V. Our assertion, respecting the impossibility of observing the law, must

be briefly explained and proved; for it is generally esteemed a very

absurd sentiment, so that Jerome has not scrupled to denounce it as

accursed. What was the opinion of Jerome, I regard not; let us inquire

what is truth. I shall not here enter into a long discussion of the

various species of possibility; I call that impossible which has never

happened yet, and which is prevented by the ordination and decree of God

from ever happening in future. If we inquire from the remotest period of

antiquity, I assert that there never has existed a saint, who, surrounded

with a body of death, could attain to such a degree of love, as to love

God with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his mind; and,

moreover, that there never has been one, who was not the subject of some

inordinate desire. Who can deny this? I know, indeed, what sort of saints

the folly of superstition imagines to itself, such as almost excel even

the angels of heaven in purity; but such an imagination is repugnant both

to Scripture and to the dictates of experience. I assert also that no man,

who shall exist in future, will reach the standard of true perfection,

unless released from the burden of the body. This is established by clear

testimonies of Scripture: Solomon says, “There is not a just man upon

earth, that doeth good and sinneth not.”(786) David; “In thy sight shall

no man living be justified.”(787) Job in many passages affirms the same

thing;(788) but Paul most plainly of all, that “the flesh lusteth against

the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.”(789) Nor does he prove,

that “as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse,” by any

other reason but because “it is written, Cursed is every one that

continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to

do them;”(790) evidently suggesting, and even taking it for granted, that

no one can continue in them. Now, whatever is predicted in the Scriptures,

must be considered as perpetual, and even as necessary. With a similar

fallacy Augustine used to be teased by the Pelagians, who maintained that

it is an injury to God, to say that he commands more than the faithful

through his grace are able to perform. To avoid their cavil, he admitted

that the Lord might, if he chose, exalt a mortal man to the purity of

angels; but that he neither had ever done it, nor would ever do it,

because he had declared otherwise in the Scriptures.(791) This I do not

deny; but I add that it is absurd to dispute concerning the power of God,

in opposition to his veracity; and that, therefore, it affords no room for

cavilling, when any one maintains that to be impossible, which the

Scriptures declare will never happen. But if the dispute be about the

term, the Lord, in reply to an inquiry of his disciples, “Who, then, can

be saved?” says, “With men this is impossible; but with God all things are

possible.”(792) Augustine contends, with a very powerful argument, that in

this flesh we never render to God the legitimate love which we owe to him.

“Love,” says he, “is an effect of knowledge, so that no man can perfectly

love God, who has not first a complete knowledge of his goodness. During

our pilgrimage in this world, we see through an obscure medium; the

consequence of this, then, is, that our love is imperfect.” It ought,

therefore, to be admitted without controversy, that it is impossible in

this carnal state to fulfil the law, if we consider the impotence of our

nature, as will elsewhere be proved also from Paul.(793)

VI. But for the better elucidation of the subject, let us state, in a

compendious order, the office and use of what is called the moral law. It

is contained, as far as I understand it, in these three points. The first

is, that while it discovers the righteousness of God, that is, the only

righteousness which is acceptable to God, it warns every one of his own

unrighteousness, places it beyond all doubt, convicts, and condemns him.

For it is necessary that man, blinded and inebriated with self‐love,

should thus be driven into a knowledge of himself, and a confession of his

own imbecility and impurity. Since, unless his vanity be evidently

reproved, he is inflated with a foolish confidence in his strength, and

can never be brought to perceive its feebleness as long as he measures it

by the rule of his own fancy. But as soon as he begins to compare it to

the difficulty of the law, he finds his insolence and pride immediately

abate. For how great soever his preconceived opinion of it, he perceives

it immediately pant under so heavy a load, and then totter, and at length

fall. Thus, being instructed under the tuition of the law, he lays aside

that arrogance with which he was previously blinded. He must also be cured

of the other disease, of pride, with which, we have observed, he is

afflicted. As long as he is permitted to stand in his own judgment, he

substitutes hypocrisy instead of righteousness; contented with which, he

rises up with I know not what pretended righteousnesses, in opposition to

the grace of God. But when he is constrained to examine his life according

to the rules of the law, he no longer presumes on his counterfeit

righteousness, but perceives that he is at an infinite distance from

holiness; and also that he abounds with innumerable vices, from which he

before supposed himself to be pure. For the evils of concupiscence are

concealed in such deep and intricate recesses, as easily to elude the view

of man. And it is not without cause that the Apostle says, “I had not

known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet;”(794) because,

unless it be stripped of its disguises, and brought to light by the law,

it destroys the miserable man in so secret a manner, that he does not

perceive its fatal dart.

VII. Thus the law is like a mirror, in which we behold, first, our

impotence; secondly, our iniquity, which proceeds from it; and lastly, the

consequence of both, our obnoxiousness to the curse; just as a mirror

represents to us the spots on our face. For when a man is destitute of

power to practise righteousness, he must necessarily fall into the habits

of sin. And sin is immediately followed by the curse. Therefore the

greater the transgression of which the law convicts us, the more severe is

the judgment with which it condemns us. This appears from the observation

of the Apostle, that “by the law is the knowledge of sin.”(795) For he

there speaks only of the first office of the law, which is experienced in

sinners not yet regenerated. The same sentiment is conveyed in the

following passages: that “the law entered, that the offence might

abound;”(796) and that it is therefore “the ministration of death, which

worketh wrath and slayeth.”(797) For iniquity undoubtedly increases more

and more, in proportion to the clearness of that sense of sin which

strikes the conscience; because to transgression of the law, there is then

added contumacy against the lawgiver. It remains, therefore, that the law

arm the Divine wrath against the sinner; for of itself it can only accuse,

condemn, and destroy. And, as Augustine says, if we have not the Spirit of

grace, the law serves only to convict and slay us. But this assertion

neither reflects dishonour on the law, nor at all derogates from its

excellence. Certainly, if our will were wholly conformed to the law, and

disposed to obey it, the mere knowledge of it would evidently be

sufficient to salvation. But since our carnal and corrupt nature is in a

state of hostility against the spirituality of the Divine law, and not

amended by its discipline, it follows that the law, which was given for

salvation, if it could have found adequate attention, becomes an occasion

of sin and death. For since we are all convicted of having transgressed

it, the more clearly it displays the righteousness of God, so, on the

contrary, the more it detects our iniquity, and the more certainly it

confirms the reward of life and salvation reserved for the righteous, so

much the more certain it makes the perdition of the wicked. These

expressions, therefore, are so far from being dishonourable to the law,

that they serve more illustriously to recommend the Divine goodness. For

hence it really appears, that our iniquity and depravity prevent us from

enjoying that blessed life which is revealed to all men in the law. Hence

the grace of God, which succours us without the assistance of the law, is

rendered sweeter; and his mercy, which confers it on us, more amiable;

from which we learn that he is never wearied with repeating his blessings

and loading us with new favours.

VIII. But though the iniquity and condemnation of us all are confirmed by

the testimony of the law, this is not done (at least if we properly profit

by it) in order to make us sink into despair, and fall over the precipice

of despondency. It is true that the wicked are thus confounded by it, but

this is occasioned by the obstinacy of their hearts. With the children of

God, its instructions must terminate in a different manner. The Apostle

indeed declares that we are all condemned by the sentence of the law,

“that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty

before God.”(798) Yet the same Apostle elsewhere informs us, that “God

hath concluded them all in unbelief,” not that he might destroy or suffer

all to perish, but “that he might have mercy upon all;”(799) that is, that

leaving their foolish opinion of their own strength, they may know that

they stand and are supported only by the power of God; that being naked

and destitute, they may resort for assistance to his mercy, recline

themselves wholly upon it, hide themselves entirely in it, and embrace it

alone for righteousness and merits, since it is offered in Christ to all

who with true faith implore it and expect it. For in the precepts of the

law, God appears only, on the one hand, as the rewarder of perfect

righteousness, of which we are all destitute; and on the other, as the

severe judge of transgressions. But in Christ, his face shines with a

plenitude of grace and lenity, even towards miserable and unworthy

sinners.

IX. Of making use of the law to implore the assistance of God, Augustine

frequently treats; as when he writes to Hilary: “The law gives commands,

in order that, endeavouring to perform them, and being wearied through our

infirmity under the law, we may learn to pray for the assistance of

grace.” Also to Asellius: “The utility of the law is to convince man of

his own infirmity, and to compel him to pray for the gracious remedy

provided in Christ.” Also to Innocentius Romanus: “The law commands: grace

furnishes strength for the performance.” Again, to Valentine: “God

commands what we cannot perform, that we may know for what blessings we

ought to supplicate him.” Again: “The law was given to convict you; that

being convicted you might fear, that fearing you might pray for pardon,

and not presume on your own strength.” Again: “The end for which the law

was given, was to diminish that which was great, to demonstrate that you

have of yourself no ability to work righteousness, that thus, being poor,

indigent, and destitute, you might have recourse to grace for relief.”

Afterwards he addresses himself to God: “Thus do, O Lord! thus do, O

merciful Lord! command that which cannot be performed: even command that

which cannot be performed without thy grace: that when men cannot perform

it in their own strength, every mouth may be stopped, and no man appear

great in his own estimation. Let all men be mean, and let all the world be

proved guilty before God.” But I am not wise in collecting so many

testimonies, when this holy man has written a treatise expressly on this

subject, which he has entitled _De Spiritu et Litera_, On the Spirit and

Letter. The second use of the law he does not so clearly describe, either

because he knew that it depends on the first, or because he did not so

fully understand it, or because he wanted words to explain it with

distinctness and perspicuity adequate to his ideas of it. Yet this first

office of the law is not confined to the pious, but extends also to the

reprobate. For though they do not, with the children of God, advance so

far as, after the mortification of the flesh, to be renewed, and to

flourish again in the inner man, but, confounded with the first horrors of

conscience, remain in despair, yet they contribute to manifest the equity

of the Divine judgment, by their consciences being agitated with such

violent emotions. For they are always desirous of cavilling against the

judgment of God; but now, while it is not yet manifested, they are,

nevertheless, so confounded with the testimony of the law and of their own

conscience, that they betray in themselves what they have deserved.

X. The second office of the law is, to cause those who, unless

constrained, feel no concern for justice and rectitude, when they hear its

terrible sanctions, to be at least restrained by a fear of its penalties.

And they are restrained, not because it internally influences or affects

their minds, but because, being chained, as it were, they refrain from

external acts, and repress their depravity within them, which otherwise

they would have wantonly discharged. This makes them neither better nor

more righteous in the Divine view. For although, being prevented either by

fear or by shame, they dare not execute what their minds have contrived,

nor openly discover the fury of their passions, yet their hearts are not

disposed to fear and obey God; and the more they restrain themselves, the

more violently they are inflamed within; they ferment, they boil, ready to

break out into any external acts, if they were not prevented by this dread

of the law. And not only so, they also inveterately hate the law itself,

and execrate God the lawgiver, so that, if they could, they would wish to

annihilate him whom they cannot bear, either in commanding that which is

right, or in punishing the despisers of his majesty. In some, indeed, this

state of mind is more evident, in others more concealed; but it is really

the case of all who are yet unregenerate, that they are induced to attend

to the law, not by a voluntary submission, but with reluctance and

resistance, only by the violence of fear. But yet this constrained and

extorted righteousness is necessary to the community, whose public

tranquillity is provided for by God in this instance, while he prevents

all things being involved in confusion, which would certainly be the case,

if all men were permitted to pursue their own inclinations. Moreover, it

is useful even to the children of God, to be exercised by its discipline

before their vocation, while they are destitute of the Spirit of

sanctification, and are absorbed in carnal folly. For when the dread of

Divine vengeance restrains them even from external licentiousness,

although, their minds being not yet subdued, they make but a slow progress

at present, yet they are in some measure accustomed to bear the yoke of

righteousness; so that when they are called, they may not be entirely

unaccustomed to its discipline, as a thing altogether unknown. To this

office of the law the Apostle appears particularly to have referred, when

he says, “that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the

lawless and disobedient; for the ungodly and for sinners; for unholy and

profane; for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers; for

manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with

mankind, for men‐stealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there

be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.”(800) For he here

signifies that it restrains the violence of the carnal desires, which

would otherwise indulge themselves in the most unbounded licentiousness.

XI. But we may apply to both what he elsewhere asserts, that to the Jews

“the law was a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ;”(801) for there are

two kinds of persons who are led to Christ by its discipline. Some, whom

we mentioned in the first place, from too much confidence either in their

own strength or in their own righteousness, are unfit to receive the grace

of Christ, till they have first been stripped of every thing. The law,

therefore, reduces them to humility by a knowledge of their own misery,

that thus they may be prepared to pray for that of which they before

supposed themselves not destitute. Others need a bridle to restrain them,

lest they abandon themselves to carnal licentiousness, to such a degree as

wholly to depart from all practice of righteousness. For where the Spirit

does not yet reign, there is sometimes such a violent ebullition of the

passions, as to occasion great danger of the soul that is under their

influence being swallowed up in forgetfulness and contempt of God; which

would certainly be the case, if the Lord did not provide this remedy

against it. Those, therefore, whom he has destined to the inheritance of

his kingdom, if he do not immediately regenerate them, he keeps under fear

by the works of the law till the time of his visitation; not that chaste

and pure fear which ought to be felt by his children, but a fear which is,

nevertheless, useful to train them, according to their capacity, to true

piety. Of this we have so many proofs, that there is no need to adduce any

example. For all who have lived for a considerable time in ignorance of

God will confess it to have been their experience, that they were

constrained by the law to a certain kind of fear and reverence of God,

till, being regenerated by his Spirit, they began to love him from their

hearts.

XII. The third use of the law, which is the principal one, and which is

more nearly connected with the proper end of it, relates to the faithful,

in whose hearts the Spirit of God already lives and reigns. For although

the law is inscribed and engraven on their hearts by the finger of

God,—that is, although they are so excited and animated by the direction

of the Spirit, that they desire to obey God,—yet they derive a twofold

advantage from the law. For they find it an excellent instrument to give

them, from day to day, a better and more certain understanding of the

Divine will to which they aspire, and to confirm them in the knowledge of

it. As, though a servant be already influenced by the strongest desire of

gaining the approbation of his master, yet it is necessary for him

carefully to inquire and observe the orders of his master, in order to

conform to them. Nor let any one of us exempt himself from this necessity;

for no man has already acquired so much wisdom, that he could not by the

daily instruction of the law make new advances into a purer knowledge of

the Divine will. In the next place, as we need not only instruction, but

also exhortation, the servant of God will derive this further advantage

from the law; by frequent meditation on it he will be excited to

obedience, he will be confirmed in it, and restrained from the slippery

path of transgression. For in this manner should the saints stimulate

themselves, because, with whatever alacrity they labour for the

righteousness of God according to the Spirit, yet they are always burdened

with the indolence of the flesh, which prevents their proceeding with due

promptitude. To this flesh the law serves as a whip, urging it, like a

dull and tardy animal, forwards to its work; and even to the spiritual

man, who is not yet delivered from the burden of the flesh, it will be a

perpetual spur, that will not permit him to loiter. To this use of the law

David referred, when he celebrated it in such remarkable encomiums as

these: “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the statutes

of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is

pure, enlightening the eyes,” &c.(802) Again: “Thy word is a lamp unto my

feet, and a light unto my path;”(803) and many others, which he introduces

in every part of this psalm. Nor are these assertions repugnant to those

of Paul, in which he shows, not what service the law renders to the

regenerate, but what it can bestow upon man merely of itself; whereas the

Psalmist in these passages celebrates the great advantage derived, through

the Divine teaching, from the reading of the law, by those whom God

inspires with an inward promptitude to obedience. And he adverts not only

to the precepts, but to the promise of grace annexed to their performance,

which alone causes that which is bitter to become sweet. For what would be

less amiable than the law, if by demands and threats it only distressed

the mind with fear, and harassed it with terror? But David particularly

shows, that in the law he discovered the Mediator, without whom there is

nothing pleasant or delightful.

XIII. Some unskilful men, being unable to discern this distinction, rashly

explode Moses altogether, and discard the two tables of the law; because

they consider it improper for Christians to adhere to a doctrine which

contains the administration of death. Far from us be this profane opinion;

for Moses has abundantly taught us, that the law, which in sinners can

only produce death, ought to have a better and more excellent use in the

saints. For just before his death he thus addressed the people: “Set your

hearts unto all the words which I testify among you this day, which ye

shall command your children to observe, to do all the words of this law.

For it is not a vain thing for you; because it is your life.”(804) But if

no one can deny that the law exhibits a perfect model of righteousness,

either we ought to have no rule for an upright and just life, or it is

criminal for us to deviate from it. For there are not many rules of life,

but one, which is perpetually and immutably the same. Wherefore, when

David represents the life of a righteous man as spent in continual

meditations on the law,(805) we must not refer it to one period of time

only, because it is very suitable for all ages, even to the end of the

world. Let us neither be deterred, therefore, nor fly from its

instructions, because it prescribes a holiness far more complete than we

shall attain, as long as we remain in the prison of the body. For it no

longer exercises towards us the part of a rigorous exactor, only to be

satisfied by the perfect performance of every injunction; but in this

perfection, to which it exhorts us, it shows us a goal, to aim at which,

during the whole of our lives, would be equally conducive to our interest

and consistent with our duty; in which attempt it is happy for us if we

fail not. For the whole of this life is a course, which when we have

completed, the Lord will grant us to reach that goal, towards which at so

great a distance our efforts are now vigorously directed.

XIV. Now, because the law, in regard to the faithful, has the force of an

exhortation, not to bind their consciences with a curse, but by its

frequent admonitions to arouse their indolence, and reprove their

imperfection,—many persons, when they design to express this liberation

from its curse, say that the law (I still speak of the moral law) is

abrogated to the faithful; not that it no longer enjoins upon them that

which is right, but only that it ceases to be to them what it was before,

no longer terrifying and confounding their consciences, condemning and

destroying them. And such an abrogation of the law is clearly taught by

Paul. It appears also to have been preached by our Lord, since he would

not have refuted the opinion concerning his abolishing the law, unless it

had prevailed among the Jews. Now, as this opinion could not prevail

without any pretext, it is probable that it proceeded from a false

interpretation of his doctrine; in the same manner as almost all errors

have usually taken some colour from the truth. But lest we ourselves fall

into the same error, let us accurately distinguish what is abrogated in

the law, and what still remains in force. When the Lord declares that he

came “not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it,” and that “till heaven and

earth shall pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the

law, till all be fulfilled,”(806) he sufficiently proves that his advent

would detract nothing from the observance of the law. And with sufficient

reason, since the express end of his advent was to heal the transgressions

of it. The doctrine of the law remains, therefore, through Christ,

inviolable; which by tuition, admonition, reproof, and correction, forms

and prepares us for every good work.

XV. The assertions of Paul respecting the abrogation of the law evidently

relate, not to the instruction itself, but to the power of binding the

conscience. For the law not only teaches, but authoritatively requires,

obedience to its commands. If this obedience be not yielded, and even if

there be any partial deficiency of duty, it hurls the thunderbolt of its

curse. For this reason the Apostle says, that “as many as are of the works

of the law are under the curse; for it is written, Cursed is every one

that continueth not in all things.”(807) Now, he affirms those to be “of

the works of the law,” who place not their righteousness in the remission

of sins, by which we are released from the rigour of the law. He teaches

us, therefore, that we must be released from the bondage of the law,

unless we would perish in misery under it. But what bondage? the bondage

of that austere and rigid exaction, which remits nothing from its

strictest requirements, and permits no transgression to pass with

impunity; I say, Christ, in order to redeem us from this curse, was “made

a curse for us. For it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a

tree.”(808) In the following chapter, indeed, he tells us, that Christ was

“made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law;” but in the

same sense; for he immediately adds, “that we might receive the adoption

of sons.”(809) What is this? that we might not be oppressed with a

perpetual servitude, which would keep our consciences in continual

distress with the dread of death. At the same time this truth remains for

ever unshaken, that the law has sustained no diminution of its authority,

but ought always to receive from us the same veneration and obedience.

XVI. The case of ceremonies, which have been abrogated, not as to their

effect, but only as to their use, is very different. Their having been

abolished by the advent of Christ, is so far from derogating from their

sanctity, that it rather recommends and renders it more illustrious. For

as they must have exhibited to the people, in ancient times, a vain

spectacle, unless they had discovered the virtue of the death and

resurrection of Christ, so, if they had not ceased, we should, in the

present age, have been unable to discern for what purpose they were

instituted. To prove, therefore, that the observance of them is not only

needless, but even injurious, Paul teaches us that they were shadows, the

body of which we have in Christ.(810) We see, then, that the truth shines

with greater splendour in their abolition, than if they still continued to

give a distant and obscure representation of Christ, who has openly

appeared. For this reason, at the death of Christ, “the veil of the temple

was rent in twain from the top to the bottom;”(811) because, according to

the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the living and express image of

the heavenly blessings, which before had been only sketched in obscure

lineaments, was now clearly revealed. The same truth is conveyed in the

declaration of Christ, that “the law and the prophets were until John;

since that time the kingdom of God is preached.”(812) Not that the holy

fathers had been destitute of that preaching which contains the hope of

salvation, and of eternal life, but because they saw only at a distance,

and under shadows, what we now contemplate in open day. But the reason,

why it was necessary for the Church of God to ascend from those rudiments

to sublimer heights, is explained by John the Baptist: “the law was given

by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.”(813) For although

expiation of sin was truly promised in the ancient sacrifices, and the ark

of the covenant was a certain pledge of the paternal favour of God, all

these would have been mere shadows, if they had not been founded in the

grace of Christ, where alone we may find true and eternal stability. Let

us firmly maintain, then, that though the legal rites have ceased to be

observed, yet their very discontinuance gives us a better knowledge of

their great utility before the advent of Christ, who, abolishing the

observance of them, confirmed their virtue and efficacy in his death.

XVII. The reasoning of Paul is attended with more difficulty: “And you,

being dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he

quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; blotting

out the hand‐writing of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary

to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross,” &c.(814) For

it seems to extend the abolition of the law somewhat further, as though we

had now no concern with its “ordinances.” For they are in an error who

understand it simply of the moral law, the abolition of which they,

nevertheless, explain to relate to its inexorable severity, rather than to

its precepts. Others, more acutely and carefully considering the words of

Paul, perceive that they belong particularly to the ceremonial law; and

prove that the word “ordinances” is more than once used by Paul in that

signification. For he thus expresses himself to the Ephesians: “He is our

peace, who hath made both one; having abolished the law of commandments

contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new

man.”(815) That he there speaks of the ceremonies, is very evident; for he

calls the law “the middle wall of partition,” by which the Jews were

separated from the Gentiles. Wherefore I allow that the former

commentators are justly censured by these; but even these do not appear to

me clearly to explain the meaning of the Apostle. For to compare these two

passages as in all respects similar, is what I by no means approve. When

he designs to assure the Ephesians of their admission into fellowship with

the Israelites, he informs them, that the impediment which formerly

prevented it is now removed. That consisted in ceremonies. For the rites

of ablutions and sacrifices, by which the Jews were consecrated to the

Lord, caused a separation between them and the Gentiles. But in the

Epistle to the Colossians he treats of a sublimer mystery. The controversy

there relates to the Mosaic observances, to which the false Apostles were

strenuously attempting to subject the Christians. But as in the Epistle to

the Galatians he goes to the depth of that controversy, and reduces it to

its source, so also in this place. For if in the rites you contemplate

nothing but the necessity of performing them, to what purpose were they

called a “hand‐writing that was against us”? and almost the whole of our

redemption made to consist in its being “blotted out?” Wherefore it is

evident, that here is something to be considered beside the external

ceremonies. And I am persuaded that I have discovered the genuine meaning,

at least if that be conceded to me as a truth, which Augustine somewhere

very truly asserts, and which he has even borrowed from the positive

expressions of an Apostle,(816) that in the Jewish ceremonies there was

rather a confession of sins than an expiation of them. For what did they

do in offering sacrifices, but confess themselves worthy of death, since

they substituted victims to be slain in their stead? What were their

purifications, but confessions that they were themselves impure? Thus the

hand‐writing both of their sin and of their impurity was frequently

renewed by them; but that confession afforded no deliverance. For which

reason the Apostle says that the death of Christ effected “the redemption

of the transgressions that were under the first testament.”(817) The

Apostle, therefore, justly denominates the ceremonies “a hand‐writing

against those who observe them;” because by them they publicly attested

their condemnation and impurity. Nor does any objection arise from their

having been also partakers of the same grace with us. For this they

obtained in Christ, not in the ceremonies, which the Apostle there

distinguishes from Christ; for being practised at that time after the

introduction of the gospel, they obscured the glory of Christ. We find,

then, that the ceremonies, considered by themselves, are beautifully and

appositely called a “hand‐writing that was against” the salvation of men;

because they were solemn instruments testifying their guilt. When the

false Apostles wished to bring the Church back to the observance of them,

the Apostle deeply investigated their signification, and very justly

admonished the Colossians into what circumstances they would relapse, if

they should suffer themselves to be thus enslaved by them. For they would

at the same time be deprived of the benefit of Christ; since, by the

eternal expiation that he has once effected, he has abolished those daily

observances, which could only attest their sins, but could never cancel

them.

Chapter VIII. An Exposition Of The Moral Law

Here I think it will not be foreign to our subject to introduce the ten

precepts of the law, with a brief exposition of them. For this will more

clearly evince what I have suggested, that the service which God has once

prescribed always remains in full force; and will also furnish us with a

confirmation of the second remark, that the Jews not only learned from it

the nature of true piety, but when they saw their inability to observe it,

were led by the fear of its sentence, though not without reluctance, to

the Mediator. Now, in giving a summary of those things which are requisite

to the true knowledge of God, we have shown that we can form no

conceptions of his greatness, but his majesty immediately discovers itself

to us, to constrain us to worship him. In the knowledge of ourselves, we

have laid down this as a principal article, that being divested of all

opinion of our own strength, and confidence in our own righteousness, and,

on the other hand, discouraged and depressed by a consciousness of our

poverty, we should learn true humility and self‐dejection. The Lord

accomplishes both these things in his law, where, in the first place,

claiming to himself the legitimate authority to command, he calls us to

revere his Divinity, and prescribes the parts of which this reverence

consists; and in the next place, promulgating the rule of his

righteousness, (the rectitude of which, our nature, being depraved and

perverted, perpetually opposes; and from the perfection of which, our

ability, through its indolence and imbecility towards that which is good,

is at a great distance,) he convicts us both of impotence and of

unrighteousness. Moreover, the internal law, which has before been said to

be inscribed and as it were engraven on the hearts of all men, suggests to

us in some measure the same things which are to be learned from the two

tables. For our conscience does not permit us to sleep in perpetual

insensibility, but is an internal witness and monitor of the duties we owe

to God, shows us the difference between good and evil, and so accuses us

when we deviate from our duty. But man, involved as he is in a cloud of

errors, scarcely obtains from this law of nature the smallest idea of what

worship is accepted by God; but is certainly at an immense distance from a

right understanding of it. Besides, he is so elated with arrogance and

ambition, and so blinded with self‐love, that he cannot yet take a view of

himself, and as it were retire within, that he may learn to submit and

humble himself, and to confess his misery. Since it was necessary,

therefore, both for our dulness and obstinacy, the Lord gave us a written

law; to declare with greater certainty what in the law of nature was too

obscure, and by arousing our indolence, to make a deeper impression on our

understanding and memory.

II. Now, it is easy to perceive, what we are to learn from the law;

namely, that God, as he is our Creator, justly sustains towards us the

character of a Father and of a Lord; and that on this account we owe to

him glory and reverence, love and fear. Moreover, that we are not at

liberty to follow every thing to which the violence of our passions may

incite us; but that we ought to be attentive to his will, and to practise

nothing but what is pleasing to him. In the next place, that righteousness

and rectitude are a delight, but iniquity an abomination to him; and that,

therefore, unless we will with impious ingratitude rebel against our

Maker, we must necessarily spend our whole lives in the practice of

righteousness. For if we manifest a becoming reverence for him, only when

we prefer his will to our own, it follows that there is no other

legitimate worship of him, but the observance of righteousness, sanctity,

and purity. Nor can we pretend to excuse ourselves by a want of ability,

like insolvent debtors. For it is improper for us to measure the glory of

God by our ability; for whatever may be our characters, he ever remains

like himself, the friend of righteousness, the enemy of iniquity. Whatever

he requires of us, since he can require nothing but what is right, we are

under a natural obligation to obey; but our inability is our own fault.

For if we are bound by our own passions, which are under the government of

sin, so that we are not at liberty to obey our Father, there is no reason

why we should plead this necessity in our defence, the criminality of

which is within ourselves, and must be imputed to us.

III. When we have made such a proficiency as this by means of the

instruction of the law, we ought, under the same teacher, to retire within

ourselves; from which we may learn two things: First, by comparing our

life with the righteousness of the law, we shall find, that we are very

far from acting agreeably to the will of God, and are therefore unworthy

to retain a place among his creatures, much less to be numbered among his

children. Secondly, by examining our strength, we shall see, that it is

not only unequal to the observance of the law, but a mere nullity. The

necessary consequence of this will be a diffidence in our own strength,

and an anxiety and trepidation of mind. For the conscience cannot sustain

the load of iniquity, without an immediate discovery of the Divine

judgment. And the Divine judgment cannot be perceived, without inspiring a

dread of death. Compelled also by proofs of its impotence, it cannot avoid

falling into an absolute despair of its own strength. Both these

dispositions produce humility and dejection. The result of all this is,

that the man terrified with the apprehension of eternal death, which he

sees justly impending over him for his unrighteousness, betakes himself

entirely to the Divine mercy, as to the only port of salvation; and

perceiving his inability to fulfil the commands of the law, and feeling

nothing but despair in himself, he implores and expects assistance from

another quarter.

IV. But not contented with having conciliated a reverence for his

righteousness, the Lord has also subjoined promises and threatenings, in

order that our hearts might imbibe a love for him, and at the same time a

hatred to iniquity. For since the eyes of our mind are too dim to be

attracted with the mere beauty of virtue, our most merciful Father has

been graciously pleased to allure us to the love and worship of himself by

the sweetness of his rewards. He announces, therefore, that he has

reserved rewards for virtue, and that the person who obeys his

commandments shall not labour in vain. He proclaims, on the contrary, not

only that unrighteousness is execrable in his sight, but also that it

shall not escape with impunity; but that he will avenge himself on all the

despisers of his majesty. And to urge us by all possible motives, he

promises also the blessings of the present life, as well as eternal

felicity, to the obedience of those who keep his commandments, the

transgressors of which he threatens not only with present calamities, but

with the torments of eternal death. For that promise, “these if a man do,

he shall live in them,”(818) and this correspondent threatening, “the soul

that sinneth, it shall die,”(819) undoubtedly relate to a future and

endless immortality or death. Wherever we read of the Divine benevolence

or wrath, the former comprehends eternal life, the latter eternal

destruction. Now, of present blessings and curses, the law contains a long

catalogue. The penal sanctions display the consummate purity of God, which

cannot tolerate iniquity; while the promises not only manifest his perfect

love of righteousness, which he cannot defraud of its reward, but likewise

illustrate his wonderful goodness. For since we, with all that belongs to

us, are indebted to his majesty, whatever he requires of us, he most

justly demands as the payment of a debt; but the payment of a debt is not

entitled to remuneration. Therefore he recedes from the strictness of his

claims, when he proposes a reward to our obedience, which is not performed

spontaneously, as if it were not a duty. But the effect of those promises

on us has partly been mentioned already, and will hereafter more clearly

appear in its proper place. Suffice it at present, if we remember and

consider that the promises of the law contain no mean recommendation of

righteousness, to make it more evident how much God is pleased with the

observance of it; and that the penal sanctions are annexed, to render

unrighteousness more execrable, lest the sinner, amidst the fascinations

of sin, should forget that the judgment of the Legislator awaits him.

V. Now, since the Lord, when about to deliver a rule of perfect

righteousness, referred all the parts of it to his own will, this shows

that nothing is more acceptable to him than obedience. This is worthy of

the most diligent observation, since the licentiousness of the human mind

is so inclined to the frequent invention of various services in order to

merit his favour. For this irreligious affectation of religion, which is a

principle innate in the human mind, has betrayed itself in all ages, and

betrays itself even in the present day; for men always take a pleasure in

contriving some way of attaining righteousness, which is not agreeable to

the Divine word. Hence, among those which are commonly esteemed good

works, the precepts of the law hold a very contracted station, the

numberless multitude of human inventions occupying almost the whole space.

But what was the design of Moses, unless it was to repress such an

unwarrantable license, when, after the promulgation of the law, he

addressed the people in the following manner! “Observe and hear all these

words which I command thee, that it may go well with thee, and with thy

children after thee for ever, when thou doest that which is good and right

in the sight of the Lord thy God. What thing soever I command you, observe

to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.”(820) And

before, when he had declared that this was their wisdom and their

understanding in the sight of other nations, that they had received

statutes, and judgments, and ceremonies, from the Lord, he had added,

“Take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the

things which thine eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all

the days of thy life.”(821) Foreseeing that the Israelites would not rest,

but, even after the reception of the law, would labour to produce new

species of righteousness, foreign from what the law requires, unless they

should be rigorously restrained, God pronounces that his word comprehends

the perfection of righteousness; and yet, though this ought most

effectually to have prevented them, they were guilty of that very

presumption which was so expressly forbidden. But what is this to us? We

are certainly bound by the same declaration; for the claims of the Lord on

behalf of his law, that it contains the doctrine of perfect righteousness,

beyond all doubt remain perpetually the same; yet not contented with it,

we are wonderfully laborious in inventing and performing other good works,

one after another. The best remedy for this fault will be a constant

attention to this reflection; that the law was given to us from heaven to

teach us a perfect righteousness; that in it no righteousness is taught,

but that which is conformable to the decrees of the Divine will; that it

is therefore vain to attempt new species of works in order to merit the

favour of God, whose legitimate worship consists solely in obedience, but

that any pursuit of good works deviating from the law of God is an

intolerable profanation of the Divine and real righteousness. There is

much truth also in the observation of Augustine, who calls obedience to

God sometimes the parent and guardian, and sometimes the origin of all

virtues.

VI. But when we have given an exposition of the Divine law, we shall then

more suitably and profitably confirm what has been already advanced

concerning its office and use. Before we enter, however, on the discussion

of each article separately, it will be useful to premise some things which

may contribute to a general knowledge of it. First, let it be understood,

that the law inculcates a conformity of life, not only to external

probity, but also to internal and spiritual righteousness. Now, though

none can deny this, yet very few persons pay proper attention to it. This

arises from their not considering the Legislator, by whose nature we ought

to estimate also the nature of the law. If a king prohibit, by an edict,

adultery, murder, or theft, no man, I confess, will be liable to the

penalty of such a law, who has only conceived in his mind a desire to

commit adultery, murder, or theft, but has not perpetrated any of them.

Because the superintendence of a mortal legislator extends only to the

external conduct, and his prohibitions are not violated unless the crimes

be actually committed. But God, whose eye nothing escapes, and who esteems

not so much the external appearance as the purity of the heart, in the

prohibition of adultery, murder, and theft, comprises a prohibition of

lust, wrath, hatred, coveting what belongs to another, fraud, and every

similar vice. For, being a spiritual Legislator, he addresses himself to

the soul as much as to the body. Now, the murder of the soul is wrath and

hatred; the theft of the soul is evil concupiscence and avarice; the

adultery of the soul is lust. But it will be said, that human laws also

relate to designs and intentions, and not to fortuitous events. This I

grant; but they relate to such designs and intentions as have been

manifested in outward actions. They examine and consider with what

intention every act has been performed; but do not scrutinize the secret

thoughts. Human laws therefore are satisfied, when a man abstains from

external transgression. But, on the contrary, the Divine law being given

to our minds, the proper regulation of them is the principal requisite to

a righteous observance of it. But men in general, even while they

resolutely dissemble their contempt of the law, dispose their eyes, their

feet, their hands, and all the parts of their body, to some kind of

observance of it, while at the same time their hearts are entirely

alienated from all obedience to it, and they suppose that they have

discharged their duty, if they have concealed from man what they practise

in the sight of God. They hear the commands, Thou shalt not kill, Thou

shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal. They draw not the sword

to commit murder; they never associate with harlots; they lay no violent

hands on the property of others. All these things thus far are well; but

in their whole souls they breathe after murders, they kindle into lust,

they look with dishonest eyes on the property of others, and in their

cupidity they devour it. Now, then, they are destitute of the principal

requisite of the law. Whence arises such gross stupidity, but from

discarding the Legislator, and accommodating a righteousness to their own

inclination? These persons Paul strongly opposes, when he affirms that

“the law is spiritual;”(822) signifying that it requires not only the

obedience of the soul, the understanding, and the will, but even an

angelic purity, which, being cleansed from all the pollution of the flesh,

may savour entirely of the Spirit.

VII. When we say that this is the sense of the law, we are not introducing

a novel interpretation of our own, but following Christ, who is the best

interpreter of it. For the people having imbibed from the Pharisees the

corrupt opinion, that he, who has perpetrated no external act of

disobedience to the law, is an observer of the law, he confutes this very

dangerous error, and pronounces an unchaste look at a woman to be

adultery; he declares them to be murderers, who hate a brother; he makes

them “in danger of the judgment,” who have only conceived resentment in

their hearts; them “in danger of the council,” who in murmuring or

quarrelling have discovered any sign of an angry mind; and them “in danger

of hell fire,” who with opprobrious and slanderous language have broken

forth into open rage.(823) Persons who have not perceived these things,

have pretended that Christ was another Moses, the giver of an evangelical

law, which supplied the deficiencies of the law of Moses. Whence that

common maxim, concerning the perfection of the evangelical law, that it is

far superior to the old law—a maxim in many respects very pernicious. For

when we introduce a summary of the commandments, it will appear from Moses

himself what an indignity this fixes on the Divine law. It certainly

insinuates that all the sanctity of the fathers under the Old Testament,

was not very remote from hypocrisy, and draws us aside from that one

perpetual rule of righteousness. But there is not the least difficulty in

the confutation of this error; for they have supposed that Christ made

additions to the law, whereas he only restored it to its genuine purity,

by clearing it from the obscurities and blemishes which it had contracted

from the falsehoods and the leaven of the Pharisees.

VIII. It must be observed, in the second place, that the commands and

prohibitions always imply more than the words express; but this must be so

restricted, that we may not make it a Lesbian rule, by the assistance of

which the Scripture may be licentiously perverted, and any sense be

extorted at pleasure from any passage. For some people, by this immoderate

and excursive liberty, cause one person to despise the authority of the

law, and another to despair of understanding it. Therefore, if it be

possible, we must find some way that may lead us by a straight and steady

course to the will of God. We must inquire, I say, how far our

interpretation ought to exceed the limits of the expressions; that it may

evidently appear, not to be an appendix of human glosses annexed to the

Divine law, but a faithful explanation of the pure and genuine sense of

the legislator. Indeed, in all the commandments, the figure synecdoche, by

which a part is expressed instead of the whole, is so conspicuous, that he

may justly be the object of ridicule, who would restrict the sense of the

law within the narrow limits of the words. It is plain, then, that a sober

exposition of the law goes beyond the words of it; but how far, remains

doubtful, unless some rule be laid down. The best rule, then, I conceive

will be, that the exposition be directed to the design of the precept;

that in regard to every precept it should be considered for what end it

was given. For example, every precept is either imperative or prohibitory.

The true meaning of both these kinds of precepts will immediately occur to

us, if we consider the design or the end of them; as the end of the fifth

commandment is, that honour may be given to them to whom God assigns it.

The substance of this precept, then, is, that it is right, and pleasing to

God, that we should honour those on whom he has conferred any excellence,

and that contemptuous and contumacious conduct towards them is an

abomination to him. The design of the first commandment is, that God alone

may be worshipped. The substance of this precept, then, will be, that true

piety, that is, the worship of his majesty, is pleasing to God, and that

he abominates impiety. Thus in every commandment we should first examine

the subject of it; in the next place we should inquire the end of it, till

we discover what the Legislator really declares in it to be either

pleasing or displeasing to him. Lastly, we must draw an argument from this

commandment to the opposite of it, in this manner:—If this please God, the

contrary must displease him; if this displease him, the contrary must

please him; if he enjoin this, he forbids the contrary; if he forbid this,

he enjoins the contrary.

IX. What we now rather obscurely hint at, will be fully and practically

elucidated in our exposition of the commandments. Wherefore it is

sufficient to have suggested it; only the last position, which otherwise

might not be understood, or, if understood, might seem unreasonable,

requires to be briefly established by suitable proof. It needs no proof,

that an injunction of any thing good is a prohibition of the opposite

evil; for every man will concede it. And common sense will easily admit,

that a prohibition of crimes is a command to practise the contrary duties.

It is commonly considered as a commendation of virtues, when censure is

passed on the opposite vices. But we require somewhat more than is

commonly intended by those forms of expression. For men generally

understand the virtue which is opposite to any vice to be an abstinence

from that vice; but we affirm that it goes further, even to the actual

performance of the opposite duty. Therefore, in this precept, “Thou shalt

not kill,” the common sense of mankind will perceive nothing more than

that we ought to abstain from all acts of injury to others, and from all

desire to commit any such acts. I maintain that it also implies, that we

should do every thing that we possibly can towards the preservation of the

life of our neighbour. And not to speak without reason, I prove it in the

following manner: God forbids us to injure the safety of our brother,

because he wishes his life to be dear and precious to us: he therefore at

the same time requires of us all those offices of love which may

contribute to the preservation of it. Thus we perceive, that the end of

the precept will always discover to us whatever it enjoins or forbids us

to do.

X. Many reasons are frequently given, why God has, as it were, in

incomplete precepts, rather partially intimated his will than positively

expressed it; but the reason which affords me more satisfaction than all

others is the following. Because the flesh always endeavours to extenuate,

and by specious pretexts to conceal the turpitude of sin, unless it be

exceedingly palpable, he has proposed, by way of example, in every kind of

transgression, that which is most atrocious and detestable, and the

mention of which inspires us with horror, in order that our minds might be

impressed with the greater detestation of every sin. This often deceives

us in forming an opinion of vices; if they be private, we extenuate them.

The Lord destroys these subterfuges, when he accustoms us to refer the

whole multitude of vices to these general heads, which best represent the

abominable nature of every species of transgressions. For example, anger

and hatred are not supposed to be such execrable crimes when they are

mentioned under their own proper appellations; but when they are forbidden

to us under the name of murder, we have a clearer perception how

abominable they are in the view of God, by whose word they are classed

under such a flagitious and horrible species of crimes; and being

influenced by his judgment, we accustom ourselves more seriously to

consider the atrociousness of those offences which we previously accounted

trivial.

XI. In the third place, let it be considered, what is intended by the

division of the Divine law into two tables; the frequent and solemn

mention of which all wise men will judge not to be without some particular

design. And we have a reason at hand, which removes all ambiguity on this

subject. For God has divided his law into two parts, which comprise the

perfection of righteousness, so that he has assigned the first part to the

duties of religion, which peculiarly belongs to the worship of his

majesty, and the second to those duties of charity, which respect men. The

first foundation of righteousness is certainly the worship of God; and if

this be destroyed, all the other branches of righteousness, like the parts

of a disjointed and falling edifice, are torn asunder and scattered. For

what kind of righteousness will you pretend to, because you refrain from

harassing men by acts of theft and rapine, if at the same time you

atrociously and sacrilegiously defraud the majesty of God of the glory

which is due to him?—because you do not pollute your body with

fornication, if you blasphemously profane the sacred name of God?—because

you murder no man, if you strive to destroy and extinguish all memory of

God? It is in vain, therefore, to boast of righteousness without religion;

as well might the trunk of a body be exhibited as a beautiful object,

after the head has been cut off. Nor is religion only the head of

righteousness, but the very soul of it, constituting all its life and

vigour; for without the fear of God, men preserve no equity and love among

themselves. We therefore call the worship of God the principle and

foundation of righteousness, because, if that be wanting, whatever equity,

continence, and temperance men may practise among themselves, it is all

vain and frivolous in the sight of God. We assert also that it is the

source and soul of righteousness; because men are taught by it to live

temperately and justly with one another, if they venerate God as the judge

of right and wrong. In the first table, therefore, he instructs us in

piety and the proper duties of religion, in which his majesty is to be

worshipped; in the second he prescribes the duties which the fear of his

name should excite us to practise in society. For this reason our Lord, as

the evangelists inform us,(824) summarily comprised the whole law in two

principal points—that we love God with all our heart, with all our soul,

and with all our strength; and that we love our neighbour as ourselves. Of

the two parts in which he comprehends the whole law, we see how he directs

one towards God, and assigns the other to men.

XII. But, although the whole law is contained in these two principal

points, yet our God, in order to remove every pretext of excuse, has been

pleased in the ten commandments more diffusely and explicitly to declare,

as well those things which relate to our honour, love, and fear of him, as

those which pertain to that charity, which he commands us for his sake to

exercise towards men. Nor is it a useless study to examine into the

division of the commandments; provided you remember it is a subject of

such a nature, that every man ought to be at liberty to judge of it, and

that we ought not contentiously to oppose any who may differ from us

respecting it. But we are under a necessity of touching on this topic,

lest the reader should despise or wonder at the division that we shall

adopt, as a novel invention. That the law is divided into ten precepts, is

beyond all controversy, being frequently established by the authority of

God himself. The question, therefore, is not concerning the number of the

precepts, but concerning the manner of dividing them. Those who divide

them, so as to assign three precepts to the first table, and leave the

remaining seven to the second, expunge from the number the precept

concerning images, or at least conceal it under the first; whereas it is

undoubtedly delivered by the Lord as a distinct commandment. But the

tenth, against coveting the property of our neighbour, they improperly

divide into two. We shall see presently that such a method of division was

unknown in purer ages. Others reckon with us four articles in the first

table; but the first commandment they consider as a simple promise,

without a precept. Now, I understand the “ten words” mentioned by Moses to

be ten precepts; and I think I see that number disposed in the most

beautiful order. And therefore, unless I am convinced by clear argument,

leaving them in possession of their opinion, I shall follow what appears

to me to be preferable; that is, that what they make the first precept is

a preface to the whole law; that it is followed by the precepts, four

belonging to the first table and six to the second, in the order in which

they will now be recited. Origen has mentioned this division as if it were

universally received in his time without any controversy. Augustine also

coincides with us; for in enumerating them to Boniface, he observes this

order: That God alone be religiously worshipped; that no adoration be paid

to an idol; that the name of the Lord be not taken in vain. He had before

spoken separately of the shadowy precept of the sabbath. It is true, that

in another passage he expresses his approbation of the former division,

but for a most trivial reason; namely, that if the first table be digested

into three precepts, the trinal number will be a more conspicuous

exhibition of the mystery of the Trinity. In the same place, however, he

does not conceal that in other respects he prefers our division. Beside

these writers, the author of the unfinished treatise on Matthew is of the

same opinion with us. Josephus, doubtless according to the common opinion

of his time, assigns five precepts to each table. This is repugnant to

reason, because it confounds the distinction between religion and charity;

and is also refuted by the authority of our Lord, who in Matthew places

the precept concerning honour to parents in the second table. Now let us

hear God himself speaking in his own words.

The First Commandment.

_I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of

Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods

before me._

XIII. Whether you make the first sentence a part of the first commandment,

or read it separately, is a matter of indifference to me, provided you

allow it to be a preface to the whole law. The first object of attention

in making laws is to guard against their being abrogated by contempt.

Therefore God in the first place provides, that the majesty of the law,

which he is about to deliver, may never fall into contempt; and to

sanction it he uses a threefold argument. He asserts his authority and

right of giving commands, and thereby lays his chosen people under a

necessity of obeying them. He exhibits a promise of grace, to allure them

by its charms to the pursuit of holiness. He reminds the Israelites of his

favour, to convict them of ingratitude if they do not conduct themselves

in a manner correspondent to his goodness. The name LORD, or JEHOVAH,

designates his authority and legitimate dominion. For if all things be of

him, and if in him all things consist, it is reasonable that all things be

referred to him, agreeably to the observation of Paul.(825) Therefore by

this word alone we are brought into complete subjection to the power of

the Divine majesty; for it would be monstrous for us to desire to remove

ourselves from his jurisdiction, out of whom we cannot exist.

XIV. After having shown that he has a right to command, and that obedience

is his just due,—that he may not appear to constrain us by necessity

alone, he sweetly allures us by pronouncing himself the God of the Church.

For the expression implies the mutual relation which is contained in that

promise, “I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”(826) Whence

Christ proves the immortality of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, from the

declaration of the Lord, that he is their God.(827) Wherefore it is the

same as if he had said, I have chosen you as my people, not only to bless

you in the present life, but to bestow upon you abundant felicity in the

life to come. The design of this favour is remarked in various places in

the law; for when the Lord in mercy condescends to number us among the

society of his people, “He chooseth us,” says Moses, “to be a peculiar

people unto himself, a holy people, to keep his commandments.”(828) Hence

that exhortation, “Ye shall be holy, for I am holy.”(829) Now, from these

two considerations is derived the remonstrance of the Lord by the Prophet:

“A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master; if then I be a

father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my

fear?”(830)

XV. Next follows a recital of his kindness, which ought to produce a most

powerful effect upon our minds, in proportion to the detestable guilt of

ingratitude, even among men. He reminded the Israelites, indeed, of a

favour which they had recently experienced, but which, on account of its

magnitude and concomitant miracles, being worthy of everlasting

remembrance, might also have an influence on succeeding generations.

Besides, it was particularly suitable to the present occasion, when the

law was about to be published; for the Lord suggests that they were

liberated from a miserable slavery in order that they might serve the

author of their liberty with a promptitude of reverence and obedience. To

retain us in the true and exclusive worship of himself, he generally

distinguishes himself by certain epithets, by which he discriminates his

sacred name from all idols and fictitious deities. For, as I have before

observed, such is our proneness to vanity and presumption, that as soon as

God is mentioned, our mind is unable to guard itself from falling into

some vain imagination. Therefore, when God intends to apply a remedy to

this evil, he adorns his majesty with certain titles, and thus

circumscribes us with barriers, that we may not run into various follies,

and presumptuously invent to ourselves some new deity, discarding the

living God, and setting up an idol in his stead. For this reason the

Prophets, whenever they intend a proper designation of him, invest him,

and as it were surround him, with those characters under which he had

manifested himself to the people of Israel. Yet, when he is called “the

God of Abraham,” or “the God of Israel,” when he is said to reside

“between the cherubim,” “in the temple,” “at Jerusalem,”(831) these and

similar forms of expression do not confine him to one place, or to one

nation; they are only used to fix the thoughts of the pious on that God,

who, in the covenant which he has made with Israel, has given such a

representation of himself, that it is not proper to deviate in the

smallest instance from such a model. Nevertheless, let it be concluded,

that the deliverance of the Jews is mentioned to induce them to devote

themselves with more alacrity to the service of God, who justly claims a

right to their obedience. But, that we may not suppose this to have no

relation to us, it behoves us to consider, that the servitude of Israel in

Egypt was a type of the spiritual captivity, in which we are all detained,

till our celestial Deliverer extricates us by the power of his arm, and

introduces us into the kingdom of liberty. As formerly, therefore, when he

designed to restore the dispersed Israelites to the worship of his name,

he rescued them from the intolerable tyranny of Pharaoh, by which they

were oppressed, so now he delivers all those, whose God he declares

himself to be, from the fatal dominion of Satan, which was represented by

that corporeal captivity. Wherefore there is no one, whose mind ought not

to be excited to listen to the law, which he is informed came from the

King of kings; from whom as all creatures derive their origin, so it is

reasonable that they should regard him as their end in all things. Every

man, I say, ought to welcome the Legislator; to observe whose commands he

is taught that he is particularly chosen; from whose benignity he expects

an abundance of temporal blessings, and a life of immortality and glory;

by whose wonderful power and mercy he knows himself to be delivered from

the jaws of death.

XVI. Having firmly established the authority of his law, he publishes the

first commandment, “That we should have no other gods before him.” The end

of this precept is, that God chooses to have the sole preëminence, and to

enjoy undiminished his authority among his people. To produce this end, he

enjoins us to keep at a distance from all impiety and superstition, by

which we should either diminish or obscure the glory of his Deity; and for

the same reason he directs us to worship and adore him in the exercise of

true piety. The simplicity of the language almost expresses this; for we

cannot “have” God without at the same time comprising all that belongs to

him. Therefore, when he forbids us to “have” any other gods, he implies,

that we must not transfer to another what belongs to him. But although the

duties we owe to God are innumerable, yet they may not improperly be

classed under four general heads—adoration, a necessary branch of which is

the spiritual obedience of the conscience; trust; invocation; and

thanksgiving. By adoration I mean the reverence and worship which he

receives from every one of us who has submitted to his majesty. Wherefore

it is not without reason that I make it partly to consist in a subjection

of our consciences to his law; [for it is a spiritual homage which is

rendered to him, as to a sovereign King possessed of all power over our

souls.] Trust is a secure dependence on him arising from a knowledge of

his perfections; when ascribing to him all wisdom, righteousness, power,

truth, and goodness, we esteem ourselves happy only in communications from

him. Invocation is the application of our minds, under every pressure of

necessity, resorting to his fidelity, faithfulness, and assistance, as its

only defence. Thanksgiving is gratitude, which ascribes to him the praise

of all blessings. As the Lord permits no portion of these duties to be

transferred to another, so he commands them to be wholly given to himself.

Nor will it be sufficient for you to refrain from worshipping any other

god, unless you also refrain from imitating certain nefarious despisers,

who take the compendious method of treating all religions with contempt.

But the observance of this precept must be preceded by true religion,

leading our minds to the living God; that being endued with the knowledge

of him, they may aspire to admire, fear, and worship his majesty, to

receive his communication of blessings, to request his aid upon all

occasions, to acknowledge and celebrate the magnificence of his works, as

the sole end in all the actions of our lives. We must also beware of

corrupt superstition, by which those whose minds are diverted from the

true God, are carried about after various deities. Therefore, if we be

contented with one God, let us remember what has before been observed,

that all fictitious deities must be driven far away, and that we must not

divide that worship which he claims exclusively to himself. For it is

criminal to detract even the smallest portion from his glory; he must be

left in possession of all that belongs to him. The following clause,

“before me,” aggravates the atrociousness of the offence; for God is

provoked to jealousy whenever we substitute the figments of our own minds

instead of him; just as an immodest woman, by openly introducing an

adulterer into the presence of her husband, would inflame his mind with

the greater resentment. When God, therefore, by the presence of his power

and grace, gave a proof of his regard to the people whom he had chosen,—in

order the more forcibly to deter them from the crime of rebellion against

him, he warns them of the impossibility of introducing new deities without

his being a witness and spectator of the sacrilege. For this presumption

rises to the highest degree of impiety, when man imagines that he can

elude the observation of God in his acts of rebellion. God, on the

contrary, proclaims, that whatever we devise, whatever we attempt,

whatever we perform, is present to his view. Our conscience must therefore

be pure even from the most latent thoughts of apostasy, if we wish our

religion to obtain the approbation of the Lord. For he requires from us

the glory due to his Divinity undiminished and uncorrupted, not only in

external confession, but in his own eyes, which penetrate the inmost

recesses of our hearts.

The Second Commandment.

_Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness

of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth

beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not

bow down thyself to them, nor serve them._

XVII. As in the preceding commandment the Lord has declared himself to be

the one God, besides whom no other deities ought to be imagined or

worshipped, so in this he more clearly reveals his nature, and the kind of

worship with which he ought to be honoured, that we may not dare to form

any carnal conceptions of him. The end, therefore, of this precept is,

that he will not have his legitimate worship profaned with superstitious

rites. Wherefore, in a word, he calls us off, and wholly abstracts us from

carnal observances, which our foolish minds are accustomed to devise, when

they conceive of God according to the grossness of their own

apprehensions; and therefore he calls us to the service which rightfully

belongs to him; that is, the spiritual worship which he has instituted. He

marks what is the grossest transgression of this kind; that is, external

idolatry. And this precept consists of two parts. The first restrains us

from licentiously daring to make God, who is incomprehensible, the subject

of our senses, or to represent him under any visible form. The second

prohibits us from paying religious adoration to any images. He likewise

briefly enumerates all the forms, in which he used to be represented by

profane and superstitious nations. By those things which are in heaven, he

means the sun, the moon, and the other stars, and perhaps birds; as, when

he explains his meaning in the fourth chapter of Deuteronomy, he mentions

birds as well as the stars.(832) This I should not have remarked, had I

not known some persons injudiciously refer this clause to angels. I omit

the other particulars, as needing no explanation. And in the first

book(833) we have already sufficiently proved that whatever visible

representations of God are invented by man, are diametrically opposite to

his nature; and that, therefore, as soon as ever idols are introduced,

true religion is immediately corrupted and adulterated.

XVIII. The penal sanction which is annexed ought to have no small

influence in arousing us from our lethargy. He thus threatens:

_For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of

the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation

of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them

that love me, and keep my commandments._

This is equivalent to a declaration that it is to him alone that we ought

to adhere. And to urge us to it, he announces his power, which he permits

none with impunity to despise or undervalue. For the Hebrew word _El_,

which is here used for God, is expressive of strength. In the second

place, he calls himself “a jealous God,” who can bear no rival. Thirdly,

he declares that he will avenge his majesty and glory on those who

transfer it to creatures or to graven images; and that not with the

transient punishment of the original transgressors only, but of their

posterity to the third and fourth generation; that is, of those who shall

imitate the impiety of their fathers; as he also permanently displays his

mercy and goodness, through a long line of posterity, to those who love

him and keep his law. It is very common for God to assume the character of

a husband to us; for the union, in which he connects us with himself, when

he receives us into the bosom of his Church, bears a resemblance to the

sacred conjugal relation, which requires to be supported by mutual

fidelity. As he performs towards us all the duties of a true and faithful

husband, so he demands from us the reciprocal duties of conjugal love and

chastity; that is, that we do not prostitute our souls to Satan, to lust,

and to the impurity of the carnal appetites. Wherefore, when he reproves

the apostasy of the Jews, he complains that they had discarded chastity,

and were polluted with adulteries.(834) Therefore, as a husband, in

proportion to the superiority of his purity and chastity, is the more

grievously incensed, if he perceive the affection of his wife inclining to

a rival, so the Lord, who has in truth espoused us to himself, declares

that he feels the most ardent jealousy, whenever we neglect the sacred

purity of his conjugal relation to us, and defile ourselves with criminal

lusts, but especially when we transfer to any other, or adulterate with

any superstition, the worship of his majesty, which ought to be preserved

in the most consummate perfection; since by such conduct we not only

violate the faith pledged in our nuptials, but even pollute our souls with

spiritual adultery.

XIX. Let us inquire what he intends by his threatening to “visit the

iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth

generation.” For besides that it is inconsistent with the equity of the

Divine justice to inflict upon an innocent person the punishment due to

the offences of another, God himself declares that “the son shall not bear

the iniquity of the father.”(835) But this expression is repeated more

than once, concerning a deferring to future generations of the punishments

of crimes committed by their ancestors. For Moses frequently speaks of

“the Lord visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the

third and fourth generation.”(836) In like manner Jeremiah: “Thou showest

loving‐kindness unto thousands, and recompensest the iniquity of the

fathers into the bosom of their children after them.”(837) Some, who

labour very hard to solve this difficulty, are of opinion that its meaning

is to be confined to temporal punishments; which if children sustain

through the sins of their parents, there is nothing absurd in it; because

they frequently conduce to the salvation of those on whom they are

inflicted. This is certainly true. For Isaiah denounced to Hezekiah, that

on account of the sin which he had committed, his sons should be despoiled

of the kingdom and carried away into exile.(838) The families of Pharaoh

and Abimelech are afflicted on account of the injury sustained by

Abraham.(839) But when this is adduced as a solution of these questions,

it is rather an evasion of it, than a proper explanation. For in this and

in similar places the Lord threatens a punishment too great to be

terminated by the limits of the present life. It must therefore be

understood as a declaration that the curse of the Lord righteously rests,

not only on the person of an impious man, but also on his whole family.

Where it has rested, what can be expected, but that the father, being

destitute of the Spirit of God, will lead a most flagitious life; and that

the son, experiencing, in consequence of the iniquity of his father, a

similar dereliction by the Lord, will pursue the same path to perdition;

and that the grandson and the great grandson, the execrable posterity of

detestable men, will run headlong after them down the same precipice of

destruction?

XX. First let us inquire, whether such punishment be inconsistent with the

Divine justice. If the whole nature of man be worthy of condemnation, we

know that destruction awaits those who are not favoured by the Lord with

the communication of his grace. Nevertheless, they perish through their

own iniquity, and not through the unjust hatred of God. Nor is there any

room left for expostulation, why they are not assisted by Divine grace to

obtain salvation as well as others. Since it is a punishment, therefore,

inflicted on the impious and flagitious, in consequence of their

transgressions, that their families remain destitute of Divine grace for

many generations, who can bring any accusation against God for this most

righteous instance of his vengeance? But it will be said, the Lord

declares, on the contrary, that the punishment of the sin of the father

shall not be transferred to the son. Observe the subject that is treated

of in that place. The Israelites, after they had been long harassed by

numerous and unceasing calamities, began to use this proverb, “The fathers

have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge;”(840) by

which they insinuated, that sins had been committed by their parents, the

punishment of which was inflicted on them who were otherwise righteous and

innocent, more through the implacable wrath of God, than through a just

severity. The Prophet announces to them that this is not the case, but

that they are punished for their own transgressions, and that it is

incompatible with the Divine justice to punish a righteous son for the

iniquity of a wicked father. Nor is this to be found in the penal sanction

now under consideration. For if the visitation, of which we are treating,

be fulfilled, when God removes from the family of the impious his grace,

the light of his truth, and the other means of salvation, the very

circumstance of children blinded and abandoned by him being found treading

in the footsteps of their fathers, is an instance of their bearing the

curse in consequence of the crimes of their parents. But their being the

subjects of temporal miseries, and at length of eternal perdition, are

punishments from the righteous judgment of God, not for the sins of

others, but on account of their own iniquity.

XXI. On the other hand, God gives a promise to extend his mercy to a

thousand generations; which also frequently occurs in the Scripture, and

is inserted in the solemn covenant with the Church: “I will be a God unto

thee, and to thy seed after thee.”(841) In allusion to this, Solomon says,

that “the children of the just man are blessed after him;”(842) not only

as the effect of a religious education, which is of no small importance,

but also in consequence of the blessing promised in the covenant, that the

grace of God shall perpetually remain in the families of the pious. This

is a source of peculiar consolation to the faithful, but to the impious of

great terror; for if, even after death, the memory of righteousness and

iniquity has so much influence with God, that the curse of the one and the

blessing of the other will redound to posterity, much more will it remain

on the persons of the actors themselves. Now, it is no objection to our

argument, that the descendants of the impious sometimes grow better, while

those of the faithful degenerate; since the Legislator never intended to

establish in this case such an invariable rule, as would derogate from his

own free choice. For it is sufficient for the consolation of the righteous

and the terror of the sinner, that the denunciation is not vain or

inefficacious, although it be not always executed. For as the temporal

punishments inflicted on a few wicked men are testimonies of the Divine

wrath against sin, and of the judgment that will hereafter be pronounced

on all sinners, though many escape with impunity even to the end of their

lives, so, when the Lord exhibits one example of this blessing, in

manifesting his mercy and goodness to the son for the sake of his father,

he affords a proof of his constant and perpetual favour to his

worshippers; and when, in any one instance, he pursues the iniquity of the

father in the son, he shows what a judgment awaits all the reprobate on

account of their own transgressions; the certainty of which was what he

principally designed in this passage. He also gives us a cursory

intimation of the greatness of his mercy, which he extends to a thousand

generations, while he has assigned only four generations to his vengeance.

The Third Commandment.

_Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain._

XXII. The end of this precept is, that the Lord will have the majesty of

his name to be held inviolably sacred by us. The substance of the command

therefore is, that we ought not to profane that name by a contemptuous or

irreverent use of it. This prohibition necessarily implies an injunction,

that we studiously and carefully treat it with religious veneration.

Therefore it becomes us to regulate our thoughts and words in such a

manner that we may not think or speak any thing concerning God and his

mysteries, but with the greatest sobriety and reverence; that in

meditating on his works we may form no opinion that is dishonourable to

him. These three things, I say, we ought most carefully to observe—first,

that whatever we think, and whatever we say of him, should savour of his

excellence, correspond to the sacred sublimity of his name, and tend to

the exaltation of his magnificence. Secondly, we should not rashly and

preposterously abuse his holy word and adorable mysteries to the purposes

of ambition, of avarice, or of amusement; but as they bear an impression

of the dignity of his name, they should always receive from us the honour

and esteem which belong to them. Lastly, we should not injure his works by

obloquy or detraction, as some miserable mortals are accustomed to do; but

whenever we mention any thing done by him, we should celebrate it with

encomiums of wisdom, justice, and goodness. This is “sanctifying” the name

of God. In every other case, it is violated by a vain and criminal abuse,

because it is carried beyond the limits of that legitimate use, to which

alone it is consecrated; and though no other consequence ensue, it is

deprived of its dignity, and by degrees rendered contemptible. But if it

be so criminal thus rashly and unseasonably to introduce the name of God

on every occasion, much more so must it be to apply it to such nefarious

uses as they do, who make it subservient to the superstitions of

necromancy, to horrible imprecations, to unlawful exorcisms, and to other

impious incantations. But an oath is the thing principally contemplated in

the command, as the most detestable instance of the perverse abuse of the

Divine name; and this is done to inspire us with the greater horror of

every species of profanation of it. That this precept relates to the

worship of God and the reverence of his name, and not to the equity that

ought to be observed among mankind, appears from this—that the subsequent

condemnation, in the second table, of perjury and false witness, by which

society is injured, would be a needless repetition, if the present precept

related to a civil duty. Besides, the division of the law requires this;

for, as we have already observed, it is not in vain that God has

distributed the law into two tables. Whence we conclude, that in this

command he vindicates his just claims, and guards the sanctity of his

name, but does not teach the duties which men owe to each other.

XXIII. In the first place, we have to explain what an oath is. It consists

in calling upon God as a witness, to confirm the truth of any declaration

that we make. For execrations, which contain manifest reproaches against

God, are not worthy to be mentioned among oaths. That such an attestation,

when rightly performed, is a species of Divine worship, is evident from

many places of Scripture; as when Isaiah prophesies of the vocation of the

Assyrians and Egyptians to participate in the covenant with Israel. “They

shall speak,” says he, “the language of Canaan, and swear to the Lord of

hosts.”(843) By “swearing to the Lord” here is intended making a

profession of religion. Again, when he speaks of the extension of his

kingdom: “He who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the

God of truth; and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of

truth.”(844) Jeremiah says, “If they will diligently learn the ways of my

people, to swear by my name, The Lord liveth; as they taught my people to

swear by Baal, then shall they be built in the midst of my people.”(845)

And we are justly said to profess our religion to the Lord, when we invoke

his name to bear witness to us. For thereby we confess that he is truth

itself, eternal and immutable; whom we call not only as a witness of the

truth, excelling all others, but also as the only defender of it, who is

able to bring to light things which are concealed, and in a word, as the

searcher of all hearts. For where human testimonies are wanting, we resort

for refuge to the testimony of God; and particularly when any thing is to

be affirmed, which is hidden in the conscience. For which reason the Lord

is extremely angry with them who swear by strange gods, and interprets

that species of swearing as a proof of manifest defection from him. “Thy

children have forsaken me, and sworn by them that are no gods.”(846) And

he declares the atrociousness of this crime by his denunciation of

punishment: “I will cut off them that swear by the Lord, and that swear by

Malcham.”(847)

XXIV. Now, since we understand it to be the will of the Lord, that we

should reverence his name in our oaths, we ought to use so much the more

caution, lest, instead of reverence, they betray dishonour or contempt of

it. It is no trifling insult to him, when perjury is committed in his

name; and therefore the law calls it a profanation.(848) But what remains

to the Lord, when he is despoiled of his truth? he will then cease to be

God. But he is certainly despoiled of it, when he is made an abettor and

approver of a falsehood. Wherefore, when Joshua would induce Achan to a

confession of the truth, he says, “My son, give, I pray thee, glory to the

Lord God of Israel;”(849) implying in this that the Lord is grievously

dishonoured, if perjury be committed in his name. Nor is this strange; for

in such a case we do all that is in our power to brand his sacred name

with a falsehood. And that this form of expression was customary among the

Jews, whenever any man was called to take an oath, appears from a similar

adjuration used by the Pharisees in the Gospel of John.(850) To this

caution we are accustomed by the forms of oaths which are used in the

Scriptures: “The Lord liveth;”(851) “God do so and more also to me;”(852)

“I call God for a record upon my soul;”(853) which imply, that we cannot

invoke God to be a witness to our declarations, without imprecating his

vengeance upon us if we be guilty of perjury.

XXV. The name of God is rendered vile and contemptible, when it is used in

unnecessarily swearing even to what is true; for in this instance also it

is taken in vain. Wherefore it will not be sufficient to abstain from

perjury; unless we also remember, that swearing is permitted and

appointed, not for the sake of our pleasure or caprice, but from

necessity; and that the lawful use of it, therefore, is transgressed by

those who apply it to cases where it is not necessary. Now, no other

necessity can be pretended, but when we want to serve either religion or

charity. This crime, in the present day, is carried to a very great

extent; and it is so much the more intolerable, since by its frequency it

has ceased to be considered as a crime, though before the Divine tribunal

it is deemed no trivial offence. For the name of God is universally

profaned without concern in trifling conversations; and it is not

considered as sinful, because this presumptuous wickedness has been so

long practised with impunity. But the Divine command remains valid; the

sanction remains firm; and a future day will witness the completion of

that part of it which denounces a particular punishment against those who

take his name in vain. This precept is violated also in another way. If in

our oaths we substitute the servants of God in the place of God himself,

we are guilty of manifest impiety; because we thereby transfer to them the

glory due to the Deity. Nor is it without reason, that God, by a special

command, enjoins us to swear by his name,(854) and by a special

prohibition interdicts us from swearing by any strange gods.(855) And the

Apostle evidently attests the same, when he says, that “men swear by the

greater, but that God, because he could swear by no greater, sware by

himself.”(856)

XXVI. The Anabaptists, not satisfied with this limitation of oaths,

condemn all oaths without exception; because the prohibition of Christ is

general: “I say unto you, Swear not at all. But let your communication be,

Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of

evil.”(857) But by this mode of interpretation they set Christ in

opposition to the Father, as though he descended into this world to

abrogate the Father’s decrees. For in the law the eternal God not only

permits an oath, as a lawful thing, which would be sufficient to justify

the use of it, but in cases of necessity commands it.(858) Now, Christ

asserts, that “he and his Father are one,” that “he acts only according to

the commands of the Father,” that “his doctrine is not of himself,”

&c.(859) What then? Will they make God to contradict himself, by

prohibiting and condemning in our conduct that which he has before

approved and enjoined? But as the words of Christ involve some difficulty,

let us enter on a brief examination of them. Here we shall never arrive at

the truth, unless we attend to the design of Christ, and advert to the

subject of which he is there treating. His design is not to relax or to

restrict the law, but to reduce it to its true and genuine meaning, which

had been very much corrupted by the false comments of the scribes and

Pharisees. If we bear this in our minds, we shall not be of opinion that

Christ condemned all oaths, but only those which transgress the rule of

the law. It appears to have been the custom of the people at that time to

avoid nothing but perjuries; whereas the law forbids not only perjuries,

but likewise all vain and superfluous oaths. Our Lord, therefore, that

infallible expositor of the law, apprizes them that it is sinful, not only

to perjure themselves, but even to swear. To swear in what manner? In

vain. But the oaths which are sanctioned in the law he leaves without any

objection. They consider themselves as urging a very powerful argument,

when they violently insist on the particle _at all_; which, nevertheless,

refers not to the word _swear_, but to the forms of oaths that are there

subjoined. For the error there condemned consisted, partly, in a

supposition that in swearing by heaven and earth, there was no

interference with the name of God. Therefore, after the principal instance

of transgression, the Lord goes on to destroy all their subterfuges, that

they may not imagine themselves to have escaped by suppressing the name of

God, and calling heaven and earth to witness for them. For here, by the

way, it must be remarked, that men indirectly swear by God, though his

name is not expressed; as when they swear by the light of life, by the

bread which they eat, by their baptism, or by any other blessings which

they have received from the Divine munificence. Nor does Christ in that

place prohibit them from swearing by heaven, and earth, and Jerusalem, in

order to correct superstition, as some falsely imagine; but rather to

confute the sophistical subtlety of persons who thought there was no crime

in the foolish use of indirect oaths, as though they were not chargeable

with profaning the sacred name of God, which is engraven, however, on all

his benefits. But the case is different, where any mortal man, or one that

is dead, or an angel, is substituted in the place of God; as, among

idolatrous nations, adulation invented that odious form of swearing by the

life or genius of a king; because in such cases the deification of a

creature obscures and diminishes the glory of the only true God. But when

we mean nothing but to derive a confirmation to our assertions from the

sacred name of God, although it be done in an indirect manner, yet all

such frivolous oaths are offensive to his majesty. Christ deprives this

licentious practice of every vain excuse, by his prohibition of swearing

at all. James also aims at the same point,(860) where he uses the language

of Christ, which I have cited; because this presumption has always been

prevalent in the world, notwithstanding it is a profanation of the name of

God. For if you refer the particle _at all_ to the substance of swearing,

as though every oath, without exception, were unlawful, what means the

explanation which is immediately annexed, “Neither by heaven, neither by

earth,” &c., language evidently used in refutation of those cavils, which

the Jews considered as furnishing an excuse for their sin.

XXVII. It can no longer be doubtful, therefore, to persons of sound

judgment, that the Lord, in that passage, only condemns those oaths which

had been forbidden by the law. For even he, who exhibited in his life an

example of the perfection which he inculcated, hesitated not to make use

of oaths whenever occasion required; and his disciples, who, we doubt not,

were obedient to their master in all things, followed the same example.

Who can dare to assert, that Paul would have sworn, if all oaths had been

prohibited? But when the occasion requires it, he swears without any

scruple, and sometimes even adds an imprecation. The question, however, is

not yet decided; for it is the opinion of some persons, that public oaths

are the only exceptions from this prohibition; such as we take when

required by a magistrate; such also as princes are accustomed to use in

ratifying treaties; or subjects, when they swear allegiance to their

princes; or soldiers, as a military test; and others of a similar kind. To

this class also they justly refer those oaths which we find used by Paul

in assertion of the dignity of the gospel; because the Apostles, in the

exercise of their functions, were not private persons, but public

ministers of God. And indeed I will not deny that these are the safest

oaths; because they are sanctioned by the strongest testimonies of

Scripture. A magistrate is directed, in a dubious case, to put a witness

to his oath, and the witness, on the other hand, is required to answer on

his oath; and the Apostle says, that human controversies are adjusted by

this expedient.(861) In this precept both parties are furnished with a

complete justification of their conduct. Moreover we may observe, that

among the ancient heathen a public and solemn oath was held in great

reverence; but that common ones, which they used in their ordinary

intercourse, were not esteemed of any, or of much importance, because they

imagined that these were not regarded by the Divine majesty. But it would

be too dangerous to condemn private oaths, which are taken, in cases of

necessity, with sobriety, integrity, and reverence, since they are

supported both by reason and by scriptural examples. For if it be lawful

for private persons in an important and serious affair to appeal to God as

a judge between them, much more must it be allowable to invoke him as a

witness. Your brother will accuse you of perfidy; you endeavour to

exculpate yourself; he will not permit himself by any means to be

satisfied. If your reputation be endangered by his obstinate malignity,

you may, without any offence, appeal to the judgment of God, that in his

own time he will manifest your innocence. If the words be strictly

examined, it is a less thing to appeal to him as a witness than as a

judge. I see not, therefore, why we should assert such an appeal to him to

be unlawful. There are not wanting numerous examples of it. If the oath of

Abraham and Isaac with Abimelech be alleged to have been taken in a public

capacity, certainly Jacob and Laban were private persons, and yet they

confirmed the covenant between them by a mutual oath.(862) Boaz was a

private person, who confirmed in the same manner his promise of marriage

to Ruth.(863) Obadiah was a private person, a righteous man, and one that

feared the Lord, who declared with an oath the fact of which he wished to

convince Elijah.(864) I can find, therefore, no better rule, than that we

regulate our oaths in such a manner, that they be not rash or

inconsiderate, wanton or frivolous, but used in cases of real necessity,

as for vindicating the glory of the Lord, or promoting the edification of

our brother; which is the end of this commandment of the law.

The Fourth Commandment.

_Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou

labour, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the sabbath of

the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, &c._

XXVIII. The end of this precept is, that, being dead to our own affections

and works, we should meditate on the kingdom of God, and be exercised in

that meditation in the observance of his institutions. But, as it has an

aspect peculiar and distinct from the others, it requires a little

different kind of exposition. The fathers frequently call it a _shadowy

commandment_, because it contains the external observance of the day,

which was abolished with the rest of the figures at the advent of Christ.

And there is much truth in their observation; but it reaches only half of

the subject. Wherefore it is necessary to seek further for an exposition,

and to consider three causes, on which I think I have observed this

commandment to rest. For it was the design of the heavenly Lawgiver, under

the rest of the seventh day, to give the people of Israel a figure of the

spiritual rest, by which the faithful ought to refrain from their own

works, in order to leave God to work within them. His design was,

secondly, that there should be a stated day, on which they might assemble

together to hear the law and perform the ceremonies, or at least which

they might especially devote to meditations on his works; that by this

recollection they might be led to the exercises of piety. Thirdly, he

thought it right that servants, and persons living under the jurisdiction

of others, should be indulged with a day of rest, that they might enjoy

some remission from their labour.

XXIX. Yet we are taught in many places that this adumbration of the

spiritual rest was the principal design of the sabbath. For the Lord is

hardly so strict in his requisitions of obedience to any other

precept.(865) When he means to intimate, in the Prophets, that religion is

totally subverted, he complains that his sabbaths are polluted, violated,

neglected, and profaned;(866) as though, in case of that duty being

neglected, there remained no other way in which he could be honoured. On

the other hand, he notices the observance of it with singular encomiums.

Wherefore also, among the other Divine communications, the faithful used

very highly to esteem the revelation of the sabbath. For this is the

language of the Levites in a solemn assembly, recorded by Nehemiah: “Thou

madest known unto our fathers thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them

precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses.”(867) We see the

singular estimation in which it is held above all the commandments of the

law. All these things tend to display the dignity of the mystery, which is

beautifully expressed by Moses and Ezekiel. In Exodus we read as follows:

“Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep; for it is a sign between me and you

throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth

sanctify you. Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto

you. The children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath

throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign

between me and the children of Israel for ever.”(868) This is more fully

expressed by Ezekiel; but the substance of what he says is, that the

sabbath was a sign by which the Israelites might know that God was their

sanctifier.(869) If our sanctification consists properly in the

mortification of our own will, there is a very natural analogy between the

external sign and the internal thing which it represents. We must rest

altogether, that God may operate within us; we must recede from our own

will, resign our own heart, and renounce all our carnal affections; in

short, we must cease from all the efforts of our own understanding, that

having God operating within us, we may enjoy rest in him, as we are also

taught by the Apostle.(870)

XXX. This perpetual cessation was represented to the Jews by the

observance of one day in seven, which the Lord, in order that it might be

the more religiously kept, recommended by his own example. For it is no

small stimulus to any action, for a man to know that he is imitating his

Creator. If any one inquire after a hidden signification in the septenary

number, it is probable, that because in Scripture it is the number of

perfection, it is here selected to denote perpetual duration. This is

confirmed also by the circumstance, that Moses, with that day in which he

narrates that the Lord rested from his works, concludes his description of

the succession of days and nights. We may also adduce another probable

conjecture respecting this number—that the Lord intended to signify that

the sabbath would never be completed until the arrival of the last day.

For in it we begin that blessed rest, in which we make new advances from

day to day. But because we are still engaged in a perpetual warfare with

the flesh, it will not be consummated before the completion of that

prediction of Isaiah, “It shall come to pass, that from one new moon to

another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship

before me, saith the Lord;”(871) that is, when God shall be “all in

all.”(872) The Lord may be considered, therefore, as having delineated to

his people, in the seventh day, the future perfection of his sabbath in

the last day, that, by a continual meditation on the sabbath during their

whole life, they might be aspiring towards this perfection.

XXXI. If any one disapprove of this observation on the number, as too

curious, I object not to its being understood in a more simple manner;

that the Lord ordained a certain day, that the people under the discipline

of the law might be exercised in continual meditations on the spiritual

rest; that he appointed the seventh day, either because he foresaw it

would be sufficient, or in order that the proposal of a resemblance to his

own example might operate as a stronger stimulus to the people, or at

least to apprize them that the only end of the sabbath was to promote

their conformity to their Creator. For this is of little importance,

provided we retain the mystery, which is principally exhibited, of a

perpetual rest from our own works. To the contemplation of this, the

Prophets used frequently to recall the Jews, that they might not suppose

themselves to have discharged their duty merely by a cessation from manual

labours. Beside the passages already cited, we have the following in

Isaiah: “If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy

pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the

Lord, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor

finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words; then shalt thou

delight thyself in the Lord,” &c.(873) But all that it contained of a

ceremonial nature was without doubt abolished by the advent of the Lord

Christ. For he is the truth, at whose presence all figures disappear; the

body, at the sight of which all the shadows are relinquished. He, I say,

is the true fulfilment of the sabbath. Having been “buried with him by

baptism, we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, that

being partakers of his resurrection, we may walk in newness of life.”(874)

Therefore the Apostle says in another place, that “the sabbath was a

shadow of things to come; but the _body_ is of Christ;”(875) that is, the

real substance of the truth, which he has beautifully explained in that

passage. This is contained not in one day, but in the whole course of our

life, till, being wholly dead to ourselves, we be filled with the life of

God. Christians therefore ought to depart from all superstitious

observance of days.

XXXII. As the two latter causes, however, ought not to be numbered among

the ancient shadows, but are equally suitable to all ages,—though the

sabbath is abrogated, yet it is still customary among us to assemble on

stated days for hearing the word, for breaking the mystic bread, and for

public prayers; and also to allow servants and labourers a remission from

their labour. That in commanding the sabbath, the Lord had regard to both

these things, cannot be doubted. The first is abundantly confirmed even by

the practice of the Jews. The second is proved by Moses, in Deuteronomy,

in these words: “that thy man‐servant and thy maid‐servant may rest as

well as thou. And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of

Egypt.”(876) Also, in Exodus: “that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and

the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed.”(877) Who can

deny that both these things are as proper for us as for the Jews?

Assemblies of the Church are enjoined in the Divine word, and the

necessity of them is sufficiently known even from the experience of life.

Unless there be stated days appointed for them, how can they be held?

According to the direction of the Apostle, “all things” are to “be done

decently and in order” among us.(878) But so far is it from being possible

to preserve order and decorum without this regulation, that, if it were

abolished, the Church would be in imminent danger of immediate convulsion

and ruin. But if we feel the same necessity, to relieve which the Lord

enjoined the sabbath upon the Jews, let no one plead that it does not

belong to us. For our most provident and indulgent Father has been no less

attentive to provide for our necessity than for that of the Jews. But why,

it may be asked, do we not rather assemble on every day, that so all

distinction of days may be removed? I sincerely wish that this were

practised; and truly spiritual wisdom would be well worthy of some portion

of time being daily allotted to it; but if the infirmity of many persons

will not admit of daily assemblies, and charity does not permit us to

require more of them, why should we not obey the rule which we have

imposed upon us by the will of God?

XXXIII. I am obliged to be rather more diffuse on this point, because, in

the present age, some unquiet spirits have been raising noisy contentions

respecting the Lord’s day. They complain that Christians are tinctured

with Judaism, because they retain any observance of days. But I reply,

that the Lord’s day is not observed by us upon the principles of Judaism;

because in this respect the difference between us and the Jews is very

great. For we celebrate it not with scrupulous rigour, as a ceremony which

we conceive to be a figure of some spiritual mystery, but only use it as a

remedy necessary to the preservation of order in the Church. But they say,

Paul teaches that Christians are not to be judged in the observance of it,

because it is a shadow of something future.(879) Therefore he is “afraid

lest” he has “bestowed” on the Galatians “labour in vain,” because they

continued to “observe days.”(880) And in the Epistle to the Romans, he

asserts him to be “weak in the faith,” who “esteemeth one day above

another.”(881) But who, these furious zealots only excepted, does not see

what observance the apostle intends? For they did not observe them for the

sake of political and ecclesiastical order; but when they retained them as

shadows of spiritual things, they were so far guilty of obscuring the

glory of Christ and the light of the gospel. They did not, therefore, rest

from their manual labours, as from employments which would divert them

from sacred studies and meditations; but from a principle of superstition,

imagining their cessation from labour to be still an expression of

reverence for the mysteries formerly represented by it. This preposterous

distinction of days the Apostle strenuously opposes; and not that

legitimate difference which promotes the peace of the Christian Church.

For in the churches which he founded, the sabbath was retained for this

purpose. He prescribes the same day to the Corinthians, for making

collections for the relief of the brethren at Jerusalem. If superstition

be an object of fear, there was more danger in the holy days of the Jews,

than in the Lord’s days now observed by Christians. Now, whereas it was

expedient for the destruction of superstition, the day which the Jews kept

holy was abolished; and it being necessary for the preservation of

decorum, order, and peace, in the Christian Church, another day was

appointed for the same use.

XXXIV. However, the ancients have not without sufficient reason

substituted what we call the Lord’s day in the room of the sabbath. For

since the resurrection of the Lord is the end and consummation of that

true rest, which was adumbrated by the ancient sabbath, the same day which

put an end to the shadows, admonishes Christians not to adhere to a

shadowy ceremony. Yet I do not lay so much stress on the septenary number,

that I would oblige the Church to an invariable adherence to it; nor will

I condemn those churches which have other solemn days for their

assemblies, provided they keep at a distance from superstition. And this

will be the case, if they be only designed for the observance of

discipline and well‐regulated order. Let us sum up the whole in the

following manner: As the truth was delivered to the Jews under a figure,

so it is given to us without any shadows; first, in order that during our

whole life we should meditate on a perpetual rest from our own works, that

the Lord may operate within us by his Spirit; secondly, that every man,

whenever he has leisure, should diligently exercise himself in private in

pious reflections on the works of God, and also that we should at the same

time observe the legitimate order of the Church, appointed for the hearing

of the word, for the administration of the sacraments, and for public

prayer; thirdly, that we should not unkindly oppress those who are subject

to us. Thus vanish all the dreams of false prophets, who in past ages have

infected the people with a Jewish notion, affirming that nothing but the

ceremonial part of this commandment, which, according to them, is the

appointment of the seventh day, has been abrogated, but that the moral

part of it, that is, the observance of one day in seven, still remains.

But this is only changing the day in contempt of the Jews, while they

retain the same opinion of the holiness of a day; for on this principle

the same mysterious signification would still be attributed to particular

days, which they formerly obtained among the Jews. And indeed we see what

advantages have arisen from such a sentiment. For those who adhere to it,

far exceed the Jews in a gross, carnal, and superstitious observance of

the sabbath; so that the reproofs, which we find in Isaiah, are equally

applicable to them in the present age, as to those whom the Prophet

reproved in his time. But the principal thing to be remembered is the

general doctrine; that, lest religion decay or languish among us, sacred

assemblies ought diligently to be held, and that we ought to use those

external means which are adapted to support the worship of God.

The Fifth Commandment.

_Honour thy father and thy mother; that thy days may be long upon

the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee._

XXXV. The end of this precept is, that since the Lord God desires the

preservation of the order he has appointed, the degrees of preëminence

fixed by him ought to be inviolably preserved. The sum of it, therefore,

will be, that we should reverence them whom God has exalted to any

authority over us, and should render them honour, obedience, and

gratitude. Whence follows a prohibition to derogate from their dignity by

contempt, obstinacy, or ingratitude. For in the Scripture the word

“honour” has an extensive signification; as, when the Apostle directs that

“the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honour,”(882) he

means not only that they are entitled to reverence, but likewise such a

remuneration as their ministry deserves. But as this precept, which

enjoins subjection to superiors, is exceedingly repugnant to the depravity

of human nature, whose ardent desire of exaltation will scarcely admit of

subjection, it has therefore proposed as an example that kind of

superiority which is naturally most amiable and least invidious; because

that might the more easily mollify and incline our minds to a habit of

submission. By that subjection, therefore, which is most easy to be borne,

the Lord accustoms us by degrees to every kind of legitimate obedience;

because the reason of all is the same. For to those, to whom he gives any

preëminence, he communicates his own authority, as far as is necessary for

the preservation of that preëminence. The titles of Father, God, and Lord,

are so eminently applicable to him, that, whenever we hear either of them

mentioned, our minds cannot but be strongly affected with a sense of his

majesty. Those, therefore, on whom he bestows these titles, he illuminates

with a ray of his splendour, to render them all honourable in their

respective stations. Thus in a father we ought to recognize something

Divine; for it is not without reason that he bears one of the titles of

the Deity. Our prince, or our lord, enjoys an honour somewhat similar to

that which is given to God.

XXXVI. Wherefore it ought not to be doubted that God here lays down a

universal rule for our conduct; namely, that to every one, whom we know to

be placed in authority over us by his appointment, we should render

reverence, obedience, gratitude, and all the other services in our power.

Nor does it make any difference, whether they are worthy of this honour,

or not. For whatever be their characters, yet it is not without the

appointment of the Divine providence, that they have attained that

station, on account of which the supreme Legislator has commanded them to

be honoured. He has particularly enjoined reverence to our parents, who

have brought us into this life; which nature itself ought to teach us. For

those who violate the parental authority by contempt or rebellion, are not

men, but monsters. Therefore the Lord commands all those, who are

disobedient to their parents, to be put to death, as having rendered

themselves unworthy to enjoy the light, by their disregard of those by

whose means they were introduced to it. And various appendices to the law

evince the truth of our observation, that the honour here intended

consists in reverence, obedience, and gratitude. The first the Lord

confirms, when he commands him to be slain who has cursed his father or

mother;(883) for in that case he punishes contempt. He confirms the

second, when he denounces the punishment of death against disobedient and

rebellious children.(884) The third is supported by Christ, who says, “God

commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother;” and, “He that curseth

father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say

to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be

profited by me; and honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free.

Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your

tradition.”(885) And whenever Paul mentions this commandment, he explains

it as a requisition of obedience.(886)

XXXVII. In order to recommend it, a promise is annexed, which is a further

intimation how acceptable to God that submission is which is here

enjoined. Paul employs that stimulus to arouse our inattention, when he

says, “This is the first commandment with promise.” For the preceding

promise, in the first table, was not particularly confined to one

commandment, but extended to the whole law. Now, the true explanation of

this promise is, that the Lord spake particularly to the Israelites

concerning the land which he had promised them as an inheritance. If the

possession of that land therefore was a pledge of the Divine goodness, we

need not wonder, if it was the Lord’s will to manifest his favour by

bestowing length of life, in order to prolong the enjoyment of the

blessing conferred by him. The meaning of it therefore is, Honour thy

father and thy mother, that through the space of a long life thou mayest

enjoy the possession of the land, which will be to thee a testimony of my

favour. But, as the whole earth is blessed to the faithful, we justly

place the present life among the blessings we receive from God. Wherefore

this promise belongs likewise to us, inasmuch as the continuance of the

present life affords us a proof of the Divine benevolence. For neither is

it promised to us, nor was it promised to the Jews, as though it contained

any blessedness in itself; but because to the pious it is generally a

token of the Divine favour. Therefore, if a son, that is obedient to his

parents, happen to be removed out of life before the age of

maturity,—which is a case of frequent occurrence,—the Lord, nevertheless,

perseveres with as much punctuality in the completion of his promise, as

if he were to reward a person with a hundred acres of land to whom he had

only promised one. The whole consists in this: We should consider that

long life is promised to us so far as it is the blessing of God; but that

it is a blessing, only as it is a proof of the favour of God, which he

infinitely more richly and substantially testifies and actually

demonstrates to his servants in their death.

XXXVIII. Moreover, when the Lord promises the blessing of the present life

to those children who honour their parents with proper reverence, he at

the same time implies that a certain curse impends over all those who are

disobedient and perverse. And that it might not fail of being executed, he

pronounces them in his law to be liable to the sentence of death, and

commands that punishment to be inflicted on them. If they escape that, he

punishes them himself in some other way. For we see what great numbers of

persons of this character fall in battles and in private quarrels; others

are afflicted in unusual ways; and almost all of them are proofs of the

truth of this threatening. But if any arrive at an extreme age, being

deprived of the Divine blessing, they only languish in misery in this

life, and are reserved to greater punishments hereafter; and consequently

they are far from participating in the blessing promised to dutiful

children. But it must be remarked by the way, that we are commanded to

obey them only “in the Lord;” and this is evident from the foundation

before laid; for they preside in that station to which the Lord has

exalted them by communicating to them a portion of his honour. Wherefore

the submission exercised towards them ought to be a step towards honouring

the Supreme Father. Therefore, if they instigate us to any transgression

of the law, we may justly consider them not as parents, but as strangers,

who attempt to seduce us from obedience to our real Father. The same

observation is applicable to princes, lords, and superiors of every

description. For it is infamous and absurd, that their eminence should

avail to depreciate the preëminence of God, upon which it depends, and to

which it ought to conduct us.

The Sixth Commandment.

_Thou shalt not kill._

XXXIX. The end of this precept is, that since God has connected mankind

together in a kind of unity, every man ought to consider himself as

charged with the safety of all. In short, then, all violence and

injustice, and every kind of mischief, which may injure the body of our

neighbour, are forbidden to us. And therefore we are enjoined, if it be in

our power, to assist in protecting the lives of our neighbours; to exert

ourselves with fidelity for this purpose; to procure those things which

conduce to their tranquillity; to be vigilant in shielding them from

injuries; and in cases of danger to afford them our assistance. If we

remember that this is the language of the Divine Legislator, we should

consider, at the same time, that he intends this rule to govern the soul.

For it were ridiculous, that he who beholds the thoughts of the heart, and

principally insists on them, should content himself with forming only the

body to true righteousness. Mental homicide, therefore, is likewise

prohibited, and an internal disposition to preserve the life of our

brother is commanded in this law. The hand, indeed, accomplishes the

homicide, but it is conceived by the mind under the influence of anger and

hatred. Examine whether you can be angry with your brother, without being

inflamed with a desire of doing him some injury. If you cannot be angry

with him, then you cannot hate him; for hatred is nothing more than

inveterate anger. However you may dissemble, and endeavour to extricate

yourself by vain subterfuges, whenever there is either anger or hatred,

there is also a disposition to do injury. If you persist in your evasions,

it is already pronounced by the Holy Spirit, that “Whosoever hateth his

brother is a murderer.”(887) It is declared by the Lord Christ, “that

whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of

the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in

danger of the council; but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in

danger of hell fire.”(888)

XL. Now, the Scripture states two reasons on which this precept is

founded; the first, that man is the image of God; the second, that he is

our own flesh. Wherefore, unless we would violate the image of God, we

ought to hold the personal safety of our neighbour inviolably sacred; and

unless we would divest ourselves of humanity, we ought to cherish him as

our own flesh. The motives which are derived from the redemption and grace

of Christ will be treated in another place. These two characters, which

are inseparable from the nature of man, God requires us to consider as

motives to our exertions for his security; so that we may reverence his

image impressed on him, and show an affectionate regard for our own flesh.

That person, therefore, is not innocent of the crime of murder, who has

merely restrained himself from the effusion of blood. If you perpetrate,

if you attempt, if you only conceive in your mind any thing inimical to

the safety of another, you stand guilty of murder. Unless you also

endeavour to defend him to the utmost of your ability and opportunity, you

are guilty of the same inhuman transgression of the law. But if so much

concern be discovered for the safety of the body, we may conclude, how

much care and attention should be devoted to the safety of the soul,

which, in the sight of God, is of infinitely superior value.

The Seventh Commandment.

_Thou shalt not commit adultery._

XLI. The end of this precept is, that because God loves chastity and

purity, we ought to depart from all uncleanness. The sum of it therefore

is, that we ought not to be polluted by any carnal impurity, or libidinous

intemperance. To this prohibition corresponds the affirmative injunction,

that every part of our lives ought to be regulated by chastity and

continence. But he expressly forbids adultery, to which all incontinence

tends; in order that by the turpitude of that which is very gross and

palpable, being an infamous pollution of the body, he may lead us to

abominate every unlawful passion. Since man was created in such a state as

not to live a solitary life, but to be united to a help‐meet; and moreover

since the curse of sin has increased this necessity,—the Lord has afforded

us ample assistance in this case by the institution of marriage—a

connection which he has not only originated by his authority, but also

sanctified by his blessing. Whence it appears, that every other union, but

that of marriage, is cursed in his sight; and that the conjugal union

itself is appointed as a remedy for our necessity, that we may not break

out into unrestrained licentiousness. Let us not flatter ourselves,

therefore, since we hear that there can be no cohabitation of male and

female, except in marriage, without the curse of God.

XLII. Now, since the original constitution of human nature, and the

violence of the passions consequent upon the fall, have rendered a union

of the sexes doubly necessary, except to those whom God has exempted from

that necessity by peculiar grace, let every one carefully examine what is

given to him. Virginity, I acknowledge, is a virtue not to be despised.

But as this is denied to some, and to others is granted only for a season,

let those who are troubled with incontinence, and cannot succeed in

resisting it, avail themselves of the help of marriage, that they may

preserve their chastity according to the degree of their calling. For

persons who “cannot receive this saying,”(889) if they do not assist their

frailty by the remedy offered and granted to them, oppose God and resist

his ordinance. Here let no one object, as many do in the present day, that

with the help of God he can do all things. For the assistance of God is

granted only to them who walk in his ways, that is, in their calling;

which is deserted by all those who neglect the means which God has

afforded them, and strive to overcome their necessities by vain

presumption. That continence is a peculiar gift of God, and of that kind

which is not imparted promiscuously, or to the whole body of the Church,

but only conferred on a few of its members, is affirmed by our Lord. For

he mentions a certain class of men who “have made themselves eunuchs for

the kingdom of heaven’s sake;”(890) that is, that they might be more at

liberty to devote their attention to the affairs of the kingdom of heaven.

But that no one might suppose this to be in the power of man, he had

already declared that “all men cannot receive this saying, save they to

whom it is given.” And he concludes, “He that is able to receive it, let

him receive it.” Paul is still more explicit, when he says, that “every

man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after

that.”(891)

XLIII. Since we are so expressly apprized that it is not in the power of

every one to preserve chastity in celibacy, even with the most strenuous

efforts for that purpose, and that it is a peculiar grace, which the Lord

confers only on particular persons, that he may have them more ready for

his service, do we not resist God, and strive against the nature

instituted by him, unless we accommodate our manner of life to the measure

of our ability? In this commandment the Lord prohibits adultery: therefore

he requires of us purity and chastity. The only way of preserving this is,

that every one should measure himself by his own capacity. Let no one

rashly despise marriage as a thing useless or unnecessary to him; let no

one prefer celibacy, unless he can dispense with a wife. And in that state

let him not consult his carnal tranquillity or advantage, but only that,

being exempted from this restraint, he may be the more prompt and ready

for all the duties of piety. Moreover, as this benefit is conferred upon

many persons only for a season, let every one refrain from marriage as

long as he shall be capable of supporting a life of celibacy. When his

strength fails to overcome his passions, let him consider that the Lord

has laid him under a necessity of marrying. This is evident from the

direction of the Apostle: “To avoid fornication, let every man have his

own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” Again: “If they

cannot contain, let them marry.”(892) Here, in the first place, he

signifies that the majority of men are subject to the vice of

incontinence; in the next place, of those who are subject to it, he makes

no exception, but enjoins them all to have recourse to that sole remedy

which obviates unchastity. Those who are incontinent, therefore, if they

neglect this method of curing their infirmity, are guilty of sin, in not

obeying this injunction of the Apostle. And let not him who refrains from

actual fornication, flatter himself, as though he could not be charged

with unchastity, while his heart at the same time is inflamed with

libidinous desire. For Paul defines chastity to consist in sanctity of

mind connected with purity of body. “The unmarried woman,” he says,

“careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and

in spirit.”(893) Therefore, when he gives a reason to confirm the

preceding injunction, he does not content himself with saying that it is

better for a man to marry than to pollute himself with the society of a

harlot, but affirms that “it is better to marry than to burn.”(894)

XLIV. Now, if married persons are satisfied that their society is attended

with the blessing of the Lord, they are thereby admonished that it must

not be contaminated by libidinous and dissolute intemperance. For if the

honour of marriage conceals the shame of incontinence, it ought not on

that account to be made an incitement to it. Wherefore let it not be

supposed by married persons that all things are lawful to them. Every man

should observe sobriety towards his wife, and every wife, reciprocally,

towards her husband; conducting themselves in such a manner as to do

nothing unbecoming the decorum and temperance of marriage. For thus ought

marriage contracted in the Lord to be regulated by moderation and modesty,

and not to break out into the vilest lasciviousness. Such sensuality has

been stigmatized by Ambrose with a severe, but not unmerited censure, when

he calls those who in their conjugal intercourse have no regard to modesty

or decorum, the adulterers of their own wives. Lastly, let us consider who

the Legislator is, by whom adultery is here condemned. It is no other than

he who ought to have the entire possession of us, and justly requires the

whole of our spirit, soul, and body. Therefore, when he prohibits us from

committing adultery, he at the same time forbids us, either by

lasciviously ornamenting our persons, or by obscene gesticulations, or by

impure expressions, insidiously to attack the chastity of others. For

there is much reason in the address of Archelaus to a young man clothed in

an immoderately effeminate and delicate manner, that it was immaterial in

what part he was immodest, with respect to God, who abominates all

contamination, in whatever part it may discover itself, either of soul or

of body. And that there may be no doubt on the subject, let us remember

that God here recommends chastity. If the Lord requires chastity of us, he

condemns every thing contrary to it. Wherefore, if we aspire to obedience,

neither let our mind internally burn with depraved concupiscence, nor let

our eyes wanton into corrupt affections, nor let our body be adorned for

purposes of seduction, nor let our tongue with impure speeches allure our

mind to similar thoughts, nor let us inflame ourselves with intemperance.

For all these vices are stains, by which the purity of chastity is

defiled.

The Eighth Commandment.

_Thou shalt not steal._

XLV. The end of this precept is, that, as injustice is an abomination to

God, every man may possess what belongs to him. The sum of it, then, is,

that we are forbidden to covet the property of others, and are therefore

enjoined faithfully to use our endeavours to preserve to every man what

justly belongs to him. For we ought to consider, that what a man possesses

has fallen to his lot, not by a fortuitous contingency, but by the

distribution of the supreme Lord of all; and that therefore no man can be

deprived of his possessions by criminal methods, without an injury being

done to the Divine dispenser of them. But the species of theft are

numerous. One consists in violence; when the property of any person is

plundered by force and predatory license. Another consists in malicious

imposture; when it is taken away in a fraudulent manner. Another consists

in more secret cunning; where any one is deprived of his property under

the mask of justice. Another consists in flatteries; where we are cheated

under the pretence of a donation. But not to dwell too long on the recital

of the different species of theft, let us remember that all artifices by

which the possessions and wealth of our neighbours are transferred to us,

whenever they deviate from sincere love into a desire of deceiving, or

doing any kind of injury, are to be esteemed acts of theft. This is the

only view in which God considers them, even though the property may be

gained by a suit at law. For he sees the tedious manœuvres with which the

designing man begins to decoy his more simple neighbour, till at length he

entangles him in his snares. He sees the cruel and inhuman laws, by which

the more powerful man oppresses and ruins him that is weaker. He sees the

baits with which the more crafty trap the imprudent. All which things are

concealed from the judgment of man, nor ever come to his knowledge. And

this kind of injury relates not only to money, or to goods, or to lands,

but to whatever each individual is justly entitled to; for we defraud our

neighbours of their property, if we deny them those kind offices, which it

is our duty to perform to them. If an idle agent or steward devour the

substance of his master, and be inattentive to the care of his domestic

affairs; if he either improperly waste, or squander with a luxurious

profusion, the property intrusted to him; if a servant deride his master,

if he divulge his secrets, if by any means he betray either his life or

his property; and if, on the other hand, a master inhumanly oppress his

family,—God holds him guilty of theft. For the property of others is

withheld and misapplied by him, who does not perform towards them those

offices which the duty of his situation requires of him.