INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION
By John Calvin
A New Translation
by
Henry Beveridge, Esq.
BOOK THIRD.
THE MODE OF OBTAINING THE GRACE OF
CHRIST. THE
BENEFITS IT CONFERS, AND
THE
EFFECTS RESULTING FROM
IT.
ARGUMENT.
The two former Books treated of God the Creator and Redeemer. This Book,
which contains a full exposition of the Third Part of the Apostles’ Creed,
treats of the mode of procuring the grace of Christ, the benefits which we
derive and the effects which follow from it, or of the operations of the Holy
Spirit in regard to our salvation.
The subject is comprehended under seven principal heads, which almost all
point to the same end, namely, the doctrine of faith.
I. As it is by the secret and special operation of the Holy Spirit that we
enjoy Christ and all his benefits, the First Chapter treats of this operation,
which is the foundation of faith, new life, and all holy exercises.
II. Faith being, as it were, the hand by which we embrace Christ the
Redeemer, offered to us by the Holy Spirit, Faith is fully considered in the
Second Chapter.
III. In further explanation of Saving Faith, and the benefits derived from
it, it is mentioned that true repentance always flows from true faith. The
doctrine of Repentance is considered generally in the Third Chapter, Popish
Repentance in the Fourth Chapter, Indulgences and Purgatory in the Fifth
Chapter. Chapters Sixth to Tenth are devoted to a special consideration of the
different parts of true Repentance-viz. mortification of the flesh, and
quickening of the Spirit.
IV. More clearly to show the utility of this Faith, and the effects
resulting from it, the doctrine of Justification by Faith is explained in the
Eleventh Chapter, and certain questions connected with it explained from the
Twelfth to the Eighteenth Chapter. Christian liberty a kind of accessory to
Justification, is considered in the Nineteenth Chapter.
V. The Twentieth Chapter is devoted to Prayer, the principal exercise of
faith, and, as it were, the medium or instrument through which we daily procure
blessings from God.
VI. As all do not indiscriminately embrace the fellowship of Christ offered
in the Gospel, but those only whom the Lord favors with the effectual and
special grace of his Spirit, lest any should impugn this arrangement, Chapters
Twenty-First to Twenty-Fourth are occupied with a necessary and apposite
discussion of the subject of Election.
VII. Lastly, As the hard warfare which the Christian is obliged constantly
to wage may have the effect of disheartening him, it is shown how it may be
alleviated by meditating on the final resurrection. Hence the subject of the
Resurrection is considered in the Twenty-Fifth Chapter.
INSTITUTES
OF
THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.
_________
BOOK THIRD.
THE MODE OF OBTAINING THE GRACE OF CHRIST.
THE
BENEFITS IT CONFERS, AND THE EFFECTS
RESULTING
FROM IT.
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. 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,
27[6] 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. 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 2:28). 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. 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.
27[7] 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. 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
27[8] (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. 1ñ14. First, of
the object of faith, sec. 1. Second, of Implicit Faith, sec. 2ñ6. Third,
Definition of Faith, sec. 7. Fourth, the various meanings of the term Faith,
sec. 8ñ13. II. A full exposition of the definition given in the seventh
section, sec. 14ñ40. III. A brief confirmation of the definition by the
authority of an Apostle. The mutual relation between faith, hope, and charity,
sec. 41ñ43.
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.”
27[9] 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.”
28[0] 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,
28[1] 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.
28[2] 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).
28[3] 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 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
28[4] 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.
28[5] 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
8:13ñ18). 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;
28[6] 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.
28[7] 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.
28[8] 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,” (Mt. 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;”
28[9] 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 (Mt. 9:2); and Jesus himself
exclaims in regard to the centurion, “I have not found so great faith, no,
not in Israel,” (Mt. 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;
29[0] 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,
29[1] 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 (???????????) 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,
29[2] 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.”
29[3] As if desperate,
he adjudges himself to
destruction.
29[4] 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 88:16).
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 (Mt. 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.
29[5] 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? ëIf, therefore, the light that is in
thee be darkness, how great is that darkness?’ (Mt. 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
ëthings 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: ëNot 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?”
29[6] 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,
29[7]
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 threatenings against
them.
29[8]
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.
29[9] 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 5:17ñ19). 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.
30[0] 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 (Mt. 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 (Mt. 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, ëNo 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,
30[1] 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,
30[2] 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).
30[3] 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.
30[4] 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
(???????????), 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
??????????? 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 ?????????, 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 ëthe 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 ask, “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
30[5] 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,” (Mt. 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. 1ñ4. II. An exposition of the
orthodox doctrine of Repentance, sec. 5ñ9. III. Reasons why repentance
must be prolonged to the last moment of life, sec. 10ñ14. IV. Of the
fruits of repentance, or its object and tendency, sec. 15ñ20. V. The
source whence repentance proceeds, sec. 21ñ24. 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.
30[6] 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 (Mt. 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,” (Mt.
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
30[7] 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,
30[8] 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.
30[9] 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.
31[0] 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. 18:31). 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. 4:1ñ4). 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,
31[1] 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.”
31[2] 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.
31[3] 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,
31[4] 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, ëLet 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.
31[5] 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.
31[6]
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,
31[7] 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,
31[8] 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.
31[9] Hence our Savior
connects it with mourning (Mt. 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 (Mt. 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,”
(Mt. 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?
32[0] 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.”
32[1] 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,
32[2] 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
32[3] 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)
32[4] 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. 7:4ñ6). 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,” (Mt. 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
32[5]-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,” (Mt. 12:31). And
Matthew uses the term spirit of
blasphemy
32[6] 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 (Mt. 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.
32[7] 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. 4ñ20. 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.
32[8] 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
32[9] 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
33[0] 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.
33[1] 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.
33[2] This is not more logical
than the definition, though they would be thought to have spent their whole
lives in framing syllogisms.
33[3]
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.
33[4] 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;
33[5] 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
33[6]-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;
33[7] 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.”
33[8] 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.
33[9] 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 (Mt. 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!
34[0] 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,” (Mt. 24:14). Again, “Ye shall be brought
before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the
Gentiles,” (Mt. 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 CananÊa), 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.
34[1] 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.
34[2]
6. They now come to closer quarters, while they support their view by
passages of Scripture which they think clearly in their
favour.
34[3] 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,
34[4] 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
34[5]
relates,
34[6] 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.”
34[7] 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
34[8] 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
(Mt. 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,” (Mt. 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,
34[9] 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,” (Mt. 9:2),
35[0] 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,
35[1] 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,” (Mt.
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.
35[2] 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.
35[3] 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?” (Mt. 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,
cap. 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,” (Mt.
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
35[4] 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,
35[5] 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,
35[6] 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.
35[7] 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,
35[8] 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,
35[9] 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.
36[0] 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.
36[1] 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 2:1, 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,
36[2] 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.
36[3] 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 heart
36[4] 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.
36[5] 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,
36[6] 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.”
36[7]
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,
36[8] he calls it ?????????????,
by which he does not simply mean
redemption, as it is commonly
understood, but the very
price and satisfaction of
redemption.
36[9] For which reason,
he also says, that Christ gave himself an ???????????? (ransom) 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,
37[0] 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!
37[1] 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.
37[2] 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. 10:24ñ25). 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
37[3] 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. 89:31ñ34). 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,
37[4] 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
Púnit. 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. 90:7ñ9). 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,” (Mt.
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 ????????????? (
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.
37[5] 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 (Mt. 23:25; Luke 11:39ñ41; 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, ëForgive us our debts,’ (Mt.
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.
37[6] 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 reductio 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.
1. 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. 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.
37[7] 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. There is an admirable passage in opposition to their blasphemies in Leo,
a Roman Bishop (ad PalÊstinos, 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. 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, ëI 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. 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 (?????????) 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.
6. 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.
37[8] 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. 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.
37[9] 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. 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,” (Mt.
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?
38[0]
8. 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
Macc. 12:43), I will not deign to reply, lest I should seem to include that work
among the canonical books. But
Augustine
38[1] 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 Macc. 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. 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. 3:12ñ15). 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
38[2] 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.
38[3] And this is not my
argument, but that of Augustine, who thus impugns that
interpretation.
38[4] 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. 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.
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.
38[5] 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.
38[6]
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,
38[7] 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?
38[8] 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. 1ñ3. 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. 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.
38[9] 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],
39[0] 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. 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. 7), 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.
39[1]
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 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,
39[2] 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. 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. 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.
CHAPTER 7.
A SUMMARY OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. OF
SELF-DENIAL.39[3]
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.
1. 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. 2:20).
2. 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 (Mt. 16:24), 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 (Mt. 6:2), and that harlots and
publicans are nearer the kingdom of heaven than they (Mt. 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. 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. 2:11ñ14). 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.
4. Moreover, we see by these words that self-denial has respect partly to
men and partly (more especially) to God (sec. 8ñ10). 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
(??????????????????????????). 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.
39[4] 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. 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. 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.
6. 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?
39[5] 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,
39[6] 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. 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.
8. 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. 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. 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,
39[7] 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 ???????? (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.
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. 3ñ6. 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. 9ñ11.
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. 3. 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.
1. 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,” (Mt. 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. 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.
3. 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. 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. 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. 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. 3:11, 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.
7. 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 (Mt. 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. 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. 6:8).
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.
9. 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,” (Mt. 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; Mt. 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. 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. 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?
39[8] 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.
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, sec. 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.
1. 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. 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.
39[9] 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,
40[0] 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.
3. 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. 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
40[1] 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. 1:20ñ24). 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. 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 “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. 8:19); 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. 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. 15:19). 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.
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.
3ñ6.
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.
1. 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,
40[2] 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. 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?
3. 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. 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.
40[3] 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. 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,” (Phil. 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 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. 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.
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. 1ñ4. II. Osiander’s
dream as to essential righteousness impugned, sec. 5ñ13. 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.
1. I TRUST I have now sufficiently
shown
40[4] 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. 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. 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
40[5] 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. 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. 4:6ñ8). 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.
40[6] 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. 5:18ñ21). 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.
5. 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
40[7]; 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.
40[8] 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. 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,
40[9] 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, 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,”
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. 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.
41[0] 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 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.
41[1] 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 ???
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. 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,
41[2] 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
41[3] (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.
41[4] 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. 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 Zuinglians
41[5]
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
41[6] 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);
41[7] 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. 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. 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.
13. 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. 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.
41[8] 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. 10:5ñ9). 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
41[9] 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. 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.
3:6); 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?
21. 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. 5:8ñ10). 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. 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. 5:19ñ21). 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 13:38, 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. 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.
42[0] 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
42[1] 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. 1ñ3. 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.
1. 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 4:17ñ20). 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. 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. 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, ëThus 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).
4. 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. 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. 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. 18:27), 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 (exultantes), 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. 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.
61:1ñ3). 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,” (Mt. 11:28; 9:13).
8. 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.
42[2] 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. 3ñ5.
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. 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. 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. 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.
42[3] 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.
4. 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). ëWho 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,” (Bert. in Dedica. Templi, Serm. 5). 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. 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. 1ñ6. 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 he 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.
1. 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.
42[4] 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. First, then, I deny not, that whatever excellent endowments appear in
unbelievers
42[5] 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. 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,
42[6] 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. 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. PrÊf 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. 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?”
(Mt. 9:13). If sinners alone are admitted, why do we seek admission by means of
fictitious righteousness?
6. 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.
7. 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 2:11ñ14). 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. 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 1:13ñ16,
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.
42[7] 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.
9. 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. 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. 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.
42[8] 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).
12. 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. 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,” (Phil. 3:13, 14).
14. 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. 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.
42[9] 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. 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. 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. 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.
19. 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.
43[0] 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. 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. 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.
43[1] 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.
1. 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. 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 PrÊdest.
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, ëThus 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. 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 Lord, 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. 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:
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????.
“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,” (Mt. 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.
5. 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.
43[2] 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 (Mt. 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. 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 hath the Son hath life.” “He that hearth my
word, and believeth in 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.”
43[3] 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. 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.
43[4]
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. Wherefore, let us never on any account allow ourselves to be drawn away
one nail’s breadth
43[5] 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.”
43[6] 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;”
43[7] 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. 1ñ3. 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. 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.
43[8] They pretend to
lament
43[9] 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. 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.
44[0] 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?
44[1]
3. 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,
44[2]
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. 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. 1ñ3. 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.
1. 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. 7:5ñ7).
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,
44[3] 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. 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. 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,” (Lev. 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
44[4]
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. 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. 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.
6. 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. 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.
44[5] 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 ????
has been rendered by the Septuagint, not very appropriately, ???????????,
justifications, instead of
edicts.
44[6] 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.
44[7]
8. 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, 31), 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. 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?
44[8]
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. 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.
44[9] 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.,
45[0] 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. 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:
45[1] 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 all 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. 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. 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. They now betake 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.”
45[2] 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 ???????????, 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. 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. 2ñ6. II. Answer to other special
objections derived from the former, and a perversion of passages of Scripture,
sec. 6ñ9. 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.
1. LET us now proceed to those passages which affirm that God will render
to every one according to his deeds. 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;” “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;” “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. 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;” “He that feareth the
commandment shall be rewarded;” “Rejoice and be exceeding glad, for
great is your reward in heaven;” “Every man shall receive his own
rewards according to his own
labour.”
45[3] The passages
in which it is said that God will reward every man according to his works are
easily disposed of. 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,
45[4] 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. 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 (Mt. 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. 22:16ñ18). 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. 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:
45[5] “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,” (Lib. 1, cap.
5). 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. (Mt.
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. 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.
5. 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?” (August. 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.
45[6]
6. 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. 6:17ñ19). 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,” (Mt. 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; Mt. 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,
45[7] 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. 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. 1:6ñ7). 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 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. 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
45[8] 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.”
From the third passage they infer, If charity is the bond of perfection, 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. 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,” (Mt. 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,” (Mt. 11:28, 29).
10. 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.
45[9] 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.
2ñ8. 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. 11ñ16.
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.
13. 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; 5:1ñ4). 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,” (Mal. 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
(??????????), 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
46[0] 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.”
46[1] 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,” (Mt. 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. 9:20ñ22). 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.
2:3ñ5). 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.
46[2] 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.
46[3] 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.
46[4] 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. 3ñ6). 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. 4ñ16. IV. Through whom prayer is to
be made, sec. 17ñ19. 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. 20ñ27. VI. The nature of prayer, and
some of its accidents, sec. 28ñ33. VII. A perfect form of invocation, or
an exposition of the Lord’s Prayer, sec. 34ñ50. VIII. Some rules to
be observed with regard to prayer, as time, perseverance, the feeling of the
mind, and the assurance of faith, sec. 50ñ52.
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?
46[5] 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 prayer, 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 4:3). 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. 9:18ñ20). 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.
64:5ñ9). 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,
46[6]
“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;
46[7]
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.
46[8] 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. 1, 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,” (Mt. 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.
6:16ñ18). 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,” (Mt. 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.
“The name of the Lord,” says Solomon, “is a strong tower; the
righteous runneth into it, and is safe.” 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.” 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.” 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.”
46[9] 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
47[0] before God. 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.” 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. And David says, “Let my prayer be set forth before
thee as incense; and the lifting up of my hands as the evening
sacrifice.”
47[1] 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 9:55). 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. 32:16).
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 c. 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. 7:6); for he reminds us that he had received special
instruction to pray for a temporal
blessing.
47[2]
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,
47[3] 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,
47[4] 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, he also commends himself to
the prayers of the faithful. 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. 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, ëThere is one God,
and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;’ in whom we
also are one if we keep the unity of the faith in the bond of
peace,”
47[5] (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) 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;
47[6] and so far are
their pastors
47[7] 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?
47[8] 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,
47[9] no place whatever
is given to Abraham, the father of the Church? We know well from what a crew
they select their
intercessors.
48[0] 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 5:16). 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
????????????,
vain speaking, which our Saviour has prohibited (Mt. 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.
48[1] 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,” (Mt. 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,”
48[2] (Ps. 65:1).
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 (Mt. 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.
48[3] 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;
48[4] 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.
48[5] 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.”
48[6] 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.
48[7] 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?
48[8] 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 (Mt. 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
48[9] also
agree with us, that what is added by Matthew as a seventh head is to be
considered as explanatory of the sixth
petition.
49[0] 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. 17ñ19), 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?” (Mt. 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. 1:3). 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.
49[1] 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 (Mt. 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 household, 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. Mt. 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 (Lev.
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,” (Mt. 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 (Lev. 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
49[2] (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
49[3] 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.
49[4] These temptations are
both on the right hand and on the left. 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, nor is it without cause that
the Lord daily tries his elect, chastising them by disgrace, poverty,
tribulation, and other kinds of
cross.
49[5] 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.” 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, 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 (Mt. 17:5). For he ever was the eternal
wisdom of the Father, and being made man, was manifested as the Wonderful, the
Counsellor (Isa. 11:2). 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.
CHAPTER 21.
OF THE ETERNAL ELECTION, BY WHICH GOD HAS PREDESTINATED 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.
49[6] 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, ëI 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. 14ñ20). 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.
49[7] 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 remnant (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. 1ñ7. II. A refutation of some objections taken
from ancient writers, Thomas Aquinas, and more modern writers, sec. 8ñ10.
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.
49[8]
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,
49[9] 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 ex