John Calvin.

Institutes of the Christian Religion.

Book Second.

Of the knowledge of God the Redeemer, in Christ, as first manifested
to the fathers, under the law, and thereafter to us under the
gospel.


Table of Contents

Subject.
Book Second.
1. Through the fall and revolt of Adam, the whole human race made
accursed and degenerate. Of original sin.
2. Man now deprived of freedom of will, and miserably enslaved.
3. Every thing proceeding from the corrupt nature of man damnable.
4. How God works in the hearts of men.
5. The arguments usually alleged in support of free will refuted.
6. Redemption for man lost to be sought in Christ.
7. The law given, not to retain a people for itself, but to keep
alive the hope of salvation in Christ until His advent.
8 Exposition of the Moral Law.
9 Christ, though known to the Jews under the law, yet only
manifested under the gospel.
10. The resemblance between tee Old Testament and the New.
11. The difference between the two Testaments.
12. Christ, to perform the office of Mediator, behoved to become
Man.
13. Christ clothed with the true substance of human nature.
How two natures constitute the Person of the Mediator.
15. Three things briefly to be regarded in Christ; viz., His Offices
of prophet, king, and priest.
16. How Christ performed the office of Redeemer in procuring our
salvation. The death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ.
17. Christ rightly and properly said to have merited grace and
salvation for us.












Subject.
    
    The First Part of the Apostles' Creed, viz., the knowledge of
God the Creator, being disposed of, we now come to the Second Part,
which relates to the knowledge of God as a Redeemer in Christ. The
subjects treated of accordingly are, first, the Occasion of
Redemption, viz., Adam's fall; and, secondly, Redemption itself. The
first five chapters are devoted to the former subject, and the
remainder to the latter.
    Under the Occasion of Redemption, the Fall is considered not
only in a general way, but also specially in its effects. Hence the
first four chapters treat of original sin, free will, the corruption
of human nature, and the operation of God in the heart. The fifth
chapter contains a refutation of the arguments usually urged in
support of free will.
    The subject of redemption may be reduced to five particular
heads:
    I. The character of him in whom salvation for lost man must be
sought, Chap. VI.
    II. How he was manifested to the world, namely, in a twofold
manner. First, under the Law. Here the Decalogue is expounded, and
some other points relating to the law discussed, Chap. VII. and
VIII. Secondly, under the Gospel. Here the resemblance and
difference of the two dispensations are considered, Chap. IX. X. XI.
    III. What kind of person Christ was, and behaved to be, in
order to perform the office of Mediator, viz., God and man in one
person, Chap. XII. XIII. XIV.
    IV. For what end he was sent into the world by the Father. Here
Christ's prophetical, kingly, and priestly offices are considered,
Chap. XV.
    V. In what way, or by what successive steps, Christ fulfilled
the office of our Redeemer, Chap. XVI. Here are considered his
crucifixion, death, burial, descent to hell, resurrection, ascension
to heaven, and seat at the right hand of the Father, together with
the practical use of the whole doctrine. Chapter XVII. contains an
answer to the question, Whether Christ is properly said to have
merited the grace of God for us.






Institutes of the Christian Religion.


Book Second.

Of the knowledge of God the Redeemer, in Christ, as first manifested
to the fathers, under the law, and thereafter to us under the
gospel.




Chapter 1.


1. Through the fall and revolt of Adam, the whole human race made
accursed and degenerate. Of original sin.

    I. How necessary the knowledge of ourselves is, its nature, the
danger of mistake, its leading parts, sect. 1, 2, 3. II. The causes
of Adam's fearful fall, sect. 4. III. The effects of the fall
extending to Adam's posterity, and all the creatures, sect. 5, to
the end of the Chapter, where the nature, propagation, and effect of
original sin are considered.

Sections.

1. The knowledge of ourselves most necessary. To use it properly we
    must be divested of pride, and clothed with true humility,
    which will dispose us to consider our fall, and embrace the
    mercy of God in Christ.
2. Though there is plausibility in the sentiment which stimulates us
    to self-admiration, the only sound sentiment is that which
    inclines us to true humbleness of mind. Pretexts for pride. The
    miserable vanity of sinful man.
3. Different views taken by carnal wisdom and by conscience, which
    appeals to divine justice as its standard. The knowledge of
    ourselves, consisting of two parts, the former of which having
    already been discussed, the latter is here considered.
4. In considering this latter part, two points to be considered; 1.
    How it happened that Adam involved himself and the whole human
    race in this dreadful calamity. This the result not of sensual
    intemperance, but of infidelity, (the source of other heinous
    sins,) which led to revolt from God, from whom all true
    happiness must be derived. An enumeration of the other sins
    produced by the infidelity of the first man.
5. The second point to be considered is, the extent to which the
    contagious influence of the fall extends. It extends, 1. To all
    the creatures, though unoffending; and, 2. To the whole
    posterity of Adam. Hence hereditary corruption, or original
    sin, and the depravation of a nature which was previously pure
    and good. This depravation communicated to the whole posterity
    of Adam, but not in the way supposed by the Pelagians and
    Celestians.
6. Depravation communicated not merely by imitation, but by
    propagation. This proved, 1. From the contrast drawn between
    Adam and Christ. Confirmation from passages of Scripture; 2
    From the general declaration that we are the children of wrath.
7. Objection, that if Adam's sin is propagated to his posterity, the
    soul must be derived by transmission. Answer. Another
    objection, viz., that children cannot derive corruption from
    pious parents. Answer.
8. Definition of original sin. Two parts in the definition.
    Exposition of the latter part. Original sin exposes us to the
    wrath of God. It also produces in us the works of the flesh.
    Other definitions considered.
9. Exposition of the former part of the definition, viz., that
    hereditary depravity extends to all the faculties of the soul.
10. From the exposition of both parts of the definition it follows
    that God is not the author of sin, the whole human race being
    corrupted by an inherent viciousness.
11. This, however, is not from nature, but is an adventitious
    quality. Accordingly, the dream of the Manichees as to two
    principles vanishes.

    1. It was not without reason that the ancient proverb so
strongly recommended to man the knowledge of himself. For if it is
deemed disgraceful to be ignorant of things pertaining to the
business of life, much more disgraceful is selfignorance, in
consequence of which we miserably deceive ourselves in matters of
the highest moment, and so walk blindfold. But the more useful the
precept is, the more careful we must be not to use it
preposterously, as we see certain philosophers have done. For they,
when exhorting man to know himself, state the motive to be, that he
may not be ignorant of his own excellence and dignity. They wish him
to see nothing in himself but what will fill him with vain
confidence, and inflate him with pride. But self-knowledge consists
in this, First, When reflecting on what God gave us at our creation,
and still continues graciously to give, we perceive how great the
excellence of our nature would have been had its integrity remained,
and, at the same time, remember that we have nothing of our own, but
depend entirely on God, from whom we hold at pleasure whatever he
has seen it meet to bestow; secondly When viewing our miserable
condition since Adam's fall, all confidence and boasting are
overthrown, we blush for shame, and feel truly humble. For as God at
first formed us in his own image, that he might elevate our minds to
the pursuit of virtue, and the contemplation of eternal life, so to
prevent us from heartlessly burying those noble qualities which
distinguish us from the lower animals, it is of importance to know
that we were endued with reason and intelligence, in order that we
might cultivate a holy and honourable life, and regard a blessed
immortality as our destined aim. At the same time, it is impossible
to think of our primeval dignity without being immediately reminded
of the sad spectacle of our ignominy and corruption, ever since we
fell from our original in the person of our first parent. In this
way, we feel dissatisfied with ourselves, and become truly humble,
while we are inflamed with new desires to seek after God, in whom
each may regain those good qualities of which all are found to be
utterly destitute.
    2. In examining ourselves, the search which divine truth
enjoins, and the knowledge which it demands, are such as may
indispose us to every thing like confidence in our own powers, leave
us devoid of all means of boasting, and so incline us to submission.
This is the course which we must follow, if we would attain to the
true goal, both in speculation and practice. I am not unaware how
much more plausible the view is, which invites us rather to ponder
on our good qualities, than to contemplate what must overwhelm us
with shame - our miserable destitution and ignominy. There is
nothing more acceptable to the human mind than flattery, and,
accordingly, when told that its endowments are of a high order, it
is apt to be excessively credulous. Hence it is not strange that the
greater part of mankind have erred so egregiously in this matter.
Owing to the innate self-love by which all are blinded, we most
willingly persuade ourselves that we do not possess a single quality
which is deserving of hatred; and hence, independent of any
countenance from without, general credit is given to the very
foolish idea, that man is perfectly sufficient of himself for all
the purposes of a good and happy life. If any are disposed to think
more modestly, and concede somewhat to God, that they may not seem
to arrogate every thing as their own, still, in making the division,
they apportion matters so, that the chief ground of confidence and
boasting always remains with themselves. Then, if a discourse is
pronounced which flatters the pride spontaneously springing up in
man's inmost heart, nothing seems more delightful. Accordingly, in
every age, he who is most forward in extolling the excellence of
human nature, is received with the loudest applause. But be this
heralding of human excellence what it may, by teaching man to rest
in himself, it does nothing more than fascinate by its sweetness,
and, at the same time, so delude as to drown in perdition all who
assent to it. For what avails it to proceed in vain confidence, to
deliberate, resolve, plan, and attempt what we deem pertinent to the
purpose, and, at the very outset, prove deficient and destitute both
of sound intelligence and true virtue, though we still confidently
persist till we rush headlong on destruction? But this is the best
that can happen to those who put confidence in their own powers.
Whosoever, therefore, gives heed to those teachers, who merely
employ us in contemplating our good qualities, so far from making
progress in self knowledge, will be plunged into the most pernicious
ignorance.
    3. While revealed truth concurs with the general consent of
mankind in teaching that the second part of wisdom consists in
self-knowledge, they differ greatly as to the method by which this
knowledge is to be acquired. In the judgement of the flesh man deems
his self-knowledge complete, when, with overweening confidence in
his own intelligence and integrity, he takes courage, and spurs
himself on to virtuous deeds, and when, declaring war upon vice, he
uses his utmost endeavour to attain to the honourable and the fair.
But he who tries himself by the standard of divine justice, finds
nothing to inspire him with confidence; and hence, the more thorough
his self-examination, the greater his despondency. Abandoning all
dependence on himself, he feels that he is utterly incapable of duly
regulating his conduct. It is not the will of God, however, that we
should forget the primeval dignity which he bestowed on our first
parents - a dignity which may well stimulate us to the pursuit of
goodness and justice. It is impossible for us to think of our first
original, or the end for which we were created, without being urged
to meditate on immortality, and to seek the kingdom of God. But such
meditation, so far from raising our spirits, rather casts them down,
and makes us humble. For what is our original? One from which we
have fallen. What the end of our creation? One from which we have
altogether strayed, so that, weary of our miserable lot, we groan,
and groaning sigh for a dignity now lost. When we say that man
should see nothing in himself which can raise his spirits, our
meaning is, that he possesses nothing on which he can proudly plume
himself. Hence, in considering the knowledge which man ought to have
of himself, it seems proper to divide it thus, First, to consider
the end for which he was created, and the qualities - by no means
contemptible qualities - with which he was endued, thus urging him
to meditate on divine worship and the future life; and, secondly, to
consider his faculties, or rather want of faculties - a want which,
when perceived, will annihilate all his confidence, and cover him
with confusion. The tendency of the former view is to teach him what
his duty is, of the latter, to make him aware how far he is able to
perform it. We shall treat of both in their proper order.
    4. As the act which God punished so severely must have been not
a trivial fault, but a heinous crime, it will be necessary to attend
to the peculiar nature of the sin which produced Adam's fall, and
provoked God to inflict such fearful vengeance on the whole human
race. The common idea of sensual intemperance is childish. The sum
and substance of all virtues could not consist in abstinence from a
single fruit amid a general abundance of every delicacy that could
be desired, the earth, with happy fertility, yielding not only
abundance, but also endless variety. We must, therefore, look deeper
than sensual intemperance. The prohibition to touch the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil was a trial of obedience, that Adam, by
observing it, might prove his willing submission to the command of
God. For the very term shows the end of the precept to have been to
keep him contented with his lot, and not allow him arrogantly to
aspire beyond it. The promise, which gave him hope of eternal life
as long as he should eat of the tree of life, and, on the other
hand, the fearful denunciation of death the moment he should taste
of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, were meant to prove
and exercise his faith. Hence it is not difficult to infer in what
way Adam provoked the wrath of God. Augustine, indeed, is not far
from the mark, when he says, (in Psal. 19,) that pride was the
beginning of all evil, because, had not man's ambition carried him
higher than he was permitted, he might have continued in his first
estate. A further definition, however, must be derived from the kind
of temptation which Moses describes. When, by the subtlety of the
devil, the woman faithlessly abandoned the command of God, her fall
obviously had its origin in disobedience. This Paul confirms, when
he says, that, by the disobedience of one man, all were destroyed.
At the same time, it is to be observed, that the first man revolted
against the authority of God, not only in allowing himself to be
ensnared by the wiles of the devil, but also by despising the truth,
and turning aside to lies. Assuredly, when the word of God is
despised, all reverence for Him is gone. His majesty cannot be duly
honoured among us, nor his worship maintained in its integrity,
unless we hang as it were upon his lips. Hence infidelity was at the
root of the revolt. From infidelity, again, sprang ambition and
pride, together with ingratitude; because Adam, by longing for more
than was allotted him, manifested contempt for the great liberality
with which God had enriched him. It was surely monstrous impiety
that a son of earth should deem it little to have been made in the
likeness, unless he were also made the equal of God. If the apostasy
by which man withdraws from the authority of his Maker, nay,
petulantly shakes off his allegiance to him, is a foul and execrable
crime, it is in vain to extenuate the sin of Adam. Nor was it simple
apostasy. It was accompanied with foul insult to God, the guilty
pair assenting to Satan's calumnies when he charged God with malice,
envy, and falsehood. In fine, infidelity opened the door to
ambition, and ambition was the parent of rebellion, man casting off
the fear of God, and giving free vent to his lust. Hence, Bernard
truly says, that, in the present day, a door of salvation is opened
to us when we receive the gospel with our ears, just as by the same
entrance, when thrown open to Satan, death was admitted. Never would
Adam have dared to show any repugnance to the command of God if he
had not been incredulous as to his word. The strongest curb to keep
all his affections under due restraint, would have been the belief
that nothing was better than to cultivate righteousness by obeying
the commands of God, and that the highest possible felicity was to
be loved by him. Man, therefore, when carried away by the
blasphemies of Satan, did his very utmost to annihilate the whole
glory of God.
    5. As Adam's spiritual life would have consisted in remaining
united and bound to his Maker, so estrangement from him was the
death of his soul. Nor is it strange that he who perverted the whole
order of nature in heaven and earth deteriorated his race by his
revolt. "The whole creation groaneth," saith St Paul, "being made
subject to vanity, not willingly," (Rom. 8: 20, 22.) If the reason
is asked, there cannot be a doubt that creation bears part of the
punishment deserved by man, for whose use all other creatures were
made. Therefore, since through man's fault a curse has extended
above and below, over all the regions of the world, there is nothing
unreasonable in its extending to all his offspring. After the
heavenly image in man was effaced, he not only was himself punished
by a withdrawal of the ornaments in which he had been arrayed, viz.,
wisdom, virtue, justice, truth, and holiness, and by the
substitution in their place of those dire pests, blindness,
impotence, vanity, impurity, and unrighteousness, but he involved
his posterity also, and plunged them in the same wretchedness. This
is the hereditary corruption to which early Christian writers gave
the name of Original Sin, meaning by the term the depravation of a
nature formerly good and pure. The subject gave rise to much
discussion, there being nothing more remote from common
apprehension, than that the fault of one should render all guilty,
and so become a common sin. This seems to be the reason why the
oldest doctors of the church only glance obscurely at the point, or,
at least, do not explain it so clearly as it required. This
timidity, however, could not prevent the rise of a Pelagius with his
profane fiction - that Adam sinned only to his own hurt, but did no
hurt to his posterity. Satan, by thus craftily hiding the disease,
tried to render it incurable. But when it was clearly proved from
Scripture that the sin of the first man passed to all his posterity,
recourse was had to the cavil, that it passed by imitation, and not
by propagation. The orthodoxy, therefore, and more especially
Augustine, laboured to show, that we are not corrupted by acquired
wickedness, but bring an innate corruption from the very womb. It
was the greatest impudence to deny this. But no man will wonder at
the presumption of the Pelagians and Celestians, who has learned
from the writings of that holy man how extreme the effrontery of
these heretics was. Surely there is no ambiguity in David's
confession, "I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother
conceive me," (Ps. 51: 5.) His object in the passage is not to throw
blame on his parents; but the better to commend the goodness of God
towards him, he properly reiterates the confession of impurity from
his very birth. As it is clear, that there was no peculiarity in
David's case, it follows that it is only an instance of the common
lot of the whole human race. All of us, therefore, descending from
an impure seed, come into the world tainted with the contagion of
sin. Nay, before we behold the light of the sun we are in God's
sight defiled and polluted. "Who can bring a clean thing out of an
unclean? Not one," says the Book of Job, (Job 14: 4.)
    6. We thus see that the impurity of parents is transmitted to
their children, so that all, without exception, are originally
depraved. The commencement of this depravity will not be found until
we ascend to the first parent of all as the fountain head. We must,
therefore, hold it for certain, that, in regard to human nature,
Adam was not merely a progenitor, but, as it were, a root, and that,
accordingly, by his corruption, the whole human race was deservedly
vitiated. This is plain from the contrast which the Apostle draws
between Adam and Christ, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into
the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for
that all have sinned; even so might grace reign through
righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord," (Rom. 5:
19-21.) To what quibble will the Pelagians here recur? That the sin
of Adam was propagated by imitation! Is the righteousness of Christ
then available to us only in so far as it is an example held forth
for our imitation? Can any man tolerate such blasphemy? But if, out
of all controversy, the righteousness of Christ, and thereby life,
is ours by communication, it follows that both of these were lost in
Adam that they might be recovered in Christ, whereas sin and death
were brought in by Adam, that they might be abolished in Christ.
There is no obscurity in the words, "As by one man's disobedience
many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be
made righteous." Accordingly, the relation subsisting between the
two is this, As Adam, by his ruin, involved and ruined us, so
Christ, by his grace, restored us to salvation. In this clear light
of truth I cannot see any need of a longer or more laborious proof.
Thus, too, in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, when Paul would
confirm believers in the confident hope of the resurrection, he
shows that the life is recovered in Christ which was lost in Adam,
(1 Cor. 15: 22.) Having already declared that all died in Adam, he
now also openly testifies, that all are imbued with the taint of
sin. Condemnation, indeed, could not reach those who are altogether
free from blame. But his meaning cannot be made clearer than from
the other member of the sentence, in which he shows that the hope of
life is restored in Christ. Every one knows that the only mode in
which this is done is, when by a wondrous communication Christ
transfuses into us the power of his own righteousness, as it is
elsewhere said, "The Spirit is life because of righteousness," (1
Cor. 15: 22.) Therefore, the only explanation which can be given of
the expression, "in Adam all died," is, that he by sinning not only
brought disaster and ruin upon himself, but also plunged our nature
into like destruction; and that not only in one fault, in a matter
not pertaining to us, but by the corruption into which he himself
fell, he infected his whole seed. Paul never could have said that
all are "by nature the children of wrath," (Eph. 2: 3,) if they had
not been cursed from the womb. And it is obvious that the nature
there referred to is not nature such as God created, but as vitiated
in Adam; for it would have been most incongruous to make God the
author of death. Adam, therefore, when he corrupted himself,
transmitted the contagion to all his posterity. For a heavenly
Judge, even our Saviour himself, declares that all are by birth
vicious and depraved, when he says that "that which is born of the
flesh is fleshy" (John 3: 6,) and that therefore the gate of life is
closed against all until they have been regenerated.
    7. To the understanding of this subject, there is no necessity
for an anxious discussion, (which in no small degree perplexed the
ancient doctors,) as to whether the soul of the child comes by
transmission from the soul of the parent. It should be enough for us
to know that Adam was made the depository of the endowments which
God was pleased to bestow on human nature, and that, therefore, when
he lost what he had received, he lost not only for himself but for
us all. Why feel any anxiety about the transmission of the soul,
when we know that the qualities which Adam lost he received for us
not less than for himself, that they were not gifts to a single man,
but attributes of the whole human race? There is nothing absurd,
therefore, in the view, that when he was divested, his nature was
left naked and destitute that he having been defiled by sin, the
pollution extends to all his seed. Thus, from a corrupt root corrupt
branches proceeding, transmit their corruption to the saplings which
spring from them. The children being vitiated in their parent,
conveyed the taint to the grandchildren; in other words, corruption
commencing in Adam, is, by perpetual descent, conveyed from those
preceding to those coming after them. The cause of the contagion is
neither in the substance of the flesh nor the soul, but God was
pleased to ordain that those gifts which he had bestowed on the
first man, that man should lose as well for his descendants as for
himself. The Pelagian cavil, as to the improbability of children
deriving corruption from pious parents, whereas, they ought rather
to be sanctified by their purity, is easily refuted. Children come
not by spiritual regeneration but carnal descent. Accordingly, as
Augustine says, "Both the condemned unbeliever and the acquitted
believer beget offspring not acquitted but condemned, because the
nature which begets is corrupt." Moreover, though godly parents do
in some measure contribute to the holiness of their offspring, this
is by the blessing of God; a blessing, however, which does not
prevent the primary and universal curse of the whole race from
previously taking effect. Guilt is from nature, whereas
sanctification is from supernatural grace.
    8. But lest the thing itself of which we speak be unknown or
doubtful, it will be proper to define original sin. (Calvin, in
Conc. Trident. 1, Dec. Sess. 5.) I have no intention, however, to
discuss all the definitions which different writers have adopted,
but only to adduce the one which seems to me most accordant with
truth. Original sin, then, may be defined a hereditary corruption
and depravity of our nature, extending to all the parts of the soul,
which first makes us obnoxious to the wrath of God, and then
produces in us works which in Scripture are termed works of the
flesh. This corruption is repeatedly designated by Paul by the term
sin, (Gal. 5: 19;) while the works which proceed from it, such as
adultery, fornication, theft, hatred, murder, revellings, he terms,
in the same way, the fruits of sin, though in various passages of
Scripture, and even by Paul himself, they are also termed sins. The
two things, therefore, are to be distinctly observed, viz., that
being thus perverted and corrupted in all the parts of our nature,
we are, merely on account of such corruption, deservedly condemned
by God, to whom nothing is acceptable but righteousness, innocence,
and purity. This is not liability for another's fault. For when it
is said, that the sin of Adam has made us obnoxious to the justice
of God, the meaning is not, that we, who are in ourselves innocent
and blameless, are bearing his guilt, but that since by his
transgression we are all placed under the curse, he is said to have
brought us under obligation. Through him, however, not only has
punishment been derived, but pollution instilled, for which
punishment is justly due. Hence Augustine, though he often terms it
another's sin, (that he may more clearly show how it comes to us by
descent,) at the same time asserts that it is each individual's own
sin. And the Apostle most distinctly testifies, that "death passed
upon all men, for that all have sinned," (Rom. 5: 12;) that is, are
involved in original sin, and polluted by its stain. Hence, even
infants bringing their condemnation with them from their mother's
womb, suffer not for another's, but for their own defect. For
although they have not yet produced the fruits of their own
unrighteousness, they have the seed implanted in them. Nay, their
whole nature is, as it were, a seed-bed of sin, and therefore cannot
but be odious and abominable to God. Hence it follows, that it is
properly deemed sinful in the sight of God; for there could be no
condemnation without guilt. Next comes the other point, viz., that
this perversity in us never ceases, but constantly produces new
fruits, in other words, those works of the flesh which we formerly
described; just as a lighted furnace sends forth sparks and flames,
or a fountain without ceasing pours out water. Hence, those who have
defined original sin as the want of the original righteousness which
we ought to have had, though they substantially comprehend the whole
case, do not significantly enough express its power and energy. For
our nature is not only utterly devoid of goodness, but so prolific
in all kinds of evil, that it can never be idle. Those who term it
concupiscence use a word not very inappropriate, provided it were
added, (this, however, many will by no means concede,) that
everything which is in man, from the intellect to the will, from the
soul even to the flesh, is defiled and pervaded with this
concupiscence; or, to express it more briefly, that the whole man is
in himself nothing else than concupiscence.
    9. I have said, therefore, that all the parts of the soul were
possessed by sin, ever since Adam revolted from the fountain of
righteousness. For not only did the inferior appetites entice him,
but abominable impiety seized upon the very citadel of the mind, and
pride penetrated to his inmost heart, (Rom. 7: 12; Book 4, chap. 15,
sec. 10-12,) so that it is foolish and unmeaning to confine the
corruption thence proceeding to what are called sensual motions, or
to call it an excitement, which allures, excites, and drags the
single part which they call sensuality into sin. Here Peter Lombard
has displayed gross ignorance, (Lomb., lib. 2 Dist. 31.) When
investigating the seat of corruption, he says it is in the flesh,
(as Paul declares,) not properly, indeed, but as being more apparent
in the flesh. As if Paul had meant that only a part of the soul, and
not the whole nature, was opposed to supernatural grace. Paul
himself leaves no room for doubt, when he says, that corruption does
not dwell in one part only, but that no part is free from its deadly
taint. For, speaking of corrupt nature, he not only condemns the
inordinate nature of the appetites, but, in particular, declares
that the understanding is subjected to blindness, and the heart to
depravity, (Eph. 4: 17, 18.) The third chapter of the Epistle to the
Romans is nothing but a description of original sin; The same thing
appears more clearly from the mode of renovation. For the spirit,
which is contrasted with the old man, and the flesh, denotes not
only the grace by which the sensual or inferior part of the soul is
corrected, but includes a complete reformation of all its parts,
(Eph. 4: 23.) And, accordingly, Paul enjoins not only that gross
appetites be suppressed, but that we be renewed in the spirit of our
mind, (Eph. 4: 23,) as he elsewhere tells us to be transformed by
the renewing of our mind, (Rom. 12: 2.) Hence it follows, that that
part in which the dignity and excellence of the soul are most
conspicuous, has not only been wounded, but so corrupted, that mere
cure is not sufficient. There must be a new nature. How far sin has
seized both on the mind and heart, we shall shortly see. Here I only
wished briefly to observe, that the whole man, from the crown of the
head to the sole of the foot, is so deluged, as it were, that no
part remains exempt from sin, and, therefore, everything which
proceeds from him is imputed as sin. Thus Paul says, that all carnal
thoughts and affections are enmity against God, and consequently
death, (Rom. 8: 7.)
    10. Let us have done, then, with those who dare to inscribe the
name of God on their vices, because we say that men are born
vicious. The divine workmanship, which they ought to look for in the
nature of Adam, when still entire and uncorrupted, they absurdly
expect to find in their depravity. The blame of our ruin rests with
our own carnality, not with God, its only cause being our degeneracy
from our original condition. And let no one here glamour that God
might have provided better for our safety by preventing Adam's fall.
This objection, which, from the daring presumption implied in it, is
odious to every pious mind, relates to the mystery of
predestination, which will afterwards be considered in its own
place, (Tertull. de Prescript., Calvin, Lib. de Predest.) Meanwhile
let us remember that our ruin is attributable to our own depravity,
that we may not insinuate a charge against God himself, the Author
of nature. It is true that nature has received a mortal wound, but
there is a great difference between a wound inflicted from without,
and one inherent in our first condition. It is plain that this wound
was inflicted by sin; and, therefore, we have no ground of complaint
except against ourselves. This is carefully taught in Scripture. For
the Preacher says, "Lo, this only have I found, that God made man
upright; but they have sought out many inventions," (Eccl. 7: 29.)
Since man, by the kindness of God, was made upright, but by his oven
infatuation fell away unto vanity, his destruction is obviously
attributable only to himself, (Athanas. in Orat. Cont. Idola.)
    11. We says then that man is corrupted by a natural
viciousness, but not by one which proceeded from nature. In saying
that it proceeded not from nature, we mean that it was rather an
adventitious event which befell man, than a substantial property
assigned to him from the beginning. We, however call it natural to
prevent any one from supposing that each individual contracts it by
depraved habit, whereas all receive it by a hereditary law. And we
have authority for so calling it. For, on the same grounds the
apostle says, that we are "by nature the children of wrath," (Eph.
2: 3.) How could God, who takes pleasure in the meanest of his works
be offended with the noblest of them all? The offence is not with
the work itself, but the corruption of the work. Wherefore, if it is
not improper to say, that, in consequence of the corruption of human
nature, man is naturally hateful to God, it is not improper to say,
that he is naturally vicious and depraved. Hence, in the view of our
corrupt nature, Augustine hesitates not to call those sins natural
which necessarily reign in the flesh wherever the grace of God is
wanting. This disposes of the absurd notion of the Manichees, who,
imagining that man was essentially wicked, went the length of
assigning him a different Creator, that they might thus avoid the
appearance of attributing the cause and origin of evil to a
righteous God.









Chapter 2


2. Man now deprived of freedom of will, and miserably enslaved.

Having in the first chapter treated of the fall of man, and the
corruption of the human race, it becomes necessary to inquire,
Whether the sons of Adam are deprived of all liberty; and if any
particle of liberty remains, how far its power extends? The four
next chapters are devoted to this question. This second chapter may
be reduced to three general heads: - I. The foundation of the whole
discussion. II. The opinions of others on the subject of human
freedom, see. 2-9. III. The true doctrine on the subject, see. 10-
27.

Sections.

1. Connection of the previous with the four following chapters. In
    order to lay a proper foundation for the discussion of free
    will, two obstacles in the way to be removed, viz., sloth and
    pride. The basis and sum of the whole discussion. The solid
    structure of this basis, and a clear demonstration of it by the
    argument a majori ad minus. Also from the inconveniences and
    absurdities arising from the obstacle of pride.
2. The second part of the chapter containing the opinions of others.
    1. The opinions of philosophers.
3. The labyrinths of philosophers. A summary of the opinion common
    to all the philosophers.
4. The opinions of others continued, viz., The opinions of the
    ancient theologians on the subject of free will. These composed
    partly of Philosophy and partly of Theology. Hence their
    falsehood, extravagance, perplexity, variety, and
    contradiction. Too great fondness for philosophy in the Church
    has obscured the knowledge of God and of ourselves. The better
    to explain the opinions of philosophers, a definition of Free
    Will given. Wide difference between this definition and these
    opinions.
5. Certain things annexed to Free Will by the ancient theologians,
    especially the Schoolmen. Many kinds of Free Will according to
    them.
6. Puzzles of scholastic divines in the explanation of this
    question.
7. The conclusion that so trivial a matter ought not to be so much
    magnified. Objection of those who have a fondness for new terms
    in the Church. Objection answered.
8. Another answer. The Fathers, and especially Augustine, while
    retaining the term Free Will, yet condemned the doctrine of the
    heretics on the subject, as destroying the grace of God.
9. The language of the ancient writers on the subject of Free Will
    is, with the exception of that of Augustine, almost
    unintelligible. Still they set little or no value on human
    virtue, and ascribe the praise of all goodness to the Holy
    Spirit.
10. The last part of the chapter, containing a simple statement of
    the true doctrine. The fundamental principle is, that man first
    begins to profit in the knowledge of himself when he becomes
    sensible of his ruined condition. This confirmed, 1. by
    passages of Scripture.
11. Confirmed, 2. by the testimony of ancient theologians.
12. The foundation being laid, to show how far the power both of the
    intellect and will now extends, it is maintained in general,
    and in conformity with the views of Augustine and the
    Schoolmen, that the natural endowments of man are corrupted,
    and the supernatural almost entirely lost. A separate
    consideration of the powers of the Intellect and the Will. Some
    general considerations, 1. The intellect possesses some powers
    of perception. Still it labours under a twofold defect.
13. Man's intelligence extends both to things terrestrial and
    celestial. The power of the intellect in regard to the
    knowledge of things terrestrial. First, with regard to matters
    of civil polity.
14. The power of the intellect, secondly, with regard to the arts.
    Particular gifts in this respect conferred on individuals, and
    attesting the grace of God.
15. The rise of this knowledge of things terrestrial, first, that we
    may see how human nature, notwithstanding of its fall, is still
    adorned by God with excellent endowments.
16. Use of this knowledge continued. Secondly, that we may see that
    these endowments bestowed on individuals are intended for the
    common benefit of mankind. They are sometimes conferred even on
    the wicked.
17. Some portion of human nature still left. This, whatever be the
    amount of it, should be ascribed entire]y to the divine
    indulgence. Reason of this. Examples.
18. Second part of the discussion, namely, that which relates to the
    power of the human intellect in regard to things celestial.
    These reducible to three heads, namely, divine knowledge,
    adoption, and will. The blindness of man in regard to these
    proved and thus tested by a simile.
19. Proved, moreover, by passages of Scripture, showing, 1. That the
    sons of Adam are endued with some light, but not enough to
    enable them to comprehend God. Reasons.
20. Adoption not from nature, but from our heavenly Father, being
    sealed in the elect by the Spirit of regeneration. Obvious from
    many passages of Scripture, that, previous to regeneration, the
    human intellect is altogether unable to comprehend the things
    relating to regeneration. This fully proved. First argument.
    Second argument. Third argument.
21. Fourth argument. Scripture ascribes the glory of our adoption
    and salvation to God only. The human intellect blind as to
    heavenly things until it is illuminated. Disposal of a
    heretical objection.
22. Human intellect ignorant of the true knowledge of the divine
    law. This proved by the testimony of an Apostle, by an
    inference from the same testimony, and from a consideration of
    the end and definition of the Law of Nature. Plato obviously
    mistaken in attributing all sins to ignorance.
23. Themistius nearer the truth in maintaining, that the delusion of
    the intellect is manifested not so much in generals as in
    particulars. Exception to this rule.
24. Themistius, however, mistaken in thinking that the intellect is
    so very seldom deceived as to generals. Blindness of the human
    intellect when tested by the standard of the Divine Law, in
    regard both to the first and second tables. Examples.
25. A middle view to be taken, viz., that all sins are not imputable
    to ignorance, and, at the same time, that all sins do not imply
    intentional malice. All the human mind conceives and plans in
    this matter is evil in the sight of God. Need of divine
    direction every moment.
26. The will examined. The natural desire of good, which is
    universally felt, no proof of the freedom of the human will.
    Two fallacies as to the use of terms, appetite and good.
27. The doctrine of the Schoolmen on this subject opposed to and
    refuted by Scripture. The whole man being subject to the power
    of sin, it follows that the will, which is the chief seat of
    sin, requires to be most strictly curbed. Nothing ours but sin.

    1. Having seen that the dominion of sin, ever since the first
man was brought under it, not only extends to the whole race, but
has complete possession of every soul, it now remains to consider
more closely, whether from the period of being thus enslaved, we
have been deprived of all liberty; and if any portion still remains,
how far its power extends. In order to facilitate the answer to this
questions it may be proper in passing to point out the course which
our inquiry ought to take. The best method of avoiding error is to
consider the dangers which beset us on either side. Man being devoid
of all uprightness, immediately takes occasion from the fact to
indulge in sloth, and having no ability in himself for the study of
righteousness, treats the whole subject as if he had no concern in
it. On the other hand, man cannot arrogate any thing, however
minute, to himself, without robbing God of his honour, and through
rash confidence subjecting himself to a fall. To keep free of both
these rocks, our proper course will be, first, to show that man has
no remaining good in himself, and is beset on every side by the most
miserable destitution; and then teach him to aspire to the goodness
of which he is devoid, and the liberty of which he has been
deprived: thus giving him a stronger stimulus to exertion than he
could have if he imagined himself possessed of the highest virtue.
How necessary the latter point is, everybody sees. As to the former,
several seem to entertain more doubt than they ought. For it being
admitted as incontrovertible that man is not to be denied any thing
that is truly his own, it ought also to be admitted, that he is to
be deprived of every thing like false boasting. If man had no title
to glory in himself, when, by the kindness of his Maker, he was
distinguished by the noblest ornaments, how much ought he to be
humbled now, when his ingratitude has thrust him down from the
highest glory to extreme ignominy? At the time when he was raised to
the highest pinnacle of honour, all which Scripture attributes to
him is, that he was created in the image of God, thereby intimating
that the blessings in which his happiness consisted were not his
own, but derived by divine communication. What remains, therefore,
now that man is stript of all his glory, than to acknowledge the God
for whose kindness he failed to be grateful, when he was loaded with
the riches of his grace? Not having glorified him by the
acknowledgement of his blessings, now, at least, he ought to glorify
him by the confession of his poverty. In truth, it is no less useful
for us to renounce all the praise of wisdom and virtue, than to aim
at the glory of God. Those who invest us with more than we possess
only add sacrilege to our ruin. For when we are taught to contend in
our own strength, what more is done than to lift us up, and then
leave us to lean on a reed which immediately gives way? Indeed, our
strength is exaggerated when it is compared to a reed. All that
foolish men invent and prattle on this subject is mere smoke.
Wherefore, it is not without reason that Augustine so often repeats
the well-known saying, that free will is more destroyed than
established by its defenders, (August. in Evang. Joann. Tract. 81.)
It was necessary to premise this much for the sake of some who, when
they hear that human virtue is totally overthrown, in order that the
power of God in man may be exalted, conceive an utter dislike to the
whole subject, as if it were perilous, not to say superfluous,
whereas it is manifestly both most necessary and most useful.
    2. Having lately observed, that the faculties of the soul are
seated in the mind and the heart, let us now consider how far the
power of each extends. Philosophers generally maintain, that reason
dwells in the mind like a lamp, throwing light on all its counsels,
and like a queen, governing the will - that it is so pervaded with
divine light as to be able to consult for the best, and so endued
with vigour as to be able perfectly to command; that, on the
contrary, sense is dull and short-sighted, always creeping on the
ground, grovelling among inferior objects, and never rising to true
vision; that the appetite, when it obeys reason, and does not allow
itself to be subjugated by sense, is borne to the study of virtue,
holds a straight course, and becomes transformed into will; but that
when enslaved by sense, it is corrupted and depraved so as to
degenerate into lust. In a word, since, according to their opinion,
the faculties which I have mentioned above, namely, intellect,
sense, and appetite, or will, (the latter being the term in ordinary
use,) are seated in the soul, they maintain that the intellect is
endued with reason, the best guide to a virtuous and happy life,
provided it duly avails itself of its excellence, and exerts the
power with which it is naturally endued; that, at the same time, the
inferior movement, which is termed sense, and by which the mind is
led away to error and delusion, is of such a nature, that it can be
tamed and gradually subdued by the power of reason. To the will,
moreover, they give an intermediate place between reason and sense,
regarding it as possessed of full power and freedom, whether to obey
the former, or yield itself up to be hurried away by the latter.
    3. Sometimes, indeed, convinced by their own experience, they
do not deny how difficult it is for man to establish the supremacy
of reason in himself, inasmuch as he is at one time enticed by the
allurements of pleasure; at another, deluded by a false semblance of
good; and, at another, impelled by unruly passions, and pulled away
(to use Plato's expression) as by ropes or sinews (Plato, De
Legibus, lib. 1.) For this reason, Cicero says, that the sparks
given forth by nature are immediately extinguished by false opinions
and depraved manners, (Cicero, Tusc, Quest. lib. 3.) They confess
that when once diseases of this description have seized upon the
mind, their course is too impetuous to be easily checked, and they
hesitate not to compare them to fiery steeds, which, having thrown
off the charioteer, scamper away without restraint. At the same
time, they set it down as beyond dispute, that virtue and vice are
in our own power. For, (say they,) If it is in our choice to do this
thing or that, it must also be in our choice not to do it: Again, If
it is in our choice not to act, it must also be in our choice to
act: But both in doing and abstaining we seem to act from free
choice; and, therefore, if we do good when we please, we can also
refrain from doing it; if we commit evil, we can also shun the
commission of it, (Aristot. Ethic. lib. 3 c. 5.) Nay, some have gone
the length of boasting, (Seneca, passim,) that it is the gift of the
gods that we live, but our own that we live well and purely. Hence
Cicero says, in the person of Cotta, that as every one acquires
virtue for himself, no wise man ever thanked the gods for it. "We
are praised," says he, "for virtue, and glory in virtue, but this
could not be, if virtue were the gift of God, and not from
ourselves," (Cicero, De Nat. Deorum.) A little after, he adds, "The
opinion of all mankind is, that fortune must be sought from God,
wisdom from ourselves." Thus, in short, all philosophers maintain,
that human reason is sufficient for right government; that the will,
which is inferior to it, may indeed be solicited to evil by sense,
but having a free choice, there is nothing to prevent it from
following reason as its guide in all things.
    4. Among ecclesiastical writers, although there is none who did
not acknowledge that sound reason in man was seriously injured by
sin, and the will greatly entangled by vicious desires, yet many of
them made too near an approach to the philosophers. Some of the most
ancient writers appear to me to have exalted human strengths from a
fear that a distinct acknowledgement of its impotence might expose
them to the jeers of the philosophers with whom they were disputing,
and also furnish the flesh, already too much disinclined to good,
with a new pretext for sloth. Therefore, to avoid teaching anything
which the majority of mankind might deem absurd, they made it their
study, in some measure, to reconcile the doctrine of Scripture with
the dogmas of philosophy, at the same time making it their special
care not to furnish any occasion to sloth. This is obvious from
their words. Chrysostom says, "God having placed good and evil in
our power, has given us full freedom of choice; he does not keep
back the unwilling, but embraces the willing," (Homil. de Prodit.
Judae.) Again, "He who is wicked is often, when he so chooses,
changed into good, and he who is good falls through sluggishness,
and becomes wicked. For the Lord has made our nature free. He does
not lay us under necessity, but furnishing apposite remedies, allows
the whole to depend on the views of the patient," (Homily. 18, in
Genesis.) Again, "As we can do nothing rightly until aided by the
grace of God, so, until we bring forward what is our own, we cannot
obtain favour from above," (Homily. 52.) He had previously said, "As
the whole is not done by divine assistance, we ourselves must of
necessity bring somewhat." Accordingly, one of his common
expressions is, "Let us bring what is our own, God will supply the
rest." In unison with this, Jerome says, "It is ours to begin, God's
to finish: it is ours to offer what we can, his to supply what we
cannot," (Dialog. 3 Cont. Pelag.)
    From these sentences, you see that they have bestowed on man
more than he possesses for the study of virtue, because they thought
that they could not shake off our innate sluggishness unless they
argued that we sin by ourselves alone. With what skill they have
thus argued we shall afterwards see. Assuredly we shall soon be able
to show that the sentiments just quoted are most inaccurate.
Moreover although the Greek Fathers, above others, and especially
Chrysostom, have exceeded due bounds in extolling the powers of the
human will, yet all ancient theologians, with the exception of
Augustine, are so confused, vacillating, and contradictory on this
subject, that no certainty can be obtained from their writings. It
is needless, therefore, to be more particular in enumerating every
separate opinion. It will be sufficient to extract from each as much
as the exposition of the subject seems to require. Succeeding
writers (every one courting applause for his acuteness in the
defence of human nature) have uniformly, one after the other, gone
more widely astray, until the common dogma came to be, that man was
corrupted only in the sensual part of his nature, that reason
remained entire, and will was scarcely impaired. Still the
expression was often on their lips, that man's natural gifts were
corrupted, and his supernatural taken away. Of the thing implied by
these words, however, scarcely one in a hundred had any distinct
idea. Certainly, were I desirous clearly to express what the
corruption of nature is, I would not seek for any other expression.
But it is of great importance attentively to consider what the power
of man now is when vitiated in all the parts of his nature, and
deprived of supernatural gifts. Persons professing to be the
disciples of Christ have spoken too much like the philosophers on
this subject. As if human nature were still in its integrity, the
term free will has always been in use among the Latins, while the
Greeks were not ashamed to use a still more presumptuous term, viz.,
"autexousion", as if man had still full power in himself.
    But since the principle entertained by all, even the vulgar,
is, that man is endued with free will, while some, who would be
thought more skilful, know not how far its power extends; it will be
necessary, first to consider the meaning of the term, and afterwards
ascertain, by a simple appeal to Scripture, what man's natural power
for good or evil is. The thing meant by free will, though constantly
occurring in all writers, few have defined. Origin, however, seems
to have stated the common opinion when he said, It is a power of
reason to discern between good and evil; of will, to choose the one
or other. Nor does Augustine differ from him when he says, It is a
power of reason and will to choose the good, grace assisting, - to
choose the bad, grace desisting. Bernard, while aiming at greater
acuteness, speaks more obscurely, when he describes it as consent,
in regard to the indestructible liberty of the wills and the
inalienable judgement of reason. Anselm's definition is not very
intelligible to ordinary understandings. He calls it a power of
preserving rectitude on its own account. Peter Lombard, and the
Schoolmen, preferred the definition of Augustine, both because it
was clearer, and did not exclude divine grace, without which they
saw that the will was not sufficient of itself. They however add
something of their own, because they deemed it either better or
necessary for clearer explanation. First, they agree that the term
will (arbitrium) has reference to reason, whose office it is to
distinguish between good and evil, and that the epithet free
properly belongs to the will, which may incline either way.
Wherefore, since liberty properly belongs to the will, Thomas
Aquinas says, (Part 1 Quast. 83, Art. 3,) that the most congruous
definition is to call free will an elective power, combining
intelligence and appetite, but inclining more to appetite. We now
perceive in what it is they suppose the faculty of free will to
consist, viz., in reason and will. It remains to see how much they
attribute to each.
    5. In general, they are wont to place under the free will of
man only intermediate things, viz., those which pertain not to the
kingdom of God, while they refer true righteousness to the special
grace of God and spiritual regeneration. The author of the work, "De
Vocatione Gentium," (On the Calling of the Gentiles,) wishing to
show this, describes the will as threefold, viz., sensitive, animal,
and spiritual. The two former, he says, are free to man, but the
last is the work of the Holy Spirit. What truth there is in this
will be considered in its own place. Our intention at present is
only to mention the opinions of others, not to refute them. When
writers treat of free will, their inquiry is chiefly directed not to
what its power is in relation to civil or external actions, but to
the obedience required by the divine law. The latter I admit to be
the great question, but I cannot think the former should be
altogether neglected; and I hope to be able to give the best reason
for so thinking, (sec. 12 to 18.) The schools, however, have adopted
a distinction which enumerates three kinds of freedom, (see Lombard,
lib. 2 Dist. 25;) the first, a freedom from necessity; the second, a
freedom from sin; and the third, a freedom from misery: the first
naturally so inherent in man, that he cannot possibly be deprived of
it; while through sin the other two have been lost. I willingly
admit this distinction, except in so far as it confounds necessity
with compulsion. How widely the things differ, and how important it
is to attend to the difference, will appear elsewhere.
    6. All this being admitted, it will be beyond dispute, that
free will does not enable any man to perform good works, unless he
is assisted by grace; indeed, the special grace which the elect
alone receive through regeneration. For I stay not to consider the
extravagance of those who say that grace is offered equally and
promiscuously to all, (Lomb. lib. 2 Dist. 26.) But it has not yet
been shown whether man is entirely deprived of the power of
well-doing, or whether he still possesses it in some, though in a
very feeble and limited degree - a degree so feeble and limited,
that it can do nothing of itself, but when assisted by grace, is
able also to perform its part. The Master of the Sentences,
(Lombard, ibid.) wishing to explain this, teaches that a twofold
grace is necessary to fit for any good work. The one he calls
Operating. To it, it is owing that we effectually will what is good.
The other, which succeeds this good will, and aids it, he calls
Co-operating. My objection to this division (see infra, chap. 3 sec.
10, and chap. 7 sec. 9) is, that while it attributes the effectual
desire of good to divine grace, it insinuates that man, by his own
nature, desires good in some degree, though ineffectually. Thus
Bernard, while maintaining that a good will is the work of God,
concedes this much to man, viz., that of his own nature he longs for
such a good will. This differs widely from the view of Augustine,
though Lombard pretends to have taken the division from him.
Besides, there is an ambiguity in the second division, which has led
to an erroneous interpretation. For it has been thought that we
co-operate with subsequent grace, inasmuch as it pertains to us
either to nullify the first grace, by rejecting its or to confirm
it, by obediently yielding to it. The author of the work De
Vocatione Gentium expresses it thus: It is free to those who enjoy
the faculty of reason to depart from grace, so that the not
departing is a reward, and that which cannot be done without the
co-operation of the Spirit is imputed as merit to those whose will
might have made it otherwise, (lib. 2 cap. 4.) It seemed proper to
make these two observations in passing, that the reader may see how
far I differ from the sounder of the Schoolmen. Still further do I
differ from more modern sophists, who have departed even more widely
than the Schoolmen from the ancient doctrine. The division, however,
shows in what respect free will is attributed to man. For Lombard
ultimately declares, (lib. 2 Dist. 25,) that our freedom is not to
the extent of leaving us equally inclined to good and evil in act or
in thought, but only to the extent of freeing us from compulsion.
This liberty is compatible with our being depraved, the servants of
sin, able to do nothing but sin.
    7. In this way, then, man is said to have free will, not
because he has a free choice of good and evil, but because he acts
voluntarily, and not by compulsion. This is perfectly true: but why
should so small a matter have been dignified with so proud a title?
An admirable freedom! that man is not forced to be the servant of
sin, while he is, however, "ethelodoulos", (a voluntary slave;) his
will being bound by the fetters of sin. I abominate mere verbal
disputes, by which the Church is harassed to no purpose; but I think
we ought religiously to eschew terms which imply some absurdity,
especially in subjects where error is of pernicious consequence. How
few are there who, when they hear free will attributed to man, do
not immediately imagine that he is the master of his mind and will
in such a sense, that he can of himself incline himself either to
good or evil? It may be said that such dangers are removed by
carefully expounding the meaning to the people. But such is the
proneness of the human mind to go astray, that it will more quickly
draw error from one little word, than truth from a lengthened
discourse. Of this, the very term in question furnishes too strong a
proof. For the explanation given by ancient Christian writers having
been lost sight of, almost all who have come after them, by
attending only to the etymology of the term, have been led to
indulge a fatal confidence.
    8. As to the Fathers, (if their authority weighs with us,) they
have the term constantly in their mouths; but they, at the same
time, declare what extent of meaning they attach to it. In
particular, Augustine hesitates not to call the will a slave. In
another passages he is offended with those who deny free will; but
his chief reason for this is explained when he says, "Only lest any
one should presume so to deny freedom of will, from a desire to
excuse sin." It is certain he elsewhere admits, that without the
Spirit the will of man is not free, inasmuch as it is subject to
lusts which chain and master it. And again, that nature began to
want liberty the moment the will was vanquished by the revolt into
which it fell. Again, that man, by making a bad use of free will,
lost both himself and his will. Again, that free will having been
made a captive, can do nothing in the way of righteousness. Again,
that no will is free which has not been made so by divine grace.
Again, that the righteousness of God is not fulfilled when the law
orders, and man acts, as it were, by his own strength, but when the
Spirit assists, and the will (not the free will of man, but the will
freed by God) obeys. He briefly states the ground of all these
observations, when he says, that man at his creation received a
great degree of free will, but lost it by sinning. In another place,
after showing that free will is established by grace, he strongly
inveighs against those who arrogate any thing to themselves without
grace. His words are, "How much soever miserable men presume to
plume themselves on free will before they are made free, or on their
strength after they are made free, they do not consider that, in the
very expression, free will, liberty is implied. 'Where the Spirit of
the Lord is, there is liberty,' (2 Cor. 3: 17.) If, therefore, they
are the servants of sin, why do they boast of free will? He who has
been vanquished is the servant of him who vanquished him. But if men
have been made free, why do they boast of it as of their own work?
Are they so free that they are unwilling to be the servants of Him
who has said, 'Without me ye can do nothing'?" (John 15: 5.) In
another passage he even seems to ridicule the word, when he says,
"That the will is indeed free, but not freed - free of
righteousness, but enslaved to sin." The same idea he elsewhere
repeats and explains, when he says, "That man is not free from
righteousness save by the choice of his will, and is not made free
from sin save by the grace of the Saviour." Declaring that the
freedom of man is nothing else than emancipation or manumission from
righteousness, he seems to jest at the emptiness of the name. If any
one, then, chooses to make use of this terms without attaching any
bad meaning to it, he shall not be troubled by me on that account;
but as it cannot be retained without very great danger, I think the
abolition of it would be of great advantage to the Church. I am
unwilling to use it myself; and others if they will take my advice,
will do well to abstain from it.
    9. It may, perhaps, seem that I have greatly prejudiced my own
view by confessing that all the ecclesiastical writers, with the
exception of Augustine, have spoken so ambiguously or inconsistently
on this subject, that no certainty is attainable from their
writings. Some will interpret this to mean, that I wish to deprive
them of their right of suffrage, because they are opposed to me.
Truly, however, I have had no other end in view than to consult,
simply and in good faith, for the advantage of pious minds, which,
if they trust to those writers for their opinion, will always
fluctuate in uncertainty. At one time they teach, that man having
been deprived of the power of free Will must flee to grace alone; at
another, they equip or seem to equip him in armour of his own. It is
not difficult, however, to show, that notwithstanding of the
ambiguous manner in which those writers express themselves, they
hold human virtue in little or no account, and ascribe the whole
merit of all that is good to the Holy Spirit. To make this more
manifest, I may here quote some passages from them. What, then, is
meant by Cyprian in the passage so often lauded by Augustine, "Let
us glory in nothing, because nothing is ours," unless it be, that
man being utterly destitute, considered in himself, should entirely
depend on God? What is meant by Augustine and Eucherius, when they
expound that Christ is the tree of life, and that whose puts forth
his hand to it shall live; that the choice of the will is the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil, and that he who, forsaking the
grace of God, tastes of it shall die? What is meant by Chrysostom,
When he says, "That every man is not only naturally a sinner, but is
wholly sin"? If there is nothing good in us; if man, from the crown
of the head to the sole of the foot, is wholly sin; if it is not
even lawful to try how far the power of the will extends, - how can
it be lawful to share the merit of a good work between God and man?
I might quote many passages to the same effect from other writers;
but lest any caviller should say, that I select those only which
serve my purpose, and cunningly pass by those which are against me,
I desist. This much, however, I dare affirm, that though they
sometimes go too far in extolling free will, the main object which
they had in view was to teach man entirely to renounce all
self-confidence, and place his strength in God alone. I now proceed
to a simple exposition of the truth in regard to the nature of man.
    10. Here however, I must again repeat what I premised at the
outset of this chapter, that he who is most deeply abased and
alarmed, by the consciousness of his disgrace, nakedness, want, and
misery, has made the greatest progress in the knowledge of himself.
Man is in no danger of taking too much from himself, provided he
learns that whatever he wants is to be recovered in God. But he
cannot arrogate to himself one particle beyond his due, without
losing himself in vain confidence, and, by transferring divine
honour to himself, becoming guilty of the greatest impiety. And,
assuredly, whenever our minds are seized with a longing to possess a
somewhat of our own, which may reside in us rather than in God, we
may rest assured that the thought is suggested by no other
counsellor than he who enticed our first parents to aspire to be
like gods, knowing good and evil. It is sweet, indeed, to have so
much virtue of our own as to be able to rest in ourselves; but let
the many solemn passages by which our pride is sternly humbled,
deter us from indulging this vain confidence: "Cursed be the man
that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm." (Jer. 17: 5.) "He
delighteth not in the strength of the horse; he taketh not pleasure
in the legs of a man. The Lord taketh pleasure in those that fear
him, in those that hope in his mercy," (Ps. 147: 10, l1.) "He giveth
power to the faint; and to them that have no might he increaseth
strength. Even the youths shall faint and be weary, and the young
men shall utterly fall: But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew
their strength," (Is. 40: 29-31.) The scope of all these passages is
that we must not entertain any opinion whatever of our own strength,
if we would enjoy the favour of God, who "resisteth the proud, but
giveth grace unto the humble," (James 4: 6.) Then let us call to
mind such promises as these, "I will pour water upon him that is
thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground," (Is. 44: 3;) "Ho, every
one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters," (Is. 55: 1.) These
passages declare, that none are admitted to enjoy the blessings of
God save those who are pining under a sense of their own poverty.
Nor ought such passages as the following to be omitted: "The sun
shall no more be thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the
moon give light unto thee: but the Lord shall be unto thee an
everlasting light, and thy God thy glory," (Is. 60: 19.) The Lord
certainly does not deprive his servants of the light of the sun or
moon, but as he would alone appear glorious in them, he dissuades
them from confidence even in those objects which they deem most
excellent.
    11. I have always been exceedingly delighted with the words of
Chrysostom, "The foundation of our philosophy is humility;" and
still more with those of Augustine, "As the orator, when asked, What
is the first precept in eloquence? answered, Delivery: What is the
second? Delivery: What the third? Delivery: so, if you ask me in
regard to the precepts of the Christian Religion, I will answer,
first, second, and third, Humility." By humility he means not when a
man, with a consciousness of some virtue, refrains from pride, but
when he truly feels that he has no refuge but in humility. This is
clear from another passage, "Let no man," says he, "flatter himself:
of himself he is a devil: his happiness he owes entirely to God.
What have you of your own but sin? Take your sin which is your own;
for righteousness is of God." Again, "Why presume so much on the
capability of nature? It is wounded, maimed, vexed, lost. The thing
wanted is genuine confession, not false defence." "When any one
knows that he is nothing in himself, and has no help from himself,
the weapons within himself are broken, and the war is ended." All
the weapons of impiety must be bruised, and broken, and burnt in the
fire; you must remain unarmed, having no help in yourself. The more
infirm you are, the more the Lord will sustain you. So, in
expounding the seventieth Psalm, he forbids us to remember our own
righteousness, in order that we may recognise the righteousness of
God, and shows that God bestows his grace upon us, that we may know
that we are nothing; that we stand only by the mercy of God, seeing
that in ourselves eve are altogether wicked. Let us not contend with
God for our right, as if anything attributed to him were lost to our
salvation. As our insignificance is his exaltation, so the
confession of our insignificance has its remedy provided in his
mercy. I do not ask, however, that man should voluntarily yield
without being convinced, or that, if he has any powers, he should
shut his eyes to them, that he may thus be subdued to true humility;
but that getting quit of the disease of self-love and ambition,
"filautia kai filoneikia", under the blinding influences of which he
thinks of himself more highly than he ought to think, he may see
himself as he really is, by looking into the faithful mirror of
Scripture.
    12. I feel pleased with the well-known saying which has been
borrowed from the writings of Augustine, that man's natural gifts
were corrupted by sin, and his supernatural gifts withdrawn; meaning
by supernatural gifts the light of faith and righteousness, which
would have been sufficient for the attainment of heavenly life and
everlasting felicity. Man, when he withdrew his allegiance to God,
was deprived of the spiritual gifts by which he had been raised to
the hope of eternal salvation. Hence it follows, that he is now an
exile from the kingdom of God, so that all things which pertain to
the blessed life of the soul are extinguished in him until he
recover them by the grace of regeneration. Among these are faith,
love to God, charity towards our neighbour, the study of
righteousness and holiness. All these, when restored to us by
Christ, are to be regarded as adventitious and above nature. If so,
we infer that they were previously abolished. On the other hand,
soundness of mind and integrity of heart were, at the same time,
withdrawn, and it is this which constitutes the corruption of
natural gifts. For although there is still some residue of
intelligence and judgement as well as will, we cannot call a mind
sound and entire which is both weak and immersed in darkness. As to
the will, its depravity is but too well known. Therefore, since
reason, by which man discerns between good and evil, and by which he
understands and judges, is a natural gift, it could not be entirely
destroyed; but being partly weakened and partly corrupted, a
shapeless ruin is all that remains. In this sense it is said, (John
1: 5,) that "the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness
comprehended it not;" these words clearly expressing both points,
viz., that in the perverted and degenerate nature of man there are
still some sparks which show that he is a rational animal, and
differs from the brutes, inasmuch as he is endued with intelligence,
and yet, that this light is so smothered by clouds of darkness that
it cannot shine forth to any good effect. In like manner, the will,
because inseparable from the nature of man, did not perish, but was
so enslaved by depraved lusts as to be incapable of one righteous
desire. The definition now given is complete, but there are several
points which require to be explained. Therefore, proceeding
agreeably to that primary distinction, (Book 1 c. 15 sec. 7 and 8,)
by which we divided the soul into intellect and will, we will now
inquire into the power of the intellect.
    To charge the intellect with perpetual blindness, so as to
leave it no intelligence of any description whatever, is repugnant
not only to the Word of God, but to common experience. We see that
there has been implanted in the human mind a certain desire of
investigating truth, to which it never would aspire unless some
relish for truth antecedently existed. There is, therefore, now, in
the human mind, discernment to this extent, that it is naturally
influenced by the love of truth, the neglect of which in the lower
animals is a proof of their gross and irrational nature. Still it is
true that this love of truth fails before it reaches the goal,
forthwith falling away into vanity. As the human mind is unable,
from dullness, to pursue the right path of investigation, and, after
various wanderings, stumbling every now and then like one groping in
darkness, at length gets completely bewildered, so its whole
procedure proves how unfit it is to search the truth and find it.
Then it labours under another grievous defect, in that it frequently
fails to discern what the knowledge is which it should study to
acquire. Hence, under the influence of a vain curiosity, it torments
itself with superfluous and useless discussions, either not
adverting at all to the things necessary to be known, or casting
only a cursory and contemptuous glance at them. At all events, it
scarcely ever studies them in sober earnest. Profane writers are
constantly complaining of this perverse procedure, and yet almost
all of them are found pursuing it. Hence Solomon, throughout the
Book of Ecclesiastes, after enumerating all the studies in which men
think they attain the highest wisdom, pronounces them vain and
frivolous.
    13. Still, however, man's efforts are not always so utterly
fruitless as not to lead to some result, especially when his
attention is directed to inferior objects. Nay, even with regard to
superior objects, though he is more careless in investigating them,
he makes some little progress. Here, however, his ability is more
limited, and he is never made more sensible of his weakness than
when he attempts to soar above the sphere of the present life. It
may therefore be proper, in order to make it more manifest how far
our ability extends in regard to these two classes of objects, to
draw a distinction between them. The distinction is, that we have
one kind of intelligence of earthly things, and another of heavenly
things. By earthly things, I mean those which relate not to God and
his kingdom, to true righteousness and future blessedness, but have
some connection with the present life, and are in a manner confined
within its boundaries. By heavenly things, I mean the pure knowledge
of God, the method of true righteousness, and the mysteries of the
heavenly kingdom. To the former belong matters of policy and
economy, all mechanical arts and liberal studies. To the latter (as
to which, see the eighteenth and following sections) belong the
knowledge of God and of his will, and the means of framing the life
in accordance with them. As to the former, the view to be taken is
this: Since man is by nature a social animal, he is disposed, from
natural instinct, to cherish and preserve society; and accordingly
we see that the minds of all men have impressions of civil order and
honesty. Hence it is that every individual understands how human
societies must he regulated by laws, and also is able to comprehend
the principles of those laws. Hence the universal agreement in
regard to such subjects, both among nations and individuals, the
seeds of them being implanted in the breasts of all without a
teacher or lawgiver. The truth of this fact is not affected by the
wars and dissensions which immediately arise, while some, such as
thieves and robbers, would invert the rules of justice, loosen the
bonds of law, and give free scope to their lust; and while others (a
vice of most frequent occurrence) deem that to be unjust which is
elsewhere regarded as just, and, on the contrary, hold that to be
praiseworthy which is elsewhere forbidden. For such persons do not
hate the laws from not knowing that they are good and sacred, but,
inflamed with headlong passion, quarrel with what is clearly
reasonable, and licentiously hate what their mind and understanding
approve. Quarrels of this latter kind do not destroy the primary
idea of justice. For while men dispute with each other as to
particular enactments, their ideas of equity agree in substance.
This, no doubt, proves the weakness of the human mind, which, even
when it seems on the right path, halts and hesitates. Still,
however, it is true, that some principle of civil order is impressed
on all. And this is ample proof, that, in regard to the constitution
of the present life, no man is devoid of the light of reason.
    14. Next come manual and liberal arts, in learning which, as
all have some degree of aptitude, the full force of human acuteness
is displayed. But though all are not equally able to learn all the
arts, we have sufficient evidence of a common capacity in the fact,
that there is scarcely an individual who does not display
intelligence in some particular art. And this capacity extends not
merely to the learning of the art, but to the devising of something
new, or the improving of what had been previously learned. This led
Plato to adopt the erroneous idea, that such knowledge was nothing
but recollection. So cogently does it oblige us to acknowledge that
its principle is naturally implanted in the human mind. But while
these proofs openly attest the fact of a universal reason and
intelligence naturally implanted, this universality is of a kind
which should lead every individual for himself to recognise it as a
special gift of God. To this gratitude we have a sufficient call
from the Creator himself, when, in the case of idiots, he shows what
the endowments of the soul would be were it not pervaded with his
light. Though natural to all, it is so in such a sense that it ought
to be regarded as a gratuitous gift of his beneficence to each.
Moreover, the invention, the methodical arrangement, and the more
thorough and superior knowledge of the arts, being confined to a few
individuals cannot be regarded as a solid proof of common
shrewdness. Still, however, as they are bestowed indiscriminately on
the good and the bad, they are justly classed among natural
endowments.
    15. Therefore, in reading profane authors, the admirable light
of truth displayed in them should remind us, that the human mind,
however much fallen and perverted from its original integrity, is
still adorned and invested with admirable gifts from its Creator. If
we reflect that the Spirit of God is the only fountain of truth, we
will be careful, as we would avoid offering insult to him, not to
reject or condemn truth wherever it appears. In despising the gifts,
we insult the Giver. How, then, can we deny that truth must have
beamed on those ancient lawgivers who arranged civil order and
discipline with so much equity? Shall we say that the philosophers,
in their exquisite researches and skilful description of nature,
were blind? Shall we deny the possession of intellect to those who
drew up rules for discourse, and taught us to speak in accordance
with reason? Shall we say that those who, by the cultivation of the
medical art, expended their industry in our behalf were only raving?
What shall we say of the mathematical sciences? Shall we deem them
to be the dreams of madmen? Nay, we cannot read the writings of the
ancients on these subjects without the highest admiration; an
admiration which their excellence will not allow us to withhold. But
shall we deem anything to be noble and praiseworthy, without tracing
it to the hand of God? Far from us be such ingratitude; an
ingratitude not chargeable even on heathen poets, who acknowledged
that philosophy and laws, and all useful arts were the inventions of
the gods. Therefore, since it is manifest that men whom the
Scriptures term carnal, are so acute and clear-sighted in the
investigation of inferior things, their example should teach us how
many gifts the Lord has left in possession of human nature,
notwithstanding of its having been despoiled of the true good.
    16. Moreover, let us not forget that there are most excellent
blessings which the Divine Spirit dispenses to whom he will for the
common benefit of mankind. For if the skill and knowledge required
for the construction of the Tabernacle behaved to be imparted to
Bezaleel and Aholiab, by the Spirit of God, (Exod. 31: 2; 35: 30,)
it is not strange that the knowledge of those things which are of
the highest excellence in human life is said to be communicated to
us by the Spirit. Nor is there any ground for asking what concourse
the Spirit can have with the ungodly, who are altogether alienated
from God? For what is said as to the Spirit dwelling in believers
only, is to be understood of the Spirit of holiness by which we are
consecrated to God as temples. Notwithstanding of this, He fills,
moves, and invigorates all things by the virtue of the Spirit, and
that according to the peculiar nature which each class of beings has
received by the Law of Creation. But if the Lord has been pleased to
assist us by the work and ministry of the ungodly in physics,
dialectics, mathematics, and other similar sciences, let us avail
ourselves of it, lest, by neglecting the gifts of God spontaneously
offered to us, we be justly punished for our sloth. Lest any one,
however, should imagine a man to be very happy merely because, with
reference to the elements of this world, he has been endued with
great talents for the investigation of truth, we ought to add, that
the whole power of intellect thus bestowed is, in the sight of God,
fleeting and vain whenever it is not based on a solid foundation of
truth. Augustine, (supra, sec. 4 and 12,) to whom, as we have
observed, the Master of Sentences, (lib. 2 Dist. 25,) and the
Schoolmen, are forced to subscribe, says most correctly that as the
gratuitous gifts bestowed on man were withdrawn, so the natural
gifts which remained were corrupted after the fall. Not that they
can be polluted in themselves in so far as they proceed from God,
but that they have ceased to be pure to polluted man, lest he should
by their means obtain any praise.
    17. The sum of the whole is this: From a general survey of the
human race, it appears that one of the essential properties of our
nature is reason, which distinguishes us from the lower animals,
just as these by means of sense are distinguished from inanimate
objects. For although some individuals are born without reason, that
defect does not impair the general kindness of God, but rather
serves to remind us, that whatever we retain ought justly to be
ascribed to the Divine indulgence. Had God not so spared us, our
revolt would have carried along with it the entire destruction of
nature. In that some excel in acuteness, and some in judgement,
while others have greater readiness in learning some peculiar art,
God, by this variety commends his favour toward us, lest any one
should presume to arrogate to himself that which flows from His mere
liberality. For whence is it that one is more excellent than
another, but that in a common nature the grace of God is specially
displayed in passing by many and thus proclaiming that it is under
obligation to none. We may add, that each individual is brought
under particular influences according to his calling. Many examples
of this occur in the Book of Judges, in which the Spirit of the Lord
is said to have come upon those whom he called to govern his people,
(Judges 6: 34.) In short, in every distinguished act there is a
special inspiration. Thus it is said of Saul, that "there went with
him a band of men whose hearts the Lord had touched," (1 Sam. 10:
26.) And when his inauguration to the kingdom is foretold, Samuel
thus addresses him, "The Spirit of the Lord will come upon thee, and
thou shalt prophesy with them, and shalt be turned into another
man," (1 Sam. 10: 6.) This extends to the whole course of
government, as it is afterwards said of David, "The Spirit of the
Lord came upon David from that day forward," (1 Sam. 16: 13.) The
same thing is elsewhere said with reference to particular movements.
Nay, even in Homer, men are said to excel in genius, not only
according as Jupiter has distributed to each, but according as he
leads them day by day, "hoion ep hemas ageisi". And certainly
experience shows when those who were most skilful and ingenious
stand stupefied, that the minds of men are entirely under the
control of God, who rules them every moment. Hence it is said, that
"He poureth contempt upon princes, and causeth them to wander in the
wilderness where there is no way," (Ps. 107: 40.) Still, in this
diversity we can trace some remains of the divine image
distinguishing the whole human race from other creatures.
    18. We must now explain what the power of human reason is, in
regard to the kingdom of God, and spiritual discernments which
consists chiefly of three things - the knowledge of God, the
knowledge of his paternal favour towards us, which constitutes our
salvation, and the method of regulating of our conduct in accordance
with the Divine Law. With regard to the former two, but more
properly the second, men otherwise the most ingenious are blinder
than moles. I deny not, indeed, that in the writings of philosophers
we meet occasionally with shrewd and apposite remarks on the nature
of God, though they invariably savour somewhat of giddy imagination.
As observed above, the Lord has bestowed on them some slight
perception of his Godhead that they might not plead ignorance as an
excuse for their impiety, and has, at times, instigated them to
deliver some truths, the confession of which should be their own
condemnation. Still, though seeing, they saw not. Their discernment
was not such as to direct them to the truth, far less to enable them
to attain it, but resembled that of the bewildered traveller, who
sees the flash of lightning glance far and wide for a moment, and
then vanish into the darkness of the night, before he can advance a
single step. So far is such assistance from enabling him to find the
right path. Besides, how many monstrous falsehoods intermingle with
those minute particles of truth scattered up and down in their
writings as if by chance. In short, not one of them even made the
least approach to that assurance of the divine favour, without which
the mind of man must ever remain a mere chaos of confusion. To the
great truths, What God is in himself, and what he is in relation to
us, human reason makes not the least approach. (See Book 3 c. 2 sec.
14, 15, 16.)
    19. But since we are intoxicated with a false opinion of our
own discernment, and can scarcely be persuaded that in divine things
it is altogether stupid and blind, I believe the best course will be
to establish the fact, not by argument, but by Scripture. Most
admirable to this effect is the passage which I lately quoted from
John, when he says, "In him was life; and the life was the light of
men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness
comprehended it not," (John 1: 4, 5.) He intimates that the human
soul is indeed irradiated with a beam of divine light, so that it is
never left utterly devoid of some small flame, or rather spark,
though not such as to enable it to comprehend God. And why so?
Because its acuteness is, in reference to the knowledge of God, mere
blindness. When the Spirit describes men under the term "darkness"
he declares them void of all power of spiritual intelligence. For
this reason, it is said that believers, in embracing Christ, are
"born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will
of man, but of God," (John 1: 13;) in other words, that the flesh
has no capacity for such sublime wisdom as to apprehend God, and the
things of God, unless illumined by His Spirit. In like manner our
Saviour, when he was acknowledged by Peter, declared that it was by
special revelation from the Father, (Matth. 16: 17.)
    20. If we were persuaded of a truth which ought to be beyond
dispute, viz., that human nature possesses none of the gifts which
the elect receive from their heavenly Father through the Spirit of
regeneration, there would be no room here for hesitation. For thus
speaks the congregation of the faithful, by the mouth of the
prophet: "With thee is the fountain of life: in thy light shall we
see light," (Ps. 36: 9.) To the same effect is the testimony of the
Apostle Paul, when he declares, that "no man can say that Jesus is
the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost," (1 Cor. 12: 3.) And John Baptist,
on seeing the dullness of his disciples, exclaims, "A man can
receive nothing, unless it be given him from heaven," (John 3: 27.)
That the gift to which he here refers must be understood not of
ordinary natural gifts, but of special illumination, appears from
this - that he was complaining how little his disciples had profited
by all that he had said to them in commendation of Christ. "I see,"
says he, "that my words are of no effect in imbuing the minds of men
with divine things, unless the Lord enlighten their understandings
by His Spirit." Nay, Moses also, while upbraiding the people for
their forgetfulness, at the same time observes, that they could not
become wise in the mysteries of God without his assistance. "Ye have
seen all that the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt,
unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land; the
great temptations which thine eyes have seen, the signs, and these
great miracles: yet the Lord has not given you an heart to perceive,
and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this, day," (Deut. 29: 2, 3,
4.) Would the expression have been stronger had he called us mere
blocks in regard to the contemplation of divine things? Hence the
Lord, by the mouth of the Prophet, promises to the Israelites as a
singular favour, "I will give them an heart to know me," (Jer. 24:
7;) intimating, that in spiritual things the human mind is wise only
in so far as he enlightens it. This was also clearly confirmed by
our Saviour when he said, "No man can come to me, except the Father
which has sent me draw him," (John 6: 44.) Nay, is not he himself
the living image of his Father, in which the full brightness of his
glory is manifested to us? Therefore, how far our faculty of knowing
God extends could not be better shown than when it is declared, that
though his image is so plainly exhibited, we have not eyes to
perceive it. What? Did not Christ descend into the world that he
might make the will of his Father manifest to men, and did he not
faithfully perform the office? True! He did; but nothing is
accomplished by his preaching unless the inner teacher, the Spirit,
open the way into our minds. Only those, therefore, come to him who
have heard and learned of the Father. And in what is the method of
this hearing and learning? It is when the Spirit, with a wondrous
and special energy, forms the ear to hear and the mind to
understand. Lest this should seem new, our Saviour refers to the
prophecy of Isaiah, which contains a promise of the renovation of
the Church. "For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great
mercies will I gather thee," (Is. 54: 7.) If the Lord here predicts
some special blessing to his elect, it is plain that the teaching to
which he refers is not that which is common to them with the ungodly
and profane.
    It thus appears that none can enter the kingdom of God save
those whose minds have been renewed by the enlightening of the Holy
Spirit. On this subject the clearest exposition is given by Paul,
who, when expressly handling it, after condemning the whole wisdom
of the world as foolishness and vanity, and thereby declaring man's
utter destitution, thus concludes, "The natural man receiveth not
the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him:
neither can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned," (1
Cor. 2: 14.) Whom does he mean by the "natural man"? The man who
trusts to the light of nature. Such a man has no understanding in
the spiritual mysteries of God. Why so? Is it because through sloth
he neglects them? Nay, though he exert himself, it is of no avail;
they are "spiritually discerned." And what does this mean? That
altogether hidden from human discernment, they are made known only
by the revelation of the Spirit; so that they are accounted
foolishness wherever the Spirit does not give light. The Apostle had
previously declared, that "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither
have entered into the heart of man, the things which God has
prepared for them that love him;" nay, that the wisdom of the world
is a kind of veil by which the mind is prevented from beholding God,
(1 Cor. 2: 9.) What would we more? The Apostle declares that God has
"made foolish the wisdom of this world," (1 Cor. 1: 20;) and shall
we attribute to it an acuteness capable of penetrating to God, and
the hidden mysteries of his kingdom? Far from us be such
presumption!
    21. What the Apostle here denies to man, he, in another place,
ascribes to God alone, when he prays, "that the God of our Lord
Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of
wisdom and revelation," (Eph. 1: 17.) You now hear that all wisdom
and revelation is the gift of God. What follows? "The eyes of your
understanding being enlightened." Surely, if they require a new
enlightening, they must in themselves be blind. The next words are,
"that ye may know what is the hope of his calling," (Eph. 1: 18.) In
other words, the minds of men have not capacity enough to know their
calling. Let no prating Pelagian here allege that God obviates this
rudeness or stupidity, when, by the doctrine of his word, he directs
us to a path which we could not have found without a guide. David
had the law, comprehending in it all the wisdom that could be
desired, and yet not contented with this, he prays, "Open thou mine
eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law," (Ps. 119:
18.) By this expression, he certainly intimates, that it is like
sunrise to the earth when the word of God shines forth; but that men
do not derive much benefit from it until he himself, who is for this
reason called the Father of lights (James 1: 17,) either gives eyes
or opens them; because, whatever is not illuminated by his Spirit is
wholly darkness. The Apostles had been duly and amply instructed by
the best of teachers. Still, as they wanted the Spirit of truth to
complete their education in the very doctrine which they had
previously heard, they were ordered to wait for him, (John 14: 26.)
If we confess that what we ask of God is lacking to us, and He by
the very thing promised intimates our want, no man can hesitate to
acknowledge that he is able to understand the mysteries of God, only
in so far as illuminated by his grace. He who ascribes to himself
more understanding than this, is the blinder for not acknowledging
his blindness.
    22. It remains to consider the third branch of the knowledge of
spiritual things, viz., the method of properly regulating the
conduct. This is correctly termed the knowledge of the works of
righteousness, a branch in which the human mind seems to have
somewhat more discernment than in the former two, since an Apostle
declares, "When the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature
the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a
law unto themselves: which show the work of the law written in their
hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts
the meantime accusing or else excusing one another" (Rom. 2: 14,
15.) If the Gentiles have the righteousness of the law naturally
engraven on their minds, we certainly cannot say that they are
altogether blind as to the rule of life. Nothing, indeed is more
common, than for man to be sufficiently instructed in a right course
of conduct by natural law, of which the Apostle here speaks. Let us
consider, however for what end this knowledge of the law was given
to men. For from this it will forthwith appear how far it can
conduct them in the way of reason and truth. This is even plain from
the words of Paul, if we attend to their arrangement. He had said a
little before, that those who had sinned in the law will be judged
by the law; and those who have sinned without the law will perish
without the law. As it might seem unaccountable that the Gentiles
should perish without any previous judgement, he immediately
subjoins, that conscience served them instead of the law, and was
therefore sufficient for their righteous condemnation. The end of
the natural law, therefore, is to render man inexcusable, and may be
not improperly defined - the judgement of conscience distinguishing
sufficiently between just and unjust, and by convicting men on their
own testimony depriving them of all pretext for ignorance. So
indulgent is man towards himself, that, while doing evil, he always
endeavours as much as he can to suppress the idea of sin. It was
this, apparently, which induced Plato (in his Protagoras) to suppose
that sins were committed only through ignorance. There might be some
ground for this, if hypocrisy were so successful in hiding vice as
to keep the conscience clear in the sight of God. But since the
sinner, when trying to evade the judgement of good and evil
implanted in him, is ever and anon dragged forward, and not
permitted to wink so effectually as not to be compelled at times,
whether he will or not, to open his eyes, it is false to say that he
sins only through ignorance.
    23. Themistius is more accurate in teaching, (Paraphr. in Lib.
3 de Anima, cap. 46,) that the intellect is very seldom mistaken in
the general definition or essence of the matter; but that deception
begins as it advances farther, namely, when it descends to
particulars. That homicide, putting the case in the abstract, is an
evil, no man will deny; and yet one who is conspiring the death of
his enemy deliberates on it as if the thing was good. The adulterer
will condemn adultery in the abstract, and yet flatter himself while
privately committing it. The ignorance lies here: that man, when he
comes to the particular, forgets the rule which he had laid down in
the general case. Augustine treats most admirably on this subject in
his exposition of the first verse of the fifty-seventh Psalm. The
doctrine of Themistius, however, does not always hold true: for the
turpitude of the crime sometimes presses so on the conscience, that
the sinner does not impose upon himself by a false semblance of
good, but rushes into sin knowingly and willingly. Hence the
expression, - I see the better course, and approve it: I follow the
worse, (Medea of Ovid.) For this reason, Aristotle seems to me to
have made a very shrewd distinction between incontinence and
intemperance, (Ethic. lib. 7 cap. 3) Where incontinence ("akrasia")
reigns, he says, that through the passion ("pathos") particular
knowledge is suppressed: so that the individual sees not in his own
misdeed the evil which he sees generally in similar cases; but when
the passion is over, repentance immediately succeeds. Intemperance,
("akolasia"), again, is not extinguished or diminished by a sense of
sin, but, on the contrary, persists in the evil choice which it has
once made.
    24. Moreover, when you hear of a universal judgement in man
distinguishing between good and evil, you must not suppose that this
judgement is, in every respect, sound and entire. For if the hearts
of men are imbued with a sense of justice and injustice, in order
that they may have no pretext to allege ignorance, it is by no means
necessary for this purpose that they should discern the truth in
particular cases. It is even more than sufficient if they understand
so far as to be unable to practice evasion without being convicted
by their own conscience, and beginning even now to tremble at the
judgement-seat of God. Indeed, if we would test our reason by the
Divine Law, which is a perfect standard of righteousness, we should
find how blind it is in many respects. It certainly attains not to
the principal heads in the First Table, such as, trust in God, the
ascription to him of all praise in virtue and righteousness, the
invocation of his name, and the true observance of his day of rest.
Did ever any soul, under the guidance of natural sense, imagine that
these and the like constitute the legitimate worship of God? When
profane men would worship God, how often soever they may be drawn
off from their vain trifling, they constantly relapse into it. They
admit, indeed, that sacrifices are not pleasing, to God, unless
accompanied with sincerity of mind; and by this they testify that
they have some conception of spiritual worship, though they
immediately pervert it by false devices: for it is impossible to
persuade them that every thing which the law enjoins on the subject
is true. Shall I then extol the discernment of a mind which can
neither acquire wisdom by itself, nor listen to advice? As to the
precepts of the Second Table, there is considerably more knowledge
of them, inasmuch as they are more closely connected with the
preservation of civil society. Even here, however, there is
something defective. Every man of understanding deems it most absurd
to submit to unjust and tyrannical domination, provided it can by
any means be thrown off, and there is but one opinion among men,
that it is the part of an abject and servile mind to bear it
patiently, the part of an honourable and high-spirited mind to rise
up against it. Indeed, the revenge of injuries is not regarded by
philosophers as a vice. But the Lord condemning this too lofty
spirit, prescribes to his people that patience which mankind deem
infamous. In regard to the general observance of the law,
concupiscence altogether escapes our animadversion. For the natural
man cannot bear to recognise diseases in his lusts. The light of
nature is stifled sooner than take the first step into this profound
abyss. For, when philosophers class immoderate movements of the mind
among vices, they mean those which break forth and manifest
themselves in grosser forms. Depraved desires, in which the mind can
quietly indulge, they regard as nothing, (see infra, chap. 8 sect.
49.)
    25. As we have above animadverted on Plato's error, in
ascribing all sins to ignorance, so we must repudiate the opinion of
those who hold that all sins proceed from preconceived gravity and
malice. We know too well from experience how often we fall, even
when our intention is good. Our reason is exposed to so many forms
of delusion, is liable to so many errors, stumbles on so many
obstacles, is entangled by so many snares, that it is ever wandering
from the right direction. Of how little value it is in the sight of
God, in regard to all the parts of life, Paul shows, when he says,
that we are not "sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of
ourselves," (2 Cor. 3: 5.) He is not speaking of the will or
affection; he denies us the power of thinking aright how any thing
cam be duly performed. Is it, indeed, true, that all thought,
intelligence, discernment, and industry, are so defective, that, in
the sight of the Lord, we cannot think or aim at any thing that is
right? To us, who can scarcely bear to part with acuteness of
intellect, (in our estimation a most precious endowment,) it seems
hard to admit this, whereas it is regarded as most just by the Holy
Spirit, who "knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity,"
(Ps. 94: 11,) and distinctly declares, that "every imagination of
the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually," (Gen. 6: 5; 8:
21.) If every thing which our mind conceives, meditates plans, and
resolves, is always evil, how can it ever think of doing what is
pleasing to God, to whom righteousness and holiness alone are
acceptable? It is thus plain, that our mind, in what direction
soever it turns, is miserably exposed to vanity. David was conscious
of its weakness when he prayed, "Give me understanding, and I shall
keep thy law," (Ps. 119: 34.) By desiring to obtain a new
understanding, he intimates that his own was by no means sufficient.
This he does not once only, but in one psalm repeats the same prayer
almost ten times, the repetition intimating how strong the necessity
which urged him to pray. What he thus asked for himself alone, Paul
prays for the churches in general. "For this cause," says he, "we
also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and
to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will, in
all wisdom and spiritual understanding; that you might walk worthy
of the Lord," &c., (Col. 1: 9, 10.) Whenever he represents this as a
blessing from God, we should remember that he at the same time
testifies that it is not in the power of man. Accordingly,
Augustine, in speaking of this inability of human reason to
understand the things of God, says, that he deems the grace of
illumination not less necessary to the mind than the light of the
sun to the eye, (August. de Peccat. Merit. et Remiss. lib. 2 cap.
5.) And, not content with this, he modifies his expression, adding,
that we open our eyes to behold the light, whereas the mental eye
remains shut, until it is opened by the Lord. Nor does Scripture say
that our minds are illuminated in a single day, so as afterwards to
see of themselves. The passage, which I lately quoted from the
Apostle Paul, refers to continual progress and increase. David, too,
expresses this distinctly in these words: "With my whole heart have
I sought thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments," (Ps. 119:
10.) Though he had been regenerated, and so had made no ordinary
progress in true piety, he confesses that he stood in need of
direction every moment, in order that he might not decline from the
knowledge with which he had been endued. Hence, he elsewhere prays
for a renewal of a right spirit, which he had lost by his sin, (Ps.
51: 12.) For that which God gave at first, while temporarily
withdrawn, it is equally his province to restore.
    26. We must now examine the will, on which the question of
freedom principally turns, the power of choice belonging to it
rather than the intellect, as we have already seen, (supra, sect.
4.) And at the outset, to guard against its being thought that the
doctrine taught by philosophers, and generally received, viz., that
all things by natural instinct have a desire of good, is any proof
of the rectitude of the human will, - let us observe, that the power
of free will is not to be considered in any of those desires which
proceed more from instinct than mental deliberation. Even the
schoolmen admit, (Thomas, Part 1, Quest. 83, art. 3,) that there is
no act of free will, unless when reason looks at opposites. By this
they mean, that the things desired must be such as may be made the
object of choice, and that to pave the way for choice, deliberation
must precede. And, undoubtedly, if you attend to what this natural
desire of good in man is, you will find that it is common to him
with the brutes. They, too, desire what is good; and when any
semblance of good capable of moving the sense appears, they follow
after it. Here, however, man does not, in accordance with the
excellence of his immortal nature, rationally choose, and studiously
pursue, what is truly for his good. He does not admit reason to his
counsel, nor exert his intellect; but without reason, without
counsel, follows the bent of his nature like the lower animals. The
question of freedom, therefore, has nothing to do with the fact of
man's being led by natural instinct to desire good. The question is,
Does man, after determining by right reason what is good, choose
what he thus knows, and pursue what he thus chooses? Lest any doubt
should be entertained as to this, we must attend to the double
misnomer. For this appetite is not properly a movement of the will,
but natural inclination; and this good is not one of virtue or
righteousness, but of condition, viz., that the individual may feel
comfortable. In fine, how much soever man may desire to obtain what
is good, he does not follow it. There is no man who would not be
pleased with eternal blessedness; and yet, without the impulse of
the Spirit, no man aspires to it. Since, then, the natural desire of
happiness in man no more proves the freedom of the will, than the
tendency in metals and stones to attain the perfection of their
nature, let us consider, in other respects, whether the will is so
utterly vitiated and corrupted in every part as to produce nothing
but evil, or whether it retains some portion uninjured, and
productive of good desires.
    27. Those who ascribe our willing effectually, to the primary
grace of Gods (supra, sect. 6,) seem conversely to insinuate that
the soul has in itself a power of aspiring to good, though a power
too feeble to rise to solid affection or active endeavour. There is
no doubt that this opinion, adopted from Origin and certain of the
ancient Fathers, has been generally embraced by the schoolmen, who
are wont to apply to man in his natural state (in puris naturalibus,
as they express it) the following description of the apostle: - "For
that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but
what I hate, that do I." "To will is present with me; but how to
perform that which is good I find not," (Rom. 7: 15, 18.) But, in
this way, the whole scope of Paul's discourse is inverted. He is
speaking of the Christian struggle, (touched on more briefly in the
Epistle to the Galatians,) which believers constantly experience
from the conflict between the flesh and the Spirit. But the Spirit
is not from nature, but from regeneration. That the apostle is
speaking of the regenerate is apparent from this, that after saying,
"in me dwells no good thing," he immediately adds the explanation,
"in my flesh." Accordingly, he declares, "It is no more I that do
it, but sin that dwelleth in me." What is the meaning of the
correction, "in me, (that is, in my flesh?") It is just as if he had
spoken in this way, No good thing dwells in me, of myself, for in my
flesh nothing good can be found. Hence follows the species of
excuse, It is not I myself that do evil, but sin that dwelleth in
me. This applies to none but the regenerate, who, with the leading
powers of the soul, tend towards what is good. The whole is made
plain by the conclusion, "I delight in the law of God after the
inward man: but I see another law in my members, warring against the
law of my mind," (Rom. 7: 22, 23.) Who has this struggle in himself,
save those who, regenerated by the Spirit of God, bear about with
them the remains of the flesh? Accordingly, Augustine, who had at
one time thought that the discourse related to the natural man,
(August. ad Bonifac. lib. 1 c. 10,) afterwards retracted his
exposition as unsound and inconsistent. And, indeed if we admit that
men, without grace, have any motions to good, however feeble, what
answer shall we give to the apostles who declares that "we are
incapable of thinking a good thought?" (2 Cor. 3: 6.) What answer
shall we give to the Lord, who declares, by Moses, that "every
imagination of man's heart is only evil continually?" (Gen. 8: 21.)
Since the blunder has thus arisen from an erroneous view of a single
passage, it seems unnecessary to dwell upon it. Let us rather give
due weight to our Saviour's words, "Whosoever committeth sin is the
servant of sin," (John 8: 34.) We are all sinners by nature,
therefore we are held under the yoke of sin. But if the whole man is
subject to the dominion of sin, surely the will, which is its
principal seat, must be bound with the closest chains. And, indeed,
if divine grace were preceded by any will of ours, Paul could not
have said that "it is God which worketh in us both to will and to
do," (Philip. 2: 13.) Away, then, with all the absurd trifling which
many have indulged in with regard to preparation. Although believers
sometimes ask to have their heart trained to the obedience of the
divine law, as David does in several passages, (Ps. 51: 12,) it is
to be observed, that even this longing in prayer is from God. This
is apparent from the language used. When he prays, "Create in me a
clean heart," he certainly does not attribute the beginning of the
creation to himself. Let us therefore rather adopt the sentiment of
Augustine, "God will prevent you in all things, but do you sometimes
prevent his anger. How? Confess that you have all these things from
God, that all the good you have is from him, all the evil from
yourself," (August. De Verbis Apost. Serm. 10.) Shortly after he
says "Of our own we have nothing but sin."









Chapter 3


3. Every thing proceeding from the corrupt nature of man damnable.

The principal matters in this chapter are, - I. A recapitulation of
the former chapter, proving, from passages of Scriptures that the
intellect and will of man are so corrupted, that no integrity, no
knowledge or fear of God, can now be found in him, sect. 1 and 2.
II. Objections to this doctrine, from the virtues which shone in
some of the heathen, refuted, sect. 3 and 4. III. What kind of will
remains in man, the slave of sin, sect. 5. The remedy and cure,
sect. 6. IV. The opinion of Neo-Pelagian sophists concerning the
preparation and efficacy of the will, and also concerning
perseverance and co-operating grace, refuted, both by reason and
Scripture, sect. 7-12. V. Some passages from Augustine confirming
the truth of this doctrine, sect. 13 and 14.

Sections.

1. The intellect and will of the whole man corrupt. The term flesh
    applies not only to the sensual, but also to the higher part of
    the soul. This demonstrated from Scripture.
2. The heart also involved in corruption, and hence in no part of
    man can integrity, or knowledge or the fear of God, be found.
3. Objection, that some of the heathen were possessed of admirable
    endowments, and, therefore, that the nature of man is not
    entirely corrupt. Answer, Corruption is not entirely removed,
    but only inwardly restrained. Explanation of this answer.
4. Objection still urged, that the virtuous and vicious among the
    heathen must be put upon the same level, or the virtuous prove
    that human nature, properly cultivated, is not devoid of
    virtue. Answer, That these are not ordinary properties of human
    nature, but special gifts of God. These gifts defiled by
    ambition, and hence the actions proceeding from them, however
    esteemed by man, have no merit with God.
5. Though man has still the faculty of willing there is no soundness
    in it. He falls under the bondage of sin necessarily, and yet
    voluntarily. Necessity must be distinguished from compulsion.
    The ancient Theologians acquainted with this necessity. Some
    passages condemning the vacillation of Lombard.
6. Conversion to God constitutes the remedy or soundness of the
    human will. This not only begun, but continued and completed;
    the beginning, continuance, and completion, being ascribed
    entirely to God. This proved by Ezekiel's description of the
    stony heart, and from other passages of Scripture.
7. Various Objections. - 1. The will is converted by God, but, when
    once prepared, does its part in the work of conversion. Answer
    from Augustine. 2. Grace can do nothing without will, nor the
    will without grace. Answer. Grace itself produces will. God
    prevents the unwilling, making him willing, and follows up this
    preventing grace that he may not will in vain. Another answer
    gathered from various passages of Augustine.
8. Answer to the second Objection continued. No will inclining to
    good except in the elect. The cause of election out of man.
    Hence right will, as well as election, are from the good
    pleasure of God. The beginning of willing and doing well is of
    faith; faith again is the gift of God; and hence mere grace is
    the cause of our beginning to will well. This proved by
    Scripture.
9. Answer to second Objection continued. That good will is merely of
    grace proved by the prayers of saints. Three axioms 1. God does
    not prepare man's heart, so that he can afterwards do some good
    of himself, but every desire of rectitude, every inclination to
    study, and every effort to pursue it, is from Him. 2. This
    desire, study, and effort, do not stop short, but continue to
    effect. 3. This progress is constant. The believer perseveres
    to the end. A third Objection, and three answers to it.
10. A fourth Objection. Answer. Fifth Objection. Answer. Answer
    confirmed by many passages of Scripture, and supported by a
    passage from Augustine.
11. Perseverance not of ourselves, but of God. Objection. Two errors
    in the objection. Refutation of both.
12. An objection founded on the distinction of co-operating grace.
    Answer. Answer confirmed by the testimony of Augustine and
    Bernard.
13. Last part of the chapter, in which it is proved by many passages
    of Augustine, that he held the doctrine here taught.
14. An objection, representing Augustine at variance with himself
    and other Theologians, removed. A summary of Augustine's
    doctrine on free will.

    1. The nature of man, in both parts of his soul, (viz.,
intellect and will,) cannot be better ascertained than by attending
to the epithets applied to him in Scripture. If he is fully depicted
(and it may easily be proved that he is) by the words of our
Saviour, "that which is born of the flesh is flesh," (John 3: 6,) he
must be a very miserable creature. For, as an apostle declares, "to
be carnally minded is death," (Rom. 8: 8,) "It is enmity against
God, and is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."
Is it true that the flesh is so perverse, that it is perpetually
striving with all its might against God? that it cannot accord with
the righteousness of the divine law? that, in short, it can beget
nothing but the materials of death? Grant that there is nothing in
human nature but flesh, and then extract something good out of it if
you can. But it will be said, that the word "flesh" applies only to
the sensual, and not to the higher part of the soul. This, however,
is completely refuted by the words both of Christ and his apostle.
The statement of our Lord is, that a man must be born again, because
he is flesh. He requires not to be born again, with reference to the
body. But a mind is not born again merely by having some portion of
it reformed. It must be totally renewed. This is confirmed by the
antithesis used in both passages. In the contrast between the Spirit
and the flesh, there is nothing left of an intermediate nature. In
this way, everything in man, which is not spiritual, falls under the
denomination of carnal. But we have nothing of the Spirit except
through regeneration. Everything, therefore, which we have from
nature is flesh. Any possible doubt which might exist on the subject
is removed by the words of Paul, (Eph. 4: 23,) where, after a
description of the old man, who, he says, "is corrupt according to
the deceitful lusts," he bids us "be renewed in the spirit" of our
mind. You see that he places unlawful and depraved desires not in
the sensual part merely, but in the mind itself, and therefore
requires that it should be renewed. Indeed, he had a little before
drawn a picture of human nature, which shows that there is no part
in which it is not perverted and corrupted. For when he says that
the "Gentiles walk in the vanity of their mind, having the
understanding darkened being alienated from the life of God through
the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their
heart," (Eph. 4: 17, 18,) there can be no doubt that his words apply
to all whom the Lord has not yet formed anew both to wisdom and
righteousness. This is rendered more clear by the comparison which
immediately follows, and by which he reminds believers that they
"have not so learned Christ these words implying that the grace of
Christ is the only remedy for that blindness and its evil
consequences. Thus, too, had Isaiah prophesied of the kingdom of
Christ, when the Lord promised to the Church, that though darkness
should "cover the earth, and gross darkness the people," yet that he
should "arise" upon it, and "his glory" should be seen upon it,
(Isaiah 40: 2.) When it is thus declared that divine light is to
arise on the Church alone, all without the Church is left in
blindness and darkness. I will not enumerate all that occurs
throughout Scripture, and particularly in the Psalms and Prophetical
writings, as to the vanity of man. There is much in what David says,
"Surely men of low degree are vanity, and men of high degree are a
lie: to be laid in the balance, they are altogether lighter than
vanity," (Ps. 62: 10.) The human mind receives a humbling blow when
all the thoughts which proceed from it are derided as foolish,
frivolous, perverse, and insane.
    2. In no degree more lenient is the condemnation of the heart,
when it is described as "deceitful above all things, and desperately
wicked," (Jer. 17: 9.) But as I study brevity, I will be satisfied
with a single passage, one, however, in which as in a bright mirror,
we may behold a complete image of our nature. The Apostle, when he
would humble man's pride, uses these words: "There is none righteous
no, not one: there is none that understandeth, there is none that
seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are
together become unprofitable; there is none that does good, no, not
one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have
used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is
full of cursing and bitterness: their feet are swift to shed blood:
destruction and misery are in their ways: and the way of peace have
they not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes," (Rom. 3:
10-18.) Thus he thunders not against certain individuals, but
against the whole posterity of Adam - not against the depraved
manners of any single age, but the perpetual corruption of nature.
His object in the passage is not merely to upbraid men in order that
they may repent, but to teach that all are overwhelmed with
inevitable calamity, and can be delivered from it only by the mercy
of God. As this could not be proved without previously proving the
overthrow and destruction of nature, he produced those passages to
show that its ruin is complete.
    Let it be a fixed point, then, that men are such as is here
described, not by vicious custom, but by depravity of nature. The
reasoning of the Apostle, that there is no salvation for man, save
in the mercy of God, because in himself he is desperate and undone,
could not otherwise stand. I will not here labour to prove that the
passages apply, with the view of removing the doubts of any who
might think them quoted out of place. I will take them as if they
had been used by Paul for the first time, and not taken from the
Prophets. First, then, he strips man of righteousness, that is,
integrity and purity; and, secondly, he strips him of sound
intelligence. He argues, that defect of intelligence is proved by
apostasy from God. To seek Him is the beginning of wisdom, and,
therefore, such defect must exist in all who have revolted from Him.
He subjoins, that all have gone astray, and become as it were mere
corruption; that there is none that does good. He then enumerates
the crimes by which those who have once given loose to their
wickedness pollute every member of their bodies. Lastly, he declares
that they have no fear of God, according to whose rule all our steps
should be directed. If these are the hereditary properties of the
human race, it is vain to look for anything good in our nature. I
confess indeed, that all these iniquities do not break out in every
individual. Still it cannot be denied that the hydra lurks in every
breast. For as a body, while it contains and fosters the cause and
matter of disease, cannot be called healthy, although pain is not
actually felt; so a soul, while teeming with such seeds of vice,
cannot be called sound. This similitude, however, does not apply
throughout. In a body however morbid the functions of life are
performed; but the soul, when plunged into that deadly abyss, not
only labours under vice, but is altogether devoid of good.
    3. Here, again we are met with a question very much the same as
that which was previously solved. In every age there have been some
who, under the guidance of nature, were all their lives devoted to
virtue. It is of no consequence, that many blots may be detected in
their conduct; by the mere study of virtue, they evinced that there
was somewhat of purity in their nature. The value which virtues of
this kind have in the sight of God will be considered more fully
when we treat of the merit of works. Meanwhile however, it will be
proper to consider it in this place also, in so far as necessary for
the exposition of the subject in hand. Such examples, then, seem to
warn us against supposing that the nature of man is utterly vicious,
since, under its guidance, some have not only excelled in
illustrious deeds, but conducted themselves most honourably through
the whole course of their lives. But we ought to consider, that,
notwithstanding of the corruption of our nature, there is some room
for divine grace, such grace as, without purifying it, may lay it
under internal restraint. For, did the Lord let every mind loose to
wanton in its lusts, doubtless there is not a man who would not show
that his nature is capable of all the crimes with which Paul charges
it, (Rom. 3 compared with Ps. 14: 3, &c.) What? Can you exempt
yourself from the number of those whose feet are swift to shed
blood; whose hands are foul with rapine and murder; whose throats
are like open sepulchres; whose tongues are deceitful; whose lips
are venomous; whose actions are useless, unjust, rotten, deadly;
whose soul is without God; whose inward parts are full of
wickedness; whose eyes are on the watch for deception; whose minds
are prepared for insult; whose every part, in short, is framed for
endless deeds of wickedness? If every soul is capable of such
abominations, (and the Apostle declares this boldly,) it is surely
easy to see what the result would be, if the Lord were to permit
human passion to follow its bent. No ravenous beast would rush so
furiously, no stream, however rapid and violent, so impetuously
burst its banks. In the elect, God cures these diseases in the mode
which will shortly be explained; in others, he only lays them under
such restraint as may prevent them from breaking forth to a degree
incompatible with the preservation of the established order of
things. Hence, how much soever men may disguise their impurity, some
are restrained only by shame, others by a fear of the laws, from
breaking out into many kinds of wickedness. Some aspire to an honest
life, as deeming it most conducive to their interest, while others
are raised above the vulgar lot, that, by the dignity of their
station, they may keep inferiors to their duty. Thus God, by his
providence, curbs the perverseness of nature, preventing it from
breaking forth into action, yet without rendering it inwardly pure.
    4. The objection, however, is not yet solved. For vie must
either put Cataline on the same footing with Camillus, or hold
Camillus to be an example that nature, when carefully cultivated, is
not wholly void of goodness. I admit that the specious qualities
which Camillus possessed were divine gifts, and appear entitled to
commendation when viewed in themselves. But in what way will they be
proofs of a virtuous nature? Must we not go back to the mind, and
from it begin to reason thus? If a natural man possesses such
integrity of manners, nature is not without the faculty of studying
virtue. But what if his mind was depraved and perverted, and
followed anything rather than rectitude? Such it undoubtedly was, if
you grant that he was only a natural man. How then will you laud the
power of human nature for good, if, even where there is the highest
semblance of integrity, a corrupt bias is always detected?
Therefore, as you would not commend a man for virtue whose vices
impose upon you by a show of virtue, so you will not attribute a
power of choosing rectitude to the human will while rooted in
depravity, (see August. lib. 4, Cont. Julian.) Still, the surest and
easiest answer to the objection is, that those are not common
endowments of nature, but special gifts of God, which he distributes
in divers forms, and, in a definite measure, to men otherwise
profane. For which reason, we hesitate not, in common language, to
say, that one is of a good, another of a vicious nature; though we
cease not to hold that both are placed under the universal condition
of human depravity. All we mean is that God has conferred on the one
a special grace which he has not seen it meet to confer on the
other. When he was pleased to set Saul over the kingdom, he made him
as it were a new man. This is the thing meant by Plato, when,
alluding to a passage in the Iliad, he says, that the children of
kings are distinguished at their birth by some special qualities -
God, in kindness to the human race, often giving a spirit of heroism
to those whom he destines for empire. In this way, the great leaders
celebrated in history were formed. The same judgement must be given
in the case of private individuals. But as those endued with the
greatest talents were always impelled by the greatest ambitions (a
stain which defiles all virtues and makes them lose all favour in
the sight of God,) so we cannot set any value on anything that seems
praiseworthy in ungodly men. We may add, that the principal part of
rectitude is wanting, when there is no zeal for the glory of God,
and there is no such zeal in those whom he has not regenerated by
his Spirit. Nor is it without good cause said in Isaiah, that on
Christ should rest "the spirit of knowledge, and of the fear of the
Lord," (Isa. 11: 2;) for by this we are taught that all who are
strangers to Christ are destitute of that fear of God which is the
beginning of wisdom, (Ps. 111: 10.) The virtues which deceive us by
an empty show may have their praise in civil society and the common
intercourse of life, but before the judgement-seat of God they will
be of no value to establish a claim of righteousness.
    5. When the will is enchained as the slave of sin, it cannot
make a movement towards goodness, far less steadily pursue it. Every
such movement is the first step in that conversion to God, which in
Scripture is entirely ascribed to divine grace. Thus Jeremiah prays,
"Turn thou me, and I shall be turned," (Jer. 31: 18.) Hence, too, in
the same chapter, describing the spiritual redemption of believers,
the Prophet says, "The Lord has redeemed Jacob, and ransomed him
from the hand of him that was stronger than he," (Jer. 31: 11;)
intimating how close the fetters are with which the sinner is bound,
so long as he is abandoned by the Lord, and acts under the yoke of
the devil. Nevertheless, there remains a will which both inclines
and hastens on with the strongest affection towards sin; man, when
placed under this bondage, being deprived not of will, but of
soundness of will. Bernard says not improperly, that all of us have
a will; but to will well is proficiency, to will ill is defect. Thus
simply to will is the part of man, to will ill the part of corrupt
nature, to will well the part of grace. Moreover, when I say that
the will, deprived of liberty, is led or dragged by necessity to
evil, it is strange that any should deem the expression harsh,
seeing there is no absurdity in it, and it is not at variance with
pious use. It does, however, offend those who know not how to
distinguish between necessity and compulsion. Were any one to ask
them, Is not God necessarily good, is not the devil necessarily
wicked, what answer would they give? The goodness of God is so
connected with his Godhead, that it is not more necessary to be God
than to be good; whereas the devil, by his fall, was so estranged
from goodness, that he can do nothing but evil. Should any one give
utterance to the profane jeer, (see Calvin Adv. Pighium,) that
little praise is due to God for a goodness to which he is forced, is
it not obvious to every man to reply, It is owing not to violent
impulse, but to his boundless goodness, that he cannot do evil?
Therefore, if the free will of God in doing good is not impeded,
because he necessarily must do good; if the devil, who can do
nothing but evil, nevertheless sins voluntarily; can it be said that
man sins less voluntarily because he is under a necessity of
sinning? This necessity is uniformly proclaimed by Augustine, who,
even when pressed by the invidious cavil of Celestius, hesitated not
to assert it in the following terms: "Man through liberty became a
sinner, but corruption, ensuing as the penalty, has converted
liberty into necessity," (August. lib. de Perf. Justin.) Whenever
mention is made of the subject, he hesitates not to speak in this
way of the necessary bondage of sin, (August. de Nature et Gratia,
et alibi.) Let this, then, be regarded as the sum of the
distinction. Man, since he was corrupted by the fall, sins not
forced or unwilling, but voluntarily, by a most forward bias of the
mind; not by violent compulsion, or external force, but by the
movement of his own passion; and yet such is the depravity of his
nature, that he cannot move and act except in the direction of evil.
If this is true, the thing not obscurely expressed is, that he is
under a necessity of sinning. Bernard, assenting to Augustine, thus
writes: "Among animals, man alone is free, and yet sin intervening,
he suffers a kind of violence, but a violence proceeding from his
will, not from nature, so that it does not even deprive him of
innate liberty," (Bernard, Sermo. super Cantica, 81.) For that which
is voluntary is also free. A little after he adds, "Thus, by some
means strange and wicked, the will itself, being deteriorated by
sin, makes a necessity; but so that the necessity, in as much as it
is voluntary, cannot excuse the will, and the will, in as much as it
is enticed, cannot exclude the necessity." For this necessity is in
a manner voluntary. He afterwards says that "we are under a yoke,
but no other yoke than that of voluntary servitude; therefore, in
respect of servitude, we are miserable, and in respect of will,
inexcusable; because the will, when it was free, made itself the
slave of sin." At length he concludes, "Thus the soul, in some
strange and evil way, is held under this kind of voluntary, yet
sadly free necessity, both bond and free; bond in respect of
necessity, free in respect of will: and what is still more strange,
and still more miserable, it is guilty because free, and enslaved
because guilty, and therefore enslaved because free." My readers
hence perceive that the doctrine which I deliver is not new, but the
doctrine which of old Augustine delivered with the consent of all
the godly, and which was afterwards shut up in the cloisters of
monks for almost a thousand years. Lombard, by not knowing how to
distinguish between necessity and compulsion, gave occasion to a
pernicious error.
    6. On the other hand, it may be proper to consider what the
remedy is which divine grace provides for the correction and cure of
natural corruption. Since the Lord, in bringing assistance, supplies
us with what is lacking, the nature of that assistance will
immediately make manifest its converse, viz., our penury. When the
Apostle says to the Philippians, "Being confident of this very
thing, that he which has begun a good work in you, will perform it
until the day of Jesus Christ," (Phil. 1: 6,) there cannot be a
doubt, that by the good work thus begun, he means the very
commencement of conversion in the will. God, therefore, begins the
good work in us by exciting in our hearts a desire, a love, and a
study of righteousness, or (to speak more correctly) by turning,
training, and guiding our hearts unto righteousness; and he
completes this good work by confirming us unto perseverance. But
lest any one should cavil that the good work thus begun by the Lord
consists in aiding the will, which is in itself weak, the Spirit
elsewhere declares what the will, when left to itself, is able to
do. His words are, "A new heart also will I give you, and a new
spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart
out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will
put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and
ye shall keep my judgements, and do them," (Ezek. 36: 26, 27.) How
can it be said that the weakness of the human will is aided so as to
enable it to aspire effectually to the choice of good, when the fact
is, that it must be wholly transformed and renovated? If there is
any softness in a stone; if you can make it tender, and flexible
into any shape, then it may be said, that the human heart may be
shaped for rectitude, provided that which is imperfect in it is
supplemented by divine grace. But if the Spirit, by the above
similitude, meant to show that no good can ever be extracted from
our heart until it is made altogether new, let us not attempt to
share with Him what He claims for himself alone. If it is like
turning a stone into flesh when God turns us to the study of
rectitude, everything proper to our own will is abolished, and that
which succeeds in its place is wholly of God. I say the will is
abolished, but not in so far as it is will, for in conversion
everything essential to our original nature remains: I also say,
that it is created anew, not because the will then begins to exist,
but because it is turned from evil to good. This, I maintains is
wholly the work of God, because, as the Apostle testifies, we are
not "sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves," (2
Cor. 3: 5.) Accordingly, he elsewhere says, not merely that God
assists the weak or corrects the depraved will, but that he worketh
in us to will, (Philip. 2: 13.) From this it is easily inferred, as
I have said, that everything good in the will is entirely the result
of grace. In the same sense, the Apostle elsewhere says, "It is the
same God which worketh all in all," (I Cor. 12: 6.) For he is not
there treating of universal government, but declaring that all the
good qualities which believers possess are due to God. In using the
term "all," he certainly makes God the author of spiritual life from
its beginning to its end. This he had previously taught in different
terms, when he said that there is "one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom
are all things, and we by him," (1 Cor. 8: 6;) thus plainly
extolling the new creation, by which everything of our common nature
is destroyed. There is here a tacit antithesis between Adam and
Christ, which he elsewhere explains more clearly when he says, "We
are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which
God has before ordained that we should walk in them," (Eph. 2: 10.)
His meaning is to show in this way that our salvation is gratuitous
because the beginning of goodness is from the second creation which
is obtained in Christ. If any, even the minutest, ability were in
ourselves, there would also be some merit. But to show our utter
destitution, he argues that we merit nothing, because we are created
in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has prepared; again
intimating by these words, that all the fruits of good works are
originally and immediately from God. Hence the Psalmist, after
saying that the Lord "has made us," to deprive us of all share in
the work, immediately adds, "not we ourselves." That he is speaking
of regeneration, which is the commencement of the spiritual life, is
obvious from the context, in which the next words are, "we are his
people, and the sheep of his pasture," (Psalm 100: 3.) Not contented
with simply giving God the praise of our salvation, he distinctly
excludes us from all share in it, just as if he had said that not
one particle remains to man as a ground of boasting. The whole is of
God.
    7. But perhaps there will be some who, while they admit that
the will is in its own nature averse to righteousness, and is
converted solely by the power of God, will yet hold that, when once
it is prepared, it performs a part in acting. This they found upon
the words of Augustine, that grace precedes every good work; the
will accompanying, not leading; a handmaid, and not a guide,
(August. ad Bonifac. Ep. 106.) The words thus not improperly used by
this holy writer, Lombard preposterously wrests to the above effect,
(Lombard, lib. 2, Dist. 25.) But I maintain, that as well in the
words of the Psalmist which I have quoted, as in other passages of
Scripture, two things are clearly taught, viz., that the Lord both
corrects, or rather destroys, our depraved will, and also
substitutes a good will from himself. In as much as it is prevented
by grace, I have no objection to your calling it a handmaid; but in
as much as when formed again, it is the work of the Lord, it is
erroneous to say, that it accompanies preventing grace as a
voluntary attendant. Therefore, Chrysostom is inaccurate in saying,
that grace cannot do any thing without will, nor will any thing
without grace, (Serm. de Invent. Sanct. Crucis;) as if grace did
not, in terms of the passage lately quoted from Paul, produce the
very will itself. The intention of Augustine, in calling the human
will the handmaid of grace, was not to assign it a kind of second
place to grace in the performance of good works. His object merely
was to refute the pestilential dogma of Pelagius, who made human
merit the first cause of salvation. As was sufficient for his
purpose at the time, he contends that grace is prior to all merit,
while, in the meantime, he says nothing of the other question as to
the perpetual effect of grace, which, however, he handles admirably
in other places. For in saying, as he often does, that the Lord
prevents the unwilling in order to make him willing, and follows
after the willing that he may not will in vain, he makes Him the
sole author of good works. Indeed, his sentiments on this subject
are too clear to need any lengthened illustration. "Men," says he,
"labour to find in our will something that is our own, and not
God's; how they can find it, I wot not," (August. de Remiss.
Peccat., lib. 2 c. 18.) In his First Book against Pelagius and
Celestius, expounding the saying of Christ, "Every man therefore
that has heard, and has learned of the Father, cometh unto me,"
(John 6: 45,) he says, "The will is aided not only so as to know
what is to be done, but also to do what it knows." And thus, when
God teaches not by the letter of the Law, but by the grace of the
Spirit, he so teaches, that every one who has learned, not only
knowing, sees, but also willing, desires, and acting, performs.
    8. Since we are now occupied with the chief point on which the
controversy turns, let us give the reader the sum of the matter in a
few, and those most unambiguous, passages of Scripture; thereafter,
lest any one should charge us with distorting Scripture, let us show
that the truth, which we maintain to be derived from Scripture, is
not unsupported by the testimony of this holy man, (I mean
Augustine.) I deem it unnecessary to bring forward every separate
passage of Scripture in confirmation of my doctrine. A selection of
the most choice passages will pave the way for the understanding of
all those which lie scattered up and down in the sacred volume. On
the other hand, I thought it not out of place to show my accordance
with a man whose authority is justly of so much weight in the
Christian world. It is certainly easy to prove that the commencement
of good is only with God, and that none but the elect have a will
inclined to good. But the cause of election must be sought out of
man; and hence it follows that a right will is derived not from man
himself, but from the same good pleasure by which we were chosen
before the creation of the world. Another argument much akin to this
may be added. The beginning of right will and action being of faith,
we must see whence faith itself is. But since Scripture proclaims
throughout that it is the free gift of God, it follows, that when
men, who are with their whole soul naturally prone to evil, begin to
have a good will, it is owing to mere grace. Therefore, when the
Lord, in the conversion of his people, sets down these two things as
requisite to be done, viz., to take away the heart of stone, and
give a heart of flesh, he openly declares, that, in order to our
conversion to righteousness, what is ours must be taken away, and
that what is substituted in its place is of himself. Nor does he
declare this in one passage only. For he says in Jeremiah "I will
give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever;"
and a little after he says, "I will put my fear in their hearts,
that they shall not depart from me," (Jer. 32: 39, 40.) Again, in
Ezekiel, "I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit
within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and
will give them an heart of flesh," (Ezek. 11: 19.) He could not more
clearly claim to himself, and deny to us, everything good and right
in our will, than by declaring, that in our conversion there is the
creation of a new spirit and a new heart. It always follows, both
that nothing good can proceed from our will until it be formed
again, and that after it is formed again in so far as it is good, it
is of God, and not of us.
    9. With this view, likewise the prayers of the saints
correspond. Thus Solomon prays that the Lord may "incline our hearts
unto him, to walk in his ways, and keep his commandments" (1 Kings
8: 58;) intimating that our heart is perverse, and naturally
indulges in rebellion against the Divine law, until it be turned.
Again, it is said in the Psalms, "Incline my heart unto thy
testimonies," (Ps. 119: 36.) For we should always note the
antithesis between the rebellious movement of the heart, and the
correction by which it is subdued to obedience. David feeling for
the time that he was deprived of directing grace, prays, "Create in
me a clean heart, 0 God; and renew a right spirit within me," (Ps.
51: 10.) Is not this an acknowledgement that all the parts of the
heart are full of impurity, and that the soul has received a twist,
which has turned it from straight to crooked? And then, in
describing the cleansing, which he earnestly demands as a thing to
be created by God, does he not ascribe the work entirely to Him? If
it is objected, that the prayer itself is a symptom of a pious and
holy affection, it is easy to reply, that although David had already
in some measure repented, he was here contrasting the sad fall which
he had experienced with his former state. Therefore, speaking in the
person of a man alienated from God, he properly prays for the
blessings which God bestows upon his elect in regeneration.
Accordingly, like one dead, he desires to be created anew, so as to
become, instead of a slave of Satan, an instrument of the Holy
Spirit. Strange and monstrous are the longings of our pride. There
is nothing which the Lord enjoins more strictly than the religious
observance of his Sabbath, in other words resting from our works;
but in nothing do we show greater reluctance than to renounce our
own works, and give due place to the works of God. Did not arrogance
stand in the way, we could not overlook the clear testimony which
Christ has borne to the efficacy of his grace. "I," said he, "am the
true vine, and my Father is the husband man." "As the branch cannot
bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye,
except ye abide in me," (John 15: 1, 4.) If we can no more bear
fruit of ourselves than a vine can bud when rooted up and deprived
of moisture, there is no longer any room to ask what the aptitude of
our nature is for good. There is no ambiguity in the conclusion,
"For without me ye can do nothing." He says not that we are too weak
to suffice for ourselves; but, by reducing us to nothing, he
excludes the idea of our possessing any, even the least ability. If,
when engrafted into Christ, we bear fruit like the vine, which draws
its vegetative power from the moisture of the ground, and the dew of
heaven, and the fostering warmth of the sun, I see nothing in a good
work, which we can call our own, without trenching upon what is due
to God. It is vain to have recourse to the frivolous cavil, that the
sap and the power of producing are already contained in the vine,
and that, therefore, instead of deriving everything from the earth
or the original root, it contributes something of its own. Our
Saviour's words simply mean, that when separated from him, we are
nothing but dry, useless wood, because, when so separated, we have
no power to do good, as he elsewhere says, "Every plant which my
heavenly Father has not planted, shall be rooted up," (Matth. 15:
13.) Accordingly, in the passage already quoted from the Apostle
Paul, he attributes the whole operation to God, "It is God which
worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure,"
(Philip. 2: 13.) The first part of a good work is the will, the
second is vigorous effort in the doing of it. God is the author of
both. It is, therefore, robbery from God to arrogate anything to
ourselves, either in the will or the act. Were it said that God
gives assistance to a weak will, something might be left us; but
when it is said that he makes the will, every thing good in it is
placed without us. Moreover, since even a good will is still weighed
down by the burden of the flesh, and prevented from rising, it is
added, that, to meet the difficulties of the contest, God supplies
the persevering effort until the effect is obtained. Indeed, the
Apostle could not otherwise have said, as he elsewhere does, that
"it is the same God which worketh all in all," (1 Cor. 12: 6;) words
comprehending, as we have already observed, (sec. 6,) the whole
course of the spiritual life. For which reason, David, after
praying, "Teach me thy way, O Lord, I will walk in thy truths" adds,
"unite my heart to fear thy name," (Ps. 86: 11;) by these words
intimating, that even those who are well-affected are liable to so
many distractions that they easily become vain, and fall away, if
not strengthened to persevere. And hence, in another passage, after
praying, "Order my steps in thy word," he requests that strength
also may be given him to carry on the war, "Let not any iniquity
have dominion over me," (Ps. 119: 133.) In this way, the Lord both
begins and perfects the good work in us, so that it is due to Him,
first, that the will conceives a love of rectitude, is inclined to
desire, is moved and stimulated to pursue it; secondly, that this
choice, desire, and endeavour fail not, but are carried forward to
effect; and, lastly, that we go on without interruption, and
persevere even to the end.
    10. This movement of the will is not of that description which
was for many ages taught and believed, viz., a movement which
thereafter leaves us the choice to obey or resist it, but one which
affects us efficaciously. We must, therefore, repudiate the
oft-repeated sentiment of Chrysostom, "Whom he draws, he draws
willingly;" insinuating that the Lord only stretches out his hand,
and waits to see whether we will be pleased to take his aid. We
grant that, as man was originally constituted, he could incline to
either side, but since he has taught us by his example how miserable
a thing free will is if God works not in us to will and to do, of
what use to us were grace imparted in such scanty measure? Nay, by
our own ingratitude, we obscure and impair divine grace. The
Apostle's doctrine is not, that the grace of a good will is offered
to us if we will accept of it, but that God himself is pleased so to
work in us as to guide, turn, and govern our heart by his Spirit,
and reign in it as his own possession. Ezekiel promises that a new
spirit will be given to the elect, not merely that they may be able
to walk in his precepts, but that they may really walk in them,
(Ezek. 11: 19; 36: 27.) And the only meaning which can be given to
our Saviour's words, "Every man, therefore, that has heard and
learned of the Father, cometh unto me," (John 6: 45,) is, that the
grace of God is effectual in itself. This Augustine maintains in his
book De Praedestinatione Sancta. This grace is not bestowed on all
promiscuously, according to the common brocard, (of Occam, if I
mistake not,) that it is not denied to any one who does what in him
lies. Men are indeed to be taught that the favour of God is offered,
without exception, to all who ask it; but since those only begin to
ask whom heaven by grace inspires, even this minute portion of
praise must not be withheld from him. It is the privilege of the
elect to be regenerated by the Spirit of God, and then placed under
his guidance and government. Wherefore Augustine justly derides some
who arrogate to themselves a certain power of willing, as well as
censures others who imagine that that which is a special evidence of
gratuitous election is given to all, (August. de Verbis Apost. Serm.
21.) He says, "Nature is common to all, but not grace;" and he calls
it a showy acuteness "which shines by mere vanity, when that which
God bestows, on whom he will is attributed generally to all."
Elsewhere he says, "How came you? By believing. Fear, lest by
arrogating to yourself the merit of finding the right way, you
perish from the right way. I came, you say, by free choice, came by
my own will. Why do you boast? Would you know that even this was
given you? Hear Christ exclaiming, 'No man comets unto me, except
the Father which has sent me draw him.'" And from the words of John,
(6: 44,) he infers it to be an incontrovertible fact, that the
hearts of believers are so effectually governed from above, that
they follow with undeviating affection. "Whosoever is born of God
does not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him" (I John 3: 9.)
That intermediate movement which the sophists imagine, a movement
which every one is free to obey or to reject, is obviously excluded
by the doctrine of effectual perseverance.
    11. As to perseverance, it would undoubtedly have been regarded
as the gratuitous gift of God, had not the very pernicious error
prevailed, that it is bestowed in proportion to human merit,
according to the reception which each individual gives to the first
grace. This having given rise to the idea that it was entirely in
our own power to receive or reject the offered grace of God, that
idea is no sooner exploded than the error founded on it must fall.
The error, indeed, is twofold. For, besides teaching that our
gratitude for the first grace and our legitimate use of it is
rewarded by subsequent supplies of grace, its abettors add that,
after this, grace does not operate alone, but only co-operates with
ourselves. As to the former, we must hold that the Lord, while he
daily enriches his servants, and loads them with new gifts of his
grace, because he approves of and takes pleasure in the work which
he has begun, finds that in them which he may follow up with larger
measures of grace. To this effect are the sentences, "To him that
has shall be given." "Well done, good and faithful servant: thou
hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over
many things," (Matth. 25: 21, 23, 29; Luke 19: 17, 26.) But here two
precautions are necessary. It must not be said that the legitimate
use of the first grace is rewarded by subsequent measures of grace,
as if man rendered the grace of God effectual by his own industry,
nor must it be thought that there is any such remuneration as to
make it cease to be the gratuitous grace of God. I admit, then, that
believers may expect as a blessing from God, that the better the use
they make of previous, the larger the supplies they will receive of
future grace; but I say that even this use is of the Lord, and that
this remuneration is bestowed freely of mere good will. The trite
distinction of operating and co-operating grace is employed no less
sinistrously than unhappily. Augustine, indeed, used it, but
softened it by a suitable definition, viz., that God, by
co-operating, perfects what he begins by operating, - that both
graces are the same, but obtain different names from the different
manner in which they produce their effects. Whence it follows, that
he does not make an apportionment between God and man, as if a
proper movement on the part of each produced a mutual concurrence.
All he does is to mark a multiplication of grace. To this effect,
accordingly, he elsewhere says, that in man good will precedes many
gifts from God; but among these gifts is this good will itself.
(August. Enchiridion ad Laurent. cap. 32.) Whence it follows, that
nothing is left for the will to arrogate as its own. This Paul has
expressly stated. For, after saying, "It is God which worketh in you
both to will and to do," he immediately adds, "of his good
pleasure," (Philip. 2: 13;) indicating by this expression, that the
blessing is gratuitous. As to the common saying, that after we have
given admission to the first grace, our efforts co-operate with
subsequent grace, this is my answer: - If it is meant that after we
are once subdued by the power of the Lord to the obedience of
righteousness, we proceed voluntarily, and are inclined to follow
the movement of grace, I have nothing to object. For it is most
certain, that where the grace of God reigns, there is also this
readiness to obey. And whence this readiness, but just that the
Spirit of God being everywhere consistent with himself, after first
begetting a principle of obedience, cherishes and strengthens it for
perseverance? If, again, it is meant that man is able of himself to
be a fellow-labourer with the grace of God, I hold it to be a most
pestilential delusion.
    12. In support of this view, some make an ignorant and false
application of the Apostle's words: "I laboured more abundantly than
they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me," (1
Cor. 15: 10.) The meaning they give them is, that as Paul might have
seemed to speak somewhat presumptuously in preferring himself to all
the other apostles, he corrects the expression so far by referring
the praise to the grace of God, but he, at the same time, calls
himself a co-operator with grace. It is strange that this should
have proved a stumbling-block to so many writers, otherwise
respectable. The Apostle says not that the grace of God laboured
with him so as to make him a co-partner in the labour. He rather
transfers the whole merit of the labour to grace alone, by thus
modifying his first expression, "It was not I," says he, "that
laboured, but the grace of God that was present with me." Those who
have adopted the erroneous interpretation have been misled by an
ambiguity in the expression, or rather by a preposterous
translation, in which the force of the Greek article is overlooked.
For to take the words literally, the Apostle does not say that grace
was a fellow-worker with him, but that the grace which was with him
was sole worker. And this is taught not obscurely, though briefly,
by Augustine when he says, "Good will in man precedes many gifts
from God, but not all gifts, seeing that the will which precedes is
itself among the number." He adds the reason, "for it is written,
'the God of my mercy shall prevent me,' (Ps. 59: 10,) and 'Surely
goodness and mercy shall follow me,' (Ps. 23: 6;) it prevents him
that is unwilling, and makes him willing; it follows him that is
willing, that he may not will in vain." To this Bernard assents,
introducing the Church as praying thus, "Draw me, who am in some
measure unwilling, and make me willing; draw me, who am sluggishly
lagging, and make me run," (Serm. 2 in Cantic.)
    13. Let us now hear Augustine in his own words, lest the
Pelagians of our age, I mean the sophists of the Sorbonne, charge us
after their wont with being opposed to all antiquity. In this indeed
they imitate their father Pelagius, by whom of old a similar charge
was brought against Augustine. In the second chapter of his Treatise
De Correptione et Gratis, addressed to Valentinus, Augustine
explains at length what I will state briefly, but in his own words,
that to Adam was given the grace of persevering in goodness if he
had the will; to us it is given to will, and by will overcome
concupiscence: that Adam, therefore, had the power if he had the
will, but did not will to have the power, whereas to us is given
both the will and the power; that the original freedom of man was to
be able not to sin, but that we have a much greater freedom, viz.,
not to be able to sin. And lest it should be supposed, as Lombard
erroneously does, (lib. 2 Dist. 25,) that he is speaking of the
perfection of the future state, he shortly after removes all doubt
when he says, "For so much is the will of the saints inflamed by the
Holy Spirit, that they are able, because they are willing; and
willing, because God worketh in them so to will." For if, in such
weakness, (in which, however, to suppress pride, "strength" must be
made "perfect,") their own will is left to them, in such sense that,
by the help of God, they are able, if they will, while at the same
time God does not work in them so as to make them will; among so
many temptations and infirmities the will itself would give way,
and, consequently, they would not be able to persevere. Therefore,
to meet the infirmity of the human will, and prevent it from
failing, how weak soever it might be, divine grace was made to act
on it inseparably and uninterruptedly. Augustine (ibid. cap. 14.)
next entering fully into the question, how our hearts follow the
movement when God affects them, necessarily says, indeed, that the
Lord draws men by their own wills; wills, however, which he himself
has produced. We have now an attestation by Augustine to the truth
which we are specially desirous to maintain, viz., that the grace
offered by the Lord is not merely one which every individual has
full liberty of choosing to receive or reject, but a grace which
produces in the heart both choice and will: so that all the good
works which follow after are its fruit and effect; the only will
which yields obedience being the will which grace itself has made.
In another place, Augustine uses these words, "Every good work in us
is performed only by grace," (August. Ep. 105.)
    14. In saying elsewhere that the will is not taken away by
grace, but out of bad is changed into good, and after it is good is
assisted, - he only means, that man is not drawn as if by an
extraneous impulses without the movement of the heart, but is
inwardly affected so as to obey from the heart. Declaring that grace
is given specially and gratuitously to the elect, he writes in this
way to Boniface: "We know that Divine grace is not given to all men,
and that to those to whom it is given, it is not given either
according to the merit of works, or according to the merit of the
will, but by free grace: in regard to those to whom it is not given,
we know that the not giving of it is a just judgement from God,"
(August. ad Bonifac. Ep. 106.) In the same epistle, he argues
strongly against the opinion of those who hold that subsequent grace
is given to human merit as a reward for not rejecting the first
grace. For he presses Pelagius to confess that gratuitous grace is
necessary to us for every action, and that merely from the fact of
its being truly grace, it cannot be the recompense of works. But the
matter cannot be more briefly summed up than in the eighth chapter
of his Treatise De Correptione et Gratia, where he shows, First,
that human will does not by liberty obtain grace, but by grace
obtains liberty. Secondly, that by means of the same grace, the
heart being impressed with a feeling of delight, is trained to
persevere, and strengthened with invincible fortitude. Thirdly, that
while grace governs the will, it never falls; but when grace
abandons it, it falls forthwith. Fourthly, that by the free mercy of
God, the will is turned to good, and when turned, perseveres.
Fifthly, that the direction of the will to good, and its constancy
after being so directed, depend entirely on the will of God, and not
on any human merit. Thus the will, (free will, if you choose to call
it so,) which is left to man, is, as he in another place (Ep. 46)
describes it, a will which can neither be turned to God, nor
continue in God, unless by grace; a will which, whatever its ability
may be, derives all that ability from grace.









Chapter 4


4. How God works in the hearts of men.

    The leading points discussed in this chapter are, I. Whether in
bad actions anything is to be attributed to God; if anything, how
much. Also, what is to be attributed to the devil and to man, sec.
1-5. II. In indifferent matters, how much is to be attributed to
God, and how much is left to man, sec. 6. III. Two objections
refuted, sec. 7, 8.

Sections,

1. Connection of this chapter with the preceding. Augustine's
    similitude of a good and bad rider. Question answered in
    respect to the devil.
2. Question answered in respect to God and man. Example from the
    history of Job. The works of God distinguished from the works
    of Satan and wicked men. 1 By the design or end of acting. How
    Satan acts in the reprobate. 2. How God acts in them.
3. Old Objection, that the agency of God in such cases is referable
    to prescience or permission, not actual operation. Answer,
    showing that God blinds and hardens the reprobate, and this in
    two ways; 1. By deserting them; 2. By delivering them over to
    Satan.
4. Striking passages of Scripture, proving that God acts in both
    ways, and disposing of the objection with regard to prescience.
    Confirmation from Augustine.
5. A modification of the former answer, proving that God employs
    Satan to instigate the reprobate, but, at the same time, is
    free from all taint.
6. How God works in the hearts of men in indifferent matters. Our
    will in such matters not so free as to be exempt from the
    overruling providence of God. This confirmed by various
    examples.
7. Objection, that these examples do not form the rule. An answer,
    fortified by the testimony of universal experience, by
    Scripture, and a passage of Augustine.
8. Some, in arguing against the error of free will, draw an argument
    from the event. How this is to be understood.

    1. That man is so enslaved by the yoke of sin, that he cannot
of his own nature aim at good either in wish or actual pursuit, has,
I think, been sufficiently proved. Moreover, a distinction has been
drawn between compulsion and necessity, making it clear that man,
though he sins necessarily, nevertheless sins voluntarily. But
since, from his being brought into bondage to the devil, it would
seem that he is actuated more by the devil's will than his own, it
is necessary, first, to explain what the agency of each is, and then
solve the question. Whether in bad actions anything is to be
attributed to God, Scripture intimating that there is some way in
which he interferes? Augustine (in Psalm 31 and 33) compares the
human will to a horse preparing to start, and God and the devil to
riders. "If God mounts, he, like a temperate and skilful rider,
guides it calmly, urges it when too slow, reins it in when too fast,
curbs its forwardness and over-action, checks its bad temper, and
keeps it on the proper course; but if the devil has seized the
saddle, like an ignorant and rash rider, he hurries it over broken
ground, drives it into ditches, dashes it over precipices, spurs it
into obstinacy or fury." With this simile, since a better does not
occur, we shall for the present be contented. When it is said, then,
that the will of the natural man is subject to the power of the
devil, and is actuated by him, the meaning is not that the wills
while reluctant and resisting, is forced to submit, (as masters
oblige unwilling slaves to execute their orders,) but that,
fascinated by the impostures of Satan, it necessarily yields to his
guidance, and does him homage. Those whom the Lord favours not with
the direction of his Spirit, he, by a righteous judgement, consigns
to the agency of Satan. Wherefore, the Apostle says, that "the god
of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest
the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God,
should shine into them." And, in another passage, he describes the
devil as "the spirit that now worketh in the children of
disobedience," (Eph. 2: 2.) The blinding of the wicked, and all the
iniquities consequent upon it, are called the works of Satan; works
the cause of which is not to be Sought in anything external to the
will of man, in which the root of the evil lies, and in which the
foundation of Satan's kingdom, in other words, sin, is fixed.
    2. The nature of the divine agency in such cases is very
different. For the purpose of illustration, let us refer to the
calamities brought upon holy Job by the Chaldeans. They having slain
his shepherds, carry off his flocks. The wickedness of their deed is
manifest, as is also the hand of Satan, who, as the history informs
us, was the instigator of the whole. Job, however, recognises it as
the work of God, saying, that what the Chaldeans had plundered, "the
Lord" had "taken away." How can we attribute the same work to God,
to Satan, and to man, without either excusing Satan by the
interference of God, or making God the author of the crime? This is
easily done, if we look first to the end, and then to the mode of
acting. The Lord designs to exercise the patience of his servant by
adversity; Satan's plan is to drive him to despair; while the
Chaldeans are bent on making unlawful gain by plunder. Such
diversity of purpose makes a wide distinction in the act. In the
mode there is not less difference. The Lord permits Satan to afflict
his servant; and the Chaldeans, who had been chosen as the ministers
to execute the deed, he hands over to the impulses of Satan, who,
pricking on the already depraved Chaldeans with his poisoned darts,
instigates them to commit the crime. They rush furiously on to the
unrighteous deed, and become its guilty perpetrators. Here Satan is
properly said to act in the reprobate, over whom he exercises his
sway, which is that of wickedness. God also is said to act in his
own way; because even Satan when he is the instrument of divine
wrath, is completely under the command of God, who turns him as he
will in the execution of his just judgements. I say nothing here of
the universal agency of God, which, as it sustains all the
creatures, also gives them all their power of acting. I am now
speaking only of that special agency which is apparent in every act.
We thus see that there is no inconsistency in attributing the same
act to God, to Satan, and to man, while, from the difference in the
end and mode of action, the spotless righteousness of God shines
forth at the same time that the iniquity of Satan and of man is
manifested in all its deformity.
    3. Ancient writers sometimes manifest a superstitious dread of
making a simple confession of the truth in this matter, from a fear
of furnishing impiety with a handle for speaking irreverently of the
works of God. While I embrace such soberness with all my heart, I
cannot see the least danger in simply holding what Scripture
delivers. when Augustine was not always free from this superstition,
as when he says, that blinding and hardening have respect not to the
operation of God, but to prescience, (Lib. de Predestina. et
Gratia.) But this subtilty is repudiated by many passages of
Scriptures which clearly show that the divine interference amounts
to something more than prescience. And Augustine himself, in his
book against Julian, contends at length that sins are manifestations
not merely of divine permission or patience, but also of divine
power, that thus former sins may be punished. In like manner, what
is said of permission is too weak to stand. God is very often said
to blind and harden the reprobate, to turn their hearts, to incline
and impel them, as I have elsewhere fully explained, (Book 1 c. 18)
The extent of this agency can never be explained by having recourse
to prescience or permission. We, therefore, hold that there are two
methods in which God may so act. When his light is taken away,
nothing remains but blindness and darkness: when his Spirit is taken
away, our hearts become hard as stones: when his guidance is
withdrawn, we immediately turn from the right path: and hence he is
properly said to incline, harden, and blind those whom he deprives
of the faculty of seeing, obeying, and rightly executing. The second
method, which comes much nearer to the exact meaning of the words,
is when executing his judgements by Satan as the minister of his
anger, God both directs men's counsels, and excites their wills, and
regulates their efforts as he pleases. Thus when Moses relates that
Simon, king of the Amorites, did not give the Israelites a passage,
because the Lord "had hardened his spirit, and made his heart
obstinate," he immediately adds the purpose which God had in view,
viz., that he might deliver him into their hand, (Deut. 2: 30.) As
God had resolved to destroy him, the hardening of his heart was the
divine preparation for his ruin.
    4. In accordance with the former methods it seems to be said,
"The law shall perish from the priests and counsel from the
ancients." "He poureth contempt upon princes, and causeth them to
wander in the wilderness, where there is no way." Again "O Lord, why
hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our heart from
thy fear?" These passages rather indicate what men become when God
deserts them, than what the nature of his agency is when he works in
them. But there are other passages which go farther, such as those
concerning the hardening of Pharaoh: "I will harden his heart, that
he shall not let the people go." The same thing is afterwards
repeated in stronger terms. Did he harden his heart by not softening
it? This is, indeed, true; but he did something more: he gave it in
charge to Satan to confirm him in his obstinacy. Hence he had
previously said, "I am sure he will not let you go." The people come
out of Egypt, and the inhabitants of a hostile region come forth
against them. How were they instigated? Moses certainly declares of
Sihon, that it was the Lord who "had hardened his spirit, and made
his heart obstinate," (Deut. 2: 30.) The Psalmists relating the same
history says, "He turned their hearts to hate his people," (Psalm
105: 25.) You cannot now say that they stumbled merely because they
were deprived of divine counsel. For if they are hardened and
turned, they are purposely bent to the very end in view. Moreover,
whenever God saw it meet to punish the people for their
transgression, in what way did he accomplish his purpose by the
reprobate? In such a way as shows that the efficacy of the action
was in him, and that they were only ministers. At one time he
declares, "that he will lift an ensign to the nations from far, and
will hiss unto them from the end of the earth;" at another, that he
will take a net to ensnare them; and at another, that he will be
like a hammer to strike them. But he specially declared that he was
not inactive among theme when he called Sennacherib an axe, which
was formed and destined to be wielded by his own hand. Augustine is
not far from the mark when he states the matter thus, That men sin,
is attributable to themselves: that in sinning they produce this or
that result, is owing to the mighty power of God, who divides the
darkness as he pleases, (August. de Praedest. Sanct.)
    5. Moreover, that the ministry of Satan is employed to
instigate the reprobate, whenever the Lord, in the course of his
providence, has any purpose to accomplish in them, will sufficiently
appear from a single passage. It is repeatedly said in the First
Book of Samuel, that an evil spirit from the Lord came upon Saul,
and troubled him, (1 Sam. 16: 14; 18: 10; 19: 9.) It were impious to
apply this to the Holy Spirit. An impure spirit must therefore be
called a spirit from the Lord, because completely subservient to his
purpose, being more an instrument in acting than a proper agent. We
should also add what Paul says, "God shall send them strong
delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be
damned who believed not the truth," (2 Thess. 2: 11, 12.) But in the
same transaction there is always a wide difference between what the
Lord does, and what Satan and the ungodly design to do. The wicked
instruments which he has under his hand and can turn as he pleases,
he makes subservient to his own justice. They, as they are wicked,
give effect to the iniquity conceived in their wicked minds. Every
thing necessary to vindicate the majesty of God from calumny, and
cut off any subterfuge on the part of the ungodly, has already been
expounded in the Chapters on Providence, (Book 1 Chapter 16-18.)
Here I only meant to show, in a few words, how Satan reigns in the
reprobate, and how God works in both.
    6. In those actions, which in themselves are neither good nor
bad, and concern the corporeal rather than the spiritual life, the
liberty which man possesses, although we have above touched upon it,
(supra, Chap. 2 sect. 13-17,) has not yet been explained. Some have
conceded a free choice to man in such actions; more, I suppose,
because they were unwilling to debate a matter of no great moment,
than because they wished positively to assert what they were
prepared to concede. While I admit that those who hold that man has
no ability in himself to do righteousness, hold what is most
necessary to be known for salvation, I think it ought not to be
overlooked that we owe it to the special grace of God, whenever, on
the one hand, we choose what is for our advantage, and whenever our
will inclines in that direction; and on the other, whenever with
heart and soul we shun what would otherwise do us harm. And the
interference of Divine Providence goes to the extent not only of
making events turn out as was foreseen to be expedient, but of
giving the wills of men the same direction. If we look at the
administration of human affairs with the eye of sense, we will have
no doubt that, so far, they are placed at man's disposal; but if we
lend an ear to the many passages of Scripture which proclaim that
even in these matters the minds of men are ruled by God, they will
compel us to place human choice in subordination to his special
influence. Who gave the Israelites such favour in the eyes of the
Egyptians, that they lent them all their most valuable commodities?
(Exod. 11: 3.) They never would have been so inclined of their own
accord. Their inclinations, therefore, were more overruled by God
than regulated by themselves. And surely, had not Jacob been
persuaded that God inspires men with divers affections as seemeth to
him good, he would not have said of his son Joseph, (whom he thought
to be some heathen Egyptian,) "God Almighty give you mercy before
the man," (Gen. 43: 14.) In like manner, the whole Church confesses
that when the Lord was pleased to pity his people, he made them also
to be pitied of all them that carried them captives, (Ps. 106: 46.)
In like manner, when his anger was kindled against Saul, so that he
prepared himself for battle, the cause is stated to have been, that
a spirit from God fell upon him, (1 Sam. 11: 6.) who dissuaded
Absalom from adopting the counsel of Ahithophel, which was wont to
be regarded as an oracle? (2 Sam. 17: 14.) Who disposed Rehoboam to
adopt the counsel of the young men? (1 Kings 12: 10.) Who caused the
approach of the Israelites to strike terror into nations formerly
distinguished for valour? Even the harlot Rahab recognised the hand
of the Lord. Who, on the other hand, filled the hearts of the
Israelites with fear and dread, (Lev. 26: 36,) but He who threatened
in the Law that he would give them a nn "trembling heart"? (Deut.
28: 65.)
    7. It may be objected, that these are special examples which
cannot be regarded as a general rule. They are sufficient, at all
events, to prove the point for which I contend, viz., that whenever
God is pleased to make way for his providence, he even in external
matters so turns and bends the wills of men, that whatever the
freedom of their choice may be, it is still subject to the disposal
of God. That your mind depends more on the agency of God than the
freedom of your own choice, daily experience teaches. Your judgement
often fails, and in matters of no great difficulty, your courage
flags; at other times, in matters of the greatest obscurity, the
mode of explicating them at once suggests itself, while in matters
of moment and danger, your mind rises superior to every difficulty.
In this way, I interpret the words of Solomon, "The hearing ear, and
the seeing eye, the Lord hath made even both of them," (Prov. 20:
12.) For they seem to me to refer not to their creation, but to
peculiar grace in the use of them, when he says, "The king's heart
is in the hand of the Lard as the rivers of water; he turneth it
whithersoever he will," (Prov. 21: l,) he comprehends the whole race
under one particular class. If any will is free from subjection, it
must be that of one possessed of regal power, and in a manner
exercising dominion over other wills. But if it is under the hand of
God, ours surely cannot be exempt from it. On this subject there is
an admirable sentiment of Augustine, "Scripture, if it be carefully
examined, will show not only that the good wills of men are made
good by God out of evil, and when so made, are directed to good
acts, even to eternal life, but those which retain the elements of
the world are in the power of God, to turn them whither he pleases,
and when he pleases, either to perform acts of kindness, or by a
hidden, indeed, but, at the same time, most just judgement to
inflict punishment," (August. De Gratia et Lib. Arb. ad Valent. cap.
20.)
    8. Let the reader here remember, that the power of the human
will is not to be estimated by the event, as some unskilful persons
are absurdly wont to do. They think it an elegant and ingenious
proof of the bondage of the human will, that even the greatest
monarchs are sometimes thwarted in their wishes. But the ability of
which we speak must be considered as within the man, not measured by
outward success. In discussing the subject of free will, the
question is not, whether external obstacles will permit a man to
execute what he has internally resolved, but whether, in any matter
whatever, he has a free power of judging and of willing. If men
possess both of these, Attilius Regulus, shut up in a barrel studded
with sharp nails, will have a will no less free than Augustus Caesar
ruling with imperial sway over a large portion of the globe.
    





Chapter 5.


5. The arguments usually alleged in support of free will refuted.

    Objections reduced to three principal heads:-I. Four
absurdities advanced by the opponents of the orthodox doctrine
concerning the slavery of the will, stated and refuted, sec. 1-5.
II. The passages of Scripture which they pervert in favour of their
error, reduced to five heads, and explained, sec. 6-15. III. Five
other passages quoted in defence of free will expounded, sec. 16-19.

Sections.

1. Absurd fictions of opponents first refuted, and then certain
    passages of Scripture explained. Answer by a negative.
    Confirmation of the answer.
2. Another absurdity of Aristotle and Pelagius. Answer by a
    distinction. Answer fortified by passages from Augustine, and
    supported by the authority of an Apostle.
3. Third absurdity borrowed from the words of Chrysostom. Answer by
    a negative.
4. Fourth absurdity urged of old by the Pelagians. Answer from the
    works of Augustine. Illustrated by the testimony of our
    Saviour. Another answer, which explains the use of
    exhortations.
5. A third answer, which contains a fuller explanation of the
    second. Objection to the previous answers. Objection refuted.
    Summary of the previous answers.
6. First class of arguments which the Neo-Pelagians draw from
    Scripture in defence of free will. 1. The Law demands perfect
    obedience and therefore God either mocks us, or requires things
    which are not in our power. Answer by distinguishing precepts
    into three sorts. The first of these considered in this and the
    following section.
7. This general argument from the Law of no avail to the patrons of
    free will. Promises conjoined with precepts, prove that our sal
    vation is to be found in the grace of God. Objection, that the
    Law was given to the persons living at the time. Answer,
    confirmed by passages from Augustine.
8. A special consideration of the three classes of precepts of no
    avail to the defenders of free will. 1. Precepts enjoining us
    to turn to God. 2. Precepts which simply speak of the
    observance of the Law. 3. Precepts which enjoin us to persevere
    in the grace of God.
9. Objection. Answer. Confirmation of the answer from Jeremiah.
    Another objection refuted.
10. A second class of arguments in defence of free will drawn from
    the promises of God, viz., that the promises which God makes to
    those who seek him are vain if it is not in our power to do, or
    not do, the thing required. Answer, which explains the use of
    promises, and removes the supposed inconsistency.
11. Third class of arguments drawn from the divine upbraidings, -
    that it is in vain to upbraid us for evils which it is not in
    our power to avoid. Answer. Sinners are condemned by their own
    consciences, and, therefore, the divine upbraidings are just.
    Moreover, there is a twofold use in these upbraidings. Various
    passages of Scripture explained by means of the foregoing
    answers.
12. Objection founded on the words of Moses. Refutation by the words
    of an Apostle. Confirmation by argument.
13. Fourth class of arguments by the defenders of free will. God
    waits to see whether or not sinners will repent; therefore they
    can repent. Answer by a dilemma. Passage in Hosea explained.
14. Fifth class of arguments in defence of free will. God and bad
    works described as our own, and therefore we are capable of
    both. Answer by an exposition, which shows that this argument
    is unavailing. Objection drawn from analogy. Answer. The nature
    and mode of divine agency in the elect.
15. Conclusion of the answer to the last class of arguments.
16. Third and last division of the chapter discussing certain
    passages of Scripture. 1. A passage from Genesis. Its true
    meaning explained.
17. 2. Passage from the Epistle to the Romans. Explanation.
    Refutation of an objection. Another refutation. A third
    refutation from Augustine. 3. A passage from First Corinthians.
    Answer to it.
18. 4. A passage from Ecclesiastes. Explanation. Another
    explanation.
19. 5. A passage from Luke. Explanation. Allegorical arguments weak.
    Another explanation. A third explanation. A fourth from
    Augustine. Conclusion and summary of the whole discussion
    concerning free will.

    1. Enough would seem to have been said on the subject of man's
will, were there not some who endeavour to urge him to his ruin by a
false opinion of liberty, and at the same time, in order to support
their own opinion, assail ours. First, they gather together some
absurd inferences, by which they endeavour to bring odium upon our
doctrine, as if it were abhorrent to common sense, and then they
oppose it with certain passages of Scripture, (infra, sec. 6.) Both
devices we shall dispose of in their order. If sin, say they, is
necessary, it ceases to be sin; if it is voluntary, it may be
avoided. Such, too, were the weapons with which Pelagius assailed
Augustine. But we are unwilling to crush them by the weight of his
name, until we have satisfactorily disposed of the objections
themselves. I deny, therefore, that sin ought to be the less imputed
because it is necessary; and, on the other hand, I deny the
inference, that sin may be avoided because it is voluntary. If any
one will dispute with God, and endeavour to evade his judgement, by
pretending that he could not have done otherwise, the answer already
given is sufficient, that it is owing not to creation, but the
corruption of nature, that man has become the slave of sin, and can
will nothing but evil. For whence that impotence of which the wicked
so readily avail themselves as an excuse, but just because Adam
voluntarily subjected himself to the tyranny of the devil? Hence the
corruption by which we are held bound as with chains, originated in
the first man's revolt from his Maker. If all men are justly held
guilty of this revolt, let them not think themselves excused by a
necessity in which they see the clearest cause of their
condemnation. But this I have fully explained above; and in the case
of the devil himself, have given an example of one who sins not less
voluntarily that he sins necessarily. I have also shown, in the case
of the elect angels, that though their will cannot decline from
good, it does not therefore cease to be will. This Bernard shrewdly
explains when he says, (Serm. 81, in Cantica,) that we are the more
miserable in this, that the necessity is voluntary; and yet this
necessity so binds us who are subject to it, that we are the slaves
of sin, as we have already observed. The second step in the
reasoning is vicious, because it leaps from voluntary to free;
whereas we have proved above, that a thing may be done voluntarily,
though not subject to free choice.
    2. They add, that unless virtue and vice proceed from free
choice, it is absurd either to punish man or reward him. Although
this argument is taken from Aristotle, I admit that it is also used
by Chrysostom and Jerome. Jerome, however, does not disguise that it
was familiar to the Pelagians. He even quotes their words, "If grace
acts in us, grace, and not we who do the work, will be crowned,"
(Heron. in Ep. ad Ctesiphont. et Dialog. 1) With regard to
punishment, I answer, that it is properly inflicted on those by whom
the guilt is contracted. What matters it whether you sin with a free
or an enslaved judgement, so long as you sin voluntarily, especially
when man is proved to be a sinner because he is under the bondage of
sin? In regard to the rewards of righteousness, is there any great
absurdity in acknowledging that they depend on the kindness of God
rather than our own merits? How often do we meet in Augustine with
this expression, - "God crowns not our merits but his own gifts; and
the name of reward is given not to what is due to our merits, but to
the recompense of grace previously bestowed?" Some seem to think
there is acuteness in the remark, that there is no place at all for
the mind, if good works do not spring from free will as their proper
source; but in thinking this so very unreasonable they are widely
mistaken. Augustine does not hesitate uniformly to describe as
necessary the very thing which they count it impious to acknowledge.
Thus he asks, "What is human merit? He who came to bestow not due
recompense but free grace, though himself free from sin, and the
giver of freedom, found all men sinners," (Augustin. in Psal. 31.)
Again, "If you are to receive your due, you must be punished. What
then is done? God has not rendered you due punishment, but bestows
upon you unmerited grace. If you wish to be an alien from grace,
boast your merits," (in Psal. 70.) Again, "You are nothing in
yourself, sin is yours, merit God's. Punishment is your due; and
when the reward shall come, God shall crown his own gifts, not your
merits," (Ep. 52.) To the same effect he elsewhere says, (De Verb.
Apostol. Serm. 15,) that grace is not of merit, but merit of grace.
And shortly after he concludes, that God by his gifts anticipates
all our merit, that he may thereby manifest his own merit, and give
what is absolutely free, because he sees nothing in us that can be a
ground of salvation. But why extend the list of quotations, when
similar sentiments are ever and anon recurring in his works? The
abettors of this error would see a still better refutation of it, if
they would attend to the source from which the apostle derives the
glory of the saints, - "Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he
also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he
justified, them he also glorified," (Rom. 8: 30.) On what ground,
then, the apostle being judge, (2 Tim. 4: 8,) are believers crowned?
Because by the mercy of God, not their own exertions, they are
predestinated, called, and justified. Away, then, with the vain
fear, that unless free will stand, there will no longer be any
merit! It is most foolish to take alarm, and recoil from that which
Scripture inculcates. "If thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory
as if thou hadst not received it?" (1 Cor. 4: 7.) You see how every
thing is denied to free will, for the very purpose of leaving no
room for merit. And yet, as the beneficence and liberality of God
are manifold and inexhaustible, the grace which he bestows upon us,
inasmuch as he makes it our own, he recompenses as if the virtuous
acts were our own.
    3. But it is added, in terms which seem to be borrowed from
Chrysostom, (Homil. 22, in Genes.,) that if our will possesses not
the power of choosing good or evil, all who are partakers of the
same nature must be alike good or alike bad. A sentiment akin to
this occurs in the work De Vocatione Gentium, (lib. 4 c. 4,) usually
attributed to Ambrose, in which it is argued, that no one would ever
decline from faith, did not the grace of God leave us in a mutable
state. It is strange that such men should have so blundered. How did
it fail to occur to Chrysostom, that it is divine election which
distinguishes among men? We have not the least hesitation to admit
what Paul strenuously maintains, that all, without exception, are
depraved and given over to wickedness; but at the same time we add,
that through the mercy of God all do not continue in wickedness.
Therefore, while we all labour naturally under the same disease,
those only recover health to whom the Lord is pleased to put forth
his healing hand. The others whom, in just judgement, he passes
over, pine and rot away till they are consumed. And this is the only
reason why some persevere to the end, and others, after beginning
their course, fall away. Perseverance is the gift of God, which he
does not lavish promiscuously on all, but imparts to whom he
pleases. If it is asked how the difference arises - why some
steadily persevere, and others prove deficient in steadfastness, we
can give no other reason than that the Lord, by his mighty power,
strengthens and sustains the former, so that they perish not, while
he does not furnish the same assistance to the latter, but leaves
them to be monuments of instability.
    4. Still it is insisted, that exhortations are vain, warnings
superfluous, and rebukes absurd, if the sinner possesses not the
power to obey. When similar objections were urged against Augustine,
he was obliged to write his book, De Correptione et Gratia, where he
has fully disposed of them. The substance of his answer to his
opponents is this: "O, man! learn from the precept what you ought to
do; learn from correction, that it is your own fault you have not
the power; and learn in prayer, whence it is that you may receive
the power." Very similar is the argument of his book, De Spiritu et
Litera, in which he shows that God does not measure the precepts of
his law by human strength, but, after ordering what is right, freely
bestows on his elect the power of fulfilling it. The subject,
indeed, does not require a long discussion. For we are not singular
in our doctrine, but have Christ and all his apostles with us. Let
our opponents, then, consider how they are to come off victorious in
a contest which they wage with such antagonists. Christ declares,
"without me ye can do nothing," (John 20: 5.) Does he the less
censure and chastise those who, without him, did wickedly? Does he
the less exhort every man to be intent on good works? How severely
does Paul inveigh against the Corinthians for want of charity, (1
Cor. 3: 3;) and yet at the same time, he prays that charity may be
given them by the Lord. In the Epistle to the Romans, he declares
that "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of
God that showeth mercy," (Rom. 9: 16.) Still he ceases not to warn,
exhort, and rebuke them. Why then do they not expostulate with God
for making sport with men, by demanding of them things which he
alone can give, and chastising them for faults committed through
want of his grace? Why do they not admonish Paul to spare those who
have it not in their power to will or to run, unless the mercy of
God, which has forsaken them, precede? As if the doctrine were not
founded on the strongest reason - reason which no serious inquirer
can fail to perceive. The extent to which doctrine, and exhortation,
and rebuke, are in themselves able to change the mind, is indicated
by Paul when he says, "Neither is he that planteth any thing,
neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase," (1 Cor
3: 7 ) in like manner, we see that Moses delivers the precepts of
the Law under a heavy sanction, and that the prophets strongly urge
and threaten transgressors though they at the same time confess,
that men are wise only when an understanding heart is given them;
that it is the proper work of God to circumcise the heart, and to
change it from stone into flesh; to write his law on their inward
parts; in short, to renew souls so as to give efficacy to doctrine
    5. What purpose, then, is served by exhortations? It is this:
As the wicked, with obstinate heart, despise them, they will be a
testimony against them when they stand at the judgement-seat of God;
nay, they even now strike and lash their consciences. For, however
they may petulantly deride, they cannot disapprove them. But what,
you will ask, can a miserable mortal do, when softness of heart,
which is necessary to obedience, is denied him? I ask, in reply, Why
have recourse to evasion, since hardness of heart cannot be imputed
to any but the sinner himself? The ungodly, though they would gladly
evade the divine admonitions, are forced, whether they will or not,
to feel their power. But their chief use is to be seen in the case
of believers, in whom the Lord, while he always acts by his Spirit,
also omits not the instrumentality of his word, but employs it, and
not without effect. Let this, then, be a standing truth, that the
whole strength of the godly consists in the grace of God, according
to the words of the prophet, "I will give them one heart, and I will
put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of
their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh, that they may
walk in my statutes," (Ezek. 11: 19, 20.) But it will be asked, why
are they now admonished of their duty, and not rather left to the
guidance of the Spirit? Why are they urged with exhortations when
they cannot hasten any faster than the Spirit impels them? and why
are they chastised, if at any time they go astray, seeing that this
is caused by the necessary infirmity of the flesh? "O, man! who art
thou that replies against God?" If, in order to prepare us for the
grace which enables us to obey exhortation, God sees meet to employ
exhortation, what is there in such an arrangement for you to carp
and scoff at? Had exhortations and reprimands no other profit with
the godly than to convince them of sin, they could not be deemed
altogether useless. Now, when, by the Spirit of God acting within,
they have the effect of inflaming their desire of good, of arousing
them from lethargy, of destroying the pleasure and honeyed sweetness
of sin, making it hateful and loathsome, who will presume to cavil
at them as superfluous?
    Should any one wish a clearer reply, let him take the
following: - God works in his elect in two ways: inwardly, by his
Spirit; outwardly, by his Word. By his Spirit illuminating their
minds, and training their hearts to the practice of righteousness,
he makes them new creatures, while, by his Word, he stimulates them
to long and seek for this renovation. In both, he exerts the might
of his hand in proportion to the measure in which he dispenses them.
The Word, when addressed to the reprobate, though not effectual for
their amendment, has another use. It urges their consciences now,
and will render them more inexcusable on the day of judgement. Thus,
our Saviour, while declaring that none can come to him but those
whom the Father draws, and that the elect come after they have heard
and learned of the Father, (John 6: 44, 45,) does not lay aside the
office of teacher, but carefully invites those who must be taught
inwardly by the Spirit before they can make any profit. The
reprobate, again, are admonished by Paul, that the doctrine is not
in vain; because, while it is in them a savour of death unto death,
it is still a sweet savour unto God, (2 Cor. 2: 16.)
    6. The enemies of this doctrine are at great pains in
collecting passages of Scripture, as if, unable to accomplish any
thing by their weight, they were to overwhelm us by their number.
But as in battle, when it is come to close quarters, an unwarlike
multitude, how great soever the pomp and show they make, give way
after a few blows, and take to flight, so we shall have little
difficulty here in disposing of our opponents and their host. All
the passages which they pervert in opposing us are very similar in
their import; and hence, when they are arranged under their proper
heads, one answer will suffice for several; it is not necessary to
give a separate consideration to each. Precepts seem to be regarded
as their stronghold. These they think so accommodated to our
abilities, as to make it follow as a matter of course, that whatever
they enjoin we are able to perform. Accordingly, they run over all
the precepts, and by them fix the measure of our power. For, say
they, when God enjoins meekness, submission, love, chastity, piety,
and holiness, and when he forbids anger, pride, theft, uncleanness,
idolatry, and the like, he either mocks us, or only requires things
which are in our power.
    All the precepts which they thus heap together may be divided
into three classes. Some enjoin a first conversion unto God, others
speak simply of the observance of the law, and others inculcate
perseverance in the grace which has been received. We shall first
treat of precepts in general, and then proceed to consider each
separate class. That the abilities of man are equal to the precepts
of the divine law, has long been a common idea, and has some show of
plausibility. It is founded, however, on the grossest ignorance of
the law. Those who deem it a kind of sacrilege to say, that the
observance of the law is impossible, insist, as their strongest
argument, that, if it is so, the Law has been given in vain, (infra,
Chap. 7 sec. 5.) For they speak just as if Paul had never said
anything about the Law. But what, pray, is meant by saying, that the
Law "was added because of transgressions;" "by the law is the
knowledge of sin;" "I had not known sin but by the law;" "the law
entered that the offence might abound?" (Gal. 3: 19; Rom. 3: 20; 7:
7; 5: 20.) Is it meant that the Law was to be limited to our
strength, lest it should be given in vain? Is it not rather meant
that it was placed far above us, in order to convince us of our
utter feebleness? Paul indeed declares, that charity is the end and
fulfilling of the Law, (1 Tim. 1: 5.) But when he prays that the
minds of the Thessalonians may be filled with it, he clearly enough
acknowledges that the Law sounds in our ears without profit, if God
do not implant it thoroughly in our hearts, (1 Thess. 3: 12.)
    7. I admit, indeed, that if the Scripture taught nothing else
on the subject than that the Law is a rule of life by which we ought
to regulate our pursuits, I should at once assent to their opinion;
but since it carefully and clearly explains that the use of the Law
is manifold, the proper course is to learn from that explanation
what the power of the Law is in man. In regard to the present
question, while it explains what our duty is it teaches that the
power of obeying it is derived from the goodness of God, and it
accordingly urges us to pray that this power may be given us. If
there were merely a command and no promise, it would be necessary to
try whether our strength were sufficient to fulfil the command; but
since promises are annexed, which proclaim not only that aid, but
that our whole power is derived from divine grace, they at the same
time abundantly testify that we are not only unequal to the
observance of the Law, but mere fools in regard to it. Therefore,
let us hear no more of a proportion between our ability and the
divine precepts, as if the Lord had accommodated the standard of
justice which he was to give in the Law to our feeble capacities. We
should rather gather from the promises hove ill provided we are,
having in everything so much need of grace. But say they, Who will
believe that the Lord designed his Law for blocks and stones? There
is no wish to make any one believe this. The ungodly are neither
blocks nor stones, when, taught by the Law that their lusts are
offensive to God, they are proved guilty by their own confession;
nor are the godly blocks or stones, when admonished of their
powerlessness, they take refuge in grace. To this effect are the
pithy sayings of Augustine, "God orders what we cannot do, that we
may know what we ought to ask of him. There is a great utility in
precepts, if all that is given to free will is to do greater honour
to divine grace. Faith acquires what the Law requires; nay, the Law
requires, in order that faith may acquire what is thus required;
nay, more, God demands of us faith itself, and finds not what he
thus demands, until by giving he makes it possible to find it."
Again, he says, "Let God give what he orders, and order what he
wills."
    8. This will be more clearly seen by again attending to the
three classes of precepts to which we above referred. Both in the
Law and in the Prophets, God repeatedly calls upon us to turn to
him. But, on the other hand, a prophet exclaims, "Turn thou me, and
I shall be turned; for thou art the Lord my God. Surely after that I
was turned, I repented." He orders us to circumcise the foreskins of
our hearts; but Moses declares, that that circumcision is made by
his own hand. In many passages he demands a new heart, but in others
he declares that he gives it. As Augustine says, "What God promises,
we ourselves do not through choice or nature, but he himself does by
grace." The same observation is made, when, in enumerating the rules
of Tichonius, he states the third in effect to be - that we
distinguish carefully between the Law and the promises, or between
the commands and grace, (Augustin. de Doctrine Christiana, lib. 3.)
Let them now go and gather from precepts what man's power of
obedience is, when they would destroy the divine grace by which the
precepts themselves are accomplished. The precepts of the second
class are simply those which enjoin us to worship God, to obey and
adhere to his will, to do his pleasure, and follow his teaching. But
innumerable passages testify that every degree of purity, piety,
holiness, and justices which we possess, is his gift. Of the third
class of precepts is the exhortation of Paul and Barnabas to the
proselytes, as recorded by Luke; they "persuaded them to continue in
the grace of God," (Acts 13: 43.) But the source from which this
power of continuance must be sought is elsewhere explained by Paul,
when he says, "Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord," (Eph.
6: 10.) In another passage he says, "Grieve not the Holy Spirit of
God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption," (Eph. 4:
30.) But as the thing here enjoined could not be performed by man,
he prays in behalf of the Thessalonians, that God would count them
"worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his
goodness, and the work of faith with power," (2 Thess. 1: 11.) In
the same way, in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, when
treating of alms, he repeatedly commends their good and pious
inclination. A little farther on, however, he exclaims, "Thanks be
to God, which put the same earnest care into the heart of Titus for
you. For indeed he accepted the exhortation," (2 Cor. 8: 16, 17.) If
Titus could not even perform the office of being a mouth to exhort
others, except in so far as God suggested, how could the others have
been voluntary agents in acting, if the Lord Jesus had not directed
their hearts?
    9. Some, who would be thought more acute, endeavour to evade
all these passages, by the quibble, that there is nothing to hinder
us from contributing our part, while God, at the same time, supplies
our deficiencies. They, moreover, adduce passages from the Prophets,
in which the work of our conversion seems to be shared between God
and ourselves; "Turn ye unto me, saith the Lord of hosts, and I will
turn unto you, saith the Lord of hosts," (Zech. 1: 3.) The kind of
assistance which God gives us has been shown above, (sect. 7, 8,)
and need not now be repeated. One thing only I ask to be conceded to
me, that it is vain to think we have a power of fulfilling the Law,
merely because we are enjoined to obey it. Since, in order to our
fulfilling the divine precepts, the grace of the Lawgiver is both
necessary, and has been promised to us, this much at least is clear,
that more is demanded of us than we are able to pay. Nor can any
cavil evade the declaration in Jeremiah, that the covenant which God
made with his ancient people was broken, because it was only of the
letter - that to make it effectual, it was necessary for the Spirit
to interpose and train the heart to obedience, (Jer. 31: 32.) The
opinion we now combat is not aided by the words, "Turn unto me, and
I will turn unto you." The turning there spoken of is not that by
which God renews the heart unto repentance; but that in which, by
bestowing prosperity, he manifests his kindness and favour, just in
the same way as he sometimes expresses his displeasure by sending
adversity. The people complaining under the many calamities which
befell them, that they were forsaken by God, he answers, that his
kindness would not fail them, if they would return to a right
course, and to himself, the standard of righteousness. The passage,
therefore, is wrested from its proper meaning when it is made to
countenance the idea that the work of conversion is divided between
God and man, (supra, Chap. 2 sec. 27.) We have only glanced briefly
at this subject, as the proper place for it will occur when we come
to treat of the Law, (Chap. 7 sec. 2 and 3.)
    10. The second class of objections is akin to the former. They
allege the promises in which the Lord makes a paction with our will.
Such are the following: "Seek good, and not evil, that ye may live,"
(Amos 5: 14.) "If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good
of the land: but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with
the sword; for the mouth of the Lord has spoken it," (Isaiah 1: 19,
20.) "If thou wilt put away thine abominations out of my sight, then
thou shalt not remove," (Jer. 4: 1.) "It shall come to pass, if thou
shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to
observe and do all the commandments which I command thee this days
that the Lord thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the
earth," (Deut. 28: 1.) There are other similar passages, (Lev. 26:
3, &c.) They think that the blessings contained in these promises
are offered to our will absurdly and in mockery, if it is not in our
power to secure or reject them. It is, indeed, an easy matter to
indulge in declamatory complaint on this subject, to say that we are
cruelly mocked by the Lord, when he declares that his kindness
depends on our wills if we are not masters of our wills - that it
would be a strange liberality on the part of God to set his
blessings before us, while we have no power of enjoying them, - a
strange certainty of promises, which, to prevent their ever being
fulfilled, are made to depend on an impossibility. Of promises of
this description, which have a condition annexed to them, we shall
elsewhere speak, and make it plain that there is nothing absurd in
the impossible fulfilment of them. In regard to the matter in hand,
I deny that God cruelly mocks us when he invites us to merit
blessings which he knows we are altogether unable to merit. The
promises being offered alike to believers and to the ungodly, have
their use in regard to both. As God by his precepts stings the
consciences of the ungodly, so as to prevent them from enjoying
their sins while they have no remembrance of his judgements, so, in
his promises, he in a manner takes them to witness how unworthy they
are of his kindness. Who can deny that it is most just and most
becoming in God to do good to those who worship him, and to punish
with due severity those who despise his majesty? God, therefore,
proceeds in due order, when, though the wicked are bound by the
fetters of sin, he lays down the law in his promises, that he will
do them good only if they depart from their wickedness. This would
be right, though His only object were to let them understand that
they are deservedly excluded from the favour due to his true
worshipers. On the other hand, as he desires by all means to stir up
believers to supplicate his grace, it surely should not seem strange
that he attempts to accomplish by promises the same thing which, as
we have shown, he to their great benefit accomplishes by means of
precepts. Being taught by precepts what the will of God is, we are
reminded of our wretchedness in being so completely at variance with
that will, and, at the same time, are stimulated to invoke the aid
of the Spirit to guide us into the right path. But as our indolence
is not sufficiently aroused by precepts, promises are added, that
they may attract us by their sweetness, and produce a feeling of
love for the precept. The greater our desire of righteousness, the
greater will be our earnestness to obtain the grace of God. And thus
it is, that in the protestations, "if we be willing", "if thou shalt
hearken", the Lord neither attributes to us a full power of willing
and hearkening, nor yet mocks us for our impotence.
    11. The third class of objections is not unlike the other two.
For they produce passages in which God upbraids his people for their
ingratitude, intimating that it was not his fault that they did not
obtain all kinds of favour from his indulgence. Of such passages,
the following are examples: "The Amalekites and the Canaanites are
before you, and ye shall fall by the sword: because ye are turned
away from the Lord, therefore the Lord will not be with you," (Num.
14: 43.) "Because ye have done all these works, saith the Lord, and
I spake unto you, rising up early and speaking, but ye heard not;
and I called you, but ye answered not; therefore will I do unto this
house, which is called by my name, wherein ye trust, and unto the
place which I gave to you and to your fathers, as I have done to
Shiloh," (Jer. 7: 13, 14.) "They obeyed not thy voice, neither
walked in thy law; they have done nothing of all that thou
commandedst them to do: therefore thou hast caused all this evil to
come upon them," (Jer. 32: 23.) How, they ask, can such upbraiding
be directed against those who have it in their power immediately to
reply, - Prosperity was dear to us: we feared adversity; that we did
not, in order to obtain the one and avoid the other, obey the Lord,
and listen to his voice, is owing to its not being free for us to do
so in consequence of our subjection to the dominion of sin; in vain,
therefore, are we upbraided with evils which it was not in our power
to escape. But to say nothing of the pretext of necessity, which is
but a feeble and flimsy defence of their conduct, can they, I ask,
deny their guilt? If they are held convicted of any fault, the Lord
is not unjust in upbraiding them for having, by their own
perverseness, deprived themselves of the advantages of his kindness.
Let them say, then, whether they can deny that their own will is the
depraved cause of their rebellion. If they find within themselves a
fountain of wickedness, why do they stand declaiming about
extraneous causes, with the view of making it appear that they are
not the authors of their own destruction? If it be true that it is
not for another's faults that sinners are both deprived of the
divine favour, and visited with punishment, there is good reason why
they should hear these rebukes from the mouth of God. If they
obstinately persist in their vices, let them learn in their
calamities to accuse and detest their own wickedness, instead of
charging God with cruelty and injustice. If they have not manifested
docility, let them, under a feeling of disgust at the sins which
they see to be the cause of their misery and ruin, return to the
right path, and, with serious contrition, confess the very thing of
which the Lord by his rebuke reminds them. Of what use those
upbraidings of the prophets above quoted are to believers, appears
from the solemn prayer of Daniel, as given in his ninth chapter. Of
their use in regard to the ungodly, we see an example in the Jews,
to whom Jeremiah was ordered to explain the cause of their miseries,
though the event could not be otherwise than the Lord had foretold.
"Therefore thou shalt speak these words unto them; but they will not
hearken unto thee: thou shalt also call unto them; but they will not
answer thee," (Jer. 7: 27.) Of what use, then, was it to talk to the
deaf? It was, that even against their will they might understand
that what they heard was true, and that it was impious blasphemy to
transfer the blame of their wickedness to God, when it resided in
themselves.
    These few explanations will make it very easy for the reader to
disentangle himself from the immense heap of passages (containing
both precepts and reprimands) which the enemies of divine grace are
in the habit of piling up, that they may thereon erect their statue
of free will. The Psalmist upbraids the Jews as "a stubborn and
rebellious generation; a generation that set not their heart
aright," (Psalm 78: 8;) and in another passage, he exhorts the men
of his time, "Harden not your heart," (Psalm 95: 8.) This implies
that the whole blame of the rebellion lies in human depravity. But
it is foolish thence to infer, that the heart, the preparation of
which is from the Lord, may be equally bent in either direction. The
Psalmist says, "I have inclined my heart to perform thy statutes
alway," (Psalm 119: 112;) meaning, that with willing and cheerful
readiness of mind he had devoted himself to God. He does not boast,
however, that he was the author of that disposition, for in the same
psalm he acknowledges it to be the gift of God. We must, therefore,
attend to the admonition of Paul, when he thus addresses believers,
"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God
which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure,"
(Philip. 2: 12, 13.) He ascribes to them a part in acting that they
may not indulge in carnal sloth, but by enjoining fear and
trembling, he humbles them so as to keep them in remembrance, that
the very thing which they are ordered to do is the proper work of
God - distinctly intimating, that believers act (if I may so speak)
passively in as much as the power is given them from heaven, and
cannot in any way be arrogated to themselves. Accordingly, when
Peter exhorts us to "add to faith virtue," (2 Pet. 1: 5,) he does
not concede to us the possession of a second place, as if we could
do anything separately. He only arouses the sluggishness of our
flesh, by which faith itself is frequently stifled. To the same
effect are the words of Paul. He says, "Quench not the Spirit," (1
Thess. 5: 19;) because a spirit of sloth, if not guarded against, is
ever and anon creeping in upon believers. But should any thence
infer that it is entirely in their own power to foster the offered
light, his ignorance will easily be refuted by the fact, that the
very diligence which Paul enjoins is derived only from God, (2 Cor.
7: 1.) We are often commanded to purge ourselves of all impurity,
though the Spirit claims this as his peculiar office. In fine, that
what properly belongs to God is transferred to us only by way of
concession, is plain from the words of John, "He that is begotten of
God keepeth himself," (1 John 5: 18.) The advocates of free will
fasten upon the expression as if it implied, that we are kept partly
by the power of God, partly by our own, whereas the very keeping of
which the Apostle speaks is itself from heaven. Hence, Christ prays
his Father to keep us from evil, (John 17: 15,) and we know that
believers, in their warfare against Satan, owe their victory to the
armour of God. Accordingly, Peter, after saying, "Ye have purified
your souls in obeying the truth," immediately adds by way of
correction, "through the Spirit," (1 Pet. 1: 22.) In fine, the
nothingness of human strength in the spiritual contest is briefly
shown by John, when he says, that "Whosoever is born of God does not
commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him" (1 John 3: 9.) He
elsewhere gives the reasons "This is the victory that overcometh the
world, even our faith," (1 John 5: 4.)
    12. But a passage is produced from the Law of Moses, which
seems very adverse to the view now given. After promulgating the
Law, he takes the people to witness in these terms: "This
commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from
thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou
shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto
us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto
thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it,"
(Deut. 30: 11, 12, 14.) Certainly, if this is to be understood of
mere precepts, I admit that it is of no little importance to the
matter in hand. For, though it were easy to evade the difficulty by
saying, that the thing here treated of is not the observance of the
law, but the facility and readiness of becoming acquainted with it,
some scruple, perhaps, would still remain. The Apostle Paul,
however, no mean interpreter, removes all doubt when he affirms,
that Moses here spoke of the doctrine of the Gospel, (Rom. 10: 8.)
If any one is so refractory as to contend that Paul violently
wrested the words in applying them to the Gospel, though his
hardihood is chargeable with impiety, we are still able,
independently of the authority of the Apostle, to repel the
objection. For, if Moses spoke of precepts merely, he was only
inflating the people with vain confidence. Had they attempted the
observance of the law in their own strength, as a matter in which
they should find no difficulty, what else could have been the result
than to throw them headlong? Where, then, was that easy means of
observing the law, when the only access to it was over a fatal
precipice? Accordingly, nothing is more certain than that under
these words is comprehended the covenant of mercy, which had been
promulgated along with the demands of the law. A few verses before,
he had said, "The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the
heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart,
and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live," (Deut. 30: 6.)
Therefore, the readiness of which he immediately after speaks was
placed not in the power of man, but in the protection and help of
the Holy Spirit, who mightily performs his own work in our weakness.
The passage, however, is not to be understood of precepts simply,
but rather of the Gospel promises, which, so far from proving any
power in us to fulfil righteousness, utterly disprove it. This is
confirmed by the testimony of Paul, when he observes that the Gospel
holds forth salvation to us, not under the harsh arduous, and
impossible terms on which the law treats with us, (namely, that
those shall obtain it who fulfil all its demands,) but on terms
easy, expeditious, and readily obtained. This passage, therefore,
tends in no degree to establish the freedom of the human will.
    13. They are wont also to adduce certain passages in which God
is said occasionally to try men, by withdrawing the assistance of
his grace, and to wait until they turn to him, as in Hosea, "I will
go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and
seek my face," (Hosea 5: 15.) It were absurd, (say they,) that the
Lord should wait till Israel should seek his face, if their minds
were not flexible, so as to turn in either direction of their own
accord. As if anything were more common in the prophetical writings
than for God to put on the semblance of rejecting and casting off
his people until they reform their lives. But what can our opponents
extract from such threats? If they mean to maintain that a people,
when abandoned by God, are able of themselves to think of turning
unto him, they will do it in the very face of Scripture. On the
other hand, if they admit that divine grace is necessary to
conversion, why do they dispute with us? But while they admit that
grace is so far necessary, they insist on reserving some ability for
man. How do they prove it? Certainly not from this nor any similar
passage; for it is one thing to withdraw from man, and look to what
he will do when thus abandoned and left to himself, and another
thing to assist his powers, (whatever they may be,) in proportion to
their weakness. What, then, it will be asked, is meant by such
expressions? I answer, just the same as if God were to say, Since
nothing is gained by admonishing, exhorting, rebuking this stubborn
people, I will withdraw for a little, and silently leave them to be
afflicted; I shall see whether, after long calamity, any remembrance
of me will return, and induce them to seek my face. But by the
departure of the Lord to a distance is meant the withdrawal of
prophecy. By his waiting to see what men will do is meant that he,
while silent, and in a manner hiding himself, tries them for a
season with various afflictions. Both he does that he may humble us
the more; for we shall sooner be broken than corrected by the
strokes of adversity, unless his Spirit train us to docility.
Moreover, when the Lord, offended and, as it were, fatigued with our
obstinate perverseness, leaves us for a while, (by withdrawing his
word, in which he is wont in some degree to manifest his presence,)
and makes trial of what we will do in his absence, from this it is
erroneously inferred, that there is some power of free will, the
extent of which is to be considered and tried, whereas the only end
which he has in view is to bring us to an acknowledgement of our
utter nothingness.
    14. Another objection is founded on a mode of speaking which is
constantly observed both in Scripture and in common discourse. God
works are said to be ours, and we are said to do what is holy and
acceptable to God, just as we are said to commit sin. But if sins
are justly imputed to us, as proceeding from ourselves, for the same
reason (say they) some share must certainly be attributed to us in
works of righteousness. It could not be accordant with reason to
say, that we do those things which we are incapable of doing of our
own motion, God moving us, as if we were stones. These expressions,
therefore, it is said, indicate that while, in the matter of grace,
we give the first place to God, a secondary place must be assigned
to our agency. If the only thing here insisted on were, that good
works are termed ours, I, in my turn, would reply, that the bread
which we ask God to give us is also termed ours. What, then, can be
inferred from the title of possession, but simply that, by the
kindness and free gift of Gods that becomes ours which in other
respects is by no means due to us? Therefore let them either
ridicule the same absurdity in the Lord's Prayer, or let them cease
to regard it as absurd, that good works should be called ours,
though our only property in them is derived from the liberality of
God. But there is something stronger in the fact, that we are often
said in Scripture to worship God, do justice, obey the law, and
follow good works. These being proper offices of the mind and will,
how can they be consistently referred to the Spirit, and, at the
same time, attributed to us, unless there be some concurrence on our
part with the divine agency? This difficulty will be easily disposed
of if we attend to the manner in which the Holy Spirit acts in the
righteous. The similitude with which they invidiously assail us is
foreign to the purpose; for who is so absurd as to imagine that
movement in man differs in nothing from the impulse given to a
stone? Nor can anything of the kind be inferred from our doctrine.
To the natural powers of man we ascribe approving and rejecting,
willing and not willing, striving and resisting, viz., approving
vanity, rejecting solid good, willing evil and not willing good,
striving for wickedness and resisting righteousness. What then does
the Lord do? If he sees meet to employ depravity of this description
as an instrument of his anger, he gives it whatever aim and
direction he pleases, that, by a guilty hand, he may accomplish his
own good work. A wicked man thus serving the power of God, while he
is bent only on following his own lust, can we compare to a stone,
which, driven by an external impulse, is borne along without motion,
or sense, or will of its own? We see how wide the difference is. But
how stands the case with the godly, as to whom chiefly the question
is raised? When God erects his kingdom in them, he, by means of his
Spirit, curbs their will, that it may not follow its natural bent,
and be carried hither and thither by vagrant lusts; bends, frames
trains, and guides it according to the rule of his justice, so as to
incline it to righteousness and holiness, and establishes and
strengthens it by the energy of his Spirit, that it may not stumble
or fall. For which reason Augustine thus expresses himself, (De
Corrept. et Gratia, cap. 2,) "It will be said we are therefore acted
upon, and do not act. Nay, you act and are acted upon, and you then
act well when you are acted upon by one that is good. The Spirit of
God who actuates you is your helper in acting, and bears the name of
helper, because you, too, do something." In the former member of
this sentence, he reminds us that the agency of man is not destroyed
by the motion of the Holy Spirit, because nature furnishes the will
which is guided so as to aspire to good. As to the second member of
the sentence, in which he says that the very idea of help implies
that we also do something, we must not understand it as if he were
attributing to us some independent power of action; but not to
foster a feeling of sloth, he reconciles the agency of God with our
own agency, by saying, that to wish is from nature, to wish well is
from grace. Accordingly, he had said a little before, "Did not God
assist us, we should not only not be able to conquer, but not able
even to fight."
    15. Hence it appears that the grace of God (as this name is
used when regeneration is spoken of) is the rule of the Spirit, in
directing and governing the human will. Govern he cannot, without
correcting, reforming, renovating, (hence we say that the beginning
of regeneration consists in the abolition of what is ours;) in like
manner, he cannot govern without moving, impelling, urging, and
restraining. Accordingly, all the actions which are afterwards done
are truly said to be wholly his. Meanwhile, we deny not the truth of
Augustine's doctrine, that the will is not destroyed, but rather
repaired, by grace - the two things being perfectly consistent,
viz., that the human will may be said to be renewed when its
vitiosity and perverseness being corrected, it is conformed to the
true standard of righteousness and that, at the same time, the will
may be said to be made new, being so vitiated and corrupted that its
nature must be entirely changed. There is nothing then to prevent us
from saying, that our will does what the Spirit does in us, although
the will contributes nothing of itself apart from grace. We must,
therefore, remember what we quoted from Augustine, that some men
labour in vain to find in the human will some good quality properly
belonging to it. Any intermixture which men attempt to make by
conjoining the effort of their own will with divine grace is
corruption, just as when unwholesome and muddy water is used to
dilute wine. But though every thing good in the will is entirely
derived from the influence of the Spirit, yet, because we have
naturally an innate power of willing, we are not improperly said to
do the things of which God claims for himself all the praise; first,
because every thing which his kindness produces in us is our own,
(only we must understand that it is not of ourselves;) and,
secondly, because it is our mind, our will, our study which are
guided by him to what is good.
    16. The other passages which they gather together from
different quarters will not give much trouble to any person of
tolerable understanding, who pays due attention to the explanations
already given. They adduce the passage of Genesis, "Unto thee shall
be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him," (Gen. 4: 7.) This they
interpret of sin, as if the Lord were promising Cain that the
dominion of sin should not prevail over his mind, if he would labour
in subduing it. We, however, maintain that it is much more agreeable
to the context to understand the words as referring to Abel, it
being there the purpose of God to point out the injustice of the
envy which Cain had conceived against his brother. And this He does
in two ways, by showing, first, that it was vain to think he could,
by means of wickedness, surpass his brother in the favour of God, by
whom nothing is esteemed but righteousness; and, secondly, how
ungrateful he was for the kindness he had already received, in not
being able to bear with a brother who had been subjected to his
authority. But lest it should be thought that we embrace this
interpretation because the other is contrary to our view, let us
grant that God does here speak of sin. If so, his words contain
either an order or a promise. If an order, we have already
demonstrated that this is no proof of man's ability; if a promise,
where is the fulfilment of the promise when Cain yielded to the sin
over which he ought to have prevailed? They will allege a tacit
condition in the promise, as if it were said that he would gain the
victory if he contended. This subterfuge is altogether unavailing.
For, if the dominion spoken of refers to sin, no man can have any
doubt that the form of expression is imperative, declaring not what
we are able, but what it is our duty to do, even if beyond our
ability. Although both the nature of the case, and the rule of
grammatical construction, require that it be regarded as a
comparison between Cain and Abel, we think the only preference given
to the younger brother was, that the elder made himself inferior by
his own wickedness.
    17. They appeal, moreover, to the testimony of the Apostle
Paul, because he says, "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him
that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy," (Rom. 9: 15.) From
this they infer, that there is something in will and endeavour,
which, though weak in themselves, still, being mercifully aided by
God, are not without some measure of success. But if they would
attend in sober earnest to the subject there handled by Paul, they
would not so rashly pervert his meaning. I am aware they can quote
Origin and Jerome in support of this exposition. To these I might,
in my turn, oppose Augustine. But it is of no consequence what they
thought, if it is clear what Paul meant. He teaches that salvation
is prepared for those only on whom the Lord is pleased to bestow his
mercy - that ruin and death await all whom he has not chosen. He had
proved the condition of the reprobate by the example of Pharaoh, and
confirmed the certainty of gratuitous election by the passage in
Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy." Thereafter he
concludes, that it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that
runneth, but of God that showeth mercy. If these words are
understood to mean that the will or endeavour are not sufficient,
because unequal to such a task, the Apostle has not used them very
appropriately. We must therefore abandon this absurd mode of
arguing, "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth;"
therefore, there is some will, some running. Paul's meaning is more
simple - there is no will nor running by which we can prepare the
way for our salvation - it is wholly of the divine mercy. He indeed
says nothing more than he says to Titus, when he writes, "After that
the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by
works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his
mercy he saved us," (Titus 3: 4, 5.) Those who argue that Paul
insinuated there was some will and some running when he said, "It is
not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth," would not allow
me to argue after the same fashion, that we have done some righteous
works, because Paul says that we have attained the divine favour,
"not by works of righteousness which we have done." But if they see
a flaw in this mode of arguing, let them open their eyes, and they
will see that their own mode is not free from a similar fallacy. The
argument which Augustine uses is well founded, "If it is said, 'It
is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth,' because
neither will nor running are sufficient; it may, on the other hand,
be retorted, it is not 'of God that showeth mercy,' because mercy
does not act alone," (August. Ep. 170, ad Vital. See also Enchirid.
ad Laurent. cap. 32.) This second proposition being absurd,
Augustine justly concludes the meaning of the words to be, that
there is no good will in man until it is prepared by the Lord; not
that we ought not to will and run, but that both are produced in us
by God. Some, with equal unskilfulness, wrest the saying of Paul,
"We are labourers together with God," (1 Cor. 3: 9.) There cannot be
a doubt that these words apply to ministers only, who are called
"labourers with God," not from bringing any thing of their own, but
because God makes use of their instrumentality after he has rendered
them fit, and provided them with the necessary endowments.
    18. They appeal also to Ecclesiasticus, who is well known to be
a writer of doubtful authority. But, though we might justly decline
his testimony, let us see what he says in support of free will. His
words are, "He himself made man from the beginning, and left him in
the hand of his counsel; If thou wilt, to keep the commandments, and
perform acceptable faithfulness. He has set fire and water before
thee: stretch forth thy hand unto whether thou wilt. Before man is
life and death; and whether him liketh shall be given him,"
(Ecclesiasticus 15: 14-17.) Grant that man received at his creation
a power of acquiring life or death; what, then, if we, on the other
hand, can reply that he has lost it? Assuredly I have no intention
to contradict Solomon, who asserts that "God has made man upright;"
that "they have sought out many inventions," (Eccl. 7: 29.) But
since man, by degenerating, has made shipwreck of himself and all
his blessings, it certainly does not follow, that every thing
attributed to his nature, as originally constituted, applies to it
now when vitiated and degenerate. Therefore, not only to my
opponents, but to the author of Ecclesiasticus himself, (whoever he
may have been,) this is my answer: If you mean to tell man that in
himself there is a power of acquiring salvation, your authority with
us is not so great as, in the least degree, to prejudice the
undoubted word of God; but if only wishing to curb the malignity of
the fleshy which by transferring the blame of its own wickedness to
God, is wont to catch at a vain defence, you say that rectitude was
given to man, in order to make it apparent he was the cause of his
own destruction, I willingly assent. Only agree with me in this,
that it is by his own fault he is stript of the ornaments in which
the Lord at first attired him, and then let us unite in
acknowledging that what he now wants is a physician, and not a
defender.
    19. There is nothing more frequent in their mouths than the
parable of the traveller who fell among thieves, and was left half
dead, (Luke 10: 32.) I am aware that it is a common idea with almost
all writers, that under the figure of the traveller is represented
the calamity of the human race. Hence our opponents argue that man
was not so mutilated by the robbery of sin and the devil as not to
preserve some remains of his former endowments; because it is said
he was left half dead. For where is the half living, unless some
portion of right will and reason remain? First, were I to deny that
there is any room for their allegory, what could they say? There can
be no doubt that the Fathers invented it contrary to the genuine
sense of the parable. Allegories ought to be carried no further than
Scripture expressly sanctions: so far are they from forming a
sufficient basis to found doctrines upon. And were I so disposed I
might easily find the means of tearing up this fiction by the roots.
The Word of God leaves no half life to man, but teaches, that, in
regard to life and happiness, he has utterly perished. Paul, when he
speaks of our redemption, says not that the half dead are cured
(Eph. 2: 5, 30; 5: 14) but that those who were dead are raised up.
He does not call upon the half dead to receive the illumination of
Christ, but upon those who are asleep and buried. In the same way
our Lord himself says, "The hour is coming, and now is, when the
dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God," (John 5: 25.) How can
they presume to set up a flimsy allegory in opposition to so many
clear statements? But be it that this allegory is good evidence,
what can they extort out of it? Man is half dead, therefore there is
some soundness in him. True! he has a mind capable of understanding,
though incapable of attaining to heavenly and spiritual wisdom; he
has some discernment of what is honourable; he has some sense of the
Divinity, though he cannot reach the true knowledge of God. But to
what do these amount? They certainly do not refute the doctrine of
Augustine - a doctrine confirmed by the common suffrages even of the
Schoolmen, that after the fall, the free gifts on which salvation
depends were withdrawn, and natural gifts corrupted and defiled,
(supra, chap. 2 sec. 2.) Let it stand, therefore, as an indubitable
truth, which no engines can shake, that the mind of man is so
entirely alienated from the righteousness of God that he cannot
conceive, desire, or design any thing but what is wicked, distorted,
foul, impure, and iniquitous; that his heart is so thoroughly
envenomed by sin that it can breathe out nothing but corruption and
rottenness; that if some men occasionally make a show of goodness,
their mind is ever interwoven with hypocrisy and deceit, their soul
inwardly bound with the fetters of wickedness.










Chapter 6.


6. Redemption for man lost to be sought in Christ.

    The parts of this chapter are, I. The excellence of the
doctrine of Christ the Redeemer - a doctrine always entertained by
the Church, sec. 1. II. Christ, the Mediator in both dispensations,
was offered to the faith of the pious Israelites and people of old,
as is plain from the institution of sacrifice, the calling of
Abraham's family, and the elevation of David and his posterity, sec.
2. III. Hence the consolation, strength, hope, and confidence of the
godly under the Law, Christ being offered to them in various ways by
their heavenly Father.
    
Sections.

1. The knowledge of God the Creator of no avail without faith in
    Christ the Redeemer. First reason. Second reason strengthened
    by the testimony of an Apostle. Conclusion. This doctrine
    entertained by the children of God in all ages from the
    beginning of the world. Error of throwing open heaven to the
    heathen, who know nothing of Christ. The pretexts for this
    refuted by passages of Scripture.
2. God never was propitious to the ancient Israelites without Christ
    the Mediator. First reason founded on the institution of
    sacrifice. Second reason founded on the calling of Abraham.
    Third reason founded on the elevation of David's family to
    regal dignity, and confirmed by striking passages of Scripture.
3. Christ the solace ever promised to the afflicted; the banner of
    faith and hope always erected. This confirmed by various
    passages of Scripture.
4. The Jews taught to have respect to Christ. This teaching
    sanctioned by our Saviour himself. The common saying, that God
    is the object of faith, requires to be explained and modified.
    Conclusion of this discussion concerning Christ. No saving
    knowledge of God in the heathen.

    1. The whole human race having been undone in the person of
Adam, the excellence and dignity of our origin, as already
described, is so far from availing us, that it rather turns to our
greater disgrace, until God, who does not acknowledge man when
defiled and corrupted by sin as his own work, appear as a Redeemer
in the person of his only begotten Son. Since our fall from life
unto death, all that knowledge of God the Creator, of which we have
discoursed, would be useless, were it not followed up by faith,
holding forth God to us as a Father in Christ. The natural course
undoubtedly was, that the fabric of the world should be a school in
which we might learn piety, and from it pass to eternal life and
perfect felicity. But after looking at the perfection beheld
wherever we turn our eye, above and below, we are met by the divine
malediction, which, while it involves innocent creatures in our
fault, of necessity fills our own souls with despair. For although
God is still pleased in many ways to manifest his paternal favour
towards us, we cannot, from a mere survey of the world, infer that
he is a Father. Conscience urging us within, and showing that sin is
a just ground for our being forsaken, will not allow us to think
that God accounts or treats us as sons. In addition to this are our
sloth and ingratitude. Our minds are so blinded that they cannot
perceive the truth, and all our senses are so corrupt that we
wickedly rob God of his glory. Wherefore, we must conclude with
Paul, "After that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not
God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them
that believe," (1 Cor. 1: 21.) By the "wisdom of God," he designates
this magnificent theatre of heaven and earth replenished with
numberless wonders, the wise contemplation of which should have
enabled us to know God. But this we do with little profit; and,
therefore, he invites us to faith in Christ, - faith which, by a
semblance of foolishness, disgusts the unbeliever. Therefore,
although the preaching of the cross is not in accordance with human
wisdom, we must, however, humbly embrace it if we would return to
God our Maker, from whom we are estranged, that he may again become
our Father. It is certain that after the fall of our first parent,
no knowledge of God without a Mediator was effectual to salvation.
Christ speaks not of his own age merely, but embraces all ages, when
he says "This is life eternal that they might know thee the only
true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent," (John 17: 3.) The
more shameful therefore is the presumption of those who throw heaven
open to the unbelieving and profane, in the absence of that grace
which Scripture uniformly describes as the only door by which we
enter into life. Should any confine our Saviour's words to the
period subsequent to the promulgation of the Gospel, the refutation
is at hand; since on a ground common to all ages and nations, it is
declared, that those who are estranged from God, and as such, are
under the curse, the children of wrath, cannot be pleasing to God
until they are reconciled. To this we may add the answer which our
Saviour gave to the Samaritan woman "Ye worship ye know not what; we
know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews," (John 4: 22.)
By these words, he both charges every Gentile religion with
falsehood, and assigns the reason, viz., that under the Law the
Redeemer was promised to the chosen people only, and that,
consequently, no worship was ever pleasing to God in which respect
was not had to Christ. Hence also Paul affirms, that all the
Gentiles were "without God," and deprived of the hope of life. Now,
since John teaches that there was life in Christ from the beginning,
and that the whole world had lost it, (John 1: 4,) it is necessary
to return to that fountain; And, accordingly, Christ declares that
inasmuch as he is a propitiator, he is life. And, indeed, the
inheritance of heaven belongs to none but the sons of God, (John 15:
6.) Now, it were most incongruous to give the place and rank of sons
to any who have not been engrafted into the body of the only
begotten Son. And John distinctly testifies that those become the
sons of God who believe in his name. But as it is not my intention
at present formally to discuss the subject of faith in Christ, it is
enough to have thus touched on it in passing.
    2. Hence it is that God never showed himself propitious to his
ancient people, nor gave them any hope of grace without a Mediator.
I say nothing of the sacrifices of the Law, by which believers were
plainly and openly taught that salvation was not to be found
anywhere but in the expiation which Christ alone completed. All I
maintain is that the prosperous and happy state of the Church was
always founded in the person of Christ. For although God embraced
the whole posterity of Abraham in his covenant, yet Paul properly
argues, (Gal. 3: 16,) that Christ was truly the seed in which all
the nations of the earth were to be blessed, since we know that all
who were born of Abraham, according to the flesh, were not accounted
the seed. To omit Ishmael and others, how came it that of the two
sons of Isaac, the twin brothers, Esau and Jacob, while yet in the
womb, the one was chosen and the other rejected? Nay, how came it
that the first-born was rejected, and the younger alone admitted?
Moreover, how happens it that the majority are rejected? It is
plain, therefore, that the seed of Abraham is considered chiefly in
one head, and that the promised salvation is not attained without
coming to Christ, whose office it is to gather together those which
were scattered abroad. Thus the primary adoption of the chosen
people depended on the grace of the Mediator. Although it is not
expressed in very distinct terms in Moses, it, however, appears to
have been commonly known to all the godly. For before a king was
appointed over the Israelites, Hannah, the mother of Samuel,
describing the happiness of the righteous, speaks thus in her song,
"He shall give strength unto his king, and exalt the horn of his
anointed;" meaning by these words, that God would bless his Church.
To this corresponds the prediction, which is afterwards added, "I
will raise me up a faithful priest, and he shall walk before mine
anointed for ever," (1 Sam. 2: 10, 35.) And there can be no doubt
that our heavenly Father intended that a living image of Christ
should be seen in David and his posterity. Accordingly, exhorting
the righteous to fear Him, he bids them "Kiss the Son," (Psalm 2:
12.) Corresponding to this is the passage in the Gospel, "He that
honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father," (John 5: 23.)
Therefore, though the kingdom was broken up by the revolt of the ten
tribes, yet the covenant which God had made in David and his
successors behaved to stand, as is also declared by his Prophets,
"Howbeit I will not take the whole kingdom out of his hand: but I
will make him prince all the days of his life for David my servant's
sake," (1 Kings 11: 34.) The same thing is repeated a second and
third time. It is also expressly said, "I will for this afflict the
seed of David, but not for ever," (1 Kings 11: 39.) Some time
afterwards it was said, "Nevertheless, for David's sake did the Lord
his God give him a lamp in Jerusalem, to set up his son after him,
and to establish Jerusalem," (1 Kings 15: 4.) And when matters were
bordering on destruction, it was again said, "Yet the Lord would not
destroy Judah for David his servant's sake, as he had promised to
give him alway a light, and to his children," (2 Kings 8: 19.)
    The sum of the whole comes to this - David, all others being
excluded, was chosen to be the person in whom the good pleasure of
the Lord should dwell; as it is said elsewhere, "He forsook the
tabernacle of Shiloh;" "Moreover, he refused the tabernacle of
Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim;" "But chose the tribe of
Judah, the mount Zion which he loved;" "He chose David also his
servant, and took him from the sheep folds: from following the ewes
great with young he brought him to feed Jacob his people, and Israel
his inheritance," (Ps. 78: 60, 67, 70, 71.) In fine, God, in thus
preserving his Church, intended that its security and salvation
should depend on Christ as its head. Accordingly, David exclaims,
"The Lord is their strength, and he is the saving strength of his
anointed;" and then prays "Save thy people, and bless thine
inheritance;" intimating, that the safety of the Church was
indissolubly connected with the government of Christ. In the same
sense he elsewhere says, "Save, Lord: let the king hear us when we
call," (Ps. 20: 9.) These words plainly teach that believers, in
applying for the help of God, had their sole confidence in this -
that they were under the unseen government of the King. This may be
inferred from another psalm, "Save now, I beseech thee O Lord:
Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the Lord," (Ps. 118: 25,
26.) Here it is obvious that believers are invited to Christ, in the
assurance that they will be safe when entirely in his hand. To the
same effect is another prayer, in which the whole Church implores
the divine mercy "Let thy hand be upon the Man of thy right hand,
upon the Son of man, whom thou madest strong (or best fitted) for
thyself," (Ps. 80: 17.) For though the author of the psalm laments
the dispersion of the whole nations he prays for its revival in him
who is sole Head. After the people were led away into captivity, the
land laid waste, and matters to appearance desperate, Jeremiah,
lamenting the calamity of the Church, especially complains, that by
the destruction of the kingdom the hope of believers was cut off;
"The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of the Lord, was taken in
their pits, of whom we said, Under his shadow we shall live among
the heathen," (Lam. 4: 20.) From all this it is abundantly plain,
that as the Lord cannot be propitious to the human race without a
Mediator, Christ was always held forth to the holy Fathers under the
Law as the object of their faith.
    3. Moreover when comfort is promised in affliction, especially
when the deliverance of the Church is described, the banner of faith
and hope in Christ is unfurled. "Thou wentest forth for the
salvation of thy people, even for salvation with thine anointed,"
says Habakkuk, (3: 13.) And whenever mention is made in the Prophets
of the renovation of the Church, the people are directed to the
promise made to David, that his kingdom would be for ever. And there
is nothing strange in this, since otherwise there would have been no
stability in the covenant. To this purpose is the remarkable
prophecy in Isaiah 7: 14. After seeing that the unbelieving king
Ahab repudiated what he had testified regarding the deliverance of
Jerusalem from siege and its immediate safety, he passes as it were
abruptly to the Messiah, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a
son, and shall call his name Emmanuel;" intimating indirectly, that
though the king and his people wickedly rejected the promise offered
to them, as if they were bent on causing the faith of God to fail,
the covenant would not be defeated - the Redeemer would come in his
own time. In fine, all the prophets, to show that God was placable,
were always careful to bring forward that kingdom of David, on which
redemption and eternal salvation depended. Thus in Isaiah it is
said, "I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure
mercies of David. Behold, I have given him for a witness to the
people," (Isa. 55: 3, 4;) intimating, that believers, in calamitous
circumstances, could have no hope, had they not this testimony that
God would be ready to hear them. In the same way, to revive their
drooping spirits, Jeremiah says, "Behold, the days come, saith the
Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King
shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgement and justice in
the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell
safely," (Jer. 23: 5, 6.) In Ezekiel also it is said, "I will set up
one Shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant
David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd. And I the
Lord will be their God, and my servant David a prince among them: I
the Lord have spoken it. And I will make with them a covenant of
peace," (Ezek. 34: 23, 24, 25.) And again, after discoursing of this
wondrous renovation, he says, "David my servant shall be king over
them: and they all shall have one shepherd." "Moreover, I will make
a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant
with them," (Ezek. 37: 24-26.) I select a few passages out of many,
because I merely wish to impress my readers with the fact, that the
hope of believers was ever treasured up in Christ alone. All the
other prophets concur in this. Thus Hosea, "Then shall the children
of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and
appoint themselves one head," (Hosea 1: 11.) This he afterwards
explains in clearer terms, "Afterward shall the children of Israel
return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their king," (Hosea
3: 5.) Micas, also speaking of the return of the people, says
expressly, "Their king shall pass before them, and the Lord on the
head of them," (Micas 2: 13.) So Amos, in predicting the renovation
of the people, says "In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of
David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will
raise up the ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old,"
(Amos 9: 11;) in other words, the only banner of salvation was, the
exaltation of the family of David to regal splendour, as fulfilled
in Christ. Hence, too, Zechariah, as nearer in time to the
manifestation of Christ, speaks more plainly, "Rejoice greatly, O
daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King
cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation," (Zech. 9: 9.)
This corresponds to the passage already quoted from the Psalms, "The
Lord is their strength, and he is the saving health of their
anointed." Here salvation is extended from the head to the whole
body.
    4. By familiarising the Jews with these prophecies, God
intended to teach them, that in seeking for deliverance, they should
turn their eyes directly towards Christ. And though they had sadly
degenerated, they never entirely lost the knowledge of this general
principle, that God, by the hand of Christ, would be the deliverer
of the Church, as he had promised to David; and that in this way
only the free covenant by which God had adopted his chosen people
would be fulfilled. Hence it was, that on our Saviour's entry into
Jerusalem, shortly before his death, the children shouted, "Hosannah
to the son of David," (Matth. 21: 9.) For there seems to have been a
hymn known to all, and in general use, in which they sung that the
only remaining pledge which they had of the divine mercy was the
promised advent of a Redeemer. For this reason, Christ tells his
disciples to believe in him, in order that they might have a
distinct and complete belief in God, "Ye believe in God, believe
also in me," (John 14: 1.) For although, properly speaking, faith
rises from Christ to the Father, he intimates, that even when it
leans on God, it gradually vanishes away, unless he himself
interpose to give it solid strength. The majesty of God is too high
to be scaled up to by mortals, who creep like worms on the earth.
Therefore, the common saying that God is the object of faith,
(Lactantius, lib. 4 c. 16,) requires to be received with some
modification. When Christ is called the image of the invisible God,
(Col. 1: 15,) the expression is not used without cause, but is
designed to remind us that we can have no knowledge of our
salvation, until we behold God in Christ. For although the Jewish
scribes had by their false glosses darkened what the Prophets had
taught concerning the Redeemer, yet Christ assumed it to be a fact,
received, as it were, with public consent, that there was no other
remedy in desperate circumstances, no other mode of delivering the
Church than the manifestation of the Mediator. It is true, that the
fact adverted to by Paul was not so generally known as it ought to
have been, viz., that Christ is the end of the Law, (Rom. 10: 4,)
though this is both true, and clearly appears both from the Law and
the Prophets. I am not now, however, treating of faith, as we shall
elsewhere have a fitter place, (Book 3 Chap. 2,) but what I wish to
impress upon my readers in this way is, that the first step in piety
is, to acknowledge that God is a Father, to defend, govern, and
cherish us, until he brings us to the eternal inheritance of his
kingdom; that hence it is plain, as we lately observed, there is no
saving knowledge of God without Christ, and that, consequently, from
the beginning of the world Christ was held forth to all the elect as
the object of their faith and confidence. In this sense, Irenaeus
says, that the Father, who is boundless in himself, is bounded in
the Son, because he has accommodated himself to our capacity, lest
our minds should be swallowed up by the immensity of his glory,
(Irenaeus, lib. 4 cap. 8.) Fanatics, not attending to this, distort
a useful sentiment into an impious dream, as if Christ had only a
share of the Godhead, as a part taken from a whole; whereas the
meaning merely is, that God is comprehended in Christ alone. The
saying of John was always true, "whosoever denieth the Son, the same
has not the Father," (1 John 2: 23.) For though in old time there
were many who boasted that they worshipped the Supreme Deity, the
Maker of heaven and earth, yet as they had no Mediator, it was
impossible for them truly to enjoy the mercy of God, so as to feel
persuaded that he was their Father. Not holding the head, that is,
Christ, their knowledge of God was evanescent; and hence they at
length fell away to gross and foul superstitions betraying their
ignorance, just as the Turks in the present day, who, though
proclaiming, with full throat, that the Creator of heaven and earth
is their God, yet by their rejection of Christ, substitute an idol
in his place.












Chapter 7.


7. The law given, not to retain a people for itself, but to keep
alive the hope of salvation in Christ until His advent.

    The divisions of this chapter are, I. The Moral and Ceremonial
Law a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, sec. 1, 2. II. This true
of the Moral Law, especially its conditional promises. These given
for the best reasons. In what respect the observance of the Moral
Law is said to be impossible, sec. 3-5. III. Of the threefold office
and use of the Moral Law, sec. 6-12. Antinomians refuted, sec. 13.
IV. What the abrogation of the Law, Moral and Ceremonial, sec. 1~17.
    
Sections.

1. The whole system of religion delivered by the hand of Moses, in
    many ways pointed to Christ. This exemplified in the case of
    sacrifices, ablutions, and an endless series of ceremonies.
    This proved, 1. By the declared purpose of God; 2. By the
    nature of the ceremonies themselves; 3. From the nature of God;
    4. From the grace offered to the Jews; 5. From the consecration
    of the priests.
2. Proof continued. 6. From a consideration of the kingdom erected
    in the family of David. 7. From the end of the ceremonies. 8.
    From the end of the Moral Law.
3. A more ample exposition of the last proof. The Moral Law leads
    believers to Christ. Showing the perfect righteousness required
    by God, it convinces us of our inability to fulfil it. It thus
    denies us life, adjudges us to death, and so urges us to seek
    deliverance in Christ.
4. The promises of the Law, though conditional, founded on the best
    reason. This reason explained.
5. No inconsistency in giving a law, the observance of which is
    impossible. This proved from reason, and confirmed by
    Scripture. Another confirmation from Augustine.
6. A consideration of the office and use of the Moral Law shows that
    it leads to Christ. The Law, while it describes the
    righteousness which is acceptable to God, proves that every man
    is unrighteous.
7. The Law fitly compared to a mirror, which shows us our
    wretchedness. This derogates not in any degree from its
    excellence.
8. When the Law discloses our guilt, we should not despond, but flee
    to the mercy of God. How this may be done.
9. Confirmation of the first use of the Moral Law from various
    passages in Augustine.
10. A second use of the Law is to curb sinners. This most necessary
    for the good of the community at large; and this in respect not
    only of the reprobate, but also of the elect, previous to
    regeneration. This confirmed by the authority of an Apostle.
11. The Law showing our wretchedness, disposes us to admit the
    remedy. It also tends to keep us in our duty. Confirmation from
    general experience.
12. The third and most appropriate use of the Law respects the
    elect. 1. It instructs and teaches them to make daily progress
    in doing the will of God. 2. Urges them by exhortation to
    obedience. Testimony of David. How he is to be reconciled with
    the Apostle.
13. The profane heresy of the Antinomians must be exploded. Argument
    founded on a passage in David, and another in Moses.
14. Last part of the chapter treating of the abrogation of the Law.
    In what respect any part of the Moral Law abrogated.
15. The curse of the Law how abrogated.
16. Of the abrogation of the Ceremonial Law in regard to the
    observance only.
17. The reason assigned by the Apostle applicable not to the Moral
    Law, but to ceremonial observances only. These abrogated, not
    only because they separated the Jews from the Gentiles, but
    still more because they were a kind of formal instruments to
    attest our guilt and impunity. Christ, by destroying these, is
    justly said to have taken away the handwriting that was against
    us, and nailed it to his cross.

    1. From the whole course of the observations now made, we may
infer, that the Law was not superadded about four hundred years
after the death of Abraham in order that it might lead the chosen
people away from Christ, but, on the contrary, to keep them in
suspense until his advent; to inflame their desire, and confirm
their expectation, that they might not become dispirited by the long
delay. By the Law, I understand not only the Ten Commandments, which
contain a complete rule of life, but the whole system of religion
delivered by the hand of Moses. Moses was not appointed as a
Lawgiver, to do away with the blessing promised to the race of
Abraham; nay, we see that he is constantly reminding the Jews of the
free covenant which had been made with their fathers, and of which
they were heirs; as if he had been sent for the purpose of renewing
it. This is most clearly manifested by the ceremonies. For what
could be more vain or frivolous than for men to reconcile themselves
to God, by offering him the foul odour produced by burning the fat
of beasts? or to wipe away their own impurities by be sprinkling
themselves with water or blood? In short, the whole legal worship
(if considered by itself apart from the types and shadows of
corresponding truth) is a mere mockery. Wherefore, both in Stephen's
address, (Acts 7: 44,) and in the Epistle to the Hebrews, great
weight is justly given to the passage in which God says to Moses,
"Look that thou make them after the pattern which was showed thee in
the mount," (Exod. 25: 40.) Had there not been some spiritual end to
which they were directed, the Jews, in the observance of them, would
have deluded themselves as much as the Gentiles in their vanities.
Profane men, who have never made religion their serious study,
cannot bear without disgust to hear of such a multiplicity of rites.
They not merely wonder why God fatigued his ancient people with such
a mass of ceremonies, but they despise and ridicule them as childish
toys. This they do, because they attend not to the end; from which,
if the legal figures are separated, they cannot escape the charge of
vanity. But the type shows that God did not enjoin sacrifice, in
order that he might occupy his worshippers with earthly exercises,
but rather that he might raise their minds to something higher. This
is clear even from His own nature. Being a spirit, he is delighted
only with spiritual worship. The same thing is testified by the many
passages in which the Prophets accuse the Jews of stupidity, for
imagining that mere sacrifices have any value in the sight of God.
Did they by this mean to derogate in any respect from the Law? By no
means; but as interpreters of its true meaning, they wished in this
way to turn the attention of the people to the end which they ought
to have had in view, but from which they generally wandered. From
the grace offered to the Jews we may certainly infer, that the law
was not a stranger to Christ. Moses declared the end of the adoption
of the Israelites to be, that they should be "a kingdom of priests,
and an holy nation," (Exod. 19: 6.) This they could not attain,
without a greater and more excellent atonement than the blood of
beasts. For what could be less in accordance with reason, than that
the sons of Adams who, from hereditary taint, are all born the
slaves of sin, should be raised to royal dignity, and in this way
made partakers of the glory of God, if the noble distinction were
not derived from some other source? How, moreover, could the
priestly office exist in vigour among those whose vices rendered
them abominable in the sight of God, if they were not consecrated in
a holy head? Wherefore, Peter elegantly transposes the words of
Moses, teaching that the fulness of grace, of which the Jews had a
foretaste under the Law, is exhibited in Christ, "Ye are a chosen
generation, a royal priesthood," (1 Pet. 2: 9.) The transposition of
the words intimates that those to whom Christ has appeared in the
Gospel, have obtained more than their fathers, inasmuch as they are
all endued with priestly and royal honour, and can, therefore,
trusting to their Mediator, appear with boldness in the presence of
God.
    2. And it is to be observed, by the way, that the kingdom,
which was at length erected in the family of David, is part of the
Law, and is comprehended under the dispensation of Moses; whence it
follows, that, as well in the whole tribe of Levi as in the
posterity of David, Christ was exhibited to the eyes of the
Israelites as in a double mirror. For, as I lately observed, (sec.
1,) in no other way could those who were the slaves of sin and
death, and defiled with corruption, be either kings or priests.
Hence appears the perfect truth of Paul's statement, "The law was
our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ," "till the seed should
come to whom the promise was made" (Gal. 3: 24, 19.) For Christ not
yet having been made familiarly known to the Jews, they were like
children whose weakness could not bear a full knowledge of heavenly
things. How they were led to Christ by the ceremonial law has
already been adverted to, and may be made more intelligible by
several passages in the Prophets. Although they were required, in
order to appease God, to approach him daily with new sacrifices, yet
Isaiah promises, that all their sins would be expiated by one single
sacrifice, and with this Daniel concurs, (Isa. 53: 5; Dan. 9: 26,
27.) The priests appointed from the tribe of Levi entered the
sanctuary, but it was once said of a single priest, "The Lord has
sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever, after the
order of Melchizedek," (Ps. 110: 4.) The unction of oil was then
visible, but Daniel in vision declares that there will be another
unction. Not to dwell on this, the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews proves clearly, and at length, from the fourth to the
eleventh chapter, that ceremonies were vain, and of no value, unless
as bringing us to Christ. In regard to the Ten Commandments, we
must, in like manner, attend to the statement of Paul, that "Christ
is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that
believeth," (Rom. 10: 4;) and, again, that ministers of the new
testament were "not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter
killeth, but the split giveth life," (2 Cor. 3: 6.) The former
passage intimates, that it is in vain to teach righteousness by
precept, until Christ bestow it by free imputation, and the
regeneration of the Spirit. Hence he properly calls Christ the end
or fulfilling of the Law, because it would avail us nothing to know
what God demands did not Christ come to the succour of those who are
labouring, and oppressed under an intolerable yoke and burden. In
another place, he says that the Law "was added because of
transgressions," (Gal. 3: 19,) that it might humble men under a
sense of their condemnation. Moreover, inasmuch as this is the only
true preparation for Christ, the statements, though made in
different words, perfectly agree with each other. But because he had
to dispute with perverse teachers, who pretended that men merited
justification by the works of the Law, he was sometimes obliged, in
refuting their error, to speak of the Law in a more restricted
sense, merely as law, though, in other respects, the covenant of
free adoption is comprehended under it.
    3. But in order that a sense of guilt may urge us to seek for
pardon, it is of importance to know how our being instructed in the
Moral Law renders us more inexcusable. If it is true, that a perfect
righteousness is set before us in the Law, it follows, that the
complete observance of it is perfect righteousness in the sight of
God; that is, a righteousness by which a man may be deemed and
pronounced righteous at the divine tribunal. Wherefore Moses, after
promulgating the Law, hesitates not to call heaven and earth to
witness, that he had set life and death, good and evil, before the
people. Nor can it be denied, that the reward of eternal salvation,
as promised by the Lord, awaits the perfect obedience of the Law,
(Deut. 30: 19.) Again, however, it is of importance to understand in
what way we perform that obedience for which we justly entertain the
hope of that reward. For of what use is it to see that the reward of
eternal life depends on the observance of the Law, unless it
moreover appears whether it be in our power in that way to attain to
eternal life? Herein, then, the weakness of the Law is manifested;
for, in none of us is that righteousness of the Law manifested, and,
therefore, being excluded from the promises of life, we again fall
under the curse. I state not only what happens, but what must
necessarily happen. The doctrine of the Law transcending our
capacity, a man may indeed look from a distance at the promises held
forth, but he cannot derive any benefit from them. The only thing,
therefore, remaining for him is, from their excellence to form a
better estimate of his own misery, while he considers that the hope
of salvation is cut off, and he is threatened with certain death. On
the other hand, those fearful denunciations which strike not at a
few individuals, but at every individual without exceptions rise up;
rise up, I says and, with inexorable severity, pursue us; so that
nothing but instant death is presented by the Law.
    4. Therefore, if we look merely to the Law, the result must be
despondency, confusion, and despair, seeing that by it we are all
cursed and condemned, while we are kept far away from the
blessedness which it holds forth to its observers. Is the Lord,
then, you will ask, only sporting with us? Is it not the next thing
to mockery, to hold out the hope of happiness, to invite and exhort
us to it, to declare that it is set before us, while all the while
the entrance to it is precluded and quite shut up? I answer,
Although the promises, in so far as they are conditional, depend on
a perfect obedience of the Law, which is nowhere to be found, they
have not, however, been given in vain. For when we have learned,
that the promises would be fruitless and unavailing, did not God
accept us of his free goodness, without any view to our works, and
when, having so learned, we, by faith, embrace the goodness thus
offered in the gospel, the promises, with all their annexed
conditions, are fully accomplished. For God, while bestowing all
things upon us freely, crowns his goodness by not disdaining our
imperfect obedience; forgiving its deficiencies, accepting it as if
it were complete, and so bestowing upon us the full amount of what
the Law has promised. But as this point will be more fully discussed
in treating of justification by faith, we shall not follow it
further at present.
    5. What has been said as to the impossible observance of the
Law, it will be proper briefly to explain and confirm, the general
opinion being, that nothing can be more absurd. Hence Jerome has not
hesitated to denounce anathema against it. What Jerome thought, I
care not; let us inquire what is the truth. I will not here enter
into a long and intricate discussion on the various kinds of
possibility. By impossible, I mean, that which never was, and, being
prevented by the ordination and decree of God, never will be. I say,
that if we go back to the remotest period, we shall not find a
single saint who, clothed with a mortal body, ever attained to such
perfection as to love the Lord with all his heart, and soul, and
mind, and strength; and, on the other hand, not one who has not felt
the power of concupiscence. Who can deny this? I am aware, indeed of
a kind of saints whom a foolish superstition imagines, and whose
purity the angels of heaven scarcely equal. This, however, is
repugnant both to Scripture and experience. But I say further, that
no saint ever will attain to perfection, so long as he is in the
body. Scripture bears clear testimony to this effect: "There is no
man that sinneth not," saith Solomon (1 Kings 8: 46.) David says,
"In thy sight shall no man living be justified," (Psalm 143: 2.) Job
also, in numerous passages, affirms the same thing. But the clearest
of all is Paul, who declares that "the flesh lusteth against the
Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh," (Gal. 5: 17.) And he
proves, that "as many as are of the works of the law are under the
curse," for the simple reason, that it is written, "Cursed is every
one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book
of the law to do them," (Gal. 3: 10; Deut. 27: 26;) intimating, or
rather assuming it as confessed, that none can so continue. But
whatever has been declared by Scripture must be regarded as
perpetual, and hence necessary. The Pelagians annoyed Augustine with
the sophism, that it was insulting to God to hold, that he orders
more than believers are able, by his grace, to perform; and he, in
order to evade it, acknowledged that the Lord was able, if he chose,
to raise a mortal man to angelic purity; but that he had never done,
and never would do it, because so the Scripture had declared,
(Augustine, lib. de Nat. et Grat.) This I deny not: but I add, that
there is no use in absurdly disputing concerning the power of God in
opposition to his truth; and therefore there is no ground for
cavilling, when it is said that that thing cannot be, which the
Scriptures declare will never be. But if it is the word that is
objected to, I refer to the answer which our Saviour gave to his
disciples when they asked, "Who then can be saved?" "With men," said
he, "this is impossible; but with God all things are possible"
(Matth. 19: 25.) Augustine argues in the most convincing manner,
that while in the flesh, we never can give God the love which we owe
him. "Love so follows knowledge, that no man can perfectly love God
who has not previously a full comprehension of his goodness,"
(Augustin. de Spiritu et Litera, towards the end, and elsewhere.) So
long as we are pilgrims in the world, we see through a glass darkly,
and therefore our love is imperfect. Let it therefore be held
incontrovertible, that, in consequence of the feebleness of our
nature, it is impossible for us, so long as we are in the flesh, to
fulfil the law. This will also be proved elsewhere from the writings
of Paul, (Rom. 8: 3.)
    6. That the whole matter may be made clearer, let us take a
succinct view of the office and use of the Moral Law. Now this
office and use seems to me to consist of three parts. First, by
exhibiting the righteousness of God, - in other words, the
righteousness which alone is acceptable to God, - it admonishes
every one of his own unrighteousness, certiorates, convicts, and
finally condemns him. This is necessary, in order that man, who is
blind and intoxicated with self-love, may be brought at once to know
and to confess his weakness and impurity. For until his vanity is
made perfectly manifest, he is puffed up with infatuated confidence
in his own powers, and never can be brought to feel their feebleness
so long as he measures them by a standard of his own choice. So
soon, however, as he begins to compare them with the requirements of
the Law, he has something to tame his presumption. How high soever
his opinion of his own powers may be, he immediately feels that they
pant under the heavy load, then totter and stumble, and finally fall
and give way. He, then, who is schooled by the Law, lays aside the
arrogance which formerly blinded him. In like manner must he be
cured of pride, the other disease under which we have said that he
labours. So long as he is permitted to appeal to his own judgement,
he substitutes a hypocritical for a real righteousness, and,
contented with this, sets up certain factitious observances in
opposition to the grace of God. But after he is forced to weigh his
conduct in the balance of the Law, renouncing all dependence on this
fancied righteousness, he sees that he is at an infinite distance
from holiness, and, on the other hand, that he teems with
innumerable vices of which he formerly seemed free. The recesses in
which concupiscence lies hid are so deep and tortuous that they
easily elude our view; and hence the Apostle had good reason for
saying, "I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt
not covet." For, if it be not brought forth from its lurkingplaces,
it miserably destroys in secret before its fatal sting is discerned.
    7. Thus the Law is a kind of mirror. As in a mirror we discover
any stains upon our face, so in the Law we behold, first, our
impotence; then, in consequence of it, our iniquity; and, finally,
the curse, as the consequence of both. He who has no power of
following righteousness is necessarily plunged in the mire of
iniquity, and this iniquity is immediately followed by the curse.
Accordingly, the greater the transgression of which the Law convicts
us, the severer the judgement to which we are exposed. To this
effect is the Apostle's declaration, that "by the law is the
knowledge of sin," (Rom. 3: 20.) By these words, he only points out
the first office of the Law as experienced by sinners not yet
regenerated. In conformity to this, it is said, "the law entered
that the offence might abound;" and, accordingly, that it is "the
ministration of death;" that it "worketh wrath" and kills, (Rom. 5:
20; 2 Cor. 3: 7; Rom. 4: 15.) For there cannot be a doubt that the
clearer the consciousness of guilt, the greater the increase of sin;
because then to transgression a rebellious feeling against the
Lawgiver is added. All that remains for the Law, is to arm the wrath
of God for the destruction of the sinner; for by itself it can do
nothing but accuse, condemn, and destroy him. Thus Augustine says,
"If the Spirit of grace be absent, the law is present only to
convict and slay us." But to say this neither insults the law, nor
derogates in any degree from its excellence. Assuredly, if our whole
will were formed and disposed to obedience, the mere knowledge of
the law would be sufficient for salvation; but since our carnal and
corrupt nature is at enmity with the Divine law, and is in no degree
amended by its discipline, the consequence is, that the law which,
if it had been properly attended to, would have given life, becomes
the occasion of sin and death. When all are convicted of
transgression, the more it declares the righteousness of God, the
more, on the other hand, it discloses our iniquity; the more
certainly it assures us that life and salvation are treasured up as
the reward of righteousness, the more certainly it assures us that
the unrighteous will perish. So far, however are these qualities
from throwing disgrace on the Law, that their chief tendency is to
give a brighter display of the divine goodness. For they show that
it is only our weakness and depravity that prevents us from enjoying
the blessedness which the law openly sets before us. Hence
additional sweetness is given to divine grace, which comes to our
aid without the law, and additional loveliness to the mercy which
confers it, because they proclaim that God is never weary in doing
good, and in loading us with new gifts.
    8. But while the unrighteousness and condemnation of all are
attested by the law, it does not follow (if we make the proper use
of it) that we are immediately to give up all hope and rush headlong
on despair. No doubt, it has some such effect upon the reprobate,
but this is owing to their obstinacy. With the children of God the
effect is different. The Apostle testifies that the law pronounces
its sentence of condemnation in order "that every mouth may be
stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God," (Rom. 3:
19.) In another place, however, the same Apostle declares, that "God
has concluded them all in unbelief;" not that he might destroy all,
or allow all to perish, but that "he might have mercy upon all,"
(Rom. 11: 32:) in other words, that divesting themselves of an
absurd opinion of their own virtue, they may perceive how they are
wholly dependent on the hand of God; that feeling how naked and
destitute they are, they may take refuge in his mercy, rely upon it,
and cover themselves up entirely with it; renouncing all
righteousness and merit, and clinging to mercy alone, as offered in
Christ to all who long and look for it in true faith. In the
precepts of the law, God is seen as the rewarder only of perfect
righteousness, (a righteousness of which all are destitute,) and, on
the other hand, as the stern avenger of wickedness. But in Christ
his countenance beams forth full of grace and gentleness towards
poor unworthy sinners.
    9. There are many passages in Augustine, as to the utility of
the law in leading us to implore Divine assistance. Thus he writes
to Hilary, "The law orders, that we, after attempting to do what is
ordered and so feeling our weakness under the law, may learn to
implore the help of grace." In like manner, he writes to Asellius,
"The utility of the law is, that it convinces man of his weakness,
and compels him to apply for the medicine of grace, which is in
Christ." In like manner, he says to Innocentius Romanus, "The law
orders; grace supplies the power of acting." Again, to Valentinus,
"God enjoins what we cannot do, in order that we may know what we
have to ask of him." Again, "The law was given, that it might make
you guilty - being made guilty might fear; fearing, might ask
indulgence, not presume on your own strength." Again, "The law was
given, in order to convert a great into a little man - to show that
you have no power of your own for righteousness; and might thus,
poor, needy, and destitute, flee to grace." He afterwards thus
addresses the Almighty, "So do, O Lord, so do, O merciful Lord;
command what cannot be fulfilled; nay, command what cannot be
fulfilled, unless by thy own grace: so that when men feel they have
no strength in themselves to fulfil it, every mouth may be stopped,
and no man seem great in his own eyes. Let all be little ones; let
the whole world become guilty before God." But I am forgetting
myself in producing so many passages, since this holy man wrote a
distinct treatise, which he entitled De Spiritu et Litera. The other
branch of this first use he does not describe so distinctly, either
because he knew that it depended on the former, or because he was
not so well aware of it, or because he wanted words in which he
might distinctly and clearly explain its proper meaning. But even in
the reprobate themselves, this first office of the law is not
altogether wanting. They do not, indeed, proceed so far with the
children of God as, after the flesh is cast down, to be renewed in
the inner man, and revive again, but stunned by the first terror,
give way to despair. Still it tends to manifest the equity of the
Divine judgement, when their consciences are thus heaved upon the
waves. They would always willingly carp at the judgement of God; but
now, though that judgement is not manifested, still the alarm
produced by the testimony of the law and of their conscience
bespeaks their deserts.
    10. The second office of the Law is, by means of its fearful
denunciations and the consequent dread of punishment, to curb those
who, unless forced, have no regard for rectitude and justice. Such
persons are curbed not because their mind is inwardly moved and
affected, but because, as if a bridle were laid upon them, they
refrain their hands from external acts, and internally check the
depravity which would otherwise petulantly burst forth. It is true,
they are not on this account either better or more righteous in the
sight of God. For although restrained by terror or shame, they dare
not proceed to what their mind has conceived, nor give full license
to their raging lust, their heart is by no means trained to fear and
obedience. Nay, the more they restrain themselves, the more they are
inflamed, the more they rage and boil, prepared for any act or
outbreak whatsoever were it not for the terror of the law. And not
only so, but they thoroughly detest the law itself, and execrate the
Lawgiver; so that if they could, they would most willingly
annihilate him, because they cannot bear either his ordering what is
right, or his avenging the despisers of his Majesty. The feeling of
all who are not yet regenerate, though in some more, in others less
lively, is, that in regard to the observance of the law, they are
not led by voluntary submission, but dragged by the force of fear.
Nevertheless, this forced and extorted righteousness is necessary
for the good of society, its peace being secured by a provision but
for which all things would be thrown into tumult and confusion. Nay,
this tuition is not without its use, even to the children of God,
who, previous to their effectual calling, being destitute of the
Spirit of holiness, freely indulge the lusts of the flesh. When, by
the fear of Divine vengeance, they are deterred from open
outbreakings, though, from not being subdued in mind, they profit
little at present, still they are in some measure trained to bear
the yoke of righteousness, so that when they are called, they are
not like mere novices, studying a discipline of which previously
they had no knowledge. This office seems to be especially in the
view of the Apostle, when he says, "That the law is not made for a
righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly
and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers
and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them
that defile themselves with mankind, for men-stealers, for liars,
for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is
contrary to sound doctrine," (1 Tim. 1: 9, 10.) He thus indicates
that it is a restraint on unruly lusts that would otherwise burst
all bonds.
    11. To both may be applied the declaration of the Apostle in
another place, that "The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto
Christ," (Gal. 3: 24;) since there are two classes of persons, whom
by its training it leads to Christ. Some (of whom we spoke in the
first place,) from excessive confidence in their own virtue or
righteousness, are unfit to receive the grace of Christ, until they
are completely humbled. This the law does by making them sensible of
their misery, and so disposing them to long for what they previously
imagined they did not want. Others have need of a bridle to restrain
them from giving full scope to their passions, and thereby utterly
losing all desire after righteousness. For where the Spirit of God
rules not, the lusts sometimes so burst forth, as to threaten to
drown the soul subjected to them in forgetfulness and contempt of
God; and so they would, did not God interpose with this remedy.
Those, therefore, whom he has destined to the inheritance of his
kingdom, if he does not immediately regenerate, he, through the
works of the law, preserves in fear, against the time of his
visitation, not, indeed, that pure and chaste fear which his
children ought to have, but a fear useful to the extent of
instructing them in true piety according to their capacity. Of this
we have so many proofs, that there is not the least need of an
example. For all who have remained for some time in ignorance of God
will confess, as the result of their own experience, that the law
had the effect of keeping them in some degree in the fear and
reverence of God, till, being regenerated by his Spirit, they began
to love him from the heart.
    12. The third use of the Law (being also the principal use, and
more closely connected with its proper end) has respect to believers
in whose hearts the Spirit of God already flourishes and reigns. For
although the Law is written and engraven on their hearts by the
finger of God, that is, although they are so influenced and actuated
by the Spirit, that they desire to obey God, there are two ways in
which they still profit in the Law. For it is the best instrument
for enabling them daily to learn with greater truth and certainty
what that will of the Lord is which they aspire to follow, and to
confirm them in this knowledge; just as a servant who desires with
all his soul to approve himself to his master, must still observe,
and be careful to ascertain his master's dispositions, that he may
comport himself in accommodation to them. Let none of us deem
ourselves exempt from this necessity, for none have as yet attained
to such a degree of wisdom, as that they may not, by the daily
instruction of the Law, advance to a purer knowledge of the Divine
will. Then, because we need not doctrine merely, but exhortation
also, the servant of God will derive this further advantage from the
Law: by frequently meditating upon it, he will be excited to
obedience, and confirmed in it, and so drawn away from the slippery
paths of sin. In this way must the saints press onward, since,
however great the alacrity with which, under the Spirit, they hasten
toward righteousness, they are retarded by the sluggishness of the
flesh, and make less progress than they ought. The Law acts like a
whip to the flesh, urging it on as men do a lazy sluggish ass. Even
in the case of a spiritual man, inasmuch as he is still burdened
with the weight of the flesh, the Law is a constant stimulus,
pricking him forward when he would indulge in sloth. David had this
use in view when he pronounced this high eulogium on the Law, "The
law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of
the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord
are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure,
enlightening the eyes," (Ps. 19: 7, 8.) Again, "Thy word is a lamp
unto my feet, and a light unto my path," (Ps. 119: 105.) The whole
psalm abounds in passages to the same effect. Such passages are not
inconsistent with those of Paul, which show not the utility of the
law to the regenerate, but what it is able of itself to bestow. The
object of the Psalmist is to celebrate the advantages which the
Lord, by means of his law, bestows on those whom he inwardly
inspires with a love of obedience. And he adverts not to the mere
precepts, but also to the promise annexed to them, which alone makes
that sweet which in itself is bitter. For what is less attractive
than the law, when, by its demands and threatening, it overawes the
soul, and fills it with terror? David specially shows that in the
law he saw the Mediator, without whom it gives no pleasure or
delight.
    13. Some unskilful persons, from not attending to this, boldly
discard the whole law of Moses, and do away with both its Tables,
imagining it unchristian to adhere to a doctrine which contains the
ministration of death. Far from our thoughts be this profane notion.
Moses has admirably shown that the Law, which can produce nothing
but death in sinners, ought to have a better and more excellent
effect upon the righteous. When about to die, he thus addressed the
people, "Set your hearts unto all the words which I testify among
you this day, which ye shall command your children to observe to do,
all the words of this law. For it is not a vain thing for you;
because it is your life," (Deut. 32: 46, 47.) If it cannot be denied
that it contains a perfect pattern of righteousness, then, unless we
ought not to have any proper rule of life, it must be impious to
discard it. There are not various rules of life, but one perpetual
and inflexible rule; and, therefore, when David describes the
righteous as spending their whole lives in meditating on the Law,
(Psalm 1: 2,) we must not confine to a single age, an employment
which is most appropriate to all ages, even to the end of the world.
Nor are we to be deterred or to shun its instructions, because the
holiness which it prescribes is stricter than we are able to render,
so long as we bear about the prison of the body. It does not now
perform toward us the part of a hard taskmaster, who will not be
satisfied without full payment; but, in the perfection to which it
exhorts us, points out the goal at which, during the whole course of
our lives, it is not less our interest than our duty to aim. It is
well if we thus press onward. Our whole life is a race, and after we
have finished our course, the Lord will enable us to reach that goal
to which, at present, we can only aspire in wish.
    14. Since, in regard to believers, the law has the force of
exhortation, not to bind their consciences with a curse, but by
urging them, from time to time, to shake off sluggishness and
chastise imperfection, - many, when they would express this
exemption from the curse, say, that in regard to believers the Law
(I still mean the Moral Law) is abrogated: not that the things which
it enjoins are no longer right to be observed, but only that it is
not to believers what it formerly was; in other words, that it does
not, by terrifying and confounding their consciences, condemn and
destroy. It is certainly true that Paul shows, in clear terms, that
there is such an abrogation of the Law. And that the same was
preached by our Lord appears from this, that he would not have
refuted the opinion of his destroying the Law, if it had not been
prevalent among the Jews. Since such an opinion could not have
arisen at random without some pretext, there is reason to presume
that it originated in a false interpretation of his doctrine, in the
same way in which all errors generally arise from a perversion of
the truth. But lest we should stumble against the same stone, let us
distinguish accurately between what has been abrogated in the Law,
and what still remains in force. When the Lord declares, that he
came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil, (Matth. 5: 17;) that
until heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or little shall remain
unfulfilled; he shows that his advent was not to derogate, in any
degree, from the observance of the Law. And justly, since the very
end of his coming was to remedy the transgression of the Law.
Therefore, the doctrine of the Law has not been infringed by Christ,
but remains, that, by teaching, admonishing, rebuking, and
correcting, it may fit and prepare us for every good work.
    15. What Paul says, as to the abrogation of the Law, evidently
applies not to the Law itself, but merely to its power of
constraining the conscience. For the Law not only teaches, but also
imperiously demands. If obedience is not yielded, nay, if it is
omitted in any degree, it thunders forth its curse. For this reason,
the Apostle says, that "as many as are of the works of the law are
under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that
continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the
law to do them," (Gal. 3: 10; Deut. 27: 26.) Those he describes as
under the works of the Law, who do not place righteousness in that
forgiveness of sins by which we are freed from the rigour of the
Law. He therefore shows, that we must be freed from the fetters of
the Law, if we would not perish miserably under them. But what
fetters? Those of rigid and austere exaction, which remits not one
iota of the demand, and leaves no transgression unpunished. To
redeem us from this curse, Christ was made a curse for us: for it is
written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree, (Deut. 21: 23,
compared with Gal. 3: 13, 4: 4.) In the following chapter, indeed,
he says, that "Christ was made under the law, in order that he might
redeem those who are under the law;" but the meaning is the same.
For he immediately adds, "That we might receive the adoption of
sons." What does this mean? That we might not be, all our lifetime,
subject to bondage, having our consciences oppressed with the fear
of death. Meanwhile, it must ever remain an indubitable truth, that
the Law has lost none of its authority, but must always receive from
us the same respect and obedience.
    16. The case of ceremonies is different, these having been
abrogated not in effect but in use only. Though Christ by his advent
put an end to their use, so far is this from derogating from their
sacredness, that it rather commends and illustrates it. For as these
ceremonies would have given nothing to God's ancient people but
empty show, if the power of Christ's death and resurrection had not
been prefigured by them, - so, if the use of them had not ceased, it
would, in the present day, be impossible to understand for what
purpose they were instituted. Accordingly, Paul, in order to prove
that the observance of them was not only superfluous, but pernicious
also, says that they "are a shadow of things to come; but the body
is of Christ," (Col. 2: 17.) We see, therefore, that the truth is
made clearer by their abolition than if Christ, who has been openly
manifested, were still figured by them as at a distance, and as
under a veil. By the death of Christ, the veil of the temple was
rent in vain, the living and express image of heavenly things, which
had begun to be dimly shadowed forth, being now brought fully into
view, as is described by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
(Heb. 10: 1.) To the same effect, our Saviour declares, that "the
law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of
God is preached, and every man presseth into it," (Luke 16: 16;) not
that the holy fathers were left without the preaching of the hope of
salvation and eternal life, but because they only saw at a distance,
and under a shadow, what we now behold in full light. Why it behaved
the Church to ascend higher than these elements, is explained by
John the Baptist, when he says, "The law was given by Moses, but
grace and truth came by Jesus Christ," (John 1: 17.) For though it
is true that expiation was promised in the ancient sacrifices, and
the ark of the covenant was a sure pledge of the paternal favour of
God, the whole would have been delusory had it not been founded on
the grace of Christ, wherein true and eternal stability is found. It
must be held as a fixed point, that though legal rites ceased to be
observed, their end serves to show more clearly how great their
utility was before the advent of Christ, who, while he abolished the
use, sealed their force and effect by his death.
    17. There is a little more difficulty in the following passage
of Paul: "You, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of
your flesh, has he quickened together with him, having forgiven you
all trespasses; blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was
against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way,
nailing it to his cross," &c., (Col. 2: 13, 14.) He seems to extend
the abolition of the Law considerably farther, as if we had nothing
to do with its injunctions. Some err in interpreting this simply of
the Moral Law, as implying the abolition not of its injunctions, but
of its inexorable rigour. Others examining Paul's words more
carefully, see that they properly apply to the Ceremonial Law, and
show that Paul repeatedly uses the term ordinance in this sense. He
thus writes to the Ephesians: "He is our peace, who has made both
one, and has broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of
commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of
twain one new man," (Eph. 2: 14.) There can be no doubt that he is
there treating of ceremonies, as he speaks of "the middle wall of
partition" which separated Jews and Gentiles. I therefore hold that
the former view is erroneous; but, at the same time, it does not
appear to me that the latter comes fully up to the Apostle's
meaning. For I cannot admit that the two passages are perfectly
parallel. As his object was to assure the Ephesians that they were
admitted to fellowship with the Jews, he tells them that the
obstacle which formerly stood in the way was removed. This obstacle
was in the ceremonies. For the rites of ablution and sacrifice, by
which the Jews were consecrated to the Lord, separated them from the
Gentiles. But who sees not that, in the Epistle to the Colossians, a
sublimer mystery is adverted to? No doubt, a question is raised
there as to the Mosaic observances, to which false apostles were
endeavouring to bind the Christian people. But as in the Epistle to
the Galatians he takes a higher view of this controversy, and in a
manner traces it to its fountain, so he does in this passage also.
For if the only thing considered in rites is the necessity of
observing them, of what use was it to call it a handwriting which
was contrary to us? Besides, how could the bringing in of it be set
down as almost the whole sum of redemption? Wherefore, the very
nature of the case clearly shows that reference is here made to
something more internal. I cannot doubt that I have ascertained the
genuine interpretation, provided I am permitted to assume what
Augustine has somewhere most truly affirmed, nay, derived from the
very words of the Apostle, viz., that in the Jewish ceremonies there
was more a confession than an expiation of sins. For what more was
done in sacrifice by those who substituted purifications instead of
themselves, than to confess that they were conscious of deserving
death? What did these purifications testify but that they themselves
were impure? By these means, therefore, the handwriting both of
their guilt and impurity was ever and anon renewed. But the
attestation of these things was not the removal of them. Wherefore,
the Apostle says that Christ is "the mediator of the new testament,
- by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that
were under the first testament," (Heb. 9:15.) Justly, therefore,
does the Apostle describe these handwritings as against the
worshipers, and contrary to them, since by means of them their
impurity and condemnation were openly sealed. There is nothing
contrary to this in the fact that they were partakers of the same
grace with ourselves. This they obtained through Christ, and not
through the ceremonies which the Apostle there contrasts with
Christ, showing that by the continued use of them the glory of
Christ was obscured. We perceive how ceremonies, considered in
themselves, are elegantly and appositely termed handwritings, and
contrary to the salvation of man, in as much as they were a kind of
formal instruments which attested his liability. On the other hand,
when false apostles wished to bind them on the Christian Church,
Paul, entering more deeply into their signification, with good
reason warned the Colossians how seriously they would relapse if
they allowed a yoke to be in that way imposed upon them. By so
doing, they, at the same time, deprived themselves of all benefit
from Christ, who, by his eternal sacrifice once offered, had
abolished those daily sacrifices, which were indeed powerful to
attest sin, but could do nothing to destroy it.







Chapter 8


8 Exposition of the Moral Law.

    
    This chapter consists of four parts. I. Some general
observations necessary for the understanding of the subject are made
by way of preface, sec. 1-5. II. Three things always to be attended
to in ascertaining and expounding the meaning of the Moral Law, sec.
6-12. III. Exposition of the Moral Law, or the Ten Commandments,
sec. 13-15. IV. The end for which the whole Law is intended, viz.,
to teach not only elementary principles, but perfection, sec. 51, to
the end of the chapter.
    
Sections.

1. The Law was committed to writing, in order that it might teach
    more fully and perfectly that knowledge, both of God and of
    ourselves, which the law of nature teaches meagrely and
    obscurely. Proof of this, from an enumeration of the principal
    parts of the Moral Law; and also from the dictate of natural
    law, written on the hearts of all, and, in a manner, effaced by
    sin.
2. Certain general maxims. 1. From the knowledge of God, furnished
    by the Law, we learn that God is our Father and Ruler.
    Righteousness is pleasing, iniquity is an abomination in his
    sight. Hence, how weak soever we may be, our duty is to
    cultivate the one, and shun the other.
3. From the knowledge of ourselves, furnished by the Law, we learn
    to discern our own utter powerlessness, we are ashamed; and
    seeing it is in vain to seek for righteousness in ourselves,
    are induced to seek it elsewhere.
4. Hence, God has annexed promises and threatening to his promises.
    These not limited to the present life, but embrace things
    heavenly and eternal. They, moreover, attest the spotless
    purity of God, his love of righteousness, and also his kindness
    towards us.
5. The Law shows, moreover, that there is nothing more acceptable to
    God than obedience. Hence, all superstitious and hypocritical
    modes of worship are condemned. A remedy against superstitious
    worship and human presumption.
6. The second part of the chapter, containing three observations or
    rules. First rule, Our life must be formed by the Law, not only
    to external honesty, but to inward and spiritual righteousness.
    In this respect, the Law of God differs from civil laws, he
    being a spiritual Lawgiver, man not. This rule of great extent,
    and not sufficiently attended to.
7. This first rule confirmed by the authority of Christ, and
    vindicated from the false dogma of Sophists, who say that
    Christ is only another Moses.
8. Second observation or rule to be carefully attended to, viz.,
    that the end of the command must be inquired into, until it is
    ascertained what the Lawgiver approves or disapproves. Example.
    Where the Law approves, its opposite is condemned, and vice
    versa.
9. Full explanation of this latter point. Example.
10. The Law states what is most impious in each transgression, in
    order to show how heinous the transgression is. Example.
11. Third observation or rule regards the division of the Law into
    Two Tables: the former comprehending our duty to God; the
    latter, our duty to our neighbour. The connection between these
    necessary and inseparable. Their invariable order. Sum of the
    Law.
12. Division of the Law into Ten Commandments. Various distinctions
    made with regard to them, but the best distinction that which
    divides them into Two Tables. Four commandments belong to the
    First, and six to the Second Table.
13. The third part of the chapter, containing an exposition of the
    Decalogue. The preface vindicates the authority of the Law.
    This it does in three ways. First, by a declaration of its
    majesty.
14. The preface to the Law vindicates its authority. Secondly, by
    calling to mind God's paternal kindness.
15. Thirdly, by calling to mind the deliverance out of the land of
    Egypt. Why God distinguishes himself by certain epithets. Why
    mention is made of the deliverance from Egypt. In what way, and
    how far, the remembrance of this deliverance should still
    affect us.
16. Exposition of the First Commandment. Its end. What it is to have
    God, and to have strange gods. Adoration due to God, trust,
    invocation, thanksgiving, and also true religion, required by
    the Commandment. Superstition, Polytheism, and Atheism,
    forbidden. What meant by the words, "before me."
17. Exposition of the Second Commandment. The end and sum of it. Two
    parts. Short enumeration of forbidden shapes.
18. Why a threatening is added. Four titles applied to God, to make
    a deeper impression. He is called Mighty, Jealous, an Avenger,
    Merciful. Why said to be jealous. Reason drawn from analogy.
19. Exposition of the threatening which is added. First, as to
    visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children. A
    misinterpretation on this head refuted, and the genuine meaning
    of the threatening explained.
20. Whether this visiting of the sins of parents inconsistent with
    the divine justice. Apparently conflicting passages reconciled.
21. Exposition of the latter part, viz., the showing mercy to
    thousands. The use of this promise. Consideration of an
    exception of frequent occurrence. The extent of this blessing.
22. Exposition of the Third Commandment. The end and sum of it.
    Three parts. These considered. What it is to use the name of
    God in vain. Swearing. Distinction between this commandment and
    the Ninth.
23. An oath defined. It is a species of divine worship. This
    explained.
24. Many modes in which this commandment is violated. 1. By taking
    God to witness what we know is false. The insult thus offered.
25. Modes of violation continued. 2. Taking God to witness in
    trivial matters. Contempt thus shown. When and how an oath
    should be used. 3. Substituting the servants of God instead of
    himself when taking an oath.
26. The Anabaptists, who condemn all oaths, refuted. 1. By the
    authority of Christ, who cannot be opposed in anything to the
    Father. A passage perverted by the Anabaptists explained. The
    design of our Saviour in the passage. What meant by his there
    prohibiting oaths.
27. The lawfulness of oaths confirmed by Christ and the apostles.
    Some approve of public, but not of private oaths. The
    lawfulness of the latter proved both by reason and example.
    Instances from Scripture.
28. Exposition of the Fourth Commandment. Its end. Three purposes.
29. Explanation of the first purpose, viz., a shadowing forth of
    spiritual rest. This the primary object of the precept. God is
    therein set forth as our sanctifier; and hence we must abstain
    from work, that the work of God in us may not be hindered.
30. The number seven denoting perfection in Scripture, this
    commandment may, in that respect, denote the perpetuity of the
    Sabbath, and its completion at the last day.
31. Taking a simpler view of the commandment, the number is of no
    consequence, provided we maintain the doctrine of a perpetual
    rest from all our works, and, at the same time, avoid a
    superstitious observance of days. The ceremonial part of the
    commandment abolished by the advent of Christ.
32. The second and third purposes of the Commandment explained.
    These twofold and perpetual. This confirmed. Of religious
    assemblies.
33. Of the observance of the Lord's day, in answer to those who
    complain that the Christian people are thus trained to Judaism.
    Objection.
34. Ground of this institution. There is no kind of superstitious
    necessity. The sum of the Commandment.
35. The Fifth Commandment, (the first of the Second Table,)
    expounded. Its end and substance. How far honour due to
    parents. To whom the term father applies.
36. It makes no difference whether those to whom this honour is
    required are worthy or unworthy. The honour is claimed
    especially for parents. It consists of three parts. 1.
    Reverence.
37. Honour due to parents continued. 2. Obedience. 3. Gratitude. Why
    a promise added. In what sense it is to be taken. The present
    life a testimony of divine blessing. The reservation considered
    and explained.
38. Conversely a curse denounced on disobedient children. How far
    obedience due to parents, and those in the place of parents.
39. Sixth Commandment expounded. Its end and substance. God, as a
    spiritual Lawgiver, forbids the murder of the heart, and
    requires a sincere desire to preserve the life of our
    neighbour.
40. A twofold ground for this Commandment. 1. Man is the image of
    God. 2. He is our flesh.
41. Exposition of the Seventh Command. The end and substance of it.
    Remedy against fornication.
42. Continence an excellent gift, when under the control of God
    only. Altogether denied to some; granted only for a time to
    others. Argument in favour of celibacy refuted.
43. Each individual may refrain from marriage so long as he is fit
    to observe celibacy. True celibacy, and the proper use of it.
    Any man not gifted with continence wars with God and with
    nature, as constituted by him, in remaining unmarried. Chastity
    defined.
44. Precautions to be observed in married life. Everything repugnant
    to chastity here condemned.
45. Exposition of the Eighth Commandment. Its end and substance.
    Four kinds of theft. The bad acts condemned by this
    Commandment. Other peculiar kinds of theft.
46. Proper observance of this Commandment. Four heads. Application.
    1. To the people and the magistrate. 2. To the pastors of the
    Church and their flocks. 3. To parents and children. 4. To the
    old and the young. 5. To servants and masters. 6. To
    individuals.
47. Exposition of the ninth Commandment. Its end and substance. The
    essence of the Commandment - detestation of falsehood, and the
    pursuit of truth. Two kinds of falsehood. Public and private
    testimony. The equity of this Commandment.
48. How numerous the violations of this Commandment. 1. By
    detraction. 2. By evil speaking - a thing contrary to the
    offices of Christian charity. 3. By scurrility or irony. 4. By
    prying curiosity, and proneness to harsh judgements.
49. Exposition of the Tenth Commandment. Its end and substance. What
    meant by the term Covetousness. Distinction between counsel and
    the covetousness here condemned.
50. Why God requires so much purity. Objection. Answer. Charity
    toward our neighbour here principally commended. Why house,
    wife, man-servant, maid-servant, ox, and ass, &c., are
    mentioned. Improper division of this Commandment into two.
51. The last part of the chapter. The end of the Law. Proof. A
    summary of the Ten Commandments. The Law delivers not merely
    rudiments and first principles, but a perfect standard of
    righteousness, modelled on the divine purity.
52. Why, in the Gospels and Epistles, the latter table only
    mentioned, and not the first. The same thing occurs in the
    Prophets.
53. An objection to what is said in the former section removed.
54. A conduct duly regulated by the divine Law, characterised by
    charity toward our neighbour. This subverted by those who give
    the first place to self-love. Refutation of their opinion.
55. Who our neighbour. Double error of the Schoolmen on this point.
56. This error consists, I. In converting precepts into counsels to
    be observed by monks.
57. Refutation of this error from Scripture and the ancient
    Theologians. Sophistical objection obviated.
58. Error of the Schoolmen consists, II. In calling hidden impiety
    and covetousness venial sins. Refutation drawn, 1. From a
    consideration of the whole Decalogue. 2. The testimony of an
    Apostle. 3. The authority of Christ. 4. The nature and majesty
    of God. 5. The sentence pronounced against sin. Conclusion.
    
    1. I believe it will not be out of place here to introduce the
Ten Commandments of the Law, and give a brief exposition of them. In
this way it will be made more clear, that the worship which God
originally prescribed is still in force, (a point to which I have
already adverted;) and then a second point will be confirmed, viz.,
that the Jews not only learned from the law wherein true piety
consisted, but from feeling their inability to observe it were
overawed by the fear of judgements and so drawn, even against their
will, towards the Mediator. In giving a summary of what constitutes
the true knowledge of God, we showed that we cannot form any just
conception of the character of God, without feeling overawed by his
majesty, and bound to do him service. In regard to the knowledge of
ourselves, we showed that it principally consists in renouncing all
idea of our own strength, and divesting ourselves of all confidence
in our own righteousness, while, on the other hand, under a full
consciousness of our wants, we learn true humility and
self-abasement. Both of these the Lord accomplishes by his Law,
first, when, in assertion of the right which he has to our
obedience, he calls us to reverence his majesty, and prescribes the
conduct by which this reverence is manifested; and, secondly, when,
by promulgating the rule of his justice, (a rule, to the rectitude
of which our nature, from being depraved and perverted, is
continually opposed, and to the perfection of which our ability,
from its infirmity and nervelessness for good, is far from being
able to attain,) he charges us both with impotence and
unrighteousness. Moreover, the very things contained in the two
tables are, in a manner, dictated to us by that internal law, which,
as has been already said, is in a manner written and stamped on
every heart. For conscience, instead of allowing us to stifle our
perceptions, and sleep on without interruption, acts as an inward
witness and monitor, reminds us of what we owe to God, points out
the distinction between good and evil, and thereby convicts us of
departure from duty. But man, being immured in the darkness of
error, is scarcely able, by means of that natural law, to form any
tolerable idea of the worship which is acceptable to God. At all
events, he is very far from forming any correct knowledge of it. In
addition to this, he is so swollen with arrogance and ambition, and
so blinded with self-love, that he is unable to survey, and, as it
were, descend into himself, that he may so learn to humble and abase
himself, and confess his misery. Therefore, as a necessary remedy,
both for our dullness and our contumacy, the Lord has given us his
written Law, which, by its sure attestations, removes the obscurity
of the law of nature, and also, by shaking off our lethargy, makes a
more lively and permanent impression on our minds.
    2. It is now easy to understand the doctrine of the law, viz.,
that God, as our Creator, is entitled to be regarded by us as a
Father and Master, and should, accordingly, receive from us fear,
love, reverence, and glory; nay, that we are not our own, to follow
whatever course passion dictates, but are bound to obey him
implicitly, and to acquiesce entirely in his good pleasure. Again,
the Law teaches, that justice and rectitude are a delight, injustice
an abomination to him, and, therefore, as we would not with impious
ingratitude revolt from our Maker, our whole life must be spent in
the cultivation of righteousness. For if we manifest becoming
reverence only when we prefer his will to our own, it follows, that
the only legitimate service to him is the practice of justice,
purity, and holiness. Nor can we plead as an excuse, that we want
the power, and, like debtors, whose means are exhausted, are unable
to pay. We cannot be permitted to measure the glory of God by our
ability; whatever we may be, he ever remains like himself, the
friend of righteousness, the enemy of unrighteousness, and whatever
his demands from us may be, as he can only require what is right, we
are necessarily under a natural obligation to obey. Our inability to
do so is our own fault. If lust, in which sin has its dominion, so
enthrals us, that we are not free to obey our Father, there is no
ground for pleading necessity as a defence, since this evil
necessity is within, and must be imputed to ourselves.
    3. When, under the guidance of the Law, we have advanced thus
far, we must, under the same guidance, proceed to descend into
ourselves. In this way, we at length arrive at two results: First,
contrasting our conduct with the righteousness of the Law, we see
how very far it is from being in accordance with the will of God,
and, therefore, how unworthy we are of holding our place among his
creatures, far less of being accounted his sons; and, secondly,
taking a survey of our powers, we see that they are not only unequal
to fulfil the Law, but are altogether null. The necessary
consequence must be, to produce distrust of our own ability, and
also anxiety and trepidation of mind. Conscience cannot feel the
burden of its guilt, without forthwith turning to the judgement of
God, while the view of this judgement cannot fail to excite a dread
of death. In like manner, the proofs of our utter powerlessness must
instantly beget despair of our own strength. Both feelings are
productive of humility and abasement, and hence the sinner,
terrified at the prospect of eternal death, (which he sees justly
impending over him for his iniquities,) turns to the mercy of God as
the only haven of safety. Feeling his utter inability to pay what he
owes to the Law, and thus despairing of himself, he rethinks him of
applying and looking to some other quarter for help.
    4. But the Lord does not count it enough to inspire a reverence
for his justice. To imbue our hearts with love to himself, and, at
the same time, with hatred to iniquity, he has added promises and
threatening. The eye of our mind being too dim to be attracted by
the mere beauty of goodness, our most merciful Father has been
pleased, in his great indulgence, to allure us to love and long
after it by the hope of reward. He accordingly declares that rewards
for virtue are treasured up with him, that none who yield obedience
to his commands will labour in vain. On the other hand, he proclaims
not only that iniquity is hateful in his sight, but that it will not
escape with impunity, because he will be the avenger of his insulted
majesty. That he may encourage us in every way, he promises present
blessings, as well as eternal felicity, to the obedience of those
who shall have kept his commands, while he threatens transgressors
with present suffering, as well as the punishment of eternal death.
The promise, "Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my
judgements; which if a man do, he shall live in them," (Lev. 18: 5,)
and corresponding to this the threatening, "The souls that sinneth,
it shall die," (Ezek. 18: 4, 20;) doubtless point to a future life
and death, both without end. But though in every passage where the
favour or anger of God is mentioned, the former comprehends eternity
of life and the latter eternal destruction, the Law, at the same
time, enumerates a long catalogue of present blessings and curses,
(Lev. 26: 4; Deut. 28: 1.) The threatening attest the spotless
purity of God, which cannot bear iniquity, while the promises attest
at once his infinite love of righteousness, (which he cannot leave
unrewarded,) and his wondrous kindness. Being bound to do him homage
with all that we have, he is perfectly entitled to demand everything
which he requires of us as a debt; and as a debt, the payment is
unworthy of reward. He therefore foregoes his right, when he holds
forth reward for services which are not offered spontaneously, as if
they were not due. The amount of these services, in themselves, has
been partly described and will appear more clearly in its own place.
For the present, it is enough to remember that the promises of the
Law are no mean commendation of righteousness as they show how much
God is pleased with the observance of them, while the threatening
denounced are intended to produce a greater abhorrence of
unrighteousness, lest the sinner should indulge in the blandishments
of vice, and forget the judgement which the divine Lawgiver has
prepared for him.
    5. The Lord, in delivering a perfect rule of righteousness, has
reduced it in all its parts to his mere will, and in this way has
shown that there is nothing more acceptable to him than obedience.
There is the more necessity for attending to this, because the human
mind, in its wantonness, is ever and anon inventing different modes
of worship as a means of gaining his favour. This irreligious
affectation of religion being innate in the human mind, has betrayed
itself in every age, and is still doing so, men always longing to
devise some method of procuring righteousness without any sanction
from the Word of God. Hence in those observances which are generally
regarded as good works, the precepts of the Law occupy a narrow
space, almost the whole being usurped by this endless host of human
inventions. But was not this the very license which Moses meant to
curb, when, after the promulgation of the Law, he thus addressed the
people: "Observe and hear all these words which I command thee, that
it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee for ever,
when thou does that which is good and right in the sight of the Lord
thy God." "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou
shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it," (Deut 12: 28-32.)
Previously, after asking "what nation is there so great, that has
statutes and judgements so righteous as all this law, which I set
before you this day?" he had added, "Only take heed to thyself, and
keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine
eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of
thy life," (Deut. 4: 8, 9.) God foreseeing that the Israelites would
not rest, but after receiving the Law, would, unless sternly
prohibited give birth to new kinds of righteousness, declares that
the Law comprehended a perfect righteousness. This ought to have
been a most powerful restraint, and yet they desisted not from the
presumptuous course so strongly prohibited. How do we act? We are
certainly under the same obligation as they were; for there cannot
be a doubt that the claim of absolute perfection which God made for
his Law is perpetually in force. Not contented with it, however, we
labour prodigiously in feigning and coining an endless variety of
good works, one after another. The best cure for this vice would be
a constant and deep-seated conviction that the Law was given from
heaven to teach us a perfect righteousness; that the only
righteousness so taught is that which the divine will expressly
enjoins; and that it is, therefore, vain to attempt, by new forms of
worship, to gain the favour of God, whose true worship consists in
obedience alone; or rather, that to go a wandering after good works
which are not prescribed by the Law of God, is an intolerable
violation of true and divine righteousness. Most truly does
Augustine say in one place, that the obedience which is rendered to
God is the parent and guardian; in another, that it is the source of
all the virtues.
    6. After we shall have expounded the Divine Law, what has been
previously said of its office and use will be understood more
easily, and with greater benefit. But before we proceed to the
consideration of each separate commandment, it will be proper to
take a general survey of the whole. At the outset, it was proved
that in the Law human life is instructed not merely in outward
decency but in inward spiritual righteousness. Though none can deny
this, yet very few duly attend to it, because they do not consider
the Lawgiver, by whose character that of the Law must also be
determined. Should a king issue an edict prohibiting murder,
adultery, and theft, the penalty, I admit, will not be incurred by
the man who has only felt a longing in his mind after these vices,
but has not actually committed them. The reason is, that a human
lawgiver does not extend his care beyond outward order, and,
therefore, his injunctions are not violated without outward acts.
But God, whose eye nothing escapes, and who regards not the outward
appearance so much as purity of heart, under the prohibition of
murder, adultery, and thefts includes wrath, hatred, lust,
covetousness, and all other things of a similar nature. Being a
spiritual Lawgiver, he speaks to the soul not less than the body.
The murder which the soul commits is wrath and hatred; the theft,
covetousness and avarice; and the adultery, lust. It may be alleged
that human laws have respect to intentions and wishes, and not
fortuitous events. I admit this but then these must manifest
themselves externally. They consider the animus with which the act
was done, but do not scrutinise the secret thoughts. Accordingly,
their demand is satisfied when the hand merely refrains from
transgression. On the contrary, the law of heaven being enacted for
our minds, the first thing necessary to a due observance of the Law
is to put them under restraint. But the generality of men, even
while they are most anxious to conceal their disregard of the Law,
only frame their hands and feet and other parts of their body to
some kind of observance, but in the meanwhile keep the heart utterly
estranged from everything like obedience. They think it enough to
have carefully concealed from man what they are doing in the sight
of God. Hearing the commandments, "Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt
not commit adultery," "Thou shalt not steal," they do not unsheathe
their sword for slaughter, nor defile their bodies with harlots, nor
put forth their hands to other men's goods. So far well; but with
their whole soul they breathe out slaughter, boil with lust, cast a
greedy eye at their neighbour's property, and in wish devour it.
Here the principal thing which the Law requires is wanting. Whence
then, this gross stupidity, but just because they lose sight of the
Lawgiver, and form an idea of righteousness in accordance with their
own disposition? Against this Paul strenuously protests, when he
declares that the "law is spiritual", (Rom. 7: 14;) intimating that
it not only demands the homage of the soul, and mind, and will, but
requires an angelic purity, which, purified from all filthiness of
the flesh, savours only of the Spirit.
    7. In saying that this is the meaning of the Law, we are not
introducing a new interpretation of our own; we are following
Christ, the best interpreter of the Law, (Matth. 5: 22, 28, 44.) The
Pharisees having instilled into the people the erroneous idea that
the Law was fulfilled by every one who did not in external act do
anything against the Law, he pronounces this a most dangerous
delusion, and declares that an immodest look is adultery, and that
hatred of a brother is murder. "Whosoever is angry with his brother
without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgement;" whosoever by
whispering or murmuring gives indication of being offended, "shall
be in danger of the council;" whosoever by reproaches and
evil-speaking gives way to open anger, "shall be in danger of
hell-fire." Those who have not perceived this, have pretended that
Christ was only a second Moses, the giver of an evangelical, to
supply the deficiency of the Mosaic Law. Hence the common axiom as
to the perfection of the Evangelical Law, and its great superiority
to that of Moses. This idea is in many ways most pernicious. For it
will appear from Moses himself, when we come to give a summary of
his precepts, that great indignity is thus done to the Divine Law.
It certainly insinuates, that the holiness of the fathers under the
Law was little else than hypocrisy, and leads us away from that one
unvarying rule of righteousness. It is very easy, however, to
confute this error, which proceeds on the supposition that Christ
added to the Law, whereas he only restored it to its integrity by
maintaining and purifying it when obscured by the falsehood, and
defiled by the leaven of the Pharisees.
    8. The next observation we would make is, that there is always
more in the requirements and prohibitions of the Law than is
expressed in words. This, however, must be understood so as not to
convert it into a kind of Lesbian code; and thus, by licentiously
wresting the Scriptures, make them assume any meaning that we
please. By taking this excessive liberty with Scripture, its
authority is lowered with some, and all hope of understanding it
abandoned by others. We must, therefore, if possible, discover some
path which may conduct us with direct and firm step to the will of
God. We must consider, I say, how far interpretation can be
permitted to go beyond the literal meaning of the words, still
making it apparent that no appending of human glosses is added to
the Divine Law, but that the pure and genuine meaning of the
Lawgiver is faithfully exhibited. It is true that, in almost all the
commandments, there are elliptical expressions, and that, therefore,
any man would make himself ridiculous by attempting to restrict the
spirit of the Law to the strict letter of the words. It is plain
that a sober interpretation of the Law must go beyond these, but how
far is doubtful, unless some rule be adopted. The best rule, in my
opinion, would be, to be guided by the principle of the commandment,
viz., to consider in the case of each what the purpose is for which
it was given. For example, every commandment either requires or
prohibits; and the nature of each is instantly discerned when we
look to the principle of the commandment as its end. Thus, the end
of the Fifth Commandment is to render honour to those on whom God
bestows it. The sum of the commandment, therefore, is, that it is
right in itself, and pleasing to God, to honour those on whom he has
conferred some distinction; that to despise and rebel against such
persons is offensive to Him. The principle of the First Commandment
is, that God only is to be worshipped. The sum of the commandment,
therefore is that true piety, in other words, the worship of the
Deity, is acceptable, and impiety is an abomination, to him. So in
each of the commandments we must first look to the matter of which
it treats, and then consider its end, until we discover what it
properly is that the Lawgiver declares to be pleasing or displeasing
to him. Only, we must reason from the precept to its contrary in
this way: If this pleases God, its opposite displeases; if that
displeases, its opposite pleases: if God commands this, he forbids
the opposite; if he forbids that, he commands the opposite.
    9. What is now touched on somewhat obscurely will become
perfectly clear as we proceed and get accustomed to the exposition
of the Commandments. It is sufficient thus to have adverted to the
subject; but perhaps our concluding statement will require to be
briefly confirmed, as it might otherwise not be understood, or,
though understood mighty perhaps, at the outset appear unsound.
There is no need of proving, that when good is ordered the evil
which is opposed to it is forbidden. This every one admits. It will
also be admitted, without much difficulty, that when evil is
forbidden, its opposite is enjoined. Indeed, it is a common saying,
that censure of vice is commendation of virtue. We, however, demand
somewhat more than is commonly understood by these expressions. When
the particular virtue opposed to a particular vice is spoken of, all
that is usually meant is abstinence from that vice. We maintain that
it goes farther, and means opposite duties and positive acts. Hence
the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," the generality of men will
merely consider as an injunction to abstain from all injury and all
wish to inflict injury. I hold that it moreover means, that we are
to aid our neighbour's life by every means in our power. And not to
assert without giving my reasons I prove it thus: God forbids us to
injure or hurt a brother, because he would have his life to be dear
and precious to us; and, therefore, when he so forbids, he, at the
same time, demands all the offices of charity which can contribute
to his preservation.
    10. But why did God thus deliver his commandments, as it were,
by halves, using elliptical expressions with a larger meaning than
that actually expressed? Other reasons are given, but the following
seems to me the best: - As the flesh is always on the alert to
extenuate the heinousness of sin, (unless it is made, as it were,
perceptible to the touch,) and to cover it with specious pretexts,
the Lord sets forth, by way of example, whatever is foulest and most
iniquitous in each species of transgression, that the delivery of it
might produce a shudder in the hearer, and impress his mind with a
deeper abhorrence of sin. In forming an estimate of sins, we are
often imposed upon by imagining that the more hidden the less
heinous they are. This delusion the Lord dispels by accustoming us
to refer the whole multitude of sins to particular heads, which
admirably show how great a degree of heinousness there is in each.
For example, wrath and hatred do not seem so very bad when they are
designated by their own names; but when they are prohibited under
the name of murder, we understand better how abominable they are in
the sight of God, who puts them in the same class with that horrid
crime. Influenced by his judgement, we accustom ourselves to judge
more accurately of the heinousness of offences which previously
seemed trivial.
    11. It will now be proper to consider what is meant by the
division of the divine Law into Two Tables. It will be judged by all
men of sense from the formal manner in which these are sometimes
mentioned, that it has not been done at random, or without reason.
Indeed, the reason is so obvious as not to allow us to remain in
doubt with regard to it. God thus divided his Law into two parts,
containing a complete rule of righteousness, that he might assign
the first place to the duties of religion which relate especially to
His worship, and the second to the duties of charity which have
respect to man. The first foundation of righteousness undoubtedly is
the worship of God. When it is subverted, all the other parts of
righteousness, like a building rent asunder, and in ruins, are
racked and scattered. What kind of righteousness do you call it, not
to commit theft and rapine, if you, in the meantime, with impious
sacrilege, rob God of his glory? or not to defile your body with
fornication, if you profane his holy name with blasphemy? or not to
take away the life of man, if you strive to cut off and destroy the
remembrance of God? It is vain, therefore, to talk of righteousness
apart from religion. Such righteousness has no more beauty than the
trunk of a body deprived of its head. Nor is religion the principal
part merely: it is the very soul by which the whole lives and
breathes. Without the fear of God, men do not even observe justice
and charity among themselves. We say, then, that the worship of God
is the beginning and foundation of righteousness; and that wherever
it is wanting, any degree of equity, or continence, or temperance,
existing among men themselves, is empty and frivolous in the sight
of God. We call it the source and soul of righteousness, in as much
as men learn to live together temperately, and without injury, when
they revere God as the judge of right and wrong. In the First Table,
accordingly, he teaches us how to cultivate piety, and the proper
duties of religion in which his worship consists; in the second, he
shows how, in the fear of his name, we are to conduct ourselves
towards our fellow-men. Hence, as related by the Evangelists,
(Matth. 22: 37; Luke 10: 27,) our Saviour summed up the whole Law in
two heads, viz., to love the Lord with all our heart, with all our
soul, and with all our strength, and our neighbour as ourselves. You
see how, of the two parts under which he comprehends the whole Law,
he devotes the one to God, and assigns the other to mankind.
    12. But although the whole Law is contained in two heads, yet,
in order to remove every pretext for excuse, the Lord has been
pleased to deliver more fully and explicitly in Ten Commandments,
every thing relating to his own honour, fear, and love, as well as
every thing relating to the charity which, for his sake, he enjoins
us to have towards our fellowmen. Nor is it an unprofitable study to
consider the division of the commandments, provided we remember that
it is one of those matters in which every man should have full
freedom of judgement, and on account of which, difference of opinion
should not lead to contention. We are, indeed, under the necessity
of making this observation, lest the division which we are to adopt
should excite the surprise or derision of the reader, as novel or of
recent invention.
    There is no room for controversy as to the fact, that the Law
is divided into ten heads since this is repeatedly sanctioned by
divine authority. The question, therefore, is not as to the number
of the parts, but the method of dividing them. Those who adopt a
division which gives three commandments to the First Table, and
throws the remaining seven into the Second Table, expunge the
commandment concerning images from the list, or at least conceal it
under the first, though there cannot be a doubt that it was
distinctly set down by the Lord as a separate commandment; whereas
the tenth, which prohibits the coveting of what belongs to our
neighbour, they absurdly break down into two. Moreover, it will soon
appear, that this method of dividing was unknown in a purer age.
Others count four commandments in the First Table as we do, but for
the first set down the introductory promise, without adding the
precept. But because I must hold, unless I am convinced by clear
evidence to the contrary, that the "ten words" mentioned by Moses
are Ten Commandments and because I see that number arranged in most
admirable order, I must, while I leave them to hold their own
opinion, follow what appears to me better established, viz., that
what they make to be the first commandment is of the nature of a
preface to the whole Law, that thereafter follow four commandments
in the First Table, and six in the Second, in the order in which
they will here be reviewed. This division Origin adopts without
discussion, as if it had been every where received in his day. It is
also adopted by Augustine, in his book addressed to Boniface, where,
in enumerating the commandments, he follows this order, Let one God
be religiously obeyed, let no idol be worshipped, let the name of
God be not used in vain; while previously he had made separate
mention of the typical commandment of the Sabbath. Elsewhere,
indeed, he expresses approbation of the first division, but on too
slight grounds, because, by the number three, (making the First
Table consist of three commandments,) the mystery of the Trinity
would be better manifested. Even here, however, he does not disguise
his opinion, that in other respects, our division is more to his
mind. Besides these, we are supported by the author of an unfinished
work on Matthew. Josephus, no doubt with the general consent of his
age, assigns five commandments to each table. This, while repugnant
to reason, inasmuch as it confounds the distinction between piety
and charity, is also refuted by the authority of our Saviour, who in
Matthew places the command to honour parents in the list of those
belonging to the Second Table, (Matth. 19: 19.) Let us now hear God
speaking in his own words.


First commandment.

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

    13. Whether you take the former sentence as a part of the
commandment, or read it separately is to me a matter of
indifference, provided you grant that it is a kind of preface to the
whole Law. In enacting laws, the first thing to be guarded against
is their being forthwith abrogated by contempt. The Lord, therefore,
takes care, in the first place, that this shall not happen to the
Law about to be delivered, by introducing it with a triple sanction.
He claims to himself power and authority to command, that he may
impress the chosen people with the necessity of obedience; he holds
forth a promise of favour, as a means of alluring them to the study
of holiness; and he reminds them of his kindness, that he may
convict them of ingratitude, if they fail to make a suitable return.
By the name, Lord, are denoted power and lawful dominion. If all
things are from him, and by him consist, they ought in justice to
bear reference to him, as Paul says, (Rom. 11: 36.) This name,
therefore, is in itself sufficient to bring us under the authority
of the divine majesty: for it were monstrous for us to wish to
withdraw from the dominion of him, out of whom we cannot even exist.
    14. After showing that he has a right to command, and to be
obeyed, he next, in order not to seem to drag men by mere necessity,
but to allure them, graciously declares, that he is the God of the
Church. For the mode of expression implies, that there is a mutual
relation included in the promise, "I will be their God, and they
shall be my people," (Jer. 31: 33.) Hence Christ infers the
immortality of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, from the fact that God had
declared himself to be their God, (Matth. 22: 52.) It is, therefore,
the same as if he had said, I have chosen you to myself, as a people
to whom I shall not only do good in the present life, but also
bestow felicity in the life to come. The end contemplated in this is
adverted to in the Law, in various passages. For when the Lord
condescends in mercy to honour us so far as to admit us to
partnership with his chosen people, he chooses us, as Moses says,
"to be a holy people," "a peculiar people unto himself," to "keep
all his commandments," (Deut. 7: 6; 14: 2; 26: 18.) Hence the
exhortation, "Ye shall be holy; for I the Lord your God am holy,"
(Lev. 19: 2.) These two considerations form the ground of the
remonstrance, "A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master;
if then I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master,
where is my fear? saith the Lord of hosts," (Mal. 1: 6.)
    15. Next follows a commemoration of his kindness, which ought
to produce upon us an impression strong in proportion to the
detestation in which ingratitude is held even among men. It is true,
indeed, he was reminding Israel of a deliverance then recent, but
one which, on account of its wondrous magnitude, was to be for ever
memorable to the remotest posterity. Moreover, it is most
appropriate to the matter in hand. For the Lord intimates that they
were delivered from miserable bondage, that they might learn to
yield prompt submission and obedience to him as the author of their
freedom. In like manners to keep us to his true worship, he often
describes himself by certain epithets which distinguish his sacred
Deity from all idols and fictitious gods. For, as I formerly
observed, such is our proneness to vanity and presumption, that as
soon as God is named, our minds, unable to guard against error,
immediately fly off to some empty delusion. In applying a remedy to
this disease, God distinguishes his divinity by certain titles, and
thus confines us, as it were, within distinct boundaries, that we
may not wander hither and thither, and feign some new deity for
ourselves, abandoning the living God, and setting up an idol. For
this reason, whenever the Prophets would bring him properly before
us, they invest, and, as it were, surround him with those characters
under which he had manifested himself to the people of Israel. When
he is called the God of Abraham, or the God of Israel, when he is
stationed in the temple of Jerusalem, between the Cherubim, these,
and similar modes of expression, do not confine him to one place or
one people, but are used merely for the purpose of fixing our
thoughts on that God who so manifested himself in the covenant which
he made with Israel, as to make it unlawful on any account to
deviate from the strict view there given of his character. Let it be
understood, then, that mention is made of deliverance, in order to
make the Jews submit with greater readiness to that God who justly
claims them as his own. We again, instead of supposing that the
matter has no reference to us, should reflect that the bondage of
Israel in Egypt was a type of that spiritual bondage, in the fetters
of which we are all bound, until the heavenly avenger delivers us by
the power of his own arm, and transports us into his free kingdom.
Therefore, as in old times, when he would gather together the
scattered Israelites to the worship of his name, he rescued them
from the intolerable tyranny of Pharaoh, so all who profess him now
are delivered from the fatal tyranny of the devil, of which that of
Egypt was only a type. There is no man, therefore, whose mind ought
not to be aroused to give heed to the Law, which, as he is told,
proceeded from the supreme King, from him who, as he gave all their
being, justly destines and directs them to himself as their proper
end. There is no man, I say, who should not hasten to embrace the
Lawgiver, whose commands, he knows, he has been specially appointed
to obey, from whose kindness he anticipates an abundance of all
good, and even a blessed immortality, and to whose wondrous power
and mercy he is indebted for deliverance from the jaws of death.
    16. The authority of the Law being founded and established, God
delivers his First Commandment--
    
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
    
    The purport of this commandment is, that the Lord will have
himself alone to be exalted in his people, and claims the entire
possession of them as his own. That it may be so, he orders us to
abstain from ungodliness and superstition of every kind, by which
the glory of his divinity is diminished or obscured; and, for the
same reason, he requires us to worship and adore him with truly
pious zeal. The simple terms used obviously amount to this. For
seeing we cannot have God without embracing everything which belongs
to him, the prohibition against having strange gods means, that
nothing which belongs to him is to be transferred to any other. The
duties which we owe to God are innumerable, but they seem to admit
of being not improperly reduced to four heads: Adoration, with its
accessory spiritual submission of conscience, Trust, Invocation,
Thanksgiving. By Adoration, I mean the veneration and worship which
we render to him when we do homage to his majesty; and hence I make
part of it to consist in bringing our consciences into subjection to
his Law. Trust, is secure resting in him under a recognition of his
perfections, when, ascribing to him all power, wisdom, justice,
goodness, and truth, we consider ourselves happy in having been
brought into intercourse with him. Invocation, may be defined the
retaking of ourselves to his promised aid as the only resource in
every case of need. Thanksgiving, is the gratitude which ascribes to
him the praise of all our blessings. As the Lord does not allow
these to be derived from any other quarter, so he demands that they
shall be referred entirely to himself. It is not enough to refrain
from other gods. We must, at the same time, devote ourselves wholly
to him, not acting like certain impious despisers, who regard it as
the shortest method, to hold all religious observance in derision.
But here precedence must be given to true religion, which will
direct our minds to the living God. When duly imbued with the
knowledge of him, the whole aim of our lives will be to revere,
fear, and worship his majesty, to enjoy a share in his blessings, to
have recourse to him in every difficulty, to acknowledge, laud, and
celebrate the magnificence of his works, to make him, as it were,
the sole aim of all our actions. Next, we must beware of
superstition, by which our minds are turned aside from the true God,
and carried to and fro after a multiplicity of gods. Therefore, if
we are contented with one God, let us call to mind what was formerly
observed, that all fictitious gods are to be driven far away, and
that the worship which he claims for himself is not to be mutilated.
Not a particle of his glory is to be withheld: everything belonging
to him must be reserved to him entire. The words, "before me," go to
increase the indignity, God being provoked to jealousy whenever we
substitute our fictions in his stead; just as an unfaithful wife
stings her husband's heart more deeply when her adultery is
committed openly before his eyes. Therefore, God having by his
present power and grace declared that he had respect to the people
whom he had chosen, now, in order to deter them from the wickedness
of revolt, warns them that they cannot adopt strange gods without
his being witness and spectator of the sacrilege. To the audacity of
so doing is added the very great impiety of supposing that they can
mock the eye of God with their evasions. Far from this the Lord
proclaims that everything which we design, plan, or execute, lies
open to his sight. Our conscience must, therefore, keep aloof from
the most distant thought of revolt, if we would have our worship
approved by the Lord. The glory of his Godhead must be maintained
entire and incorrupt, not merely by external profession, but as
under his eye, which penetrates the inmost recesses of his heart.
    
Second commandment
    
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of
    anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth
    beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt
    not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.
    
    17. As in the first commandment the Lord declares that he is
one, and that besides him no gods must be either worshipped or
imagined, so he here more plainly declares what his nature is, and
what the kind of worship with which he is to be honoured, in order
that we may not presume to form any carnal idea of him. The purport
of the commandment, therefore, is, that he will not have his
legitimate worship profaned by superstitious rites. Wherefore, in
general, he calls us entirely away from the carnal frivolous
observances which our stupid minds are wont to devise after forming
some gross idea of the divine nature, while, at the same time, he
instructs us in the worship which is legitimate, namely, spiritual
worship of his own appointment. The grossest vice here prohibited is
external idolatry. This commandment consists of two parts. The
former curbs the licentious daring which would subject the
incomprehensible God to our senses, or represent him under any
visible shape. The latter forbids the worship of images on any
religious ground. There is, moreover, a brief enumeration of all the
forms by which the Deity was usually represented by heathen and
superstitious nations. By "any thing which is in heaven above" is
meant the sun, the moon, and the stars, perhaps also birds, as in
Deuteronomy, where the meaning is explained, there is mention of
birds as well as stars, (Deut. 4: 15.) I would not have made this
observation, had I not seen that some absurdly apply it to the
angels. The other particulars I pass, as requiring no explanation.
We have already shown clearly enough (Book 1. chap. 11, 12) that
every visible shape of Deity which man devises is diametrically
opposed to the divine nature; and, therefore, that the moment idols
appear, true religion is corrupted and adulterated.
    18. The threatening subjoined ought to have no little effect in
shaking off our lethargy. It is in the following terms: -
    
I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the
    fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation
    of them that hate me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them
    that love me, and keep my commandments.
    
    The meaning here is the same as if he had said, that our duty
is to cleave to him alone. To induce us to this, he proclaims his
authority which he will not permit to be impaired or despised with
impunity. It is true, the word used is El, which means God; but as
it is derived from a word meaning strength, I have had no
hesitations in order to express the sense more fully, so to render
it as inserted on the margin. Secondly, he calls himself jealous,
because he cannot bear a partner. Thirdly, he declares that he will
vindicate his majesty and glory, if any transfer it either to the
creatures or to graven images; and that not by a simple punishment
of brief duration, but one extending to the third and fourth
generation of such as imitate the impiety of their progenitors. In
like manner, he declares his constant mercy and kindness to the
remote posterity of those who love him, and keep his Law. The Lord
very frequently addresses us in the character of a husband; the
union by which he connects us with himself, when he receives us into
the bosom of the Church, having some resemblance to that of holy
wedlock, because founded on mutual faith. As he performs all the
offices of a true and faithful husband, so he stipulates for love
and conjugal chastity from us; that is, that we do not prostitute
our souls to Satan, to be defiled with foul carnal lusts. Hence,
when he rebukes the Jews for their apostasy, he complains that they
have cast off chastity, and polluted themselves with adultery.
Therefore, as the purer and chaster the husband is, the more
grievously is he offended when he sees his wife inclining to a
rival; so the Lord, who has betrothed us to himself in truth,
declares that he burns with the hottest jealousy whenever,
neglecting the purity of his holy marriage, we defile ourselves with
abominable lusts, and especially when the worship of his Deity,
which ought to have been most carefully kept unimpaired, is
transferred to another, or adulterated with some superstition;
since, in this way, we not only violate our plighted troth, but
defile the nuptial couch, by giving access to adulterers.
    19. In the threatening we must attend to what is meant when God
declares that he will visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the
children unto the third and fourth generation. It seems inconsistent
with the equity of the divine procedure to punish the innocent for
another's fault; and the Lord himself declares, that "the son shall
not bear the iniquity of the father," (Ezek. 18: 20.) But still we
meet more than once with a declaration as to the postponing of the
punishment of the sins of fathers to future generations. Thus Moses
repeatedly addresses the Lord as "visiting the iniquity of the
fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation,"
(Num. 14: 18.) In like manner, Jeremiah, "Thou showest
loving-kindness unto thousands, and recompenses the iniquity of the
fathers into the bosom of their children after them," (Jer. 32: 18.)
Some feeling sadly perplexed how to solve this difficulty, think it
is to be understood of temporal punishments only, which it is said
sons may properly bear for the sins of their parents, because they
are often inflicted for their own safety. This is indeed true; for
Isaiah declared to Hezekiah, that his children should be stript of
the kingdom, and carried away into captivity, for a sin which he had
committed, (Isa. 39: 7;) and the households of Pharaoh and Abimelech
were made to suffer for an injury done to Abraham, (Gen. 12: 17; 20:
3-18.) But the attempt to solve the question in this way is an
evasion rather than a true interpretation. For the punishment
denounced here and in similar passages is too great to be confined
within the limits of the present life. We must therefore understand
it to mean, that a curse from the Lord righteously falls not only on
the head of the guilty individual, but also on all his lineage. When
it has fallen, what can be anticipated but that the father, being
deprived of the Spirit of God, will live most flagitiously; that the
son, being in like manner forsaken of the Lord, because of his
father's iniquity, will follow the same road to destruction; and be
followed in his turn by succeeding generations, forming a seed of
evil-doers?
    20. First, let us examine whether such punishment is
inconsistent with the divine justice. If human nature is universally
condemned, those on whom the Lord does not bestow the communication
of his grace must be doomed to destruction; nevertheless, they
perish by their own iniquity, not by unjust hatred on the part of
God. There is no room to expostulate, and ask why the grace of God
does not forward their salvation as it does that of others.
Therefore, when God punishes the wicked and flagitious for their
crimes, by depriving their families of his grace for many
generations, who will dare to bring a charge against him for this
most righteous vengeance? But it will be said, the Lord, on the
contrary, declares, that the son shall not suffer for the father's
sin, (Ezek. 18: 20.) Observe the scope of that passage. The
Israelites, after being subjected to a long period of uninterrupted
calamities, had begun to say, as a proverb, that their fathers had
eaten the sour grape, and thus set the children's teeth on edge;
meaning that they, though in themselves righteous and innocent, were
paying the penalty of sins committed by their parents, and this more
from the implacable anger than the duly tempered severity of God.
The prophet declares it was not so: that they were punished for
their own wickedness; that it was not in accordance with the justice
of God that a righteous son should suffer for the iniquity of a
wicked father; and that nothing of the kind was exemplified in what
they suffered. For, if the visitation of which we now speak is
accomplished when God withdraws from the children of the wicked the
light of his truth and the other helps to salvation, the only way in
which they are accursed for their fathers' wickedness is in being
blinded and abandoned by God, and so left to walk in their parents'
steps. The misery which they suffer in time, and the destruction to
which they are finally doomed, are thus punishments inflicted by
divine justice, not for the sins of others, but for their own
iniquity.
    21. On the other hand, there is a promise of mercy to thousands
- a promise which is frequently mentioned in Scripture, and forms an
article in the solemn covenant made with the Church - I will be "a
God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee," (Gen. 17: 7.) With
reference to this, Solomon says, "The just man walketh in his
integrity: his children are blessed after him," (Prov. 20: 7;) not
only in consequence of a religious education, (though this certainly
is by no means unimportant,) but in consequence of the blessing
promised in the covenant, viz., that the divine favour will dwell
for ever in the families of the righteous. Herein is excellent
consolation to believers, and great ground of terror to the wicked;
for if, after death, the mere remembrance of righteousness and
iniquity have such an influence on the divine procedure, that his
blessing rests on the posterity of the righteous, and his curse on
the posterity of the wicked, much more must it rest on the heads of
the individuals themselves. Notwithstanding of this, however, the
offspring of the wicked sometimes amends, while that of believers
degenerates; because the Almighty has not here laid down an
inflexible rule which might derogate from his free election. For the
consolation of the righteous, and the dismay of the sinner, it is
enough that the threatening itself is not vain or nugatory, although
it does not always take effect. For, as the temporal punishments
inflicted on a few of the wicked are proofs of the divine wrath
against sin, and of the future judgement that will ultimately
overtake all sinners, though many escape with impunity even to the
end of their lives, so, when the Lord gives one example of blessing
a son for his father's sake, by visiting him in mercy and kindness,
it is a proof of constant and unfailing favour to his worshipers. On
the other hand, when, in any single instance, he visits the iniquity
of the father on the son, he gives intimation of the judgement which
awaits all the reprobate for their own iniquities. The certainty of
this is the principal thing here taught. Moreover, the Lord, as it
were by the way, commends the riches of his mercy by extending it to
thousands, while he limits his vengeance to four generations.
    
    
Third commandment.
    
Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain.

    22. The purport of this Commandment is, that the majesty of the
name of God is to be held sacred. In sum, therefore, it means, that
we must not profane it by using it irreverently or contemptuously.
This prohibition implies a corresponding precept, viz. that it be
our study and care to treat his name with religious veneration.
Wherefore it becomes us to regulate our minds and our tongues, so as
never to think or speak of God and his mysteries without reverence
and great soberness, and never, in estimating his works, to have any
feeling towards him but one of deep veneration. We must, I say,
steadily observe the three following things: - First, Whatever our
mind conceives of him, whatever our tongue utters, must bespeak his
excellence, and correspond to the sublimity of his sacred name; in
short, must be fitted to extol its greatness. secondly, We must not
rashly and preposterously pervert his sacred word and adorable
mysteries to purposes of ambition, or avarice, or amusement, but,
according as they bear the impress of his dignity, must always
maintain them in due honour and esteem. Lastly, We must not detract
from or throw obloquy upon his works, as miserable men are wont
insultingly to do, but must laud every action which we attribute to
him as wise, and just, and good. This is to sanctify the name of
God. When we act otherwise, his name is profaned with vain and
wicked abuse, because it is applied to a purpose foreign to that to
which it is consecrated. Were there nothing worse, in being deprived
of its dignity it is gradually brought into contempt. But if there
is so much evil in the rash and unseasonable employment of the
divine name, there is still more evil in its being employed for
nefarious purposes, as is done by those who use it in necromancy,
cursing, illicit exorcisms, and other impious incantations. But the
Commandment refers especially to the case of oaths, in which a
perverse employment of the divine name is particularly detestable;
and this it does the more effectually to deter us from every species
of profanation. That the thing here commanded relates to the worship
of God, and the reverence due to his name, and not to the equity
which men are to cultivate towards each other, is apparent from
this, that afterwards, in the Second Table, there is a condemnation
of the perjury and false testimony by which human society is
injured, and that the repetition would be superfluous, if, in this
Commandment, the duty of charity were handled. Moreover, this is
necessary even for distinction, because, as was observed, God has,
for good reason, divided his Law into two tables. The inference then
is, that God here vindicates his own right, and defends his sacred
name, but does not teach the duties which men owe to men.
    23. In the first place, we must consider what an oath is. An
oath, then, is calling God to witness that what we say is true.
Execrations being manifestly insulting to God, are unworthy of being
classed among oaths. That an oath, when duly taken, is a species of
divine worship, appears from many passages of Scripture, as when
Isaiah prophesies of the admission of the Assyrians and Egyptians to
a participation in the covenant, he says, "In that day shall five
cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear
to the Lord of hosts," (Isaiah 19: 18.) Swearing by the name of the
Lord here means, that they will make a profession of religion. In
like manner, speaking of the extension of the Redeemer's kingdom, it
is said, "He who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself
in the God of truth: and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear
by the God of truth," (Isaiah 65: 16.) In Jeremiah it is said, "If
they will diligently learn the ways of my people, to swear by my
name, The Lord liveth; as they taught my people to swear by Baal;
then shall they be built in the midst of my people," (Jer. 12: 16.)
By appealing to the name of the Lord, and calling him to witness, we
are justly said to declare our own religious veneration of him. For
we thus acknowledge that he is eternal and unchangeable truth,
inasmuch as we not only call upon him, in preference to others, as a
fit witness to the truth, but as its only assertor, able to bring
hidden things to light, a discerner of the hearts. When human
testimony fails, we appeal to God as witness, especially when the
matter to be proved lies hid in the conscience. For which reason,
the Lord is grievously offended with those who swear by strange
gods, and construes such swearing as a proof of open revolt, "Thy
children have forsaken me, and sworn by them that are no gods,"
(Jer. 5: 7.) The heinousness of the offence is declared by the
punishment denounced against it, "I will cut off them that swear by
the Lord, and that swear by Malcham," (Zeph. 1: 4, 5.)
    24. Understanding that the Lord would have our oaths to be a
species of divine worship, we must be the more careful that they do
not, instead of worship, contain insult, or contempt, and
vilification. It is no slight insult to swear by him and do it
falsely: hence in the Law this is termed profanation, (Lev. 19: 12.)
For if God is robbed of his truth, what is it that remains? Without
truth he could not be God. But assuredly he is robbed of his truth,
when he is made the approver and attester of what is false. Hence,
when Joshua is endeavouring to make Achan confess the truth, he
says, "My son, give, I pray thee, glory to the Lord God of Israel,"
(Joshua 7: 19;) intimating, that grievous dishonour is done to God
when men swear by him falsely. And no wonder; for, as far as in them
lies, his sacred name is in a manner branded with falsehood. That
this mode of expression was common among the Jews whenever any one
was called upon to take an oath, is evident from a similar
obtestation used by the Pharisees, as given in John, (John 9: 24;)
Scripture reminds us of the caution which we ought to use by
employing such expressions as the following: - "As the Lord liveth;"
"God do so and more also;" "I call God for a record upon my soul."
Such expressions intimate, that we cannot call God to witness our
statement, without imprecating his vengeance for perjury if it is
false.
    25. The name of God is vulgarised and vilified when used in
oaths, which, though true, are superfluous. This, too, is to take
his name in vain. Wherefore, it is not sufficient to abstain from
perjury, unless we, at the same time, remember that an oath is not
appointed or allowed for passion or pleasure, but for necessity; and
that, therefore, a licentious use is made of it by him who uses it
on any other than necessary occasions. Moreover, no case of
necessity can be pretended, unless where some purpose of religion or
charity is to be served. In this matter, great sin is committed in
the present day - sin the more intolerable in this, that its
frequency has made it cease to be regarded as a fault, though it
certainly is not accounted trivial before the judgement-seat of God.
The name of God is everywhere profaned by introducing it
indiscriminately in frivolous discourse; and the evil is
disregarded, because it has been long and audaciously persisted in
with impunity. The commandment of the Lord, however, stands; the
penalty also stands, and will one day receive effect. Special
vengeance will be executed on those who have taken the name of God
in vain. Another form of violation is exhibited, when, with manifest
impiety, we, in our oaths, substitute the holy servants of God for
God himself, thus conferring upon them the glory of his Godhead. It
is not without cause the Lord has, by a special commandment,
required us to swear by his name, and, by a special prohibition,
forbidden us to swear by other gods. The Apostle gives a clear
attestation to the same effect, when he says, that "men verily swear
by the greater;" but that "when God made promise to Abraham, because
he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself;" (Heb. 6: l6,
13.)
    26. The Anabaptists, not content with this moderate use of
oaths, condemn all, without exception, on the ground of our
Saviour's general prohibition, "I say unto you, Swear not at all:"
"Let your speech be Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than
these cometh of evil," (Matth. 5: 34; James 5: 12.) In this way,
they inconsiderately make a stumbling-stone of Christ, setting him
in opposition to the Father, as if he had descended into the world
to annul his decrees. In the Law, the Almighty not only permits an
oath as a thing that is lawful, (this were amply sufficient,) but,
in a case of necessity, actually commands it, (Exod. 22: 11.) Christ
again declares, that he and his Father are one; that he only
delivers what was commanded of his Father; that his doctrine is not
his own, but his that sent him, (John 10: 18, 30; 7: 16.) What then?
Will they make God contradict himself, by approving and commanding
at one time, what he afterwards prohibits and condemns? But as there
is some difficulty in what our Saviour says on the subject of
swearing, it may be proper to consider it a little. Here, however,
we shall never arrive at the true meaning, unless we attend to the
design of Christ, and the subject of which he is treating. His
purpose was, neither to relax nor to curtail the Law, but to restore
the true and genuine meaning, which had been greatly corrupted by
the false glosses of the Scribes and Pharisees. If we attend to this
we shall not suppose that Christ condemned all oaths but those only
which transgressed the rule of the Law. It is evident, from the
oaths themselves, that the people were accustomed to think it enough
if they avoided perjury, whereas the Law prohibits not perjury
merely, but also vain and superfluous oaths. Therefore our Lord, who
is the best interpreter of the Law, reminds them that there is a sin
not only in perjury, but in swearing. How in swearing? Namely, by
swearing vainly. Those oaths, however, which are authorised by the
Law, he leaves safe and free. Those who condemn oaths think their
argument invincible when they fasten on the expression, "not at
all". The expression applies not to the word swear, but to the
subjoined forms of oaths. For part of the error consisted in their
supposing, that when they swore by the heaven and the earth, they
did not touch the name of God. The Lord, therefore, after cutting
off the principal source of prevarication, deprives them of all
subterfuges, warning them against supposing that they escape guilt
by suppressing the name of God, and appealing to heaven and earth.
For it ought here to be observed in passing, that although the name
of God is not expressed, yet men swear by him in using indirect
forms, as when they swear by the light of life, by the bread they
eat, by their baptism, or any other pledges of the divine liberality
towards them. Some erroneously suppose that our Saviour, in that
passage, rebukes superstition, by forbidding men to swear by heaven
and earth, and Jerusalem. He rather refutes the sophistical subtilty
of those who thought it nothing vainly to utter indirect oaths,
imagining that they thus spared the holy name of God, whereas that
name is inscribed on each of his mercies. The case is different,
when any mortal living or dead, or an angel, is substituted in the
place of God, as in the vile form devised by flattery in heathen
nations, "By the life or genius of the king"; for, in this case, the
false apotheosis obscures and impairs the glory of the one God. But
when nothing else is intended than to confirm what is said by an
appeal to the holy name of God, although it is done indirectly, yet
his majesty is insulted by all frivolous oaths. Christ strips this
abuse of every vain pretext when he says "Swear not at all". To the
same effect is the passage in which James uses the words of our
Saviour above quoted, (James 5: 12.) For this rash swearing has
always prevailed in the world, notwithstanding that it is a
profanation of the name of God. If you refer the words, "not at
all", to the act itself, as if every oath, without exception, were
unlawful, what will be the use of the explanation which immediately
follows - Neither by heaven, neither by the earth, &c.? These words
make it clear, that the object in view was to meet the cavils by
which the Jews thought they could extenuate their fault.
    27. Every person of sound judgement must now see that in that
passage our Lord merely condemned those oaths which were forbidden
by the Law. For he who in his life exhibited a model of the
perfection which he taught, did not object to oaths whenever the
occasion required them; and the disciples, who doubtless in all
things obeyed their Master, followed the same rule. Who will dare to
say that Paul would have sworn (Rom. 1: 9; 2 Cor. 1: 23) if an oath
had been altogether forbidden? But when the occasion calls for it,
he adjures without any scruple, and sometimes even imprecates. The
question, however, is not yet disposed of. For some think that the
only oaths exempted from the prohibition are public oaths, such as
those which are administered to us by the magistrate, or independent
states employ in ratifying treaties, or the people take when they
swear allegiance to their sovereign, or the soldier in the case of
the military oath, and others of a similar description. To this
class they refer (and justly) those protestations in the writings of
Paul, which assert the dignity of the Gospel; since the Apostles, in
discharging their office, were not private individuals, but the
public servants of God. I certainly deny not that such oaths are the
safest because they are most strongly supported by passages of
Scripture. The magistrate is enjoined, in a doubtful matter, to put
the witness upon oath; and he in his turn to answer upon oath; and
an Apostle says, that in this way there is an end of all strife,
(Heb. 6: 16.) In this commandment, both parties are fully approved.
Nay, we may observe, that among the ancient heathens a public and
solemn oath was held in great reverence, while those common oaths
which were indiscriminately used were in little or no estimation, as
if they thought that, in regard to them, the Deity did not
interpose. Private oaths used soberly, sacredly, and reverently, on
necessary occasions, it were perilous to condemn, supported as they
are by reason and example. For if private individuals are permitted,
in a grave and serious matter, to appeal to God as a judge, much
more may they appeal to him as a witness. Your brother charges you
with perfidy. You, as bound by the duties of charity, labour to
clear yourself from the charge. He will on no account be satisfied.
If, through his obstinate malice, your good name is brought into
jeopardy, you can appeal, without offence, to the judgement of God,
that he may in time manifest your innocence. If the terms are
weighed, it will be found that it is a less matter to call upon him
to be witness; and I therefore see not how it can be called unlawful
to do so. And there is no want of examples. If it is pretended that
the oath which Abraham and Isaac made with Abimelech was of a public
nature, that by which Jacob and Laban bound themselves in mutual
league was private. Boaz, though a private man, confirmed his
promise of marriage to Ruth in the same way. Obadiah, too, a just
man, and one that feared God, though a private individual, in
seeking to persuade Elijah, asseverates with an oath. I hold,
therefore, that there is no better rule than so to regulate our
oaths that they shall neither be rash, frivolous, promiscuous, nor
passionate, but be made to serve a just necessity; in other words,
to vindicate the glory of God, or promote the edification of a
brother. This is the end of the Commandment.


Fourth Commandment.

    Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou
labour and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of
the Lord thy God. In it thou shalt not do any work, &c.
    
    28. The purport of the commandment is, that being dead to our
own affections and works, we meditate on the kingdom of God, and in
order to such meditation, have recourse to the means which he has
appointed. But as this commandment stands in peculiar circumstances
apart from the others, the mode of exposition must be somewhat
different. Early Christian writers are wont to call it typical, as
containing the external observance of a day which was abolished with
the other types on the advent of Christ. This is indeed true; but it
leaves the half of the matter untouched. Wherefore, we must look
deeper for our exposition, and attend to three cases in which it
appears to me that the observance of this commandment consists.
First, under the rest of the seventh days the divine Lawgiver meant
to furnish the people of Israel with a type of the spiritual rest by
which believers were to cease from their own works, and allow God to
work in them. Secondly he meant that there should be a stated day on
which they should assemble to hear the Law, and perform religious
rites, or which, at least, they should specially employ in
meditating on his works, and be thereby trained to piety. Thirdly,
he meant that servants, and those who lived under the authority of
others, should be indulged with a day of rest, and thus have some
intermission from labour.
    29. We are taught in many passages that this adumbration of
spiritual rest held a primary place in the Sabbath. Indeed, there is
no commandment the observance of which the Almighty more strictly
enforces. When he would intimate by the Prophets that religion was
entirely subverted, he complains that his sabbaths were polluted,
violated, not kept, not hallowed; as if, after it was neglected,
there remained nothing in which he could be honoured. The observance
of it he eulogises in the highest terms, and hence, among other
divine privileges, the faithful set an extraordinary value on the
revelation of the Sabbath. In Nehemiah, the Levites, in the public
assembly, thus speak: "Thou madest known unto them thy holy sabbath,
and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of
Moses thy servant." You see the singular honour which it holds among
all the precepts of the Law. All this tends to celebrate the dignity
of the mystery, which is most admirably expressed by Moses and
Ezekiel. Thus in Exodus: "Verily my sabbaths shall ye keep: for it
is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye
may know that I am the Lord that does sanctify you. Ye shall keep my
sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth
it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever does any work
therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days
may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to
the Lord: whosoever does any work in the sabbath day, he shall
surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep
the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations,
for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children
of Israel for ever," (Exodus 31: 13-17.) Ezekiel is still more full,
but the sum of what he says amounts to this: that the sabbath is a
sign by which Israel might know that God is their sanctifier. If our
sanctification consists in the mortification of our own will, the
analogy between the external sign and the thing signified is most
appropriate. We must rest entirely, in order that God may work in
us; we must resign our own will, yield up our heart, and abandon all
the lusts of the flesh. In short, we must desist from all the acts
of our own mind, that God working in us, we may rest in him, as the
Apostle also teaches, (Heb. 3: 13; 4: 3, 9.)
    30. This complete cessation was represented to the Jews by the
observance of one day in seven, which, that it might be more
religiously attended to, the Lord recommended by his own example.
For it is no small incitement to the zeal of man to know that he is
engaged in imitating his Creator. Should any one expect some secret
meaning in the number seven, this being in Scripture the number for
perfection, it may have been selected, not without cause, to denote
perpetuity. In accordance with this, Moses concludes his description
of the succession of day and night on the same day on which he
relates that the Lord rested from his works. Another probable reason
for the number may be, that the Lord intended that the Sabbath never
should be completed before the arrival of the last day. We here
begin our blessed rest in him, and daily make new progress in it;
but because we must still wage an incessant warfare with the flesh,
it shall not be consummated until the fulfilment of the prophecy of
Isaiah: "From one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to
another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord,"
(Isaiah 66: 23;) in other words, when God shall be "all in all," (I
Cor. 15: 28.) It may seem, therefore, that by the seventh day the
Lord delineated to his people the future perfection of his sabbath
on the last day, that by continual meditation on the sabbath, they
might throughout their whole lives aspire to this perfection.
    31. Should these remarks on the number seem to any somewhat
far-fetched, I have no objection to their taking it more simply:
that the Lord appointed a certain day on which his people might be
trained, under the tutelage of the Law, to meditate constantly on
the spiritual rest, and fixed upon the seventh, either because he
foresaw it would be sufficient, or in order that his own example
might operate as a stronger stimulus; or, at least to remind men
that the Sabbath was appointed for no other purpose than to render
them conformable to their Creator. It is of little consequence which
of these be adopted, provided we lose not sight of the principal
thing delineated, viz., the mystery of perpetual resting from our
works. To the contemplation of this, the Jews were every now and
then called by the prophets, lest they should think a carnal
cessation from labour sufficient. Beside the passages already
quoted, there is the following: "If thou turn away thy foot from the
sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the
sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt
honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own
pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: then shalt thou delight
thyself in the Lord," (Isaiah 58: 13, 14.) Still there can be no
doubt, that, on the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ, the ceremonial
part of the commandment was abolished. He is the truth, at whose
presence all the emblems vanish; the body, at the sight of which the
shadows disappear. He, I say, is the true completion of the sabbath:
"We are buried with him by baptism unto death: that like as Christ
was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we
should walk in newness of life," (Rom. 6: 4.) Hence, as the Apostle
elsewhere says, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in
drink, or in respect of an holiday, or of the new moon, or of the
sabbath days; which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is
of Christ," (Col. 2: 16, 17;) meaning by body the whole essence of
the truth, as is well explained in that passage. This is not
contented with one day, but requires the whole course of our lives,
until being completely dead to ourselves, we are filled with the
life of God. Christians, therefore, should have nothing to do with a
superstitious observance of days.
    32. The two other cases ought not to be classed with ancient
shadows, but are adapted to every age. The sabbath being abrogated,
there is still room among us, first, to assemble on stated days for
the hearing of the Word, the breaking of the mystical bread, and
public prayer; and, secondly, to give our servants and labourers
relaxation from labour. It cannot be doubted that the Lord provided
for both in the commandment of the Sabbath. The former is abundantly
evinced by the mere practice of the Jews. The latter Moses has
expressed in Deuteronomy in the following terms: "The seventh day is
the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work,
thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy
maid-servant; - that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest
as well as thou," (Deut. 5: 14.) Likewise in Exodus, "That thine ox
and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the
stranger, may be refreshed," (Exod. 23: 12.) Who can deny that both
are equally applicable to us as to the Jews? Religious meetings are
enjoined us by the word of God; their necessity, experience itself
sufficiently demonstrates. But unless these meetings are stated, and
have fixed days allotted to them, how can they be held? We must, as
the apostle expresses it, do all things decently and in orders (1
Cor. 14 40.) So impossible, however, would it be to preserve decency
and order without this politic arrangements that the dissolution of
it would instantly lead to the disturbance and ruin of the Church.
But if the reason for which the Lord appointed a sabbath to the Jews
is equally applicable to us, no man can assert that it is a matter
with which we have nothing to do. Our most provident and indulgent
Parent has been pleased to provide for our wants not less than for
the wants of the Jews. Why, it may be asked, do we not hold daily
meetings, and thus avoid the distinction of days? Would that we were
privileged to do so! Spiritual wisdom undoubtedly deserves to have
some portion of every day devoted to it. But if, owing to the
weakness of many, daily meetings cannot be held, and charity will
not allow us to exact more of them, why should we not adopt the rule
which the will of God has obviously imposed upon us?
    33. I am obliged to dwell a little longer on this because some
restless spirits are now making an outcry about the observance of
the Lord's day. They complain that Christian people are trained in
Judaism, because some observance of days is retained. My reply is,
That those days are observed by us without Judaism, because in this
matter we differ widely from the Jews. We do not celebrate it with
most minute formality, as a ceremony by which we imagine that a
spiritual mystery is typified, but we adopt it as a necessary remedy
for preserving order in the Church. Paul informs us that Christians
are not to be judged in respect of its observance, because it is a
shadow of something to come, (Col. 2: 16;) and, accordingly, he
expresses a fear lest his labour among the Galatians should prove in
vain, because they still observed days (Gal. 4: 10, 11.) And he
tells the Romans that it is superstitious to make one day differ
from another (Rom. 14: 5.) But who, except those restless men, does
not see what the observance is to which the Apostle refers? Those
persons had no regard to that politic and ecclesiastical
arrangement, but by retaining the days as types of spiritual things,
they in so far obscured the glory of Christ, and the light of the
Gospel. They did not desist from manual labour on the ground of its
interfering with sacred study and meditation, but as a kind of
religious observance; because they dreamed that by their cessation
from labour, they were cultivating the mysteries which had of old
been committed to them. It was, I say, against this preposterous
observance of days that the Apostle inveighs, and not against that
legitimate selection which is subservient to the peace of Christian
society. For in the churches established by him, this was the use
for which the Sabbath was retained. He tells the Corinthians to set
the first day apart for collecting contributions for the relief of
their brethren at Jerusalem, (1 Cor. 16: 2.) If superstition is
dreaded, there was more danger in keeping the Jewish sabbath than
the Lord's day as Christians now do. It being expedient to overthrow
superstition, the Jewish holy day was abolished; and as a thing
necessary to retain decency, orders and peace, in the Church,
another day was appointed for that purpose.
    34. It was not, however, without a reason that the early
Christians substituted what we call the Lord's day for the Sabbath.
The resurrection of our Lord being the end and accomplishment of
that true rest which the ancient sabbath typified, this day, by
which types were abolished serves to warn Christians against
adhering to a shadowy ceremony. I do not cling so to the number
seven as to bring the Church under bondage to it, nor do I condemn
churches for holding their meetings on other solemn days, provided
they guard against superstition. This they will do if they employ
those days merely for the observance of discipline and regular
order. The whole may be thus summed up: As the truth was delivered
typically to the Jews, so it is imparted to us without figure;
first, that during our whole lives we may aim at a constant rest
from our own works, in order that the Lord may work in us by his
Spirit; secondly that every individual, as he has opportunity, may
diligently exercise himself in private, in pious meditation on the
works of God, and, at the same time, that all may observe the
legitimate order appointed by the Church, for the hearing of the
word, the administration of the sacraments, and public prayer: And,
thirdly, that we may avoid oppressing those who are subject to us.
In this way, we get quit of the trifling of the false prophets, who
in later times instilled Jewish ideas into the people, alleging that
nothing was abrogated but what was ceremonial in the commandment,
(this they term in their language the taxation of the seventh day,)
while the moral part remains, viz., the observance of one day in
seven. But this is nothing else than to insult the Jews, by changing
the day, and yet mentally attributing to it the same sanctity; thus
retaining the same typical distinction of days as had place among
the Jews. And of a truth, we see what profit they have made by such
a doctrine. Those who cling to their constitutions go thrice as far
as the Jews in the gross and carnal superstition of sabbatism; so
that the rebukes which we read in Isaiah (Isa. 1: l3; 58: 13) apply
as much to those of the present day, as to those to whom the Prophet
addressed them. We must be careful, however, to observe the general
doctrine, viz., in order that religion may neither be lost nor
languish among us, we must diligently attend on our religious
assemblies, and duly avail ourselves of those external aids which
tend to promote the worship of God.
    
    
Fifth Commandment.
    
Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the
    land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
    
    35. The end of this commandment is, that since the Lord takes
pleasure in the preservation of his own ordinance, the degrees of
dignity appointed by him must be held inviolable. The sum of the
commandment, therefore, will be, that we are to look up to those
whom the Lord has set over us, yielding them honour, gratitude, and
obedience. Hence it follows, that every thing in the way of
contempt, ingratitude, or disobedience, is forbidden. For the term
honour has this extent of meaning in Scripture. Thus when the
Apostle says, "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of
double honour," (1 Tim. 5: 17,) he refers not only to the reverence
which is due to them, but to the recompense to which their services
are entitled. But as this command to submit is very repugnant to the
perversity of the human mind, (which, puffed up with ambitious
longings will scarcely allow itself to be subject,) that superiority
which is most attractive and least invidious is set forth as an
example calculated to soften and bend our minds to habits of
submission. From that subjection which is most easily endured, the
Lord gradually accustoms us to every kind of legitimate subjection,
the same principle regulating all. For to those whom he raises to
eminences he communicates his authority, in so far as necessary to
maintain their station. The titles of Father, God, and Lord, all
meet in him alone and hence whenever any one of them is mentioned,
our mind should be impressed with the same feeling of reverence.
Those, therefore, to whom he imparts such titles, he distinguishes
by some small spark of his refulgence, so as to entitle them to
honour, each in his own place. In this way, we must consider that
our earthly father possesses something of a divine nature in him,
because there is some reason for his bearing a divine title, and
that he who is our prince and ruler is admitted to some communion of
honour with God.
    36. Wherefore, we ought to have no doubt that the Lord here
lays down this universal rule, viz., that knowing how every
individual is set over us by his appointment, we should pay him
reverence, gratitude, obedience, and every duty in our power. And it
makes no difference whether those on whom the honour is conferred
are deserving or not. Be they what they may, the Almighty, by
conferring their station upon them, shows that he would have them
honoured. The commandment specifies the reverence due to those to
whom we owe our being. This Nature herself should in some measure
teach us. For they are monsters, and not men, who petulantly and
contumeliously violate the paternal authority. Hence, the Lord
orders all who rebel against their parents to be put to death, they
being, as it where, unworthy of the light in paying no deference to
those to whom they are indebted for beholding it. And it is evident,
from the various appendices to the Law, that we were correct in
stating, that the honour here referred to consists of three parts,
reverence, obedience, and gratitude. The first of these the Lord
enforces, when he commands that whose curseth his father or his
mother shall be put to death. In this way he avenges insult and
contempt. The second he enforces, when he denounces the punishment
of death on disobedient and rebellious children. To the third
belongs our Saviour's declaration, that God requires us to do good
to our parents, (Matth. 15.) And whenever Paul mentions this
commandment, he interprets it as enjoining obedience.
    37. A promise is added by way of recommendation, the better to
remind us how pleasing to God is the submission which is here
required. Paul applies that stimulus to rouse us from our lethargy,
when he calls this the first commandment with promise; the promise
contained in the First Table not being specially appropriated to any
one commandment, but extended to the whole law. Moreover, the sense
in which the promise is to be taken is as follows: - The Lord spoke
to the Israelites specially of the land which he had promised them
for an inheritance. If, then, the possession of the land was an
earnest of the divine favour, we cannot wonder if the Lord was
pleased to testify his favour, by bestowing long life, as in this
way they were able long to enjoy his kindness. The meaning therefore
is: Honour thy father and thy mother, that thou may be able, during
the course of a long life, to enjoy the possession of the land which
is to be given thee in testimony of my favour. But, as the whole
earth is blessed to believers, we justly class the present life
among the number of divine blessings. Whence this promise has, in
like manner, reference to us also, inasmuch as the duration of the
present life is a proof of the divine benevolence toward us. It is
not promised to us, nor was it promised to the Jews, as if in itself
it constituted happiness, but because it is an ordinary symbol of
the divine favour to the pious. Wherefore, if any one who is
obedient to parents happens to be cut off before mature age, (a
thing which not infrequently happens,) the Lord nevertheless adheres
to his promise as steadily as when he bestows a hundred acres of
land where he had promised only one. The whole lies in this: We must
consider that long life is promised only in so far as it is a
blessing from God, and that it is a blessing only in so far as it is
a manifestation of divine favour. This, however, he testifies and
truly manifests to his servants more richly and substantially by
death.
    38. Moreover, while the Lord promises the blessing of present
life to children who show proper respect to their parents, he, at
the same time, intimates that an inevitable curse is impending over
the rebellious and disobedient; and, that it may not fail of
execution, he, in his Law, pronounces sentence of death upon theme
and orders it to be inflicted. If they escape the judgement, he, in
some way or other, will execute vengeance. For we see how great a
number of this description of individuals fall either in battle or
in brawls; others of them are overtaken by unwonted disasters, and
almost all are a proof that the threatening is not used in vain. But
if any do escape till extreme old age, yet, because deprived of the
blessing of God in this life, they only languish on in wickedness,
and are reserved for severer punishment in the world to come, they
are far from participating in the blessing promised to obedient
children. It ought to be observed by the way, that we are ordered to
obey parents only in the Lord. This is clear from the principle
already laid down: for the place which they occupy is one to which
the Lord has exalted them, by communicating to them a portion of his
own honour. Therefore the submission yielded to them should be a
step in our ascent to the Supreme Parent, and hence, if they
instigate us to transgress the law, they deserve not to be regarded
as parents, but as strangers attempting to seduce us from obedience
to our true Father. The same holds in the case of rulers, masters,
and superiors of every description. For it were unbecoming and
absurd that the honour of God should be impaired by their exaltation
- an exaltation which, being derived from him, ought to lead us up
to him.
    
Sixth commandment.

Thou shalt not kill.
    
    39. The purport of this commandment is that since the Lord has
bound the whole human race by a kind of unity, the safety of all
ought to be considered as entrusted to each. In general, therefore,
all violence and injustice, and every kind of harm from which our
neighbour's body suffers, is prohibited. Accordingly, we are
required faithfully to do what in us lies to defend the life of our
neighbour; to promote whatever tends to his tranquillity, to be
vigilant in warding off harm, and, when danger comes, to assist in
removing it. Remembering that the Divine Lawgiver thus speaks,
consider, moreover, that he requires you to apply the same rule in
regulating your mind. It were ridiculous, that he, who sees the
thoughts of the heart, and has special regard to them, should train
the body only to rectitude. This commandment, therefore, prohibits
the murder of the heart, and requires a sincere desire to preserve
our brother's life. The hand, indeed, commits the murder, but the
mind, under the influence of wrath and hatred, conceives it. How can
you be angry with your brother, without passionately longing to do
him harm? If you must not be angry with him, neither must you hate
him, hatred being nothing but inveterate anger. However you may
disguise the fact, or endeavour to escape from it by vain pretexts.
Where either wrath or hatred is, there is an inclination to do
mischief. If you still persist in tergiversation, the mouth of the
Spirit has declared, that "whosoever hateth his brother is a
murderer," (1 John 3: 15;) and the mouth of our Saviour has
declared, that "whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause
shall be in danger of the judgement: and whosoever shall say to his
brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever
shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire," (Matth. 5:
22.)
    40. Scripture notes a twofold equity on which this commandment
is founded. Man is both the image of God and our flesh. Wherefore,
if we would not violate the image of God, we must hold the person of
man sacred - if we would not divest ourselves of humanity we must
cherish our own flesh. The practical inference to be drawn from the
redemption and gift of Christ will be elsewhere considered. The Lord
has been pleased to direct our attention to these two natural
considerations as inducements to watch over our neighbour's
preservation, viz., to revere the divine image impressed upon him,
and embrace our own flesh. To be clear of the crime of murder, it is
not enough to refrain from shedding man's blood. If in act you
perpetrate, if in endeavour you plot, if in wish and design you
conceive what is adverse to another's safety, you have the guilt of
murder. On the other hand, if you do not according to your means and
opportunity study to defend his safety, by that inhumanity you
violate the law. But if the safety of the body is so carefully
provided for, we may hence infer how much care and exertion is due
to the safety of the soul, which is of immeasurably higher value in
the sight of God.
    
Seventh commandment.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.
    
    41. The purport of this commandment is, that as God loves
chastity and purity, we ought to guard against all uncleanness. The
substance of the commandment therefore is, that we must not defile
ourselves with any impurity or libidinous excess. To this
corresponds the affirmative, that we must regulate every part of our
conduct chastely and continently. The thing expressly forbidden is
adultery, to which lust naturally tends, that its filthiness (being
of a grosser and more palpable form, in as much as it casts a stain
even on the body) may dispose us to abominate every form of lust. As
the law under which man was created was not to lead a life of
solitude, but enjoy a help meet for him, and ever since he fell
under the curse the necessity for this mode of life is increased;
the Lord made the requisite provision for us in this respect by the
institution of marriage, which, entered into under his authority, he
has also sanctified with his blessing. Hence, it is evident, that
any mode of cohabitation different from marriage is cursed in his
sight, and that the conjugal relation was ordained as a necessary
means of preventing us from giving way to unbridled lust. Let us
beware, therefore, of yielding to indulgence, seeing we are assured
that the curse of God lies on every man and woman cohabiting without
marriage.
    42. Now, since natural feeling and the passions unnamed by the
fall make the marriage tie doubly necessary, save in the case of
those whom God has by special grace exempted, let every individual
consider how the case stands with himself. Virginity, I admit, is a
virtue not to be despised; but since it is denied to some, and to
others granted only for a season, those who are assailed by
incontinence, and unable successfully to war against it, should
retake themselves to the remedy of marriage, and thus cultivate
chastity in the way of their calling. Those incapable of
self-restraint, if they apply not to the remedy allowed and provided
for intemperance, war with God and resist his ordinance. And let no
man tell me (as many in the present day do) that he can do all
things, God helping! The help of God is present with those only who
walk in his ways, (Ps. 91: 14,) that is, in his callings from which
all withdraw themselves who, omitting the remedies provided by God,
vainly and presumptuously strive to struggle with and surmount their
natural feelings. That continence is a special gift from God, and of
the class of those which are not bestowed indiscriminately on the
whole body of the Church, but only on a few of its members, our Lord
affirms, (Matth. 19: 12.) He first describes a certain class of
individuals who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of
heavenly sake; that is, in order that they may be able to devote
themselves with more liberty and less restraint to the things of
heaven. But lest any one should suppose that such a sacrifice was in
every man's power, he had shown a little before that all are not
capable, but those only to whom it is specially given from above.
Hence he concludes, "He that is able to receive it, let him receive
it." Paul asserts the same thing still more plainly when he says,
"Every man has his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and
another after that," (1 Cor. 7: 7.)
    43. Since we are reminded by an express declaration, that it is
not in every man's power to live chaste in celibacy although it may
be his most strenuous study and aim to do so - that it is a special
grace which the Lord bestows only on certain individuals, in order
that they may be less encumbered in his service, do we not oppose
God, and nature as constituted by him, if we do not accommodate our
mode of life to the measure of our ability? The Lord prohibits
fornication, therefore he requires purity and chastity. The only
method which each has of preserving it is to measure himself by his
capacity. Let no man rashly despise matrimony as a thing useless or
superfluous to him; let no man long for celibacy unless he is able
to dispense with the married state. Nor even here let him consult
the tranquillity or convenience of the flesh, save only that, freed
from this tie, he may be the readier and more prepared for all the
offices of piety. And since there are many on whom this blessing is
conferred only for a time, let every one, in abstaining from
marriage, do it so long as he is fit to endure celibacy. If he has
not the power of subduing his passion, let him understand that the
Lord has made it obligatory on him to marry. The Apostle shows this
when he enjoins: "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man
have his own wife and let every woman have her own husband." "If
they cannot contain, let them marry." He first intimates that the
greater part of men are liable to incontinence; and then of those so
liable, he orders all, without exception, to have recourse to the
only remedy by which unchastity may be obviated. The incontinent,
therefore, neglecting to cure their infirmity by this means, sin by
the very circumstance of disobeying the Apostle's command. And let
not a man flatter himself, that because he abstains from the outward
act he cannot be accused of unchastity. His mind may in the meantime
be inwardly inflamed with lust. For Paul's definition of chastity is
purity of mind, combined with purity of body. "The unmarried woman
careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body
and spirit," (1 Cor. 7: 34.) Therefore when he gives a reason for
the former precept, he not only says that it is better to marry than
to live in fornication, but that it is better to marry than to burn.
    44. Moreover, when spouses are made aware that their union is
blessed by the Lord, they are thereby reminded that they must not
give way to intemperate and unrestrained indulgence. For though
honourable wedlock veils the turpitude of incontinence, it does not
follow that it ought forthwith to become a stimulus to it.
Wherefore, let spouses consider that all things are not lawful for
them. Let there be sobriety in the behaviour of the husband toward
the wife, and of the wife in her turn toward the husband; each so
acting as not to do any thing unbecoming the dignity and temperance
of married life. Marriage contracted in the Lord ought to exhibit
measure and modesty - not run to the extreme of wantonness. This
excess Ambrose censured gravely, but not undeservedly, when he
described the man who shows no modesty or comeliness in conjugal
intercourse, as committing adultery with his wife. Lastly let us
consider who the Lawgiver is that thus condemns fornication: even He
who, as he is entitled to possess us entirely, requires integrity of
body, soul, and spirit. Therefore, while he forbids fornication, he
at the same time forbids us to lay snares for our neighbour's
chastity by lascivious attire, obscene gestures, and impure
conversation. There was reason in the remark made by Archelaus to a
youth clothed effeminately and over-luxuriously, that it mattered
not in what part his wantonness appeared. We must have respect to
God, who abhors all contaminations whatever be the part of soul or
body in which it appears. And that there may be no doubt about it,
let us remember, that what the Lord here commends is chastity. If he
requires chastity, he condemns every thing which is opposed to it.
Therefore, if you aspire to obedience, let not your mind burn within
with evil concupiscence, your eyes wanton after corrupting objects,
nor your body be decked for allurement; let neither your tongue by
filthy speeches, nor your appetite by intemperance, entice the mind
to corresponding thoughts. All vices of this description are a kind
of stains which despoil chastity of its purity.

Eighth Commandment.

Thou shalt not steal.
    
    The purport is, that injustice being an abomination to God, we
must render to every man his due. In substance, then, the
commandment forbids us to long after other men's goods, and,
accordingly, requires every man to exert himself honestly in
preserving his own. For we must consider, that what each individual
possesses has not fallen to him by chance, but by the distribution
of the sovereign Lord of all, that no one can pervert his means to
bad purposes without committing a fraud on a divine dispensation.
There are very many kinds of theft. One consists in violence, as
when a man's goods are forcibly plundered and carried off; another
in malicious imposture, as when they are fraudulently intercepted; a
third in the more hidden craft which takes possession of them with a
semblance of justice; and a fourth in sycophancy, which wiles them
away under the pretence of donation. But not to dwell too long in
enumerating the different classes, we know that all the arts by
which we obtain possession of the goods and money of our neighbours,
for sincere affection substituting an eagerness to deceive or injure
them in any way, are to be regarded as thefts. Though they may be
obtained by an action at law, a different decision is given by God.
He sees the long train of deception by which the man of craft begins
to lay nets for his more simple neighbour, until he entangles him in
its meshes - sees the harsh and cruel laws by which the more
powerful oppresses and crushes the feeble - sees the enticements by
which the more wily baits the hook for the less wary, though all
these escape the judgement of man, and no cognisance is taken of
them. Nor is the violation of this commandment confined to money, or
merchandise, or lands, but extends to every kind of right; for we
defraud our neighbours to their hurt if we decline any of the duties
which we are bound to perform towards them. If an agent or an
indolent steward wastes the substance of his employer, or does not
give due heed to the management of his property; if he unjustly
squanders or luxuriously wastes the means entrusted to him; if a
servant holds his master in derision, divulges his secrets, or in
any way is treacherous to his life or his goods; if, on the other
hand, a master cruelly torments his household, he is guilty of theft
before God; since every one who, in the exercise of his calling,
performs not what he owes to others, keeps back, or makes away with
what does not belong to him.
    46. This commandment, therefore, we shall duly obey, if,
contented with our own lot, we study to acquire nothing but honest
and lawful gain; if we long not to grow rich by injustice, nor to
plunder our neighbour of his goods, that our own may thereby be
increased; if we hasten not to heap up wealth cruelly wrung from the
blood of others; if we do not, by means lawful and unlawful, with
excessive eagerness scrape together whatever may glut our avarice or
meet our prodigality. On the other hand, let it be our constant aim
faithfully to lend our counsel and aid to all so as to assist them
in retaining their property; or if we have to do with the perfidious
or crafty, let us rather be prepared to yield somewhat of our right
than to contend with them. And not only so, but let us contribute to
the relief of those whom we see under the pressure of difficulties,
assisting their want out of our abundance. Lastly, let each of us
consider how far he is bound in duty to others, and in good faith
pay what we owe. In the same way, let the people pay all due honour
to their rulers, submit patiently to their authority, obey their
laws and orders, and decline nothing which they can bear without
sacrificing the favour of God. Let rulers, again, take due charge of
their people, preserve the public peace, protect the good, curb the
bad, and conduct themselves throughout as those who must render an
account of their office to God, the Judge of all. Let the ministers
of churches faithfully give heed to the ministry of the word, and
not corrupt the doctrine of salvation, but deliver it purely and
sincerely to the people of God. Let them teach not merely by
doctrine, but by example; in short, let them act the part of good
shepherds towards their flocks. Let the people, in their turn,
receive them as the messengers and apostles of God, render them the
honour which their Supreme Master has bestowed on them, and supply
them with such things as are necessary for their livelihood. Let
parents be careful to bring up, guide, and teach their children as a
trust committed to them by God. Let them not exasperate or alienate
them by cruelty, but cherish and embrace them with the levity and
indulgence which becomes their character. The regard due to parents
from their children has already been adverted to. Let the young
respect those advanced in years as the Lord has been pleased to make
that age honourable. Let the aged also, by their prudence and their
experience, (in which they are far superior,) guide the feebleness
of youth, not assailing them with harsh and clamorous invectives but
tempering strictness with ease and affability. Let servants show
themselves diligent and respectful in obeying their masters, and
this not with eye-service, but from the heart, as the servants of
God. Let masters also not be stern and disobliging to their
servants, nor harass them with excessive asperity, nor treat them
with insult, but rather let them acknowledge them as brethren and
fellow-servants of our heavenly Master, whom, therefore, they are
bound to treat with mutual love and kindness. Let every one, I say,
thus consider what in his own place and order he owes to his
neighbours, and pay what he owes. Moreover, we must always have a
reference to the Lawgiver, and so remember that the law requiring us
to promote and defend the interest and convenience of our
fellow-men, applies equally to our minds and our hands.


Ninth Commandment.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

    47. The purport of the commandment is, since God, who is truth,
abhors falsehood, we must cultivate unfeigned truth towards each
other. The sum, therefore, will be, that we must not by calumnies
and false accusations injure our neighbour's name, or by falsehood
impair his fortunes; in fine, that we must not injure any one from
petulance, or a love of evil-speaking. To this prohibition
corresponds the command, that we must faithfully assist every one,
as far as in us lies, in asserting the truth, for the maintenance of
his good name and his estate. The Lord seems to have intended to
explain the commandment in these words: "Thou shalt not raise a
false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an
unrighteous witness." "Keep thee far from a false matter," (Exod.
23: 1, 7.) In another passage, he not only prohibits that species of
falsehood which consists in acting the part of tale-bearers among
the people, but says, "Neither shalt thou stand against the blood of
thy neighbour," (Lev. 19: 16.) Both transgressions are distinctly
prohibited. Indeed, there can be no doubt, that as in the previous
commandment he prohibited cruelty unchastity, and avarice, so here
he prohibits falsehood, which consists of the two parts to which we
have adverted. By malignant or vicious detraction, we sin against
our neighbour's good name: by lying, sometimes even by casting a
slur upon him, we injure him in his estate. It makes no difference
whether you suppose that formal and judicial testimony is here
intended, or the ordinary testimony which is given in private
conversation. For we must always recur to the consideration, that
for each kind of transgression one species is set forth by way of
example, that to it the others may be referred, and that the species
chiefly selected, is that in which the turpitude of the
transgression is most apparent. It seems proper, however, to extend
it more generally to calumny and sinister insinuations by which our
neighbours are unjustly aggrieved. For falsehood in a court of
justice is always accompanied with perjury. But against perjury, in
so far as it profanes and violates the name of God, there is a
sufficient provision in the third commandment. Hence the legitimate
observance of this precept consists in employing the tongue in the
maintenance of truth, so as to promote both the good name and the
prosperity of our neighbour. The equity of this is perfectly clear.
For if a good name is more precious than riches, a man, in being
robbed of his good name, is no less injured than if he were robbed
of his goods; while, in the latter case, false testimony is
sometimes not less injurious than rapine committed by the hand.
    48. And yet it is strange, with what supine security men
everywhere sin in this respect. Indeed, very few are found who do
not notoriously labour under this disease: such is the envenomed
delight we take both in prying into and exposing our neighbour's
faults. Let us not imagine it is a sufficient excuse to say that on
many occasions our statements are not false. He who forbids us to
defame our neighbour's reputation by falsehood, desires us to keep
it untarnished in so far as truth will permit. Though the
commandment is only directed against falsehood, it intimates that
the preservation of our neighbour's good name is recommended. It
ought to be a sufficient inducement to us to guard our neighbour's
good name, that God takes an interest in it. Wherefore,
evil-speaking in general is undoubtedly condemned. Moreover, by
evil-speaking, we understand not the rebuke which is administered
with a view of correcting; not accusation or judicial decision, by
which evil is sought to be remedied; not public censure, which tends
to strike terror into other offenders; not the disclosure made to
those whose safety depends on being forewarned, lest unawares they
should be brought into danger, but the odious crimination which
springs from a malicious and petulant love of slander. Nay, the
commandment extends so far as to include that scurrilous affected
urbanity, instinct with invective, by which the failings of others,
under an appearance of sportiveness, are bitterly assailed, as some
are wont to do, who court the praise of wit, though it should call
forth a blush, or inflict a bitter pang. By petulance of this
description, our brethren are sometimes grievously wounded. But if
we turn our eye to the Lawgiver, whose just authority extends over
the ears and the mind, as well as the tongue, we cannot fail to
perceive that eagerness to listen to slander, and an unbecoming
proneness to censorious judgements are here forbidden. It were
absurd to suppose that God hates the disease of evil-speaking in the
tongue, and yet disapproves not of its malignity in the mind.
Wherefore, if the true fear and love of God dwell in us, we must
endeavour, as far as is lawful and expedient, and as far as charity
admits, neither to listen nor give utterance to bitter and
acrimonious charges, nor rashly entertain sinister suspicions. As
just interpreters of the words and the actions of other men, let us
candidly maintain the honour due to them by our judgement, our ear,
and our tongue.
    
Tenth Commandment.
    
    Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not
covet thy neighbour's wife nor his man-servant, nor his
maid-servant, nor his ox nor his ass, nor anything that is thy
neighbour's.
    
    The purport is: Since the Lord would have the whole soul
pervaded with love, any feeling of an adverse nature must be
banished from our minds. The sum, therefore, will be, that no
thought be permitted to insinuate itself into our minds, and inhale
them with a noxious concupiscence tending to our neighbour's loss.
To this corresponds the contrary precept, that every thing which we
conceive, deliberate, will, or design, be conjoined with the good
and advantage of our neighbour. But here it seems we are met with a
great and perplexing difficulty. For if it was correctly said above,
that under the words adultery and theft, lust and an intention to
injure and deceive are prohibited, it may seem superfluous
afterwards to employ a separate commandment to prohibit a covetous
desire of our neighbour's goods. The difficulty will easily be
removed by distinguishing between design and covetousness. Design,
such as we have spoken of in the previous commandments, is a
deliberate consent of the will, after passion has taken possession
of the mind. Covetousness may exist without such deliberation and
assent, when the mind is only stimulated and tickled by vain and
perverse objects. As, therefore, the Lord previously ordered that
charity should regulate our wishes, studies, and actions, so he now
orders us to regulate the thoughts of the mind in the same way, that
none of them may be depraved and distorted, so as to give the mind a
contrary bent. Having forbidden us to turn and incline our mind to
wrath, hatred, adultery, theft, and falsehood, he now forbids us to
give our thoughts the same direction.
    50. Nor is such rectitude demanded without reason. For who can
deny the propriety of occupying all the powers of the mind with
charity? If it ceases to have charity for its aim, who can question
that it is diseased? How comes it that so many desires of a nature
hurtful to your brother enter your mind, but just because,
disregarding him, you think only of yourself? Were your mind wholly
imbued with charity, no portion of it would remain for the entrance
of such thoughts. In so far, therefore, as the mind is devoid of
charity, it must be under the influence of concupiscence. Some one
will object that those fancies which casually rise up in the mind,
and forthwith vanish away, cannot properly be condemned as
concupiscences, which have their seat in the heart. I answer, That
the question here relates to a description of fancies which while
they present themselves to our thoughts, at the same time impress
and stimulate the mind with cupidity, since the mind never thinks of
making some choice, but the heart is excited and tends towards it.
God therefore commands a strong and ardent affection, an affection
not to be impeded by any portion, however minute, of concupiscence.
He requires a mind so admirably arranged as not to be prompted in
the slightest degree contrary to the law of love. Lest you should
imagine that this view is not supported by any grave authority, I
may mention that it was first suggested to me by Augustine. But
although it was the intention of God to prohibit every kind of
perverse desire, he, by way of example, sets before us those objects
which are generally regarded as most attractive: thus leaving no
room for cupidity of any kind, by the interdiction of those things
in which it especially delights and loves to revel.
    Such, then, is the Second Table of the Law, in which we are
sufficiently instructed in the duties which we owe to man for the
sake of God, on a consideration of whose nature the whole system of
love is founded. It were vain, therefore, to inculcate the various
duties taught in this table, without placing your instructions on
the fear and reverence to God as their proper foundation. I need not
tell the considerate reader, that those who make two precepts out of
the prohibition of covetousness, perversely split one thing into
two. There is nothing in the repetition of the words, "Thou shalt
not covet." The "house" being first put down, its different parts
are afterwards enumerated, beginning with the "wife;" and hence it
is clear, that the whole ought to be read consecutively, as is
properly done by the Jews. The sum of the whole commandment,
therefore, is, that whatever each individual possesses remain entire
and secure, not only from injury, or the wish to injure, but also
from the slightest feeling of covetousness which can spring up in
the mind.
    51. It will not now be difficult to ascertain the general end
contemplated by the whole Law, viz., the fulfilment of
righteousness, that man may form his life on the model of the divine
purity. For therein God has so delineated his own character, that
any one exhibiting in action what is commanded, would in some
measure exhibit a living image of God. Wherefore Moses, when he
wished to fix a summary of the whole in the memory of the
Israelites, thus addressed them, "And now, Israel, what does the
Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk
in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God with
all thy heart, and with all thy soul, to keep the commandments of
the Lord and his statutes which I command thee this day for thy
good?" (Deut. 10: 12, 13.) And he ceased not to reiterate the same
thing, whenever he had occasion to mention the end of the Law. To
this the doctrine of the Law pays so much regard, that it connects
man, by holiness of life, with his God; and, as Moses elsewhere
expresses it, (Deut. 6: 5; 11: 13,) and makes him cleave to him.
Moreover, this holiness of life is comprehended under the two heads
above mentioned. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all
thy strength, and thy neighbour as thyself". First, our mind must be
completely filled with love to God, and then this love must
forthwith flow out toward our neighbour. This the Apostle shows when
he says, "The end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart,
and a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned," (1 Tim. 1: 5.) You
see that conscience and faith unfeigned are placed at the head, in
other words, true piety; and that from this charity is derived. It
is a mistake then to suppose, that merely the rudiments and first
principles of righteousness are delivered in the Law, to form, as it
were, a kind of introduction to good works, and not to guide to the
perfect performance of them. For complete perfection, nothing more
can be required than is expressed in these passages of Moses and
Paul. How far, pray, would he wish to go, who is not satisfied with
the instruction which directs man to the fear of God, to spiritual
worship, practical obedience; in fine, purity of conscience, faith
unfeigned, and charity? This confirms that interpretation of the Law
which searches out, and finds in its precepts, all the duties of
piety and charity. Those who merely search for dry and meagre
elements, as if it taught the will of God only by halves, by no
means understand its end, the Apostle being witness.
    52. As, in giving a summary of the Law, Christ and the Apostles
sometimes omit the First Table, very many fall into the mistake of
supposing that their words apply to both tables. In Matthew, Christ
calls "judgement, mercy, and faith," the "weightier matters of the
Law." I think it clear, that by faith is here meant veracity towards
men. But in order to extend the words to the whole Law, some take it
for piety towards God. This is surely to no purpose. For Christ is
speaking of those works by which a man ought to approve himself as
just. If we attend to this, we will cease to wonder why, elsewhere,
when asked by the young man, "What good thing shall I do, that 1 may
have eternal life?" he simply answers, that he must keep the
commandments, "Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit
adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour
as thyself," (Matth. 19: 16, 18.) For the obedience of the First
Table consisted almost entirely either in the internal affection of
the heart, or in ceremonies. The affection of the heart was not
visible, and hypocrites were diligent in the observance of
ceremonies; but the works of charity were of such a nature as to be
a solid attestation of righteousness. The same thing occurs so
frequently in the Prophets, that it must be familiar to every one
who has any tolerable acquaintance with them. For, almost on every
occasion, when they exhort men to repentance, omitting the First
Table, they insist on faith, judgement, mercy, and equity. Nor do
they, in this way, omit the fear of God. They only require a serious
proof of it from its signs. It is well known, indeed, that when they
treat of the Law, they generally insist on the Second Table, because
therein the cultivation of righteousness and integrity is best
manifested. There is no occasion to quote passages. Every one can
easily for himself perceive the truth of my observation.
    53. Is it then true, you will ask, that it is a more complete
summary of righteousness to live innocently with men, than piously
towards God? By no means; but because no man, as a matter of course,
observes charity in all respects, unless he seriously fear God, such
observance is a proof of piety also. To this we may add, that the
Lord, well knowing that none of our good deeds can reach him, (as
the Psalmist declares, Psalm 16: 2,) does not demand from us duties
towards himself, but exercises us in good works towards our
neighbour. Hence the Apostle, not without cause, makes the whole
perfection of the saints to consist in charity, (Eph. 3: 19; Col. 3:
14.) And in another passage, he not improperly calls it the
"fulfilling of the law," adding, that "he that loveth another has
fulfilled the law," (Rom. 13: 8.) And again, "All the law is
fulfilled in this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," (Gal.
5: 14.) For this is the very thing which Christ himself teaches when
he says, "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you,
do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets,"
(Matth. 7: 12.) It is certain that, in the law and the prophets,
faith, and whatever pertains to the due worship of God, holds the
first place, and that to this charity is made subordinate; but our
Lord means, that in the Law the observance of justice and equity
towards men is prescribed as the means which we are to employ in
testifying a pious fear of God, if we truly possess it.
    54. Let us therefore hold, that our life will be framed in best
accordance with the will of God, and the requirements of his Law,
when it is, in every respect, most advantageous to our brethren. But
in the whole Law, there is not one syllable which lays down a rule
as to what man is to do or avoid for the advantage of his own carnal
nature. And, indeed, since men are naturally prone to excessive
self-love, which they always retain, how great soever their
departure from the truth may be, there was no need of a law to
inflame a love already existing in excess. Hence it is perfectly
plain, that the observance of the Commandments consists not in the
love of ourselves, but in the love of God and our neighbour; and
that he leads the best and holiest life who as little as may be
studies and lives for himself; and that none lives worse and more
unrighteously than he who studies and lives only for himself, and
seeks and thinks only of his own. Nay, the better to express how
strongly we should be inclined to love our neighbour, the Lord has
made self-love as it were the standard, there being no feeling in
our nature of greater strength and vehemence. The force of the
expression ought to be carefully weighed. For he does not (as some
sophists have stupidly dreamed) assign the first place to self-love,
and the second to charity. He rather transfers to others the love
which we naturally feel for ourselves. Hence the Apostle declares,
that charity "seeketh not her own," (1 Cor. 13: 5.) Nor is the
argument worth a straw, That the thing regulated must always be
inferior to the rule. The Lord did not make self-love the rule, as
if love towards others was subordinate to it; but whereas, through
natural gravity, the feeling of love usually rests on ourselves, he
shows that it ought to diffuse itself in another direction - that we
should be prepared to do good to our neighbour with no less
alacrity, ardour, and solicitude, than to ourselves.
    55. Our Saviour having shown, in the parable of the Samaritan,
(Luke 10: 36,) that the term neighbour comprehends the most remote
stranger, there is no reason for limiting the precept of love to our
own connections. I deny not that the closer the relation the more
frequent our offices of kindness should be. For the condition of
humanity requires that there be more duties in common between those
who are more nearly connected by the ties of relationship, or
friendship, or neighbourhood. And this is done without any offence
to God, by whose providence we are in a manner impelled to do it.
But I say that the whole human race, without exception, are to be
embraced with one feeling of charity: that here there is no
distinction of Greek or Barbarian, worthy or unworthy, friend or
foe, since all are to be viewed not in themselves, but in God. If we
turn aside from this view, there is no wonder that we entangle
ourselves in error. Wherefore, if we would hold the true course in
love, our first step must be to turn our eyes not to man, the sight
of whom might oftener produce hatred than love, but to God, who
requires that the love which we bear to him be diffused among all
mankind, so that our fundamental principle must ever be, Let a man
be what he may, he is still to be loved, because God is loved.
    56. Wherefore, nothing could be more pestilential than the
ignorance or wickedness of the Schoolmen in converting the precepts
respecting revenge and the love of enemies (precepts which had
formerly been delivered to all the Jews, and were then delivered
universally to all Christians) into counsels which it was free to
obey or disobey, confining the necessary observance of them to the
monks, who were made more righteous than ordinary Christians, by the
simple circumstance of voluntarily binding themselves to obey
counsels. The reason they assign for not receiving them as laws is,
that they seem too heavy and burdensome, especially to Christians,
who are under the law of grace. Have they, indeed, the hardihood to
remodel the eternal law of God concerning the love of our neighbour?
Is there a page of the Law in which any such distinction exists; or
rather do we not meet in every page with commands which, in the
strictest terms, require us to love our enemies? What is meant by
commanding us to feed our enemy if he is hungry, to bring back his
ox or his ass if we meet it going astray, or help it up if we see it
lying under its burden? (Prov. 25: 21; Exod. 23: 4.) Shall we show
kindness to cattle for man's sake, and have no feeling of good will
to himself? What? Is not the word of the Lord eternally true:
"Vengeance is mine, I will repay?" (Deut. 32: 35.) This is elsewhere
more explicitly stated: "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge
against the children of thy people," (Lev. 19: 18.) Let them either
erase these passages from the Law, or let them acknowledge the Lord
as a Lawgiver, not falsely feign him to be merely a counsellor.
    57. And what, pray, is meant by the following passage, which
they have dared to insult with this absurd gloss? "Love your
enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you,
and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven,"
(Matth. 5: 44, 45.) Who does not here concur in the reasoning of
Chrysostom, (lib. de Compunctione Cordis, et ad Rom. 7,) that the
nature of the motive makes it plain that these are not exhortations,
but precepts? For what is left to us if we are excluded from the
number of the children of God? According to the Schoolmen, monks
alone will be the children of our Father in heaven - monks alone
will dare to invoke God as their Father. And in the meantime, how
will it fare with the Church? By the same rule, she will be confined
to heathens and publicans. For our Saviour says, "If ye love them
which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the
same?" It will truly be well with us if we are left only the name of
Christians, while we are deprived of the inheritance of the kingdom
of heaven! Nor is the argument of Augustine less forcible: "When the
Lord forbids adultery, he forbids it in regard to the wife of a foe
not less than the wife of a friend; when he forbids theft, he does
not allow stealing of any description, whether from a friend or an
enemy," (August. Lib. de Doctr. Christ.) Now, these two
commandments, "Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not commit
adultery," Paul brings under the rule of love; nay, he says that
they are briefly comprehended in this saying, "Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself," (Rom. 13: 9.) Therefore, Paul must either be
a false interpreter of the Law, or we must necessarily conclude,
that under this precept we are bound to love our enemies just as our
friends. Those, then, show themselves to be in truth the children of
Satan who thus licentiously shake off a yoke common to the children
of God. It may be doubted whether, in promulgating this dogma, they
have displayed greater stupidity or impudence. There is no ancient
writer who does not hold it as certain that these are pure precepts.
It was not even doubted in the age of Gregory, as is plain from his
decided assertion; for he holds it to be incontrovertible that they
are precepts. And how stupidly they argue! The burden, say they,
were too difficult for Christians to hear! As if any thing could be
imagined more difficult than to love the Lord with all the heart,
and soul, and strength. Compared with this Law, there is none which
may not seem easy, whether it be to love our enemy, or to banish
every feeling of revenge from our minds. To our weakness, indeed,
every thing, even to the minutest tittle of the Law, is arduous and
difficult. In the Lord we have strength. It is his to give what he
orders, and to order what he wills. That Christians are under the
law of grace, means not that they are to wander unrestrained without
law, but that they are engrafted into Christ, by whose grace they
are freed from the curse of the Law, and by whose Spirit they have
the Law written in their hearts. This grace Paul has termed, but not
in the proper sense of the term, a law, alluding to the Law of God,
with which he was contrasting it. The Schoolmen, laying hold of the
term Law, make it the ground-work of their vain speculations.
    58. The same must be said of their application of the term,
venial sin, both to the hidden impiety which violates the First
Table, and the direct transgression of the last commandment of the
Second Table. They define venial sin to be, desire unaccompanied
with deliberate assent, and not remaining long in the heart. But I
maintain that it cannot even enter the heart unless through a want
of those things which are required in the Law. We are forbidden to
have strange gods. When the mind, under the influence of distrust,
looks elsewhere or is seized with some sudden desire to transfer its
blessedness to some other quarter, whence are these movements,
however evanescent, but just because there is some empty corner in
the soul to receive such temptations? And, not to lengthen out the
discussion, there is a precept to love God with the whole heart, and
mind, and soul; and, therefore, if all the powers of the soul are
not directed to the love of God, there is a departure from the
obedience of the Law; because those internal enemies which rise up
against the dominion of God, and countermand his edicts prove that
his throne is not well established in our consciences. It has been
shown that the last commandment goes to this extent. Has some undue
longing sprung up in our mind? Then we are chargeable with
covetousness, and stand convicted as transgressors of the Law. For
the Law forbids us not only to meditate and plan our neighbour's
loss, but to be stimulated and inflamed with covetousness. But every
transgression of the Law lays us under the curse, and therefore even
the slightest desires cannot be exempted from the fatal sentence.
"In weighing our sins," says Augustine, "let us not use a deceitful
balance, weighing at our own discretion what we will, and how we
will, calling this heavy and that light: but let us use the divine
balance of the Holy Scriptures, as taken from the treasury of the
Lord, and by it weigh every offence, nay, not weigh, but rather
recognise what has been already weighed by the Lord," (August. De
Bapt. cont. Donatist. Lib. 2 chap. 6.) And what saith the Scripture?
Certainly when Paul says, that "the wages of sin is death," (Rom. 6:
23,) he shows that he knew nothing of this vile distinction. As we
are but too prone to hypocrisy, there was very little occasion for
this sop to soothe our torpid consciences.
    59. I wish they would consider what our Saviour meant when he
said, "Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and
shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of
heaven," (Matth. 5: 19.) Are they not of this number when they
presume to extenuate the transgression of the Law, as if it were
unworthy of death? The proper course had been to consider not simply
what is commanded, but who it is that commands, because every least
transgression of his Law derogates from his authority. Do they count
it a small matter to insult the majesty of God in any one respect?
Again, since God has explained his will in the Law, every thing
contrary to the Law is displeasing to him. Will they feign that the
wrath of God is so disarmed that the punishment of death will not
forthwith follow upon it? He has declared plainly, (if they could be
induced to listen to his voice, instead of darkening his clear truth
by their insipid subtleties,) "The soul that sinneth it shall die,"
(Ezek. 18: 20.) Again, in the passage lately quoted, "The wages of
sin is death." What these men acknowledge to be sin, because they
are unable to deny it, they contend is not mortal. Having already
indulged this madness too long, let them learn to repent; or, if
they persist in their infatuation, taking no further notice of them,
let the children of God remember that all sin is mortal, because it
is rebellion against the will of God, and necessarily provokes his
anger; and because it is a violation of the Law, against every
violation of which, without exception, the judgement of God has been
pronounced. The faults of the saints are indeed venial, not,
however, in their own nature, but because, through the mercy of God,
they obtain pardon.









Chapter 9


9 Christ, though known to the Jews under the law, yet only
manifested under the gospel.

    There are three principal heads in this chapter. I. Preparatory
to a consideration of the knowledge of Christ, and the benefits
procured by him; the 1st and 2d sections are occupied with the
dispensation of this knowledge, which, after the manifestation of
Christ in the flesh, was more clearly revealed than under the Law.
II. A refutation of the profane dream of Servetus, that the promises
are entirely abrogated, sec. 3. Likewise, a refutation of those who
do not properly compare the Law with the Gospel, sec. 4. III. A
necessary and brief exposition of the ministry of John Baptist,
which occupies an intermediate place between the law and the Gospel.

Sections.

1. The holy fathers under the Law saw the day of Christ, though
    obscurely. He is more fully revealed to us under the Gospel. A
    reason for this, confirmed by the testimony of Christ and his
    Apostles.
2. The term Gospel, used in its most extensive sense, comprehends
    the attestations of mercy which God gave to the fathers.
    Properly, however, it means the promulgation of grace exhibited
    in the God-man Jesus Christ.
3. The notion of Servetus, that the promises are entirely abolished,
    refuted. Why we must still trust to the promises of God.
    Another reason. Solution of a difficulty.
4. Refutation of those who do not properly compare the Law and the
    Gospel. Answer to certain questions here occurring. The Law and
    the Gospel briefly compared.
5. Third part of the chapter. Of the ministry of John the Baptist.

    1. Since God was pleased (and not in vain) to testify in
ancient times by means of expiations and sacrifices that he was a
Father, and to set apart for himself a chosen people, he was
doubtless known even then in the same character in which he is now
fully revealed to us. Accordingly Malachi, having enjoined the Jews
to attend to the Law of Moses, (because after his death there was to
be an interruption of the prophetical office,) immediately after
declares that the Sun of righteousness should arise, (Mal. 4: 2;)
thus intimating, that though the Law had the effect of keeping the
pious in expectation of the coming Messiah, there was ground to hope
for much greater light on his advent. For this reason, Peter,
speaking of the ancient prophets, says, "Unto whom it was revealed,
that not unto themselves, but unto us, they did minister the things
which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the
gospel unto you, with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven," (1 Pet.
1: 12.) Not that the prophetical doctrine was useless to the ancient
people, or unavailing to the prophets themselves, but that they did
not obtain possession of the treasure which God has transmitted to
US by their hands. The grace of which they testified is now set
familiarly before our eyes. They had only a slight foretaste; to us
is given a fuller fruition. Our Saviour, accordingly, while he
declares that Moses testified of him, extols the superior measure of
grace bestowed upon us, (John 5: 46.) Addressing his disciples, he
says, "Blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they
hear. For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous
men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen
them, and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard
them," (Matth. 13: 16; Luke 10: 23.) It is no small commendation of
the gospel revelation, that God has preferred us to holy men of old,
so much distinguished for piety. There is nothing in this view
inconsistent with another passage, in which our Saviour says, "Your
father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad,"
(John 8: 56.) For though the event being remote, his view of it was
obscure, he had full assurance that it would one day be
accomplished; and hence the joy which the holy patriarch experienced
even to his death. Nor does John Baptist, when he says, "No man has
seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom
of the Father, he has declared him," (John 1: 18,) exclude the pious
who had previously died from a participation in the knowledge and
light which are manifested in the person of Christ; but comparing
their condition with ours, he intimates that the mysteries which
they only beheld dimly under shadows are made clear to us; as is
well explained by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in these
words, "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time
past unto the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken
unto us by his Son," (Heb. 1: 1, 2.) Hence, although this only
begotten Son, who is now to us the brightness of his Father's glory
and the express image of his person, was formerly made known to the
Jews, as we have elsewhere shown from Paul, that he was the
Deliverer under the old dispensation; it is nevertheless true, as
Paul himself elsewhere declares, that "God, who commanded the light
to shine out of darkness, has shined in our hearts, to give the
light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus
Christ," (2 Cor. 4: 6;) because, when he appeared in this his image,
he in a manner made himself visible, his previous appearance having
been shadowy and obscure. More shameful and more detestable,
therefore, is the ingratitude of those who walk blindfold in this
meridian light. Accordingly, Paul says that "the god of this world
has blinded their minds, lest the light of the glorious gospel of
Christ should shine unto them," (2 Cor. 4: 4.)
    2. By the Gospel, I understand the clear manifestation of the
mystery of Christ. I confess, indeed, that inasmuch as the term
Gospel is applied by Paul to the doctrine of faith, (2 Tim. 4: 10,)
it includes all the promises by which God reconciles men to himself,
and which occur throughout the Law. For Paul there opposes faith to
those terrors which vex and torment the conscience when salvation is
sought by means of works. Hence it follows that Gospel, taken in a
large sense, comprehends the evidences of mercy and paternal favour
which God bestowed on the Patriarchs. Still, by way of excellence,
it is applied to the promulgation of the grace manifested in Christ.
This is not only founded on general use, but has the sanction of our
Saviour and his Apostles. Hence it is described as one of his
peculiar characteristics, that he preached the Gospel of the
kingdom, (Matth. 4: 23; 9: 35; Mark 1: 14.) Mark, in his preface to
the Gospel, calls it "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ."
There is no use of collecting passages to prove what is already
perfectly known. Christ at his advent "brought life and immortality
to light through the Gospel," (2 Tim. 1: l0.) Paul does not mean by
these words that the Fathers were plunged in the darkness of death
before the Son of God became incarnate; but he claims for the Gospel
the honourable distinction of being a new and extraordinary kind of
embassy, by which God fulfilled what he had promised, these promises
being realised in the person of the Son. For though believers have
at all times experienced the truth of Paul's declaration, that "all
the promises of God in him are yea and amen," inasmuch as these
promises were sealed upon their hearts; yet because he has in his
flesh completed all the parts of our salvation, this vivid
manifestation of realities was justly entitled to this new and
special distinction. Accordingly, Christ says, "Hereafter ye shall
see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon
the Son of man." For though he seems to allude to the ladder which
the Patriarch Jacob saw in vision, he commends the excellence of his
advent in this, that it opened the gate of heaven, and gave us
familiar access to it.
    3. Here we must guard against the diabolical imagination of
Servetus, who, from a wish, or at least the pretence of a wish, to
extol the greatness of Christ, abolishes the promises entirely, as
if they had come to an end at the same time with the Law. He
pretends, that by the faith of the Gospel all the promises have been
fulfilled; as if there was no distinction between us and Christ. I
lately observed that Christ had not left any part of our salvation
incomplete; but from this it is erroneously inferred, that we are
now put in possession of all the blessings purchased by him; thereby
implying, that Paul was incorrect in saying, "We are saved by hope,"
(Rom. 3: 24.) I admit, indeed, that by believing in Christ we pass
from death unto life; but we must at the same time remember the
words of John, that though we know we are "the sons of God," "it
does not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he
shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is,"
(1 John 3: 2.) Therefore, although Christ offers us in the Gospel a
present fulness of spiritual blessings, fruition remains in the
keeping of hope, until we are divested of corruptible flesh, and
transformed into the glory of him who has gone before us. Meanwhile,
in leaning on the promises, we obey the command of the Holy Spirit,
whose authority ought to have weight enough with us to silence all
the barkings of that impure dog. We have it on the testimony of
Paul, that "Godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise
of the life that now is, and of that which is to come," (1 Tim. 4:
8;) for which reason, he glories in being "an apostle of Jesus
Christ, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus"
(2 Tim. 1: 1.) And he elsewhere reminds us, that we have the same
promises which were given to the saints in ancient time, (2 Cor. 7:
1.) In fine, he makes the sum of our felicity consist in being
sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise. Indeed we have no enjoyment
of Christ, unless by embracing him as clothed with his own promises.
Hence it is that he indeed dwells in our hearts and yet we are as
pilgrims in regard to him, because "we walk by faith, not by sight,"
(2 Cor. 5: 6, 7.) There is no inconsistency in the two things, viz.,
that in Christ we possess every thing pertaining to the perfection
of the heavenly life, and yet that faith is only a vision "of things
not seen," (Heb. 11: 1.) Only there is this difference to be
observed in the nature or quality of the promises, that the Gospel
points with the finger to what the Law shadowed under types.
    4. Hence, also, we see the error of those who, in comparing the
Law with the Gospel, represent it merely as a comparison between the
merit of works, and the gratuitous imputation of righteousness. The
contrast thus made is by no means to be rejected, because, by the
term Law, Paul frequently understands that rule of holy living in
which God exacts what is his due, giving no hope of life unless we
obey in every respect; and, on the other hand, denouncing a curse
for the slightest failure. This Paul does when showing that we are
freely accepted of God, and accounted righteous by being pardoned,
because that obedience of the Law to which the reward is promised is
nowhere to be found. Hence he appropriately represents the
righteousness of the Law and the Gospel as opposed to each other.
But the Gospel has not succeeded the whole Law in such a sense as to
introduce a different method of salvation. It rather confirms the
Law, and proves that every thing which it promised is fulfilled.
What was shadow, it has made substance. When Christ says that the
Law and the Prophets were until John, he does not consign the
fathers to the curse, which, as the slaves of the Law, they could
not escape. He intimates that they were only imbued with the
rudiments, and remained far beneath the height of the Gospel
doctrine. Accordingly Paul, after calling the Gospel "the power of
God unto salvation to every one that believeth," shortly after adds,
that it was "witnessed by the Law and the Prophets," (Rom. 1: 16; 3:
21.) And in the end of the same Epistle, though he describes "the
preaching of Jesus Christ" as "the revelation of the mystery which
was kept secret since the world began," he modifies the expression
by adding, that it is "now made manifest" "by the scriptures of the
prophets," (Rom. 16: 25, 26.) Hence we infer, that when the whole
Law is spoken of, the Gospel differs from it only in respect of
clearness of manifestation. Still, on account of the inestimable
riches of grace set before us in Christ, there is good reason for
saying, that by his advent the kingdom of heaven was erected on the
earth, (Matth. 12: 28.)
    5. John stands between the Law and the Gospel, holding an
intermediate office allied to both. For though he gave a summary of
the Gospel when he pronounced Christ to be "the Lamb of God who
taketh away the sin of the world," yet, inasmuch as he did not
unfold the incomparable power and glory which shone forth in his
resurrection, Christ says that he was not equal to the Apostles. For
this is the meaning of the words: "Among them that are born of
woman, there has not risen a greater than John the Baptist:
notwithstanding, he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is
greater than he," (Matth. 11: 28.) He is not there commending the
persons of men, but after preferring John to all the Prophets, he
gives the first place to the preaching of the Gospel, which is
elsewhere designated by the kingdom of heaven. When John himself, in
answer to the Jews, says that he is only "a voice," (John 1: 23,) as
if he were inferior to the Prophets it is not in pretended humility
but he means to teach that the proper embassy was not entrusted to
him, that he only performed the office of a messenger, as had been
foretold by Malachi, "Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophets
before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord," (Mal.
4: 5.) And, indeed, during the whole course of his ministry, he did
nothing more than prepare disciples for Christ. He even proves from
Isaiah that this was the office to which he was divinely appointed.
In this sense, he is said by Christ to have been "a burning and a
shining light," (John 5: 35,) because full day had not yet appeared.
And yet this does not prevent us from classing him among the
preachers of the gospel, since he used the same baptism which was
afterwards committed to the Apostles. Still, however, he only began
that which had freer course under the Apostles, after Christ was
taken up into the heavenly glory.









Chapter 10.


10. The resemblance between tee Old Testament and the New.
    
    This chapter consists of four parts. I. The sum, utility, and
necessity of this discussion, sec. 1. II. A proof that, generally
speaking, the old and new dispensations are in reality one, although
differently administered. Three points in which the two
dispensations entirely agree, sec. 2-4. III. The Old Testament, as
well as the New, had regard to the hope of immortality and a future
life, whence two other resemblances or points of agreement follow,
viz., that both were established by the free mercy of God, and
confirmed by the intercession of Christ. This proved by many
arguments, passages of Scripture, and examples, see. 5-23. IV.
Conclusion of the whole chapter, where, for fuller confirmation,
certain passages of Scripture are produced. Refutation of the cavils
of the Sadducees and other Jews.
    
Sections.

1. Introduction, showing the necessity of proving the similarity of
    both dispensations in opposition to Servetus and the
    Anabaptists.
2. This similarity in general. Both covenants truly one, though
    differently administered. Three things in which they entirely
    agree.
3. First general similarity, or agreement, viz., that the Old
    Testament, equally with the New, extended its promises beyond
    the present life, and held out a sure hope of immortality.
    Reason for this resemblance. Objection answered.
4. The other two points of resemblance, viz., that both covenants
    were established in the mercy of God, and confirmed by the
    mediation of Christ.
5. The first of these points of resemblance being the foundation of
    the other two, a lengthened proof is given of it. The first
    argument taken from a passage, in which Paul, showing that the
    sacraments of both dispensations had the same meaning, proves
    that the condition of the ancient church was similar to ours.
6. An objection from John 6: 49, viz., that the Israelites ate manna
    in the wilderness, and are dead, whereas Christians eat the
    flesh of Christ, and die not. Answer reconciling this passage
    of the Evangelist with that of the Apostle.
7. Another proof from the Law and the Prophets, viz., the power of
    the divine word in quickening souls before Christ was
    manifested. Hence the believing Jews were raised to the hope of
    eternal life.
8. Third proof from the form of the covenant, which shows that it
    was in reality one both before and after the manifestation of
    Christ in the flesh.
9. Confirmation of the former proof from the clear terms in which
    the form is expressed. Another confirmation derived from the
    former and from the nature of God.
10. Fourth proof from examples. Adam, Abel, and Noah, when tried
    with various temptations, neglecting the present, aspired with
    living faith and invincible hope to a better life. They,
    therefore, had the same aim as believers under the Gospel.
11. Continuation of the fourth proof from the example of Abraham,
    whose call and whole course of life shows that he ardently
    aspired to eternal felicity. Objection disposed of.
12. Continuation of the fourth proof from the examples of Isaac and
    Jacob.
13. Conclusion of the fourth proof. Adam, Abel, Noah, Abraham,
    Isaac, Jacob, and others under the Law, looked for the
    fulfilment of the divine promises not on the earth, but in
    heaven. Hence they termed this life an earthly pilgrimage, and
    desired to be buried in the land of Canaan, which was a figure
    of eternal happiness.
14. A fifth proof from Jacob's earnestness to obtain the
    birth-right. This shows a prevailing desire of future life.
    This perceived in some degree by Balaam.
15. A sixth proof from David, who expects such great things from the
    Lord, and yet declares the present life to be mere vanity.
16. A seventh proof also from David. His descriptions of the
    happiness of believers could only be realised in a future
    state.
17. An eighth proof from the common feeling and confession of all
    the pious who sought by faith and hope to obtain in heaven what
    they did not see in the present shadowy life.
18. A continuation and confirmation of the former proof from the
    exultation of the righteous, even amid the destruction of the
    world.
19. A ninth proof from Job, who spoke most distinctly of this hope.
    Two objections disposed of.
20. A tenth proof from the later Prophets, who taught that the
    happiness of the righteous was placed beyond the limits of the
    present life.
21. This clearly established by Ezekiel's vision of the dry bones,
    and a passage in Isaiah.
22. Last proof from certain passages in the Prophets, which clearly
    show the future immortality of the righteous in the kingdom of
    heaven.
23. Conclusion of the whole discussion concerning the similarity of
    both dispensations. For fuller confirmation, four passages of
    Scripture produced. Refutation of the error of the Sadducees
    and other Jews, who denied eternal salvation and the sure hope
    of the Church.

    1. From what has been said above, it must now be clear, that
all whom, from the beginning of the world, God adopted as his
peculiar people, were taken into covenant with him on the same
conditions, and under the same bond of doctrine, as ourselves; but
as it is of no small importance to establish this point, I will here
add it by way of appendix, and show, since the Fathers were
partakers with us in the same inheritance, and hoped for a common
salvation through the grace of the same Mediator, how far their
condition in this respect was different from our own. For although
the passages which we have collected from the Law and the Prophets
for the purpose of proof, make it plain that there never was any
other rule of piety and religion among the people of God; yet as
many things are written on the subject of the difference between the
Old and New Testaments in a manner which may perplex ordinary
readers, it will be proper here to devote a special place to the
better and more exact discussion of this subject. This discussion,
which would have been most useful at any rate, has been rendered
necessary by that monstrous miscreant, Servetus, and some madmen of
the sect of the Anabaptists, who think of the people of Israel just
as they would do of some herd of swine, absurdly imagining that the
Lord gorged them with temporal blessings here, and gave them no hope
of a blessed immortality. Let us guard pious minds against this
pestilential error, while we at the same time remove all the
difficulties which are wont to start up when mention is made of the
difference between the Old and the New Testaments. By the way also,
let us consider what resemblance and what difference there is
between the covenant which the Lord made with the Israelites before
the advent of Christ, and that which he has made with us now that
Christ is manifested.
    2. It is possible, indeed, to explain both in one word. The
covenant made with all the fathers is so far from differing from
ours in reality and substance, that it is altogether one and the
same: still the administration differs. But because this brief
summary is insufficient to give any one a full understanding of the
subject, our explanation to be useful must extend to greater length.
It were superfluous, however, in showing the similarity, or rather
identity, of the two dispensations, again to treat of the
particulars which have already been discussed, as it were
unseasonable to introduce those which are still to be considered
elsewhere. What we propose to insist upon here may be reduced to
three heads: - First, That temporal opulence and felicity was not
the goal to which the Jews were invited to aspire, but that they
were admitted to the hope of immortality, and that assurance of this
adoption was given by immediate communications, by the Law and by
the Prophets. Secondly, That the covenant by which they were
reconciled to the Lord was founded on no merits of their own, but
solely on the mercy of God, who called them; and, thirdly, That they
both had and knew Christ the Mediator, by whom they were united to
God, and made capable of receiving his promises. The second of
these, as it is not yet perhaps sufficiently understood, will be
fully considered in its own place, (Book 3 chap. 15-18.) For we will
prove by many clear passages in the Prophets, that all which the
Lord has ever given or promised to his people is of mere goodness
and indulgence. The third also has, in various places, been not
obscurely demonstrated. Even the first has not been left unnoticed.
    3. As the first is most pertinent to the present subject, and
is most controverted, we shall enter more fully into the
consideration of it, taking care, at the same time, where any of the
others requires explanations to supply it by the way, or afterwards
add it in its proper place. The Apostle, indeed, removes all doubt
when he says that the Gospel which God gave concerning his Son,
Jesus Christ, "he had promised aforetime by his prophets in the holy
Scriptures," (Rom. 1: 2.) And again, that "the righteousness of God
without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the
prophets," (Rom. 3: 21.) For the Gospel does not confine the hearts
of men to the enjoyment of the present life, but raises them to the
hope of immortality; does not fix them down to earthly delights, but
announcing that there is a treasure laid up in heaven, carries the
heart thither also. For in another place he thus explains, "After
that ye believed [the Gospel,] ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit
of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance unto the
redemption of the purchased possession," (Eph. 1: 13, 14.) Again,
"Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which
ye have to all the saints, for the hope which is laid up for you in
heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the
Gospel," (Col. 1: 4.) Again, "Whereunto he called you by our Gospel
to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ," (2 Thess.
2: 14.) Whence also it is called the word of salvation and the power
of God, with salvation to every one that believes, and the kingdom
of heaven. But if the doctrine of the Gospel is spiritual, and gives
access to the possession of incorruptible life, let us not suppose
that those to whom it was promised and declared altogether neglected
the care of the soul, and lived stupidly like cattle in the
enjoyment of bodily pleasures. Let no one here quibble and say, that
the promises concerning the Gospel, which are contained in the Law
and the Prophets, were designed for a new people. For Paul, shortly
after making that statement concerning the Gospel promised in the
Law, adds, that "whatsoever things the law saith, it saith to those
who are under the law." I admit, indeed, he is there treating of a
different subject, but when he said that every thing contained in
the Law was directed to the Jews, he was not so oblivious as not to
remember what he had said a few verses before of the Gospel promised
in the Law. Most clearly, therefore, does the Apostle demonstrate
that the Old Testament had special reference to the future life,
when he says that the promises of the Gospel were comprehended under
it.
    4. In the same way we infer that the Old Testament was both
established by the free mercy of God and confirmed by the
intercession of Christ. For the preaching of the Gospel declares
nothing more than that sinners, without any merit of their own, are
justified by the paternal indulgence of God. It is wholly summed up
in Christ. Who, then, will presume to represent the Jews as
destitute of Christ, when we know that they were parties to the
Gospel covenant, which has its only foundation in Christ? Who will
presume to make them aliens to the benefit of gratuitous salvation,
when we know that they were instructed in the doctrine of
justification by faith? And not to dwell on a point which is clear,
we have the remarkable saying of our Lord, "Your father Abraham
rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad," (John 8: 56.)
What Christ here declares of Abraham, an apostle shows to be
applicable to all believers, when he says that Jesus Christ is the
"same yesterday, to-day, and for ever," (Heb. 13: 8.) For he is not
there speaking merely of the eternal divinity of Christ, but of his
power, of which believers had always full proof. Hence both the
blessed Virgin and Zachariah, in their hymns, say that the salvation
revealed in Christ was a fulfilment of the mercy promised "to our
fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever," (Luke 1: 55, 72.)
If, by manifesting Christ, the Lord fulfilled his ancient oath, it
cannot be denied that the subject of that oaths must ever have been
Christ and eternal life.
    5. Nay, the Apostle makes the Israelites our equals, not only
in the grace of the covenant, but also in the signification of the
Sacraments. For employing the example of those punishments, which
the Scripture states to have been of old inflicted on the Jews, in
order to deter the Corinthians from falling into similar wickedness,
he begins with premising that they have no ground to claim for
themselves any privilege which can exempt them from the divine
vengeance which overtook the Jews, since the Lord not only visited
them with the same mercies, but also distinguished his grace among
them by the same symbols: as if he had said, If you think you are
out of danger, because the Baptism which you received, and the
Supper of which you daily partake, have excellent promises, and if,
in the meantime, despising the goodness of God, you indulge in
licentiousness, know that the Jews, on whom the Lord inflicted his
severest judgements, possessed similar symbols. They were baptised
in passing through the sea, and in the cloud which protected them
from the burning heat of the sun. It is said, that this passage was
a carnal baptism, corresponding in some degree to our spiritual
baptism. But if so, there would be a want of conclusiveness in the
argument of the Apostle, whose object is to prevent Christians from
imagining that they excelled the Jews in the matter of baptism.
Besides, the cavil cannot apply to what immediately follows, viz.,
that they did "all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink
the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that
followed them: and that Rock was Christ," (1 Cor. 10: 3, 4.)
    6. To take off the force of this passage of Paul, an objection
is founded on the words of our Saviour, "Your fathers did eat manna
in the wilderness, and are dead." "If any man eat of this bread, he
shall live for ever," (John 6: 49, 51.) There is no difficulty in
reconciling the two passages. The Lord, as he was addressing hearers
who only desired to be filled with earthly food, while they cared
not for the true food of the soul, in some degree adapts his speech
to their capacity, and, in particular, to meet their carnal view,
draws a comparison between manna and his own body. They called upon
him to prove his authority by performing some miracle, such as Moses
performed in the wilderness when he obtained manna from heaven. In
this manna they saw nothing but a relief of the bodily hunger from
which the people were then suffering; they did not penetrate to the
sublimer mystery to which Paul refers. Christ, therefore, to
demonstrate that the blessing which they ought to expect from him
was more excellent than the lauded one which Moses had bestowed upon
their fathers, draws this comparison: If, in your opinion, it was a
great and memorable miracle when the Lord, by Moses, supplied his
people with heavenly food that they might be supported for a season,
and not perish in the wilderness from famine; from this infer how
much more excellent is the food which bestows immortality. We see
why our Lord omitted to mention what was of principal virtue in the
manna, and mentioned only its meanest use. Since the Jews had, as it
were by way of upbraiding, cast up Moses to him as one who had
relieved the necessity of the people by means of manna, he answers,
that he was the minister of a much larger grace, one compared with
which the bodily nourishment of the people, on which they set so
high a value, ought to be held worthless. Paul, again, knowing that
the Lords when he rained manna from heaven, had not merely supplied
their bodies with food, but had also dispensed it as containing a
spiritual mystery to typify the spiritual quickening which is
obtained in Christ, does not overlook that quality which was most
deserving of consideration. Wherefore it is surely and clearly
proved, that the same promises of celestial and eternal life, which
the Lord now gives to us, were not only communicated to the Jews,
but also sealed by truly spiritual sacraments. This subject is
copiously discussed by Augustine in his work against Faustus the
Manichee.
    7. But if my readers would rather have passages quoted from the
Law and the Prophets, from which they may see, as we have already
done from Christ and the Apostles, that the spiritual covenant was
common also to the Fathers, I will yield to the wish, and the more
willingly, because opponents will thus be more surely convinced,
that henceforth there will be no room for evasion. And I will begin
with a proof which, though I know it will seem futile and almost
ridiculous to supercilious Anabaptists, will have very great weight
with the docile and sober-minded. I take it for granted that the
word of God has such an inherent efficacy, that it quickens the
souls of all whom he is pleased to favour with the communication of
it. Peter's statement has ever been true, that it is an
incorruptible seed, "which liveth and abideth for ever," (1 Peter 1:
23,) as he infers from the words of Isaiah, (Is. 40: 6.) Now when
God, in ancient times, bound the Jews to him by this sacred bond,
there cannot be a doubt that he separated them unto the hope of
eternal life. When I say that they embraced the word which brought
them nearer to God, I refer not to that general method of
communication which is diffused through heaven and earth, and all
the creatures of the world, and which, though it quickens all
things, each according to its nature, rescues none from the bondage
of corruption. I refer to that special mode of communication by
which the minds of the pious are both enlightened in the knowledge
of God, and, in a manner, linked to him. Adam, Abel, Noah, Abraham,
and the other patriarchs, having been united to God by this
illumination of the word, I say there cannot be the least doubt that
entrance was given them into the immortal kingdom of God. They had
that solid participation in God which cannot exist without the
blessing of everlasting life.
    8. If the point still seems somewhat involved, let us pass to
the form of the covenant, which will not only satisfy calm thinkers,
but sufficiently establish the ignorance of gainsayers. The covenant
which God always made with his servants was this, "I will walk among
you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people," (Lev. 26:
12.) These words, even as the prophets are wont to expound them,
comprehend life and salvation, and the whole sum of blessedness. For
David repeatedly declares, and with good reason, "Happy is that
people whose God is the Lord." "Blessed is the nation whose God is
the Lord; and the people whom he has chosen for his own
inheritance," (Psalm 144: 15; 33: 12;) and this not merely in
respect of earthly happiness, but because he rescues from death,
constantly preserves, and, with eternal mercy, visits those whom he
has adopted for his people. As is said in other prophets, "Art not
thou from everlasting, O Lord my God, mine Holy One? we shall not
die." "The Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is
our king; he will save us" "Happy art thou, O Israel: who is like
unto thee, O people saved by the Lord?" (Hab. 1: 12 ; Isaiah 33: 22;
Deut. 33: 29.) But not to labour superfluously, the prophets are
constantly reminding us that no good thing and, consequently, no
assurance of salvation, is wanting, provided the Lord is our God.
And justly. For if his face, the moment it hath shone upon us, is a
perfect pledge of salvation, how can he manifest himself to any one
as his God, without opening to him the treasures of salvation? The
terms on which God makes himself ours is to dwell in the midst of
us, as he declared by Moses, (Lev. 26: 11.) But such presence cannot
be enjoyed without life being, at the same time, possessed along
with it. And though nothing more had been expressed, they had a
sufficiently clear promise of spiritual life in these words, "I am
your God," (Exod. 6: 7.) For he declared that he would be a God not
to their bodies only, but specially to their souls. Souls, however,
if not united to God by righteousness, remain estranged from him in
death. On the other hand, that union, wherever it exists, will bring
perpetual salvation with it.
    9. To this we may add, that he not only declared he was, but
also promised that he would be, their God. By this their hope was
extended beyond present good, and stretched forward into eternity.
Moreover, that this observance of the future had the effect, appears
from the many passages in which the faithful console themselves not
only in their present evils, but also for the future, by calling to
mind that God was never to desert them. Moreover, in regard to the
second part of the promise, viz., the blessing of God, its extending
beyond the limits of the present life was still more clearly
confirmed by the words, I will be the God of your seed after you,
(Gen. 17: 7.) If he was to manifest his favour to the dead by doing
good to their posterity, much less would he deny his favour to
themselves. God is not like men, who transfer their love to the
children of their friends, because the opportunity of bestowing kind
offices as they wished upon themselves is interrupted by death. But
God, whose kindness is not impeded by death, does not deprive the
dead of the benefit of his mercy, which, on their account, he
continues to a thousand generations. God, therefore, was pleased to
give a striking proof of the abundance and greatness of his goodness
which they were to enjoy after death, when he described it as
overflowing to all their posterity, (Exod. 20: 6.) The truth of this
promise was sealed, and in a manner completed, when, long after the
death of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, he called himself their God,
(Exod. 20: 6.) And why? Was not the name absurd if they had
perished? It would have been just the same as if he had said, I am
the God of men who exist not. Accordingly, the Evangelists relate
that, by this very argument, our Saviour refuted the Sadducees,
(Matth. 22: 23; Luke 20: 32,) who were, therefore, unable to deny
that the resurrection of the dead was attested by Moses, inasmuch as
he had taught them that all the saints are in his hand, (Deut. 33:
3.) Whence it is easy to infer that death is not the extinction of
those who are taken under the tutelage, guardianship, and protection
of him who is the disposer of life and death.
    10. Let us now see (and on this the controversy principally
turns) whether or not believers themselves were so instructed by the
Lord, as to feel that they had elsewhere a better life, and to
aspire to it while disregarding the present. First, the mode of life
which heaven had imposed upon them made it a constant exercise, by
which they were reminded, that if in this world only they had hope,
they were of all men the most miserable. Adam, most unhappy even in
the mere remembrance of his lost felicity, with difficulty supplies
his wants by anxious labours; and that the divine curse might not be
restricted to bodily labour, his only remaining solace becomes a
source of the deepest grief: Of two sons, the one is torn from him
by the parricidal hand of his brother; while the other, who
survives, causes detestation and horror by his very look. Abel,
cruelly murdered in the very flower of his days, is an example of
the calamity which had come upon man. While the whole world are
securely living in luxury, Noah, with much fatigue, spends a great
part of his life in building an ark. He escapes death, but by
greater troubles than a hundred deaths could have given. Besides his
ten months' residence in the ark, as in a kind of sepulchre, nothing
could have been more unpleasant than to have remained so long pent
up among the filth of beasts. After escaping these difficulties he
falls into a new cause of sorrow. He sees himself mocked by his own
son, and is forced, with his own mouth, to curse one whom, by the
great kindness of God, he had received safe from the deluge.
    11. Abraham alone ought to be to us equal to tens of thousands
if we consider his faith, which is set before us as the best model
of believing, to whose race also we must be held to belong in order
that we may be the children of God. What could be more absurd than
that Abraham should be the father of all the faithful, and not even
occupy the meanest corner among them? He cannot be denied a place in
the list; nay, he cannot be denied one of the most honourable places
in it, without the destruction of the whole Church. Now, as regards
his experience in life, the moment he is called by the command of
God, he is torn away from friends, parents, and country, objects in
which the chief happiness of life is deemed to consist, as if it had
been the fixed purpose of the Lord to deprive him of all the sources
of enjoyment. No sooner does he enter the land in which he was
ordered to dwell, than he is driven from it by famine. In the
country to which he retires to obtain relief, he is obliged, for his
personal safety, to expose his wife to prostitution. This must have
been more bitter than many deaths. After returning to the land of
his habitation, he is again expelled by famine. What is the
happiness of inhabiting a land where you must so often suffer from
hunger, nay, perish from famine, unless you flee from it? Then,
again, with Abimelech, he is reduced to the same necessity of saving
his head by the loss of his wife, (Gen. 12: 12.) While he wanders up
and down uncertain for many years, he is compelled, by the constant
quarrelling of servants to part with his nephew, who was to him as a
son. This departure must doubtless have cost him a pang something
like the cutting off of a limb. Shortly after, he learns that his
nephew is carried off captive by the enemy. Wherever he goes, he
meets with savage-hearted neighbours, who will not even allow him to
drink of the wells which he has dug with great labour. For he would
not have purchased the use from the king of Gerar if he had not been
previously prohibited. After he had reached the verge of life, he
sees himself childless, (the bitterest and most unpleasant feeling
to old age,) until, beyond expectation, Ishmael is born; and yet he
pays dearly for his birth in the reproaches of Sarah, as if he was
the cause of domestic disturbance by encouraging the contumacy of a
female slave. At length Isaac is born, but in return, the first-born
Ishmael is displaced, and almost hostilely driven forth and
abandoned. Isaac remains alone, and the good man, now worn out with
age, has his heart upon him, when shortly after he is ordered to
offer him up in sacrifice. What can the human mind conceive more
dreadful than for the father to be the murderer of his son? Had he
been carried off by disease, who would not have thought the old man
much to be pitied in having a son given to him in mockery, and in
having his grief for being childless doubled to him? Had he been
slain by some stranger, this would, indeed, have been much worse
than natural death. But all these calamities are little compared
with the murder of him by his father's hand. Thus, in fine, during
the whole course of his life, he was harassed and tossed in such a
way, that any one desirous to give a picture of a calamitous life
could not find one more appropriate. Let it not be said that he was
not so very distressed, because he at length escaped from all these
tempests. He is not said to lead a happy life who, after infinite
difficulties during a long period, at last laboriously works out his
escape, but he who calmly enjoys present blessings without any alloy
of suffering.
    12. Isaac is less afflicted, but he enjoys very few of the
sweets of life. He also meets with those vexations which do not
permit a man to be happy on the earth. Famine drives him from the
land of Canaan; his wife is torn from his bosom; his neighbours are
ever and anon annoying and vexing him in all kinds of ways, so that
he is even obliged to fight for water. At home, he suffers great
annoyance from his daughters-in-law; he is stung by the dissension
of his sons, and has no other cure for this great evil than to send
the son whom he had blessed into exile, (Gen. 26: 27:) Jacob, again,
is nothing but a striking example of the greatest wretchedness. His
boyhood is passed most uncomfortably at home amidst the threats and
alarms of his elder brother, and to these he is at length forced to
give way, (Gen. 27: 28:) A fugitive from his parents and his native
soil, in addition to the hardships of exile, the treatment he
receives from his uncle Laban is in no respect milder and more
humane, (Gen. 29.) As if it had been little to spend seven years of
hard and rigorous servitude, he is cheated in the matter of a wife.
For the sake of another wife, he must undergo a new servitude,
during which, as he himself complains, the heat of the sun scorches
him by day, while in frost and cold he spends the sleepless night,
(Gen. 31: 40, 41.) For twenty years he spends this bitter life, and
daily suffers new injuries from his father-in-law. Nor is he quiet
at home, which he sees disturbed and almost broken up by the
hatreds, quarrels, and jealousies of his wives. When he is ordered
to return to his native land, he is obliged to take his departure in
a manner resembling an ignominious flight. Even then he is unable to
escape the injustice of his father-in-law, but in the midst of his
journey is assailed by him with contumely and reproach, (Gen. 31:
20.) By and bye a much greater difficulty befalls him, (Gen. 32,
33.) For as he approaches his brother, he has as many forms of death
in prospect as a cruel foe could invent. Hence, while waiting for
his arrival, he is distracted and excruciated by direful terrors;
and when he comes into his sight, he falls at his feet like one half
dead, until he perceives him to be more placable than he had
ventured to hope. Moreover, when he first enters the land, he is
bereaved of Rachel his only beloved wife. Afterwards he hears that
the son whom she had borne him, and whom he loved more than all his
other children, is devoured by a wild beast, (Gen. 37: 33.) How deep
the sorrow caused by his death he himself evinces, when, after long
tears, he obstinately refuses to be comforted, declaring that he
will go down to the grave to his son mourning. In the meantime, what
vexation, anxiety, and grief, must he have received from the
carrying off and dishonour of his daughter, and the cruel revenge of
his sons, which not only brought him into bad odour with all the
inhabitants of the country, but exposed him to the greatest danger
of extermination? (Gen. 34) Then follows the horrid wickedness of
Reuben his first-born, wickedness than which none could be committed
more grievous, (Gen. 36: 22.) The dishonour of a wife being one of
the greatest of calamities, what must be said when the atrocity is
perpetrated by a son? Some time after, the family is again polluted
with incest, (Gen. 38: 18.) All these disgraces might have crushed a
mind otherwise the most firm and unbroken by misfortune. Towards the
end of his life, when he seeks relief for himself and his family
from famine, he is struck by the announcement of a new misfortune,
that one of his sons is detained in prison, and that to recover him
he must entrust to others his dearly beloved Benjamin, (Gen. 42,
43.) Who can think that in such a series of misfortunes, one moment
was given him in which he could breathe secure? Accordingly, his own
best witness, he declares to Pharaoh, "Few and evil have the days of
the years of my life been," (Gen. 47: 9.) In declaring that he had
spent his life in constant wretchedness, he denies that he had
experienced the prosperity which had been promised him by the Lord.
Jacob, therefore, either formed a malignant and ungrateful estimate
of the Lord's favour, or he truly declared that he had lived
miserable on the earth. If so, it follows that his hope could not
have been fixed on earthly objects.
    13. If these holy Patriarchs expected a happy life from the
hand of God, (and it is indubitable that they did,) they viewed and
contemplated a different happiness from that of a terrestrial life.
This is admirably shown by an Apostle, "By faith he [Abraham]
sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling
in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same
promise: for he looked for a city which has foundations, whose
builder and maker is God." "These all died in faith, not having
received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were
persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were
strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things
declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had
been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might
have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better
country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be
called their God: for he has prepared for them a city," (Heb. 11: 9,
10, 13-16.) They had been duller than blocks in so pertinaciously
pursuing promises, no hope of which appeared upon the earth, if they
had not expected their completion elsewhere. The thing which the
Apostle specially urges, and not without reason, is, that they
called this world a pilgrimage, as Moses also relates, (Gen. 47: 9.)
If they were pilgrims and strangers in the land of Canaan, where is
the promise of the Lord which appointed them heirs of it? It is
clear, therefore, that the promise of possession which they had
received looked farther. Hence, they did not acquire a foot breadth
in the land of Canaan, except for sepulture; thus testifying that
they hoped not to receive the benefit of the promise till after
death. And this is the reason why Jacob set so much value on being
buried there, that he took Joseph bound by oath to see it done; and
why Joseph wished that his bones should some ages later, long after
they had mouldered into dust, be carried thither, (Gen. 47: 29, 30;
50: 25.)
    14. In short, it is manifest, that in the whole course of their
lives, they had an eye to future blessedness. Why should Jacob have
aspired so earnestly to primogeniture, and intrigued for it at so
much risk, if it was to bring him only exile and destitution, and no
good at all, unless he looked to some higher blessing? And that this
was his feeling, he declared in one of the last sentences he
uttered, "I have waited for thy salvation, O God," (Gen. 49: 18.)
What salvation could he have waited for, when he felt himself
breathing his last, if he did not see in death the beginning of a
new life? And why talk of saints and the children of God, when even
one, who otherwise strove to resist the truth, was not devoid of
some similar impression? For what did Balaam mean when he said, "Let
me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his,"
(Num. 23: 10,) unless he felt convinced of what David afterward
declares, "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his
saints?" (Ps. 116: 15; 34: 12.) If death were the goal and ultimate
limit, no distinction could be observed between the righteous and
the wicked. The true distinction is the different lot which awaits
them after death.
    15. We have not yet come farther down than the books of Moses,
whose only office, according to our opponents, was to induce the
people to worship God, by setting before them the fertility of the
land, and its general abundance; and yet to every one who does not
voluntarily shun the light, there is clear evidence of a spiritual
covenant. But if we come down to the Prophets, the kingdom of Christ
and eternal life are there exhibited in the fullest splendour.
First, David, as earlier in time, in accordance with the order of
the Divine procedure, spoke of heavenly mysteries more obscurely
than they, and yet with what clearness and certainty does he point
to it in all he says. The value he put upon his earthly habitation
is attested by these words, "I am a stranger with thee, and a
sojourner, as all my fathers were. Verily every man at his best
estate is altogether vanity. Surely every man walketh in a vain
show. And now, Lord, what wait I for? my hope is in thee," (Ps. 39:
12, 5, 6, 7.) He who confesses that there is nothing solid or stable
on the earth, and yet firmly retains his hope in God, undoubtedly
contemplates a happiness reserved for him elsewhere. To this
contemplation he is wont to invite believers whenever he would have
them to be truly comforted. For, in another passages after speaking
of human life as a fleeting and evanescent show, he adds, "The mercy
of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear
him," (Ps. 103: 17.) To this there is a corresponding passage in
another psalm, "Of old thou hast laid the foundation of the earth;
and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but
thou shalt endure; yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as
a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed; but
thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end. The children of
thy servants shall continue, and their seed shall be established
before thee," (Ps. 102: 25-28.) If, notwithstanding of the
destruction of the heavens and the earth, the godly cease not to be
established before God, it follows, that their salvation is
connected with his eternity. But this hope could have no existence,
if it did not lean upon the promise as expounded by Isaiah, "The
heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old
like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like
manner; but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness
shall not be abolished," (Isa. 51: 6.) Perpetuity is here attributed
to righteousness and salvation, not as they reside in God, but as
they are experienced by men.
    16. Nor can those things which are everywhere said as to the
prosperous success of believers be understood in any other sense
than as referring to the manifestation of celestial glory. Of this
nature are the following passages: "He preserveth the souls of his
saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked. Light is
sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart." "His
righteousness endureth for ever; his horn shall be exalted with
honour -- the desire of the wicked shall perish." "Surely the
righteous shall give thanks unto thy name; the upright shall dwell
in thy presence." "The righteous shall be in everlasting
remembrance." "The Lord redeemeth the soul of his servants." But the
Lord often leaves his servants, not only to be annoyed by the
violence of the wicked, but to be lacerated and destroyed; allows
the good to languish in obscurity and squalid poverty, while the
ungodly shine forth, as it were, among the stars; and even by
withdrawing the light of his countenance does not leave them lasting
joy. Wherefore, David by no means disguises the fact, that if
believers fix their eyes on the present condition of the world, they
will be grievously tempted to believe that with God integrity has
neither favour nor reward; so much does impiety prosper and
flourish, while the godly are oppressed with ignominy, poverty,
contempt, and every kind of cross. The Psalmist says, "But as for
me, my feet were almost gone; my steps had well nigh slipped. For I
was envious of the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the
wicked." At length, after a statement of the case, he concludes,
"When I thought to know this, it was too painful for me: until I
went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end," (Ps.
73: 2, 3, 16, 17.)
    17. Therefore, even from this confession of David, let us learn
that the holy fathers under the Old Testament were not ignorant that
in this world God seldom or never gives his servants the fulfilment
of what is promised them, and therefore has directed their minds to
his sanctuary, where the blessings not exhibited in the present
shadowy life are treasured up for them. This sanctuary was the final
judgement of God, which, as they could not at all discern it by the
eye, they were contented to apprehend by faith. Inspired with this
confidence, they doubted not that whatever might happen in the
world, a time would at length arrive when the divine promises would
be fulfilled. This is attested by such expressions as these: "As for
me, I will behold thy face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied,
when I awake, with thy likeness," (Psalm 17: 15.) "I am like a green
olive tree in the house of God," (Psalm 52: 8.) Again, "The
righteous shall flourish like the palm tree: he shall grow like a
cedar in Lebanon. Those that be planted in the house of the Lord
shall flourish in the courts of our God. They shall still bring
forth fruit in old age; they shall be fat and flourishing," (Psalm
92: 12-14.) He had exclaimed a little before "O Lord, how great are
thy works! and thy thoughts are very deep." "When the wicked spring
as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish: it
is that they shall be destroyed for ever." Where was this splendour
and beauty of the righteous, unless when the appearance of this
world was changed by the manifestation of the heavenly kingdom?
Lifting their eyes to the eternal world, they despised the momentary
hardships and calamities of the present life, and confidently broke
out into these exclamations: "He shall never suffer the righteous to
be moved. But thou, O God, shalt bring them down into the pit of
destruction: bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their
days," (Psalm 55: 22, 23.) Where in this world is there a pit of
eternal destruction to swallow up the wicked, of whose happiness it
is elsewhere said, "They spend their days in wealth, and in a moment
go down to the grave?" (Job 21: 13.) Where, on the other hand, is
the great stability of the saints, who, as David complains, are not
only disturbed, but everywhere utterly bruised and oppressed? It is
here. He set before his eyes not merely the unstable vicissitudes of
the world, tossed like a troubled sea, but what the Lord is to do
when he shall one day sit to fix the eternal constitution of heaven
and earth, as he in another place elegantly describes: "They that
trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of
their riches; none of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor
give to God a ransom for him." "For he sees that wise men die,
likewise the fool and the brutish person perish, and leave their
wealth to others. Their inward thought is, that their houses shall
continue for ever, and their dwelling-places to all generations;
they call their lands after their own names. Nevertheless, man being
in honour abideth not: he is like the beasts that perish. This their
way is their folly: yet their posterity approve their sayings. Like
sheep they are laid in the grave; death shall feed on them; and the
upright shall have dominion over them in the morning; and their
beauty shall consume in the grave from their dwelling," (Psalm 49:
6, 7, 10-14.) By this derision of the foolish for resting satisfied
with the slippery and fickle pleasures, of the world, he shows that
the wise must seek for a very different felicity. But he more
clearly unfolds the hidden doctrine of the resurrection when he sets
up a kingdom to the righteous after the wicked are cast down and
destroyed. For what, pray, are we to understand by the "morning,"
unless it be the revelation of a new life, commencing when the
present comes to an end?
    18. Hence the consideration which believers employed as a
solace for their sufferings, and a remedy for their patience: "His
anger endureth but a moment: in his favour is life," (Psalm 30: 5.)
How did their afflictions, which continued almost throughout the
whole course of life, terminate in a moment? Where did they see the
long duration of the divine benignity, of which they had only the
slightest taste? Had they clung to earth, they could have found
nothing of the kind; but looking to heaven, they saw that the period
during which the Lord afflicted his saints was but a moment, and
that the mercies with which he gathers them are everlasting: on the
other hand, they foresaw that for the wicked, who only dreamed of
happiness for a day, there was reserved an eternal and never-ending
destruction. Hence those expressions: "The memory of the just is
blessed, but the name of the wicked shall rot," (Prov. 10: 7.)
"Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints,"
(Psalm 116: 15.) Again in Samuel: "The Lord will keep the feet of
his saints, and the wicked shall be silent in darkness," (1 Sam. 2:
9;) showing they knew well, that however much the righteous might be
tossed about, their latter end was life and peace; that how pleasant
soever the delights of the wicked, they gradually lead down to the
chambers of death. They accordingly designated the death of such
persons as the death "of the uncircumcised," that is, persons cut
off from the hope of resurrection, (Ezek. 28: 10; 31: 18.) Hence
David could not imagine a greater curse than this: "Let them be
blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the
righteous," (Psalm 69: 28.)
    19. The most remarkable passage of all is that of Job: "I know
that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day
upon the earth: and though after my skin worms destroy this body,
yet in my flesh shall I see God: whom I shall see for myself, and
mine eyes shall behold, and not another," (Job 19: 25-27.) Those who
would make a display of their acuteness, pretend that these words
are to be understood not of the last resurrection, but of the day
when Job expected that God would deal more gently with him. Granting
that this is partly meant, we shall, however, compel them, whether
they will or not, to admit that Job never could have attained to
such fulness of hope if his thoughts had risen no higher than the
earth. It must, therefore, be confessed, that he who saw that the
Redeemer would be present with him when lying in the grave, must
have raised his eyes to a future immortality. To those who think
only of the present life, death is the extremity of despair; but it
could not destroy the hope of Job. "Though he slay me," said he,
"yet will I trust in him," (Job 13: 15.) Let no trifler here burst
in with the objection that these are the sayings of a few, and do
not by any means prove that there was such a doctrine among the
Jews. To this my instant answer is, that these few did not in such
passages give utterance to some hidden wisdom, to which only
distinguished individuals were admitted privately and apart from
others, but that having been appointed by the Holy Spirit to be the
teachers of the people, they openly promulgated the mysteries of
God, which all in common behaved to learn as the principles of
public religion. When, therefore, we hear that those passages in
which the Holy Spirit spoke so distinctly and clearly of the
spiritual life were public oracles in the Jewish Church, it were
intolerably perverse to confine them entirely to a carnal covenant
relating merely to the earth and earthly riches.
    20. When we descend to the later prophets, we have it in our
power to expatiate freely as in our own field. If, when David, Job,
and Samuel, were in question, the victory was not difficult, much
easier is it here; for the method and economy which God observed in
administering the covenant of his mercy was, that the nearer the
period of its full exhibition approached, the greater the additions
which were daily made to the light of revelation. Accordingly, at
the beginning, when the first promise of salvation was given to
Adam, (Gen. 3: 15,) only a few slender sparks beamed forth:
additions being afterwards made, a greater degree of light began to
be displayed, and continued gradually to increase and shine with
greater brightness, until at length all the clouds being dispersed,
Christ the Sun of righteousness arose, and with full refulgence
illumined all the earth, (Mal. 4.) In appealing to the Prophets,
therefore, we can have no fear of any deficiency of proof; but as I
see an immense mass of materials, which would occupy us much longer
than compatible with the nature of our present work, (the subject,
indeed, would require a large volume,) and as I trust, that by what
has already been said, I have paved the way, so that every reader of
the very least discernment may proceed without stumbling, I will
avoid a prolixity, for which at present there is little necessity;
only reminding my readers to facilitate the entrance by means of the
key which was formerly put into their hands, (supra, Chap. 4 sec. 3,
4;) namely, that whenever the Prophets make mention of the happiness
of believers, (a happiness of which scarcely any vestiges are
discernible in the present life,) they must have recourse to this
distinction: that the better to commend the Divine goodness to the
people, they used temporal blessings as a kind of lineaments to
shadow it forth, and yet gave such a portrait as might lift their
minds above the earth, the elements of this world, and all that will
perish, and compel them to think of the blessedness of a future and
spiritual life.
    21. One example will suffice. When the Israelites were carried
away to Babylon, their dispersion seemed to be the next thing to
death, and they could scarcely be dissuaded from thinking that
Ezekiel's prophecy of their restoration (Ezek. 37: 4) was a mere
fable, because it seemed to them the same thing as if he had
prophesied that putrid caresses would be raised to life. The Lord,
in order to show that, even in that case, there was nothing to
prevent him from making room for his kindness, set before the
prophet in vision a field covered with dry bones, to which, by the
mere power of his word, he in one moment restored life and strength.
The vision served, indeed, to correct the unbelief of the Jews at
the time, but it also reminded them how much farther the power of
the Lord extended than to the bringing back of the people, since by
a single nod it could so easily give life to dry scattered bones.
Wherefore, the passage may be fitly compared with one in Isaiah,
"Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they
arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the
dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead. Come, my
people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee:
hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation
be overpast. For, behold, the Lord cometh out of his place to punish
the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth also
shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain," (Isa.
26: 19-21.)
    22. It were absurd however to interpret all the passages on a
similar principle; for there are several which point without any
veil to the future immortality which awaits believers in the kingdom
of heaven. Some of them we have already quoted, and there are many
others, but especially the following two. The one is in Isaiah, "As
the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain
before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain.
And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and
from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before
me, saith the Lord. And they shall go forth, and look upon the
caresses of the men that have transgressed against me: for their
worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they
shall be an abhorring unto all flesh," (Isa. 66: 22-24.) The other
passage is in Daniel. "At that time shall Michael stand up, the
great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and
there shall be a time of trouble, such as there never was since
there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy
people shall be delivered, every one shall be found written in the
book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall
awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting
contempt," (Dan. 12: 1, 2.)
    23. In proving the two remaining points, viz., that the
Patriarchs had Christ as the pledge of their covenant, and placed
all their hope of blessing in him, as they are clearer, and not so
much controverted, I will be less particular. Let us then lay it
down confidently as a truth which no engines of the devil can
destroy - that the Old Testament or covenant which the Lord made
with the people of Israel was not confined to earthly objects, but
contained a promise of spiritual and eternal life, the expectation
of which behaved to be impressed on the minds of all who truly
consented to the covenant. Let us put far from us the senseless and
pernicious notion, that the Lord proposed nothing to the Jews, or
that they sought nothing but full supplies of food, carnal delights,
abundance of wealth, external influence, a numerous offspring, and
all those things which our animal nature deems valuable. For, even
now, the only kingdom of heaven which our Lord Jesus Christ promises
to his followers, is one in which they may sit down with Abraham,
and Isaac and Jacob, (Matth. 8: 11;) and Peter declared of the Jews
of his day, that they were heirs of gospel grace because they were
the sons of the prophets, and comprehended in the covenant which the
Lord of old made with his people, (Acts 3: 25.) And that this might
not be attested by words merely, our Lord also approved it by act,
(Matth. 27: 52.) At the moment when he rose again, he deigned to
make many of the saints partakers of his resurrection, and allowed
them to be seen in the city; thus giving a sure earnest, that every
thing which he did and suffered in the purchase of eternal salvation
belonged to believers under the Old Testament, just as much as to
us. Indeed, as Peter testifies, they were endued with the same
spirit of faith by which we are regenerated to life, (Acts 15: 8.)
When we hear that that spirit, which is, as it were, a kind of spark
of immortality in us, (whence it is called the "earnest" of our
inheritance, Eph. 1: 14,) dwelt in like manner in them, how can we
presume to deny them the inheritance? Hence, it is the more
wonderful how the Sadducees of old fell into such a degree of
sottishness as to deny both the resurrection and the substantive
existence of spirits, both of which where attested to them by so
many striking passages of Scripture. Nor would the stupidity of the
whole nation in the present day, in expecting an earthly reign of
the Messiah, be less wonderful, had not the Scriptures foretold this
long before as the punishment which they were to suffer for
rejecting the Gospel, God, by a just judgement, blinding minds which
voluntarily invite darkness, by rejecting the offered light of
heaven. They read, and are constantly turning over the pages of
Moses, but a veil prevents them from seeing the light which beams
forth in his countenance, (2 Cor. 3: 14;) and thus to them he will
remain covered and veiled until they are converted to Christ,
between whom and Moses they now study, as much as in them lies, to
maintain a separation.









Chapter 11.


11. The difference between the two Testaments.

    This chapter consists principally of three parts. I. Five
points of difference between the Old and the New Testament, sec.
1-11. II. The last of these points being, that the Old Testament
belonged to the Jews only, whereas the New Testament belongs to all;
the calling of the Gentiles is shortly considered, sec. 12. III. A
reply to two objections usually taken to what is here taught
concerning the difference between the Old and the New Testaments,
sec. 13, 14.
    
Sections.

1. Five points of difference between the Old and the New Testaments.
    These belong to the mode of administration rather than the
    substance. First difference. In the Old Testament the heavenly
    inheritance is exhibited under temporal blessings; in the New,
    aids of this description are not employed.
2. Proof of this first difference from the simile of an heir in
    pupillarity, as in Gal. 4: 1.
3. This the reason why the Patriarchs, under the Law, set a higher
    value on this life and the blessings of it, and dreaded the
    punishments, these being even more striking. Why severe and
    sudden punishments existed under the Law.
4. A second difference. The Old Testament typified Christ under
    ceremonies. The New exhibits the immediate truth and the whole
    body. The scope of the Epistle to the Hebrews in explaining
    this difference. Definition of the Old Testament.
5. Hence the Law our Schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ.
G. Notwithstanding, among those under the Law, some of the strongest
    examples of faith are exhibited, their equals being scarcely to
    be found in the Christian Church. The ordinary method of the
    divine dispensation to be here attended to. These excellent
    individuals placed under the Law, and aided by ceremonies, that
    they might behold and hail Christ afar off.
7. Third difference. The Old Testament is literal, the New
    spiritual. This difference considered first generally.
8. Next treated specially, on a careful examination of the Apostle's
    text. A threefold antithesis. The Old Testament is literal,
    deadly, temporary. The New is spiritual, quickening, eternal.
    Difference between the letter and the spirit.
9. Fourth difference. The Old Testament belongs to bondage, the New
    to liberty. This confirmed by three passages of Scripture. Two
    objections answered.
10. Distinction between the three last differences and the first.
    Confirmation of the above from Augustine. Condition of the
    patriarchs under the Old Testament.
11. Fifth difference. The Old Testament belonged to one people only,
    the New to all.
12. The second part of the chapter depending on the preceding
    section. Of the calling of the Gentiles. Why the calling of the
    Gentiles scented to the Apostles so strange and new.
13. The last part of the chapter. Two objections considered. 1. God
    being immutable, cannot consistently disapprove what he once
    ordered. Answer confirmed by a passage of Scripture.
14. Objections. 2. God could at first have transacted with the Jews
    as he now does with Christians. Answer, showing the absurdity
    of this objection. Another answer founded on a just
    consideration of the divine will and the dispensation of grace.

    1. What, then? you will say, Is there no difference between the
Old and the New Testaments? What is to become of the many passages
of Scripture in which they are contrasted as things differing most
widely from each other? I readily admit the differences which are
pointed out in Scripture, but still hold that they derogate in no
respect from their established unity, as will be seen after we have
considered them in their order. These differences (so far as I have
been able to observe them and can remember) seem to be chiefly four,
or, if you choose to add a fifth, I have no objections. I hold and
think I will be able to show, that they all belong to the mode of
administration rather than to the substance. In this way, there is
nothing in them to prevent the promises of the Old and New Testament
from remaining the same, Christ being the foundation of both. The
first difference then is, that though, in old time, the Lord was
pleased to direct the thoughts of his people, and raise their minds
to the heavenly inheritance, yet, that their hope of it might be the
better maintained, he held it forth, and, in a manner, gave a
foretaste of it under earthly blessings, whereas the gift of future
life, now more clearly and lucidly revealed by the Gospel, leads our
minds directly to meditate upon it, the inferior mode of exercise
formerly employed in regard to the Jews being now laid aside. Those
who attend not to the divine purpose in this respect, suppose that
God's ancient people ascended no higher than the blessings which
were promised to the body. They hear the land of Canaan so often
named as the special, and as it were the only, reward of the Divine
Law to its worshipers; they hear that the severest punishment which
the Lord denounces against the transgressors of the Law is expulsion
from the possession of that land and dispersion into other
countries; they see that this forms almost the sum of the blessings
and curses declared by Moses; and from these things they confidently
conclude that the Jews were separated from other nations not on
their own account, but for another reason, viz., that the Christian
Church might have an emblem in whose outward shape might be seen an
evidence of spiritual things. But since the Scripture sometimes
demonstrates that the earthly blessings thus bestowed were intended
by God himself to guide them to a heavenly hope, it shows great
unskilfulness, not to say dullness, not to attend to this mode of
dispensation. The ground of controversy is this: our opponents hold
that the land of Canaan was considered by the Israelites as supreme
and final happiness, and now, since Christ was manifested, typifies
to us the heavenly inheritance; whereas we maintain that, in the
earthly possession which the Israelites enjoyed, they beheld, as in
a mirror, the future inheritance which they believed to be reserved
for them in heaven.
    2. This will better appear from the similitude which Paul uses
in Galatians, (Gal. 4: 1.) He compares the Jewish nation to an heir
in pupillarity, who, as yet unfit to govern himself, follows the
direction of a tutor or guide to whose charge he has been committed.
Though this simile refers especially to ceremonies, there is nothing
to prevent us from applying it most appropriately here also. The
same inheritance was destined to them as to us, but from nonage they
were incapable of entering to it, and managing it. They had the same
Church, though it was still in puerility. The Lord, therefore kept
them under this tutelage, giving them spiritual promises, not clear
and simple, but typified by earthly objects. Hence, when he chose
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and their posterity, to the hope of
immortality, he promised them the land of Canaan for an inheritance,
not that it might be the limit of their hopes, but that the view of
it might train and confirm them in the hope of that true
inheritance, which, as yet, appeared not. And, to guard against
delusion, they received a better promise, which attested that this
earth was not the highest measure of the divine kindness. Thus,
Abraham is not allowed to keep down his thoughts to the promised
land: by a greater promise his views are carried upward to the Lord.
He is thus addressed, "Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy
exceeding great reward," (Gen. 15: l.) Here we see that the Lord is
the final reward promised to Abraham that he might not seek a
fleeting and evanescent reward in the elements of this world, but
look to one which was incorruptible. A promise of the land is
afterwards added for no other reason than that it might be a symbol
of the divine benevolence, and a type of the heavenly inheritance,
as the saints declare their understanding to have been. Thus David
rises from temporal blessings to the last and highest of all, "My
flesh and my heart faileth: but God is the strength of my heart, and
my portion for ever." "My heart and my flesh crieth out for the
living God," (Ps. 73: 26; 84: 2.) Again, "The Lord is the portion of
mine inheritance and of my cup: thou maintainest my lot," (Ps. 16:
5.) Again "I cried unto thee O Lord: I said Thou art my refuge and
my portion in the land of the living," (Ps. 142: 5.) Those who can
venture to speak thus, assuredly declare that their hope rises
beyond the world and worldly blessings. This future blessedness,
however, the prophets often describe under a type which the Lord had
taught them. In this way are to be understood the many passages in
Job (Job 18: 17) and Isaiah, to the effect, That the righteous shall
inherit the earth, that the wicked shall be driven out of it, that
Jerusalem will abound in all kinds of riches, and Sion overflow with
every species at abundance. In strict propriety, all these things
obviously apply not to the land of our pilgrimage, nor to the
earthly Jerusalem, but to the true country, the heavenly city of
believers, in which the Lord has commanded blessing and life for
evermore, (Ps. 133: 3.)
    3. Hence the reason why the saints under the Old Testament set
a higher value on this mortal life and its blessings than would now
be meet. For, though they well knew, that in their race they were
not to halt at it as the goal, yet, perceiving that the Lord, in
accommodation to their feebleness, had there imprinted the
lineaments of his favour, it gave them greater delight than it could
have done if considered only in itself. For, as the Lord, in
testifying his good will towards believers by means of present
blessings, then exhibited spiritual felicity under types and
emblems, so, on the other hand, by temporal punishments he gave
proofs of his judgement against the reprobate. Hence, by earthly
objects, the favour of the Lord was displayed, as well as his
punishment inflicted. The unskilful, not considering this analogy
and correspondence (if I may so speak) between rewards and
punishments, wonder that there is so much variance in God, that
those who, in old time, were suddenly visited for their faults with
severe and dreadful punishments, he now punishes much more rarely
and less severely, as if he had laid aside his former anger, and,
for this reason, they can scarcely help imagining, like the
Manichees, that the God of the Old Testament was different from that
of the New. But we shall easily disencumber ourselves of such doubts
if we attend to that mode of divine administration to which I have
adverted - that God was pleased to indicate and typify both the gift
of future and eternal felicity by terrestrial blessings, as well as
the dreadful nature of spiritual death by bodily punishments, at
that time when he delivered his covenant to the Israelites as under
a kind of veil.
    4. Another distinction between the Old and New Testaments is in
the types, the former exhibiting only the image of truth, while the
reality was absent, the shadow instead of the substance, the latter
exhibiting both the full truth and the entire body. Mention is
usually made of this, whenever the New Testament is contrasted with
the Old, but it is no where so fully treated as in the Epistle to
the Hebrews, (chap. 7-10.) The Apostle is there arguing against
those who thought that the observances of the Mosaic Law could not
be abolished without producing the total ruin of religion. In order
to refute this error, he adverts to what the Psalmist had foretold
concerning the priesthood of Christ, (Ps. 110: 4.) seeing that an
eternal priesthood is assigned to him, it is clear that the
priesthood in which there was a daily succession of priests is
abolished. And he proves that the institution of this new Priest
must prevail, because confirmed by an oath. He afterwards adds, that
a change of the priest necessarily led to a change of the covenant.
And the necessity of this he confirms by the reason, that the
weakness of the law was such, that it could make nothing perfect. He
then goes on to show in what this weakness consists, namely, that it
had external carnal observances which could not render the
worshipers perfect in respect of conscience, because its sacrifices
of beasts could neither take away sins nor procure true holiness. He
therefore concludes that it was a shadow of good things to come, and
not the very image of the things, and accordingly had no other
office than to be an introduction to the better hope which is
exhibited in the Gospel.
    Here we may see in what respect the legal is compared with the
evangelical covenant, the ministry of Christ with that of Moses. If
the comparison referred to the substance of the promises, there
would be a great repugnance between the two covenants; but since the
nature of the case leads to a different view, we must follow it in
order to discover the truth. Let us, therefore bring forward the
covenant which God once ratified as eternal and unending. Its
completion, whereby it is fixed and ratified, is Christ. Till such
completion takes place, the Lord, by Moses, prescribes ceremonies
which are, as it were formal symbols of confirmation. The point
brought under discussion was, Whether or not the ceremonies ordained
in the Law behaved to give way to Christ. Although these were merely
accidents of the covenant, or at least additions and appendages,
and, as they are commonly called, accessories, yet because they were
the means of administering it, the name of covenant is applied to
them, just as is done in the case of other sacraments. Hence, in
general, the Old Testament is the name given to the solemn method of
confirming the covenant comprehended under ceremonies and
sacrifices. Since there is nothing substantial in it, until we look
beyond it, the Apostle contends that it behaved to be annulled and
become antiquated, (Heb. 7: 22,) to make room for Christ, the surety
and mediator of a better covenant, by whom the eternal
sanctification of the elect was once purchased, and the
transgressions which remained under the Law wiped away. But if you
prefer it, take it thus: the covenant of the Lord was old, because
veiled by the shadowy and ineffectual observance of ceremonies; and
it was therefore temporary, being, as it were in suspense until it
received a firm and substantial confirmation. Then only did it
become new and eternal when it was consecrated and established in
the blood of Christ. Hence the Saviour, in giving the cup to his
disciples in the last supper, calls it the cup of the new testament
in his blood; intimating, that the covenant of God was truly
realised, made new, and eternal, when it was sealed with his blood.
    5. It is now clear in what sense the Apostle said, (Gal. 3: 24;
4: 1,) that by the tutelage of the Law the Jews were conducted to
Christ, before he was exhibited in the flesh. He confesses that they
were sons and heirs of God, though, on account of nonage, they were
placed under the guardianship of a tutor. It was fit, the Sun of
Righteousness not yet having risen, that there should neither be so
much light of revelation nor such clear understanding. The Lord
dispensed the light of his word, so that they could behold it at a
distance, and obscurely. Accordingly, this slender measure of
intelligence is designated by Paul by the term childhood, which the
Lord was pleased to train by the elements of this world, and
external observances, until Christ should appear. Through him the
knowledge of believers was to be matured. This distinction was noted
by our Saviour himself when he said that the Law and the Prophets
were until John, that from that time the gospel of the kingdom was
preached, (Matth. 11: 13.) What did the Law and the Prophets deliver
to the men of their time? They gave a foretaste of that wisdom which
was one day to be clearly manifested, and showed it afar off. But
where Christ can be pointed to with the finger, there the kingdom of
God is manifested. In him are contained all the treasures of wisdom
and understanding, and by these we penetrate almost to the very
shrine of heaven.
    6. There is nothing contrary to this in the fact, that in the
Christian Church scarcely one is to be found who, in excellence of
faith, can be compared to Abraham, and that the Prophets were so
distinguished by the power of the Spirit, that even in the present
day they give light to the whole world. For the question here is,
not what grace the Lord conferred upon a few, but what was the
ordinary method which he followed in teaching the people, and which
even was employed in the case of those very prophets who were endued
with special knowledge above others. For their preaching was both
obscure as relating to distant objects, and was included in types.
Moreover, however wonderful the knowledge displayed in them, as they
were under the necessity of submitting to the tutelage common to all
the people, they must also be ranked among children. Lastly, none of
them ever had such a degree of discernment as not to savour somewhat
of the obscurity of the age. Whence the words of our Saviour, "Many
kings and prophets have desired to see the things which you see, and
have not seen them, and to hear the things which ye hear, and have
not heard them. Blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears,
for they hear," (Matth. 13: 17.) And it was right that the presence
of Christ should have this distinguishing feature, that by means of
it the revelation of heavenly mysteries should be made more
transparent. To the same effect is the passage which we formerly
quoted from the First Epistle of Peter, that to them it was revealed
that their labour should be useful not so much to themselves as to
our age.
    7. I proceed to the third distinction, which is thus expressed
by Jeremiah: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will
make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of
Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers,
in the day that I took them by the hand, to bring them out of the
land of Egypt; (which my covenant they brake, although I was an
husband unto them, saith the Lord;) but this shall be the covenant
that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith
the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in
their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man
his brother, saying, know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from
the least of them unto the greatest of them," (Jer. 31: 31-34.) From
these words, the Apostle took occasion to institute a comparison
between the Law and the Gospel, calling the one a doctrine of the
letter, the other a doctrine of the spirit; describing the one as
formed on tables of stone, the other on tables of the heart; the one
the preaching of death, the other of life; the one of condemnation,
the other of justification; the one made void, the other permanent,
(2 Cor. 3: 5, 6.) The object of the Apostle being to explain the
meaning of the Prophet, the worlds of the one furnish us with the
means of ascertaining what was understood by both. And yet there is
some difference between them. For the Apostle speaks of the Law more
disparagingly than the Prophet. This he does not simply in respect
of the Law itself, but because there were some false zealots of the
Law who, by a perverse zeal for ceremonies, obscured the clearness
of the Gospel, he treats of the nature of the Law with reference to
their error and foolish affection. It will, therefore, be proper to
attend to this peculiarity in Paul. Both, however, as they are
contrasting the Old and New Testament, consider nothing in the Law
but what is peculiar to it. For example, the Law everywhere contains
promises of mercy; but as these are adventitious to it, they do not
enter into the account of the Law as considered only in its own
nature. All which is attributed to it is, that it commands what is
right, prohibits crimes, holds forth rewards to the cultivators of
righteousness, and threatens transgressors with punishment, while at
the same time it neither changes nor amends that depravity of heart
which is naturally inherent in all.
    8. Let us now explain the Apostle's contrast step by step. The
Old Testament is literal, because promulgated without the efficacy
of the Spirit: the New spiritual, because the Lord has engraven it
on the heart. The second antithesis is a kind of exposition of the
first. The Old is deadly, because it can do nothing but involve the
whole human race in a curse; the New is the instrument of life,
because those who are freed from the curse it restores to favour
with God. The former is the ministry of condemnation, because it
charges the whole sons of Adam with transgression; the latter the
ministry of righteousness, because it unfolds the mercy of God, by
which we are justified. The last antithesis must be referred to the
Ceremonial Law. Being a shadow of things to come, it behaved in time
to perish and vanish away; whereas the Gospel, inasmuch as it
exhibits the very body, is firmly established for ever. Jeremiah
indeed calls the Moral Law also a weak and fragile covenant; but for
another reason, namely, because it was immediately broken by the
sudden defection of an ungrateful people; but as the blame of such
violation is in the people themselves, it is not properly alleged
against the covenant. The ceremonies, again, inasmuch as through
their very weakness they were dissolved by the advent of Christ, had
the cause of weakness from within. Moreover, the difference between
the spirit and the letter must not be understood as if the Lord had
delivered his Law to the Jews without any good result; i. e. as if
none had been converted to him. It is used comparatively to commend
the riches of the grace with which the same Lawgivers assuming, as
it were a new characters honoured the preaching of the Gospel. When
we consider the multitude of those whom, by the preaching of the
Gospel, he has regenerated by his, Spirit, and gathered out of all
nations into the communion of his Church, we may say that those of
ancient Israel who, with sincere and heartfelt affections embraced
the covenant of the Lord, were few or none, though the number is
great when they are considered in themselves without comparison.
    9. Out of the third distinction a fourth arises. In Scripture,
the term bondage is applied to the Old Testaments because it begets
fear, and the term freedom to the New, because productive of
confidence and security. Thus Paul says to the Romans, "Ye have not
received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received
the Spirit of adoption whereby we cry, Abba, Father," (Rom. 8: 15.)
To the same effect is the passage in the Hebrews, "For ye are not
come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with
fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, and the sound
of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard
entreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more: (for
they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a
beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with
a dart: and so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I
exceedingly fear and quake:) but ye are come unto mount Sion, and
unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem," &c. (Heb.
12: 18-22.) What Paul briefly touches on in the passage which we
have quoted from the Romans, he explains more fully in the Epistles
to the Galatians, where he makes an allegory of the two sons of
Abraham in this way: "Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth
to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But
Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all,"
(Gal. 4: 25, 26.) As the offspring of Agar was born in slavery, and
could never attain to the inheritances while that of Sara was free
and entitled to the inheritance, so by the Law we are subjected to
slavery, and by the Gospel alone regenerated into liberty. The sum
of the matter comes to this: The Old Testament filled the conscience
with fear and trembling,- The New inspires it with gladness. By the
former the conscience is held in bondage, by the latter it is
manumitted and made free. If it be objected, that the holy fathers
among the Israelites, as they were endued with the same spirit of
faith, must also have been partakers of the same liberty and joy, we
answer, that neither was derived from the Law; but feeling that by
the Law they were oppressed like slaves, and vexed with a disquieted
conscience, they fled for refuge to the (gospel; and, accordingly,
the peculiar advantage of the Gospel was, that, contrary to the
common rule of the Old Testament, it exempted those who were under
it from those evils. Then, again, we deny that they did possess the
spirit of liberty and security in such a degree as not to experience
some measure of fear and bondage. For however they might enjoy the
privilege which they had obtained through the grace of the Gospel,
they were under the same bonds and burdens of observances as the
rest of their nation. Therefore, seeing they were obliged to the
anxious observance of ceremonies, (which were the symbols of a
tutelage bordering on slavery, and handwritings by which they
acknowledged their guilt, but did not escape from it,) they are
justly said to have been, comparatively, under a covenant of fear
and bondage, in respect of that common dispensation under which the
Jewish people were then placed.
    10. The three last contrasts to which we have adverted, (sec.
4, 7, 9,) are between the Law and the Gospel, and hence in these the
Law is designated by the name of the Old, and the Gospel by that of
the New Testament. The first is of wider extent, (sec. 1,)
comprehending under it the promises which were given even before the
Law. When Augustine maintained that these were not to be included
under the name of the Old Testament, (August. ad Bonifac. lib. 3 c.
14,) he took a most correct view, and meant nothing different from
what we have now taught; for he had in view those passages of
Jeremiah and Paul in which the Old Testament is distinguished from
the word of grace and mercy. In the same passage, Augustine, with
great shrewdness remarks, that from the beginning of the world the
sons of promise, the divinely regenerated, who, through faith
working by love, obeyed the commandments, belonged to the New
Testament; entertaining the hope not of carnal, earthly, temporal,
but spiritual, heavenly, and eternal blessings, believing especially
in a Mediator, by whom they doubted not both that the Spirit was
administered to them, enabling them to do good, and pardon imparted
as often as they sinned. The thing which he thus intended to assert
was, that all the saints mentioned in Scripture, from the beginning
of the world, as having been specially selected by God, were equally
with us partakers of the blessing of eternal salvation. The only
difference between our division and that of Augustine is, that ours
(in accordance with the words of our Saviour, "All the prophets and
the law prophesied until John," Matth. 11: 13) distinguishes between
the gospel light and that more obscure dispensation of the word
which preceded it, while the other division simply distinguishes
between the weakness of the Law and the strength of the Gospel. And
here also, with regard to the holy fathers, it is to be observed,
that though they lived under the Old Testament, they did not stop
there, but always aspired to the New, and so entered into sure
fellowship with it. Those who, contented with existing shadows, did
not carry their thoughts to Christ, the Apostle charges with
blindness and malediction. To say nothing of other matters, what
greater blindness can be imagined, than to hope for the expiation of
sin from the sacrifice of a beast, or to seek mental purification in
external washing with water, or to attempt to appease God with cold
ceremonies, as if he were greatly delighted with them? Such are the
absurdities into which those fall who cling to legal observances,
without respect to Christ.
    11. The fifth distinction which we have to add consists in
this, that until the advent of Christ, the Lord set apart one
nation, to which he confined the covenant of his grace. Moses says,
"When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when
he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people
according to the number of the children of Israel. For the Lord's
portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance," (Deut.
32: 8, 9.) In another passage he thus addresses the people: "Behold,
the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the Lord's thy God, the
earth also, with all that therein is. Only the Lord had a delight in
thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed, after them, even
you, above all people, as it is this day," (Deut. 10: 14,15.) That
people, therefore, as if they had been the only part of mankind
belonging to him he favoured exclusively with the knowledge of his
name, depositing his covenant, as it were, in their bosom,
manifesting to them the presence of his divinity and honouring them
with all privileges. But to say nothing of other favours, the only
one here considered is his binding them to him by the communion of
his word, so that he was called and regarded as their God.
Meanwhile, other nations, as if they had had no kind of intercourse
with him, he allowed to wander in vanity not even supplying them
with the only means of preventing their destructions viz., the
preaching of his word. Israel was thus the Lord's favourite child
the others were aliens. Israel was known and admitted to trust and
guardianship, the others left in darkness; Israel was made holy, the
others were profane; Israel was honoured with the presence of God,
the others kept far aloof from him. But on the fulness of the time
destined to renew all things, when the Mediator between God and man
was manifested the middle wall of partition, which had long kept the
divine mercy within the confines of Israel, was broken down, peace
was preached to them who were afar off, as well as to those who were
nigh, that being, together reconciled to God, they might unite as
one people. Wherefore, there is now no respect of Jew or Greek, of
circumcision or uncircumcision, but Christ is all and in all. To him
the heathen have been given for his inheritance, and the uttermost
parts of the earth for his possession, (Ps. 2: 8,) that he may rule
without distinction "from sea to sea, and from the river unto the
ends of the earth," (Ps. 72: 8.)
    12. The calling of the Gentiles, therefore, is a distinguishing
feature illustrative of the superiority of the New over the Old
Testament. This, it is true, had been previously declared by the
prophets, in passages both numerous and clear, but still the
fulfilment of it was deferred to the reign of the Messiah. Even
Christ did not acknowledge it at the very outset of his ministry,
but delayed it until having completed the whole work of redemption
in all its parts, and finished the period of his humiliation, he
received from the Father "a name which is above every name, that at
the name of Jesus every knee should bow," (Philip. 2: 9, 10.) Hence
the period being not yet completed, he declared to the woman of
Canaan, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of
Israel," (Matth. 15: 24.) Nor in his first commission to the
Apostles does he permit them to pass the same limits, "Go not into
the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter
ye not: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,"
(Matth. 10: 5, 6.) However plainly the thing may have been declared
in numerous passages, when it was announced to the Apostles, it
seemed to them so new and extraordinary, that they were horrified at
it as something monstrous. At length, when they did act upon it, it
was timorously, and not without reluctance. Nor is this strange; for
it seemed by no means in accordance with reason, that the Lord, who
for so many ages had selected Israel from the rest of the nations
should suddenly, as it were, change his purpose, and abandon his
choice. Prophecy, indeed, had foretold it, but they could not be so
attentive to prophecies, as not to be somewhat startled by the novel
spectacle thus presented to their eye. It was not enough that God
had in old times given specimens of the future calling of the
Gentiles. Those whom he had so called were very few in number, and,
moreover, he in a manner adopted them into the family of Abraham,
before allowing them to approach his people. But by this public
call, the Gentiles were not only made equal to the Jews, but seemed
to be substituted into their place, as if the Jews had been dead. We
may add, that any strangers whom God had formerly admitted into the
body of the Church, had never been put on the same footing with the
Jews. Wherefore, it is not without cause that Paul describes it as
the mystery which has been hid from ages and from generations, but
now is made manifest to his saints, (Col. 1: 26.)
    13. The whole difference between the Old and New Testaments
has, I think, been fully and faithfully explained, under these four
or five heads in so far as requisite for ordinary instruction. But
since this variety in governing the Church, this diversity in the
mode of teaching, this great change in rites and ceremonies, is
regarded by some as an absurdity, we must reply to them before
passing to other matters. And this can be done briefly, because the
objections are not so strong as to require a very careful
refutation. It is unreasonable they say, to suppose that Gods who is
always consistent With himself permitted such a change as afterwards
to disapprove what he had once ordered and commended. I answer, that
God ought not to be deemed mutable, because he adapts different
forms to different ages, as he knows to be expedient for each. If
the husband man prescribes one set of duties to his household in
winter, and another in summer, we do not therefore charge him with
fickleness or think he deviates from the rules of good husbandry
which depends on the regular course of nature. In like manner, if a
father of a family, in educating, governing, and managing his
children, pursues one course in boyhood another in adolescence and
another in manhood we do not therefore say that he is fickle, or
abandons his opinions. Why, then do we charge God with inconstancy
when he makes fit and congruous arrangements for diversities of
times? The latter similitude ought to be completely satisfactory.
Paul likens the Jews to children, and Christians to grown men, (Gal.
4: 1.) What irregularity is there in the Divine arrangement, which
confined them to the rudiments which were suitable to their age, and
trains us by a firmer and more manly discipline? The constancy of
God is conspicuous in this, that he delivered the same doctrine to
all ages, and persists in requiring that worship of his name which
he commanded at the beginning. His changing the external form and
manner does not show that he is liable to change. In so far he has
only accommodated himself to the mutable and diversified capacities
of man.
    14. But it is said, Wench this diversity, save that God chose
to make it? Would it not have been as easy for him from the first,
as after the advent of Christ, to reveal eternal life in clear terms
without any figures, to instruct his people by a few clear
sacraments, to bestow his Holy Spirit, and diffuse his grace over
the whole globe? This is very much the same as to bring a charge
against God, because he created the world at so late a period, when
he could have done it at the first, or because he appointed the
alternate changes of summer and winter, of clay and night. With the
feeling common to every pious mind, let us not doubt that every
thing which God has done has been done wisely and justly, although
we may be ignorant of the cause which required that it should be so
done. We should arrogate too much to ourselves were we not to
concede to God that he may have reasons for his counsel, which we
are unable to discern. It is strange, they say, that he now
repudiates and abominates the sacrifices of beasts, and the whole
apparatus of that Levitical priesthood in which he formerly
delighted. As if those external and transient matters could delight
God, or affect him in any way! It has already been observed, that he
appointed none of these things on his own account, but instituted
them all for the salvation of men. If a physician, adopting the best
method, effects a cure upon a youth, and afterwards, when the same
individual has grown old, and is again subject to the same disease,
employs a different method of cure, can it be said that he
repudiates the method which he formerly approved? Nay, continuing to
approve of it, he only adapts himself to the different periods of
life. In like manner, it was necessary in representing Christ in his
absence, and predicting his future advent, to employ a different set
of signs from those which are employed, now that his actual
manifestation is exhibited. It is true, that since the advent of
Christ, the calling of God is more widely addressed to all nations,
and the graces of the Spirit more liberally bestowed than they had
previously been. But who, I ask, can deny the right of God to have
the free and uncontrolled disposal of his gifts, to select the
nations which he may be pleased to illuminate, the places which he
may be pleased to illustrate by the preaching of his word, and the
mode and measure of progress and success which he may be pleased to
give to his doctrine, - to punish the world for its ingratitude by
withdrawing the knowledge of his name for certain ages, and again,
when he so pleases, to restore it in mercy? We see, then, that in
the calumnies which the ungodly employ in this matter, to perplex
the minds of the simple, there is nothing that ought to throw doubt
either on the justice of God or the veracity of Scripture.




Chapter 12.


12. Christ, to perform the office of Mediator, behoved to become
Man.

    The two divisions of this chapter are, I. The reasons why our
Mediator behoved to be very God, and to become man, see. 1-3. II.
Disposal of various objections by some fanatics, and especially by
Osiander, to the orthodox doctrine concerning the Mediator, sec. 4-
7.
    
Sections.

1. Necessary, not absolutely, but by divine decree, that the
    Mediator should be God, and become man. Neither man nor angel,
    though pure, could have sufficed. The Son of God behoved to
    come down. Man in innocence could not penetrate to God without
    a Mediator, much less could he after the fall.
2. A second reason why the Mediator behoved to be God and man, viz.,
    that he had to convert those who were heirs of hell into
    children of God.
3. Third reason, that in our flesh he might yield a perfect
    obedience, satisfy the divine justice, and pay the penalty of
    sin. Fourth reason, regarding the consolation and confirmation
    of the whole Church.
4. First objection against the orthodox doctrine: Answer to it.
    Conformation from the sacrifices of the Law, the testimony of
    the Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists, and even Christ himself.
5. Second objection: Answer: Answer confirmed. Third objection:
    Answer. Fourth objection by Osiander: Answer.
6. Fifth objection, forming the basis of Osiander's errors on this
    subject: Answer. Nature of the divine image in Adam. Christ the
    head of angels and men.
7. Sixth objection: Answer. Seventh objection: Answer. Eighth
    objection: Answer. Ninth objection: Answer. Tenth objection:
    Answer. Eleventh objection: Answer. Twelfth objection: Answer.
    The sum of the doctrine.

    1. It deeply concerned us, that he who was to be our Mediator
should be very God and very man. If the necessity be inquired into,
it was not what is commonly termed simple or absolute, but flowed
from the divine decree on which the salvation of man depended. What
was best for us, our most merciful Father determined. Our
iniquities, like a cloud intervening between Him and us, having
utterly alienated us from the kingdom of heaven, none but a person
reaching to him could be the medium of restoring peace. But who
could thus reach to him? Could any of the sons of Adam? All of them,
with their parents, shuddered at the sight of God. Could any of the
angels? They had need of a head, by connection with which they might
adhere to their God entirely and inseparably. What then? The case
was certainly desperate, if the Godhead itself did not descend to
us, it being impossible for us to ascend. Thus the Son of God
behoved to become our Emmanuel, the God with us; and in such a way,
that by mutual union his divinity and our nature might be combined;
otherwise, neither was the proximity near enough, nor the affinity
strong enough, to give us hope that God would dwell with us; so
great was the repugnance between our pollution and the spotless
purity of God. Had man remained free from all taint, he was of too
humble a condition to penetrate to God without a Mediator. What,
then, must it have been, when by fatal ruin he was plunged into
death and hell, defiled by so many stains, made loathsome by
corruption; in fine, overwhelmed with every curse? It is not without
cause, therefore, that Paul, when he would set forth Christ as the
Mediator, distinctly declares him to be man. There is, says he, "one
Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus," (1 Tim. 2: 5.)
He might have called him God, or at least, omitting to call him God
he might also have omitted to call him man; but because the Spirit,
speaking by his mouth, knew our infirmity, he opportunely provides
for it by the most appropriate remedy, setting the Son of God
familiarly before us as one of ourselves. That no one, therefore,
may feel perplexed where to seek the Mediator, or by what means to
reach him, the Spirit, by calling him man, reminds us that he is
near, nay, contiguous to us, inasmuch as he is our flesh. And,
indeed, he intimates the same thing in another place, where he
explains at greater length that he is not a high priest who "cannot
be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all
points tempted like as we are, yet without sin," (Heb. 4: 15.)
    2. This will become still clearer if we reflect, that the work
to be performed by the Mediator was of no common description: being
to restore us to the divine favour, so as to make us, instead of
sons of men, sons of God; instead of heirs of hell, heirs of a
heavenly kingdom. Who could do this unless the Son of God should
also become the Son of man, and so receive what is ours as to
transfer to us what is his, making that which is his by nature to
become ours by grace? Relying on this earnest, we trust that we are
the sons of God, because the natural Son of God assumed to himself a
body of our body, flesh of our flesh, bones of our bones, that he
might be one with us; he declined not to take what was peculiar to
us, that he might in his turn extend to us what was peculiarly his
own, and thus might be in common with us both Son of God and Son of
man. Hence that holy brotherhood which he commends with his own
lips, when he says, "I ascend to my Father, and your Father, to my
God, and your God," (John 20: 17.) In this way, we have a sure
inheritance in the heavenly kingdom, because the only Son of God, to
whom it entirely belonged, has adopted us as his brethren; and if
brethren, then partners with him in the inheritance, (Rom. 8: 17.)
Moreover, it was especially necessary for this cause also that he
who was to be our Redeemer should be truly God and man. It was his
to swallow up death: who but Life could do so? It was his to conquer
sin: who could do so save Righteousness itself? It was his to put to
flight the powers of the air and the world: who could do so but the
mighty power superior to both? But who possesses life and
righteousness, and the dominion and government of heaven, but God
alone? Therefore, God, in his infinite mercy, having determined to
redeem us, became himself our Redeemer in the person of his only
begotten Son.
    3. Another principal part of our reconciliation with God was,
that man, who had lost himself by his disobedience, should, by way
of remedy, oppose to it obedience, satisfy the justice of God, and
pay the penalty of sin. Therefore, our Lord came forth very man,
adopted the person of Adam, and assumed his name, that he might in
his stead obey the Father; that he might present our flesh as the
price of satisfaction to the just judgement of God, and in the same
flesh pay the penalty which we had incurred. Finally, since as God
only he could not suffer, and as man only could not overcome death,
he united the human nature with the divine, that he might subject
the weakness of the one to death as an expiation of sin, and by the
power of the other, maintaining a struggle with death, might gain us
the victory. Those, therefore, who rob Christ of divinity or
humanity either detract from his majesty and glory, or obscure his
goodness. On the other hand, they are no less injurious to men,
undermining and subverting their faith, which, unless it rest on
this foundation, cannot stand. Moreover, the expected Redeemer was
that son of Abraham and David whom God had promised in the Law and
in the Prophets. Here believers have another advantage. Tracing up
his origin in regular series to David and Abraham, they more
distinctly recognise him as the Messiah celebrated by so many
oracles. But special attention must be paid to what I lately
explained, namely, that a common nature is the pledge of our union
with the Son of God; that, clothed with our flesh, he warred to
death with sin that he might be our triumphant conqueror; that the
flesh which he received of us he offered in sacrifice, in order that
by making expiation he might wipe away our guilt, and appease the
just anger of his Father.
    4. He who considers these things with due attention, will
easily disregard vague speculations, which attract giddy minds and
lovers of novelty. One speculation of this class is, that Christ,
even though there had been no need of his interposition to redeem
the human race, would still have become man. I admit that in the
first ordering of creation, while the state of nature was entire, he
was appointed head of angels and men; for which reason Paul
designates him "the first-born of every creature," (Col. 1: 15.) But
since the whole Scripture proclaims that he was clothed with flesh
in order to become a Redeemer, it is presumptuous to imagine any
other cause or end. We know well why Christ was at first promised,
viz., that he might renew a fallen world, and succour lost man.
Hence under the Law he was typified by sacrifices, to inspire
believers with the hope that God would be propitious to them after
he was reconciled by the expiation of their sins. Since from the
earliest age, even before the Law was promulgated, there was never
any promise of a Mediator without blood, we justly infer that he was
destined in the eternal counsel of God to purge the pollution of
man, the shedding of blood being the symbol of expiation. Thus, too,
the prophets, in discoursing of him, foretold that he would be the
Mediator between God and man. It is sufficient to refer to the very
remarkable prophecy of Isaiah, (Is. 53: 4, 5,) in which he foretells
that he was "smitten for our iniquities;" that "the chastisement of
our peace was upon him;" that as a priest "he was made an offering
for sin;" "that by his stripes we are healed;" that as all "like
lost sheep have gone astray," "it pleased the Lord to bruise him,
and put him to grief," that he might "bear our iniquities." After
hearing that Christ was divinely appointed to bring relief to
miserable sinners, whose overleaps these limits gives too much
indulgence to a foolish curiosity.
    Then when he actually appeared, he declared the cause of his
advent to be, that by appeasing God he might bring us from death
unto life. To the same effect was the testimony of the Apostles
concerning him, (John 1: 9; 10: 14.) Thus John, before teaching that
the Word was made flesh, narrates the fall of man. But above all,
let us listen to our Saviour himself when discoursing of his office:
"God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
life." Again, "The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall
hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live." "I
am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he
were dead, yet shall he live." "The Son of man is come to save that
which was lost." Again, "They that be whole need not a physician." I
should never have done were I to quote all the passages. Indeed, the
Apostles, with one consent, lead us back to this fountain; and
assuredly, if he had not come to reconcile God, the honour of his
priesthood would fall, seeing it was his office as priest to stand
between God and men, and "offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins,"
(Heb. 5: 1;) nor could he be our righteousness, as having been made
a propitiation for us in order that God might not impute to us our
sins, (2 Cor. 5: 19.) In short, he would be stript of all the titles
with which Scripture invests him. Nor could Paul's doctrine stand
"What the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh,
God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for
sin, condemned sin in the flesh," (Rom. 8: 3.) Nor what he states in
another passage: "The grace of God that bringeth salvation has
appeared to all men," (Tit. 2: 11.) In fine, the only end which the
Scripture uniformly assigns for the Son of God voluntarily assuming
our nature, and even receiving it as a command from the Father, is,
that he might propitiate the Father to us by becoming a victim.
"Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer;" - "and
that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his
name." "Therefore does my Father love me, because I lay down my
life, that I might take it again." - "This commandment have I
received of my Father." "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the
wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up." "Father, save
me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. Father,
glorify thy name." Here he distinctly assigns as the reason for
assuming our nature, that he might become a propitiatory victim to
take away sin. For the same reason Zacharias declares, (Luke 1: 79,)
that he came "to perform the mercy promised to our fathers," "to
give light to them that sit in darkness, and in the shadow of
death." Let us remember that all these things are affirmed of the
Son of God, in whom, as Paul elsewhere declares, were "hid all the
treasures of wisdom and knowledge," and save whom it was his
determination "not to know any thing," (Col. 2: 3; 1 Cor. 2: 2.)
    5. Should any one object, that in this there is nothing to
prevent the same Christ who redeemed us when condemned from also
testifying his love to us when safe by assuming our nature, we have
the brief answer, that when the Spirit declares that by the eternal
decree of God the two things were connected together, viz., that
Christ should be our Redeemer, and, at the same time, a partaker of
our nature, it is unlawful to inquire further. He who is tickled
with a desire of knowing something more, not contented with the
immutable ordination of God, shows also that he is not even
contented with that Christ who has been given us as the price of
redemption. And, indeed, Paul not only declares for what end he was
sent, but rising to the sublime mystery of predestination,
seasonably represses all the wantonness and prurience of the human
mind. "He has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world,
that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having
predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to
himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise
of the glory of his grace, wherein he has made us accepted in the
Beloved: In whom we have redemption through his blood," (Eph. 1:
4-7.) Here certainly the fall of Adam is not presupposed as anterior
in point of time, but our attention is directed to what God
predetermined before all ages, when he was pleased to provide a cure
for the misery of the human race. If, again, it is objected that
this counsel of God depended on the fall of man, which he foresaw,
to me it is sufficient and more to reply, that those who propose to
inquire, or desire to know more of Christ than God predestinated by
his secret decree, are presuming with impious audacity to invent a
new Christ. Paul, when discoursing of the proper office of Christ,
justly prays for the Ephesians that God would strengthen them "by
his Spirit in the inner man," that they might "be able to comprehend
with all saints what is the breadth and length, and depth and
height; and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge,"
(Eph. 3: 16, 18;) as if he intended of set purpose to set barriers
around our minds, and prevent them from declining one iota from the
gift of reconciliation whenever mention is made of Christ.
Wherefore, seeing it is as Paul declares it to be, "a faithful
saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into
the world to save sinners," (1 Tim. 1: 15,) in it I willingly
acquiesce. And since the same Apostle elsewhere declares that the
grace which is now manifested by the Gospel "was given us in Christ
Jesus before the world began," (2 Tim. 1: 9,) I am resolved to
adhere to it firmly even to the end. This moderation is unjustly
vituperated by Osiander, who has unhappily, in the present day,
again agitated this question, which a few had formerly raised. He
brings a charge of overweening confidence against those who deny
that the Son of God would have appeared in the flesh if Adam had not
fallen, because this notion is not repudiated by any passage of
Scripture. As if Paul did not lay a curb on perverse curiosity when
after speaking of the redemption obtained by Christ, he bids us
"avoid foolish questions," (Tit. 3: 9.) To such insanity have some
proceeded in their preposterous eagerness to seem acute, that they
have made it a question whether the Son of God might not have
assumed the nature of an ass. This blasphemy, at which all pious
minds justly shudder with detestation, Osiander excuses by the
pretext that it is no where distinctly refuted in Scripture; as if
Paul, when he counted nothing valuable or worth knowing "save Jesus
Christ and him crucified," (I Cor. 2: 2,) were admitting, that the
author of salvation is an ass. He who elsewhere declares that Christ
was by the eternal counsel of the Father appointed "head over all
things to the church," would never have acknowledged another to whom
no office of redemption had been assigned.
    6. The principle on which Osiander founds is altogether
frivolous. He will have it that man was created in the image of God,
inasmuch as he was formed on the model of the future Messiah, in
order to resemble him whom the Father had already determined to
clothe with flesh. Hence he infers, that though Adam had never
fallen from his first and pure original, Christ would still have
been man. How silly and distorted this view is, all men of sound
judgement at once discern; still he thinks he was the first to see
what the image of God was, namely, that not only did the divine
glory shine forth in the excellent endowments with which he was
adorned, but God dwelt in him essentially. But while I grant that
Adam bore the image of God, inasmuch as he was united to God, (this
being the true and highest perfection of dignity,) yet I maintain,
that the likeness of God is to be sought for only in those marks of
superiority with which God has distinguished Adam above the other
animals. And likewise, with one consent, acknowledge that Christ was
even then the image of God, and, accordingly, whatever excellence
was engraven on Adam had its origin in this, that by means of the
only begotten Son he approximated to the glory of his Maker. Man,
therefore, was created in the image of God, (Gen. 1: 27,) and in him
the Creator was pleased to behold, as in a mirror, his own glory. To
this degree of honour he was exalted by the kindness of the only
begotten Son. But I add, that as the Son was the common head both of
men and angels, so the dignity which was conferred on man belonged
to the angels also. For when we hear them called the sons of God,
(Ps. 82: 6,) it would be incongruous to deny that they were endued
with some quality in which they resembled the Father. But if he was
pleased that his glory should be represented in men and angels, and
made manifest in both natures, it is ignorant trifling in Osiander
to say, that angels were postponed to men, because they did not bear
the image of Christ. They could not constantly enjoy the immediate
presence of God if they were not like to him; nor does Paul teach
(Col. 3: 10) that men are renewed in the image of God in any other
way than by being associated with angels, that they may be united
together under one head. In fine, if we believe Christ, our felicity
will be perfected when we shall have been received into the heavens,
and made like the angels. But if Osiander is entitled to infer that
the primary type of the image of God was in the man Christ, on the
same ground may any one maintain that Christ behoved to partake of
the angelic nature, seeing that angels also possess the image of
God.
    7. Osiander has no reason to fear that God would be found a
liar, if the decree to incarnate the Son was not previously
immutably fixed in his mind. Even had Adam not lost his integrity,
he would, with the angels, have been like to God; and yet it would
not therefore have been necessary that the Son of God should become
either a man or an angel. In vain does he entertain the absurd fear,
that unless it had been determined by the immutable counsel of God,
before man was created, that Christ should be born, not as the
Redeemer, but as the first man, he might lose his precedence, since
he would not have been born, except for an accidental circumstance,
namely, that he might restore the lost race of man; and in this way
would have been created in the image of Adam. For why should he be
alarmed at what the Scripture plainly teaches, that "he was in all
points tempted like as we are, yet without sin?" (Heb. 4: 15.) Hence
Luke, also, hesitates not to reckon him in his genealogy as a son of
Adam, (Luke 3: 38.) I should like to know why Christ is termed by
Paul the second Adam, (1 Cor. 15: 47,) unless it be that a human
condition was decreed him, for the purpose of raising up the ruined
posterity of Adam. For if in point of order, that condition was
antecedent to creation, he ought to have been called the first Adam.
Osiander confidently affirms, that because Christ was in the purpose
of God foreknown as man, men were formed after him as their model.
But Paul, by calling him the second Adam, gives that revolt which
made it necessary to restore nature to its primitive condition an
intermediate place between its original formation and the
restitution which we obtain by Christ: hence it follows, that it was
this restitution which made the Son of God be born, and thereby
become man. Moreover, Osiander argues ill and absurdly, that as long
as Adam maintained his integrity, he would have been the image of
himself, and not of Christ. I maintain, on the contrary, that
although the Son of God had never become incarnate, nevertheless the
image of God was conspicuous in Adam, both in his body and his soul;
in the rays of this image it always appeared that Christ was truly
head, and had in all things the pre-eminence. In this way we dispose
of the futile sophism put forth by Osiander, that the angels would
have been without this head, had not God purposed to clothe his Son
with flesh, even independent of the sin of Adam. He inconsiderately
assumes what no rational person will grant, that Christ could have
had no supremacy over the angels, so that they might enjoy him as
their prince, unless in so far as he was man. But it is easy to
infer from the words of Paul, (Col. 1: 15,) that inasmuch as he is
the eternal Word of God, he is the first-born of every creature, not
because he is created, or is to be reckoned among the creatures, but
because the entire structure of the world, such as it was from the
beginning, when adorned with exquisite beauty had no other
beginning; then, inasmuch as he was made man, he is the first-born
from the dead. For in one short passage, (Col. 1: 16-18,) the
Apostle calls our attention to both views: that by the Son all
things were created, so that he has dominion over angels; and that
he became man, in order that he might begin to be a Redeemer. Owing
to the same ignorance, Osiander says that men would not have had
Christ for their king unless he had been a man; as if the kingdom of
God could not have been established by his eternal Son, though not
clothed with human flesh, holding the supremacy while angels and men
were gathered together to participate in his celestial life and
glory. But he is always deluded, or imposes upon himself by this
false principle, that the church would have been "akefalon" -
without a head - had not Christ appeared in the flesh. In the same
way as angels enjoyed him for their head, could he not by his divine
energy preside over men, and by the secret virtue of his Spirit
quicken and cherish them as his body, until they were gathered into
heaven to enjoy the same life with the angels? The absurdities which
I have been refuting, Osiander regards as infallible oracles. Taking
an intoxicating delight in his own speculations, his wont is to
extract ridiculous plans out of nothing. He afterwards says that he
has a much stronger passage to produce, namely, the prophecy of
Adam, who, when the woman was brought to him, said, "This is now
bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh," (Gen. 2: 23.) But how does
he prove it to be a prophecy? Because in Matthew Christ attributes
the same expression to God! as if every thing which God has spoken
by man contained a prophecy. On the same principle, as the law
proceeded from God, let Osiander in each precept find a prophecy.
Add, that our Saviour's exposition would have been harsh and
grovelling, had he confined himself to the literal meaning. He was
not referring to the mystical union with which he has honoured the
Church, but only to conjugal fidelity, and states, that the reason
why God declared man and wife to be one flesh, was to prevent any
one from violating that indissoluble tie by divorce. If this simple
meaning is too low for Osiander, let him censure Christ for not
leading his disciples to the hidden sense, by interpreting his
Father's words with more subtlety. Paul gives no countenance to
Osiander's dream, when, after saying that "we are members of his
body, of his flesh, and of his bones," he immediately adds, "This is
a great mystery," (Eph. 5: 30-32.) For he meant not to refer to the
sense in which Adam used the words, but sets forth, under the figure
and similitude of marriage, the sacred union which makes us one with
Christ. His words have this meaning; for reminding us that he is
speaking of Christ and the Church, he, by way of correction,
distinguishes between the marriage tie and the spiritual union of
Christ with his Church. Wherefore, this subtlety vanishes at once. I
deem it unnecessary to discuss similar absurdities: for from this
very brief refutation, the vanity of them all will be discovered.
Abundantly sufficient for the solid nurture of the children of God
is this sober truth, that "when the fulness of the time was come,
God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to
redeem them who were under the law," (Gal. 4: 4, 5.)







Chapter 13.


13. Christ clothed with the true substance of human nature.

    The heads of this chapter are, I. The orthodoxy doctrine as to
the true humanity of our Saviour, proved from many passages of
Scripture, sec. 1. II. Refutation of the impious objections of the
Marcionites, Manichees, and similar heretics, sec. 2-4.

Sections.

1. Proof of the true humanity of Christ, against the Manichees and
    Marcionites.
2. Impious objections of heretics further discussed. Six objections
    answered.
3. Other eight objections answered.

    1. Of the divinity of Christ, which has elsewhere been
established by clear and solid proofs, I presume it were superfluous
again to treat. It remains, therefore, to see how, when clothed with
our flesh, he fulfilled the office of Mediator. In ancient times,
the reality of his human nature was impugned by the Manichees and
Marcionites, the latter figuring to themselves a phantom instead of
the body of Christ, and the former dreaming of his having been
invested with celestial flesh. The passages of Scripture
contradictory to both are numerous and strong. The blessing is not
promised in a heavenly seed, or the mask of a man, but the seed of
Abraham and Jacob; nor is the everlasting throne promised to an
aerial man, but to the Son of David, and the fruit of his loins.
Hence, when manifested in the flesh, he is called the Son of David
and Abraham, not because he was born of a virgin, and yet created in
the air, but because, as Paul explains, he was "made of the seed of
David, according to the flesh," (Rom. 1: 3,) as the same apostle
elsewhere says, that he came of the Jews, (Rom. 9: 5.) Wherefore,
our Lord himself not contented with the name of man, frequently
calls himself the Son of man, wishing to express more clearly that
he was a man by true human descent. The Holy Spirit having so often,
by so many organs, with so much care and plainness, declared a
matter which in itself is not abstruse, who could have thought that
mortals would have had the effrontery to darken it with their
glosses? Many other passages are at hand, were it wished to produce
more: for instance, that one of Paul, that "God sent forth his Son,
made of a woman," (Gal. 4: 4,) and innumerable others, which show
that he was subject to hunger, thirst, cold, and the other
infirmities of our nature. But from the many we must chiefly select
those which may conduce to build up our minds in true faith, as when
it is said, "Verily, he took not on him the nature of angels, but he
took on him the seed of Abraham," "that through death he might
destroy him that had the power of death," (Heb. 2: 16, 14.) Again,
"Both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of
one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren."
"Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his
brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest."
(Heb. 2: 11, 17.) Again "We have not an high priest which cannot be
touched with the feeling of our infirmities," (Heb. 4: 15,) and the
like. To the same effect is the passage to which we lately referred,
in which Paul distinctly declares, that the sins of the world
behoved to be expiated in our flesh, (Rom. 8: 3.) And certainly
every thing which the Father conferred on Christ pertains to us for
this reason, that "he is the head," that from him the whole body is
"fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint
supplieth," (Eph. 4: 16.) Nay, in no other way could it hold true as
is said, that the Spirit was given to him without measure, (John 1:
16,) and that out of his fulness have all we received; since nothing
could be more absurd than that God, in his own essence, should be
enriched by an adventitious gift. For this reason also, Christ
himself elsewhere says, "For their sakes I sanctify myself," (John
17: 19.)
    2. The passages which they produce in confirmation of their
error are absurdly wrested, nor do they gain any thing by their
frivolous subtleties when they attempt to do away with what I have
now adduced in opposition to them. Marcion imagines that Christ,
instead of a body, assumed a phantom, because it is elsewhere said,
that he was made in the likeness of man, and found in fashion as a
man. Thus he altogether overlooks what Paul is then discussing,
(Philip. 2: 7.) His object is not to show what kind of body Christ
assumed, but that, when he might have justly asserted his divinity
he was pleased to exhibit nothing but the attributes of a mean and
despised man. For, in order to exhort us to submission by his
example, he shows, that when as God he might have displayed to the
world the brightness of his glory, he gave up his right, and
voluntarily emptied himself; that he assumed the form of a servant,
and, contented with that humble condition, suffered his divinity to
be concealed under a veil of flesh. Here, unquestionably, he
explains not what Christ was, but in what way he acted. Nay, from
the whole context it is easily gathered, that it was in the true
nature of man that Christ humbled himself. For what is meant by the
words, he was "found in fashion as a man," but that for a time,
instead of being resplendent with divine glory, the human form only
appeared in a mean and abject condition? Nor would the words of
Peter, that he was "put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the
Spirits" (1 Pet. 3: 18,) hold true, unless the Son of God had become
weak in the nature of man. This is explained more clearly by Paul,
when he declares that "he was crucified through weakness," (2 Cor.
13: 4.) And hence his exaltation; for it is distinctly said, that
Christ acquired new glory after he humbled himself. This could fitly
apply only to a man endued with a body and a soul. Manes dreams of
an aerial body, because Christ is called the second Adam, the Lord
from heaven. But the apostle does not there speak of the essence of
his body as heavenly, but of the spiritual life which derived from
Christ quickens us, (I Cor. 15: 47.) This life Paul and Peter, as we
have seen, separate from his flesh. Nay, that passage admirably
confirms the doctrine of the orthodox, as to the human nature of
Christ. If his body were not of the same nature with ours, there
would be no soundness in the argument which Paul pursues with so
much earnestness, - If Christ is risen we shall rise also; if we
rise not, neither has Christ risen. Whatever be the cavils by which
the ancient Manichees, or their modern disciples, endeavour to evade
this, they cannot succeed. It is a frivolous and despicable evasion
to say, that Christ is called the Son of man, because he was
promised to men; it being obvious that, in the Hebrew idiom, the Son
of man means a true man: and Christ, doubtless, retained the idiom
of his own tongue. Moreover, there cannot be a doubt as to what is
to be understood by the sons of Adam. Not to go farther, a passage
in the eighth psalm, which the apostles apply to Christ, will
abundantly suffice: "What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and
the son of man, that thou visitest him.?" (Pa 8: 4.) Under this
figure is expressed the true humanity of Christ. For although he was
not immediately descended of an earthly father, yet he originally
sprang from Adam. Nor could it otherwise be said in terms of the
passage which we have already quoted, "Forasmuch, then, as the
children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise
took part of the same;" these words plainly proving that he was an
associate and partner in the same nature with ourselves. In this
sense also it is said, that "both he that sanctifieth and they who
are sanctified are all of one." The context proves that this refers
to a community of nature; for it is immediately added, "For which
cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren," (Heb. 2: 11.) Had he
said at first that believers are of God, where could there have been
any ground for being ashamed of persons possessing such dignity? But
when Christ of his boundless grace associates himself with the mean
and ignoble, we see why it was said that "he is not ashamed." It is
vain to object, that in this way the wicked will be the brethren of
Christ; for we know that the children of God are not born of flesh
and blood, but of the Spirit through faith. Therefore, flesh alone
does not constitute the union of brotherhood. But although the
apostle assigns to believers only the honour of being one with
Christ, it does not however follow, that unbelievers have not the
same origin according to the flesh; just as when we say that Christ
became man, that he might make us sons of God, the expression does
not extend to all classes of persons; the intervention of faith
being necessary to our being spiritually ingrafted into the body of
Christ. A dispute is also ignorantly raised as to the term
first-born. It is alleged that Christ ought to have been the first
son of Adam, in order that he might be the first-born among the
brethren, (Rom. 8: 29.) But primogeniture refers not to age, but to
degree of honour and pre-eminence of virtue. There is just as little
colour for the frivolous assertion that Christ assumed the nature of
man, and not that of angels, (Heb. 2: 16,) because it was the human
race that he restored to favour. The apostle, to magnify the honour
which Christ has conferred upon us, contrasts us with the angels, to
whom we are in this respect preferred. And if due weight is given to
the testimony of Moses, (Gen. 3: 15,) when he says that the seed of
the woman would bruise the head of the serpent, the dispute is at an
end. For the words there used refer not to Christ alone, but to the
whole human race. Since the victory was to be obtained for us by
Christ, God declares generally, that the posterity of the woman
would overcome the devil. From this it follows, that Christ is a
descendant of the human race, the purpose of God in thus addressing
Eve being to raise her hopes, and prevent her from giving way to
despair.
    3. The passages in which Christ is called the seed of Abraham,
and the fruit of the loins of David, those persons, with no less
folly than wickedness, wrap up in allegory. Had the term seed been
used allegorically, Paul surely would not have omitted to notice it,
when he affirms clearly, and without figure, that the promise was
not given "to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed,
which is Christ," (Gal. 3: 16.) With similar absurdity they pretend
that he was called the Son of David for no other reason but because
he had been promised, and was at length in due time manifested. For
Paul, after he had called him the Son of David, by immediately
subjoining "according to the flesh", certainly designates his
nature. So also, (Rom. 9: 5,) while declaring him to be "God blessed
for ever," he mentions separately, that, "as concerning the flesh,
he was descended from the Jews." Again if he had not been truly
begotten of the seed of David, what is the meaning of the
expression, that he is the "fruit of his loins;" or what the meaning
of the promise, "Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy
throne"? (Ps. 132: 11.) Moreover their mode of dealing with the
genealogy of Christ, as given by Matthew, is mere sophistry; for
though he reckons up the progenitors not of Mary, but of Joseph, yet
as he was speaking of a matter then generally understood, he deems
it enough to show that Joseph was descended from the seed of David,
since it is certain that Mary was of the same family. Luke goes
still farther, showing that the salvation brought by Christ is
common to the whole human race, inasmuch as Christ, the author of
salvation, is descended from Adam, the common father of us all. I
confess, indeed, that the genealogy proves Christ to be the Son of
David only as being descended of the Virgin; but the new
Marcionites, for the purpose of giving a gloss to their heresy,
namely to prove that the body which Christ assumed was
unsubstantial, too confidently maintain that the expression as to
seed is applicable only to males, thus subverting the elementary
principles of nature. But as this discussion belongs not to
theology, and the arguments which they adduce are too futile to
require any laboured refutation, I will not touch on matters
pertaining to philosophy and the medical art. It will be sufficient
to dispose of the objection drawn from the statement of Scripture,
that Aaron and Jehoiadah married wives out of the tribe of Judah,
and that thus the distinction of tribes was confounded, if proper
descent could come through the female. It is well known, that in
regard to civil order, descent is reckoned through the male; and yet
the superiority on his part does not prevent the female from having
her proper share in the descent. This solution applies to all the
genealogies. When Scripture gives a list of individuals, it often
mentions males only. Must we therefore say that females go for
nothing? Nay, the very children know that they are classified with
men. For this reasons wives are said to give children to their
husbands, the name of the family always remaining with the males.
Then, as the male sex has this privilege, that sons are deemed of
noble or ignoble birth, according to the condition of their fathers,
so, on the other hand, in slavery, the condition of the child is
determined by that of the mother, as lawyers say, partus sequitur
ventrem. Whence we may infer, that offspring is partly procreated by
the seed of the mother. According to the common custom of nations,
mothers are deemed progenitors, and with this the divine law agrees,
which could have had no ground to forbid the marriage of the uncle
with the niece, if there was no consanguinity between them. It would
also be lawful for a brother and sister uterine to intermarry, when
their fathers are different. But while I admit that the power
assigned to the woman is passive, I hold that the same thing is
affirmed indiscriminately of her and of the male. Christ is not said
to have been made by a woman, but of a woman, (Gal. 4: 4.) But some
of this herd, laying aside all shame, publicly ask whether we mean
to maintain that Christ was procreated of the proper seed of a
virgin. I, in my turn, asks whether they are not forced to admit
that he was nourished to maturity in the Virgin's womb. Justly,
therefore, we infer from the words of Matthew, that Christ, inasmuch
as he was begotten of Mary, was procreated of her seed; as a similar
generation is denoted when Boaz is said to have been begotten of
Rachab, (Matth. 1: 5, 16.) Matthew does not here describe the Virgin
as the channel through which Christ flowed, but distinguishes his
miraculous from an ordinary birth, in that Christ was begotten by
her of the seed of David. For the same reason for which Isaac is
said to be begotten of Abraham, Joseph of Jacob, Solomon of David,
is Christ said to have been begotten of his mother. The Evangelist
has arranged his discourse in this way. Wishing to prove that Christ
derives his descent from David, he deems it enough to state, that he
was begotten of Mary. Hence it follows, that he assumed it as an
acknowledged fact, that Mary was of the same lineage as Joseph.
    4. The absurdities which they wish to fasten upon us are mere
puerile calumnies. They reckon it base and dishonouring to Christ to
have derived his descent from men; because, in that case, he could
not be exempted from the common law which includes the whole
offspring of Adam, without exception, under sin. But this difficulty
is easily solved by Paul's antithesis, "As by one man sin entered
into the world, and death by sin" - "even so by the righteousness of
one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life,"
(Rom. 5: 12, 18.) Corresponding to this is another passage, "The
first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from
heaven," (1 Cor. 15: 47.) Accordingly, the same apostle, in another
passage, teaching that Christ was sent "in the likeness of sinful
flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us,"
distinctly separates him from the common lot, as being true man, and
yet without fault and corruption, (Rom. 8: 3.) It is childish
trifling to maintain, that if Christ is free from all taint, and was
begotten of the seed of Mary, by the secret operation of the Spirit,
it is not therefore the seed of the woman that is impure, but only
that of the man. We do not hold Christ to be free from all taint,
merely because he was born of a woman unconnected with a man, but
because he was sanctified by the Spirit, so that the generation was
pure and spotless, such as it would have been before Adam's fall.
Let us always bear in mind, that wherever Scripture adverts to the
purity of Christ, it refers to his true human nature, since it were
superfluous to say that God is pure. Moreover, the sanctification of
which John speaks in his seventeenth chapter is inapplicable to the
divine nature. This does not suggest the idea of a twofold seed in
Adam, although no contamination extended to Christ, the generation
of man not being in itself vicious or impure, but an accidental
circumstance of the fall. Hence, it is not strange that Christ, by
whom our integrity was to be restored, was exempted from the common
corruption. Another absurdity which they obtrude upon us, viz., that
if the Word of God became incarnate, it must have been enclosed in
the narrow tenement of an earthly body, is sheer petulance. For
although the boundless essence of the Word was united with human
nature into one person, we have no idea of any enclosing. The Son of
God descended miraculously from heaven, yet without abandoning
heaven; was pleased to be conceived miraculously in the Virgin's
womb, to live on the earth, and hang upon the cross, and yet always
filled the world as from the beginning.








Chapter 14.


How two natures constitute the Person of the Mediator.

    This chapter contains two principal heads: I. A brief
exposition of the doctrine of Christ's two natures in one person,
sec. 1-4. II. A refutation of the heresies of Servetus, which
destroy the distinction of natures in Christ, and the eternity of
the divine nature of the Son.
    
Sections.

1. Proof of two natures in Christ - a human and a divine.
    Illustrated by analogy, from the union of body and soul.
    Illustration applied.
2. Proof from passages of Scripture which distinguish between the
    two natures. Proof from the communication of properties.
3. Proof from passages showing the union of both natures. A rule to
    be observed in this discussion.
4. Utility and use of the doctrine concerning the two natures. The
    Nestorians. The Eutychians. Both justly condemned by the
    Church.
5. The heresies of Servetus refuted. General answer or sum of the
    orthodox doctrine concerning Christ. What meant by the
    hypostatic union. Objections of Servetus to the deity of
    Christ. Answer.
6. Another objection and answer. A twofold filiation of Christ.
7. Other objections answered.
8. Conclusion of the former objections. Other pestilential heresies
    of Servetus.

    1. When it is said that the Word was made flesh, we must not
understand it as if he were either changed into flesh, or confusedly
intermingled with flesh, but that he made choice of the Virgin's
womb as a temple in which he might dwell. He who was the Son of God
became the Son of man, not by confusion of substance, but by unity
of person. For we maintain, that the divinity was so conjoined and
united with the humanity, that the entire properties of each nature
remain entire, and yet the two natures constitute only one Christ.
If, in human affairs, any thing analogous to this great mystery can
be found, the most apposite similitudes seems to be that of man, who
obviously consists of two substances, neither of which however is so
intermingled with the other as that both do not retain their own
properties. For neither is soul body, nor is body soul. Wherefore
that is said separately of the soul which cannot in any way apply to
the body; and that, on the other hand, of the body which is
altogether inapplicable to the soul; and that, again, of the whole
man, which cannot be affirmed without absurdity either of the body
or of the soul separately. Lastly, the properties of the soul are
transferred to the body, and the properties of the body to the soul,
and yet these form only one man, not more than one. Such modes of
expression intimate both that there is in man one person formed of
two compounds, and that these two different natures constitute one
person. Thus the Scriptures speak of Christ. They sometimes
attribute to him qualities which should be referred specially to his
humanity and sometimes qualities applicable peculiarly to his
divinity, and sometimes qualities which embrace both natures, and do
not apply specially to either. This combination of a twofold nature
in Christ they express so carefully, that they sometimes communicate
them with each other, a figure of speech which the ancients termed
"idiomaton koinonia", (a communication of properties.)
    2. Little dependence could be placed on these statements, were
it not proved by numerous passages throughout the sacred volume that
none of them is of man's devising. What Christ said of himself,
"Before Abraham was I am," (John 13: 58,) was very foreign to his
humanity. I am not unaware of the cavil by which erroneous spirits
distort this passage, viz., that he was before all ages, inasmuch as
he was foreknown as the Redeemer, as well in the counsel of the
Father as in the minds of believers. But seeing he plainly
distinguishes the period of his manifestation from his eternal
existence, and professedly founds on his ancient government, to
prove his precedence to Abraham, he undoubtedly claims for himself
the peculiar attributes of divinity. Paul's assertion that he is
"the first-born of every creature," that "he is before all things,
and by him all things consist," (Col. 1: 15, 17;) his own
declaration, that he had glory with the Father before the world was,
and that he worketh together with the Father, are equally
inapplicable to man. These and similar properties must be specially
assigned to his divinity. Again, his being called the servant of the
Father, his being said to grow in stature, and wisdom, and favour
with God and man, not to seek his own glory, not to know the last
day, not to speak of himself, not to do his own will, his being seen
and handled, apply entirely to his humanity; since, as God, he
cannot be in any respect said to grow, works always for himself,
knows every thing, does all things after the counsel of his own
will, and is incapable of being seen or handled. And yet he not
merely ascribes these things separately to his human nature, but
applies them to himself as suitable to his office of Mediator. There
is a communication of "idiomata", or properties, when Paul says,
that God purchased the Church "with his own blood," (Acts 20: 28,)
and that the Jews crucified the Lord of glory, (1 Cor. 2: 8.) In
like manner, John says, that the Word of God was "handled." God
certainly has no blood, suffers not, cannot be touched with hands;
but since that Christ, who was true God and true man, shed his blood
on the cross for us, the acts which were performed in his human
nature are transferred improperly, but not ceaselessly, to his
divinity. We have a similar example in the passage where John says
that God laid down his life for us, (1 John 3: 16.) Here a property
of his humanity is communicated with his other nature. On the other
hand, when Christ, still living on the earth, said, "No man has
ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the
Son of man, which is in heaven," (John 3: 13,) certainly regarded as
man in the flesh which he had put on, he was not then in heaven, but
inasmuch as he was both God and man, he, on account of the union of
a twofold nature, attributed to the one what properly belonged to
the other.
    3. But, above all, the true substance of Christ is most clearly
declared in those passages which comprehend both natures at once.
Numbers of these exist in the Gospel of John. What we there read as
to his having received power from the Father to forgive sins; as to
his quickening whom he will; as to his bestowing righteousness,
holiness, and salvation; as to his being appointed judge both of the
quick and the dead; as to his being honoured even as the Father, are
not peculiar either to his Godhead or his humanity, but applicable
to both. In the same way he is called the Light of the world, the
good Shepherd, the only Door, the true Vine. With such prerogatives
the Son of God was invested on his manifestation in the flesh, and
though he possessed the same with the Father before the world was
created, still it was not in the same manner or respect; neither
could they be attributed to one who was a man and nothing more. In
the same sense we ought to understand the saying of Paul, that at
the end Christ shall deliver up "the kingdom to God, even the
Father," (1 Cor. 15: 24.) The kingdom of God assuredly had no
beginning, and will have no end: but because he was hid under a
humble clothing of flesh, and took upon himself the form of a
servant, and humbled himself, (Phil. 2: 8,) and, laying aside the
insignia of majesty, became obedient to the Father; and after
undergoing this subjection was at length crowned with glory and
honour, (Heb. 2: 7,) and exalted to supreme authority, that at his
name every knee should bow, (Phil. 2: 10;) so at the end he will
subject to the Father both the name and the crown of glory, and
whatever he received of the Father, that God may be all in all, (1
Cor. 15: 28.) For what end were that power and authority given to
him, save that the Father might govern us by his hand? In the same
sense, also, he is said to sit at the right hand of the Father. But
this is only for a time, until we enjoy the immediate presence of
his Godhead. And here we cannot excuse the error of some ancient
writers, who, by not attending to the office of Mediator, darken the
genuine meaning of almost the whole doctrine which we read in the
Gospel of John, and entangle themselves in many snares. Let us,
therefore, regard it as the key of true interpretation, that those
things which refer to the office of Mediator are not spoken of the
divine or human nature simply. Christ, therefore, shall reign until
he appear to judge the world, inasmuch as, according to the measure
of our feeble capacity, he now connects us with the Father. But
when, as partakers of the heavenly glory, we shall see God as he is,
then Christ, having accomplished the office of Mediator, shall cease
to be the vicegerent of the Father, and will be content with the
glory which he possessed before the world was. Nor is the name of
Lord specially applicable to the person of Christ in any other
respect than in so far as he holds a middle place between God and
us. To this effect are the words of Paul, "To us there is but one
God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord
Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him," (1 Cor. 8: 6;)
that is, to the latter a temporary authority has been committed by
the Father until his divine majesty shall be beheld face to face.
His giving up of the kingdom to the Father, so far from impairing
his majesty, will give a brighter manifestation of it. God will then
cease to be the head of Christ, and Christ's own Godhead will then
shine forth of itself, whereas it is now in a manner veiled.
    4. This observation, if the readers apply it properly, will be
of no small use in solving a vast number of difficulties. For it is
strange how the ignorant, nay, some who are not altogether without
learning, are perplexed by these modes of expression which they see
applied to Christ, without being properly adapted either to his
divinity or his humanity, not considering their accordance with the
character in which he was manifested as God and man, and with his
office of Mediator. It is very easy to see how beautifully they
accord with each other, provided they have a sober interpreter, one
who examines these great mysteries with the reverence which is meet.
But there is nothing which furious and frantic spirits cannot throw
into confusion. They fasten on the attributes of humanity to destroy
his divinity; and, on the other hand, on those of his divinity to
destroy his humanity: while those which, spoken conjointly of the
two natures, apply to neither, they employ to destroy both. But what
else is this than to contend that Christ is not man because he is
God, not God because he is man, and neither God nor man because he
is both at once. Christ, therefore, as God and man, possessing
natures which are united, but not confused, we conclude that he is
our Lord and the true Son of God, even according to his humanity,
though not by means of his humanity. For we must put far from us the
heresy of Nestorius, who, presuming to dissect rather than
distinguish between the two natures, devised a double Christ. But we
see the Scripture loudly protesting against this, when the name of
the Son of God is given to him who is born of a Virgin, and the
Virgin herself is called the mother of our Lord, (Luke 1: 32, 43.)
We must beware also of the insane fancy of Eutyches, lest, when we
would demonstrate the unity of person, we destroy the two natures.
The many passages we have already quoted, in which the divinity is
distinguished from the humanity, and the many other passages
existing throughout Scripture, may well stop the mouth of the most
contentious. I will shortly add a few observations, which will still
better dispose of this fiction. For the present, one passage will
suffice - Christ would not have called his body a temple, (John 2:
19,) had not the Godhead distinctly dwelt in it. Wherefore, as
Nestorius had been justly condemned in the Council of Ephesus, so
afterwards was Eutyches in those of Constantinople and Chalcedony,
it being not more lawful to confound the two natures of Christ than
to divide them.
    5. But in our age, also, has arisen a not less fatal monster,
Michael Servetus, who for the Son of God has substituted a figment
composed of the essence of God, spirit, flesh, and three untreated
elements. First, indeed, he denies that Christ is the Son of God,
for any other reason than because he was begotten in the womb of the
Virgin by the Holy Spirit. The tendency of this crafty device is to
make out, by destroying the distinction of the two natures, that
Christ is somewhat composed of God and man, and yet is not to be
deemed God and man. His aim throughout is to establish, that before
Christ was manifested in the flesh there were only shadowy figures
in God, the truth or effect of which existed for the first time,
when the Word who had been destined to that honour truly began to be
the Son of God. We indeed acknowledge that the Mediator who was born
of the Virgin is properly the Son of God. And how could the man
Christ be a mirror of the inestimable grace of God, had not the
dignity been conferred upon him both of being and of being called
the only-begotten Son of God? Meanwhile, however, the definition of
the Church stands unmoved, that he is accounted the Son of God,
because the Word begotten by the Father before all ages assumed
human nature by hypostatic union, - a term used by ancient writers
to denote the union which of two natures constitutes one person, and
invented to refute the dream of Nestorius, who pretended that the
Son of God dwelt in the flesh in such a manner as not to be at the
same time man. Servetus calumniously charges us with making the Son
of God double, when we say that the eternal Word before he was
clothed with flesh was already the Son of God: as if we said
anything more than that he was manifested in the flesh. Although he
was God before he became man, he did not therefore begin to be a new
God. Nor is there any greater absurdity in holding that the Son of
God, who by eternal generation ever had the property of being a Son,
appeared in the flesh. This is intimated by the angel's word to
Mary: "That holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called
the Son of God," (Luke 1: 35;) as if he had said that the name of
Son, which was more obscure under the law, would become celebrated
and universally known. Corresponding to this is the passage of Paul,
that being now the sons of God by Christ, we "have received the
Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father," (Rom. 8: 15.)
Were not also the holy patriarchs of old reckoned among the sons of
God? Yea, trusting to this privilege, they invoked God as their
Father. But because ever since the only-begotten Son of God came
forth into the world, his celestial paternity has been more clearly
manifested, Paul assigns this to the kingdom of Christ as its
distinguishing feature. We must, however, constantly hold, that God
never was a Father to angels and men save in respect of his
only-begotten Son: that men, especially, who by their iniquity were
rendered hateful to God, are sons by gratuitous adoption, because he
is a Son by nature. Nor is there anything in the assertion of
Servetus, that this depends on the filiation which God had decreed
with himself. Here we deal not with figures, as expiation by the
blood of beasts was shown to be; but since they could not be the
sons of God in reality, unless their adoption was founded in the
head, it is against all reason to deprive the head of that which is
common to the members. I go farther: since the Scripture gives the
name of sons of God to the angels, whose great dignity in this
respect depended not on the future redemption, Christ must in order
take precedence of them that he may reconcile the Father to them. I
will again briefly repeat and add the same thing concerning the
human race. Since angels as well as men were at first created on the
condition that God should be the common Father of both; if it is
true, as Paul says, that Christ always was the head, "the first-born
of every creature - that in all things he might have the pre-
eminence," (Col. 1: 15,18,) I think I may legitimately infer, that
he existed as the Son of God before the creation of the world.
    6. But if his filiation (if I may so express it) had a
beginning at the time when he was manifested in the flesh, it
follows that he was a Son in respect of human nature also. Servetus,
and others similarly frenzied, hold that Christ who appeared in the
flesh is the Son of God, inasmuch as but for his incarnation he
could not have possessed this name. Let them now answer me, whether,
according to both natures, and in respect of both, he is a Son? So
indeed they prate; but Paul's doctrine is very different. We
acknowledge, indeed, that Christ in human nature is called a Son,
not like believers by gratuitous adoption merely, but the true,
natural, and, therefore, only Son, this being the mark which
distinguishes him from all others. Those of us who are regenerated
to a new life God honours with the name of sons; the name of true
and only-begotten Son he bestows on Christ alone. But how is he an
only Son in so great a multitude of brethren, except that he
possesses by nature what we acquire by gift? This honour we extend
to his whole character of Mediator, so that He who was born of a
Virgin, and on the cross offered himself in sacrifice to the Father,
is truly and properly the Son of God; but still in respect of his
Godhead: as Paul teaches when he says, that he was "separated unto
the gospel of God, (which he had promised afore by his prophets in
the Holy Scriptures,) concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord,
which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and
declared to be the Son of God with power," (Rom. 1: 1-4.) When
distinctly calling him the Son of David according to the flesh, why
should he also say that he was "declared to be the Son of God," if
he meant not to intimate, that this depended on something else than
his incarnation? For in the same sense in which he elsewhere says,
that "though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the
power of God," (2 Cor. 13: 4,) so he now draws a distinction between
the two natures. They must certainly admit, that as on account of
his mother he is called the Son of David, so, on account of his
Father, he is the Son of God, and that in some respect differing
from his human nature. The Scripture gives him both names, calling
him at one time the Son of God, at another the Son of Man. As to the
latter, there can be no question that he is called a Son in
accordance with the phraseology of the Hebrew language, because he
is of the offspring of Adam. On the other hand, I maintain that he
is called a Son on account of his Godhead and eternal essence,
because it is no less congruous to refer to his divine nature his
being called the Son of God, than to refer to his human nature his
being called the Son of Man. In fine, in the passage which I have
quoted, Paul does not mean, that he who according to the flesh was
begotten of the seed of David, was declared to be the Son of God in
any other sense than he elsewhere teaches that Christ, who descended
of the Jews according to the flesh, is "over all, God blessed for
ever," (Rom. 9: 5.) But if in both passages the distinction of two
natures is pointed out, how can it be denied, that he who according
to the flesh is the Son of Man, is also in respect of his divine
nature the Son of God?
    7. They indeed find a blustering defence of their heresy in its
being said, that "God spared not his own Son," and in the
communication of the angel, that He who was to be born of the Virgin
should be called the "Son of the Highest," (Rom. 8: 32; Luke 1: 32.)
But before pluming themselves on this futile objection, let them for
a little consider with us what weight there is in their argument. If
it is legitimately concluded, that at conception he began to be the
Son of God, because he who has been conceived is called a Son, it
will follow, that he began to be the Word after his manifestation in
the flesh, because John declares, that the Word of life of which he
spoke was that which "our hands have handled," (1 John 1: 1.) In
like manner we read in the prophet, "Thou, Bethlehem Ephratah,
though thou be little among the thousands of Israel, yet out of thee
shall he come forth that is to be a ruler in Israel; whose goings
forth have been from of old, from everlasting," (Mic. 5: 2.) How
will they be forced to interpret if they will follow such a method
of arguing? I have declared that we by no means assent to Nestorius,
who imagined a twofold Christ, when we maintain that Christ, by
means of brotherly union, made us sons of God with himself, because
in the flesh, which he took from us, he is the only-begotten Son of
God. And Augustine wisely reminds us, that he is a bright mirror of
the wonderful and singular grace of God, because as man he obtained
honour which he could not merit. With this distinction, therefore,
according to the flesh, was Christ honoured even from the womb,
viz., to be the Son of God. Still, in the unity of person we are not
to imagine any intermixture which takes away from the Godhead what
is peculiar to it. Nor is it more absurd that the eternal Word of
God and Christ, uniting the two natures in one person, should in
different ways be called the Son of God, than that he should in
various respects be called at one time the Son of God, at another
the Son of Man. Nor are we more embarrassed by another cavil of
Servetus, viz., that Christ, before he appeared in the flesh, is
nowhere called the Son of God, except under a figure. For though the
description of him was then more obscure, yet it has already been
clearly proved, that he was not otherwise the eternal God, than as
he was the Word begotten of the eternal Father. Nor is the name
applicable to the office of Mediator which he undertook, except in
that he was God manifest in the flesh. Nor would God have thus from
the beginning been called a Father, had there not been even then a
mutual relation to the Son, "of whom the whole family in heaven and
earth is named," (Eph. 3: 15.) Hence it is easy to infer, that under
the Law and the Prophets he was the Son of God before this name was
celebrated in the Church. But if we are to dispute about the word
merely, Solomon, speaking of the incomprehensibility of God, affirms
that his Son is like himself, incomprehensible: "What is his name,
and what is his Son's name, if thou canst tell?" (Prov. 30: 4.) I am
well aware that with the contentious this passage will not have
sufficient weight; nor do I found much upon it, except as showing
the malignant cavils of those who affirm that Christ is the Son of
God only in so far as he became man. We may add, that all the most
ancient writers, with one mouth and consent, testified the same
thing so plainly, that the effrontery is no less ridiculous than
detestable, which dares to oppose us with Irenaeus and Tertullian,
both of whom acknowledge that He who was afterwards visibly
manifested was the invisible Son of God.
    8. But although Servetus heaped together a number of horrid
dogmas, to which, perhaps, others would not subscribe, you will
find, that all who refuse to acknowledge the Son of God except in
the flesh, are obliged, when urged more closely, to admit that he
was a Son, for no other reason than because he was conceived in the
womb of the Virgin by the Holy Spirit; just like the absurdity of
the ancient Manichees, that the soul of man was derived by
transfusion from God, from its being said, that he breathed into
Adam's nostrils the breath of life, (Gen. 2: 7.) For they lay such
stress on the name of Son that they leave no distinction between the
natures, but babblingly maintain that the man Christ is the Son of
God, because, according to his human nature, he was begotten of God.
Thus, the eternal generation of Wisdom, celebrated by Solomon,
(Prov. 8: 22, seq.) is destroyed, and no kind of Godhead exists in
the Mediator: or a phantom is substituted instead of a man. The
grosser delusions of Servetus, by which he imposed upon himself and
some others, it were useful to refute, that pious readers might be
warned by the example, to confine themselves within the bounds of
soberness and modesty: however, I deem it superfluous here, as I
have already done it in a special treatise. The whole comes to this,
that the Son of God was from the beginning an idea, and was even
then a preordained man, who was to be the essential image of God.
nor does he acknowledge any other word of God except in external
splendour. The generation he interprets to mean, that from the
beginning a purpose of generating the Son was begotten in God, and
that this purpose extended itself by act to creation. Meanwhile, he
confounds the Spirit with the Word, saying that God arranged the
invisible Word and Spirit into flesh and soul. In short, in his view
the typifying of Christ occupies the place of generation; but he
says, that he who was then in appearance a shadowy Son, was at
length begotten by the Word, to which he attributes a generating
power. From this it will follow, that dogs and swine are not less
sons of God, because created of the original seed of the Divine
Word. But although he compounds Christ of three untreated elements,
that he may be begotten of the essence of God, he pretends that he
is the first-born among the creatures, in such a sense that,
according to their degree, stones have the same essential divinity.
But lest he should seem to strip Christ of his Deity, he admits that
his flesh is "homo-ousion", of the same substance with God, and that
the Word was made man, by the conversion of flesh into Deity. Thus,
while he cannot comprehend that Christ was the Son of God, until his
flesh came forth from the essence of God and was converted into
Deity, he reduces the eternal personality (hypostasis) of the Word
to nothing, and robs us of the Son of David, who was the promised
Redeemer. It is true, he repeatedly declares that the Son was
begotten of God by knowledge and predestination, but that he was at
length made man out of that matter which, from the beginning, shone
with God in the three elements, and afterwards appeared in the first
light of the world, in the cloud and pillar of fire. How shamefully
inconsistent with himself he ever and anon becomes, it were too
tedious to relate. From this brief account sound readers will
gather, that by the subtle ambiguities of this infatuated man, the
hope of salvation was utterly extinguished. For if the flesh were
the Godhead itself, it would cease to be its temple. Now, the only
Redeemer we can have is He who being begotten of the seed of Abraham
and David according to the flesh, truly became man. But he
erroneously insists on the expression of John, "The Word was made
flesh." As these words refute the heresy of Nestorius, so they give
no countenance to the impious fiction of which Eutyches was the
inventor, since all that the Evangelist intended was to assert a
unity of person in two natures.






Chapter 15.


15. Three things briefly to be regarded in Christ; viz., His Offices
of prophet, king, and priest.

    The principal parts of this chapter are - I. Of the Prophetical
Office of Christ, its dignity and use, sec. 1, 2. II. The nature of
the Kingly power of Christ, and the advantage we derive from it,
sec. 3-5. III. Of the Priesthood of Christ, and the efficacy of it,
sec. 6.
    
Sections.

1. Among heretics and false Christians, Christ is found in name
    only; but by those who are truly and effectually called of God,
    he is acknowledged as a Prophet, King, and Priest. In regard to
    the Prophetical Office, the Redeemer of the Church is the same
    from whom believers under the Law hoped for the full light of
    understanding.
2. The unction of Christ, though it has respect chiefly to the
    Kingly Office, refers also to the Prophetical and Priestly
    Offices. The dignity, necessity, and use of this unction.
3. From the spirituality of Christ's kingdom its eternity is
    inferred. This twofold, referring both to the whole body of the
    Church, and to its individual members.
4. Benefits from the spiritual kingdom of Christ. 1. It raises us to
    eternal life. 2. It enriches us with all things necessary to
    salvation. 3. It makes us invincible by spiritual foes. 4. It
    animates us to patient endurance. 5. It inspires confidence and
    triumph. 6. It supplies fortitude and love.
5. The unction of our Redeemer heavenly. Symbol of this unction. A
    passage in the apostle reconciled with others previously
    quoted, to prove the eternal kingdom of Christ.
6. What necessary to obtain the benefit of Christ's Priesthood. We
    must set out with the death of Christ. From it follows, 1. His
    intercession for us. 2. Confidence in prayer. 3. Peace of
    conscience. 4. Through Christ, Christians themselves become
    priests. Grievous sin of the Papists in pretending to sacrifice
    Christ.

    1. Though heretics pretend the name of Christ, truly does
Augustine affirm, (Enchir. ad Laurent. cap. 5,) that the foundation
is not common to them with the godly, but belongs exclusively to the
Church: for if those things which pertain to Christ be diligently
considered, it will be found that Christ is with them in name only,
not in reality. Thus in the present day, though the Papists have the
words, Son of God, Redeemer of the world, sounding in their mouths,
yet, because contented with an empty name, they deprive him of his
virtue and dignity; what Paul says of "not holding the head," is
truly applicable to them, (Col. 2: 19.) Therefore, that faith may
find in Christ a solid ground of salvation, and so rest in him, we
must set out with this principle, that the office which he received
from the Father consists of three parts. For he was appointed both
Prophet, King, and Priest; though little were gained by holding the
names unaccompanied by a knowledge of the end and use. These too are
spoken of in the Papacy, but frigidly, and with no great benefit,
the full meaning comprehended under each title not being understood.
We formerly observed, that though God, by supplying an uninterrupted
succession of prophets, never left his people destitute of useful
doctrine, such as might suffice for salvation; yet the minds of
believers were always impressed with the conviction that the full
light of understanding was to be expected only on the advent of the
Messiah. This expectation, accordingly, had reached even the
Samaritans, to whom the true religion had never been made known.
This is plain from the expression of the woman, "I know that Messiah
cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all
things," (John 4: 25.) Nor was this a mere random presumption which
had entered the minds of the Jews. They believed what sure oracles
had taught them. One of the most remarkable passages is that of
Isaiah, "Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a
leader and commander to the people," (Is. 54: 4;) that is, in the
same way in which he had previously in another place styled him
"Wonderful, Counsellor," (Is. 9: 6.) For this reason, the apostle
commending the perfection of gospel doctrine, first says that "God,
at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the
prophets," and then adds, that he "has in these last days spoken
unto us by his Son," (Heb. 1: 1, 2.) But as the common office of the
prophets was to hold the Church in suspense, and at the same time
support it until the advent of the Mediator; we read, that the
faithful, during the dispersion, complained that they were deprived
of that ordinary privilege. "We see not our signs: there is no more
any prophet, neither is there among us any that knoweth how long,"
(Ps. 74: 9.) But when Christ was now not far distant, a period was
assigned to Daniel "to seal up the vision and prophecy," (Daniel 9:
24,) not only that the authority of the prediction there spoken of
might be established, but that believers might, for a time,
patiently submit to the want of the prophets, the fulfilment and
completion of all the prophecies being at hand.
    2. Moreover, it is to be observed, that the name Christ refers
to those three offices: for we know that under the law, prophets as
well as priests and kings were anointed with holy oil. Whence, also,
the celebrated name of Messiah was given to the promised Mediator.
But although I admit (as, indeed, I have elsewhere shown) that he
was so called from a view to the nature of the kingly office, still
the prophetical and sacerdotal unctions have their proper place, and
must not be overlooked. The former is expressly mentioned by Isaiah
in these words: "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me: because the
Lord has anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he has
sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the
captive, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to
proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord," (Is. 60: 1, 2.) We see
that he was anointed by the Spirit to be a herald and witness of his
Father's grace, and not in the usual way; for he is distinguished
from other teachers who had a similar office. And here, again, it is
to be observed, that the unction which he received, in order to
perform the office of teacher, was not for himself, but for his
whole body, that a corresponding efficacy of the Spirit might always
accompany the preaching of the Gospel. This, however, remains
certain, that by the perfection of doctrine which he brought, an end
was put to all the prophecies, so that those who, not contented with
the Gospel, annex somewhat extraneous to it, derogate from its
authority. The voice which thundered from heaven, "This is my
beloved Son, hear him" gave him a special privilege above all other
teachers. Then from him, as head, this unction is diffused through
the members, as Joel has foretold, "Your sons and your daughters
shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men
shall see visions," (Joel 2: 28.) Paul's expressions, that he was
"made unto us wisdom," (1 Cor. 1: 30,) and elsewhere, that in him
"are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge," (Col. 2: 3,)
have a somewhat different meaning, namely, that out of him there is
nothing worth knowing, and that those who, by faith, apprehend his
true character, possess the boundless immensity of heavenly
blessings. For which reason, he elsewhere says, "I determined not to
know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ and him crucified," (1
Cor. 2: 2.) And most justly: for it is unlawful to go beyond the
simplicity of the Gospel. The purpose of this prophetical dignity in
Christ is to teach us, that in the doctrine which he delivered is
substantially included a wisdom which is perfect in all its parts.
    3. I come to the Kingly office, of which it were in vain to
speak, without previously reminding the reader that its nature is
spiritual; because it is from thence we learn its efficacy, the
benefits it confers, its whole power and eternity. Eternity,
moreover, which in Daniel an angel attributes to the office of
Christ, (Dan. 2: 44,) in Luke an angel justly applies to the
salvation of his people, (Luke 1: 33.) But this is also twofold, and
must be viewed in two ways; the one pertains to the whole body of
the Church the other is proper to each member. To the former is to
be referred what is said in the Psalms, "Once have I sworn by my
holiness, that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for
ever, and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established
for ever, as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven," (Ps.
89: 35, 37.) There can be no doubt that God here promises that he
will be, by the hand of his Son, the eternal governor and defender
of the Church. In none but Christ will the fulfilment of this
prophecy be found; since immediately after Solomon's death the
kingdom in n great measure lost its dignity, and, with ignominy to
the family of David, was transferred to a private individual.
Afterwards decaying by degrees, it at length came to a sad and
dishonourable end. In the same sense are we to understand the
exclamation of Isaiah, "Who shall declare his generation?" (Isaiah
53: 8.) For he asserts that Christ will so survive death as to be
connected with his members. Therefore, as often as we hear that
Christ is armed with eternal power, let us learn that the perpetuity
of the Church is thus effectually secured; that amid the turbulent
agitations by which it is constantly harassed, and the grievous and
fearful commotions which threaten innumerable disasters, it still
remains safe. Thus, when David derides the audacity of the enemy who
attempt to throw off the yoke of God and his anointed, and says,
that kings and nations rage "in vain," (Ps. 2: 2-4,) because he who
sitteth in the heaven is strong enough to repel their assaults,
assuring believers of the perpetual preservation of the Church, he
animates them to have good hope whenever it is occasionally
oppressed. So, in another place, when speaking in the person of God,
he says, "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand,
until I make thine enemies thy footstool," (Ps. 110: 1,) he reminds
us, that however numerous and powerful the enemies who conspire to
assault the Church, they are not possessed of strength sufficient to
prevail against the immortal decree by which he appointed his Son
eternal King. Whence it follows that the devil, with the whole power
of the world, can never possibly destroy the Church, which is
founded on the eternal throne of Christ. Then in regard to the
special use to be made by each believer, this same eternity ought to
elevate us to the hope of a blessed immortality. For we see that
every thing which is earthly, and of the world, is temporary, and
soon fades away. Christ, therefore, to raise our hope to the
heavens, declares that his kingdom is not of this world, (John 18:
36.) In fine, let each of us, when he hears that the kingdom of
Christ is spiritual, be roused by the thought to entertain the hope
of a better life, and to expect that as it is now protected by the
hand of Christ, so it will be fully realised in a future life.
    4. That the strength and utility of the kingdom of Christ
cannot, as we have said, be fully perceived without recognising it
as spiritual, is sufficiently apparent, even from this, that having
during the whole course of our lives to war under the cross, our
condition here is bitter and wretched. What then would it avail us
to be ranged under the government of a heavenly King, if its
benefits were not realised beyond the present earthly life? We must,
therefore, know that the happiness which is promised to us in Christ
does not consist in external advantages - such as leading a joyful
and tranquil life, abounding in wealth, being secure against all
injury, and having an affluence of delights, such as the flesh is
wont to long for - but properly belongs to the heavenly life. As in
the world the prosperous and desirable condition of a people
consists partly in the abundance of temporal good and domestic
peace, and partly in the strong protection which gives security
against external violence; so Christ also enriches his people with
all things necessary to the eternal salvation of their souls and
fortifies them with courage to stand unassailable by all the attacks
of spiritual foes. Whence we infer, that he reigns more for us than
for himself, and that both within us and without us; that being
replenished, in so far as God knows to be expedient, with the gifts
of the Spirit, of which we are naturally destitute, we may feel from
their first fruits, that we are truly united to God for perfect
blessedness; and then trusting to the power of the same Spirit, may
not doubt that we shall always be victorious against the devil, the
world, and every thing that can do us harm. To this effect was our
Saviour's reply to the Pharisees, "The kingdom of God is within
you." "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation," (Luke 17:
21, 22.) It is probable that on his declaring himself to be that
King under whom the highest blessing of God was to be expected, they
had in derision asked him to produce his insignia. But to prevent
those who were already more than enough inclined to the earth from
dwelling on its pomp, he bids them enter into their consciences, for
"the kingdom of God" is "righteousness, and peace, and joy in the
Holy Ghost," (Rom. 14: 17.) These words briefly teach what the
kingdom of Christ bestows upon us. Not being earthly or carnal, and
so subject to corruption, but spiritual, it raises us even to
eternal life, so that we can patiently live at present under toil,
hunger, cold, contempt, disgrace, and other annoyances; contented
with this, that our King will never abandon us, but will supply our
necessities until our warfare is ended, and we are called to
triumph: such being the nature of his kingdom, that he communicates
to us whatever he received of his Father. Since then he arms and
equips us by his power, adorns us with splendour and magnificence,
enriches us with wealth, we here find most abundant cause of
glorying, and also are inspired with boldness, so that we can
contend intrepidly with the devil, sin, and death. In fine, clothed
with his righteousness, we can bravely surmount all the insults of
the world: and as he replenishes us liberally with his gifts, so we
can in our turn bring forth fruit unto his glory.
    5. Accordingly, his royal unction is not set before us as
composed of oil or aromatic perfumes; but he is called the Christ of
God, because "the Spirit of the Lord" rested upon him; "the Spirit
of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the
Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord," (Isaiah 11: 2.)
This is the oil of joy with which the Psalmist declares that he was
anointed above his fellows, (Ps. 45: 7.) For, as has been said, he
was not enriched privately for himself, but that he might refresh
the parched and hungry with his abundance. For as the Father is said
to have given the Spirit to the Son without measure, (John 3: 34,)
so the reason is expressed, that we might all receive of his
fulness, and grace for grace, (John 1: 16.) From this fountain flows
the copious supply (of which Paul makes mention, Eph. 4: 7) by which
grace is variously distributed to believers according to the measure
of the gift of Christ. Here we have ample confirmation of what I
said, that the kingdom of Christ consists in the Spirit, and not in
earthly delights or pomp, and that hence, in order to be partakers
with him, we must renounce the world. A visible symbol of this grace
was exhibited at the baptism of Christ, when the Spirit rested upon
him in the form of a dove. To designate the Spirit and his gifts by
the term "unction" is not new, and ought not to seem absurd (see 1
John 2: 20, 27,) because this is the only quarter from which we
derive life; but especially in what regards the heavenly life, there
is not a drop of vigour in us save what the Holy Spirit instils, who
has chosen his seat in Christ, that thence the heavenly riches, of
which we are destitute, might flow to us in copious abundance. But
because believers stand invincible in the strength of their King,
and his spiritual riches abound towards them, they are not
improperly called Christians. Moreover, from this eternity of which
we have spoken, there is nothing derogatory in the expression of
Paul, "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the
kingdom to God, even the Father," (1 Cor. 15: 24;) and also, "Then
shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things
under him, that God may be all in and" (1 Cor. 15: 28;) for the
meaning merely is, that, in that perfect glory, the administration
of the kingdom will not be such as it now is. For the Father has
given all power to the Son, that by his hand he may govern, cherish,
sustain us, keep us under his guardianship, and give assistance to
us. Thus, while we wander far as pilgrims from God, Christ
interposes, that he may gradually bring us to full communion with
God. And, indeed, his sitting at the right hand of the Father has
the same meaning as if he was called the vicegerent of the Father,
entrusted with the whole power of government. For God is pleased,
mediately (so to speak) in his person to rule and defend the Church.
Thus also his being seated at the right hand of the Father is
explained by Paul, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, to mean, that
"he is the head over all things to the Church, which is his body,"
(Eph. 1: 20, 22.) Nor is this different in purport from what he
elsewhere teaches, that God has "given him a name which is above
every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of
things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth,
and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to
the glory of God the Father," (Phil. 2: 9-11.) For in these words,
also, he commends an arrangement in the kingdom of Christ, which is
necessary for our present infirmity. Thus Paul rightly infers that
God will then be the only Head of the Church, because the office of
Christ, in defending the Church, shall then have been completed. For
the same reason, Scripture throughout calls him Lord, the Father
having appointed him over us for the express purpose of exercising
his government through him. For though many lordships are celebrated
in the world, yet Paul says, "To us there is but one God, the
Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus
Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him," (1 Cor. 8: 6.)
Whence it is justly inferred that he is the same God, who, by the
mouth of Isaiah, declared, "The Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our
Lawgiver, the Lord is our King: he will save us," (Isaiah 33: 22.)
For though he every where describes all the power which he possesses
as the benefit and gift of the Father, the meaning simply is, that
he reigns by divine authority, because his reason for assuming the
office of Mediator was, that descending from the bosom and
incomprehensible glory of the Father, he might draw near to us.
Wherefore there is the greater reason that we all should with one
consent prepare to obey, and with the greatest alacrity yield
implicit obedience to his will. For as he unites the offices of King
and Pastor towards believers, who voluntarily submit to him, so, on
the other hand, we are told that he wields an iron sceptre to break
and bruise all the rebellious like a potter's vessel, (Ps. 2: 9.) We
are also told that he will be the Judge of the Gentiles, that he
will cover the earth with dead bodies, and level down every opposing
height, (Ps. 110: 6.) Of this examples are seen at present, but full
proof will be given at the final judgement, which may be properly
regarded as the last act of his reign.
    6. With regard to his Priesthood, we must briefly hold its end
and use to be, that as a Mediator, free from all taint, he may by
his own holiness procure the favour of God for us. But because a
deserved curse obstructs the entrance, and God in his character of
Judge is hostile to us, expiation must necessarily intervene, that
as a priest employed to appease the wrath of God, he may reinstate
us in his favour. Wherefore, in order that Christ might fulfil this
office, it behoved him to appear with a sacrifice. For even under
the law of the priesthood it was forbidden to enter the sanctuary
without blood, to teach the worshipper that however the priest might
interpose to deprecate, God could not be propitiated without the
expiation of sin. On this subject the Apostle discourses at length
in the Epistle to the Hebrews, from the seventh almost to the end of
the tenth chapter. The sum comes to this, that the honour of the
priesthood was competent to none but Christ, because, by the
sacrifice of his death, he wiped away our guilt, and made
satisfaction for sin. Of the great importance of this matter, we are
reminded by that solemn oath which God uttered, and of which he
declared he would not repent, "Thou art a priest for ever, after the
order of Melchizedek," (Ps. 110: 4.) For, doubtless, his purpose was
to ratify that point on which he knew that our salvation chiefly
hinged. For, as has been said, there is no access to God for us or
for our prayers until the priest, purging away our defilements,
sanctify us, and obtain for us that favour of which the impurity of
our lives and hearts deprives us. Thus we see, that if the benefit
and efficacy of Christ's priesthood is to reach us, the commencement
must be with his death. Whence it follows, that he by whose aid we
obtain favour, must be a perpetual intercessor. From this again
arises not only confidence in prayer, but also the tranquillity of
pious minds, while they recline in safety on the paternal indulgence
of God, and feel assured, that whatever has been consecrated by the
Mediator is pleasing to him. But since God under the Law ordered
sacrifices of beasts to be offered to him, there was a different and
new arrangement in regard to Christ, viz., that he should be at once
victim and priest, because no other fit satisfaction for sin could
be found, nor was any one worthy of the honour of offering an only
begotten son to God. Christ now bears the office of priest, not only
that by the eternal law of reconciliation he may render the Father
favourable and propitious to us, but also admit us into this most
honourable alliance. For we though in ourselves polluted, in him
being priests, (Rev. 1: 6,) offer ourselves and our all to God, and
freely enter the heavenly sanctuary, so that the sacrifices of
prayer and praise which we present are grateful and of sweet odour
before him. To this effect are the words of Christ, "For their sakes
I sanctify myself," (John 17: 19;) for being clothed with his
holiness, inasmuch as he has devoted us to the Father with himself,
(otherwise we were an abomination before him,) we please him as if
we were pure and clean, nay, even sacred. Hence that unction of the
sanctuary of which mention is made in Daniel, (Dan. 9: 24.) For we
must attend to the contrast between this unction and the shadowy one
which was then in use; as if the angel had said, that when the
shadows were dispersed, there would be a clear priesthood in the
person of Christ. The more detestable, therefore, is the fiction of
those who, not content with the priesthood of Christ, have dared to
take it upon themselves to sacrifice him, a thing daily attempted in
the Papacy, where the mass is represented as an immolation of
Christ.







Chapter 16.


16. How Christ performed the office of Redeemer in procuring our
salvation. The death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ.
    
    This chapter contains four leading heads - I. A general
consideration of the whole subject, including a discussion of a
necessary question concerning the justice of God and his mercy in
Christ, sec. 1-4. II. How Christ fulfilled the office of Redeemer in
each of its parts, sec. 5-17. His death, burial, descent to hell,
resurrection, ascension to heaven, seat at the right hand of the
Father, and return to judgement. III. A great part of the Creed
being here expounded, a statement is given of the view which ought
to be taken of the Creed commonly ascribed to the Apostles, sec. 18.
IV. Conclusion, setting forth the doctrine of Christ the Redeemer,
and the use of the doctrine, sec. 19.
    
Sections.
    
1. Every thing needful for us exists in Christ. How it is to be
    obtained.
2. Question as to the mode of reconciling the justice with the mercy
    of God. Modes of expression used in Scripture to teach us how
    miserable our condition is without Christ.
3. Not used improperly; for God finds in us ground both of hatred
    and love.
4. This confirmed from passages of Scripture and from Augustine.
5. The second part of the chapter, treating of our redemption by
    Christ. First generally. Redemption extends to the whole course
    of our Saviour's obedience, but is specially ascribed to his
    death. The voluntary subjection of Christ. His agony. His
    condemnation before Pilate. Two things observable in his
    condemnation. 1. That he was numbered among transgressors. 2.
    That he was declared innocent by the judge. Use to be made of
    this.
6. Why Christ was crucified. This hidden doctrine typified in the
    Law, and completed by the Apostles and Prophets. In what sense
    Christ was made a curse for us. The cross of Christ connected
    with the shedding of his blood.
7. Of the death of Christ. Why he died. Advantages from his death.
    Of the burial of Christ. Advantages.
8. Of the descent into hell. This article gradually introduced into
    the Church. Must not be rejected, nor confounded with the
    previous article respecting burial.
9. Absurd exposition concerning the Limbus Patrum. This fable
    refuted.
10. The article of the descent to hell more accurately expounded. A
    great ground of comfort.
11. Confirmation of this exposition from passages of Scripture and
    the works of ancient Theologians. An objection refuted.
    Advantages of the doctrine.
12. Another objection that Christ is insulted, and despair ascribed
    to him in its being said that he feared. Answer, from the
    statements of the Evangelists, that he did fear, was troubled
    in spirit, amazed, and tempted in all respects as we are, yet
    without sin. Why Christ was pleased to become weak. His fear
    without sin. Refutation of another objection, with an answer to
    the question, Did Christ fear death, and why? When did Christ
    descend to hell, and how? What has been said refutes the heresy
    of Apollinaris and of the Monothelites.
13. Of the resurrection of Christ. The many advantages from it. 1.
    Our righteousness in the sight of God renewed and restored. 2.
    His life the basis of our life and hope, also the efficacious
    cause of new life in us. 3. The pledge of our future
    resurrection.
14. Of the ascension of Christ. Why he ascended. Advantages derived
    from it.
15. Of Christ's seat at the Father's right hand. What meant by it.
16. Many advantages from the ascension of Christ. 1. He gives access
    to the kingdom which Adam had shut up. 2. He intercedes for us
    with the Father. 3. His virtue being thence transfused into us,
    he works effectually in us for salvation.
17. Of the return of Christ to judgement. Its nature. The quick and
    dead who are to be judged. Passages apparently contradictory
    reconciled. Mode of judgement.
18. Advantages of the doctrine of Christ's return to judgement.
    Third part of the chapter, explaining the view to be taken of
    the Apostles' Creed. Summary of the Apostles' Creed.
19. Conclusion of the whole chapter, showing that in Christ the
    salvation of the elect in all its parts is comprehended.

    1. All that we have hitherto said of Christ leads to this one
result, that condemned, dead, and lost in ourselves, we must in him
seek righteousness, deliverance, life and salvation, as we are
taught by the celebrated words of Peter, "Neither is there salvation
in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among
men whereby we must be saved," (Acts 4: 12.) The name of Jesus was
not given him at random, or fortuitously, or by the will of man, but
was brought from heaven by an angel, as the herald of the supreme
decree; the reason also being added, "for he shall save his people
from their sins," (Matt. 1: 21.) In these words attention should be
paid to what we have elsewhere observed, that the office of Redeemer
was assigned him in order that he might be our Saviour. Still,
however, redemption would be defective if it did not conduct us by
an uninterrupted progression to the final goal of safety. Therefore,
the moment we turn aside from him in the minutest degree, salvation,
which resides entirely in him, gradually disappears; so that all who
do not rest in him voluntarily deprive themselves of all grace. The
observation of Bernard well deserves to be remembered: The name of
Jesus is not only light but food also, yea, oil, without which all
the food of the soul is dry; salt, without which as a condiment
whatever is set before us is insipid; in fine, honey in the mouth,
melody in the ear, joy in the heart, and, at the same time,
medicine; every discourse where this name is not heard is absurd,
(Bernard in Cantica., Serm. 15.) But here it is necessary diligently
to consider in what way we obtain salvation from him, that we may
not only be persuaded that he is the author of it, but having
embraced whatever is sufficient as a sure foundation of our faith,
may eschew all that might make us waver. For seeing no man can
descend into himself, and seriously consider what he is, without
feeling that God is angry and at enmity with him, and therefore
anxiously longing for the means of regaining his favour, (this
cannot be without satisfaction,) the certainty here required is of
no ordinary description, - sinners, until freed from guilt, being
always liable to the wrath and curse of God, who, as he is a just
judge, cannot permit his law to be violated with impunity, but is
armed for vengeance.
    2. But before we proceed farther, we must see in passing, how
can it be said that God, who prevents us with his mercy, was our
enemy until he was reconciled to us by Christ. For how could he have
given us in his only-begotten Son a singular pledge of his love, if
he had not previously embraced us with free favour? As there thus
arises some appearance of contradiction, I will explain the
difficulty. The mode in which the Spirit usually speaks in Scripture
is, that God was the enemy of men until they were restored to favour
by the death of Christ, (Rom. 5: 10;) that they were cursed until
their iniquity was expiated by the sacrifice of Christ, (Gal. 3: 10,
13;) that they were separated from God, until by means of Christ's
body they were received into union, (Col. 1: 21, 22.) Such modes of
expression are accommodated to our capacity, that we may the better
understand how miserable and calamitous our condition is without
Christ. For were it not said in clear terms, that Divine wrath, and
vengeance, and eternal death, lay upon us, we should be less
sensible of our wretchedness without the mercy of God, and less
disposed to value the blessing of deliverance. For example, let a
person be told, Had God at the time you were a sinner hated you, and
cast you off as you deserved, horrible destruction must have been
your doom; but spontaneously and of free indulgence he retained you
in his favour, not suffering you to be estranged from him, and in
this way rescued you from danger, - the person will indeed be
affected, and made sensible in some degree how much he owes to the
mercy of God. But again, let him be told, as Scripture teaches, that
he was estranged from God by sin, an heir of wrath, exposed to the
curse of eternal death, excluded from all hope of salvation, a
complete alien from the blessing of God, the slave of Satan, captive
under the yoke of sin; in fine, doomed to horrible destruction, and
already involved in it; that then Christ interposed, took the
punishment upon himself and bore what by the just judgement of God
was impending over sinners; with his own blood expiated the sins
which rendered them hateful to God, by this expiation satisfied and
duly propitiated God the Father, by this intercession appeased his
anger, on this basis founded peace between God and men, and by this
tie secured the Divine benevolence toward them; will not these
considerations move him the more deeply, the more strikingly they
represent the greatness of the calamity from which he was delivered?
In short, since our mind cannot lay hold of life through the mercy
of God with sufficient eagerness, or receive it with becoming
gratitude, unless previously impressed with fear of the Divine
anger, and dismayed at the thought of eternal death, we are so
instructed by divine truth, as to perceive that without Christ God
is in a manner hostile to us, and has his arm raised for our
destruction. Thus taught, we look to Christ alone for divine favour
and paternal love.
    3. Though this is said in accommodation to the weakness of our
capacity, it is not said falsely. For God, who is perfect
righteousness, cannot love the iniquity which he sees in all. All of
us, therefore, have that within which deserves the hatred of God.
Hence, in respect, first, of our corrupt nature; and, secondly, of
the depraved conduct following upon it, we are all offensive to God,
guilty in his sight, and by nature the children of hell. But as the
Lord wills not to destroy in us that which is his own, he still
finds something in us which in kindness he can love. For though it
is by our own fault that we are sinners, we are still his creatures;
though we have brought death upon ourselves he had created us for
life. Thus, mere gratuitous love prompts him to receive us into
favour. But if there is a perpetual and irreconcilable repugnance
between righteousness and iniquity, so long as we remain sinners we
cannot be completely received. Therefore, in order that all ground
of offence may be removed, and he may completely reconcile us to
himself, he, by means of the expiation set forth in the death of
Christ, abolishes all the evil that is in us, so that we, formerly
impure and unclean, now appear in his sight just and holy.
Accordingly, God the Father, by his love, prevents and anticipates
our reconciliation in Christ. Nay, it is because he first loves us,
that he afterwards reconciles us to himself. But because the
iniquity, which deserves the indignation of God, remains in us until
the death of Christ comes to our aid, and that iniquity is in his
sight accursed and condemned, we are not admitted to full and sure
communion with God, unless, in so far as Christ unites us. And,
therefore, if we would indulge the hope of having God placable and
propitious to us, we must fix our eyes and minds on Christ alone, as
it is to him alone it is owing that our sins, which necessarily
provoked the wrath of God, are not imputed to us.
    4. For this reason Paul says, that God "has blessed us with all
spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: according as he
has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world," (Eph. 1:
3, 4.) These things are clear and conformable to Scripture, and
admirably reconcile the passages in which it is said, that "God so
loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son," (John 3: 16;)
and yet that it was "when we were enemies we were reconciled to God
by the death of his Son," (Rom. 5: 10.) But to give additional
assurance to those who require the authority of the ancient Church,
I will quote a passage of Augustine to the same effect:
"Incomprehensible and immutable is the love of God. For it was not
after we were reconciled to him by the blood of his Son that he
began to love us, but he loved us before the foundation of the
world, that with his only begotten Son we too might be sons of God
before we were any thing at all. Our being reconciled by the death
of Christ must not be understood as if the Son reconciled us, in
order that the Father, then hating, might begin to love us, but that
we were reconciled to him already, loving, though at enmity with us
because of sin. To the truth of both propositions we have the
attestation of the Apostle, 'God commendeth his love toward us, in
that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us,' (Rom. 5: 8.)
Therefore he had this love towards us even when, exercising enmity
towards him, we were the workers of iniquity. Accordingly in a
manner wondrous and divine, he loved even when he hated us. For he
hated us when we were such as he had not made us, and yet because
our iniquity had not destroyed his work in every respect, he knew in
regard to each one of us, both to hate what we had made, and love
what he had made." Such are the words of Augustine, (Tract in Jo.
110.)
    5. When it is asked then how Christ, by abolishing sin, removed
the enmity between God and us, and purchased a righteousness which
made him favourable and kind to us, it may be answered generally,
that he accomplished this by the whole course of his obedience. This
id proved by the testimony of Paul, "As by one man's disobedience
many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be
made righteous," (Rom. 5: 19.) And indeed he elsewhere extends the
ground of pardon which exempts from the curse of the law to the
whole life of Christ, "When the fulness of the time was come, God
sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem
them that were under the law," (Gal. 4: 4, 5.) Thus even at his
baptism he declared that a part of righteousness was fulfilled by
his yielding obedience to the command of the Father. In short, from
the moment when he assumed the form of a servant, he began, in order
to redeem us, to pay the price of deliverance. Scripture, however,
the more certainly to define the mode of salvation, ascribes it
peculiarly and specially to the death of Christ. He himself declares
that he gave his life a ransom for many, (Matth. 20: 28.) Paul
teaches that he died for our sins (Rom. 4: 25.) John Baptist
exclaimed, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the
world," (John 1: 29.) Paul in another passage declares, "that we are
justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in
Christ Jesus: whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through
faith in his blood," (Rom. 3: 25.) Again, being justified by his
blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" (Rom. 5: 9.) Again
"He has made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be
made the righteousness of God in him," (2 Cor. 5: 21.) I will not
search out all the passages, for the list would be endless, and many
are afterwards to be quoted in their order. In the Confession of
Faith, called the Apostles' Creed, the transition is admirably made
from the birth of Christ to his death and resurrection, in which the
completion of a perfect salvation consists. Still there is no
exclusion of the other part of obedience which he performed in life.
Thus Paul comprehends, from the beginning even to the end, his
having assumed the form of a servant, humbled himself, and become
obedient to death, even the death of the cross, (Phil. 2: 7.) And,
indeed, the first step in obedience was his voluntary subjection;
for the sacrifice would have been unavailing to justification if not
offered spontaneously. Hence our Lord, after testifying, "I lay down
my life for the sheep," distinctly adds, "No man taketh it from me,"
(John 10: 15, 18.) In the same sense Isaiah says, " Like a sheep
before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth," (Is. 53:
7.) The Gospel History relates that he came forth to meet the
soldiers; and in presence of Pilate, instead of defending himself,
stood to receive judgement. This, indeed, he did not without a
struggle, for he had assumed our infirmities also, and in this way
it behoved him to prove that he was yielding obedience to his
Father. It was no ordinary example of incomparable love towards us
to struggle with dire terrors, and amid fearful tortures to cast
away all care of himself that he might provide for us. We must bear
in minds that Christ could not duly propitiate God without
renouncing his own feelings and subjecting himself entirely to his
Father's will. To this effect the Apostle appositely quotes a
passage from the Psalms, "Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it
is written of me) to do thy will, O God," (Heb. 10: 5; Ps. 40: 7,
8.) Thus, as trembling consciences find no rest without sacrifice
and ablution by which sins are expiated, we are properly directed
thither, the source of our life being placed in the death of Christ.
Moreover, as the curse consequent upon guilt remained for the final
judgement of God, one principal point in the narrative is his
condemnation before Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea, to teach
us, that the punishment to which we were liable was inflicted on
that Just One. We could not escape the fearful judgement of God; and
Christ, that he might rescue us from it, submitted to be condemned
by a mortal, nay, by a wicked and profane man. For the name of
Governor is mentioned not only to support the credibility of the
narrative, but to remind us of what Isaiah says, that "the
chastisement of our peace was upon him;" and that "with his stripes
we are healed," (Is. 53: 5.) For, in order to remove our
condemnation, it was not sufficient to endure any kind of death. To
satisfy our ransom, it was necessary to select a mode of death in
which he might deliver us, both by giving himself up to
condemnations and undertaking our expiation. Had he been cut off by
assassins, or slain in a seditious tumult, there could have been no
kind of satisfaction in such a death. But when he is placed as a
criminal at the bar, where witnesses are brought to give evidence
against him, and the mouth of the judge condemns him to die, we see
him sustaining the character of an offender and evil-doer. Here we
must attend to two points which had both been foretold by the
prophets, and tend admirably to comfort and confirm our faith. When
we read that Christ was led away from the judgement-seat to
execution, and was crucified between thieves, we have a fulfilment
of the prophecy which is quoted by the Evangelist, "He was numbered
with the transgressors," (Is. 53: 12; Mark 15: 28.) Why was it so?
That he might bear the character of a sinner, not of a just or
innocent person, inasmuch as he met death on account not of
innocence, but of sin. On the other hand, when we read that he was
acquitted by the same lips that condemned him, (for Pilate was
forced once and again to bear public testimony to his innocence,)
let us call to mind what is said by another prophet, "I restored
that which I took not away," (Ps. 69: 4.) Thus we perceive Christ
representing the character of a sinner and a criminal, while, at the
same time, his innocence shines forth, and it becomes manifest that
he suffers for another's and not for his own crime. He therefore
suffered under Pontius Pilate, being thus, by the formal sentence of
the judge, ranked among criminals, and yet he is declared innocent
by the same judge, when he affirms that he finds no cause of death
in him. Our acquittal is in this that the guilt which made us liable
to punishment was transferred to the head of the Son of God, (Is.
53: 12.) We must specially remember this substitution in order that
we may not be all our lives in trepidation and anxiety, as if the
just vengeance which the Son of God transferred to himself, were
still impending over us.
    6. The very form of the death embodies a striking truth. The
cross was cursed not only in the opinion of men, but by the
enactment of the Divine Law. Hence Christ, while suspended on it,
subjects himself to the curse. And thus it behoved to be done, in
order that the whole curse, which on account of our iniquities
awaited us, or rather lay upon us, might be taken from us by being
transferred to him. This was also shadowed in the Law, since
"'ashamot", the word by which sin itself is properly designated, was
applied to the sacrifices and expiations offered for sin. By this
application of the term, the Spirit intended to intimate, that they
were a kind of "katarmaton", (purifications,) bearing, by
substitutions the curse due to sin. But that which was represented
figuratively in the Mosaic sacrifices is exhibited in Christ the
archetype. Wherefore, in order to accomplish a full expiation, he
made his soul to "'asham", i. e., a propitiatory victim for sin, (as
the prophet says, Is. 53: 5, 10,) on which the guilt and penalty
being in a manner laid, ceases to be imputed to us. The Apostle
declares this more plainly when he says, that "he made him to be sin
for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of
God in him," (2 Cor. 5: 21.) For the Son of God, though spotlessly
pure, took upon him the disgrace and ignominy of our iniquities, and
in return clothed us with his purity. To the same thing he seems to
refer, when he says, that he "condemned sin in the flesh," (Rom. 8:
3,) the Father having destroyed the power of sin when it was
transferred to the flesh of Christ. This term, therefore, indicates
that Christ, in his death, was offered to the Father as a
propitiatory victim; that, expiation being made by his sacrifice, we
might cease to tremble at the divine wrath. It is now clear what the
prophet means when he says, that "the Lord has laid upon him the
iniquity of us all," (Is. 53: 6;) namely, that as he was to wash
away the pollution of sins, they were transferred to him by
imputation. Of this the cross to which he was nailed was a symbol,
as the Apostle declares, "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of
the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is
every one that hangeth on a tree: that the blessing of Abraham might
come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ," (Gal. 3: 13, 14.) In the
same way Peter says, that he "bare our sins in his own body on the
tree," (1 Peter 2: 24,) inasmuch as from the very symbol of the
curse, we perceive more clearly that the burden with which we were
oppressed was laid upon him. Nor are we to understand that by the
curse which he endured he was himself overwhelmed, but rather that
by enduring it he repressed broke, annihilated all its force.
Accordingly, faith apprehends acquittal in the condemnation of
Christ, and blessing in his curse. Hence it is not without cause
that Paul magnificently celebrates the triumph which Christ obtained
upon the cross, as if the cross, the symbol of ignominy, had been
converted into a triumphal chariot. For he says, that he blotted out
the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was
contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross:
that "having spoiled principalities and powers he made a show of
them openly, triumphing over them in it," (Col. 2: 14, 15.) Nor is
this to be wondered at; for, as another Apostle declares, Christ,
"through the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God,"
(Heb. 9: 14,) and hence that transformation of the cross which were
otherwise against its nature. But that these things may take deep
root and have their seat in our inmost hearts, we must never lose
sight of sacrifice and ablution. For, were not Christ a victim, we
could have no sure conviction of his being "apolutrosis, antilutron,
kai hilasterion", our substitute-ransom and propitiation. And hence
mention is always made of blood whenever scripture explains the mode
of redemption: although the shedding of Christ's blood was available
not only for propitiation, but also acted as a laver to purge our
defilements.
    7. The Creed next mentions that he "was dead and buried". Here
again it is necessary to consider how he substituted himself in
order to pay the price of our redemption. Death held us under its
yoke, but he in our place delivered himself into its power, that he
might exempt us from it. This the Apostle means when he says, "that
he tasted death for every man," (Heb. 2: 9.) By dying he prevented
us from dying; or (which is the same thing) he by his death
purchased life for us, (see Calvin in Psychopann.) But in this he
differed from us, that in permitting himself to be overcome of
death, it was not so as to be engulfed in its abyss but rather to
annihilate it, as it must otherwise have annihilated us; he did not
allow himself to be so subdued by it as to be crushed by its power;
he rather laid it prostrate, when it was impending over us, and
exulting over us as already overcome. In fine, his object was, "that
through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that
is, the devil, and deliver them who through fear of death were all
their lifetime subject to bondage," (Heb. 2: 14, 15.) This is the
first fruit which his death produced to us. Another is, that by
fellowship with him he mortifies our earthly members that they may
not afterwards exert themselves in action, and kill the old man,
that he may not hereafter be in vigour and bring forth fruit. An
effect of his burials moreover is that we as his fellows are buried
to sin. For when the Apostle says, that we are ingrafted into the
likeness of Christ's deaths and that we are buried with him unto
sin, that by his cross the world is crucified unto us and we unto
the world, and that we are dead with him, he not only exhorts us to
manifest an example of his death, but declares that there is an
efficacy in it which should appear in all Christians, if they would
not render his death unfruitful and useless. Accordingly in the
death and burial of Christ a twofold blessing is set before us,
viz., deliverance from death, to which we were enslaved, and the
mortification of our flesh, (Rom. 6: 5; Gal. 2: 19, 6: 14; Col. 3:
3.)
    8. Here we must not omit the descent to hell, which was of no
little importance to the accomplishment of redemption. For although
it is apparent from the writings of the ancient Fathers, that the
clause which now stands in the Creed was not formerly so much used
in the churches, still, in giving a summary of doctrine, a place
must be assigned to it, as containing a matter of great importance
which ought not by any means to be disregarded. Indeed, some of the
ancient Fathers do not omit it, and hence we may conjecture, that
having been inserted in the Creed after a considerable lapse of
time, it came into use in the Church not immediately but by degrees.
This much is uncontroverted, that it was in accordance with the
general sentiment of all believers, since there is none of the
Fathers who does not mention Christ's descent into hell, though they
have various modes of explaining it. But it is of little consequence
by whom and at what time it was introduced. The chief thing to be
attended to in the Creed is, that it furnishes us with a full and
every way complete summary of faith, containing nothing but what has
been derived from the infallible word of God. But should any still
scruple to give it admission into the Creed, it will shortly be made
plain, that the place which it holds in a summary of our redemption
is so important, that the omission of it greatly detracts from the
benefit of Christ's death. There are some again who think that the
article contains nothing new, but is merely a repetition in
different words of what was previously said respecting burial, the
word Hell (Infernis) being often used in Scripture for sepulchre. I
admit the truth of what they allege with regard to the not
infrequent use of the term infernos for sepulchre; but I cannot
adopt their opinion, for two obvious reasons. First, What folly
would it have been, after explaining a matter attended with no
difficulty in clear and unambiguous terms, afterwards to involve
rather than illustrate it by clothing it in obscure phraseology?
When two expressions having the same meaning are placed together,
the latter ought to be explanatory of the former. But what kind of
explanation would it be to say, the expression, "Christ was buried",
means, that "he descended into hell"? My second reason is the
improbability that a superfluous tautology of this description
should have crept into this compendium, in which the principal
articles of faith are set down summarily in the fewest possible
number of words. I have no doubt that all who weigh the matter with
some degree of care will here agree with me.
    9. Others interpret differently, viz., That Christ descended to
the souls of the Patriarchs who died under the law, to announce his
accomplished redemption, and bring them out of the prison in which
they were confined. To this effect they wrest the passage in the
Psalms "He has broken the gates of brass, and cut the bars of iron
in sunder." (Ps. 107: 16;) and also the passage in Zechariah, "I
have sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water,"
(Zech. 9: 11.) But since the psalm foretells the deliverance of
those who were held captive in distant lands, and Zechariah
comparing the Babylonish disaster into which the people had been
plunged to a deep dry well or abyss, at the same time declares, that
the salvation of the whole Church was an escape from a profound pit,
I know not how it comes to pass, that posterity imagined it to be a
subterraneous cavern, to which they gave the name of Limbus. Though
this fable has the countenance of great authors, and is now also
seriously defended by many as truth, it is nothing but a fable. To
conclude from it that the souls of the dead are in prison is
childish. And what occasion was there that the soul of Christ should
go down thither to set them at liberty? I readily admit that Christ
illumined them by the power of his Spirit, enabling them to perceive
that the grace of which they had only had a foretaste was then
manifested to the world. And to this not improbably the passage of
Peter may be applied, wherein he says, that Christ "went and
preached to the spirits that were in prison," (or rather "a
watch-tower,") (I Pet. 3: 19.) The purport of the context is, that
believers who had died before that time were partakers of the same
grace with ourselves: for he celebrates the power of Christ's death,
in that he penetrated even to the dead, pious souls obtaining an
immediate view of that visitation for which they had anxiously
waited; while, on the other hand, the reprobate were more clearly
convinced that they were completely excluded from salvation.
Although the passage in Peter is not perfectly definite, we must not
interpret as if he made no distinction between the righteous and the
wicked: he only means to intimate, that the death of Christ was made
known to both.
    10. But, apart from the Creed, we must seek for a surer
exposition of Christ's descent to hell: and the word of God
furnishes us with one not only pious and holy, but replete with
excellent consolation. Nothing had been done if Christ had only
endured corporeal death. In order to interpose between us and God's
anger, and satisfy his righteous judgement, it was necessary that he
should feel the weight of divine vengeance. Whence also it was
necessary that he should engage, as it were, at close quarters with
the powers of hell and the horrors of eternal death. We lately
quoted from the Prophet, that the "chastisement of our peace was
laid upon him" that he "was bruised for our iniquities" that he
"bore our infirmities;" expressions which intimate, that, like a
sponsor and surety for the guilty, and, as it were, subjected to
condemnation, he undertook and paid all the penalties which must
have been exacted from them, the only exception being, that the
pains of death could not hold him. Hence there is nothing strange in
its being said that he descended to hell, seeing he endured the
death which is inflicted on the wicked by an angry God. It is
frivolous and ridiculous to object that in this way the order is
perverted, it being absurd that an event which preceded burial
should be placed after it. But after explaining what Christ endured
in the sight of man, the Creed appropriately adds the invisible and
incomprehensible judgement which he endured before God, to teach us
that not only was the body of Christ given up as the price of
redemption, but that there was a greater and more excellent price -
that he bore in his soul the tortures of condemned and ruined man.
    11. In this sense, Peter says that God raised up Christ,
"having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible he
should be holden of it," (Acts 2: 24.) He does not mention death
simply, but says that the Son of God endured the pains produced by
the curse and wrath of God, the source of death. How small a matter
had it been to come forth securely, and as it were in sport to
undergo death. Herein was a true proof of boundless mercy, that he
shunned not the death he so greatly dreaded. And there can be no
doubt that, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apostle means to
teach the same thing, when he says that he "was heard in that he
feared," (Heb. 5: 7.) Some instead of "feared," use a term meaning
reverence or piety, but how inappropriately, is apparent both from
the nature of the thing and the form of expression. Christ then
praying in a loud voice, and with tears, is heard in that he feared,
not so as to be exempted from death, but so as not to be swallowed
up of it like a sinner, though standing as our representative. And
certainly no abyss can be imagined more dreadful than to feel that
you are abandoned and forsaken of God, and not heard when you invoke
him, just as if he had conspired your destruction. To such a degree
was Christ dejected, that in the depth of his agony he was forced to
exclaim, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" The view taken
by some, that he here expressed the opinion of others rather than
his own conviction, is most improbable; for it is evident that the
expression was wrung from the anguish of his inmost soul. We do not,
however, insinuate that God was ever hostile to him or angry with
him. How could he be angry with the beloved Son, with whom his soul
was well pleased? or how could he have appeased the Father by his
intercession for others if He were hostile to himself? But this we
say, that he bore the weight of the divine anger, that, smitten and
afflicted, he experienced all the signs of an angry and avenging
God. Hence Hilary argues, that to this descent we owe our exemption
from death. Nor does he dissent from this view in other passages, as
when he says, "The cross, death, hell, are our life." And again,
"The Son of God is in hell, but man is brought back to heaven." And
why do I quote the testimony of a private writer, when an Apostle
asserts the same thing, stating it as one fruit of his victory that
he delivered "them who through fear of death were all their lifetime
subject to bondage?" (Heb. 2: 15.) He behoved therefore, to conquer
the fear which incessantly vexes and agitates the breasts of all
mortals; and this he could not do without a contest. Moreover it
will shortly appear with greater clearness that his was no common
sorrow, was not the result of a trivial cause. Thus by engaging with
the power of the devil, the fear of death, and the pains of hell, he
gained the victory, and achieved a triumph, so that we now fear not
in death those things which our Prince has destroyed.
    12. Here some miserable creatures, who, though unlearned, are
however impelled more by malice than ignorance, cry out that I am
offering an atrocious insult to Christ, because it were most
incongruous to hold that he feared for the safety of his soul. And
then in harsher terms they urge the calumnious charge that I
attribute despair to the Son of God, a feeling the very opposite of
faith. First, they wickedly raise a controversy as to the fear and
dread which Christ felt, though these are openly affirmed by the
Evangelists. For before the hour of his death arrived, he was
troubled in spirit, and affected with grief; and at the very onset
began to be exceedingly amazed. To speak of these feelings as merely
assumed, is a shameful evasion. It becomes us, therefore, (as
Ambrose truly teaches,) boldly to profess the agony of Christ, if we
are not ashamed of the cross. And certainly had not his soul shared
in the punishment, he would have been a Redeemer of bodies only. The
object of his struggle was to raise up those who were lying
prostrate; and so far is this from detracting from his heavenly
glory, that his goodness, which can never be sufficiently extolled,
becomes more conspicuous in this, that he declined not to bear our
infirmities. Hence also that solace to our anxieties and griefs
which the Apostle sets before us: "We have not an high priest who
cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in
all respects tempted like as we are, yet without sin," (Heb. 4: 15.)
These men pretend that a thing in its nature vicious is improperly
ascribed to Christ; as if they were wiser than the Spirit of God,
who in the same passage reconciles the two things, viz., that he was
tempted in all respects like as we are, and yet was without sin.
There is no reason, therefore, to take alarm at infirmity in Christ,
infirmity to which he submitted not under the constraint of violence
and necessity, but merely because he loved and pitied us. Whatever
he spontaneously suffered, detracts in no degree from his majesty.
One thing which misleads these detractors is, that they do not
recognise in Christ an infirmity which was pure and free from every
species of taint, inasmuch as it was kept within the limits of
obedience. As no moderation can be seen in the depravity of our
nature, in which all affections with turbulent impetuosity exceed
their due bounds, they improperly apply the same standard to the Son
of God. But as he was upright, all his affections were under such
restraint as prevented every thing like excess. Hence he could
resemble us in grief, fear, and dread, but still with this mark of
distinction. Thus refuted, they fly off to another cavil, that
although Christ feared death, yet he feared not the curse and wrath
of God, from which he knew that he was safe. But let the pious
reader consider how far it is honourable to Christ to make him more
effeminate and timid than the generality of men. Robbers and other
malefactors contumaciously hasten to death, many men magnanimously
despise it, others meet it calmly. If the Son of God was amazed and
terror-struck at the prospect of it, where was his firmness or
magnanimity? We are even told, what in a common death would have
been deemed most extraordinary, that in the depth of his agony his
sweat was like great drops of blood falling to the ground. Nor was
this a spectacle exhibited to the eyes of others, since it was from
a secluded spot that he uttered his groans to his Father. And that
no doubt may remain, it was necessary that angels should come down
from heaven to strengthen him with miraculous consolation. How
shamefully effeminate would it have been (as I have observed) to be
so excruciated by the fear of an ordinary death as to sweat drops of
blood, and not even be revived by the presence of angels? What? Does
not that prayer, thrice repeated, "Father, if it be possible, let
this cup pass from me," (Matth. 26: 39,) a prayer dictated by
incredible bitterness of soul, show that Christ had a fiercer and
more arduous struggle than with ordinary death?
    Hence it appears that these triflers, with whom I am disputing,
presume to talk of what they know not, never having seriously
considered what is meant and implied by ransoming us from the
justice of God. It is of consequence to understand aright how much
our salvation cost the Son of God. If any one now ask, Did Christ
descend to hell at the time when he deprecated death? I answer, that
this was the commencement, and that from it we may infer how dire
and dreadful were the tortures which he endured when he felt himself
standing at the bar of God as a criminal in our stead. And although
the divine power of the Spirit veiled itself for a moment, that it
might give place to the infirmity of the flesh, we must understand
that the trial arising from feelings of grief and fear was such as
not to be at variance with faith. And in this was fulfilled what is
said in Peter's sermon as to having been loosed from the pains of
death, because "it was not possible he could be holden of it," (Acts
2: 24.) Though feeling, as it were, forsaken of God, he did not
cease in the slightest degree to confide in his goodness. This
appears from the celebrated prayer in which, in the depth of his
agony, he exclaimed, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
(Matth. 27: 46.) Amid all his agony he ceases not to call upon his
God, while exclaiming that he is forsaken by him. This refutes the
Apollinarian heresy as well as that of those who are called
Monothelites. Apollinaris pretended, that in Christ the eternal
Spirit supplied the place of a soul, so that he was only half a man;
as if he could have expiated our sins in any other way than by
obeying the Father. But where does the feeling or desire of
obedience reside but in the soul? And we know that his soul was
troubled in order that ours, being free from trepidation, might
obtain peace and quiet. Moreover, in opposition to the Monothelites,
we see that in his human he felt a repugnance to what he willed in
his divine nature. I say nothing of his subduing the fear of which
we have spoken by a contrary affection. This appearance of
repugnance is obvious in the words, "Father, save me from this hour:
but for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name,"
(John 12: 27, 28.) Still, in this perplexity, there was no violent
emotion, such as we exhibit while making the strongest endeavours to
subdue our own feelings.
    13. Next follows the resurrection from the dead, without which
all that has hitherto been said would be defective. For seeing that
in the cross, death, and burial of Christ, nothing but weakness
appears, faith must go beyond all these, in order that it may be
provided with full strength. Hence, although in his death we have an
effectual completion of salvation, because by it we are reconciled
to God, satisfaction is given to his justice, the curse is removed,
and the penalty paid; still it is not by his death, but by his
resurrection, that we are said to be begotten again to a living
hope, (1 Pet. 1: 3;) because, as he, by rising again, became
victorious over death, so the victory of our faith consists only in
his resurrection. The nature of it is better expressed in the words
of Paul, "Who (Christ) was delivered for our offences, and was
raised again for our justification," (Rom. 4: 25;) as if he had
said, By his death sin was taken away, by his resurrection
righteousness was renewed and restored. For how could he by dying
have freed us from death, if he had yielded to its power? how could
he have obtained the victory for us, if he had fallen in the
contest?
    Our salvation may be thus divided between the death and the
resurrection of Christ: by the former sin was abolished and death
annihilated; by the latter righteousness was restored and life
revived, the power and efficacy of the former being still bestowed
upon us by means of the latter. Paul accordingly affirms, that he
was declared to be the Son of God by his resurrection, (Rom. 1: 4,)
because he then fully displayed that heavenly power which is both a
bright mirror of his divinity, and a sure support of our faith; as
he also elsewhere teaches, that "though he was crucified through
weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God," (2 Cor. 13: 4.) In the
same sense, in another passage, treating of perfection, he says,
"That I may know him and the power of his resurrection," (Phil. 3:
10.) Immediately after he adds, "being made conformable unto his
death." In perfect accordance with this is the passage in Peter,
that God "raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory, that your
faith and hope might be in God," ( 1 Pet. 1: 21.) Not that faith
founded merely on his death is vacillating, but that the divine
power by which he maintains our faith is most conspicuous in his
resurrection. Let us remember, therefore, that when death only is
mentioned, everything peculiar to the resurrection is at the same
time included, and that there is a like synecdoche in the term
resurrection, as often as it is used apart from death, everything
peculiar to death being included. But as, by rising again, he
obtained the victory, and became the resurrection and the life, Paul
justly argues, "If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are
yet in your sins," (1 Cor. 15: 17.) Accordingly, in another passage,
after exulting in the death of Christ in opposition to the terrors
of condemnation, he thus enlarges, "Christ that died, yea rather,
that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also
maketh intercession for us," (Rom. 8: 34.) Then, as we have already
explained that the mortification of our flesh depends on communion
with the cross, so we must also understand, that a corresponding
benefit is derived from his resurrection. For as the Apostle says,
"Like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the
Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life," (Rom. 6:
4.) Accordingly, as in another passage, from our being dead with
Christ, he inculcates, "Mortify therefore your members which are
upon the earth," (Col. 3: 5;) so from our being risen with Christ he
infers, "seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth at
the right hand of God," (Col. 3: 1.) In these words we are not only
urged by the example of a risen Saviour to follow newness of life,
but are taught that by his power we are renewed unto righteousness.
A third benefit derived from it is, that, like an earnest, it
assures us of our own resurrection, of which it is certain that his
is the surest representation. This subject is discussed at length,
(1 Cor. 15.) But it is to be observed, in passing, that when he is
said to have "risen from the dead," these terms express the reality
both of his death and resurrection, as if it had been said, that he
died the same death as other men naturally die, and received
immortality in the same mortal flesh which he had assumed.
    14. The resurrection is naturally followed by the ascension
into heaven. For although Christ, by rising again, began fully to
display his glory and virtue, having laid aside the abject and
ignoble condition of a mortal life, and the ignominy of the cross,
yet it was only by his ascension to heaven that his reign truly
commenced. This the Apostle shows, when he says he ascended "that he
might fill all things," (Eph. 4: 10;) thus reminding us, that under
the appearance of contradiction, there is a beautiful harmony,
inasmuch as though he departed from us, it was that his departure
might be more useful to us than that presence which was confined in
a humble tabernacle of flesh during his abode on the earth. Hence
John, after repeating the celebrated invitation, "If any man thirst,
let him come unto me and drink," immediately adds, "the Holy Ghost
was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified," (John
7: 37, 39.) This our Lord himself also declared to his disciples,
"It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away the
Comforter will not come unto you," (John 16: 7.) To console them for
his bodily absence, he tells them that he will not leave them
comfortless, but will come again to them in a manner invisible
indeed, but more to be desired, because they were then taught by a
surer experience that the government which he had obtained, and the
power which he exercises would enable his faithful followers not
only to live well, but also to die happily. And, indeed we see how
much more abundantly his Spirit was poured out, how much more
gloriously his kingdom was advanced, how much greater power was
employed in aiding his followers and discomfiting his enemies. Being
raised to heaven, he withdrew his bodily presence from our sight,
not that he might cease to be with his followers, who are still
pilgrims on the earth, but that he might rule both heaven and earth
more immediately by his power; or rather, the promise which he made
to be with us even to the end of the world, he fulfilled by this
ascension, by which, as his body has been raised above all heavens,
so his power and efficacy have been propagated and diffused beyond
all the bounds of heaven and earth. This I prefer to explain in the
words of Augustine rather than my own: "Through death Christ was to
go to the right hand of the Father, whence he is to come to judge
the quick and the dead, and that in corporal presence, according to
the sound doctrine and rule of faith. For, in spiritual presence, he
was to be with them after his ascension," (August. Tract. in Joann.
109.) In another passage he is more full and explicit: "In regard to
ineffable and invisible grace, is fulfilled what he said, Lo, I am
with you alway, even to the end of the world, (Matth. 28: 20;) but
in regard to the flesh which the Word assumed in regard to his being
born of a Virgin, in regard to his being apprehended by the Jews,
nailed to the tree, taken down from the cross, wrapt in linen
clothes, laid in the sepulchre, and manifested on his resurrection,
it may be said, Me ye have not always with you. Why? because, in
bodily presence, he conversed with his disciples forty days, and
leading them out where they saw, but followed not, he ascended into
heaven, and is not here: for there he sits at the right hand of the
Father: and yet he is here, for the presence of his Godhead was not
withdrawn. Therefore, as regards his divine presence, we have Christ
always: as regards his bodily presence, it was truly said to the
disciples, Me ye have not always. For a few days the Church had him
bodily present. Now, she apprehends him by faith, but sees him not
by the eye," (August. Tract. 51.)
    15. Hence it is immediately added, that he "sitteth at the
right hand of God the Father;" a similitude borrowed from princes,
who have their assessors to whom they commit the office of ruling
and issuing commands. Thus Christ, in whom the Father is pleased to
be exalted, and by whose hand he is pleased to reign, is said to
have been received up, and seated on his right hand, (Mark 16: 19;)
as if it had been said, that he was installed in the government of
heaven and earth, and formally admitted to possession of the
administration committed to him, and not only admitted for once, but
to continue until he descend to judgement. For so the Apostle
interprets, when he says, that the Father "set him at his own right
hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power,
and might, and dominion, and every name that is named not only in
this world, but also in that which is to come; and has put all
things under his feet, and given him to be the head over all things
to the Church." You see to what end he is so seated namely, that all
creatures both in heaven and earth should reverence his majesty, be
ruled by his hand, do him implicit homage, and submit to his power.
All that the Apostles intends when they so often mention his seat at
the Father's hand, is to teach, that every thing is placed at his
disposal. Those, therefore, are in error, who suppose that his
blessedness merely is indicated. We may observe, that there is
nothing contrary to this doctrine in the testimony of Stephen, that
he saw him standing, (Acts 7: 56,) the subject here considered being
not the position of his body, but the majesty of his empire, sitting
meaning nothing more than presiding on the judgement-seat of heaven.
    16. From this doctrine faith derives manifold advantages.
First, it perceives that the Lord, by his ascension to heaven, has
opened up the access to the heavenly kingdom, which Adam had shut.
For having entered it in our flesh, as it were in our name, it
follows, as the Apostle says, that we are in a manner now seated in
heavenly places, not entertaining a mere hope of heaven, but
possessing it in our head. Secondly, faith perceives that his seat
beside the Father is not without great advantage to us. Having
entered the temple not made with hands, he constantly appears as our
advocate and intercessor in the presence of the Father; directs
attention to his own righteousness, so as to turn it away from our
sins; so reconciles him to us, as by his intercession to pave for us
a way of access to his throne, presenting it to miserable sinners,
to whom it would otherwise be an object of dread, as replete with
grace and mercy. Thirdly, it discerns his power, on which depend our
strength, might, resources, and triumph over hell, "When he ascended
up on high, he led captivity captive," (Eph. 4: 8.) Spoiling his
foes, he gave gifts to his people, and daily loads them with
spiritual riches. He thus occupies his exalted seat, that thence
transferring his virtue unto us, he may quicken us to spiritual
life, sanctify us by his Spirit, and adorn his Church with various
graces, by his protection preserve it safe from all harm, and by the
strength of his hand curb the enemies raging against his cross and
our salvation; in fine, that he may possess all power in heaven and
earth, until he have utterly routed all his foes, who are also ours
and completed the structure of his Church. Such is the true nature
of the kingdom, such the power which the Father has conferred upon
him, until he arrive to complete the last act by judging the quick
and the dead.
    17. Christ, indeed, gives his followers no dubious proofs of
present power, but as his kingdom in the world is in a manner veiled
by the humiliation of a carnal condition, faith is most properly
invited to meditate on the visible presence which he will exhibit on
the last day. For he will descend from heaven in visible form, in
like manner as he was seen to ascend, and appear to all, with the
ineffable majesty of his kingdom, the splendour of immortality, the
boundless power of divinity, and an attending company of angels.
Hence we are told to wait for the Redeemer against that day on which
he will separate the sheep from the goats and the elect from the
reprobate, and when not one individual either of the living or the
dead shall escape his judgement. From the extremities of the
universe shall be heard the clang of the trumpet summoning all to
his tribunal; both those whom that day shall find alive, and those
whom death shall previously have removed from the society of the
living. There are some who take the words, quick and dead, in a
different sense; and, indeed, some ancient writers appear to have
hesitated as to the exposition of them; but our meaning being plain
and clear, is much more accordant with the Creed which was certainly
written for popular use. There is nothing contrary to it in the
Apostle's declaration, that it is appointed unto all men once to
die. For though those who are surviving at the last day shall not
die after a natural manner, yet the change which they are to
undergo, as it shall resemble, is not improperly called, death,
(Heb. 9: 27.) "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,"
(1 Cor. 15: 51.) What does this mean? Their mortal life shall perish
and be swallowed up in one moment, and be transformed into an
entirely new nature. Though no one can deny that that destruction of
the flesh will be death, it still remains true that the quick and
the dead shall be summoned to judgement, (1 Thess. 4: 16:) for "the
dead in Christ shall rise first; then we which are alive and remain
shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the lord
in the air." Indeed, it is probable, that these words in the Creed
were taken from Peter's sermon as related by Luke, (Acts 10: 42,)
and from the solemn charge of Paul to Timothy, (2 Tim. 4: 1.)
    18. It is most consolatory to think, that judgement is vested
in him who has already destined us to share with him in the honour
of judgement, (Matth. 19: 28;) so far is it from being true, that he
will ascend the judgement-seat for our condemnation. How could a
most merciful prince destroy his own people? how could the head
disperse its own members? how could the advocate condemn his
clients? For if the Apostle, when contemplating the interposition of
Christ, is bold to exclaim, "Who is he that condemneth?" (Rom. 8:
33,) much more certain is it that Christ, the intercessor, will not
condemn those whom he has admitted to his protection. It certainly
gives no small security, that we shall be sisted at no other
tribunal than that of our Redeemer, from whom salvation is to be
expected; and that he who in the Gospel now promises eternal
blessedness, will then as judge ratify his promise. The end for
which the Father has honoured the Son by committing all judgement to
him, (John 5: 22,) was to pacify the consciences of his people when
alarmed at the thought of judgement. Hitherto I have followed the
order of the Apostles' Creed, because it states the leading articles
of redemption in a few words, and may thus serve as a tablet in
which the points of Christian doctrine, most deserving of attention,
are brought separately and distinctly before us. I call it the
Apostles' Creed, though I am by no means solicitous as to its
authorship. The general consent of ancient writers certainly does
ascribe it to the Apostles, either because they imagined it was
written and published by them for common use, or because they
thought it right to give the sanction of such authority to a
compendium faithfully drawn up from the doctrine delivered by their
hands. I have no doubt, that, from the very commencement of the
Church, and, therefore, in the very days of the Apostles, it held
the place of a public and universally received confession, whatever
be the quarter from which it originally proceeded. It is not
probable that it was written by some private individual, since it is
certain that, from time immemorial, it was deemed of sacred
authority by all Christians. The only point of consequence we hold
to be incontrovertible, viz., that it gives, in clear and succinct
order, a full statement of our faith, and in every thing which it
contains is sanctioned by the sure testimony of Scripture. This
being understood, it were to no purpose to labour anxiously, or
quarrel with any one as to the authorship, unless, indeed, we think
it not enough to possess the sure truth of the Holy Spirit, without,
at the same time, knowing by whose mouth it was pronounced, or by
whose hand it was written.
    19. When we see that the whole sum of our salvation, and every
single part of it, are comprehended in Christ, we must beware of
deriving even the minutes portion of it from any other quarter. If
we seek salvation, we are taught by the very name of Jesus that he
possesses it; if we seek any other gifts of the Spirit, we shall
find them in his unction; strength in his government; purity in his
conception; indulgence in his nativity, in which he was made like us
in all respects, in order that he might learn to sympathise with us:
if we seek redemption, we shall find it in his passion; acquittal in
his condemnation; remission of the curse in his cross; satisfaction
in his sacrifice; purification in his blood; reconciliation in his
descent to hell; mortification of the flesh in his sepulchre;
newness of life in his resurrection; immortality also in his
resurrection; the inheritance of a celestial kingdom in his entrance
into heaven; protection, security, and the abundant supply of all
blessings, in his kingdom; secure anticipation of judgement in the
power of judging committed to him. In fine, since in him all kinds
of blessings are treasured up, let us draw a full supply from him,
and none from any other quarter. Those who, not satisfied with him
alone, entertain various hopes from others, though they may continue
to look to him chiefly, deviate from the right path by the simple
fact, that some portion of their thought takes a different
direction. No distrust of this description can arise when once the
abundance of his blessings is properly known.






Chapter 17.


17. Christ rightly and properly said to have merited grace and
salvation for us.

    The three leading divisions of this chapter are, - I. A proof
from reason and from Scripture that the grace of God and the merit
of Christ (the prince and author of our salvation) are perfectly
compatible, sec. 1 and 2. II. Christ, by his obedience, even to the
death of the cross, (which was the price of our redemption,) merited
divine favour for us, sec. 3-5. III. The presumptuous rashness of
the Schoolmen in treating this branch of doctrine.

Sections.

1. Christ not only the minister, but also the author and prince of
    salvation. Divine grace not obscured by this mode of
    expression. The merit of Christ not opposed to the mercy of
    God, but depends upon it.
2. The compatibility of the two proved by various passages of
    Scripture.
3. Christ by his obedience truly merited divine grace for us.
4. This grace obtained by the shedding of Christ's blood, and his
    obedience even unto death.
6. In this way he paid our ransom.
6. The presumptuous manner in which the Schoolmen handle this
    subject.

    1. A question must here be considered by way of supplement.
Some men too much given to subtilty, while they admit that we obtain
salvation through Christ, will not hear of the name of merit, by
which they imagine that the grace of God is obscured; and therefore
insist that Christ was only the instrument or minister, not the
author or leader, or prince of life, as he is designated by Peter,
(Acts 3: 15.) I admit that were Christ opposed simply, and by
himself, to the justice of God, there could be no room for merit,
because there cannot be found in man a worth which could make God a
debtor; nay, as Augustine says most truly, "The Saviour, the man
Christ Jesus, is himself the brightest illustration of
predestination and grace: his character as such was not procured by
any antecedent merit of works or faith in his human nature. Tell me,
I pray, how that man, when assumed into unity of person by the Word,
co-eternal with the Father, as the only begotten Son at God, could
merit this." - "Let the very fountain of grace, therefore, appear in
our head, whence, according to the measure of each, it is diffused
through all his members. Every man, from the commencement of his
faith, becomes a Christian, by the same grace by which that man from
his formation became Christ." Again, in another passage, "There is
not a more striking example of predestination than the mediator
himself. He who made him (without any antecedent merit in his will)
of the seed of David a righteous man never to be unrighteous, also
converts those who are members of his head from unrighteous into
righteous" and so forth. Therefore when we treat of the merit of
Christ, we do not place the beginning in him, but we ascend to the
ordination of God as the primary cause, because of his mere good
pleasure he appointed a Mediator to purchase salvation for us. Hence
the merit of Christ is inconsiderately opposed to the mercy of God.
It is a well known rule, that principal and accessory are not
incompatible, and therefore there is nothing to prevent the
justification of man from being the gratuitous result of the mere
mercy of God, and, at the same time, to prevent the merit of Christ
from intervening in subordination to this mercy. The free favour of
God is as fitly opposed to our works as is the obedience of Christ,
both in their order: for Christ could not merit anything save by the
good pleasure of God, but only inasmuch as he was destined to
appease the wrath of God by his sacrifice, and wipe away our
transgressions by his obedience: in one word, since the merit of
Christ depends entirely on the grace of God, (which provided this
mode of salvation for us,) the latter is no less appropriately
opposed to all righteousness of men than is the former.
    2. This distinction is found in numerous passages of Scripture:
"God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him might not perish," (John 3: 16.) We see
that the first place is assigned to the love of God as the chief
cause or origin, and that faith in Christ follows as the second and
more proximate cause. Should any one object that Christ is only the
formal cause, he lessens his energy more than the words justify. For
if we obtain justification by a faith which leans on him, the
groundwork of our salvation must be sought in him. This is clearly
proved by several passages: "Herein is love, not that we loved God,
but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for
our sins," (1 John 4: 10.) These words clearly demonstrate that God,
in order to remove any obstacle to his love towards us, appointed
the method of reconciliation in Christ. There is great force in this
word "propitiation"; for in a manner which cannot be expressed, God,
at the very time when he loved us, was hostile to us until
reconciled in Christ. To this effect are all the following passages:
"He is the propitiation for our sins;" "It pleased the Father that
in him should all fulness dwell, and having made peace by the blood
of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself;" "God was
in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their
trespasses unto them;" "He has made us accepted in the Beloved,"
"That he might reconcile both into one body by the cross." The
nature of this mystery is to be learned from the first chapter to
the Ephesians, where Paul, teaching that we were chosen in Christ,
at the same time adds, that we obtained grace in him. How did God
begin to embrace with his favour those whom he had loved before the
foundation of the world, unless in displaying his love when he was
reconciled by the blood of Christ? As God is the fountain of all
righteousness, he must necessarily be the enemy and judge of man so
long as he is a sinner. Wherefore, the commencement of love is the
bestowing of righteousness, as described by Paul: "He has made him
to be sin for us who knew no sin; that we might be made the
righteousness of God in him," (2 Cor. 5: 21.) He intimates, that by
the sacrifice of Christ we obtain free justification, and become
pleasing to God, though we are by nature the children of wrath, and
by sin estranged from him. This distinction is also noted whenever
the grace of Christ is connected with the love of God, (2 Cor. 13:
13;) whence it follows, that he bestows upon us of his own which he
acquired by purchase. For otherwise there would be no ground for the
praise ascribed to him by the Father, that grace is his, and
proceeds from him.
    3. That Christ, by his obedience, truly purchased and merited
grace for us with the Father, is accurately inferred from several
passages of Scripture. I take it for granted, that if Christ
satisfied for our sins, if he paid the penalty due by us, if he
appeased God by his obedience; in fine, if he suffered the just for
the unjust, salvation was obtained for us by his righteousness;
which is just equivalent to meriting. Now, Paul's testimony is, that
we were reconciled, and received reconciliation through his death,
(Rom. 5: 11.) But there is no room for reconciliation unless where
offence has preceded. The meaning, therefore, is, that God, to whom
we were hateful through sin, was appeased by the death of his Son,
and made propitious to us. And the antithesis which immediately
follows is carefully to be observed, "As by one man's disobedience
many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be
made righteous," (Rom. 5: 19.) For the meaning is - As by the sin of
Adam we were alienated from God and doomed to destruction, so by the
obedience of Christ we are restored to his favour as if we were
righteous. The future tense of the verb does not exclude present
righteousness, as is apparent from the context. For he had
previously said, "the free gift is of many offences unto
justification."
    4. When we say, that grace was obtained for us by the merit of
Christ, our meaning is, that we were cleansed by his blood, that his
death was an expiation for sin, "His blood cleanses us from all
sin." "This is my blood, which is shed for the remission of sins,"
(1 John 1: 7; Luke 22: 20.) If the effect of his shed blood is, that
our sins are not imputed to us, it follows, that by that price the
justice of God was satisfied. To the same effect are the Baptist's
words, "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the
world," (John 1: 29.) For he contrasts Christ with all the
sacrifices of the Law, showing that in him alone was fulfilled what
these figures typified. But we know the common expression in Moses -
Iniquity shall be expiated, sin shall be wiped away and forgiven. In
short, we are admirably taught by the ancient figures what power and
efficacy there is in Christ's death. And the Apostle, skilfully
proceeding from this principle, explains the whole matter in the
Epistle to the Hebrews, showing that without shedding of blood there
is no remission, (Heb. 9: 22.) From this he infers, that Christ
appeared once for all to take away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Again, that he was offered to bear the sins of many, (Heb. 9: 12.)
He had previously said, that not by the blood of goats or of
heifers, but by his own blood, he had once entered into the holy of
holies, having obtained eternal redemption for us. Now, when he
reasons thus, "If the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of
an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of
the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the
eternal Spirit offered himself to God, purge your consciences from
dead works to serve the living God?" (Heb. 9: 13, 14,) it is obvious
that too little effect is given to the grace of Christ, unless we
concede to his sacrifice the power of expiating, appeasing, and
satisfying: as he shortly after adds, "For this cause he is the
mediator of the new testament, that by means of his death, for the
redemption of the transgressions that were under the first
testament, they which are called might receive the promise of
eternal inheritance," (Heb. 9: 15.) But it is especially necessary
to attend to the analogy which is drawn by Paul as to his having
been made a curse for us, (Gal. 3: 13.) It had been superfluous and
therefore absurd, that Christ should have been burdened with a
curse, had it not been in order that, by paying what others owed, he
might acquire righteousness for them. There is no ambiguity in
Isaiah's testimony, "He was wounded for our transgressions, he was
bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was laid
upon him; and with his stripes we are healed," (Is. 53: 5.) For had
not Christ satisfied for our sins, he could not be said to have
appeased God by taking upon himself the penalty which we had
incurred. To this corresponds what follows in the same place, "for
the transgression of my people was he stricken," (Is. 53: 8.) We may
add the interpretation of Peter, who unequivocally declares, that he
"bare our sins in his own body on the tree," (1 Pet. 2: 24,) that
the whole burden of condemnation, of which we were relieved, was
laid upon him.
    5. The Apostles also plainly declare that he paid a price to
ransom us from death: "Being justified freely by his grace, through
the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God has set forth to be
a propitiation through faith in his blood," (Rom. 3: 24, 25.) Paul
commends the grace of God, in that he gave the price of redemption
in the death of Christ; and he exhorts us to flee to his blood, that
having obtained righteousness, we may appear boldly before the
judgement-seat of God. To the same effect are the words of Peter:
"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible
things, as silver and gold," "but with the precious blood of Christ,
as of a lamb without blemish and without spot," (1 Pet. 1: 18,19.)
The antithesis would be incongruous if he had not by this price made
satisfaction for sins. For which reason, Paul says, "Ye are bought
with a price." Nor could it be elsewhere said, there is "one
mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself
a ransom for all," (1 Tim. 2: 5, 6,) had not the punishment which we
deserved been laid upon him. Accordingly, the same Apostle declares,
that "we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of
sins," (Col. 1: 14;) as if he had said, that we are justified or
acquitted before God, because that blood serves the purpose of
satisfaction. With this another passage agrees, viz., that he
blotted out "the handwriting of ordinances which was against us,
which was contrary to us," (Col. 2: 14.) These words denote the
payment or compensation which acquits us from guilt. There is great
weight also in these words of Paul: "If righteousness come by the
law, then Christ is dead in vain," (Gal. 2: 21.) For we hence infer,
that it is from Christ we must seek what the Law would confer on any
one who fulfilled it; or, which is the same thing, that by the grace
of Christ we obtain what God promised in the Law to our works: "If a
man do, he shall live in them," (Lev. 18: 5.) This is no less
clearly taught in the discourse at Antioch, when Paul declares,
"That through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins;
and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from
which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses," (Acts 13: 38,
39.) For if the observance of the Law is righteousness, who can deny
that Christ, by taking this burden upon himself, and reconciling us
to God, as if we were the observers of the Law, merited favour for
us? Of the same nature is what he afterwards says to the Galatians:
"God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to
redeem them that were under the law," (Gal. 4: 4, 5.) For to what
end that subjection, unless that he obtained justification for us by
undertaking to perform what we were unable to pay? Hence that
imputation of righteousness without works, of which Paul treats,
(Rom. 4: 5,) the righteousness found in Christ alone being accepted
as if it were ours. And certainly the only reason why Christ is
called our "meat," (John 6: 55,) is because we find in him the
substance of life. And the source of this efficacy is just that the
Son of God was crucified as the price of our justification; as Paul
says, Christ "has given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice
to God for a sweet-smelling savour," (Eph. 5: 2;) and elsewhere, he
"was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our
justification," (Rom. 4: 25.) Hence it is proved not only that
salvation was given us by Christ, but that on account of him the
Father is now propitious to us. For it cannot be doubted that in him
is completely fulfilled what God declares by Isaiah under a figure,
"I will defend this city to save it for mine own sakes and for my
servant David's sake," (Isaiah 37: 35.) Of this the Apostle is the
best witness when he says "Your sins are forgiven you for his name's
sake," (1 John 2: 12.) For although the name of Christ is not
expressed, John, in his usual manner, designates him by the pronoun
"He," ("autos".) In the same sense also our Lord declares, "As the
living Father has sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that
eateth me, even he shall live by me," (John 6: 57.) To this
corresponds the passage of Paul, "Unto you it is given in the behalf
of Christ, not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for his
sake," (Phil. 1: 29.)
    6. To inquire, as Lombard and the Schoolmen do, (Sent. Lib. 3
Dist. 18,) whether he merited for himself, is foolish curiosity.
equally rash is their decision when they answer in the affirmative.
How could it be necessary for the only Son of God to come down in
order to acquire some new quality for himself? The exposition which
God gives of his own purpose removes all doubt. The Father is not
said to have consulted the advantage of his Son in his services, but
to have given him up to death, and not spared him, because he loved
the world, (Rom. 8.) The prophetical expressions should be observed:
"To us a Son is born;" "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion: shout,
O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee," (Isaiah
9: 6; Zech. 9: 9.) It would otherwise be a cold commendation of love
which Paul describes, when he says, "God commendeth his love toward
us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us," (Rom.
5: 8.) Hence, again, we infer that Christ had no regard to himself;
and this he distinctly affirms, when he says, "For their sakes I
sanctify myself," (John 17: 19.) He who transfers the benefit of his
holiness to others, testifies that he acquires nothing for himself.
And surely it is most worthy of remark, that Christ, in devoting
himself entirely to our salvation, in a manner forgot himself. It is
absurd to wrest the testimony of Paul to a different effect:
"Wherefore God has highly exalted him, and given him a name which is
above every name," (Phil. 2: 9.) By what services could a man merit
to become the judge of the world, the head of angels, to obtain the
supreme government of God, and become the residence of that majesty
of which all the virtues of men and angels cannot attain one
thousandth part? The solution is easy and complete. Paul is not
speaking of the cause of Christ's exaltation, but only pointing out
a consequence of it by way of example to us. The meaning is not much
different from that of another passage: "Ought not Christ to have
suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?" (Luke 24: 26.)




End of the second book.

