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 any for want of it
should be subject to an eternal curseb. The sense therefore
of the above passage is, Every one is cursed, that is, subject
to the curse and the punishments of the law, who does not
persevere in doing and observing all things which the law
requires. But he is supposed to do all things who does not
wander from the intent of the law, who keeps its essentials,
as we have said, entire, or as others express themselves, who
keeps all those precepts of the law which contain the sub
stance of life, of which kind are the particular points men-

Deut. 27. tioned by Moses. In one word, he who permits himself to
do nothing knowingly and willingly against the law of God,
although perhaps in some things he may offend through
ignorance and inadvertency.

§ 11. Great light will be thrown upon this text from the

Jas. 2. 10. following similar passage ; " Whosoever shall keep the whole
law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all," that is,
is subject to the punishment and curse laid upon the trans
gressors of the law. Who does not perceive that this passage
from St. James entirely corresponds with that from St. Paul ?
But it is very certain that these words of St. James must not
be interpreted of an all-perfect innocence, since the Apostle

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

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

is clearly speaking of that obligation of the law which is bind- CHAP.
ing upon us Christians. It must be understood that here, not -
every offence, even the most trivial (as some will have it) is
intended ; of trivial offences, St. James speaks as follows ;
" In many things we offend all •" and again, " If any man jas. a 2.
offend not in word, the same is a perfect man." For even if
the word offend seems to be spoken of some lighter offence, Trraio-fi.
yet from the context of the passage and reason itself, it ap
pears that St. James is speaking of those sins by which a man
wilfully and knowingly transgresses the law. Reason itself
demands this interpretation ; for how could it be true that he
who in other respects keeps the whole law should be guilty of
transgressing every precept, because he was unwarily offended
by an idle word or immoderate laughter ? The context of
the Apostle teaches the same : for in the first place, he ex
pressly mentions those sins only, which are most heinous, as
murder and adultery; then the reason by which he confirms vcr. n.
this maxim, and which immediately follows it, requires this
interpretation : For He that said, " Do not commit adultery,"
said also, " Thou shalt not kill." As if He had said, Since
the obligation and authority of all Divine laws is the same, he
who violates one of these, and knowingly transgresses the
law, by that very act spurns and despises the authority of
the whole. Neither does he appear to keep the others be
cause he thinks it impious to violate so great authority as
theirs, but because he is not inclined to transgress against
them. For why else does he not observe that law also which
he breaks, since it has the same authority with the rest, if it
be indeed enacted by the same lawgiver from whom the
others derive their authority ? But if he was equally inclined
to offend against the rest as against this, there appears no
cause why he should not readily do it. St. James therefore
speaks of those sins which are committed against the end of
the law and the authority of the lawgiver. Agreeable to this
is what Augustine wrote to Jerome, whom he had consulted Epist.29.
in a very long letter on this very passage : the sum is, he tent. Ja"~
who offends in one thing is guilty of all, because he offends JJoiSp?*'
against love, upon which depend the law and the prophets. 1Jj7- § l7-
" For/' says he, " he is deservedly guilty of all, who offends °C
against that upon which all depend."

84 Perfect Christian obedience taught by St. Paul.

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

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

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

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

<=£ tpyw ^or the Apostle evidently speaks of those who are of the

v6^ov. tuorks of the law, that is, those who seek righteousness in
the law, either being ignorant of, or despising the grace of

e/f7n<rreco*. the Gospel, whom he opposes to those who are of the faith,
that is, those who believe in the Gospel and embrace its
grace, and have obtained the blessing of Abraham, the
promise of the Spirit, by which they fulfil the righteousness

ver. 14, of the law, and so escape its curse. Of the former indeed,
he shews that they neither have, nor can continue in all
things which the law commands, but he does not make the
same determination concerning the latter. In one word,
against the possibility of fulfilling the law in every thing by
the grace of the Gospel, (so far as it is imposed upon us as a
law, that is, under pain of eternal death, or ever hath been
imposed upon mankind from the fall of the first man,) the
Apostle hath never said a word, nay hath often openly ac
knowledged the possibility of it, as we shall afterwards see.

§ 13. Another argument of our opponents remains, in
which they boast as unanswerable, taken from the following

Deut. 6. 5. passage : (t And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all
thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might."
You see here, say they, that the most complete and perfect

Objections from the Old Testament answered. 85

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

this argument turns against themselves. For since God here '• —

does not demand any other love than that which may be per
formed by all the heart, all the soul, and all the strength, it
is evident that He demands nothing of us above, or beyond
our strength, that measure of grace being taken into the con
sideration, which God communicates, or is ready to commu
nicate, to all. Now it is certain that we can all of us obey
God with all our strength, for it is a contradiction in terms
to assert that we cannot do any thing according to our
strength. The truth of this answer may be strongly
established by these reasons : first, God promises that He
would give to His people what He here demands, a circum
cised heart, that they may love Him with all their hearts. Deut. 30.6.
Secondly, God Himself testifies that there have been those
who thus loved Him. Thus it is said of Kins; Asa and all 2Chron.i5.

1 2

the people, " that they sought the Lord with all their heart

and all their soul :" of David we read, " that he followed i Kings 14.

o

God with all his heart, doing that which was right in His

eyes •" but that is a remarkable testimony which the Holy

Spirit gives of King Josiah, "that he turned to the Lord 2 Kings 23.

with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his might,

according to all the law of Moses." That undoubtedly is

said to be done with all the heart, to which any one gives the

chief part of his study and application. In the same sense

as we say a man gives himself up entirely to his books, as

Estius well remarks, to whom the reader may refer. Sent. lib. 3.

§ 14. I will finish these remarks by observing, that our § Q'} $. '
opinion of the possibility of fulfilling the law, so far at least
as it ever was a law imposed on man by God, is not a modern
opinion, but ratified by the unanimous consent of all the
ancients, who wrote before the Pelagian controversy had
polluted the springs of pure and primitive doctrine. The
author of Questions and Answers to the Orthodox (among [p- 458.
the works of Justin) in the answer to question 103, which is : 6
" How God, commanding those things which are above our
strength, namely, that we should not sin, can condemn the
sinner to torments, since a man cannot fulfil the law, as the
Apostle testifies : ' No flesh shall be justified by the works of
the law r " says what well deserves our attention. " What is

86 Perfect obedience taught by the Fathers.

DISS. all the righteousness according to the law? It is to love
- God more than oneself, and our neighbour as oneself; which
things are not impossible to men willing to perform them.
This expression therefore, ( by the works of the law no flesh
shall be justified/ does not refer to the impossibility of our
doing impossible things, but to our unwillingness of perform
ing what is possible, since we do not use our will for impos
sible but possible things. For praise or blame arises from our
doing or not doing things which are possible and in our
power ; so that we men sin, by not choosing to do, and not
[vol. ii. from not being able." Basil the Great, in his Homily on
Ben/j ed* that text of Moses Attende tibi ipsi, rejects the opinion of
those who affirm that the precepts of the law are impossible
to be performed, as impious, and not to be borne. His
words are : " It is impious to assert that the precepts of the
Horn. 18. Holy Spirit cannot be kept." So also Chrysostom; "Do
[voi!avii. n°t then let us think that these precepts are impossible, for
BenT' ed' ^iey are both useful and very easy to us if we would watch."
He expresses himself in the same manner in the eighth
Homily on Repentance, and on the 101st Psalm. Neither
did most of the Catholics, who wrote after or against
Pelagius, think otherwise. Even Augustine himself, how
ever in other respects he might have grown too warm in
that most unfortunate controversy, did not hesitate to allow
that God had commanded possible things, and in this sense
too, that each individual believer was able to fulfil every and
each command. And with Basil he condemns the contrary
Serm. 191. opinion as guilty of blasphemy and heresy : "We condemn
pore. also the blasphemy of those who teach that God hath com-
v App01' Banded an7 thing impossible to be done by man, and that
p. 388.] the commands of God cannot be kept by individuals, but
only by a community at largec,"

c Vid. Vossii Hist. Pclag., lib. v. part I. antithes. 6.

Mankind generally guilty of great sins. 87

CHAP. VIII.

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

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

THE APOSTLE DEDUCES HIS CONCLUSION.

§ 1. FROM what has been already said, I think it is suffi- CHAP.
ciently evident that the law of Moses did not require sinless -
obedience, that is, an imiocency free from the smallest trans
gression under pain of eternal death, and that the Apostle's
arguments are not founded on such a supposition11. It
remains therefore for us to consider in what manner the
Apostle proves his conclusion ; I think therefore, with defer
ence to better judgments, that the reasoning of the Apostle
depends upon these two points.

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

§ 3. But that the context of this passage may be rightly
understood, two things are to be particularly observed; one
respecting the charge itself, the other, the persons against
whom it is made. First, with respect to the charge, it must
be observed, that it is not for all offences, even the most
trifling, but for sins strictly speaking6, that is, the more

d Vid. Episcop. — Respons. ad 64 them (i. e. not on account of the imper-

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

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

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

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

D I s s. enormous offences, and such as deserved eternal death. This

— appears both from the words in which the opinions proved in

the preceding chapter, and more fully demonstrated in this,

ver. 9. are expressed by the Apostle, " We have before proved both
Jews and Gentiles to be all under sin." Where the phrase,
to be under sin, clearly means to be subject to it, to be in
the habit of committing great offences; such are also said

oh. 7. 14. to be sold to sin; and also from the context of the whole
passage, where the sins enumerated by the Apostle are all of
the most heinous nature.

§ 4. Secondly, if you consider against whom this charge

ver. 9, 19, is brought, they are both the Gentiles and the Jews : all re
garded in that state in which they were before, and without
the grace of the Gospel. This is even manifest from the
design of the Apostle, which was to invite both Jews and
Gentiles, convinced of their own guilt and misery, to seek
and embrace the grace of the Gospel. St. Paul therefore
contends, that both Jews and Gentiles in that light are all
under sin. But you will object, that there were some at
least among the Jews, who before the preaching of Christ,
led a pious and blameless life, and were free from such vices
as the Apostle here mentions; as Zacharias, Elizabeth,
Simeon, and others. To this I reply, that the observation
is very true, and without doubt, among the Gentiles too,
there were some who sincerely and heartily practised virtue
and righteousness as far as it was known to them; and of
this I am persuaded both by reason and the Apostle himself,

Seech. 2. who hints as much in this Epistle. But as the objection

27' ' ' only relates to the Jews, we will confine our answer to them,
leaving the reader to adapt it to the Gentiles with some little
alteration. I say then, in the first place, that these pious
men were extremely few among the Jews, and, compared to
the rest, as a drop in the ocean. And therefore the Apostle
made no great account of them ; but it was right on account
of the extremely small number of the pious, to overlook them
entirely when speaking of the wicked, who were in such
numbers. And certainly expressions such as these, which
the Apostle uses, are very common in Scripture, where they

See John are' undoubtedly used hyperbolically. Secondly, those few

66. 23 ; Sa who were righteous under the law, did not receive their

All more or less guilty of sin. 89

righteousness from the law, but owed it to the Gospel- CHAP.
grace which before the preaching of the Gospel, in all prior —
ages, ever exerted its power, although more sparingly and Acts 2'. 17-
less frequently then, than since. In one word, they were led 145.14 15 i
by the Spirit, not of the law, but of the Gospel, and are to Phl1-2-21-
be reckoned among those who are of faith, and not of the
works of the law ; therefore the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews shews, that all the famous deeds of the pious men
who lived in the times of the Old Testament, arose not from
the law but from faith. Thirdly, it is probable that these
few, at some time of their lives, fell into some sins or sin,
which might be deserving of eternal death. Indeed this is
certain, since of those to whom a blameless and perfect obedi
ence of the law under the Old Testament is attributed, it is
said expressly that they had at one time or other fallen into
great sins and well deserving death; as Asa, David, Josias, and 2 Chron.
others. And in this sense I think the following passage must i Kings
be understood ; " All have sinned, and come short of the glory 25chron
of God." These words seem to be universal, and to except 35- 22-
none from not having been guilty at some period of their ve
lives of some offences, or some one greater sin.

§ 5. And this seems to be what the Scriptures assert in
various places, as for instance, " For there is no man that i Kings
sinneth not •" and, " If we say that we have no sin we deceive i j0h. i.
ourselves, and the truth is not in us •" and, " If we say that 8' lo*
we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is
not in us." That this passage must be understood of sins
strictly speaking, and not of trifling errors only, and is entirely
general, is proved both from the matter itself, and from what
follows in the second chapter of the same Epistle. And even i John 2.
here it must be observed, that St. John speaks in the past ' 2'
time : " If we say that we have not sinned" that is, before
our knowledge of the Gospel. Evidently the holy Apostle
meant that the Christians to whom he wrote should dili
gently keep themselves free from the crime of ingratitude,
and because they were freed from sin, should not attribute
that effect to themselves, or to the law of Moses, or of nature,
but to the grace of the Gospel only. Otherwise he does not
appear to deny but that after the knowledge of the Gospel,
and the reception of its grace, some might be without sin,

90 St. John's meaning of ' having sin.'

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

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

sins which require time for the performance, as Grotius

observes, and do not prevent deliberation. The possibility

i Job. 2. i. of this he clearly hints at, where he earnestly exhorts Chris
tians not to sin. Perhaps it may be objected that the Apostle

i Job. i. a uses the present tense, " if we say that we have no sin f and
that he therefore implies that no man, even after receiving
the Gospel, either is, or can be, free from those sins which
are strictly so called. But this objection is easily removed.
For to have sins, and to sin, or commit sin, are not quite

«Y€i»-

a/j.aprd- the same thing. For to have sin is not to be now in sin, as
\flv' . Grotius observes, but to be guilty of sins formerly committed,

CLLiOLpTicLV *

iroifiv. as most clearly appears from the Gospel of St. John. The

15. 22, 24! sense then is, If we say that before the knowledge of the
Gospel we did not grievously offend, and therefore were
guilty of eternal death, and even now would be guilty, were
it not for the grace and mercy of the Gospel, we are clearly
liars, and ungrateful to the Gospel, and that Truth which we
profess. In short, St. John himself interprets his own mean
ing, since that which he had before said in these words, " we
have sin/' he afterwards explains not by we sin, in the pre-
)- sent, but we have sinned, in the past. — But let us now re-
a. turn to St. Paul.

^e*/- § 6. From what has been said, it appears that the whole of

the first point upon which the Apostle grounds his argument
is this, that Jews as well as Gentiles, as to the far greatest
part of them, were plainly under the dominion of sin, and
enslaved by the worst vices. And they who of either people
were the best and the most pious, did not so live as not to fall
into some sins, or some sin at least, of a graver character, and
worthy of death, and therefore all Jews and Gentiles indis
criminately, are all, without exception, subject to God's wrath

ver. 19. and eternal death.

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

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

rarely: and they become such by coming heathen enjoyed. See Just. Mart. Ap.

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

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

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

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

The law promised no perfect remission of sin. 91

§ 7. What the Apostle next takes for granted in his argu- CHAP.

ment is this, that in the law of Moses is promised no true —

and perfect remission of sins, or redemption from Divine wrath,
and eternal death due to sin. To this the Apostle manifestly
refers in the afore-mentioned chapter, where having deduced ver. 20.
this conclusion from the supposition just proved, namely,
that no one can be justified in the sight of God by the works
of the law, immediately adds this second supposition, without
which his whole argument would have been unsupported, in
these words, " for by the law is the knowledge of sin •" which
sentence must undoubtedly be considered exclusively, thus ;
By the law is the knowledge of sin only, not the remission ;
by the law therefore there is no justification.

§ 8. I know very well that there are some who, after Origen,
interpret this passage not as speaking of the law of Moses, but
of nature: but they are mistaken11. For in the first place,
though many before the law was given had a knowledge of
their offences, their own consciences accusing them, yet still
that knowledge was very obscure and imperfect, for the natural
light of reason was so darkened by sin, that they did not con
sider many things to be sins which really were so, and ac
counted many trifling which were heinous. But by the law
given by God, and inscribed upon tables, a much clearer and
more perfect knowledge of sin arose, not only as to how far
it is repugnant to right reason, but also as to how it is an
offence to God, and would be severely punished by Him ; of
both which, by the light of nature only, but few men and that See Rom.
imperfectly could gain the knowledge. Secondly, If you
interpret this passage of the law of nature, it will not be of
equal force against the Jew, who might say, Although by the
law of nature there is the knowledge of sin only, yet more
must be attributed to the Divine law which he had received.
Again : If you interpret these words of the written law of
Moses only, they will have no force against the Gentiles, who
have nothing to do with this law ; it follows, therefore, that
this passage must be interpreted of both laws, that of Moses
and that of nature. I answer, By no means ; for in the first
place, if you understand the Apostle as speaking of the writ
ten law only, still his argument will remain in full force

h Vid. Estium in loc.

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

D i s s. against the Gentiles, since it is drawn in this manner : If
the law given by God as a kind of interpreter of the natural
law obscured by sin, explaining and renewing it, be still un
able to produce righteousness, much less can the natural law
alone do it. Wherefore, if from the works of the written law,
no Jew can be justified, it must be understood as a necessary
consequence that much less can the Gentile be justified by
the works of the natural law. But, secondly, what St. Paul
observes of the Mosaic law, applies particularly to the Gentiles,
because many of them who believed in the Gospel had been
led by the instigation either of Jewish teachers, or other
Judaizers, into such an admiration of the Mosaic law as
entirely to despise, or but lightly esteem, the most holy
Gospel of Christ. Therefore, undoubtedly, the Apostle un
dertook this careful examination of the Mosaic law, chiefly
for the sake of those Gentiles who had been thus unfor
tunately seduced.

§ 9. But this defect of the Mosaic law in promising no
freedom from the Divine wrath incurred by sin, is more

Gal. 3. 10. clearly shewn by the Apostle in his Epistle to the Galatians,
where he pronounces all who are of the works of the law to
be under the curse, that is, so bound by the condemning
sentence of the law, that no hope of relief in that law appears
to them; which he more openly teaches in the thirteenth

ver. 13. verse; shewing that Christ alone, who was made "a curse
for us," has redeemed us " from the curse of the law."

§ 10. We said expressly, that the law contained no true
and perfect remission of sin, because we very well know, that
by the Mosaic law some pardon, of whatever nature it really
was, was given to sins, although voluntary and heinous.
For although those sins which were committed through
manifest pride, rebellion, and presumption, could be expiated
by no sacrifice, but were punished by death, without pardon

See Num. and mercy, except the special favour of God intervened ;

15.25,26, f<yQ^» as a learned man* has well observed, "among these
sins must not be reckoned all which are voluntary, or have
been designedly committed, but those only which arise from
an impious contempt of the commands of God, or the obsti
nacy of an insolent disposition." That persons of the opposite

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

Temporal pardon only provided by the law. 93

opinion are in error will appear from considering, that God CHAP.
hath provided sacrifices for sins such as these, the not re

storing of the pledge, cheating another, denial of finding any
property, and that with an oath. Therefore in the Mosaic Lev. 6. 2-4.
law, pardon was provided for sins even of a more heinous
kind. But of what nature was this pardon ? It was external,
civil, temporal, and regarded only this earthly life.

§11. For the law, so far as it was the instrument of civil
society, intended for the happiness of the community, pro- Beatitudi-
mised long life to those who lived according to the law ; as, "^ ™A
on the other hand, it threatened a violent death to trans- ^ev-Ja 5>
gressors. But God the Supreme Lawgiver, in His mercy, ^o. 7.
lest the whole people should be cut off by the punishments
due to sin, determined that some only of the most atrocious
crimes should be expiated by death, (as those which militated
against civil life and customs, as also against that theocratical
polity for the protection of which the Mosaic law was given,
such as idolatry, murder, adultery, &c.), but that for men
guilty of the breach of some legal rite, or polluted by some
crime inferior to those above mentioned, sacrifices should be
offered, and so the punishment of corporal death, which the
man deserved, should be transferred to the beast. So that the
sacrifices of Moses afforded an earthly redemption only, since
by Divine appointment they freed men from violent and un
timely death, but produced no remedy against death itself.
In short, they granted no pardon to which the gift of eternal
life was united, for of that neither promise nor mention is
made in the law of Moses.

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

94 How the Apostle deduces his conclusion

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

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

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

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

At the judgment-seat of God, no man can be justified by
the law of Moses, who is guilty of those sins for which 110
remission is provided at that judgment-seat by that law :

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

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

Hence the Apostle infers, that both Jews and Greeks must
have recourse to another covenant affording more extensive
mercy; to that, namely, established by the blood of Jesus
Christ, in whom is not a temporal only, but an eternal re-
¥Leb.B.9',demption and salvation. For a most full and perfect for
giveness of all sins, however heinous, united with the gift of

k In Gal. iii. Op. vol. ii. p. 220.

That there is no tme justification by the law. 95

eternal life, is promised to all those who, through faith in CHAP.
Christ, earnestly repent themselves of their former sins, and - VIn-
dedicate themselves to God and a holy life. For here indeed
St. Paul urges upon Gentiles as well as Jews, what he had
before particularly recommended to the Jews only: "Be it Acts 13.38,
known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through 39<
this man (Christ) is preached unto you the forgiveness of
sins, and by Him all that believe are justified from all things,
from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses."
Where the Apostle appears to affirm two things, not only
that through Jesus was preached a spiritual remission of sins
(which the law did not provide), but that every one who
believed in Him should be justified from all things from
which no man could be justified, not even in an earthly sense,
by the law of Moses. — And thus far of the Apostle's first
argument.

CHAP. IX.

THE SECOND ARGUMENT OF THE APOSTLE TAKEN FROM THE WEAKNESS OF

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

EFFECT PRODUCED. THE SEVENTH CHAPTER OF THE ROMANS EX
PLAINED. — 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, EX
PLAINED.

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

96 Weakness of the law from its want of assisting grace.

D I s s. § 2. That remarkable passage in the Epistle to the Romans
^om 8 - refers to this point : " For what the law could not do in
that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son
in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in
the flesh/' — To a&vvarov rov v6fj,ov, the Latin version has well
rendered by Quod impossibile erat legi ; for the genitive case
when joined with such adjectives has the force of the dative ;
eV w "in that," is because, inasmuch as, quia, or in quantum;
f)o-9evei " was weak," &a T?}? crap/cos " through the flesh," i. e.
the carnal affections of men checked its power ; ev o/Aowoyita™
(rap/cos d/jLaprtas, of flesh exposed to, or under the power of
sin ; " and for sin" /cal Trepl a^aprta^ is the same as because
Rom. 4. 25. of, on account of sin ; as Sta ra TrapaTrTw/Aara, "for our
Heb. 10.6; offences," or as others, and the margin of our Bible, " a sacri
fice for sin ;" " condemned sin in the flesh," that is, He
destroyed sin by the deliverance up of His own flesh to death ;
or, by that oblation of His own flesh He destroyed sin in our
flesh : by the change of the antecedent for the consequent,
to condemn is here put for interficere, to put to death, as
condemnation for death : because such is generally the fate

*

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

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

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

Defect of the law clearly shewn in Rom. vii. 97

there principally referred to : but the same is more clearly CHAP.
taught where speaking of the old Mosaic covenant he says - — — -
that it was not altogether faultless, or entirely free from b^^rov'.
defect, and therefore hints that it was defective in some point. ver- 9'
What that defect was, he shews from the words of Jeremiah,
namely, that it was unable to retain the covenanted in their
duty, or to assist them in the performance of its commands.
For when God, according to the prophet, says that He would
abolish the Mosaic covenant and substitute another in its
place, because the Jews had not remained in that covenant,
He clearly implies that the cause why the Jews did not remain
in that covenant did not wholly arise from their faults, but
from some defect of the covenant itself, or else what would
have been the use of abolishing that covenant, and substi
tuting a new one for it ?

§ 4. But to prove this matter there is no occasion to select
verses from various passages, when we have before us the
seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, in which the
Apostle professedly treats upon this subject; where, after
he had laid open that great mystery which among many 2 Cor. 12.
others was revealed to him before all the other Apostles,
namely, that not only the converted Gentiles but even the
Jews themselves, who had embraced the faith of Christ, were
no longer bound by the law of Moses, but were as free from
that obligation as a woman is free from the bond of marriage
upon the death of her husband ; he at length proceeds to shew ver. 5, 6.
what and how great a privilege this is, that he might excite
the Jews to embrace it with all eagerness. His words are,
"Ore yap rj/j,ev ev rr\ vapid, When we were under the carnal
discipline of the law (for that these words must be so ex
plained is plain from the antithesis they bear to those which
follow, wvl &e KarrjpytjOrj/jLev drro rov VO/JLOV, but now we are
delivered from the law], rd iraOrj/jiara rwv d/Aapriwv rd Std
rov vopov, the motions of sins which ivere (supply with Chrysos-
tom fyaivb/jueva, or yvwp^b^eva, or even yivo^eva, made mani
fest, or known by, or happened) by the law, evrjpyeiro ev rot? />teXe-
div TI^WV, did work in all our members, etV TO Kaprro$op?icrai ru>
Oavdra), so that from the law we derived this fruit only, namely,
that on account of sins committed against it we became subject
unto eternal death : wvl be fcarrjpyrjO'qjjLev drrb rov VOJAOV, but

BULL. n

98 The law indirectly excited sinful desires.

n i s s. now we are delivered from the law, airoQavovro^ eV <j>

a, the chain of the law being loosed by which we were before

bound, ware SovXeveiv rjfjias Iv Kaivor^ri Trvevftaros, KOI ou
TraXaiorrjri ypd/A/jLaros, that is, that we should no longer serve
the Most Holy God in carnal ceremonies and external observ
ances only, but should attain unto that true newness of life,
and inward purity of heart, which was the end and fulfilling of
the old law.

§ 5. Here it must be observed that the Apostle is not
satisfied with saying that the law was not able to take away
the evil inclinations of men, but according to his usual man
ner carries it into the opposite extreme, by proving that
the law indirectly served to excite and inflame them. This
he hints in these words : " the motions of sins which were
by the law ;" namely, those evil inclinations were not only
known by the law, but in a certain sense took their rise, or
at least derived increase from the law. For our old Adam
and the indulgent nature of sin, being irritated by the pro
hibition of the law, and naturally inclined to any thing for
bidden, began to exert its force, while it became more ardent
from the desire of what was forbidden. Or, as others think,
because the law provides no punishment for some crimes,
especially internal ones, such as the desire of what is for-
atyop^v bidden, hence men, taking occasion of sinning safely, and
vei\ 8.T€ w^h the hope of impunity, indulged themselves in internal
uncleanness of this kind. Whichever may be the case, it is
certain that the Apostle shews the law of Moses to have pro
vided not only no remedy for this disease of evil desires, but
that this disease became worse from the time that the law
was given.

§ 6. But because this expression might appear odious to
the Jews, and give them an opportunity of accusing the
Apostle as having taught that the law was the cause of sin,
ver. 7. and therefore evil, he prudently anticipates and takes away
this objection, by shewing that the law is free from any blame
on its part, since it had performed all that is possible for a
law to do, in forbidding all sin, even internal sinful desires,
which without the law men would scarcely have known to
have been sins. What then ? If men after the giving of the
law became worse, that arose not from the nature of the

This not of itself, but through man's depravity. 99
law, but from the fault of men themselves who abused the CHAP.

TX

sacred law. On this point the Apostle dwells up to the

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

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

H 2

100 St. Paul is not describing a regenerate person. Rom. vii. 16.

D I s s. clogged with insuperable difficulties and (not to speak more
- strongly) most evident absurdities.

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

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

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

But one unregenerate, carnal, the slave of sin. 101

the past tense to the present, must it therefore be supposed CHAP.
that he also changes the original design of his argument '• — -

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

§ 10. But this opinion not only makes the Apostle's
reasoning unconnected, but even contradictory to itself.
For undoubtedly what is said of the character described in
this chapter, is so diametrically opposite to what the Apostle
says of the regenerate man in the sixth chapter before and
eighth chapter following it, that one might sooner recon
cile light with darkness, life with death, and heaven with
hell, than these with each other. Of the man here described
it is said, " I am carnal." But of the regenerated, "he walks ver. u.
not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Of the first, that ch 8. i.
" he is sold unto sin," like a slave who is delivered up to the
power of a master, like Ahab, the worst of men as well as
kings, who is described in Scripture as "being sold to do

wickedness." But of the regenerate it is affirmed, "that^jj

102 Such expressions not used of mere infirmities.

being freed from sin he is made the servant of righteousness."
To the man described in this seventh chapter the Apostle

oh. 6. 18.

allows the knowledge of what is good, and an inefficacious

wish of performing it, but the power of performing that

ch.7.18,19. which is good he totally denies him ; whilst of the regenerate

Phil. 2. 13. the Apostle affirms, that " God worketh in them to will and to

Phil. 4. 13. do ;" and of himself says, that " by the grace of Christ he could

do all things." Lastly, it is said of the man here described,

" that the law in his members hath brought him into captivity

ch. 7. 23. to the law of sin." But of the regenerate it is immediately

ch. 8. 2. afterwards affirmed, that " the law of the Spirit of life in Christ

Jesus hath made him free from the law of sin and death."

§ 11. That which some saym, that St. Paul might have
with justice applied all this to himself, "in respect of those
infirmities to which even holy men, as long as they are in
the flesh, remain exposed ; though they are not the cause of
death to them, because they are not imputed to such as de
plore and strive against them, but are forgiven them for Christ's
sake :" this, I say, has not the least show of probability. For
who will suppose that the expressions to be carnal, — the slave of
sin, — unable to do that which is good, — to be led captive to the
law of sin, — to serve the law of sin, mean nothing more than
those infirmities Which during this life are to be found even in
the most holy men ? In what stronger terms could St. Paul
have described the condition of a man enslaved to the grossest
vices ? how widely different is this interpretation of these ex
pressions from their plain and general sense throughout the
Holy Scriptures ? and lastly, what is it (if this is not) to wrest
St. Paul's words and to do open violence to Holy Scripture?
§ 12. Let us now discuss those arguments by which the
contrary interpretation is generally supported. Parseus, in
explaining this chapter, brings these forward and defends
them with all his might n : 1. " It is evident," he says, "that
the Apostle is speaking of himself and not of another, for he
continues his complaint concerning himself in the first per
son through twelve whole verses, 'I am carnal/ &c., nor
does he any where hint that he is speaking of another. It
would therefore be too daring a forgery, and perversion of
the plain text, thus to wrest his words, Not /, but some one

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

Change of persons frequently used by St. Paul. 103

else is carnal" &c. I answer: A poor argument, indeed, though CHAP.
zealously put forward. Every one in any degree acquainted -

J0°J

with St. Paul's Epistles must be aware that this change of
person is a very favourite way of his expressing in his own '*aTI<r'* "•
person the state or circumstances of others. We have an
example of the use of this figure in the fourth chapter of
the first Epistle to the Corinthians the fifth verse, compared
with verse the sixth, where the Apostle plainly declares that
he had " transferred these things in a figure ;" and it has
been well observed by the ancients that the Apostle made
most frequent use of this figure when he wished thus to ex- f*^3^
press disagreeable matter with forbearance : thus St. Chry- |2» ^ ; *nd
sostom ; " He always rehearses unpleasant subjects in his so.
own person:" and Jerome on Daniel; "The sins of the 9*]r?' I8'
people, in that he was one of the people, he enumerates in
his own person ; which we find the Apostle also doing in his
Epistle to the Romans :" where he very probably alludes to

/.

this passage.

§ 13. Paraeus objects "that it is true a change of persons
is found in Scripture, but that wherever it occurs its mean
ing is always plain from the context, but that here it is by no
means so." Now I should say that if it is plain in any
passage, it is doubly plain here ; for not to mention the argu
ments already brought forward which absolutely require this
figure, the Apostle, when wishing to answer the objection
that the law is the cause of sin, and so to shew that so far
from being the cause it alone accurately and fairly laid open
the nature of sin, says, that he should not have known sin
but by the law, and that once when he was without the law
he did not know it; surely this being without the law denotes Ver. 2.
in the Apostle's writings the state and condition of Gentiles,
or of those who are without a written law, as opposed to
those who live under the dispensation of a law. For to live
without the law, and lawlessly, or lawless, mean the same thing.
Now the Apostle surely was never without the law, inasmuch see
as he was a Jew by birth, a disciple of Gamaliel from his ] Q,J. 9.
childhood, and one who had imbibed the teaching of the law 20> 21-
with his mother's milk. It is necessary, therefore, for us to
suppose that the Apostle wished to represent in his own per
son the state of the Jews : in the first place such as they

104 St. Paul's meaning of being 'without the law'

D I s s. were without the laiv, i. e. before the law was given, and then

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

was given. And if he began his argument with this change

of person, what reason is there to induce us to believe that he

did not continue it in the following verses ?

in ver. 9. § 14. Parseus here replies, that " St. Paul says he was
without the law, not because he had it not, or was ignorant
of it ; but because he was careless in the consideration of it,
not perceiving that it condemned all concupiscence as mortal
sin." So also he explains the words when the commandment
came : " he says, that it came to him not because he had it
not before, but because he had not understood it : for that
which we have but understand not, is to us as though we
had it not." But who is now to be charged with a manifest
perversion of the passage let the candid reader judge. For
in the first place, who would ever say that a man is without
the law, who, while he has the law and knows that he has it,
does not thoroughly understand it ? Certainly Holy Scripture
never so speaks. I challenge him to produce a single instance.
2dly. It is easy to determine what the words when the com-

Rom.5.20. mandment came mean, from the corresponding passage, "More
over the law entered that the offence might abound." Who
does not see that the passage in question is exactly the same
as this? for what is there expressed by the law entered,
is here expressed by tvhen the commandment came : there
it is that the offence might abound, here, that sin revived.
Now it is quite clear that the entering in of the law in the
fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, does not mean
the spiritual perception of the law, but its first entrance
into the world, when it was given to men : and therefore
the coming of the commandment in the other passage
means the same thing. Srdly. In the last place I would
ask at what time St. Paul says that he lived without the
law, that is, without a true perception of it? To this
question Parseus professedly replies in his explanation of the
third difficulty in this chapter, in the following words : "°He
must be understood to speak of his early, middle, or present
age : it is clear he is not speaking of the last, nor of his child
hood : for the effects which he attributes to sin and to the

0 Vid. etiarn Calvin, in locum.

Difference between 'willing* and 'doing' good. 105

law are not found in childhood : neither does he speak of a CHAP.
merely elementary knowledge of the law, but of such as -
adults and even doctors of the law possess, as he mentions
in the seventeenth verse of the eleventh chapter : it is plain
therefore that he is speaking of his middle age, which he
passed as a Pharisee." And in what follows he contends
that during the whole of that period St. Paul was ivithout the
law in the sense above mentioned. Now from these words of
Parseus I deduce the following argument : If St. Paul as long
as he was a Pharisee was without the law, the commandment
must have come to him when he was brought to the faith of
Christ, and not till then: but this is perfectly at variance
with his own words, that "when the commandment came sin ver. 9, 10,
revived, and I died, and the commandment which was
ordained to life I found to be unto death; for sin, taking
occasion by the law, deceived me, and by it slew me," which
no one in his senses would say befel St. Paul after his con
version to Christ ; but this is the way in which learned men,
while they do violence to the plain meaning of Scripture,
fasten a difficulty upon themselves and their hearers, to which
they are both helplessly fixed. On the other hand, I suppose
that this passage shews clearly that the Apostle gives more
than some slight hint that he is not speaking of himself in
this chapter, but is sustaining the character of some one else.
But we have said more than enough on this first argument.

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

P De velleitate quddam. Literally plying inefficiency, as opposed to vo-
" woulding," the conditional form im- luntas. — ED.

106 Hatred of sin found even in heathens.

D I s s. here drawing a difference between witling what is good, and
— ,r-j^ — doing it; for these are so distinguished and opposed, that
T6 flexes, IQ wm signifies only a certain inclination or tendency, but

ydCeo-eai not a definite, anxious, perfect, or determined will : for such
KO.\OV.

£ necessity produces action. St. Paul, therefore, says
that he was inclined and predisposed towards what was
good, but that his will was not definite, anxious, or firm
enough to lead to action; and he affirms that he was not
able to acquire such a will. Is this then the regenerate
state of that almost divine man, to have but a slight inclina
tion for holiness and virtue, yet to be unable ever to prevail
upon himself to discharge their duties ? Let the same view
be taken of that hatred of sin of which the Apostle speaks ;
for whatever emphasis be attributedq to this expression, still
no one hates sin at the very moment he is committing it.
Never was any drawn into sin by concupiscence, who sinned
against his will ; for it were a manifest contradiction, to be
sinning against his will, and yet be led to it by concu
piscence : therefore all that hatred which the man here de
scribed felt towards sin must be referred to that time when
either concupiscence had not yet been excited by objects
presented to it, or it had not yet overcome the opposition
of the reason. After concupiscence prevailed, it follows as
a matter of course, that as long as it kept the reason in its
power, there was no hatred of sin. But this is great praise
indeed, to be so regenerate as to hate sin when no passion
or incitement of appetite induces us to commit it; but as
soon as the opportunity of doing wrong offers itself, and
some desire has urged us to commit sin, then heartily to
love it ! No one can be ignorant that such a hatred of sin
is often to be found even in the greatest sinners ; and who
would be surprised to find a struggle of this kind in a Jew
blessed with a knowledge of God's law, were he to find the
same even in a heathen? There is a remarkable passage
Ep. 52. in Seneca : " What is this, O Lucilius, which, while we are
going one way drags us another, and impels us thither from
whence we are longing to recede ? what is it that struggles
with our soul, and never permits us to do any thing ? we
vacillate between two opinions ; we will nothing freely, no-

i Vid. Amy raid. p. 37, 08.

Approval of God's law common to good and bad. 107

thing perfectly, nothing always." Well known also is that CHAP.
saying of the Poet's, where he introduces Medea with these —
words :

I see the better part, and own it better ;
This the worse, I choose.

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

§ 16. I will add this one remark : let this description of
the regenerate man as given by Paraeus5 be granted. te It is
the part," he says, " of the regenerate to hate sin, but some
times to commit it ; to will what is good, and generally to
do it." Now if this description can be made to apply to the
person represented in this chapter, with any show of truth,
then as far as I am concerned let Parseus' interpretation be
adopted : but how, I ask, can he so hate sin as only some
times to commit it, who is actually the servant of sin? how
does he so will what is good, as generally to do it, who
cannot find how to do what is good ; that is, (as is clear from
the antithesis to the preceding verb, is present ivith), who has Trapa/ten-at
not the power or faculty of doing right? Whence Paraeus
himself on the nineteenth verse, t( for the good that I would
I do not," &c., grants that the Apostle, though not continu
ally, still for the most part was subject, and that the regene
rate are subject to this inconsistency: namely, that the good
which they would, they do not ; but the evil which they would
not, that they do : and thus he plainly contradicts himself.

§ 17. It is objected in the third place, " That to consent See PS. i.
unto the law that it is good, and to delight in its spiritual ^J19' "'
obedience, is the peculiar privilege of the regenerate. The
Apostle in this struggle consents unto the law that it is good, ver. 16, 22.
and delights in its spiritual obedience : therefore he is speak
ing as a regenerate person." I answer; As to the consenting
unto the Divine law nothing can be plainer than that this

r De Vera Sapient, iv. 24. s Explic. dub. 4. in resp. ad arg. 2.

108 Delight in what is good found in the unregenerate.

D i s s. is common to unregenerate as well as to regenerate persons.
- He who denies this,, must in all fairness deny that an unre
generate man ever sins against the dictates of his conscience ;
for as often as a man sins against his conscience, he trans
gresses that law which he is convinced in his own mind is
good, and ought not to be violated : common sense therefore
and experience will sufficiently refute this part of the argu
ment. Let us then discuss the other part of it ; and here our
adversaries triumph as if at once victorious : for thus Parseus
ver. 22. comments on those words, " for I delight in the law of God :"
aicpdreis. " By this desire he plainly separates himself from the incon
tinent of the philosophers, and declares that he is spiritual
though he had hefore said that he was carnal ; for no one
except the spiritually-minded delights in the law of God."
But this of which the learned man makes so much, is really
0-vvhSo/j.ai nothing. For in the first place to delight in the law clearly
TV v<>w. means f.ne same as to consent unto the law in the sixteenth

ffvp.<priiJLi

TU> v6p.$. verse, so that we have here a change of the consequent for
the antecedent, delight for approve : since we generally de
light in what we approve. This one and the same approba
tion of the law the Apostle expresses in various ways : thus
in the twenty-fifth verse, "with the mind I serve the law of
God." Where to serve does not mean in very act and deed
to obey the law, (for this is not the part of the mind,) but a
consenting unto it, as holy, just, and good, and an acknow
ledgment of the entire obedience due to it ; and this kind
of approbation we have seen is possible in an unregenerate
person. In the second place, granting that this word signifies
delight, properly so called, this in no way helps Parseus ; for
supposing we were to affirm that as to will what is good may
be applied to an unregenerate person, so to delight and re
joice in it might also, we should not be asserting any thing
new, or contrary to what has been already said : for in pro
portion as a man wills any thing so far he also rejoices and
delights in it ; nor is it possible to separate these from each
other. Do not the Holy Scriptures expressly declare that
this delight is sometimes to be found in the unregenerate ?

7;8ews. Thus Herod is said to have heard the Holy Baptist's preach-
' ing gladly, and not without great pleasure of mind. The

Joh. 5. (ib. Jews are said "to have rejoiced in his light," and they that

TJie 'inward' and the 'new' man not the same. 109
stood but for a while "to have received the word with joy. " CHAP.

IX

They who say that these passages do not mean a true and '—

real delight in the law of God, but a fluctuating and unstable
one, how is it that they do not see that the same remark
equally, nay in a much greater degree, applies to the passage
before us ? For St. Paul certainly does not attribute to the
person here represented a firm and settled delight in the law
of God, but one of such sort as when the allurements of the
flesh present themselves is overcome and absorbed by them, so
that the wretched man is at last led captive to the law of sin
in his members : but who can object to the unregenerate having ver. 22, 2.3.
such a delight as this, or who attribute it to the regenerate ?
§ 18. Fourthly, it is objected that "The regenerate alone
possess the inward man, that is, the new man : the Apostle
in this struggle possessed it, for he says, ' I delight in the law
of God after the inward man/ therefore he is speaking as
regenerate." I answer : This argument depends on the false
supposition that the Apostle means the same thing by the
inward and the new man ; which is very far from the truth,
for, as Grotius has well observed, neither the inward and the
new man, nor the outward and the old man, are the same
thing. The terms old and new man signify his qualities
under the name of their subject ; and when the terms out
ward and inward man are used, the name of the whole is
given to its parts as a figure of speech : and so the new man,
is the renewed man; the old, the corrupt man in a state of
sin : the inner man is the rational soul ; the outward, the
body with its affections. This is plain from the passage in
the fourth chapter of the second Epistle to the Corinthians
the sixteenth verse, where by the outward man the Apostle
evidently means his body, which was daily weakened by
hunger, watchings, imprisonments, and stripes, and every
kind of affliction ; while by the inward man, opposed to the
other, he means his rational soul, his better part, which no
afflictions could weaken, but which on the contrary became
improved by them, and daily attained unto new degrees of
holiness. His persecutors indeed could bruise and torture,
nay even kill his body, but they could do no more. Their See Luke
malice could not reach his soul, inasmuch as that was be
yond reach of their weapons, without the danger, safe in the

1 10 The inward man signifies the mind or intellect.

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

**• the hidden man of the heart, who opposes the outward adorn-

e ' ' ing of the body to the inward adorning of the hidden man of
the heart, that is, the mind. Moreover here the inward and
outward man are opposed to each other in the same person,
but where there is the new man, there the old has ceased to
be. Some relics indeed of the old man remain even in the
regenerate, but these (as far as I know) are never called in
Scripture by the name of the old man ; since the old man
means the whole body of sin (so to speak) complete and per-
vcr. 22. feet in all its members. Lastly, it is evident that to delight
ver. 25. in the law of God after the inward man is the same as to serve
the law of God with the mind, therefore the mind and inward
man are the same, and no one except an idiot would deny
that every man has a mind. All this Parseus, in his usual
confident way, despises as frivolous, notwithstanding his own
answers are so very frivolous that one is sorry to mention
them, they need only be read to be refuted. I will add
two more remarks of the learned Grotius on this passage :
the first is, that the Apostle is here speaking after the manner
of other writers : the expression imvard man, is called by Philo,
[nepi TOW in a work entitled Pejorem Insidiari Meliori, the man dwelling
rcS XK^(T ™ eac^ °ne's soul, where also he says, that it is this which in-
rovtQ&eb visibly reproves us from within; and in his Book on Agricul-
ffQai, p~ ture he calls the same the leading man, and adds, what can
195. vol. i. tfa man that is within us be but the mind? And also in his
gey.] book Hepl rrjs efc TrpoTraL^evfjuara (rvvobov, he says that God
ought to be praised by us in the mind, which is the man in
gressu man, the superior in the inferior. Indeed St. Paul here uses
quite the common mode of speech : for Plautus also speaks of
^e safety °f ^e inward man. Grotius' * second remark is,
that this passage is explained in the same way by the ancient
eh. 39. p. Father Tertullian ; for in his book on the Resurrection, he
says : " Thus the word man is in a certain sense the con
necting link of two connected substances ; which cannot be
expressed by this word, unless they be joined together.
Moreover the Apostle, by the inward man, does not so much

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

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

mean the soul as the mind, or intellect, that is, not the sub- CHAP.

stance itself, but that which gives a savour unto it." '• —

§ 19. It is objected fifthly: "It is the privilege of the re
generate alone to bewail over their wretchedness, arising from
the power of sin ; to long for deliverance, and to acknowledge
and praise the grace of God through Christ ; the Apostle sighs,
and gives thanks for his deliverance through Christ, therefore
he is speaking as regenerate." I answer : If the words in the ver. 24, 25.
twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth verses, on which this argument
depends, be more carefully examined, it will be seen that far
from supporting this view, they greatly confirm the opinion
I am advancing. For the Apostle adds in the twenty-fourth
verse an exclamation or expression of misery suited to the
man whom he had been describing in the preceding verses ;
shewing his miserable, and if you regard the law, actually
hopeless condition. Then in verse twenty-five he sets forth
the grace of God through Christ, by which alone he himself
had been delivered from this most wretched state, and a way
of deliverance had been made and thrown open to others ;
which thanksgiving is to be read in a parenthesis, as if he
said — Most wretched indeed is the state of a man under the
law, whom I have been describing in the former verses, for
he is subject to the body of death, that is, to the dominion
of sin, and therefore to death itself; but everlasting thanks
givings are due and rmist be offered to Almighty God through
Jesus Christ our Lord, by whose assistance and intervention
I myself have obtained deliverance from this bodjr of death,
and others, if they will like me embrace the Gospel, may
obtain it likewise ; for as he presently says, " What the law ch. 8. 3, A
could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God
sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, con
demned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law
might be fulfilled in us." And from this we gain the following
argument, which supports our view in the strongest manner.
The state of the person described in this chapter is a state
of misery, a state of sin and death, a state, in short, from
which whosoever are Christ's are delivered.

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

112 Meaning of the phrase ' I myself.'

D I s s. § 20. The sixth and last argument springs out of the words,
— " So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God." On
these Parseus thus remarks : " His saying / myself takes away
all doubt that the Apostle is speaking of himself and 110
other, and not of his past but of his present state, in which
he actually was while writing these words : / myself, he says,
and not some one else beside me ; also / serve, not / have
served. >} He then proceeds, "Julian the Pelagian was
somewhat too unreasonable in supposing that the Apostle
is speaking of some one in his unregenerate state, and so
let those who are so pleased with this gloss of his see how
they may free themselves from the same charge." I answer :
Parseus was too rash in rejecting merely on account of this
trifle of grammar an opinion supported by so many strong
arguments, and then to accuse its supporters of unreasonable
ness : besides, he is mistaken as to the grammatical part of
it ; for not to mention the use of the present tense, (since we
have shewn above that this is an absurd cavil,) it is not neces-
iile ego. sary that auro? lyw be rendered / myself", since / that man is
better, that is, / that man whom I have described under the
first person, as Grotius has well remarked. Therefore so far
from this pronoun proving that the Apostle is speaking of him
self, it goes rather to prove the contrary. For if the Apostle
had been so speaking, he would have most probably said simply
/; nor would any other addition have been necessary : only
because he had hitherto been describing some one else in his
own person, (with the exception of that short thanksgiving
spoken parenthetically in the beginning of this verse,) he
therefore says, for the sake of greater clearness, / myself, or
/ that one, in order that these latter words might be under
stood not of himself, as those just preceding, but of the same
person described in the former verses.

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

M 7 myself seems however to be the the Apostle in his own person without

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

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

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

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

20. of sin, but his spirit enabled by grace

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

Arguments from Gal. v. 17. examined. 113

summing up of the entire question. " So then/' &c., as if c HA P.
he had said, To close this digression then, (which was begun -
at the seventh verse,) since that one and the same man whom
I have hitherto been describing in my own person, carried
away by the flesh serves the law of sin, but with the mind
consents to the law of God, and wishes to obey it, it is
evident both that the law is of itself and in its own nature
free from all blame, (the contrary to which was objected in
verse seven), and is specially holy, good and pure; since the
consciences even of those who transgress it bear witness to
its holiness : and also (what has been before shewn in the
fifth verse, and from which our opponents might take occa
sion of making these objections) that the law though of itself
holy, yet had clearly no power to free men from the dominion
of sin, on account of their carnal affections quenching its
influence : inasmuch as it enlightened the intellect with the
knowledge of sin, but furnished no strength or means ade
quate for subduing the flesh, and overcoming its dominion.

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

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

BULL. 7< 14'

114 What kind of struggle is there described.

D i s s. but Estius purposely presses it : the passage is from the

'- — Epistle to the Galatians : " For the flesh lusteth against the

Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh : and these are con
trary the one to the other : so that ye cannot do the things
that ye would :" " which words," says Estius, " since they
Rom. 7. is, are exactly similar to those in the Epistle to the Romans, ' I
see another law in my members warring against the law of
my mind,' and ' for what I would not that I do/ and ' for to
will is present with me; but how to perform that which is
good I find not/ and without doubt apply to the regenerate,
clearly shew that even this passage (namely, in the seventh
chapter of the Romans) must be referred to a regenerate and
spiritual person, who is continually warring against the flesh/'
I answer, first, That must indeed be a strange system of
interpretation which on account of some similarity of words
in one passage of Scripture would give a meaning to another
entirely at variance with the object and design of the author
in that passage. Now we have abundantly proved that the
Apostle' s object in the seventh chapter of his Epistle to the
Romans is to shew the inefficiency of the law when separated
from the grace of the Gospel, to crush the power of sin, and
consequently the wretched condition of a man under the law
alone. Whatever therefore be the meaning of this passage
in the Galatians, it is certain that the Apostle in this seventh
chapter of his Epistle to the Romans is by no means speak
ing of a man regenerated by the grace of the Gospel. But,
in the second place, we cannot perceive this similarity in these
two passages which Estius imagined he did : on the contrary,
if they are carefully examined they will be found to differ
very considerably. They agree indeed in this, that in both a
certain struggle in the man is described : but this struggle is
very different, whether we look to those struggling, or to the
event of the contest.

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

The event of the contest victorious through grace. 115

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

§ 25. With regard to the event of the contest, the Apostle
does not say here that a man renewed by the grace of the
Gospel cannot perform the good that he would, much less
that he is led captive to the flesh, or to the law of sin in the
flesh, or that he is the slave of sin, all which expressions he
does apply to a man under the law in his Epistle to the
Romans : on the contrary, if we attend to what he says, he Rom. 7.
determines the state of the regenerate to be just the reverse :
which will be evident if we refer the words " so that ye can- Gal. 5. 17.
not do the things that ye would x" to that which immediately
precedes them, namely "the Spirit against the flesh " (the
words " and these are contrary the one to the other" being
taken in a parenthesis), and so interpret them not of the good
works of the Spirit, but of the evil ones of the flesh, in the
following way : The flesh lusteth against the Spirit : but on
the other hand the Spirit lusteth also against the flesh, and
possesses such a power over you, that ye do not commit those
sins which ye would wish to do through the flesh. This is
Grotius' interpretation, and I think it is a very plain one :
for in the first place it is much fitter to refer the last words
in the verse to the clause immediately preceding them than

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

i 2

116 Those under the Spirit of Christ cannot obey the flesh.

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

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

This passage conclusive against the opposite opinion. 117

dictates of the Spirit; then it must necessarily be supposed CHAP.
that the Apostle is speaking to the Galatians not as to those

blessed with the birth unto salvation, but to those who
though in some degree illumined by the knowledge of the
Gospel, and affected by the Spirit of Christ, were still remain
ing under the dominion of the flesh, and having more inter
course with the law than with the Gospel. For the Apostle
in this very chapter is plainly speaking of the regenerate.
" If ye walk in the Spirit" (which all regenerate persons ver. ]6.
do) " ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh ;" " If ye be Se^Rom-

led of the Spirit" (which also the Apostle affirms of all rege- See Rom.

8. 14.
ver. 18.

nerate persons) " ye are not under the law ;" that is, now 8' 14<

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

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

118 Weakness of the law.

CHAP. X.

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

HOLT SPIRIT. OF WHAT CONSEQUENCE WAS THE FIRST DEFECT. SOME

PASSAGES ON THIS HEAD PRODUCED. FOUR DIFFICULTIES ON THIS

SUBJECT REMOVED.

Diss. § 1. "WE have given a general explanation of the Apostle's

~ argument taken from the weakness of the law. But because

on this point almost the whole of the Apostle's reasoning

against justification by the law depends, it will, perhaps, be

worth while to consider it a little more fully.

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

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

Its defect twofold, external and internal. 119

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

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

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

120 No express promise of eternal life in the law.

Num. 6.
22—27.

Deut, 26.
12—15.

Exod. 23.
25.

Rom. 8. 3.

(rapt
Rom. 7. 5.

from accurate, perfect, or advanced to its full bounds. How
many things were permitted them, which to Christians are
entirely unlawful, or improper. How many principal offices
of piety are only slightly hinted at in the law, or darkly
taught, or altogether omitted; which is so true, that prayer
itself, the chief office of piety, which must be constantly per
formed by Christians, is not in the law universally com
manded, that is, to all the people, and at all times. The
High Priest was expressly commanded to pray for the whole
people, and to bless them, according to a set form, as appears
from the book of Numbers. And there was also a set form
of prayer appointed for the people, at the end of the tithing
time ; so that Episcopiusy was mistaken when he says that
no set form of prayer was ever given to the people under the
law. Nevertheless I hold this to be most true, that in the
law of Moses there is no general commandment for prayer
upon all occasions, and therefore the Rabbins, in their collec
tion of six hundred and thirteen precepts z, declare that there
is no express command to pray to and call upon God ; as is
also observed by Episcopius, but they gather it from the
common expression in the Scriptures, to serve, having re
course to their Cabala and oral law. But this by the way.

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

y Instit. Theolog., lib. 3. § 3. chap. 1.

z See a remarkable proof of this

quoted from the very ancient book of

Cosri by Arnold. Poelenburg. in Prsef.
ad Operum Episcopii Theol., partem
alteram.

Its precepts carnal and external, its promises temporal. 121

verse, as well as from the intent of the Apostle through the CHAP.
whole of that chapter, which is to describe the state of man -
under the law. Now the law of Moses seems to be called
flesh, not only because most of its precepts are carnal and
external, but also because its promises, by which that law was
confirmed, do not reach beyond this earthly life. In the
same sense Grotius explains the words of the Apostle, in his 2 Cor. 3.
second Epistle to the Corinthians, where professedly treating
of the superiority of the new covenant above the old one, he
calls the old law the ministry of death, because all its promises ver. 7.
were terminated by death without any hope of a resurrection.
So the Mosaic law is said to kill, because it leaves man sub- ver. 6.
ject to death, and delivers him not from it, as also, according
to Grotius, the Hebrew word to make alive is said of him who rpnn
has not killed any one. But to say the truth, I should think 17*°
that these phrases, the ministry of death, and to kill, have a ^dses 8-
different meaning, namely, that the Mosaic law, considered
separately from the Spirit of God, kills, that is, renders those
to whom it is given subject to the Divine wrath and eternal
death ; not indeed by its OAvn fault, but on account of the
weakness of the flesh. Which meaning is clearly confirmed See Rom.
by what the Apostle says elsewhere. The following words 4, i^
seem plainer. " The law is not of faith, but the man that Gal. 3. 12.
doeth them shall live in them;" that is, the law neither
requires faith, nor promises those things which exercise it,
strictly speaking (for it is the evidence of things not seen), Compare
since all its promises are the immediate subject of the senses, with Rom!
and belong to this visible life : of a future life it says nothing ; 8- 24>
it stimulates us to virtue by no promises of that life, but
commands us to perform its precepts without any such
encouragement ; it only says, Thou shalt live, i. e. shalt be Lev. is. 5.
prosperous and happy. But the Apostle's meaning is most
clear in the following passage : " For if there had been a law Gal. 3. 21.
given which could have given life, verily righteousness should
have been by the law :" a law is said to give or do that which
it promises : the sense therefore is, If the law had had the
promises of eternal life, then would men have been able, by
the law, to have obtained true and spiritual righteousness, or
true and perfect justification, that is, such as was united
with the gift of eternal life. But the matter is far otherwise,

122 Hebrews \\\. 19. explained.

D I s s. for the law contained promises respecting this life only, and
- therefore could neither induce men to true piety nor grant
them true justification.

§ 7. In accordance with these passages from St. Paul's
writings, is the following bearing on the same subject by the
divine author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, (whoever he
Heb. 7. 19. might have been). The passage is remarkable: " For the law
made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope
did, by the which we draw nigh unto God." Here almost
every word deserves our notice. The word here translated
ereAeiWev made perfect, more properly signifies to expiate, and that most
perfectly, even the most heinous sins, and all punishments,
both temporal and eternal. Nothing, evidently means no
man; but the words the introduction of a better hope did,
afford more difficulty. Some refer them to the law in this
manner : For the law perfected nothing, but was the intro
duction of a better hope, that is, Christ. But in the first
place, this interpretation takes away the antithesis between
the law and the Gospel which is here evident : and in the
next, the preposition eVl in the word eTreicraycoyrj signifies
something added or introduced after, as in the word eVtSta-
Gai. 3. 15. rdo-aerat,, addeth thereto : eTreio-ayooyrj therefore is ill rendered
by introductio, the bringing in, since it signifies a super-
introduction or post-introduction. Now the post-introduction
of a better hope is put for a better hope afterwards brought in,
so that the Gospel is here clearly signified, in which that
better hope is revealed : the word ei-eXeicocrev, made perfect,
fyyifav must be repeated here, as above. Lastly, to draw nigh, as
See Ezek. Grotius observes, is properly a word belonging to the priest's
19| l ' office. But here to draw nigh to God, signifies to approach
Him through faith, repentance, and newness of life, and to
SeeJas.4.8. offer ourselves to Him as a lively sacrifice, holy and accept-
Wisd. a 2. able. These last words also clearly shew the reason why the
hope introduced by the Gospel is better, and leads to a
perfect expiation, because undoubtedly it makes us draw
nigh to God, seek His favour in prayer, serve Him with the
whole heart, and keep all His commandments. But when
we in this manner draw nigh to God, God on His part draws
nigh to us, that is, closely embraces us with the arm of His
love, most perfectly forgives all our sins for His Son's sake,

Indications of a future life in the Old Testament. 123

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

x

this better hope,, cannot lead us in this manner to God, nor -
make us partakers of a perfect expiation. This subject is
more largely explained in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where Heb. 8.
the Gospel covenant by which that better hope was given, is
called a more excellent covenant than that of the law, because
this last was not confirmed by such excellent promises. It
would be easy to produce many such passages, but these are
sufficient. We shall now consider certain difficulties on this
subject which deserve explanation.

§ 8. The first question is, whether there be in the Old
Testament no promise of eternal life ? on which some per
sons are in doubt. But Augustine, in my opinion, answers
it best, defining what is meant by the Old Testament, whether
the covenant given from mount Sinai only, or all the Scrip
tures of Moses and the Prophets, and the other holy writers.
If the word be understood in the latter sense, it must cer
tainly be allowed that there are in it some indications of a
future life, especially in the book of Psalms, in Daniel, and
Ezekiel. But even in these you will with difficulty find any
clear and express promise of eternity. But these, whatever
they were, were but preludes and anticipations of the grace
of the Gospel, and did not belong to the law. For the law,
so far as it comes under the consideration of the Apostle in
his disputations with the Jews, properly signifies the covenant
made on mount Sinai. That it contained earthly promises, See Gal.
and those only, may be proved from many passages. If any Exod! 23.
think otherwise, let him shew (which however is impossible) LeV226 3-
one passage containing a promise of eternal life. It is true Deut 7-4
indeed, that the earthly promises given to the law of works, 2, &c.'
were signs of those blessings which should follow the law of
the Spirit, and it was the intention of the Almighty that they
should be so understood. It is also true, that there are in the
law general promises, or at least given in general terms, in
which eternal life not only may be understood, but it is
evidently the Divine intention that it should : such as, / will
be thy God, and, / will bless thee. That in these promises,
thus generally expressed, it is possible those blessings are
intended which take place only after death, who can doubt ?
That God should be the God of any one, what does it signify,

124 Eternal blessings veiled under the temporal.

DISS. but that God will embrace him with divine benevolence?
- But such benevolence as is divine, and worthy of God, can
be only that, beyond which there is nothing greater or
better; it must also be benevolence of the longest dura
tion, that is, eternal; most powerful in effect, and therefore
liberating from death and destruction. That God intended
that under these words eternal life should be understood,
SeeMat.^ appears from the words of Christ and His Apostles. But
Heb.i'i. 16- these things do not sufficiently prove that eternal life was
I6,°i8;67. Promised in the Mosaic covenant. For in the first place,
i; Rev. 21. promises, especially when annexed to a covenant, ought to
be clear and express, and of such a nature as to be well
understood by each party. But these promises were typical
and general, without the addition of any interpretation, and
hence almost impossible to be understood in the above sense.
Of types this is certain. With respect to general promises,
as all general promises are rather obscure, particularly when
mixed with innumerable particular promises, by which they
seem restrained to a certain kind of blessings, as is the case
here, it is scarcely possible that any one should understand
these general promises otherwise than as containing a multi
tude of particular ones, or should extend them beyond the
bounds of this life. This eternal life also shadowed forth in
types and comprehended by general promises, was not given,
as we have just hinted, to the external righteousness taught
in the letter of the law, but to that spiritual purity, of which
that external piety was only a shadow. For as under the veil
of temporal blessings eternal ones were concealed, so also the
outward religion prescribed in the law was the shadow and
type of that spiritual righteousness which was to be more
clearly revealed in the Gospel. In a word, the law, in a
carnal and literal view, did not require spiritual righteous
ness, nor promise eternal life; but spiritually considered,
was the very Gospel itself; and when taken in this sense
the Apostle raises no objections against it.

§ 9. Secondly, Were there then any, you will ask, under

the law who expected life eternal ? I answer : It is most

Vid. Epi- probable that the wisest and most pious Jews, either by the

supP Ul extent of the general promises, or from a contempt of earthly

blessings, or from a perception of the Divine goodness, or the

Abraham and the saints of old received these by faith. 125

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

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

the oral law, which they also call cabala, that is,

or tradition, both which, they say, were given by Moses;

126 The doctrine taught more clearly in later times.

D I s s. not that the teaching of the tradition was different to that

— of the written law, but that studious enquirers might

have explained by a more accurate interpretation those

points in the written law which were of somewhat obscure

meaning.

§ 11. And this system of teaching, namely, a ruder kind

for the people, but more accurate for the advanced, seems to

have prevailed (as the same incomparable writer has ob

served) up to the times which followed the Babylonish cap

tivity. Then Daniel first openly spoke of the resurrection,

D^DDn as did Ezekiel, who followed. After this, the wise men who

were not divinely inspired, succeeded to the prophets, but

with inferior authority. These out of Daniel openly taught

to the whole multitude of the Jews the doctrine of the resur-

See2Mac. rection, and a future life, so that in the times of the Mac-

29, aff cabees, this doctrine being entirely drawn out of its conceal-

s^ men^ became an article of the Jewish religion and faith, as
we learn from the history of those times.

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

Notions of the heathens about it, vague and obscure. 127

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

§ 13. From the last answer a new question arises. In
what sense then is Christ said to have "brought life and 2Tim.i.io.
immortality to light through the Gospel •" since it appears
from what has been said, that the doctrine of a future life
was commonly received among the Jews many years before
the coming of Christ ? In the first place I answer, that this
text may perhaps be referred to the Gentiles only, who were
before described by the Apostle as "having no hope, and Eph. 2. 12.
being without God in the world •" his words in the eleventh
verse evidently incline to this meaning; "Whereunto I am
appointed a preacher and an apostle and a teacher of the
Gentiles." You will say, But even among the Gentiles there
were some who had hopes of a life after this. This is true ;
and indeed among all the civilized, and even barbarous
nations, some notion, or as it were report, of the immortality
of souls had prevailed0. But first, not a few of the philoso
phers thought otherwise. Epicurus, for example, and his
herd, openly laughed at the notion of a future life, and even
Aristotle either says nothing, or that very obscurely, on the
soul's immortality. Secondly, those who most favoured this
doctrine, hesitated greatly about it, and it was rather an
opinion than a belief d. Thirdly, in explaining it, their
opinions were various and discordant : the Stoics6 thought
that the souls remained for a certain time, but not beyond
the period of conflagration. The Pythagoreans defended
the doctrine of metempsychosis, of which a certain poet
says,

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

a Discuss, p. 14. (1 Vid. Diog. Laert. vii. 134.

b In Annot. ad Eph. ii. 12. e In Annot. ad lib. ii. c. 9. de Ver.

c Vide Grotium in Annot. ad lib. i. Rel. Christ, p. <54.
de Ver. Rel. Christ, p. 38, 39.

128 In what sense the Gospel brought immortality to light.
D i s s. And

He compels them to endure the forms of mute beasts :
He makes the cruel, bears, the rapacious, wolves,
The crafty, foxes. And when he has driven them
Through many years and thousand shapes,
At length he again recalls them, purged
By Lethe's stream, to the first elements
Of the human form.

And lastly, the Platonists, the most religious sect of philoso
phers, imagined a kind of rotation, and that the souls of
men were for ever by turns happy and miserable. So that
Justin Martyr5, in his dialogue with Trypho, said truly of
all the philosophers, " that they knew nothing on this subject,
and could not tell what the soul was." Fourthly, and lastly,
those among the Gentiles who have said any thing concerning
a future life, have restricted it to the soul only, never dream
ing of the resurrection of the body. Hence we read that

Acts 17. is. when St. Paul, at Athens, spoke of the resurrection of the
body, the philosophers mocked him as if he taught a direct
absurdity.

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

vid. Grot, under pretence of the luxuriance of the prophetic style, and

in loc.

f P. 222. edit. Morell. Paris. 1636. * Vid. Grot. in. Matt. v. 20.

Ignorance of the Jews concerning a future life. 129

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

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

h [See Pocock's Works, vol. i. Porta * Not. Miscel. cap. 6. [p. 159, 160.
Mosis, p. 52. ed. 1740.] ed. 1740.]

BULL.

130 Our Saviour's resurrection the earnest of immortality.

D i s s. the behemoth, leviathan, and bariuchne, an ox, a fish, and
- — a birdk ; so in the time of Christ the Jews supposed there
would be a happy state hereafter, but exactly similar to our
present life. Hence Josephus, mentioning the opinion of the
Essenes (the most spiritual sect among the Jews) concerning
future happiness, uses almost the same words as the Greeks
did when speaking of the Fortunate Islands. For he says1, that
to the good were granted, "beyond the ocean, habitations
free from storms, and heat and cold ; but where gentle zephyrs
from the sea perpetually refresh the air." Whence arose the

Mat.22.i8. captious question of the Sadducees, proposed to Christ, con
cerning the woman who had married seven brothers suc
cessively, whose wife should she be at the resurrection. For
the Sadducees, the opponents of the Pharisees, supposed that
Christ taught the resurrection on the same principles as the
Pharisees did; but these, among other corporal pleasures,
supposed that conjugal love would remain to us in a future
state. These gross and dark ideas Christ illumined by a clear
and spiritual light, teaching openly the punishment of the
wicked, and declaring that the rewards of the pious were not
only lasting, but eternal ; and not of every kind, but such as
consisted in the company of angels and the beatific vision
and fruition of God Himself.

§ 16. Thirdly, Christ gave to His doctrine what was of the
greatest consequence, the light of firm and sufficient testi
mony, by enforcing its belief on men by many and great
miracles, of which the chief was, that He openly recalled the
dead to life, and after His own death shewed Himself alive
again to many. After which, nothing more to confirm this
point could be reasonably expected. For it was now certain,

Actsi?.3i. as the Apostle argues, that " God hath appointed a day in
the which He will judge the world in righteousness, by that
Man whom He hath ordained, whereof He hath given assur
ance unto all men, in that He hath raised Him from the
dead."

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

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

Christ alone the Fountain and Giver of life eternal. 131

from the law, could not arrive at true righteousness by the CHAP.
law ? I answer, that besides the extreme uncertainty, and —
confused idea they had of that hope, this was the chief reason,
namely, that the Jews sought for eternal life in the external
righteousness of the law, to which it was never promised.
Hence it happened that they were never led by this hope to
such piety as was true and worthy of God, thinking they
could obtain that future happiness by the outward righte
ousness of the law. This dangerous error of the Jews Christ
Himself condemned; " Search the Scriptures, for in them ye Job. 5. 39.
think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of
Me." By the Scriptures, though we may understand all the
Books of the Old Testament, yet the law and writings of Moses
seem to be peculiarly intended, as we may gather from the forty-
fifth and forty-sixth verses™. The sense then is, You attribute
to the Mosaic law more than is right : for you think eternal life
to be promised to the observers of its precepts ; and that this
life is immediately contained in these books : but if you not
only read over these Scriptures, but attentively consider them,
(for that is the meaning of the word search,} you would soon
perceive that they directed you to Me as the Fountain and
Giver of this life, and to that spiritual righteousness which I
teach, as the only means of obtaining it. — But great indeed
was the perverseness of the Jews, who, although they acknow
ledged the mystery in the promises of Moses, still obstinately
adhered to the letter of the precepts, when they might have
easily seen that between the letter of the promise and the
letter of the precept, and on the other hand between the
spirit of the promise and of the precept, a certain connec
tion was absolutely necessary. — And thus far of the want, in
the Mosaic law, of that external aiding grace, namely, the
promise of eternal life.

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

132 Second defect in the law.

D i s s.
n

CHAP. XI.

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

OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. SOME PASSAGES PROVING THIS EXPLAINED.

TWO QUESTIONS ARISING FROM THIS SUBJECT ANSWERED. IT IS SHEWN

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

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

§ 2. In very many passages the Apostle speaks of this
great defect of the Mosaic covenant. In this sense, for ex-

2 Cor. 3. 6. ample, he calls the ministry of the law the ministry of the
letter ; because its ministry was altogether external, not only
made up of external and carnal precepts, but entirely with
out any internal energy and efficacy. In this sense he more
fully explains himself, where he says again of the law, that it

ver. 7. was " the ministration of death written and engraven in
stones." The law is said to be a ministry engraved on stone,
both because its precepts were, generally speaking, external,
and particularly because they were put forth only externally,
unaccompanied by any force or efficacies of the Spirit, which
might penetrate the very heart and inward man. On the
other hand, he bestows on the Gospel the praise of being the

ver- G- ministration of the Spirit, because its precepts are in them
selves spiritual, and particularly because they are impressed
upon the hearts of men by the efficacy and power of the
Holy Spirit. For that the Apostle, when he calls the Gospel

// lacked the gift of the Holy Spirit. 133

the ministration of the Spirit, not only has in view the nature CHAP.
and disposition of the Gospel doctrines, as many think, but — — - —
also this power of the Holy Spirit continually accompanying
it, is very clear from the third verse of the chapter just quoted,
where the Apostle says of the Gospel received through faith
by the Corinthians under his ministry, that it was " the epistle 2 Cor. 3. 3.
of Christ, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the
living God, not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the
heart :" which last words evidently allude to the difference
between the ministration of the law and the Gospel, as de
pending upon this one particular, that the first was external
only, and consigned to written tablets; but that the latter
was given internally, and was written on the hearts of men
by the Spirit of the living God. In this sense undoubtedly
must the Apostle be understood in his Epistle to the Romans, Chap s. 2.
where after having described the law much at large in the
preceding chapter, he says of the Gospel as opposed to it,
that it was "the law of the Spirit of life" (or life-giving) "in
Christ Jesus." For here the Spirit of life does not refer to
the nature of the Gospel law as consisting of spiritual pre
cepts, and penetrating to the heart of man, as some imagine,
because that Spirit is not said to be in the law of the Gospel,
but in Christ Jesus, the Head, and flowing from Him into
the Church His body. But unless I am mistaken, the Gospel
is called the law of the -Spirit, both because the Spirit is pro
mised in the Gospel, and is also inseparably connected with
it. Besides, it must be allowed that we are freed from the
law of sin and of death, not by the mere doctrine of the
Gospel, unless we adopt the Pelagian heresy, but by the
Spirit of Christ Himself. Besides, if this interpretation be
admitted, the law of Moses, so far as it contains moral pre
cepts, may as well as the Gospel be styled the ministry and
law of the Spirit, the Apostle witnessing in his Epistle to the Rom. 7. N.
Romans, that it is in its own nature spiritual and teaches
spiritual righteousness. Upon this subject a passage in the
Epistle to the Galatians throws the strongest light : where to
the curse of the law, which he had mentioned in the preceding Gal. 3. 14.
verse, the Apostle opposes the blessing of Abraham, and that
blessing he explains by the promise of the Spirit, or the pro
mised Spirit. Therefore the promise of the Holy Spirit is

134 No promise of the Spirit in the covenant of Sinai,

DISS. that great privilege of the Gospel covenant, in which its
-11'— excellence above the law, and chief value, consists. As a

Job. 1. 17. finishing proof I will add the testimony of St. John: "The
law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus
Christ." Where by the way, as Grotius observes, the Apostle
overturns that opinion of Ebion, who preferred Moses to
Christ, and which even in those days of the Church, was too
well known. Truth is opposed to the shadows of the law, and
grace is that plentiful effusion of the Holy Spirit on Christians
utterly unknown under the old law. Drusius, who explains grace
(xdpw) not by jn but by ion. kindness or gratuitous favour of
God, is refuted by the words of the fourteenth and fifteenth
verses, which speak plainly of that grace with which Christ is
full, and which out of His fulness is poured forth upon us.

§ 3. Here we find one or two questions which require an
answer. The first is this : Is there no promise of the Holy
Spirit in the law of Moses ? To which I answer, that it is
manifest that the law, if by that word you mean only the
covenant given on Mount Sinai through the mediation of
Moses to the people of Israel, which, as I have before ob
served, is the most proper and strict acceptation of it in the
Epistles of St. Paul, does not contain any promise of the
Holy Spirit. If, I say, by it you mean the covenant made
at Sinai; for in the Sacred Books and prophetic writings,
which go under the general name of the Old Testament,
we read continually of the Holy Spirit being promised, and
of its being obtained by the prayers of men. Even in
the Mosaic writings, although not in the covenant itself,
there may be found, I think, a promise sufficiently clear,
of the Holy Spirit being given to the Israelites. Of this

Deut.30.6. kind undoubtedly is the following : "The Lord thy God will
circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the
Lord thy God with all thine heart." Now it is allowed by
all except those who agree with Pelagius, that such a circum
cision of the heart as will induce men to love God with all
their hearts, can only be effected by the great power and
might of the Holy Spirit. But this belongs to the righte
ousness of the Gospel, which Moses first, and the other Pro
phets afterwards, pointed out as concealed under the veil of
outward rites and ceremonies. For the righteousness of faith

but in the second covenant, Dent. xxx. 135

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

j9 13

was the Gospel covenant itself, darkly revealed indeed, as the Gai. 3. 10,
Apostle shews. In the third place, St. Paul cites some words T/'
of this covenant as the words of the Gospel covenant, which
evidently put forward the righteousness of faith : I know See Rom.
some think that these words of Moses are accommodated by coinp.with

the Apostle to the righteousness of faith by way of allusion i
only : but they deserve no attention, for the Apostle produces
these expressions as the very words of the righteousness of
faith, that is, of the Gospel covenant, in which that righte
ousness is revealed. And to speak the truth, I have always
thought that these allusions, to which some betake themselves
as a sure refuge for their ignorance, are in general nothing
but a manifest abuse of the Holy Scripture. But it was not
necessary, in this place at least, to use such an evasion. For,
fourthly, every thing in this covenant wonderfully agrees with
the Gospel; first, as to the precepts themselves, those only
are here commanded which tend to good morals, and are
good iii themselves, not a word being said of those rites

136 This confirmed by Jeremiah, and the Hebrew Doctors.

DISS. which, if literally considered, seem to be puerile, and with
IL which the legal covenant is almost filled. Besides, all the

io, 16, 20. obedience here required is referred to a sincere and diligent

ib. 30. endeavour to obey God in all things. In the next place,
with respect to promises, God doth here again promise a
full remission of all sins, even the most heinous, after actual
repentance, which grace is not to be found in the legal cove
nant, as we have already shewn at large. The grace of the
Holy Spirit is the next promise, by which men's hearts are
circumcised, that they may love the Lord with all their heart,

ih. 30. 6. and with all their mind. How far different is this from the usual
style of the Mosaic writings ! Fifthly, That the coyenant

jer. 31.31. mentioned by the prophet Jeremiah is the Gospel covenant,
no Christian hath yet denied, since the divine author of the

Hsb. 8. 8. Epistle to the Hebrews hath expressly taught it. Now what
the prophet hath said concerning that covenant exactly agrees
with this made in Moab. The prophet Jeremiah calls his
covenant a new covenant, altogether different from that
which God made with the ancestors of the Israelites when
they came out of Egypt, and Moses says the same of the
Moabitish covenant. The prophet Jeremiah gives the reason
why God granted a new covenant, intending to abolish that
of Sinai; namely, because the Israelites, destitute of grace

ver. 22. sufficiently powerful, had rendered void that of Sinai by dis
obeying its precepts. Moses too alleges precisely the same

Deut.29.4. cause. "The Lord/' says he, "hath not given you an heart
to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day."
As if he had said, God made a former covenant with you,
in which He made known His will to you by precepts which
were enforced in a most extraordinary manner, by means of
promises and threatenings, and every sort of miracle : but
He saw that covenant profited you little : He saw that you
stood in need of still more effectual grace, by which your
hearts might be circumcised; and therefore He intends a
new covenant, in which that most effectual grace will be
granted you. This same circumcision of the heart is un
doubtedly intended by the prophet in the following passage ;
jer. 31. 33. " I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in
their hearts ;" and in the next verse he clearly mentions that
remission of sins which is promised to penitents by Moses in

God's purpose in giving the ritual law. 137

the book of Deuteronomy : " I will forgive their iniquity, CHAP.

and I will remember their sin no more." Lastly, the pro

phet Jeremiah shews the plainness, and therefore the easiness,
of the precepts contained in the new covenant, so that the
people of God would not be under the necessity of a laborious
enquiry, or a severer discipline, in order to know these pre
cepts and to fulfil them. It will be plain that Moses meant ver. 34.
the same, if you carefully compare his words with what the ^ui- 30-
Apostle says upon this passage. To me, at least, all this R°m- i°-
seems very evident. Sixthly, and lastly, To place this point
beyond the reach of controversy, the Hebrew doctors them
selves thought that all these things which are contained in
the twrenty-ninth and the following chapters of the book of
Deuteronomy must be referred to the times of the Messiah.
To prove this I shall produce what P. Fagius, who deserves
great attention, hath said on the thirtieth chapter of the
book of Deuteronomy, ver. 2 : " It must be carefully observed,
that in the opinion of the Hebrews this chapter refers to the
reign of Christ. Hence also Bachai says, that in this passage
is a promise that under the Messiah the King, all who are
under the covenant should be circumcised in their hearts,
citing the prophet Joel/' Grotius on the sixth verse of the joel 2. 28.
same chapter agrees with Fagius.

We have dwelt the longer on this subject, both that even
hence it might appear that all things in the Mosaic writings
do not belong to the Mosaic covenant, and therefore that
Augustine's distinction, already frequently quoted, is not only
true, but absolutely necessary, by which he restricts the law
to the covenant made on mount Sinai only; and especially
that we might clearly recognise in this the most excellent and
wise dispensation, strictly so called, of God, which it seemed
good to Him to use in granting the covenant of His grace.
God had made that gracious covenant with Abraham many
years before the law was given, to which He was pleased
afterwards to add another covenant, consisting of many cere
monies arid rites difficult to perform, by which He might
retain in their duty the ignorant and carnal posterity of
Abraham, who had been just brought out from Egypt, and
were consequently too much addicted to pagan rites and
superstitions ; in short, might preserve them from the idola-

] 38 The Spirit vouchsafed to some under the law :

DISS. trous worship of the heathens, which Tertullian" well ex-
~ presses in these words : " Let no man find fault with the
burden of sacrifices, and the troublesome niceties of rites and
ceremonies, as if God demanded these things on His own ac
count, whereas He so expressly says, To what purpose are the
multitude of your sacrifices unto Me ? and who hath required
this at your hands ? But let him recognise in them the
design of God, who was pleased to bind a people prone to
idolatry and transgression, to their own religion by rites of
the same nature as were performed in the superstitious wor
ship of the world, that He might wean them from idolatry ;
commanding those rites to be performed to Himself as if
He delighted in them, that they might not offend by sacri-
Comp. ficing to images." But the all-wise God, foreseeing that this
' stiff-necked people would not comprehend His design, after
the carnal law was given, commanded Moses to make a new
covenant with the Israelites, or rather to renew the former
one made with Abraham many years before, which especially
required spiritual righteousness, and was full of grace and
mercy, that the Jews might learn from this that the covenant
made with Abraham was still in force even after the ritual
law was given, and therefore must be still regarded as that
Comp. covenant upon which alone their salvation depended. Who
Rom3i i17' w^ n°t nere exclaim with the Apostle, " O the depth of the
33- riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God !" But

this is by the way, although not in vain. To proceed : —

§ 4. Hence too another question may be answered,
Whether, namely, the Holy Spirit was given in the times of
the Old Testament ? Undoubtedly it was, for otherwise there
could not have been so many pious and holy men under
the Mosaic law. But, first, The Spirit was indeed given
under the law, but not by, or through the law, since this
Gal. 3. 14. grace was mutually given and received as derived from the
grace of the Gospel. Hence the promise of the Spirit is
called by St. Paul, in the passage already noticed, the blessing
of Abraham, not of Moses, because that great blessing arose
from the promise made to Abraham, and not from the Mosaic
covenant, that is, from the Gospel, and not from the law.
§ 5. 2ndly, Although God indeed bestowed His Holy

n Tertullian adv. Marcion ii. [11. 18. p. 391.]

then by measure, now abundantly. 139

Spirit on those who asked for it under the Old Testament, as CHAP.

well as under the New, still there was a great difference - - —

made ; for in the times of the Old Testament, God gave the

grace of His Holy Spirit in small and moderate portions :

under the Gospel, abundantly and bountifully. Hence in

the times of the New Testament, God is said to give the Job. 3. 34.

Spirit not by measure, but to pour it out first upon Christ

the Head, and then upon the Church His body : for now has

He shed on us abundantly the Spirit. To this too I refer that Tit. 3. 6.

remarkable passage in St. John's Gospel where those who 39. ' '

live under the Gospel are said to receive "of the fulness of
Christ (^dptv dvrl ^dpiro^) grace for grace," that is, abundant
grace, or grace heaped upon grace. For so I think the words
should be interpreted, as here grace for grace is clearly the
same as what the son of Sirach says, "A shamefaced and Eccius.26.
faithful woman is a double grace ;" %«/ot9, eVl %«/om, that is,
modesty in a wife is a great grace of God ; but if fidelity be
also added, such a wife is an accumulated grace, since to her
modesty, a treasure of itself sufficiently great, fidelity also,
an uncommon virtue among women, is added as it were over
and above.

Beza indeed says that he has never found this particle
(dvrl) used thus by any good author. Fortunately, however,
Davenant0 informs us that his learned friend Duna3us ob
served this use of the preposition in the following verses of
Theognis : —

Tfdvaifirjv §' el pr) TL KUKWV ajuTraufia /u,epi/xz/c5i/
'Evpotfj.rjv, 8oirjs T avr aviav avlas.

I shall die if I cannot find some rest from cares,
And if you give me pain upon pain.

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

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

140 Saints of the Old Test, few, and inferior to Christians.

D I s s. not only equal to them, but even superior, in all the gifts of

IL the Spirit, and in an excellent holiness of life ? the Apostles

for example, and most of the Christians of the primitive
times. 3rdly. To none of these was the Holy Spirit so boun
tifully given, but that they still in some degree laboured
under the darkness of the age, and the state of childhood.
Hence the first among the prophets of the Old Testament are
Mat. 11. reckoned by Christ Himself as inferior to the least in the
kingdom of heaven, undoubtedly, that is, in the fulness and
perspicuity of the revelation and knowledge of man's redemp-
Comp. tion: for this before St. John was a mystery; in his time
i?atwith' light began to dawn upon it, and after the death and resur-

i Pet. i. rection of Christ, and the descent of the Holy Spirit, it

10 12. ...

shone forth with mid-day brightness.

§ 7. Thirdly, (and this affords the most complete satisfac
tion to the proposed enquiry, so far as it regards the reason
ing of the Apostle,) although the Holy Spirit was formerly
given in and under the law, yet after the appearance of the
Gospel it was no longer vouchsafed to the followers of the
law, but was the privilege of those who having left the law
believed in the Gospel. The most holy dove forsook the ark of
Moses, and fixed its foot and habitation in the Church of Christ.
The spirit left the letter, as the soul the body, and the law
became truly a dead letter. A sufficient proof of which were
the conspicuous gifts of the Holy Spirit transferred from the
Synagogue to the Church, when, on the day of Pentecost, not
a tempest of thunder and lightning and horror, as when
formerly on this very day the old law was given from Mount
Sinai, but the mighty power of the Holy Spirit descended
from heaven, and, appearing in the form of fiery tongues,
settled on the Apostles; and, soon after, the same miraculous
gifts were generally and abundantly poured out upon the
whole congregation of Christians ; while, with the professors
Rom. 1 1.8. of the law, the spirit of slumber alone remained, a spirit truly
worthy of those who, when the substance itself was offered
them, pined after the shadow.

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

Argument from miraculous gifts of the Spirit. 141

spicuous and miraculous gifts of the Spirit which always CHAP.
followed upon faith in the Gospel. This demonstrative argu- -
rnent St. Paul uses in addressing the Galatians, with this Gal. 3. 2.
question : " This only would I learn of you, Received ye the
Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith ?"
It appears from the fifth verse that the Apostle here speaks Gal. 3. 5.
of the spirit of miracles : " He therefore that ministereth to
you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it
by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith ?" As if
he had said, Only answer this one question, and it alone will
be sufficient to convince you : Did you receive those excellent
gifts of the Spirit, which you possess, from circumcision and
the other works of the law, or from the hearing of faith ?
But if from faith in Christ, which you will not dare deny,
you obtained all these blessings, to say nothing of your in
gratitude, how great must be your madness to revolt from
the Gospel, confirmed as it is by an argument so evident and
striking to the senses ! Hence, when at the council of
Jerusalem, that great question was debated among the Apo
stles, whether circumcision and the other rites of the Mosaic
law should be imposed on the Gentiles who had been con
verted to Christ, Peter, the chief of the Apostles, proved the
negative part of this question by this single argument : That
to Cornelius, and to those with him, who were the first fruits
of the Gentiles, and had been converted to the Gospel
through his ministry, the gifts of the Holy Spirit were given
by God. By this act, said St. Peter, "' God which knoweth Acts 15. 8.
the heart, bare them witness/' (that they pleased Him,
without circumcision,) " giving them the Holy Ghost, even as
He did unto us," who have been circumcised, and observe
the law of Moses. That the Spirit of miraculous gifts was Acts 10.
that testimony, appears from the event. Hence those among
the Gentiles, to whom, after they believe in the Gospel, this
Spirit was given, are said to be sealed, and to have received, 2 Cor. i.
as it were, a pledge from God of His grace for the present, Eph. i.is;
and of glory in future. For that in these passages, as well 4> 30>
as in many others, by the Spirit is meant these conspicuous
gifts of the Spirit, is evident from this, that the Apostle
plainly means that Spirit, and, as it were, points to it, pro
ducing it as a testimony sufficiently convincing to those unto

142 What works wholly excluded from justification.

Diss. whom he writes, and to all others who would be satisfied of
II

- the truth of the Gospel ; so that what the Apostle hath said

concerning circumcision, may not improperly be applied to
Rom. 4. 11. the Spirit given to the Gentiles; that "it was the seal of
the righteousness of faith, which they had yet being uncir-
cumcised."

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

CHAP. XII.

TWO DEDUCTIONS FROM WHAT HAS BEEN SAID IN THE THREE FOREGOING

CHAPTERS CONCERNING THE WEAKNESS OF THE LAW. THE FIRST OF

WHICH IS, THAT THE APOSTLE ENTIRELY EXCLUDES FROM JUSTIFICATION
ONLY THOSE WORKS WHICH ARE PERFORMED BY THE AID OF THE

MOSAIC, AND (CONSEQUENTLY) OF THE NATURAL LAW, WITHOUT THE

GRACE OF THE GOSPEL. THIS PROVED BY A THREEFOLD ARGUMENT

FROM THE VERY EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL. THREE ARGUMENTS OF PAR^EUS

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

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

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

Such as are done without Gospel grace. 143

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

§ 3. But this point maybe clearly proved by other reasons
deduced from St. Paul himself. And first, it seems to me to
be no light or trifling argument in support of this opinion,
that the Apostle, in arguing against the righteousness of
works, simply calls them works, adding no epithet but that
of the law, but he never (as far as I am aware) excludes good
works from justification. By which he clearly implies that
he rejects those works only which are produced by human
powers and strength, and are destitute of all supernatural
goodness. I allow that he sometimes says works of righteous- Tit. 3. 5.
ness, but then he instantly explains himself by adding, which
we have done ourselves, that is, by our own strength. Of this
passage, however, we shall soon treat more fully. Hence in
the Epistle to the Ephesians the works which the Apostle
excludes from salvation are called simply works, whilst those Eph. 2. 9.
which he admits to be necessary to salvation, and for the
performance of which he affirms we are prepared, and, as it
were, created by the grace of Christ, he calls good works. ver. 10.

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

] 44 Good ivorks not so much ours as God's.

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

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

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

Glory of Divine grace not diminished by free will. 145

sion, by which is meant the act of a man turning himself to CHAP.
God, they speak thus : " God does not always so move a con- ^^~^~~
verted and faithful man to subsequent good works, as to take
away the wish of resisting ; but sometimes permits him, by
his own fault, to fall from the guidance of grace, and in many
particular acts to obey his own lusts." And in explanation
of the same thesis, they add : " Through the whole course of
our lives, the motions and guidance of the Holy Spirit are
ever present with us : yet in such manner as that we may be
negligent of grace, that too often we actually are so, and there
fore freely and basely obey our own lusts q." Lastly, they Thes. 4.
condemn as heterodox, (and certainly the doctrine is a most
damnable one,) " that a man cannot perform more good than
he does, nor avoid more sin than he avoids." And in ex
planation, they contend that this opinion is equally false,
whether it is understood of a regenerate or an unregenerate
man. On these grounds, then, I would ask whether those
subsequent good works, which are so freely performed by a
regenerate man, afford him cause for boasting, or do they
not rather redound to the honour and glory of God, the
author of them ? I have no doubt but that our adversaries
will instantly consent to the latter supposition, opposing the
other with all their might. They must therefore necessarily
allow that the union of free will with Divine grace in good
works does not prevent the honour of them from being wholly
ascribed to God, neither do they give the man himself any cause
for glorying in them. Neither do we hold any other union of
free will in any good work, than our adversaries themselves allow
in many good works. — This however by the way : To proceed.
§ 6. Thirdly, that this, in short, is the intention of St. Paul
(to reject those works only, which are done without the grace
of the Gospel) will readily appear to any one who gives the
subject due attention, even from those passages which seem
at first sight to exclude all works entirely. Let us turn to
them, and first to that famous text which is thought by many
to afford an invincible argument against justification by works,
and is therefore the principal support of their reasonings.
The Apostle had said that he should count all other things Phil. 3. 8.

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

146 Difference between righteousness f in us* and 'ofus.'

D is s. for iosf; provided he might win Christ ; he then adds, " And
hiTsTfT ^e f°un(l m Him, not having mine own righteousness, which
is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ,
the righteousness which is of God by faith." What that
righteousness is which the Apostle here rejects, and what he
longs for, will be clear to every one who without prejudice at
tends to his words. As to the first, he calls it his own righte
ousness, produced by his own powers, for he would not venture
to call that righteousness which the grace of Christ had
effected in him his own, but rather, with gratitude, would
refer it to Christ, the author of it. Next, lest any should
mistake, he calls it the righteousness of the law, such as may
be performed by the law with human means, and without the
grace of the Gospel. Lastly, this righteousness of the law
he had explained distinctly and separately in the foregoing
verses, and the sum is this, that he had the advantage of no
few carnal privileges attached to the law; that he had ac
curately observed all its rights; that he was entirely free
from those greater crimes to which the law had annexed
punishment; and that he did not hesitate to say, that ac
cording to the judgment of the law he was entirely blameless.
Now, in the second place, the righteousness which the Apostle
longs for is no less evident ; that righteousness which God works
in us by the faith of Christ, and moreover approves as His own
work. Here Estius hath well remarked "that he does not
call the righteousness which is in us, our righteousness, but
that which is of us ; so also the righteousness of God, which is
from God, not that which is in God, and by which God is
Himself righteous." For neither in the text is it the righteous-

Rom. 10.3. ness °f God, (though if it were, the genitive case would signify
the efficient cause,) but the righteousness which is of or from

t) eK ®€ov God. But what this righteousness which is from God by
wrl' faith is, St. Paul explains in the following verse : " That I

vcr. 10. may know Him, (that is, Christ,) and the power of His re
surrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being made
conformable unto His death." Here that common rule
among theologians will hold good, that, in Scripture, words
denoting knowledge, generally signify also the consequences of
such knowledge. Therefore, to know Christ, His death and
^resurrection, is to experience in one's self the influence of

The work of justification described in Titus iii. 5. 147

Christ's death and resurrection in such manner as that we CHAP.
ourselves die to sin, and rise again to newness of life. And -
this knowledge, beyond all doubt, is that excellency of the Q.
knowledge of Christ, which he so greatly longs for. Certainly phlL 3* 8'
the Apostle could not, as it seems to me, more clearly express
his meaning concerning each kind of righteousness, that of
the law, and that of the Gospel.

§ 7. I now come to the passage which I just noticed above :
" Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but ac- Tit. 3. 5, 6.
cording to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of rege
neration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which He shed on
us abundantly," &c. If you ask what works doth the Apostle
here exclude from justification and salvation, the Apostle
clearly answers, those which we ourselves have done; we is
here emphatic, and means, by our own powers. Then to
works of this kind, proceeding from human powers, he opposes
that grace of God, which, entirely through His mercy, for
Christ's sake, is abundantly poured out upon us, by which we
are regenerated and renewed, and by which alone we are
rendered capable of works truly good; and what he takes
from the former, he gives to these latter works, affirming that
we are saved by the one and not by the other. For when
St. Paul says that we are saved by the renewing of the Holy
Ghost, he means all those virtues and good works which flow
from a heart renewed by the Holy Spirit : since the mere
power, ability, or infused habit (as some like to call it) of any
grace, as of faith, hope, or charity, can save no man ; but the
acts of each virtue, or the virtues themselves. But these
words of the Apostle fully and perfectly describe the whole
work of the salvation and justification of mankind. For here
is laid down, first, the preceding cause of salvation, namely, Tr
the mercy of God, which he calls the kindness and love of God.
Secondly, the fundamental cause, through Jesus Christ, that
is, Christ and His merits. Thirdly, the means, or condition r
of obtaining salvation, which is expressed, first negatively,
not by works which we have done by our own powers; and
secondly, affirmatively, by regeneration and renewing of the
Holy Ghost, which we receive at our Baptism. Moreover,
from this text it is very evident that the Apostle does not
reject from the work of salvation and justification, all inherent

L 2

148 Faith the gift of God.

D i s s. righteousness (since he expressly states that we are saved by
— that righteousness which is effected in us by the renewing of
the Holy Spirit), but only that righteousness which is so in
herent in us as to be of us, that is, produced by our own
powers. Hence also, we may readily conceive what the Apo-

ver. 7. stle means when he says that we are justified by the grace of
God : namely, that by the grace of the Holy Spirit alone,
freely granted to us by God through Christ, we are enabled
to perform those things which by the Gospel covenant lead
to justification and eternal salvation.

Eph. 2. § g. Similar to this is the following passage ; " For by grace
are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the
gift of God : not of works, lest any man should boast. For we
are His workmanship," &c. By faith here, I understand
obedience to the Gospel, of which, faith, specially so called,
is not only the beginning, but the root also and foundation.
Of which interpretation we have already given sufficient proofs,
so that no one might think that we here beg the question.
But the Apostle is very careful that no one should attribute
this obedience to himself, and therefore adds, " and that (that
is, that you have believed) not of yourselves : it is the gift of
God." In what sense this is true, he afterwards distinctly
explains ; in the mean time he goes on, " Not of works, lest
any man should boast." Not of works which you have per
formed by your strength without the grace of God ; for so,
and not otherwise, you might seem to have some cause for
boasting; so that of works, has here the same force as of
yourselves. Lastly, he confirms and explains what he had
said just before, namely, that ive are saved through faith, and
that from the gift of God and not of works, by the following
passage: "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ
Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that
we should walk in them." The Apostle, in these words,
joins himself with the Ephesians, speaking in the first person,
yet what he says refers to them in particular. The sense,
therefore, is this ; So far are you from being saved by your
own works without the grace of God, that on the contrary,
not without the most wonderful power and efficacy of Divine
grace are ye created, as it were a second time by God, and
from that rude mass in which you formerly lay buried in the

The ivorks of grace do not destroy grace. 149

darkness of ignorance and sin ; and created for this purpose, CHAP.
that you might be enabled to produce works truly good, by -
which you may arrive at justification and eternal salvation.
Therefore no grounds for boasting are left to you, to you, I
say at least, to whom hath been imparted no common grace,
but the exceeding riches of grace. For although this argu- See ver. 7.
ment of the Apostle applies to all justified persons, yet there
is something in it, as appears from the context, which par
ticularly refers to the Ephesians, who had formerly been
Gentiles, and whose calling from idolatry, and the infamous
vices of paganism, to the light of the Gospel, was a wonderful
and extraordinary work of God.

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

§ 10. So also when the Apostle compares grace and works
together, and affirms that the one destroys the other, it is G'
most evident that those works only are intended by him,
which are done without grace ; for surely the works of grace
do not destroy grace. Neither does it signify, if you say
that by grace, which is here opposed to works, is not meant
the grace of God as to its effect, but as to its cause, the free
favour of God ; for allowing this, it still remains true that the
works of grace, or those which are performed by the grace of
God working in us, cannot destroy that grace or favour of
God by which He embraces us, but evidently confirm it.
For that grace by which works of this kind are performed,
flows from the free favour of God, and for that very reason is
called grace ; neither can that be called grace which does not
proceed from the free favour of God. So that we here strictly
argue with St. Paul, If we are saved by the works of grace,
then it is of grace, otherwise grace would be no longer grace.

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

150 Opposite opinion of Par cans examined.

r>iss. cially on this ground, namely, that whatever good is per-
- formed by us towards obtaining justification and eternal salva
tion, flows entirely from the grace of God, freely given us
through Christ, and, being received from Him, should be attri
buted to Him : and moreover, that it was his intention to ex
clude from the work of justification and salvation, those works
only which proceed from the free will of man, unassisted by
the grace of the Gospel ; which was what we had to prove.

§ 12. These points, which are now, I think, clearly proved,
Parseus earnestly opposes, insisting that this interpretation of
St. PauPs meaning is a corrupt gloss, and that all works with
out exception, both those which are done by faith and the
grace of the Gospel, as well as those performed without it,
are equally excluded from the work of justification by the
Apostle. His arguments1", excepting those in answer to
Stapleton, and other Jesuits, with which we have nothing to
do, are briefly these.

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

§ 14. Argument 2nd. " The works of Abraham and David

were not performed without grace and faith, but even these

Rom. 4. are excluded from salvation. It is false, then, that works

performed without grace or faith are the only ones excluded."

—I answer ; There is no occasion to trouble ourselves about

David, as the Apostle only quotes a passage from him to

prove what he had before said concerning Abraham. With

respect to Abraham, Parseus in his argument takes that for

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

St. Paul, Rom. iv., speaks of Abraham before his call. 151

granted which is the matter in dispute between us, namely, that c H A p.
he is regarded by the Apostle as he was after his Divine call, — -
and the revelation made to him. For if we suppose Abraham
to be regarded by the Apostle as he was before the grace of
his extraordinary call, then the whole of Parseus' argument
clearly falls to the ground. That this latter state of the case
is the true one, seems clearly to appear from the first verse
of the above chapter, where the state of the whole controversy
concerning Abraham in the following verses, as far at least
as the ninth verse, is professedly laid down in these words :
"What shall we then say that Abraham, our father as per- Rom. 4. i.
taining to the flesh, hath found?" These words may be
taken in two ways : first by placing the note of interrogation
after say, so that, " What shall we then say" is only the in- See Rom.
troduction to the question, what follows is the question itself &c. '
introduced in this way : " What shall we say then ? Shall we
say that Abraham, our father as pertaining to the flesh hath
found?" That is, hath found grace, or righteousness, which Luke 1.30.
word had just gone before ; a tacit negation to the question
being understood, by no means. Grotius adopts this method.
Secondly, the words may be read in such a way that what is
joined to found, and is referred to the question itself, as
follows : " What shall we say then that Abraham our father,
as pertaining to the flesh hath found?" that is, obtained.
The answer to which must be understood, nothing certainly !
But this is not of such consequence as to cause much dispute,
since in either way the sense is the same.

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

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

D I s s. What then shall we say that our father according to the flesh,
— even Abraham, hath obtained from God ? Nothing truly.

Whereas he obtained many great blessings. It is necessary
therefore to add this limitation, according to the flesh, after
obtained, or found. But whither will not party spirit drive

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

§ 16. It only remains for us to enquire what the Apostle
means by according to the flesh. And here I think only two
interpretations can be given; either that according to the
flesh is the same as by circumcision and other carnal and exter
nal works, which meaning many interpreters follow; or,
secondly, that it signifies by the powers of nature without
grace. And then the sense of the negative proposition will
be this : Abraham was not justified before God by any works
produced by his own powers, and performed by his own free
will, without Divine grace. I readily adopt the latter inter
pretation, for these reasons ; first, because it is the most usual
sense of the word flesh, in the New Testament, which is fre-

See Mat. quently opposed to Spirit, grace, and Divine revelation. Next,

GaL L 16. because the question concerning circumcision seems to be
expressly proposed by the Apostle, by a new enquiry in the
ninth verse. Lastly, to this negative proposition, so under
stood, the arguments which the Apostle in the following verses
uses to confirm it, are admirably adapted ; and to convince
the reader of this, we will briefly consider them.

ver. 2. § 17- His first argument is, "For if Abraham were justi

fied by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God."
These words contain the reason of the preceding denial, drawn
from the effect which is denied ; if Abraham be justified by
works performed without grace, he would have some cause

Abraham not justified according to the flesh. 153

for glorying before God, as if he had performed that of him- CHAP.
self, which in the judgment of God deserved a reward. But XIL
it is certain that Abraham, whatever praise he may deserve
before men, hath no cause for glorying before God ; therefore
Abraham was not justified by works. For the words before
God must be understood with hath whereof to glory in the
major proposition ; and vice versa, hath whereof to glory must
be repeated with not before God in the minor : since the
argument is from the denial of the consequent to that of the
antecedent. I know that some of the ancients form the
Apostle' s argument otherwise, as follows : If Abraham was
justified by works, that is, by external works, he cannot glory
before God, since external righteousness of this kind, however
glorious it may be in the sight of men, is yet nothing in the
sight of God ; but Abraham had to glory before God, that is,
was approved of by God Himself; therefore Abraham was not
justified by works. I wonder those excellent interpreters,
Estius and Grotius, have followed this exposition of the
Fathers ; for although the conclusion be according to the
Apostle's meaning, yet the premises, as Paraeus rightly notes,
by no means agree with the text ; for in the text the first
proposition is an affirmative : If he be justified by works he
hath whereof to boast ; but this the Fathers change into a
negative ; and their second proposition is affirmative, although
in the text it be negative, but not before God. Whoever
should assert that the whole of the second verse belongs to
the major proposition, would in truth make the Apostle's
argument strangely elliptical, consisting of only one proposi
tion, expressed neither in the minor nor the conclusion. Be
sides, St. Paul speaks evidently of the same glorying which a ch. 3. 27.
little before he had expressly asserted was excluded by the law
of faith, and which therefore he could not attribute to Abra
ham, whom he always contends to be justified by the law of
faith. Toleto's distinction between the word Kavxrjfia, which
St. Paul here uses, and /cav^rjcr^, which he had used above,
namely, that the latter means boasting or glorying, properly
so called, but that the former is the same as praise or appro
bation, is very trifling and altogether without foundation3.
It is true indeed, as Grotius observes, that there is a certain

Vid. Toletus in Rom. cap. iv. annot. iii. Lugduni, 1603.

154 Abraham's true righteousness subsequent to his faith.

D I s S. kind of glorying just arid lawful, even before God ; but it is
- equally certain that the Apostle was accustomed, whenever he
5. 2, 3, ii; spoke, as here, of justification, to reject all kind of glorying
31; 2 Cor. altogether. Besides, does not this interpretation make the
10. 17. Apostle exactly contradict himself? for it supposes him to
argue thus : If Abraham was justified by works, that is, made
or accounted just in the sight of God, (for it matters little
which way the word SucaiovcrOai be here interpreted,) then he
deserved praise before men ; but from God he obtained neither
praise nor reward. Is not this just the same as if the Apo
stle had said, If Abraham was justified by works, he was not
justified ? To say, that to be justified, here means to be ac
counted just by men, is contrary to the whole context of the
Apostle, in which the dispute is concerning the justification
of man in the sight of God, as is evident beyond all proof;
and besides, there will be in the words of the Apostle such
an absurd tautology as the following : If Abraham by his
works was approved before men, then he was only approved
before men, and not before God. But what can be more ab
surd than such reasoning ?

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

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

No cause for glorying before or after his call. 155

Abraham was not justified by works arising from his own CHAP.
powers, or the assumption of the preceding argument, that ver 2 '
Abraham had nothing whereof he could glory, in the matter
of justification, before God : and certainly it is excellently
suited to either statement.

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

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

156 Meaning of to impute'

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

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

force of the argument lies in the word IhoyicrBij, was im
puted : as if, with the Apostle, to impute, was the same as to
' impute according to grace, and signified a gracious acceptance,
and never, or only improperly, a retribution of righteousness.
Whence Erasmus interprets to impute, by acknowledges ac
cepted, adding, that " acceptum ferre is to account for accepted
that which you have not yet received ; which, if I mistake
not, is termed by lawyers acceptilatio." And many very
learned interpreters follow this opinion of Erasmus, forming
the Apostle's argument thus : If reward was bestowed on
Abraham as a debt, the Scripture would not say that God
imputed righteousness to him, since imputation denotes a free
gift. But the Scripture says, God imputed righteousness to
Abraham ; therefore the reward was not of debt. But this
interpretation does not please me, since it appears from
Scripture, that both the Hebrew and Greek word here trans
lated to impute, is used also to signify the imputing any
thing as a sin, or as the punishment of sin, as in the second
2 Sam. 19. book of Samuel, which imputation no one will deny but to
have been justly made : besides, this very word frequently
See Deut. denotes in Scripture a true and just esteem or judgment of
vei-11^20 any thing. Besides, St. Paul, in this chapter, uses this word
as a reward of debt : for there it is sufficiently manifest that
to impute must be repeated with the word, of debt. I think,
therefore, that the conclusion of the Apostle, by which he in
fers, from the passage quoted, that the justification of Abra
ham was entirely gratuitous, does not depend upon the mere
signification of the word impute, but partly upon the nature
of the thing said to be imputed unto Abraham for righteous
ness, partly upon the former state and quality of the person
to whom it was imputed.

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

The obedience of faith excludes merit. ]57

dience, on the condition of which obedience the promised CHAP.

VT r

blessings must be acquired, which not only equal, but very _
far surpass all the labour that can possibly be undertaken
through faith in them. This evidently was the case in the
example of Abraham : he indeed believed in God, but God
had first revealed Himself to him in a gracious and most
extraordinary manner. He obeyed the Divine command, Acts 7. 2, a
calling him to a long, troublesome, and dangerous journey ;
yet God Himself added wings to his journey, by promising
blessings so great that the expectation of them filled a feeble
old man with youthful vigour, and animated him to bear
cheerfully every trouble. Whatever therefore Abraham did
deserving of praise, must be entirely attributed to the gra
cious revelation and most liberal promises made to him by
God, out of His own mere mercy ; therefore to Abraham
there was no cause for boasting, and no merit. The Apostle
seems to have had this in view in the fifth verse, where, when
that which in the fourth verse was denied of him that works,
namely, that reward was reckoned to him of grace, might
have been repeated in the following antithesis, and affirmed
of the believer in this manner : " But to him that believeth,
the reward is reckoned of grace." St. Paul does otherwise,
and says, " To him that believeth, his faith is counted for
righteousness ;" as if he had said, On this very account, be
cause his faith is reckoned to him for righteousness, his jus
tification is entirely gratuitous, since faith by itself means
grace, and excludes merit.

§ 24. But here, by the way, we must attend somewhat to
the words of the Apostle, "To him that worketh is the reward ver. 4.
not reckoned of grace, but of debt." To understand this
passage properly, we must enquire into two things ; first, what
the expression, who worketh, signifies : secondly, what the epyafr-
Apostle means when he says that to him that worketh a /*€>
reward is reckoned of debt. As to the first, he that worketh, KO.T o$tl-
signifies him who works of himself and by his own strength, 1W**
unassisted by Divine grace. For this, I think, is the proper
description of him that worketh : since whoever works by the
grace of God, he does not so much work, as the grace of God
in him ; and this explanation is confirmed by the context, i Cor. 15.
For besides that the Apostle in the beginning of the chapter, 2. 20. d

158 The phrases, 'that worketh,' and ' of debt,' explained.

D I s s. as we have seen, designedly begins the argument concerning
— those works of Abraham which he performed according to the

flesh; this also should be carefully observed, that he that
worketh is here directly opposed to him that believeth, that is,
to him that worketh from faith in the Divine promises, and
so his works are to be referred to Divine grace, which by its
great and most liberal promises excited him to action ; the
mighty efficacy of the Spirit being taken into the account,
which is only received after, and through faith. Now in the
second place, as to the words of debt, we cannot in any reason
take them in their strict and exact meaning ; for the reward
of eternal life cannot be considered as due to any man, how
ever perfectly he may work, and that even from the mere
strength of nature. It could not even have been attributed
to the first man, if he had continued in his innocence, and
had never violated, by any sin, the Divine covenant. In one
word, it is impossible for any creature to act in so upright
and excellent a manner as to deserve of right the reward of
eternal life, especially when we reflect that the blessing of
eternal life is most perfect, immense, and infinite, and there
fore infinitely surpassing all the works of all creatures. And
such is the force of the Apostle's question, to which no man

Rom. 11. can return an answer: "Who hath first given to Him, and it
shall be recompensed unto him again?" Most certainly
then these words of the Apostle, "to him that worketh is
the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt," cannot be
literally understood, but comparatively, as meaning that the
reward is not bestowed so much out of the mere grace and
favour of God to him who worketh in the above-mentioned
manner, as it would if given to him who believes, that is,
who works through faith. This, therefore, is the Apostle's
meaning : If to him who works, that is, obeys God by his

vcr. 4. natural strength without the grace of God, and lives righte
ously, the reward of eternal life be given, it would seem as if
he had it as a debt, and he might have some pretence for
glorying ; but if it is reckoned to him who does not work,
but believeth, that is, to him who does nothing of himself,
but through faith, and after placing his trust in God, who
hath graciously revealed Himself, then the Divine grace ap-

Rom. 3. pears in all its lustre, and glorying is excluded ; all human

27.

State of Abraham prior to his call. 159

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

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

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

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

160 Both Apostles use the example of Abraham.

Diss. § 26. St. Paul also seems in these words to have tacitly
opposed a very strong argument against the arrogance of the

Gal. 2. 15. Jews, who were very averse to idolaters, and sinners of the
Gentiles, although converted to the true God by faith in
Christ, by repentance, and newness of life; and would not
admit them to the grace of justification unless proved by a
long trial of the yoke, or at least purified by circumcision
and sacrifices. For in these words the Apostle shews that
Abraham their father, and themselves in him, were called
from idolatry and the worship of other gods exactly in the
same manner ; and immediately upon his belief in the Divine
promises, and his obedience to the Divine call, (although he
had not yet received circumcision, as is afterwards shewn,) he
was acceptable unto God. Who does not here admire the
divinely inspired genius of the Apostle? Meanwhile this
applies to all who are justified, since there is no man who is
not guilty of great sins before he has received grace, and
who consequently stands in need of pardon and remission ;
which the Apostle excellently proves from the words of

ver. 6—8. David, and then returns to the controversy concerning cir-

\cr. 9. cumcision.

§ 27. We have dwelt upon this example of Abraham longer
perhaps than the proposed objection required, but not with
out reason or unadvisedly. For since Abraham is here con
sidered by St. Paul as the father of the faithful, and the great
example of all who are justified, a right understanding of what

ver. 11, 12. the Apostle advanced, concerning his justification, could not
fail to throw great light upon this dispute concerning justi
fication in general. And in addition to this, the agreement
of St. Paul with St. James is clearly seen from this, namely,
that from the same example of Abraham, the former con
cludes a man to be justified without works, the latter by
works ; for St. Paul speaks of Abraham according to the
flesh, such as he was before the call ; St. James, when blessed
by grace and the Divine call. The former denies justification
to his works done before faith, while the latter attributes it
to works proceeding from faith. Here then is no contradic
tion between the Apostles, which Augustine* has explained
at large. I shall conclude this discourse concerning Abra-

1 Tom. 4. lib. 83. Quaestionum, quaest. 76. [vol. vi. p. 67.]

Abraham blessed, because obedient. 161

ham with the remarkable testimony of St. Clement" of Rome, CHAP.

XT!

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

fore one who was well skilled in the meaning of the Apostle,
who in his genuine Epistle to the Corinthians, applying to
all who are justified what the Apostle here says of Abraham,
thus writes : ' e And we therefore being called by His will in
Christ Jesus, are justified, not by ourselves, neither through
our own wisdom, or knowledge, or piety, or our own works
which we have done in the holiness of our hearts, but by
faith, by which Almighty God hath justified all mankind
from the beginning of the world." When therefore St. Paul
contends that Abraham and his sons are justified by faith
alone without works, he only excludes those works, if we may
trust to the interpretation of St. Clement, which proceed
from man's own wisdom, knowledge, piety, and holiness,
that is, from man's free will, destitute of the grace of Christ.
And that the works proceeding from faith and grace are not
excluded from justification by the Gospel of Christ, the same
Apostolic man teaches us in more places than one. For a
little before, speaking of Abraham, he saysx, "On what
account was our father Abraham blessed? was it not be
cause through faith he wrought righteousness and truth?"
And elsewhere also he expressly shews that remission of sins,
that is, justification, can be obtained only by obeying through
love the commandments of Gody. " Blessed are we, beloved,
if we perform the commands of God in unity of love, that our
sins may be pardoned us through love ; for it is written,
'Blessed is he whose unrighteousness is forgiven, and whose PS. 32. 1,2.
sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord im-
puteth no sin, and in whose spirit there is no guile/ 5:
Where it must be carefully observed that St. Clement con
cludes that true love and its works are necessary for remis
sion of sins, that is, for justification, from the very same
words of David which the blessed Paul quotes to prove justi
fication by faith alone. And he does not reason here un
advisedly; since the words of David clearly shew that the
blessing of remission of sins is granted only to those who are

u c. 33. p. 166. 7 p. 65. [c. JO. p. 176.]

* p. 40. [c. 31. p. 165.]

BULL.

162 Good works can, and do precede justification.

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

§ 28. Argument 3rd ; The last argument of Parseus now
remains, by which he endeavours to prove that works truly
good, and proceeding from faith, are excluded from justifica
tion. " If," he says, " no good works are done but by the
justified (for they follow the justified, and do not precede
those who are to be justified, says Augustine), it is false
therefore that they justify before God, for then they would
justify those who are already justified." I answer, We
have already spoken of that expression of Augustine' s as
[Cap. iii. much as we thought necessary ; with respect to the supposi-
i)iss.]UJUS tion of this argument, that no work truly good can precede
justification, it is most false and dangerous. For this being
allowed, it will follow, first, that God justifies men who are
yet impious, and remaining in their sins, haters of all holi
ness, which nearly approaches to blasphemy, and is directly
See Exod. contradictory to many passages of Scripture ; and secondly,
takings 8. it would follow, that man could not be justified even by faith,
??;i6^V' ^or fofth is a good work. If therefore no work truly good
PS. 5. 4, 5 ; precedes justification, faith does not precede it, and conse-
isa.48.22; quently we cannot be said to be justified by faith, for then it
would justify the justified. Neither will that ingenious
sophism avail Parseus, namely, that faith justifies not in that
it is a good work, but as the instrument of apprehending
Christ. For here the question is not whether faith, so far as
it is a good work, justifies ; but whether faith be a good
work, and whether it precede justification ? both which all
in their senses allow. But if faith be a good work, and pre
cedes justification, it will follow that it is false to say that no
good work can precede justification. The third consequence
of the above argument is, that works of repentance are not
good works, since they precede justification, or the remission
[Vid. sup. of sins, as the Scriptures clearly prove, and all the better Pro-
§ 6, 7.] testants readily acknowledge. The truth is, no work really
good can precede the grace of God, since without that grace
it cannot be performed. But good works may precede justi
fication, and actually do precede it ; for grace is given before
justification, that we may perform those things by which we
arrive at justification.

Justification a continued act preserved by holiness. 163

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

CHAP. XIII.

ANOTHER CONSEQUENCE DRAWN FROM THE APOSTLE' S ARGUMENT CON
CERNING THE WEAKNESS OF THE LAW, NAMELY, THAT SO FAR FROM
TAKING FROM JUSTIFICATION THE NECESSITY OF GOOD WORKS, ST. PAUL'S
OBJECT IS TO PROVE THAT THE TRUE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF WORKS 18
ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR JUSTIFICATION, AND THAT THE GOSPEL IS
THE ONLY EFFICACIOUS MEANS BY WHICH ANY ONE CAN BE BROUGHT

TO PRACTISE SUCH RIGHTEOUSNESS. SOME PASSAGES TO THIS EFFECT

SHEWN. THE PRINCIPAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LAW AND THE

GOSPEL POINTED OUT.

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

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

* Diss. ii. 1. § 5.
M2

164 Personal righteousness the gift of the Gospel.

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

§ 3. This then is the evident aim of that argument, as we
have proved by many testimonies, to which the following may

Rom. s. i. be added. When the Apostle had said that "there is "no con
demnation to them which are in Christ Jesus/' that is, that
those who believe in the Gospel are fully and perfectly justi-

ver. 2. fied, he adds this reason, " The law of the Spirit of life in
Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and
death;" that is, The life-giving Spirit of Christ, which accom
panies the Gospel, hath freed me, first from the habit of sin
ning and then from everlasting death, the necessary conse
quence of such a habit; manifestly shewing that by the Gospel
alone we are freed from the guilt of sin, that is, justified, be
cause from it alone flows that most powerful grace, by which
we are freed from the dominion of sin, and are led to a pious
and holy life. What Parreus says on this point are merely
clouds raised to darken the light of truth. He makes the law
of sin to mean the law of Moses. But that the law of God
should be called by the Apostle the law of sin, is rather a
harsh expression. Besides, is not this interpretation directly
contradictory to the words of the Apostle in the preceding

Rom. 7. chapter ? For there the law of sin is plainlv opposed to the

2-2. 23, 25.

Faith establishes the law, by obtaining grace. 1 65

law of God, and is explained as meaning that ruling power of CHAP.
sin which resides in the flesh and its members, and is re- -
pugnant to the law of God. This also appears still more
strongly from the third and fourth verses of this chapter,
where the Apostle shews that Christ had done that which it
was impossible for |the law to do ; namely, that He had de
stroyed sin in the flesh, " that the righteousness of the law
might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but
after the Spirit." Hear Parseus again, explaining these words
thus : " Christ satisfied the curse of the law by the cursed
death of the cross : that satisfaction is imputed to us no
otherwise than if it had been fulfilled in us." What can be
more rash than this interpretation ? For, first, Parseus ex
plains the righteousness of the law by its curse, which ought 5«ca/«/*a.
to be understood of the righteousness prescribed in the law,
as the very subject requires, and as is evident from the
twenty-sixth verse of the second chapter of this Epistle. Then
he interprets this passage as of some righteousness which is
external to us, and is only imputed to us, although the Apo
stle expressly says that the righteousness of the law is ful
filled "in us." Lastly, he refuses to hear the explanation
which the Apostle gives of the manner in which this righte
ousness of the law is fulfilled in us, namely, that we " walk
not after the flesh, but after the Spirit."

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

166 Tfie law points at righteousness, the Gospel gives it.

DISS. § 5. It would not be difficult to produce many other
- — passages to confirm these, but in a matter already so fully

explained, it would be superfluous. I will conclude with this
observation ; that hence appears the great difference between
the law, separately and abstractedly considered, and the
Gospel, which is this, that the Gospel bestows the grace
necessary to perform the righteousness, which the law only
See Heb. points out. In this the excellence of the Gospel above the
law is principally placed by the Apostle. Hence those great
praises which he gives to the Gospel, namely, that it is the
ministry of the Spirit, the law of the Spirit of life, the power
of God, the power of God unto salvation. Would that these
things had been seriously considered by most of the Reformed
divines, who have written so much concerning the difference
between the law and the Gospel, and "who," as Grotiusa
sharply remarks, " triumph in this controversy concerning
justification, as if they had brought a light from heaven un
known to all former ages \"

CHAP. XIV.

SOME PASSAGES POINTED OUT IN WHICH THE APOSTLE OPPOSES THE RITUAL
LAW ESPECIALLY. HE SO REJECTS THE EXTERNAL AND RITUAL OBSERV
ANCE OF THE LAW FROM JUSTIFICATION, THAT IN ITS PLACE HE SUBSTI
TUTES THE INTERNAL AND SPIRITUAL RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE GOSPEL.

HENCE AN INVINCIBLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE SOLIFIDIANS.

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

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

a Vot. pro pac. ad Art. 4. p. 21. [vol. iii. p. 656.]

Mosaic rites excluded from justification. 167

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

XIV

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

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

blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the

uncircumcision also?" That is, Are circumcision and the

other Mosaic rites entirely necessary for justification, or

may it be obtained without them ? Then in the following

verses he clearly shews that those rites are by no means

necessary. Nearly the whole Epistle to the Galatians aims

at this same point, wherein the conclusion which the Apostle

undertakes to prove is accurately laid down in these words :

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

uncircumcision ; but faith which worketh by love." And

again, with a little change, " For in Christ Jesus neither cir- Gal. 6. 15.

cumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new

creature."

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

§ 4. I think it necessary to observe this one point
only, as having particular reference to our present subject ;
namely, that the Apostle so excludes the ritual and external
works of the law from justification, as to oppose to them the
internal purity of the soul, and those works which flow from
a heart purified by faith, and inspired by true charity; so
that what he takes from the former, he grants to these ; the
former are by no means necessary to justification and salva
tion, the latter indispensably so ; he makes the former of no
avail, the latter of the greatest importance. This is evident
from passages very frequently quoted, viz. Gal. v. 6 ; vi. 15 ;
and 1 Cor. vii. 19. To which you may add the following re
markable passages, deserving of serious attention : Col. ii.
11—13 ; Rom. ii. 28, 29; Phil. iii. 2, 3. Hence we deduce
the following invincible argument against the Solifidians :

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

But he rejects ritual works as riot necessary to justification ;

1 68 Strictness of the law a type of Gospel righteousness.
D i s s. Therefore he admits spiritual works as necessary to justifi-

T|

— ' — cation.

§ 5. And undoubtedly, with no other design did God exact
with such severe punishments this external righteousness
prescribed in the law, but to shew that the spiritual
righteousness more clearly revealed in the Gospel, and
shadowed out under the legal righteousness, was equally and
even still more necessary. Circumcision of the heartb is no
less necessary to us than circumcision of the flesh to the
Jews. Without this, God cut them off from the external
communion of His people ; without the former, He will
exclude us from the hope of salvation and the kingdom of
heaven. To them there was no access unto the temple of
God and His sacrifices, unless they were cleansed from all
impurity of the body ; and to us, unless purified from all de
filement of the flesh and spirit, and perfecting holiness in the
fear of God, there will be no admittance unto the heavenly
temple, not made with hands. If from them God required
^ne bi00(i an(j fat Of cattle, much more does He require of
us that we should offer up ourselves unto Him a living,
holy, and acceptable sacrifice, which is our reasonable service ;
yea, and if it were necessary, that we should voluntarily lay
down our lives in bearing witness to His truth. Those there
fore who have not yet learned from the precepts of the
Gospel the necessity of good works for justification, must
go to Moses, and even by his comparatively obscure teaching
be convinced of their miserable error.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rabbinical errors attacked by St. Paul. 169

c IT A P.
xv.

CHAP. XV.

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

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

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

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

i. VER. 13. AND 14. ILLUSTRATED.

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

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

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

c In lib. Sepher Emunah. D^DK'H nKTJD pp| D^D^fl H'Q ^3 B>»

170 Extravagant vieivs of free will.

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

§ 4. Maimonides quotes the same saying, and gives it his
approval, in the eight chapters prefixed to his commentary
on Pirke Abothd, where he says, " With regard to that saying
held by the wise men, ' All things are in the hand of God'
&c., it is surely true;" and shortly after he explains it as

p. 237, 238. follows : "The precepts and prohibitions of the law are con
cerning actions, which man hath choice either to do or to let
them alone ; and in this part of the soul is the fear of God,
nor is it in His hand, but left to the free will of man."

§ 5. Moreover, there are many things which Maimonides
in this chapter boldly asserts concerning free will, as if in

p. 234. disparagement of Divine grace. " Know," he says, " that it
is a thing on which both our law and the philosophy of the
Grecians agree, and which is confirmed by substantial proofs,
that a man's actions are all put in his own power, without the
slightest compulsion towards them, neither is there any ex
ternal influence to incline him to virtue or vice, save only the
disposition of temperament, by which a thing may be easier
or more difficult to him." See how well, on Maimonides' own
confession, the tenets of the Hebrew doctors, on this question
of free will, agree with Grecian philosophy. These profoundly
wise men had no greater knowledge of the necessity of grace
than the very Gentiles and heathens ; rather, surely, had they
less. For Maimonides asserts that there was no external
influence to incline a man to virtue saving the disposition of
temperament, by which virtue might be easier to him ; he
says not a wrord concerning grace or Divine assistance, the
necessity of which, however, Plato, Pythagoras, and several
ancient philosophers, constantly acknowledged. Plato in the

[vol. iv. Meno : " If then we have, during the whole of this enquiry,

ed.Bipont. J>

P. 389.] conducted our investigations and arguments rightly, virtue

is obtained neither by nature nor teaching, but by Divine dis-

cap. 28. de pensation." Jamblichus : " It is ridiculous for men to seek

a' for what is right (TO ev) from any other source than from the

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

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

More mistaken than those of the heathens. 1 71

that is moderate, excellent, &c. So great a thing could not CHAP.
exist without the aid of the Deity." And again : " No mind —

is good without God.;

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

§ 7. Maimonides proceeds in the same chapter to establish
that principle of his of self-power (auregovcriov) . " The sum of p. 241, 242.

172 Maimonides' principle of ' self power.1

D i s a the matter/' he says, " is to believe that God, as He has willed
— that man should be of an upright stature, with a broad chest
and fingers, so hath He also willed that he should move or be
at rest as he himself pleases, and should perform the actions
which come under his choice, nothing compelling him to do
them, or keeping him from them ; as it is explained in the
book of truth, where in explanation of this opinion He says :

Gen. 3. 22. ' Behold the man is become as one of Us, to know good and
evil/ &c. Now the Chaldee paraphrase interprets this in
such a way that the words, ' become one of Us, to know good
and evil/ have this force ; that he is now become one in the
world, i. e. one species, like to no other, and sharing with no
other that which is his own portion : and what was that, but
the knowledge of good and evil according to his own will, and
the power of doing either of these as he pleased," &c. And
soon after he affirms : " This is a necessary consequence of
man's existence, namely, that he should do good or evil actions
according to his own will whenever he pleases," &c. And
soon after : " It behoves him (i. e. man) to accustom himself
to good actions, by which he may acquire the virtues them
selves, but to avoid evil ones, that the vices, if they be in him,
may be removed from him ; and he must not say, There is a
passion within me which cannot be changed; since every
passion can be changed, both from good into bad and the re
verse, and this is committed to the power of his own will."
§ 8. Again he lays this down as a fundamental position;

P. 253. " A man's actions are in his own free will, so that he can do
whatever he wishes to do, and leave undone whatever he dis
likes ; (unless for some fault God should punish him by de
priving him of his will ;) and also the acquisition of virtue or
vice is in his power. Wherefore he ought to provoke and
excite himself towards the attainment of virtues, since there
is nothing external to himself to impel him to them, and that
is what they (i. e. the wise men) mean in the precepts of this
book, by ' If I am not for myself who is for me?'" He at
length closes this worthless discourse on the human dispo-

P. 257. sition with these words ; " It is plain from all that we have
said, that man's actions are committed to his own will, and
it is in his own power either to excel in virtue or to be
wicked," &c.

He opposed it to the doctrine of fate and necessity. 173

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

The pilot, frighted at Charybdis' roar,
Steers but too close on Scylla's fatal shore ;

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

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

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

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

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

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

174 Sadducees held the entire freedom of the will.

D I s s. § 12. With regard to the Sadducees, it is very clear from

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

such as we have seen is defended by Maimonides and the

Ant. Jud., later Rabbins. For they said, as Josephus relates in the

9. voi.V thirteenth book of his Origines, "Every thing is put into our

P- 649. QWn pOwer^ so that we ourselves are the authors of what is

good, and chose what is evil from our own folly.1" And

Bell. Jud., elsewhere : " They denied that God was the author of any

vol. 2. person sinning or abstaining from sin ;" (for we must read

P. 166. Spav not efopav, as Grotius rightly observes.) And again of

the same Sadducees : ' ' They say that good and evil are in

man's own choice, and that every one takes either of these

as he wills." Nearly all those high-priests were followers

of this sect, who, during the ministry of Christ our Lord and

Acts 5. 17. the times of His Apostles, presided at the altar.

§ 13. If we enquire about the Pharisees, they seem to
have fallen into the opposite error, doing away nearly with all
free will, and making every thing subject to a kind of fatal
Ant, Jud. necessity. For thus Josephus says expressly : " They believe
P. 87i. ' ' everything is done by fate." There are, however, some other
passages in Josephus where he seems to hold that the Pha
risees thought otherwise, about the meaning of which there
is still much dispute and controversy amongst the learned.
Drusius confidently affirms that Josephus contradicts him
self; our own Montague did not hesitate to say that what he
wrote was false. Baronius determines that the Pharisees
attributed every thing to fate ; whereas Casaubon contends
that Baronius was mistaken, attempting to shew from Jose
phus himself that the Pharisees believed in a kind of mixture
in Mat. of fate and free will ; with whom also Grotius appears to

22. 23. T

have agreed.

§ 14. But let us again examine those passages of Josephus
De Bell, which have given occasion to this controversy. " They
a" 14. attribute all things to fate and to God: and to do what is
P. 166. right or not, they say, is for the most part in men's own

power; but that fate also assists in each particular act."

With this must be compared another passage, where he says
Ant Jud. that the opinion of the Pharisees was, " that some things, and
P. 649. not all, are the work of fate, but that some were in their own

power to happen or not." It seems as if they divided all

Pharisaic doctrine of fate. 175

events between these three causes, — God, fate, and man's free CHAP.
will; we must enquire what they attributed to each. With re- — XV'
gard to God, Josephus does not sufficiently explain what were
the opinions of the Pharisees concerning His share in events,
for he only says that they attributed every thing to God and
fate. In my opinion, they seem to have thought that nothing
took place immediately and straight from God, but only

through the medium of that fate which was ordained by ei/
Him of old at the creation of things ; just in the same way
as Maimonides interprets that saying of the wise men, All
things come about by the will of God. "With regard to a
well-known sayingf," he says, "the like to which are both
found amongst the sayings of the wise men, and in their
writings also, namely, That a man rises or sits, and that all
his movements take place, according to his will and plea
sure ; this is true but in a certain sense, and that, as if,
when a man throws a stone into the air and it descends, we
were to say it descended by the will of God, — this is true ;
since God hath willed that the whole earth should be in a
centre, and therefore when any part of it was projected
upwards it would be moved towards the centre ; not because
God hath now at length willed that when this part of the
earth was moved it should be moved downwards. And on
this point the schoolmen differ, whom I have heard say that
His will is in every thing, from time to time, continually.
We, however, do not think so ; but that there was will in the
six days of the creation, and that afterwards all things flow
on continually according to their nature, as He says, ' The Eccies. i.
thing that hath been, it is that which shall be ; and that 9'
which is done, is that which shall be done : and there is no
new thing under the sun/ '• Nay he even denies (which
must be considered a miracle) that those very events which
are called miracles take place by any immediate will or pro
vidence of God, and is not ashamed to assert, together with
his insane wise men, that they spring forth as it were at their
own time, from hidden causes which were established at the
creation. For we presently find the following words : " And
this it is which has compelled our wise men to say of all
miracles which swerve from the usual course of things,

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

176 Fate made more powerful than God.

D i s s. whether they be now past or those which are foretold,, that

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

were so interwoven in the nature of things, that what has
happened in them, should happen ; so that when at the time
appointed they took place, they appeared indeed to be some
thing new, but in reality were not so/' He adds : " They
have said much on this opinion in Middrash Koheleth and
elsewhere. Moreover, amongst their sayings of this kind
there is, ' The world proceeds according to its order £.' You
will find also that in their discourses they always carefully
avoid asserting the Divine will in the several events of
things and times," &c. And it is plain from Josephus
that this was actually the opinion of the Pharisees when he
says that they believe " that fate assists in each event."
That is, they held that nothing was done by God beyond,
above, or contrary to, that fate. And in another passage in
Josephus, the Pharisees, in assigning all events to their
causes, determine that some things must be attributed alto
gether to fate, and some to man's free will ; but they affirm
that nothing comes immediately from God ; much less, there
fore, does it appear from Josephus that the Pharisees acknow
ledged that special providence of God, which furnishes grace
and assistance necessary for every good act ; which, however,

in LUC. Grotius asserts to be most plain from Josephus, and that he
has elsewhere shewn it to be so, alluding, if I am not mistaken,

Mat. 22.23. to his Annotations on St. Matthew, where he quotes these
passages from Josephus.

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

? "pH 13!"I3£1 D^V ducees themselves, as he speaks of a

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

Virtually did away with all free will. 177

as, for instance, to be tall or short, of which alone Maimonides CHAP.
interprets that saying of the wise men, " All things are in -

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

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

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

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

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

BULL.

178 Dangers arising from astrology.

D I s s. who himself also favoured that sect. From which I think it
— is not difficult to gather that the Pharisees, whatever they
put forward to the contrary, still by consequence did away
with all free will. For as we have seen from Josephus, they
held that man's free will was subject to the fatal power and
influence of the stars, even in some things pertaining to reli
gion. If in some, why not in all ? For surely in particular
acts the influence of the will and of Heaven is the same; and
if the human wrill be bound even to one link of the fatal
chain, there is an end altogether to its freedom. Besides,
they said that fate assisted in particular acts ; from which it
follows that man never does any thing good or evil contrary
to his fate : for instance, Supposing a man be under the in
fluence of an evil star from his birth, and so labours under

herbaria an evil disposition ; I ask, will this man necessarily turn out
ill ? If so, then man's free will is destroyed by fate. But if
it can happen that he may become good, it will follow that it
is possible for him to act against his fate, and therefore that
fate does not assist in each particular act. "Nor is it

Appar. 7. wonderful," as our most learned Montague has well observed,
" that these hypocrites, these interpolators of the Divine law,
impure and covered with crimes, justly abandoned by God,
should have adopted profane, contrary, and opposite opinions :"
particularly when at this present day, even among Christians,
there are to be found not a few (in other respects learned
and pious men) who think that the absolute and irresistible
decree of God (far be it from me to attribute to them the
fate of the Pharisees) can be reconciled with man's free will.
In short, it is very difficult to stop one's course in this slippery
study of the stars. He who has once entered these hidden
regions, knows not whither he is advancing; he who attri
butes any thing to the stars, ends in attributing all things to
them. And we see this in modern astrologers, who in de-
peiidance on this their science commonly go thus far, that
whatever is singular, nay even miraculous, and done entirely
by the extraordinary power of God, they attribute to the
situation and influence of the stars. No saying is so often
in their mouths as "The stars rule men, but God rules the
stars/' and " The wise man will rule the stars."

From all this I consider Josephus to have written the plain

The Pharisee in the parable under its influence. 179

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

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

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

no

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

§ 19. But to return. From what has been said it is too 141-P-23I-3
manifest that the Pharisees both imputed their bad actions
to a bad fate, and in their good actions, whatever they denied
to the free will of man, they did not attribute to grace but to
the force and influence of the stars, and believed their planet
to contribute more to saving virtue than the Spirit ; a good
disposition, than a new nature ; a happy temperature, than
the renewing and regeneration of the Holy Spirit. And this
is what I think the Pharisee meant in the parable, when he
returns thanks to God that he was not as the publican, &c.
For they are mistaken who rashly conclude from this passage
that the Pharisees acknowledged the necessity of grace ; for
the Pharisee seems to attribute his being good to that Divine
Providence which gave to him at his nativity a more benignant
aspect of the stars than to the publican, and hence a more /mra-
kindly and good disposition; which Maimonidesk himself °"ra(n*'
conceived to be a singular gift of God, proving it with
wonderful acuteness from Prov. xxxi. 10. "This saying of
Solomon, ' Who hath found an excellent woman ?' is a per
spicuous and evident parable, namely, that when a man is
possessed of a good and convenient habit, which is not too
powerful for him, and does not spoil or destroy his disposition,
it must be acknowledged as a singular gift of God." He
afterwards gives this reason, "For a good and convenient
habit may be easily governed."

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

k More Nevochim, par. 3. c. 8.
N2

1 80 St. James attacks this heresy of the Pharisees.

D i s s. here in its full force as in Gal. vi. 1, in which sense the active
'%v is used, 1 Cor. vii. 5 ; 1 Thess. iii. 5,) they must

not attribute their evil deeds to any fatal necessity, and so to
God who had established that necessity ; but they were to
ascribe them, as they ought, to their own free will, enticed
by lust. His words are : " Let no man say when he is
tempted, I am tempted of God ; for God cannot be tempted
with evil, neither tempt eth He any man : but every man is
tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed;
then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin, and sin,
when it is finished, bringeth forth death." How strongly
are these words opposed to the fate of the Pharisees ! for
their doctrine of fate, if not directly, yet by consequence,
makes God the author of sin. For if nothing can be done
without the assistance of fate, as they teach, it follows that
no evil therefore can be committed by man, unto which fate,
and therefore God the author of fate, do not lend their help,
and also no man can do right if opposed by his fate. Besides,
the opinion of the Sadducees was in direct opposition to the
Pharisaic doctrine. But they taught that " God could not be
the cause of sin," and asserted "that we sin from our own
carelessness." Therefore the Pharisees held opinions the
reverse of these. In the following verses the Apostle cautions
the Jews from attributing their good actions to the fatal
Jas. 1. 16, influence of the stars. His words are: Do not err, my
beloved brethren; every good gift and every perfect gift is
from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with
whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." Do
ri ir\a- not err, is, as Grotius observes, a manner of speaking usual
when we wish to destroy any false ideas which either have or
See i Cor. may creep into the minds of any. And what was that opinion
Gal' IG T-' from which there was so much danger to the Jews ? that
i Job. 3. 7. man obtained acceptable goodness from a fatal influence of
the stars, and not from the grace of God abounding in us
according to His free pleasure. This error he overturns with
wonderful elegance in what follows. " Every good gift," &c.
True and perfect virtue, that which salvation accompanies,
(for he does not deny but that men may have some imperfect
dispositions to virtue from their birth,) doth not proceed from
heaven and the stars, but from above, from a source above

Refutes their notions of the influence of the stars. 181

the stars, from the Father, that is, the Creator of lights, or of CHAP.
the stars. From above has the same meaning as that in _ XI^
Job xxii. 12 : " Is not God in the height of heaven? and
behold the height of the stars how high they are ! " Where
in the height of heaven, means in the highest heaven, which
is called by David the heaven of heavens, and by the Apostle
the third heaven. For in the Scriptures three heavens are
mentioned, the lowest, middle, and highest. The lowest
contains all the three regions of the air : the middle, that in
which are the sun, moon, constellations, and stars. In the
highest is the throne of the Majesty of God. The mean
ing therefore of Job's words is : Behold, how high is that
heaven in which the stars shine forth : and then consider
how much higher is that God, that sitting on a far higher
throne treads on the planets and stars. The Father o
lights occurs only once in Scripture. I think, however,
there is a passage in the Old Testament where the stars
are called the sons of God : " When the morning stars
sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy."
Where, by the sons of God, in the latter part of the verse,
the Hebrews generally understand stars. Neither is there
here any tautology, since the morning stars signify not all
but only the brightest stars1. And the morning stars are
according to them the seven ministering, that is, the planets,
which are also called the stars of light. But these niceties TIN*

are not necessary to our argument : for the words ra (frwra
are to the letter the same as lumina, and by force of the
article certain special lights, and by synecdoche heavenly
lights. Father (Ilar^p) is with the Hebrews, Creator or
Author, as the Father of Spirits. By a like appellation Philo Heb. 12. y.
Judseus™ calls the Word of God "the supercelestial star, the
fountain of sensible stars," and " a universal splendour, from
which both the sun and moon, and the rest, both planets and
fixed, derive according to each one's power its appropriate
brightness." This sense of the words Father of lights is the
most simple and literal, compared to which all others will
seem forced and violent to a fair mind, so that I cannot but
be amazed that among the number of learned and critical in-

1 1p2 frequently means the same as m riepi TTJS Koa-^oiroias, p. 6. edit.
-IIS- Paris, 1640. [vol. i. p. 7.]

182 God alone the author of any good in us.

D I s s. terpreters, no one, as far as I am aware, has yet hit upon

- this interpretation of ours ; especially as the following words,
as they themselves allow, are all astronomical"; "With
whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning ;" that
is, the sun himself, the chief of the heavenly luminaries, hath

- his parallax or changes, and bears a different appearance at
t*ls- his rising, and at mid-day, and at his setting : he also has

his revolutions, his annual retirings from us, which we call
solstices, and the Greeks rpoirds : hence our shadows change
according to these retirings, which is the meaning of anro-
G-KiaQiv, to cast a shade or shadow. But that God, from whom
every real virtue flows, as He is superior to the sun and to the
stars, unto which some attribute so much, so is His light in
finitely more perfect; for He neither rises nor sets, nor retires,
but is light only, unmixed with shade. The divine writer con-
Jas. i. is. eludes his elegant discourse with these words: — "Of His own
will begat He us with the word of truth ;" that is, our being
faithful and pious does not arise from any fatal necessity, but
from the good pleasure of God through Christ ; neither is it
owing to any happy temperature caused by a benignant
aspect presiding at our nativity, but to the renewing and
regeneration, that new and heavenly nativity, which the
Holy Spirit causes in us through the Gospel. These things
seem very evident to me ; however, let the learned judge.

§ 21. But to come to an end: hence every one may per
ceive under what a gross and profound ignorance of Divine
grace all the teachers of the Jews laboured, the Sadducees
contending for an absolute self-power of the will, the Phari

sees giving the honour of Divine grace to fate and the stars.
Thus then we behold how very necessary were the endea
vours of St. Paul, who so often, and in such powerful words,
hath taught the force and efficacy of Divine grace, as opposed
to the strength of free will and human nature.

" Vid. Grot, in loc.

Of that civil righteousness in which the Jews rested. 183

CHAP. XVI.

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

THE LAW BY DEFINITE PUNISHMENTS. HENCE IT HAPPENED THAT THEY

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

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

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

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

CHAP.
XVI.

1 81 This righteousness, external, partial, defective ;

D i s s. the law, and had ranked himself among the Pharisees. He

: — therefore said he lived blameless while he was a Pharisee, as

Phil. 3. 6. to the righteousness which is in the law ; where the word
in Mat. law. as Grotius rightly observes, is used in the same sense as

C «f|

Seneca uses it in the following words : " It is but a trifling
matter to be good as far as the law demands;" for the
Apostle means that law which the Hebrew judges observed
in determining trials, and they could neither see into the
heart, nor had they received authority to punish every actual
crime, but only those which principally injured civil society.
Therefore he says he was as to the righteousness of the law
blameless, that he had committed no crime for which he
became subject to the external judgment of the law, or to
any of the punishments established in the law and imposed
by the judges. For certainly he would scarcely in any other
sense be able or dare to say that he had attained unto the
righteousness of the law, or lived blameless as a Pharisee;

ver. 7. yet this righteousness, whatever it might be, he clearly con-

ver. 4. fesses that he once before his faith highly valued, and shews
that it was greatly esteemed by his countrymen, who were
still Jews, as something excellent of which they might boast.
§ 4. From this most impure source arose many of the
worst Jewish errors concerning the obedience due to God.
Out of many we will notice a few. 1. Hence it happened
that for the most part they were satisfied with a negative re
ligion, thinking it sufficient if they abstained from sins, espe
cially the more enormous ones, being in the mean time little
careful about the works of piety and charity which are due
to God and our neighbour ; that is, they were chiefly atten
tive in avoiding sins of commission as they are called, but
perfectly careless as to sins of omission, because to negative
precepts punishment is generally annexed, very rarely to

Lu. is. 11. affirmative ones. Hence we read of the Pharisee giving God
thanks that he was not as other men are, extortioners, unjust,
adulterers, or even as the publican, who was praying at a
distance, making it a great boast that he was not among the
worst of men. But what good had this proud Thraso done?
he had nothing to produce before God but some frivolous and

ver. 12. merely external acts. " I fast," he says, " twice in the week ;
I give tithes of all that I possess." On which account,

K

a mere abstinence from crime, without holiness. 185
St. Clement of Alexandria0 explains the righteousness of the CHAP.

XVI

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

§ 5. 2. From this source sprung that dreadful opinion of
the Pharisees, through which they paid no attention to the
sins of the heart, as envy, pride, avarice, anger, unclean
desires, and the like, being content with that righteousness
only which is visible in external acts : for, as Grotius ex- in Mat.
cellently observes, although they knew that the law was 5' 20*
given by God, unto whom all hearts are open, who wills Him
self to be loved from the heart, and forbids evil desires ; yet
because no express punishment was annexed to these com
mands, they regarded them as advice rather than precepts, or
at least imagined that such blots were cleared away, partly
by the daily sacrifices, partly by the annual expiation, so that
God had no more remembrance of them. However this may
be, it is very manifest that not only the common people, but
even the Scribes and Pharisees had imbibed this error.
Hence Christ Himself opposes His most holy commands to Mat. 5.
the dogmas of the Pharisees, teaching that although the
Pharisees considered those only as sins unto which a legal
punishment was annexed, and therefore, for instance, men
should abstain from murder because the law commanded
murderers to be put to death ; yet He Himself ordered His

0 Lib. vi. Strom, p. 825.

!> Mishnah lib. Kiddushin HIVE 11^1^2 "OB> 1? Q'JJVJ

186 Sim of the heart wholly overlooked.

D i s s. disciples to beware of anger, being well assured that in the
— — next world it would receive a punishment no less severe than
murder doth in this ; and that if any one should add to his
anger cursing, he would receive a severer punishment than
that generally enforced by the council, as for instance stoning ;
but that if the cursing be highly blasphemous, he would suf
fer greater torture than those burnt by slow fires in the valley
of Hinnom. For Grotius has not unadvisedly considered
this to be the most simple explanation of this passage. In a
similar manner, Christ overturns the defective Pharisaic inter-
ver.27,28. pretation of the seventh commandment, shewing that not
only was he guilty of adultery who had actually committed it,
as the Pharisees taught, but he also who looked upon the
See Luke wife of another with impure desires. Hence it is that our
18.9/10;' Lord so often and so sharply rebukes these Pharisees for
J^283' their avarice, pride, and other inward impurities.

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

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

q Vid. Cornel, a Lap. in Mat. v.

That one precept observed, merited salvation. 187

these blind leaders of the blind imagined that a mutilated CHAP.
and partial obedience is more than sufficient for those pre -- XVL
cepts which are established by no express punishments,
thinking forsooth that they satisfied the law if they kept
those precepts which are exacted upon pain of death : what
ever they performed of the rest, they regarded as a kind of
supererogation. This wonderful doctrine is given by the
masters of the Jews1", in the treatise where they teach that
so great a number of precepts — for they enumerate 613 — are
given to the Jews in the law, that out of them they might
choose which they would, by the performance of which they
would deserve eternal life. For thus Obadias de Bartenora
explains this passage9: "Whoever shall sincerely observe
even one precept of the 613, by that observance he will de
serve eternal life :" where by even one, he must be understood
to speak of those precepts only which are not established
under pain of death ; for it is scarcely possible that the Jews
did not believe that all those were absolutely necessary
unto salvation : although I cannot deny that some sayings of
the Rabbins apparently demand a contrary sense ; and it is
no wonder that these teachers, blinded by the just judgment
of God, should have fallen into the grossest errors.

§ 8. There is a well-known maxim among the Jews men
tioned by Maimonides*: "That he who pays attention to
the precept is free from the precept." And similar to this
is the following11 : — "It is not lawful to pass beyond the pre
cepts :" which Maimonides thus explains ; " Whoever en
deavours to keep any one precept, must not pass from it to
observe any other." The words of the Hebrew doctors in the
Mishnah x are very express : " Whoever shall have kept any
one precept it shall be well with him, his days shall be pro
longed, and he shall possess the earth." I know that Maimo
nides and others endeavour to refine these crude ideas of the
Rabbins, but it is lost labour; for they conceive it to be neces
sary that a good work of this kind should be so great and valu
able, that by its addition its merits should outweigh a man's

r In Mishnah. lib. Maccoth. sect.

j- L L x Lib-

ton tfny »rt> ra nr>? mn

1 nw»n IE IDS

188 These errors rebuked and denounced by our Lord.

D I s s. evil deeds. On which condition they bid him be secure of his

— salvation. Upon which subject, whoever wishes to read more

quotations from the Rabbins may refer to a Dissertation on
Legal Righteousness, and especially to the second chapter in
a volume of select sermons, written in English by Smith, who
was most learned in Rabbinical knowledge.

Mat. 5. 19. § 9. Our Lord seems to rebuke this senseless and impious
comment of the Pharisaic school in these words : " Whoso
ever, therefore, shall break one of the least of these command
ments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in
the kingdom of heaven." How excellently these words are
suited to the Pharisees, who both themselves neglected many
of the commandments of God, a very few only excepted, and
taught others so to do. Hence there immediately follows,

ver. 20. " Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness
of the Scribes and Pharisees," &c. Equally clear is St. James,

Jas. 2. 10, writing to Christians who had been Jews, " Whosoever shall
keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty
of all ;" i. e. Beware of that mutilated obedience to the com
mandments which, when Jews, you learnt of your masters;
for that Lord, whose disciples you now are, demands a far
different obedience of you, that you should diligently and
carefully endeavour to keep all and each of His commands.
I find that Paul Bergensis, a Jew, and also the learned Estius,
agree with me in this interpretation, which naturally occurred
to me; the latter also explains St. Paul's words in the same

Gal. 3. 10. way : " Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things
which are written in the book of the law to do them/'

§ 10. But the greatest danger of this doctrine, otherwise
sufficiently dangerous, seems to lie in this point, that most
considered themselves at liberty to choose what command
ments they would observe, which of course were the least and
easiest, and the least disagreeable to their lusts, while they
neglected those of far greater consequence; which Christ

Mat. 23.23. Himself accuses the Pharisees of doing; where He remarks
their exactness in observing the commandment of tithes, and
that they scrupulously paid for the smallest herbs, which it
was doubtful if the law intended, and at the same time they
neglected the weightier matters of the law, — judgment, mercy,
and faith.

Adherence of the Jews to traditional rites. 189

CFI A P.

XVII.

CHAP. XVII.

A THIRD ERROR OF THE JEWS, PRINCIPALLY OF THE PHARISEES, THAT
THEY ATTACHED MUCH RIGHTEOUSNESS TO CERTAIN FRIVOLOUS AND
TRADITIONAL RUES AND CUSTOMS, AND PREFERRED THEM TO THE CHIEF

COMMANDS OF GOD. THE FOURTH AND LAST ERROR WAS, THAT, CONTENT

WITH THIS FALSE RIGHTEOUSNESS, THEY DID NOT THINK OF THE MESSIAH,

WHO WOULD GIVE THEM A BETTER RIGHTEOUSNESS. LASTLY, FROM THIS

DESCRIPTION OF JEWISH OPINIONS, FOUR OBSERVATIONS ARE DRAWN OF
GREAT USE TOWARDS THE RIGHT UNDERSTANDING OF ST. PAUL.

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

Turpe est difficiles habere nugas,
Et stultus labor ineptiarum.

§ 2. That the Pharisees placed righteousness in these un
meaning rites appears from the chapter quoted above, where yer. 5.
they are said to accuse the disciples of Christ as guilty of

190 These substituted for true holiness.

D I s s. a heinous crime for neglecting them ; and that they put
- these ceremonies before the commands of God, even before
the most important ones, Christ Himself shews, where He
ver. 8. sayS that they neglected the command of God (even charity,
called especially the command of God) to observe their tradi
tions ; for being wholly intent on these ridiculous but trouble
some rites, they neglected that important precept, which negli
gence was of itself a sufficient crime. But Christ proceeds to
shew that there were some of their traditions, which not only
were averse from the practice of internal piety, but were
actually repugnant to the commandments given by God, as
\er. 9— 11. superstition is wont to decline into greater sin; and these
Gal. i. 14. traditions were undoubtedly in the number of those which,
having received from his fathers, St. Paul asserts that he
kept before his conversion with the most ardent zeal.

§ 3. Their fourth error was, that the Jews, securely and
contentedly acquiescing in this debased righteousness, sup
posing it to have no less weight with God than with man,
were not anxious seriously to seek for the remission of their
sins : neither did they endeavour to purify their minds, and
to extirpate those vices which are usually concealed by men :
neither, and hence arose the calamities of the Jews, did they
perceive any need for a Messiah, who should apply medicine
See Mat. 9. to that part which they did not believe to be sick. They
Job! ]5. '39, did indeed expect a Messiah, but such an one as they had
39J_4i feigned for themselves; a glorious king, excelling in force,
arms, and power, who should free the Jewish nation from the
yoke of Roman slavery, and exalt the throne of David above
all the empires of the earth. But so far from believing that
the Messiah would expiate their sins by His own death, His
death seemed to them disgraceful; therefore the cross of
i Cor. 1.20. Christ is said to be to the Jews a stumbling-block. That the
law of Moses would have in Him its completion and end, that
He would lead men by the light of His doctrine, and the
power of His Holy Spirit, to a righteousness far more exalted
than that which in their folly they had invented for them
selves, or even than that which the letter of the law itself
prescribed ; of this they never even dreamed, being profoundly
ignorant of that great mystery, that Christ was to be the end
of the law for righteousness, the end, completion, and perfec-

Judaism and Solifidianism closely allied. ]91

tion of the law : that through Him alone, whoever believed in c H A p.

. xvii.

Him should be made partakers of true righteousness.

§ 4. Such were the opinions of the Jews on this subject of
justification and works, which being now sufficiently explained
as far as relates to our design, we will now deduce some ob
servations not wholly irrelevant to the subject we have in
hand. And first, it is hence evident that they entirely mis
take the intention of the Apostle, who suppose him to con
tend against a sinless obedience, perfect and free from every
error, as an opinion received and defended among the Jews.
From what has been said it is manifest that they were so far
from such a persuasion, as on the contrary to remain content
with an obedience extremely imperfect indeed.

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

§ 6. Maimonides boldly and roundly announces this
opinion7. "All wicked men, whose sins exceed their good

y Tract, tie Poenitent. cap. 3.

192 Confidence in their descent from Abraham.

D i s s. works, will be judged according to the measure of that excess,
— '—— and afterwards will have a share in the world to come; there

fore every Israelite will partake of life eternal2." But this
maxim, " that every Israelite would partake of life eternal,"
is taken from the Mishnaha, where it is laid down as an un
doubted opinion among the Jews, a few only being excepted
out of this so general a description15: those namely, "who
deny that the dead are to be recalled to life ; that the law is
from heaven ; he who reads the books of heathens ; who at-
temptsto charm away a disease byrepeating Exodus xv. 26; and
lastly, whoever attempts to pronounce the four-lettered name"

in Mat. 3. Munster also quotes this remarkable opinion from the Tal
mud : " Abraham sits at the gates of hell, and does not per
mit any wicked Israelite to descend into the pitc."

§ 7. That this opinion anciently prevailed among the Jews,
we learn from Justin Martyr, who followed closely upon the
Apostles, and who, if any, was intimately acquainted with
the Jewish system as taught in his time ; in his dialogue with

P. 369. [c. Trypho, near the end, after having said that the Jews could
^ not attain true wisdom, because they drank not of the
fountain of the living God, but from broken cisterns which
could not hold water, he immediately adds : " Now those are
the broken cisterns, holding no water, which your Rabbins
have dug for you, as the Scripture openly says, ' teaching for
doctrines the commandments of men/ and besides, they
deceive both themselves and you, supposing that the kingdom
of heaven will be given unto all who are descended from
Abraham after the flesh, although they be sinners and un
believers, and disobedient towards God : which the Scriptures
teach is not so." And soon after, in the following words, he
explains the true means of obtaining remission or justifica
tion, in opposition to the dreams of the Jews, and others who
supported them in this matter. " But this it is, that whoever
repents of his sins will receive forgiveness from God : but not
as you, and others who in this respect are like you, deceive
yourselves, saying, that though they be sinners, yet if they
acknowledge God, the Lord will not impute sin to them."

chapter.

Tract. Sanhedrin, ch. xi. [vol. iv. c QjrPJI
p. 259. ed. Surenhusii.]

b See Maimon. in explanation of this

St. Paul's aim in assailing legal righteousness. 193

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

§ 8. That this strange opinion was prevalent among the
Jews, is by no means obscurely hinted at in other parts of SeeMat.s.
the New Testament : St. Paul professedly opposes this opinion j^h. a, 39;
nearly through the whole of the second chapter to the Romans, om* ' ' '
where it is his design to shew that the Jews in vain trusted
in circumcision and the Divine covenant, while they indulged
in the most disgraceful vices, and were not careful to regulate
their lives according to the law of God. Whoever then, lest See ver. 9.
forsooth they should approach to Judaism, so ardently con- ver. iT^to
tend that faith alone, without good works, is sufficient for the end'
justification, have, with the Gnostics of old, fallen into the
very depths of Jewish vanity and folly.

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

d See B. I. ch. i. 20. an:l Feuardentius' notes on both passages.
BULL. 0

194 St. Paul would lead men to Christ and His righteousness.

D i s s. § 10. Fourthly, and lastly, from this description of Jewish
— doctrines, the aim of the Apostle in the whole of his argu

ment against the Jews clearly appears. In truth, he is
wholly bent on this : that wretched men who were continuing
actually in sin but remaining unappalled through confidence
in some fancied righteousness, asleep as the saying is with
both ears, should at last awaken; and that acknowledging
their misery, being also assured of the truth of what our
Mat. 5. 20. Lord hath told them, that unless their righteousness exceeded
that which the Scribes and Pharisees taught, they could not
enter into the kingdom of heaven, should fly as suppliants to
Christ, the Mediator, both to obtain pardon from Him of
the greatest sins of which they were still guilty, and to beg
for the grace of the Holy Spirit and of His Gospel, by which,
being delivered from the dominion of sin, they might arrive
at that true and spiritual righteousness, without which no
man can be accepted by God unto salvation. In one word,
the Apostle does not drive the Jews from the true righteous
ness of works, but calls them from a false and pretended
one, that he might lead them to that which was true.

CHAP. XVIII.

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

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

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

All notions of condignity of works to be condemned. 195

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

works separate from Christ the Mediator, which would ob- '—

tain eternal salvation by their own power, or without refe
rence to the covenant of grace established by the blood of
Christ. St. James also, on his part, recommends none of
these works, as appears from the whole tenor of his Epistle.
On the other hand, that moral works arising from the grace
of the Gospel do efficaciously conduce, by virtue of the
Gospel covenant, to the justification of man and his eternal
salvation, and so are absolutely necessary, St. Paul not
only does not deny but is employed almost entirely in esta
blishing. And this is the only point for which St. James
contends.

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

§ 4. Let him first carefully avoid that dreadful error of
some Roman Catholics (of some I say, for it must be ac
knowledged that all do not think so) who have not hesitated
to assert that a heavenly reward is due to the good works of
the just from condignity ; that is, on account of their own
intrinsic goodness and worth. Surely those do not deserve
the name of Christians who teach such a kind of merit. And
I will confidently pronounce, that those who have thoroughly
imbibed such a shocking opinion have never known or felt
the grace of Christ. Modesty of mind is the very soul of
Christianity, without which a man is but the corpse of a
Christian, not a true and living Christian. But to such
modesty what can be more opposite than this proud pre
sumption of merit? Indeed if there were any such merit,
it would belong to those who say and think nothing of their
own merits ; for as Cyprian observes6, "In the Church there

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

o 2

196 God a debtor not to us but to Himself.

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

§ 5. Whoever then regards his salvation must guard against
that calculating pride, and call not Almighty God to account
as if in any degree indebted to him. He will remember that
the right which the good works of the just have to eternal
life, is founded only in the Gospel covenant and promise,
the source of which covenant and promise is the mere and
wonderful mercy of God the Father, through Jesus the Son.
Which Bernard thus elegantly expresses upon the Apostle's
2 Tim. 4.8. words : "Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of
righteousness." " The crown," says he, " which St. Paul ex
pected, is the crown of righteousness, not of his own, but of
God's righteousness; because it was right that God should
pay what He owed, but He owed because He promised."
You may add, but He promised because He pleased, on
account of His own good pleasure through Jesus Christ.
That observation of Augustine's on the hundred-and-ninth
Psalm deserves notice f: "God is faithful who hath made
Himself a debtor to us, not by receiving any thing from us,

f [§ 1. vol. iv. p. 1228.]

Confession of Augsburg. Its teaching on this point. 197

but by promising so great things to us." And that of Ful- CHAP.
gentius&: "From His bounty He thought proper to make —
Himself a debtor;" although even these expressions are
somewhat improper; and therefore Thomas, and the other
schoolmen, preferred saying that God made Himself a debtor
by His promises, not to us but to Himself; i. e. to His own
determination, it being agreeable to His truth that He should
perform His promises.

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

g In Prolog, lib. ad Monimum.

198 ( Faith* used to exclude all merit ;

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

not as if it of itself justified us. 199

Salvation : " But this saying, that we be justified by faith CHAP.

only, freely and without works, is spoken for to take away — '—

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

200 Of the phrase 'justification by faith only.'

D I s s. virtues and works, and trust only to the Divine mercy and
- the merits of our Saviour. Moreover, she so denies the
merit of good works, that at the same time she sufficiently
and plainly allows their necessity to obtain justification, ac
knowledging that true and unfeigned repentance is the indis
pensable condition of the remission to be obtained. With
this coincides the Augsburg Confession, (art. 20,) on faith :
"When therefore we say that fwe are justified by faith/ we
do not mean that we are made just on account of any value
of that virtue, but this, that we obtain remission of sin, and
the imputation of righteousness, through mercy for Christ's
sake." And soon after in the same article, " But St. Paul,
when he says f faith was reckoned for righteousness/ speaks
of confidence in the mercy promised through Christ. And
the meaning is, that men are pronounced just, i. e. recon
ciled in mercy, and not for their own goodness, but that this
mercy promised for Christ's sake must be received by faith.
In this sense, the uncommonness of the Apostle's expression,
'we are justified by faith/ offendeth no good men, if they
understand it to be strictly said of mercy, and that it is
ornamented by true and necessary praise/' &c. You here
see the aim of the Augsburg Confession, in saying, we are
justified freely by faith only ; namely, to depress the sup
posed value of our own works, and that the mercy of God,
and the merits of Christ, might receive their due praises.
Besides, they confess that the Apostle's expression, we are
justified by faith, is not strictly to be taken, but is figurative.
So our Church in the Homily on Salvation, Part 3.
[p. 25.] " Truth it is that our own works do not justify us, to speak
properly of our justification, that is to say, our works do not
merit or deserve remission of our sins, and make us of unjust
just before God; but God of His own mercy, through the
only merits and deservings of His Son Jesus Christ, doth
justify us. Nevertheless, because faith doth directly send us
to Christ for remission of our sins, and that by faith given us
of God, we embrace the promise of God's mercy, and of the
remission of our sins (which thing none other of our virtues
or works properly doth), therefore the Scripture useth to say,
' that faith without works doth justify.' '

From which words appears the whole of what must be

The same as { by grace only.' 201

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

Cassander saw this, and so approved of the teaching of
the Augsburg Confession, making the following remark in
his advice concerning the above-mentioned article11; "But
that which Protestants say, that we are justified by faith
only, is more tolerable since they explain themselves by
saying that by the word faith, they mean grace, which
answers to it, so that to be justified by faith only, is the
same as to be justified by grace only, not by works," i. e.
not by the merit of works. And in truth this is the mean
ing of all sounder Protestants. Thus the Wirtemberg Con
fession in the article on Justification1; "We believe and
confess that for doing and exercising righteousness accept
able to God, these virtues are necessary; faith, hope, and
charity ; and that man cannot conceive these virtues of
himself, but receives them from the favour and grace of
God, and that faith works by love. But we consider that
they are most opposed to the true Apostolic and Catholic
doctrine, who teach that a man becomes acceptable to God,
' and is accounted righteous before God on account of these
virtues/ and that he must trust to the merits of these virtues
at the judgment of God. For a man is made acceptable to
God, and accounted righteous before Him, solely for the sake
of the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, by faith ; and at
the judgment of God no confidence is to be placed in any
merit of those virtues which we have, but solely in the merit
of our Lord Jesus Christ which becomes ours by faith.
And since at God's tribunal, where true and eternal
righteousness and salvation is treated of, there is plainly no
place for men's merits, but only for the mercy of God and

*> P. 18, 19. ex edit. Grotii. ' Syntag. Confess, p. 144.

202 Reasons for retaining the word ' only ;'

Piss, the sole merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is received
~ by us through faith : wherefore we consider that the ancients
and our Fathers said correctly, We are justified before Goi by
faith only." So also the speakers on behalf of the Augsburg
Confession, at the second conference at Ratisbon : " It re
mains that we use the word only, and say that men are
justified by faith only : for some misrepresent this, as if we
meant that a mere lifeless opinion concerning the Christian
religion were sufficient for a man's salvation, without any
regeneration of the man to the will of God, without repent
ance, and without the exercise of good works, as if by this
word only we exclude from faith, hope and charity. But
we in preaching justifying faith, at the same time explain
what it is, and plainly testify that that is not true faith
in Christ which is without repentance for sins, hope and
charity, and the exercise of good works. And when we
say with the holy Fathers, that we are justified by faith
only, we declare that it means the same as in the Apostle's
words, that we are justified freely and without works ; so
that this word only excludes good works and other virtues
not from the justified man, but from the power of meriting
remission of sins and eternal life ; so that to say f we are
justified by faith only/ is nothing else but that we are justi
fied by no merits of our own, but by Christ's alone, which
are given to us, and we on our part apprehend by faith. And
since this is the genuine use of this word, and the ancient
Church used the same for the edifying of the faith, it is not
for us to concede the use of it to those who endeavour to
detract from the grace of God, by the praise of human
works. As neither would the holy Fathers of old concede to
the Arians the word ofjuoovo-iov, ( of one substance,' when they
saw that by so doing they would be giving a kind of appro
bation to their impiety, and obscuring the truth. For the
Church of Christ is mistress, as of things, so also of words, as
far as this, that she make use of all, both things and words, for
the edifying of the faith in Christ." The same speakers, in their
answer to the twenty-first reply of the speakers of the oppo-
PJ>. 252, site party, put forth the same views. The Romanists had
said, " Ye yourselves, and the superiors of your order, have
judged that the word only is offensive, and therefore

not to be rejected because abused. 203

should be omitted : why then do you not give it up both now CHAP.
and for ever, for public peace and edification ? Surely it is a XVIIT-
Christianas duty to avoid all offences as far as in him lies.
Now this word only is a great stumbling-block to many,
nor is it given us in Scripture : wherefore it may be
omitted without any injury to saving doctrine. It is there
fore your duty to give it up." To which, after a few remarks
in explanation and defence of this word, the speakers on our
side reply: "Notwithstanding, if some pious men are of
fended at this word who yet admit the thing itself, namely,
that we are justified by the sole mercy of God and merits of
Christ, and by no virtue or merit of our own, we wish not to
grieve or offend such by this word, which as we use it very
rarely elsewhere, so neither is it inserted in our own Confes
sion. And yet on that account to reject it and condemn its
use, as that cannot be right, so no one ought to require it
of us. Least of all is it lawful to concede this word to those,
who by that concession would endeavour to confirm man in
that error than which none is more dangerous, That our
justification is not of the grace of God alone, and the sole
merits of Christ, but in some measure of our works and vir
tues : justification, that is, of life, and the confidence of ever
lasting salvation. Neither is that word o^oovaiov expressed
in Scripture in so many letters, yet since that," &c. In the
same way is the doctrine explained in the Repetition of the
Augsburg Confession, written in the year of our Lord 1552,
that it might be shewn to the Council of Trent ; and pub
lished first under the name of the Confession of Doctrine of
the Saxon Churches, and afterwards confirmed by the general
consent of the Churches and Universities which followed the
Augsburg Confession : which in the part on remission of
sins and justification thus teaches k : " Therefore this phrase
' we are justified by faith,' must be understood correlatively,
that is, we are justified by confidence in the Son of God, not
on account of our own quality, but because He is the Pro
pitiator in whom the heart relies," &c. And again : " And
here we must speak of the exclusive particle : St. Paul so
often repeats the word ' freely' (gratis), by which word it is
most certain that the condition of our merits are excluded.

k Corpus Theolog. p. 244-. et Syntag. Confess, p. 81.

204 Melancthon's teaching sound :

D I s s. Therefore it is said in our Churches, ' we are justified by faith
— '- — only/ Which we thus understand and declare : ' freely/ on
account of the only Mediator, not on account of our contri
tion or any other merits of our own, are remission of sins and
reconciliation granted unto us. For although contrition pre
cedes consolation ; and the love of God, and many other
virtues, are excited together with this faith or confidence ; yet
these virtues are not the cause or merit of remission of sins,
nor on account of these is a person acceptable," &c. And so,
lastly, Melancthon on the word. faith1. "Wherefore, when it
is said ' we are justified by faith/ nothing else is meant than
that we receive remission of sins and are accounted righteous
for the sake of the Son of God ; and since this blessing must
be apprehended, it is said to be so by faith ; that is, con
fidence in the mercy promised for Christ's sake. The pro
position, then, ' we are righteous by faith/ must be under
stood correlatively ; that is, through mercy for the sake of
the Son of God are we righteous or accepted. The nature
of nouns relative"1 in use is well known ; and as love, fear, and
other names of affections are spoken relatively, so also is con
fidence. Nor do I very much fear the foolish reproofs of the
unlearned ; neither do I object to what some bring forward,
namely, that love is joined to this confidence. But when we
say, ' we are justified by faith/ we point to the Son of God
sitting at the right hand of the Father, interceding for us :
for His sake we say that reconciliation is given to us, we
withdraw the merit of reconciliation from our virtues, what
ever they may be." And yet afterwards in its place, it is
said that love and the other virtues ought to exist in the
regenerate. " And in short, when we are accused of this
dogma, that we say ( a man is justified by faith/ we are only
accused because we affirm that we receive reconciliation for
the sake of the Son of God, not for our own worthiness ; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

perverted and misunderstood by later Protestants. 205

that this blessing is to be believed, or apprehended by this CHAP.
faith or confidence, and Christ's merits to be opposed to our -
sin and commendation, and that God is to be called upon in
this faith or confidence which looks up to the Son of God."
It is most certain that these opinions are the very voice of
the Gospel, and the continual belief of the true Church. In
the same book, in treating of faith, inasmuch as it is a part
of repentance, he says" : " Contrition0 without faith is the
horrible dread and grief of the soul flying from God, as in
Saul and Judas, wherefore it is no good work. But contri
tion with faith is the dread and fear of the soul not flying from
God, but acknowledging the righteous anger of God, and
truly grieving for having neglected or despised Him, and yet
coming to Him and imploring pardon. Such grief becomes
a good work and sacrifice, as the Psalmist saith : ' The PS. 51. n.
sacrifice of God is a troubled spirit : a broken and a contrite
heart, O God, shalt Thou not despise/ And yet it is neces
sary to censure and reject the opinion which supposes that
men merit remission of sins by contrition, or that remission
of sins is granted them for the worthiness of their contrition.
The voice of the Gospel must be kept to which proclaims,
Sins are remitted freely for the sake of the Son of God. This
must be exclusively held, that due honour be paid to Christ,
and likewise that terrified souls may obtain certain consola
tions ; for they would be driven to despair were they obliged
to feel that they had not remission unless their grief were
sufficiently worth and enough. This simple view does away
with many labyrinths of disputes." From these proofs it
must be quite clear how entirely amiss most later Protestants
have understood the doctrine of the early ones concerning
justification by faith only, in supposing that they attributed to
faith, above all the other virtues, an instrumentality, strictly
speaking, in the work of justification. This is a mere dream,
for it is plain from their own teaching, which we have
explained at length, that they ascribe no especial efficacy, and
so no instrumentality to faith above other virtues in the
matter of justification, but that they only meant that faith

n Corp. Theolog. p. 536. vol. i. from contrition by the absence of love,

p. 247. —See in lib. Sent. iv. Dist. xvii. Art.

0 This is what is called by the school I. 9. 3. — ED.
Divines attrition, and distinguished

206 Justification the office of God only.

D I s s. alone, of all other virtues, signifies a respect to the free mercy
— of God promised through Christ, which is the primary cause
of our justification, and so, by a figurative, but not an im
proper method of speaking, we may say we are justified by
faith only ; and that this expression is by all means to be
kept, because it is best suited to express that grace and
mercy of God by which, for Christ's sake, we are justified, and
so entirely to remove all human merits from the work of
justification, which the Fathers of the English Church have
well expressed in the Homily on Salvation (Part III.) : "And
this form of speaking use we, in the humbling of ourselves to
God, and to give all the glory to our Saviour Christ, who
is best worthy to have it." Certainly our Church, however
Rogers and others, somewhat bold, and so in many places
most unfortunate interpreters of our Articles, may have other
wise understood her meaning, hath most plainly denied this
instrumentality of faith in the Homily on Salvation (Part II.) ;

[p. 28.] for she thus speaks : " Justification is not the office of man,
but of God," &c. And again, " Justification is the office of
God only, and is not a thing we render unto Him, but which
we receive of Him ;" &c. And thence she expressly concludes,
that as to the act and office itself of justifying, nothing more
must be ascribed to faith than to other virtues, as is plain
from the words immediately following and those already
quoted. And surely the conclusion is clearer than the light ;
for if justification is the act and office of God alone, it is
most certain that neither faith nor any thing else of ours,
can possibly take the place of an instrument in the work of
justification, since every instrument is of such a nature as to
concur of necessity with the principal efficient cause, as we
have elsewhere remarked in our Dissertations.

I will sum up the matter in a few words. When the first
Protestants taught that we were justified by faith alone, they
did not therefore mean that by this faith other virtues and
other good works were excluded, as by no means necessary
for obtaining of justification, or that faith had in the
work of justification a greater effect than other virtues. But
they would have this proposition regarded as true in this
sense only, that the word faith denotes such an obedience as
is united with confidence in the merits of Jesus Christ, and a

Faith receives what God offers. 207

perfect rejection of all merits of our own, and which therefore CHAP.

excludes all those works which are performed with any con- " v L.

fidence in, or opinion of, our own merits. It is this which
Melancthon means in his Apology for the Augsburg Con
fession, in answer to the question, What is justifying faith ?
" The difference between faith and the righteousness of the
law, may be easily perceived. Faith is a service, \arpeia,
which receives from God the blessings offered us ; the righte
ousness of the law, that which presents to Him our own
merits. By faith God would be so worshipped that we
should receive from Him what He promises and offers?."
Which is clearly explained by Ludovic Crociusq. "Faith
alone justifies so far as it denotes a certain obedience waiting
for the promise as a free gift, wherefore, formally, it consists
in the application of the promise. Yet certain dispositions
precede this very act of faith, and certain fruits follow, whence
the word includes many virtues and acts both preceding and
following it, and it is opposed to that obedience which does
not expect the promise as a free gift, but as a reward proposed
on the condition of some work, without that acknowledgment
and gratitude which is naturally required in every gift how
ever free. And obedience of this kind is by the Apostle
peculiarly called a ' work/ and by the Latins properly, ' merit/
and those who obey on this condition are called ' workers/
And if the expression be so understood, those works which are
inconsistent with faith, i. e. which are performed in confidence
of their own merit, are entirely excluded, not only being
denied as able to justify, but even to be present in the
justified, or in those who are to be justified." To this I
think it unnecessary to add a word. But it must be carefully
observed, that all the testimonies of our Church which I
have as yet produced, are taken from the Homily on the
Justification or Salvation of man. To which Homily, as a
fuller explanation of the eleventh article, our Church expressly
refers us. What room for doubt then remains? Do we
enquire after the sense of the eleventh article? We are
referred in that very article to the Homily on the Salvation

P Page 92. [vol. i. p. 61.] div. Can. Dissert, vii. p. 973 et 982—

q In Syntagm. iv. 7, p. 1223. Vid. 985.
etiam Conrad. Bergii praxin. Catholic.

208 Opposite error of Antinomians.

D I s s. of man. What doth the Church teach there ? She declares
- again and again, and that in the most express words, that in
this article she opposes the merit only of good works1".
Neither is it undeserving of notice, that of the thirty-nine
articles of the Church of England, thirty-eight are laid down
without any explanation ; but this one, on the Justification of
man, is not given without this express caution, that a fuller
and more complete explanation of it must be sought in the
Homily on Justification. For the reverend Fathers of our
Church were very anxious lest any man, too superstitiously
adhering to the words of the article, should twist them into
some dangerous sense, which alas ! we see at this day to be
too much done by many ; therefore it is wonderful with what
anxiety and care those excellent and wise men provided that
their doctrine of justification by faith only should not other
wise be understood than as we have explained it, namely,
that by it all presumption of our merits being entirely taken
away, the grace of God, and the merits of our Saviour Christ,
might receive their due, even the highest degree of honour
and esteem. And thus far of the merit of good works.

Having passed therefore this Charybdis of the Romanists,
let the Christian reader avoid in every possible way the
Scylla of the opposite side. I mean the error of the Soli-
fidians and Antinomians, who entirely deny the necessity of
good works to eternal justification and salvation. Of this
most dreadful heresy, this must be first observed, that the
supporters of it, while they reject the necessity of good works,
lest there should be any appearance of merit, by that very
step actually establish the merit of good works. For why do
they deny that good works are necessary to justification and
salvation ? Because, to be sure, if this be allowed, our justi-
6<pei- fication and salvation would then be of debt, not of grace,
that is, the pure grace of God. Does it not clearly follow,
from this mode of reasoning, that there is always some merit
in the good works of men ? Now this is the very thing for
which the Roman Catholics contend. Yet this by the way.
But the necessity of good works depends upon the same
circumstance as their value and efficacy ; that is, they avail
unto justification and salvation only so far as they are a

r See especially Homily on Salvation, Part III. in the beginning.

Christ has not freed usfiom obedience. 209

condition to which God, of His mere favour, hath promised c H A p.
in the Gospel covenant justification and salvation. And for -
that "very cause \ve rightly conclude them to be necessary,
because no man, according to the Gospel covenant, can be
justified, or obtain salvation, who does not fulfil the condition
of that covenant. The case is this : God being moved of His
infinite goodness signally to bless us, but being prevented
by sins which deserved punishment, appointed that Christ,
willingly from His love towards us, by suffering most dreadful
torture, a cruel and shameful death, should pay the punish
ment due to our sins, that the proof of Divine justice being
thus evidenced, He might impart His blessings to men in
such manner as should seem best to His wisdom. By which
the gate of heaven was opened to miserable sinners, pardon
of their sins and eternal life were offered to them, and not
only offered but even assigned over by a covenant, drawn up
and ratified upon the best and most righteous conditions,
which is called the Gospel covenant. From the whole of
this plan are excluded not only our works, but faith itself,
and every thing we can call our own. But these things are
not the same with justification, they altogether belong to
satisfaction, and the obtaining of salvation. Now this
covenant being established, that any one should actually and
really be a partaker of the benefits it comprehends, it is abso
lutely required that he should perform the condition pre
scribed in it, which being performed, and not otherwise, he
is by that covenant justified. But we have shewn, by many
reasons and arguments, that this condition includes not only
faith, but repentance, and the study of good works. Here
the merit of Christ does not perform that office which many
so dangerously and absurdly dream. For Christ hath not
merited, nor is His righteousness imputed to us for this
purpose, that we should be freed from the conditions of the
Gospel laid upon us by Himself, (that is, faith, repentance,
and the study of good works,) but by His merit He hath
obtained that upon this most righteous condition we might
become partakers of salvation, and He also hath merited grace
for us, by which we are enabled to perform that very condi
tion. It is therefore greatly to be wished, that this distinc
tion between procuring salvation and the application of it by

210 Repentance, hope, charity, fear of God,

DISS. the Gospel covenant, however it may seem sufficiently
— - — obvious, was more rightly understood by most theologians ;
for if it were, an end would easily be put to many great dis
putes in this controversy.

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

For 1st. The Church, in express words, teaches that .repent
ance, charity, and the fear of God, are necessarily, inseparably,
and always united with that faith which precedes justification.
For thus the Homily on Salvation, (Part II.,) explains the
opinion of the Fathers' saying, that men are justified by faith
[p. 21.] alone: "Nevertheless this sentence, that we be justified by
faith only, is not so meant of them, that the said justifying
faith is alone in man, without true repentance, hope, charity,
dread and the fear of God at any time and season." 2ndly.
Our Church every where inculcates repentance in particular,
as a preceding disposition necessarily required to obtain
pardon of sins. Of this, innumerable proofs might be given ;
but he who dares to doubt whether this be the doctrine of
our Church, has too unworthy an opinion of her. 3rdly. The
works which the twelfth article of the Church affirms to be
posterior to justification, are undoubtedly of the same kind
with those which, in the immediately preceding words of the

inseparably united to justifying faith . 211

same article, are called the fruits of faith, and by which, in c H A p.
the end of the article, faith is said to be externally manifested.
Now it is most certain that our Church by works, which
she affirms to be the fruits and signs of faith, means external
works only, which are conspicuous to men, and which ex
ternally prove the sincerity (otherwise known to God alone)
of our faith, i. e. our internal piety, that it may, in some
measure, be perceived by men : for who in his senses would
say that faith is shewn by the internal virtues of hope, con
trition, charity, &c. as by signs ? surely these virtues are
just as internal and removed from the sight of men as faith
itself. If you say that the Church here speaks of the notifi
cation of our faith, not to others but to ourselves, we are
just where we were, for our internal virtues as well as our
faith are unknown even to ourselves. Therefore the sense
of the Church is manifestly this, that true and lively faith,
such, namely, as hath a sincere purpose of obedience, united
with confidence in Christ, (for so our Church often professedly
explains herself in the Homily on Faith, Part I.,) is not shewn
either to ourselves or others, but by works corresponding to
such faith. Does any one still doubt? the Church affords
him still farther information in the second part of the Homily
on Faith, which is entirely on this subject. There, after
having shewn in the first Homily, that lively faith compre
hends hope, charity, and the fear of God, she proceeds to
shew how each of these internal virtues must be proved and
shewn by external acts corresponding to their nature. Among
other things it is said, that Christ Himself " doth most clearly [pt. 2.
affirm that faith, hope, and charity, cannot consist or stand
without good and godly works." And in the conclusion : [p. 37.]
" As the love of God is tried by good works, so is the fear of
God also, as the Wise Man saith : ' The dread of God putteth Eccies. i .
away sin;' and again, ' He that feareth the Lord will do
good works/ ': Who now doubts but that by these works the
Church means only external works ? for certainly the virtues
of hope, charity, and the fear of God, are internal works.

§ 9. Fourthly and lastly. In this sense our Church clearly [pt. i. p.
explains herself in the Homily on Good Works, where are
quoted the words of Chrysostom8; "I can shew a man that

s In Sermone de Fid. et Leg. et Sp. S.

p 2

212 How far faith without external works is accepted.

I) I s s. by faith without works lived, and came to heaven : but with-
II.

- out faith never man had life. The thief that was hanged

when Christ suffered, did believe only, and the most merciful
God justified him. And because no man shall say again that
he lacked time to do good works for else he would have done
them, truth it is, and I will not contend therein, but this I
will surely affirm, that faith only saved him. If he had lived,
and not regarded faith and the works thereof, he should have
lost his salvation again." Every one must see that here
Chrysostom, and our Church after him, speaks only of ex
ternal works, or pious actions; for first, these words are
spoken of those works only, without which a faithful man
may arrive at the kingdom of heaven ; but without the
internal virtues of faith, hope, and charity, no man can be
saved, as all in their senses allow. Lastly, the thief suffering,
together with our Saviour, on the cross, is here produced as
an example*. But it is certain that the thief was possessed
not only of faith, but of repentance for his own sins, and
sincere love towards Christ and his companion. Lastly, those
works only are here alluded to which a faithful person,
through want of time and opportunity, sometimes cannot
perform. Thus doth the Church explain the meaning of
[p. 44.] Chrysostom in the words immediately following : " Here ye
have heard the mind of St. Chrysostom, whereby you may
perceive that neither faith is without works (having oppor
tunity thereto) nor works can avail to everlasting life without
faith." Now external works only can want time and oppor
tunity, to internal works there is no such obstacle. Thus
elsewhere doth Chrysostom explain himself11: "Virtue of
mind must be sought for, which God knows before works."
Similar to which is the observation of Jerome x: "In the
law works are required, which whoever does shall live in
them. In the Gospel the will is required, which, although it
cannot be put into execution, does not lose its reward."
Grotiusy, therefore, rightly observes that in the words of the
Fathers, when they say men are justified by faith even before
works, that such faith must be understood as includes the

* Vide Daveuant. Disput. clc Just. p. 612.]

Act. c. 30. in arg. ultimo, p. 390. x In Mat. xi. 30. [vol. vii. p. 74, 75.]

u In Rom. ix. 10. [Horn. 16. vol. ix. y In prior Annot. ad Jac. ii. 14.

Justification preserved only by a course of holiness. 213

purpose of obeying God and the Gospel, inflamed with a love CHAP.
of God and our neighbour, if not the most perfect, at least -
sincere : which is called " believing with the whole heart." Acts 8. 37
But such faith, Grotius continues, if death should immedi
ately follow it, is said to be without works; not because
unaccompanied by pious thoughts and sometimes pious
words and deeds, but because the intervening time did not
allow of a conspicuous and continued course of well-doing.
For works (ra epya) signify that which the Greek Fathers,
particularly Chrysostom, often call (irdKiTela) conversation1.
But the sum of this doctrine that incomparable man hath
elsewhere briefly and excellently explained in these words a :
" Where faith arrives at that pitch as to beget a sincere pur
pose of obedience, which cannot be without love of God and
our neighbour, although that love may arrive at a much
higher degree of perfection, his sins who is such, that is, has
a perfected faith, fides formata, as Catholics call it, a faith
consisting not in the intellect only, but in the will, his sins
are forgiven ; and if he should die such, he would have a right
to eternal life, because so it seemeth good to God, according
to His great goodness. But if after this, life be granted to
him in order to retain that right, a pious bearing of the yoke,
and particularly an abstinence from all those crimes b which
injure the conscience, and exclude from the kingdom of
heaven, must be observed ; for a complete pardon and right
to eternal life is given 011 this law and condition. This is
the doctrine of the Apostles, and all the ancients." I add,
of our Church also, which constantly teaches that the grace
of justification, first obtained by a lively faith, cannot be pre
served but by a continued course of good living. This is
evident from the words of Chrysostom concerning the faithful
thief above quoted, which our Church not only cites but
approves : " if he had lived, and not regarded faith and the
works thereof, he should have lost his salvation again." So
in the second part of the Homily on Salvation, this expression
of the Fathers, that we are justified freely , is thus explained :

» [Vid. Chrysost. in Rom. li. 29. ad Art. 4.

Horn. 6. Oxford Translation 1841. and b What these are, the following pas-
note. ED.] sages shew. 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10. Gal. v.

a In Annot. ad Consult. Cassaud. 19 — 21.

214 Bp. Davenant on the necessity of good works.

DISS. — "When they say that we should be justified freely, they
mean not that we should or might afterward be idle, and
that nothing should be required on our parts afterward."
Lastly, our Church in the sixteenth article, expressly teaches,
that after we have received the Holy Ghost, we may, by fall
ing into sin, fall from grace. The divines of Augsburg
deliver the same opinion in their eleventh article, where they
condemn the Anabaptists, "who deny that those who are
once justified can ever again lose the Holy Spirit." And in
the twentieth article, concerning the obedience of works,
they teach "that those who commit mortal sins are not
righteous, because God requires this obedience, that we
should resist wicked lusts ; but they who, instead of striving
against them obey them, contrary to the commands of God,
and commit actions contrary to their conscience, they are
unrighteous, and neither retain the Holy Spirit, nor faith, that
is, the confidence of mercy."

§ 10. I will finish this discussion with the words of a most
learned and excellent Prelate of our Church, who both well
knew and firmly retained the orthodox doctrine on this point,
and hath successfully defended it against the sophistry of
Bellarmine, and other Roman Catholics. I mean Davenant,
Bishop of Salisbury, who, in his very learned Disputations
Chap. .31. concerning habitual and actual righteousness, thus explains
and confirms, in two brief but clear theses, whatever we have
advanced here and elsewhere in these Dissertations concern
ing the necessity of good worksc.

" Conclusion 5th. Some good works are necessary unto
justification as concurrent or foregoing conditions, although
they are not necessary as efficient or meritorious causes.
Among these good works I reckon those internal ones which
are of great weight with God, although not perceptible by
man, as grief for sin, hatred of it, a humble subjection to
God, a flying to the mercy of God, hope in the mediation of
Christ, an intention to lead a new life, and the like to these :
for the Divine mercy doth not justify stocks, that is, men who
do nothing, nor horses and mules, i. e. men who resist the
grace offered, and obstinately adhere to their own lusts, but
men, and these when struck with compunction and sorrow,

c Vide et cap. 30. Thes. 1. Arg. 2.

Sure preservatives against infidelity and sin. 215

and following the guidance of the word and the Holy CHAP.
Spirit. — And here let it be noticed, that when we say any -
thing to be necessary unto the obtaining this or that end,
these words mean not a necessity of cause but of order.
Although, therefore, I should allow this proposition, 'that
good works are necessary unto justification/ it cannot thence
be inferred that they are necessary as causes, much less as
meritorious ones. For example : If I should say that to
obtain the honour of knighthood it is necessary to go to the
king's palace and kneel before him, it would be absurd for
any one thence to conclude, that the mere going there and
kneeling down are the meritorious causes of obtaining that
rank. In like manner must it be understood of all these
works which on our part are said to be necessary to obtain
justification."

" Conclusion 6th. Good works are necessary to retain and
preserve the state of justification, not as causes which by
themselves effect and deserve this preservation, but as means
and conditions, without which God will not preserve the grace
of justification in men. And here these same works must be
regarded in the same point of view as those in the preceding
conclusion ; for as no one receives that general justification
which frees from the guilt of all preceding sins, unless it be
accompanied by repentance, faith, the purpose of a new life,
and other actions of a like nature ; so no person retains a
state free from guilt, with respect to subsequent sins, unless
the same actions intervene of believing in God, praying to
Him, mortifying the flesh, daily repentance and sorrow for
sins daily committed. The reason why on our part all these
qualities are necessary, is this ; that if these be always want
ing, the vices opposite to them will begin to appear, which
vices are repugnant to the nature of a justified person ; for if
you take away faith in God and prayer, contempt of the
Deity and infidelity instantly succeed; if you take away
mortification and the exercise of repentance, overpowering
lust, and sins polluting the conscience, rush in. Therefore,
because God is unwilling that the unbelieving, the obstinate,
and the carnal, should enjoy the benefit of justification, He
requires daily works of faith, repentance, and mortification,
whose presence turn out, as it were, and keep away unbelief,

216 Grace of God necessary alike to all.

Diss. obstinacy, presumption, and other tilings opposite to justify -
- ing grace, and particular pardon for particular sins is obtained.
Rom.8.12. Hence St. Paul says, ' If ye live after the flesh ye shall die;'
Hob. 3. 13. and ' Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil
heart of unbelief in departing from the living God/" &c.
Thus have I shewn that the necessity of good works is taught
fully in our Articles and Homilies, that henceforth no man,
of the refuse of the Antinomians, may seek patronage for
his dreadful heresy in the most holy teaching of our Church.
§ 11. Thirdly. Moreover, in this question we must dili
gently guard against the Pelagian heresy ; and the necessity
of good works must be so understood, as at the same time to
acknowledge, and that from the heart, that the assistance of
a pre-disposing and all-powerful grace is indispensably neces
sary that any should perform works truly good, i. e. accept
able unto salvation. From grace, the beginning, increase,
and completion of oar righteousness flow. To sinners it gives
faith and repentance, to the faithful a good life, to those who
live aright perseverance, to the persevering the crown of
righteousness. So that there is none unto whom this grace
is not necessary for righteousness ; the sinner stands in need
of it that he may acquire righteousness ; the righteous that
he may not lose it. So that the grace of God has the pre
eminence in all men, and through all things. Therefore
Cselestinus rightly observes to the Gallican Bishop's letter d ;
" We confess God to be the cause of all good inclinations,
works, designs, and virtues, unto which a man is inclined
from the very beginning of his faith, and we doubt not but
that all human merits are produced from His grace." The
praise of Divine grace fills every page of St. Paul's Epistles ;
and you would suppose them to have actually been written
by a kind of prophetic anticipation against Pelagius. And
St. James also, however strenuous an asserter he may be of
good works, still openly acknowledges the thorough necessity
of grace, the free gift of the Father from above, pointing it
Chap, i out as the only source of every saving virtue and good work.
He also carefully warns all Christians to guard against the
opposite error as most dangerous. The Synod at Orange hath
therefore well remarked ; " If any one supposes that by the

d Ch. 12. [Vide Cassiani Opera, ed. 1628, p. 905.]

Pelagian and Manichean heresies to be avoided. 217

mere vigour of nature he can imagine any good thing which CHAP.
may conduce to eternal life, or choose any such thing, or even —
consent unto any wholesome, i. e. evangelical preaching, he
is evidently without the illumination and inspiration of the
Holy Ghost, is deceived by a heretical spirit, not understand
ing the word of God, saying in the Gospel, ' without Me ye
can do nothing/ And that of the Apostle, ( Not that we are
sufficient of ourselves, to think any thing as of ourselves, but
our sufficiency is of God6/ " Andf : " A man has nothing of
his own but falsehood and sin ; but if any man has truth
and righteousness, he has it from that foundation for which
we ought to thirst in this desert, that being sprinkled as it
were by some drops from it we faint not by the way."

§ 12. Mistrusting then our own strength, let us worship
God the Father as the source of every thing good ; let us
embrace Christ as the channel of grace, through and for
whom the Father pleases it should be derived to us ; let us
continually cleave to Him, and from His fulness, by constant
prarer, draw grace for grace; let us depend solely on Him; Hcb. 12.2.
let us lift up our eyes unto Him as " the Author and Finisher
of our faith." Our house built on this foundation will be
immoveable ; but if we depend on our own strength, it will
be without foundation, and, however magnificent in the eyes
of men, will quickly fall to utter ruin. " Let therefore" (to
use the blessed Jerome's £ words) "our whole discourse be a
prayer to God ; let every prayer and petition demand the
clemency of our Creator, that we, who cannot be preserved
by our own strength and endeavours, may be saved by His
mercy."

§ 13. Fourthly and lastly. Whilst we avoid Pelagianism,
by acknowledging the necessity of grace, let us take care, on
the other hand, that AVC fall not into the abyss of Manichean
folly, by taking away free will, and the co-operation of human
industry. The middle, the royal way must here be chosen,
so as to turn neither to the left hand nor to the right, which
will be done if we suppose that with grace, but in subjection
to it, the freedom of the will amicably unites. This saying

e Can. 7. [Vide Cassiani Opera, p. Articles of our Church.
909.] g Lib. iii. Dialog, adv. Pelag.p. 302.

f Can. 22. See tenth and sixteenth [ § 10. vol. ii. p. 770.]

218 Concurrence of grace with free will a mystery

Diss. of Augustine11 is common, and well known : "If there be no
- grace of God, how can He save the world ? and if there be no
free will, how can He judge it V In like manner Bernard1 :
" Take away free will, and nothing is left to be saved ; take
away grace, and there is nothing left which can save."
Therefore we must not so urge the liberty of the will as to
be hostile to grace, nor so preach up grace as to take away
free will. It is hard to say from which of these two errors
the greatest dangers arise. "Let not/' Vossius well ob
serves k, "Let not our idleness be increased by him who de
nies free will, nor our pride by him who is ignorant of the
gift of grace. In answer to both there must be equally
preached the justice of God, which assuredly cannot exist
without free will, and His mercy, which the enemies of grace
would undermine." But greater danger seems to be threat
ened by a denial of free will than of grace, as that learned
man observes ; " for this last error is so very gross as always
to be evident j and the light of the Gospel is so clearly given
on this subject, that it can infect none but the unlearned and
profane, whom ignorance and self-confidence easily seduce;
especially if the pride of worldly glory be added. But all
modest and pious men are more subject to the heresies of
those who, like the Chaldeans, concerning whom John of
Salisbury speaks in his Polycraticon, ' impose a kind of fatal
necessity on affairs, under pretence of humility and reverence
to God, fearing lest His providence should be destroyed,
unless a necessity accompanied the course of affairs.' Which
error, concealed by the veil of humility and piety, has, in
proportion to its secrecy, the more dangerous effect upon the
minds of men." Excellent, indeed, are the words of Augus
tine, which are praised by the same great man1, " Some are
exalted to be proud by a too great confidence in their own
will, and some are cast into negligence by a too great diffi
dence of their will. The former say, Why should we beg of
God that we be not conquered by temptation, when this is in
our power? The latter, Why should we endeavour to live well,

h Epist 46. ad Valent. [Ep. 214, 2. k Hist. Pelag. i. 1. [vol. vi. p. 553.]

vol. ii. p. 791.] ] In Johan. Homil. 53. [§ 8. vol. Hi.

4 De Gratia et lib. art. [Op. ed. 1586, pt. 2. p. 647.
P. 1177.]

not to be explained but believed. 219

since this is in the power of God only ? O God and Father, CHAP.
which art in heaven, lead us into neither of these temptations, -
but deliver us from evil." Truly then, and according to the
sense of all the Fathers (in Grotius's opinion) hath Tertullian
said m, " It is not the part of a good and sound faith to be
perpetually referring to the will of God, and so to natter
one's self by saying that nothing is done without His per
mission, as if we knew not that there was something in our
selves. But every thing will be excused if we maintain that
nothing is done in us without the will of God," that is, as
Grotius rightly says, without His predisposing will.

§ 14. But perfectly divine is that advice of St. Paul's to chap. 2.
the Philippians, c< Work out your own salvation with fear and ' 13'
trembling ; for it is God which worketh in you both to will
and to do of His good pleasure." Which is, Work out your
salvation with the greatest modesty and humility of mind, —
for so some of the Fathers interpret "with fear and trem
bling," as if it were the same as, with lowliness, (pera rajrei,-
vofypocrvvris,} — since you can do nothing of yourselves in the
work of your salvation, but it is necessary that the grace of
God should work in you, and with you. Or, Work out your
salvation with great fear and anxiety, lest you should be
wanting to the grace of God, and extinguish His Spirit,
which, if It should desert and leave you, would entirely
destroy your salvation. Or, Work out your salvation with
care and diligence, and be not afraid lest you should not
have strength to fulfil what I recommend, for God worketh
with you in this matter, and is ready of His goodness to
assist you in overcoming all difficulties. In whatever man
ner you interpret these words of the Apostle, they totally
overturn the irresistible operation of grace; for unto what
purpose would be this grave exhortation of the Apostle's,
that we should work out our own salvation, if we could not
work?

§ 15. Exactly to define and to lay down the manner of the
concurrence of Divine grace with the will of man, to say what
grace can do alone, and what free will, in conjunction with
and in subjection to grace, is a matter of no small difficulty ;
and by many learned and pious men hath been justly reck-

m De Exhortatione Castitatis, p. 519.

220 Conclusion.

D I s s. oncd among the deep and unsearchable things of God. There-
— fore by the authority and great wisdom of our excellent
King, it was ordered that none of our divines in their ser
mons should attempt to explain this inscrutable mystery.
But although we be ignorant of the manner, the thing itself
must be firmly believed.

§ 16. These, then, are the observations, my Christian
reader, which I thought it necessary particularly to impress
on your mind, lest you should either mistake the meaning of
these Dissertations, or, in this matter of the highest import
ance, at the hazard of your salvation, err from the truth.

This be thy wisdom, Epicurus' care

To seek where's 'vacuum,' and what 'atoms' are.

Scholastic difficulties, laborious trifles, and learned follies,
leave to those who delight in such things. You, if you know
these things, will be wise ; if you do them, happy.

To the Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, be all
honour, glory, and praise for ever and ever. Amen.

THE AUTHOR'S POSTSCRIPT

TO THE

READER,

SUBJOINED TO THE FIRST EDITION OF THESE DISSERTATIONS.

You must know, kind reader, that these Dissertations,
together with the Preface prefixed to them, were written and
sent to the press some years ago, when I was quite young.
This is not the place for saying why they were published so
late. I am now almost sorry that I even, at last, allowed an
early unfinished work to be published, especially as the
subject required a more experienced judgment and greater
care. But I am much distressed that the production, of
itself but too imperfect, and sufficiently declaring the in
ability of its author, should be disgraced by such bad mis
takes, if they are not worse than mistakes, of the press, both
in the pointing and in the text. I was not, however, able to
correct the sheets myself, and it is not surprising that my
hand-writing, which is very illegible when I write in a hurry,
should have puzzled the compositor.

These mistakes, then, can be only remedied by my readers'
kindness, and I earnestly beg them favourably to accept this
my first attempt in Theological studies, not refusing the
trouble of correcting for themselves the most important errors
of the press which are here noted, and to forgive me for any
others which, in the review I have hastily made, may have
escaped my notice. Again farewell.

INDEX.

A.

Abraham, justified not by faith alone,
but by obedience, 44. called the
friend of God, 45. not justified by
works, i. e. done by his own strength,
152, 153. his righteousness subse
quent to his faith, 154. his faith op
posed only to those of his works done
without grace, 155. had no cause for
boasting, 156. an idolater prior to his
call, 158, 159. deserved nothing of
God, ib. why used as an example
by St. James and St. Paul, 160.
descent from, useless without his
obedience, 192.

Alms, their efficacy in obtaining par
don, 15. required by the Ancient
Church previous to absolution, and
called ayaOoepytai, 15, 16.

Althamer, blasphemy of, 4.

Anabaptists, condemned by the Con
fession of Augsburg, 214.

Antinomians, whence they arose, 21.
entirely deny necessity of good
works, 208. find no support in the
teaching of our Church, 215.

Assent, found in devils, 23. alone will
not produce piety, 24.

Assurance absolute, doctrine of, great
disgrace of Reformed Churches, 26.
not an act of justifying faith, ib.

Astrology, dangers arising from, 178.
opposed by St. James, 179.

€701, meaning of the phrase, 112.

B.

Basil, St., rejected the opinion that the
precepts of the law were impossible,
as blasphemous, 86.

Bucer, wherein to be praised, 53.

C.

Cameron, weakness of his arguments,
35, 36, 37. dogma about knowledge,
23. reproved by Episcopius, ib.

Christ, His vindication of the law, 21.
explained the moral law, ib. requires
its observance, ib. has not freed us
from obedience, 209. His merits have
obtained grace for us, but not a re
lease from obedience, ib.

Christian, his contest victorious through
grace, 115.

Christians, to l)e judged by the law of
the Gospel, 29. freed from the do
minion of sin, 99. more required of,
than of Jews, 168.

Circumcision, of the heart, the gift
of the Holy Spirit, 136. necessity
of, opposed by St. Paul, 167. not
necessary to justification, ib. of the
heart necessary to Christians, 167,
168.

Clement, St., of Rome, testimony to St.
Paul's teaching, 161.

Communion with God impossible with
out holiness, 13.

Conference at Ratisbon, 201.

Confession of Augsburg, the most
ancient and best, 197 — 203. of the
Saxon Churches, 203.

Confidence, nature of Christian, 24 — 28.
conditional, 25. useless without love,
ib. common to good and bad, 27.
danger of trusting in it, ib. comes
from a good conscience, 28.

Contrition, without faith called attrition,
204.

Covenant, Mosaic, its twofold defect,
78. of Sinai, contained no promise
of the Holy Spirit, 134. made Deut.
30. 6. not the same with that of
Sinai, 135. this the foretaste of

224

INDEX.

the Gospel covenant (see Jer. 31.31 ;
Heb. 8. 8.), 136. Hebrew doctors re
fer it to the times of the Messiah,
137.

Crocius Ludovic, explanation of faith,
207.

D.

Davenant, on good works, 214, 215.
Decalogue, perfected and explained by

Christ, 20.
Devils, no real virtue, and so no true

faith, 49. must believe, ib.

ray pa, meaning of, 176.

E.

Ebion, preferred Moses to Christ, 134.
Epicurus laughed at a notion of a future

life, 127.
Essenes, hardly to be accounted Jews,

173. their manner of life, ib.
'E| fpy&v, ' by works,' how used by

St. James, 10, 16.

P.

Faith, in what sense said to be the in
strument of justification, 17. wherein
superior to all other virtues, 19.
the root and source of all goodness,
ib. not considered in Scripture as a
single work, ib. three acts of, Know
ledge, Assent, Confidence, 23, 24. per
fected by works, 32. the same to the
soul as breath to the body, 51. differ
ence between perfected (formata) and
imperfected(iw/o;-7H/s),53.'of miracles
the highest, 59. whether it can be
separated from love, 60. expresses
easiness of the condition, 66. ex
cludes all merit, 68, 69. 156. implies
Divine revelation and aid, 69. obedi
ence if opposed to natural righteous
ness, 70. expects its reward only
from free gift of God, ib. refers all
to Christ, 71. obedience to the Gos
pel, of which it is the root and
foundation, 148. obedience of, ex
cludes merit, 1 56. presupposes a
Divine revelation, ib. establishes the
law by obtaining grace, 165. instru
mentality of, above other virtues,
not taught by our Church, 206. a
service, receives what God offers, ib.
not to be separated from repentance,
love, &c. 210, 211. how far without
works is accepted, 212. teaching of
the Fathers on this point, ib. does
not so refer all things to God's will

as to forget we have a will also,

219.

Familists, origin of their errors, 21.
Fate (see Pharisees).
1 Father of lights,' how used by St.

James, 180, 181.
' Flesh,' the powers of nature without

grace, 152. opposed to Spirit, grace,

&c. 170.
Free will, does not diminish the power

of grace, 144. corrupt opinions of

the Jews on, 169. more mistaken

than those of the heathens, 170.

G.

Galatians, greatly corrupted by Juda
ism, 74.

God, can be obeyed with all our
strength, 85. commands nothing im
possible, 86. approval of His law
common to good and bad, 108. pur
pose in giving the Mosaic law, 137.
His design in the strictness of the
law, 168. alone the Author of any
good in us, 182. a debtor not to us,
but to Himself, 1 97. hath made Him
self so by His promises, ib. requires
daily exercise of good works &c. 215.

Good, difference between ' willing' and
' doing,' 106. delight in it found in
the unregenerate, 108.

Gospel, bestows eternal pardon, 8. bet
ter hope of the, 122. the ministra
tion of the Spirit, 133.

Gnostics, 193.

Grace, can be given before justification,
162. denial of this almost blasphemy,
ib. restores the law to its true posi
tion, 165. necessary alike to all, to
the most holy, to the greatest sinner,
216. concurrence of with free will a
mystery not to be explained, though
firmly believed, 218,219.

Grot'nis, wrong in his interpretation of
the word ' to justify,' 6. opinion on
faith, 63.

H.

Herod, example of a wicked person
lighting in good, 108.

de-

Idolatry, the greatest of sins, 1 59.
Immortality, brought to light by the

Gospel,' 127.
' Impute,1 ' imputation,' meaning of the

words, 8. 156.
Inconsistency of those who reject the

true doctrine of justification,' 40.

INDEX.

225

J.

James, St. doctrine of justification found
in every page of Holy Scripture, 11.
taught expressly by our Saviour, 12.
and by the Apostles, 13. does not
speak of justification before men,
45. that he speaks of a false faith
refuted, 49. meaning of a dead faith,
compares it to a dead body, 50, 51.
Jews, rested in an external and defec
tive righteousness, 183. satisfied
with a negative religion, 184. and
a mere abstinence from gross crimes,
185. neglected the errors of the
heart, 185, 18G. held that the
observance of one precept merited
salvation, 187, 188. such notions re
buked and denounced by our Lord,
188. supposed they were at liberty
to make choice of the command
ments, 188. adherence to traditional
rites, ib. substituted these for love
and holiness, 189. false notions of
the Messiah, 190, 191. really Solifi-
dians, as such reproved by St. Paul,
191, 192.

John of Salisbury, 218.
Judaism, attacked by St. Paul, 74.
dreadful effects of, on the Christian
Churches, ib.
Judas, example of contrition without

faith, 205.

Judgment last, according to works, 29.
Justify, meaning of the word, 6. used

in a judicial sense, ib.
Justification, subsequent to sanctifica-
tion, 14. analogous to a human trial,
19. contains three things, ib. declara
tive, 29. active or habitual, ib. divi
sion of, into first and second, con
trary to the meaning of the Apostles,
54, 55. a continued not an instanta
neous act, 44, 163. preserved only by
a course of holiness, 163, 214.

K.

Kimchi's perversion of Ps. 66. 18. 186.

Knowledge, found in the worst of men,
23. that called by the schoolmen
cognitio affectiva, 65. words denoting,
generally include its effects, 146.

of the Gospel, and therefore imper
fect, 81. permitted sins, ib. possibility
of fulfilling the, no new opinion, 85.
no promise of a perfect remission,
91. no promise of grace, 95. could
not repress men's lusts, 96. Chris
tians freed from its carnal ceremo
nies, 97. indirectly excited sin, 98.
its precepts carnal, promises tempo
ral, 121. wanted the gifts of the Holy
Spirit, 132. ministry of the letter
and of death, ib. restricted by Au
gustine to the covenant of Sinai,
137. only pointed out grace, did not
bestow it, 166. its strictness a type
of Gospel righteousness, 168. com
pleted and fulfilled in the Gospel,
190.

Libertines, origin of their errors, 21.
Life, indications of a future in the Old
Testament scanty and obscure, 123.
foreshadowed in types, 124. doctrine
of a future, taught more clearly in
later times, 126, 127.
Love, the form of justifying faith, 25.
necessary for the perfection of all
good works, 37.

Luther, taught that no law was given to
Christians, 21. none imposed as a
condition of salvation, ib.

M.

Maimonides, error respecting free will,
170—172. his principle of self-
power, ib. he opposed the doctrines
of fate and necessity, 173.

Man, ' inward' and ' new' not the same,
109. inward the mind or intellect, 110.

Manichean heresy to be avoided, 217.
more dangerous than Pelagianism,
218,219.

Melancthon, explanation of the word
faith, 204. his teaching sound, ib.
perverted and misunderstood by later
Protestants, 205. Apology for the
Augsburg Confession, 207.

Modesty, the soul of Christianity, 195.

Mortification, daily practice, one of the
indispensable means of keeping from
sin, 215.

Mosaic rites not necessary for justifi
cation, 166.

Law, the, affords only temporal forgive
ness, 8. 93. by which Christians will
be tried, 20. why a law of liberty, ib.
righteousness of the, confers merit,
70. moral and ritual, 77. did not re
quire a perfect obedience, 79. type

BULL.

O.

Obedience, necessity of, 60, 61. not an

impossible condition, 62.
' Only,' reasons for retaining the word,

201. vised by the ancient Church,
not to be neglected because abused,

202, 203.

226

INDEX.

P.

Paraus' arguments on Rom. 7. dis
cussed and refuted, 102 — 113. would
exclude works of faith from justifi
cation, 150.

Paul, St. rejects some works entirely
from justification, 38. to be interpreted
by St. James, 57. denotes by faith
the whole Gospel covenant, 58. ex
plains faith by obedience, ib. why he
speaks of faith only, 64. aim in argu
ing against works, 72. Rabbinical
additions rejected by, 75. excludes
works of the natural law, 76. opposes
Gentile philosophy, ib. how far he
excludes moral works of the law, 77,
78. teaches perfect obedience, 84.
frequently speaks in another's per
son, 102. not speaking of himself or
of any regenerate person, Rom. 7.
92, 117. his meaning of being 'with
out the law,' 104. his thanksgiving,
Rom. 7. 25. how to be understood,
111. distinguishes between 'works,'
and ' good works,' 143. speaks
(Rom. 4.) of Abraham before his
call, 150. supports and strengthens
St. James' doctrine, 163. reasons for
speaking so strongly against the law,
193.

Pelagian heresy, caution against, 216.

Pharisees, their doctrine of fate, 174.
difference of opinions as to their
notion of fate, ib. divided all events
between three causes, 175. virtually
did away with free will, 178. doctrine
of fate made God the author of sin,
180.

Piety, why called knowledge, 65. none
without knowledge of God and His
will, ib.

Placeeus, notion of a twofold accusation
unfounded, 56.

noAtrefa, how used by the Fathers,
213.

Prayer, not expressly commanded in
the law, 120.

Procrustes, 183.

Protestants, teaching of the first, sound,
206.

Pythagoreans, doctrine of metempsy
chosis, 127.

B.

Remission of sins, none without obedi
ence, 27. of sins given only to the
guileless and loving, 162.

Repentance, not a single work, 14, 15.
necessary for justification, 14. un
availing without alms, 15. necessarily
subsequent to faith, 16.

Resurrection of Christ the earnest of a

future life, 130.
Righteousness, absolute, impossible to

man in this life, 80. that not ' in us'

but ' of us,' called our own, 146.

attained only by the Gospel, 164.

fulfilled in us through the Spirit,

ib.
Rites of the law completed, fulfilled

by Christ, 72.

S.

Sadducees, did not reject the prophetical
books, 128. maintained the doctrine
of free will independent of grace,
174. maintained absolute ' self-power'
of the will, 182.

Sacrifices, their effects only temporal
and external, 93.

Saints, extremely few under the old
covenant, 88. 139. most of these
guilty of some sin, 89. of the Old
Testament looked forward to a future
life, 125. inferior to the early Chris
tians, 140.

Salvation, absurdity of hoping for, with
out performing the conditions, 209.

Saul, example of contrition without
faith, 205.

Sin, hatred of, found in heathens, 106.

Solifidiam, deny the necessity of good
works, 208.

Soul, Platonic notions of the, 128.
Pharisees maintained, Sadducees re
jected its immortality, 128.

Spirit Holy, given of old by measure,
139. to Christians abundantly, 164.
miraculous outpouring a testimony
to the doctrine of justification by
faith, 141, 142. those under, cannot
obey the flesh, 116.

Stoics, doctrine of the (e/CTrupoxm,) con
flagration of souls, 1 27.

Synod of Dort, 144. of Orange, 216, 217.
, 108.

T.

Talmudists, absurd notions about a

future life, 129,
Testament, Old, divided into two parts,

123, 134.
Thief, case of the penitent explained,

211, 212.
Truth compels her opponents to use

her own words, 32.

W.

Works, those performed by our own
powers alone occasion boasting, 143.

INDEX.

227

cannot be good without the freedom
of the will, 144. done without grace
alone rejected from justification, 145.
performed hy grace cannot interfere
with grace, 149. condignity of, to be
rejected, 195. merit of, alone opposed
by our Church, 207. internal only,
necessary to the first justification,
210. impossible to be good without
grace, 213.

good, not the meritorious

cause of justification, 10. not merely
signs of faith, 31. not of themselves

deserving of eternal life, ib. ob
tain a right to eternal life, 39. per
formed by the grace of God, 144.
can precede justification, 162. denial
of this false and dangerous, ib.
cannot precede the grace of God,
ib. necessity of, taught by our
Church, 209—216. necessary as
means and conditions, 214.
WorJceth, he that," he who works
without grace, 157.
By Works" signifies the indispens
able condition, 1 1 .

FATHERS QUOTED AND REFERRED TO BY BP. BULL
IN THIS VOLUME.

St. Ambrose, 151.

St. Augustine, 55, 57, 83, 90, 99, 113, 123, 160, 162, 165, 218.

St. Basil, 86.

St. Bernard, 196, 218.

St. Clement of Rome, 68, 161.

St. Clement of Alexandria, 185.

St. Chrysostom, 86, 103, 165, 211, 212, 213.

St. Cyprian, 195.

St. Epiphanius, 179.

Fulgentius, 197.

St. Irenaeus, 193.

St. Jerome, 103, 212, 217.

Justin Martyr, 68, 72, 85, 128, 167, 179.

Lactantius, 107.

Origen, 91, 110, 113, 151.

Tertullian, 110, 219.

Theophylact, 189.

INDEX OF TEXTS

CITED, EXPLAINED, AND REFERRED TO IN THIS VOLUME.

GENESIS.

II. CHRONICLES.

1 5. 6. 44.

15. 12. 85.

EXODUS.

16. 89.

1. 17. 121.

35. 22. 89.

20. 6. 15.
— 7. 93.

JOB.

23. 25. 120.

38. 7. 181.

— 25, 26. 123.
34. 7. 162.

PSALMS.

1- 2, 107.

LEVITICUS.

5. 4, 5. 162.

6. 1—7. 15.

11. 4,5,7. 162.

— 2—4. 93.

14. 2, 3. 89.

18. 5. 93, 121.

• 4. 64.

26. 3. 123.

32. 1, 2. 161.

51. 17. 205.

NUMBERS.

53. 4. 64.

6. 22—27. 120.

66. 18. 186

15. 25, 26. 92.

119. 77, 103. 107.

— 22—29. 81.

— 128. 75,

DEUTERONOMY.

148. 3. 181.
145. 14, 15. 89.

2. 11, 20. 156.

6. 5. 84.

PROVERBS.

7. 12, 13. 123.

17. 15. 7, 162.

24. 1. 81.

28. 13. 15.

26. 12—15. 120.

31. 10. 179.

27. 82.

28. 2. 123.

ECCLESIASTES.

29. 1, 4, 12, 13. 135, 136.

1. 9. 175.

30' {l~L\',16™0. } 85, 134, 135, 136.

ISAIAH.

JOSHUA.

1. 16—18. 12, 15.
43. 22. 64.

24. 2, 3. 159.

48. 22. 162.

JUDGES.

57. 21. 162.
53. 11. 65.

8. 19. 121.

66. 23. 88.

II. SAMUEL.

JEREMIAH.

19. 19. 156.

31. 31, 33. 135.

I. KINGS.

— 34. 136.

8. 32. 162.

EZEKIEL.

- 46. 89.

42. 13. 122.

14. 8. 85.

6. 9. 15.

15. 5. 89.

20. 43. 15.

11. KINGS.

33. 14, 16. 12, .15.
36. 31. 15

23. 3,5. 85.

43. 19. 122.

INDEX OF TEXTS.

229

DANIEL.

3. 34.

139.

4. 27. 15.

5. 35.

108.

— 39, 40.

130, 190.

JOEL.

7. 38, 39.

139.

2. 28. 89, 137.

8. 19, 55.

65.

— 24.

24.

ECCLESIASTICUS.

9. 39—41.

90, 190.

1. 21. 211.

13. 7.

62.

15. 1. 211.

14. 21.

12,61, 62.

26. 15. 139.

— 23.

13.

15. 3—10.

163.

WISDOM.

— 14.

13.

3. 2. 122.

— 22, 24.

90.

17. 3.

65.

II. MACCABEES.

ACTS.

7. 9, 23, 29, 36. 126.

2. 17.

89, 139.

MATTHEW.

— 38.

14.

3. 1 9.

14.

3. 8, 9, 10. 192, 3.

7. 2, 3.

157!

— 18. 16.

8. 22.

15.

5. 75.
— 7. 21, 72.
— 19, 20. 22,185, 188,194.

— 37.
10. 34, 35.
— 46.

213.
13.
141

— 21, 22, 27,28. 185,186.
6. 14, 15. 15.
7. 21—24. 21,62.

11. 23'.
13. 38,39.
15. 8.

15!
7,95.
141

9. 10—12. 190.
10. 41, 42. 37.
11. 11. 139.
— 28,29. 13.
12. 36,37. 7,30.

16. 4,' 5.
17. 18.
— 31.
26. 5.

1 Tl .

74.
128.
130.
75.

13. 17. 140.

ROMANS.

— 20. 109.

1. 5, 16.

59.

16. 17. 152.

2. 5,6,12,13,16.

30.

18. 32—35. 162.

— 9—13.

193.

19. 3—9. 81.

— 12.

29, 103.

22. 18. 130.

— 6—11.

61.

— 31, 32. 124.

— 13.

9, 60, 77.

23. 23. 188.

— 14, 15, 26 ,27.

88.

— 25—28. 186.

— 17, ad fin.

193.

25. 21, 23, 34, 35. 31.

— 28,29.

167.

MARK.

3.

— 4.

87, 103.
9.

6. 20. 108.

— 10—20.

79, 91.

7. 3—5, 8—11. 189, 190.

— 9, 19, 23.

88, 90.

9. 41. 37.

— 21.

134.

LUKE.

— 24, 25.
27.

71.

20,143,153,158.

1. 30. 151.

— 28.

38, 43.

7. 29. 9.

— 31.

77, 165.

10. 29. 9.

4. 1.

150.

12. 4, 5. 109.

— 2.

143.

16. 13, 14. 186.

— 1—3.

154.

18. 9, 10. 186.

— 5.

38, 158.

— 11, 12. 184.

— 9.

166.

- 14. 9.

— 11.

142.

19. 8, 9. 15.

— 15.

121.

JOHN.

— 20, 21, 24.
— 25.

24.
96.

1. 10. 65.

5. 1.

9.

- 16. 139.

2,3, 11.

154.

- 17. 134.

- 16,18.

7.

3. 32. 88.

- 20.

104.

230

INDEX OP TEXTS.

6.

147.

7. 1.

124.

— 1.

151.

— 10.

14.

— 16.

62.

— 15.

59.

— 18.

102.

10. 5, 6.

59.

7. 5.

120.

— 17.

154.

— 5,6.

96.

12.

97.

^

77,91,98, 151.

— 9.

36.

— 8.

98.

— 8—11.

121.

GALATIANS.

— 14.

88, 99, 102, 133.

1. 14.

76, 190.

— 15.

99, 114.

— 16.

152.

- 16.

99, 107.

2. 15.

160.

— 18.

114.

— 18.

103.

— 22.

107, 109,110,164.

— 20.

157.

— 23.

102,109,114,164.

3. 2.

141.

— 25.

110, 111,164.

— 3, 4.

162.

8. 1.

101, 117, 164.

3. 5.

141.

— 2.

102, 133, 164.

— 10.

76,79,82,87,92,

— 3.

96, 111, 120.

188.

— 4.

111.

— 12.

121.

— 12.

216.

— 13.

92.

— 14.

117.

— 14.

70, 84, 132, 138.

— 24.

121.

— 15.

122.

— 33.

6.

— 16.

134.

9. 6.

192.

— 17.

134, 138.

— 11.

68, 149.

— 18.

70.

10. 3.

76, 146.

— 19.

138.

— 4.

191.

— 21.

121.

— 6.

66, 135, 136.

4. 24.

123.

— 16.

58.

5. 6.

58,63, 167.

11. 6.

149.

— 9.

74.

— 8.

140.

— 12.

74.

— 19—22.

163.

— 17.

113, 114, 115.

— - 33.

137.

— 18.

117.

— 35.

158.

— 19—21. 213.

13. 10.

62.

— 24.

117.

19. 26.

59.

6. 8.

31.

— 15.

166,167.

I. CORINTHIANS.

_ 16.

58.

1. 23.

190.

EPHESIANS.

— 31.

154.

3. 9.

35.

1. 13.

141.

— 13.

30.

2. 8,9

40.

4. 4.

7, 30.

— 8—10. 147.

— 5.

30.

— 9, 10. 143.

6. 9, 10.

180, 213.

— 12.

127.

— 11.

7,14.

4. 30.

141.

— 12, 15.

103.

PHILIPPEANS.

7. 19.
9. 20, 21.

58, 167.
103.

2. 12.
j3<

31.
101.

10. 23, 29,

30. 103.

21.

89.

13. 2.
— 13.
15. 10.
— 33.

23, 59.
18, 31,63.
157.
180.

3. 2.
— 3.
— 4,6

— 8.

74, 167.
167.
, 7. 183.
6,5, 145, 147, 193.

II.

CORINTHIANS.

— 9.
4. 13.

146.
101.

1. 4.

59.

— 22.

141.

COLOSSIANS.

3. 3.

133.

2. 11—13. 167.

- 6,7.

4. 17.

121, 132.
31.

II.

THESSALONIANS.

6. 16, 18.

124.

1. 7.

39.

INDEX OF TEXTS.

231

II. TIMOTHY. 2. 13.

15.

1. 9.

68, 149.

— 17.

50.

— 10.

127.

— 18.

44.

4. 8.

39, 196.

— 20.

38, 50.

— 21.

48.

TITUS.

— 22.

31, 48.

3. 5.

40, 143, 147.

— 24.

43, 48.

— 6.

138, 146, 147.

3. 2.

83.

4 8

122.

HEBREWS.

T?. O.

— 10.

15.

3. 13.
— 14.
5. 9.

216.
163.
94.

1. 2.

I. PETER.

14, 59.

6. 10.

39.

— 3.

69.

7. 11.

93.

— 10—12.

139.

— 18.

96.

22.

59.

— 19.

93, 96, 122.

_ 23,25.

69.

8.

123.

3. 4.

109.

— 8.
— 7,9.

136.

97.

II. PETER.

— 10,11.

166.

1. 4.

69.

9.

93.

3. 16.

57.

— 12.

94.

I. JOHN.

— 13.

93.

i 7

13.

10. 1.
— 6.

81, 93.
96.

i • / •

— 8.

89*, 90.

— 14.
— 23, 24,
— 35, 36.
11. 1.
— 6.

0

13.
26. 162.
162.
24, 121.
37, 53.

A A

— 9. 10.
— 10. 89.
2. 1, 2. 89, 90.
— 3, 4. 65.
— 13, 14, 20. 65.
— 29. 10.

— 16.'
— 19.
— 35.
12. 2.
— 9.
13. 11.

IT*.

124.
125.
126.
216.
181.
96.

3. 3.

7

— 19—21.
4. 6—8.
5. 3, 4, 5
— 20.

66.
10, 180.
28.
65.
13, 24, 67.
65.

JAMES.

II. JOHN.

1. 16—18

216.

Ver. 8.

163.

— 18.
— 13—19

69, 181.
179.

REVELATIONS.

- 16, 17.

180.

7. 14, 15.

31.

— 22.

62.

21. 3, 7.

124.

2. 8.

62.

22. 11.

9.

— 10, 11.

82, 188.

— 14.

39.

— 12.

20.

THE END.

OXFORD :
PRINTED BY I. SHRIMPTON.

LIBRARY OF ANGLO-CATHOLIC THEOLOGY.

1. THAT the Library consist of scarce and valuable Works,
such as those of the Authors in the annexed List, maintaining
and inculcating the Doctrines and Discipline of the Anglican
branch of the Catholic and Apostolic Church.

2. That each Subscriber pay yearly One Guinea in advance,
to be due on the first day of each year, which shall entitle him
to a copy of each Book at one half the publication price ; or
Two Guineas, which shall entitle him to all Publications, free
of cost.

3. That all Subscriptions be considered due for the ensuing
year, unless notice shall have been given by letter to the Secre
tary, before the first day of January, of the Subscriber's inten
tion to withdraw his name.

4. That the whole management of the Fund subscribed be
entrusted to a Committee, consisting of not less than twelve
nor more than twenty-four Subscribers, who shall fill up all
vacancies that may occur in their own body.

5. That no alteration of any kind be made in the original
Text of any of the Works re-published.

6. That no Subscriber be entitled to any Book, until his
Subscription be paid.

ft is proposed to publish in each year Six Volumes, (of 400 pages on thu
average}.

Persons wishing to become Subscribers are requested to send their own names and
those of their Booksellers to the Secretary, C. Crawley, Esq., under cover to the
Publisher, Mr. Parker, Bookseller, 'Oxford.

Subscriptions received by the Treasurer, or on his account by Mr. J. H. Parker,
or by Messrs. Parsons, Thompson, and Co., Oxford: Messrs. Rivington, St. Paul's
Church Yard, and Waterloo Place; Mr. Burns, 17, Portman Street, Portman
Square ; and Messrs. Coutts and Co., Strand, 'London : Messrs. Deighton,
Mr. Stevenson, and Messrs. Mortlocks and Co., Cambridge: and Messrs. Grant
and Bolton, Dublin.

LIST OF AUTHORS.

Bishop Andrewes.

Archbishop Bancroft.

Bishop Beveridge.

Archbishop Bramhall.

Brett, Thomas.

Brevint.

Brown, Thomas.

Bishop Buckeridge.

Bishop Bull.

Burscough.

Cave.

Bishop Cosin.

Dodwell, H.

Farindon, A.

Bishop Feme.

Bishop Gunning.

Bishop Hall.

Hammond.

Heylin.

Hickes.

Hyde, Dr. Edward.

Inett.

Johnson, John.

Kettlewell.

Archbishop Laud.

Leslie, Charles.

L'Estrange's Alliance.

Bishop Lloyd.

Marshall's Penl. Disc.
Mason, Fr.
Maurice, H.
Bishop Montague.
Bishop Morton.
Bishop Nicholson (Gloucester)
Bishop Overall.
Bishop Patrick.
Bishop Pearson.
Prideaux on English Ordina
tions.

Rogers's, John, Vis. Church.
Bishop Sage.
Sail, Dr.

Archbishop San croft.
Bishop Sanderson.
Saywell.
Spelman, Sir H.
Scrivener, Matt.
Bishop Stillingfleet,
Bishop Taylor, Jer.
Thorndike.

Walker, William, on Baptism.
Bishop Webb.
Wharton, H.
Bishop White, Fr. (Ely).
Wilkins's Concilia.
Bishop Wilson.

Care will be taken to avoid interfering with the publications of the
Oxford Universitij Press.

VOLUMES FOR 1841.

BISHOP ANDR EWES' Sermons, Vols. I. to IV. 21. 2s.
ARCHBISHOP BRAMHALI/S Works, Vol. I. 10s. 6d.
BISHOP BULL'S Harmony of St, Paul and St. James on Justifica
tion, new edition, 6s.

FOR 1842.

BISHOP NICHOLSON'S Exposition of the Catechism, reprinting, 6s.
ARCHBISHOP BRAMH ALL'S Works, Vol. II. 14s.

Vol. III. 12,9.

BISHOP ANDREWES' Sermons, Vol. V. 14.?.
BISHOP BEVERIDGE'S Works, Vol. I. 12.?.

BISHOP BULL'S Answer to Strictures, and Apology for his Harmony.
Now first translated, reprintinr/, 12*.

FOR 1843.

ARCHBISHOP BRAMHALL'sWorks, Vol. IV. in the Press.
BISHOP BEVERIDGE'S Works, Vol. II. and III. 12s. each.
BISHOP COSIN'S Works, Vol. I. 12s.
BISHOP OVERALL'S Convocation Book, nearly ready.
THORNDIKE'S Works, Vol. I., Part I. 10s.

FOR 1844.

THORNDIKE'S Works, Vol. I. Part II. nearly read//.

BISHOP COSIN'S Works, Vol. II.

BISHOP BEVERIDGE'S Works, Vol. IV.

MARSHALL — The Penitential Discipline of the Primitive Church, for
the first 400 years after Christ.

BISHOP GUNNING — The Paschal, or Lent Fast ; Apostolical and
Perpetual.

JOHNSON — The Unbloody Sacrifice, and Altar Unveiled and Sup
ported, Vol. I.

Committee.

Rev. R. S. Barter, D.C.L. Warden of Winchester College.

Rev. Edw. Clmrton, M.A. Crayke, Durham.

Rev. W. J. Copeland, M.A. Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford.

Rev. William Gresley, M.A. Prebendary of Lichfield.

Rev. W. F. Hook, D.D. Vicar of Leeds.

Rev. R. W. Jelf, D.D. Canon of Christ Church.

Rev. John Keble, M.A. Vicar of Hursley.

Rev. W. H. Mill, D.D. Christian Advocate, Cambridge; Chaplain

to the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.

Rev. G. Moberly, D.C.L. Head Master of Winchester School.
Rev. J. H. Newman, B.D. Fellow of Oriel College.
Rev. Wm. Palmer, M.A. Worcester College, Oxford.
The Hon. and Rev. Arthur P. Perceval, East Horsley, Guildford,

Surrey.
Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D. Regius Professor of Hebrew, and Canon

of Christ Church.

Superintending Editor — Rev. W. F. Audland, Fellow of Queen's
College, Oxford.

Treasurer and Secretary — Charles Crawley, Esq., Littlemore, near
Oxford.

Publisher — Mr. John Henry Parker, Oxford.

The following gentlemen have consented to act as Secretaries
in their respective districts.

Cambridge . . Rev. J. Hemery, Fellow of Trinity

College.

Bath . . . . Rev. W. Bliss.

Birmingham . . Rev. T. Nunns.

Exeter . . . . Rev. C. Bartholomew.

Kirkby Lonsdale Rev. J. H. F. Kendall.

Northampton . . Rev. T. V. Barlow.

Armagh . . . . Rev. R. Allot.

Limerick . . Rev. C. Monsell.

SUBSCRIBERS.

Those marked * are Subscribers of £2. 2s., f of jglO 10.9., **

* His Grace the Lord Archbishop of York

* His Grace the Lord Archbishop of Armagh

* Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Winchester
Hon. and Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Oxford'
Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Ripon.

** . Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of St. David's
Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Lichfield
Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Nova Scotia

* Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Calcutta

* Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Madras

** Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of New Zealand
Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Guiana

* Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Tasmania
Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Edinburgh
Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of New Jersey

* Aberdeen Diocesan Library

* Abraham, Rev. C. J. Eton College
*Abrams, Mr. Oxford

Acland, Arthur H. Dyke, Esq.
Wollaston House, Dorchester, Dorset

* A' Court, Hon. Cecilia

* Acres, John, Esq. Theological College,

Wells
Adair, Viscount, Dunraven Castle

* Adams, Rev. C. Merton Coll. Oxford
Adams, Rev. D. Bampton

* Adams, Rev. H. G. Dunsford, Exeter

* Adams, W. D. Esq. Sydenham, Kent

* Adams, C. C. Esq. Anstey, near

Coventry

* A damson, Rev. E. Newcastle- upon-

Tyne
*Addison, Rev. Berkley, Curate of

St. John's, Edinburgh
•Addison, Rev. W. G. II. S. Cann,

Dursley, Gloucestershire
*Adcock, Rev. H. H. Humberston,

Leicester
*Agnew, Rev. J. R. Wootten

* Alcock, Rev. J. P. Rochester Cathedral

*Alderson, Rev. R. Ipswich, Suffolk

* Aldred, J. T. F. Esq. Lincoln College,

Oxford

* Alexander, Rev. G. Drumerce, Porta-

down

* Alexander, Rev. John, Northumber

land-street, Edinburgh
Allen, Rev. H. Lincoln
*Allen, Rev. J. C. Beakesbourne,

Canterbury

* Alley, Rev. F.A.Castledermot, Ireland
*Allies, Rev. T. W. Launton, Bicester

* Allott, Rev. R. Precentor of Armagh

* Ambler, A. Esq. Bristol
*Amphlett, Rev. M. Lichfield
*Anderdon, John L. Esq. 22, Tavis-

tock- square
Anderson, Rev. J. S. M. Brighton

* Andrews, Rev. W. N. Bulwer, near

Sudbury

* Auson, Rev. G. H. Leeds
*Anstey, Rev. A. Rock House, Mil-

verton, Somerset
*Antrohus, Miss, 1 •!•(>, Piccadily
•Appleton, Rev. R. Liverpool

SUBSCRIBERS.

*Arabiu, Col. R. A. Havant, near Ports
mouth

•Archer, C. Esq. Exeter Coll. Oxford
*Arden, Rev. G. Powderham
•ARMAGH, THE VERY REV. THE

DEAN OF

*Armitage, Rev. R. Neenton, near
Bridgenorth

* Armstrong, Rev. John, Binder, "Wells
*Armstrong, J. H. Esq. Dublin

* Arnold, Rev. T. K. Lyndon, Rutland
*Ashby de la Zouch Theological

Library

*Ashworth, Rev. J. H. Eastwoodhay.
Newbury, Berks

* Ashworth, Rev. I. A. Brasenose Cdlll,

Oxford

Astley, Sir F. D. Everleigh, Wilts
*Atlay, Rev. J. Warsop, Notts
•Atkinson, Rev. G. Stow, Gainsborough
*Atkinson, Rev. Miles, Gloucester
*Audland, Rev. W.F. Queen's College,

Oxford

•Austin, E. Esq. Portobello
•Ayling, Rev. W. Tillington, near Pet-
worth

*Babb, G. Esq. Theol. Coll.' Wells

* Bacon, R. W. Esq. King's Coll. Camb.
Badham, Rev. C.

*Bagge, P. Esq.

*Bagot, G. T. Esq. Ex. Coll. Oxford

*Bagot, Hon. and Rev. H. All Souls
College, Oxford

*BailKe, Rev. Evan, Panton,' Lincoln
shire

Baker, Rev. F. W. Bath

•Baker, Rev. T. T. Tovil, Maidstone,
Kent

*Baker, H. W. Esq., Trinity College,
Cambridge

•Ball, Rev. T. J. Methowold, Norfolk

*Ballard, Edward, Rev. Cavendish-
crescent,, Bath.

•Barclay, Rev. J. Ch. Ch. Oxford

Bardin, Rev. Dr.

* Barker, Rev. Ralph, M. A. Colling-

ham, Hull
*Barker, Rev. H. Raymond, Dagling-

worth, Gloucestershire
** Barker, Rev. F. R. Oriel ColLOxford

* Barlow, Kcv. T. M. Shrewsbury

* Barlow, Rev. T. W. Little Bowden,
Northampton

•Barnes, Rev. J. W. Swineshead, near

Boston
*Barnwell, C. F. Esq. 44, Woburn

Place, Russell- Square
•Barnwell, Rev. E. L. Ruthin
•Barrow, Rev. J. Queen's Coll. Oxford
•Barter, Rev. Dr. Winchester
•Bartholomew, Rev. C. C. Lympstone,

Devon
Bartholomew, Rev. J. Morchard, Cre-

diton
•Basevi, N Esq.Fitzroy Farm, Highgate

* Bather, Ven. Archdeacon, Meole Brace,

Salop

•Bates, Rev. W. M.A. Christ's Coll.
•Bathurst, Rev. S. Merton College
•Bathurst, A. Esq. New Coll.
Batten, Rev. H.

Baxter, Rev. Arthur, Croydon, Surrey
Baxter, Rev. R. W. Kingsthorpe
*Bayfield, Rev. B. M.A. Halifax
•Bayldon, Rev. J. Thiving, Bridlington
Bayley, Rev. W. H. Ricketts, Stapleton
Bayley, W. R, Esq. Bath
•Bayliff, Rev. T. L. Stratford, Essex
•Bayne, Rev. T. V. Broughton, Man
chester
•Bazely, Rev. T. T. Rectory, Poplar,

London

•Beadon, Miss, Heytesbury
•Beadon, Rev. H. W. Latton, Cricklade
•Beatty, Rev. J. Conroy, Raphoe
•Beaufort, Rev. D. A. 11, Gloucester-
Place, London

•Beaumont, Rev. J. A. Hunslet, Leeds
•Beaver, James J. Esq. 16, Devonshire

Place, London

•Beck, Rev. James, Calne, Wilts
•Beckett, Rev. H. F. Erdington, Bir
mingham
•Beckwith, H. W. Esq. University

College, Oxford
•Bedford, Rev. Henry, Dunton Bassett,

Leicestershire
•Bedford, Rev. F. J. Willesford, Aw-

liscombe

•Beggars, Mr. D.
•Belgrave, Rev. T., North-Kilworth,

Leicestershire
Bell, Rev. John, Oulton, near Leeds

SUBSCRIBERS.

*Bell, T. Esq. Exeter College, Oxford
*Bellamy, Rev. Dr.

* Bellas, Rev. S. Aldermarlow, Reading
Bellasis, E. Esq. 17, Bedford Square
*Benn, Rev. W. H. Lutterworth
*Bennet, Rev. A. M. South Cadbury,

Somerset

* Bennett, Rev. Edward Leigh, Long

Sutton, Holbeach, Lincolnshire
*Bcresford, Rev. Charles C. Rector of

Sermon, Dioc. Armagh
*Berners, Rev. R. Erwarton, Ipswich

* Bertie, Hon. and Rev. H. All Souls

College, Oxford

*Besly, Rev. Dr. Long Benton, Nor
thumberland
*Bethune, Rev. A. N., D.D., Coburgh,

Upper Canada

*Bevan, Beckford, Esq. 16, Devon
shire-place
*Biber, Rev. Dr. Coombe Wood

Kingston-upon-Thames
*Bickmore,Rev.C.Belrington, Cheshire
*Biggar, Douglas, Esq. 66, Aldersgate

Street, London
*Bigge, Rev. H. J. Staverton, East

Haddon, Northampton
*Biggs, Rev. Michael, King's Col
lege, London

*Birchinall, Thos. Esq. Macclesfield
Bird, Rev. G. Great Wyborough,

Kelverdon, Essex
*Birks, Rev. B. H. Ramsgate
*Birley, H. H. Esq. Manchester
*Biron, Rev. Edwin, Vicar of Lympne

Hythe, Kent

Birtwhistle, Mr. Halifax, Yorkshire
*Biscoe, Rev.F. TurkDean,Northleach
*Bishop, W. H. Esq. C.C.C. Camb.

* Bishop, Rev. W. C. Northampton
*Bisset, Rev. C. Wigan

*Bisset, Rev. Thomas, East India Col
lege, Addiscombe

* Black, Rev. A. W. York

* Blackburn & Whalley Clerical Society

* Blackburn, Rev. Peter, Steeple Lang-

ford, Heytesbury

* Blacker, Rev. Dr. Mullabruck, Mar

ket Hill

* Blake, C. J. Esq. Lamas, near Norwich
Blakiston, Rev. Robert, Cold Waltham,

near Petworth

Blathwayte, Rev. C. Langridge
*Blew, Rev. W.J.Milton, next Graves^nd

* Bliss, Rev. James, Marden

* Bliss, Rev. W. Bath
*Bloxam, M. H. Esq. Rugby
Boissier, Rev. P. E. Malvern, Wells
*Bolland, W. Esq. University College
*Bond, F. H. Esq. Exeter Coll., Oxford
Bonney, Ven. Archdeacon

* Boodle, Rev. R. G. Compton Dando,
near Bath

* Booker, Rev. John, Vicar of Killuriu,

Ireland

*Borton, Rev. W. Blofield, Norfolk
Bosanquet, S. Esq. Eastwoodhay
*Boulton, Rev. W. the School, Wem,

Salop

*Bourke, Rev. S. G. Hotherop, Fairford
*Bowden, John, Esq. Roehampton
*Bowdler, Rev. T.

* Bowles, Rev. H. A. Willingale
*Bowles, Rev. F. S. Exeter College,

Oxford

* Bowyer, Rev. W. H.
Boyce, Rev. E. J. Southampton
*Bradley, C. R. Esq. Diocesan Coll.

Chichester

*Bradshaw, James, Esq. Stockport
*Bradshaw, Job, Esq. Secretary to the
Englishman's Library, Nottingham
*Braithwaite, Rev. W. St. Peter's, Jer
sey
*Braithwaite, Rev. F. St. Marylebone,

London

*Bramston, Rev. John, Witham, Essex
*Brandreth, Rev. W. H. Standish
*Branker, Rev. Henry, Padgate, War-

rington
*Bray, Dr. Associates of, 5 copies

* Brett, Mr. Newington Green
Brewin, Rev. George, York
*Brewster, Rev. W. Hawarden, near

Chester

* Bridges, Rev. A. B. Beddington
*Bright, Mr. William
*Brightwell and Son, Messrs. Book
sellers, Barnstaple

*Brine, J. G. Esq. St. John's College

Oxford

*Broadley, Rev. A. Bridport, Dorset
*Hrodie, W. Esq.
** Brodrick, J. R. Esq. M.A. Reading

SUBSCRIBERS.

•Browell, Rev. W. Beaumont, Col
chester

Brown, Rev. Felix, Pulborough, near
Petworth

* Brown, Rev. H. St. James's, Phore-

ditch, London
*Brown, Rev. John Cave, Pratt Street,

Lambeth

*Brown, Rev. J. J.Beaumaris,Anglesea
*Brown, E. G. Esq. Ashovne
*Brown, Rev. I. L. Ashwellthorpe,

Wymondham, Norfolk

* Browne, Rev. E. H.

Browne, Rev. J. M. Vicar of Standish
•Browne, Rev. John, Haxey Vicarage,
Lincolnshire

* Browne, Rev.R.W.King'sColl. London
*Browne, Rev. S. Dewy Hill, Calnc,

Wilts
*Browne, E. G. Esq. St. David's Coll.,

Lampeter

*Bruce, Rev. W. St. Nicholas, Cardiff
Brymer, Ven. Archdeacon, Bath
Bubb, Rev. Henry Bagendon,

Cirencester
*Buckerfield, Rev. T. H. Little

Bedwyn, Wilts

*Buckland, J. R. Esq. Ch. Ch. Oxford
*Buckle, W. H. Esq. Customs, Bridge-
water
*Buckley, W. E. Esq. Brasenose Col-

lege, Oxford
Buckley, Rev. J. Badminton, Glouces-

tershire

*Buller, Rev. A. Tavistock
•Bulky, Rev. F. Magd. Coll. Oxford
*Bullock, Rev. G. M. St. John's Coll.

Oxford

* Bullock, W. Esq. Kilburn, Middlesex
*Bunbury, Rev. J. R. North Marston,

Winslow, Bucks
*Bunt, Rev. T. H. B.
*Burder, llev. G.
*Burlton, Rev. F. J. Taunton
*Burncy, E. K. Esq.
•Burney, Rev. C. Sible-Hedingham

Halsted, Essex

•Burns, Mr. 1 7, Portman-street, London
*Burton, Rev. R. C. York Terrace,

Peckham

* Butler, Rev. D.

*Butler, R. Esq. Brasenose College

••Butler, Rev. Dr. Chancellor of Peter
borough, Gayton, Northampton

* Butler, Rev. James, Grammar School,

Burnley, Lancashire
•Butt, Rev. P. J. Hainpstead
•Butterfield, Rev. J.Bradford, Yorkshire
•Butterworth, G. Esq. Balliol College,

Oxford
•Byrne, Mrs. Henry, Worcester

* Byron, Rev. J. Killingholme, Barton-

on-Humber

•Calcutta, Bishop's College

•Calley, C. B. Esq. Worcester College,

Oxford

•Caiman, J. J. Esq. Worcester Col
lege, Oxford
•Cameron, Rev. Charles
Campbell, Rev. C. Weasenham,

Roughain, Norfolk

•Campbell, Rev. J. J. Ashford,Wicklow
•Camden, Viscount, Gainsborough

House
•Canham, A. J. Esq. Summer-hill,

Tenterden, Kent

•Canterbury Clerical Book Society
•Capper, S. J. Esq. Leyton, Essex
•Garden, Rev. L. English Bicknor,

Gloucestershire
•Carey, Rev. Hewitt
•Carey, Tupper, Esq.
•Carshove, Rev. Jos. James, Cawn-

pore, Bengal
Carter, Rev. J. St. John's Coll. Oxford

* Carter,, Rev. T, T. Burnham, Maiden

head

•Carter, Rev. W. A.. Eton College
•Carter, W. E. D. Esq, New College,

Oxford
•Carthew, Rev. James, Trengelos,

Launceston

•Cartwright, Rev. W. H. Dudley
•Case, Rev. T. Horton
•Case, G. Esq. Brasenose College
•Caswall, Rev. E. Stratfordsub Castle,

near Salisbury

•Gather, Rev. John, Wrexham
•Cattley, Rev. S. R. Fulham
•Cattley, R.Esq. Worcester Coll. Oxford
Cavendish, lion, and Rev. A. Stanmore,

Middlesex
•Cavendish, Hon. R. Belgrave- square

SUBSCRIBERS.

•Cavendish, C. Esq. Trin. Coll. Camb.
*Chaffers,Rev.T.BrasenoseColl.Oxford
Chamberlain, Rev. T. Ch. Ch. Oxford

* Chambers, J. C. Esq. Emmanuel Coll

Cambridge
*Chambers,J.D. Esq. Oriel Coll.Oxford

* Chambers, O. L. Esq. University

College, Oxford
*Champernowne, H. Eeq. Trinity Coll.

Oxford
•Champernowne, Rev. R. Ch. Ch.,

Oxford
*Champneys, Rev. H. S. Mucklestone,

Staffordshire

* Chanter, Rev. J. M. Ilfracombe
*Chermside, R. Seymour, Esq. Exeter

College, Oxford.

•Chesshyre, Rev. I. T. St. Martin's,
Canterbury

* Chester, Rev. A. Chichely Hall

* Chester, Harry, Esq. Highgate
•CHICHESTER, VERY REV.THEDEAN OF
Christie, Rev. J. F. Oriel Coll. Oxford

* Christ's College Library, Cambridge
*Chunder, Rev. Gopel Mittre, Bishop's

College, Calcutta

* Church, Rev. R. W. Oriel Coll. Oxford
•Churton, Rev. E. Crayke, Durham

* Clark, Rev. Fran. F. Hartshill Parson

age, Newcastle

Clark, Rev. H. D. Exeter Coll. Oxford
•Clark, Rev. John, Grove Villa,

Hunslet, Leeds

* Clark, Rev. F. F.

•Clarke, L. S. Esq. New Coll., Oxford
*Clarke, Rev. W. H. Yarmouth, Norfolk
•Clarke, S., Esq. St. John's Coll. Oxford

* Clark, J. Esq. Lanesfield, Evesham

* Clay ton, Rev. J. H. Farnborough

Rectory, Hants

* Cleather, Rev. G. P. Chirton, Devizes
Clements, J. Esq. Oriel Coll. Oxford
Clerical Society, Newcastle-on-Tyne

* Clerical Society of the Deanery of

Droxford, Hants
•Clerke, Venerable C. C. Archdeacon

of Oxford

*Cleugh, Rev. J. Malta
Clubbc, Rev. J. H. Curate of Oxburgh

with F oulden, Norfolk

* Coates, Rev. R. P. Rochester
•Cobbe, Rev. H. Kilmore, Armagh

•Cobham, Rev. I. B. Walton, Somerset
*Cockin, Rev. M. Norton, Gloucester
Cocks, Somers, Esq.
•Codcl, Rev. E. T. St. John's College,

Cambridge

fCole.Rev.M. S. Wootton-under-Edge
*Cole, Rev. G. E. Dorchester, Dorset
*COLERIDGE, HON. MR. JUSTICE

* Coleridge, Rev. E. Eton College
Coles, Rev. G. Croydon
•Coley, Rev. J.

•Collier, C. I. Esq Magdalene Hall,
Oxford

* Ceilings, Mr. E. Bath
Collings, Rev. William
*Collingwood, Miss A. Dissington Hall
•Collins, Rev.R.Maize Hill, Greenwich
Collinson, Rev. R. Holme Cultram
*Collis, Rev. J. D. Worcester College,

Oxford

•Colls, Rev. I. F.

•Collyns,' Rev. C. H. Ch. Ch. Oxford
•Coltman, Rev. G.Stickney, near Boston
•Colville, Rev. F. L.
•Compton, Rev. J. Minstead Rectory,

Lyndhurst

•Connop, Newell, Esq. Whitehall
•Comvay, W. F. Esq. Dublin
Coope, Rev. H. G. Clunn, Shropshire
•Cooper, Rev. E. P. Burford, Oxon.
*Copeland, Rev. W. J. Trinity College,

Oxford

•Cornish, Rev. C.L.Exeter Coll.Oxford
•Cornish, Rev. S. W. D.D. Ottery

St. Mary, Devon

* Cornthwaite, Rev. T. Horusey
•Cosens, Rev. R. Dorchester

« Cotton, Rev. W. C.

•Cotton, Alexander, Esq. Hildersham

Hall, Cambridgeshire
*Courtenay, Lord, Powderham Castle
•Courtenay, Rev. F.Exeter Coll.Oxford
•Cox, Miss F. Spondon Hall, near Derby
•Cox, Rev. I. Edm. Southtown, Gt.

Yarmouth.

fCox, Rev. J. Walgrave, Northampton
•Coxon, Rev. M. Heswell, Cheshire
Crawley, Rev. C. Stowe, near Weedon
•Crawley, C. Esq. Highgate
•Crawley, G. A. Esq. Highgate
•Crawley, Rev. R. Steeple Ashton,

Trowbridge

SUBSCRIBERS.

* Creek, Rev. E. B. Paignton, Devon
*Crewkerne Deanery Clerical Society
*Cripps, Rev. J. M. Novington, near

Lewes

Crompton, Rev. B. Unsworth, near
Bury, Lancashire

* Croome, Rev. T. B. Rendcomb Rectory,

Cirencester

*Crossley, James, Esq. Manchester
*Crossley, Mr. John S. Leicester
*Crosthwaite, Rev. J. C. No. 1. Had-

dington Road
*Crosthwaite, Rev. C. Lackagh Monas-

terevan, Ireland
*Currie, Rev. James
*Currie, Miss

* Carrie, Rev. H. G.

Cust, Hon. and Rev. H. C. Cockayne,
Hatley

*Dakeyne, Rev. J. Osmond, Boxmoor,

Herts

Dale, Rev. Henry, Bristol
*Dalton, Rev. C. B. Lincoln's Inn
•Dalton, Rev. J. U. Waltham
*Dalton, Mr. W. H. Cockspnr St.
*Dand, Rev. Thos. Queen's College,

Oxford

* Daniel, Rev. George Fred. Denning-

ton, near Chichester
*Dankes, Henry, Esq. Caius College,
Cambridge

* Darby, Rev. J. Curate of Acton,

Ireland

* Darling, Mr. Little Queen Street,

London
** Darnell, Rev. W. N. Stanhope,

Durham

Darnell, Rev. W.
•Dartmouth, the Earl of, Sandwell,

near Birmingham
*Davenport, Arthur, Esq., Christ's Coll.

Cambridge

* Davidson, L. Esq. Rutland Square,

Edinburgh

Davie, Rev. George J. Brasted, Kent
Davies, Rev. J. Abbenhall, Gloucester
Davies, Rev. Richard, Stanton
•Dawson, J. Esq. Exeter Coll. Oxford
*Dawson, Charles, Esq. Baymont

Lodge, Torquay

*Day, Mr. John, Bookseller, Melton
*Dayuian, Rev. Chas. Great Tew, Oxon

* Deacon, Rev. G. E. Rawmarsh,

Rotheram, Yorkshire
»Dean, Rev. E. B. All Souls College
*Dean, Rev. T. Colwell, Hereford
Deane, J.W.Esq. St. John's Coll. Oxford
*Dearden, Mr. W. Nottingham
Deedes, Rev. Gordon
*Deighton, Messrs. J. & J. J. Cambridge
*Demerara Clerical Library
*Denton,Rev. R. A. King's Coll. Canib.
*De Porre, W. Esq. Magdalene Hall
*De Sausmarez, J. Esq. Pembroke

College, Oxford

*De Tessier, G. F. Esq. C. C. C. Oxford
*De Vere, Sir Aubrey, Currah Chase
»* Dickinson, F. H. Esq. Upper Harley-

street, London

* Diocesan Library, Wells, Somerset

* Disney, Rev. E. O. Armagh, Ireland
*Distin, Rev. H. L. Bythorne, near

Thrapstone, Northamptonshire

*Dixon, Rev. James, Thome's Parson
age, near Wakefield

Dixon, Rev. J. J. Abrams, near Man
chester

*Dobson, B. Esq. Bolton

*Dobson, T. W. Esq. C. C. C. Cam
bridge

•Dodsworth, Rev. W. Ch. Ch. St. Pan-
eras, London

*Dolben, Rev. C. Ipsley, Warwickshire

•Donaldson, Rev. J. W. Bury St.
Edmund's

* Donne, J.

Dornford, Rev. J. Plymptree, Devon
Douglas, Rev. H. College, Durham
•Douglas, Rev. S. Ashling, Chichester
•Dover Clerical Book-Society
•Dowding, Rev.W. Grimley, Worcester
•Dowding, T. W. Esq. The Close,

Salisbury
•Downe, Rev. G. E. Rushden Rectory,

Higham Ferrers, Northamptonshire
•Drake, Rev. Richard
•Drummond, Col. E. Brighton
•Dry, Rev. T.
•Dudman, Rev. L. S. Charlton

* Duffield, Rev. R, Prating, Colchester
*l)ugard, Rev. G. Manchester
•Duke, Dr. Hastings

SUBSCRIBERS.

*Duncombe, Hon. and Rev. Aug.

Kirby Misperton, Malton
Dundas, W. Pitt, Esq. Edinburgh
*Dungannon, Viscount, Brynkinalt,

Chirk

* Dunlap, Rev. A. P. St. John's College,

Oxford

* Dunraven, the Earl of, Adare, Limerick

* Dupuis, Rev. H. Eton College
*Durnford, Rev. Francis, Eton College
*Du Sautoy, Rev. W. S. O. Frome

Selwood, Somerset

*Dyke, Rev. W. Cradley, Malvern

*Dyne, Rev. J. B. Highgate

*Dyson, Rev. C. Dogmersfield, Hart
ford Bridge

Edinburgh, The Scottish Episcopal

Church Library

*Eamonson, Rev. B. Collingham
*Easther, Alfred, Esq. Bedale, Yorksh.
*Eaton, W. Esq. Merton Coll. Oxford
Eaton and Son, Worcester
Ebsworth, Rev. Geo. Searle

* Eddie, Rev. R. Barton on Huniber
*Eddrup, E. P. Esq.Wadham College
*Eden, Rev. R. Legh, Rochford
*Edmondstone, Sir Archibald, Bart.
*Edouart, Rev. A. G. St. Paul's Church,

Blackburn

"Edwards, Rev. A. Magdalene College,
Oxford

*Edwards, Rev. J.The College, Durham

Egerton, Rev. T. Dunnington, Yorkshire

*E. H. T.

*Eland, Rev. H. G. Bedminster, Bris
tol

*Elder, Rev. E. Master of the Grammar
School, Durham

*Eldridge, Rev. J. A. Bridlington,
Yorkshire

*Elliot, J. E. Esq. Catherine Hall,
Cambridge

*Ellicott, C. J. Esq. St. John's, Cam
bridge

"Ellis, Conyngham, Esq. 4, Fitzwilliam
Place, Dublin

*Ellison, H. Esq. University College,
Oxford

*Elmhirst, Rev. Edward, Shawell, Lei
cestershire

* Elrington, Rev. Dr. Dublin

* Elrington, Rev. II. P. Precentor of

Ferns, Ireland

*Elwes, J. M. Esq. Bossington, Stock-
bridge

*Ensor, Rev. F. Nector, Norfolk
Estcourt, Rev. E. E. Cirencester
•Ethelston, Rev. C. W. Lyme Regis,

Dorset

*Evans,Rev.A.B.D.D.MarketBosworth
Evans, Rev. E. C. Ingham
*Evans, Herbert N. Esq. Hampstead
*Evans, Rev. L. Wadham College,

Oxford ; Hendon, London
Evans, Rev. T. Gloucester

* Evans, Rev. T. Simpson

*Evans, Rev. E.Pembroke Coll. Oxford
*Eveleigh, Rev. James
*Evetts, T. Esq. C. C. C. Oxford
Ewart, W. Esq. Exeter College, Oxford
*Ewing, Rev. "W. Alburgh, near

Harleston, Norfolk
*Eyre, Charles, Esq. Welford Park,

Newbury
*Eyton, J. Walter K. Esq. Leamington

*Fagan, Rev. G. H.
*Falkner, Rev. T. A.

* Fallow, Rev. T. M. All Souls, London
*Fanshawe, F. Esq. Exeter Coll. Oxford
*Farebrother, Rev. T. Aston, Birming
ham

* Farley, Rev. T. Ducklington
*Fearnley, Rev. I. King's College,

London

*Fearon, Rev. W. C. Grimston, Lynn,
Norfolk

*Feetham, Rev.T. O. Eggesford, Devon

*Fellowes, Rev. T. L. Cantley Rec
tory, Acle, Norfolk

*Fenwicke, Rev. G. O. Aston, Birming
ham

*Fenwicke, Rev. M. G. Ballyshannon

*Fernley, J. Esq. Manchester

*Few, Rev. Robert, 2, Henrietta Street,
Covent Garden, London

*Field, Rev. P. High Beech, Lough-
ton, Essex

•Finch, Miss Charlotte

*Fitzgerald, Rev. A. O. Fleclborough,
near Tuxford

•Fletcher, T. W. Esq. F.R.S. Dudley,
Worcestershire

SUBSCRIBERS.

*Fleteher, Rev. William, Collegiate
School, Southwell

* Fletcher, Rev. W. K. Bombay
*Floyer, Ayscoghe, Esq. Wadham Col
lege

**Forhes, G. II. Esq. Edinburgh
*Forbes, I. S. Esq. Christ's College,
Cambridge

* Forbes, Right Hon. Lord

* Forbes, Sir John Stuart
*Ford, II. Esq. Manchestei
Ford, Rev. J. Exeter

* Ford, W. Esq. Milbrook House,

Kentish Town

*Fonnby, Rev. H. Brasenose College,
Oxford

* Forster, Rev. H.B.Stratton,Cirencester
*Fortescue, Rev. H. R. Newton Ferrers,

Yealmpton, Devon

* Foster, Rev. J. S. Ilchester

* Foster, Rev. John, Kempston Vicar

age, near Bedford

*Foulkes, Rev. H. P. Buckby Moun
tain, Flintshire

* Fowler, Rev. C. A. Walliscote House,

near Reading

*Fox, Rev. C. J. Henley- on-Thames
Foxe, Rev. O. Worcester

* France, Rev. G. 88, Cadogan-place

* Francis, Rev. J. 50, Great Armond-

street, London

Franklin, Rev. —

*Fraser, Rev. R. Stedmarsh, Canter
bury

•Freeland, E. Esq. Chichester

* Freeth, Frederic Harvey, Esq. 80,

Coleshill Street, Eaton-sq., London
*Frome Clerical Library

* Frost, Rev. I. L. Bradford

Frost, R. M. Esq. Pembroke College,
Cambridge

* Frost, Rev. Percival, St. John's Coll.,

Cambridge

•Froude, W. Esq. Cullompton
Fulford, Rev. F. Trowbridge
Fyler, Rev. S. Cornhill, Durham

*Gace, Rev. F.A. Sherington, Newport

Pagncl

* Gallon, Rev. John L. Leamington
*Garbett, Rev. J. Clayton, I'righton

* Gardiner, Rev. W. Rodiford
*Garside, Rev. C. B. Tetbury, Glou
cestershire

Garvey, Rev. Richard, Wakcfield
*Gibbings, Rev. R. Dublin

* Gibbs, G. Esq. Belmont. near Bristol
*Gibbs, H. Esq. Bedford Sq. London

* Gibbs, W. Esq. 13, Hyde- Park Street,

London

* Gibson, Rev. W. Rectory, Fawley
*Gibson, J. Esq. Jesus College, Cam
bridge

•Gibson, Rev. Edward, Alley, near
Coventry

•Gidley, J. Esq. Exeter

•Giffard, Rev. W. Molesey, near King
ston

Gilbertson, Rev. Lewis, Llangorwen,
near Aberystwith

•Gildea, Rev. George Robert, New
port, county of Mayo

**Gillett, Rev. G.E. Waltham, Melton
Mowbray

*Gillett, E. Markshall, near Norwich

Gladstone, Rev. John, Liverpool

* Gladstone, W. E. Esq. M. P.
*Glaister, Rev. W. Beckley Rectory,

Sussex

•Glanville, Rev. E. F. Wheatfield
*Glencross, Rev. James, Balliol Coll.

Oxford

*Glenie, Rev. J. M. Salisbury
*Godley, John R. Esq.
*Gooch, Rev. I. H. Head Master of

Heath School, Halifax
*Gooch, Rev. John, Stanningley, Leeds
*Goodchild, Rev. C. W., A.M., Free-
Grammar School, Sutton Valence,

Kent

*Goodford, C. O. Esq. Eton
*Goodlake, Rev. T. W. Manor House,

S win don
Goodwin, H. Esq. 13. A. Caius College,

Cambridge

* Gordon, Rev.H.Colwich, nearllugeley

* Gordon, Rev. O. Cli. Ch. Oxford
*Gore, Rev. H. J. Horsham
*Gough, Rev. H. Carlisle
*Gough, Rev. B. Londonderry
Goulburn, H. Esq.

Gould, Rev. Edward, Sproughton,
Ipswich

SUBSCRIBERS.

*Gower, Rev. S. Wands worth, Surrey
*Gray, Rev. R. Old Park, Durham
*Gray, Rev. R. II. Ch. Ch. Oxford

* Graham, Mr. W. Oxford
•Graham, W. T. Esq. 17, Upper Buck
ingham Street, Dublin

Grant, R. and Son, Edinburgh
*Grantham Clerical Society

* Green, J. Esq. Woburn
Green, Mr. T. W. Leeds

* Greene, Miss, Whittington Hall,

Burton, Westmoreland
"Greene, Rev. H.B. Vicar of Longparish,
Winchester

* Greene, Miss C. M. Norwich

* Greene, R. Esq. Liclifield

* Greenly, Rev. I. P. Burlestone Rectory,

Blandford

* Green well, W. Esq. University Coll.,

Durham

*Gregory, R. Esq. C. C. C. Oxford
Gresley, Richard, Esq.
Gresley, Rev. William, Liclifield

* Gresley, Rev. J. M. Over Seile,

Leicestershire

**Greswell, Rev. R. Worcester Coll.
**Greswell, Rev. W. Kilve Rectory,

Somersetshire

*Grey, Hon. and Rev. Francis, Buxton
*Grey, Rev. W. Allington, Salisbury
*Grieve, Rev. John, Barnham Rec
tory, Thetford, Norfolk

* Griffiths, Rev. John, Wadham Coll.

Oxford

* Grueber, Rev. C.S.Clapham Common
*Guildford Theological Library
Guillemard, Rev. H. P. Trinity Coll.

Oxford

Gunner, Rev. W. H. Winchester
*Gutch, Rev. Rt. Segrave, Leicester
*Guthrie, Rev. J. Calne, Wilts

*Hackman, Rev. A. Ch. Ch. Oxford
*Haddan, Rev. A. W. Trin. Col. Oxford
*Haig, Rev. Robt. Armagh
Haigh, Rev. Daniel, Great Marlow
Haines, Mrs. Harnpstead
Hale, Rev. Matt. B. Stroud
*Hall, Rev. W. Manchester
*H alien, Rev. George, Rushock, Me-
doute, Upper Canada

*IIallen, Rev. William, Wribbenhall.

Worcestershire
*Halton, Rev. T. 20, Great George

Square, Liverpool

Hamilton, Rev. J. Great Baddow, Essex
*Hanham, Rev. Phelips, Wimborne,

Dorset

*Harcourt, Rev. L. V. Midhurst
Harcourt, Rev. R. Cirencester
**Harding, Rev. G. S. Brasenose Col
lege, Oxford

•Harding, J. Esq. St. Mary Hall
**Hare, Venerable Archdeacon
Harington, Rev. Rd. D.D. Principal of

Brasenose College, Oxford
•Hanson, W. H. Esq. New York
•Harper, T. N. Esq. Queen's College,

Oxford

•Harper, Rev. A. Inverary, Aberdeen-
shire

•Harper, Rev. G. Manor House, Ton-
bridge Wells

*Harpur, Rev. E. Salford, Manchester
•Harris, Hon. and Rev. C. Wilton,

Salisbury

*Harris, Rev. J. H. Northampton
•Harris, G.T. Esq. Harrow- on- the- Hill
•Harris, J. Esq.

Harrison, Rev. B. Domestic Chaplain
to the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury
•Harrison, Rev. H. Gondhurst
Harrison, Rev. T. Trinity Church,
Maidstone

* Harrison, Rev. W. Christ's Hospital,

London

•Harrow School Library, the
*Hartley, L. L. Esq. Middleton Lodge,

Richmond, Yorkshire
•Hartnell, E. G. Esq. Trinity College,

Cambridge

•Hartshorne, Rev. Joseph
•Harvey, Rev. H. Preb. of Bristol,

Bradford, Wilts
*Harward, J. Esq. Stourbridge
•Hassells, Rev. C. S. Fox Earth, near

Newcastle

•Hatchard and Son, Piccadilly, London
Hawkins, Rev. E. Secretary to the So
ciety for the Propagation of the

Gospel

* Hawkins, Herbert S. Esq. Jesus Coll.

Oxford

SUBSCRIBERS.

* Hawkins, E. Esq. British Museum
*Hawkins,Rcv.E. Newport, Monmouth
shire

Hawkins, Rev. W. B. L. 23, Great
Marlborough- street, London

*Hawtrey, Rev. Dr. Eton College

Hayes, Rev. I. Warren, Arborfield
Rectory, Berks

*Heale, S. W. Esq. Queen's College

* Heath, W. M. Esq. Exeter Coll.
Oxford

*Hecker, Rev. H. T.
*Hedley, Rev. T. A. Gloucester
*Hemary, Rev. Jas. Trinity College,
Cambridge

* Henderson, W. G. Esq. Magd. Coll.

Oxford

* Henderson, Peter, Esq. Macclesfield
*Henn, Rev. "W. Londonderry
•Herbert, Hon. Algernon, Ickleton,

Saffron Walden
*IIeslop, Anchem, Esq. Trinity College,

Cambridge
*Hessey, Rev. F. St. John's College,

Oxford
*Hessey, Rev. J. A. St. John's College,

Oxford
Hewetson, Rev. J. S. Curate of Killeary,

Ireland

* Hewitt, Rev. T. S. Norton in Hales,

near Market Drayton
*Heygate, Miss, Southend, Essex

* Hichens, R. Esq. Threadneedle-street,

London
•Hildyard, Rev. J. Christ's College,

Cambridge

•Hill, Rev. E. Ch. Ch. Oxford
•Hill, Rev. Erroll, Brinckburn Priory,

Weldon Bridge, Morpeth
Hill, Lincolnshire
•Hillyard, Rev. Temple
*Hilton, A. D. Esq. Wadham College,

Oxford

Hinde, Rev. T. Liverpool
*Hinq, Rev. H. T. C. Bury St. Ed
munds
« Hingiston, James Ansley, Esq.

48, Finsbury Circus, London
**Hippesley, H. Esq. Lambourne

Place, Berks
•Hippisley, R. W. Esq. Stow Lodge*

Gloucestershire

•Hobhouse, Rev. Edin. Merton Coll.

Oxford

** Hodges, late Rev.T.S. (Executors of)
*Hodgkinson, Rev. G. C. Droitwich,

near Worcester

* Hodgson, Rev. I. F. Horsham

* Hodgson, Rev. G. St. Peter's, Isle of

Thanet
Hodgson, Rev. H. St. Martin's,

London
*Hodson, Rev. J. Saunderstead. Croy-

don, Surrey

Holden, Rev. W. R. Worcester
•Holclen, Mr. A. Bookseller, Exeter
•Holland, Rev. Henry
•Holme, Hon. Mrs. A. C.
**Hook, Rev. W. F. D.D. Vicar of

Leeds. Presented by a few of his

younger parishioners
Hope, A. J. B. Esq. Trinity College,

Cambridge

•Hope, W. Esq. Catherine Hall, Cam
bridge

•Hopkins, Rev. J. O. Uffington, Salop
•Hopkinson, C. Esq. M.A. 39, Eaton

Place, Belgrave Square, London
•Hopper, A. M. Esq. B.A. Fellow of

St. John's College, Cambridge
•Hopton, Mrs. Kemerton Court,

Tewkesbury
•Hop wood, Rev. F. G. Knowsley,

Prescot, Lancashire
•Hornby, Rev. Edward, Walmersley,

Bury, Lancashire
Hornby, Rev. T. Liverpool

* Horner, Rev. Josh. Everton, Biggies-

wade, Bedfordshire
•Horsfall, Rev. A. Litclmrch
•Horsfall, John, Esq. Standard Hill,

Nottingham

•Hocking, R. Esq. Penzance
•Hotham, W. F. Esq. Ch. Ch. Oxford
•Houblon, Rev. T. A. Peasemore,

Berks
Houghton, Rev. John, Matching, near

Harlow, Essex
•Houghton, Rev. W. Wilmslow, near

Manchester
•HOWARD, HON. AND REV. H. E. J.

D.D. DEAN OF LICHFIELD
Howard, Col. Ashstead Park
•Howard, Hon. and Rev. W. Faxeham

SUBSCRIBERS.

•Howard, Rev. N. A. Plymouth
Howard, Hon. F. G.

* Howard, Rev. R. D.D. Beaumaris,

Anglesea

* Howard, Hon. and Rev. H.
•Howell, Rev. Hinds, Shobrooke, Devon
*Howorth, Rev. W., March, Isle of Ely

* Hudson, Rev. John, Vicar of Kendal
*Hue, Dr., 9, Bedford Square, London
Huff, Rev. E. Butterwick, near Boston

* Hughes, Rev. H. Charlotte Street,

Bloomshury

* Hughes, Rev. J. B. Hadley, near

Bar net
*Hunt, Rev. R. S. Stinchcomhe Dursley

* Hunter, Rev. A. Alvechurch

* Hunter, Rev. W. Lurgurshall, near

Godalming

Huntingford, Rev. G. W. Winchester
Hussey, Rev. W. L. Ch. Ch. Oxford
Hutchinson, Rev. C. Chichester
*Hutchinson, Rev. T. Lymm, Cheshire

* Hutchinson, R. Esq. Mersey Court,

Liverpool

*Hutchinson, W. Esq.
*Hutton, R«v. G. B. Gainsborough
Huxtable, Rev. A.

* Hyde and Crewe, Newcastle, Stafford

shire

**Inge, Rev. I. R. St Mary's,

Portsmouth
Inner Temple, the Hon. Society of

the, London
Irons, Rev. W. J. Brompton

* Irving, Rev. J. Kendall

Jackson, Rev. T. St. Peter's, Stepney
•Jackson, Rev. W. Dealtry, Ch. Ch.

Hoxton

*Jackson, J. J. Esq. Exeter College
•Jackson, G. Esq.
*Jackson, Rev. J. Islington
James, Rev. J. D.D. Prebendary of

Peterborough

* James, Sir Walter, Bart., M. P.

11, Whitehall Place, London
James, Rev. H. 20, James-street, Buck
ingham Gate

*James, Rev. T. Sibbestoft, near Wei-
ford, Northamptonshire
*James, Rev. J.

*Janvrin, J. H. Esq. Oriel Coll. Oxford

* Jeffray, Rev. L. W. Ashton Parsonage,

Preston

•Jelf, Rev. Dr. Canon of Ch. Ch. Oxford
Jelf, Rev. W. E. Ch. Ch. Oxford
*Jellott, H. Esq. Trinity Coll. Durham
*Jcnkins, Rev. J. Rothwell, Leeds

* Jennings, Rev. M. J. Chaplain to the

Hon. East India Company

* Jerrard, Rev. F. W. H. Long Stratton,

Norfolk

»jERSEy,THEVERYREV.TIIEDEAN OF

Jew, Mr. Thomas, Gloucester
*Johnson, C. W. Esq. Balliol College,

Oxford

Johnson, M. J. Esq. Radcliffe Obser
vatory, Oxford

* Johnson, W. Esq. King's College,

Cambridge

*Johnson, Rev. W. C. Diptford, Devon
*Johnson, Rev. W. II. Witham on the

Hill, Lincolnshire
*Johnstone, Rev. W. S. Minnigaft"

House, Newton Stewart, Scotland
*Jones, E. K. Esq. 28, Mark-lane
•Jones, Rev. D. E. Stamford

* Jones, Rev. J. S. Armagh

Jones, Rev. R. Branxton, Coldslream

* Jones, W. H. Esq. Queen's College,

Oxford
•Jones, B. Esq. Lowestoft

Karslake, Rev. T. W. C,ilmstock,near

Wellington

*Keble, Rev. J. Hursley, Winchester
*Kelk, Rev. W. 23, City Road, London
Kemp, Mr. John, Beverley
Kempe, Rev. J. C. Morchard Bishop's,

Devon

*Ken Club, Leeds

•Kendall, Rev.J. H.F. Kirkby Lonsdale
*Kennard, John P. Esq. 4, Lombard-
Street, London

*Kenrick,Rev. Jarvis, Horsham, Sussex
*Kent, jun. Rev. G. D. Sudbrook, near

Lincoln
*Kenyon, Lord, 9, Portman Square,

London
*Keppell, Hon. and Rev. T. Wells

Norfolk
**Kerby, Rev. C. L. Stoke Talmage,

near Tetsworth

SUBSCRIBERS.

*Kerr, Rev. Lord II. Dittisham
*Kerr, James, Esq. Coventry
•Kershaw, Rev. G. W. St. Nicholas,

Worcester
•Key, H. C. Esq. Peluston Rectory,

near Ross
*Keymes, Rev. N. Christ's Hospital,

Hertford

*Kildare, Ven. Archdeacon of
Kilvert, Rev. F. Bath
King, Mr. H. S. Brighton
•'King, T. H. Esq. Exeter College,

Oxford

King, Rev. W. Smyth, Ireland
"King's College, London
Kingdom, Rev. G. T. Upton, St.

Leonards
*Kingdon, G. R. Esq. Trinity College,

Cambridge

•Kingsford, B. Esq. Exeter Coll. Oxford
*Kingsmill, Rev. II. Chewton Mendip,

Somerset
*Kingsmill, William, Esq. Sidmonton

House, Hants
**Kirhy, R. H. Esq. St. John's Coll.

Cambridge

*Kirrier, Clerical Society, Cornwall
*Kirwan, Rev. J. H. Bath
*Kirwan, Rev. E. Newport- street,

Tiverton

* Ivitson, J. F. Esq. Exeter Coll. Oxford
Kitson, J. Esq. Jesus Coll. Cambridge
*Knight, J. W. Esq. Free School, Co
ventry

Knight, Henry, Esq. Exeter College,

Oxford
Knight, Rev. T. Ford Rectory

* Knight-Bruce, Rev. H. L. M.A.
*Knott, J. W. Esq. Magdalene Hall
*Knowles, J. L. Esq. Pembroke Coll.

Oxford
*Knowles, Edward H. Esq. St. Bees

Grammar School, Whitehaven
Knox, Rev. H. B. Monk's Cleigh,

Hadleigh, Suffolk
*Knox, Rev. Spencer, Vicar- General of

the Diocese of Kerry
*Knox, T. F. Esq. Triu. Coll. Camb.
Knox, Rev. R. Lee House, Limerick
*Kyle, Rev. John T. Cork
Kynnersley, Rev. E. C. Sneyd, Dray-

cott Rectory, Stone. Staffordshire

Lakin, Rev. J. M. Freazelcy, near

Fazeley

•Landon, Rev. W. II.
Lane, Rev. E. Gloucester
•Langbridge, Mr. Birmingham
Langdon, A. Esq. Coldharhour House,

Tonhridge

*Langley, Rev.T. Lar.dogo, Monmouth
*Langmore, Dr.
**Laprimaudaye, Rev. C. J. St. John's

College, Oxford
Latouche, Rev. J. Rathfornham, co.

Dublin
•Laurie, Mrs. John, 10, Charles-street,

St. James's

*Lawrell, Rev. J. Hamprcston Rcctovy
*Lawrence, F. J. R. Esq. Exeter Coll.

Oxford
*Lawson, Rev. R. Stoke by Clare,

Halstead
*Lawson, Rev. W. D. Magd. College,

Cambridge
*Lawson, Rev. G. West Grimstead,

Salisbury
*Lee, Rev. William, Fellow of Trinity

College, Dublin

Lechmere, Rev. A. Whitmore, Wool-
hope, Hereford
•Lefroy, Rev. A. C.

* Legge, Rev. W. Ashstead, Epsom
*Legge, Hon. and Rev. Henry, Black-
heath, Kent

•Leigh, W.Esq. Little Ashton, Lichfield

* Leighton, Rev. F. K. All Souls Coll.

Oxford
•Leman, Rev. T. Brampton Rectory,

Beccles

•Le Mesurer, J. Esq. Ch. Ch. Oxford
•Leonard, Rev. R. W. Aynho, Banbury
•Leslie, Rev. C. Elphin, Ireland
Leslie, Mr. Great Queen Street, London
•Lethbridge, Ambrose, Esq. All Souls,

Oxford

•Lewis, Rev. D. Jesus College, Oxford
•Lewthwaite, Rev. W. II. Clifford, near

Tadcaster
**Ley, Rev. Jacob, Ch. Ch. Oxford

* Ley, Rev. John, Exeter Coll. Oxford
•Lichfield Cathedral, the Dean and

Chapter of

*Liddon, H. Esq. Taunton
•Lindsay, Hon. C. Trinity ColLCamb.

SUBSCRIBERS.

*Lingard,E. A. Esq. Runcorn, Cheshire
*Linsdedt, F. W. Esq. Calcutta
Linzee, Rev. Edw. Hood
*Linzee, R. G. Esq. Ch. Ch. Oxford
Linzell, Rev. B. H.
*Litler, Rev. Robert, Poynton Par
sonage, near Macclesfield
•Lloyd, Rev. C. W.

* Lloyd, Rev.F.L.L. Wilnecote, Farelay
Lloyd, Rev. F. T. Curate of Kilmore,

Dioc. Armagh
*Lloyd, Rev. C.

* Lloyd, Rev. H. W. Pentre Voelas,

Denbighshire
*Lockyer, E. L. Esq. Emmanuel Coll.

Cambridge
Lodge, Rev. Barton
*Lohr, C. W. Esq. Gwaenynog, Denbigh
London Library, Pall Mall
*Long, W. Esq. Bath
Lott, H. J. Esq. Hornton, Devon
Lott, H. B. Esq. Tracy House, Awlis-

combe

*Low, I. L. Esq.

*Lowder, C. F. Esq. Exeter Coll. Oxford
*Lowe, Rev. J.M. Grin dleton, Yorkshire
*Lowe, Rev. R. F. Madeira
*Lowe, Rev. R. H. Abascragh, co.

Galway

*Lowe, Rev. Charles Benj. Hertford
*Lowe, Rev. H. E. Rushall, Walsall
*Lowndes, Rev. C. Hartwell Rectory,

near Aylesbury

Lukis, Rev. W. C. Bradford, Wilts
Lund, Rev. T. B.D. St. John's College,

Cambridge
fLurgan, Lord
*Lush, Rev. Vicesimus
*Lusk, John, Esq. Glasgow
Lutwyche, A. I. P. Esq. Middle Temple
*Luxmoore, Rev. J. H. M. Marchwiel,

Wrexham

*Lyttleton, The Right Hon. Lord
•Lyttleton, Hon. and Rev. W. H.

Kettering, Northamptonshire

*Maberly, Rev.T. A. Cuckfield, Sussex
M'c All, Rev. Edward, Brixton, Isle of

Wight
*M'c Ewen, Rev. A. Semington, near

Melksham, Wilts

M'Clintock, Rev. G. F. Calcutta
*Macfarfane, W. C. Esq. Birmingham
*Machlachlan, Rev. A. N. Campbell,

Thorverton, near Cullompton, Devon
•Mackenzie, A. C. Esq. St. John's

College, Oxford

Mackenzie, Lewis M. Esq. Exeter ColL
•Mackinnon, Rev. John, Bloxholm,

near Sleaford, Lincoln
•Mackonochie, A. H. Esq. Edinburgh
•Maclachlan, Rev. Thoverton
Maclean, Rev. H. Coventry
•Maclean, Rev. W. Prebendary of

Tynan, Armagh
Macmullen, Rev. R. G. Corpus Christi

Coll. Oxford
•Madox, Wm. Esq. 61, York Terrace,

Regent's Park
•Maitland, Rev. R. S. Librarian to the

Lord Archbishop of Canterbury
•Major, Rev. I. R. D.D. King's Coll.

London
•Malcolm, H. Esq. Eckington,

Chesterfield

Malcolm, Rev. Gilbert, Toddenham
•Malcolm, W. E. Esq. Burnfoot Lang-
holm, Dumfriesshire
•Malins, Mr. G. W. R. Kelsford
•Mangin, Rev. Edw. N.
•Mann, Rev. W. M. Thornthwaite

Keswick, Cumberland
•Manning, F. J. Esq. Lincoln College,

Oxford

•Manson, Rev. A. T. G.
*Mapleton, R. J. Esq. St. John's Coll.

Oxford

Mapperton, Rev. C. Fox
•Marklaud, J. H. Esq. Bath
Marriott, Rev. C. Oriel Coll., Oxford
•Marriott, Rev. J. Bradfield, Reading
•Marshall, Rev. S. Eton
•Marshall, Rev. E. Cranwell, Sleaford
Martin, Rev. F. Trin. Coll. Camb.
•Martin, Rev. John, Orford, near

Woodbridge
Martin, Rev, G. Exeter
•Martin, Wm. Esq. Fellow of Corpus

Christi College, Cambridge
Martineau, Rev. A. Whitkirk Vicar
age, Leeds

* Martyn, Rev. T. W. Exeter
*Mason, Rev. J. Great Malvern

SUBSCRIBERS.

* Mason, Rev. A. W. Booking, Essex
*Mason, Rev. E. Cold Ashton, Marsh-
field, Chippenham
•Mason, Rev. H. B. Head Master of

Brewood School, Staffordshire
Mason, Mr. W. H. Chichester
•Mathison, W. C. Esq. M.A. Trinity

College, Cambridge
•Matthews, Rev. R. M. Great Bowdler,

Market Harhorough
*Maule, Rev. G. Great Munden, near

Pickeridge, Herts
•Maynard, Rev. John
•Maynard, Rev. R. Wormleighton,

Southam

*Mayo, A. F. Esq. Oriel Coll. Oxford
•Mayor, C. Esq. St. John's Coll. Camb.
•Mease, Rev. J. Fresford
•Meason, Rev. Henry, Exeter
•Melton Mowbray Clerical Society
Mence, Rev. J. W. Ilkley, Otley, York-

shire

•Menet, J. Esq. Exeter Coll. Oxford
•Merriman, W. H. R. Esq., New Coll.

Oxford
•Merry, Rev. R. M.A., Jesus College,

Cambridge
•Mesham, Rev. A. B. Wotton, near

Canterbury
•Metcalf, Rev. W. L.
•Metcalfe, Rev. Wallace, Reddenhall,

Harlestone, Norfolk
•Middleton, Rev. J. E.
•Middleton, Henry O. Esq. Exeter

College, Oxford
•Mill, Rev. Dr. Christian Advocate,

Cambridge
Miller, Rev. I. R. Walkeringham.

Bawtry, Yorkshire
Miller, Rev. John, Benefield, Oundle
Miller, Rev. T. E. Benefield, Oundle
•Mills, R. T. Esq. Magdalene College,

Oxford

•Mills, H. Esq. Trinity Coll., Cam
bridge

•Minster, Rev. I. Farmley Tyas
•Moberly, C. E. Esq. Balliol College,

Oxford

•Moberly, Rev. Dr. Winchester
•Money Kyrle, Rev. E. A. Hastings
•Monro, Rev. E. Oriel Coll. Oxford
•Monsell, Rev. C. H. Limerick, Ireland

•Monsell, Rev. J. S. Limerick, Ireland
*M nsell, W. Esq. Limerick, Ireland
•Montagu, J. E. Esq. Exeter College
Moodie, C. Esq. Magdalene Hall
•Moore, Rev. Edward, Rector of Killan,

Ireland

•Moore, Rev. J. W. Hordley, Ellesmere
•Moorsom, Rev. R. Seaham Vicarage,

Durham

•Morrell, F. J. Esq. St. Giles's, Oxford
•Morrice, Rev. W. D. Clovelly, near

Bideford, Devon
•Morris, Rev. J. B. Exeter College,

Oxford

•Morris, Rev. T. E. Ch. Ch. Oxford
•Morrison, Rev. A. Eton College
Morton, Mr. Boston
•Morton, Rev. M. C. Exeter College,

Oxford

Moultrie, Rev. J. Rugby
Mount, Rev. C. M. Prebendary of Wells

• Mountain, Rev. G.R. Rector of Havant
Mountain, Rev. H. B. Prebendary of

Lincoln

•Mountain, J. G. Esq. Eton Coll. Eton
*Mozley, Rev. J. B. Magdalene College,

Oxford

•Mules, Rev. P. Exeter Coll. Oxford
•Munn, Rev. G. Worcester
•Murray, Rev. A. Clapham, Surrey
•Murray, C. R. Scott, Esq. Ch. Ch.

Oxford

•Murray, Rev. W. St. Martin's, Col
chester
•Murray, F. Esq. Ch. Ch. Oxford

* Muskett, Mr. C. Norwich

Neale, J. M. Esq. Downing College,

Cambridge
•Neeld, J. Esq. M.P. Grittleton House

Chippenham
•Nelson, Earl, Bricknorth House, near

Salisbury
•Nelson, H. Esq.
• Neve, Rev. F. R. Poole Keynes,

Cirencester

•Nevill, H. R. Esq. University College
•Nevins, Rev. W. Wilton House, Ross
JSfew, Rev. F. T. Ch. Ch. St. Pancras,

London

SUBSCRIBERS.

*New York Theological Seminary
Newland, Rev. Dr. Ferns
•Newland, Rev. Thomas, Dublin
Newman, Rev. J. H. Oriel College,

Oxford

*Newton, Mr. C. Croydon
*New- York- Society Library
Nicholl, Rev. J. R. Greenhill Grove,

near Barnet, Hertfordshire
Nicholls, Rev. W. L. Bath
Nicholson, Rev. W.
* Nicholson, Rev. "W". Wickham House,

Welford, Berks
*Nicholson, Rev. W. Rector of St.

Maurice, Winchester
*Nicoll, Rev. Charles, gtratford, Essex
*Nooman, H. Esq., Dunfanaghy,

County of Donegal

*Noott, Rev. E. H. L. Tipton, Bir
mingham

*North, Rev. Jacob
*Northcote, G. B. Esq. Ilfracombe,

Devon
*Northcote, J. S. Esq. Corpus Christi

College, Oxford
•Norwich Clerical Society
*Nunns, Rev. T. Birmingham
•Nutt, Rev. Charles Theston, Bath

*O'Brien, Mr. E. Dublin
*O'Brien, Rev. H. Killegar, Ireland
*O'Brien, Mrs. 108, George Street,

Limerick

*Ogle and Son, Booksellers, Glasgow
*Oldershaw, R. Esq. Islington
*Oldham, George A. Esq. Brunswick

Place, Brighton

Oldham, Rev. T. R. Huddersfield
•Oldknow, Rev. Joseph, Bordesley,

Birmingham

•Oliver, Rev. J. Rothwell, North
amptonshire
•Oliverson, R. Esq. 14 Portland Place,

London

»Orr, T. Esq. Oriel College, Oxford
• Osborn, Rev. G. Manchester
*Ostell, Messrs. T. & Co. booksellers,

London
*Ouvry, Rev. P. T. Oxford Terrace,

London
*Owen, R. Esq. Jesus Coll. Oxford

•Pagan, Rev. S. Leverbridge, Bolton-

le-Moors

Page, Rev. C. Westminster Abbey
* Page, Rev. L. F. Woolpit, Bury St.

Edmund's
Page, R. jun. Esq.

•Page, Rev. Vernon, Ch. Ch. Oxford
•Paget, Rev. F. E. Elford, Lichfield
•Paine, Cornelius, Esq. 11, Cannon-

bury-lane, Islington
•Palmer, Roundell, Esq.
*Palmer,Rev. W.Magdalen Coll.Oxford
•Palmer, Rev. W. Worcester College,

Oxford
•Pan tin, J. Esq. Pembroke College,

Oxford

*Pardoe, Rev. Mr. Leyton, Essex
•Parke, C. W. Esq. M.P. Great Glen,

Leicestershire
•Parker, C. Esq. Upper Bedford Place,

London

•Parker, Rev. E. Bahia, South America
•Parker, Rev. R. Welton, Spilsby,

Lincolnshire

Parkinson, Mrs. Holy well
•Parkinson, Rev. J.P. Magdalene Coll.

Oxford

•Parr, Rev. W. H. Halifax
•Parrington, Rev. Matthew, Feltwell,

Norfolk
Parsons, Rev. C. A. St. Mary's,

Southampton
•Pascoe, Rev. T. St. Hilary, Marazion,

Cornwall

fPATTEsoN, HON. MR. JUSTICE
•Paul, G. W. Esq. Magdalene Coll.

Oxford

•Payne, R. jun. Esq. Lavender Hill
•Paynsent, F. A. Esq., Antigua,

West Indies.
•Pearson, F. T. Esq. Queen's College,

Oxford

•Pedder, Rev. W. St. Cuthbert, Wells
•Pedder, E. Esq. Brasenose College
•Peed, Rev. J.

•Pelly, Rev. T. C. C. C. Oxford
•Pennefather, Rev. William
f Penney, Rev. E. St. Andrew's, Canter
bury

•Penny, C. B. Esq. Theol. Coll. Wells
•Perceval, Hon. and Rev. A. P.
* Perceval, Captain E. A.

SUBSCRIBERS.

*Percival, Ernest A. Esq. Bindon
House, Milverton, Somerset

* Perram, Rev. J. G. Harrogate
*Perring, C. Esq. 29, Tavistock Square,

London

* Perry, Rev. A. Bettesworth, Pre

centor's Vicar of St Caniees Cathe
dral, Kilkenny

* Perry, T. W. Esq. 20, Steward- street,

Spitalfields
*Phelps, Rev. R. Sidney Sussex Coll.

Cambridge
•Phelps, Rev. T. P. Ridley, Seven

Oaks, Kent

* Phelps, Rev. H. D. Tarrington, near

Ledbury, Hereford

•Philips, G. H. Esq. Belle Vue,
Liverpool

* Phillips, Rev. E. 5, Nelson Terrace,

Clapham

•Philpott, Rev. Other, Clungunford,
near Ludlow

•Philpott, Rev. T. Maddresfield, Wor
cester

•Phipps, Rev. E. I. Devizes, Wilts

* Phipps, T. H. H. Esq. Leighton House,

Wilts
•Pickering, Rev. H. St. Peter's, Isle of

Thanet

•Pickwood, Rev. John
•Pigott, Rev. A. J. Newport, Salop
•Pigott, Rev. George, Bombay
•Pigott, Rev. H. Brasenose College
•Pillans, Rev. W. H. Himley Rectory,

Dudley

•Finder, Rev. J. H. Precentor of Wells
•Platt, J. P. Esq. Child's Hill, Hamp-

stead
•Plumptre, E. H. Esq. University

College

••Pocock, Rev. N. Queen's Coll. Oxford
Pocock, Mr. W. Bath
•Ponsonby, Hon. Walter
•Pope, T. A. Esq. Jesus Coll., Cam
bridge

Pope, — Esq. Christ's Coll. Cambridge
•Popham, W. Esq. Tramore, Water-
ford, Ireland

•Portman, Rev. F. Staple Fitzpaine
'Pountney, Rev. H. St. John's, Wolver-

hampton
••Powell, A. Esq. Carey Street, London

••Powell, Rev. E. A. Ampthill
Powell, Rev. H. T. Stretton
•Powell, Rev. J. C.
Powell, Rev. Richard, Bury, near

Arundel, Sussex
Powell, Rev. T. Turnarton, near Peter

Church
•Powell, Rev. J. W. S. Kingston- on-

Thames

•Powell,Rev. R. Worcester Coll. Oxford
•Powell, Rev. Richmond
Power, Rev. J. P. Queen's College,

Cambridge
•Power, Rev. J., Fellow of Pembroke

College, Cambridge
•Powles, R. C. Esq. Exeter College
•Pownall, Rev. C. C. B. Milton

Ernest, Bedfordshire
•Pownall, Rev. W. L. St. John's Coll.

Cambridge
•Powys, Hon. and Rev. Horace, War-

rington

Poynder, Rev. F.
•Prater, Rev. T. Hardwicke, near

Bicester
Prescott, Rev. I. P. St. Mary's Chapel,

Portsmouth
•Preston, Rev. Plunket, Prebendary of

Edermine, Ferns, Ireland
•Prevost, Rev. Sir George, Bart. Stinch-

combe, Dursley

•Price, Rev. B. Pembroke College
*Prichard, Rev. R. Kidderminster
Pridden, Rev. W. Broxted, Dunmow
Prosser, Rev. S. Blackheath Park
•Prothero, G. Esq. Brasenose College
•Pry or, Rev. R. Spelsbury
•Pulling, Rev. W. Hereford
**Pusey, Rev. Dr. Canon of Ch. Ch.

Oxford

•Pusey, Rev. W. B. Maidstone
Pym, Rev. F.

*Radford, Rev. J. A. Down St. Mary,

near Crediton

*Raikes, R. Esq. Welton, near Hull
*Ramsbotham, Rev. T. Wakefield
Randolph, Rev. E. J. Tring
Randolph, Rev. W. Newington, near

Folkstone
* Randolph, W. C. Esq.YateHouse,Bath

SUBSCRIBERS.

Raven, Rev. V. 11, Crescent- place,

Burton- crescent

•Rawle, Rev. R. Cheadle, Staffordshire
•Ray, Rev. H. W. Kirkland, Kendal
•Redfern, Rev. W. I. Magd. Hall
•Reed, Rev. C. Chirton House, Tyne-

mouth

•Reed, Rev. J. Harold's Cross, Dublin
* Reeve, Mr. W. Leamington
•Rew, Rev. Charles, Maidstone
Rhodes, M. T. Esq. Stanmoor Hall,

Middlesex

•Richards, Edw. Priest, Esq. Cardiff
•Richards, Rev. Edw. Tew, Farlington

Rectory, Havant

•Richards, Rev. W. Upton, London
•Richards, Rev. H. M. Ch. Ch. Oxford
•Richards, Mr. Bookseller, Oxford
Rickards, Rev. F. Stowlangtoft, Suffolk
•Rickards, E. P. Esq.
Riddell, Rev. J. C. B. Harrietsham
Riddle, John B. Esq. 2, Seyir.our

Place, Bristol
•Ridgway, Josh. jun. Esq.Wallsuches,

near Bolton

•Ridley, Rev.W H. Hambledon
Ridley, N. J. Esq. Ch. Ch. Oxford
•Rivaz, C. Esq. Great St, Helen's

London

•Roberts, Rev. H. Jesus Coll. Camb.
Roberts, Rev. L. Slaidburn, near

Clitheroe, Yorkshire
•Roberts, Rev. R. Milton Abbas,

Dorsetshire
•Robertson, Dr. Doctors' Commons,

London

•Robertson, Rev. J.C.Boxley, Maidstone
*Robertson, Rev. J. C. Cheddington,

Hemel Hempstead

•R obin, Rev. P.R. Itchen, Southampton
•Robins, Rev. Sanderson
•Robinson, G. J. Esq. Hart Street,

Bloomsbury

•Robinson, Rev. Sir George, Bart.
•Robinson, Rev. Christr. Kirknewton,

near Wooler, Northumberland
•Robinson, Rev. R. B. Lytham, near

•Preston

*Robson,T. U. Esq. Magd. Hall.Oxford
•Rodmell, Rev. J.
•Rodwell, Rev.J. M. St. Peter's, Saffron

Hill, 7, Park Terrace, Barnsbury Park

•Rodwell, R. M. Esq. Exeter College,

Oxford
•Rogers, Edward, Esq. Eliot Place,

Blackheath, Kent

•Roper, Rev. C. Rector of St. Olave's
Rose, Rev. H. H. Erdington
•Ross, Rev. I. L. Fy field, near Burford
••Ross and Argyll, Diocesan Library of
Routh,Rev,Dr. President of Magd.Coll.

Oxford

* R outledge, Rev. W. I Iminster, S omer set
Rowland, Miss, Hereford
•Rowlandson, Rev. J. Mansergh, near

Kirby Lonsdale
•Rowsell, Rev. T. J.
** Russell, D. Watts, Esq. Biggin Hall,

Oundle
** Russell, I. Watts, Esq. Ham Hall,

Ashbourn, Derbyshire
•Russell, Rev. S. Printing House Sq.,

London
Ryder, Rev. George Dudley, Easton,

Winchester
Ryder, T. D. Esq. Oriel Coll. Oxford

Samler, Rev. J. H. Bampton, Oxon.
Sandford, Rev. G. B. Prestwich
Sandford, Rev. John
•Sandford, Frederick, Esq.
•Sandham, Rev. James, Selsey Rec
tory, near Chichester
•Sandham, H. Esq. St. John's College,

Oxford
Sandilands, Hon. and Rev. J, Coston

Rectory, Melton Mowbray
•Sandon, Lord, 39, Grosvenor-square
Sankey, P. Esq. St. John's Coll. Oxford
•Sargeant, Rev. R. Worcester
Saunders, Rev. A. P. Charter House
•Savage, F. Esq. Henleaze, Bristol
•Savage, Rev. W. Queen's Coll. Oxford
•Savory, J. S. Esq. 16, Somerset Place,

Bath

Scarth, Rev. H. Pathwick, Bath
*Schofield, Rich. L. Esq. Brighton
••Scott, Rev. R. Duloe, Cornwall
* Scott, Rev. W. Ch. Ch. Hoxton
•Scudamore, Rev. W. E. Ditchingham,
Bun gay

SUBSCRIBERS.

*Selwyn, Rev. W. Canon of Ely
Sewell, Rev. W. Exeter Coll. Professor

of Moral Philosophy, Oxford
•Seymour, E. W. Esq. Porthmawr,

Breconshire
Seymour, Rev. Sir J. Hobart, Bart.,

Prebendary of Gloucester

* Seymour, Rev. R. Kinwarton,Alcester
*Shairp, John C. Esq. Balliol Coll.,

Oxford
*Sharpe, Rev. W. C. M.A.

* Sharpies, Rev, James Hool, War-

rington
*Shaw, Rev. G. Fen Dray ton, near

Cambridge

•Shaw, Rev.John, Stoke, Slough, Buck
Shaw, Rev. M. Hawkhurst, Kent
*Shea, Rev. Robert Francis Jones
*Shedden, Rev. S. Pembroke College

* Shelley, Rev.John, Kingsby Rectory,

Cheadle, Staffordshire

* Shepherd, Rev. S. North Somercote,

near Louth, Lincolnshire
*Sheppard, J. H. Esq. Queen's College,

Oxford
*Sheppard, Rev. J. G. Repton Priory,

Burton-on-Trent
•Sheppard, Rev. F. M.A. Clare Hall,

Cambridge

Shield, Rev. W. T. Durham
*Shilleto, Rev. Richard, M.A. King's

College, Cambridge
•Shilleto, Rev. W. York
Shillibeer, Rev. J. Oundle
*Shipston-on-Stour Theological Book

Society
*Shipton, Rev. J. N. Othery, near

Bridgewater
•Shirreff, Rev. S. B. Birkwell Mmden,

Warwick

•ShirrefF, Rev. R. St. John, Blackheath
•Shortland, Rev. H. Rector of Twin-
stead

* Short, Rev. A. Ravensthorpe
Shuttleworth, Rev. E.

•Sidgwick, C. Esq. Skipton, Yorkshire
•Simes, G. F. Esq.
*Simms, Rev. E. Bath
Simms and Son, Bath
Simpson, Rev. H. Bexhill
•Simpson, Rev. W. H. Louth

* Simpson, R. Esq.

* Simpson, Rev. J. D. Sidney Sussex

College, Cambridge
•Singer, Rev. Dr. I. H., S.F.T.C.D.
•Singleton, Rev. R. C. Curate of

Monart, Ireland
•Sion College Library
•Skeffington, Hon. H. R. Worcester

College, Oxford
•Skeffington, Hon. T. C. F. Worcester

College, Oxford
•Skinner, Fitzowen, Esq. 23, Keppel

Street, Russell Square
•Skinner, J. Esq. King William's Coll.

Isle of Man

•Skrine, Rev. Harcourt, Cirencester
*Slade, Rev. James, Bolton
•Sladen, Rev. E. H. M. Bockleton
**Slatter, Rev. John, Warrington
•Slocombe and Simms, Leeds
•Small, Rev. Nath.P. Market Bos worth,

Hinckley

•Smirke, Sir Robert, London
•Smith, Rev. J. Campbell, Dawlish,

Devon

•Smith, Rev. Edw. Bocking, Braintree
Smith, Rev. G. Garvagh, Ireland
•Smith, H.T. Esq. Queen's Coll. Oxford
•Smith, Rev. J. Trinity College, Oxford

* Smith, Rev. W. Great Cauford, Wim-

borne

•Smith, H. W. Esq.

•Smith, R. P. Esq. Pembroke College

Smith, Rev. H. Sennicotts, Chichester

•Smith, Rev. — Forgue

•Smyth, Rev. H. Fenner, Glebe, Johns
town

•Smythies, E. Esq. Lutterworth

Snare, Mr. John, Reading

Somers, the Countess of

•Southampton Theological Library

•Southwell, Rev. G. Boyton Rectory,
Heytesbury, Wilts

Sparke, Rev. John, ClareHall, C ambridge

•Spence, Rev. J.

•Spencer, Rev. W. Pakenham, Starston,
Norfolk

Spranger, Rev. R. J. Exeter College,
Oxford

Spreat, Mr. W. Exeter

•Spry, Rev.J. H. D.D. St.Mary-le-bone

Spurgin, Rev. J. C. C. C. Cambridge

•Stafford, Rev. J. C. Dinton, Salisbury

SUBSCRIBERS.

*Stainton, T. Esq. Wadham College,
O ord

* Stanley, Rev. E. Rugby
•Stanton, R. Esq. Brasenose College
•Starey, B. H. Esq. Clerkenwell,

London

Starkey, Rev. A. B. C. St. John's Col
lege, Oxford

»Steel, H. W. Esq. Mathune, near
Chepstow

*St. John, Rev. Ambrose, Bransgore,
Ringwood

Stephens, Rev. C. L. Kencot, Burford

**Stert, Rev. A. R. 33, Connaught
Square, London

*Stevens, Rev. T. Bradford, Reading

* Stevenson, Rev. J. Durham University
Stewart, Mr. King William Street
*Stockdale, Rev. H. Mislerton Vicar
age, Bautry

Stockdale, Rev. W. Linwood Rectory,
Market Rasin

* Stoker, Rev. H. Durham
*Stokes, S. N. Esq. Trinity College,

Cambridge

»Stonehouse, Rev. W. B. Owston
•Stott, Miss, Bradford, Yorkshire
*Street, J. Esq. Lloyd's Rooms,London
"Street, W. F. Esq. 13, Austin Friars,

London

*Stretton, Rev. H.
Strong, Mr. W. Bristol

* Stuart, Rev. John B., M.D. Billeston,

Leicester

•Stuart, Rev. Hamilton
•Studdert, Rev. G. Dundalk
•Sturges, S. Esq. Magdalene Hall
**Sturrock, Rev.W. Chaplain, Bengal

Presidency

* Stuart, Rev A.

•Suckling, R. Esq. Caius Coll. Camb.
•Swainson, C. A. Esq. Christ's College,

Cambridge

Swainson, Rev. E. E. Clunn, Shropshire
•Swainson, Rev. C. L. Crick Rectory,

Daventry
•Swansborough, G. S. Esq. Pembroke

College, Cambridge
Sweet, Rev. C. Cornworthy, Totnes,

Devon
•Sweet, J. Hales, Esq. Spring Grove,

Hunslet, Leeds

*Swinney, Rev. H. H. Magd. College,

Cambridge
•Swire, John, Esq. Manfield Vicarage,

Darlington
•Sykes, G. M. Esq. Downing College,

Cambridge

•Talbot, Rev. G. Evercreech, Somerset
*Tarbutt,'Rev.A.C.St. Mary's, Reading
•Tate, Frank, Esq. University College,

Oxford
Tatham, Rev. Arthur, Broadoak, Lost-

withiel, Cornwall

Tayler, Rev. A. W. Stoke Newington
Taylor, Mr. J. Brighton

* Taylor, John, Esq. Leicester
•Taylor, A. Esq. Queen's Coll., Oxford
•Tennant, Rev. W.

•Thomas, J. H. Esq. Trinity College,

Cambridge
•Thompson, Rev. E. H. St. James's,

"Westminster
•Thomson, Rev. W. St. Nicholas,

Guildford

Thornton, Rev. T. Brockhall, Weedon
Thornton, Rev. W. Dodford, Weedon
Thorp, Ven. Archdeacon, Durham

* * Thorp, Venerable Archdeacon, Trinity

College, Cambridge

•Thrupp, J. W. Esq. Upper Brook-
street

•Thurland, F. E. Esq. New College,
Oxford

Thwaytes, Rev. J. Perpetual Curate of
Trinity Church, Carlisle

•Thynne, Right Hon. and Rev. Lord
John, D.D. Rector of Street-cum-
Walton

•Thynne, Rev. Lord Charles, Long-
bridge Deverill, Warminster

•Tindale, John, Esq. Huddersfield

•Tireman, Mrs. Nurton, Chepstow

•Todd, Rev. Dr. Trinity College,
Dublin

•Todd, Venerable Archdeacon, Settring-
ton Malton, Yorkshire

•Tonge, G. Esq.

•Toovey, Mr. James, 36, St. James Str.

•Tottenham, Rev. E. Bath

•Topham, Rev. J. Huddersfield

•Tower, F. E. Esq. Theol. Coll. Well*

SUBSCRIBERS.

*Tragett, Rev. T. H. Awbridge Danes,

near Romsey

"Travis, Rev. W. J. M.A. Trinity Col
lege, Cambridge

*Treacher, I. S. Esq. Magd. Hall
•Trench, Rev. F. S. Kilmoroney Athey
•Trevelyan, Rev. J. Milverton, So
merset

*Tripp, Rev. Dr Silverton, Devon
shire
Tristram, H. B. Esq. Lincoln College,

Oxford
*Tritton, Henry, Esq. 54, Lombard

Street, London

•"Trollope, Rev. A. St. Mary-le-bone
•Trotter, C. Esq. Edinburgh
•Trower, Rev. Walter, Wiston, near

Steyning

*Truro Theological Library
•Trym, C. Esq. Theol. Coll. Wells
Tuckwell, Henry, Esq.
•Tupper, W. G. Esq. Trinity College,

Oxford
•Turbitt, Rev. J. H. Powick, near

Worcester

•Turner, Miss, Shooter's Hill, Kent
•Turner, Rev. G. Chelsfield, Farn-

borough, Kent

Turner, Rev. J. Hagley, Stourbridge
Turner, Rev. Sam. H. D.D. Prof, in
the New York Theol. Seminary of the
Episcopal Church

•Turner, Rev.W. Fishbourn,Chichester
•Twining, Rev. D. Therfield, Royston
•Twining, Richard, jun. Esq.
•Twining, James, Esq. Trinity College,

Cambridge

•Twiss, G.J. Great Shelford, Cambridge
Tyler, Rev. Geo. Trinity Coll. Oxford
•Tyrrell, Rev. W. Beaulieu Rectory,

Southampton
•Tyrwhitt, Rev. R. E. Bombay

•Underwood, R. Esq. Broadwell Rec
tory, Stow-on-the-Wold
Utterton, Rev. I. S. Dorking
•Vale, W.S.Esq. Worcester Coll.Oxford
•Vaux, W. S. W. Esq. Balliol College,

Oxford

•Vaux, Rev. W. Winchester
•Venables, C. Esq. Pembroke College,
Cambridge

•Venn, E. S. Esq. Highbury Park,

near London

•Vernon, Honourable Mrs.
•Vickerman, C. R. Esq.
Vigne, Rev. Henry, Sunbury, Middlesex
•Vizard, J. Esq. Dursley, Gloucester
•Voules, Rev. F. Eton
•Vyrvyan, Rev. V. F. Withiel Rectory,

Bodmin

•Wade, Benjamin, Esq.
•Wade, Rev. N. St. Paul's, Bunhill Row
•Wagner, A. Esq. Cambridge
•Wagner, G. Esq. Trinity College,
Cambridge

* Wagstaff, Rev. C. Aberdeen

* Waites, Rev. T. Bentley, South Stain-

ley, near Harrogate
Walford, Rev. O. Charterhouse
••Walford, Rev. W. Hatfield, Witham,

Essex
•Walker, Rev. R. Wadham College,

Oxford

•Walker, Rev.
Wallace, Re.y. G. Canterbury
•Wallace, Rev. I. L. Sevenoaks
Waller, Rev. E. A. Warwick

* Waller, Rev. W.Hartrow, near Taunton
*Walter, Henry, Esq. Exeter College,

Oxford

Walters, Mr. Rugeley
» Ward, Rev. John, Great Bedwyn, Wilts
*Ward, Rev. W. C. Southampton
•Wardroper, Rev. C. Gloucester
•Warre, Rev. Fran. Bishop's Lydiard

* Warter, Rev. I. Wood, West Tarring,

Sussex

•Warwick Rural Deanery Society
Wason, James, Esq. Rowcroft, Stroud,

Gloucestershire
•Watkins, W.B.Esq. Wadham College,

Oxford

•Watkins, Rev. B. E.
•Watson, Rev. Alexander, St. John's,

Cheltenham

•Watson, Joshua, Esq. Park-Street
•Watts, Rev. John, Tarrant-Gunville,

Dorset
•Webb, Benj. Esq. Trinity College,

Cambridge
*Webb, Mr. Wareing, Liverpool

SUBSCRIBERS.

•Webster, Rev. S. K. Isham Rectory,

Kettering
*Weguelin, Rev. W. A. South Stoke,

near Arundel

Wells, Rev. F. Woodcliurch, Tenter-
den, Kent
*Wenham, J. G. Esq. St. John's

College, Oxford

*Wentworth, Rev. S. E. Liverpool
Weston,FrancisM.Esq.Charleston,U.S..
*Weston,Plowden,Esq.Charleston,U.S
*Whall, Rev. W. Thierning Rectory

Oundle

*Wheatley, E. B. Esq. Cote Walls
•Whitby, R. Vernon, Esq. Osbaston

Lodge, Market- Bosworth
*Whitcome, J. Esq. Gloucester
*White, Rev. R. Longridge, near Rib-

chester, Lancashire

*White, Rev. R. Marsh, Aveley, Essex
» White, Horace P. Esq. Magd. Hall,

Oxford

•White, H. M. Esq. New College
*White, A. Esq. Balliol Coll. Oxford
*Whitehead, Rev. W. Worcester Col
lege, Oxford

•Whitelegg, Rev.W. Hulme, near Man
chester

Whitley and Booth, Messrs. Halifax
*Whitfield, Rev. G. T. Bockleton,

Tenbury, Worcestershire
»Whitley, Rev. J. Manchester
*Whitaker, Rev. G, Queen's College,

Cambridge

Whorwood, Rev. T. Magd. Coll. Oxford
"Wickens, Rev. Henry, Margaretting
*Wilberforce, Rev. H. W. Bransgore
Wilberforce, Rev. S. Archdeacon of

Surrey
*Wilkins, Venerable George, D. D.

Archdeacon of Nottingham
Wilkins, Rev. Mr.
•Wilkinson, Rev. M. 27 Kensington

Square
"Wilkinson, Rev. Henry J. Queen's

College, Oxford
•Wilkinson, T. W. Esq. University

College, Durham
•Williams, Rev. C. Jesus College,

Oxford
Williams, Rev. E. T. Mount Ballan,

Chepstow

"Williams, Rev. I. Trinity College,
Oxford

Williams, Rev. George, Wicherford,
Worcester

Williams, M. D. Esq. Cwmcynfelin,
Aberystwith

•Williams, Rev. W. St. Bartholomew's,
Hyde, Winchester

•Williams, Rev. T. E., D.D., Buckle-
bury, Berks

•Williams, Rev. J. Jesus Coll. Oxford

•Willis, Rev. T. Rayne, near Braintree

•Willis, Rev. W. D. Green Park,
Bath

•Willock, Rev. W. W. Ware

* Willott, Rev. John, Farnborough, Kent

•Wilshire, E. S. Esq. Worcester Col
lege, Oxford

•Wilson, Rev. Charles, Liverpool

Wilson, Rev. Francis, Rugeley

•Wilson, Rev. J. Corpus Christi Coll.
Oxford

•Wilson, L. Esq. Norwood Hill

•Wilson, R. Esq. Magdalene Hall

••Wilson, Rev. Robert, B.A. Bootle,
Liverpool Presented as a testimonial
of regard from the congregation at
St. Martin's, Liverpool

•Wilson, A. Esq. Balham, Surrey

Wise, Rev. H. Offchurch

•Wise, Mrs. M. Shrublands, Leaming
ton

•Wither, Rev. H. I. B.

•Wither, Rev. W. H. W. Bigg, Otter-
borne, near Winchester

•Withers, Rev. George, Bishop's Coll.
Calcutta

Wix, Mr. H. Bridge- Street, Black-
friars

Wix, Rev. S. St. Bartholomew's
Hospital

Wix, W. Esq. Tonbridge Wells

•Wix, Rev. Joseph, Littlebury, near
Saffron Walden, Essex

•Wodehouse, G. Esq. 89, Hamilton-
terrace, St. John's Wood

Wolfe, J. Esq. Limerick

Wollaston, T. T. Esq. St. Peter's Col
lege, Cambridge

•Wood, Rev. R.

•Wood, Rev. R. Orme, Bower's Gifford

•Woodcock, H. Esq.

SUBSCRIBERS.

*Woodford, A. F. A. Esq. University

College, Durham.
•Woods, Rev. G. H. Westdean,

Chichester

•Woodward, Rev. F. B. Dublin
•Woodward, Rev. T.
Woollcombe, Rev. W. Balliol College

* Woollcombe,W. W. Esq. Exeter Coll.
*Woolley, Rev. John, University Coll.

Oxford

•Worcester College Library
** Wordsworth, Rev. Christopher, D.D.

Head Master of Harrow School
•Wordsworth, Rev. Christopher, D.D.

Buxted Parsonage, Uckfield, Sussex
Wordsworth, Rev. C. Winchester
Wordsworth, Rev. C. F. Gillingham,

Dorset
•Worgan, Rev. John H. Calthorpe,

Rugby

* Worsley, Rev. J.H. Tilehurst, Reading
•Worthy, Rev. C. Curate of St. David's,

Exeter

Wragge, G. Esq. Cheadle, Stafford-
sliire

•Wray, Rev. C. Liverpool

•Wrench, Rev. J. G. D.C.L. Salehurst,

Sussex
•Wrench, Rev. Frederick, Stowting,

Kent

Wright, H. Esq. Magd. Hall, Oxford
•Wright, Rev. W. Colchester
•Wright, Rev. J. P.
Wrottesley, Rev. E. J. Tettinhall,Wol-

verhampton

•Wyatt, C. F. Esq. Ch. Ch.
•Wyld, Rev. W. Wocdbro, Wilts
•Wylie, R. Esq. Beverley
* Wynter, Rev. J. Cecil, Gatton Rectory,

Reigate

•Yard, Rev. G. B. Wragby, Lincoln
shire

*Yates, Rev. W. St. Mary's, Reading
•Yates, Thomas, Esq. M.D. Brighton
• Young, Re v. J. G. L eighterton Rectory,

Dunkirk

•Young, Rev. R. G.
•Young, Rev. R. Riseley, Beds

Dickinson, F. H. Esq. £10. 10s. donation.
Evans, H. N. Esq. £5. 5s. donation.
J. H. £1. Is. donation.
L. M. £1. Is. donation.
M. A. F. £1. Is. donation.

BOOKS RECENTLY PUBLISHED

BY JOHN HENRY PARKER, OXFORD.

a Htbrarg of

OF THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH,

ANTERIOR TO THE DIVISION OF THE EAST AND WEST.

TRANSLATED BY MEMBERS OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH.

VOLUMES RECENTLY PUBLISHED.

1. Third Edition, price 9s.

THE CONFESSIONS OF S. AUGUSTINE.
BY THE REV. E. B. PUSEY, D.D.

13. Price to Subscribers Ss. To Non- Subscribers 10s. 6d.

S. ATHANASIUS. HISTORICAL TRACTS.
BY THE REV. M. ATKINSON, M.A.

14. Price to Subscribers Us. To Non-Subscribers 15s.

S. CHRYSOSTOM.

HOMILIES on THE EPISTLES of ST. PAUL the APOSTLE to the
PHILIPPIANS, COLOSSIANS, and THESSALONIANS.

15. Price to Subscribers 9s. To Non- Subscribers 12s.

S. CHRYSOSTOM. HOMILIES ON ST. MATTHEW. PART II.
BY THE REV. SIR G. PREVOST, M.A.

NEARLY READY.

S. EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN.
THE RHYTHMS. BY THE REV. J. B. MORRIS, M.A.

S. CYPRIAN'S EPISTLES.
BY THE REV. H. CAREY, M.A.

*** The Publishers of the Library of the Fathers respectfully inform the
Subscribers, that they cannot be ordinarily responsible for delivering the Volumes
at Subscribers' price beyond three months after the time of Publication ; and re
quest that any change of residence of a Subscriber may be made known to them,
and that they may receive directions in what manner the Volumes are to be for
warded in continuation. The Publishers are obliged to make this statement in
consequence of three of the Volumes being out of print, which cannot be re
printed at present; complete sets therefore will soon become difficult to meet with.

A COMMENTARY ON THE FOUR GOSPELS,
COLLECTED OUT OF THE WORKS OF THE FATHERS.

TRANSLATED FROM THE CATENA AUREA OF THOMAS AQUINAS.

VOL. I. ST. MATTHEW, in three Parts, 11. 8s. VOL. II. ST. MARK, 10s. 6d.

VOL. III. ST. LUKE, in two Parts, 11. Is.

VOL. IV. ST. JOHN, in the press.

8vo. 7s. 6d.
THE DEFINITIONS OF FAITH,

And Canons of Discipline of the Six GEcumenical Councils, with the remaining
Canons of the Code of the Universal Church. Translated, with Notes.

To which are added, THE APOSTOLICAL CANONS.
By the Rev. WM. ANDREW HAMMOND, M.A., of Christ Church, Oxford.

BOOKS RECENTLY PUBLISHED

of &nglo=<£ntf)olfc

Volumes published for 1841.

BISHOP ANDREWES' SERMONS, Vols. I. to IV. 11. Is.
ARCHBISHOP BRAMHALL'S WORKS. Vol. I. 10s. 6d.
BISHOP BULL'S HARMONY OF ST. PAUL AND ST. JAMES ON
JUSTIFICATION. 6*.

For 1842.

BISHOP NICHOLSON ON THE CATECHISM. 6s. Reprinting.
ARCHBISHOP BRAMHALL'S WORKS. Vol. II. 14s.

Vol. III. 14*.

BISHOP ANDREWES' SERMONS. Vol. V. 14*.
BISHOP BEVERIDGE'S WORKS. Vol. I. 12.9.

BISHOP BULL'S ANSWER TO STRICTURES, AND APOLOGY FOR
HIS HARMONY. Now first translated. 12*. Reprinting.

For 1843.

ARCHBISHOP BRAMHALL'S WORKS. Vol. IV. in the press.
BISHOP BEVERIDGE'S WORKS. Vol. II. & III. each 12*.
BISHOP COSIN'S WORKS. Vol. I. 12*.
BISHOP OVERALL'S CONVOCATION BOOK, nearly ready.
THORNDIKE'S WORKS. Vol. I. Part I. 10*.

In the press for 1844-

THORNDIKE'S WORKS. Vol. I. Part II.

BJSHOP COSIN'S WORKS. Vol. II.

BISHOP BEVERIDGE'S WORKS. Vol. IV.

MARSHALL — The Penitential Discipline of the Primitive Church, for the first
400 years after Christ.

BISHOP GUNNING— The Paschal, or Lent Fast; Apostolical and Perpetual.

JOHNSON— The Unhloody Sacrifice, and Altar Unveiled and Supported. Vol. I.

Subscribers paying two guineas annually IN ADVANCE are entitled to all the Publi
cations for that year without further payment.

A New Edition, in One Volume, Svo. 10*. 6d.
THE ENGLISH THEOLOGICAL WORKS OF GEORGE BULL, D.D.,

Sometime Lord Bishop of St. David's.

Svo. 5s.
AN ESSAY ON THE MIRACLES

RECORDED IN THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF THE EARLY AGES,
BY JOHN HENRY NEWMAN, B.D.

Svo. Vols. I. and II., each 105. 6d.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF M. L'ABBt! FLEURY,

From the Second CEcumenical Council, A.D. 381 — 429. Translated with Notes.

// is proposed to continue this series to the time of Pope Gregory the Great, A.D. 603,

which is calculated to form six vols. The Third Volume is nearly ready.

Svo. 12s.
SERMONS,

CHIEFLY BEARING ON THE CONTROVERSIES OF THE DAY.
BY THE REV. J. H. NEWMAN, B.D.

Lately Published, by the same Author, Svo. 9s. 6d.
SERMONS,

CHIEFLY ON THE THEORY OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF.

PREACHED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD.

BY JOHN HENRY PARKER, OXFORD.

12mo. 6s.
SERMONS

PREACHED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD, AND IN OTHER PLACES.

By the Rev. C. MARRIOTT, M. A. Fellow of Oriel College, and late
Principal of the Diocesan College at Chichester.

Nearly Ready, Part I. of

ANALECTA CHRISTIANA,

By C. MARRIOTT, A.M.

8vo. 10s. 6d.

SERMONS

ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS AND OTHERS.
By the Rev. T. W. ALLIES, M.A., Rector of Launton, Oxon.

8vo. 7s. 6d. Illustrated by Engravings, Part IV. of

THE BAPTISTERY, OR THE WAY OF ETERNAL LIFE,

BY THE AUTHOR OF "THE CATHEDRAL."

Just published, small 8vo. 7s. 6d.
THE SEARCH AFTER PROSERPINE,

RECOLLECTIONS OF GREECE, AND OTHER POEMS.
BY AUBREY DE VERE.

By the same Author, small 8vo. 7s. 6d.
THE WALDENSES, OR THE FALL OF RORA :

A LYRICAL SKETCH, WITH OTHER POEMS.

18/no. with four woodcuts. Is.
HENRY VEBNON; OR, THE LITTLE ANGLO-INDIAN.

By the Author of " LITTLE MARY."

A new edition. I2mo. 2s. 6d.

THE CHURCH CATECHISM EXPLAINED.

By WILLIAM BEVERIDGE, D.D., sometime Lord Bishop of St. Asaph.

2 Vols. 8vo. II. Is.
PR./ELECTIONES ACADEMICS
Oxonii Habiue a JOANNE KEBLE, A.M., Poeticse Publico Prselectore.

12mo. Price 6s.
THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY CALENDAR,

For the year 1811.

BOOKS RECENTLY PUBLISHED

Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d.
THE DEVOTIONS OF BISHOP ANDREWES,

Translated from the Greek and arranged anew.
Part I. by the Rev. J. H. NEWMAN, B.D.
Part II. by the Rev. J. M. NEALE, in the Press.

Fcap. 8vo. 5s.
OF THE IMITATION OF CHRIST.

Four Books, ascribed to THOMAS A KEMPIS.

In the Press, 32mo. reprinted entire from the folio Edition,

A SHORT AND PLAIN INSTRUCTION FOR THE BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE

LORD'S SUPPER.
To which is annexed, THE OFFICE OF THE HOLY COMMUNION,

WITH PROPER HELPS AND DIRECTIONS.

BY THOMAS WILSON, D.D., sometime Lord Bishop of Sodor and Man.
32mo. 2s. The Thirty-first Edition.

OFFICIUM EUCHARISTICUM,

A Preparatory Service to a devout and worthy reception of the LORD'S SUPPER.

To which is added, A MEDITATION FOR EVERY DAY IN THE WEEK.

By EDWARD LAKE, D.D.

Fourth Edition, 8vo. 12s.
DISCOURSES ON PROPHECY,

IN WHICH ARE CONSIDERED

ITS STRUCTURE, USE, AND INSPIRATION.
By the Rev. JOHN DAVISON, B.D., Late Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford.

By the same Author, 8vo. 15s.
REMAINS AND OCCASIONAL PUBLICATIONS.

OXFORD EDITIONS. s. d.

ANDREWES' [Bp.] Service for Consecration of Churches - -10

BULL'S [Bp.] Vindication of the Church of England - - -26

HAMMOND'S Parsenesis 26

HENS HAW'S [Bp.] Meditations 20

JONES' Letters to his Pupils 26

KEN'S [Bp.] Manual of Prayers 10

LAUD'S [Abp.] Devotions 36

Speeches on the Liturgy, &c. - - - - -36

NELSON'S Life of Bishop Bull 36

PATRICK'S [Bp.] Advice to a Friend 26

on Prayer 36

on Repentance and Fasting - - - - - 2 6

PRIDE AUX'S [Bp.] Doctrine of Prayer 40

SARAVIA on the Priesthood 26

SCANDRET on the Sacrament 26

SHERLOCK'S Practical Christian, 2 vols. 50

Church Catechism Paraphrased - - - 1 0

SPARROW'S [Bp.] Rationale on the Common Prayer, a New Edition - 5 0

SPELM AN— Churches not to be Violated 26

SPINCKES'S Devotions 36

SUTTON'S Disce Mori, Learn to Die 36

Disce Vivere, Learn to Live - - -- - -36

Meditations on the Sacrament, a New Edition - - - 3 6

TAYLOR'S [Bp.] Golden Grove, and Guide for the Penitent - - 2 6

VINCENTIUS of LIR1NS against Heresy 26

WELLS'S Rich Man's Duly; and Dowsing's Journal - - - 2 6

WILSON'S [Bp.] Sacra Privata 36

BY JOHN HENRY PARKER, OXFORD.

8vo. 15s.
THE SYNTAX OF A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK LANGUAGE,

CHIEFLY FROM THE TEXT OF RAPHAEL KUHNER.

BY W. E. JELF, M. A., Student of Christ Church.

The first volume is in the press.

8vo. 8s.
^ESCHYLI EUMENIDES.

Ad Codd. MSS. fidem recognovit et notis maximam partem criticis instruxit

GULIELMUS LINWOOD, M.A., .Edis Christi Alumnus.

Accedunt Viri Summe Reverend! C. J. BLOMFIELDII, S.T.P. Notae MS.

et aliorum selectae.

8vo. 5s.

SOPHOCLES.

With Notes adapted to the use of Schools and Universities,
By T. MITCHELL, A.M., late Fellow of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge.

CEDIPUS TYRANNUS 8vo. 7s.

CEDIPUS COLONEUS Svo. 5s.

ANTIGONE ........ Svo. 5s.

ELECTRA Svo. 5s.

TRACKING Svo. 5s.

PHILOCTETES Svo. 5s.

AJAX in the Press.

8vo. 5s.
ARISTOPHANIS AVES.

Ad codicum fidem recensuit, et commentario hrevi critico et exegetico instruxit
FREDERICUS HENRICUS BLAYDES, B.A., .Edis Christi Alumnus.

Editio tertia, subinde emendata, 2 vols. 8vo. 11. Is.

HERODOTUS,

Edidit THOMAS GAISFORD, S.T.P., Gr. Ling. Prof. Reg.

New Edition, 2 vols. Svo. 11. 8s.

LARCHER'S NOTES ON HERODOTUS.

With Corrections and Additions, by WM. DESBOROUGH COOLEY, Esq.
Author of" Maritime and Inland Discovery," &c.

3 vols. 8vo. II. Us. 6d.
LIVII HISTORIA

Ex Recensione Crevierii et Drakenborchii.

A New Edition, with additional Notes and Maps, 3 vols. Svo. II. \0s.
THUCYDIDES,

With Notes, chiefly Historical and Geographical,
By THOMAS ARNOLD, D.D., late Head Master of Rugby School.

Complete in 6 Vols. 8vo., 509 Plates. Coloured, £9. — Plain, £5. 15s.

FIGURES AND DESCRIPTIONS OF THE GENERA OF

BRITISH FLOWERING PLANTS.

BY W. BAXTER, F.H.S., &c.

BOOKS RECENTLY PUBLISHED.

Part I., price 2s. Gd.t to be continued Quarterly,

*®fy &rd)aeologtcnl ^journal,

Under the direction of the Committee of the British Archaeological Association.
Illustrated by numerous Woodcuts.

In the Press, Fourth Edition, much enlarged.
A GLOSSARY OF TERMS

USED IN GRECIAN, ROMAN, ITALIAN, AND

GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE.

8vo., Illustrated by numerous Woodcuts,

A GUIDE TO THE ARCHITECTURAL ANTIQUITIES IN THE
NEIGHBOURHOOD OF OXFORD, comprising a circuit of 10 miles.
Part I. DEANERY OF BICESTER. 4s.
Part II. DEANERY OF WOODSTOCK. 7s. 6d.

Third Edition enlarged. Small 8vo. 7*. 6d.

REMARKS ON ENGLISH CHURCHES,

And on the Expediency of rendering SEPULCHRAL MEMORIALS subservient to

Pious and Christian uses.
By J. H. MARKLAND, F.R.S., S.A.

Second Edition, revised and enlarged, small 8vo. 6s.
ANGLICAN CHURCH ARCHITECTURE,

With some Remarks upon Ecclesiastical Furniture.

To which is added,

A short Account of the Symbols used by the Early Christians, and of those

appropriated to the Saints in the Calendar of the Anglican Church.

By JAMES BARR, Architect

Illustrated by Woodcuts.

Third Edition. Small Svo. 3s. 6d.
ST. ANTHOLIN'S; OR, OLD CHURCHES AND NEW.

A TALE FOR THE TIMES.

By FRANCIS E. PAGET, M.A.,
Rector of Elford, and Chaplain to the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

By the same Author. Small Svo. 4s. 6d. cloth, with plates.
MILFORD MALVOISIN; OR, PEWS AND PEWHOLDERS.

Svo. illustrated by Ten Woodcuts, Is,
& $3aper on /Monuments,

By the Rev. JOHN ARMSTRONG, B.A., Priest Vicar of Exeter Cathedral.

Svo. illustrated by seven Woodcuts, 2s. 6d.
t&emarfeg upon 22lag0tDe (S^apete,

WITH OBSERVATIONS ON THE ARCHITECTURE AND PRESENT STATE OF THE
CHANTRY ON WAKEFIELD BRIDGE.

By JOHN CHESSELL BUCKLER, & CHARLES BUCKLER, Architects.

Preparing for Publication,
f&int* on ^ilagg painting,

BY AN AMATEUR.

ILLUSTRATED BY COLOURED PLATES FROM ANCIENT EXAMPLES.

LIBRAHf OF ANG.-CATH.
THEOLOGY

BULL on Justification

BX
5035

• L5
B8
.J88

(Part 1).

. - . -