HARMONIA APOSTOLICA.
OXFORD :
PRINTED BY I. SHRIMPTON.
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 SHEWN.
RIGHT REVEREND FATHER IN GOD,
GEORGE BULL, D.D.,
SOMETIME LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S.
6p9a svumiov TWV avvievrw, (prjcrlv % ypa^-f]' TOUT' effri rSov tiffot vir' avrou <ra07jyi<r0e?<raj' T&V -ypa(f>uv ^iff^ffiv Kara rbv tKKXt}ffiaffTiKbv K.av6va. ewSe^^yLtej/oi Sia(7w{ouaT Kavoav 5e e/c/cArja'iao'Ti/cbs ^ ffwcpSia /col r) ffvfj.(put/ia v6[j.ov Tf Kal Trpofpr]Tuv rfj Kara TT\V rov Kvpiov Trapovaiav TrapaSiSoyaeVp Sia^/cj?. Clem. Alexand. Strom. 6. [p. 803.]
OuSei/ \av6di/€L v/j.as, eoy TcAetws ei's 'Iijtrovv Xpiffrbv e%i7Te rfyv TrtTTiv, Kal r^jv aya.Tn]v, TJTJS IGT\V apx^l C'0^5 Ka' Te/^-os. 'Apx,^l V-tv iriffris, re\os 5e ayd-mr]. Ta Se ovo eV kv^Tt]Ti yfv6fj.eva, &€ou iffrip. Ta Se &\\a travra els Ka\oKayaQiav a.K6\ovOd ftrri. Ignat. Epist. ad Ephesios. [c. 14. p. 15.]
SECOND EDITION.
OXFORD : JOHN HENRY PARKER.
MDCCCXLIV.
ADVERTISEMENT.
WHEN a translation of the " Harmonia Apostolica," tlie "Examen Censurse," and "Apologia pro Harmonia" of Bishop Bull, had been determined upon, it was found that the " Har monia" had been partially translated and published by the Rev. Thomas Wilkinson in 1801 ; and though he apologizes in his Preface for its defective execution, and gives his rea sons for very large and important omissions, his translation was considered sufficiently correct to form the basis of the present ; in which, however, the whole has undergone a very careful revision, and many material alterations ; and all the omissions are supplied. That these last were very consi derable, will appear from the fact that, besides numerous paragraphs and sentences interspersed through the body of the work, the parts from page 102 — 117, from 169 — 181, and from 196 — 206, in the present translation are new, as are also the entire forthcoming translations of the " Examen Censurse" and " Apologia."
The author, as is well known, however deeply impressed with their importance, was averse to the publication of such subjects in English; but in excuse for the departure from this his recorded opinion, it must be urged that circum stances are altered in several respects, that the practice of conducting controversy in Latin (as is much to be regretted) has well-nigh ceased, and that the question here examined, of Christian Justification, has been brought much more into common discussion in English; so that to withhold these
VI ADVERTISEMENT.
works now, would be in effect to defeat the object of the Author in writing them, and to deprive those who are de sirous of arriving at the truth, of one of the most important aids in examining it; for it can hardly be doubted by any who will give them a careful and patient perusal, that these laborious treatises are highly conducive to a right under standing of the subject.
TO THE
REVEREND FATHER IN CHRIST,
AND
MOST HONOURED LORD,
WILLIAM,
THROUGH THE GRACIOUS, AND TO ALL GOOD MEN, MOST GRATEFUL PROVIDENCE OF GOD,
BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER.
MOST HONOURED LORD,
THE present work sent to the press under your auspices, is now released from the press and returned to you; having already experienced your kindness, and thus assured of meet ing with the same for the future, it confidently betakes itself to the protection and patronage of your illustrious name. Greatly did that saying of St. Ignatius please mea, "Let nothing which concerns the Church be done without the Bishop," and therefore I determined to publish no theological work without your advice. Hence I took care to place before you the following Dissertations in manuscript, (written some what roughly, though to the best of my abilities,) abiding your decision whether they should be for ever suppressed or committed to the press. The several chapters of each Disser tation were perused by you, (and that too not without care,) your patience overcoming their tediousness ; when read, you gave them your sanction, and what is more, with your ac customed kindness towards myself and all I do, adorned them with your praise.
Why therefore should I fear to place before you my work when printed, which when in manuscript gained your appro bation ?
But whatever the merits of the work thus dedicated to you, my Reverend Father, I wish thereby to manifest my grati-
a Epist. ad Smyrn. p. 6. edit. Vossii. [c. 8. p. 36.]
Vlll DEDICATION.
tude towards you. All who know me must be aware of the favour you have shewn me. Through your aid especially my lot has fallen in this diocese, with sufficient provision ; to you I am indebted for the leisure I have for these studies.
But why should I. mention these things ? Your many and illustrious virtues have gained the love and veneration even of those to whom you are not known either personally, or through any particular acts of kindness ; your published works bear witness to your learning ; your prudence and modera tion, your modesty and gravity, joined to extraordinary kind ness, and lastly the unspotted holiness of your life, are the admiration not only of your own diocese of Gloucester but well-nigh of the whole of England.
That Almighty God may preserve and increase these precious gifts and guard you in your Episcopate, and spare you to us for many years ere you return to Him, is the heart felt prayer of,
Your Lordship's most devoted son,
G. B.
ADVERTISEMENT
TO THE READER.
THE following Dissertations, good Christian reader, origin ally 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 read ing 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 here after to be committed to their care, those hard sayings, Svv- voyra, 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 shame lessly, and which many, by incrusting it with empty dis tinctions 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)
ADVERTISEMENT.
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 deli cacies 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 ; in asmuch 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 Dis sertation, 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 righteous ness, confesses himself to be (and he says it from his heart) the chiefest of sinners, and in the same Lord
FAREWELL.
CONTENTS.
INTRODUCTION.
(Page 3.) Difficulty of the undertaking — method to be pursued.
DISSERTATION I. CHAP. I.
(Page 6.)
The sense of St. James expounded — what the word ' justify' signifies in the New Testament ; shewn 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.
(Page 11.)
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 re quire works of repentance in particular. — An objection of our adversaries answered. — Faith and repentance of the same importance in the process of jus tification, 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.
(Page 19.)
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, shewn. — Hence an argument deduced.
Xll CONTENTS.
CHAP. IV.
(Page 23.)
The third argument from the nature of faith. — The three acts into which faith is divided hy divines, considered (knowledge, consent, confidence.) — That justifi cation is not necessarily connected with any of these, proved.
CHAP. V.
(Page 28.)
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.
(Page 32.)
The fifth and last argument, drawn from the implicit confession of our adver saries. — 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, shewn from both these points.
DISSERTATION II. CHAP. I.
(Page 43.)
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.
(Page 46.)
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.
(Page 54.)
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 Placaeus concerning the twofold accusation, from whicli we are freed in justification.
CONTENTS. Xlll
CHAP. IV.
(Page 56.)
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.
(Page 64.)
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.
(Page 71.)
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 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.
(Page 76.)
The arguments by which St. Paul rejects the Mosaic law from justification ex plained. — 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.
XIV CONTENTS.
CHAP. VIII.
(Page 87.)
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 re mission of sins, or of freedom from the anger of God, and eternal death, due to sin. — Hence is shewn in what manner the Apostle deduces his conclusion.
CHAP. IX.
(Page 95.)
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 shewn. — Arguments to the contrary answered. — Gal. v. 17. explained.
CHAP. X
(Page 118.)
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 sub ject removed.
CHAP. XI.
(Page 132.)
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.
CHAP. XII.
(Page 142.)
Two deductions from what has been said in the three foregoing chapters con cerning the weakness of the law. — The first of which is, that the Apostle en tirely 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 Parseus to the contrary, so answered as to throw still stronger light upon the above deductions.
CONTENTS. XV
CHAP. XIII.
(Page 163.)
Another consequence drawn from the Apostle's argument concerning the weak ness 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 effica cious 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.
CHAP. XIV.
(Page 166.)
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.
(Page 169.)
Certain Jewish opinions concerning the manner of obtaining justification and salvation attacked by St. Paul, are noted. — Their first error consisted in at tributing 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.
CHAP. XVI.
(Page 183.)
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.
CHAP. XVII.
(Page 189.)
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.
XVI CONTENTS.
CHAP. XVIII.
(Page 194.)
The conclusion ; containing an epitome of the whole work, with a serious admo nition to the reader diligently to guard against four errors in this controversy concerning justification.
HARMONIA APOSTOLICA.
FIRST DISSERTATION
ST. JAMES CHAP. 2. VER. 24.
YE SEE THEN HOW THAT BY WORKS A MAN IS JUSTIFIED, AND NOT BY FAITH ONLY."
BULL.
INTRODUCTION.
DIFFICULTY OF THE UNDERTAKING METHOD TO BE PURSUED.
§ 1. ALTHOUGH all, who are truly called Christians, fully INTROD 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 inex tricable difficulties are found in that Sacred Volume. "Whether this be owing to the sublimity of the subject, or the singu larity of its style, to our ignorance of the opinions and cus toms of those to whom no small part of Scripture was neces sarily addressed (customs which by so very long an interval are almost entirely obliterated), to our own dulness in under standing, 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 ap pearance, 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 o-6<t>a $dp- 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.
4 Introduction.
INTROD. § 3. Which when some perceived (who could not acquiesce in the received opinion, nor were able to persevere with dili gence in search for a better), they endeavoured 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 a. 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, whob, as Grotius quotes, angrily uses these ex pressions 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
* Whom Scultetus himself (which is b Discuss. Rivetiani Apologetici, p.
strange) defends with many arguments. ] 70. Exercit. 5. ad c. iii. 2 Tim. ver. 13.
Introduction. 5
upon the Epistles of St. Paul, and clearly prove his agree- INTROD. ment 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.
ST. JAMES' MEANING EXPLAINED — WHAT THE WORD 'JUSTIFY' SIGNIFIES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT — IT IS SHEWN 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.
Diss. 61. BEGINNING then with St. James, we shall have little I
- 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, Sifcaiovv (to which the Hebrew pn^n answers), is used by him in its more usual sense, that is, as a term of law, meaning to acquit, or pro nounce 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 Tes tament. So that it is strange to find a most learned mana, 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 con nected 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 abso lutely 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 Testa ment.
Rom. s. 33. § 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 justifieth." Where the word justify is evidently opposed to the word accuse, or lay to the charge
" In Prolegom. in Epist. ad Ro- b Vid. secund. annot. ad Jac. ii. 21. manos.
Meaning of the word 'justify' in the New Testament. 7
of} and therefore necessarily signifies to acquit an accused CHAP. person, and to pronounce and decree him free from accusa- -
tion. Similar to this is the following passage from the Old Testament ; " He that justifieth the wicked, and he that con- Prov.17.15. demneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord." Where the opposition of justification to condemna tion proves the above interpretations. Moreover, Christ Himself uses the word in this sense; "By thy words thou Mat. 12. 37. shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be con demned." 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 i 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 Grotiusc 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 icor.6.ii. 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 mean ing. 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 Bap tism; 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 Acts 13. learned Hammond d, of blessed memory, hath not improperly 38> 39' called the summary of the whole Gospel, and from which he
c In Prolegom. Epist. ad Rom. d Note on Rom. iii.
8 Used in a judicial sense,
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 justi fied 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 fides for- with « 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 justifica tion 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 free dom 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 shewing both its con dition, 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 for giveness : 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 passage6 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 fa 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. Hef onty contends that it is one thing when a man is said to be
• De Satisfact. Christi, c. 10. p. f In Praefat. ad Annot. in Epist. ad
186. Roman.
signifying to pronounce or determine to be innocent. 9
justified by faith, but another, when faith is said to be im- CHAP. puted to a man for righteousness. But every one will see 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 g 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 Rom. 5. i. justified is to have peace with God. To these you may add the following ; " Therefore by the deeds of the law shall no Rom. a 20. 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 shew, that St. Paul alludes,) where David most humbly deprecates the severe judgment of God. This passage should be particularly ob served, 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 nature11.
§ 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 justum progress in inherent and habitual righteousness. It is in the Revelations: "He that is unjust, let him be unjust Rev. 22.11. 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
6 Vid. Annot. prior, in Jac. ii. h See Luke vii. 29 ; x. 29 ; xviii. 14;
24. Rom. Hi. 4; ii. 13.
10 Particle 'by' signifies the indispensable condition.
Diss. meaning of a word from one or two passages, (although I - still 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 Scrip tures, 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 stuV "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 See 3. 3. 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 plirase 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,
Conclusion of St. James corroborated from Scripture. 11
which is generally called the indispensable cause, though it CHAP scarcely deserves the name of a cause. And this mode of L speaking is neither unusual, nor contrary to the style o Scripture. To pass over other texts, when a man is said to be justified by faith, the particle by is used in the same f 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 re ceive 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 NECES SARY 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 dis sertation, which is, to corroborate by certain arguments St. James' opinion, that good works are necessary to ob tain 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 Scrip-
12 Passages which speak generally of yood works
Diss. ture; 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 neces sarily required, that any one should be acceptable unto God to salvation, i. e. be justified; for these are synonymous
isa. 1. 16— 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
Ezek. 33. 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 place1.
§ 4. But if any one should obstinately deny these things,
Jon. u. 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,
' Vicl. Diss. ii. chap. viii. 10.
as necessary to justification. 13
" If a man love Me, he will keep My words, and My Father CHAP. 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 the Mat. n. more remarkable in that it solemnly announces the Gospel 28) 2'] 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 See i John this, i. e. does not undertake to perform the law of Christ, to 5* 3> him is promised no peace of mind, no deliverance from his sins. The words of Christ also cannot be mistaken — " Ye Job. 15. 14. are My friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you." No one therefore is the friend of Christ except upon this con dition, 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, princePs as is right. " God is no accepter of persons ; but in every ^stol°' nation, he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is A^ctf 10- 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 i job. i. 7. is in the light, we have communion with Himk, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin." There fore there is no communion with God, no purification from sin by the blood of Christ, (what does this mean, but justifi cation ?) 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 Heb.io.u. ever them that are sanctified." The word to perfect in the Te\*<otV Greek, (to say nothing of other meanings observed by critics,)
k E. V. " one with another," and so " with one another," but seems to under-
the Greek, except perhaps Cod. Al. stand it, " between God and ourselves."
Tertullian de Piulic. xviii., and some So (Ecumenius, " between us and the
Latin MSS., " with Him," and so light." The preceding verse implies
^Eth., and one or two Greek Fathers. this, if not expressed. Comp. John xvii.
St. Augustine, in 1 John i. Tract i. 21, 2-'5 — En. vol. iii. cd. Hen. has " cum invieem,"
14 Of particular works.
D is s. in this and other passages of this author, means to expiate,
expiare — 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
oymCo/xe- 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
i Pet. i. 2. yet imperfect sanctification. Which St. Peter also pointedly shews in his first Epistle, where he beautifully describes the order of human salvation. First comes the sanctification of
Comp. 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
Acts 3. 19. 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 justifi cation.
§ 7. This also must be observed, that repentance is not a single work standing by itself, but is a collection, as it
Repentance not a single work but many. 15
were, of many other works. It comprehends within itself CHAP. the following works, neither few, nor of small import : - 1. sorrow for sin; 2. humiliation under the hand of God, by 2Cor.7.io. which a man humbly acknowledges himself to have deserved Jas- 4> 10- His anger; 3. hatred and detestation of sin; 4. confession of sin; 5. an earnest and suppliant begging for divine mercy; Ezek. 6. 9; 6. love of God; 7. a ceasing from sin; 8. a firm determina- 35! 31.' tion of new obedience; 9. a restitution of every thing ac- i John 1.9. quired by sin ; which work of repentance is so absolutely g°ts^' g2' necessary to forgiveness of sins in every one who has it in prov.28.ia. his power, as to become a proverb recognised by all theo- Is logians, <( an offence is not forgiven unless that that has Ezek.33.T4, been taken away be restored;" 10. forgiveness of all in- I^.^Jke' juries done to us : our Saviour places so great weight on ia 8> 9- this, that He more than once declares, that no man can ob tain pardon from God for his trespasses, who does not forgive his neighbours theirs against him; 11. works of mercy or Mat. 6. 14, alms1; whose efficacy in obtaining pardon of sin from God, 15> well appears from that famous passage taken from Daniel, Dan. 4. 27. 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 shewing mercy to the poorm." So the Vulgate, following the Septuagint, who translate the Hebrew word by ' alms' according to the oriental idiom, npiv But it is of little consequence which version we follow, since ff^°' 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 Jas. 2. 13. without mercy that hath shewed no mercy." What mercy he means is evident from the following verses, 15 and 16". Chrysostom therefore truly says, in his sermon on repentance, " Repentance without alms is dead and without wings." And fartpos. hence, by the way, arose that custom in the ancient Church, [Horn, de by which they demanded of those who had fallen, for any of vii. vol. ii. the heavier offences, under the censure of the Church, not cd.3Ben?i
1 The Chaldee [5"iS answers to the righteousness, and thine iniquities &c."
Hebrew J-HQ. See 2 Sam. iv. 9 ; Num. Dan. iv. 27.
iii. 49.andxviii. 15. Theodotion there- " See Luke xi. 41, and Grotius on
fore rightly renders it \vrpaffai, redeem. that text ; Isaiah i. 1 7 ; Luke xvi. 9 ;
See Grotius on the passage. 1 Tim. vi. 17, &c.; 1 Pet. iv. 8 ; Heb.
111 E. V. " Break off thy sins by xiii. 16.
16 Faith and repentance equally necessary.
Di s s. only confession of sins, and a more regular conduct in future/ - but also works of mercy, called good works, before Absolution
•view °f was granted to them. Observe how the works of repentance extend far and Avide, 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 ac customed to say, that repentance is only required as a pre ceding disposition, by which a sinner is prepared for the for giveness 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
Mat. 3. is. 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 there fore, 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. 1 7
produce repentance in an instant. For that any one should CHAP. 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 con fess, are subtleties, but the cover is worthy of the dish ; the answer squares with the objection. It was absolutely neces sary to split hairs with those who do the same.
§ 9. Secondly, What they advance respecting the instru mentality of faith in the matter of justification, is a trifling piece of sophistry. For besides having no warrant in Scrip ture 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 instru ment of justification0. For, in the first place, since justifica tion 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 incon ceivable. 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 any thing 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
0 See the Homilies : On Salvation, part ii. p. 17. BULL. c
18 How faith excels all other virtues.
D I s s. 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 in strument be taken as the condition or moral instrument, we pointedly deny that faith is the only instrument of justifi cation. Since, as we have already shewn, the works of re pentance 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, con cerning 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 justifica tion, but to reduce it into the same rank with other works, and to attribute no less advantages to them than to faith it self? I answer : At the very sight of this objection most are veiy 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 shewn in the proper place, all the works of Christian piety. So that wherever it is under stood as a work by itself, and separated from all other virtues, the Holy Spirit, far from giving it the first rank, places it
i Cor. is. 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 supe-
See vcr. 2. rior virtue and excellency even in this life over faith. It must, however, be allowed, that in one respect faith is superior to
TJie nature of justification. 19
charity, and therefore to all other virtues, because it is the CHAP. 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. More over, if its force be excited, and as it were cherished, by fre quent and serious meditation, it will almost certainly produce them. For whoever firmly believes in the Gospel, and con siders 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 shews 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. JUSTIFI CATION 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 justifica tion. 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 pro ceedings of a trial. But in every trial three things at least must be understood. The judge who gives sentence, the accusedp who is tried, and the law by which judgment is given.
p Reus; by which name I understand crime, and opposed to the claimant the person accused, who is so called by (petitor). Cicero, although he be innocent of the
c 2
20 What that law is by which Christians will be tried.
D i s s. In like manner these three things, or certainly something ana- logous to each of them, are found in every kind of justifica tion. Thus, for example : when man is said to he 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
See Rom. 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
Jas. 2. 12. 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 imme diately following in the same verse will explain. " Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." 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 lawQ, and the law of liberty, of which St. James speaks, and by which he says we are to be judged, is
i See St. James i. 25, where the same law is called " the perfect law of liberty."
Error of Luther and others. 21
no other than the moral law itself, as Christ hath explained, CHAP. and perfected it, and delivered it to His disciples, as His law -
from the mount, which answers to that of Sinai. This sanc tion being added to it, by which, as eternal life is promised Mat. 7. 24, 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 con troversy, have introduced the following error into the Re formed 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 grati tude 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 exe crable 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 Liber tines, 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, See Mat, 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
22 Antinomians and Solifidians refuted.
D i s s. your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the
L Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the
Mat 5.20. kingdom Of 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 fulfil that Law. But by Faith alone without Works no one fulfils 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.
The three acts of faith. 23
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 SHEWN THAT JUSTIFICATION IS NOT NECESSARILY CONNECTED WITH ANY OF THESE.
§ 1 . WE will deduce our third argument from the nature CHAP.
of faith itself, thus : if faith be considered alone, and sepa : —
rated from every other virtue, there is no act of it which is saving, or which may not take place in a wicked, and alto gether 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 com monly 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 re proved by Episcopius r; 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 shewn8. 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,
1 Examin. Sentent. Cameron, c. 2. s Cap. 3.
24 Nature of Christian confidence
D I s s. if it only be firm and deeply rooted in the mind, will neces- — sarily 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, 1 Cor. 13. 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 wdllingly allowr) 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 (Edipus 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 as serted. 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 See Rom. which we believe the Sufferings, Death, and Resurrection of 24?°Heb. Christ, and therefore the truth of whatever He has given Job1 5 !i to us *n ^e name °f God either of precept or promise, still 5 ; Joh. 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 eter nal life, he must at the same time be confident that he him-
1 Discuss, p. 41 and 42. [vol. iii. p. 689. ed. 1679.]
conditional, and useless without love. 25
self will obtain that blessing, if he so lives. Yet this confi- CHAP.
dence is still conditional. After a man hath already led a ' —
Christian life, and is purified from his vices, then that con fidence 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 pro perty 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 manu : " 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 doc trines 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 pro vided 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 accept ed by God to salvation, that is, is justified. If these
11 Delcrm. Qu. 37. p. 1(37.
26 Absolute assurance not an act of justifying faith.
Diss. phrases are otherwise explained, I confess I do not under- - stand 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 lovex, 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 justi fying faith j 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 Re formed 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 Eeformed 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 ! But 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
1 Si' aydirrjs fvfpyovp.fvi}. Gal.v. 6. sively, as is almost always the case in per charitatem efficax. The participle other places in the New Testament. I think must be taken pas-
Danger of trusting in this confidence. 27
fact already justified. Therefore, absolute assurance is not CHAP. the act of justifying faith, but the consequence of justifica- - tion. 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 cer tain 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 con tained 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 cer tain 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, cer- tainly 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
28 The judgment of God in the next world
Diss. 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 i John 3. 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 THE PROCEEDINGS OF GOD IN THE L-AST JUDGMENT. THE JUDGMENT OF GOD IN THE NEXT WORLD COR RESPONDS 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 THE 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,
answers to the divine justification in this. 29
in the same will he be justified by Him in this. — But in the CHAP.
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 shewn 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 re ference to this is what St. Paul says of those nations who have not known the written law of God. Yet however God See Rom. may determine concerning such in that awrful 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 unrighte ousness, 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 deciara- which by the law of Christ we have in this life, and which by the same is not improperly styled active, or habitual justifi- congtitu- cation. 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 const itn- 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 co»stitu- life by the law of Christ.
30 Good works not merely signs of faith,
D I s s. § 3. But, secondly, there is another act of the future judg-
\L . ment 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 justifi cation? 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 im pute 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 judg ment 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 ibfiej '2' tQa^ passage, in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, which •5°)?' Mat ^or ano^ner reason we have before praised, deserves parti - 12. 36,37. cular 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 con cerning 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
but indispensably necessary for salvation. 31
every man according to his works ? Besides, the 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,
O t o-
passages should be more carefully observed, because they 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 very 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. Vossiusv : " 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 re garded 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 4^17; be carefully avoided ; that which makes works deserving in pjjjj ^ ^ themselves of eternal life — the error of some Roman 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 con nection 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 Cove nant.
§ 6. Moreover, that good works are not to be regarded in the business of salvation as mere signs of faith, Grotius has well shewn by this reason2: " Every sign is inferior to the thing signified : but charity, by which these works are per-
y De Bonis Oper. Tlies. 10. [vol. vi. z Discuss, p. 45, [vol. iii. p. 690.
p. 370. Op. ed. 1701.] Op.]
32 The formula, Justification by faith only.
D I s s. formed, and which therefore must be considered as part of them, is greater than faith." Lastly, the same is proved from
Jas. 2. 22. 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.
THE 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 argu ment ; 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 justi fication, 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 Re formed 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 sen tence is to be figuratively taken ; so that in the word faith,
General agreement as to the nature of justifying faith. 33
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 ; arid, 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, cer tain points from which it will appear that our opinion is un deniably 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 Lu therans, 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 meta physical 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 divines a have clearly shewn, merely to the use of the particle quatenus, as far as, and hence have arisen much anger and division. Were it not for the importance of the subject we
* Exarncn Censur., c. x.
34 That it must be a living faith :
D I s s. 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 pro duced 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 experi ence, that these empty distinctions, these far-fetched contriv ances, 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 un- disguisedly delivered, namely, that faith is the only instru ment of justification, and that good works have no weight, are of no importance in this matter, though you should after wards 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
b Discuss, p. 47, 48 [vol. iii. p. 691.]
productive of, and perfected by good works. 35
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 abund ance, 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 a more extensive meaning than that of mere connection. For if faith alone, and by itself, performs the work of justifi cation (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 faithc made perfect :" is it not clear « that faith and works do co-operate in the business of justifi cation (of which he had been treating in the words immedi ately preceding the twenty -first verse), that faith also is of itself imperfect, and is not conducive to the end of justifica tion unless it is perfected by good works ?
§ 5. What Cameron on this passage opposes to our inter pretation, (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- tention to teach that faith co-operated with works to justi fication, 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 i Cor. 3. 9. fellow-workers (co-operators) with God," is not meant the
c "A thing is said to be perfected operating causes, &vev avvairiwv." Gro- when it produces its proper effect. tius in locum. Faith cannot do this without its co-
i) 2
36 In what sense faith is said to be perfected by works.
Diss. co-operation of the Divine grace with the labours of the - —7— Apostles in 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.i2.9. shews 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 shews itself." But the answer is easy. Whatever may be determined con-
T6 \eiovv. cerning this passage, it is certain that the word to perfect, in this passage of St. James, signifies not only to shew 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 shelving it, but also by co-operating with it j 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,
Love must be added to faith and all other virtues. 37
in the order of beings, is more perfect than the sun, as being CHAP.
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 Mark9.4i! 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.i i.e. 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
38 Works St. Paul speaks of wholly excluded from justification.
D I s s. 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 ridi culous. But we have already said more than sufficient to rescue this famous passage of St. James from false expla nations.
§ 9. In the last place, whoever contends that man is justi fied by faith alone, and that works have no effect in the pro ducing 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 justifi cation,) 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. a 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 con-
How good works are necessary to justification. 39
sent from Reformed divines; namely, that good works are CHAP. 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 neces sary 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 pre ceding condition necessarily requisite for salvation, and yet deny that by works a right is obtained to salvation, they clearly shew, 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, agree ment, 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.i4. 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 See2Thes. 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
40 Inconsistency of those who reject this doctrine.
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- eible, 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 argu ments 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 justifi cation, 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 justi fication. Works which are excluded from either are so from both ; this appears from many passages of St. Paul, particu larly 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 DISSEKTATION
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.
CHAP. I.
THE VARIOUS SCHEMES OF DIVINES, FOR RECONCILING ST. JAMES AND ST. PAUL. THOSE WHO SUPPOSE ST. JAMES TO SPEAK OF THE JUSTI FICATION OF MAN'S FAITH BEFORE OTHER MEN, AND NOT BEFORE GOD, REFUTED.
§ 1. WE have now sufficiently proved the conclusion of CHAP. St. James concerning the necessity of good works to justifi- - cation. 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 jas. 2. 24. by works a man is justified, and not by faith only/' The conclusion of St. Paul is directly opposite to this : " We Rom. 3. 28. 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 appa rently disagreeing, in the most perfect harmony with each other. I will, moreover, venture to promise, however incre dible it may appear, that from what St. Paul hath said con cerning 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 con sider 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.
44 Their arguments who suppose St. James to speak
Diss. § 4. In the first place, it is evident, they say, from the IL very words of St. James, " Shew 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 justi fied 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. 15. 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 him self before God, not by faith alone, but by an act of obedi ence 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
Heb.n. 8. author of the Epistle to the Hebrews particularly dwells
of the justification of man* s faith before men. 45
upon this action of Abraham's; arid 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 recom mended 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 oathd, 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 shew itself by its external effects alone, by fruits agree able 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
d How greatly this oath is to be valued, see Heb. vi. 13, &c.
46 Such an opinion contrary to the Apostle's words.
D I s s. 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. What can be more absurd, and more unworthy of such an Apostle ? Thirdly, This in terpretation 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 shewn6, 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 in the same sense as to be imputed for righteousness is in ffflv^ai°~ the °ther Scriptures, ver. 23. But who ever supposed this expression of the imputation of righteousness by God Him self, to signify the declaration of a man's righteousness among his fellow creatures ? I conclude, therefore, that this inter pretation 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,
e Diss. I. 5.
That St. Paul speaks of a true and lively faith ; 47
which is efficacious by works : St. James of one false, feigned, CHAP. 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 be-
48 but St. James of a false and feigned one.
D I s s. lievest there is one God, thou doest well." Therefore he can- — — not be understood as speaking of a pretended faith. Secondly,
Seever.24. 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 Parseusf 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 alone, 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 attri butes 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.2i. 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 vindi cated this verse from bad interpretations g. I briefly therefore conclude thus : St. James is plainly arguing of that faith to
f Explicat. dubiorum, c. 3. ad Rom. * Diss. I. vi. 4, &c. dub. 9. in resp. ad obj. 3.
Arguments in support of this opinion refuted. 49
which nothing is wanting but good works, and which, if they CHAP. 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, be cause 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 con firmed by arguments of such a kind as may abundantly convince
h See Estius, b. iii. dist. 23. sec. 5.
50 What St. James meant by a dead faith ;
Diss. minds which are impartial, dispositions not biassed1; 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 obedi ence, which 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 argu ment, since there is 110 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 place : 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 pro mote the justification or salvation of man. This clearly ap pears 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
1 Vide Thorn. Bradward. de Causa lib. ii. in fine, and the Schoolmen gene- Dei, lib. i. cap. 1. Coroll. par. 32. p. 59. rally, et Grotius de Verit. Religionis Christ.
Compared to a body without the soul. 51
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 im possible 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 per forms 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," " 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 injac.2.28. Cameron. And —
Si Pergama dextra Defend! possent, etiam hac defensa fuissent
^N. 291.
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 frivo lous on this point. For it is not necessary for those who
52 Cameron's arguments on this point.
Diss. 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 justifica tion, and work out his salvation, which by itself, and with out 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 Seever. 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 wdll 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
Difference between "perfected" and (C imperfect" faith. 53
which belong to the several members : neither can the soul CHAP.
exercise the function of seeing, walking, &c., without the co —
operation 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. n.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 J^£» 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 excel lent 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.n. but wish those had a sounder judgment who in this our age have given so much trouble with this paradox, ' We are saved by faith alone •' while it is carried to such a pitch as if righte ousness 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 by perfected faith; or by faith we obtain the incli nation to good works, and therefore righteousness ; or faith is the foundation and root of a good life, as Augustine said, for no one must be scandalized at the truth." Properly to
54 Justification divided by some into first and second ;
D I s s. understand this distinction, it must be observed that when ' — the Apostle makes works the form of faith, they are con sidered 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 RE PUGNANT TO THE REASONING OF THE APOSTLES. — THE SAME SHEWN OF THE OPINION OF PLACJEUS 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 in terpretation, and certain Reformed divines allow it when ac commodated to their sense. I say, when accommodated to their sense, because the Roman Catholics mean by their first justi fication, the infusion of the first grace, which is produced by that faith wherewith the heart is purified. But the Re formers 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, be cause they take it for granted that the word justification in the writings of St. Paul means the infusion of habitual grace,
This scheme contrary to the design of both Apostles. 55
which they never can prove that it ever does. The Re- CHAP.
formers, on the other hand, are wrong because they suppose ' —
a man to receive the first justification by faith alone without works, which cannot be allowed. For no 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 ele- DW¥ gantly expresses it. And in this sense, as he also well Dn>Dn 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 cer tainly 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 shew that this scheme of reconciliation, as understood both by Reformed and Roman Catholic divines, is contrary to the design and in tention 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, use less, 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 shewn™, from salvation itself. This third method of reconciliation therefore is equally unfortunate.
k Vol. pro pace, p. 22. Art. 4.
1 In Annot. in Consult. Cassan. ad "' Diss. I. vi. 12.
56 As also Placceus' notion of a twofold accusation.
D I S S. § 4. The last opinion which now remains, is that which - I find greatly pleased that learned man, Placaeus, 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 cove nant 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 righte ousness 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 state ment 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 works 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 diffi culty. Let us then seek for a better.
CHAP. IV.
THE TKUE 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 MEAN INGS.^ — 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 recon cile 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.
11 Theses Theolog. Salmur. vol. i. de Justif., Thes. 41. p. 35.
St. Paul to be interpreted by St. James. 57
§ 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 de serves 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 of 2Pet.s.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 faith- alone without works. What adds a farther degree of proba bility 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.
0 Diss. Li. 6.
58 St. Paul's meaning of the word 'faith.'
DISS. §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 demon strate. 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 be lieving 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. a. 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 command ments 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, con tains in itself the observance of the commandments of God. To this add those passages where St. Paul explains faith by
Rom.io.i6. obedience. Thus, "But they have not all obeyed the Gospel, for Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report ?" Who . does not here perceive that to believe and to obey the Gospel signify the same with St. Paul. But if any one doubts what St. Paul means by obeying the Gospel, let him
p In Praef. ad Annot. ad Ep. Pauli.
It comprises the whole of Christian obedience. 59
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 K0^s ^i.
of faith, 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 j6 . fg '2(jV love; "And though I have all faith, and have not charity, I ^Q^'g!3' am nothing." The objection which some make, that St. also i 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 \ Cor. 13.2. knowledge stands for knowledge of every kind ; and so all tribulation. Secondly; the faith of miracles is the highest 2 Cor. 1.4. 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 there fore our adversaries allow that faith of miracles, considered by itself, has no weight with God, they at the same time con fess 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 moun tain, 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,
60 Whether faith can be separated from love.
Diss. 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 con trary 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 irre levant 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
Rom. 2. 13. 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 jus tification. Here Calvin, and others after him, object that
in loo. 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 judg-
i See Diss. I. iv. 3.
Necessity of obedience taught by St. Paul. 61
merit of the law against the Jews only, because they could not CHAP. be justified by the law except they fulfilled the law; if they - 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." Ex pressions 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 ; arid who will attempt to deny this ? Then undoubtedly the words of the thirteenth verse must be un derstood 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 observes r, "that this verse depends upon the former one, ' 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
r Inloc. p. 110. ed. 1562.
62 Obedience not an impossible condition.
D i s s. 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 con forming our whole life to it. This evidently is what God Compare every where requires in His law." In a word, this opinion foTGai.' of St. Paul's is the same with that of St. James, which applies jasU2 8- w^k £reater f°rce to Christians. " Be ye doers of the law, 1. 22. and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves." To which Mat* 7. the words of Christ Himself may be added. Before I dismiss Jo'hn4i4. this remarkable passage, it may be proper to repeat what the 2' ; J3. 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 justifi cation and eternal life, that he might forewarn his reader, lest by not properly comprehending his teaching which fol lows, 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 Paraeus supposes there is a rhetori cal 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
Opinions of Par (BUS and Grotius untenable. 63
figure, and besides, such a change takes away a manifest CHAP. antithesis in St. Paul's words. For there is no natural op
position 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- fication. But we have mentioned this by way of addition, since from what has been already said it is sufficiently clear that faith stands in the writings of St. Paul for general obe dience to the commands of Christ.
§ 10. Grotius, however9, rejects this interpretation, where after mentioning the opinions of others concerning this word faith, he thus blames this of ours. " Others by the word faith, understand all that obedience which the Gospel de mands : 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.i3.i3. 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 per fected by true love, since surely in other places he attri butes almost every thing to faith ; otherwise he would con tradict himself.
1 In Praef. ad Aimot. in Rom.
64 Reasons for St. Paul's use of Ike word faith.
CHAP. V.
FAITH IS USED FOR ALL THE OBEDIENCE WHICH THE GOSPEL REQUIRES, BECAUSE IT IS THE BEGINNING AND ROOT OF ALL GOSPEL RIGHTEOUS NESS ; - 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 FRE QUENT 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.
Piss. § 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 hinted", 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 ex presses 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 Compare saved." Calling upon the name of the Lord in this and other 5.3.' It it! passages, evidently signifies the entire and complete worship
25 > so ^' ^au^ when he attributes salvation to faith,
i Cor. 1.2. means that faith which unites to itself the worhip of God
" Diss. I. ii. 10.
Why piety is called knowledge in Scripture. 65
in Christ, and according to the direction of the Gospel. CHAP.
What then, you will say, does the Apostle mean by ex- '-
pressing 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 necessary to salvation, but on different ac counts; 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 Job. i. is expressly attributed by Isaiah: "By His knowledge shall 55- 17. 3' ; My righteous servant justify many." " There is," as Forerius fj^' f/j rightly observes on this passage, "a certain knowledge of ^'^g'.2? ; God and Christ in the Scriptures, which is attended by all 20 ; isa'.s?. 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 rea son 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 de scribing the conditions required of us for our salvation, makes
BULL. p
66 Reasons for St. Paul's frequent use of the word f faith :'
Di s s. 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, com prehended 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
i Job. 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 :" immedi ately 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 con tains 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 pre cepts 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
it expresses the easiness of the condition. 67
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 en graved 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, i job. 5. that we keep His commandments, and His commandments 3"3' 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 ?" In which words the Apostle shews both the easiness of the Gospel pre cepts, 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 ap pear 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 per-
F 2
68 Faith excludes all notion of merit :
D I s s. formance 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 extraordinaiy 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 after wards shew in its place. But he who performs the other auToSf- kind of righteousness self-taught, by his own strength, SO.KTOS 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 fre- See Rom. quently opposes works to the divine calling. And that Apo- j 9' ' stolic man, Clement of Rome, in his Epistle to the Corin thians, 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 xii. 27. we snaH hereafter give at length in a more convenient place, But the grace of this Divine calling was much more manifest
x No man hath ever yet seen, or alone man is allowed to see God. Justin, known Him: but He hath revealed Epist. ad Diog. [c. viii. p. 238.] Himself: and that by faith, by which
implies a Divine revelation and aid. 69
in those (to whom St. Paul wrote his Epistles) to whom the CHAP. 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 ex pressed, 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 lay 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 there fore 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 arid 2 Pet. i. 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 ®da <£iW 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 i Pet. Gospel. In these places it is evident that by the Word we ^3 Ja8m^ must understand the promises contained in the Word. And 18> &c- lastly, in this sense particularly must be understood that grand doxology and blessing of St. Peter: "Blessed be the i 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 born 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
70 Faith expects its reward only from the free gift of God.
D is s. 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
14.
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
/.uaexiroSo- 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 pro mise conjointly, since the righteousness of the law (he speaks 'as 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 justification y. But because the promise of
y The emphasis in the word ' gave,' rectly expressed it by gratificatus est,
«€^apj(TTat, is to be observed, which 'freely gave,' or 'gave as a favour.'
word in the original is derived from Compare Rom. iv. 13-15. ' grace,' x^-P15' an^ so ^eza has cor~
What St. Paul means by works. 71
eternal life given in the Gospel is founded in the meritorious CHAP. satisfaction of Jesus Christ, and confirmed by His most pre
cious 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° ' 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 per formed 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 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 PHILOSO PHERS, 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 de-
72 His aim in arguing against works ;
D I s s. scription 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
in Rom. 3. 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 pre judice, 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 great ness and certainty of the promises, and by the seal of the Holy Spirit. But the Mosaic rites Christ fulfilled and com pleted, 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 bv 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 revela tion of a far better doctrine, they tenaciously adhered to
z Dial, cum Tryph. 45. p. 141. Vid. Grotius in Mat. v. 17.
to refute the notions of the Judaizing Christians. 73
their dead, and now almost deadly ceremonies. For they CHAP. reasoned thus : that their present law was undoubtedly Divine, — and came from God, which could be proved by the most un exceptionable 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 Virgil 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
74 Churches of Rome and Galatia mostly corrupted.
D i s s. believing Jews, but also unto Gentiles converted to Christi anity. 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 whole some 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 Acts 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- Phil. 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 re vived ceremonies, dead and almost buried. There were two Churches it appears, where these teachers of the law parti cularly 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 c;ai. 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 Jews 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
Rabbinical additions rejected by St. Paul. 75
Mosaic covenant, laying open its origin, nature, end, and CHAP. use, proving by many arguments in his Epistles to the Ro- - mans 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 some times declares, where for instance he does not call them works 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 in terpretations 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 prin ciples 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 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 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
76 Works of the natural law also rejected by him.
D I s s. doubt, adhered immoveably to tlieir own absurd explanations. And this, if by no other means, may be proved from the
Gal. 1. 14. 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. a. their own brain; this St. Paul properly calls a righteousness of their own opposed to the righteousness of God.
§ ]0. Lastly, as the Apostle had to contend not only with the masters of the Synagogue, but also with Gentile philoso phers, 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 APOSTLfi's ARGUMENT AFFECTS THOSE
PRECEPTS OF THE LAW WHICH ARE CALLED MORAL, BUT ONLY SO FAB 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 DE DEEMED A LAW OF EN TIRELY PERFECT OBEDIENCE ? DOES THE REASONING OF THE APOSTLE
IN ROMANS, CHAPTER Hi. VER. 20 ; AND GALATIANS, CHAPTER Hi. 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 shewn the general intent of St. Paul in his disputation concerning
How far St. Paul excludes moral works. 77
works, whatever be the works he means, we shall here treat CHAP. the subject more distinctly and particularly. For since the VIL_ 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 him self, 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 under stood 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 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 justified :' Rom. 2. 13. or the work which is done out of the law, that is, from a
78 Twofold defect in the Mosaic Covenant.
Diss. 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 assist ance 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 110 man shall be justified before God." And indeed it is most true that by the works of the law the Apostle gene rally 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 justi fication 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 per formed under it must be excluded from justification, and in deed 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 cere monial 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
Whether the law of Moses exacted perfect obedience. 79
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 : 10—20! " Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight." In the same sense must be under stood 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, be cause 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 a perpetual, excluding all imperfection, infirmity, and inad- 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 remem bered, 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 imperfec tion. Nay more, God may also, if He pleases, take that immense blessing of eternal life from the most perfect inno-
80 Such a notion repugnant to Divine justice.
D I s s. cence, if that could be actually found in any man ; for it is 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 righte ousness, 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 mani fest that the Apostle in this dispute wishes to prove that both Jews and Gentiles indiscriminately, on account of not per forming the righteousness of the law, not only do not de serve 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 stopped :" that is, both Jews and Gentiles be without
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 ob jected to the Apostle, that men were improperly considered as already deserving of punishment, since it is certainly im possible for them to escape error, or keep the law in this per fect and perpetual manner." The foundation of these ex pressions 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 per fect 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 ffi'~ deprived him of these powers should expect of him the same cienter
• ,'• • T--T -i • • • ^ se(l meri-
obedience, is as contrary to His wisdom and justice as if 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. i. 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 per fect obedience under the former view. But this supposition would be very absurd; because, first, in this law God ex pressly 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 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 Al mighty, 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 Jews, and pt'r some (which we Christians at least consider sins) even ex- J^ 19- pressly permitted 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. eel. 1679.] BULL. G
82 St. Paul's argument in Gal, iii. 10. explained.
DISS. Mosaic law. We will carefully weigh them, that we may see if they 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