CRISTO RAUL

HARMONIA APOSTOLICA:

OR,

TWO DISSERTATIONS;

IN THE FORMER OF WHICH

THE DOCTRINE OF ST. JAMES ON JUSTIFICATION BY WORKS IS EXPLAINED AND DEFENDED:

IN THE LATTER

THE AGREEMENT OF ST. PAUL WITH ST. JAMES IS CLEARLY SHOWN.

BY THE

RIGHT REVEREND FATHER IN GOD,

GEORGE BULL

SOMETIME LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID’S.

 

TO THE READER.

 

The following Dissertations, good Christian reader, originally undertaken for another purpose, (to know which matters little,) and intended for the brief employment of an hour, but which, as the abundance, and, as it were, tide of matter flowed in upon me, and (which is no wonder in such a subject) as difficulty grew out of difficulty, reached this present size, are now printed and committed to your judgment. If I am accused of boldness in publishing so unpolished a work, and of not being afraid to submit it to the nice criticism of this learned age, I shall not defend myself by the well-known apologies of authors. I have done it, not so much through the solicitations of friends (though these were not wanting) as from the conviction that my work, whatever be its intrinsic merits, would be of service to young students in theology, and to such who are as yet but novices in the Epistles of St. Paul.

If it shall be of the least service in bringing them to a true judgment on this most necessary controversy; if in the reading of St. Paul’s Epistles (worthy indeed of continued and persevering study) it shall so assist them, as to prevent their wresting to their own destruction, and that of the flock here­after to be committed to their care, those hard sayings, which not unfrequently, and especially in this question, occur in his writings; if, in short, it be to them a timely antidote against this Solifidianism, or rather libertinism, which some in these dregs of time teach openly and shamelessly, and which many, by incrusting it with empty dis­tinctions in sermons and writings, have palmed upon their hearers and readers, and still do so; if it answer but these ends, I shall be more than fully repaid. The sneers, dislike, and reproaches of those who are so desperately fond of their once received opinions, I hold for naught. We are engaged in a most useful subject, and which (as far as I am aware) has never yet been treated of in a single and full work. So until a better appears mine may be made use of; but on this condition, that the reader must not expect to find the delicacies and elegance of language, but must be content (and especially in so hard and difficult a subject) with perspicuity of style; neither must he expect accurate arrangement; inasmuch as, following the guidance of one’s own mind, and writing for one’s self more than for others, I have explained each subject as it occurred to me. Hence you will find some things, though not I hope actually misplaced, still not in their proper place. Elsewhere, especially in the second Dissertation, you will meet with long digressions, which, that they may not offend you, be pleased to recollect that they are neither useless nor entirely irrelevant. If, too, in explaining St. Paul's Epistles, I have not been so fortunate in gaining the sense of one or two passages, as I could have wished, I trust to meet with the reader's clemency, if he fairly attends to the main subject and design of the Apostle.

Lastly, if, kind reader, you gain any benefit from this our work, first thank God, the Fountain and Giver of every good, for it; and then entreat the Lord by your fervent prayers for the author, who, though disputing about Gospel righteous­ness, confesses himself to be (and he says it from his heart) the chiefest of sinners, and in the same Lord

Farewell.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION.

Difficulty of the undertaking—method to be pursued.

DISSERTATION I.

CHAP. I.

The sense of St. James expounded—what the word ‘justify’ signifies in the New Testament; shown by many proofs, that this word is used in its judicial sense, meaning to pronounce, or determine, to be innocent.—The particle ‘by’, in St. James, signifies only the indispensable cause, or preceding condition.

CHAP. II.

The conclusion of St. James corroborated; first, by proofs drawn from Scripture, of which there are two divisions: one, of those passages which speak in general terms of obedience as necessary to justification: the other, of those which require works of repentance in particular.—An objection of our adversaries answered.—Faith and repentance of the same importance in the process of justification, both only conditions or moral instruments.—What peculiar faith is that, to which the sacred Scriptures ascribe so much?—On what account does faith so much excel all other virtues?

CHAP. III.

A second proof drawn from the nature of justification.—Justification includes three things, the judge, the accused, and the law. What law that is by which we shall be condemned or acquitted, shown.—Hence an argument deduced.

CHAP. IV.

The third argument from the nature of faith.—The three acts into which faith is divided by divines, considered (knowledge, consent, confidence.)—That justifi­cation is not necessarily connected with any of these, proved.

CHAP. V.

The fourth argument taken from the proceedings of God in the last judgment.— The judgment of God in the next world will in every respect correspond with the Divine justification in this.—Our works in that judgment regarded not as mere signs of faith, but as a very principal part of the condition prescribed in the Gospel covenant.

CHAP. VI

The fifth and last argument, drawn from the implicit confession of our adver­saries.—Two facts unanimously allowed by reformed divines; first, that the faith which justifies should be a living faith, that is, productive of good works. Secondly, that good works are undeniably necessary to salvation.—The necessity of good works to justification, shown from both these points.

DISSERTATION II.

CHAP. I.

The various schemes of divines for reconciling St. James and St. Paul.—Those who suppose St. James to speak of the justification of man’s faith before other men, and not before God, refuted.

CHAP. II.

Their opinion considered, who suppose St. Paul to speak of a true and lively faith, but St. James of a false and feigned one.—This overturned by various arguments, and the objections of this party answered.

CHAP. III.

The third opinion considered is theirs who, to reconcile St. James and St. Paul, divide justification into the first and second.—It is shortly proved, that this opinion is both false, and also repugnant to the reasoning of the Apostles.— The same shown of the opinion of Placaeus concerning the twofold accusation, from which we are freed in justification.

CHAP. IV.

The true method of removing this difficulty.—St. Paul to be interpreted from St. James, and not St. James from St. Paul.—St. Paul uses the words faith and works with different meanings.—What he means by faith.—That with him faith is all the obedience required by the Gospel, clearly argued and proved.— The contrary opinion of Grotius refuted.

CHAP. V.

Faith is used for all the obedience which the Gospel requires, because it is the beginning and root of all Gospel righteousness; Rom. x. 11. compared with verses 13, 14, and explained.—For nearly the same reason all piety is called knowledge in the Holy Scriptures.—The reason why St. Paul, describing the conditions required on our parts unto salvation, makes so frequent use of this word, further investigated.—Chiefly on two accounts ; first, to express the easy performance of the condition; secondly, to take away all merit.

CHAP VI.

What St. Paul means by works.—It is shown from what has been said,—that he does not speak of every work, but those of a certain kind, those namely of the Mosaic law.—This proved from St. Paul’s words, both in his Epistle to the Romans and that to the Galatians.—In the next place St. Paul so opposes the Mosaic law as also to refute the Jewish additions to it.—Lastly, since he had also to contend with the Gentile philosophers, he by the way disputes against the works of the natural law, works done by the mere force of nature.

CHAP VII.

The arguments by which St. Paul rejects the Mosaic law from justification ex­plained.—The Apostle’s argument affects those precepts of the law which are called moral, but only so far as they form part of the conditions prescribed in the Mosaic covenant—Hence the arguments must be divided into two kinds, those which include the whole law, and those which refer to the ritual part of it only.—The first argument which relates to the whole law of Moses is taken from its want of pardoning grace, or of remission of sins.—Whether the law of Moses under any view of it can be deemed a law of entirely perfect obedience ? —Does the reasoning of the Apostle in Romans, chapter iii. ver. 20; and Galatians, chapter iii. ver. 10, depend on this idea?—This question answered in the negative.—Arguments to the contrary answered.

CHAP. VIII.

The true sources of the Apostle’s argument laid open, which are two; first, that Jews as well as Gentiles indiscriminately, and all of every nation, have been guilty of great sins, and therefore subject to the judgment and anger of God; secondly, that in the law of Moses there is no promise of true and perfect re­mission of sins, or of freedom from the anger of God, and eternal death, due to sin.—Hence is shown in what manner the Apostle deduces his conclusion.

CHAP. IX.

The second argument of the Apostle, taken from the weakness of the law, or its want of aiding grace. — Certain passages to that purpose produced—The seventh chapter of the Romans explained.—That St. Paul is there speaking of man under the law, and not assisted by the grace of the Gospel, clearly shown. —Arguments to the contrary answered.—Gal. v. 17. explained.

CHAP. X

The Apostle’s argument taken from the weakness of the law more distinctly explained.—The law wanted a double assistance, both the promise of eternal life and the gift of the Holy Spirit- Of what consequence was the first defect—Some passages on this head produced.—Four difficulties on this sub­ject removed.

CHAP. XI

The other weakness of the Mosaic law,—that it had not the gift of the Holy Spirit.—Some passages proving this explained.—Two questions arising from this subject answered. It is shown that the Apostle defends justification by the Gospel, in opposition to that of the law, by a “demonstrative” argument taken from the evident gifts of the Holy Spirit, which in the early Church everywhere followed a belief in the Gospel. Hence light is thrown on that common observation of Grotius, that in the New Testament the Holy Spirit is put after faith.

CHAP. XII.

Two deductions from what has been said in the three foregoing chapters con­cerning the weakness of the law.—The first of which is, that the Apostle en­tirely excludes from justification only those works which are performed by the aid of the Mosaic, and (consequently) of the natural law, without the grace of the Gospel.—This proved by a threefold argument from the very Epistles of St. Paul.—Three arguments of Paranis to the contrary, so answered as to throw still stronger light upon the above deductions.

CHAP. XIII.

Another consequence drawn from the Apostle’s argument concerning the weak­ness of the law, namely, that so far from taking from justification the necessity of good works, St. Paul’s object is to prove that the true righteousness of works is absolutely necessary to justification, and that the Gospel is the only effica­cious means by which any one can be brought to practise such righteousness.— Some passages to this effect shown.—The principal difference between the law and the Gospel pointed out.

CHAP. XIV.

Some passages pointed out in which the Apostle opposes the ritual law especially. —He so rejects the external and ritual observance of the law from justification, that in its place he substitutes the internal and spiritual righteousness of the Gospel.—Hence an invincible argument against the Solifidians.

CHAP. XV.

Certain Jewish opinions concerning the manner of obtaining justification and salvation attacked by St. Paul, are noted.—Their first error consisted in at­tributing either too much strength and liberty to the human will, or at least in an ignorance of the necessity of the Divine grace.—This shown from the Rabbins and Josephus himself.—A remarkable passage of St. James, chap. 1. ver. 13. and 14, illustrated.

CHAP. XVI.

The second error of the Jews in placing the hope of their salvation in that civil righteousness, which was confirmed in the law by definite punishments.— Hence it happened that they lived in an obedience, either negative or external, or at the most, partial and defective.—Each of these shown and proved from Holy Scripture, and the writings of the Hebrews.

CHAP. XVII.

A third error of the Jews, principally of the Pharisees, that they attached much righteousness to certain traditional rites and customs, and preferred them to the chief commands of God.—The fourth and last error was, that, content with this false righteousness, they did not think of the Messiah, who would give them a better righteousness. — Lastly, from this description of Jewish opinions, four observations are drawn of great use to the right understanding of St. Paul.

CHAP. XVIII.

The conclusion; containing an epitome of the whole work, with a serious admo­nition to the reader diligently to guard against four errors in this controversy concerning justification.

 

 

 

 

HARMONIA APOSTOLICA.

FIRST DISSERTATION

ON

ST. JAMES chap. 2. Ver. 24.

 

“ YE SEE THEN HOW THAT BY WORKS A MAN IS JUSTIFIED, AND NOT BY FAITH ONLY.”

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION.

DIFFICULTY OF THE UNDERTAKING. METHOD TO BE PURSUED.

1. Although all, who are truly called Christians, fully allow both the infallible authority of Scripture, and the most perfect harmony of its parts; still, unhappily, it too often occurs that no few apparent contradictions and almost inextricable difficulties are found in that Sacred Volume. Whether this be owing to the sublimity of the subject, or the singu­larity of its style, to our ignorance of the opinions and customs of those to whom no small part of Scripture was necessarily addressed (customs which by so very long an interval are almost entirely obliterated), to our own dulness in understanding, or negligence in studying the Holy Scriptures, or, in short, to all these taken together, or to whatever other cause, is not now our intention to enquire. The fact and its consequences we are obliged to perceive and to lament.

2. But, from a great number of Scripture texts, in appearance, at least, contradicting others, you will scarcely find one which has so much exercised the understandings of divines, as the passage of St. James now before us. What minute distinctions, ingenious devices and contrivances, have interpreters used to reconcile this conclusion of St. James with the Epistles of St. Paul! They have indeed made a most important attempt; for this apparent contradiction does not relate to a matter of fact, or history, but to an article of the Christian Faith of the greatest consequence. In general, however, they have laboured in vain; and promising the brightness of noon, they have spread over the Epistles of St. James and St. Paul clouds and thick darkness; but what is most to be lamented, they have involved the doctrine of justification itself, which before was sufficiently easy and plain, in so many distinctions and subtleties, that theology does not afford an article more hard to be understood.

3. Which when some perceived (who could not acquiesce in the received opinion, nor were able to persevere with diligence in search for a better), they endeavored to cut the knot, which to them was plainly a gordian one, and to the solving of which they were not equal, by doubting or openly rejecting the authority of that Epistle which bears the name of St. James. One, indeed, reached such a pitch of boldness and impiety, as to make a violent attack on its author, and charge him with falsehood and error. This was Althamer, who, as Grotius quotes, angrily uses these ex­pressions of an author, not only innocent, but also inspired: “He writes in direct opposition to Scripture; he quotes the Scriptures falsely, and alone contradicts the Holy Spirit, the Law, the Prophets, Christ, and all the Apostles: his testimony is of no weight.” And again, “We know from his very words that he was ignorant of the meaning of faith.” With still more daring blasphemy, he says, “truly he lies against his own life.” Which, with other blasphemies of the same nature, that I shudder to mention, may be found in Grotius.

4. Here then is a difficulty which well deserves an answer, could one be found to meet it. With respect to myself, although it is not fit to say much, yet without any vain-glory I may profess that, uninfluenced by party, and unbiassed by any thing but a love of truth, I have studied as attentively as possible, both the second chapter of St. James as well as the Epistles of St. Paul, especially those to the Romans and Galatians, paying in the mean time a proper attention to those commentaries of learned men which I could meet with; and hence I hope that I may possibly say somewhat to throw some light, at least, on the aim of both the Apostles, and may satisfy impartial judges.

5. But not to delay my reader any longer, with God’s blessing, I will enter on the subject. For the explanation of which, I think the following method the best. First, we will briefly unravel the meaning of St. James' conclusion and then support its truth by some arguments. This will be the subject of the first Dissertation. We will then enter upon the Epistles of St. Paul, and clearly prove his agreement with St. James in the doctrine of justification. This will be the subject of the second Dissertation, which, if it be more prolix, and contain a greater quantity of matter than the first, the reader must not be surprised, since the great difficulty of the subject renders it almost necessary.

 

CHAP. I.

DISS.

I.

Rom. 8.33

ST. JAMES’ MEANING EXPLAINED—WHAT THE WORD ‘JUSTIFY ’ SIGNIFIES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT—IT IS SHOWN BY MANY PROOFS, THAT THIS WORD IS USED IN ITS JUDICIAL SENSE, MEANING TO PRONOUNCE, OR DETERMINE, TO BE INNOCENT. —THE PARTICLE ‘BY,’ IN ST. JAMES, SIGNIFIES ONLY THE INDISPENSABLE CAUSE, OR PRECEDING CONDITION.

 

1. Beginning then with St. James, we shall have little trouble to arrive at the meaning of his conclusion, so far, at least, as may be necessary for our present design. We will only observe two things :—

2. First, the word to justify, δικαιοϋν, is used by him in its more usual sense, that is, as a term of law, meaning to acquit, or pronounce guiltless. Every unprejudiced person must know this to be the most obvious and common meaning of that word in the Holy Scriptures, and especially in the New Testament. So that it is strange to find a most learned man, who, in other respects, has with great truth explained this doctrine of justification, denying it, and contending that the word justification generally signifies, especially when connected with the word faith, a purifying from vice, or a freedom from the habit of sinning. Grotius, indeed, does allow (for him I mean) that to justify in the second chapter of St. James, signifies to treat any one as just, and adds that the whole context of his argument renders this meaning absolutely necessary. Still he entirely denies that this is its general sense, especially in the Epistles of St. Paul. But we will easily prove, though perhaps a better opportunity may appear hereafter, that this word constantly, and almost always, has the above-mentioned meaning in the New Testament.

3. There is a remarkable passage in the Epistle to the Romans; “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifies.” Where the word justify is evidently opposed to the word accuse, or lay to the charge of, and therefore necessarily signifies to acquit an accused person, and to pronounce and decree him free from accusation. Similar to this is the following passage from the Old Testament; “He that justifies the wicked, and he that condemn the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord.” Where the opposition of justification to condemnation proves the above interpretations. Moreover, Christ Himself uses the word in this sense; “By thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.” Thus condemnation and justification are opposed Rom. 5.16, to each other by St. Paul. In a similar sense also the word is used in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, where, after St. Paul had said that he was conscious of no offence, he 1 Cor. 4.4. immediately adds, “yet am I not hereby justified, but He that judgeth me is the Lord”, plainly appealing for his justification to the tribunal of God, who would hereafter pass a definite sentence upon him. It is wonderful, then, what could induce Grotius0 to place this passage among those where to justify signifies to purify from vice. There is a remarkable passage in the first Epistle to the Corinthians; “But ye are washed; but ye are sanctified; but ye are justified”, where every one must perceive that a purifying from vice is clearly distinguished from justification. Hence Grotius found himself under the necessity of inventing in this place a different meaning for the word; namely, that it means, making a greater progress in righteousness; and he adds, that the order of the words points out this meaning. But this is to no purpose: for the very order of the words is sufficiently clear without this comment; since washing here means the first purifying from sin, by Baptism; sanctification, the preparing and forming, as it were, of the man, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, to do good works, and to lead a holy life; lastly, justification signifies that love of God, by which He embraces those who are already leading a holy life, and determines them to be worthy of the reward of life eternal through Christ.

4. But far above all, is that text in the Acts, which the learned Hammondd, of blessed memory, hath not improperly called the summary of the whole Gospel, and from which he thought the true meaning of this word justify in St. Paul’s Epistles, might be most profitably gathered. The passage is as follows : “Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins, and by Him (that is Christ) all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.” Whence it is clear, that the justification which is preached in the Gospel of Christ, is nothing else than the gratuitous act of God, by which for Christ’s sake He acquits those who truly believe, those, namely, endowed with a perfected faith, and frees them from the guilt and punishment of all sins, even the greatest; and for which, according to the law of Moses, there was no hope of pardon. Grotius indeed contends, that the mercy meant by justification in verse 39, is different from that mentioned in verse 38, under the expression, forgiveness of sins, saying that remission signifies absolution from the guilt of sin, and justification freedom from the power of sin. Who does not here perceive a manifest perversion of the Apostle’s words? Nothing is more evident than that the Apostle in the 39th verse explains more fully the same mercy of forgiveness which he had briefly mentioned in the 38th; by showing both its condition, namely, faith in Christ, and its excellency over that forgiveness which the Law of Moses afforded. For the Law of Moses gave only a temporal, the Gospel an eternal forgiveness : the Law of Moses provided no pardon for some of the heavier sins, but the Gospel preaches to every believer, the most full and perfect remission of all sins, even the greatest. And so Grotius has himself excellently explained this very passage on another occasion.

5. I will add another argument for this interpretation, which appears to me unanswerable. The word justify, both with St. Paul and St. James, has exactly the same force as to impute a reward, to impute righteousness, and to impute for righteousness. Now it is well understood, that imputation denotes the act of God regarding a man as just, not making him just; and this Grotius neither can nor will deny. He only contends that it is one thing when a man is said to be the contrary, who compares the fourth chapter of the Romans, verse 2, with verses 3, 4, 5, 6, and 22 with verses 23, 24, 25, and St. James, chapter the second, verse 21, with verse 23. On which last passage, Grotius himself observes, that to be justified, and to be called the friend of God, mean the same thing; adding that passage in the Romans, where to be justified is to have peace with God. To these you may add the following; “Therefore by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in His sight”. Where it is plain that justify is used as a judicial term, both from the words in the sight of God, that is, at the judgment-seat of God, and also from the hundred and forty-third Psalm, verse 2, (to which passage Grotius allows, and the words show, that St. Paul alludes,) where David most humbly deprecates the severe judgment of God. This passage should be particularly observed, since from it is quite clear what St. Paul means by justification in the whole of his discussion on faith and works.

Hence we deduce our argument thus:

The justification which St. Paul denies to works, he ascribes to faith.

But the justification which he denies to works, is judicial, by which, any one is pronounced just at the judgment-seat of God.

Therefore, the justification which he attributes to faith, is of the same nature.

6. Our adversaries produce only one passage from the New Testament, where the words to justify can have the other meaning to be made just, or to make every day fresh progress in inherent and habitual righteousness. It is in the Revelations: “He that is unjust, let him be unjust still, and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still, and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still.” Where to be righteous, is opposed to to be unjust, and therefore would seem to signify nothing else but to be made just, or rather to increase in righteousness. But, however, to deduce the meaning of a word from one or two passages, (although I till doubt whether any other can be given from the New Testament,) and to reject that which is far more convenient, and more agreeable to the constant use of the Holy Scriptures, is not the part of a fair disputant. Besides, it may be questioned whether the Greek word here used be the right reading. For some manuscripts, and amongst them, one of great antiquity, presented by Cyril the Patriarch of Constantinople to Charles the First, of blessed memory, read, instead of “he that is righteous, let him be righteous still”, “he that is righteous, let him do righteousness still”. Which reading well agrees with the style of St. John. For elsewhere in his first Epistle, to do righteousness, is used by him in the same sense. Grotius moreover, which one may wonder at, reads the passage as above, although he often quotes it in defence of his interpretation. We may then certainly conclude, that the word justification in this subject has the meaning of a judicial term, and signifies the act of God as a judge, acquitting the accused, according to the merciful law of Christ, pronouncing him righteous, and admitting him to the reward of righteousness, that is, eternal life.

7. And indeed to this meaning of the word justification we must strictly adhere, not only to answer the perversions of the Roman Catholics, with which they have obscured the doctrine of both St. Paul and St. James, but also because it will be of some use, as we shall soon see, to confute the Antinomians and Solifidians, whom, on this question, I have always considered to have wandered in an opposite, but no less dangerous manner.

8. Let us now go on to that other point which we thought necessary to notice; namely, that by the phrase by works, St. James does not mean that our works are the principal or meritorious cause of our justification, for that depends on the mere and gracious mercy of God the Father, while the cause thereof is to be placed solely in the death and merits of Christ, and by the Apostle is really so declared. For although the particle by has sometimes that force, yet it is often used in a lower meaning, as it were, signifying the means of obtaining any thing, or the preceding condition, which is generally called the indispensable cause, though it scarcely deserves the name of a cause. And this mode of speaking is neither unusual, nor contrary to the style of Scripture. To pass over other texts, when a man is said to be justified by faith, the particle by is used in the same sense. Since no one can be said to be justified by faith itself as a principal cause, nor even as a cause at all, unless inaccurately speaking. A man, therefore, is said to be justified by works, because good works are ordered and established by God in the Gospel Covenant as the necessary condition for a man’s justification, that is, that he may receive the forgiveness of sins, obtained through Christ, and become accepted of God to salvation. And thus far of the meaning of the words.

 

CHAP. II.

THE CONCLUSION OF ST. JAMES CORROBORATED; FIRST, BY PROOFS DRAWN FROM SCRIPTURE, OF WHICH THERE ARE TWO CLASSES; ONE, OF THOSE PASSAGES WHICH SPEAK IN GENERAL TERMS OF OBEDIENCE AS NECESSARY TO JUSTIFICATION; THE OTHER, OF THOSE WHICH REQUIRE WORKS OF REPENTANCE IN PARTICULAR. AN OBJECTION OF OUR ADVERSARIES ANSWERED. FAITH AND REPENTANCE OF THE SAME IMPORTANCE IN THE PROCESS OF JUSTIFICATION, BOTH ONLY CONDITIONS OR MORAL INSTRUMENTS. WHAT KIND OF FAITH IS THAT, TO WHICH THE SACRED SCRIPTURES ASCRIBE SO MUCH ? IN WHAT RESPECT DOES FAITH EXCEL ALL OTHER VIRTUES ?

1. Let us now proceed to the second part of our dissertation, which is, to corroborate by certain arguments St. James’ opinion, that good works are necessary to obtain justification.

2. Our first argument shall be drawn from other passages of Holy Scripture, which no less clearly assert, than they defend this truth. For it is not to be supposed, that St. James hath advanced any paradox or dogma peculiar to himself. No. What he says is the voice of the Holy Spirit, which every where utters the same sound. The Prophets, the Apostles, Christ Himself, all give the same evidence. This doctrine occupies almost every page of Holy Scripture; and I will venture to say, that scarce any other can be produced, which is so distinctly laid down, or so often taught in the Sacred volume. But not to be diffuse, we will divide these passages into two classes.

3. The first division shall contain those which speak generally of good works, of piety, sanctity, and obedience, (all which have the same meaning,) as the conditions necessarily required, that any one should be acceptable unto God to salvation, i.e. be justified; for these-are synonymous terms. We will produce first that passage in Isaiah, “Wash you, make you clean, put away the evil of your doings from before Mine eyes. Cease to do evil, learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord; though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” Of the same import is this from Ezekiel, “Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die, if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right; if the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he hath robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity, he shall surely live, he shall not die.” Who does not perceive in these passages a whole collection as it were of good works, which, if any one does not perform, he is excluded from all hope of pardon and remission of his sins; and that it is required in general that we should cease to do evil, learn to do well, and walk in the statutes of life? Perhaps some one may object; These things savour of the Old Testament, what have they to do with us? On the contrary, I insist, that this is the voice of the Gospel itself. For the law did not grant a full pardon to sins, especially to those (as the above are) of the more heinous kind, which has been just observed by the way, and shall hereafter be more fully demonstrated in its proper place.

4. But if any one should obstinately deny these things, Jon. 14.21. let him recollect these words of our Saviour, “He that hath My commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me; and he that loveth Me, shall be loved of My Father, and I will love him, and will manifest Myself to him.” And, “If a man love Me, he will keep My words, and My Father will love him, and We will come unto him, and make Our abode with him”. Here it is very clear, that to enjoy the love of God, i.e. to be justified, a man must have such love as will ensure obedience to the commands of Christ.

That passage also in St. Matthew is remarkable, and more remarkable in that it solemnly announces the Gospel Covenant. The words are these: “Come unto Me all ye that labour, and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest unto your souls.” The yoke of Christ is His law. Whoever does not take up this, i.e. does not undertake to perform the law of Christ, to him is promised no peace of mind, no deliverance from his sins. The words of Christ also cannot be mistaken—“ e are My friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.” No one therefore is the friend of Christ except upon this condition, that he observe all His commands.

5. We have heard Christ, let us go on to the Apostles of Christ, and let Peter, the chief of the Apostles, speak first, as is right. “God is no accepter of persons; but in every nation, he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him.” God respects the person of none. Every one, and such only, are accepted by Him to salvation, who work righteousness. Can any thing be more evident? St. John teaches the same; “ If we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have communion with Him, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin.” Therefore there is no communion with God, no purification from sin by the blood of Christ, (what does this mean, but justification?) except for those who walk in the light, i.e. who do the works of holiness. That too is a remarkable passage in the Hebrews, “For by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” The word to perfect in the Greek, (to say nothing of other meanings observed by critics,) in this and other passages of this author, means to expiate, and that so perfectly, that whoever is so expiated, to him nothing further is wanting: he has no occasion for any other oblation or sacrifice, nor even for a repetition of the same sacrifice. In this sense the word is used in the first verse, and also in the eleventh verse of the seventh chapter of this Epistle. So that this inspired writer clearly restrains the expiation or freedom from sin obtained by the blood of Christ, to those who are sanctified in heart and deed; clearly implying that none are justified by the merits of Christ who are not first sanctified by the Spirit of Christ. Justification is certainly subsequent to sanctification, at least the first and yet imperfect sanctification. Which St. Peter also pointedly shows in his first Epistle, where he beautifully describes the order of human salvation. First comes the sanctification of the Spirit to obedience; then follows the sprinkling of the blood of Christ, i.e. to justification. It would be almost endless to cite every passage out of the New Testament which relates to this subject. Whoever shall open, even at hazard, these sacred books, will necessarily meet with something, which, if he seriously read and sincerely weigh, shall lead him, as it were by the hand, to this truth.

6. Let us therefore pass on to the second class of proofs, those, namely, which specify some particular works as entirely necessary to justification. Under this head come those passages which require penance or repentance as a preceding condition, without which no sinner can obtain pardon from God. Such texts are to be met with every where in the New Testament, and, therefore, instead of quoting a multitude, we will be content with one or two. Acts 2.38. As, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”; and, “Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come.” In these passages every one must see, that, besides faith, repentance of sins, and turning to God is necessary for the forgiveness of sins or justification.

7. This also must be observed, that repentance is not a single work standing by itself, but is a collection, as it were, of many other works. It comprehends within itself the following works, neither few, nor of small import: 1. sorrow for sin; 2. humiliation under the hand of God, by which a man humbly acknowledges himself to have deserved His anger; 3. hatred and detestation of sin; 4. confession of sin; 5. an earnest and suppliant begging for divine mercy; 6. love of God; 7. a ceasing from sin; 8. a firm determination of new obedience; 9. a restitution of every thing acquired by sin; which work of repentance is so absolutely necessary to forgiveness of sins in every one who has it in his power, as to become a proverb recognized by all theologians, “an offence is not forgiven unless that that has been taken away be restored;” 10. forgiveness of all in­uries done to us: our Saviour places so great weight on this, that He more than once declares, that no man can obtain pardon from God for his trespasses, who does not forgive his neighbors theirs against him; 11. works of mercy or alms; whose efficacy in obtaining pardon of sin from God, well appears from that famous passage taken from Daniel, where the holy Prophet gives this wholesome counsel to Nebuchadnezzar, who was yet in his sins: “Redeem thy sins by alms, and thy iniquities by showing mercy to the poor.”

So the Vulgate, following the Septuagint, who translate the Hebrew word by ‘alms' according to the oriental idiom. But it is of little consequence which version we follow, since all allow that mercy to the poor is mentioned in the latter clause of the sentence. Agreeable to this is the doctrine of St. James in this very chapter, “For he shall have judgment without mercy that hath showed no mercy.” What mercy he means is evident from the following verses, 15 and 16n. Chrysostom therefore truly says, in his sermon on repentance, “Repentance without alms is dead and without wings.” And hence, by the way, arose that custom in the ancient Church, by which they demanded of those who had fallen, for any of the heavier offences, under the censure of the Church, not only confession of sins, and a more regular conduct in future, but also works of mercy, called good works, before Absolution was granted to them. Observe how the works of repentance extend far and wide, and remember that all these things are determined by the Holy Ghost to be indispensably necessary to obtain pardon of sins.

8. It is wonderful how those who acknowledge these truths, (and none but a professed libertine dare deny them,) can defend their paradox of justification by faith alone; faith being understood by them as separated from the works of repentance. They will say, perhaps, as indeed they are accustomed to say, that repentance is only required as a preceding disposition, by which a sinner is prepared for the forgiveness of sins, but faith is the sole instrument by which that forgiveness is received, as by a hand, and therefore it is not improperly said, we are justified by faith alone. But here they are egregiously wrong, and that in two respects. In the first place, they clearly suppose that the works of repentance precede faith, which is a great mistake; for no man either can or will grieve for sin, detest it, determine upon a better conduct in future, or perform the other works of repentance, “works meet for repentance” as the Baptist says, except he first had a firm faith in the Gospel of Christ. We may therefore press them with this dilemma. If faith alone and by itself justifies, it performs this office either before the works of repentance are produced, or not until after them. If they say before, how then can they call repentance a disposition preceding justification; or how can the works of repentance be required by the Holy Spirit, as necessary to his justification, who hath been already justified by faith alone? But if they answer that faith does not justify until after these works are produced, they must necessarily fall into one of these two absurdities; either that faith does not exist before the works of repentance, or that it does not operate towards affecting our justification. You will say, that although faith is the source of repentance, and therefore, in the order of nature, be prior to repentance; yet still faith and repentance may begin to exist together, at one and the same instant. I answer, that this is very absurd, and besides perfectly impossible. It cannot be that faith should

Both a condition, or moral instrument produce repentance in an instant. For that any one should grieve for his sins, detest them, humble himself under the hand of God, should produce an act of love to God, should conceive a design of newness of life, requires some time, and some length of pious contemplation. These things, I confess, are subtleties, but the cover is worthy of the dish; the answer squares with the objection. It was absolutely necessary to split hairs with those who do the same.

9. Secondly, What they advance respecting the instrumentality of faith in the matter of justification, is a trifling piece of sophistry. For besides having no warrant in Scripture for what they say; if the word instrument be taken in its strict and proper sense for the secondary efficient cause, it is evident that faith can in no sense be called the instrument of justification0. For, in the first place, since justification is the act of God alone, and produced entirely without us, how our faith or any action of ours can give any physical assistance in effecting our justification, is altogether inconceivable. And, in the next place, every instrumental cause, as we have already hinted, operates according to its own peculiar nature, and the production of the effect may be properly attributed to it. Now, since justification is entirely the gracious act of God, by which He pardons our sins, and grants us salvation, it is extremely absurd to say, that either our faith or our works, or anything else of ours, forgives our sins, or makes us acceptable. Which, however, is said by those who call faith the instrumental cause of justification. You may ask, Is it not right to say, “By faith we accept Christ, and embrace the benefit of justification obtained by Him?”. I answer, Although many, with great reason, suppose that this acceptation of Christ is an act rather of love than of faith, yet, for the present, at least, we will not contend about it. Let it therefore be taken for granted. What I insist upon is this; this act of embracing Christ, wholly and entirely differs, and is distinct, from the act of justification. The one is our own act; the other the act of God alone. Although, therefore, we should allow that the habit of faith is the instrument of that act, by which we embrace Christ, yet whoever should infer from thence that faith is also the instrument of justification, would argue contrary to all the rules of reasoning. Upon the whole, therefore, faith can be an instrument only in this sense, because it is a work commanded by God, and performed by His grace. For a condition being performed, may in a certain sense be called the means or instrument by which we obtain what is promised upon that condition. And this is called by some, the moral instrument. And if in this sense the word instrument be taken as the condition or moral instrument, we pointedly deny that faith is the only instrument of justification. Since, as we have already shown, the works of repentance also are positively insisted upon by the Holy Spirit as no less necessary to obtain justification.

10. You will say, If these things be true, what is the excellency of that faith above the other works of piety, concerning which the Holy Scriptures speak so often and so magnificently? What can be more dangerous than to reject this faith not only as of itself entirely insufficient to justification, but to reduce it into the same rank with other works, and to attribute no less advantages to them than to faith itself? I answer : At the very sight of this objection most are very much startled; and, indeed, at first, I allow it to have a terrible appearance. But, however, if any one will take courage, and examine it more closely, he will immediately find it a mere scarecrow, which might frighten children. For that faith, to which so many and so great things are attributed in the New Testament (to mention this by anticipation), is not to be taken for one single virtue, but comprehends, in its complete sense, as is clearly shown in the proper place, all the works of Christian piety. So that wherever it is understood as a work by itself, and separated from all other virtues, the Holy Spirit, far from giving it the first rank, places it almost third after charity: “And now abideth faith, hope, and charity, these three, but the greatest of these is charity.” And this passage must not be understood as relating only to the duration of charity in the next world, and that it is only so far preferred to faith, in which interpretation some I see take refuge, since the Apostle points out its superior virtue and excellency even in this life over faith. It must, however, be allowed, that in one respect faith is superior to charity, and therefore to all other virtues, because it is the root and source of all other works, and the mother, as it were, of the other virtues, not because it necessarily produces them, but because its nature is well adapted to that purpose. Moreover, if its force be excited, and as it were cherished, by frequent and serious meditation, it will almost certainly produce them. For whoever firmly believes in the Gospel, and considers it with due attention, will, in all human probability, become a good man. And, in the last place, there is no human virtue which does not arise, as it were, from faith. Now who does not allow that a mother, although in other respects far inferior, yet because she is a mother, has in that point the precedence of her daughters? And no doubt in this sense must be understood the long and magnificent description which the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews gives of faith in the whole of the eleventh Chapter, where the writer excellently shows that all the noble actions of the holy men renowned in the Old Testament proceeded from faith. Lastly, this is the most probable reason (to mention this by anticipation) why St. Paul, in his Epistles, comprehends all Christian virtues under the name of faith. He regards, in short, the fruit in the seed.

 

CHAP. III.

A SECOND PROOF DRAWN FROM THE NOTION OF JUSTIFICATION. JUSTIFICATION INCLUDES THREE THINGS, THE JUDGE, THE ACCUSED, AND THE LAW. WHAT LAW THAT IS BY WHICH WE SHALL BE CONDEMNED OR ACQUITTED, SHEWN. HENCE AN ARGUMENT DEDUCED.

1. Another argument in support of St. James’ opinion may be drawn from the very notion and nature of justification. That this may be the better understood, we must explain more fully, what before we only slightly mentioned, namely, that the word justification has a legal or judicial meaning, and therefore in its primary notion denotes the proceedings of a trial. But in every trial three things at least must be understood. The judge who gives sentence, the accused who is tried, and the law by which judgment is given. In like manner these three things, or certainly something analogous to each of them, are found in every kind of justification. Thus, for example : when man is said to be justified in the sight of God, by the works of the law, or by the faith of Christ; the accused person is man; the judge, God; and the law, according to which judgment is given, is either on the one hand, the law of Moses, or on the other, the law of Christ, sometimes called the law of faith. Neither can we say that any one is justified, unless he be acquitted according to the standard of that law by which he is tried, whether it be the law of Moses or of Christ. In one word, no man is justified or acquitted, unless he hath obeyed the law by the standard of which he is tried.

2. It only therefore remains for us to enquire, by what law Christians will be tried? This question St. James will answer for us. “So speak ye and so do as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.” The law then by which we must be judged, is called the law of liberty, and has its name for these three reasons: first, because it frees us from the servile yoke of the Mosaic ceremonies; secondly, because by it alone we are freed from the guilt and punishment of sin; lastly, and chiefly, because by it we are set at liberty from the irresistible power and influence of sin, under whose yoke those who remained in the Mosaic law groaned without any hope of deliverance. This freedom is granted us by the Spirit of Christ, which inseparably accompanies the law of Christ. These things we have just observed, that no Libertine hearing of the law of liberty, should suppose the Apostle favoured his sentiments.—To return from this digression. The law of liberty is without doubt the same as the royal law; the law of Christ as our King, concerning which the Apostle speaks in the eighth verse. What is its nature, the words immediately following in the same verse will explain. “ Thou shalt love thy neighbour as yourself.” Here the Apostle evidently means the Decalogue or Law of the Ten Commandments : which more evidently appears by the eleventh verse, where certain precepts of this Law are particularly mentioned. In short, the royal law, and the law of liberty, of which St. James speaks, and by which he says we are to be judged, is no other than the moral law itself, as Christ hath explained, and perfected it, and delivered it to His disciples, as His law from the mount, which answers to that of Sinai. This sanction being added to it, by which, as eternal life is promised to those who obey it, so upon the disobedient is denounced everlasting death.

3. This must be particularly observed, that we fall not into the same error as Luther, and most of our own divines after his time; who in disputing with the Roman Catholics concerning justification, and carried away in the heat of controversy, have introduced the following error into the Reformed Churches, greatly to their injury. They taught that the Gospel consisted of promises only; that Christ gave to the world no law, but only explained the law already given; and freed it from the faulty comments of the Scribes and Pharisees; that the only use of the moral law at present, is to bring men to the faith of Christ, or at least, that there may be some determinate laws of conduct, recommended indeed to us by Christ, and which we are bound out of gratitude to obey; but not imposed upon us on pain of damnation, nor as a condition of the New Covenant necessarily to be observed to salvation. From these principles unguardedly laid down by them, and eagerly adopted by the generality of Theologians, arose by strict and regular deduction, the execrable tenets of the Antinomians, Libertines, Familists, and others of the same class, which those good men perhaps never dreamed of. However this may be, those who teach such things, and at the same time exclaim against the Libertines, what do they but condemn themselves, in reproving these? They agree in the premises, but will not admit the conclusion. To prevent this dreadful error it must be ever observed, as an undeniable truth, that Christ, in His sermon recorded by St. Matthew, not only explained the moral law, but also laid it down as His own, and required its observance, assisted by the Grace of the Gospel, from all Christians, as a condition of His Covenant, indispensably necessary. And of this no one can at all doubt, who with any attention reads the conclusion of that discourse. The same also is most clear from that serious declaration with which our Lord begins this vindication of His law. “For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the. kingdom 0f heaven.” From which words it is beyond doubt, that it was our Saviour’s design, not only to vindicate the moral law from the faulty comments of the Scribes and Pharisees, but to deliver it so vindicated to His disciples, by them to be observed on pain of damnation.

4. These things being premised, there arises at length an unanswerable argument, in my opinion at least, against the Antinomians and Solifidians.

Whoever is justified by God through Christ is acquitted by the Law of Christ.

But by Faith alone without Works no one is acquitted by the Law of Christ.

Therefore no one is justified by Faith without Works.

The minor proposition alone of this syllogism wants proof, which may be thus given it.

Whoever is acquitted by the Law of Christ must necessarily fulfill that Law.

But by Faith alone without Works no one fulfills the Law of Christ.

Therefore by Faith alone without Works no one is acquitted by the Law of Christ.

Here the major proposition is self-evident. As to the minor, whoever shall deny that, must necessarily fall into this absurdity; as to affirm either that Faith alone is all the righteousness, which the Law of Christ demands, or that nothing is demanded of us by the Law of Christ on pain of damnation, but Faith. But whoever, after what has been said in the two last arguments, shall seriously affirm this, is not fit to be argued with, and is a subject rather for the physician than the divine.

 

CHAP. IV.

THE THIRD ARGUMENT FROM THE NATURE OF FAITH.-- THE THREE ACTS INTO WHICH FAITH IS DIVIDED BY DIVINES, CONSIDERED (KNOWLEDGE, ASSENT, CONFIDENCE.)—IT IS SHOWN THAT JUSTIFICATION IS NOT NECESSARILY CONNECTED WITH ANY OF THESE.

1. We will deduce our third argument from the nature of faith itself, thus : if faith be considered alone, and separated from every other virtue, there is no act of it which is saving, or which may not take place in a wicked, and altogether unjustified man. Therefore, it is evidently impossible that a man should be justified by faith alone, without other virtues. This consequence is clearer than the sun. With respect to the antecedent, I must say, that those who have so strenuously contended that we are justified by faith alone, always appear to me, either not to have known, or at least not to have remembered, what faith is. Those who attribute so much to faith alone, extol faith beyond all faith. To prove this assertion, let it be remembered that faith is commonly divided by divines into three acts; knowledge, assent, and confidence. We will consider each of them.

2. With respect to knowledge, all allow that it may be found in the worst of men. Therefore Cameron broached a strange, new, and entirely unauthorized opinion, in saying that there was a certain knowledge peculiar to the elect, which from its nature was always efficacious, and saving; and which in one place he calls a “guiding light,” and in short, upon which he affirms the conversion of man to God entirely to depend. For this idea he is most deservedly reproved by Episcopius,; and not by Episcopius only, but by the Synods of Dort, Alise, and Charenton, is that opinion condemned in specific terms, as Episcopius has clearly shown. We will not discuss a decided point.

3. Concerning the assent of the mind, the case is no less clear. For it is certain that a mere assent may be found, not only in wicked men but even in devils. I confess that there are not a few learned men who think that this assent, if it only be firm and deeply rooted in the mind, will necessarily produce the practice of piety, and obedience to the commands of Christ. Neither are the arguments of trifling weight by which they labour to prove their case: but the arguments for the contrary opinion seem to me stronger, especially that taken from the first Epistle to the Corinthians, where St. Paul supposes that a man may have all faith, which no doubt includes this highest degree of faith, and yet not have charity. I cannot at all attend to those who imagine the Apostle here to put an impossible case. But there is no occasion to say much on this subject; for if that be granted, which these learned men contend for, it cannot injure our argument, provided it is acknowledged (which they indeed willingly allow) that a mere assent, and without that practice of piety which it is supposed to draw after it, cannot avail before God. And the same may be observed of Cameron's opinion.

4. The remaining act of faith is called confidence, and in this the Solifidians place their greatest confidence; we shall, therefore, more carefully consider what they say on this point. And first, it will be very proper to enquire what they mean by this confidence; for they involve this subject in such intricate expressions, that we almost want an Oedipus to interpret them. Intelligibly and consistently to explain what they say upon it, requires more than mortal wit. Let him who thinks otherwise try, and however unwilling, he will be obliged to confess the truth of what has been as­serted. We will, however, try to produce light out of this darkness.

5. It must be observed, therefore, that whenever faith in the New Testament (considered as separated from other virtues) is regarded only as that assent of the mind by which we believe the Sufferings, Death, and Resurrection of Christ, and therefore the truth of whatever He has given to us in the name of God either of precept or promise, still that assent is of a nature which properly produces a certain confidence. “Whoever (to use the words of Grotius) believes that what Christ taught is of God, and this among the rest, that those who live according to the Gospel will obtain eternal life, he must at the same time be confident that he himself will obtain that blessing, if he so lives. Yet this confidence is still conditional. After a man hath already led a Christian life, and is purified from his vices, then that confidence begins to become confirmed for that time, which is called hope, in the Holy Scriptures. This hope is subsequent to justification, and therefore is not a part of that faith by which we are justified.” From these words of Grotius, who certainly has clearly and distinctly stated this matter, we may thus argue: that confidence, which they suppose to be the principal act of justifying faith, is either conditional or absolute. If the first is meant, nothing can be more certain than that it may be found in every one who believes the truth of Christianity; for it is the necessary consequence of such belief. You will say, But confidence, which is the property of justifying faith, is such as not only is fixed in the understanding, but powerfully influences the heart and will. Hence he comes to Christ, and with his whole heart depends on Him for salvation; or, to use the words of a very learned man: "It is such a confidence, as casting away every thing else, and depending on the Mediator, attracts the whole heart and soul to Christ, and is united to Him.” But here we may ask, What do these phrases mean, “to come to Christ, to be attracted to Him with all the heart and soul, to be united to Him ?” For these expressions, if I mistake not, do not so much describe acts of faith and confidence, as of love. He comes to Christ, who, first believing in the doctrines of Christ, and repenting of his sins, then dedicates himself wholly to Him, and becomes His disciple; that so through Him he may obtain pardon of his sins, and eternal life. He is attracted to Christ by the whole heart and soul, and united to Him, who sincerely loves Christ, and pants after all those great blessings obtained by Christ, not with a light and faint, but an earnest and hearty affection; and provided he can obtain Christ as his reward, values as nothing all those other things which the world blindly admires and longs for; who, in short, determines always to adhere to the doctrine and precepts of Christ. Whoever shall do these things, he without doubt is for Christ's sake accepted by God to salvation, that is, is justified. If these phrases are otherwise explained, I confess I do not understand them. However this may be, it is evident that this conditional confidence can contribute nothing to a man’s justification and future happiness, except you suppose it to act upon his will and affections, by producing some act of love in the soul, and by strongly stimulating the whole man to seek those blessings of the Gospel which he believes both to exist and trusts that he may obtain them. Certainly neither faith nor confidence availeth any thing, except they are worked by love, or rather are made effectual by it, and brought to perfection. And for this reason I do not at all doubt but that love may be rightly called the form of justifying faith; I say expressly of justifying faith, because it is allowed that faith considered by itself, has its own form: but that faith which, and as far as it justifies, must necessarily be rendered complete by true love.

6. Let us now proceed to the remaining part of our argument, which is concerning absolute confidence. This is that degree of mental certainty by which a man believes that all his sins are forgiven, and that he is accepted of God unto salvation, independent of any condition. And it is too evident, alas! that when almost all the divines of the Reformed Churches, especially foreigners, speak of confidence as the formal act of justifying faith, they mean this absolute assurance. This doctrine hath long been the great disgrace of the Reformed Churches, neither is there any other upon which Roman Catholics have exercised greater severity or so turned into ridicule: and with justice, for it is far from a trifling error, it is a most baneful error: I had almost said an error in faith. May God in His mercy grant, that such opinions be for ever banished from our writings, at any rate from our teaching! Rut our business here is with arguments, and not with prayers and tears.

7. I say then, that this absolute assurance can by no means be an act of justifying faith, much less the principal act; which may be easily proved by this single argument. No one can be certain of his justification, who hath not first performed all things required for justification, and so be in fact already justified. Therefore, absolute assurance is not the act of justifying faith, but the consequence of justification. This consequence is self-evident. With respect to the antecedent, I ask upon what grounds they establish this absolute assurance of which they speak? On the Gospel of Christ? But how any person can, from the Gospel, be certain of his justification before he hath performed what the Gospel requires for justification, is utterly incomprehensible. Is this certainty obtained by any peculiar revelation not contained in the Gospel? What is this but changing the firm sound faith of the Saints into mere enthusiasm, that is, into a groundless fancy? Besides, this peculiar revelation is either agreeable to the word of God, or it is not. If not, it must evidently be rejected: if it be, they relapse into the former absurdity. For no one, by the Word of Christ, can be certain of the remission of his sins, except he has fulfilled the conditions required in that Word for such remission. It would be easy to heap together many arguments of this kind, as indeed has been already done by many; but he who is not convinced by this single reason, will not, in my opinion, be persuaded by the strongest proofs.

§ 8. I will conclude the whole subject in a few words. Confidence in Christ, whether conditional or absolute little signifies, is common to the good and the bad; so that, if this be the last step and perfection of justifying faith, certainly every wicked man may boast of his salvation. For it is, alas ! too well known, that the greatest part of those who call themselves Christians, secure of the mercy of God, the merits of Christ, and of their own salvation, pass their days without the least anxiety, being at the same time very far short of a true Christian life. Their good works, which they have never performed, they renounce, acknowledge themselves the worst of sinners, and then tranquilly depend on Christ, the Mediator, to obtain salvation for them; you may persuade them to do this without any difficulty, they rush on headlong into this confidence. Those who have the cure of souls find no difficulty so great as the convincing unhappy men of this error, deluded by which they carelessly give up all care of their souls. But, you will say, they are not sincere. This confidence is greatly different from that which is peculiar to the justified. How, I pray ? do they pretend a confidence which they have not? You will never persuade them so. They both know and congratulate themselves, that they truly, and unfeignedly, trust in the merits of Christ. This facts prove, for in this confidence they live and are ready to die; nay, too often really do so die. They therefore truly trust in Christ, but not as they ought, because they do it without any grounds. They depend on the merits of Christ, but despise His commands; they eagerly embrace the promises of the Gospel, but care nothing for its precepts. This is the only difference between the confidence of the good and the wicked. It is in vain to seek any other. Lastly, St. John clearly informs us what is 1 true and Christian confidence : “And hereby we know” (that is by love) “that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him. For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God.” For surely a secure confidence of mind is the daughter of a good conscience, and arises from good works, so far is it from being of any profit without good works.

9. To finish this argument: since there is no act of faith considered separately and by itself, with which justification is necessarily connected, since knowledge without practice, assent of the mind without love of heart, confidence in the promises of the Gospel, without a sincere endeavour to fulfil its conditions, are of no avail with God, we must necessarily conclude and believe sincerely, that no one is justified in the sight of God by faith alone, without the other virtues.

 

CHAP. V.

THE FOURTH ARGUMENT TAKEN FROM TIIE PROCEEDINGS OF GOD IN THE LAST JUDGMENT. TIIE JUDGMENT OF GOD IN THE NEXT WORLD CORRESPONDS IN EVERY RESPECT WITH THE DIVINE JUSTIFICATION IN THIS. OUR WORKS IN THAT JUDGMENT REGARDED, NOT AS MERE SIGNS OF FAITH, BUT AS A VERY PRINCIPAL PART OF THE CONDITION PRESCRIBED IN TIIE GOSPEL COVENANT.

1. Let us take our fourth argument from the manner in which God will judge mankind at the last day.—In whatever way every one shall be judged in the next world by God, in the same will he be justified by Him in this.—But in the next world every one will be judged according to his works, and not by faith alone.—Therefore in this world every one is justified by God by his works, and not by faith alone. If I am not very much mistaken this argument is unanswerable.

2. With respect to the major proposition, it is supported by these most evident reasons, taken from the very nature of the future judgment. First, the future judgment—so far as it regards us who live under the Gospel—is in reality only a solemn and public passing of sentence by Christ, the Judge, in the sight of the whole world, by which it will be clearly shown who in this life, according to the terms of the Gospel Covenant, have been righteous, and who unrighteous. I say, so far as it regards us, because other means will be used with those who have never known the Gospel, for it does not seem agreeable to Divine Justice to condemn him for violating the Gospel Covenant who never even heard of it. And with reference to this is what St. Paul says of those nations who have not known the written law of God. Yet however God may determine concerning such in that awful day, it is most certain that we Christians shall be judged only by the tenor of the Gospel Covenant; so that with respect to us, the last judgment will be nothing else but the decisive sentence of Christ the Judge, concerning our righteousness or unrighteousness, according to the law of His Gospel, which has been long enforced upon, and sufficiently revealed to us. Whence this act of Christ, as regards believers, has been well called by some declarative justification, opposed to that justification which by the law of Christ we have in this life, and which by the same is not improperly styled active, or habitual justification. Both agree in the same points, and are under the same regulations; that is, whatever is required at the Day of Judgment of a man so as to be declared righteous, the same, according to the law of Christ, is requisite for his being made righteous in this life. For the sentence of a judge must in every point conform to the regulations of the law. This then most clearly follows; if it is only according to our works that we are declared righteous in the judgment by Christ, it is only by our works that we can be made righteous in this life by the law of Christ. 

3. But, secondly, there is another act of the future judgment as regarding believers necessarily connected with the former; that by which the reward of eternal life is openly conferred on the faithful. And in this the proceedings of the Almighty, sitting in judgment at the Last Day, are no less agreeable with His proceedings in justification in this life. For who will attempt to deny that a conferring a right to heavenly rewards is the principal act of justifi­cation? Certainly the words of the Apostle, speaking of justification, clearly prove this: compare the third verse with the fourth of the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, where he explains “was counted for righteousness” by this phrase, “is reckoned as a reward.” So that to im­pute any thing to a man for righteousness, and to impute a reward to a man for any thing, are plainly the same, or at least are both contained in the same idea of justification. Therefore the regulations of this act of the Last Judgment are the same with the former. For when we are justified in this life, a right to eternal life is truly conferred upon us, according to the law of Christ; when we are judged in the next world, the same right is decided and confirmed by the solemn sentence of the Judge.

§ 4. That this is an accurate description of the divine judg­ment in the next world (namely that it is a decisive sentence pronounced by the Judge, both on our righteousness, and also on our consequent right to eternal life, which we here obtain, according to the law of Christ), may be proved from See Rom. many very clear passages in the New Testament. But 16;,2’ Passage, in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, which a0]?’Mat ^or an0^ier reason we have before praised, deserves particular attention: “For I know nothing by myself, yet am I ’ * * not hereby justified, but He that judgeth me is the Lord.” It is plain from what follows in the fifth verse, that he alludes to the judgment to come, clearly teaching that the Almighty judge will then certainly and infallibly give sentence con­cerning our righteousness or unrighteousness in this life. Thus far of the major proposition.

§ 5. Let us proceed to the minor:—but whoever can deny this, must shut his eyes against the clear light of Scripture. For how often is it there expressly said, that God will judge every man according to his works ? Besides, tlie very cause chap. and reason of the sentence, by which eternal life is given to -—— the righteous, is evidently taken from their works: which 25. 21,23, passages should be more carefully observed, because they34’3o' answer a foolish objection of those who say that eternal life is given to our works only as they are signs and effects of faith. For from the passages referred to above it is plain that our works, in this matter, are considered as the veiy thing on account of which (by the merciful covenant of God through Christ) eternal life is given us. None hath expressed this matter better than the excellent I. Gerard. Vossiusy: “ It is asked, whether a reward is promised to works as signs of faith ? Now we conceive that they say too much, who suppose it promised to works as deserving it; and that they say too little, who think it promised to them only as signs of faith.

For there are many passages of Scripture, by which it is shewn that our works, in the business of salvation, are regarded as indispensably requisite, or as a primary condition, to which the reward of eternal life is inseparably connected.”

This very learned man proves his opinion from the passages Rev. 7.14, already produced, adding some others. Both extremes must 4^ 172;Cor* be carefully avoided; that which makes works deserving in pjjlj ^ ^ themselves of eternal life—the error of some Bomari Catholics, at which every one must feel shocked—and that which denies them all other connection with heavenly rewards, than as they are signs of that faith to which salvation is promised. This opinion, as we have seen, is at open variance with many very striking passages of Holy Writ. A middle path must be chosen; and we say, that the only foundation of that con­nection which our works have with eternal life, is this: that they are a condition required in the Gospel Covenant, to which condition, upon its performance, a heavenly reward is most graciously promised, according to the same Cove­nant.

§ 6. Moreover, that good works are not to be regarded in the business of salvation as mere signs of faith, Grotius has well shown by this reason2: “Every sign is inferior to the 1C0r.13.13. thing signified: but charity, by which these works are performed, and which therefore must be considered as part of them, is greater than faith.” Lastly, the same is proved from what St. James says, “By works is faith made perfect, and works co-operate with faith.” What then? does the perfection of the thing signified depend on the sign, or does the sign co-operate with the thing signified ? It is of no use to dwell on such trifles; let us therefore proceed.

 

CHAP. VI.

 

TIIE FIFTH AND LAST ARGUMENT, DRAWN FROM THE IMPLICIT CONFESSION OF OUR ADVERSARIES. TWO STATEMENTS UNANIMOUSLY ALLOWED BY REFORMED DIVINES ; FIRST, THAT THE FAITH WHICH JUSTIFIES SHOULD BE A LIVING FAITH, THAT IS, PRODUCTIVE OF GOOD WORKS. SECOND, THAT GOOD WORKS ARE UNDENIABLY NECESSARY TO SALVATION. THE NECESSITY OF GOOD WORKS TO JUSTIFICATION, SHEWN FROM BOTH THESE POINTS.

 

1. We have at last arrived at our fifth and last argu­ment ; but this we will deduce from the implicit consent of all men, and therefore of our adversaries themselves. Such indeed is the force of truth, that frequently she makes her opponents speak in her words, undesignedly indeed, and unconsciously; and error is often as contradictory to itself as to truth. The case is so in the present instance. For there are some points in which all the Reformed Divines agree, and which being allowed, this doctrine of the necessity of good works to justi­fication, neither can, nor ought to be denied. But before we enter upon this argument, it is right to inform our readers, that we are not here speaking of the public Confessions of Faith, of the Reformed Churches, but of the private opinions of certain Doctors, who profess to follow those Confessions. For with respect to the authorized Confessions of the Re­formed Churches, it is clear that they all, or at least the principal, and most excellent of them, are professedly on our side of the question. For although they teach, that man is justified by faith alone without works, yet they explain that expression in a sense, which we readily admit. Thus the authors of those Confessions expressly say that this sentence is to be figuratively taken; so that in the word faith, grace, to which it is opposed, must be understood; and that chap. to be justified by faith alone, is the same as to be justified by - grace alone, and not by the merit of works; and, properly speaking, faith and the other #virtues, and good works, are of equal validity, and the same necessity to justification; neither in this matter is any thing more to be attributed to faith than to good works; so that they reject faith itself, just as much as they do good works from justification. The latter part of our second Dissertation will satisfy any further doubts on this subject. Whatever difficulty, therefore, or error, has become attached to this most evident doctrine of the justification of man, as taught by Protestants of the present day, it must be attributed entirely to the mistakes of certain private men, who have not clearly understood the opinions of the purer, and if I may so express myself, the primitive reformation: yet even these divines, although they have, by their scholastic absurdities, darkened this otherwise clear and perspicuous doctrine, wandered not so far from the truth, but that, praised be God, they have sanctioned, by their consent, cer­tain points from which it will appear that our opinion is undeniably true, and beyond the power of contradiction. Of these, we shall here treat only of two.

§ 2. In the first place then, all the divines of the Reformed Churches, with a few exceptions among the more rigid Lu­therans, and those who do not deserve to be reckoned among the Reformers, unanimously acknowledge, that a faith, living and not dead, a faith which has good works united with it, moreover, which neither is, nor can be, without good works, is the true and justifying faith, as they call it, which by this peculiarity is distinguished from historic and temporary faith, and the faith of miracles. Here then what is the difference ? Whoever properly attends to this subject, will assuredly allow that the point on which this controversy turns, is a meta­physical subtlety. Whether, forsooth, the faith which is living, or faith in that it is living, is required to justification? in short the matter comes at last, as some very learned divinesa have clearly shewn, merely to the use of the particle quatenvSj as far as, and hence have arisen much anger and division. Were it not for the importance of the subject we are upon, one could scarcely refrain from laughter, at finding these words, in writings of divines of no small reputation, <{ Faith pregnant with good works, justifies before she brings forth.” The mountains are in labour, and they have pro­duced a mouse.—After much turning and twisting, when we at last arrive at the summit of the controversy, we are left by these doctors at this trifling and almost imperceptible point of distinction. Learned men would certainly have my leave to amuse themselves with such trifles, if I did not perceive that they obtruded these subtleties on others seriously, and almost as if they were articles of faith; (as if they were scarcely orthodox, who could not pronounce this “ Shibboleth •”) and if it were not most unhappily proved by melancholy experi­ence, that these empty distinctions, these far-fetched contriv­ances, are used for the support of the most dreadful errors, which the common people deduce from these doctrines. Most wisely did Grotiusb say, "Much danger is the consequence of these incautious expressions. For most men hearing and reading these things” (namely, that we are justified by faith alone without any works) “ while they live in sin and do not amend their conduct, still promise themselves salvation. Because to be sure, as they say, Christ died expressly for this purpose, that He might save them; and applying to themselves, by faith, the righteousness of Christ, which is most perfect, and worthy of a heavenly reward, His merits become theirs. If this can be so managed, every thing else is certainly superfluous, and it is of little consequence how they live. Unconditionally hath Christ made satisfaction for the punishment they deserve to suffer; unconditionally hath He obtained eternal glory for them.” In one word, whoever of the common people shall receive this doctrine un­disguisedly delivered, namely, that faith is the only instru­ment of justification, and that good works have no weight, are of no importance in this matter, “though you should after­wards invent a thousand distinctions, you will never persuade him to perform any good works, as altogether necessary either to his justification or salvation.

 

§ 3. Now, though we have already sufficiently proved that good works not only accompany justifying faith, but also are no less required to justification than faith itself, and that chap. they are as much to be considered a cause in this matter as faith (that is, that faith and works are jointly prescribed as the only condition of justification in the Gospel Covenant); that also more is attributed in the Holy Scriptures to love, which produces every other work, than to faith itself; and that faith has no weight with God, except when, and as far as, it produces this charity; still, out of a great abund­ance, we will add a few remarks from this second chapter of St. James.

§ 4. First then, when it is expressly said by St. James, that a man is justified by works, the particle by has evidently tpywu. a more extensive meaning than that of mere connection.

For if faith alone, and by itself, performs the work of justifi­cation (good works only standing by as it were), it can in no sense be said that a man is justified by works; secondly, when the Apostle in the twenty-second verse, speaking of the faith of Abraham, affirms that “faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith0 made perfectis it not clear ereAeiuOr). that faith and works do co-operate in the business of justifi­cation (of which he had been treating in the words immedi­ately preceding the twenty-first verse), that faith also is of itself imperfect, and is not conducive to the end of justifica­tion unless it is perfected by good works ?

§ 5. What Cameron on this passage opposes to our inter­pretation, (with all due deference to so great a man,) is extremely weak. He is wonderfully critical on the word co-operate. He observes that “if it was St. James’s in- avvepycTv. tention to teach that faith co-operated with works to justi­fication, he would no doubt have chosen other words, and have said that works co-operated with faith, rather than faith with works;” as if these expressions conveyed different meanings. The word co-operate signifies a joint operation, and he who says that faith co-operates with works, says at the same time, that works co-operate with faith. With equal reason may a man say that by these words, “We are l Cor. 3.9. fellow-workers (co-operators) with God,” is not meant the co-operation of the Divine grace with the labours of the (rvvepyoi Apostles preaching the Gospel, because then it would have been said, God is a fellow-worker with us.

§ 6. Upon the latter words, “and by works was faith made perfect”, Cameron thus remarks: “ Faith is here said by St. James to be perfected by works, not because works make faith perfect, but because faith, while it produces works, 2Cor. 12.9. shows that it is perfect. Thus in the second Epistle to the Corinthians, the power of Christ is said to be perfected in infirmities, because then it chiefly exerts and shows itself.” But the answer is easy. Whatever may be determined concerning this passage, it is certain that the word to perfect, in this passage of St. James, signifies not only to show perfection, but really to give it. This is evident from the preceding passage, in which faith and works are said to co-operate, that is, work together. Hence it is manifest that works perfect faith, not only by showing it, but also by co-operating with it; that is, by adding to it a certain force and power.

7. Another argument of Cameron’s is no stronger, by which he thus contends against the meaning of the word to be made perfect in this passage. “ How,” says he, can faith be understood to be perfected by works, if works do not add a certain perfection to faith in the work of justification? But it is clear that no perfection is added to faith by works in the matter of justification, since they proceed from faith as from a cause, and they so proceed from faith as a cause, that that is not a good work which does not proceed from Acts 15. 9. faith. For whatsoever is not of faith is sin, and by faith the ' ' ' heart is purified, whence all works come and receive their value.” I answer; It is indeed true, that the expression, faith is perfected by works, can scarcely be understood in any other sense than that works give perfection to faith in the matter of justification; and this is what St. James affirms and we support. Cameron endeavours to prove the contrary by these two arguments: first, because good works proceed from faith as their cause: secondly, because works receive their value and goodness from faith. 1. The first argument is very weak, because it supposes that nothing caused can exceed the excellence of its cause, which is most false. The sun for instance generates animals, and yet the least of them, in the order of beings, is more perfect than the sun, as being endued with feeling, which the sun is without. The father begets a son, who far excels him in beauty, strength, wisdom and virtue. So faith produces love, which yet is far more noble than faith. 2. Again: if we are to believe Cameron, faith, love, and all the other virtues of the elect, arise from a certain knowledge and experience, with which their minds are illuminated by the Holy Spirit, as from a cause on which they necessarily depend. Will then this learned man say that in the matter of justification no perfection can be added to that knowledge by faith, love, and the other virtues ? So that this man falls by his own sword.

§ 8. The other argument of Cameron is clearly false; for every virtue has distinct properties, by which it exists as a # virtue, and does not borrow this from faith. But if there be any universal virtue which fills, as it were, all the rest with goodness, and gives them their value and importance, that certainly is charity, the true love of God and our neighbour, from which whatever arises will at last be grateful and pleasing to God, although otherwise it should seem of but See Mat. little value. The passages which Cameron produces prove Mark!). 41. nothing. For in that text, “ whatever is not of faith is sin,” the Apostle is not speaking of Evangelical Faith, upon which we are here treating, but of that persuasion by which a man thinks that what he does is lawful, as is evident from the context. The other passage, in which he says, the heart is purified by faith,” is also foreign to the purpose. For although faith be the means which God uses in purifying the heart, still that heart must be purified and warmed with the true love of God and our neighbour, before God will deem it worthy of salvation. It is true, indeed, that every work really good arises from faith; but it is also true that faith Heb. 11.6. is not of itself sufficient to perform any good work, nor to be accepted by God to salvation; for love must be added to it, by which a man comes to God (that is, sincerely worships Him) and diligently seeks for Him as the faithful rewarder of all those who pray unto Him, as is immediately added in the same passage. In the same manner also, without a true knowledge of the Divine will, it is impossible to please God, that is, to perform this very will. Yet whoever should hence conclude that this knowledge will by itself please God unto salvation, and that faith, charity, and the other Christian virtues, can add no perfection to it in this matter; and, in short, that on its account only are all good works estimable in the sight of God, such an one would become truly ridi­culous. But we have already said more than sufficient to rescue this famous passage of St. James from false expla­nations.

§ 9. In the last place, whoever contends that man is justi­fied by faith alone, and that works have no effect in the producing that event, is equally absurd with him who should affirm that man lives by the body alone, and that the soul contributes nothing to his life; for this is considered by the ver. 26. Apostle as a true comparison. This then is too evident to be by any means evaded.

§ 10. Moreover, it must be observed, (since the principal reason why most have recourse to this idle evasion is, that they may not contradict the Epistles of St. Paul, where works are very frequently excluded from the business of justifi­cation,) that if any one will pay proper attention, he will presently perceive that the works whereof St. Paul speaks, he not only excludes from the act of justification, but rejects entirely, as not at all necessary. This is very evident from Rom. 4. 5. the following passage: “ To him that worketh not, but be- lieveth on Him that justifieth the wicked, his faith is counted for righteousness.” Which shews that a man is not only justified by faith without works, but that even he who is without works is justified. St. Paul again says the same, Rom. 3. 28. except we commit actual violence upon his words : “ Man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” For there by the phrase, “ without works,” works are not only clearly excluded from justification, but also are separated from that faith which justifies, and from that man who is justified. Wherefore their ingenious contrivance, who teach that works are necessarily united with justifying faith, although not in the act of justification, is no less absurd in itself, than opposed to the words of St. Paul; for the sake of explaining which, however, it was invented: and thus far of the first point.

11. The second point receives a no less unanimous consent from Reformed divines; namely, that good works are necessary to obtain salvation. I might hence conclude that therefore good works ought to be determined as no less necessary to justification; and this is the reason of such conclusion. In justification, as we have observed in the fourth argument, a right is given us to salvation and eternal life, and this all acknowledge. How then can good works be determined necessary for him towards obtaining eternal life, to whom already, by justification, the reward of eternal life hath been adjudged without works? Here some will answer, that good works are a condition neces­sary to obtain salvation itself by the promise of God, but not so that any one thereby obtains a right to justification, for that is freely given to faith alone in justification. But first, when men acknowledge that good works are a pre­ceding condition necessarily requisite for salvation, and yet deny that by works a right is obtained to salvation, they clearly show, either that they do not know what a condition is, or else that they are ready to contradict themselves.

Now a condition, such as we here mean, is the condition of a promise, agreement, or covenant; but a promise, agree­ment, or covenant, confers a right to the benefit contained in it but only on the performance of the condition, and therefore a condition always refers to some right to be obtained. Whoever therefore allows that good works are a condition necessarily to be performed to the obtaining eternal life, by the Divine promise, he by this very act confesses that a right to eternal life cannot be obtained without works. Secondly, Whoever denies that a right to salvation can be obtained by works, opposes the clear and express testimony of the Holy Spirit. For hear what Christ Himself says: “ Blessed are Rev.22.14. they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life.” To this may be added all those passages of the New Testament in which eternal life is clearly declared by the Almighty to be justly due to our works. From these See2Tbes. texts we may thus argue. If the reward of eternal life is due of right to our works, then from our works we obtain a 4* 8* right to that reward; (such a right certainly as hath its only foundation in the gracious covenant of God, through Christ.) The terms are correlative; to whom a reward is given of right, he hath necessarily a right to that reward, and the - converse,

§ 12. It would be easy to add much more: but he who still retains his reason, and love of truth, will easily see from what we have already said, that our doctrine is dedu- cible, by a consequence clearer than the light, from the very concessions of our adversaries. And indeed it is very wonderful that they who acknowledge the necessity of good works to attain salvation on the promise of God, should be so averse from our opinion, that good works are also necessarily required to justification. For by the same argu­ments through which they are induced to reject this, they must necessarily reject the other also, if they would only be consistent with themselves. For why do they deny that good works are necessary to justification? First, because this opinion detracts from the merits of Christ; secondly, because it contradicts St. Paul. But who does not perceive that these arguments equally militate against the other opinions which they support? With respect to the merits of Christ, to them our salvation, no less than our justifi­cation, is entirely due. Freely are we saved, freely are we justified. With respect to St. Paul, it is manifest that the works concerning which he treats are removed by him just as far from having any effect in our salvation as in our justi­fication. Works which are excluded from either are so from both; this appears from many passages of St. Paul, particu­larly from that in the Epistle to Titus, chapter iii., verse 5, compared with that in the Epistle to the Ephesians, chapter ii., verses 8, 9. But it is now time for us to consider both these and other passages of the same nature in the writings of that Apostle.

 

HARMONIA APOSTOLICA.

SECOND DISSERTATION

ON

ROMANS, chap. III. ver. 28.

 

“ THEREFORE WE CONCLUDE THAT A MAN IS JUSTIFIED BY FAITH, WITHOUT THE DEEDS OF THE LAW.”

COMPARED WITH ST. JAMES, chap. II. ver. 24.

THE VARIOUS SCHEMES OF DIVINES, FOR RECONCILING ST. JAMES AND ST. PAUL. THOSE WHO SUPPOSE ST. JAMES TO SPEAK OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN’S FAITH BEFORE OTHER MEN, AND NOT BEFORE GOD, REFUTED.

 

1. We have now sufficiently proved the conclusion of St. James concerning the necessity of good works to justification. That being so strongly established and confirmed, it only remains that we should treat of the agreement between the two Apostles, St. James and St. Paul. Let us hear both. St. James says thus: “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” The conclusion of St. Paul is directly opposite to this: “We conclude therefore that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” What a difference do we here behold! how greatly opposed are they to each other!

2. But let not the reader be discouraged; with a little patience he will certainly find these Apostles, though apparently disagreeing, in the most perfect harmony with each other. I will, moreover, venture to promise, however incredible it may appear, that from what St. Paul hath said concerning works, I will bring additional proofs for the doctrine of St. James, of justification by works. But before we make this attempt, it will be useful and almost necessary to consider first what schemes of reconciliation others have adopted.

3. In the first place then, many think that St. James does not attribute to works the justification in the sight of God of which St. Paul speaks, but only a declaration and proof of it before men, which cannot be made by internal faith, which is invisible, but by external works, which, as the outward effects of faith, demonstrate the inward cause; that is, they suppose St. Paul to treat of the justification of man before God, which is by faith alone; but St. James of the justification of man's faith before other men, which can be by works only. And this foolish scheme they attempt to prove, principally by two arguments.

4. In the first place, it is evident, they say, from the very words of St. James, “Show me thy faith by thy works.” Is it not plain from hence, that St. James only means that by works a proof is given of faith to men? What the Apostle, it may be answered, here says of the proof of faith before men, does not complete his principal design, but is only annexed to the leading question of justification before God: which proves that so far is any one from being justi­fied without works by faith alone, before God, that not even men can be certain (humanly speaking) of another’s faith, unless pious acts, the best marks of faith, attest it. We will soon establish this truth by some incontestible arguments. Gen. is. 6. §5. Secondly they argue : Abraham is said to be justified by the sacrifice of his son Isaac, but before God he had been justified long before that, by faith: therefore, justification here signifies a man's being declared just before men, and not made so before God. I answer, that this objection is built on a false supposition, namely, that justification is, as they assert, an instantaneous act, entirely completed at once, in a single moment. This can by no means be admitted. For justification is a continued act, and only then perfectly finished, when a man hath entirely, and to the last, fulfilled the condition of that covenant by which he is justified. Therefore, although Abraham had been justified before, still he might be said even then also to be justified, when in will, at least, he had sacrificed his only son to God. Moreover, he then became a peculiar object of Divine approbation, by an act of obedience truly admirable, a greater than which could hardly be expected of man. And hence I am persuaded that this is the very reason why the Apostle dwells upon this act of Abraham's, when he could otherwise have entered more deeply into his subject, by referring to the first origin of the matter. For it is certain that Abraham, when he was first thought worthy of the Divine favour, approved him­self before God, not by faith alone, but by an act of obedience by no means trifling, when in obedience to the Divine promise he left his father and his father's house, and with the greatest cheerfulness entered upon a pilgrimage, long, uncertain, and replete with dangers of every kind. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews particularly dwells upon this action of Abraham’s; and it was indeed an act chap. truly heroic, but still far inferior to the other, when at the —-— bidding of God, he was ready to slay and offer up in sacrifice, Isaac his son, his only son, his best beloved, the son of the promise, the destined heir of the world, and this too by his own hands. When Abraham did this, he had almost arrived at the highest pitch of obedience, and had recom­mended his obedience to God by a proof which perhaps cannot be surpassed; then too his justification had all but received its final and entire completion. Hence St. James affirms that Abraham, for giving this wonderful proof of his obedience to God, was called the friend of God. The Apostle undoubtedly alludes (as Grotius in his first annotations on this passage has aptly remarked) to Gen. xxii. ver. 16, and the following verses, where God makes a new covenant with Abraham because he had not spared his son through his love to God, confirming it by an oath, and thus received him into a higher degree of friendship.

6. Should these arguments appear rather obscure, yet I trust those by which we shall soon prove the absurdity of this interpretation of St. James, will be clearer than the light itself. We say then, that this interpretation is both absurd in itself, and at the same time inconsistent with, or rather diametrically repugnant to, the very words of St. James. It is absurd in itself, and has not even the appearance of truth. For who, in that age, was so mad, as to contend with the Apostle, that a man was justified, that is, declared just in the sight of men, by faith alone ? since faith, it is generally allowed, is an internal action, only produced in the heart, and therefore being wholly removed from human observance, can show itself by its external effects alone, by fruits agree­able to its nature.

7. In the next place, this comment is repugnant to the very words of the Apostle. For, first, it must be observed that while the Apostle denies man to be justified by faith alone, he allows it to be by faith in part. “ By works, and not by faith only.” Now if justification is taken to mean a declaration of righteousness, it is plain that a man cannot be justified by faith at all. For a man is justified in the sight

of other men by works alone, and not by faith in any measure, for this escapes human notice, being an internal action, while the former only are objects of our senses. Secondly, What if this interpretation produce from the Apostle's words an evident solecism ? For if it be true that St. James is here to be understood as speaking of the justification of our faith before men, then his conclusion, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only,” must be thus understood: Ye see that the faith of a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone. WThat can be more absurd, and more unworthy of such an Apostle ? Thirdly, This in­terpretation is well refuted by these words of the fourteenth verse : “ What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works; can faith save him ?” Is it not hence evident that the Apostle is speaking of the acceptance of man to salvation with God, and not of the approbation of man with other men? Fourthly, St. James, as we have elsewhere shewne, means the same thing by being justified, and being called the friend of God. He is speaking, therefore, of a justification similar to that by which a man is admitted into the favour and friendship of God. Fifthly, and lastly, to be justified is used by St. James Koyi(e<rOai in the same sense as to be imputed for righteousness is in X^at0' ^e °ther Scriptures, ver. 23. But who ever supposed this expression of the imputation of righteousness by God Him­self, to signify the declaration of a man's righteousness among his fellow creatures ? I conclude, therefore, that this inter­pretation of St. James is palpably absurd, and therefore to be rejected.

 

CHAP. II.

THEIR OPINION CONSIDERED, WHO SUPPOSE ST. PAUL TO SPEAK OF A TRUE AND LIVELY FAITH, BUT ST. JAMES OF A FALSE AND FEIGNED ONE.- THIS OVERTURNED BY VARIOUS ARGUMENTS, AND THE OBJECTIONS OF THIS PARTY ANSWERED.

1. A second idea for the purpose of this reconciliation supposes there is in the word faith a double meaning. St. Paul, say its supporters, speaks of a true and lively faith, which is efficacious by works : St. James of one false, feigned, and in fact, dead, which is only a shadow, a resemblance of faith, and not a true faith. No wonder then that St. Paul ascribes to a lively faith, that justification which St. James denies to a dead one.

§ 2. Before we treat of this opinion, we must remark that many unite this interpretation with the foregoing one, so that in comparing the words of St. James with St. Paul, they suppose two double meanings, one in the word justification, which with St. Paul means the justification of man before God, but with St. James stands for the declaration of a man's righteousness before other men. The second, in the word faith, which with St. Paul means a lively faith, but with St. James a dead one. How confused, inconsistent, and contradictory to itself is all this! For if justification be, in St. James, the declaration of a man's faith in the sight of other men, and at the same time if he means by the word faith, a false and dead faith, does it not follow that the Apostle says a false and dead faith is declared before men by good works ? What can be more absurd ? However, this observation being remembered, we will proceed to examine this second interpretation alone, and distinct from the former.

§ 3. As to what they say concerning the faith meant by St. James being a dead faith, and without works, we will grant it upon this condition : that they on their parts shall allow that all faith by itself is dead, and only receives its life from works, that is, that without works it is of no avail with God as to our salvation, as the Apostle openly teaches. But this our adversaries will not do, for they think that there is a certain kind of faith which has in itself a power of justifying for which it is in no respect indebted to works, although it cannot be separated from them. Their meaning then is, that St. James speaks of such a faith as is imperfect in its kind, and not possessed of the true nature of faith: in a word, which is only a resemblance of faith, and not faith itself.

§ 4. But how greatly does their interpretation differ from the words of the Apostle ! For first, St. James approves of the faith concerning which he speaks, ver. 19 : “ Thou believest there is one God. thou doest well.” Therefore he cannot be understood as speaking of a pretended faith. Secondly,The faith of which the Apostle speaks, he allows, does in part justify a man. But by a pretended and untrue faith, no man can be said to be justified in any degree whatever. To this Par3eusf answers, “that the Apostle does not affirm, but deny, that faith alone justifies; that is, a solitary faith, without works; neither does he divide justification between works and faith, but attributes it entirely to works, and denies it entirely to faith; and therefore he does not say, Ye see that by works also, but, Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” An admirable answer certainly! for first the Apostle does not say that faith alone, or which is alone, does not justify, but, it only does not justify, “ not by faith only.” And secondly, if for the adverb only, you put the adjective alone3 we are just where we were;for then it will -appear that the Apostle teaches that the faith of which he speaks, justifies when united with works, but does not when alone, and without works. Now this can in no sense be said of a false and feigned faith. I should certainly be astonished at what Parseus asserts, that St. James attri­butes justification entirely to works, did I not recollect that the learned man understood St. James as speaking only of justification before men. But if any one in his senses can think so now, after what has been said to the contrary, I am persuaded he is determined to be blind. Thirdly, It is evident from the following consideration, that the Apostle denies, not only that a false, but even that a true faith has alone the office of justifying. That faith which was in Abraham, undoubtedly was a true faith, and not a mere See ver.21. resemblance : but this very faith of Abraham could not justify him without works, for he is said to be justified by works. Fourthly, and lastly, The Apostle expressly speaks of that faith which sometimes co-operates with works, and by Seever.22. works is assisted towards its end, that is, justification, which cannot be applied to a false faith. We have already vindi­cated this verse from bad interpretations g. I briefly therefore conclude thus: St. James is plainly arguing of that faith to which nothing is wanting but good works, and which, if they be added to it, will certainly render a man acceptable with God, and place him in a state of salvation. But a false faith is imperfect in its nature, it cannot be added to good works, and if it could, would not therefore become a true faith.

§ 5. Let us now turn to those arguments by which our adversaries endeavour to support their interpretation. They produce two only which deserve consideration. First then, they object that the Apostle speaks of such a faith as may be found in the very devils, and therefore must not be understood as speaking of the true faith. To this I answer: It is most certain; since both the Apostle so testifies, and reason itself confirms it, that the assent and faith of devils are true, that is, not feigned. But this faith is of no advantage to them, be­cause it doth not produce love in them. The cause of which perhaps is both because they know themselves to be excluded from the grace of the Gospel by an irreversible decree, and because their nature is so perfectly depraved, that even should the hope of pardon be given, it would perhaps be impossible for them to love God, and to be inclined to any good act. The force therefore of the Apostle's argument is this: The very devils have faith and assent, to whom this faith is yet of no advantage, because it does not produce piety in them; by parity of reasoning, you, whoever you may be, who trust in your faith, will, like them, reap no advantage from it except to your faith you add works. You will allege that real faith is at least a real virtue, which even those will allow who deny that it is by itself sufficient to justification; but in devils no real virtue can be found, and therefore no real faith. But this may be easily answered. For the very same faith which in man is a virtue, as it exists in devils is entirely deficient in that quality11. And for a very evident reason; the object of faith, or thing to be believed, is known by devils, with such strong and indisputable evidence, that they must believe through invincible necessity, and therefore in their belief there is nothing praiseworthy or virtuous. But faith is not produced in man after the same manner; for although the objects of faith are proposed to us as very credible, and con­firmed by arguments of such a kind as may abundantly convince minds which are impartial, dispositions not biassed*; these objects of faith are however not urged upon us by an evidence which cannot be resisted. For then, among the hearers of the Gospel there would be no unbelievers, when alas ! there are far too many. This liberty of believing, in man, makes that faith in him a virtue, and a praiseworthy act of obedi­ence, wliieh in devils deserves no praise, because they have no such liberty. This answer derives no little support from St. James himself, who praises in man that faith which he allows may be found in devils. “ Thou believest there is one God, thou doest well;” that is, this faith is a virtue deserving of praise, but it is not sufficient, it will not secure salvation, except the works of love be added to it.

§ 6. The other objection is taken from the 17th, 20th, and 26th verses of this chapter; A dead faith is not a true faith : but the faith against which St. James argues, is by him called a dead faith: therefore, &c. I answer: It seems a strange matter, that learned men should use such an argu­ment, since there is no passage of St. James which more clearly overturns their whole interpretation. This every one must perceive, who shall impartially consider the 26th verse. “As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” For here observe, in the first plaee: when faith without works is said by St. James to be dead, the word dead does not refer so much to the nature of faith, as to its effect; that is, he does not mean that faith without works is not a true faith, but that such a faith has no effect, that is, is of no avail with God, and does not pro­mote the justification or salvation of man. This clearly ap­pears from the fourteenth verse compared with the seventeenth, where faith that cannot save, and faith that is dead, mean the same thing. This also is still more manifest from verses 16 and 17: where, in the simile used by the Apostle, the words, “what doth it profit,” are opposed to “ faith is dead.” Secondly, it must be observed that the Apostle does not say, As a man without the spirit is dead, but “as the body without the spirit is dead:” and thus this frivolous objection of some vanishes.—A dead man is not a man, but only the corpse of a man; so a dead faith is not faith, but only the corpse chap. of faith. For the Apostle does not compare dead faith with a dead man, but only with a dead body. As, therefore, a dead body is truly and properly a body, so a dead faith is truly and properly faith: but a dead body can do nothing, can exercise no action of life; so likewise a dead faith can do no good, and contribute nothing towards the salvation of man.

Thirdly, the body, if it be animated by the spirit, becomes a living body, and performs the functions of life; so the faith of which St. James speaks becomes, when works are added to it, a lively faith, and contributes to salvation, which none in their senses can assert of a false faith, since to such faith is wanting the true nature of faith, which it cannot obtain of works. In short, that which is not a true body never can be united to a soul, neither by its means can the soul exercise the functions of life. In the same manner, it is utterly im­possible that good works should be added to that faith which is not a true one. Fourthly and lastly, from the simile of St. James this at least is manifest, that good works perform the same office to faith in matters respecting justification and salvation, as the soul does to the body in what respects life; that is, as it is through the spirit that the body lives and per­forms the functions of life, so it is through good works that faith lives, that is, promotes our salvation. For since these expressions “faith is dead/’ “ cannot save/’ “can profit nothing,” all signify the same thing, as we have just shewn, it follows of course, that the expressions opposed to these, “ a faith that lives/’ tx profits,” “ works out salvation,” have also the same meaning.

7. One may well wonder what those who teach that faith is the only instrument of justification, and that works effect nothing in this matter, have to oppose to all this. But hear Cameron. And—

Si Pergama dextra

Defendi possent, etiam hac defensa fuissent.

In the first place he asks with some indignation whether those who strictly press this simile of St. James, will say, that “ as the spirit is the cause of life to the body, so works are the cause of faith ?” But the learned gentleman is frivo­lous on this point. For it is not necessary for those who say that the spirit is the cause of life to the body, to affirm  that works are the cause of faith; besides, if they did, they would abuse the Apostle's simile. For St. James neither says nor hints, that the spirit is the cause of the body, but of life to the body. By similar reasoning, works are not the cause of faith, but the cause of life to faith : that is, they cause the faith of a man to promote his justifica­tion, and work out his salvation, which by itself, and with­out works, it could never perform. And we hesitate not to assert this, since St. James himself teaches the same. Cameron proceeds to ask, “ Shall we next say that works give motion to faith, as the spirit does to the body ?” Yes to be sure: for that motion of faith by which it approaches salvation is owing to works, without which faith cannot save a man. And this See ver. 14. too is expressly taught by St. James. At last this learned man concludes with this argument: “ It is very true that the Apostle says faith co-operates with works, but that the body co-operates with the soul no man in his senses ever said.” I answer, in the first place, if we allow the whole argument, what would be the consequence? only this, that the Apostle’s simile is not perfectly exact: in which there is nothing wonderful, for few similes can be found so perfect and accurate as to fail in no point. It was sufficient for the Apostle's simile, that it excellently explained his principal intention, which was to shew that faith by itself would not effect salvation, but with the addition of works it would attain its end; namely, salvation: evidently in the same manner as the body is dead, and can execute nothing without the soul, but the spirit being added to it, it lives, and can perform the actions of life. But in the next place, what absurdity, I wonder, would there be, if any one should say that the body co-operates with the soul: must he be instantly put into a strait waistcoat ? That the body in a certain sense does co-operate with the soul, no sensible man will deny. For although the soul be the spring and source of all action, still the body co-operates with the soul, and is added to it as an instrument, which the soul uses in most of its actions, and without which it is impossible it should perform them. Thus the eye, hand, foot, and other members of the body, obey the soul, as instruments in performing those actions which belong to the several members: neither can the soul exercise the function of seeing, walking, &c., without the cooperation of the eye, foot, &c.: so that in this point also the resemblance holds. For although love be that virtue, which in the matter of salvation God chiefly regards, and which only, according to the gracious covenant of God, attracts salvation by a necessary connection, yet even this love must be joined to faith ; since without it, it is impossible to please God. Still as the body is so subjected to the soul in action Heb. 11.6. as to have in itself no power which it does not borrow from the soul, so faith co-operates with love to salvation in such a manner, that alone and by itself it has no power in promoting salvation, but only so far as it is perfected by love. But we have already taken too much pains with such a trivial objection.

§ 8. I will therefore add only one more observation, which may be of more use; namely, that from this simile of the Apostle's may be established that distinction of faith, which our moderns so greatly blame, merely because used by the Roman Catholics, into imperfect and perfected. I much “ informis wish that all the other distinctions of the Schoolmen were as agreeable to the Scriptures. For imperfect faith is, in the meaning of the Apostle, as an inanimate body, and perfected faith as a body animated. Thus in both cases the faith is a true one, as in both the body is real; but as an inanimate body can do nothing, so faith, not animated by good works, cannot promote salvation. The moderation therefore of the excel­lent Bucer deserves our praise, who thought that in this we had no fault to find with the Roman Catholics. I hesitate not to quote his words, as they are very well worth our notice. They are from his notes on Psalm xi. “ I cannot in Psai. 11. but wish those had a sounder judgment who in this our age gentorat! have given so much trouble with this paradox, ‘We are saved by faith alone / while it is carried to such a pitch as if righte­ousness were completed by a mere state of mind. What kind of charity then is that, which refuses to remedy this evil even by one little word? so that they might have said, We are justified bjperfected faith; or by faith we obtain the incli­nation to good works, and therefore righteousness; or faith is the foundation and root of a good life, as Augustine said, for 110 one must be scandalized at the truth." Properly.to understand this distinction, it must be observed that when -the Apostle makes works the form of faith, they are con­sidered by him in their root, that is, not so much in their outward effect, as in their inward affections, such as a good intention, and love, which is as much the substance of faith as the soul is of the body, so far at least as faith justifies. For St. James perceived that faith without the will to act, is dead, just as the body without the soul is dead.—And thus much of the second interpretation of St. James.

 

CHAP. III.

THE THIRD OPINION CONSIDERED IS THEIRS WHO, TO RECONCILE ST. JAMES AND ST. PAUL, DIVIDE JUSTIFICATION INTO THE FIRST AND SECOND. IT IS SHORTLY PROVED THAT THIS OPINION IS BOTH FALSE AND ALSO RE­PUGNANT TO THE REASONING OF THE APOSTLES. THE SAME SHEWN OF THE OPINION OF PLACiEUS CONCERNING THE TWOFOLD ACCUSATION, FROM WHICH WE ARE ACQUITTED AND FREED IN JUSTIFICATION.

§ 1. The third method of reconciliation which we shall briefly consider is theirs who, by dividing justification into the first and second, suppose they can easily remove the apparent disagreement between the Apostles. These lay down that the beginning of justification, according to St. Paul, is obtained by faith alone without works, but the continuation, perfection, and completing of it, is only done by works, and this is all that St. James insists on. Most writers of the Roman Catholic Church greatly esteem this in­terpretation, and certain Reformed divines allow it when ac­commodated to their sense. I say, when accommodated to their sense, because the Roman Catholics mean by their first justi­fication, the infusion of the first grace, which is produced by that faith wherewith the heart is purified. But the Re­formers by their first justification, mean the first entrance of a man into the favour and friendship of God, which they suppose St. Paul teaches is to be obtained by faith alone.

§ 2. But indeed this distinction in both cases is grounded on a false supposition, and is contradictory to the meaning of both the Apostles. The Roman Catholics are wrong, because they take it for granted that the word justification in the writings of St. Paul means the infusion of habitual grace, which they never can prove that it ever does. The Re- CHAP. formers, on the other hand, are wrong because they suppose —Hi— a man to receive the first justification by faith alone without works, which cannot be allowed. For 110 man, as we have already proved by indisputable arguments, can obtain even this first grace of justification, who hath not performed the works of repentance. I will not however deny that the works which precede the first justification are much less and fewer than those which follow it. For after justification, God, in token of His great love, pours upon us a greater measure of His Spirit, by which we are enabled to perform great and excellent works; and thus they who had been just, become in the highest sense holy, as Grotiusk ele­gantly expresses it. And in this sense, as he also well observes1, must be understood many things which the ancients have said concerning justification by faith alone, and especially that saying of Augustine's, which is in every one's mouth, “ Good works follow a justified person, but do not precede him that is to be justified." Augustine is cer­tainly not to be understood of every work, but of a long continuance of works, so that his meaning may be this: the works which precede justification are less and fewer than those which follow it. Without some explanation of this kind, that maxim so often used, will with difficulty be freed from an evident falsehood.

§ 3. It now only remains for us to show that this scheme of reconciliation, as understood both by Reformed and Roman Catholic divines, is contrary to the design and in­tention of both Apostles. St. James, so far from allowing the first justification to be owing to faith alone, without works, utterly rejects faith by itself as a foolish thing, use­less, and entirely dead. Neither does this idea any better apply to what St. Paul says. It is clear from the whole train of his reasoning, that he removes the works of which he speaks, not only from the first, but the second justification, and therefore, as we have already shown, from salvation itself. This third method of reconciliation therefore is equally unfortunate.

§ 4. The last opinion which now remains, is that which I find greatly pleased that learned man, Placseus, and I am not sure whether it be not peculiar to him. He thus explains itn. "Justification is opposed to accusation; two charges are laid against us at the divine judgment-seat. First, it is objected that we are sinners, that is, have violated the cove­nant of the law; secondly, that we are unbelievers, that is, have not performed the condition of the covenant of grace, namely, faith. From the first accusation we are justified by faith alone, through which we embrace the grace and righte­ousness of Christ; from the latter, by works, which are the proofs of faith. St. James, regarding the latter accusation, properly asserts that man is justified by works and not by faith alone; but St. Paul, regarding the first, contends that man is justified by faith only.”—Thus far he. But (not to speak of other points in this opinion deservedly worthy of reprehension) the learned man is mistaken both in his state­ment and in his assumption. For he first asserts that faith is the whole and only condition of the Gospel covenant, and that works are only to be regarded as signs and proofs of faith, all which has been already proved erroneous; and secondly, he assumes that wTorks are admitted by St. James, as necessary to the latter justification, and faith by St. Paul, as sufficient for the first; both of which we have seen are far from the truth, and with respect to St. Paul shall soon most fully prove it. Thus this last opinion does not take away any part of the diffi­culty. Let us then seek for a better.

 

CHAP. IV.

THE TRUE METHOD OF REMOVING THIS DIFFICULTY.- ST* PAUL TO BE INTERPRETED FROM ST. JAMES, AND NOT ST. JAMES FROM ST. PAUL.  ST. PAUL USES THE WORDS FAITH AND WORKS WITH DIFFERENT MEAN­INGS.:—WHAT HE MEANS BY FAITH.:—THAT WITH HIM FAITH IS ALL THE OBEDIENCE REQUIRED BY THE GOSPEL, CLEARLY ARGUED AND PROVED.  THE CONTRARY OPINION OF GROTIUS REFUTED.

§ 1. Having considered the methods proposed to recon­cile St. James with St. Paul, and having rejected them for most manifest reasons, it is now time to explain the true solution of this difficulty.

§ 2. And first, from what we have already said, this may chap. be laid down as a foundation: that it is more agreeable to reason to explain St. Paul by St. James than the contrary. For besides that the words of St. James are so very express, clear, and evident, that he who hesitates about their sense may well be said to seek a knot in a bulrush; it also de­serves particular attention, that many of the ancients, and among them Augustine, supposed this Epistle of St. James, with the first of St. John, that of St. Jude, and the second of St. Peter, to have been written against those who, wrongly interpreting St. Paul's Epistles, held that faith without good works were sufficient for salvation. Which opinion is greatly confirmed by St. Peter, where he says that in the Epistles of2Pet.3.i6 St. Paul may be found some things hard to be understood, which by bad men are perverted to the worst sense, and to their own destruction. For certainly, if you attend to the subject, you will find no doctrine in the Epistles of St. Paul which is more liable to false interpretations, or which, indeed, from the first ages of Christianity to the present, has suffered more, than this very dispute concerning justification by faitlr alone without works. What adds a farther degree of proba­bility is, that St. James uses the same example of Abraham, to prove works are required for justification, from which St. Paul in the whole of the fourth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans deduces that man is justified by faith without works.

§ 3. However this may be, the meaning of St. James is clear, and whatever obscurity or difficulty there is, must be looked for in the Epistles of St. Paul. This difficulty of St. Paul's words must rest either in the term justification or in the word faith, or in the word works. With respect to the word justification we have already fully shewn0, I think, that in the writings of St. Paul it signifies the action of God, as a judge, acquitting man, pronouncing him just, and accepting him to the reward of eternal life. Concerning this there is no dispute: the difficulty then must be in the word faith, or works. In reality, St. Paul uses each word with a different meaning upon different occasions, which we shall now prove.

. § 4. First, then, we must enquire what St. Paul means by the word faith. The answer which we have before given to this question we shall here more largely explain and demon­strate. Faith, then, to which justification is attributed by St. Paul, is not to be understood as one single virtue, but denotes the whole condition of the Gospel covenant, that is, comprehends in one word all the works of Christian piety. For ZegerusP rightly observes: “Absolute and perfect faith, of which frequent mention is made in Scripture, is that by which we not only believe there is a God, but also by be­lieving in Him with truly pious affections we approach to God, and feel ourselves dependant on Him. And this word unites in its meaning, hope, charity, and good works.” And he adds, “it ought therefore to be observed, that wherever St. Paul or other sacred writers attribute justification, salvation, life, and the like, to faith, they speak of a faith lively and perfect, that is, such as includes hope, charity, and good works.”

§ 5. If we prove this point, we shall find less difficulty with the other passages of St. Paul. And first, it is very evident from the comparison of several passages with each other, in Gal.5. 6. which St. Paul may be his own interpreter : “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncir- Gai. 6. 16. cumcision, but faith which worketh by love;” and, “In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircum- iCor.7.19. cision, but a new creature;” “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the command­ments of God.” Who, after reading these verses, will any longer doubt what St. Paul means by faith ? Assuredly it is clearer than light itself, that the faith to which St. Paul attributes justification is only that which worketh by love^ which is the same as a new creature; which, in short, con­tains in itself the observance of the commandments of God. To this add those passages where St. Paul explains faith by Rom.io. 16. obedience. Thus, “But they have not all obeyed the Gospel, for Esaias saitli, Lord, who hath believed our report ?” Who 7rt<rreu€jv. does not here perceive that to believe and to obey the viraKoveiv Gospel signify the same with St. Paul. But if any one doubts what St. Paul means by obeying the Gospel, let him consult the fifteenth chapter of his Epistle to the Romans, chap. verse 18, where that expression is explained by obedience in word and deed. Hence we frequently read of the obedience kojJs J/- of faithy that is, the obedience that arises from faith. 

6. This also is very clear, that the Apostle places no value Compare on faith, when he speaks of it by itself and separated from love; "And though I have all faith, and have not charity, I iq°5 g!5; am nothing/’ The objection which some make, that St. also l^Pet. Paul here speaks only of the faith of miracles, and not of * ’ perfect faith, is very frivolous. For, first, he expressly speaks of all kinds of faith: “Though I have all faith.” So all iCor.13.2. knowledge stands for knowledge of every kind; and so all tribulation. Secondly; the faith of miracles is the highest 2Cor. i.4. degree of faith possible, neither is there any faith considered merely as such, and separated from charity, greater, or more excellent than it. For whoever so heartily believes in the Gospel of Christ, and trusts in Him, as by means of this faith to be able to perform the greatest miracles, surely his faith and confidence have reached the highest pitch. When there­fore our adversaries allow that faith of miracles, considered by itself, has no weight with God, they at the same time con­fess that there can be no simple faith which at all contributes to the salvation of man. The Apostle’s meaning is very clear : If I had all kind of faith, even to that degree by which miracles are performed, nay, farther still, not only such as to perform miracles of an inferior nature, but those also of the greatest consequence, as the removing an immense moun­tain, yet I am nothing, that is, nothing in point of grace, as Aquinas; or, as Cajetan observes, nothing with respect to communion with God, or, in short, which is the same thing, this faith will not profit me in obtaining eternal life, unless I add charity to it. Thirdly; I think none will deny that St. Paul here is speaking only of true and Gospel love, and not of any kind of charity. To compare which with dead gifts would be bestowing on it cold praise indeed. It is saying nothing to prefer true love to unsound knowledge, to lying prophecy, or to a false faith. This, as Erasmus well in loc. remarks, would be the same as if any one, wishing to magnify the strength of a bull, should compare him to a dead lion, or to one deprived of teeth and paws. It is certain, then, that the Apostle, desirous of impressing us with the great value of love, compares it with the true and perfect gifts of the Spirit, knowledge, prophecy, and faith. Fourthly, and lastly; the Apostle, in the last verse of the chapter, is allowed by all to speak of true and real faith. We must therefore suppose him to speak of the same in the beginning, since the argument is continued throughout, or otherwise we shall make the Apostle reason sophistically.

§ 7. A great dispute hence arises, Can true faith be possibly separated from love ? I have, for my own part, not the least doubt of it. There are most manifest reasons from this very passage. For first, (as we have elsewhere observed,) the con­trary opinion makes the supposition of the Apostle absurdq. Secondly, it is certain that knowledge and prophecy, which he ranks with faith, may be separated from love. But to speak plainly, I consider this point of dispute altogether irre­levant to our present subject. For whether you suppose true faith to be inseparably connected with love, or the contrary, this at least is evident from the words of the Apostle, that no faith can aid the salvation of man, unless it be such as is, and so far as it is, perfected by love. It is moreover evident, that the same faith, which if it could be separated from love, would profit nothing, even when united with love, has no influence of its own, neither any power or virtue to justify, which it does not owe to love. But this by the way.

§ 8. Lastly, it appears that the faith to which St. Paul attributes justification includes obedience in it, from this consideration, that he himself elsewhere states that obedience to the precepts of God is necessary to justification: “ For not the hearers of the law are just before God; but the doers of the law shall be justified ;'' and that here he restrains the law to those precepts which are moral, those, namely, which are of universal and perpetual obligation, appears from the whole context of the passage. The Apostle insists, in express words, that the observance of this law is entirely necessary to jus­tification. Here Calvin, and others after him, object that St. Paul in this passage argues upon his opponent's principles, and not accurately and according to the truth of the subject itself. Calvin's words are these : “ The Apostle urges this judgment of the law against the Jews only, because they could not chap. be justified by the law except they fulfilled the law; if they —-IV--— transgressed it, a curse was instantly ready for them." A little before he indignantly uses these expressions, according to his custom : “ Whoever abuses this passage to erect upon it the righteousness of works, deserves even the scorn of boys." Ex­pressions of this kind might indeed be rather expected from a boy than from so great a man. For although in these words we readily allow that the Apostle is aiming principally at the Jews, who were greatly elated by the knowledge of this eternal law more clearly revealed to them than to others, and so rested satisfied with the bare knowledge of it, as if that alone were sufficient for their salvation; still we doubt not but that these words belong indiscriminately to all who wish to be justified, and are blessed with the same knowledge of that law, and they are said upon the strictest principles of truth, and not those of the opponent. The reasons appear from the text. For first, if as the Apostle says, “ God will render to every man Rom. 2. according to his deeds. To them who by patient continuance 6-1L in well-doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, - eternal life: but unto them that are contentious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; but glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile;" if, I say, these opinions are not said upon the opponent's principles, but are true for all men, then they must be applied to all, and not to the Jews only; and who will attempt to deny this? Then undoubtedly the words of the thirteenth verse must be un­derstood in the same manner, since by the particle for, they are connected with what had gone before; neither do they assert any thing more than what is contained in them. Bucer therefore rightly observesr, “that this verse depends upon the former one, 1 God will reward every one according to his works.' For hence it follows, that God will bestow eternal life upon those who do the law, those, that is, who sincerely desire its performance." Calvin's idea, that justification is here treated of upon an impossible condition, i. e. if any one . should perform the law, is clearly refuted by the sixteenth verse, which all interpreters unite with the thirteenth verse, the rest being included in a parenthesis. For there it is said that the justification of the doers of the law will actually and really take place at the day of judgment. Let any one who doubts this, read and weigh without favour or partiality the whole passage, and it will be strange if he does not allow that this is the very meaning of St. Paul. You may say perhaps, Can any one then perform the law of God? here Bucer shall give the answer. “ As in the preceding verses to do good or evil meant to act with a good or evil design, to be attentive and diligent, so to do the law, or be a performer of it, is nothing else than to dedicate one's self to the law, and to meditate upon it, to exist in it, for the purpose of con­forming our whole life to it. This evidently is what God Compare every where requires in His law.” In a word, this opinion “ of St. Paul's is the same with that of St. James, which applies JmV 8- greater force to Christians. “ Be ye doers of the law,and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.” To which Mat. 7. the words of Christ Himself may be added. Before I dismiss John4i4. remarkable passage, it may be proper to repeat what the 2*; 13. learned Estius hath said upon it. “ It evidently appears” (he says) “ that St. Paul hath designedly recommended with such force good works as indispensably necessary to justifi­cation and eternal life, that he might forewarn his reader, lest by not properly comprehending his teaching which fol­lows, where he shews justification to be of faith without works, he should be offended through misunderstanding him, and should fall into some error.” Thus far assuredly I entirely agree with him, being persuaded that this was really done by the great providence of God.

§ 9. In my opinion there is another passage where St. Paul expressly states obedience to the commands of God to be Rom.6.16. necessary to justification: “Know ye not that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey, whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?” Here Parseus supposes there is a rhetori­cal figure called hypallage, and that the words, of obedience to righteousness, are put for of righteousness to obedience. But I confess I cannot at all perceive the necessity for this figure, and besides, such a change takes away a manifest antithesis in St. Paul’s words. For there is no natural opposition between obedience and death; and I think that these words would be most clearly paraphrased if the word obedience were taken for the law of the Gospel which is obeyed, and the passage will then run thus : “ Know ye not that to whomsoever ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey, whether of sin unto death, or of the Gospel unto justification of life?” where to the word death, this word justification, or some other of the same import, must be opposed; for the Greek word which is here translated righteousness, very frequently means justi- SiKcuocrwv. fication. But we have mentioned this by way of addition, SikcuWis. since from what has been already said it is sufficiently clear that faith stands in the writings of St. Paul for general obe­dience to the commands of Christ.

§ 10. Grotius, however8, rejects this interpretation, where after mentioning the opinions of others concerning this word faith, he thus blames this of ours. “ Others by the wrord faith, understand all that obedience which the Gospel de­mands : but this doth not agree with the words of the Apostle, where he prefers love to faith, and faith is said to perform its work by love, evidently distinguishing love, which is the principal part of that obedience, from faith.” icor. 1,3.13. Yet this argument proves nothing against us. For we do Gal*5' 6' not deny that faith is sometimes separated by the Apostle from love and its works, we only affirm that when the Apostle attributes justification and salvation to faith alone, though he says faith alone, yet he means every thing which is wont to follow faith. And we think this follows from those passages where he separates faith from love. For since the Apostle there declares, that faith without love in the sight of God is nothing worth; we thence argue, that he means faith per­fected by true love, since surely in other places he attri­butes almost every thing to faith; otherwise he would con­tradict himself.

CHAP. Y.

FAITH IS USED FOR ALL THE OBEDIENCE WHICH THE GOSPEL REQUIRES, BECAUSE IT IS THE BEGINNING AND ROOT OF ALL GOSPEL RIGHTEOUS­NESS ;----- ROM. X. 11. COMPARED WITH VERSES 13, 14, AND EXPLAINED. FOR NEARLY THE SAME REASON ALL PIETY IS CALLED KNOWLEDGE IN THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. THE REASON WHY ST. PAUL, DESCRIBING THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED ON OUR PARTS UNTO SALVATION, MAKES SO FRE­QUENT USE OF THE WORD FAITH, FURTHER INVESTIGATED. CHIEFLY ON TWO ACCOUNTS; FIRST, TO EXPRESS THE EASY PERFORMANCE OF THE CONDITION ; SECONDLY, TO TAKE AWAY ALL MERIT.

 

1. Having thus proved the foregoing, perhaps it will be worth our while to consider why St. Paul expresses himself in this manner. The foundation upon which, as we before hintedu, this mode of speaking is built, is in short this : that faith is the beginning and root of all Gospel righteousness, without which no virtue contributing to salvation can exist in a man, and which therefore, if it be not impeded, will attract all other virtues to it; so that St. Paul, when he ex­presses all the obedience described in the Gospel under the name of Faith, speaks in the same manner as the Latin writers do when they use hearing for obeying, as in the Andria of Terence: “ Shall I assist Pamphilus, or listen to the old man ?” which figure is called the metonymy of the antecedent for the consequent; and although faith be not, with respect to the other virtues, a mere antecedent, but as we have observed, the cause, though not the only or necessary one, so this kind of speaking may be referred to that figure which puts the cause for the effect. There is a very apposite example of this in the tenth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans; in the eleventh verse we have “ whosoever believeth on Him (that is, the Lord,) shall not be ashamed,” which is thus explained in the thirteenth; “ Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord (that is, sincerely worships God) shall be saved.” Calling upon the name of the Lord in this and other passages, evidently signifies the entire and complete worship of God; so St. Paul, when he attributes salvation to faith, means that faith which unites to itself the worhip of God in Christ, and according to the direction of the Gospel, What then, you will say, does the Apostle mean by expressing all this by the word faith ? In the fourteenth verse he gives you his reason. “How shall they call on Him, in whom they have not believed ?” Clearly, without this faith no one can properly worship God in Christ, and it naturally produces this worship. For it can never happen that he should worship who does not believe, and it seldom happens that he who believes does not worship. Here we must observe by the way, that three things in this sentence are mentioned by the Apostle, prayer, faith, and hearing, or knowledge; each of which is necessaiy to salvation, but on different ac­counts ; namely, knowledge and faith are necessary only as means, because without them no one can perform that worship which is acceptable with God unto salvation: but worship is necessary of itself alone, and reaches most nearly the effect of salvation by the power of the Gospel Covenant. But to proceed.

§ 2. For the same reason, piety, which is required for salvation, is frequently denoted in Scripture by the name of knowledge. Besides, to this knowledge justification itself See Joh. 1. is expressly attributed by Isaiah: “By His knowledge shall 55’; 17. 3; My righteous servant justify many.” “There is,” as Forerius fjh0hj?'3f4; rightly observes on this passage, “a certain knowledge of^3*1^’ God and Christ in the Scriptures, w'hich is attended by all 20; Isa. 5?. those things which Catholic teaching declares to be necessary " to salvation. There is, I say, a certain knowledge, called by the schoolmen cognitio affectiva, which has in it as much love as faith, and which is true and perfect wisdom.” Wherefore Scripture is wont to comprehend all piety under the name of knowledge, both because none can be pious without a sound knowledge of God and His will, and principally because that knowledge greatly assists and incites us to piety, which rea­son may be also particularly applied to faith.

§ 3. And though this reason alone might be sufficient, yet when I reflect how frequently St. Paul uses this figure, when I more accurately attend to the aim of his arguments, I can easily believe that the Apostle has a farther view. I perceive then that there are chiefly two reasons why St. Paul, in de­scribing the conditions required of us for our salvation, makes so frequent use of the word faith. The first is, that he might express the easiness of the condition, since it is easy to believe that to which this faith refers, and from which piety, com­prehended in this word, almost necessarily flows; namely, that mortal man may rise again from the dead, and ascend into heaven, nay, that he really will rise again and go into a state of happiness, if he obeys God. For that hath been strongly proved by the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and by His ascent into heaven, and our faith in these truths is built upon the clearest testimony. This, if it be firmly believed and seriously considered, will almost, if not altogether, necessarily produce in us that piety which God demands : as 1 Joh. 3.3. St. John teaches, “ And every man that hath this hope in him, purifieth himself, even as He is pure.” And we may perhaps learn from the following passage in the Epistle to the Romans, Rom. 10.6. the reason why the condition laid on us by God is expressed under the word faith. For there the Apostle, wishing to prove the easiness of justification by the Gospel above that by the law, after he had observed in the fifth verse, “For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law: that the man which doeth those things shall live by them:” immedi­ately adds, “ But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise: Say not in thine heart,” &c. But what saith it ? “ The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart,” &c.: as if he had said, The righteousness of the law prescribes many important and severe precepts, but con­tains no promise of eternal life, by which we may be animated to perform them: it only says, ‘ If you do these things you shall live/ i. e. shall be long lived, have in this world a long and happy life; but of eternal life it says not one word. But the righteousness of faith is far more easy to be performed, for it only contains such precepts as commend themselves to us by their own excellence, and besides, which is of the greatest importance, it encourages us to perform these pre­cepts by most certain and most valuable promises. The foundation and root of this Gospel righteousness, from which it naturally arises, is nothing but that faith whereby you believe that it is possible for a man to ascend into heaven, and after he goes down into the grave to return thence again. And this is so evidently proved by the ascent of Christ into heaven, by His death, and by His rising again, that any one chap. denying it, does the same as if he would draw Christ down again from heaven, and deny either that He died or rose again. But this is so certain, that God seems to have en­graved it in our hearts that we should believe it, and placed it in our mouths that we should confess it. Since then these things are so manifest, from which depends the truth of those points which are the principal articles of our faith, and from which piety almost necessarily arises, it follows that faith itself and piety must be easy to us. For since that is easy upon which the rest in a certain manner depends, then every thing else must be easy too. This interpretation of the above passage seems clearly, in my opinion, to be preferred as by far the most easy and apparent, and the most agreeable to the Apostle’s reasoning. Another passage from St. John's Epistle throws no small light upon it. “ For this is the love of God, 1 joh. 5. that we keep His commandments, and His commandments 3"5‘ are not grievous. For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world, and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith; who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God V3 In which words the Apostle shews both the easiness of the Gospel pre­cepts, and that this easiness depends upon that faith by which we believe Jesus to be the Son of God, and (which is the natural consequence of this) that His promises given in the Gospel are most certain; in short, that the easiness of these precepts arises from the certainty of the promises of Christ, and from our faith in them; as if he should say, The precepts of Christ may indeed seem in themselves to be severe, and to exceed the measure of human infirmity, especially those which require a denial of ourselves and a bearing of the cross: but if you regard the certainty and value of His promises, this apparent difficulty instantly vanishes, and His precepts ap­pear most easy of performance. For though our contest be with the world, that is, with the enticements, dangers, bad examples and evils arising from the world, which are apt to seduce us from the path prescribed in the Gospel, yet if with a firm and lively faith, we embrace those inestimable promises made to those who conquer, we shall then obtain an easy and ready victory over the world. Thus far of the easy performance of the condition laid on us, which may be the first reason why St. Paul in treating on this subject gives it the name of faith.

§ 4. Secondly, there is another reason for it, which is this, that by this name the merit of that obedience which the Gospel demands is excluded. For the word faith by its very sound impresses the mind with the idea of grace, and excludes all notion of merit, and this it does from a triple cause: first, because it supposes a revelation and calling on God’s part given to man through grace only, before man had performed any obedience to God, and therefore man had not performed that obedience which is expressed by the word faith of his own accord, that is, by his own powers or abilities; but God, merely through His wonderful goodness, was beforehand with man by revealing the Divine will to him in an extraordinary mannerx. Assuredly no one from the foundation of the world ever yet found the way to salvation without the direction and assistance of God, that is, through faith. And this constitutes a marked difference between the righteousness of nature, and of faith: the latter, man performs led on and excited by the gracious revelation and calling of God, and therefore must attribute what he hath received to the Giver. That such was the obedience of Abraham, of whom the Jews boasted so much, the Apostle strongly contends, as we shall after­wards shew in its place. But he who performs the other kind of righteousness self-taught, by his own strength, effects it without any master or director, and therefore its praise, if it be worthy of any, seems to belong to the man himself. This is what the Apostle means when he so fre­quently opposes works to the divine calling. And that Apo­stolic man, Clement of Home, in his Epistle to the Corin­thians, says that all who are called according to the mercy of God, are saved, “Not by our wisdom or understanding, but by faith, by means of which, from the beginning, the Almighty God hath justified all men.” Which testimony of Clement’s we shall hereafter give at length in a more convenient place. But the grace of this Divine calling was much more manifest in those (to whom St. Paul wrote his Epistles) to whom the Gospel was preached by the Apostles themselves, God giving His testimony to them by the most wonderful miracles. Secondly, the word faith, by which Gospel obedience is ex­pressed, excludes merit, because it supposes not only a Divine revelation, but also such promises to be made by God who makes the revelation, as by their force and efficacy will strongly excite man to that obedience, and which therefore far surpass all that obedience which can be undertaken from faith in them. When therefore by the word faith we express the piety we perform to God, we mean that such is the force of those promises which we receive by faith, that they produce in us that piety by their excellence and certainty; and there­fore this piety to God, from whose goodness all these promises flow, must also be conceived as expressed in the name faith.

This argument receives no small support from this remarkable passage: “Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and 2 Pet. 1.4. precious promises, that by these ye might be partakers of the Divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.” This Divine nature, this exceeding ©6/a <pvai$ holiness by which we become in a certain degree similar unto God, and which frees us from the pollutions of the world, is declared to be received ‘ by those exceeding great and precious promises/ which are given us by the infinite goodness of God in Christ, evidently because this Divine piety is produced in us by faith in these promises. In the same sense must be understood those passages in which our Regeneration and heavenly birth are said to be caused by the Word of the see 1 Pet. Gospel. In these places it is evident that by the Word we 25 ? jaSm 1.* must understand the promises contained in the Word. And lb> &c* lastly, in this sense particularly must be understood that grand doxologv and blessing of St. Peter: “Blessed be the 1 pet. 1.3. God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to His abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.”

Where the resurrection of Jesus Christ, as its faith was built on the strongest proofs possible, is announced as the means whereby we are bom of God to a lively hope, that is, as I imagine, to that lively hope which is wont to produce the purity of which St. John speaks. Moreover all the glory and honour of our salvation is wholly attributed by St. Peter to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to His unbounded mercy in giving us such undeniable proofs for our faith in that resurrection. But among the promises of the Gospel, that of the assistance of the Holy Spirit is particularly eminent, which being received by faith renders all other promises efficacious, and works in us that righteousness See Gal.3. which the Gospel demands. And in this sense the obedience of faith signifies obedience of that kind which a man performs relying on the grace and assistance of the Holy Spirit, and is opposed to that righteousness which a man performs in a state either of the law, or of nature merely, by his own strength only, without Divine inspiration.

§ 5. Thirdly, the word faith excludes merit in this sense also, because so far as it refers to a free promise, it expects its reward only from the free gift of God who promises And this, if I mistake not, is the chief reason, why the Holy Spirit is wont to express all the obedience taught in the Gospel by the word faith, namely, that it might be declared by this word that the obedience we pay to God does not obtain righteousness, or salvation, by its own force or merit, but by force of the covenant, or free promise, which is received by faith. This is what St. Paul seems to teach when he opposes Gal. 3. is. the law to the promise: "If the inheritance {i. e. of eternal life) be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.” Where, as Beza well observes, he silently overturns an objection of the Jews to what he had said in the preceding verse, namely, that the promise given to Abraham 430 years before the law, could not be rendered void by the law. For the Jews might say, We allow the promise not to be destroyed by the law, therefore we join them together. But, saith St. Paul, these two can never be united, that the inheritance should be of the law and the pro­mise conjointly, since the righteousness of the law (lie speaks fas a man* ver 15.) confers merit, and excludes grace, and therefore is repugnant to a free promise, if the law be given for the purpose of justificationy. But because the promise of eternal life given in the Gospel is founded in the meritorious chap. satisfaction of Jesus Christ, and confirmed by His most prcious blood, therefore the obedience of faith continually refers 3. 24, 25. to Christ, as the only propitiation: and His most perfect obedience in life and death is the only circumstance which makes our imperfect and spiritless obedience acceptable to God unto salvation, and to carry off the reward of eternal life. Melancthon therefore rightly says of the word faith:

“ When we say we are justified by faith, we point to the Son Corp. of God sitting at the right hand of His Father interceding 424^°L p* for us; we say that we are reconciled on His account, and thus take the merit of reconciliation from our own virtues, however numerous.” And in this sense the Gospel obedience expressed in the word faith, excludes that obedience, and all those works which are repugnant to the free promise of and reliance on Christ the Mediator, i. e. those which are per­formed with any confidence and opinion of our own merit. But all this will receive a clearer light from what will be said when we come to the analysis of St. Paul's arguments. In the mean time this will be sufficient to shew what St. Paul means by the word faith.

 

CHAP. VI.

WHAT ST. PAUL MEANS BY WORKS. IT IS SHEWN FROM WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, THAT HE DOES NOT SPEAK OF EVERY WORK, BUT THOSE OF A CERTAIN KIND, THOSE NAMELY OF TIIE MOSAIC LAW.- THIS PROVED

 

from st. paul’s words, both in his epistle to the romans and THAT TO THE GALATIANS. IN THE NEXT PLACE ST. PAUL SO OPPOSES THE MOSAIC LAW AS ALSO TO REFUTE THE JEWISH ADDITIONS TO IT.  LASTLY, SINCE IIE HAD ALSO TO CONTEND WITH THE GENTILE PHILOSO­PHERS, HE BY THE WAY DISPUTES AGAINST THE WORKS OF THE NATURAL LAW, WORKS DONE BY THE MERE FORCE OF NATURE.

 

§ 1. There is another difficulty in the word works as used by St. Paul, and this is indeed the consequence of what we have already proved; namely, that faith, in St. Paul's Epistles, iv. 4. includes all the works of Christian piety. This being allowed, it is certain that the works which St. Paul excludes from justification are not all kinds of works, but of a certain description only. To explain distinctly of what kind these are, is a matter of no little labour, and in fact we have now arrived at the chief difficulty of our work.

2. But that we may more easily cut through this knot, let us first carefully enquire what is the Apostle's aim in arguing against works. Now the best method of determining this, is accurately to mark who those were against whom St. Paul contended. For Isidorus Clarius well observes: “If we consider what controversy was then in agitation, it will not be so very difficult to see the end and design of this Epistle, but without this consideration our endeavours will be in vain."

§ 3. The following is a brief account of the matter. The Gospel of Jesus Christ, at its first preaching to the Jews, was obstructed in its progress amongst them by this great pre­judice, namely, that it was almost diametrically opposed to the religion and law which they had received from God by the hands of Moses, and had had confirmed by many great miracles. This calumny, for such it really is, Christ Himself answered, and clearly defended His law from that imputation Mat. chap. in His famous sermon to His disciples, where He openly pro­' fesses that He came not to destroy the law but to fulfil it. For those things, as Justin2 remarks, which in the law are by nature just and good and pious, Christ hath perfected, by explaining them more clearly than they had ever yet been, by strengthening them by certain stricter precepts, and by inclining the dispositions of men to obey them, by the great­ness and certainty of the promises, and by the seal of the Holy Spirit. But the Mosaic rites Christ fulfilled and com­pleted, by performing that for which they were invented, and of which they were the types. But by fulfilling and completing them, He at the same time abolished them, not so much by taking away the authority of the law, as the cause why the law, so far as it related to these rites, was given, and which from the first was decreed to die at His death.

§ 4. This the Jews would not understand; but being ignorant of the end and design of God in giving the law, dreaming that it was to be eternal, and despising the revela­tion of a far better doctrine, they tenaciously adhered t their dead, and now almost deadly ceremonies. For they reasoned thus : that their present law was undoubtedly Divine, and came from God, which could be proved by the most un­exceptionable evidence, and therefore it would be an act of the greatest imprudence, and even impiety, to change it for a law, new, different, if not altogether contradictory to it, of whatever kind, or under whatever pretence that law was brought forward. Persuaded by these ideas, even the more pious Jews continued obstinate against the miracles of Christ, although the finger of God was sufficiently conspicuous in them; they opposed them therefore as temptations sent by God to try their constancy in His law. The rest, each according to his abilities, easily invented some excuse or other, by which they might seem with reason to reject these miracles.

§ 5. This prejudice no doubt prevented many Jews from embracing the Gospel of Christ. But besides this, even those of them who, convinced by the evidence of the miracles of Christ, believed His Gospel, were still possessed by such a reverence for the Mosaic law, such a love for their ancient rites, that they could hardly suffer themselves to be separated from them. Whence it happened, that the Mosaic law was retained by some even after they had become Christians. For they could neither induce themselves to reject the Gospel of Christ, confirmed by so many and so great miracles on the one hand, or on the other to revolt from the law of Moses, which they were fully persuaded came from God. For some time hesitating from this difficulty, they at last determined to unite the laws of Moses and Christ together, much in the same manner as Mezentius is said by Yirgil to have tied the living and the dead together.

§ 6. The event of this scheme was truly unfortunate, for there were not wanting some abandoned teachers to add oil to the fiery zeal of these Judaizing Christians; men who, although they did themselves profess Christianity, were still vigilant in disturbing the affairs of the Church, and whose only concern for the law of Moses or of Christ, was to make their own gain of them both. At length they arrived at such a pitch of madness, as to resolve that the observance of the Mosaic law was necessary unto salvation, not only to the believing Jews, but also unto Gentiles converted to Christianity. This excited wonderful disturbance in the Churches of the converted Gentiles, so that a Council was held upon this very subject by the Apostles at Jerusalem, in which the dispute was at last settled to the satisfaction of the Gentiles, and the release from the Mosaic rites so greatly desired by them was decreed by the Apostles. From this most whole­some decree arose peace, comfort, and confirmation in the Christian Faith, not only to those Churches where these teachers had excited those disturbances, but the same feeling of joy was spread among all the Churches of the Gentiles which had been troubled by these Judaizing Christians. In one word, this terror of the Mosaic yoke being taken away, the Gentiles, who had before been affrighted at the Gospel clogged with such a burden, now came over to the Faith of Christ in crowds. So the Churches were confirmed in the Ads 16. 4, faith, and increased in numbers daily.

§ 7. But alas ! this flourishing state of the Gentile Churches did not last long: for soon after this, these wretched con- Phii. 3. 2. trivers, these dogs of the circumcision, as the Apostle justly calls them, again arose and miserably disturbed the flock of Christ, then reposing in the utmost quiet, so that the last state of the Gentile Church became worse than the first. Gal. 5. 9. For this Jewish leaven had corrupted nearly the whole Christian world. Every where among the Gentiles they re­vived ceremonies, dead and almost buried. There were two Churches it appears, where these teachers of the law parti­cularly prevailed, the Roman and Galatian. In which latter so universal was the ruin that these disturbers of the peace of the Church had spread, as to extort from the most mild Gal.5. 12. Apostle this wish: “I would they were even cut off which trouble you.”

§ 8. Against these corrupters of Christianity among the Gentiles, the great Apostle of the Gentiles, inflamed by the love of God, arose. And that he might totally eradicate their pernicious doctrine, and cut off for ever all means of boasting in the law, and at the same time either convert those Jewrs who, yet strangers to the faith of Christ, placed all hopes of salvation in the law, or at least silence them; he, as if professedly, entered into a discussion of the whole Mosaic covenant, laying open its origin, nature, end, and cuse, proving by many arguments in bis Epistles to the Romans and Galatians that it never was the design of God that this law should be considered as a covenant of eternal life and salvation; that by it no man had ever yet obtained true justification, and that no one ever would. Which being explained, every one, I think, must see that the works which St. Paul opposes must chiefly be understood to be the works prescribed in the Mosaic law, which indeed the Apostle some­times declares, where for instance he does not call them wo?'ks simply, but the works of the law.

§ 9. This moreover must be especially observed, that the Apostle argues against the works of the Mosaic law in such a manner as at the same time to reject those very corrupt opinions which the Scribes and the Pharisees among the Jews had added to it. In reality, the Mosaic law, of itself sufficiently imperfect, weakened by the glosses and vain in­terpretations of these Rabbins, became at last much more imperfect, and almost entirely lost the strength which it had.

They weakened the precepts of God by so many distinctions, so many dispensations, that you might in vain seek for the law in the law itself; and it had at last come to this, that the religion of the people of God, a people instructed in the Divine oracles, had become almost worse than paganism, and the prin­ciples of the more enlightened philosophers. It was now time for Jehovah to stretch out His hand, since men had rendered His Ps. 119. law so perfectly vain, and this He did through Christ, who in l2()'

His sermon to His disciples, sets Himself against these dog-Mat. ch. 5. mas of the Pharisees, and thus seriously warns His disciples:

“ Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Christ, as Grotius well observes, in locum, mentions the Scribes as the most learned of the Jews, the Pharisees as remarkable for the reputation of peculiar sanctity, and whose sect was the strictest in Judaism. He aKpi&€- there shews that the Jewish Church was in such a wretched and deplorable state, that its principal teachers and leaders most shamefully erred in the interpretation of their own law.

Neither is it probable that the teaching of the Pharisees had grown better in St. Paul’s time. That obstinate people, no doubt, adhered immoveably to their own absurd explanations. And this, if by no other means, may be proved from the example of St. Paul, who (as he himself testifies) before his conversion was exceedingly zealous for the traditions of his fathers. The righteousness, then, which the Jews sought from the law, was not so much the righteousness of the law, as their own : not such as God demanded of them, but such as they had foolishly imagined for themselves, the fiction of Rom. 10.3. their own brain; this St. Paul properly calls a righteousness of their own opposed to the righteousness of God.

§ 10. Lastly, as the Apostle had to contend not only with the masters of the Synagogue, but also with Gentile philoso­phers, he also examines works done according to the rule of the natural law, and proceeding from human strength only, and he affirms that these also are of no avail unto salvation. In proving this, as the Gentiles did not so much trust in their own righteousness, the Apostle takes no great pains; but is content to do it by way of digression, and in a cursory manner. This then is the analysis of St. Paul's treatise. Whatever he has said against the righteousness of works, either in his Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, or elsewhere, must be understood according to this rule.

 

CHAP. VII.

THE ARGUMENTS BY WHICH ST. PAUL REJECTS THE MOSAIC LAW FROM JUSTIFICATION EXPLAINED. THE APOSTLE’S ARGUMENT AFFECTS THOSE PRECEPTS OF THE LAW WHICH ARE CALLED MORAL, BUT ONLY SO FAR AS THEY FORM PART OF THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED IN THE MOSAIC COVENANT. — HENCE THE ARGUMENTS MUST BE DIVIDED INTO TWO KINDS, THOSE WHICH INCLUDE THE WHOLE LAW, AND THOSE WHICH REFER TO THE RITUAL PART OF IT ONLY.-- THE FIRST ARGUMENT WHICH RELATES TO THE WHOLE LAW OF MOSES IS TAKEN FROM ITS WANT OF PARDONING GRACE, OR OF REMISSION OF STNS. WHETHER THE LAW OF MOSES UNDER ANY VIEW OF IT CAN DE DEEMED A LAW OF EN­TIRELY PERFECT OBEDIENCE? DOES THE REASONING OF THE APOSTLE IN ROMANS, CHAPTER Hi. VER. 20 ; AND GALATIANS, CHAPTER iii. VER. 10, DEPEND ON THIS IDEA ? THIS QUESTION ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE.  ARGUMENTS TO THE CONTRARY ANSWERED.

 

§ 1. As we do not think it sufficient to have shown the general intent of St. Paul in his disputation concerning works, whatever be the works he means, we shall here treat the subject more distinctly and particularly. For since the works of the Mosaic law, and the Jewish opinions added to it, were not all of the same kind, it will be worth while clearly to explain what works and Jewish opinions the Apostle opposes, and what arguments he applies to each.

§ 2. Now the law consists of two parts, moral and ritual; to both of these St. Paul undoubtedly alludes. That he treats of the moral precepts of the Mosaic law, however some may deny it, is sufficiently evident from his own words: "Therefore by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justi-Rom.3.20. fied in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin;” whence it may be concluded, that the law, whose works St. Paul excludes, is that by which is the knowledge of sin, which beyond all dispute must be meant of the moral law contained in the decalogue : for so the Apostle explains him­self, quoting from the decalogue, " Thou shalt not covet,” and Rom. 7. 7. almost through the whole of that chapter he treats principally of the moral law; so in the same Epistle he says, "Do we Rom.3.31. then make void the law through faith ? God forbid : yea, we establish the law.” These words cannot well be under­stood of the ceremonial law, which can scarcely be said to be confirmed by the faith of Christ. And in the next chapter " Because the law worketh wrath, for where no law is, there Rom. 4.15. is no transgression,” is chiefly true of the moral law. For almost all transgressions are breaches of the moral law. Therefore the reasoning of the Apostle is undoubtedly applicable to the moral law also.

§ 3. The following observation also must be added, namely, that it is equally clear that the works of the moral law are not excluded from justification by St. Paul, simply as such, but only so far as they are required in the Mosaic covenant, and are part of the condition annexed to that covenant; in a word, so far only as they may be considered separate from evangelical grace. The very learned Estius, in solving this difficulty, in Rom. 3. uses the following distinction : " It must be observed,” says 20‘ he, " that the work of the law has a double sense; it either means the work which the law requires, which work is truly good; for it is said, ‘the doers of the law shall be justifiedRom.2.13. or the work which is done out of the law, that is, from a mere knowledge of the law, and not by faith. In which latter sense, St. Paul here speaks of the works of the law, meaning assuredly those which are done by the bare assist­ance of the law : of which kind were those which the Jews performed formerly, and still perform, not considering the grace of a Redeemer to be necessary towards leading a just life. For whatever these works may be, they are of no avail unto true righteousness : this then is, by the works of the law no man shall be justified before God.” And indeed it is most true that by the works of the law the Apostle gene­rally means works done by the strength of the law, and these works he especially excludes from justification : at the same time it is equally certain that from the works of the law, however accurately performed, no one could obtain true justi­fication under the Mosaic covenant, because it proposes no true justification, that is, such as is united with the gift of eternal life. This great blessing arises from the covenant of grace, confirmed only by the blood of the Mediator. So that, as to the [Mosaic covenant, the works of the moral law per­formed under it must be excluded from justification, and in­deed are so excluded by the Apostle. But these things we will more fully prove, when we come to the arguments of the Apostle, whose reasoning on this subject we have determined to explain at full length, that its sense may more clearly appear.

§ 4. The arguments then, by which St. Paul contends against the law, may be disposed into two divisions: the one, of those which belong to the Mosaic covenant whole and entire; the other, of those which particularly regard the cere­monial law. Of the first division there are two principal arguments which the Apostle uses, taken from the double defect of the Mosaic covenant; the want of pardoning grace, and the want of assisting grace.

§ 5. The first argument of the Apostle respecting the whole Mosaic covenant is taken from the want under which that covenant labours, of a pardoning grace, or the remission of sins; where the Apostle proves the universal guilt of both Jews and Gentiles, and that all and each of them are guilty of such sins as can expect in that law to find no true and perfect pardon or remission. This is evidently St. Paul's meaning in his Epistle to the Romans, where, CHAP. after a long catalogue of crimes charged upon Jews and —VIL— Gentiles, in the law, he draws the following conclusion:

“ Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight." In the same sense must be under­stood what the Apostle says, when he proves by this reason, Gal. 3. 10. that all who are under the law are subject to a curse, be­cause 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."

§ 6. But here I feel I have met with a difficulty at first setting out. It is questioned whether this reasoning of the Apostle's depends upon the supposition that he determines the Mosaic law, so far at least as it was given to the Jews, to have been a law of perfect obedience admitting no excuse, and therefore impossible to be performed ? And whether the Apostle on this idea concludes that all men by this law are sinners, and through their sins are guilty of eternal death and condemnation, and therefore that no one can be justified by this law ? Most indeed allow this to be the case, asserting that the Mosaic law bound all those to whom it belonged (if not absolutely, yet conditionally, unless they took refuge in the covenant of grace) under penalty of eternal death to the most perfect obedience, that is, such as embraces all kinds of innocency in the purest sense of the word, even such as is avafiaprr}- perpetual, excluding all imperfection, infirmity, and inad-ffiav vertency throughout life. But I cannot persuade myself to subscribe to these opinions, for reasons which I shall presently give. In the mean time, to form an accurate idea of this controversy, it must in the first place be particularly remem­bered, that to be deemed by God unworthy of the reward of righteousness and eternal life, is totally different from being deemed by God to be deserving of the punishment of eternal death. With respect to the first, indeed, to be accounted by the Almighty unworthy of the reward of eternal life, it is sufficient not to have that perfect innocency which I have just described; for God may with the greatest justice refuse to any man the reward of eternal life for the least imperfec­tion. Nay more, God may also, if He pleases, take that immense blessing of eternal life from the most perfect inno-

 

DISS. cence, if that could be actually found in any man; for it is —11‘-— entirely the free gift of God, and can never be due to any merits of any creature. As to the latter, that any one should be deemed deserving the punishment of eternal death, it is only necessary that he hath not performed that obedience which he might have performed. Hence it follows, that no man can be condemned for want of the most perfect righte­ousness, unto eternal death, that is, unto that torment which awaits the wicked in the next world, since such righteousness is simply impossible for any man in this life : but it is mani­fest that the Apostle in this dispute wishes to prove that both Jews and Gentiles indiscriminately, on account of not per­forming the righteousness of the law, not only do not de­serve the reward of eternal life, but are also subject to the Rom. 3. Divine anger and eternal death, “ so that every mouth might 2. i. ' ’ be stoppedthat is, both Jews and Gentiles be without qujest^o^ excuse. “ But what/' to use the words of Episcopius, “ can be qusest. 20. farther from the truth, than that the Apostle should wish to prove men guilty of death and condemnation, as a well- deserved punishment, on account of having violated, or not kept a law which he supposed to be utterly impossible for them to keep, or not to violate ? Neither can we suppose that St. Paul had an opponent who would not willingly have allowed that there was no man who could so keep the law as never to offend in the least point, and that so no one could be justified by the law; and who would not at once have ob­jected to the Apostle, that men were improperly considered as already deserving of punishment, since it is certainly im­possible for them to escape error, or keep the law in this per­fect and perpetual manner." The foundation of these ex­pressions is this, that it is repugnant to Divine justice that any one should be obliged to things plainly impossible, especially under pain of eternal death.

 

§ 7. To this some object that God gave us in the first man before the fall, strength sufficient to perform this most per­fect obedience, but that he, as the representative of us all, committed sin by which he lost those powers; and therefore God can justly demand of us the same obedience, and that under pain of eternal death. But this is extremely absurd : for since man through the fall lost these powers, not by the

 

Things permitted in the law approaching to sins. 81

 

fact but by the ill desert, that is, by the act of God with- chap. drawing them as a punishment, that God, after having thus non effi—

 

deprived him of these powers should expect of him the same cienter

 

it . sed meri-

 

obedience, is as contrary to His wisdom and justice as 11 a torie.

 

magistrate, having cut off a criminal's feet for a punishment,

 

should next order him to walk away, and because he did not

 

go, punish him with death. Far be it from us to form such

 

ideas of a God of infinite goodness and wisdom.

 

§ 8. Let us come to the law of Moses. That it was a law of perfect obedience is extremely improbable, which will appear, if we consider, as Grotiusa has observed, that the old law must be regarded under two points of view; first, carnally and literally, as being the instrument of the Jewish polity: secondly, spiritually, as being the shadow of better Heb. 10.1. things to come: since, then, in this latter sense, the law will be nothing else but a type of the Gospel, no person in his senses will call it a law of perfect obedience, at least in the same sense as a law of perfect obedience is here understood.

 

We must then allow that the law of Moses was a law of per­fect obedience under the former view. But this supposition would be very absurd; because, first, in this law God ex­pressly appointed certain sacrifices which should expiate such crimes as might be committed, not presumptuously, or in See Num. contempt of the law. But now where any pardon of sins is I5‘ 22—29‘ granted, there perfect obedience is not demanded, these two being contradictory. Secondly, so far from the law of Moses demanding perfect obedience of the Jews, it is very manifest, some things were permitted them in that law by the Al­mighty, on account of the hardness of their hearts, which very nearly partook of the nature of sin. Among these, the chief are polygamy, and permission of divorce for trifling causes. I conclude, therefore, that since by the law of Moses, see Deut. literally considered, many sins were forgiven the J ews, and pl*red*with some (which we Christians at least consider sins) even ex- 19- presslypermitted them; it is beyond all doubt, that this law, so regarded, never demanded an entire and perfect obedience.

 

§ 9. However, there are not wanting arguments by which some would prove this supposition to be true, and that hence St. Paul deduces the impossibility of justification by the

 

a De Satisfac. Christ, cap. 10. p. 183, 184. [vol. iii. p. 331. Op. ed. 1679.]

 

BULL. rj.

 

82 St. Paul's argument in Gal. iii. 10. explained.

 

diss. Mosaic law. We will carefully weigh them, that we may see —u.\— j[f £hey have any weight sufficient to preponderate against a truth so manifest as the above. The following are the two which they principally allege.

 

§ 10. Their first argument is taken from a passage which Gal. 3. 10. we have already quoted: “ For 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” &c. Where they say it is manifest that the Apostle deduces the impossibility of justification by the Mosaic law from this circumstance, that by it no one was free from the curse who did not perform all the commands of that law. I answer : It is neither necessary nor consistent that the above expression, “ continueth not in all things,” should signify perfect obedience, or an innocence from every frailty, such as we before described, since such obedience would be impossible to a mortal, neither does it appear agreeable to Divine equity, that any for want of it should be subject to an eternal curseb. The sense therefore of the above passage is, Every one is cursed, that is, subject to the curse and the punishments of the law, who does not persevere in doing and observing all things which the law requires. But he is supposed to do all things who does not wander from the intent of the law, who keeps its essentials, as we have said, entire, or as others express themselves, who keeps all those precepts of the law which contain the sub­stance of life, of which kind are the particular points men- Deut. 27. tioned by Moses. In one word, he who permits himself to do nothing knowingly and willingly against the law of God, although perhaps in some things he may offend through ignorance and inadvertency.

 

§ 11. Great light will be thrown upon this text from the Jas. 2. io. following similar passage; “ Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all,” that is, is subject to the punishment and curse laid upon the trans­gressors of the law. Who does not perceive that this passage from St. James entirely corresponds with that from St. Paul ? But it is very certain that these words of St. James must not be interpreted of an all-perfect innocence, since the Apostle

 

b For a clearer understanding of this we have said in ch. xvi. of this Disser- passage, the reader may refer to what tation, sect. 7, 8, 9.

 

St. James ii. 10 not speaking of an all-perfect innocence. 83

 

is clearly speaking of that obligation of the law which is bind- CIIA P.

 

ing upon us Christians. It must be understood that here, not----------------- 1—

 

every offence, even the most trivial (as some will have it) is intended; of trivial offences, St. James speaks as follows;

 

“ In many things we offend all:” and again, “ If any man jas. 3. 2. offend not in word, the same is a perfect man.” For even if the word offend seems to be spoken of some lighter offenee, ttta/<m. yet from the context of the passage and reason itself, it ap­pears that St. James is speaking of those sins by which a man wilfully and knowingly transgresses the law. Reason itself demands this interpretation; for how could it be true that he who in other respeets keeps the whole law should be guilty of transgressing every precept, because he was unwarily offended by an idle word or immoderate laughter ? The context of the Apostle teaches the same: for in the first place, he ex­pressly mentions those sins only, which are most heinous, as murder and adultery; then the reason by which he confirms ver. n. this maxim, and which immediately follows it, requires this interpretation : For He that said, “ Do not commit adultery,” said also, “ Thou shalt not kill.” As if He had said, Since the obligation and authority of all Divine laws is the same, he who violates one of these, and knowingly transgresses the law, by that very act spurns and despises the authority of the whole. Neither does he appear to keep the others be­cause he thinks it impious to violate so great authority as theirs, but beeause he is not inclined to transgress . against them. For why else does he not observe that law also which he breaks, sinee it has the same authority with the rest, if it be indeed enacted by the same lawgiver from whom the others derive their authority ? But if he was equally inclined to offend against the rest as against this, there appears no cause why he should not readily do it. St. James therefore speaks of those sins which are committed against the end of the law and the authority of the lawgiver. Agreeable to this is what Augustine wrote to Jerome, whom he had consulted Epist.29. in a very long letter on this very passage: the sum is, he tbnt. Ja-’ who offends in one thing is guilty of all, beeause he offends geuEpb* against love, upon which depend the law and the prophets, j*

 

“For,” says he, “he is deservedly guilty of all, who offends against that upon which all depend.”

 

g 2

 

I) i s s. IT.

 

e£ epyocu vdfxov. ver. 10.

 

flCTTlCTTeOOS.

 

ver. 9.

 

ver. 14,

 

Deut. 6. 5.

 

§ 12. Perhaps some one may reply, Well, let this passage of St. James be so interpreted; still the same interpretation by no means agrees with the aim of St. Paul in that passage in his Epistle to the Galatians. For since the Apostle had no other means of proving that all who are under the law are subject to the curse, but by this passage, “ Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things” &c., he shews with sufficient clearness, that no one can continue in all things, or that the law demands a most perfect obedience, which no one can perform. In answer to this, I totally deny that this is intended in the Apostle^s argument, to prove which we will reduce it to a syllogistic form, thus :

 

Cursed is he who doth not continue in all things which the law commands;

 

But they who are of the works of the law do not continue in all these things;

 

Therefore they who are of the works of the law are under the curse.

 

For the Apostle evidently speaks of those who are of the ivorks of the law, that is, those who seek righteousness in the law, either being ignorant of, or despising the grace of the Gospel, whom he opposes to those wrho are of the faith, that is, those who believe in the Gospel and embrace its grace, and have obtained the blessing of Abraham, the promise of the Spirit, by which they fulfil the righteousness of the law, and so escape its curse. Of the former indeed, he shews that they neither have, nor can continue in all things which the law commands, but he does not make the same determination concerning the latter. In one word, against the possibility of fulfilling the law in every thing by the grace of the Gospel, (so far as it is imposed upon us as a law, that is, under pain of eternal death, or ever hath been imposed upon mankind from the fall of the first man,) the Apostle hath never said a word, nay hath often openly ac­knowledged the possibility of it, as wre shall afterwards see.

 

§ 13. Another argument of our opponents remains, in which they boast as unanswerable, taken from the following passage: t( And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.” You see here, say they, that the most complete and perfect

 

Objections from the Old Testament answered. 85

 

love of God is required in the law. But we may reply, that c H a p.

 

this argument turns against themselves. For since God here--------------- 1—

 

does not demand any other love than that which may be per­formed by all the heart, all the soul, and all the strength, it is evident that He demands nothing of us above, or beyond our strength, that measure of grace being taken into the con­sideration, which God communicates, or is ready to commu­nicate, to all. Now it is certain that we can all of us obey God with all our strength, for it is a contradiction in terms to assert that we cannot do any thing according to our strength. The truth of this answer may be strongly established by these reasons: first, God promises that He would give to His people what He here demands, a circum­cised heart, that they may love Him with all their hearts. Deut.30.6. Secondly, God Himself testifies that there have been those

 

who thus loved Him. Thus it is said of King Asa and all 2Chron.i5.

 

• • 12

 

the people, “ that they sought the Lord with all their heart ‘ and all their soulof David we read, “ that he followed 1 Kings 14. God with all his heart, doing that which was right in His * eyes but that is a remarkable testimony which the Holy Spirit gives of King Josiah, “that he turned to the Lord 2Kings23. with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his might, ' according to all the law of Moses.” That undoubtedly is said to be done with all the heart, to which any one gives the chief part of his study and application. In the same sense as we say a man gives himself up entirely to his books, as Estius well remarks, to whom the reader may refer. Sent.lib.3.

 

§ 14. I will finish these remarks by observing, that our § 6, s/ opinion of the possibility of fulfilling the law, so far at least as it ever was a law imposed on man by God, is not a modern opinion, but ratified by the unanimous consent of all the ancients, who wrote before the Pelagian controversy had polluted the springs of pure and primitive doctrine. The author of Questions and Answers to the Orthodox (among O 458. the works of Justin) in the answer to question 103, which is :

 

“ How God, commanding those things which are above our strength, namely, that we should not sin, can condemn the sinner to torments, since a man cannot fulfil the law, as the Apostle testifies : f No flesh shall be justified by the works of the law V ” says what well deserves our attention. “ What is

 

86

 

Perfect obedience taught by the Fathers.

 

DISS.

 

ii.

 

[vol. ii. p. 18. ed. Ben.)

 

Horn. 18. in Matt, [vol. vii. p. 236. cd. Ben.]

 

Serm. 191 de Tem­pore, [vid. vol. v. A pp. p. 388.]

 

all the righteousness according to the law? It is to love God more than oneself, and our neighbour as oneself; which things are not impossible to men Avilling to perform them. This expression therefore, ‘ by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified/ does not refer to the impossibility of our doing impossible things, but to our unwillingness of perform­ing what is possible, since we do not use our will for impos­sible but possible things. For praise or blame arises from our doing or not doing things which are possible and in our power; so that we men sin, by not choosing to do, and not from not being able." Basil the Great, in his Homily on that text of Moses Attende tibi ipsi, rejects the opinion of those who affirm that the precepts of the law are impossible to be performed, as impious, and not to be borne. His words are : “ It is impious to assert that the precepts of the Holy Spirit cannot be kept." So also Chrysostom; “ Do not then let us think that these precepts are impossible, for they are both useful and very easy to us if we would watch." He expresses himself in the same manner in the eighth Homily on Repentance, and on the 101st Psalm. Neither did most of the Catholics, who wrote after or against Pelagius, think otherwise. Even Augustine himself, how­ever in other respects he might have grown too warm in that most unfortunate controversy, did not hesitate to allow that God had commanded possible things, and in this sense too, that each individual believer was able to fulfil every and each command. And with Basil he condemns the contrary opinion as guilty of blasphemy and heresy: “We condemn also the blasphemy of those who teach that God hath com­manded any thing impossible to be done by man, and that the commands of God cannot be kept by individuals, but only by a community at large0."

 

c Vid. Vossii Hist. Pelag., lib. v. part I. antithes. G.

 

CHAP. VIII.

 

THE TRUE SOURCES OF THE APOSTLE^ ARGUMENT LAID OPEN, WHICH ARE two; FIRST, THAT JEWS AS WELL AS GENTILES INDISCRIMINATELY, AND ALL OF EVERY NATION, HAVE BEEN GUILTY OF GREAT SINS, AND THERE­FORE SUBJECT TO THE JUDGMENT AND ANGER OF GOD ; SECONDLY, THAT IN THE LAW OF MOSES THERE IS NO PROMISE OF TRUE AND PERFECT REMISSION OF SINS, OR OF DELIVERANCE FROM THE ANGER OF GOD, AND

 

ETERNAL DEATH DUE TO SIN. HENCE IS SHEWN IN WIIAT MANNER

 

TIIE APOSTLE DEDUCES HIS CONCLUSION.

 

§ 1. From what has been already said, I think it is suffi- chap. ciently evident that the law of Moses did not require sinless —~' obedience, that is, an innocency free from the smallest trans­gression under pain of eternal death, and that the Apostle's arguments are not founded on such a supposition*1. It remains therefore for us to consider in what manner the Apostle proves his conclusion; I think therefore, with defer­ence to better judgments, that the reasoning of the Apostle depends upon these two points.

 

§ 2. First, that both Jews and Gentiles indiscriminately, and all of every nation universally, were guilty of dreadful crimes, and therefore subject to the judgment and anger of God. This he particularly points out with respect to those Jews who sought righteousness in the law (as in answer to the first argument we have observed in the last chapter;) Sec Gal. s. but the same is shewn to be the case of all men in the third 10‘ chapter of the Epistle to the Homans, where the Apostle Rom. 3. charges both Jews and Gentiles with the guilt of many great crimes.

 

§ 3. But that the context of this passage may be rightly understood, two things are to be particularly observed; one respecting the charge itself, the other, the persons against whom it is made. First, with respect to the charge, it must be observed, that it is not for all offences, even the most trifling, but for sins strictly speakinge, that is, the more

 

d Vid. Episcop.— Respons. ad 61 them (i. e. not 011 account of the imper-

 

Question. quaest. 20. feetion of their nature), but for wicked

 

e “ The whole world, or the greatest and cruel deeds,” &c. Grotius on Rom.

 

portion of mankind, deserve the severest iii. 19. punishment, not for any thing born in

 

88 The case of those who were blameless under the law.

 

DISS.

 

ii.

 

ver. 9.

 

ch. 7. 14.

 

ver. 9, 19, 23.

 

See ch. 2. 14, 15, 26, 27.

 

See John 3. 32; Isa. 66. 23;

 

enormous offences, and such as deserved eternal death. This appears both from the words in which the opinions proved in the preceding chapter, and more fully demonstrated in this, are expressed by the Apostle, “We have before proved both Jews and Gentiles to be all under sin.” Where the phrase, to be under sin, clearly means to be subject to it, to be in the habit of committing great offences; such are also said to be sold to sin; and also from the context of the whole passage, where the sins enumerated by the Apostle are all of the most heinous nature.

 

§ 4. Secondly, if you consider against whom this charge is brought, they are both the Gentiles and the Jews: all re­garded in that state in which they were before, and without the grace of the Gospel. This is even manifest from the design of the Apostle, which was to invite both Jews and Gentiles, convinced of their own guilt and misery, to seek and embrace the grace of the Gospel. St. Paul therefore contends, that both Jews and Gentiles in that light are all under sin. But you will object, that there were some at least among the Jews, who before the preaching of Christ, led a pious and blameless life, and were free from such vices as the Apostle here mentions; as Zacharias, Elizabeth, Simeon, and others. To this I reply, that the observation is very true, and without doubt, among the Gentiles too, there were some who sincerely and heartily practised virtue and righteousness as far as it was known to them; and of this I am persuaded both by reason and the Apostle himself, who hints as much in this Epistle. But as the objection only relates to the Jews, we will confine our answer to them, leaving the reader to adapt it to the Gentiles with some little alteration. I say then, in the first place, that these pious men were extremely few among the Jews, and, compared to the rest, as a drop in the ocean. And therefore the Apostle made no great account of them; but it was right on account of the extremely small number of the pious, to overlook them entirely when speaking of the wicked, who were in such numbers. And certainly expressions such as these, which the Apostle uses, are very common in Scripture, where they ar£ undoubtedly used hyperbolically. Secondly, those few who were righteous under the law, did not receive their

 

righteousness from the law, but owed it to the Gospel- chap. grace which before the preaching of the Gospel, in all prior —YI11* -

 

4. a -4. i a Joel 2-28

 

ages, ever exerted its power, although more sparingly and Acts 2.17 less frequently then, than since. In one word, they were led by the Spirit, not of the law, but of the Gospel, and are to Phl1-2-21- be reckoned among those who are of faith, and not of the ivorks of the law; therefore the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews shews, that all the famous deeds of the pious men who lived in the times of the Old Testament, arose not from the law but from faith. Thirdly, it is probable that these few, at some time of their lives, fell into some sins or sin, which might be deserving of eternal death. Indeed this is certain, since of those to whom a blameless and perfect obedi­ence of the law under the Old Testament is attributed, it is said expressly that they had at one time or other fallen into great sins and well deserving death; as Asa, David, Josias, and 2 Chron. others. And in this sense I think the following passage must likings be understood; “ All have sinned, and come short of the glory ^chron of God.” These words seem to be universal, and to except 35- 22- none from not having been guilty at some period of their ver' 2o‘ lives of some offences, or some one greater sin.

 

§ 5. And this seems to be what the Scriptures assert in various places, as for instance, “ For there is no man that 1 Kings sinneth not;” and, “ If we say that we have no sin we deceive i joh. 1. ourselves, and the truth is not in usand, “ If we say that 8’l0* we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.” That this passage must be understood of sins strictly speaking, and not of trifling errors only, and is entirely general, is proved both from the matter itself, and from what follows in the second chapter of the same Epistle. And even 1 John 2. here it must be observed, that St. John speaks in the past 2* time: “ If we say that we have not sinned” that is, before our knowledge of the Gospel. Evidently the holy Apostle meant that the Christians to whom he wrote should dili­gently keep themselves free from the crime of ingratitude, and because they were freed from sin, should not attribute that effect to themselves, or to the law of Moses, or of nature, but to the grace of the Gospel only. Otherwise he does not appear to deny but that after the knowledge of the Gospel, and the reception of its grace, some might be without sin,

 

D is s. so that the word sin( is used by him not for acts of mere

 

ignorance, nor for sudden, unforeseen offences, but for those

 

sins which require time for the performance, as Grotius observes, and do not prevent deliberation. The possibility l Joh. 2. l. of this he clearly hints at, where he earnestly exhorts Chris­tians not to sin. Perhaps it may be objected that the Apostle l Joh. i. a uses the present tense, "if we say that we have no sin;’ and that he therefore implies that no man, even after receiving the Gospel, either is, or can be, free from those sins which are strictly so called. But this objection is easily removed. anaprtav For to have sins, and to sin. or commit sin, are not quite

 

€V€il^.

 

hfiaprd- the same thing. For to have sin is not to be now in sin, as hflaprlav ^r°tius observes, but to be guilty of sins formerly committed, TToittv. as most clearly appears from the Gospel of St. John. The is. 22,24! sense then is, If we say that before the knowledge of the Gospel we did not grievously offend, and therefore were guilty of eternal death, and even now would be guilty, were it not for the grace and mercy of the Gospel, we are clearly liars, and ungrateful to the Gospel, and that Truth which we profess. In short, St. John himself interprets his own mean­ing, since that which he had before said in these words, “ we have sin,” he afterwards explains not by we sin, in the pre- afiapTdvo- sent, but we have sinned, in the past.—But let us now re- T)napr-f}Ka- turn to St. Paul.

 

§ G. From what has been said, it appears that the whole of the first point upon which the Apostle grounds liis argument is this, that Jews as well as Gentiles, as to the far greatest part of them, were plainly under the dominion of sin, and enslaved by the worst vices. And they who of either people were the best and the most pious, did not so live as not to fall into some sins, or some sin at least, of a graver character, and worthy of death, and therefore all Jews and Gentiles indis­criminately, are all, without exception, subject to God’s wrath ver. 19. and eternal death.

 

f “ Such as have not sinned from the Spenc. (c. 69. p. 493.) beginning are not to be found; and such [The ‘perfect’ word is opposed to

 

as have not sinned after conversion but the imperfect participation which the

 

rarely: and they become such by coining heathen enjoyed. See Just. Mart. A p.

 

to the saving word, but are not such 2. §;8. 13.—Ed.]

 

before they come: for without the word, * “ For this is not to have sin, not to

 

and that the perfect word, it is impos- be guilty of sin.” Aug., tom. vii. de

 

sible for a man to become without sin.” Nupt. et Concup. i. 26. ^vol. x. p. 295.] Origen. cont. Cels., lib. iii. p. 153. edit.

 

The law promised no perfect remission of sin. 91

 

§ 7. What the Apostle next takes for granted in his argu- chap. ment is this, that in the law of Moses is promised no true — and perfect remission of sins, or redemption from Divine wrath, and eternal death due to sin. To this the Apostle manifestly refers in the afore-mentioned chapter, where having deduced ver. -20. this conclusion from the supposition just proved, namely, that no one can be justified in the sight of God by the works of the law, immediately adds this second supposition, without which his whole argument would have been unsupported, in these words, “ for by the law is the knowledge of sinwhich sentence must undoubtedly be considered exclusively, thus;

 

By the law is the knowledge of sin only, not the remission; by the law therefore there is no justification.

 

§ 8. I know very well that there are some who, after Origen, interpret this passage not as speaking of the law of Moses, but of nature: but they are mistaken11. For in the first place, though many before the law was given had a knowledge of their offences, their own consciences accusing them, yet still that knowledge was very obscure and imperfect, for the natural light of reason was so darkened by sin, that they did not con­sider many things to be sins which really were so, and ac­counted many trifling which were heinous. But by the law given by God, and inscribed upon tables, a much clearer and more perfect knowledge of sin arose, not only as to how far it is repugnant to right reason, but also as to how it is an offence to God, and would be severely punished by Him; of both which, by the light of nature only, but few men and that See Rom. imperfectly could gain the knowledge. Secondly, If you ' ’ interpret this passage of the law of nature, it will not be of equal force against the Jew, who might say, Although by the law of nature there is the knowledge of sin only, yet more must be attributed to the Divine law which he had received.

 

Again: If you interpret these words of the written law of Moses only, they will have no force against the Gentiles, who have nothing to do with this law; it follows, therefore, that this passage must be interpreted of both laws, that of Moses and that of nature. I answer, By no means ; for in the first place, if you understand the Apostle as speaking of the writ­ten law only, still his argument will remain in full force h Vid. Estium in loc.

 

92 Christ only can redeem from the curse of the law.

 

Diss. against the Gentiles, since it is drawn in this manner: If

 

:— the law given by God as a kind of interpreter of the natural

 

law obscured by sin, explaining and renewing it, be still un­able to produce righteousness, much less can the natural law alone do it. Wherefore, if from the works of the written law, no Jew can be justified, it must be understood as a necessary consequence that much less can the Gentile be justified by the works of the natural law. But, secondly, what St. Paul observes of the Mosaic law, applies particularly to the Gentiles, because many of them who believed in the Gospel had been led by the instigation either of Jewish teachers, or other Judaizers, into such an admiration of the [Mosaic law as entirely to despise, or but lightly esteem, the most holy Gospel of Christ. Therefore, undoubtedly, the Apostle un­dertook this careful examination of the Mosaic law, chiefly for the sake of those Gentiles who had been thus unfor­tunately seduced.

 

§ 9. But this defect of the Mosaic law in promising no freedom from the Divine wrath incurred by sin, is more Gal. 3. io. clearly shewn by the Apostle in his Epistle to the Galatians, where he pronounces all who are of the works of the law to be under the curse, that is, so bound by the condemning sentence of the law, that no hope of relief in that law appears to them; which he more openly teaches in the thirteenth ver. 13. verse; shewing that Christ alone, who was made “a curse for us,” has redeemed us “ from the curse of the law.”

 

§ 10. We said expressly, that the law contained no true and perfect remission of sin, because we very well know, that by the Mosaic law some pardon, of whatever nature it really was, was given to sins, although voluntary and heinous. For although those sins which were committed through manifest pride, rebellion, and presumption, could be expiated by no sacrifice, but were punished by death, without pardon See Num. and mercy, except the special favour of God intervened ; 1^ 25,26, as a learned man1 has well observed, “among these

 

sins must not be reckoned all which are voluntary, or have been designedly committed, but those only which arise from an impious contempt of the commands of God, or the obsti­nacy of an insolent disposition.” That persons of the opposite

 

* Episcop. Institut. Theolog. iii. 3. 2. [vol. i. p. 71.]

 

opinion are in error will appear from considering, that God chap. hath provided sacrifices for sins such as these, the not re- —- —— storing of the pledge, cheating another, denial of finding any property, and that with an oath. Therefore in the Mosaic Lev. 6.2-4. law, pardon was provided for sins even of a more heinous kind. But of what nature was this pardon ? It was external, civil, temporal, and regarded only this earthly life.

 

§ 11. For the law, so far as it was the instrument of civil

 

society, intended for the happiness of the community, pro- Beatitudi-

 

mised long life to those who lived according to the law; as,

 

on the other hand, it threatened a violent death to trans- 6­

 

... See Exod.

 

gressors. But God the Supreme Lawgiver, in His mercy, 20.7. lest the whole people should be cut off by the punishments due to sin, determined that some only of the most atrocious crimes should be expiated by death, (as those which militated against civil life and customs, as also against that theocratical polity for the protection of which the Mosaic law was given, such as idolatry, murder, adultery, &c.), but that for men guilty of the breach of some legal rite, or polluted by some crime inferior to those above mentioned, sacrifices should be offered, and so the punishment of corporal death, which the man deserved, should be transferred to the beast. So that the sacrifices of Moses afforded an earthly redemption only, since by Divine appointment they freed men from violent and un­timely death, but produced no remedy against death itself.

 

In short, they granted no pardon to which the gift of eternal life was united, for of that neither promise nor mention is made in the law of Moses.

 

§ 12. To this the divine author of the Epistle to the Hebrews alludes when speaking of sacrifices prescribed in the Heb. 9. law; he denies that they could make perfect the conscience of the worshipper, that is, could free a man in the sight of God from the internal guilt of sin, but were only effectual to the ver. 13. purifying of the flesh, to free a man externally from corporal punishment and death. In the same sense must be under­stood what the same writer teaches with much force, that no perfection could be expected from the priesthood of Aaron, that is, from the sacrifices offered by that priesthood: “ The Heb. 7. law made nothing (that is, no man) perfect." In which Jer. 19. passages, by perfection, is principally meant a full and perfect, also 10, L

 

04

 

How the Apostle deduces his conclusion

 

Diss. that is, an eternal freedom from all sin, both small and great, —---— which he very justly denied could be obtained by the Mosaic law.

 

§ 13. Whoever properly comprehends these things will clearly see why the Apostle refuses justification to the law of Moses, not because it demanded a most perfect, and there­fore an impossible obedience, as the condition of justification, but because it provided no true justification whatever, that is, one united with the gift of eternal life upon any con­ditions.

 

§ 14. From these premises then the Apostle deduces his conclusion, which is this; that neither Jews nor Gentiles (whom he comprehends under the expression all JJesh) can be justified by the law of Moses in the sight of God: which words are decidedly significant, because the law had a certain justification peculiar to itself before men, and effectual in obtaining earthly happiness, but not the kingdom of heaven : which the author of the Commentaries attributed to Ambrosek well explains thus : “ It is true that no man is justified by the law, but this is before God, for he is justified before men, so as to be secure in this life. But if he would be justified before God he must follow the faith of God; otherwise, though he be safe here, he will be guilty hereafter.”

 

§ 15. The whole of the Apostle's argument may be com­prehended in this syllogism:

 

At the judgment-seat of God, no man can be justified by the law of Moses, who is guilty of those sins for which no remission is provided at that judgment-seat by that law:

 

But all, both Jews and Greeks, are guilty of those sins for which no remission is provided at that judgment-seat by the law of Moses:

 

Therefore no man, Jew or Greek, can be justified by the law of Moses at the judgment-seat of God.

 

Hence the Apostle infers, that both Jews and Greeks must have recourse to another covenant affording more extensive mercy; to that, namely, established by the blood of Jesus Christ, in whom is not a temporal only, hut an eternal re- iieb. 5. o ademption and salvation. For a most full and perfect for­a ]~ giveness of all sins, however heinous, united with the gift of

 

* In Gal. iii. Op. vol. ii. p. 220.

 

eternal life, is promised to all those who, through faith in chap.

 

Christ, earnestly repent themselves of their former sins, and ——_______

 

dedicate themselves to God and a holy life. For here indeed St. Paul urges upon Gentiles as well as Jews, what he had before particularly recommended to the Jews only: “Be it Acts 13.38, known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through 39- this man (Christ) 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.”

 

Where the Apostle appears to affirm two things, not only that through Jesus was preached a spiritual remission of sins (which the law did not provide), but that every one who believed in Him should be justified from all things from which no man could be justified, not even in an earthly sense, by the lawT of Moses.—And thus far of the Apostle’s first argument.

 

CHAP. IX.

 

THE SECOND ARGUMENT OF THE APOSTLE TAKEN FROM THE WEAKNESS OF

 

THE LAW, OR ITS WANT OF AIDING GRACE---------- CERTAIN PASSAGES TO THAT

 

EFFECT PRODUCED. THE SEVENTH CHAPTER OF THE ROMANS EX­PLAINED. THAT ST. PAUL IS THERE SPEAKING OF MAN UNDER THE

 

LAW, AND NOT ASSISTED BY THE GRACE OF THE GOSPEL CLEARLY SHEWN. ARGUMENTS TO THE CONTRARY ANSWERED, GAL. V. 17, EX­PLAINED.

 

§ 1. The second argument by which St. Paul proves the impossibility of justification by the Mosaic law, and which equally affects the whole law, is taken from another defect of that covenant, its want, namely, of aiding Grace. For as the old law gave no full and sufficient pardon for past sins, so neither did it afford any assistance to prevent future ones. The Apostle makes great use of this argument, shewing, that the law is of itself very weak, and entirely destitute of that strength by which unhappy men might be drawn from the dominion of sin and an inveterate habit of sinning, to a righteousness, true, agreeable to God, and productive of salvation.

 

DI s s. § 2. That remarkable passage in the Epistle to the Romans Rorc 8 - refers to this point: “ For 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.”—To ahvvarov tov vofiov, the Latin version has well rendered by Quod impossibile erat legi; for the genitive case when joined with such adjectives has the force of the dative; iv ® “in that,” is because, inasmuch as, quia, or in quantum; rjaOevec “was weak,” Sta tt}<? aapfc6<; “through the flesh,” i. e. the carnal affections of men checked its power; iv ofiocco^art, GapKos a/jbapTLas, of flesh exposed to, or under the power of sin; “ and for sin” ical Trepl afiaprla9, is the same as because Rom.4.25. of on account of sin; as hia ra irapairToofiaTa, “for our Heb. 10.6; offences,” or as others, and the margin of our Bible, “ a sacri- " ' flee for sin;” “condemned sin in the flesh,” that is, He destroyed sin by the deliverance up of His own flesh to death; or, by that oblation of His own flesh He destroyed sin in our flesh: by the change of the antecedent for the consequent, KaruKpi- to condemn is here put for interficere, to put to death, as v*lvcondemnation for death: because such is generally the fate

 

KaraKpifia. ° J

 

of the condemned: He put to death, that is, gave us the power of so doing: by destroying or putting to death, we mean the taking away the efficiency or power.

 

The following then seems to be the most simple interpreta­tion of the passage : The law could by no means repress the carnal affections of men, or free them from the force and tyranny of habitual sin, and lead them to true righteousness. The Son of God alone could perform this, and He hath actually done it, who by the merit of His death hath not only freed us from eternal death due to our sins, but hath by the power and efficacy of His death also enabled us to be dead unto sin itself, and alive unto God and true righteous­ness, as it follows in the fourth verse, “ that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us.”

 

§ 3. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews says the same, when he concludes “ that the disannulling of the com- chap.7.18. mandment going before” was necessary “on account of the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.” Here the word ivTo\)). commandment seems intended to signify the whole law of Moses, with all its precepts, although the ceremonial law is

 

there principally referred to: but the same is more clearly chap. taught where speaking of the old Mosaic covenant he says — that it was not altogether faultless, or entirely free from d/ie^Tot/' defect, and therefore hints that it was defective in some point. VC1' 9* What that defect was, he shews from the w^ords of Jeremiah, namely, that it was unable to retain the covenanted in their duty, or to assist them in the performance of its commands.

 

For when God, according to the prophet, says that He would abolish the Mosaic covenant and substitute another in its place, because the Jews had not remained in that covenant,

 

He clearly implies that the cause why the Jews did not remain in that covenant did not wholly arise from their faults, but from some defect of the covenant itself, or else what would have been the use of abolishing that covenant, and substi­tuting a new one for it ?

 

§ 4. But to prove this matter there is no occasion to select verses from various passages, when we have before us the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, in which the Apostle professedly treats upon this subject; where, after he had laid open that great mystery which among many 2 Cor. 12. others was revealed to him before all the other Apostles, namely, that not only the converted Gentiles but even the Jews themselves, who had embraced the faith of Christ, were no longer bound by the law of Moses, but were as free from that obligation as a woman is free from the bond of marriage upon the death of her husband; he at length proceeds to shew ver. 5, 6. what and how great a privilege this is, that he might excite the Jews to embrace it with all eagerness. His words are,

 

"Ore yap rj/iev ev tt) aapfcl, When we were under the carnal discipline of the law (for that these words must be so ex­plained is plain from the antithesis they bear to those which follow, vvvl Se Kar7)py7)07)fjL€v airo rod vo/jlov, but now we are delivered from the law), ra 7ra9rjfiara tcov a/jbapricov ra Sia tov vofiov, the motions of sins which were (supply with Chrysos­tom <£awo/ieva, or yvcop^o/ieva, or even yivojjueva, made mani­fest, or known by, or happened) by the law, ivrjpyelro ev rot? /zeAe- cnv r]fjio)v, did work in all our members, eh to fcapirocfiopqcrai tw Oavdrw, so that from the law we derived this fruit only, namely, that on account of sins committed against it we became subject unto eternal death: vvvl Se K,aT7)pyr\Qrr\fLev airo tov vo/jlov, but

 

BULL. II

 

98

 

The law indirectly excited sinful desires.

 

CMpOpixfyv

 

Xafidyres. ver. 8.

 

ver. 7.

 

now we are delivered from the law, diroOavovro^ iv &> /carec^o- fjieda, the chain of the law being loosed by which we were before bound, ware hovkevetv r)na<$ iv /caivorrjrt Trvevfiaro^, /cal ou iraXaLOTr)Ti ypdfifiaro^, that is, that vie should no longer serve the Most Holy God in carnal ceremonies and external observ­ances only, but should attain unto that true newness of life, and inward purity of heart, which was the end and fulfilling of the old law.

 

§ 5. Here it must be observed that the Apostle is not satisfied with saying that the law was not able to take away the evil inclinations of men, but according to his usual man­ner carries it into the opposite extreme, by proving that the law indirectly served to excite and inflame them. This he hints in these words: “ the motions of sins which were by the lawnamely, those evil inclinations were not only known by the law, but in a certain sense took their rise, or at least derived increase from the law. For our old Adam and the indulgent nature of sin, being irritated by the pro­hibition of the law, and naturally inclined to any thing for­bidden, began to exert its force, while it became more ardent from the desire of what was forbidden. Or, as others think, because the law provides no punishment for some crimes, especially internal ones, such as the desire of what is for­bidden, hence men, taking occasion of sinning safely, and with the hope of impunity, indulged themselves in internal uncleanness of this kind. Whichever may be the case, it is certain that the Apostle shews the law of Moses to have pro­vided not only no remedy for this disease of evil desires, but that this disease became worse from the time that the law was given.

 

§ 6. But because this expression might appear odious to the Jews, and give them an opportunity of accusing the Apostle as having taught that the law was the cause of sin, and therefore evil, he prudently anticipates and takes away this objection, by shewing that the law is free from any blame on its part, since it had performed all that is possible for a law to do, in forbidding all sin, even internal sinful desires, which without the law men would scarcely have known to have been sins. What then ? If men after the giving of the law became worse, that arose not from the nature of the

 

law, but from tlie fault of men themselves who abused the chap.

 

•---------------------------- • IX sacred law. On this point the Apostle dwells up to the 1—-

 

thirteenth verse, where he starts a new objection, arising from the above answer: “Was then that which is good made death unto me?” that is, the cause of death. The Apostle answers, “ God forbid” that it should be called the cause of death, since it is only an occasion, and that too not given, but taken. For sin is the true cause of this death, or rather the carnal affections of men enslaved by vices which are contrary to a spiritual law; hence when they knew the law and wished to perform it, they could not, being hurried away by these affections. From this he deduces an argu- ver. 14, 15. ment by which he vindicates the holiness of the law; namely, that even bad men themselves approve it while they transgress it, their own consciences punishing them in silence for the offences committed against it. And in describing in most ver. 16. magnificent language this contest between the mind and the members, between conscience and the flesh, of a man under the law and destitute of the grace of the Gospel (speaking figuratively and in his own person), the Apostle proceeds from the sixteenth verse to the end of the chapter. In the following chapter he repeats what he had already observed in the former chapter (whence he had made a digression chap. 7. to answer the objection proposed in verse seven, and Ver‘6’ which digression continues to the eighth chapter), and what he had observed was this: That the bond of the Mosaic law was broken, and that no one would be in fu­ture condemned for not performing its ceremonies, provided only he keep to that way of spiritual life commanded by the ver. 1. Gospel; and he then shews that all Christians were by the ver. 2—4. Gospel freed from that dominion of sin from which there was neither hope nor possibility of freedom by the Mosaic law.

 

§ 7. The above analysis of this chapter is so easy and clear, that it is very wonderful how learned men could sup­pose that in the latter part of the chapter the Apostle de­scribes the state of a regenerate person, and of one blessed with the grace of the Gospel. That opinion, certainly, be­sides being contrary to almost all antiquity before Augustine, and which even Augustine himself at one time rejected, is

 

11 2

 

clogged with insuperable difficulties and (not to speak more

 

- strongly) most evident absurdities.

 

§ 8. For in the first place it supposes that the Apostle here introduces observations unimportant and perfectly foreign to his design. For it is most clear that at the be­ginning of the chapter he speaks of the ineffieaey of the law in freeing men from the dominion of sin, and moreover shews that so far from doing that, it even irritated and increased the force of evil desire. From this doctrine, and this only, arose the objections which the Apostle discusses in the seventh and thirteenth verses. But it is altogether absurd that the Apostle should answer objections arising from the inefficacy of the law in those who have not the grace of the Gospel, by a representation of his own state under the Gospel. In the next place, since all allow that the Apostle from the seventh verse to the fourteenth is speaking of the state of a man under the law, what sufficient reason, I ask, can be imagined that we should suppose he changes his design in the fourteenth and fifteenth verses, especially as the words of the fourteenth verse contain evidently the reason of what had gone before, as appears by the causative article for, which connects it with the preceding verses. Now in the thirteenth verse this was the objection proposed: That it was wonderful that the very law, which by its own nature was holy and good, could be the cause of death to any one K And I would ask how the following verses answer this objection, if the Apostle in them speaks of his own regeneration, since in that state he is no longer under the law, neither has any connexion with it; can that reasoning, which represents the condition of a man under the Gospel, be ever intended to prove that the law is not the cause of death to those who live under the law ? Let the thirteenth and following verses be paraphrased according to this interpretation, and instead of the Apostle’s wonder­fully concise argument we shall have an unconnected string of observations.

 

§ 9. The usual objection of the change of time in the fourteenth verse is so trifling, that it is truly a disgrace that serious men should ever have used it as an argument: for what does it amount to ? Because the Apostle changes from

 

1 Vid. Amyrald. Consider. 2. Rom. vii. p. 23, 24.

 

the past tense to the present, must it therefore be supposed chap. that he also changes the original design of his argument ——— for one totally foreign to it? Who is ignorant that this change of tenses is extremely common to all writers even in the same context, and especially while speaking of the same matter? But what if the reason for this change appears from the context itself? For the Apostle in the ninth verse considers man as here represented in that state in which he was before he had received the law. Then in the following verses to the fourteenth he shews the event, that is, what had happened to him in consequence of having received the law, namely, that by the law he became guilty of a greater offence, and subject to a more severe punishment. So far then it was requisite that the Apostle should use the past tense; but at the fourteenth verse he shews the reason why the conse­quences of the law were different from what it had intended : the nature of the law, says he, is different from that of the men who are under the law. The law is spiritual, proceeding from the Spirit of God, and prescribing a spiritual mode of living; but man under the law is carnal, and enslaved by the lusts of the flesh. But it would have been improper that the Apostle, explaining a case even then existing, should speak in the past time, or say, “the law was spiritual,” but “I was carnal how much more fit was it to use the present:—“ The law is spiritual, but I am carnal,” as will readily appear to every one who attentively considers the matter.

 

§ 10. But this opinion not only makes the Apostle's reasoning unconnected, but even contradictory to itself.

 

For undoubtedly what is said of the character described in this chapter, is so diametrically opposite to what the Apostle says of the regenerate man in the sixth chapter before and eighth chapter following it, that one might sooner recon­cile light with darkness, life with death, and heaven with hell, than these with each other. Of the man here described it is said, “ I am carnal.” But of the regenerated, “ he walks ver. u. not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” Of the first, that ch s. 1.

 

“ he is sold unto sin,” like a slave who is delivered up to the power of a master, like Ahab. the worst of men as well as pddrj

 

7i ()t ^ u'^iy tu

 

kings, who is described in Scripture as “being sold to do Z°ov^p6vJ wickedness.” But of the regenerate it is affirmed, “ that

 

diss. being freed from sin he is made the servant of righteousness." ^ ^ To the man described in this seventh chapter the Apostle allows the knowledge of what is good, and an inefficacious wish of performing it, but the power of performing that ch.7.is, 19. which is good he totally denies him; whilst of the regenerate Phil. 2.13. the Apostle affirms, that “ God worketh in them to will and to Phil. 4.13. doand of himself says, that “ by the grace of Christ he could do all things." Lastly, it is said of the man here described, “ that the law in his members hath brought him into captivity ch. 7. 23. to the law of sin." But of the regenerate it is immediately ch. 8. 2. afterwards affirmed, that “ the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made him free from the law of sin and death."

 

§ 11. That which some saym, that St. Paul might have with justice applied all this to himself, “in respect of those infirmities to which even holy men, as long as they are in the flesh, remain exposed; though they are not the cause of death to them, because they are not imputed to such as de­plore and strive against them, but are forgiven them for Christ's sake :" this, I say, has not the least show of probability. For who will suppose that the expressions to be carnal,—the slave of sin,—unable to do that which is good,—to be led captive to the law of sin,—to serve the law of sin, mean nothing more than those infirmities Which during this life are to be found even in the most holy men ? In what stronger terms could St. Paul have described the condition of a man enslaved to the grossest vices ? how widely different is this interpretation of these ex­pressions from their plain and general sense throughout the <TTpt&\s>- Holy Scriptures ? and lastly, what is it (if this is not) to wrest aai' St. Paul's words and to do open violence to Holy Scripture ?

 

§ 12. Let us now discuss those arguments by which the contrary interpretation is generally supported. Parseus, in explaining this chapter, brings these forward and defends them with all his mightn : 1. “ It is evident," he says, “that the Apostle is speaking of himself and not of another, for he continues his complaint concerning himself in the first per­son through twelve whole verses, ‘I am carnal,' &c., nor does he any where hint that he is speaking of another. It would therefore be too daring a forgery, and perversion of the plain text, thus to wrest his words, Not 1, but some one

 

m Paraeus in Rom. vii. 14. [p. 473.] n In Rom. vii. dub. 4. p. 402—4.

 

else is carnal&c. I answer: A poor argument, indeed, though CHAP.

 

zealously put forward. Every one in any degree acquainted-------------------- —

 

with St. Paul's Epistles must be aware that this change of n^Tatrxn- person is a very favourite way of his expressing in his own ^ctTl(Tti6v- person the state or circumstances of others. We have an example of the use of this figure in the fourth chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians the fifth verse, compared with verse the sixth, where the Apostle plainly declares that he had “transferred these things in a figure/' and it has ^raaXv- been well observed by the ancients that the Apostle made see also most frequent use of this figure when he wished thus to ex- s6; press disagreeable matter with forbearance: thus St. Chry- J2> 15; and sostom; “ He always rehearses unpleasant subjects in his 30. own person:" and Jerome on Daniel; “The sins of the I8‘ people, in that he was one of the people, he enumerates in QopriKa his own person; which we find the Apostle also doing in his X JoT Epistle to the Romans :" where he very probably alludes to *potrttoov this passage.

 

§ 13. Parseus objects “that it is true a change of persons is found in Scripture, but that wherever it occurs its mean­ing is always plain from the context, but that here it is by 110 means so." Now I should say that if it is plain in any passage, it is doubly plain here; for not to mention the argu­ments already brought forward which absolutely require this figure, the Apostle, when wishing to answer the objection that the law is the cause of sin, and so to shew that so far from being the cause it alone accurately and fairly laid open the nature of sin, says, that he should not have known sin but by the law, and that once when he was without the law he did not know it; surely this being without the law denotes Ver. 2. in the Apostle's writings the state and condition of Gentiles, or of those who are without a written law, as opposed to *aPh those who live under the dispensation of a law. For to live without the law, and lawlessly, or lawless, mean the same thing. foopov. Now the Apostle surely was never without the law, inasmuch see as he was a Jew by birth, a disciple of Gamaliel from his j cor.’ childhood, and one who had imbibed the teaching of the law 20> 21 * with his mother's milk. It is necessary, therefore, for us to suppose that the Apostle wished to represent in his own per­son the state of the Jews: in the first place sucli as they

 

d i s s. were without the law, i. e. before the law was given, and then

 

’— as they were when the commandment came, i. e. after the law

 

was given. And if he began his argument with this change of person, what reason is there to induce us to believe that he did not continue it in the following verses ? in ver. 9. § 14. Parseus here replies, that “ St. Paul says he was without the law, not because he had it not, or was ignorant of it; but because he was careless in the consideration of it, not perceiving that it condemned all concupiscence as mortal sin.” So also he explains the words when the commandment came: “ he says, that it came to him not because he had it not before, but because he had not understood it: for that which we have but understand not, is to us as though we had it not.” But who is now to be charged with a manifest perversion of the passage let the candid reader judge. For in the first place, who would ever say that a man is without the law, who, while he has the law and knows that he has it, does not thoroughly understand it ? Certainly Holy Scripture never so speaks. I challenge him to produce a single instance. 2dly. It is easy to determine what the words when the com- Rom.5.20. mandment came mean,from the corresponding passage, “More­over the law entered that the offence might abound.” Who does not see that the passage in question is exactly the same as this? for what is there expressed by the law entered, is here expressed by when the commandment came: there it is that the offence might abound, here, that sin revived. Now it is quite clear that the entering in of the law in the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Homans, does not mean the spiritual perception of the law, but its first entrance into the world, when it was given to men : and therefore the coming of the commandment in the other passage means the same thing. 3rdly. In the last place I would ask at what time St. Paul says that he lived without the law, that is, without a true perception of it? To this question Parseus professedly replies in his explanation of the third difficulty in this chapter, in the following words : “°He must be understood to speak of his early, middle, or present age: it is clear he is not speaking of the last, nor of his child­hood : for the effects which he attributes to sin and to the

 

0 Vid. etiam Calvin, in locum.

 

law are not found in childhood: neither does he speak of a chap.

 

IX*

 

merely elementary knowledge of the law, but of such as — -— adults and even doctors of the law possess, as he mentions in the seventeenth verse of the eleventh chapter: it is plain therefore that he is speaking of his middle age, which he passed as a Pharisee.” And in what follows he contends that during the whole of that period St. Paul was without the law in the sense above mentioned. Now from these words of Parseus I deduce the following argument: If St. Paul as long as he was a Pharisee was without the law, the commandment must have come to him when he was brought to the faith of Christ, and not till then: but this is perfectly at variance with his own words, that “ when the commandment came sin ver. 9,10, revived, and I died, and the commandment which was U' ordained to life I found to be unto death; for sin, taking occasion by the law, deceived me, and by it slew me,” which no one in his senses would say befel St. Paul after his con­version to Christ; but this is the way in which learned men, while they do violence to the plain meaning of Scripture, fasten a difficulty upon themselves and their hearers, to which they are both helplessly fixed. On the other hand, I suppose that this passage shews clearly that the Apostle gives more than some slight hint that he is not speaking of himself in this chapter, but is sustaining the character of some one else.

 

But we have said more than enough on this first argument.

 

§ 15. The same learned man objects in the second place, that "to wish what is good, and to abhor sin, is the privi­lege of the regenerate only. The Apostle in this contest attributes to himself the former in the fifteenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, and twenty-first verses; the latter in the fifteenth, sixteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth; therefore he is speaking as a regenerate person.” I answer, It is indeed the privilege of the regenerate only to will what is good with a firm, sure, determined, and settled purpose of mind; but it is plain the Apostle is not speaking of such a volition, but only of a certain willingnessp, an unstable and weak desire, for what is good; such, alas ! as may be found in too many persons who are not good. That this is true, is plain from the Apostle

 

P De velleitate qu&dam. Literally plying inefficiency, as opposed to vo- “woulding,” the conditional form im- luntas.—Ed.

 

ver. 18. rb

 

rb Karep-

 

-yd£ecr6ai

 

KaKov.

 

Ep. 52.

 

liere drawing a difference between willing what is good, and doing it; for these are so distinguished and opposed, that to will signifies only a certain inclination or tendency, but not a definite, anxious, perfect, or determined will: for such a will of necessity produces action. St. Paul, therefore, says that he wTas inclined and predisposed towards what was good, but that his will was not definite, anxious, or firm enough to lead to action; and he affirms that he was not able to acquire such a will. Is this then the regenerate state of that almost divine man, to have but a slight inclina­tion for holiness and virtue, yet to be unable ever to prevail upon himself to discharge their duties ? Let the same view be taken of that hatred of sin of which the Apostle speaks; for whatever emphasis be attributedq to this expression, still no one hates sin at the very moment he is committing it. Never was any drawn into sin by concupiscence, who sinned against his will; for it were a manifest contradiction, to be sinning against his will, and yet be led to it by concu­piscence : therefore all that hatred which the man here de­scribed felt towards sin must be referred to that time when either concupiscence had not yet been excited by objects presented to it, or it had not yet overcome the opposition of the reason. After concupiscence prevailed, it follows as a matter of course, that as long as it kept the reason in its power, there was no hatred of sin. But this is great praise indeed, to be so regenerate as to hate sin when no passion or incitement of appetite induces us to commit it; but as soon as the opportunity of doing wrong offers itself, and some desire has urged us to commit sin, then heartily to love it! No one can be ignorant that such a hatred of sin is often to be found even in the greatest sinners; and who would be surprised to find a struggle of this kind in a Jew blessed with a knowledge of God's law, were he to find the same even in a heathen? There is a remarkable passage in Seneca: “ What is this, O Lucilius, which, while we are going one way drags us another, and impels us thither from whence we are longing to recede ? what is it that struggles with our soul, and never permits us to do any thing ? we vacillate between two opinions; we will nothing freely, no- Vid. Aim raid. p. 37, 38.

 

thing perfectly, nothing always.” Well known also is that chap.

 

saying of the Poet's, where he introduces Medea with these--------------------- 1—

 

words:

 

I see the better part, and own it better ;

 

This the worse, I choose.

 

So that Lactantiusr has not unaptly put in the mouth of a heathen, “I wish indeed not to sin; but I am overcome: for I am clothed in weak and frail flesh: this is it which lusts, which grows angry, which grieves, which fears to die ; and so I am led away against my will: and I sin, not be­cause I wish to do so, but because I am compelled: I feel that I am sinning; but my frailty, which I cannot with­stand, urges me on."

 

§ 16. I will add this one remark: let this description of the regenerate man as given by Paraeuss be granted. “It is the part," he says, “ of the regenerate to hate sin, but some­times to commit it; to will what is good, and generally to do it." Now if this description can be made to apply to the person represented in this chapter, with any show of truth, then as far as I am concerned let Parseus' interpretation be adopted: but how, I ask, can he so hate sin as only some­times to commit it, who is actually the servant of sin ? how does he so will what is good, as generally to do it, who cannot find how to do what is good; that is, (as is clear from the antithesis to the preceding verb, is present with), who has nrapaK^rai. not the power or faculty of doing right? Whence Paraeus himself on the nineteenth verse, “ for the good that I would I do not," &c., grants that the Apostle, though not continu­ally, still for the most part was subject, and that the regene­rate are subject to this inconsistency: namely, that the good which they would, they do not; but the evil which they would not, that they do: and thus he plainly contradicts himself.

 

§ 17. It is objected in the third place, “That to consent See Ps. i. unto the law that it is good, and to delight in its spiritual fo3J19* obedience, is the peculiar privilege of the regenerate. The Apostle in this struggle consents unto the law that it is good, ver. 16,22. and delights in its spiritual obedience: therefore he is speak­ing as a regenerate person." I answer; As to the consenting unto the Divine law nothing can be plainer than that this

 

108 Delight in ivhat is good found in the unregenerate.

 

DISS.

 

IF.

 

ver. 22.

 

anparsis. Eth. 7.

 

(Tvv^ojxai

 

T<£ VOfXCf. ffufMprifxi T(p v6jl$.

 

f.Secos. Mark (i. 20.

 

Jch. 5. lib.

 

is common to unregenerate as well as to regenerate persons. He who denies this, must in all fairness deny that an unre­generate man ever sins against the dictates of his conscience; for as often as a man sins against his conscience, he trans­gresses that law which he is convinced in his own mind is good, and ought not to be violated: common sense therefore and experience will sufficiently refute this part of the argu­ment. Let us then discuss the other part of it; and here our adversaries triumph as if at once victorious: for thus Parpens comments on those words, "for I delight in the law of God " By this desire he plainly separates himself from the incon­tinent of the philosophers, and declares that he is spiritual though he had before said that he was carnal; for no one except the spiritually-minded delights in the law of God.” But this of which the learned man makes so much, is really nothing. For in the first place to delight in the law clearly means the same as to consent unto the lam in the sixteenth verse, so that we have here a change of the consequent for the antecedent, delight for approve: since we generally de­light in what we approve. This one and the same approba­tion of the law the Apostle expresses in various ways: thus in the twenty-fifth verse, " with the mind I serve the law of God.” Where to serve does not mean in very act and deed to obey the law, (for this is not the part of the mind,) but a consenting unto it, as holy, just, and good, and an acknow­ledgment of the entire obedience due to it; and this kind of approbation we have seen is possible in an unregenerate person. In the second place, granting that this word signifies delight, properly so called, this in no way helps Parseus; for supposing we were to affirm that as to will what is good may be applied to an unregenerate person, so to delight and re­joice in it might also, we should not be asserting any thing new, or contrary to what has been already said: for in pro­portion as a man wills any thing so far he also rejoices and delights in it; nor is it possible to separate these from each other. Do not the Holy Scriptures expressly declare that this delight is sometimes to be found in the unregenerate ? Thus Herod is said to have heard the Holy Baptist’s preach­ing gladly, and not without great pleasure of mind. The Jews are said "to have rejoiced in his light,” and they that

 

stood but for a while “to have received the word with joy.” chap. They Avho say that these passages do not mean a true and 113 Q0~ real delight in the law of God, but a fluctuating and unstable one, how is it that they do not see that the same remark equally, nay in a much greater degree, applies to the passage before us ? For St. Paul certainly does not attribute to the person here represented a firm and settled delight in the law of God, but one of such sort as when the allurements of the flesh present themselves is overcome and absorbed by them, so that the wretched man is at last led captive to the law of sin in his members: but who can object to the unregenerate having ver. 22,23. such a delight as this, or who attribute it to the regenerate ?

 

§ 18. Fourthly, it is objected that “The regenerate alone possess the inward man, that is, the new man: the Apostle in this struggle possessed it, for he says, c I delight in the law of God after the inward man/ therefore he is speaking as regenerate.” I answer : This argument depends on the false supposition that the Apostle means the same thing by the inward and the new man; which is very far from the truth, for, as Grotius has well observed, neither the inward and the new man, nor the outward and the old man, are the same thing. The terms old and new man signify his qualities under the name of their subject; and when the terms out­ward and inward man are used, the name of the whole is given to its parts as a figure of speech: and so the new man, is the renewed man; the old, the corrupt man in a state of sin: the inner man is the rational soul; the outward, the body with its affections. This is plain from the passage in the fourth chapter of the second Epistle to the Corinthians the sixteenth verse, where by the outward man the Apostle evidently means his body, which was daily weakened by hunger, watchings, imprisonments, and stripes, and every kind of affliction; while by the inward man, opposed to the other, he means his rational soul, his better part, which no afflictions could weaken, but which on the contrary became improved by them, and daily attained unto new degrees of holiness. His persecutors indeed could bruise and torture, nay even kill his body, but they could do no more. Their See Luke malice could not reach his soul, inasmuch as that was be- ’ yond reach of their weapons, without the danger, safe in the

 

D i s s. custody of God. Thus the inward man is called by St. Peter

 

LL the hidden man of the heart, who opposes the outward adorn-

 

1 Pet. 3.4. -ng k0(jy £0 fae inward adorning of the hidden man of

 

the heart, that is, the mind. Moreover here the inward and

 

outward man are opposed to each other in the same person,

 

but where there is the new man, there the old has ceased to

 

be. Some relics indeed of the old man remain even in the

 

regenerate, but these (as far as I know) are never called in

 

Scripture by the name of the old man; since the old man

 

means the whole body of sin (so to speak) complete and per-

 

ver. 22. feet in all its members. Lastly, it is evident that to delight

 

ver. 25. in the law of God after the inward man is the same as to serve

 

the law of God with the mind, therefore the mind and inward

 

man are the same, and no one except an idiot would deny

 

that every man has a mind. All this Paraeus, in his usual

 

confident way, despises as frivolous, notwithstanding his own

 

answers are so very frivolous that one is sorry to mention

 

them, they need only be read to be refuted. I will add

 

two more remarks of the learned Grotius on this passage:

 

the first is, that the Apostle is here speaking after the manner

 

of other writers: the expression inward man, is called by Philo,

 

[nepl row in a work entitled Pejorem Insidiari Meliori, the man dwelling

 

™ eac^ one’s souh where also he says, that it is this which in-

 

rovi <piAe?v visibly reproves us from within; and in his Book on Agricul-

 

vea!, p" ture he calls the same the leading man, and adds, what can

 

i95.voi.i. the man that is within us be but the mind? And also in his ed. Man- v „ , ^ ,

 

gey.] book IlepL 7% et9 TrpOTratdev/jLaTa avvohov, he says that God [d 3con 0US^ to be praised by us in the mind, which is the man in gressu man, the superior in the inferior. Indeed St. Paul here uses eStionfs quite the common mode of speech: for Plautus also speaks of 533 ]a’ P the safety of the inward man. Grotiusn second remark is, that this passage is explained in the same way by the ancient ch. 39. p. Father Tertullian; for in his book on the Resurrection, he says: “ Thus the word man is in a certain sense the con­necting link of two connected substances; which cannot be expressed by this word, unless they be joined together. Moreover the Apostle, by the inward man, does not so much

 

1 With whom Origen agrees : “ Man, Cont. Cels. viii. p. 357. edit. Spenc. [c. that is, a soul having a body at its com- 38. p. 721.] Vide et ii. p. 88. lin. 25. mand, is called the inward man,” &c. ejusd. editionis. [c. 48. p. 423.]

 

Thansgiving in Rom. vii. 25. how to be understood. Ill

 

mean the soul as the mind, or intellect, that is, not the sub- chap. stance itself, but that which gives a savour unto it.” ———

 

§ 19. It is objected fifthly: "It is the privilege of the re­generate alone to bewail over their wretchedness, arising from the power of sin; to long for deliverance, and to acknowledge and praise the grace of God through Christ; the Apostle sighs, and gives thanks for his deliverance through Christ, therefore he is speaking as regenerate.” I answer: If the words in the ver. 24,25. twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth verses, on which this argument depends, be more carefully examined, it will be seen that far from supporting this view, they greatly confirm the opinion I am advancing. For the Apostle adds in the twenty-fourth verse an exclamation or expression of misery suited to the man whom he had been describing in the preceding verses; shewing his miserable, and if you regard the law, actually hopeless condition. Then in verse twenty-five he sets forth the grace of God through Christ, by which alone he himself had been delivered from this most wretched state, and a way of deliverance had been made and thrown open to others; which thanksgiving is to be read in a parenthesis, as if he said—Most wretched indeed is the state of a man under the law, whom I have been describing in the former verses, for he is subject to the body of death, that is, to the dominion of sin, and therefore to death itself; but everlasting thanks­givings are due and must be offered to Almighty God through Jesus Christ our Lord, by whose assistance and intervention I myself have obtained deliverance from this bod}^ of death, and others, if they will like me embrace the Gospel, may obtain it likewise; for as he presently says, “ What the law ch. a 3,4 could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, con­demned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us.” And from this we gain the following argument, which supports our view in the strongest manner.

 

The state of the person described in this chapter is a state of misery, a state of sin and death, a state, in short, from which whosoever are Christ's are delivered.

 

But the state of the regenerate is not of this kind:

 

Therefore the state of the regenerate is not the state of the person described in this chapter.

 

ille ego.

 

§ 20. The sixth and last argument springs out of the words, “So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God.” On these Parseus thus remarks : “ His saying I myself takes away all doubt that the Apostle is speaking of himself and no other, and not of his past but of his present state, in which he actually was while writing these words: I myself he says, and not some one else beside me; also I serve, not I have served.” He then proceeds, “Julian the Pelagian was somewhat too unreasonable in supposing that the Apostle is speaking of some one in his unregenerate state, and so let those who are so pleased with this gloss of his see how they may free themselves from the same charge.” I answer: Parseus was too rash in rejecting merely on account of this trifle of grammar an opinion supported by so many strong arguments, and then to accuse its supporters of unreasonable­ness : besides, he is mistaken as to the grammatical part of it; for not to mention the use of the present tense, (since we have shewn above that this is an absurd cavil,) it is not neces­sary that ai/ro? iyco be rendered I my selfu, since I that man is better, that is, I that man whom I have described under the first person, as Grotius has well remarked. Therefore so far from this pronoun proving that the Apostle is speaking of him­self, it goes rather to prove the contrary. For if the Apostle had been so speaking, he would have most probably said simply I; nor would any other addition have been necessary: only because he had hitherto been describing some one else in his own person, (with the exception of that short thanksgiving spoken parenthetically in the beginning of this verse,) he therefore says, for the sake of greater clearness, I myself or I that one, in order that these latter words might be under­stood not of himself, as those just preceding, but of the same person described in the former verses.

 

§ 21. Moreover these last words of the Apostle are spoken emphatically to prove the point at which he had been aiming through nearly the whole chapter, and are, as it were, a brief

 

u I myself seems however to be the the Apostle in his own person without

 

true translation. If the former clause identifying lsim with the man spoken

 

is strictly parenthetic, the meaning is of before, from whose state he thanks

 

I the same, as it often is in English. God that he is delivered ; his flesh

 

See Kiihner. 342. anm. 4. Matt. xvii. indeed still subject in itself to the law

 

20. of sin, but his spirit enabled by grace

 

These words may however be used by to subdue the flesh.—Ed,

 

summing up of the, entire question. “So then/' &c., as if cHAp.

 

he had said, To close this digression then, (which was begun--------------

 

at the seventh verse,) since that one and the same man whom I have hitherto been describing in my own person, carried away by the flesh serves the law of sin, but with the mind consents to the law of God, and wdshes to obey it, it is evident both that the law is of itself and in its own nature free from all blame, (the contrary to which was objected in verse seven), and is specially holy, good and pure; since the consciences even of those who transgress it bear witness to its holiness: and also (what has been before shewn in the fifth verse, and from which our opponents might take occa­sion of making these objections) that the law though of itself holy, yet had clearly 110 power to free men from the dominion of sin, on account of their carnal affections quenching its influence: inasmuch as it enlightened the intellect with the knowledge of sin, but furnished no strength or means ade­quate for subduing the flesh, and overcoming its dominion.

 

§ 22. I fear that what Parseus next observes concerning Julian the Pelagian is only said to prejudice the unlearned against our opinion, as if forsooth that opinion wrere the mon­strous offspring of some great heresiarch: notwithstanding he knows very well, and has elsewhere on this very chapter in ver. 14. openly avowed, that it was the opinion of Origen and almost all the Greek Fathers, and of many of the Latins before Augustine, and even at one time of Augustine himself. However, it is usual with the controversialists of this school at once to class all who differ from them, though but in expounding a single passage of Scripture, amongst branded heretics. Meanwhile, to use the words of the pious Grotius, in ver. 19. “ God be praised that the best Christians, I mean those of the three first centuries, have rightly understood this passage, being directed by that Spirit by whom their lives were governed.”

 

§ 23. And with this thanksgiving our examination of this chapter might have closed, were there not one other argu­ment deduced from a parallel passage, in addition to those already brought forward from this chapter, which seems to me the most plausible of all that can be alleged to support the opinion of our opponents: Parseus just touches upon it, in Rom.

 

diss. but Estius purposely presses it: the passage is from the Gal'"5'17' Galatians : “ For the flesh lusteth against the

 

Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh : and these are con­trary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would“ which words/' says Estius, “ since they Rom. 7.15, are exactly similar to those in the Epistle to the Romans, f I 18, 23‘ see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind/ and f for what I would not that I do/ and f for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not/ and without doubt apply to the regenerate, clearly shew that even this passage (namely, in the seventh chapter of the Romans) must be referred to a regenerate and spiritual person, who is continually warring against the flesh."

 

I answer, first, That must indeed be a strange system of interpretation which on account of some similarity of words in one passage of Scripture would give a meaning to another entirely at variance with the object and design of the author in that passage. Now we have abundantly proved that the Apostle's object in the seventh chapter of his Epistle to the Romans is to shew the inefficiency of the law when separated from the grace of the Gospel, to crush the power of sin, and consequently the wretched condition of a man under the law alone. Whatever therefore be the meaning of this passage in the Galatians, it is certain that the Apostle in this seventh chapter of his Epistle to the Romans is by no means speak­ing of a man regenerated by the grace of the Gospel. Rut, in the second place, we cannot perceive this similarity in these two passages which Estius imagined he did: on the contrary, if they are carefully examined they will be found to differ very considerably. They agree indeed in this, that in both a certain struggle in the man is described: but this struggle is very different, whether we look to those struggling, or to the event of the contest.

 

§ 24. With regard to the parties struggling, those in the Epistle to the Romans are the sensual appetite and the reason or intellect imbued with the knowledge of the law, called by the Apostle the flesh and the inward man, the flesh and the mind, the law of the members and the law of the mind. But Gal. 5. 17. the contest described in the Epistle to the Galatians is between the flesh and the Spirit (namely, the Spirit of Christ, as

 

appears from the eighteenth verse compared with the four- chap. teenth verse of the eighth chapter of Romans) ; that is, the —IX-— soul of man endued with the light and grace of the Gospel.

 

For it is particularly to be observed that the Apostle in the whole of the contest described in the Epistle to the Romans does not say a word about the Spirit of Christ: he merely opposes the mind, and the law of the mind, and the inward man, to the flesh: while on the other hand in the eighth chapter (in which he is evidently describing the state of those regenerate through the grace of the Gospel) he continually speaks of the flesh and the Spirit, as also in this passage in the Galatians, no longer calling it the mind, or the law of the mind, or the inward man : which clearly proves that in this seventh chapter the Apostle is speaking of one who had no aid against the flesh beside his reason or intellect imbued with the knowledge of the law, and who consequently was entirely without the Spirit of Christ.

 

§ 25. With regard to the event of the contest, the Apostle does not say here that a man renewed by the grace of the Gospel cannot perform the good that he would, much less that he is led captive to the flesh, or to the law of sin in the flesh, or that he is the slave of sin, all which expressions he does apply to a man under the law in his Epistle to the Romans: on the contrary, if we attend to what he says, he Rom. 7. determines the state of the regenerate to be just the reverse : which will be evident if we refer the words “so that ye can- Gal. a. 17. not do the things that ye would*” to that which immediately precedes them, namely “the Spirit against the flesh” (the words “and these are contrary the one to the other” being taken in a parenthesis), and so interpret them not of the good works of the Spirit, but of the evil ones of the flesh, in the following way : The flesh lusteth against the Spirit: but on the other hand the Spirit lusteth also against the flesh, and possesses such a power over you, that ye do not commit those sins which ye would wish to do through the flesh. This is Grotius' interpretation, and I think it is a very plain one: for in the first place it is much fitter to refer the last words in the verse to the clause immediately preceding them than

 

x Some refer these words to both the which I have no great objection.—Vid. preceding members of the sentence, to Crel. in loc. et Hammond.

 

to one more remote, as is plain on the slightest consideration:

 

- and secondly, this view corresponds most excellently with the object and design of the Apostle; for in the thirteenth verse he had been exhorting the Galatians not to use the liberty of the Gospel for an occasion to the flesh, and as a remedy against this hostile power of the flesh he bids them walk in the Spirit: “ This I say then, walk in the Spirit and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh.” For as Grotius has shewn the words and ye shall not fulfil are not to be taken im­peratively, the reason immediately follows: “ For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh, and these are contrary the one to the other, so that ye can­not do the things that ye would :” as if he had said, Although ye incline towards the flesh, and would not unwillingly fulfil its desires, yet if ye are under the power and guidance of the Spirit of Christ, it is impossible for you to obey these lusts : the flesh indeed endeavours to bring you under its power, but it cannot; for the Holy Spirit lusteth also against the flesh, and mighty is that Spirit, yea and it will prevail, and prevent you from fulfilling those desires, which otherwise ye would wish to do. Unless these words are thus explained it is hardly possible to conceive in what way they can contain the reason of the preceding exhortation ; rather would the reason­ing contradict the conclusion ; for supposing that the Apostle had spoken thus; Walk in the Spirit and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh ; for the Spirit and the flesh are opposed one to another, so that ye cannot do the good that ye would: how inconsistent and contradictory is such a sentence! for surely, so far from this being a sufficient reason for walking in the Spirit, namely, that the flesh so overcomes the Spirit that it prevents us from doing those things which the Spirit dictates, it plainly persuades to the contrary : for what use were it to walk in the Spirit, if that Spirit has no power against the tyranny and dominion of the flesh ? but if we follow Grotius' interpretation, the context is both clear and perspicuous, and most consistent.

 

§ 26. If however, against what is so manifest, it is objected that this clause, “ so that ye cannot do the things that ye would,” means such a victory of the flesh over the Spirit, by which a man cannot on account of the flesh perform the

 

This passage conclusive against the opposite opinion. 117

 

dictates of the Spirit; then it must necessarily be supposed chap.

 

that the Apostle is speaking to the Galatians not as to those--------------------- 1—

 

blessed with the birth unto salvation, but to those who though in some degree illumined by the knowledge of the Gospel, and affected by the Spirit of Christ, were still remain­ing under the dominion of the flesh, and having more inter­course with the law than with the Gospel. For the Apostle in this very chapter is plainly speaking of the regenerate.

 

“ If ye walk in the Spirit” (which all regenerate persons ver. 76. do) “ ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh“ If ye be Rom’ led of the Spirit” (which also the Apostle affirms of all rege- See Rom. nerate persons) "ye are not under the law;” that is, now that ye are come to years of discretion, ye have no need of the law as your schoolmaster. But most plainly when he says “ And they that are Christ's, have crucified the flesh ver. 24. with the affections and lusts.” These passages at least plainly shew that the Apostle in the seventh chapter of his Epistle to the Romans is not speaking of truly regenerate persons : for they who so walk in the Spirit as not to fulfil the lusts of the flesli, they who are led by the Spirit, who in short have crucified the flesh with all its lusts, how can such as these be said to be carnal, the servants of sin, captives to the law of sin in their members to serve the law of sin, all which is expressly said of the man described in that chapter ? so that this passage in the Epistle to the Galatians plainly overturns our opponents' opinion on the point at issue, do what they will.

 

§ 27. And thus much concerning the sense of this seventh chapter of the Romans, on which we have dwelt the longer, both because the Apostle is there purposely arguing from the weakness of the law, and because if the contrary interpretation be admitted, the cause we are upholding plainly falls to the ground; for if this inefficient willingness of good which alone is attributed to the person described in this chapter, be all that the grace of Christ effects in us, then there is altogether an end to the glory, and that exceeding excellence of the Gospel, and to the necessity of good works and a holy life : to wish to live well, will be sufficient; really to do so, will not be necessary.

 

DISS.

 

it.

 

CHAP. X.

 

THE APOSTLE’S ARGUMENT TAKEN FROM THE WEAKNESS OF THE LAW MORE DISTINCTLY EXPLAINED. THE LAW WANTED A DOUBLE ASSIST­ANCE, BOTH THE PROMISE OF ETERNAL LIFE AND THE GIFT OF THE

 

HOLY SPIRIT.--- OF WHAT CONSEQUENCE WAS THE FIRST DEFECT. SOME

 

PASSAGES ON THIS HEAD PRODUCED.--------- FOUR DIFFICULTIES ON THIS

 

SUBJECT REMOVED.

 

§ 1. We have given a general explanation of the Apostle's argument taken from the weakness of the law. But because on this point almost the whole of the Apostle’s reasoning against justification by the law depends, it will, perhaps, be worth while to consider it a little more fully.

 

§ 2. It must be observed, then, that the old law laboured under a double defect of aiding grace, external and internal. By external grace, I mean the promise of eternal life; by internal, the gift of the Holy Spirit: both of these were wanting to the Mosaic covenant.

 

§ 3. With respect to the first, it is no small mark of the weakness of the law, that its promises and threatenings, in which the force of every law is placed, were only temporal and earthly. For men would easily prefer their lusts to them, and rather indulge those than be induced to temper­ance by such hope or fear. For although virtue is to be loved for its own sake, yet to attain it is difficult, and not to be acquired without great labour and much perseverance. But labour grows weary, and perseverance flags, if not en­couraged by the hope of greater reward : and no reward con­fined to the narrow bounds of this life is a sufficient reward for the practice of virtue; for life is short, but this art of living well requires much time to acquire. A great part of life is gone before we have properly learned how to live. But if it were not so, yet that is but a dead hope which is termi­nated by the grave, cheerless that consolation which the cold hand of death shall quickly snatch away, restless that quiet which the bitter recollection of the daily approach of death disturbs. In a word, the mind of one who rightly considers is not likely to be much aftected by those advantages, which,

 

although unattainable without much labour, nor to be re- c tained without care, or even enjoyed without anxiety, still suddenly disperse and leave their possessor to the power of death, which is usually more bitter in proportion as the life which we exchange for death has been pleasant. The law therefore of Moses, which promises nothing beyond this life, could not produce in men a sincere, ardent, and indefatigable love of virtue.

 

§ 4. But besides this, the law of Moses, by containing only temporal promises and threatenings, was therefore inclined to produce in men a mean and sordid disposition, entirely foreign to true and genuine piety. For the principal parts of piety are these, self-denial, bearing the cross, constant prayer, meditation on a future life, a sober and moderate use of the good things of this world. How was it possible that this law, which tied down the minds of men to earthly ad­vantages and worldly delights only, could produce in them piety like this ? How could he who placed his happiness on earth, elevate his soul alway to God, and pour out constant prayer to Him? Where our treasure is, there will our heart be also, doth the word of truth testify. But the mind cannot raise itself to God without at the same time abstracting itself from earth and directing itself to heaven. In short, how can he pursue temperance, and all purity in soul and body, who is accustomed to place the hope of his reward in the enjoy­ment of corporal delights ? For why, beyond all necessity, was there promised an abundance of fleeting blessings, if men were not at liberty to indulge themselves in them ? Besides, how could a man reasonably be expected to wean himself from avarice, who places the fruit of his labours in wealth and the abundance of his possessions? Lastly, how could it be expected that he should bear the cross with patience who was tempted to virtue by the hope of escaping misfortune ?

 

§ 5. Hence it is certain, that if you consider the system of the Mosaic precepts as adapted to those times, you will per­ceive it to be particularly suited to such a reward of piety. The precepts and the promises admirably answered to each other. For although God by various means taught His people under the law a more perfect piety, which He exacted by laws and punishments, still was religion in those days far

 

Diss. from accurate, perfect, or advanced to its full bounds. How

 

1— many things were permitted them, which to Christians are

 

entirely unlawful, or improper. How many principal offices of piety are only slightly hinted at in the law, or darkly taught, or altogether omitted; which is so true, that prayer itself, the chief office of piety, which must be constantly per­formed by Christians, is not in the law universally com­manded, that is, to all the people, and at all times. The High Priest was expressly commanded to pray for the whole people, and to bless them, according to a set form, as appears Num. 6. from the book of Numbers. And there was also a set form

 

29 27 • • •

 

“ * of prayer appointed for the people, at the end of the tithing Deut. 26. time; so that Episcopiusy was mistaken when he says that ‘ no set form of prayer was ever given to the people under the law. Nevertheless I hold this to be most true, that in the law of Moses there is no general commandment for prayer upon all occasions, and therefore the Rabbins, in their collec­tion of six hundred and thirteen preceptsz, declare that there is no express command to pray to and call upon God; as is also observed by Episcopius, but they gather it from the common expression in the Scriptures, to serve, having re- E^xod. 23. course to their Cabala and oral law. But this by the way.

 

§ 6. Now this defect of the Mosaic law, namely, that it made no promise of eternal life, the Apostle remarks in several places. And so some explain that passage where the Apostle says that it was impossible for the law to free men Rom. 8. 3. from the dominion of sin, 11 because it was weak through the flesh/' that is, say they, because it contained only earthly promises. But because in the latter clause of this sentence opposed to this, (where Christ is said to have performed what the law could not, namely, to have slain sin in the flesh,) the aapl word flesh is taken in its usual sense, the more common inter­pretation I should think must rather be taken. A more Rom. 7. 5. apposite passage is that in the preceding chapter, where the law of Moses is called the flesh; for that these words, when we were in the flesh, must be interpreted by when we were under the law, appears from their being opposed to the sixth

 

7 Instit. Theolog., lib. 3. § 3. chap. 1. Cosri by Arnold. Pcelenburg. in Prsef.

 

* See a remarkable proof of this ad Operum Episcopii Theol., partem quoted from the very ancient book of alteram.

 

verse, as well as from the intent of the Apostle through the chap.

 

whole of that chapter, which is to describe the state of man------------------- 1—

 

under the law. Now the law of Moses seems to be called flesh, not only because most of its precepts are carnal and external, but also because its promises, by which that law was confirmed, do not reach beyond this earthly life. In the same sense Grotius explains the words of the Apostle, in his 2 Cor. 3. second Epistle to the Corinthians, where professedly treating of the superiority of the new covenant above the old one, he calls the old law the ministry of death, because all its promises ver. 7. were terminated by death without any hope of a resurrection.

 

So the Mosaic law is said to kill, because it leaves man sub- ver. 6. ject to death, and delivers him not from it, as also, according to Grotius, the Hebrew word to make alive is said of him who rmn has not killed any one. But to say the truth, I should think 17. ' ' that these phrases, the ministry of death, and to kill, have a ^d£es 8* different meaning, namely, that the Mosaic law, considered separately from the Spirit of God, kills, that is, renders those to whom it is given subject to the Divine wrath and eternal death; not indeed by its own fault, but on account of the weakness of the flesh. Which meaning is clearly confirmed See Rom. by what the Apostle says elsewhere. The following words 157 ’ seem plainer. “ The law is not of faith, but the man that Gal. 3.12. doeth them shall live in them;” that is, the law neither requires faith, nor promises those things which exercise it, strictly speaking (for it is the evidence of things not seen), Compare since all its promises are the immediate subject of the senses, with Rom! and belong to this visible life : of a future life it says nothing; 8> 24 it stimulates us to virtue by no promises of that life, but commands us to perform its precepts without any such encouragement; it only says, Thou shalt live, i. e. slialt be Lev. 18. 5. prosperous and happy. But the Apostle's meaning is most clear in the following passage: “ For if there had been a law Gal. 3. 21. given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the lawa law is said to give or do that which it promises: the sense therefore is, If the law had had the promises of eternal life, then would men have been able, by the law, to have obtained true and spiritual righteousness, or true and perfect justification, that is, such as was united with the gift of eternal life. But the matter is far otherwise,

 

122

 

Hebrews vii. 19. explained.

 

DI s s. for the law contained promises respecting this life only, and

 

:— therefore could neither induce men to true piety nor grant

 

them true justification.

 

§ 7. In accordance with these passages from St. Paul’s writings, is the following bearing on the same subject by the divine author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, (whoever he Heb.7.19. might have been). The passage is remarkable: “For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did, by the which we draw nigh unto God.” Here almost every word deserves our notice. The word here translated ereAetWej/ made perfect, more properly signifies to expiate, and that most perfectly, even the most heinous sins, and all punishments, both temporal and eternal. Nothing, evidently means no man; but the words the introduction of a better hope did, afford more difficulty. Some refer them to the law in this manner: For the law perfected nothing, but was the intro­duction of a better hope, that is, Christ. But in the first place, this interpretation takes away the antithesis between the law and the Gospel which is here evident: and in the next, the preposition eVl in the word hreiaaywyr] signifies something added or introduced after, as in the word eVt&a- Gai. 3. 15. raaaerai, addeth thereto: e7rei(raycoyr) therefore is ill rendered by introductio, the bringing in, since it signifies a super­introduction or post-introduction. Now the post-introduction of a better hope is put for a better hope afterwards brought in, so that the Gospel is here clearly signified, in which that better hope is revealed: the word ireXeicoaev, made perfect, iyy'i£eiv must be repeated here, as above. Lastly, to draw nigh, as See Ezek. Grotius observes, is properly a word belonging to the priest’s 42.13,43. i0 draw nigh to God, signifies to approach

 

Him through faith, repentance, and newness of life, and to SeeJas.4.8. offer ourselves to Him as a lively sacrifice, holy and accept- Wisd. 3. 2. able. These last words also clearly shew the reason why the hope introduced by the Gospel is better, and leads to a perfect expiation, because undoubtedly it makes us draw nigh to God, seek His favour in prayer, serve Him with the whole heart, and keep all His commandments. But when we in this manner draw nigh to God, God on His part draws nigh to us, that is, closely embraces us with the arm of His love, most perfectly forgives all our sins for His Son’s sake,

 

and blesses us with eternal life. But the law. as it has not chap.

 

. x. this better hope, cannot lead us in this manner to God, nor--------- :—

 

make us partakers of a perfect expiation. This subject is

 

more largely explained in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where Heb. 8.

 

the Gospel covenant by which that better hope was given, is

 

called a more excellent covenant than that of the law, because

 

this last was not confirmed by such excellent promises. It

 

would be easy to produce many such passages, but these are

 

sufficient. We shall now consider certain difficulties on this

 

subject which deserve explanation.

 

§ 8. The first question is, whether there be in the Old Testament no promise of eternal life ? on which some per­sons are in doubt. But Augustine, in my opinion, answers it best, defining what is meant by the Old Testament, whether the covenant given from mount Sinai only, or all the Scrip­tures of Moses and the Prophets, and the other holy writers.

 

If the word be understood in the latter sense, it must cer­tainly be allowed that there are in it some indications of a future life, especially in the book of Psalms, in Daniel, and Ezekiel. But even in these you will with difficulty find any clear and express promise of eternity. But these, whatever they were, were but preludes and anticipations of the grace of the Gospel, and did not belong to the law. For the law, so far as it comes under the consideration of the Apostle in his disputations with the Jews, properly signifies the covenant made on mount Sinai. That it contained earthly promises, See Gal. and those only, may be proved from many passages. If any Exod! 23. think otherwise, let him shew (which however is impossible) Le’v226 3- one passage containing a promise of eternal life. It is true 7* indeed, that the earthly promises given to the law of works, 2, &c.’ ~ were signs of those blessings which should follow the law of the Spirit, and it was the intention of the Almighty that they should be so understood. It is also true, that there are in the law general promises, or at least given in general terms, in which eternal life not only may be understood, but it is evidently the Divine intention that it should: such as, I will be thy God, and, I will bless thee. That in these promises, thus generally expressed, it is possible those blessings are intended which take place only after death, who can doubt ?

 

That God should be the God of any one, what does it signify,

 

124 Eternal blessings veiled under the temporal.

 

Diss. but that God will embrace him with divine benevolence? But such benevolence as is divine, and worthy of God, can be only that, beyond which there is nothing greater or better; it must also be benevolence of the longest dura­tion, that is, eternal; most powerful in effect, and therefore liberating from death and destruction. That God intended that under these words eternal life should be understood, See Mat. appears from the words of Christ and His Apostles. But

 

22. 31 32 • L

 

Heb.n.16-these things do not sufficiently prove that eternal life was ?6?°i8;67. promised in the Mosaic covenant. For in the first place, g;7Rev-2L promises, especially when annexed to a covenant, ought to be clear and express, and of such a nature as to be well understood by each party. But these promises were typical and general, without the addition of any interpretation, and hence almost impossible to be understood in the above sense. Of types this is certain. With respect to general promises, as all general promises are rather obscure, particularly when mixed with innumerable particular promises, by which they seem restrained to a certain kind of blessings, as is the case here, it is scarcely possible that any one should understand these general promises otherwise than as containing a multi­tude of particular ones, or should extend them beyond the bounds of this life. This eternal life also shadowed forth in types and comprehended by general promises, was not given, as we have just hinted, to the external righteousness taught in the letter of the law, but to that spiritual purity, of which that external piety was only a shadow. For as under the veil of temporal blessings eternal ones were concealed, so also the outward religion prescribed in the law was the shadow and type of that spiritual righteousness which was to be more clearly revealed in the Gospel. In a word, the law, in a carnal and literal view, did not require spiritual righteous­ness, nor promise eternal life; but spiritually considered, wras the very Gospel itself; and when taken in this sense the Apostle raises no objections against it.

 

§ 9. Secondly, Were there then any, you will ask, under the law who expected life eternal ? I answer: It is most Vid. Epi- probable that the wisest and most pious Jews, either by the sup^’ Ubl extent of the general promises, or from a contempt of earthly blessings, or from a perception of the Divine goodness, or the

 

desires of tlieir own mind longing for something better than chap. a fleeting blessing, from the example of Enoch and of Elijah ——— in after ages, from the tradition of the patriarchs, (to whom God had given many reasons for expecting future blessings, among which this was by no means the least, that many truly excellent men had lived here without any share of earthly felicity, which argument is more fully pursued in the Epistle to the Hebrews,) or induced by other reasons, did believe that God, besides the blessings belonging to this life, and contained in the Mosaic law, intended to bestow others also after death, upon His faithful servants. This indeed must have been the case, unless wre are to suppose that holy and excellent men among the people of God both lived and died like mere brutes. Neither is it important that there is scarce any mention of this belief in the canonical books of the Old Testament; for it is certain that Abraham hesitated not to sacrifice his son of the promise, being encouraged by the re­flection that God was of such power as to be able to raise him up again and restore him to him alive. That this was so we learn from the Epistle to the Hebrews. But of this Heb.11.19. truly admirable, and altogether Christian faith, no vestige, no hint whatever, is to be found in the history of Abraham.

 

§ 10. Besides, there were in every age among the Jewish people, men of God, and prophets taught of Him, whom, when so many hidden things were unfolded to them, no man can suspect to have been entirely ignorant of this mystical meaning of the law, and to have known nothing of a future life. But since it would be impious even to imagine that these excellent men grudged others the light they themselves enjoyed, we must necessarily suppose that they unfolded the mysteries of the law whenever they met with persons fit to hear them, and taught each so much as their understandings would permit, or expediency required. And in their public discourses the prophets and wise men so spoke, as not to render contemptible the secrets of a holier discipline, and at the same time to excite the curiosity of the pious hearer.

 

And hence, Grotius imagines, arose that distinction well Annot. ad known of old, among the Jews, between the written law and at'5’ 20* the oral law, which they also call cabala, that is, nrapdSoais, or tradition, both which, they say, were given by Moses;

 

126 The doctrine taught more clearly in later times.

 

Diss. not that the teaching of the tradition was different to that

 

:— of the written law, but that studious enquirers might

 

have explained by a more accurate interpretation those points in the written law which were of somewhat obscure meaning.

 

§ 11. And this system of teaching, namely, a ruder kind for the people, but more accurate for the advanced, seems to have prevailed (as the same incomparable writer has ob­served) up to the times which followed the Babylonish cap­tivity. Then Daniel first openly spoke of the resurrection, as did Ezekiel, who followed. After this, the wise men who were not divinely inspired, succeeded to the prophets, but with inferior authority. These out of Daniel openly taught to the whole multitude of the Jews the doctrine of the resur- See 2 Mac. rection, and a future life, so that in the times of the Mac- 29^36?* cabees, this doctrine being entirely drawn out of its conceal- Heb^ias men^ became an article of the Jewish religion and faith, as we learn from the history of those times.

 

§ 12. If you ask why this doctrine, hitherto concealed, was published after the Babylonish captivity in particular, ubi sup. Grotius gives you a sound and ingenious reason. Because at that time there was great danger, lest the Jewish nation, accustomed to hear of external blessings only, having lost the splendour of their empire, groaning under foreign tyranny, harassed by the fear of punishment, torture, and death itself, should turn from the worship of the true God; so that it became absolutely necessary to fortify the people against temptation, which could not have been effectually performed without proposing the prospect of a happy futurity to those who died for the sake of God. And this doctrine was not without its fruit: for, animated by this hope of a glorious resurrection, very many in the time of the Maccabees suffered most cruel deaths, for the sake of the law, as we find in the books of Maccabees, and Epistle to the Hebrews as above. To which may be added another important reason: the times of the Gospel were then approaching. For God observed this economy and order in dispensing the covenant of His mercy, that as the time for a full exhibition of it approached, it was illustrated by successively clearer revelations, and its light daily increased more and more, until at last, all clouds

 

being dispersed, Christ, the Snn of righteousness, shone with chap. full splendour on the whole earth. This dispensation Grotiusa ——— himself elsewhere speaks of as follows. “When the time of a better covenant was approaching, God was pleased, by means of the prophets and wise men, to send a kind of morning twilight before the rising Sun;” and againb when he most aptly calls the whole period after the return from Babylon the vestibule of the Gospel.

 

§ 13. From the last answer a new question arises. In what sense then is Christ said to have “brought life and 2Tim.i.io. immortality to light through the Gospel ;” since it appears from what has been said, that the doctrine of a future life was commonly received among the Jews many years before the coming of Christ ? In the first place I answer, that this text may perhaps be referred to the Gentiles only, who were before described by the Apostle as “having no hope, and Eph.2.12. being without God in the worldhis words in the eleventh verse evidently incline to this meaning; “Whereunto I am appointed a preacher and an apostle and a teacher of the Gentiles.” You will say, But even among the Gentiles there were some who had hopes of a life after this. This is true; and indeed among all the civilized, and even barbarous nations, some notion, or as it were report, of the immortality of souls had prevailed0. But first, not a few of the philoso­phers thought otherwise. Epicurus, for example, and his herd, openly laughed at the notion of a future life, and even Aristotle either says nothing, or that very obscurely, on the soul's immortality. Secondly, those who most favoured this doctrine, hesitated greatly about it, and it was rather an opinion than a beliefd. Thirdly, in explaining it, their opinions were various and discordant: the Stoicse thought that the souls remained for a certain time, but not beyond the period of conflagration. The Pythagoreans defended iKTr6pci)ffis. the doctrine of metempsychosis, of which a certain poet says,

 

The souls are free from death ; their former seat Relinquished, they dwell in new abodes &c.

 

a Discuss, p. 14. d Vid. Diog. Laert. vii. 134.

 

b In Annot. ad Eph. ii. 12. e In Annot. ad lib. ii. c. 9. de Ver. c Vide Grotium in Annot. ad lib. i. Rel. Christ, p. 54. de Ver. Rel. Christ, p. 38, 39.

 

128 In what sense the Gospel brought immortality to light. diss. And

 

— He compels them to endure the forms of mute beasts :

 

He makes the cruel, bears, the rapacious, wolves,

 

The crafty, foxes. And when he has driven them Through many years and thousand shapes,

 

At length he again recalls them, purged By Lethe’s stream, to the first elements Of the human form.

 

And lastly, the Platonists, the most religious sect of philoso­phers, imagined a kind of rotation, and that the souls of men were for ever by turns happy and miserable. So that Justin Martyrf, in his dialogue with Trypho, said truly of all the philosophers, “ that they knew nothing on this subject, and could not tell what the soul was.” Fourthly, and lastly, those among the Gentiles who have said any thing concerning a future life, have restricted it to the soul only, never dream­ing of the resurrection of the body. Hence we read that Acts 17. is. when St. Paul, at Athens, spoke of the resurrection of the body, the philosophers mocked him as if he taught a direct absurdity.

 

§ 14. Secondly, the words of the text above quoted may be most strictly applied to the Jews themselves g; for Christ enlightened their understandings upon this doctrine in three different points: first, by the light of a decisive determina­tion; for as among the Gentile philosophers some denied, and others asserted, the immortality of the soul, so among the Jews many doubted this doctrine, of such vast import­ance to piety. The Pharisees affirmed it: the Sadducees denied it, admitting nothing but what was laid down in Scripture in express words, while the Pharisees on the other hand had no other means of proving their opinion, than by the authority of the cabala, or tradition. The Pharisees could indeed produce that passage from Daniel, and the Sad­ducees durst not reject his authority; (for Scaliger, I think, has clearly proved that it is quite erroneous to suppose that the Sadducees rejected all the prophetical books, except the Pentateuch, and has also shewn that this error arose from a misapprehension of the words of Josephus the historian.) But a single passage, and such as might be easily eluded vid. Grot, under pretence of the luxuriance of the prophetic style, and 1 P. 222. edit. Morell. Paris. 1636. % Vid. Grot. in. Matt. v. 20.

 

might be understood of a release from the Babylonish cap- chap. tivity, was an argument scarcely sufficient to stop the mouth ——— of an obstinate sophist. To the multitude, thus fluctuating between the opinions of contending sects, Christ, the chief of prophets, proclaimed, in express terms, and in the name of God, the doctrine of the resurrection and a future world, and publicly declared it to all men as a thing indubitable and certain.

 

§ 15. Christ, secondly, added to this doctrine the light of a clear and plain explanation. For as to the nature of a future life, the masters of the Jews themselves were shame­fully ignorant; of which Maimonides is a sufficient witness, who in his exposition of the tenth chapter of the Sanhedrin thus speaks11: "You will find that the opinions of those who embrace the law concerning the happiness to be obtained by him who performs the commandments of God given by Moses, and the misery which will follow upon us who transgress them, are very discordant, according to the difference of understandings. For there is much confusion and misun­derstanding on this subject, so that you will scarcely find one to whom the matter is clearly known, neither will you find a treatise of any one who hath fully discoursed upon it, which is not exceedingly confused.” So that what the learned Pocock hath said of the Rabbins who lived after Maimonides may be said no less truly of those who preceded him1; namely, “ that you will hardly find any other subject on which you might assert that they were generally agreed amongst themselves, than that there was something to be believed and expected, which was called a resurrection: on the nature of it nearly each one has his own separate opinion,” &c. Of the fate of the wicked they were entirely in the dark, as they are at this day; some thought that they would rise again, others, that they would not. As to the happiness of the good, many thought it would be of long duration, but not eternal. Then they supposed that hap­piness to be of a gross earthly nature, arising from an abund­ance of corporal delights. For as now the Talmudists pre­tend they are to have banquets, in which they will feast on

 

h [See Pocock’s Works, vol. i. Porta * Not. Miscel. cap. 6. [p. 159, 160,

 

Mosis, p. 52. ed. 1740.] ed. 1740.]

 

BULL.

 

K

 

130 Our Saviour's resurrection the earnest of immortality.

 

D i s s. the behemoth, leviathan, and bariuchne, an ox, a fish, and

 

1—a birdk; so in the time of Christ the Jews supposed there

 

would be a happy state hereafter, but exactly similar to our present life. Hence Josephus, mentioning the opinion of the Essenes (the most spiritual sect among the Jews) concerning future happiness, uses almost the same words as the Greeks did when speaking of the Fortunate Islands. For he says1, that to the good were granted, “beyond the ocean, habitations free from storms, and heat and cold; but where gentle zephyrs from the sea perpetually refresh the air.” Whence arose the Mat.22.i8. captious question of the Sadducees, proposed to Christ, con­cerning the woman who had married seven brothers suc­cessively, whose wife should she be at the resurrection. For the Sadducees, the opponents of the Pharisees, supposed that Christ taught the resurrection on the same principles as the Pharisees did; but these, among other corporal pleasures, supposed that conjugal love would remain to us in a future state. These gross and dark ideas Christ illumined by a clear and spiritual light, teaching openly the punishment of the wicked, and declaring that the rewards of the pious were not only lasting, but eternal; and not of every kind, but such as consisted in the company of angels and the beatific vision and fruition of God Himself.

 

§ 16. Thirdly, Christ gave to His doctrine what was of the greatest consequence, the light of firm and sufficient testi­mony, by enforcing its belief on men by many and great miracles, of which the chief was, that He openly recalled the dead to life, and after His own death shewed Himself alive again to many. After which, nothing more to confirm this point could be reasonably expected. For it was now certain, Actsi7.3i. as the Apostle argues, that “God hath appointed a day in the which He will judge the world in righteousness, by that Man whom He hath ordained, whereof He hath given assur­ance unto all men, in that He hath raised Him from the dead.”

 

§ 17. In the fourth and last place, it may perhaps be asked, why the Jews, who had conceived the hope of a future life

 

k See Buxtorf, who severely satirizes 1 'A\ws. II. 12 ; De Bel. Jud. ii. 8. the Jews for this fable. Synag. Judaic. vol. ii. p. 165. edit. 1726. c. 36. p. 535.

 

Christ alone the Fountain and Giver of life eternal. 131

 

from the law, could not arrive at true righteousness by the chap. law ? I answer, that besides the extreme uncertainty, and ——— confused idea they had of that hope, this was the chief reason, namely, that the Jews sought for eternal life in the external righteousness of the law, to which it was never promised.

 

Hence it happened that they were never led by this hope to such piety as was true and worthy of God, thinking they could obtain that future happiness by the outward righte­ousness of the law. This dangerous error of the Jews Christ Himself condemned; “ Search the Scriptures, for in them ye Joh.5.39. think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of Me.” By the Scriptures, though we may understand all the Books of the Old Testament, yet the law and writings of Moses seem to be peculiarly intended, as we may gather from the forty- fifth and forty-sixth versesm. The sense then is, You attribute to the Mosaic law more than is right: for you think eternal life to be promised to the observers of its precepts; and that this life is immediately contained in these books : but if you not only read over these Scriptures, but attentively consider them,

 

(for that is the meaning of the word search,) you would soon ipsware perceive that they directed you to Me as the Fountain and Giver of this life, and to that spiritual righteousness which I teach, as the only means of obtaining it.—But great indeed was the perverseness of the Jews, who, although they acknow­ledged the mystery in the promises of Moses, still obstinately adhered to the letter of the precepts, when they might have easily seen that between the letter of the promise and the letter of the precept, and on the other hand between the spirit of the promise and of the precept, a certain connec­tion was absolutely necessary.—And thus far of the want, in the Mosaic law, of that external aiding grace, namely, the promise of eternal life.

 

m Vid. Grot, in locum, and also Maldonatus.

 

d i s s. ii

 

2 Cor. 3.6.

 

ver. 7.

 

ver. G.

 

CHAP. XI.

 

THE OTHER WEAKNESS OF THE MOSAIC LAW,---- THAT IT HAD NOT THE GIFT

 

OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. SOME PASSAGES PROVING THIS EXPLAINED. 

 

TWO QUESTIONS ARISING FROM THIS SUBJECT ANSWERED. IT IS SHEWN

 

THAT THE APOSTLE DEFENDS JUSTIFICATION BY THE GOSPEL, IN OPPO­SITION TO THAT OF THE LAW, BY A “ DEMONSTRATIVE” ARGUMENT TAKEN FROM THE EVIDENT GIFTS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, WHICH IN THE EARLY CHURCH EVERY WHERE FOLLOWED A BELIEF IN THE GOSPEL. HENCE LIGHT IS THROWN ON THAT COMMON OBSERVATION OF GROTIUS, THAT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT THE HOLY SPIRIT IS PUT AFTER FAITH.

 

§ 1. It now remains for us to point out that other want of aiding grace in the law, namely, internal assistance, that is, the gift of the Holy Spirit. It was surely impossible that men should be led to spiritual righteousness by that law which neither promised nor gave them any aid of the Spirit. For without the Divine power and efficacy of the Holy Spirit, no man can be freed from his lusts, or delivered from the tyranny of sin, far less be excited with any constant cheerful­ness to those truly heroic actions which are in some degree suitable to so great a reward as eternal life.

 

§ 2. In very many passages the Apostle speaks of this great defect of the Mosaic covenant. In this sense, for ex­ample, he calls the ministry of the law the ministry of the letter; because its ministry was altogether external, not only made up of external and carnal precepts, but entirely with­out any internal energy and efficacy. In this sense he more fully explains himself, where he says again of the law, that it was “the ministration of death written and engraven in stones.” The law is said to be a ministry engraved on stone, both because its precepts were, generally speaking, external, and particularly because they were put forth only externally, unaccompanied by any force or efficacies of the Spirit, which might penetrate the very heart and inward man. On the other hand, he bestows on the Gospel the praise of being the ministration of the Spirit, because its precepts are in them­selves spiritual, and particularly because they are impressed upon the hearts of men by the efficacy and power of the Holy Spirit. For that the Apostle, when he calls the Gospel

 

the ministration of the Spirit, not only has in view the nature chap. and disposition of the Gospel doctrines, as many think, but ——-— also this power of the Holy Spirit continually accompanying it, is very clear from the third verse of the chapter just quoted, where the Apostle says of the Gospel received through faith by the Corinthians under his ministry, that it was “ the epistle 2 Cor. 3.3. of Christ, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart:” which last words evidently allude to the difference between the ministration of the law and the Gospel, as de­pending upon this one particular, that the first was external only, and consigned to written tablets; but that the latter was given internally, and was written on the hearts of men by the Spirit of the living God. In this sense undoubtedly must the Apostle be understood in his Epistle to the Romans, Chap. g. 2. where after having described the law much at large in the preceding chapter, he says of the Gospel as opposed to it, that it was "the law of the Spirit of life” (or life-giving) “in Christ Jesus.” For here the Spirit of life does not refer to the nature of the Gospel law as consisting of spiritual pre­cepts, and penetrating to the heart of man, as some imagine, because that Spirit is not said to be in the law of the Gospel, but in Christ Jesus, the Head, and flowing from Him into the Church His body. But unless I am mistaken, the Gospel is called the law of the Spirit, both because the Spirit is pro­mised in the Gospel, and is also inseparably connected with it. Besides, it must be allowed that we are freed from the law of sin and of death, not by the mere doctrine of the Gospel, unless we adopt the Pelagian heresy, but by the Spirit of Christ Himself. Besides, if this interpretation be admitted, the law of Moses, so far as it contains moral pre­cepts, may as well as the Gospel be styled the ministry and law of the Spirit, the Apostle witnessing in his Epistle to the Rom. 7.14. Romans, that it is in its own nature spiritual and teaches spiritual righteousness. Upon this subject a passage in the Epistle to the Galatians throws the strongest light: where to the curse of the lavj, which he had mentioned in the preceding Gal. 3.14. verse, the Apostle opposes the blessing of Abraham, and that blessing he explains by the promise of the Spirit, or the pro­mised Spirit. Therefore the promise of the Holy Spirit is

 

diss. that great privilege of the Gospel covenant, in which its —n-— excellence above the law, and chief value, consists. As a Joh. 1.17. finishing proof I will add the testimony of St. John: “The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” Where by the way, as Grotius observes, the Apostle overturns that opinion of Ebion, who preferred Moses to Christ, and which even in those days of the Church, was too well known. Truth is opposed to the shadows of the law, and grace is that plentiful effusion of the Holy Spirit on Christians utterly unknown under the old law. Drusius, who explains grace (xapw) not by |n but by ‘ion* kindness or gratuitous favour of God, is refuted by the words of the fourteenth and fifteenth verses, which speak plainly of that grace with which Christ is full, and which out of His fulness is poured forth upon us.

 

§ 3. Here we find one or two questions which require an answer. The first is this: Is there no promise of the Holy Spirit in the law of Moses? To which I answer, that it is manifest that the law, if by that word you mean only the covenant given on Mount Sinai through the mediation of Moses to the people of Israel, which, as I have before ob­served, is the most proper and strict acceptation of it in the Epistles of St. Paul, does not contain any promise of the Holy Spirit. If, I say, by it you mean the covenant made at Sinai; for in the Sacred Books and prophetic writings, which go under the general name of the Old Testament, we read continually of the Holy Spirit being promised, and of its being obtained by the prayers of men. Even in the Mosaic writings, although not in the covenant itself, there may be found, I think, a promise sufficiently clear, of the Holy Spirit being given to the Israelites. Of this Deut.30.6. kind undoubtedly is the following : “The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart.” Now it is allowed by all except those who agree with Pelagius, that such a circum­cision of the heart as will induce men to love God with all their hearts, can only be effected by the great power and might of the Holy Spirit. But this belongs to the righte­ousness of the Gospel, which Moses first, and the other Pro­phets afterwards, pointed out as concealed under the veil of outward rites and ceremonies. For the righteousness of faith

 

but in the second covenant, Deut. xxx. 135

 

which ivas made manifest under the Gospel was witnessed by chap.

 

VT

 

the law and the prophets, as the Apostle expressly affirms. — -g--- But I have said that this promise of the Holy Spirit is plainly not to be found in the Mosaic covenant: I will farther add, that it was part of the New Testament preached by Moses himself. For the covenant entered into with the Jews, in Deut. 29, which the above words are found, is evidently not the same &c* with that made at Sinai, and therefore contained a renewal of the covenant entered into with Abraham, that is, of the Gospel covenant, then darkly revealed, as may be proved by many arguments. In the first place it is expressly said that the following words are “the words of the covenant which Deut.29.1. the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel, beside the covenant which He made with them in Horeb.” Those who think this to have been only a renewal of the covenant made at Horeb, contradict the text in the most direct terms. For the repetition and renewal of the covenant made in Sinai, can in no sense be called the words of a covenant besides that which God had made at Sinai. Secondly, it is expressly said that this covenant was entirely the same .with that which God confirmed by an oath to the fathers of the Israelites, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob : which See ver.

 

. 12 13

 

was the Gospel covenant itself, darkly revealed indeed, as the Gai. 3. iG, Apostle shews. In the third place, St. Paul cites some words I7, of this covenant as the words of the Gospel covenant, which evidently put forward the righteousness of faith: I know ^e6R^m* some think that these words of Moses are accommodated by comp.with the Apostle to the righteousness of faith by way of allusion ?]eu&ef0' only: but they deserve no attention, for the Apostle produces these expressions as the very words of the righteousness of faith, that is, of the Gospel covenant, in which that righte­ousness is revealed. And to speak the truth, I have always thought that these allusions, to which some betake themselves as a sure refuge for their ignorance, are in general nothing but a manifest abuse of the Holy Scripture. But it was not necessary, in this place at least, to use such an evasion. For, fourthly, every thing in this covenant wonderfully agrees with the Gospel; first, as to the precepts themselves, those only are here commanded which tend to good morals, and are good in themselves, not a word being said of those rites

 

136 This confirmed by Jeremiah, and the Hebrew Doctors.

 

D i s s. which, if literally considered, seem to be puerile, and with De t^so- w^ich covenant is almost filled. Besides, all the

 

10, 16, 20. obedience here required is referred to a sincere and diligent ib. 30. endeavour to obey God in all things. In the next place, with respect to promises, God doth here again promise a full remission of all sins, even the most heinous, after actual repentance, which grace is not to be found in the legal cove­nant, as we have already shewn at large. The grace of the Holy Spirit is the next promise, by which men's hearts are circumcised, that they may love the Lord with all their heart, lb. 30. 6. and with all their mind. How far different is this from the usual style of the Mosaic writings! Fifthly, That the covenant Jer. 31.31. mentioned by the prophet Jeremiah is the Gospel covenant, no Christian hath yet denied, since the divine author of the Hsb. 8. 8. Epistle to the Hebrews hath expressly taught it. Now what the prophet hath said concerning that covenant exactly agrees with this made in Moab. The prophet Jeremiah calls his covenant a new covenant, altogether different from that which God made with the ancestors of the Israelites when they came out of Egypt, and Moses says the same of the Moabitish covenant. The prophet Jeremiah gives the reason why God granted a new covenant, intending to abolish that of Sinai; namely, because the Israelites, destitute of grace ver. 22. sufficiently powerful, had rendered void that of Sinai by dis­obeying its precepts. Moses too alleges precisely the same Deut.29.4. cause. "The Lord,” says he, "hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.” As if he had said, God made a former covenant with you, in which He made known His will to you by precepts which were enforced in a most extraordinary manner, by means of promises and threatenings, and every sort of miracle: but He saw that covenant profited you little: He saw that you stood in need of still more effectual grace, by which your hearts might be circumcised; and therefore He intends a new covenant, in which that most effectual grace will be granted you. This same circumcision of the heart is un­doubtedly intended by the prophet in the following passage; jer. 31.33. “ I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts ;” and in the next verse he clearly mentions that remission of sins which is promised to penitents by Moses in

 

the book of Deuteronomy: “ I will forgive their iniquity, chap. and I will remember their sin no more.” Lastly, the pro--— phet Jeremiah shews the plainness, and therefore the easiness, of the precepts contained in the new covenant, so that the people of God would not be under the necessity of a laborious enquiry, or a severer discipline, in order to know these pre­cepts and to fulfil them. It will be plain that Moses meant ver. 34. the same, if you carefully compare his words with what the 30* Apostle says upon this passage. To me, at least, all this R°m- 10- seems very evident. Sixthly, and lastly, To place this point ' beyond the reach of controversy, the Hebrew doctors them­selves thought that all these things which are contained in the twenty-ninth and the following chapters of the book of Deuteronomy must be referred to the times of the Messiah.

To prove this I shall produce what P. Fagius, who deserves great attention, hath said on the thirtieth chapter of the book of Deuteronomy, ver. 2 : “ It must be carefully observed, that in the opinion of the Hebrews this chapter refers to the reign of Christ. Hence also Bacliai says, that in this passage is a promise that under the Messiah the King, all who are under the covenant should be circumcised in their hearts, citing the prophet Joel.” Grotius on the sixth verse of the j0ei2. 28. same chapter agrees with Fagius.

 

We have dwelt the longer on this subject, both that even hence it might appear that all things in the Mosaic writings do not belong to the Mosaic covenant, and therefore that Augustine’s distinction, already frequently quoted, is not only true, but absolutely necessary, by which he restricts the law to the covenant made on mount Sinai only; and especially that we might clearly recognise in this the most excellent and wise dispensation, strictly so called, of God, which it seemed good to Him to use in granting the covenant of His grace.

 

God had made that gracious covenant with Abraham many years before the law was given, to which He was pleased afterwards to add another covenant, consisting of many cere­monies and rites difficult to perform, by which He might retain in their duty the ignorant and carnal posterity of Abraham, who had been just brought out from Egypt, and were consequently too much addicted to pagan rites and superstitions; in short, might preserve them from the idola-

 

] 38 The Spirit vouchsafed to some under the law:

 

Diss. trous worship of the heathens, which Tertullian11 well ex­ :— presses in these words: “ Let no man find fault with the

 

burden of sacrifices, and the troublesome niceties of rites and ceremonies, as if God demanded these things on His own ac­count, whereas He so expressly says, To what purpose are the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me ? and who hath required this at your hands ? But let him recognise in them the design of God, who was pleased to bind a people prone to idolatry and transgression, to their own religion by rites of the same nature as were performed in the superstitious wor­ship of the world, that He might wean them from idolatry; commanding those rites to be performed to Himself as if He delighted in them, that they might not offend by sacri- Comp. ficing to images.” But the all-wise God, foreseeing that this ' ’ * stiff-necked people would not comprehend His design, after the carnal law was given, commanded Moses to make a new covenant with the Israelites, or rather to renew the former one made with Abraham many years before, which especially required spiritual righteousness, and was full of grace and mercy, that the Jews might learn from this that the covenant made with Abraham was still in force even after the ritual law was given, and therefore must be still regarded as that Comp. covenant upon which alone their salvation depended. Who Rom.3ii.7' n0^ ^iere exclaim with the Apostle, “ O the depth of the 33- riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God !” But this is by the way, although not in vain. To proceed :—

 

§ 4. Hence too another question may be answered, Whether, namely, the Holy Spirit was given in the times of the Old Testament ? Undoubtedly it was, for otherwise there could not have been so many pious and holy men under the Mosaic law. But, first, The Spirit was indeed given under the law, but not by, or through the law, since this Gal. 3. 14. grace was mutually given and received as derived from the grace of the Gospel. Hence the promise of the Spirit is called by St. Paul, in the passage already noticed, the blessing of Abraham, not of Moses, because that great blessing arose from the promise made to Abraham, and not from the Mosaic covenant, that is, from the Gospel, and not from the law.

 

§ 5. 2ndly, Although God indeed bestowed His Holy

 

" Tertullian adv. Mareion ii. [11. IS. p. 391.]

 

Spirit on those who asked for it under the Old Testament, as chap. well as under the New, still there was a great difference ——— made; for in the times of the Old Testament, God gave the grace of His Holy Spirit in small and moderate portions: under the Gospel, abundantly and bountifully. Hence in the times of the New Testament, God is said to give the Joh. 3. 34. Spirit not by measure, but to pour it out first upon Christ the Head, and then upon the Church His body: for now has He shed on us abundantly the Spirit. To this too I refer that Tit. 3. 6. remarkable passage in St. John's Gospel where those who 39.h‘7'38, live under the Gospel are said to receive “of the fulness Christ {x^pLV uvti yapiroi) grace for grace,” that is, abundant grace, or grace heaped upon grace. For so I think the words should be interpreted, as here grace for grace is clearly the same as what the son of Sirach says, “A shamefaced and Eccius.26. faithful woman is a double grace •” i'rrl xapiTi, that is, '

 

modesty in a wife is a great grace of God ; but if fidelity be also added, such a wife is an accumulated grace, since to her modesty, a treasure of itself sufficiently great, fidelity also, an uncommon virtue among women, is added as it were over and above.

 

Beza indeed says that he has never found this particle (avrl) used thus by any good author. Fortunately, however, Davenant0 informs us that his learned friend Dunseus ob­served this use of the preposition in the following verses of Theognis:—

 

Tedi>aifir]v 8’ el firj tl kclkwv afi7ravfxa fxepifivStv 'Evpolp.ijv, doli]s t avr avia>v avLas.

 

I sliall die if I cannot find some rest from cares,

 

And if you give me pain upon pain.

 

§ 6. Here perhaps some may object, that under the law there were certain men blessed with such gifts of the Spirit as are bestowed on very few or none in the Christian Church, such as Moses himself, David, and all the Prophets. In answer to this it may be observed, 1st. That the number of these was very small indeed; and our present question is not how God acted to a few, but what was His general dis­pensation to the whole people of the Jews. 2ndly. For these few under the law, how many have lived under the Gospel,

 

0 De Just. Actuali, c. 61. p. 614.

 

Mat. 11.

 

Comp. Mat. 13. 17, with 1 Pet. 1. 10—12.

 

Rom. 11. 8,

 

not only equal to them, but even superior, in all the gifts of the Spirit, and in an excellent holiness of life ? the Apostles for example, and most of the Christians of the primitive times. 3rdly. To none of these was the Holy Spirit so boun­tifully given, but that they still in some degree laboured under the darkness of the age, and the state of childhood. Hence the first among the prophets of the Old Testament are reckoned by Christ Himself as inferior to the least in the kingdom of heaven, undoubtedly, that is, in the fulness and perspicuity of the revelation and knowledge of man’s redemp­tion : for this before St. John was a mystery; in his time light began to dawn upon it, and after the death and resur­rection of Christ, and the descent of the Holy Spirit, it shone forth with mid-day brightness.

 

§ 7. Thirdly, (and this affords the most complete satisfac­tion to the proposed enquiry, so far as it regards the reason­ing of the Apostle,) although the Holy Spirit was formerly given in and under the law, yet after the appearance of the Gospel it was no longer vouchsafed to the followers of the law, but was the privilege of those who having left the law believed in the Gospel. The most holy dove forsook the ark of Moses, and fixed its foot and habitation in the Church of Christ. The spirit left the letter, as the soul the body, and the law became truly a dead letter. A sufficient proof of which were the conspicuous gifts of the Holy Spirit transferred from the Synagogue to the Church, when, on the day of Pentecost, not a tempest of thunder and lightning and horror, as when formerly on this very day the old law was given from Mount Sinai, but the mighty power of the Holy Spirit descended from heaven, and, appearing in the form of fiery tongues, settled on the Apostles; and, soon after, the same miraculous gifts were generally and abundantly poured out upon the whole congregation of Christians; while, with the professors of the law, the spirit of slumber alone remained, a spirit truly worthy of those who, when the substance itself was offered them, pined after the shadow.

 

§ 8. Thus on a sudden we come upon that very subject which was left to be noticed last, namely, that the Apostle always endeavours to establish his doctrine of justification by faith, without the works of the Mosaic law, by those con-

 

spicuous and miraculous gifts of the Spirit which always chap.

 

followed upon faith in the Gospel. This demonstrative argu--------- :—-

 

ment St. Paul uses in addressing the Galatians, with this Gal. 3. 2. question: “ This only would I learn of you. Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith ?”

 

It appears from the fifth verse that the Apostle here speaks Gal. 3. 5. of the spirit of miracles : “ He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith ?” As if he had said, Only answer this one question, and it alone will be sufficient to convince you : Did you receive those excellent gifts of the Spirit, which you possess, from circumcision and the other works of the law, or from the hearing of faith ?

 

But if from faith in Christ, which you will not dare deny, you obtained all these blessings, to say nothing of your in­gratitude, how great must be your madness to revolt from the Gospel, confirmed as it is by an argument so evident and striking to the senses ! Hence, when at the council of Jerusalem, that great question was debated among the Apo­stles, whether circumcision and the other rites of the Mosaic law should be imposed on the Gentiles who had been con­verted to Christ, Peter, the chief of the Apostles, proved the negative part of this question by this single argument: That to Cornelius, and to those with him, who were the first fruits of the Gentiles, and had been converted to the Gospel through his ministry, the gifts of the Holy Spirit were given by God. By this act, said St. Peter, “‘God which knoweth Acts 15. 8. the heart, bare them witness,” (that they pleased Him, without circumcision,) “ giving them the Holy Ghost, even as He did unto us,” who have been circumcised, and observe the law of Moses. That the Spirit of miraculous gifts was Acts 10. that testimony, appears from the event. Hence those among ’ the Gentiles, to whom, after they believe in the Gospel, this

 

Spirit was given, are said to be sealed, and to have received, 2 Cor. 1.

 

• • 22 as it were, a pledge from God of His grace for the present, Eph. 1.13;

 

and of glory in future. For that in these passages, as well 4> 30' as in many others, by the Spirit is meant these conspicuous gifts of the Spirit, is evident from this, that the Apostle plainly means that Spirit, and, as it were, points to it, pro­ducing it as a testimony sufficiently convincing to those unto

 

Diss. whom he writes, and to all others who wonld be satisfied of ii . :— the truth of the Gospel; so that what the Apostle hath said

 

concerning circumcision, may not improperly be applied to

 

Rom. 4.11. the Spirit given to the Gentiles; that “it was the seal of

 

the righteousness of faith, which they had yet being uncir-

 

cuincised.”

 

§ 9. But these things, by the way, throw light upon the observation which so wonderfully pleased the learned Grotius that he seized every opportunity of producing it, namely, that in the New Testament the Holy Spirit is most frequently placed after faith. For this is true, if said of that copious effusion of gifts which was peculiar to the primitive Church, or even of that greater measure of the Spirit, which by and after faith perfected by love, believers even now receive. In the mean time it is certain that some special operation of the Divine Spirit always precedes effectual faith, neither do I think that great man thought otherwise, although in some passages his words seem very ill chosen.

 

CHAP. XII.

 

TWO DEDUCTIONS FROM WHAT HAS BEEN SAID IN THE THREE FOREGOING

 

CHAPTERS CONCERNING THE WEAKNESS OF THE LAW.--------- THE FIRST OF

 

WHICH IS, THAT THE APOSTLE ENTIRELY EXCLUDES FROM JUSTIFICATION ONLY THOSE WORKS WHICH ARE PERFORMED BY THE AID OF THE MOSAIC, AND (CONSEQUENTLY) OF THE NATURAL LAW, WITHOUT THE

 

GRACE OF THE GOSPEL. THIS PROVED BY A THREEFOLD ARGUMENT

 

FROM THE VERY EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL.---------------- THREE ARGUMENTS OF PARiEUS

 

TO THE CONTRARY, SO ANSWERED AS TO THROW STILL STRONGER LIGHT UPON THE ABOVE DEDUCTIONS.

 

§ 1. If to any one we have seemed too prolix, in explain­ing the Apostle^s argument taken from the weakness of the law, I beg he will consider how much what has been observed conduces both to the better understanding of St. Paul, and to the more firmly establishing the doctrine of St. James concerning justification by works, both which points I shall now endeavour to make him rightly comprehend.

 

§ 2. With respect to the first, whoever thoroughly under­stands what we have advanced, will easily perceive that the

 

works which St. Paul wholly excludes from justification, are CHAP. only those which are performed without the grace of the—-—:— Gospel, by the aid of the natural or Mosaic law: (for what­ever St. Paul urges against the Mosaic law, as we have else­where observed, has a still greater force against the law of nature:) this then is a necessary conclusion from what has been said; for since St. Paul chiefly employs this argument against justification by the law either of Moses or of nature, because both these laws are entirely destitute of the means whereby men may be induced to true righteousness worthy of God, and agreeable to Him, it manifestly follows from this, that only that righteousness, and those works, are excluded by Him from justification, which are produced by human weakness under the law, or in a state of nature.

 

§ 3. But this point maybe clearly proved by other reasons deduced from St. Paul himself. And first, it seems to me to be no light or trifling argument in support of this opinion, that the Apostle, in arguing against the righteousness of works, simply calls them works, adding no epithet but that of the law, but he never (as far as I am aware) excludes good works from justification. By which he clearly implies that he rejects those works only which are produced by human powers and strength, and are destitute of all supernatural goodness. I allow that he sometimes says works of righteous- Tit. 3. 5. ness, but then he instantly explains himself by adding, which we have done ourselves, that is, by our own strength. Of this passage, however, we shall soon treat more fully. Hence in the Epistle to the Ephesians the works which the Apostle excludes from salvation are called simply works, whilst those Eph. 2. 9. which he admits to be necessary to salvation, and for the performance of which he affirms we are prepared, and, as it were, created by the grace of Christ, he calls good works. ver. io.

 

§ 4. Secondly, this is manifest from the whole course of the Apostle's reasoning, that he rejects works of that nature only, which, being admitted, would seem to afford men cause for boasting, exalting themselves before God. Who does not See Rom. perceive that this can only be said of those works which we 1'^ £ 9; do by our own strength, without the assistance of grace ? For whatever works a man performs, induced thereto by the pre­vention of Divine grace, and aided in the performance of

 

DI s s. them by its continued presence, are to be ascribed to ——— Almighty God, and all their glory must evidently be attri­buted to Him, as their chief and principal author. These good works which we perform, are not so much ours, as those of God within us. But no man can properly boast before God of that which is owing to God. But, says Parseus15, these works of grace are at the same time supposed to pro­ceed from the virtue of free will, and so in some measure are owing to it: to which we reply; That our good works are performed by the grace of God leading us to them, and by free will accompanying us, is no fiction of ours, but the truth itself, which may be proved from innumerable passages of Holy Scripture, which right reason itself dictates, and lastly, which is acknowledged by the unanimous consent of all the writers of the three first and best ages of the Church. Neither does this free will prevent our righteousness, and salvation, which is consequent upon it, from being attributed to God, as the chief, and indeed only author; since before, and without Divine grace, it has not in itself, or of itself, the least particle of goodness, so far as to be really good, and to tend to salvation. Whatever good the will is capable of, is entirely owing to grace; whatever evil, to itself. So far from our works being good without this liberty of the will, they can no more become good, or be made the conditions of a reward, than the actions of brutes or the motions of inani­mate bodies. But that this freedom of the will being allowed, does not diminish the glory of Divine grace, since whatever good works we do must be referred to God as their author, may, I think, be proved by an invincible argument from the very confession of our opponents.

 

§ 5. For although they suppose that the first conversion of man to God is caused by the irresistible influence of grace, yet they unanimously allow, that in subsequent good actions, in some at least, there is a liberty of the will of such a nature, as to leave the regenerate to do well or not, at his own option, and that often he does not do well when he might. The following, in particular, are the express words of our theologians in their judgment set forth at the synod of Dort. For there, on the third and fourth articles concerning conver-

 

P In solut. dub. 6. c. iii. ad Rom. p. 221.

 

Glory of Divine grace not diminished by free will. 145

 

sion, by which is meant the act of a man turning himself to chap. God, they speak thus : “ God does not always so move a con- Theg ~— verted and faithful man to subsequent good works, as to take away the wish of resisting; but sometimes permits him, by his own fault, to fall from the guidance of grace, and in many particular acts to obey his own lusts/' And in explanation of the same thesis, they add: “ Through the whole course of our lives, the motions and guidance of the Holy Spirit are ever present with us : yet in such manner as that we may be negligent of grace, that too often we actually are so, and there­fore freely and basely obey our own lustsq." Lastly, they Thes. 4. condemn as heterodox, (and certainly the doctrine is a most damnable one,) “ that a man cannot perform more good than he does, nor avoid more sin than he avoids.’' And in ex­planation, they contend that this opinion is equally false, whether it is understood of a regenerate or an unregenerate man. On these grounds, then, I would ask whether those subsequent good works, which are so freely performed by a regenerate man, afford him cause for boasting, or do they not rather redound to the honour and glory of God, the author of them ? I have no doubt but that our adversaries will instantly consent to the latter supposition, opposing the other with all their might. They must therefore necessarily allow that the union of free will with Divine grace in good works does not prevent the honour of them from being wholly ascribed to God, neither do they give the man himself any cause for glorying in them. Neither do we hold any other union of freewill in any good work, than our adversaries themselves allow in many good works.—This however by the way : To proceed.

 

§ 6. Thirdly, that this, in short, is the intention of St. Paul (to reject those works only, which are done without the grace of the Gospel) will readily appear to any one who gives the subjcct due attention, even from those passages which seem at first sight to exclude all works entirely. Let us turn to them, and first to that famous text which is thought by many to afford an invincible argument against justification by works, and is therefore the principal support of their reasonings.

 

The Apostle had said that he should count all other things Phil. 3. 8.

 

q Which they prove from Gal. v. 17 ; Eph. iv. 30. [Vid. Act. Syn. Dord., part II. p. 133.]

 

bull. T

 

Diss. for lost provided he might win Christ; he then adds, “And i»hii. 3. o. be found in Him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.” What that righteousness is which the Apostle here rejects, and what he longs for, will be clear to every one who without prejudice at­tends to his words. As to the first, he calls it his own righte­ousness, produced by his own powers, for he would not venture to call that righteousness which the grace of Christ had effected in him his own, but rather, with gratitude, would refer it to Christ, the author of it. Next, lest any should mistake, he calls it the righteousness of the law} such as may be performed by the law with human means, and without the grace of the Gospel. Lastly, this righteousness of the law he had explained distinctly and separately in the foregoing verses, and the sum is this, that he had the advantage of no few carnal privileges attached to the law; that he had ac­curately observed all its rights; that he was entirely free from those greater crimes to which the law had annexed punishment; and that he did not hesitate to say, that ac­cording to the judgment of the law he was entirely blameless. Now, in the second place, the righteousness which the Apostle longs for is no less evident; that righteousness which God works in us by the faith of Christ, and moreover approves as His own work. Here Estius hath well remarked “that he does not call the righteousness which is in us, our righteousness, but that which is of us; so also the righteousness of God, which is from God, not that which is in God, and by which God is hiKaioavuri Himself righteous.” For neither in the text is it the righteous- Rom! io.3. ness °f God, (though if it were, the genitive case would signify the efficient cause,) but the righteousness which is of or from v 4k 0eoD God. But what this righteousness which is from God by Sucaioorvvr]. pau] explains in the following verse : “ That I

 

ver. io. may know Him, (that is, Christ,) and the power of His re­surrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being made conformable unto His death.” Here that common rule among theologians will hold good, that, in Scripture, words denoting knowledge, generally signify also the consequences of such knowledge. Therefore, to know Christ, His death and ^resurrection, is to experience in one's self the influence of

 

Christ's death and resurrection in such manner as that we chap.

 

. . XII.

 

ourselves die to sin, and rise again to newness of life. And —:—

 

this knowledge, beyond all doubt, is that excellency of the 6.

 

knowledge of Christ, which he so greatly longs for. Certainly phl1' 3* 8*

 

the Apostle could not, as it seems to me, more clearly express

 

his meaning concerning each kind of righteousness, that of

 

the law, and that of the Gospel.

 

§ 7. I now come to the passage which I just noticed above:

 

“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but ac- Tit. 3.5,6. cording to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of rege­neration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which He shed on us abundantly," &c. If you ask what works doth the Apostle here exclude from justification and salvation, the Apostle clearly answers, those which ive ourselves have done; we is here emphatic, and means, by our own powers. Then to works of this kind, proceeding from human powers, he opposes that grace of God, which, entirely through His mercy, for Christ's sake, is abundantly poured out upon us, by which we are regenerated and renewed, and by which alone we are rendered capable of works truly good; and what he takes from the former, he gives to these latter works, affirming that we are saved by the one and not by the other. For when St. Paul says that we are saved by the renewing of the Holy Ghost, he means all those virtues and good works which flow from a heart renewed by the Holy Spirit: since the mere power, ability, or infused habit (as some like to call it) of any grace, as of faith, hope, or charity, can save no man; but the acts of each virtue, or the virtues themselves. But these words of the Apostle fully and perfectly describe the whole work of the salvation and justification of mankind. For here is laid down, first, the 'preceding cause of salvation, namely, 7rporjyov- the mercy of God, which he calls the kindness and love of God. Secondly, the fundamental cause, through Jesus Christ, that-n- pona- is, Christ and His merits. Thirdly, the means, or condition TaPKTlK^ of obtaining salvation, which is expressed, first negatively, not by works which we have done by our own powers; and secondly, affirmatively, by regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which we receive at our Baptism. Moreover, from this text it is very evident that the Apostle does not reject from the work of salvation and justification, all inherent

 

l 2

 

DISS.

 

II.

 

ver. 7.

 

Epb. 2. 8—10.

 

righteousness (since he expressly states that we are saved by that righteousness which is effected in us by the renewing of the Holy Spirit), but only that righteousness which is so in­herent in us as to be of us, that is, produced by our own powers. Hence also, wre may readily conceive what the Apo­stle means when he says that we are justified by the grace of God: namely, that by the grace of the Holy Spirit alone, freely granted to us by God through Christ, wTe are enabled to perform those things which by the Gospel covenant lead to justification and eternal salvation.

 

§ 8. Similar to this is the following passage; “ For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship,” &c. By faith here, I understand obedience to the Gospel, of wrhich, faith, specially so called, is not only the beginning, but the root also and foundation. Of which interpretation we have already given sufficient proofs, so that no one might think that we here beg the question. But the Apostle is very careful that no one should attribute this obedience to himself, and therefore adds, “ and that (that is, that you have believed) not of yourselves : it is the gift of God.” In what sense this is true, he afterwards distinctly explains; in the mean time he goes on, “Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Not of wTorks which you have per­formed by your strength without the grace of God; for so, and not otherwise, you might seem to have some cause for boasting; so that of works, has here the same force as of yourselves. Lastly, he confirms and explains what he had said just before, namely, that we are saved through faith, and that from the gift of God and not of works, by the following passage: “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” The Apostle, in these words, joins himself with the Ephesians, speaking in the first person, yet what he says refers to them in particular. The sense, therefore, is this; So far are you from being saved by your own works without the grace of God, that on the contrary, not without the most wonderful power and efficacy of Divine grace are ye created, as it were a second time by God, and from that rude mass in which you formerly lay buried in the

 

darkness of ignorance and sin; and created for this purpose, chap.

 

that you might be enabled to produce works truly good, by----------------- —

 

which you may arrive at justification and eternal salvation. Therefore no grounds for boasting are left to you, to you, I say at least, to whom hath been imparted no common grace, but the exceeding riches of grace. For although this argu- see ver. 7. ment of the Apostle applies to all justified persons, yet there is something in it, as appears from the context, which par­ticularly refers to the Ephesians, who had formerly been Gentiles, and whose calling from idolatry, and the infamous vices of paganism, to the light of the Gospel, was a wonderful and extraordinary work of God.

 

§ 9. To these passages may be added those in which St. Paul opposes the gracious calling of God to works, where the elec- Rom. 9. tion of man to salvation is said to be not of ivorks, but of Him ' that calleth. For here it is clear that the Apostle only rejects those works which a man might do of his own accord, before and independent of all Divine calling, and not those which he performs being led and excited by God graciously calling him : for these are not repugnant to the Divine calling. See 2 Tim.

 

§ 10. So also when the Apostle compares grace and works R0n'lt u. together, and affirms that the one destroys the other, it is 6- most evident that those works only are intended by him, which are done without grace; for surely the works of grace do not destroy grace. Neither does it signify, if you say that by grace, which is here opposed to works, is not meant the grace of God as to its effect, but as to its cause, the free favour of God; for allowing this, it still remains true that the works of grace, or those which are performed by the grace of God working in us, cannot destroy that grace or favour of God by which lie embraces us, but evidently confirm it.

 

For that grace by which works of this kind are performed, flows from the free favour of God, and for that very reason is called grace; neither can that be called grace which does not proceed from the free favour of God. So that we here strictly argue with St. Paul, If we are saved by the works of grace, then it is of grace, otherwise grace would be no longer grace.

 

§ 11. From these passages I think it appears that the Apostle, when he so often contends that we are justified and saved freely by grace, without works, and that all cause for boasting is excluded in this matter, rests his argument espe-

 

150

 

Opposite opinion of Pararns examined.

 

DISS.

 

it.

 

Rom. 4.

 

cially on this ground, namely, that whatever good is per­formed by us towards obtaining justification and eternal salva­tion, flows entirely from the grace of God, freely given us through Christ, and, being received from Him, should be attri­buted to Him : and moreover, that it was his intention to ex­clude from the work of justification and salvation, those works only which proceed from the free will of man, unassisted by the grace of the Gospel; which was what we had to prove.

 

§ 12. These points, which are now, I think, clearly proved, Parseus earnestly opposes, insisting that this interpretation of St. Paul's meaning is a corrupt gloss, and that all works with­out exception, both those which are done by faith and the grace of the Gospel, as well as those performed without it, are equally excluded from the work of justification by the Apostle. His argumentsr, excepting those in answer to Stapleton, and other Jesuits, with which we have nothing to do, are briefly these.

 

§ 13. Argument 1st. “ The Apostle was under no necessity of denying justification to works which are bad, or not good, for that point was allowed by him. But all works performed without grace, or faith, are bad, or not good; it is absurd therefore to suppose that the Apostle argues against works of that kind." This argument (with due deference to its author) is but an empty sophism; for though all allow that no man can be justified by works which are bad, or not good, yet so far from its being allowed by those with whom St. Paul had to do, that works done without the grace of the Gospel were bad, or not good, it was the very matter in dispute between them. They stoutly denied it, he affirmed it, contending with much pains, that before, and without the grace of the Gospel, nothing can be performed by man which is truly good, or acceptable to God unto salvation.

 

§ 14. Argument 2nd. “ The works of Abraham and David were not performed without grace and faith, but even these are excluded from salvation. It is false, then, that works performed without grace or faith are the only ones excluded." —I answer; There is no occasion to trouble ourselves about David, as the Apostle only quotes a passage from him to prove what he had before said concerning Abraham. With respect to Abraham, Parseus in his argument takes that for

 

r In Rom. iii. dub. G. p. 220, 221.

 

granted which is the matter in dispute between us, namely, that c H a p. he is regarded by the Apostle as he was after his Divine call, ——— and the revelation made to him. For if we suppose Abraham to be regarded by the Apostle as he was before the grace of his extraordinary call, then the whole of Parseus’ argument clearly falls to the ground. That this latter state of the case is the true one, seems clearly to appear from the first verse of the above chapter, where the state of the whole controversy concerning Abraham in the following verses, as far at least as the ninth verse, is professedly laid down in these words:

 

“What shall we then say that Abraham, our father as per- Rom. 4. 1. taining to the flesh, hath found ?” These words may be taken in two ways : first by placing the note of interrogation after say, so that, “ What shall we then say” is only the in- See Rom. troduction to the question, what follows is the question itself &'c. ’ ' introduced in this way: “ What shall we say then ? Shall we say that Abraham, our father as pertaining to the flesh hath found?” That is, hath found grace, or righteousness, which Luke 1.30. word had just gone before; a tacit negation to the question being understood, by no means. Grotius adopts this method. Secondly, the words may be read in such a way that what is joined to found, and is referred to the question itself, as follows : “ What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh hath found?” that is, obtained.

 

The answer to which must be understood, nothing certainly !

 

But this is not of such consequence as to cause much dispute, since in either way the sense is the same.

 

§ 15. It is of greater consequence to determine whether the words, according to the flesh, belong to hath found, or to our father. Origen, Ambrose, and some ancient Latin MSS. which Erasmus has followed, join them with our father: but in my opinion very improperly. For first, this reading, as Erasmus himself allows, is contrary to most (I think he might say all) of the Greek copies. Then if you suppose a change of place in the words of the Greek, still the article is wanting. For it should be, as Erasmus observes, tov irarepa rjfjL&v tov Kara aapKa, “ who is our father according to the flesh.” Lastly, what particularly makes against this opinion, if the text be so read, is that it will turn the words of the Apostle into a direct fallacy; for it makes him speak thus :

 

152 The word ‘flesh* opposed in H. S. to grace, fyc.

 

Diss. What then shall we say that our father according to the flesh,

 

— ——even Abraham, hath obtained from God? Nothing truly. Whereas he obtained many great blessings. It is necessary therefore to add this limitation, according to the flesh, after obtained, or found. But whither will not party spirit drive in locum men, otherwise learned ? For Parseus, having mentioned p. 263. akove interpretation, adds these words, “ which I readily

 

embrace in opposition to sophists, lest they should pretend that justification is denied only to those works of Abraham which he did according to the flesh, that is, before his conversion and without faith.” But what is sophistry, if this be not ? The words according to the flesh, must be referred to hath found, and not to our father, and the question of the Apostle may be turned into this negative proposition; our father Abraham obtained nothing of God, or found no favour with God, that is, was not justified, according to the flesh.

 

§ 16. It only remains for us to enquire what the Apostle means by according to the flesh. And here I think only two interpretations can be given; either that according to the flesh is the same as by circumcision and other carnal and exter­nal works, which meaning many interpreters follow; or, secondly, that it signifies by the powers of nature without grace. And then the sense of the negative proposition will be this : Abraham was not justified before God by any works produced by his own powers, and performed by his own free will, without Divine grace. I readily adopt the latter inter­pretation, for these reasons; first, because it is the most usual sense of the word flesh, in the New Testament, which is fre- SeeMat. quently opposed to Spirit, grace, and Divine revelation. Next, Gal.1!*. 16. because the question concerning circumcision seems to be expressly proposed by the Apostle, by a new enquiry in the ninth verse. Lastly, to this negative proposition, so under­stood, the arguments which the Apostle in the following verses uses to confirm it, are admirably adapted; and to convince the reader of this, we will briefly consider them, ver. 2. § 17. His first argument is, "For if Abraham were justi­fied by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God.” These words contain the reason of the preceding denial, drawn from the effect which is denied; if Abraham be justified by works performed without grace, he would have some cause

 

for glorying before God, as if he had performed that of him- c H A P. self, which in the judgment of God deserved a reward. But XII‘. _ it is certain that Abraham, whatever praise he may deserve before men, hath no cause for glorying before God; therefore Abraham was not justified by works. For the words before God must be understood with hath whereof to glory in the major proposition; and vice versa, hath whereof to glory must be repeated with not before God in the minor: since the argument is from the denial of the consequent to that of the antecedent. I know that some of the ancients form the Apostle's argument otherwise, as follows : If Abraham was justified by works, that is, by external works, he cannot glory before God, since external righteousness of this kind, however glorious it may be in the sight of men, is yet nothing in the sight of God; but Abraham had to glory before God, that is, was approved of by God Himself; therefore Abraham was not justified by works. I wonder those excellent interpreters,

 

Estius and Grotius, have followed this exposition of the Fathers; for although the conclusion be according to the Apostle's meaning, yet the premises, as Pargeus rightly notes, by no means agree with the text; for in the text the first proposition is an affirmative : If he be justified by works he hath whereof to boast; but this the Fathers change into a negative; and their second proposition is affirmative, although in the text it be negative, but not before God. Whoever should assert that the wiiole of the second verse belongs to the major proposition, would in truth make the Apostle's argument strangely elliptical, consisting of only one proposi­tion, expressed neither in the minor nor the conclusion. Be­sides, St. Paul speaks evidently of the same glorying which a ch. 3. 27. little before he had expressly asserted was excluded by the law of faith, and which therefore he could not attribute to Abra­ham, whom he always contends to be justified by the law of faith. Toleto's distinction between the word Kav^n^a, which St. Paul here uses, and Kavyjtjais, which he had used above, namely, that the latter means boasting or glorying, properly so called, but that the former is the same as praise or appro­bation, is very trifling and altogether without foundation3.

 

It is true indeed, as Grotius observes, that there is a certain

 

See Rom. 5. 2, 3,11; 1 Cor. 1. 31; 2 Cor. 10. 17.

 

epyav.

 

Kara

 

ordpKa.

 

kind of glorying just and lawful, even before God; but it is equally certain that the Apostle was accustomed, whenever he spoke, as here, of justification, to reject all kind of glorying altogether. Besides, does not this interpretation make the Apostle exactly contradict himself? for it supposes him to argue thus : If Abraham was justified by works, that is, made or accounted just in the sight of God, (for it matters little which way the word Si/ccuovaOcu be here interpreted,) then he deserved praise before men; but from God he obtained neither praise nor reward. Is not this just the same as if the Apo­stle had said, If Abraham was justified by works, he was not justified? To say, that to be justified, here means to be ac­counted just by men, is contrary to the whole context of the Apostle, in which the dispute is concerning the justification of man in the sight of God, as is evident beyond all proof; and besides, there will be in the words of the Apostle such an absurd tautology as the following : If Abraham by his works was approved before men, then he was only approved before men, and not before God. But what can be more ab­surd than such reasoning ?

 

§ 18. Here it must be observed, by the way, that by works, and according to the flesh, have with the Apostle the same meaning, as Beza and Piscator allow, and the rules of reason­ing necessarily require. For the Apostle's argument, as we have seen, is of this nature; If Abraham be justified by works, he hath whereof to glory before God; but Abraham hath nothing whereof he can glory before God: therefore he was not justified by works. The conclusion of this argument ought clearly to be the same as the proposition laid down in the first verse, to prove which it was drawn up, and this was, that Abraham was not justified according to the flesh. Accord­ing to the flesh, is therefore the same as by works. Whence also it is proved, that works, with St. Paul, do not mean works produced by grace, since these can in no sense be said to be done or be according to the flesh.

 

§ 19. The Apostle proceeds with his argument, and this taken from the testimony of Scripture : “ For what saith the Scripture ? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” This passage is brought forward to prove either the proposition alleged in the first verse, that

 

Abraham was not justified by works arising from his own powers, or the assumption of the preceding argument, that Abraham had nothing whereof he could glory, in the matter of justification, before God: and certainly it is excellently suited to either statement.

 

§ 20. It may be referred to prove the proposition advanced in the first verse thus : If Abraham had done good works of himself, and before his Divine calling, by which he obtained justification, the Scripture would certainly have made mention of them, and would have attributed his justification to them. Yet this the Scripture hath not done, but, on the contrary, it shews that righteousness was imputed unto him only by, and after, his faith in the Divine promises, which were at the first made to him entirely through grace. From which faith, moreover, proceeded whatever excellent works Abraham ever performed. Therefore he did not obtain righteousness accord­ing to the flesh, that is, from any works performed before, and without faith. Or thus; The testimony of righteousness given to Abraham in the Scriptures is expressly attributed to his faith, and his obedience arising from it; therefore Abraham obtained no praise or reward for righteousness according to the flesh, that is, for works done before, and without faith. For here it must be carefully observed that the Apostle op­poses the faith of Abraham, not to all his works, including those which arose from faith, (for these are reckoned in his faith, as the fruit in the seed:) but to those works only which he performed according to the flesh, by his own strength, be­fore grace was given him.

 

§ 21. But this passage of Scripture may be also referred to to prove the assumption made in the second verse, namely, that Abraham had nothing of which he could glory, in the matter of justification, before God ; and indeed to this it seems most properly to be referred, not only by the particle /or, which makes this verse contain the reason of the former, but also from what follows in the fourth and fifth verses, where the Apostle concludes from the above quotation, that the reward imputed to Abraham was not of debt, as is due to those who work, but of mere grace; and consequently that Abraham had nothing of which he could glory, in the matter of justifi­cation, before God.

 

CHAP.

 

XII.

 

ver. 2.

 

ver. I.

 

diss. § 22. But how, you will say, does the Apostle gather this

 

—— from these words of Scripture ? I answer: Some think that

 

\oylCe(rdai. the force of the argument lies in the word iXoylg-077, was im- \oyi(e<reai puted: as if, with the Apostle, to impute, was the same as to KaTaxaplv' impute according to grace, and signified a gracious acceptance, and never, or only improperly, a retribution of righteousness. Whence Erasmus interprets to impute, by acknowledges ac­cepted, adding, that“ acceptum ferre is to account for accepted that which you have not yet received; which, if I mistake not, is termed by lawyers acceptilatio ” And many very learned interpreters follow this opinion of Erasmus, forming the Apostle's argument thus : If reward was bestowed 011 Abraham as a debt, the Scripture would not say that God imputed righteousness to him, since imputation denotes a free gift. But the Scripture says, God imputed righteousness to Abraham; therefore the reward was not of debt. But this interpretation does not please me, since it appears from DBTI Scripture, that both the Hebrew and Greek word here trans­lated to impute, is used also to signify the imputing any thing as a sin, or as the punishment of sin, as in the second

 

2 Sam. 19. book of Samuel, which imputation no one will deny but to have been justly made : besides, this very word frequently See Deut. denotes in Scripture a true and just esteem or judgment of ver1 \ 20 any thing. Besides, St. Paul, in this chapter, uses this word as a reward of debt: for there it is sufficiently manifest that to impute must be repeated with the word, of debt. I think, therefore, that the conclusion of the Apostle, by which he in­fers, from the passage quoted, that the justification of Abra­ham was entirely gratuitous, does not depend upon the mere signification of the word impute, but partly upon the nature of the thing said to be imputed unto Abraham for righteous­ness, partly upon the former state and quality of the person to whom it was imputed.

 

§ 23. The thing said to be imputed unto Abraham for righteousness, was faith, and obedience arising from thence. But the obedience of faith, as we have often said, by its very notion altogether excludes all merit. For it supposes the gracious revelation of God to be made first to one who be­lieves in Him, and with such promises, as by their own ex­cellency must strongly excite a believer to perform that obe-

 

dience. on the condition of which obedience the promised chap.

 

XTT

 

blessings must be acquired, which not only equal, but very---------------- :—

 

far surpass all the labour that can possibly be undertaken through faith in them. This evidently was the case in the example of Abraham: he indeed believed in God, but God had first revealed Himself to him in a gracious and most extraordinary manner. He obeyed the Divine command, Acts 7.2,3. calling him to a long, troublesome, and dangerous journey; yet God Himself added wings to his journey, by promising blessings so great that the expectation of them filled a feeble old man with youthful vigour, and animated him to bear cheerfully every trouble. Whatever therefore Abraham did deserving of praise, must be entirely attributed to the gra­cious revelation and most liberal promises made to him by God, out of His own mere mercy; therefore to Abraham there was no cause for boasting, and no merit. The Apostle seems to have had this in view in the fifth verse, where, when that which in the fourth verse was denied of him that works, namely, that reward was reckoned to him of grace, might have been repeated in the following antithesis, and affirmed of the believer in this manner : “ But to him that believeth, the reward is reckoned of grace.” St. Paul does otherwise, and says, “ To him that believeth, his faith is counted for righteousnessas if he had said, On this very account, be­cause his faith is reckoned to him for righteousness, his jus­tification is entirely gratuitous, since faith by itself means grace, and excludes merit.

 

§ 24. But here, by the way, we must attend somewhat to the words of the Apostle, “To him that worketh is the reward ver. 4. not reckoned of grace, but of debt.” To understand this passage properly, we must enquire into two things; first, what the expression, who worketh, signifies : secondly, what the Zpya(o- Apostle means when he says that to him that worketh a fieyos' reward is reckoned of debt. As to the first, he that worketh, tear ocpcl- signifies him who works of himself and by his own strength, unassisted by Divine grace. For this, I think, is the proper description of him that worketh : since whoever works by the grace of God, he does not so much work, as the grace of God in him; and this explanation is confirmed by the context, l Cor. 15. For besides that the Apostle in the beginning of the chapter, 2. 20. ’

 

Rom. 11. 35.

 

ver. 4.

 

as we have seen, designedly begins the argument concerning those works of Abraham which he performed according to the flesh; this also should be carefully observed, that he that worketh is here directly opposed to him that believeth, that is, to him that worketh from faith in the Divine promises, and so his works are to be referred to Divine grace, which by its great and most liberal promises excited him to action; the mighty efficacy of the Spirit being taken into the account, which is only received after, and through faith. Now in the second place, as to the words of debt, we cannot in any reason take them in their strict and exact meaning; for the reward of eternal life cannot be considered as due to any man, how­ever perfectly he may work, and that even from the mere strength of nature. It could not even have been attributed to the first man, if he had continued in his innocence, and had never violated, by any sin, the Divine covenant. In one word, it is impossible for any creature to act in so upright and excellent a manner as to deserve of right the reward of eternal life, especially when we reflect that the blessing of eternal life is most perfect, immense, and infinite, and there­fore infinitely surpassing all the works of all creatures. And such is the force of the Apostle’s question, to which no man can return an answer: “Who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again ?” Most certainly then these words of the Apostle, “to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt,” cannot be literally understood, but comparatively, as meaning that the reward is not bestowed so much out of the mere grace and favour of God to him who worketh in the above-mentioned manner, as it would if given to him who believes, that is, who works through faith. This, therefore, is the Apostle’s meaning: If to him who works, that is, obeys God by his natural strength without the grace of God, and lives righte­ously, the reward of eternal life be given, it would seem as if he had it as a debt, and he might have some pretence for glorying; but if it is reckoned to him who does not work, but believeth, that is, to him who does nothing of himself, but through faith, and after placing his trust in God, who hath graciously revealed Himself, then the Divine grace ap­pears in all its lustre, and glorying is excluded; all human

 

merit is totally rejected. Here also appears the grace for c HA P.

 

grace, the doubled grace of God; first He causes this obedi-------------------- —

 

ence of faith in a man by His own grace, prior to any human merits; then He regards this very obedience which Himself hath caused in man, as his righteousness, and most bounti­fully rewards it, as if the man had really performed it of himself.

 

§ 25. In this his argument, the Apostle considers the prior state and condition of the person, Abraham, to whom this faith was reckoned for righteousness. He was an ungodly ao-effis man, and guilty of great sins, and therefore St. Paul de­signedly says that Abraham believed on Him that justified the Rom. 4. 5. ungodly, thereby teaching, that Abraham, so far from deserv­ing well of God by any good works before his call, was, on the contrary, guilty of very great sins. The mercy of God was therefore wonderfully displayed, both in revealing Him­self in so unusual a manner to so great a sinner, and in calling him to His worship, as also in blessing him upon his belief in the revelation, and obedience to the call, with not only a pardon of those sins, but with the greatest rewards besides. But it will be asked, What was this impiety of Abraham's before his call? I answer, It was idolatry, the greatest of all impieties, as the Scripture testifies. They are Josh. 24. not to be heard, who endeavour to force a different sense on ’' ’ ” this passage, and by some subtilties or other endeavour to vindicate Abraham from this wickedness. The words of the passage are sufficiently clear: God speaks of many, the fathers of the Hebrews served other gods, but He names those He meant; “ Terah the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor;” so that these three, the father with the two chil­dren, are reckoned together. And after He had said they served other gods, He adds, "And I took your father Abra- ver. 3. ham," evidently shewing, that among His mercies to the Israelites this too must be remembered, that when their ancestors, namely, the grandfathers of Israel on both sides, Abraham and Nachor living with their father in Chaldsea, worshipped other gods, God, out of mere mercy, chose Abra­ham without any merit on his part, and gave him the inhe­ritance, and an heir. So that this passage throws a clear light on the Apostle's argument.

 

diss. § 26. St. Paul also seems in these words to have tacitly

 

1— opposed a very strong argument against the arrogance of the

 

Gal. 2. is. Jews, who were very averse to idolaters, and sinners of the Gentiles, although converted to the true God by faith in Christ, by repentance, and newness of life; and would not admit them to the grace of justification unless proved by a long trial of the yoke, or at least purified by circumcision and sacrifices. For in these words the Apostle shews that Abraham their father, and themselves in him, were called from idolatry and the worship of other gods exactly in the same manner; and immediately upon his belief in the Divine promises, and his obedience to the Divine call, (although he had not yet received circumcision, as is afterwards shewn,) he was acceptable unto God. Who does not here admire the divinely inspired genius of the Apostle? Meanwhile this applies to all who are justified, since there is no man who is not guilty of great sins before he has received grace, and who consequently stands in need of pardon and remission; which the Apostle excellently proves from the words of ver. 6—8. David, and then returns to the controversy concerning cir- ver. 9. cumcision.

 

§ 27. We have dwelt upon this example of Abraham longer perhaps than the proposed objection required, but not with­out reason or unadvisedly. For since Abraham is here con­sidered by St. Paul as the father of the faithful, and the great example of all who are justified, a right understanding of what ver. ii, 12. the Apostle advanced, concerning his justification, could not fail to throw great light upon this dispute concerning justi­fication in general. And in addition to this, the agreement of St. Paul with St. James is clearly seen from this, namely, that from the same example of Abraham, the former con­cludes a man to be justified without works, the latter by works; for St. Paul speaks of Abraham according to the flesh, such as he was before the call; St. James, when blessed by grace and the Divine call. The former denies justification to his works done before faith, while the latter attributes it to works proceeding from faith. Here then is no contradic­tion between the Apostles, which Augustine1 has explained at large. I shall conclude this discourse concerning Abra-

 

* Tom. 4. lib. 83. Quaestionum, qucest. 76. [vol. vi. p. 67.]

 

ham with the remarkable testimony of St. Clementu of Rome. chap.

 

" XII the contemporary and fellow-labourer of St. Paul, and there- --------- 1—

 

fore one who was well skilled in the meaning of the Apostle, who in his genuine Epistle to the Corinthians, applying to all who are justified what the Apostle here says of Abraham, thus writes : “ And we therefore being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are justified, not by ourselves, neither through our own wisdom, or knowledge, or piety, or our own works which we have done in the holiness of our hearts, but by faith, by which Almighty God hath justified all mankind from the beginning of the world.” When therefore St. Paul contends that Abraham and his sons are justified by faith alone without works, he only exeludes those works, if we may trust to the interpretation of St. Clement, which proceed from man's own wisdom, knowledge, piety, and holiness, that is, from man's free will, destitute of the grace of Christ.

 

And that the works proceeding from faith and grace are not excluded from justification by the Gospel of Christ, the same Apostolic man teaches us in more places than one. For a little before, speaking of Abraham, he saysx, “On what account was our father Abraham blessed? was it not be­cause through faith he wrought righteousness and truth?”

 

And elsewhere also he expressly shews that remission of sins, that is, justification, can be obtained only by obeying through love the commandments of Gody. “ Blessed are we, beloved, if we perform the commands of God in unity of love, that our sins may be pardoned us through love; for it is written, f Blessed is he whose unrighteousness is forgiven, and whose Ps.32.1,2. sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord im- puteth no sin, and in whose spirit there is no guile.' ”

 

Where it must be carefully observed that St. Clement con­cludes that true love and its works are necessary for remis­sion of sins, that is, for justification, from the very same words of David which the blessed Paul quotes to prove justi­fication by faith alone. And he does not reason here un­advisedly; since the words of David clearly shew that the blessing of remission of sins is granted only to those who are

 

u c. 33. p. 166. y p. 65. [c. 50. p. 176.]

 

* p. 40. [c. 31. p. 165.]

 

BULL.

 

diss. free from all guile, that is, to those who are actuated by un­ feigned love to God and their neighbour.

 

§ 28. Argument 3rd; The last argument of Parseus now remains, by which he endeavours to prove that works truly good, and proceeding from faith, are excluded from justifica­tion. “If,” he says, “no good works are done but by the justified (for they follow the justified, and do not precede those who are to be justified, says Augustine), it is false therefore that they justify before God, for then they would justify those who are already justified.” I answer, We have already spoken of that expression of Augustine's as [Cap. iii. much as we thought necessary; with respect to the supposi- D?ss.]U^US tion of this argument, that no work truly good can precede justification, it is most false and dangerous. For this being allowed, it will follow, first, that God justifies men who are yet impious, and remaining in their sins, haters of all holi« ness, which nearly approaches to blasphemy, and is directly See Exod. contradictory to many passages of Scripture; and secondly, nkings 8. ^ would follow, that man could not be justified even by faith, ^or is a good work. If therefore no work truly good Ps. 5.4,5; precedes justification, faith does not precede it, and conse- isa.48.22; quently we cannot be said to be justified by faith, for then it 57,2K would justify the justified. Neither will that ingenious sophism avail Parseus, namely, that faith justifies not in that it is a good work, but as the instrument of apprehending Christ. For here the question is not whether faith, so far as it is a good work, justifies; but whether faith be a good work, and whether it precede justification? both which all in their senses allow. But if faith be a good work, and pre­cedes justification, it will follow that it is false to say that no good work can precede justification. The third consequence of the above argument is, that works of repentance are not good works, since they precede justification, or the remission [Vid. sup. of sins, as the Scriptures clearly prove, and all the better Pro- § 6, ?!] testants readily acknowledge. The truth is, no work really good can precede the grace of God, since without that grace it cannot be performed. But good works may precede justi­fication, and actually do precede it; for grace is given before justification, that we may perform those things by which we arrive at justification.

 

§ 29. There is in this argument of Parseus another suppo­sition equally false with the former, namely, that those who are already justified can be no more justified, since it is cer­tain, as we have before shewn2, that justification is a continued act,' and never perfected or finished before death; although therefore, by the fewer and less works of repentance, we arrive at the first grace of justification, yet if time for living well is still granted, the subsequent works of grace are alto­gether necessary to preserve the received justification, and to continue it to the end; for the grace of God in Christ, ob­tained by faith and repentance, if not preserved by a con­tinual course of good works, is lost. Innumerable are the passages of Scripture which directly teach this truth : among others, see Matt, xviii. 32—35 ; John xv. 3—10; Rom. xi. 19—22 ; Gal. iii. 3, 4; Heb. iii. 14; x. 23, 24, 26, 35, 36 ; 2 John viii.

 

CHAP. XIII.

 

ANOTHER CONSEQUENCE DRAWN FROM THE APOSTLE^ ARGUMENT CON­CERNING THE WEAKNESS OF THE LAW, NAMELY, THAT SO TAR FROM TAKING PROM JUSTIFICATION THE NECESSITY OF GOOD WORKS, ST. PAUL’S OBJECT IS TO PROVE THAT THE TRUE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF WORKS IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR JUSTIFICATION, AND THAT THE GOSPEL IS THE ONLY EFFICACIOUS MEANS BY WHICH ANY ONE CAN BE BROUGHT

 

TO PRACTISE SUCH RIGHTEOUSNESS.-------- SOME PASSAGES TO THIS EFFECT

 

SHEWN. THE PRINCIPAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LAW AND THE

 

GOSPEL POINTED OUT.

 

§ 1. It now remains for us to explain that which before we only slightly hinted at, namely, what a considerable accession of strength is given by this argument of the Apostle's to St. James’s doctrine of justification by works. The matter is so clear as not to require a long or troublesome proof.

 

§ 2. St. Paul, so far from taking away the necessity of good works for obtaining justification, endeavours, on the contrary, to prove these two things; first, That the true righteousness of works is absolutely necessary for justifica­tion. For since the Apostle uses this argument, especially against justification by the law, that by itself it is un- z Diss. ii. 1. § 5.

 

M 2

 

CHAP.

 

XII.

 

diss. equal to bring men to the practice of true righteousness, :— he clearly takes it for granted that without such righteous­ness no man can obtain justification; for without this suppo­sition his argument is clearly invalid, as will appear upon the slightest attention. Secondly, That the Gospel is the only efficacious means by which a man can arrive at that righteousness; for what the Apostle refuses to the law, he ascribes to the Gospel. The law of Moses was weak, and could not justify a man, because it left him destitute of those aids by which he might obtain that piety without which no one can be acceptable unto salvation in the sight of an all­holy God. On the contrary, the law of Christ is most powerful, and abundantly sufficient to lead miserable sinners unto justification, inasmuch as it plentifully supplies whatever may be necessary to effect such piety in them, both by reveal­ing most clearly the light of eternal life, and so by giving the most evident proofs for faith in it; and particularly by bestowing the grace of the Holy Spirit, not only as much as is actually necessary, but in a plentiful and abundant manner.

 

§ 3. This then is the evident aim of that argument, as we have proved by many testimonies, to which the following may Rom. 8. l. be added. When the Apostle had said that “there is^no con­demnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,” that is, that those who believe in the Gospel are fully and perfectly justi- ver. 2. fied, he adds this reason, “ The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death;” that is, The life-giving Spirit of Christ, which accom­panies the Gospel, hath freed me, first from the habit of sin­ning and then from everlasting death, the necessary conse­quence of such a habit; manifestly shewing that by the Gospel alone we are freed from the guilt of sin, that is, justified, be­cause from it alone flows that most powerful grace, by which we are freed from the dominion of sin, and are led to a pious and holy life. What Parseus says on this point are merely clouds raised to darken the light of truth. He makes the law of sin to mean the law of Moses. But that the law of God should be called by the Apostle the law of sin, is rather a harsh expression. Besides, is not this interpretation directly contradictory to the words of the Apostle in the preceding

 

Rom. 7. chapter ? For there the law of sin is plainly opposed to the 22. 23, 25.

 

law of God, and is explained as meaning that ruling power of c HjA p.

 

sin which resides in the flesh and its members, and is re------------------------ 1—

 

pugnant to the law of God. This also appears still more strongly from the third and fourth verses of this chapter, where the Apostle shews that Christ had done that which it was impossible for [the law to do; namely, that He had de­stroyed sin in the flesh, “ that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” Hear Parseus again, explaining these words thus : “ Christ satisfied the curse of the law by the cursed death of the cross: that satisfaction is imputed to us no otherwise than if it had been fulfilled in us.” What can be more rash than this interpretation ? For, first, Parseus ex­plains the righteousness of the law by its curse, which ought BtKaiapa. to be understood of the righteousness prescribed in the law, as the very subject requires, and as is evident from the twenty-sixth verse of the second chapter of this Epistle. Then he interprets this passage as of some righteousness which is external to us, and is only imputed to us, although the Apo­stle expressly says that the righteousness of the law is ful­filled “in us.” Lastly, he refuses to hear the explanation which the Apostle gives of the manner in which this righte­ousness of the law is fulfilled in us, namely, that we “ walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”

 

§ 4. Agreeably to these passages have some of the ancients interpreted the last verse in the third chapter of this same Epistle, where the Apostle proposes and answers an objection against his doctrine of justification, in these words : “ Do we Rom. 3.31. then make void the law through faith ? God forbid! yea, we establish the law.” For, as Chrysostom and Augustine ob­serve, faith is said to establish the law because it obtains grace by which the law is fulfilled : since the strength and fulfilment and consummation of the law especially consist in the observance of its precepts; and truly the law, deprived of the grace of the Gospel, cannot retain either its station or its honour, but lies as it were trodden under foot and de­spised by men enslaved by the lusts of the flesh; whereas, this grace being added, it recovers again its seat and throne, and obtains its authority and principal design, that of bring­ing mankind to its obedience.

 

See Heb. 8. 10, 11.

 

§ 5. It would not be difficult to produce many other passages to confirm these, but in a matter already so fully explained, it would be superfluous. I will conclude with this observation; that hence appears the great difference between the law, separately and abstractedly considered, and the Gospel, which is this, that the Gospel bestows the grace necessary to perform the righteousness, which the law only points out. In this the excellenee of the Gospel above the law is principally placed by the Apostle. Hence those great praises which he gives to the Gospel, namely, that it is the ministry of the Spirit, the law of the Spirit of life, the power of God, the power of God unto salvation. Would that these things had been seriously considered by most of the Reformed divines, who have written so much concerning the difference between the law and the Gospel, and "who,” as Grotiusa sharply remarks, “ triumph in this controversy concerning justification, as if they had brought a light from heaven un­known to all former ages !”

 

CHAP. XIY.

 

SOME PASSAGES POINTED OUT IN WHICH THE APOSTLE OPPOSES THE KITUAL LAW ESPECIALLY.------------ HE SO REJECTS THE EXTERNAL AND RITUAL OBSERV­ANCE OF THE LAW FROM JUSTIFICATION, THAT IN ITS PLACE HE SUBSTI­TUTES THE INTERNAL AND SPIRITUAL RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE GOSPEL.-----------------------------

 

HENCE AN INVINCIBLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE SOLIFIDIANS.

 

§ 1. We have now fully considered the Apostle's argument with reference to the whole of the Mosaic law, not excepting even that part which contains moral precepts. The next point to be observed, concerning the ceremonial laws and in­stitutions of the Mosaic covenant, we shall accomplish in a few words.

 

§ 2. The famous controversy concerning circumcision and the [Mosaic rites, which was too much agitated even in the Apostle's days, is professedly proposed in the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, where, after St. Paul

 

had proved from the words of David that the blessedness of chap.

 

. . . . . . xiv.

 

man consisted in the remission of sins, he brings forward the

 

subject in dispute in the following words : “ Cometh this Rom. 4. 9.

 

blessedness then upon the circumcision only} or upon the

 

uncircumcision also?” That is, Are circumcision and the

 

other Mosaic rites entirely necessary for justification, or

 

may it be obtained without them ? Then in the following

 

verses he clearly shews that those rites are by no means

 

necessary. Nearly the whole Epistle to the Galatians aims

 

at this same point, wherein the conclusion which the Apostle

 

undertakes to prove is accurately laid down in these words:

 

“ In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor Gal. 5. 6.

 

uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.” And

 

again, with a little change, “For in Christ Jesus neither cir- Gal. 6.15.

 

cumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new

 

creature.”

 

§ 3. There is no occasion for us to explain the arguments by which the *Apostle proves this position, since concerning the works of the ritual law, whether and how far they arc excluded from justification, there is now no dispute among Christians.

 

§ 4. I think it necessary to observe this one point only, as having particular reference to our present subject; namely, that the Apostle so excludes the ritual and external works of the law from justification, as to oppose to them the internal purity of the soul, and those works which flow from a heart purified by faith, and inspired by true charity; so that what he takes from the former, he grants to these; the former are by no means necessary to justification and salva­tion, the latter indispensably so; he makes the former of no avail, the latter of the greatest importance. This is evident from passages very frequently quoted, viz. Gal. v. 6; vi. 15 ; and 1 Cor. vii. 19. To which you may add the following re­markable passages, deserving of serious attention: Col. ii.

 

11—13; Bom. ii. 28, 29; Phil. iii. 2, 3. Hence we deduce the following invincible argument against the Solifidians :

 

In whatever sense St. Paul rejects ritual and external works as not necessary, in that sense he admits spiritual and internal works as necessary.

 

But he rejects ritual works as not necessary to justification;

 

aX*ipo-

 

Troit]Tov.

 

Therefore he admits spiritual works as necessary to justifi­cation.

 

§ 5. And undoubtedly, with no other design did God exact with such severe punishments this external righteousness prescribed in the law, but to shew that the spiritual righteousness more clearly revealed in the Gospel, and shadowed out under the legal righteousness, was equally and even still more necessary. Circumcision of the heartb is no less necessary to us than circumcision of the flesh to the Jews. Without this, God cut them off from the external communion of His people; without the former, He will exclude us from the hope of salvation and the kingdom of heaven. To them there was no access unto the temple of God and His sacrifices, unless they were cleansed from all impurity of the body; and to us, unless purified from all de­filement of the flesh and spirit, and perfecting holiness in the fear of God, there will be no admittance unto the heavenly temple, not made with hands. If from them God required the blood and fat of cattle, much more does He require of us that we should offer up ourselves unto Him a living, holy, and acceptable sacrifice, which is our reasonable service; yea, and if it were necessary, that we should voluntarily lay down our lives in bearing witness to His truth. Those there­fore who have not yet learned from the precepts of the Gospel the necessity of good works for justification, must go to Moses, and even by his comparatively obscure teaching be convinced of their miserable error.

 

b Hence Justin teaches that circum- he adds, “We therefore in the uncir-

 

cision of the heart, joined with faith in cumcision of our flesh, believing in

 

Christ, is the condition necessarily re- God through Christ, and having the

 

quired for man’s justification under the circumcision which profiteth us who

 

new law. For in his dialogue with have obtained it, namely, that of the

 

Trypho, after having proved from Gen. heart, trust that we may appear righte-

 

xv. 6, that righteousness was reckoned ous and well-pleasing before God.” Edit,

 

unto Abraham when yet uncircumcised, Paris, 1631. p. 320. [c. 92. p. 182.]

 

CHAP. XV.

 

CERTAIN JEWISH OPINIONS CONCERNING THE MANNER OF OBTAINING JUS­TIFICATION AND SALVATION ATTACKED BY ST. PAUL, ARE NOTED.--------------- THEIR

 

FIRST ERROR CONSISTED IN ATTRIBUTING EITHER TOO MUCH STRENGTH AND LIBERTY TO THE HUMAN WILL, OR AT LEAST IN AN IGNORANCE OF

 

THE NECESSITY OF THE DIVINE GRACE.-------- THIS SHEWN FROM THE RABBINS

 

AND JOSEPHUS HIMSELF. A REMARKABLE PASSAGE OF ST. JAMES, CHAP.

 

i. VER. 13. AND 14. ILLUSTRATED.

 

§ 1. What works the Apostle St. Paul opposes, and what arguments he uses in his discussion of the Mosaic law, con­sidered distinct from the Gospel, are now I hope sufficiently manifest to every one. Yet to what has been already said still stronger light will be given, (towards the development of our own faith,) by considering, in the last place, the corrupt opinions of the Jews. Undoubtedly it is of much importance to the right understanding of any dispute, that the concealed opinions of our adversaries upon the point in question, and their collateral suppositions, if I may so express myself, should be well known. For to these it is extremely pro­bable that a wary disputant, during his argument, will some­times refer, and at the same time tacitly attack. This, however, is not here a matter of conjecture, neither will we attribute any opinion to the Jews which we do not think can be proved that they held from their own approved writers.

 

§ 2. The first and capital error of the Jewish synagogue, the source of all the rest, was this; that they attributed an excessive kind of freedom and liberty to the human will, or, at least, were ignorant of the necessity of Divine grace. They, in fact, thought that the powers of nature, with the assistance of the law as a kind of monitor, would enable them to obtain righteousness, and therefore eternal life.

 

§ 3. The following is a famous and very ancient opinion of the wise men, mentioned in the Talmud itself, and now almost passed into a proverb among the Jews. “All things are in the hand of God except the fear of Godc.” The meaning of which sentence, Rabbi Saadia Gaon (so called by

 

c In lib. Seplier Emunah. HKTD pn ^ 55”

 

Dis s. way of eminence) says to be this; that a liberty of that nature is situated in the human mind and will, as to be in a certain manner independent of God Himself, and he does not hesitate to assert that this was the common opinion of the Rabbins.

 

§ 4. Maimonides quotes the same saying, and gives it his approval, in the eight chapters prefixed to his commentary on Pirke Abothd, where he says, “ With regard to that saying held by the wise men, * All things are in the hand of God' &c., it is surely true;" and shortly after he explains it as p.237,238. follows: “The precepts and prohibitions of the law are con­cerning actions, whieh man hath choice either to do or to let them alone; and in this part of the soul is the fear of God, nor is it in His hand, but left to the free will of man."

 

§ 5. Moreover, there are many things which Maimonides in this chapter boldly asserts concerning free will, as if in p. 234. disparagement of Divine grace. “ Know," he says, “ that it is a thing on which both our law and the philosophy of the Grecians agree, and whieh is confirmed by substantial proofs, that a man's aetions are all put in his own power, without the slightest compulsion towards them, neither is there any ex­ternal influence to incline him to virtue or vice, save only the disposition of temperament, by which a thing may be easier or more difficult to him." See how well, on Maimonides' own confession, the tenets of the Hebrew doctors, on this question of free will, agree with Greeian philosophy. These profoundly wise men had no greater knowledge of the necessity of grace than the very Gentiles and heathens; rather, surely, had they less. For Maimonides asserts that there was no external influence to ineline a man to virtue saving the disposition of temperament, by which virtue might be easier to him; he says not a word concerning grace or Divine assistance, the necessity of whieh, however, Plato, Pythagoras, and several ancient philosophers, constantly acknowledged. Plato in the [vol. iv. Meno : “ If then we have, during the whole of this enquiry,

 

ed.Bipont. . . / ° . , , . J

 

p. 389.] conducted our investigations and arguments rightly, virtue is obtained neither by nature nor teaching, but by Divine dis- cap. 28. de pensation." Jamblichus: “It is ridieulous for men to seek i j thagora. £or wjia£ |s from any other source than from the

 

EP. 14. gods," &c. Seneca: “ The power of heaven influences a soul

 

d Ch. viii. de indole humana. Pocock’s Version, p. 236.

 

that is moderate, excellent, &c. So great a thing could not chap. exist without the aid of the Deity.” And again : “No mind —— is good without God.”

 

§ 6. But I return to Maimonides, whose opinion concern­ing the disposition of temperament is still more evident from his own words in the beginning of the same chapter: “ It is impossible,” he says, “ for man to be from his birth endued with virtue; just as it is impossible for him to be born skilled in the nature of any practical art: but this is possible, that he should be born fitted for some one particular virtue or vice, so that the actions which are concerned with these are easier to him than those which have to do with others,” &e. So that, according to this great doctor, man is fitted by nature in the same way for saving virtue as for practical art; he has neither actually from his birth, both however are to be ac­quired by discipline and use, which will be easier when there is a good natural disposition and temperament. And here he says, indeed, that the fitness (evKpaaia) of disposition con­tributes towards a more easy acquisition of virtue; not deny­ing the possibility of one who labours under the very worst disposition, becoming, by long use and custom, wise and virtuous. But elsewhere forgetting himself, (as frequently is the case with these multifarious writers,) he asserts that a good, or an indifferent disposition, is absolutely necessary for the acquisition of virtue; and that it happens to some to have such a disposition from their birth as does not admit of being corrected by any exercising. For thus in More Nevoehim: “There are some who from the commencement Part. i. of their birth have such a disposition as not to admit of per- y^.3BUX. feetion in any way; as, for instance, a man of an extremely torf< p* 48, warm and brave temper cannot moderate his anger, though he use the greatest discipline &e. So you will find some who are unsteady and restless, whose inordinate and disturbed desires plainly prove a corruption of their nature and badness of temperament, which cannot be corrected. In sueh men you will never see a perfect understanding, and therefore it is mere folly to wish to attempt any thing with them in this matter.” But this by the way.

 

§ 7. Maimonides proceeds in the same chapter to establish that principle of his of self-power (avre^ovaiov). “ The sum of p.24i,242.

 

D i s s. the matter/’ he says, “ is to believe that God, as He has willed

 

:— that man should be of an upright stature, with a broad chest

 

and fingers, so hath He also willed that he should move or be at rest as he himself pleases, and should perform the actions which come under his choice, nothing compelling him to do them, or keeping him from them; as it is explained in the book of truth, where in explanation of this opinion He says : Gen. 3.22.* Behold the man is become as one of Us, to know good and evil/ &c. Now the Chaldee paraphrase interprets this in such a way that the words, ‘ become one of Us, to know good and evil/ have this force; that he is now become one in the world, i. e. one species, like to no other, and sharing with no other that which is his own portion : and what was that, but the knowledge of good and evil according to his own will, and the power of doing either of these as he pleased/’ &c. And soon after he affirms: “ This is a necessary consequence of man’s existence, namely, that he should do good or evil actions according to his own will whenever he pleases/’ &c. And soon after: “ It behoves him (i. e. man) to accustom himself to good actions, by which he may acquire the virtues them­selves, but to avoid evil ones, that the vices, if they be in him, may be removed from him; and he must not say, There is a passion within me which cannot be changed; since every passion can be changed, both from good into bad and the re­verse, and this is committed to the power of his own will.”

 

§ 8. Again he lays this down as a fundamental position; p. 253. “ A man’s actions are in his own free will, so that he can do whatever he wishes to do, and leave undone whatever he dis­likes ; (unless for some fault God should punish him by de­priving him of his will;) and also the acquisition of virtue or vice is in his power. Wherefore he ought to provoke and excite himself towards the attainment of virtues, since there is nothing external to himself to impel him to them, and that is what they (i. e. the wise men) mean in the precepts of this book, by ‘ If I am not for myself who is for me?’” He at length closes this worthless discourse on the human dispo- p. 257. sition with these words; “ It is plain from all that we have said, that man’s actions are committed to his own will, and it is in his own power either to excel in virtue or to be wicked,” &c.

 

§ 9. I allow that Maimonides in all this is especially op­posing their opinions who have imposed compulsion and a kind of fatal necessity on human actions; for so he himself acknowledges not far from the beginning of the same chapter : “ Now I have declared this unto thee for this purpose, that thou shouldest not consider those fables to be true, which astrologers falsely devise when they assert that men from their birth are endued with virtue or vice, and that they are compelled to these actions of necessity and by force.” But

 

The pilot, frighted at Charybdis’ roar,

 

Steers hut too close on Scylla’s fatal shore;

 

for while he rejects the fables of astrologers, he puts forth blasphemous impieties of his own; and though he takes away compulsion, substitutes for it a kind of absolute self-power, and the freedom of a will altogether independent of grace or Divine operation.

 

§ 10. It may be said, These were the dogmas of Rabbins of an inferior period, from whom it is unfair, or at least rash, to judge of the ancient teaching of the Jews. I allow this, nor will I deny that Maimonides and modern Jews differed, in some respects, in their opinions of free will from some of the ancients; but so, that both the one and the other equally do injury to Divine grace. Let us go therefore to the times of Christ Himself and His Apostles.

 

§ 11. The Jewish religion at that time was divided chiefly into two sects, the Sadducees and Pharisees. For the Essenes can hardly be accounted Jews; inasmuch as (Baronius rightly observes) they were schismatics, and by their schism were separated from the rest, that is, from the Pharisees and Sad­ducees, and the Jews in general. For they neither sacrificed in the temple, but used more holy ceremonies (as they thought) in their own conventicles, and lived for the most part without the city, in villages very far removed from frequented places. And soe there is no mention of them in Scripture, nor even, as some think, any hint; though it is quite clear from Josephus and Philo that they did exist in the age of Christ.

 

c Grotius gives another reason, Vot. tions were holy, and because from them

 

pro pac. p. 95: “I have given the especially Christ chose for Himself His

 

reasons why Christ makes no mention new people.” of those Essenes, because their institu-

 

CH A P.

 

XV.

 

diss. § 12. With, regard to the Sadducees, it is very clear from

 

—— Josephus, that they held an independent freedom of the will,

 

such as we have seen is defended by Maimonides and the Ant. Jud., later Rabbins. For they said, as Josephus relates in the 9. vo1]31?’ thirteenth book of his Origines, “ Every thing is put into our P- 649- own power, so that we ourselves are the authors of what is good, and chose what is evil from our own folly.” And Bell. Jud., elsewhere : “ They denied that God was the author of any voi’ 2.°’ 8’ person sinning or abstaining from sin;” (for we must read i>. 166. Bpav not ecjyopav, as Grotius rightly observes.) And again of the same Sadducees: “ They say that good and evil are in man's own choice, and that every one takes either of these as he wills.” Nearly all those high-priests were followers of this sect, who, during the ministry of Christ our Lord and Acts 5.17. the times of His Apostles, presided at the altar.

 

§ 13. If we enquire about the Pharisees, they seem to have fallen into the opposite error, doing away nearly with all free will, and making every thing subject to a kind of fatal Ant. jud. necessity. For thus Josephus says expressly: “Theybelieve p. 87L1,3’ everything is done by fate.” There are, however, some other passages in Josephus where he seems to hold that the Pha­risees thought otherwise, about the meaning of which there is still much dispute and controversy amongst the learned. Drusius confidently affirms that Josephus contradicts him­self ; our own Montague did not hesitate to say that what he wrote was false. Baronius determines that the Pharisees attributed every thing to fate; whereas Casaubon contends that Baronius was mistaken, attempting to shew from Jose­phus himself that the Pharisees believed in a kind of mixture

 

in Mat. of fate and free will ; with whom also Grotius appears to 22. 23. , j

 

have agreed.

 

§ 14. But let us again examine those passages of Josephus De Beil, which have given occasion to this controversy. “ They 8^14.H attribute all things to fate and to God: and to do what is p. 166. right or not, they say, is for the most part in men's own powrer; but that fate also assists in each particular act.” With this must be compared another passage, where he says Ant. Jud. that the opinion of the Pharisees was, “ that some things, and p. 649. not all, are the work of fate, but that some were in their own power to happen or not.'' It seems as if they divided all

 

events between these three causes,—God, fate, and man’s free c H A P. will; we must enquire what they attributed to each. With re- —xv: _ gard to God, Josephus does not sufficiently explain what were the opinions of the Pharisees concerning His share in events, for he only says that they attributed every thing to God and fate. In my opinion, they seem to have thought that nothing took place immediately and straight from God, but only through the medium of that fate which was ordained by elfmpnivn. Him of old at the creation of things; just in the same way as Maimonides interprets that saying of the wise men, All things come about by the will of God. “With regard to a well-known sayingf/J he says, “the like to which are both found amongst the sayings of the wise men, and in their writings also, namely, That a man rises or sits, and that all his movements take place, according to his will and plea­sure ; this is true but in a certain sense, and that, as if, when a man throws a stone into the air and it descends, we were to say it descended by the will of God,—this is true; since God hath willed that the whole earth should be in a centre, and therefore when any part of it was projected upwards it would be moved towards the centre; not because God hath now at length willed that when this part of the earth was moved it should be moved downwards. And on this point the schoolmen differ, whom I have heard say that His will is in every thing, from time to time, continually.

 

We, however, do not think so; but that there was will in the six days of the creation, and that afterwards all things flow on continually according to their nature, as He says, i The Eccles. 1. thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that 9‘ which is done, is that which shall be done : and there is no new thing under the sun/ ” Nay he even denies (which must be considered a miracle) that those very events which are called miracles take place by any immediate will or pro­vidence of God, and is not ashamed to assert, together with his insane wise men, that they spring forth as it were at their own time, from hidden causes which were established at the creation. For we presently find the following words : “ And this it is which has compelled our wise men to say of all miracles which swerve from the usual course of things,

 

f In octo capital, cap. 8. de indole liumana, p. 239, 240.

 

diss. whether they be now past or those which are foretold, that

 

1— they were designed in the six days of the creation, and then

 

were so interwoven in the nature of things, that what has happened in them, should happen; so that when at the time appointed they took place, they appeared indeed to be some­thing new, but in reality were not so.” He adds : “ They have said much on this opinion in Middrash Koheleth and elsewhere. Moreover, amongst their sayings of this kind there is, f The world proceeds according to its orders.’ You will find also that in their discourses they always carefully avoid asserting the Divine will in the several events of things and times,” &c. And it is plain from Josephus that this was actually the opinion of the Pharisees when he says that they believe “ that fate assists in each event.” That is, they held that nothing was done by God beyond, above, or contrary to, that fate. And in another passage in Josephus, the Pharisees, in assigning all events to their causes, determine that some things must be attributed alto­gether to fate, and some to man's free will; but they affirm that nothing comes immediately from God; much less, there­fore, does it appear from Josephus that the Pharisees acknow­ledged that special providence of God, which furnishes grace and assistance necessary for every good act; which, however, 18 LnC Gr°t;ms asserts to be most plain from Josephus, and that he has elsewhere shewn it to be so, alluding, if I am not mistaken, Mat 22.23. to his Annotations on St. Matthew, where he quotes these passages from Josephus.

 

§ 15. Let us now consider fate: By that, the Pharisees without doubt understood the order and constitution of the heavens, stars, and secondary causes depending on them, established and ordained by the First Cause of all things; which Josephus calls the second order, thus explaining the contrary opinion of the Sadducees concerning fate : “ But the Sadducees deny altogether the second order, that is, fateh.” But what did the Pharisees attribute to this fate ? “ that some things are the work of fate;” namely, not only mere natural events, in which man's free will has no concern,

 

? “l^n umfcn Dty ducees themselves, as he speaks of a

 

h De Bell. Jud. 2. 8. § 14. vol. ii. p. separate ‘order’ of Essenes, § 13.—Ed. 166. The ‘ second order’means the Sad-

 

Kard-

 

(TTacriv.

 

Sevrepov

 

ray/xa.

 

as, for instance, to be tall or short, of which alone Maimonides chap. interprets that saying of the wise men, “ All things are in —— the hand of Heaven,” &c.; but some of those things also which fall under a man's choice, as, to take such an one for his wife, to hold such possessions1, &c. By extending this saying to which, the same Maimonides says that men have made a great mistake, since the dispute between the Pharisees and Sadducees was only concerning those things which come under choice. And hence, as I may observe by the way, has arisen a custom amongst the modern Jews that those invited to a wedding wish good fortune to the parties to be joined in matrimony in the following form : “ May the planet be good niD blD or propitious,” (for so Maimonides says the word mazal is to be explained;) which words also they would inscribe on the ring for damsels that were betrothed, as Munster observes, in Gen.

 

§ 16. Meanwhile the Pharisees acknowledged “that there30' 1L were some things in their own power to happen or not,” and that to do right or wrong is generally in a man’s own power; so that they thought that fate had less share in those actions which are virtuous or vicious, and that man's own will was chiefly concerned in them: though not even all of these, accord­ing to the Pharisees, were in a man's own power, for they said generally not always. And even from those actions which are done by free will they would not altogether exclude fate : for they said that “ fate assists in each particular act.”

 

§ 17. They had also rather say, Fate assists than com­pels ; which Rabbi Abraham Zachuth shews, when writing of the Pharisees he says, “ They believe that the planet assists; nevertheless free will is left in the hand of man.” And I consider that from this opinion of the ancient Pharisees, rather than from the opinions of Maimonides or any other modern Rabbi, is to be interpreted that saying of the wise men which we have frequently mentioned : “ All things are in the hand of heaven except the fear of God;” that is, All things are subject to the fatal influence of the stars, except only the will of man in those things which pertain unto religion.

 

§ 18. And this description of the opinions of the Pharisees is the more plausible, inasmuch as it is given by Josephus,

 

1 He refers to an enumeration, only part of which is to the purpose.—Ed.

 

bull. N

 

D i s s. who himself also favoured that sect. From which I think it

 

:— is not difficult to gather that the Pharisees, whatever they

 

put forward to the contrary, still by consequence did away with all free will. For as we have seen from Josephus, they held that man's free will was subject to the fatal power and influence of the stars, even in some things pertaining to reli­gion. If in some, why not in all ? For surely in particular acts the influence of the will and of Heaven is the same; and if the human will be bound even to one link of the fatal chain, there is an end altogether to its freedom. Besides, they said that fate assisted in particular acts ; from which it follows that man never does any thing good or evil contrary to his fate: for instance, Supposing a man be under the in­fluence of an evil star from his birth, and so labours under SvancpcHTia an evil disposition; I ask, will this man necessarily turn out ill ? If so, then man's free will is destroyed by fate. But if it can happen that he may become good, it will follow that it is possible for him to act against his fate, and therefore that fate does not assist in each particular act. “Nor is it Appar. 7. wonderful,” as our most learned Montague has well observed, p. 262. (( ^ese hyp0Crites, these interpolators of the Divine law, impure and covered with crimes, justly abandoned by God, should have adopted profane, contrary, and opposite opinions particularly when at this present day, even among Christians, there are to be found not a few (in other respects learned and pious men) who think that the absolute and irresistible decree of God (far be it from me to attribute to them the fate of the Pharisees) can be reconciled with man's free will. In short, it is very difficult to stop one's course in this slippery study of the stars. He who has once entered these hidden regions, knows not whither he is advancing; he who attri­butes any thing to the stars, ends in attributing all things to them. And we see this in modern astrologers, who in de- pendance on this their science commonly go thus far, that whatever is singular, nay even miraculous, and done entirely by the extraordinary power of God, they attribute to the situation and influence of the stars. No saying is so often in their mouths as “The stars rule men, but God rules the stars," and “ The wise man will rule the stars."

 

From all this I consider Josephus to have written the plain

 

truth, when in the passage first quoted he simply says that chap.

 

the Pharisees thought every thing was done by fate, and there-------------- ——

 

fore that it is much more certain that Grotius and the person, in Mat. 22.

 

• 23

 

however learned, whom he professes to follow were mistaken, ' than that Epiphanius in explaining the opinions of the Pha­risees should have been mistaken, when he affirms that they made every thing subject to a fatal necessity through their love of astrology; especially as before Epiphanius, Justin, who lived near the age of the Apostles, in his dialogue with p- 370. Trypho, attributes the same error to the Jews. 1636. [c. ’

 

§ 19. But to return. From what has been said it is too 141P,23,1 manifest that the Pharisees both imputed their bad actions to a bad fate, and in their good actions, whatever they denied to the free will of man, they did not attribute to grace but to the force and influence of the stars, and believed their planet to contribute more to saving virtue than the Spirit; a good disposition, than a new nature; a happy temperature, than the renewing and regeneration of the Holy Spirit. And this is what I think the Pharisee meant in the parable, when he returns thanks to God that he was not as the publican, &c.

 

For they are mistaken who rashly conclude from this passage that the Pharisees acknowledged the necessity of grace; for the Pharisee seems to attribute his being good to that Divine Providence which gave to him at his nativity a more benignant aspect of the stars than to the publican, and hence a more Kara- kindly and good disposition; which Maimonidesk himself<TTa<Tl5' conceived to be a singular gift of God, proving it with wonderful acuteness from Prov. xxxi. 10. “ This saying of Solomon, f Who hath found an excellent woman V is a per­spicuous and evident parable, namely, that when a man is possessed of a good and convenient habit, which is not too powerful for him, and does not spoil or destroy his disposition, it must be acknowledged as a singular gift of God.” He afterwards gives this reason, “For a good and convenient habit may be easily governed.”

 

§ 20. This pestilent heresy of the Pharisees, St. James, jas. 1. writing to the Jews, seems evidently to attack. He is advising 13—19' the Jews, that being tempted, that is, being overcome by temptation, (for the word 7Teipd&crQai, must be understood

 

k More Nevochim, par. 3. c. 8.

 

N 2

 

Diss. here in its full force as in Gal. vi. 1, in which sense the active -— 7Tetpd&v is used, 1 Cor. vii. 5 ; 1 Thess. iii. 5,) they must not attribute their evil deeds to any fatal necessity, and so to God who had established that necessity; but they were to ascribe them, as they ought, to their own free will, enticed by lust. His words are: " Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted * with evil, neither tempteth He any man : but every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed; then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin, and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." How strongly are these words opposed to the fate of the Pharisees ! for their doctrine of fate, if not directly, yet by consequence, makes God the author of sin. For if nothing can be done without the assistance of fate, as they teach, it follows that no evil therefore can be committed by man, unto which fate, and therefore God the author of fate, do not lend their help, and also no man can do right if opposed by his fate. Besides, the opinion of the Sadducees was in direct opposition to the Pharisaic doctrine. But they taught that “ God could not be the cause of sin," and asserted "that we sin from our own carelessness." Therefore the Pharisees held opinions the reverse of these. In the following verses the Apostle cautions the Jews from attributing their good actions to the fatal Jas. 1.16, influence of the stars. His words are : Do not err, my beloved brethren; every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." Do (x>i tr\a- not err, is, as Grotius observes, a manner of speaking usual vaaee. when we wish to destroy any false ideas which either have or See l Cor. may creep into the minds of any. And what was that opinion Gal’ l6. T-; from which there was so much danger to the Jews ? that i Joh. 3.7. man obtained acceptable goodness from a fatal influence of the stars, and not from the grace of God abounding in us according to His free pleasure. This error he overturns with wonderful elegance in what follows. “ Every good gift," &c. True and perfect virtue, that which salvation accompanies, (for he does not deny but that men may have some imperfect dispositions to virtue from their birth,) doth not proceed from heaven and the stars, but from above, from a source above

 

the stars, from the Father, that is, the Creator of lights, or of chap.

 

the stars. From above has the same meaning as that in_________________ XV-_„

 

Job xxii. 12: “Is not God in the height of heaven? and behold the height of the stars how high they are ! '' Where in the height of heaven, means in the highest heaven, which is called by David the heaven of heavens, and by the Apostle the third heaven. For in the Scriptures three heavens are mentioned, the lowest, middle, and highest. The lowest contains all the three regions of the air : the middle, that in which are the sun, moon, constellations, and stars. In the highest is the throne of the Majesty of God. The mean­ing therefore of Job's words is : Behold, how high is that heaven in which the stars shine forth: and then consider how much higher is that God, that sitting on a far higher throne treads on the planets and stars. The Father ofnaT^pTuv lights occurs only once in Scripture. I think, however, ‘K™*' there is a passage in the Old Testament wrhere the stars are called the sons of God: “ When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for iov."

 

° ° J • Job 3i3. 7.

 

Where, by the sons of God, in the latter part of the verse, the Hebrews generally understand stars. Neither is there here any tautology, since the morning stars signify not all but only the brightest stars1. And the morning stars are according to them the seven ministering, that is, the planets, which are also called the stars of light. But these niceties tin'3D1D are not necessary to our argument: for the words rd </>wra 1 s‘ l48‘ 3‘ are to the letter the same as lumina, and by force of the article certain special lights, and by synecdoche heavenly lights. Father (Tlarrjp) is with the Hebrews, Creator or Author, as the Father of Spirits. By a like appellation Philo Heb. 12.9. Judaeus™ calls the Word of God “the supercelestial star, the fountain of sensible stars/' and “ a universal splendour, from which both the sun and moon, and the rest, both planets and fixed, derive according to each one's power its appropriate brightness." This sense of the words Father of lights is the most simple and literal, compared to which all others will seem forced and violent to a fair mind, so that I cannot but be amazed that among the number of learned and critical in-

 

1 "Ip2 frequently means the same as m riepi rrjs Ko<Tfxo-7rotas, p. 6. edit. “I1N. Paris, 1640. [vol. i. p. 7.]

 

Diss. terpreters, no one, as far as I am aware, lias yet hit upon — ‘— this interpretation of ours; especially as the following words, as they themselves allow, are all astronomical11; “With whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning •” that TtapaXka- is, the sun himself, the chief of the heavenly luminaries, hath ™pa\\d- parallax or changes, and bears a different appearance at fas. hig rising, and at mid-day, and at his setting: he also has his revolutions, his annual retirings from us, which we call solstices, and the Greeks rpoiras: hence our shadows change according to these retirings, which is the meaning of awo- (TKLa^eLv, to cast a shade or shadow. But that God, from whom every real virtue flows, as He is superior to the sun and to the stars, unto which some attribute so much, so is His light in­finitely more perfect; for He neither rises nor sets, nor retires, but is light only, unmixed with shade. The divine writer eon- Jas. 1.18. eludes his elegant discourse with these words:—“Of His own will begat He us with the word of truth •” that is, our being faithful and pious does not arise from any fatal necessity, but from the good pleasure of God through Christ; neither is it owing to any happy temperature caused by a benignant aspect presiding at our nativity, but to the renewing and regeneration, that new and heavenly nativity, which the Holy Spirit causes in us through the Gospel. These things seem very evident to me; however, let the learned judge.

 

§ 21. But to come to an end: hence every one may per­ceive under what a gross and profound ignorance of Divine grace all the teachers of the Jews laboured, the Sadducees avroetov- contending for an absolute self-power of the will, the Phari­sees giving the honour of Divine grace to fate and the stars. Thus then we behold how very necessary wTere the endea­vours of St. Paul, who so often, and in such powerful words, hath taught the force and efficacy of Divine grace, as opposed to the strength of free will and human nature.

 

" Yid. Grot, in loc.

 

CHAP.

 

XVI.

 

CHAP. XYI.

 

THE SECOND ERROR OF THE JEWS IN PLACING THE HOPE OF THEIR SALVATION IN THAT CIVIL RIGHTEOUSNESS, WHICH WAS CONFIRMED IN

 

THE LAW BY DEFINITE PUNISHMENTS.-------- HENCE IT HAPPENED THAT THEY

 

LIVED IN AN OBEDIENCE, EITHER NEGATIVE OR EXTERNAL, OR AT THE MOST, PARTIAL AND DEFECTIVE.—EACH OF THESE SHEWN AND PROVED FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE, AND THE WRITINGS OF THE HEBREWS.

 

§ 1. Another very gross error of the Jews into which most of them fell was this, that being content with a kind of civil righteousness, by which they avoided the punishments threatened in the law, they never thought of performing that more perfect piety also implied in the law, nor aspired to that excellent holiness, at which all sincere worshippers of the Deity ought to aim.

 

§ 2. This second error of theirs seems in some way to have arisen from the first, and to have been added to it as a kind of support; for having conceived that vain confidence in their own strength, it was their interest, nay, it was actually necessary, that they should invent for themselves a righteous­ness suited ^to that strength, poor, defective, and partial, exercising on the law of God a violence something similar to that which Plutarch relates Procrustes to have used towards his guests; that is, lest the law should exceed their strength, they cut it down to their own standard, and taking away its perfection they contrived to make their own, patched up as it was, sufficient. It may however be the case that the Jewish error above-mentioned, of the sufficiency of their own strength without the aid of special grace, might have arisen from this cause, namely, that they did not understand the true extent of the Divine law; but supposing the obedience commanded in it to be prescribed, poor, and easy of perform­ance, they attributed too much to their own strength, and did not acknowledge the necessity of a more powerful grace: like him who having set up an adversary of straw, assumes great courage, and promises himself an easy victory.

 

§ 3. But from whatever source this error arose, that the Jews did so err may be learnt from St. Paul himself, who was both taught by Gamaliel, a man of great knowledge of

 

Diss. the law, and had ranked himself among the Pharisees. He —LL— therefore said he lived blameless while he was a Pharisee, as Phil. 3. 6. to the righteousness which is in the law; where the word in Mat. laiv, as Grotius rightly observes, is used in the same sense as Seneca uses it in the following words: “ It is but a trifling matter to be good as far as the law demands;" for the Apostle means that law which the Hebrew judges observed in determining trials, and they could neither see into the heart, nor had they received authority to punish every actual crime, but only those which principally injured civil society. Therefore he says he was as to the righteousness of the law blameless, that he had committed no crime for which he became subject to the external judgment of the law, or to any of the punishments established in the law and imposed by the judges. For certainly he would scarcely in any other sense be able or dare to say that he had attained unto the righteousness of the law, or lived blameless as a Pharisee; ver. 7. yet this righteousness, whatever it might be, he clearly con- ver. 4. fesses that he once before his faith highly valued, and shews that it was greatly esteemed by his countrymen, who were still Jews, as something excellent of which they might boast.

 

§ 4. From this most impure source arose many of the worst Jewish errors concerning the obedience due to God. Out of many we will notice a few. 1. Hence it happened that for the most part they were satisfied with a negative re­ligion, thinking it sufficient if they abstained from sins, espe­cially the more enormous ones, being in the mean time little careful about the works of piety and charity which are due to God and our neighbour; that is, they were chiefly atten­tive in avoiding sins of commission as they are called, but perfectly careless as to sins of omission, because to negative precepts punishment is generally annexed, very rarely to Lu. is. li. affirmative ones. Hence we read of the Pharisee giving God thanks that he was not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as the publican, who was praying at a distance, making it a great boast that he was not among the worst of men. But what good had this proud Thraso done ? he had nothing to produce before God but some frivolous and Aer. 12. merely external acts. “ I fast," he says, “ twice in the week;

 

I give tithes of all that I possess." On which account,

 

\

 

a mere abstinence from crime, without holiness. 185

 

St. Clement of Alexandria0 explains the righteousness of the CHAP.

 

Pharisee and Christian thus : “ Except your righteousness----------------- —

 

exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, which is only an abstinence from evil, by that which adds perfection to these things, love and charity to your neighbour, ye will not be of the kingdom of heaven." For the righteousness of the Pharisee only amounted to an abstinence from crime; a great achievement truly. But what says even a heathen poet? “If my slave should say, I have stole nothing, nor run away, I would answer, You have your reward, you shall not be flogged; or, I have not committed murder, Then you shall not feed crows upon a cross." But by thus avoiding the greater crimes, these mad Pharisees not only promised themselves impunity but even madly dreamed of merit.

 

Hence the authoritative saying of the Rabbins, “He who abstains from breaking a commandment shall be rewarded as if he had kept a commandment15."

 

§ 5. 2. From this source sprung that dreadful opinion of the Pharisees, through which they paid no attention to the sins of the heart, as envy, pride, avarice, anger, unclean desires, and the like, being content with that righteousness only which is visible in external acts: for, as Grotius ex- in Mat. cellently observes, although they knew that the law was5* 20* given by God, unto whom all hearts are open, who wills Him­self to be loved from the heart, and forbids evil desires; yet because no express punishment was annexed to these com­mands, they regarded them as advice rather than precepts, or at least imagined that such blots were cleared away, partly by the daily sacrifices, partly by the annual expiation, so that God had no more remembrance of them. However this may be, it is very manifest that not only the common people, but even the Scribes and Pharisees had imbibed this error.

 

Hence Christ Himself opposes His most holy commands to Mat. 5. the dogmas of the Pharisees, teaching that although the ’ ' Pharisees considered those only as sins unto which a legal punishment was annexed, and therefore, for instance, men should abstain from murder because the law commanded murderers to be put to death; yet He Himself ordered His

 

° Lib. vi. Strom, p. 825.

 

p Mishnah lib. Kiddushin “Dtt* w D’OJTO

 

D is s. disciples to beware of anger, being well assured that in the

 

next world it would receive a punishment no less severe than

 

murder doth in this; and that if any one should add to his anger cursing, he would receive a severer punishment than that generally enforced by the council, as for instance stoning; but that if the cursing be highly blasphemous, he would suf­fer greater torture than those burnt by slow fires in the valley of Hinnom. For Grotius has not unadvisedly considered this to be the most simple explanation of this passage. In a similar manner, Christ overturns the defective Pharisaic inter- ver. 27,28. pretation of the seventh commandment, shewing that not only was he guilty of adultery who had actually committed it, as the Pharisees taught, but he also who looked upon the See Luke wife of another with impure desires. Hence it is that our 18.* ^fiot* Lord so often and so sharply rebukes these Pharisees for 5^28?’ their avarice, pride, and other inward impurities.

 

§ 6. In short, that this was the opinion of the Jews may be clearly shewn from their own approved writers. I shall, however, only produce two proofs quoted by Grotius and by others before himq. The first is from Josephus, who, accu­rately instructed in Pharisaism as he himself declares, blames Polybius the historian for ascribing the death of Antiochus to an intended though not perpetrated sacrilege, adding, “ For since he did not actually commit the crime he intended, he did not deserve punishment.” But David Kimchi, that great master of the Hebrews, speaks more plainly, and inter­in Psai. . prets these words, “ If I regard iniquity in my heart, the 66‘ ,8‘ Lord will not hear me,” directly contrary to the meaning of David : “ Even though I should regard iniquity in my heart, which I should be even ready to perform, although it be before God as if I had uttered it with my lips, still God will not hear it, that is, not regard it as a crime; for God does not regard an evil thought as an act, except it be conceived against His worship and religion.” What expressions for a master of Israel! for he supposes that all the determinations of the mind, which do not come out into act merely from want of opportunity, excepting only apostacy from Judaism, are not imputed, or regarded by God, as sins.

 

§7. 3. The first error hath produced another, by which

 

these blind leaders of the blind imagined that a mutilated and partial obedience is more than sufficient for those pre­cepts which are established by no express punishments, thinking forsooth that they satisfied the law if they kept those precepts which are exacted upon pain of death: what­ever they performed of the rest, they regarded as a kind of supererogation. This wonderful doctrine is given by the masters of the Jewsr, in the treatise where they teach that so great a number of precepts—for they enumerate 613—are given to the Jews in the law, that out of them they might choose which they would, by the performance of which they would deserve eternal life. For thus Obadias de Bartenora explains this passage3: "Whoever shall sincerely observe even one precept of the 613, by that observance he will de­serve eternal life :" where by even one, he must be understood to speak of those precepts only which are not established under pain of death; for it is scarcely possible that the Jews did not believe that all those were absolutely necessary unto salvation: although I cannot deny that some sayings of the Rabbins apparently demand a contrary sense; and it is no wonder that these teachers, blinded by the just judgment of God, should have fallen into the grossest errors.

 

§ 8. There is a well-known maxim among the Jews men­tioned by Maimonides4: "That he who pays attention to the precept is free from the precept." And similar to this is the following11:—"It is not lawful to pass beyond the pre­cepts :" which Maimonides thus explains; " Whoever en­deavours to keep any one precept, must not pass from it to observe any other." The words of the Hebrew doctors in the Mishnahx are very express: "Whoever shall have kept any one precept it shall be well with him, his days shall be pro­longed, and he shall possess the earth." I know that Maimo­nides and others endeavour to refine these crude ideas of the Rabbins, but it is lost labour; for they conceive it to be neces­sary that a good work of this kind should be so great and valu­able, that by its addition its merits should outweigh a man's

 

r In Mishnah. lib. Maccoth. sect. u niVftn bv jltf

 

ulJ- f l x nns msoTnpiyn b i^b.

 

Nan D7ijj "rr? m ro? run Kidd. c. i . sect. 10. 1 m*»n id ids nis&n poiyn

 

CHAP.

 

XVI.

 

Diss. evil deeds. On which condition they bid him be secure of his —LL— salvation. Upon which subject, whoever wishes to read more quotations from the Rabbins may refer to a Dissertation 011 Legal Righteousness, and especially to the second chapter in a volume of select sermons, written in English by Smith, who was most learned in Rabbinical knowledge.

 

Mat. 5.19. § 9. Our Lord seems to rebuke this senseless and impious comment of the Pharisaic school in these words: “ Whoso­ever, therefore, shall break one of the least of these command­ments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.” How excellently these words are suited to the Pharisees, who both themselves neglected many of the commandments of God, a very few only excepted, and taught others so to do. Hence there immediately follows, ver. 20. “Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees,” &c. Equally clear is St. James, Jas. 2. 10, writing to Christians who had been Jews, “Whosoever shall n* keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all ;” i. e. Beware of that mutilated obedience to the com­mandments which, when Jews, you learnt of your masters; for that Lord, whose disciples you now are, demands a far different obedience of you, that you should diligently and carefully endeavour to keep all and each of His commands. I find that Paul Bergensis, a Jew, and also the learned Estius, agree with me in this interpretation, which naturally occurred to me; the latter also explains St. Paul's words in the same Gal. 3. 10. way: “ Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.”

 

§ 10. But the greatest danger of this doctrine, otherwise sufficiently dangerous, seems to lie in this point, that most considered themselves at liberty to choose what command­ments they would observe, which of course were the least and easiest, and the least disagreeable to their lusts, while they neglected those of far greater consequence; which Christ Mat.23.23. Himself accuses the Pharisees of doing; where He remarks their exactness in observing the commandment of tithes, and that they scrupulously paid for the smallest herbs, which it was doubtful if the law intended, and at the same time they neglected the weightier matters of the law,—judgment, mercy, and faith.

 

 

 

XVII.

 

CHAP. XVII.

 

A THIRD ERROR OF THE JEWS, PRINCIPALLY OF THE PHARISEES, THAT THEY ATTACHED MUCH RIGHTEOUSNESS TO CERTAIN FRIVOLOUS AND TRADITIONAL RITES AND CUSTOMS, AND PREFERRED THEM TO THE CHIEF COMMANDS OF GOD. THE FOURTH AND LAST ERROR WAS, THAT, CONTENT WITH THIS FALSE RIGHTEOUSNESS, THEY DID NOT THINK OF THE MESSIAH, WHO WOULD GIVE THEM A BETTER RIGHTEOUSNESS. LASTLY, FROM THIS DESCRIPTION OF JEWISH OPINIONS, FOUR OBSERVATIONS ARE DRAWN OF GREAT USE TOWARDS THE RIGHT UNDERSTANDING OF ST. PAUL.

 

§ 1. It was not, besides, the least folly of the Jews, particu­larly of the Pharisees, that they placed great righteousness in certain frivolous and ridiculous works, rites, and ceremonies, inventions of their own brains, unto which they ascribed so much as to prefer them to some of the most important com­mandments of God. Of this sort was that careful and anxious washing of the hands before meat, and after returning from market or any crowded place, where they might have been Mark 7. 3. easily polluted by the touch of some unclean person or thing, in which they observed such care as to wash up to the elbow, ad cubitum usque, as Theophylact in my opinion rightly ex­plains the word nrvyjir]. For their custom was, when washing to lift up their hands, and with the fingers contracted to re­ceive the water poured down upon them, which necessarily flowed down as far as the elbow. They also observed, with religious care, the washing of cups, flagons, and vessels of brass (for earthen ones, if polluted, they broke), and of beds, ver- 4* as St. Mark expressly declares, adding, that there were many other most trifling ceremonies of that kind, which they had received from their elders to be carefully observed. You may read much about these customs in the books of the Jews, and of those who have written concerning their man­ners, which I would here repeat did I not remember what the poet says,—

 

Turpe est difficiles habere nugas,

 

Et stultus labor ineptiarum.

 

§ 2. That the Pharisees placed righteousness in these un­meaning rites appears from the chapter quoted above, where they are said to accuse the disciples of Christ as guilty of a heinous crime for neglecting them; and that they put these ceremonies before the commands of God, even before the most important ones, Christ Himself shews, where He says that they neglected the command of God (even charity, called especially the command of God) to observe their traditions ; for being wholly intent on these ridiculous but troublesome rites, they neglected that important precept, which negligence was of itself a sufficient crime. But Christ proceeds to show that there were some of their traditions, which not only were averse from the practice of internal piety, but were actually repugnant to the commandments given by God, as superstition is wont to decline into greater sin; and these traditions were undoubtedly in the number of those which, having received from his fathers, St. Paul asserts that he kept before his conversion with the most ardent zeal.

 

§ 3. Their fourth error was, that the Jews, securely and contentedly acquiescing in this debased righteousness, sup­posing it to have no less weight with God than with man, were not anxious seriously to seek for the remission of their sins: neither did they endeavour to purify their minds, and to extirpate those vices which are usually concealed by men : neither, and hence arose the calamities of the Jews, did they perceive any need for a Messiah, who should apply medicine See Mat. 9. to that part which they did not believe to be sick. They did indeed expect a Messiah, but such an one as they had feigned for themselves; a glorious king, excelling in force, arms, and power, who should free the Jewish nation from the yoke of Roman slavery, and exalt the throne of David above all the empires of the earth. But so far from believing that the Messiah would expiate their sins by His own death, His death seemed to them disgraceful; therefore the cross of l Cor.i.23. Christ is said to be to the Jews a stumbling-block. That the law of Moses would have in Him its completion and end, that He would lead men by the light of His doctrine, and the power of His Holy Spirit, to a righteousness far more exalted than that which in their folly they had invented for them­selves, or even than that which the letter of the law itself prescribed; of this they never even dreamed, being profoundly ignorant of that great mystery, that Christ was to be the end of the law for righteousness, the end, completion, and perfec-

 

tion of the law; that through Him alone, whoever believed in c h ap. Him should be made partakers of true righteousness.

 

§ 4. Such were the opinions of the Jews on this subject of justification and works, which being now sufficiently explained as far as relates to our design, we will now deduce some ob­servations not wholly irrelevant to the subject we have in hand. And first, it is hence evident that they entirely mis­take the intention of the Apostle, who suppose him to con­tend against a sinless obedience, perfect and free from every error, as an opinion received and defended among the Jews.

 

From what has been said it is manifest that they were so far from such a persuasion, as on the contrary to remain content with an obedience extremely imperfect indeed.

 

§ 5. Secondly, it appears also that the doctrine which the Solifidians fix upon the Apostle is most hostile to his argu­ment ; for they suppose the Apostle to teach that good works are not in any sense necessary for justification: but I would ask, unto what good end or purpose would such doctrine tend among the Jews? Surely there was little occasion to depress the necessity of good works among those who were already, of their own accord, too careless about them, and of regulating their lives in the sight of God aright. It was much more likely for the most holy Apostle to spur on these laggers behind by strongly urging the necessity of true righteousness and genuine holiness, and by forcibly exhorting them to be purified from those internal vices, plunged in which they had hitherto remained in a state of torpidity. And this he actually does. Besides, did not these very Jews eagerly support this identical Solifidianism, (making only the necessary changes in the two religions,) which some suppose the Apostle to defend in his arguments against them ? for it is certain that they supposed that every Israelite, excepting those only who had rejected the profession of Judaism, and the faith of the covenant entered into with Abraham, would inherit a portion in another world, that is, in eternal life; which, changing the name of Judaism into Christianity, is the very doctrine of our Solifidians.

 

§ 6. Maimonides boldly and roundly announces this opiniony. “All wicked men, whose sins exceed their good

 

Diss. works, will be judged according to the measure of that excess, —--— and afterwards will have a share in the world to come; there­fore every Israelite will partake of life eternal2." But this maxim, “that every Israelite would partake of life eternal," is taken from the Mishnaha, where it is laid down as an un­doubted opinion among the Jews, a few only being excepted out of this so general a descriptionb: those namely, “who deny that the dead are to be recalled to life; that the law is from heaven; he who reads the books of heathens; who at- temptsto charm away a disease byrepeating Exodus xv. 26; and lastly, whoever attempts to pronounce the four-lettered name.” in Mat. 3. Munster also quotes this remarkable opinion from the Tal­mud : “ Abraham sits at the gates of hell, and does not per­mit any wicked Israelite to descend into the pitc."

 

§ 7. That this opinion anciently prevailed among the Jews, we learn from Justin Martyr, who followed closely upon the Apostles, and who, if any, was intimately acquainted with the Jewish system as taught in his time; in his dialogue with p. 369. [c. Trypho, near the end, after having said that the Jews could I40.p.230.] a^a^n ^rue wisdom, because they drank not of the fountain of the living God, but from broken cisterns which could not hold water, he immediately adds: “Now those are the broken cisterns, holding no water, which your Rabbins have dug for you, as the Scripture openly says, f teaching for doctrines the commandments of men/ and besides, they deceive both themselves and you, supposing that the kingdom of heaven will be given unto all who are descended from Abraham after the flesh, although they be sinners and un­believers, and disobedient towards God : which the Scriptures teach is not so." And soon after, in the following words, he explains the true means of obtaining remission or justifica­tion, in opposition to the dreams of the Jews, and others who supported them in this matter. “ But this it is, that whoever repents of his sins will receive forgiveness from God: but not as you, and others who in this respect are like you, deceive yourselves, saying, that though they be sinners, yet if they acknowledge God, the Lord will not impute sin to them."

 

chapter.

 

» Tract. Sanhedrin, ch. xi. [vol. iv. c Dim TIDD

 

e,d; ?urenl!usii-J . ... wa Trb rm1? xbv

 

b See Maimon. in explanation ot this PnT3n

 

Where by others who are like you he doubtless alludes to the chap. favourers of the Gnostic heresy, who, Irenseusd tells us, enter—XVI-‘- - tained that shameful error. I am for my own part perfectly persuaded that St. James the Apostle, writing to the Jews, intended the whole argument concerning faith and works, contained in the second chapter of his Epistle, against this deadly opinion as well of the Jews as of the Judaizing Gnostics.

 

But this by the way.

 

§ 8. That this strange opinion was prevalent among the Jews, is by no means obscurely hinted at in other parts ofSeeMat.3. the New Testament: St. Paul professedly opposes this opinion j0h. 8.39; nearly through the whole of the second chapter to the Romans, Rom’9' 6‘ where it is his design to shew that the Jews in vain trusted in circumcision and the Divine covenant, while they indulged in the most disgraceful vices, and were not careful to regulate their lives according to the law of God. Whoever then, lest See ver. 9. forsooth they should approach to Judaism, so ardently con- ver.^Tto tend that faith alone, without good works, is sufficient for the end- justification, have, with the Gnostics of old, fallen into the very depths of Jewish vanity and folly.

 

§ 9. Thirdly, from what has been said concerning Jewish opinions, we may guess the reason why the Apostle, not content with simply rejecting the righteousness of the law, against which he writes, treats it with such contemptuous language: for after having mentioned those privileges which, while a Pharisee, he so greatly valued, (and principally among these, that as to the righteousness of the law he was blame­less,) he adds, that having known Christ, he accounts all Phil. 3. 8. these things not only to be a loss, but dung, which seems to ffnipaXa. be the same as icval/Bakov, offal thrown to dogs : the word certainly signifies something vile and loathsome. Now who can suppose that the Apostle would speak thus reproachfully of the true righteousness of the law ? But, undoubtedly, he speaks of that human, negative, external and hypocritical, partial and frivolous righteousness, which he had learnt in the schools of the Pharisees; and no one, who weighs what we have just said of Jewish righteousness, will wonder that this appeared to him, when enlightened by grace, as vile, sordid, and loathsome as dung.

 

d See B. I. ch. i. 20. and Feuardentius’ notes on both passages.

 

bull. O

 

diss. § 10. Fourthly, and lastly, from this description of Jewish —— doctrines, the aim of the Apostle in the whole of his argu­ment against the Jews clearly appears. In truth, he is wholly bent on this : that wretched men who were continuing actually in sin but remaining unappalled through confidence in some fancied righteousness, asleep as the saying is with both ears, should at last awaken; and that acknowledging their misery, being also assured of the truth of what our Mat. 5.20. Lord hath told them, that unless their righteousness exceeded that which the Scribes and Pharisees taught, they could not enter into the kingdom of heaven, should fly as suppliants to Christ, the Mediator, both to obtain pardon from Him of the greatest sins of which they were still guilty, and to beg for the grace of the Holy Spirit and of His Gospel, by which, being delivered from the dominion of sin, they might arrive at that true and spiritual righteousness, without which no man can be accepted by God unto salvation. In one word, the Apostle does not drive the Jews from the true righteous­ness of works, but calls them from a false and pretended one, that he might lead them to that which was true.

 

CHAP. XVIII.

 

THE CONCLUSION; CONTAINING AN EPITOME OF THE WHOLE WORK, WITH A SERIOUS ADMONITION TO THE READER DILIGENTLY TO GUARD AGAINST FOUR ERRORS IN THIS CONTROVERSY CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION.

 

§ 1. By the blessing of God we have now reached the conclusion of our work. It is time to bring it to an end. My observations concerning the mutual agreement of St. Paul and St. James have been made, if not with the care so im­portant a subject demanded, yet at least as far as my time, leisure, and abilities would allow.

 

§ 2. The sum of all is this : St. Paul rejects from justifica­tion the following descriptions of works :—1st. Ritual works prescribed by the ceremonial law. 2nd. Moral works per­formed by the natural powers of man, in a state either of the law, or mere nature, before and without the grace of the Gospel. 3rd. Jewish works, or that trifling righteousness

 

inculcated by the Jewish masters. 4th and lastly. All chap.

 

xvm.

 

works separate from Christ the Mediator, which would ob----------------------- ~

 

tain eternal salvation by their own power, or without refe­rence to the covenant of grace established by the blood of Christ. St. James also, on his part, recommends none of these works, as appears from the whole tenor of his Epistle.

 

On the other hand, that moral works arising from the grace of the Gospel do efficaciously conduce, by virtue of the Gospel covenant, to the justification of man and his eternal salvation, and so are absolutely necessary, St. Paul not only does not deny but is employed almost entirely in esta­blishing. And this is the only point for which St. James contends.

 

§ 3. It was my intention to have given the reader, at the end of this work, a plan of the whole doctrine of justification, drawn up according to the meaning of both the Apostles; but, for the present at least, I have thought proper to omit it, lest the work should run out to too great a length, and especially because the prudent and attentive reader will find sufficient upon that point, in the course of these dissertations.

 

I would therefore only seriously guard the reader against a fourfold error in this controversy concerning justification.

 

§ 4. Let him first carefully avoid that dreadful error of some Roman Catholics (of some I say, for it must be ac­knowledged that all do not think so) who have not hesitated to assert that a heavenly reward is due to the good works of the just from condignity; that is, on account of their own intrinsic goodness and worth. Surely those do not deserve the name of Christians who teach such a kind of merit. And

 

I will confidently pronounce, that those who have thoroughly imbibed such a shocking opinion have never known or felt the grace of Christ. Modesty of mind is the very soul of Christianity, without which a man is but the corpse of a Christian, not a true and living Christian. But to such modesty what can be more opposite than this proud pre­sumption of merit? Indeed if there were any such merit, it would belong to those who say and think nothing of their own merits; for as Cyprian observes®, "In the Church there

 

e Epist. ad Lapsos. [Ep. 27. p. 38.] good deeds, means not to reckon as re- (Opus suum nunquam Domino impu- ceived but as paid.—Vide Grot, in An- taverunt.) Imputare, when it refers to not. ad Luc. xvii. 7.

 

o 2

 

Diss. have been always those who have nobly and wonderfully ——— acted, and yet never regarded the Lord as therefore indebted to them.” The aim and intention of St. Paul in what he says concerning justification, is completely in opposition to this opinion, it being his whole endeavour to cut off all human merit, and all opportunity for boasting, from these proud setters-up of their own works. The exceptions which these patrons of merit make, that the Apostle denies merit only to works done without grace, is extremely unmeaning; for it is clearer than the sun that the Apostle denies justi­fication and salvation to works done without grace, because, if they were admitted, some merit would seem to arise, and men would have some cause for boasting; on the contrary, he therefore allows justification and salvation to works pro­ceeding from grace, because by these means all human merit vanishes, and all cause for boasting in man is thus taken away, and the whole glory and honour of our salvation redounds to God, the bestower of it: so that by the very same argument which our sophists use to establish their condignity of works, doth St. Paul overturn their merit, namely, because they derive their origin from grace.

 

§ 5. Whoever then regards his salvation must guard against that calculating pride, and call not Almighty God to account as if in any degree indebted to him. He will remember that the right which the good works of the just have to eternal life, is founded only in the Gospel covenant and promise, the source of which covenant and promise is the mere and wonderful mercy of God the Father, through Jesus the Son. Which Bernard thus elegantly expresses upon the Apostle's

 

2 Tim. 4.8. words: “Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness.” “The crown,” says he, “which St. Paul ex­pected, is the crown of righteousness, not of his own, but of God's righteousness; because it was right that God should pay what He owed, but He owed because He promised.” You may add, but He promised because He pleased, on account of His own good pleasure through Jesus Christ. That observation of Augustine's on the hundred-and-ninth Psalm deserves noticef: “God is faithful who hath made Himself a debtor to us, not by receiving any thing from us,

 

but by promising so great things to us.” And that of Ful- chap.

 

gentiusS: “ From His bounty He thought proper to make------------------------- -

 

Himself a debtor;” although even these expressions are somewhat improper; and therefore Thomas, and the other schoolmen, preferred saying that God made Himself a debtor by His promises, not to us but to Himself; i. e. to His own determination, it being agreeable to His truth that He should perform His promises.

 

§ 6. From this error in particular concerning the merit of good works in the matter of justification, our Holy Mother, the English Church, would guard her sons by the eleventh article; whose words are these : “We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deservings: wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most whole­some doctrine, and very full of comfort, as is more largely expressed in the Homily of Justification.” The words are plain, “ only for the merit of our Lord, &c. and not for our own works or deservings.” It is indeed added, by faith, chiefly because confidence in the merits of Jesus Christ is principally necessary to the justification of man, united with a perfect renunciation of our own merits, for without such due modesty of mind it cannot be that our works, of what­ever other value, would please God unto salvation. This is the same as is meant in the Confession of Augsburg, which, as it is the most noble and ancient of all the Reformed Churches, so both here and in other places, the heads of our Church have followed it, so that whoever is ignorant of it can scarcely know the true meaning of our Articles; where in the twentieth article they acknowledge repentance (which includes all works preceding a man's justification) to be entirely necessary unto justification, yet assert neverthe­less, that we are justified by faith, evidently in this sense, that in our contrition or repentance there is no worthiness to deserve the grace of justification, and that for Christ's sake alone remission of sins is given us, and in short, that all Christians who intend to be justified must be perfectly per­suaded of this truth. The words are, “Although some con­trition or repentance be necessary, yet it must be observed

 

8 In Prolog, lib. ad Monimum.

 

DISS.

 

II.

 

that remission of sins is granted us, and we are made just instead of unjust, that is, the reconciled or accepted sons of God, freely for Christ's sake, not on account of the worthi­ness of our contrition, or of any works preceding or following it. But this blessing must be received by faith, by which we are to believe that for Christ's sake remission of sins and justification are given us. This doctrine affords sure conso­lation to frightened minds." Who does not remark the coincidence between these last words and the conclusion of our eleventh article? In the fourth article of this Confes­sion are the following words: “ Since the Gospel brings our sins to light, the alarmed soul ought to be convinced that freely to us, for Christ's sake, are granted remission of sins and justification by faith, by which we ought to believe and confess that these things are granted to us for Christ, who was made a sacrifice for us, and appeased the Father. Al­though, therefore, the Gospel requires repentance, yet that the remission of sins might be certain to us, it shews that it is given freely, i. e. does not depend upon any condition of our worthiness, neither is it given on account of any preced­ing works, nor the value of any following ones; for remission would be uncertain if it should be supposed that it became ours only, after we had deserved it by preceding works, or when our repentance was sufficiently worthy;" where, by the way, it must be carefully observed that the Augsburg theologians, when they so frequently put forward faith, by which we believe that our sins are remitted freely, do not mean that every one ought to believe that his sins in parti­cular are forgiven, and that this is the only justifying faith, (as many who profess to follow the Augsburg Confession im­properly explain it,) but they mean this only, whenever we are justified remission of sins is given freely and not from the merit of our works; and this is necessary to be believed by all justified persons. Their express words are: “We ought to believe and profess that these things are given us for Christ's sake," &c. But if any one doubts that this is the very meaning and intention of our Church in the eleventh article, I will produce an undeniable evidence against him, namely, the Church herself professedly, and in express words, thus explaining herself in the second part of the Homily on

 

Salvation: “But this saying, that we be justified by faith only, freely and without works, is spoken for to take away ~ clearly all merit of our works, as being unable to deserve our ip. 22.6xf. justification at God’s hand, and thereby most plainly to ex_ed*1840^ press the weakness of man and the goodness of God, the great infirmity of ourselves and the might and power of God, the imperfection of our own works and the most abundant grace of our Saviour Christ; and therefore wholly to ascribe the merit and deserving of our justification unto Christ only, and His most precious blood-shedding." Our Church ex­presses her meaning still more clearly shortly afterwards in the same Homily : “ The true understanding of this doctrine, [p. 23.] fWe be justified freely by faith without works, or, that we be justified by faith in Christ only/ is not that this our own act to believe in Christ, or this faith in Christ which is in us, doth justify us, and deserve our justification unto us, (for that were to account ourselves justified by some act or virtue that is within ourselves,) but the true understanding and meaning thereof is, that although we hear God's word and believe it, although we have faith, hope, charity, repentance, dread, and fear of God within us, and do never so many works thereunto; yet we must renounce the merit of all our said virtues of faith, hope, charity, and all other virtues, and good deeds, which we either have done, shall do, or can do, as things that be far too weak and insufficient and imperfect to deserve remission of our sins and our justification, and therefore we must trust only in God’s mercy and that sacri­fice which our High Priest and Saviour, Christ Jesus, the Son of God, once offered for us on the cross, to obtain thereby God's grace and remission, as well of our original sin in Baptism, as of all actual sins committed by us after our Baptism, if we truly repent, and turn unfeignedly to Him again." What can be said more clearly? for our Church here openly professeth, that she, by this her doc­trine, we are justified by faith only, did not mean that faith alone, without works, was sufficient unto justification, or that in the work of justification any efficacy or worth is to be attributed to faith above the other virtues; but that what she means is this, that as to the meritorious cause of our justification, we must equally disregard faith, and all other

 

DISS.

 

IL

 

[p. 25.]

 

virtues and works, and trust only to the Divine mercy and the merits of our Saviour. Moreover, she so denies the merit of good works, that at the same time she sufficiently and plainly allows their necessity to obtain justification, ac­knowledging that true and unfeigned repentance is the indis­pensable condition of the remission to be obtained. With this coincides the Augsburg Confession, (art. 20,) on faith: “When therefore we say that fwe are justified by faith/ we do not mean that we are made just on account of any value of that virtue, but this, that we obtain remission of sin, and the imputation of righteousness, through mercy for Christ’s sake.” And soon after in the same article, But St. Paul, when he says f faith was reckoned for righteousness/ speaks of confidence in the mercy promised through Christ. And the meaning is, that men are pronounced just, i. e. recon­ciled in mercy, and not for their own goodness, but that this mercy promised for Christ’s sake must be received by faith. In this sense, the uncommonness of the Apostle’s expression, fwe are justified by faith/ offendeth no good men, if they understand it to be strictly said of mercy, and that it is ornamented by true and necessary praise,” &c. You here see the aim of the Augsburg Confession, in saying, we are justified freely by faith only; namely, to depress the sup­posed value of our own works, and that the mercy of God, and the merits of Christ, might receive their due praises. Besides, they confess that the Apostle’s expression, we are justified by faith, is not strictly to be taken, but is figurative. So our Church in the Homily on Salvation, Part 3.

 

“ Truth it is that our own works do not justify us, to speak properly of our justification, that is to say, our works do not merit or deserve remission of our sins, and make us of unjust just before God; but God of His own mercy, through the only merits and deservings of His Son Jesus Christ, doth justify us. Nevertheless, because faith doth directly send us to Christ for remission of our sins, and that by faith given us of God, we embrace the promise of God’s mercy, and of the remission of our sins (which thing none other of our virtues or works properly doth), therefore the Scripture useth to say, f that faith without works doth justify.’ ”

 

From which words appears the whole of what must be

 

separately attributed to faith in the work of justification in chap. the opinion of our Church, which is this : that although other —XVI-— virtues are no less necessary to justification than faith, and faith in reality has no more effect in it than any other virtue, but yet of all the virtues faith is that one by which we embrace the Gospel promise, by which promise we are justified; therefore by a convenient phrase, our justification may and is usually attributed to faith only, and this by a metonymy, in which the act is put for the object with which it has to do.

 

Cassander saw this, and so approved of the teaching of the Augsburg Confession, making the following remark in his advice concerning the above-mentioned article11; “But that which Protestants say, that we are justified by faith only, is more tolerable since they explain themselves by saying that by the word faith, they mean grace, which answers to it, so that to be justified by faith only, is the same as to be justified by grace only, not by works,” i. e. not by the merit of works. And in truth this is the mean­ing of all sounder Protestants. Thus the Wirtemberg Con­fession in the article on Justification1; “We believe and confess that for doing and exercising righteousness accept­able to God, these virtues are necessary; faith, hope, and charity; and that man cannot conceive these virtues of himself, but receives them from the favour and grace of God, and that faith works by love. But we consider that they are most opposed to the true Apostolic and Catholic doctrine, who teach that a man becomes acceptable to God,

 

‘ and is accounted righteous before God on account of these virtues/ and that he must trust to the merits of these virtues at the judgment of God. For a man is made acceptable to God, and accounted righteous before Him, solely for the sake of the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, by faith; and at the judgment of God no confidence is to be placed in any merit of those virtues which we have, but solely in the merit of our Lord Jesus Christ which becomes ours by faith.

 

And since at God's tribunal, where true and eternal righteousness and salvation is treated of, there is plainly no place for men's merits, but only for the mercy of God and

 

h P. 18, 19. ex edit. Grotii. 1 Syntag. Confess, p. 144.

 

Diss.

 

II.

 

pp. 252, 253.

 

the sole merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is received by us through faith: wherefore we consider that the ancients and our Fathers said correctly, We are justified before God by faith only/' So also the speakers on behalf of the Augsburg Confession, at the second conference at Ratisbon: “ It re­mains that we use the word only, and say that men are justified by faith only: for some misrepresent this, as if we meant that a mere lifeless opinion concerning the Christian religion were sufficient for a man's salvation, without any regeneration of the man to the will of God, without repent­ance, and without the exercise of good works, as if by this word only we exclude from faith, hope and charity. But we in preaching justifying faith, at the same time explain what it is, and plainly testify that that is not true faith in Christ which is without repentance for sins, hope and charity, and the exercise of good works. And when we say with the holy Fathers, that we are justified by faith only, we declare that it means the same as in the Apostle's words, that we are justified freely and without works; so that this word only excludes good works and other virtues not from the justified man, but from the power of meriting remission of sins and eternal life; so that to say f we are justified by faith only,' is nothing else but that we are justi­fied by no merits of our own, but by Christ's alone, which are given to us, and we on our part apprehend by faith. And since this is the genuine use of this word, and the ancient Church used the same for the edifying of the faith, it is not for us to concede the use of it to those who endeavour to detract from the grace of God, by the praise of human works. As neither would the holy Fathers of old concede to the Arians the word o/jloovo-iov, c of one substance,' when they saw that by so doing they would be giving a kind of appro­bation to their impiety, and obscuring the truth. For the Church of Christ is mistress, as of things, so also of words, as far as this, that she make use of all, both things and words, for the edifying of the faith in Christ." The same speakers, in their answer to the twenty-first reply of the speakers of the oppo­site party, put forth the same views. The Romanists had said, "Ye yourselves, and the superiors of your order, have judged that the word only is offensive, and therefore

 

should be omitted: why then do you not give it up both now chap. and for ever, for public peace and edification ? Surely it is a xv?n* Christian's duty to avoid all offences as far as in him lies.

 

Now this word only is a great stumbling-block to many, nor is it given us in Scripture: wherefore it may be omitted without any injury to saving doctrine. It is there­fore your duty to give it up." To which, after a few remarks in explanation and defence of this word, the speakers on our side reply: “Notwithstanding, if some pious men are of­fended at this word who yet admit the thing itself, namely, that we are justified by the sole mercy of God and merits of Christ, and by no virtue or merit of our own, we wish not to grieve or offend such by this word, which as we use it very rarely elsewhere, so neither is it inserted in our own Confes­sion. And yet on that account to reject it and condemn its use, as that cannot be right, so no one ought to require it of us. Least of all is it lawful to concede this word to those, who by that concession would endeavour to confirm man in that error than which none is more dangerous, That our justification is not of the grace of God alone, and the sole merits of Christ, but in some measure of our works and vir­tues : justification, that is, of life, and the confidence of ever­lasting salvation. Neither is that word oyboovaiov expressed in Scripture in so many letters, yet since that," &c. In the same way is the doctrine explained in the Repetition of the Augsburg Confession, written in the year of our Lord 1552, that it might be shewn to the Council of Trent; and pub­lished first under the name of the Confession of Doctrine of the Saxon Churches, and afterwards confirmed by the general consent of the Churches and Universities which followed the Augsburg Confession: which in the part on remission of sins and justification thus teachesk : “Therefore this phrase (we are justified by faith,’ must be understood correlatively, that is, we are justified by confidence in the Son of God, not on account of our own quality, but because He is the Pro­pitiator in whom the heart relies," &c. And again: “ And here we must speak of the exclusive particle : St. Paul so often repeats the word ‘ freely' (gratis), by which word it is most certain that the condition of our merits are excluded.

Therefore it is said in our Churches, ‘ we are justified by faith only/ Which we thus understand and declare : f freely/ on account of the only Mediator, not on account of our contri­tion or any other merits of our own, are remission of sins and reconciliation granted unto us. For although contrition pre­cedes consolation; and the love of God, and many other virtues, are excited together with this faith or confidence; yet these virtues are not the cause or merit of remission of sins, nor on account of these is a person acceptable," &c. And so, lastly, Melancthon on the word faith1. “Wherefore, when it is said f we are justified by faith/ nothing else is meant than that we receive remission of sins and are accounted righteous for the sake of the Son of God; and since this blessing must be apprehended, it is said to be so by faith; that is, con­fidence in the mercy promised for Christ's sake. The pro­position, then, f we are righteous by faith/ must be under­stood correlatively; that is, through mercy for the sake of the Son of God are we righteous or accepted. The nature of nouns relative111 in use is well known; and as love, fear, and other names of affections are spoken relatively, so also is con­fidence. Nor do I very much fear the foolish reproofs of the unlearned; neither do I object to what some bring forward, namely, that love is joined to this confidence. But when we say, fwe are justified by faith/ we point to the Son of God sitting at the right hand of the Father, interceding for us: for His sake we say that reconciliation is given to us, we withdraw the merit of reconciliation from our virtues, what­ever they may be." And yet afterwards in its place, it is said that love and the other virtues ought to exist in the regenerate. “ And in short, when we are accused of this dogma, that we say f a man is justified by faith/ we are only accused because we affirm that we receive reconciliation for the sake of the Son of God, not for our own worthiness; and

 

1 In loc. praecipiis Theolog. Corpus to something of which it is the head.

 

Theolog. p. 424. [vol. i. p. 199. Op. See S. Thom. Sum. 1. P. Q. xiii. Art.

 

ed. 1562.] vii. ad 1. Yallius. Log. de ad aliquid

 

m ‘ Secundum dici,’ which is opposed Q. viii. c. 2. p. 535, says of these that

 

to ‘ secundum esse,’ where a thing is they may be viewed in three ways:

what it is only with respect to another, absolutely in themselves, only in their

as father to son. These, on the con- relation, or both in themselves and in

trary, are only names of things to which relation. Melancthon seems here to

certain relations belong, as a head is take the second of these.—Ed. in itself a head, but has a relation also

that this blessing is to be believed, or apprehended by this chap.

faith or confidence, and Christ's merits to be opposed to our sin and commendation, and that God is to be called upon in this faith or confidence which looks up to the Son of God."

It is most certain that these opinions are the very voice of the Gospel, and the continual belief of the true Church. In the same book, in treating of faith, inasmuch as it is a part of repentance, he says11: “ Contrition0 without faith is the horrible dread and grief of the soul flying from God, as in Saul and Judas, wherefore it is no good work. But contri­tion with faith is the dread and fear of the soul not flying from God, but acknowledging the righteous anger of God, and truly grieving for having neglected or despised Him, and yet coming to Him and imploring pardon. Such grief becomes a good work and sacrifice, as the Psalmist saith : f The P». si. 17. sacrifice of God is a troubled spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, shalt Thou not despise.' And yet it is neces­sary to censure and reject the opinion which supposes that men merit remission of sins by contrition, or that remission of sins is granted them for the worthiness of their contrition.

The voice of the Gospel must be kept to which proclaims,

Sins are remitted freely for the sake of the Son of God. This must be exclusively held, that due honour be paid to Christ, and likewise that terrified souls may obtain certain consola­tions ) for they would be driven to despair were they obliged to feel that they had not remission unless their grief were sufficiently worth and enough. This simple view does away with many labyrinths of disputes." From these proofs it must be quite clear how entirely amiss most later Protestants have understood the doctrine of the early ones concerning justification by faith only, in supposing that they attributed to faith, above all the other virtues, an instrumentality, strictly speaking, in the work of justification. This is a mere dream, for it is plain from their own teaching, which we have explained at length, that they ascribe no especial efficacy, and so no instrumentality to faith above other virtues in the matter of justification, but that they only meant that faith alone, of all other virtues, signifies a respect to the free mercy of God promised through Christ, which is the primary cause of our justification, and so, by a figurative, but not an im­proper method of speaking, we may say we are justified by faith only; and that this expression is by all means to be kept, because it is best suited to express that grace and mercy of God by which, for Christ's sake, we are justified, and so entirely to remove all human merits from the work of justification, which the Fathers of the English Church have well expressed in the Homily on Salvation (Part III.): “And this form of speaking use we, in the humbling of ourselves to God, and to give all the glory to our Saviour Christ, who is best worthy to have it." Certainly our Church, however Rogers and others, somewhat bold, and so in many places most unfortunate interpreters of our Articles, may have other­wise understood her meaning, hath most plainly denied this instrumentality of faith in the Homily on Salvation (Part II.); [p. 28.] for she thus speaks: “ Justification is not the office of man, but of God," &c. And again, “ Justification is the office of God only, and is not a thing we render unto Him, but which we receive of Him;" &c. And thence she expressly concludes, that as to the act and office itself of justifying, nothing more must be ascribed to faith than to other virtues, as is plain from the words immediately following and those already quoted. And surely the conclusion is clearer than the light; for if justification is the act and office of God alone, it is most certain that neither faith nor any thing else of ours, can possibly take the place of an instrument in the work of justification, since every instrument is of such a nature as to concur of necessity with the principal efficient cause, as we have elsewhere remarked in our Dissertations.

I will sum up the matter in a few words. When the first Protestants taught that we were justified by faith alone, they did not therefore mean that by this faith other virtues and other good works were excluded, as by no means necessary for obtaining of justification, or that faith had in the work of justification a greater effect than other virtues. But they would have this proposition regarded as true in this sense only, that the word faith denotes such an obedience as is united with confidence in the merits of Jesus Christ, and a perfect rejection of all merits of our own, and which therefore excludes all those works which are performed with any con­fidence in, or opinion of, our own merits. It is this which Melancthon means in his Apology for the Augsburg Con­fession, in answer to the question. What is justifying faith ? “ The difference between faith and the righteousness of the law, may be easily perceived. Faith is a service, Xarpela, which receives from God the blessings offered us; the righte­ousness of the law, that which presents to Him our own merits. By faith God would be so worshipped that we should receive from Him what He promises and offers P.” Which is clearly explained by Ludovic Crociusq. “Faith alone justifies so far as it denotes a certain obedience waiting for the promise as a free gift, wherefore, formally, it consists in the application of the promise. Yet certain dispositions precede this very act of faith, and certain fruits follow, whence the word includes many virtues and acts both preceding and following it, and it is opposed to that obedience which does not expect the promise as a free gift, but as a reward proposed on the condition of some work, without that acknowledgment and gratitude which is naturally required in every gift how­ever free. And obedience of this kind is by the Apostle peculiarly called af work/ and by the Latins properly,f merit/ and those who obey on this condition are called f workers/ And if the expression be so understood, those works which are inconsistent with faith, i. e. which are performed in confidence of their own merit, are entirely excluded, not only being denied as able to justify, but even to be present in the justified, or in those who are to be justified.” To this I think it unnecessary to add a word. But it must be carefully observed, that all the testimonies of our Church which I have as yet produced, are taken from the Homily on the Justification or Salvation of man. To which Homily, as a fuller explanation of the eleventh article, our Church expressly refers us. What room for doubt then remains? Do we enquire after the sense of the eleventh article ? We are referred in that very article to the Homily on the Salvation of man. What doth the Church teach there ? She declares again and again, and that in the most express words, that in this article she opposes the merit only of good works1*. Neither is it undeserving of notice, that of the thirty-nine articles of the Church of England, thirty-eight are laid down without any explanation; but this one, on the Justification of man, is not given without this express caution, that a fuller and more complete explanation of it must be sought in the Homily on Justification. For the reverend Fathers of our Church were very anxious lest any man, too superstitiously adhering to the words of the article, should twist them into some dangerous sense, which alas! we see at this day to be too much done by many; therefore it is wonderful with what anxiety and care those excellent and wise men provided that their doctrine of justification by faith only should not other­wise be understood than as we have explained it, namely, that by it all presumption of our merits being entirely taken away, the grace of God, and the merits of our Saviour Christ, might receive their due, even the highest degree of honour and esteem. And thus far of the merit of good works.

 

Having passed therefore this Charybdis of the Romanists, let the Christian reader avoid in every possible way the Scylla of the opposite side. I mean the error of the Soli- fidians and Antinomians, who entirely deny the necessity of good works to eternal justification and salvation. Of this most dreadful heresy, this must be first observed, that the supporters of it, while they reject the necessity of good works, lest there should be any appearance of merit, by that very step actually establish the merit of good works. For why do they deny that good works are necessary to justification and salvation ? Because, to be sure, if this be allowed, our justi- Kar’ 6<pd- fication and salvation would then be of debt, not of grace, ^dp^KaTa ^ Pure grace °f God. Does it not clearly follow, from this mode of reasoning, that there is always some merit in the good works of men ? Now this is the very thing for which the Roman Catholics contend. Yet this by the way. But the necessity of good works depends upon the same circumstance as their value and efficacy; that is, they avail unto justification and salvation only so far as they are a condition to which God, of His mere favour, hath promised in the Gospel covenant justification and salvation. And for that'very cause we rightly conclude them to be necessary, because no man, according to the Gospel covenant, can be justified, or obtain salvation, who does not fulfil the condition of that covenant. The case is this : God being moved of His infinite goodness signally to bless us, but being prevented by sins which deserved punishment, appointed that Christ, willingly from His love towards us, by suffering most dreadful torture, a cruel and shameful death, should pay the punish­ment due to our sins, that the proof of Divine justice being thus evidenced, He might impart His blessings to men in such manner as should seem best to His wisdom. By which the gate of heaven was opened to miserable sinners, pardon of their sins and eternal life were offered to them, and not only offered but even assigned over by a covenant, drawn up and ratified upon the best and most righteous conditions, which is called the Gospel covenant. From the whole of this plan are excluded not only our works, but faith itself, and every thing we can call our own. But these things are not the same with justification, they altogether belong to satisfaction, and the obtaining of salvation. Now this covenant being established, that any one should actually and really be a partaker of the benefits it comprehends, it is abso­lutely required that he should perform the condition pre­scribed in it, which being performed, and not otherwise, he is by that covenant justified. But we have shewn, by many reasons and arguments, that this condition includes not only faith, but repentance, and the study of good works. Here the merit of Christ does not perform that office which many so dangerously and absurdly dream. For Christ hath not merited, nor is His righteousness imputed to us for this purpose, that we should be freed from the conditions of the Gospel laid upon us by Himself, (that is, faith, repentance, and the study of good works,) but by His merit He hath obtained that upon this most righteous condition we might become partakers of salvation, and He also hath merited grace for us, by which we are enabled to perform that very condi­tion. It is therefore greatly to be wished, that this distinc­tion between procuring salvation and the application of it by the Gospel covenant, however it may seem sufficiently obvious, was more rightly understood by most theologians; for if it were, an end would easily be put to many great dis­putes in this controversy.

 

§ 8. What we have said concerning the absolute necessity of good works is most certain: nevertheless, even here there is need of some caution, that the Christian reader may accurately distinguish between the first and second justifica­tion, and so between the good works which are necessary to each. And here it must be understood, that only the internal works of faith, repentance, hope, charity, &c. are absolutely necessary to the first justification; but the other external works, which appear in outward actions, or in the exercise of the above-named virtues, are only the signs and fruit of internal piety, being subsequent to justification, and to be performed provided opportunity be given. Without doubt this is the meaning of our Church in the twelfth article, where it is said that works are the fruit of faith, and, as it were, signs by which faith is known, and which follow the justifi­cation of man. For here by works must necessarily be un­derstood external works, or that actual obedience which pro­duces a continued course of actions. This may be proved by the strongest arguments.

 

For 1st. The Church, in express words, teaches that .repent­ance, charity, and the fear of God, are necessarily, inseparably, and always united with that faith which precedes justification. For thus the Homily on Salvation, (Part II.,) explains the opinion of the Fathers' saying, that men are justified by faith alone: “ Nevertheless this sentence, that we be justified by faith only, is not so meant of them, that the said justifying faith is alone in man, without true repentance, hope, charity, dread and the fear of God at any time and season.” 2ndly. Our Church every where inculcates repentance in particular, as a preceding disposition necessarily required to obtain pardon of sins. Of this, innumerable proofs might be given; but he who dares to doubt whether this be the doctrine of our Church, has too unworthy an opinion of her. 3rdly. The works which the twelfth article of the Church affirms to be posterior to justification, are undoubtedly of the same kind with those which, in the immediately preceding words of the

same article, are called the fruits of faith, and by which, in c h a p.

the end of the article, faith is said to be externally manifested. ‘

 

Now it is most certain that our Church by works, which she affirms to be the fruits and signs of faith, means external works only, which are conspicuous to men, and which ex­ternally prove the sincerity (otherwise known to God alone) of our faith, i. e. our internal piety, that it may, in some measure, be perceived by men: for who in his senses would say that faith is shewn by the internal virtues of hope, con­trition, charity, &c. as by signs ? surely these virtues are just as internal and removed from the sight of men as faith itself. If you say that the Church here speaks of the notifi­cation of our faith, not to others but to ourselves, we are just where we were, for our internal virtues as well as our faith are unknown even to ourselves. Therefore the sense of the Church is manifestly this, that true and lively faith, such, namely, as hath a sincere purpose of obedience, united with confidence in Christ, (for so our Church often professedly explains herself in the Homily on Faith, Part I.,) is not shewn either to ourselves or others, but by works corresponding to such faith. Does any one still doubt? the Church affords him still farther information in the second part of the Homily on Faith, which is entirely on this subject. There, after having shewn in the first Homily, that lively faith compre­hends hope, charity, and the fear of God, she proceeds to shew how each of these internal virtues must be proved and shewn by external acts corresponding to their nature. Among other things it is said, that Christ Himself “ doth most clearly [pt. 2. affirm that faith, hope, and charity, cannot consist or stand p‘ 36‘^ without good and godly works." And in the conclusion: [p. 37.]

“ As the love of God is tried by good works, so is the fear of God also, as the Wise Man saith : ‘ The dread of God putteth Eccies. 1.

away sin;' and again, ‘He that feareth the Lord will do ’ 1 good works/ ” Who now doubts but that by these works the Church means only external works ? for certainly the virtues of hope, charity, and the fear of God, are internal works.

 

§ 9. Fourthly and lastly. In this sense our Church clearly [pt. 1. p. explains herself in the Homily on Good Works, where are 43 ^ quoted the words of Chrysostom3; “1 can shew a man that

by faith without works lived, and came to heaven; but with­out faith never man had life. The thief that was hanged when Christ suffered, did believe only, and the most merciful God justified him. And because no man shall say again that he lacked time to do good works for else he would have done them, truth it is, and I will not contend therein, but this I will surely affirm, that faith only saved him. If he had lived, and not regarded faith and the works thereof, he should have lost his salvation again." Every one must see that here Chrysostom, and our Church after him, speaks only of ex­ternal works, or pious actions; for first, these words are spoken of those works only, without which a faithful man may arrive at the kingdom of heaven; but without the internal virtues of faith, hope, and charity, no man can be saved, as all in their senses allow. Lastly, the thief suffering, together with our Saviour, on the cross, is here produced as an example1. But it is certain that the thief was possessed not only of faith, but of repentance for his own sins, and sincere love towards Christ and his companion. Lastly, those works only are here alluded to which a faithful person, through want of time and opportunity, sometimes cannot perform. Thus doth the Church explain the meaning of Chrysostom in the words immediately following: “ Here ye have heard the mind of St. Chrysostom, whereby you may perceive that neither faith is without works (having oppor­tunity thereto) nor works can avail to everlasting life without faith." Now external works only can want time and oppor­tunity, to internal works there is no such obstacle. Thus elsewhere doth Chrysostom explain himself11: “ Virtue of mind must be sought for, which God knows before works.” Similar to which is the observation of Jerome*: “In the law works are required, which whoever does shall live in them. In the Gospel the will is required, which, although it cannot be put into execution, does not lose its reward." Grotiusy, therefore, rightly observes that in the words of the Fathers, when they say men are justified by faith even before works, that such faith must be understood as includes the

purpose of obeying God and the Gospel, inflamed with a love chap.

of God and our neighbour, if not the most perfect, at least :--------------- —

sincere: which is called “ believing with the whole heart.” Acts 8. 37. But such faith, Grotius continues, if death should immedi­ately follow it, is said to be without works; not because unaccompanied by pious thoughts and sometimes pious words and deeds, but because the intervening time did not allow of a conspicuous and continued course of well-doing.

 

For works {ra epya) signify that which the Greek Fathers, particularly Chrysostom, often call (7roXireia) conversationz.

But the sum of this doctrine that incomparable man hath elsewhere briefly and excellently explained in these wordsa:

“ Where faith arrives at that pitch as to beget a sincere pur­pose of obedience, which cannot be without love of God and our neighbour, although that love may arrive at a much higher degree of perfection, his sins who is such, that is, has a perfected faith, fides format a t as Catholics call it, a faith consisting not in the intellect only, but in the will, his sins are forgiven; and if he should die such, he would have a right to eternal life, because so it seemeth good to God, according to His great goodness. But if after this, life be granted to him in order to retain that right, a pious bearing of the yoke, and particularly an abstinence from all those crimesb which injure the conscience, and exclude from the kingdom of heaven, must be observed; for a complete pardon and right to eternal life is given 011 this law and condition. This is the doctrine of the Apostles, and all the ancients.” I add, of our Church also, which constantly teaches that the grace of justification, first obtained by a lively faith, cannot be pre­served but by a continued course of good living. This is evident from the words of Chrysostom concerning the faithful thief above quoted, which our Church not only cites but approves: “ if he had lived, and not regarded faith and the works thereof, he should have lost his salvation again.” So in the second part of the Homily on Salvation, this expression of the Fathers, that we are justified freely, is thus explained :

—“When they say that we should be justified freely, they mean not that we should or might afterward be idle, and that nothing should be required on our parts afterward.”

Lastly, our Church in the sixteenth article, expressly teaches, that after we have received the Holy Ghost, we may, by fall­ing into sin, fall from grace. The divines of Augsburg deliver the same opinion in their eleventh article, where they condemn the Anabaptists, “who deny that those who are once justified can ever again lose the Holy Spirit.” And in the twentieth article, concerning the obedience of works, they teach “that those who commit mortal sins are not righteous, because God requires this obedience, that we should resist wicked lusts; but they who, instead of striving against them obey them, contrary to the commands of God, and commit actions contrary to their conscience, they are unrighteous, and neither retain the Holy Spirit, nor faith, that is, the confidence of mercy.”

§ 10. I will finish this discussion with the words of a most learned and excellent Prelate of our Church, who both well knew and firmly retained the orthodox doctrine on this point, and hath successfully defended it against the sophistry of Bellarmine, and other Roman Catholics. I mean Davenant, Bishop of Salisbury, who, in his very learned Disputations ciiap. 31. concerning habitual and actual righteousness, thus explains and confirms, in two brief but clear theses, whatever we have advanced here and elsewhere in these Dissertations concern­ing the necessity of good works0.

 

“ Conclusion 5th. Some good works are necessary unto justification as concurrent or foregoing conditions, although they are not necessary as efficient or meritorious causes. Among these good works I reckon those internal ones which are of great weight with God, although not perceptible by man, as grief for sin, hatred of it, a humble subjection to God, a flying to the mercy of God, hope in the mediation of Christ, an intention to lead a new life, and the like to these : for the Divine mercy doth not justify stocks, that is, men who do nothing, nor horses and mules, i. e. men who resist the grace offered, and obstinately adhere to their own lusts, but men, and these when struck with compunction and sorrow, and following the guidance of the word and the Holy Spirit.—And here let it be noticed, that when we say any thing to be necessary unto the obtaining this or that end, these words mean not a necessity of cause but of order. Although, therefore, I should allow this proposition, ‘that good works are necessary unto justification/ it cannot thence be inferred that they are necessary as causes, much less as meritorious ones. For example : If I should say that to obtain the honour of knighthood it is necessary to go to the king's palace and kneel before him, it would be absurd for any one thence to conclude, that the mere going there and kneeling down are the meritorious causes of obtaining that rank. In like manner must it be understood of all these works which on our part are said to be necessary to obtain justification.”

“ Conclusion 6th. Good works are necessary to retain and preserve the state of justification, not as causes which by themselves effect and deserve this preservation, but as means and conditions, without which God will not preserve the grace of justification in men. And here these same works must be regarded in the same point of view as those in the preceding conclusion; for as no one receives that general justification which frees from the guilt of all preceding sins, unless it be accompanied by repentance, faith, the purpose of a new life, and other actions of a like nature; so no person retains a state free from guilt, with respect to subsequent sins, unless the same actions intervene of believing in God, praying to Him, mortifying the flesh, daily repentance and sorrow for sins daily committed. The reason why on our part all these qualities are necessary, is this ; that if these be always want­ing, the vices opposite to them will begin to appear, which vices are repugnant to the nature of a justified person; for if you take away faith in God and prayer, contempt of the Deity and infidelity instantly succeed; if you take away mortification and the exercise of repentance, overpowering lust, and sins polluting the conscience, rush in. Therefore, because God is unwilling that the unbelieving, the obstinate, and the carnal, should enjoy the benefit of justification, He requires daily works of faith, repentance, and mortification, whose presence turn out, as it were, and keep away unbelief, obstinacy,presumption, and other tilings opposite to justify­—— ing grace, and particular pardon for particular sins is obtained. Rom.8.12. Hence St. Paul says, ‘If ye live after the flesh ye shall die/ iieb.3. 13. and f Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God/” &c. Thus have I shewn that the necessity of good works is taught fully in our Articles and Homilies, that henceforth no man, of the refuse of the Antinomians, may seek patronage for his dreadful heresy in the most holy teaching of our Church.

,§11. Thirdly. Moreover, in this question we must dili­gently guard against the Pelagian heresy ; and the necessity of good works must be so understood, as at the same time to acknowledge, and that from the heart, that the assistance of a pre-disposing and all-powerful grace is indispensably neces­sary that any should perform works truly good, i. e. accept­able unto salvation. From grace, the beginning, increase, and completion of our righteousness flow. To sinners it gives faith and repentance, to the faithful a good life, to those who live aright perseverance, to the persevering the crown of righteousness. So that there is none unto whom this grace is not necessary for righteousness; the sinner stands in need of it that he may acquire righteousness; the righteous that he may not lose it. So that the grace of God has the pre­eminence- in all men, and through all things. Therefore Crelestinus rightly observes to the Gallican Bishop's letter d; “ AVe confess God to be the cause of all good inclinations, works, designs, and virtues, unto which a man is inclined from the very beginning of his faith, and we doubt not but that all human merits are produced from His grace.” The praise of Divine grace fills every page of St. Paul's Epistles; and you would suppose them to have actually been written by a kind of prophetic anticipation against Pelagius. And St. James also, however strenuous an asserter he may be of good works, still openly acknowledges the thorough necessity of grace, the free gift of the Father from above, pointing it Chap. i out as the only source of every saving virtue and good work. 10—18. carefully warns all Christians to guard against the opposite error as most dangerous. The Synod at Orange hath therefore well remarked; “ If any one supposes that by the mere vigour of nature he can imagine any good tiling which chap. may conduce to eternal life, or choose any such thing, or even X-I1I: - consent unto any wholesome, i. e. evangelical preaching, he is evidently without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Ghost, is deceived by a heretical spirit, not understand­ing the word of God, saying in the Gospel, f without Me ye can do nothing/ And that of the Apostle, ‘ Not that we are sufficient of ourselves, to think any thing as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of Gode/ ” Andf: " A man has nothing of his own but falsehood and sin ; but if any man has truth and righteousness, he has it from that foundation for which we ought to thirst in this desert, that being sprinkled as it were by some drops from it we faint not by the wav.”

§ 12. Mistrusting then our own strength, let us worship God the Father as the source of every thing good; let us embrace Christ as the channel of grace, through and for whom the Father pleases it should be derived to us; let us continually cleave to Him, and from His fulness, by constant pray*er, draw grace for grace; let us depend solely on Ilim; Heb. 12.2. let us lift up our eyes unto Him as " the Author and Finisher of our faith.” Our house built on this foundation will be immoveable; but if we depend on our own strength, it will be without foundation, and, however magnificent in the eyes of men, will quickly fall to utter ruin. "Let therefore” (to use the blessed Jerome's^ words) "our whole discourse be a prayer to God; let every prayer and petition demand the clemency of our Creator, that we, who cannot be preserved by our own strength and endeavours, may be saved by His mercy.”

§ 13. Fourthly and lastly. Whilst we avoid Pelagianism, by acknowledging the necessity of grace, let us take care, on the other hand, that we fall not into the abyss of Manichean follv, by taking away free will, and the co-operation of human industry. The middle, the royal way must here be chosen, so as to turn neither to the left hand nor to the right, which will be done if we suppose that with grace, but in subjection to it, the freedom of the will amicably unites. This saying of Augustine is common, and well known : "If there be no ——— grace of God, how can He save the world ? and if there be no free will, how can He judge it ?” In like manner Bernard1: “ Take away free will, and nothing is left to be saved; take away grace, and there is nothing left which can save.” Therefore we must not so urge the liberty of the will as to be hostile to grace, nor so preach up grace as to take away free will. It is hard to say from which of these two errors the greatest dangers arise. “Let not/’ Yossius well ob­servesk, “ Let not our idleness be increased by him who de­nies free will, nor our pride by him who is ignorant of the gift of grace. In answer to both there must be equally preached the justice of God, which assuredly cannot exist without free will, and His mercy, which the enemies of grace would undermine.” But greater danger seems to be threat­ened by a denial of free will than of grace, as that learned man observes; “ for this last error is so very gross as always to be evident; and the light of the Gospel is so clearly given on this subject, that it can infect none but the unlearned and profane, whom ignorance and self-confidence easily seduce; especially if the pride of worldly glory be added. But all modest and pious men are more subject to the heresies of those who, like the Chaldeans, concerning whom John of Salisbury speaks in his Polycraticon, f impose a kind of fatal necessity on affairs, under pretence of humility and reverence to God, fearing lest His providence should be destroyed, unless a necessity accompanied the course of affairs.’ Which error, concealed by the veil of humility and piety, has, in proportion to its secrecy, the more dangerous effect upon the minds of men.” Excellent, indeed, are the words of Augus­tine, which are praised by the same great man1, “ Some are exalted to be proud by a too great confidence in their own will, and some are cast into negligence by a too great diffi­dence of their will. The former say, Why should we beg of God that we be not conquered by temptation, when this is in our power? The latter,Why should we endeavour to live well, since this is in the power of God only ? O God and Father, chap. which art in heaven, lead us into neither of these temptations, ^vm* but deliver us from evil.” Truly then, and according to the sense of all the Fathers (in Grotius’s opinion) hath Tertullian saidm, “It is not the part of a good and sound faith to be perpetually referring to the will of God, and so to flatter one’s self by saying that nothing is done without His per­mission, as if we knew not that there was something in our­selves. But every thing will be excused if we maintain that nothing is done in us without the will of God," that is, as Grotius rightly says, without His predisposing will.

§ 14. But perfectly divine is that advice of St. Paul's to chap. 2. the Philippians, “Work out your own salvation with fear and 12, 13‘ trembling; for it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure." Which is, Work out your salvation with the greatest modesty and humility of mind,— for so some of the Fathers interpret “with fear and trem­bling,” as if it were the same as, with lowliness, (jjuera Tairei- vo<ppocnjv779,)—since you can do nothing of yourselves in the work of your salvation, but it is necessary that the grace of God should work in you, and with you. Or, Work out your salvation with great fear and anxiety, lest you should be wanting to the grace of God, and extinguish His Spirit, which, if It should desert and leave you, would entirely destroy your salvation. Or, Work out your salvation with care and diligence, and be not afraid lest you should not have strength to fulfil what I recommend, for God worketh with you in this matter, and is ready of His goodness to assist you in overcoming all difficulties. In whatever man­ner you interpret these words of the Apostle, they totally overturn the irresistible operation of grace; for unto what purpose would be this grave exhortation of the Apostle’s, that we should work out our own salvation, if we could not work ?

§ 15. Exactly to define and to lay down the manner of the concurrence of Divine grace with the will of man, to say what grace can do alone, and what free will, in conjunction with and in subjection to grace, is a matter of no small difficulty; and by many learned and pious men hath been justly reckoned among the deep and unsearchable things of God. There­fore by the authority and great wisdom of our excellent King, it was ordered that none of our divines in their ser­mons should attempt to explain this inscrutable mystery. But although we be ignorant of the manner, the thing itself must be firmly believed.

§ 16. These, then, are the observations, my Christian reader, which I thought it necessary particularly to impress on your mind, lest you should either mistake the meaning of these Dissertations, or, in this matter of the highest import­ance, at the hazard of your salvation, err from the truth.

This be thy wisdom, Epicurus’ care

To seek where’s ‘vacuum,’ and what ‘atoms’ are.

Scholastic difficulties, laborious trifles, and learned follies, leave to those who delight in such things. You, if you know these things, will be wise; if you do them, happy.

To the Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, be all honour, glory, and praise for ever and ever. Amen.

 

THE AUTHOR’S POSTSCRIPT

READER,

SUBJOINED TO THE FIRST EDITION OF THESE DISSERTATIONS.

You must know, kind reader, that these Dissertations, together with the Preface prefixed to them, were written and sent to the press some years ago, when I was quite young. This is not the place for saying why they were published so late. I am now almost sorry that I even, at last, allowed an early unfinished work to be published, especially as the subject required a more experienced judgment and greater care. But I am much distressed that the production, of itself but too imperfect, and sufficiently declaring the in­ability of its author, should be disgraeed by such bad mis­takes, if they are not worse than mistakes, of the press, both in the pointing and in the text. I was not, however, able to correct the sheets myself, and it is not surprising that my hand-writing, which is very illegible when I write in a hurry, should have puzzled the compositor.

These mistakes, then, can be only remedied by my readers’ kindness, and I earnestly beg them favourably to accept this my first attempt in Theological studies, not refusing the trouble of correcting for themselves the most important errors of the press which are here noted, and to forgive me for any others which, in the review I have hastily made, may have escaped my notice. Again farewell.