III. A question, nearly the same as we have already answered, here

presents itself to us again. For in all ages there have been some persons,

who, from the mere dictates of nature, have devoted their whole lives to

the pursuit of virtue. And though many errors might perhaps be discovered

in their conduct, yet by their pursuit of virtue they afforded a proof,

that there was some degree of purity in their nature. The value attached

to virtues of such a description before God, we shall more fully discuss

when we come to treat of the merits of works; yet it must be stated also

in this place, so far as is necessary for the elucidation of the present

subject. These examples, then, seem to teach us that we should not

consider human nature to be totally corrupted; since, from its instinctive

bias, some men have not only been eminent for noble actions, but have

uniformly conducted themselves in a most virtuous manner through the whole

course of their lives. But here we ought to remember, that amidst this

corruption of nature there is some room for Divine grace, not to purify

it, but internally to restrain its operations. For should the Lord permit

the minds of all men to give up the reins to every lawless passion, there

certainly would not be an individual in the world, whose actions would not

evince all the crimes, for which Paul condemns human nature in general, to

be most truly applicable to him. For can you except yourself from the

number of those whose feet are swift to shed blood, whose hands are

polluted with rapine and murder, whose throats are like open sepulchres,

whose tongues are deceitful, whose lips are envenomed, whose works are

useless, iniquitous, corrupt, and deadly, whose souls are estranged from

God, the inmost recesses of whose hearts are full of pravity, whose eyes

are insidiously employed, whose minds are elated with insolence—in a word,

all whose powers are prepared for the commission of atrocious and

innumerable crimes? If every soul be subject to all these monstrous vices,

as the Apostle fearlessly pronounces, we clearly see what would be the

consequence, if the Lord should suffer the human passions to go all the

lengths to which they are inclined. There is no furious beast, that would

be agitated with such ungovernable rage; there is no river, though ever so

rapid and violent, that would overflow its boundaries with such

impetuosity. In his elect, the Lord heals these maladies by a method which

we shall hereafter describe. In others, he restrains them, only to prevent

their ebullitions so far as he sees to be necessary for the preservation

of the universe. Hence some by shame, and some by fear of the laws, are

prevented from running into many kinds of pollutions, though they cannot

in any great degree dissemble their impurity; others, because they think

that a virtuous course of life is advantageous, entertain some languid

desires after it; others go further, and display more than common

excellence, that by their majesty they may confine the vulgar to their

duty. Thus God by his providence restrains the perverseness of our nature

from breaking out into external acts, but does not purify it within.

IV. But it may be said, the difficulty is not yet removed. For either we

must esteem Camillus to be exactly similar to Catiline, or in Camillus we

shall have an example that nature, if it be studiously cultivated, is not

altogether destitute of goodness. I grant, indeed, that the virtues

displayed in Camillus were gifts of God, and if considered in themselves,

appear justly worthy of commendation: but how will they be proofs of any

natural goodness in him? To establish this, must we not recur to the

heart, and argue, that if a natural man was eminent for such integrity of

manners, human nature is not destitute of ability for the pursuit of

virtue? But what if his heart was depraved and perverted, and followed any

thing rather than the path of rectitude? And that it was such, if you

concede that he was a natural man, is beyond all doubt. What ability,

then, will you attribute to human nature for the pursuit of virtue, if,

with the greatest appearance of integrity, it is discovered to be always

tending to corruption? Therefore, as you will not commend a man for

virtue, whose vices have only counterfeited the external form of virtue,

so you must not attribute to the human will a power of desiring what is

right, as long as it continues fixed in its perverseness. The most certain

and easy solution of this question, however, is, that those virtues are

not the common properties of nature, but the peculiar graces of God, which

he dispenses in great variety, and in a certain degree to men that are

otherwise profane. For which reason we hesitate not, in common speech, to

call the nature of one man good, and of another depraved. Yet we still

include both in the universal state of human depravity; but we signify

what peculiar grace God has conferred on the one, with which he has not

deigned to favour the other. When he determined to exalt Saul to the

kingdom, he made him, as it were, a new man; and this is the reason why

Plato, alluding to the fable of Homer, says, that the sons of kings are

formed with some distinguishing singularity of character; because God,

consulting the benefit of mankind, frequently furnishes with an heroic

nature those whom he destines to hold the reins of empire; and from this

source have proceeded all the exploits of great heroes which are

celebrated in history. The same judgment must be formed concerning those

also who are in a private station. But because every one who has risen to

great eminence has been impelled by his ambition, which defiles all

virtues, and deprives them of all excellence in the Divine view, whatever

may be apparently laudable in ungodly men, ought not to be esteemed at all

meritorious. Besides, the chief branch of rectitude is wanting, where

there is no concern to display the glory of God: of this principle all are

destitute whom he has not regenerated by his Spirit. Nor is it in vain

that Isaiah says, that “the spirit of the fear of the Lord shall rest

upon” Christ;(620) which teaches us, that all who are alienated from

Christ are destitute of that “fear of the Lord” which is “the beginning of

wisdom.”(621) The virtues which deceive us by their vain and specious

appearance, will be applauded in civil courts, and in the common

estimation of mankind; but before the celestial tribunal they will possess

no value to merit the reward of righteousness.

V. The will, therefore, is so bound by the slavery of sin, that it cannot

excite itself, much less devote itself to any thing good; for such a

disposition is the beginning of a conversion to God, which in the

Scriptures is attributed solely to Divine grace. Thus Jeremiah prays to

the Lord to convert or turn him, if he would have him to be turned.(622)

Whence the Prophet, in the same chapter, describing the spiritual

redemption of the faithful, says, “The Lord hath redeemed Jacob, and

ransomed him from the hand of him that was stronger than he;”(623)

alluding to the strong fetters with which the sinner is bound as long as

he is deserted by the Lord, and continues under the yoke of the devil.

Nevertheless there still remains the faculty of will, which with the

strongest propensity is inclined to and rushes into sin; for when man

subjected himself to this necessity, he was not deprived of his will, but

of soundness of will. Bernard properly observes, that we all have a power

to will; but that to will what is good, is an advantage; to will what is

evil, a defect. Therefore simply to will belongs to man; to will what is

evil, to corrupt nature; to will what is good, to grace. Now, when I

assert that the will, being deprived of its liberty, is necessarily drawn

or led into evil, I should wonder, if any one considered it as a harsh

expression, since it has nothing in it absurd, nor is it unsanctioned by

the custom of good men. It offends those who know not how to distinguish

between necessity and compulsion. But if any one should ask them, whether

God is not necessarily good, and whether the devil is not necessarily

evil,—what answer will they make? For there is such a close connection

between the goodness of God and his Deity, that his being God is not more

necessary than his being good. But the devil is by his fall so alienated

from communion with all that is good, that he can do nothing but what is

evil. But if any one should sacrilegiously object, that little praise is

due to God for his goodness, which he is constrained to preserve,—shall we

not readily reply, that his inability to do evil arises from his infinite

goodness, and not from the impulse of violence? Therefore, if a necessity

of doing well impairs not the liberty of the Divine will in doing well; if

the devil, who cannot but do evil, nevertheless sins voluntarily; who then

will assert that man sins less voluntarily, because he is under a

necessity of sinning? This necessity Augustine every where maintains; and

even when he was pressed with the cavils of Celestius, who tried to throw

an odium on this doctrine, he confidently expressed himself in these

terms: “By means of liberty it came to pass that man fell into sin; but

now the penal depravity consequent on it, instead of liberty, has

introduced necessity.” And whenever the mention of this subject occurs, he

hesitates not to speak in this manner of the necessary servitude of sin.

We must therefore observe this grand point of distinction, that man,

having been corrupted by his fall, sins voluntarily, not with reluctance

or constraint; with the strongest propensity of disposition, not with

violent coercion; with the bias of his own passions, and not with external

compulsion: yet such is the pravity of his nature, that he cannot be

excited and biassed to any thing but what is evil. If this be true, there

is no impropriety in affirming, that he is under a necessity of sinning.

Bernard, subscribing to what is said by Augustine, thus expresses himself:

“Among all the animals, man alone is free; and yet, by the intervention of

sin, he also suffers a species of violence; but from the will, not from

nature, so that he is not thereby deprived of his innate liberty.” For

what is voluntary is also free. And a little after: “The will being, by I

know not what corrupt and surprising means, changed for the worse, is

itself the author of the necessity to which it is subject; so that neither

necessity, being voluntary, can excuse the will, nor the will, being

fascinated, can exclude necessity.” For this necessity is in some measure

voluntary. Afterwards he says, that we are oppressed with a yoke, but no

other than that of a voluntary servitude; that therefore our servitude

renders us miserable, and our will renders us inexcusable; because the

will, when it was free, made itself the slave of sin. At length he

concludes, “Thus the soul, in a certain strange and evil manner, under

this kind of voluntary and free yet pernicious necessity, is both enslaved

and free; enslaved by necessity, free by its will; and, what is more

wonderful and more miserable, it is guilty, because free; and enslaved

wherein it is guilty; and so therein enslaved wherein it is free.” From

these passages the reader clearly perceives that I am teaching no novel

doctrine, but what was long ago advanced by Augustine, with the universal

consent of pious men, and which for nearly a thousand years after was

confined to the cloisters of monks. But Lombard, for want of knowing how

to distinguish necessity from coaction, gave rise to a pernicious error.

VI. It is necessary, on the other hand, to consider the remedy of Divine

grace, by which the depravity of nature is corrected and healed. For since

the Lord, in the assistance which he affords us, bestows on us that which

we need, an exhibition of the nature of his work in us will immediately

discover the nature of our necessity. When the Apostle tells the

Philippians, that he is “confident that he which hath begun a good work in

them will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ;”(624) by the beginning

of a good work he undoubtedly designs the commencement of conversion,

which takes place in the will. Therefore God begins the good work in us by

exciting in our hearts a love, desire, and ardent pursuit of

righteousness; or, to speak more properly, by bending, forming, and

directing our hearts towards righteousness; but he completes it, by

confirming us to perseverance. That no one may cavil, that the good work

is begun by the Lord, inasmuch as the will, which is weak of itself, is

assisted by him, the Spirit declares in another place how far the ability

of the will reaches, when left to itself. “A new heart also,” says he,

“will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take

away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of

flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my

statutes.”(625) Who will assert that the infirmity of the human will is

only strengthened by assistance, to enable it efficaciously to aspire to

the choice of that which is good, when it actually needs a total

transformation and renovation? If there be in a stone any softness, which,

by some application, being made more tender, would be flexible in every

direction, then I will not deny the flexibility of the human heart to the

obedience of rectitude, provided its imperfections are supplied by the

grace of God. But if, by this similitude, the Lord intended to show that

no good will ever be extracted from our hearts, unless they are entirely

renewed, let us not divide between him and us, what he claims exclusively

to himself. If, therefore, when God converts us to the pursuit of

rectitude, this change is like the transformation of a stone into flesh,

it follows, that whatever belongs to our own will is removed, and what

succeeds to it is entirely from God. The will, I say, is removed, not

considered as the will; because, in the conversion of man, the properties

of our original nature remain entire. I assert also, that it is created

anew, not that the will then begins to exist, but that it is then

converted from an evil into a good one. This I affirm to be done entirely

by God, because, according to the testimony of the same Apostle, “we are

not sufficient” even “to think.”(626) Therefore he elsewhere declares, not

merely that God assists the infirmity of our will, or corrects its

depravity, but that he “worketh in us to will.”(627) Whence it is easy to

infer what I have already remarked, that whatever good is in the human

will, is the work of pure grace. In the same sense he elsewhere pronounces

that it is “God which worketh all in all.”(628) For in that place he is

not discussing the government of the universe, but asserting that the

praise of all the excellences found in the faithful belongs to God alone.

And by using the word “all,” he certainly makes God the author of

spiritual life from its commencement even to its termination. This is the

same as he had before taught in other words, declaring that the faithful

are “of God in Christ;”(629) where he evidently intends the new creation,

by which what belonged to our common nature is abolished. For we must here

understand an implied contrast between Adam and Christ, which he states

more plainly in another place, where he teaches that “we are the

workmanship of God, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God

hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”(630) For by this

argument he designs to prove that our salvation is gratuitous, because the

beginning of all good is from the second creation, which we obtain in

Christ. Now, if we possessed any ability, though ever so small, we should

also have some portion of merit. But to annihilate all our pretensions, he

argues that we have merited nothing, because “we are created in Christ

Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained;” in which

expressions he again signifies that all the parts of good works, even from

the first inclination of the mind, are entirely from God. For this reason

the Psalmist, after having said that “he (God) hath made us,” that there

may be no division of the work, immediately subjoins, “and not we

ourselves.”(631) That he speaks of regeneration, which is the commencement

of the spiritual life, is evident from the context, where it follows

immediately after, that “we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.”

We see, then, that not content with having simply attributed to God the

praise of our salvation, he expressly excludes us from all fellowship with

him; as though he would say, that man has not even the smallest particle

remaining in which he can glory, because all is of God.

VII. But there may be some, who will concede that the will, being, of its

own spontaneous inclination, averse to what is good, is converted solely

by the power of the Lord; yet in such a manner, that being previously

prepared, it has also its own share in the work; that grace, as Augustine

teaches, precedes every good work, the will following grace, not leading

it, being its companion, not its guide. This unobjectionable observation

of that holy man, Peter Lombard preposterously wrests to an erroneous

meaning. Now, I contend that both in the words of the Prophet which I have

cited, and in other passages, these two things are clearly signified, that

the Lord corrects our depraved will, or rather removes it, and of himself

introduces a good one in its place. As it is preceded by grace, I allow

you to style it an attendant; but since its reformation is the work of the

Lord, it is wrong to attribute to man a voluntary obedience in following

the guidance of grace. Therefore it is not a proper expression of

Chrysostom, that grace is able to effect nothing without the will, nor the

will without grace; as if grace did not produce the will itself, as we

have just seen from Paul. Nor was it the intention of Augustine, when he

called the human will the companion of grace, to assign to it any

secondary office next to grace in the good work; but with a view to refute

the nefarious dogma broached by Pelagius, who made the prime cause of

salvation to consist in human merit, he contends, what was sufficient for

his present argument, that grace is prior to all merit; omitting, at this

time, the other question concerning the perpetual efficiency of grace,

which is admirably treated by him on other occasions. For when he

frequently says, that the Lord precedes the unwilling that he may will,

and follows the willing that he may not will in vain, he makes him the

sole author of the good work. His language on this subject is too explicit

to require much argument. “Men labour,” says he, “to discover in our will

something that is our own, and not derived from God; and how any such

discovery can be made, I know not.” In his first book against Pelagius and

Celestius, where he explains that declaration of Christ, “Every man that

hath heard of the Father cometh unto me,”(632) he says, that “the will is

assisted so as to enable it not only to know its duty, but what it knows,

also to do.” And thus when God teaches not by the letter of the law, but

by the grace of the Spirit, he teaches in such a manner, that whatever

each one has learned, he not only sees in knowing it, but desires in

willing, and performs in doing.

VIII. And as we are now engaged on the principal point of the argument,

let us give the reader a summary of the doctrine, and prove it by a few

very clear testimonies of Scripture; and then, that no one may accuse us

of perverting the Scripture, let us also show that the truth which we

assert to be deduced from the Scripture is not destitute of the support of

this holy man; I mean Augustine. For I conceive it is unnecessary to

recite in regular order all the passages which might be adduced from the

Scriptures in confirmation of our opinion; provided that the selection,

which shall be made, prepares a way to the understanding of all the rest,

which are frequently to be found. Nor do I think that there will be any

impropriety in evincing my agreement with that man, to whose authority the

consent of the pious pays a great and merited deference. The origin of all

good clearly appears, from a plain and certain reason, to be from no other

than from God alone; for no propensity of the will to any thing good can

be found but in the elect. But the cause of election must not be sought in

men. Whence we may conclude, that man has not a good will from himself,

but that it proceeds from the same decree by which we were elected before

the creation of the world. There is also another reason, not dissimilar.

For since good volitions and good actions both arise from faith, we must

see whence faith itself originates. Now, since the Scripture uniformly

proclaims it to be the gratuitous gift of God, it follows that it is the

effect of mere grace, when we, who are naturally and completely prone to

evil, begin to will any thing that is good. Therefore the Lord, when he

mentions these two things in the conversion of his people, that he takes

away from them their stony heart, and gives them a heart of flesh, plainly

declares, that what originates from ourselves must be removed, that we may

be converted to righteousness; and that whatever succeeds in its place

proceeds from himself. Nor is it only in one passage that he announces

this; for he says in Jeremiah, “I will give them one heart and one way,

that they may fear me for ever.”(633) And a little after, “I will put my

fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.” Again in

Ezekiel, “I will give them one heart, and will put a new spirit within

you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give

them a heart of flesh.”(634) He could not more evidently claim to himself

and take from us all that is good and upright in our will, than when he

declares our conversion to be the creation of a new spirit and of a new

heart. For it always follows, that nothing good proceeds from our will

till it be renovated; and that after its renovation, as far as it is good,

it is from God, and not from ourselves.

IX. And we find the saints have made this the subject of their prayers.

Solomon prayed, “May the Lord incline our hearts unto him to keep his

commandments.”(635) He shows the stubbornness of our heart, which, unless

a new bias be given to it, naturally indulges itself in rebellion against

the Divine law. The same petition is offered by the Psalmist: “Incline my

heart unto thy testimonies.”(636) For we should always remark the

opposition between the perverse bias of the heart, which inclines it to

rebellion, and this correction, which constrains it to obedience. But when

David, perceiving himself to be for a time deprived of the direction of

grace, prays that God would “create in” him “a clean heart, and renew a

right spirit within” him,(637) does he not acknowledge that all the parts

of his heart are full of impurity, and his spirit warped by a depraved

obliquity? and by calling the purity which he earnestly implores, the

creation of God, does he not ascribe it entirely to him? If any one

object, that the petition itself is a proof of a pious and holy affection,

the answer is easy, that although David had already partly repented, yet

he compares his former state with that melancholy fall, which he had

experienced. Assuming the character, therefore, of a man alienated from

God, he properly requests for himself all those things which God confers

on his elect in regeneration. Resembling a dead man, therefore, he prays

to be created anew, that, instead of being the slave of Satan, he may

become the instrument of the Holy Spirit. Truly wonderful and monstrous is

the extravagance of our pride. God requires of us nothing more severe than

that we most religiously observe his sabbath, by resting from our own

works; but there is nothing which we find more difficult, or to which we

are more reluctant, than to bid farewell to our own works, in order to

give the works of God their proper place. If there were no obstacle

arising from our folly, Christ has given a testimony to his graces,

sufficiently clear to prevent them from being wickedly suppressed. “I am

the vine,” says he, “ye are the branches. My Father is the husbandman. As

the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine, no

more can ye, except ye abide in me. For without me ye can do

nothing.”(638) If we cannot bear fruit of ourselves, any more than a

branch can bud after it is torn up from the ground, and deprived of

moisture, we must no longer seek for any aptitude in our nature to that

which is good. There is no ambiguity in this conclusion, “Without me ye

can do nothing.” He does not say that we are too weak to be sufficient for

ourselves, but reducing us to nothing, excludes every idea of ability,

however diminutive. If, being engrafted into Christ, we bear fruit like a

vine, which derives the energy of vegetation from the moisture of the

earth, from the dew of heaven, and from the benign influences of the sun,

I see nothing of our own remaining in any good work, if we preserve entire

to God the honour which belongs to him. It is in vain to urge that

frivolous subtlety, that the branch already possesses sap, and a

fructifying power, and that therefore it does not derive all from the

earth, or from the original root, because it contributes something of its

own. For the meaning of Christ is clearly that we are as a dry and

worthless log, when separated from him; because, independently of him, we

have no ability to do good, as he says also in another place: “Every

plant, which my heavenly Father has not planted, shall be rooted up.”(639)

Wherefore the Apostle ascribes all the praise to him in the place already

cited. “It is God,” says he, “which worketh in you both to will and to

do.”(640) The first part of a good work is volition, the next an effectual

endeavour to perform it; God is the author of both. Therefore we rob the

Lord, if we arrogate any thing to ourselves either in volition or in

execution. If God were said to assist the infirmity of our will, then

there would be something left to us; but since he is said to produce the

will, all the good that is in it, is placed without us. And because the

good will is still oppressed by the burden of our flesh, so that it cannot

extricate itself, he has added, that in struggling with the difficulties

of that conflict, we are supplied with constancy of exertion to carry our

volitions into effect. For otherwise there would be no truth in what he

elsewhere teaches, that “it is the same God which worketh all in

all,”(641) which we have before shown comprehends the whole course of the

spiritual life. For which reason David, after having prayed that the way

of God may be discovered to him, that he may walk in his truth,

immediately adds, “Unite my heart to fear thy name.”(642) In these words

he intimates, that even good men are subject to so many distractions of

mind, that they soon wander and fall, unless they are strengthened to

persevere. For the same reason, in another passage, having prayed that his

steps might be ordered in the word of the Lord, he likewise implores

strength for a warfare: “Let not any iniquity have dominion over me.”(643)

In this manner, therefore, the Lord both begins and completes the good

work in us; that it may be owing to him, that the will conceives a love

for what is right, that it is inclined to desire it, and is excited and

impelled to endeavour to attain it; and then that the choice, desire, and

endeavour do not fail, but proceed even to the completion of the desired

effect; lastly, that a man proceeds with constancy in them, and perseveres

even to the end.

X. And he moves the will, not according to the system maintained and

believed for many ages, in such a manner that it would afterwards be at

our option either to obey the impulse or to resist it, but by an

efficacious influence. The observation, therefore, so frequently repeated

by Chrysostom, that “Whom God draws, he draws willing,” we are obliged to

reject, being an insinuation that God only waits for us with his hand

extended, if we choose to accept his assistance. We grant that such was

the primitive condition of man during his state of integrity, that he

could incline to the one side or the other; but since Adam has taught us

by his own example how miserable free will is, unless God give us both

will and power, what will become of us if he impart his grace to us in

that small proportion? Nay, we obscure and diminish his grace by our

ingratitude. For the Apostle does not teach that the grace of a good will

is offered to us for our acceptance, but that he “worketh in us to will;”

which is equivalent to saying, that the Lord, by his Spirit, directs,

inclines, and governs our heart, and reigns in it as in his own

possession. Nor does he promise by Ezekiel that he will give to the elect

a new spirit, only that they may be able to walk, but that they may

actually walk, in his precepts.(644) Nor can the declaration of Christ,

“Every man that hath heard of the Father cometh unto me,”(645) be

understood in any other sense than as a proof of the positive efficacy of

Divine grace; as Augustine also contends. This grace the Lord deigns not

to give to any person promiscuously, according to the observation commonly

attributed, if I mistake not, to Occam, that it is denied to no man who

does what he can. Men are to be taught, indeed, that the Divine benignity

is free to all who seek it, without any exception; but since none begin to

seek it, but those who have been inspired by heavenly grace, not even this

diminutive portion ought to be taken from his praise. This is the

privilege of the elect, that, being regenerated by the Spirit of God, they

are led and governed by his direction. Wherefore Augustine as justly

ridicules those who arrogate to themselves any part of a good volition, as

he reprehends others, who suppose that to be given promiscuously to all,

which is the special evidence of gratuitous election. “Nature,” says he,

“is common to all men, but not grace.” He calls it “a transparent

subtlety, which shines merely with vanity, when that is extended generally

to all, which God confers on whom he chooses.” But elsewhere, “How have

you come? by believing. Be afraid, lest while you arrogate to yourself the

discovery of the way of righteousness, you perish from the way of

righteousness. I am come, you say, by free will; I am come through my own

choice. Why are you inflated with pride? Will you know that this also is

given to you? Hear him proclaiming, ‘No man can come to me, except the

Father which hath sent me draw him.’ ”(646) And it incontrovertibly

follows, from the words of John, that the hearts of the pious are divinely

governed with such effect, that they follow with an affection which

nothing can alter. “Whosoever is born of God,” he says, “cannot sin; for

his seed remaineth in him.”(647) For we see that the neutral,

inefficacious impulse imagined by the sophists, which every one would be

at liberty to obey or resist, is evidently excluded, where it is asserted

that God gives a constancy that is effectual to perseverance.

XI. Concerning perseverance there would have been no doubt that it ought

to be esteemed the gratuitous gift of God, had it not been for the

prevalence of a pestilent error, that it is dispensed according to the

merit of men, in proportion to the gratitude which each person has

discovered for the grace bestowed on him. But as that opinion arose from

the supposition that it was at our own option to reject or accept the

offered grace of God, this notion being exploded, the other falls of

course. Though here is a double error; for beside teaching that our

gratitude for the grace first bestowed on us, and our legitimate use of

that grace, are remunerated by subsequent blessings, they add also, that

now grace does not operate alone in us, but only coöperates with us. On

the first point, we must admit that the Lord, while he daily enriches and

loads his servants with new communications of his grace, perceiving the

work which he has begun in them grateful and acceptable, discovers

something in them which he blesses with still greater degrees of grace.

And this is implied in the following declarations: “Unto every one that

hath, shall be given.” And, “Well done, good and faithful servant; thou

hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many

things.”(648) But here two errors must be avoided; the legitimate use of

the grace first bestowed must not be said to be rewarded with subsequent

degrees of grace, as though man, by his own industry, rendered the grace

of God efficacious; nor must it be accounted a remuneration in such a

sense as to cease to be esteemed the free favour of God. I grant, then,

that this Divine benediction is to be expected by the faithful, that the

better they have used the former measures of grace, they shall afterwards

be enriched with proportionably greater degrees of it. But I assert that

this use also is from the Lord, and that this remuneration proceeds from

his gratuitous benevolence. They are equally awkward and unhappy in their

use of the trite distinction of operating and coöperating grace. Augustine

has used it indeed, but softens it by a suitable definition; that God in

coöperating completes what in operating he begins, and that it is the same

grace, but derives its name from the different mode of its efficiency.

Whence it follows, that he makes no partition of the work between God and

us, as though there were a mutual concurrence from the respective

exertions of each; but that he only designates the multiplication of

grace. To the same purpose is what he elsewhere asserts, that the good

will of man precedes many of the gifts of God, but is itself one of their

number. Whence it follows, that he leaves nothing for it to arrogate to

itself. This is also particularly expressed by Paul. For having said that

“it is God which worketh in us both to will and to do,”(649) he

immediately adds, that he does both “of his own good pleasure,” signifying

by this expression that these are acts of gratuitous benignity. Now, to

their wonted assertion, that after we have admitted the first grace, our

own endeavours coöperate with the grace which follows, I reply, if they

mean that, after having been once subdued by the Divine power to the

obedience of righteousness, we voluntarily advance, and are disposed to

follow the guidance of grace, I make no objection. For it is very certain,

that where the grace of God reigns, there is such a promptitude of

obedience. But whence does this arise but from the Spirit of God, who,

uniformly consistent with himself, cherishes and strengthens to a

constancy of perseverance that disposition of obedience which he first

originated? But if they mean that man derives from himself an ability to

coöperate with the grace of God, they are involved in a most pestilent

error.

XII. And to this purpose they falsely and ignorantly pervert that

observation of the Apostle, “I laboured more abundantly than they all; yet

not I, but the grace of God which was with me.”(650) For they understand

it in this manner; that because his preference of himself to all others

might appear rather too arrogant, he corrects it by referring the praise

to the grace of God; but yet so as to denominate himself a coöperator with

grace. It is surprising that so many men, not otherwise erroneous, have

stumbled at this imaginary difficulty. For the Apostle does not say that

the grace of God laboured with him, to make himself a partner in the

labour; but rather by that correction ascribes the whole praise of the

labour to grace alone. “It is not I,” says he, “that have laboured, but

the grace of God which was with me.” They have been deceived by an

ambiguity of expression; but still more by a preposterous translation, in

which the force of the Greek article is omitted. For if you translate it

literally, he says, not that grace was coöperative with him, but that the

grace which was with him was the author of all. And the same is maintained

by Augustine, though briefly, yet without obscurity, when he thus

expresses himself: “The good will of man precedes many of the gifts of

God, but not all. But of those which it precedes it is itself one.” Then

follows this reason; because it is written, “The God of my mercy shall

prevent me.”(651) And, “Mercy shall follow me.”(652) It prevents the

unwilling, that he may will; it follows the willing, that he may not will

in vain. With this agrees Bernard, who introduces the Church, saying,

“Draw me unwilling, to make me willing; draw me inactive, to make me run.”

XIII. Now, let us hear Augustine speak in his own words, lest the sophists

of the Sorbonne, those Pelagians of the present age, according to their

usual custom, accuse us of opposing the whole current of antiquity. In

this they imitate their father Pelagius, by whom Augustine was formerly

obliged to enter into the same field of controversy. In his treatise _De

Corr. et Grat._, addressed to Valentine, he treats very much at large what

I shall recite briefly, but in his own words: “That to Adam was given the

grace of persevering in good if he chose; that grace is given to us to

will, and by willing to overcome concupiscence. That Adam therefore had

the power if he had the will, but not the will that he might have the

power; but that it is given to us to have both the will and the power.

That the primitive liberty was a power to abstain from sin, but that ours

is much greater, being an inability to commit sin.” And lest he should be

supposed to speak of the perfection to be enjoyed after the attainment of

a state of immortality, as Lombard misinterprets his meaning, he presently

removes this difficulty. For he says, “the will of the saints is so

inflamed by the Holy Spirit, that they therefore have an ability, because

they have such a will; and that their having such a will proceeds from the

operations of God.” For if, amidst such great weakness, which still

requires “strength” to be “made perfect”(653) for the repressing of pride,

they were left to their own will, so as to have ability, through the

Divine assistance, if they were willing, and God did not operate in them

to produce that will; among so many temptations and infirmities their will

would fail, and therefore they could not possibly persevere. The infirmity

of the human will, then, is succoured, that it may be invariably and

inseparably actuated by Divine grace, and so, notwithstanding all its

weakness, may not fail. He afterwards discusses more at large how our

hearts necessarily follow the impulse of God; and he asserts that the Lord

draws men with their own wills, but that those wills are such as he

himself has formed. Now, we have a testimony from the mouth of Augustine

to the point which we are principally endeavouring to establish; that

grace is not merely offered by the Lord to be either received or rejected,

according to the free choice of each individual, but that it is grace

which produces both the choice and the will in the heart; so that every

subsequent good work is the fruit and effect of it, and that it is obeyed

by no other will but that which it has produced. For this is his language

also in another place—that it is grace alone which performs every good

work in us.

XIV. When he observes that the will is not taken away by grace, but only

changed from a bad one into a good one, and when it is good, assisted; he

only intends that man is not drawn in such a manner as to be carried away

by an external impulse, without any inclination of his mind; but that he

is internally so disposed as to obey from his very heart. That grace is

specially and gratuitously given to the elect, he maintains in an epistle

to Boniface, in the following language: “We know that the grace of God is

not given to all men; and that to them to whom it is given, it is given

neither according to the merits of works, nor according to the merits of

will, but by gratuitous favour; and to those to whom it is not given, we

know that it is not given by the righteous judgment of God.” And in the

same epistle, he strenuously combats that opinion, which supposes that

subsequent grace is given to the merits of men, because by not rejecting

the first grace they showed themselves worthy of it. For he wishes

Pelagius to allow that grace is necessary to us for every one of our

actions, and is not a retribution of our works, that it may be

acknowledged to be pure grace. But the subject cannot be comprised in a

more concise summary than in the eighth chapter of his treatise addressed

to Valentine; where he teaches, that the human will obtains, not grace by

liberty, but liberty by grace; that being impressed by the same grace with

a disposition of delight, it is formed for perpetuity; that it is

strengthened with invincible fortitude; that while grace reigns, it never

falls, but, deserted by grace, falls immediately; that by the gratuitous

mercy of the Lord, it is converted to what is good, and, being converted,

perseveres in it; that the first direction of the human will to that which

is good, and its subsequent constancy, depend solely on the will of God,

and not on any merit of man. Thus there is left to man such a free will,

if we choose to give it that appellation, as he describes in another

place, that he can neither be converted to God nor continue in God but by

grace; and that all the ability which he has is derived from grace.

Chapter IV. The Operation Of God In The Hearts Of Men.

It has now, I apprehend, been sufficiently proved, that man is so enslaved

by sin, as to be of his own nature incapable of an effort, or even an

aspiration, towards that which is good. We have also laid down a

distinction between coaction and necessity, from which it appears that

while he sins necessarily, he nevertheless sins voluntarily. But since,

while he is devoted to the servitude of the devil, he seems to be actuated

by his will, rather than by his own, it remains for us to explain the

nature of both kinds of influence. There is also this question to be

resolved, whether any thing is to be attributed to God in evil actions, in

which the Scripture intimates that some influence of his is concerned.

Augustine somewhere compares the human will to a horse, obedient to the

direction of his rider; and God and the devil he compares to riders. “If

God rides it, he, like a sober and skilful rider, manages it in a graceful

manner; stimulates its tardiness; restrains its immoderate celerity;

represses its wantonness and wildness; tames its perverseness, and

conducts it into the right way. But if the devil has taken possession of

it, he, like a foolish and wanton rider, forces it through pathless

places, hurries it into ditches, drives it down over precipices, and

excites it to obstinacy and ferocity.” With this similitude, as no better

occurs, we will at present be content. When the will of a natural man is

said to be subject to the power of the devil, so as to be directed by it,

the meaning is, not that it resists and is compelled to a reluctant

submission, as masters compel slaves to an unwilling performance of their

commands, but that, being fascinated by the fallacies of Satan, it

necessarily submits itself to all his directions. For those whom the Lord

does not favour with the government of his Spirit, he abandons, in

righteous judgment, to the influence of Satan. Wherefore the Apostle says,

that “the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe

not,” who are destined to destruction, “lest the light of the gospel

should shine unto them.”(654) And in another place, that he “worketh in

the children of disobedience.”(655) The blinding of the wicked, and all

those enormities which attend it, are called the works of Satan; the cause

of which must nevertheless be sought only in the human will, from which

proceeds the root of evil, and in which rests the foundation of the

kingdom of Satan, that is, sin.

II. Very different, in such instances, is the method of the Divine

operation. And that we may have a clearer view of it, let us take as an

example the calamity which holy Job suffered from the Chaldeans.(656) The

Chaldeans massacred his shepherds, and committed hostile depredations on

his flock. Now, the wickedness of their procedure is evident; yet in these

transactions Satan was not unconcerned; for with him the history states

the whole affair to have originated. But Job himself recognizes in it the

work of the Lord, whom he asserts to have taken from him those things of

which he had been plundered by the Chaldeans. How can we refer the same

action to God, to Satan, and to man, as being each the author of it,

without either excusing Satan by associating him with God, or making God

the author of evil? Very easily, if we examine, first, the end for which

the action was designed, and secondly, the manner in which it was

effected. The design of the Lord is to exercise the patience of his

servant by adversity; Satan endeavours to drive him to despair: the

Chaldeans, in defiance of law and justice, desire to enrich themselves by

the property of another. So great a diversity of design makes a great

distinction in the action. There is no less difference in the manner. The

Lord permits his servant to be afflicted by Satan: the Chaldeans, whom he

commissions to execute his purpose, he permits and resigns to be impelled

by Satan: Satan, with his envenomed stings, instigates the minds of the

Chaldeans, otherwise very depraved, to perpetrate the crime: they

furiously rush into the act of injustice, and overwhelm themselves in

criminality. Satan therefore is properly said to work in the reprobate, in

whom he exercises his dominion; that is, the kingdom of iniquity. God also

is said to work in a way proper to himself, because Satan, being the

instrument of his wrath, turns himself hither and thither at his

appointment and command, to execute his righteous judgments. Here I allude

not to the universal influence of God, by which all creatures are

sustained, and from which they derive an ability to perform whatever they

do. I speak only of that special influence which appears in every

particular act. We see, then, that the same action is without absurdity

ascribed to God, to Satan, and to man; but the variety in the end and in

the manner, causes the righteousness of God to shine without the least

blemish, and the iniquity of Satan and of man to betray itself to its own

disgrace.

III. The fathers are sometimes too scrupulous on this subject, and afraid

of a simple confession of the truth, lest they should afford an occasion

to impiety to speak irreverently and reproachfully of the works of God.

Though I highly approve this sobriety, yet I think we are in no danger, if

we simply maintain what the Scripture delivers. Even Augustine at one time

was not free from this scrupulosity; as when he says that hardening and

blinding belong not to the operation, but to the prescience of God. But

these subtleties are inconsistent with numerous expressions of the

Scripture, which evidently import some intervention of God beyond mere

foreknowledge. And Augustine himself, in his fifth book against Julian,

contends very largely, that sins proceed not only from the permission or

the prescience, but from the power of God, in order that former sins may

thereby be punished. So also what they advance concerning permission is

too weak to be supported. God is very frequently said to blind and harden

the reprobate, and to turn, incline, and influence their hearts, as I have

elsewhere more fully stated. But it affords no explication of the nature

of this influence to resort to prescience or permission. We answer,

therefore, that it operates in two ways. For, since, when his light is

removed, nothing remains but darkness and blindness; since, when his

Spirit is withdrawn, our hearts harden into stones; since, when his

direction ceases, they are warped into obliquity; he is properly said to

blind, harden, and incline those whom he deprives of the power of seeing,

obeying, and acting aright. The second way, which is much more consistent

with strict propriety of language, is, when, for the execution of his

judgments, he, by means of Satan, the minister of his wrath, directs their

counsels to what he pleases, and excites their wills and strengthens their

efforts. Thus, when Moses relates that Sihon the king would not grant a

free passage to the people, because God had “hardened his spirit, and made

his heart obstinate,” he immediately subjoins the end of God’s design:

“That he might deliver him into thy hand.”(657) Since God willed his

destruction, the obduration of his heart, therefore, was the Divine

preparation for his ruin.

IV. The following expressions seem to relate to the former method: “He

removeth away the speech of the trusty, and taketh away the understanding

of the aged. He taketh away the heart of the chief people of the earth,

and causeth them to wander in a wilderness where there is no way.”(658)

Again: “O Lord, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened

our heart from thy fear?”(659) For these passages rather indicate what God

makes men by deserting them, than show how he performs his operations

within them. But there are other testimonies, which go further; as those

which relate to the hardening of Pharaoh: “I will harden his (Pharaoh’s)

heart, that he shall not let the people go.”(660) Afterwards the Lord

says, “I have hardened his heart.”(661) Did he harden it by not mollifying

it? That is true; but he did somewhat more, for he delivered his heart to

Satan to be confirmed in obstinacy; whence he had before said, “I will

harden his heart.” The people march out of Egypt; the inhabitants of the

country meet them in a hostile manner: by whom were they excited? Moses

expressly declared to the people, that it was the Lord who had hardened

their hearts.(662) The Psalmist, reciting the same history, says, “He

turned their heart to hate his people.”(663) Now, it cannot be said that

they fell in consequence of being deprived of the counsel of God. For if

they are “hardened” and “turned,” they are positively inclined to that

point. Besides, whenever it has pleased him to punish the transgressions

of his people, how has he executed his work by means of the reprobate? In

such a manner that any one may see, that the efficacy of the action

proceeded from him, and that they were only the ministers of his will.

Wherefore he threatened sometimes that he would call them forth by

hissing,(664) sometimes that he would use them as a net(665) to entangle,

sometimes as a hammer(666) to strike the people of Israel. But he

particularly declared himself to be operative in them, when he called

Sennacherib an axe,(667) which was both directed and driven by his hand.

Augustine somewhere makes the following correct distinction: “that they

sin, proceeds from themselves; that in sinning they perform this or that

particular action, is from the power of God, who divides the darkness

according to his pleasure.”

V. Now that the ministry of Satan is concerned in instigating the

reprobate, whenever the Lord directs them hither or thither by his

providence, may be sufficiently proved even from one passage. For it is

frequently asserted in Samuel that an evil spirit of the Lord, and an evil

spirit from the Lord, either agitated or quitted Saul.(668) To refer this

to the Holy Spirit were impious. An impure spirit, therefore, is called a

spirit of God, because it acts according to his command and by his power,

being rather an instrument in the performance of the action, than itself

the author of it. We must add, also, what is advanced by Paul, that “God

shall send strong delusion, that they who believed not the truth should

believe a lie.”(669) Yet there is always a wide difference, even in the

same work, between the operation of God and the attempts of Satan and

wicked men. He makes the evil instruments, which he has in his hand, and

can turn as he pleases, to be subservient to his justice. They, as they

are evil, produce the iniquity which the depravity of their nature has

conceived. The other arguments, which tend to vindicate the majesty of God

from every calumny, and to obviate the cavils of the impious, have already

been advanced in the chapter concerning Providence. For, at present, I

only intend briefly to show how Satan reigns in the reprobate man, and how

the Lord operates in them both.

VI. But what liberty man possesses in those actions which in themselves

are neither righteous nor wicked, and pertain rather to the corporeal than

to the spiritual life, although we have before hinted, has not yet been

explicitly stated. Some have admitted him in such things to possess a free

choice; rather, as I suppose, from a reluctance to dispute on a subject of

no importance, than from an intention of positively asserting that which

they concede. Now, though I grant that they who believe themselves to be

possessed of no power to justify themselves, believe what is principally

necessary to be known in order to salvation, yet I think that this point

also should not be neglected, that we may know it to be owing to the

special favour of God, whenever our mind is disposed to choose that which

is advantageous for us; whenever our will inclines to it; and, on the

other hand, whenever our mind and understanding avoid what would otherwise

hurt us. And the power of the providence of God extends so far, as not

only to cause those events to succeed which he foresees will be best, but

also to incline the wills of men to the same objects. Indeed, if we view

the administration of external things with our own reason, we shall not

doubt their subjection to the human will; but if we listen to the numerous

testimonies, which proclaim that in these things also the hearts of men

are governed by the Lord, they will constrain us to submit the will itself

to the special influence of God. Who conciliated the minds of the

Egyptians towards the Israelites,(670) so as to induce them to lend them

the most valuable of their furniture? They would never have been induced

to do this of their own accord. It follows, therefore, that their hearts

were guided by the Lord rather than by an inclination of their own. And

Jacob, if he had not been persuaded that God infuses various dispositions

into men according to his pleasure, would not have said concerning his son

Joseph, whom he thought to be some profane Egyptian, “God Almighty give

you mercy before the man.”(671) As the whole Church confesses in the

Psalms, that, when God chose to compassionate her, he softened the hearts

of the cruel nations into clemency.(672) Again, when Saul was so inflamed

with rage, as to prepare himself for war, it is expressly mentioned as the

cause, that he was impelled by the Spirit of God.(673) Who diverted the

mind of Absalom from adopting the counsel of Ahithophel, which used to be

esteemed as an oracle?(674) Who inclined Rehoboam to be persuaded by the

counsel of the young men?(675) Who caused the nations, that before were

very valiant, to feel terror at the approach of the Israelites? Rahab the

harlot confessed that this was the work of God. Who, on the other hand,

dejected the minds of the Israelites with fear and terror, but he who had

threatened in the law that he would “send a faintness into their

hearts?”(676)

VII. Some one will object, that these are peculiar examples, to the rule

of which, things ought by no means universally to be reduced. But I

maintain, that they are sufficient to prove that for which I contend; that

God, whenever he designs to prepare the way for his providence, inclines

and moves the wills of men even in external things, and that their choice

is not so free, but that its liberty is subject to the will of God. That

your mind depends more on the influence of God, than on the liberty of

your own choice, you must be constrained to conclude, whether you are

willing or not, from this daily experience, that in affairs of no

perplexity your judgment and understanding frequently fail; that in

undertakings not arduous your spirits languish; on the other hand, in

things the most obscure, suitable advice is immediately offered; in things

great and perilous, your mind proves superior to every difficulty. And

thus I explain the observation of Solomon, “The hearing ear, and the

seeing eye, the Lord hath made even both of them.”(677) For he appears to

me to speak, not of their creation, but of the peculiar favour of God

displayed in their performing their functions. When he says, that “the

king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord; as the rivers of water, he

turneth it whithersoever he will;”(678) under one species he clearly

comprehends the whole genus. For if the will of any man be free from all

subjection, that privilege belongs eminently to the will of a king, which

exercises a government in some measure over the wills of others; but if

the will of the king be subject to the power of God, ours cannot be

exempted from the same authority. Augustine has a remarkable passage on

this subject: “The Scripture, if it be diligently examined, shows, not

only that the good wills of men, which he turns from evil into good, and

directs to good actions and to eternal life, but also that those wills

which relate to the present life, are subject to the power of God, so that

he, by a most secret, but yet a most righteous judgment, causes them to be

inclined whither he pleases, and when he pleases, either for the

communication of benefits, or for the infliction of punishments.”

VIII. Here let the reader remember, that the ability of the human will is

not to be estimated from the event of things, as some ignorant men are

preposterously accustomed to do. For they conceive themselves fully and

ingeniously to establish the servitude of the human will, because even the

most exalted monarchs have not all their desires fulfilled. But this

ability, of which we speak, is to be considered within man, and not to be

measured by external success. For in the dispute concerning free will, the

question is not, whether a man, notwithstanding external impediments, can

perform and execute whatever he may have resolved in his mind, but whether

in every case his judgment exerts freedom of choice, and his will freedom

of inclination. If men possess both these, then Attilius Regulus, when

confined to the small extent of a cask stuck round with nails, will

possess as much free will as Augustus Cæsar, when governing a great part

of the world with his nod.

Chapter V. A Refutation Of The Objections Commonly Urged In Support Of

Free Will.

Enough might appear to have been already said on the servitude of the

human will, did not they, who endeavour to overthrow it with a false

notion of liberty, allege, on the contrary, certain reasons in opposition

to our sentiments. First, they collect together some absurdities, in order

to render it odious, as if it were abhorrent to common sense; and then

they attack it with testimonies of Scripture. Both these weapons we will

repel in order. If sin, say they, be necessary, then it ceases to be sin;

if it be voluntary, then it may be avoided. These were also the weapons

used by Pelagius in his attacks on Augustine; with whose authority,

however, we wish not to urge them, till we shall have given some

satisfaction on the subject itself. I deny, then, that sin is the less

criminal, because it is necessary; I deny also the other consequence,

which they infer, that it is avoidable because it is voluntary. For, if

any one wish to dispute with God, and to escape his judgment by the

pretext of having been incapable of acting otherwise, he is prepared with

an answer, which we have elsewhere advanced, that it arises not from

creation, but from the corruption of nature, that men, being enslaved by

sin, can will nothing but what is evil. For whence proceeded that

impotence, of which the ungodly would gladly avail themselves, but from

Adam voluntarily devoting himself to the tyranny of the devil? Hence,

therefore, the corruption with which we are firmly bound. It originated in

the revolt of the first man from his Maker. If all men are justly

accounted guilty of this rebellion, let them not suppose themselves

excused by necessity, in which very thing they have a most evident cause

of their condemnation. And this I have before clearly explained, and have

given an example in the devil himself, which shows, that he who sins

necessarily, sins no less voluntarily; and also in the elect angels, whose

will, though it cannot swerve from what is good, ceases not to be a will.

Bernard also judiciously inculcates the same doctrine, that we are,

therefore, the more miserable because our necessity is voluntary; which

yet constrains us to be so devoted to it, that we are, as we have already

observed, the slaves of sin. The second branch of their argument is

erroneous; because it makes an improper transition from what is voluntary

to what is free; but we have before evinced, that a thing may be done

voluntarily, which yet is not the subject of free choice.

II. They add, that unless both virtues and vices proceed from the free

choice of the will, it is not reasonable either that punishments should be

inflicted, or that rewards should be conferred on man. This argument,

though first advanced by Aristotle, yet I grant is used on some occasions

by Chrysostom and Jerome. That it was familiar to the Pelagians, however,

Jerome himself does not dissemble, but even relates their own words: “If

the grace of God operates in us, then the crown will be given to grace,

not to us who labour.” In regard to punishments, I reply, that they are

justly inflicted on us, from whom the guilt of sin proceeds. For of what

importance is it, whether sin be committed with a judgment free or

enslaved, so it be committed with the voluntary bias of the passions;

especially as man is proved to be a sinner, because he is subject to the

servitude of sin? With respect to rewards of righteousness, where is the

great absurdity, if we confess that they depend rather on the Divine

benignity than on our own merits? How often does this recur in Augustine,

“that God crowns not our merits, but his own gifts; and that they are

called rewards, not as though they were due to our merits, but because

they are retributions to the graces already conferred on us!” They

discover great acuteness in this observation, that there remains no room

for merits, if they originate not from free will; but in their opinion of

the erroneousness of our sentiment they are greatly mistaken. For

Augustine hesitates not on all occasions to inculcate as certain, what

they think it impious to acknowledge; as where he says, “What are the

merits of any man? When he comes not with a merited reward, but with free

grace, he alone being free and a deliverer from sins, finds all men

sinners.” Again: “If you receive what is your due, you must be punished.

What then is done? God has given you not merited punishment, but unmerited

grace. If you wish to be excluded from grace, boast your merits.” Again:

“You are nothing of yourself; sins are yours, merits belong to God; you

deserve punishment; and when you come to be rewarded, he will crown his

own gifts, not your merits.” In the same sense he elsewhere teaches that

grace proceeds not from merit, but merit from grace. And a little after he

concludes, that God with his gifts precedes all merits, that thence he may

elicit his other merits, and gives altogether freely, because he discovers

nothing as a cause of salvation. But what necessity is there for further

quotations, when his writings are full of such passages? But the Apostle

will even better deliver them from this error, if they will hear from what

origin he deduces the glory of the saints. “Whom he did predestinate, them

he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he

justified, them he also glorified.”(679) Why, then, according to the

Apostle, are the faithful crowned? Because by the mercy of the Lord, and

not by their own industry, they are elected, and called, and justified.

Farewell, then, this vain fear, that there will be an end of all merits if

free will be overturned. For it is a proof of extreme folly, to be

terrified and to fly from that to which the Scripture calls us. “If,” says

he, “thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not

received it?”(680) You see that he divests free will of every thing, with

the express design of leaving no room for merits. But yet, the beneficence

and liberality of God being inexhaustible and various, those graces which

he confers on us, because he makes them ours, he rewards, just as if they

were our own virtues.

III. They further allege what may appear to be borrowed from Chrysostom,

that if our will has not this ability to choose good or evil, the

partakers of the same nature must be either all evil or all good. And not

very far from this is the writer, whoever he was, of the treatise _On the

Calling of the Gentiles_, which is circulated under the name of Ambrose,

when he argues, that no man would ever recede from the faith, unless the

grace of God left us the condition of mutability. In which it is

surprising that such great men were so inconsistent with themselves. For

how did it not occur to Chrysostom, that it is the election of God, which

makes this difference between men? We are not afraid to allow, what Paul

very strenuously asserts, that all, without exception, are depraved and

addicted to wickedness; but with him we add, that the mercy of God does

not permit all to remain in depravity. Therefore, since we all naturally

labour under the same disease, they alone recover to whom the Lord has

been pleased to apply his healing hand. The rest, whom he passes by in

righteous judgment, putrefy in their corruption till they are entirely

consumed. And it is from the same cause, that some persevere to the end,

and others decline and fall in the midst of their course. For perseverance

itself also is a gift of God, which he bestows not on all men

promiscuously, but imparts to whom he pleases. If we inquire the cause of

the difference, why some persevere with constancy, and others fail through

instability, no other can be found, but that God sustains the former by

his power, that they perish not, and does not communicate the same

strength to the latter, that they may be examples of inconstancy.

IV. They urge further, that exhortations are given in vain, that the use

of admonitions is superfluous, and that reproofs are ridiculous, if it be

not in the power of the sinner to obey. When similar objections were

formerly made to Augustine, he was obliged to write his treatise _On

Correction and Grace_; in which, though he copiously refutes them, he

calls his adversaries to this conclusion: “O man, in the commandment learn

what is your duty: in correction learn, that through your own fault you

have it not: in prayer learn whence you may receive what you wish to

enjoy.” There is nearly the same argument in the treatise _On the Spirit

and Letter_, in which he maintains that God does not regulate the precepts

of his law by the ability of men, but when he has commanded what is right,

freely gives to his elect ability to perform it. This is not a subject

that requires a prolix discussion. First, we are not alone in this cause,

but have the support of Christ and all the Apostles. Let our opponents

consider how they can obtain the superiority in a contest with such

antagonists. Does Christ, who declares that without him we can do

nothing,(681) on that account the less reprehend and punish those who

without him do what is evil? Does he therefore relax in his exhortations

to every man to practise good works? How severely does Paul censure the

Corinthians for their neglect of charity!(682) Yet he earnestly prays that

charity may be given them by the Lord. In his Epistle to the Romans he

declares that “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but

of God that showeth mercy:”(683) yet afterwards he refrains not from the

use of admonition, exhortation, and reproof. Why do they not, therefore,

remonstrate with the Lord, not to lose his labour in such a manner, by

requiring of men those things which he alone can bestow, and punishing

those things which are committed for want of his grace? Why do they not

admonish Paul to spare those who are unable to will or run without the

previous mercy of God, of which they are now destitute? As though truly

the Lord has not the best reason for his doctrine, which readily presents

itself to those who religiously seek it. Paul clearly shows how far

doctrine, exhortation, and reproof, can of themselves avail towards

producing a change of heart, when he says that “neither is he that

planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but” that the efficacy is

solely from “God that giveth the increase.”(684) Thus we see that Moses

severely sanctions the precepts of the law, and the Prophets earnestly

urge and threaten transgressors; whilst, nevertheless, they acknowledge,

that men never begin to be wise till a heart is given them to understand;

that it is the peculiar work of God to circumcise the heart, and instead

of a stony heart to give a heart of flesh; to inscribe his law in men’s

minds; in a word, to render his doctrine effectual by a renovation of the

soul.

V. What, then, it will be inquired, is the use of exhortations? I reply,

If the impious despise them with obstinate hearts, they will serve for a

testimony against them, when they shall come to the tribunal of the Lord;

and even in the present state they wound their consciences; for however

the most audacious person may deride them, he cannot disapprove of them in

his heart. But it will be said, What can a miserable sinner do, if the

softness of heart, which is necessary to obedience, be denied him? I ask,

What excuse can he plead, seeing that he cannot impute the hardness of his

heart to any one but himself? The impious, therefore, who are ready, if

possible, to ridicule the Divine precepts and exhortations, are, in spite

of their own inclinations, confounded by their power. But the principal

utility should be considered in regard to the faithful, in whom as the

Lord performs all things by his Spirit, so he neglects not the

instrumentality of his word, but uses it with great efficacy. Let it be

allowed, then, as it ought to be, that all the strength of the pious

consists in the grace of God, according to this expression of the Prophet:

“I will give them a new heart, that they may walk in my statutes.”(685)

But you will object, Why are they admonished of their duty, and not rather

left to the direction of the Spirit? Why are they importuned with

exhortations, when they cannot make more haste than is produced by the

impulse of the Spirit? Why are they chastised, if they have ever deviated

from the right way, seeing that they erred through the necessary infirmity

of the flesh? I reply, Who art thou, O man, that wouldest impose laws upon

God? If it be his will to prepare us by exhortation for the reception of

this grace, by which obedience to the exhortation is produced, what have

you to censure in this economy? If exhortations and reproofs were of no

other advantage to the pious, than to convince them of sin, they ought not

on that account to be esteemed wholly useless. Now, since, by the internal

operation of the Spirit, they are most effectual to inflame the heart with

a love of righteousness, to shake off sloth, to destroy the pleasure and

poisonous sweetness of iniquity, and, on the contrary, to render it

hateful and burdensome, who can dare to reject them as superfluous? If any

one would desire a plainer answer, let him take it thus: The operations of

God on his elect are twofold—internally, by his Spirit, externally, by his

word. By his Spirit illuminating their minds and forming their hearts to

the love and cultivation of righteousness, he makes them new creatures. By

his word he excites them to desire, seek, and obtain the same renovation.

In both he displays the efficacy of his power, according to the mode of

his dispensation. When he addresses the same word to the reprobate, though

it produces not their correction, yet he makes it effectual for another

purpose, that they may be confounded by the testimony of their consciences

now, and be rendered more inexcusable at the day of judgment. Thus Christ,

though he pronounces that “no man can come to him, except the Father draw

him,” and that the elect come when they have “heard and learned of the

Father,”(686) yet himself neglects not the office of a teacher, but with

his own mouth sedulously invites those who need the internal teachings of

the Holy Spirit to enable them to derive any benefit from his

instructions. With respect to the reprobate, Paul suggests that teaching

is not useless, because it is to them “the savour of death unto death,”

but “a sweet savour unto God.”(687)

VI. Our adversaries are very laborious in collecting testimonies of

Scripture; and this with a view, since they cannot refute us with their

weight, to overwhelm us with their number. But as in battles, when armies

come to close combat, the weak multitude, whatever pomp and ostentation

they may display, are soon defeated and routed, so it will be very easy

for us to vanquish them, with all their multitude. For as all the

passages, which they abuse in their opposition to us, when properly

classed and distributed, centre in a very few topics, one answer will be

sufficient for many of them; it will not be necessary to dwell on a

particular explication of each. Their principal argument they derive from

the precepts; which they suppose to be so proportioned to our ability,

that whatever they can be proved to require, it necessarily follows we are

capable of performing. They proceed, therefore, to a particular detail of

them, and by them measure the extent of our strength. Either, say they,

God mocks us, when he commands holiness, piety, obedience, chastity, love,

and meekness, and when he forbids impurity, idolatry, unchastity, anger,

robbery, pride, and the like; or he requires only such things as we have

power to perform. Now, almost all the precepts which they collect, may be

distributed into three classes. Some require the first conversion to God;

others simply relate to the observation of the law; others enjoin

perseverance in the grace of God already received. Let us first speak of

them all in general, and then proceed to the particulars. To represent the

ability of man as coëxtensive with the precepts of the Divine law, has

indeed for a long time not been unusual, and has some appearance of

plausibility; but it has proceeded from the grossest ignorance of the law.

For those who think it an enormous crime to say that the observation of

the law is impossible, insist on this very cogent argument, that otherwise

the law was given in vain. For they argue just as if Paul had never said

any thing concerning the law. But, pray, what is the meaning of these

expressions—“The law was added because of transgressions;” “by the law is

the knowledge of sin;” “the law worketh wrath;” “the law entered that the

offence might abound?”(688) Do they imply a necessity of its being limited

to our ability, that it might not be given in vain? Do they not rather

show that it was placed far beyond our ability, in order to convince us of

our impotence? According to the definition of the same Apostle, “the end

of the commandment is charity.”(689) But when he wishes the minds of the

Thessalonians to “abound in love,”(690) he plainly acknowledges that the

law sounds in our ears in vain, unless God inspire the principles of it

into our hearts.

VII. Indeed, if the Scripture taught only that the law is the rule of

life, to which our conduct ought to be conformed, I would immediately

accede to their opinion. But since it carefully and perspicuously states

to us various uses of the law, it will be best to consider the operation

of the law in man according to that exposition. As far as relates to the

present argument, when it has prescribed any thing to be performed by us,

it teaches that the power of obedience proceeds from the goodness of God,

and therefore invites us to pray that it may be given us. If there were

only a commandment, and no promise, there would be a trial of the

sufficiency of our strength to obey the commandment; but since the

commands are connected with promises, which declare that we must derive

not only subsidiary power, but our whole strength, from the assistance of

Divine grace, they furnish abundant evidence that we are not only unequal

to the observation of the law, but altogether incapable of it. Wherefore

let them no more urge the proportion of our ability to the precepts of the

law, as though the Lord had regulated the standard of righteousness, which

he designed to give in the law, according to the measure of our

imbecility. It should rather be concluded from the promises, how

unprepared we are of ourselves, since we stand in such universal need of

his grace. But will it, say they, be credited by any, that the Lord

addressed his law to stocks and stones? I reply, that no one will attempt

to inculcate such a notion. For neither are the impious stocks or stones,

when they are taught by the law the contrariety of their dispositions to

God, and are convicted of guilt by the testimony of their own minds; nor

the pious, when, admonished of their own impotence, they have recourse to

the grace of God. To this purpose are the following passages from

Augustine: “God gives commands which we cannot perform, that we may know

what we ought to request of him. The utility of the precepts is great, if

only so much be given to free will, that the grace of God may receive the

greater honour. Faith obtains what the law commands; and the law therefore

commands, that faith may obtain that which is commanded by the law:

moreover God requires faith itself of us, and finds not what he requires,

unless he has given what he finds.” Again: “Let God give what he enjoins,

and let him enjoin what he pleases.”

VIII. This will more clearly appear in an examination of the three kinds

of precepts which we have already mentioned. The Lord, both in the law and

in the prophets, frequently commands us to be converted to him;(691) but

the Prophet, on the other hand, says, “Turn thou me, and I shall be

turned.” “After that I was turned, I repented,” &c.(692) He commands us to

circumcise our hearts; but he announces by Moses, that this circumcision

is the work of his own hand.(693) He frequently requires newness of heart;

but elsewhere declares that this is his own gift.(694) “What God

promises,” Augustine says, “we do not perform ourselves through free will

or nature; but he does it himself by his grace.” And this is the

observation to which he himself assigns the fifth place in his enumeration

of Ticonius’s rules of Christian doctrine; that we should make a proper

distinction between the law and the promises, or between the commandments

and grace. This may suffice, in answer to those who from the precepts

infer an ability in man to obey them, that they may destroy the grace of

God, by which those very precepts are fulfilled. The precepts of the

second class are simple, enjoining on us the worship of God, constant

submission to his will, observance of his commands, and adherence to his

doctrine. But there are innumerable passages, which prove that the highest

degree of righteousness, sanctity, piety, and purity, capable of being

attained, is his own gift. Of the third class is that exhortation of Paul

and Barnabas to the faithful, mentioned by Luke, “to continue in the grace

of God.”(695) But whence the grace of perseverance should be sought, the

same Apostle informs us, when he says, “Finally, my brethren, be strong in

the Lord.”(696) In another place he cautions us to “grieve not the Holy

Spirit of God, whereby we are sealed unto the day of redemption.”(697) But

because what he there requires could not be performed by men, he prays for

the Thessalonians, “that our God would count them worthy of this calling,

and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith

with power.”(698) Thus, also, in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians,

treating of alms, he frequently commends their benevolent and pious

disposition;(699) yet a little after he gives thanks to God for having

inclined the heart of Titus to “accept” or undertake “the exhortation.” If

Titus could not even use his own tongue to exhort others without having

been prompted by God, how should others have been inclined to act, unless

God himself had directed their hearts?

IX. Our more subtle adversaries cavil at all these testimonies, because

there is no impediment, they say, that prevents our exerting our own

ability, and God assisting our weak efforts. They adduce also passages

from the Prophets, where the accomplishment of our conversion seems to be

divided equally between God and us. “Turn ye unto me, and I will turn unto

you.”(700) What assistance we receive from the Lord has already been

shown, and needs not to be repeated here. I wish only this single point to

be conceded to me, that it is in vain to infer our possession of ability

to fulfil the law from God’s command to us to obey it; since it is

evident, that for the performance of all the Divine precepts, the grace of

the Legislator is both necessary for us, and promised to us; and hence it

follows, that at least more is required of us than we are capable of

performing. Nor is it possible for any cavils to explain away that passage

of Jeremiah, which assures us, that the covenant of God, made with his

ancient people, was frustrated because it was merely a literal one;(701)

and that it can only be confirmed by the influence of the Spirit, who

forms the heart to obedience. Nor does their error derive any support from

this passage: “Turn ye unto me, and I will turn unto you.” For this

denotes, not that turning of God in which he renovates our hearts to

repentance, but that in which he declares his benevolence and kindness by

external prosperity; as by adversity he sometimes manifests his

displeasure. When the people of Israel, therefore, after having been

harassed with miseries and calamities under various forms, complained that

God was departed from them, he replies that his benignity will not fail

them if they return to rectitude of life, and to himself, who is the

standard of righteousness. The passage, then, is miserably perverted, when

it is made to represent the work of conversion as divided between God and

men. We have observed the greater brevity on these points, because it will

be a more suitable place for this argument when we treat of the Law.

X. The second description of arguments is nearly allied to the first. They

allege the promises, in which God covenants with our will; such as, “Seek

good, and not evil, that ye may live.” “If ye be willing and obedient, ye

shall eat the good of the land; but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be

devoured with the sword; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.”(702)

Again: “If thou wilt put away thine abominations out of my sight, then

shalt thou not remove.” “If thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice

of the Lord thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I

command thee this day, the Lord thy God will set thee on high above all

nations of the earth;”(703) and other similar passages. They consider it

an absurdity and mockery, that the benefits which the Lord offers in the

promises are referred to our will, unless it be in our power either to

confirm or to frustrate them. And truly it is very easy to amplify this

subject with eloquent complaints, that we are cruelly mocked by the Lord,

when he announces that his benignity depends on our will, if that will be

not in our own power; that this would be egregious liberality in God, to

present his benefits to us in such a manner, that we should have no power

to enjoy them; and that there must be a strange certainty in his promises,

if they depend on a thing impossible, so that they can never be fulfilled.

Concerning promises of this kind, to which a condition is annexed, we

shall speak in another place, and evince that there is no absurdity in the

impossibility of their completion. With respect to the present question, I

deny that God is cruel or insincere to us, when he invites us to merit his

favours, though he knows us to be altogether incapable of doing this. For

as the promises are offered equally to the faithful and to the impious,

they have their use with them both. As by the precepts God disturbs the

consciences of the impious, that they may not enjoy too much pleasure in

sin without any recollection of his judgments, so in the promises he calls

them to attest how unworthy they are of his kindness. For who can deny

that it is most equitable and proper for the Lord to bless those who

worship him, and severely to punish the despisers of his majesty? God

acts, therefore, in a right and orderly manner, when, addressing the

impious, who are bound with the fetters of sin, he adds to the promises

this condition, that when they shall have departed from their wickedness,

they shall then, and not till then, enjoy his favours; even for this sole

reason, that they may know that they are deservedly excluded from those

benefits which belong to the worshippers of the true God. On the other

hand, since he designs by all means to stimulate the faithful to implore

his grace, it will not be at all strange, if he tries in his promises

also, what we have shown he does with considerable effect in his precepts.

Being instructed by the precepts concerning the will of God, we are

apprized of our misery, in having our hearts so completely averse to it;

and are at the same time excited to invoke his Spirit, that we may be

directed by him into the right way. But because our sluggishness is not

sufficiently roused by the precepts, God adds his promises, to allure us

by their sweetness to the love of his commands. Now, in proportion to our

increased love of righteousness will be the increase of our fervour in

seeking the grace of God. See how, in these addresses, “If ye be willing,”

“If ye be obedient,” the Lord neither attributes to us an unlimited power

to will and to obey, nor yet mocks us on account of our impotence.

XI. The third class of arguments also has a great affinity with the

preceding. For they produce passages in which God reproaches an ungrateful

people, that it was wholly owing to their own fault that they did not

receive blessings of all kinds from his indulgent hand. Of this kind are

the following passages: “The Amalekites and the Canaanites are there

before you, and ye shall fall by the sword; because ye are turned away

from the Lord.”(704) “Because I called you, but ye answered not, therefore

will I do unto this house as I have done to Shiloh.”(705) Again: “This is

a nation that obeyeth not the voice of the Lord their God, nor receiveth

correction: the Lord hath rejected and forsaken the generation of his

wrath.”(706) Again: “They obeyed not thy voice, neither walked in thy law;

they have done nothing of all that thou commandedst them to do: therefore

thou hast caused all this evil to come upon them.”(707) How, say they,

could such reproaches be applicable to those who might immediately reply,

It is true that we desired prosperity and dreaded adversity; but our not

obeying the Lord, or hearkening to his voice, in order to obtain good and

to avoid evil, has been owing to our want of liberty, and subjection to

the dominion of sin. It is in vain, therefore, to reproach us with evils,

which we had no power to avoid. In answer to this, leaving the pretext of

necessity, which is but a weak and futile plea, I ask whether they can

exculpate themselves from all guilt. For if they are convicted of any

fault, the Lord justly reproaches them with their perverseness, as the

cause of their not having experienced the advantage of his clemency. Let

them answer, then, if they can deny that their own perverse will was the

cause of their obstinacy. If they find the source of the evil within

themselves, why do they so earnestly inquire after extraneous causes, that

they may not appear to have been the authors of their own ruin? But if it

be true that sinners are deprived of the favours of God, and chastised

with his punishments, for their own sin, and only for their own, there is

great reason why they should hear those reproaches from his mouth; that if

they obstinately persist in their crimes, they may learn in their

calamities rather to accuse and detest their iniquity, than to charge God

with unrighteous cruelty; that if they have not cast off all docility,

they may become weary of their sins, the demerits of which they see to be

misery and ruin, and may return into the good way, acknowledging in a

serious confession the very thing for which the Lord rebukes them. And

that those reproofs, which are quoted from the Prophets, have produced

this beneficial effect on the faithful, is evident from the solemn prayer

of Daniel, given us in his ninth chapter. Of the former use of them we

find an example in the Jews, to whom Jeremiah is commanded to declare the

cause of their miseries; though nothing could befall them, otherwise than

the Lord had foretold. “Thou shalt speak all these words unto them; but

they will not hearken to thee: thou shalt also call unto them; but they

will not answer thee.”(708) For what purpose, then, it will be asked, did

they speak to persons that were deaf? It was in order that, in spite of

their disinclination and aversion, they might know what was declared to

them to be true; that it was an abominable sacrilege to transfer to God

the guilt of their crimes, which belonged solely to themselves. With these

few solutions, we may very easily despatch the immense multitude of

testimonies, which the enemies of the grace of God are accustomed to

collect, both from the precepts of the law, and from the expostulations

directed to transgressors of it, in order to establish the idol of free

will. In one psalm the Jews are stigmatized as “a stubborn and rebellious

generation, a generation that set not their heart aright.”(709) In

another, the Psalmist exhorts the men of his age to “harden not their

hearts;”(710) which implies, that all the guilt of rebellion lies in the

perverseness of men. But it is absurd to infer from this passage that the

heart is equally flexible to either side; whereas “the preparation” of it

is “from the Lord.”(711) The Psalmist says, “I have inclined my heart to

perform thy statutes;”(712) because he had devoted himself to the service

of God without any reluctance, but with a cheerful readiness of mind. Yet

he boasts not of being himself the author of this inclination, which in

the same psalm he acknowledges to be the gift of God.(713) We should

remember, therefore, the admonition of Paul, when he commands the faithful

to “work out” their “own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God

which worketh in” them “both to will and to do.”(714) He assigns them a

part to perform, that they may not indulge themselves in carnal

negligence; but by inculcating “fear and trembling,” he humbles them, and

reminds them that this very thing, which they are commanded to do, is the

peculiar work of God. In this he plainly suggests that the faithful act,

if I may be allowed the expression, passively, inasmuch as they are

furnished with strength from heaven, that they may arrogate nothing at all

to themselves. Wherefore, when Peter exhorts us to “add to” our “faith,

virtue,”(715) he does not allot us an under part to be performed, as

though we could do any thing separately, of ourselves; he only arouses the

indolence of the flesh, by which faith itself is frequently extinguished.

To the same purpose is the exhortation of Paul: “Quench not the

Spirit;”(716) for slothfulness gradually prevails over the faithful,

unless it be corrected. But if any one should infer from this, that it is

at his own option to cherish the light offered him, his ignorance will

easily be refuted; since this diligence which Paul requires, proceeds only

from God. For we are also frequently commanded to “cleanse ourselves from

all filthiness,”(717) whilst the Spirit claims the office of sanctifying

us exclusively to himself. In short, that what properly belongs to God is,

by concession, transferred to us, is plain from the words of John: “He

that is begotten of God, keepeth himself.”(718) The preachers of free will

lay hold of this expression, as though we were saved partly by the Divine

power, partly by our own; as though we did not receive from heaven this

very preservation which the Apostle mentions. Wherefore also Christ prays

that his Father would “keep” us “from evil;”(719) and we know that the

pious, in their warfare against Satan, obtain the victory by no other arms

than those which are furnished by God. Therefore Peter, having enjoined us

to “purify” our “souls, in obeying the truth,” immediately adds, as a

correction, “through the Spirit.”(720) Finally, the impotence of all human

strength in the spiritual conflict is briefly demonstrated by John when he

says, “Whosoever is born of God cannot sin; for his seed remaineth in

him:”(721) and in another place he adds the reason, that “this is the

victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.”(722)

XII. There is also a testimony cited from the law of Moses, which appears

directly repugnant to our solution. For, after having published the law,

he makes the following solemn declaration to the people: “This

commandment, which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee,

neither is it far off: it is not in heaven: but the word is very nigh unto

thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.”(723) If

these expressions be understood merely of the precepts, I grant that they

have much weight in the present argument. For although we might easily

elude their force, by saying that they treat of the facility and

promptitude, not of observance, but of knowledge, yet still perhaps they

might leave some doubt. But the Apostle, in whose expositions there is no

ambiguity, removes all our doubts, by affirming that Moses here spake of

the doctrine of the gospel.(724) But if any one should obstinately

contend, that Paul has violently perverted the passage from its genuine

meaning, by applying it to the gospel, although his presumption could not

be acquitted of impiety, yet there is enough to refute him, independently

of the authority of the Apostle. For, if Moses spoke only of the precepts,

he was deceiving the people with the vainest confidence. For would they

not have precipitated themselves into ruin, if they had attempted the

observance of the law in their own strength, as a thing of no difficulty?

What, then, becomes of the very obvious facility with which the law may be

observed, when there appears no access to it but over a fatal precipice?

Wherefore nothing is more certain, than that Moses in these words

comprehended the covenant of mercy, which he had promulgated together with

the precepts of the law. For in a preceding verse he had taught that our

hearts must be circumcised by God, in order that we may love him.(725)

Therefore he placed this facility, of which he afterwards speaks, not in

the strength of man, but in the assistance and protection of the Holy

Spirit, who powerfully accomplishes his work in our infirmity. However,

the passage is not to be understood simply of the precepts, but rather of

the promises of the gospel, which are so far from maintaining an ability

in us to obtain righteousness, that they prove us to be utterly destitute

of it. Paul, considering the same, proves by this testimony that salvation

is proposed to us in the gospel, not under that hard, difficult, and

impossible condition, prescribed to us in the law, which pronounces it

attainable only by those who have fulfilled all the commandments, but

under a condition easily and readily to be performed. Therefore this

testimony contributes nothing to support the liberty of the human will.

XIII. Some other passages also are frequently objected, which show that

God sometimes tries men by withdrawing the assistance of his grace, and

waits to see what course they will pursue; as in Hosea: “I will go and

return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my

face.”(726) It would be ridiculous, they say, for the Lord to consider,

whether Israel would seek his face, unless their minds were flexible,

capable of inclining either way, according to their own pleasure; as if it

were not very common for God, in the Prophets, to represent himself as

despising and rejecting his people, till they should amend their lives.

But what will our adversaries infer from such threats? If they maintain,

that those who are deserted by God, are capable of converting themselves,

they oppose the uniform declarations of Scripture. If they acknowledge

that the grace of God is necessary to conversion, what is their

controversy with us? But they will reply, that they concede its necessity

in such a sense as to maintain that man still retains some power. How do

they prove it? Certainly not from this or any similar passages. For it is

one thing to depart from a man, to observe what he will do when forsaken

and left to himself, and another to assist his little strength in

proportion to his imbecility. What, then, it will be inquired, is implied

in such forms of expression? I reply, that the import of them is just as

if God had said, Since admonitions, exhortations, and reproofs, produce no

good effect on this rebellious people, I will withdraw myself for a little

while, and silently leave them to affliction. I will see whether, at some

future period, after a series of calamities, they will remember me, and

seek my face. The departure of the Lord signifies the removal of his word.

His observing what men will do, signifies his concealing himself in

silence, and exercising them for a season with various afflictions. He

does both to humble us the more; for we should sooner be confounded than

corrected with the scourges of adversity, unless he rendered us docile by

his Spirit. Now, when the Lord, offended, and, as it were, wearied by our

extreme obstinacy, leaves us for a time, by the removal of his word, in

which he is accustomed to manifest his presence with us, and makes the

experiment, what we shall do in his absence,—it is falsely inferred from

this, that there is some power of free will, which he observes and proves;

since he acts in this manner with no other design than to bring us to a

sense and acknowledgment of our own nothingness.

XIV. They argue also from the manner of expression which is invariably

observed, both in the Scripture and in the common conversation of mankind.

For good actions are called our own, and we are said to perform what is

holy and pleasing to the Lord, as well as to commit sins. But if sins be

justly imputed to us, as proceeding from ourselves, certainly some share

ought to be, for the same reason, assigned to us also in works of

righteousness. For it would be absurd that we should be said to do those

things, to the performance of which, being incapable of any exertion of

our own, we were impelled by God, as so many stones. Wherefore, though we

allow the grace of God the preëminence, yet these expressions indicate

that our own endeavours hold at least the second place. If it were only

alleged, that good works are called our own, I would reply, that the bread

which we pray to God to give us, is called ours. What will they prove by

this term, but that what otherwise by no means belongs to us, becomes ours

through the benignity and gratuitous munificence of God? Therefore let

them either ridicule the same absurdity in the Lord’s prayer, or no longer

esteem it ridiculous, that good works are denominated ours, in which we

have no propriety but from the liberality of God. But there is rather more

force in what follows; that the Scripture frequently affirms that we

ourselves worship God, work righteousness, obey the law, and perform good

works. These being the proper offices of the understanding and will, how

could they justly be referred to the Spirit, and at the same time be

attributed to us, if there were not some union of our exertions with the

grace of God? We shall easily extricate ourselves from these objections,

if we properly consider the manner in which the Spirit of the Lord

operates in the saints. The similitude with which they try to cast an

odium on our sentiments, is quite foreign to the subject; for who is so

senseless as to suppose that there is no difference between impelling a

man, and throwing a stone? Nor does any such consequence follow from our

doctrine. We rank among the natural powers of man, approving, rejecting;

willing, nilling; attempting, resisting; that is, a power to approve

vanity, and to reject true excellence; to will what is evil, to refuse

what is good; to attempt iniquity, and to resist righteousness. What

concern has the Lord in this? If it be his will to use this depravity as

an instrument of his wrath, he directs and appoints it according to his

pleasure, in order to execute his good work by means of a wicked hand.

Shall we, then, compare a wicked man who is thus subservient to the Divine

power, while he only studies to gratify his own corrupt inclination, to a

stone which is hurled by an extrinsic impulse, and driven along without

any motion, sense, or will of its own? We perceive what a vast difference

there is. But how does the Lord operate in good men, to whom the question

principally relates? When he erects his kingdom within them, he by his

Spirit restrains their will, that it may not be hurried away by unsteady

and violent passions, according to the propensity of nature; that it may

be inclined to holiness and righteousness, he bends, composes, forms, and

directs it according to the rule of his own righteousness; that it may not

stagger or fall, he establishes and confirms it by the power of his

Spirit. For which reason Augustine says, “You will reply to me, Then we

are actuated; we do not act. Yes, you both act and are actuated; and you

act well, when you are actuated by that which is good. The Spirit of God,

who actuates you, assists those who act, and calls himself a helper,

because you also perform something.” In the first clause he inculcates

that the agency of man is not destroyed by the influence of the Spirit;

because the will, which is guided to aspire to what is good, belongs to

his nature. But the inference which he immediately subjoins, from the term

_help_, that we also perform something, we should not understand in such a

sense, as though he attributed any thing to us independently; but in order

to avoid encouraging us in indolence, he reconciles the Divine agency with

ours in this way; that to will is from nature, to will what is good is

from grace. Therefore he had just before said, “Without the assistance of

God, we shall be not only unable to conquer, but even to contend.”

XV. Hence it appears that the grace of God, in the sense in which this

word is used when we treat of regeneration, is the rule of the Spirit for

directing and governing the human will. He cannot govern it unless he

correct, reform, and renovate it; whence we say that the commencement of

regeneration is an abolition of what is from ourselves; nor unless he also

excite, actuate, impel, support, and restrain it; whence we truly assert,

that all the actions which proceed from this are entirely of the Spirit.

At the same time, we fully admit the truth of what Augustine teaches, that

the will is not destroyed by grace, but rather repaired; for these two

things are perfectly consistent—that the human will may be said to be

repaired, when, by the correction of its depravity and perverseness, it is

directed according to the true standard of righteousness; and also that a

new will may be said to be created in man, because the natural will is so

vitiated and corrupted, that it needs to be formed entirely anew. Now,

there is no reason why we may not justly be said to perform that which the

Spirit of God performs in us, although our own will contributes nothing of

itself, independently of his grace. And, therefore, we should remember

what we have before cited from Augustine, that many persons labour in vain

to find in the human will some good, properly its own. For whatever

mixture men study to add from the power of free will to the grace of God,

is only a corruption of it; just as if any one should dilute good wine

with dirty or bitter water. But although whatever good there is in the

human will, proceeds wholly from the internal influence of the Spirit, yet

because we have a natural faculty of willing, we are, not without reason,

said to do those things, the praise of which God justly claims to himself;

first, because whatever God does in us, becomes ours by his benignity,

provided we do not apprehend it to originate from ourselves; secondly,

because the understanding is ours, the will is ours, and the effort is

ours, which are all directed by him to that which is good.

XVI. The other testimonies, which they rake together from every quarter,

will not much embarrass even persons of moderate capacities, who have well

digested the answers already given. They quote this passage from Genesis:

“Unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him;”(727) or, as

they would translate the words, “Subject to thee shall be its appetite,

and thou shalt rule over it;” which they explain to relate to sin, as

though the Lord promised Cain, that the power of sin should not obtain

dominion over his mind, if he would labour to overcome it. But we say that

it is more agreeable to the tenor of the context, to understand it to be

spoken concerning Abel. For the design of God in it is to prove the

iniquity of that envy, which Cain had conceived against his brother. This

he does by two reasons: first, that it was in vain for him to meditate

crimes in order to excel his brother in the sight of God, with whom no

honour is given but to righteousness; secondly, that he was extremely

ungrateful for the favours God had already conferred on him, since he

could not bear his brother, even though subject to his authority. But that

we may not appear to adopt this explanation, merely because the other is

unfavourable to our tenets, let us admit that God spake concerning sin. If

it be so, then what the Lord there declares, is either promised or

commanded by him. If it be a command, we have already demonstrated that it

affords no proof of the power of men: if it be a promise, where is the

completion of the promise, seeing that Cain fell under the dominion of

sin, over which he ought to have prevailed? They will say, that the

promise includes a tacit condition, as though it had been declared to him

that he should obtain the victory if he would contend for it; but who can

admit these subterfuges? For if this dominion be referred to sin, the

speech is doubtless a command, expressive, not of our ability, but of our

duty, which remains our duty even though it exceed our ability. But the

subject itself, and grammatical propriety, require a comparison to be made

between Cain and Abel; in which the elder brother would not have been

placed below the younger, if he had not degraded himself by his own

wickedness.

XVII. They adduce also the testimony of the Apostle, who says, that “it is

not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth

mercy;”(728) whence they conclude, that there is something in the will and

endeavour, which, though ineffectual of itself, is rendered successful by

the assistance of the Divine mercy. But if they would soberly examine the

subject there treated by Paul, they would not so inconsiderately pervert

this passage. I know that they can allege the suffrages of Origen and

Jerome in defence of their exposition; and in opposition to them, I could

produce that of Augustine. But their opinions are of no importance to us

if we can ascertain what was the meaning of Paul. He is there teaching,

that salvation is provided for them alone, whom the Lord favours with his

mercy; but that ruin and perdition await all those whom he has not chosen.

He had shown, by the example of Pharaoh, the condition of the reprobate;

and had confirmed the certainty of gratuitous election by the testimony of

Moses: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” His conclusion is,

that “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God

that showeth mercy.” If this be understood to imply that our will and

endeavour are not sufficient, because they are not equal to so great a

work, Paul has expressed himself with great impropriety. Away, therefore,

with these sophisms: “It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that

runneth;” therefore there is some willing and some running. For the

meaning of Paul is more simple—It is neither our willing nor our running,

which procures for us a way of salvation, but solely the mercy of God. For

he expresses here the same sentiment as he does to Titus, when he says,

“that the kindness and love of God towards man appeared, not by works of

righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy.”(729) The

very persons, who argue that Paul, in denying that it is of him that

willeth or of him that runneth, implies that there is some willing and

some running, would not allow me to use the same mode of reasoning, that

we have done some good works, because Paul denies that we have obtained

the favour of God by any works which we have done. But if they perceive a

flaw in this argumentation, let them open their eyes, and they will

perceive a similar fallacy in their own. For the argument on which

Augustine rests the dispute is unanswerable: “If it be said, that it is

not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, merely because neither

our willing nor our running is sufficient, it may, on the contrary, be

retorted, that it is not of the mercy of God, because that does not act

alone.”(730) The latter position being absurd, Augustine justly concludes

the meaning of this passage to be, that there is no good will in man,

unless it be prepared by the Lord; not but that we ought to will and to

run, but because God works in us both the one and the other. With similar

want of judgment, some pervert this declaration of Paul, “We are labourers

together with God;”(731) which, without doubt, is restricted solely to

ministers, who are denominated “workers with him,” not that they

contribute any thing of themselves, but because God makes use of their

agency, after he has qualified them and furnished them with the necessary

talents.

XVIII. They produce a passage from Ecclesiasticus, which is well known to

be a book of doubtful authority. But though we should not reject it,

which, nevertheless, if we chose, we might justly do, what testimony does

it afford in support of free will? The writer says, that man, as soon as

he was created, was left in the power of his own will; that precepts were

given to him, which if he kept, he should also be kept by them; that he

had life and death, good and evil, set before him; and that whatever he

desired, would be given him.(732) Let it be granted, that man at his

creation was endowed with a power of choosing life or death. What if we

reply, that he has lost it? I certainly do not intend to contradict

Solomon, who asserts that “God hath made man upright; but they have sought

out many inventions.”(733) But man, by his degeneracy, having shipwrecked

both himself and all his excellences, whatever is attributed to his

primitive state, it does not immediately follow that it belongs to his

vitiated and degenerated nature. Therefore I reply, not only to them, but

also to Ecclesiasticus himself, whoever he be: If you design to teach man

to seek within himself a power to attain salvation, your authority is not

so great in our estimation as to obtain even the smallest degree of

credit, in opposition to the undoubted word of God. But if you only aim to

repress the malignity of the flesh, which vainly attempts to vindicate

itself by transferring its crimes to God, and you therefore reply, that

man was originally endued with rectitude, from which it is evident that he

was the cause of his own ruin, I readily assent to it; provided we also

agree in this, that through his own guilt he is now despoiled of those

ornaments with which God invested him at the beginning; and so unite in

confessing, that in his present situation he needs not an advocate, but a

physician.

XIX. But there is nothing which our adversaries have more frequently in

their mouths, than the parable of Christ concerning the traveller, who was

left by robbers in the road half dead.(734) I know it is the common

opinion of almost all writers, that the calamity of the human race is

represented under the type of this traveller. Hence they argue, that man

is not so mutilated by the violence of sin and the devil, but that he

still retains some relics of his former excellences, since he is said to

have been left only half dead; for what becomes of the remaining portion

of life, unless there remain some rectitude both of reason and will? In

the first place, what could they say, if I refused to admit their

allegory? For there is no doubt but that this interpretation, invented by

the fathers, is foreign to the genuine sense of our Lord’s discourse.

Allegories ought to be extended no further than they are supported by the

authority of Scripture; for they are far from affording of themselves a

sufficient foundation for any doctrines. Nor is there any want of

arguments by which, if I chose, I could completely confute this erroneous

notion; for the word of God does not leave man in the possession of a

proportion of life, but teaches, that as far as respects happiness of

life, he is wholly dead. Paul, when speaking of our redemption, says, not

that we were recovered when half dead, but that “even when we were dead,

we were raised up.” He calls not on the half dead, but on those who are in

the grave, sleeping the sleep of death, to receive the illumination of

Christ.(735) And the Lord himself speaks in a similar manner, when he

says, that “the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the

voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live.”(736) With what

face can they oppose a slight allusion against so many positive

expressions? Yet let this allegory even be admitted as a clear testimony;

what will it enable them to extort from us? Man, they will say, is but

half dead; therefore he has some faculty remaining entire. I grant that he

has a mind capable of understanding, though it attains not to heavenly and

spiritual wisdom; he has some idea of virtue; he has some sense of the

Deity, though he acquires not the true knowledge of God. But what is to be

concluded from all this? It certainly does not disprove the assertion of

Augustine, which has received the general approbation even of the schools,

that man, since his fall, has been deprived of the gifts of grace on which

salvation depends; but that the natural ones are corrupted and polluted.

Let us hold this, then, as an undoubted truth, which no opposition can

ever shake—that the mind of man is so completely alienated from the

righteousness of God, that it conceives, desires, and undertakes every

thing that is impious, perverse, base, impure, and flagitious; that his

heart is so thoroughly infected by the poison of sin, that it cannot

produce any thing but what is corrupt; and that if at any time men do any

thing apparently good, yet the mind always remains involved in hypocrisy

and fallacious obliquity, and the heart enslaved by its inward

perverseness.

Chapter VI. Redemption For Lost Man To Be Sought In Christ.

The whole human race having perished in the person of Adam, our original

excellence and dignity, which we have noticed, so far from being

advantageous to us, only involves us in greater ignominy, till God, who

does not acknowledge the pollution and corruption of man by sin to be his

work, appears as a Redeemer in the person of his only begotten Son.

Therefore, since we are fallen from life into death, all that knowledge of

God as a Creator, of which we have been treating, would be useless, unless

it were succeeded by faith exhibiting God to us as a Father in Christ.

This, indeed, was the genuine order of nature, that the fabric of the

world should be a school in which we might learn piety, and thence be

conducted to eternal life and perfect felicity. But since the fall,

whithersoever we turn our eyes, the curse of God meets us on every side,

which, whilst it seizes innocent creatures and involves them in our guilt,

must necessarily overwhelm our souls with despair. For though God is

pleased still to manifest his paternal kindness to us in various ways, yet

we cannot, from a contemplation of the world, conclude that he is our

Father, when our conscience disturbs us within, and convinces us that our

sins afford a just reason why God should abandon us, and no longer esteem

us as his children. We are also chargeable with stupidity and ingratitude;

for our minds, being blinded, do not perceive the truth; and all our

senses being corrupted, we wickedly defraud God of his glory. We must

therefore subscribe to the declaration of Paul: “For after that in the

wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the

foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.”(737) What he

denominates the wisdom of God, is this magnificent theatre of heaven and

earth, which is replete with innumerable miracles, and from the

contemplation of which we ought wisely to acquire the knowledge of God.

But because we have made so little improvement in this way, he recalls us

to the faith of Christ, which is despised by unbelievers on account of its

apparent folly. Wherefore, though the preaching of the cross is not

agreeable to human reason, we ought, nevertheless, to embrace it with all

humility, if we desire to return to God our Creator, from whom we have

been alienated, and to have him reassume the character of our Father.

Since the fall of the first man, no knowledge of God, without the

Mediator, has been available to salvation. For Christ speaks not of his

own time only, but comprehends all ages, when he says that “this is life

eternal, to know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast

sent.”(738) And this aggravates the stupidity of those who set open the

gate of heaven to all unbelievers and profane persons, without the grace

of Christ, whom the Scripture universally represents as the only door of

entrance into salvation. But if any man would restrict this declaration of

Christ to the period of the first promulgation of the gospel, we are

prepared with a refutation. For it has been a common opinion, in all ages

and nations, that those who are alienated from God, and pronounced

accursed, and children of wrath, cannot please him without a

reconciliation. Here add the answer of Christ to the woman of Samaria: “Ye

worship ye know not what: we know what we worship; for salvation is of the

Jews.”(739) In these words he at once condemns all the religions of the

Gentiles as false, and assigns a reason for it; because under the law the

Redeemer was promised only to the chosen people; whence it follows that no

worship has ever been acceptable to God, unless it had respect to Christ.

Hence also Paul affirms that all the Gentiles were without God, and

destitute of the hope of life.(740) Now, as John teaches us that life was

from the beginning in Christ, and that the whole world are fallen from

it,(741) it is necessary to return to that fountain; and therefore Christ

asserts himself to be the life, as he is the author of the propitiation.

And, indeed, the celestial inheritance belongs exclusively to the children

of God. But it is very unreasonable that they should be considered in the

place and order of his children, who have not been engrafted into the body

of his only begotten Son. And John plainly declares that “they who believe

in his name become the sons of God.”(742) But as it is not my design in

this place to treat professedly of faith in Christ, these cursory hints

shall at present suffice.

II. Therefore God never showed himself propitious to his ancient people,

nor afforded them any hope of his favour, without a Mediator. I forbear to

speak of the legal sacrifices, by which the faithful were plainly and

publicly instructed that salvation was to be sought solely in that

expiation, which has been accomplished by Christ alone. I only assert,

that the happiness of the Church has always been founded on the person of

Christ. For though God comprehended in his covenant all the posterity of

Abraham, yet Paul judiciously reasons, that Christ is in reality that Seed

in whom all the nations were to be blessed;(743) since we know that the

natural descendants of that patriarch were not reckoned as his seed. For,

to say nothing of Ishmael and others, what was the cause, that of the two

sons of Isaac, the twin‐brothers Esau and Jacob, even when they were yet

unborn, one should be chosen and the other rejected? How came it to pass

that the first‐born was rejected, and that the younger obtained his

birthright? How came the majority of the people to be disinherited? It is

evident, therefore, that the seed of Abraham is reckoned principally in

one person, and that the promised salvation was not manifested till the

coming of Christ, whose office it is to collect what had been scattered

abroad. The first adoption, therefore, of the chosen people, depended on

the grace of the Mediator; which, though it is not so plainly expressed by

Moses, yet appears to have been generally well known to all the pious. For

before the appointment of any king in the nation, Hannah, the mother of

Samuel, speaking of the felicity of the faithful, thus expressed herself

in her song: “The Lord shall give strength unto his king, and exalt the

horn of his anointed.”(744) Her meaning in these words is, that God will

bless his Church. And to this agrees the oracle, which is soon after

introduced: “I will raise me up a faithful priest, and he shall walk

before mine anointed.” And there is no doubt that it was the design of the

heavenly Father to exhibit in David and his posterity a lively image of

Christ. With a design to exhort the pious, therefore, to the fear of God,

he enjoins them to “kiss the Son;”(745) which agrees with this declaration

of the gospel: “He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the

Father.”(746) Therefore, though the kingdom was weakened by the revolt of

the ten tribes, yet the covenant, which God had made with David and his

successors, could not but stand, as he also declared by the Prophets: “I

will not rend away all the kingdom, but will give one tribe to thy son,

for David my servant’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake which I have

chosen.”(747) This is repeated again and again. It is also expressly

added, “I will for this afflict the seed of David, but not for ever.”(748)

At a little distance of time it is said, “For David’s sake did the Lord

his God give him a lamp in Jerusalem, to set up his son after him, and to

establish Jerusalem.”(749) Even when the state was come to the verge of

ruin, it was again said, “The Lord would not destroy Judah, for David his

servant’s sake, as he promised him to give him alway a light, and to his

children.”(750) The sum of the whole is this—that David alone was chosen,

to the rejection of all others, as the perpetual object of the Divine

favour; as it is said, in another place, “He forsook the tabernacle of

Shiloh; he refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of

Ephraim; but chose the tribe of Judah, the mount Zion, which he loved. He

chose David also his servant, to feed Jacob his people, and Israel his

inheritance.”(751) Finally, it pleased God to preserve his Church in such

a way, that its security and salvation should depend on that head. David

therefore exclaims, “The Lord is their strength, and he is the saving

strength of his anointed;”(752) and immediately adds this petition: “Save

thy people, and bless thine inheritance;” signifying that the state of the

Church is inseparably connected with the government of Christ. In the same

sense he elsewhere says, “Save, Lord; let the king hear us when we

call.”(753) In these words he clearly teaches us that the faithful resort

to God for assistance, with no other confidence than because they are

sheltered under the protection of the king. This is to be inferred from

another psalm: “Save, O Lord! Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the

Lord;”(754) where it is sufficiently evident that the faithful are invited

to Christ, that they may hope to be saved by the power of God. The same

thing is alluded to in another prayer, where the whole Church implores the

mercy of God: “Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, upon the

Son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself.”(755) For though the

author of the psalm deplores the dissipation of all the people, yet he

ardently prays for their restoration in their head alone. But when

Jeremiah, after the people were driven into exile, the land laid waste,

and all things apparently ruined, bewails the miseries of the Church, he

principally laments that by the subversion of the kingdom, the hope of the

faithful was cut off. “The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of the

Lord, was taken in their pits, of whom we said, Under his shadow we shall

live among the heathen.”(756) Hence it is sufficiently evident, that since

God cannot be propitious to mankind but through the Mediator, Christ was

always exhibited to the holy fathers under the law, as the object to which

they should direct their faith.

III. Now, when consolation is promised in affliction, but especially when

the deliverance of the Church is described, the standard of confidence and

hope is erected in Christ alone. “Thou wentest forth for the salvation of

thy people, even for salvation with thine anointed,”(757) says Habakkuk.

And whenever the Prophets mention the restoration of the Church, they

recall the people to the promise given to David concerning the perpetuity

of his kingdom. Nor is this to be wondered at; for otherwise there would

be no stability in the covenant. To this refers the memorable answer of

Isaiah. For when he saw that his declaration concerning the raising of the

siege, and the present deliverance of Jerusalem, was rejected by that

unbelieving king, Ahaz, he makes rather an abrupt transition to the

Messiah: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son;”(758)

indirectly suggesting, that although the king and the people, in their

perverseness, rejected the promise which had been given them, as though

they would purposely labour to invalidate the truth of God, yet that his

covenant would not be frustrated, but that the Redeemer should come at his

appointed time. Finally, all the Prophets, in order to display the Divine

mercy, were constantly careful to exhibit to view that kingdom of David,

from which redemption and eternal salvation were to proceed. Thus Isaiah:

“I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of

David. Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people;”(759) because

in desperate circumstances the faithful could have no hope, any otherwise

than by his interposition as a witness, that God would be merciful to

them. Thus also Jeremiah, to comfort them who were in despair, says,

“Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a

righteous Branch. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell

safely.”(760) And Ezekiel: “I will set up one Shepherd over them, and he

shall feed them, even my servant David. And I the Lord will be their God,

and my servant David a prince among them; and I will make with them a

covenant of peace.”(761) Again, in another place, having treated of their

incredible renovation, he says, “David my servant shall be king over them;

and they all shall have one Shepherd. Moreover I will make a covenant of

peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them.”(762) I

select a few passages out of many, because I only wish to apprize the

reader, that the hope of the pious has never been placed any where but in

Christ. All the other Prophets also uniformly speak the same language. As

Hosea: “Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be

gathered together, and appoint themselves one head.”(763) And in a

subsequent chapter he is still more explicit: “The children of Israel

shall return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their king.”(764)

Micah also, discoursing on the return of the people, expressly declares,

“their king shall pass before them, and the Lord on the head of

them.”(765) Thus Amos, intending to predict the restoration of the people,

says, “In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen,

and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins.”(766)

This implies that the only standard of salvation was the restoration of

the regal dignity in the family of David, which was accomplished in

Christ. Zechariah, therefore, living nearer to the time of the

manifestation of Christ, more openly exclaims, “Rejoice greatly, O

daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh

unto thee: he is just, and having salvation.”(767) This corresponds with a

passage from a psalm, already cited: “The Lord is the saving strength of

his anointed. Save thy people;”(768) where salvation is extended from the

head to the whole body.

IV. It was the will of God that the Jews should be instructed by these

prophecies, so that they might direct their eyes to Christ whenever they

wanted deliverance. Nor, indeed, notwithstanding their shameful

degeneracy, could the memory of this general principle ever be

obliterated—that God would be the deliverer of the Church by the hand of

Christ, according to his promise to David; and that in this manner the

covenant of grace, in which God had adopted his elect, would at length be

confirmed. Hence it came to pass, that when Christ, a little before his

death, entered into Jerusalem, that song was heard from the mouths of

children, “Hosanna to the Son of David.”(769) For the subject of their

song appears to have been derived from a sentiment generally received and

avowed by the people, that there remained to them no other pledge of the

mercy of God, but in the advent of the Redeemer. For this reason Christ

commands his disciples to believe in him, that they may distinctly and

perfectly believe in God: “Ye believe in God, believe also in me.”(770)

For though, strictly speaking, faith ascends from Christ to the Father,

yet he suggests, that though it were even fixed on God, yet it would

gradually decline, unless he interposed, to preserve its stability. The

majesty of God is otherwise far above the reach of mortals, who are like

worms crawling upon the earth. Wherefore, though I do not reject that

common observation that God is the object of faith, yet I consider it as

requiring some correction. For it is not without reason that Christ is

called “the image of the invisible God;”(771) but by this appellation we

are reminded, that unless God reveal himself to us in Christ, we cannot

have that knowledge of him which is necessary to salvation. For although

among the Jews the scribes had by false glosses obscured the declarations

of the Prophets concerning the Redeemer, yet Christ assumed it for

granted, as if allowed by common consent, that there was no other remedy

for the confusion into which the Jews had fallen, nor any other mode of

deliverance for the Church, but the exhibition of the Mediator. There was

not, indeed, such a general knowledge as there ought to have been, of the

principle taught by Paul, that “Christ is the end of the law;”(772) but

the truth and certainty of this evidently appears both from the law itself

and from the Prophets. I am not yet treating of faith; there will be a

more suitable place for that subject in another part of the work. Only let

this be well fixed in the mind of the reader; that the first step to piety

is to know that God is our Father, to protect, govern, and support us till

he gathers us into the eternal inheritance of his kingdom; that hence it

is plain, as we have before asserted, that there can be no saving

knowledge of God without Christ; and consequently that from the beginning

of the world he has always been manifested to all the elect, that they

might look to him, and repose all their confidence in him. In this sense

Irenæus says that the Father, who is infinite in himself, becomes finite

in the Son; because he has accommodated himself to our capacity, that he

may not overwhelm our minds with the infinity of his glory.(773) And

fanatics, not considering this, pervert a useful observation into an

impious reverie, as though there were in Christ merely a portion of Deity,

an emanation from the infinite perfection; whereas the sole meaning of

that writer is, that God is apprehended in Christ, and in him alone. The

assertion of John has been verified in all ages, “Whosoever denieth the

Son, the same hath not the Father.”(774) For though many in ancient times

gloried in being worshippers of the Supreme Deity, the Creator of heaven

and earth, yet, because they had no Mediator, it was impossible for them

to have any real acquaintance with the mercy of God, or persuasion that he

was their Father. Therefore, as they did not hold the head, that is,

Christ, all their knowledge of God was obscure and unsettled; whence it

came to pass, that degenerating at length into gross and vile

superstitions, they betrayed their ignorance, like the Turks in modern

times; who, though they boast of having the Creator of heaven and earth

for their God, yet only substitute an idol instead of the true God as long

as they remain enemies to Christ.

Chapter VII. The Law Given, Not To Confine The Ancient People To Itself,

But To Encourage Their Hope Of Salvation In Christ, Till The Time Of His

Coming.

From the deduction we have made, it may easily be inferred, that the law

was superadded about four hundred years after the death of Abraham, not to

draw away the attention of the chosen people from Christ, but rather to

keep their minds waiting for his advent, to inflame their desires and

confirm their expectations, that they might not be discouraged by so long

a delay. By the word _law_, I intend, not only the decalogue, which

prescribes the rule of a pious and righteous life, but the form of

religion delivered from God by the hands of Moses. For Moses was not made

a legislator to abolish the blessing promised to the seed of Abraham; on

the contrary, we see him on every occasion reminding the Jews of that

gracious covenant made with their fathers, to which they were heirs; as

though the object of his mission had been to renew it. It was very clearly

manifested in the ceremonies. For what could be more vain or frivolous

than for men to offer the fetid stench arising from the fat of cattle, in

order to reconcile themselves to God? or to resort to any aspersion of

water or of blood, to cleanse themselves from pollution? In short, the

whole legal worship, if it be considered in itself, and contain no shadows

and figures of correspondent truths, will appear perfectly ridiculous.

Wherefore it is not without reason, that both in the speech of Stephen and

in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that passage is so carefully stated, in

which God commands Moses to make all things pertaining to the tabernacle

“according to the pattern showed to him in the mount.”(775) For unless

there had been some spiritual design, to which they were directed, the

Jews would have laboured to no purpose in these observances, as the

Gentiles did in their mummeries. Profane men, who have never seriously

devoted themselves to the pursuit of piety, have not patience to hear of

such various rites: they not only wonder why God should weary his ancient

people with such a mass of ceremonies, but they even despise and deride

them as puerile and ludicrous. This arises from inattention to the end of

the legal figures, from which if those figures be separated, they must be

condemned as vain and useless. But the “pattern,” which is mentioned,

shows that God commanded the sacrifices, not with a design to occupy his

worshippers in terrestrial exercises, but rather that he might elevate

their minds to sublimer objects. This may be likewise evinced by his

nature; for as he is a Spirit, he is pleased with none but spiritual

worship. Testimonies of this truth may be found in the numerous passages

of the Prophets, in which they reprove the stupidity of the Jews for

supposing that sacrifices possess any real value in the sight of God. Do

they mean to derogate from the law? Not at all; but being true

interpreters of it, they designed by this method to direct the eyes of the

people to that point from which the multitude were wandering. Now, from

the grace offered to the Jews, it is inferred as a certain truth, that the

law was not irrespective of Christ; for Moses mentioned to them this end

of their adoption, that they might “be unto God a kingdom of

priests;”(776) which could not be attained without a greater and more

excellent reconciliation than could arise from the blood of beasts. For

what is more improbable than that the sons of Adam, who by hereditary

contagion are all born the slaves of sin, should be exalted to regal

dignity, and thus become partakers of the glory of God, unless such an

eminent blessing proceeded from some other source than themselves? How

also could the right of the priesthood remain among them, the pollution of

whose crimes rendered them abominable to God, unless they had been

consecrated in a holy head? Wherefore Peter makes a beautiful application

of this observation of Moses, suggesting that the plenitude of that grace,

of which the Jews enjoyed a taste under the law, is exhibited in Christ.

“Ye are,” says he, “a chosen generation, a royal priesthood.”(777) This

application of the words tends to show, that they, to whom Christ has

appeared under the gospel, have obtained more than their forefathers;

because they are all invested with sacerdotal and regal honours, that in a

dependence on their Mediator they may venture to come boldly into the

presence of God.

II. And here it must be remarked, by the way, that the kingdom, which at

length was erected in the family of David, is a part of the law, and

comprised under the ministry of Moses; whence it follows, that both in the

posterity of David, and in the whole Levitical tribe, as in a twofold

mirror, Christ was exhibited to the view of his ancient people. For, as I

have just observed, it was otherwise impossible that in the Divine view

they should be kings and priests, who were the slaves of sin and death,

and polluted by their own corruptions. Hence appears the truth of the

assertion of Paul, that the Jews were subject, as it were, to the

authority of a schoolmaster, till the advent of that seed, for whose sake

the promise was given.(778) For Christ being not yet familiarly

discovered, they were like children, whose imbecility could not yet bear

the full knowledge of heavenly things. But how they were led to Christ by

the ceremonies, has been already stated, and may be better learned from

the testimonies of the Prophets. For although they were obliged every day

to approach God with new sacrifices, in order to appease him, yet Isaiah

promises them the expiation of all their transgressions by a single

sacrifice,(779) which is confirmed by Daniel.(780) The priests chosen from

the tribe of Levi, used to enter into the sanctuary; but concerning that

one priest it was once said, that he was divinely chosen with an oath, to

be “a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.”(781) There was,

then, an unction of visible oil; but Daniel, from his vision, foretells an

unction of a different kind. But not to insist on many proofs, the author

of the Epistle to the Hebrews, from the fourth chapter to the eleventh,

demonstrates in a manner sufficiently copious and clear, that,

irrespective of Christ, all the ceremonies of the law are worthless and

vain. And in regard to the decalogue, we should attend to the declaration

of Paul, that “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one

that believeth;”(782) and also that Christ is “the Spirit,” who gives

“life” to the otherwise dead letter.(783) For in the former passage he

signifies that righteousness is taught in vain by the precepts, till

Christ bestows it both by a gratuitous imputation, and by the Spirit of

regeneration. Wherefore he justly denominates Christ the completion or end

of the law; for we should derive no benefit from a knowledge of what God

requires of us, unless we were succoured by Christ when labouring and

oppressed under its yoke and intolerable burden. In another place, he

states that “the law was added because of transgressions;”(784) that is,

to humble men, by convicting them of being the causes of their own

condemnation. Now, this being the true and only preparation for seeking

Christ, the various declarations which he makes are in perfect unison with

each other. But as he was then engaged in a controversy with erroneous

teachers, who pretended that we merit righteousness by the works of the

law,—in order to refute their error, he was sometimes obliged to use the

term _law_ in a more restricted sense, as merely preceptive, although it

was otherwise connected with the covenant of gratuitous adoption.

III. But it is worthy of a little inquiry, how we are rendered more

inexcusable by the instructions of the moral law, in order that a sense of

our guilt may excite us to supplicate for pardon. If it be true that the

law displays a perfection of righteousness, it also follows that the

complete observation of it, is in the sight of God a perfect

righteousness, in which a man would be esteemed and reputed righteous at

the tribunal of heaven. Wherefore Moses, when he had promulgated the law,

hesitated not to “call heaven and earth to record”(785) that he had

proposed to the Israelites life and death, good and evil. Nor can we deny

that the reward of eternal life awaits a righteous obedience to the law,

according to the Divine promise. But, on the other hand, it is proper to

examine whether we perform that obedience, the merit of which can warrant

our confident expectation of that reward. For how unimportant is it, to

discover that the reward of eternal life depends on the observance of the

law, unless we also ascertain whether it be possible for us to arrive at

eternal life in that way! But in this point the weakness of the law is

manifest. For as none of us are found to observe the law, we are excluded

from the promises of life, and fall entirely under the curse. I am now

showing, not only what does happen, but what necessarily must happen. For

the doctrine of the law being far above human ability, man may view the

promises, indeed, from a distance, but cannot gather any fruit from them.

It only remains for him, from their goodness to form a truer estimate of

his own misery, while he reflects that all hope of salvation is cut off,

and that he is in imminent danger of death. On the other hand, we are

urged with terrible sanctions, which bind, not a few of us, but every

individual of mankind; they urge, I say, and pursue us with inexorable

rigour, so that in the law we see nothing but present death.

IV. Therefore, if we direct our views exclusively to the law, the effects

upon our minds will only be despondency, confusion, and despair, since it

condemns and curses us all, and keeps us far from that blessedness which

it proposes to them who observe it. Does the Lord, then, you will say, in

this case do nothing but mock us? For how little does it differ from

mockery, to exhibit a hope of felicity, to invite and exhort to it, to

declare that it is ready for our reception, whilst the way to it is closed

and inaccessible! I reply, although the promises of the law, being

conditional, depend on a perfect obedience to the law, which can nowhere

be found, yet they have not been given in vain. For when we have learned

that they will be vain and inefficacious to us, unless God embrace us with

his gratuitous goodness, without any regard to our works, and unless we

have also embraced by faith that goodness, as exhibited to us in the

gospel,—then these promises are not without their use, even with the

condition annexed to them. For then he gratuitously confers every thing

upon us, so that he adds this also to the number of his favours, that not

rejecting our imperfect obedience, but pardoning its deficiencies, he

gives us to enjoy the benefit of the legal promises, just as if we had

fulfilled the condition ourselves. But as we shall more fully discuss this

question when we treat of the justification of faith, we shall pursue it

no further at present.