who wish to rule without any restraint prove clearly enough that they are not legitimate priests of God. . . .

But we must also see what is meant by ways and my watch or guardianship. For these certainly belong to the office of the priest. God commands all of us in general to follow where he calls; and what he requires as the rule of living faithfully and rightly is called a watch or guardianship, because God does not let us wander freely but guards us against errors and shows us what rules we must observe. There is therefore a general guardianship which concerns all the faithful.

But the priestly watch is, as I just said, restricted to the priestly office. We know that God does not resign his own Kingship when he elevates men. But he does give them a mandate to be his representatives, and they are truly his vicars when they teach from his Word purely and faithfully; God exercises his Kingship no less because he uses the work of men and employs them as his servants. We see then that God has established the guardianship of the priests [over the church] so that the church may be ruled by the pure Word of God. . . . In short, the pastors of the church rule by divine appointment, but they do not exercise their own domination. They are to govern the churches according to God’s own command, so that God himself may guide them by human hands.

I understand by the keeping of the courts not janitor service but whatever has to do with the worship of God. . . .

Whatever excellence there is in the pastors of the church must not be separated from the service of God. God does not resign his power to mortal men or in any way take away from his own rightful dominion. But he makes men his ministers, so that he alone by their hand may govern his church and he alone have pre-eminence over it. Whence it follows that those who do not do their work with sincerity do not deserve respect. And if they grasp for themselves what belongs to God, they are to be denied the name of priest. They are then nothing but a mask of Satan by which he would deceive the simple folk.

Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained. John 20:23.

Here without doubt the Lord has put together the whole sum of the gospel. Therefore we must not separate the power of forgiving sins from the office of teaching, for in this passage they are tied together. Christ had said shortly before, “As the living Father sent me, so I myself send you.” Now, he declares what this embassy means and involves. However, he insists that it was necessary for him to give them the Spirit, so that they would not act of themselves. This then is the principal purpose of the preaching of the gospel: that men be reconciled to God by the free remission of sins, as Paul teaches in 2 Cor. 5:18, where for this reason the gospel is called the ministry of reconciliation. There is of course much else in the gospel; but what God means to accomplish by it above all is this: to receive men into his favor by not imputing their sins to them. Therefore, if we want to act as faithful servants of the gospel, we must heed this matter most seriously. It is at this point that the gospel differs most from philosophy, since it teaches that the salvation of men is through the free remission of sins. It is from this that flow the other blessings of God: that God illumines and regenerates us by his Spirit, restores us to his image, and arms us with invincible fortitude against Satan and the world. Thus the whole doctrine of godliness and the spiritual building of the church rests upon the foundation that God makes us free from all sins and adopts us to himself [as his sons].

Thus Christ gives his disciples authority to remit sins; but he in no way yields to them what belongs to him. He alone remits sins. This honor, in so far as it is his due, he does not resign to the apostles. He commands them to testify to the remission of sins in his name, so that through them men may become reconciled to God. In short, properly speaking, he alone through his apostles remits sins.

And whosesoever sins ye retain. Christ adds the latter clause in order to terrify those who despise his gospel. He would have them know that such pride will not go unpunished. Since the apostles are entrusted with the embassy of salvation and eternal life, they are also to be armed, as the apostle Paul says, with vengeance against the godless who push aside the salvation set before them (2 Cor. 10:6). But this consequence of preaching is given last, that its true purpose [the salvation of the hearers] may receive the priority. It is the proper function of the gospel to reconcile us with God. The eternal death of unbelievers which issues from the preaching of the gospel happens not of itself but because of unbelief.

And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people: and the people stood by Moses from the morning unto the evening. . . . And Moses’ father-in-law said unto him, The thing that thou doest is not good. Ex. 18:13, 17.

This is a memorable event, and one especially profitable to know. When Jethro saw the government over which God presided and which he adorned with the rare splendor of his glory, he nonetheless criticized it because he found something reprehensible going on. He criticized Moses himself, the greatest of the prophets, with whom alone God spoke intimately, because he had been inconsiderate enough to exhaust himself and the people with too much labor.

Moses’ outstanding ability and heroic mind are evident in that he submitted to so many annoyances, endured so many troubles, and, unbeaten by weariness, every day undertook new labors. The greatness of his spirit can never be praised enough. He spent himself freely for a depraved and perverse people; and he did not desist from his purpose although he saw no gratitude for his kindness. . . . Surely, he possessed many virtues, worthy of highest praise. Yet in all that was praiseworthy, Jethro found a fault.

Thus we are warned that in the most excellent deeds of men there is always some defect; and nothing exists so perfect that it is without blemish. Therefore those who are set to rule the people should know that however devotedly they perform their office, their best plan, if it be examined, leaves something to be desired. Not only kings and magistrates, but also the pastors of the church, should know that even when they stretch every nerve to fulfill their duties, there is always something which can be corrected and improved.

Also, it is worth noting that no mortal possesses the maximum of every kind of gift or is capable of undertaking everything at once, however great and varied his talents. For who is the equal of Moses? Yet when he took upon himself the whole responsibility of ruling the people, we find him unequal to the burden.

The servants of God should learn to measure their strength; when they greedily take on too many jobs, they may well crack up. For πολυπραγμοσύνη, “too-much-to-do,” is a common disease and attacks most men so violently that it cannot be quickly checked. To keep us all within our limits, let us learn how God has designed and ordered the affairs of the human race, so that each individual is endowed with only a limited amount of gifts, on which depends also the distribution of duties. The world is not lighted by a single ray of the sun; light is produced by all its rays together, as each makes its own contribution at the same time. In the same way God, to keep men in mutual association and good will by a sacred and unbreakable bond, dispenses his gifts variously. He does not raise anyone inordinately above the rest by bestowing on him absolute perfection, and so he binds all men together.

Augustine writes truly that in this story God humbled his servant. And Paul records that he himself was inflicted with the breath of Satan’s messenger so that he might not be too much puffed up by the sublimity of God’s revelation to him.

And Joseph saw that they [Pharaoh’s butler and baker] were sad. . . . And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? Tell me then, I pray you. Gen. 40:6, 8.

Joseph offers his services in accordance with his vocation. This should be noted, to keep any of us from unconsciously taking more upon himself than he knows God has allowed him. Paul carefully warns us that the gifts of the Spirit are variously distributed, that a different role is assigned to each one of us, and that no one should encroach greedily upon the gift of another or take it for himself. Each individual should rather confine himself to his own vocation and its prescribed limits. Unless such modesty prevails, everything is confused; for God’s truth is rashly torn apart by the stupidity of many. Peace and concord are disturbed and in the end no kind of order will be secure. We know that Joseph was safe in promising to interpret the Pharaoh’s dream because he knew that he was taught and ordained for this manifestation of God’s grace. To this end he was given the gift of interpreting dreams. But he did not try to go beyond what his powers allowed. He did not divine the content of Pharaoh’s dreams; and he confessed that it was hidden from him. The case of Daniel was different. Daniel was provided with the spirit of divination to such a degree that he was able to interpret the king’s dream when it had escaped the latter’s memory. Thus we see that Joseph, who was given only half [as much as Daniel], kept himself within its proper limits.

Moreover, Joseph not only guarded himself from all presumption, but also declared that what he had was the gift of God. He said honestly that of himself he possessed nothing. He did not boast that he was keen or clever, but wished only to be known as the minister of God. Our vanity must be controlled, not only that God alone may be glorified and may not be defrauded of his due, but that the prophets, professors, and others who excel in heavenly gifts may humbly submit themselves to the direction of the Spirit.

Further we should note that Moses says Joseph was sorry for the grief of those who were with him in prison. Men are subjected to misfortunes to keep them from despising others who are in trouble; for sharing misery begets sympathy. Therefore, it is not strange that God trains us by various hardships. For nothing is more becoming for us than sympathy with our brothers who lie despised and weighed down under misfortunes. This sympathy has to be learned by experience because our inborn callousness becomes thicker and thicker with prosperity.

This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein. . . . Josh. 1:8.

The study of the law must be assiduous; because, when it is omitted even for a short time, many errors slip in, and our memory grows rusty. Besides, when continuous study is neglected, many things become strange and difficult to practice. Therefore, God orders his servant to persist in the daily study of the law and never cease to pursue it as long as he lives. Whence it follows that those who show contempt for this study are blinded by their intolerable arrogance.

But why does God forbid the law to depart from his mouth rather than from his eyes? To take mouth by synecdoche (A figure of speech by which the part represents the whole) for face is inane. I am certain that the word mouth applies primarily to a man who studies not only for himself but also for the benefit of a whole people whose government is his responsibility. So he is commanded to attend to the teaching of the law, in order that when he speaks about it, he may be able to do so with benefit to the people as a whole, as his responsibility requires.

Meanwhile, he is commanded by his own teachableness to give others an example of obedience. For there are many who have the law in their mouths in public, while at the same time they are the worst keepers of it. Joshua is therefore given both commands: to teach others and to conform his own conduct and himself wholly to the same standard.

3. PREACHING AND TEACHING

Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lifted up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in. Who is this King of glory? The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle. Ps. 24:7–8.

Since the magnificent splendor by which the Temple was to surpass the external dignity of the Tabernacle had not as yet been realized, David here is speaking of the future building of the Temple. In this way, he is encouraging the faithful to apply themselves more wholeheartedly and with greater faith to the ceremonies commanded in the law. God showed no ordinary kindness when he dwelt among them [giving them] a visible symbol [of his presence] and wished his heavenly abode to be seen on earth.

The value of this doctrine ought to be clear to us today; because it is a sign of the inestimable grace of God toward us also when, due to the weakness of our flesh, he lifts us up to himself by way of godly practices. For what is the purpose of the preaching of the Word, of the sacraments, of religious gatherings, and of the whole external order of the church except to unite us with God? Not without reason does David give such high praise to the cult ordained by the law, for in the Ark of the Covenant God offers himself to the faithful and gives them a sure pledge of his present help as often as men call upon him.

For God does not dwell in temples made with hands, nor does he find pleasure in external pomp. Yet because it pleased him to help a rude and, so to speak, childish people to be lifted up to God by the use of earthly things, David did not hesitate to propose the building of a splendid temple for the strengthening of their faith. He did this to assure the Jews that the temple is no empty theater but a place for worshiping God rightly according to the direction of his Word. He wanted the temple to stand out before their eyes so that by its effect they might feel the nearness of God. Hence in short, the Temple which God had commanded to be built on Mount Zion was meant with its greater splendor to surpass the Tabernacle, so that by its brilliance it might be a fitting mirror of the glory and power of God who dwelt among the Jews. Meanwhile, David himself burned with the desire for a great temple, and kindled the same zeal in the hearts of all the pious, so that aided by the rudiments of the law, they made progress in the fear of God.

Who is the King of glory? These words, which are in praise of God’s power, are meant to teach the Jews that he is not sitting idly in the Temple but coming in with might to bring help to his people. The question is twice repeated — which shows that it is highly emphatic. The prophet plays the role of an astonished questioner in order to teach the more impressively that God comes clothed with irresistible power to watch over the safety of his people and that under his shadow the faithful are safe.

We have already said that God did not dwell in the Temple as though his immeasurable essence were enclosed in it. But he was present there, with his power and grace, according to the promise given to Moses, Where I will set the memorial for my name, I will come to thee and bless thee (Ex. 20:24). This promise was not given in vain, for the faithful know that God truly stands in their midst. They do not look for him superstitiously, believing that he is affixed to the Temple; but with the aid of the outward worship of the Temple, they turn their spirits toward heaven. In truth, whenever the people invoked God in the Temple, by this very act the Ark of the Covenant was no empty or illusory symbol of the presence of God, for God always stretches out his mighty hand to protect the safety of the faithful.

The repetition also warns us that the faithful cannot be too zealous and untiring in their use of this mediation. When the Son of God, clothed in flesh, appeared as King of glory, the Lord of Hosts himself entered his Temple to dwell with us, not in a shadowy metaphor, but in reality. Therefore, nothing prevents our boasting that we by his power shall be unconquered. Although today the sanctuary is not on Mount Zion, nor is the Ark of the Covenant the image of God who dwells above the cherubim, our situation is the same as that of the fathers, because the preaching of the Word and the sacraments unite us with God. Therefore, we ought to hold on to these props with reverence, for if we spurn them in ungodly arrogance, it cannot be but that God shall remove himself far from us.

The Lord said to Cain, Why art thou wroth; why is thy countenance fallen? Gen. 4:6.

Moses does not specify how God spoke. Whether he [Cain] was presented with a vision, or heard an oracle from heaven, or was warned by a secret inspiration, in any case, he felt constrained by the judgment of God. To drag Adam into this, and to assume that as God’s prophet and interpreter he inveighed against his son, is forced and vapid. I understand the aim of various good men, no less eminent for piety than for doctrine, when they play about with such notions. They intend to glorify the visible ministry of the Word and to cut down Satan’s sleights of hand which he passes off under the guise of revelation. I admit that nothing is more helpful to the church than to keep pious minds submissive to the authority of preaching so that they may not seek the Word of God in erratic speculations. But in the beginning it is necessary to remember that the Word of God was given in the form of oracles in order that later when administered by human hands it might be held in greater reverence.

I admit that Adam was given the duty of teaching, and I do not doubt that he carefully instructed his children. But the words of Moses are too arbitrarily limited by those who think that God spoke only by his ministers.

. . . He cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. John 11:43.

Christ’s divine power is all the more evident in that he did not touch him, but called him with his voice; meanwhile, in so doing, he has commended to us the secret and astounding efficacy of his Word. How indeed did Christ restore life to the dead except by his Word? Wherefore, in reviving Lazarus, he gave us a symbol of spiritual grace, which we apprehend every day by faith, as he shows that his voice gives life.

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up. John 3:14.

Here he explains more clearly why he had said that heaven was opened to him alone: it was certainly in order that he might bring to it all who are willing to follow him as their guide. Moreover, he declares that he will appear publicly and openly to all, and will pour out his power upon all men. To be lifted up means to be placed in a high and lofty place, so that he may be seen by all. And this occurs by the preaching of the gospel. Some say that this verse refers to the cross; but this explanation does not fit the context and has nothing to do with the subject on hand. The simple meaning of the words is that by the preaching of the gospel Christ is raised up as a standard, so that the eyes of all men may be turned to him, as prophesied by Isaiah (2:2).

Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while I am with you, and then I go unto him that sent me. John 7:33.

By these words he testifies that death will not destroy him, that, rather, when he puts off his mortal body, he will declare himself the Son of God by the victory of his glorious resurrection. It is as if he had said: “In spite of all you can do, when I finish the mission enjoined upon me, my Father will receive me into his heavenly glory. Thus after my death I shall not only retain my present state, but shall also enter one far more excellent which is all ready for me.” This statement leads us to the larger admonition that, when Christ calls us to the hope of salvation by the preaching of the gospel, he is present with us. It is not for nothing that the preaching of the gospel is called Christ’s descent to us (Eph. 2:17).

. . . I speak to the world those things which I have heard from him. John 8:26.

Jesus says that he advances nothing which he has not received from the Father. The teaching of a minister should be approved on the sole ground of his being able to show that what he says comes from God. We know that Christ at this time was in the form of a servant; therefore it is not strange that he demands to be heard because he presented man with God’s mandate. Besides, by his example he set down a law for the whole church: namely, that no man ought to be heard except as he speak from the mouth of God. But while he lays low the wicked arrogance of men who force themselves upon others without having the Word of God, he instructs godly teachers who have a single-minded knowledge of their calling and fortifies them with an indomitable constancy, so that, guided by God, they may have courage to defy all mortals.

Then Jesus said unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of Man, then shall ye know that I am he and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. John 8:28.

It is true that on the cross Christ erased the handwriting of sin and abolished the condemnation of death, and that in so doing he triumphed over Satan before God and his angels. But it is only by the preaching of the gospel that this triumph at last began to be known by men. We ought to hope that what happened after the cross, namely, his coming out of the grave and his ascension to heaven, shall happen in our own day. For in spite of the fact that the impious are busy contriving how they may oppress Christ by way of his doctrine and his church, he not only rises but also turns their wicked zeal into a means of greater advance for his Kingdom.

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost. . . shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. John 14:26.

Isaiah threatens the unbelievers with the punishment that the Word of God shall be to them as a sealed book (Isa. 29:11). But the Lord also humbles many of his own people in the same way. When he does this, we should not reject the Word, but should wait calmly and patiently for his light. Besides, since Christ testified that it was the peculiar office of the Holy Spirit to teach the apostles whom he himself had already taught by word of mouth, it follows that outward preaching is vain and useless unless the Spirit himself acts as the teacher. God therefore teaches in two ways. He makes us hear his voice through the words of men, and inwardly he constrains us by his Spirit. These two occur together or separately, as God sees fit.

But notice how he promises the Spirit will teach. He says the Spirit will suggest or remind. Therefore, the Spirit will not be a maker of new revelations. With this one statement we must refute all the lies which Satan has introduced into the church, with the pretext that they are of the Spirit. Mohammed and the pope have this principle of religion in common: they pretend that Scripture does not contain perfect doctrine, and that they receive a higher revelation from the Spirit. The Anabaptists (See Ch. 1, note 1) and the Libertines—( a pantheistic and antinomian sect whose members called themselves spiritual). There is no evidence that they were a power inside Geneva. Calvin’s own enemies were libertines in the sense that they resented the moral and social discipline imposed upon the formerly gay city. (Opera, Vol. 7, pp. 145–248) in our own time derive their mad ideas from the same notion. But any spirit that comes out with some fable got someplace outside the gospel is an impostor, not the Spirit of Christ. Christ promises the Spirit who shall confirm the gospel as the very one who has written and signed it.

Behold the Lord will proclaim to the end of the earth, Say to the daughter of Zion, Behold your Savior cometh. Isa. 62:11. (Calvin’s wording.)

When he says Say to the daughter of Zion, he leaves us in no doubt that the task of the ministers of the Word and of the prophets whose peculiar work God himself assigns is to promise freedom and security to the church. And we gather that these promises were not restricted to one age only but were to extend to the end of the world. For although a beginning was made by the return from Babylon to Judea, the promise continued in effect to the coming of Christ; for at his coming it was that this prophecy was finally fulfilled and redemption reached its goal. Moreover, the Savior comes whenever the grace of God is proclaimed by the gospel. In short, the prophet is announcing the future day when the voice of God will resound from the rising of the sun to its setting, and will be heard not by one people but by all people. The voice cries, Behold your Savior comes; and we know this refers properly to the gospel. Therefore the teachers of the church are commanded to lift up the minds of the faithful with the confidence of the Lord’s coming, even though God seems far away from his people. In fact, this promise applies especially to Christ’s Kingdom, in which these things are fully and solidly established. Christ has truly revealed himself the Savior of his church.

Of righteousness, because I go to the Father, and ye see me no more. John 16:10.

Of righteousness. Notice the order of Christ’s words. He now says that the world is convicted with regard to righteousness. For men do not hunger and thirst after righteousness; on the contrary they reject whatever is said about it unless they are touched by a sense of sin. We must understand, about the faithful especially, that they cannot make progress in living according to the gospel unless first they are humbled; but this does not happen unless they first know they are sinners.

It is the peculiar office of the law to call consciences before the judgment seat of God and to strike them with terror. But the gospel is not preached rightly unless it lead men from sin to righteousness and from death to life. Therefore, we must learn the meaning of the first clause, of sin, from the law. But we must here understand righteousness as communicated to us by the grace of Christ. So, it is with good reason that Christ makes it to depend upon his ascension to the Father. As Paul is witness (Rom. 4:25), He rose for our justification, and sits on the right hand of the Father, to exercise the dominion given him and thus to fill all things. In short, from the glory of heaven, he covers the earth with the sweet savor of his righteousness. The Spirit proclaims through the gospel that this is the only way we are accounted righteous. After the world becomes convicted of its sin, the Spirit convinces it of true righteousness. When Christ ascended to heaven, he established the Kingdom of Life; and he sits at the right hand of the Father to maintain true righteousness.

And when he is come, he will convict the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment. John 16:8. (Calvin’s wording.)

He will convict the world means that he will not remain enclosed in you, but will send forth his power from you into the whole world. He therefore promises his Spirit who shall judge the world and constrain to an orderly life those who formerly, without reverence or fear, lived in the frenzy of an unbridled license. But let it be clear that he is speaking here not of a secret revelation, but of the power of the Spirit which is manifested in the external teaching of the gospel, and that by the voice of men. But how does it happen that the voice of man penetrates the soul, and working at its very root, finally brings forth fruit, changing hearts of stone into hearts of flesh and renewing the whole man — how, unless this same voice be endowed with power by the Spirit of Christ? Otherwise it would be a dead letter and a mere sound, as Paul teaches beautifully in 2 Cor. 3:6, where he glories in being a servant of the Spirit because God has worked mightily through his teaching. All this means that the apostles were to receive the Spirit, who would endow them with a heavenly and divine power, and would enable them to exercise authority throughout the world. All this is ascribed to the Spirit rather than to themselves, because they were to have nothing of their own power; they were to be servants and instruments, ruled by the Holy Spirit alone.

By world, I understand all those who have been converted to Christ, including the hypocrites and the reprobates. There are two ways in which the Spirit convicts men by the preaching of the gospel. Some are affected seriously, so that they bow down readily and assent willingly to the judgment which condemns them. Others, even though convicted, are unable to escape condemnation, because they do not yield from the heart, and will not yield to the authority and dominion of the Holy Spirit. Even though overcome, they rage within themselves; and while confounded, they do not cease to revel in being obstinate. Now we understand how the Spirit was to convict the world through the apostles. God himself stands in judgment through the gospel; and thus it is that men begin to be disturbed in their consciences and to feel the grace of God.

And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me: ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. John 5:37.

It is wrongheaded to limit this statement to the voice heard at his baptism. When he says God has testified to him in the past, he means that he has not come forth as somebody no one had ever heard of, because God had already pointed to him in the Law and the Prophets, and given him certain marks which he might bring with him and by which he might be recognized. This means that God testified to his Son when long ago he held out the hope of salvation to the ancient people, or promised the full restoration of the Kingdom of Israel. Therefore, the Jews should have known Christ from Scripture, even before he appeared in the flesh. And now, since they despise and reject Christ, it is obvious that they have no taste for the law; hence Christ’s reproach is just. And yet they glory in their knowledge of the law, as if they had never left God’s bosom.

After Christ complains that they have not received him, he speaks even more bitterly of their blindness. When he says that they have not heard or seen God, he speaks in a metaphor and means that they are utterly turned aside from the knowledge of God. For as men make themselves known by face and speech, so God speaks by the voice of his prophets, and puts on a visible form in the sacraments, so that he may be known by us according to our own measure. Anyone who does not know God through the living image he himself has given us shows that he only worships a God of his own fabrication. Therefore Paul says that they do not see the glory of God in the face of Christ, because a veil is thrown over their eyes (2 Cor. 3:14).

Verily, verily, I say unto you, we speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen. . . . John 3:11.

Some say that we above refers to Jesus and John the Baptist. Others say that the plural pronoun has been put in the place of a singular. I myself do not doubt that Christ here speaks for all the prophets of God and for himself as one of them. Philosophers and other windy doctors often force upon us trifles which they themselves have invented. But here Christ vindicates himself and all the servants of God as men who hand down only teaching that is true and certain. God does not send his servants to babble of things of which they are ignorant or doubtful. He trains them in his own school, in order that what they have learned from himself they deliver to others. While with this eulogy Christ declares to us the certainty of his own teaching, he also prescribes the rule of modesty for all his servants. They are not to mouth their own dreams and opinions, or to offer human inventions in which there is nothing solid; on the contrary, they are to be faithful and bear a pure witness to God. Let everyone attend to what God has revealed to him, and let him not go beyond the bounds set by his faith. Finally, let no man allow himself to speak except as he hears from the Lord.

Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner: but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. Matt. 3:12.

In the former verse John dealt with the grace of Christ, so that Jews might turn to him and receive a new life. But now he speaks of judgment, in order to strike the scornful with terror. Since many hypocrites are proud enough to repudiate the grace which Christ offers them, it is necessary to proclaim the judgment which awaits them. For this reason John presented Christ as a dreadful judge toward unbelievers. We also must present our doctrine in this order, and let them know that their rejection of Christ will not go unpunished; they must be aroused from their torpor, and led to fear him as Judge, whom they despised as Savior.

Besides, I have no doubt John intended to teach that Christ would accomplish this judgment by means of his gospel. The preaching of the gospel is the winnowing fan. Before God sifts us, everyone flatters himself that he is wheat. The whole world is in a state of confusion, with the good and the evil thrown together. Hence it is necessary that the chaff be blown away. When Christ comes in our midst with his gospel, when he rebukes our consciences and brings us before the judgment seat of God, then the chaff, which took so much space on the floor, is blown away with the wind. Although the gospel purifies each one of us from chaff, John here compares the reprobate with chaff, and the believers with wheat.

Therefore, since the threshing floor is not the world, as some would have it, but the church, we must consider to whom it is that John speaks. The Jews flatter themselves that they alone were the church, since up to that time they alone were in it. But John tells them that their pride is foolish, since they would soon be thrown out on the threshing floor like so much chaff, and that rightly. He takes a look at the church at that time, which was filled with husks, straw, and other rubbish, and declares that it will soon be purified with the blowing of the gospel.

But how is Christ to separate the chaff from the wheat when there is nothing but chaff in us? The answer is easy. The elect shall be made into wheat; in this way, freed from chaff, they shall be gathered into the barn. This cleansing is begun by Christ, and continued day by day; but its effect shall not be realized fully until the Last Day. For this reason, John turns our minds toward our ultimate end. But we must remember that even now the faithful enter by hope into God’s granary which is their real and eternal home. The reprobate on the other hand even now, being under conviction of guilt, feel the heat of the fire which shall at the Last Day become a devouring conflagration. Many have given us subtle discourses about the eternal fire which shall torment the wicked after the Last Judgment. But many passages in Scripture make it plain that the word fire is a metaphor. For if the fire is real or as they call it material, so are the sulphur and brimstone mentioned by Isaiah (30:33). Surely, the fire is no different from the worm; and if, as everybody agrees, the worm is a metaphor, we must think the same of the fire. To put aside speculations with which silly people weary themselves for nothing, it is enough to hold that such forms of speech were used because of our own crudity. They were intended to convey to us a sense of dreadful torment which we can neither imagine nor express properly with our words.

Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die, saith the Lord God, and not that he should return from his ways and live? Ezek. 18:23.

Here the prophet reiterates in different words that God certainly desires nothing more than for those who are perishing and rushing toward death to return to the way of safety. This is why the gospel is today proclaimed throughout the world, for God wished to testify to all the ages that he is greatly inclined to pity. Even to pagans, deprived of the Law and the Prophets, some taste of this truth has always been given. They have often smothered it under many errors, yet we always find them being led by some hidden impulse to seek divine favor. The feeling is somehow ingrained in them that God is merciful to all who seek him.

But God has given clearer witness to this truth in the Law and the Prophets. Moreover, we know in what intimate terms he appeals to us in the gospel when he promises his forgiveness. Indeed, this is the knowledge of salvation: to embrace God’s mercy offered to us in Christ. It is in Christ that what the prophet says here is proved to be most true: [We know that] “God does not desire the death of the sinner,” because of his own will he comes forth to meet him. Not only is he ready to receive all who flee to his mercy, but he calls to himself with a loud voice those whom he sees cut off from every hope of safety.

We must also notice how God desires all to be made safe, that is, by turning from their own ways. God does not wish to save all men by destroying the distinction between good and evil. Before forgiveness comes repentance. How then does he wish all to be made safe? Truly, as formerly through the Law and the Prophets, so also today the Spirit through the gospel condemns the world for sin, by righteousness and judgment (John 16:8). In this way God reveals to men their misery, in order that he may receive them to himself. He wounds that he may heal; he kills that he may give life. We believe and are assured that God does not desire the death of sinners, because he calls all equally to repentance and promises that if they only repent he will be ready to receive them.

Then Jesus said unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins; whither I go, ye cannot come. John 8:21.

First, we must consider how the people to whom he speaks sought Christ. If their conversion had been real, they would not have sought him in vain, because he has promised truly that no sooner does a sinner groan over his sin than He shall run to his help. Therefore, Christ means that they have sought after him not by the proper means of faith, but because of a desire to escape the anxiety which is an extreme evil. While the unbelievers want God to look on them with favor, they do not cease to run away from him. God himself declares to us that by repentance and faith we may come to him. But they, hard of heart, turn against God: and broken down with despair, they cry against him. In short, they are so far from seeking God that they will not let him help them, unless he be untrue to himself, which he will never be. Thus it is that the scribes, however impious, were willing to receive the redemption promised at the hand of the Messiah, provided Christ changed himself to suit their own nature. Wherefore by this word Christ denounces all unbelievers and threatens that if they despise the teaching of the gospel, even if they be filled with such anguish as to be forced to cry to God, their howling will do them no good, because as we have said already, seeking, they do not seek.

And Abraham took Ishmael his son and all that were born in his house and all that were bought with his money. . . and circumcised the flesh of their foreskins, in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him. Gen. 17:23.

Moses now praises the obedience of Abraham, because he circumcised his whole household as he had been commanded. . . . Two points are worth considering. First, Abraham was not deterred by the difficulty of the task from offering to God the sacrifice which he owed. We know that he had a great number of people in his household. . . . And there was danger of stirring up a riot in a peaceful community. But relying on God, he began what was an impossible task. Secondly, we see how well-ordered his household was. Not only the slaves born in the house, but also foreigners bought for money, quietly accepted the pain of circumcision. Obviously Abraham had taken great pains to train them in their duty. And since he had kept up a holy discipline, he now received the reward of the care he had taken. Discipline in easy things prepared the way for something hard.

Today, when God wishes his gospel to be preached in the whole world, so that the world may be restored from death to life, he seems to ask for the impossible. We see how greatly we are resisted everywhere and with how many and what potent machinations Satan works against us, so that all roads are blocked by the princes themselves. Yet each man must perform his duty without yielding to any impediment. At the end our effort and our labors shall not fail; they shall receive the success which does not yet appear.

These things I have spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh when I shall no longer speak to you in proverbs, but I shall show you plainly of the Father. John 16:25.

Christ’s purpose at this point is to encourage his disciples. He does not want them to think that his teaching is of little help to them in their hope of progress toward the better, because there is so much in it they cannot follow. For, they might have suspected that Christ did not want to be understood, or that he was purposely keeping them in suspense. So, he promises them briefly that his teaching, which might offend them by its obscurity, will become fruitful to them. The Hebrew word mashal at times means “a proverb.” The Hebrews called riddles and remarkable sayings also meshalim because, like proverbs, they contained similes and figures of speech; and the Greeks called them ἀποφθέγματα because they are usually ambiguous and obscure. Christ means therefore that he is speaking to them in figures and not in a simple and plain language, but that soon he shall speak to them with familiar words, so that his teaching may not be to them perplexing or difficult.

Now we understand what I have already touched upon: namely, that he wants to encourage his disciples to expect further progress, and to keep them from rejecting his teaching because they do not understand it. Unless the hope of some benefit burns and glows within us, zeal for learning must necessarily cool off. Besides, we see clearly that Jesus spoke to his disciples in a simple and even homely style, and not in riddles; but they were so dull that they hung on to his words dumfounded but without understanding a thing. So the obscurity was not in the teaching but in their minds.

And the same happens to us. People praise the Word of God rightly as our very light. But still, our own darkness obscures the Word of God to such an extent that we think we are only hearing allegories. The prophet Isaiah threatened the wicked and the unbelievers, saying that he would be to them as a barbarian and would speak with a stammering tongue (28:11); again, Paul said that the gospel is hidden from those whose minds are blinded by Satan (2 Cor. 4:3). So, also, to weak and uneducated people, Christ’s words sound so confused as to be unintelligible. Even when their minds are not altogether darkened, as are those of the ungodly, they still are as it were in a cloud. And the Lord allows us for a while to be stupid, so that he may humble us with a sense of our poverty; but he enables those whom he illumines with his Spirit to make such progress as to know his Word and understand it.

The same is true of the next phrase, the hour cometh: that is, “the hour will come when I shall no longer speak to you in figures.” Certainly, the Spirit did not teach the apostles anything they had not heard from Christ’s own mouth. What he did was to fill their hearts with a new light, and thus to drive their darkness away, so that they heard Christ in a new and different way, and understood what he said.

When Jesus said that he would speak of the Father, he pointed to the proper goal of his teaching, which is to lead us to the Father in whom alone we shall find our true happiness. But another question remains, Why does he elsewhere say that it is given the disciples to know the mystery of the Kingdom of God (Matt. 13:11), whereas here he admits that he speaks to them in riddles? Why did he in the previous statement distinguish between the disciples and the crowd to whom he spoke in parables? I answer, The apostles were not such ignoramuses as to have no inkling of a notion as to what their Master was saying. Therefore, Christ had reason to distinguish them from crowds who were blind. But when in this place he says that he has spoken to them in allegory, he is turning their attention to the future when his gracious Spirit shall endow them with a new and bright light of understanding. Therefore, both statements are true. The apostles were far beyond those who had no taste for the Word of the gospel. Still, compared to the new wisdom which they were to receive from the Spirit, their knowledge was like that of children at their alphabets.

Commentaries on Christian Life

1. SALVATION

For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16.

Here Christ presents us with the cause and as it were the fountain of our salvation, so as to remove all doubt; for our minds cannot come to rest in tranquillity unless they arrive at the free love of God. Since we are not to seek the ground of our salvation anywhere but in Christ, we must try to find out where he came to us from and why he was offered up to be our Savior. This verse distinctly teaches both truths: faith in Christ means life to all men, and Christ had this life because God loved mankind and would not let it perish. This sequence must be carefully noted. When it is a question of the source of our salvation, we must consider the inborn and wicked ambition of our nature, which traps us into the devilish fancy that we deserve to be saved. Therefore we imagine that God is good to us because he judges us worthy of his favor. But Scripture praises everywhere his pure and unmixed mercy, which does away with all merit.

By this text, Christ means to do nothing else than establish the love of God as the ground of our salvation. When we try to go beyond this, the Spirit himself slams the door in our face; he teaches us by Paul’s mouth that God’s love is founded in his own will and purpose (Eph. 1:5). And it is obvious that Christ spoke as he did so as to turn men’s attention from themselves to the mercy of God alone. God does not declare that he was led to deliver us because he found us worthy of such a blessing. On the contrary, he attributes the glory of our deliverance solely to his love. This appears more clearly from the added statement: the Son was given to men that they may not perish. Therefore, unless Christ rescues the lost, all are doomed to eternal ruin. Paul expresses the same thing in terms of temporal sequence: We were loved while we were enemies because of sin (Rom. 5:10). For surely, where sin reigns, there is only the wrath of God which carries death with it. It follows that mercy alone reconciles us to God and, in so doing, restores us to life.

The above may seem to conflict with many testimonies of Scriptures that Christ is the ground of God’s love for us, since apart from him they present God as hating us. We must remember what was said before: the secret love with which our Heavenly Father embraces us, being his eternal purpose for us, takes precedence over all other reasons for our deliverance. But it is true that the grace which God wanted to show us, and by which we are moved to the hope of salvation, appeared with the reconciling work of Christ. Since sins are of necessity odious to God, how can we maintain that God loves us freely, unless an offering has been made for these same sins which are offensive to him? Hence, before we receive any knowledge of God’s Fatherly good will for us, the blood of Christ must intercede for us and restore us to God’s favor. Besides, as we were formerly told that God so loved us as to give up his Son to die for us, so it is immediately added that in a strict sense faith should look to Christ alone.

He gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish. Faith looks to Christ rightly when it sees in him the heart of God overflowing with love. Faith rests upon the death of Christ as upon a firm and solid support, and finds in it the only surety of salvation. Only-begotten is emphatic, commending to us God’s love in all its fervor. And because it is hard for men to be persuaded of God’s love, he removes all doubt by saying, We are so dear to God that for our salvation he did not spare his only-begotten Son. Since, therefore, God has testified to his love for us so sufficiently and abundantly, anyone who is not content and still doubts offers no small insult to Christ, as though he were someone who was killed by accident. Rather, we ought to reconsider that since God had the highest regard for his only-begotten Son, our salvation must be very precious to him, because he was willing to pay for it with the Son’s death.

That whosoever believeth in him may not perish. What a praise of faith, that it delivers us from eternal destruction! Christ means clearly that even though we are born for death, by faith in him we are offered a sure deliverance from it; therefore, we ought not to fear the death which still awaits us. And now he adds a universal call, inviting all men without exception to share in life, and leaving unbelievers without an excuse. The word world, in the previous phrase, has the same significance. Even though there is nothing in the world worthy of God’s favor, he shows himself gracious toward the whole world, and he invites all men without exception to faith in Christ, which is nothing less than entering into Life.

On the other hand, let us remember that while life is promised in Christ to all who believe, only a small part of the people are believers. Christ is indeed presented to all, but God opens the eyes of the elect alone, and enables them by faith to seek after him. The wonderful effect of faith is also seen in our receiving Christ from the Father, who has in Christ truly freed us from the punishment of eternal death, and made us heirs of eternal life; for by the sacrifice of his death, Christ has expiated our sins; and now nothing keeps God from acknowledging us as his sons. Since therefore faith embraces Christ, together with the efficacy of his death and the fruit of his resurrection, it is no wonder that by faith likewise we obtain the very Life of Christ.

It is not yet quite clear as to why and how faith gives us life. Is it because Christ himself regenerates us by his Spirit, so that the righteousness of God may live and flourish in us; or is it because, purged by his blood, by God’s free forgiveness, we are accounted righteous before him? Of course these two go together. Still, when it comes to the certainty of salvation, we must hold to it that we live because God loves us, and that freely; this he shows by not imputing our sins to us. Sacrifice is here mentioned because by it sin, curse, and death have been abolished. As I have already explained, the two clauses put together in this verse mean that, having lost life, we recover it in Christ. In this wretched state of mankind, ransom comes before salvation.

As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. John 15:9.

There is much more in this verse than is commonly believed. Those who think that he is here speaking of the eternal and secret love of the Father, philosophize beside the point. It was rather Christ’s purpose, in effect, to deposit in our laps a sure pledge of God’s love toward us. The abstruse question of how God in eternity loved himself in the Son has nothing to do with this verse. The love in question here has to do with us, because it is as the Head of the church that Christ testifies to God’s love for him. Any man who tries to find out how God loved Christ, apart from his office as Mediator, gets caught in a labyrinth, without path or exit. Let us therefore fix our eyes on Christ, because it is in him that we see the pledge of God’s love clearly exhibited. For, God poured his love upon him, so that it might flow from him to the members of his body. This is also the significance of the title, the beloved Son, in whom the will of the Father is satisfied; and we must consider the purpose of this love, which is that God in Christ may be well pleased with us. Therefore, we must not look at God’s love from afar off or in a mirror. Christ was loved by the Father not in and for himself alone, but that he might with himself unite us with the Father.

Continue ye in my love. Some explain these words to mean that Christ enjoined his disciples to love one another. Others explain it better when they say that they refer to the love with which Christ loves us. He in fact bids us live always in the joy of the love with which he once and for all loved us, warning us not to deprive ourselves of it. For many reject the grace offered them, and many throw away what they have in their hands. So then, once we are beneficiaries of the grace of Christ, let us see to it that we do not fall away from it through our own fault.

It is foolish to infer from the above words that, without the help of our constancy, God’s grace avails nothing. I do not concede that the Spirit asks no more from us than what is within our ability. Rather, he shows us where we must turn when we lack the strength to obey him. When we hear Christ, in this verse, exhort us to perseverance, we must not rely on our own energy and industry; we must rather pray him who commands us to confirm us in his love.

For the Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified. John 7:39.

We know that the Spirit is eternal. But the Evangelist denies that the grace of the Spirit which was poured upon men after the resurrection of Christ was manifested in public while Christ was in the world in the form of a humble servant. He draws a similar contrast between the New Testament and the Old. In the New Testament, God promises his Spirit to believers as though he had never given him to the fathers. But of course the disciples had already received the first fruits of the Spirit; for where is faith from except from the Spirit? The Evangelist does not deny the presence of the Spirit among the godly before Christ’s death; he only says that it was not so conspicuous and striking as after [the resurrection]. This then is the highest adornment of the Kingdom of Christ, that he rules over his church by his Spirit. He came to a proper and solemn possession of his Kingdom when he ascended to the right hand of the Father. No wonder then that the full revelation of the Spirit was deferred until that time.

But there is one question left. Does the Evangelist mean here the visible graces of the Spirit, or that true regeneration which is the fruit of adoption? I answer that the Spirit, which was promised with the coming of Christ, was seen in visible gifts as in a mirror; but here we have to do with the power of the Spirit by which we are born again in Christ and become new creatures. If now we are left on earth, poor, dry, and almost empty of spiritual goods, while Christ sits on the right hand of the Father glorious with the majesty of empire, it is because our faith is too puny and we are too slow [to rise to him].

He who heareth my word, and believeth in him who sent me, hath eternal life . . . hath passed from death to life. John 5:24.

Certain later Latin copies have changed passed into shall pass. But they have done this out of ignorance and rashness; not knowing what the Evangelist meant, they have presumed to do more than what was right. The Greek word is not in the least unclear. There is nothing wrong about saying has passed from death, because the children of God even now have in them the incorruptible seed of life, by which they are called and sit with Christ, by faith, in heavenly glory. Thus they have the Kingdom of God established firmly within them (Luke 17:21; Col. 3:3). Even while their life is hid, they nevertheless by faith do not fail to possess it. Even while they are besieged by death, they have peace because they know that Christ defends them adequately, and that they are safe. The state of the believers in this life is such that they always carry about the stuff of death in themselves. But the Spirit who lives in them is Life itself, and will at the end destroy what is left of death. Paul was right in saying that death shall be the last enemy to be destroyed (1 Cor. 15:26). But obviously this verse has nothing to do with the coming full destruction of death, or with the ultimate complete manifestation of Life. The point here is that though life in us is only begun, Christ announces it to the believers as their sure possession. Thus he removes the fear of death from them. And this is not surprising, since they are united with (insiti sint) him who is the inexhaustible Fountain of Life.

Jesus said to her, I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live. John 11:25.

This is the exposition of the second clause. It tells us that Christ is the Life, because he will never let the Life he has given us be destroyed, and will on the contrary preserve it till the end. What would happen to us if we, who are flesh and weak, having received the Life, should be left to our own strength? Therefore, if Christ is to finish what he has begun, it needs be that we continue in Life through the power of Christ himself. Believers are said never to die because their souls, born again of an incorruptible seed, enjoy the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ, who gives them Life without ceasing. While the body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit is Life because of righteousness (Rom. 8:10). The fact that the outer man decays from day to day does not hurt the believers’ true Life. It even helps its growth, because the inner man in turn is renewed day by day (2 Cor. 4:16). What is more, death itself is in its way an emancipation from bondage to death.

And I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. John 10:28.

We have this matchless fruit of faith that, by Christ’s command, we live with confidence and safety when we are gathered in his fold. At the same time let us keep in mind the support which makes this confidence firm; for he testifies that he has our salvation in his hand and will remain its faithful guardian. And as though this were not enough, Christ says that his disciples shall be defended by God’s power. This is a striking passage. We are taught that the salvation of all the elect is as certain as that God’s power is invincible. Besides, Christ was not beating the air. He wanted to give them a word of promise and to fix it deeply in their minds. Therefore, we must understand this statement of Christ as showing that the salvation of the elect is sure and firmly established. We are besieged by powerful foes; and we are so weak that every moment might well be our last. But because our salvation is in the hands of One who is greater, who is mightier, than all, we ought not to tremble as though our very life were in peril.

From this we gather further how insane is the trust of the papists which rests on free will, on one’s own virtue and the merit of works. Far differently, Christ teaches his own that they must think of themselves as in a forest, surrounded by a host of robbers, knowing not only that they are unarmed and open prey, but also that they carry the stuff of death around with them. Hence, if they would live in safety, they can do it only by confidence in God’s protection. The only reason for security is that our salvation is in God’s hand. Our own faith is unfirm and we ourselves tend greatly to waver. But God who has taken our salvation into his hands is mighty enough to scatter all the weapons of our foes with one puff of his breath. The most important thing we can do is to turn our eyes to this [power of God], if we are not to be overcome by the fear of temptations. For Christ wanted to show us how the sheep are enjoying peace and quiet even while they wander among wolves.

And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath, I am from above; ye are of this world, I am not of this world. I said therefore unto you that ye shall die in your sins, for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. John 8:23–24.

Since they did not deserve instruction, he wanted to confound them with a curt reproof. So, in this place, he declares that they reject his teaching because they absolutely abhor the Kingdom of God. Under world and below he includes whatever men have by nature, and brings out the difference between his gospel and the sharpness and penetration of the human mind: the gospel is heavenly wisdom, but our minds are of the earth. No one, therefore, is fit to be Christ’s disciple unless he is refashioned by his Spirit. And faith itself is so rare in the world because by nature all men, except those he lifts up by a special grace of his Spirit, are turned against Christ and estranged from him. If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

The lost have no way of recovering salvation except by going to Christ. That I am here is emphatic, because it includes all that Scripture says of the Messiah and all that it bids us to hope in him. He is talking primarily about [his work in] the restoration of the church, which exists by the light of faith, and the righteousness and new life which grow from it. Some of the ancients have interpreted this passage as having to do with the divine essence of Christ. But in this they are wrong, because he is speaking of his office [or work] in our behalf. This statement is worthy of special notice. Men are always ignoring the evils which surround them. Even when they have to admit their peril, they neglect Christ and look all around for some other useless remedy. The fact is that unless we are extricated by the grace of Christ, we remain subject to the violence of a whole mass of innumerable evils.

For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. Phil. 1:21.

In my Judgment, interpreters so far have given a wrong translation and exposition of this passage; for the distinction they make is that, to Paul, Christ was life, and death gain. I, on the other hand, take Christ to be the subject of both the phrases in this statement, so that he is said to be gain in life and in death. (It is common in Greek to imply the word πρός without using it.) This interpretation, besides being less forced, goes better with what went before and expresses our faith more fully. Paul affirms that it makes no difference to him, and is the same thing, whether he lives or he dies, because having Christ, he is the gainer either way. And certainly, it is Christ alone who makes both our life and our death blessed; otherwise, if death be misery, life is no better. Hence without Christ, there is little to choose between life and death. On the other hand, if Christ be with us, he will bless our death equally with our life; and we shall look ahead to both with hope and gladness.

Which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places. Eph. 1:20.

The Greek word is ἐνέργησεν, whence comes ἐνέργεια. In Latin you might say: According to the efficacy which he effected. My translation means the same, and is not as awkward.

However, here Paul rightly enjoins us to consider the power of Christ; for, so far, its presence in us is hidden, and God’s power is perfected in our weakness (2 Cor. 12:9). How are we ahead of the children of this world, except that our situation seems to be worse than theirs? Even though sin does not reign in us, it is still there. Since death itself is working in us, the blessedness we have by hope is totally hidden from the world; for the power of the Spirit is something flesh and blood knows nothing about. Meanwhile, we are exposed to a thousand distresses, and more than all other men are become objects of derision.

Hence, Christ alone is the mirror in whom we are able to see the glory which is altogether blurred in us who live in weakness under the cross we ourselves bear. Since it behooves us to raise our minds on high, to believe in righteousness, blessedness, and glory, let us learn to turn them to Christ. For we now live subject to the dominion of death; but he, having been made alive again by power from heaven, even now has life and dominion. We labor in servitude to sin; and besieged by a thousand afflictions, we are engaged in a dreadful warfare (1 Tim. 1:18); he on the other hand, being seated at the right hand of God, has received all government in heaven and on earth, and triumphs wondrously over his foes as he defeats and overthrows them. We bite the dust, covered with contempt and ignominy; to him is given a name which fills men and angels with reverence, and makes devils and godless men grovel in fright. Here we are impoverished, so poor that we lack everything we need; he on the other hand has been appointed by the Father to possess all blessings and to dispense them according to his good pleasure. In view of all this, we shall be the gainers if we turn our minds to Christ, so that in him, as in a mirror, we may contemplate the wonderful treasures of divine grace and the infinite greatness of God’s power, all of which we can hardly discern at present in our own lives.

Yet a little while, and the world shall see me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. John 14:19.

He continues to speak to his disciples of his special favor toward them, which should have been enough to mitigate and even take away their sorrow. “When I go away,” he says, “and the world no longer sees me, I shall no less be still with you.” If we are to rejoice in such secret vision of Christ, we must not judge his presence or absence with the eyes of the flesh. We must rather be intent upon discerning his power with the eyes of faith. Thus it is that Christ is always present to the believers and seen by them in the Spirit, even though they are bodily far from him.

Because I live. This may be taken in two ways. It may simply confirm what went before, or it may go with the next phrase, which says that the believers shall live because Christ lives. I accept the former alternative, even though we may also learn from it that we live because Christ lives. Christ points out why it is that his disciples shall see him, while the world shall not: Christ cannot be seen except in the spiritual life which the world does not possess. No wonder the world does not see Christ, for it is blind because of death. But no sooner does a man begin to live by the Spirit than he is given eyes with which to see Christ, because our life flows from the life of Christ as from its source. Otherwise, we have no life. We in ourselves are dead, and the life we boast is a most awful death. Therefore, when it comes to obtaining life, our eyes must be upon Christ, and his life must be given us by faith. So it is that we receive confidence that, while Christ lives, we are safe from the peril of destruction. For it remains an immovable truth that while he is alive the members cannot be dead.

Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If any man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death. John 8:52.

The reprobate who keep on with their stupidity are not touched by promises, whether small or great. Hence they can neither be led nor drawn to Christ. Some think that the Jews slandered Jesus and twisted his words around when they spoke of tasting death, because they had not heard him saying anything of the sort. But I think this objection is flimsy. I rather think that the Hebrews meant the same thing by tasting death and seeing death. Both expressions meant simply “to die.” Of course, to apply the spiritual teaching of Jesus to the body is to interpret it falsely. No believer shall see death, for he is born again of an incorruptible seed. Even though believers die, being united with Christ their head, they shall be not snuffed out by death. Their death is simply a transition to the Heavenly Kingdom; the Spirit dwelling in them is Life because of righteousness, and what is left of death in them is consumed. Those who are carnal know nothing about freedom from death except in an obviously physical sense. And this disease is much too common in this world, since many have only contempt for the grace of Christ, which they judge merely by the senses of their flesh. If we do not wish the same blindness to affect us, let us arouse our minds, so that they may discern spiritual life in the midst of death.

And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. 1 Cor. 15:28.

Will God be all in all also in the devil and the ungodly? Far from it, unless perhaps we choose to accept “to be” as meaning to be known and openly be seen. If so, the statement would mean: “Since now the devil is at war with God, since the wicked confound and confuse the order established by him, since we see an infinity of scandalous deeds with our own eyes, it is by no means clear that God is all in all. But when Christ executes the judgment commanded him by God, and overthrows Satan and all the wicked, then in their destruction the glory of God shall be revealed. The same may be said of powers which are sacred and legitimate in themselves, for they now prevent, in their way, God’s appearing to us rightly and as he is in himself. But then, God shall be all in the sense that he shall reign alone and directly in heaven and earth, and will therefore be in all; not only in all persons, but in all creatures.”

Now, this is a pious interpretation, and since it agrees well enough with the apostle’s purpose, I am willing to accept it. However, there would be nothing wrong in taking this verse as having to do with believers, in whom God has already begun his Kingdom and shall then perfect it, so that they shall cleave to him completely.

Both these interpretations in themselves are sufficient refutation of those who pretend that this verse proves their wicked deliriums. Some imagine that God shall be all in all, in that all things shall vanish and become nothing. But Paul’s words mean only that all things shall be brought back to God as their only beginning and end, and shall thus be bound firmly to him. Others infer from this verse that the devil and all the wicked shall be saved, as though the fullness of God would not be more striking in the destruction of the devil than if he made him his associate and equal. We see therefore with what impudence such madmen torture Paul’s statement when they use it to establish their blasphemies.

2. THE CHRISTIAN WARFARE

But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation. 1 Thess. 5:8.

Paul adds this in order that he may shake us the better out of our torpor. He calls us as it were to arms, to impress upon us that it is no time for sleep. He does not, indeed, mention war. But when he bids us to arm with a breastplate and a helmet, he is in fact calling us to warfare. It goes without saying that anyone who expects a surprise attack must rouse himself and keep watching. Having warned us to be watchful while we have the truth of the gospel for light, he now stirs us up with the argument that we have a battle to fight with the enemy, and that it is much too dangerous to be doing nothing. We know that soldiers, who may ordinarily be rather loose-living fellows, when they are near the enemy and in danger of being killed, avoid getting drunk or any other way of “having fun” so that they may watch and be wary. So, since Satan is always breathing down our necks, and is ready and scheming to plunge us into a thousand perils, we ought to be no less watchful and on our guard.

Some interpreters are much too clever in their handling of the pieces of armor mentioned by the apostle. This verse is quite different from Eph. 6:14, where Paul by “breastplate” means “righteousness.” Here it is enough to understand that the whole life of Christians is like a perpetual warfare, since Satan never stops attacking and troubling them. It is therefore necessary to be prepared for resistance; and of course we are warned that we had better be well armed against such a powerful enemy. However, Paul does not in this place go into detail about the armor we must have; he merely mentions two pieces, the breastplate and the helmet. But he leaves out nothing a man needs for this spiritual warfare. For anyone who is provided with faith, hope, and love has all the weapons he needs.

Stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel, and in nothing terrified by your adversaries: which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God. Phil. 1:27–28.

In the second place, he commends to the Philippians an indomitable spirit, that they may not be confounded by the fury of their enemies. At that time the fires of savage persecution blazed almost everywhere, because Satan fought with all his force to prevent the inauguration of the gospel; and the more Christ exercised the grace of his Spirit, the greater was the impotent rage of Satan. The apostle, therefore, enjoins the Philippians to stand firm and not to be perturbed.

Which is to them an evident token of perdition. This is the proper meaning of the Greek, and those who translate as “cause” have no good reason for doing so. When the wicked strive against the Lord, they engage in a preliminary battle which anticipates their ultimate ruin; and the greater the outrage they do against the godly, the more they are bent on their own perdition. Of course, Scripture does not teach us anywhere that the afflictions which the godly suffer at the hands of the godless become the cause of their salvation. Paul calls afflictions evidences or proofs [of salvation] in another place also (2 Thess. 1:5). Instead of the word ἔνδειξιν, which we have here, there he uses the word ἔνδειγμα. It is, therefore, a singular comfort that the attacks and troubles we suffer at the hands of our enemies are visible evidences of our salvation. Persecutions are for God’s children the seals of their adoption if they bear them with courage and a calm spirit. The ungodly, on the other hand, produce a token of their condemnation; they hit their foot against a stone which shall be their downfall.

And that from God. This is put here as the last clause, so that it may, with God’s grace, mitigate the bitter taste of the cross. It goes against nature to see in the cross a sign or proof of salvation. In fact, the cross and salvation seem to be contraries. Therefore, Paul asks the Philippians to consider that God turns those things which make for our misery into occasions of well-being. In this way, he shows that enduring the cross is a gift of God; for it is certain that everything which is for our good is God’s gift to us. “To you,” he says, “it is given not only to believe in Christ, but also to suffer for him. Therefore your very sufferings are witnesses to the goodness of God, because in them you have a real evidence of your salvation.” If only we were convinced deep in our hearts that persecutions are among God’s blessings, what progress we should make in the knowledge of divine truth! What is more certain than that the highest honor which grace bestows upon us is that we suffer reproach, or prison, or troubles, or tortures, or even death itself, in his name? For so it is that he decorates us with his medals. And yet there are many who would tell God to take such gifts away, rather than embrace with grateful hearts the cross offered to them. But so much the worse for our stupidity!

For unto you is given in behalf of Christ not only to believe on him but also to suffer for his sake. Phil. 1:29.

He is wise to join faith inseparably with the cross, for in this way the Philippians are taught that they have been called to faith in Christ to the end that they may endure persecution in his name. In other words, their adoption could no more be separated from the cross than Christ could be severed from himself.

Thou therefore endure hardship as a good soldier of Christ. No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life: that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier. 2 Tim. 2:3–4.

It was very necessary to add this second warning. For, anyone who offers to obey Christ, must be ready to endure hardship; there is no perseverance without patience in enduring evil. Therefore he adds, As becomes a soldier of Christ: which means that anyone who is in the service of Christ is a soldier, and that such soldiering consists not in doing evil but in patiently bearing it.

It is absolutely necessary for us to think these things over. How many people we see every day who throw their spears away, people who had passed themselves off as good soldiers! And why does this happen, except because they cannot get used to the cross? In the first place, they are so soft that they cannot stand the thought of battle. Secondly, their idea of the warfare is to get into an [immediate] fight with their enemies. They cannot bear to learn what it is to possess their souls in patience.

He continues with the simile from warfare. Strictly speaking, at first he spoke of a “soldier of Christ” in a metaphorical sense. Now he definitely compares military warfare with the spiritual warfare of the Christian man. Military discipline requires that, as soon as a soldier puts himself at the disposal of a general, he leaves his home and every business behind, and thinks of nothing except the warfare to which he is committed. So also we, if we are to give ourselves wholly to Christ, must break away from all the entanglements of this world.

By the affairs of this life he means the care of maintaining a home and other ordinary occupations. The farmers leave their farming, and the merchants their shops and their business until they have served their term as soldiers. So also, whoever wants to fight under Christ must lay aside all the involvements and preoccupations of the world, so that he may apply himself wholly to the warfare. In short, let us keep in mind the old proverb, Hoc age; this do: which means that in doing our holy duty nothing should hinder our zeal and attention. The common translation, “No one who fights for God,” etc., corrupts the whole meaning of what Paul has in mind.

Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them. . . . Every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. Matt. 19:27–29.

Peter tacitly contrasts himself and the other disciples with the rich man whom the world had turned away from Christ. Since they led a life of privation and wandering, and suffered insults and sundry vexations, without hope of a better future, he asks rightly whether it was for nothing that they had left behind everything they had and had devoted themselves to Christ. It was absurd that when they had been despoiled by the Lord, they should not receive back more than they had lost.

But then, what were all those things they had left behind? Being poor and low-class folk, they did not even have a house to leave behind; hence, their boasting was nothing less than ridiculous. Our own experience shows that people commonly overestimate the things they do in the way of duty before God. There are people who were hardly more than beggars under the papacy; and now they go around arrogantly, complaining that they have made great sacrifices for the sake of the gospel. However, there was some excuse for the disciples who, although they did not possess splendid fortunes, lived by the labor of their hands, and were no less happy in their homes than people of great riches. And we know that humble people, who are used to a quiet and decent life, find it harder to be torn away from their wives and children than those who are driven by ambition, or thrown this way and that by the winds of prosperous fortune. Of course, unless there was some reward waiting for the disciples, they had been foolish to change their way of life. Still, although one might excuse them on that ground, they were wrong to demand a taste of triumph before their warfare was finished. When annoyance at the delay of our reward creeps upon us, and lures us to impatience, let us first learn to consider the consolations with which the Lord reduces the bitterness of the cross in this world, and then let us raise our spirits to the hope of heavenly life. Christ’s answers make these very two points.

And whosoever shall leave. After having raised their minds to the hope of the future life, he offers them comforts for the present life, and fortifies them for bearing the cross. God does not allow his people to be grievously afflicted, at times even to the point of forsaking them, without making up for their sufferings with his help. Jesus does not say this to the apostles only; he takes the occasion to address his words to all believers in general. The point is that those who willingly give up all for the sake of Christ, have their chief reward in heaven; and yet, even in this life, they are happier than if they had kept everything.

However, it does seem that the hundredfold compensation provided them is not in line with the facts. For in most cases, those who have been deprived of their parents, or children, or other relatives, wives who are widowed and those stripped of their fortunes, all because they have borne testimony to Christ, do not recover their losses; on the contrary, in exile, lowly and forgotten, they struggle bitterly with poverty and hardship. To all this I answer: When we consider God’s grace with which he relieves the miseries of his own, we must confess that it is to be preferred to all the riches of the world. For while the unbelievers flourish, they do not know what is waiting for them on the next day; therefore, they must always live in turmoil because of perplexity and fear; neither can they enjoy the smile of fortune without, one way or another, stupefying themselves. Meanwhile, God gives his own a glad heart, so that to them the little they enjoy is worth much more than if without Christ they were affluent with an abundance of riches. I interpret with persecutions added by Mark as follows: Christ means that even though the godly are always persecuted in this world, and live as though the cross were tied to their back, still, the condiment of God’s grace is so sweet that it exhilarates them, and makes their condition more desirable than the luxuries of kings.

[I] now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and complete that which is behind in the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church. Col. 1:24.

The apostle had previously claimed for himself the authority which was his by virtue of his calling. Now he is concerned that the Colossians do not detract from the honor due him as an apostle because he had been in bonds and was persecuted for the sake of the gospel. For, Satan uses these occasions to bring contempt upon the servants of God. Further, the apostle encourages them by his example not to be terrified by persecutions; and he reminds them of his zeal, so that his words may carry more weight. Nay more, he settles the matter with an appeal to his love for them, and asserts that he is joyful and only too willing to suffer affliction for their sakes. Someone will ask, “But where is this joy from?” It is from the fruits which [his labors] have produced. “It is pleasant for me to be afflicted for you, because I do not suffer in vain.” In the same way, in a former letter to the Thessalonians, he says that, having heard of their faith, he rejoices in all privations and afflictions.

And fill up that which is behind, etc. I take and to mean because; he says that he is joyful because in suffering he is associated with Christ. He desires nothing more blessed than such fellowship with Christ. He presents all believers in common with the comfort that in all tribulations, especially in those they suffer for the gospel, they share the cross of Christ, to the end that they may rejoice in sharing his blessed resurrection. Nay more, he affirms that in this way what is lacking in Christ’s own afflictions is completed. Romans 8:29 says the same thing: “Whom God has chosen, them he has predestined that they may conform to the image of Christ, who is the first-born among the brethren.” 8585Calvin’s citation is not correct. He has elegit for proe/gnw. Moreover, we know that since the Head and the members are united, the name Christ sometimes includes the whole body. This is evident from 1 Cor. 12:12, where, speaking of the church, the apostle finally concludes that being in Christ is like being [a member] in the human body. Therefore, as Christ suffered once in himself, so he now suffers every day in his members; and the sufferings which the Father decreed and appointed for his body are completed [in the church].

There is a second consideration, which ought to encourage and comfort our spirits in affliction: God himself has fixed and appointed by his providence that we be conformed to Christ by enduring the cross, and that our communion with him extend to this very point.

To this, he adds a third reason: that the sufferings of Christ bear fruit not only for the few, but for the church as a whole. He had before said that he suffered in behalf of the Colossians; now he declares more inclusively that the fruit of his sufferings extends to the whole church. Philippians 1:12 also speaks of this same fruit. What other explanation of this verse is clearer, simpler, and less forced? Paul rejoices in tribulation because, as he writes elsewhere, he considers that if Christ’s life is to be manifest in us, we must carry about his death in our own bodies (2 Cor. 4:10). He says the same in the letter to Timothy: “If we suffer with him, we shall also reign with him: if we die with him, we shall also live with him” (2 Tim. 2:1). All will end in joy and glory. Hence, if the members of Christ are to have a symmetry with the Head, they must not reject the state which God himself has appointed for his church. The third point is this, afflictions must be borne to the end willingly, because they are useful to all the godly and promote the well-being of the whole church, by giving a peculiar beauty to the truth of the gospel.

Then they shall deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated by all nations for my name’s sake. Matt. 24:9.

Now Christ predicts for his disciples another kind of temptation which shall try their faith; namely, that besides the common afflictions [of man] they shall be hated and detested by the entire world. It is hard enough and sad enough for the children of God to be afflicted without distinction from and together with the wicked and despisers of God, and to be subjected to the same punishments which come upon the latter because of their crimes. It appears the height of injustice that they should be oppressed with the hardship of greater evils which do not touch the ungodly. Just as wheat, after being beaten with a flail together with the tares, is ground under a millstone and crushed, so also God not only afflicts his own with the wicked, but in addition subjects them to a cross which goes beyond what others [have to endure] so that they appear to suffer far greater misery than all the rest of the human race.

Christ here is speaking of the afflictions which the disciples were to suffer for the gospel. What Paul says in Rom. 8:29 is of course true. Those whom God elects, he destines to bear a cross, so that they may conform to the image of the Son. But there Paul means more than persecution at the hands of the enemies of the gospel. Here, on the other hand, Christ is speaking of the kind of cross which the faithful have to carry because of their witness to the gospel; for this makes it necessary for them to incur the hatred of the ungodly, to face their insults and provoke them to fury. He wants to warn his disciples that, as he had explained to them before, the doctrine of the gospel, of which they were to become witnesses and heralds, would at no time please the world or receive its applause. So he prophesies that they will not be fighting with only a few enemies, but that, everywhere they go, nations shall rise against them.

It was monstrous and incredible, calculated to amaze and trouble the strongest minds, that the name of the Son of God should become so infamous and hateful as to create hatred everywhere toward those who honored it. Therefore, Mark says, take heed to yourselves; and in this way he brings out the purpose and use of the above warning that they be prepared to endure, lest, being incautious, they be overcome by temptation. It is added further by the same Mark that when the disciples of Christ shall be brought before kings and rulers, it will be a testimony against them. Luke puts it a little differently: This will happen to you in testimony; but it means the same thing. For Christ says that, where his gospel is defended at the peril of death, there the testimony for it shall be all the greater.

Yea, for thy sake are we killed all the day long; we are counted as sheep for the slaughter. Ps. 44:22.

The faithful here plead for God’s mercy, not because they are punished for their own evil deeds, but because they are hated by unbelievers for the name of God.

At first sight, this seems a foolish complaint, and Socrates’ answer seems the more admirable when, in answer to his wife’s reproach, he said that it was better to die innocent than for his own wrongdoing. Furthermore, the consolation which Christ offered (Happy are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, Matt. 5:10) appears very different from the words of the psalm. Peter also said the same thing: Anyone who suffers for Christ’s name has all the more reason for joy and thankfulness (1 Peter 4:14).

But I answer that although the best comfort for our sorrow is that its cause is connected with Christ, yet the faithful do not complain to God in vain or wrongly when they say that they are suffering unjustly for his sake. For in this way, they want him to come forward with more vigor as their defender, since it is right that he himself take care of his own glory, when the impious insult and deal cruelly with his worshipers. . . .

It is also right to remind ourselves that the faithful have not been so pure of all stain that God would be unjust in exacting punishment for their sins. But, by his incomparable indulgence, he does bury our sins and subject us to unjust persecution, so that we may glory in bearing the cross of Christ and may therefore be sharers and companions of his blessed resurrection.

This doctrine we must take for our own use. First, we must be ready, after the example of the fathers, to bear calmly any suffering by which our loyalty to the confession of our faith is validated. Secondly, in the deepest shadows of death we must constantly call on the name of God, and we must stand fast in fear of him.

Paul (Rom. 8:23) goes further and asserts that this passage does not merely offer us an example, but describes the perpetual situation of the church. Therefore we are assigned, by God’s decree, the perpetual warfare of bearing the cross. At times God spares our weakness by allowing a truce, or a relaxation [of the warfare]. But although swords are not always drawn against us we must, because we are members of Christ, be always ready to share his cross. Let us not then be terrified by the bitterness of the cross, and let us keep this picture of the persecuted church always before us. So long as we are adopted by God in Christ, we are destined for slaughter. If we are to prevent the wearisome weight of the cross or our fear of it from turning us away from our faith, we must keep this thought continually in our hearts. The cup which God pours for us we must drink; no man can be a Christian who does not offer himself in sacrifice to God.

Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin. . . . For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. Heb. 12:4, 6.

The apostle goes further and reminds us once again that, even while the wicked persecute us in Christ’s name, our warfare is with sin. Christ himself was free from this struggle, because he was clean and unspotted by any sin. In this respect we are unlike him, for sin dwells in us at all times; and our afflictions serve to overcome and rout it.

In the first place, we know that all the evils in the world come from sin; and so came in the beginning death itself. But this is not what concerns the apostle. His point is that the persecutions we suffer are useful to us, because they are medicine for destroying sin. For in this way, God keeps us under the yoke of his discipline, so that our flesh may not play loose with sin. At times he checks our hot blood; at other times he punishes our misdeeds in order that we may afterwards become more careful. Therefore, whether he sets out to heal our vices, or to prevent us from doing evil, as the apostle says, he is training us for the struggle against sin. And when we suffer for his gospel, the Son of God himself honors us with his favor, and does not count our sufferings as punishment of sin. Still we must acknowledge the validity of what the apostle says: When we act against the ungodly in defense of the cause of Christ, we at the same time battle against sin which is the enemy within us. Thus the grace of God is double; he converts the remedy he uses for curing us from our vices into a means of defending his gospel.

Let us remember that the apostle is speaking to people who had thrown away their possessions and suffered many indignities; and had done all that willingly and with joy. And yet, he charges them with indolence because, exhausted while the battle was still in progress, they had not kept up the strenuous march to the end. It is not for us to ask the Lord to discharge us from his army, no matter what fighting we have done. For Christ will have no discharged soldiers, except those who have overcome death itself. . . .

For whom the Lord loveth. The reasoning of this verse seems rather shaky. The Lord afflicts the elect and the reprobate without distinction, and his scourges are evidence of his wrath more often than of his love. So says Scripture, and experience confirms it. And yet, with regard to the believers, it is not surprising that the apostle refers only to the benefit they derive from the troubles they experience. When God punishes the reprobate he shows himself as a severe and wrathful judge; with his elect, he has no other purpose except to promote their salvation; and this is a demonstration of his Fatherly love. Moreover, since the ungodly do not know that they are governed by God’s hand, they think that most of their troubles happen by chance. The ungodly are like a wrongheaded young man, who leaves his father’s house and wanders far away; when he all but perishes from hunger and cold and other evils, he admits that he has met the just punishment of his stupidity; by his sufferings he sees the value of being docile and obedient, but he does not understand that his troubles are the chastisement of his father. So also the ungodly, having alienated themselves from God and his household, do not understand that they are still within the reach of God’s hand. Therefore, let us keep in mind that we cannot taste the love of God in our afflictions, unless we are persuaded that they are rods with which our Father chastises us for our sins. Nothing like this occurs to the reprobate, who have the mentality of fugitives from God. This is why it is proper that judgment should begin at the house of God.

Wherefore, even though God’s hand falls upon those in his house and those outside, it falls upon the former to show his peculiar care for them. The true solution of our problem is as follows: anyone who knows and is persuaded that he is castigated by God must promptly go on to consider that God afflicts him because he loves him. Since the godly know that God intervenes in their punishment, they have a sure pledge of his good will towards them; for if he did not love them, he would not care about their salvation. Hence the apostle concludes that God offers himself as a Father to all those who endure correction. Those who would rather kick like wild horses, or harden themselves and fight back, are a different sort. In short then, the apostle teaches us that, when God corrects us, he does so only as our Father, provided we yield and obey.

3. THE CROSS AND PERSECUTION

And when forty years were expired, there appeared unto him in the  wilderness of Mount Sinai an angel of the Lord in aflame of fire in a bush. Acts 7:30.

It remains to say something of the burning bush. God frequently makes use of a certain similarity among things for giving us signs; and this is the common reason for the sacraments. Besides, nothing could have been more appropriate for confirming the faith of Moses in God’s present business with him. Moses knew in what state he had left his people. Although they were a great multitude, they were not unlike a bush. For the denser a bush and the more twigs it has, compactly put together, the more likely it is to burst into flame and the fire spreads most easily to all its parts. Similarly, the band of Israelites was weak and exposed to every kind of harm. This unwarlike multitude, kept down by its own dead weight, inflamed the fury of the Pharaoh until it could burst out with success. A people oppressed by a cursed tyranny is like a pile of wood which has caught fire on all sides. Nothing keeps it from being quickly reduced to ashes, unless the Lord himself sit in the midst of it. Although this story refers to the unusual persecution which was aflame at that time, it nevertheless in a way depicts the perpetual state of the church which is never, in this world, safe and free from affliction. For what are we but food for fire? Countless burning torches of Satan fly around constantly, and set souls as well as bodies on fire; but the Lord himself, by his wonderful and matchless grace, guards and defends us. The fire, therefore, must needs so burn that in this life it reduce us to nothing. But since God dwells in our midst, he keeps us from harm in the midst of our tribulation, as we read also in Ps. 46:5.

And the multitude rose up together against them; and the magistrates rent off their [the apostles’] clothes, and commanded to beat them. Acts 6:22.

When Luke tells us how a crowd gathered together, how some nobodies — in fact jugglers and those who put their bodies on sale, whose sordid ways everybody knows — raised a hue and cry, he reminds us of the world’s fury against Christ. Although folly and levity are ever present among the whole population, the amazing power of Satan appears when those who are otherwise reserved and stable suddenly get excited over nothing and join the company of worthless people in resisting the truth of God. Nor did the magistrates themselves show any more restraint. By their gravity, they should have appeased the fury of the populace. They should have opposed violence with energy, and, with their resources, taken the side of the innocent. Instead, they make a disorderly and noisy arrest; and before hearing the truth of the matter, they have the apostles stripped of their clothes and whipped with green rods. Such is the deplorable depravity of mankind that almost all the tribunals of this world, which should be sanctuaries of justice, have been polluted by an impious and unholy assault upon the gospel.

One might also ask, Why were the apostles thrown in prison, when they had already received their punishment? For prisons were established for keeping people in custody, partly for punishment and partly that more might be learned about their case. But it is evident that the servants of Christ are treated with less humanity than adulterers, robbers, and other malefactors of their kind. This gives us a clearer insight into the power of Satan, who incites the spirits of men so that they observe no kind of justice when they persecute the gospel. Still, though the lot of the godly in defense of the gospel is harder than that of the godless in their wickedness, yet theirs is the brighter, because in all the evils which they undergo, they triumph gloriously before God and his angels. They indeed suffer insult and ignominy, but because they know that the wounds of Christ are more precious and carry more dignity in heaven than all the vain and smoky pomps of the earth the more they are wronged and slandered by the world, the more abundant reason they have for glorying. For, if Themistocles8686Themistocles (ca. 514–449 B.C.), the Athenian leader in the naval battle of Salamis against Xerxes, was a forceful and imaginative statesman. His checkered career ended in ostracism, and he went to Asia Minor where he was received by the Persians and lived in Magnesia until his death. He was a strong man, but he does not appear to have been a model of virtue. (See Plutarch’s Lives.) used to be so honored by profane writers that they preferred his prison to the seats and courts of magistrates, how much more we should honor the Son of God in whose cause the faithful at all times suffer persecution for the gospel’s sake. Besides, even though the Lord allowed Paul and Silas to be inflicted with scourging at the hands of godless magistrates, yet he did not let them suffer shame without turning it into a greater glory. Since the persecutions which go with bearing witness to the gospel are left over for us from the passion of Christ, as our Prince himself converted the curse of the cross to a chariot of triumph, so also he shall adorn the prisons and gibbets of his servants, and there they shall triumph over Satan and all the sons of wickedness.

Rending their garments. Since the ancient interpreter8787Jerome had translated this phrase rightly, it was wrong of Erasmus to change it to mean that the magistrates tore their own garments. Luke simply meant to say that when the holy men were beaten, the order of lawful judgment was neglected and that those who laid hands upon them were so violent that their clothes were torn. For it was most alien to Roman custom for magistrates to tear their clothes to pieces publicly in the market place, especially when the matter on hand had to do with an unknown religion, whose protection was no great concern of theirs. But I will not dispute at length about such an obvious matter.

Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations, that the trial of your faith, being more precious than of gold that perisheth though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honor and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 1:6–7.

Even though the ending of the Greek verb is unclear, the sense of the passage requires that we read you exult rather than exult! The phrase in which refers to the manifold hope of salvation set down in heaven. But Peter does not so much praise as exhort them. His purpose is to teach the benefit we receive when we hope that we shall be saved; namely, the spiritual joy which not only mitigates the bitterness in all evil, but also conquers all melancholy. So, there is more to exult than to rejoice.

But it appears rather contradictory that the faithful who exult with joy should at the same time be sorrowful, for these are opposite feelings. But they know by experience what words can hardly express: that joy and sorrow go together. However, to settle the matter with few words, the faithful are not blocks of wood that they should be bereft of human sensibility when they meet sorrow, or that they should not be afraid when in peril, or be troubled by poverty, or by the hardships they have to endure under persecution. Therefore, evil does indeed make them unhappy. But faith sweetens their sorrow, so that there is no lack of joy in them because of it. Their sorrow yields to their rejoicing, rather than preventing it. Again, even though joy overcomes sorrow, still it does not abolish it, because it does not deprive us of our humanity. Thus we learn true patience; for its beginning and, as it were, its very root is the knowledge of God’s favor, especially the awareness of the honor he has done us by his free adoption. Anybody who keeps this grace of God in mind has little trouble in absorbing the evils which he endures. For, why is it that we are oppressed by a melancholy spirit if not because we have no taste for the good which is spiritual? Anybody who realizes that the troubles he undergoes have their proper use as trials expedient for his salvation, not only rises above them, but also turns them into occasions of joy.

Ye are in heaviness. Since the reprobate in their turn are not immune to evil, do they not also experience sorrow? Yes, they do. But Peter recognizes that the faithful suffer sorrow willingly, whereas the godless murmur and are perverse enough to battle against God. The godly man suffers as a tame ox bears his yoke or as a horse that is broken submits to the bridle even when put on by a child. God visits the wicked with trouble, even as people bridle a fierce and ornery horse with violent hands: the horse kicks and fights back; but it is no use. Hence, Peter praises the believers because they bear their troubles willingly, and not under compulsion.

He says now for a season by way of consoling his readers. For the shortness of time is a mitigation of the evils we suffer no matter how hard they hit us. And we must remember that this present life lasts only a moment.

If need be. The reason for our sufferings is here taken for their cause. The apostle wants to make it clear that God does not make a trial of his people without reason. If God afflicted us without a reason, our burden would be too heavy to bear. Therefore, Peter argues for our comfort on the ground of God’s purpose, not that we can always see the reason for our afflictions, but that they occur rightly (so we ought to be persuaded), since they occur at God’s pleasure. . . .

More precious than gold. He argues from the lesser to the greater. For, if we prize a corruptible metal like gold so much that, to prove its value, we test it with fire, is it any wonder that God should want to prove our faith, which he prizes much more highly, in the same way? Even though the words of the apostle suggest another interpretation (in that he seems to set no value on gold), he nevertheless compares faith to gold so as to present it as the more precious of the two, and to imply that it is worth the trial to which God subjects it. Besides, the full extent of the meanings of δοκιμάζεσθαι (tried) and δοκίμιον (trial) is not certain. One cannot be sure whether he is speaking of a double testing of gold with fire: once when it is purified of its dross; and then, when it is tested for judging its quality. Both of these tests apply to faith very well. Much of the impurity of unbelief remains in us. When we are, as it were, purified in God’s furnace by various afflictions, the dross in our faith is purged, and the faith becomes pure and clean before God. At the same time it is tested to show whether it be a true or false faith. I accept willingly both these views of the matter, which seem to be justified by what follows immediately in our text. For, since silver is worthless before it is purified, so also our faith receives the honor of a crown before God when it is proved in the proper way.

At the appearing of Jesus Christ. This is added to teach the faithful to keep their spirits high until the end. For now our life is hidden in Christ; and it will remain hidden, and as it were buried, until Christ appears from heaven. The whole course of our lives moves toward the destruction of the outer man; and all the things we suffer are so many anticipations of death. Therefore, if we want to see glory and praise in the midst of our afflictions, we had better fix our eyes on Christ. For the trials, which are so full of reproach and shame for us, are in Christ full of glory. But such glory in Christ is not as yet seen clearly because the day of our consolation has not as yet arrived.

Searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. 1 Peter 1:11.

Peter tells his readers that their sufferings had been foretold long before by the Spirit, so that they may endure them with a calm spirit. But there is much more to this statement. He means that from the very beginning God has so ordained and governed the Christian church that the cross has been the preparation for victory, and death the way to life. Such is the clear testimony of Scripture. Therefore, there is no reason why we should be unduly depressed by our troubles, as though they meant our misery, when the Spirit of God himself calls us blessed.

But notice the order. He puts sufferings first, and the glories which are to follow second; and he makes it clear that this order can be neither changed nor reversed. The afflictions come first; and then comes glory. There are two striking thoughts expressed in this sentence: Christians must first suffer many tribulations that they may know the joy of glory; secondly, their sufferings are not evil, because they are bound closely with the glory to come. Since God himself has ordained this conjunction, it is not for us to tear one part away from the other. But it is a rare comfort to us that this situation of ours has been predicted so many ages ago, from which we gather that our coming deliverance from it is no empty promise. Hence we also know that we suffer not by chance but by the solid providence of God. And furthermore, we acknowledge that the prophecies are as mirrors, which in our very tribulations present us with an image of heavenly glory.

Of course, Peter says that it is Christ’s own sufferings that were foretold by the Spirit; but he does not separate Christ from his body. Therefore, we must not limit the sufferings in question to Christ’s own person. We must rather begin with the Head, that the members may follow him in their order. As Paul says, we must conform to him who is the first-born among his brethren (Rom. 8:29). Hence, Peter is speaking not of something peculiar to Christ, but of the universal situation of the church. We have a better confirmation of our faith in that he invites us to consider our own sufferings in relation to Christ: because in this way, in our relationship to him, we discern better the connection between death and life. It certainly is right and fitting that in this sacred union, the Head should suffer daily in his members. For in this way his sufferings are completed in us, and his glory in turn is fulfilled in his members. More is said about this in Col. 3 and 1 Tim. 4.

Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you; but rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings, that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy. 1 Peter 4:12–13.

There is a great deal said about afflictions in this epistle. We have explained the reason for this elsewhere. However, we must notice that sometimes when he calls the believers to patience, he speaks in general of the common ills which infest human life; here, on the other hand, he speaks of the evils which the faithful suffer for Christ’s name. In the first place, he reminds them that they must not be surprised [by affliction], as by something sudden and unexpected; that they must meditate upon the cross for a long time, in order to be prepared to bear it when the occasion arises. Anyone who has chosen to go to war under Christ will not become panicky when he meets persecution; he will rather bear it with patience as one who knows all about it. Therefore, if we would have presence of mind when persecutions rush upon us and overtake us, we need to be accustomed in good time to diligent meditation upon the cross. Moreover, he makes two statements to show that the trial of the cross serves a useful end: by it God proves our faith, and we thus become companions of Christ. In the first place, let us keep in mind that the trial which proves our faith is most necessary. We should therefore be only too glad to obey God when he provides for our own salvation. But our chief comfort should be sought in the society of Christ. Therefore, Peter not only forbids us to be surprised when he puts the cross before us, but also bids us to be joyful. It is indeed a matter for joy that by means of persecution God makes proof of our faith. But it is a far surpassing joy that the Son of God puts us in a class with himself, to lead us with himself to a blessed participation in the glory of heaven. We must take it as axiomatic that if we bear the dying of Christ in our flesh, his own life shall appear in us. The wicked also have their many troubles; but because they are separated from Christ, they get nothing in return except the wrath and execration of God. So it is that they are soon swallowed up by melancholy and terror.

This then is the whole comfort of the men of faith: they are Christ’s associates, that they may in time come to have a share in his glory. So, we must always consider that the way is from the cross to the resurrection. But since this world is a labyrinth where no escape from evil is in sight, Peter turns our eyes to the future when the glory of Christ shall be revealed. What he means is that we must not spurn the day of his revelation because it is now hidden, but we must live in expectation of it. He sets before us a double joy: one which we now have in hope, and another which shall be complete at the coming of Christ. Because the first is mixed with sorrow and sadness, it is the latter which he connects with exultation. It is not good sense to be dreaming in the midst of tribulation of a joy which shall rid us of all trouble. But the consolations of God do temper our experience of evil so that, while we suffer, we have joy.

For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers; but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil. And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good? But and if ye suffer for righteousness’ sake, happy are ye, and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled. 1 Peter 3:12–14.

It ought to be enough to take the sting out of whatever evil we suffer that we are under the eyes of the Lord and that in his own good time he will come to our help. The sum of the matter, therefore, is that the well-being which he speaks of depends upon God’s protection. For, if the Lord did not keep watch upon his own, they would be like sheep exposed in advance to wolves for destruction. And if the slightest trouble makes us cry out, or if we are kindled so quickly to fury and burn with a desire for vengeance, it is doubtless because we neither take to heart that we are under God’s care, nor acquiesce in his help. We are taught patience in vain, unless our spirits be first imbued with the teaching that God cares for us and will come to our aid in his good time. If we are persuaded that God wills to defend the cause of the righteous as a Father, our first and single-minded concern becomes to be innocent of evil; and then, when we become beset and troubled by the unjust, we flee to God’s protection. The apostle’s purpose in telling us that the ears of the Lord are open to our petitions is to move us to persevere in prayer.

But the face of the Lord. With this phrase Peter points out that since the Lord is our vindicator, the godless shall not be permitted to flourish forever in their insolence. At the same time, he threatens that if we take it upon ourselves to defend our lives against the wicked, we shall have God himself against us. But, it may be objected, experience teaches us far otherwise; for the more just a man is, and the more he loves peace, the more he is vexed by the wicked. To this I answer, No one follows justice and peace so far that he does not sometimes, some way, sin in this matter. But we must observe above all that in this life we are promised nothing beyond what we need for doing our duty. Hence, our peace with the world is often turned into trouble, in order that our flesh may be subdued for obedience to God; hence, whatever causes us trouble, nothing should be a loss to us [but it should contribute to the same end of obedience].

And who is he, etc. He again confirms the above with an argument derived from common experience. It happens often that the wicked pick a quarrel with us, or that they are cut to the quick by us. We may fail to put ourselves out to win their favor; for the truth is that anyone who keeps being kind is able to soften hearts which are otherwise like iron. This same truth is set forth by Plato in the First Book of The Republic: στάσεις γάρ που ἤ γε ἀδικία καὶ μάχας ἐν ἀλλέλοις παρέχει. η δὲ δικαιοσύ [ομεγαηατ]η ὁυόνοιαν καὶ φιλίαν . . “Injustice provokes seditions and hatreds and quarrels; but justice, concord and friendship.” However, even though this happens commonly, it is not always so. No matter how much the children of God try to pacify the wicked with goodness, and to show kindness toward all, they are nevertheless often attacked without any just cause. Therefore, Peter adds: If ye suffer for righteousness’ sake. . . . His point in short is that the believers try to obtain in this life a state of tranquillity, more by being good than by being violent and quick to avenge. And then, if having left nothing undone toward peace, they still suffer, even in this they are happy, for they suffer for righteousness’ sake. This last phrase is a far cry from the judgment of the flesh. But it is not a rash statement of Christ; and Peter himself does not repeat it rashly when he takes it from the mouth of the Master. For God will ultimately come forth as our liberator; and he will establish openly what at present seems unbelievable: that the miseries which the godly bear with patience are in truth rich with happiness. To suffer for righteousness’ sake means not only to be subject to some privation or discomfort in espousing a good cause, but also to suffer injustice, as happens when a man who fears God and does no evil finds that those around have turned against him.

For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well-doing, than for evil-doing. For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God. . . . 1 Peter 3:17–18.

For it is better. This phrase qualifies not only the next sentence, but also the whole passage. Peter has spoken of the confession of faith, which at that time was a perilous affair. He now adds that it is much better for them to bear privation in defense of a good cause, and so to suffer unjustly, than to be chastised for their own infamy. But this encouragement is understood when we ponder it inwardly, rather than by much talk around it. We read often in profane writers that, when we suffer evil and must needs go through with it, a good conscience is help enough. This sounds very courageous. But it still is true that the spirit is strong only when it looks to God. Therefore he adds the conditional phrase if it be God’s will. By these words he tells us that when we suffer any evil unjustly it comes about not by accident, but rather, and surely, by the will of God. And he assumes and confesses that God neither wills nor appoints anything except for the best of reasons. Hence, the believers have this comfort in their miseries, that God knows all about it; they know that it is God who leads them to the scene of contest, in order that under his auspices they may show forth their faith.

For Christ also. It is another comfort that, if in our afflictions we have a good conscience, we suffer after the example of Christ: and in so doing, we are blessed. And at the same time the apostle proves, from the purpose for which Christ died, that it is not fitting for us to be chastised for doing evil. He reminds us that Christ suffered to lead us to God: and what does he mean except that by the death of Christ we have been so consecrated to God that we are to live and die to him! There are then two parts to this statement. The first is that we are to bear persecution with equanimity, since the son of God himself shows us the way; the other is that, since by the death of Christ we have been set aside for obedience to God, we are to suffer not because of our misdoings, but for righteousness’ sake.

But now someone may bring up the question, is it not true God chastises believers when he allows them in some way to be afflicted? I answer that God often inflicts upon believers the punishment they deserve. And this Peter himself does not deny. But he reminds us what a great comfort it is to have our cause bound up with God! We shall see in the next chapter that those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake are not being punished by God for their sins. We shall also consider in what sense they are called innocent.

Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed: but let him glorify God on this behalf. 1 Peter 4:16.

After having forbidden Christians to hurt or do any harm so that they may not, like the unbelievers, arouse the world’s hatred by their evil-doing, he now bids them to thank God when they suffer persecution in the name of Christ. Certainly, it is no ordinary kindness on God’s part that he not only has freed us and exempted us from the common punishment of sins, but also calls us to an honorable warfare, in which we may suffer exile or privation, or insults, or even death itself. It is therefore plain ingratitude to God that, when persecutions come upon us, we murmur or cry out, as though some grave injustice were being done to us; we ought rather to count it gain and favor from God.

Commentaries on the Knowledge of God

THE TEXT

In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory. And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke. Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts. Isa. 6:1–5.

We may ask how Isaiah could see God who is spirit and is therefore not visible to bodily eyes. Since the minds of men are incapable of mounting to the infinite height of God, how can man apprehend God under any visible form? But we must realize that whenever God revealed himself to be seen by the fathers, he never appeared as he is in himself but as he could be understood by human minds. Since men crawl on the ground, or at least dwell far below the heavens, there is no absurdity in the statement that God descends to them in order to turn upon them, as though he used a mirror, some reflected rays of his glory. Therefore Isaiah was shown a form of a kind which enabled him with his own understanding to taste the inconceivable majesty of God. This is the reason that he attributes a throne, a robe, and a bodily appearance to God.

From this passage we may derive the valuable assurance that whenever God gives any sign whatever of his presence he is in truth present with us. He does not play a game with such meaningless shapes as men use when they impiously distort him with their inventions. Since the vision was in no way a false symbol of the presence of God, Isaiah is right in asserting that he saw God. Similarly when John is said to have seen the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, the name Spirit is transferred to the symbol and there is nothing false in the statement. John did not indeed see the essence of the Spirit, but he did have certain, clear, and unambiguous evidence that the Spirit of God dwelt in Christ.

In the second place we may ask, Who was that Lord? John (ch. 12:41) teaches that he was Christ; and this is true because God never revealed himself to the fathers except in his eternal Word, his only-begotten Son. Yet, in my judgment, it is wrong to restrict this vision to the person of Christ, since the prophecy refers rather to God without any differentiation. Nor does the use of the name ’adonai (Lord), which may seem more appropriate to Christ, support the restriction, for it is often used simply for God. Here then God is meant. Yet it is correct to say that Isaiah saw the glory of Christ, because Christ was the image of the invisible God.

Sitting upon a throne the prophet could have found no better image than that of a judge to impress the Jews with the majesty of God. And later we shall hear the severe sentence which the Lord pronounces from his judgment seat. But we should not suppose that the prophet deliberated about the way in which he should depict God. He described faithfully the form which was disclosed and exhibited to him.

We may wonder whether the prophet was led into the Temple, or whether the whole vision appeared to him in his sleep. Many arguments are offered on both sides, but they leave us uncertain. If he was not in the Temple, the revelation could have been given him at home or in a field, where other prophets received their visions.

His extreme parts (extrema) filled the temple. Almost all interpret as “the fringes of his garments,” although the word may equally well refer to the edges of the throne, to emphasize its great size, which was as large as the whole Temple. The purpose of the statement in any case is to attribute to God a grandeur beyond any human form.

The vision had the more authority because it appeared in the Temple. God had promised that he would meet his people there, and the people expected his voice to come from there, as Solomon had said at the dedication. Therefore, in order that the people might know that this vision came from the God whom they daily invoked, in whom they were boasting without warrant, it was granted to the prophet in the Temple. For thus no little assurance was given them that this was not the speech of any mortal man but a heavenly oracle pronounced by the God whose name they used so presumptuously whenever they wished to obtain something more for themselves. . . . The prophetic word was harsh and hateful, and it greatly needed confirmation. So it is not unusual for the prophets to say that God speaks from his Temple, his sanctuary.

Seraphim. After the statement that God had appeared to him, full of majesty and glory, he adds that angels were standing near God; and he calls them seraphim because of their fiery zeal. Although the derivation of this word [from saraph, burn] is known, various explanations of it are offered. Some say they are called seraphim because they burn with the love of God; others, because they are swift like fire; others, because they shine. Whatever may be the reason, the description shows us the radiant splendor and the boundless majesty of God, so that we learn to understand and hold in reverence his matchless and immeasurable glory.

Many think there were two seraphim, corresponding to the two cherubim above the Ark of the Covenant. I like this idea, but I do not dare to affirm what is not stated in the text. However, in general, descriptions like this one use symbols which were familiar and well known to religious people; and this may well be the case with this prophecy. So I accept the guess of two as probable, leaving open the possibility of more; for Daniel saw not two angels but myriads.

Six wings. This figure has a meaning: the wings so placed represent a mystery which God did not wish left wholly hidden.

The two wings with which the angels fly represent simply the swiftness and readiness with which they carry out God’s commands. Since this analogy is very obvious, only contentious men will raise objections.

The two wings with which they covered their faces show clearly enough that not even angels can endure the full glory of God, and so they shade their eyes as we do when we wish to look at the sun. But if angels cannot endure God’s majesty, how great is the rashness of men who try to penetrate it! Let us learn then that we ought to limit our inquiries to what is within our capacity and fitting for us, so that our understanding may soberly and modestly taste what is beyond our powers. The angels do not cover their faces so completely that they have no joy in the sight of God (and they can still see to fly without deviating from their course). So we also should behold God, but only so far as our nature can bear.

It is more difficult to interpret the two lower wings. Some think the feet of the angels were covered so as not to touch the earth and become unclean as human feet do. For whenever we walk we pick up dirt and filth, and so long as we wander on earth we are always contracting some contagion or other. The believing are then warned that they will have no dealings with angels until they have risen and are no longer tied to earth. Some give this explanation, but I agree more with others who think that the purpose of these wings is the opposite of the upper ones. As with the upper wings the angels cover their faces lest they be annihilated by the splendor of God, so also they have the lower wings by which they themselves are hidden from our sight. But if it is true that the faint beams of divine glory shining out from the angels cannot be seen by us without destroying us, how can we behold God’s most glorious and splendid majesty which overwhelms all sense? Let men learn that since they cannot even look at the angels, they are very far from the perfect knowledge of God. This seems to me the better interpretation, but I do not exclude the others.

They were crying. When we read that the angels are busy proclaiming the glory of God, we know that their example is presented for our imitation. For the holiest service of all that we can offer God is to occupy ourselves in praising his name. Such adoration links us with the angels, so that even while we sojourn on the earth we are yet joined to the citizens of heaven and somewhat resemble them. But if there is to be true harmony between all the chords of the angels and our own, we must strive earnestly that there may be a correspondence between the praise of God with our tongues and all the actions of our lives. This aim will be achieved at the last if we keep our eyes fixed as steadily as possible on the glory of God.

Holy, holy, holy. The ancients used this passage when they wished to prove against the Arians that there are three persons in the one divine essence. I do not reject this interpretation, although if I were dealing with heretics I should prefer to use clearer evidence. . . . And although I do not doubt that the one God in three Persons is here meant by the angels (for certainly God cannot be praised without honoring Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together), yet I think clearer passages should be used in defending our faith, lest we incur the ridicule of heretics. Surely the repetition proves rather the unwearied zeal of the seraphim; the prophet meant that the angelic song has no end, for God’s holiness furnishes to them and to us an inexhaustible theme.

The whole earth is full. The fullness could refer to the fruits and the living creatures with which God so abundantly fills the earth, and the meaning would then be that the glory of God shines out in the enticing variety of the beauty of the earth, which is evidence of his Fatherly love. But a simpler and truer interpretation is that the glory of God fills the whole world or extends to all the quarters of the earth. Here, in my judgment, is an implied contradiction to the foolish self-conceit of the Jews who thought that the glory of God did not exist apart from them, and wished to confine it to the Temple. This latter meaning is consistent with the prophecy of the destruction of the Jews which follows. For access to the church of God was open to the Gentiles who were to take the place left empty by the Jews.

And the posts shook. This tremor is a sign that it was not a human voice which the prophet heard. For no human voice can shake foundations and pillars. God did not intend that the authority of his words should have been recognized by the prophet alone; he meant it to be sanctified to all posterity, for all generations, and without ceasing. By this trembling we are led to realize that this voice of God is valid for us today; when he speaks we tremble. For if inanimate objects and dumb creatures are shaken by it, what must we do, who have feeling, smell, taste, and understanding, in order to obey his word devoutly and reverently?

Woe is me: for mine eyes have seen. The prophet’s reaction is not surprising. The whole carnal man must be reduced to nothingness that he may be renewed by God. For how does it happen that men live, or rather think they live, and are puffed up with vain confidence in their shrewdness and power? Only because they do not know God. Before he reveals himself to us we think ourselves to be not men, but rather gods. But when the Lord appears to us, then we begin to sense and realize what sort of beings we are. Humility arises from and consists in this: that man claim nothing more for himself and depend wholly on God.

This passage and others like it must be carefully considered. It was customary for the ancients, whenever they saw God, to speak in this way: “I am undone. It’s all up with me.” Before our minds seriously approach God, our life is an empty sham. We walk in shadows in which it is hard to distinguish true from false. But when we come into light, the difference is clear and easy to know. When God comes to us, he brings light with him, and we see our emptiness. . . . But does the sight of God really bring death to men? It seems absurd that the sight or nearness of God should destroy life of which he is origin and giver. I answer that it does this contingently, since death results from our fault and not from the nature of God. For death is already in us, but we do not perceive it except when it is contrasted with the life of God. This truth the prophet clearly and certainly knows.

Thus saith the Lord, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches. But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord which exercise loving-kindness, judgment and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the Lord. Jer. 9:23–24.

From the second part of this passage we learn that men are stripped of all their glory, not to leave them groveling in their own shame, but to clothe them with another that is better. For God does not take pleasure in men’s shame. But since men claim for themselves more than is good for them, and even intoxicate themselves with self-flattery, God takes away from them their false glory. After they have learned that whatever they think they possess, either by nature, or their own efforts, or through other creatures, is a mere phantom, then they may seek true glory.

In understanding and knowing me. Although the prophet means the same thing by both verbs, he does not use the two without a reason. When men belittle the knowledge of God, they must be warned that to know God is the sum of perfect wisdom. Jeremiah wishes to correct a perverse error under which the whole world suffers. Today all sorts of subjects are eagerly pursued; but the knowledge of God is neglected. We see with what zeal everyone follows his own interests, while scarcely one man in a hundred deigns to devote half an hour a day to the knowledge of God. And from pride arises men’s second mistake: they think the knowledge of God to be a common possession. So we see why the prophet used two verbs to name the same thing: he wanted to arouse greater zeal in men, since he saw that all were so lazy in the pursuit of this knowledge. Yet to know God is man’s chief end, and justifies his existence. Even if a hundred lives were ours, this one aim would be sufficient for them all. But, as I said, men despise the thing which should be preferred above all else.

Afterwards he adds that I am the Lord doing mercy and judgment and justice. God wishes to be so known. He alone is exalted; yet he comes down, so to speak, within our sight. The words which follow must be carefully considered. If God had said only, that I am the Lord, this would have been a complete doctrine; but it would not have been sufficiently clear. . . for men would think it enough to confess that there is one God. Therefore we must carefully note these words: God does mercy, judgment, and justice. We see today among the papists the name of God rashly flaunted aloft. There is no one of them who will not reiterate again and again that he worships God. But meanwhile they all profane the name of God. They rob God of his honor and distribute the spoil to the dead. This passage shows that the name of God by itself is of no importance when it is emptied of its true content.

The true knowledge of God is not only to know him as the maker of the world, but also to be persuaded that the world is directed by him, and further to know the nature of that direction. He does mercy and judgment and justice.

Moreover, the first thing to know about God is that he is kind and forbearing. For without God’s forbearance, what would become of us? It is true and right that the knowledge of God should begin with the assurance that he is merciful towards us. For what use would it be to us to know that God is just unless we already know his mercy and his free kindness? But we know God by also knowing ourselves, for these two things are bound together; and if anyone scrutinizes himself, what will he find but reason for despair? As often as the thought of God’s justice comes into our minds, we should shudder and despair. Truly all would flee from God unless he attract them by the sweetness of his grace. Therefore it is with good reason that Jeremiah, when he ordered men to glory in the knowledge of God, gave the highest place to God’s compassion, and then added judgment and justice.

The Lord God is truth (Those who translate God of truth do not attend to the syntax of the Hebrew, for that would need to read ’elohe ’emeth); God himself is life and the king of the ages. Jer. 10:10 (Calvin’s wording).

Here the prophet exalts and triumphs in God’s name, and speaks of him as having overthrown and destroyed the falsehoods of the nations. He exposes their gross errors and shows up the wisdom of the world as absolutely worthless, because they stupefy themselves with [the worship of] wood and stone.

He exalts the glory of God magnificently, by saying: For the Lord is God; that is, the nations worship their gods by telling fables about their powers and falsely inventing many miracles. For, when we examine everything honestly, it becomes certain that there is only one God; and all the gods of the nations vanish of themselves. This is what the prophet means: God is sufficient to destroy all the falsehoods of the nations. When his majesty comes forth, its splendor is such that all others which receive the admiration of the world are reduced to nothingness. After this, he speaks of truth; then he opposes truth with vanity. Before he had said that wood is vanity; now he says, Eternal God is truth; which means that He has no need to take on colors. The idols of the nations are painted, dressed up, decorated; but all such images are empty show. Jehovah, on the other hand, is Lord; that is, he does not in any way change; he desires nothing which he does not possess, and his own perfection carries all authority.

God, then, is truth; and God is life. After the prophet has declared that in the essence of the one God there is true and substantial glory, he adds another certitude which he derives from the experience of men: God is life. For although God is in himself incomprehensible to us, he not only sets his glory before our eyes, but even offers himself to our touch, as Paul says (Acts 14:17). For Paul knew that God can be found by touch, even by men who are blind. Although the blind are deprived of sight, yet when they walk around a hall, they find the way out by touch, or they locate by touch the door out of a room, and when they wish to go in again they find the door. And Paul says that we have no need to go outside of ourselves, for whoever searches himself will find God within. For, in him we live, move, and exist (Acts 17:28). Hence if we raise the objection that God is beyond our comprehension, and that we cannot rise to the height of his glory, yet certainly life is in us. If life is in us, then so is evidence for God. Who is foolish enough to say that he lives of himself? Since men do not create their own life but obtain life precariously from another, it follows that God dwells in them.

Now the prophet, after he has spoken of the essence of God, comes down to his activity. And surely this is the true knowledge of God — not to speculate in the air as the philosophers do when they argue, but to know by experience that there is one God. How do we know? Because we exist; not, strictly, exist, but subsist (live in). And if we live in, truly that in which we live must be taken into account. And, to speak accurately, our subsisting will be found to be within the one God. Whence it follows that the life of man is an excellent index to the only God.

God therefore is life and the king of the ages. First the earth was founded, and since then the years follow one another; in this cycle, there is great variation from one year to another yet there is regular and right order in their procession. Who will not recognize the glory of God in this ordering of the world? Therefore the prophet called God king of the ages.

And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have wrought with you for my name’s sake, not according to your wicked ways, nor according to your corrupt doings, O ye house of Israel, saith the Lord God. Ezek. 20:44.

Here God declares that his glory will be especially manifest when, solely for his name’s sake, he has compassion freely upon the desperate and lost. And Paul, in the first chapter of Ephesians, especially praises God’s gracious kindness when he calls the compassion with which God honors his elect, the glory of God κατ᾽ ἐξοχην. The phrase κατ᾽ ἐξοχην; occurs in the New Testament only once, Acts 25:23, but the sense agrees with the emphasis in Eph., ch. 1. This is one example among many to prove that Calvin relied largely on his prodigious memory to provide him with the material needed for his Commentaries. The mistake here illustrates both the extraordinary range of his memory and its occasional fallibility.

Now the glory of God includes more than his compassion. As thy name, so is thy praise through all the countries of the earth (Ps. 48:10). God deserves no less to be glorified when he destroys the wicked than when he takes pity on his people. But Paul calls God’s especial glory the undeserved kindness with which he embraces his chosen whom he has adopted. So God says here, You will know that I am the Lord when I deal with you for my name’s sake, and not according to your crimes.

Moreover, since God wishes his glory to shine pre-eminently in his free mercy, we must conclude that those who obscure his compassion or minimize it, or attempt to reduce its greatness to nothing, are the most hardened and open enemies of his glory.

And we know that the teaching of the papacy aims in that direction. For in it, God’s free kindness lies buried, or is hidden in a fog, or has wholly vanished. For they set forth merits of various sorts which they oppose to God’s grace. And they divide merits into preparations, good works by which they gain God’s favor; and satisfactions, by which they escape the penalties they would otherwise pay; and finally they add the interposition of the saints (as they call them). They invent for themselves a host of patrons and then devise countless other things for no other purpose than to keep the glory of God from being seen by men, or at most to allow only a few sparks to glow dimly. When we see the whole papal organization moving in this direction, we know that they are openly opposing God’s glory, and that all who defend those abominations are worse than sworn enemies of God’s glory.

As for ourselves, let us learn that God cannot be known as Savior unless we accept from him what is essential to our salvation. For if we wish to keep accounts of what we give and what we receive, or to make any claim whatever, we reduce his glory. And so far as in us lies, we throw away the inestimable privilege which the prophet here extols.

Therefore let us strive to know God through this Word. He deals with us according to his great mercy and compassion, that is, for his name’s sake, and not according to our wrongdoing. But if these words were spoken to the ancient people because they had returned to the Land of Canaan, how much more today, when the Kingdom of Heaven lies open, God’s free kindness deserves to be praised! Today, when he openly calls us to himself, to heaven, to the hope of the blessed immortality which is given us through Christ!

[This was Calvin’s last lecture. His closing prayer was:]

Grant, Almighty God, since we have already entered in hope upon the threshold of our eternal inheritance, and know that there is a mansion for us in heaven since Christ, our head and the first fruits of our salvation, has been received there, grant that we may proceed more and more in the way of thy holy calling until at length we reach the goal, and so enjoy that eternal glory of which thou givest us a taste in this world by the same Christ, our Lord. Amen.

And he built there an altar, and he called the place El Beth-el. . . . And God went up from him in the place where he talked with him. Gen. 35:7, 13.

Now we know why the holy fathers had to have their own altar, distinct from those of other nations. It was to bear witness that they worshiped not the various gods who were recognized everywhere in the world, but a God of their own.

For although God is worshiped in the heart, yet external confession is the inseparable accompaniment of faith. And there is no one who does not know how helpful it is to us to be roused to the worship of God by external aids.

If anyone objects that this altar looked no different from the others, I answer that the actual difference was very great. Others built altars, rashly and with thoughtless zeal, to unknown gods. Jacob bound himself always to the Word of God. No altar is legitimate unless it is consecrated by God’s Word. Jacob’s worship excelled that of others simply because he did nothing without the command of God.

In calling the place God of Bethel, he may seem to be too bold; and yet the faith of the holy man is praiseworthy at this point also, and that rightly, since he keeps himself within the limits set by God. The papists are stupid when they claim to honor humility by exhibiting dull moderation. Humility deserves praise truly when it does not seek to know more than the Lord permits. But when he descends to us, adapting himself to us and prattling to us, he wishes us also to prattle back to him. And true wisdom is to embrace God exactly as he adapts himself to our little measure. Thus Jacob does not dispute with learned arguments about God’s essence, but according to the oracle he has received he brings God near and makes him accessible to himself. Because he opens his mind to the revelation his prattling and his simplicity are, as I said, pleasing to God.

Today, when the knowledge of God shines clearer, and when God in the gospel has undertaken the role of nurse, let us learn to yield our minds to him. Let us remember that he came down to us to raise us up to him. He does not adopt an earthly fashion of speech to keep us at a distance from heaven, but rather as a means of raising us up to heaven.

Meanwhile we must keep to this rule of interpreting [Jacob’s action]: since the altar was commanded by a heavenly oracle, the building of it was truly and duly a work of faith. Where the living voice of God does not sound, pomp and ceremony, however elaborately observed, are like empty phantoms. So, we should see that papacy is so much wind.

God’s ascent is like his descent. For God who fills heaven and earth does not change location. He is said to come down to us when he shows us a sign of his presence suited to our littleness. He ascended from Jacob when he disappeared from his sight or when the vision ended.

By this way of speaking, God shows us the value of his Word which is always near us, as witness to his grace. Because of the great distance between us and his heavenly glory, he himself came down to us through the Word. This he did wholly and finally in the person of Christ; and Christ by his ascent into heaven has so elevated our faith that by the power of his Spirit he dwells always with us.

And the light shineth in darkness: and the darkness comprehended it not. John 1:5.

It may be objected that Scripture in many places calls men blind, and that the blindness to which they are condemned is a matter of common knowledge — that all men’s reasoning is a miserable business and comes to nothing. Where do all the labyrinths of error in the world come from [the objector will continue], if not from the fact that when men follow their own minds they land in vanity and lies? So long as men are without the light, the knowledge of Christ’s divinity, mentioned above by the Evangelist, is extinct among them.

The Evangelist anticipates this objection, and cautions us first that we must not judge the light given to man in the beginning by his present condition, because in man’s present corrupted and degenerate nature, light has been turned into darkness. Nevertheless, he denies emphatically that the light of intelligence is entirely extinct, because some sparkling bits of light keep darting out of the deep and heavy darkness of the human mind.

And the darkness comprehended it not. Even though, through the feeble bit of light left in men, the Son of God has always invited them to himself, the Evangelist tells us that this has not done any good, because “they saw but did not see.” After man was alienated from God, his mind was oppressed by such ignorance that any light left in him was quenched and useless. This is proven daily by our experience. Still, even those who are not regenerated by the Spirit of God enjoy some rationality; which shows that man was made not only to breathe but also to understand. But it is none the less true that men do not come to God by way of their own reason; neither do they in this way get near to him, because all their intelligence is but vanity. Whence it follows that the salvation of men is hopeless unless God come to their aid with a new help. For even while the Son of God pours out his light upon them, they are so dull that they do not know the source of it; on the contrary, carried away by their own sickly and depraved imaginations, they only become insane.

The chief parts of the light which remain in our corrupt natures are two: first, everyone has a certain seed of religion implanted in him; and secondly, every man’s conscience is capable of distinguishing good from evil. But then, what happens except that religion degenerates into a thousand chimeras of superstition; and consciences pervert every act of judgment, so that one cannot tell vice from virtue? In short, natural reason can never guide men to Christ. Even though prudence teaches men to regulate their lives, and though they are born capable of the arts and sciences, the whole thing vanishes and leaves nothing behind.

Further, it ought to be clear that the Evangelist is speaking only of man’s natural endowments, and does not touch upon regenerating grace. The Son of God possesses two distinct powers: the first is known from the structure of the world and the order of nature; the second is the power by which he renews and restores our fallen nature. Since he is the eternal Word of God, the world was created by him and it is by his power that all retain the life they have received. By him also, man was adorned with the gift of the singular imprint of intelligence; and although by his defection he lost the light of intelligence, he still sees and understands, so that what he has naturally by the grace of the Son of God is not completely abolished. But since he has darkened the light which he retains by his stupidity and wickedness, it is necessary that the Son of God take on a new office, that of mediator, and restore the ruined man by the Spirit of regeneration. Therefore, those who confuse the light of which the Evangelist speaks with the gospel and the doctrine which deals with our salvation, philosophize absurdly and in an irrelevant manner.

That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. John 1:9–10.

The true light here is not opposed to the false. The Evangelist meant to distinguish Christ from all others, so that no one would think He has the light in common with men and angels. The distinction is made to point out that whatever is bright in heaven and on earth derives its splendor from another; Christ on the other hand is himself light, and his brightness is his own, filling the whole world with his radiance; and there is no other source or cause of light. He is called the true light because it is his nature to illumine.

Which lighteth every man. The Evangelist insists on this chiefly because he wants to base his teaching that Christ is the light upon the effects which he produces in us and in our experience. He might have argued more subtly by saying that since Christ is the eternal light, his radiance is inborn and not derived from another. But he turns our attention to our common experience. The argument is that since Christ makes all of us to share in his light, we should honor him alone as the Light.

Now this passage is usually explained in two ways. Some restrict every man to those who, having been regenerated by the Spirit, partake of the life-giving light. Augustine gives the example of a schoolmaster who, if he has the only school in a town, is said to be everybody’s teacher, even though many may not go to his school. Some people understand the statement that Christ enlightens everyone in the sense that no one can boast of having received the grace of the light of life otherwise than from him. But since the Evangelist speaks in general of all those who have come into the world, the next explanation pleases me better: namely, that rays from this light are diffused in all of mankind, as I have already said. We know that men, above all other living beings, have the singular superiority of having been endowed with reason and intelligence, and that they have engraved in their consciences the ability to discriminate between right and wrong. There is therefore no one who is without some intuition of the eternal light. But there are fanatics who are somehow insane enough to twist and torture this passage, and to infer from it that the grace of illumination is offered equally to all. But let us remember that this statement has to do with the common light of nature which is far inferior to faith. For no man will ever, with all the sharpness and perspicacity of his mind, penetrate to the Kingdom of God. It is the Spirit of God alone who opens the gate of heaven to the elect. Further, let us remember that the light of reason which God gave men is obscured by sin; so that in the deep darkness of dreadful ignorance and the abyss of errors there are hardly any sparks which are not utterly put out.

He was in the world. He accuses men of ingratitude because they had so blinded themselves as not to know the cause of the light they enjoyed. This is true of every age. For even before Christ appeared in the flesh, he displayed his power everywhere. Therefore those daily effects he produces ought to shake people out of their torpor. What is more absurd than to draw water from a running river, and not to think of the fountain from which the river flows? Wherefore, there is no just excuse for the world’s ignorance of Christ before he appeared in the flesh; it was due to their apathy and wickedness, because he has always been present among them with his power. In short, Christ was at no time so absent from the world that men might not have been aroused by his light and have raised their eyes to him. It follows that the blame is theirs.

Let not your heart be troubled: Ye believe in God, believe also in me. John 14:1.

This might be taken as imperative: “Believe in God, and also believe in me.” But the other reading is more exact, and has been more generally accepted, as I have pointed out. Here we find that the way to stand fast is to let our faith rest in Christ and to recognize that he is all ready to come to our help with outstretched arms. One might wonder, however, why he puts faith in God first. Maybe he should have told his disciples that having believed in him, they should believe in God: for Christ is the very image of the Father, and we should fix our eyes first on him. Besides, he descended to us so that our faith, starting with him, might ascend to the Father. But Christ has something else in mind. All confess that we ought to believe in God. This is a fixed axiom to which all subscribe without controversy. Yet there is hardly one in a hundred who really believes it; not so much because the sheer majesty of God is too distant from us, but because Satan puts every kind of cloud between us and God, so as to keep us from the vision of God. So it is that our faith vanishes even while it seeks our God in his heavenly glory and inaccessible light. Our own flesh comes up spontaneously with a thousand fancies which turn us away from a right apprehension of God.

Christ therefore presents himself to us as the proper object of our faith. If we direct our faith to him, it will immediately find certainty and rest. He is Immanuel, who responds within us to our inquiring faith. It is a basic article of our faith that if we do not wish to go around and around endlessly, we must direct our faith to Christ alone. If our faith is not to waver in the midst of temptations, it must be fixed on him. And this is the evidence of faith that we never allow ourselves to be torn away from Christ and the promises we have in him. The papal theologians dispute, or rather chatter a great deal, about the object of faith; but they leave Christ out, and mention only God. Those whose knowledge comes from their writings must needs waver with the least breath of a breeze. Proud men are ashamed of the lowliness of Christ; therefore they fly to the incomprehensible deity of God. But faith seeks to attain heaven only by submission to Christ, whose countenance seems to reveal a lowly God; and it finds no stability unless it find support in the weakness of Christ.

If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also; and hence forth ye know him, and have seen him. John 14:7.

This confirms what we have already said; namely, that the curiosity by which people, not content with Christ, seek God in devious byways is at once stupid and harmful. They admit that there is nothing better than the knowledge of God. But when he is near them and speaks to them as a friend, they wander around looking high and low, and search for him beyond the clouds because they are too proud to see him nearby. Christ therefore reproaches his disciples because they do not know that God has been revealed to them fully in him. “I see,” he says, “that so far you have not known me rightly because you have not seen the living image of God in me.”

And henceforth. He adds this not only to tone down his reproach, but also to accuse them of ingratitude and apathy because they have not done justice to the Father’s gift through him. He says it in praise of his teaching rather than of their faith. What he means, therefore, is that they would even now see God, if they would only open their eyes. But by ” see,” he means the certainty of faith.

Then they said unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also. John 8:19.

Instead of doing them the honor of a direct reply, he reproaches them briefly for their ignorance and their complacency. They asked about the Father; and yet, here was the Son before their eyes, and they, seeing, did not see. It was, therefore, the just punishment of their pride and impious in gratitude that when they despised the Son of God who was there for everyone to see, they had no access to the Father. How can any mortal being rise to the height of God except he be raised there by the Son’s own hand? Moreover, God has lowered himself in Christ to the mean condition of man, so as to stretch out his hand to him; and do not those who reject God’s approach to them deserve to be excluded of heaven?

Let us then know that it was said to us all: anyone who does not begin his way to God with Christ, must wander, as it were, in a labyrinth. It is not for nothing that, as we read elsewhere, he is called the image of the Father. Besides, all those who storm heaven like giants, without Christ’s help, are deprived of any right knowledge of God. Anyone, on the other hand, who turns his mind and all his senses to Christ is led directly to the Father. The Apostle therefore is not deceiving us when he says that in the mirror of the gospel we see God clearly in the person of Christ (2 Cor. 3:18). And certainly the priceless reward of the obedience of faith is that a man who humbles himself before Christ rises above all heavens and penetrates the mysteries which the angels witness and adore.

Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me, and they have received them, and have known surely that I come out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. John 17:7–8.

Here we are told the chief thing about faith: which is, so to believe in Christ that our belief rests not in an apprehension of the flesh, but rather in the contemplation of his divine power. When he says, “ They knew whatever thou gavest me as from thee,” he means that believers recognize all they have as divine and from heaven. And certainly, unless we apprehend God in Christ, we are bound to be always wavering.

He now declares that men have this knowledge when they receive what he teaches them. But anyone who thinks that his doctrine is from man, or that it is from this earth, will not acknowledge that its author is God. Hence he says, The words which thou gavest me, I gave them. And when he says that he taught as he received from God, he speaks as the mediator or the servant of God. He refers to God as his Father because he is in the lowly state of the flesh, and has concealed his divine majesty under the form of a servant. At the same time, we must hold on to John’s initial testimony that, in so far as Christ was the eternal Word of God, he had always been one God with the Father. The point here, therefore, is that Christ was to his disciples a faithful witness to the Father; that, since the Father himself had spoken in the Son, their faith had its foundation in the sole truth of God. Moreover, he points out that if they accepted his words, it is because he has given them an effective revelation of the name of the Father by the power of the Spirit.

And have known surely. He repeats with other words what he has already touched upon. The statement that Christ came from the Father and was sent by him means the same thing as that whatever he has is from the Father. In short, faith ought to look at Christ rightly, not to know him in his flesh and humiliation, but to rise to a knowledge of his divine power; for thus it becomes established that he has in himself God and whatever is God’s. It is important to notice that in the former clause the Evangelist uses the word to know. In the latter, to believe takes its place. We are thus warned that we can know nothing of God rightly except by faith. But there is such certainty in faith as to justify our calling it knowledge.

But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works; that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. John 10:38.

He puts faith after knowledge, as though it were of a lower order, because he has to do with unbelieving and wrong headed men, who will not yield unless they are overcome and forced by experience. Such rebels insist that they must know before they believe. And our God indulges us to the extent of preparing us for faith through a knowledge of his works. However, true knowledge of God and of the secret of his wisdom comes from faith, because the obedience of faith opens to us the gate of the Kingdom of Heaven.

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. John 17:3.

He now enlightens the elect in the true knowledge of God; and in so doing, he declares the way in which we receive life. He does not here deal with the ultimate enjoyment of life which is our hope, but rather with the way men attain life. If we are to understand this statement rightly, we must first realize that unless God, who alone is life, illumine us, we are all dead. Where, therefore, he has shone, we possess him by faith; and at the same time enter into the possession of life. This is why the knowledge of him is truly and properly said to be saving. Almost every word of Christ in this place is weighty. We are not concerned here with just any kind of knowledge of God, but with the knowledge which transforms us into the image of God, and the beginning and the end of it is faith; rather it is the same as that faith by which, ingrafted into the body of Christ, we are made to partake of the divine adoption and are made heirs of heaven.

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. John 3:3.

By this statement, he means, “So long as you lack what is first in God’s Kingdom, it does not impress me that you call me Master. For the first step into the Kingdom of God is that you become a new man.” This sentence is so weighty that we must look into each part of it separately. To see the Kingdom of God is to enter it, as we shall soon see from the context. But those who identify the Kingdom of God with heaven are mistaken; the Kingdom means rather the spiritual life, which begins in this life by faith, and in which we grow daily as we progress in a constant faith. This statement means that no one truly belongs to the church and is counted among God’s children, unless he first becomes a new man. This verse shows briefly how one begins the Christian life. It also teaches us that we are born exiles and complete strangers to the Kingdom of God and that we are perpetually at war with it, until he makes us other than we are by a new birth. This verse therefore applies universally to the whole human race. If Christ had said to one man or to a few that they could not enter heaven except by being born again, we might imagine that he referred only to certain people. But this is not the case. He was speaking of all men, without excepting any. The wording conveys no impression of limitation. It is a universal statement which means that all those who are not born again, cannot enter the Kingdom of God.

Moreover, being born again means not the improvement of a part but the renewal of the whole of one’s nature. It follows that there is nothing in us that is not corrupted. If we must be renewed part and whole, it follows that this corruption is spread throughout our being. Of this we shall soon speak more fully. Erasmus, following Cyril’s Cyril of Jerusalem (ca. 315–386) tried vainly to keep to a middle way in the Arian controversy. After a career of conflicts, of exile and return, he enjoyed four years of peace until his death. He is most famous for his Catechetical Lectures to the Illumined (The Library of Christian Classics, The Westminster Press, Vol. IV). See Lecture II, 4 f. opinion, has translated the adverb ἄνωθεν incorrectly as “from above.” I confess that the meaning of this word in Greek is unclear. But we must remember that Christ spoke with Nicodemus in Hebrew; and in Hebrew, this word is not ambiguous. There was no reason why Nicodemus should have been deceived and shrunk from the prospect of a physical second birth. Therefore, he understood Christ’s words well enough as meaning that, unless a man be born again he is not reckoned as belonging to God’s Kingdom.

For I desired mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. Hos. 6:6.

This passage is especially important because it was cited twice by the Son of God (Matt. 9:13 and 12:17). . . . For a better understanding of the prophet’s meaning, we must first notice that under the terms sacrifice and burnt offerings the outward worship of God and all formal ceremonies are included. The part is put for the whole (synecdoche). The same is true of the word chesed, mercy or kindness. There is no doubt that the prophet is setting faith or devotion to God and love of neighbor in opposition to all external ceremonies.

I desire mercy (or “compassion pleases me”) more than sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. Here the knowledge of God is certainly to be understood as faith or devotion to God. Since hypocrites think that they worship God properly when they use many rites, both clauses must be read together. It is faith with kindness that pleases God. Faith by itself cannot please him, since without love of neighbor there is no faith. And kindness alone would not be enough. If a man refrains from doing injury to others and does not harm his brothers, but is blasphemous and despises God, certainly his humanitarianism would be of no account.

So we see that these two clauses cannot be divided, for to give the right sense to the prophet’s words love of God must be joined with love of neighbor. . . .

Further, it is important to notice that faith is called knowledge of God. This makes it clear that faith is not some cold and empty formula. When God’s will is revealed to us and we so far accept it that we can honor and serve him as Father — that is faith. The knowledge of God is a necessity of faith.

Then spoke Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. John 8:12.

It is a most beautiful praise of Christ that he is called the light of the world. With this statement, we who are by nature blind are offered a remedy, by which we are snatched and freed from darkness and made to share in the true light. This blessing is not offered to this or that individual only; Christ declares himself the light of the whole world. By this universal statement, he takes away the distinction not only between the Jew and the Greek, but also between the learned and the ignorant, the distinguished and the common people.

But first we must inquire as to why it is needful to seek after this light. Men will not turn to Christ for light until they know this world as darkness and themselves so profoundly blind. Let us know, therefore, that when our minds see the way we obtain this light in Christ, we are all condemned as blind, and whatever light we have from elsewhere is judged as darkness and a deep night. Christ here refers not to what he has in common with others, but to that which is his own and his alone. Whence it follows that apart from him there is not a spark of true light. Every other brilliance is like lightning which merely dazzles the eye.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Gen. 1:1.

In the beginning. To interpret the beginning as meaning Christ is too frivolous. Moses meant simply to say that the world at its beginning was not the finished product we see today, but was created an empty chaos of sky and earth. . . .

By the word create, he shows that something was made which did not before exist. For he does not use the verb yatsar which means shape or form, but bara’. What he means is that the world was created from nothing.

This refutes the futility of those who imagine that formless matter was always in existence and who get nothing more from Moses’ statement than that the world was fitted with a new look, clothed with form which it had previously lacked. This is the general opinion of unbelievers to whom only an obscure report of God’s truth has come. Men usually mix God’s truth with alien inventions. But it is absurd and most intolerable that Christians should labor to adopt this stinking error (as Steuchus Augustinus Steuchus or Agostino Steucho (1496–1549) was an influential Roman churchman and director of the Vatican Library. He was a philosopher and a scholar. He wrote De perennia philosophia and many works on Biblical antiquities and literary exegesis. does). Therefore, the first article of the creed is: The world is not eternal, but was created by God. . . .

God. The word Elohim, which Moses uses, is plural, and it is customary to conclude that here the three Persons in the Godhead are specified. But this does not seem a solid proof for so great a truth, and I do not agree with it. Rather readers should be warned to be on their guard against false glosses of this kind.

They think that here they have evidence to prove against the Arians Arius of Alexandria in the fourth century denied that the Son was of the same essence as the Father. He made of Christ a divine being of secondary rank. The term “Arian” was later used loosely to include Unitarians who asserted that Jesus was man only. the divinity of the Son and Spirit. But meanwhile they involve themselves in Sabellianism. The Sabellians declared that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit represent aspects or functions of God. They thus denied the three Persons of the Trinity and consequently the reality of the humanity of Jesus. Both Arianism and Sabellianism are recurrent under various labels in Western Christianity. For immediately afterwards Moses adds that God (Elohim) spoke, and that the Spirit of God brooded upon the waters. If you would see three Persons [in this verse, you will not succeed, because] you will find here no distinction between them. . . .

It seems to me sufficient to understand the plural as expressing the powers of God which he exercised in creating the world. I recognize that although the Scripture often recounts many divine powers, it always calls us back to the Father, his Word, and the Spirit. But those who twist what Moses is saying of God himself into a reference to the three Persons are presenting us with absurdities. I set it down as indisputable from the context that this passage names God and includes by implication the power of his eternal essence.

Commentaries on Providence

1. PROVIDENCE AND HUMAN ACTION

The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want. . . . Ps. 23:1–4, 6.

God gently draws us to himself by his good gifts to us, giving us a taste of his sweetness as our Father; but nothing is so easy for us as to forget him when we are enjoying peace and comfort. We ought then to attend most carefully to the example set for us by David. David, raised to a king’s throne, possessing ample wealth and great honors, testifies in the midst of the pleasures of his court that he remembers God and is mindful of the benefits which God has conferred upon him. He makes of them ladders by which he may climb nearer to God.

By the metaphor of the shepherd, he praises God’s care; he means that God’s care for those who are his own is like the solicitude of a shepherd for the sheep intrusted to him. In the Bible, God often assumes the title and role of shepherd, which we must recognize as a special sign of his love for us. Such a mode of expression is humble and undemanding and should make a deep impression upon us, since God for our sake is willing to stoop down and, by such a wonderfully gentle and intimate invitation, entice us to him, so that we may rest safely and quietly under his protection.

But it must be noted that God is shepherd only of those who are conscious of their own needs and weakness, and who feel the necessity of his guidance; for it is they who willingly remain in his flock and submit themselves to his leading. David, who excelled in power and possessions, acknowledged freely that he was a sheep, so that he might have God for his shepherd. What then would become of us, whose floundering proves our wretchedness, if we did not remain under the guidance of this same Shepherd?

Moreover, we must not forget that our greatest happiness is to have God’s guiding hand stretched out to us, and to live under its shadow, so that his providence may watch over our safety.

He leadeth me beside the still waters. By still waters David meant waters that flow gently, because swift torrents are not suitable for sheep to drink from, and often they are even dangerous. . . . David here says once again that the Heavenly Shepherd overlooks nothing which might take away from the happiness of those under his care. . . . God in no way fails his faithful ones; he sustains them with his own power, feeds and strengthens them, and keeps them from all harm, so that they journey in comfort on smooth roads.

He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness. This means easy and plain paths. Since he continues with his metaphor, it would be out of place to understand this as referring to the direction of the Holy Spirit. David has said that God supplies him liberally with all he needs for this life; and he now adds that God protects him from all trouble.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me. The faithful who dwell safely under God’s hand are nevertheless exposed to many perils. Keeping the same metaphor, David compares God’s care in guiding the faithful to the shepherd’s rod and staff. When a sheep is walking in a dark valley, only the shepherd’s presence keeps it safe from the attacks of wild beasts or from other accidents. David was not boasting of his own fearlessness; but was rather saying that he would walk boldly wherever his shepherd led him. And now that God reveals himself to us in the person of his only-begotten Son, as our Shepherd, more brightly than he did of old to the fathers under the law, we do not honor his protection properly unless we keep our eyes fixed upon it and by so doing trample upon all our trepidations.

Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life; and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever. Whence was this confidence that God’s kindness and mercy would be with him forever, if not from the promise by which God confines his benefits to those who believe, lest they be devoured by those whose palates have no taste for such benefits? For when David said earlier that in the shadow of death itself his eyes would be intently fixed on the providence of God, he showed well enough that he did not depend on things external; nor did he judge God’s favor by his bodily senses. When all earthly aids failed, his faith remained, because it rested solely on the Word of God.

The last words of the psalm show clearly that David did not confine himself to the pleasures or comforts of this earth, but kept his gaze on heaven as the ultimate end of everything else. He says plainly that for him the culmination of all the good [gifts] from God is to dwell in the house of the Lord.

Blessed is the people whose God is the Lord, and the people whom he hath chosen for his inheritance.

The Lord looketh from heaven, and he seeth all the sons of Adam.

A king is not kept safe by the size of his army, nor will a giant be saved by his great strength.

A horse is a vain thing for safety; neither shall he deliver by his great strength.

Let thy compassion be upon us, O Lord, according as we hope in thee. Ps. 33:12, 13, 16, 17, 22. (Calvin’s wording.)

. . . It is of little use to talk of the stability of God’s purpose if we do not relate it to ourselves. Therefore the prophet declares that those whom God takes under his guardianship are blessed because God’s purpose is not hidden from them, for it is seen in action in the safety of the church. And so we understand that it is not those who consider God’s power coldly and with indifference, but those who apply it to their own immediate need, that have a right knowledge of God as the Pilot of the world.

Indeed, when the psalmist says, “If the Lord is our God,” he points to the Lord as the fountain of divine love toward us, and tells us that we have no happiness except in him. In this way, he includes in one phrase everything we could ask for if we are to live a happy life. God’s care for our safety, keeping us warm under his wings, providing for our needs, counting us worthy of his help in time of peril — all this is grounded in his adoption of us. And in order to keep anyone from thinking that so much good comes from our own prowess and industry, the psalmist specifies that it flows from the fountain of free election which makes us God’s people.

Men corrupt this verse senselessly when they transfer to men what the prophet ascribes to God. As if men chose God for their inheritance! I admit that it is by faith that the true God is distinguished from idols; but we must hold fast to the following principle: There would be no communion between him and us if he did not first come to us with his grace.

The Lord looketh from heaven. The psalmist continues the same theme. The conditions of men do not come about by chance. God directs in hidden ways all that takes place. Therefore, the psalmist praises the watchfulness of God so that we may learn to see God’s invisible providence with the eyes of faith. For although the evidences of his care are continually before our eyes, the greater part of mankind is blind, and invent a blind chance to match their blindness. The more bountifully and richly God pours out his kindness upon us, the less we turn our minds to him; we keep them instead fixed on what happens to us from the outside.

The prophet castigates the indignity which men offer to God; for no greater wrong can be done to him than to shut him up to stay idly in his heaven. That is like burying him in a grave! For how would God be living if he saw nothing and cared for nothing? Further, by the term royal throne, the prophet shows how absurd and stupid it would be to divest God of mind and intelligence. For he means that heaven is not a palace for idle pleasures, as the Epicureans imagine, but a king’s seat of government from which God exercises his empire in all the realms of the world. But if God has set his seat in the sanctuary of the heavens in order to rule the universe, it follows that he by no means ignores earthly affairs, but controls them with the highest reason and wisdom.

A king is not kept safe, etc. A man’s life is safe not by his own power, but by the grace of God. Kings and giants are mentioned because they think they are exempt from the common lot of men and believe themselves beyond the reach of javelin or arrow. If some misfortune occurs, they expect to find an easy escape. Intoxicated with confidence in their own ability, they are hardly able to remember that they are mortal; and their pride is strengthened by the foolish admiration of the crowd who are astounded at their might. But if the resources of a king do not give him security, and a giant does not escape by his strength when danger comes, it is futile for any ordinary man to depend on earthly riches and forget God’s providence. For nothing can be more miserably precarious than the position of both the strong and the weak unless they rely on God’s protection.

In the next verse, by the use of synecdoche (a part for the whole), the word horse means every kind of earthly assistance. Of course, kings are not armed with swords for nothing; and horses are not useless; nor are any of the wealth and resources, which God supplies to men to guard their lives, without value when they are rightly used. But the more the majority of men are surrounded with fortifications, the farther they go from God and falsely imagine that their wall is impregnable. God rightly confounds such insanity. So it is that the flood of God’s gifts is often without effect; because the world, separating them from their Author, deprives itself of his blessing.

Let thy compassion be upon us.

The psalm closes with a prayer, which the prophet offers in the name of all the faithful, asking that they may know they have not relied on God’s goodness in vain. In prescribing this rule of prayer by the mouth of the prophet, the Spirit teaches us that the door of God’s favor is opened when we do not seek and hope for safety elsewhere. Meanwhile we draw our sweetest comfort from the certainty that our hope will never crack up while we are still on our way; nor do we need to fear that God will not extend his compassion toward us until the end.

And fear not those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul; but rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna. And yea, I say to you, fear him. Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? And not one of them shall fall to the ground without your Father. Matt. 10:28, Luke 12:5, Matt. 10:29. (Calvin’s wording.)

Christ is perfectly right when he urges his disciples to despise death, because human beings created for heavenly immortality should treat this mutable and perishing life as so much smoke. The heart of the matter is this: if the believers consider to what end they were born, and what their condition now is, they will have no reason for clinging anxiously to this earthly life. However, these words have a still fuller and richer meaning; for Christ teaches us that the fear of God is dead in people who fear tyrants so much that they fail in their confession, that a brutish stupidity reigns in the hearts of those who fear death so much that they will not even hesitate to give up altogether confessing their faith. . . .

For this reason, Luke repeats emphatically: Yea, I say to you, fear him. We must understand Christ to say that, when we succumb to the fear of man, we show no respect for God; that when, on the contrary, we show proper reverence to God, victory is easy and in our hands, and no human power can pull us away from our duty. Besides, the experience of every age teaches how necessary it is for ministers and for believers in general to be warned about this danger, because there never was a time when men did not rise up in fury against God, and did not set themselves to crush the gospel. Not all men have equal power to put the fear of death into the believers; still, the majority of men are possessed with the ferocity of a Cyclops, which springs forth when opportunity arises. Besides, the devil often gets hold of giants, whose very looks would throw the servants of Christ down lifeless, were they not taught to be hard and immovable by this teaching.

Moreover, since fearing God and not fearing men go together, it is stupid and wrong to pay attention only to the latter point. On the contrary, as we have said before, Christ set a devout and holy fear of God in opposition to a perverse fear of men, which takes us away from the right way, as the only remedy for it. Otherwise, there would have been no point in his saying that, if we fear God who is Lord over soul and body, we ought not to fear men who have power only over the body. When Christ admits that men have the power to kill, he does so only by way of concession. God holds the bridle of the wicked loose; and they, puffed up by confidence in their own power, will dare anything. They strike at shaky souls, and act as though nothing could stop them. But futile is the insolence of the wicked which makes them fancy that they can do as they please with the life of believers. For, all the while, God holds the reins; and when it pleases him, he checks their attack, however fierce and violent. And yet they may be said to have the power to kill by God’s permission, because often they are able to go strong and give vent to their fury. . . .

Are not two sparrows, etc. Now Christ goes on to declare, as I have already hinted, that no matter how mad the tyrants may be, they have no power even over the body. Therefore, those who fear the cruelty of men, as though they were without God’s protection, are fools. In the midst of perils, we have this second comfort that, since God is the keeper of our lives, we may safely rely upon his providence. It is really an insult to God, not to place our lives at the disposal of him who has honored us with his protection. Christ extends the providence of God to all creatures in common, and so argues by way of synecdoche (from the whole to the part), that God exercises a particular care over us. There is nothing cheaper than a sparrow (two were sold for a penny; or as Luke has it, five for two pennies), and yet God’s eye is upon it, and nothing happens to it by chance. Will he then who looks after sparrows neglect to watch over the lives of men?

Moreover, we must notice two things. Christ defines the providence of God very differently from those who, not unlike the philosophers, admit that somehow the world is under divine government, and yet imagine the workings of providence in a confused way, as though God paid no attention to individual creatures. Christ, on the other hand, declares that every single one of God’s creatures is under his hand and care, and that nothing happens by chance. In this way, he firmly opposes the will of God to chance, without however affirming the fatalism of the Stoics. It is one thing to find necessity in a context of a chain of many causes; it is quite another to see the world, as a whole and in its individual parts, as subject to the will of God. I confess there is a certain operation of chance in the nature of things considered in themselves; but I say that nothing occurs merely by the wheels of blind fortune, because the will of God reigns over all that happens.

In the second place, we must not look at God’s providence after the manner of curious and silly people. It must be to us the ground of our strength, and an invitation to call upon God. When Christ tells us that even the hairs of our heads are numbered, he does it not to arouse us to empty speculation, but to teach us to rest in God’s Fatherly care, which he exercises in behalf of these frail bodies of ours.

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands crucified and slain. Acts 2:23.

The chief purpose of Peter in mentioning the death of Christ is to establish faith in the resurrection all the more fully. It was well known among the Jews that Jesus had been nailed to a cross. Therefore, that he rose again would have been a token and evidence of the wonderful power of God. Meanwhile, in order to prick their consciences with a sense of sin, he says that it was they who killed Jesus, not that they had crucified him with their own hands, but that his death had been requested by the people with one voice. Although many of those who heard Peter had had no direct part in that godless and cruel wickedness, he was right in blaming them for it, because all of them had defiled themselves either by silence or by unconcern. There was no place for any pretense of ignorance, because God had already set Jesus before them. Peter thus prepares them for repentance by convicting them of sin.

By the determinate counsel. Here he meets a scandal which arises because it seems absurd at first sight, that this man whom God had adorned with such powers should have afterwards been subjected to every kind of insult and allowed to suffer an ignominious death. Because the cross of Christ is at first so disturbing to us, Peter declares that it did not occur by chance, or because Jesus had no power to set himself free, but because it had been ordained by God. For, only the knowledge that the death of Christ was ordained by the eternal purpose of God cut off in advance all occasion for foolish and depraved cogitations, and prevented people’s minds from taking offense at it. One thing is certain: that God makes no rash or vain decision. Whence it follows that he had a just reason for willing that Christ should have suffered. Such knowledge of God’s providence enables us to take the right step toward understanding the purpose and benefit of Christ’s death. For, the counsel of God confronts us with the truth that the Righteous One was delivered to death for our sins, and his blood was our ransom from death.

This then is a notable statement of the providence of God, teaching us that our life as well as our death is governed by it. Luke is indeed speaking about Christ; but in him we have a mirror of the universal providence of God which extends to the whole world, and shines especially upon us who are members of Christ.

In this place, Luke sets forth two things: God’s foreknowledge and his sure decree. Although first in order comes foreknowledge (since God contemplates what he will ordain before he ordains it), Luke puts it after God’s counsel or decree, to teach us that God neither wills nor decrees anything without having long before directed it to its proper end. People often make rash decisions because they decide quickly. Therefore, when Peter wants to point out that God’s counsel is not without reason, he couples it with his foreknowledge. Now, we need to distinguish between these two with some discernment, because many have fallen down at this point. Passing by the counsel of God with which he directs the whole world, these people grab at his mere foreknowledge. Hence arises the common distinction according to which, even while God foresees everything, he lays no constraint upon his creatures. Of course, it is true that God foresees this or that which is in the future. But Peter teaches us that what befell Jesus was not only foreseen by God, but also decreed by him. From this we learn a general truth about God’s providence, one that appears in the government of the world as a whole, no less than in the death of Jesus: it belongs to God, not only to know the future, but also to ordain by his will whatever he wants to be done. Peter made this second point when he said that Jesus was delivered by the sure and determinate counsel of God. Wherefore, the foreknowledge of God is other than the will of God by which he rules and regulates all things.

Some whose discernment is sharper admit that God not only foresees but also regulates with a nod everything that is done in this world. At the same time, however, they imagine a vague direction, as though God lets go of the bridle and allows his creatures to follow the rule of their own natures. They say that the sun rules by God’s will, because in giving us light it does the duty enjoined on it by God in the beginning. They think that a free will of this kind is left to men, because their nature is capable of a free choice between good and evil. But those who think in this manner imagine that God is sitting idly in heaven. The Scriptures speak very differently, and defend God’s control over particular events and over the several actions of men. But we must consider the purpose of Scripture in teaching us this doctrine; and we must at the same time shun all the mad speculations with which we see people carried away. The intention of Scripture is to exercise our faith, that we may know we are protected by God’s hand, and that we may not be subject to harm from Satan and wicked men. . . .

By the hands of the wicked. Peter seems to suggest that the wicked did God’s will. From this follows one or the other of two absurdities: either that God does evil, or that whatever wickedness men may perpetrate, they do not sin. As to the second statement, I answer that even though the wicked carry out what God himself has ordained, obeying God is the last thing they do. For obedience comes from a willing disposition, and we know that the purpose of the wicked is inspired by something far different. Besides, nobody but one who knows God’s will obeys him. Obedience depends upon a knowledge of the will of God. But God has revealed his will to us in the law. Therefore, they only obey God whose deeds fulfill the demands of the rule of the law, who, therefore, submit themselves willingly to its authority. But we see none of this in the wicked, whom God drives hither and thither without their knowing it. Therefore, let no man say that they are to be excused because they obey God. We must seek the will of God in his law; but the wicked seek to resist God with everything in them.

I deny the other statement, that God does evil, because it suggests that God is disposed to wickedness. We must judge wickedness in the light of the purpose which governs a man’s action. People who perpetrate theft or murder sin in that they are thieves and murderers; for they do these things with a wicked purpose. God, who makes use of men’s wickedness, must not be put in the same class with them; he must be seen in a far different light; because when he sets out to punish one man, and to exercise another in patience, he never deviates from his nature, which is perfect rectitude. Thus, when Christ was delivered by the hands of wicked men, and crucified, it was done by the consent and decree of God. But the treachery in the matter, which as such is evil, and the murder in it which was a great wickedness, must not be attributed to God.

And the Lord said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do, seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? Gen. 18:17–18.

When God proposes something as though it were doubtful, he does so out of kindness to men; for he had already decided what he would do. Here he intended to make Abraham pay close attention to the reasons he gives for the destruction of Sodom.

God gives two reasons for wanting to reveal his purpose before it was fulfilled: first, because Abraham was worthy of the privilege of the superior honor; second, because it would be useful and fruitful in the education of posterity. This in brief is the scope and value of this revelation.

One reason, as I said, why God wished his servant to know beforehand of his terrible vengeance upon Sodom was to honor him with special gifts. God has always shown this same kindness to the faithful; and he even increases it, heaping new and fresh blessings upon the earlier ones; and so it is that he deals daily with us. What ground is there for the innumerable favors he constantly bestows upon us except that he cannot refrain from expressing his Fatherly love with which he has enfolded us; and in doing this, he honors himself and his own gifts in us? For what except his own free gifts does he reward with his kindness? The origin of his kindness was in himself, not in Abraham’s merits; nor does the blessing of Abraham flow from any other fountain except God.

Moreover, we learn from this passage, what experience also teaches, that it is the special privilege of the church to know the meaning of the judgments of God and their direction and purpose. God does indeed prove himself a just judge of the world by inflicting punishment on evil men. But because all things seem to happen by accident, God enlightens his sons by his Word, so that they may not walk blindly like unbelievers. So, in the past, when he stretched out his hand to smite all the world, he confined his holy oracle to Judea; that is, when he was ready to bring distresses and misfortunes upon the nations, he declared himself as their author by his prophets and to his chosen people alone. . . . Let us then be mindful that God, having begun to be good toward us, continues unwearied until, having blessed us in every way, he completes our salvation. Having once adopted us and enlightened our minds by his Word, he keeps the torch of the Word blazing before our eyes, that we may in faith keep our minds upon the judgment and punishment of evil which the impious confidently ignore.

Therefore the faithful ought to be well informed on the known history of all times, to be able to judge according to the Scripture the various calamities which befall the wicked, privately and in public. While Sodom was unharmed and enjoying its pleasant luxuries, the Lord announced to his servant Abraham that it would soon perish. There was then no doubt that it perished not by chance but by the act of God. . . . We must accept the same conclusion in other cases; for although God does not foretell the future to us, he wishes us to be eyewitnesses of his acts and to propound their causes wisely. We are not to be deceived by false vision like the unbelievers, who “seeing, see not” and turn their backs to their true goal.

O Assyrian, the rod of my anger, and the staff in their hand is my indignation. Isa. 10:5.

What follows is intended so to announce the coming punishment as to mitigate the sorrow of the faithful with some word of comfort. Therefore greater emphasis is given to the doctrine that whatever the evils perpetrated by the Assyrians, they will be a temporary discipline from God, and that when the unbelievers overdo their insolence, they will finally be put in their places.

Hoi is sometimes an exclamation of pain, sometimes a call for attention; and sometimes it has the sense “woe to,” as the ancient interpreters translated it here. But in this passage it can only mean either that the Lord is calling the Assyrians, or that he is assuming the role of a mourner because he has to punish his people at the hand of the Assyrians. But when I look more closely at the whole passage, I prefer the interpretation that God is calling the Assyrians as though they were armed for battle by his own command. The prophet had already proclaimed that the Assyrians would be upon them; but hypocrites feel so secure that the fear of God never troubles them, before they can see his scourge or until they actually feel its blows. This is why God now summons the Assyrians with “Come,” just as a judge calls an officer and orders him to bind a criminal, or commands the executioner to put him to death. So the Lord calls the Assyrians to inflict punishment by their hand.

And the staff. This can refer to the Assyrians, and the clause can be understood as a repetition of the preceding in slightly different words. But I find here a difference in meaning. First, the Assyrians are called “the rod of God’s wrath” ; second, the swords and weapons with which they are equipped are equated with the anger of God, as though the prophet had said, “God according to his will is using the Assyrian instead of ax or sword as executor of his wrath,” and then had added, “Although they may wear swords, what you should fear is [not their weapons but] God’s anger against his people.” The point is that whatever strength the enemy may have comes from God’s anger, and that the enemy would not move a finger unless God roused him by a hidden prodding against the nation He intended to destroy. God calls the staff which they hold in their hand his “anger” to make it clear to the Jews that the apparently blind attacks of their enemies are directed by heavenly providence.

I disagree with some interpreters who would turn beyadam (in their hand) to “in their place” or “in their land.” That is too forced. The point is that God calls the Assyrians as the servants of his wrath, for by their hand he will exact due penalty for the crimes of his people. Therefore, he declares that his anger is all the might they possess.

This teaching has two purposes: first, to terrify the wicked by letting them know that God’s threats to destroy them are not empty words, and to show them the reason they are to be punished. These words, therefore, had much more force to rouse from their indifference the wicked who had laughed at all the former threatenings of the prophets.

Secondly, this teaching had also no small value when the Assyrians began to harass the people. For then, in the midst of the disaster, the Jews could see that it was not purposeless, nor happening by accident, for it had been predicted by the prophets.

Someone will object, Why did God when He had first said that the Assyrians were the rod of his anger, afterwards call their staff his indignation? But we must put it, “The Assyrian is my anger, and the staff which he carries is the staff of my indignation.” But so long as we understand what the prophet means, we should not stop anxiously over words. He calls men “the rod of God’s anger” because God uses them like a rod; he calls the weapons of men God’s “indignation,” because they are not directed by men’s own will but are the evidence of God’s anger.

These words of the prophet are most pertinent today, because they forbid us to think that the wicked burst forth unrestrained wherever their lust drives them; for they are guided and checked by a bridle, so that they will accomplish nothing against God’s will. Hence we must conclude that God acts by the hand of the wicked. But here we must think and speak soberly, for there is need to distinguish wisely and carefully between the work of God and the work of men.

There are three ways in which God acts through men. First, all are moved and exist through him; from which it follows that all human actions proceed from his goodness. Second, he acts in a special way when he moves the wicked as seems good to him. Although nothing is further from their thoughts, he uses their work so that they mutually destroy one another and perish, or so that he may discipline his own people by their hand. This last is the prophet’s point in this place. Third, God guides men by his sanctifying Spirit; but this way belongs only to the elect.

So whether tyrants, or robbers, or any others injure us; or when foreign nations rise up against us, always, among turbulent and confused commotions, the hand of God sheds his light upon us, to keep us from imagining that anything happens by chance.

Therefore also now, saith the Lord, turn ye even to me with all your heart. . . . Joel 2:12.

After announcing the terrible judgment, the prophet shows that his purpose was not simply to inspire terror, but rather to bring the people back to their right minds. But this he could not do unless he gave them the hope of forgiveness. I have said many times — and indeed the whole Bible proves it — that men cannot be brought back to the right way unless they receive the hope of God’s compassion. For despair makes men more obstinate and doubles their wickedness, rather multiplies it a hundredfold.

For when a man who has done wrong despairs, he hurls himself wholly into the gulf of wickedness without any restraint whatever. Therefore the prophet now describes the kindness and compassion of God in order gently to lead the people to apply themselves to repentance.

So now it was not you that sent me hither, but God. . . . Gen. 45:8.

This is an especially significant passage, for it teaches us that the true course of events is never disturbed by the wickedness and malice of men; that, on the contrary, God directs men’s confused and turbulent movements to a good end. Also it shows us how we ought to think of God’s providence and how we are to profit from it. When curious men debate over it, they not only muddle and pervert everything by ignoring its purpose, but also concoct whatever absurdities they can to insult God’s justice. Their effrontery even makes some pious and modest men wish they could bury this part of our doctrine. For as soon as it is proclaimed that God holds the government of the whole world and that nothing is done without his assent and command, those who feel too little reverence for the mysteries of God burst out with various questions which are not only frivolous, but also pernicious.

However, in our desire to stop such profane intemperance, we should be very careful not to be satisfied with a crass ignorance of truths which are not only revealed by the Word of God but are also very useful for us to know. Good men are ashamed to confess that nothing which men undertake is accomplished unless God wills it, for fear unbridled tongues will clamor either that God is the author of sin, or that no blame is incurred by impious men since they are only following God’s purpose. Although there is no way of refuting this sacrilegious madness, we should be content to detest it, and meanwhile hold firmly to the clear witness of Scripture, whatever men may invent. Amid all the shoutings of men, God directs men’s plans and efforts from heaven, and finally accomplishes by their hands what he himself has decreed.

Good men who fear to expose the justice of God to the slanders of the impious take refuge in the distinction that God wills some things to be done and only permits others. As if, without his will, any freedom of action would be possible for men! If he had merely permitted Joseph to be carried to Egypt, he would not have ordained him as the instrument for saving the lives of his father Jacob and his sons; and this is what is said here explicitly. A statement like our text would be meaningless if evil things which God afterwards turns to a good end were done only by his permission, and not by his intention and will.

I know that on men’s side there are evil deeds which are done out of sheer perversity. Moreover, since the doers are inherently sinful, they must be accounted wholly guilty. But God works through them in a wonderful way, so that he produces pure justice out of impure corruption. How he acts is hidden and too high for us. And it is not strange that lusting flesh rebels against it. But for this very reason we ought to avoid attempting to restrict heaven’s great height to our narrow vision. Therefore let it be a fixed point that even while men’s passion runs high and rushes uncontrollably hither and thither, God remains supreme over all and by his hidden bridle directs their motions wherever it seems to him good.

At the same time we must also hold that God’s action is distinct from man’s, so that his providence is free from all iniquity, and his decrees have no affinity with the wrongdoings of men. A most beautiful illustration of this truth is presented to our eyes in this story. Joseph was sold by his brothers for no other reason than that they wanted him somehow destroyed and out of the way. The same act is ascribed to God, but with the very different purpose of providing the house of Jacob with food in time of famine and beyond their every hope. . . . Hence it is clear that, although God at first seems to act as do wicked men, in the end their crime is a far cry from his wonderful justice. . . .

But we also see that men are no less criminal because God, contrary to their expectations, transforms the end they seek in their wickedness to a good and happy outcome. . . . Certainly we must hold that men’s deeds must be valued not by their issue, but by whether they failed to do their duty, or acted contrary to God’s command, or went beyond the limits of their vocation. When a man neglects his wife and children, and does not labor to provide for their necessities, even though they do not die unless God so wills, this in no way excuses the brutality of the husband and father who deserts them when he ought to be their helper. Therefore people with a bad conscience gain nothing by pushing forward the providence of God as a screen for their misdeeds.

But I ask you to note again, How often God resists the malice of those who desire to harm us, not only resists but also turns their evil efforts to our good! Thus he mitigates the afflictions of our flesh and gives us a calm spirit and greater peace.

And he said: Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. Gen. 9:25.

It is strange that Noah curses his grandson and passes over in silence Ham who committed the crime. The Jews give God’s favor as the reason and say that God had so greatly honored Ham that the curse was shifted to his son. But that is a foolish conjecture. I am sure that the punishment was transferred to posterity to make its severity all the more obvious; for God was giving clear testimony that he did not consider the punishment of one man alone to be sufficient, and that therefore the curse had to include his descendants and continue in force through the ages. Meanwhile Ham himself was certainly not exempted; God made his judgment heavier by including his son with him.

Now another question arises. Why did God single out from among Ham’s many sons one man in particular for the blow? But here we must not allow too much range to our curiosity. We should keep in mind, it is not without reason that the judgments of God are called an unfathomable abyss. It is not fitting that God, before whose tribunal we must all finally stand, be subjected to our judgment — or rather to our foolish temerity. God chooses as he pleases some, to make them examples of his grace and long-suffering; he destines others for a different purpose, to be proofs of his anger and severity. Here human minds are blind; yet each one of us, knowing his own failure, should learn to praise God’s justice rather than hurl himself by insane audacity into the deep abyss.

The curse of God included the whole seed of Ham. But he singled out the Canaanites by name as cursed above all others. We know that this judgment was from God, for it was afterwards validated by the event. Noah was a man and did not know what was to happen to the Canaanites; but in such obscure and hidden matters he spoke as the Spirit directed his tongue.

There is still another difficulty. The Scripture teaches that the sins of men are punished to the third and fourth generation; and yet [our text] seems to depict the punishment of God’s wrath as reaching to ten generations. I answer: Scripture does not prescribe a rule which God himself may not transgress, as though he were bound not to punish beyond four generations. We must see grace and punishment as combined and so understand that, while God justly punishes our crimes, he is still more inclined to mercy. Meanwhile, let us admit that he is free to extend punishment as far as it seems good to him.

Servant of servants. This Hebrew phrase means that Canaan will be the lowest among slaves, or that his situation will be worse than common slavery. But does not the lightning bolt of this stern and terrible prophecy seem a harmless joke, since the Canaanites were [at the time it was written] outstanding, in power, riches, and resources? Where then was their slavery? I answer: First, God’s threats need not be fulfilled immediately; but they are never empty or ineffective; second, God’s judgments are not always visible to our eyes or recognizable by our physical senses. The Canaanites threw off the yoke of slavery which was divinely imposed upon them and even grasped an empire for themselves. But although they had their time of arrogance, they were never in God’s sight free.

In the same way, when the faithful are unjustly oppressed and tyrannically harassed by the wicked, their spiritual liberty before God is not destroyed. God promised to his servant Abraham dominion over the land of Canaan, and condemned the Canaanites to destruction. We must be satisfied with this as proof of God’s justice.

One more point. The pope asserts that he utters prophecies. Well, so did Caiaphas. I do not wish to appear to deny all his claims; and I freely admit that the title, The title of the pope, “Pius Episcopus, servus servorum Dei,” has been used since the time of Gregory the Great, in the sixth century. It is the regular heading of papal bulls at the present time with which he adorns himself was dictated by the Holy Spirit. May he like Canaan become servant of servants.

And he said, What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground. Gen. 4:10.

God shows, first, that he knows men’s deeds even when no one complains or accuses; seconds that human life is too precious to him for him not to punish the shedding of blood; third, that he takes the faithful under his care not only when they are alive but also after they die.

Earthly judges for the most part doze unless an accuser appeals to them. But even when the wounded are silent, their very injuries cry out to God to pronounce the penalty. It is a wonderfully sweet comfort to good men who are harassed unjustly to hear that the evils they endure silently go before God of their own accord and demand vengeance. Abel was silent when his throat was cut (perhaps he was killed some other way), but after his death the voice of his blood was more eloquent than the plea of any orator. Thus, men may stifle or silence [the cry of the innocent]; but they cannot prevent God from judging a cause which the world considers buried. This consolation richly nourishes our endurance. When we learn that nothing of our right is lost, we bear our injuries with moderation and steady minds. The soul’s calm silence raises an effective cry which fills heaven and earth.

Nor does the teaching of this verse apply to this life alone. We not only know ourselves safe under God’s protection amid the innumerable dangers with which we are surrounded, but are also lifted up to the hope of a better life. It clearly follows that those who live under God’s protection are safe after they die.

The people therefore that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him. John 12:29.

It was truly monstrous that the multitude was so stupid as to remain unmoved by so open a miracle. Some were so hard of hearing that what God so distinctly uttered they took for a confused sound. Others who were less dull made little of the majesty of the Voice of God, and said it was merely an angel who spoke. But men do the same today. God speaks plainly enough in the gospel, and there reveals such power and energy of the Spirit as ought to shake the heaven and the earth. But for many its doctrine is lifeless as though it were from mortal men; to others the Word of God is confused and barbarous, no different from thunder.

But the question arises, Did that voice sounding from heaven come in vain or without benefit to anyone? I answer that what the Evangelist says of the whole crowd was true only of a part. There were others besides the apostles who had a clearer insight of the matter. The Evangelist wanted to point out briefly what is common in this world: namely, that most people hear but do not understand when God speaks with a clear and loud voice.

2. PROVIDENCE AND GOD

He hath blinded their eyes and hardened their heart. John 12:40.

This passage is from Isaiah (6:9; cp. Matt. 13:14), where the Lord warns the prophet at once that his labors of teaching will only end in making the people worse. First then he says, “Go and tell these people, When you hear, you hear but do not understand.” He means, “I send you in order that you may speak to the deaf.” Then he adds, “Harden the people’s heart” ; by which he means that he intends his Word to issue in the punishment of the wicked; that he will make them totally blind, and they will plunge into a deeper darkness. Right as well as formidable is the judgment of God when he darkens the mind of men with the very light of his Word, so that they are bereft of all sense. By means of their only light, he covers them with a gross darkness!

However, we must note that the Word of God does not blind men by its own proper working. Nothing could be more absurd than that there should be no difference between truth and lies, or that the bread of life should act as deadly poison and medicine make a disease worse. When life is turned into death, we must blame men’s evil for it. Besides, we must observe that God himself sometimes blinds the minds of men by depriving them of understanding and judgment; sometimes he does it through Satan and false prophets, whose lies make the people mad; sometimes he does it by his ministers, as when the doctrine of salvation is harmful and even deadly to the hearers. This is why, when the prophets fulfill their task of teaching faithfully, they ought to commend the fruit of their labors to the Lord. If they do not succeed, they should not quit, or lose their temper. Let them be satisfied to know that God approves of their labor; that although the savor of their doctrine does men no good, and the wicked turn it into a source of death to themselves, it is as Paul testifies, good and pleasing before God (2 Cor. 2:15).

Because the carnal mind is in enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. Rom. 8:7.

Paul now proceeds to prove what he had said by adding that nothing but death can issue from all the effort of the flesh, because it struggles in enmity to the will of God. The will of God is the rule of righteousness; whatever does not agree with his will is unrighteous; and if unrighteous, it is at the same time deadly. When God is set against us, it is vain to expect life; for his wrath must directly and inevitably be followed by death, which is vengeance wrought by his wrath. And now let us remember that in all things the will of man is opposed to the will of God. For we differ from God as depravity differs from rectitude.

For. . . to the law of God. This is the explanation of the previous sentence. It tells us how it comes about that all the thoughts of the flesh strive against the will of God. The will of God is attacked only where he reveals it; but it is in the law that God tells us what pleases him. Therefore those who would try to find out rightly whether they conform with God, must judge all their purposes and concerns by the norm of God’s law. Even though nothing in this world is active except as directed by God’s secret providence, it is an intolerable blasphemy to pretend that therefore nothing happens except by his approval, as some frenzied people cavil in our day. What folly it is, to seek the distinction between rectitude and iniquity, which the law places before our eyes so openly and distinctly, in the deep labyrinth of secret providence! As I have said before, the Lord has his own hidden counsel by which he disposes of everything in the world. But since it is incomprehensible to us, let us have sense enough to keep away from undue curiosity in prying into it. In the meanwhile, it remains true and settled that nothing pleases him except righteousness, and that we cannot judge our own deeds rightly except by the law of God, which testifies without deception to what pleases and what displeases him.

Nor can be. And now look at the faculty of free will, which sophists cannot praise highly enough! With these words Paul affirms certainly and explicitly what they detest with open mouths: that it is impossible for us to bring our powers into subjection so as to obey the law. They throw at our faces that the heart is able to bend itself one way or another, provided only that it is aided by an impulse of the Spirit; that the choice between good and evil is free and in our hand, provided the Spirit comes to our help: so that to choose or to refuse is up to us. They also invent good impulses by which we set ourselves spontaneously to obey the law. Paul, on the contrary, tells us that our hard heart is bulging with irrepressible outrage [against God] and will not by its own nature bend down to put on the yoke of God. Nor does he argue about this or that part of us; but rather, speaking in general, he puts together all the impulses which rise up from within us in the same bundle. Therefore far be the free will of heathen philosophy from the Christian heart! Let everyone know himself as thee servant of sin, which he in fact is, that he may become free by the grace which he receives from Christ’s own hand. To glory in any other freedom is the greatest stupidity.

But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 2 Tim. 3:13.

It is the worst of trials that godless men wax great and strong with their sacrilegious audacity, and the blasphemies and errors they perpetrate. Paul says elsewhere that Isaac was troubled not by the sword of Ishmael but by his taunting (Gal. 4:29). We may gather from this verse that the writer did not point to one particular kind of persecution, but spoke in general of trials which the children of God must endure when they contend for the glory of their Father.

I spoke, a little before, of how evil men shall grow worse and worse. The apostle predicts not only that they will offer obstinate resistance, but also that they shall succeed in harming and corrupting others. One good-for-nothing fellow can always tear down more than ten faithful teachers can build, no matter how hard they try. There is no scarcity of the tares sown by Satan and infesting the good earth. No sooner are some false prophets put down than others pop up in all directions.

Now, wickedness has this power not because lies are by nature more effective than truth, or because the devices of the devil are superior to the power of God’s Spirit, but because men have a spontaneous inclination toward vanity and error, and will embrace much too readily whatever suits their fancy. Therefore by a just retribution of God, they become blinded and captive slaves to the pleasure of the devil. This is the principal reason for the effectiveness of the pestilence of ungodly teachings. And considering the ingratitude of men, it is right that this should be so. Therefore, godly teachers should take to heart the warning to be prepared for constant warfare, not to break down because it is long and drawn out, or succumb before the impudence and insolence of their adversaries.

There were present at that season some that told him of the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galileans were sinners above all the Galileans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay, but except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Luke 13:1–3.

This passage is extremely helpful to us, because it is almost an inborn disease with us to be hard and severe in judging others, while we treat our own misdeeds as mere trifles. Thus it happens that not only do we deal too sharply with the sins of our brothers, but also, when things go wrong with them, we condemn them as infamous and reprobate people. Meanwhile, so long as God’s hand is not heavy upon us, we sleep safely with our sins, as though we enjoyed God’s favor and friendship. In this way, we are doubly guilty. For, when God chastises someone under our very eyes, he does it so as to warn us of his judgments, in order that each one of us may learn to examine himself and to weigh the punishment he himself deserves. And if he spares us for a time, by his kindness and mercy he invites us to repentance. It should be far from us to use the time allowed us as an occasion for sloth.

The point Christ makes is that those who suffer hardship at the hands of others are not the worst of men; and his purpose is to condemn our depraved judgment which turns us habitually against those who are afflicted by some calamity, and to root out that self-indulgence with which everybody treats his own self. God exercises his judgments freely, in his own way and order, so that some receive their punishment immediately, whereas others are allowed for a while to enjoy their ease and pleasure in peace. Christ is here teaching us that whatever calamities occur in this world, they are testimonies to the wrath of God; and from this we learn that unless we avert God’s wrath we shall be destroyed.

The occasion which led to this exhortation was the statement of some people that Pilate had mixed human blood with the blood of sacrifices. They meant to bring contempt upon these sacrifices, because they were accompanied by such a chastisement. It is likely that this outrage was inflicted upon the Samaritans who had turned aside from the pure worship of the law. The Jews, therefore, were quick to applaud themselves while they condemned the Samaritans. But our Lord turned the matter into something else. Because the Jews hated and condemned the whole people of the Samaritans, he asked them if they thought the wretched few who were murdered by Pilate were so much more wicked than the rest. In other words, he said, “It can be no secret to you that the whole land of the Samaritans is full of ungodliness; and yet many who are worthy of punishment are still safe and sound.” He must indeed be a blind and depraved judge who thinks that where there is affliction there must be sin. It is not true that the most wicked are dragged for punishment first. God chooses to punish a few out of a multitude, so that through them he may condemn the rest and fill them with the terror of his vengeance.

After having spoken of the Samaritans, Jesus turns to the Jews themselves. He points out that in those days eighteen people had been crushed to death by the fall of the tower of Jerusalem. He denies that these people were wicked above all others, and argues that their death ought to fill everyone with fear; for, if God had made them an example of his justice, it was not likely that the rest would be able to escape from his hand even though for a while they were being left alone. Christ does not discourage believers from attending to God’s judgment; but he does ask them to do it rightly by beginning with their own sins. . . .

And his disciples asked him saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? John 9:2.

First, since Scripture testifies that all the troubles of humanity arise from sin, whenever we see anyone in misery it naturally occurs to us at once that his distress is a punishment inflicted by the hand of God. Thus we err in three ways. First, few judge themselves as severely as they do others. If my brother meets adversity, right away I see the judgment of God in it. When God chastises me with an even heavier rod, I shut my eyes to my sins. But in passing judgment, a man ought to begin with himself; he ought not to spare himself more than others. If we would be just in this matter, we ought to be quicker to discern evil in ourselves than in others. Secondly, excessive rigor is wrong. No sooner do we find someone meeting disaster at God’s hand than we jump to the conclusion that it is because God hates him. We turn his faults into crimes and almost despair of his salvation. On the contrary, we so belittle sins in our own case that we hardly see as little faults what we ought to confess as gross wickedness. In the third place, we sin by freely casting off as damned those whom God is trying with a cross.

It is true, as we said above, that all misery arises from sin. But it is also true that God afflicts his own for various reasons. Now, God does not avenge certain crimes in this world, but postpones punishment to the next, to deal with them all the more severely; conversely, he often deals severely with his faithful people, not because they have sinned greatly, but in order to mortify the sin of the flesh. At times he overlooks their sins; he tries their obedience and trains them in patience. Take the case of Job, who suffered more calamity than other men; God was not concerned with his sins. His purpose was rather to make a better trial of Job’s faith through his various afflictions. Therefore, the interpreters who attribute all suffering indiscriminately to sin are fools — as though all were punished equally, or as though in afflicting men, God had regard only to each man’s desert!

Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If a man walketh in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. John 11:9.

This verse has been explained in various ways. Some are of the opinion that men’s minds are changeable, and seize every hour upon a new and different purpose; but nothing could be further from what Christ meant. This view would hardly be worth mentioning except that it has become a common proverb. Let us be content with the right and simple meaning of this verse. First, Christ borrows the simile from day and night. When a man walks in the dark, it is not strange if he knocks against something, or goes astray, or even gets lost. But when the sun shines and shows the way, he walks in safety. Now, the calling of God is like the light of day, which keeps us from hitting something or going astray. Whoever obeys the Word of God and does not go ahead except by his command, has a Guide and Director from heaven; and with this confidence, he sets on his way with courage and security. Now, as we learn from Ps. 91:11, anyone who walks in God’s ways has angels for protectors and is safe under their guidance, so that his feet do not strike a stone. Therefore, Jesus, fortified by this confidence, goes ahead boldly into Judea without fear of being stoned. There is no danger of going astray when God, acting as our sun, directs our way.

This verse teaches us that, if a man lives by his own wits, without God’s calling, he will wander and get lost all his life. Those who think they are very wise, and neither inquire of God nor receive his Spirit to govern all their actions, are blind and grope in the dark. There is only one right way: to hold on single-mindedly to our divine calling and to have God always walking ahead of us. This firmly established rule of life, which we must follow with perfect confidence, leads straight to a successful outcome because God does not rule our lives except for our well-being. And it is essential for us to realize that, as soon as the faithful move one foot in order to follow God, Satan comes forward with a thousand obstacles, and presents them with all sorts of perils, all with the one purpose of contriving to obstruct our way. Nevertheless, the Lord kindles his light and invites us to go ahead; we must walk with courage even though our way may be filled with many deaths. This we must do because God never bids us to go ahead without at the same time fortifying us with his promise; and the promise gives us our firm certainty that if we remain under his authority, he will bring us to a good and blessed end. This is our chariot; anyone who rides in it is never weary and cast down. Even though the obstacles on our way are so great that we could not overcome them in our own vehicle, we always find our way out with the wings which are given us, until we arrive at our destination; not because nothing adverse happens to believers, but because the very evils they meet are helps which bring them to salvation.

Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour had not yet come. John 7:30.

They did not lack the will to do him harm, or even the zeal to do it. They also had the power. Why then with all this were they helpless, as if they were bound hand and foot? The Evangelist answers that it was because Christ’s hour had not come, by which he means that God’s own protection guarded him against their fury and violence. And at the same time, he faces and removes the offense of the cross; because when we hear that Christ was subjected to death not by the will of men but as destined for such a sacrifice by the decree of the Father, we are no longer disquieted. And from this we may infer a general truth, that as we live day by day the hour of our death is in God’s hand. It is hard to believe [but true] that, although subject to so many accidents, exposed to evil in the hands of so many lurking men and beasts, and liable to so many diseases, we are nevertheless safe from all peril until God is ready to call us. Our part is to struggle against our own lack of trust. First, let us hold on to the truth here taught us, then next to the goal set before us, and finally to the exhortation which follows: Casting all our cares on God, let each one of us fulfill his vocation without allowing fear to turn him aside from his duty. And let no man go beyond God’s purpose for him. For, it is not right that a man trust the providence of God apart from God’s own will for him.

But when Phineas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation and took a javelin in his hand. Num. 25:7. (The Harmony.)

Phineas’ courage is celebrated because, while others did nothing, he was fired with holy zeal and leaped forward to inflict punishment. The inaction of the others is tacitly condemned, although their tears merit praise. But since their grief almost stupefied them, their virtue was not free from fault. Certainly, when the unbridled license of the people burst forth like waves from a stormy sea, it is not strange that the courage of good men broke down, or lay prostrate and feeble; and the more glorious was the zeal of Phineas who did not hesitate to oppose so many wicked criminals, raging with their own passions.

Someone may object that he exceeded the bounds of his vocation because he snatched a sword to slay, although he was not armed by God. But the answer to this is ready. Vocation is not always restricted to its ordinary duties, because God sometimes gives his servants new and unusual roles. As priest, Phineas was not charged with punishing crime; but he was especially called to do so by God’s instigation and he was under the command of the Holy Spirit.

This incident ought not to be taken as an example from which to draw a general rule. God is free to appoint his servants to whatever special tasks he pleases; and his approval is enough evidence that he himself has called. We conclude without question that Phineas was under divine direction, because God declared that the deed pleased him. And this is repeated in Ps. 106:31. But if anyone in a private capacity begins in an excess of zeal to punish a like crime, he cannot plead Phineas’ example unless he is truly convinced of his own heavenly commission.

We must not forget Christ’s answer when his disciples wished to follow the example of Elijah and call down fire on those who had not received them: You know not of what spirit you are (Luke 9:55). If our zeal is to be approved by God, it must be tempered with spiritual wisdom and ruled by God’s authority. The Holy Spirit must lead us and dictate to us what is right.

Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Matt. 6:9–10.

When we set out to pray, there are two things we must seek above all: first, that we may have access to God, and secondly, that we may rest in him with full and solid confidence, knowing his Fatherly love for us and his unbounded kindness; that he is ready to hear our prayers; and above all that he is spontaneously ready to come to our help. Christ calls him Father, and with this title, gives us sufficient ground for confidence in him. But because we trust God only in part because of his goodness, he next commends to us God’s power. When Scripture says that God is in heaven, it means that God is sovereign over all things; that he holds the world and all that is in it in his hand; that his power sustains all and his providence orders all. So, David himself says in Ps. 2:4, “He who dwells in the heavens, shall laugh at them” ; and in Ps. 115:3, “Our God is in heaven; whatever he wills, he does.”

In other words, when God is said to be in heaven, it is not meant that he is inside it; we must remember the words “Heaven of heavens do not contain him” (2 Chron. 2:6). This expression sets him apart from all creatures, and warns us that no mean and earthy thoughts about him should enter our minds, because he is higher than the whole world. So, Christ, above all, wanted to establish the disciples’ trust in God’s goodness and power; because unless our prayers are rooted in such faith, they do us no good. What stupidity and mad arrogance it would be to invoke God as Father, unless we are accepted as his children in the Body of Christ! It follows that we pray rightly only when we come to God trusting in the Mediator.

Hallowed be thy name. Now what I have said becomes clearer. In the first three petitions we are bid to subordinate our self-regard to the glory of God; not because the glory of God has no bearing upon our salvation, but because the majesty of God deserves to come before all other considerations. It is well for us that God reigns and that all honor is his due; for no man is aflame with the desire to glorify God, unless, forgetting himself, he elevates his mind to seek God who is high and lofty. Moreover, there is a close connection and likeness among these three petitions. Where God’s name is hallowed, there is his Kingdom; and the principal mark of his Kingdom is that his will be done. When we consider how cold we are, and how slow to choose the greatest goods for which we are here commanded to pray, we see how needful and useful it is that these three petitions be thus distinguished one from another.

To hallow the name of God is simply to honor him as is his due, so that men shall not think or speak of him without the highest homage. The opposite of to hallow is to profane, which happens when men forget his majesty, or fail to render him the reverence and honor he deserves as God. Now, the glory by which God is hallowed [among men] emanates from and depends upon men’s common knowledge of his wisdom, goodness, righteousness, power, and every other excellency of God. Of course, God is never without his holiness; but men do obscure it with their ill will and wickedness, and violate and corrupt it with their unholy contempt. The sum of this petition, therefore, is that the glory of God may shine in the world and be duly celebrated among men. Religion is most alive and vigorous when men confess that all God’s works are right and worthy of praise, full of wisdom and altogether righteous. For, so it is that men embrace his Word with the obedience of faith, and approve of his pleasure and his works. But the faith by which we yield to God’s Word is as it were our signature by which we acknowledge that God is faithful (John 3:33); whereas, unbelief and contempt of his Word is the greatest possible dishonor to God.

These words spoke Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven. . . . John 17:1.

John’s present account of how Christ prayed with eyes raised to heaven indicates his uncommon zeal and ardor. With this gesture, Christ testified that in spirit he was in heaven rather than on earth; that, having left the society of men behind, he was in communion with God. He looked up to heaven, not because God, who fills heaven and earth, is in it, but because it reveals his majesty in a special way. Besides, by asking us to raise our eyes to heaven, he exalts the Deity of God above all his creatures. For this same reason, it is well to raise our hands up while we pray. Human nature being lazy and slow, and the mind being drawn downward toward earthly things, men need such goadings, rather such chariots, that they may rise to God. Besides, if we would imitate Christ, let us beware that there be no more in outward act than in the mind. Let the inner disposition move the eyes, hands, tongue, and all we have.

The behavior of the publican who cast his eyes down does not contradict [the action of Christ spoken of in] this verse. Even though he was cast down with shame over his sins, his humility did not prevent him from being confident as he prayed for forgiveness. It was proper of Christ to pray in a different way, because he had no reason for shame. David, himself, prayed with eyes up, or down, according to the occasion.

Commentaries on Faith

1. ASPECTS OF FAITH

Behold the elation (or, as others translates,whoever fortifies himself), his soul is not upright within him; but the just shall live by his faith. Hab. 2:4.

This verse is to be connected with the previous one. The prophet wants to emphasize that when all sorts of temptations beset our minds, we can do no better than rely upon the word of God. He does not present us with a new teaching; he tells us once again that our only solid and certain security lies in the promise of God, and that we must seek no other door to safety when we suffer under all the attacks of Satan and the world.

The two clauses present opposites. All who try to provide their own security will always be turning anxiously in all directions, and can have no peace of mind. The second clause is the logical consequence of this: we shall find quiet nowhere except in faith.

The first clause is interpreted in different ways. Some think that ’uppelah is a noun and take it as “loftiness.” This meaning does not fit badly, and I do not hesitate to accept it as the more correct. The Hebrews called the citadel ’ophel, and those who say that the name is derived from the verb ’aphal “to go up” are correct. (Those who think the root means “strength” are wrong.) Others misinterpret the verse as meaning that the unbelieving are seeking a citadel where they may defend themselves. But this makes little difference to the main point.

However, some interpreters differ more seriously and disagree as to substance. They put the predicate for subject and the subject for predicate, and get from the prophet’s words: “whoever lacks peace of mind seeks a citadel for himself in which he may rest safely or make himself strong.” Others take it: “Whoever is proud and thinks himself well fortified will always have a troubled mind.” This latter interpretation pleases me more, but I myself keep to the meaning of the word ’uppelah, and I think the prophet said, “Where there is elation of mind, there will be no tranquillity.”

However, we must first see what those who interpret differently are aiming at. They say that the unbelieving, who are perverse and refractory, are always seeking a place to loiter safely, because they are suspicious of everyone; and further that they do not look to God, but try to find in this world some way of warding off all calamities and dangers. That is what they think.

But as I said, the prophet is rather stating the penalty of all unbelievers; he means that, when they torment themselves, they only get what they deserve. This gives us a better antithesis. And the prophet’s teaching is more suggestive when we say that God imposes a due penalty on unbelievers by allowing them to be pulled in all directions and by letting their minds be troubled with hidden torments. When the prophet says that no peace of mind exists among those who think they have protected themselves well [by their own efforts] he knows that they are their own torturers, because they heap upon themselves many troubles, griefs, and anxieties, and are always upset and confused by their many different schemes. They decide first on one thing; then they prefer another. The Hebrews used the term “right-minded” to describe those who agree on some one thing and stand quiet. When uneasy thoughts drive people in various directions, then they say “the mind is not right in us.” We should keep to the plain sense of the prophet’s words. . . .

Then follows but the just will live in faith. I have no doubt that the prophet here sets faith over against all the safeguards with which men blind themselves in order to neglect God himself and to avoid asking aid from him. Because men put themselves in subjection to earthly things, and rely upon the falsehoods in which they trust, the prophet here ties life to faith. But faith, as we know and as I shall later explain more fully, depends upon God alone. Therefore, to live by faith means to abandon voluntarily all the defenses which so often fail us. One who know himself destitute of all protection will live in his faith if he seek whatever he needs from God alone; if he disregards the world and fixes his mind on heaven.

Since ’amunah in Hebrew is “truth,” some take it here a “integrity” ; as though the prophet had said that a righteous man had more protection in his own honesty and clear conscience than the sons of this world have in all the fortifications in which they take such pride. But these interpreters chill and dilute the prophet’s meaning because they do not understand the power of justification, which is free and by faith, which alone gives us our security. It is certain that the prophet meant here by the word ’amunah the faith which takes from us all arrogance and sets us naked and helpless before God, to ask from him alone the safety which otherwise would be beyond our reach. . . .

All unbelievers desire to make themselves secure, and they strengthen themselves with whatever they think can help them. But what does the just man do? He brings God nothing of his own, for man takes hold of faith by prayer alone; faith is not in our own hands. He who lives by faith does not have life in himself; he flees to God because he does not possess it. The verb here is in the future tense to show that life in faith will be lasting.

Now we must come to Paul who used this prophet’s witness to teach that salvation is not from works but solely from God’s mercy and therefore from faith (Rom. 1:17). Paul seems to have twisted the words to his own purpose, and even beyond what their sense will bear. For the prophet was here speaking of the present life, and he made no mention of heavenly life. As we have said, he was testifying to the faithful that God would be their liberator, and so he was encouraging them to be patient. Then he added that the just will live by his faith, even though he have no other help, and seem to be completely exposed to all the blows of fortune, of the wicked, and even of the devil. Anyone may well ask what this has to do with the eternal salvation of the soul. Paul seems too subtle when he drags this passage into a discussion of free justification by faith.

But we must keep firmly to this principle: All the benefits God confers upon the faithful in this life are for the strengthening of their hope that they shall inherit eternal life. However freely God acts in our behalf, our situation will still be miserable if our hope is restricted to earthly life. Therefore, as often as God aids us in this world and declares himself our Father, he wishes to turn our minds to the hope of eternal salvation. Equally, when the prophet says that men of faith shall live, he does not shut that life within narrow limits; he does not say that God will watch over us for two or three days (that is, for a few years); he goes much further and declares that we shall be truly and solidly blessed. Even if this whole world perishes or keeps changing for the worse, men of faith shall yet endure in firm and real safety. When Habakkuk promises life to the faithful in the future tense, there is no doubt that he goes beyond the bounds of this earth and promises them a life which shall be better than the one they had in this world where it is beset with so many calamities. Besides, the brevity of life here shows that too much of it is not desirable.

We conclude therefore that Paul used the words of the prophet wisely and properly as support for his own teaching. Surely the just live by faith alone, and there is no salvation for the soul apart from God’s mercy. . . .

Yesterday we compared Habakkuk’s statement that we shall live by faith with the teaching of Paul who inferred from it that we are justified by faith apart from works. The purpose of life and of righteousness is the same. Our life can be sought nowhere except in the Fatherly kindness of God. Therefore, for us, to live is to be bound to God. And there can be no hope of communion with God when our sins are charged to us. For since God is just, and cannot renounce himself, sin must always be hateful to him. Therefore, so long as he accounts us sinners, we are necessarily hated; and where God’s enmity is, there is death and destruction. It follows that no hope of life is left us unless we are reconciled to God. And there is no other way for God to bring us back to his favor except by accounting us righteous. Therefore Paul’s reasoning is excellent when he takes us from life to justification. The two are bound together, and are inseparable.

And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness. Gen. 15:6.

None of us would guess, if Paul had not showed it to us, how rich and profound a doctrine this verse contains. It is a strange thing, almost a prodigy, that when the Spirit of God kindles so bright a light, most interpreters grope around with closed eyes, as if in the darkness of night. (I am not counting the Jews whose blindness is obvious.) Even those who have in Paul a most lucid interpreter corrupt this passage so insipidly that, as I said, it must be counted a prodigy. Indeed in all ages Satan seems to have fought more violently against free justification by faith than against any other teaching, striving to extinguish it and smother it.

The words of Moses are, he believed God, and he counted it to him for righteousness. First, Moses commends the faith of Abraham by which he embraced the promise of God. Secondly, he adds a eulogy of that faith, saying that because of it Abraham acquired (adeptus sit) righteousness before God, and that by imputation. For the verb hashab, which Moses uses, stands in relation to God’s judgment; so also it is used in Ps. 106:31 where we read that the zeal of Phineas was counted to him for righteousness. The exact meaning of the word appears more clearly with the negative. In Lev. 7:18, it is said that iniquity will not be imputed to a man when expiation has been made. See also Lev. 17:4; 2 Sam. 19:19; 2 Kings 12:15.

We know that there exist criminals before God to whom iniquity is imputed. Exactly in the same way, God approves as righteous those to whom he imputes righteousness. Therefore Abram was received into the number and rank of the righteous by imputation of righteousness. In order to show distinctly the force and nature of this righteousness, Paul brings us before the heavenly tribunal of God.

Therefore those who twist this passage and interpret it as a description of righteousness, as if it said that Abram was a righteous and upright man, are talking insipid nonsense. The meaning of the text is corrupted no less by those who say ignorantly that Abram attributed to God the glory of righteousness and therefore dared confidently to credit God’s promises knowing him to be faithful and true. Although Moses does not expressly name God in the second clause, the usual mode of speaking in Scripture leaves no ambiguity. Certainly it is no less stupid than presumptuous to give to the words counted for righteousness any other meaning than that Abram’s faith was accepted by God instead of righteousness.

Yet it seems absurd that Abram was justified because he believed that his offspring would be as numerous as the stars of heaven. For believing in one such promise could not make the whole man righteous. Besides, what earthly and temporal promise could be valid ground for eternal salvation? I answer that the faith which Moses records here is not restricted to one point, but includes the whole promise of God. The promise of seed to Abram was not limited to this verse; it is given also in others where a special blessing is added. Hence we conclude that Abram did not in the ordinary fashion hope merely for descendants, but for offspring in which the world was to be blessed.

Now if anyone stubbornly insists that what was said of the children of Abram in general is distorted when applied to Christ, in the first place, it cannot be denied that God’s earlier promise, to his servant, is now repeated over again in answer to Abram’s complaint. But we have said before, and the account as a whole plainly shows, that it was his knowledge of the promised blessing which led Abram to desire seed so greatly. Hence it follows that the promise in this passage cannot be taken by itself, separated from the other promises. To conclude the whole matter, I say that if we are to judge the faith of Abram properly, we must consider all that is involved [in the stories about Abram].

God does not promise to give this or that good thing to his servant, in the way that he scatters benefits upon unbelievers who have no taste of his Fatherly love. He assures Abram that he himself will be gracious to him, and he promises him the enjoyment of his own protection and grace, and the confidence of salvation. A man whose heritage is God does not rejoice in flimsy pleasures, but as though already raised to heaven, he delights in the solid joy of eternal life. Certainly it must be held as self-evident that all God’s promises, which are destined for the faithful, flow from God’s gracious mercy and are proofs of his Fatherly love and free adoption on which their safety is founded. Therefore we say that Abram was justified not because he snatched at one little word about producing offspring, but because he embraced God the Father. Truly, faith justifies us for no other reason than that it reconciles us to God, and this not by its own merit, but only because as we receive the grace offered to us in the promises and are certainly persuaded that we are loved by God as sons, we also come to possess the assurance of life eternal.

Therefore Paul argues further that he to whom faith is reckoned for righteousness is not justified by works. For the merits of anyone who seeks justification by works are measured by God [before whom they are worthy of condemnation]. We comprehend the meaning of justification by faith when we know that God reconciles us to himself freely. Hence it follows that [concern with] the merit of works ends when justification is sought through faith. For if anyone is to possess righteousness by faith, it must necessarily be given by God and proffered to us by his Word.

To make this more clearly understood, when Moses says that faith was counted to Abram for righteousness, this does not mean that faith was the first cause (what is called the efficient cause) of righteousness; it was only the formal cause. Calvin is following Aristotle’s classification of causes as material, formal, efficient, and final. The conventional classroom illustration today is the pair of trousers of which the cloth is the material cause, the pattern is the formal cause, the tailor is the efficient cause, and the reception at which the trousers are to be worn is the final cause. The words of Moses mean: “Abram was justified because relying on the Fatherly kindness of God, he had confidence in God’s goodness alone, and not in himself and his merits.” We need especially to understand that faith obtains (mutuari) from elsewhere a righteousness which we do not possess. Otherwise Paul would not oppose faith to works as a way of obtaining righteousness. And the mutual relation between free promise and faith leaves no room for doubt.

The sequence of time must now be noted. Abram was justified by faith many years after he had been called by God, after he had left his native land and had become a voluntary exile, after he had been a conspicuous mirror of endurance and self-control, after he had devoted himself wholly to holiness, after he had practiced himself in the spiritual and the external worship of God and had led an almost angelic life. So it follows that, even at the end of life, we are brought into God’s eternal Kingdom by justification by faith.

At this point many are grossly deceived. They admit indeed that the righteousness which is given freely to sinners and offered to the undeserving is received by faith alone. But they limit this justification by faith to a moment of time, so that a man, once at the beginning having obtained righteousness by faith is afterwards made righteous by good works. Faith is merely the beginning of righteousness, and as life continues righteousness consists in works. Those who so interpret the teaching must be insane. For if the angelic integrity of Abram, exercised faithfully and consistently for so many years, did not prevent the necessity of fleeing to faith to find righteousness, where in the world will be found a perfection which can meet God’s scrutiny? Therefore we conclude from the time sequence [which I previously mentioned] that justification of works is not to be substituted for justification of faith as if the latter began and the former completed justification; but that the saints, so long as they live in the world, are justified by faith. If anyone objects that Abram had formerly believed God when he followed his call and committed himself to his instruction and guardianship, the answer is easy. No statement is made as to when Abram first began to be justified by believing God; but this one passage does show in what way he was justified in his whole life. If Moses had spoken thus about Abram’s first calling the objection I have just mentioned (that initial righteousness, but not perpetual, is of faith) would have more color. But when Abram is said to become righteous by faith after having gone through so much, it easily appears that the saints are justified by grace until they die.

I admit indeed that after those who believe are born again, in the Spirit of God, the mode of their justification differs somewhat. For those born of the flesh only, God reconciles to himself while they are empty of all good. When he finds in them nothing except a filthy heap of dreadful evils, he holds them righteous by imputation. But those to whom he has given the Spirit of holiness and righteousness, he clothes with his gifts. But even then, if their good works please God, this must be by his gracious imputation, because something of sin always remains in them.

This truth holds: men are justified by believing, not by what they do. It is by faith they obtain grace: and grace cannot be earned as a payment for works. Since Abram, with all his preeminence in virtue, after a long life of unique service of God, was yet justified by faith, the righteousness of each perfected man consists in faith alone. It is important to say plainly that what is here told of one man must be applied to all men. For Abram was called “father of the faithful” with good reason, and there are not diverse ways of seeking salvation. Paul rightly teaches that what is here described is not the righteousness of an individual man, but true righteousness as such.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. John 5:24.

It is not enough to know his teaching that he came to raise the dead, unless we also know how he liberates us from death. He declares that we obtain life by hearing his doctrine, but as he soon adds by hearing he means faith. And faith has its seat not in the ears but in the heart; which gives faith its great power, as we have explained before. But let us always keep in mind what the gospel offers us. It is no wonder that anyone who receives Christ with all his merits is both reconciled with God and freed from condemnation of death; for he who receives the Holy Spirit puts on a heavenly righteousness and walks in newness of life (Rom. 6:4).

That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death. Phil. 3:10.

Here the apostle describes the nature and efficacy of faith, which is the knowledge of Christ; not a general and vague faith, but the faith we have in the power of his resurrection. Since resurrection completes the work of redemption, it presupposes death. But it is not enough to know that Christ was crucified and rose from the dead, unless we know these things in our lives. This is why Paul speaks explicitly of the power of his resurrection. We know Christ in the right way when we experience the meaning of his death and resurrection within us and as they become effective in us. The expiation and obliteration of sins, freedom from condemnation, satisfaction, victory over death, the attainment of righteousness, and the hope of a blessed immortality — all these are ours by the power of his resurrection.

And the fellowship of his sufferings. After he speaks of the righteousness which was received freely by partaking in the resurrection of Christ, he speaks in addition of the actions of the Godly, so as not to seem to have advocated an idle faith, having no fruits in our life. And, since the false apostles were so aggressive with their empty ceremonials, he indicates the kind of exercises which God requires his people to pursue. Let, therefore, everyone who has shared in all the benefits which Christ has conferred upon us know that his whole life ought to conform to the death of Christ.

Moreover, we participate in the death of Christ and associate with him in it in a twofold way. The one way is inward, which Scripture usually calls the mortification of the flesh, or the crucifixion of the old man. It is of this that Paul speaks in Romans 6. The other is outward, which is called the mortification of the outward man. Of this, he speaks in the eighth chapter of that epistle, and, if I am not mistaken, also in this place. After the all-inclusive power of the resurrection, he sets before us Christ crucified, so that we may be his followers through tribulations and sufferings. When he speaks of the resurrection of the dead in particular, it is to teach us that before we live, we must die. The faithful ought to meditate upon this, so long as they sojourn upon this earth.

It is our singular consolation that, as members of his body, in all our sufferings we are associated in the cross of Christ; that, as he says elsewhere, through afflictions we are shown a way to eternal blessedness. If we die, we shall live. If we suffer, we shall reign (2 Tim. 2:11–12). We must, therefore, be ready to let our whole life be in the image of death, until it issues in death itself, just as the life of Christ was nothing else than an anticipation of death. In the meantime, we have joy in the consolation that the end is eternal blessedness. The death of Christ, therefore, is joined with his resurrection. This is why Paul says that he was conformed to Christ’s death, that he might attain a glorious resurrection. The phrase by any means, indicates not doubt but difficulty. It is meant to arouse our zeal, because ours is no light skirmish, but a battle against many and great obstacles.

For the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God. John 16:27.

These words remind us that the only bond which unites us with God is union with Christ. But the faith which unites us with Christ is not something contrived; it grows out of a genuine feeling which is here called love. Such faith does not merely believe about Christ; it embraces him with the soul. Therefore, love expresses well the power and the nature of faith. Truly, if God begins to love us only when we already love Christ, it follows that our love comes before God’s grace, and that the beginning of our salvation is in us. But many passages in Scripture cry out against such a statement. The promise of God is, “I shall make them to love me,” and John says, “It is not that we first loved him” (1 John 4:10). It is unnecessary to cite many passages. There is nothing more certain than the teaching that the Lord calls a people who are not; that he revives the dead, unites to himself those who are strangers, turns hearts of stone into flesh, and appears to those who do not even seek after him. I reply that the elect, before they are called, are secretly loved by God who loves his own before they exist. But before they are reconciled to God, they are rightly regarded as his enemies, as we read in Paul and elsewhere (Rom. 5:10). We are here said to be loved of God when we love Christ; because when we love Christ, we receive a pledge that God loves us as Father; whereas, before we love Christ, he terrifies us as a hostile judge.

And keep my Sabbaths holy, and they will be for a sign between one and you, for understanding (that is, that you may understand or know) that I am the Lord your God. Ezek. 20:20. (Calvin’s wording.)

The way to keep the Sabbath holy had already been explained. Mere idleness was unimportant. Therefore he repeats and they shall be for a sign between me and you, that you may know that I am the Lord your God. God bears witness in these words that if the Jews kept the Sabbath rightly, they would experience the working of his grace, which he wished his Sabbath to represent. For we have said that God wished the Sabbath to be a sacrament of the new birth. He promises the people that his Spirit will work among them if only they do not close the door to him by their own impiety and contempt.

Hence we see that sacraments are never without the power of the Spirit except when men make themselves unfit to receive the grace offered. The papists say of the sacraments that they are effective if we do not interpose the barrier of a mortal sin. They make no mention of faith. For example, if someone without a single drop of faith pushes up to the Lord’s Supper, they say he will receive not only Christ’s body and blood but also the fruit of his death and resurrection, on the sole condition that he has not committed a mortal sin; that is, if he cannot be convicted of theft or murder. We see in what blindness they are sunk; and this by the just judgment of God.

But by us the mutual relation between faith and sacrament must be steadily maintained. The sacraments become effective through faith; and men’s unworthiness does not lessen their effect.

Sacraments always retain their own character. Baptism is the water of rebirth, though the whole world disbelieve. The Table of Christ is the communion of his body and blood, even if there were not the tiniest spark of faith in the world. But we do not perceive [without faith] the grace which is offered to us. And although the spiritual content remains always the same, we neither obtain the effect nor feel the power of the sacraments unless we are careful that our lack of faith does not profane what God has sanctified for our salvation.

But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them. 2 Tim. 3:14.

He commands Timothy to stay put, even when evil is on the rampage and scatters destruction very far and wide. And surely this is the real proof of faith, that we resist all the machinations of the devil with a tireless constancy; that we be not deflected from the right course by every wind that blows, but remain fixed on God’s truth as on a sacred anchor.

Now with the phrase knowing from whom thou hast learned them, he tells us we can be certain that the doctrine is true. No one who has been taught a wrong doctrine should hold on to it. On the contrary, if we would be Christ’s disciples, we ought to unlearn any doctrine which ignores Christ; wherefore, the beginning of sound instruction in the faith is to reject and forget the whole doctrine of the papacy. In fact, the apostle enjoins Timothy not to keep every doctrine handed down to him, but to use discrimination, and to retain that which he has confirmed as true. Besides, he does not claim that what he himself has taught as a private person should be received as an oracle. He confronts Timothy confidently with his own authority, which was already recognized as evident from the apostle’s calling and his faithfulness. Since Timothy was convinced that he was taught by an ambassador of Christ, he understood that the teaching he had received belonged not to men but to Christ.

This passage warns us that as we must be zealous to avoid obstinacy in matters where no certainty is to be had (and to this class belong all the teachings of men): we must be adamant in our constancy only in holding on to God’s truth. Besides, we learn here that faith needs to be combined with good sense, to distinguish the word of God from the word of men, so that we may not grab at everything that happens to be within our reach. Nothing is further from faith than lightheaded credulity which embraces and champions senselessly everything, no matter what it is and where it comes from. Above all, the foundation of faith is the knowledge that its author is God.

Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. Josh. 10:12.

Joshua spoke to the Lord is the literal translation. But some explain this as before the Lord, because to speak to the Lord whom reverence teaches us to petition humbly seems inconsistent with the humility of faith, and also because Joshua immediately afterwards addressed his words to the sun. However, I have no doubt that in the first clause a vow or prayer is meant, and that the second clause gives evidence of Joshua’s faith after he has been heard by God. It would certainly have been an act of rash pride to order the sun to stand still, if God had not granted the favor.

Joshua consults God and petitions him, and when he has been answered, he boldly orders the sun to do what he knows God approves. Such is the strength of the privilege of faith, praised by Christ, which subjugates mountains and seas to its power (Matt. 17:20; Luke 17:6). The more the strength of the faithful is exhausted, the more generously does God transfer his power to them, revealing his own power through that faith which is bound to the Word. Briefly, faith founded upon the Word is transmuted into confident power. So Elijah closed heaven and opened it at his command and brought fire down from heaven (1 Kings 17–18). So Christ endowed his disciples with heavenly power so that the elements were subject to them.

Only, it is necessary to be on guard against bursting out with rash commands at one’s own will. For this reason, Joshua did not begin to delay and hold back the course of the sun until he was duly informed of God’s plan. When it is said that Joshua spoke with God, the words do not properly express the meekness and submission with which a servant of God ought to begin his prayers. Yet they serve to show us that Joshua asked of God the thing he desired and then, after he had prayed, he was the free and brave herald of an incredible miracle which had not yet occurred. He never would have given a command to the sun so confidently in front of all Israel unless he had been sure of his own vocation. Otherwise he would only have exposed himself to shame and humiliation.

Unhesitatingly he shouts his order to the sun and moon to turn aside from the perpetual law of nature. He knows that he is commanding them by the power of God which has been given to him.

For I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. 2 Tim. 1:12.

This is the only refuge of the godly; whenever the world counts them condemned and without hope; it is enough that God approves of them. For, what would be the end if they depended upon men?

This shows how different faith is from opinion. When Paul says, I know whom I have believed, he means that it is far from enough for you to believe unless [your belief rest] on the authority of God, and unless you be certain of what you believe. Faith therefore does not lean upon the authority of men; and as it leans upon God, it knows no wavering. Thus, faith must be joined with knowledge, otherwise it would have no firmness against the countless assaults of Satan. Anyone who possesses this knowledge with Paul knows by experience that it is not for nothing that our faith has been called the victory that overcometh the world; or that Christ said, The gates of hell shall not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18). I say, The man who remains tranquil in the midst of storms and tempests is one who has the firm knowledge that God has spoken, and will not lie; that he will not deceive, but will certainly perform what he has promised. On the contrary, anyone in whom this truth has not been sealed is swayed endlessly back and forth like a reed.

This passage deserves special attention as a superb statement of the power of faith; it teaches us to glorify God, even in the most desperate situations, by not doubting that he is true and faithful; it also teaches us to be content with the Word, as though God himself appeared to us from heaven. Anyone who is not thus persuaded understands nothing. Besides, let us always remember that Paul does not philosophize in the dark, but testifies to the power of confident hope in eternal life as one who, even at present, knows it.

And I am persuaded that he is able. Since the perils which assail us are at once great and powerful, and often tempt our spirits to distrust, it is necessary for us to go about with the shield that God has power enough to protect us. In the same way, when Christ bids us to be confident, he argues, saying, “The Father, who gave you to me is greater than all” (John 10:29). He thus declares that we are above the reach of peril, because the Lord who has taken us under his protection, abounds in power and is able to repel every assault. Satan does not dare to suggest directly that God is powerless, or that he can be prevented from doing whatever he promises, because our minds abhor such blasphemy against God. But he does deprive us of all sense of God’s power, by preoccupying our eyes and our minds with other things. The soul of man, therefore, needs to be purified, not only to taste the power of God, but also to keep tasting it under sundry temptations.

Besides, whenever Paul speaks of God’s power we must conceive it as, so to speak, active, or ἐνεργουμένην, as he calls it elsewhere (Col. 1:29). Faith always connects the power of God with the Word, and does not imagine it as something distant, but conceives and possesses it in the inner man. So, Rom. 4:20 says of Abram, “He did not hesitate, or dispute, but gave God the glory, being fully convinced that what he had promised, he was able to perform.” And it was life eternal that the apostle trusted in God: which means that we are to put our well-being in God’s hand as we put our possessions in the hand of a trustee whom we trust as a faithful man. If our well-being depended upon ourselves, it would be endlessly exposed to peril: it is well, therefore, that we turn it over to such a protector; for then it is safely beyond all peril.

Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness. Titus 1:1.

I believe we shall interpret this verse rightly if we take the word and in the latter half of the sentence as meaning that is. Thus the last clause of the verse explains the nature of the faith of God’s elect, even though what we have here is not a full definition of faith but a characterization of it adapted to the apostle’s present purpose. He sets his apostleship apart from error and imposture, by asserting that it contains nothing except truth which is at once evident and certain, and which instructs men in a pure worship of God. But since every word in this verse is weighty, we would benefit greatly if we looked at the whole mosaic, section by section.

In the first place, faith is called knowledge, not as against opinion, but as against the hazy affair invented by the papists: for they have contrived an “implicit faith” with no understanding in it. But when Paul makes this knowledge of truth a proper function of faith, he makes it clear that there is no such thing as faith without knowledge.

And the word truth expresses even more clearly the certainty that is essential to faith. For faith is not content with the probabilities provided by our reasonings. Its proper object is the truth itself. Besides, we are concerned not with any truth, but with that truth from heaven which stands in contrast to the vanities proposed by the human mind. Since it is this truth which reveals God himself to us, it alone deserves to go by that name; and so it is honored commonly in Scripture: John 16:13: And the Spirit shall lead you unto all truth; John 17:17: Thy word is truth; Gal. 3:1: Who hath bewitched you that you do not obey the truth; Col. 1:5: Having heard the word of truth, the gospel of the Son of God; 1 Tim. 2:4: He would have all come to the knowledge of the truth; 1 Tim. 3:15: The church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. In short, truth is that right and sincere knowledge of God which frees us from all lies and error. And surely such knowledge should be very precious to us, since there is nothing more miserable than for us to wander around all our lives like dumb cattle.

According to godliness, which follows, puts a special restriction upon the meaning of truth; at the same time, it commends the teaching of Paul by its fruit and end, which tends toward nothing else than the right worship of God and the flourishing of pure religion among men. It is thus that he defends his teaching as free from every mark of godless curiosity, as he had done before Felix (Acts 24:10) and then before Agrippa (Acts 26:1). Therefore, it is only right that the godly should be suspicious of and detest all empty questioning which does not make for the building up of the church. The only legitimate recommendation that can be given to doctrine is that it teaches reverence and the fear of God. Thus we are reminded that the best disciple of Christ is one who has made the greatest progress in reverence; and he alone is to be considered a true theologian who builds up the consciences of men in the fear of God.

Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entered into that within the veil. Heb. 6:19.

This is an eloquent comparison between an anchor and faith resting upon the Word of God. It is obvious that while we wander in this world, we do not stand on firm ground; on the contrary, we are as in the middle of the sea, tossed about by turbulent waves. The devil does not cease stirring up innumerable storms, which almost overturn and sink our ship, unless we throw our anchor deep in the sea. Our eyes see no harbor anywhere. In whatever direction we look, we see only water, and the waves keep rising with deadly threat. Just as the anchor is thrown into the midst of the waters to some dark and secret place, and while it remains there, it keeps the ship from being broken up by the waves surrounding it — so our hope needs to hold fast to the invisible God. But there is a difference between the anchor and our hope; the former is thrown down into the sea because the earth is at the bottom of it; the latter, on the other hand, is lifted up and soars on high because it finds nothing to hold on to on this earth. For our hope must not cling to the creature, but must find its quietness in God. As the cable tied to the anchor connects the vessel with the earth at a long distance through the dark waters, so God’s truth is a bond which connects us with himself; and no distance, or foggy darkness, can keep us from clinging to him. When we are thus tied to God, even when we struggle constantly with storms, we remain beyond the danger of shipwreck. This is why he says that the anchor is sure and firm. It can, of course, be that the rush of the waters will pull the anchor off, or break the cable, and tear the beaten ship to pieces. Such a thing can happen in the sea. But the power of God which sustains us is different; different is the fortitude of hope, and different the firmness of his Word.

Which entered into that. As we have said, unless faith reaches God, it finds nothing except what is unstable and in flux. Therefore, it needs to penetrate as far as heaven. But since the apostle was dealing with the Jews, he refers to the old tabernacle, and says that they should not tarry with the things visible, but should rather penetrate into the inmost holy places hidden behind the veil: the old and external copies are to be set aside in order that faith may rest in Christ alone.

But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering; for he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. James 1:6.

Here he teaches first the right way to pray. Since we can pray only as we are led by the Word of God, it follows that faith comes before prayer. When we pray, we testify to the grace which is the promise of God to us: and so testifying, we have hope. Thus, anyone who does not believe the promises, has only the semblance of prayer. Thus also we learn what true prayer is; for as James bids us to ask in faith, he explains in addition that we are to hesitate at nothing. Faith, therefore, rests upon God’s promises and gives us the certainty that what we ask for we shall receive; whence it follows that a confident trust in us goes with the love of God toward us. The word διακρίνεθαι used in this place means properly to inquire into both sides of a controversy. He would have us be persuaded that once God has made a promise there is no room left for doubt as to whether we shall or shall not be heard

He who wavers. By an elegant simile, he tells us how God punishes the infidelity of those who doubt his promises. Such people are tortured by their own inquietude, for there is no such thing as tranquillity for our spirits unless they lean upon the truth of God. He concludes finally that those who doubt God do not deserve anything from him. This is an excellent passage with which to refute the impious dogma, accepted as an oracle throughout papal lands, that we should pray in a state of doubt, hardly knowing what will come out of our praying. On the contrary, we hold the principle that the Lord will not hear our prayers unless there is the confident expectation that what we ask for we shall receive. But considering the weakness of the flesh, it is all too true that we are agitated by various temptations, which are engines for the shattering of our confidence in God. Hence, we find no one who is not in fact led by the feelings of his flesh to waver and shake in his boots. But it is the business of faith finally to overcome temptations of this kind; for faith is like a tree which has sunk deep roots; indeed, when the winds blow, it sways and bends, but it is not heaved out of the ground; on the contrary, it remains standing and firm where it belongs.

2. FAITH AS FAITHFULNESS AND COURAGE

Jesus saith to him, Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed; blessed are they who have not seen and have believed. John 20:29.

Here Christ commends faith on the ground that it does not in the least depend upon sense and carnal reason, but acquiesces in the mere Word of God. Therefore, in this brief definition, he brings together both the power and the essence of faith; namely, that it does not consist in seeing what is before us, but penetrates to the very heavens, so as to believe the things which are hidden from the human senses. For surely we ought so to know God that his truth may be to us αὐτόπιστος (to be believed simply because it is his Word). Faith indeed has its own sight, but it is not fixed on things upon this world and earth. For this reason, it is said to be a demonstration of things invisible and not seen (Heb. 15:1). Paul, also, who contrasts it with sight (2 Cor. 5:7) points out that faith, without holding to a consideration of the state of things present, or looking about at things visible in this world, hangs on to the mouth of God; and putting its confidence in the Word of God, it rises above the whole world and casts its anchor in heaven.

Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego answered the king and said: O Nebuchadnezer, we are not anxious with what words we are to answer thee (or negotiate with thee). (Others translate it, “It is not right that we should answer thee in this matter” ; they say l is here, as often, superfluous.) Lo, God whom we serve is able to (that is, can) deliver us from the furnaces of raging fire and will snatch us from thy hand, O king. But if not, be it known to thee, O king, that we shall not worship thy Gods, and we shall not adore the images which thou hast set up. Dan. 3:16–18. (Calvin’s wording.)

The chief emphasis in this account is upon the unbroken spirit of the three holy and God-fearing men, when they knew that they were in imminent danger of death. Although a horrible death was before their eyes, they did not swerve from the right path but set the glory of God above their own life — even above a hundred lives if they had had so many and such a sacrifice were required.

Daniel does not report all their words but selects only a few in which glows the unconquerable power of the Holy Spirit who instructed them. The king’s threat, be hurled into the furnace of fire, was certainly horrible, and terror before his rage would have been very natural. For we know how dear life is to us and what dread of death fills our minds. Daniel has described the whole situation to make it clear to us that God’s servants, when they are led by the Spirit, have too much courage to yield to any threats or give way to any fears. They say to the king, “We need not deliberate.” When they say that they are not anxious, they mean “the matter is settled; we have no desire to hold a consultation about what is expedient or helpful. Not at all. . . . In so holy a matter no deliberation is possible. We have already decided that we must not depart in any way from the pure worship of God.” Clearly, the fear of death, however closely it hangs over them, and however deeply it is ingrained in their hearts, does not make them deviate a hair’s breadth from the true and right worship of God.

They give two reasons for rejecting the king’s proposal. They say that God has sufficient power and might to rescue them; and then they add that even if they must die, life is not so precious that they would deny God to prolong it. They declare themselves ready for death if the king still insists that they worship the statue.

This passage is especially worth our study. We should note the first answer which shows us that when we are urged to deny the true God we must close our ears and do no deliberating. For we begin to dishonor God when we debate whether it be allowable for any reason whatever to depart from his pure worship. How I wish that all men would become so conscious of the supreme excellence of the glory of God that they would disregard all else whenever there is any attempt to lessen or hide God’s glory!

But many today have accepted a fallacy. They think either that they have a right to sit on the fence or that at times it may be better to swerve temporarily from the true worship of God. They reason: “There is some good on both sides. . . . Or if I did not compromise, I might harm others as well as myself. If our ruler had no advisers to counsel moderation, the wicked could go to extremes and urge him, without restraint, to all kinds of cruelty. Therefore, it is better to have some middle-of-the roaders, who humor the wicked and who keep a watch on their schemes, so that without open opposition they may by underground means avert danger from the heads of good men.” So they convince themselves that they are doing their bit for God.

Could not Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego have given the same kind of excuse? Could they not have thought: “We have some power to help our brothers. How much greater barbarities and cruelties would follow if open enemies of religion replace us! For they would try their best to destroy from the earth both our race and the memory of our religion. Isn’t it better for us to yield temporarily to tyranny and the king’s harsh decree than to leave our office to be occupied by raging men who will totally destroy our poor people who are already in enough trouble?” They could have found plenty of excuses for their faithlessness if, to avoid danger, they had bent their knees before the golden image. But they did not.

As I have said, God’s right remains unviolated only when we adhere unquestioningly to his service and are convinced that no consideration is important enough to permit us to make it lawful for us to deviate in the slightest degree from that course of action which he commands by his word and which he requires of us. . . . Why do we live except to serve God’s glory? If we lose our purpose in living for the sake of life — that is, if we desire too much to live in the world — we set aside the purpose of life.

When the three declare that God is able to save them, but if not, they are ready for death — they reveal a truth which ought to raise our hearts above all temptations. Since our life is dear to God, he himself, if he wishes, can rescue us. Since, then, we have in God a sufficient protection, let us not try to imagine any better way of preserving our life than by surrendering ourselves wholly to his direction and casting all our anxieties upon him. And we must also consider the second clause. Even if God wishes to make his glory shine by our death, this would be a rightful sacrifice, and it should be offered to him. True religion does not flourish in us unless we take our life in our hand, that is, unless we hold it always ready for sacrifice. (I wanted to present briefly today what, if God permits, I shall treat more at length tomorrow.)

By faith, Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house: by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. Heb. 11:7.

It was a wonderful example of courage that, while the whole world did as they pleased, and gave themselves up to pleasure, without fear and without restraint, Noah alone kept his eyes on God’s judgment, although it was delayed for a time; and for one hundred and twenty years he went through the weariness and misery of building an ark. All this time he remained adamant, while the godless crowds jeered at him; he never doubted that the world would perish and he would be saved. Yea, he lived in the ark as in the grave. But I need not say more about this; let someone else who can do better expand on it. [It is enough to say that] the apostle attributes this marvelous courage to faith. So far he had been speaking of the faith of the fathers who lived in the first age of the world. But when Noah and his family came out of the Flood, faith became a kind of regeneration. The case of Noah shows that in all ages men neither have been approved by God, nor have deserved his praise, except by faith.

Now, the story of Noah leads to the following considerations: first, that warned of things to come, which he still could not see, he was filled with awe and fear; secondly, that thereupon he built an ark; thirdly, that by building it he condemned the world; fourthly, that he inherited the righteousness which is according to faith. My first point brings out the power of faith best. It always recalls us to the primary truth that faith is the evidence of things not seen; for it is surely the property of faith to see in God’s Word the things which are hidden and far beyond the competence of our senses. When Noah was told that after one hundred and twenty years there would be a flood, the length of time involved might have taken away all his fear. Besides, the whole thing was incredible. He saw the unbelievers going ahead, safe and secure, with their life of pleasure. He might have thought that the dreadful news of a flood was an empty threat to terrify the people. But Noah held such respect for the Word of God that he turned his eyes away from the things present, and feared the destruction threatened by God as though it were already happening. The faith he had in God’s Word was turned into the obedience to God which was demonstrated in his building the ark.

Now, somebody will raise the question, Why does the apostle say that faith produced fear if it be true that faith is bound to promises rather than to threatenings? It is the gospel, in which the righteousness of God is offered to us for our salvation, that Paul calls the word of faith (Rom. 10:8). It seems therefore wrong to say that by faith Noah was led to fear. I answer, Faith grows properly out of the promises; it is founded in them and rests upon them. Therefore, we say that Christ is the true end of faith, since it is in him that the Heavenly Father has been reconciled to us, and in him all the promises of salvation have been sealed and ratified. However, nothing keeps faith from being fixed upon God and accepting from him every word he speaks. Or, if you would have it put more briefly, it is the function of faith to hear God as he speaks, and to embrace without doubt whatever proceeds from his holy mouth. Thus, faith acknowledges precepts and threats, as well as God’s free promises. But since no one manages to obey God’s precepts properly and sufficiently, no one is moved to pray that he may be delivered from his wrath, unless he has laid hold of God’s gracious promises and knows him as a good Father and the Author of salvation. Therefore, the gospel is called the Word of faith, for it is the principal part of the Word of God; and this is how faith and the promises are related one to the other. Faith attends to the promises of God; but is no less intent upon his threatenings, in so far as it needs to be taught to fear God and to submit to him.

Prepared the ark. Here the apostle points out the obedience which flows out of faith as water from a fountain. The work of building the ark was long and laborious. It might have been hindered by the scoffings of the ungodly, and thus interrupted a thousand times; for there is no doubt that the holy man was pelted with insults on all sides. The very fact that he bore their derision with an unbroken spirit shows the uncommon zeal of Noah’s submission to God. But what was the source of this constancy of obedience if not that he rested in the promise of God, which gave him the hope of salvation, and led him to believe in God to the very end? For he would not have had the courage to meet willingly so many troubles, or to overcome so many obstacles, or to stand firm at his task so long, if he had not already trusted in God. Faith alone therefore is the teacher of obedience, while unbelief keeps us from obeying God. And in our own day, the world’s unbelief shows itself in a frightful way, for there are few who obey God.

By which he condemned the world. It would be strange to say that Noah by faith condemned the world. The context of this verse hardly bears this out. Therefore, the reference is to the ark. The world is said to have been condemned by the ark in a double sense. Since the building of the ark took so long, it left the wicked without any excuse. Besides, what followed the building of it showed that the condemnation of the world was just. Why indeed did the ark become the means of salvation to one family, if not because by his righteousness one man was spared the wrath of the Lord, and did not perish with the wicked? Had he not been left as a remnant, the condemnation of the world would not have been so conspicuous. By the very example of his obedience to God’s command, Noah condemned the perversity of the world. The very fact that Noah was snatched away so marvelously from the jaws of death is proof enough that the condemnation of the whole world was just; for certainly God would have saved it had it not been unworthy of salvation.

Of the righteousness which is by faith. This is the last thing about Noah which the apostle brings to our attention. Moses says that Noah was a righteous man. History does not tell us that the root and reason of Noah’s righteousness was in faith. But the apostle testifies to this as a fair inference from the facts of the case; not only because no one obeys God with sincerity unless, after receiving the promises of his Fatherly goodness, he trusts him with his very life; but also because no one can please God without his forgiveness, no matter how righteous his life is according to the rule of God’s law. Therefore, it is necessary that our righteousness rest in faith.

By faith, Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son. . . . Heb. 11:17.

The author goes on with the rest of the story of Abraham, and tells of his offering up of Isaac. Here we have an example of singular courage, and we are not likely to find anything like it anywhere. . . .

And he that received the promises. All that was said so far, how ever deeply it may have wounded Abraham, was a mere prick compared with this trial in which, after he had received the promise, he was commanded to kill his son Isaac. For all the promises were founded upon this: In Isaac shall thy seed be called (Gen. 21:12); and without him no hope remained of any good or blessing whatever. Besides, what was at stake here was nothing earthly. It had to do with the everlasting salvation of Abraham; yea, even of the whole world. We can imagine what anguish took hold of the holy man when he realized that in the person of his son the very hope of eternal life was to be extinguished! And yet by faith he escaped such dark thoughts, and did as he was commanded. What a wonderful power it was that enabled him to overcome so many and so arduous obstacles! No wonder that faith deserves the highest praise, since it alone made it possible for Abraham to persevere without defeat.

But here we meet a difficulty which is no small matter. How is it that Abraham’s faith is praiseworthy if it was separated from the promise? For, as obedience is from faith, so faith is from promise. Therefore, when Abraham was deprived of the promise, his faith also must have failed. Now, the death of Isaac, as we have said, would have been as it were the collapse of all the promises; since Isaac was no ordinary man, but one who included Christ. This difficulty, which would otherwise not have been easy to deal with, is resolved by the apostle when he adds soon after that Abraham honored God by believing that he could raise his son from the dead. Therefore, he did not reject the promise made to him, but extended its truth and God’s power beyond the life of his son; because he did not set the power of God within narrow limits, as though it were tied up to Isaac’s death and would become void with it. He held on to the promise, because he did not bind God’s power merely to Isaac’s lifetime. He was persuaded that it would be active and efficacious in the ashes of a dead Isaac, as it was when he was alive and breathing.

By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible. Heb. 11:27.

This may be said of the first time Moses left Egypt as well as of the second, when he took the people with him; for, he did leave Egypt in a real sense when he ran away from the Pharaoh’s house. When the apostle says that Moses left Egypt before the celebration of the Passover, he means the first flight. His adding that Moses did not fear the wrath of the king does not invalidate this view, though Moses himself says that he fled because of terror.

Still, when we consider the early career of Moses, we see that it was when he came out as the champion of the people that he was not afraid. When I consider all the circumstances, I prefer to think that here we have to do with Moses’ second departure. It was then that he scorned the wrath of the king, and was so armed with the power of God’s Spirit that he often excited the fury of that beast. Such certainly was the energy of his faith that, taking along with him a multitude untrained in warfare, and bearing the burden of many obstacles, he went with the hope that God by his own hand would open a way through the countless difficulties which beset him. He saw a most potent king seized by impotent rage, and knew that he would do his utmost to the very end. But since he knew that he was departing by God’s power, he commended the situation to God, and did not doubt that God would in time bring the assault of all the Egyptians to a dead stop.

As seeing him who is invisible. But Moses did see God in the burning bush; besides, it looks as though this point is introduced here improperly and without relevance to the matter on hand. I admit readily that Moses was fortified by his vision, as he set out for the glorious task of delivering his people. But I deny that his vision of God divested him of his bodily senses and put him beyond the perils of this world. Strictly speaking, God gave him a sign of his presence; but he was very far from having seen God as he really is. What the apostle means to say is that Moses endured as though he were lifted to heaven and saw God alone; as though he were beyond intercourse with men, beyond the reach of this life’s perils and the struggle with Pharaoh. And yet, he was certainly beset with so many difficulties that he could not but imagine sometimes that God was far away from him; or, at least, that the obstinacy of the king, supported by overwhelming arms, would be impossible to resist effectively. In short, God presented himself to Moses as living, but not so that faith became superfluous. Moses himself, beset by terrors on all sides, turned his whole mind to God. As we have said, his vision helped him to do this; but he saw more in God than was visible by the sign of the bush. His apprehension of God’s power absorbed all fear and every peril; leaning upon God’s promise, he saw his people, even while they were being oppressed under the tyranny of the Egyptians, as already lords in the Promised Land.

So, we learn first that the true nature of faith is to set God always before our eyes; secondly, that faith has insight into things higher and deeper than those which fall within the scope of our senses; thirdly, that only a sight of God is sufficient to remove our softness and to make us as rocks against the assaults of Satan. It follows that the more indolent and the weaker a man is, the less faith he has.

By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days. Heb. 11:30.

Before this, he taught us that the yoke of bondage was broken by faith; he now reminds us that by that same faith the people took possession of their inheritance. As they entered the land, they first came up against the city of Jericho; fortified and almost impregnable, it forbade further progress, since they had no means for assaulting it. The Lord ordered that all the fighting men go around it once every day for six days, and seven times on the seventh day. All this going around was childish and extremely ridiculous. Nevertheless, they obeyed God’s command; and their labor was not in vain. It ended happily, according to the promise of God. Surely the walls fell down, not because the people shouted and made a big noise, nor because of the din and the clamor of the trumpets, but because the people believed that God would do as he had promised.

The Lord your God, he is God in heaven above and in earth beneath. Now, therefore, I pray you, swear unto me by the Lord. . . . Josh. 2:11–12.

The image of the faith of Rahab shines clear as in a mirror when, throwing away all idols, she ascribes the rule of heaven and earth to the God of Israel alone. Without question, when [men acknowledge that] heaven and earth are subject to the God of Israel, the fictitious gods of the nations amongst which they distribute the majesty and the power and the glory of God are wholly repudiated. Therefore Rahab was not too highly honored when two apostles referred to her faith.

Certain arrogant and over-punctilious men make a face at this. I wish that they could weigh fairly what it really involves to distinguish the one true God from all fictions and at the same time to exalt his power so highly as to declare that he by his will rules the whole world. Rahab speaks without hesitation and asserts unequivocally that all existing power belongs to the God of Israel alone, that he rules all elements, orders all things above and below, determines all human affairs.

However, I do not deny that Rahab’s faith was not full-grown. Indeed, I freely admit that it was only a germ of faith, not yet sufficient for her eternal salvation. Nonetheless we must recognize that, however small and frail was this woman’s knowledge of God, yet when she submitted herself to God’s rule, she produced the certificate of her election; and from such submission as from a seed springs the faith which grows to full measure.

Now, swear. Here is another evidence of her faith. She is convinced, relying on no evidence except the promise of God of which she had heard, that the sons of Abraham are the sure possessors of the land of Canaan. She did not think that God favored robbers who were bursting with unjust violence and unbridled lust into the territory of others. She declared rather that the Israelites were coming into the land of Canaan because God has assigned them the rule over it. . . .

The words of Rahab illuminate what the author of the epistle to the Hebrews says of faith: that it is the vision of things unseen. For Rahab lived among her own people in a fortified city; and yet she trusted her own life to half-dead foreigners as if they were already in possession of the land and could kill or save alive whomever they chose. Certainly this willing offering of herself was truly a laying hold of God’s promise and a surrender of herself to God’s Fatherly care.

By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace. Heb. 11:31.

Even though at first sight this example, because of the ignoble character of the person involved, may seem less striking and hardly worth mentioning in this series, the apostle used it fittingly and with good reason. So far he had shown that the patriarchs, whom the Jews regarded with honor and reverence, did nothing praiseworthy except by faith; that the most memorable benefits which God bestowed upon them, were the effects of the same faith. Now he teaches that a woman of alien origin, among the dregs of her own people, and even a harlot, was by faith placed within the very body of the church. From this it follows that even those who are placed highest among us have no worth before God except as they are valued according to their faith; that on the contrary those who are hardly given a place among the godless and the reprobate are by faith taken into the company of angels.

And what shall I more say? For the time would fail me to tell of Gideon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthah; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets. Heb. 11:32.

The apostle was afraid that by giving a few examples, he would be taken to limit the praises of faith to a small number of people. He anticipates this objection and adds that, if he were to mention everybody one by one, there would be no end to his recital. His point is that what he said of the few applied to the whole church of God. He turns first to the period between Joshua and David, when God raised up Judges to govern the people. He mentions four: Gideon, Barak, Samson, and Jephthah.

It was ridiculous of Gideon to go and attack a host of enemies with three hundred men; to make his men shake the pitchers in their hands and engage in an empty ghost play. As for Barak, he was no match for his enemies, and ruled by the counsel of a woman. Samson was a mere farmer, and was used only to the tools of a farmer. What could he have done against proud conquerors whose power had brought the whole populace to subjection? And who would not at first thought condemn the foolhardiness of Jephthah who set himself up as the champion of a people who were already lost? But because they all followed God’s leading and, inspired by his promises, took hold of the task enjoined upon them, the Spirit glorified them by his witness.

Therefore, the apostle attributes their every praiseworthy deed to faith, even though there was not one of them whose faith was not lame! Gideon was too slow in taking up arms, and had trouble in daring to commit himself to God. Barak at first shook in his boots, and was forced into battle by Deborah’s insults. Samson was so overcome by the coaxings of his concubine that he was senseless enough to betray the safety of the whole people as well as his own. Jephthah, having let himself in for a stupid vow, and being stubborn enough to perform it, cruelly spoiled a splendid victory with the death of his own daughter. So, in every one of these saints, we meet something which deserves censure. And yet, faith, however deformed and imperfect, is approved by God. Therefore, the wrongs which burden us should neither dishearten us nor break us down, provided only that we follow our calling by faith.

Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection. Heb. 11:35.

Having recounted instances where God rewarded the faith of the saints with a happy ending, he now presents us with a different situation, in which the godly, reduced to extreme misery, carried on by faith and remained indomitable even to the death. At first it looks as though there were a great difference between these two outcomes of faith. Some enjoyed magnificent victories over their beaten enemies. They were preserved by the Lord through various miracles, and were rescued from death itself in new and uncommon ways. Others, on the contrary, were subjected to outrage. They were spit upon by almost the whole world; were poor and needy, and so hated by everyone that they had to hide in the holes of wild beasts; and in the end they were dragged out and subjected to cruel and inhuman tortures. So, for all one could see, they were abandoned to the arrogance and savagery of the godless, and were altogether without God’s help. Their lot, therefore, would seem to have been altogether different from that of the saints mentioned in the earlier parts of this chapter.

Nevertheless, faith reigned in both instances, and in both it was equally effective. In fact, in the latter it shone even more brightly. The victory of faith is more splendid in contempt of death than in a life stretched out to five generations. The glory of faith is more striking in its effects, and is worthy of greater praise, when we endure want, reproach, and utmost difficulty with a calm and constant spirit, than when we are restored to health by a miracle, or enjoy some other benefit from God.

For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye may receive the promise. Forget a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. Heb. 10:36–38.

He says patience is necessary, not only because we need to endure a while longer until the end, but also because Satan is resourceful in innumerable devices with which to trouble us. Therefore, unless we are taught great patience, we shall be cut down a thousand times before we are even halfway through our course. It is indeed certain that we shall inherit eternal life; and yet, since this life is like an athletic event, we need to strain every muscle until we get to the finishing line. The course itself contains many obstacles and hardships, which not only slow us down, but would even stop us altogether in our race, unless we overcome them with a prodigious fortitude of spirit. Satan is clever enough to put into our heads every kind of disquiet, so as to break us down. In short, Christians would be unable to take two steps unless fortified by endurance. This then is the only way we can steadily go ahead. Without endurance we neither obey God nor receive the promised inheritance, which is here called the promise.

For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. But endurance is hard for us. Therefore, he reminds us that it will not be for long. Nothing lifts the spirit so well when it is weary as the hope that the end is at hand. As a general encourages his soldiers by saying the battle will not be long, provided they hold on a little longer, so the apostle tells us that the Lord will come shortly and deliver us from all evil, provided we do not go soft and let our spirits fail.

He gives this consolation greater credibility and authority by an appeal to the witness of the prophet Habakkuk, ch. 2:4. But since he follows the Greek version and departs somewhat from the words of the prophet, I shall first explain the latter, and then compare both with what is said by the apostle.

When the prophet had discoursed of the dreadful fall of his nation, and was terrified by his own prophecy, there was nothing left for him to do except, as it were, to leave the world and withdraw to his watchtower. (But our watchtower is the Word of God by which we are directed toward heaven.) Having been placed in his station, the prophet was commanded to write a new prophecy which affirmed to the godly the certainty of their coming deliverance. But since men are importunate, and their precipitate desires make them always judge God as much too slow, even when he is quick, the prophet declares that the promise will be fulfilled without delay; and at the same time he adds, “If there be delay, wait for it.” What he says is that, no matter how quickly God fulfills his promises, he seems to us too slow. As the old proverb says: To desire, even haste is delay. Then follow the words: “Behold, he who lifts himself up shall not have a stable spirit, but the righteous shall live by his faith.” With these words, he warns that the ungodly, however armed with their defenses, and however confident they be behind their ramparts, shall not stand: because life is not stable except by faith. Let the unbelievers arm themselves as they please; they will find nothing in this whole world that will not perish; therefore, they have to be always in a state of panic. But the faith of the godly never fails, because it leans upon God. This is what the prophet is talking about.

Now the apostle applies to God what the prophet had said of the promise, and that rightly, since when God fulfills his promises, in a way he reveals himself. There is little difference between the prophet and the apostle as to the heart of the matter. I say that when the Lord stretches forth his hand to help us, he himself comes. The apostle follows the prophet in saying, “In but a short while” ; because God does not defer his help any longer than fits his purpose. Unlike men, God does not dally in order to deceive and fail us. He knows the time of opportunity, and does not let it pass by without coming forth to our help at the right moment. The apostle says: He that shall come, will come; he will not tarry. There are two parts to this sentence. The first says that God will come, because he has promised; the second, that he will do it at the right time, and not later.

And now, the righteous shall live by faith. He means that endurance is born of faith. And this is true, because we shall never be equal to our contests except as we are sustained by faith; as John says truly in other words, Our victory which overcomes the world is by faith (1 John 5:4). So it is that we rise on high; so we bound over the obstacles of this life, over its sorrows and troubles; so we have quietness in the midst of storms and tempests. Thus, the apostle’s whole point is that all those who are righteous before God shall live by faith. And the future tense of the verb to live indicates that life by faith shall be life without end. Let the reader look up Rom. 1:17 and Gal. 3:11, where the apostle cites this same verse from the prophet.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Heb. 11:1.

Whoever made this verse the beginning of chapter eleven did wrong in breaking up the continuity of our text. As the apostle has said, his purpose is to show the need for patience. He has already quoted the testimony of Habakkuk, that the righteous shall live by faith. Now, he shows further that faith can be separated from patience no more than from itself. His argument goes as follows: We shall never attain the goal of salvation, unless we learn patience; because the prophet teaches that the righteous shall live by faith. But faith calls us to a destiny which is far off. Therefore, there is no faith without patience. Hence, the syllogism includes the minor proposition: faith is the substance of things hoped for. It is wrong to think that here we have a full definition of faith. The apostle does not speak of the whole of faith, but of that aspect of it which fits his present purpose; namely, that it is always bound up with patience.

Now let us consider his words. He calls faith the hypostasis of the things hoped for. We of course know that we hope for things not in our hands and still hidden from us, or at least for things we expect to enjoy at some other time. The apostle teaches us here the same thing that Paul does in Rom. 8:24, where the latter says that we hope for what we do not see, by which he implies that we must wait for it with patience. Thus, the apostle warns us that we must exercise faith in God not for things present but for things about whose fulfillment we are in suspense. And this paradox is not without its beauty. Faith, he says, is the hypostasis, that is the prop, or the place we have, on which we may plant our foot; but the prop for what? I answer, For things not in our possession, things which are not under our foot, which are in fact even beyond the grasp of our minds.

The same applies to the second clause, where he speaks of the evidence, or demonstration, of things not seen. But demonstration has to do with things that are seen; it is used commonly with regard to things open to our senses. Thus faith and demonstration apparently do not go together. And yet they do go together very well; for the Spirit of God demonstrates to us the things hidden to us and quite beyond the kind of knowledge which depends upon the senses. We are promised eternal life, but we are dead; we are told of a blessed resurrection, but we are in a state of corruption; we are pronounced righteous, and yet we are dwelling places of sin; we hear that we are happy, and yet we are buried under countless miseries; we are promised riches of every kind of good, but are exceedingly hungry and full of thirst; God cries that he will come to us quickly, and yet to our own cry he seems to be deaf. What would become of us if we were not upheld by hope and if our minds did not escape the darkness of this world through the bright light of God’s Word and his Spirit? Faith, therefore, is said rightly to be the reality (subsistentia) of the things we affirm in hope, and the evidence of the things we do not see. It does not displease me that Augustine sometimes translates evidence as “conviction,” because it is true to the apostle’s meaning. But I prefer to render it as “demonstration,” because this is less forced.

3. FAITH AS HUMAN ACT

And behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood for twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment. Matt. 9:20.

The Evangelist makes it clear that the issue of blood had lasted continually for twelve years. She had neglected no remedy, and had even spent everything she had on doctors. The glory of the miracle shines all the more brightly, because an incurable disease was cured suddenly by the mere touch of a garment; and this was obviously not a human accomplishment. However, we must not generalize from the woman’s notion that if she touched Christ’s garment she would be immediately healed, because it came to her under a special impulse of the Holy Spirit. We know how superstition presumes thoughtlessly and stupidly to play at imitating the saints. But those who try to follow a unique example without the command of God, moved by their own fancy rather than by the Spirit, are not imitators; they are apes.

It is even possible that the faith of this woman was mixed with some sin and error, which Christ was generous enough to endure and ignore. Certainly, when afterwards her conscience troubled her, so that she feared and trembled, her doubting, which was the contrary of faith, was without any excuse or justification. Why did she not rather go straight to Christ? If it was reverence that kept her back, why did she not trust his mercy, which alone was to be her help? And why was she afraid of giving offense if she really believed in his kindness?

And yet, Christ acknowledged her faith with high praise. And this agrees with my previous statement that God deals kindly and gently with his people; that even though their faith be mutilated and sickly, he accepts it, without holding against them the sin and defect which run through it. Therefore, the woman came to Christ as guided by faith. When she clung to the garment, instead of asking Christ to heal her, the force of her thoughtless zeal pushed her somewhat off the right way, as soon became especially evident when she made her venture with such doubt and perplexity of spirit. Even though her behavior was enjoined by the Spirit, it still remains a fixed rule that we must not allow special cases like this to cause us to waver in our faith. Faith needs to be bound directly to the Word of God; for, according to Paul, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God (Rom. 10:17). And this is a useful warning, that we may not dignify every opinion, picked up one way or another, with the title of faith.

But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary. Matt. 14:24.

Readers will find my exposition of this story in my commentary on John 6. Here I shall be brief. When Christ permitted his disciples to be tossed about for a while during a dangerous storm, he intended to fix their attention upon the wonderful help which he provided for them. For the adverse wind began to blow about midnight, or a little before. But Christ came only at the fourth watch, or at the earliest, three hours before sunrise. By this time their faith was shaken by terror even more than their arms were tired by rowing. In this predicament they were sorely in need of their Master’s presence; and yet, when they saw him, they were seized with a gross stupor, as though they had seen a ghost.

For this reason Mark says that their heart was blinded and they did not understand about the loaves; for that miracle might have taught them well enough that there was no lack of divine power in Christ for helping them, and that he cared for them and would come to their aid when they needed him.

Therefore they are rightly condemned for feebleness of spirit in forgetting the power of God which they had seen the day before and which should have been still right before their eyes. They were surely blameworthy to have been struck with such stupidity that they had failed to profit from the earlier miracles they had witnessed. But they are reproached mainly for their blindness, which wiped out of their minds the memory of so recent and striking an event, or rather for their failure to acknowledge the Deity of Christ which had been obvious when he multiplied the bread.

But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid. And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water. Matt. 14:27–28.

Since Christ is not known as a deliverer until he comes forward as one, it is by his Word that he invited his disciples to know him. Besides, he set forth his own presence among them as the real basis for the trust to which he called them. It is as though he said that, since they know he is there, they have solid ground for good hope. But since terror had already taken possession of their souls, he took them under his care, to keep their dread from hindering or destroying their confidence. Of course, he did not expect that they would be emptied of all fear and filled instead with sheer joy. He sought to break down the strength of their fear, that it might not crush their faith. Whereas the voice of the Son of God is deadly to the wicked, and his presence terrifying, its effect upon believers, as described here, is altogether different; it makes our inner peace and living faith triumph within our hearts, so that we may not succumb to the fretting of our flesh. If we are alarmed and agitated blindly and precipitously, it is because we are ungrateful enough and wicked enough not to take up the shields of God’s countless benefits, which, properly wielded, would fortify us against all evil. Now, even though Christ appeared in good time for help, the tempest continued to rage, so that the disciples might be roused to rest their hope and expectation in his grace. From this we know that the Lord often delays the deliverance, which he has in the palm of his hand, for some good reason of his own.

And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water. The condition which Peter lays down shows that his faith is still immature. If it be thou, says he, bid me come! But he had already heard Christ speak! Why then does he, doubtful and perplexed, argue with him? Such a rash desire burst out of him because his faith was both little and feeble. He should have estimated himself rightly, and prayed for an increase of faith sufficient to lead and guide him across seas and over mountains. As it was, he was trying to fly without wings; or, without having the voice of Christ firmly in his heart, he desired to turn the water under his feet into solid land. And even though Peter’s zeal was doubtless good at its source, yet, since he overdid it and so corrupted it, it is not worthy of praise.

But Peter soon began to pay for his rashness. Let his example teach believers to avoid too much haste. When the Lord calls, we should of course run. But anyone who overreaches himself will find out, from the unhappy consequences, what it means not to know one’s limit. Yet, it may be asked, why did Christ comply with Peter’s wish? For, in so doing, he seems to have approved of it. The answer is easy. God often helps us better by denying us what we ask of him; and at other times, he is indulgent with us, so that we may see our folly by experience. It happens every day that God, by giving his faithful people more than they need, trains them for sobriety and modesty in the future.

Thus, Christ’s dealing with Peter on this occasion was profitable to him and to the other disciples; and it is profitable for us today. The power of Christ appeared to better advantage in the person of Peter when, rather than walk upon the water by himself, he took Peter along with him. In this way, Peter understood, and the others saw plainly, that when he did not rest in and lean upon the Word of God with a solid faith, the secret power of God, which had previously solidified the waters, disappeared. Nevertheless, Christ dealt kindly with him and did not let him go under and perish. Both of these things happen to us: as Peter began to sink, when fear seized him, the passing and the unstable thoughts of the flesh soon make us lose our foothold when we should be firmly occupied with our calling. Meanwhile, the Lord deals kindly with us in our weakness, and stretches his hand out, that the water may not suck us in altogether. But we should notice that Peter, seeing the unpleasant and unhappy effect of his temerity, throws himself upon the mercy of Christ. And we also, even while we are receiving our overdue punishment, should seek help from him, unworthy as we are, that he may bring us help in our misery.

And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt? Matt. 14:31.

While Christ was kind enough to save Peter, he did not justify his behavior. The weakness of his faith is properly rebuked. But one may ask, Is every kind of fear an evidence of defect in faith? For, Christ’s words seem to imply that, where there is faith, there is no place for doubt. I answer that the doubt which Christ condemns is the precise opposite of faith. It is possible for a man to doubt when there is no Word from God to give him certainty. But Peter’s case was quite different. He had received Christ’s command and experienced his power; and yet, letting go of such a double mainstay, he fell prey to a fear which was at once foolish and perverse.

Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. But I know that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give to thee. Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. John 11:21–24.

She begins with a complaint, even though in this way she tells him shyly what she wants. What she means is: “If you had been here, you could have snatched my brother from death. You can do it even now, because God denies you nothing.” But speaking in this manner, she gives vent to her feelings more than is proper to a believer. I admit that these words were spoken partly by faith; but I submit that they were mixed with a confused feeling which pushed her to speak improperly. For, what is the ground of the confidence which leads her to assume that if Jesus had been there, her brother would not have died? Surely, it was not based on a promise of Christ. It must therefore be that she was rash enough to follow her own wishes rather than yield to Christ. It is [the nature] of faith to attribute all goodness and power to Christ; but it is alien to faith that she believed more than she has heard from Christ. We must recognize that the Word and faith agree the one with the other, so that we dare not presume to invent more than the Word of God allows. Besides, Martha was far too attached to the physical presence of Christ. It follows that her faith was mixed and confused with excessive desire; not being free from superstition it could not shine with full brightness. Hence her words exhibited only a few sparks of faith.

Your brother shall rise again. The kindness of Christ is amazing. He simply ignores Martha’s faults, which we spoke of above, and promises her more than she dared ask openly and in so many words.

I know that he shall rise again. Here Martha’s lack of courage is evident because she weakens Christ’s words. We said above that she went too far when she devised a hope out of her own desires. And now she falls into the opposite error; when Christ stretches out his hand to her, she draws back with trepidation. This is why we should avoid both errors. On the one hand, we should not fill ourselves with hopes which, being empty of God’s Word, are like so much wind. On the other hand, when God opens his mouth to us, he should not find our hearts closed and shut firmly against him.

Commentaries on Ethics and the Common Life

1. WORSHIP AND ETHICS

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. Rom. 12:1.

Paul has so far dealt with the things necessary for the building of the Kingdom of God: namely, for our righteousness to call upon God alone; to seek our salvation from his mercy alone; and to recognize that the sum of all good is found and is offered us daily in Christ alone. He now rightly proceeds with the formation of our conduct. If it be true that the soul is, as it were, regenerated for a heavenly life through a saving knowledge of God and Christ; and if our life itself is formed and shaped by the holy exhortations and precepts of God — it is futile to search zealously for the elements of a good life unless it is first established that the source of all righteousness among men is in God and Christ, that is, in the resurrection of the dead. Here is the difference between Christianity and philosophy. However splendidly and with whatever great and praiseworthy inventiveness the philosophers discourse on the subject of morals, yet their ornate and striking precepts are after all splendid superstructures without a foundation; for, having omitted the first principles, they present us with a mutilated teaching, not unlike a body without a head. And papal teaching is not very different; for although the papists say something in passing about faith in Christ and the grace of the Holy Spirit, it is clear that they are much nearer to the heathen philosophers than to Christ and his apostles. As the philosophers, before they set down the rules of morality, discuss the ultimate good, and inquire into the source of all the virtues, from which they draw and derive all the duties of men; so, also, Paul lays down the first principle from which flow all the elements of a holy life, that the Lord has redeemed us for no other purpose than that we may consecrate ourselves and all our members to him. . . .

That you present your bodies. Therefore, the principal requirement for doing good works is for us to understand that we are consecrated to the Lord; and from this it follows that we must cease to live to ourselves, and devote all the actions of this life to obedience to him. Thus, there are two things to consider: first, that we are the Lord’s; secondly, that we ought for this reason to be holy; for it is an indignity to the holiness of God that anything should be offered to him unless it first becomes holy. Granted this, it follows that our whole life should be an exercise in holiness and that we would not be free from sacrilege if we lapsed into uncleanness; for sacrilege is nothing else than to profane what is consecrated.

Throughout this passage, Paul uses his words with great propriety. To begin with, he says that we are to offer our bodies as a sacrifice to God; this implies that we are not a law to ourselves, but have come entirely under the power of God; which can mean nothing else than that we must renounce and thus deny ourselves. Then, adding two adjectives, he tells us what kind of sacrifice this ought to be. Living signifies the nature of our immolation before God; that is, the destruction of our former life, by which we shall be quickened to a new life. By holy, as we said before, he designates the quality of the sacrifice offered to God; for a sacrifice is valid only if it has already been sanctified. The third adjective (acceptable) reminds us that our life is shaped rightly when by our sacrifice we seek to please God. He offers us a rare consolation when he teaches us that, when we devote ourselves to innocence and holiness, our labor is pleasing and acceptable to God.

By bodies Paul means not only bone and skin, but our whole being; he uses the word bodies, which is a part of a man to signify the whole of him, for the members of the body are the means by which a man acts; but he demands of us integrity not only of the body, but also of the soul and spirit (1 Thess. 5:23). In bidding us to present ourselves, he alludes to the Mosaic sacrifices which were presented at the altar, as it were in the sight of God. But still, he shows us beautifully that we should promptly lay hold of God’s commandments and obey them without delay.

So we learn that mortal men err miserably and wander blindly, unless they set themselves to worship God. Thus we also know what kind of sacrifice Paul recommends to the Christian church. Since we have been reconciled to God by the sacrifice of Christ alone, by his grace we all have been made priests, that we may dedicate all we have to the glory of God. . . .

Wherewithal shall I come before the Lord?. . . He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? Micah 6:6–8.

Now the prophet assumes the people’s role and asks what it is that he ought to do. But he answers the question by citing the law, and so deprives them of the excuse of ignorance. This he does in the hope that they may be induced to confess their guilt.

He hath shown thee what is good. He refutes the hypocrisy with which Jews deceived themselves. It is as if he had said: “. . . When you go to God with your prayers, you pretend a great zeal for piety. But your religion is nothing but an impudent lie. You do not sin out of ignorance or error, but out of sheer mockery of God. Why? For the law teaches you clearly enough what God demands of you. Does it not tell you well enough the nature of true communion with God? But you close your eyes to the teaching of the law, and pretend that you are ignorant of it. But all this is childish. For God has already told you what is good: to do justly, to love mankind and to walk humbly with your God. . . .”

Now let us consider the prophet’s counsel. When he begins, With what shall I come before God? we are to understand that God has come down as if to meet men in a court of law. When men go to law with one another, there is no good cause which the other side cannot obscure with caviling and technicalities. But the prophet shows that when God himself brings them to trial, their evasions only make them ludicrous. This is one point. For another, the prophet shows how deeply hypocrisy is rooted in the hearts of all men, and how they always paint themselves with false colors, and want to do it even before God. Why is it that men are determined not to present themselves [honestly] to God or to walk uprightly? Why are they always looking for a deception? Why? Not because they doubt what is right and are deceived without knowing it, but because they connive and deliberately look for a subterfuge for their errors. Of course men readily fall into errors when they have no taste for what they are taught and refuse to bring God a true integrity of heart. Hence, it is clear that the whole world is without excuse in its superstition. . . . So it is that there is no pretext or escape for anyone who tries to please God with ceremonies and other impertinences. . . .

In our own day we know well enough, and if our eyes are open, common experience shows us clearly, that the wicked who have no real and sincere relation to God, exhibit great anxiety and pretend to be wholly intent upon worshiping God correctly. But they run off in all directions and seek innumerable bypaths, to avoid being forced to present themselves before God. Now we see how such pretense can be exposed; God has already shown in his law what he approves and what he demands of men.

The teaching of the law should be to men like a torch, directing their steps. . . . If anyone asks questions about the road when he already knows it, he really wants to stay where he is and be spared the trouble of moving his feet. God had shown the way by which the Jews were to come to repentance and faith. Their duty was to walk. And they irreverently mocked God when they assumed that his judgment was satisfied if they performed the external ceremonies.

Now when the prophet says do justly, seek mercy (or kindness) and walk humbly before God, it is clear enough that the first two points refer to the second table of the law. . . . Nor is it strange that he begins with the duties of love of neighbor. For although the worship of God has precedence and ought rightly to come first, yet justice which is practiced among men is the true evidence of devotion to God. The prophet therefore names here justice and compassion, not because God omits the first essential of religion, his worship, but because he is here defining true religion by its manifestations. Hypocrites connect all holiness with external ceremonies. God requires something very different; for his worship is spiritual. And because hypocrites can pretend great zeal and great concern in external prayer to God, the prophets examine the life of men in a different fashion. They ask whether men deal with others justly and kindly, whether they are innocent of all deceit and violence, whether they practice justice and compassion. Our prophet follows this rule when he says the law requires men to practice justice with one another, and then to busy themselves in acts of mercy. Afterwards he adds what is really the prior demand, walk humbly with God.

There is no doubt that the name of God is more precious than the whole world, and therefore the worship of him ought to be counted of more value than all the duties by which we exercise our love for our fellow men. But the prophet, as I said, was not scrupulous about keeping this order and preferred to show by what actions men can prove that they really fear God and keep his law.

Then he speaks of the worship of God; and it is worth noting that he says, to walk with God, men must be humble. Here he condemns all pride, all confidence in the flesh. For whoever claims anything at all for himself walks with God, turning his back to Him. The true way to walk with God is to surrender ourselves wholly, making ourselves as nothing. The beginning of worshiping God and glorifying him is to think humbly and modestly of ourselves.

For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live, therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. Rom. 14:7–9.

He now confirms the previous verse by arguing from the whole to the parts; since our whole life must be devoted to the glory of God, it is no surprise that our particular acts throughout our life should be done before him. So then, a Christian’s life is ordered rightly only when he keeps his eyes upon the will of God. Since you should relate everything you do to his will, it is wrong to undertake anything at all which you know will displease him, or anything which you are not convinced will please him.

To live to the Lord, here, does not mean, as it does in chapter 6, verse 8, to come to life by the working of the Spirit. It means rather to be ready for his will and the nod of his head, and to place all things at the disposal of his glory. We are not only to live but also to die in the Lord; that is, we are to die as well as live by his will; and for this he gives the best of reasons: whether we live or we die, we are his; from which it follows that in life and in death we are under his authority. This teaching is open to a wide application; for in this way God asserts his power over life and death, so that everyone may accept his condition as under his yoke; for it is only just that God should assign to every man his own place, and how he is to spend his life. In this way, we are not only forbidden to undertake anything without God’s authority, but we are also enjoined to endurance under all trouble and privation. When our flesh shrinks before adversity, let us keep in mind that if a man, who is neither free nor a law to himself, refuses to depend upon the good pleasure of his Lord, he subverts justice and right order alike. So then, this is the rule for living and dying which has been given us: when God prolongs for us a life which is continually full of bitterness and exhaustion, we must not yearn to get away from it before our time; on the other hand, if he calls us away suddenly in the flower of our youth, we should always be ready to go.

For to this end Christ died. This confirms the above argument. It proves that we ought to live and die to the Lord, by adding that whether we live or we die, we are in Christ’s power. He now shows how rightly Christ asserts his power over us, since he acquired it at a great price; for, by his death for our salvation, he obtained a power which he exercises beyond our death; by his death and resurrection, he is worthy that we should, in our dying as well as in our living, serve the glory of his name. Rose and lived again, furthermore, means that by the resurrection he partakes of a new mode of life, and that since this life of his, which he now has, is unchangeable, his dominion over us is to be eternal.

He who loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hated his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. John 12:25.

He that loveth his life. Christ adds exhortation to teaching. If it is by death that we bear fruit, when God mortifies us we should bear it with patience. Since he opposes the love of life to the hatred of it, we should understand what it is to love and hate life. Anyone who desires the present life so much that he will not let go of it except by force is said to love life. Anyone who despises life so much as to be willing with courage to go to his death is said to hate life. Life should not be hated as such, because it is regarded rightly as among God’s chief blessings. Still, believers should be willing to lay it down when it keeps them from Christ, just as a man who is in a hurry to go somewhere will throw a troublesome and unwieldy burden off his shoulder. In short, it is not in itself wrong to love this life, provided we walk its course with our eyes upon our ultimate end. We love life rightly when we remain in it according to God’s intention for us, and are ready to leave it according to his will: in a word, when as it were we carry it in our hands and offer it to God as a sacrifice. Anyone who is unduly attached to this world loses his life; that is, he hurls it to everlasting ruin. . . .

Whoever is attached to this world deprives himself of heavenly life, to which we cannot be heirs unless we live as strangers and sojourners in this world. Hence it is that anyone who is too anxious for his security in this world is an alien to the Kingdom of God, or the true life.

He that hateth his life. I have already pointed out that this is said relatively; we ought to spurn life, in so far as it keeps us from living to God. If meditation on the heavenly life came first in our hearts, the world would not be able to keep us back. . . . Anyone who does not turn his eyes to heaven has not learned how to take care of this life.

And be not conformed to this world; but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God. Rom. 12:2.

World has many meanings; here it refers to men’s attitudes and moral behavior. Paul forbids us, with good reason, to conform to them. Since the whole world lies in wickedness, if we would put on Christ, we must put off everything that is of man [or the world]; and to remove all doubt, he asks us on the contrary to be transformed into a newness of mind. We find such contrasts often in Scripture; there is no room left for doubt on this point.

Now, consider seriously what kind of newness it is that is required of us. We are not to be renewed merely in our flesh, or, as the Doctors of the Sorbonne. Sorbonne the original name of the University of Paris, founded by Robert de Sorbon in 1256. The university, where Thomas Aquinas had taught, was in the sixteenth century a citadel of Catholic orthodoxy, and its theologians defended it zealously against the Lutheran heresy interpret “flesh,” in the lower part of the soul, but rather in our minds, which is the best part of us, and according to the philosophers, the ruling element in us; for they call reason ἡγεμονικόν and fancy it as a queen of wisdom. But Paul shames it off its godly throne, and bidding us to put on a new mind, reduces it to nothing. However much we flatter ourselves, the word of Christ is still true, that every man who would enter the Kingdom of God must be born again; for, in mind and heart, we are altogether alienated from the righteousness of God.

That ye may prove what is the will. Here we have the purpose for which we are to put on a new mind; we are to say good-bye to all our own counsels and considerations, and to those of all men, so that we may attend only to the will of God, who alone possesses true understanding and wisdom. But if we can prove what is the will of God only by the renewing of our mind, we can see how far gone we are in our enmity to God.

The additional adjectives in this verse are meant to commend the will of God to us, and to turn us to it with greater eagerness. If our perversity is to be kept within bounds, it is necessary to realize that righteousness and perfection which truly deserve praise belong to the will of God alone. The world invents its own good works and persuades itself that they are good. But Paul declares that good and right according to the world are to be judged by the commandments of God. The world praises and finds pleasure in its own devices; Paul on the other hand affirms that nothing is pleasing to God except what he himself has commanded. In seeking perfection, the world backslides from the Word of God and goes after new inventions; Paul fixes perfection in the will of God, and shows that anyone who goes beyond it imagines falsehood and falls into delusion.

But he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. 2 Cor. 10:17.

This statement is made to avoid the impression that Paul’s glorying was an empty boast. So, he brings himself and others before the judgment of God, and says that only those of whom God approves have the right to glory. Besides to glory in the Lord does not mean the same thing as it does in the former epistle (1 Cor. 1:31) and in Jer. 9:24. In these latter passages, it means to know God as the Author of all good, and to ascribe every good to his grace, so that men will not exalt themselves, but glorify God alone. Here, on the other hand, it means to let God alone be the judge in our glorying, and to consider all other judgment as worthless. Some people rely upon human opinion and weigh themselves in the balance of popular judgment; others are deceived by their own arrogance. Paul commands us to seek only the glory which comes from pleasing the Lord, by whose judgment we all stand or fall.

Even the pagans say that true glory consists in an upright conscience. Now, this is true, but it is not the whole truth. Since all men are blinded by too much self-love, we are not to be satisfied with our own judgment of our deeds. We must keep in mind what Paul says elsewhere: that even though he is not aware of anything [wrong] in him, he is not therefore justified (1 Cor. 4:4). What then? Let us remember that judgment is reserved to God, who [alone] declares it concerning us; therefore, we are in no position to plead our own cause. This is confirmed by what follows. For, it is not the man who commends himself that is approved. It is easy for men to be deceived by a false conviction; and it happens every day. Therefore, putting all else aside, let us aspire to be approved by God: let us be satisfied by his approval alone, which should mean more to us than the plaudits of the whole world. Someone (Cicero 106–43 B.C. Roman statesman and philosopher who was regarded very highly during the Renaissance. He belonged to the New Academy and was deeply imbued with Stoic ethics. His more famous writings are “On the Supreme Good,” the “Tusculan Disputations,” “On the Nature of the Gods,” “On Duties” (de Officiis). He was also a great stylist and was eagerly emulated during the Revival of Learning) has said that one good word from Plato was equal to a thousand. But we are not concerned with the judgment of men, as to who is worth more than another; we have to do with the judgment of God, whose it is to turn all human pronouncements upside down.

Now Peter sat without in the palace; and a damsel came unto him saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee. But he denied before them all. . . . And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man. . . . Then he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus. . . . And he went out, and wept bitterly. Matt. 26:69–75.

This story of Peter’s fall is a clear image of our own weakness, and his repentance is given us as an unforgettable example of the goodness and mercy of God. This one man’s story contains a teaching which is extremely useful for the whole church. It instructs those who stand faithful to watch and fear that they may not fall; and it lifts up those who have fallen with the hope of forgiveness.

In the first place, let us notice that Peter showed poor judgment in entering the high priest’s court. It was, of course, an act of devotion; it was his duty to follow the Master. But since he had already been warned of his coming defection, he should rather have hidden himself in a corner, so as to avoid an occasion for sin. So, it happens often to believers that, while seeming to do something virtuous, they throw themselves in the way of temptation. Therefore, we ought to pray to the Lord that he hold us back with the rein of his Spirit, so that we may not charge ahead on our own, and be punished right off. Besides, we should pray that, when we propose to do something, we may not fail before we have started, or at a later time; that he may supply us from heaven with the fortitude to finish what we have begun. The knowledge of our own weakness ought not so to unnerve us that we will not go when God calls us. Still, it ought to restrain our rashness, and prevent us from attempting what is beyond our calling. Also, it ought to move us to pray that God, who has led us to begin well, may give us the grace to persevere.

A damsel came unto him. We see here that it takes less than a great struggle, or a big army and many guns, to overpower a man. Any man who is not upheld by the hand of God is soon knocked down by a slight wind or the uproar made by a falling leaf. Peter certainly had as much courage as the rest of us. He had already given evidence of an uncommonly high spirit, even though combined with a preposterous audacity. Still, he denied the Master; not because he was being dragged before the tribunal of the high priest, or because his enemies were upon him to kill him with violent hands, but because he was terrified by the voice of a woman. But he had a little while before fancied himself a soldier fighting to the death! Let us remember therefore that our strength, far from being equal to standing up under powerful attacks, fails in the mere shadow of a battle. But in this way, God works the just reward of our own unfaithfulness; he disarms us and strips us of all power. Thus it is that, when we set aside the fear of God, a mere nothing fills us with trepidation. If Peter had had a living and solid fear of God, he would have been an invincible fortress. As it was, being naked and unarmed, he was frightened while he was still a long way from peril.

He denied before them all. Peter’s crime is all the greater because he did not shrink from denying his Master before a whole crowd of witnesses. The Spirit states this fact purposely, so that, when faced with a crowd of people, we may hold on to the confession of our faith. For, if we deny Christ in the presence of the weak, and they are struck by our example, and give way, we become destroyers of human souls, so far as it lies within our power. When we cheat Christ of the witness we owe him in the presence of the godless who have contempt for God, and are enemies of the gospel, we expose his sacred name to ridicule by everybody. Finally, as bold and free confession builds up all the believers, and puts the unbelievers to shame, so equally public defection in the church brings with it ruination of faith and disgrace upon sound doctrine.

It is worth noting that Peter, when he was unable to slip out with a simple denial, doubled his crime by adding an oath; and a little later, under harder pressure, he even stooped to cursing. From this we gather that once a sinner falls, he is immediately forced to go from bad to worse. Thus, those who begin with a mediocre offense thereafter hurl themselves headlong into the most frightful wickedness, which would at first have filled them with horror. And this is the just vindication of God that, after we deprive ourselves of the aid of the Spirit, he permits Satan to exercise his violent dominion over us; and Satan, having first subdued and held us in bondage, throws us around, now in one direction, now in another. But this happens chiefly when we deny our faith; because, when a man through the fear of the cross turns aside from confessing the gospel in its purity, and finds that he still cannot satisfy his enemies, he goes further and denies openly with an oath what he did not have the courage to confess.

Moreover, it is to be observed that in one moment Peter defaulted three times: which shows how unstable we are and how disposed to fall when pushed by Satan. Certainly, a mere nothing will make us fall unless God holds us up with his outstretched hand. When the energy of the Spirit of grace became dead in Peter, he was ready to deny Christ a hundred or a thousand times, no matter who came by and questioned him about his Lord. But, though he was vile enough to fall three times, the Lord spared him; He stopped the tongues of his enemies, so that they did not bury him under their attacks. Thus, it is necessary that Satan be bridled every day; otherwise, he would overwhelm us with endless temptations. For, he never stops attacking us with his numerous weapons. If God were not on our side, knowing our weakness, and breaking the force of his [Satan’s] fury, we would have to battle with a whole array of overwhelming temptations. Hence, we ought to celebrate the mercy of God in this matter, because he allows our enemy only a hundredth of the force he would like to use in his assault upon us.

Then he began to curse. By this third denial, Peter’s unfaithfulness towards the Master reached the limit. Not satisfied with an oath, he went on to curse, consigning his body and soul to destruction. He calls on God himself to curse him, if he knows Christ; which is as much as saying, “May I perish to hell if I have anything to do with the salvation of God.” Therefore, we ought to admire the goodness of Christ all the more, because he raised his disciple up from such a deadly ruin and healed him. Besides, this passage shows us that when a man falls through the weakness of the flesh, and denies knowing the truth, he does not necessarily blaspheme against the Spirit. Of course, Peter had heard from the mouth of the Lord himself what a treachery it is to deny him before men, and what horrible judgment before God and the angels awaited those who in cowardly fear of the cross abandon the confession of faith. Moreover, it is not for nothing that a little while before Peter himself had preferred death as well as torment to denial of Christ. Now, knowing all this and in spite of previous warning, he rushes headlong to deny his Lord! And still, and after all this, he is forgiven. It follows that he sinned not by any incurable malice but through weakness. He would have been more than willing to pay Christ the debt of godly duty, had not fear put out even the sparks of right feeling.

And Peter remembered. Luke is our witness that when the voice [of the cock] had sounded, Christ looked at Peter. Mark says that before this Peter paid no attention to the crowing of the cock. Therefore, he needed the look of Christ to bring him to his senses. Every one of us has the same experience. Which one of us does not ignore calmly with heavy ears, not merely the many and different songs of the birds who call us to glorify God, but also God’s own voice which sounds clearly and distinctly in the law and the gospel? And such beastly stupidity takes hold of our minds, not only for a day but at all times, unless Christ bless us with his look, which alone converts the heart of man. It is important to note, however, that it was no ordinary look that accomplished this; for Christ had before looked also at Judas, without making him any the better. When Christ looked at Peter, he added the secret power of the Spirit to his eyes, so that, by the rays of his grace, his look penetrated into Peter’s very heart. From this let us know that when a man falls he will not even begin to repent, unless the Lord look at him.

2. FREEDOM, LOVE, EQUALITY

Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Gal. 5:1.

Here Paul is concerned with freedom from the ceremonies of the law, which the false apostles prescribed as necessary. But let readers remember that such liberty is but a part of what Christ has acquired for us. How little it would have been had he freed us only from the ceremonies — but a trickle from the fountain! Christ was made a curse: to save us from the curse of the law (Gal. 3:13); to break the power of the law, in so far as under it we were subject to the judgment of God and to the penalty of eternal death; finally, to snatch us from the tyranny of sin, Satan, and death. Thus, when Paul speaks of the ceremonies, he includes under it the law as a whole. But we shall speak of this more fully under the epistle to the Colossians.

Furthermore, upon the cross, Christ obtained our liberty; and, through the gospel, he gives us its fruit for a possession. Paul therefore does well to warn the Galatians not to be entangled with the yoke of bondage: that is, not to let a trap be laid for their consciences. For, when men put an unjust burden on our shoulders, we might be able to bear it; but when they try to enslave our conscience, we ought to resist strongly and to the death. If we let men bind our consciences, we shall be deprived of a priceless good; what is more, we shall have insulted Christ who is the author of our liberty. But what does again mean, since the Galatians never did live under the law? It means simply that they are not to act as though they had not been redeemed by the grace of Christ. Even though the law was given to the Jews and not to the Gentiles, apart from Christ both alike were in bondage, and not free.

For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Gal. 5:13–14.

Now Paul warns them against the wrong use of their liberty. In writing on the epistle to the Corinthians, we pointed out that having liberty is one thing, practicing it quite another; liberty belongs to the conscience, and has to do with God; the practice of liberty is an outward matter and concerns not only God but also our fellow men. After having exhorted the Galatians not to let anyone touch their liberty, he now asks them to exercise it properly. He prescribes a rule for its legitimate use, so that they may not turn it into a pretext of, or an occasion for, license. Liberty is not given to the flesh, which ought rather to be held captive under the yoke; it is a spiritual good which godly minds alone are able to exercise.

But by love. He now explains that the way to temper liberty, so that it will not be dissipated through erratic and licentious abuse, is to regulate it by love. But let us always keep in mind that the question is not how we have liberty before God, but how we are to use our liberty among men. A conscience which has integrity will not submit to any kind of servitude; but there is no danger in acting as servants outwardly, or in not exercising our liberty. In short, if by love we serve one another, we shall always be disposed to build up; so we shall not give ourselves up to loose living, but shall rather by God’s grace use our liberty in his honor and for the good of our neighbors.

For all the law. There is here an implied contrast between the exhortation of Paul and the teaching of the false apostles. Since the latter insisted solely upon ceremonies, Paul drives home in passing the real duties and practices of Christians. The present commendation of love is intended to make the Galatians understand that it is the chief part of Christian perfection. But we must now ask why all the precepts of the law are included under love; for the law consists of two tables, the first of which enjoins the worship of God and the duties of piety, while only the second has to do with love. It would seem absurd to make a part of the law into the whole of it. Some try to escape this difficulty by saying that the first table also requires nothing but that we love God with all our hearts. But Paul is obviously speaking of love for our neighbors. We must therefore look for a better solution of our problem.

I recognize that piety toward God comes before love of our brothers; therefore to observe the first table is more precious before God than to observe the second. But since God is invisible our piety cannot be seen by our fellow men. It is true that religious ceremonials were established to give evidence of piety; but men’s observance of them was no proof of their godliness; for it often happens that nobody is more diligent and zealous in going through the ceremonies than the hypocrites. God, therefore, wanted to test our love for him by enjoining us to love one another as brothers. For this reason love is called the perfection of the law (not only here, but also in Rom. 13:8): not because it is better than the worship of God, but because it is the convincing evidence of it. I have said that we cannot see God; he therefore presents himself to us in our brothers, and in their persons demands from us what we owe him. So then, the love of the brother grows from nothing but the fear and love of God; it is not therefore surprising that our love for our brother, being the sign of the love of God, even though it is a part of the law, stands for the whole of it, and includes the worship of God. It is certainly wrong to separate the love of God from the love of man.

Thou shalt love thy neighbor. Anyone who loves another will give him his due; he will not hurt or injure him; he will do what is beneficial to all so far as he can. What else does the second table mean? This is what Paul is talking about in Rom. 13:10. Besides, the word neighbor stands for all flesh and blood; for, as Isaiah says, we are bound together by a common nature: Thou shalt not turn away from thine own flesh (Isa. 58:7). Above all, the image of God ought to be the bond of a holy union among us. Therefore, here there can be no question of friend or enemy: for, no evil in man can destroy his nature.

The phrase as thyself means as we are moved by the feelings of the flesh to love ourselves: so it is that God enjoins us to love our neighbor. But the Word of God is perverted and not interpreted when men conclude (as do teachers at the Sorbonne) that the love of ourselves has priority over the love of the neighbor, because it is the norm for the latter. Such people are asses, and have not even a grain of love: for if our own love were the norm for the love of others, then it would be right and holy, and well approved by God. But the truth is that we never love our neighbor with sincerity and according to the will of our Lord, until we turn our own self-love into the right kind of love. Our love of ourselves and the love of our neighbor are contrary and conflicting dispositions; our self-love produces a neglect of and contempt for others; it produces cruelty, and is a fountain of avarice, robbery, fraud, and every other kind of pestilence; it drives us to impatience, and arms us with a passion for revenge. Therefore, our Lord demands that it be converted to [true] love.

Consider, O Lord, how I have loved thy precepts. Ps. 119:159.

. . . When the saints declare their devotion to God, they do not urge upon him their own shining merits; they act by the principle that God, who knows his true worshipers from the profane and wicked, will look with favor upon them because they seek after him with sincerity. To this it must be added that a sincere love of the law of God is a sure sign of our adoption because it is a work of the Spirit. . . .

Here we are also taught that true keeping of the law grows out of love which is offered freely. For God seeks willing sacrifices, and as Moses said, the first principle of right living is to love him. . . . Hence it must not be forgotten that nothing inclines our hearts to love God except his unmerited goodness and his Fatherly love toward us.

Great peace have they which love thy law; and nothing shall offend them. Ps. 119:165.

This peace is rightly judged to be the first foundation stone of a happy life. We have this peace when we act with a tranquil spirit, when we receive God’s favor and our hearts are illumined by his Fatherly goodness. Rightly also does the prophet teach that we receive this peace from love of the law, for anyone who depends upon anything else will tremble every time he feels the least breath of air.

The stumbling block in the next clause means all the perturbations of the mind by which men labor in misery and are consumed, when they do not rest upon the Word of God but are carried along by their own lust or by the will of men. . . . But from the word love we gather that this peace is not acquired by slavish observance of the law, but is obtained by faith; for the law is neither sweet nor alluring to us unless it reveals God to us as Father and quiets our mind with the assurance of eternal well-being.

Thou shalt not steal. Ex. 20:15.

Thou shalt not steal. Deut. 5:16. Put together by Calvin in his Harmony of the Pentateuch. Calvin’s commentary on the last four books of Moses presents the material in the form of a harmony. The work as a whole (four volumes in the Edinburgh edition) is an astonishing achievement. The laws are arranged, with a combination of insight and ingenuity, under the ten laws of the “Two Tablets” of Sinai. Parallel laws are treated together. The fundamental purpose of each command, both for ancient Israel and for the church of Calvin’s day, is briefly explained. Calvin’s arrangement is primarily topical but the narrative sections are fitted together to present a reasonable sequence of events. The volumes cannot be fairly presented in excerpts, but Calvin’s treatment of the law should “be commended” especially to the Biblical theologians of the present day.

Since the goal of the law is love, the meaning of love must be looked for in the law. This is the rule of love: every man must be secure in his own right, and no man must do to another what he does not wish done to himself.

Hence it follows that men steal not only when they secretly take the property of others, but also when they make money by injuring others, accumulate wealth in objectionable ways or are more concerned with their own advantage than with justice. Consequently all ways of wrongly appropriating the property of others are included under theft; for there is no difference between robbery by force and by fraud.

We know how men hide their evil deeds under all kinds of wrappings; and how by dressing them up in false colors they even win praise for them. Slyness and hateful cunning are called prudence. The man who cleverly tricks others, who entraps the simple-minded and in unseen ways oppresses the poor, is called farsighted and cautious. When the world sells vices for virtues and all men indulge in them openly, God wipes off all the cosmetics and declares every kind of unjust gain to be theft. We need not wonder that the judgment of heaven decrees this law, since almost the same teaching is given by the philosophers.

We must remember that a “positive” command, as it is called, is attached to the prohibition. If we merely refrain from all evil-doing, we are far from satisfying God, who has bound men mutually together so that they may strive to help one another to get ahead by counseling and assisting one another. There is not the slightest doubt that God commands generosity, and kindness, and the other duties which give warmth to human society. Therefore, if we are not to be condemned as thieves by God, we must seek our brothers’ advantage no less than our own.

Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when it treadeth out the corn. Deut. 25:4.

This verse belongs properly in the supplement [of the law]; but because it adds force to the command, this place seems appropriate for it — especially since Paul, an apt interpreter, explains it as meaning that God requires laborers not to be defrauded of their just pay. In discussing provision for the ministers of the Word, he fits this commandment to their case (1 Cor. 9:10). To prevent anyone from applying it to oxen, rather than to men, he adds that God gave it, not because he was concerned about the oxen, but for the sake of laborers.

But it must be remembered that men are required to practice justice even in dealing with animals. Solomon condemns injustice to our neighbors the more severely when he says, a just man cares well for his beasts (Prov. 12:10). In a word, we are to do what is right voluntarily and freely, and each of us is responsible for doing his duty. If animals are entitled to their food, much less should we wait for men to plague us before we give men their rights.

The foreign born you shall not oppress nor plunder; for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt. You shall not afflict widows and orphans. Ex. 22:21–22, Lev. 19:33–34. (Calvin’s wording.)

Before passing on to other iniquities, I thought it best to insert here the commandment which requires the people to deal justly with all without exception. If no mention had been made of the foreign born, the Israelites would have thought that when they harmed no one of their own race they had discharged their duty. But when God includes guests and resident aliens as well as members of their own families, they know that justice must be practiced always toward all.

And there is need for God to set himself and his guardianship against injury to foreigners. For they have no one willing to incur hatred in their defense, and are the more subject to the violence and oppression of the wicked because they lack the protections possessed by the native born.

Widows and orphans are in the same situation. The woman on account of her sex is exposed to various injuries unless she is sheltered in the shade of her husband. And many people take advantage of orphans as if they were legitimate prey because they have no adviser. But God hastens to bring his help when they are without human aid, and he declares that he will be their vindicator if they are unjustly treated.

In the first passage (Ex. 22:21–23), the law joins orphans and widows with the foreign born; in the second (Lev. 19:33–34) only the foreign born are mentioned. But the principle is the same. All those who are orphaned or otherwise deprived of earthly resources are under the guidance and guardianship of God and are protected by his hand. This ought to restrain the boldness of those who think that their crimes will remain unpunished if no one on earth takes action against them.

Truly no iniquity will remain unpunished by God. But there is a special reason why God declares that he takes the foreign born, the widows, and the orphans as his wards. Where evil is more flagrant, there is more need of potent remedy. . . .

In the second passage, it is said further that they are ordered to love outsiders and the foreign born as themselves. Hence it is clear that the term neighbor is not restricted to those of the same blood or to those who are the same sort of people, among whom the need of love is more obvious. Neighbor includes the whole of mankind, as Christ showed in the person of the Samaritan who took pity on an unknown man and showed him human kindness when he had been neglected by a Judean, and even by a Levite.

Be have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and thou shalt hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies. . . . That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven. . . . For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same? Matt. 5:43–46.

It is astonishing that the scribes fell into the absurdity of limiting the word “neighbor” to those who are friendly. There is nothing clearer and more certain than that when God spoke of our neighbor, he meant to include the whole of the human species. Since everyone is devoted to himself, and people are separated from others in the pursuit of their private interests, mutual communication, required by nature itself, is broken. Therefore, God testifies that any man whoever he may be is our neighbor, in order to keep us in the bond of brotherly love with which we are bound one to another by our common nature; for it is necessary that whenever I see another man, who is my own flesh and bone, I see my own self. Even though most men, most often, break away from this holy society, their depravity does not remove the order of nature; for we must remember that God himself is the maker of this union. It follows that the precept of the law which commands us to love our neighbor applies to all men. On the contrary, the scribes, who regarded a man as a neighbor on the ground of his attitude toward them, denied that anyone was their neighbor unless he showed himself worthy of their love by returning their friendship. This is the mentality common to the children of this world, who are not ashamed to hurl their hatred at others for any reason whatever. Love, on the other hand, which the law demands, has no regard for anybody’s merit, and pours itself alike upon the unworthy, the wicked, and those without gratitude. Here Christ restores to love its true and authentic meaning, and defends it against misinterpretation and reproach. Once again, what I said before becomes plain: Christ does not make new laws; he rectifies the wrong interpretations of the scribes which had vitiated the purity of the law of God.

Love your enemies. This one point contains the whole meaning of the teaching of Christ about love as stated above; for, anyone who brings his spirit to loving those who hate him will easily soften his heart against vengeance; he will be patient towards the wicked, and will be all the more ready to help those who are wretched. With this saying, Christ shows us the way and manner in which we are to fulfill the precept. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. For, no man will fulfill this precept, until he gives up the love of himself, or denies himself; until he sees others as bound by God with himself, and so goes ahead to love those who hate him. We learn from these words that the faithful should have nothing to do with revenge: they ought to wipe it out of their souls, so that they not only will be kept from praying to God for it, but will even pray him for the good of their enemies. Meanwhile, they do not fail to commit their cause to God, to let him punish the reprobate; but they still desire to do all they can to restore the wicked to a sound mind, so that they may not perish; and they consider how they may be saved. At the same time, they are comforted and their troubles become bearable when they do not doubt that God is the avenger of obstinate evil and declares himself the protector of the innocent. It is indeed hard, and contrary to the mind of the flesh, to repay evil with good; but we should not make our evil and weakness an excuse: we should rather inquire simply as to what the law of love demands, so that, relying upon the power of the heavenly Spirit, we may battle and overcome our feelings against it.

Monks and similar loud mouths imagined that these are counsels and not precepts, because they judged our duty before God and the law according to human ability. Moreover, having taken it upon themselves and bound themselves to follow these “counsels,” the monks were not ashamed to claim perfection. How faithful they were to this title which they claimed, I will not say. But, it is evident that to interpret this saying as a counsel is insipid and preposterous: first, it is an insult to Christ to say that he did not command but only advised his disciples concerning the right; secondly, it is more than silly to make the duties of love, which are derived from the law, optional; in the third place, it is wrong to interpret the words I say as I advise, because in this place they mean “I warn” or “I command.”

Finally, when Christ adds immediately, that you may be the children of your Father, he gives us proof beyond any doubt that these sayings are plain commandments and bind us to their obedience. When Jesus declares openly that no one can be a child of God unless he loves those who hate him, who dares to say that we are not under obligation to practice this teaching? It is as though he had said, “Let anyone who would consider himself a Christian love his enemies.” It is truly dreadful and monstrous that for three or four centuries the world should have been covered with such thick darkness as not to see that this is an express command, and that anyone who neglects it, is struck out of the number of God’s children.

Moreover, we must remember that we are not asked to imitate God in the sense of doing whatever he does. God chastises the ungrateful and often dispatches the wicked out of this world; it is not for us to imitate God in these respects, because the judgment of the world belongs to him and is beyond our competence. His will is that we imitate him as a Father who is good and does good. This has been known not only by pagan philosophers but also by the worst despisers of godliness, who have confessed openly that we are never so like God as when we do that which is good. In short, Christ himself is our witness that the best evidence of our adoption is to do good to the wicked and the unworthy. But this does not mean that our own goodness makes us children of God: the Spirit himself, who is the witness, earnest, and seal of our free adoption, purifies the depraved impulses of the flesh and does away with their aversion to love. From this effect of the work of the Spirit, Christ shows that the children of God are only those who, like him, are generous and kind.

Do not the publicans? Luke calls these people sinners, that is, vicious and wicked men. He does not condemn the work of the publican as such. The publicans were tax collectors. Princes have a right to impose taxes, therefore it is not wrong to collect them. Luke speaks of publicans as sinners because people in their position are usually greedy and grabbing, and even deceitful and cruel; and because the Jews regarded them as instruments of tyrannical injustice. Anyone who thinks from Christ’s words that the publicans as such were the meanest people around is mistaken. Christ was speaking to a common prejudice. What he really meant is that there are people who are so bereft of humanity as to pursue their private interests even while they make a show of doing their duty.

But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other side. Matt. 5:39.

There are two ways of resisting: first, by warding off evil without violence; second, by retaliation. Even while Christ does not permit his own to meet force with force, he does not forbid them to avoid unjust violence from others. Paul interprets this verse best when he bids us to overcome evil with good, rather than fight with evildoers (Rom. 12:21). But notice that here we have to do with evil and contrasted ways of correcting it. Christ is talking about retaliation as a way of dealing with evil; when he forbids his disciples to repay evil with evil, his intention is to prevent their giving way to their feelings. He extends the rule of patience, so that we shall not only bear present injury with patience but shall also be ready to endure what is to come. The sum of this saying is that the faithful ought to learn to forget whatever evil they are made to suffer; that when hurt they are not to break out in hatred and ill will, or desire to hurt on their part; that the greater the injustice and passion of the wicked grows, and the more infuriating it becomes, the more Christians must be ready for patience and forbearance.

Whoever shall inflict a blow. Julian the Apostate — A.D. 361–363. Roman emperor, who tried to revive a syncretistic form of paganism, made up of mystery religion, polytheism, and Neoplatonic philosophy. He died fighting the Persians in Mesopotamia. Even though he incurred the hostility of the church, he was a great emperor and his like have raised a stupid cry against this teaching of Christ, saying that it would destroy the foundations of law and legal justice. But Augustine, in the fifth epistle, is both wise and intelligent when he shows that the intention of Christ was nothing else than to create a just and temperate spirit among the faithful, so that, when they are offended once or twice, they do not fail and grow weary. Rightly understood, Augustine is correct when he says that this statement does not lay down a law of external conduct. On the other hand, I think Christ restrains our hands no less than our hearts. Still, when a man is able to protect himself and his own from injury, and that without vindictiveness, these words of Christ do not prevent him from turning aside the force of an assault, provided he does it calmly and without harming the other man.

Of course, Christ did not intend to exhort his people to whet the malice of those who are already on fire with the desire to hurt others: what would offering the other cheek do except provoke them further? It is not up to a sane and honest interpreter to pounce on every syllable like a birdcatcher; he should pay attention to what is in the speaker’s mind. Nothing is less becoming to the disciples of Christ than to amuse themselves caviling about words, when what the Master wants is clear. And in this place, there is nothing obscure about the intention of Christ: one conflict leads to another, and so, during the whole of their life, believers suffer continually many injuries; therefore, with this saying Christ wants to train them to endure every attack, that by being patient they may learn patience.

And he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground. Gen. 18:2.

Before Moses comes to the main point, he describes to us the hospitality of the holy man. . . . His hospitality stands out conspicuously because it is no ordinary virtue to aid unknown men from whom no advantage is expected. For in general when men exert themselves for others, they get advantages in return. He who is kind to foreigners and strangers deserves no little praise, since he voluntarily invites as guests unknown men from whom he had received no favors and where there was no hope of mutual benefit.

What then was Abraham’s motive? Truly, simply to satisfy the needs of his guests. He sees them weary from their journey; he is sure they are worn out with the heat; he thinks the time of day bad for traveling. And so he desires to comfort and refresh those who are weary. Certainly nature itself dictates that strangers are to be helped as much as possible — unless we are impelled by our self-love to act only for motives of gain. For none more deserve compassion and help than those whom we see bereft of friends and homeland. Among all peoples the law of hospitality was formerly held sacred. And no epithet was more detestable than ἀξένος, inhospitable. It is inhuman cruelty in our pride to despise those who flee to us and lack the ordinary means of self-protection.

But it is asked, Was it Abraham’s habit to receive all comers equally? For the number would have been too great, and he would have had to feed mobs. I answer that he was a man of sense and exercised discrimination.

And he bowed. This sign of respect was in common use in the Orient. Certain ancient writers have tried to extract a mystery from this clause, and have said that Abraham worshiped the One in Three whom he had seen and that he saw here by faith the three Persons in one God. This interpretation is better ignored, for it is frivolous and open to mockery and insult. We said before that the angels were entertained by the holy man because he wished to do his duty toward men. But God rewarded his kindness, and he was worthy of the reward of having angels for guests. He did not know that they were angels until they revealed themselves at the end of the banquet. It is a humane and polite honor which he pays them.

But [finally] her merchandise and her reward shall be holy to the Lord. It shall not be deposited or laid away, but her merchandise shall be [set aside] for them who dwell before the Lord, that they may eat and be full, and for thick garments. Isa. 23:18. (Calvin’s wording.)

This means that we ought to give to our brothers much more bountifully and generously than men are usually in the habit of doing. For men are somewhat grudging in what concerns their neighbors. Few do their duty eagerly and promptly, or give their labor and kindness without calculation. To correct this fault, God praises above all alacrity.

Paul’s direction to the deacons to distribute cheerfully must bind us all, and his statement that God loves a cheerful giver (2 Cor. 9:7) must be kept in mind. Also we must note the prophet’s words that whatever is distributed to the poor is consecrated to God. And in other passages the Spirit teaches that God himself is served by such offerings. God never ordered sacrifices for his own benefit, and he certainly had no need of them. But he established such acts of piety under the law, and now he commands us to give generously and to spend our money for our neighbors. Whatever we spend in their service, he declares, is a fragrant sacrifice, pleasing and acceptable to him.

Hence when we hear our giving so highly praised, we should be kindled to generosity and kindness; and we should know that our hands are by their gifts, consecrated to God.

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Matt. 5:5.

Christ means people who are kind and gentle: who are not easily provoked when they are hurt; who do not turn ugly when offended; who are ready to put up with anything rather than repay the wicked in kind. When Christ promises such people that they shall inherit the earth, it looks like sheer nonsense. The ones who usurp dominion over the world are those who fiercely repel all injuries; when attacked and wounded, such men have their hands quick for revenge. And experience shows that the milder one is with such people, the bolder and the more insolent they become. This is the reason for the devil’s own proverb: “A man must howl with the wolves; for they will soon devour anyone who turns himself into a sheep.” But Christ meets the fury and violence of the wicked with his own and the Father’s protection; and so, it is not for nothing that he declares the meek lords and heirs of the earth. The children of this age never feel safe unless they are able to take bitter vengeance upon everyone who causes them evil, and thus to defend their lives with hand or arms. But since in truth Christ alone can protect our lives, there is nothing else to do but to hide ourselves under his wings. We have to be sheep, if we want to be counted among his flock. If anyone objects that what we say is against all experience, let him consider: Why is it that fierce people are so uneasy inside as to be their own disturbers? While they live so turbulent a life, even though they may be lords of the earth a hundred times over, having everything, they possess nothing. On the other hand, answering for the children of God, I say, even though they cannot put their feet down on anything they own, they enjoy the earth as a peaceful home. And this is no fictitious possession, because they live on an earth which they know to have been given them by God. Besides, they live under the cover of God’s hand in the midst of all the violence and fury of wicked men; even while exposed to all the missiles of fortune, subject to the malice of evildoers, surrounded by all perils, they still live in safety under God’s vigilance, and already and in a measure have a foretaste of the love of God for them: and this is enough, until, on the last day, they inherit the world.

And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples. Matt. 9:10.

Matthew says that sinners, that is, men of scandalous lives and infamous reputation, came with the publicans. The reason for this is that the publicans, hated and abhorred by the people at large, did not shrink from such company. As a moderate punishment shames and humbles the sinners, harshness drives them to despair, so that putting aside all shame, they abandon themselves to a corrupt life. There was nothing wicked about collecting tribute or taxes; but when the publicans saw that they were rejected as godless and detestable men, they looked for comfort in the company of people who did not despise them; because, being disreputable, they shared their shame. Meanwhile they mixed with adulterers, drunkards, and their kind, even though they were not like them and detested their crimes, because they were driven to it by public hatred and rejection.

Let the brother of less degree rejoice in that he is exalted: but the rich in that he is made low; because as the flower of the grass he shall pass away. James 1:9–10.

Paul, in 1 Cor. 7:22, while exhorting slaves to bear their lot with a calm spirit, reminds them that they are God’s free men, delivered by his grace from the misery of bondage to Satan; he also warns those who are born freemen to remember that they are God’s slaves. In the same way, James here calls upon the lowly to glory in this, that they have been adopted by the Lord to be his children; and he has the same advice for the rich, who have been made to see the vanity of the world and have been brought to equality with the poor. He would have the former be content with their humble and mean position; he forbids the latter to be proud. Since it is the highest and incomparable dignity to be admitted to the society of angels, and even to be made companions to Christ himself, anyone who estimates this favor of God justly will look at everything else which comes his way with equal indifference. Therefore neither poverty nor contempt, nor nakedness, nor hunger, nor thirst, will make his spirit so anxious that he will not be able to comfort himself by saying, “Since the Lord has given me what really matters, I must bear the loss of all lesser things with a serene mind.” This is how a lowly brother ought to glory in his high dignity: if he be acceptable to God, his adoption alone is enough reason for happiness; he ought not to be too much troubled because his state in this life is less than prosperous.

But the rich in that he is made low. The rich represents a whole class of people. This warning is directed to all those who excel in honor, or nobility, or anything else. To break down the lofty spirits of those who become inflated by prosperity, he bids them to glory in their lowliness or littleness.

As the flower of the grass. If anyone thinks that this is a reference to Isaiah, I do not object too strongly. But I cannot allow that James is quoting the prophet, who was not speaking figuratively of good fortune or of the vanity of the world, but rather of the whole man, no less of his soul than of his body. Here it is a question of the pomp of wealth or possessions. The point is that it is stupid and preposterous to boast in riches which can be lost in one moment. Of course, the philosophers say the same thing; but their song is wasted on the deaf, until men’s ears are opened by the Lord himself, and they hear concerning the eternal Kingdom of Heaven. Therefore, when he says brother, he means that we have no place for this doctrine until we are admitted to the company of God’s children.

. . . Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile! John 1:47.

Since this verse gives us a characteristic trait of a Christian man, let us not pass it by too lightly. Truly, we can grasp Christ’s thought without too many words if we notice that sincerity here is contrasted with deceit. He calls deceitful those whom Scripture elsewhere calls of a double mind. He attacks not only the crass hypocrisy of “good men” with a bad conscience, but that practiced by men who are so blinded by their wickedness as to lie not only to others but also to themselves. What makes a man a true Christian is integrity of heart before God and toward men.

3. SOCIAL ETHICS: THE USE OF GOD’S GIFTS

Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. John 12:31.

Now, the Lord, as though he had already won the battle, exults as victor, not only over fear but also over death itself. He proclaims the issue of his death in magnificent terms, to avoid consternation among his disciples. Judgment is interpreted variously as reformation and condemnation. I agree rather with the former view, with those who say that the world shall be restored to right order. For the Hebrew, Mishpat, which is rendered judgment, means a state of good order. Now, we know that apart from Christ there is nothing but confusion in this world. Although Christ has already begun to set up the Kingdom of God, his death was the real beginning of a right order and the full restoration of the world!

Song of Ascents of Solomon. Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman watcheth but in vain.

It is vain for you to rise up early, to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrow: for so he giveth his beloved sleep. Ps. 127:1–2.

There is no reason why the Jews should deny that this psalm was composed by Solomon. They assume that the l means in honor of Solomon, but ordinary usage is against this, since this kind of ascription everywhere denotes authorship. Why should they insist on concocting a new interpretation when it [the psalm] seems especially appropriate for Solomon, who had much experience in political affairs, and could discourse in the wisdom of the Spirit on matters about which he had expert knowledge?

He emphasizes for a double reason that both the world and the lives of men are divinely governed. First, whenever men succeed in something, their ingratitude leads them to credit it solely to themselves, and God is not given his due honor. To correct this flagrant wrong, Solomon declares that nothing goes well for us except so far as God prospers our actions. Secondly, he intends to repulse the foolish self-confidence of men who, ignoring God and relying only on their own wisdom or strength, dare to start anything that comes to their heads. Therefore, he sweeps away everything which they rashly claim for their own and calls them to humility and prayer to God.

But he does not disparage man’s labor or his effort and planning. For any virtue of ours is worthy of praise if we employ it in our zeal for the fulfillment of duty. The Lord does not want us to be like logs of wood, or to sit idle; he expects us to put to use whatever abilities we may have. It is of course true that the heaviest part of our labors comes from God’s curse. But even if man’s original state of integrity had remained, God would still have desired us to keep busy. Adam was put in a garden to cultivate it. Solomon does not condemn what God approves, and certainly not the labor men undertake gladly at God’s command and offer to him as an acceptable sacrifice. But to keep men from being blinded by pride and from grasping at what belongs to God, he warns them that hard work wins success only so far as God blesses our labor.

By house he does not mean just the wooden or stone building. He includes in it the whole family economy, as a little farther on by the word city he does not mean merely the buildings and the surrounding walls but the common welfare of the whole state. He also is using the part for the whole (synecdoche) when he speaks of building and guarding. He is making the general statement that whatever effort, wisdom, or industry men expend in looking after a family or in protecting a city will be ineffectual unless God from heaven orders a prosperous outcome. We need to remember often what has just been said. For since blind pride almost fills the minds of men and leads them in contempt of God to an immoderate exercise of their own abilities, nothing is more salutary for them than to be called to order and reminded that whatever they attempt will quickly come to nothing, unless the grace of God alone sustains it and makes it to prosper.

When philosophers dispute about the political state, they cleverly put together everything which seems to apply to the subject. They show acutely the reasons for and the means of establishing a state; and again they describe the faults by which a good state is frequently corrupted. In fact they search out with the greatest skill all that is needed to understand the matter. But they leave out the main point: that however much men excel in wisdom and ability, they cannot accomplish what they undertake unless God takes it in his hand and uses it as his instrument. Who of the philosophers has ever recognized that human politics are only a tool directed by the hand of God? They have made human virtue the prime cause of good fortune.

When men in sacrilegious boldness rush off to found cities and to regulate the state of the whole world, the Holy Spirit rightly exposes such insanity. So let each one of us work as he can in the line of his duty, giving to God the praise for every success we have. For it is altogether wrong to divide the credit as many try to do, giving half to God and claiming the other half for themselves because they have worked so hard. We must prize the blessing of God alone and live under its reign.

But if even our earthly welfare depends wholly on God’s good pleasure, with what wings shall we fly to heaven? A man may establish a decent household with a way of life that suits him; men may make good laws and practice justice — but all such achievements are but a crawling on the ground, and the Holy Spirit pronounces them all transitory. Still less to be tolerated is the madness of those who strive to penetrate heaven by their own strength.

From this doctrine we may gather that it is not strange if world affairs are turbulent and confused, if in cities the rule of law is overthrown; if husbands and wives bring bitter and groundless accusations against each other, parents complain of their children, and all men bewail their lot. How many today devote themselves to the service of God in the practice of their own proper calling? How many, puffed up with pride, are not trying constantly to exalt themselves? God justly pays today’s sad wage to unthankful men who defraud him of his honor. But if all should humbly submit themselves to God’s providence, the blessing which Solomon celebrates would certainly shine bright in every aspect of our life, both public and private.

The verb ’amal, which we translate labor, means not just to be occupied in some work but to labor to the point of fatigue and pain. I said that by watchmen we must understand not only those stationed at lookouts but all magistrates and judges. Whatever watchfulness they have is a gift of heaven. But we need still another watchfulness — God’s. For unless he watches over us from heaven, no human keen-sightedness will be enough to ward off danger.

In vain. Solomon now explains more fully that it is useless for men to wear themselves out with hard work and grow weak with fasting in order to acquire wealth, since wealth also is the gift of God alone. In order to impress them more effectively, he speaks to each man individually: For you [he says] it is vain. He mentions specifically the two means which are commonly reckoned to contribute most to amassing wealth. For when men do not spare their labor, but consume night and day in business and spend little of what they gain from their labor on their living, it is not surprising that they accumulate riches in a short space of time. But Solomon declares that there is nothing gained by poor living and perpetual labor.

Not that he forbids living economically or getting up early in the morning to work; but he does urge us to prayer, to the invocation of God. And in order to inspire us to gratitude, he says that anything which obscures God’s goodness is vanity. For we prosper only when our hope rests wholly upon God; and moreover the outcome of our work will depend on how we pray. But if anyone pushes God into the background and hastens eagerly ahead, his hurried rush will surely end in a fall. The prophet is not advising men to succumb to indolence and to make no plans in all their lives, merely to doze and indulge their inertia; on the contrary, his point is that, when they pursue the tasks divinely imposed upon them, they ought always to begin with prayer and invocation to God, and offer their labors for his blessing.

Bread of sorrow can be explained in two ways: either “he eats by hard and anxious labor” or “he eats with pain,” as it happens when miserly and greedy men scarcely taste their bread before they take their hand back from their lips. It makes no great difference which meaning you choose, for the point of the statement is that miserly men gain nothing when they grudgingly defraud their Provider [of invocation and prayer].

Surely he will give to his beloved sleep. This describes exactly the way in which God’s blessing on his sons and servants is manifested. For acceptance of the futility of mere human striving would not be enough; the addition of a promise is needed if men are to perform their duties with a sure hope. This clause may be read, He will give sleep to his beloved or He will give through sleep what the unbelieving vainly seek to gain through their own struggles. The word ken is used to emphasize the certainty [of the promise] and to make more convincing what seems unbelievable and unrealistic; as though Solomon were pointing his finger toward God’s feeding of the faithful without any anxiety on their part. Indeed, he speaks as if God in his indulgence, were encouraging his servants to be idle. But since we know from the law that men were created to work and since in the next psalm we shall see that farmers are regarded as blessed of God when they eat what their own hands have produced, it is certain that sleep does not mean doing nothing but rather the tranquil labor to which men of faith apply themselves in obedient trust.

For what causes the great excitement of unbelievers who never move a finger without making a commotion (that is, without tormenting themselves with useless anxieties), except that they refer nothing that happens to God’s providence? But men of faith, even when they spend their whole lives in hard labor, obey God’s call calmly and with tranquil minds. Their hands are not idle, but their minds rest quiet in silent faith as if they were asleep.

If anyone object that the faithful often stew in bitter cares and worry about the future when they are hard pressed by the want of everything they need and destitute of all means of support, I answer: If the faith and devotion of the servants of God were perfect, the blessing of God which the prophet here describes would be plainly visible. And as for those who worry too much — that is due to their own sin in not resting firmly upon God’s providence. I even add that they are punished more severely than unbelievers, because it is good for them to suffer anxiety for a time, so that they may attain the quiet of this sleep. But meantime God’s kindness [to his servants] persists, and shines always in the midst of the shadows [of this world]; for the Lord supports his sons as with sleep.

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. 1 Tim. 4:1–5.

Paul has been busy warning Timothy about many things. Now he brings out the necessity of being prepared to oppose the perils announced by the Holy Spirit as imminent: namely, that false teachers shall appear, who shall hold out mere trifles as doctrines of the faith; who, putting all holiness in outward observances, shall obscure the spiritual worship of God which alone is lawful. And, in truth, the servants of God always had to struggle against the kind of people Paul describes in this place. Since men’s nature is prone to hypocrisy, it is easy for Satan to persuade them that the true worship of God consists in ceremonies and outward discipline; men believe this kind of thing and need no teacher to fix their souls on it; then comes the crafty devil and confirms them in their error. So it comes about that through the ages there have been false teachers who have championed a false worship, which has been the burial of true godliness. Next to this pestilence has appeared another, which has turned matters of freedom into things of necessity. So, the world allows itself readily to be forbidden what God himself allows, in order that it may allow itself to transgress the laws of God. . . .

Speaking lies in hypocrisy. This may refer to demons who deceive others at the instigation of the devil. On the other hand, the speakers may be taken to be simply men.

When Paul says that they lie as hypocrites and their consciences are seared with a hot iron, he is coming down to particulars. Let us observe also that these two evils go together and that the second grows out of the first. For, people with bad consciences, which are burned into by their wickedness, take refuge in hypocrisy: that is, they put on false colors so as to deceive the eyes of the Lord. What else can they do, when they are busy trying to win the favor of God with the counterfeit of external observances?

The word hypocrisy must be defined in the light of the present passage. First, it has to do with doctrine; and then, with the kind of doctrine which perverts the spiritual worship of God into a set of bodily practices, and so corrupts its real purity. Thus, it includes all artificial means of pleasing God and claiming his favor. In short, all those who go around draped with a false sanctimoniousness do it by the devil’s prodding; because no one can worship God rightly with outward ceremonies, for true worshipers adore him in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). Secondly, such ceremony is a useless medicine with which hypocrites mitigate their miseries, or rather a plaster by which they hide their wounds without deriving any benefit from it; but in fact it kills them.

Forbidding to marry. Having given us a characterization of diabolical doctrine, he now presents us with two particular elements of it: namely, the prohibition of marriage, and of certain foods. These arise out of hypocrisy which, having set aside true holiness, seeks to hide itself under alien and false colors. For people who do not refrain from ambition, hatred, avarice, cruelty, and the like, try to acquire integrity by abstaining from things about which God has left us free. Why are men’s consciences burdened with laws about marriage and foods, unless to permit them to seek perfection outside of God’s law? This kind of thing is not done except by hypocrites, who try to cover over their wickedness with trifling observances as with a veil, so that they may transgress the righteousness of the heart which is what the law requires. . . .

Such is the mind of the world that it always dreams of worshiping God with carnal customs, as though God himself were carnal. In the ancient church, little by little, things went from bad to worse, until we arrive at the tyranny according to which it is wicked for priests and monks to enter into marriage, and under which no man dare eat meat on certain days. Therefore, we are today far from wrong in applying this prophecy to the papists, who urge celibacy and abstinence from foods more forcefully than any precept of God. They think they can escape by clever caviling, when they twist Paul’s words to apply them against the Tatianists. Named after Tatian, an Assyrian Christian, these heretics were infected with Gnosticism and Docetism, and are even better remembered for their extreme asceticism. They condemned marriage, meat, and wine or Manichaeans. Manichaeans are especially important in the church because of the controversy of Saint Augustine with them. These dualists, who derived their heresy ultimately from Zoroastrianism, had many adherents because of the neat way they explained the origin of evil in one god and the origin of good in another. In its Christianized form, this heresy identified the treason with Ahriman, the evil god, and Christ with Ormazd, the good god. Flesh was evil, spirit was good. Hence they forbade eggs and milk as well as meat; they also forbade marriage and bathing or others like them; as though the Tatianists did not have the same means of escape, by throwing Paul’s words at the Phrygians and at Montanus. Montanus was a heretic of the early second century A.D., from Phrygia in Asia Minor, and his followers were called both Montanists and Phrygians. They received a new dispensation of the Spirit superior to that of Christ or of the apostles, and waited eagerly for the Parousia. They were visionaries and ascetics, forbidding marriage; and during prolonged fastings they forbade wine, meat, fruits, and bathing. This was a heresy which was espoused by Tertullian and left deep marks in the ancient church who was the founder of that sect; as though the Phrygians themselves could not come forth with the Encratites100100Encratites, second-century heretics, believed in the inherently evil character of matter and advocated abstinence from marriage, flesh, and wine. They believed like the Marcionites that the Creator was the inferior God as the guilty party. However, Paul is not talking about persons but about the principle of the thing. Thus, if a hundred sects were brought forward as having all labored with the same hypocrisy to forbid certain foods, none of them would be any less guilty. It follows that the old heretics are of no use to the papists, as though they alone were to be blamed; the question always is whether the papists are not guilty in the same way. The papists object on the ground that they are utterly unlike the Encratites, and the Manichaeans because they do not absolutely forbid marriage and meats. They say that they enjoin abstention from meats on certain days, and that they require celibacy only from priests, monks, and nuns. But this is a very poor excuse; for they nonetheless identify holiness with such matters: further, they establish a false and corrupt worship of God; finally, they bind consciences with a necessity from which men ought to be free.

In the Fifth Book of Eusebius, ( Eusebius of Caesarea (A.D. 260–340), was a bishop and church historian who wrote the Ecclesiastical History which is an indispensable source book for the history of the ancient church (A.D. 325) inclusive of the reign of Constantine. This is a majestic account of the struggle and the triumph of the church of Jesus Christ there is a fragment from the writings of Apollonius, (Apollonius Claudius, bishop of Phrygia, c. 171), a learned man and opponent of Montanism in which, among other things, the latter reproaches Montanus for having been the first to dissolve marriage, and for having imposed the law of celibacy. He does not say that Montanus prohibited marriage or certain foods to everybody. It is enough that anyone should lay this kind of religion upon the consciences of men, or that he should require the observance of these things as the worship of God. To forbid anything that should be left to human decision, whether for everybody or for some, is diabolical tyranny. That this is true of foods will be clear from what follows.

Which God has created. Let us notice the reasoning in this matter: we ought to be content with the freedom which God has given us in the use of different foods, because it is for our use that he has created them. It is the joy of all godly people to know that every food which nourishes them is offered them by the hand of the Lord; that to eat it is pure and lawful. What arrogance it is to take away what the Lord himself bestows upon men! Did the papists create good? Can they void God’s own creation? Let us always keep in mind that he who has created food also gave us free use of it, and that men’s efforts to keep us from it are in vain. I say that God created food to be eaten, that is, for our enjoyment. There is no human authority which can change this.

But now he adds, with the giving of thanks; because we have nothing with which to repay God’s generosity except the evidence of our gratitude. And thus he castigates the godless lawmakers with all the greater abhorrence in that they obstruct the sacrifice of praise, which God in the beginning established for our offering, with their own novel and useless enactments. On the other hand, we cannot act with gratitude unless we are sober and temperate; for no one knows the goodness of God if he makes a wicked use of it.

Of them which believe and know the truth. What then? Does not God make his sun to rise daily upon the good and the evil (Matt. 5:45)? Does not the earth, by his command, yield bread to the wicked? Are not even the worst men fed through his blessings? Therefore, his goodness is toward all men, as David sings in Ps. 104:14. But to all this I answer: Paul is here concerned with the right use of God’s gifts, and has shown us the way we are to act before God. The ungodly do not share in such integrity before God, because their unclean consciences contaminate everything they touch, as we can see readily from Titus 1:15. Of course, in this sense, and strictly speaking, God has destined the world and all that is in it for his children alone; for this reason it is said that they shall inherit the earth. In the beginning, Adam himself was given dominion over all things on condition that he remained obedient to God. Therefore, when he rose in rebellion against God, he deprived himself and his posterity of this right which was conferred upon him. So, it follows that we are restored to our original dignity only by the benefit we receive from Christ to whom all things are under subjection: and this we receive by faith. Therefore, whatever men without faith get hold of, they rob or steal from others. . . .

For every creature. The use of food must be judged partly from its nature and partly by him who eats it. The apostle argues in both directions. He asserts that food in itself is clean, because it is God who gives it: and that we make a holy use of it by faith and prayer. When he says that the creatures are good, he is speaking of them in relation to man, not with regard to the body or one’s health, but to one’s conscience. I say this to avoid philosophical hairsplitting beyond the scope of this passage. Briefly, Paul means that whatever comes from God’s hand is neither corrupt nor unclean before God, that it is simply for our nourishment; and as such, with regard to conscience, it is lawful. If anyone objects that of old under the law many animals were declared unclean, or that the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was fatal to men, I answer: Creatures are called clean not merely because they are works of God, but because they are given to us by his goodness. We must always pay attention to what God himself commands and to what he forbids.

For it is sanctified. This confirms the previous clause which said, if it is received with thanksgiving. This is an argument from the contrast between holy and profane. Now we learn how we are to sanctify all the good things which sustain our present life, that is, according to Paul’s witness, by the Word of God and by prayer. But we must realize that if the Word is to do us any good, it must be heard by faith. Even though God himself sanctifies all things by the Spirit of his Word (mouth) alone, we cannot know this blessing except by faith. And to this is added prayer, because Christ himself commands us to ask our daily bread from God (Matt. 6:11): and because we must respond to his goodness with thanksgiving.

Paul’s doctrine is based upon the principle that there is no such thing as lawful possession, unless our conscience testifies that what is ours is ours by right. And in truth, which one of us would dare call even a grain of wheat his own, unless he learns from the Word of God that he shall inherit the earth? Common sense tells us that by nature the abundance of this world is destined for our use. But, since in Adam dominion over the world was taken away from us, every time we touch a gift of God, it is polluted by our own filth; it is unclean to us, unless God comes to our help, and uniting us with the body of his Son, once again makes us lords of the earth. It is in this way that we come to a lawful enjoyment of all the things God gives us in such abundance. Paul is right in tying up rightful enjoyment with the Word of God, since it alone enables us to regain what we lost in Adam, for, if we are to be heirs of God, we must know him as our Father; and we must know Christ as our Head, if we are to have what is his. From this we gather that all the gifts of God are usurped by us and are unclean to us, unless we know the true God and call upon his name. It is a beastly business when people start eating without prayer, and when they are full, they run out without as much as mentioning God’s name.

And they drank and were drunk with him. Gen. 43:34. (Calvin’s wording.)

From the end of the chapter we conclude that there was a sumptuous banquet at which they indulged themselves more freely and hilariously than was usual. The verb shakar, which is translated be drunk, indicates either that they were not accustomed to drinking wine, or that an unusual amount was drunk at this banquet given in their honor. But the word does not necessarily mean drinking to excess (as riotous men interpret it to excuse their own dissipation by the example of the patriarchs), but drinking with honest and free enjoyment. I admit that the word is ambiguous and is often used in a bad sense, as in Gen. 9:21, and similar passages, but in this place, Moses’ meaning is clear.

If anyone raises the objection that a frugal use of food and drink is sufficient for the nourishment of the body, I answer: Although food is a proper provision for our bodily need, yet the legitimate use of it goes beyond mere sustenance. For good flavors were not added to food value without a purpose, but because our Heavenly Father wishes to give us pleasure with the delicacies he provides. It is not by accident that Ps. 104:15 praises his kindness in creating wine to cheer man’s heart.

But the more kindly God treats us, the more it becomes our duty to be careful to control ourselves and to use his gifts temperately. For we know how unrestrained our appetite is; in abundance it always overindulges itself and it is always impatient of scarcity. In fact, we must keep Paul’s rule (Phil. 4:12) and know both how to be in want and how to abound. This means to be on our guard when large quantities are at hand so that we are not tempted to extravagance; and again we must see to it that we endure privation calmly.

Someone will perhaps say that the flesh is much too clever at camouflaging extravagance, and therefore nothing beyond actual necessities should be allowed it. I certainly agree that Paul’s requirement (Rom. 13:14) must be observed, and we must not serve our lusts. But what is most important for religious people is to receive their food from God’s hand with a quiet conscience. And to do this, we must determine how far the enjoyment of food and wine is allowable.

For the day of the Lord of hosts shall be. . . upon all the ships of Tarshish. . . . Isa. 2:12, 16.

There is no doubt that Cilicia was called Tarshish in Hebrew. Since there was much trade between that nation and the Jews, we find in Scripture frequent references to ships of Tarshish, so named from the Cilician sea on which they sailed. Trading in ships cannot of course be condemned in itself, for the import and export of goods bring no small advantage to men. And especially since God desires the whole human race to be united in mutual service, it is impossible to disapprove of ships as a means of communication. But since abundance increases pride and cruelty, Isaiah here denounces commerce by which a land is especially enriched. Also trade carried on with far-off foreign nations is often replete with cheating and extortion, and no limit is set to the profits.

Isaiah recognizes in the first place that if Jews are to learn to submit themselves to God, they must be stripped of their wealth. He then uses a symbol for their greed and their unjust gains, as he might have held up a bloody sword to announce a murder. The latter part of the verse makes it clearer that the prophet is condemning commerce because it has infected the land with many corruptions. For it too often happens that riches bring self-indulgence, and superfluity of pleasures produces flabbiness, as we can see in wealthy districts and cities [where there are merchants]. Now those who sail to distant places are no longer content with home comforts but bring back with them unknown luxuries. Therefore, because wealth is generally the mother of extravagance, the prophet mentions here expensive household furnishings, by which he means that the Jews brought God’s judgment upon themselves by the lavish way they decorated their houses. For with pictures he includes expensive tapestries like Phrygian embroidery and vases molded with exquisite art.

It is indeed certain that morals are corrupted when men are greedy for such empty diversions. We know that such indulgences brought about the end of the Roman Empire. Before the Romans entered Greece, they practiced a high degree of self-control; but finally, after Asia was conquered, they began to grow soft and effeminate. And when their eyes were trapped with pictures, vases, jewels, and tapestries, their noses with ointments and perfumes, all their senses at once were overwhelmed. And by copying the luxury of the East, as if it were a higher culture, they came more and more to squander their lives in every kind of pleasure.

And Lot, also which went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tents. . . . And there was strife between the herdmen of Abram’s cattle and the herdmen of Lot’s cattle. . . . Gen. 13:5, 7.

Now follows an account of the trouble Abram suffered because of his wealth. Certainly he did not want to part from his nephew whom he loved especially as if he were his own son. Surely, if he had had a choice, he would have preferred the loss of his wealth to separation from one whom he regarded as an only son. But he found no other remedy to stop the quarreling. Shall we ascribe the difficulty to his own too stern temper or to his nephew’s insolence? I think we should do better to consider the purpose of God.

There was danger that Abram might become too well pleased with his own good fortune, just as many men are blinded by lesser goods. Therefore God seasons the sweetness of wealth with vinegar and does not allow the mind of his servant to be too much entranced with it. When a false sense of value leads us to seek riches more than is right, because we do not realize how many troubles they bring with them, the remembrance of this story should serve to limit our inordinate love. And whenever rich men fall into trouble because of their wealth, they should learn to use the pain it gives them as a medicine to purge their minds of too great a desire for the good things of this present life. Unless God in his wisdom tightened the curb rein wisely, men would leave the right road and would stumble badly in their pursuit of prosperity.

Again, when we are hampered by poverty we should understand that God uses this also as a remedy for the secret vices of our flesh.

In conclusion, let those who have abundance remember that they are surrounded with thorns, and let them take great care not to be pricked by them; and let those who have little and are very much hemmed in know that God planned [their poverty] to keep them from evil and hurtful snares.

Separation from Lot grieved Abram; but it could serve to correct much evil latent in him, and prevent wealth from stifling the ardor of his devotion. If Abram needed such an antidote, we should not wonder that God employs painful checks against our lust for pleasure. He does not always wait until the faithful have actually slipped, but he looks ahead for them. He did not punish Abram, his servant, for avarice or pride; he gave him a preventive medicine to keep Satan from infecting his mind with such sentiments.

And there was strife. What applies to wealth applies equally to large households. Yet we see how ambitiously many men seek to collect a great crowd of servants — as if they wanted to preside over a whole nation. But seeing that Abram’s great establishment cost him so much, we should learn to be willingly satisfied with a small establishment, or with none at all if it so please God. It is almost impossible for a house to be filled with many people without its being in turmoil. Experience proves the truth of the proverb, “A crowd is the same as a tumult.” If quiet tranquility is an inestimable good, then we should see that our wisest course is to have a small house and to live unpretentiously within our family.

In this example, note carefully what we are advised to avoid if we are to keep Satan from drawing us into conflicts by circuitous devices. For when he cannot inflame us directly with mutual hate, he implicates us in the disputes of others. Lot and Abram agreed well together, but the quarrel which arose among the shepherds involved them against their will so that they were compelled to separate.

There is no doubt that Abram had given strict orders to his servants to keep the peace; but his zeal and effort did not prevent his seeing the flame of discord, kept alight by small fans, blazing in his own home. So it is no wonder that disturbances arise in the church which contains a still larger number of people. Abram had about three hundred servants; Lot’s household was certainly little smaller. What then will happen among five or six thousand, especially when the quarrelers are all free men?

We must not let ourselves be upset by these offenses, but equally we must be on guard in every way against the outbreak of fighting. For unless disagreements are stifled properly at the beginning, they will burst into harmful dissensions.

And the squares of the city will befall of boys and girls playing in the squares. Zech. 8:5.

With a different figure the prophet repeats and emphasizes the same point: that boys and girls will be playing on the public squares and in the streets, which they cannot do in the uproar of warfare. For when arms clash, when the sound of the trumpet is heard, when insults from the soldiers of the enemy threaten, everyone keeps his children in the house. Outside it is an ugly and sad business, and almost nobody will be caught on the street. When fear hangs over the whole [city] even the children lose their gaiety. The prophet, then, is promising that Jerusalem will once again enjoy peace, that God will chase the menace of the enemy to a far distance; not that Jerusalem would ever be free from all danger, but that God’s defense would give her people security in the midst of many terrors.

This is not the place to argue subtly whether one may play games in peacetimes. The prophet draws his picture from ordinary human behavior; it is indeed an expression of human nature. For we know that when men are not afraid, they relax and enjoy fun. Besides games and silly amusements are proper for children. Therefore all the prophet intended here was to assure the Jews that even though they were struggling with various enemies, they could nonetheless enjoy security and quiet.

And they shall not wear a rough garment to deceive. Zech. 13:4.

This means that they will not be concerned to maintain their prestige and reputation, but will abandon willingly the esteem which they had dishonestly acquired.

This passage shows that prophets wore a coarse and hairy garment. But interpreters are wrong to cite as evidence passages in which a prophet is ordered to put on sackcloth and a garment of goat’s hair. For Isaiah in many of his prophesyings wore neither; he did so only when he announced disaster. And Jeremiah was once ordered to go naked. Jeremiah appears to be a surprising slip of memory for Isaiah (ch. 20:2), or for Micah (ch. 1:8); but it is possible that Calvin had in mind Jeremiah’s journey to the Euphrates; if the prophet wore only his girdle and buried it there, he certainly returned “naked.” But ordinarily the prophets were content with hairy garments, that is, with ordinary, coarse clothes.

Now although we have liberty in external things, we must practice some moderation. If, for example, I were to teach in a military uniform, good sense would be quick to object. There is no need of a special doctrine to teach decency and ordinary good taste.

The true prophets wore rough garments to show that their lives were as simple and plain as their clothing. But they did not achieve a reputation for holiness by means of their clothes only, as do the monks today who are supposed to be holy because of their cowls and such trumpery. That was not the aim of the prophets; they meant to show by their dress that their only purpose was to serve God, and that they were separated from the world only in order to devote themselves wholly to their ministry.

It was because the false prophets imitated them that Zechariah says they shall not wear a hairy mantle — that is, they shall no longer wear prophetic garb. He was not merely condemning the garb worn by the false prophets. Therefore interpreters twist these words from their true meaning when they use them to condemn long gowns or whatever else of the kind displeases their sour minds. The prophet means simply that when pure doctrine shines bright and true religion has won its due honor, then there will no more be a place for false teachers. They will voluntarily leave their positions of honor and will no longer try to deceive uneducated folk. This is what the prophet really means, as he shows clearly when he adds to deceive.

So we see that hairy mantles are condemned, because rapacious wolves hide under sheepskins, and foxes infiltrate the fold in disguise. Zechariah is condemning the motive and not the garment.

Jabal was the father of such as dwell in tents. . . . Gen. 4:20.

Moses now reminds us that some good was combined with the evils which came from the family of Cain. For the discovery of the arts, and of whatever is useful and makes our common life more pleasant, is a gift of God which is not to be despised and an achievement worthy of praise. It is indeed surprising that the race which had departed furthest from the right way, surpassed the rest of Adam’s descendants in serviceable endowments.

Indeed, I would suggest that Moses specifically enumerated the arts invented by the family of Cain to inform us that Cain was not so cursed by God that he had no gifts to distribute to his descendants. For it is probable that others also were not lacking in talent, and that there was among other sons of Adam no lack of industrious and clever men who busied themselves in inventing and developing the arts. Clearly, here Moses is celebrating what was left of God’s blessing, in a people whom we should otherwise regard as sterile and devoid of every other good.

We must therefore recognize that, although the sons of Cain were deprived of the Spirit of regeneration, they were blessed with endowments far from negligible. In fact, the experience of all ages shows us how many rays of divine light have always gleamed among unbelieving nations, and have contributed to the improvement of our present life. And today we see glorious gifts of the Spirit spread throughout the whole human race. For the liberal and industrial arts and the sciences have come to us from profane men. Astronomy and the other branches of philosophy, medicine, political science — we must admit that we have learned all these from them.

No doubt God endowed them so liberally with his excellent favors to give them no excuse for their impiety. But while we are amazed at the riches of his grace which God pours out on them, we marvel much more at the grace of regeneration given us, by which God sanctifies his elect to be his own.

Although the invention of the lyre and of other musical instruments serves our enjoyment and our pleasures rather than our needs, it ought not on that account to be judged of no value; still less should it be condemned. Pleasure is to be condemned only when it is not combined with reverence for God and not related to the common welfare of society. But music by its nature is adapted to rouse our devotion to God and to aid the well-being of man; we need only avoid enticements to shame, and empty entertainments which keep men from better employments and are simply a waste of time.

However, even if you think the invention of the lyre does not in itself deserve much praise, everyone knows how long and how widely people have valued the carpenter’s skill.

To conclude — in my opinion, Moses here wished to show that the race of Cain excelled in many important endowments which at once made their impiety inexcusable and were shining witnesses to God’s goodness.

Jabal is said to be the father of the people who live in tents because he invented that convenient shelter, and others afterwards imitated him.

And God made two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. Gen. 1:16.

The greater light. I have already said that Moses is not analyzing acutely, like the philosophers, the secrets of nature; and these words show it. First he sets the planets and stars in the expanse of the heaven. Astronomers distinguish a number of spheres in the firmament and teach that the fixed stars have their own place in it. Moses mentions two great luminaries. The astronomers prove with strong arguments that the star Saturn, which seems small because of its distance, is larger than the moon.

All this shows that Moses described in popular style what all ordinary men without training and education perceive with their ordinary senses. Astronomers, on the other hand, investigate with great labor whatever the keenness of man’s intellect is able to discover. Such study is certainly not to be disapproved, nor science condemned with the insolence of some fanatics who habitually reject whatever is unknown to them.

The study of astronomy not only gives pleasure but is also extremely useful. And no one can deny that it admirably reveals the wisdom of God. Therefore, clever men who expend their labor upon it are to be praised and those who have ability and leisure ought not to neglect work of that kind.

Moses did not wish to keep us from such study when he omitted the details belonging to the science. But, since he had been appointed guide of rude and unlearned men rather than of the learned, he could not fulfill his duty except by coming down to their level. If he had spoken of matters unknown to the crowd, the unlearned could say that his teaching was over their heads. In fact, when the Spirit of God opens a common school for all, it is not strange that he chooses to teach especially what can be understood by all.

When the astronomer seeks the true size of stars and finds the moon smaller than Saturn, he gives us specialized knowledge. But the eye sees things differently; and Moses adapts himself to the ordinary view.

God has stretched out his hand to us to give us the splendor of the sun and moon to enjoy. Great would be our ingratitude if we shut our eyes to this experience of beauty! There is no reason why clever men should jeer at Moses’ ignorance. He is not explaining the heavens to us but describing what is before our eyes. Let the astronomers possess their own deeper knowledge. Meanwhile, those who see the nightly splendor of the moon are possessed by perverse ingratitude if they do not recognize the goodness of God.Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. John 12:31.

Now, the Lord, as though he had already won the battle, exults as victor, not only over fear but also over death itself. He proclaims the issue of his death in magnificent terms, to avoid consternation among his disciples. Judgment is interpreted variously as reformation and condemnation. I agree rather with the former view, with those who say that the world shall be restored to right order. For the Hebrew, Mishpat, which is rendered judgment, means a state of good order. Now, we know that apart from Christ there is nothing but confusion in this world. Although Christ has already begun to set up the Kingdom of God, his death was the real beginning of a right order and the full restoration of the world!

Song of Ascents of Solomon. Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman watcheth but in vain.

It is vain for you to rise up early, to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrow: for so he giveth his beloved sleep. Ps. 127:1–2.

There is no reason why the Jews should deny that this psalm was composed by Solomon. They assume that the l means in honor of Solomon, but ordinary usage is against this, since this kind of ascription everywhere denotes authorship. Why should they insist on concocting a new interpretation when it [the psalm] seems especially appropriate for Solomon, who had much experience in political affairs, and could discourse in the wisdom of the Spirit on matters about which he had expert knowledge?

He emphasizes for a double reason that both the world and the lives of men are divinely governed. First, whenever men succeed in something, their ingratitude leads them to credit it solely to themselves, and God is not given his due honor. To correct this flagrant wrong, Solomon declares that nothing goes well for us except so far as God prospers our actions. Secondly, he intends to repulse the foolish self-confidence of men who, ignoring God and relying only on their own wisdom or strength, dare to start anything that comes to their heads. Therefore, he sweeps away everything which they rashly claim for their own and calls them to humility and prayer to God.

But he does not disparage man’s labor or his effort and planning. For any virtue of ours is worthy of praise if we employ it in our zeal for the fulfillment of duty. The Lord does not want us to be like logs of wood, or to sit idle; he expects us to put to use whatever abilities we may have. It is of course true that the heaviest part of our labors comes from God’s curse. But even if man’s original state of integrity had remained, God would still have desired us to keep busy. Adam was put in a garden to cultivate it. Solomon does not condemn what God approves, and certainly not the labor men undertake gladly at God’s command and offer to him as an acceptable sacrifice. But to keep men from being blinded by pride and from grasping at what belongs to God, he warns them that hard work wins success only so far as God blesses our labor.

By house he does not mean just the wooden or stone building. He includes in it the whole family economy, as a little farther on by the word city he does not mean merely the buildings and the surrounding walls but the common welfare of the whole state. He also is using the part for the whole (synecdoche) when he speaks of building and guarding. He is making the general statement that whatever effort, wisdom, or industry men expend in looking after a family or in protecting a city will be ineffectual unless God from heaven orders a prosperous outcome. We need to remember often what has just been said. For since blind pride almost fills the minds of men and leads them in contempt of God to an immoderate exercise of their own abilities, nothing is more salutary for them than to be called to order and reminded that whatever they attempt will quickly come to nothing, unless the grace of God alone sustains it and makes it to prosper.

When philosophers dispute about the political state, they cleverly put together everything which seems to apply to the subject. They show acutely the reasons for and the means of establishing a state; and again they describe the faults by which a good state is frequently corrupted. In fact they search out with the greatest skill all that is needed to understand the matter. But they leave out the main point: that however much men excel in wisdom and ability, they cannot accomplish what they undertake unless God takes it in his hand and uses it as his instrument. Who of the philosophers has ever recognized that human politics are only a tool directed by the hand of God? They have made human virtue the prime cause of good fortune.

When men in sacrilegious boldness rush off to found cities and to regulate the state of the whole world, the Holy Spirit rightly exposes such insanity. So let each one of us work as he can in the line of his duty, giving to God the praise for every success we have. For it is altogether wrong to divide the credit as many try to do, giving half to God and claiming the other half for themselves because they have worked so hard. We must prize the blessing of God alone and live under its reign.

But if even our earthly welfare depends wholly on God’s good pleasure, with what wings shall we fly to heaven? A man may establish a decent household with a way of life that suits him; men may make good laws and practice justice — but all such achievements are but a crawling on the ground, and the Holy Spirit pronounces them all transitory. Still less to be tolerated is the madness of those who strive to penetrate heaven by their own strength.

From this doctrine we may gather that it is not strange if world affairs are turbulent and confused, if in cities the rule of law is overthrown; if husbands and wives bring bitter and groundless accusations against each other, parents complain of their children, and all men bewail their lot. How many today devote themselves to the service of God in the practice of their own proper calling? How many, puffed up with pride, are not trying constantly to exalt themselves? God justly pays today’s sad wage to unthankful men who defraud him of his honor. But if all should humbly submit themselves to God’s providence, the blessing which Solomon celebrates would certainly shine bright in every aspect of our life, both public and private.

The verb ’amal, which we translate labor, means not just to be occupied in some work but to labor to the point of fatigue and pain. I said that by watchmen we must understand not only those stationed at lookouts but all magistrates and judges. Whatever watchfulness they have is a gift of heaven. But we need still another watchfulness — God’s. For unless he watches over us from heaven, no human keen-sightedness will be enough to ward off danger.

In vain. Solomon now explains more fully that it is useless for men to wear themselves out with hard work and grow weak with fasting in order to acquire wealth, since wealth also is the gift of God alone. In order to impress them more effectively, he speaks to each man individually: For you [he says] it is vain. He mentions specifically the two means which are commonly reckoned to contribute most to amassing wealth. For when men do not spare their labor, but consume night and day in business and spend little of what they gain from their labor on their living, it is not surprising that they accumulate riches in a short space of time. But Solomon declares that there is nothing gained by poor living and perpetual labor.

Not that he forbids living economically or getting up early in the morning to work; but he does urge us to prayer, to the invocation of God. And in order to inspire us to gratitude, he says that anything which obscures God’s goodness is vanity. For we prosper only when our hope rests wholly upon God; and moreover the outcome of our work will depend on how we pray. But if anyone pushes God into the background and hastens eagerly ahead, his hurried rush will surely end in a fall. The prophet is not advising men to succumb to indolence and to make no plans in all their lives, merely to doze and indulge their inertia; on the contrary, his point is that, when they pursue the tasks divinely imposed upon them, they ought always to begin with prayer and invocation to God, and offer their labors for his blessing.

Bread of sorrow can be explained in two ways: either “he eats by hard and anxious labor” or “he eats with pain,” as it happens when miserly and greedy men scarcely taste their bread before they take their hand back from their lips. It makes no great difference which meaning you choose, for the point of the statement is that miserly men gain nothing when they grudgingly defraud their Provider [of invocation and prayer].

Surely he will give to his beloved sleep. This describes exactly the way in which God’s blessing on his sons and servants is manifested. For acceptance of the futility of mere human striving would not be enough; the addition of a promise is needed if men are to perform their duties with a sure hope. This clause may be read, He will give sleep to his beloved or He will give through sleep what the unbelieving vainly seek to gain through their own struggles. The word ken is used to emphasize the certainty [of the promise] and to make more convincing what seems unbelievable and unrealistic; as though Solomon were pointing his finger toward God’s feeding of the faithful without any anxiety on their part. Indeed, he speaks as if God in his indulgence, were encouraging his servants to be idle. But since we know from the law that men were created to work and since in the next psalm we shall see that farmers are regarded as blessed of God when they eat what their own hands have produced, it is certain that sleep does not mean doing nothing but rather the tranquil labor to which men of faith apply themselves in obedient trust.

For what causes the great excitement of unbelievers who never move a finger without making a commotion (that is, without tormenting themselves with useless anxieties), except that they refer nothing that happens to God’s providence? But men of faith, even when they spend their whole lives in hard labor, obey God’s call calmly and with tranquil minds. Their hands are not idle, but their minds rest quiet in silent faith as if they were asleep.

If anyone object that the faithful often stew in bitter cares and worry about the future when they are hard pressed by the want of everything they need and destitute of all means of support, I answer: If the faith and devotion of the servants of God were perfect, the blessing of God which the prophet here describes would be plainly visible. And as for those who worry too much — that is due to their own sin in not resting firmly upon God’s providence. I even add that they are punished more severely than unbelievers, because it is good for them to suffer anxiety for a time, so that they may attain the quiet of this sleep. But meantime God’s kindness [to his servants] persists, and shines always in the midst of the shadows [of this world]; for the Lord supports his sons as with sleep.

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. 1 Tim. 4:1–5.

Paul has been busy warning Timothy about many things. Now he brings out the necessity of being prepared to oppose the perils announced by the Holy Spirit as imminent: namely, that false teachers shall appear, who shall hold out mere trifles as doctrines of the faith; who, putting all holiness in outward observances, shall obscure the spiritual worship of God which alone is lawful. And, in truth, the servants of God always had to struggle against the kind of people Paul describes in this place. Since men’s nature is prone to hypocrisy, it is easy for Satan to persuade them that the true worship of God consists in ceremonies and outward discipline; men believe this kind of thing and need no teacher to fix their souls on it; then comes the crafty devil and confirms them in their error. So it comes about that through the ages there have been false teachers who have championed a false worship, which has been the burial of true godliness. Next to this pestilence has appeared another, which has turned matters of freedom into things of necessity. So, the world allows itself readily to be forbidden what God himself allows, in order that it may allow itself to transgress the laws of God. . . .

Speaking lies in hypocrisy. This may refer to demons who deceive others at the instigation of the devil. On the other hand, the speakers may be taken to be simply men.

When Paul says that they lie as hypocrites and their consciences are seared with a hot iron, he is coming down to particulars. Let us observe also that these two evils go together and that the second grows out of the first. For, people with bad consciences, which are burned into by their wickedness, take refuge in hypocrisy: that is, they put on false colors so as to deceive the eyes of the Lord. What else can they do, when they are busy trying to win the favor of God with the counterfeit of external observances?

The word hypocrisy must be defined in the light of the present passage. First, it has to do with doctrine; and then, with the kind of doctrine which perverts the spiritual worship of God into a set of bodily practices, and so corrupts its real purity. Thus, it includes all artificial means of pleasing God and claiming his favor. In short, all those who go around draped with a false sanctimoniousness do it by the devil’s prodding; because no one can worship God rightly with outward ceremonies, for true worshipers adore him in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). Secondly, such ceremony is a useless medicine with which hypocrites mitigate their miseries, or rather a plaster by which they hide their wounds without deriving any benefit from it; but in fact it kills them.

Forbidding to marry. Having given us a characterization of diabolical doctrine, he now presents us with two particular elements of it: namely, the prohibition of marriage, and of certain foods. These arise out of hypocrisy which, having set aside true holiness, seeks to hide itself under alien and false colors. For people who do not refrain from ambition, hatred, avarice, cruelty, and the like, try to acquire integrity by abstaining from things about which God has left us free. Why are men’s consciences burdened with laws about marriage and foods, unless to permit them to seek perfection outside of God’s law? This kind of thing is not done except by hypocrites, who try to cover over their wickedness with trifling observances as with a veil, so that they may transgress the righteousness of the heart which is what the law requires. . . .

Such is the mind of the world that it always dreams of worshiping God with carnal customs, as though God himself were carnal. In the ancient church, little by little, things went from bad to worse, until we arrive at the tyranny according to which it is wicked for priests and monks to enter into marriage, and under which no man dare eat meat on certain days. Therefore, we are today far from wrong in applying this prophecy to the papists, who urge celibacy and abstinence from foods more forcefully than any precept of God. They think they can escape by clever caviling, when they twist Paul’s words to apply them against the Tatianists. Named after Tatian, an Assyrian Christian, these heretics were infected with Gnosticism and Docetism, and are even better remembered for their extreme asceticism. They condemned marriage, meat, and wine or Manichaeans. Manichaeans are especially important in the church because of the controversy of Saint Augustine with them. These dualists, who derived their heresy ultimately from Zoroastrianism, had many adherents because of the neat way they explained the origin of evil in one god and the origin of good in another. In its Christianized form, this heresy identified the treason with Ahriman, the evil god, and Christ with Ormazd, the good god. Flesh was evil, spirit was good. Hence they forbade eggs and milk as well as meat; they also forbade marriage and bathing or others like them; as though the Tatianists did not have the same means of escape, by throwing Paul’s words at the Phrygians and at Montanus. Montanus was a heretic of the early second century A.D., from Phrygia in Asia Minor, and his followers were called both Montanists and Phrygians. They received a new dispensation of the Spirit superior to that of Christ or of the apostles, and waited eagerly for the Parousia. They were visionaries and ascetics, forbidding marriage; and during prolonged fastings they forbade wine, meat, fruits, and bathing. This was a heresy which was espoused by Tertullian and left deep marks in the ancient church who was the founder of that sect; as though the Phrygians themselves could not come forth with the Encratites100100Encratites, second-century heretics, believed in the inherently evil character of matter and advocated abstinence from marriage, flesh, and wine. They believed like the Marcionites that the Creator was the inferior God as the guilty party. However, Paul is not talking about persons but about the principle of the thing. Thus, if a hundred sects were brought forward as having all labored with the same hypocrisy to forbid certain foods, none of them would be any less guilty. It follows that the old heretics are of no use to the papists, as though they alone were to be blamed; the question always is whether the papists are not guilty in the same way. The papists object on the ground that they are utterly unlike the Encratites, and the Manichaeans because they do not absolutely forbid marriage and meats. They say that they enjoin abstention from meats on certain days, and that they require celibacy only from priests, monks, and nuns. But this is a very poor excuse; for they nonetheless identify holiness with such matters: further, they establish a false and corrupt worship of God; finally, they bind consciences with a necessity from which men ought to be free.

In the Fifth Book of Eusebius, ( Eusebius of Caesarea (A.D. 260–340), was a bishop and church historian who wrote the Ecclesiastical History which is an indispensable source book for the history of the ancient church (A.D. 325) inclusive of the reign of Constantine. This is a majestic account of the struggle and the triumph of the church of Jesus Christ there is a fragment from the writings of Apollonius, (Apollonius Claudius, bishop of Phrygia, c. 171), a learned man and opponent of Montanism in which, among other things, the latter reproaches Montanus for having been the first to dissolve marriage, and for having imposed the law of celibacy. He does not say that Montanus prohibited marriage or certain foods to everybody. It is enough that anyone should lay this kind of religion upon the consciences of men, or that he should require the observance of these things as the worship of God. To forbid anything that should be left to human decision, whether for everybody or for some, is diabolical tyranny. That this is true of foods will be clear from what follows.

Which God has created. Let us notice the reasoning in this matter: we ought to be content with the freedom which God has given us in the use of different foods, because it is for our use that he has created them. It is the joy of all godly people to know that every food which nourishes them is offered them by the hand of the Lord; that to eat it is pure and lawful. What arrogance it is to take away what the Lord himself bestows upon men! Did the papists create good? Can they void God’s own creation? Let us always keep in mind that he who has created food also gave us free use of it, and that men’s efforts to keep us from it are in vain. I say that God created food to be eaten, that is, for our enjoyment. There is no human authority which can change this.

But now he adds, with the giving of thanks; because we have nothing with which to repay God’s generosity except the evidence of our gratitude. And thus he castigates the godless lawmakers with all the greater abhorrence in that they obstruct the sacrifice of praise, which God in the beginning established for our offering, with their own novel and useless enactments. On the other hand, we cannot act with gratitude unless we are sober and temperate; for no one knows the goodness of God if he makes a wicked use of it.

Of them which believe and know the truth. What then? Does not God make his sun to rise daily upon the good and the evil (Matt. 5:45)? Does not the earth, by his command, yield bread to the wicked? Are not even the worst men fed through his blessings? Therefore, his goodness is toward all men, as David sings in Ps. 104:14. But to all this I answer: Paul is here concerned with the right use of God’s gifts, and has shown us the way we are to act before God. The ungodly do not share in such integrity before God, because their unclean consciences contaminate everything they touch, as we can see readily from Titus 1:15. Of course, in this sense, and strictly speaking, God has destined the world and all that is in it for his children alone; for this reason it is said that they shall inherit the earth. In the beginning, Adam himself was given dominion over all things on condition that he remained obedient to God. Therefore, when he rose in rebellion against God, he deprived himself and his posterity of this right which was conferred upon him. So, it follows that we are restored to our original dignity only by the benefit we receive from Christ to whom all things are under subjection: and this we receive by faith. Therefore, whatever men without faith get hold of, they rob or steal from others. . . .

For every creature. The use of food must be judged partly from its nature and partly by him who eats it. The apostle argues in both directions. He asserts that food in itself is clean, because it is God who gives it: and that we make a holy use of it by faith and prayer. When he says that the creatures are good, he is speaking of them in relation to man, not with regard to the body or one’s health, but to one’s conscience. I say this to avoid philosophical hairsplitting beyond the scope of this passage. Briefly, Paul means that whatever comes from God’s hand is neither corrupt nor unclean before God, that it is simply for our nourishment; and as such, with regard to conscience, it is lawful. If anyone objects that of old under the law many animals were declared unclean, or that the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was fatal to men, I answer: Creatures are called clean not merely because they are works of God, but because they are given to us by his goodness. We must always pay attention to what God himself commands and to what he forbids.

For it is sanctified. This confirms the previous clause which said, if it is received with thanksgiving. This is an argument from the contrast between holy and profane. Now we learn how we are to sanctify all the good things which sustain our present life, that is, according to Paul’s witness, by the Word of God and by prayer. But we must realize that if the Word is to do us any good, it must be heard by faith. Even though God himself sanctifies all things by the Spirit of his Word (mouth) alone, we cannot know this blessing except by faith. And to this is added prayer, because Christ himself commands us to ask our daily bread from God (Matt. 6:11): and because we must respond to his goodness with thanksgiving.

Paul’s doctrine is based upon the principle that there is no such thing as lawful possession, unless our conscience testifies that what is ours is ours by right. And in truth, which one of us would dare call even a grain of wheat his own, unless he learns from the Word of God that he shall inherit the earth? Common sense tells us that by nature the abundance of this world is destined for our use. But, since in Adam dominion over the world was taken away from us, every time we touch a gift of God, it is polluted by our own filth; it is unclean to us, unless God comes to our help, and uniting us with the body of his Son, once again makes us lords of the earth. It is in this way that we come to a lawful enjoyment of all the things God gives us in such abundance. Paul is right in tying up rightful enjoyment with the Word of God, since it alone enables us to regain what we lost in Adam, for, if we are to be heirs of God, we must know him as our Father; and we must know Christ as our Head, if we are to have what is his. From this we gather that all the gifts of God are usurped by us and are unclean to us, unless we know the true God and call upon his name. It is a beastly business when people start eating without prayer, and when they are full, they run out without as much as mentioning God’s name.

And they drank and were drunk with him. Gen. 43:34. (Calvin’s wording.)

From the end of the chapter we conclude that there was a sumptuous banquet at which they indulged themselves more freely and hilariously than was usual. The verb shakar, which is translated be drunk, indicates either that they were not accustomed to drinking wine, or that an unusual amount was drunk at this banquet given in their honor. But the word does not necessarily mean drinking to excess (as riotous men interpret it to excuse their own dissipation by the example of the patriarchs), but drinking with honest and free enjoyment. I admit that the word is ambiguous and is often used in a bad sense, as in Gen. 9:21, and similar passages, but in this place, Moses’ meaning is clear.

If anyone raises the objection that a frugal use of food and drink is sufficient for the nourishment of the body, I answer: Although food is a proper provision for our bodily need, yet the legitimate use of it goes beyond mere sustenance. For good flavors were not added to food value without a purpose, but because our Heavenly Father wishes to give us pleasure with the delicacies he provides. It is not by accident that Ps. 104:15 praises his kindness in creating wine to cheer man’s heart.

But the more kindly God treats us, the more it becomes our duty to be careful to control ourselves and to use his gifts temperately. For we know how unrestrained our appetite is; in abundance it always overindulges itself and it is always impatient of scarcity. In fact, we must keep Paul’s rule (Phil. 4:12) and know both how to be in want and how to abound. This means to be on our guard when large quantities are at hand so that we are not tempted to extravagance; and again we must see to it that we endure privation calmly.

Someone will perhaps say that the flesh is much too clever at camouflaging extravagance, and therefore nothing beyond actual necessities should be allowed it. I certainly agree that Paul’s requirement (Rom. 13:14) must be observed, and we must not serve our lusts. But what is most important for religious people is to receive their food from God’s hand with a quiet conscience. And to do this, we must determine how far the enjoyment of food and wine is allowable.

For the day of the Lord of hosts shall be. . . upon all the ships of Tarshish. . . . Isa. 2:12, 16.

There is no doubt that Cilicia was called Tarshish in Hebrew. Since there was much trade between that nation and the Jews, we find in Scripture frequent references to ships of Tarshish, so named from the Cilician sea on which they sailed. Trading in ships cannot of course be condemned in itself, for the import and export of goods bring no small advantage to men. And especially since God desires the whole human race to be united in mutual service, it is impossible to disapprove of ships as a means of communication. But since abundance increases pride and cruelty, Isaiah here denounces commerce by which a land is especially enriched. Also trade carried on with far-off foreign nations is often replete with cheating and extortion, and no limit is set to the profits.

Isaiah recognizes in the first place that if Jews are to learn to submit themselves to God, they must be stripped of their wealth. He then uses a symbol for their greed and their unjust gains, as he might have held up a bloody sword to announce a murder. The latter part of the verse makes it clearer that the prophet is condemning commerce because it has infected the land with many corruptions. For it too often happens that riches bring self-indulgence, and superfluity of pleasures produces flabbiness, as we can see in wealthy districts and cities [where there are merchants]. Now those who sail to distant places are no longer content with home comforts but bring back with them unknown luxuries. Therefore, because wealth is generally the mother of extravagance, the prophet mentions here expensive household furnishings, by which he means that the Jews brought God’s judgment upon themselves by the lavish way they decorated their houses. For with pictures he includes expensive tapestries like Phrygian embroidery and vases molded with exquisite art.

It is indeed certain that morals are corrupted when men are greedy for such empty diversions. We know that such indulgences brought about the end of the Roman Empire. Before the Romans entered Greece, they practiced a high degree of self-control; but finally, after Asia was conquered, they began to grow soft and effeminate. And when their eyes were trapped with pictures, vases, jewels, and tapestries, their noses with ointments and perfumes, all their senses at once were overwhelmed. And by copying the luxury of the East, as if it were a higher culture, they came more and more to squander their lives in every kind of pleasure.

And Lot, also which went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tents. . . . And there was strife between the herdmen of Abram’s cattle and the herdmen of Lot’s cattle. . . . Gen. 13:5, 7.

Now follows an account of the trouble Abram suffered because of his wealth. Certainly he did not want to part from his nephew whom he loved especially as if he were his own son. Surely, if he had had a choice, he would have preferred the loss of his wealth to separation from one whom he regarded as an only son. But he found no other remedy to stop the quarreling. Shall we ascribe the difficulty to his own too stern temper or to his nephew’s insolence? I think we should do better to consider the purpose of God.

There was danger that Abram might become too well pleased with his own good fortune, just as many men are blinded by lesser goods. Therefore God seasons the sweetness of wealth with vinegar and does not allow the mind of his servant to be too much entranced with it. When a false sense of value leads us to seek riches more than is right, because we do not realize how many troubles they bring with them, the remembrance of this story should serve to limit our inordinate love. And whenever rich men fall into trouble because of their wealth, they should learn to use the pain it gives them as a medicine to purge their minds of too great a desire for the good things of this present life. Unless God in his wisdom tightened the curb rein wisely, men would leave the right road and would stumble badly in their pursuit of prosperity.

Again, when we are hampered by poverty we should understand that God uses this also as a remedy for the secret vices of our flesh.

In conclusion, let those who have abundance remember that they are surrounded with thorns, and let them take great care not to be pricked by them; and let those who have little and are very much hemmed in know that God planned [their poverty] to keep them from evil and hurtful snares.

Separation from Lot grieved Abram; but it could serve to correct much evil latent in him, and prevent wealth from stifling the ardor of his devotion. If Abram needed such an antidote, we should not wonder that God employs painful checks against our lust for pleasure. He does not always wait until the faithful have actually slipped, but he looks ahead for them. He did not punish Abram, his servant, for avarice or pride; he gave him a preventive medicine to keep Satan from infecting his mind with such sentiments.

And there was strife. What applies to wealth applies equally to large households. Yet we see how ambitiously many men seek to collect a great crowd of servants — as if they wanted to preside over a whole nation. But seeing that Abram’s great establishment cost him so much, we should learn to be willingly satisfied with a small establishment, or with none at all if it so please God. It is almost impossible for a house to be filled with many people without its being in turmoil. Experience proves the truth of the proverb, “A crowd is the same as a tumult.” If quiet tranquility is an inestimable good, then we should see that our wisest course is to have a small house and to live unpretentiously within our family.

In this example, note carefully what we are advised to avoid if we are to keep Satan from drawing us into conflicts by circuitous devices. For when he cannot inflame us directly with mutual hate, he implicates us in the disputes of others. Lot and Abram agreed well together, but the quarrel which arose among the shepherds involved them against their will so that they were compelled to separate.

There is no doubt that Abram had given strict orders to his servants to keep the peace; but his zeal and effort did not prevent his seeing the flame of discord, kept alight by small fans, blazing in his own home. So it is no wonder that disturbances arise in the church which contains a still larger number of people. Abram had about three hundred servants; Lot’s household was certainly little smaller. What then will happen among five or six thousand, especially when the quarrelers are all free men?

We must not let ourselves be upset by these offenses, but equally we must be on guard in every way against the outbreak of fighting. For unless disagreements are stifled properly at the beginning, they will burst into harmful dissensions.

And the squares of the city will befall of boys and girls playing in the squares. Zech. 8:5.

With a different figure the prophet repeats and emphasizes the same point: that boys and girls will be playing on the public squares and in the streets, which they cannot do in the uproar of warfare. For when arms clash, when the sound of the trumpet is heard, when insults from the soldiers of the enemy threaten, everyone keeps his children in the house. Outside it is an ugly and sad business, and almost nobody will be caught on the street. When fear hangs over the whole [city] even the children lose their gaiety. The prophet, then, is promising that Jerusalem will once again enjoy peace, that God will chase the menace of the enemy to a far distance; not that Jerusalem would ever be free from all danger, but that God’s defense would give her people security in the midst of many terrors.

This is not the place to argue subtly whether one may play games in peacetimes. The prophet draws his picture from ordinary human behavior; it is indeed an expression of human nature. For we know that when men are not afraid, they relax and enjoy fun. Besides games and silly amusements are proper for children. Therefore all the prophet intended here was to assure the Jews that even though they were struggling with various enemies, they could nonetheless enjoy security and quiet.

And they shall not wear a rough garment to deceive. Zech. 13:4.

This means that they will not be concerned to maintain their prestige and reputation, but will abandon willingly the esteem which they had dishonestly acquired.

This passage shows that prophets wore a coarse and hairy garment. But interpreters are wrong to cite as evidence passages in which a prophet is ordered to put on sackcloth and a garment of goat’s hair. For Isaiah in many of his prophesyings wore neither; he did so only when he announced disaster. And Jeremiah was once ordered to go naked. Jeremiah appears to be a surprising slip of memory for Isaiah (ch. 20:2), or for Micah (ch. 1:8); but it is possible that Calvin had in mind Jeremiah’s journey to the Euphrates; if the prophet wore only his girdle and buried it there, he certainly returned “naked.” But ordinarily the prophets were content with hairy garments, that is, with ordinary, coarse clothes.

Now although we have liberty in external things, we must practice some moderation. If, for example, I were to teach in a military uniform, good sense would be quick to object. There is no need of a special doctrine to teach decency and ordinary good taste.

The true prophets wore rough garments to show that their lives were as simple and plain as their clothing. But they did not achieve a reputation for holiness by means of their clothes only, as do the monks today who are supposed to be holy because of their cowls and such trumpery. That was not the aim of the prophets; they meant to show by their dress that their only purpose was to serve God, and that they were separated from the world only in order to devote themselves wholly to their ministry.

It was because the false prophets imitated them that Zechariah says they shall not wear a hairy mantle — that is, they shall no longer wear prophetic garb. He was not merely condemning the garb worn by the false prophets. Therefore interpreters twist these words from their true meaning when they use them to condemn long gowns or whatever else of the kind displeases their sour minds. The prophet means simply that when pure doctrine shines bright and true religion has won its due honor, then there will no more be a place for false teachers. They will voluntarily leave their positions of honor and will no longer try to deceive uneducated folk. This is what the prophet really means, as he shows clearly when he adds to deceive.

So we see that hairy mantles are condemned, because rapacious wolves hide under sheepskins, and foxes infiltrate the fold in disguise. Zechariah is condemning the motive and not the garment.

Jabal was the father of such as dwell in tents. . . . Gen. 4:20.

Moses now reminds us that some good was combined with the evils which came from the family of Cain. For the discovery of the arts, and of whatever is useful and makes our common life more pleasant, is a gift of God which is not to be despised and an achievement worthy of praise. It is indeed surprising that the race which had departed furthest from the right way, surpassed the rest of Adam’s descendants in serviceable endowments.

Indeed, I would suggest that Moses specifically enumerated the arts invented by the family of Cain to inform us that Cain was not so cursed by God that he had no gifts to distribute to his descendants. For it is probable that others also were not lacking in talent, and that there was among other sons of Adam no lack of industrious and clever men who busied themselves in inventing and developing the arts. Clearly, here Moses is celebrating what was left of God’s blessing, in a people whom we should otherwise regard as sterile and devoid of every other good.

We must therefore recognize that, although the sons of Cain were deprived of the Spirit of regeneration, they were blessed with endowments far from negligible. In fact, the experience of all ages shows us how many rays of divine light have always gleamed among unbelieving nations, and have contributed to the improvement of our present life. And today we see glorious gifts of the Spirit spread throughout the whole human race. For the liberal and industrial arts and the sciences have come to us from profane men. Astronomy and the other branches of philosophy, medicine, political science — we must admit that we have learned all these from them.

No doubt God endowed them so liberally with his excellent favors to give them no excuse for their impiety. But while we are amazed at the riches of his grace which God pours out on them, we marvel much more at the grace of regeneration given us, by which God sanctifies his elect to be his own.

Although the invention of the lyre and of other musical instruments serves our enjoyment and our pleasures rather than our needs, it ought not on that account to be judged of no value; still less should it be condemned. Pleasure is to be condemned only when it is not combined with reverence for God and not related to the common welfare of society. But music by its nature is adapted to rouse our devotion to God and to aid the well-being of man; we need only avoid enticements to shame, and empty entertainments which keep men from better employments and are simply a waste of time.

However, even if you think the invention of the lyre does not in itself deserve much praise, everyone knows how long and how widely people have valued the carpenter’s skill.

To conclude — in my opinion, Moses here wished to show that the race of Cain excelled in many important endowments which at once made their impiety inexcusable and were shining witnesses to God’s goodness.

Jabal is said to be the father of the people who live in tents because he invented that convenient shelter, and others afterwards imitated him.

And God made two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. Gen. 1:16.

The greater light. I have already said that Moses is not analyzing acutely, like the philosophers, the secrets of nature; and these words show it. First he sets the planets and stars in the expanse of the heaven. Astronomers distinguish a number of spheres in the firmament and teach that the fixed stars have their own place in it. Moses mentions two great luminaries. The astronomers prove with strong arguments that the star Saturn, which seems small because of its distance, is larger than the moon.

All this shows that Moses described in popular style what all ordinary men without training and education perceive with their ordinary senses. Astronomers, on the other hand, investigate with great labor whatever the keenness of man’s intellect is able to discover. Such study is certainly not to be disapproved, nor science condemned with the insolence of some fanatics who habitually reject whatever is unknown to them.

The study of astronomy not only gives pleasure but is also extremely useful. And no one can deny that it admirably reveals the wisdom of God. Therefore, clever men who expend their labor upon it are to be praised and those who have ability and leisure ought not to neglect work of that kind.

Moses did not wish to keep us from such study when he omitted the details belonging to the science. But, since he had been appointed guide of rude and unlearned men rather than of the learned, he could not fulfill his duty except by coming down to their level. If he had spoken of matters unknown to the crowd, the unlearned could say that his teaching was over their heads. In fact, when the Spirit of God opens a common school for all, it is not strange that he chooses to teach especially what can be understood by all.

When the astronomer seeks the true size of stars and finds the moon smaller than Saturn, he gives us specialized knowledge. But the eye sees things differently; and Moses adapts himself to the ordinary view.

God has stretched out his hand to us to give us the splendor of the sun and moon to enjoy. Great would be our ingratitude if we shut our eyes to this experience of beauty! There is no reason why clever men should jeer at Moses’ ignorance. He is not explaining the heavens to us but describing what is before our eyes. Let the astronomers possess their own deeper knowledge. Meanwhile, those who see the nightly splendor of the moon are possessed by perverse ingratitude if they do not recognize the goodness of God.

4. MARRIAGE

And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make a helpmeet for him. Gen. 2:18.

Here Moses explains God’s purpose in creating woman. God wished the earth to be populated by men who would live together and create a society. Some may question whether God’s purpose included offspring; for the words say only that since it is not well for a man to be alone, a woman had to be created to be his helpmate. But as I understand it, when God took the first steps towards a human society, he intended the others to follow each in turn. We have then a general principle: man was created to be a social animal. Now since the human race could not exist without woman, no bond whatever in human relations is more sacred than that by which husband and wife unite to become one body and one soul. On this point, nature itself taught Plato and others among the saner philosophers to speak with wisdom.

But although God made the statement that it is not good for man to be alone about Adam, I do not restrict it to his single person. I consider it rather a general rule for human living. Therefore everyone ought to take as a precept directed to himself that solitude is not good — except for a man whom God exempts as a matter of unusual privilege.

Many think celibacy furthers their plans and refrain from marriage to avoid trouble. But it is not only worldly people who say that, if a man wants to be happy, he should stay away from a wife. Jerome’s book against Jovinian is crammed with petulant insults by which he tries to make sacred marriage hateful and to disgrace it. Let men of faith learn to fight the evil suggestions of Satan with this Word of God, by which he decrees married life for man, not for his ruin but for his well-being.

I will make a helpmeet for him. Why is the verb used here not plural, as it was in the account of the creation of man when it said, Let us make? (Gen. 1:26). Some think that the change indicates a difference between the sexes and shows how greatly superior man is to woman. But a different, although not altogether contradictory, interpretation pleases me better. When the human race was created in the person of a man, a dignity common to all humanity was universally conferred with the words let us make man. There was no need to repeat this at the creation of a woman, for she was really a supplement to the man. We certainly cannot deny that woman also, perhaps in a secondary way, was created in the image of God. Hence it follows that what was said of man applies equally to woman.

Now when God designates woman as man’s helper, he is not giving women a rule to determine their vocation in life by assigning them a special task; he is rather declaring that marriage itself will be man’s best help in life. Let us then accept it as a rule of nature that a woman is a man’s helper. Of course we know the common proverb that she is a necessary evil, but we ought to listen to the voice of God which asserts that woman was given to man as a companion and partner to help him to live really well.

I confess indeed that in the present corrupt state of the human race, God’s blessing as here described is not often seen and amounts to little. But we must keep in mind the reason for this evil. We have perverted the order of nature instituted by God. If man still had today the wholeness which he had in the beginning, God’s ordinance would be fulfilled and the sweetest harmony would reign in marriage. For man would look to God; and woman, equally faithful, would be his helper. Being both of one mind, they would cherish an association no less holy than friendly and peaceful. Now because of our own wickedness and corrupt nature such married bliss is for the most part lost or at least is marred by many annoyances. Quarrels arise, and hurt feelings, bitterness, discords, and a great sea of trouble. So it happens that men are often seriously distressed by their wives and think of them as a hindrance.

Yet marriage cannot be so wholly spoiled by man’s sin that the blessing with which God hallowed it by his word is entirely abolished and no longer exists. Therefore in spite of the many troubles of married life, which arise from our degenerate nature, there remains a residuum of divine good; in a fire which is almost smothered, some sparks still glow.

From this truth follows another: women should learn their duty, strive by helping their husbands to fulfill God’s purpose. And men also ought to consider carefully what they owe in return to half of the human race. A mutual obligation binds both sexes. By God’s law woman is given to man as helper, so that he may do his part as the head and leader.

We must observe one more thing. It is not only because of the necessity which we have suffered since Adam’s fall that the woman is called man’s helper. Even if man had remained obedient and whole, the woman would still have become his helpmate. But now when marriage is also a remedy for lust, we have in it a double gift from God. But the second is incidental.

Because I have known him, therefore he shall teach his sons and his household after him and they will do justice and right judgment. Gen. 8:19. (Calvin’s wording.)

He shall teach his sons. This is the second reason why God wished Abraham to share his counsel. He did not reveal it without a purpose. The plain meaning of the verse is that Abraham is told of God’s plan because he is to perform the task of a good father and teach his family. So we infer that Abraham was told of Sodom’s coming destruction not for his own sake alone, but as a kindness to all his descendants.

Indeed, the scope of God’s purpose must be carefully noted. His will, as made known to Abraham, bound all Abraham’s descendants. Certainly God does not make his will known to us with the intent that the knowledge of him should perish with us. He requires us to be his witnesses to the next generation so that they in turn may hand on what they have received from us to our remoter descendants. Therefore it is a father’s duty to teach his sons what he himself has learned from God. In this way we must propagate God’s truth. It was not given us for our private enjoyment; we must mutually strengthen one another according to our calling and our faith.

There is no doubt that the gross ignorance which prevails in the world is the just punishment of men’s indolence. For while the greater part of the people shut their eyes to the light shed by heavenly doctrine, many smother it by making no effort to transmit it to their children. God rightly withholds the precious treasures of his Word as punishment for the world’s indolence.

We must consider particularly the phrase after him, which teaches us that God’s care is not limited to our own lives. He takes measures to provide that his eternal truth live and flourish after our death and that a holy manner of life continue on earth when we are dead. Hence we also conclude that histories which inspire terror in us are worth knowing, since our carnal confidence needs a sharp stimulus so that we may be stung to fear God.

Let no one imagine that this kind of teaching does not apply to him; for when God mentions the sons of Abraham, he means the whole household of the church. There are perverse and deluded interpreters who insist that if they terrify consciences they repel and discourage faith. However, nothing is more alien to faith than disrespect and sloth; and on the other hand, the teaching which leads men to the fear of God fits most perfectly with the preaching of mercy, for it brings unhappy and hungry men running to Christ.

And they will keep the way of the Lord. With these words Moses shows that the judgment of God is announced not only in order that those who in their stupidity are well satisfied with themselves may be filled with dread, and so be driven to long for the grace of Christ, but also in order that the faithful who are already endowed with fear of God may become more and more practiced in the pursuit of religion. God desires to have Sodom’s destruction recounted not only to draw wicked men toward himself by their fear of the same punishment, but also to give to those who have already begun to serve God a better understanding of true obedience. The law contributes not only to the beginning of repentance, but also to our continuing perseverance [in the Christian life].

When Moses adds that they may do justice and right judgment he is describing briefly the way of God which he has already mentioned. Although the definition is not complete, yet he briefly indicates by synecdoche the duties of the second table of the law, and shows us what God especially requires of us. The Scripture often draws a description of a good and godly life from the second table of the law; not that love of neighbor is more important than the service of God, but that men can prove their loyalty to God only by living honestly and doing no injury to their neighbors. By the words justice and right judgment, he includes the kind of equity which gives to each man his due. If one wants to differentiate between the two words, justice implies the honesty and kindness which we practice, when we strive to help our brothers in every way and avoid hurting them in any way by fraud and violence. Right judgment means that we stretch out our hands to the poor and oppressed, that we see and support good causes, that we work hard to keep the weak from being unjustly hurt. These are the lawful tasks with which the Lord orders his own to keep occupied.

The Necessity of Reforming the Church

1: Introduction, the Evils Which Compelled Us to Seek Remedies

August Emperor:

You have summoned this diet, that, in concert with the most illustrious princes and other orders of the empire, you may at length deliberate and decide upon the means of ameliorating the present condition of the church, which we all see to be very miserable, and almost desperate. Now, therefore, while you are seated at this consultation, I humbly beg and implore, first of your imperial majesty, and at the same time of you also, most illustrious princes and distinguished personages, that you will not decline to read, and diligently ponder, what I have to lay before you. The magnitude and weightiness of the cause may well excite in you an eagerness to hear, and I will set the matter so plainly in your view, that you can have no difficulty in determining what course to adopt.

Whoever I am, I here profess to plead in defense, both of sound doctrine and of the church. In this character I seem at all events entitled to expect that you will not deny me audience until such time as it may appear whether I falsely usurp the character, or whether I faithfully perform its duties, and make good what I profess. But though I feel that I am by no means equal to so great a task, I am not at all afraid that, after you have heard the nature of my office, I shall be accused either of folly or presumption in having ventured thus to appear before you. There are two circumstances by which men are wont to recommend, or at least to justify, their conduct. If a thing is done honestly, and from pious zeal, we deem it worthy of praise; if it is done under the pressure of public necessity, we at least deem it not unworthy of excuse. Since both of these apply here, I am confident, from your equity, that I shall easily obtain your approval of my design. For where can I exert myself to better purpose or more honestly Â¬ where, too, in a matter at this time more necessary Â¬ than in attempting, according to my ability, to aid the church of Christ? whose claims it is unlawful in any instance to deny, and which is now in grievous distress, and in extreme danger.

But there is no occasion for a long preface concerning myself. Receive what I say as you would do if it were pronounced by the united voice of all those who either have already taken care to restore the church, or are desirous that it should be restored to true order. In this situation are several princes, of not the humblest class, and not a few distinguished communities. For all these I speak, though as an individual, yet so that it is more truly they who at once, and with one mouth, speak through me. To these add the countless multitude of pious men, who, scattered over the various regions of the Christian world, still unanimously concur with me in this pleading. In short, regard this as the common address of all who so earnestly deplore the present corruption of the church, that they are unable to bear it longer, and are determined not to rest till they see some amendment. I am aware of the odious names with which we are branded; but, meanwhile, whatever be the name by which it is thought proper to designate us, hear our cause, and, after you have heard, judge what the place is which we are entitled to hold.

First, then, the question is not, whether the church labors under diseases both numerous and grievous (this is admitted even by all moderate judges), but whether the diseases are of a kind the cure of which admits not of longer delay, and as to which, therefore, it is neither useful nor becoming to await the result of slow remedies. We are accused of rash and impious innovation, for having ventured to propose any change at all on the former state of the church. What! Even if it has not been done either without cause or imperfectly? I hear there are persons who, even in this case, do not hesitate to condemn us; their opinion being that we were indeed right in desiring amendment, but not right in attempting it. From such persons, all I would ask at present is, that they will for a little [while] suspend their judgment until I shall have shown from fact that we have not been prematurely hasty Â¬ have not attempted anything rashly, anything alien from our duty Â¬ have, in fine, done nothing until compelled by the highest necessity. To enable me to prove this, it is necessary to attend to the matters in dispute.

We maintain, then, that at the commencement Â¬ when God raised up Luther and others, who held forth a torch to light us into the way of salvation, and who, by their ministry, founded and reared our churches Â¬ those heads of doctrine in which the truth of our religion, those in which the pure and legitimate worship of God, and those in which the salvation of men are comprehended, were in a great measure obsolete. We maintain that the use of the sacraments was in many ways vitiated and polluted. And we maintain that the government of the church was converted into a species of foul and insufferable tyranny. But, perhaps these averments have not force enough to move certain individuals until they are better explained. This, therefore, I will do, not as the subject demands, but as far as my ability will permit. Here, however, I have no intention to review and discuss all our controversies; that would require a long discourse, and this is not the place for it. I wish only to show how just and necessary the causes were which forced us to the changes for which we are blamed. To accomplish this, I must take up together the three following points.

First, I must briefly enumerate the evils which compelled us to seek for remedies.

Secondly, I must show that the particular remedies which our reformers employed were apt and salutary.

Thirdly, I must make it plain that we were not at liberty any longer to delay putting forth our hand, inasmuch as the matter demanded instant amendment.

The Evils Which Compelled Us to Seek Remedies

The first point, as I merely advert to it for the purpose of clearing my way to the other two, I will endeavor to dispose of in a few words; but in wiping off the heavy charge of sacrilegious audacity and sedition, founded on the allegation that we have improperly, and with intemperate haste, usurped an office which did not belong to us, I will dwell at greater length.

If it be inquired, then, by what things chiefly the Christian religion has a standing existence amongst us, and maintains its truth, it will be found that the following two not only occupy the principal place, but comprehend under them all the other parts, and consequently the whole substance of Christianity: that is, a knowledge, first, of the mode in which God is duly worshipped; and, secondly, of the source from which salvation is to be obtained. When these are kept out of view, though we may glory in the name of Christians, our profession is empty and vain. After these come the sacraments and the government of the church, which, as they were instituted for the preservation of these branches of doctrine, ought not to be employed for any other purpose; and, indeed, the only means of ascertaining whether they are administered purely and in due form, or otherwise, is to bring them to this test. If any one is desirous of a clearer and more familiar illustration, I would say, that rule in the church, the pastoral office, and all other matters of order, resemble the body, whereas the doctrine which regulates the due worship of God, and pointsout the ground on which the consciences of men must rest their hope of salvation, is the soul which animates the body, renders it lively and active, and, in short, makes it not to be a dead and useless carcass.

As to what I have yet said, there is no controversy among the pious, or among men of right and sane mind.

Let us now see what is meant by the due worship of God. Its chief foundation is to acknowledge him to be, as he is, the only source of all virtue, justice, holiness, wisdom, truth, power, goodness, mercy, life, and salvation; in accordance with this, to ascribe and render to him the glory of all that is good, to seek all things in him alone, and in every want have recourse to him alone. Hence arises prayer, hence praise and thanksgiving Â¬ these being attestations to the glory which we attribute to him. This is that genuine sanctification of his name which he requires of us above all things. To this is united adoration, by which we manifest for him the reverence due to his greatness and excellency; and to this ceremonies are subservient, as helps or instruments, in order that, in the performance of divine worship, the body may be exercised at the same time with the soul. Next after these comes self-abasement, when, renouncing the world and the flesh, we are transformed in the renewing of our mind and living no longer to ourselves, submit to be ruled and actuated by him. By this self-abasement we are trained to obedience and devotedness to his will, so that his fear reigns in our hearts, and regulates all the actions of our lives.

That in these things consists the true and sincere worship which alone God approves, and in which alone he delights, is both taught by the Holy Spirit throughout the scriptures, and is also, antecedent to discussion, the obvious dictate of piety. Nor from the beginning was there any other method of worshipping God, the only difference being, that this spiritual truth, which with us is naked and simple, was under the former dispensation wrapped up in figures. And this is the meaning of our Saviour’s words, “The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23). For by these words he meant not to declare that God was not worshipped by the fathers in this spiritual manner, but only to point out a distinction in the external form: that is, that while they had the Spirit shadowed forth by many figures, we have it in simplicity. But it has always been an acknowledged point, that God, who is a Spirit, must be worshipped in spirit and in truth.

Moreover, the rule which distinguishes between pure and vitiated worship is of universal application, in order that we may not adopt any device which seems fit to ourselves, but look to the injunctions of him who alone is entitled to prescribe. Therefore, if we would have him to approve our worship, this rule, which he everywhere enforces with the utmost strictness, must be carefully observed. For there is a twofold reason why the Lord, in condemning and prohibiting all fictitious worship, requires us to give obedience only to his own voice. First, it tends greatly to establish his authority that we do not follow our own pleasure, but depend entirely on his sovereignty; and, secondly, such is our folly, that when we are left at liberty, all we are able to do is to go astray. And then when once we have turned aside from the right path, there is no end to our wanderings, until we get buried under a multitude of superstitions. Justly, therefore, does the Lord, in order to assert his full right of dominion, strictly enjoin what he wishes us to do, and at once reject all human devices which are at variance with his command. Justly, too, does he, in express terms, define our limits, that we may not, by fabricating perverse modes of worship, provoke his anger against us.

I know how difficult it is to persuade the world that God disapproves of all modes of worship not expressly sanctioned by his word. The opposite persuasion which cleaves to them, being seated, as it were, in their very bones and marrow, is, that whatever they do has in itself a sufficient sanction, provided it exhibits some kind of zeal for the honor of God. But since God not only regards as fruitless, but also plainly abominates, whatever we undertake from zeal to his worship, if at variance with his command, what do we gain by a contrary course? The words of God are clear and distinct, “Obedience is better than sacrifice.” “In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men,” (1 Sam. 15:22; Matt. 15:9). Every addition to his word, especially in this matter, is a lie. Mere “will worship” (ethelothreeskeia) is vanity. This is the decision, and when once the judge has decided, it is no longer time to debate.

Will your imperial majesty now be pleased to recognize, and will you, most illustrious princes, lend me your attention, while I show how utterly at variance with this view are all the observances, in which, throughout the Christian world in the present day, divine worship is made to consist? In word, indeed, they concede to God the glory of all that is good; but, in reality, they rob him of the half, or more than the half, by partitioning his perfections among the saints. Let our adversaries use what evasions they may, and defame us for exaggerating what they pretend to be trivial errors, I will simply state the fact as every man perceives it. Divine offices are distributed among the saints as if they had been appointed colleagues to the supreme God, and, in a multitude of instances, they are made to do his work, while he is kept out of view. The thing I complain of is just what every body confesses by a vulgar proverb. For what is meant by saying, “the Lord cannot be known for apostles,” unless it be that, by the height to which apostles are raised, the dignity of Christ is sunk, or at least obscured? The consequence of this perversity is, that mankind, forsaking the fountain of living waters, have learned, as Jeremiah tells us, to hew them out “cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water” (Jer. 2:13). For where is it that they seek for salvation and every other good? Is it in God alone? The whole tenor of their lives openly proclaims the contrary. They say, indeed, that they seek salvation and every other good in him; but it is mere pretence, seeing they seek them elsewhere.

Of this fact, we have clear proof in the corruptions by which prayer was first vitiated, and afterwards in a great measure perverted and extinguished. We have observed, that prayer affords a test whether or not suppliants render due glory to God. In like manner, will it enable us to discover whether, after robbing him of his glory, they transfer it to the creatures. In genuine prayer, something more is required than mere entreaty. The suppliant must feel assured that God is the only being to whom he ought to flee, both because he only can succor him in necessity; and also, because he has engaged to do it. But no man can have this conviction unless he pays regard both to the command by which God calls us to himself, and to the promise of listening to our prayers which is annexed to the command. The command was not thus regarded when the generality of mankind invoked angels and dead men promiscuously with God, and the wiser part, if they did not invoke them instead of God, at least regarded them as mediators, at whose intercession God granted their requests.

Where, then, was the promise which is founded entirely on the intercession of Christ? Passing by Christ, the only Mediator, each betook himself to the patron who had struck his fancy, or if at any time a place was given to Christ, it was one in which he remained unnoticed, like some ordinary individual in a crowd. Then, although nothing is more repugnant to the nature of genuine prayer than doubt and distrust, so much did these prevail, that they were almost regarded as necessary, in order to pray aright. And why was this?Just because the world understood not the force of the expressions in which God invites us to pray to him, engages to do whatsoever we ask in reliance on his command and promise, and sets forth Christ as the Advocate in whose name our prayers are heard. Besides, let the public prayers which are in common use in churches be examined. It will be found that they are stained with numberless impurities. From them, therefore, we have it in our power to judge how much this part of divine worship was vitiated. Nor was there less corruption in the expressions of thanksgiving. To this fact, testimony is borne by the public hymns, in which the saints are lauded for every blessing, just as if they were the colleagues of God.

Then what shall I say of adoration? Do not men pay to images and statues the very same reverence which they pay to God? It is an error to suppose that there is any difference between this madness and that of the heathen. For God forbids us not only to worship images, but to regard them as the residence of his divinity, and worship it: as residing in them. The very same pretexts which the patrons of this abomination employ in the present day, were formerly employed by the heathen to cloak their impiety. Besides, it is undeniable that saints Â¬ nay, their very bones, garments, shoes, and images Â¬ are adored even in the place of God.

But some subtle disputant will object, that there are diverse species of adoration: that the honor of dulia [veneration], as they term it, is given to saints, their images, and their bones; and that latria [worship] is reserved for God as due to him only, unless we are to except hyperdulia [high veneration], a species which, as the infatuation increased, was invented to set the blessed virgin above the rest. As if these subtle distinctions were either known or present to the minds of those who prostrate themselves before images. Meanwhile, the world is full of idolatry not less gross, and if I may so speak, not less capable of being felt, than was the ancient idolatry of the Egyptians, which all the prophets everywhere so strongly reprobate.

I am merely glancing at each of these corruptions, because I will afterwards more clearly expose their demerits.

I come now to ceremonies, which, while they ought to be grave attestations of divine worship, are rather a mere mockery of God. A new Judaism, as a substitute for that which God had distinctly abrogated, has again been reared up by means of numerous puerile extravagancies, collected from different quarters; and with these have been mixed up certain impious rites, partly borrowed from the heathen, and more adapted to some theatrical show than to the dignity of our religion. The first evil here is, that an immense number of ceremonies, which God had by his authority abrogated, once for all, have been again revived. The next evil is that, while ceremonies ought to be living exercises of piety, men are vainly occupied with numbers of them that are both frivolous and useless. But by far the most deadly evil of all is, that after men have thus mocked God with ceremonies of one kind or other, they think they have fulfillled their duty as admirably as if these ceremonies included in them the whole essence of piety and divine worship.

With regard to self-abasement, on which depends regeneration to newness of life, the whole doctrine was entirely obliterated from the minds of men, or, at least, half buried, so that it was known to few, and to them but slenderly. But the spiritual sacrifice which the Lord in an especial manner recommends, is to mortify the old, and be transformed into a new man. It may be, perhaps, that preachers stammer out something about these words, but that they have no idea of the things meant by them is apparent even from this Â¬ that they strenuously oppose us in our attempt to restore this branch of divine worship. If at any time they discourse on repentance, they only glance, as if in contempt, at the points of principal moment, and dwell entirely on certain external exercises of the body, which, as Paul assures us, are not of the highest utility (Col. 2:23; 1 Tim. 4:8). What makes this perverseness the more intolerable is, that the generality, under a pernicious error, pursue the shadow for the substance, and, overlooking true repentance, devote their whole attention to abstinences, vigils, and other things, which Paul terms “beggarly elements” of the world.

Having observed that the word of God is the test which discriminates between his true worship and that which is false and vitiated, we thence readily infer that the whole form of divine worship in general use in the present day is nothing but mere corruption. For men pay no regard to what God has commanded, or to what he approves, in order that they may serve him in a becoming manner, but assume to themselves a licence of devising modes of worship, and afterwards obtruding them upon him as a substitute for obedience. If in what I say I seem to exaggerate, let an examination be made of all the acts by which the generality suppose that they worship God. I dare scarcely except a tenth part as not the random offspring of their own brain. What more would we? God rejects, condemns, abominates all fictitious worship, and employs his word as a bridle to keep us in unqualified obedience. When shaking off this yoke, we wander after our own fictions, and offer to him a worship, the work of human rashness, how much soever it may delight ourselves, in his sight it is vain trifling, nay, vileness and pollution. The advocates of human traditions paint them in fair and gaudy colors; and Paul certainly admits that they carry with them a show of wisdom; but as God values obedience more than all sacrifices, it ought to be sufficient for the rejection of any mode of worship, that it is not sanctioned by the command of God.

We come now to what we have set down as the second principal branch of Christian doctrine: that is, knowledge of the source from which salvation is to be obtained. Now, the knowledge of our salvation presents three different stages. First, we must begin with a sense of individual wretchedness, filling us with despondency as if we were spiritually dead. This effect is produced when the original and hereditary depravity of our nature is set before us as the source of all evil Â¬ a depravity which begets in us distrust, rebellion against God, pride, avarice, lust, and all kinds of evil concupiscence; and making us averse to all rectitude and justice, [it] holds us captive under the yoke of sin; and when, moreover, each individual, on the disclosure of his own sins, feeling confounded at his turpitude, is forced to be dissatisfied with himself, and to account himself and all that he has of his own as less than nothing; then, on the other hand, conscience (being cited to the bar of God) becomes sensible of the curse under which it lies, and, as if it had received a warning of eternal death, learns to tremble at the divine anger. This, I say, is the first stage in the way to salvation, when the sinner, overwhelmed and prostrated, despairs of all carnal aid, yet does not harden himself against the justice of God, or become stupidly callous, but, trembling and anxious, groans in agony, and sighs for relief.

From this he should rise to the second stage. This he does when, animated by the knowledge of Christ, he again begins to breathe. For to one humbled in the manner in which we have described, no other course remains but to turn to Christ, that through his interposition he may be delivered from misery. But the only man who thus seeks salvation in Christ is the man who is aware of the extent of his power: that is, acknowledges him as the only priest who reconciles us to the Father, and his death as the only sacrifice by which sin is expiated, the divine justice satisfied, and a true and perfect righteousness acquired; who, in fine, does not divide the work between himself and Christ, but acknowledges it to be by mere gratuitous favor that he is justified in the sight of God. From this stage also he must rise to the third, when instructed in the grace of Christ, and in the fruits of his death and resurrection, he rests in him with firm and solid confidence, feeling assured that Christ is so completely his own, that he possesses in him righteousness and life.

Now, see how sadly this doctrine has been perverted. On the subject of original sin, perplexing questions have been raised by the schoolmen, who have done what they could to explain away this fatal disease; for in their discussions they reduce it to little more than excess of bodily appetite and lust. Of that blindness and vanity of intellect, whence unbelief and superstition proceed, of inward depravity of soul, of pride, ambition, stubbornness, and other secret sources of evil, they say not a word. And sermons are not a whit more sound. Then, as to the doctrine of free will, as preached before Luther and other reformers appeared, what effect could it have but to fill men with an overweening opinion of their own virtue, swelling them out with vanity, and leaving no room for the grace and assistance of the Holy Spirit?

But why dwell on this? There is no point which is more keenly contested, none in which our adversaries are more inveterate in their opposition, than that of justification: namely, as to whether we obtain it by faith or by works. On no account will they allow us to give Christ the honor of being called our righteousness, unless their works come in at the same time for a share of the merit. The dispute is not, whether good works ought to be performed by the pious, and whether they are accepted by God and rewarded by him; but whether, by their own worth, they reconcile us to God; whether we acquire eternal life as their price; whether they are compensations which are made to the justice of God, so as to take away guilt; and whether they are to be confided in as a ground of salvation.

We condemn the error which enjoins men to have more respect to their own works than to Christ, as a means of rendering God propitious, of meriting his favor, and obtaining the inheritance of eternal life: in short, as a means of becoming righteous in his sight. First, they plume themselves on the merit of works, as if they laid God under obligations to them. Pride such as this, what is it but a fatal intoxication of soul? For instead of Christ, they adore themselves, and dream of possessing life while they are immersed in the profound abyss of death. It may be said that I am exaggerating on this head, but no man can deny the trite doctrine of the schools and churches to be, that it is by works we must merit the favor of God, and by works acquire eternal life; that any hope of salvation unpropped by good works is rash and presumptuous; that we are reconciled to God by the satisfaction of good works, and not by a gratuitous remission of sins; that good works are meritorious of eternal salvation, not because they are freely imputed for righteousness through the merits of Christ, but in terms of law; and that men, as often as they lose the grace of God, are reconciled to him, not by a free pardon, but by what they term works of satisfaction Â¬ these works being supplemented by the merits of Christ and martyrs, provided only the sinner deserves to be so assisted. It is certain that, before Luther became known to the world, all men were fascinated by these impious dogmas; and even in the present day, there is no part of our doctrine which our opponents impugn with greater earnestness and obstinacy.

Lastly, there was another most pestilential error, which not only occupied the minds of men, but was regarded as one of the principal articles of faith, of which it was impious to doubt: that is, that believers ought to be perpetually in suspense and uncertainty as to their interest in the divine favor. By this suggestion of the devil, the power of faith was completely extinguished, the benefits of Christ’s purchase destroyed, and the salvation of men overthrown. For, as Paul declares, that faith only is Christian faith which inspires our hearts with confidence, and emboldens us to appear in the presence of God (Rom. 5:2). On no other view could his doctrine in another passage be maintained: that is, that “we have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:15).

But what is the effect of that hesitancy which our enemies require in their disciples, save to annihilate all confidence in the promises of God? Paul argues, that “If they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect” (Rom. 4:14). Why so? Just because the law keeps a man in doubt, and does not permit him to entertain a sure and firm confidence. But they, on the other hand, dream of a faith, which, excluding and repelling man from that confidence which Paul requires, throws him back upon conjecture, to be tossed like a reed shaken by the wind. And it is not surprising that after they had once founded their hope of salvation on the merit of works, they plunged into all this absurdity. It could not but happen, that from such a precipice they should have such a fall. For what can man find in his works but materials for doubt, and, finally, for despair? We thus see how error led to error.

Here, mighty emperor, and most illustrious princes, it will be necessary to recall to your remembrance what I formerly observed: that is, that the safety of the church depends as much on this doctrine as human life does on the soul. If the purity of this doctrine is in any degree impaired, the church has received a deadly wound; and, therefore, when I shall have shown that it was for the greater part extinguished, it will be the same as if I had shown that the church had been brought to the very brink of destruction. As yet, I have only alluded to this in passing, but by-and-by I will unfold it more clearly.

I come now to those things which I have likened to the body: that is, government and the dispensation of the sacraments, of which, when the doctrine is subverted, the power and utility are gone, although the external form should be faultless. What, then, if there was no soundness in them externally or internally? And it is not difficult to demonstrate that this was the fact.

First, in regard to the sacraments, ceremonies devised by men were placed in the same rank with the mysteries instituted by Christ. For seven sacraments were received without any distinction, though Christ appointed two only, the others resting merely on human authority. Yet to these the grace of God was held to be annexed, just as much as if Christ had been present in them. Moreover, the two which Christ instituted were fearfully corrupted. Baptism was so disguised by superfluous additions, that scarcely a vestige of pure and genuine baptism could be traced; while the holy supper was not only corrupted by extraneous observances, but its very form was altogether changed.

What Christ commanded to be done, and in what order, is perfectly clear. But in contempt of his command, a theatrical exhibition was got up, and substituted for the supper. For what resemblance is there between the mass and the true supper of our Lord? While the command of Christ enjoins believers to communicate with each other in the sacred symbols of his body and blood, the thing seen at mass ought more properly to be termed excommunion. For the priest separates himself from the rest of the assembly, and devours apart that which ought to have been brought forward into the midst and distributed. Then, as if he were some successor of Aaron, he pretends that he offers a sacrifice to expiate the sins of the people.

But where does Christ once mention sacrifice? He bids us take, eat, and drink. Who authorizes men to convert taking into offering? And what is the effect of the change but to make the perpetual and inviolable edict of Christ yield to their devices?

This is, indeed, a grievous evil. But still worse is the superstition which applies this work to the living and the dead, as a procuring cause of grace. In this way the efficacy of Christ’s death has been transferred to a vain theatrical show, and the dignity of an eternal priesthood wrested from him to be bestowed upon men.

If, at any time, the people are called to communion, they are admitted only to half a share. Why should this be? Christ holds forth the cup to all, and bids all drink of it. In opposition to this, men interdict the assembly of the faithful from touching the cup. Thus the signs, which by the authority of Christ were connected by an indissoluble tie, are separated by human caprice. Besides, the consecration, both of baptism and of the mass, differs in no respect whatever from magical incantations. For by breathings and whisperings, and unintelligible sounds, they think they work mysteries. As if it had been the wish of Christ, that in the performance of religious rites his word should be mumbled over, and not rather pronounced in a clear voice. There is no obscurity in the words by which the gospel expresses the power, nature, and use of baptism. Then, in the supper, Christ does not mutter over the bread, but addresses the apostles in distinct terms, when he announces the promise and subjoins the command, “This do in remembrance of me.” Instead of this public commemoration, they whisper out secret exorcisms, fitter (as I have observed), for magical arts than sacraments.

The first thing we complain of here is, that the people are entertained with showy ceremonies, while not a word is said of their significance and truth. For there is no use in the sacraments unless the thing which the sign visibly represents is explained in accordance with the word of God. Therefore, when the people are presented with nothing but empty figures, with which to feed the eye, while they hear no doctrine which might direct them to the proper end, they look no farther than the external act. Hence that most pestilential superstition, under which, as if the sacraments alone were sufficient for salvation, without feeling any solicitude about faith or repentance, or even Christ himself, they fasten upon the sign instead of the thing signified by it. And, indeed, not only among the rude vulgar, but in the schools also, the impious dogma everywhere obtained, that the sacraments were effectual by themselves, if not obstructed in their operation by mortal sin; as if the sacraments had been given for any other end or use than to lead us by the hand to Christ.

Then, in addition to this, after consecrating the bread by a perverse incantation, rather than a pious rite, they keep it in a little box, and occasionally carry it about in solemn state, that it may be adored and prayed to instead of Christ. Accordingly, when any danger presses, they flee to that bread as their only protection, use it as a charm against all accidents, and, in asking pardon of God, employ it as the best expiation; as if Christ, when he gave us his body in the sacrament, had meant that it should be prostituted to all sorts of absurdity. For what is the amount of the promise? Simply this Â¬ that as often as we received the sacrament, we should be partakers of his body and blood. “Take,” says he, “eat and drink; this is my body, this is my blood. This do in remembrance of me.” Do we not see that the promise is on either side enclosed by limits within which we must confine ourselves if we would secure what it offers? Those, therefore, are deceived who imagine that, apart from the legitimate use of the sacrament, they have anything but common and unconsecrated bread.

Then, again, there is a profanation common to all these religious rites: that is, that they are made the subjects of a disgraceful traffic, as if they had been instituted for no other purpose than to be subservient to gain. Nor is this traffic conducted secretly or bashfully; it is plied openly, as at the public mart. It is known in each particular district how much a mass sells for. Other rites, too, have their fixed prices. In short, any one who considers must see that churches are just ordinary shops, and that there is no kind of sacred rite which is not there exposed for sale.

Were I to go over the faults of ecclesiastical government in detail, I should never have done. I will, therefore, only point to some of the grosser sort, which cannot be disguised.

And, first, the pastoral office itself, as instituted by Christ, has long been in desuetude. His object in appointing bishops and pastors, or whatever the name be by which they are called, certainly was, as Paul declares, that they might edify the church with sound doctrine. According to this view, no man is a true pastor of the church who does not perform the office of teaching. But, in the present day, almost all those who have the name of pastors have left that work to others. Scarcely one in a hundred of the bishops will be found who ever mounts the pulpit in order to teach. And no wonder; for bishoprics have degenerated into secular principalities. Pastors of inferior rank, again, either think that they fulfill their office by frivolous performances altogether alien from the command of Christ, or, after the example of the bishops, throw even this part of the duty on the shoulders of others. Hence the letting of sacerdotal offices is not less common than the letting of farms. What would we more? The spiritual government which Christ recommended has totally disappeared, and a new and mongrel species of government has been introduced, which, under whatever name it may pass current, has no more resemblance to the former than the world has to the kingdom of Christ.

If it be objected, that the fault of those who neglect their duty ought not to be imputed to the order, I answer, first, that the evil is of such general prevalence, that it may be regarded as the common rule; and, secondly, that, were we to assume that all the bishops, and all the presbyters under them, reside each in his particular station, and do what in the present day is regarded as professional duty, they would never fulfill the true institution of Christ. They would sing or mutter in the church, exhibit themselves in theatrical vestments, and go through numerous ceremonies, but they would seldom, if ever, teach. According to the precept of Christ, however, no man can claim for himself the office of bishop or pastor who does not feed his flock with the word of the Lord.

Then while those who preside in the church ought to excel others, and shine by the example of a holier life, how well do those who hold the office in the present day correspond in this respect to their vocation! At a time when the corruption of the world is at its height, there is no order more addicted to all kinds of wickedness. I wish that by their innocence they would refute what I say. How gladly would I at once retract. But their turpitude stands exposed to the eyes of all Â¬ exposed their insatiable avarice and rapacity Â¬ exposed their intolerable pride and cruelty. The noise of indecent revelry and dancing, the rage of gaming, and entertainments, abounding in all kinds of intemperance, are in their houses only ordinary occurrences, while they glory in their luxurious delicacies, as if they were distinguished virtues.

To pass over other things in silence, what impurity in that celibacy which of itself they regard as a title to esteem! I feel ashamed to unveil enormities which I had much rather suppress, if they could be corrected by silence. Nor will I divulge what is done in secret. The pollutions which openly appear are more than sufficient. How many priests, pray, are free from whoredom? Nay, how many of their houses are infamous for daily acts of lewdness? How many honorable families do they defile by their vagabond lusts? For my part, I have no pleasure in exposing their vices, and it is no part of my design; but it is of importance to observe what a wide difference there is between the conduct of the priesthood of the present day, and that which true ministers of Christ and his church are bound to pursue.

Not the least important branch of ecclesiastical government is the due and regular election and ordination of those who are to rule. The word of God furnishes a standard by which all such appointments ought to be tested, and there exist many decrees of ancient councils which carefully and wisely provide for every thing which relates to the proper method of election. Let our adversaries then produce even a solitary instance of canonical election, and I will yield them the victory. We know the kind of examination which the Holy Spirit, by the mouth of Paul (epistles of Timothy and Titus), requires a pastor to undergo, and that which the ancient laws of the fathers enjoin. At the present day, in appointing bishops, is anything of the kind perceived? Nay, how few of those who are raised to the office are endowed even slenderly with those qualities without which they cannot be fit ministers of the church? We see the order which the apostles observed in ordaining ministers, that which the primitive church afterwards followed, and, finally, that which the ancient canons require to be observed. Were I to complain that at present this order is spurned and rejected, would not the complaint be just? What, then, should I say that everything honorable is trampled upon, and promotion obtained by the most disgraceful and flagitious proceedings? The fact is of universal notoriety. For ecclesiastical honors are either purchased for a set price, or seized by the hand of violence, or secured by nefarious actions, or acquired by sordid sycophancy. Occasionally even, they are the hire paid for panderism and similar services. In short, more shameless proceedings are exhibited here than ever occur in the acquisition of secular possessions.

And would that those who preside in the church, when they corrupt its government, only sinned for themselves, or at least injured others by nothing but by their bad example! But the most crying evil of all is, that they exercise a most cruel tyranny, and that a tyranny over souls. Nay, what is the vaunted power of the church in the present day, but a lawless, licentious, unrestricted domination over souls, subjecting them to the most miserable bondage?

Christ gave to the apostles an authority similar to that which God had conferred on the prophets, an authority exactly defined: that is, to act as his ambassadors to men. Now, the invariable law is, that he who is entrusted with an embassy must faithfully and religiously conform to his instructions. This is stated in express terms in the apostolical commission, “Go and teach all nations whatsoever things I have delivered unto you.” Likewise “preach” Â¬ not anything you please), but the “gospel” [Matt. 28:19-20]. If it is asked what the authority is with which their successors were invested, we have the definition of Peter which enjoins all who speak in the church to speak “the oracles” of God [1 Pet. 4:11].

Now, however, those who would be thought the rulers of the church arrogate to themselves a license to speak whatsoever they please, and to insist that as soon as they have spoken they shall be implicitly obeyed. It will be averred that this is a calumny, and that the only right which they assume is that of sanctioning by their authority what the Holy Spirit has revealed. They will, accordingly, maintain that they do not subject the consciences of believers to their own devices or caprice, but only to the oracles of the Spirit, which, being revealed to them, they confirm and promulgate to others.

Forsooth an ingenious pretext! No man doubts that in whatever the Holy Spirit delivers by their hands they are to be unhesitatingly obeyed. But when they add that they cannot deliver anything but the genuine oracles of the Holy Spirit, because they are under his guidance, and that all their decisions cannot but be true, because they sit in chairs of verity, is not this just to measure their power by their caprice? For if all their decrees, without exception, are to be received as oracles, there is no limit to their power. What tyrant ever so monstrously abused the patience of his subjects as to insist that everything he proclaimed should be received as a message from heaven! Tyrants, no doubt, will have their edicts obeyed, be the edicts what they may. But these men demand much more. We must believe that the Holy Spirit speaks when they obtrude upon us what they have dreamed.

We see, accordingly, how hard and iniquitous the bondage is in which, when armed with this power, they have enthralled the souls of the faithful. Laws have been piled above laws, to be so many snares to the conscience. For they have not confined these laws to matters of external order, but applied them to the interior and spiritual government of the soul. And no end was made until they amounted to that immense multitude, which now looks not unlike a labyrinth. Indeed, some of them seem framed for the very purpose of troubling and torturing consciences, while the observance of them is enforced with not less strictness than if they contained the whole substance of piety. Nay, though in regard to the violation of the commands of God, either no question is asked, or slight penances are inflicted, anything done contrary to the decrees of men requires the highest expiation. While the church is oppressed by this tyrannical yoke, anyone who dares to say a word against it is instantly condemned as a heretic. In short, to give vent to our grief is a capital offense. And in order to ensure the possession of this insufferable domination, they, by sanguinary edicts, prevent the people from reading and understanding the scriptures, and fulminate against those who stir any question as to their power. This excessive rigor increases from day to day, so that now on the subject of religion it is scarcely permitted to make any inquiry at all.

At the time when divine truth lay buried under this vast and dense cloud of darkness; when religion was sullied by so many impious superstitions; when by horrid blasphemies the worship of God was corrupted, and his glory laid prostrate; when by a multitude of perverse opinions, the benefit of redemption was frustrated, and men, intoxicated with a fatal confidence in works, sought salvation anywhere rather than in Christ; when the administration of the sacraments was partly maimed and torn asunder, partly adulterated by the admixture of numerous fictions, and partly profaned by traffickings for gain; when the government of the church had degenerated into mere confusion and devastation; when those who sat in the seat of pastors first did most vital injury to the church by the dissoluteness of their lives, and, secondly, exercised a cruel and most noxious tyranny over souls, by every kind of error, leading men like sheep to the slaughter; then Luther arose, and after him others, who with united counsels sought out means and methods by which religion might be purged from all these defilements, the doctrine of godliness restored to its integrity, and the church raised out of its calamitous into somewhat of a tolerable condition. The same course we are still pursuing in the present day.

2: The Remedies Employed for Correction of the Evils

I come now, as I proposed, to consider the remedies which we have employed for the correction of these evils, not here intending to describe the manner in which we proceeded (that will afterwards be seen), but only to make it manifest that we have had no other end in view than to ameliorate in some degree the very miserable condition of the church. Our doctrine has been assailed, and still is every day, by many atrocious calumnies. Some declaim loudly against it in their sermons; others attack and traduce it in their writings. Both rake together everything by which they hope to bring it into disrepute among the ignorant. But the confession of our faith, which we presented to your imperial majesty, is before the world, and clearly testifies how undeservedly we are harassed by so many odious accusations. And we have always been ready in times past, as we are at the present day, to render an account of our doctrine. In a word, there is no doctrine preached in our churches but that which we openly profess.

As to controverted points, they are clearly and honestly explained in our confession, while everything relating to them has been copiously treated and diligently expounded by our writers. Hence judges not unjust must be satisfied how far we are from everything like impiety. This much, certainly, must be clear alike to just and unjust, that our reformers have done no small service to the church, in stirring up the world as from the deep darkness of ignorance, to read the scriptures, in laboring diligently to make them better understood, and in happily throwing light on certain points of doctrine of the highest practical importance. In sermons little else was heard than old wives’ fables, and fictions equally frivolous. The schools resounded with brawling questions, but scripture was seldom mentioned. Those who held the government of the church made it their sole care to prevent any diminution of their gains, and, accordingly, had no difficulty in permitting whatever tended to fill their coffers. Even the most prejudiced, how much soever they may in other respects defame our doctrine, admit that our people have in some degree reformed these evils.

I am willing, however, that all the advantage which the church may have derived from our labors shall have no effect in alleviating our fault, if in any other respect we have done her injury. Therefore, let there be an examination of our whole doctrine, of our form of administering the sacraments, and our method of governing the church; and in none of these three things will it be found that we have made any change upon the ancient form, without attempting to restore it to the exact standard of the word of God.

To return to the division which we formerly adopted. All our controversies concerning doctrine relate either to the legitimate worship of God, or to the ground of salvation. As to the former, unquestionably we do exhort men to worship God neither in a frigid nor a careless manner; and while we point out the mode, we neither lose sight of the end, nor omit anything which bears upon the point. We proclaim the glory of God in terms far loftier than it was wont to be proclaimed before, and we earnestly labor to make the perfections in which his glory shines better and better known. His benefits towards ourselves we extol as eloquently as we can, while we call upon others to reverence his majesty, render due homage to his greatness, feel due gratitude for his mercies, and unite in showing forth his praise. In this way there is infused into their hearts that solid confidence which afterwards gives birth to prayer; and in this way, too, each one is trained to genuine self-denial, so that his will being brought into obedience to God, he bids farewell to his own desires. In short, as God requires us to worship him in a spiritual manner, so we most zealously urge men to all the spiritual sacrifices which he recommends.

Even our enemies cannot deny our assiduity in exhorting men to expect the good which they desire from none but God, to confide in his power, rest in his goodness, depend on his truth, and turn to him with the whole heart; to recline upon him with full hope, and recur to him in necessity: that is, at every moment to ascribe to him every good thing which we enjoy, and show we do so by open expressions of praise. And that none may be deterred by difficulty of access, we proclaim that a complete fountain of blessings is opened up to us in Christ, and that out of it we may draw for every need. Our writings are witnesses, and our sermons witnesses, how frequent and sedulous we are in recommending true repentance, urging men to renounce their own reason and carnal desires, and themselves entirely, that they may be brought into obedience to God alone, and live no longer to themselves, but to him. Nor, at the same time, do we overlook external duties and works of charity, which follow on such renovation. This I say, is the sure and unerring form of worship, which we know that he approves, because it is the form which his word prescribes, and these the only sacrifices of the Christian church which have his sanction.

Since, therefore, in our churches, only God is adored in pious form without superstition; since his goodness, wisdom, power, truth, and other perfections, are there preached more fully than anywhere else; since he is invoked with true faith in the name of Christ, his mercies celebrated both with heart and tongue, and men constantly urged to a simple and sincere obedience; since, in fine, nothing is heard but what tends to promote the sanctification of his name, what cause have those who call themselves Christians to be so inveterate against us? First, loving darkness rather than light, they cannot tolerate the sharpness with which we, as in duty bound, rebuke the gross idolatry which is everywhere beheld in the world. When God is worshipped in images, when fictitious worship is instituted in his name, when supplication is made to the images of saints, and divine honors paid to dead men’s bones; against these, and similar abominations, we protest, describing them in their true colors. For this cause, those who hate our doctrine inveigh against us, and represent us as heretics who have dared to abolish the worship of God, as of old approved by the church. Concerning this name of church, which they are ever and anon holding up before them as a kind of shield, we will shortly speak. Meanwhile, how perverse, when these flagitious corruptions are manifest, not only to defend them, but cloak their deformity, by impudently pretending that they belong to the genuine worship of God!

Both parties confess, that in the sight of God idolatry is an execrable crime. But when we attack the worship of images, our adversaries immediately take the opposite side, and lend their support to the crime which they had verbally concurred with us in condemning. Nay, what is more ridiculous, after agreeing with us as to the term in Greek, it is no sooner turned into Latin than their opposition begins. For they strenuously defend the worship of images, though they condemn idolatry Â¬ ingenious men denying that the honor which they pay to images is worship; as if, in comparing it with ancient idolatry, it were possible to see any difference. Idolaters pretended that they worshipped the celestial gods, though under corporeal figures which represented them. What else do our adversaries pretend? But does God accept of such excuses? Did the prophets cease to rebuke the madness of the Egyptians, when, out of the secret mysteries of their theology, they drew subtle distinctions under which to screen themselves? What, too, do we suppose the brazen serpent, whom the Jews worshipped, to have been, but something which they honored as a representation of God? “The Gentiles,” says Ambrose (in Psalm 118), “worship wood, because they think it an image of God, whereas the invisible image of God is not in that which is seen, but specially in that which is not seen.” And what is it that is done in the present day? Do they not prostrate themselves before images, as if God were present in them? Did they not suppose the power and grace of God attached to pictures and statues, would they flee to them when they are desirous to pray?

I have not yet adverted to the grosser superstitions, though these cannot be confined to the ignorant, since they are approved by public consent. They adorn their idols now with flowers and chaplets, now with robes, vests, zones, purses, and frivolities of every kind. They light tapers and burn incense before them, and carry them on their shoulders in solemn state. When they pray to the image of Christopher or Barbara, they mutter over the Lord’s Prayer and the angels’ salutation. The fairer or dingier the images are, the greater is their excellence supposed to be. To this is added a new recommendation from fabulous miracles. Some they pretend to have spoken, others to have extinguished a fire in the church by trampling on it, others to have removed of their own accord to a new abode, others to have dropped from heaven. While the whole world teems with these and similar delusions (and the fact is perfectly notorious), we, who have brought back the worship of the one God to the rule of his word Â¬ we, who are blameless in this matter, and have purged our churches, not only of idolatry but of superstition also Â¬ are accused of violating the worship of God, because we have discarded the worship of images: that is, as we call it, idolatry, but as our adversaries will have it, idolodulia.

But, besides the clear testimonies which are everywhere met with in scripture, we are also supported by the authority of the ancient church. All the writers of a purer age describe the abuse of images among the Gentiles as not differing from what is seen in the world in the present day; and their observations on the subject are not less applicable to the present age than to the persons whom they then censured.

As to the charge which they bring against us for discarding images, as well as the bones and relics of saints, it is easily answered. For none of these things ought to be valued at more than the brazen serpent, and the reasons for removing them were not less valid than those of Hezekiah for breaking it. It is certain that the idolmania, with which the minds of men are now fascinated, cannot be cured otherwise than by removing bodily the source of the infatuation And we have too much experience of the absolute truth of St. Augustine’s sentiment (Ep. 49): “No man prays or worships looking on an image without being impressed with the idea that it is listening to him.” And, likewise (in Psalm 115:4): “Images, from having a mouth, eyes, ears, and feet, are more effectual to mislead an unhappy soul than to correct it, because they neither speak, nor see, nor hear, nor walk.” Also, “The effect in a manner extorted by the external shape is, that the soul living in a body, thinks a body which it sees so very like its own must have similar powers of perception.”

As to the matter of relics, it is almost incredible how impudently the world has been cheated. I can mention three relics of our Saviour’s circumcision; likewise fourteen nails which are exhibited for the three by which he was fixed to the cross; three robes for that seamless one on which the soldiers cast lots; two inscriptions that were placed over the cross; three spears by which our Saviour’s side was pierced, and about five sets of linen clothes which wrapped his body in the tomb. Besides, they show all the articles used at the institution of the Lord’s supper, and an infinite number of similar impositions. There is no saint of any celebrity of whom two or three bodies are not in existence. I can name the place where a piece of pumice stone was long held in high veneration as the skull of Peter. Decency will not permit me to mention fouler exhibitions. Undeservedly, therefore, are we blamed for having studied to purify the church of God from such pollutions.

In regard to the worship of God, our adversaries next accuse us, because, omitting empty and childish observances tending only to hypocrisy, we worship God more simply. That we have in no respect detracted from the spiritual worship of God, is attested by fact. Nay, when it had in a great measure gone into desuetude, we have reinstated it in its former rights. Let us now see whether the offence taken at us is just. In regard to doctrine, I maintain that we make common cause with the prophets. For, next to idolatry, there is nothing for which they rebuke the people more sharply than for falsely imagining that the worship of God consisted in external show. For what is the sum of their declarations? That God dwells not, and sets no value on ceremonies considered only in themselves; that he looks to the faith and truth of the heart; and that the only end for which he commanded, and for which he approves them, is that they may be pure exercises of faith, and prayer, and praise. The writings of all the prophets are full of attestations to this effect. Nor, as I have observed, was there anything for which they labored more.

Now, it cannot, without effrontery, be denied, that when our reformers appeared, the world was more than ever smitten with this blindness. It was therefore absolutely necessary to urge men with these prophetical rebukes, and draw them off, as by force, from that infatuation, that they might no longer imagine that God was satisfied with naked ceremonies, as children are with shows. There was a like necessity for urging the doctrine of the spiritual worship of God Â¬ a doctrine which had almost vanished from the minds of men. That both of these things have been faithfully performed by us in times past, and still are, both our writings and our sermons clearly prove.

In inveighing against ceremonies themselves, and also in abrogating a great part of them, we confess that there is some difference between us and the prophets. They inveighed against their countrymen for confining the worship of God to external ceremonies, but still ceremonies which God himself had instituted; we complain that the same honor is paid to frivolities of man’s devising. They, while condemning superstition, left untouched a multitude of ceremonies which God had enjoined, and which were useful and appropriate to an age of tutelage; our business has been to correct numerous rites which had either crept in through oversight, or been turned to abuse Â¬ and which, moreover, by no means accorded with the time. For, if we would not throw everything into confusion, we must never lose sight of the distinction between the old and the new dispensations, and of the fact that ceremonies, the observance of which was useful under the law, are now not only superfluous, but vicious and absurd.

When Christ was absent and not yet manifested, ceremonies, by shadowing him forth, cherished the hope of his advent in the breasts of believers; but now that his glory is present and conspicuous, they only obscure it. And we see what God himself has done. For those ceremonies which he had commanded for a time he has now abrogated for ever. Paul explains the reason: first, that since the body has been manifested in Christ, the types have, of course, been withdrawn; and, secondly, that God is now pleased to instruct his church after a different manner (Gal. 4:5; Col. 2:4, 14, 17). Since, then, God has freed his church from the bondage which he had imposed upon it, can anything, I ask, be more perverse than for men to introduce a new bondage in place of the old? Since God has prescribed a certain economy, how presumptuous to set up one which is contrary to it, and openly repudiated by him.

But the worst of all is, that though God has so often and so strictly interdicted all modes of worship prescribed by man, the only worship paid to him consisted of human inventions. What ground, then, have our enemies to vociferate that in this matter we have given religion to the winds? First, we have not laid even a finger on anything which Christ does not discountenance as of no value, when he declares that it is vain to worship God with human traditions. The thing might, perhaps, have been more tolerable if the only effect had been that men lost their pains by an unavailing worship; but, since as I have observed, God in many passages forbids any new worship unsanctioned by his word; since he declares that he is grievously offended with the presumption which invents such worship, and threatens it with severe punishment; it is clear that the reformation which we have introduced was demanded by a strong necessity.

I am not unaware how difficult it is to persuade the world that God rejects and even abominates everything relating to his worship that is devised by human reason. The delusion on this head is owing to several causes: “Every one thinks highly of his own,” as the old proverb expresses it. Hence the offspring of our own brain delights us, and besides, as Paul admits, this fictitious worship often presents some show of wisdom [Col. 2:23]. Then, as it has for the most part an external splendor which pleases the eye, it is more agreeable to our carnal nature, than that which alone God requires and approves, but which is less ostentatious. But there is nothing which so blinds the understandings of men, and misleads them in their judgments in this matter, as hypocrisy. For while it is incumbent on true worshippers to give the heart and mind, men are always desirous to invent a mode of serving God of a totally different description, their object being to perform to him certain bodily observances, and keep the mind to themselves. Moreover, they imagine that when they obtrude upon him external pomp, they have, by this artifice, evaded the necessity of giving themselves. And this is the reason why they submit to innumerable observances which miserably fatigue them without measure and without end, and why they choose to wander in a perpetual labyrinth, rather than worship God simply in spirit and in truth.

It is mere calumny, then, in our enemies to accuse us of alluring men by facilities and indulgence. For were the option given, there is nothing which the carnal man would not prefer to do rather than consent to worship God as prescribed by our doctrine. It is easy to use the words faith and repentance, but the things are most difficult to perform. He, therefore, who makes the worship of God consist in these, by no means loosens the reins of discipline, but compels men to the course which they are most afraid to take. Of this we have most pregnant proof from fact. Men will allow themselves to be astricted by numerous severe laws, to be obliged to numerous laborious observances, to wear a severe and heavy yoke; in short, there is no annoyance to which they will not submit, provided there is no mention of the heart. Hence, it appears, that there is nothing to which the human mind is more averse than to that spiritual truth which is the constant topic of our sermons, and nothing with which it is more engrossed than that splendid glare on which our adversaries so strongly insist. The very majesty of God extorts this much from us, that we are unable to withdraw entirely from his service. Therefore, as we cannot evade the necessity of worshipping him, our only remaining course is to seek out indirect substitutes that we may not be obliged to come directly into his presence; or rather, by means of external ceremonies, like specious masks, we hide the inward malice of the heart, and, in order that we may not be forced to give it to him, interpose bodily observances, like a wall of partition. It is with the greatest reluctance that the world allows itself to be driven from such subterfuges as these; and hence the outcry against us for having dragged them out into the open light of day, out of their lurking places, where they securely sported with God.

In prayer there are three things which we have corrected. Discarding the intercession of saints, we have brought men back to Christ, that they might learn both to invoke the Father in his name, and trust in him as Mediator; and we have taught them to pray, first, with firm and solid confidence, and, secondly, with understanding also, instead of continuing as formerly to mutter over confused prayers in an unknown tongue. Here we are assailed with bitter reproaches as at once acting contumeliously towards the saints, and defrauding believers of an invaluable privilege. Both charges we deny.

It is no injury to saints not to permit the office of Christ to be attributed to them, and there is no honor of which we deprive them, save that which was improperly and rashly bestowed upon them by human error. I will not mention anything which may not be pointed to with the finger. First, when men are about to pray, they imagine God to be at a great distance, and that they cannot have access to him without the guidance of some patron. Nor is this false opinion current among the rude and unlearned only, but even those who would be thought leaders of the blind entertain it. Then, in looking out for patrons, every one follows his own fancy. One selects Mary, another Michael, another Peter. Christ they very seldom honor with a place in the list. Nay, there is scarcely one in a hundred who would not be amazed, as at some new prodigy, were he to hear Christ named as an intercessor. Therefore, passing by Christ, they all trust to the patronage of saints. Then the superstition creeps in further and further, till they invoke the saints promiscuously, just as they do God. I admit, indeed, that when they desire to speak more definitely, all they ask of the saints is to assist them before God with their prayers. But more frequently, confounding this distinction, they address and implore at one time God, and at another the saints, just according to the impulse of the moment. Nay, each saint has a peculiar province allotted to him. One gives rain, another fair weather, one delivers from fever, another from shipwreck. But, to say nothing of these profane heathen delusions which everywhere prevail in churches, this one impiety may suffice for all, that the great body of mankind, in inviting intercessors from this quarter and from that, neglect Christ, the only one whom God has set forth, and confide less in the divine protection than in the patronage of saints.

But our censurers, even those of them who have somewhat more regard to equity, blame us for excess in having discarded entirely from our prayers the mention of dead saints. But will they tell me wherein, according to their view, lies the sin of faithfully observing the rule laid down by Christ, the supreme teacher, and by the prophets and apostles, and of not omitting anything which either the Holy Spirit has taught in scripture, or the servants of God have practiced from the beginning of the world down to the days of the apostles? There is scarcely any subject on which the Holy Spirit more carefully prescribes than on the proper method of prayer; but there is not a syllable which teaches us to have recourse to the assistance of dead saints. Many of the prayers offered up by believers are extant. In none of them is there even a single example of such recourse.

Sometimes, indeed, the Israelites entreated God to remember Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and David likewise. But all they meant by such expressions was, that he should be mindful of the covenant which he had made with them, and bless their posterity according to his promise. For the covenant of grace, which was ultimately to be ratified in Christ, those holy patriarchs had received in their own name, and in that of their posterity. Wherefore, the faithful of the Israelitish church do not, by such mention of the patriarchs, seek intercession from the dead, but simply appeal to the promise which had been deposited with them until it should be fully ratified in the hand of Christ. How extravagant, then, and infatuated, to abandon the form of prayer which the Lord has recommended, and without any injunction, and with no example, to introduce into prayer the intercession of saints?

But briefly to conclude this point, I take my stand on the declaration of Paul, that no prayer is genuine which springs not from faith, and that faith cometh by the word of God (Rom. 10:14). In these words, he has, if I mistake not, distinctly intimated that the word of God is the only sure foundation for prayer. And while he elsewhere says, that every action of our lives should be preceded by faith, for example, a conscientious assurance, he shows that this is specially requisite in prayer, more so, indeed, than in any other employment. It is, however, still more conclusive of the point, when he declares that prayer depends on the word of God. For it is just as if he had prohibited all men from opening their mouths until such time as God puts words into them. This is our wall of brass, which all the powers of hell will in vain attempt to break down.

Since, then, there exists a clear command to invoke God only; since, again, one Mediator is proposed, whose intercession must support our prayers; since a promise has, moreover, been added, that whatever we ask in the name of Christ we shall obtain; men must pardon us, if we follow the certain truth of God, in preference to their frivolous fictions. It is surely incumbent on those who, in their prayers, introduce the intercession of the dead, that they may thereby be assisted more easily to obtain what they ask, to prove one of two things Â¬ either that they are so taught by the word of God, or that men have license to pray as they please. But in regard to the former, it is plain that they are destitute of authority from the scriptures, as well as of any approved example of such intercession; while, as to the latter, Paul declares that none can invoke God, save those who have been taught by his word to pray. On this depends the confidence with which it becomes pious minds to be actuated and imbued when they engage in prayer.

The men of the world supplicate God, dubious, meanwhile, of success. For they neither rely upon the promise, nor perceive the force of what is meant by having a Mediator through whom they will assuredly obtain what they ask. Moreover, God enjoins us to come free from doubt, (Matt. 21:22). Accordingly, prayer proceeding from true faith obtains favor with God; whereas prayer accompanied with distrust rather alienates him from us. For this is the proper mark which discriminates between genuine invocation and the profane wandering prayers of the heathen. And, indeed, where faith is wanting, prayer ceases to be divine worship. It is to this James refers when he says, “If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God; but let him ask in faith, doubting nothing. For he that doubteth is like a wave of the sea, driven with the winds, and tossed” (James 1:6). It is not surprising that he who has no interest in Christ, the true Mediator, thus fluctuates in uncertainty and distrust. For, as Paul declares, it is through Christ only that we have boldness and access with confidence to the Father. We have, therefore, taught men, when brought to Christ, no longer to doubt and waver in their prayers, as they were wont to do, but to rest secure in the word of the Lord Â¬ a word which, when it once penetrates the soul, drives far from it all dubiety, which is repugnant to faith.

It remains to point out the third fault in prayer, which I said that we have corrected. Whereas men generally prayed in an unknown tongue, we have taught them to pray with understanding. Every man, accordingly, is taught by our doctrine to know, when he prays in private, what it is he asks of God, while the public prayers in our churches are framed so as to be understood by all. And it is the dictate of natural reason that it should be so, even if God had given no precept on the subject. For the design of prayer is to make God the conscious witness of our necessities, and as it were to pour out our hearts before him. But nothing is more at variance with this design than to move the tongue without thought and intelligence. And yet, to such a degree of absurdity had it come, that to pray in the vulgar tongue was almost regarded as an offense against religion. I can name an archbishop who threatened with incarceration, and the severer penances, the person who should repeat the Lord’s Prayer aloud in any language but Latin. The general belief, however, was, that it mattered not in what language a man prayed at home, provided he had what was called a final intention directed to prayer; but that in churches the dignity of the service required that Latin should be the only language in which prayers were couched.

There seems, as I lately observed, something monstrous in this determination to hold converse with God in sounds which fall without meaning from the tongue. Even if God did not declare his displeasure, nature herself, without a monitor, rejects it. Besides, it is easy to infer from the whole tenor of scripture how deeply God abominates such an invention. As to the public prayers of the church, the words of Paul are clear Â¬ the unlearned cannot say “amen” if the benediction is pronounced in an unknown tongue. And this makes it the more strange, that those who first introduced this perverse practice, ultimately had the effrontery to maintain, that the very thing which Paul regards as ineffably absurd, was conducive to the majesty of prayer. The method by which, in our churches, all pray in common in the popular tongue, and males and females indiscriminately sing the psalms, our adversaries may ridicule if they will, provided the Holy Spirit bears testimony to us from heaven, while he repudiates the confused, unmeaning sounds which are uttered elsewhere.

In the second principal branch of doctrine Â¬ that is, that which relates to the ground of salvation, and the method of obtaining it Â¬ many questions are involved. For, when we tell a man to seek righteousness and life out of himself (i.e., in Christ only, because he has nothing in himself but sin and death), a controversy immediately arises with reference to the freedom and powers of the will. For, if man has any ability of his own to serve God, he does not obtain salvation entirely by the grace of Christ, but in part bestows it on himself. On the other hand, if the whole of salvation is attributed to the grace of Christ, man has nothing left, has no virtue of his own by which he can assist himself to procure salvation. But though our opponents concede that man, in every good deed, is assisted by the Holy Spirit, they nevertheless claim for him a share in the operation. This they do, because they perceive not how deep the wound is which was inflicted on our nature by the fall of our first parents.

No doubt, they agree with us in holding the doctrine of original sin, but they afterwards modify its effects, maintaining that the powers of man are only weakened, not wholly depraved. Their view, accordingly, is that man, being tainted with original corruption, is, in consequence of the weakening of his powers, unable to act aright; but that, being aided by the grace of God, he has something of his own, and from himself, which he is able to contribute.

We, again, though we deny not that man acts spontaneously, and of free will, when he is guided by the Holy Spirit, maintain that his whole nature is so imbued with depravity, that of himself he possesses no ability whatever to act aright. Thus far, therefore, do we dissent from those who oppose our doctrine, that while they neither humble man sufficiently, nor duly estimate the blessing of regeneration, we lay him completely prostrate, that he may become sensible of his utter insufficiency in regard to spiritual righteousness, and learn to seek it, not partially, but wholly, from God. To some not very equitable judges, we seem, perhaps, to carry the matter too far; but there is nothing absurd in our doctrine, or at variance either with scripture or with the general consent of the ancient church. Nay, we are able, without any difficulty, to confirm our doctrine to the very letter out of the mouth of Augustine; and, accordingly, several of those who are otherwise disaffected to our cause, but somewhat sounder in their judgments, do not venture to contradict us on this head. It is certain, as I have already observed, that we differ from others only in this: that by convincing man of his poverty and powerlessness, we train him more effectually to true humility, leading him to renounce all self-confidence, and throw himself entirely upon God; and that, in like manner, we train him more effectually to gratitude, by leading him to ascribe, as in truth he ought, every good thing, which he possesses to the kindness of God. They, on the other hand, intoxicating him with a perverse opinion of his own virtue, precipitate his ruin, inflating him with impious arrogance against God, to whom he ascribes the glory of his justification in no greater degree than to himself. To these errors they add a third: that is, that, in all their discussions concerning the corruption of human nature, they usually stop short at the grosser carnal desires, without touching on deeper-seated and more deadly diseases; and hence it is, that those who are trained in their school easily forgive themselves the foulest sins, as no sins at all, provided they are hid.

The next question relates to the value and merit of works. We both render to good works their due praise, and we deny not that a reward is reserved for them with God; but we take three exceptions, on which the whole of our remaining controversy concerning the work of salvation hinges.

First, we maintain, that of what description soever any man’s works may be, he is regarded as righteous before God simply on the footing of gratuitous mercy; because God, without any respect to works, freely adopts him in Christ, by imputing the righteousness of Christ to him, as if it were his own. This we call the righteousness of faith: that is, when a man, made void and empty of all confidence in works, feels convinced that the only ground of his acceptance with God is a righteousness which is wanting to himself, and is borrowed from Christ.

The point on which the world always goes astray (for this error has prevailed in almost every age) is in imagining that man, however partially defective he may be, still in some degree merits the favor of God by works. But scripture declares, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law to do them” [Gal. 3:10]. Under this curse must necessarily lie all who are judged by works Â¬ none being exempted save those who entirely renounce all confidence in works, and put on Christ, that they may be justified in him, by the gratuitous acceptance of God.

The ground of our justification, therefore, is that God reconciles us to himself, from regard not to our works, but to Christ alone, and, by gratuitous adoption, makes us, instead of children of wrath, to be his own children. So long as God looks to our works, he perceives no reason why he ought to love us. Wherefore, it is necessary to bury our sins, and impute to us the obedience of Christ (because [his is] the only obedience which can stand his scrutiny), and adopt us as righteous through his merits. This is the clear and uniform doctrine of scripture, “witnessed,” as Paul says, “by the law and the prophets” (Rom. 3:21); and so explained by the gospel, that a clearer law cannot be desired. Paul contrasts the righteousness of the law with the righteousness of the gospel, placing the former in works, and the latter in the grace of Christ (Rom. 10:5, etc.). He does not divide it into two halves, giving works the one, and Christ the other; but he ascribes it to Christ entirely, that we are judged righteous in the sight of God.

There are here two questions: first, whether the glory of our salvation is to be divided between ourselves and God: and, secondly, whether, as in the sight of God, our conscience can with safety put any confidence in works. On the former question, Paul’s decision is: let every mouth “be stopped, and the whole world become guilty before God.” “All have sinned, and come short of the glory of Godbeing justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;” and that “to declare his righteousness, that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus” (Rom. 3:19, etc.). We simply follow this definition, while our opponents maintain that man is not justified by the grace of God, in any sense which does not reserve part of the praise for his own works.

On the second question, Paul reasons thus: “If they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect.” Whence he concludes “it is of faith,” “to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed” (Rom. 4:14, 16). And again, “Being justified by faith, we have peace with God” (Rom. 5:1); and no longer dread his presence. And he [Paul] intimates that everyone feels in his own experience, that our consciences cannot but be in perpetual disquietude and fluctuation, so long as we look for protection from works, and that we enjoy serene and placid tranquillity then only, when we have recourse to Christ as the only haven of true confidence. We add nothing to Paul’s doctrine; but that restless dubiety of conscience, which he regards as absurd, is placed by our opponents among the primary axioms of their faith.

The second exception which we take relates to the remission of sins. Our opponents, not being able to deny that men, during their whole lives, walk haltingly, and oftentimes even fall, are obliged, whether they will or not, to confess that all need pardon, in order to supply their want of righteousness. But then they have imaginary satisfactions, by means of which those who have sinned purchase back the favor of God. In this class, they place first contrition, and next works, which they term works of supererogation, and penances, which God inflicts on sinners. But, as they are still sensible that these compensations fall far short of the just measure required, they call in the aid of a new species of satisfaction from another quarter, namely, from the benefit of the keys. And they say that by the keys the treasury of the church is unlocked, and what is wanting to ourselves [is] supplied out of the merits of Christ and the saints.

We, on the contrary, maintain that the sins of men are forgiven freely, and we acknowledge no other satisfaction than that which Christ accomplished, when, by the sacrifice of his death, he expiated our sins. Therefore, we preach that it is the purchase of Christ alone which reconciles us to God, and that no compensations are taken into account, because our heavenly Father, contented with the sole expiation of Christ, requires none from us. In the scriptures we have clear proof of this our doctrine, which, indeed, ought to be called not ours, but rather that of the church catholic. For the only method of regaining the divine favor, set forth by the apostle, is, that “He hath made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. 5:21). And in another passage, where he is speaking of the remission of sins, he declares that through it righteousness without works is imputed to us (Rom. 6:5). We, therefore, strenuously, yet truly, maintain that their idea of meriting reconciliation with God by satisfactions, and buying off the penalties due to his justice, is execrable blasphemy, inasmuch as it destroys the doctrine which Isaiah delivers concerning Christ Â¬ that “the chastisement of our peace was upon him” (Isaiah 53:5).

The absurd fiction concerning works of supererogation we discard for many reasons; but there are two of more than sufficient weight Â¬ the one, that it is impossible to tolerate the idea of man being able to perform to God more than he ought; and the other, that as by the term supererogation, they for the most part understand voluntary acts of worship which their own brain has devised, and which they obtrude upon God, it is lost labor and pains, so far are such acts from having any title to be regarded as expiations which appease the divine anger. Moreover, that mixing up of the blood of Christ with the blood of martyrs, and forming out of them a heterogeneous mass of merits or satisfactions, to buy off the punishments due to sin, are things which we have not tolerated, and which we ought not to tolerate. For, as Augustine says ( Tract. in Joan. 84), “No martyr’s blood has been shed for the remission of sins. This was the work of Christ alone, and in this work he has bestowed not a thing which we should imitate, but one we should gratefully receive.” With Augustine, Leo admirably accords, when he thus writes (Ep. 81, item, 97), “Though precious in the sight of God has been the death of his many saints, yet no innocent man’s slaughter was the propitiation of the world; the just received crowns, did not give them, and the constancy of the faithful has furnished examples of patience, not gifts of righteousness.”

Our third and last exception relates to the recompense of works Â¬ we maintaining that it depends not on their own value or merit, but rather on the mere benignity of God. Our opponents, indeed, admit that there is no proportion between the merit of the work and its reward; but they do not attend to what is of primary moment in the matter: that is, that the good works of believers are never so pure as that they can please without pardon. They consider not, I say, that they are always sprinkled with some spots or blemishes, because they never proceed from that pure and perfect love of God which is demanded by the law. Our doctrine, therefore, is that the good works of believers are always devoid of a spotless purity which can stand the inspection of God; nay, that when they are tried by the strict rule of justice, they are, to a certain extent, impure. But, when once God has graciously adopted believers, he not only accepts and loves their persons, but their works also, and condescends to honor them with a reward.

In one word, as we said of man, so we may say of works: they are justified not by their own desert, but by the merits of Christ alone; the faults by which they would otherwise displease being covered by the sacrifice of Christ. This consideration is of very great practical importance, both in retaining men in the fear of God, that they may not arrogate to their works that which proceeds from his fatherly kindness; and also in inspiring them with the best consolation, and so preventing them from giving way to despondency, when they reflect on the imperfection or impurity of their works, by reminding them that God, of his paternal indulgence, is pleased to pardon it.

Having considered the two principal heads of doctrine, we come now to the sacraments, in which we have not made any correction which we are unable to defend by sure and approved authority. Whereas seven sacraments were supposed to have been instituted by Christ, we have discarded five of the number, and have demonstrated them to be ceremonies of man’s devising, with the exception of marriage, which we acknowledge to have been indeed commanded by God, but not in order that it might be a sacrament. Nor is it a dispute about nothing when we separate rites thus superadded on the part of men (though, in other respects, they should be neither wicked nor useless) from those symbols which Christ with his own lips committed to us, and was pleased to make the testimonials of spiritual gifts Â¬ gifts to which, as they are not in the power of man, men have no right to testify. It is assuredly no vulgar matter to seal upon our hearts the sacred favor of God, to offer Christ, and give a visible representation of the blessings which we enjoy in him. This being the office of the sacraments, not to discriminate between them and rites originating with man, is to confound heaven with earth. Here, indeed, a twofold error had prevailed. Making no distinction between things human and divine, they derogated exceedingly from the sacred word of God, on which the whole power of the sacraments depends, while they also falsely imagined Christ to be the author of rites which had no higher than a human origin.

From baptism, in like manner, have we rescinded many additions which were partly useless, and partly, from their superstitious tendency, noxious. We know the form of baptism which the apostles received from Christ, which they observed during their lifetime, and which they finally left to posterity. But the simplicity which had been approved by the authority of Christ, and the practice of the apostles, did not satisfy succeeding ages. I am not at present discussing whether those persons were influenced by sound reasons, who afterwards added chrism, salt, spittle, and tapers. I only say, what everyone must know, that to such a height had superstition or folly risen, that more value was set on these additions than on the genuineness of baptism itself.

We have studied also to banish the preposterous confidence which stopped short at the external act, and paid not the least regard to Christ. For, as well in the schools as in sermons, they so extolled the efficacy of signs, that, instead of directing men to Christ, they taught them to confide in the visible elements. Lastly, we have brought into our churches the ancient custom of accompanying the administration of the sacraments with an explanation of the doctrine contained in it, and at the same time expounding with all diligence and fidelity both their advantages and their legitimate use; so that, in this respect, even our opponents cannot find any ground of censure. But nothing is more alien to the nature of a sacrament than to set before the people an empty spectacle, unaccompanied with explanation of the mystery. There is a well known passage quoted by Gratian out of Augustine: “If the word is wanting, the water is nothing but an element.” What he means by word he immediately explains when he says, “that is, the word of faith which we preach.” Our opponents, therefore, ought not to think it a novelty when we disapprove of mere exhibition of the mystery. For this is a sacrilegious divorce, which reverses the order instituted by Christ. Another additional fault in the mode of administration, commonly used elsewhere, is that the thing which they consider as a religious act is not understood, just as is the case in the performance of magical incantations.

I have already observed that the other sacrament of the Christian church, the holy supper of our Lord, was not only corrupted, but nearly abolished. Wherefore it was the more necessary for us to labor in restoring its purity. First, it was necessary to eradicate from the minds of men that impious fiction of sacrifice, the source of many absurdities. For, besides the introduction of a rite of oblation in opposition to the express institution of Christ, there had been added a most pestilential opinion, that this act of oblation was an expiation for sin. Thus, the dignity of the priesthood, which belonged exclusively to Christ, had been transferred to mortal men, and the virtue of his death to their own act. Thus, also, it had come to be applied in behalf of the living and the dead.

We have, therefore, abrogated that fictitious immolation and restored communion, which had been in a very great measure obsolete. For, provided men went once a year to the Lord’s table, they thought it enough, for all the remainder of that period, to be spectators of what was done by the priest, under the pretext, indeed, of administering the Lord’s supper, but without any vestige of the supper in it. For what are the words of the Lord? “Take,” says he, “and distribute among yourselves.” But in the mass, instead of taking, there is a pretence of offering, while there is no distribution, and even no invitation. The priest, like a member cut off from the rest of the body, prepares it for himself alone. How immense the difference between the things! We have, besides, restored to the people the use of the cup, which, though it was not only permitted, but committed to them by our Lord, was taken from them (it could only be) at the suggestion of Satan. Of ceremonies, there are numbers which we have discarded, partly because they had multiplied out of measure, partly because some savored too much of Judaism, and others, the inventions of ignorant men, ill accorded with the gravity of so high a mystery. But, granting that there was no other evil in them than that they had crept in through oversight, was it not a sufficient ground for their abolition that we saw the vulgar gazing upon them in stupid amazement?

In condemning the fiction of transubstantiation, and likewise the custom of keeping and carrying about the bread, we were impelled by a stronger necessity. First, it is repugnant to the plain words of Christ; and, secondly, it is abhorrent to the very nature of a sacrament. For there is no sacrament where there is no visible symbol to correspond to the spiritual truth which it represents. And with regard to the supper, what Paul says is clear: “We being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread” (1 Cor. 10:17). Where is the analogy or similitude of a visible sign in the supper to correspond to the body and blood of our Lord, if it is neither bread that we eat, nor wine that we drink, but only some empty phantom that mocks the eye? Add that to this fiction a worse superstition perpetually adheres: that is, that men cling to that bread as if to God, and worship it as God, in the manner in which we have seen it done. While the sacrament ought to have been a means of raising pious minds to heaven, the sacred symbols of the supper were abused to an entirely different purpose, and men, contented with gazing upon them and worshipping them, never once thought of Christ.

The carrying about of the bread in solemn state, or setting it on an elevated spot to be adored, are corruptions altogether inconsistent with the institution of Christ. For in the supper the Lord sets before us his body and blood, but it is in order that we may eat and drink. Accordingly, he, in the first place, gives the command, by which he bids us take, eat, and drink; and then he, in the next place, subjoins and annexes the promise, in which he testifies, that what we eat is his body, and what we drink is his blood. Those, therefore, who either keep the bread set apart, or who carry it about to be worshipped, seeing they separate the promise from the command Â¬ in other words, sever an indissoluble tie Â¬ imagine, indeed, that they have the body of Christ, whereas, in fact, they have nothing but an idol which they have devised for themselves. For this promise of Christ, by which he offers his own body and blood under the symbols of bread and wine, belongs to those only who receive them at his hand, to celebrate the mystery in the manner which he enjoins; while to those who at their own hand pervert them to a different purpose, and so have not the promise, there remains nothing but their own dream.

Lastly, we have revived the practice of explaining the doctrine and unfolding the mystery to the people; whereas, formerly, the priest not only used a strange tongue, but muttered in a whisper the words by which he pretended to consecrate the bread and wine. Here our censurers have nothing to carp at, unless it be at our having simply followed the command of Christ. For he did not by a tacit exorcism command the bread to become his body, but with clear voice declared to his apostles that he gave them his body.

At the same time, as in the case of baptism, so also in the case of the Lord’s supper, we explain to the people faithfully, and as carefully as we can, its end, efficacy, advantages, and use. First, we exhort all to come with faith, that by means of it they may inwardly discern the thing which is visibly represented: that is, the spiritual food by which alone their souls are nourished unto life eternal. We hold, that in this ordinance the Lord does not promise or figure by signs anything which he does not exhibit in reality; and we, therefore, preach that the body and blood of Christ are both offered to us by the Lord in the supper, and received by us. Nor do we thus teach that the bread and wine are symbols, without immediately adding that there is a truth which is conjoined with them, and which they represent. We are not silent in proclaiming what, and how excellent, the fruit is which thence redounds to us, and how noble the pledge of life and salvation which our consciences therein receive. None, indeed, who have any candor will deny, that with us this solemn ordinance is much more clearly explained, and its dignity more fully extolled, than is ever done elsewhere.

In the government of the church we do not differ from others in anything for which we cannot give a most sufficient reason. The pastoral office we have restored, both according to the apostolic rule, and the practice of the primitive church, by insisting that everyone who rules in the church shall also teach. We hold that none are to be continued in the office but those who are diligent in performing its duties. In selecting them our advice has been, that more care and religion should be exercised, and we have ourselves studied so to act. It is well known what kind of examination bishops exercise by means of their suffragans or vicars, and we might even be able to conjecture what its nature is from the fruit which it produces. It is needless to observe how many lazy and good-for-nothing persons they everywhere promote to the honor of the priesthood. Among us, should some ministers be found of no great learning, still none is admitted who is not at least tolerably apt to teach. That all are not more perfect is to be imputed more to the calamity of the times than to us. This, however, is, and always will be, our just boast, that the ministers of our church cannot seem to have been carelessly chosen if they are compared with others. But while we are superior in a considerable degree in the matter of trial and election, in this we particularly excel, that no man holds the pastoral office amongst us without executing its duties. Accordingly, none of our churches is seen without the ordinary preaching of the word.

As it would shame our adversaries to deny these facts (for in a matter so clear, what could they gain by the denial?), they quarrel with us, first, concerning the right and power, and, secondly, concerning the form of ordination. They quote ancient canons, which give the superintendency of this matter to the bishops and clergy. They allege a constant succession by which this right has been handed down to them, even from the apostles themselves. They deny that it can be lawfully transferred elsewhere. I wish they had, by their merit, retained a title to this boasted possession. But if we consider, first, the order in which for several ages bishops have been advanced to this dignity; next, the manner in which they conduct themselves in it; and, lastly, the kind of persons whom they are accustomed to ordain, and to whom they commit the government of churches; we shall see that this succession on which they pride themselves was long ago interrupted.

The ancient canons require that he who is to be admitted to the office of bishop or presbyter shall previously undergo a strict examination, both as to life and doctrine. Clear evidence of this is extant among the acts of the fourth African Council. Moreover, the magistracy and people had a discretionary power (arbitrium) of approving or refusing the individual who was nominated by the clergy, in order that no man might be intruded on the unwilling or not consenting. “Let him who is to preside over all,” says Leo (Ep. 90), “be elected by all; for he who is appointed, while unknown and unexamined, must of necessity be violently intruded.” Again (Ep. 87), “Let regard be had to the attestation of the honorable, the subscription of the clergy, and the consent of the magistracy and people. Reason permits not any other mode of procedure.” Cyprian also contends for the very same thing, and, indeed, in stronger terms, affirming it as sanctioned by divine authority, that the priest be elected in presence of the people, before the eyes of all, that he may be approved as fit and worthy by the testimony of all. This rule was in force for a short time while the state of the church was tolerable; for the letters of Gregory are full of passages which show that it was carefully observed in his day.

As the Holy Spirit in scripture imposes on all bishops the necessity of teaching, so in the ancient church it would have been thought monstrous to nominate a bishop who should not, by teaching, demonstrate that he was a pastor also. Nor were they admitted to the office on any other condition. The same rule prevailed in regard to presbyters, each being set apart to a particular parish. Hence those decrees, “Let them not involve themselves in secular affairs, let them not make distant excursions from their churches, let them not be long absent.” Then it was enjoined by synodal decrees, that at the ordination of a bishop all the other bishops of the province should assemble, or if that could not be conveniently done, at least three should be present. And the object of this was, that no man might force an entrance by tumult, or creep in by stealth, or insinuate himself by indirect artifices. In the ordination of a presbyter, each bishop admitted a council of his own presbyters. These things, which might be narrated more fully, and confirmed more accurately in a set discourse, I here only mention in passing, because they afford an easy means of judging how much importance is due to this smoke of succession with which our bishops endeavor to blind us.

They maintain that Christ left as a heritage to the apostles, the sole right of appointing over churches whomsoever they pleased; and they complain that we, in exercising the ministry without their authority, have, with sacrilegious temerity, invaded their province. How do they prove it? Because they have succeeded the apostles in an unbroken series. But is this enough, when all other things are different? It would be ridiculous to say so; they do say it, however. In their elections, no account is taken either of life or doctrine. The right of voting has been wrested from the people. Nay, even excluding the rest of the clergy, the dignitaries have drawn the whole power to themselves. The Roman pontiff, again, wresting it from the provincial bishop, arrogates it to himself alone. Then, as if they had been appointed to secular dominion, there is nothing they less think of than episcopal duty. In short, while they seem to have entered into a conspiracy not to have any kind of resemblance either to the apostles; or the holy fathers of the church, they merely clothe themselves with the pretence that they are descended from them in an unbroken succession; as if Christ had ever enacted it into a law, that whatever might be the conduct of those who presided over the church, they should be recognized as holding the place of the apostles, or as if the office were some hereditary possession, which transmits alike to the worthy and the unworthy. And then, as is said of the Milesians, they have taken precautions not to admit a single worthy person into their society; or if, perchance, they have unawares admitted him, they do not permit him to remain. It is of the generality I speak. For I deny not that there are a few good men among them, who, however, are either silent from fear, or not listened to. From those, then, who persecute the doctrine of Christ with fire and sword, who permit no man with impunity to speak sincerely of Christ; who, in every possible way, impede the course of truth; who strenuously resist our attempt to raise the church from the distressed condition into which they have brought her; who suspect all those who take a deep and pious interest in the welfare of the church, and either keep them out of the ministry, or, if they have been admitted, thrust them out Â¬ of such persons, forsooth, it were to be expected that they would, with their own hands, install into the office faithful ministers to instruct the people in pure religion!

But, since the sentiment of Gregory has passed into a common proverb, that “those who abuse privilege deserve to lose privilege,” they must either become entirely different from what they are, and select a different sort of persons to govern the church, and adopt a different method of election, or they must cease to complain that they are improperly and injuriously despoiled of what in justice belonged to them. Or, if they would have me to speak more plainly, they must obtain their bishoprics by different means from those by which they have obtained them; they must ordain others to the office after a different way and manner; and if they wish to be recognized as bishops, they must fulfill their duty by feeding the people. If they would retain the power of nominating and ordaining, let them restore that just and serious examination of life and doctrine, which has for many ages been obsolete among them. But this one reason ought to be as good as a thousand, that is, that any man, who, by his conduct, shows that he is an enemy of sound doctrine, whatever title he may meanwhile boast, has lost all title to authority in the church. We know what injunctions ancient councils give concerning heretics, and what power they leave them. They certainly in express terms forbid any man to apply to them for ordination. No one, therefore, can lay claim to the right of ordaining, who does not, by purity of doctrine, preserve the unity of the church.

Now, we maintain that those who, in the present day, under the name of bishops, preside over churches, not only are not faithful ministers and guardians of sound doctrine, but rather its bitterest enemies. We maintain that their sole aim is to banish Christ and the truth of his gospel, and sanction idolatry and impiety the most pernicious and deadly errors. We maintain that they, not only in word, pertinaciously impugn the true doctrine of godliness, but are infuriated against all who would rescue it from obscurity. Against the many impediments which they throw in the way, we studiously ply our labors in behalf of the church, and for so doing, they expostulate with us as if we were making an illegal incursion into their province!

As to the form or ceremony of ordination, it is, forsooth, a mighty matter about which to molest us. Because with us the hands of priests are not anointed, because we do not blow into their face, because we do not clothe them in white and suchlike attire, they think our ordination is not duly performed. But the only ceremony we read of, as used in ancient times, was the laying on of hands. Those other forms are recent, and have nought to recommend them but the exceeding scrupulosity with which they are now generally observed. But what is this to the point? In matters so important, a higher than human authority is required. Hence, as often as the circumstances of the times demand, we are at liberty to change such rites as men have invented without express sanction, while those of more recent introduction are still less to be regarded. They put a chalice and paten into the hands of those whom they ordain to be priests. Why? That they may inaugurate them for sacrificing. But by what command? Christ never conferred this function on the apostles, nor did he ever wish it to be undertaken by their successors. It is absurd, therefore to molest us about the form of ordination, in which we differ not either from the rule of Christ, or the practice of the apostles, or the custom of the ancient church, whereas that form of theirs, which they accuse us of neglecting, they are not able to defend by the word of God, by sound reason, or the pretext of antiquity.

On the subject of ecclesiastical regimen, there are laws of which we readily adopt such as are not snares for the conscience, or such as tend to the preservation of common order; but those which had either been tyrannically imposed to hold consciences in bondage, or were more subservient to superstition than to edification, we were forced to abrogate. Now, our enemies first charge us with fastidiousness and undue haste; and, secondly, accuse us of aiming at carnal indulgence, by shaking off the yoke of discipline, in order that we may wanton as we please. But, as I have already observed, we are by no means averse to the reverent observance of whatever rules are fitted to ensure that all things be done decently and in order, while, in regard to every single observance which we have abrogated, we refuse not to show cause why it behooved us so to do. Assuredly there is no difficulty in proving that the church labored exceedingly under a load of human traditions, and that it was necessary, if her interest were consulted, that this load should be lessened.

There is a well known complaint by Augustine, wherein he deplores it as the calamity of his time, that the church which God, in his mercy, wished to be free, was even then so overburdened, that the condition of the Jews was more tolerable (Epist. 2, ad Januarium). It is probable that since that period the number has increased almost tenfold. Much more has the rigorous exaction of them increased. What then, if that holy man were now to rise and behold the countless multitude of laws under which miserable consciences groan oppressed? What if, on the other hand, he were to see the strictness with which the observance of them is enforced?

Our censurers will, perhaps, object that we might, with Augustine, have lamented over anything which displeased us, but that we ought not to have applied our hand to the work of correction. This objection is easily refuted. For, this pernicious error of supposing that human laws were necessary to be observed, required to be corrected. As I have said, we deny not that laws enacted with a view to external policy ought to be carefully obeyed, but in regard to the regulation of the conscience, we hold that there is no legislator but God. To him alone, then, be reserved this authority, which he claims for himself in many passages of scripture. In this matter, however, were subverted, first, the honor of God, from which it is impious to derogate in any degree; and, secondly, genuine liberty of conscience Â¬ a liberty which, as Paul strenuously insists, must not be subjected to the will of men. As it was, therefore, our duty to deliver the consciences of the faithful from the undue bondage in which they were held, so we have taught that they are free and unfettered by human laws, and that this freedom, which was purchased by the blood of Christ, cannot be infringed. If anyone thinks we are blameable in this, he must attribute the same blame to Christ and his apostles.

I do not yet enumerate the other evils which compelled us to set our face against human traditions. I will mention only two, and I am confident that, after I have mentioned them, all impartial readers will be satisfied. The one is, that as some of these traditions demanded things which it was impossible to perform, their only effect was to lead men to hypocrisy, or plunge them into despair; and the other, that all of them had practically realized what our Savior rebuked in the Pharisees Â¬ they had made the commandments of God of none effect. I will here adduce examples by which this will be made more clear.

There are three things, in particular, for which they are offended with us: First, that we have given liberty to eat flesh on any day; secondly, that we have permitted marriage to priests; and, thirdly, that we have rejected the secret confession which was made in a priest’s ear.

Let our opponents answer honestly. Is not the man who may have tasted flesh on Friday punished more severely than the man who may have spent the whole year in a constant course of lewdness? Is it not deemed a more capital offense in a priest to marry than to be caught a hundred times in adultery? Do they not pardon him who has contemned many of the divine precepts on easier terms than him who may have neglected once a year to confess his sins into the ear of a priest? Is it not monstrous, I ask, that it should seem a slight and venial offence to violate the holy law of God, and that it should be judged an inexpiable crime to transgress the decrees of men?

The case, I admit, is not without precedent. For, as I have already observed, the wickedness with which our Saviour charges the Pharisees is, “Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect through your tradition” (Matt. 15:6). Moreover, the arrogance of Antichrist, of which Paul speaks, is, “That he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (2 Thess. 2:4). For where is the incomparable majesty of God, after mortal man has been exalted to such a height that his laws take precedence of God’s eternal decrees? I omit that an apostle describes the prohibitions of meats and of marriage as a doctrine of devils (1 Tim. 4:1-3). That is surely bad enough; but the crowning impiety is to set man in a higher rank than God. If they deny the truth of my statement, I appeal to fact.

Then, what are those two laws of celibacy and auricular confession but dire murderers of souls? As all the ministry of their churches vow perpetual chastity, it becomes unlawful for them, ever after, from the terms in which the vow is conceived, to take wives. What, then, if one has not received the gift of continence? “There must be no exception here,” is the answer. But experience shows how much better it would have been never to have imposed this yoke upon priests, than to shut them up in a furnace of lust, to burn with a perpetual flame. Our adversaries recount the praises of virginity; they recount also the advantages of celibacy, in order to prove that priests have not been rashly interdicted from marrying. They even talk of it as decent and honorable. But will they by all these things prove the lawfulness of fettering consciences which Christ not only left free and unfettered, but whose freedom he has vindicated by his own authority, and at the price of his own blood? Paul does not presume to do so (1 Cor. 7:35). Whence, then, this new license? Then, though virginity be extolled to the skies, what has this to do with the celibacy of priests, with whose obscenity the whole air is tainted? If the chastity which they profess in word they also exhibited in deed, then, perhaps, I might allow them to say that it is comely so to do. But when every man knows that the prohibition of marriage is only a licence to priests to commit gross sin, with what face, I ask, dare they make any mention of comeliness? As to those whose infamy is not notorious, that it may not be necessary for me to discuss the matter with them at length, I leave them to the tribunal of God, that they may there talk of their chastity.

It will be said that this law is imposed on none but those who vow spontaneously. But what greater necessity can be imagined than that by which they are forced to vow? The condition announced to all is, that none shall be admitted to the priesthood who has not previously, by vow, bound himself to perpetual celibacy; and that he who has vowed must be forced, even against his will, to perform what he has once undertaken Â¬ that no excuse for the contrary can be listened to. Still, they maintain that a celibacy so exacted is voluntary. But, while rhetoricians may be allowed to detail the disadvantages of marriage, and the advantages of celibacy, that, by declaiming on such topics in the schools they may improve their style, nothing they can say will prove the propriety of leading miserable consciences into a deadly snare, in which they must perpetually writhe till they are strangled. And the ridiculous part is that, amidst all this flagitious turpitude, even hypocrisy finds a place. For, whatever their conduct may be, they deem themselves better than others, for the simple reason that they have no wives.

The case is the same with confession. For they number up the advantages which follow from it. We, on the contrary, are equally prepared to point out not a few dangers which are justly to be dreaded, and to refer to numerous most grievous evils which have actually flowed from it. These, I say, are the kind of arguments which both parties may employ. But the perpetual rule of Christ, which cannot be changed or bent in this direction or in that Â¬ nay, which cannot, without impiety, be controverted Â¬ is, that conscience must not be brought into bondage. Besides, the law on which our opponents insist is one which can only torture souls, and ultimately destroy them. For it requires every individual to confess all his sins, once a year, to his own priest; when this is not done, it leaves him no hope of obtaining pardon. It has been experimentally found by those who have made the trial seriously: that is, in the true fear of God Â¬ that it is not possible thus to confess even a hundredth part of our sins. The consequence was, that not having any mode of extricating themselves, they were driven to despair. Those, again, who desired to satisfy God in a more careless manner, found this confession a most complete cloak for hypocrisy. For, thinking that they obtained an acquittal at the bar of God as soon as they had disgorged their sins into the ear of a priest, they were bold to sin more freely, in consequence of the expeditious mode in which they were disburdened. Then, having in their minds a fixed persuasion that they fulfillled what the law enjoined, they thought that of whatever sort the enumeration might be, it comprehended all their sins, though, in point of fact, it did not embrace the thousandth part. See, then, on what ground our adversaries vociferate that we have destroyed the discipline of the church Â¬ simply because we have studied to succor miserable consciences when perishing under the pressure of a most cruel tyranny, and dragging hypocrites out of their lurking-places into open day, that they might both examine themselves more closely, and begin to have a better idea of the divine justice which they formerly evaded.

But someone will say, that however numerous the abuses, and however deserving of correction, still laws, in other respects sacred and useful, and in a manner consecrated by a high antiquity, ought not to have been thus abolished instantly and altogether.

In regard to the eating of flesh, my simple answer is, that the doctrine we hold accords with that of the ancient church, in which we know that it was free to eat flesh at all times, or to abstain from it.

The prohibition of the marriage of priests I admit to be ancient, as is also the vow of perpetual continence, taken by nuns and monks. But if they concede that the declared will of God outweighs human custom, why, when perfectly aware that the will of God is with us, and clearly supports our view, do they seek to quarrel with us about antiquity? The doctrine is clear, “Marriage is honorable in all” (Heb. 13:4). Paul expressly speaks of bishops as husbands (1 Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1:6). As a general rule, he enjoins marriage on all of a particular temperament, and classes the interdiction of marriage among the “doctrines of devils” (1 Tim. 4:3). What avails it to set human custom in opposition to the clear declarations of the Holy Spirit, unless men are to be preferred to God?

And it is of importance to observe how unfair judges they are, who, in this matter, allege against us the practice of the ancient church. Is there any antiquity of the church, either earlier, or of higher authority, than the days of the apostles? But our opponents will not deny, that at that time marriage was permitted to all the ministers of the church, and used by them. If the apostles were of opinion that priests ought to be restrained from marrying, why did they defraud the church of so great a boon?

Yet, after them, about two hundred and fifty years elapsed, until the Council of Nicea, when, as Sozomen relates, the question of enjoining celibacy on ministers was agitated, but by the interference of Paphnutius, the whole affair went off. For it is related, that after he, being himself a bachelor, had declared that a law of celibacy was not to be tolerated, the whole council readily assented to this opinion. But superstition gradually increasing, the law, which was then repudiated, was at length enacted. Among those canons, which, as well from their antiquity, as the uncertainty of their author, bear the name of apostolical, there is one which does not permit any clerical persons, except singers and readers, to marry, after they have been admitted to office. But by a previous canon, priests and deacons are prohibited from putting away their wives under the pretext of religion. And in the fourth canon of the Council of Gangra, anathema is pronounced against those who made a difference between a married and an unmarried clergyman, so as to absent themselves when he officiated. Hence it appears that there was still in those times considerably more equity than a subsequent age manifested.

Here, however, it was not my intention to discuss this subject fully. I only thought it proper to indicate in passing, that the primitive and purer church is not in this matter so adverse to us as our enemies pretend. But grant that it is, why do they accuse us as fiercely as if we were confounding things sacred and profane, or as if we could not easily retort against them, that we accord far better with the ancient church than they do? Marriage, which the ancients denied to priests, we allow! What do they say to the licentiousness which has everywhere obtained among them? They will deny that they approve it. But if they were desirous to obey the ancient canons, it would become them to chastise it more severely. The punishment which the Council of Neo-Cesarea inflicts on a presbyter who married was deposition, while one guilty of adultery or fornication it punishes far more severely, adding to deposition excommunication also. In the present day, the marriage of a priest is deemed a capital crime, while for his hundred acts of whoredom he is mulcted [fined] in a small sum of money. Doubtless, if those who first passed the law of celibacy were now alive, instructed by present experience, they would be the first to abrogate it. However, as I have already said, it would be the height of injustice to condemn us on the authority of men, in a matter in which we are openly acquitted by the voice of God.

With regard to confession, we have a briefer and readier defense. Our opponents cannot show that the necessity of confessing was imposed earlier than Innocent iii. For twelve hundred years this tyranny, for which they contend with us so keenly, was unknown to the Christian world. But there is a decree of the Lateran Council! True! but of the same description as many others. Those who have any tolerable knowledge of history are aware of the equal ignorance and ferocity of those times. This, indeed, is in accordance with the common observation, that the most ignorant governors are always the most imperious. But all pious souls will bear me witness, in what a maze those must be entangled who think themselves obliged by that law.

To this cruel torturing of consciences has been added the blasphemous presumption of making it essential to the remission of sin. For they pretend that none obtain pardon from God but those who are disposed to confess. What is this, pray, but for men to prescribe at their own hand the mode in which a sinner is reconciled to God Â¬ God offering pardon simply, while they withhold it until a condition which they have added shall have been fulfilled? On the other hand, the people were possessed with this most pernicious superstition: that is, that as soon as they had disburdened themselves of their sins, by pouring them into the ear of a priest, they were completely freed from guilt. This opinion many abused to a more unrestrained indulgence in sin, while even those who were more influenced by the fear of God paid greater regard to the priest than to Christ. That public and solemn acknowledgment (exomologesis, as Cyprian calls it), which penitents were anciently obliged to make when they were to be reconciled to the church, there is no sane man who does not commend and willingly adopt, provided it be not stretched to some other end than that for which it was instituted.

In short, we have no controversy in this matter with the ancient church; we only wish, as we ought, to rid the necks of believers of a modern tyranny of recent date. Besides, when any person, in order to obtain consolation and counsel, visits his minister in private, and familiarly deposits in his breast the causes of his anxiety, we by no means object, provided it is done freely, and not of constraint. Let every man, I say, be left at liberty to do in this matter what he feels to be expedient for himself; let no man’s conscience be tied down by fixed laws.

I hope your imperial majesty, and you, most illustrious princes, will be satisfied with this apology. It is certainly just.

3: Reformation Required Without Delay

But how deservedly soever we complain that the doctrine of truth was corrupted, and the whole body of Christianity sullied by numerous blemishes, still our censurers deny that this was cause sufficient for so disturbing the church, and, in a manner, convulsing the whole world.

We, indeed, are not so stupid as not to perceive how desirable it is to avoid public tumults, nor so savage as not to be touched, and even to shudder in our inmost soul, on beholding the troubled condition in which the church now is. But with what fairness is the blame of existing commotions imputed to us, when they have not been, in the least degree, excited by us? Nay, with what face is the crime of disturbing the church laid to our charge by the very persons who obviously are the authors of all these disturbances? This is just the case of the wolves complaining of the lambs.

When Luther at first appeared, he merely touched, with a gentle hand, a few abuses of the grossest description, now grown intolerable. And he did it with a modesty which intimated that he had more desire to see them corrected, than determination to correct them himself. The opposite party forthwith sounded to arms; and when the contention was more and more inflamed, our enemies deemed it the best and shortest method to suppress the truth by cruelty and violence. Accordingly, when our people challenged them to friendly discussion, and desired to settle disputes by calm arguments, they were cruelly persecuted with sanguinary edicts, until matters have been brought to the present miserable pass.

Nor is this calumny against us without precedent. With the very same charge which we are now forced to hear, wicked Ahab once upbraided Elijah: that is, that he was the disturber of Israel. But the holy prophet by his reply acquitted us. “I,” says he, “have not troubled Israel, but thou and thy father’s house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and thou hast followed Baalim,” (1 Kings 18:17-18). It is unfair, therefore, to load us with odium, on account of the fierce contest concerning religion which this day rages in Christendom, unless, indeed, it be thought proper first to condemn Elijah, with whom we have a common defense. His sole excuse is, that he had fought only to vindicate the glory and restore the pure worship of God, and he retorts the charge of exciting contention and disturbances upon those who stirred up tumults as a means of resisting the truth.

And what is it that we have done hitherto, and what do we even now, but strive that the one God may be worshipped amongst us, and that his simple truth may reign in the church? If our adversaries deny this, let them, at least, convict us of impious doctrine before they charge it upon us, as a fault, that we dissent from others. For what were we to do? The only terms on which we could purchase peace were to betray the truth of God by silence. Though, indeed, it would not have been enough to be silent, unless we had also, by tacit consent, approved of impious doctrine, of open blasphemies against God, and the most degrading superstitions. What else, then, at the very least, could we do, than testify with a clear voice that we had no fellowship with impiety? We have, therefore, simply studied to do what was our duty. That matters have blazed forth into hostile strife is an evil, the blame of which must rest with those who chose to confound heaven and earth, rather than give a place to pious and sound doctrine Â¬ their object being, by whatever means, to keep possession of the tyranny which they had usurped.

It ought to be sufficient, and more than sufficient, for our defense, that the sacred truth of God, in asserting which we sustain so many contests, is on our side, whereas our adversaries, in contending with us, war not so much against us as God himself. Then it is not of our own accord that we engage in this fervor of contention. It is their intemperance which has dragged us into it against our expectation. Let the result, then, have been what it may, there is no reason why we should be loaded with hatred. For as it is not ours to govern events, neither is it ours to prevent them. But there is an ancient practice which the wicked have resorted to in all ages: that is, to take occasion from the preaching of the gospel to excite tumult, and then to defame the gospel as the cause of dissension Â¬ dissension which, even in the absence of opportunity, they wickedly and eagerly court. And, as in the primitive church, the prophecy behooved to be fulfillled, that Christ should be to his own countrymen a stone of stumbling and rock of offense, so it is not surprising if the same thing holds true in our time also. It may well indeed be thought strange for the builders to reject the stone which ought to occupy the principal place in the foundation, but as this happened at the beginning, in the case of Christ, let it not surprise us that it is also a common event in the present day.

Here I entreat your imperial majesty, and you, most illustrious princes, that as oft as this unhappy rending of the church, and the other countless evils which have sprung from dissension, either occur to your own thoughts, or are suggested by others, you would, at the same time, call to mind, that Christ has been set up as a sign to be spoken against, and that his gospel, wherever it is preached, instantly inflames the rage and resistance of the wicked. Then, from conflict a shock must necessarily ensue. Hence the uniform fate of the gospel, from its first commencement, has been, and always will be, even unto the end, to be preached in the world amid great contention. But it is the part of the prudent to consider from what source the evil springs. Whoever does this will readily free us from all blame. It certainly behooved us to bear testimony to the truth, as we have done. Woe to the world if it chooses to challenge Christ to combat, rather than embrace the peace which he offers! The man who will not bear to be corrected will undoubtedly be crushed by him.

But here again it is objected, that all the corruptions of the church are not to be corrected by such harsh remedies Â¬ that they are not to be cut into the quick Â¬ that not even is medicine to be applied to all, but some are to be treated gently, and others submitted to, if they cannot without difficulty be removed. I answer, that we are not so unacquainted with ordinary life as not to know that the church always has been, and always will be, liable to some defects which the pious are indeed bound to disapprove, but which are to be borne rather than be made a cause of fierce contention. But our adversaries are unjust when they accuse us of being excessively morose, as if we had brought the church into trouble on account of small and trivial errors. For to their other misrepresentations they add this one also, of endeavoring, by every artifice in their power, to extenuate the importance of the things which we have made the subject of controversy; the object being to make it seem that we have been hurried on by a love of quarrelling, and not that we were drawn into it by a just cause. This they do, not in ignorance, but with cunning design, namely, because they know that there is nothing more odious than the rash haste which they impute to us. And yet they, at the same time, betray their own impiety in speaking so contemptuously of matters of the greatest moment. And is it indeed so, that when we complain that the worship of God was profaned; that his honor was utterly impaired; that the doctrine of salvation was entangled with numerous destructive errors; that the virtue of Christ’s death was suppressed; and that, in short, all things sacred were sacrilegiously polluted; is it indeed so, that we are to be derided and charged with the folly of disturbing ourselves and the whole world besides, to no purpose, with disputes about insignificant questions?

But as a cursory glance at these things is not sufficient, it will now be necessary more diligently to explain to you the dignity and importance of the points in dispute, so as to make it manifest, not only that they were not unworthy of notice, but that we could not possibly overlook them without involving ourselves in the greatest guilt, and becoming chargeable with impious perfidy towards God. This is the third of the three heads, of which at the outset I proposed to treat.

First, then, I wish to know, with what face they can call themselves Christians, when they charge us with rashly disturbing the church with disputes about matters of no importance. For, if they set as much value on our religion as the ancient idolaters did on their superstitions, they would not speak so contemptuously of zeal for its preservation, but, in imitation of idolaters, would give it the precedence of all other cares and business. For, when idolaters spoke of fighting for their altars and their hearths, they alleged what they believed to be the best and strongest of all causes.

Our opponents, on the contrary, regard as almost superfluous a contest which is undertaken for the glory of God and the salvation of men. For it is not true, as has been alleged that we dispute about a worthless shadow. The whole substance of the Christian religion is brought into question. Were nothing else involved, is the eternal and inviolable truth of God Â¬ that truth to which he rendered so many illustrious testimonies, in confirming which so many holy prophets and so many martyrs met their death, truth heralded and witnessed by the Son of God himself, and ultimately sealed with his blood Â¬ is that truth of so little value, that it may be trampled under foot, while we look on and are silent?

But I descend to particulars. We know how execrable a thing idolatry is in the sight of God, and history abounds with narratives of the dreadful punishments with which he visited it, both in the Israelitish people and in other nations. From his own mouth, we hear the same vengeance denounced against all ages. For to us he speaks when he swears by his holy name, that he will not suffer his glory to be transferred to idols, and when he declares that he is a jealous God, taking vengeance, to the third and fourth generation, upon all sins, and more especially on this one. This is the sin on account of which Moses, who was otherwise of so meek a temper, being inflamed by the Spirit of God, ordered the Levites “to go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor” (Ex. 32:27); the sin on account of which God so often punished his chosen people, afflicting them with sword, pestilence, and famine, and, in short, all kinds of calamity; the sin on account of which, especially, the kingdom, first of Israel, and then of Judah, was laid waste, Jerusalem the holy city destroyed, the temple of God (the only temple then existing in the world) laid in ruins, and the people whom he had selected out of all the nations of the earth to be peculiarly his own, entering into covenant with them, that they alone might bear his standard, and live under his rule and protection Â¬ the people, in short, from whom Christ was to spring Â¬ were doomed to all kinds of disaster, stripped of all dignity, driven into exile, and brought to the brink of destruction. It were too long here to give a full detail, for there is not a page in the prophets which does not proclaim aloud that there is nothing which more provokes the divine indignation. What then? When we saw idolatry openly and everywhere stalking abroad, were we to connive at it? To have done so would have just been to rock the world in its sleep of death, that it might not awake.

Be pleased, most invincible CÃ¦sar, and most illustrious princes, to call to mind the many corruptions by which, as I have already shown, the worship of God was polluted, and you will assuredly find that impiety had broken out like a deluge, under which religion was completely submerged. Hence, divine honors were paid to images, and prayers everywhere offered to them, under the pretence that the power and deity of God resided in them. Hence, too, dead saints were worshipped exactly in the manner in which of old the Israelites worshipped Baalim. And by the artifice of Satan, numerous other modes had been devised by which the glory of God was torn to pieces. The Lord exclaims that he burns with jealousy when any idol is erected, and Paul demonstrates, by his own example, that his servants should be zealous in asserting his glory (Acts 17:16). It is no common zeal for the house of God which ought to penetrate and engross the hearts of believers. When, therefore, the divine glory was polluted, or rather lacerated, in so many ways, would it not have been perfidy if we had winked or been silent? A dog, seeing any violence offered to his master, will instantly bark; could we, in silence, see the sacred name of God dishonored so blasphemously? In such a case, how could it have been said, “The reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me?” (Ps. 69:9).

The mockery which worships God with nought but external gestures and absurd human fictions, how could we, without sin, allow to pass unrebuked? We know how much he hates hypocrisy, and yet in that fictitious worship, which was everywhere in use, hypocrisy reigned. We hear how bitter the terms in which the prophets inveigh against all worship fabricated by human rashness. But a good intention Â¬ that is, an insane licence of daring whatever man pleased Â¬ was deemed the perfection of worship. For it is certain that in the whole body of worship which had been established, there was scarcely a single observance which had an authoritative sanction from the word of God.

We are not in this matter to stand either by our own or by other men’s judgments. We must listen to the voice of God, and hear in what estimation he holds that profanation of worship which is displayed when men, overleaping the boundaries of his word, run riot in their own inventions. The reasons which he assigns for punishing the Israelites with blindness, after they had lost the pious and holy discipline of the church, are two: namely, the prevalence of hypocrisy, and will-worship (ethelothreeskia), meaning thereby a form of worship contrived by man. “Forasmuch,” says he, “as the people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honor me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men; therefore I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid” (Isa. 29:13-14). When God stirred us up, a similar or worse perversity openly domineered throughout the church. While God, then, was thundering from heaven, were we to sit quiet?

Perhaps they will consider as a trivial error the custom which prevailed, in defiance of the clear prohibition of God, of repeating the public prayers in an unknown tongue. But since it is manifest that by such procedure God was mocked, they cannot deny that we had too good cause to object to it. Then, what shall I say of the blasphemies which rung in the public hymns, and which no pious man is able to hear without the utmost horror? We all know the epithets which they applied to Mary Â¬ styling her the gate of heaven, hope, life, and salvation; and to such a degree of infatuation and madness had they proceeded, that they even gave her a right to order Christ! For still in many churches is heard the execrable and impious stanza, “Ask the Father; command the Son.” In terms in no respect more modest do they celebrate certain of the saints, and these, too, saints of their own making: namely, individuals whom they, on their own judgment, have admitted into the catalogue of saints. For, among the multitude of praises which they sing to Claud, they call him “the light of the blind,” “the guide of the erring,” “the life and resurrection of the dead.” The forms of prayer in daily use are stuffed with similar blasphemies. The Lord denounces the severest threatenings against those who, either in oaths or in prayers, confounded his name with Baalim. What vengeance, then, impends over our heads when we not only confound him with saints as minor gods, but with signal insult rob Christ of the proper and peculiar titles with which he is distinguished, in order that we may bestow them on creatures? Were we to be silent here, also, and by perfidious silence call down on ourselves his heavy judgments?

I say nothing of the fact that no man prayed, and that indeed no man could pray, to God with firm faith, that is, in good earnest. For Christ being, in a manner, buried, the necessary consequence was, that men were always in doubt whether God had a Father’s kindness toward them Â¬ whether he was disposed to assist them Â¬ and whether he took any interest in their salvation. What! Was it an error either trivial or tolerable, when the eternal priesthood of Christ, as if it had been set up to be preyed upon, was bestowed, without distinction, on any individual among the saints? Let us remember that Christ, by his death, purchased for himself the honor of being the eternal Advocate and Peacemaker to present our prayers and our persons to the Father, to obtain supplies of grace for us, and enable us to hope we shall obtain what we ask. As he alone died for us, and redeemed us by his death, so he admits of no partnership in this honor. Therefore, what fouler blasphemy than that which is ever and anon in the mouths of our opponents: namely, that Christ is indeed the only mediator of redemption, but that all the saints are mediators of intercession? Is not Christ in this way left inglorious? as if, after having once in his death performed the office of priest, he had ever after resigned it to the saints.

Are we, then, to be silent when the peculiar dignity of Christ, the dignity which cost him such a price, is wrested from him with the greatest contumely, and distributed among the saints, as if it were lawful spoil? But it seems that when they speak thus they do not deny that Christ intercedes for us even now; only we are to understand that he does it along with the saints, that is, just as any other one in the catalogue. It must have been a mighty honor which Christ purchased for himself by his blood, if all he obtained was to be the associate of Hugo, Lubin, or some of the merest dregs of saintship which the Roman pontiff has conferred at his own pleasure. For the question is not, whether the saints even do pray (this being a subject of which it is better to have no knowledge, as scripture does not mention it), but the question is, whether, after passing by Christ, or treating him with neglect, or positively abandoning him altogether, we are entitled to look round for the patronage of saints; or, if they will have it in plainer terms, whether Christ is the only priest who opens up an asylum for us in heaven, leads us thither by the hand, and, by his intercession, inclines the Father to listen to our prayers, so that we ought to cast ourselves entirely on his advocacy, and present our prayers in his name; or whether, on the contrary, he holds this office in common with the saints?

I have shown above that Christ was in a great measure defrauded, not of the honor of the priesthood merely, but also of the gratitude due for his benefits. True, he is called a Redeemer, but in a manner which implies that men also, by their own free will, redeem themselves from the bondage of sin and death. True, he is called righteousness and salvation, but so that men still procure salvation for themselves, by the merit of their works; for this inestimable gift, which no eloquence of men or angels is able adequately to describe, the schoolmen are not ashamed to restrict, telling us that though he confers the first merit (that is, as they explain it, the occasion of meriting), yet after receiving this help, we merit eternal life by our own works. True, they confess that we are washed from our sins by the blood of Christ, but so that every individual cleanses himself by washings elsewhere obtained. True, the death of Christ receives the name of a sacrifice, but so that sins are expiated by the daily sacrifices of men. True, Christ is said to have reconciled us to the Father, but with this reservation, that men, by their own satisfactions, buy off the punishments which they owe to the justice of God. When supplementary aid is sought from the benefit of the keys, no more honor is paid to Christ than to Cyprian or Cyricius. For, in making up the treasury of the church, the merits of Christ and of martyrs are thrown together in the slump.

In all these things, have we not just as many execrable blasphemies as we have words Â¬ blasphemies by which the glory of Christ is rent, and torn to shreds? For, being in a great measure despoiled of his honor, he retains the name, while he wants the power. Here, too, no doubt, we might have been silent, though we saw the Son, on whom the Father hath bestowed all authority, and power, and glory, and in whom alone he bids us glory, so classified with his servants, that he had scarcely any preeminence above them. When we saw his benefits thus in oblivion; when we saw his virtue destroyed by the ingratitude of men; when we saw the price of his blood held in no estimation, and the fruits of his death almost annihilated; when, in fine, we saw him so deformed by false and profane opinions, that he had more resemblance to an unsubstantial phantom than to himself, did it behoove us to bear it calmly and silently? O accursed patience, if, when the honor of God is impaired, not to say prostrated, we are so slightly affected, that we can wink and pass on! O ill-bestowed benefits of Christ, if we can permit the memory of them to be thus suppressed by impious blasphemies!

I again return to the second branch of Christian doctrine.

Who can deny that men are laboring under a kind of delirium, when they suppose that they procure eternal life by the merit of their works? I admit that they conjoin the grace of God with their works, but inasmuch as their confidence of obtaining acceptance is made to depend on their own worthiness, it is clear that the ground of their confidence and boasting lies in their works. The trite and favorite doctrine of the schools, the opinion deeply seated in almost all minds, is that every individual is loved by God in exact proportion to his deserts. Entertaining this view, are not souls, by means of a confidence which the devil inspires, raised to a height, from which, as from a loftier precipice, they are afterwards plunged into the gulf of despair?

Again, when they pretend to merit the favor of God, it is not merely by true obedience, but by frivolous observances, of no value. The meritorious works to which the first place is assigned are these: to mumble over a multitude of little prayers, to erect altars, and place statues or pictures thereon, to frequent churches, and run up and down from one church to another, to hear many masses, and to buy some; to wear out their bodies, by I know not what abstinences Â¬ abstinences having nothing in common with Christian fasting; and, in particular, to be most careful in observing the traditions of men.

In the matter of satisfactions, is it not even a greater infatuation which makes them, after the manner of the heathen, set out in quest of expiations, by which they may reconcile themselves to God? After all these attempts, after great and long fatigue, what did they gain? Doing everything with a dubious and trembling conscience, they were always exposed to that fearful anxiety, or rather that dire torment, of which I have already spoken, because they were enjoined to doubt whether their persons and their works were not hateful to God. Confidence being in this way overthrown, the necessary consequence was, as Paul declares, that the promise of the eternal inheritance was made void. In such circumstances, what became of the salvation of men? Where there was such necessity for speaking, had we kept silence, we should have been not only ungrateful and treacherous towards God, but also cruel towards men, over whom we saw eternal destruction impending, unless they were brought back into the proper path.

Were a dog to see an injury offered to his master, equal to the insult which is offered to God in the sacraments, he would instantly bark, and expose his own life to danger, sooner than silently allow his master to be so insulted. Ought we to show less devotedness to God than a brute is wont to show to man? I say nothing of the fact that rites, founded merely on human authority, have been put on a footing with the mysteries instituted by Christ, and recommended by his divine authority, though the procedure is deserving of the severest rebuke. But when the mysteries themselves were thus corrupted, by the many superstitions, and dishonored by the many false opinions, to which we have already adverted, for base and filthy lucre, ought we to have dissembled and borne it, or pretended not to see?

Christ with a whip drove the money-changers out of the temple, threw down their tables, and scattered their merchandise. I admit it is not lawful for every man to take the whip into his own hand, but it is incumbent on all who professedly belong to Christ to burn with the zeal with which Christ was animated, when he vindicated the glory of his Father. Therefore, that profanation of the temple, at which he, in a manner so marked, expressed his strong displeasure, it is at least our part to condemn, in a free, firm, and decided tone. Who is ignorant that sacraments have now for a long time been sold in churches, as openly as the wares which stand exposed in the public market? Other rites, too, have their fixed price, while as to some a bargain is not struck till after long haggling.

But since the instances which are exhibited in the Lord’s supper are manifest, and of a nature more heinous than in the case of other rites, come and say with what conscience could we have connived at profanations of it, at once so numerous and so blasphemous? Seeing that even now I want words to express them, with what justice are we charged with excessive vehemence in inveighing against them? By the sacred body of Christ, which hung in sacrifice for us, by the holy blood which he shed for our ablution, I here beseech your imperial majesty, and you, most illustrious princes, that you will be pleased seriously to consider how great must be the mystery in which that body is set before us for meat, and that blood for drink; to consider how carefully, how religiously, it ought to be kept unpolluted. What ingratitude, then, must it be when this heavenly mystery, which Christ has committed to us like a most precious jewel, is trodden under feet of swine, for any man to look on, and be silent? But we may see it not only trodden, but also defiled by every species of pollution. What an insult was offered, when the efficacy of Christ’s death was transferred to a theatrical performance by men; when some priestling, as if he had been the successor of Christ, interposed himself as a Mediator between God and man; when, after destroying the virtue of the only sacrifice, a thousand sacrifices of expiation were daily offered in a single city; when Christ was sacrificed a thousand times a day, as if he had not done enough in once dying for us? In heaping all these insults upon Christ, they abused the character of the holy supper; for they are all included in this single notion of sacrifice.

I am not ignorant of the glosses which our opponents employ, in order to screentheir absurdities. Up to the present age, they impudently practiced all the abominations to which I have referred; but being now detected, they burrow in new holes, without being able, however, to hide their turpitude. They taught that the mass was a sacrifice, by which the sins not only of the living, but also of the dead, were expiated. What do they now gain by quibbling, except it be to betray their impudence? How deeply, too, is the sacrament polluted, when, instead of the open preaching of the word, which constitutes its legitimate consecration, a charm is wrought with the bread by means of whiffs and whispers? When, instead of being distributed among the assembly of the faithful, it is devoured apart by one man, or set aside for another’s use? And when, even in the case where a kind of distribution is made, the people are, in defiance of the clear injunction of our Lord, defrauded of the half, I mean the cup? What delirium to fancy that by their exercises the substance of bread is transmuted into Christ? How shameful to see a trade in masses plied as unblushingly as a trade in shoes! For if it is true, as they say, that the thing they vend is the merit of Christ’s death, the insult which they offer to Christ is not less gross than if they spat in his face.

Be pleased, most invincible emperor, and most illustrious princes, to call to mind the disaster which of old befell the Corinthians on account of one, and that not at first sight, so very heinous an abuse of this sacrament. Each brought from home his own supper, not as a common contribution, but that the rich might feast luxuriantly while the poor hungered. For this cause the Lord chastised them with a severe and deadly pestilence. Such is the account of Paul, who, at the same time, bids us regard it as a paternal rod, by which the Lord called them to repentance. From this infer what we have at this day to expect, who have not declined merely in some little iota from the genuine institution of Christ, but wandered to an immeasurable distance from it; who have not only corrupted its purity in one instance, but defaced it in numerous instances, and these, too, of a shocking description; who have not merely interfered with its legitimate end, by some single abuse, but perverted its whole administration. Nor can it be doubted, that now, for some time, God has begun to avenge this impiety. Now, for many years in succession, the world has been pressed by numerous varying troubles and calamities, until it has at length arrived at almost the extreme of wretchedness. We, indeed, stand amazed at our disasters, or suggest other reasons why God so afflicts us. But if we reflect how slight the error by which the Corinthians had vitiated the sacred supper was Â¬ if contrasted with all the defilements by which, in the present day, it is sullied and polluted amongst ourselves Â¬ it is strange not to perceive that God, who so severely punished them, is justly more offended with us.

Were I to follow out all the flagitious corruptions of ecclesiastical government, I should enter an interminable forest. Of the lives of the priests, for many reasons, I at present decline to speak; but there are three vices of an intolerable description, on which each individual may reflect for himself: First, disregarding the character of a holy vocation, clerical offices are everywhere acquired either by violence or by simony, or by other dishonest and impious arts; secondly, the rulers of the church, insofar as regards the performance of their duties, are more like empty shadows or lifeless images than true ministers; and, thirdly, when they ought to govern consciences in accordance with the word of God, they oppress them with an iniquitous tyranny, and hold them in bondage by the fetters of many impious laws.

Is it true, that, not only in contempt of the laws of God and man, but in the absence of everything like a sense of shame, foul disorder reigns in the appointment of bishops and presbyters? that caprice assumes the place of justice, simony is seldom absent, and, as if these were evils of no consequence, the correction of them is deferred to a future age? What is become of the duty of teaching Â¬ the proper characteristic of the ministry? As to true liberty of conscience, we know how many struggles Paul engaged in, and how earnestly he contended in its defense; but every person who judges impartially must certainly perceive, that at the present time we have much more cause to contend for it.

In a corruption of sound doctrine so extreme, in a pollution of the sacraments so nefarious, in a condition of the church so deplorable, those who maintain that we ought not to have felt so strongly, would have been satisfied with nothing less than a perfidious tolerance, by which we should have betrayed the worship of God, the glory of Christ, the salvation of men, the entire administration of the sacraments, and the government of the church. There is something specious in the name of moderation, and tolerance is a quality which has a fair appearance, and seems worthy of praise; but the rule which we must observe at all hazards is, never to endure patiently that the sacred name of God should be assailed with impious blasphemy; that his eternal truth should be suppressed by the devil’s lies; that Christ should be insulted, his holy mysteries polluted, unhappy souls cruelly murdered, and the church left to writhe in extremity under the effect of a deadly wound. This would be not meekness, but indifference about things to which all others ought to be postponed.

4: Further Objections Answered

I trust I have now clearly shown, as I proposed, that in correcting the corruption of the church, we have by no means been more urgent than the case demanded. Even those who blame us are aware of this, and, accordingly, they have recourse to another charge, namely, that the utmost we have gained by our interference has been to fill the Christian world, which was formerly at peace, with intestine discord Â¬ that so far from any amendment appearing, things have gone on to worse Â¬ that of those who have embraced our doctrine few have been made better, nay, that some have been emboldened, if not to greater, at least to more unrestrained licentiousness. They object, moreover, that in our churches there is no discipline, no laws of abstinence, no exercises of humility; that the people, thrown loose from the yoke, riot with impunity in vicious courses. Lastly, they throw upon us the odium of seizing on the property of ecclesiastics, asserting that our princes have made a rush upon it as if it had been lawful spoil; that in this way the church has been violently and shamefully plundered, and that now the patrimony of the church is possessed indiscriminately by those who, amid the uproar of contention, have usurped it without law or any proper title.

I, for my part, deny not that when impiety reigned, her kingdom was disturbed by us. But if, at the moment when the light of sound and pious doctrine beamed upon the world, all, as in duty bound, had spontaneously, and with ready mind, lent their aid, there would at the present day be no less peace and quietness in all the churches, (the kingdom of Christ flourishing), than in the days when Antichrist tyrannized. Let those who, it is manifest, impede the course of truth, desist from waging war with Christ, and there will instantly be perfect concord; or let them desist from throwing upon us the blame of dissensions, which they themselves excite. For it is certainly most unfair, while they refuse all terms of peace unless Antichrist be permitted, after putting the doctrine of piety to flight, and as it were again consigning Christ to the tomb, to subjugate the church; it is most unfair not only to boast as if they themselves were innocent, but also to insult over us; and that we, who desire nothing else than unity, and whose only bond of union is the eternal truth of God, should bear all the blame and odium, as much as if we were the authors of dissension.

In regard to the allegation, that no fruit has been produced by our doctrine, I am well aware that profane men deride us, and allege that in probing sores which are incurable, we only enlarge the ulcer. For their opinion is, that the desperate condition of the church makes it vain to attempt remedies, there being no hope of cure; and they hence conclude that the best course is not to meddle with an evil well fixed. Those who speak in this way understand not that the restoration of the church is the work of God, and no more depends on the hopes and opinions of men, than the resurrection of the dead, or any other miracle of that description. Here, therefore, we are not to wait for facility of action, either from the will of men, or the temper of the times, but must rush forward through the midst of despair. It is the will of our Master that his gospel be preached. Let us obey his command, and follow whithersoever he calls. What the success will be it is not ours to inquire. Our only duty is to wish for what is best, and beseech it of the Lord in prayer; to strive with all zeal, solicitude, and diligence, to bring about the desired result, and, at the same time, to submit with patience to whatever that result may be.

Groundless, therefore, is the charge brought against us of not having done all the good which we wished, and which was to be desired. God bids us plant and water. We have done so. He alone gives the increase [1 Cor. 3:6-7]. What, then, if he chooses not to give according to our wish? If it is clear that we have faithfully done our part, let not our adversaries require more of us: if the result is unfavorable, let them expostulate with God.

But the pretence that no benefit has resulted from our doctrine is most false. I say nothing of the correction of external idolatry, and of numerous superstitions and errors; though that is not to be counted of no moment. But is there no fruit in this, that many who are truly pious feel their obligation to us, in that they have at length learned to worship God with a pure heart, and to invoke him with a calm conscience, have been freed from perpetual torments, and furnished with true delight in Christ, so as to be able to confide in him? But if we are asked for proofs which every eye can see, it has not fared so unhappily with us that we cannot point to numerous sources of rejoicing. How many who formerly led a vicious course of life have been so reformed as to seem converted into new men? How many whose past lives had been free from censure, nay, who were held in the highest estimation, have, instead of retrograding, been able to testify by their conduct that our ministry has proved neither barren nor unfruitful? Our enemies, no doubt, have it in their power to traduce and lacerate us by their calumnies, especially among the ignorant; but this they can never wrest from us, namely, that in those who have embraced our doctrine, greater innocence, integrity, and true holiness, are found, than in all who among them are deemed of greatest excellence.

But if there are any (and we confess the number is but too great) who pervert the gospel, by giving loose reins to their passions, the circumstance, assuredly, is not new; and if it was, how can we be made to bear the blame of it? It is admitted that the gospel is the only rule of a good and holy life; but in the fact that all do not allow themselves to be ruled by it, and that some, as if set free from restraint, even sin more presumptuously, we recognize the truth of Simeon’s saying, that Christ “is set up, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed” (Luke 2:35). If God sees meet to kindle the light of the gospel, in order that the hidden iniquity of the wicked may be exposed: out of this to concoct a charge against the ministers of the gospel, and their preaching, is the utmost stretch of malice and effrontery. But I do them no injury when I retort upon them the very thing out of which they attempt to rear up a charge against us. For where do the despisers of God learn their daring licentiousness, except it be from imagining, amid the uproar of dissensions, that there is nothing which they are not licensed to do? In this, therefore, let them recognize it as their own crime, namely, that by retarding the course of truth, they encourage the wicked with hopes of impunity.

As to the vituperative allegation, that we are devoid of discipline and laws, fitted to keep the people under due restraint, we are provided with a twofold answer. Were I to say that discipline is adequately established among us, I should be refuted by the daily discourses, in which our teachers lament that it still lies neglected. But while I deny not that we want the blessing of thorough discipline, still, I say, it ought to be considered who the persons are to whom it has hitherto been, and still is, owing that we do not enjoy it, in order that they may be made to bear the blame. Let our enemies deny, if they can, that they employ every artifice for the purpose, not only of hampering our exertions in forming and constituting our churches, but also of defeating and overthrowing whatever we begin. We labor sedulously in building up the church, and when we are intent on the work, they, ever and anon, make a hostile entrance to disturb our operations, and allow us no interval which we might employ in arranging the domestic concerns of the church. After this they upbraid us with the dilapidation of which they are themselves the cause. What kind of ingenuousness is this, to give us constant annoyance, and then make it a charge against us, that, in consequence of that annoyance, we are not at leisure to arrange all the departments of the church? God is witness to our grief, men witnesses to our complaints, on account of the distance we still are from perfection.

But then it is said, there are some things pertaining to discipline which we have discarded. True; but as men are wont, in rebuilding a fallen edifice, to drag out and collect the fragments which lie in heaps, or scattered about, in order that they may fit each into its proper place, so were we obliged to act. For if any part of ancient discipline survived, it was so mixed and buried with the confused mass of ruins; it had so lost its pristine form, that no use could be made of it till it was gathered out from amidst the confusion.

I wish, at all events, our opponents would stimulate us by their example. But how? The discipline which they clamorously maintain that we have not, do they themselves possess? Would it not be better were they to unite with us in admitting and confessing their fault before God, than to upbraid us with what may instantly be retorted on their own heads?

Discipline consists of two parts, the one relating to the clergy, the other to the people. Now, I wish to know with what strictness they confine their clergy to an upright and chaste behavior. That purer and more refined holiness to which the ancient canons bind the clergy, I exact not of them. For I know how they laugh in their hearts when any one raises up from oblivion those laws which have now been dead for several ages. All I ask of their clergy is common decency, so that, if they are not distinguished for purity of life, they may, at least, not be infamous for turpitude.

When any one, by means of gifts, or favor, or sordid obsequiousness, or surreptitious certificates, winds his way into the priesthood, the canons pronounce it simony, and order it as such to be punished. How many, in the present day, enter the priesthood by any other means? But adieu, as I have said, to that stern rigor. Still, were no enactment on the subject in existence, how disgraceful is it that the houses of bishops should be forges of open and adulterous simony? What shall I say of the Roman see, where it now seems matter of course that sacerdotal offices are openly disposed of to the highest bidder, or where they are the hire paid for panderism and sorcery, and the obscener crimes? If common sense has any influence amongst us, can it but seem monstrous that boys of twelve years of age should be made archbishops? When Christ was buffeted, was he more insulted than by this? Can there be a greater mockery to God and man, than when a boy is set to rule a Christian people, and installed in the seat of a father and pastor?

The injunctions of the canons concerning bishops and presbyters are, that all should be vigilant in their stations, and no one long absent from his church. But, let us suppose that there was no such precept, who sees not that the Christian name is subjected to the derision even of Turks, when the denomination of pastor of a church is given to one who does not pay it a single visit during his whole life? For, as to constant residence in the place where he has been appointed pastor, it is now long since an example of it became rare. Bishops and abbots either hold their own courts, or dwell in ordinary in the courts of princes. Each, according to his disposition, select the place where he may live in luxury. Those, again, who take more pleasure in their nest, are truly said to reside in their benefices, for they are lazy bellies, to whom nothing is less known than their duty!

It was forbidden by the ancient canons to give two churches to one individual. Well, let this prohibition be as it had never been. Still, with what gloss will they excuse the absurdity of bestowing five benefices, or more, on one man? of allowing one, and that one sometimes a boy, to possess three bishoprics, seated at such a distance from each other that he could scarcely make the circuit of them in a year, were he to do nothing else?

The canons require, that in promoting priests, a strict and minute examination be made into life and doctrine. Let us concede to the present times, that they cannot be tied down to so stern a rule. But we see how the ignorant, and those utterly devoid both of learning and prudence, are inducted without discrimination. Even in hiring a mule-driver, more regard is paid to his past life than in choosing a priest. This is no fiction, no exaggeration. True, they go through the form like players on a stage, that they may exhibit some image of ancient practice. The bishops, or their suffragans, put the question, whether those whom they have determined to ordain are worthy? There is some one present to answer that they are worthy. There is no occasion to go far for a witness, or to bribe him for his testimony. The answer is merely a form; all beadles, tonsors, and doorkeepers know it by heart.

Then, after ordination, the least suspicion of lewdness in the clergy ought, according to the ancient canons, to be corrected, and the proof of it punished with deposition and excommunication. Let us remit somewhat of this ancient rigor. Yet, what will be said to such a toleration of daily lewdness, as might almost imply a right to commit it? The canons declare, that on no account shall a clergyman be permitted to indulge in hunting, or gaming, or revelry, and dancing. Nay, they even expel from the ministry every man to whom any kind of infamy attaches. In like manner, all who involve themselves in secular affairs, or so intermeddle in civil offices as to distract their attention from the ministry Â¬ all, in fine, who are not assiduous in the discharge of their duties Â¬ they order to be severely censured, and, if they repent not, deposed. It will be objected that these severe remedies, which cut all vices to the quick, this age cannot bear. Be it so, I do not call upon them for so much purity. But that an unbridled licentiousness should reign in the clergy Â¬ a licentiousness so unbridled that they, more than any other order, give additional taint to a world already most corrupt Â¬ who can forgive them?

With regard to the discipline exercised over the people, the matter stands thus: Provided the domination of the clergy remains intact, provided no deduction is made from their tribute or plunder, almost anything else is done with impunity, or carelessly overlooked. We see the general prevalence of all kinds of wickedness in the manners of society. In proof of this, I will call no other witnesses than your imperial majesty and most illustrious princes. I admit that the fact is attributable to many causes, but among the many, the primary cause is, that the priests, either from indulgence or carelessness, have allowed the wicked to give loose reins to their lusts. How do they act at the present hour? What care do they employ in eradicating vices, or at least in checking them? Where [are] their admonitions? Where [are] their censures? To omit other things, what use is made of excommunication, that best nerve of discipline? True, they possess, under the name of excommunication, a tyrannical thunderbolt which they hurl at those whom they call contumacious. But what contumacy do they punish, unless it be of persons who, when cited to their tribunal about money matters, have either not appeared, or, from poverty, have failed to satisfy their demands? Accordingly, the most salutary remedy for chastising the guilty, they merely abuse in vexing the poor and the innocent. They have, moreover, the ridiculous custom of sometimes flagellating hidden crimes with an anathema, as in the case where a theft has been committed and the thief is unknown. This practice is altogether at variance with the institution of Christ.

But, though so many disgraceful proceedings take place openly before the eyes of all, as to them excommunication is asleep. And yet the very persons among whom all these disorders prevail have the hardihood to upbraid us with want of order! No doubt, if we are equally guilty, we gain nothing by accusing them; but in what I have hitherto said, my object has not been, by recrimination, to evade the charge which they bring against us, but to show the real value of that discipline which they complain that we have overthrown. If it is thought proper to compare the two, we are confident that our disorder, such as it is, will be found at all events somewhat more orderly than the kind of order in which they glory. I mean not to palliate or flatter our defects, when I thus speak. I know how much we require to be improved. Undoubtedly, were God to call us to account, excuse would be difficult; but when called to answer our enemies we have a better cause, and an easier victory than we could wish.

With similar effrontery, they clamor that we have seized upon the wealth of the church, and applied it to secular purposes. Were I to say that we have not sinned in this respect, I should lie. Indeed, changes of such magnitude are seldom made without bringing some inconveniences along with them. If, herein, aught has been done wrong, I excuse it not. But, with what face do our adversaries present this charge against us? They say it is sacrilege to convert the wealth of the church to secular uses. I admit it. They add that we do so. I reply, that we have not the least objection to answer for ourselves, provided they, too, in their turn, come prepared to plead their cause. We will immediately attend to our own case; meanwhile, let us see what they do.

Of bishops I say nothing, except what all see, that they not only rival princes in the splendor of their dress, the luxuries of their table, the number of their servants, the magnificence of their palaces, in short, every kind of luxury; but also, that they dilapidate and squander ecclesiastical revenues, in expenditure of a much more shameful description. I say nothing of field sports, nothing of gaming, nothing of the other pleasures which absorb no small portion of their incomes. But, to take from the church, in order to spend on pimps and harlots, is surely too bad. Then how absurd, not only to plume themselves on pomp and show, but to carry them to the utmost excess.

Time was, when poverty in priests was deemed glorious. So it was in the Council of Aquila. On one occasion, too, it was decreed that a bishop should reside within a short distance of his church in a humble dwelling, with a scanty table and mean furniture (Conc. Carth. iv, cap. iv, can. 14). But, without going to that ancient rigor, after numerous corruptions had crept in with the progress of wealth, even then the ancient law was again confirmed which divided ecclesiastical revenues into four portions; one to go to the bishop for hospitality, and the relief of those in want, another to the clergy, a third to the poor, and a fourth to the repairing of churches. Gregory attests that this rule was in full observance even in his day. Besides, were there no laws on the subject, and at one time there were none (for that which I have mentioned was, as in the case of other laws, rendered necessary by the corruption of manners), still there is no man who will not admit the truth of what Jerome says, ad Nepotianum, that it is the glory of a bishop to provide for the wants of the poor, and the disgrace of all priests to have a hankering after private wealth. It will, perhaps, be thought that another injunction, which he gives in the same passage, is too severe, namely, that open table should be kept for the poor, and for strangers. It is, however, equally well-founded.

The nearer abbots approach to bishops in extent of revenue, the more they resemble them. Canons and parish priests, not deriving enough from one cure for gluttony, luxury, and pomp, soon found out a compendious method of remedying the inconvenience. For there is nothing to prevent him who could, in one month, swallow much more than he draws in a year, from holding four or five benefices. The burden is nothing thought of. For there are vicars at hand ready to stoop, and take it on their shoulders, provided they are allowed to gobble up some small portion of the proceeds. Nay, few are found who will be contented with one bishopric, or one abbacy. Those of the clergy who live at the public expense of the church, though able to live on their patrimony, Jerome styles sacrilegious, (C. Cler. I, Quest. 2.) What, then, must be thought of those who at once engulf three bishoprics, for example, from fifty to a hundred tolerable patrimonies? And, lest they complain that they are unjustly traduced for the fault of a few, what are we to think of those who not only luxuriate on the public revenues of the church, but abuse them in paying the hire of panders and courtesans? I speak only of what is notorious.

Then, were we to ask, I say, not at the whole order, but at the few who reside in their benefices, by what right they receive even a frugal and moderate stipend, even such a question they are not able to answer. For what duties do they perform in return? In the same way as anciently, under the laws, those who served at the altar lived by the altar, “even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:14). These are Paul’s words. Let them, then, show us that they are ministers of the gospel, and I will have no difficulty in conceding their right to stipend. The ox must not be muzzled that treadeth out the corn [1 Cor. 9:9]. But is it not altogether at variance with reason that the ploughing oxen should starve, and the lazy asses be fed? They will say, however, that they serve at the altar. I answer, that the priests under the law deserved maintenance, by ministering at an altar; but that, as Paul declares, the case under the New Testament is different. And what are those altar services, for which they allege that maintenance is due to them? Forsooth, that they may perform their masses and chant in churches, for example, partly labor to no purpose, and partly perpetrate sacrilege, thereby provoking the anger of God. See for what it is that they are alimented at the public expense!

There are some who accuse our princes of inexpiable sacrilege, as having, with violence and the greatest injustice, seized upon the patrimony of the church, which had been consecrated to God, and as now dilapidating it for profane uses.

I have already declared that I am unwilling to be the apologist of everything that is done amongst us; nay, rather, I openly declare my dissatisfaction that more regard is not paid to the due application of ecclesiastical revenues to those purposes only for which they were destined. This I deplore in common with all good men. But the only point under discussion at present is, whether our princes sacrilegiously seized on the revenues of the church, when they appropriated what they had rescued out of the hands of priests and monks? Is it profanation to apply these to some other purpose than stuffing such lazy bellies? For it is their own cause which our adversaries plead, not the cause of Christ and his church. No doubt, heavy judgments are denounced against those who rob the church, and carry off for their own use what belongs to her. But the reason is at the same time added, that is, because they defraud true ministers of their maintenance, and because, starving the poor to death, they are guilty of their blood. But what have our opponents to do with this? For who among their whole tribe can make the declaration which Ambrose once made, that whatever he possessed was the revenue of the needy; and again, that everything which a bishop possesses belongs to the poor? (Ambrose, Epist., Lib. v. Ep. 7 and 33.) Nay, how few of them do not abuse what they possess with as much license as if it had been given to be profusely squandered as they list? It is vain, therefore, for them to expostulate, because deprived of that which they possessed without any right, and wasted with the greatest iniquity.

And it was not only lawful, but necessary also, for our princes so to deprive them. When they saw the church absolutely destitute of true ministers, and the revenues destined for their support absorbed by lazy idle men; when they saw the patrimony of Christ and the poor either engulfed by a few, or dissolutely wasted on expensive luxuries, were they not to interfere? Nay, when they saw the obstinate enemies of the truth lying like an incubus on the patrimony of the church, and abusing it, to attack Christ, to oppress sound doctrine, and persecute its ministers, was it not right immediately to wrest it from their hands, that, at all events, they might not be armed and equipped by the resources of the church to vex the church? King Josiah is commended, on the authority of the Holy Spirit, because, on perceiving that the sacred oblations were improperly consumed by the priests, he appointed an officer to call them to account, (2 Chron. 24:14.) And yet they were priests whom God had entrusted with the ordinary administration. What, then, is to be done with those who exercise no lawful ministry, and who not only, like them, neglect the repairing of the temple, but exert all their nerves and resources to pull down the church?

But some one will ask, how are the appropriated revenues administered? Certainly not in a manner altogether free from blame, but still in a manner far better and holier than by our enemies. Out of them, at all events, true ministers are supported, who feed their flocks with the doctrine of salvation, whereas, formerly, churches left utterly destitute of pastors were burdened with the payment of them. Wherever schools or hospitals for the poor existed they remain; in some instances their revenues have been increased; in none have they been diminished. In many places, also, in lieu of monasteries, hospitals have been established where there were none before; in others new schools have been erected, in which not only have regular salaries been given to the masters, but youths also are trained, in the hope of being afterwards of service to the church.

In fine, churches derive many advantages in common from these revenues, with which, before, only monks and priests were gorged. Nor is it a small portion which is devoted to extraordinary expenses, though these are well entitled to be taken into account. It is certain that much more is consumed when matters are in disorder, than would be if proper arrangements were made among the churches. But nothing could be more unjust than to deny to our princes and magistrates the right of making expenditure of this kind, not for their private benefit, but to meet the public necessities of the church. Besides, our adversaries forget to deduct their spoliations and unjust exactions, by which communities were pillaged for sacrifices, of which they are now relieved. But there is one reason which renders all this discussion, in a great measure, superfluous. More than three years ago, our princes declared their readiness to make restitution, provided the same course were enforced against those who detain a much larger amount for a less honorable cause, and who are guilty of much greater corruption in the administration of it. Our princes, therefore, stand bound to your imperial majesty by their promise. The document also is before the world; so that this should not be any hindrance to uniformity of doctrine.

The last and principal charge which they bring against us is, that we have made a schism in the church. And here they boldly maintain against us, that in no case is it lawful to break the unity of the church. How far they do us injustice, the books of our authors bear witness. Now, however, let them take this brief reply Â¬ that we neither dissent from the church, nor are aliens from her communion. But, as by this specious name of church, they are wont to cast dust in the eyes even of persons otherwise pious and right-hearted, I beseech your imperial majesty, and you, most illustrious princes, first, to divest yourselves of all prejudice, that you may give an impartial ear to our defense; secondly, not to be instantly terrified on hearing the name of church, but to remember that the prophets and apostles had, with the pretended church of their days, a contest similar to that which you see us have in the present day with the Roman pontiff and his whole train. When they, by the command of God, inveighed freely against idolatry, superstition, and the profanation of the temple, and its sacred rites; against the carelessness and lethargy of priests; and against the general avarice, cruelty, and licentiousness; they were constantly met with the objection which our opponents have ever in their mouths Â¬ that by dissenting from the common opinion, they violated the unity of the church. The ordinary government of the church was then vested in the priests. They had not presumptuously arrogated it to themselves, but God had conferred it upon them by his law. It would occupy too much time to point out all the instances. Let us, therefore, be contented with a single instance, in the case of Jeremiah.

He had to do with the whole college of priests, and the arms with which they attacked him were these, “Come, and let us devise devices against Jeremiah; for the law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet” (Jer. 18:18) They had among them a high priest, to reject whose judgment was a capital crime, and they had the whole order to which God himself had committed the government of the Jewish church concurring with them. If the unity of the church is violated by him, who, instructed solely by divine truth, opposes himself to ordinary authority, the prophet must be a schismatic; because, not at all deterred by such menaces from warring with the impiety of the priests, he steadily persevered.

That the eternal truth of God, preached by the prophets and apostles, is on our side, we are prepared to show, and it is indeed easy for any man to perceive. But all that is done is to assail us with this battering-ram, “ Nothing can excuse withdrawal from the church.” We deny out and out that we do so. With what, then, do they urge us? With nothing more than this, that to them belongs the ordinary government of the church. But how much better right had the enemies of Jeremiah to use this argument? To them, at all events, there still remained a legal priesthood, instituted by God; so that their vocation was unquestionable. Those who, in the present day, have the name of prelates, cannot prove their vocation by any laws, human or divine. Be it, however, that in this respect both are on a footing, still, unless they previously convict the holy prophet of schism, they will prove nothing against us by that specious title of church.

I have thus mentioned one prophet as an example. But all the others declare that they had the same battle to fight Â¬ wicked priests endeavoring to overwhelm them by a perversion of this term church. And how did the apostles act? Was it not necessary for them, in professing themselves the servants of Christ, to declare war upon the synagogue? And yet the office and dignity of the priesthood were not then lost. But it will be said, that, though the prophets and apostles dissented from wicked priests in doctrine, they still cultivated communion with them in sacrifices and prayers. I admit they did, provided they were not forced into idolatry. But which of the prophets do we read of as having ever sacrificed in Bethel? Which of the faithful, do we suppose, communicated in impure sacrifices, when the temple was polluted by Antiochus, and profane rites were introduced into it?

On the whole, we conclude that the servants of God never felt themselves obstructed by this empty title of church, when it was put forward to support the reign of impiety. It is not enough, therefore, simply to throw out the name of church, but judgment must be used to ascertain which is the true church, and what is the nature of its unity. And the thing necessary to be attended to, first of all, is, to beware of separating the church from Christ its Head. When I say Christ, I include the doctrine of his gospel, which he sealed with his blood. Our adversaries, therefore, if they would persuade us that they are the true church, must, first of all, show that the true doctrine of God is among them; and this is the meaning of what we often repeat, that is, that the uniform characteristics of a well-ordered church are the preaching of sound doctrine, and the pure administration of the sacraments. For, since Paul declares (Eph. 2:20) that the church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,” it necessarily follows that any church not resting on this foundation must immediately fall. I come now to our opponents.

They, no doubt, boast in lofty terms that Christ is on their side. As soon as they exhibit him in their word we will believe it, but not sooner. They, in the same way, insist on the term church. But where, we ask, is that doctrine which Paul declares to be the only foundation of the church? Doubtless your imperial majesty now sees that there is a vast difference between assailing us with the reality and assailing us only with the name of “church.” We are as ready to confess as they are that those who abandon the church, the common mother of the faithful, the “ pillar and ground of the truth,” revolt from Christ also; but we mean a church which, from incorruptible seed, begets children for immortality, and, when begotten, nourishes them with spiritual food (that seed and food being the word of God), and which, by its ministry, preserves entire the truth which God deposited in its bosom. This mark is in no degree doubtful, in no degree fallacious, and it is the mark which God himself impressed upon his church, that she might be discerned thereby. Do we seem unjust in demanding to see this mark? Wherever it exists not, no face of a church is seen. If the name, merely, is put forward, we have only to quote the well known passage of Jeremiah, “Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, are these” (Jer. 7:4). “Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes?” (Jer. 7:11).

In like manner, the unity of the church, such as Paul describes it, we protest we hold sacred, and we denounce anathema against all who in any way violate it. The principle from which Paul derives unity is that there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all,” who hath called us into one hope (Eph. 4:4-5). Therefore, we are one body and one spirit, as is here enjoined, if we adhere to God only, for example, be bound to each other by the tie of faith. We ought, moreover, to remember what is said in another passage, “that faith cometh by the word of God” [Rom. 10:17].Let it, therefore, be a fixed point, that a holy unity exists amongst us, when, consenting in pure doctrine, we are united in Christ alone. And, indeed, if concurrence in any kind of doctrine were sufficient, in what possible way could the church of God be distinguished from the impious factions of the wicked? Wherefore, the apostle shortly after adds, that the ministry was instituted “for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God: That we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the Head, even Christ” (Eph. 4:12 -15). Could he more plainly comprise the whole unity of the church in a holy agreement in true doctrine, than when he calls us back to Christ and to faith, which is included in the knowledge of him, and to obedience to the truth? Nor is any lengthened demonstration of this needed by those who believe the church to be that sheepfold of which Christ alone is the shepherd, and where his voice only is heard, and distinguished from the voice of strangers. And this is confirmed by Paul, when he prays for the Romans, “The God of patience and consolation grant you to be like minded one toward another, according to Christ Jesus; that ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 15:5-6).

Let our opponents, then, in the first instance, draw near to Christ, and then let them convict us of schism, in daring to dissent from them in doctrine. But, since I have made it plain that Christ is banished from their society, and the doctrine of his gospel exterminated, their charge against us simply amounts to this, that we adhere to Christ in preference to them. For what man, pray, will believe that those who refuse to be led away from Christ and his truth, in order to deliver themselves into the power of men, are thereby schismatics, and deserters from the communion of the church? I certainly admit that respect is to be shown to priests, and that there is great danger in despising ordinary authority. If, then, they were to say, that we are not at our own hand to resist ordinary authority, we should have no difficulty in subscribing to the sentiment. For we are not so rude, as not to see what confusion must arise when the authority of rulers is not respected. Let pastors, then, have their due honor Â¬ an honor, however, not derogatory in any degree to the supreme authority of Christ, to whom it behooves them and every man to be subject. For God declares, by Malachi, that the government of the Israelitish church was committed to the priests, under the condition that they should faithfully fulfill the covenant made with them, that is, that their “lips should keep knowledge,” and expound the law to the people (Mal. 2:7). When the priests altogether failed in this condition, he declares, that, by their perfidy, the covenant was abrogated and made null. Pastors are mistaken if they imagine that they are invested with the government of the church on any other terms than that of being ministers and witnesses of the truth of God. As long, therefore, as, in opposition to the law and to the nature of their office, they eagerly wage war with the truth of God, let them not arrogate to themselves a power which God never bestowed, either formerly on priests, or now on bishops, on any other terms than those which have been mentioned.

But, because they hold that the communion of the church is confined to a kind of regimen which they have struck out for themselves, they think it sufficient to decide the victory in their favor, when they point to our alienation from the Romish see. But to this vaunted primacy of the Romish see it is not difficult to reply. It is a subject, however, on which I will not here enter, both because it would occupy too much time, and because it has been amply discussed by our writers. I will only beg your imperial majesty, and most illustrious princes, to listen to Cyprian, when he points out a better method of ascertaining the true communion of the church, than that of referring it, as our opponents do, to the Roman pontiff alone. For, after placing the only source of ecclesiastical concord in the episcopal authority of Christ, which episcopal authority he affirms that each bishop, to the extent to which it has been communicated, holds entire, he thus proceeds: “There is one church, which, by the increase of its fruitfulness, spreads into a multitude, just as there are many rays of the sun, but only one light, many branches in a tree, but one trunk, upheld by its tenacious root; and when many streams flow from one fountain, though, from the copiousness of the supply, there seems a division into parts, still, in regard to the origin, unity is preserved. Separate a ray from the body of the sun, the unity of the light is not divided. Break a branch from a tree, that which is broken cannot germinate. Cut off a stream from the fountain, and it dries up. So, also, the church of God, irradiated with light, sends its beams over the whole world. Still it is one light which is everywhere diffused. The unity of the body is not violated” (Cyprian, De Unitat. Ecclesi.).

Heresies and schisms, therefore, arise when a return is not made to the origin of truth, when neither the Head is regarded, nor the doctrine of the heavenly Master preserved. Let them then show us a hierarchy in which the bishops are distinguished, but not for refusing to be subject to Christ, in which they depend upon him as the only head, and act solely with reference to him, in which they cultivate brotherly fellowship with each other, bound together by no other tie than his truth; then, indeed, I will confess that there is no anathema too strong for those who do not regard them with reverence, and yield them the fullest obedience. But is there anything like this in that false mask of hierarchy on which they plume themselves? The Roman pontiff alone as Christ’s vicar is in the ascendant, and domineers without law and without measure, after the manner of a tyrant, nay, with more abandoned effrontery than any tyrant. The rest of the body is framed more according to his standard than that of Christ. The light of which Cyprian speaks is extinguished, the copious fountain cut off; in short, the only thing exhibited is the tallness of the tree, but a tree dissevered from its root.

I am aware that our adversaries have good reason for laboring so strenuously to maintain the primacy of the Romish See. They feel that on it both themselves and their all depend. But your part, most invincible emperor, and most illustrious princes, is to be on your guard in order that they may not with vain glosses deceive you, as they are wont to deceive the unwary. And, first, this vaunted supremacy, even themselves are forced to confess, was established by no divine authority, but by the mere will of man. At least, when we give proof of this fact, though they do not expressly assent, they seem as if ashamed to maintain the opposite. There was a time, indeed, when they audaciously perverted certain passages of scripture to confirm this palpable falsehood; but as soon as we came to close quarters, it was found easy to pluck out of their hands the bits of lath, to which, when at a distance, they had given the appearance of swords. Abandoned, accordingly, by the word of God, they flee for aid to antiquity. But here, also, without much ado, we dislodge them. For both the writings of holy fathers, the acts of councils, and all history, make it plain that this height of power, which the Roman pontiff has now possessed for about four hundred years, was attained gradually, or rather was either craftily crept into, or violently seized. But let us forgive them this, and let them take for granted that primacy was divinely bestowed on the Romish see, and has been sanctioned by the uniform consent of the ancient church; still there is room for this primacy only on the supposition that Rome has both a true church and a true bishop. For the honor of the seat cannot remain after the seat itself has ceased to exist. I ask, then, in what respect the Roman pontiff performs the duty of a bishop, so as to oblige us to recognize him as a bishop? There is a celebrated saying of Augustine, “Bishopric is the name of an office, and not a mere title of honor.” And ancient synods define the duties of a bishop to consist in feeding the people by the preaching the word, in administering the sacraments, in curbing clergy and people by holy discipline, and, in order not to be distracted from these duties, in withdrawing from all the ordinary cares of the present life. In all these duties, presbyters ought to be the bishop’s coadjutors. Which of them do the pope and his cardinals pretend to perform? Let them say, then, on what ground they claim to be regarded as legitimate pastors, while they do not, with their little finger, in appearance even, touch any part of the duty.

But let us grant all these things Â¬ that is, that he is a bishop who entirely neglects every part of his duty, and that [in] a church which is destitute, as well of the ministry of the word as of the pure administration of the sacraments Â¬ still, what answer is made when we add not only that these are wanting, but that everything which exists is directly the reverse? For several centuries that see has been possessed by impious superstitions, open idolatry, [and] perverse doctrines, while those great truths, in which the Christian religion chiefly consists, have been suppressed. By the prostitution of the sacraments to filthy lucre, and other abominations, Christ has been held up to such extreme derision, that he has in a manner been crucified afresh. Can she be the mother of all churches, who not only does not retain, I do not say the face, but even a single lineament, of the true church, and has snapped asunder all those bonds of holy communion by which believers should be linked together?

The Roman pontiff is now opposing himself to the reviving doctrines of the gospel, just as if his head were at stake. Does he not, by this very fact, demonstrate that there will be no safety for his see unless he can put to flight the kingdom of Christ? Your imperial majesty is aware how wide a field of discussion here opens upon me. But to conclude this point in a few words: I deny that see to be apostolical, wherein nought is seen but a shocking apostasy; I deny him to be the vicar of Christ, who, in furiously persecuting the gospel, demonstrates by his conduct that he is Antichrist; I deny him to be the successor of Peter, who is doing his utmost to demolish every edifice that Peter built; and I deny him to be the head of the church, who by his tyranny lacerates and dismembers the church, after dissevering her from Christ, her true and only Head. Let these denials be answered by those who are so bent on chaining the hierarchy of the church to the Romish see, that they hesitate not to subordinate the sure and tried doctrines of the gospel to the authority of the pope. Yea, I say, let them answer; only do you, most invincible emperor, and most illustrious princes, consider whether, in so calling upon them, the thing I ask is just or unjust.

From what has been said, it will doubtless be easy for you to perceive how little attention is due to the calumny of our adversaries, when they accuse us of impious presumption, and as it were inexpiable audacity, in having attempted to purify the church from corruption, both in doctrine and ceremonies, without waiting for the beck of the Roman pontiff. They say we have done what private individuals have no right to do. But, in regard to ameliorating the condition of the church, what was to be hoped from him to whom we were required to give place? Any man who considers how Luther and the other reformers acted at the outset, and how they afterwards proceeded, will deem it unnecessary to call upon us for any defense. When matters were still entire, Luther himself humbly besought the pontiff that he would be pleased to cure the very grievous disorders of the church. Did his supplication succeed? The evils having still increased, the necessity of the case, even had Luther been silent, should have been stimulus enough to urge the pope to delay no longer. The whole Christian world plainly demanded this of him, and he had in his hands the means of satisfying the pious wishes of all. Did he do so? He now talks of impediments. But if the fact be traced to its source, it will be found that he has all along been, both to himself and to others, the only impediment.

But why insist on these lighter arguments? Is it not in itself alone an argument of sufficient clearness and sufficient weight, that, from the commencement up to the present time, he gives us no hope of transacting with him until we again bury Christ, and return to every impiety which formerly existed, that he may establish them on a firmer basis than before? This, unquestionably, is the reason why still, in the present day, our opponents so strenuously maintain that we had no right to intermeddle with the revival of the church Â¬ not that the thing was not necessary (this it was too desperate effrontery to deny), but because they are desirous that as well the safety as the ruin of the church should be suspended on the mere beck and pleasure of the Roman pontiff.

Let us now attend to the only remedy left us by those who think it impiety to move a finger, how great soever the evils by which the church is oppressed. They put us off to a universal council. What? If the major part, from obstinacy, rush upon their own destruction, must we therefore perish along with them, when we have the means of consulting for our own safety? But they tell us it is unlawful to violate the unity of the church, and that unity is violated if any party decide an article of faith by themselves, without calling in the others. Then they enlarge on the inconveniences to which such a course might lead Â¬ that nothing could be expected but fearful devastation and chaotic confusion, were each people and nation to adopt for itself its peculiar form of faith. Things like these might be said justly, and even appositely to the occasion, if any one member of the church, in contempt of unity, should of its own accord separate itself from the others. But that is not the point now in dispute.

I wish, indeed, it were possible for all the monarchs and states of the Christian world to unite in a holy league, and resolve on a simultaneous amendment of the present evils. But since we see that some are averse to amelioration, and that others, involved in war or occupied with other cares, cannot give their attention to the subject, how long, pray, must we, in waiting for others, defer consulting for ourselves? And more freely to explain the source of all our evils, we see that the Roman pontiff, if he can prevent it, will never permit all churches to unite, I do not say in due consultation, but in assembling any council at all. He will, indeed, as often as he is asked, give promises in abundance, provided he sees all the ways shut up, and all modes of access interrupted, while he has in his hand obstructions which he can every now and then throw in, so as never to want pretexts for tergiversation. With a few exceptions, he has all the cardinals, bishops, and abbots, consenting with him in this matter, since their only thought is how to retain possession of their usurped tyranny. As to the welfare or destruction of the church, it gives them not the least concern.

I am not afraid, most invincible CÃ¦sar, and most illustrious princes, that my statement will seem incredible, or that it will be difficult to persuade you of its truth. Nay, rather I appeal to the consciences of you all, whether I have stated anything which your own experience does not confirm. Meanwhile, the church lies in the greatest peril. An infinite number of souls, not knowing in what direction to turn, are miserably perplexed; many even, forestalled by death, perish, if not saved miraculously by the Lord; diversified sects arise; numbers, whose impiety was formerly hid, assume, from the present dissensions, a license to believe nothing at all, while many minds, otherwise not ill disposed, begin to part with their religious impressions. There is no discipline to check these evils; amongst us who glory in the name of Christ only, and have the same baptism, there is no more agreement than if we professed religions entirely different. And the most miserable thing of all is, that there is at hand, nay, almost in sight, a breaking up of the whole church, for which, after it has taken place, it will be in vain to seek for remedies.

Seeing, therefore, that in bringing assistance to the church in her great distress and extreme danger, no celerity can be too rapid, what else do those who put us off to a general council, of which there is no prospect, but insult both God and man? The Germans must therefore submit to have this sentence passed upon them, that they choose to look on quietly and see the church of God perish from their land, when they have the means of curing her disorders, or they must instantly bestir themselves to the work. This second alternative they will never adopt so speedily, as not to be even now deservedly condemned for not adopting sooner. But those persons, whoever they be, who, under the pretext of a general council, interpose delay, clearly have no other end in view, than by this artifice to spin out the time, and are no more to be listened to than if they confessed in word what they in deed demonstrate, that they are prepared to purchase their private advantage by the destruction of the church.

But it is said that it would be unprecedented for the Germans alone to undertake this reformation; that in no case when controversy has arisen concerning the doctrines of religion, was it ever heard that a single province could undertake the investigation and decision. What is this I hear? Do they imagine that by their mere assertion they will persuade the world to believe what the histories of all times refute? As often as some new heresy emerged, or the church was disturbed by some dispute, was it not the usual custom immediately to convene a provincial synod, that the disturbance might thereby be terminated? It never was the custom to recur to a general council until the other remedy had been tried. Before bishops from the whole Christian world met at Nicea to confute Arius, several synods had been held with that view in the east. For the sake of brevity, I pass over the other instances, but the thing which our enemies shun as unusual is proved by the writings of the ancients to have been the ordinary practice. Have done, then, with this lying pretence of novelty.

Had this superstitious idea possessed the African bishops, they would have been too late in meeting the Donatists and Pelagians. The Donatists had already gained over a great part of Africa to their faction, nor was any place entirely free from the contagion. It was a controversy of the greatest moment, relating to the unity of the church and the due administration of baptism. According to the new wisdom of our opponents, the orthodox bishops, in order not to cut themselves off from the other members of the church, ought to have referred the question to a general council. Is this what they do? Nay, rather, knowing that in extinguishing an actual fire no time can be lost, they press and follow close upon the Donatists, now summoning them to a synod, now coming, as it were, to close quarters with them in discussion.

Let our enemies condemn of impious separation from the church, Augustine, and the other holy men of that age who concurred with him, for having, by imperial authority, without convoking a general council, forced the Donatists to dispute with them, and hesitated not to treat in a provincial synod of a most difficult and dangerous controversy. There, too, Pelagius had shown his horns; instantly a synod was held to repress his audacity. When, after having for a short time feigned penitence, he had returned to his vomit, with the stigma which had been fixed on his impiety in Africa he betook himself to Rome, where he was received with considerable favor. What course do the pious bishops take? Do they allege that they are only a member of the church, and must wait for relief from a general council? Nay, they themselves assemble on the very first opportunity, and again and again anathematize the impious dogma with which many had now been infected, freely deciding and defining what ought to be held on the subjects of original sin and regenerating grace. Afterwards, indeed, they send to Rome a copy of their proceedings, partly that, by a common authority and consent, they may the more effectually crush the contumacy of the heretics, [and] partly that they may admonish others of a danger, against which all ought to stand upon their guard.

The flatterers of the Roman pontiff give the matter a different turn, as if the bishops had suspended their judgment until the proceedings were ratified by Innocent v, who then presided over the church of Rome. But this impudent averment is more than refuted by the words of the holy fathers. For they neither ask Innocent to counsel them as to what they ought to do, nor do they refer it to him to decide, nor do they wait for his nod and authority but they narrate that they had already taken cognizance of the cause, and passed sentence, condemning both the man and the doctrine, in order that Innocent, too, might imitate their example, if he desired not to fail in his duty. These things were done while as yet the churches agreed with each other in sound doctrine. Now, then, when all things threaten ruin if not speedily remedied, why hang waiting for the consent of those who leave not a stone unturned to prevent the truth of God, which they had put to flight, from again beaming forth?

Ambrose, in his day, had a controversy with Auxentius on the primary article of our faith, that is, the divinity of Christ. The emperor favored the view of Auxentius. He does not, however, appeal to a general council, under the pretext of its being unlawful that so important a cause should be decided in any other manner. He only demands, that, being a question of faith, it should be discussed in the church in presence of the people. And to what end [were] the provincial synods, which were once regularly held twice a year, unless that bishops might consult together on emerging circumstances, as the nineteenth canon of the Council of Chalcedon explains. An ancient enactment orders that the bishops of every province shall convene twice a year. The Council of Chalcedon gives us the reason, that any errors which may have emerged may be corrected.

Our opponents, contrary to what all know, deny the lawfulness of touching a corruption of doctrine or manners, until it has been laid before a general council. Nay, the very subterfuge by which the Arians Palladius and Secundinianus declined the Council of Aquileia was, because it was not full and general, all the eastern bishops being absent, and few even of the west making their appearance. And it is certain that of the Italians scarcely a half had convened. The Roman bishop had neither come in person, nor sent any one of his presbyters to represent him. To all these objections Ambrose replies, that it was not a thing without example for the western bishops to hold a synod, since the practice was familiar to those of the east Â¬ that the pious emperors who summoned the council had acted wisely in leaving all at liberty to come, without compelling any; and, accordingly, all who thought proper had come, none being prohibited. Though the heretics continued to press their quibbling objections, the holy fathers did not, therefore, abandon their purpose. Assuredly, after such examples, your imperial majesty is not to be prohibited from using the means within your reach of bringing back the body of the empire to sacred concord.

Though, as has been observed, our enemies, who advise procrastination, do it not with the view of shortly after consulting for the welfare of the church, but only of gaining time by delay, knowing that, if they can throw us back to a general council, the truce will be long enough; let us, however, assume that there is no obstacle to a general council being immediately called; let us even assume that it has been summoned in good earnest, that the day of meeting is at hand, and all things prepared. The Roman pontiff will, of course, preside; or if he declines to come, he will send one of his cardinals, as legate to preside in his stead, and he will doubtless select the one whom he believes will be most faithful to his interests. The rest of the cardinals will take their seats, and next them the bishops and abbots. The seats beneath will be occupied by ordinary members, who are, for the most part, selected for subservience to the views of those above. It will, indeed, happen, that some few honest men will have seats among them, but they will be despised for the smallness of their number, and, made weak by fear, or dispirited by the hopelessness of doing any good, will be silent. Should any one of them, perchance, attempt to speak, he will instantly be put down by noise and clamor. But the great body will be ready to suffer anything, sooner than allow the church to be restored to a better condition.

I say nothing of doctrine. Would that they could only come to the cause with an honest and docile temper. But it is certain as certainty itself, that the single resolution of all will be not to listen to anything that is said, or to the arguments by which it is supported, be they what they may. Nay, they will not only stuff their ears with stubbornness and obstinacy, that they may not obey the truth, but will also arm themselves with ferocity to resist it. And why? Is it credible that those who do not admit into their ears any mention of sound doctrine, will spontaneously withdraw their opposition, as soon as it comes to be a matter of present practice? Can we hope that those who are constantly plotting to prevent the fallen kingdom of Christ from again rising in the world, will give a helping hand to raise it up, and advance it? Will those who are now, with fire and sword, raging against the truth, and doing all they can to whet and inflame the cruelty of others, show themselves moderate and humane? But were there nothing else, I leave it to your prudence, most invincible emperor, and yours, most illustrious princes, to consider whether or not it is for the private interest of the Roman pontiff, and his whole faction, that the church should be restored to true order, and its most corrupt condition reformed, according to the strict standard of the gospel. How much it is their wont to forget their own advantage, and, in disregard of it, to engage with heart and soul in promoting the common welfare, you have learned by a sure experience!

Sire, will you leave the church to them, that they may decide concerning its reformation at their own will, or rather their own caprice? Will you remain waiting for their nod, resolved never to consult for the church till they consent? If they know this to be your intention, they will disentangle themselves by an easy process. They will decide that things must remain as they are. But let us suppose that they will be so overcome, either by a sense of shame, or by the authority of your majesty, and the other princes, as to put on some appearance of moderation, and part with some small portion of their power; will they, even of their own accord, condescend so far as to allow themselves to be reduced into order, that the kingdom of Christ may be upraised? But if they will not, to what end is the care of reforming the church committed to them, unless it be to expose the sheep to the wolves? If there is no other alternative, it were better that the church should be given up as desperate, than that she should fall into the hands of such physicians.

It had, indeed, become those who have the name and hold the office of pastors, to be the first of all to fly to her assistance. It had, I admit, become them to come forward as leaders, and unite the princes with them, as associates and coadjutors in this holy work. But what if they decline to do it themselves? What if they are unwilling it should be done by others? What if they leave not a stone unturned in order to prevent it? Are we, then, still to have regard to them? Must no man move till they give the signal? Must we still listen to that solemn saw of theirs, “Nothing must be attempted till the pope has approved?”

Let your majesty, then, be assured, and do you also, most illustrious princes and distinguished personages, lay it to heart, as a certain fact, that the church, not only betrayed, deserted, and left destitute by her pastors, but vexed, overwhelmed with calamity, and doomed to destruction, throws herself on your protection. Nay, rather view it in this way Â¬ God has now furnished you with the means of giving a sure and striking proof of your fidelity towards him. There is nothing in which all men ought to feel a deeper interest, nothing in which God wishes us to exhibit a more intense zeal, than in endeavoring that the glory of his name may remain unimpaired, his kingdom be advanced, and the pure doctrine, which alone can guide us to true worship, flourish in full vigor. How much more, therefore, does it become princes to make these things their care, to design, commence, and prosecute them to a close, seeing God has honored them with a communication of his name, that they may be on earth the guardians and vindicators of his glory.

Be unwilling, I beseech you, to lend an ear to ungodly men, who either cajole you with a false show of counsel, in order that the church may receive no alleviation at your hand, or disparage the cause Â¬ though it is the greatest of all causes Â¬ that you may be more remiss in undertaking it, or urge you to violent methods of proceeding in it. Hitherto, most invincible emperor, in endeavoring to inflame you with rage, and, in a manner, clothe you in armor, they have lost their labor, and you will certainly transmit to posterity the distinguished praise, both of mildness and prudence, in not having suffered yourself to be once moved from moderation by the turbulent counsels which have been so often and so strongly pressed upon you. Be it at all times your care that this praise be not wrested from you by the importunity of our enemies.

Augustine acknowledges the discipline to be bad which terrifies heretics, but does not teach them. If heretics, who (by their intemperance, and without any just cause) disturb the church, are to be treated with a mildness, ensuring that instruction shall always precede chastisement; how much more becoming is it to use humanity in this cause, in which we call God and men to witness that we seek nothing but a sincere consent on both sides to the pure doctrine of God? That the Roman pontiff and his followers breathe nothing but blood and slaughter, you yourself, sire, are the best witness. Had you yielded to their fury, Germany had long ago been deluged with her own blood. You, too, most illustrious princes, well know the fact. Can it be that it is the Spirit of God which drives them on headlong to such cruelty? But thus it is; licentiousness, which has long stalked abroad without hindrance, no sooner feels the curb than it breaks out into madness.

If there are any, besides those who desire to see us crushed by violence and arms, either enkindled by the breath of others, or instigated from within by an inconsiderate zeal, they hate a cause which they know not. For the very same thing of which Tertullian complains in his Apology, as having happened to the church when she first arose, is also experienced by us in the present day. We are condemned merely from prejudice against our name, without any investigation of our cause. And what do we contend for now, save that our cause, after due cognizance has once been taken of it, may at length be decided, according to truth and equity, and not according to any falsely preconceived opinion?

Sire, it is, indeed, a noble proof both of humanity and of singular wisdom, that you have hitherto resisted the urgency with which our enemies have endeavored to hurry you into an unjust severity. The next best thing is not to yield to the pernicious counsels of those who, under specious pretexts for delay, have for a long time hindered this holy work (I mean the reformation of the church); and what is worse, are endeavoring to prevent it altogether.

There is, perhaps, one remaining difficulty which prevents you from commencing the work. Very many, not otherwise indisposed, are deterred from engaging in this holy undertaking, merely because antecedently to the attempt they despair of its success. But here two things ought to be considered: the one, that the difficulty is not so great as it appears to be; and the other that, however great it be, there is nothing in it which ought to dispirit you, when you reflect that it is the cause of God, and that he overruling it, both our hopes may be surpassed and our impressions prove erroneous. The former of these it is no part of my present design to explain; a fitter opportunity will be found, when once the matter comes to be taken into serious consideration. This only I will say, that the execution will be more expeditious, and of less difficulty than is commonly supposed, provided there is courage enough in attempting it. However, considering, according to the well known sentiment of an old proverb, that there is nothing illustrious which is not also difficult and arduous, can we wonder, that in the greatest and most excellent of all causes, we must fight our way through many difficulties? I have already observed, that if we would not give deep offense to God, our minds must take a loftier view. For it is just to measure the power of God by the extent of our own powers, if we hope no more of the restoration of the church than the present state of affairs seems to promise. How slender soever the hope of success, God bids us be of good courage, and put far away everything like fear, that we may with alacrity begirt ourselves for the work. Thus far, at least, let us do him honor. Confiding in his almighty power, let us not decline to try what the success is which he may be pleased to give.

In the present condition of the empire, your imperial majesty, and you, most illustrious princes, necessarily involved in various cares, and distracted by a multiplicity of business, are agitated, and in a manner tempest-tossed. But be always assured, that of all works this one is undoubtedly entitled to take precedence. I feel what nerve, what earnestness, what urgency, what ardor, the treatment of this subject requires. And I am well aware that persons will not be wanting to express their surprise, that on a subject so noble and splendid I should be so cold. But what could I do? I bend under its weight and magnitude; and I therefore see not how I can do better than set the matter before you simply, without any embellishment of words, that you may afterwards ponder and scrutinize it.

First, call to mind the fearful calamities of the church, which might move to pity even minds of iron. Nay, set before your eyes her squalid and unsightly form, and the sad devastation which is everywhere beheld. How long, pray, will you allow the spouse of Christ, the mother of you all, to lie thus prostrated and afflicted Â¬ thus, too, when she is imploring your protection, and when the means of relief are in your hand? Next, consider how much worse calamities impend. Final destruction cannot be far off, unless you interpose with the utmost speed. Christ will, indeed, in the way which to him seems good, preserve his church miraculously, and beyond human expectation; but this, I say, that the consequence of a little longer delay on your part will be that in Germany he shall not have even the form of a church. Look round, and see how many indications threaten that ruin which it is your duty to prevent, and announce that it is actually at hand. These things speak loud enough, though I were silent.

Such indications, however, ought not only to move us by their actual aspect; they ought also to remind us of coming vengeance. Divine worship being vitiated by so many false opinions, and perverted by so many impious and foul superstitions, the sacred majesty of God is insulted with atrocious contumely, his holy name profaned, his glory only not trampled under foot. Nay, while the whole Christian world is openly polluted with idolatry, men adore, instead of him, their own fictions. A thousand superstitions reign Â¬ superstitions which are just so many open insults to him. The power of Christ is almost obliterated from the minds of men, the hope of salvation is transferred from him to empty, frivolous, and nugatory ceremonies, while there is a pollution of the sacraments not less to be execrated. Baptism is deformed by numerous additions, the holy supper is prostituted to all kinds of ignominy, religion throughout has degenerated into an entirely different form.

If we are negligent in remedying these evils, God assuredly will not forget himself. How could he who declares that he will not allow his honor to be in any way impaired, fail to interpose when it is cast down and destroyed? How could he who threatens with destruction all the nations among whom prophecy shall have failed, permit our open and contumacious contempt of the prophecies to go unpunished? How could he who punished a slight stain on his supper so severely in the Corinthians, spare us in presuming to pollute it with so many unutterable blasphemies? How could he who, by the mouths of all his prophets, testifies and proclaims that he is armed with vengeance against idolatry, leave untouched in us so many monstrous idolatries? Assuredly he does not so leave them, for we see how, sword in hand, he urges and pursues us.

The Turkish war now occupies the minds of all, and fills them with alarm. It well may. Consultations are held to prepare the means of resistance. This, too, is prudently and necessarily done. All exclaim that there is need of no ordinary dispatch. I admit that there cannot be too much dispatch, provided, in the meantime, the consultation which ought to be first, the consultation how to restore the church to its proper state, is neither neglected nor retarded. Already delays more than enough have been interposed. The fuel of the Turkish war is within, shut up in our bowels, and must first be removed, if we would successfully drive back the war itself.

In [the] future, therefore, as often as you shall hear the croaking note Â¬ “The business of reforming the church must be delayed for the present; there will be time enough to accomplish it after other matters are transacted” Â¬ remember, most invincible emperor, and most illustrious princes, that the matter on which you are to deliberate is, whether you are to leave to your posterity some empire or none. Yet, why do I speak of posterity? Even now, while your own eyes behold, it is half bent, and totters to its final ruin. In regard to ourselves, whatever be the event, we will always be supported, in the sight of God, by the consciousness that we have desired both to promote his glory and do good to his church; that we have labored faithfully for that end; that, in short, we have done what we could. Our conscience tells us, that in all our wishes, and all our endeavors, we have had no other aim. And we have essayed, by clear proof, to testify the fact. And, certainly, while we feel assured that we both care for and do the work of the Lord, we are also confident that he will by no means be wanting either to himself or to it.

But be the issue what it may, we will never repent of having begun, and of having proceeded thus far. The Holy Spirit is a faithful and unerring witness to our doctrine. We know, I say, that it is the eternal truth of God that we preach. We are, indeed, desirous, as we ought to be, that our ministry may prove salutary to the world; but to give it this effect belongs to God, not to us. If, to punish, partly the ingratitude, and partly the stubbornness of those to whom we desire to do good, success must prove desperate, and all things go to worse, I will say what it befits a Christian man to say, and what all who are true to this holy profession will subscribe: We will die, but in death even be conquerors, not only because through it we shall have a sure passage to a better life, but because we know that our blood will be as seed to propagate the divine truth which men now despise.

A Treatise on Relics

Chapter I: Origin Of The Worship Of Relics And Images In The Christian Church

Hero-worship is innate to human nature, and it is founded on some of our noblest feelings,—gratitude, love, and admiration.—but which, like all other feelings, when uncontrolled by principle and reason, may easily degenerate into the wildest exaggerations, and lead to most dangerous consequences. It was by such an exaggeration of these noble feelings that Paganism filled the Olympus with gods and demigods,—elevating to this rank men who have often deserved the gratitude of their fellow-creatures, by some signal services rendered to the community, or their admiration, by having performed some deeds which required a more than usual degree of mental and physical powers. The same cause obtained for the Christian martyrs the gratitude and admiration of their fellow-Christians, and finally converted them into a kind of  demigods. This was more particularly the case when the church began to be corrupted by her compromise with Paganism, which having been baptized without being converted, rapidly introduced into the Christian church, not only many of its rites and ceremonies, but even its polytheism, with this difference, that the divinities of Greece and Rome were replaced by Christian saints, many of whom received the offices of their Pagan predecessors. The church in the beginning tolerated these abuses, as a temporary evil, but was afterwards unable to remove them; and they became so strong, particularly during the prevailing ignorance of the middle ages, that the church ended by legalising, through her decrees, that at which she did nothing but wink at first. I shall endeavour to give my readers a rapid sketch of the rise, progress, and final establishment of the Pagan practices which not only continue to prevail in the Western as well as in the Eastern church, but have been of late, notwithstanding the boasted progress of intellect in our days, manifested in as bold as successful a manner.

Nothing, indeed, can be more deserving of our admiration than the conduct of the Christian martyrs, who cheerfully submitted to an ignominious death, inflicted by the most atrocious torments, rather than deny their faith even by the mere performance of an apparently insignificant rite of Paganism. Their persecutors were often affected by seeing examples of an heroic fortitude, such as they admired in a Scævola or a Regulus, displayed not only by men, but by women, and even children, and became converted to a faith which could inspire its confessors with such a devotion to its tenets. It has been justly said that the blood of the martyrs was the glory and the seed of the church, because the constancy of her confessors has, perhaps, given her more converts than the eloquence and learning of her doctors. It was, therefore, very natural that the memory of those noble champions of Christianity should be held in great veneration by their brethren in the faith. The bodies of the martyrs, or their remnants, were always, whenever it was possible, purchased from their judges or executioners, and decently buried by the Christians. The day on which the martyr had suffered was generally marked in the registers of his church, in order to commemorate this glorious event on its anniversaries. These commemorations usually consisted in the eulogy of the martyr, delivered in an assembly of the church, for the edification of the faithful, the strengthening of the weak, and the stimulating of the lukewarm, by setting before them the noble example of the above-mentioned martyr. It was very natural that the objects of the commemoration received on such an occasion the greatest praises, not unfrequently expressed in the most exaggerated terms, but there was no question about invoking the aid or intercession of the confessors whose example was thus held out for the imitation of the church.

We know from the Acts that neither St Stephen, the first Christian martyr, nor St James, who was killed by Herod, were invoked in any manner by the apostolic church, because, had this been the case, the inspired writer of this first record of the ancient church would not have omitted such an important circumstance, having mentioned facts of much lesser consequence. Had such a practice been in conformity with the apostolic doctrine, it would have certainly been brought forward in the epistles of St Paul, or in those of other apostles. There is also sufficient evidence that the fathers of the primitive church knew nothing of the invocation, or any other kind of worship rendered to departed saints. The limits of this essay allow me not to adduce evidences of this fact, which may be abundantly drawn from the writings of those fathers, and I shall content myself with the following few but conclusive instances of this kind.

St Clement, bishop of Rome, who is supposed to have been instituted by St Paul, and to be the same of whom he speaks in his Epistle to the Philippians iv. 3, addressed a letter to the Corinthians on account of certain dissensions by which their church was disturbed. He recommends to them, with great praises, the Epistles of St Paul, who had suffered martyrdom under Nero, but he does not say a word about invoking the aid or intercession of the martyr, who was the founder of their church, and which would have been most suitable on that occasion, if such a practice had already been admitted by the Christians of his time. On the contrary, he prays God for them, “because it is He who gives to the soul that invokes Him, faith, grace, peace, patience, and wisdom.” St Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who lived in the second century, addressed a letter to the Philippians, but he says nothing in it to recommend the invocation of St Paul, who was the founder of their church, and as such would have been considered as its patron saint, had the worship of the saints been at that time already introduced amongst the Christians. The most important and positive proof that the primitive Christians, not only did not pay any adoration to the martyrs, but decidedly rejected it, is the epistle which was issued by the church of Smyrna after the martyrdom of its bishop, whom I have just mentioned. It states that the Pagans had, at the instigation of the Jews, closely watched the Christians, imagining that they would endeavour to carry away the ashes of Polycarp in order to worship him after his death, because these idolaters knew not that the Christians cannot abandon Jesus Christ, or worship any one else. “We worship,” says the same document, “Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God; but with regard to the martyrs, the disciples of Christ and imitators of his virtues, we love them, as they deserve it, on account of the unconquerable love which they had for their Master and King; and would to God that we should become their disciples and partakers of their zeal.”

I could multiply proofs of this kind without end, but I shall only observe, that even in the fourth century the orthodox Christians considered the worship of every created being as idolatry, because the opponents of the Arians, who considered Jesus Christ as created and not co-essential with God the Father, employed the following argument to combat this dogma:—“If you consider Jesus Christ a created being, you commit idolatry by worshipping him.”

Admiration is, however, akin to adoration, and it was no wonder that those whose memory was constantly praised, and frequently in the most exaggerated terms, gradually began to be considered as something more than simple mortals, and treated accordingly. It was also very natural that various objects which had belonged to the martyrs were carefully preserved as interesting mementoes, since it is continually done with persons who have acquired some kind of celebrity, and that this should be the case with their bodies, which have often been embalmed. It is, however, impossible, as Calvin has justly observed, to preserve such objects without honouring them in a certain manner, and this must soon degenerate into adoration. This was the origin of the worship of relics, which went on increasing in the same ratio as the purity of Christian doctrines was giving way to the superstitions of Paganism.

The worship of images is intimately connected with that of the saints. They were rejected by the primitive Christians; but St Irenæus, who lived in the second century, relates that there was a sect of heretics, the Carpocratians, who worshipped, in the manner of Pagans, different images representing Jesus Christ, St Paul, and others. The Gnostics had also images; but the church rejected their use in a positive manner, and a Christian writer of the third century, Minutius Felix, says that “the Pagans reproached the Christians for having neither temples nor simulachres;” and I could quote many other evidences that the primitive Christians entertained a great horror against every kind of images, considering them as the work of demons.

It appears, however, that the use of pictures was creeping into the church already in the third century, because the council of Elvira in Spain, held in 305, especially forbids to have any picture in the Christian churches. These pictures were generally representations of some events, either of the New or of the Old Testament, and their object was to instruct the common and illiterate people in sacred history, whilst others were emblems, representing some ideas connected with the doctrines of Christianity. It was certainly a powerful means of producing an impression upon the senses and the imagination of the vulgar, who believe without reasoning, and admit without reflection; it was also the most easy way of converting rude and ignorant nations, because, looking constantly on the representations of some fact, people usually end by believing it. This iconographic teaching was, therefore, recommended by the rulers of the church, as being useful to the ignorant, who had only the understanding of eyes, and could not read writings. Such a practice was, however, fraught with the greatest danger, as experience has but too much proved. It was replacing intellect by sight. Instead of elevating man towards God, it was bringing down the Deity to the level of his finite intellect, and it could not but powerfully contribute to the rapid spread of a pagan anthropomorphism in the church.

There was also another cause which seems to have greatly contributed to the propagation of the abovementioned anthropomorphism amongst the Christians, namely, the contemplative life of the hermits, particularly of those who inhabited the burning deserts of Egypt. It has been observed of these monks, by Zimmerman, in his celebrated work on Solitude, that “men of extraordinary characters, and actuated by strange and uncommon passions, have shrunk from the pleasures of the world into joyless gloom and desolation. In savage and dreary deserts they have lived a solitary and destitute life, subjecting themselves to voluntary self-denials and mortifications almost incredible; sometimes exposed in nakedness to the chilling blasts of the winter cold, or the scorching breath of summer’s heat, till their brains, distempered by the joint operation of tortured senses and overstrained imagination, swarmed with the wildest and most frantic visions.” The same writer relates, on the authority of Sulpicius Severus, that an individual had been roving about Mount Sinai nearly during fifty years, entirely naked, and avoiding all intercourse with men. Once, however, being inquired about the motives of his strange conduct, he answered, that, “enjoying as he did the society of seraphim and cherubim, he felt aversion to intercourse with men.”

Many of these enthusiasts imagined, in their hallucinations, they had a direct intercourse with God himself, who, as well as the subordinate spirits, appeared to them in a human shape. The monks of Egypt were, indeed, the most zealous defenders of the corporeality of God. They violently hated Origines for his maintaining that He was spiritual. Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, opposed this error; but the monks assembled in great force, with the intention of murdering him; and he escaped this danger by addressing them in the words which Jacob used to Esau, “I have seen thy face, as though I had seen the face of God.”—(Gen. xxxiii 10.) This compliment, which could be interpreted as an acknowledgment of a corporeal God, appeased the wrath of the monks, but they compelled Theophilus to anathematise the writings of Origines.

The following anecdote is characteristic of the strong tendency of human nature towards anthropomorphism. An old monk, called Serapion, having been convinced by the arguments of a friend that it was an error to believe God corporeal, exclaimed, weeping, “Alas, my God was taken from me, and I do not know whom I am now worshipping!” I shall have, in the course of this essay, opportunities to show that the monks have always been the most zealous and efficient promoters of image-worship.

The following rapid sketch of the introduction of image-worship into the Christian church, and of its consequences, has been drawn by a French living writer, whose religious views I do not share, but whose profound erudition, fairness, and sincerity, are deserving of the greatest praise:—

“The aversion of the first Christians to the images, inspired by the Pagan simulachres, made room, during the centuries which followed the period of the persecutions, to a feeling of an entirely different kind, and the images gradually gained their favour. Reappearing at the end of the fourth and during the course of the fifth centuries, simply as emblems, they soon became images, in the true acceptation of this word; and the respect which was entertained by the Christians for the persons and ideas represented by those images, was afterwards converted into a real worship. Representations of the sufferings which the Christians had endured for the sake of their religion, were at first exhibited to the people in order to stimulate by such a sight the faith of the masses, always lukewarm and indifferent. With regard to the images of divine persons of entirely immaterial beings, it must be remarked, that they did not originate from the most spiritualised and pure doctrines of the Christian society, but were rejected by the severe orthodoxy of the primitive church. These simulachres appear to have been spread at first by the Gnostics,—i.e., by those Christian sects which adopted the most of the beliefs of Persia and India. Thus it was a Christianity which was not purified by its contact with the school of Plato,—a Christianity which entirely rejected the Mosaic tradition, in order to attach itself to the most strange and attractive myths of Persia and India,—that gave birth to the images. And it was a return to the spiritualism of the first ages, and a revival of the spirit of aversion to what has a tendency of lowering Divinity to the narrow proportions of a human creature, that produced war against those images. But the manners and the beliefs had been changed. Whole nations had received Christianity, when it was already escorted by that idolatrous train of carved and painted images. Only those populations amongst whom the ancient traditions were preserved could favour this reaction. The clergy were, moreover, interested in maintaining one of their most powerful means of teaching. The long and persevering efforts of the Iconoclasts proved therefore ineffective; and the Waldenses were not more fortunate. Wickliffe, the Hussites, and Carlostad, attacked the images; but it was reserved only to the Calvinists to establish in some parts of Europe the triumph of the ideas of the Iconoclasts. The shock was terrible. The Religionists frequently committed acts of a fanatical and senseless vandalism; and art had many losses to deplore. But the idolatrous tendency was struck at its very root; and Catholicism itself found, after the struggle, more purity and idealism in its own worship. The Reformed perceived afterwards the exaggeration of their principles; and though they continued to defend the entrance of their temples to the simulachres, condemned by God on Mount Sinai, they spared those which had been bequeathed by the less severe and more material faith of their fathers.”

The principal cause of the corruption of the Christian church, by the introduction of the Pagan ideas and practices alluded to above, was, however, chiefly the lamentable policy of compromise with Paganism which that church adopted soon after her sudden triumph by the conversion of Constantine. The object of this policy was to lead into her pale the Pagans as rapidly as possible; and, therefore, instead of making them enter by the strait gate, she widened it in such a manner, that the rush of Paganism had almost driven Christianity out of her pale. The example of the emperors, who, professing Christianity, were, or considered themselves to be, obliged, by the necessities of their position, to act on some occasions as Pagans, may have been not without influence on the church. I shall endeavour to develop this important subject in the following chapters; and, in order to remove every suspicion of partiality, I shall do it almost entirely on the authority of an eminent Roman Catholic writer of our day.

Chapter II: Compromise Of The Church With Paganism

I have described, in the preceding chapter, the causes which made Christian worship gradually to deviate from its primitive purity, and to assume a character more adapted to the ideas of the heathen population,—numbers of whom were continually joining the church. It was, particularly since the time of Constantine, because its festivals, becoming every day more numerous, and its sanctuaries more solemn, spacious, and adorned with greater splendour,—its ceremonies more complicated,—its emblems more diversified,—offered to the Pagans an ample compensation for the artistic pomp of their ancient worship. “The frankincense,” says an eminent Roman Catholic writer of our time, “the flowers, the golden and silver vessels, the lamps, the crowns, the luminaries, the linen, the silk, the chaunts, the processions, the festivals, recurring at certain fixed days, passed from the vanquished altars to the triumphant one. Paganism tried to borrow from Christianity its dogmas and its morals; Christianity took from Paganism its ornaments.” Christianity would have become triumphant without these transformations. It would have done it later than it did, but its triumph would have been of a different kind from that which it has obtained by the assistance of these auxiliaries. “Christianity,” says the author quoted above, “retrograded; but it was this which made its force.” It would be more correct to say, that it advanced its external progress at the expence of its purity; it gained thus the favour of the crowd, but it was by other means that it obtained the approbation of the cultivated minds.

The church made a compromise with Paganism in order to convert more easily its adherents,—forgetting the precepts of the apostle, to beware of philosophy and vain traditions, (Col. ii. 8,) as well as to refuse profane and old wives’ fables, (1 Tim. iv. 7.) And it cannot be doubted that St Paul knew well that a toleration of these things would have rapidly extended the new churches, had the quantity of the converts been more important than the quality of their belief and morals.

This subject has been amply developed by one of the most distinguished French writers of our day, who, belonging himself to the Roman Catholic Church, seeks to justify her conduct in this respect, though he admits with the greatest sincerity that she had introduced into her polity a large share of Pagan elements. I shall give my readers this curious piece of special pleading in favour of the line of policy which the church had followed on that occasion, as it forms a precious document, proving, in an unanswerable manner, the extent of Pagan rites and ideas contained in the Roman Catholic Church, particularly as it proceeds, not from an opponent of that church, but from a dutiful son of hers. The work from which I am making this extract is, moreover, considered as one of the master-pieces of modern French literature, and it was crowned by one of the most learned bodies of Europe—the Academie des Inscriptions et des Belles Lettres of Paris.

“The fundamental idea of Christianity,” says our author, “was a new, powerful idea, and independent of all those by which it had been preceded. However, the men by whom the Christian system was extended and developed, having been formed in the school of Paganism, could not resist the desire of connecting it with the former systems. St Justin, St Clement (of Alexandria), Athenagoras, Tatian, Origenes, Synesius, &c., considered Pagan philosophy as a preparation to Christianity. It was, indeed, making a large concession to the spirit of the ancient times; but they believed that they could conceal its inconveniences by maintaining in all its purity the form of Christian worship, and rejecting with disdain the usages and ceremonies of polytheism. When Christianity became the dominant religion, its doctors perceived that they would be compelled to give way equally in respect to the external form of worship, and that they would not be sufficiently strong to constrain the multitude of Pagans, who were embracing Christianity with a kind of enthusiasm as unreasoning as it was of little duration, to forget a system of acts, ceremonies, and festivals, which had such an immense power over their ideas and manners. The church admitted, therefore, into her discipline, many usages evidently pagan. She undoubtedly has endeavoured to purify them, but she never could obliterate the impression of their original stamp.

“This new spirit of Christianity—this eclectism, which extended even to material things—has in modern times given rise to passionate discussions; these borrowings from the old religion were condemned, as having been suggested to the Christians of the fourth and fifth centuries by the remnants of that old love of idolatry which was lurking at the bottom of their hearts. It was easy for the modern reformers to condemn, by an unjust blame, the leaders of the church; they should, however, have acknowledged, that the principal interest of Christianity was to wrest from error the greatest number of its partisans, and that it was impossible to attain this object without providing for the obstinate adherents of the false gods an easy passage from the temple to the church. If we consider that, notwithstanding all these concessions, the ruin of Paganism was accomplished only by degrees and imperceptibly,—that during more than two centuries it was necessary to combat, over the whole of Europe, an error which, although continually overthrown, was incessantly rising again,—we shall understand that the conciliatory spirit of the leaders of the church was true wisdom.

“St John Chrysostom says, that the devil, having perceived that he could gain nothing with the Christians by pushing them in a direct way into idolatry, adopted for the purpose an indirect one. If the devil, that is to say, the pagan spirit, was changing its plan of attack, the church was also obliged to modify her system of defence, and not to affect an inflexibility which would have kept from her a great number of people whose irresolute conscience was fluctuating between falsehood and truth.

“Already, at the beginning of the fifth century, some haughty spirits, Christians who were making a display of the rigidity of their virtues, and who were raising an outcry against the profanation of holy things, began to preach a pretended reform; they were recalling the Christians to the apostolic doctrine; they demanded what they were calling a true Christianity. Vigilantius, a Spanish priest, sustained on this subject an animated contest with St Jerome. He opposed the worship of the saints and the custom of placing candles on their sepulchres; he condemned, as a source of scandal, the vigils in the basilics of the martyrs, and many other usages, which were, it is true, derived from the ancient worship. We may judge by the warmth with which St Jerome refuted the doctrines of this heresiarch of the importance which he attached to those usages. He foresaw that the mission of the Christian doctrine would be to adapt itself to the manners of all times, and to oppose them only when they would tend towards depravity. Far from desiring to deprive the Romans of certain ceremonial practices which were dear to them, and whose influence had nothing dangerous to the Christian dogmas, he openly took their part, and his conduct was approved by the whole church.

“If St Jerome and St Augustinus had shared the opinions of Vigilantius, would they have had the necessary power successfully to oppose the introduction of pagan usages into the ceremonies of the Christian church? I don’t believe that they would. After the fall of Rome, whole populations passed under the standards of Christianity, but they did it with their baggage of senseless beliefs and superstitious practices. The church could not repulse this crowd of self-styled Christians, and still less summon them immediately to abandon all their ancient errors; she therefore made concessions to circumstances, concessions which were not entirely voluntary. They may be considered as calculations full of wisdom on the part of the leaders of the church, as well as the consequence of that kind of irruption which was made at the beginning of the fifth century into the Christian society by populations, who, notwithstanding their abjuration, were Pagans by their manners, their tastes, their prejudices, and their ignorance.

“Let us now calculate the extent of these concessions, and examine whether it was right to say that they injured the purity of the Christian dogmas.

“The Romans had derived from their religion an excessive love of public festivals. They were unable to conceive a worship without the pompous apparel of ceremonies. They considered the long processions, the harmonious chaunts, the splendour of dresses, the light of tapers, the perfume of frankincense, as the essential part of religion. Christianity, far from opposing a disposition which required only to be directed with more wisdom, adopted a part of the ceremonial system of the ancient worship. It changed the object of its ceremonies, it cleansed them from their old impurities, but it preserved the days upon which many of them were celebrated, and the multitude found thus in the new religion, as much as in the old one, the means of satisfying its dominant passion.

“The neophytes felt for the pagan temples an involuntary respect. They could not pass at once from veneration to a contempt for the monuments of their ancestors’ piety; and in ascending the steps of the church, they were casting a longing look on those temples which a short time before had been resplendent with magnificence, but were now deserted. Christianity understood the power of this feeling, and desired to appropriate it to its own service; it consented, therefore, to establish the solemnities of its worship in the edifices which it had disdained for a long time. Its care not to offend pagan habits was such, that it often respected even the pagan names of those edifices. In short, its policy, which, since the times of Constantine, was always to facilitate the conversion of the Pagans, assumed, after the fall of Rome, a more decided character, and the system of useful concessions became general in all the churches of Europe; and it cannot be doubted that its results have been favourable to the propagation of Christian ideas.

“There is, moreover, a peculiar cause to which the rapid decline of the pagan doctrines in the west must be ascribed, and I shall endeavour to place this powerful cause in its true light, carefully avoiding mixing up with a subject of this importance all considerations foreign to the object of my researches.

“Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople, after having defended a long time the true faith, strayed from it on a subject which proved a stumbling-stone to so many theologians—I mean, the nature of Jesus Christ. Nestorius distinguished in the Son of God two natures, a divine and a human one; and he maintained that the Virgin Mary was not the mother of God (Θεοτοκος), but the mother of the man (ἀνθρωποτοκος). This doctrine, which was a new and bolder form given to Arianism, spread in the two empires, and gained a great number of partisans amongst the monasteries of Egypt. Many monks could not almost suffer that Jesus Christ should be acknowledged as God, and considered him only as an instrument of the Divinity, or a vessel which bore it (Θεοφορος).

“The celebrated St Cyrillus, bishop of Alexandria, wrote an epistle to those monks, in order to call them back to respect for the traditions established in the church, if not by the apostles—who, in speaking of the holy virgin, never made use of the expression, mother of God—at least by the fathers who succeeded them. The quarrel became general and violent; the Christians came to blows everywhere. Nestorius seemingly wished to draw back, being frightened by the storm which he had himself raised. ‘I have found,’ said he, ‘the church a prey to dissensions. Some call the holy virgin the mother of God; others only the mother of a man. In order to reunite them, I have called her the mother of Christ. Remain, therefore, at peace about this question, and be convinced that my sentiments on the true faith are always the same.’ But his obstinacy and the ardour of his partisans did not allow him to go beyond this false retraction. The necessity of a general council was felt, and the Emperor Theodosius II. ordered in 431 its convocation at Ephesus. On the 21st June 431, two hundred bishops condemned Nestorius, and declared that the Virgin Mary should be honoured as the mother of God. This decision was accepted, notwithstanding some vain protestations, by the universal church. The fathers of the council of Ephesus had no thought of introducing into the church a new dogma or worship. The Virgin Mary had always been considered by them as the mother of God, and they made now a solemn declaration of this belief, in order to reply to the attack of Nestorius, and to remove every incertitude about a dogma which had not hitherto been opposed. But these great assemblies of Christians, notwithstanding the particular motive of their meeting, were always produced by some general necessity which was felt by the Christian society, and the results of their decrees went often beyond the provisions of those by whom they were framed.

“Though I am far from believing that it is allowable to weigh in the scales of human reason the dogmas of Christianity, I do not think that it is prohibited to examine which of these dogmas has been the most instrumental in detaching the Pagans from their errors.

“We have several times penetrated, in the course of our researches, into the conscience of the leaders of Paganism, and we have always found that it was entirely under the influence of political views and interests. These interests, which so powerfully acted upon the politician’s mind, had but a feeble hold upon that of the inhabitants of the country. And, indeed, what interest could the agriculturists, the artisans, and the proletarians, have in maintaining the integrity of the Roman constitution, or in preserving the rights of the senate, as well as the privileges, honours, and riches of the aristocracy? Being destined, as they were under any religion whatever, for a life of labour and privation, they might choose between Christianity and Paganism, without having their choice actuated by any personal interest. It is therefore necessary to seek for another cause of that obstinate attachment which the lower classes of the town and country population showed for the practices of a worship whose existence was for a century reduced to such a miserable state.

“I shall not dwell on what has been said about the tyranny of habit, which is always more severe wherever minds are less enlightened. I shall indicate another cause of the obstinacy of the Pagans, which was founded at least upon an operation of the mind—upon a judgment—and was, consequently, more deserving of fixing the attention of the church than that respect of custom against which the weapons of reason are powerless.

“The Christian dogmas, penetrating into a soul corrupted and weakened by idolatry, must have, in the first moment, filled it with a kind of terror. And, indeed, how was it possible that the Pagans, accustomed as they were to their profligate gods and goddesses, should not have trembled when they heard for the first time the voice of God, the just but inexorable rewarder of good and evil? Should not a solemn and grave worship, whose ceremonies were a constant and direct excitation to the practice of every virtue, appear an intolerable yoke to men who were accustomed to find in their sacred rites a legitimate occasion to indulge in every kind of debauchery? The fear of submitting their lives to the rule of a too rigid morality, and to bow their heads before a God whose greatness terrified them, kept for many years a multitude of Pagans from the church.

“If it has entered the designs of Providence to temper the severe dogmas of Christianity by the consecration of some mild, tender, and consoling ideas, and by the same adapted to the fragile human nature, it is evident that, whatever may have been their aim, they must have assisted in detaching the last Pagans from their errors. The worship of Mary, the mother of God, seems to have been the means which Providence has employed for completing Christianity.

“After the council of Ephesus the churches of the East and of the West offered the worship of the faithful to the Virgin Mary, who had victoriously issued from a violent attack. The nations were as if dazzled by the image of this divine mother, who united in her person the two most tender feelings of nature, the pudicity of the virgin and the love of the mother; an emblem of mildness, of resignation, and of all that is sublime in virtue; one who weeps with the afflicted, intercedes for the guilty, and never appears otherwise than as the messenger of pardon or of assistance. They accepted this new worship with an enthusiasm sometimes too great, because with many Christians it became the whole Christianity. The Pagans did not even try to defend their altars against the progress of the worship of the mother of God; they opened to Mary the temples which they kept closed to Jesus Christ, and confessed their defeat. It is true, that they often mixed with the worship of Mary those pagan ideas, those vain practices, those ridiculous superstitions, from which they seemed unable to detach themselves; but the church rejoiced, nevertheless, at their entering into her pale, because she well knew that it would be easy to her to purge of its alloy, with the help of time, a worship whose essence was purity itself. Thus, some prudent concessions, temporarily made to the pagan manners and the worship of Mary, were two elements of force which the church employed in order to conquer the resistance of the last Pagans,—a resistance which was feeble enough in Italy, but violent beyond the Alps.”

Chapter III: Position Of The First Christian Emperors Towards Paganism, And Their Policy In This Respect

I have given in the preceding chapter a description, traced by one of the most learned Roman Catholic writers of our day, of the compromise between Christianity and Paganism, by which the church has endeavoured to establish her dominion over the adherents of the latter. I shall now try to give a rapid sketch of the circumstances which undoubtedly have influenced the church, to a considerable degree, in the adoption of a line of policy which, though it certainly has much contributed to the extension of her external dominion, has introduced into her pale those very errors and superstitions which it was her mission to destroy, and to deliver mankind from their baneful influence.

There is a widely-spread but erroneous opinion, that the conversion of Constantine was followed by an immediate destruction of Paganism in the Roman empire. This opinion originated from the incorrect statements of some ecclesiastical writers; but historical criticism has proved, beyond every doubt, that, even a century after the conversion of that monarch, Paganism was by no means extinct, and counted many adherents, even amongst the highest classes of Roman society.

When Constantine proclaimed his conversion to the religion of the Cross, its adherents formed but a minority of the population of the Roman empire. The deficiency of their numbers was, however, compensated by their moral advantages; for they were united by the worship of the one true God, and ardently devoted to a religion which they had voluntarily embraced, and for which they had suffered so much. The Pagans were, on the contrary, disunited, and in a great measure indifferent to a religion whose doctrines were derided by the more enlightened of them, though, considering it as a political institution necessary for the maintenance of the empire, they often displayed great zeal in its defence. The Christians of that time may be compared to the Greeks when they combated the Persians on the field of Marathon and at Thermopylæ; but, alas! their victory under Constantine proved as fatal to the purity of their religion as that of the Greeks under Alexander to their political and military virtues. Both of them became corrupted by adopting the ideas and manners of their conquered adversaries.

Some writers have suspected that the conversion of Constantine was more due to political than religious motives; but though great and many were the faults of that monarch, his sincerity in embracing the Christian religion cannot be doubted, because it was a step more contrary than favourable to his political interests. The Christians formed, as I have said above, only a minority of the population of the empire, and particularly so in its western provinces. There was not a single Christian in the Roman senate; and the aristocracy of Rome, whose privileges and interests were intimately connected with the religious institutions of the empire, were most zealous in their defence. The municipal bodies of the principal cities were also blindly devoted to the national religion, whose existence was considered by many as inseparable from that of the empire itself; and these bodies were generally the chief promoters of those terrible persecutions to which the Christians had been so many times subjected. The Pagan clergy, rich, powerful, and numerous, were ever zealous in exciting public hatred against the Christians; and the legions were chiefly commanded by those officers who had united with Galerius in compelling Diocletian to persecute the Christians. The capital of the empire was the particular stronghold of the ancient creed. “Rome,” says Beugnot, in the work from which I have so largely drawn, “was the cradle and the focus of the national belief. Many traditions, elevated to the rank of dogmas, were born within her pale, and impressed upon her a religious character, which still was vividly shining in the times of Constantine. The Pagans of the west considered Rome as the sacred city, the sanctuary of their hopes, the point towards which all their thoughts were to be directed; and the Greeks, in their usual exaggeration, acknowledged in her, not a part of the earth, but of heaven.”—(Libanii Epistolæ, epist. 1083, p. 816.) “The aristocracy, endowed with its many sacerdotal dignities, and dragging in its train a crowd of clients and freedmen, to whom it imparted its passions and its attachment to the error, furnished, by the help of its immense riches, the means of subsistence to a greedy, turbulent, and superstitious populace, amongst whom it could easily maintain the most odious prejudices against Christianity. The hope of acquiring a name, a fortune, or simply to take a part in the public distributions, attracted to that city from the provinces all those who had no condition, or, what is still worse, those who were dissatisfied with theirs. Italy, Spain, Africa, and Gallia sent to Rome the elite of their children, in order to be instructed in a school, the principal merit of whose professors was, an envious hatred of every new idea, and who had acquired a melancholy reputation during the persecutions of the Christians. The standard of Paganism was waving in full liberty on the walls of the Capitol. Public and private sacrifices, sacred games, and the consultation of the augurs, were prevailing to the utmost in that sink of all the superstitions. The name of Christ was cursed, and the speedy ruin of his worshippers announced, in every part of that place, whilst the glory of the gods was celebrated, and their assistance invoked. How cruel must have been the situation of the Christians, left in the midst of that city, where, at every step, a temple, an altar, a statue, and horrible blasphemies were revealing to them the ever active power of the Lie! They dared not either to found churches, to open schools, or even publicly to reply to what was spoken against them, at the theatres, at the forum, or at the baths: so that they seemed to exist at Rome only in order to give a greater eclat to the dominion of idolatry.”—(Vol. i., p. 75.) It was no wonder that such a religious disposition of Rome had placed it in a continual and strenuous opposition to Constantine, and his Christian successors; and this circumstance may be considered as an additional motive which induced Constantine to transfer the capital of the empire from Rome to Byzantium, though this measure may have been chiefly brought about by political considerations. In removing his residence to a more central point of the empire, he at the same time drew nearer to the eastern provinces, where Christianity had many devoted adherents. Constantinople became the capital of the Christian party, whence it gradually developed its sway over the other parts of the empire, but the Pagans maintained meanwhile their ground at Rome, in such a manner, that it seems to have been uninhabitable to the Christian emperors; because we see even those of them who ruled the western provinces fixing their residence either at Milan or Ravenna, and visiting only on some occasions the city of the Cæsars, which had become, since the foundation of Constantinople, the fortified camp of Paganism.

Constantine proclaimed full religious liberty to all his subjects. This measure, dictated by a sound policy, and in perfect harmony with the true spirit of his new religion, was not, however, sufficient to relieve him from the difficulties of his personal position, as he united in his person two characters diametrically opposed one to another. Being a Christian, he was at the same time, as the emperor of Rome, the head and the representant, not only of its political, but also of its religious institutions. This circumstance forced him into a double line of policy, which I shall describe in the words of M. Beugnot:—

“There were in Constantine, so to say, two persons,—the Christian and the emperor. If that monarch had not been endowed with a rare intellect, he would have, by confounding these two characters, raised in his way obstacles which he could not overcome. As a Christian, he showed everywhere his contempt for the vain superstitions of the ancient worship, and his enthusiasm for the new ideas. He conferred with the bishops; he assisted standing at their long homilies; he presided at the councils; he deeply meditated the mysteries of Christianity; and he struggled against the heresiarchs with the ardour of a Christian soldier and the grief of a profoundly convinced soul. As emperor, he submitted to the necessities of a difficult position, and conformed, in all grave matters, to the manners and beliefs which he did not feel sufficiently strong openly to shock. On endowing the purple, he became the heir of that long series of emperors who had all remained faithful to the worship of the father-land; and he wrapt himself, so to say, in the ancient traditions and recollections of pagan Rome; for it was an inheritance which he could not renounce, without danger to himself as well as to the empire.

“When we observe some actions of Constantine, evidently tinged with Paganism, we must consider less their external form than the relation in which they stood towards the constitution of Rome, which that emperor had no desire to destroy. We shall then become convinced that his conduct was the result of necessity, and not that of a crooked policy. As an individual, he was free; as an emperor, he was a slave; and his greatest merit, according to our opinion, was to have soundly judged the embarrassments of this situation. Animated as he was with a lively zeal for the truths of Christianity, it was very natural that he should employ the imperial power in order to break down all the obstacles to its progress. But this would have involved him in an open war with a nation, the majority of whom were composed of Pagans; and it is very likely that he would have succumbed in such a contest. He understood this; and it prevented him giving way to the entreaties, and even complaints, of over-zealous Christians.”—Vol. i., p. 88.

Constantine was, notwithstanding his conversion to Christianity, the supreme pontiff of pagan Rome. The title of this dignity was given him on the public monuments, and he performed its functions on several occasions; as, for instance, in 321, several years after his conversion, he wrote to Maximus, prefect of Rome, as follows:—

“If our palace or any public monument shall be struck by lightning, the auguries are to be consulted, according to the ancient rites (retento more veteris observantiæ), in order to know what this event indicates; and the accounts of these proceedings are immediately to be sent to us. Private individuals may make similar consultations, provided they abstain from secret sacrifices, which are particularly prohibited. With regard to the accounts stating that the amphitheatre was recently struck by lightning, and which thou hast sent to Heraclianus the tribune, and master of offices, know that they must be delivered to us.”

This is undoubtedly a very strange document for a Christian monarch, who officially commands to consult the Pagan oracles, and, as its concluding words seem to imply, is anxious to maintain, on similar occasions, his rights as the supreme pontiff of Paganism.

It was also in his quality of supreme pontiff that Constantine instituted, soon after his accession, the Francic games, for the commemoration of his victory over the Franks, and which were celebrated, during a considerable time, on the 18th of the kalends of August; and, in 321, the Sarmatic games, on the occasion of his victory over the Sarmatians, and celebrated on the 6th of the same month. These games were real Pagan ceremonies, and reprobated on this account by the Christian writers of that time.

I could quote other instances of a similar kind; but I shall conclude this subject by observing, that a medal has been preserved, upon which Constantine is represented in the dress of the supreme pontiff,—i.e., with a veil covering his head.

Constantine was, indeed, very anxious not to offend the Pagan party. In 319 he published a very severe law against the soothsayers; expressing, however, that this prohibition did not extend to the public consultations of the Haruspices, according to the established rites. And a short time afterwards he proclaimed another law on the same subject, in which he still more explicitly declares that he does not interfere with the rites of the Pagan worship.

It must be observed, that the Romans, as well as the Greeks, had two kinds of divination: the public, which were considered as legitimate; and the secret, which were generally forbidden. This last had been prohibited by some former emperors; and the laws of the Twelve Tables declared them punishable with death. Constantine seems to have been very anxious that his intention on this subject should not be mistaken; and he published in 321 an edict, by which he positively allows the practice of a certain kind of magic, by the following remarkable expressions:—

“It is right to repress and to punish, by laws justly severe, those who practise, or try to practise, the magical arts, and seek to seduce pure souls into profligacy; but those who employ this art in order to find remedies against diseases, or who, in the country, make use of it in order to prevent the snow, the wind, and the hail from destroying the crops, must not be prosecuted. Neither the welfare nor the reputation of any one are endangered by acts whose object is to insure to men the benefits of the divinity and the fruits of their labour.”—Codex Theodosianus, lib. ix., f. 16, apud Beugnot.

This was, undoubtedly, a very large concession to the superstitions of Paganism made by a Christian monarch, and from which he was, perhaps, himself not entirely free. It is well known that Constantine, after his public declaration of Christianity, introduced the labarum, as a sign of the dominion of the new faith; but it was generally placed on his coins in the hands of the winged statue of the Pagan goddess of Victory. Besides these coins of Constantine, there are many others of the same monarch, having inscriptions in honour of Jupiter, Mars, and other Pagan divinities. The Pagan aristocracy of Rome seem to have been resolved to ignore the fact that the head of the empire had become a Christian, and to consider him, in spite of himself, as one of their own. Thus, after his death, the senate placed him, according to the usual custom, among the gods; and a calendar has been preserved where the festivals in honour of this strange divinity are indicated. The name of Divus is given to him on several coins; and, what is very odd, this Pagan god is represented on the above-mentioned medals holding in his hand the Christian sign of the labarum.

We thus see that Constantine, instead of persecuting the adherents of the national Paganism, was following a policy of compromise between the two characters united in his person, that of a Christian and of a Roman emperor. This did not, however, prevent him from heaping favours of every kind upon the Christian church,—favours which proved to her much more injurious than all the persecutions of the former emperors. And, indeed, the Christians, who had nobly stood the test of adversity, were not proof against the more dangerous trial of a sudden and unexpected prosperity.

The first favour granted by Constantine to the Christians, and which he did even before his public confession of their faith, was the extension to their clergy of the exemption from various municipal charges enjoyed by the Pagan priests, on account of their being obliged to give at their expense certain public games. The Christian clergy were thus placed in a more favourable position than the Pagan priests, because, though admitted to equal immunities, they were not subjected to the same charges; and thus, for the first time, a bribe was offered for conversion to a religion which had hitherto generally exposed its disciples to persecution. “Numbers of people, actuated less by conviction than by the hope of a reward, were crowding from all parts to the churches, and the first favour granted to the Christians introduced amongst them guilty passions, to which they had hitherto remained strangers, and whose action was so rapid and so melancholy. The complaints of the municipal bodies, and the disorder which it was producing in the provincial administration, induced Constantine to put some restrictions on a favour which, being granted perhaps somewhat inconsiderately, did more harm than good to the interests of the Christian religion.”—Beugnot, vol. i., p. 78.

Constantine increased his favours to the Christians after he had publicly embraced their faith. “The ecclesiastical historians,” says the author whom I have just quoted, “enumerate with a feeling of pride the proofs of his generosity. They say, that the revenues of the empire were employed to erect everywhere magnificent churches, and to enrich the bishops. They cannot be, on this occasion, accused of exaggeration. Constantine introduced amongst the Christians a taste for riches and luxury; and the disappearance of their frugal and simple manners, which had been the glory of the church during the three preceding centuries, may be dated from his reign.”—Ibid., p. 87.

The ecclesiastical historian Eusebius, a great admirer of Constantine, whose personal friend he was, admits himself, that the favours shown by that monarch to the church have not been always conducive to her purity.

In short, the sudden triumph of the church under Constantine was one of the principal causes of her corruption, and the beginning of that compromise with Paganism, described in the preceding chapter. Paganism, though weakened through its abandonment by the head of the state, was by no means broken down at the time of Constantine’s death. Many of its zealous adherents were occupying the principal dignities of the state, as well as the most important civil and military offices; but its chief stronghold was Rome, where its partisans were so powerful, that the unfortunate dissensions which divided the Christians were publicly exposed to ridicule in the theatres of that city. The Arian writer Philostorgus says that Constantine was worshipped after his death, not as a saint, but as a god, by the orthodox Christians, who offered sacrifices to the statue of that monarch placed upon a column of porphyry, and addressed prayers to him as to God himself. It is impossible to ascertain whether examples of such mad extravagance had ever taken place amongst Christians or not; but the Western church has not bestowed upon his memory the honours of saintship, though she has been generally very lavish of them. Thus the first Christian emperor was canonised only by the Pagans.

The sons of Constantine followed the religious policy of their father; and the facility with which his nephew, Julian the Apostate, had restored Paganism to the rank of the dominant religion, twenty-four years after his death, proves how strong its party was even at that time. Julian’s reign of eighteen months was too short to produce any considerable effect upon the religious parties into which the Roman empire was then divided. After his death, the imperial crown was offered by the army to Sallust, a Pagan general, who having refused it on account of his great age, it was bestowed upon Jovian, a Christian, who reigned only three months. The legions elected, after Jovian’s death, Valentinian, who, though a sincere Christian, strictly maintained the religious liberty of his subjects; and the same policy was followed by his brother and colleague Valens, who governed the eastern part of the empire, and was an Arian. Valentinian’s son and successor, Gratian, though educated by the celebrated poet Ausonius, who adhered to the ancient worship, was a zealous Christian. He published, immediately after his accession, an edict allowing perfect religious liberty to all his subjects, with the exception of the Manicheans and some other sects. He granted several new privileges to Christians, but he continued to conform for some time to the duties inherited from his Pagan predecessors, of which the most remarkable instance was, that he caused his father to be placed amongst the gods, according to the general custom followed at the death of the Roman emperors.

Though greatly enfeebled by the continual advance of Christianity, Paganism was still the established religion of the state. Its rites were still observed with their wonted solemnity, and its power was still so great at Rome, that a vestal virgin was executed in that city for the breach of her vow of chastity, subsequently to the reign of Gratian. These circumstances induced, probably, the above-mentioned emperor to respect the religious institutions of Rome during the first years of his reign, but (382), acting under the advice of St Ambrose, he confiscated the property belonging to the Pagan temples, and the incomes of which served for the maintenance of priests and the celebration of sacrifices. He abolished, at the same time, all the privileges and immunities of the Pagan priests, and ordered the altar and statue of the goddess of Victory to be removed from the hall of the senate, the presence of which gave to that assembly, though it already contained many Christian members, the character of a Pagan institution.

The senate sent a deputation to Gallia, where Gratian was at that time, in order to remonstrate against these measures, and to present to him, at the same time, the insignia of the supreme pontificate of Rome, which none of his Christian predecessors had yet refused. But Gratian rejected these emblems of Paganism, saying that it was not meet for a Christian to accept them. This would have been probably followed by other more decided measures, had he not perished a short time afterwards in a rebellion. Theodosius the Great, whom Gratian had associated with him, adopted a decidedly hostile policy towards Paganism, and proclaimed a series of laws against it. Thus, in 381, he ordered that those Christians who returned to Paganism should forfeit the right of making wills; but as these apostasies continued, he ordered, in 383, that the apostates should not inherit any kind of property, either left by will or descended by natural order of succession, unless it were left by their parents or a brother. In 385 he proclaimed the penalty of death against all those who should inquire into futurity by consulting the entrails of the victims, or try to obtain the same object by execrable and magic consultations, which evidently referred to those secret divinations that had been prohibited by Constantine, as well as his Pagan predecessors. In the course of the year 391, he published a series of edicts, prohibiting under pain of death every immolation, and all other acts of idolatry under that of confiscation of the houses or lands where they had been performed.

Theodosius died in 395, but had his life been prolonged, he would probably have developed still farther his policy against Paganism, which was greatly weakened in the course of his reign. Many Pagan temples, particularly in the Eastern provinces, were destroyed during his reign by the Christians, acting without the orders of the emperor, but not punished by him for these acts of violence. He did not, however, constrain the Pagans to embrace Christianity; and, notwithstanding that he proclaimed several laws against their worship, he employed many of them even in the highest offices of the state. Notwithstanding the severe laws published by Theodosius against idolatry, Rome still contained a great number of pagan temples, and the polytheist party continued to be strong in the senate, as well as in the army, which is evident from the two following facts. When Alaric elected in 409 Attalus emperor of Rome, the new monarch distributed the first dignities of the state to Pagans, and restored the public solemnities of the ancient worship, in order to maintain himself on the throne by the support of the Pagan party; which proves that, though a century had already elapsed since the conversion of Constantine, this party was not yet considered quite insignificant. About the same time, Honorius having proclaimed a law which excluded from the offices of the imperial palace all those who did not profess his religion, was obliged to revoke it, because it gave offence to the Pagan officers of the army. Arcadius, who succeeded Theodosius on the throne of the Eastern empire, proclaimed, immediately after his accession in 398, that he would strictly enforce the laws of his father against Paganism, and he issued in the following year new and more severe ordinances of the same kind. The blow which may be said to have overturned Paganism in the Roman empire did not, however, come from its Christian monarchs, but from the same hand which destroyed its ancient capital, and inflicted upon the Western empire a mortal wound which it did not survive many years.

The Goths, whom the energy and wise policy of Theodosius had maintained in their allegiance to the empire, being offended by Arcadius, revolted, and invaded his dominions under Alaric, in 396. They ravaged the provinces situated between the Adriatic and the Black Seas, and penetrated into Greece, where Paganism, notwithstanding all the enactments of Theodosius, was still prevailing to a very great extent. The principal cities of Greece were devastated by the Goths, who, recently converted to Arianism, and having no taste for arts, destroyed all the temples, statues, and other pagan monuments, with which they met. Athens escaped the fury of the invaders, but the celebrated temple of Eleusis, whose mysteries continued in full vigour in spite of all the laws which had been published against polytheism, was destroyed, whilst its priests either perished or fled. This catastrophe was so much felt by the adherents of the ancient worship in Greece, that many of them are said to have committed suicide from grief. “Since the defeat of Cheronea, and the capture of Corinth, the Greek nationality had never experienced a severer blow than the destruction of its temples and of its gods by Alaric,” says an eminent German writer of our day. It was, indeed, a mortal blow to a religion which maintained its sway by acting upon the senses and the imagination, as well as upon the feelings of national pride or vanity, because it destroyed all the means by which such feelings were produced. Alaric and his Goths seem to have been destined by Providence to precipitate the fall of Paganism at Rome, as well as in Greece, because the capture and sack of the eternal city by these barbarians, in 410, accelerated the ruin of its ancient worship more than all the laws proclaimed against it by the Christian emperors. The particulars of this terrible catastrophe have been amply described by Gibbon, and I shall only observe, that though Christians had suffered on that occasion as much as Pagans, the worship of the latter was struck at the very root of its existence by the complete ruin of the Roman aristocracy, who, although frequently indifferent about the tenets of the national polytheism, supported it with all their influence as a political institution, which could not be abolished without injuring the most vital interests of their order. The decline of Paganism from that time was very rapid. It is true that we have sufficient historical evidence to show that pagan temples were still to be found at Rome after its sack by the Goths, and that many Pagans were employed, in the Western as well as in the Eastern empires, in some of the most important offices of the state; but their number was fast disappearing, and the exercise of their religion was generally confined to the domestic hearth, to the worship of the Lares and Penates. It seems to have been particularly prevalent amongst the rustic population of the provinces, and it was not entirely extinct in Italy even at the beginning of the sixth century; because the Goth, Theodoric the Great, who reigned over that country from 493 to 526, published an edict forbidding, under pain of death, to sacrifice according to the Pagan rites, as well as other superstitious practices remaining from the ancient polytheism.

I have given this sketch of the state of Paganism after the conversion of Constantine, and of the policy which was followed towards it by the first Christian emperors, because it seems to explain, at least to a certain degree, the manner in which Christianity was rapidly corrupted in the fourth and fifth centuries by the Pagan ideas and practices which I shall endeavour to trace in my next chapter.

Chapter IV: Infection Of The Christian Church By Pagan Ideas And Practices During The Fourth And Fifth Centuries

I have said that the council of Elvira, in Spain, held in 305, prohibited the use of images in the churches. Other canons of the same council show that even then Christians were but too prone to relapse into the practices and customs of Paganism; because they enact very severe ecclesiastical penances against those Christians who took part in the rites and festivals of the Pagan worship.

If such enactments were required to maintain the purity of Christian doctrine, at a time when its converts, instead of expecting any worldly advantages, were often exposed to severe persecution, and consequently had no other motives for embracing it than a mere conviction of its truth, how much more was this purity endangered when conversion to Christianity led to the favour of the sovereign, and when the church, instead of severely repressing the idolatrous propensities of her children, endeavoured to facilitate as much as possible the entrance of the Pagans into her pale! Let me add, that the mixture of Christianity with Paganism in various public acts of the first Christian emperors, which I have described in the preceding chapter, could not but contribute to the general confusion of ideas amongst those Christians whom the church was continually receiving into her pale, with all their pagan notions. I have described, in the second chapter of this essay, the policy of compromise adopted by the church after the conversion of Constantine. I shall now describe the consequences of this policy, by giving a sketch of the Christian society which it produced, and which has been drawn, on the authority of ecclesiastical writers, by the same author whose description and defence of that policy I have given in the above-mentioned chapter.

“Towards the beginning of the fifth century, the propagation of Christianity amongst the upper classes of Roman society met still with many obstacles; but the influential persons who had broken with the error, remained at least faithful to their new creed, and did not scandalise society by their apostasy. The senatorial families which had embraced Christianity gave, at Rome, the unfortunately too rare example of piety and of all the Christian virtues; the case was different with the converts belonging to the lower, and even the middle classes of Roman society. The corruption of manners had made rapid progress amongst them during the last fifty years of the fourth century; and things arrived at such a pass, that the choice of a religion was considered by the people as an act of the greatest indifference. The new religion was embraced from interest, from curiosity, or by fashion, and afterwards abandoned on the first occasion. It was, in fact, not indifference, because indifference induces people to remain in the religion in which they were born; it was a complete atheism, a revolting depravity, an openly-expressed contempt of all that is most sacred. How many times the church, which struggled, but in vain, against the progress of the evil, had occasion to lament the too easy recruits whom she was making amongst the inferior ranks of society! People disgracefully ignorant, without honour, without a shadow of piety, polluted by their presence the assemblies of the faithful. They are those whom the fathers of the church designated by the name of the mali Christiani—ficti Christiani, and against whom their eloquent voices were often resounding. The heretics, the promoters of troubles and seditions, always counted upon those men, who seemed to enter the church only in order to disturb her by their turbulent spirit, or who consented to remain in the true faith only on condition of introducing into the usages of Christian worship, a crowd of superstitions whose influence was felt but too long; whilst the slightest sign of Paganism was sufficient to call back to it those servants of all the parties.

“It was then, unfortunately, a too common thing to see men who made a profession of passing, without any difficulty, from one religion to another, as many times as it was required by their interests. The principle of that inconceivable corruption in the bosom of a religion which was not yet completely developed, dated from a period anterior to that which we are describing. The councils and the emperors had struggled in vain against apostasy, which the multitude of heresies, and the vices of the times, had placed amongst legitimate actions.

“Theodosius began in 381 to punish the apostates by depriving them of the right to make wills. In 383, he modified this law in respect to the apostate catechumens; but the general principle maintained all the apostates absque jure Romano. Valentinian II. followed the example of his colleague, and applied the before-mentioned dispositions to those Christians who became Jews or Manicheans. We know, from a law of 391, that the nobility was infected by the general spirit of the age, because Valentinian enacted, by this law, that those nobles who became apostates were to be degraded in such a manner that they should not count even in vulgi ignobilis parte. In 396, Arcadius deprived again of the right to make wills those Christians qui se idolorum superstitione impia maculaverint. The political authorities, therefore, cannot be accused of having remained indifferent to the progress of the evil. We must now show how little power the laws had in a time like that which we are describing.

“One day, St Augustinus presented to the assembly of the Christians of Hippona, a man who was to become celebrated amongst renegades; born a Pagan, he embraced Christianity, but returned again to the idols, and exercised the lucrative profession of an astrologer; he now demanded to be readmitted into the church, that is to say, to change for the third time his religion. St Augustinus addressed, on that occasion, the above-mentioned assembly in the following manner:—

“ ‘This former Christian, terrified by the power of God, is now repenting. In the days of his faithfulness, he was enticed by the enemy, and became an astrologer; seduced and deceived himself, he was seducing and deceiving others; he uttered many lies against God, who gave men the power to do good, and to do no evil; he said that it was not the will of men which made men adulterers, but Venus; that it was Mars who rendered people murderers; that justice was not inspired by God, but by Jupiter; and he added to it many other sacrileges. How much money he has swindled from self-styled Christians! How many people have purchased the lie from him! But now, if we are to believe him, he hates the error, he laments the loss of many souls; and feeling himself caught by the demon, he returns toward God full of repentance. Let us believe, brethren, that it is fear which produces this change. What shall we say? perhaps we must not rejoice so much at the conversion of this pagan astrologer, because once being converted, he may seek to obtain the clerical office; he is penitent, brethren, and asks only for mercy. I recommend him to your hearts, and to your eyes. Let your hearts love him, but let your eyes watch him. Mark him well; and wherever you shall meet him, show him to those of your brethren who are not present here. This will be an act of mercy, because we must fear that his seductive soul should change again, and recommence to do mischief. Watch him; know what he says, and where he goes, in order that your testimony may confirm us in the opinion that he is really converted. He was perishing, but now he is found again. He has brought with him the books which have burnt him, in order to throw them into the fire; he wishes to be refreshed by the flames which shall consume them. You must know, brethren, that he had knocked at the door of the church before Easter, but that the profession which he had followed, rendering him suspected of lies and fraud, he was kept back, but shortly afterwards received. We are afraid of leaving him exposed to new temptations. Pray to Christ for him.’

“Socrates speaks of a sophist of Constantinople, called Ecebolus, who conformed with a marvellous facility to all the changes of fortune which Christianity was undergoing. During the reign of Constantine, he affected the greatest zeal for the new belief; but when Julian became emperor, he resumed his ancient devotion to the gods of Paganism. After the death of that monarch, he gave great publicity to his repentance, and prostrated himself before the churches, crying to the Christians, ‘Tread me under your feet, as the salt which has lost its savour!’ Socrates adds:—‘Ecebolus remained what he has always been,—i.e., a fickle and inconstant man.’ St Augustinus could certainly say the same of his astrologer. Is it not surprising to find apostasy still prevalent at a time when no sensible man could believe in the restoration of the ancient worship? The appearance of Julian must have upset many a mind, shaken many a conscience, and given to the triumph of Christianity the character of a transitory event. But, at the end of the fourth century, it was impossible to abandon the church and return to the idols, except by a feeling which could not but excite profound pity. I therefore understand why St Augustinus had consented to plead with the Christians in favour of a wretch already charged with three apostasies: he wished, above all, to take from him the name of a Pagan, being convinced that whoever consented no longer to sacrifice to the false gods would finally belong to the true religion. A neophyte, restrained by the leaven of all the pagan passions, might remain more or less time on the threshold of the church, but sooner or later he was sure to cross it. The leaders of the church considered it always a favourable presumption when a citizen consented to call himself no longer a Pagan. This first victory appeared to them a sure presage of a true conversion; and they recommended to the Christians that they should not apply the dangerous epithet of Pagan to those of their brethren who had failed, but simply to call them sinners. They endeavoured, in short, to make them forget Paganism; and in order to attain this object, they even forbade to pronounce its name.

“The ancient worship was not only obstructing the development of Christianity by covert and insidious attacks, but it was also vitiating the discipline of the church, because its sway upon the manners of the converts was something more like a real tyranny than the natural remnant of its former influence. It is, indeed, surprising with what facility it introduced into the sanctuary of the true God its superstitious spirit, its relaxed morals, and its love of disorder. How little the church was then,—i.e., seventy years after the conversion of Constantine,—resembling what she ought to have been, or what she became afterwards! St Jerome had intended, towards the end of his life, to write an ecclesiastical history; but it was in order to show that the church, under the Christian emperors, went on continually declining. Divitiis major, virtutibus minor (Greater in wealth, smaller in virtue), was the severe sentence which St Jerome must have pronounced with regret, but the justice of which is proved by all the historical documents of that period. This illustrious leader of Christianity, whose mind was more inclined to enthusiasm than dejection, frequently lost all energy, by reflecting on the deplorable condition of the church, declaring that he felt no longer any power to write. A sufficient number of historians have represented in vivid colours the excessive luxury of the bishops during that time, as well as the greediness, the ignorance, and the misconduct of the clergy; I shall therefore choose from this melancholy picture only those parts which refer to the history of Paganism.

“All the arts of divination remained still in the highest favour amongst Christians, even when the grave men of the Pagan party had been, for a long time, showing for these practices of idolatry either a conventional respect or an open contempt. They swore by the false gods,—they observed the fifth day, dedicated to Jupiter,—and they took a part in the sacred games, feasts, and festivals of the Pagans. Christian ceremonies did not preserve almost any thing of their ancient majesty. It was not a rare occurrence to hear pagan hymns chanted at Christian solemnities, or to see Christians dancing before their churches, according to the custom of Paganism. There was no more decency observed in the interior of those churches: people went there to speak about business, or to amuse themselves; the noise was so great, and the bursts of laughter so loud, that it was impossible to hear the reading of the Scriptures; the congregation quarrelled, fought, and sometimes interfered with the officiating priest, pressing him to end, or compelling him to sing, according to their taste. St Augustinus was therefore warranted in calling this so powerful influence of the ancient worship a persecution of the demon, more covert and insidious than that which the primitive church had suffered.

“All these scandalous facts are attested by the bishop of Hippona (St Augustinus) and by that of Milan (St Ambrose); it is therefore impossible to doubt their authenticity. It may, however, be said, that such a state of corruption was local, and peculiar to the churches of Africa and Milan; I must therefore produce new evidence, in order to show that the calamitous effect of the pagan manners was felt in all the provinces.

“St Gaudentius, bishop of Brescia, a contemporary of St Augustinus, vigorously combated idolatry in his diocese; and the following is an extract from one of his sermons:—

“ ‘You neophytes, who have been called to the feast of this salutary and mystical Easter, look how you preserve your souls from those aliments which have been defiled by the superstition of the Pagans. It is not enough for a true Christian to reject the poisoned food of the demons; he must also fly from all the abominations of the Pagans,—from all the frauds of the idolaters, as from venom ejected by the serpent of the devil. Idolatry is composed of poisonings, of enchantments, ligatures, presages, augurs, sorceries, as well as of all kinds of vain observances, and, moreover, of the festival called Parentales; by means of which idolatry is reanimating error; and indeed men, giving way to their gluttony, began to eat the viands which had been prepared for the dead; afterwards they were not afraid of celebrating in their honour sacrilegious sacrifices,—although it is difficult to believe that a duty towards their dead is discharged by those who, with a hand shaking from the effects of drunkenness, place tables on sepulchres, and say, with an unintelligible voice, The spirit is thirsty. I beseech you, take heed of these things, in case God should deliver to the flames of hell his contemners and enemies, who have refused to wear his yoke.’

“Who may wonder that such Christians allowed the pagan idols, temples, and altars to remain, and to be honoured on their estates, as is attested by the same bishop? St Augustinus, whom I am not tired of quoting, because no other doctor of that time expressed so vividly the true Christian ideas, lamented this monstrous worship, which was neither Paganism nor Christianity. ‘Many a man,’ says he, ‘who enters the church a Christian, leaves it a Pagan,’ However, far from despairing, he wrote to the virgin Felicia, ‘I advise thee not to be affected too much by these offences; they were predicted, in order that, when they should come, we might remember that they had been announced, and consequently not be hurt by them.’ But the Pagans, for whom this premature corruption of Christianity was not a predicted thing, rejoiced in contemplating the extent of its progress; they would not believe the duration of a worship which had so rapidly arrived at the period of its decline, and they were repeating in their delusion this celebrated saying, ‘Christians are only for awhile; they will afterwards perish, and the idols will return.’ ”—Beugnot, vol. ii. p. 97, et seq.

This melancholy picture of Christian society, at the beginning of the fifth century, drawn by M. Beugnot, on the authority of the ecclesiastical writers, is, indeed, as gloomy as that of Roman society in general, which had been so graphically described about the same time by the pagan author Ammianus Marcellinus, and reproduced by Gibbon. It was very natural that such a corrupted soil should produce the rankest growth of superstition, and rapidly bring about that melancholy reaction which was not inaptly styled by Gibbon, “the revival of polytheism in the Christian church.” This wretched state of things was, as I have said before, chiefly due to that policy of compromise by which the leaders of the church sought to get as many Pagans as possible into her pale, and who consequently were baptised without being converted. This compromise with Paganism was often carried to great extremes; and the history of the conversion of Florence, which I have extracted from M. Beugnot’s work, gives one of the most striking instances of those unprincipled proceedings:—“Florence paid particular honours to the god Mars. It was not without regret that it abandoned the worship of this divinity. The time of its conversion had been assigned to the second or the third century, but the vagueness of this date deprives it of all authority. Yet, whatever may have been the century in which the conversion of Florence took place, it could not be a subject of edification and joy to the Christians. The traditions of that city predicted to it great calamities if the statue of Mars was either sullied, or put into a place unworthy of it. The Florentines stipulated, therefore, on accepting the new religion, that Mars should be respected. His statue was consequently neither broken nor sullied, but it was carefully taken from his temple, and placed on a pedestal near the river, which flows through the city. Many years after this, the new Christians feared and invoked that god who was dethroned only by halves. When almost all the pagan temples had fallen either by the stroke of time, or under the blows of the Christians, the heathen palladium of Florence stood still erect on the banks of the Arno; and, according to one of the most enlightened historians that Italy has produced during the middle ages (G. Villani, lib. i., cap. 60), the demon who had remained in the statue realised, in the thirteenth century, the old prediction of the Etruscans. Compromises of the kind which took place at Florence became very common during the fifth century, and when, at a later period, Christianity wished to annul them, it met with great obstacles.”—(BEUGNOT, vol. i., p. 286.)

The Jews had been brought up in the knowledge of the true God, and their faith could not but be strengthened by the miracles with which their exodus from Egypt was accompanied, and yet a short absence of Moses from their camp was sufficient to make them call for gods that would go before them, and to induce them to worship an image evidently borrowed from the idolatry of those very Egyptians by whom they had been so much oppressed. It was, therefore, no wonder that society, educated for many centuries under the influence of Paganism, were continually returning to their ancient rites, superstitions, and manners, though under a new name, and in a modified form. If we consider further, that such a man as Aaron had not sufficient strength to resist the senseless demands of the multitude, and even consented to mould an object for their idolatry, how could the leaders of the church oppose the pressure of Paganism, which they had incautiously admitted into her pale, and which, under the assumed name of Christianity, was establishing its dominion over the church? There was no inspired prophet amongst the Christians of that time, to restore the purity of their faith in the same manner as Moses did amongst the Jews, after his return from Mount Sinai. The Christian church was therefore left for centuries under the oppression of pagan superstitions, from which, as yet, only a small portion of her has been emancipated, though I firmly believe that she will be one day entirely restored to her pristine purity. This hope, however, is not founded upon the mere advance of human intellect, because, in spite of its boasted progress, it seems now to be powerless against the daily growing reaction of the above-mentioned superstitions, even in places whence they apparently had been banished for ever, but because Christianity is of a divine and not human origin.

There was no lack of opposition to this universal corruption of the church on the part of several true Christians, and there were undoubtedly many more instances of this noble conduct than those which have reached us, but the records of them were probably either lost in the lapse of ages, or destroyed by their opponents. I have already mentioned the prohibition of the use of images in the churches by the council of Elvira in 305. The council of Laodicea, held about 363, declared, in its seventy-fifth canon, “That Christians ought not to abandon the church, and retire elsewhere in order to invoke angels, and form private assemblies, because it is prohibited. If, therefore, any one is attached to this secret idolatry, let him be anathema, because he has left our Lord Jesus Christ, and has become an idolater.” It is therefore evident that this superstition, expressly prohibited by St Paul, Col. ii. 18, was then secretly practised in some private assemblies, though it was afterwards introduced into the Western as well as the Eastern church. The council of Carthage, held towards the end of the fourth century, condemned the abuse of the honours which were paid to the memory of the martyrs by the Christians of Africa, and ordered the bishops to repress them, if the thing might be done, but if it could not be done on account of the popular emotions, to warn at least the people. This proves how weak the bishops felt their authority to be against the prevailing superstitions amongst their flocks, and that they preferred suffering the latter to risking the former.

There were, however, Christians who opposed, in a bold and uncompromising manner, the pagan errors and abuses which had infected the church. St Epiphanius, archbishop of Salamis, in the fourth century, celebrated for his learning, and whose virtues St Jerome extols in the most glowing terms, explicitly condemned the worship of created beings, “because,” he observed, “the devil was creeping into men’s minds under the pretence of devotion and justice, and, consecrating human nature by divine honours, presented to their eyes various fine images, in order to separate the mind from the one God by an infamous adultery. Therefore, though those who are worshipped are dead, people adore their images, which never had any life in them.” He further remarked, “that there was not a prophet who would have suffered a man or a woman to be worshipped; that neither the prophet Elias, nor St John the beloved disciple of the Lord, nor St Thecla (who had received the most extravagant praises from the fathers), were ever worshipped; and that, consequently, the virgin was neither to be invoked nor worshipped.” “The old superstition,” says he, “shall not have such power over us as to oblige us to abandon the living God, and worship his creature.”

The same St Epiphanius relates, in a letter addressed to John, bishop of Jerusalem, that having arrived during a journey at a village called Anablatta, he found in its church a veil suspended over the door, with a figure representing Christ or some saint. He was so indignant at this sight that he immediately tore the veil to pieces, and advised the wardens of that church to employ it as a shroud to bury a dead body. As the people of the place complained that the veil of their church was destroyed, without giving them in its place another, Epiphanius sent them one; but he exhorted in his letter the above-mentioned bishop of Jerusalem, in whose diocese Anablatta was situated, to order the priests of that place not to suspend any more such veils in the church of Christ, because they are contrary to our religion.

The authenticity of this letter, which bears such strong evidence against the use of images in churches, was rejected by Bellarmine and the ecclesiastical historian Baronius, but it has been admitted by Petau and some of the ablest writers of the Roman Catholic Church. It was translated into Latin by St Jerome, and is found in all the collections of his works.

The most celebrated opponent of the abuses with which the church had been already infected at that time was Vigilantius. His writings have not been preserved, and we know his opinions only from their refutation by St Jerome, and from which we may conclude that this reformer of the fifth century maintained the same doctrines which were afterwards defended by the Waldensians, Wycliffe, the Hussites, and which are now professed by the Protestant Christians. He was born at Calagorris in Gallia; he became a priest at Barcelona, and contracted in that place an intimate friendship with St Paulinus, afterwards bishop of Nola. Vigilantius went to Italy in order to see this friend of his, and having an intention to visit Palestine and Egypt, took from him an introduction to St Jerome. They became great friends with St Jerome, who was much pleased with the marks of approbation shown by Vigilantius during a sermon which he preached. He also acknowledges that he, as well as several others, would have died from starvation, if Vigilantius had not assisted them with his own and his friends’ money; and he says, in his answer to Paulinus, “You will learn from the mouth of the holy priest, Vigilantius, with what affection I have received him.” This affection disappeared, however, as soon as Jerome learned that Vigilantius had accused him in Egypt of being too partial to Origenes, and the holy priest became an impertinent, whose silly speeches he had observed during their first interview. He made use of several injurious expressions in speaking of the former object of his admiration, and which do not well accord with the gravity of his character, as, for instance, calling him often Dormitantius instead of Vigilantius. His indignation knew no bounds when he heard, in 404, that Vigilantius, who was then in Gallia, had attacked several practices which had crept into the church, and he dictated in one single night a vehement answer to the opinions of Vigilantius, who, according to this writer, taught as follows:—

That the honours paid to the rotten bones and dust of the saints and martyrs, by adoring, kissing, wrapping them in silver, and enclosing them in vessels of gold, placing them in churches, and lighting wax candles before them, was idolatry.

That the celibacy of the clergy was heresy, and their vows of chastity a seminary of lewdness.

That to pray for the dead, or desire their prayers, was superstition, and that we can pray one for another only as long as we are alive.

That the souls of the departed apostles and martyrs were at rest in some particular place, and could not leave it, in order to be present in various places, for hearing the prayers addressed to them.

That the sepulchres of the martyrs should not be venerated; that vigils held in churches should be abolished, with the exception of that at Easter; that to enter monastic life was to become useless to society, &c. &c.

The answer of Jerome to the above-mentioned opinions of Vigilantius is a curious mixture of violence and casuistry. He declared his quondam friend and holy priest, Vigilantius, a greater monster than all those which nature had ever produced, the Centaurs, the Behemoths, the Syrens, the triple-bodied Gerion of Spain; that he was a most detestable heretic, venting foul blasphemies against the relics of the martyrs, who were working miracles everyday. “Go,” says he to Vigilantius, “into the churches of those martyrs, and thou shalt be cleansed from the evil spirit by which thou art now possessed, and feel thyself burning, not by those wax candles which offend thee, but by invisible flames, which will force that demon who talks within thee to confess that he is the same as that who had personated, perhaps a Mercury, a Bacchus, or some other of the heathen gods, amongst their followers,” &c. He is unable, however, to produce any other argument in support of the worship of relics than the example of those who had practised it. “Was it wrong,” he exclaims, “of the bishops of Rome to celebrate divine service on the graves containing the bones of St Peter and St Paul, which, according to Vigilantius, were nothing better than dust? The Emperor Constantius must then have committed a sacrilege by translating the holy relics of Andrew, Luke, and Timothy, to Constantinople; the Emperor Arcadius must be then also considered sacrilegious, as he has translated the bones of the blessed Samuel from Judea to Thrace; then all those bishops who consented to preserve mere dust in vessels of gold or wrapt in silk, were not only sacrilegious, but were fools; and, finally, that all these people must have been fools who went out to meet these relics, and received them with as much joy as if they were the prophet himself alive, because the procession which carried them was attended by crowds of people from Palestine to Chalcedon, singing the praises of Christ, whose servant Samuel was.”

There is no abuse in the world which cannot be justified, if the example of persons occupying a high station or that of great numbers is sufficient for it. The advocates of the adoration of relics in our own days may defend it by the fact that about half a million of people went in 1845 to worship the holy coat of Treves, and that still more recently great honours were paid to the relics of St Theodosia at Amiens, by a number of distinguished persons,—bishops, archbishops, and even cardinals. The autos da fé of the Spanish and Portuguese inquisitions could not be wrong, since kings, queens, and the most eminent persons of the state, approved them by their presence. Idolatry cannot be an error, since so many monarchs, statesmen, and learned men, had conformed to its rites; whilst, on the other side, the same reason may be pleaded for the penal laws of Ireland, and other enactments against the Roman Catholics, because they were established and maintained by so many parliaments. Jerome maintained that it was a calumny of Vigilantius to say that the Christians burnt candles in daylight, though he admitted that it was done by some men and women in order to honour the martyrs. He did not approve of it, because their zeal was without knowledge; but he thought that on account of their good intention, they would be rewarded according to their faith, like the woman who had anointed the feet of our Lord. He also tried to justify the use of candles by those passages of the Scriptures where an allusion was made to lamps and lights; as, for instance, the parable of the virgins, the expression of the Psalm cxix. 105, “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.”

The rest of the arguments which St Jerome employs in refuting what he calls the errors and heresies of Vigilantius are of a similar nature to those which have been given above; and it is really astonishing to see that a man like this celebrated father, who is generally considered as one of the great luminaries of the church, not only by Roman Catholics, but also by some Protestants, could descend to such miserable shifts, and indulge in such violent language as he did, in his answer to Vigilantius, which bears a strong mark of having been dictated more by his personal feelings against his former friend and benefactor, than by a conviction of the justice of the cause which he was defending on that occasion. It is, however, evident from the other writings of the same father of the church, that his imagination was much more powerful than his reasoning faculties, and that he had entirely forgotten the precept of St Paul, to “refuse profane and old wives’ fables”—(1 Timothy iv. 7)—because no one has ever indulged in more absurd fables than this good father did, in his lives of St Hilarion and St Paul, two celebrated monks, and of which the following is a fair specimen:—

“A Christian citizen of Majuma, called Italicus, kept horses for racing, but was continually beaten by his rival, a pagan ducumvir of Gaza, who, by using certain charms and diabolical incantations, contrived always to damp the spirits of the Christian’s horses, and to give vigour to his own. Italicus applied, therefore, for help to St Hilarion, who, thinking that it was improper to make prayers for such a frivolous object, advised Italicus to sell his horses, and to give their price to the poor, for the salvation of his soul. Italicus represented, however, that he was discharging against his inclination the duties of a public office, and that as a Christian could not resort to magical means, he addressed himself to a servant of God, particularly as it was important to defeat the inhabitants of Gaza, who were known as enemies of Christ, and that it was not so much for his own interests as for those of the church that he wished to overcome his rival. Hilarion, convinced by these reasons, filled with water an earthen vessel, from which he usually drank, and delivered it to Italicus, who sprinkled with the water his horses, his chariots and charioteers, his stables, and even the barriers of the racing ground. The whole city was in a great excitement, the idolaters deriding the Christians, who loudly expressed their confidence of victory. The signal being given, the Christian’s horses flew with an extreme rapidity, and left those of his rival far behind. This miracle produced a very great effect upon the spectators, and many persons, including the beaten party, became converts to Christianity.”

The above-mentioned work is filled with fables still more extravagant than the one which I have related, and which entirely throw into the shade the celebrated tales of Munchausen. Jerome complained that many people, whom, in his Christian meekness, he calls Scyllean dogs, were laughing at the stories related in those works, and which he begins by invoking the assistance of the Holy Ghost. Was it then a wonder that a Christianity, defended by such wretched superstitions, was frequently abandoned by individuals, who, comparing the Christian legends of the kind quoted above with the fictions of Pagan mythology, preferred the latter as being more poetical? and, indeed, we have instances of the ridicule which the Pagans attempted to throw upon Christianity, by comparing its saints with their own gods and demigods.

I must, however, return once more to Vigilantius. The Roman Catholic historian of the church, Baronius, who calls him “a horned beast, a fool, and furious, who had reached the last degree of folly and fury,” &c., &c., maintains that his heresy was solemnly condemned by the Pope Innocent I., whom the bishops of Gallia had addressed on this subject. He also says that the same heresy produced terrible consequences; because two years after Vigilantius had spread his doctrines, the Vandals and other barbarians invaded Gallia, and destroyed all his adherents. Admitting even with Baronius that Vigilantius was a damnable heretic, it cannot be denied that this learned historian had a very strange notion of divine justice, because the barbarians alluded to above destroyed a great number of churches and relics, as well as those who prayed at their shrines, whilst Vigilantius died quietly, and, notwithstanding the assertion of Baronius, never was excluded from the communion of the church, or even condemned by her legal authorities.

We know from Vigilantius’ opponents that his opinions were approved by many, and there can be no doubt that there was, not only in his days, but long after him, a good number of witnesses for the truth, who opposed the rapid spread of Pagan ideas and practices in the church. Thus, at the end of the sixth century, Serenus, bishop of Marseilles, removed all the images from his church, because the people worshipped them. This produced a great discontent amongst many people of his diocese, who appealed to Pope Gregory I. in favour of the images. The Pope advised a middle course, i.e., that the images should remain in the church, but that it should not be allowed to worship them. Serenus, however, who well knew that the one infallibly led to the other, refused to comply with the papal injunctions, upon which Gregory wrote to him again, saying that he praised his zeal in not suffering the worship of any thing that was made by the hand of man; but that images should not be destroyed, because pictures were used in churches to teach the ignorant by sight what they could not read in books, &c.

We therefore see that at the end of the sixth century, the celebrated Pope Gregory I., surnamed the Great, considered the worship of images as an abuse to be prohibited, but which was afterwards legalised by his successors, and an opposition to it declared heresy.

I could produce other evidences to show that the worship of images was condemned by many bishops and priests of the period which I have described, though they approved their use as a means of teaching the illiterate, or tolerated them as an unavoidable evil. The limits of this essay allow me not, however, to extend my researches on this subject, and I shall endeavour to give in the next chapter a rapid sketch of the violent reaction against the worship of images in the east by the iconoclast emperors, and of the more moderate, but no less decided, opposition to the same practice in the west by Charlemagne.

Chapter V: Reaction Against The Worship Of Images And Other Superstitious Practices By The Iconoclast Emperors Of The East

The worship of images, as well as other Pagan practices, introduced into the church during the fourth and fifth centuries, were prevailing in the east as much as in the west; and I have mentioned, p. 9, that the monks, particularly those of Egypt, had greatly contributed to the introduction of anthropomorphism into the Christian church. A great blow to image-worship was given in the east by the rise and rapid progress of Mahometanism, whose followers, considering it as idolatry, destroyed many objects to which certain miraculous virtues had been ascribed, and they constantly taunted the Christians with their belief in such superstitions. The Jews addressed the same reproaches to the Christians; “yet,” as Gibbon has justly observed, “their servitude might curb their zeal and depreciate their authority; but the triumphant Mussulman, who reigned at Damascus, and threatened Constantinople, cast into the scale of reproach the accumulated weight of truth and victory.” And, indeed, there could not be a stronger argument against the efficacy of images than the rapid conquest by the Mahometans of many Christian cities which relied upon a miraculous defence by some images preserved in their churches. This circumstance could not but produce, in the minds of many thinking Christians, a conviction of the absurdity of image-worship, and the spread of such opinions must have been promoted by congregations who had preserved the purity of primitive worship, and of whom it appears that there were several still extant in the eighth century, as well as by the influence of Armenia, a country with which the eastern empire had frequent intercourse of a political and commercial nature, and whose church rejected at that time the worship of images. This party wanted only a leader and favourable circumstances in order publicly to assert their condemnation of the prevailing practice, which they considered as sinful idolatry. The accession of Leo III., the Isaurian, in 717, who, from an inferior condition, rose by his talents and military prowess to the imperial throne, gave to that party what they required, for he shared their opinions, and was a man of great energy and ability. The troubles of the state, which the valour and political wisdom of Leo saved from impending ruin, occupied too much the first years of that emperor’s reign to allow him to undertake a reform of the church. But in 727 he assembled a council of senators and bishops, and decided, with their consent, that all the images should be removed in the churches from the sanctuary and the altar, to a height where they might be seen, but not worshipped, by the congregation. It was, however, impossible to follow long this middle course, as the adherents of the images contrived to worship them in spite of their elevation, while their opponents taxed the emperor with want of zeal, holding out to him the example of the Jewish monarch, who had caused the brazen serpent to be broken. Leo therefore ordered all kinds of images to be destroyed; and though his edict met with some opposition, it was put into execution throughout the whole empire, with the exception of the Italian provinces, which, instigated by Pope Gregory II., a zealous defender of images, revolted against the emperor, and resisted all his efforts to regain his dominion over them. This monarch died in 741, after a not inglorious reign of twenty-four years, and was succeeded on the throne by his son Constantine VIII., surnamed Copronymus. All the information which we possess about this monarch, as well as the other iconoclast emperors, is derived from historians violently opposed to their religious views. These writers represent Constantine VIII. as one of the greatest monsters that ever disgraced humanity, stained by every imaginable vice; and having exhausted all the usual terms of opprobrium, they invent some such ridiculous expressions as a “leopard generated by a lion, an aspic born from the seeds of a serpent, a flying dragon,” &c.; but they do not adduce in confirmation of these epithets any of those criminal acts which have disgraced the reigns of many Byzantine emperors, whose piety is extolled by the same writers. We know, moreover, by the evidence of those very historians who have bespattered with all those opprobrious terms the memory of Constantine, that he was a brave and skilful leader, who defeated the Arabs, the most formidable enemies of the empire, and restored several of its lost provinces, and that the country was prosperous under his reign of thirty-four years—741 to 775.

The beginning of Constantine’s reign was disturbed by his own brother-in-law, Artabasdes, who, supported by the adherents of the images, competed for the imperial throne, but was defeated, and his party crushed. Constantine, desiring to abolish the abuse, which he regarded as idolatry, by a solemn decision of the church declared, in 753, his intention to convoke for this object a general council; and in order that the question at issue should be thoroughly sifted, he enjoined all the bishops of the empire to assemble local synods, and to examine the subject, previously to its being debated by the general council. This council, composed of three hundred and thirty-eight bishops, met at Constantinople in 754, and, after having deliberated for six months, decided that, conformably to Holy Writ and the testimony of the fathers, all images were to be removed from the churches, and whoever would dare to make an image, in order to place it in a church, to worship it, or to keep it concealed in his house, was, if a clerk, to be deposed, if a layman, to be anathematised. The council added, that those who adhered to the images were to be punished by the imperial authorities as enemies of the doctrine of the fathers, and breakers of the law of God. This decision was pronounced by the assembled bishops unanimously, and without a single dissentient voice, which had never been the case before. This assembly took the title of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and the emperor ordered its decision to be put into execution throughout all his dominions. The images were removed from the churches, and those which were painted on the walls covered with whitewash. The principal opposition to the imperial order was offered by the monks, who were always the chief promoters of image-worship; and Constantine is accused of having repressed this opposition with a violence common to that barbarous age. He is said to have entertained the greatest hatred against these monks, calling them idolaters, and their dresses the dress of darkness—an opinion with which many persons will be found to chime, I think, even in our own time. Constantine died in 775, and was followed on the throne by his son, Leo IV., who inherited the religious views of his father; whilst his wife, Irene, a beautiful and talented, but ambitious and unprincipled woman, was a secret worshipper of images. Leo, who was of a weak constitution, died after a reign of five years, appointing Irene the guardian of his minor son Constantine, who was then ten years old. Irene governed the empire with great ability, but was too fond of power to surrender it to her son at his coming of age, and he tried to obtain by force what was due to him by right. The party of Irene proved, however, the stronger; and young Constantine was taken prisoner, and his mother caused him to be deprived of sight. Irene’s orders were executed in such an atrocious manner, that the unfortunate prince died in consequence. Irene governed the empire with great splendour, but her first object was to restore the worship of images; and the machinations by which she accomplished this object have been so well related by Gibbon, that I cannot do better than copy his account of them:—

“Under the reign of Constantine VIII., the union of the civil and ecclesiastical power had overthrown the tree, without extirpating the root of superstition. The idols, for such they were now held, were secretly cherished by the order and the sex most prone to devotion; and the fond alliance of the monks and females obtained a final victory over the reason and authority of man. Leo IV. maintained with less rigour the religion of his father and grandfather, but his wife, the fair and ambitious Irene, had imbibed the zeal of the Athenians, the heirs of the idolatry rather than philosophy of their ancestors. During the life of her husband, these sentiments were inflamed by danger and dissimulation, and she could only labour to protect and promote some favourite monks, whom she drew from their caverns, and seated on the metropolitan thrones of the east. But as soon as she reigned in her own name, and in that of her son, Irene more seriously undertook the ruin of the iconoclasts, and the first step of her future persecution was a general edict for liberty of conscience. In the restoration of the monks, a thousand images were exposed to the public veneration; a thousand legends were invented of their sufferings and miracles. By the opportunities of death and removal, the episcopal seats were judiciously filled; the most eager competitors for celestial or earthly favour anticipated and flattered the judgment of their sovereign; and the promotion of her secretary Tarasius gave Irene the patriarch of Constantinople, and the command of the Oriental church. But the decrees of a general council could only be repealed by a similar assembly; the iconoclasts, whom she convened, were bold in possession, and averse to debate; and the feeble voice of the bishops was re-echoed by the more formidable clamour of the soldiers and the people of Constantinople. The delay and intrigues of a year, the separation of the disaffected troops, and the choice of Nice for a second orthodox synod, removed these obstacles; and the episcopal conscience was again, after the Greek fashion, in the hands of the prince.”—Gibbon’s Roman Empire, chap. xlix. This council, held in 786, restored the worship of images by the unanimous sentence of three hundred and fifty bishops. The acts of this synod have been preserved, and they are stated by Gibbon to be “a curious monument of superstition and ignorance, of falsehood and folly.” I am afraid that there is but too much truth in this severe judgment of Gibbon; and the following passage relating to the same council, which I have extracted, not from Gibbon, or any writer of the school to which he belonged, but from the celebrated Roman Catholic historian of the church, Abbé Fleury, will enable the reader to form his own judgment on this subject.

After describing the confession of faith signed by that council, which declared that the images of the saints are to be worshipped, because they remind us of those whom they represent, and make us participators in their merits, he says:—

“The last passages showed that God was making miracles by means of images; and in order to confirm it, a discourse, ascribed to St Athanasius, was read. It contained the account of a pretended miracle, which happened at Beryt, with an image of Christ, which, having been pierced by the Jews, emitted blood, which healed many sick persons. The fathers of the council were so much moved by this account that they shed tears. It is, however, certain, that this discourse is not by St Athanasius, and it is even very doubtful whether the story which it contains is true. Thus it appears that amongst all the bishops present at this council, there was not a single one versed in the science of criticism, because many other false documents were produced in that assembly. This proves nothing against the decision of the council, because it is sufficiently supported by true documents. It only proves the ignorance of the times, as well as the necessity of knowing history, chronology, the difference of manners and styles, in order to discern real documents from spurious ones.”

Thus, according to the authority of one of the most eminent writers of the Roman Catholic Church, the second Council of Nice, the first synod which has given an explicit and solemn sanction to one of the most important tenets of the Western and the Eastern churches, was composed of such ignorant and silly prelates, that an absurd fable, contained in a forged paper, could sway their minds and hearts in such a manner as to make them shed tears of emotion, and that there was not a single individual amongst these venerable fathers sufficiently informed to be able to discover a fabrication so gross that it did not escape the attention of scholars who lived many centuries afterwards.

Irene rigorously enforced the decrees of this council against the opponents of images; and that woman, guilty of the death of her own son, and suspected of that of her husband, is extolled by ecclesiastical writers as a most pious princess. A contemporary Greek writer, and a zealous defender of image-worship, the monk Theodore Studites, places her above Moses, and says that “she had delivered the people from the Egyptian bondage of impiety;” and the historian of the Roman Catholic Church, Baronius, justifies her conduct by the following argument: that the hands of the fathers were raised by a just command of God against their children, who followed strange gods, and that Moses had ordered them to consecrate themselves to the Lord, even every man upon his son, and upon his brother, Exod. xxxii. 29, so that it was a high degree of piety to be cruel to one’s own son; consequently Irene deserved on this account the first crown of paradise; and that if she had committed the murder of her son from motives of ambition, she would be worse than Agrippina, mother of Nero; but if she did it through zeal for religion, as it appears by the encomium which she had received from very holy men who lived at that time, she deserves to be praised for her piety.

Irene’s piety, shown by the restoration of images, and the persecution of their opponents, was indeed so much appreciated by the church, that she received a place amongst the saints of the Greek calendar. She was, however, less fortunate in her worldly affairs; because she was deposed in 802 by Nicephorus, who occupied the imperial throne, and exiled to Lesbos, where she died in great poverty. He did not abolish the images, nor allow the persecution of their opponents; and the ecclesiastical writers represent him, on account of this liberal policy, as a perfect monster. Nicephorus perished in a battle against the Bulgarians in 811, and his successor Michael, who persecuted the iconoclasts, unable to maintain himself on the throne, retired into a convent, after a reign of about two years, and the imperial crown was assumed by Leo V., a native of Armenia, and one of the most eminent leaders of the army, which elevated him to this dignity.

Though all that we know about Leo V. is derived from authors zealously opposed to his religious views, yet, notwithstanding all their odium theologicum, they are obliged to admit that he was gallant in the field, and just and careful in the administration of civil affairs. Being the native of a country whose church still resisted the introduction of images, he was naturally adverse to their worship, and the manner in which he abolished it in his empire deserves a particular notice; because, though related by his enemies, it proves that he was a sincere scriptural Christian.

According to their relation, Leo believed that the victories obtained by the barbarians, and other calamities to which the empire was exposed, were a visitation of God in punishment of the worship of images; that he demanded that a precept for adoring the images should be shown to him in the gospels, and as the thing was impossible, he rejected them as idols condemned by the Word of God. They also say, that the attention of Leo being once drawn to this passage of the prophet Isaiah, “To whom then will you liken God? or what likeness will you compare unto him? The workman melteth a graven image, and the goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold and casteth silver chains,” (xl. 18, 19,) this circumstance irritated him more than any thing else against the images. He communicated his sentiments to the patriarch, and requested him either to remove the images, or to show a reason why they were worshipped, since the Scriptures did not order it. The patriarch, who was an adherent of the images, tried to elude this demand by various sophisms, which, not having satisfied the emperor, he ordered divines of both parties to assemble in his palace, and represented to them that Moses, who had received the law, written with the hand of God, condemned, in the most explicit terms, those who adored the works of men’s hands; that it was idolatry to worship them, and great folly to attempt to confine the Infinite in a picture of the size of an ell. It is said that the defenders of the images refused to speak for the three following reasons:—1. That the canons prohibited to doubt what had been determined by the second Council of Nice; 2. That the clergy could not deliberate upon such matters in the imperial palace, but in a church; and, 3. That the emperor was not a competent judge on this occasion, because he was resolved to abolish the images. The emperor deposed the patriarch, who defended the images, replacing him by another who shared his own sentiments, and convened a council, which, with the exception of a few of its members, decided for the abolition of the images. The emperor ordered their removal, and sent several of their defenders into exile; he soon, however, allowed them to return, and only some few of the most zealous of them died in exile. The most celebrated of these sufferers was Theodore Studites; and as he has obtained on this account the honour of saintship, his opinions on the nature of images deserve a particular notice. He maintained that as the shadow cannot be separated from the body, as the rays of the sun are inseparable from that planet, so the images are inseparable from the subjects which they represent. He pretended that an image of Christ should be treated as if it were Christ himself, saying, “The image is nothing else than Christ himself, except the difference of their essence; therefore, the worship of the image is the worship of Jesus Christ.” He considered those who were removing images as “destroyers of the incarnation of Christ, because he does not exist if he cannot be painted. We renounce Christ if we reject his image; and refuse to worship him, if we refuse to adore his image.”

This defence of image-worship is, I think, a faithful exposition of the anthropomorphistic ideas, which, as I have mentioned before, had been chiefly generated by the morbid imagination of the Egyptian monks, and were supported by that numerous class, which formed the most zealous and efficient defenders of the images. Leo V. was murdered in a church in 820; and Michael II., surnamed the Stammerer, whom the conspirators placed on the throne, did not allow the images to be restored, though he was moderate in his religious views. He recalled the defenders of the images from exile, and seemed to steer a middle course between the enemies and the defenders of images, though he shared the opinions of the former. He was succeeded in 829 by his son, Theophilus,—a most decided opponent of images,—and whose valour and love of justice are acknowledged by his religious adversaries. He died in 841, leaving a minor son, Michael III., under the regency of his wife, Theodora. This princess, whose personal character was irreproachable, governed the empire during thirteen years, with considerable wisdom; but being an adherent of images, she restored their worship, which has since that time continued in the Greek Church in perhaps even a more exaggerated form than in the Roman Catholic one, and which can be without any impropriety called iconolatry, since idolatry may be perhaps considered as an expression too strong for ears polite.

The struggle between the iconoclasts and the iconolaters, of which I have given a mere outline, but which agitated the Eastern empire for nearly a century and a half, ending in the complete triumph of the latter, deserves the particular attention of all thinking Protestants; because it is virtually the same contest that has been waged for more than three centuries between Protestantism and Rome, and which seems now to assume a new phasis. I do not think that the ignorance of those times may be considered as the principal cause of the triumph of the iconolatric party, and that the spread of knowledge in our own day is a sufficient safeguard against the recurrence of a similar contingency. There was in the eighth and ninth centuries a considerable amount of learning at Constantinople, where the treasures of classical literature, many of which have since been lost, were preserved and studied. The Greeks of that time, though no doubt greatly inferior to the modern Europeans in physical science, were not so in metaphysics and letters, whilst the gospel could be read by all the educated classes in its original tongue, which was the official, literary, and ecclesiastical language of the Eastern empire. The Byzantine art was, moreover, very inferior to that of modern Europe, and could not produce, except on some coarse and rustic intellects, that bewitching effect, which the works of great modern painters and sculptors often produce upon many refined and imaginative minds. It has been justly remarked, by an accomplished writer of our day, that “the all-emancipating press is occasionally neutralised by the soul-subduing miracles of art.”

The Roman Catholic Church perfectly understands this soul-subduing power of art, and the following is the exposition of her views on this subject by one of her own writers, whom I have already quoted on a similar subject.

“That pictures and images in churches are particularly serviceable in informing the minds of the humbler classes, and for such a purpose possess a superiority over words themselves, is certain.

“Segnius irritant animos demissa per aurem,

Quam quæ sunt oculis subjecta fldelibus et quæ

Ipse sibi tradit spectator.”

—Horace de Arte Poetica, v. 180.

“What’s through the ear conveyed will never find

Its way with so much quickness to the mind,

As that, when faithful eyes are messengers,

Unto himself the fixed spectator bears.”

“The remark of a heathen poet is corroborated by the observations of the most celebrated amongst ancient and modern Christian writers. So persuaded was St Paulinus of Nola, fourteen hundred years ago, of the efficacy possessed by paintings for conveying useful lessons of instruction, that he adorned with a variety of sacred subjects the walls of a church which he erected, and dedicated to God in honour of St Felix.

“Prudentius assures us how much his devotion was enkindled, as he gazed upon the sufferings of martyrs, so feelingly depicted around their tombs and in their churches. On his way to Rome, about the year 405, the poet paid a visit to the shrine of St Cassianus, at Forum Cornelii, the modern Imola, where the body of that Christian hero reposed, under a splendid altar, over which were represented, in an expressive picture, all the sufferings of his cruel martyrdom. So moved was Prudentius, that he threw himself upon the pavement, kissed the altar with religious reverence, and numbering up with many a tear those wounds that sin had inflicted upon his soul, concluded by exhorting every one to unite with himself in intrusting their petitions for the divine clemency to the solicitude of the holy martyr Cassianus, who will not only hear our request, but will afford us the benefit of his patronage.”

The anecdote of Prudentius evidently proves that what originally had been intended for the instruction of the people, may very easily become an object of their adoration. If a man of a superior education, like Prudentius, could be carried away by his feelings in such a manner as to address his prayers to a dead man, how much greater must be the effect of images upon less cultivated minds! and I have related on the authority of the great Roman Catholic historian, Fleury, that the fathers of the second Council of Nice, who, according to the same authority, were a very ignorant set, shed tears at the sight of an image represented in an absurd and fictitious story.

Such are the effects produced in teaching religion by means of images. There can be no doubt about the truth of the observations contained in the lines of Horace, which the author of “Hierurgia” quotes in defence of images; but these observations refer to the theatre, and it appears to me that the application of purely scenic precepts to the house of God is something very like converting divine service into a comedy.

The limits of this essay allow me not to discuss the chances of an iconolatric reaction in our days. I shall only observe, that in several countries where the iconoclasts of the Reformation had gained a predominant position, they were entirely crushed by the iconolatric reaction, and that a fond alliance of females and monks, supported by the ruling powers of the state, achieved in these parts as great a victory as that which it obtained in the east under Irene and Theodora, not only over the reason of man, but even over the authority of the Word of God; and I believe that the only human means of preventing similar contingencies are free institutions, which allow the fullest liberty of discussion in regard to all religious opinions.

I have said before, that the Pope opposed the abolition of images proclaimed by the Emperor Leo III., and that this opposition was shared by the imperial provinces of Italy, which revolted on that occasion against their sovereign, and separated from the Byzantine empire. It was therefore natural that the second Council of Nice, which restored the worship of images, should obtain the approbation of Pope Hadrian I.; but his desire to impose the enactments of that council upon the churches of the West met with a decided opposition on the part of Charlemagne. This great monarch, who is so celebrated by his efforts to convert the Pagan Saxons, prosecuted with all the barbarity of his age, and whom the church has placed amongst her saints, was so offended by the enactments of the second Council of Nice in favour of the worship of images, that he composed, or what is more probable, ordered to be composed in his name, a book against that worship, and sent it to Pope Hadrian I., as an exposition of his own sentiments, as well as of those of his bishops, on the subject in question. This work, though written in violent language, contains many very rational views about images, and unanswerable arguments against all kinds of adoration offered to them. The substance of this celebrated protest is as follows:—

Charlemagne says, that there is no harm in having images in a church, provided they are not worshipped; and that the Greeks had fallen into two extremes, one of which was to destroy the images, as had been ordained by the Council of Constantinople, under Constantine Copronymus, and the other to worship them, as was decided by the second Council of Nice under Irene. He censures much more severely this latter extreme than the former, because those who destroyed images had merely acted with levity and ignorance, whilst it was a wicked and profane action to worship them. He compared the first to such as mix water with wine, and the others to those who infuse a deadly poison into it; in short, there could be no comparison between the two cases. He marks, with great precision, the different kinds of worship offered to the images, rejecting all of them. The second Council of Nice decided that this worship should consist of kisses and genuflexions, as well as of burning incense and wax candles before them. All these practices are condemned by Charlemagne, as so many acts of worship offered to a created being. He addresses the defenders of the worship of images in the following manner:—

“You who establish the purity of your faith upon images, go, if you like, and fall upon your knees and burn incense before them; but with regard to ourselves we shall seek the precepts of God in his Holy Writ. Light luminaries before your pictures, whilst we shall read the Scriptures. Venerate, if you like, colours; but we shall worship divine mysteries. Enjoy the agreeable sight of your pictures; but we shall find our delight in the Word of God. Seek after figures which cannot either see, or hear, or taste; but we shall diligently seek after the law of God, which is irreprehensible.” He further says:—“I see images which have such inscriptions, as for instance St Paul, and I ask, therefore, those who are involved in this great error, why they do call images holy (sanctus), and why they do not say, conformably to the tradition of the fathers, that these are images of the saints? Let them say in what consists the sanctity of the images? Is it in the wood which had been brought from a forest in order to make them? Is it in the colours with which they are painted, and which are often composed of impure substances? Is it in the wax, which gets dirty?” He taunts the worshippers of images, pointing out an abuse which even now is as inevitable as it was then. “If,” says he, “two pictures perfectly alike, but of which one is meant for the Virgin and the other for Venus, are presented to you, you will inquire which of them is the image of the Virgin and which is that of Venus, because you cannot distinguish them. The painter will call one of these pictures the image of the Virgin, and it will be immediately put up in a high place, honoured, and kissed; whilst the other, representing Venus, will be thrown away with horror. These two pictures are, however, made by the same hand, with the same brush, with the same colours; they have the same features, and the whole difference between them lies in their inscriptions. Why is the one received and the other rejected? It is not on account of the sanctity which one of them has, and the other has not; it is, then, on account of its inscription; and yet certain letters attached to a picture cannot give it a sanctity which it otherwise had not.”

This work was published for the first time in 1549, by Tillet, Roman Catholic bishop of Meaux in France, though under an assumed name, and it has been reprinted several times. Its authenticity, which had been at first impugned by some Roman Catholic writers, was finally established beyond every dispute, and acknowledged by the most eminent writers of the Roman Catholic Church, such as Mabillon, Sirmond, &c. It is a very remarkable production, for it most positively rejects every kind of worship offered to images, without making any difference between Latria and Dulia, and I think that its republication might be of considerable service at the present time.

The Pope sent a long letter in answer to the protest of Charlemagne, which did not, however, satisfy that monarch, because he convened in 794 a council at Frankfort, at which he presided himself. This synod, composed of three hundred bishops of France, Germany, and Spain, and at which two legates of the Pope were present, condemned the enactment of the second Council of Nice respecting the worship of images.

This decree of the Council of Frankfort is very important, because it not only condemned the worship of images, but it virtually rejected the infallibility of the Popes, as well as of the General Councils, since it condemned what they had established.

The opposition to the worship of images continued amongst the Western churches for some time after the death of Charlemagne. Thus an assembly of the French clergy, held at Paris in 825, condemned the decree of the second Council of Nice as decidedly as it was done by the work of Charlemagne and the Council of Frankfort. Claudius, bishop of Turin, who lived about that time, opposed the worship of images, which he removed from his churches, calling those idolaters who adhered to this practice; he also condemned the adoration of relics, of the figure of the cross, &c.; and he was not inaptly called, on this account, by the Jesuit historian Maimbourg, the first Protestant minister.

There are other traces of a similar opposition during the ninth century, but it seems to have entirely disappeared in the tenth, and it was again renewed by the Albigenses in the eleventh century. Their history, however, is foreign to the object of the present essay; and I shall endeavour to give in my next chapter a short sketch of the legends of the saints, composed during the middle ages.

Chapter VI: Origin And Development Of The Pious Legends, Or Lives Of Saints, During The Middle Ages

A collection of the lives of the saints of the Roman Catholic calendar has been accomplished by the Jesuits, and is well known as that of the Bollandists, from the name of its first originator Bollandus. It extends to fifty-three huge folios, though it has reached only to the middle of October, each day having a number of saints assigned to it for commemoration. It contains, among a mass of the greatest absurdities, a good deal of valuable information relating to the history of the middle ages, particularly in respect to the customs and prevailing ideas of that period. A great, if not the greatest part of the saints whose lives are described in that collection have never existed, except in the imagination of their biographers; and the best proof of this is that the learned Benedictine monk, Dom Ruinart, an intimate friend and collaborator of the celebrated Mabillon, has reduced the acts of martyrs, whom he considers as true, to one moderate quarto, though the same work contains a refutation of the Protestant Dodwell, who maintained that the number of the primitive martyrs had been greatly exaggerated by their historians.

The Christian church was already, at an early period of her existence, disturbed by a great number of forgeries, relating to the history and doctrine of our Lord and his disciples; but the spirit in which they were written, so contrary to that of the true Gospel, and the gross absurdities which they contain, were convincing proofs of the apocryphal character of those writings, which, consequently, were rejected as such from the canon of Scripture. If the church could not escape such abuses at a time when she was not yet infected by Pagan ideas and practices, she became still more exposed to them after the abovementioned corruptions, and when, as has already been said, the Christian society was invaded by whole populations, who, notwithstanding their abjuration of heathenism, were Pagans in their manners, their tastes, their prejudices, and their ignorance. There were, moreover, very great difficulties in obtaining authentic information about the lives of the martyrs. I have said that their memory was usually preserved in the churches to which they had belonged. This was, however, entirely a local affair, and though the report of such events had undoubtedly circulated amongst other Christian congregations, there was no general register of martyrs preserved by the whole church, which had no central point of union. The means of communication between various places were, moreover, at that time very imperfect, and this difficulty was increased by the persecutions to which the primitive churches were often exposed. These persecutions dispersed many churches, destroying their registers and other documents belonging to them, whilst even a much greater number of them experienced a similar calamity from the barbarian nations who successively invaded the Roman empire. The accounts of the sufferings and death of the martyrs rest, therefore, with the exception of some comparatively few well-authenticated cases, upon the authority of vague and uncertain traditions. These traditions were generally collected and put in writing only centuries after the time when the event to which they relate had, or is supposed to have taken place. It was therefore no wonder that the subjects of many such accounts are purely imaginary. The nature of the generality of these legends, or lives of martyrs and other saints, may be judged of best from the following opinion expressed on this subject by a Roman Catholic clergyman of unsuspected orthodoxy:—

“What shall I say of those saints of whose life we don’t know either the beginning or the progress,—of those saints to whom so many praises are given, though nobody knows anything about their end? Who may pray to them to intercede for him, when it is impossible to know what degree of credit they enjoy with God? We shall be obliged, indeed, to consider the most part of the acts of martyrs, which are now produced with so much confidence, as so many fables, and reject them as nothing better than romances. It is true that their lives are written, like that of St Ovidius, St Felicissimus, and St Victor! But, O God! what lives! what libels! lives deserving a place in the Index of the Prohibited Books, since they are filled with falsehoods, vain conjectures, or, to say the least, are ascribing to unknown and apocryphal saints the true acts of the most illustrious martyrs. Such things cannot but bring about a great confusion in the history of the church, not to say in religion itself. It is in this manner that the actions of St Felicissimus, who is generally believed to have been a deacon to St Sixtus, are ascribed to a new Felicissimus; and the virtues of St Victor of Milan are now given to a new Victor, who has been recently brought to Paris. As regards the life of St Ovidius, is there anything in it more than words and words? and can we find in it anything solid? This little book speaks of a leaden plate upon which the senatorial dignity and the year of this saint’s martyrdom are inscribed. Why is not this inscription given? Why is not at least the precise date of his martyrdom named? It is said that St Ovidius suffered towards the end of the second century; is this the manner of fixing the year of his death? No, no; the ancients did not mark the time in such a manner; they did not take an uncertain century for the certain epoch of a year. I am much afraid that this inscription is by no means so authentic as people wish to persuade us. But there was found in his grave a little glass vessel; a palm is engraved upon his sepulchre; and his skull has the appearance of being pierced with a lance. Well, these marks may prove that St Ovidius was a martyr; but are they sufficient to establish the truth of his life, such as it has been published?”

I would, however, observe, that many writers of the lives of saints, without excepting those who are considered legitimate, have rendered themselves guilty of something worse than the plagiarism of which the learned Mabillon complains in the passage given above. They may be accused of having blasphemously parodied the Scriptures, and particularly the Gospels, by ascribing many of the miracles recorded in the Bible to the subjects of their biographies. M. Maury, the French savant whom I have already quoted, has traced a great number of miracles ascribed to various saints, which are nothing but imitations of this kind. This sacrilegious plagiarism is not confined to the middle ages, but has been practised in modern times, as is evident from the two following miracles ascribed to the celebrated Jesuit saint, Francis Xavier, who died in 1552. It is said that during his residence in Japan a woman of his acquaintance lost her daughter, after having sought in vain during her illness for St Francis, who was absent on some journey. At his return the bereaved mother fell at his feet, and said, weeping, like Martha to our Saviour, “Lord, if thou hadst been here, my daughter had not died,”—(John xi. 21.) The saint, moved by the entreaties of the mother, ordered her to open the grave of her daughter, and restored her to life. Another time the same saint said to a father whose daughter had died, in the same manner as Jesus Christ said to the centurion whose servant was sick, “Go thy way; thy daughter is healed.”

Had these miracles been performed in our part of the world, they would have converted crowds of Protestants, and thus greatly advanced the principal object of the order to which St Francis Xavier belonged; but the air of Europe seems to have been unfavourable for such wonderful experiments, since the good saint was obliged to betake himself to Japan in order successfully to perform them.

It is true that the legend writers make no attempt at concealing these imitations, but, on the contrary, insist upon the likeness of the miracles performed by their saint to those of our Saviour, as a proof of the high degree of sanctity attained by the former. No saint, however, of the Roman Catholic or Græco-Russian calendar had so many miracles ascribed to him, particularly of the kind mentioned above, as St Francis of Assisi, the celebrated founder of the mendicant monks, and who, considering the immense influence which his disciples have exercised on the Catholic world, was perhaps one of the most extraordinary characters which the middle ages produced.

It has been frequently observed, that genius is akin to madness, and that the partition by which the two are separated is so thin that it occasionally becomes quite imperceptible. Such a condition of the human mind has perhaps never been exemplified in a more striking manner than by the life of this famous saint, which presents a strange mixture of the noblest acts of charity and self-devotion, the wildest freaks of a madman, and of genial conceptions worthy of the most eminent statesman and philosopher. The best proof of his genius is the great influence which the order instituted by him has exercised during several centuries in many countries, and which even now has not yet lost its vitality. It must also be admitted, that neither St Francis nor his disciples can be charged with any of those atrocities by which the life of his contemporary St Dominic, of bloody memory, the founder of the inquisition, and the preacher of the crusade against the Albigenses, as well as the annals of his order, are stained. Neither can it be denied that Francis, as well as his followers, have on many occasions mitigated the barbarity of their age. His immense popularity is, however, as I think, chiefly due to the circumstance that his order, principally destined to act upon the lower classes, was recruited from the most numerous and most ignorant part of the population; and is it necessary to observe that the less men are educated, the more they are prone to credulity and exaggeration? Much learning was not required for the admission to this democratic order, and its ranks were increased by the creation of a class whose members remained in the world, binding themselves only to the observation of some devotional practices and moral precepts. All this contributed to spread the order of St Francis, to which both sexes are admitted, with a marvellous rapidity over many countries; at the same time its members were extolling the virtues and supposed miracles of their founder in the most exaggerated and often ludicrous manner, of which the following anecdote may serve as a specimen:—A Franciscan monk, who was one day preaching about the merits of the founder of his order, began his sermon in the following manner: “Where shall I place the great St Francis? Amongst the saints? This is not enough for his merits. Amongst the angels? no, ‘tis not enough. Amongst the archangels? ‘tis not enough. Amongst the seraphims? ‘tis not enough. Amongst the cherubims? ‘tis not enough.” He was, however, on a sudden released, by one of his hearers, from his perplexity about a proper location for his saint, who, rising from his seat, said, “Reverend father, as I see that you cannot find for St Francis a proper place in heaven, I shall give up to him mine on this bench;” which having said, he left the church.

The story does not say whether this good monk was satisfied with the place so unexpectedly offered to his saint, or where he would have stopped without this timely interruption; but we know, from many other cases, that St Francis was compared by his disciples to our Saviour. Thus, in a work published by the Father Bartholomeus of Pisa, and entitled “The Golden Book of the Conformities of the Life of St Francis with that of Jesus Christ,” the author maintains that the birth of St Francis was announced by prophets; that he had twelve disciples, one of whom, called John Capella, was rejected by him, like Judas Iscariot by our Lord; that he had been tempted by the devil, but without success; that he was transfigured; that he had suffered the same passion as our Saviour, though he never was subject to any persecution or ill-usage, but died quietly, in 1218, amidst his devoted admirers. Other writers pushed even farther the blasphemous comparison, boasting that St Francis had performed many more miracles than our Lord, because Christ changed water into wine but once, whilst St Francis did it thrice; and that instead of the few miraculous cures mentioned in the Gospels, St Francis and his disciples had opened the eyes of more than a thousand blind, cured more than a thousand lame, and restored to life more than a thousand dead.

The greatest miracle, however, that has ever been wrought by St Francis has taken place in our own days, and its authenticity admits of no doubt whatever. It is a life of this famous saint, published by M. Chavin de Malan; and my readers may form an adequate idea of its contents by the following extract from an admirable article in the “Edinburgh Review” for July 1847:—“Though amongst the most passionate and uncompromising devotees of the Church of Rome, M. Chavin de Malan also is in one sense a Protestant. He protests against any exercise of human reason in examining any dogma which that church inculcates, or any fact which she alleges. The most merciless of her cruelties affect him with no indignation, the silliest of her prodigies with no shame, the basest of her superstitions with no contempt. Her veriest dotage is venerable in his eyes. Even the atrocities of Innocent III. seem to this all-extolling eulogist but to augment the triumph and the glories of his reign. If the soul of the confessor of Simon de Montfort, retaining all the passions and all the prejudices of that era, should transmigrate into a doctor of the Sorbonne, conversant with the arts and literature of our own times, the result might be the production of such an ecclesiastical history as that of which we have here a specimen,—elaborate in research, glowing in style, vivid in portraiture, utterly reckless and indiscriminate in belief, extravagant up to the very verge of idolatry in applause, and familiar far beyond the verge of indecorum with the most awful topics and objects of the Christian faith.”—(Pp. 1, 2.)

Now, I ask my reader whether the publication of such a work, in the year of grace 1845, at Paris, is not a perfect miracle, and undoubtedly much more genuine than all those which it describes?

We live indeed in an age of wonders, physical as well as moral, and neither of them have escaped the all-powerful influence of the great moving spring of our time, and the principal cause of its rapid advance,—i.e., competition. England, which is foremost in many, and not behind in any, inventions and discoveries of the day, has maintained her rank, and even perhaps gone ahead, in the production of such moral miracles as that of which I have given a specimen above. And, indeed, the lives of the English saints, published in the years 1844 and 1845, in the capital of this Protestant country, may fearlessly challenge a comparison with the work of M. Chavin de Malan. They are, moreover, ascribed to a clergyman of the Church of England, who, though he has since gone over to Rome, was at that time receiving the wages of the Protestant Establishment of this country as one of its servants and defenders. The few following extracts from this curious work will enable my readers to judge whether I have over-estimated the capabilities of this work for a successful competition with its French rival:—

“Many of these (legends) are so well fitted to illustrate certain principles which should be borne in mind in considering mediæval miracles, that they deserve some attention. Not that any thing here said is intended to prove that the stories of miracles, said to be wrought in the middle ages, are true. Men will always believe or disbelieve their truth, in proportion as they are disposed to admit or reject the antecedent probability of the existence of a perpetual church, endowed with unfailing divine powers. And the reason of this is plain. Ecclesiastical miracles presuppose Catholic faith, just as Scripture miracles, and Scripture itself, presuppose the existence of God. Men, therefore, who disbelieve the faith, will of course disbelieve the story of the miracles, which, if it is not appealed to as a proof of the faith, at least takes it for granted. For instance, the real reason for rejecting the account of the vision which appeared to St Waltheof in the holy Eucharist, must be disbelief of the Catholic doctrine.”

The miracle alluded to above, and which cannot be rejected without disbelief in the Catholic doctrine, is as follows:—“On Christmas-day, when the convent was celebrating the nativity of our Lord, as the friar was elevating the host, in the blessed sacrifice of the mass, he saw in his hand a child fairer than the children of men, having on his head a crown of gold studded with jewels. His eyes beamed with light, and his face was more radiant than the whitest snow; and so ineffably sweet was his countenance, that the friar kissed the feet and the hands of the heavenly child. After this the divine vision disappeared, and Waltheof found in his hands the consecrated water.”

The whole collection is full of similar stories, some of which are really outrageous; as, for instance, that which it relates about St Augustine, the great apostle of England.

This saint was, during his peregrinations about the country, received with great honours in the north of England; “but,” says the work in question, “very different from this are the accounts of his travels in Dorsetshire. While there, we hear of his having come to one village, where he was received with every species of insult. The wretched people, not content with heaping abusive words upon the holy visitors, assailed them with missiles, in which work, the place being probably a sea-port, the sellers of fish are related to have been peculiarly active. Hands, too, were laid upon the archbishop and his company. Finding all efforts useless, the godly company shook the dust from their feet, and withdrew. The inhabitants are said to have suffered the penalty of their impieties, even to distant generations. All the children born from that time bore and transmitted the traces of their parents’ sins in the shape of a loathsome deformity.”

The writer who relates this story had not the courage or the honesty of M. Chavin de Malan to tell that the insult offered to the holy visitors consisted in attaching tails of fish to their robes, and that the loathsome deformity, with which the children of the perpetrators of that insult were born during many generations, was a tail.

Absurd as this monkish story is, it is nevertheless characteristic of the spirit of the sacerdotal pride and vindictiveness which would punish a silly joke, by which the dignity of the priestly order was offended, with a heavy calamity, entailed upon the innocent descendants of its perpetrators through many generations; and yet the fables of this modern mythology cannot be, according to our author, rejected without disbelief of the Catholic doctrine. This is not, however, his personal opinion; and he has only asserted, in a more decisive manner than it has been done for a considerable time, a principle which the Roman Catholic Church cannot disavow, though it may place her in an embarrassing position; and as an illustration of this, I shall give the following anecdote:—

Under the reign of Frederic II., a Prussian soldier stole a costly ornament from an image of the Virgin, which enjoyed a great reputation for its miraculous powers. The theft being discovered, the culprit pleaded in his defence that, having addressed a fervent prayer to the above-mentioned image for help in his poverty, it gave him this ornament to relieve him from his distress. This affair was reported to the king, who, being much amused by the soldier’s device, required the Roman Catholic bishop in whose diocese this theft was committed to give a positive opinion whether the image in question could work miracles of this kind or not? The bishop could not, without showing disbelief in the Catholic doctrine, deny the possibility of the miracle, and was therefore obliged to give an affirmative reply. The king, therefore, pardoned the soldier, on condition of never accepting presents from this or any other image or saint whatever.

The author of this essay, though a firm believer in the existence of God and the truth of the Scriptures, has not the advantage of being inspired with faith in the Catholic doctrine; he therefore will continue his researches in the same manner as before.

Many legends originated from misunderstanding the emblematic character of some pictures. Thus the celebrated Spanish lady saint and authoress, St Theresa, was, on account of her eloquent and impassioned effusions of love addressed to the Deity, painted by a Spanish artist having her heart pierced with an arrow, in allusion to the words of the Psalmist, “For thine arrows stick fast in me,” &c.—(Ps. xxxviii. 2.) She died quietly in her convent towards the end of the sixteenth century, and though the particulars of her life and death are generally known, there were some legend writers who related that she died a martyr, pierced by an arrow. If such confusion of ideas could happen in a time when literature and science had made considerable progress, and when the art of printing was already universally known, how much more frequently such things must have occurred during the prevailing ignorance of the middle ages! And, indeed, there are many wild legends which have originated from a similar source, and of which the most celebrated is that of St Denis, which has been also related of other saints. This martyr, supposed to have been beheaded, was represented holding his head in his hand, as an emblem of the manner of his death. The writer of his legend took this emblem for the representation of a real fact, and loosening the reins of his imagination, related that the saint, after having been beheaded, took up his head, kissed it, and walked away with it.

It is a general tendency of a gross and unenlightened mind to materialise the most abstract and spiritual ideas, and then what is simply an allegory becomes with him a reality. It was this tendency which, during the mediæval ignorance, gave often a literal sense to what is only typical, and it was carried so far that even the parables of our Lord were constructed into real stories. Thus, Lazarus was a poor saint who lived in great want, and was made after his death the patron of beggars and lepers. The parable of the prodigal son has furnished materials for many a legend; and to crown all these pious parodies, a monk has shown to the well-known Eastern traveller Hasselquist, the very spot upon which the good Samaritan assisted the wounded man, who had been left unheeded by the priest and the Levite. Future rewards and punishments, heaven and hell, were also represented in a grossly material manner, that gave rise to many absurd legends, generally invented with the object of supporting the pretensions of the church, to have the power of sending at pleasure the souls of the departed to either of these places.

I have already spoken of the effects which the solitary and ascetic life of the early monks produced upon their imagination. The same thing took place amongst the recluses of the convents, but particularly nunneries. “The imaginations of women,” says a celebrated author whom I have already quoted, “as their feelings are more keen and exquisite, are more susceptible and ungovernable than those of men; more obnoxious to the injurious influence of solitude; more easily won upon by the arts of delusion, and inflamed by the contagion of the passions.” Hence we may account for the rapidity with which in orphan houses, cloisters, and other institutions, where numbers of the sex are intimately connected with each other, the sickness, humour, habits, of one, if conspicuous and distinguished, become those of all. I remember to have read in a medical writer of considerable merit, that in a French convent of nuns, of more than common magnitude, one of the sisters was seized with a strange impulse to mew like a cat, in which singular propensity she was shortly imitated by several other sisters, and finally, without a solitary exception, by the whole convent, who all joined at regular periods in a general mew that lasted several hours. The neighbourhood heard, with more astonishment than edification, the daily return of this celestial symphony, which was silenced, after many ineffectual measures, by terrifying the modesty of the sex with the menace, that, on any future repetition of their concert, a body of soldiers, pretended to be stationed at the gates of the monastery, would be called in to inflict upon them a discipline at once shameful and severe.

“Among all the epidemic fancies of the sex I have found upon record, none equals that related by Cardan to have displayed itself in the fifteenth century,—which forcibly illustrates what has been remarked of the intuitive contagion by which fantastic affection is propagated among women. A nun in a certain German convent was urged by an unaccountable impulse to bite all her companions; and her strange caprice gradually spread to others, till the whole body was infected by the same fury. Nor did the evil confine itself within these limits: the report of this strange mania travelled from one province to another, and every where conveyed with it the infectious folly, from cloister to cloister, through the German empire; from thence extending itself on each side to Holland and Italy, the nuns at length worried one another from Rome to Amsterdam.

“Numberless instances might be quoted to demonstrate the force with which the strangest and most wild propensities fasten themselves on the imagination, and conquer and tyrannise over the will, when the soul is debarred from a free intercourse with its species, and left too uninterruptedly to its own unbridled musings. But those which we have related may be sufficient to show the danger into which he runs who delivers himself unconditionally to the custody of solitude, and does not arm himself against its faithless hospitality. Shut up in a barren and monotonous leisure, without studies to occupy curiosity, without objects to amuse the senses, or to interest and to attract the affections to any thing human, fancy will escape into the worlds of chimerical existence, there to seek amusement and exercise. How fondly does it then embrace and cherish angelical visions, or infernal phantoms, prodigies, or miracles! or should its reveries take another direction, with what increasing eagerness and confidence do its hopes hunt after the delusions of alchemy, the fictions of philosophy, and the delirium of metaphysics! In cases where the mind is less capacious, and its stores less copious, it will attach itself to some absurd notion, the child of its languid and exhausted powers; and bestowing its fondest confidence on this darling of its dotage, will abandon reason and outrage common sense.”

I have given this lengthened extract from Zimmerman, because I think it satisfactorily explains those mystic visions as well as infernal phantoms, with which the mediæval legends and chronicles, generally composed by monks, abound, and which are often unjustly ascribed to fraud and wilful deception. Medical science, as well as all the branches of natural philosophy, being then in a very imperfect condition, such phenomena as those of nuns mewing like cats or biting like dogs, which are mentioned by Zimmerman, were not explained as nervous diseases, but ascribed to the possession of evil spirits; and I frankly confess that I am by no means sure, that if cases like those mentioned above were to happen in our enlightened age, there would not be found many good folks ascribing them to a similar agency. It must be also remembered that, if notwithstanding the extreme rapidity and regularity of communications in our own time, reports of various events are often exaggerated and even completely altered in passing from one place to another; how much more must it have been the case during the time of such defective communication as existed previous to the invention of printing and the introduction of the post! It was therefore no wonder if occurrences of such an extraordinary nature as those alluded to were immensely magnified by report, and if it had, at least in many places, converted the mewing and biting nuns into as many cats and dogs. It is, moreover, now generally admitted that what is called mesmerism, but whose real nature science has not yet explained, was known and practised during the middle ages, as well as in remote antiquity, and that many thaumaturgic operations, described by the mediæval legends, as well as by ancient writers, were produced by means of this still mysterious agency.

I have dwelt perhaps too long on this subject, because I am afraid that the observations relating to it are not confined to a distant period, but may become but too often applicable to our own times. And, indeed, when we reflect on the rapid increase of convents and nunneries, particularly in this country, and that notwithstanding the present state of civilization these establishments must be filled chiefly by individuals whose imaginations are stronger than their reasoning powers, there can be little doubt that they may again become the stage of those extraordinary manifestations, the cause of which had been too exclusively ascribed to mediæval darkness. It cannot be doubted, that designing individuals of both sexes, possessed of superior talents and knowledge, but particularly endowed with a strong will, may exercise not only an undue influence, but even an absolute power over the inmates of the above-mentioned monastic establishments; and that a skilful application of mesmerism may efficiently promote such unlawful ends.

Many local superstitious remains of Paganism,—as, for instance, miraculous powers ascribed to certain wells, stones, caverns,—stories about various kinds of fairies, &c.—have furnished ample materials to the mediæval legend writers, who arranged them according to their own views. They generally retained the miraculous part of the story, frequently embellishing it by their own additions, but substituting the agency of the Christian saint, the hero of their tale, for that of the Pagan deity, to whom it had originally been ascribed. It was thus that the localities considered by the Pagans as possessed of some supernatural properties, and resorted to by them on this account, were converted into places of Christian pilgrimages, with the only difference that the Pagan genius loci was baptised with the name of a Christian saint, whose existence can often be no more proved than that of his heathen predecessor. Many hagiographers seem to have indulged their humour as much as their fancy in composing these legends, which appears from such ludicrous stories as, for instance, that of St Fechin, whose piety was so fervent that when he was bathing in cold water it became almost boiling hot. This warm-hearted or hot-headed saint is said to have belonged to the Emerald isle, though, considering that his ardent piety was so very much like a manifestation of the perfervidum Scotorum ingenium, in a somewhat exaggerated form, I am much inclined to believe him a native of the north country. There are many instances of such humorous miracles, but I shall quote only that of Laurenthios, a famous Greek saint, and worker of miracles. Having one day some business with the Patriarch of Constantinople, he was kept waiting in the prelate’s ante-chamber, and feeling very warm he wanted to take off his cloak. But as there was not any piece of furniture in the room, nor even a peg on its walls, St Laurenthios, embarrassed what to do with his cloak, threw it upon a ray of the sun, which was entering the room through a hole in the shutter, and which immediately acquired the firmness of a rope, so that the saint’s cloak remained hanging upon it. It must not, however, be believed that the hot sun and fervid imagination of Greece were absolutely requisite for the performance of such wonderful tricks; for we have sufficient legendary evidence to prove that they were successfully reproduced under the less brilliant sky of Germany and France, because St Goar of Treves suspended his cap, and St Aicadrus, abbot of Jumieges, his gloves upon the same piece of furniture that had been used by St Laurenthios to hang his cloak, though probably, considering that the sun is not so powerful in those countries as it is at Constantinople, the western saints did not venture to try its rays with such a heavy load, as had been successfully done by their eastern colleague.

Some miracles were invented in order to inculcate implicit obedience to the ecclesiastical authorities, which is considered by the Roman Catholic Church as one of, if not the most important virtue to be practised by her children. Thus it is related that when the Spanish Dominican monk, St Vincent Ferrerius, celebrated for the great number of his miracles, was one day walking along a street in Barcelona, a mason, falling from a high roof, called for his assistance. The saint answered that he could not perform a miracle without the permission of his superior, but that he would go and ask for it. The mason remained, therefore, suspended in the air until St Vincent, returning with the permission, got him safely down on the ground.

It must be admitted, that many saints, whose lives are disfigured by absurd stories of their miracles, were men of great piety, adorned with the noblest virtues, and who gave proofs of the most exalted charity and self-devotion. Unfortunately the honours of saintship have been often bestowed upon such sanguinary monsters as St Dominic, whose shrine would be the most appropriately placed in a temple where human sacrifices are offered, or upon madmen who have outraged every feeling of humanity. Thus it is related that St Alexius left his home on the day of his wedding, and, having exchanged his clothes for the rags of a beggar, adopted his mode of life. After some time, when his appearance had become so wretched that he could no longer be recognised by his friends, he returned to his parental house, asking for shelter. He obtained a place under the staircase, and lived there by alms for seventeen years, continually witnessing the distress and lamentations of his wife, mother, and aged father about his loss, and was recognised only after his death by a book of prayers which had been given him by his mother. And it was for this unfeeling and even cruel treatment of his own family that he was canonised! It is supposed, however, that all this story is but a fiction, and, for the sake of humanity, I sincerely hope that it is so.

The limits of this essay allow me not farther to extend my researches about the legends of mediæval saints, and their miracles; and I shall try to give in my next chapter a short analysis of several practices which the Roman Catholic as well as the Græco-Russian Church have retained from Paganism.

Chapter VII: Analysis Of The Pagan Rites And Practices Which Have Been Retained By The Roman Catholic As Well As The Græco-Russian Church

I have given the opinion of an eminent Roman Catholic modern author (Chateaubriand) about the introduction of Pagan usages into the Christian worship, and a long extract from another no less distinguished Roman Catholic writer of our day, describing the cause of this corruption. The Roman Catholic writers of this country do not, however, treat this subject with the same sincerity as the illustrious author of the “Genie du Christianisme,” and the learned French Academician from whose work I have so largely drawn; but they try hard to deny that many usages of their church bear the stamp of Paganism. This is particularly the case with the author of “Hierurgia,” a work which I have already quoted, and which may be considered as the fairest expression of what the Roman Catholic Church teaches on the subject in question. Thus the use of images in churches is represented as being authorised by Scripture, by the following curious arguments:—

“The practice of employing images as ornaments and memorials to decorate the temple of the Lord is in a most especial manner approved by the Word of God himself. Moses was commanded to place two cherubim upon the ark, and to set up a brazen figure of the fiery serpent, that those of the murmuring Israelites who had been bitten might recover from the poison of their wounds by looking on the image. In the description of Solomon’s temple, we read of that prince, not only that he made in the oracle two cherubim of olive tree, of ten cubits in height, but that ‘all the walls of the temple round about he carved with divers figures and carvings.’

“In the first book of Paralipomenon (Chronicles) we observe that when David imposed his injunction upon Solomon to realise his intention of building a house to the Lord, he delivered to him a description of the porch and temple, and concluded by thus assuring him: ‘All these things came to me written by the hand of the Lord, that I may understand the works of the pattern.’

“The isolated fact that images were not only directed by the Almighty God to be placed in the Mosaic tabernacle, and in the more sumptuous temple of Jerusalem, but that he himself exhibited the pattern of them, will be alone sufficient to authorise the practice of the Catholic Church in regard to a similar observance.”—(Hierurgia, p. 371.)

All this may be briefly answered. There was no representation of the Jewish patriarchs or saints either in the tabernacle or in the temple of Solomon, as is the case with the Christian saints in the Roman Catholic and Græco-Russian Churches; and the brazen serpent, to which the author alludes, was broken into pieces by order of King Hezekiah as soon as the Israelites began to worship it.

The author tries to prove, with considerable learning and ingenuity, that the primitive Christians ornamented their churches with images, and I have already given, his explanation of the Council of Elvira; but his assertions are completely disproved by every direct evidence which we have about the places of worship of those Christians. I have already quoted, the testimony of Minutius Felix, that the Christians had no kind of simulachres in their temples, as well as the indignation of St Epiphanius at an attempt to introduce them into the churches, and for which there would have been no occasion if it had been an established custom.

The most important part of his defence of the use of images is, however, the paragraph entitled, “No virtue resident in images themselves,” containing what follows:—

“Not only are Catholics not exposed to such dangers (i.e., idolatry), but they are expressly prohibited by the church (Concilium Tridentinum, sess. xxv.) to believe that there is any divinity or virtue resident in images for which they should be reverenced, or that any thing is to be asked of them, or any confidence placed in them, but that the honour given should be referred to those whom they represent; and so particular are their religious instructors in impressing this truth upon the minds of their congregations, that if a Catholic child, who had learned its first catechism, were asked if it were permitted to pray to images, the child would answer, ‘No, by no means; for they have no life nor sense to help us;’ and the pastor who discovered any one rendering any portion of the respect which belongs to God alone to a crucifix or to a picture, would have no hesitation in breaking the one and tearing the other into shreds, and throwing the fragments into the flames, in imitation of Ezechias, who broke the brazen serpent on account of the superstitious reverence which the Israelites manifested towards it.”—(Hierurgia, p. 382.)

It is perfectly true that the Council of Trent has declared that the images of Christ, of the virgin, and of other saints, are to be honoured and venerated, not because it is believed that there is any divinity or virtue inherent in them, or that any thing is to be asked of them, or any confidence placed in images, as had been done by Pagans, who put their trust in idols (Psalm cxxxv. 15-18), but that “the honour given should be referred to those whom they represent, so that by the images which we kiss, before which we uncover our heads, or prostrate ourselves (procumbimus), we worship Christ and the saints whose likeness those images represent.” But if there is “no divinity or virtue resident in images,” as is declared by the Council of Trent, what is to become of all those miraculous images which are the subject of pilgrimage in so many Roman Catholic countries, and the existence of whose miraculous powers has been solemnly acknowledged by the highest ecclesiastical authorities? I shall not attempt to enumerate those miraculous images, because their number is legion, but I shall only ask the rev. doctor whether he considers the image of the virgin of Loretto, which is the object of so many pilgrimages, and to which so many miracles are ascribed, as having some virtue resident in it or not? and would he break it in pieces on account of the miraculous powers ascribed to it? Is he prepared to act in such a manner with the celebrated Bambino of Rome? and are the miraculous powers ascribed to it, as well as to the virgin of Loretto, and other images of this kind, a reality or an imposture? and, finally, what will he do with the winking Madonna of Rimini, which has lately made so much noise, and which, instead of being broken to pieces or torn to shreds by the priests or the bishop of the place, has been approved by ecclesiastical authority? I can assure the rev. doctor, that by breaking into pieces the miraculous images, carved as well as painted, he will break down many barriers which now separate the Protestant Christians from those who belong to his own church. I am, however, afraid that he will find many difficulties in attempting such a thing; and I must remind him, that in quoting the above-mentioned canon of the Council of Trent, he forgot an essential part of it, which greatly modifies the declaration that there is no divinity or virtue resident in images, saying, “That the holy synod ordains that no one be allowed to place, or cause to be placed, any unusual image in any place or church, howsoever exempted, except that the image be approved by the bishop: also, that no new miracles are to be acknowledged or new relics recognised, unless the said bishop has taken cognizance and approved thereof, who, as soon as he has obtained certain information in regard to these matters, shall, after having taken the advice of theologians and of other pious men, act therein as he shall judge to be consonant with truth and piety.”—(Sess. xxviii., &c.)

The real meaning of the above-mentioned canon of the Council of Trent is therefore, I think, that there is no divinity or virtue resident in the images which are not authorised by the bishop to work miracles, and that unlicensed images are not allowed to have any such divinity or virtue in them, but that such unusual carved or painted images, as those which I have mentioned above, having obtained the required authorization, may work as many miracles as they please, or as their worshippers will believe.

It has been observed by a writer, who certainly cannot be accused of violent opinions, the learned and pious Melancthon, “that it was impious and idolatrous to address statues or bones, and to suppose that either the Divinity or the saints were attached to a certain place or to a certain statue more than to other places; and that there was no difference between the prayers which are addressed to the Virgin of Aix la Chapelle, or to that of Ratisbon, and the Pagan invocations of the Ephesian Diana, or the Platean Juno, or any other statue.” To these observations I shall only add those of M. Beugnot on the marvellous facility with which the worship of the virgin, established by the Council of Ephesus, 431, has superseded that of the Pagan deities in many countries.

There is scarcely any ceremony in the Western as well as in the Eastern church, the origin of which cannot be traced to the Pagan worship. I shall limit my observations on this subject to the three following objects, which constitute the most important elements in the divine service performed in those churches, namely,—1. The consecrated water; 2. Lamps and candles; and, 3. Incense; giving the Roman Catholic explanation of their origin, as well as that which I believe to be true.

With regard to the consecrated water, it is described by the author of “Hierurgia” in the following manner:—

“The ordinance of Almighty God, promulgated by the lips of Moses, concerning the water of separation, and the mode of sprinkling it, are minutely noticed in the nineteenth chapter of the book of Numbers. In the book of Exodus, we read that the Lord issued the following declarations to Moses:—‘Thou shalt make a brazen laver, with its foot, to wash in; and thou shalt set it between the tabernacle of the testimony and the altar. And the water being put into it, Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and feet in it when they are going into the tabernacle of the testimony, and when they are to come to the altar to offer incense on it to the Lord.’—(Exod. xxx. 18-20.)

“That it was a practice with the Jews, not only peculiar to the members of the priesthood, but observed amongst the people, for each individual to wash his hands before he presumed to pray, is a well-attested fact. The church adopted this as well as several other Jewish ceremonies, which she engrafted on her ritual; and St Paul apparently borrows from such ablution the metaphor which he employs while thus admonishing his disciple Timothy:—‘I will that men pray in every place, lifting up pure hands.’—(1 Timothy ii. 8.) That in the early ages the faithful used to wash their hands at the threshold of the church before they entered, is expressly mentioned by a number of writers.”

As to the use of holy water being of apostolic origin, he says:—

“The introduction of holy or blessed water must be referred to the times of the apostles. That it was the custom, in the very first ages of the church, not only to deposit vessels of water at the entrance of those places where the Christians assembled for the celebration of divine worship, but also to have vases containing water mingled with salt, both of which had been separated from common use, and blessed by the prayers and invocations of the priest, is certain. A particular mention of it is made in the constitution of the apostles; and the pontiff Alexander, the first of that name, but the sixth in succession from St Peter, whose chair he mounted in the year 109, issued a decree by which the use of holy water was permitted to the faithful in their houses.”—(Hierurgia, pp. 461-463.)

It is rather a strange thing for Christians to imitate the religious rites of the Jews, whose ceremonial law,—“which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation” (Heb. ix. 10),—was abolished by the New Testament. However, if this is to be done, why is not the holy water adopted by the Roman Catholic Church prepared in the same manner, and used for the same object, as the Jewish water of separation, described in Numbers xix., but, on the contrary, composed in the same manner, and employed for the same purpose, as the lustral water of the Pagans? The fact is, that it has been borrowed from the Pagan worship and not from the Jewish ceremonial law, the truth of which is honestly acknowledged by the Jesuit La Cerda, who, in a note on the following passage of Virgil,—

“Idem ter socios pura circumtulit unda,

Spargens rore levi, et ramo felicis olivæ,

Lustravitque viros”

—Æneid, lib. vi. 229—

says, “Hence was derived the custom of the holy church to provide purifying or holy water at the entrance of their churches.” The same custom was observed in the Pagan temples, at the entrance of which there was a vase containing the holy or lustral water, for the people to sprinkle themselves with, just as is now done at the entrance of the Roman Catholic churches. The author of “Hierurgia” mentions, as quoted above, that Pope Alexander I. authorised, in the beginning of the second century, the use of holy water; and yet Justin Martyr, who wrote about that time, says “that it was invented by demons, in imitation of the true baptism signified by the prophets, that their votaries might also have their pretended purification by water.” And the Emperor Julian, in order to vex the Christians, caused the victuals in the markets to be sprinkled with holy water, with the intention of either starving them or compelling them to eat what they considered as impure.

To these evidences of the abomination in which the primitive Christians held the Pagan rite of sprinkling with holy water, I may add the following anecdote, characteristic of the intensity of this feeling:—

When Julian the Apostate was one day going to sacrifice in the temple of Fortune, accompanied by the usual train of the emperors, the Pagan priests, standing on both sides of the temple gate, sprinkled those who were entering it with the lustral or holy water in order to purify them according to the rites of their worship. A Christian tribune, or superior officer of the imperial guards (scutarii), who, being on duty, preceded the monarch, received some drops of this holy water on his chlamys or coat, which made him so indignant, that, notwithstanding the presence of the emperor, he struck the priest who had thus sprinkled him, exclaiming that he did not purify but pollute him. Julian ordered the arrest of the officer who had thus insulted the rites of his religion, giving him the choice either to sacrifice to the gods or to leave the army. The bold Christian chose the latter, but was soon restored to his rank on account of his great military talents, and raised, after the death of Julian and the short reign of Jovian, to the imperial throne as Valentinian I.

This monarch was, however, by no means a bigot; on the contrary, we have the unsuspected testimony of the contemporary Pagan writer Ammianus Marcellinus that he maintained a strict impartiality between the Christians and Pagans, and did not trouble any one on account of his religion. He even regulated and confirmed, by a law in 391, the privileges of the Pagan clergy in a more favourable manner than had been done by many of his predecessors; and yet this monarch, who treated his Pagan subjects with such an extreme liberality, committed, when a private individual, an act of violence against their worship which exposed him to considerable danger. This, I think, is a strong proof of the horror which the Christians felt for a rite which constitutes now an indispensable part of the service in the Western as well as in the Eastern churches, and is most profusely used by them.

With regard to the candles and lamps, which form a no less important and indispensable part of the worship adopted by the above-mentioned churches, the author of “Hierurgia” defends their use in the following manner:—

After having described the candlesticks employed in the Jewish temple, he says:—“But without referring to the ceremonial of the Jewish temple, we have an authority for the employment of light in the functions of religion presented to us in the Apocalypse. In the first chapter of that mystic book, St John particularly mentions the golden candlesticks which he beheld in his prophetic vision in the isle of Patmos. By commentators on the sacred Scripture, it is generally supposed that the Evangelist, in his book of the Apocalypse, adopted the imagery with which he represents his mystic revelations from the ceremonial observed in his days by the church for offering up the mass, or eucharistic sacrifice of the Lamb of God, Christ Jesus.

“That the use of lights was adopted by the church, especially at the celebration of the sacred mysteries, as early as the times of the apostles, may likewise, with much probability, be inferred from that passage in their Acts which records the preaching and miracles of St Paul at Troas:—‘And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, being to depart on the morrow, and he continued his speech until midnight. And there were a great number of lamps in the upper chamber where we were assembled.’—(Acts xx. 7, 8.) That the many lamps, so particularly noticed in this passage, were not suspended merely for the purpose of illuminating, during the night-time, this upper chamber, in which the faithful had assembled on the first day of the week to break bread, but also to increase the solemnity of that function and betoken a spiritual joy, may be lawfully inferred from every thing we know about the manners of the ancient Jews, from whom the church borrowed the use of lights in celebrating her various rites and festivals.”—(Hierurgia, p. 372.)

It is really difficult seriously to answer such extraordinary suppositions as that the seven candlesticks, expressly mentioned as types of the seven churches, should be an allusion to the physical lights used in the worship of those churches, and not to the moral and spiritual light which they were spreading amongst Jews and Gentiles. Such an explanation appears to me nothing better than that tendency to materialise the most abstract and spiritual ideas to which I have alluded above. With regard to the passage in the Acts xx. 7, 8, which says that there were a great number of lamps in the upper chamber where St Paul was preaching, I think that this circumstance might have been considered as a religious rite if the apostle had been preaching at noon; but as it is expressly said that he did it at night, nothing can be more simple than the lighting of the upper chamber with lamps. It was also very natural that there should be many of them, because as St Paul was undoubtedly often referring to the Scriptures, his hearers, or at least many of them, being either real Jews or Hellenists, must have been continually looking to copies of the Bible in order to verify his quotation. It was, therefore, necessary to have the room well lighted, and consequently to employ many lamps. It is, indeed, curious to see to what far-fetched suppositions a writer of so much learning and ingenuity as Dr Rock is obliged to recur, in order to defend a purely Pagan rite which has been adopted by his church, giving the simplest and clearest things a non-natural sense, similar to that which some Romanising clergymen have been giving to the precepts of a church which they were betraying whilst in her service and pay.

The same author maintains that lights were employed from primitive times at divine service, saying:—

“The custom of employing lights, in the earlier ages of the church, during the celebration of the eucharist; and other religious offices, is authenticated by those venerable records of primitive discipline which are usually denominated Apostolic Canons.”—(Hierurgia, p. 393.)

Now, what is the authenticity of these canons? The author himself gives us the best answer to it, saying:—

“Though these canons be apocryphal, and by consequence not genuine, inasmuch as they were neither committed to writing by the apostles themselves, nor penned by St Clement, to whom some authors have attributed them; still, however, this does not prevent them from being true and authentic, since they embody the traditions descended from the apostles and the apostolic fathers, and bear a faithful testimony that the discipline which prevailed during the first and second centuries was established by the apostles.”—(P. 394.)

I shall not enter into a discussion about the value of evidence furnished by a work which is acknowledged to be apocryphal, and not to have been written by those to whom its defenders had ascribed its authorship; but I shall only remark, that one of the most eminent fathers of the church, the learned Lactantius, who flourished in the fourth century, and consequently long after the time when the Apostolic Canons are supposed to have been composed, takes a very different view from them in regard to this practice, because he positively says, in attacking the use of lights by the Pagans, they light up candles to God as if he lived in the dark, and do they not deserve to pass for madmen who offer lamps to the Author and Giver of light? And is it probable that he could approve of a practice in the Christian church which he condemns in the Pagan?

And, indeed, can there be any thing more heathenish than the custom of burning lights before images or relics, which is nothing else than sacrifices which the Pagans offered to their idols?

I have described above, the manner in which St Jerome defended the use of lights in the churches against Vigilantius. This defence of St Jerome is adduced by our author in a rather extraordinary manner.

“It happens not unfrequently that those very calumnies which have been propagated, and the attacks which were so furiously directed by the enemies of our holy faith in ancient times, against certain practices of discipline then followed by the church, are the most triumphant testimonies which can be adduced at the present day, both to establish the venerable origin of such observances, and to warrant a continuation of them. In the present instance, the remark is strikingly observable; for the strictures which Vigilantius passed in the fourth age, on the use of lights in churches, as well as on the shrines of the martyrs, and the energetic refutation of St Jerome of the charge of superstition preferred against such a pious usage by that apostate, may be noticed as an irrefragable argument, in the nineteenth century, to establish the remote antiquity of this religious custom. After mentioning as a fact of public notoriety, and in a manner which defied contradiction, that the Christians, at the time when he was actually writing, which was about the year 376, were accustomed to illumine their churches during mid-day with a profusion of wax tapers, Vigilantius proceeds to turn such a devotion into ridicule. But he met with a learned and victorious opponent, who, while he vindicated this practice of the church against the objection of her enemy, took occasion to assign those reasons which induced her to adopt it. That holy father observes:—‘Throughout all the churches of the East, whenever the Gospel is to be recited, they bring forth lights, though it be at noon-day; not certainly to shine among darkness, but to manifest some sign of joy, that under the type of corporeal light may be indicated that light of which we read in the Psalms, “Thy word is a lamp to my feet, and a light to my path.” ’ ”—(Hierurgia, p. 298.)

Now, I would observe to the learned doctor, that St Jerome, in answering Vigilantius, maintained, that it was calumny to say that the Christians burnt candles in the daylight, and that it was done only by some people, whose zeal was without knowledge. Consequently, the church which has adopted this practice shows, according to the authority of that “holy and learned father,” that her zeal is without knowledge. With regard to the argument in support of the abovementioned practices given by St Jerome, and reproduced by our author, that the Eastern churches make use of lights, I admit that it is unanswerable, because it is an undoubted fact that the Græco-Russian Church makes an immense consumption of wax candles, chiefly burnt before the images, and it remains for me only to congratulate the advocates of this practice on the support which they derive from such an imperative authority as that of the Græco-Russian Church.

It remains for me now only to say a few words about the incense, which forms a constituent part of the service of the Roman Catholic and Græco-Russian Churches, as much as the holy water and lights, and which is defended by the author of “Hierurgia” in the following manner. After having described the use of incense in the Jewish temples, he says—

“It was from this religious custom of employing incense in the ancient temple, that the royal prophet drew that beautiful simile of his, when he petitioned that his prayers might ascend before the Lord like incense. It was while ‘all the multitude were praying without at the hour of incense, that there appeared to Zachary an angel of the Lord, standing at the right of the altar of incense,’—(Luke i. 10, 11). That the oriental nations attached a meaning not only of personal reverence, but also of religious homage to an offering of incense, is demonstrable from the instance of the magi, who, having fallen down to adore the newborn Jesus, and recognise his divinity, presented him with gold, and myrrh, and frankincense. That he might be more intelligible to those who read his book of the Apocalypse, it is very probable that St John adapted his language to the ceremonial of the liturgy then followed by the Christians in celebrating the eucharistic sacrifice, at the period the evangelist was committing to writing his mysterious revelations. In depicting, therefore, the scene which took place in the sanctuary of heaven, where he was given to behold in vision the mystic sacrifice of the Lamb, we are warranted to suppose that he borrowed the imagery, and selected several of his expressions, from the ritual then actually in use, and has in consequence bequeathed to us an outline of the ceremonial which the church employed in the apostolic ages of offering up the unbloody sacrifice of the same divine Lamb of God, Christ Jesus, in her sanctuary upon earth. Now, St John particularly notices how the ‘angel came and stood before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar which is before the throne of God; and the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God, from the hand of the angel.’—Apocal. viii. 3-5.”—(Hierurgia, p. 518.)

To this explanation of the use of incense in the churches, I may answer by the same observation which I have made, on a similar defence of the use of lights, namely, that it is a strange materialization of spiritual ideas by embodying into a tangible shape what is simply typical, and which is not warranted by any direct evidence. Such far-fetched and fanciful conjectures cannot be refuted by serious arguments; but as regards the Jewish origin of the use of incense, as well as of many other ceremonies common to the Roman Catholic and Greek Churches, I shall give the observation of the celebrated Dr Middleton, on an answer made by a Roman Catholic to his well-known Letter from Rome, and who, defending the ceremonies of his Church in nearly the same manner as the author of “Hierurgia,” says, “That Dr Middleton was mistaken in thinking every ceremony used by the heathens to be heathenish, since the greatest part of them were borrowed from the worship of the true God, in imitation of which the devil affected to have his temples, altars, priests, and sacrifices, and all other things which were used in the true worship.” This he applied to the case of incense, lamps, holy water, and processions, adding, “that if Middleton had been as well read in the Scriptures as he seemed to be in the heathen poets, he would have found the use of all these in the temple of God, and that by God’s appointment.”

“I shall not dispute with him,” says Middleton, “about the origin of these rites, whether they were first instituted by Moses, or were of prior use and antiquity amongst the Egyptians. The Scriptures favour the last, which our Spenser strongly asserts, and their Calmet and Huetius allow; but should we grant him all that he can infer from his argument, what will he gain by it? Were not all those beggarly elements wiped away by the spiritual worship of the Gospel? Were they not all annulled, on account of their weakness and unprofitableness, by the more perfect revelation of Jesus Christ?—(Gal. iv. 9; Heb. vii. 18.) If, then, I should acknowledge my mistake, and recall my words, and instead of Pagan, call them Jewish ceremonies, would not the use of Jewish rites be abominable still in a Christian church, where they are expressly abolished and prohibited by God himself?

“But to pursue his argument a little farther. While the Mosaic worship subsisted by divine appointment in Jerusalem, the devil likewise, as he tells us, had temples and ceremonies of the same kind, in order to draw votaries to his idolatrous worship, which, after the abolition of the Jewish service, was carried on still with great pomp and splendour, and above all places, in Rome, the principal seat of his worldly empire. Now, it is certain that in the early times of the Gospel, the Christians of Rome were celebrated for their zealous adherence to the faith of Christ, as it was delivered to them by the apostles, pure from every mixture either of Jewish or heathenish superstition, till, after a succession of ages, as they began gradually to deviate from that apostolic simplicity, they introduced at different times into the church the particular ceremonies in question. Whence, then, can we think it probable that they should borrow them from the Jewish or the Pagan ritual? From a temple remote, despised and demolished by the Romans themselves, or from temples and altars perpetually in their view, and subsisting in their streets, in which their ancestors and fellow-citizens have constantly worshipped? The question can hardly admit any dispute; the humour of the people, as well as the interest of a corrupted priesthood, would invite them to adopt such rites as were native to the soil, and found upon the place, and which long experience had shown to be useful to the acquisition both of wealth and power. Thus, by the most candid construction of this author’s reasoning, we must necessarily call their ceremonies Jewish, or by pushing it to its full length, shall be obliged to call them devilish.

“He observes that I begin my charge with the use of incense as the most notorious proof of their Paganism, and like an artful rhetorician, place my strongest argument in the front. Yet he knows I have assigned a different reason for offering that the first; because it is the first thing that strikes the sense, and surprises a stranger upon his entrance into their churches. But it shall be my strongest proof, if he will have it so, since he has brought nothing, I am sure, to weaken the force of it. He tells us that there was an altar of incense in the temple of Jerusalem, and is surprised, therefore, how I can call it heathenish; yet it is evident, from the nature of that institution, that it was never designed to be perpetual, and that during its continuance, God would have never approved any other altar, either in Jerusalem or any where else. But let him answer directly to this plain question: Was there ever a temple in the world, not strictly heathenish, in which there were several altars, all smoking with incense, within our view, and at one and the same time? It is certain that he must answer in the negative; yet it is as certain that there were many such temples in Pagan Rome, and are as many in Christian Rome; and since there never was an example of it, but what was Paganish, before the time of Popery, how is it possible that it could be derived to them from any other source? or when we see so exact a resemblance in the copy, how can there be any doubt about the original?

“What he alleges, therefore, in favour of incense is nothing to the purpose: ‘That it was used in the Jewish, and is of great antiquity in the Christian churches, and that it is mentioned with honour in the Scriptures,’ which frequently compare it to prayer, and speak of its sweet odours ascending up to God, &c., which figurative expressions, he says, ‘would never have been borrowed by sacred penmen from heathenish superstition;’ as if such allusions were less proper, or the thing itself less sweet, for its being applied to the purposes of idolatry, as it constantly was in the time of the same penmen, and, according to their own accounts, on the altars of Baal, and the other heathen idols: and when Jeremiah rebukes the people of Judah for burning incense to the queen of heaven (Jer. xliv. 17), one can hardly help imagining that he is prophetically pointing out the worship paid now to the virgin, to whom they actually burn incense at this day under that very title.

“But if it be a just ground for retaining a practice in the Christian church, because it was enjoined to the Jews, what will our Catholic say for those usages which were actually prohibited to the Jews, and never practised by any but by the heathens and papists? All the Egyptian priests, as Herodotus informs us, had their heads shaved, and kept continually bald. Thus the Emperor Commodus, that he might be admitted into that order, got himself shaved, and carried the god Anubis in procession. And it was on this account, most probably, that the Jewish priests were commanded not to shave their heads, nor to make any baldness upon them.—(Lev. xxi. 5; Ezek. xliv. 20). Yet this Pagan rasure, or tonsure, as they choose to call it, on the crown of the head, has long been the distinguishing mark of the Romish priesthood. It was on the same account, we may imagine, that the Jewish priests were forbidden to make any cuttings in their flesh (Lev. xix. 28, xxi. 5), since that was likewise the common practice of certain priests and devotees among the heathens, in order to acquire the fame of a more exalted sanctity. Yet the same discipline, as I have shown in my Letter, is constantly practised at Rome in some of their solemn seasons and processions, in imitation of these Pagan enthusiasts, as if they searched the Scriptures to learn, not so much what was enjoined by true religion, as what had been useful at any time in a false one, to delude the multitude, and support an imposture.”—(Middleton’s Miscellaneous Works, vol. v., p. 11, et seq.)

The same author justly observes, that “under the Pagan emperors the use of incense for any purpose of religion was thought so contrary to the obligations of Christianity, that in their persecutions, the  very method of trying and converting a Christian was by requiring him only to throw the least grain of it into the censer or on the altar.”

“Under the Christian emperors, on the other hand, it was looked upon as a rite so peculiarly heathenish, that the very places or houses where it could be proved to have been done, were, by a law of Theodosius, confiscated to the government.”—(Ibid., p. 95.)

I shall conclude this essay by a short sketch of the superstitious practices prevailing in the Græco-Russian Church, which will be the subject of my next and last chapter.

Chapter VIII: Image-Worship And Other Superstitious Practices Of The Graeco-Russian Church

The Græco-Russian Church is perhaps the most important element of the politico-religious complications in which Europe is at present involved. It is, moreover, not a fortuitous cause of these complications, but has been growing during centuries, until it has reached its present magnitude, though its action upon Turkey may have been prematurely brought into play by accidental circumstances. It comprehends within its pale about 50,000,000 of souls, whilst it exercises an immense influence upon 13,000,000 of Turkish, and a considerable one upon more than 3,000,000 of Austrian subjects, professing the tenets of that church, though governed by separate hierarchies. To this number must be added the population of the kingdom of Greece, amounting to about 1,000,000: so that the whole of the followers of the Eastern Church may be computed in round numbers at 66,000,000 or 67,000,000 of souls.

The Russian Church differs from other Greek churches, not in her tenets, but in her government. From the establishment of Christianity in Russia, towards the end of the tenth century, to the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453, the Russian Church was governed by a metropolitan, consecrated by the Patriarch of Constantinople. After this event, the metropolitans were consecrated by the Russian bishops till 1588, when a patriarch of Russia was instituted by that of Constantinople, who had arrived at Moscow, in order to obtain pecuniary assistance for his church. The patriarch enjoyed considerable influence, which modified in some respects the despotic authority of the Czar. It was Peter the Great who abolished this dignity in 1702, after the death of the Patriarch Adrian, and declared himself the head of the Russian Church.

He introduced several regulations to restrict the power of the clergy, and to improve their education. It appears that the violent reforms by which that monarch tried to introduce the civilization of western Europe amongst his subjects, had produced an intellectual movement in their church, but which, not squaring with the views of the imperial reformer, was violently suppressed by him. Thus, in 1713, a physician called Demetrius Tveritinoff, and some other persons, began to attack the worship of images, and to explain the sacrament of communion in the same sense as has been done by Calvin.

These reformers were anathematised by the order of the Czar, and one of them was executed in 1714. Next year, 1715, a Russian priest, called Thomas, probably a disciple of the above-mentioned reformers, began publicly to inveigh against the worship of saints and other practices of his church, and went even so far as to break the images placed in the churches. He was burnt alive, and nothing more was heard afterwards of such reformers. The Russian clergy regained their influence under the reign of the Empress Elizabeth, 1742-62, a weak-minded, bigoted woman, who was continually making pilgrimages to the shrines of various Russian saints and miraculous images, displaying on those occasions such a splendour and such munificence to the objects of her devotion, that the finances of her state were injured by it. Elizabeth’s nephew and successor, Peter III., Duke of Holstein, who, for the sake of the throne, had passed from the Lutheran communion to the Greek Church, entertained the greatest contempt for his new religion. This half-crazy, unfortunate prince, instead of trying to reform the Russian Church by promoting a superior information amongst her clergy, offended the religious prejudices of his subjects by an open disregard of the ordinances of that church, and his projects of violent reforms. He not only did away with all the fasts at his court, but he wished to abolish them throughout all his empire, to remove the images and candles from the churches, and, finally, that the clergy should shave their beards and dress like the Lutheran pastors. He also confiscated the landed property of the church. Catherine II., who observed with the greatest diligence those religious rites which her husband treated with such contempt, and who greatly owed to this conduct her elevation to the throne, confirmed, however, the confiscation of the church estates, assigning salaries to the clergy and convents who had been supported by that property. She made use of the influence of the Græco-Russian Church for the promotion of her political schemes in Poland and in Turkey; yet, as her religious opinions were those of the school of Voltaire and Diderot, which believed that Christianity would soon cease to have any hold upon the human mind, she seems not to have been fully aware of that immense increase of power at home and influence abroad which a skilful action upon the religious feelings of the followers of that church may give to the Russian monarchs. This policy has been formed into a complete system by the present Emperor, and it was in consequence of it that several millions of the inhabitants of the ancient Polish provinces, who belonged to the Greek United Church, i.e., who had acknowledged the supremacy of the Pope by accepting the union concluded at Florence in 1438, were forced to give up that union, and to pass from the spiritual dominion of the Pope to that of the Czar. This wholesale conversion was necessarily accompanied with a good deal of persecution. Those clergymen who had refused to adopt the imperial ukase for their rule of conscience were banished to Siberia, and many other acts of oppression were committed on that occasion, but of which only the case of the nuns of Minsk has produced a sensation in western Europe. The same system of religious centralization has also been applied to the Protestant peasantry of the Baltic provinces, many of whom were seduced by various means to join the Russian Church; and this policy continues to be vigorously prosecuted in the same quarter, as may be seen by the following extract from the Berlin Gazette of Voss, reprinted in the Allgemeine Zeitung of the 12th March of this year, 1854:—

“Emissaries travelling about the country succeeded by every kind of cunning, and by holding out prospects of gain and other advantages, to convert people from Lutheranism to the Greek Church. All the children, under seventeen years must follow the religion of their father as soon as he has entered the orthodox church. Whoever has received the anointment can no longer return to his former creed, and those who would try to persuade him to do it would be severely punished. It is even forbidden to the Protestant clergy to warn their congregations from going over to the Greek Church by drawing their attention to the difference which exists between the two religions. A great number of Greek churches have been built in the Baltic provinces, and already, in 1845, it was ordered that the converts to the Greek Church should be admitted into every town; that those peasants who would leave their places of residence in order to join a Greek congregation should be allowed by their landowners to do so; and, finally, that the landowners and Protestant clergymen who would oppose in any way the conversion to the Greek Church of their peasantry and congregations, should be visited with severe penalties. These penalties, directed against those who would attempt to induce any one, either by speeches or writings, to pass from the Greek Church to any other communion, have been specified in a new criminal code. They prescribe for certain cases of such a proselytism corporal chastisement, the knout, and transportation to Siberia.” It is also well known that the Protestant missionaries, who had been labouring in various parts of the Russian empire for the conversion of Mahometans and heathens, have been prohibited from continuing their pious exertions. And yet, strange to say, there is a not uninfluential party in Prussia, which, pretending to be zealously Protestant, supports with all its might the politico-religious policy of Russia, and is as hostile to Protestant England as it is favourable to the power which is persecuting Protestantism in its dominions. On the other hand, it is curious to observe in this country some persons of that High Church party which affects to repudiate the name of Protestant, and with whom churchianity seems to have more weight than Christianity, showing an inclination to unite with the Græco-Russian Church; and I have seen a pamphlet, ascribed to a clergyman of the Scotch Episcopal Church, positively recommending such a union, and containing the formulary of a petition to be addressed by the Episcopalians of Great Britain to the most holy Synod of St Petersburg, praying for admission into the communion of its church. I would, however, observe to these exaggerated Anglo-catholics, who chiefly object to the ecclesiastical establishment of England on account of its being a State Church, that the Russian Church is still more so, and that the most holy synod which administers that church, though composed of prelates and other clergymen, can do nothing without the assent of its lay member, the imperial procurator, and that a colonel of hussars was lately intrusted with this important function. The Greek Church being opposed to Rome, some Protestants sought to conclude a union with her in the sixteenth century; and the Lutheran divines of Tubingen had for this purpose a correspondence with the Patriarch of Constantinople, between the years 1575 and 1581, but which did not lead to any result, as the Patriarch insisted upon their simply joining his church. The Protestants of Poland attempted in 1599 a union with the Greek Church of their country, and the delegates of both parties met for this purpose at Vilna; their object was, however, frustrated by the same cause which rendered nugatory the efforts that had been made by the divines of Tubingen for this purpose, the Greek Church insisting upon their entire submission to her authority. It is true that some learned ecclesiastics of the Græco-Russian Church are supposed to entertain Protestant opinions, but this is entirely personal, and has no influence whatever on the systematic policy of their Church, which hates Rome as a rival, but Protestantism as a revolutionary principle. One of the ablest and most zealous defenders of the Roman Catholic Church in our times, and whom a long residence in Russia had made thoroughly acquainted with her church, Count Joseph Demaistre, is of opinion that this church must finally give way to the influence of Protestantism; and I think that this might be really the case if the Russian Church enjoyed perfect liberty of discussion, which she is very far at present from possessing. I believe, however, that such a contingency is very possible with those Eastern churches that are not under the dominion of Russia, if they were once entirely liberated from Russian influence and brought into contact with Protestant learning. Such a revolution would be most dangerous, not only to the external influence of Russia, but even to her despotism at home, because a Protestant movement amongst the Greek churches of Turkey would sever every connection between them and Russia, and very likely extend to the last-named country. It is therefore most probable, as has been observed by the celebrated explorer of Nineveh, Layard, that the movement alluded to above, which has recently begun to spread amongst the Armenian churches of Turkey, was not without influence on the mission of Prince Menschikoff and its consequences.

I have said above that the mutual position of the Græco-Russian and Roman Catholic Churches towards one another is that of two rivals. The dogmatic difference between them turns upon some abstruse tenets, which are generally little understood by the great mass of their followers, whilst the essential ground of divergence, the real question at issue, is, whether the headship of the church is to be vested in the Pope, in the Patriarch of Constantinople, or in the Czar. The Pope has allowed that portion of the Greek Church which submitted to his supremacy at the council of Florence in 1438, to retain its ritual and discipline, with some insignificant modifications. The Roman Catholic Church considers the Græco-Russian one in about the same light as she is regarded herself by that of England. She acknowledges her to be a church, though a schismatic one, whose sacraments and ordination are valid, so that a Greek or Russian priest becomes, on signing the union of Florence, a clergyman of the Roman Catholic Church exactly as is the case in the Anglican Church with a Roman Catholic priest who renounces the pope. The Græco-Russian Church does not, however, return the compliment to the Roman Catholic one, any more than the Catholic does it to that of England; because a Roman Catholic priest who enters the Græco-Russian Church not only loses his sacerdotal character, just as is the case with an Anglican clergyman who goes over to the communion of Rome, but he must be even baptised anew, as is done with Christians of every denomination who join that church, whether Jews or Gentiles.

The system of reaction which the Roman Catholic Church has been pursuing for many years, with a consistency, perseverance, and zeal worthy of a better cause, and not without considerable success, has created just alarm in the minds of many friends of religious and civil liberty. This feeling is but too well warranted by the open hostility which the promoters of that reaction, having thrown away the mask of liberalism, are manifesting to the above-mentioned liberties. I shall, moreover, add, that the political complications in which Europe is now involved may be taken advantage of by the reactionary party in order to advance its schemes, whilst the public attention, particularly of this country, will be absorbed by the events of the present war; and therefore I think that all true Protestants should, instead of relaxing, increase their vigilance, in respect to the movements of the ecclesiastical reactionists. But the dangers which threaten from that quarter are, at least in this country, of a purely moral character, though they are doing much mischief in families, and may throw some obstruction into the legislative action of the government. They must therefore be combated with moral and intellectual means,—with spiritual, and not carnal weapons,—and they may be completely annihilated by a vigorous and skilful application of such means. The Pope of Rome, though claiming a spiritual authority over many countries, cannot maintain himself in his own temporal dominion without the assistance of foreign powers, and is obliged to court the favour of secular potentates, instead of commanding them, as had been done by his predecessors. The case is quite different with the Imperial Pope of Russia, who commands a million of bayonets, and whose authority is supported, not by canon, but by cannon law, and not by bulls, but by bullets. The material force which he has at his disposal is immensely strengthened by his spiritual authority over the ignorant masses of the Russian population, upon whose religious feelings he may act with great facility, because his orders to the clergy are as blindly obeyed as his commands to the army; and it is with the object of extending and consolidating this authority over all his subjects without exception that those measures of persecution and seduction against the Roman Catholics and Protestants, which I have mentioned above, have been adopted. The probable consequence of this religious centralization, and the condition of the church whose exclusive dominion it is sought to establish in Russia, have been sketched in the following graphic manner by an accomplished German writer, who, having resided many years in Russia, and being thoroughly acquainted with the language of that country, may be considered as one of the most competent judges on this subject:—

“He who, with attentive ear and eye, travels through the wide empire of the Czar, surrounding three parts of the world with its snares, and then traces the sum of his contemplations, will tremble in thought at the destiny which the Colossus of nations has yet to fulfil. He who doubts of the impending fulfilment of this destiny knows not history, and knows not Russia.

“However different in origin and interest the strangely mixed hordes may be which constitute this giant realm, there exists one mighty bond which holds them all together,—the Byzantine Church. Whoever remains out of it will soon be forced into it; and ere the coming century begins, all the inhabitants of Russia will be of one faith.

“Already that great net, whose meshes the Neva and the Volga, the Don and the Dnieper, the Kyros and Araxes, form, inclose a preponderating Christian population, in whose midst the scattered Islamitish race, the descendants of the Golden Horde, are lost like drops in the ocean. What a marvellous disposition of things, that the Russian empire, whose governing principle is the diametrically opposite of the Christian law, should be the very one to make of Christianity the corner, the keystone of its might! And a no less marvellous disposition of things is it that the Czar, in whatever direction he stretches his far-grasping arms, should find Christian points of support whereon to knit the threads of fate for the followers of Islam, artfully scattered by him—that he should find Armenians at the foot of Ararat, and Georgians at the foot of Caucasus!

“But of what kind is this Christianity, that masses together so many millions of human beings into one great whole, and uses them as moving springs to the manifestations of a power that will sooner or later give the old world a new transformation?

“Follow me for a moment into the Russian motherland, and throw a flying glance at the religious state of things prevailing there.

“See that poor soldier, who, tired and hungry from his long march, is just performing his sacred exercises, ere he takes his meal and seeks repose.

“He draws a little image of the virgin from his pocket, spits on it, and wipes it with his coat sleeve: then he sets it down on the ground, kneels before it, and crosses himself, and kisses it in pious devotion.

“Or enter with me on a Sunday one of the gloomy image-adorned Russian churches. If the dress of those present is not already sufficient to indicate their difference of station, you may readily distinguish them by the manner in which each person makes the sign of the cross. Consider first that man of rank, as he stands before a miracle-working image of a Kazanshian mother of God, bows slightly before it, and crosses himself notably. Translated into our vernacular the language of this personage’s face would run in something like the following strain:—‘I know that all this is a pious farce, but one must give no offence to the people, else all respect would be lost. Would the people continue to toil for us, if they were to lose their trust in the assurances we cause to be made to them of the joys of heaven?’

“Now look at that caftan-clad fat merchant, as, with crafty glance and confident step, he makes up to the priest to get his soul freed from the trafficking sins of the past week.

“He knows the priest, and is sure that a good piece of money will meet with a good reception from him; that is why he goes so carelessly, in the consciousness of being able to settle in the lump the whole of his sinful account; and when the absolution is over, he takes his position in front of the miraculous image, and makes so prodigious a sign of the cross, that before this act all the remaining scruples of his soul must vanish away.

“Consider, in fine, that poor countryman, who steals in humbly at the door, and gazes slyly round him in the incense-beclouded spaces. The pomp and the splendour are too much for the poor fellow.

“ ‘God,’ he thinks, ‘but what a gracious lord the Emperor is, that he causes such fine churches to be built for us poor devils! God bless the Emperor!’ And then he slips timidly up to some image where the golden ground and the dark colours form the most glaring contrast, and throws himself down before it, and crosses the floor with his forehead, so that his long hair falls right over his face, and thus he wearies himself with prostrations and enormous crossings, until he can do no more for exhaustion. For the poorer the man in Russia, the larger the cross he signs and wears.”

This description of the religious state of the Russian people, given by a writer who is not very partial to their country, may be perhaps suspected of exaggeration, or considered as being too much of a caricature; I shall therefore give my readers the observations which have been made on the same subject by another German author, Baron Haxthausen, a great admirer of Russia, who travelled over that country in 1843, under the patronage of the Emperor, in order to study the state of its agriculture and industry, as well as the social condition of the working-classes.

“A foreigner is struck,” says the Baron, “by the deep devotion and the strict observance of the ordinances and customs of the church shown by Russians of rank and superior education. I had already, at Moscow, an opportunity of seeing it. Prince T., a young, elegant Muscovite dandy, conducted me about the churches of the Kremlin, and almost in every one of them he knelt down before some particularly venerated object,—as the coffin of a saint, the image of a Madonna,—and touched the ground with his forehead, and devoutly kissed the object in question. I observed the same thing at Yaroslaf. Madame Bariatynski (the wife of the governor) and another lady conducted me about the churches of that city, and as soon as we entered one of them, both these ladies approached an image of the Virgin, fell down before it, without any regard to their dresses, touched with their foreheads the ground, and kissed the image, making signs of the cross; and these were ladies belonging to the highest society, and of the most refined manners. Madame Bariatynski had been a lady of the court, and the ornament of the first drawing-rooms of St Petersburg. Her mind is uncommonly cultivated, and she has a thorough knowledge of French and German literature; and, indeed, when we were walking to see these churches, along the banks of the Volga, she discussed, in an animated and ingenious manner, the matchless beauty of Goethe’s songs, and recited from memory his Fisherman. Even in the strictest Roman Catholic countries, as, for instance, Bavaria, Belgium, Rome, Munster, such public demonstrations of piety are not to be met, except in some exceedingly rare cases, with women, but never with men. The educated classes have in this respect separated from the lower ones. Even people who are very devout consider such excessive manifestations of piety as not quite decent, nay, though they dare not confess it, they are in some measure ashamed of them. In Russia the case is different. There are perhaps as many freethinkers, and even atheists, as in western Europe, but even they submit, at least in public, and when they are in their own country, unconditionally, and almost involuntarily, to the customs of their church. In this respect, no difference whatever may be observed between the highest and the commonest Russian; the unity of the national church and of the national worship predominates everywhere.”

It is almost superfluous to observe that a church which has such a hold on the national mind of Russia must be a powerful engine in the hands of her Imperial Pope, whose political authority is thus immensely strengthened by the influence of religion. But I think it will be, perhaps, not uninteresting to my readers to compare this baptised idolatry of the modern Russians with that which had been practised by their unbaptised ancestors about a thousand years ago, and the following account of which is given by Ibn Foslan, an Arabian traveller of the tenth century, who saw Russian merchants in the country of the Bulgars, a Mahometan nation who lived on the banks of the Volga, and the ruins of whose capital may be seen not far from the town of Kazan:—

“As soon as their (Russian) vessels arrive at the anchoring place, every one of them goes on shore, taking with him bread, meat, milk, onions, and intoxicating liquors, and repairs to a high wooden post, which has the likeness of a human face carved upon it, standing surrounded with small statues of a similar description, and some high ones erected behind it. He prostrates himself before this wooden figure, and says, ‘O Lord, I have arrived from a distant country; I have brought with me so and so many girls, so and so many sable skins;’ and when he has enumerated all his merchandise, he lays before the idol the things which he has brought with him, and continues his prayer, saying, ‘Here is a present which I have brought thee, and I wish thou wouldst send me a customer who has plenty of gold and silver, who will not bargain with me, but purchase all that I have to sell at my own price.’ When his commerce does not prosper, he brings new presents to the idol, and when he meets with some new difficulties he makes gifts also to the small statues, but when he is successful he offers oxen and sheep.”

Kissing constitutes the principal part of the Russian worship of images and relics, and is most liberally bestowed on those objects of adoration, whilst I believe that the Roman Catholic Madonnas maintain a more dignified state, and do not allow such familiarities to their worshippers, unless on some particular occasions or to some privileged persons. The Emperor himself sets the example of this pious osculation, a striking instance of which occurred in the summer of last year, 1853, under circumstances which deserve a particular notice.

I have said that several millions of the followers of the Greek United Church had been forced by the present emperor to transfer their spiritual allegiance from the Pope to himself. Several of their churches contain miraculous images of the Virgin, of more or less repute, and which were obliged to share the fate of their worshippers, and to become schismatics as much as the latter. Their vested rights have not been, however, injured in any way by this revolution, because they continue to be worshipped, and to work miracles as they did before, or, what is the same thing, they are fully authorised to do so. The Russian government followed on this occasion its usual line of policy, which is to promote those who have joined it, forsaking their former party; and thus one of the most distinguished of these miracle-working converts, the Madonna of Pochayoff, a little town in Wolhynia, was transferred from her provincial station to Warsaw, and placed there in a newly built Russian cathedral, probably with the object of inducing the Roman Catholic inhabitants of that capital to imitate an example set to them in such a high quarter, and to acknowledge the spiritual authority of the Czar as much as they are obliged to submit to his temporal dominion. When the emperor was going last year to Olmutz, in order to persuade the Austrian court to support his policy in Turkey, he passed through Warsaw, and repairing, immediately after his arrival in that city, to the Russian cathedral, kissed the above-mentioned miraculous image of the Madonna of Pochayoff with such fervour that it produced quite a sensation upon all those who were present, and was noticed in the newspapers as a proof of the autocrat’s piety. Yet whether this Madonna, notwithstanding her outward conversion to the Græco-Russian Church, remains a Romanist at heart, or whether, for some other reason, she could or would not support the views of her imperial worshipper, the result of the Czar’s voyage to Olmutz proved that the caresses which he had bestowed upon the Madonna in question were love’s labours lost. It may be also observed, that the emperor himself seems not to have been quite sure of the effects of his pious addresses to the now schismatic Madonna of Pochayoff, because it is well known that this man, who, as I have said had torn from the spiritual authority of the Pope, by a violent persecution, many millions of souls, knelt during his visit to Olmutz, with all the marks of deep devotion, at a Roman Catholic high mass; whilst the Prince of Prussia, who was also present on that occasion, stood by without taking a hypocritical part in a worship which was contrary to his religion.

This image-kissing propensity of the Russians was the cause of a tragical event during the plague at Moscow in 1771. It usually happens during a public calamity that rumours of a wild and absurd nature are circulated amongst the ignorant part of the population, and it was thus that, when the pestilence was raging in the above-mentioned capital, a report was spread that an image of the Virgin, placed at the entrance of a church, had the power of preventing infection. Thousands of people repaired to the miraculous image, and endless processions were wending along the streets towards the same object of adoration, which was overloaded with rich offerings by its worshippers, and adorned with costly jewels. As was to be expected, this superstitious practice, instead of preventing the infection, powerfully contributed to its increase; because the kisses which the crowd lavishly bestowed on the miraculous image could not but propagate the disease. The Archbishop of Moscow, Ambrose, an enlightened prelate, in order to stop this mischief, removed the image from the place where it had been exposed into the interior of the church; but this wise measure produced a violent riot, and an infuriated mob rushed into the sanctuary and murdered the venerable old man at the foot of the altar, where he was officiating, dressed in his pontificals.

It is probably the same image of which Bodenstedt, whose account of the Russian Church I have quoted above, relates the following anecdote. After having spoken of the usurpations of Russia beyond the Caucasus, under pretence of protecting the Christian population of those parts, he says:—

“The Russian policy, which conceals its grasping claws under the cloak of religion, may be not inaptly compared to a lady well known at Moscow, who, to the great edification of the bystanders, kissed the miraculous Madonna, situated close to the Kremlin, with so much fervour, that the most costly diamond of the jewels with which this image is covered remained in her mouth.” And he adds, in a note, “The thing was afterwards discovered, and the writer of this was himself present when this lady, the wife of a Russian general, was obliged publicly to crave the forgiveness of the image for this act of desecration. It is said that when this noble lady was judicially examined about this affair, she pleaded in her defence that having loved and worshipped the image in question devoutly during many years, she believed herself entitled to a little souvenir from the Madonna.” The Russian lady of rank seems not to have been so ingenious as the Prussian soldier. And it must be remarked that the Russian images expose their worshippers to the temptations of mammon much more than the Roman Catholic ones; because, whilst the latter are often valuable as objects of art, the former have usually silver or golden garments, often set with precious stones, which entirely cover the painting except the face, generally by no means a model of beauty. The gifts which the Russians bestow on their images are immense, and the most celebrated place for the accumulation of such treasures is the convent of Troitza, or Trinity, situated about fifty English miles from Moscow, and considered as a kind of national sanctuary of Russia. Baron Haxthausen says that the value of sacred vases and ornaments accumulated in that place surpasses all that may be seen of this kind any where else, without even excepting Rome and Loretto; and he thinks that the quantity of pearls contained in those ornaments is perhaps greater than is to be found in the whole of Europe.

The grave of St Sergius, the founder of that convent in the fourteenth century, is adorned with gold and precious stones, and the silver canopy over it is said to weigh 1200 pounds. The most remarkable object contained in that convent is, however, the image of that saint which accompanied Peter the Great during all his campaigns, and on which are inscribed the names of all the battles and stormings of towns at which it had been present. I do not know whether this image had a part in other expeditions of the Russian army, but I have read this year in the newspapers that when a division of grenadiers was passing through Moscow, on their way to Turkey, the Archbishop of that capital addressed them, firing their zeal for the religious war in which they were going to take part, and after having blessed them with the image of St Sergius, the same to which I alluded above, gave it them as a companion of their expedition. The allied troops must therefore be prepared to encounter that bellicose saint somewhere on the Danube, unless he has been ordered to the shores of the Baltic for the defence of the capital. The custom of taking with them images considered as miraculous, during a campaign, was followed by the generals of the Greek empire on many occasions. Thus it is related by a Byzantine writer, that in 590 Philippicus, a general of the Emperor Mauritius, when going to engage the Persians in battle, took an image which was not made by the hands of man, and carried it about the ranks of his army, in order to purify his soldiers, and that he gained, after this ceremony, a complete victory. It must, however, be remarked that when Philippicus was replaced by another general, called Priscus, the latter, relying too much on the protection of the image which was not made by the hands of man, diminished the rations of the soldiers, and gave them other causes of offence; they revolted, and when Priscus, in order to subdue the riot, paraded the image in question, the mutineers threw stones at it. I don’t know exactly how this business ended, but it is said that the Greek generals usually liked to have an image of the kind alluded to, in order to appease their troops in cases of mutiny and discontent; and I believe that, considering the gross ignorance and superstition of the Russian soldiers, the image of St Sergius may do good service in similar cases, and for which these soldiers have but too many reasons. The Greek emperors also sometimes provided with miraculous images the ambassadors who were sent on important missions. I don’t know whether the Russian diplomacy, which has performed so many wonders, has ever had recourse to the assistance of such images, or to that of any supernatural agency.

The miraculous images of the Græco-Russian Church are generally considered as not made by the hands of man, whilst those of the Roman Catholic Church are usually believed to be painted by St Luke. The most celebrated Madonnas of Russia, as those of Kazan, Korennaya, Akhtyrka, &c., are believed to have dropt from heaven, in the same manner as the Diana of Ephesus, and other Greek idols of repute. They are called yavlenneeye icony, i.e., revealed images, and their number is considerable, though all of them do not enjoy an equal reputation for miraculous powers. The number of images of various descriptions is, I think, much greater in Russia than in any other country, and they are called by the common people, not images, icony, but gods, boghi; and many of their worshippers are so ignorant, that they take every kind of picture or engraving for the boghi, and devoutly cross themselves before them. A German officer of engineers, in the Russian service, related to the author that he had a Russian servant, a young lad of a very devout disposition, who pasted every engraving which he could lay hold on, upon the wall over his bed, in order to address his prayers to them. This officer once missed some plates, containing mathematical figures, which had dropt from a book of geometry, and he found afterwards that his pious servant, having picked them up, gave them a place in his pantheon. If this strange divinity had been found amongst the objects worshipped by that poor lad by some very profound foreign traveller, unacquainted with the Russian people, it is more than probable that he would have taken it for a mystical object of adoration, and written a learned dissertation to explain its emblematic sense.

Every household in Russia has its own little sanctuary, consisting of one or more images, ornamented according to the means of the owner, and placed in a corner opposite to the principal door. Every one who enters the room makes a sign of the cross, bowing to these penates, the place under whose shrine is considered as the seat of honour, reserved at meals for the father of the family, or the most respected guest.

The Russians are great exclusives in respect to their images, and every believer has at least one of them stuck on the wall near his sleeping place, for his especial use and comfort; whilst people who are continually moving about, as carriers, pedlars, soldiers, &c., have their pocket divinities with them; and the description of the devotional exercises of a Russian soldier is by no means a caricature. This exclusiveness was much greater before the reforms introduced by the Patriarch Nicon in the seventeenth century than it is at present. Contemporary travellers relate that people brought into the churches their own images, trying to get for them on the walls of the church the place which they considered the best; and thus it often happened that these images, being placed opposite to the altar, people in praying to them turned their backs to the officiating priest, which generally produced great confusion, and disturbed the performance of divine service. There was a very great competition amongst those people in ornamenting their images as showily as possible; and as the sanctity of an image was increased, according to the opinion of those baptised idolaters, in proportion to the richness of its ornaments, it often happened that a poor man, who could not afford to trim up smartly his own image, addressed his prayers to that of his richer neighbour. Such an adoration, however, was considered as contraband; and when the lawful owner of the image caught one of those pious interlopers, he not only sharply rebuked him, but frequently gave him a sound thrashing, saying that he did not go to the expense of decorating his image that another should obtain its favours.

Scandalous scenes of this description have been abolished in the established church by the reforms of the Patriarch Nicon, alluded to above, but something very like it may still be witnessed in the churches of the Raskolniks, who have separated from the established church on account of those reforms. These people often bring their own images to the churches to pray before them, and it frequently happens amongst the boys who worship in this way, that some of them, perceiving that their neighbour has a finer image than their own, they steal it from him, substituting that which belongs to them. This produces quarrels and fighting amongst these boys, who reproach one another, saying, You So-and-so, you have stolen my fine image which cost my father two roubles, and left me this wretched one, which is not worth fifty copecs, i.e., half a rouble. These scenes would be ludicrous if they were not positively blasphemous, because these images are called on such occasions, as is always done, by the name of gods, boghi.

It has been observed by some travellers in Russia that the image-dealers of that country do not sell their wares, but, by a kind of legal fiction, exchange them for a certain sum, and that consequently they are disposed of at a fixed price. This is, however, not the case, and the image-dealers of Russia make no exception to the other merchants of that country, who generally ask for their goods the treble of their value, and a reasonable price can only be obtained by hard bargaining. Only consecrated images, i.e., those which have been sprinkled by a priest with holy water, cannot be, I think, made an object of traffic.

The orthodox Russians have no less veneration for fine churches than for splendidly adorned images, and the well-known German dramatic writer Kotzebue gives in the relation of his forced voyage to Siberia, under the Emperor Paul, a characteristic trait of this disposition. The titulary counsellor Shchekatikhin, who conducted him to the place of his exile, Kurghan, in the south of Siberia, showed a great reverence to all the churches which they passed by. Whenever they passed a fine church constructed of solid masonry, he doffed his cap and crossed himself most fervently, whilst he treated very cavalierly all those which were built of wood, making a hardly perceptible sign of the cross in their honour. This national propensity to treat respectfully the great and disdainfully the little, of which M. Shchekatikhin’s piety was such a characteristic exemplification, has been, in its application to churches, described by the great admirer of Russia, Baron Haxthausen, whose account of the devotional practices observed by the upper classes of that country in the following manner:—

“We saw, in most part of the villages on our road, fine new churches built of stone or brick; but in one of them, called Novaya, I saw for the first time an old wooden church, built of logs, and covered with boards and shingles, such as they generally had been every where in Russia. These wooden churches continually disappear, being replaced by those constructed of masonry. The Russian peasantry consider it a particular honour to have in their village a church of stone or brick. To leave a village with a church of stone in order to settle in a place which has but a wooden one, is considered as a degradation, and the inhabitants of the former would hardly intermarry with those of the latter. The villages which have only a wooden church, therefore, do all that they can in order to rise to an equal grade with those who have one of stone or brick. This shows how the pride of rank pervades the mind of the Russians in every form of life, and in every class of the population. In cases of this kind, no promotion but only a sum of money is required in order to obtain the desired rank. It may be purchased by constructing a church of stone or brick. Such a church costs ten, twenty, or thirty thousand silver roubles (six roubles equal to one pound); but nothing is more easy than to get this sum. A dozen of stout fellows disperse in various directions, to collect by begging the sum required for the construction of the projected church, which is done without any expense, as the collectors are hospitably received in every house. As soon as the necessary sum is obtained, the village petitions the government for a plan and for an architect, because the plan of every such church must be approved at St Petersburg. Thus, in a few years, a fine church is built, constructed in the modern style, and the rank of the village rises in its own and in its neighbours’ opinion.

“Such things cannot be done in Western Europe, partly because an active religious feeling amongst the people disappears more and more, and partly on account of the great fluctuation of their ideas, and want of stability in their opinions. With the Russian it is quite otherwise. This nation has no political ideas: but two sentiments pervade its whole being—a common feeling of nationality, and a fervent attachment to the national church. Whenever these two feelings take hold of the Russian’s mind, he is ready willingly to sacrifice without a moment’s hesitation his life and property.”

It is these two national feelings that the Emperor Nicholas is now trying to excite to the utmost pitch, and there can be little doubt that if he succeeds in his object there will be a hard struggle between barbarity and civilization, though the final triumph of the latter, to the advantage not only of the victors, but also of the vanquished, cannot be doubted for a moment. I must, however, return to Baron Haxthausen, who continues his account of the Russian village churches, saying,—

“It must not be forgotten, in order to understand how such large collections for a church of some obscure village, and made for the most part amongst the peasants, are obtained, that giving is as much in the Russian character as taking. Nowhere property hangs upon such loose threads and changes hands with such rapidity as in Russia. To-day rich, to-morrow poor. People earn and squander away almost simultaneously; they cheat and are cheated; they steal with one hand, and give away with the other. The common Russian sets not his heart on any kind of property; he loses with perfect equanimity what he had just earned, in the hope of getting it again to-morrow.

“The Russian is, moreover, naturally good-hearted, charitable, and liberal. A shopkeeper who had perhaps just cheated his neighbour of the value of 20 copecs, without feeling any qualms of conscience on the subject, will give one moment after it a rouble for the construction of a church in some village to which he is a perfect stranger.”

Thus, what Cicero said of Catiline, Sui profusus alieni cupiens, is applicable, not only to individuals, but also to nations, whose actions are swayed by feeling without being regulated by principle. It is almost superfluous to observe that a nation thus disposed, and with whom superstitious practices have a greater weight than religious principles, may be easily precipitated into the most violent and dangerous courses, which to accomplish seems now to be the object of the Emperor of Russia.

The Græco-Russian Church has an immense number of relics of saints, to which all that Calvin has said of those of the Roman Catholic Church is applicable. I have given, in a note to his treatise on this subject, an account of St Anthony’s relics in Russia, as a counterpart to those which the same saint possesses in western Europe. There are, indeed, many relics to the exclusive possession of which both these churches lay an equal claim, each of them representing her own as the only genuine, and that of her rival as a spurious one. The most celebrated of these disputed relics is the holy coat of Treves, and that of Moscow. It is well known what a noise the former of these produced in 1844, when an immense number of pilgrims came to worship it; and it is pretended that it had been found by the Empress Helena, with the true cross, and presented by her to the town of Treves. The coat of Moscow was given as a present to the Czar by a Shah of Persia, and its genuineness was established by a Russian archbishop, who asserted that, when he passed through Georgia on his return from Jerusalem, he saw in a church of that country a golden box placed upon a column, and which, as it was told to him, contained the coat without a seam of our Lord. This statement was corroborated by an eastern monk, then at Moscow, who related that it was generally believed in Palestine, that when the soldiers cast lots for the possession of that coat, it fell to the part of one of them, who, being a native of Georgia, took it with him to his native land. These statements were sufficient to establish the authenticity of the relic, which consequently was licensed to work miracles and worked them.

The most celebrated collection of relics in Russia is found in the town of Kioff, on the Dnieper, and where the bodies of many hundreds of saints are deposited in a kind of crypt called Piechary, i.e., caverns. The chronicles relate that the digging of this sacred cavern was commenced in the eleventh century by two monks called Anthony and Theodosius, who had come from the Mount Athos, for their own and their disciples’ abode. It was gradually extended, but the living established themselves afterwards in a convent above ground, leaving to the dead the part under it. This statement is considered to be authentic, but the numerous bodies of the saints with which the long subterranean galleries of that cavern are filled, have never been satisfactorily accounted for. It is the opinion of many, that the nature of the soil is so dry, that, absorbing all the moisture, it keeps the dead bodies which are deposited there in a more or less perfect state of preservation; and it is said that an enlightened archbishop of Kioff proved it by a successful experiment, putting into that place the bodies of two women, who had been confined as prisoners in a nunnery for their many vices. Be it as it may, Kioff is the resort of an immense number of pilgrims, who arrive from all parts of Russia, to worship the bodies of the saints, and the riches accumulated by their pious donations at that place are only second to those of Troitza (p. 181).

The shrines of Jerusalem, which attract crowds of pilgrims from all parts of the Christian world, had been for a long time a subject of dispute between the Latins and the Greeks, and it is well known that the politico-religious complications in which Europe is at present involved have arisen from the claims of Russia relating to those shrines. It will, therefore, I think, be not uninteresting to my readers to see the devout manner in which these shrines are worshipped by the pilgrims of the Græco-Russian Church; and I subjoin the two following accounts of this subject, written at an interval of a century and a half, in order that my readers may be able to judge for themselves whether the progress of civilization during this period has had much influence on the pilgrims alluded to above.

The first of these accounts is an extract from the diary of an English clergyman, the Rev. Henry Maundrell, a Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford, and chaplain to the English factory at Aleppo, who visited Jerusalem in the year 1697:—

“Saturday, April 3d.—We went about mid-day to see the function of the holy fire. This is a ceremony kept by the Greeks and Armenians, upon a persuasion that every Easter Eve there is a miraculous flame descends from heaven into the Holy Sepulchre, and kindles all the lamps and candles there, as the sacrifice was burnt at the prayer of Elijah.—(1 Kings xviii.)

“Coming to the church of the Holy Sepulchre, we found it crowded with a numerous and distracted mob, making a hideous clamour, very unfit for that sacred place, and better becoming bacchanals than Christians. Getting, with some struggle, through this crowd, we went up into the gallery, on that side of the church next the Latin convent, whence we could discern all that passed in this religious frenzy.

“They began their disorders by running round the Holy Sepulchre with all their might and swiftness, crying out as they went, ‘Huia!’ which signifies ‘This is he,’ or, ‘This is it,’ an expression by which they assert the verity of the Christian religion. After they had by their vertiginous circulations and clamours turned their heads, and inflamed their madness, they began to act the most antic tricks and postures, in a thousand shapes of distraction. Sometimes they dragged one another along the floor, all around the sepulchre; sometimes they set one man upright on another’s shoulders, and in this posture marched round; sometimes they turned men with their heels upwards, and hurried them about in such an indecent manner as to expose their nudities; sometimes they tumbled round the sepulchre, after the manner of tumblers on the stage. In a word, nothing can be imagined more rude or extravagant than what was acted upon this occasion.

“In this tumultuous frantic humour they continued from twelve to four of the clock, the reason of which delay was because of a suit that was then in debate before the cadi betwixt the Greeks and Armenians, the former endeavouring to exclude the latter from having any share in this miracle. Both parties having expended (as I was informed) five thousand dollars between them in this foolish controversy, the cadi at last gave sentence that they should enter the Holy Sepulchre together, as had been usual at former times. Sentence being thus given, at four of the clock both nations went on with their ceremony. The Greeks first set out in a procession round the Holy Sepulchre, and immediately at their heels followed the Armenians. In this order they compassed the Holy Sepulchre thrice, having produced all their gallantry of standards, streamers, crucifixes, and embroidered habits on this occasion.

“Toward the end of this procession, there was a pigeon came fluttering into the cupola over the sepulchre, at the sight of which there was a greater shout and clamour than before. This bird, the Latins told us, was purposely let fly by the Greeks to deceive the people into an opinion that it was a visible descent of the Holy Ghost.

“The procession being over, the suffragan of the Greek patriarch (he being himself at Constantinople), and the principal Armenian bishop, approached to the door of the sepulchre, and cutting the string with which it was fastened and sealed, entered in, shutting the door after them, all the candles and lamps within having been before extinguished in the presence of the Turks and other witnesses. The exclamations were doubled as the miracle drew nearer its accomplishment, and the people pressed with such vehemence towards the door of the Sepulchre, that it was not in the power of the Turks set to guard it with the severest checks to keep them off. The cause of their pressing in this manner is the great desire they have to light their candles at the holy flame, as soon as it is first brought out of the Sepulchre, it being esteemed the most sacred and pure, as coming immediately from heaven.

“The two miracle-mongers had not been above a minute in the Holy Sepulchre when the glimmering of the holy fire was seen, or imagined to appear, through some chinks of the door, and certainly Bedlam itself never saw such an unruly transport as was produced in the mob at this sight. Immediately after came out the two priests, with blazing torches in their hands, which they held up at the door of the Sepulchre, while the people thronged about with inexpressible ardour, every one striving to obtain a part of the first and purest flame. The Turks in the meantime, with huge clubs, laid on them without mercy; but all this could not repel them, the excess of their transport making them insensible of pain. Those that got the fire applied it immediately to their beards, faces, and bosoms, pretending that it would not burn like an earthly flame; but I plainly saw none of them could endure this experiment long enough to make good that pretension.

“So many hands being employed, you may be sure it could not be long before innumerable tapers were lighted. The whole church, galleries and every place, seemed instantly to be in a flame, and with this illumination the ceremony ended.

“It must be owned that those two within the sepulchre performed their part with great quickness and dexterity; but the behaviour of the rabble without very much discredited the miracle. The Latins take a great deal of pains to expose this ceremony as a most shameful imposture, and a scandal to the Christian religion, perhaps out of envy that others should be masters of so gainful a business; but the Greeks and Armenians pin their faith upon it, and make their pilgrimages chiefly upon this motive; and it is the deplorable unhappiness of their priests, that having acted the cheat so long already, they are forced now to stand to it, for fear of endangering the apostasy of their people.

“Going out of the church after the event was over, we saw several people gathered about the stone of unction, who, having got a good store of candles lighted with the holy fire, were employed in daubing pieces of linen with the wicks of them and the melting wax, which pieces of linen were designed for winding sheets; and it is the opinion of these poor people that if they can but have the happiness to be buried in a shroud smutted with this celestial fire, it will certainly secure them from the flames of hell.”—(P. 127, et seq., eighth edition, 1810.)

Many people may, however, believe that scenes of such an outrageous description as that witnessed by Maundrell might have happened in his time, viz., 1697, but that their repetition is quite impossible in our own enlightened age. The following account of the same scenes by Mr Calman, whose veracity is attested by a high authority, and who had an opportunity of seeing it only a few years ago, which has been reproduced in a little, and now particularly interesting book, “The Shrines of the Holy Land,” may enable my readers to judge of the influence which the boasted march of intellect has produced on the Græco-Russian pilgrims, who assemble every Easter at Jerusalem.

“To notice all that was passing,” says Mr Calman, “within the church of the Holy Sepulchre during the space of twenty-four hours, would be next to impossible, because it was one continuation of shameless madness and rioting, which would have been a disgrace to Greenwich and Smithfield. Only suppose for a moment the mighty edifice crowded to excess with fanatic pilgrims of all the Eastern Churches, who, instead of lifting pure hands to God, without wrath and quarrelling, are led, by the petty jealousy about precedency which they should maintain in the order of their processions, into tumults and fighting, which can only be quelled by the scourge and whip of the followers of the false prophet.

“Suppose, farther, those thousands of devotees running from one extreme to the other, from the extreme of savage irritation to that of savage enjoyment, of mutual revellings and feastings, like Israel of old, who, when they made the golden calf, were eating and drinking, and rising to play. Suppose troops of men stripped half naked, to facilitate their actions, running, trotting, jumping, galloping to and fro, the breadth and length of the church, walking on their hands with their feet aloft in the air, mounting on one another’s shoulders, some in a riding and some in a standing position, and by the slightest push are all sent to the ground in one confused heap, which made one fear for their safety.

“Suppose, farther, many of the pilgrims dressed in fur caps, like the Polish Jews, whom they feigned to represent, and whom the mob met with all manner of insult, hurrying them through the church as criminals who had been condemned, amid loud execrations and shouts of laughter, which indicated that Israel is still a derision amongst these heathens, by whom they are still counted as sheep for the slaughter.

“About two o’clock on Saturday afternoon, the preparations for the miraculous fire commenced. The multitude, who had been hitherto in a state of frenzy and madness, became a little more quiet, but it proved a quiet that precedes a thunderstorm. Bishops and priests, in full canonicals, then issued forth from their respective quarters, with flags and banners, crucifixes and crosses, lighted candles and smoking censers, to join or rather to lead a procession, which moved thrice round the church, invoking every picture, altar, and relic in their way to aid them in obtaining the miraculous fire.

“The procession then returned to the place from whence it started, and two grey-headed bishops, the one of the Greek and the other of the Armenian Church, were hurled by the soldiers through the crowd, into the apartment which communicated with that of the Holy Sepulchre, where they locked themselves in; there the marvellous fire was to make its first appearance, and from thence issue through the small circular windows and the door, for the use of the multitude. The eyes of all—men, women, and children—were now directed towards the Holy Sepulchre with an anxious expression, awaiting the issue of their expectation. The mixed multitude, each in his or her own language, were pouring forth their clamorous prayers to the Virgin and the saints to intercede for them on behalf of the object for which they were assembled, and the same were tenfold increased by the fanatic gestures and the waving of the garments by the priests of their respective communions, who were interested in the holy fire, and who were watching by the above-mentioned door and circular windows, with torches in their hands, ready to receive the virgin flame of the heavenly fire, and carry it to their flocks.

“In about twenty minutes from the time the bishops locked themselves in the apartment of the Holy Sepulchre, the miraculous fire made its appearance through the door and the two small windows, as expected. The priests were the first who lighted their torches, and they set out on a gallop in the direction of their lay brethren; but some of these errandless and profitless messengers had the misfortune to be knocked down by the crowd, and had their firebrands wrested out of their hands, but some were more fortunate, and safely reached their destination, around whom the people flocked like bees, to have their candles lighted. Others, however, were not satisfied at having the holy fire second hand, but rushed furiously towards the Holy Sepulchre, regardless of their own safety, and that of those who obstructed their way, though it has frequently happened that persons have been trampled to death on such occasions.

“Those who were in the galleries let down their candles by cords, and drew them up when they had succeeded in their purpose. In a few minutes thousands of flames were ascending, the smoke and the heat of which rendered the church like the bottomless pit. To satisfy themselves, as well as to convince the Latins, the pilgrims, women as well as men, shamefully exposed their bare bosoms to the action of the flame of their lighted candles, to make their adversaries believe the miraculous fire differs from an ordinary one in being perfectly harmless.

“The two bishops, who a little while before locked themselves in the apartment of the Holy Sepulchre, now sallied forth out of it. When the whole multitude had their candles lighted, the bishops were caught by the crowd, lifted upon their shoulders, and carried to their chapels, amidst loud and triumphant acclamations. They soon, however, reappeared at the head of a similar procession to the one before, as a pretended thank-offering to the Almighty for the miraculous fire vouchsafed.”—(P. 121, et seq.)

It appears, by comparing these two narratives of one and the same thing, though separated by a distance of a hundred and fifty years, that the only difference which will be found between them is, that in the time of Maundrell, 1697, the miraculous fire was produced in about one minute’s time, whilst the performance of the same trick required twenty when it was observed by Mr Calman. And, indeed, it has been justly observed by both these writers, that the exhibitors of the miraculous fire, having continued so long to practise this imposture, cannot leave it off without ruining their authority and influence over those whom they have thus been cheating for many centuries. This circumstance has been most pointedly expressed by the author of the work from which I have extracted Mr Calman’s description of this pious, or rather impious, fraud, and who says:—

“Had it been an occasional miracle, as time had rolled on, and truth had more and more illuminated the human mind, the practice might have been gradually discontinued. As the priests had grown more honest, and the people more enlightened, they might have mutually consigned these pious frauds to the oblivion of the darker ages; and if the blush of shame had risen up at the memories of the past, the world would have respected them the more for their honesty of purpose.

“But an annual miracle, always of the same specific kind, exhibited on the same spot, and at the same hour,—an annual miracle,—at what point of time should this be discontinued? and, if discontinued, would it not be manifest either that heaven had forsaken its favourites, or that all the past had been delusion and imposture?”—(Pp. 127, 128.)

And it is the authority of a church supported by such impious and shameful impostures as this miraculous fire that a number of Anglicans, including several dignitaries of the church, are anxious of preserving against Protestant encroachments, and protest against the existence of the Protestant bishopric of Jerusalem, for fear that it might injure the faith of the pilgrims, and put an end to such sacred juggleries as the one described above, which outrivals the most superstitious practices of ancient or modern Paganism! And it is for the predominance of this same church that the autocrat of Russia has now plunged Europe into a war which may prove one of the bloodiest that modern times have witnessed, and proclaimed a Græco-Russian crusade against the Ottoman Porte and its Christian allies! This last-named circumstance may, I think, render it not uninteresting to my readers to know the manner in which this question is viewed by Russians of elevated rank and superior education. I would therefore recommend to their attention a little pamphlet recently published in English by an accomplished Russian, who had studied at the University of Edinburgh, and had enjoyed friendly intercourse with the most eminent characters of that learned body, leaving with all those who had known him a most favourable impression of his personal character and talents. His opinions, therefore, are not those of an ignorant fanatic, or a hireling of the Government, but must be considered as an expression of those entertained by the upper classes of Russian society. He compares in this pamphlet the position of Russia towards the followers of the Eastern Church in Turkey, to that of England towards the Protestants of other countries, saying:—

“You translate the Bible into all living languages, not excluding the Turkish idiom, and you distribute the holy volumes to the shopkeeper of Constantinople, and to the shepherd who tends his camels amidst the ruins of Ephesus. We are not as laborious propagators of the faith; but yet we would fain intercede in favour of the Turk when your copy of the Bible has converted him to the Christian faith, and who, by the law of the land, must have his head cut off for this transgression. Mark that the obligation is much more binding on us than it is on you, and not the less binding from the job having been begun by yourselves. The Turks are spread amongst the Greeks and surrounded by them. There are ten thousand chances to one, that if the Moslem be converted at all, it is to that creed of which the church stands in his immediate eye, and that creed is ours. But, strange to say, it is because of that very chance that we are to be prohibited from meddling in the matter. With the French and with the English the case is far different. They, indeed, we are told, claim the right of protection only over thousands; but you claim that same right over millions, and, therefore, you shall not have it. The question you may, however, say, is not fairly put, for should a Turk be converted, and on the point of losing his head, we are ready to interpose with our authority, even though it be to the Greek Church that he should have turned. Well! but place yourselves for a moment in our situation. Are we to leave to you the work which has been done in our vineyard, and not stand up for those who have embraced the cross, merely because there are millions in that realm who embrace it? The case stands equally the same with regard to the far greater number of human beings who are born and have grown up in the profession of our faith. Without attempting to prove that they are exposed to constant cruelty and oppression, a fact which has been strenuously denied without the denial having ever been proved, it is abundantly known, and an indisputable fact, that the Greeks are in a state of continual bondage, deprived of the dearest rights of men, condemned, in a religious point of view, to a state of thraldom such as exists in no other part of the world, inasmuch as the supreme head of their church is installed in his dignity, maintained in the same, or deposed by a sovereign professing a faith hostile to his own. Is such a state of things to be tolerated by those who are its victims? and is not this in itself a hardship greater than any other that can be imagined? The English have given us, in a period, it is true, of greater zeal for their faith, an example of active sympathy manifested by them towards their brothers in belief, subjects of a neighbouring and powerful sovereign. The case was not as urgent as the one to which I compare it, inasmuch as the Huguenots of France were not the subjects of a Mussulman sovereign. But this, perhaps, will be brought home as an argument against me, for such is the hatred of sects proceeding from the same faith, that England would, perhaps, have borne more meekly the hardships endured by the Calvinistic brethren, if they had been subjected thereunto by a Soliman, and not by him who styled himself the most Christian king of France. However this may be, it is said at present that, whether oppressed or no, the Greeks never solicited our intervention. To this it may be answered, that the whole difficulty would have been solved by the very fact of the solicitation, for had they had the courage and the means to send a similar and unanimous message to the Emperor of Russia, they would have had the strength and unanimity required themselves to strike the blow, and make all intervention useless. The fact of their having not risen as a man in their own cause, is a sufficient explanation for their want of boldness in soliciting their deliverance at the hands of a foreign state. But laying aside the question of the subjects of the Ottoman empire professing the Greek faith, to speak of the much more vital interest of the faith itself, professed as it is by ourselves, let it be permitted to me to submit to your candid decision, if the work of defending that faith does not belong pre-eminently to us, and neither to the English nor the French. We tolerate in the whole extent of our empire both the Roman Catholic and the Lutheran communions of faith; we have millions of subjects professing both creeds; we build churches for them. Long before the Roman Catholics were emancipated in England, the posts of the highest honour, of the greatest confidence, and of the largest perquisites in the army, the senate, and the supreme council of the empire, were opened indiscriminately by us to men professing the Greek, Roman, or Lutheran creeds. Is it because of our tolerance with respect to sects not our own, that we are condemned to be indifferent to the hardships of those of our own faith? Are we not only to allow your church to stand unmolested within our own realm, but also to allow our own church to fall in ruins within the limits of a neighbouring state? If so, you condemn our toleration, you call it indifference and disbelief.”—(P. 9, et seq.)

It is perfectly true that there are in Russia several millions of Protestants and Roman Catholics, and that many of the highest offices, civil as well as military, are occupied by them; for it is well known that the most efficient servants of the Russian government are chiefly foreigners, either by birth or extraction. This tolerance, however, is always getting more and more restricted; and I have alluded above to the persecution of the Greeks united with Rome, as well as the systematical proselytism by force and fraud amongst the Protestants of the Baltic provinces. The author says that a Mahometan who becomes a convert to Christianity must lose his head by the laws of Turkey, but he does not tell us what fate awaits a follower of the Greek Church in Russia who would become a Roman Catholic or a Protestant. M. de Custine relates, in his well-known work on Russia, that a Russian gentleman, who enjoyed a high social position at Moscow, published a work, which the censor allowed in an unaccountable manner to pass, maintaining that the influence of the Roman Catholic Church is much more favourable to the progress of civilization than that of the Græco-Russian one, and that the social condition of Russia would have been much more advanced by the former than it has been by the latter. This work produced a great sensation, and the punishment of the author of such a blasphemy was loudly demanded by the orthodox Russians. This affair being submitted to the Emperor, he declared that the author was insane, and ordered to treat him accordingly. The unfortunate individual consequently was put into a madhouse, and though perfectly sane, was subjected to the most rigorous treatment as a lunatic, so that he nearly became in reality what he was officially declared to be, and it was only after several years of this moral and physical torture that he was permitted to have a little more liberty, though still retained in confinement.

I do not know what has become of this unfortunate man, but the truth of this nameless act of tyranny has been fully admitted by Mr Gretsch, who wrote, by the order of the Russian Government, an answer to the work of Custine. He says that the individual in question, a Mr Chadayeff, having committed an action which the laws of Russia punish with great severity, the Emperor Nicholas, desiring to save the culprit from the penalty which he had incurred, ordered, by an act of mercy, to treat him simply as a madman.

Now, I think that the penalty of physical death, inflicted by the Turkish law on the converts from Mahometanism to Christianity, may be considered as humane, if compared to the murder of soul and intellect by the slow process of a moral and physical torture, to which a man has been subjected in Russia for his religious opinions; and if such an atrocious punishment was inflicted by an act of imperial mercy, as a mitigation of the severity of the law, what would it have been if the letter of that law had been fulfilled? “Ferrea jura, insanumque forum.”

If, according to the opinion of the Russian writer, his countrymen have a right of interfering in behalf of the followers of their church in Turkey, on account of the community of their faith, the same right is possessed by Great Britain and other Protestant States, as well as by France and other Roman Catholic powers, to interfere in behalf of their brethren in the faith who are oppressed by Russia. With regard to the observation of the same author, “that the Greeks are in a continual state of bondage, deprived of the dearest rights of men, condemned, in a religious point of view, to a state of thraldom such as exists in no other part of the world, inasmuch as the supreme head of their church is installed in his dignity, maintained in the same, or deposed, by a sovereign professing a faith hostile to his own,” I must remark that he has forgotten, in saying that such a state of thraldom exists not in any other part of the world, to add, except in Russia, because all the Roman Catholic bishops and other dignitaries of their church, as well as the Protestant superintendents, presidents of consistories, &c., “are installed in their dignity, maintained in the same, or deposed, by a sovereign professing a faith hostile to their own.” And his question, “Is such a state of things to be tolerated by its victims? and is it not in itself a hardship greater than any other that can be imagined?” is as much applicable to the Protestants and Roman Catholics of Russia as it is to the Christians of Turkey.

The “Russian, Quondam Civis Bibliothecæ Edinensis,” carries his zeal for the orthodox Greek Church so far as to recommend its adoption to the English:—

“Do you not see every day, in your own country, the encroaching action of the See of Rome? And here I cannot refrain from exclaiming, how strange it is to see every day converts in crowds passing from the Protestant to the Roman faith, and not pausing for a moment to reflect if they have not a smaller space to cross, and a safer haven to come to in the bosom of the Græco-Catholic Church, the same as that of Rome, minus the anti-apostolic double procession of the Holy Ghost, minus an infallible pope, minus the sale of indulgences, and last, though not least, minus the arbitrary exclusion of the blood of Christ from the holy communion given to laymen! Is it not strange, that on the moment of abjuring your reformations, you should fly into the arms of a church which has introduced reformations of its own, and not appeal to that one church which professes with evident truth to have admitted no changes at all, and kept intact the purity of her tradition? But, again, this is no theological disquisition. Witnessing, however, as I said above, in your own kingdom, the daily increasing influence of the Roman See, you can surely understand how legitimately jealous we must be of the same influence extending within the precincts of our sheepfold. And, therefore, not only is our faith to be preserved unmolested, but the saving deed is to be done by us, and not through the agency of English and French ambassadors or fleets, to be achieved in the name of the faith we profess in common with our Greek brethren, and by no means stipulated in the name of universal freedom of thought. I think I have said enough to prove the vital and cordial interest which Russia cannot but take in the cause of her own church, and of those who profess it in Turkey, and the paramount necessity she is under of making that cause her own.”—(P. 12, et seq.)

If the Russian author is so anxious to convert the British Protestants to the Græco-Russian, or, as he calls her, “Græco-Catholic” Church, he may translate her controversial works into English, and build places of worship where image-kissing, prostration, incense, and holy water, may be exhibited for the edification of the British heretics, ad libitum. Nobody will interfere with their ceremonies, not even with their preachings against Protestantism, because its disciples in Great Britain are satisfied with defending their religion by spiritual weapons, and do not resort to material arms, except in repressing either public or private acts of violence. As regards the dogmatic pre-eminence of his church over that of Rome,—her rejection of the “anti-apostolic double procession of the Holy Ghost,”—which has been, I think, retained by the English Church, &c., I leave this subject to the decision of theologians, but shall only observe that the worship of images, relics, and other pagan practices, which I have described in this chapter, do not prove much in favour of the purity of her tradition. I would also ask whether it is in accordance with this tradition that the Russian clergy, notwithstanding all their claims to apostolic succession, are governed by the Czar, who sometimes delegates for this purpose a colonel of hussars, which office, I believe, was never known, even in the most militant of churches? It has been, indeed, well said by the Marquis de Custine, that the Russian clergy are but an army wearing regimentals somewhat different from the dress of the regular troops of the empire. The papas and their bishops are under the direction of the emperor, a regiment of clerks, and that is all. It is in order to extend the advantages of this military organization to the Christians of Turkey that Russia, according to the opinion of our author, “is under the paramount necessity of making their cause her own.” All that I say is, that she felt the same necessity of making the cause of the Greeks and Protestants of Poland her own, and that she ended by making the same thing with their country.

The politico-religious complications into which Europe has now been thrown by the ambition of Russia have induced me particularly to dwell upon the means which the church of that country offers for the promotion of the political schemes of its rulers. With regard to the superstitious practices borrowed from Paganism, and peculiar to that church, the most remarkable is, perhaps, that heathen custom called parentales, mentioned before, and which may be found in different parts of Russia. People assemble on Monday, after the Easter week, in churchyards, where they eat and drink to great excess, in commemoration of their deceased relatives. There are many other similar practices, as, for instance, that of providing the dead body with a kind of passport or written testimony of his religious conduct, & probably imported with the Christian religion by the Greek Church, because at the time of the conversion of Russia, this church had already introduced painted though not carved images, to which allusion has been made earlier in this Essay.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

The John Calvin Collection

The Institutes of the Christian Religion

BOOK 1. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD THE CREATOR.

CHAPTER 1. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD AND OF OURSELVES MUTUALLY CONNECTED.-NATURE OF THIS CONNECTION.

CHAPTER 2. WHAT IT IS TO KNOW GOD,--TENDENCY OF THIS KNOWLEDGE.

CHAPTER 3. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD HAS BEEN NATURALLY IMPLANTED IN THE HUMAN MIND.

CHAPTER 4. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD STIFLED OR CORRUPTED, IGNORANTLY OR MALICIOUSLY.

CHAPTER 5. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD CONSPICUOUS IN THE CREATION, AND CONTINUAL GOVERNMENT OF THE WORLD.

CHAPTER 6. THE NEED OF SCRIPTURE, AS A GUIDE AND TEACHER, IN COMING TO GOD AS CREATOR.

CHAPTER 7. THE TESTIMONY OF THE SPIRIT NECESSARY TO GIVE FULL AUTHORITY TO SCRIPTURE. THE IMPIETY OF PRETENDING THAT THE CREDIBILITY OF SCRIPTURE DEPENDS ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE CHURCH.

CHAPTER 8. THE CREDIBILITY OF SCRIPTURE SUFFICIENTLY PROVED IN SO FAR AS NATURAL REASON ADMITS.

CHAPTER 9. ALL THE PRINCIPLES OF PIETY SUBVERTED BY FANATICS, WHO SUBSTITUTE REVELEVATIONS FOR SCRIPTURE.

CHAPTER 10. IN SCRIPTURE, THE TRUE GOD OPPOSED, EXCLUSIVELY, TO ALL THE GODS OF THE HEATHEN.

CHAPTER 11. IMPIETY OF ATTRIBUTING A VISIBLE FORM TO GOD. -THE SETTING UP OF IDOLS A DEFECTION FROM THE TRUE GOD.

CHAPTER 12. GOD DISTINGUISHED FROM IDOLS, THAT HE MAY BE THE EXCLUSIVE OBJECT OF WORSHIP.

CHAPTER 13. THE UNITY OF THE DIVINE ESSENCE IN THREE PERSONS TAUGHT, IN SCRIPTURE, FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.

CHAPTER 14. IN THE CREATION OF THE WORLD, AND ALL THINGS IN IT, THE TRUE GOD DISTINGUISHED BY CERTAIN MARKS FROM FICTITIOUS GODS.

CHAPTER 15. STATE IN WHICH MAN WAS CREATED. THE FACULTIES OF THE SOUL-THE IMAGE OF GOD-FREE WILL-ORIGINAL RIGHTEOUSNESS.

CHAPTER 16. THE WORLD, CREATED BY GOD, STILL CHERISHED AND PROTECTED BY HIM. EACH AND ALL OF ITS PARTS GOVERNED BY HIS PROVIDENCE.

CHAPTER 17. USE TO BE MADE OF THE DOCTRINE OF PROVIDENCE.

CHAPTER 18. THE INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE WICKED EMPLOYED BY GOD, WHILE HE CONTINUES FREE FROM EVERY TAINT.

BOOK 2. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD THE REDEEMER IN CHRIST, FIRST DISCLOSED TO THE FATHERS UNDER THE LAW, AND THEN TO US IN THE GOSPEL.

CHAPTER 1. THROUGH THE FALL AND REVOLT OF ADAM, THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE MADE ACCURSED AND DEGENERATE. OF ORIGINAL SIN.

CHAPTER 2. MAN NOW DEPRIVED OF FREEDOM OF WILL, AND MISERABLY ENSLAVED.

CHAPTER 3. EVERY THING PROCEEDING FROM THE CORRUPT NATURE OF MAN DAMNABLE.

CHAPTER 4. HOW GOD WORKS IN THE HEARTS OF MEN.

CHAPTER 5. THE ARGUMENTS USUALLY ALLEGED IN SUPPORT OF FREE WILL REFUTED.

CHAPTER 6. REDEMPTION FOR MAN LOST TO BE SOUGHT IN CHRIST.

CHAPTER 7. THE LAW GIVEN, NOT TO RETAIN A PEOPLE FOR ITSELF, BUT TO KEEP ALIVE THE HOPE OF SALVATION IN CHRIST UNTIL HIS ADVENT.

CHAPTER 8. EXPOSITION OF THE MORAL LAW.

CHAPTER 9. CHRIST, THOUGH KNOWN TO THE JEWS UNDER THE LAW, YET ONLY MANIFESTED UNDER THE GOSPEL.

CHAPTER 10. THE RESEMBLANCE BETWEEN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW.

CHAPTER 11. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO TESTAMENTS.

CHAPTER 12. CHRIST, TO PERFORM THE OFFICE OF MEDIATOR, BEHOVED TO BECOME MAN.

CHAPTER 13. CHRIST CLOTHED WITH THE TRUE SUBSTANCE OF HUMAN NATURE.

CHAPTER 14. HOW TWO NATURES CONSTITUTE THE PERSON OF THE MEDIATOR.

CHAPTER 15. THREE THINGS BRIEFLY TO BE REGARDED IN CHRIST; VIZ., HIS OFFICES OF PROPHET, KING, AND PRIEST.

CHAPTER 16. HOW CHRIST PERFORMED THE OFFICE OF REDEEMER IN PROCURING OUR SALVATION. THE DEATH, RESURRECTION, AND ASCENSION OF CHRIST.

CHAPTER 17. CHRIST RIGHTLY AND PROPERLY SAID TO HAVE MERITED GRACE AND SALVATION FOR US.

BOOK 3. THE WAY IN WHICH WE RECEIVE THE GRACE OF CHRIST: WHAT BENEFITS COME TO US FROM IT, AND WHAT EFFECTS FOLLOW.

CHAPTER 1. THE BENEFITS OF CHRIST MADE AVAILABLE TO US BY THE SECRET OPERATION OF THE SPIRIT.

CHAPTER 2. OF FAITH. THE DEFINITION OF IT. ITS PECULIAR PROPERTIES.

CHAPTER 3. REGENERATION BY FAITH. OF REPENTANCE.

CHAPTER 4. PENITENCE, AS EXPLAINED IN THE SOPHISTICAL JARGON OF THE SCHOOLMEN, WIDELY DIFFERENT FROM THE PURITY REQUIRED BY THE GOSPEL. OF CONFESSION AND SATISFACTION.

CHAPTER 5. OF THE MODES OF SUPPLEMENTING SATISFACTION, VIZ., INDULGENCES AND PURGATORY.

CHAPTER 6. THE LIFE OF A CHRISTIAN MAN. SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS EXHORTING TO IT.

CHAPTER 7. A SUMMARY OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. OF SELF-DENIAL. [5]

CHAPTER 8. OF BEARING THE CROSS-ONE BRANCH OF SELF-DENIAL

CHAPTER 9. OF MEDITATING ON THE FUTURE LIFE.

CHAPTER 10. HOW TO USE THE PRESENT LIFE, AND THE COMFORTS OF IT.

CHAPTER 11. OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. BOTH THE NAME AND THE REALITY DEFINED.

CHAPTER 12. NECESSITY OF CONTEMPLATING THE JUDGMENT-SEAT OF GOD, IN ORDER TO BE SERIOUSLY CONVINCED OF THE DOCTRINE OF GRATUITOUS JUSTIFICATION.

CHAPTER 13. TWO THINGS TO BE OBSERVED IN GRATUITOUS JUSTIFICATION.

CHAPTER 14. THE BEGINNING OF JUSTIFICATION. IN WHAT SENSE PROGRESSIVE.

CHAPTER 15. THE BOASTED MERIT OF WORKS SUBVERSIVE BOTH OF THE GLORY OF GOD, IN BESTOWING RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND OF THE CERTAINTY OF SALVATION.

CHAPTER 16. REFUTATION OF THE CALUMNIES BY WHICH IT IS ATTEMPTED TO THROW ODIUM ON THIS DOCTRINE.

CHAPTER 17. THE PROMISES OF THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL RECONCILED.

CHAPTER 18. THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF WORKS IMPROPERLY INFERRED FROM REWARDS.

CHAPTER 19. Of Christian Liberty.

CHAPTER 20. OF PRAYER-A PERPETUAL EXERCISE OF FAITH. THE DAILY BENEFITS DERIVED FROM IT.

CHAPTER 21. OF THE ETERNAL ELECTION, BY WHICH GOD HAS PREDESTINED SOME TO SALVATION, AND OTHERS TO DESTRUCTION.

CHAPTER 22. THIS DOCTRINE CONFIRMED BY PROOFS FROM SCRIPTURE.

CHAPTER 23. REFUTATION OF THE CALUMNIES BY WHICH THIS DOCTRINE IS ALWAYS UNJUSTLY ASSAILED.

CHAPTER 24. ELECTION CONFIRMED BY THE CALLING OF GOD. THE REPROBATE BRING UPON THEMSELVES THE RIGHTEOUS DESTRUCTION TO WHICH THEY ARE DOOMED.

CHAPTER 25. OF THE LAST RESURRECTION.

BOOK 4. THE EXTERNAL MEANS OR AIDS BY WHICH GOD INVITES US INTO THE SOCIETY OF CHRIST AND HOLDS US THEREIN.

CHAPTER 1. THE TRUE CHURCH WITH WHICH AS MOTHER OF ALL THE GODLY WE MUST KEEP UNITY.

CHAPTER 2. COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FALSE CHURCH AND THE TRUE

CHAPTER 3. THE DOCTORS AND MINISTERS OF THE CHURCH, THEIR ELECTION AND OFFICE.

CHAPTER 4. THE CONDITION OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH, AND THE KIND OF GOVERNMENT IN USE BEFORE THE PAPACY.

CHAPTER 5. THE ANCIENT FORM OF GOVERNMENT UTTERLY CORRUPTED BY THE TYRANNY OF THE PAPACY.

CHAPTER 6. THE PRIMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE.

CHAPTER 7. OF THE BEGINNING AND RISE OF THE ROMISH PAPACY TILL IT ATTAINED A HEIGHT BY WHICH THE LIBERTY OF THE CHURCH WAS DESTROYED, AND ALL TRUE RULE OVERTHROWN.

CHAPTER 8. OF THE POWER OF THE CHURCH IN ARTICLES OF FAITH. THE UNBRIDLED LICENSE OF THE PAPAL CHURCH IN DESTROYING PURITY OF DOCTRINE.

CHAPTER 9. OF COUNCILS AND THEIR AUTHORITY.

CHAPTER 10. OF THE POWER OF MAKING LAWS. THE CRUELTY OF THE POPE AND HIS ADHERENTS, IN THIS RESPECT, IN TYRANNICALLY OPPRESSING AND DESTROYING SOULS.

CHAPTER 11. OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE CHURCH AND THE ABUSES OF IT, AS EXEMPLIFIED IN THE PAPACY.

CHAPTER 12. OF THE DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH, AND ITS PRINCIPAL USE IN CENSURES AND EXCOMMUNICATION.

CHAPTER 13. OF VOWS. THE MISERABLE ENTANGLEMENTS CAUSED BY VOWING RASHLY.

CHAPTER 14. OF THE SACRAMENTS.

CHAPTER 15. OF BAPTISM.

CHAPTER 16. PAEDOBAPTISM. ITS ACCORDANCE WITH THE INSTITUTION OF CHRIST, AND THE NATURE OF THE SIGN.

CHAPTER 17. OF THE LORD'S SUPPER, AND THE BENEFITS CONFERRED BY IT.

CHAPTER 18. OF THE POPISH MASS. HOW IT NOT ONLY PROFANES, BUT ANNIHILATES THE LORD'S SUPPER.

CHAPTER 19. OF THE FIVE SACRAMENTS, FALSELY SO CALLED. THEIR SPURIOUSNESS PROVED, AND THEIR TRUE CHARACTER EXPLAINED.

CHAPTER 20. OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT.

Commentaries on Election and Predestination

1. ELECTION

2. PREDESTINATION

Commentaries on the Bible

1. THE WORD OF GOD

2. THE OLD AND THE NEW TESTAMENTS

3. THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL

4. EXAMPLES OF EXEGESIS

Commentaries on Jesus Christ

1. THE MEDIATOR

2. THE PERSON OF CHRIST

3. ASCENSION: EXAMPLES OF EXEGESIS

4. CHRIST THE KING AND THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST

Commentaries on the Church

1. THE CONDITION OF THE CHURCH

2. THE MINISTRY

3. PREACHING AND TEACHING

Commentaries on Christian Life

1. SALVATION

2. THE CHRISTIAN WARFARE

3. THE CROSS AND PERSECUTION

Commentaries on the Knowledge of God

THE TEXT

Commentaries on Providence

1. PROVIDENCE AND HUMAN ACTION

2. PROVIDENCE AND GOD

Commentaries on Faith

1. ASPECTS OF FAITH

2. FAITH AS FAITHFULNESS AND COURAGE

3. FAITH AS HUMAN ACT

Commentaries on Ethics and the Common Life

1. WORSHIP AND ETHICS

2. FREEDOM, LOVE, EQUALITY

3. SOCIAL ETHICS: THE USE OF GOD'S GIFTS

4. MARRIAGE

The Necessity of Reforming the Church

1: Introduction, the Evils Which Compelled Us to Seek Remedies

2: The Remedies Employed for Correction of the Evils

3: Reformation Required Without Delay

4: Further Objections Answered

A Treatise on Relics

Chapter I: Origin Of The Worship Of Relics And Images In The Christian Church

Chapter II: Compromise Of The Church With Paganism

Chapter III: Position Of The First Christian Emperors Towards Paganism, And Their Policy In This Respect

Chapter IV: Infection Of The Christian Church By Pagan Ideas And Practices During The Fourth And Fifth Centuries

Chapter V: Reaction Against The Worship Of Images And Other Superstitious Practices By The Iconoclast Emperors Of The East

Chapter VI: Origin And Development Of The Pious Legends, Or Lives Of Saints, During The Middle Ages

Chapter VII: Analysis Of The Pagan Rites And Practices Which Have Been Retained By The Roman Catholic As Well As The Græco-Russian Church

Chapter VIII: Image-Worship And Other Superstitious Practices Of The Graeco-Russian Church