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

by Jean Calvin

Argument.

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

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

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

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

Thirdly. To improve our knowledge of this salutary faith, it proceeds to show the effects which necessarily result from it; and contends that true penitence is always the consequence of true faith. But first it proposes the doctrine of repentance in general—Chap. III.; and then treats of Popish penance and its constituent parts—Chap. IV.—of [pg 484] indulgences and purgatorial fire—Chap. V. But institutes a particular discussion of the two branches of true penitence, the mortification of the flesh, and the vivification of the spirit, or the life of a Christian, which is excellently described—Chap. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X.

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

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

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

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

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

We are now to examine how we obtain the enjoyment of those blessings which the Father has conferred on his only begotten Son, not for his own private use, but to enrich the poor and needy. And first it must be remarked, that as long as there is a separation between Christ and us, all that he suffered and performed for the salvation of mankind is useless and unavailing to us. To communicate to us what he received from his Father, he must, therefore, become ours, and dwell within us. On this account he is called our “Head,”[1389] and “the [pg 485] first-born among many brethren;”[1390] and we, on the other hand, are said to be “grafted into him,”[1391] and to “put him on;”[1392] for, as I have observed, whatever he possesses is nothing to us, till we are united to him. But though it be true that we obtain this by faith, yet, since we see that the communication of Christ, offered in the gospel, is not promiscuously embraced by all, reason itself teaches us to proceed further, and to inquire into the secret energy of the Spirit, by which we are introduced to the enjoyment of Christ and all his benefits. I have already treated of the eternal Deity and essence of the Spirit; let us now confine ourselves to this particular point: Christ came thus by water and blood, that the Spirit may testify concerning him, in order that the salvation procured by him may not be lost to us. For as “there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit,” so also “there are three on earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood.”[1393] Nor is this a useless repetition of the testimony of the Spirit, which we perceive to be engraven like a seal on our hearts, so that it seals the ablution and sacrifice of Christ. For which reason Peter also says, that believers are “elect through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.”[1394] This passage suggests to us, that our souls are purified by the secret ablution of the Spirit, that the effusion of that sacred blood may not be in vain. For the same reason also Paul, when speaking of purification and justification, says, we enjoy both “in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”[1395] The sum of all is this—that the Holy Spirit is the bond by which Christ efficaciously unites us to himself. And what we have advanced in the last book concerning his unction, tends to establish the same truth.

II. But as a further confirmation of this point, which is highly worthy of being understood, we must remember that Christ was endued with the Holy Spirit in a peculiar manner; in order to separate us from the world, and introduce us into the hope of an eternal inheritance. Hence the Spirit is called “the Spirit of holiness;”[1396] not only because he animates and supports us by that general power which is displayed in mankind, and in all other creatures, but because he is the seed and root of a heavenly life within us. The principal topic, therefore, dwelt on by the prophets in celebrating the kingdom of Christ, is, that there would then be a more exuberant effusion of the Spirit. The most remarkable passage is that of Joel: “I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh in those [pg 486] days.”[1397] For, though the prophet seems to restrict the gifts of the Spirit to the exercise of the prophetic function, yet he signifies, in a figurative way, that God, by the illumination of his Spirit, will make those his disciples, who before were total strangers to the heavenly doctrine. Besides, as God the Father gives us his Holy Spirit for the sake of his Son, and yet has deposited “all fulness” with his Son, that he might be the minister and dispenser of his own goodness,—the Holy Spirit is sometimes called the Spirit of the Father, and sometimes the Spirit of the Son. “Ye (says Paul) are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now, if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”[1398] And thence he inspires a hope of complete renovation, for “he that raised up Christ from the dead, shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.”[1399] For there is no absurdity in ascribing to the Father the praise of his own gifts, of which he is the author; and also ascribing the same glory to Christ, with whom the gifts of the Spirit are deposited, to be given to his people. Therefore he invites all who thirst to come to him and drink.[1400] And Paul teaches us, that “unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.”[1401] And it must be remarked, that he is called the Spirit of Christ, not only because the eternal Word of God is united with the same Spirit as the Father, but also with respect to his character of Mediator; for, if he had not been endued with this power, his advent to us would have been altogether in vain. In which sense he is called “the second Adam, the Lord from heaven, a quickening Spirit;”[1402] where Paul compares the peculiar life with which the Son of God inspires his people, that they may be one with him, to that animal life which is equally common to the reprobate. So, where he wishes to the faithful “the grace of Christ, and the love of God,” he adds also “the communion of the Spirit,”[1403] without which there can be no enjoyment of the paternal favour of God, or the beneficence of Christ. As he says also in another place, “the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us.”[1404]

III. And here it will be proper to notice the titles by which the Scripture distinguishes the Spirit, where it treats of the commencement, progress, and completion of our salvation. First, he is called the “Spirit of adoption,”[1405] because he witnesses to us the gratuitous benevolence of God, with which God the Father has embraced us in his beloved and only begotten [pg 487] Son, that he might be a father to us; and animates us to pray with confidence, and even dictates expressions, so that we may boldly cry, “Abba, Father.” For the same reason, he is said to be “the earnest” and “seal” of our inheritance; because, while we are pilgrims and strangers in the world, and as persons dead, he infuses into us such life from heaven, that we are certain of our salvation being secured by the Divine faithfulness and care.[1406] Whence he is also said to be “life,” because of righteousness.[1407] Since by his secret showers he makes us fertile in producing the fruits of righteousness, he is frequently called “water;” as in Isaiah: “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters.”[1408] Again: “I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground.”[1409] To which corresponds the invitation of Christ, just quoted: “If any man thirst, let him come unto me.”[1410] He sometimes, however, receives this appellation from his purifying and cleansing energy; as in Ezekiel, where the Lord promises to sprinkle clean water on his people, to cleanse them from their impurities.[1411] Because he restores to life and vigour, and continually supports, those whom he has anointed with the oil of his grape, he thence obtains the name of “unction.”[1412] Because he daily consumes the vices of our concupiscence, and inflames our hearts with the love of God and the pursuit of piety,—from these effects he is justly called “fire.”[1413] Lastly, he is described to us as a “fountain,” whence we receive all the emanation of heavenly riches; and as “the hand of God,” by which he exerts his power; because by the breath of his power he inspires us with Divine life, so that we are not now actuated from ourselves, but directed by his agency and influence; so that if there be any good in us, it is the fruit of his grace, whereas our characters without him are darkness of mind and perverseness of heart. It has, indeed, already been clearly stated, that till our minds are fixed on the Spirit, Christ remains of no value to us; because we look at him as an object of cold speculation without us, and therefore at a great distance from us. But we know that he benefits none but those who have him for their “head” and “elder brother,” and who have “put him on.”[1414] This union alone renders his advent in the character of a Saviour available to us. We learn the same truth from that sacred marriage, by which we are made flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, and therefore one with him.[1415] It is only by his Spirit that he unites himself with us; and by the grace and power of the same [pg 488] Spirit we are made his members; that he may keep us under himself, and we may mutually enjoy him.

IV. But faith, being his principal work, is the object principally referred to in the most frequent expressions of his power and operation; because it is the only medium by which he leads us into the light of the gospel; according to the declaration of John, that “Christ gave power (or privilege) to become the sons of God to them that believed on his name; which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God;”[1416] where, opposing God to flesh and blood, he asserts the reception of Christ by faith, by those who would otherwise remain unbelievers, to be a supernatural gift. Similar to which is this answer of Christ: “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father, which is in heaven;”[1417] which I now merely mention because I have elsewhere treated it at large. Similar also is the assertion of Paul, that the Ephesians “were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise.”[1418] For this shows, that there is an eternal teacher, by whose agency the promise of salvation, which otherwise would only strike the air, or at most our ears, penetrates into our minds. Similar also is his remark, that the Thessalonians were “chosen by God through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth;”[1419] by which connection, he briefly suggests, that faith itself proceeds only from the Spirit. John expresses this in plainer terms: “We know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.”[1420] Again: “Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.”[1421] Therefore Christ promised to send to his disciples “the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive,”[1422] that they might be capable of attaining heavenly wisdom. He ascribes to him the peculiar office of suggesting to their minds all the oral instructions which he had given them. For in vain would the light present itself to the blind, unless this Spirit of understanding would open their mental eyes; so that he may be justly called the key with which the treasures of the kingdom of heaven are unlocked to us; and his illumination constitutes our mental eyes to behold them. It is therefore that Paul so highly commends the ministry of the Spirit;[1423] because the instructions of preachers would produce no benefit, did not Christ himself, the internal teacher, by his Spirit, draw to him those who were given him by the Father.[1424] Therefore, as we have stated, that complete salvation is found in the person of Christ, so, to make us [pg 489] partakers of it, he “baptizes us with the Holy Spirit and with fire,”[1425] enlightening us into the faith of his Gospel, regenerating us so that we become new creatures, and, purging us from profane impurities, consecrates us as holy temples to God.

Chapter II. Faith Defined, And Its Properties Described.

All these things will be easily understood when we have given a clearer definition of faith, that the reader may perceive its nature and importance. But it will be proper to recall to his remembrance, what has been already stated; that God has given us his law as the rule of our conduct, and that, if we are guilty of even the smallest breach of it, we are exposed to the dreadful punishment of eternal death, which he denounces. Again, that since it is not only difficult, but entirely above our strength, and beyond the utmost extent of our ability, to fulfil the law as he requires,—if we only view ourselves, and consider what we have demerited, we have not the least hope left, but, as persons rejected by God, are on the verge of eternal perdition. In the third place, it has been explained, that there is but one method of deliverance, by which we can be extricated from such a direful calamity; that is, the appearance of Christ the Redeemer, by whose means our heavenly Father, commiserating us in his infinite goodness and mercy, has been pleased to relieve us, if we embrace this mercy with a sincere faith, and rely on it with a constant hope. But we must now examine the nature of this faith, by which all who are the adopted sons of God enter on the possession of the heavenly kingdom; since it is certain, that not every opinion, nor even every persuasion, is equal to the accomplishment of so great a work. And we ought to be the more cautious and diligent in our meditations and inquiries on the genuine property of faith, in proportion to the pernicious tendency of the mistakes of multitudes in the present age on this subject. For a great part of the world, when they hear the word faith, conceive it to be nothing more than a common assent to the evangelical history. And even the disputes of the schools concerning faith, by simply styling God the object of it, (as I have elsewhere observed,) rather mislead miserable souls by a vain speculation, [pg 490] than direct them to the proper mark. For, since God “dwelleth in the light, which no man can approach unto,”[1426] there is a necessity for the interposition of Christ, as the medium of access to him. Whence he calls himself “the light of the world,”[1427] and in another place, “the way, and the truth, and the life;” because “no man cometh unto the Father,” who is the fountain of life, “but by him;”[1428] because he alone knows the Father, and reveals him to believers.[1429]

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

II. This evil, then, as well as innumerable others, must be imputed to the schoolmen, who have, as it were, concealed Christ, by drawing a veil over him; whereas, unless our views be immediately and steadily directed to him, we shall [pg 491] always be wandering through labyrinths without end. They not only, by their obscure definition, diminish, and almost annihilate, all the importance of faith, but have fabricated the notion of implicit faith, a term with which they have honoured the grossest ignorance, and most perniciously deluded the miserable multitude. Indeed, to express the fact more truly and plainly, this notion has not only buried the true faith in oblivion, but has entirely destroyed it. Is this faith—to understand nothing, but obediently to submit our understanding to the Church? Faith consists not in ignorance, but in knowledge; and that not only of God, but also of the Divine will. For we do not obtain salvation by our promptitude to embrace as truth whatever the Church may have prescribed, or by our transferring to her the province of inquiry and of knowledge. But when we know God to be a propitious Father to us, through the reconciliation effected by Christ, and that Christ is given to us for righteousness, sanctification, and life,—by this knowledge, I say, not by renouncing our understanding, we obtain an entrance into the kingdom of heaven. For, when the apostle says, that “with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation,”[1435] he indicates, that it is not sufficient for a man implicitly to credit what he neither understands, nor even examines; but he requires an explicit knowledge of the Divine goodness, in which our righteousness consists.

III. I do not deny (such is the ignorance with which we are enveloped) that many things are very obscure to us at present, and will continue to be so, till we shall have cast off the burden of the flesh, and arrived nearer to the presence of God. On such subjects, nothing would be more proper than a suspension of judgment, and a firm resolution to maintain unity with the Church. But that ignorance combined with humility should, under this pretext, be dignified with the appellation of Faith, is extremely absurd. For faith consists in a knowledge of God and of Christ,[1436] not in reverence for the Church. And we see what a labyrinth they have fabricated by this notion of theirs, so that the ignorant and inexperienced, without any discrimination, eagerly embrace as oracular every thing obtruded upon them under the name of the Church; sometimes even the most monstrous errors. This inconsiderate credulity, though it be the certain precipice of ruin, is, nevertheless, excused by them on the plea that it credits nothing definitively, but with this condition annexed, if such be the faith of the Church. Thus they pretend that truth is held in error, light in darkness, and true knowledge in ignorance. [pg 492] But, not to occupy any more time in refuting them, we only admonish the reader to compare their doctrine with ours; for the perspicuity of the truth will of itself furnish a sufficient refutation. For the question with them is not, whether faith be yet involved in many relics of ignorance, but they positively assert, that persons are possessed of true faith, who are charmed with their ignorance, and even indulge it, provided they assent to the authority and judgment of the Church concerning things unknown; as if the Scripture did not universally inculcate that knowledge is united with faith.

IV. We grant, that during our pilgrimage in the world, our faith is implicit, not only because many things are yet hidden from our view, but because our knowledge of every thing is very imperfect, in consequence of the clouds of error by which we are surrounded. For the greatest wisdom of those who are most perfect, is to improve, and to press forward with patient docility. Therefore Paul exhorts the faithful, if they differ from each other on any subject, to wait for further revelation.[1437] And experience teaches us, that till we are divested of the flesh, our knowledge falls far short of what might be wished; in reading also, many obscure passages daily occur, which convince us of our ignorance. With this barrier God restrains us within the bounds of modesty, assigning to every one a measure of faith, that even the most learned teacher may be ready to learn. We may observe eminent examples of this implicit faith in the disciples of Christ, before they were fully enlightened. We see with what difficulty they imbibed the first rudiments; how they hesitated even at the most minute particulars; what inconsiderable advances they made even while hanging on the lips of their Master; and when they ran to the grave at the intelligence of the women, his resurrection was like a dream to them. The testimony already borne by Christ to their possession of faith, forbids us to say that they were entirely destitute of it; indeed, if they had not been persuaded that Christ would rise from the dead, they would have felt no further concern about him. The women were not induced by superstition to embalm with spices the body of a deceased man, of whose life there was no hope; but though they credited his declarations, whose veracity they well knew, yet the ignorance, which still occupied their minds, involved their faith in darkness, so that they were almost lost in astonishment. Whence also they are said at length to have believed, when they saw the words of Christ verified by facts; not that their faith then commenced, but the seed of faith, which had been latent, and as it were dead in their hearts, then shot forth [pg 493] with additional vigour. They had therefore a true but an implicit faith, because they received Christ with reverence as their only teacher: being taught by him, they were persuaded that he was the author of their salvation; and they believed that he came from heaven, that through the grace of the Father he might assemble all his disciples there. But we need not seek a more familiar proof of this point, than that some portion of unbelief is always mixed with faith in every Christian.

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

VI. This, then, is the true knowledge of Christ—to receive [pg 494] him as he is offered by the Father, that is, invested with his gospel; for, as he is appointed to be the object of our faith, so we cannot advance in the right way to him, without the guidance of the gospel. The gospel certainly opens to us those treasures of grace, without which Christ would profit us little. Thus Paul connects faith as an inseparable concomitant with doctrine, where he says, “Ye have not so learned Christ; if so be ye have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus.”[1441] Yet I do not so far restrict faith to the gospel, but that I admit Moses and the prophets to have delivered what was sufficient for its establishment; but because the gospel exhibits a fuller manifestation of Christ, it is justly styled by Paul, “the words of faith and of good doctrine.”[1442] For the same reason, in another place, he represents the law as abolished by the coming of faith;[1443] comprehending under this term the new kind of teaching, by which Christ, since his appearance as our Master, has given a brighter display of the mercy of the Father, and a more explicit testimony concerning our salvation. The more easy and convenient method for us will be, to descend regularly from the genus to the species. In the first place, we must be apprized, that faith has a perpetual relation to the word, and can no more be separated from it, than the rays from the sun, whence they proceed. Therefore God proclaims by Isaiah, “Hear, and your souls shall live.”[1444] And that the word is the fountain of faith, is evident from this language of John: “These are written, that ye might believe.”[1445] The Psalmist also, intending to exhort the people to faith, says, “To-day, if ye will hear his voice;”[1446] and to hear, generally means to believe. Lastly, it is not without reason that in Isaiah, God distinguishes the children of the Church from strangers, by this character, that they shall all be his disciples, and be taught by him;[1447] for, if this were a benefit common to all, why should he address himself to a few? Correspondent with this is the general use of the words “believers,” and “disciples,” as synonymous, by the evangelists, on all occasions, and by Luke in particular, very frequently in the Acts of the Apostles; in the ninth chapter of which, he extends the latter epithet even to a woman. Wherefore, if faith decline in the smallest degree from this object, towards which it ought to be directed, it no longer retains its own nature, but becomes an uncertain credulity, and an erroneous excursion of the mind. The same Divine word is the foundation by which faith is sustained and supported, from which it cannot be moved without an immediate downfall. Take away the word, then, and there will be no faith left. We are not here [pg 495] disputing whether the ministry of men be necessary to disseminate the word of God, by which faith is produced, which we shall discuss in another place; but we assert, that the word itself, however it may be conveyed to us, is like a mirror, in which faith may behold God. Whether, therefore, God in this instance use the agency of men, or whether he operate solely by his own power, he always discovers himself by his word to those whom he designs to draw to himself.[1448] Whence Paul defines faith as an obedience rendered to the gospel, and praises the service of faith.[1449] For the apprehension of faith is not confined to our knowing that there is a God, but chiefly consists in our understanding what is his disposition towards us. For it is not of so much importance to us to know what he is in himself, as what he is willing to be to us. We find, therefore, that faith is a knowledge of the will of God respecting us, received from his word. And the foundation of this is a previous persuasion of the Divine veracity; any doubt of which being entertained in the mind, the authority of the word will be dubious and weak, or rather it will be of no authority at all. Nor is it sufficient to believe that the veracity of God is incapable of deception or falsehood, unless you also admit, as beyond all doubt, that whatever proceeds from him is sacred and inviolable truth.

VII. But as the human heart is not excited to faith by every word of God, we must further inquire what part of the word it is, with which faith is particularly concerned. God declared to Adam, “Thou shalt surely die;”[1450] and to Cain, “The voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground;”[1451] but these declarations are so far from being adapted to the establishment of faith, that of themselves they can only shake it. We do not deny that it is the office of faith to subscribe to the truth of God, whatever be the time, the nature, or the manner of his communications; but our present inquiry is only, what faith finds in the Divine word, upon which to rest its dependence and confidence. When our conscience beholds nothing but indignation and vengeance, how shall it not tremble with fear? And if God be the object of its terror, how should it not fly from him? But faith ought to seek God, not to fly from him. It appears, then, that we have not yet a complete definition of faith; since a knowledge of the Divine will indefinitely, ought not to be accounted faith. But suppose, instead of will,—the declaration of which is often productive of fear and sorrow,—we substitute benevolence or mercy. This will certainly bring us nearer to the nature of [pg 496] faith. For we are allured to seek God, after we have learned that salvation is laid up for us with him; which is confirmed to us by his declaring it to be the object of his care and affection. Therefore we need a promise of grace, to assure us that he is our propitious Father; since we cannot approach to him without it, and it is upon that alone that the human heart can securely depend. For this reason, in the Psalms, mercy and truth are generally united, as being closely connected; because it would be of no avail for us to know the veracity of God, if he did not allure us to himself by his mercy; nor should we embrace his mercy, if he did not offer it with his own mouth. “I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy loving-kindness and thy truth. Let thy loving-kindness and thy truth continually preserve me.”[1452] Again: “Thy mercy, O Lord, is in the heavens; and thy faithfulness reacheth unto the clouds.”[1453] Again: “All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth unto such as keep his covenant.”[1454] Again: “His merciful kindness is great towards us; and the truth of the Lord endureth for ever.”[1455] Again: “I will praise thy name for thy loving-kindness, and for thy truth.”[1456] I forbear to quote what we read in the prophets to the same purport, that God is merciful and faithful in his promises. For it will be temerity to conclude that God is propitious to us, unless he testify concerning himself, and anticipate us by his invitation, that his will respecting us may be neither ambiguous nor obscure. But we have already seen, that Christ is the only pledge of his love, without whom the tokens of his hatred and wrath are manifest both above and below. Now, since the knowledge of the Divine goodness will not be attended with much advantage, unless it lead us to rely upon it, we must exclude that apprehension of it which is mixed with doubts, which is not uniform and steady, but wavering and undecided. Now, the human mind, blinded and darkened as it is, is very far from being able to penetrate and attain to a knowledge of the Divine will; and the heart also, fluctuating in perpetual hesitation, is far from continuing unshaken in that persuasion. Therefore our mind must be illuminated, and our heart established by some exterior power, that the word of God may obtain full credit with us. Now, we shall have a complete definition of faith, if we say, that it is a steady and certain knowledge of the Divine benevolence towards us, which, being founded on the truth of the gratuitous promise in Christ, is both revealed to our minds, and confirmed to our hearts, by the Holy Spirit.

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

And first, we must refute the nugatory distinction, which prevails in the schools, of formal and informal faith. For they imagine, that such as are not impressed with any fear of God, or with any sense of piety, believe all that is necessary to be known in order to salvation; as though the Holy Spirit, in illuminating our hearts to faith, were not a witness to us of our adoption. Yet, in opposition to the whole tenor of Scripture, they presumptuously dignify such a persuasion, destitute of the fear of God, with the name of faith. We need not contend with this definition any further than by simply describing the nature of faith, as it is represented in the Divine word. And this will clearly evince the ignorance and insipidity of their clamour concerning it. I have treated it in part already, and shall subjoin what remains in its proper place. At present, I affirm, that a greater absurdity than this figment of theirs, cannot possibly be imagined. They maintain faith to be a mere assent, with which every despiser of God may receive as true whatever is contained in the Scripture. But first it should be examined, whether every man acquires faith for himself by his own power, or whether it is by faith that the Holy Spirit becomes the witness of adoption. They betray puerile folly, therefore, in inquiring whether faith, which is formed by the superaddition of a quality, be the same, or whether it be a new and different faith. It clearly appears, that while they have been trifling in this manner, they never thought of the peculiar gift of the Spirit; for the commencement of faith contains in it the reconciliation by which man draws near to God. But, if they would duly consider that declaration of Paul, “With the heart man believeth unto righteousness,”[1457] they would cease their trifling about this superadded quality. If we had only this one reason, it ought to be sufficient to terminate the controversy—that the assent which we give to the Divine word, as I have partly suggested before, and shall again more largely repeat, is from the heart rather than the head, and from the affections rather than the understanding. For which reason it is called “the obedience of faith,”[1458] to which the Lord prefers no other obedience; because nothing is more precious to him than his own truth; which, according to the testimony of John the Baptist,[1459] believers, as it were, subscribe and seal. As this is by no means a dubious point, we conclude at once, that it is an absurdity to say, that faith is formed by the [pg 498] addition of a pious affection to an assent of the mind; whereas, even this assent consists in a pious affection, and is so described in the Scriptures. But another argument offers itself, which is still plainer. Since faith accepts Christ, as he is offered to us by the Father; and he is offered, not only for righteousness, remission of sins, and peace, but also for sanctification and as a fountain of living water; it is certain, that no man can ever know him aright, unless he at the same time receive the sanctification of the Spirit. Or, if any one would wish it to be more clearly expressed, Faith consists in a knowledge of Christ. Christ cannot be known without the sanctification of his Spirit. Consequently, faith is absolutely inseparable from a pious affection.

IX. This passage of Paul, “Though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing,”[1460] is generally adduced by them to support the notion of an informal faith unaccompanied with charity; but they overlook the sense in which the apostle uses the word “faith” in this place. For having, in the preceding chapter, treated of the various gifts of the Spirit, among which he has enumerated “divers kinds of tongues, the working of miracles and prophecy,”[1461] and having exhorted the Corinthians to “covet earnestly the best gifts,” from which the greatest benefit and advantage would accrue to the whole body of the Church, he adds, “yet show I unto you a more excellent way;” implying, that all such gifts, whatever be their intrinsic excellence, are yet to be deemed worthless, unless they be subservient to charity; for that, being given for the edification of the Church, if not employed for that purpose, they lose their beauty and value. To prove this, he particularly specifies them, repeating the same gifts, which he had before enumerated, but under other names. He uses the word “faith” to denote what he had before called powers, (δυναμεις, potestates, virtutes,) that is, a power of working miracles. This, then, whether it be called power or faith, being a particular gift of God, which any impious man may both possess and abuse, as the gift of tongues, or prophecy, or other gifts, we need not wonder if it be separated from charity. But the mistake of such persons arises wholly from this—that though the word “faith” is used in many senses, not observing this diversity of signification, they argue as if it had always the same meaning. The passage which they adduce from James in support of the same error, shall be discussed in another place. Now, although, for the sake of instruction, when we design to show the nature of that knowledge of God, which is possessed by the impious, we [pg 499] allow that there are various kinds of faith, yet we acknowledge and preach only one faith in the pious, according to the doctrine of the Scripture. Many men certainly believe that there is a God; they admit the evangelical history and the other parts of Scripture to be true; just as we form an opinion of transactions which are narrated as having occurred in former times, or of which we have ourselves been spectators. There are some who go further; esteeming the word of God as an undoubted revelation from heaven, not wholly disregarding its precepts, and being in some measure affected both by its denunciations and by its promises. To such persons, indeed, faith is attributed; but by a catachresis, a tropical or improper form of expression; because they do not with open impiety resist, or reject, or contemn the word of God, but rather exhibit some appearance of obedience to it.

X. But this shadow or image of faith, as it is of no importance, so is unworthy of the name of faith; its great distance from the substantial truth of which, though we shall show more at large hereafter, there can be no objection to its being briefly pointed out here. Simon Magus[1462] is said to have believed, who, nevertheless, just after, betrays his unbelief. When faith is attributed to him, we do not apprehend, with some, that he merely pretended to it with his lips, while he had none in his heart; but we rather think, that being overcome with the majesty of the gospel, he did exercise a kind of faith, and perceived Christ to be the author of life and salvation, so as freely to profess himself one of his followers. Thus, in the Gospel of Luke, those persons are said to believe for a time, in whom the seed of the word is prematurely choked before it fructifies, and those in whom it takes no root, but soon dries up and perishes. We doubt not but such persons, being attracted with some taste of the word, receive it with avidity, and begin to perceive something of its Divine power; so that by the fallacious counterfeit of faith, they impose not only on the eyes of men, but even on their own minds. For they persuade themselves, that the reverence which they show for the word of God, is real piety; supposing that there is no impiety but a manifest and acknowledged abuse or contempt of it. But, whatever be the nature of that assent, it penetrates not to the heart, so as to fix its residence there; and though it sometimes appears to have shot forth roots, yet there is no life in them. The heart of man has so many recesses of vanity, and so many retreats of falsehood, and is so enveloped with fraudulent hypocrisy, that it frequently deceives even himself. But let them, who glory in such phantoms of faith, know, that in [pg 500] this respect they are not at all superior to devils. Persons of the former description, who hear and understand without any emotion those things, the knowledge of which makes devils tremble, are certainly far inferior to the fallen spirits; and the others are equal to them in this respect—that the sentiments with which they are impressed, finally terminate in terror and consternation.[1463]

XI. I know that it appears harsh to some, when faith is attributed to the reprobate; since Paul affirms it to be the fruit of election. But this difficulty is easily solved; for, though none are illuminated to faith, or truly feel the efficacy of the gospel, but such as are preordained to salvation, yet experience shows, that the reprobate are sometimes affected with emotions very similar to those of the elect, so that, in their own opinion, they in no respect differ from the elect. Wherefore, it is not at all absurd, that a taste of heavenly gifts is ascribed to them by the apostle, and a temporary faith by Christ:[1464] not that they truly perceive the energy of spiritual grace and clear light of faith, but because the Lord, to render their guilt more manifest and inexcusable, insinuates himself into their minds, as far as his goodness can be enjoyed without the Spirit of adoption. If any one object, that there remains, then, no further evidence by which the faithful can certainly judge of their adoption, I reply, that although there is a great similitude and affinity between the elect of God and those who are endued with a frail and transitory faith, yet the elect possess that confidence, which Paul celebrates, so as boldly to “cry, Abba, Father.”[1465] Therefore, as God regenerates for ever the elect alone with incorruptible seed, so that the seed of life planted in their hearts never perishes, so he firmly seals within them the grace of his adoption, that it may be confirmed and ratified to their minds. But this by no means prevents that inferior operation of the Spirit from exerting itself even in the reprobate. In the mean time the faithful are taught to examine themselves with solicitude and humility, lest carnal security insinuate itself, instead of the assurance of faith. Besides, the reprobate have only a confused perception of grace, so that they embrace the shadow rather than the substance; because the Spirit properly seals remission of sins in the elect alone, and they apply it by a special faith to their own benefit. Yet the reprobate are justly said to believe that God is propitious to them, because they receive the gift of reconciliation, though in a confused and too indistinct manner: not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the sons of God, but because they appear, under the disguise of hypocrisy, to [pg 501] have the principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I deny, that God so far enlightens their minds, that they discover his grace; but he so distinguishes that perception from the peculiar testimony, which he gives to his elect, that they never attain any solid effect and enjoyment. For he does not, therefore, show himself propitious to them, by truly delivering them from death, and receiving them under his protection; but he only manifests to them present mercy. But he vouchsafes to the elect alone, the living root of faith, that they may persevere even to the end. Thus we have refuted the objection, that if God truly discovers his grace, it remains for ever; because nothing prevents God from illuminating some with a present perception of his grace, which afterwards vanishes away.

XII. Moreover, though faith is a knowledge of the benevolence of God towards us, and a certain persuasion of his veracity, yet it is not to be wondered at, that the subjects of these temporary impressions lose the sense of Divine love, which, notwithstanding its affinity to faith, is yet widely different from it. The will of God, I confess, is immutable, and his truth always consistent with itself. But I deny that the reprobate ever go so far as to penetrate to that secret revelation, which the Scripture confines to the elect. I deny, therefore, that they either apprehend the will of God, as it is immutable, or embrace his truth with constancy; because they rest in a fugitive sentiment. Thus a tree, not planted deeply enough to shoot forth living roots, in process of time withers; though for some years it may produce not only leaves and blossoms, but even fruits. Finally, as the defection of the first man was sufficient to obliterate the Divine image from his mind and soul, so we need not wonder if God enlightens the reprobate with some beams of his grace, which he afterwards suffers to be extinguished. Nor does any thing prevent him from slightly tincturing some with the knowledge of his gospel, and thoroughly imbuing others with it. It must, nevertheless, be remembered, that how diminutive and weak soever faith may be in the elect, yet, as the Spirit of God is a certain pledge and seal to them of their adoption, his impression can never be erased from their hearts; but that the reprobate have only a few scattered rays of light, which are afterwards lost; yet that the Spirit is not chargeable with deception, because he infuses no life into the seed which he drops in their hearts, that it may remain for ever incorruptible, as in the elect. I go still further; for since it is evident from the tenor of the Scripture, and from daily experience, that the reprobate are sometimes affected with a sense of Divine grace, some desire of mutual love must necessarily be excited in their hearts. Thus Saul had for a time a pious disposition to love God, from [pg 502] whom experiencing paternal kindness, he was allured by the charms of his goodness. But as the persuasion of the paternal love of God is not radically fixed in the reprobate, so they love him not reciprocally with the sincere affection of children, but are influenced by a mercenary disposition; for the spirit of love was given to Christ alone, that he might instil it into his members. And this observation of Paul certainly extends to none but the elect: “The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us;”[1466] the same love, which generates that confidence of invocation which I have before mentioned. Thus, on the contrary, we see that God is wonderfully angry with his children, whom he ceases not to love: not that he really hates them, but because he designs to terrify them with a sense of his wrath, to humble their carnal pride, to shake off their indolence, and to excite them to repentance. Therefore they apprehend him to be both angry with them, or at least with their sins, and propitious to them at the same time; for they sincerely deprecate his wrath, and yet resort to him for succour with tranquillity and confidence. Hence it appears, that faith is not hypocritically counterfeited by some, who nevertheless are destitute of true faith; but, while they are hurried away with a sudden impetuosity of zeal, they deceive themselves by a false opinion. Nor is it to be doubted, that indolence preoccupies them, and prevents them from properly examining their hearts as they ought to do. It is probable that those persons were of this description, to whom, according to John, “Jesus did not commit himself,” notwithstanding that they believed in him, “because he knew all men: he knew what was in man.”[1467] If multitudes did not depart from the common faith, (I style it common, because there is a great similitude and affinity between temporary faith and that which is living and perpetual,) Christ would not have said to his disciples, “If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed, and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”[1468] For he addresses those who have embraced his doctrine, and exhorts them to an increase of faith, that the light which they have received may not be extinguished by their own supineness. Therefore Paul claims faith as peculiar to the elect,[1469] indicating that many decay, because they have had no living root. Thus also Christ says in Matthew, “Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.”[1470] There is a grosser deception in others, who are not ashamed to attempt to deceive both God and men. James inveighs against this class [pg 503] of men, who impiously profane faith by hypocritical pretensions to it.[1471] Nor would Paul require from the children of God, a “faith unfeigned,”[1472] but because multitudes presumptuously arrogate to themselves what they possess not, and with their vain pretences deceive others, and sometimes even themselves. Therefore he compares a good conscience to a vessel in which faith is kept; because many, “having put away a good conscience, concerning faith have made shipwreck.”[1473]

XIII. We must also remember the ambiguous signification of the word faith; for frequently faith signifies the sound doctrine of piety, as in the place which we have just cited, and in the same Epistle, where Paul says, that deacons must hold “the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.”[1474] Also where he predicts the apostasy of some “from the faith.”[1475] But, on the contrary, he says, that Timothy had been “nourished up in the words of faith.”[1476] Again, where he says, “avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science, falsely so called; which some professing, have erred concerning the faith;”[1477] whom in another place he styles “reprobates concerning the faith.”[1478] Thus, also, when he directs Titus to “rebuke them, that they may be sound in the faith,”[1479] by soundness, he means nothing more than that purity of doctrine, which is so liable to be corrupted and to degenerate through the instability of men. Since “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ,”[1480] whom faith possesses, faith is justly extended to the whole summary of heavenly doctrines, with which it is inseparably connected. On the contrary, it is sometimes restricted to a particular object; as when Matthew says, that “Jesus saw their faith,”[1481] who let down the paralytic man through the roof; and when Christ exclaimed respecting the centurion, “I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.”[1482] But it is probable, that the centurion was wholly intent on the recovery of his son, a concern for whom wholly occupied his mind; yet, because he was contented with the mere answer of Christ, without being importunate for his corporeal presence, it is on account of this circumstance that his faith is so greatly extolled. And we have lately shown, that Paul uses faith for the gift of miracles; which is possessed by those who are neither regenerated by the Spirit of God, nor serious worshippers of him. In another place, also, he uses it to denote the instruction by which we are edified in the faith; for, when he suggests that faith will be abolished, it must undoubtedly be referred to the ministry of the Church, which is, at present, useful to our infirmity. In [pg 504] these forms of expression, however, there is an evident analogy. But when the word “faith” is in an improper sense transferred to a hypocritical profession, or to that which falsely assumes the name, it should not be accounted a harsher catachresis, than when the fear of God is used for a corrupt and perverse worship; as when it is frequently said in the sacred history, that the foreign nations, which had been transplanted to Samaria and its vicinity, feared the fictitious deities and the God of Israel; which is like confounding together heaven and earth. But our present inquiry is, what is that faith by which the children of God are distinguished from unbelievers, by which we invoke God as our Father, by which we pass from death to life, and by which Christ, our eternal life and salvation, dwells in us? The force and nature of it, I conceive, I have concisely and clearly explained.

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

XV. To express the solid constancy of the persuasion, we further say, that it is a certain and steady knowledge. For, as faith is not content with a dubious and versatile opinion, so neither with an obscure and perplexed conception; but requires a full and fixed certainty, such as is commonly obtained respecting things that have been tried and proved. For unbelief is so deeply rooted in our hearts, and such is our propensity to it, that though all men confess with the tongue, that God is faithful, no man can persuade himself of the truth of it, without the most arduous exertions. Especially when the time of trial comes, the general indecision discloses the fault which was previously concealed. Nor is it without reason that the Holy Spirit asserts the authority of the Divine word in terms of such high commendation, but with a design to remedy the disease which I have mentioned, that the promises of God may obtain full credit with us. “The words of the Lord (says David) are pure words; as silver tried in a furnace of earth purified seven times.”[1487] Again: “The word of the Lord is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.”[1488] And Solomon confirms the same, nearly in the same words: “Every word of God is pure.”[1489] But, as the hundred and nineteenth Psalm is almost entirely devoted to this subject, it were needless to recite any more testimonies. Whenever God thus recommends his word to us, he, without doubt, obliquely reprehends our unbelief; for the design of those recommendations is no other than to eradicate perverse doubts from our hearts. There are also many, who have such conceptions of the Divine mercy, as to receive but very little consolation from it. For they are at the same time distressed with an unhappy anxiety, doubting whether he will be merciful to them; because they confine within too narrow limits that clemency, of which they suppose themselves to be fully persuaded. For they reflect with themselves thus: that his mercy is large and copious, bestowed upon many, and ready for the acceptance of all; but that it is uncertain whether it will reach them also, or, rather, whether they shall reach it. This thought, since it stops in the midst of its course, is incomplete. Therefore it does not so much confirm the mind with secure tranquillity, as disturb it with restless hesitation. But very different is the meaning of “full assurance,” (πληροφοριας,) which is always attributed to faith in the Scriptures; and which places the goodness of God, that is clearly revealed to us, beyond all doubt. But this cannot take place, unless we have a real sense and experience of its sweetness in ourselves. Wherefore the apostle from faith deduces confidence, and from confidence boldness. [pg 506] For this is his language: “In Christ we have boldness and access, with confidence by the faith of him.”[1490] These words imply that we have no right faith, but when we can venture with tranquillity into the Divine presence. This boldness arises only from a certain confidence of the Divine benevolence and our salvation; which is so true, that the word “faith” is frequently used for confidence.

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

XVII. But some one will object, that the experience of believers is very different from this; for that, in recognizing the [pg 507] grace of God towards them, they are not only disturbed with inquietude, (which frequently befalls them,) but sometimes also tremble with the most distressing terrors. The vehemence of temptations, to agitate their minds, is so great, that it appears scarcely compatible with that assurance of faith of which we have been speaking. We must therefore solve this difficulty, if we mean to support the doctrine we have advanced. When we inculcate, that faith ought to be certain and secure, we conceive not of a certainty attended with no doubt, or of a security interrupted by no anxiety; but we rather affirm, that believers have a perpetual conflict with their own diffidence, and are far from placing their consciences in a placid calm, never disturbed by any storms. Yet, on the other hand, we deny, however they may be afflicted, that they ever fall and depart from that certain confidence which they have conceived in the Divine mercy. The Scripture proposes no example of faith more illustrious or memorable than David, especially if you consider the whole course of his life. Yet that his mind was not invariably serene, appears from his innumerable complaints, of which it will be sufficient to select a few. When he rebukes his soul for turbulent emotions, is he not angry with his unbelief? “Why (says he) art thou cast down, O my soul? and why art thou disquieted in me? Hope thou in God.”[1495] And, certainly, that consternation was an evident proof of diffidence, as though he supposed himself to be forsaken by God. In another place, also, we find a more ample confession: “I said, in my haste, I am cut off from before thine eyes.”[1496] In another place, also, he debates with himself in anxious and miserable perplexity, and even raises a dispute concerning the nature of God: “Hath God forgotten to be gracious? Will the Lord cast off for ever?” What follows is still harsher: “And I said, I must fall; these are the changes of the right hand of the Most High.”[1497] For, in a state of despair, he consigns himself to ruin; and not only confesses that he is agitated with doubts, but, as vanquished in the conflict, considers all as lost; because God has deserted him, and turned to his destruction that hand which used to support him. Wherefore it is not without reason that he says, “Return unto thy rest, O my soul;”[1498] since he had experienced such fluctuations amidst the waves of trouble. And yet, wonderful as it is, amidst these concussions, faith sustains the hearts of the pious, and truly resembles the palm-tree, rising with vigour undiminished by any burdens which may be laid upon it, but which can never retard its growth; as David, when he might appear to be overwhelmed, [pg 508] yet, chiding himself, ceased not to aspire towards God. Indeed, he who, contending with his own infirmity, strives in his anxieties to exercise faith, is already in a great measure victorious. Which we may infer from such passages as this: “Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart; wait, I say, on the Lord.”[1499] He reproves himself for timidity, and repeating the same twice, confesses himself to be frequently subject to various agitations. In the mean time, he is not only displeased with himself for these faults, but ardently aspires towards the correction of them. Now, if we enter into a close and correct examination of his character and conduct, and compare him with Ahaz, we shall discover a considerable difference. Isaiah is sent to convey consolation to the anxiety of the impious and hypocritical king; he addresses him in these words: “Take heed, and be quiet; fear not,” &c.[1500] But what effect had the message on him? As it had been before said, that “his heart was moved as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind,”[1501] though he heard the promise, he ceased not to tremble. This therefore is the proper reward and punishment of infidelity—so to tremble with fear, that he who opens not the gate to himself by faith, in the time of temptation departs from God; but, on the contrary, believers, whom the weight of temptations bends and almost oppresses, constantly emerge from their distresses, though not without trouble and difficulty. And because they are conscious of their own imbecility, they pray with the Psalmist, “Take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth.”[1502] By these words we are taught, that they sometimes become dumb, as though their faith were destroyed; yet that they neither fail nor turn their backs, but persevere in their conflict, and arouse their inactivity by prayer, that they may not be stupefied by self-indulgence.

XVIII. To render this intelligible, it is necessary to recur to that division of the flesh and the spirit, which we noticed in another place, and which most clearly discovers itself in this case. The pious heart therefore perceives a division in itself, being partly affected with delight, through a knowledge of the Divine goodness; partly distressed with sorrow, through a sense of its own calamity; partly relying on the promise of the gospel; partly trembling at the evidence of its own iniquity; partly exulting in the apprehension of life; partly alarmed by the fear of death. This variation happens through the imperfection of faith; since we are never so happy, during the present life, as to be cured of all diffidence, and entirely filled and possessed by faith. Hence those conflicts, in which [pg 509] the diffidence which adheres to the relics of the flesh, rises up in opposition to the faith formed in the heart. But if, in the mind of a believer, assurance be mixed with doubts, do we not always come to this point, that faith consists not in a certain and clear, but only in an obscure and perplexed knowledge of the Divine will respecting us? Not at all. For, if we are distracted by various thoughts, we are not therefore entirely divested of faith; neither, though harassed by the agitations of diffidence, are we therefore immerged in its abyss; nor, if we be shaken, are we therefore overthrown. For the invariable issue of this contest is, that faith at length surmounts those difficulties, from which, while it is encompassed with them, it appears to be in danger.

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

XX. The apostle beautifully inculcates both these ideas in various places. For when he says, that “we know in part, and we prophesy in part, and see through a glass darkly,”[1503] he indicates, how very slender a portion of that wisdom which is truly Divine, is conferred upon us in the present life. For although these words imply, not only that faith remains imperfect as long as we groan under the burden of the flesh, but that our imperfection renders it necessary for us to be unremittingly employed in acquiring further knowledge, yet he suggests, that it is impossible for our narrow capacity to comprehend that which is infinite. And this Paul predicates concerning [pg 510] the whole Church; though every individual of us is obstructed and retarded, by his own ignorance, from making that progress which might be wished. But what a sure and certain experience, of itself, even the smallest particle of faith gives us, the same apostle shows in another place, where he asserts, that “we, with open face, beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image.”[1504] Such profound ignorance must necessarily involve much doubt and trepidation; especially as our hearts are, by a kind of natural instinct, inclined to unbelief. Besides, temptations, various and innumerable, frequently assail us with great violence. Above all, our own conscience, oppressed by its incumbent load of sin, sometimes complains and groans within itself, sometimes accuses itself, sometimes murmurs in secret, and sometimes is openly disturbed. Whether, therefore, adversity discover the wrath of God, or the conscience find in itself any reason or cause of it, thence unbelief derives weapons to oppose faith, which are perpetually directed to this object, to persuade us, that God is angry with us, and inimical to us; that we may not hope for any assistance from him, but may dread him as our irreconcilable enemy.

XXI. To sustain these attacks, faith arms and defends itself with the word of the Lord. And when such a temptation as this assails us,—that God is our enemy, because he is angry with us,—faith, on the contrary, objects, that he is merciful even when he afflicts, because chastisement proceeds rather from love than from wrath. When it is pressed with this thought, that God is an avenger of iniquities, it opposes the pardon provided for all offences, whenever the sinner makes application to the Divine clemency. Thus the pious mind, how strangely soever it may be agitated and harassed, rises at length superior to all difficulties, nor ever suffers its confidence in the Divine mercy to be shaken. The various disputes which exercise and fatigue it, terminate rather in the confirmation of that confidence. It is a proof of this, that when the saints conceive themselves to feel most the vengeance of God, they still confide their complaints to him, and when there is no appearance of his hearing them, they continue to call upon him. For what end would be answered by addressing complaint to him from whom they expected no consolation? And they would never be disposed to call upon him, unless they believed him to be ready to assist them.[1505] Thus the disciples, whom Christ reprehends for the weakness of their faith, complained indeed that they were perishing, but still they implored his assistance. Nor, when he chides them on account of their weak faith, does he reject them from the number of his children, or [pg 511] class them with unbelievers; but he excites them to correct that fault. Therefore we repeat the assertion already made, that faith is never eradicated from a pious heart, but continues firmly fixed, however it may be shaken, and seem to bend this way or that; that its light is never so extinguished or smothered, but that it lies at least concealed under embers; and that this is an evident proof, that the word, which is an incorruptible seed, produces fruit similar to itself, whose germ never entirely perishes. For, though it is the last cause of despair that can happen to saints, to perceive, according to their apprehension of present circumstances, the hand of God lifted up for their destruction, yet Job asserts the extent of his hope to be such, that though he should be slain by him, he would continue to trust in him.[1506] This, then, is the real state of the case: Unbelief is not inwardly predominant in the hearts of the pious, but it assails them from without; nor do its weapons mortally wound them; they only molest them, or at least inflict such wounds as are curable. For faith, according to Paul, serves us as a shield, which, being opposed to hostile weapons, receives their blows, and entirely repels them, or at least breaks their force, so that they penetrate no vital part. When faith is shaken, therefore, it is just as if a soldier, otherwise bold, were constrained, by a violent stroke of a javelin, to change his position and retreat a little; but when faith itself is wounded, it is just as if his shield were broken by a blow, yet not pierced through. For the pious mind will always recover so far as to say, with David, “Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for thou art with me.”[1507] To walk in the gloom of death is certainly terrible; and believers, whatever degree of firmness they have, cannot but dread it. But when this thought prevails, that God is present with them, and concerned for their salvation, fear at once gives way to security. But, as Augustine says, whatever powerful engines the devil erects against us, when he possesses not the heart, which is the residence of faith, he is kept at a distance. Thus, if we judge from the event, believers not only escape in safety from every battle, so that, receiving an accession of vigour, they are soon after prepared to enter the field again, but we see the accomplishment of what John says, in his canonical Epistle: “This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.”[1508] For he affirms, that it will be not only victorious in one or in a few battles, or against some particular assault, but that it will overcome the whole world, though it should be attacked a thousand times.

XXII. There is another species of fear and trembling, by [pg 512] which, nevertheless, the assurance of faith is so far from being impaired, that it is more firmly established. That is, when believers, considering the examples of the Divine vengeance against the impious as lessons given to them, are solicitously cautious not to provoke the wrath of God against themselves by the same crimes; or when, feeling their own misery, they learn to place all their dependence on the Lord, without whom they perceive themselves to be more inconstant and transient than the wind. For when the apostle, by a representation of the punishments which the Lord formerly inflicted on the Israelitish nation, alarms the fears of the Corinthians, lest they should involve themselves in the same calamities,[1509] he in no respect weakens their confidence, but shakes off the indolence of the flesh, by which faith is rather impaired than confirmed. Nor when, from the fall of the Jews, he takes an occasion to exhort him that standeth to beware lest he fall,[1510] does he direct us to waver, as though we were uncertain of our stability; but only forbids all arrogance and presumptuous, overweening confidence in our own strength, that the Gentiles may not proudly insult over the expelled Jews, into whose place they have been received.[1511] In that passage, however, he not only addresses believers, but in his discourse also includes hypocrites, who gloried merely in external appearance. For he admonishes not men individually, but instituting a comparison between the Jews and the Gentiles, after having shown that the rejection of the former was a righteous punishment for their unbelief and ingratitude, he exhorts the latter not to lose, by pride and haughtiness, the grace of adoption recently transferred to them. But as, in the general rejection of the Jews, there remained some of them who fell not from the covenant of adoption, so among the Gentiles there might possibly arise some, who, destitute of true faith, would only be inflated with foolish and carnal confidence, and thus abuse the goodness of God to their own ruin. But though you should understand this to be spoken to the elect and believers, no inconvenience would result from it. For it is one thing to repress the temerity, which from remaining carnality sometimes discovers itself in the saints, that it may not produce vain confidence; and another to strike the conscience with fear, that it may not rely with full security on the mercy of God.

XXIII. Moreover, when he teaches us to “work out our own salvation with fear and trembling,”[1512] he only requires us to accustom ourselves, with great self-humiliation, to look up to the power of the Lord. For nothing arouses us to repose all confidence and assurance of mind on the Lord, so much as diffidence [pg 513] of ourselves, and anxiety arising from a consciousness of our own misery. In which sense, we must understand this declaration of the Psalmist, “I will come into thy house in the multitude of thy mercy, and in thy fear will I worship.”[1513] Whence he beautifully connects the confidence of faith, which relies on the mercy of God, with that religious fear by which we ought to be affected, whenever we come into the presence of the Divine Majesty, and from its splendour, discover our extreme impurity. Solomon also truly pronounces, “Happy is the man who feareth alway; but he that hardeneth his heart shall fall into mischief.”[1514] But he intends that fear which will render us more cautious, not such as would afflict and ruin us, such as, when the mind, confounded in itself, recovers itself in God; dejected in itself, finds consolation in him; and despairing of itself, revives with confidence in him. Wherefore nothing prevents believers from being distressed with fear, and at the same time enjoying the most serene consolation; as they now turn their eyes towards their own vanity, and now direct the attention of their mind to the truth of God. How can fear and faith, it will be asked, both reside in the same mind? Just as, on the contrary, insensibility and anxiety. For though the impious endeavour to acquire a habit of insensibility, that they may not be disquieted by the fear of God, the judgment of God follows them so closely, that they cannot attain the object of their desires. So nothing prevents God from training his people to humility, that in their valiant warfare they may restrain themselves within the bounds of modesty. And that this was the design of the apostle appears from the context, where, as the cause of fear and trembling, he assigns the good pleasure of God, by which he gives to his people both rightly to will, and strenuously to perform. In the same sense we should understand this prediction: “The children of Israel shall fear the Lord and his goodness;”[1515] for not only piety produces a reverence of God, but also the sweetness of grace fills a man that is dejected in himself, with fear and admiration; causing him to depend upon God, and humbly submit himself to his power.

XXIV. Yet we give no encouragement to the very pestilent philosophy, begun to be broached by some semi-Papists in the present day. For, being unable to defend that gross notion of faith as a doubtful opinion, which has been taught in the schools, they resort to another invention, and propose a confidence mixed with unbelief. They confess, that whenever we look to Christ, we find in him a sufficient ground of comfortable hope; but because we are always unworthy of all those [pg 514] blessings which are offered to us in Christ, they wish us to fluctuate and hesitate in the view of our own unworthiness. In short, they place the conscience in such a state between hope and fear, that it alternately inclines to both. They also connect hope and fear together, so that when the former rises, it depresses the latter, and when the latter lifts its head, the former falls. Thus Satan, finding that those open engines, which he heretofore employed to destroy the assurance of faith, are now no longer of any avail, secretly endeavours to undermine it. But what kind of confidence would that be, which should frequently give way to despair? If you consider Christ, (say they,) salvation is certain; if you return to yourself, condemnation is certain. Diffidence and good hope, therefore, must of necessity alternately prevail in your mind. As though we ought to consider Christ as standing apart from us, and not rather as dwelling within us. For we therefore expect salvation from him, not because he appears to us at a great distance, but because, having ingrafted us into his body, he makes us partakers not only of all his benefits, but also of himself. Wherefore I thus retort their own argument: If you consider yourself, condemnation is certain; but since Christ, with all his benefits, is communicated to you, so that all that he has becomes yours, and you become a member of him, and one with him,—his righteousness covers your sins; his salvation supersedes your condemnation; he interposes with his merit, that your unworthiness may not appear in the Divine presence. Indeed, the truth is, that we ought by no means to separate Christ from us, or ourselves from him; but, with all our might, firmly to retain that fellowship by which he has united us to himself. Thus the apostle teaches us: “The body (says he) is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness.”[1516] According to this frivolous notion of these persons, he ought to have said, Christ indeed has life in himself; but you, being sinners, remain obnoxious to death and condemnation. But he speaks in a very different manner; for he states, that the condemnation which we demerit in ourselves is swallowed up by the salvation of Christ; and in confirmation of this, uses the same argument as I have adduced, that Christ is not without us, but dwells within us; and not only adheres to us by an indissoluble connection of fellowship, but by a certain wonderful communion coalesces daily more and more into one body with us, till he becomes altogether one with us. Nor do I deny, what I have lately said, that some interruptions of faith at times occur, as its imbecility is by the force of violence inclined to this or the other direction, [pg 515] Thus, in the thick gloom of temptations, its light is smothered; but, whatever befalls it, it never discontinues its efforts in seeking God.

XXV. Bernard reasons in a similar manner, when he professedly discusses this subject, in the Fifth Homily, on the Dedication of the Temple. “By the goodness of God, meditating sometimes on the soul, I think I discover in it, as it were, two opposite characters. If I view it as it is in itself and of itself, I cannot utter a greater truth concerning it, than that it is reduced to nothing. What need is there at present to enumerate all its miseries, how it is loaded with sins, enveloped in darkness, entangled with allurements, inflamed with inordinate desires, subject to the passions, filled with illusions, always prone to evil, inclined to every vice, and finally full of ignominy and confusion? Now, if even our righteousnesses, when viewed in the light of truth, be found to be ‘as filthy rags,’[1517] what judgment will be formed of our acknowledged unrighteousness? ‘If the light that is in’ us ‘be darkness, how great is that darkness!’[1518] What then? Man is undoubtedly become like vanity; man is reduced to nothing; man is nothing. Yet how is he entirely nothing, whom God magnifies? How is he nothing, on whom the heart of God is fixed? Brethren, let us revive again. Although we are nothing in our own hearts, perhaps there may be something for us latent in the heart of God. O Father of mercies, O Father of the miserable, how dost thou fix thine heart on us! For thine heart is where thy treasure is. But how are we thy treasure, if we are nothing? All nations are before thee as though they existed not; they must be considered as nothing. That is, before thee; not within thee; thus it is in the judgment of thy truth; but not thus in the affection of thy clemency. Thou callest things which are not, as though they were; and therefore they are not, because thou callest things which are not; yet they are, because thou callest them. For though they are not, with reference to themselves, yet with thee they are; according to this expression of Paul: ‘Not of works, but of him that calleth.’ ”[1519] After this, Bernard says, that there is a wonderful connection between these two considerations. Things which are connected with each other, certainly do not reciprocally destroy each other; which he also more plainly declares in the following conclusion: “Now, if we diligently examine what we are in both considerations,—how in one view we are nothing, and in the other how we are magnified,—I conceive that our boasting appears to be restrained; but perhaps it is more increased, and indeed established, that we may glory not in [pg 516] ourselves, but in the Lord. If we reflect, if he has decreed to save us, we shall shortly be delivered; this is sufficient to recover us. But ascending to a loftier and more extensive prospect, let us seek the city of God, let us seek his temple, let us seek his palace, let us seek his spouse. I have not forgotten, but with fear and reverence I say, We are; but in the heart of God. We are; but by his condescending favour, not by our own merit.”

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

XXVII. Now, the assertion of John, that “there is no fear in love, but perfect love casteth out fear, because fear hath torment,”[1523] is not at all repugnant to what we have advanced. For he speaks of the terror of unbelief, between which and the fear of believers there is a wide difference. For the impious fear not God from a dread of incurring his displeasure, if they could do it with impunity; but because they know him to be armed with vindictive power, they tremble with horror at hearing of his wrath. And thus also they fear his wrath, because they apprehend it to be impending over them, because they every moment expect it to fall on their heads. But the [pg 517] faithful, as we have observed, fear his displeasure more than punishment, and are not disturbed with the fear of punishment, as though it were impending over them, but are rendered more cautious that they may not incur it. Thus the apostle, when addressing believers, says, “Let no man deceive you with vain words; for, because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience [or unbelief.]”[1524] He threatens not its descending on them; but admonishes them to consider the wrath of the Lord prepared for the impious, on account of the crimes which he had enumerated, that they may avoid tempting it. It seldom happens, however, that the reprobate are aroused merely by simple threatenings; but, on the contrary, being already obdurate and insensible, when God thunders from heaven, if it be only in words, they rather harden themselves in rebellion; but when they feel the stroke of his hand, they are compelled to fear him, whether they will or not. This is commonly called a servile fear, in opposition to a filial fear, which is ingenuous and voluntary. Some persons curiously introduce an intermediate species of fear; because that servile and constrained affection sometimes subdues men's minds, so that they voluntarily approach to the fear of God.

XXVIII. Now, in the Divine benevolence, which is affirmed to be the object of faith, we apprehend the possession of salvation and everlasting life to be obtained. For, if no good can be wanting when God is propitious, we have a sufficient certainty of salvation, when he himself assures us of his love. “O God, cause thy face to shine, and we shall be saved,”[1525] says the Psalmist. Hence the Scriptures represent this as the sum of our salvation, that he has “abolished” all “enmity,”[1526] and received us into his favour. In which they imply, that since God is reconciled to us, there remains no danger, but that all things will prosper with us. Wherefore faith, having apprehended the love of God, has promises for the present life and the life to come, and a solid assurance of all blessings; but it is such an assurance as may be derived from the Divine word. For faith certainly promises itself neither longevity, nor honour, nor wealth, in the present state; since the Lord has not been pleased to appoint any of these things for us; but is contented with this assurance, that whatever we may want of the conveniences or necessaries of this life, yet God will never leave us. But its principal security consists in an expectation of the future life, which is placed beyond all doubt by the word of God. For whatever miseries and calamities may on earth await those who are the objects of the love of God, they [pg 518] cannot prevent the Divine benevolence from being a source of complete felicity. Therefore, when we meant to express the perfection of blessedness, we have mentioned the grace of God, as the fountain from which every species of blessings flows down to us. And we may generally observe in the Scriptures, that when they treat not only of eternal salvation, but of any blessing we enjoy, our attention is recalled to the love of God. For which reason David says, that “The loving-kindness of God,” when experienced in a pious heart, “is better” and more desirable “than life” itself.[1527] Finally, if we have an abundance of all things to the extent of our desires, but are uncertain of the love or hatred of God, our prosperity will be cursed, and therefore miserable. But if the paternal countenance of God shine on us, even our miseries will be blessed, because they will be converted into aids of our salvation.[1528] Thus Paul, after an enumeration of all possible adversities, glories that they can never separate us from the love of God; and in his prayers, he always begins with the grace of God, from which all prosperity proceeds. David likewise opposes the Divine favour alone against all the terrors which disturb us: “Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, (says he,) I will fear no evil, for thou art with me.”[1529] And we always feel our minds wavering, unless, contented with the grace of God, they seek their peace in it, and are deeply impressed with the sentiment of the Psalmist: “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance.”[1530]

XXIX. We make the foundation of faith to be the gratuitous promise; for on that faith properly rests. For, although faith admits the veracity of God in all things, whether he command or prohibit, whether he promise or threaten; though it obediently receives his injunctions, carefully observes his prohibitions, and attends to his threatenings,—yet with the promise it properly begins, on that it stands, and in that it ends. For it seeks in God for life, which is found, not in precepts nor in denunciations of punishments, but in the promise of mercy, and in that only which is gratuitous; for a conditional promise, which sends us back to our own works, promises life to us only if we find it in ourselves. Therefore, if we wish our faith not to tremble and waver, we must support it with the promise of salvation, which is voluntarily and liberally offered us by the Lord, rather in consideration of our misery, than in respect of our worthiness. Wherefore the apostle denominates the gospel “the word of faith;”[1531] a character which he denies both to the precepts and to the promises of the law; since there is [pg 519] nothing that can establish faith, but that liberal embassy by which God reconciles the world to himself. Hence also the same apostle frequently connects faith with the gospel; as when he states, that “the ministry of the gospel was committed to him for obedience to the faith;” that it is “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth;” that therein is the “righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith.”[1532] Nor is this to be wondered at; for the gospel being “the ministry of reconciliation,”[1533] there is no other sufficient testimony of the Divine benevolence towards us, the knowledge of which is necessary to faith. When we assert, therefore, that faith rests on the gratuitous promise, we deny not that believers embrace and revere every part of the Divine word, but we point out the promise of mercy as the peculiar object of faith. Thus believers ought to acknowledge God as a judge and avenger of crimes; yet they fix their eyes peculiarly on his clemency; described for their contemplation as “gracious and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy; good to all, and diffusing his tender mercies over all his works.”[1534]

XXX. Nor do I regard the clamours of Pighius, or any such snarlers, who censure this restriction, as though it divided faith, and comprehended only one branch of it. I grant that, as I have already said, the general object of faith (as they express themselves) is the veracity of God, whether he threaten, or give us a hope of his grace. Wherefore the apostle attributes this to faith, that Noah feared the destruction of the world while it was yet unseen.[1535] If the fear of impending punishment was the work of faith, threatenings ought not to be excluded from the definition of it. This indeed is true; but these cavillers unjustly charge us with denying that faith respects every part of the word of God. For we only intend to establish these two points; first, that it never stands firmly till it comes to the gratuitous promise; secondly, that we are reconciled to God only as it unites us to Christ. Both these points are worthy of observation. We are inquiring for a faith which may distinguish the sons of God from the reprobate, and believers from unbelievers. If any man believes the justice of the Divine commands and the truth of the Divine threatenings, must he therefore be called a believer? By no means. Therefore faith can have no stability, unless it be placed on the Divine mercy. Now, to what purpose do we argue concerning faith? Is it not that we may understand the way of salvation? But how is faith saving, but by ingrafting us into [pg 520] the body of Christ? There will be no absurdity, then, if, in the definition of it, we insist on its principal effect, and as a difference, add to the genus that character which separates believers from unbelievers. In a word, these malevolent men have nothing to carp at in this doctrine, without involving in the same reprehension with us, the apostle Paul, who particularly styles the gospel “the word of faith.”[1536]

XXXI. Hence, again, we infer, what has been before stated, that the word is as necessary to faith, as the living root of the tree is to the fruit; because, according to David, none can trust in God but those who know his name.[1537] But this knowledge proceeds not from every man's own imagination, but from the testimony which God himself gives of his own goodness. This the same Psalmist confirms in another place: “Thy salvation according to thy word.”[1538] Again: “Save me: I hoped in thy word.”[1539] Where we must observe the relation of faith to the word, and that salvation is the consequence of it. Yet we exclude not the Divine power, by a view of which, unless faith be supported, it will never ascribe to God the honour that is due to him. Paul seems to relate a trifling or uninteresting circumstance concerning Abraham, when he says, that he was persuaded that God, who had promised him the blessed seed, “was able also to perform.”[1540] In another place, respecting himself he says, “I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.”[1541] But if any one considers, how many doubts respecting the power of God frequently intrude themselves, he will fully acknowledge, that they who magnify it as it deserves, have made no small progress in faith. We shall all confess, that God is able to do whatever he pleases; but whilst the smallest temptation strikes us with consternation and terror, it is evident that we derogate from the Divine power, to which we prefer the menaces of Satan in opposition to the promises of God. This is the reason why Isaiah, when he would impress the hearts of the people with an assurance of salvation, discourses in so magnificent a manner concerning the infinite power of God. He frequently appears, after having begun to treat of the hope of pardon and reconciliation, to digress to another subject, and to wander through prolix and unnecessary circumlocutions, celebrating the wonders of the Divine government in the machine of heaven and earth, and the whole order of nature: yet there is nothing but what is applicable to the present subject; for, unless the omnipotence of God be presented to our eyes, [pg 521] our ears will not attend to his word, or not esteem it according to its worth. Moreover, the Scripture there speaks of his effectual power; for piety, as we have elsewhere seen, always makes a useful and practical application of the power of God; and particularly proposes to itself those of his works in which he has discovered himself as a father. Hence the frequent mention of redemption in the Scriptures, from which the Israelites might learn, that God, who had once been the author of salvation, would be its everlasting preserver. David also teaches us by his own example, that the private benefits which God has conferred on an individual, conduce to the confirmation of his faith for the future: even when he seems to have deserted us, we ought to extend our views further, so as to derive encouragement from his ancient benefits, as it is said in another psalm: “I remember the days of old; I meditate on all thy works,” &c.[1542] Again: “I will remember the works of the Lord: surely I will remember thy wonders of old.”[1543] But since, without the word, all our conceptions of the power and works of God are unprofitable and transient, we have sufficient reason for asserting, that there can be no faith, without the illumination of Divine grace. But here a question might be raised—What must be thought of Sarah and Rebecca, both of whom, apparently impelled by the zeal of faith, transgressed the limits of the word? Sarah, when she ardently desired the promised son, gave her maid-servant to her husband. That she sinned in many respects, is not to be denied; but I now refer to her error in being carried away by her zeal, and not restraining herself within the bounds of the Divine word. Yet it is certain, that this desire proceeded from faith. Rebecca, having been divinely assured of the election of her son Jacob, procures him the benediction by a sinful artifice; she deceives her husband, the witness and minister of the grace of God; she constrains her son to utter falsehoods; she corrupts the truth of God by various frauds and impostures; finally, by exposing his promise to ridicule, she does all in her power to destroy it. And yet this transaction, however criminal and reprehensible, was not unaccompanied with faith; because she had to overcome many obstacles, that she might aspire earnestly to that which, without any expectation of worldly advantage, was pregnant with great troubles and dangers. So we must not pronounce the holy patriarch Isaac to be entirely destitute of faith, because, after having been divinely apprized of the translation of the honour to his younger son, he nevertheless ceases not to be partial to Esau, his first-born. These examples certainly teach that errors are frequently mixed with faith, [pg 522] yet that faith, when real, always retains the preëminence. For, as the particular error of Rebecca did not annul the effect of the benediction, so neither did it destroy the faith which generally predominated in her mind, and was the principle and cause of that action. Nevertheless, Rebecca, in this instance, has discovered how liable the human mind is to error, as soon as it allows itself the smallest license. But though our deficiency or imbecility obscures faith, yet it does not extinguish it: in the mean time it reminds us how solicitously we ought to attend to the declarations of God; and confirms what we have said, that faith decays unless it be supported by the word; as the minds of Sarah, Isaac, and Rebecca, would have been lost in their obliquities, if they had not, by the secret restraint of God, been kept in obedience to the word.

XXXII. Again: it is not without reason that we include all the promises in Christ;[1544] as the apostle in the knowledge of him includes the whole gospel; and in another place teaches, that “all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him amen.”[1545] The reason of this is plain. For, if God promises any thing, he gives a proof of his benevolence; so that there is no promise of his which is not a testimony of his love. Nor does it affect the argument, that the impious, when they are loaded with great and continual benefits from the Divine goodness, render themselves obnoxious to a heavier judgment. For since they neither think nor acknowledge that they receive those things from the hand of the Lord,—or if ever they acknowledge it, yet they never reflect within themselves on his goodness,—they cannot thereby be instructed concerning his mercy, any more than the brutes, who, according to the circumstances of their condition, receive the same effusion of his liberality, but never perceive it. Nor is it any more repugnant to our argument, that by generally rejecting the promises designed for them, they draw down on themselves severer vengeance. For although the efficacy of the promises is manifested only when they have obtained credit with us, yet their force and propriety are never extinguished by our unbelief or ingratitude. Therefore, when the Lord by his promises invites a man not only to receive, but also to meditate on the effects of his goodness, he at the same time gives him a declaration of his love. Whence we must return to this principle, that every promise is an attestation of the Divine love to us. But it is beyond all controversy, that no man is loved by God but in Christ;[1546] he is the “beloved Son,” in whom the love of the Father perpetually rests, and then from him diffuses itself to us; as Paul says, that we are “accepted in the beloved.”[1547] [pg 523] It must therefore be communicated to us by his mediation.[1548] Wherefore the apostle, in another place, calls him “our peace,”[1549] and elsewhere represents him as the bond by which God is united to us in his paternal love. It follows, that whenever any promise is presented to us, our eyes must be directed to him; and that Paul is correct in stating, that all the promises of God are confirmed and accomplished in him.[1550] This is opposed by some examples. For it is not credible that Naaman the Syrian, when he inquired of the prophet respecting the right method of worshipping God,[1551] was instructed concerning the Mediator; yet his piety is commended. Cornelius,[1552] a Gentile and Roman, could scarcely be acquainted with what was not universally or clearly known among the Jews; yet his benefactions and prayers were acceptable to God; and the sacrifices of Naaman received the approbation of the prophet, which neither of these persons could have obtained without faith. Similar was the case of the eunuch to whom Philip was conducted;[1553] who, unless he had been possessed of some faith, would never have incurred the labour and expense of a long and difficult journey, for the sake of worshipping at Jerusalem. Yet we see how, on being interrogated by Philip, he betrayed his ignorance of the Mediator. I confess, indeed, that their faith was in some measure implicit, not only with respect to the person of Christ, but with respect to the power and office assigned him by the Father. At the same time it is certain that they had imbibed principles which afforded them some notion of Christ, however slight; nor should this be thought strange; for the eunuch would not have hastened from a remote country to Jerusalem to adore an unknown God; nor did Cornelius spend so much time, after having once embraced the Jewish religion, without acquainting himself with the rudiments of sound doctrine. With regard to Naaman, it would have been extremely absurd for Elisha, who directed him concerning the minutest particulars, to have been silent on the most important subject. Although their knowledge of Christ, therefore, was obscure, yet to suppose that they had none is unreasonable; because they practised the sacrifices of the law, which must have been distinguished by their end, that is, Christ, from the illegitimate sacrifices of the heathen.

XXXIII. This simple and external demonstration of the Divine word ought, indeed, to be fully sufficient for the production of faith, if it were not obstructed by our blindness and perverseness. But such is our propensity to error, that our [pg 524] mind can never adhere to Divine truth; such is our dulness, that we can never discern the light of it. Therefore nothing is effected by the word, without the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Whence it appears, that faith is far superior to human intelligence. Nor is it enough for the mind to be illuminated by the Spirit of God, unless the heart also be strengthened and supported by his power. On this point, the schoolmen are altogether erroneous, who, in the discussion of faith, regard it as a simple assent of the understanding, entirely neglecting the confidence and assurance of the heart. Faith, therefore, is a singular gift of God in two respects; both as the mind is enlightened to understand the truth of God, and as the heart is established in it. For the Holy Spirit not only originates faith, but increases it by degrees, till he conducts us by it all the way to the heavenly kingdom. “That good thing,” says Paul, “which was committed unto thee, keep, by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.”[1554] If it be urged, that Paul declares the Spirit to be given to us “by the hearing of faith,”[1555] this objection is easily answered. If there were only one gift of the Spirit, it would be absurd to represent the Spirit as the effect of faith, of which he is the author and cause; but when the apostle is treating of the gifts with which God adorns his Church, to lead it, by advancements in faith, forwards to perfection, we need not wonder that he ascribes those gifts to faith, which prepares us for their reception. It is accounted by the world exceedingly paradoxical, when it is affirmed, that no one can believe in Christ, but he to whom it is given. But this is partly for want of considering the depth and sublimity of heavenly wisdom, and the extreme dulness of man in apprehending the mysteries of God, and partly from not regarding that firm and steadfast constancy of heart, which is the principal branch of faith.

XXXIV. But if, as Paul tells us, no one is acquainted with the will of a man but “the spirit of a man which is in him,”[1556] how could man be certain of the will of God? And if we are uncertain respecting the truth of God in those things which are the subjects of our present contemplation, how should we have a greater certainty of it, when the Lord promises such things as no eye sees and no heart conceives? Human sagacity is here so completely lost, that the first step to improvement, in the Divine school, is to forsake it. For, like an interposing veil,[1557] it prevents us from discovering the mysteries of God, which are revealed only to babes.[1558] “For flesh and blood hath not revealed,”[1559] and “the natural man receiveth not the [pg 525] things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”[1560] The aids of the Spirit therefore are necessary, or rather it is his influence alone that is efficacious here. “Who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?”[1561] but “the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God;”[1562] and through him, “we have the mind of Christ.”[1563] “No man can come to me (says he) except the Father, which hath sent me, draw him. Every man therefore that hath heard and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God.” Therefore, as we can never come to Christ, unless we are drawn by the Spirit of God, so when we are drawn, we are raised both in mind and in heart above the reach of our own understanding. For illuminated by him, the soul receives, as it were, new eyes for the contemplation of heavenly mysteries, by the splendour of which it was before dazzled. And thus the human intellect, irradiated by the light of the Holy Spirit, then begins to relish those things which pertain to the kingdom of God, for which before it had not the smallest taste. Wherefore Christ's two disciples receive no benefit from his excellent discourse to them on the mysteries of his kingdom,[1564] till he opens their understanding that they may understand the Scriptures. Thus, though the apostles were taught by his Divine mouth, yet the Spirit of Truth must be sent to them, to instil into their minds the doctrine which they had heard with their ears.[1565] The word of God is like the sun shining on all to whom it is preached; but without any benefit to the blind. But in this respect we are all blind by nature; therefore it cannot penetrate into our minds, unless the internal teacher, the Spirit, make way for it by his illumination.

XXXV. In a former part of this work, relating to the corruption of nature, we have shown more at large the inability of men to believe; therefore I shall not fatigue the reader by a repetition of the same things. Let it suffice that faith itself, which we possess not by nature, but which is given us by the Spirit, is called by Paul “the spirit of faith.”[1566] Therefore he prays “that God would fulfil,” in the Thessalonians, “all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power.”[1567] By calling faith “the work” of God, and “the good pleasure of his goodness,” he denies it to be the proper effect of human exertion; and not content with that, he adds that it is a specimen of the Divine power. When he says to [pg 526] the Corinthians, that faith stands “not in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God,”[1568] he speaks indeed of external miracles; but because the reprobate have no eyes to behold them, he comprehends also the inward seal which he elsewhere mentions. And that he may more illustriously display his liberality in so eminent a gift, God deigns not to bestow it promiscuously on all, but by a singular privilege imparts it to whom he will. We have already cited testimonies to prove this point. Augustine, who is a faithful expositor of them, says, “It was in order to teach us that the act of believing is owing to the Divine gift, not to human merit, that our Saviour declared, ‘No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him;[1569] and except it were given unto him of my Father.’[1570] It is wonderful, that two persons hear; one despises, the other ascends. Let him who despises, impute it to himself; let him who ascends, not arrogate it to himself.” In another place he says, “Wherefore is it given to one, not to another? I am not ashamed to reply, This is a depth of the cross. From I know not what depth of the Divine judgments, which we cannot scrutinize, proceeds all our ability. That I can, I see; whence I can, I see not; unless that I see thus far, that it is of God. But why one, and not another? It is too much for me; it is an abyss, a depth of the cross. I can exclaim with admiration, but not demonstrate it in disputation.” The sum of the whole is this—that Christ, when he illuminates us with faith by the power of his Spirit, at the same time ingrafts us into his body, that we may become partakers of all his benefits.

XXXVI. It next remains, that what the mind has imbibed, be transfused into the heart. For the word of God is not received by faith, if it floats on the surface of the brain; but when it has taken deep root in the heart, so as to become an impregnable fortress to sustain and repel all the assaults of temptation. But if it be true that the right apprehension of the mind proceeds from the illumination of the Spirit, his energy is far more conspicuous in such a confirmation of the heart; the diffidence of the heart being greater than the blindness of the mind; and the furnishing of the heart with assurance being more difficult than the communication of knowledge to the understanding. Therefore the Spirit acts as a seal, to seal on our hearts those very promises, the certainty of which he has previously impressed on our minds, and serves as an earnest to confirm and establish them. “After that ye believed,” says the apostle, “ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance.”[1571] [pg 527] Do you see how he shows that the hearts of believers are impressed by the Spirit, as by a seal? How, for this reason, he calls him “the Spirit of promise,” because he ratifies the gospel to us? So, to the Corinthians, he says, “He which hath anointed us, is God; who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.”[1572] And in another place, where he speaks of the confidence and boldness of hope, he makes “the earnest of the Spirit”[1573] the foundation of it.

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

XXXVIII. Hence we may judge, how pernicious that dogma of the schoolmen is, that it is impossible to decide concerning the favour of God towards us, any otherwise than from moral conjecture, as every individual may deem himself not unworthy of it. If it must be determined by our works how the Lord is affected towards us, I admit we cannot attain this object even by a very slight conjecture; but as faith ought to correspond to the simple and gratuitous promise, there remains no room for doubting. For with what confidence, pray, shall we be armed, if we reason that God is propitious to us on this condition, provided the purity of our life deserve it? But having determined on a separate discussion of these points, I shall pursue [pg 528] them no further at present; especially since it is manifest that nothing is more opposite to faith than either conjecture or any thing else approaching to doubt. And they very mischievously pervert to this purpose the observation of the Preacher, which is frequently in their mouths: “No man knoweth whether he is worthy of hatred or of love.”[1579] For not to observe that this passage is falsely rendered in the Vulgate translation, yet the meaning of Solomon, in such expressions, must be clear even to children; it is, that if any one wishes, from the present state of things, to judge who are the objects of Divine love or hatred, he labours in vain, and distresses himself to no good purpose; since “there is one event to the righteous and to the wicked; to him that sacrificeth, and to him that sacrificeth not.”[1580] Whence it follows that God neither testifies his love to those whom he prospers with success, nor invariably discovers his hatred against those whom he plunges into affliction. And this observation is designed to reprove the vanity of the human understanding; since it is so extremely stupid respecting things most necessary to be known. He had just before said, “That which befalleth the sons of men, befalleth beasts; as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preëminence above a beast.”[1581] If any one would infer from this, that the opinion which we hold of the immortality of the soul rests upon mere conjecture, would he not be deservedly deemed insane? Are those persons, then, in a state of sanity, who conclude that there is no certainty of the favour of God, because it cannot be attained from the carnal contemplation of present things?

XXXIX. But they plead that it is rash presumption in men to arrogate to themselves an undoubted knowledge of the Divine will. This, indeed, I would concede to them, if we pretended to subject the incomprehensible counsel of God to the slenderness of our understanding. But when we simply assert with Paul, that “we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God, that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God,”[1582] what opposition can they make to us, without at the same time insulting the Spirit of God? But if it be a horrible sacrilege to accuse the revelation which proceeds from him either of falsehood, or of uncertainty, or of ambiguity, wherein do we err in affirming its certainty? But they exclaim, that we betray great temerity, in thus presuming to boast of the Spirit of Christ. Who could believe the stupidity of men desirous of being esteemed teachers of the world, to be so extreme as to stumble in this shameful manner at the first elements of religion? It would certainly [pg 529] be incredible to me, if it were not proved by the writings which they have published. Paul pronounces them alone to be the sons of God, who are led by his Spirit:[1583] these men will have those who are the sons of God to be led by their own spirit, but to be destitute of the Spirit of God. He teaches, that we call God our Father at the suggestion of the Spirit, who “beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:”[1584] these men, though they forbid not all invocation of God, yet deprive us of the Spirit, by whose influence alone he can be rightly invoked. He denies them to be the servants of Christ, who are not led by the Spirit of Christ:[1585] these men invent a sort of Christianity, to which the Spirit of Christ is not necessary. He admits no hope of a happy resurrection, unless we experience the Spirit dwelling in us:[1586] these men fabricate a hope unattended by such experience. But perhaps they will answer, that they deny not the necessity of our being endued with the Spirit; but that it is the part of modesty and humility not to acknowledge our possession of him. What, then, is the meaning of the apostle in this exhortation to the Corinthians—“Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves; know ye not yourselves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?”[1587] But says John, “We know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.”[1588] And do we not call in question the promises of Christ, when we wish to be accounted the servants of God without the possession of his Spirit, whom he has announced that he will pour out upon all his people?[1589] Do we not injure the Holy Spirit, if we separate faith from him, which is his peculiar work? These being the first rudiments of piety, it is a proof of most miserable blindness, that Christians are censured as arrogant for presuming to glory in the presence of the Holy Spirit, without which glorying Christianity itself cannot exist. But they exemplify the truth of Christ's assertion, “The world knoweth not the Spirit of truth; but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.”[1590]

XL. Not satisfied with one attempt to destroy the stability of faith, they assail it again from another quarter; by arguing, that although we may form a judgment concerning the favour of God from the present state of our righteousness, yet the knowledge of final perseverance remains in suspense. Truly we are left in possession of an admirable confidence of salvation, if we can only conclude from mere conjecture that we are in the favour of God at the present instant, but are utterly [pg 530] ignorant what may be our fate to-morrow. The apostle expresses a very different opinion: “I am persuaded (says he) that neither life, nor death, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”[1591] They attempt to evade the force of this, by a frivolous pretence that the apostle had it from a particular revelation; but they are too closely pressed to avail themselves of this evasion. For he is there treating of the benefits resulting from faith to all believers in common, not of any which were peculiar to his own experience. But the same apostle, they say, in another place, excites fear in us, by the mention of our imbecility and inconstancy. “Let him (says he) that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall.”[1592] It is true; but not a fear by which we may be thrown into consternation, but from which we may learn to “humble ourselves,” as Peter expresses it, “under the mighty hand of God.” Besides, how preposterous is it to limit to a moment of time the assurance of faith, whose nature it is to go beyond the bounds of the present life, and reach forward to a future immortality! Since believers, then, ascribe it to the grace of God that they are illuminated by his Spirit, and enjoy through faith a contemplation of the heavenly life, such a glorying is so remote from arrogance, that, if any one be ashamed to confess it, he rather betrays extreme ingratitude by a criminal suppression of the Divine goodness, than gives an evidence of modesty or humility.

XLI. Because we thought that the nature of faith could not be better or more clearly expressed than by the substance of the promise, which is the proper foundation on which it rests, and the removal of which would occasion its fall or annihilation,—it is from the promise, therefore, that we have taken our definition, which, nevertheless, is not at all at variance with that definition, or rather description, of the apostle, which he accommodates to his argument; where he says, that “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”[1593] For by ὑποστασις, which is the word he uses, and which is rendered substance, he intends a prop, as it were, on which the pious mind rests and reclines; as though he had said, that faith is a certain and secure possession of those things which are promised to us by God. Unless any one would rather understand ὑποστασις of confidence, to which I shall not object, though I adopt that idea which is the more generally received. Again: to signify that even till the last day, when the books shall be opened, these objects are too sublime to be [pg 531] perceived by our senses, seen with our eyes, or handled with our hands; and that, in the mean time, they are enjoyed by us only as we exceed the capacity of our own understanding, extend our views beyond all terrestrial things, and even rise above ourselves; he has added, that this security of possession relates to things which are the objects of hope, and therefore invisible. For “hope that is seen (as Paul observes) is not hope; for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?”[1594] But when he calls it an evidence, or proof, or (as Augustine has frequently rendered it) a conviction of things not seen, (for the Greek word is ἐλεγχος,) it is just as though he had called it the evidence of things not apparent, the vision of things not seen, the perspicuity of things obscure, the presence of things absent, the demonstration of things concealed. For the mysteries of God, of which description are the things that pertain to our salvation, cannot be discerned in themselves, and in their own nature; we only discover them in his word, of whose veracity we ought to be so firmly persuaded, as to consider all that he speaks as though it were already performed and accomplished. But how can the mind elevate itself to receive such a taste of the Divine goodness, without being all inflamed with mutual love to God? For the plenitude of happiness, which God has reserved for them who fear him, cannot be truly known, but it must at the same time excite a vehement affection. And those whom it has once affected, it draws and elevates towards itself. Therefore we need not wonder if a perverse and malicious heart never feel this affection, which conducts us to heaven itself, and introduces us to the most secret treasures of God and the most sacred recesses of his kingdom, which must not be profaned by the entrance of an impure heart. For what the schoolmen[1595] advance concerning the priority of charity to faith and hope, is a mere reverie of a distempered imagination, since it is faith alone which first produces charity in us. How much more accurately Bernard speaks! “I believe,” says he, “that the testimony of conscience, which Paul calls the rejoicing of the pious, consists in three things. For it is necessary to believe, first of all, that you cannot have remission of sins but through the mercy of God; secondly, that you cannot have any good work, unless he bestow this also; lastly, that you cannot by any works merit eternal life, unless that also be freely given.”[1596] Just after he adds, “that these things are not sufficient, but are a beginning of faith; because in believing that sins can only be forgiven by God, we ought at the same time to consider that they are forgiven us, till we are also persuaded, by the testimony [pg 532] of the Holy Spirit, that salvation is laid up for us; because God forgives sins; he also bestows merits; he likewise confers rewards; it is not possible to remain in this beginning.” But these and other things must be treated in the proper places; it may suffice, at present, to ascertain wherein faith itself consists.

XLII. Now, wherever this living faith shall be found, it must necessarily be attended with the hope of eternal salvation as its inseparable concomitant, or rather must originate and produce it; since the want of this hope would prove us to be utterly destitute of faith, however eloquently and beautifully we might discourse concerning it. For if faith be, as has been stated, a certain persuasion of the truth of God, that it can neither lie, nor deceive us, nor be frustrated,—they who have felt this assurance, likewise expect a period to arrive when God will accomplish his promises, which, according to their persuasion, cannot but be true; so that, in short, hope is no other than an expectation of those things which faith has believed to be truly promised by God. Thus faith believes the veracity of God, hope expects the manifestation of it in due time; faith believes him to be our Father, hope expects him always to act towards us in this character; faith believes that eternal life is given to us, hope expects it one day to be revealed; faith is the foundation on which hope rests, hope nourishes and sustains faith. For as no man can have any expectations from God, but he who has first believed his promises, so also the imbecility of our faith must be sustained and cherished by patient hope and expectation, lest it grow weary and faint. For which reason, Paul rightly places our salvation in hope.[1597] For hope, while it is silently expecting the Lord, restrains faith, that it may not be too precipitate; it confirms faith, that it may not waver in the Divine promises, or begin to doubt of the truth of them; it refreshes it, that it may not grow weary; it extends it to the farthest goal, that it may not fail in the midst of the course, or even at the entrance of it. Finally, hope, by continually renewing and restoring faith, causes it frequently to persevere with more vigour than hope itself. But in how many cases the assistance of hope is necessary to the establishment of faith, will better appear, if we consider how many species of temptations assail and harass those who have embraced the word of God. First, the Lord, by deferring the execution of his promises, frequently keeps our minds in suspense longer than we wish; here it is the office of hope to obey the injunction of the prophet—“though it tarry, wait for it.”[1598] Sometimes he not only suffers us to languish, but openly manifests [pg 533] his indignation: in this case it is much more necessary to have the assistance of hope, that, according to the language of another prophet, we may “wait upon the Lord that hideth his face from Jacob.”[1599] Scoffers also arise, as Peter says, and inquire, “Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.”[1600] And the flesh and the world whisper the same things into our ears. Here faith must be supported by the patience of hope, and kept fixed on the contemplation of eternity, that it may consider “a thousand years as one day.”[1601]

XLIII. On account of this union and affinity, the Scripture sometimes uses the words faith and hope without any distinction. For when Peter says that we “are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation, ready to be revealed,”[1602] he attributes to faith, what was more applicable to hope; and not without reason, since we have already shown, that hope is no other than the nourishment and strength of faith. Sometimes they are joined together, as in a passage of the same Epistle—“that your faith and hope might be in God.”[1603] But Paul, in the Epistle to the Philippians,[1604] deduces expectation from hope; because in patient hope we suspend our desires till the arrival of God's appointed time. All which may be better understood from the tenth chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews,[1605] which I have already cited. In another place, Paul, though with some impropriety of expression, conveys the very same idea in these words: “We, through the Spirit, wait for the hope of righteousness by faith;”[1606] because, having embraced the testimony of the gospel concerning his gratuitous love, we wait till God openly manifests what is now concealed under hope. Now, it is easy to see the absurdity of Peter Lombard, in laying a twofold foundation of hope; the grace of God, and the merit of works. Hope can have no other object than faith; and the only object of faith, we have very clearly stated to be the mercy of God; to which both its eyes, if I may be allowed the expression, ought to be directed. But it may be proper to hear what kind of a reason he advances. If, says he, you venture to hope for any thing without merits, it must not be called hope, but presumption. Who is there that will not justly detest such teachers, who pronounce a confidence in the veracity of God to be temerity and presumption? For whereas it is the will of the Lord that we should expect every thing from his goodness, they assert that it is presumption to depend and rely upon it. Such a master is [pg 534] worthy of such disciples as he has found in the schools of wranglers! But, as for us, since we see that sinners are enjoined by the oracles of God to entertain a hope of salvation, let us joyfully presume so far on his veracity as to reject all confidence in our own works, to depend solely on his mercy, and venture to cherish a hope of happiness. He who said, “According to your faith be it unto you,”[1607] will not deceive us.

Chapter III. On Repentance.

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

II. They argue that Jesus Christ and John the Baptist, in their preaching, first exhort the people to repentance; and afterwards add, that “the kingdom of heaven is at hand;”[1608] that thus the apostles were commanded to preach, and that this (according to the account of Luke)[1609] was the method followed by Paul. But they superstitiously attend to the connection of the syllables, and disregard the sense and coherence of the words. For when Christ and John preach in this manner, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,”[1610] do they not derive an argument for repentance from grace itself, and the promise of salvation? The meaning of their language, therefore, is just as though they had said, Since the kingdom of heaven is at hand, therefore repent. For Matthew, having related that John preached in this manner, informs us, that in him was accomplished the prediction of Isaiah concerning “the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” But, in the prophet, that voice is commanded to begin with consolation and glad tidings.[1611] Yet, when we speak of faith as the origin of repentance, we dream not of any space of time which it employs in producing it; but we intend to signify, that a man cannot truly devote himself to repentance, unless he knows himself to be of God. Now, no man is truly persuaded that he is of God, except he has previously received his grace. But these things will be more clearly discussed as we proceed. This circumstance, perhaps, has deceived them—that many are overcome or led to obedience by terrors of conscience, before they have imbibed a knowledge of grace, or have even tasted it. And this is the initial fear, which some number among the graces, because they perceive it to be nearly connected with true and righteous obedience. But we are not inquiring, at present, in how many ways Christ draws us to himself, or prepares us for the practice of piety: only I assert, that no rectitude can be found but where that Spirit reigns, whom he has received in order to communicate him to his members. In the next place, according to this passage in the Psalms, “There is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared,”[1612] no man will ever reverence God, but he who confides in his being propitious to him: no man will cheerfully devote himself to the observance of his law, but he who is persuaded that his services are pleasing to him: and this indulgence in pardoning us, and bearing with our faults, is an evidence of his paternal favour. The same also appears from this exhortation of Hosea, “Come, and let us return unto the Lord; for he hath torn, and he will heal [pg 536] us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up;”[1613] because the hope of pardon is added as a stimulus, to prevent them from being stupefied in their sins. But there is not the least appearance of reason in the notion of those who, in order to begin with repentance, prescribe to their young converts certain days, during which they must exercise themselves in repentance; after the expiration of which, they admit them to the communion of evangelical grace. I speak of many of the Anabaptists, especially of those who wonderfully delight in being accounted spiritual; and their companions, the Jesuits, and other such worthless men. Such are the effects produced by that spirit of fanaticism, that it terminates repentance within the limits of a few short days, which a Christian ought to extend throughout his whole life.

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

IV. Others, perceiving this word to have various acceptations [pg 537] in Scripture, have laid down two kinds of repentance; and, to distinguish them by some character, have called one Legal; in which the sinner, wounded by the envenomed dart of sin, and harassed by the fear of Divine wrath, is involved in deep distress, without the power of extricating himself: the other they style Evangelical; in which the sinner is grievously afflicted in himself, but rises above his distress, and embraces Christ as the medicine for his wound, the consolation of his terrors, and his refuge from all misery. Of legal repentance, they consider Cain, Saul, and Judas, as examples;[1614] the scriptural account of whose repentance gives us to understand, that from a knowledge of the greatness of their sins they dreaded the Divine wrath, but that considering God only as an avenger and a judge, they perished under that apprehension. Their repentance, therefore, was only, as it were, the antechamber of hell, which having already entered in this life, they began to suffer punishment from the manifestation of the wrath of the Divine Majesty. Evangelical repentance we discover in all who have been distressed by a sense of sin in themselves, but have been raised from their depression, and reinvigorated by a confidence in the Divine mercy, and converted to the Lord. Hezekiah was terrified when he received the message of death;[1615] but he wept and prayed, and, contemplating the goodness of God, recovered his former confidence. The Ninevites were confounded by the terrible denunciation of destruction;[1616] but they covered themselves with sackcloth and ashes, and prayed, in hope that the Lord might be appeased, and the fury of his wrath averted. David confessed that he had committed a great sin in numbering the people; but added, “O Lord, take away the iniquity of thy servant.”[1617] He acknowledged his crime of adultery at the rebuke of Nathan, and prostrated himself before the Lord; but at the same time cherished an expectation of pardon.[1618] Such was the repentance of those who felt compunction of heart at the preaching of Peter, but, confiding in the goodness of God, exclaimed, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?”[1619] Such also was that of Peter himself, who wept bitterly, but never lost his hope.

V. Though all these observations are true, yet the term repentance, as far as I can ascertain from the Scriptures, must have a different acceptation. For to include faith in repentance, is repugnant to what Paul says in the Acts—that he testified “both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ;”[1620] where he mentions faith and repentance, as two things totally [pg 538] distinct. What then? Can true repentance exist without faith? Not at all. But though they cannot be separated, yet they ought to be distinguished. As faith exists not without hope, and yet there is a difference between them, so repentance and faith, although they are perpetually and indissolubly united, require to be connected rather than confounded. I am well aware, that under the term repentance is comprehended a complete conversion to God, of which faith is one of the principal branches; but in what sense, will best appear from an explication of its nature and properties. The Hebrew word for repentance denotes conversion or return. The Greek word signifies change of mind and intention. Repentance itself corresponds very well with both etymologies, for it comprehends these two things—that, forsaking ourselves, we should turn to God, and laying aside our old mind, should assume a new one. Wherefore I conceive it may be justly defined to be “a true conversion of our life to God, proceeding from a sincere and serious fear of God, and consisting in the mortification of our flesh and of the old man, and in the vivification of the Spirit.” In this sense we must understand all the addresses, in which either the prophets in ancient days, or the apostles in a succeeding age, exhorted their contemporaries to repentance. For the point to which they endeavoured to bring them was this—that being confounded by their sins, and penetrated with a fear of the Divine judgment, they might prostrate themselves in humility before him against whom they had offended, and with true penitence return into his right way. Therefore these expressions, “to repent”[1621] and “to return to the Lord,”[1622] are promiscuously used by them in the same signification. Hence also the sacred history expresses repentance by seeking after and following God, when men who have disregarded him, and indulged their criminal propensities, begin to obey his word, and are ready to follow whithersoever he calls them. And John and Paul have spoken of “bringing forth fruits meet for repentance,” to signify a life which, in every action, will discover and testify such a repentance.

VI. But before we proceed any further, it will be useful to amplify and explain the definition we have given; in which there are three points to be particularly considered. In the first place, when we call repentance “a conversion of the life to God,” we require a transformation, not only in the external actions, but in the soul itself; which, after having put off its old nature, should produce the fruits of actions corresponding to its renovation. The prophet, intending to express this idea, [pg 539] commands those whom he calls to repentance, to make themselves a new heart.[1623] Wherefore Moses, when about to show how the Israelites might repent and be rightly converted to the Lord, frequently teaches them that it must be done with all their heart, and with all their soul; and by speaking of the circumcision of the heart, he enters into the inmost affections of the mind. This mode of expression we find often repeated by the prophets; but there is no passage from which we may obtain clearer ideas of the true nature of repentance, than from the language of God in the fourth chapter of Jeremiah: “If thou wilt return, O Israel, saith the Lord, return unto me. Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns. Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart.”[1624] Observe how he denounces that they shall labour in vain in the pursuit of righteousness, unless impiety be previously eradicated from the bottom of their hearts. And in order to make a deeper impression upon them, he apprizes them that they have to do with God, with whom subterfuges are of no avail, because he abhors all duplicity of heart. For this reason, Isaiah ridicules the preposterous endeavours of hypocrites, who did indeed strenuously attempt an external repentance by the observance of ceremonies, but at the same time were not concerned “to loose the bands of wickedness,”[1625] with which they oppressed the poor. In that passage he also beautifully shows, in what duties unfeigned repentance properly consists.

VII. In the second place, we represented repentance as proceeding from a serious fear of God. For before the mind of a sinner can be inclined to repentance, it must be excited by a knowledge of the Divine judgment. But when this thought has once been deeply impressed, that God will one day ascend his tribunal to exact an account of all words and actions, it will not permit the miserable man to take any interval of rest, or to enjoy even a momentary respite, but perpetually stimulates him to adopt a new course of life, that he may be able to appear with security at that judgment. Wherefore the Scripture, when it exhorts to repentance, frequently introduces a mention of the judgment; as in Jeremiah; “Lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings:”[1626] in the address of Paul to the Athenians; “The times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent; because he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness:”[1627] and in many other [pg 540] places. Sometimes, by the punishments already inflicted, it declares that God is a judge; in order that sinners may consider with themselves that worse calamities await them, unless they speedily repent. We have an example of this in the twenty-ninth chapter of Deuteronomy. But since conversion commences with a dread and hatred of sin, therefore the apostle makes godly sorrow the cause of repentance.[1628] He calls it godly sorrow when we not only dread punishment, but hate and abhor sin itself, from a knowledge that it is displeasing to God. Nor ought this to be thought strange; for, unless we felt sharp compunction, our carnal sluggishness could never be corrected, and even these distresses of mind would not be sufficient to arouse it from its stupidity and indolence, if God, by the infliction of his chastisements, did not make a deeper impression. Beside this, there is a rebellious obstinacy, which requires violent blows, as it were, to overcome it. The severity, therefore, which God uses in his threatenings, is extorted from him by the depravity of our minds; since it would be in vain for him to address kind and alluring invitations to those who are asleep. I forbear to recite the testimonies with which the Scripture abounds. The fear of God is called the beginning of repentance also for another reason; because though a man's life were perfect in every virtue, if it be not devoted to the worship of God, it may indeed be commended by the world, but in heaven it will be only an abomination; since the principal branch of righteousness consists in rendering to God the honour due to him, of which he is impiously defrauded, when it is not our end and aim to submit ourselves to his government.

VIII. It remains for us, in the third place, to explain our position, that repentance consists of two parts—the mortification of the flesh and the vivification of the spirit. This is clearly expressed by the prophets, although in a simple and homely manner, according to the capacity of a carnal people, when they say, “Depart from evil, and do good.”[1629] Again: “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well; seek judgment; relieve the oppressed,” &c.[1630] For when they call men from the paths of wickedness, they require the total destruction of the flesh, which is full of wickedness and perverseness. It is a thing truly difficult and arduous to put off ourselves, and to depart from the native bias of our minds. Nor must the flesh be considered as entirely dead, unless all that we have of ourselves be destroyed. But since the universal disposition of the flesh [pg 541] is settled “enmity against God,”[1631] the first step to an obedience of the law is this renunciation of our own nature. They afterwards designate the renovation by its fruits—righteousness, judgment, and mercy. For a punctual performance of these external duties would not be sufficient, unless the mind and heart had previously acquired a disposition of righteousness, judgment, and mercy. This takes place when the Spirit of God has tinctured our souls with his holiness, and given them such new thoughts and affections, that they may be justly considered as new, [or altogether different from what they were before.] And certainly, as we have a natural aversion to God, we shall never aim at that which is right, without a previous renunciation of ourselves. Therefore we are so frequently commanded to put off the old man, to renounce the world and the flesh, to forsake our lusts, and to be renewed in the spirit of our mind. Besides, the very word mortification reminds us how difficult it is to forget our former nature; for it implies that we cannot be formed to the fear of God, and learn the rudiments of piety, without being violently slain and annihilated by the sword of the Spirit. As though God had pronounced that, in order to our being numbered among his children, there is a necessity for the destruction of our common nature.

IX. Both these branches of repentance are effects of our participation of Christ. For if we truly partake of his death, our old man is crucified by its power, and the body of sin expires, so that the corruption of our former nature loses all its vigour.[1632] If we are partakers of his resurrection, we are raised by it to a newness of life, which corresponds with the righteousness of God. In one word I apprehend repentance to be regeneration, the end of which is the restoration of the Divine image within us; which was defaced, and almost obliterated, by the transgression of Adam. Thus the apostle teaches us, when he says, “But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.”[1633] Again: “Be ye renewed in the spirit of your mind; and put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.”[1634] Again, in another place: “And ye have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him.”[1635] Wherefore, in this regeneration, we are restored by the grace of Christ to the righteousness of God, from which we fell in Adam; in which manner the Lord is pleased completely to restore all those whom [pg 542] he adopts to the inheritance of life. And this restoration is not accomplished in a single moment, or day, or year; but by continual, and sometimes even tardy advances, the Lord destroys the carnal corruptions of his chosen, purifies them from all pollution, and consecrates them as temples to himself; renewing all their senses to real purity, that they may employ their whole life in the exercise of repentance, and know that this warfare will be terminated only by death. And so much the greater is the wickedness of that impure and quarrelsome apostate Staphylus, who idly pretends that I confound the state of the present life with the glory of heaven, when I explain the image of God, according to Paul, to be righteousness and true holiness. As if, indeed, when any thing is to be defined, we are not to inquire after the completeness and perfection of it. It is not denied that there is room for further advances; but I assert, that as far as any man approaches to a resemblance of God, so far the image of God is displayed in him. That believers may attain to this, God assigns them the race of repentance to run during their whole life.

X. Thus, therefore, the children of God are liberated by regeneration from the servitude of sin; not that they have already obtained the full possession of liberty, and experience no more trouble from the flesh, but there remains in them a perpetual cause of contention to exercise them; and not only to exercise them, but also to make them better acquainted with their own infirmity. And on this subject all sound writers are agreed—that there still remains in a regenerate man a fountain of evil, continually producing irregular desires, which allure and stimulate him to the commission of sin. They acknowledge, also, that saints are still so afflicted with the disease of concupiscence, that they cannot prevent their being frequently stimulated and incited either to lust, or to avarice, or to ambition, or to other vices. There is no need of a laborious investigation, to learn what were the sentiments of the fathers on this subject: it will be sufficient to consult Augustine alone, who with great diligence and fidelity has collected the opinions of them all. From him, then, the reader may receive all the certainty he can desire concerning the sense of antiquity. Between him and us, this difference may be discovered—that while he concedes that believers, as long as they inhabit a mortal body, are so bound by concupiscence that they cannot but feel irregular desires, yet he ventures not to call this disease by the name of sin, but, content with designating it by the appellation of infirmity, teaches that it only becomes sin in cases where either action or consent is added to the conception or apprehension of the mind, that is, where the will yields to the first impulse of appetite. But we, on the contrary, deem it to [pg 543] be sin, whenever a man feels any evil desires contrary to the Divine law; and we also assert the depravity itself to be sin, which produces these desires in our minds. We maintain, therefore, that sin always exists in the saints, till they are divested of the mortal body; because their flesh is the residence of that depravity of concupiscence, which is repugnant to all rectitude. Nevertheless, he has not always refrained from using the word sin in this sense; as when he says, “Paul gives the appellation of sin to this, from which all sins proceed, that is, to carnal concupiscence. This, as it respects the saints, loses its kingdom on earth, and has no existence in heaven.” In these words he acknowledges that believers are guilty of sin, inasmuch as they are the subjects of carnal concupiscence.

XI. But when God is said “to cleanse his church”[1636] from all sin, to promise the grace of deliverance in baptism, and to fulfil it in his elect,—we refer these phrases rather to the guilt of sin, than to the existence of sin. In the regeneration of his children, God does indeed destroy the kingdom of sin in them, (for the Spirit supplies them with strength, which renders them victorious in the conflict;) but though it ceases to reign, it continues to dwell in them. Wherefore we say, that “the old man is crucified,”[1637] that the law of sin is abolished in the children of God, yet so that some relics remain; not to predominate over them, but to humble them with a consciousness of their infirmity. We grant, indeed, that they are not imputed, any more than if they did not exist; but we likewise contend that it is owing to the mercy of God that the saints are delivered from this guilt, who would otherwise be justly accounted sinners and guilty before him. Nor will it be difficult for us to confirm this opinion, since there are clear testimonies of Scripture to support it. What can we desire more explicit than the declaration of Paul to the Romans?[1638] In the first place, that he there speaks in the character of a regenerate man, we have already shown; and Augustine has evinced the same by the strongest arguments. I say nothing of his using the words evil and sin. However those who wish to oppose us may cavil at those words, yet who can deny that a resistance to the Divine law is evil? who can deny that an opposition to righteousness is sin? finally, who will not admit that there is guilt wherever there is spiritual misery? But all these things are affirmed by Paul respecting this disease. Besides, we have a certain demonstration from the law, by which this whole question may be briefly decided. For we are commanded to love God with all our heart, with all our mind, and with all our [pg 544] strength. Since all the powers of our soul ought to be thus occupied by the love of God, it is evident that the precept is not fulfilled by those who receive into their hearts the least desire, or admit into their minds any thought, which may draw them aside from the love of God into vanity. What then? Are not these properties of the soul,—to be affected with sudden emotions, to apprehend in the sensory, and to form conceptions in the mind? When these, therefore, open a way for the admission of vain and corrupt thoughts, do they not show that they are so far destitute of the love of God? Whoever, therefore, refuses to acknowledge that all the inordinate desires of the flesh are sins, and that that malady of concupiscence, which they call an incentive to sin, is the source of sin, must necessarily deny the transgression of the law to be sin.

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

XIII. We will adduce some other passages, from which his sentiments will more fully appear. In his second book against Julian: “This law of sin is both abolished in the spiritual regeneration, and continues in the mortal flesh; abolished, since the guilt is removed in the sacrament, by which believers are regenerated; but continues, because it produces those desires against which also believers contend.” Again: “Therefore the law of sin, which was in the members even of so great an apostle, is abolished in baptism, but not finally destroyed.” Again: “The law of sin, the remaining guilt of which is removed in [pg 545] baptism, Ambrose has called iniquity; because it is iniquitous for the flesh to lust against the spirit.” Again: “Sin is dead in that guilt in which it held us; and, although dead, it will rebel till it is cured by the perfection of burial.” In the fifth book, he is still more explicit: “As blindness of heart is both a sin, which consists in a man's not believing in God; and a punishment for sin, by which a proud heart is deservedly punished; and also a cause of sin, when any is committed through the error of a blind heart; so the concupiscence of the flesh, against which the good spirit lusteth, is both a sin, because it is a disobedience against the government of the mind; and a punishment for sin, because it is inflicted for the demerits of the disobedient; and also a cause of sin, consenting by defection, or produced from contagion.” Here he styles it sin, without any ambiguity; because, having overthrown error and confirmed the truth, he is not so much afraid of calumnies; as also in the forty-first homily on John, where he undoubtedly speaks the real sentiments of his mind: “If in the flesh you serve the law of sin, do what the apostle himself says—'Let not sin reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.'[1639] He says not, let it not exist; but, let it not reign. As long as you live, sin must necessarily exist in your members; let it at least be divested of its kingdom, so that its commands may not be fulfilled.” Those who contend that concupiscence is not sin, commonly object this passage of James—“When lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin.”[1640] But this objection is easily repelled; for, unless we understand him there to speak of evil works exclusively, or of actual sins, even an evil volition cannot be accounted sin. But from his calling flagitious and criminal actions the offspring of lust, and attributing to them the name of sin, it does not necessarily follow that concupiscence is not an evil thing, and deserving of condemnation in the sight of God.

XIV. Some Anabaptists, in the present age, imagine I know not what frantic intemperance, instead of spiritual regeneration—that the children of God, being restored to a state of innocence, are no longer obliged to be solicitous to restrain the licentiousness of the flesh, but that they ought to follow the leadings of the Spirit, under whose direction it is impossible ever to err. It would be incredible that the mind of man should fall into such madness, did they not publicly and haughtily disseminate this opinion. It is indeed truly prodigious; but it is just and reasonable, that those who have persuaded themselves to pervert the truth of God into a falsehood, should suffer such punishment for their sacrilegious presumption. Must all distinction, then, of honour and turpitude, justice and injustice, good [pg 546] and evil, virtue and vice, be annihilated? This difference, they say, proceeds from the malediction of the old Adam, from which we are delivered by Christ. Then there will be no difference now between chastity and fornication, sincerity and knavery, truth and falsehood, equity and rapine. Dismiss (they say) all vain fear; the Spirit will command you nothing that is evil, provided you securely and intrepidly resign yourself to his direction. Who is not astonished at these monstrous notions? Yet this is a popular philosophy among those, who, blinded by the violence of their appetites, have discarded common sense. But what kind of a Christ, and what kind of a Spirit, have they fabricated for us? For we acknowledge one Christ and his Spirit alone; whom the prophets have celebrated, whom the gospel proclaims as revealed, but of whom it gives us no such account as this. That Spirit is not the patron of murder, fornication, drunkenness, pride, contention, avarice, or fraud; but the author of love, chastity, sobriety, modesty, peace, moderation, and truth. He is not a Spirit of fanaticism, rushing precipitately, without any consideration, through right and wrong; but is full of wisdom and understanding, rightly to discern between justice and injustice. He never instigates to dissolute and unrestrained licentiousness; but, discriminating between what is lawful and what is unlawful, inculcates temperance and moderation. But why should we spend any more labour in refuting this monstrous frenzy? To Christians the Spirit of the Lord is not a turbulent phantom, which they have either spawned themselves in a dream, or received from the invention of others; but they religiously seek the knowledge of him in the Scriptures, where these two things are delivered concerning him—first, that he is given to us in order to our sanctification, to purify us from all our pollutions, and lead us to obey the Divine righteousness; which obedience cannot exist without the subjugation of the appetites, to which these men would allow an unlimited license: in the next place, that we are so purified by his sanctification, that we are nevertheless still encompassed with numerous vices and great infirmity, as long as we are burdened with the body. Wherefore, being at a great distance from perfection, it behoves us to make continual advances; and being entangled in vices, we have need to strive against them every day. Hence, also, it follows that we ought to shake off all slothful security, and exert the most vigilant attention, lest, without caution, we should be surprised and overcome by the snares of our flesh; unless we are well assured that we have made a greater progress than the apostle; who, nevertheless, was buffeted by the “messenger of Satan,”[1641] [pg 547] that his strength might be “made perfect in weakness;”[1642] and who faithfully represented the conflict between the flesh and the Spirit, which he experienced in his own person.

XV. When the apostle, in a description of repentance, enumerates seven things, which are either causes producing it, or effects proceeding from it, or members and parts of it, he does it for a very good reason. These things are, carefulness, excuse, indignation, fear, vehement desire, zeal, revenge.[1643] Nor ought it to be thought strange that I venture not to determine whether they should be considered as causes or effects; for arguments may be adduced in support of both. They may also be styled affections connected with repentance; but as we may discover the meaning of Paul without discussing these questions, we shall be content with a simple exposition of them. He says, then, that godly sorrow produces solicitude. For a person who is affected with a serious sense of displeasure because he has sinned against his God, is at the same time stimulated to diligence and attention, that he may completely extricate himself from the snares of the devil, and be more cautious of his insidious attacks, that he may not in future disobey the government of the Spirit, or be overcome with a careless security. The next thing is self-excuse, which in this place signifies not a defence by which a sinner tries to escape the judgment of God, either by denying his transgressions or extenuating his guilt, but a kind of excuse, consisting rather in deprecation of punishment than in confidence of his cause. Just as children, who are not absolutely lost to all sense of duty, while they acknowledge and confess their faults, at the same time deprecate punishment, and, in order to succeed, testify by every possible method that they have not cast off that reverence which is due to their parents; in a word, they excuse themselves in such a manner, not to prove themselves righteous and innocent, but only to obtain pardon. This is followed by indignation, in which the sinner laments within himself, expostulates with himself, and is angry with himself, while he recollects his perverseness and ingratitude to God. The word fear denotes that trepidation with which our minds are penetrated, whenever we reflect upon our demerits, and on the terrible severity of the Divine wrath against sinners. For we cannot but be agitated with an amazing inquietude, which teaches us humility, and renders us more cautious for the future. Now, if the solicitude before mentioned be the offspring of fear, we see the connection and coherence between them. He appears to me to have used the word desire to denote diligence in duty and alacrity of obedience, to which the [pg 548] knowledge of our faults ought to be a most powerful stimulus. Similar to this is the meaning of zeal, which he immediately subjoins; for it signifies the ardour with which we are inflamed, when we are roused with such thoughts as these: “What have I done? Whither had I precipitated myself, if I had not been succoured by the mercy of God?” The last thing is revenge, or punishment; for the greater our severity is towards ourselves, and the stricter inquisition we make concerning our sins, so much the stronger hope ought we to entertain that God will be propitious and merciful. And, indeed, it is impossible but that a soul, impressed with a dread of the Divine judgment, must inflict some punishment on itself. Truly pious persons experience what punishments are contained in shame, confusion, lamentation, displeasure with themselves, and the other affections which arise from a serious acknowledgment of their transgressions. But let us remember that some limit must be observed, that we may not be overwhelmed in sorrow; for to nothing are terrified consciences more liable than to fall into despair. And with this artifice, also, whomsoever Satan perceives to be dejected by a fear of God, he plunges them further and further into the deep gulf of sorrow, that they may never arise again. That fear, indeed, cannot be excessive, which terminates in humility, and departs not from the hope of pardon. Nevertheless, the sinner should always be on his guard, according to the direction of the apostle,[1644]lest while he excites his heart to be displeased with himself, he be wearied with excessive dread, and faint in his mind; for this would drive us away from God, who calls us to himself by repentance. On this subject, Bernard also gives a very useful admonition: “Sorrow for sin is necessary, if it be not perpetual. I advise you sometimes to quit the anxious and painful recollection of your own ways, and to arise to an agreeable and serene remembrance of the Divine blessings. Let us mingle honey with wormwood, that its salutary bitterness may restore our health, when it shall be drunk tempered with a mixture of sweetness; and if you reflect on your own meanness, reflect also on the goodness of the Lord.”

XVI. Now, it may also be understood what are the fruits of repentance. They are, the duties of piety towards God, and of charity towards men, with sanctity and purity in our whole life. In a word, the more diligently any one examines his life by the rule of the Divine law, so much the more certain evidences he discovers of his repentance. The Spirit, therefore, in frequently exhorting us to repentance, calls our attention, sometimes to all the precepts of the law, sometimes to the [pg 549] duties of the second table; though in other places, after having condemned impurity in the very fountain of the heart, he proceeds to those external testimonies which evidence a sincere repentance; a view of which I will soon exhibit to the reader, in a description of the Christian life. I shall not collect testimonies from the prophets, in which they partly ridicule the follies of those who attempt to appease God by ceremonies, and demonstrate them to be mere mockeries; and partly inculcate, that external integrity of life is not the principal branch of repentance, because God looks at the heart. He that is but ordinarily acquainted with the Scripture, will discover of himself, without being informed by any one, that in our concerns with God, we advance not a single step unless we begin with the internal affection of the heart. And this passage of Joel will afford us no small assistance in the interpretation of others: “Rend your heart, and not your garments.”[1645] Both these ideas are briefly expressed in these words of James—“Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded;”[1646] where there is indeed an addition made to the first clause; but the fountain, or original, is next discovered, showing the necessity of cleansing the secret pollution, that an altar may be erected to God even in the heart. There are likewise some external exercises which we use, in private, as remedies either to humble ourselves, or to subdue our carnality; and in public, to testify our repentance. They proceed from the revenge mentioned by Paul;[1647] for it is natural to an afflicted mind to continue in a squalid condition, groaning and weeping, to avoid every kind of splendour and pomp, and to forsake all pleasures. He who experiences the great evil of the rebellion of the flesh, seeks every remedy to restrain it. He who properly considers what a grievous thing it is to have offended the justice of God, can enjoy no repose till he has glorified God by his humility. Such exercises are frequently mentioned by the old writers, when they speak of the fruits of repentance. And though they by no means make repentance wholly to consist in them, yet the reader will pardon me if I deliver my opinion, that they appear to me to insist upon them more than they ought. And I hope every one, on a sober examination, will agree with me, that they have gone beyond all due bounds in two respects. For when they so strongly urged and so extravagantly recommended that corporeal discipline, the consequence was indeed that the common people adopted it with great ardour; but they also obscured that which ought to be esteemed of infinitely greater importance. Secondly, in the infliction of castigations, they [pg 550] used rather more rigour than was consistent with ecclesiastical gentleness. But we shall have to treat of this in another place.

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

XVIII. I will again remark, however, that when the word repentance is transferred to this external profession, it is improperly changed from the genuine signification which I have stated. For this external profession is not so much a conversion to God, as a confession of sin, with a deprecation of punishment and guilt. Thus to “repent in sackcloth and ashes,”[1650] is only a declaration of our displeasure against ourselves, when God is angry with us on account of our grievous offences. And this is a public species of confession, by which condemning ourselves before angels and men, we prevent the judgment of God. For Paul rebukes the sluggishness of those who indulge their sins, saying, “If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.”[1651] It is not necessary, in all cases, publicly to make men witnesses of our repentance; but a private confession to God is a branch of true penitence which cannot be omitted. For nothing is more unreasonable than that God should pardon sins, in which we encourage ourselves, and which, lest he should bring them to light, we conceal under the garb of hypocrisy. And it is not only necessary to confess the sins which we commit from day to day; more grievous falls ought to lead us further, and to recall to our remembrance those which appear to have been long buried in oblivion. We learn this from the example of David;[1652] for, being ashamed of a recent and flagitious crime, he examines himself back to the time of his conception, and acknowledges that even then he was corrupted and contaminated with carnal impurity; and this not to extenuate his guilt, as many conceal themselves in a multitude, and endeavour to escape with impunity by implicating others with themselves. Very different was the conduct of David, who ingenuously aggravated his guilt, by confessing that he was corrupted from his earliest infancy, and had never ceased to accumulate crimes upon crimes. In another place, also, he enters on such an examination of his past life, that he implores the Divine mercy to pardon the sins of his youth.[1653] And certainly we shall never give proof that we have shaken off our lethargy, till, groaning under the burden, and bewailing our misery, we pray to God for relief. It is further to be remarked, that the repentance which we are commanded constantly to practise, differs from that which arouses, as it were, from death those who have either fallen into some great enormity, or abandoned themselves to a course of sin with unrestrained license, or by any rebellion shaken off the Divine yoke. For when the Scripture exhorts to repentance, it frequently signifies a kind of transition and resurrection from death to life; and when it states that the people repented, it [pg 552] means that they departed from idolatry and other gross enormities; in which sense Paul declares his grief for sinners, who “have not repented of their uncleanness, and fornication, and lasciviousness.”[1654] This difference should be carefully observed, lest, when we hear that few are called to repentance, we fall into a supine security, as though we had no more to do with the mortification of the flesh, from which the depraved appetites that perpetually disturb us, and the vices that often arise in us, will never permit us to relax. The special repentance, therefore, which is only required of some whom the devil has seduced from the fear of God, and entangled in his fatal snares, supersedes not that ordinary repentance, which the corruption of nature obliges us to practise during the whole course of our lives.

XIX. Now, if it be true, as it certainly is, that the whole substance of the gospel is comprised in these two points, repentance and remission of sins,—do not we perceive that the Lord freely justifies his children, that he may also restore them to true righteousness by the sanctification of his Spirit? John, the “messenger sent before the face” of Christ to “prepare his way before him,”[1655] preached, “Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”[1656] By calling men to repentance, he taught them to acknowledge themselves to be sinners, and every thing belonging to them to be condemned before God, that they might earnestly desire and pray for a mortification of the flesh, and new regeneration in the Spirit. By announcing the kingdom of God, he called them to exercise faith; for by “the kingdom of God,” the approach of which he proclaimed, he intended remission of sins, salvation, life, and in general all the benefits that we obtain in Christ. Wherefore, in the other evangelists, it is said, that “John came, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.”[1657] What was intended by this, but that, oppressed and wearied with the burden of sins, men should turn themselves to the Lord, and entertain a hope of remission and salvation? Thus, also, Christ commenced his public ministrations. “The kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.”[1658] First, he declares that the treasures of mercy are opened in himself; then he requires repentance; and lastly, a reliance on the Divine promises. Therefore, when he would give a brief summary of the whole gospel, he said, that “it behoved him to suffer, and to rise from the dead; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name.”[1659] The apostles also, after his resurrection, preached that he was exalted [pg 553] by God, “to give repentance to Israel and remission of sins.”[1660] Repentance is preached in the name of Christ, when men are informed, by the doctrine of the gospel, that all their thoughts, their affections, and their pursuits, are corrupt and vicious; and that therefore it is necessary for them to be born again, if they wish to enter the kingdom of God. Remission of sins is preached, when men are taught that Christ is made unto them “wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption;”[1661] in whose name they are gratuitously accounted righteous and innocent in the sight of God. Both these blessings of grace, as we have already shown, are apprehended by faith; yet since the goodness of God in the remission of sins is the peculiar object of faith, it was necessary that it should be carefully distinguished from repentance.

XX. Now, as a hatred of sin, which is the commencement of repentance, is our first introduction to the knowledge of Christ, who reveals himself to none but miserable and distressed sinners, who mourn, and labour, and are heavy laden; who hunger and thirst, and are pining away with grief and misery;[1662] so it is necessary for us, if we desire to abide in Christ, to strive for this repentance, to devote our whole lives to it, and to pursue it to the last. For he “came to call sinners,” but it was to call them “to repentance.”[1663] He was “sent to bless” the unworthy; but it was “in turning away every one from his iniquities.”[1664] The Scripture is full of such expressions. Wherefore, when God offers remission of sins, he generally requires repentance on the part of the sinner; implying that his mercy ought to furnish a motive to excite us to repentance. “Keep ye judgment, and do justice; for my salvation is near.”[1665] Again: “The Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob.”[1666] Again: “Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him.”[1667] Again: “Repent, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.”[1668] Here it must be remarked, however, that this condition is not annexed in such a manner, as though our repentance were the fundamental and meritorious cause of pardon; but rather, because the Lord has determined to have mercy upon men, in order that they may repent, he informs them what course they must take if they wish to obtain his favour. Therefore, as long as we inhabit the prison of our body, we shall have to maintain an incessant conflict with the vices of [pg 554] our corrupt nature, and even with our natural soul. Plato sometimes says, that the life of a philosopher is a meditation of death. We may assert with more truth, that the life of a Christian is perpetually employed in the mortification of the flesh, till it is utterly destroyed, and the Spirit of God obtains the sole empire within us. Wherefore I think that he has made a very considerable proficiency, who has learned to be exceedingly displeased with himself: not that he should remain in this distress, and advance no further, but rather hasten and aspire towards God; that being ingrafted into the death and life of Christ, he may make repentance the object of his constant meditation and pursuit. And this cannot but be the conduct of those who feel a genuine hatred of sin; for no man ever hated sin, without having been previously captivated with the love of righteousness. This doctrine, as it is the most simple of all, so also it appears to me to be most consistent with the truth of the Scripture.

XXI. That repentance is a peculiar gift of God, must, I think, be so evident from the doctrine just stated, as to preclude the necessity of a long discourse to prove it. Therefore the Church praises and admires the goodness of God, that he “hath granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life;”[1669] and Paul, when he enjoins Timothy to be patient and gentle towards unbelievers, says, “If God, peradventure, will give them repentance, that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil.”[1670] God affirms, indeed, that he wills the conversion of all men, and directs his exhortations promiscuously to all; but the efficacy of these exhortations depends on the Spirit of regeneration. For it were more easy to make ourselves men, than by our own power to endue ourselves with a more excellent nature. Therefore, in the whole course of regeneration, we are justly styled God's “workmanship, created unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”[1671] Whomsoever God chooses to rescue from destruction, them he vivifies by the Spirit of regeneration: not that repentance is properly the cause of salvation, but because, as we have already seen, it is inseparable from faith and the mercy of God; since, according to the testimony of Isaiah, “the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob.”[1672] It remains an unshaken truth, that wherever the fear of God prevails in the heart, the Spirit has operated to the salvation of that individual. Therefore, in Isaiah, where believers are bewailing and deploring their being deserted by God, they mention this as a sign of reprobation, that their hearts are hardened by him.[1673] The apostle also, [pg 555] intending to exclude apostates from all hope of salvation, asserts, as a reason, that “it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance;”[1674] because God, in the renewal of those whom he will not suffer to perish, discovers an evidence of his paternal favour, and attracts them to himself with the radiance of his serene and joyful countenance; whilst, on the contrary, he displays his wrath in hardening the reprobate, whose impiety is never to be forgiven.[1675] This kind of vengeance the apostle denounces against wilful apostates, who, when they depart from the faith of the gospel, deride God, contumeliously reject his grace, profane and trample on the blood of Christ, and do all in their power to crucify him again. For he does not, as is pretended by some preposterously severe persons, preclude all voluntary sinners from a hope of pardon. His design is to show that apostasy is unworthy of every excuse, and therefore it is not strange that God punishes such a sacrilegious contempt of himself with inexorable rigour. “For it is impossible (he tells us) for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.”[1676] Again: “If we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking-for of judgment.”[1677] These are the passages, from a misinterpretation of which the Novatians formerly derived a pretence for their extravagant opinions; and the apparent harshness of which has offended some good men, and induced them to believe that this Epistle is supposititious, though every part of it contains unequivocal evidences of the apostolic spirit. But as we are contending only with those who receive it, it is easy to show that these passages afford not the least countenance to their error. In the first place, the apostle must necessarily be in unison with his Master, who affirms that “all sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.”[1678] The apostle, I say, must certainly have been content with this exception, unless we wish to make him an enemy to the grace of Christ. Whence it follows, that pardon is denied to no particular sins, except one, which proceeds from desperate fury, and cannot be attributed to infirmity, but clearly proves a man to be possessed by the devil.

XXII. But, for the further elucidation of this subject, it is necessary to inquire into the nature of that dreadful crime which will obtain no forgiveness. Augustine somewhere defines it to be an obstinate perverseness, attended with a despair of pardon, and continued till death; but this is not consistent with the language of Christ, that “it shall not be forgiven in this world.” For either this is a vain assertion, or the sin may be committed in this life. But if the definition of Augustine be right, it is never committed unless it continue till death. Others say, that a man sins against the Holy Ghost, who envies the grace bestowed on his brother. I know no foundation for this notion. But we will adduce the true definition; which when it shall have been proved by strong testimonies, will of itself easily overturn all others. I say, then, that the sin against the Holy Ghost is committed by those who, though they are so overpowered with the splendour of Divine truth that they cannot pretend ignorance, nevertheless resist it with determined malice, merely for the sake of resisting it. For Christ, in explanation of what he had asserted, immediately subjoins, “Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him.”[1679] And Matthew, instead of “blasphemy against the Spirit,” says, “blasphemy of the Spirit.”[1680] How can any one cast a reproach on the Son, that is not also directed against the Spirit? Those who unadvisedly offend against the truth of God, which they know not, and who ignorantly revile Christ, but at the same time have such a disposition that they would not extinguish the Divine truth if revealed to them, or utter one injurious word against him whom they knew to be the Lord's Christ,—they sin against the Father and the Son. Thus there are many, in the present day, who most inveterately execrate the doctrines of the gospel, which if they knew to be the evangelical doctrine, they would be ready to venerate with their whole heart. But those who are convinced in their conscience, that it is the word of God which they reject and oppose, and yet continue their opposition,—they are said to blaspheme against the Spirit, because they strive against the illumination which is the work of the Holy Spirit. Such were some among the Jews, who, when they were not able to resist the Spirit[1681] that spake by Stephen, yet obstinately strove to resist. Many of them were undoubtedly urged to this conduct by a zeal for the law; but it appears that there were others, who were infuriated by a malignant impiety against [pg 557] God himself, that is, against the doctrine which they knew to be from God. Such also were the Pharisees, whom the Lord rebuked; who, in order to counteract the influence of the Holy Spirit, slanderously ascribed it to the power of Beelzebub.[1682] This, then, is “blasphemy of the Spirit,” where the presumption of man deliberately strives to annihilate the glory of God. This is implied in the observation of Paul, that he “obtained mercy, because” he had “ignorantly in unbelief” committed those crimes, the demerits of which would otherwise have excluded him from the grace of the Lord.[1683] If the union of ignorance and unbelief was the reason of his obtaining pardon, it follows that there is no room for pardon where unbelief has been attended with knowledge.

XXIII. But, on a careful observation, you will perceive that the apostle speaks not of one or more particular falls, but of the universal defection, by which the reprobate exclude themselves from salvation. We need not wonder that those whom John, in his canonical Epistle, affirms not to have been of the number of the elect from whom they departed, experience God to be implacable towards them.[1684] For he directs his discourse against those who imagined that they might return to the Christian religion, although they had once apostatized from it; to whom he contradicts this false and pernicious notion, declaring, what is absolutely true, that it is impossible for persons to return to the communion of Christ, who have knowingly and wilfully rejected it. And it is rejected, not by those who simply transgress the word of the Lord by a dissolute and licentious life, but by those who professedly renounce all his doctrines. Therefore the fallacy lies in the terms falling away and sinning; for the Novatians explain falling away to take place, when any one, after having been instructed by the law of the Lord that theft and fornication ought not to be committed, yet abstains not from either of these sins. But, on the contrary, I affirm that there is a tacit antithesis understood, which ought to contain a repetition of all the opposites of the things which had been previously mentioned; so that this passage expresses not any particular vice, but a universal defection from God, and if I may use the expression, an apostasy of the whole man. When he speaks, therefore, of some who fell away, “after they were once enlightened, and had tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and the powers of the world to come,”[1685] it must be understood of persons who, with deliberate impiety, have smothered the light of the Spirit, rejected the taste of the heavenly gift, alienated themselves from the sanctification of the Spirit, and trampled on the word of God [pg 558] and the powers of the world to come. And the more fully to express that decided determination of impiety, he afterwards, in another place, adds the word wilfully. For when he says, that “if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice,”[1686] he denies not that Christ is a perpetual sacrifice to expiate the iniquities of the saints, which almost the whole Epistle expressly proclaims in describing the priesthood of Christ, but intends that there remains no other where that is rejected. But it is rejected, when the truth of the gospel is avowedly renounced.

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

XXV. But it is inquired, since the apostle denies that God is appeased by a hypocritical repentance, how Ahab obtained pardon, and averted the punishment with which he had been threatened, though he appears, from the subsequent tenor of his life, to have been only terrified by a sudden consternation. He clothed himself with sackcloth, sprinkled ashes upon his head, lay on the ground, and, as it is declared concerning him, “humbled himself before God;”[1689] but it was nothing to rend his garments, while his heart remained perverse and inflated with wickedness. Yet we see how God is inclined to clemency. I reply, that sometimes hypocrites are thus spared for a season, yet that the wrath of God always abides upon them, and that this is done not so much for their sakes, as for a public example. For what benefit did Ahab receive from the mitigation of the threatened punishment, but a respite from it during his continuance in this world? The malediction of God, therefore, although concealed, fixed itself in his family, and he himself went forward to eternal perdition. The same may be observed in the case of Esau; for though he suffered a repulse, yet a temporal benediction was granted to his tears.[1690] But since the spiritual inheritance, according to the oracle of God, could remain only with one of the brothers, when Jacob was chosen and Esau rejected, that preterition shut out the Divine mercy; yet this consolation was left to him as to a man on a level with the brutes, that he should be enriched with “the fatness of the earth and the dew of heaven.” This is what I have just observed ought to be considered as an example to others, that we may learn to devote our minds and our exertions with more alacrity to sincere repentance; because it is not to be doubted that those who are truly and cordially converted will find God readily disposed to forgiveness, whose clemency extends itself even to the unworthy, as long as they manifest any appearance of contrition. At the same time, also, we are taught what dreadful vengeance awaits all the obstinate, who, with impudent countenances and hardened hearts, despise, disregard, and ridicule the Divine threatenings. Thus he frequently extended his hand to the children of Israel, to alleviate their distresses, notwithstanding their supplications were hypocritical, and their hearts full of duplicity and perfidy; as he complains in one of the Psalms,[1691] that they immediately after returned to their former courses. He designed by his merciful kindness, either to bring them to a serious conversion, or to render them inexcusable. Yet, by the temporary remission of punishments, he imposes on himself no perpetual law, but sometimes arises against hypocrites with the greater severity, [pg 560] and enhances their punishments, to manifest his extreme displeasure against hypocrisy. But he exhibits, as I have observed, some examples of his readiness to pardon, in order to animate the pious to a correction of their lives, and the more severely to condemn the pride of those who obstinately kick against the goads.

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

I come now to the discussion of those things which have been advanced by the sophists of the schools concerning Repentance, which I shall run over as briefly as possible; for it is not my design to pursue the subject at large, lest this book, which I am endeavouring to make a compendium of doctrine, should be drawn out to an immoderate extent. They have involved a subject, otherwise not very intricate, in so many perplexities, that those who have entered but a little way into their labyrinths will not find it easy to extricate themselves. In the first place, the definition they have given of repentance, clearly shows that they never understood what it was; for they catch at some passages in the writings of the fathers, which by no means express the nature of repentance; as, “that to repent is to weep for sins previously committed, and not to commit sins to be wept for.” Again: “that it is to lament evils that are past, and not to commit new ones to be lamented.” Again: “that it is a kind of mournful vengeance, punishing in ourselves what we bewail having committed.” Again: “that it is a sorrow of heart and bitterness of soul on account of the evils which a man has committed, or to which he has consented.” But though we concede that these expressions were properly used by the fathers, which, however, a contentious man would find no difficulty in denying, yet they were used not with a view to describe repentance, but only to exhort their readers to avoid relapsing into those crimes from which they had been delivered. But if we are disposed to convert all observations of this kind into definitions, others may be added with equal propriety. As this of Chrysostom, “Repentance is a medicine which destroys sin, a gift bestowed from heaven, an admirable virtue, a grace exceeding the power of laws.” Moreover, the doctrine which they afterwards advance is still worse than these definitions; [pg 561] for they are so obstinately riveted to external exercises, that one can collect nothing else from immense volumes, but that repentance is an austere discipline, which serves partly to subdue the flesh, partly to chastise and punish vices; but concerning the internal renovation of the mind, which is attended with a real reformation of the life, they observe a wonderful silence. Of contrition and attrition, indeed, they treat largely; they torment souls with a multitude of scruples, and drive them to extreme trouble and anxiety; but when they appear to have thoroughly wounded the heart, they heal all the bitterness by a slight sprinkling of ceremonies. Having thus quaintly defined repentance, they divide it into contrition of heart, confession of mouth, and satisfaction of work—a division which is no more agreeable to the rules of logic than their definition, though they would be thought to have spent their whole lives in composing syllogisms. But should any one reason from the definition, (which is a kind of argumentation common among logicians,) that a man may weep for sins previously committed, and commit no more to be wept for; may lament evils that are past, and commit no more to be lamented; may punish what he mourns that he has committed, &c., although he makes no confession with his mouth; how will they defend their division? For if he who confesses not, be nevertheless truly penitent, repentance may exist where there is no confession. But if they reply that this division refers to repentance as a sacrament, or is to be understood of the complete perfection of repentance, which they comprehend not in their definition, they have no reason to accuse me; let them impute the blame to themselves, for not giving definitions with more correctness and perspicuity. For myself, indeed, according to my dull capacity, in all controversies I refer every thing to the definition, which is the hinge and foundation of the whole argument. But, admitting this to be their magisterial license, we proceed to an attentive examination of the parts themselves in order. When I neglect, and pass over as frivolous, things which, with supercilious gravity, they represent as mysteries, I never do it without design; not that I should find it very laborious to canvass the arguments in which they conceive themselves to have discovered most shrewdness and subtilty; but I could not conscientiously fatigue my readers with such impertinences to no good purpose. From the questions which they raise and agitate, and with which they miserably embarrass themselves, it is easy to see, that they talk of subjects of which they are utterly ignorant; such as this: Whether repentance for one sin be pleasing to God during an obstinate continuance in others. Again: Whether punishments inflicted by God be available for satisfaction. Again: Whether repentance may be [pg 562] frequently repeated for mortal sins. On this point they shamefully and impiously determine, that repentance is daily practised only for venial sins. They also torment themselves much with a gross error, in an expression of Jerome, “That repentance is a second plank after a shipwreck;” thus giving proof, that they have never been awakened from their brutish stupidity, so as to have even the most distant view of the thousandth part of their sins.

II. I wish the reader to consider, that this is not a contention about an insignificant trifle, but a question respecting the most serious of all subjects—remission of sins. For by requiring, in repentance, compunction of heart, confession of mouth, and satisfaction of work, they maintain, that these three things are necessary to procure the remission of sins. But if it be important for us to know any thing in the whole science of religion, it is certainly of the greatest importance to apprehend, and fully to understand, by what means, by what law, on what condition, and with what facility or difficulty, remission of sins may be obtained. Unless this knowledge be clear and certain, the conscience can have no rest, no peace with God, no confidence or security; but is the subject of perpetual trepidations and fluctuations, is disturbed, tormented, and harassed, and dreads, hates, and avoids the presence of God. But if remission of sins depend on those conditions to which they confine it, we are in a most miserable and deplorable situation. They make contrition the first step towards obtaining pardon, and require such as is due from us, that is, such as is just and perfect; but they have not determined, when a man may be assured that he has arrived at this degree of perfect contrition. I grant, indeed, that every man ought to be sedulously and earnestly urged, that by bitterly mourning for his sins, he may continually augment his displeasure and hatred against them. For this “sorrow worketh repentance to salvation, not to be repented of.”[1692] But when such an anguish of sorrow is required as may correspond to the magnitude of the guilt, and may be weighed in the balance with confidence of pardon, then the wretched conscience is wonderfully tormented and agitated, when it sees a due contrition for sins imposed on it, and understands not the extent of the debt so as to be able to decide with itself that it has discharged what was due from it. If they say that we must do what we can, we still return to the same point; for when will any man presume to flatter himself that he has exerted all his power in bewailing his sins? Consciences, therefore, that have been long striving with themselves, and exercised in tedious conflicts, but without finding [pg 563] at length any place of rest, endeavour to procure some small alleviation, extorting from themselves some sorrow, and forcing out some tears to complete their contrition.

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

IV. Concerning confession, there has always been a great controversy between the canonists and the scholastic divines; the latter contending, that confession is commanded by the word of God; the other, on the contrary, maintaining that it is enjoined only by the ecclesiastical constitutions. But this controversy has discovered the singular impudence of the theologians, who have corrupted and violently distorted all the passages of Scripture which they have cited in favour of their argument. And when they perceived that they could not even thus obtain what they desired, those who would appear more shrewd than others, resorted to this subterfuge, that confession, as to the substance of it, came from the Divine law, but afterwards derived its form from a positive law. In a similar manner [pg 564] the most foolish lawyers pretend, that citations originated from the Divine law, because it is said, “Adam, where art thou?”[1694] and exceptions also, because Adam answered, as if by way of exception, “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me,” &c.; but that both received their form from the civil code. But let us examine by what arguments they prove this confession, either formal or informal, to have been commanded by God. The Lord, say they, sent leprous persons to the priests. What then? Did he send them to confession? Who ever heard that the Levitical priests were appointed to hear confessions? Therefore they resort to allegories: it was enacted by the Mosaic law, that the priests should distinguish between leprosy and leprosy; sin is a spiritual leprosy, concerning which it is the office of the priests to decide. Before I reply to this, I would inquire, by the way, if this passage constitutes them judges of the spiritual leprosy, why do they arrogate to themselves the cognizance of the natural and corporeal leprosy? Is not this trifling with the Scriptures? The law commits to the Levitical priests the cognizance of the leprosy; let us usurp this to ourselves. Sin is a spiritual leprosy; let us also take cognizance of sin. Now, I reply, “The priesthood being changed, there is made, of necessity, a change also of the law.”[1695] All the priestly functions have been transferred to Christ; in him they are fulfilled and finished; therefore every privilege and honour of the sacerdotal office has been transferred to him alone. If they are so extremely fond of pursuing allegories, let them propose Christ to themselves as the only priest, and accumulate on his tribunal the unlimited jurisdiction over all things; this we shall easily admit. Besides, this allegory of theirs is very absurd, since it places among the ceremonies a law that was merely political. Why, then, does Christ send leprous persons to the priests? To preclude the priests from calumniating him with a violation of the law, which commanded him that was cured of the leprosy to show himself to the priest, and to be purged by the oblation of a sacrifice. “Go (said he) show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.”[1696] And truly this miracle was to be a testimony to them; for they had pronounced him leprous, now they pronounce him healed. Are they not, whether willingly or reluctantly, constrained to become witnesses of the miracles of Christ? Christ gives them his miracle for their examination; they cannot deny it; but because they still cavil, this work is a testimony to them. Thus it is said, “This gospel shall be preached in all the world, for a witness unto [pg 565] all nations.”[1697] Again: “Ye shall be brought before governors and kings, for a testimony against them.”[1698] That is, that they may be more powerfully convicted at the judgment of God. But if they would rather coincide with Chrysostom, he also teaches, that Christ did this on account of the Jews, that he might not be deemed a transgressor of the law. Though on a point so clear I am ashamed to adduce the suffrage of any man; when Christ declares that he leaves the legal rights entirely to the priests, as the professed enemies of the gospel, who were always ready to cavil, if their mouths were not stopped. Wherefore the Popish priests, in order to retain this possession, should publicly espouse the party of those whom it is necessary to restrain by force from uttering their curses against Christ. For with this his true ministers have no concern.

V. Their second argument they derive from the same source, that is, from allegory; as though allegories were sufficient for the confirmation of any dogma. Let them be admitted as sufficient, if I do not prove that those very allegories may be urged by me with more plausibility than they possibly can by them. They plead, therefore, that the Lord commanded his disciples to loose Lazarus from his bandages, when he was raised from the grave.[1699] Here, in the first place, they are guilty of falsehood; for it is nowhere recorded, that the Lord said this to his disciples; and it is much more probable that he said it to the Jews who were standing near him, that the miracle might be rendered more evident, beyond all suspicion of fraud, and that his power might appear the greater, from his raising the dead to life without the least touch, solely by the call of his voice. For I apprehend, that the Lord, in order to remove from the minds of the Jews every unfavourable suspicion, chose that they should roll back the stone, should perceive the fetid odour, should see the certain tokens of death, should behold him rising by the sole energy of a word, and be the first to touch him on his restoration to life. And this is the opinion of Chrysostom. But admitting this to have been addressed to the disciples, what will they gain by it? That the Lord gave his apostles the power of loosing; but with how much more aptitude and skill might these words be handled in an allegorical sense, if we should say, that God intended by this emblem to instruct believers, that they ought to loose those whom he has raised to life; that is, that they should not recall to remembrance the sins which he had forgotten; that they should not condemn as sinners those whom he had absolved; that they should not continue to upbraid with offences [pg 566] which he had forgiven; that where he is merciful and ready to spare, they should not be severe and rigorous to punish! Nothing, surely, ought to be a stronger motive to the exercise of forgiveness by us, than the example of that judge, who threatens to be implacable towards them who are too rigorous and cruel. Let them go now and boast of their allegories.

VI. They come to a closer contest, when they oppose us with what they apprehend to be plain passages. Those who came to the baptism of John confessed their sins;[1700] and James directs us to confess our sins one to another.[1701] It is no wonder, if those who desired to be baptized confessed their sins, for it is said, that John “preached the baptism of repentance,” and “baptized with water unto repentance.” Whom, then, should he baptize, but such as confessed themselves sinners? Baptism is an emblem of remission of sins; and who should be admitted to this emblem but sinners, and those who acknowledged themselves to be such? They confessed their sins, therefore, in order to be baptized. Nor is it without reason that James directs us to confess one to another. But if they would observe what immediately follows, they would perceive, that this also affords them very little support. “Confess (says he) your faults one to another, and pray for one another.” He connects mutual confession and mutual prayer. If our confessions must be made only to priests, then our prayers ought to be offered up for them alone. But would it not follow from the language of James, that priests alone might make confessions? For when he enjoins mutual confession, he addresses such only as have a right to hear the confessions of others. Αλληλοι implies mutually, by turns, successively, or reciprocally. But none can reciprocally confess, but those who are qualified to hear confessions. And since they dignify the priests exclusively with this prerogative, we also relinquish to them alone the task of making confession. Then let us dismiss such impertinences, and attend to the real meaning of the apostle, which is simple and clear; it is, that we should reciprocally communicate our infirmities to each other, to receive from one another mutual advice, mutual compassion, and mutual consolation; and, also, that being mutually conscious of the infirmities of our brethren, we should pray to the Lord on their behalf. Why, then, do they quote James in opposition to us, when we so strongly urge a confession of the Divine mercy? But no man can confess the mercy of God, if he has not previously confessed his own misery. Indeed, we rather pronounce an anathema against him who has not confessed himself a sinner before God, before his [pg 567] angels, before the Church, and, in a word, before all mankind. “For the Scripture hath concluded all under sin—that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God;”[1702] and that he alone may be justified and exalted.

VII. But I wonder with what face they can presume to contend, that the confession of which they speak is of Divine appointment. The practice we admit to be very ancient, but we can easily prove, that Christians were formerly quite at liberty as to the use of it. That there was no fixed law or constitution respecting it till the time of Innocent III., is certain from the testimony of their own histories. Surely, if there had been a more ancient law, they would rather have cited it, than, by being content with a decree of the Council of Lateran, have rendered themselves ridiculous even in the eyes of children. They hesitate not in other cases to fabricate fictitious decrees, which they ascribe to the most ancient councils, that they may dazzle the eyes of the simple by a veneration for antiquity. In this instance they never thought of obtruding such a forgery. Therefore, according to their own testimony, three hundred years have not yet elapsed, since Innocent III. introduced the snare, and imposed the necessity of confession. But, to say nothing respecting the time, the barbarism of the diction is, of itself, sufficient to deprive that law of all credit. For the good fathers enjoin, that every person, of both sexes, shall, once in every year, make a particular confession of all sins to the proper priest; but some wits facetiously object, that this precept binds none but hermaphrodites, and relates to no one who is either a male or a female. Moreover, their disciples have betrayed still greater folly, in their inability to explain what is meant by the proper priest. Whatever may be clamorously pretended by all the Pope's mercenary disputants, we are certain, that Christ was not the author of this law, which compels men to enumerate their sins, and that twelve centuries passed away after the resurrection of Christ, before any such law was promulgated; so that this tyranny was not introduced till after the extinction of piety and learning, when masques, occupying the place of pastors, had assumed an unlimited license of doing whatever they pleased. There are also plain testimonies, in histories and other ancient writings, which inform us, that this was a political discipline instituted by bishops, not a law given by Christ or his apostles. Of a great number, I shall produce only one, which will be a clear proof of this assertion. Sozomen, in his Ecclesiastical History, relates, that this ordinance of the bishops [pg 568] was diligently observed in all the Western Churches, and especially at Rome. He fully implies that it was not the universal custom of all the churches, and says, that one of the Presbyters was peculiarly appointed to this office. In this, he abundantly confutes the false pretensions of these men, that the keys were given promiscuously, for this use, to the whole sacerdotal order, since it was not the common function of all priests, but the peculiar department of one who was chosen to it by the bishop. This is the same, who, in the present day, in every cathedral church is called the Penitentiary, who takes cognizance of crimes of peculiar enormity, and such as are censured for the sake of example. The historian immediately adds, that this was the custom also at Constantinople, till a certain matron, pretending to go to confession, was discovered to have concealed, under this specious pretext, a criminal connection with the deacon of that church. On account of this crime, Nectarius, the bishop of the church, (a man eminent for sanctity and erudition,) abolished the ceremony of confession. Here let them erect their asinine ears. If auricular confession had been a law of God, how could Nectarius have presumed to reverse and disannul it? Will they accuse Nectarius of heresy and schism, who is acknowledged by all the fathers to have been a holy man of God? But the same sentence would condemn the Constantinopolitan church, in which Sozomen affirms the custom of confession not only to have been discontinued for a season, but to have been altogether disused down to his time. And they would accuse of apostasy, not only the church of Constantinople, but all the Oriental churches, who neglected a law which they maintain to be inviolable and obligatory on all Christians.

VIII. But this abrogation is plainly attested by Chrysostom, who was himself also a bishop of the church of Constantinople, in so many places, that it is surprising how they dare to open their mouths in contradiction of it. “Confess your sins, (says he,) that you may obliterate them. If you are ashamed to tell any one what sins you have committed, confess them daily in your soul. I say not, that you should confess them to your fellow-servant, who may reproach you; confess them to God, who cures them. Confess your sins on your bed, that there your conscience may daily recognize its crimes.” Again: “But, now, it is not necessary to confess in the presence of witnesses; let an inquisition into your transgressions be the work of your own thoughts; let there be no witness of this judgment; let God alone see you confessing.” Again: “I conduct you not into the public view of your fellow-servants; I do not oblige you to reveal your sins to men; lay open your conscience in the presence of God. Show your wounds to the Lord, who is the best physician, and implore a remedy from him; show [pg 569] them to him, who upbraideth not, but most mercifully heals.” Again: “You certainly should not tell it to a man, lest he reproach you; nor is confession to be made to a fellow-servant, who may publish it; but show your wounds to the Lord, who exercises his care over you, and is a most merciful physician.” He afterwards introduces God, speaking thus: “I constrain you not to come forth into the midst of a theatre, and assemble a multitude of witnesses; declare your sin privately to me alone, that I may heal your wound.” Shall we say, that Chrysostom proceeded to such a degree of temerity, when he wrote those and similar passages, as to liberate the consciences of men from obligations imposed on them by the Divine law? Certainly not. But he dares not to require as necessary what he knows is never prescribed in the word of God.

IX. But to place the whole subject in a more plain and familiar light, we will first faithfully state what kind of confession is taught in the word of God; and then we will subjoin an account of those inventions of the Papists, not indeed of all, (for who could exhaust that immense ocean?) but only of those which comprise the substance of their doctrine respecting secret confession. Here it grieves me to mention, how frequently the old translator has translated confess instead of praise; which is well known even to the most unlearned; only it is necessary to expose their audacity, in transferring to their own tyrannical edict what was written with reference to the praises of God. To prove the virtue of confession to exhilarate the mind, they produce this passage from the Psalmist: “With the voice of exultation and confession.”[1703] But if such a metamorphosis of the passage be admitted, we shall be able to infer any thing from any thing. But since they are thus lost to all sense of shame, let the pious reader remember, that they have been consigned over to a reprobate mind by the righteous vengeance of God, to render their presumption the more detestable. If we are satisfied with the simple doctrine of the Scripture, we shall be in no danger of being deluded by such fallacies; for there one method of confession is prescribed; which is, that since it is the Lord who forgives, forgets, and obliterates sins, we should confess our sins to him, that we may obtain pardon. He is a physician; to him, then, let us discover our wounds. He is injured and offended; let us pray to him for peace. He is the searcher of hearts, and privy to all thoughts; let us hasten to pour out our hearts before him. Finally, it is he who calls sinners; let us not delay to approach him. David says, “I acknowledge my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my [pg 570] transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin.”[1704] Similar to this is another confession of David: “Have mercy upon me, O God, according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies.”[1705] Such, also, is the confession of Daniel: “We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from thy precepts.”[1706] And such are the other confessions, which frequently occur in the Scriptures, the recital of which would almost fill a volume. John says, “If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.”[1707] To whom must we confess? To him, certainly; and this we do, if we prostrate ourselves before him with a distressed and humbled heart; if we sincerely accuse and condemn ourselves in his presence, and pray to be pardoned by his goodness and mercy.

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

XI. This kind of confession ought to be both ordinary, in the Church; and extraordinary, to be practised in a particular manner whenever the people at large are chargeable with the guilt of any common crime. We have an example of the latter in that solemn confession which was made by all the people under the auspices of Ezra and Nehemiah. For as [pg 571] their long exile, the destruction of their city and temple, and the subversion of their religion, were punishments of the common defection of all, they could not properly acknowledge the blessing of deliverance, unless they had first confessed their guilt. Nor is it of any importance if, in a congregation, there be sometimes a few innocent persons; for as they are members of a languid and diseased body, they ought not to boast of health. Nor is it possible, indeed, but they must contract some of the pollution, and sustain part of the guilt. Therefore, whenever we are afflicted with pestilence, or war, or sterility, or any other calamity, if it be our duty to resort to mourning, to fasting, and other expressions of guilt,—confession itself, on which all these other things depend, ought by no means to be neglected. The ordinary confession is not only recommended from the mouth of the Lord, but no judicious man, who has considered its usefulness, will venture to condemn it. For since, in every religious assembly, we introduce ourselves into the presence of God and angels, how shall we commence our services, except by an acknowledgment of our unworthiness? But this, you will say, is done in every prayer; for whenever we pray for pardon, we make a confession of our sins. This I acknowledge. But, if you consider our extreme carelessness, or drowsiness, or stupidity, you will admit to me, that it would be a salutary regulation, if the generality of Christians were accustomed to humble themselves by some solemn act of confession. For though the ceremony, which the Lord enjoined on the Israelites, was a part of the tutelage of the law, yet the thing itself, in some measure, belongs also to us. And, indeed, we see that in all well-regulated churches this custom is advantageously observed; that on every Lord's day the minister makes a formal confession, in which he represents all as guilty of sin, and supplicates pardon from the Lord on behalf of all. Finally, by this key the gate of prayer is opened, both to individuals in private, and in public to all the congregation.

XII. Moreover, the Scripture sanctions two kinds of private confession; one to be made for our own sake, which is referred to in the direction of James, that we should “confess our faults one to another;”[1710] for he means, that, revealing our infirmities to one another, we should assist each other with mutual advice and consolation; another, which is to be made for the sake of our neighbour, to pacify and reconcile him to us, if we have done him any injury. In the former species of confession, though James, by not expressly appointing any one into whose bosom we should disburden ourselves, leaves us quite at liberty to confess to any member of the church who shall appear most [pg 572] suitable; yet, since the pastors must generally be considered more proper than others, we ought chiefly to make choice of them. I say that they are more suitable than others, since, in their very vocation to the ministry, they are designated by the Lord, to instruct us to subdue and correct our sins, and to console us with a confidence of pardon. For though the office of mutual admonition and reproof is committed to all, yet it is especially confided to ministers. And so, while we all ought mutually to console and confirm each other in a confidence of the Divine mercy, yet we see, that ministers are constituted witnesses and sureties of it, that they may afford our consciences a stronger assurance of the remission of sins; insomuch that they themselves are said to remit sins and to loose souls.[1711] When you find this attributed to them, consider that it is for your benefit. Therefore, let every believer remember that it is his duty, if he feels such secret anguish or affliction from a sense of his sins, that he cannot extricate himself without some exterior aid, not to neglect the remedy offered him by the Lord; which is, that in order to alleviate his distress, he should use private confession with his pastor, and, to obtain consolation, should privately implore his assistance, whose office it is, both publicly and privately, to comfort the people of God with the doctrine of the gospel. But we should always observe such a degree of moderation, as to lay no yoke on the conscience, where God has given no positive command. Hence it follows, that such confession ought to be free, so as not to be required of all, but only to be recommended to those who conceive themselves to need it. It follows also, that they who practise it on account of their need of it, should neither be compelled by any precept, nor be induced by any artifice, to enumerate all their sins; but only so far as they shall think beneficial to themselves, that they may receive solid consolation. Faithful pastors ought not only to leave the churches in possession of this liberty, but also to defend and vindicate it with all their power, if they wish to preserve their ministry from tyranny, and the people from superstition.

XIII. Concerning the other species of confession, Christ says, in the Gospel of Matthew, “If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.”[1712] Thus is that charity, which has been broken by our offence, to be repaired by acknowledging the fault we have committed, and imploring forgiveness. In this kind is comprehended the confession of those who have sinned to [pg 573] the offence of the whole Church. For, if Christ esteems the private offence of one man of such importance, as to prohibit from the sacred ordinances all those who have sinned against their brethren till they have been restored to favour by an adequate satisfaction,—how much stronger is the reason, that he who, by any evil example, has injured the whole Church, should reconcile it to himself by an acknowledgment of his guilt! Thus was the Corinthian readmitted to the communion, after having submitted to reproof.[1713] This mode of confession is stated by Cyprian to have been practised in the ancient Church. “They repent (says he) in due time; and afterwards they come to confession; and by the imposition of the hands of the bishop and clergy, they receive a right to communion.” The Scripture knows nothing of any other method or form of confession; and it is not our province to impose new chains on men's consciences, which Christ most strictly forbids to reduce under the yoke of bondage. But that the sheep should present themselves to their pastor, whenever they desire to partake of the sacred supper, I am so far from opposing, that I earnestly wish it were universally observed. For those who experience distress of conscience may receive singular benefit from such an interview; and those who require to be admonished, will thus afford an opportunity for admonitions; provided that care be always taken to guard against tyranny and superstition.

XIV. The power of the keys is exercised in these three kinds of confession: either when the whole church implores pardon by a solemn acknowledgment of its transgressions; or when an individual, who, by any remarkable crime, has occasioned a common offence, declares his repentance; or when he who needs the assistance of the minister on account of the disquietude of his conscience, discloses his infirmity to him. The removal of an offence proceeds on a different principle; because, though it is also designed to produce peace of conscience, yet the principal end is, that animosity may be destroyed, and the minds of men united in the bonds of peace. But this advantage, which I have mentioned, is by no means to be despised, that we may confess our sins with the greater readiness. For, when the whole church stands, as it were, before the tribunal of God, when they confess themselves guilty, and have no refuge but in the Divine mercy,—it is no mean or trivial consolation to have Christ's ambassador present, furnished with the mandate of reconciliation, by whom they may have their absolution pronounced. Here the usefulness of the keys is deservedly celebrated, when this embassy is rightly performed, [pg 574] with becoming order and reverence. So, when he who had, in some measure, alienated himself from the Church, is pardoned and restored to the unity of the brethren, how great a blessing does he experience in knowing himself to be forgiven by them, to whom Christ has said, “Whose soever sins ye shall remit on earth, they shall be remitted in heaven!”[1714] Nor is private absolution less efficacious or beneficial, when it is requested by those who need a particular remedy for the relief of their infirmities. For it frequently happens, that he who hears the general promises, which are addressed to the whole congregation of believers, nevertheless remains in some suspense, and his mind is still disquieted with doubts of the forgiveness of his sins. The same person, if he discloses to his pastor the secret distress of his mind, and hears this language of the gospel particularly directed to him, “Be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee,”[1715] will encourage his mind to an assurance, and will be liberated from that trepidation with which he was before disturbed. But when we are treating of the keys, we must always be cautious not to dream of any power distinct from the preaching of the gospel. This subject will again be discussed more fully in another place, where we shall have to treat of the government of the Church; and there we shall see, that all the power of binding and loosing, which Christ has conferred on the Church, is inseparable from the word. But this is chiefly applicable to the ministry of the keys, the whole force and meaning of which consist in this, that the grace of the gospel should be confirmed and sealed, as it were, to the minds of the faithful, in public as well as private, by those whom the Lord has ordained to this office; which cannot be done but by preaching alone.

XV. But what is the doctrine of the Romish divines? They maintain, that all persons, of both sexes, as soon as they shall have arrived at years of discretion, should, once at least in every year, confess all their sins to their own priest; that there is no remission of sin, unless they have firmly resolved to confess it; that unless they fulfil this resolution, when opportunity offers, there is no admittance for them into Paradise; and, moreover, that the priest has the power of the keys, with which he may loose the sinner or bind him; because Christ has not said in vain, “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.”[1716] But concerning this power, they have obstinate contentions among themselves. Some say, that there is essentially but one key, namely, the power of binding and loosing; that knowledge is required, indeed, for the good use of it, but that it is only like an accessory, not an essential concomitant. [pg 575] Others, perceiving this to be too unlimited a license, have mentioned two keys, discretion and power. Others, again, observing that the wickedness of the priests was restrained by such moderation, have invented other keys, an authority of discerning which they might use in pronouncing decisions; and a power, which they might exert in executing their sentences; with knowledge, to assist as a counsellor. But they venture not to explain this binding and loosing simply to mean, forgiving and obliterating sins; because they hear the Lord proclaiming by the prophet, “I am the Lord, and beside me there is no Saviour. I, even I, am he which blotteth out thy transgressions.”[1717] But they say, that it belongs to the priest to pronounce who are bound or loosed, and to declare whose sins are remitted or retained; and that he declares it, either by confession, when he absolves and retains sins; or by his sentence, when he excommunicates, and when he receives to the communion of the sacraments. Lastly, when they perceive that they are not yet extricated from this difficulty, but that it may always be objected, that their priests frequently bind and loose improper persons, who are not therefore bound or loosed in heaven,—as their last resource, they reply, that the commission of the keys must be understood with some limitation, Christ having promised, that the sentence of the priest, which has been justly delivered, according to the merits of the persons bound or loosed, shall be confirmed at his tribunal. They add also, that these keys were given by Christ to all priests, who receive them from the bishops on their promotion to the sacerdotal office; but that the free use of them belongs only to those who exercise ecclesiastical functions; that the keys themselves remain, indeed, with the excommunicated or suspended ones, but that they are rusty and disused. And those who advance these things may justly be considered modest and sober, in comparison with others, who, on a new anvil, have fabricated new keys, with which they tell us the treasure of the Church is locked up; which we shall examine in the proper place.

XVI. I shall briefly reply to each of these things; though without noticing, at present, the justice or injustice with which they bind the souls of the faithful by their laws; as that will be considered in due order. But when they impose a law respecting the enumeration of all sins; when they deny that sin is forgiven, but on condition that a firm resolution has been formed to confess it; when they say that there remains no entrance into Paradise, if the opportunity of confession has been neglected,—this is altogether intolerable. Must all sins [pg 576] be enumerated? David, who (I suppose) had often meditated the confession of his sins, nevertheless exclaimed, “Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults.”[1718] And in another place: “Mine iniquities are gone over mine head; as a heavy burden they are too heavy for me.”[1719] He had just apprehensions of the vast abyss of our sins, of the numerous species of our crimes, of the many heads this monster bore, and the long tail it drew after it. Therefore he attempted not to detail his transgressions, but from the abyss of his distresses cried to the Lord. “I am afflicted and ready to die; my spirit is overwhelmed within me; I dwell in darkness, as those that have been long dead;”[1720] “the sorrows of death compassed me, and the pains of hell gat hold upon me;”[1721] “I sink in deep mire; deliver me out of the mire, and let me not sink.”[1722] Who can now think of recounting his sins, when he sees that David was unable to enter on an enumeration of his?

XVII. The souls of those who have been affected with any discoveries of God, have been most cruelly tormented by this fatal delusion. First, they called themselves to an account; they divided sins into boughs, branches, twigs, and leaves, according to the distinctions of these confessors: then they examined the qualities, quantities, and circumstances; and the business made some little progress. But, when they had advanced further, they were surrounded on all sides by the sea and the sky, no port, no haven in prospect; the more they had passed over, the greater mass was always accumulating on their view; they beheld, as it were, lofty mountains rising before them, and no time or labour seemed to encourage the least hope of escaping. Thus they remained in extreme distress, and after all, found it terminate in nothing but despair. Then the remedy applied by those cruel murderers, to alleviate the wounds which they had made, was, that every one should do to the uttermost of his ability. But new cares again disturbed, and new agonies again excruciated, these miserable souls: I have not devoted sufficient time; I have not applied with proper diligence; I have omitted many things through negligence, and the forgetfulness which arises from negligence is inexcusable. To assuage such pains, other remedies were now added: Repent of your negligence; if it be not too great, it will be forgiven. But all these things cannot heal the wound; nor do they act as alleviations of the malady, but rather as poisons concealed in honey, that they may not by their harshness offend at the first taste, but may penetrate into the inmost parts before they are perceived. This terrible injunction, therefore, is always pursuing them and resounding in their ears: “Confess [pg 577] all your sins;” nor can that terror be appeased but by some certain consolation. Here let the reader consider the possibility of taking an account of the actions of a whole year, and selecting the sins of every day; since experience convinces every man that, when at evening he comes to examine the delinquencies of only one day, his memory is confounded by their great multitude and variety. I speak not of stupid hypocrites, who, if they have noticed three or four gross sins, imagine they have discharged their duty; but of the true worshippers of God, who, when they find themselves overwhelmed with the examination they have made, conclude, in the language of John, “If our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart.”[1723] They tremble, therefore, before that Judge, whose knowledge far exceeds our apprehension.

XVIII. The acquiescence of a great part of the world in such soothing arts, employed to temper this mortal poison, was not indulged from a belief that God was satisfied, or because they were altogether satisfied themselves; but that, like mariners, having cast anchor in the midst of the sea, they might enjoy a short respite from the toils of navigation, or like a fatigued and fainting traveller, might lie down in the road. I shall not take much trouble to establish this point for every man may be his own witness of it. I will briefly state the nature of this law. First, it is absolutely impracticable; therefore it can only destroy, condemn, confound, and precipitate into ruin and despair. In the next place, it diverts sinners from a true sense of their sins, and makes them hypocrites, ignorant both of God and themselves. For while they are wholly employed in enumerating their sins, they forget, in the mean time, that latent source of vices, their secret iniquities and inward pollutions, a knowledge of which is above all things necessary to a consideration of their misery. But the most certain rule of confession is to acknowledge and confess the abyss of our guilt to be vast beyond all our comprehension. The publican's confession appears to have been composed according to this rule—“God be merciful to me a sinner.”[1724] As though he had said, “All that I am is utterly sinful; I cannot reach the magnitude of my sins, either with my tongue or with my mind; let the abyss of thy mercy swallow up this abyss of sin.” But you will say, Are not particular sins, then, to be confessed? Is no confession accepted by God unless it be comprised in these precise words, “I am a sinner?” I reply, that we should rather endeavour, as far as we possibly can, to pour out our whole heart before the Lord; and not only confess ourselves sinners in a single expression, but truly and [pg 578] cordially acknowledge ourselves such; and consider in all our reflections, how great and various is the pollution of sin; not only that we are unclean, but the nature and extent of our impurity; not only that we are debtors, but the magnitude and number of the debts with which we are burdened; not only that we are wounded, but what a multitude of mortal wounds we have received. Yet when the sinner has wholly unbosomed himself before God in this acknowledgment, let him seriously and sincerely reflect, that more sins still remain, and that the secret recesses of his guilt are too deep to be entirely disclosed. And therefore let him exclaim with David, “Who can understand his errors? Cleanse thou me from secret faults.”[1725] Now, when they affirm, that sins are not forgiven without a strong resolution having been formed to confess them, and that the gate of Paradise is shut against him who has neglected an opportunity afforded him of confessing,—far be it from us to make them such a concession. For there is no other remission of sins now than there always has been. Among all those who are said to have obtained remission of sins from Christ, none are said to have made a confession in the ear of any priest. Nor, indeed, was it possible for them thus to confess, when there were no confessionary priests, and confession itself was altogether unknown. And this confession was unheard of for many ages after, during which sins were forgiven without this condition. But, not to debate any longer as respecting a doubtful point, “the word of God which abideth for ever,”[1726] is perfectly clear: “If the wicked will turn from all his sins, all his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him.”[1727] He who presumes to make any addition to this declaration, does not bind sins, but limits the mercy of God. When they contend that judgment cannot be given without a trial of the cause, we are prepared with an answer—that they are guilty of arrogant presumption in creating themselves judges. And it is surprising that they so securely fabricate principles for themselves, which no man of sound understanding will admit. They boast that the office of binding and loosing is committed to them, as though it were a kind of jurisdiction annexed to examination. That the apostles were strangers to this authority, their whole doctrine proclaims; and to know certainly whether the sinner be loosed, belongs not to the priest, but to Him of whom absolution is implored; since the priest who bears the confession, can never know whether the enumeration of sins be true and perfect. Thus there would be no absolution, but what must be restricted to the words of the person to be [pg 579] judged. Besides, the loosing of sins depends entirely on faith and repentance; which both elude the knowledge of man, when sentence is to be given respecting another. It follows, therefore, that the certainty of binding and loosing is not subject to the decision of an earthly judge; because a minister, in the legitimate execution of his office, can pronounce only a conditional absolution; but that the declaration, “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted,” is spoken for the sake of sinners, to preclude every doubt that the pardon, which is promised according to the command and word of God, will be ratified in heaven.

XIX. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, if we condemn and desire the total removal of this auricular confession—a thing so pestilent, and in so many respects injurious to the Church. Even if it were a thing abstractedly indifferent, yet, since it is of no use or benefit, but has occasioned so much impiety, sacrilege, and error,—who can refuse to admit, that it ought to be immediately abolished? They mention, indeed, some uses, which they boast of as very beneficial; but these are mere fictions, or productive of no advantage whatever. One circumstance they state as a peculiar recommendation, that the shame of the person who confesses is a grievous punishment, by which the sinner is rendered more cautious in future, and prevents the vengeance of God by punishing himself. As though we humble not a man with a sufficient degree of shame, when we summon him to the supreme tribunal of heaven—to the cognizance of God! It is a wonderful advantage, indeed, if we cease to sin through a shame of one man, but are never ashamed of having God for a witness of our evil conscience! Though this very notion is utterly false; for it is universally observable, that nothing produces a greater confidence or licentiousness in sinning, than the idea entertained by some men, after they have made their confession to a priest, that they may “wipe their mouth and say, I have done no wickedness.”[1728] And they not only become more presumptuous in their sins throughout the year, but, having no concern about confession for the rest of the year, they never aspire after God, they never retire into themselves, but accumulate sins upon sins, till they disembogue them, as they imagine, all at once. But when they have done this, they conceive themselves to be exonerated of their burden, and to have transferred from God the judgment they have conferred on the priest; and that they have deprived God of remembrance, by the information they have communicated to the priest. Besides, who rejoices to see the day of confession approaching? Who goes to confess with alacrity of heart; and does not rather come with unwillingness and reluctance, [pg 580] as though he were forcibly dragged to a prison; except perhaps the priests, who pleasantly entertain themselves with mutual narrations of their exploits, as with humorous anecdotes? I will not soil much paper by relating the monstrous abominations with which auricular confession abounds. I only remark, if that holy man was not guilty of indiscretion, who, on account of one rumour of fornication, banished confession from his church, or rather from the memory of his people,—we are thus reminded of what ought to be done in the present day, when rapes, adulteries, incests, and seductions exceed all enumeration.

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

XXI. When they find themselves convinced, by evident [pg 581] experience, that they promiscuously loose and bind the worthy and the unworthy, they arrogate to themselves the power without knowledge. And though they dare not deny that knowledge is requisite to a good use of it, yet they tell us, that the power itself is committed to improper dispensers of it. But this is the power—“Whatsoever thou bindest or loosest on earth, shall be bound or loosed in heaven.” Either the promise of Christ must be false, or the binding and loosing is rightly performed by those who are endued with this power. Nor is there any room for them to quibble, that the declaration of Christ is limited according to the merits of the person that is bound or loosed. We also acknowledge, that none can be bound or loosed, but such as are worthy to be bound or loosed. But the preachers of the gospel, and the Church, have the word as the standard of this worthiness. In this word, the ministers of the gospel may promise to all remission of sins in Christ through faith; they may denounce damnation against all and upon all who receive not Christ. In this word, the Church pronounces, that fornicators, adulterers, thieves, murderers, misers, and extortioners, have no part in the kingdom of God; and binds such with the firmest bonds. In the same word, the Church looses and comforts those who repent.[1730] But what kind of power will it be, not to know what ought to be bound or loosed? and not to be able to bind or loose without this knowledge? Why, then, do they say, that they absolve by the authority committed to them, when their absolution is uncertain? Why should we concern ourselves about this imaginary power, if it be quite useless? But I have already ascertained, either that it has no existence, or that it is too uncertain to be considered of any value. For, as they confess that there are many of the priests who make no right use of the keys, and that the power has no efficacy without a legitimate use of it, who will assure me, that he by whom I am loosed is a good dispenser of the keys? But if he be a bad one, what else does he possess but this frivolous dispensation of them: “What ought to be bound or loosed in you, I know not, since I am destitute of the proper use of the keys; but if you deserve it, I absolve you?” But as much as this might be done, I will not say by a layman, (since they could not hear that with any patience,) but by a Turk or a devil. For it is equivalent to saying, “I have not the word of God, which is the certain rule of loosing; but I am invested with authority to absolve you, on condition that your merits deserve it.” We see, then, what they intended, when they defined the keys to be an authority of discerning, and a power of executing, attended with knowledge as a counsellor, to promote the good [pg 582] use. The truth is, that they wished to reign according to their own licentious inclinations, independently of God and his word.

XXII. If it be objected, that the legitimate ministers of Christ will be equally perplexed in their office, since the absolution, which depends on faith, will ever be doubtful, and that therefore sinners will have but a slight consolation, or none at all, since the minister himself, who is not a competent judge of their faith, is not certain of their absolution,—we are prepared with an answer. They say, that no sins are remitted by the priest, but those which fall under his cognizance; thus, according to them, remission depends on the judgment of the priest; and unless he sagaciously discerns who are worthy of pardon, the whole transaction is frivolous and useless. In short, the power of which they speak is a jurisdiction annexed to examination, to which pardon and absolution are restricted. In this statement, we find no firm footing, but rather a bottomless abyss; for where the confession is deficient, the hope of pardon is also imperfect; in the next place, the priest himself must necessarily remain in suspense, while he is ignorant whether the sinner faithfully enumerates all his crimes; lastly, such is the ignorance and inexperience of priests, that the majority of them are no more qualified for the exercise of this office, than a shoemaker for cultivating the ground; and almost all the rest ought justly to be suspicious of themselves. Hence, then, the perplexity and doubtfulness of the Papal absolution, because they maintain it to be founded on the person of the priest; and not only so, but on his knowledge, so that he can only judge of what he hears, examines, and ascertains. Now, should any one inquire of these good doctors, whether a sinner be reconciled to God on the remission of part of his sins, I know not what answer they can give, without being constrained to acknowledge the inefficacy of whatever the priest may pronounce concerning the remission of sins which he has heard enumerated, as long as the guilt of others still remains. What a pernicious anxiety must oppress the conscience of the person that confesses, appears from this consideration, that while he relies on the discretion of the priest, (as they express themselves,) he decides nothing by the word of God. The doctrine maintained by us, is perfectly free from all these absurdities. For absolution is conditional, in such a way, that the sinner may be confident that God is propitious to him, provided he sincerely seeks an atonement in the sacrifice of Christ, and relies upon the grace offered to him. Thus it is impossible for him to err, who, according to his duty as a preacher, promulgates what he has been taught by the Divine word; and the sinner may receive a certain and clear absolution, simply on [pg 583] condition of embracing the grace of Christ, according to that general rule of our Lord himself, which has been impiously despised among the Papists—“According to your faith be it unto you.”[1731]

XXIII. Their absurd confusion of the clear representations of the Scripture concerning the power of the keys, I have promised to expose in another place; and a more suitable opportunity will present itself, in discussing the government of the Church. But let the reader remember, that they preposterously pervert to auricular and secret confession, passages which are spoken by Christ, partly of the preaching of the gospel, and partly of excommunication. Wherefore, when they object that the power of loosing was committed to the apostles, which is now exercised by the priests in remitting the sins confessed to them, it is evidently an assumption of a false and frivolous principle; for the absolution consequent on faith, is nothing but a declaration of pardon taken from the gracious promise of the gospel; but the other absolution, which depends on ecclesiastical discipline, relates not to secret sins, but is rather for the sake of example, that the public offence of the Church may be removed. They rake together testimonies from every quarter, to prove, that it is not sufficient to make a confession of sins to God, or to laymen, unless they are likewise submitted to the cognizance of a priest; but they ought to be ashamed of such a disgusting employment. For, if the ancient fathers sometimes persuade sinners to disburden themselves to their own pastor, it cannot be understood of a particular enumeration of sins, which was not then practised. Moreover, Lombard and others of the same class have been so unfair, that they appear to have designedly consulted spurious books, in order to use them as a pretext to deceive the unwary. They do, indeed, properly acknowledge, that since loosing always accompanies repentance, there really remains no bond where any one has experienced repentance, although he may not yet have made a confession; and, therefore, that then the priest does not so much remit sins, as pronounce and declare them to be remitted. Though in the word declare they insinuate a gross error, substituting a ceremony in the place of instruction; but by adding, that he who had already obtained pardon before God, is absolved in the view of the Church, they unseasonably apply to the particular use of every individual, what we have already asserted to have been appointed as a part of the common discipline of the Church, when the offence of some great and notorious crime requires to be removed. But they presently corrupt and destroy all the moderation they had observed, by adding another mode of remission, that is, with an injunction [pg 584] of punishment and satisfaction; by which they arrogantly ascribe to their priests the power of dividing into two parts what God has every where promised as complete. For, as he simply requires repentance and faith, this partition or exception is an evident sacrilege. For it is just as if the priest, sustaining the character of a tribune, should interpose his veto, and not suffer God of his mere goodness to receive any one into favour, unless he had lain prostrate before the tribunitial seat, and there been punished.

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

XXV. The third place in repentance they assign to satisfaction; all their jargon concerning which may be overturned in one word. They say, that it is not sufficient for a penitent to abstain from his former sins, and to change his morals for the better, unless he make satisfaction to God for the crimes which he has committed; and that there are many helps by which we may redeem sins, such as tears, fastings, oblations, and works of charity; that by these the Lord is to be propitiated, by these our debts are to be paid to the Divine justice, by these we must compensate for the guilt of our sins, by these we must merit pardon; for that though, in the plenitude of his mercy, he has remitted our sins, yet, in the discipline of justice, he retains the punishment, and that this is the punishment which must be redeemed by satisfactions. All that they say, however, comes to this conclusion—that we obtain the pardon of our transgressions from the mercy of God, but that [pg 585] it is by the intervention of the merit of works, by which the evil of our sins must be compensated, that the Divine justice may receive the satisfaction which is due to it. To such falsehoods I oppose the gratuitous remission of sins, than which there is nothing more clearly revealed in the Scripture. In the first place, what is remission, but a gift of mere liberality? For the creditor is not said to forgive, who testifies by a receipt that the debt has been paid, but he who, without any payment, merely through his beneficence, voluntarily cancels the obligation. In the next place, why is this said to be free, but to preclude every idea of satisfaction? With what confidence, then, can they still set up their satisfactions, which are overthrown by such a mighty thunderbolt? But when the Lord proclaims by Isaiah, “I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins,”[1732] does he not evidently declare, that he derives the cause and foundation of forgiveness merely from his own goodness? Besides, while the whole Scripture bears testimony to Christ, that “remission of sins” is to be “received through his name,”[1733] does it not exclude all other names? How, then, do they teach, that it is received through the name of satisfactions? Nor can they deny that they ascribe this to satisfactions, although they call their intervention subsidiary. For when the Scripture states it to be “through the name of Christ,” it signifies, that we bring nothing, that we plead nothing, of our own, but rely solely on the mediation of Christ; as Paul, after affirming, “that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them,” immediately adds the method and nature of it, “for he hath made him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us.”[1734]

XXVI. But such is their perverseness, they reply that both remission of sins and reconciliation are obtained at once, when in baptism we are received into the favour of God, through Christ; that if we fall after baptism, we are to be raised up again by satisfactions; and that the blood of Christ avails us nothing, any further than it is dispensed by the keys of the Church. I am not speaking of a doubtful point, for they have betrayed their impurity in the most explicit terms; and this is the case not only of two or three, but of all the schoolmen. For their master, Lombard, after having confessed that, according to the doctrine of Peter, Christ suffered the punishment of sins on the cross,[1735] immediately corrects that sentiment by the addition of the following exception: that all the temporal punishments of sins are remitted in baptism; but [pg 586] that after baptism they are diminished by means of repentance, so that our repentance coöperates with the cross of Christ. But John speaks a very different language: “If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the propitiation for our sins: I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake.”[1736] He certainly addresses believers, and when he exhibits Christ to them as the propitiation for sins, proves that there is no other satisfaction by which our offended God may be propitiated or appeased. He says not, God was once reconciled to you by Christ, now seek some other means; but represents him as a perpetual advocate, who by his intercession restores us to the Father's favour for ever, and as a perpetual propitiation by which our sins are expiated. For this is perpetually true, that was declared by the other John, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world.”[1737] He takes them away himself, I say, and no other; that is, since he alone is the Lamb of God, he alone is the oblation, the expiation, the satisfaction for sins. For the right and power to forgive being the peculiar prerogative of the Father, as distinguished from the Son, as we have already seen, Christ is here represented in another capacity, since by transferring to himself the punishment we deserved, he has obliterated our guilt before the throne of God. Whence it follows, that we shall not be partakers of the atonement of Christ in any other way, unless he remain in the exclusive possession of that honour, which they unjustly assume to themselves who endeavour to appease God by satisfactions of their own.

XXVII. And here two things demand our consideration—that the honour, which belongs to Christ, should be preserved to him entire and undiminished; and that consciences assured of the pardon of their sins, should have peace with God. Isaiah says, “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all,” and “With his stripes we are healed.”[1738] Peter, repeating the same truth in different words, says, that Christ “bare our sins in his own body on the tree.”[1739] Paul informs us, that “sin was condemned in the flesh,”[1740] when “Christ was made sin for us;”[1741] that is, that the power and curse of sin were destroyed in his flesh, when he was given as a victim, to sustain the whole load of our sins, with their curse and execrations, with the dreadful judgment of God, and the condemnation of death. We cannot here listen to those foolish fictions; that after the initial purgation or baptism, none of us can have any further experience of the efficacy of the sufferings of [pg 587] Christ, than in proportion to a satisfactory repentance. But whenever we have fallen, the Scripture recalls us to the satisfaction of Christ alone. Now, review their pestilent follies; “that the grace of God operates alone in the first remission of sins; but that if we afterwards fall, our works coöperate with it in the impetration of a second pardon.” If these things be admitted, does Christ remain exclusively possessed of what we have before attributed to him? How immensely wide is the difference between these positions—that our iniquities are laid on Christ to be expiated by him, and that they are expiated by our own works! that Christ is the propitiation for our sins, and that God must be propitiated by works! But with respect to pacifying the conscience, what peace will it afford any one, to hear that sins are redeemed by satisfactions? When will he be assured of the accomplishment of satisfaction? Therefore he will always doubt whether God be propitious to him, he will always be in a state of fluctuation and terror. For those who content themselves with trivial satisfactions, have too contemptuous sentiments of the judgment of God, and reflect very little on the vast evil of sin, as we shall elsewhere observe. But though we should allow them to expiate some sins by a proper satisfaction, yet what will they do when they are overwhelmed with so many sins, that to make adequate satisfactions for them, even a hundred lives entirely devoted to it could not possibly be sufficient? Besides, all the passages in which remission of sins is declared, are not addressed to catechumens, [or persons not yet baptized,] but to the regenerated sons of God, and those who have been long nurtured in the bosom of the Church. That embassy which Paul so splendidly extols, “We pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God,”[1742] is directed not to strangers, but to those who had already been regenerated. But, dismissing all satisfactions, he sends them to the cross of Christ. Thus, when he writes to the Colossians, that “Christ had made peace by the blood of his cross, and reconciled all things both in earth and in heaven,”[1743] he restricts not this to the moment of our reception into the Church, but extends it through our whole course; as is evident from the context, where he says that believers “have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.” But it is unnecessary to accumulate more passages, which are frequently occurring.

XXVIII. Here they take refuge in a foolish distinction, that some sins are venial, and some mortal; that a great satisfaction is due for mortal sins; but that those which are venial are purged away by easier remedies, by the Lord's prayer, the [pg 588] aspersion of holy water, and the absolution of the mass. Thus they sport and trifle with God. But though they are incessantly talking of venial and mortal sins, yet they have never been able to discriminate one from the other, except by making impiety and impurity of heart a venial sin. But we maintain, according to the doctrine of the Scripture, the only standard of righteousness and sin, that “the wages of sin is death,” and “the soul that sinneth, it shall die;”[1744] but that the sins of believers are venial, not because they are not deserving of death, but because, through the mercy of God, “there is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus;”[1745] because they are not imputed to them, but obliterated by a pardon. I know their unjust calumnies against this doctrine of ours; they assert it to be the Stoical paradox concerning the equality of sins; but they will easily be refuted out of their own lips. For I ask, whether among those very sins which they confess to be mortal, they do not acknowledge one to be greater or less than another? It does not, therefore, immediately follow, that sins are equal because they are alike mortal. Since the Scripture declares that the wages of sin is death, that obedience to the law is the way of life, and the transgression of it death, they cannot evade this decision. What end, then, will they find to satisfactions in so great an accumulation of sins? If it be the business of one day to satisfy for one sin, while they are employed in that, they involve themselves in more; for the most righteous man cannot pass a single day without falling several times. While they shall be preparing themselves to make satisfaction for these, they will accumulate a numerous, or rather an innumerable multitude. Now, all confidence in satisfaction is cut off: on what do they depend? How do they still presume to think of making satisfaction?

XXIX. They endeavour to extricate themselves from this difficulty, but without success. They invent a distinction between the guilt and the punishment; and acknowledge that the guilt is forgiven by the Divine mercy, but maintain, that after the remission of the guilt, there still remains the punishment, which the Divine justice requires to be suffered; and, therefore, that satisfactions properly relate to the remission of the punishment. What desultory levity is this! Now, they confess that remission of guilt is proposed as gratuitous, which they are continually teaching men to merit by prayers and tears, and other preparations of various kinds. But every thing delivered in the Scripture concerning remission of sins is diametrically opposite to this distinction. And though I think I have fully established this point already, I will subjoin some [pg 589] additional testimonies, by which our opponents will be so much embarrassed, as, notwithstanding all their serpentine lubricity, to be totally unable ever to extricate themselves. “This is the new covenant,” which God has made with us in Christ, “that he will not remember our iniquities.”[1746] The import of these expressions we learn from another prophet, by whom the Lord says, “When the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, all his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned. When the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness, he shall surely live, he shall not die.”[1747] “Not to mention righteousness,” signifies, not to notice it so as to reward it; and “not to remember sins,” is, not to inflict punishment for them. This is expressed in other passages by the following phrases: to “cast behind the back,” to “blot out as a cloud,” to “cast into the depths of the sea,” “not to impute,” to “cover.”[1748] These forms of expression would clearly convey to us the sense of the Holy Spirit, if we attended to them with docility. If God punishes sins, he certainly imputes them; if he avenges them, he remembers them; if he cites them to judgment, he does not cover them; if he examines them, he has not cast them behind his back; if he inspects them, he has not blotted them out as a cloud; if he scrutinizes them, he has not cast them into the depths of the sea. And in this manner the subject is clearly explained by Augustine. “If God has covered sins, he would not look at them; if he would not look at them, he would not take cognizance of them; if he would not take cognizance of them, he would not punish them; he would not know them, he would rather forgive them. Why, then, has he said that sins are covered? That they might not be seen. For what is meant by God's seeing sin, but his punishing it?” Let us also hear from another passage of the prophet, on what conditions God remits sins. “Though your sins be as scarlet, (says he,) they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.”[1749] And in Jeremiah we find this declaration: “In that time the iniquities of Israel shall be sought for, and there shall be none; and the sins of Judah, and they shall not be found; for I will pardon them whom I reserve.”[1750] Would you briefly know what is the meaning of these words? Consider, on the contrary, the import of the following expressions: “the Lord seweth up iniquity in a bag;” “iniquity is bound up;” “sin is hid;” to “write sins with a pen of iron, and engrave them with the point of a diamond.”[1751] If they signify [pg 590] that God will execute vengeance, as they undoubtedly do, neither can it be doubted but that, by the contrary declaration, the Lord proclaims his remission of all vindictive punishment. Here I must conjure my readers not to listen to my expositions, but only to pay some deference to the word of God.

XXX. What would Christ have done for us, if punishment for sins were still inflicted on us? For when we say, that he “bare all our sins in his own body on the tree,”[1752] we intend only, that he sustained the vindictive punishment which was due to our sins. This sentiment is more significantly expressed by Isaiah, when he says that the “chastisement (or correction) of our peace was upon him.”[1753] Now, what is the correction of our peace, but the punishment due to sins, and which we must have suffered before we could be reconciled to God, if he had not become our substitute? Thus we see clearly, that Christ bore the punishment of sins, that he might deliver his people from it. And whenever Paul mentions the redemption accomplished by him, he generally calls it ἀπολυτρωσις,[1754] which signifies not simply redemption, as it is commonly understood, but the price and satisfaction of redemption. Thus he says that Christ “gave himself a ransom” (αντιλυτρον) for us.[1755] “What propitiation is there with the Lord (says Augustine) but sacrifice? And what sacrifice is there, but that which has been offered for us in the death of Christ?” But the institutions of the law of Moses, respecting expiations for sins, furnish us with a most powerful argument. For there the Lord prescribes not this or the other method of satisfying, but requires the whole compensation in sacrifices; though he specifies all the rites of expiation with the most particular care, and in the most exact order. How is it that he commands the expiation of sins without any works at all, requiring no other atonement than by sacrifices, but because he intends in this way to declare, that there is only one kind of satisfaction by which his justice is appeased? For the sacrifices then immolated by the Israelites were not considered as the works of men, but were estimated according to their antitype, that is, the one sacrifice of Christ alone. The nature of the compensation which the Lord receives from us is concisely and beautifully expressed by Hosea: “Take away (saith he) all iniquity, O Lord;” here is remission of sins; “so will we render the calves of our lips;”[1756] here is satisfaction, [which is no other than thanksgiving.] I am aware of another still more subtle evasion to which they resort, by distinguishing between eternal punishments and those which are temporal. But when [pg 591] they assert that temporal punishment is any suffering inflicted by God on the body or the soul, eternal death only excepted, this limitation affords them but little assistance. For the passages which we have cited above, expressly signify, that God receives us into favour on this condition, that in forgiving our guilt, he remits all the punishment that we had deserved. And whenever David or the other prophets implore the pardon of their sins, they at the same time deprecate the punishment; and to this they are impelled by an apprehension of the Divine judgment. Again: when they promise mercy from the Lord, they almost always professedly speak of punishments, and of the remission of them. Certainly when the Lord announces by Ezekiel, that he will put an end to the Babylonian captivity, and that for his own sake, not for the sake of the Jews, he sufficiently shows this deliverance to be gratuitous. Finally, if Christ delivers us from guilt, the punishments consequent upon it must necessarily cease.

XXXI. But as our adversaries also, on their part, arm themselves with testimonies from the Scripture, let us examine what arguments they offer. They reason in this way: David, after having been reproved by Nathan the prophet for adultery and murder, receives the pardon of his sin; and yet is afterwards punished by the death of the son that was the fruit of his adultery.[1757] We are taught to compensate by satisfactions for such punishments as would be inflicted even after the remission of the guilt. For Daniel exhorted Nebuchadnezzar to atone for his sins by acts of mercy.[1758] And Solomon says, “By mercy and truth, iniquity is purged.”[1759] And that “charity shall cover a multitude of sins,”[1760] is a sentiment confirmed by the united testimony of Solomon and Peter. The Lord also says in Luke, concerning the woman that had been a sinner, “Her sins are forgiven; for she loved much.”[1761] How perversely and preposterously they always estimate the Divine proceedings! But if they had observed, what should by no means have been overlooked, that there are two kinds of Divine judgment, they would have seen, in this correction of David, a species of punishment very different from that which may be considered as vindictive. But since it highly concerns us all to understand the design of those chastisements with which God corrects our sins, and how greatly they differ from the examples of his indignation pursuing the impious and reprobate, I conceive it will not be unseasonable to give a summary account of them. For the sake of perspicuity, let us call one vengeance, or vindictive judgment, and the other [pg 592] chastisement, or disciplinary judgment. In vindictive judgment, God is to be contemplated as taking vengeance on his enemies, so as to exert his wrath against them, to confound, dissipate, and reduce them to nothing. We consider it, therefore, strictly speaking, to be the vengeance of God, when the punishment he inflicts is attended with his indignation. In disciplinary judgment, he is not so severe as to be angry; nor does he punish in order to destroy or precipitate into perdition. Wherefore, it is not properly punishment or vengeance, but correction and admonition. The former is the part of a judge, the latter of a father. For a judge, when he punishes an offender, attends to the crime itself, and inflicts punishment according to the nature and aggravations of it. When a father corrects his child with severity, he does it not to take vengeance or satisfaction, but rather to teach him, and render him more cautious for the future. Chrysostom somewhere uses a comparison a little different, which, nevertheless, comes to the same point. “A son (says he) is beaten; a servant also is beaten; but the latter is punished as a slave, because he has transgressed; the former is chastised as free and a son, that needs to be disciplined.” Correction serves to the latter for a probation and reformation, to the former for a scourge and a punishment.

XXXII. To obtain a clear view of the whole subject in a small compass, it is necessary to state two distinctions respecting it. The first is, that wherever there is vindictive punishment, there also is a manifestation of the curse and wrath of God, which he always withholds from believers. Chastisement, on the contrary, is, as the Scripture teaches us, both a blessing of God, and a testimony of his love. This difference is sufficiently marked in every part of the Divine word. For all the afflictions which the impious endure in the present life, are represented to us as constituting a kind of antechamber of hell, whence they already have a distant prospect of their eternal damnation; and they are so far from being reformed, or receiving any benefit from this, that they are rather prepared by such preludes for that most tremendous vengeance which finally awaits them. On the contrary, the Lord repeatedly chastises his servants, yet does not deliver them over to death;[1762] wherefore they confess that the strokes of his rod were highly beneficial and instructive to them. As we every where find that the saints bore these corrections with resignation of soul, so they always earnestly deprecated punishments of the former kind. Jeremiah says, “O Lord, correct me, but with judgment; not in thine anger, lest thou bring me to nothing. Pour out [pg 593] thy fury upon the heathen that know thee not, and upon the families that call not upon thy name.”[1763] And David: “O Lord, rebuke me not in thine anger, neither chasten me in thy hot displeasure.”[1764] Nor is it any objection to this, that the Lord is frequently said to be angry with his saints, when he chastises them for their sins. As in Isaiah: “O Lord, I will praise thee; though thou wast angry with me, thine anger is turned away, and thou comfortedst me.”[1765] Habakkuk also: “In wrath remember mercy.”[1766] And Micah: “I will bear the indignation of the Lord, because I have sinned against him.”[1767] Which reminds us, not only that those who are justly punished, receive no advantage from murmuring, but that the faithful derive a mitigation of their sorrow from a consideration of the intention of God. For on the same account he is said to profane his own inheritance, which, however, we know, he never will profane.[1768] That relates not to the design or disposition of God in punishing, but to the vehement sense of sorrow experienced by those who suffer any of his severity. He not only distresses his believing people with no small degree of rigour, but sometimes wounds them in such a manner, that they seem to themselves to be on the brink of infernal destruction. Thus he declares, that they have deserved his wrath; and this in order that they may be displeased with themselves in their distresses, may be influenced by a greater concern to appease God, and may hasten with solicitude to implore his pardon; but in this very procedure he exhibits a brighter testimony of his clemency than of his wrath. The covenant still remains which was made with us in our true Solomon, and the validity of which he, who cannot deceive, has declared shall never be diminished: “If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my commandments; if they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments; then will I visit their transgressions with the rod, and their iniquities with stripes. Nevertheless, my loving-kindness will I not utterly take from him.”[1769] To assure us of this loving-kindness, he says, that the rod with which he will chastise the posterity of Solomon, and the stripes he will inflict on them, will be “the rod of men, and the stripes of the children of men.”[1770] While by these phrases he signifies moderation and lenity, he also implies that those who feel his hand exerted against them cannot but be confounded with an extreme and deadly horror. How much he observes this lenity in chastising his Israel, he shows by the prophet: “I have refined thee, (says he,) but not with silver;[1771] for thou wouldst have been [pg 594] wholly consumed.” Though he teaches him that chastisements serve to purify him, yet he adds that he so far moderates them, that they may not exceed what he is able to bear. And this is highly necessary; for the more a man reveres God and devotes himself to the cultivation of piety, he is so much the more tender to bear his wrath. For though the reprobate groan under his scourges, yet because they consider not the cause, but rather turn their backs both on their sins and on the Divine judgments, from this carelessness they contract an insensibility; or because they murmur and resist, and rebel against their judge, that furious impetuosity stupefies them with madness and rage. But believers, admonished by the Divine corrections, immediately descend to the consideration of their sins, and, stricken with fear and dread, resort to a suppliant deprecation of punishment. If God did not mitigate these sorrows, with which wretched souls torment themselves, they would be continually fainting, even under slight tokens of his wrath.

XXXIII. The second distinction is, that when the reprobate are lashed by the scourges of God in this world, they already begin to suffer his vindictive punishments; and though they will not escape with impunity for having disregarded such indications of the Divine wrath, yet they are not punished in order to their repentance, but only that, from their great misery, they may prove God to be a judge who will inflict vengeance according to their crimes. On the contrary, the children of God are chastised, not to make satisfaction to him for their sins, but that they may thereby be benefited and brought to repentance. Wherefore we see, that such chastisements relate to the future rather than the past. To express this, I would prefer Chrysostom's language to my own. “For this reason (says he) God punishes us, not to take vengeance for our sins, but to correct us for the future.” Thus also Augustine: “That which you suffer, and which causes you to mourn, is a medicine to you, not a punishment; a chastisement, and not damnation. Reject not the scourge, if you desire not to be rejected from the inheritance. All this misery of mankind, under which the world groans, know, brethren, that it is a medicinal sorrow, not a penal sentence.” These passages I have therefore thought proper to quote, that no one might consider the phraseology which I have adopted to be novel or unusual. And to the same purpose are the indignant complaints in which the Lord frequently expostulates on account of the ingratitude of the people, and their obstinate contempt of all their punishments. In Isaiah: “Why should ye be stricken any more? From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness.”[1772] But as the prophets [pg 595] abound in such passages, it will be sufficient briefly to have suggested, that God punishes his Church with no other design than to subdue it to repentance. Therefore, when he rejected Saul from the kingdom, he punished him in a vindictive manner;[1773] when he deprived David of his infant son, he corrected him in order to his reformation.[1774] In this sense we must understand the observation of Paul: “When we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.”[1775] That is, when we, the children of God, are afflicted by the hand of our heavenly Father, this is not a punishment to confound us, but only a chastisement to instruct us. In which Augustine evidently coincides with us; for he teaches that the punishments with which men are equally chastised by God, are to be considered in different points of view; because to the saints, after the remission of their sins, they are conflicts and exercises, but to the reprobate, whose sins are not forgiven, they are the penalties due to their iniquity. He also mentions the punishments inflicted on David and other pious persons, and says, that those chastisements tended to promote their humility, and thereby to exercise and prove their piety. And the declaration of Isaiah, that Jerusalem's “iniquity is pardoned, for she hath received of the Lord's hand double for all her sins,”[1776] proves not the pardon of transgressions to depend on the suffering of the punishment, but is just as though he had said, “Punishments enough have now been inflicted on you; and as the severity and multitude of them have harassed you with a long continuance of grief and sorrow, it is time for you to receive the message of complete mercy, that your hearts may be expanded with joy, and experience me to be your Father.” For God there assumes the character of a Father, who repents even of his righteous severity, when he has been constrained to chastise his son with any degree of rigour.

XXXIV. It is necessary that the faithful should be provided with these reflections in the anguish of afflictions. “The time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God, upon which his name is called.”[1777] What would the children of God do, if they believed the severity which they feel to be the vengeance of God upon them? For he who, under the strokes of the Divine hand, considers God as an avenging Judge, cannot but conceive of Him as incensed against him, and hostile to him, and will therefore detest his scourge itself as a curse and condemnation; in a word, he who thinks that God is still determined to punish him, can never be persuaded to believe himself [pg 596] an object of the Divine love. The only one who receives any benefit from the Divine chastisements, is he who considers God as angry with his crimes, but propitious and benevolent towards his person. For otherwise the case must necessarily be similar to what the Psalmist complains of having experienced: “Thy fierce wrath goeth over me; thy terrors have cut me off.”[1778] And what Moses also speaks of: “For we are consumed by thine anger, and by thy wrath are we troubled. Thou hast set our iniquities before thee, our secret sins in the light of thy countenance. For all our days are passed away in thy wrath: we spend our years as a tale that is told.”[1779] On the contrary, David, speaking of his paternal chastisements, in order to show that believers are rather assisted than oppressed by them, sings: “Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O Lord, and teachest him out of thy law; that thou mayest give him rest from the days of adversity, until the pit be digged for the wicked.”[1780] It is certainly a severe temptation, when the Lord spares unbelievers, and conceals their crimes, while he appears more rigorous towards his own children. For their consolation, therefore, he adds the admonition of the law, whence they may learn, that it is for the promotion of their salvation when they are recalled into the way, but that the impious are precipitated into their errors, which end in the pit. Nor is it of any importance whether the punishment be eternal or temporal. For wars, famines, plagues, and diseases are curses from God, as well as the judgment of eternal death itself, when they are inflicted as the instruments of the Lord's wrath and vengeance against the reprobate.

XXXV. Every one, I presume, now perceives the design of the Lord's correction of David, that it was to be a proof of God's extreme displeasure against murder and adultery, with which he declared himself to be so greatly offended in his beloved and faithful servant, and to teach David never again to be guilty of such crimes; but not as a punishment, by which he was to render God a satisfaction for his offence. And we ought to form the same judgment concerning the other correction, in which the Lord afflicted the people with a violent pestilence, on account of the disobedience of David in numbering them. For he freely forgave David the guilt of his sin; but because it was necessary, as a public example to all ages, and also to the humiliation of David, that such an offence should not remain unpunished, he chastised him with extreme severity. This end we should keep in view also in the universal curse of mankind. For since we all, even after having obtained pardon, still suffer the miseries which were inflicted on our first parent [pg 597] as the punishment of sin, we consider such afflictions as admonitions how grievously God is displeased with the transgression of his law; that being thus dejected and humbled with a consciousness of our miserable condition, we may aspire with greater ardour after true blessedness. Now, he is very unwise, who imagines that the calamities of the present life are inflicted upon us as satisfactions for the guilt of sin. This appears to me to have been the meaning of Chrysostom, when he said, “If God therefore inflicts punishments on us, that while we are persisting in sins he may call us to repentance,—after a discovery of repentance, the punishment will be unnecessary.” Wherefore he treats one person with greater severity, and another with more tender indulgence, as he knows to be suitable to every man's particular disposition. Therefore, when he means to suggest that he is not excessively severe in the infliction of punishment, he reproaches an obdurate and obstinate people, that though they have been corrected, they have not forsaken their sins.[1781] In this sense he complains, that “Ephraim is a cake not turned,”[1782] that is, scorched on one side, unbaked on the other; because his corrections did not penetrate the hearts of the people, so as to expel their vices and render them proper objects of pardon. By expressing himself in this manner, he certainly gives us to understand, that as soon as they shall have repented, he will be immediately appeased, and that the rigour which he exercises in chastising offences is extorted from him by our obstinacy, but would be prevented by a voluntary reformation. Yet since our obduracy and ignorance are such as universally to need castigation, our most wise Father is pleased to exercise all his children, without exception, with the strokes of his rod, as long as they live. It is astonishing why they fix their eyes thus on the example of David alone, and are unaffected by so many instances in which they might behold a gratuitous remission of sins. The publican is said to have gone down from the temple justified;[1783] no punishment follows. Peter obtained the pardon of his sins. “We read,” says Ambrose, “of his tears, but not of his satisfaction.”[1784] And a paralytic hears the following address: “Be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee;”[1785] no punishment is inflicted. All the absolutions which are mentioned in the Scripture, are described as gratuitous. A general rule ought rather to be deduced from these numerous examples, than from that single case which is attended with peculiar circumstances.

XXXVI. When Daniel exhorted Nebuchadnezzar to “break [pg 598] off his sins by righteousness, and his iniquities by showing mercy to the poor,”[1786] he meant not to intimate that righteousness and mercy propitiate God and atone for sins; for God forbid that there should ever be any other redemption than the blood of Christ. But he used the term break off with reference to men, rather than to God; as though he had said, “Thou hast exercised, O king, an unrighteous and violent despotism; thou hast oppressed the weak; thou hast plundered the poor; thou hast treated thy people with harshness and iniquity; instead of unjust exactions, instead of violence and oppression, now substitute mercy and righteousness.” In a similar sense Solomon says, that “love covereth all sins;” not with reference to God, but among men. For the whole verse is as follows: “Hatred stirreth up strifes; but love covereth all sins.”[1787] In which verse, he, according to his usual custom, contrasts the evils arising from hatred with the fruits of love; signifying, that they who hate each other, reciprocally harass, criminate, reproach, revile, and convert every thing into a fault; but that they who love one another, mutually conceal, connive at, and reciprocally forgive, many things among themselves; not that they approve each other's faults, but bear with them, and heal them by admonition, rather than aggravate them by invectives. Nor can we doubt that Peter intended the same in his citation of this passage,[1788] unless we mean to accuse him of corrupting, and craftily perverting the Scriptures. When Solomon says, that “by mercy and truth iniquity is purged,”[1789] he intends not a compensation in the Divine view, so that God, being appeased with such a satisfaction, remits the punishment which he would otherwise have inflicted; but, in the familiar manner of Scripture, he signifies, that they shall find him propitious to them who have forsaken their former vices and iniquities, and are converted to him in piety and truth; as though he had said, that the wrath of God subsides, and his judgment ceases, when we cease from our sins. He describes not the cause of pardon, but the mode of true conversion. Just as the prophets frequently declare that it is in vain for hypocrites to offer to God ostentatious ceremonies instead of repentance, since he is only pleased with integrity and the duties of charity; and as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, when he recommends us “to do good and to communicate,” informs us that “with such sacrifices God is well pleased.”[1790] And when Christ ridicules the Pharisees for having attended only to the cleansing of dishes, and neglected all purity of heart, and commands them to give alms that all [pg 599] might be clean,[1791] he is not exhorting them to make a satisfaction, but only teaching them what kind of purity obtains the Divine approbation. But of this expression we have treated in another work.[1792]

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

XXXVIII. To those things which frequently occur in the works of the fathers concerning satisfaction, I pay little regard. I see, indeed, that some of them, or, to speak plainly, almost all whose writings are extant, have either erred on this point, or expressed themselves too harshly. But I shall not admit that they were so ignorant and inexperienced, as to write those things in the sense in which they are understood by the modern advocates for satisfaction. Chrysostom somewhere [pg 600] expresses himself thus: “Where mercy is requested, examination ceases; where mercy is implored, judgment is not severe; where mercy is sought, there is no room for punishment; where there is mercy, there is no inquiry; where mercy is, an answer is freely given.” These expressions, however they may be distorted, can never be reconciled with the dogmas of the schools. In the treatise On Ecclesiastical Doctrines, which is ascribed to Augustine, we read the following passage: “The satisfaction of repentance is to cut off the causes of sins, and not to indulge an entrance to their suggestions.” Whence it appears, that even in those times the doctrine of satisfaction, as a compensation for sins committed, was universally rejected, since he refers all satisfaction to a cautious abstinence from sins in future. I will not quote what is further asserted by Chrysostom, that the Lord requires of us nothing more than to confess our sins before him with tears; for passages of this kind frequently occur in his writings, and in those of other fathers. Augustine somewhere calls works of mercy “remedies for obtaining remission of sins;” but lest any one should stumble at that expression, he explains himself more fully in another place. “The flesh of Christ,” says he, “is the true and sole sacrifice for sins, not only for those which are all obliterated in baptism, but also for those which afterwards creep in through infirmity; on account of which the whole Church at present exclaims, Forgive us our debts;[1794] and they are forgiven through that single sacrifice.”

XXXIX. But they most commonly used the word “satisfaction” to signify, not a compensation rendered to God, but a public testification, by which those who had been punished with excommunication, when they wished to be readmitted to communion, gave the Church an assurance of their repentance. For there were enjoined on those penitents certain fastings, and other observances, by which they might prove themselves truly and cordially weary of their former life, or rather obliterate the memory of their past actions; and thus they were said to make satisfaction, not to God, but to the Church. This is also expressed by Augustine in these very words, in his Enchiridion ad Laurentium. From that ancient custom have originated the confessions and satisfactions which are used in the present age; a viperous brood which retain not even the shadow of that original form. I know that the fathers sometimes express themselves rather harshly; nor do I deny, what I have just asserted, that perhaps they have erred. But their writings, which were only besprinkled with a few spots, after they have been handled by such foul hands, became thoroughly soiled. And if we [pg 601] must contend with the authority of fathers, what fathers do they obtrude upon us? Most of those passages, of which Lombard, their champion, has compiled his heterogeneous collection, are extracted from the insipid reveries of some monks, which are circulated under the names of Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and Chrysostom. Thus, on the present argument, he borrows almost every thing from a Treatise on Repentance, which is a ridiculous selection from various authors, good and bad; it bears the name of Augustine indeed, but no man even of moderate learning can deign to admit it as really his. For not entering into a more particular examination of their absurdities, I request the pardon of the reader, whom I wish to spare that trouble. It would be both easy and plausible for me to expose to the greatest contempt, what they have heretofore celebrated as mysteries; but I forbear, as my object is to write what may tend to edification.

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

This doctrine of satisfaction has given rise to indulgences. For by indulgences they pretend, that the deficiency of our abilities to make satisfaction is supplied, and even proceed to the extravagance of defining them to be the dispensation of the merits of Christ and of the martyrs, which the Pope distributes in his bulls. Now, though such persons are fitter subjects for a mad-house than for arguments, so that it would be of little use to engage in refuting errors so frivolous, which have been shaken by many attacks, and begin of themselves to grow obsolete, and totter towards a fall, yet, as a brief refutation will be useful to some minds hitherto uninformed on the subject, I shall not altogether omit it. And indeed the establishment and long continuance of indulgences, with the unlimited influence retained by them amidst such outrageous and furious licentiousness, may serve to convince us in what a deep night of errors men were immersed for several ages. They saw, that they were themselves objects of the public and undissembled ridicule of the Pope and the dispensers of his bulls; that lucrative bargains were made concerning the salvation of their souls; that the price of salvation was fixed at a trifling sum of money, and nothing presented gratuitously; that under this [pg 602] pretext, contributions were extorted from them, which were vilely consumed on brothels, pimps, and revellings; that the greatest advocates of indulgences were the greatest despisers of them; that this monster was daily making longer strides in licentious power and luxury, and that there was no end, that more trash was continually produced, and more money continually extorted. Yet they received indulgences with the greatest veneration, adored them and purchased them; and those who had more discernment than others, yet considered them as pious frauds, by which they might be deceived with some advantage. At length, since the world has permitted itself to recover a little the exercise of reason, indulgences become more and more discredited, till they altogether disappear.

II. But since many, who see the pollution, imposture, robbery, and rapacity, with which the dispensers of indulgences have hitherto amused themselves and cajoled us, do not perceive the fountain of all this impiety,—it will be necessary to show, not only the nature of indulgences as commonly used, but what they are in themselves when abstracted from every adventitious blemish. The merits of Christ and of the holy apostles and martyrs, they style “the treasury of the Church.” The principal custody of this repository they pretend to have been delivered, as I have already hinted, to the bishop of Rome, who has the dispensation of such great benefits, so that he can both bestow them himself, and delegate the power of bestowing them to others. Hence from the Pope are received sometimes plenary indulgences, sometimes indulgences for a certain number of years; from Cardinals, for a hundred days; from Bishops, for forty days. But to describe them correctly, they are a profanation of the blood of Christ and a delusion of Satan, by which they seduce Christians from the grace of God and the life which is in Christ, and turn them aside from the right way of salvation. For how could the blood of Christ be more basely profaned, than when it is denied to be sufficient for the remission of sins, for reconciliation and satisfaction, unless its deficiency be supplied from some other quarter? “To him,” says Peter, “give all the prophets witness, that through his name, whosoever believeth on him shall receive remission of sins.”[1795] Indulgences dispense remission of sins through Peter, and Paul, and the martyrs. “The blood of Jesus Christ,” says John, “cleanseth us from all sin.”[1796] Indulgences make the blood of the martyrs the ablution of sins. Paul says, that Christ, “who knew no sin, was made sin for us;” that is, a satisfaction for sin, “that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”[1797] Indulgences place satisfaction [pg 603] for sins in the blood of the martyrs. Paul declared to the Corinthians, that Christ alone was crucified and died for them.[1798] Indulgences pronounce that Paul and others died for us. In another place he says, that Christ “hath purchased the Church with his own blood.”[1799] Indulgences assign another price of this purchase, in the blood of the martyrs. The apostle says, that “by one offering Christ hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”[1800] Indulgences, on the contrary, proclaim that sanctification, which were otherwise insufficient, receives its perfection from the martyrs. John declares that all saints “have washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb.”[1801] Indulgences teach us to wash our robes in the blood of the saints.

III. Leo, bishop of Rome, excellently opposes these sacrilegious pretensions in his epistle to the Bishops of Palestine. “Although the death of many saints,” he says, “has been precious in the sight of the Lord, yet the murder of no innocent person has been the propitiation of the world. The righteous have received, not bestowed, crowns; and from the fortitude of the faithful have arisen examples of patience, not gifts of righteousness. For their deaths have been all singular, nor has any one by his death discharged the debt of another; for it is the Lord Christ alone, in whom all are crucified, dead, buried, and raised from the dead.” This passage being worthy of remembrance, he repeats it in another place. Surely nothing clearer can be desired, in confutation of this impious doctrine of indulgences. And Augustine expresses himself with equal propriety to the same purpose. He says, “Although we die, brethren for brethren, yet the blood of no martyr is ever shed for the remission of sins. Christ has done this for us; and in doing it has not given an example in which we should imitate him, but conferred a favour for which we should thank him.” Again, in another place: “As the Son of God alone became the Son of man, to make us with himself sons of God, so he alone, without any demerits, sustained the punishment for us, that we, without any merits, might through him obtain undeserved grace.” Indeed, whilst their whole doctrine is a compound of horrible sacrilege and blasphemies, yet this is a blasphemy more monstrous than the rest. Let them acknowledge whether these be not their opinions, that the martyrs have by their death performed for God, and merited from him, more than was necessary for themselves; that they had so great a redundance of merits, as to superabound to others; that therefore, lest so great a blessing should be superfluous, their blood is commingled with the blood of Christ, and [pg 604] that of both these is formed the treasury of the Church for the remission and expiation of sins; and that in this sense we ought to understand the declaration of Paul, “I fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh, for his body's sake, which is the Church.”[1802] What is this but leaving Christ a mere name, and in other respects making him an inferior saint of the common order, scarcely distinguishable among the multitude? He alone ought to have been preached, he alone exhibited, he alone mentioned, he alone regarded, in all discourses on the procurement of remission of sins, expiation, and sanctification. But let us hear their grand argument: That the blood of the martyrs may not be shed in vain, let it be applied to the common benefit of the Church. Indeed? Was it no advantage to glorify God by their death? to subscribe to his truth with their blood? to testify by their contempt of the present life, that they sought a better one? by their constancy, to confirm the faith of the Church, and vanquish the obstinacy of their enemies? But this is the fact: they acknowledge no benefit, if Christ alone be the propitiator, if he alone died for our sins, if he alone was offered for our redemption. Peter and Paul, they say, might nevertheless have obtained the crown of victory, if they had expired in their beds. But since they contended even to blood, it would be incompatible with the justice of God to leave this barren or unfruitful. As if God knew not how to augment the glory of his servants according to the extent of his gifts. But the Church in general receives an advantage sufficiently great, when by their triumphs it is inflamed with the same zeal for similar exertions and conflicts.

IV. But how maliciously they pervert that passage of Paul, where he says, “that he fills up in his own flesh that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ!”[1803] For he refers that deficiency and supplement, not to the work of redemption, satisfaction, or expiation, but to those afflictions, with which the members of Christ, even all the faithful, must necessarily be exercised as long as they live in the present state. He says, therefore, that this remains of the afflictions of Christ, that having once suffered in himself, he daily suffers in his members. Christ honors us so far as to consider our afflictions as his. When Paul adds that he suffered “for the Church,” he means not for the redemption, reconciliation, or atonement of the Church, but for its edification and profit. As in another place he says, “I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus.”[1804] He writes to the Corinthians, that whatever tribulations he [pg 605] endured, he was “afflicted for their consolation and salvation.”[1805] And he immediately proceeds to explain himself, by adding, that he was made a minister of the Church, not for its redemption, but according to the dispensation which had been committed to him, to preach the gospel of Christ.[1806] But if they require also another expositor, let them attend to Augustine: “The sufferings of Christ,” says he, “are in Christ alone, as in the head; in Christ and the Church, as in the whole body. Whence Paul, one of the members, says, I fill up in my flesh that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ. If you, therefore, whoever you are that read this, are one of the members of Christ, all that you suffer from such as are not members of Christ, was behind in the afflictions of Christ.” But the tendency of the sufferings of the apostles, sustained on account of the Church, is stated by him in another place: “Christ is my door to you; because you are the sheep of Christ, purchased with his blood: acknowledge your price, which is not given by me, but preached by me.” Then he adds, “As he has laid down his life, so we ought also to lay down our lives for the brethren, for the establishment of peace and the confirmation of faith.” This is the language of Augustine. But let it not be imagined, that Paul thought there was any deficiency in the sufferings of Christ, with respect to all the plenitude of righteousness, salvation, and life; or that any addition to them was intended by him, who so clearly and magnificently proclaims, that the “abundance of grace by Christ” was poured forth with such liberality, that it “much more abounded” beyond all the aboundings of sin.[1807] It is not by the merit of their own life or death, but by this grace alone, that all the saints have been saved, as Peter expressly testifies;[1808] so that he would be guilty of an injurious contempt of God and of his Christ, who should place the worthiness of any saint in any thing else but the mere mercy of God. But why do I dwell any longer on this subject, as though it were still involved in obscurity? whereas the statement of such monstrous notions is of itself a complete refutation of them.

V. Now, to pass from such abominations, who taught the Pope to enclose in lead and parchment the grace of Jesus Christ, which the Lord designed to be dispensed by the word of the gospel? Either the gospel of God must be false, or their indulgences fallacious. For that Christ is offered to us in the gospel, with all his plenitude of heavenly blessings, with all his merits, with all his righteousness, wisdom, and grace, without any exception, is testified by Paul, when he says, “God hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. [pg 606] Now, then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”[1809] And believers know the meaning of that “fellowship of Christ,”[1810] which, according to the testimony of the same apostle, is offered to our enjoyment in the gospel. Indulgences, on the contrary, produce a certain allowance of grace from the Pope's repository, fix it to lead and parchment, and even to a particular place, and separate it from the word of God. Now, if any one inquire the origin of this abuse, it seems to have arisen from an ancient custom, that when more severe satisfactions were imposed on penitents than could possibly be borne by all, they who felt themselves oppressed beyond measure, petitioned the Church for some relaxation of rigour. The remission granted to such persons was called indulgence. But when they transferred satisfactions to God, and said that they were compensations, by which men might redeem themselves from the judgment of God, they also converted these indulgences into expiatory remedies, to deliver us from deserved punishments. But the blasphemies which we have mentioned have been fabricated with such consummate impudence, that they have not even the least appearance of plausibility.

VI. Nor let them now trouble us any more about their purgatory, since it is utterly demolished by this argument. For I cannot coincide with some, who think it best to be silent on this point, and to omit the mention of purgatory, from which, they say, many sharp contentions arise, but very little edification results. Indeed, I should myself be of opinion that such trifles are unworthy of notice, if they did not consider them as matters of importance. But since purgatory has been erected with a multitude of blasphemies, and is daily propped by new ones, and since it excites many and grievous offences, it really must not pass without notice. It might be possible for a time to conceal that it was a fiction of curious and presumptuous temerity, unsupported by the word of God; that it was accredited by I know not what revelation invented by the subtlety of Satan; that for its confirmation some passages of Scripture were absurdly perverted. The Lord, however, suffers not human presumption thus violently to break into the hidden recesses of his judgment;[1811] and has severely prohibited the neglect of his word and the inquiry after truth among the dead; and does not permit his word to be thus irreverently dishonoured. Nevertheless, admitting that all these things [pg 607] might for a short time have been tolerated as matters of small importance, yet when expiation of sins is sought any where but in the blood of Christ, when satisfaction is transferred to any other, silence becomes dangerous in the extreme. Therefore we should exclaim with all our might, that purgatory is a pernicious fiction of Satan, that it makes void the cross of Christ, that it intolerably insults the Divine mercy, and weakens and overturns our faith. For what is their purgatory, but a satisfaction for sins paid after death by the souls of the deceased? Thus the notion of satisfaction being overthrown, purgatory itself is immediately subverted from its very foundations. But if it has been fully evinced, that the blood of Christ is the only satisfaction, expiation, and purgation for the sins of the faithful, what is the necessary inference, but that purgatory is nothing but a horrible blasphemy against Christ? I pass by the sacrilegious pretences with which it is daily defended, the offences which it produces in religion, and the other innumerable evils which we perceive to have proceeded from such a source of impiety.

VII. It is worth while, however, to wrest out of their hands those passages of Scripture, which they have falsely and corruptly pressed into their service. The assertion of the Lord, that the sin against the Holy Ghost “shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, neither in the world to come,”[1812] implies, they say, that there is a forgiveness of some sins in the world to come. But who does not see, that the Lord there speaks of the guilt of sin? And if this be the case, what has it to do with their purgatory, for there they suppose punishment to be inflicted for sins, the guilt of which they do not deny to have been forgiven in the present life? But to prevent all further cavils, they shall have a plainer answer. When the Lord intended to cut off from such flagitious iniquity all hope of pardon, he thought it not sufficient to say that it should never be forgiven; but for the sake of further amplification he adopted a distinction, comprehending both the judgment which the conscience of every individual feels in this life, and that final judgment which will be publicly held at the resurrection; as though he had said, “Beware of malicious rebellion, as of immediate perdition; for he who shall have purposely endeavoured to extinguish the offered light of the Spirit, shall never obtain pardon, neither in this life, which is allotted to sinners for their conversion, nor in the last day, when the lambs shall be separated from the goats by the angels of God, and the kingdom of heaven shall be purged from every offence.” They next adduce this parable from Matthew: “Agree with thine [pg 608] adversary; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.”[1813] If in this place the judge signify God, the adversary the devil, the officer an angel, the prison purgatory, I will readily submit to them. But if it be evident to every one, that Christ there intended to show to how many dangers and calamities persons exposed themselves, who prefer obstinately exerting the rigour of the law, to acting upon the principles of equity and kindness, in order the more earnestly to exhort his disciples to an equitable concord, pray where will purgatory be found?

VIII. They derive an argument from the language of Paul, where he has affirmed, “that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth.”[1814] For they assume it as granted, that “things (or persons) under the earth” cannot be understood of those who are consigned to eternal damnation. It follows, therefore, that they must be the souls suffering in purgatory. Their reasoning would not be very bad, if, by genuflection, the apostle designed truly pious worship; but since he simply teaches, that dominion is committed to Christ, by which all creatures must be subjugated, why may we not understand this phrase of the devils, who will indeed stand at the tribunal of the Lord, and acknowledge him as their Judge with fear and trembling? As Paul himself elsewhere explains the same prophecy: “We shall all stand,” says he, “before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,” &c.[1815] But they reply, we cannot give the same kind of interpretation to this passage in the Revelation: “Every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.”[1816] This I readily concede; but what creatures do they suppose to be here enumerated? for it is very certain, that the expressions comprehend creatures both irrational and inanimate. It is a mere declaration that all the parts of the world, from the summit of the heavens to the centre of the earth, celebrate, in their respective ways, the glory of the Creator. What they produce from the history of the Maccabees, I shall not honour with an answer, that I may not be supposed to place that work in the catalogue of sacred books. But Augustine, they say, received it as canonical. I inquire, first, With what degree of credit did he [pg 609] receive it? He says, “The history of the Maccabees is not esteemed by the Jews as the law, and the prophets, and the Psalms, to which the Lord gives a testimony, as being witnesses concerning him, saying, ‘All things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me.’[1817] But it has been received by the Church, and not altogether unprofitably, if it be read or heard with sobriety,” &c. Jerome, without any scruple, inculcates, that its authority is of no force in the support of doctrines. And from that old treatise on the Exposition of the Creed, which is ascribed to Cyprian, it clearly appears that it was not admitted in the ancient Church. But why am I now contending to no purpose? as though the author himself did not sufficiently show what deference is due to him, when, at the conclusion, he begs pardon if he should have spoken any thing improperly. Certainly he who confesses that his writings need pardon, proclaims them not to be the oracles of the Holy Spirit. Besides, the piety of Judas Maccabeus is commended on no other ground, but because he had a firm hope of the final resurrection, when he sent to Jerusalem an oblation for the dead. Nor does the historian represent this oblation as intended to be a price of redemption, but that those in whose names it was offered might be partakers of eternal life with the rest of the faithful who had died in defence of their country and religion. This action was accompanied, indeed, by superstition and preposterous zeal; but they are more than infatuated who apply to us a sacrifice offered under the law; since we know, that all such ancient usages ceased at the advent of Christ.

IX. But they find in Paul an invincible argument, which cannot be so easily answered. “If any man,” says he, “build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble, every man's work shall be made manifest; for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.”[1818] What can this be, they ask, but purgatorial fire, by which the pollution of sins is cleansed, that we may enter pure into the kingdom of God? But most of the fathers were of a different opinion, understanding the word “fire” to mean tribulation, or the cross, by which the Lord tries his children, to purify them from all carnal pollution; and this is much more probable than the notion of purgatory. I cannot, however, coincide with them; for I think I have discovered a far more certain and lucid interpretation [pg 610] of this passage. But before I state it, I could wish them to answer this question—whether they suppose it was necessary for the apostles and all the saints to pass through this purgatorial fire. I know they will answer in the negative; for it were too absurd, that purification should be necessary to those whose redundant merits they vainly imagine to superabound to all the members of the Church. But the apostle affirms this; for he says, not that the work of some, but that the work of all, shall be proved. Nor is this my own argument, but Augustine's, who thus opposes the interpretation now adopted by our adversaries. And, what would be still more absurd, he says, not that they shall pass through the fire on account of any works, but that if they have edified the Church with perfect fidelity, they shall receive a reward, when their work shall have been tried by fire. In the first place, we see that the apostle uses a metaphor, when he calls doctrines of human invention “wood, hay, stubble.” The reason of the metaphor also is evident; that as wood, immediately on being placed in contact with fire, consumes and wastes away, so neither will those doctrines be able to abide the test of examination. Now, it is well known that such an examination proceeds from the Spirit of God. Therefore, to pursue the thread of the metaphor, and to adapt the parts by a proper relation to each other, he gives the Holy Spirit's examination the appellation of fire. For as gold and silver afford a more certain proof of their goodness and purity in proportion to their proximity to the fire, so Divine truth receives the stronger confirmation of its authority, in proportion to the strictness of spiritual examination by which it is investigated. As wood, hay, and stubble, brought into contact with fire, are speedily consumed, so the inventions of men, unsupported by the word of God, cannot bear the examination of the Holy Spirit, but must immediately fall to the ground. Finally, if false doctrines are compared to wood, hay, and stubble, because, like wood, hay, and stubble, they are consumed by fire and entirely destroyed, and if they are overcome only by the Spirit of the Lord, it follows that the Spirit is that fire by which they will be proved. This trial Paul calls the day, or the day of the Lord, according to the common phraseology of Scripture. For that is called the day of the Lord, whenever he manifests his presence to men. Now, we enjoy most of the light of his countenance when we are favoured with the radiance of his truth. It has been evinced that Paul means no other fire than the examination of the Holy Spirit. But how are they saved by the fire, who suffer the loss of their work? This it will not be difficult to comprehend, if we consider of what class of men he is speaking. For he characterizes them as builders of the [pg 611] Church, who retain their legitimate foundation, but raise the superstructure of unequal materials: they are such as do not deviate from the principal and essential articles of the faith, but err in inferior and less important ones, mixing their own inventions with the word of God. Such, I say, must suffer the loss of their work, by their inventions being destroyed; but they are themselves saved, yet so as by fire; that is, not because their ignorance and error can be approved by the Lord, but because they are purified from them by the grace and power of the Holy Spirit. Wherefore, whoever have corrupted the pure gold of the Divine word with this filth of purgatory, must necessarily suffer the loss of their work.

X. Our opponents will reply, that it has been a very ancient opinion in the Church. Paul removes this objection when he comprehends even his own age in this sentence, where he denounces, that all must suffer the loss of their work, who, in the structure of the Church, should place any thing not corresponding to the foundation. When our adversaries, therefore, object to me, that to offer prayers for the dead has been the practice of more than thirteen hundred years, I inquire of them, on the contrary, by what word of God, by what revelation, by what example, it is sanctioned. For they are not only destitute of any testimonies of Scripture in favour of it, but none of the examples of the saints there recorded exhibit any thing like it. Respecting mourning and funeral offices, it contains many and sometimes long accounts; but of prayers for persons deceased, you cannot discover the smallest hint. But the greater the importance of the subject, so much the rather ought it to have been particularly mentioned. Even the fathers themselves, who offered up prayers for the dead, saw that they had neither a Divine command, nor a legitimate example, to justify the practice. Why, then, did they presume to adopt it? In this, I say, they discovered themselves to be but men; and therefore I contend, that what they did ought not to be enforced for the imitation of others. For since believers ought not to undertake any thing without an assurance of conscience, according to the direction of Paul,[1819] this assurance is chiefly requisite in prayer. Yet it will be urged, It is probable that they were impelled to it by some reason. I reply, Perhaps they sought some consolation to alleviate their sorrow, and it might appear inhuman not to give some testimony of their love towards the dead in the presence of God. The propensity of the human mind to this affection, all men know by experience. The custom, also, when received, was like a flame, kindling ardour in the minds of multitudes. We [pg 612] know that funeral rites have been performed to the dead among all nations, and in every age, and that lustrations have been annually made for their departed spirits. For though Satan has deluded foolish mortals with these fallacies, yet he has borrowed the occasion of the deception from a true principle—that death is not an annihilation, but a transition from this life into another. Nor can it be doubted, but that even superstition itself convicts the heathen before the tribunal of God, for neglecting all the concerns of a future life, which they professed to believe. Now, Christians, because they would not be inferior to the heathen, were ashamed to perform no services for the dead, as though they had wholly ceased to exist. Hence that inconsiderate officiousness; because if they were negligent in attending to funerals, feasts, and oblations, they were afraid they should expose themselves to great disgrace. What first proceeded from a perverse emulation, has been so repeatedly augmented by novel additions, that the principal sanctity of Popery consists in relieving the distresses of the dead. But the Scripture administers another consolation, far better and more substantial, when it declares that “Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord;” and adds as a reason, “that they may rest from their labours.”[1820] But we ought not to indulge our own affection so far as to introduce a corrupt method of praying into the Church. Certainly, he that has but a moderate share of penetration, will easily discover all that we find on this subject in the fathers to have been in compliance with general practice and vulgar ignorance. I confess, they were also involved in the error themselves, from an inconsiderate credulity which frequently deprives the human mind of its judgment. But in the mean time, the mere reading of them demonstrates with what hesitation they recommend prayers for the dead. Augustine, in his Book of Confessions, relates that Monica, his mother, had vehemently entreated to be remembered in the celebration of the mysteries at the altar. This was the wish of an old woman, which her son did not examine by the standard of Scripture; but from his natural affection for her, wished it to gain the approbation of others. But the treatise composed by him, on Care for the Dead, contains so many hesitations, that it ought by its coolness to extinguish the heat of imprudent zeal. If any one desires to be an intercessor for the dead, this treatise, with its frigid probabilities, will certainly remove all the solicitude he may have previously experienced. For this is its only support, that since it has been customary to pray for the dead, it is a duty not to be despised. But though I concede, that the ancient writers of the Church esteemed it a pious act [pg 613] to pray for the dead, yet we must always remember a rule which can never deceive—that it is not right for us in our prayers to introduce any thing of our own, but that our desires must be submitted to the word of God; because he chooses to prescribe what he designs we should ask. Now, since there is not a syllable, in all the law or the gospel, which allows us to pray for the dead, it is a profane abuse of the name of God, to attempt more than he enjoins. But that our adversaries may not glory, as though the ancient Church were associated with them in their error, I assert that there is a considerable difference between them. The ancients preserved the memory of the dead, that they might not seem to have cast off all concern for them; but they at the same time confessed their uncertainty concerning their state. Respecting purgatory they asserted nothing, but considered it as quite uncertain. The moderns expect their reveries concerning purgatory to be admitted as unquestionable articles of faith. The fathers, in the communion of the sacred supper, merely recommended their deceased friends to the mercy of God. The Papists are incessantly urging a concern for the dead; and by their importunate declamations cause it to be preferred to all the duties of charity. Besides, it would not be difficult for us to produce some testimonies from the fathers which manifestly overthrow all those prayers for the dead which were then used. Such is this of Augustine; when he teaches that all men expect the resurrection of the body and eternal glory, and that every individual enters on the fruition of that rest which follows after death, if he is worthy of it when he dies. Therefore he declares that all the pious, as well as the prophets, apostles, and martyrs, enjoy a blessed repose immediately after death. If such be their condition, what advantage will our prayers confer on them? I pass over those grosser superstitions with which they have fascinated the minds of the simple; which nevertheless are innumerable, and for the most part so monstrous, that they cannot be varnished over by any honest pretext. I omit, also, that most disgraceful traffic which they licentiously carried on while the world was in such a state of stupidity. For I should never arrive at a conclusion, and I have already furnished the pious reader with sufficient to establish his conscience.

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

We have said that the end of regeneration is, that the life of believers may exhibit a symmetry and agreement between the righteousness of God and their obedience; and that thus they may confirm the adoption by which they are accepted as his children. But though the law of God contains in it that newness of life by which his image is restored in us, yet since our tardiness needs much stimulation and assistance, it will be useful to collect from various places of Scripture a rule for the reformation of the life, that they who cordially repent may not be bewildered in their pursuits. Now, when I undertake the regulation of a Christian's life, I know that I am entering on an argument various and copious, and the magnitude of which might fill a large volume, if I designed a complete discussion of every part of it. For we see to what great prolixity the fathers have extended the exhortations composed by them only on single virtues; and that without any excessive loquacity; for, whatever virtue it is intended to recommend in an oration, the copiousness of the matter naturally produces such a diffusiveness of style, that unless you have spoken largely, you seem not to have done justice to the subject. But my design is not to extend the plan of life, which I am now about to deliver, so far as particularly to discourse on each distinct virtue, and expatiate into exhortations. These things may be sought in the writings of others, especially in the homilies of the fathers. It will be sufficient for me if I point out a method by which a pious man may be conducted to the right end in the regulation of his life, and briefly assign a universal rule, by which he may properly estimate his duties. There will, perhaps, at some future period be a suitable opportunity for declamations; or I shall leave to others an office for which I am not calculated. I am naturally fond of brevity; and, perhaps, were I desirous of speaking in a more copious manner, I should not succeed. And if a more prolix method of teaching were most acceptable, yet I should scarcely be inclined to make the trial. The plan of the present work, however, requires me to treat a simple doctrine with all possible brevity. As the philosophers have certain principles of rectitude and honour, whence they deduce particular duties and the whole circle of virtues, so the Scripture is not without its order in [pg 615] this respect, but maintains an economy superlatively beautiful, and far more certain, than all the systems of the philosophers. There is only this difference—that, the philosophers being ambitious men, they have sedulously affected an exquisite perspicuity of method, in order to make an ostentatious display of their ingenious dexterity. But the Spirit, whose teaching is void of affectation, has not so exactly or perpetually observed a methodical plan; which, nevertheless, by using it in some places, he sufficiently indicates ought not to be neglected by us.

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

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

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

V. Yet I would not insist upon it as absolutely necessary, that the manners of a Christian should breathe nothing but the perfect gospel; which, nevertheless, ought both to be wished and to be aimed at. But I do not so rigorously require evangelical perfection as not to acknowledge as a Christian, one who has not yet attained to it; for then all would be excluded from the Church; since no man can be found who is not still at a great distance from it; and many have hitherto made but a very small progress, whom it would, nevertheless, be unjust to reject. What then? let us set before our eyes that mark, to which alone our pursuit must be directed. Let that be prescribed as the goal towards which we must earnestly tend. For it is not lawful for you to make such a compromise with God, as to undertake a part of the duties prescribed [pg 618] to you in his word, and to omit part of them, at your own pleasure. For, in the first place, he every where recommends integrity as a principal branch of his worship; by which he intends a sincere simplicity of heart, free from all guile and falsehood; the opposite of which is a double heart; as though it had been said, that the beginning of a life of uprightness is spiritual, when the internal affection of the mind is unfeignedly devoted to God in the cultivation of holiness and righteousness. But since no man in this terrestrial and corporeal prison has strength sufficient to press forward in his course with a due degree of alacrity, and the majority are oppressed with such great debility, that they stagger and halt, and even creep on the ground, and so make very inconsiderable advances,—let us every one proceed according to our small ability, and prosecute the journey we have begun. No man will be so unhappy, but that he may every day make some progress, however small. Therefore, let us not cease to strive, that we may be incessantly advancing in the way of the Lord; nor let us despair on account of the smallness of our success; for however our success may not correspond to our wishes, yet our labour is not lost, when this day surpasses the preceding one; provided that, with sincere simplicity, we keep our end in view, and press forward to the goal, not practising self-adulation, nor indulging our own evil propensities, but perpetually exerting our endeavours after increasing degrees of amelioration, till we shall have arrived at a perfection of goodness, which, indeed, we seek and pursue as long as we live, and shall then attain, when, divested of all corporeal infirmity, we shall be admitted by God into complete communion with him.

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

Although the Divine law contains a most excellent and well-arranged plan for the regulation of life, yet it has pleased the heavenly Teacher to conform men by a more accurate doctrine to the rule which he had prescribed in the law. And the principle of that doctrine is this—that it is the duty of believers to “present their bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God;”[1826] and that in this consists the legitimate worship of [pg 619] him. Hence is deduced an argument for exhorting them, “Be not conformed to this world; but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that will of God.” This is a very important consideration, that we are consecrated and dedicated to God; that we may not hereafter think, speak, meditate, or do any thing but with a view to his glory. For that which is sacred cannot, without great injustice towards him, be applied to unholy uses. If we are not our own, but the Lord's, it is manifest both what error we must avoid, and to what end all the actions of our lives are to be directed. We are not our own; therefore neither our reason nor our will should predominate in our deliberations and actions. We are not our own; therefore let us not propose it as our end, to seek what may be expedient for us according to the flesh. We are not our own; therefore let us, as far as possible, forget ourselves and all things that are ours. On the contrary, we are God's; to him, therefore, let us live and die. We are God's; therefore let his wisdom and will preside in all our actions. We are God's; towards him, therefore, as our only legitimate end, let every part of our lives be directed. O, how great a proficiency has that man made, who, having been taught that he is not his own, has taken the sovereignty and government of himself from his own reason, to surrender it to God! For as compliance with their own inclinations leads men most effectually to ruin, so to place no dependence on our own knowledge or will, but merely to follow the guidance of the Lord, is the only way of safety. Let this, then, be the first step, to depart from ourselves, that we may apply all the vigour of our faculties to the service of the Lord. By service I mean, not that only which consists in verbal obedience, but that by which the human mind, divested of its natural carnality, resigns itself wholly to the direction of the Divine Spirit. Of this transformation, which Paul styles a renovation of the mind,[1827] though it is the first entrance into life, all the philosophers were ignorant. For they set up Reason as the sole directress of man; they think that she is exclusively to be attended to; in short, to her alone they assign the government of the conduct. But the Christian philosophy commands her to give place and submit to the Holy Spirit; so that now the man himself lives not, but carries about Christ living and reigning within him.[1828]

II. Hence also that other consequence, that we should seek not our own things, but those which are agreeable to the will of the Lord, and conducive to the promotion of his glory. This also argues a great proficiency, that almost forgetting ourselves, [pg 620] and certainly neglecting all selfish regards, we endeavour faithfully to devote our attention to God and his commandments. For when the Scripture enjoins us to discard all private and selfish considerations, it not only erases from our minds the cupidity of wealth, the lust of power, and the favour of men, but also eradicates ambition and all appetite after human glory, with other more secret plagues. Indeed, a Christian man ought to be so disposed and prepared, as to reflect that he has to do with God every moment of his life. Thus, as he will measure all his actions by his will and determination, so he will refer the whole bias of his mind religiously to him. For he who has learned to regard God in every undertaking, is also raised above every vain imagination. This is that denial of ourselves, which Christ, from the commencement of their course, so diligently enjoins on his disciples; which, when it has once obtained the government of the heart, leaves room neither for pride, haughtiness, or ostentation, nor for avarice, libidinousness, luxury, effeminacy, or any other evils which are the offspring of self-love. On the contrary, wherever it does not reign, there either the grossest vices are indulged without the least shame; or, if there exist any appearance of virtue, it is vitiated by a depraved passion for glory. Show me, if you can, a single individual, who, unless he has renounced himself according to the command of the Lord, is voluntarily disposed to practise virtue among men. For all who have not been influenced by this disposition, have followed virtue merely from the love of praise. And even those of the philosophers who have ever contended that virtue is desirable for its own sake, have been inflated with so much arrogance, that it is evident they desired virtue for no other reason than to furnish them occasion for the exercise of pride. But God is so far from being delighted, either with those who are ambitious of popular praise, or with hearts so full of pride and presumption, that he pronounces “they have their reward” in this world, and represents harlots and publicans as nearer to the kingdom of heaven than such persons. But we have not yet clearly stated the number and magnitude of the obstacles by which a man is impeded in the pursuit of that which is right, as long as he has refrained from all self-denial. For it is an ancient and true observation, that there is a world of vices concealed in the soul of man. Nor can you find any other remedy than to deny yourself and discard all selfish considerations, and to devote your whole attention to the pursuit of those things which the Lord requires of you, and which ought to be pursued for this sole reason, because they are pleasing to him.

III. The same apostle, in another place, gives a more distinct, [pg 621] though a brief, representation of all the parts of a well-regulated life. “The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us, that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.”[1829] For after having proposed the grace of God to animate us, in order to prepare the way for us truly to worship God, he removes two obstacles, which are our chief impediments; first, ungodliness, to which we have naturally too strong a propensity, and secondly, worldly lusts, which extend themselves further. The term “ungodliness” not only denotes superstitions, but comprehends also every thing that is repugnant to the serious fear of God. And “worldly lusts” mean the carnal affections. Therefore he enjoins us, with reference to both tables of the law, to forsake our former propensities, and to renounce all the dictates of our own reason and will. He reduces all the actions of life to three classes—sobriety, righteousness, and godliness. “Sobriety” undoubtedly denotes chastity and temperance, as well as a pure and frugal use of temporal blessings, and patience under poverty. “Righteousness” includes all the duties of equity, that every man may receive what is his due. “Godliness” separates us from the pollutions of the world, and by true holiness unites us to God. When these virtues are indissolubly connected, they produce absolute perfection. But since nothing is more difficult than to forsake all carnal considerations, to subdue and renounce our appetites, to devote ourselves to God and our brethren, and to live the life of angels amidst the corruptions of the world,—in order to extricate our minds from every snare, Paul recalls our attention to the hope of a blessed immortality; apprizing us that our efforts are not in vain; because, as Christ once appeared as a Redeemer, so, at his final advent, he will manifest the benefits of the salvation he has obtained. Thus he dispels the fascinations which blind us, and prevent our aspiring with becoming ardour to the glories of heaven, and at the same time teaches us that we must live as strangers and pilgrims in the world, that we may not lose the heavenly inheritance.

IV. In these words we perceive, that self-denial relates partly to men, but partly, and indeed principally, to God. For when the Scripture enjoins us to conduct ourselves in such a manner towards men, as in honour to prefer one another, and faithfully to devote our whole attention to the promotion of their [pg 622] advantage,[1830] it gives such commands as our heart can by no means receive, without having been previously divested of its natural bias. For we are all so blinded and fascinated with self-love, that every one imagines he has a just right to exalt himself, and to undervalue all others who stand in competition with him. If God has conferred on us any valuable qualification, relying thereon, our hearts are immediately lifted up; and we not only swell, but almost burst with pride. The vices in which we abound, we sedulously conceal from others, and flatter ourselves with the pretence that they are diminutive and trivial, and even sometimes embrace them as virtues. If the same talents which we admire in ourselves, or even superior ones, appear in others, in order that we may not be obliged to acknowledge their superiority, we depreciate and diminish them with the utmost malignity: if they have any vices, not content to notice them with severe and sharp animadversions, we odiously amplify them. Hence that insolence, that every one of us, as if exempted from the common lot, is desirous of pre-eminence above the rest of mankind; and severely and haughtily contemns every man, or at least despises him as an inferior. The poor yield to the rich, plebeians to nobles, servants to masters, the illiterate to the learned; but there is no man who does not cherish within him some idea of his own excellence. Thus all men, in flattering themselves, carry, as it were, a kingdom in their own breast; for arrogating to themselves the height of self-gratulation, they pass censure on the understandings and conduct of others; but if any contention arises, it produces an eruption of the poison. For many discover some gentleness, as long as they find every thing pleasant and amiable; but how many are there who preserve the same constant course of good humour when they are disturbed and irritated? Nor is there any other remedy, than the eradication from the inmost recesses of the heart of this most noxious pest of ambition and self-love; as it is indeed eradicated by the doctrine of the Scripture. For if we attend to its instructions, we must remember, that the talents with which God has favoured us, are not excellences originating from ourselves, but free gifts of God; of which if any are proud, they betray their ingratitude. “Who maketh thee to differ?” saith Paul. “Now, if thou didst receive all things, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received them?”[1831] In the next place, by assiduous observation and acknowledgment of our faults, we must recall our minds to humility. Thus there will remain in us nothing to inflate us, but great reason for dejection. On the other hand, we are enjoined, whatever gifts of God we perceive in [pg 623] others, to revere and esteem them, so as to honour those in whom they reside. For it would betray great wickedness in us to rob them of that honour which God has given them. Their faults we are taught to overlook, not indeed to encourage them by adulation, but never on account of them to insult those whom we ought to cherish with benevolence and honour. The result of attention to these directions will be, that with whomsoever we are concerned, we shall conduct ourselves not only with moderation and good humour, but with civility and friendship. For we shall never arrive at true meekness by any other way, than by having our hearts imbued with self-abasement and a respect for others.

V. How extremely difficult it is for you to discharge your duty in seeking the advantage of your neighbour! Unless you quit all selfish considerations, and, as it were, lay aside yourself, you will effect nothing in this duty. For how can you perform those which Paul inculcates as works of charity, unless you renounce yourself, and devote yourself wholly to serve others? “Charity,” says he, “suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked,” &c.[1832] If this be all that is required, that we seek not our own, yet we must do no small violence to nature, which so strongly inclines us to the exclusive love of ourselves, that it does not so easily permit us to neglect ourselves and our own concerns in order to be vigilant for the advantage of others, and even voluntarily to recede from our right, to resign it to another. But the Scripture leads us to this, admonishes us, that whatever favours we obtain from the Lord, we are intrusted with them on this condition, that they should be applied to the common benefit of the Church; and that, therefore, the legitimate use of all his favours, is a liberal and kind communication of them to others. There cannot be imagined a more certain rule, or a more powerful exhortation to the observance of it, than when we are taught, that all the blessings we enjoy are Divine deposits, committed to our trust on this condition, that they should be dispensed for the benefit of our neighbours. But the Scripture goes still further, when it compares them to the powers with which the members of the human body are endued. For no member has its power for itself, nor applies it to its private use; but transfuses it among its fellow-members, receiving no advantage from it but what proceeds from the common convenience of the whole body. So, whatever ability a pious man possesses, he ought to possess it for his brethren, consulting his own private interest in no [pg 624] way inconsistent with a cordial attention to the common edification of the Church. Let this, then, be our rule for benignity and beneficence,—that whatever God has conferred on us, which enables us to assist our neighbour, we are the stewards of it, and must one day render an account of our stewardship; and that the only right dispensation of what has been committed to us, is that which is regulated by the law of love. Thus we shall not only always connect the study to promote the advantage of others with a concern for our own private interests, but shall prefer the good of others to our own. To teach us that the dispensation of the gifts we receive from heaven ought to be regulated by this law, God anciently enjoined the same even in regard to the smallest bounties of his liberality. For he commanded the people to offer to him the first-fruits of the corn, as a solemn avowal that it was unlawful for them to enjoy any blessings not previously consecrated to him. And if the gifts of God are not sanctified to us till after we have with our own hands dedicated them to their Author, that must evidently be a sinful abuse which is unconnected with such a dedication. But in vain would you attempt to enrich the Lord by a communication of your possessions. Therefore, since your “goodness extendeth not to him,”[1833] as the Psalmist says, you must exercise it “towards the saints that are in the earth;” and alms are compared to sacred oblations, to show that these exercises of charity under the gospel, correspond to those offerings under the law.

VI. Moreover, that we may not be weary of doing good, which otherwise would of necessity soon be the case, we must add also the other character mentioned by the apostle, that “charity suffereth long, and is not easily provoked.” The Lord commands us to do “good unto all men,”[1834] universally, a great part of whom, estimated according to their own merits, are very undeserving; but here the Scripture assists us with an excellent rule, when it inculcates, that we must not regard the intrinsic merit of men, but must consider the image of God in them, to which we owe all possible honour and love; but that this image is most carefully to be observed in them “who are of the household of faith,”[1835] inasmuch as it is renewed and restored by the Spirit of Christ. Whoever, therefore, is presented to you that needs your kind offices, you have no reason to refuse him your assistance. Say that he is a stranger; yet the Lord has impressed on him a character which ought to be familiar to you; for which reason he forbids you to despise your own flesh.[1836] Say that he is contemptible and worthless; but the Lord shows him to be one whom he has deigned [pg 625] to grace with his own image. Say that you are obliged to him for no services; but God has made him, as it were, his substitute, to whom you acknowledge yourself to be under obligations for numerous and important benefits. Say that he is unworthy of your making the smallest exertion on his account; but the image of God, by which he is recommended to you, deserves your surrender of yourself and all that you possess. If he not only has deserved no favour, but, on the contrary, has provoked you with injuries and insults,—even this is no just reason why you should cease to embrace him with your affection, and to perform to him the offices of love. He has deserved, you will say, very different treatment from me. But what has the Lord deserved? who, when he commands you to forgive men all their offences against you, certainly intends that they should be charged to himself. This is the only way of attaining that which is not only difficult, but utterly repugnant to the nature of man—to love them who hate us,[1837] to requite injuries with kindnesses, and to return blessings for curses.[1838] We should remember, that we must not reflect on the wickedness of men, but contemplate the Divine image in them; which, concealing and obliterating their faults, by its beauty and dignity allures us to embrace them in the arms of our love.

VII. This mortification, therefore, will not take place in us unless we fulfil all the duties of charity. These are fulfilled, not by him who merely performs all the external offices of charity, even without the omission of one, but by him who does this from a sincere principle of love. For it may happen, that a man may fully discharge his duty to all men, with respect to external actions, and, at the same time, be very far from discharging it in the right way. For you may see some men who would be thought extremely liberal, and yet never bestow any thing without upbraiding, either by pride of countenance, or by insolence of language. And we are sunk to such a depth of calamity in this unhappy age, that scarcely any alms are given, at least by the majority of mankind, but in a haughty and contemptuous manner—a corruption which ought not to have been tolerated even among heathen; for of Christians there is something further required, than to display a cheerfulness of countenance, and to render their benefactions amiable by civility of language. In the first place, they ought to imagine themselves in the situation of the person who needs their assistance, and to commiserate his case, just as though they themselves felt and suffered the same; so that they may be impelled, by a sense of mercy and humanity, to afford assistance to him as readily as if it were to themselves. He who comes to the assistance of [pg 626] his brethren under the influence of such a disposition, not only will not contaminate his services with arrogance or reproach, but will neither despise his brother who is the object of his beneficence, as needing assistance, nor domineer over him as under an obligation to him; no more, for instance, than we insult a diseased member, for whose restoration the rest of the body labours, or suppose it to be under particular obligations to the other members, because it has needed more assistance than it returned. For the communication of services between the members of the body, is esteemed to be in no sense gratuitous, but rather a discharge of that which, being due by the law of nature, it would be monstrous to refuse. And for this reason, he will not suppose himself to have discharged all his duty, who has performed one kind of service; as it generally happens, that a rich man, after having bestowed some part of his property, leaves other burdens to be borne by other persons, and considers himself as exempted from all concern about them. On the contrary, every man will reflect with himself, that however great he may be, he is a debtor to his neighbour, and that no bounds should be fixed to the exercise of beneficence towards them, except when his ability fails, which, as far as it extends, ought to be limited by the rule of charity.

VIII. Let us describe again, more at large, the principal branch of self-denial, which we have said relates to God; and indeed many observations have already been made concerning it, which it would be needless to repeat: it will be sufficient to show how it habituates us to equanimity and patience. First, therefore, in seeking the convenience or tranquillity of the present life, the Scripture calls us to this point; that resigning ourselves and all that we have to the will of God, we should surrender to him the affections of our heart, to be conquered and reduced to subjection. To desire wealth and honours, to be ambitious of power, to accumulate riches, to amass all those vanities which appear conducive to magnificence and pomp, our passion is furious, and our cupidity unbounded. On the contrary, to poverty, obscurity, and meanness, we feel a wonderful fear and abhorrence, which stimulate us to avoid them by all possible means. Hence we may see, how restless the minds of all those persons are, who regulate their lives according to their own reason; how many arts they try, and with what exertions they fatigue themselves, in order, on the one hand, to obtain the objects of ambition or avarice, on the other, to avoid poverty and meanness. Pious men, therefore, that they may not be involved in such snares, must pursue the following course: First, let them neither desire, nor hope, nor entertain a thought of prosperity, from any other cause than the Divine blessing; and on that let them securely and confidently [pg 627] depend. For however the flesh may appear to itself to be abundantly sufficient, when it either attempts by its own industry, or strenuous exertions, to attain honours and wealth, or is assisted by the favour of man,—yet it is certain, that all these things are nothing, and that we shall obtain no advantage, either by ingenuity or by labour, but as far as the Lord shall prosper both. On the contrary, his benediction alone finds a way, even through all impediments, so as to bring all our affairs to a joyful and prosperous conclusion. And though we may, for the most part, be able without it to obtain for ourselves some degree of opulence and glory, as we daily behold impious men accumulating great honours and enormous wealth, yet, since those who are under the curse of God enjoy not even the smallest particle of happiness, we shall acquire nothing without the Divine blessing, which will not eventually prove a calamity to us. And that is by no means to be desired, the acquisition of which renders men more miserable.

IX. Therefore, if we believe that all the cause of desirable prosperity consists in the Divine benediction alone, without which miseries and calamities of every kind await us, it follows also, that we should not passionately strive for wealth and honours, either relying on our own diligence or acuteness of understanding, or depending on the favour of men, or confiding in a vain imagination of chance; but that we should always regard the Lord, to be conducted by his direction to whatsoever lot he has provided for us. The consequence of this will be, in the first place, that we shall not rush forward to seize on wealth or honours by unlawful actions, by deceitful and criminal arts, by rapacity and injury of our neighbours; but shall confine ourselves to the pursuit of those interests, which will not seduce us from the path of innocence. For who can expect the assistance of the Divine benediction, amidst fraud, rapine, and other iniquitous acts? For as that follows him only whose thoughts are pure, and whose actions are upright, so it calls away all those by whom it is sought, from irregular thoughts and corrupt practices. In the next place, we shall find a restraint laid upon us, to keep us from being inflamed with an inordinate desire of growing rich, and from ambitiously aspiring after honours. For with what face can any man confide in the assistance of God, towards obtaining things which he desires in opposition to the Divine word? Far be it from God to follow with the aid of his blessing, what he curses with his mouth. Lastly, if our success be not equal to our wishes and hopes, yet we shall be restrained from impatience, and from execrating our condition, whatever it may be; because we shall know, that this would be murmuring against God, at whose pleasure are dispensed riches and poverty, honour and [pg 628] contempt. In short, he who shall repose himself, in the manner we have mentioned, on the Divine blessing, will neither hunt after the objects violently coveted by men in general, by evil methods, from which he will expect no advantage; nor will he impute any prosperous event to himself, and to his own diligence, industry, or good fortune; but will acknowledge God to be the author of it. If, while the affairs of others are flourishing, he makes but a small progress, or even moves in a retrograde direction, yet he will bear his poverty with more equanimity and moderation, than any profane man would feel with a mediocrity of success, which would merely be inferior to his wishes; possessing, indeed, a consolation in which he may enjoy more tranquil satisfaction, than in the zenith of opulence or power; because he considers, that his affairs are ordered by the Lord in such a manner as is conducive to his salvation. This, we see, was the disposition of David, who, while he follows God, surrenders himself to his government, and declares, that he is “as a child that is weaned of his mother; neither do I exercise myself,” says he, “in great matters, or in things too high for me.”[1839]

X. Nor is this the only instance in which pious persons should feel such tranquillity and patience; the same state of mind ought to be extended to all the events to which the present life is exposed. Therefore no man has rightly renounced himself, but he who has wholly resigned himself to the Lord, so as to leave all the parts of his life to be governed by his will. He whose mind is thus composed, whatever may befall him, will neither think himself miserable, nor invidiously complain against God on account of his lot. The great necessity of this disposition will appear, if we consider the numerous accidents to which we are subject. Diseases of various kinds frequently attack us: at one time, the pestilence is raging; at another, we are cruelly harassed with the calamities of war; at another time, frost or hail, devouring the hopes of the year, produces sterility, which brings us to penury; a wife, parents, children, or other relatives, are snatched away by death; our dwelling is consumed by a fire; these are the events, on the occurrence of which, men curse this life, or their natal day, execrate heaven and earth, reproach God, and, as they are eloquent to blaspheme, accuse him of injustice and cruelty. But it behoves a believer, even in these events, to contemplate the clemency and truly paternal goodness of God. Wherefore, if he sees his relatives removed, and his house rendered a solitary place, he must not cease to bless the Lord, but rather have recourse to this reflection: Yet the grace of the Lord, which inhabits my [pg 629] house, will not leave it desolate. Or if he sees his crops bitten or destroyed by frost, or beaten down by hail, and famine threatening him, yet he will not sink into despondency or displeasure against God, but will abide in this confidence—We are under the guardian care of God, we are “the sheep of his pasture;”[1840] he therefore will supply us with food even in seasons of the greatest barrenness. If he shall be afflicted with disease, even then he will not be so far discouraged by the bitterness of his pain, as to break out into impatience, and to complain against God; but will rather strengthen his patience by a consideration of the justice and lenity of the Divine correction. Finally, whatever may happen, knowing it to be ordained by the Lord, he will receive it with a placid and grateful heart, that he may not be guilty of contumaciously resisting his authority, to whose power he has once resigned himself and all that belongs to him. Far, therefore, from the heart of a Christian man be that foolish and most wretched consolation of the heathen, who, to fortify their minds against adversity, imputed it to Fortune; with whom they esteemed it foolish to be displeased, because she was thoughtless and rash, and blindly wounded without discrimination the worthy and the unworthy. On the contrary, the rule of piety is, that God alone is the arbiter and governor of all events, both prosperous and adverse, and that he does not proceed with inconsiderate impetuosity, but dispenses to us blessings and calamities with the most systematic justice.

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

But it becomes a pious mind to rise still higher, even to that to which Christ calls his disciples; that every one should “take up his cross.”[1841] For all whom the Lord has chosen and honoured with admission into the society of his saints, ought to prepare themselves for a life, hard, laborious, unquiet, and replete with numerous and various calamities. It is the will of their heavenly Father to exercise them in this manner, that he may have a certain proof of those that belong to him. Having begun with Christ his first begotten Son, he pursues this method towards all his children. For though Christ was above all others the beloved Son, in whom the Father was [pg 630] always well pleased,[1842] yet we see how little indulgence and tenderness he experienced; so that it may be truly said, not only that he was perpetually burdened with a cross during his residence on earth, but that his whole life was nothing but a kind of perpetual cross. The apostle assigns the reason, that it was necessary for him to “learn obedience by the things which he suffered.”[1843] Why, then, should we exempt ourselves from that condition, to which it behoved Christ our head to be subject; especially since his submission was on our account, that he might exhibit to us an example of patience in his own person? Wherefore the apostle teaches, that it is the destination of all the children of God “to be conformed to him.”[1844] It is also a source of signal consolation to us, in unpleasant and severe circumstances, which are esteemed adversities and calamities, that we partake of the sufferings of Christ; that as he from a labyrinth of all evils entered into the glory of heaven, so we are conducted forward through various tribulations to the same glory;[1845] for Paul teaches us, that when we “know the fellowship of his sufferings,” we also apprehend “the power of his resurrection;” that while we are conformed to his death, we are thus prepared to partake of his glorious resurrection.[1846] How much is this adapted to alleviate all the bitterness of the cross, that the more we are afflicted by adversities, our fellowship with Christ is so much the more certainly confirmed! By this communion the sufferings themselves not only become blessings to us, but afford considerable assistance towards promoting our salvation.

II. Besides, our Lord was under no necessity of bearing the cross, except to testify and prove his obedience to his Father; but there are many reasons which render it necessary for us to live under a continual cross. First, as we are naturally too prone to attribute every thing to our flesh, unless we have, as it were, ocular demonstration of our imbecility, we easily form an extravagant estimate of our strength, presuming that whatever may happen, it will remain undaunted and invincible amidst all difficulties. This inflates us with a foolish, vain, carnal confidence; relying on which, we become contumacious and proud, in opposition to God himself, just as though our own powers were sufficient for us without his grace. This arrogance he cannot better repress, than by proving to us from experience, not only our great imbecility, but also our extreme frailty. Therefore he afflicts us with ignominy, or poverty, or loss of relatives, or disease, or other calamities; to the bearing of which being in ourselves unequal, we ere long [pg 631] sink under them. Thus being humbled, we learn to invoke his strength, which alone causes us to stand erect under a load of afflictions. Moreover, the greatest saints, though sensible that they stand by the grace of God, not by their own strength, are nevertheless more secure than they ought to be of their fortitude and constancy, unless he leads them by the discipline of the cross into a deeper knowledge of themselves. This presumption insinuated itself even into David: “In my prosperity I said, I shall never be moved; Lord, by thy favour thou hast made my mountain to stand strong. Thou didst hide thy face, and I was troubled.”[1847] For he confesses that his senses were so stupefied and benumbed by prosperity, that disregarding the grace of God, on which he ought to have depended, he relied on himself, so as to promise himself a permanent standing. If this happened to so great a prophet, who of us should not be fearful and cautious? Though in prosperity, therefore, they have flattered themselves with the notion of superior constancy and patience, yet when humbled by adversity, they learn that this was mere hypocrisy. Admonished by such evidences of their maladies, believers advance in humility, and, divested of corrupt confidence in the flesh, betake themselves to the grace of God; and when they have applied to it, they experience the presence of the Divine strength, in which they find abundant protection.

III. This is what Paul teaches, that “tribulation worketh patience, and patience experience.”[1848] For the promise of God to believers, that he will assist them in tribulations, they experience to be true, when they patiently stand supported by his power, which they certainly could not do by their own strength. Patience, therefore, affords a proof to the saints, that God will really give the assistance he has promised in every time of need. This also confirms their hope; for it would be too much ingratitude not to rely on the truth of God for the future, which they have hitherto experienced to be constant and certain. We see now what a series of benefits we derive from the cross. For, subverting the opinion which we have falsely preconceived of our own strength, and detecting our hypocrisy, with which we are enamoured, it expels pernicious and carnal confidence; when we are thus humbled, it teaches us to rely upon God alone, which keeps us from sinking under afflictions. And victory is followed by hope; inasmuch as the Lord, by the performance of his promises, establishes his truth for the future. Though these were the only reasons that could be given, they are sufficient to show the necessity of the discipline of the cross. For it is no small advantage to be [pg 632] divested of a blind self-love, that we may be fully conscious of our imbecility; to be affected with a sense of our imbecility, that we may learn to be diffident of ourselves; to be diffident of ourselves, that we may transfer our confidence to God; to depend with unreserved confidence on God, that, relying on his assistance, we may persevere unconquered to the end; to stand in his grace, that we may know his veracity in his promises; to experience the certainty of his promises, that our hope may thereby be strengthened.

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

V. Yet we do not perceive how necessary this obedience is [pg 633] to us, unless we at the same time reflect on the great wantonness of our flesh to shake off the Divine yoke, as soon as we have been treated with a little tenderness and indulgence. The case is exactly the same as with refractory horses, which, after having been pampered for some days in idleness, grow fierce and untamable, and regard not the rider, to whose management they previously submitted. And we are perpetual examples of what God complains of in the people of Israel; when we are “waxen fat,” and are “covered with fatness,”[1851] we kick against him who has cherished and supported us. The beneficence of God ought to have allured us to the consideration and love of his goodness; but since such is our ingratitude, that we are rather constantly corrupted by his indulgence, it is highly necessary for us to be restrained by some discipline from breaking out into such petulance. Therefore, that we may not be made haughty by an excessive abundance of wealth, that we may not become proud on being distinguished with honours, that we may not be rendered insolent by being inflated with other advantages, mental, corporeal, or external, the Lord himself, as he foresees will be expedient, by the remedy of the cross, opposes, restrains, and subdues the haughtiness of our flesh; and that by various methods, adapted to promote the benefit of each individual. For we are not all equally afflicted with the same diseases, or all in need of an equally severe method of cure. Hence we see different persons exercised with different kinds of crosses. But whilst the heavenly Physician, consulting the health of all his patients, practises a milder treatment towards some, and cures others with rougher remedies, yet he leaves no one completely exempted, because he knows we are all diseased, without the exception of a single individual.

VI. Moreover it is necessary that our most merciful Father should not only prevent our infirmity for the future, but also frequently correct our past offences, to preserve us in a course of legitimate obedience to himself. Wherefore in every affliction we ought immediately to recollect the course of our past life. In reviewing it, we shall certainly find that we have committed what was deserving of such chastisement. Nevertheless the exhortation to patience must not be principally founded on a consciousness of sin. For the Scripture furnishes a far better consideration, when it informs us, that in adversity “we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.”[1852] Therefore, even in the bitterness of tribulations, it becomes us to acknowledge the clemency and benignity of our Father towards us; since even then he ceases [pg 634] not to promote our salvation. For he afflicts, not to ruin or destroy us, but rather to deliver us from the condemnation of the world. This idea will lead us to what the Scripture inculcates in another place: “My son, despise not the chastening of the Lord, neither be weary of his correction; for whom the Lord loveth he correcteth, even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.”[1853] When we recognize the rod of a father, is it not our duty rather to show ourselves obedient and docile children, than contumaciously to imitate desperate men, who have been hardened in their transgressions? God loses us, unless he recalls us after our defections from him; so that the apostle correctly remarks, “If ye be without chastisement, then are ye bastards, and not sons.”[1854] We are extremely perverse, therefore, if we cannot bear with him, while he declares his benevolence towards us, and his great concern for our salvation. The Scripture points out this difference between believers and unbelievers; the latter, as the slaves of an inveterate and incurable iniquity, are only rendered more wicked and obstinate by correction; the former, like ingenuous children, are led to a salutary repentance. You have to choose now in which number you would prefer to stand. But having treated of this subject elsewhere, I shall conclude, contenting myself with having thus briefly touched on it here.

VII. But it is a source of peculiar consolation when we suffer persecution “for righteousness' sake.”[1855] For we ought then to reflect how greatly we are honoured by God, when he thus distinguishes us with the peculiar characteristic of his service. I call it persecution for righteousness' sake, not only when we suffer in defence of the gospel, but also when we are molested in the vindication of any just cause. Whether, therefore, in asserting the truth of God, in opposition to the falsehoods of Satan, or in undertaking the protection of good and innocent men against the injuries of the wicked, it be necessary for us to incur the resentment and hatred of the world, by which our lives, our fortunes, or our reputation, may be endangered,—let it not be grievous or irksome to us thus far to employ ourselves in the service of God; nor let us imagine ourselves to be miserable in those respects in which he has with his own mouth pronounced us blessed. It is true, that poverty, considered in itself, is misery; and the same may be said of exile, contempt, imprisonment, ignominy; finally, death is of all calamities the last and worst. But with the favour of our God, they are all conducive to our happiness. Let us therefore be content with the testimony of Christ, rather than with the false opinion of the flesh. Thus we shall rejoice, [pg 635] like the apostles, whenever he shall “count us worthy to suffer shame for his name.”[1856] For if, being innocent and conscious of our own integrity, we are stripped of our property by the villany of the wicked, we are reduced to poverty indeed among men, but we thereby obtain an increase of true riches with God in heaven; if we are banished from our country, we are more intimately received into the family of God; if we meet with vexation and contempt, we are so much the more firmly rooted in Christ; if we are stigmatized with reproach and ignominy, we are so much the more exalted in the kingdom of God; if we are massacred, it opens an entrance for us into a life of blessedness. We ought to be ashamed of setting a lower estimation on things on which the Lord has attached such a great value, than on the shadowy and evanescent pleasures of the present life.

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

IX. This conflict, which believers sustain against the natural [pg 636] emotions of sorrow, while they cultivate patience and moderation, Paul has beautifully described in the following words: “We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed.”[1860] You see that patiently to bear the cross does not consist in an absolute stupefaction and privation of all sense of sorrow, according to the foolish description given by the ancient Stoics of a magnanimous man, as one who, divested of the feelings of human nature, is alike unaffected by adverse and prosperous events, by sorrowful and joyful ones. And what advantage have they derived from this sublime wisdom? They have depicted an image of patience, such as never has been found, such as never can exist among men; but in their ardour for a patience too perfect and precise, they have banished its influence from human life. At present also among Christians there are modern Stoics, who esteem it sinful not only to groan and weep, but even to discover sadness and solicitude. These paradoxes generally proceed from idle men, who, employing themselves more in speculation than in action, can produce nothing but such paradoxical notions. But we have nothing to do with that iron-hearted philosophy, which our Master and Lord has condemned not only in words, but even by his own example. For he mourned and wept both for his own calamities and for those of others. Nor did he teach his disciples a different conduct. “The world,” says he, “shall rejoice, but ye shall weep and lament.”[1861] And that no man might pervert it into a crime, he has formally pronounced a blessing on them that mourn;[1862] and no wonder. For if all tears be reprobated, what judgment shall we form concerning the Lord himself, from whose body distilled tears of blood?[1863] If every terror be stigmatized with the charge of unbelief, what character shall we attribute to that horror and consternation with which we read that he was so violently depressed? If all sorrow be displeasing, how can we be pleased with his confessing that his “soul” was “sorrowful even unto death?”

X. I have thought proper to mention these things, in order to preserve pious minds from despair; that they may not hastily renounce the study of patience, because they cannot divest themselves of the natural affection of sorrow. This must necessarily be the case with those who degrade patience into insensibility, and a man of fortitude and constancy into a senseless block. For the Scripture applauds the saints for their patience, when they are afflicted with severe calamities, but not broken and overcome by them; when they are bitterly distressed, [pg 637] but are filled at the same time with spiritual joy; when they are oppressed with anxiety, but are revived and exhilarated with Divine consolation. At the same time there is that opposition in their hearts, that the feelings of nature avoid and dread those things which they experience to be inimical to it; but the affection of piety struggles even through these difficulties to obey the Divine will. This opposition the Lord expressed, when he thus addressed Peter: “When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest; but when thou shalt be old, another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.”[1864] It is not probable that Peter, when he was called to glorify God by his death, was drawn to it with reluctance and resistance; in this case his martyrdom would be entitled to little applause. But however he might submit with the greatest alacrity of heart to the Divine appointment, yet, not having divested himself of human nature, he was distracted by two contrary inclinations. For when he contemplated the bloody death he was about to undergo, stricken with a dread of it, he would gladly have escaped. On the contrary, when he considered that he was called to it by the Divine will, suppressing all fear, he unreluctantly and even cheerfully submitted to it. It must be our study, therefore, if we would be the disciples of Christ, that our minds may be imbued with so great a reverence for God, and such an unreserved obedience to him, as may overcome all contrary affections, and make them submit to his appointments. Thus, whatever kind of affliction we endure, even in the greatest distresses of the mind, we shall constantly retain our patience. For adversity itself will have its stings, with which we shall be wounded. Thus, when afflicted with disease, we shall groan and be disquieted, and pray for the restoration of health; thus, when oppressed with poverty, we shall feel the stings of solicitude and sorrow; thus we shall be affected with the grief of ignominy, contempt, and injury; thus we shall shed the tears due to nature at the funerals of our friends; but we shall always recur to this conclusion, This affliction is appointed by the Lord, therefore let us submit to his will. Even in the agonies of grief, amid groans and tears, there is a necessity for the intervention of this reflection, in order to incline the heart cheerfully to bear those things by which it is so affected.

XI. But as we have deduced the principal reason for bearing the cross from a consideration of the Divine will, we must briefly point out the difference between philosophical and Christian patience. For very few of the philosophers have risen to such an eminence of reason, as to perceive that we are [pg 638] exercised with afflictions by the Divine hand, and to conclude that God ought to be obeyed in these occurrences; and even those who have gone to this length, adduce no other reason, than because it is necessary. What is this but saying, that we must submit to God, because it were in vain to contend against him? For if we obey God only from necessity, if it were possible to escape from him, our obedience would cease. But the Scripture enjoins us to consider the Divine will in a very different point of view; first, as consistent with justice and equity; secondly, as directed to the accomplishment of our salvation. Christian exhortations to patience, then, are such as these: Whether we are afflicted with poverty, or exile, or imprisonment, or reproach, or disease, or loss of relatives, or any other similar calamity, we must reflect that none of these things happen without the appointment and providence of God; and, moreover, that he does nothing but with the most systematic justice. Do not our innumerable and daily transgressions deserve more severe and grievous chastisements than those which his clemency inflicts on us? Is it not highly reasonable that our flesh should be subdued, and as it were accustomed to the yoke, lest it should break out, according to its propensities, into lawless excesses? Are not the righteousness and truth of God worthy of our labours on their account? But if the equity of God evidently appears in our afflictions, we cannot without iniquity either murmur or resist. We no longer hear that frigid maxim of the philosophers, We must submit to necessity; but a lesson lively and full of efficacy, We must obey, because it is unlawful to resist: we must patiently suffer, because impatience is a rebellious opposition to the justice of God. Because nothing is really amiable to us but what we know to be conducive to our benefit and salvation, our most merciful Father affords us consolation also in this respect, by declaring, that even in afflicting us with the cross, he promotes our salvation. But if it be evident that tribulations are salutary for us, why should we not endure them with grateful and placid hearts? In patiently bearing them, therefore, we do not submit to necessity, but acquiesce in our own benefit. The effect of these considerations is, that in proportion as our minds are oppressed under the cross with the natural sense of affliction, so greatly are they dilated with spiritual joy. This is attended also by thanksgiving, which cannot be without joy. But if praise and thanksgiving to the Lord can only proceed from a cheerful and joyful heart,—and there is nothing which ought to repress these emotions within us,—this shows how necessary it is that the bitterness of the cross should be tempered with spiritual joy.

Chapter IX. Meditation On The Future Life.

With whatever kind of tribulation we may be afflicted, we should always keep this end in view—to habituate ourselves to a contempt of the present life, that we may thereby be excited to meditation on that which is to come. For the Lord, well knowing our strong natural inclination to a brutish love of the world, adopts a most excellent method to reclaim us and rouse us from our insensibility, that we may not be too tenaciously attached to that foolish affection. There is not one of us who is not desirous of appearing, through the whole course of his life, to aspire and strive after celestial immortality. For we are ashamed of excelling in no respect the brutal herds, whose condition would not be at all inferior to ours, unless there remained to us a hope of eternity after death. But if you examine the designs, pursuits, and actions of every individual, you will find nothing in them but what is terrestrial. Hence that stupidity, that the mental eyes, dazzled with the vain splendour of riches, power, and honours, cannot see to any considerable distance. The heart also, occupied and oppressed with avarice, ambition, and other inordinate desires, cannot rise to any eminence. In a word, the whole soul, fascinated by carnal allurements, seeks its felicity on earth. To oppose this evil, the Lord, by continual lessons of miseries, teaches his children the vanity of the present life. That they may not promise themselves profound and secure peace in it, therefore he permits them to be frequently disquieted and infested with wars or tumults, with robberies or other injuries. That they may not aspire with too much avidity after transient and uncertain riches, or depend on those which they possess,—sometimes by exile, sometimes by the sterility of the land, sometimes by a conflagration, sometimes by other means, he reduces them to indigence, or at least confines them within the limits of mediocrity. That they may not be too complacently delighted with conjugal blessings, he either causes them to be distressed with the wickedness of their wives, or humbles them with a wicked offspring, or afflicts them with want or loss of children. But if in all these things he is more indulgent to them, yet that they may not be inflated with vain glory, or improper confidence, he shows them by diseases and dangers the unstable and transitory nature of all mortal blessings. We therefore truly derive advantage from the discipline of the cross, only [pg 640] when we learn that this life, considered in itself, is unquiet, turbulent, miserable in numberless instances, and in no respect altogether happy; and that all its reputed blessings are uncertain, transient, vain, and adulterated with a mixture of many evils; and in consequence of this at once conclude, that nothing can be sought or expected on earth but conflict, and that when we think of a crown we must raise our eyes towards heaven. For it must be admitted, that the mind is never seriously excited to desire and meditate on the future life, without having previously imbibed a contempt of the present.

II. There is no medium between these two extremes; either the earth must become vile in our estimation, or it must retain our immoderate love. Wherefore, if we have any concern about eternity, we must use our most diligent efforts to extricate ourselves from these fetters. Now, since the present life has numerous blandishments to attract us, and much pleasure, beauty, and sweetness to delight us,—it is very necessary to our highest interests, that we should be frequently called off, that we may not be fascinated with such allurements. For what would be the consequence, if we were perpetually happy in the enjoyment of the blessings of this life; since we cannot, even by the incessant stimulus of calamity after calamity, be sufficiently aroused to a consideration of its misery? That human life is like a vapour or a shadow, is not only known to the learned, but even the vulgar have no proverb more common; and perceiving it to be a thing the knowledge of which would be eminently useful, they have represented it in many remarkable sentences. But there is scarcely any thing which we more carelessly consider, or sooner forget; for we undertake every thing as though we were erecting for ourselves an immortality on earth. If a funeral pass by, or we walk among the tombs, because the image of death is then presented to our eyes, we philosophize, I confess, in an admirable manner concerning the vanity of the present life; although even that is not always the case, for frequently we are quite unaffected with all these things. But when this effect is produced, our philosophy is momentary, vanishing as soon as we withdraw, and leaving not even the smallest vestige behind it; in short, it passes away, and is forgotten just like the plaudits of a theatre at any entertaining exhibition. And forgetting not only death, but mortality itself, as though no rumour concerning it had ever reached us, we relapse into a supine security of immortality on earth. If any one, in the mean time, reminds us of the unwelcome proverb, that man is a creature of a day, we acknowledge the truth of it indeed, but with such inattention that the idea of perpetually living here still remains fixed in [pg 641] our minds. Who, then, can deny, that it is highly useful to us all, I do not say to be admonished by words, but by every possible evidence to be convinced, of the miserable condition of the present life; since even after we are convinced of it, we scarcely cease to be besotted with a perverse and foolish admiration of it, as though it contained the greatest attainable blessings? But if it be necessary for God to instruct us, it is, on the other hand, our duty to listen to him when he calls, and rebukes our sluggishness; in order that, despising the world, we may apply ourselves with our whole heart to meditate on the life which is to come.

III. But believers should accustom themselves to such a contempt of the present life, as may not generate either hatred of life, or ingratitude towards God. For this life, though it is replete with innumerable miseries, is yet deservedly reckoned among the Divine blessings which must not be despised. Wherefore, if we discover nothing of the Divine beneficence in it, we are already guilty of no small ingratitude towards God himself. But to believers especially it should be a testimony of the Divine benevolence, since the whole of it is destined to the advancement of their salvation. For before he openly discovers to us the inheritance of eternal glory, he intends to reveal himself as our Father in inferior instances; and those are the benefits which he daily confers on us. Since this life, then, is subservient to a knowledge of the Divine goodness, shall we fastidiously scorn it, as though it contained no particle of goodness in it? We must therefore have this sense and affection, to class it among the bounties of the Divine benignity which are not to be rejected. For if Scripture testimonies were wanting, which are very numerous and clear, even nature itself exhorts us to give thanks to the Lord for having introduced us to the light of life, for granting us the use of it, and giving us all the helps necessary to its preservation. And it is a far superior reason for gratitude, if we consider that here we are in some measure prepared for the glory of the heavenly kingdom. For the Lord has ordained, that they who are to be hereafter crowned in heaven, must first engage in conflicts on earth, that they may not triumph without having surmounted the difficulties of warfare and obtained the victory. Another reason is, that here we begin in various blessings to taste the sweetness of the Divine benignity, that our hope and desire may be excited after the full revelation of it. When we have come to this conclusion, that our life in this world is a gift of the Divine clemency, which, as we owe to him, we ought to remember with gratitude, it will then be time for us to descend to a consideration of its most miserable condition, that [pg 642] we may be delivered from excessive love of it, to which, as has been observed, we are naturally inclined.

IV. Now, whatever is abstracted from the corrupt love of this life should be added to the desire of a better. I grant, indeed, the correctness of their opinion, who considered it as the greatest blessing not to be born, and as the next, to die immediately. For, being heathens, destitute of the knowledge of God and of true religion, what could they see in it but unhappiness and misery? Nor was there any thing irrational in the conduct of those who mourned and wept at the births of their relations, and solemnly rejoiced at their funerals. But they practised this without any advantage; for, destitute of the true doctrine of faith, they did not perceive how that can conduce to the benefit of the pious, which in itself is neither blessed nor desirable; and so their views terminated in despair. It should be the object of believers, therefore, in judging of this mortal life, that understanding it to be of itself nothing but misery, they may apply themselves wholly, with increasing cheerfulness and readiness, to meditate on the future and eternal life. When we come to this comparison, then indeed the former may be not only securely neglected, but, in competition with the latter, altogether despised and abhorred. For if heaven is our country, what is the earth but a place of exile? If the departure out of the world is an entrance into life, what is the world but a sepulchre? What is a continuance in it but an absorption in death? If deliverance from the body is an introduction into complete liberty, what is the body but a prison? If to enjoy the presence of God is the summit of felicity, is it not misery to be destitute of it? But till we escape out of the world, “we are absent from the Lord.”[1865] Therefore, if the terrestrial life be compared with the celestial, it should undoubtedly be despised and accounted of no value. It certainly is never to be hated, except in as much as it keeps us obnoxious to sin; although even that hatred is not properly to be applied to life itself. It becomes us, however, to be so affected with weariness or hatred of it, as to desire its end, but to be also prepared to remain in it during the Divine pleasure; that is to say, our weariness should be remote from all murmuring and impatience. For it is a post at which the Lord has placed us, to be retained by us till he call us away. Paul, indeed, bewails his lot, that he is kept in bondage by the fetters of the body longer than he would wish, and sighs with an ardent desire of deliverance;[1866] nevertheless, obedient to the Divine authority, he professes himself prepared for both; for he acknowledges himself under an obligation to God to glorify [pg 643] his name either by life or by death;[1867] but that it belongs to the Lord to determine what will conduce most to his glory. Therefore, if it becomes us “to live and to die to the Lord,”[1868] let us leave the limits of our life and death to his decision; yet in such a manner, as ardently to desire and continually to meditate on the latter, but to despise the former in comparison with future immortality, and on account of the servitude of sin, to wish to forsake it whenever it shall please the Lord.

V. But it is monstrous, that instead of this desire of death, multitudes who boast themselves to be Christians, are filled with such a dread of it, that they tremble whenever it is mentioned, as if it were the greatest calamity that could befall them. It is no wonder, indeed, if our natural feelings should be alarmed at hearing of our dissolution. But it is intolerable that there should not be in a Christian breast sufficient light of piety to overcome and suppress all that fear with superior consolation. For if we consider, that this unstable, depraved, corruptible, frail, withering, and rotten tabernacle of our body is dissolved, in order that it may hereafter be restored to a durable, perfect, incorruptible, and heavenly glory,—will not faith constrain us ardently to desire what nature dreads? If we consider, that by death we are recalled from exile to inhabit our own country, and that a heavenly one, shall we derive thence no consolation? But it will be said, There is nothing that does not desire to be permanent. I admit it; and contend that we ought therefore to direct our views to a future immortality, where we may obtain a fixed condition, which is nowhere to be found on earth. For Paul excellently teaches believers to go with alacrity to death, “not for that they would be unclothed, but clothed upon.”[1869] Shall brute animals, and even inanimate creatures, down to stocks and stones, conscious of their present vanity, be looking forward to the resurrection at the last day, that they may be delivered from vanity, together with the children of God; and shall we, endued with the light of understanding, and, what is superior to the natural understanding, illuminated with the Spirit of God, when the question respects our own existence, not raise our minds above the corruption of this world? But it is not necessary to my present design, nor suitable in this place, to argue against such extreme perverseness. And I have already declared in the beginning, that I would not undertake a diffuse discussion of commonplace topics. I would persuade such timid minds to read Cyprian's treatise on Mortality, did they not deserve rather to be referred to the philosophers, that they may begin to blush, when they see the contempt of death [pg 644] discovered by them. But this we may positively conclude, that no man has made any good proficiency in the school of Christ, but he who joyfully expects both the day of death and that of the final resurrection. For Paul describes all believers by this character,[1870] and the Scripture often recalls our attention to it, when it intends to furnish us with a reason for true joy. “Look up,” saith the Lord, “and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.”[1871] Is it reasonable, that what he designed so powerfully to excite us to exultation and alacrity, should produce nothing but sorrow and consternation? If this be the case, why do we still glory in him as our Master? Let us therefore acquire a sounder judgment; and notwithstanding the opposition of the blind and stupid cupidity of our flesh, let us not hesitate ardently to desire the advent of the Lord, as of all events the most auspicious. For he shall come to us as a Redeemer, to deliver us from this bottomless gulf of all evils and miseries, and introduce us into that blessed inheritance of his life and glory.

VI. It is certainly true, that the whole family of believers, as long as they dwell on the earth, must be “accounted as sheep for the slaughter,”[1872] that they may be conformed to Christ their Head. Their state, therefore, would be extremely deplorable, if they did not elevate their thoughts towards heaven, rise above all sublunary things, and look beyond present appearances.[1873] On the contrary, when they have once raised their heads above this world, although they see the impious flourishing in riches and honours, and enjoying the most profound tranquillity; though they see them boasting of their splendour and luxury, and behold them abounding in every delight; though they may also be harassed by their wickedness, insulted by their pride, defrauded by their avarice, and may receive from them any other lawless provocations,—yet they will find no difficulty in supporting themselves even under such calamities as these. For they will keep in view that day when the Lord will receive his faithful servants into his peaceful kingdom; will wipe every tear from their eyes,[1874] invest them with robes of joy, adorn them with crowns of glory, entertain them with his ineffable delights, exalt them to fellowship with his majesty, and, in a word, honour them with a participation of his happiness. But the impious, who have been great in this world, he will precipitate down to the lowest ignominy; he will change their delights into torments, and their laughter and mirth into weeping and gnashing of teeth; he will disturb their tranquillity with dreadful agonies of conscience, [pg 645] and will punish their delicacy with inextinguishable fire, and even put them in subjection to the pious, whose patience they have abused. For, according to Paul, “it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble” the saints, “and to” them “who are troubled, rest, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven.”[1875] This is our only consolation; and deprived of this, we must of necessity either sink into despondency of mind, or solace ourselves to our own destruction with the vain pleasures of the world. For even the Psalmist confesses that he staggered,[1876] when he was too much engaged in contemplating the present prosperity of the impious; and that he could no otherwise establish himself, till he entered the sanctuary of God, and directed his views to the last end of the godly and of the wicked. To conclude in one word, the cross of Christ triumphs, in the hearts of believers, over the devil and the flesh, over sin and impious men, only when their eyes are directed to the power of the resurrection.

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

By such principles, the Scripture also fully instructs us in the right use of terrestrial blessings—a thing that ought not to be neglected in a plan for the regulation of life. For if we must live, we must also use the necessary supports of life; nor can we avoid even those things which appear to subserve our pleasures rather than our necessities. It behooves us, therefore, to observe moderation, that we may use them with a pure conscience, whether for necessity or for pleasure. This the Lord prescribes in his word, when he teaches us, that to his servants the present life is like a pilgrimage, in which they are travelling towards the celestial kingdom. If we are only to pass through the earth, we ought undoubtedly to make such a use of its blessings as will rather assist than retard us in our journey. It is not without reason, therefore, that Paul advises us to use this world as though we used it not, and to buy with the same disposition with which we sell.[1877] But as this is a difficult subject, and there is danger of falling into one of two opposite errors, let us endeavour to proceed on safe ground, that we may avoid both extremes. For there have [pg 646] been some, in other respects good and holy men, who, seeing that intemperance and luxury, unless restrained with more than ordinary severity, would perpetually indulge the most extravagant excesses, and desiring to correct such a pernicious evil, have adopted the only method which occurred to them, by permitting men to use corporeal blessings no further than their necessity should absolutely require. This advice was well intended, but they were far too austere. For they committed the very dangerous error of imposing on the conscience stricter rules than those which are prescribed to it by the word of the Lord. By restriction within the demands of necessity, they meant an abstinence from every thing from which it is possible to abstain; so that, according to them, it would scarcely be lawful to eat or drink any thing but bread and water. Others have discovered still greater austerity, like Crates the Theban, who is said to have thrown his wealth into the sea, from an apprehension that, unless it were destroyed, he should himself be destroyed by it. On the contrary, many in the present day, who seek a pretext to excuse intemperance in the use of external things, and at the same time desire to indulge the licentiousness of the flesh, assume as granted, what I by no means concede to them, that this liberty is not to be restricted by any limitation; but that it ought to be left to the conscience of every individual to use as much as he thinks lawful for himself. I grant, indeed, that it is neither right nor possible to bind the conscience with the fixed and precise rules of law in this case; but since the Scripture delivers general rules for the lawful use of earthly things, our practice ought certainly to be regulated by them.

II. It must be laid down as a principle, that the use of the gifts of God is not erroneous, when it is directed to the same end for which the Creator himself has created and appointed them for us; since he has created them for our benefit, not for our injury. Wherefore, no one will observe a more proper rule, than he who shall diligently regard this end. Now, if we consider for what end he has created the various kinds of aliment, we shall find that he intended to provide not only for our necessity, but likewise for our pleasure and delight. So in clothing, he has had in view not mere necessity, but propriety and decency. In herbs, trees, and fruits, beside their various uses, his design has been to gratify us by graceful forms and pleasant odours. For if this were not true, the Psalmist would not recount among the Divine blessings, “wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine;”[1878] nor would the Scriptures universally declare, in commendation of his goodness, that he has given all these things to men. And [pg 647] even the natural properties of things sufficiently indicate for what end, and to what extent, it is lawful to use them. But shall the Lord have endued flowers with such beauty, to present itself to our eyes, with such sweetness of smell, to impress our sense of smelling; and shall it be unlawful for our eyes to be affected with the beautiful sight, or our olfactory nerves with the agreeable odour? What! has he not made such a distinction of colours as to render some more agreeable than others? Has he not given to gold and silver, to ivory and marble, a beauty which makes them more precious than other metals or stones? In a word, has he not made many things worthy of our estimation, independently of any necessary use?

III. Let us discard, therefore, that inhuman philosophy which, allowing no use of the creatures but what is absolutely necessary, not only malignantly deprives us of the lawful enjoyment of the Divine beneficence, but which cannot be embraced till it has despoiled man of all his senses, and reduced him to a senseless block. But, on the other hand, we must, with equal diligence, oppose the licentiousness of the flesh; which, unless it be rigidly restrained, transgresses every bound. And, as I have observed, it has its advocates, who, under the pretext of liberty, allow it every thing. In the first place, it will be one check to it, if it be concluded, that all things are made for us, in order that we may know and acknowledge their Author, and celebrate his goodness towards us by giving him thanks. What will become of thanksgiving, if you overcharge yourself with dainties or wine, so as to be stupefied or rendered unfit for the duties of piety and the business of your station? Where is any acknowledgment of God, if your body, in consequence of excessive abundance, being inflamed with the vilest passions, infects the mind with its impurity, so that you cannot discern what is right or virtuous? Where is gratitude towards God for clothing, if, on account of our sumptuous apparel, we admire ourselves and despise others? if with the elegance and beauty of it, we prepare ourselves for unchastity? Where is our acknowledgment of God, if our minds be fixed on the splendour of our garments? For many so entirely devote all their senses to the pursuit of pleasure, that the mind is, as it were, buried in it; many are so delighted with marble, gold, and pictures, that they become like statues, are, as it were, metamorphosed into metal, and resemble painted images. The flavour of meats, or the sweetness of odours, so stupefies some, that they have no relish for any thing spiritual. The same may be observed in other cases. Wherefore it is evident, that this principle lays some restraint on the license of abusing the Divine bounties, and confirms the rule given us by Paul, that we “make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts [pg 648] thereof;”[1879] which, if they are allowed too much latitude, will transgress all the bounds of temperance and moderation.

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

V. The other rule will be, That persons whose property is small should learn to be patient under their privations, that they may not be tormented with an immoderate desire of riches. They who observe this moderation, have attained no small proficiency in the school of the Lord, as he who has made no proficiency in this point can scarcely give any proof of his being a disciple of Christ. For besides that an inordinate desire of earthly things is accompanied by most other vices, he who is impatient under penury, in abundance generally betrays the opposite passion. By this I mean, that he who is ashamed of a mean garment, will be proud of a splendid one; he who, not content with a slender meal, is disquieted with the desire of a more sumptuous one, would also intemperately abuse those dainties, should they fall to his lot; he who bears a private and mean condition with discontent and disquietude, would not abstain from pride and arrogance, should he [pg 649] rise to eminence and honours. Let all, therefore, who are sincere in the practice of piety, earnestly endeavour to learn, after the apostolic example, “both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.”[1881] The Scripture has also a third rule, by which it regulates the use of earthly things; of which something was said, when we treated of the precepts of charity. For it states, that while all these things are given to us by the Divine goodness, and appointed for our benefit, they are, as it were, deposits intrusted to our care, of which we must one day give an account. We ought, therefore, to manage them in such a manner that this alarm may be incessantly sounding in our ears, “Give an account of thy stewardship.”[1882] Let it also be remembered by whom this account is demanded; that it is by him who has so highly recommended abstinence, sobriety, frugality, and modesty; who abhors profusion, pride, ostentation, and vanity; who approves of no other management of his blessings, than such as is connected with charity; who has with his own mouth already condemned all those pleasures which seduce the heart from chastity and purity, or tend to impair the understanding.

VI. Lastly, it is to be remarked, that the Lord commands every one of us, in all the actions of life, to regard his vocation. For he knows with what great inquietude the human mind is inflamed, with what desultory levity it is hurried hither and thither, and how insatiable is its ambition to grasp different things at once. Therefore, to prevent universal confusion being produced by our folly and temerity, he has appointed to all their particular duties in different spheres of life. And that no one might rashly transgress the limits prescribed, he has styled such spheres of life vocations, or callings. Every individual's line of life, therefore, is, as it were, a post assigned him by the Lord, that he may not wander about in uncertainty all his days. And so necessary is this distinction, that in his sight all our actions are estimated according to it, and often very differently from the sentence of human reason and philosophy. There is no exploit esteemed more honourable, even among philosophers, than to deliver our country from tyranny; but the voice of the celestial Judge openly condemns the private man who lays violent hands on a tyrant. It is not my design, however, to stay to enumerate examples. It is sufficient if we know that the principle and foundation of right conduct in every case is the vocation of the Lord, and that he who disregards it will never keep the right way in the duties of his station. He may sometimes, perhaps, achieve something apparently laudable; but however it may appear in the eyes of men, [pg 650] it will be rejected at the throne of God; besides which, there will be no consistency between the various parts of his life. Our life, therefore, will then be best regulated, when it is directed to this mark; since no one will be impelled by his own temerity to attempt more than is compatible with his calling, because he will know that it is unlawful to transgress the bounds assigned him. He that is in obscurity will lead a private life without discontent, so as not to desert the station in which God has placed him. It will also be no small alleviation of his cares, labours, troubles, and other burdens, when a man knows that in all these things he has God for his guide. The magistrate will execute his office with greater pleasure, the father of a family will confine himself to his duty with more satisfaction, and all, in their respective spheres of life, will bear and surmount the inconveniences, cares, disappointments, and anxieties which befall them, when they shall be persuaded that every individual has his burden laid upon him by God. Hence also will arise peculiar consolation, since there will be no employment so mean and sordid (provided we follow our vocation) as not to appear truly respectable, and be deemed highly important in the sight of God.

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

I think I have already explained, with sufficient care, how that men, being subject to the curse of the law, have no means left of attaining salvation but through faith alone; and also what faith itself is, what Divine blessings it confers on man, and what effects it produces in him. The substance of what I have advanced is, that Christ, being given to us by the goodness of God, is apprehended and possessed by us by faith, by a participation of whom we receive especially two benefits. In the first place, being by his innocence reconciled to God, we have in heaven a propitious father instead of a judge; in the next place, being sanctified by his Spirit, we devote ourselves to innocence and purity of life. Of regeneration, which is the second benefit, I have said what I thought was sufficient. The method of justification has been but slightly touched, because it was necessary, first to understand that the faith, by which alone we attain gratuitous justification through the Divine mercy, is not unattended with good works, and what is [pg 651] the nature of the good works of the saints, in which part of this question consists. The subject of justification, therefore, must now be fully discussed, and discussed with the recollection that it is the principal hinge by which religion is supported, in order that we may apply to it with the greater attention and care. For unless we first of all apprehend in what situation we stand with respect to God, and what his judgment is concerning us, we have no foundation either for a certainty of salvation, or for the exercise of piety towards God. But the necessity of knowing this subject will be more evident from the knowledge itself.

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

III. For the confirmation of this point there are many plain testimonies of Scripture. In the first place, that this is the proper and most usual signification of the word, cannot be denied. But since it would be too tedious to collect all the passages and compare them together, let it suffice to have [pg 652] suggested it to the reader; for he will easily observe it of himself. I will only produce a few places, where this justification, which we speak of, is expressly handled. First, where Luke relates that “the people that heard Christ justified God;” and where Christ pronounces that “wisdom is justified of all her children.”[1883] To justify God, in the former passage, does not signify to confer righteousness, which always remains perfect in him, although the whole world endeavour to rob him of it; nor, in the latter passage, does the justifying of wisdom denote making the doctrine of salvation righteous, which is so of itself; but both passages imply an ascription to God and to his doctrine of the praise which they deserve. Again, when Christ reprehends the Pharisees for “justifying themselves,”[1884] he does not mean that they attained righteousness by doing what was right, but that they ostentatiously endeavoured to gain the character of righteousness, of which they were destitute. This is better understood by persons who are skilled in the Hebrew language; which gives the appellation of sinners, not only to those who are conscious to themselves of sin, but to persons who fall under a sentence of condemnation. For Bathsheba, when she says, “I and my son Solomon shall be counted offenders,” or sinners,[1885] confesses no crime, but complains, that she and her son will be exposed to the disgrace of being numbered among condemned criminals. And it appears from the context, that this word, even in the translation, cannot be understood in any other than a relative sense, and that it does not denote the real character. But with respect to the present subject, where Paul says, “The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the heathen through faith,”[1886] what can we understand, but that God imputes righteousness through faith? Again, when he says that God “justifieth the ungodly which believeth in Jesus,”[1887] what can be the meaning, but that he delivers him by the blessing of faith from the condemnation deserved by his ungodliness? He speaks still more plainly in the conclusion, when he thus exclaims: “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who also maketh intercession for us.”[1888] For it is just as if he had said, Who shall accuse them whom God absolves? Who shall condemn those for whom Christ intercedes? Justification, therefore, is no other than an acquittal from guilt of him who was accused, as though his innocence had been proved. Since God, therefore, justifies us through the mediation of Christ, he acquits us, not by an admission of our personal innocence, but [pg 653] by an imputation of righteousness; so that we, who are unrighteous in ourselves, are considered as righteous in Christ. This is the doctrine preached by Paul in the thirteenth chapter of the Acts: “Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.”[1889] We see that after remission of sins, this justification is mentioned, as if by way of explanation: we see clearly that it means an acquittal; that it is separated from the works of the law; that it is a mere favour of Christ; that it is apprehended by faith: we see, finally, the interposition of a satisfaction, when he says that we are justified from sins by Christ. Thus, when it is said, that the publican “went down to his house justified,”[1890] we cannot say that he obtained righteousness by any merit of works. The meaning therefore is, that after he had obtained the pardon of his sins, he was considered as righteous in the sight of God. He was righteous, therefore, not through any approbation of his works, but through God's gracious absolution. Wherefore Ambrose beautifully styles confession of sins, a legitimate justification.

IV. But leaving all contention about the term, if we attend to the thing itself, as it is described to us, every doubt will be removed. For Paul certainly describes justification as an acceptance, when he says to the Ephesians, “God hath predestinated us to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted.”[1891] The meaning of this passage is the same as when in another place we are said to be “justified freely by his grace.”[1892] But in the fourth chapter to the Romans, he first mentions an imputation of righteousness, and immediately represents it as consisting in remission of sins. “David,” says he, “describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven,” &c.[1893] He there, indeed, argues not concerning a branch, but the whole of justification. He also adduces the definition of it given by David, when he pronounces them to be blessed who receive the free forgiveness of their sins; whence it appears, that this righteousness of which he speaks is simply opposed to guilt. But the most decisive passage of all on this point, is where he teaches us that the grand object of the ministry of the gospel is, that we may “be reconciled to God,” because he is pleased to receive us into his favour through Christ, “not imputing” our “trespasses unto” [pg 654] us.[1894] Let the reader carefully examine the whole context; for when, by way of explanation, he just after adds, in order to describe the method of reconciliation, that Christ, “who knew no sin,” was “made sin for us,”[1895] he undoubtedly means by the term “reconciliation,” no other than justification. Nor would there be any truth in what he affirms in another place, that we are “made righteous by the obedience of Christ,”[1896] unless we are reputed righteous before God, in him, and out of ourselves.

V. But since Osiander has introduced I know not what monstrous notion of essential righteousness, by which, though he had no intention to destroy justification by grace, yet he has involved it in such obscurity as darkens pious minds, and deprives them of a serious sense of the grace of Christ,—it will be worth while, before I pass to any thing else, to refute this idle notion. In the first place, this speculation is the mere fruit of insatiable curiosity. He accumulates, indeed, many testimonies of Scripture, to prove that Christ is one with us, and we one with him, of which there is no proof necessary; but for want of observing the bond of this union, he bewilders himself. For us, however, who hold that we are united to Christ by the secret energy of his Spirit, it will be easy to obviate all his sophisms. He had conceived a notion similar to what was held by the Manichæans, so that he wished to transfuse the Divine essence into men. Hence another discovery of his, that Adam was formed in the image of God, because, even antecedently to the fall, Christ had been appointed the exemplar of the human nature. But for the sake of brevity, I shall only insist on the subject now before us. He says that we are one with Christ. This we admit; but we at the same time deny that Christ's essence is blended with ours. In the next place, we assert that this principle—that Christ is our righteousness because he is the eternal God, the fountain of righteousness, and the essential righteousness of God—is grossly perverted to support his fallacies. The reader will excuse me, if I now just hint at these things, which the order of the treatise requires to be deferred to another place. But though he alleges, in vindication of himself, that by the term essential righteousness he only intends to oppose the opinion that we are reputed righteous for the sake of Christ, yet he manifestly shows, that, not content with that righteousness which has been procured for us by the obedience and sacrificial death of Christ, he imagines that we are substantially righteous in God, by the infusion of his essence as well as his character. For this is the reason why he so vehemently contends, that [pg 655] not only Christ, but the Father and the Holy Spirit also dwell in us; which, though I allow it to be a truth, yet I maintain that he has grossly perverted. For he ought to have fully considered the nature of this inhabitation; namely, that the Father and the Spirit are in Christ; and that as “all the fulness of the Godhead dwelleth in him,”[1897] so in him we possess the whole Deity. Whatever, therefore, he advances concerning the Father and the Spirit separately, has no other tendency but to seduce the simple from Christ. In the next place, he introduces a mixture of substances, by which God, transfusing himself into us, makes us, as it were, a part of himself. For he considers it as of no importance, that the power of the Holy Spirit unites us to Christ, so that he becomes our head and we become his members, unless his essence be blended with ours. But when speaking of the Father and the Spirit, he more openly betrays his opinion; which is, that we are not justified by the sole grace of the Mediator, and that righteousness is not simply or really offered to us in his person; but that we are made partakers of the Divine righteousness when God is essentially united with us.

VI. If he had only said, that Christ in justifying us becomes ours by an essential union, and that he is our head not only as man, but that the essence of his Divine nature also is infused into us,—he might have entertained himself with his fancies with less mischief, nor perhaps would so great a contention have been excited about this reverie. But as this principle is like a cuttlefish, which, by the emission of black and turbid blood, conceals its many tails, there is a necessity for a vigorous opposition to it, unless we mean to submit to be openly robbed of that righteousness which alone affords us any confidence concerning our salvation. For throughout this discussion, the terms righteousness and justify are extended by him to two things. First, he understands that “to be justified” denotes not only to be reconciled to God by a free pardon, but also to be made righteous; and that righteousness is not a gratuitous imputation, but a sanctity and integrity inspired by the Divine essence which resides in us. Secondly, he resolutely denies that Christ is our righteousness, as having, in the character of a priest, expiated our sins and appeased the Father on our behalf, but as being the eternal God and everlasting life. To prove the first assertion, that God justifies not only by pardoning, but also by regenerating, he inquires whether God leaves those whom he justifies in their natural state, without any reformation of their manners. The answer is very easy; as Christ cannot be divided, so these two blessings, which we receive together [pg 656] in him, are also inseparable. Whomsoever, therefore, God receives into his favour, he likewise gives them the Spirit of adoption, by whose power he renews them in his own image. But if the brightness of the sun be inseparable from his heat, shall we therefore say that the earth is warmed by his light, and illuminated by his heat? Nothing can be more apposite to the present subject than this similitude. The beams of the sun quicken and fertilize the earth, his rays brighten and illuminate it. Here is a mutual and indivisible connection. Yet reason itself prohibits us to transfer to one what is peculiar to the other. In this confusion of two blessings which Osiander obtrudes on us, there is a similar absurdity. For as God actually renews to the practice of righteousness those whom he gratuitously accepts as righteous, Osiander confounds that gift of regeneration with this gracious acceptance, and contends that they are one and the same. But the Scripture, though it connects them together, yet enumerates them distinctly, that the manifold grace of God may be the more evident to us. For that passage of Paul is not superfluous, that “Christ is made unto us righteousness and sanctification.”[1898] And whenever he argues, from the salvation procured for us, from the paternal love of God, and from the grace of Christ, that we are called to holiness and purity, he plainly indicates that it is one thing to be justified, and another thing to be made new creatures. When Osiander appeals to the Scripture, he corrupts as many passages as he cites. The assertion of Paul, that “to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness,”[1899] is explained by Osiander to denote making a man righteous. With the same temerity he corrupts the whole of that fourth chapter to the Romans, and hesitates not to impose the same false gloss on the passage just cited, “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth;” where it is evident that the apostle is treating simply of accusation and absolution, and that his meaning wholly rests on the antithesis. His folly, therefore, betrays itself both in his arguments and in his citations of Scripture proofs. With no more propriety does he treat of the word righteousness, when he says, “that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness,” because that after having embraced Christ, (who is the righteousness of God, and God himself,) he was eminent for the greatest virtues. Whence it appears, that of two good parts, he erroneously makes one corrupt whole; for the righteousness there mentioned does not belong to the whole course of Abraham's life; but rather the Spirit testifies that, [pg 657] notwithstanding the singular eminence of Abraham's virtues, and his laudable and persevering advancement in them, yet he did not please God any otherwise than in receiving by faith the grace offered in the promise. Whence it follows, that in justification there is no regard paid to works, as Paul conclusively argues in that passage.

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

VIII. Respecting the reception of Christ, he goes still greater lengths; asserting that the internal word is received by the ministry of the external word, by which he would divert us from the priesthood of Christ and the person of the Mediator, to his eternal divinity. We do not divide Christ, but we maintain that the same person, who, by reconciling us to the Father in his own flesh, has given us righteousness, is the eternal Word of God; and we confess that he could not otherwise have discharged the office of Mediator, and procured righteousness for us, if he were not the eternal God. But the opinion of Osiander is, that since Christ is both God and man, he is made righteousness to us, in respect of his Divine, not his human nature. Now, if this properly belong to the Divinity, it will not be peculiar to Christ, but common also to the Father and the Spirit; since the righteousness of one is the same as that [pg 658] of the others. Besides, what has been naturally eternal, cannot with propriety be said to be “made unto us.” But though we grant that God is made righteousness unto us, how will it agree with the clause which is inserted, that “of God,” he “is made unto us righteousness?” This is certainly peculiar to the character of the Mediator, who, though he contains in himself the Divine nature, yet is designated by this appropriate title, by which he is distinguished from the Father and the Spirit. But he ridiculously triumphs in that single expression of Jeremiah, where he promises that “the Lord,” Jehovah, will be “our righteousness.”[1900] He can deduce nothing from this, but that Christ, who is our righteousness, is God manifested in the flesh. We have elsewhere recited from Paul's sermon, that “God hath purchased the Church with his own blood.”[1901] If any should infer from this, that the blood by which our sins were expiated, was Divine, and part of the Divine nature, who could bear so monstrous an error? But Osiander thinks he has gained every thing by this very puerile cavil; he swells, exults, and fills many pages with his swelling words, though the passage is simply and readily explained, by saying that Jehovah, when he should become the seed of David, would be the righteousness of the pious; and in the same sense Isaiah informs us, “by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many.”[1902] Let us remark, that the speaker here is the Father; that he attributes to his Son the office of justifying; that he adds as a reason, that he is righteous; and that he places the mode or means of effecting this, in the doctrine by which Christ is made known. For it is more suitable to understand the word דעת in a passive sense. Hence I conclude, first, that Christ was made righteousness when he assumed the form of a servant; secondly, that he justifies us by his own obedience to the Father; and, therefore, that he does this for us, not according to his Divine nature, but by reason of the dispensation committed to him. For though God alone is the fountain of righteousness, and we are righteous only by a participation of him, yet, because we have been alienated from his righteousness through the unhappy breach occasioned by the fall, we are under the necessity of descending to this inferior remedy, to be justified by Christ, by the efficacy of his death and resurrection.

IX. If Osiander object, that the excellence of this work surpasses the nature of man, and therefore can be ascribed only to the Divine nature,—the former part of the objection I admit, but in the latter I maintain that he is grossly mistaken. For although Christ could neither purify our souls with his blood, [pg 659] nor appease the Father by his sacrifice, nor absolve us from guilt, nor, in short, perform the functions of a priest, if he were not truly God, because human power would have been unequal to so great a burden, yet it is certain that he performed all these things in his human nature. For if it be inquired, How are we justified? Paul replies, “By the obedience” of Christ.[1903] But has he obeyed in any other way than by assuming the form of a servant? Hence we infer, that righteousness is presented to us in his flesh. In the other passage also, which I much wonder that Osiander is not ashamed to quote so frequently, Paul places the source of righteousness wholly in the humanity of Christ. “He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”[1904] Osiander lays great stress on “the righteousness of God,” and triumphs as though he had evinced it to be his notion of essential righteousness; whereas the words convey a very different idea,—that we are righteous through the expiation effected by Christ. That “the righteousness of God” means that which God approves, ought to have been known to the youngest novices; just as in John “the praise of God” is opposed to “the praise of men.”[1905] I know that “the righteousness of God” sometimes denotes that of which he is the author, and which he bestows upon us; but, without any observation of mine, the judicious reader will perceive that the meaning of this passage is only, that we stand before the tribunal of God supported by the atoning death of Christ. Nor is the term of such great importance, provided that Osiander coincides with us in this, that we are justified in Christ, inasmuch as he was made an expiatory sacrifice for us; which is altogether incompatible with his Divine nature. For this reason, when Christ designs to seal the righteousness and salvation which he has presented to us, he exhibits a certain pledge of it in his flesh. He calls himself, indeed, “living bread;” but adds, by way of explanation, “my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” This method of instruction is discovered in the sacraments; which, although they direct our faith to the whole of the person of Christ, not to a part of him only, yet at the same time teach that the matter of justification and salvation resides in his human nature; not that he either justifies or vivifies, of himself as a mere man, but because it has pleased God to manifest in the Mediator that which was incomprehensible and hidden in himself. Wherefore I am accustomed to say, that Christ is, as it were, a fountain opened to us, whence we may draw what were otherwise concealed and useless in that secret [pg 660] and deep fountain which flows to us in the person of the Mediator. In this manner, and in this sense, provided he will submit to the clear and forcible arguments which I have adduced, I do not deny that Christ justifies us, as he is God and man, and that this work is common also to the Father and the Spirit; and, finally, that the righteousness of which Christ makes us partakers, is the eternal righteousness of the eternal God.

X. Moreover, that his cavils may not deceive the inexperienced, I confess that we are destitute of this incomparable blessing, till Christ becomes ours. I attribute, therefore, the highest importance to the connection between the head and members; to the inhabitation of Christ in our hearts; in a word, to the mystical union by which we enjoy him, so that being made ours, he makes us partakers of the blessings with which he is furnished. We do not, then, contemplate him at a distance out of ourselves, that his righteousness may be imputed to us; but because we have put him on, and are ingrafted into his body, and because he has deigned to unite us to himself, therefore we glory in a participation of his righteousness. Thus we refute the cavil of Osiander, that faith is considered by us as righteousness; as though we despoiled Christ of his right, when we affirm, that by faith we come to him empty, that he alone may fill us with his grace. But Osiander, despising this spiritual connection, insists on a gross mixture of Christ with believers; and therefore invidiously gives the appellation of Zuinglians to all who do not subscribe to his fanatical error concerning essential righteousness; because they are not of opinion that Christ is substantially eaten in the sacred supper. As for myself, indeed, I consider it the highest honour to be thus reproached by a man so proud and so absorbed in his own delusions; although he attacks not me alone, but other writers well known in the world, whom he ought to have treated with modest respect. But this does not at all affect me, who am supporting no private interest; wherefore I the more unreservedly advocate this cause, conscious that I am free from every sinister motive. His great importunity in insisting on essential righteousness, and an essential inhabitation of Christ in us, goes to this length—first, that God transfuses himself into us by a gross mixture of himself with us, as he pretends that there is a carnal eating in the sacred supper; secondly, that God inspires his righteousness into us, by which we are really righteous with him, since, according to this man, such righteousness is as really God himself, as the goodness, or holiness, or perfection of God. I shall not take much trouble to refute the testimonies adduced by him, which he violently perverts from the celestial to the present state. By Christ, says [pg 661] Peter, “are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises; that by these ye might be partakers of the Divine nature.”[1906] As though we were now such as the gospel promises we shall be at the second advent of Christ; nay, John apprizes us, that then “we shall be like God; for we shall see him as he is.”[1907] I have thought proper to give the reader only a small specimen, and endeavoured to pass over these impertinences, not that it is difficult to refute them, but because I am unwilling to be tedious in labouring to no purpose.

XI. There is yet more latent poison in the second particular, in which he maintains, that we are righteous together with God. I think I have already sufficiently demonstrated, that although this dogma were not so pestiferous, yet because it is weak and unsatisfactory, and evaporates through its own inanity, it ought justly to be rejected by all judicious and pious readers. But this is an impiety not to be tolerated—under the pretext of a twofold righteousness to weaken the assurance of salvation, and to elevate us above the clouds, that we may not embrace by faith the grace of expiation, and call upon God with tranquillity of mind. Osiander ridicules those who say that justification is a forensic term, because it is necessary for us to be actually righteous: nor is there any thing that he more dislikes than the doctrine that we are justified by gratuitous imputation. Now, if God do not justify by absolving and pardoning us, what is the meaning of this declaration of Paul? “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”[1908] First I find, that they are accounted righteous who are reconciled to God: the manner is specified, that God justifies by pardoning; just as, in another passage, justification is opposed to accusation; which antithesis clearly demonstrates, that the form of expression is borrowed from the practice of courts. Nor is there any one, but tolerably versed in the Hebrew language, provided at the same time that he be in his sound senses, who can be ignorant that this is the original of the phrase, and that this is its import and meaning. Now, let Osiander answer me whether, where Paul says that “David describeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven,”[1909] whether, I say, this be a complete definition or a partial one. Certainly Paul does not adduce the testimony of the Psalmist, as teaching that pardon of sins is a part of righteousness, or concurs to the justification of a man; but he includes the whole of righteousness in a free remission, pronouncing, “Blessed are they whose [pg 662] iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.” He thence estimates and judges of the felicity of such a man, because in this way he becomes righteous, not actually, but by imputation. Osiander objects, that it would be dishonourable to God, and contrary to his nature, if he justified those who still remain actually impious. But it should be remembered that, as I have already observed, the grace of justification is inseparable from regeneration, although they are distinct things. But since it is sufficiently known from experience, that some relics of sin always remain in the righteous, the manner of their justification must of necessity be very different from that of their renovation to newness of life. For the latter God commences in his elect, and as long as they live carries it on gradually, and sometimes slowly, so that they are always obnoxious at his tribunal to the sentence of death. He justifies them, however, not in a partial manner, but so completely, that they may boldly appear in heaven, as being invested with the purity of Christ. For no portion of righteousness could satisfy our consciences, till we have ascertained that God is pleased with us, as being unexceptionably righteous before him. Whence it follows, that the doctrine of justification is perverted and totally overturned, when doubts are injected into the mind, when the confidence of salvation is shaken, when bold and fearless worship is interrupted, and when quiet and tranquillity with spiritual joy are not established. Whence Paul argues from the incompatibility of things contrary to each other, that the inheritance is not of the law, because then faith would be rendered vain;[1910] which, if it be fixed upon works, must inevitably fall; since not even the most holy of all saints will find them afford any ground of confidence. This difference between justification and regeneration (which Osiander confounds together, and denominates a twofold righteousness) is beautifully expressed by Paul; for, speaking of his real righteousness, or of the integrity which he possessed, to which Osiander gives the appellation of essential righteousness, he sorrowfully exclaims, “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?”[1911] But resorting to the righteousness which is founded in the Divine mercy alone, he nobly triumphs over life, and death, and reproaches, and famine, and the sword, and all adverse things and persons. “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. For I am persuaded, that nothing shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”[1912] He plainly declares himself to be possessed [pg 663] of that righteousness, which alone is fully sufficient for salvation in the sight of God; so that the miserable servitude, in a consciousness of which he was just before bewailing his condition, neither diminishes, nor in the smallest degree interrupts, the confidence with which he triumphs. This diversity is sufficiently known, and is even familiar to all the saints, who groan under the burden of their iniquities, and yet with victorious confidence rise superior to every fear. But the objection of Osiander, that it is incongruous to the nature of God, recoils upon himself; for, although he invests the saints with a twofold righteousness, as with a garment covered with skins, he is, notwithstanding, constrained to acknowledge that no man can please God without the remission of his sins. If this be true, he should at least grant that they who are not actually righteous, are accounted righteous in proportion, as it is expressed, to the degree of imputation. But how far shall a sinner extend this gracious acceptance, which is substituted in the place of righteousness? Shall he estimate it by the weight? Truly he will be in great uncertainty to which side to incline the balance; because he will not be able to assume to himself as much righteousness as may be necessary to his confidence. It is well that he, who would wish to prescribe laws to God, is not the arbiter of this cause. But this address of David to God will remain: “That thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.”[1913] And what extreme arrogance it is to condemn the supreme Judge when he freely absolves, and not to be satisfied with this answer, “I will show mercy on whom I will show mercy!”[1914] And yet the intercession of Moses, which God checked with this reply, was not that he would spare none, but that, though they were guilty, he would remove their guilt and absolve them all at once. We affirm, therefore, that those who were undone are justified before God by the obliteration of their sins; because, sin being the object of his hatred, he can love none but those whom he justifies. But this is a wonderful method of justification, that sinners, being invested with the righteousness of Christ, dread not the judgment which they have deserved; and that, while they justly condemn themselves, they are accounted righteous out of themselves.

XII. But the readers must be cautioned to pay a strict attention to the mystery which Osiander boasts that he will not conceal from them. For, after having contended with great prolixity, that we do not obtain favour with God solely through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, because it would be impossible for him to esteem those as righteous [pg 664] who are not so, (I use his own words,) he at length concludes, that Christ is given to us for righteousness, not in respect of his human, but of his Divine nature; and that, though this righteousness can only be found in the person of the Mediator, yet it is the righteousness, not of man, but of God. He does not combine two righteousnesses, but evidently deprives the humanity of Christ of all concern in the matter of justification. It is worth while, however, to hear what arguments he adduces. It is said in the passage referred to, that “Christ is made unto us wisdom,”[1915] which is applicable only to the eternal Word. Neither, therefore, is Christ, considered as man our righteousness. I reply, that the only begotten Son of God was indeed his eternal wisdom; but this title is here ascribed to him by Paul in a different sense, because “in him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”[1916] What, therefore, he had with the Father, he has manifested to us; and so what Paul says, refers not to the essence of the Son of God, but to our benefit, and is rightly applied to the humanity of Christ; because, although he was a light shining in darkness before his assumption of the flesh, yet he was a hidden light till he appeared in the nature of man “as the Sun of righteousness;”[1917] wherefore he calls himself “the light of the world.”[1918] Osiander betrays his folly likewise in objecting, that justification exceeds the power of angels and men; since it depends not upon the dignity of any creature, but upon the appointment of God. If angels were desirous to offer a satisfaction to God, it would be unavailing; because they have not been appointed to it. This was peculiar to the man Christ, who was “made under the law, to redeem us from the curse of the law.”[1919] He likewise very unjustly accuses those who deny that Christ is our righteousness according to his Divine nature, of retaining only one part of Christ, and (what is worse) making two Gods; because, though they acknowledge that God dwells in us, yet they flatly deny that we are righteous through the righteousness of God. For if we call Christ the author of life in consequence of his having suffered death, “that he might destroy him that had the power of death,”[1920] it is not to be inferred that we deny this honour to his complete person, as God manifested in the flesh: we only state with precision the means by which the righteousness of God is conveyed to us, so that we may enjoy it. In this, Osiander has fallen into a very pernicious error. We do not deny, that what is openly exhibited to us in Christ flows from the secret grace and power of God; nor do we refuse to admit, that the [pg 665] righteousness conferred on us by Christ is the righteousness of God as proceeding from him; but we constantly maintain that we have righteousness and life in the death and resurrection of Christ. I pass over that shameful accumulation of passages, with which, without any discrimination, and even without common sense, he has burdened the reader, in order to evince, that wherever mention is made of righteousness, it ought to be understood of this essential righteousness; as where David implores the righteousness of God to assist him; which as he does above a hundred times, Osiander hesitates not to pervert such a great number of passages. Nor is there any thing more solid in his other objection, that the term “righteousness” is properly and rightly applied to that by which we are excited to rectitude of conduct, and that God alone “worketh in us both to will and to do.”[1921] Now, we do not deny, that God renews us by his Spirit to holiness and righteousness of life; but it should first be inquired, whether he does this immediately by himself, or through the medium of his Son, with whom he has deposited all the plenitude of his Spirit, that with his abundance he might relieve the necessities of his members. Besides, though righteousness flows to us from the secret fountain of the Divinity, yet it does not follow that Christ, who in the flesh sanctified himself for our sakes,[1922] is our righteousness with respect to his Divine nature. Equally frivolous is his assertion, that Christ himself was righteous with the righteousness of God; because, if he had not been influenced by the will of the Father, not even he could have performed the part assigned him. For though it has been elsewhere observed, that all the merit of Christ himself flows from the mere favour of God, yet this affords no countenance to the fanciful notion with which Osiander fascinates his own eyes and those of the injudicious. For who would admit the inference, that because God is the original source of our righteousness, we are therefore essentially righteous, and have the essence of the Divine righteousness residing in us? In redeeming the Church (Isaiah says) God “put on righteousness as a breastplate;”[1923] but was it to spoil Christ of the armour which he had given him, and to prevent his being a perfect Redeemer? The prophet only meant that God borrowed nothing extrinsic to himself, and had no assistance in the work of our redemption. Paul has briefly intimated the same in other words, saying that he has given us salvation in order “to declare his righteousness.”[1924] Nor does this at all contradict what he states in another place, “that by the [pg 666] obedience of one we are made righteous.”[1925] To conclude: whoever fabricates a twofold righteousness, that wretched souls may not rely wholly and exclusively on the Divine mercy, makes Christ an object of contempt, and crowns him with platted thorns.

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

XIV. The sophists, who amuse and delight themselves with perversion of the Scripture and vain cavils, think they have found a most excellent subterfuge, when they explain works, in these passages, to mean those which men yet unregenerate [pg 667] perform without the grace of Christ, merely through the unassisted efforts of their own free-will; and deny that they relate to spiritual works. Thus, according to them, a man is justified both by faith and by works, only the works are not properly his own, but the gifts of Christ and the fruits of regeneration. For they say that Paul spoke in this manner, only that the Jews, who relied on their own strength, might be convinced of their folly in arrogating righteousness to themselves, whereas it is conferred on us solely by the Spirit of Christ, not by any exertion properly our own. But they do not observe, that in the contrast of legal and evangelical righteousness, which Paul introduces in another place, all works are excluded, by what title soever they may be distinguished. For he teaches that this is the righteousness of the law, that he who has fulfilled the command of the law shall obtain salvation;[1931] but that the righteousness of faith consists in believing that Christ has died and is risen again.[1932] Besides, we shall see, as we proceed, in its proper place, that sanctification and righteousness are separate blessings of Christ. Whence it follows, that even spiritual works are not taken into the account, when the power of justifying is attributed to faith. And the assertion of Paul, in the place just cited, that Abraham has not whereof to glory before God, since he was not justified by works, ought not to be restricted to any literal appearance or external display of virtue, or to any efforts of free-will; but though the life of the patriarch was spiritual, and almost angelic, yet his works did not possess sufficient merit to justify him before God.

XV. The errors of the schoolmen, who mingle their preparations, are rather more gross; but they instil into the simple and incautious a doctrine equally corrupt, while under the pretext of the Spirit and of grace, they conceal the mercy of God, which alone can calm the terrors of the conscience. We confess, indeed, with Paul, that “the doers of the law are justified before God;”[1933] but since we are all far from being observers of the law, we conclude, that those works which should be principally available to justification, afford us no assistance, because we are destitute of them. With respect to the common Papists, or schoolmen, they are in this matter doubly deceived; both in denominating faith a certainty of conscience in expecting from God a reward of merit, and in explaining the grace of God to be, not an imputation of gratuitous righteousness, but the Spirit assisting to the pursuit of holiness. They read in the apostle, “He that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.”[1934] But they do not consider the manner [pg 668] of seeking him. And that they mistake the sense of the word “grace,” is evident from their writings. For Lombard represents justification by Christ as given us in two ways. He says, “The death of Christ justifies us, first, because it excites charity in our hearts, by which we are made actually righteous; secondly, because it destroys sin, by which the devil held us in captivity, so that now it cannot condemn us.” We see how he considers the grace of God in justification to consist in our being directed to good works by the grace of the Holy Spirit. He wished, indeed, to follow the opinion of Augustine; but he follows him at a great distance, and even deviates considerably from a close imitation of him; for whatever he finds clearly stated by him, he obscures, and whatever he finds pure in him, he corrupts. The schools have always been running into worse and worse errors, till at length they have precipitated themselves into a kind of Pelagianism. Nor, indeed, is the opinion of Augustine, or at least his manner of expression, to be altogether admitted. For though he excellently despoils man of all the praise of righteousness, and ascribes the whole to the grace of God, yet he refers grace to sanctification, in which we are regenerated by the Spirit to newness of life.

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

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

XVIII. The other passage is as follows: “That no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident; for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith; but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.”[1938] How could this argument be supported, unless it were certain that works do not come into the account of faith, but are to be entirely separated [pg 670] from it? The law, he says, differs from faith. Why? Because works are required to the righteousness of the law. It follows, therefore, that works are not required to the righteousness of faith. From this statement it appears, that they who are justified by faith, are justified without the merit of works, and beyond the merit of works; for faith receives that righteousness which the gospel bestows; and the gospel differs from the law in this respect, that it does not confine righteousness to works, but rests it entirely on the mercy of God. He argues in a similar manner to the Romans, that “Abraham had not whereof to glory; for he believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness;”[1939] and by way of confirmation he subjoins, that then there is room for the righteousness of faith when there are no works which merit any reward. He tells us, that where there are works, they receive a reward “of debt,” but that what is given to faith is “of grace;” for this is the clear import of the language which he there uses. When he adds, a little after, “Therefore it is of faith” that we obtain the inheritance, in order “that it might be by grace,”[1940] he infers that the inheritance is gratuitous, because it is received by faith: and why is this, but because faith, without any assistance of works, depends wholly on the Divine mercy? And in the same sense undoubtedly he elsewhere teaches us, that “the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;”[1941] because, by excluding the law, he denies that righteousness is assisted by works, or that we obtain it by working, but asserts that we come empty in order to receive it.

XIX. The reader will now discover, with what justice the sophists of the present day cavil at our doctrine, when we say that a man is justified by faith only. That a man is justified by faith, they do not deny, because the Scripture so often declares it; but since it is nowhere expressly said to be by faith only, they cannot bear this addition to be made. But what reply will they give to these words of Paul, where he contends that “righteousness is not of faith unless it be gratuitous?”[1942] How can any thing gratuitous consist with works? And by what cavils will they elude what he asserts in another place, that in the gospel “is the righteousness of God revealed?”[1943] If righteousness is revealed in the gospel, it is certainly not a mutilated and partial, but a complete and perfect one. The law, therefore, has no concern in it. And respecting this exclusive particle, only, they rest on an evasion which is not only false, but glaringly ridiculous. For does not [pg 671] he most completely attribute every thing to faith alone, who denies every thing to works? What is the meaning of these expressions of Paul? “Righteousness is manifested without the law,” “justified freely by his grace,” “justified without the deeds of the law.”[1944] Here they have an ingenious subterfuge, which, though it is not of their own invention, but borrowed from Origen and some of the ancients, is nevertheless very absurd. They pretend that the works excluded are the ceremonial works of the law, not the moral works. They have made such a proficiency by their perpetual disputations, that they have forgotten the first elements of logic. Do they suppose the apostle to have been insane, when he adduced these passages in proof of his doctrine? “The man that doeth them shall live in them;” and “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.”[1945] If they be in their sober senses, they will not assert that life was promised to the observers of ceremonies, and the curse denounced merely on the transgressors of them. If these places are to be understood of the moral law, it is beyond a doubt, that moral works likewise are excluded from the power to justify. To the same purpose are these arguments which he uses: “For by the law is the knowledge of sin;” consequently not righteousness. “Because the law worketh wrath,”[1946] therefore not righteousness. Since the law cannot assure our consciences, neither can it confer righteousness. Since faith is counted for righteousness, consequently righteousness is not a reward of works, but is gratuitously bestowed. Since we are justified by faith, boasting is precluded. “If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.”[1947] Let them idly pretend, if they dare, that these are applicable to ceremonies, not to morals; but even children would explode such consummate impudence. We may therefore be assured, that when the power of justifying is denied to the law, the whole law is included.

XX. If any one should wonder why the apostle does not content himself with simply mentioning works, but says works of the law, the reason is obvious. For though works are so greatly esteemed, they derive their value from the Divine approbation rather than from any intrinsic excellence. For who can dare to boast to God of any righteousness of works, but what he has approved? Who can dare to claim any reward as due to them, but what he has promised? It is owing, therefore, [pg 672] to the Divine favour, that they are accounted worthy both of the title and of the reward of righteousness; and so they are valuable, only when they are intended as acts of obedience to God. Wherefore the apostle, in another place, in order to prove that Abraham could not be justified by works, alleges, that “the law was four hundred and thirty years after the covenant was confirmed.”[1948] Ignorant persons would ridicule such an argument, because there might have been righteous works before the promulgation of the law; but knowing that works have no such intrinsic worth, independently of the testimony and esteem of God, he has taken it for granted that, antecedently to the law, they had no power to justify. We know why he expressly mentions “the works of the law,” when he means to deny justification by works; it is because they alone can furnish any occasion of controversy. However, he likewise excludes all works, without any limitation, as when he says, “David describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works.”[1949] They cannot, therefore, by any subtleties prevent us from retaining this general exclusive particle. It is in vain, also, that they catch at another frivolous subtlety, alleging that we are justified only by that “faith which worketh by love;”[1950] with a view to represent righteousness as depending on love. We acknowledge, indeed, with Paul, that no other faith justifies, except that “which worketh by love;” but it does not derive its power to justify from the efficacy of that love. It justifies in no other way than as it introduces us into a participation of the righteousness of Christ. Otherwise there would be no force in the argument so strenuously urged by the apostle. “To him that worketh,” says he, “is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”[1951] Was it possible for him to speak more plainly than by thus asserting, that there is no righteousness of faith, except where there are no works entitled to any reward; and that faith is imputed for righteousness, only when righteousness is conferred through unmerited grace?

XXI. Now, let us examine the truth of what has been asserted in the definition, that the righteousness of faith is a reconciliation with God, which consists solely in remission of sins.[1952] We must always return to this axiom—That the Divine wrath remains on all men, as long as they continue to be sinners. This Isaiah has beautifully expressed in the following words: “The Lord's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither is his ear heavy, that it cannot hear; but your [pg 673] iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.”[1953] We are informed, that sin makes a division between man and God, and turns the Divine countenance away from the sinner. Nor can it be otherwise; because it is incompatible with his righteousness to have any communion with sin. Hence the apostle teaches, that man is an enemy to God, till he be reconciled to him through Christ.[1954] Whom, therefore, the Lord receives into fellowship, him he is said to justify; because he cannot receive any one into favour or into fellowship with himself, without making him from a sinner to be a righteous person. This, we add, is accomplished by the remission of sins. For if they, whom the Lord has reconciled to himself, be judged according to their works, they will still be found actually sinners; who, notwithstanding, must be absolved and free from sin. It appears, then, that those whom God receives, are made righteous no otherwise than as they are purified by being cleansed from all their defilements by the remission of their sins; so that such a righteousness may, in one word, be denominated a remission of sins.

XXII. Both these points are fully established by the language of Paul, which I have already recited. “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.”[1955] Then he adds the substance of his ministry: “He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”[1956] The terms “righteousness” and “reconciliation” are here used by him indiscriminately, to teach us that they are mutually comprehended in each other. And he states the manner of obtaining this righteousness to consist in our transgressions not being imputed to us. Wherefore we can no longer doubt how God justifies, when we hear that he reconciles us to himself by not imputing our sins to us. Thus, in the Epistle to the Romans, the apostle proves, that “God imputeth righteousness without works,” from the testimony of David, who declares, “Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.”[1957] By “blessedness,” in this passage, he undoubtedly means righteousness; for since he asserts it to consist in remission of sins, there is no reason for our adopting any other definition of it. Wherefore Zachariah, the father of John the Baptist, places “the knowledge of salvation” in “the remission of sins.”[1958] And Paul, observing the same rule in the sermon which he preached to [pg 674] the people of Antioch on the subject of salvation, is stated by Luke to have concluded in the following manner: “Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.”[1959] The apostle thus connects “forgiveness of sins” with “justification,” to show that they are identically the same; whence he justly argues, that this righteousness which we obtain through the favour of God is gratuitously bestowed upon us. Nor should it be thought a strange expression, that believers are justified before God, not by their works, but by his gracious acceptance of them; since it occurs so frequently in the Scripture, and sometimes also in the fathers. Augustine says, “The righteousness of the saints, in this world, consists rather in the remission of their sins than in the perfection of their virtues.” With which corresponds the remarkable observation of Bernard: “Not to sin at all, is the righteousness of God; but the righteousness of man is the Divine grace and mercy.” He had before asserted, “that Christ is righteousness to us in absolution, and therefore that they alone are righteous who have obtained pardon through his mercy.”

XXIII. Hence, also, it is evident, that we obtain justification before God, solely by the intervention of the righteousness of Christ. Which is equivalent to saying, that a man is righteous, not in himself, but because the righteousness of Christ is communicated to him by imputation; and this is a point which deserves an attentive consideration. For it supersedes that idle notion, that a man is justified by faith, because faith receives the Spirit of God by whom he is made righteous; which is too repugnant to the foregoing doctrine, ever to be reconcilable to it. For he must certainly be destitute of all righteousness of his own, who is taught to seek a righteousness out of himself. This is most clearly asserted by the apostle, when he says, “He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”[1960] We see that our righteousness is not in ourselves, but in Christ; and that all our title to it rests solely on our being partakers of Christ; for in possessing him, we possess all his riches with him. Nor does any objection arise from what he states in another place, that “God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us;”[1961] where he intends no other fulfilment than what we obtain by imputation. For the Lord Christ so communicates his righteousness to us, that, with reference to the Divine judgment, he transfuses its virtue into us in a most wonderful manner. That the apostle intended [pg 675] no other, abundantly appears from another declaration, which he had made just before: “As by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”[1962] What is placing our righteousness in the obedience of Christ, but asserting, that we are accounted righteous only because his obedience is accepted for us as if it were our own? Wherefore Ambrose appears to me to have very beautifully exemplified this righteousness in the benediction of Jacob; that as he, who had on his own account no claim to the privileges of primogeniture, being concealed in his brother's habit, and invested with his garment, which diffused a most excellent odour, insinuated himself into the favour of his father, that he might receive the benediction to his own advantage, under the character of another; so we shelter ourselves under the precious purity of Christ our elder brother, that we may obtain the testimony of righteousness in the sight of God. The words of Ambrose are, “That Isaac smelled the odour of the garments, perhaps indicates, that we are justified not by works, but by faith; since the infirmity of the flesh is an impediment to works, but the brightness of faith, which merits the pardon of sin, conceals the error of our actions.” And such is indeed the real fact; for that we may appear before the face of God to salvation, it is necessary for us to be perfumed with his fragrance, and to have all our deformities concealed and absorbed in his perfection.

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

Though it appears, from the plainest testimonies, that all these things are strictly true, yet we shall not clearly discover how necessary they are, till we shall have taken a view of what ought to be the foundation of all this argument. In the first place, therefore, we should reflect that we are not treating of the righteousness of a human court, but of that of the heavenly tribunal; in order that we may not apply any diminutive standard of our own, to estimate the integrity of conduct required to satisfy the Divine justice. But it is wonderful, with what temerity and presumption this is commonly decided; and it is even observable, that no men give us more confident or pompous declamations concerning the righteousness of works, than [pg 676] those who are notoriously guilty of open sins or addicted to secret vices. This arises from their never thinking of the righteousness of God, the smallest sense of which would prevent them from treating it with such contempt. And certainly it is exceedingly undervalued, if it be not acknowledged to be so perfect that nothing can be acceptable to it but what is absolutely complete and immaculate, such as it never was, nor ever will be, possible to find in fallen man. It is easy for any one in the cloisters of the schools, to indulge himself in idle speculations on the merit of works to justify men; but when he comes into the presence of God, he must bid farewell to these amusements, for there the business is transacted with seriousness, and no ludicrous logomachy practised. To this point, then, must our attention be directed, if we wish to make any useful inquiry concerning true righteousness; how we can answer the celestial Judge, when he shall call us to an account. Let us place that Judge before our eyes, not according to the spontaneous imaginations of our minds, but according to the descriptions given of him in the Scripture; which represents him as one whose refulgence eclipses the stars, whose power melts the mountains, whose anger shakes the earth, whose wisdom takes the subtle in their own craftiness, whose purity makes all things appear polluted, whose righteousness even the angels are unable to bear, who acquits not the guilty, whose vengeance, when it is once kindled, penetrates even to the abyss of hell.[1963] Let him seat himself, I say, on the tribunal, to examine the actions of men: who will present himself fearless before his throne? “Who shall dwell with the devouring fire?” saith the prophet. “Who shall dwell with everlasting burnings? He that walketh righteously and speaketh uprightly,” &c.[1964] Now let him come forward, whoever he is. But this answer causes not one to appear. For, on the contrary, we hear this fearful speech, “If thou, Lord, shouldst mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?”[1965] In truth, all must speedily perish, as it is written in another place, “Shall mortal man be more just than God? Shall a man be more pure than his Maker? Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly; how much less in them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in the dust, which are crushed before the moth? They are destroyed from morning to evening.”[1966] Again: “Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight; how much more abominable and filthy is man, which drinketh iniquity like water?”[1967] I confess that in the Book of Job mention is made of a righteousness [pg 677] which is superior to the observance of the law. And it will be of use to remember this distinction; because, though any one could satisfy the law, he could not even then stand the scrutiny of that righteousness which exceeds all comprehension. Therefore, though Job is conscious of his own integrity, yet he is mute with astonishment, when he sees that God could not be pleased even with the sanctity of angels, if he were to enter into a strict examination of their works. I shall, therefore, now pass over that righteousness to which I have alluded, because it is incomprehensible, and content myself with asserting, that we must be worse than stupid, if, on an examination of our lives by the rule of the written law, we are not tormented with awful dread in consequence of so many maledictions, which God has designed to arouse us, and among the rest this general one: “Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them.”[1968] In short, this whole controversy will be uninteresting and useless, unless every one present himself as a criminal before the celestial Judge, and voluntarily prostrate and humble himself in deep solicitude concerning his absolution.

II. To this point our eyes ought to have been raised, that we might learn rather to tremble through fear, than to indulge in vain exultation. It is easy, indeed, while the comparison is made only between men, for every man to imagine himself to be possessed of something which others ought not to contemn; but when we ascend to the contemplation of God, that confidence is immediately lost. And the case of our soul with respect to God is similar to that of our body with respect to the visible heavens; for the eye, as long as it is employed in beholding adjacent objects, receives proofs of its own perspicacity; but if it be directed towards the sun, dazzled and confounded with his overpowering brightness, it feels no less debility in beholding him, than strength in the view of inferior objects. Let us not, then, deceive ourselves with a vain confidence, although we consider ourselves equal or superior to other men. That is nothing to God, to whose decision this cause must be submitted. But if our insolence cannot be restrained by these admonitions, he will reply to us in the language which he addressed to the Pharisees: “Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but that which is highly esteemed among men, is abomination in the sight of God.”[1969] Go now, and among men proudly glory in your righteousness, while the God of heaven abominates it. But what is the language of the servants of God, who are truly taught by his Spirit? One says, “Enter not into judgment with thy servant; for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.”[1970] And another, [pg 678] though in a sense somewhat different, “How should man be just with God? If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand.”[1971] Here we are plainly informed respecting the righteousness of God, that it is such as no human works can satisfy; and such as renders it impossible for us, if accused of a thousand crimes, to exculpate ourselves from one of them. The same idea of this righteousness had very properly been entertained by Paul, that “chosen vessel”[1972] of God, when he professed, “I am conscious to myself of nothing; yet am I not hereby justified.”[1973]

III. Nor is it only in the sacred Scriptures that such examples are found. All pious writers discover similar sentiments. Thus Augustine says, “The only hope of all the pious, who groan under this burden of corruptible flesh, and amidst the infirmities of this life, is, that we have a Mediator, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the propitiation for our sins.” What is the meaning of this observation? If this is their only hope, where is any confidence in works? For when he asserts this to be the only one, he precludes every other. Bernard also says, “And in fact where can be found safe and solid rest and security for the weak, but in the wounds of the Saviour? There I dwell with the greater security, in proportion to his power to save. The world rages, the body oppresses, the devil lies in wait to destroy. I do not fall, because my foundation is on a firm rock. I have committed heinous sin. My conscience is disturbed, but shall not fall into despair, because I shall recall to remembrance the wounds of the Lord.” From these considerations he afterwards concludes, “My merit, therefore, is the compassion of the Lord: I am clearly not destitute of merit, as long as he is not destitute of compassions. But if the mercies of the Lord be a multitude of mercies, my merits are likewise equally numerous. Shall I sing of my own righteousness? O Lord, I will remember thy righteousness alone. For it is mine also, since he is made of God righteousness unto me.” Again, in another place: “This is the whole merit of man—to fix all his hope on him who saves the whole man.” Likewise in another place, retaining peace to himself, and ascribing the glory to God, he says, “To thee let the glory remain undiminished. It is happy for me, if I have peace. The glory I entirely renounce; lest, if I usurp what is not mine, I lose also that which is offered me.” In another place he is still more explicit: “Why should the Church be solicitous about merits, while it has a stronger and more secure reason for glorying in the designs of God? You need not inquire on account of what merits we hope for blessings, especially when you read in the prophet, ‘Thus saith the [pg 679] Lord God; I do not this for your sakes, but for mine holy name's sake.’[1974] It suffices with respect to merit, to know that merits are not sufficient; but as it suffices for merit not to presume on merits, so to be destitute of merits is sufficient cause of condemnation.” We must excuse his custom of freely using the word merits for good works. But his ultimate design was to terrify hypocrites, who indulge themselves in a licentious course of sin against the grace of God; as he presently declares: “Happy is the Church which wants neither merits without presumption, nor presumption without merits. It has some ground of presumption, but not merits. It has merits, but in order to deserve, not to presume. Is not the absence of presumption itself a merit? Therefore the Church presumes the more securely, because it does not presume, having ample cause for glorying in the multitude of the Divine mercies.”

IV. This is the real truth. The troubled conscience finds this to be the only asylum of safety, where it can enjoy any tranquillity, when it has to do with the Divine justice. For if the stars, which appeared most brilliant during the night, lose their splendour on the rising of the sun, what can we suppose will be the case with the most excellent innocence of man, when compared with the purity of God? For that will be an examination inconceivably severe, which shall penetrate into all the most secret thoughts of the heart, and, as Paul says, “bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and make manifest the counsels of the hearts;”[1975] which shall constrain the reluctant conscience to confess all those things which have now passed away even from our own remembrance. We shall be urged by an accusing devil, who has been privy to all the crimes which he has impelled us to perpetrate. There the external appearance of good works, which now is the sole object of esteem, will be of no avail; sincerity of heart is all that will be required. Wherefore hypocrisy, not only that by which a man, conscious of his guilt before God, affects ostentation before men, but that also by which every man imposes on himself before God, for we are all prone to self-complacency and adulation; hypocrisy in all its forms will then be overwhelmed with confusion, however it may now be intoxicated with presumption and pride. Persons who never look forward to such a spectacle, may, indeed, delightfully and complacently compose for themselves a temporary righteousness, of which they will immediately be stripped at the Divine judgment; just as immense riches, accumulated by us in a dream, vanish as soon as we awake. But they who inquire seriously, and as in the presence of God, respecting the true standard of righteousness, will certainly find that all the actions of men, if estimated [pg 680] according to their intrinsic worth, are utterly defiled and polluted; that what is commonly considered as righteousness, is, in the Divine view, nothing but iniquity; that what is accounted integrity, is mere pollution; and that what is reputed glory, is real ignominy.

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

VI. But what means have we of humbling ourselves, except by submitting, all poor and destitute, to the Divine mercy? [pg 681] For I do not call it humility, if we suppose that we have any thing left. And hitherto they have taught a pernicious hypocrisy, who have connected these two maxims—that we should entertain humble thoughts of ourselves before God, and that we should attach some dignity to our own righteousness. For if we address to God a confession which is contrary to our real sentiments, we are guilty of telling him an impudent falsehood; but we cannot think of ourselves as we ought to think, without utterly despising every thing that may be supposed an excellence in us. When we hear, therefore, from the Psalmist, that “God will save the afflicted people, but will bring down high looks,”[1983] let us consider, first, that there is no way of salvation till we have laid aside all pride, and attained sincere humility; secondly, that this humility is not a species of modesty, consisting in conceding to God a small portion of what we might justly claim, as they are called humble among men, who neither haughtily exalt themselves nor behave with insolence to others, while they nevertheless entertain some consciousness of excellence: this humility is the unfeigned submission of a mind overwhelmed with a weighty sense of its own misery and poverty; for such is the uniform description of it in the word of God. When the Lord speaks thus in Zephaniah, “I will take away out of the midst of thee them that rejoice in thy pride; I will also leave in the midst of thee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in the name of the Lord;”[1984] does he not clearly show who are truly humble? even such as are afflicted with a knowledge of their own poverty. On the contrary, he describes the proud as persons “rejoicing,” because this is the usual consequence of prosperity. But to the humble, whom he intends to save, he leaves nothing but that “they trust in the name of the Lord.” Thus also in Isaiah, “To this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.”[1985] Again: “Thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.”[1986] By the contrition so frequently mentioned, we must understand a wounded heart, which prevents a man from rising when humbled in the dust. With such contrition must our heart be wounded, if we desire, according to the declaration of the Lord, to be exalted with the humble. If this be not the case, we shall be abased by the powerful hand of God to our shame and disgrace.[1987]

VII. And, not content with mere precepts, our excellent [pg 682] Master, in a parable, as in a picture, has presented us with an example of genuine humility. For he introduces a publican, who, “standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.”[1988] We must not conclude these circumstances—his not presuming to look upwards, standing afar off, smiting upon his breast, and confessing himself a sinner—to be marks of feigned modesty; we may be certain that they were sincere evidences of the disposition of his heart. To him our Lord opposes a Pharisee, who said, “God, I thank thee that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.” He openly confesses the righteousness which he has, to be the gift of God; but because he confides in his being righteous, he departs from the presence of God unacceptable and hateful to him. The publican, acknowledging his iniquity, is justified. Hence we may see how very pleasing our humiliation is in the sight of God; so that the heart is not open for the reception of his mercy unless it be divested of all idea of its own dignity. When this notion has occupied the mind, it precludes the admission of Divine mercy. That no one might have any doubt of this, Christ was sent by his Father into the world with a commission, “to preach good tidings unto the meek; to bind up the broken-hearted; to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to comfort all that mourn; to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness.”[1989] In pursuance of this commission, he invites to a participation of his benefits none but those who “labour and are heavy laden.”[1990] And in another place he says, “I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”[1991]

VIII. Therefore, if we would obey the call of Christ, let us dismiss all arrogance and carelessness from our minds. The former arises from a foolish persuasion of our own righteousness, when a man supposes himself to be possessed of any thing, the merit of which can recommend him to God; the latter may exist without any consideration of works. For multitudes of sinners, inebriated with criminal pleasures, and forgetful of the Divine judgment, are in a state, as it were, of lethargic insensibility, so that they never aspire after the mercy which is offered to them. But it is equally necessary for us to shake off such stupidity, and to reject all confidence in ourselves, in order that, being freed from every incumbrance, we may hasten to Christ, all destitute and hungry, to be filled with his blessings. For we shall never have sufficient confidence in him, unless [pg 683] we entirely lose all confidence in ourselves; we shall never find sufficient encouragement in him, unless we are previously dejected in ourselves; we shall never enjoy sufficient consolation in him, unless we are utterly disconsolate in ourselves. We are prepared, therefore, to seek and obtain the grace of God, discarding at the same time all confidence in ourselves, and relying solely on the assurance of his mercy, “when,” as Augustine says, “forgetting our own merits, we embrace the free gifts of Christ; because, if he sought merits in us, we should not come to his free gifts.” With him Bernard fully agrees, when he compares proud men, that arrogate ever so little to their own merits, to unfaithful servants, because they unjustly claim the praise of the grace which passes through them; just as though a wall should say that it produces the sunbeams which it receives through a window. But not to dwell any longer on this, we may lay it down as a brief, but general and certain maxim, that he is prepared for a participation of the benefits of Divine mercy, who has wholly divested himself, I will not say of his righteousness, which is a mere nullity, but of the vain and airy phantom of righteousness; for as far as any man is satisfied with himself, so far he raises an impediment to the exercise of the grace of God.

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

Here are two things to which we must always be particularly attentive; to maintain the glory of the Lord unimpaired and undiminished, and to preserve in our own consciences a placid composure and serene tranquillity with regard to the Divine judgment. We see how frequently and solicitously the Scripture exhorts us to render ascriptions of praise to God alone, when it treats of justification. And, indeed, the apostle assures us that the design of the Lord in conferring righteousness upon us in Christ, is to manifest his own righteousness. The nature of that manifestation he immediately subjoins: it is, “that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.”[1992] The righteousness of God, we see, is not sufficiently illustrious, unless he alone be esteemed righteous, and communicate the grace of justification to the unworthy. For this reason it is his will “that every mouth be stopped, and all [pg 684] the world become guilty before him;”[1993] because, as long as man has any thing to allege in his own defence, it detracts something from the glory of God. Thus in Ezekiel he teaches us how greatly we glorify his name by an acknowledgment of our iniquity: “Ye shall remember your ways, (saith he,) and all your doings, wherein ye have been defiled; and ye shall loathe yourselves in your own sight for all your evils that ye have committed. And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have wrought with you for my name's sake, not according to your wicked ways, nor according to your corrupt doings.”[1994] If these things are contained in the true knowledge of God, that, humbled with a consciousness of our iniquity, we should consider him as indulging us with blessings of which we are unworthy, why do we attempt, to our own serious injury, to pilfer the smallest particle of the praise due to his gratuitous goodness? Thus also when Jeremiah proclaims, “Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches; but let him that glorieth glory in the Lord;”[1995] does he not suggest that the glory of God sustains some diminution, if any man glory in himself? To this use these words are clearly applied by Paul, when he states, that all the branches of our salvation are deposited with Christ, that we may not glory except in the Lord.[1996] For he intimates, that they who suppose themselves to have even the least ground for glorying in themselves, are guilty of rebelling against God, and obscuring his glory.

II. The truth, then, is, that we never truly glory in him, till we have entirely renounced all glory of our own. On the converse, this may be admitted as an axiom universally true, that they who glory in themselves, glory in opposition to God. For Paul is of opinion that the world is not “subject to the judgment of God,” till men are deprived of all foundation for glorying.[1997] Therefore Isaiah, when he announces, that “in the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified,” adds also, “and shall glory;” as though he had said, that the end of God in justifying the elect was, that they might glory in himself, and in no other. But how we should glory in the Lord, he had stated in the preceding verse: “Surely, shall one say, in the Lord have I righteousness and strength.” Let us observe, that what is required is not a simple confession, but a confession confirmed by an oath; that we may not suppose any fictitious pretence of humility to be sufficient.[1998] Here let no one plead that he does not glory at all, when without arrogance he recognizes his own righteousness; for such an opinion cannot exist [pg 685] without generating confidence, nor confidence without being attended with glorying. Let us remember, therefore, in the whole controversy concerning righteousness, that this end must be kept in view, that all the praise of it may remain perfect and undiminished with the Lord; because, according to the apostle's testimony, he has bestowed his grace on us in order “to declare his righteousness; that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.”[1999] Wherefore, in another place, after having declared that the Lord has conferred salvation on us in order to display “the praise of the glory of his grace,”[2000] repeating, as it were, the same sentiment, he adds, “By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast.”[2001] And when Peter admonishes us that we are called to the hope of salvation, “that we should show forth the praises (or virtues) of him who hath called us out of darkness into his marvellous light,”[2002] he evidently means that the praises of God alone should resound in the ears of believers, so as to impose total silence on all the presumption of the flesh. The conclusion of the whole is, that man cannot without sacrilege arrogate to himself the least particle of righteousness, because it is so much detracted and diminished from the glory of the righteousness of God.

III. Now, if we inquire by what means the conscience can obtain peace before God, we shall find no other than our reception of gratuitous righteousness from his free gift. Let us always remember the inquiry of Solomon—“Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?”[2003] It is certain that there is no man who is not covered with infinite pollution. Let a man of the most perfect character, then, retire into his own conscience, and enter into a scrutiny of his actions, and what will be the result? Will he feel a high degree of satisfaction, as though there were the most entire agreement between God and him? or will he not rather be lacerated with terrible agonies, on perceiving in himself such ample cause for condemnation, if he be judged according to his works? If the conscience reflect on God, it must either enjoy a solid peace with his judgment, or be surrounded with the terrors of hell. We gain nothing, therefore, in our discussions of this point, unless we establish a righteousness, the stability of which will support our souls under the scrutiny of the Divine judgment. When our souls shall possess what will enable them to appear with boldness in the presence of God, and to await and receive his judgment without any fear, then, and not before, we may be assured that we have found a righteousness which truly [pg 686] deserves the name. It is not without reason, therefore, that this subject is so largely insisted on by the apostle, whose words I prefer to my own: “For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise is made of none effect.”[2004] He first infers, that faith is annulled and superseded, if the promise of righteousness respect the merit of our works, or depend on our observance of the law. For no man could ever securely rely on it, since he never would be able to determine with certainty for himself that he had fulfilled the law, as in fact no man ever does completely satisfy it by any works of his own. Not to seek far for testimonies of this fact, every individual may be his own witness of it, who will enter unprejudiced into an examination of himself. And hence it appears in what deep and dark recesses hypocrisy buries the minds of men, while they indulge themselves in such great security, and hesitate not to oppose their self-adulation to the judgment of God, as though they would stop the proceedings of his tribunal. But believers, who sincerely examine themselves, are troubled and distressed with a solicitude of a very different nature. The minds of men universally, therefore, ought to feel first hesitation, and then despair, while considering, every one for himself, the magnitude of the debt with which they are still oppressed, and their immense distance from the conditions prescribed to them. Behold their confidence already broken and extinguished; for to confide is not to fluctuate, to vary, to be hurried hither and thither, to hesitate, to be kept in suspense, to stagger, and finally to despair; but it is, to strengthen the mind with content, certainty, and solid security, and to have somewhat upon which to stand and to rest.

IV. He adds likewise another consideration, that the promise would be void and of none effect. For if the fulfilment of it depend on our merit, when shall we have made such a progress as to deserve the favour of God? Besides, this second argument is a consequence of the former, since the promise will be fulfilled to those alone who shall exercise faith in it. Therefore, if faith be wanting, the promise will retain no force. “Therefore the inheritance is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed.”[2005] For it is abundantly confirmed, when it depends solely on the Divine mercy; because mercy and truth are connected by an indissoluble bond, and whatever God mercifully promises, he also faithfully performs. Thus David, before he implores salvation for himself according to the word of God, first represents it as originating in his mercy: “According to thy word unto thy servant, let thy tender mercies come unto me, that I may live.”[2006] And for this there is sufficient reason, since [pg 687] God has no other inducement to promise than what arises from his mere mercy. Here, then, we must place, and, as it were, deeply fix, all our hopes, without regarding our own works, or seeking any assistance from them. Nor must it be supposed that we are advancing a new doctrine, for the same conduct is recommended by Augustine. “Christ,” says he, “will reign in his servants for ever. God has promised this, God has said it; if that be insufficient, God has sworn it. Since the promise, therefore, is established, not according to our merits, but according to his mercy, no man ought to speak with anxiety of that which he cannot doubt.” Bernard also says, “The disciples of Christ asked, Who can be saved? He replied, With men this is impossible, but not with God. This is all our confidence, this our only consolation, this the whole foundation of our hope. But certain of the possibility, what think we of his will? Who knows whether he deserve love or hatred?[2007] Who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counsellor?[2008] Here, now, we evidently need faith to help us, and his truth to assist us; that what is concealed from us in the heart of the Father, may be revealed by the Spirit, and that the testimony of the Spirit may persuade our hearts that we are sons of God; that he may persuade us by calling and justifying us freely by faith; in which there is, as it were, an intermediate passage from eternal predestination to future glory.” Let us draw the following brief conclusion: The Scripture declares that the promises of God have no efficacy, unless they be embraced by the conscience with a steady confidence; and whenever there is any doubt or uncertainty, it pronounces them to be made void. Again, it asserts that they have no stability if they depend on our works. Either, therefore, we must be for ever destitute of righteousness, or our works must not come into consideration, but the ground must be occupied by faith alone, whose nature it is to open the ears and shut the eyes; that is, to be intent only on the promise, and to avert the thoughts from all human dignity or merit. Thus is accomplished that remarkable prophecy of Zechariah: “I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day. In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig-tree;”[2009] in which the prophet suggests that believers enjoy no true peace till after they have obtained the remission of their sins. For this analogy must be observed in the prophets, that when they treat of the kingdom of Christ, they exhibit the external bounties of God as figures of spiritual blessings. Wherefore also Christ is denominated “the Prince of peace,” and “our Peace;”[2010] [pg 688] because he calms all the agitations of the conscience. If we inquire, by what means; we must come to the sacrifice by which God is appeased. For no man will ever lose his fears who shall not be assured that God is propitiated solely by that atonement which Christ has made by sustaining his wrath. In short, we must seek for peace only in the terrors of Christ our Redeemer.

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

---