XXI. When they find themselves convinced, by evident experience, that they

promiscuously loose and bind the worthy and the unworthy, they arrogate to

themselves the power without knowledge. And though they dare not deny that

knowledge is requisite to a good use of it, yet they tell us, that the

power itself is committed to improper dispensers of it. But this is the

power—“Whatsoever thou bindest or loosest on earth, shall be bound or

loosed in heaven.” Either the promise of Christ must be false, or the

binding and loosing is rightly performed by those who are endued with this

power. Nor is there any room for them to quibble, that the declaration of

Christ is limited according to the merits of the person that is bound or

loosed. We also acknowledge, that none can be bound or loosed, but such as

are worthy to be bound or loosed. But the preachers of the gospel, and the

Church, have the word as the standard of this worthiness. In this word,

the ministers of the gospel may promise to all remission of sins in Christ

through faith; they may denounce damnation against all and upon all who

receive not Christ. In this word, the Church pronounces, that fornicators,

adulterers, thieves, murderers, misers, and extortioners, have no part in

the kingdom of God; and binds such with the firmest bonds. In the same

word, the Church looses and comforts those who repent.(1730) But what kind

of power will it be, not to know what ought to be bound or loosed? and not

to be able to bind or loose without this knowledge? Why, then, do they

say, that they absolve by the authority committed to them, when their

absolution is uncertain? Why should we concern ourselves about this

imaginary power, if it be quite useless? But I have already ascertained,

either that it has no existence, or that it is too uncertain to be

considered of any value. For, as they confess that there are many of the

priests who make no right use of the keys, and that the power has no

efficacy without a legitimate use of it, who will assure me, that he by

whom I am loosed is a good dispenser of the keys? But if he be a bad one,

what else does he possess but this frivolous dispensation of them: “What

ought to be bound or loosed in you, I know not, since I am destitute of

the proper use of the keys; but if you deserve it, I absolve you?” But as

much as this might be done, I will not say by a layman, (since they could

not hear that with any patience,) but by a Turk or a devil. For it is

equivalent to saying, “I have not the word of God, which is the certain

rule of loosing; but I am invested with authority to absolve you, on

condition that your merits deserve it.” We see, then, what they intended,

when they defined the keys to be an authority of discerning, and a power

of executing, attended with knowledge as a counsellor, to promote the good

use. The truth is, that they wished to reign according to their own

licentious inclinations, independently of God and his word.

XXII. If it be objected, that the legitimate ministers of Christ will be

equally perplexed in their office, since the absolution, which depends on

faith, will ever be doubtful, and that therefore sinners will have but a

slight consolation, or none at all, since the minister himself, who is not

a competent judge of their faith, is not certain of their absolution,—we

are prepared with an answer. They say, that no sins are remitted by the

priest, but those which fall under his cognizance; thus, according to

them, remission depends on the judgment of the priest; and unless he

sagaciously discerns who are worthy of pardon, the whole transaction is

frivolous and useless. In short, the power of which they speak is a

jurisdiction annexed to examination, to which pardon and absolution are

restricted. In this statement, we find no firm footing, but rather a

bottomless abyss; for where the confession is deficient, the hope of

pardon is also imperfect; in the next place, the priest himself must

necessarily remain in suspense, while he is ignorant whether the sinner

faithfully enumerates all his crimes; lastly, such is the ignorance and

inexperience of priests, that the majority of them are no more qualified

for the exercise of this office, than a shoemaker for cultivating the

ground; and almost all the rest ought justly to be suspicious of

themselves. Hence, then, the perplexity and doubtfulness of the Papal

absolution, because they maintain it to be founded on the person of the

priest; and not only so, but on his knowledge, so that he can only judge

of what he hears, examines, and ascertains. Now, should any one inquire of

these good doctors, whether a sinner be reconciled to God on the remission

of part of his sins, I know not what answer they can give, without being

constrained to acknowledge the inefficacy of whatever the priest may

pronounce concerning the remission of sins which he has heard enumerated,

as long as the guilt of others still remains. What a pernicious anxiety

must oppress the conscience of the person that confesses, appears from

this consideration, that while he relies on the discretion of the priest,

(as they express themselves,) he decides nothing by the word of God. The

doctrine maintained by us, is perfectly free from all these absurdities.

For absolution is conditional, in such a way, that the sinner may be

confident that God is propitious to him, provided he sincerely seeks an

atonement in the sacrifice of Christ, and relies upon the grace offered to

him. Thus it is impossible for him to err, who, according to his duty as a

preacher, promulgates what he has been taught by the Divine word; and the

sinner may receive a certain and clear absolution, simply on condition of

embracing the grace of Christ, according to that general rule of our Lord

himself, which has been impiously despised among the Papists—“According to

your faith be it unto you.”(1731)

XXIII. Their absurd confusion of the clear representations of the

Scripture concerning the power of the keys, I have promised to expose in

another place; and a more suitable opportunity will present itself, in

discussing the government of the Church. But let the reader remember, that

they preposterously pervert to auricular and secret confession, passages

which are spoken by Christ, partly of the preaching of the gospel, and

partly of excommunication. Wherefore, when they object that the power of

loosing was committed to the apostles, which is now exercised by the

priests in remitting the sins confessed to them, it is evidently an

assumption of a false and frivolous principle; for the absolution

consequent on faith, is nothing but a declaration of pardon taken from the

gracious promise of the gospel; but the other absolution, which depends on

ecclesiastical discipline, relates not to secret sins, but is rather for

the sake of example, that the public offence of the Church may be removed.

They rake together testimonies from every quarter, to prove, that it is

not sufficient to make a confession of sins to God, or to laymen, unless

they are likewise submitted to the cognizance of a priest; but they ought

to be ashamed of such a disgusting employment. For, if the ancient fathers

sometimes persuade sinners to disburden themselves to their own pastor, it

cannot be understood of a particular enumeration of sins, which was not

then practised. Moreover, Lombard and others of the same class have been

so unfair, that they appear to have designedly consulted spurious books,

in order to use them as a pretext to deceive the unwary. They do, indeed,

properly acknowledge, that since loosing always accompanies repentance,

there really remains no bond where any one has experienced repentance,

although he may not yet have made a confession; and, therefore, that then

the priest does not so much remit sins, as pronounce and declare them to

be remitted. Though in the word _declare_ they insinuate a gross error,

substituting a ceremony in the place of instruction; but by adding, that

he who had already obtained pardon before God, is absolved in the view of

the Church, they unseasonably apply to the particular use of every

individual, what we have already asserted to have been appointed as a part

of the common discipline of the Church, when the offence of some great and

notorious crime requires to be removed. But they presently corrupt and

destroy all the moderation they had observed, by adding another mode of

remission, that is, with an injunction of punishment and satisfaction; by

which they arrogantly ascribe to their priests the power of dividing into

two parts what God has every where promised as complete. For, as he simply

requires repentance and faith, this partition or exception is an evident

sacrilege. For it is just as if the priest, sustaining the character of a

tribune, should interpose his _veto_, and not suffer God of his mere

goodness to receive any one into favour, unless he had lain prostrate

before the tribunitial seat, and there been punished.

XXIV. The whole argument comes to this—that if they will represent God as

the author of this fictitious confession, it is a full proof of their

error; for I have pointed out their fallacies in the few passages which

they quote. But since it is evident that this is a law of human

imposition, I assert that it is also tyrannical and injurious to God, who

binds the consciences of men by his word, and whose will it is that they

should be free from the authority of men. Now, when they prescribe as a

necessary prerequisite to pardon that which God has chosen should be free,

I maintain that it is an intolerable sacrilege; for nothing is more

peculiarly the prerogative of God than the remission of sins, in which our

salvation consists. I have moreover proved, that this tyranny was not

introduced till the world was oppressed with the rudest barbarism. I have

likewise shown that it is a pestilent law, because, if wretched souls are

affected with the fear of God, it precipitates them into despair; or if

they are in a state of careless security, it soothes them with vain

flatteries, and renders them still more insensible. Lastly, I have stated,

that all the mitigations which they add, have no other tendency than to

perplex, obscure, and corrupt the pure doctrine, and to conceal their

impieties under false and illusive colours.

XXV. The third place in repentance they assign to _satisfaction_; all

their jargon concerning which may be overturned in one word. They say,

that it is not sufficient for a penitent to abstain from his former sins,

and to change his morals for the better, unless he make satisfaction to

God for the crimes which he has committed; and that there are many helps

by which we may redeem sins, such as tears, fastings, oblations, and works

of charity; that by these the Lord is to be propitiated, by these our

debts are to be paid to the Divine justice, by these we must compensate

for the guilt of our sins, by these we must merit pardon; for that though,

in the plenitude of his mercy, he has remitted our sins, yet, in the

discipline of justice, he retains the punishment, and that this is the

punishment which must be redeemed by _satisfactions_. All that they say,

however, comes to this conclusion—that we obtain the pardon of our

transgressions from the mercy of God, but that it is by the intervention

of the merit of works, by which the evil of our sins must be compensated,

that the Divine justice may receive the satisfaction which is due to it.

To such falsehoods I oppose the gratuitous remission of sins, than which

there is nothing more clearly revealed in the Scripture. In the first

place, what is remission, but a gift of mere liberality? For the creditor

is not said to forgive, who testifies by a receipt that the debt has been

paid, but he who, without any payment, merely through his beneficence,

voluntarily cancels the obligation. In the next place, why is this said to

be free, but to preclude every idea of satisfaction? With what confidence,

then, can they still set up their satisfactions, which are overthrown by

such a mighty thunderbolt? But when the Lord proclaims by Isaiah, “I, even

I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will

not remember thy sins,”(1732) does he not evidently declare, that he

derives the cause and foundation of forgiveness merely from his own

goodness? Besides, while the whole Scripture bears testimony to Christ,

that “remission of sins” is to be “received through his name,”(1733) does

it not exclude all other names? How, then, do they teach, that it is

received through the name of _satisfactions_? Nor can they deny that they

ascribe this to satisfactions, although they call their intervention

_subsidiary_. For when the Scripture states it to be “through the name of

Christ,” it signifies, that we bring nothing, that we plead nothing, of

our own, but rely solely on the mediation of Christ; as Paul, after

affirming, “that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not

imputing their trespasses unto them,” immediately adds the method and

nature of it, “for he hath made him, who knew no sin, to be sin for

us.”(1734)

XXVI. But such is their perverseness, they reply that both remission of

sins and reconciliation are obtained at once, when in baptism we are

received into the favour of God, through Christ; that if we fall after

baptism, we are to be raised up again by _satisfactions_; and that the

blood of Christ avails us nothing, any further than it is dispensed by the

keys of the Church. I am not speaking of a doubtful point, for they have

betrayed their impurity in the most explicit terms; and this is the case

not only of two or three, but of all the schoolmen. For their master,

Lombard, after having confessed that, according to the doctrine of Peter,

Christ suffered the punishment of sins on the cross,(1735) immediately

corrects that sentiment by the addition of the following exception: that

all the temporal punishments of sins are remitted in baptism; but that

after baptism they are diminished by means of repentance, so that our

repentance coöperates with the cross of Christ. But John speaks a very

different language: “If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father,

Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the propitiation for our sins: I

write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for

his name’s sake.”(1736) He certainly addresses believers, and when he

exhibits Christ to them as the propitiation for sins, proves that there is

no other satisfaction by which our offended God may be propitiated or

appeased. He says not, God was once reconciled to you by Christ, now seek

some other means; but represents him as a perpetual advocate, who by his

intercession restores us to the Father’s favour for ever, and as a

perpetual propitiation by which our sins are expiated. For this is

perpetually true, that was declared by the other John, “Behold the Lamb of

God, which taketh away the sins of the world.”(1737) He takes them away

himself, I say, and no other; that is, since he alone is the Lamb of God,

he alone is the oblation, the expiation, the satisfaction for sins. For

the right and power to forgive being the peculiar prerogative of the

Father, as distinguished from the Son, as we have already seen, Christ is

here represented in another capacity, since by transferring to himself the

punishment we deserved, he has obliterated our guilt before the throne of

God. Whence it follows, that we shall not be partakers of the atonement of

Christ in any other way, unless he remain in the exclusive possession of

that honour, which they unjustly assume to themselves who endeavour to

appease God by satisfactions of their own.

XXVII. And here two things demand our consideration—that the honour, which

belongs to Christ, should be preserved to him entire and undiminished; and

that consciences assured of the pardon of their sins, should have peace

with God. Isaiah says, “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all,”

and “With his stripes we are healed.”(1738) Peter, repeating the same

truth in different words, says, that Christ “bare our sins in his own body

on the tree.”(1739) Paul informs us, that “sin was condemned in the

flesh,”(1740) when “Christ was made sin for us;”(1741) that is, that the

power and curse of sin were destroyed in his flesh, when he was given as a

victim, to sustain the whole load of our sins, with their curse and

execrations, with the dreadful judgment of God, and the condemnation of

death. We cannot here listen to those foolish fictions; that after the

initial purgation or baptism, none of us can have any further experience

of the efficacy of the sufferings of Christ, than in proportion to a

satisfactory repentance. But whenever we have fallen, the Scripture

recalls us to the satisfaction of Christ alone. Now, review their

pestilent follies; “that the grace of God operates alone in the first

remission of sins; but that if we afterwards fall, our works coöperate

with it in the impetration of a second pardon.” If these things be

admitted, does Christ remain exclusively possessed of what we have before

attributed to him? How immensely wide is the difference between these

positions—that our iniquities are laid on Christ to be expiated by him,

and that they are expiated by our own works! that Christ is the

propitiation for our sins, and that God must be propitiated by works! But

with respect to pacifying the conscience, what peace will it afford any

one, to hear that sins are redeemed by satisfactions? When will he be

assured of the accomplishment of satisfaction? Therefore he will always

doubt whether God be propitious to him, he will always be in a state of

fluctuation and terror. For those who content themselves with trivial

satisfactions, have too contemptuous sentiments of the judgment of God,

and reflect very little on the vast evil of sin, as we shall elsewhere

observe. But though we should allow them to expiate some sins by a proper

satisfaction, yet what will they do when they are overwhelmed with so many

sins, that to make adequate satisfactions for them, even a hundred lives

entirely devoted to it could not possibly be sufficient? Besides, all the

passages in which remission of sins is declared, are not addressed to

catechumens, [or persons not yet baptized,] but to the regenerated sons of

God, and those who have been long nurtured in the bosom of the Church.

That embassy which Paul so splendidly extols, “We pray you in Christ’s

stead, be ye reconciled to God,”(1742) is directed not to strangers, but

to those who had already been regenerated. But, dismissing all

satisfactions, he sends them to the cross of Christ. Thus, when he writes

to the Colossians, that “Christ had made peace by the blood of his cross,

and reconciled all things both in earth and in heaven,”(1743) he restricts

not this to the moment of our reception into the Church, but extends it

through our whole course; as is evident from the context, where he says

that believers “have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of

sins.” But it is unnecessary to accumulate more passages, which are

frequently occurring.

XXVIII. Here they take refuge in a foolish distinction, that some sins are

_venial_, and some _mortal_; that a great satisfaction is due for mortal

sins; but that those which are venial are purged away by easier remedies,

by the Lord’s prayer, the aspersion of holy water, and the absolution of

the mass. Thus they sport and trifle with God. But though they are

incessantly talking of venial and mortal sins, yet they have never been

able to discriminate one from the other, except by making impiety and

impurity of heart a venial sin. But we maintain, according to the doctrine

of the Scripture, the only standard of righteousness and sin, that “the

wages of sin is death,” and “the soul that sinneth, it shall die;”(1744)

but that the sins of believers are venial, not because they are not

deserving of death, but because, through the mercy of God, “there is no

condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus;”(1745) because they are

not imputed to them, but obliterated by a pardon. I know their unjust

calumnies against this doctrine of ours; they assert it to be the Stoical

paradox concerning the equality of sins; but they will easily be refuted

out of their own lips. For I ask, whether among those very sins which they

confess to be mortal, they do not acknowledge one to be greater or less

than another? It does not, therefore, immediately follow, that sins are

equal because they are alike mortal. Since the Scripture declares that the

wages of sin is death, that obedience to the law is the way of life, and

the transgression of it death, they cannot evade this decision. What end,

then, will they find to satisfactions in so great an accumulation of sins?

If it be the business of one day to satisfy for one sin, while they are

employed in that, they involve themselves in more; for the most righteous

man cannot pass a single day without falling several times. While they

shall be preparing themselves to make satisfaction for these, they will

accumulate a numerous, or rather an innumerable multitude. Now, all

confidence in satisfaction is cut off: on what do they depend? How do they

still presume to think of making satisfaction?

XXIX. They endeavour to extricate themselves from this difficulty, but

without success. They invent a distinction between the guilt and the

punishment; and acknowledge that the guilt is forgiven by the Divine

mercy, but maintain, that after the remission of the guilt, there still

remains the punishment, which the Divine justice requires to be suffered;

and, therefore, that satisfactions properly relate to the remission of the

punishment. What desultory levity is this! Now, they confess that

remission of guilt is proposed as gratuitous, which they are continually

teaching men to merit by prayers and tears, and other preparations of

various kinds. But every thing delivered in the Scripture concerning

remission of sins is diametrically opposite to this distinction. And

though I think I have fully established this point already, I will subjoin

some additional testimonies, by which our opponents will be so much

embarrassed, as, notwithstanding all their serpentine lubricity, to be

totally unable ever to extricate themselves. “This is the new covenant,”

which God has made with us in Christ, “that he will not remember our

iniquities.”(1746) The import of these expressions we learn from another

prophet, by whom the Lord says, “When the righteous turneth away from his

righteousness, all his righteousness that he hath done shall not be

mentioned. When the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness, he shall

surely live, he shall not die.”(1747) “Not to mention righteousness,”

signifies, not to notice it so as to reward it; and “not to remember

sins,” is, not to inflict punishment for them. This is expressed in other

passages by the following phrases: to “cast behind the back,” to “blot out

as a cloud,” to “cast into the depths of the sea,” “not to impute,” to

“cover.”(1748) These forms of expression would clearly convey to us the

sense of the Holy Spirit, if we attended to them with docility. If God

punishes sins, he certainly imputes them; if he avenges them, he remembers

them; if he cites them to judgment, he does not cover them; if he examines

them, he has not cast them behind his back; if he inspects them, he has

not blotted them out as a cloud; if he scrutinizes them, he has not cast

them into the depths of the sea. And in this manner the subject is clearly

explained by Augustine. “If God has covered sins, he would not look at

them; if he would not look at them, he would not take cognizance of them;

if he would not take cognizance of them, he would not punish them; he

would not know them, he would rather forgive them. Why, then, has he said

that sins are covered? That they might not be seen. For what is meant by

God’s seeing sin, but his punishing it?” Let us also hear from another

passage of the prophet, on what conditions God remits sins. “Though your

sins be as scarlet, (says he,) they shall be as white as snow; though they

be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.”(1749) And in Jeremiah we find

this declaration: “In that time the iniquities of Israel shall be sought

for, and there shall be none; and the sins of Judah, and they shall not be

found; for I will pardon them whom I reserve.”(1750) Would you briefly

know what is the meaning of these words? Consider, on the contrary, the

import of the following expressions: “the Lord seweth up iniquity in a

bag;” “iniquity is bound up;” “sin is hid;” to “write sins with a pen of

iron, and engrave them with the point of a diamond.”(1751) If they signify

that God will execute vengeance, as they undoubtedly do, neither can it be

doubted but that, by the contrary declaration, the Lord proclaims his

remission of all vindictive punishment. Here I must conjure my readers not

to listen to my expositions, but only to pay some deference to the word of

God.

XXX. What would Christ have done for us, if punishment for sins were still

inflicted on us? For when we say, that he “bare all our sins in his own

body on the tree,”(1752) we intend only, that he sustained the vindictive

punishment which was due to our sins. This sentiment is more significantly

expressed by Isaiah, when he says that the “chastisement (or correction)

of our peace was upon him.”(1753) Now, what is the correction of our

peace, but the punishment due to sins, and which we must have suffered

before we could be reconciled to God, if he had not become our substitute?

Thus we see clearly, that Christ bore the punishment of sins, that he

might deliver his people from it. And whenever Paul mentions the

redemption accomplished by him, he generally calls it ἀπολυτρωσις,(1754)

which signifies not simply redemption, as it is commonly understood, but

the price and satisfaction of redemption. Thus he says that Christ “gave

himself a ransom” (αντιλυτρον) for us.(1755) “What propitiation is there

with the Lord (says Augustine) but sacrifice? And what sacrifice is there,

but that which has been offered for us in the death of Christ?” But the

institutions of the law of Moses, respecting expiations for sins, furnish

us with a most powerful argument. For there the Lord prescribes not this

or the other method of satisfying, but requires the whole compensation in

sacrifices; though he specifies all the rites of expiation with the most

particular care, and in the most exact order. How is it that he commands

the expiation of sins without any works at all, requiring no other

atonement than by sacrifices, but because he intends in this way to

declare, that there is only one kind of satisfaction by which his justice

is appeased? For the sacrifices then immolated by the Israelites were not

considered as the works of men, but were estimated according to their

antitype, that is, the one sacrifice of Christ alone. The nature of the

compensation which the Lord receives from us is concisely and beautifully

expressed by Hosea: “Take away (saith he) all iniquity, O Lord;” here is

remission of sins; “so will we render the calves of our lips;”(1756) here

is satisfaction, [which is no other than thanksgiving.] I am aware of

another still more subtle evasion to which they resort, by distinguishing

between eternal punishments and those which are temporal. But when they

assert that temporal punishment is any suffering inflicted by God on the

body or the soul, eternal death only excepted, this limitation affords

them but little assistance. For the passages which we have cited above,

expressly signify, that God receives us into favour on this condition,

that in forgiving our guilt, he remits all the punishment that we had

deserved. And whenever David or the other prophets implore the pardon of

their sins, they at the same time deprecate the punishment; and to this

they are impelled by an apprehension of the Divine judgment. Again: when

they promise mercy from the Lord, they almost always professedly speak of

punishments, and of the remission of them. Certainly when the Lord

announces by Ezekiel, that he will put an end to the Babylonian captivity,

and that for his own sake, not for the sake of the Jews, he sufficiently

shows this deliverance to be gratuitous. Finally, if Christ delivers us

from guilt, the punishments consequent upon it must necessarily cease.

XXXI. But as our adversaries also, on their part, arm themselves with

testimonies from the Scripture, let us examine what arguments they offer.

They reason in this way: David, after having been reproved by Nathan the

prophet for adultery and murder, receives the pardon of his sin; and yet

is afterwards punished by the death of the son that was the fruit of his

adultery.(1757) We are taught to compensate by satisfactions for such

punishments as would be inflicted even after the remission of the guilt.

For Daniel exhorted Nebuchadnezzar to atone for his sins by acts of

mercy.(1758) And Solomon says, “By mercy and truth, iniquity is

purged.”(1759) And that “charity shall cover a multitude of sins,”(1760)

is a sentiment confirmed by the united testimony of Solomon and Peter. The

Lord also says in Luke, concerning the woman that had been a sinner, “Her

sins are forgiven; for she loved much.”(1761) How perversely and

preposterously they always estimate the Divine proceedings! But if they

had observed, what should by no means have been overlooked, that there are

two kinds of Divine judgment, they would have seen, in this correction of

David, a species of punishment very different from that which may be

considered as vindictive. But since it highly concerns us all to

understand the design of those chastisements with which God corrects our

sins, and how greatly they differ from the examples of his indignation

pursuing the impious and reprobate, I conceive it will not be unseasonable

to give a summary account of them. For the sake of perspicuity, let us

call one _vengeance_, or _vindictive judgment_, and the other

_chastisement_, or _disciplinary judgment_. In vindictive judgment, God is

to be contemplated as taking vengeance on his enemies, so as to exert his

wrath against them, to confound, dissipate, and reduce them to nothing. We

consider it, therefore, strictly speaking, to be the vengeance of God,

when the punishment he inflicts is attended with his indignation. In

disciplinary judgment, he is not so severe as to be angry; nor does he

punish in order to destroy or precipitate into perdition. Wherefore, it is

not properly punishment or vengeance, but correction and admonition. The

former is the part of a judge, the latter of a father. For a judge, when

he punishes an offender, attends to the crime itself, and inflicts

punishment according to the nature and aggravations of it. When a father

corrects his child with severity, he does it not to take vengeance or

satisfaction, but rather to teach him, and render him more cautious for

the future. Chrysostom somewhere uses a comparison a little different,

which, nevertheless, comes to the same point. “A son (says he) is beaten;

a servant also is beaten; but the latter is punished as a slave, because

he has transgressed; the former is chastised as free and a son, that needs

to be disciplined.” Correction serves to the latter for a probation and

reformation, to the former for a scourge and a punishment.

XXXII. To obtain a clear view of the whole subject in a small compass, it

is necessary to state two distinctions respecting it. The first is, that

wherever there is vindictive punishment, there also is a manifestation of

the curse and wrath of God, which he always withholds from believers.

Chastisement, on the contrary, is, as the Scripture teaches us, both a

blessing of God, and a testimony of his love. This difference is

sufficiently marked in every part of the Divine word. For all the

afflictions which the impious endure in the present life, are represented

to us as constituting a kind of antechamber of hell, whence they already

have a distant prospect of their eternal damnation; and they are so far

from being reformed, or receiving any benefit from this, that they are

rather prepared by such preludes for that most tremendous vengeance which

finally awaits them. On the contrary, the Lord repeatedly chastises his

servants, yet does not deliver them over to death;(1762) wherefore they

confess that the strokes of his rod were highly beneficial and instructive

to them. As we every where find that the saints bore these corrections

with resignation of soul, so they always earnestly deprecated punishments

of the former kind. Jeremiah says, “O Lord, correct me, but with judgment;

not in thine anger, lest thou bring me to nothing. Pour out thy fury upon

the heathen that know thee not, and upon the families that call not upon

thy name.”(1763) And David: “O Lord, rebuke me not in thine anger, neither

chasten me in thy hot displeasure.”(1764) Nor is it any objection to this,

that the Lord is frequently said to be angry with his saints, when he

chastises them for their sins. As in Isaiah: “O Lord, I will praise thee;

though thou wast angry with me, thine anger is turned away, and thou

comfortedst me.”(1765) Habakkuk also: “In wrath remember mercy.”(1766) And

Micah: “I will bear the indignation of the Lord, because I have sinned

against him.”(1767) Which reminds us, not only that those who are justly

punished, receive no advantage from murmuring, but that the faithful

derive a mitigation of their sorrow from a consideration of the intention

of God. For on the same account he is said to profane his own inheritance,

which, however, we know, he never will profane.(1768) That relates not to

the design or disposition of God in punishing, but to the vehement sense

of sorrow experienced by those who suffer any of his severity. He not only

distresses his believing people with no small degree of rigour, but

sometimes wounds them in such a manner, that they seem to themselves to be

on the brink of infernal destruction. Thus he declares, that they have

deserved his wrath; and this in order that they may be displeased with

themselves in their distresses, may be influenced by a greater concern to

appease God, and may hasten with solicitude to implore his pardon; but in

this very procedure he exhibits a brighter testimony of his clemency than

of his wrath. The covenant still remains which was made with us in our

true Solomon, and the validity of which he, who cannot deceive, has

declared shall never be diminished: “If his children forsake my law, and

walk not in my commandments; if they break my statutes, and keep not my

commandments; then will I visit their transgressions with the rod, and

their iniquities with stripes. Nevertheless, my loving‐kindness will I not

utterly take from him.”(1769) To assure us of this loving‐kindness, he

says, that the rod with which he will chastise the posterity of Solomon,

and the stripes he will inflict on them, will be “the rod of men, and the

stripes of the children of men.”(1770) While by these phrases he signifies

moderation and lenity, he also implies that those who feel his hand

exerted against them cannot but be confounded with an extreme and deadly

horror. How much he observes this lenity in chastising his Israel, he

shows by the prophet: “I have refined thee, (says he,) but not with

silver;(1771) for thou wouldst have been wholly consumed.” Though he

teaches him that chastisements serve to purify him, yet he adds that he so

far moderates them, that they may not exceed what he is able to bear. And

this is highly necessary; for the more a man reveres God and devotes

himself to the cultivation of piety, he is so much the more tender to bear

his wrath. For though the reprobate groan under his scourges, yet because

they consider not the cause, but rather turn their backs both on their

sins and on the Divine judgments, from this carelessness they contract an

insensibility; or because they murmur and resist, and rebel against their

judge, that furious impetuosity stupefies them with madness and rage. But

believers, admonished by the Divine corrections, immediately descend to

the consideration of their sins, and, stricken with fear and dread, resort

to a suppliant deprecation of punishment. If God did not mitigate these

sorrows, with which wretched souls torment themselves, they would be

continually fainting, even under slight tokens of his wrath.

XXXIII. The second distinction is, that when the reprobate are lashed by

the scourges of God in this world, they already begin to suffer his

vindictive punishments; and though they will not escape with impunity for

having disregarded such indications of the Divine wrath, yet they are not

punished in order to their repentance, but only that, from their great

misery, they may prove God to be a judge who will inflict vengeance

according to their crimes. On the contrary, the children of God are

chastised, not to make satisfaction to him for their sins, but that they

may thereby be benefited and brought to repentance. Wherefore we see, that

such chastisements relate to the future rather than the past. To express

this, I would prefer Chrysostom’s language to my own. “For this reason

(says he) God punishes us, not to take vengeance for our sins, but to

correct us for the future.” Thus also Augustine: “That which you suffer,

and which causes you to mourn, is a medicine to you, not a punishment; a

chastisement, and not damnation. Reject not the scourge, if you desire not

to be rejected from the inheritance. All this misery of mankind, under

which the world groans, know, brethren, that it is a medicinal sorrow, not

a penal sentence.” These passages I have therefore thought proper to

quote, that no one might consider the phraseology which I have adopted to

be novel or unusual. And to the same purpose are the indignant complaints

in which the Lord frequently expostulates on account of the ingratitude of

the people, and their obstinate contempt of all their punishments. In

Isaiah: “Why should ye be stricken any more? From the sole of the foot

even unto the head there is no soundness.”(1772) But as the prophets

abound in such passages, it will be sufficient briefly to have suggested,

that God punishes his Church with no other design than to subdue it to

repentance. Therefore, when he rejected Saul from the kingdom, he punished

him in a vindictive manner;(1773) when he deprived David of his infant

son, he corrected him in order to his reformation.(1774) In this sense we

must understand the observation of Paul: “When we are judged, we are

chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the

world.”(1775) That is, when we, the children of God, are afflicted by the

hand of our heavenly Father, this is not a punishment to confound us, but

only a chastisement to instruct us. In which Augustine evidently coincides

with us; for he teaches that the punishments with which men are equally

chastised by God, are to be considered in different points of view;

because to the saints, after the remission of their sins, they are

conflicts and exercises, but to the reprobate, whose sins are not

forgiven, they are the penalties due to their iniquity. He also mentions

the punishments inflicted on David and other pious persons, and says, that

those chastisements tended to promote their humility, and thereby to

exercise and prove their piety. And the declaration of Isaiah, that

Jerusalem’s “iniquity is pardoned, for she hath received of the Lord’s

hand double for all her sins,”(1776) proves not the pardon of

transgressions to depend on the suffering of the punishment, but is just

as though he had said, “Punishments enough have now been inflicted on you;

and as the severity and multitude of them have harassed you with a long

continuance of grief and sorrow, it is time for you to receive the message

of complete mercy, that your hearts may be expanded with joy, and

experience me to be your Father.” For God there assumes the character of a

Father, who repents even of his righteous severity, when he has been

constrained to chastise his son with any degree of rigour.

XXXIV. It is necessary that the faithful should be provided with these

reflections in the anguish of afflictions. “The time is come that judgment

must begin at the house of God, upon which his name is called.”(1777) What

would the children of God do, if they believed the severity which they

feel to be the vengeance of God upon them? For he who, under the strokes

of the Divine hand, considers God as an avenging Judge, cannot but

conceive of Him as incensed against him, and hostile to him, and will

therefore detest his scourge itself as a curse and condemnation; in a

word, he who thinks that God is still determined to punish him, can never

be persuaded to believe himself an object of the Divine love. The only one

who receives any benefit from the Divine chastisements, is he who

considers God as angry with his crimes, but propitious and benevolent

towards his person. For otherwise the case must necessarily be similar to

what the Psalmist complains of having experienced: “Thy fierce wrath goeth

over me; thy terrors have cut me off.”(1778) And what Moses also speaks

of: “For we are consumed by thine anger, and by thy wrath are we troubled.

Thou hast set our iniquities before thee, our secret sins in the light of

thy countenance. For all our days are passed away in thy wrath: we spend

our years as a tale that is told.”(1779) On the contrary, David, speaking

of his paternal chastisements, in order to show that believers are rather

assisted than oppressed by them, sings: “Blessed is the man whom thou

chastenest, O Lord, and teachest him out of thy law; that thou mayest give

him rest from the days of adversity, until the pit be digged for the

wicked.”(1780) It is certainly a severe temptation, when the Lord spares

unbelievers, and conceals their crimes, while he appears more rigorous

towards his own children. For their consolation, therefore, he adds the

admonition of the law, whence they may learn, that it is for the promotion

of their salvation when they are recalled into the way, but that the

impious are precipitated into their errors, which end in the pit. Nor is

it of any importance whether the punishment be eternal or temporal. For

wars, famines, plagues, and diseases are curses from God, as well as the

judgment of eternal death itself, when they are inflicted as the

instruments of the Lord’s wrath and vengeance against the reprobate.

XXXV. Every one, I presume, now perceives the design of the Lord’s

correction of David, that it was to be a proof of God’s extreme

displeasure against murder and adultery, with which he declared himself to

be so greatly offended in his beloved and faithful servant, and to teach

David never again to be guilty of such crimes; but not as a punishment, by

which he was to render God a satisfaction for his offence. And we ought to

form the same judgment concerning the other correction, in which the Lord

afflicted the people with a violent pestilence, on account of the

disobedience of David in numbering them. For he freely forgave David the

guilt of his sin; but because it was necessary, as a public example to all

ages, and also to the humiliation of David, that such an offence should

not remain unpunished, he chastised him with extreme severity. This end we

should keep in view also in the universal curse of mankind. For since we

all, even after having obtained pardon, still suffer the miseries which

were inflicted on our first parent as the punishment of sin, we consider

such afflictions as admonitions how grievously God is displeased with the

transgression of his law; that being thus dejected and humbled with a

consciousness of our miserable condition, we may aspire with greater

ardour after true blessedness. Now, he is very unwise, who imagines that

the calamities of the present life are inflicted upon us as satisfactions

for the guilt of sin. This appears to me to have been the meaning of

Chrysostom, when he said, “If God therefore inflicts punishments on us,

that while we are persisting in sins he may call us to repentance,—after a

discovery of repentance, the punishment will be unnecessary.” Wherefore he

treats one person with greater severity, and another with more tender

indulgence, as he knows to be suitable to every man’s particular

disposition. Therefore, when he means to suggest that he is not

excessively severe in the infliction of punishment, he reproaches an

obdurate and obstinate people, that though they have been corrected, they

have not forsaken their sins.(1781) In this sense he complains, that

“Ephraim is a cake not turned,”(1782) that is, scorched on one side,

unbaked on the other; because his corrections did not penetrate the hearts

of the people, so as to expel their vices and render them proper objects

of pardon. By expressing himself in this manner, he certainly gives us to

understand, that as soon as they shall have repented, he will be

immediately appeased, and that the rigour which he exercises in chastising

offences is extorted from him by our obstinacy, but would be prevented by

a voluntary reformation. Yet since our obduracy and ignorance are such as

universally to need castigation, our most wise Father is pleased to

exercise all his children, without exception, with the strokes of his rod,

as long as they live. It is astonishing why they fix their eyes thus on

the example of David alone, and are unaffected by so many instances in

which they might behold a gratuitous remission of sins. The publican is

said to have gone down from the temple justified;(1783) no punishment

follows. Peter obtained the pardon of his sins. “We read,” says Ambrose,

“of his tears, but not of his satisfaction.”(1784) And a paralytic hears

the following address: “Be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven

thee;”(1785) no punishment is inflicted. All the absolutions which are

mentioned in the Scripture, are described as gratuitous. A general rule

ought rather to be deduced from these numerous examples, than from that

single case which is attended with peculiar circumstances.

XXXVI. When Daniel exhorted Nebuchadnezzar to “break off his sins by

righteousness, and his iniquities by showing mercy to the poor,”(1786) he

meant not to intimate that righteousness and mercy propitiate God and

atone for sins; for God forbid that there should ever be any other

redemption than the blood of Christ. But he used the term _break off_ with

reference to men, rather than to God; as though he had said, “Thou hast

exercised, O king, an unrighteous and violent despotism; thou hast

oppressed the weak; thou hast plundered the poor; thou hast treated thy

people with harshness and iniquity; instead of unjust exactions, instead

of violence and oppression, now substitute mercy and righteousness.” In a

similar sense Solomon says, that “love covereth all sins;” not with

reference to God, but among men. For the whole verse is as follows:

“Hatred stirreth up strifes; but love covereth all sins.”(1787) In which

verse, he, according to his usual custom, contrasts the evils arising from

hatred with the fruits of love; signifying, that they who hate each other,

reciprocally harass, criminate, reproach, revile, and convert every thing

into a fault; but that they who love one another, mutually conceal,

connive at, and reciprocally forgive, many things among themselves; not

that they approve each other’s faults, but bear with them, and heal them

by admonition, rather than aggravate them by invectives. Nor can we doubt

that Peter intended the same in his citation of this passage,(1788) unless

we mean to accuse him of corrupting, and craftily perverting the

Scriptures. When Solomon says, that “by mercy and truth iniquity is

purged,”(1789) he intends not a compensation in the Divine view, so that

God, being appeased with such a satisfaction, remits the punishment which

he would otherwise have inflicted; but, in the familiar manner of

Scripture, he signifies, that they shall find him propitious to them who

have forsaken their former vices and iniquities, and are converted to him

in piety and truth; as though he had said, that the wrath of God subsides,

and his judgment ceases, when we cease from our sins. He describes not the

cause of pardon, but the mode of true conversion. Just as the prophets

frequently declare that it is in vain for hypocrites to offer to God

ostentatious ceremonies instead of repentance, since he is only pleased

with integrity and the duties of charity; and as the author of the Epistle

to the Hebrews, when he recommends us “to do good and to communicate,”

informs us that “with such sacrifices God is well pleased.”(1790) And when

Christ ridicules the Pharisees for having attended only to the cleansing

of dishes, and neglected all purity of heart, and commands them to give

alms that all might be clean,(1791) he is not exhorting them to make a

satisfaction, but only teaching them what kind of purity obtains the

Divine approbation. But of this expression we have treated in another

work.(1792)

XXXVII. With respect to the passage of Luke,(1793) no one, who has read

with a sound judgment the parable the Lord there proposes, will enter into

any controversy with us concerning it. The Pharisee thought within

himself, that the Lord did not know the woman, whom he had so easily

admitted to his presence. For he imagined that Christ would not have

admitted her, if he had known what kind of a sinner she was. And thence he

inferred that Christ, who was capable of being so deceived, was not a

prophet. To show that she was not a sinner, her sins having already been

forgiven, the Lord proposed this parable: “There was a certain creditor,

which had two debtors; the one owed five hundred pence, and the other

fifty. He frankly forgave them both. Which of them will love him most?”

The Pharisee answered, “He to whom he forgave most.” The Lord rejoins,

Hence know that “this woman’s sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she

loved much.” In these words, you see, he makes her love, not the cause of

the remission of her sins, but the proof of it. For they are taken from a

comparison of that debtor to whom five hundred pence had been forgiven, of

whom it is said, not that his debt was forgiven, because he had loved

much, but that he loved much because his debt had been forgiven. And this

similitude may be applied to the case of the woman in the following

manner: “You suppose this woman to be a sinner; but you ought to know that

she is not such, since her sins are forgiven her. And her love ought to

convince you of the remission of her sins, by the grateful return she

makes for this blessing.” It is an argumentum _a posteriori_, by which any

thing is proved from its consequences. By what means she obtained

remission of sins, the Lord plainly declares: “Thy faith,” says he, “hath

saved thee.” By faith therefore we obtain remission, by love we give

thanks and declare the goodness of the Lord.

XXXVIII. To those things which frequently occur in the works of the

fathers concerning _satisfaction_, I pay little regard. I see, indeed,

that some of them, or, to speak plainly, almost all whose writings are

extant, have either erred on this point, or expressed themselves too

harshly. But I shall not admit that they were so ignorant and

inexperienced, as to write those things in the sense in which they are

understood by the modern advocates for satisfaction. Chrysostom somewhere

expresses himself thus: “Where mercy is requested, examination ceases;

where mercy is implored, judgment is not severe; where mercy is sought,

there is no room for punishment; where there is mercy, there is no

inquiry; where mercy is, an answer is freely given.” These expressions,

however they may be distorted, can never be reconciled with the dogmas of

the schools. In the treatise On Ecclesiastical Doctrines, which is

ascribed to Augustine, we read the following passage: “The satisfaction of

repentance is to cut off the causes of sins, and not to indulge an

entrance to their suggestions.” Whence it appears, that even in those

times the doctrine of satisfaction, as a compensation for sins committed,

was universally rejected, since he refers all satisfaction to a cautious

abstinence from sins in future. I will not quote what is further asserted

by Chrysostom, that the Lord requires of us nothing more than to confess

our sins before him with tears; for passages of this kind frequently occur

in his writings, and in those of other fathers. Augustine somewhere calls

works of mercy “remedies for obtaining remission of sins;” but lest any

one should stumble at that expression, he explains himself more fully in

another place. “The flesh of Christ,” says he, “is the true and sole

sacrifice for sins, not only for those which are all obliterated in

baptism, but also for those which afterwards creep in through infirmity;

on account of which the whole Church at present exclaims, Forgive us our

debts;(1794) and they are forgiven through that single sacrifice.”

XXXIX. But they most commonly used the word “satisfaction” to signify, not

a compensation rendered to God, but a public testification, by which those

who had been punished with excommunication, when they wished to be

readmitted to communion, gave the Church an assurance of their repentance.

For there were enjoined on those penitents certain fastings, and other

observances, by which they might prove themselves truly and cordially

weary of their former life, or rather obliterate the memory of their past

actions; and thus they were said to make satisfaction, not to God, but to

the Church. This is also expressed by Augustine in these very words, in

his Enchiridion ad Laurentium. From that ancient custom have originated

the confessions and satisfactions which are used in the present age; a

viperous brood which retain not even the shadow of that original form. I

know that the fathers sometimes express themselves rather harshly; nor do

I deny, what I have just asserted, that perhaps they have erred. But their

writings, which were only besprinkled with a few spots, after they have

been handled by such foul hands, became thoroughly soiled. And if we must

contend with the authority of fathers, what fathers do they obtrude upon

us? Most of those passages, of which Lombard, their champion, has compiled

his heterogeneous collection, are extracted from the insipid reveries of

some monks, which are circulated under the names of Ambrose, Jerome,

Augustine, and Chrysostom. Thus, on the present argument, he borrows

almost every thing from a Treatise on Repentance, which is a ridiculous

selection from various authors, good and bad; it bears the name of

Augustine indeed, but no man even of moderate learning can deign to admit

it as really his. For not entering into a more particular examination of

their absurdities, I request the pardon of the reader, whom I wish to

spare that trouble. It would be both easy and plausible for me to expose

to the greatest contempt, what they have heretofore celebrated as

mysteries; but I forbear, as my object is to write what may tend to

edification.

Chapter V. Indulgences And Purgatory. The Supplements To Their Doctrine Of

Satisfactions.

This doctrine of _satisfaction_ has given rise to _indulgences_. For by

indulgences they pretend, that the deficiency of our abilities to make

satisfaction is supplied, and even proceed to the extravagance of defining

them to be the dispensation of the merits of Christ and of the martyrs,

which the Pope distributes in his bulls. Now, though such persons are

fitter subjects for a mad‐house than for arguments, so that it would be of

little use to engage in refuting errors so frivolous, which have been

shaken by many attacks, and begin of themselves to grow obsolete, and

totter towards a fall, yet, as a brief refutation will be useful to some

minds hitherto uninformed on the subject, I shall not altogether omit it.

And indeed the establishment and long continuance of indulgences, with the

unlimited influence retained by them amidst such outrageous and furious

licentiousness, may serve to convince us in what a deep night of errors

men were immersed for several ages. They saw, that they were themselves

objects of the public and undissembled ridicule of the Pope and the

dispensers of his bulls; that lucrative bargains were made concerning the

salvation of their souls; that the price of salvation was fixed at a

trifling sum of money, and nothing presented gratuitously; that under this

pretext, contributions were extorted from them, which were vilely consumed

on brothels, pimps, and revellings; that the greatest advocates of

indulgences were the greatest despisers of them; that this monster was

daily making longer strides in licentious power and luxury, and that there

was no end, that more trash was continually produced, and more money

continually extorted. Yet they received indulgences with the greatest

veneration, adored them and purchased them; and those who had more

discernment than others, yet considered them as pious frauds, by which

they might be deceived with some advantage. At length, since the world has

permitted itself to recover a little the exercise of reason, indulgences

become more and more discredited, till they altogether disappear.

II. But since many, who see the pollution, imposture, robbery, and

rapacity, with which the dispensers of indulgences have hitherto amused

themselves and cajoled us, do not perceive the fountain of all this

impiety,—it will be necessary to show, not only the nature of indulgences

as commonly used, but what they are in themselves when abstracted from

every adventitious blemish. The merits of Christ and of the holy apostles

and martyrs, they style “the treasury of the Church.” The principal

custody of this repository they pretend to have been delivered, as I have

already hinted, to the bishop of Rome, who has the dispensation of such

great benefits, so that he can both bestow them himself, and delegate the

power of bestowing them to others. Hence from the Pope are received

sometimes plenary indulgences, sometimes indulgences for a certain number

of years; from Cardinals, for a hundred days; from Bishops, for forty

days. But to describe them correctly, they are a profanation of the blood

of Christ and a delusion of Satan, by which they seduce Christians from

the grace of God and the life which is in Christ, and turn them aside from

the right way of salvation. For how could the blood of Christ be more

basely profaned, than when it is denied to be sufficient for the remission

of sins, for reconciliation and satisfaction, unless its deficiency be

supplied from some other quarter? “To him,” says Peter, “give all the

prophets witness, that through his name, whosoever believeth on him shall

receive remission of sins.”(1795) Indulgences dispense remission of sins

through Peter, and Paul, and the martyrs. “The blood of Jesus Christ,”

says John, “cleanseth us from all sin.”(1796) Indulgences make the blood

of the martyrs the ablution of sins. Paul says, that Christ, “who knew no

sin, was made sin for us;” that is, a satisfaction for sin, “that we might

be made the righteousness of God in him.”(1797) Indulgences place

satisfaction for sins in the blood of the martyrs. Paul declared to the

Corinthians, that Christ alone was crucified and died for them.(1798)

Indulgences pronounce that Paul and others died for us. In another place

he says, that Christ “hath purchased the Church with his own blood.”(1799)

Indulgences assign another price of this purchase, in the blood of the

martyrs. The apostle says, that “by one offering Christ hath perfected for

ever them that are sanctified.”(1800) Indulgences, on the contrary,

proclaim that sanctification, which were otherwise insufficient, receives

its perfection from the martyrs. John declares that all saints “have

washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb.”(1801) Indulgences teach us

to wash our robes in the blood of the saints.

III. Leo, bishop of Rome, excellently opposes these sacrilegious

pretensions in his epistle to the Bishops of Palestine. “Although the

death of many saints,” he says, “has been precious in the sight of the

Lord, yet the murder of no innocent person has been the propitiation of

the world. The righteous have received, not bestowed, crowns; and from the

fortitude of the faithful have arisen examples of patience, not gifts of

righteousness. For their deaths have been all singular, nor has any one by

his death discharged the debt of another; for it is the Lord Christ alone,

in whom all are crucified, dead, buried, and raised from the dead.” This

passage being worthy of remembrance, he repeats it in another place.

Surely nothing clearer can be desired, in confutation of this impious

doctrine of indulgences. And Augustine expresses himself with equal

propriety to the same purpose. He says, “Although we die, brethren for

brethren, yet the blood of no martyr is ever shed for the remission of

sins. Christ has done this for us; and in doing it has not given an

example in which we should imitate him, but conferred a favour for which

we should thank him.” Again, in another place: “As the Son of God alone

became the Son of man, to make us with himself sons of God, so he alone,

without any demerits, sustained the punishment for us, that we, without

any merits, might through him obtain undeserved grace.” Indeed, whilst

their whole doctrine is a compound of horrible sacrilege and blasphemies,

yet this is a blasphemy more monstrous than the rest. Let them acknowledge

whether these be not their opinions, that the martyrs have by their death

performed for God, and merited from him, more than was necessary for

themselves; that they had so great a redundance of merits, as to

superabound to others; that therefore, lest so great a blessing should be

superfluous, their blood is commingled with the blood of Christ, and that

of both these is formed the treasury of the Church for the remission and

expiation of sins; and that in this sense we ought to understand the

declaration of Paul, “I fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of

Christ in my flesh, for his body’s sake, which is the Church.”(1802) What

is this but leaving Christ a mere name, and in other respects making him

an inferior saint of the common order, scarcely distinguishable among the

multitude? He alone ought to have been preached, he alone exhibited, he

alone mentioned, he alone regarded, in all discourses on the procurement

of remission of sins, expiation, and sanctification. But let us hear their

grand argument: That the blood of the martyrs may not be shed in vain, let

it be applied to the common benefit of the Church. Indeed? Was it no

advantage to glorify God by their death? to subscribe to his truth with

their blood? to testify by their contempt of the present life, that they

sought a better one? by their constancy, to confirm the faith of the

Church, and vanquish the obstinacy of their enemies? But this is the fact:

they acknowledge no benefit, if Christ alone be the propitiator, if he

alone died for our sins, if he alone was offered for our redemption. Peter

and Paul, they say, might nevertheless have obtained the crown of victory,

if they had expired in their beds. But since they contended even to blood,

it would be incompatible with the justice of God to leave this _barren_ or

_unfruitful_. As if God knew not how to augment the glory of his servants

according to the extent of his gifts. But the Church in general receives

an advantage sufficiently great, when by their triumphs it is inflamed

with the same zeal for similar exertions and conflicts.

IV. But how maliciously they pervert that passage of Paul, where he says,

“that he fills up in his own flesh that which is behind of the afflictions

of Christ!”(1803) For he refers that deficiency and supplement, not to the

work of redemption, satisfaction, or expiation, but to those afflictions,

with which the members of Christ, even all the faithful, must necessarily

be exercised as long as they live in the present state. He says,

therefore, that this remains of the afflictions of Christ, that having

once suffered in himself, he daily suffers in his members. Christ honors

us so far as to consider our afflictions as his. When Paul adds that he

suffered “for the Church,” he means not for the redemption,

reconciliation, or atonement of the Church, but for its edification and

profit. As in another place he says, “I endure all things for the elect’s

sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ

Jesus.”(1804) He writes to the Corinthians, that whatever tribulations he

endured, he was “afflicted for their consolation and salvation.”(1805) And

he immediately proceeds to explain himself, by adding, that he was made a

minister of the Church, not for its redemption, but according to the

dispensation which had been committed to him, to preach the gospel of

Christ.(1806) But if they require also another expositor, let them attend

to Augustine: “The sufferings of Christ,” says he, “are in Christ alone,

as in the head; in Christ and the Church, as in the whole body. Whence

Paul, one of the members, says, I fill up in my flesh that which is behind

of the afflictions of Christ. If you, therefore, whoever you are that read

this, are one of the members of Christ, all that you suffer from such as

are not members of Christ, was behind in the afflictions of Christ.” But

the tendency of the sufferings of the apostles, sustained on account of

the Church, is stated by him in another place: “Christ is my door to you;

because you are the sheep of Christ, purchased with his blood: acknowledge

your price, which is not given by me, but preached by me.” Then he adds,

“As he has laid down his life, so we ought also to lay down our lives for

the brethren, for the establishment of peace and the confirmation of

faith.” This is the language of Augustine. But let it not be imagined,

that Paul thought there was any deficiency in the sufferings of Christ,

with respect to all the plenitude of righteousness, salvation, and life;

or that any addition to them was intended by him, who so clearly and

magnificently proclaims, that the “abundance of grace by Christ” was

poured forth with such liberality, that it “much more abounded” beyond all

the aboundings of sin.(1807) It is not by the merit of their own life or

death, but by this grace alone, that all the saints have been saved, as

Peter expressly testifies;(1808) so that he would be guilty of an

injurious contempt of God and of his Christ, who should place the

worthiness of any saint in any thing else but the mere mercy of God. But

why do I dwell any longer on this subject, as though it were still

involved in obscurity? whereas the statement of such monstrous notions is

of itself a complete refutation of them.

V. Now, to pass from such abominations, who taught the Pope to enclose in

lead and parchment the grace of Jesus Christ, which the Lord designed to

be dispensed by the word of the gospel? Either the gospel of God must be

false, or their indulgences fallacious. For that Christ is offered to us

in the gospel, with all his plenitude of heavenly blessings, with all his

merits, with all his righteousness, wisdom, and grace, without any

exception, is testified by Paul, when he says, “God hath committed unto us

the word of reconciliation. Now, then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as

though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye

reconciled to God. For he hath made him, who knew no sin, to be sin for

us; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”(1809) And

believers know the meaning of that “fellowship of Christ,”(1810) which,

according to the testimony of the same apostle, is offered to our

enjoyment in the gospel. Indulgences, on the contrary, produce a certain

allowance of grace from the Pope’s repository, fix it to lead and

parchment, and even to a particular place, and separate it from the word

of God. Now, if any one inquire the origin of this abuse, it seems to have

arisen from an ancient custom, that when more severe satisfactions were

imposed on penitents than could possibly be borne by all, they who felt

themselves oppressed beyond measure, petitioned the Church for some

relaxation of rigour. The remission granted to such persons was called

indulgence. But when they transferred satisfactions to God, and said that

they were compensations, by which men might redeem themselves from the

judgment of God, they also converted these indulgences into expiatory

remedies, to deliver us from deserved punishments. But the blasphemies

which we have mentioned have been fabricated with such consummate

impudence, that they have not even the least appearance of plausibility.

VI. Nor let them now trouble us any more about their purgatory, since it

is utterly demolished by this argument. For I cannot coincide with some,

who think it best to be silent on this point, and to omit the mention of

purgatory, from which, they say, many sharp contentions arise, but very

little edification results. Indeed, I should myself be of opinion that

such trifles are unworthy of notice, if they did not consider them as

matters of importance. But since purgatory has been erected with a

multitude of blasphemies, and is daily propped by new ones, and since it

excites many and grievous offences, it really must not pass without

notice. It might be possible for a time to conceal that it was a fiction

of curious and presumptuous temerity, unsupported by the word of God; that

it was accredited by I know not what revelation invented by the subtlety

of Satan; that for its confirmation some passages of Scripture were

absurdly perverted. The Lord, however, suffers not human presumption thus

violently to break into the hidden recesses of his judgment;(1811) and has

severely prohibited the neglect of his word and the inquiry after truth

among the dead; and does not permit his word to be thus irreverently

dishonoured. Nevertheless, admitting that all these things might for a

short time have been tolerated as matters of small importance, yet when

expiation of sins is sought any where but in the blood of Christ, when

satisfaction is transferred to any other, silence becomes dangerous in the

extreme. Therefore we should exclaim with all our might, that purgatory is

a pernicious fiction of Satan, that it makes void the cross of Christ,

that it intolerably insults the Divine mercy, and weakens and overturns

our faith. For what is their purgatory, but a satisfaction for sins paid

after death by the souls of the deceased? Thus the notion of satisfaction

being overthrown, purgatory itself is immediately subverted from its very

foundations. But if it has been fully evinced, that the blood of Christ is

the only satisfaction, expiation, and purgation for the sins of the

faithful, what is the necessary inference, but that purgatory is nothing

but a horrible blasphemy against Christ? I pass by the sacrilegious

pretences with which it is daily defended, the offences which it produces

in religion, and the other innumerable evils which we perceive to have

proceeded from such a source of impiety.

VII. It is worth while, however, to wrest out of their hands those

passages of Scripture, which they have falsely and corruptly pressed into

their service. The assertion of the Lord, that the sin against the Holy

Ghost “shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, neither in the world

to come,”(1812) implies, they say, that there is a forgiveness of some

sins in the world to come. But who does not see, that the Lord there

speaks of the guilt of sin? And if this be the case, what has it to do

with their purgatory, for there they suppose punishment to be inflicted

for sins, the guilt of which they do not deny to have been forgiven in the

present life? But to prevent all further cavils, they shall have a plainer

answer. When the Lord intended to cut off from such flagitious iniquity

all hope of pardon, he thought it not sufficient to say that it should

never be forgiven; but for the sake of further amplification he adopted a

distinction, comprehending both the judgment which the conscience of every

individual feels in this life, and that final judgment which will be

publicly held at the resurrection; as though he had said, “Beware of

malicious rebellion, as of immediate perdition; for he who shall have

purposely endeavoured to extinguish the offered light of the Spirit, shall

never obtain pardon, neither in this life, which is allotted to sinners

for their conversion, nor in the last day, when the lambs shall be

separated from the goats by the angels of God, and the kingdom of heaven

shall be purged from every offence.” They next adduce this parable from

Matthew: “Agree with thine adversary; lest at any time the adversary

deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and

thou be cast into prison. Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till

thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.”(1813) If in this place the judge

signify God, the adversary the devil, the officer an angel, the prison

purgatory, I will readily submit to them. But if it be evident to every

one, that Christ there intended to show to how many dangers and calamities

persons exposed themselves, who prefer obstinately exerting the rigour of

the law, to acting upon the principles of equity and kindness, in order

the more earnestly to exhort his disciples to an equitable concord, pray

where will purgatory be found?

VIII. They derive an argument from the language of Paul, where he has

affirmed, “that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in

heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth.”(1814) For they

assume it as granted, that “things (or persons) under the earth” cannot be

understood of those who are consigned to eternal damnation. It follows,

therefore, that they must be the souls suffering in purgatory. Their

reasoning would not be very bad, if, by genuflection, the apostle designed

truly pious worship; but since he simply teaches, that dominion is

committed to Christ, by which all creatures must be subjugated, why may we

not understand this phrase of the devils, who will indeed stand at the

tribunal of the Lord, and acknowledge him as their Judge with fear and

trembling? As Paul himself elsewhere explains the same prophecy: “We shall

all stand,” says he, “before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is

written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,” &c.(1815)

But they reply, we cannot give the same kind of interpretation to this

passage in the Revelation: “Every creature which is in heaven, and on the

earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are

in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be

unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and

ever.”(1816) This I readily concede; but what creatures do they suppose to

be here enumerated? for it is very certain, that the expressions

comprehend creatures both irrational and inanimate. It is a mere

declaration that all the parts of the world, from the summit of the

heavens to the centre of the earth, celebrate, in their respective ways,

the glory of the Creator. What they produce from the history of the

Maccabees, I shall not honour with an answer, that I may not be supposed

to place that work in the catalogue of sacred books. But Augustine, they

say, received it as canonical. I inquire, first, With what degree of

credit did he receive it? He says, “The history of the Maccabees is not

esteemed by the Jews as the law, and the prophets, and the Psalms, to

which the Lord gives a testimony, as being witnesses concerning him,

saying, ‘All things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of

Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me.’(1817) But

it has been received by the Church, and not altogether unprofitably, if it

be read or heard with sobriety,” &c. Jerome, without any scruple,

inculcates, that its authority is of no force in the support of doctrines.

And from that old treatise on the Exposition of the Creed, which is

ascribed to Cyprian, it clearly appears that it was not admitted in the

ancient Church. But why am I now contending to no purpose? as though the

author himself did not sufficiently show what deference is due to him,

when, at the conclusion, he begs pardon if he should have spoken any thing

improperly. Certainly he who confesses that his writings need pardon,

proclaims them not to be the oracles of the Holy Spirit. Besides, the

piety of Judas Maccabeus is commended on no other ground, but because he

had a firm hope of the final resurrection, when he sent to Jerusalem an

oblation for the dead. Nor does the historian represent this oblation as

intended to be a price of redemption, but that those in whose names it was

offered might be partakers of eternal life with the rest of the faithful

who had died in defence of their country and religion. This action was

accompanied, indeed, by superstition and preposterous zeal; but they are

more than infatuated who apply to us a sacrifice offered under the law;

since we know, that all such ancient usages ceased at the advent of

Christ.

IX. But they find in Paul an invincible argument, which cannot be so

easily answered. “If any man,” says he, “build upon this foundation gold,

silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble, every man’s work shall be

made manifest; for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed

by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is. If

any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall

be saved; yet so as by fire.”(1818) What can this be, they ask, but

purgatorial fire, by which the pollution of sins is cleansed, that we may

enter pure into the kingdom of God? But most of the fathers were of a

different opinion, understanding the word “fire” to mean tribulation, or

the cross, by which the Lord tries his children, to purify them from all

carnal pollution; and this is much more probable than the notion of

purgatory. I cannot, however, coincide with them; for I think I have

discovered a far more certain and lucid interpretation of this passage.

But before I state it, I could wish them to answer this question—whether

they suppose it was necessary for the apostles and all the saints to pass

through this purgatorial fire. I know they will answer in the negative;

for it were too absurd, that purification should be necessary to those

whose redundant merits they vainly imagine to superabound to all the

members of the Church. But the apostle affirms this; for he says, not that

the work of some, but that the work of all, shall be proved. Nor is this

my own argument, but Augustine’s, who thus opposes the interpretation now

adopted by our adversaries. And, what would be still more absurd, he says,

not that they shall pass through the fire on account of any works, but

that if they have edified the Church with perfect fidelity, they shall

receive a reward, when their work shall have been tried by fire. In the

first place, we see that the apostle uses a metaphor, when he calls

doctrines of human invention “wood, hay, stubble.” The reason of the

metaphor also is evident; that as wood, immediately on being placed in

contact with fire, consumes and wastes away, so neither will those

doctrines be able to abide the test of examination. Now, it is well known

that such an examination proceeds from the Spirit of God. Therefore, to

pursue the thread of the metaphor, and to adapt the parts by a proper

relation to each other, he gives the Holy Spirit’s examination the

appellation of _fire_. For as gold and silver afford a more certain proof

of their goodness and purity in proportion to their proximity to the fire,

so Divine truth receives the stronger confirmation of its authority, in

proportion to the strictness of spiritual examination by which it is

investigated. As wood, hay, and stubble, brought into contact with fire,

are speedily consumed, so the inventions of men, unsupported by the word

of God, cannot bear the examination of the Holy Spirit, but must

immediately fall to the ground. Finally, if false doctrines are compared

to wood, hay, and stubble, because, like wood, hay, and stubble, they are

consumed by fire and entirely destroyed, and if they are overcome only by

the Spirit of the Lord, it follows that the Spirit is that fire by which

they will be proved. This trial Paul calls _the day_, or _the day of the

Lord_, according to the common phraseology of Scripture. For that is

called the day of the Lord, whenever he manifests his presence to men.

Now, we enjoy most of the light of his countenance when we are favoured

with the radiance of his truth. It has been evinced that Paul means no

other fire than the examination of the Holy Spirit. But how are they saved

by the fire, who suffer the loss of their work? This it will not be

difficult to comprehend, if we consider of what class of men he is

speaking. For he characterizes them as builders of the Church, who retain

their legitimate foundation, but raise the superstructure of unequal

materials: they are such as do not deviate from the principal and

essential articles of the faith, but err in inferior and less important

ones, mixing their own inventions with the word of God. Such, I say, must

suffer the loss of their work, by their inventions being destroyed; but

they are themselves saved, yet so as by fire; that is, not because their

ignorance and error can be approved by the Lord, but because they are

purified from them by the grace and power of the Holy Spirit. Wherefore,

whoever have corrupted the pure gold of the Divine word with this filth of

purgatory, must necessarily suffer the loss of their work.

X. Our opponents will reply, that it has been a very ancient opinion in

the Church. Paul removes this objection when he comprehends even his own

age in this sentence, where he denounces, that all must suffer the loss of

their work, who, in the structure of the Church, should place any thing

not corresponding to the foundation. When our adversaries, therefore,

object to me, that to offer prayers for the dead has been the practice of

more than thirteen hundred years, I inquire of them, on the contrary, by

what word of God, by what revelation, by what example, it is sanctioned.

For they are not only destitute of any testimonies of Scripture in favour

of it, but none of the examples of the saints there recorded exhibit any

thing like it. Respecting mourning and funeral offices, it contains many

and sometimes long accounts; but of prayers for persons deceased, you

cannot discover the smallest hint. But the greater the importance of the

subject, so much the rather ought it to have been particularly mentioned.

Even the fathers themselves, who offered up prayers for the dead, saw that

they had neither a Divine command, nor a legitimate example, to justify

the practice. Why, then, did they presume to adopt it? In this, I say,

they discovered themselves to be but men; and therefore I contend, that

what they did ought not to be enforced for the imitation of others. For

since believers ought not to undertake any thing without an assurance of

conscience, according to the direction of Paul,(1819) this assurance is

chiefly requisite in prayer. Yet it will be urged, It is probable that

they were impelled to it by some reason. I reply, Perhaps they sought some

consolation to alleviate their sorrow, and it might appear inhuman not to

give some testimony of their love towards the dead in the presence of God.

The propensity of the human mind to this affection, all men know by

experience. The custom, also, when received, was like a flame, kindling

ardour in the minds of multitudes. We know that funeral rites have been

performed to the dead among all nations, and in every age, and that

lustrations have been annually made for their departed spirits. For though

Satan has deluded foolish mortals with these fallacies, yet he has

borrowed the occasion of the deception from a true principle—that death is

not an annihilation, but a transition from this life into another. Nor can

it be doubted, but that even superstition itself convicts the heathen

before the tribunal of God, for neglecting all the concerns of a future

life, which they professed to believe. Now, Christians, because they would

not be inferior to the heathen, were ashamed to perform no services for

the dead, as though they had wholly ceased to exist. Hence that

inconsiderate officiousness; because if they were negligent in attending

to funerals, feasts, and oblations, they were afraid they should expose

themselves to great disgrace. What first proceeded from a perverse

emulation, has been so repeatedly augmented by novel additions, that the

principal sanctity of Popery consists in relieving the distresses of the

dead. But the Scripture administers another consolation, far better and

more substantial, when it declares that “Blessed are the dead which die in

the Lord;” and adds as a reason, “that they may rest from their

labours.”(1820) But we ought not to indulge our own affection so far as to

introduce a corrupt method of praying into the Church. Certainly, he that

has but a moderate share of penetration, will easily discover all that we

find on this subject in the fathers to have been in compliance with

general practice and vulgar ignorance. I confess, they were also involved

in the error themselves, from an inconsiderate credulity which frequently

deprives the human mind of its judgment. But in the mean time, the mere

reading of them demonstrates with what hesitation they recommend prayers

for the dead. Augustine, in his Book of Confessions, relates that Monica,

his mother, had vehemently entreated to be remembered in the celebration

of the mysteries at the altar. This was the wish of an old woman, which

her son did not examine by the standard of Scripture; but from his natural

affection for her, wished it to gain the approbation of others. But the

treatise composed by him, on Care for the Dead, contains so many

hesitations, that it ought by its coolness to extinguish the heat of

imprudent zeal. If any one desires to be an intercessor for the dead, this

treatise, with its frigid probabilities, will certainly remove all the

solicitude he may have previously experienced. For this is its only

support, that since it has been customary to pray for the dead, it is a

duty not to be despised. But though I concede, that the ancient writers of

the Church esteemed it a pious act to pray for the dead, yet we must

always remember a rule which can never deceive—that it is not right for us

in our prayers to introduce any thing of our own, but that our desires

must be submitted to the word of God; because he chooses to prescribe what

he designs we should ask. Now, since there is not a syllable, in all the

law or the gospel, which allows us to pray for the dead, it is a profane

abuse of the name of God, to attempt more than he enjoins. But that our

adversaries may not glory, as though the ancient Church were associated

with them in their error, I assert that there is a considerable difference

between them. The ancients preserved the memory of the dead, that they

might not seem to have cast off all concern for them; but they at the same

time confessed their uncertainty concerning their state. Respecting

purgatory they asserted nothing, but considered it as quite uncertain. The

moderns expect their reveries concerning purgatory to be admitted as

unquestionable articles of faith. The fathers, in the communion of the

sacred supper, merely recommended their deceased friends to the mercy of

God. The Papists are incessantly urging a concern for the dead; and by

their importunate declamations cause it to be preferred to all the duties

of charity. Besides, it would not be difficult for us to produce some

testimonies from the fathers which manifestly overthrow all those prayers

for the dead which were then used. Such is this of Augustine; when he

teaches that all men expect the resurrection of the body and eternal

glory, and that every individual enters on the fruition of that rest which

follows after death, if he is worthy of it when he dies. Therefore he

declares that all the pious, as well as the prophets, apostles, and

martyrs, enjoy a blessed repose immediately after death. If such be their

condition, what advantage will our prayers confer on them? I pass over

those grosser superstitions with which they have fascinated the minds of

the simple; which nevertheless are innumerable, and for the most part so

monstrous, that they cannot be varnished over by any honest pretext. I

omit, also, that most disgraceful traffic which they licentiously carried

on while the world was in such a state of stupidity. For I should never

arrive at a conclusion, and I have already furnished the pious reader with

sufficient to establish his conscience.

Chapter VI. The Life Of A Christian. Scriptural Arguments And Exhortations

To It.

We have said that the end of regeneration is, that the life of believers

may exhibit a symmetry and agreement between the righteousness of God and

their obedience; and that thus they may confirm the adoption by which they

are accepted as his children. But though the law of God contains in it

that newness of life by which his image is restored in us, yet since our

tardiness needs much stimulation and assistance, it will be useful to

collect from various places of Scripture a rule for the reformation of the

life, that they who cordially repent may not be bewildered in their

pursuits. Now, when I undertake the regulation of a Christian’s life, I

know that I am entering on an argument various and copious, and the

magnitude of which might fill a large volume, if I designed a complete

discussion of every part of it. For we see to what great prolixity the

fathers have extended the exhortations composed by them only on single

virtues; and that without any excessive loquacity; for, whatever virtue it

is intended to recommend in an oration, the copiousness of the matter

naturally produces such a diffusiveness of style, that unless you have

spoken largely, you seem not to have done justice to the subject. But my

design is not to extend the plan of life, which I am now about to deliver,

so far as particularly to discourse on each distinct virtue, and expatiate

into exhortations. These things may be sought in the writings of others,

especially in the homilies of the fathers. It will be sufficient for me if

I point out a method by which a pious man may be conducted to the right

end in the regulation of his life, and briefly assign a universal rule, by

which he may properly estimate his duties. There will, perhaps, at some

future period be a suitable opportunity for declamations; or I shall leave

to others an office for which I am not calculated. I am naturally fond of

brevity; and, perhaps, were I desirous of speaking in a more copious

manner, I should not succeed. And if a more prolix method of teaching were

most acceptable, yet I should scarcely be inclined to make the trial. The

plan of the present work, however, requires me to treat a simple doctrine

with all possible brevity. As the philosophers have certain principles of

rectitude and honour, whence they deduce particular duties and the whole

circle of virtues, so the Scripture is not without its order in this

respect, but maintains an economy superlatively beautiful, and far more

certain, than all the systems of the philosophers. There is only this

difference—that, the philosophers being ambitious men, they have

sedulously affected an exquisite perspicuity of method, in order to make

an ostentatious display of their ingenious dexterity. But the Spirit,

whose teaching is void of affectation, has not so exactly or perpetually

observed a methodical plan; which, nevertheless, by using it in some

places, he sufficiently indicates ought not to be neglected by us.

II. This Scripture plan, of which we are now treating, consists chiefly in

these two things—the first, that a love of righteousness, to which we have

otherwise no natural propensity, be instilled and introduced into our

hearts; the second, that a rule be prescribed to us, to prevent our taking

any devious steps in the race of righteousness. Now, in the recommendation

of righteousness, it uses a great number of very excellent arguments, many

of which we have before noticed on different occasions, and some we shall

briefly touch on in this place. With what better foundation can it begin,

than when it admonishes us that we ought to be holy, because _our God is

holy_?(1821) For when we were dispersed like scattered sheep, and lost in

the labyrinth of the world, he gathered us together again, that he might

associate us to himself. When we hear any mention of our union with God,

we should remember, that holiness must be the bond of it; not that we

attain communion with him by the merit of holiness, (since it is rather

necessary for us, in the first place, to adhere to him, in order that,

being endued with his holiness, we may follow whither he calls;) but

because it is a peculiar property of his glory not to have any intercourse

with iniquity and uncleanness. Wherefore also it teaches, that this is the

end of our vocation, which it is requisite for us always to keep in view,

if we desire to correspond to the design of God in calling us. For to what

purpose was it that we were delivered from the iniquity and pollution of

the world, in which we had been immerged, if we permit ourselves to wallow

in them as long as we live? Besides, it also admonishes us that, to be

numbered among the people of God, we must inhabit the holy city

Jerusalem;(1822) which, he having consecrated it to himself, cannot

without impiety be profaned by impure inhabitants. Whence these

expressions: “He shall abide in the tabernacle of the Lord, that walketh

uprightly and worketh righteousness,” &c.,(1823) because it is very

unbecoming the sanctuary which he inhabits, to be rendered as filthy as a

stable.

III. And as a further incitement to us, it shows, that as God the Father

has reconciled us to himself in Christ, so he has exhibited to us in him a

pattern, to which it is his will that we should be conformed.(1824) Now,

let those who are of opinion that the philosophers have the only just and

orderly systems of moral philosophy, show me, in any of their works, a

more excellent economy than that which I have stated. When they intend to

exhort us to the sublimest virtue, they advance no argument but that we

ought to live agreeably to nature; but the Scripture deduces its

exhortation from the true source, when it not only enjoins us to refer our

life to God the author of it, to whom it belongs, but, after having taught

us, that we are degenerated from the original state in which we were

created, adds, that Christ, by whom we have been reconciled to God, is

proposed to us as an example, whose character we should exhibit in our

lives. What can be required more efficacious than this one consideration?

indeed, what can be required besides? For if the Lord has adopted us as

his sons on this condition,—that we exhibit in our life an imitation of

Christ the bond of our adoption,—unless we addict and devote ourselves to

righteousness, we not only most perfidiously revolt from our Creator, but

also abjure him as our Saviour. The Scripture derives matter of

exhortation from all the blessings of God which it recounts to us, and

from all the parts of our salvation. It argues, that since God has

discovered himself as a Father to us, we must be convicted of the basest

ingratitude, unless we, on our part, manifest ourselves to be his

children; that since Christ has purified us in the laver of his blood, and

has communicated this purification by baptism, it does not become us to be

defiled with fresh pollution; that since he has united us to his body, we

should, as his members, solicitously beware lest we asperse ourselves with

any blemish or disgrace; that since he who is our Head has ascended to

heaven, we ought to divest ourselves of all terrestrial affection, and

aspire thither with all our soul; that since the Holy Spirit has dedicated

us as temples to God, we should use our utmost exertions, that the glory

of God may be displayed by us; and ought not to allow ourselves to be

profaned with the pollution of sin; that since both our soul and our body

are destined to heavenly incorruption and a never‐fading crown, we ought

to exert our most strenuous efforts to preserve them pure and uncorrupt

till the day of the Lord. These, I say, are the best foundations for the

proper regulation of the life, such as we cannot find in the philosophers;

who, in the recommendation of virtue, never rise above the natural dignity

of man.

IV. This is a proper place to address those who have nothing but the name

and the symbol of Christ, and yet would be denominated Christians. But

with what face do they glory in his sacred name? For none have any

intercourse with Christ but those who have received the true knowledge of

him from the word of the gospel. Now, the apostle denies that any have

rightly learned Christ, who have not been taught that they must put off

the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and put on

Christ.(1825) Their knowledge of Christ, then, is proved to be a false and

injurious pretence, with whatever eloquence and volubility they may talk

concerning the gospel. For it is a doctrine not of the tongue, but of the

life; and is not apprehended merely with the understanding and memory,

like other sciences, but is then only received, when it possesses the

whole soul, and finds a seat and residence in the inmost affection of the

heart. Let them, therefore, either cease to insult God by boasting

themselves to be what they are not, or show themselves disciples not

unworthy of Christ, their Master. We have allotted the first place to the

doctrine which contains our religion, because it is the origin of our

salvation; but that it may not be unprofitable to us, it must be

transfused into our breast, pervade our manners, and thus transform us

into itself. If the philosophers are justly incensed against, and banish

with disgrace from their society, those who, while they profess an art

which ought to be a rule of life, convert it into a sophistical

loquacity,—with how much better reason may we detest those sophists who

are contented to have the gospel on their lips, whilst its efficacy ought

to penetrate the inmost affections of the heart, to dwell in the soul, and

to affect the whole man with a hundred times more energy than the frigid

exhortations of the philosophers!

V. Yet I would not insist upon it as absolutely necessary, that the

manners of a Christian should breathe nothing but the perfect gospel;

which, nevertheless, ought both to be wished and to be aimed at. But I do

not so rigorously require evangelical perfection as not to acknowledge as

a Christian, one who has not yet attained to it; for then all would be

excluded from the Church; since no man can be found who is not still at a

great distance from it; and many have hitherto made but a very small

progress, whom it would, nevertheless, be unjust to reject. What then? let

us set before our eyes that mark, to which alone our pursuit must be

directed. Let that be prescribed as the goal towards which we must

earnestly tend. For it is not lawful for you to make such a compromise

with God, as to undertake a part of the duties prescribed to you in his

word, and to omit part of them, at your own pleasure. For, in the first

place, he every where recommends integrity as a principal branch of his

worship; by which he intends a sincere simplicity of heart, free from all

guile and falsehood; the opposite of which is a double heart; as though it

had been said, that the beginning of a life of uprightness is spiritual,

when the internal affection of the mind is unfeignedly devoted to God in

the cultivation of holiness and righteousness. But since no man in this

terrestrial and corporeal prison has strength sufficient to press forward

in his course with a due degree of alacrity, and the majority are

oppressed with such great debility, that they stagger and halt, and even

creep on the ground, and so make very inconsiderable advances,—let us

every one proceed according to our small ability, and prosecute the

journey we have begun. No man will be so unhappy, but that he may every

day make some progress, however small. Therefore, let us not cease to

strive, that we may be incessantly advancing in the way of the Lord; nor

let us despair on account of the smallness of our success; for however our

success may not correspond to our wishes, yet our labour is not lost, when

this day surpasses the preceding one; provided that, with sincere

simplicity, we keep our end in view, and press forward to the goal, not

practising self‐adulation, nor indulging our own evil propensities, but

perpetually exerting our endeavours after increasing degrees of

amelioration, till we shall have arrived at a perfection of goodness,

which, indeed, we seek and pursue as long as we live, and shall then

attain, when, divested of all corporeal infirmity, we shall be admitted by

God into complete communion with him.

Chapter VII. Summary Of The Christian Life. Self‐Denial.

Although the Divine law contains a most excellent and well‐arranged plan

for the regulation of life, yet it has pleased the heavenly Teacher to

conform men by a more accurate doctrine to the rule which he had

prescribed in the law. And the principle of that doctrine is this—that it

is the duty of believers to “present their bodies a living sacrifice,

holy, acceptable unto God;”(1826) and that in this consists the legitimate

worship of him. Hence is deduced an argument for exhorting them, “Be not

conformed to this world; but be ye transformed by the renewing of your

mind, that ye may prove what is that will of God.” This is a very

important consideration, that we are consecrated and dedicated to God;

that we may not hereafter think, speak, meditate, or do any thing but with

a view to his glory. For that which is sacred cannot, without great

injustice towards him, be applied to unholy uses. If we are not our own,

but the Lord’s, it is manifest both what error we must avoid, and to what

end all the actions of our lives are to be directed. We are not our own;

therefore neither our reason nor our will should predominate in our

deliberations and actions. We are not our own; therefore let us not

propose it as our end, to seek what may be expedient for us according to

the flesh. We are not our own; therefore let us, as far as possible,

forget ourselves and all things that are ours. On the contrary, we are

God’s; to him, therefore, let us live and die. We are God’s; therefore let

his wisdom and will preside in all our actions. We are God’s; towards him,

therefore, as our only legitimate end, let every part of our lives be

directed. O, how great a proficiency has that man made, who, having been

taught that he is not his own, has taken the sovereignty and government of

himself from his own reason, to surrender it to God! For as compliance

with their own inclinations leads men most effectually to ruin, so to

place no dependence on our own knowledge or will, but merely to follow the

guidance of the Lord, is the only way of safety. Let this, then, be the

first step, to depart from ourselves, that we may apply all the vigour of

our faculties to the service of the Lord. By service I mean, not that only

which consists in verbal obedience, but that by which the human mind,

divested of its natural carnality, resigns itself wholly to the direction

of the Divine Spirit. Of this transformation, which Paul styles a

renovation of the mind,(1827) though it is the first entrance into life,

all the philosophers were ignorant. For they set up Reason as the sole

directress of man; they think that she is exclusively to be attended to;

in short, to her alone they assign the government of the conduct. But the

Christian philosophy commands her to give place and submit to the Holy

Spirit; so that now the man himself lives not, but carries about Christ

living and reigning within him.(1828)

II. Hence also that other consequence, that we should seek not our own

things, but those which are agreeable to the will of the Lord, and

conducive to the promotion of his glory. This also argues a great

proficiency, that almost forgetting ourselves, and certainly neglecting

all selfish regards, we endeavour faithfully to devote our attention to

God and his commandments. For when the Scripture enjoins us to discard all

private and selfish considerations, it not only erases from our minds the

cupidity of wealth, the lust of power, and the favour of men, but also

eradicates ambition and all appetite after human glory, with other more

secret plagues. Indeed, a Christian man ought to be so disposed and

prepared, as to reflect that he has to do with God every moment of his

life. Thus, as he will measure all his actions by his will and

determination, so he will refer the whole bias of his mind religiously to

him. For he who has learned to regard God in every undertaking, is also

raised above every vain imagination. This is that denial of ourselves,

which Christ, from the commencement of their course, so diligently enjoins

on his disciples; which, when it has once obtained the government of the

heart, leaves room neither for pride, haughtiness, or ostentation, nor for

avarice, libidinousness, luxury, effeminacy, or any other evils which are

the offspring of self‐love. On the contrary, wherever it does not reign,

there either the grossest vices are indulged without the least shame; or,

if there exist any appearance of virtue, it is vitiated by a depraved

passion for glory. Show me, if you can, a single individual, who, unless

he has renounced himself according to the command of the Lord, is

voluntarily disposed to practise virtue among men. For all who have not

been influenced by this disposition, have followed virtue merely from the

love of praise. And even those of the philosophers who have ever contended

that virtue is desirable for its own sake, have been inflated with so much

arrogance, that it is evident they desired virtue for no other reason than

to furnish them occasion for the exercise of pride. But God is so far from

being delighted, either with those who are ambitious of popular praise, or

with hearts so full of pride and presumption, that he pronounces “they

have their reward” in this world, and represents harlots and publicans as

nearer to the kingdom of heaven than such persons. But we have not yet

clearly stated the number and magnitude of the obstacles by which a man is

impeded in the pursuit of that which is right, as long as he has refrained

from all self‐denial. For it is an ancient and true observation, that

there is a world of vices concealed in the soul of man. Nor can you find

any other remedy than to deny yourself and discard all selfish

considerations, and to devote your whole attention to the pursuit of those

things which the Lord requires of you, and which ought to be pursued for

this sole reason, because they are pleasing to him.

III. The same apostle, in another place, gives a more distinct, though a

brief, representation of all the parts of a well‐regulated life. “The

grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching

us, that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly,

righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for that blessed

hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus

Christ, who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all

iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good

works.”(1829) For after having proposed the grace of God to animate us, in

order to prepare the way for us truly to worship God, he removes two

obstacles, which are our chief impediments; first, ungodliness, to which

we have naturally too strong a propensity, and secondly, worldly lusts,

which extend themselves further. The term “ungodliness” not only denotes

superstitions, but comprehends also every thing that is repugnant to the

serious fear of God. And “worldly lusts” mean the carnal affections.

Therefore he enjoins us, with reference to both tables of the law, to

forsake our former propensities, and to renounce all the dictates of our

own reason and will. He reduces all the actions of life to three

classes—sobriety, righteousness, and godliness. “Sobriety” undoubtedly

denotes chastity and temperance, as well as a pure and frugal use of

temporal blessings, and patience under poverty. “Righteousness” includes

all the duties of equity, that every man may receive what is his due.

“Godliness” separates us from the pollutions of the world, and by true

holiness unites us to God. When these virtues are indissolubly connected,

they produce absolute perfection. But since nothing is more difficult than

to forsake all carnal considerations, to subdue and renounce our

appetites, to devote ourselves to God and our brethren, and to live the

life of angels amidst the corruptions of the world,—in order to extricate

our minds from every snare, Paul recalls our attention to the hope of a

blessed immortality; apprizing us that our efforts are not in vain;

because, as Christ once appeared as a Redeemer, so, at his final advent,

he will manifest the benefits of the salvation he has obtained. Thus he

dispels the fascinations which blind us, and prevent our aspiring with

becoming ardour to the glories of heaven, and at the same time teaches us

that we must live as strangers and pilgrims in the world, that we may not

lose the heavenly inheritance.

IV. In these words we perceive, that self‐denial relates partly to men,

but partly, and indeed principally, to God. For when the Scripture enjoins

us to conduct ourselves in such a manner towards men, as in honour to

prefer one another, and faithfully to devote our whole attention to the

promotion of their advantage,(1830) it gives such commands as our heart

can by no means receive, without having been previously divested of its

natural bias. For we are all so blinded and fascinated with self‐love,

that every one imagines he has a just right to exalt himself, and to

undervalue all others who stand in competition with him. If God has

conferred on us any valuable qualification, relying thereon, our hearts

are immediately lifted up; and we not only swell, but almost burst with

pride. The vices in which we abound, we sedulously conceal from others,

and flatter ourselves with the pretence that they are diminutive and

trivial, and even sometimes embrace them as virtues. If the same talents

which we admire in ourselves, or even superior ones, appear in others, in

order that we may not be obliged to acknowledge their superiority, we

depreciate and diminish them with the utmost malignity: if they have any

vices, not content to notice them with severe and sharp animadversions, we

odiously amplify them. Hence that insolence, that every one of us, as if

exempted from the common lot, is desirous of pre‐eminence above the rest

of mankind; and severely and haughtily contemns every man, or at least

despises him as an inferior. The poor yield to the rich, plebeians to

nobles, servants to masters, the illiterate to the learned; but there is

no man who does not cherish within him some idea of his own excellence.

Thus all men, in flattering themselves, carry, as it were, a kingdom in

their own breast; for arrogating to themselves the height of self‐

gratulation, they pass censure on the understandings and conduct of

others; but if any contention arises, it produces an eruption of the

poison. For many discover some gentleness, as long as they find every

thing pleasant and amiable; but how many are there who preserve the same

constant course of good humour when they are disturbed and irritated? Nor

is there any other remedy, than the eradication from the inmost recesses

of the heart of this most noxious pest of ambition and self‐love; as it is

indeed eradicated by the doctrine of the Scripture. For if we attend to

its instructions, we must remember, that the talents with which God has

favoured us, are not excellences originating from ourselves, but free

gifts of God; of which if any are proud, they betray their ingratitude.

“Who maketh thee to differ?” saith Paul. “Now, if thou didst receive all

things, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received them?”(1831) In

the next place, by assiduous observation and acknowledgment of our faults,

we must recall our minds to humility. Thus there will remain in us nothing

to inflate us, but great reason for dejection. On the other hand, we are

enjoined, whatever gifts of God we perceive in others, to revere and

esteem them, so as to honour those in whom they reside. For it would

betray great wickedness in us to rob them of that honour which God has

given them. Their faults we are taught to overlook, not indeed to

encourage them by adulation, but never on account of them to insult those

whom we ought to cherish with benevolence and honour. The result of

attention to these directions will be, that with whomsoever we are

concerned, we shall conduct ourselves not only with moderation and good

humour, but with civility and friendship. For we shall never arrive at

true meekness by any other way, than by having our hearts imbued with

self‐abasement and a respect for others.

V. How extremely difficult it is for you to discharge your duty in seeking

the advantage of your neighbour! Unless you quit all selfish

considerations, and, as it were, lay aside yourself, you will effect

nothing in this duty. For how can you perform those which Paul inculcates

as works of charity, unless you renounce yourself, and devote yourself

wholly to serve others? “Charity,” says he, “suffereth long, and is kind;

charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth

not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked,”

&c.(1832) If this be all that is required, that we seek not our own, yet

we must do no small violence to nature, which so strongly inclines us to

the exclusive love of ourselves, that it does not so easily permit us to

neglect ourselves and our own concerns in order to be vigilant for the

advantage of others, and even voluntarily to recede from our right, to

resign it to another. But the Scripture leads us to this, admonishes us,

that whatever favours we obtain from the Lord, we are intrusted with them

on this condition, that they should be applied to the common benefit of

the Church; and that, therefore, the legitimate use of all his favours, is

a liberal and kind communication of them to others. There cannot be

imagined a more certain rule, or a more powerful exhortation to the

observance of it, than when we are taught, that all the blessings we enjoy

are Divine deposits, committed to our trust on this condition, that they

should be dispensed for the benefit of our neighbours. But the Scripture

goes still further, when it compares them to the powers with which the

members of the human body are endued. For no member has its power for

itself, nor applies it to its private use; but transfuses it among its

fellow‐members, receiving no advantage from it but what proceeds from the

common convenience of the whole body. So, whatever ability a pious man

possesses, he ought to possess it for his brethren, consulting his own

private interest in no way inconsistent with a cordial attention to the

common edification of the Church. Let this, then, be our rule for

benignity and beneficence,—that whatever God has conferred on us, which

enables us to assist our neighbour, we are the stewards of it, and must

one day render an account of our stewardship; and that the only right

dispensation of what has been committed to us, is that which is regulated

by the law of love. Thus we shall not only always connect the study to

promote the advantage of others with a concern for our own private

interests, but shall prefer the good of others to our own. To teach us

that the dispensation of the gifts we receive from heaven ought to be

regulated by this law, God anciently enjoined the same even in regard to

the smallest bounties of his liberality. For he commanded the people to

offer to him the first‐fruits of the corn, as a solemn avowal that it was

unlawful for them to enjoy any blessings not previously consecrated to

him. And if the gifts of God are not sanctified to us till after we have

with our own hands dedicated them to their Author, that must evidently be

a sinful abuse which is unconnected with such a dedication. But in vain

would you attempt to enrich the Lord by a communication of your

possessions. Therefore, since your “goodness extendeth not to him,”(1833)

as the Psalmist says, you must exercise it “towards the saints that are in

the earth;” and alms are compared to sacred oblations, to show that these

exercises of charity under the gospel, correspond to those offerings under

the law.

VI. Moreover, that we may not be weary of doing good, which otherwise

would of necessity soon be the case, we must add also the other character

mentioned by the apostle, that “charity suffereth long, and is not easily

provoked.” The Lord commands us to do “good unto all men,”(1834)

universally, a great part of whom, estimated according to their own

merits, are very undeserving; but here the Scripture assists us with an

excellent rule, when it inculcates, that we must not regard the intrinsic

merit of men, but must consider the image of God in them, to which we owe

all possible honour and love; but that this image is most carefully to be

observed in them “who are of the household of faith,”(1835) inasmuch as it

is renewed and restored by the Spirit of Christ. Whoever, therefore, is

presented to you that needs your kind offices, you have no reason to

refuse him your assistance. Say that he is a stranger; yet the Lord has

impressed on him a character which ought to be familiar to you; for which

reason he forbids you to despise your own flesh.(1836) Say that he is

contemptible and worthless; but the Lord shows him to be one whom he has

deigned to grace with his own image. Say that you are obliged to him for

no services; but God has made him, as it were, his substitute, to whom you

acknowledge yourself to be under obligations for numerous and important

benefits. Say that he is unworthy of your making the smallest exertion on

his account; but the image of God, by which he is recommended to you,

deserves your surrender of yourself and all that you possess. If he not

only has deserved no favour, but, on the contrary, has provoked you with

injuries and insults,—even this is no just reason why you should cease to

embrace him with your affection, and to perform to him the offices of

love. He has deserved, you will say, very different treatment from me. But

what has the Lord deserved? who, when he commands you to forgive men all

their offences against you, certainly intends that they should be charged

to himself. This is the only way of attaining that which is not only

difficult, but utterly repugnant to the nature of man—to love them who

hate us,(1837) to requite injuries with kindnesses, and to return

blessings for curses.(1838) We should remember, that we must not reflect

on the wickedness of men, but contemplate the Divine image in them; which,

concealing and obliterating their faults, by its beauty and dignity

allures us to embrace them in the arms of our love.

VII. This mortification, therefore, will not take place in us unless we

fulfil all the duties of charity. These are fulfilled, not by him who

merely performs all the external offices of charity, even without the

omission of one, but by him who does this from a sincere principle of

love. For it may happen, that a man may fully discharge his duty to all

men, with respect to external actions, and, at the same time, be very far

from discharging it in the right way. For you may see some men who would

be thought extremely liberal, and yet never bestow any thing without

upbraiding, either by pride of countenance, or by insolence of language.

And we are sunk to such a depth of calamity in this unhappy age, that

scarcely any alms are given, at least by the majority of mankind, but in a

haughty and contemptuous manner—a corruption which ought not to have been

tolerated even among heathen; for of Christians there is something further

required, than to display a cheerfulness of countenance, and to render

their benefactions amiable by civility of language. In the first place,

they ought to imagine themselves in the situation of the person who needs

their assistance, and to commiserate his case, just as though they

themselves felt and suffered the same; so that they may be impelled, by a

sense of mercy and humanity, to afford assistance to him as readily as if

it were to themselves. He who comes to the assistance of his brethren

under the influence of such a disposition, not only will not contaminate

his services with arrogance or reproach, but will neither despise his

brother who is the object of his beneficence, as needing assistance, nor

domineer over him as under an obligation to him; no more, for instance,

than we insult a diseased member, for whose restoration the rest of the

body labours, or suppose it to be under particular obligations to the

other members, because it has needed more assistance than it returned. For

the communication of services between the members of the body, is esteemed

to be in no sense gratuitous, but rather a discharge of that which, being

due by the law of nature, it would be monstrous to refuse. And for this

reason, he will not suppose himself to have discharged all his duty, who

has performed one kind of service; as it generally happens, that a rich

man, after having bestowed some part of his property, leaves other burdens

to be borne by other persons, and considers himself as exempted from all

concern about them. On the contrary, every man will reflect with himself,

that however great he may be, he is a debtor to his neighbour, and that no

bounds should be fixed to the exercise of beneficence towards them, except

when his ability fails, which, as far as it extends, ought to be limited

by the rule of charity.

VIII. Let us describe again, more at large, the principal branch of self‐

denial, which we have said relates to God; and indeed many observations

have already been made concerning it, which it would be needless to

repeat: it will be sufficient to show how it habituates us to equanimity

and patience. First, therefore, in seeking the convenience or tranquillity

of the present life, the Scripture calls us to this point; that resigning

ourselves and all that we have to the will of God, we should surrender to

him the affections of our heart, to be conquered and reduced to

subjection. To desire wealth and honours, to be ambitious of power, to

accumulate riches, to amass all those vanities which appear conducive to

magnificence and pomp, our passion is furious, and our cupidity unbounded.

On the contrary, to poverty, obscurity, and meanness, we feel a wonderful

fear and abhorrence, which stimulate us to avoid them by all possible

means. Hence we may see, how restless the minds of all those persons are,

who regulate their lives according to their own reason; how many arts they

try, and with what exertions they fatigue themselves, in order, on the one

hand, to obtain the objects of ambition or avarice, on the other, to avoid

poverty and meanness. Pious men, therefore, that they may not be involved

in such snares, must pursue the following course: First, let them neither

desire, nor hope, nor entertain a thought of prosperity, from any other

cause than the Divine blessing; and on that let them securely and

confidently depend. For however the flesh may appear to itself to be

abundantly sufficient, when it either attempts by its own industry, or

strenuous exertions, to attain honours and wealth, or is assisted by the

favour of man,—yet it is certain, that all these things are nothing, and

that we shall obtain no advantage, either by ingenuity or by labour, but

as far as the Lord shall prosper both. On the contrary, his benediction

alone finds a way, even through all impediments, so as to bring all our

affairs to a joyful and prosperous conclusion. And though we may, for the

most part, be able without it to obtain for ourselves some degree of

opulence and glory, as we daily behold impious men accumulating great

honours and enormous wealth, yet, since those who are under the curse of

God enjoy not even the smallest particle of happiness, we shall acquire

nothing without the Divine blessing, which will not eventually prove a

calamity to us. And that is by no means to be desired, the acquisition of

which renders men more miserable.

IX. Therefore, if we believe that all the cause of desirable prosperity

consists in the Divine benediction alone, without which miseries and

calamities of every kind await us, it follows also, that we should not

passionately strive for wealth and honours, either relying on our own

diligence or acuteness of understanding, or depending on the favour of

men, or confiding in a vain imagination of chance; but that we should

always regard the Lord, to be conducted by his direction to whatsoever lot

he has provided for us. The consequence of this will be, in the first

place, that we shall not rush forward to seize on wealth or honours by

unlawful actions, by deceitful and criminal arts, by rapacity and injury

of our neighbours; but shall confine ourselves to the pursuit of those

interests, which will not seduce us from the path of innocence. For who

can expect the assistance of the Divine benediction, amidst fraud, rapine,

and other iniquitous acts? For as that follows him only whose thoughts are

pure, and whose actions are upright, so it calls away all those by whom it

is sought, from irregular thoughts and corrupt practices. In the next

place, we shall find a restraint laid upon us, to keep us from being

inflamed with an inordinate desire of growing rich, and from ambitiously

aspiring after honours. For with what face can any man confide in the

assistance of God, towards obtaining things which he desires in opposition

to the Divine word? Far be it from God to follow with the aid of his

blessing, what he curses with his mouth. Lastly, if our success be not

equal to our wishes and hopes, yet we shall be restrained from impatience,

and from execrating our condition, whatever it may be; because we shall

know, that this would be murmuring against God, at whose pleasure are

dispensed riches and poverty, honour and contempt. In short, he who shall

repose himself, in the manner we have mentioned, on the Divine blessing,

will neither hunt after the objects violently coveted by men in general,

by evil methods, from which he will expect no advantage; nor will he

impute any prosperous event to himself, and to his own diligence,

industry, or good fortune; but will acknowledge God to be the author of

it. If, while the affairs of others are flourishing, he makes but a small

progress, or even moves in a retrograde direction, yet he will bear his

poverty with more equanimity and moderation, than any profane man would

feel with a mediocrity of success, which would merely be inferior to his

wishes; possessing, indeed, a consolation in which he may enjoy more

tranquil satisfaction, than in the zenith of opulence or power; because he

considers, that his affairs are ordered by the Lord in such a manner as is

conducive to his salvation. This, we see, was the disposition of David,

who, while he follows God, surrenders himself to his government, and

declares, that he is “as a child that is weaned of his mother; neither do

I exercise myself,” says he, “in great matters, or in things too high for

me.”(1839)

X. Nor is this the only instance in which pious persons should feel such

tranquillity and patience; the same state of mind ought to be extended to

all the events to which the present life is exposed. Therefore no man has

rightly renounced himself, but he who has wholly resigned himself to the

Lord, so as to leave all the parts of his life to be governed by his will.

He whose mind is thus composed, whatever may befall him, will neither

think himself miserable, nor invidiously complain against God on account

of his lot. The great necessity of this disposition will appear, if we

consider the numerous accidents to which we are subject. Diseases of

various kinds frequently attack us: at one time, the pestilence is raging;

at another, we are cruelly harassed with the calamities of war; at another

time, frost or hail, devouring the hopes of the year, produces sterility,

which brings us to penury; a wife, parents, children, or other relatives,

are snatched away by death; our dwelling is consumed by a fire; these are

the events, on the occurrence of which, men curse this life, or their

natal day, execrate heaven and earth, reproach God, and, as they are

eloquent to blaspheme, accuse him of injustice and cruelty. But it behoves

a believer, even in these events, to contemplate the clemency and truly

paternal goodness of God. Wherefore, if he sees his relatives removed, and

his house rendered a solitary place, he must not cease to bless the Lord,

but rather have recourse to this reflection: Yet the grace of the Lord,

which inhabits my house, will not leave it desolate. Or if he sees his

crops bitten or destroyed by frost, or beaten down by hail, and famine

threatening him, yet he will not sink into despondency or displeasure

against God, but will abide in this confidence—We are under the guardian

care of God, we are “the sheep of his pasture;”(1840) he therefore will

supply us with food even in seasons of the greatest barrenness. If he

shall be afflicted with disease, even then he will not be so far

discouraged by the bitterness of his pain, as to break out into

impatience, and to complain against God; but will rather strengthen his

patience by a consideration of the justice and lenity of the Divine

correction. Finally, whatever may happen, knowing it to be ordained by the

Lord, he will receive it with a placid and grateful heart, that he may not

be guilty of contumaciously resisting his authority, to whose power he has

once resigned himself and all that belongs to him. Far, therefore, from

the heart of a Christian man be that foolish and most wretched consolation

of the heathen, who, to fortify their minds against adversity, imputed it

to Fortune; with whom they esteemed it foolish to be displeased, because

she was thoughtless and rash, and blindly wounded without discrimination

the worthy and the unworthy. On the contrary, the rule of piety is, that

God alone is the arbiter and governor of all events, both prosperous and

adverse, and that he does not proceed with inconsiderate impetuosity, but

dispenses to us blessings and calamities with the most systematic justice.

Chapter VIII. Bearing The Cross, Which Is A Branch Of Self‐Denial.

But it becomes a pious mind to rise still higher, even to that to which

Christ calls his disciples; that every one should “take up his

cross.”(1841) For all whom the Lord has chosen and honoured with admission

into the society of his saints, ought to prepare themselves for a life,

hard, laborious, unquiet, and replete with numerous and various

calamities. It is the will of their heavenly Father to exercise them in

this manner, that he may have a certain proof of those that belong to him.

Having begun with Christ his first begotten Son, he pursues this method

towards all his children. For though Christ was above all others the

beloved Son, in whom the Father was always well pleased,(1842) yet we see

how little indulgence and tenderness he experienced; so that it may be

truly said, not only that he was perpetually burdened with a cross during

his residence on earth, but that his whole life was nothing but a kind of

perpetual cross. The apostle assigns the reason, that it was necessary for

him to “learn obedience by the things which he suffered.”(1843) Why, then,

should we exempt ourselves from that condition, to which it behoved Christ

our head to be subject; especially since his submission was on our

account, that he might exhibit to us an example of patience in his own

person? Wherefore the apostle teaches, that it is the destination of all

the children of God “to be conformed to him.”(1844) It is also a source of

signal consolation to us, in unpleasant and severe circumstances, which

are esteemed adversities and calamities, that we partake of the sufferings

of Christ; that as he from a labyrinth of all evils entered into the glory

of heaven, so we are conducted forward through various tribulations to the

same glory;(1845) for Paul teaches us, that when we “know the fellowship

of his sufferings,” we also apprehend “the power of his resurrection;”

that while we are conformed to his death, we are thus prepared to partake

of his glorious resurrection.(1846) How much is this adapted to alleviate

all the bitterness of the cross, that the more we are afflicted by

adversities, our fellowship with Christ is so much the more certainly

confirmed! By this communion the sufferings themselves not only become

blessings to us, but afford considerable assistance towards promoting our

salvation.

II. Besides, our Lord was under no necessity of bearing the cross, except

to testify and prove his obedience to his Father; but there are many

reasons which render it necessary for us to live under a continual cross.

First, as we are naturally too prone to attribute every thing to our

flesh, unless we have, as it were, ocular demonstration of our imbecility,

we easily form an extravagant estimate of our strength, presuming that

whatever may happen, it will remain undaunted and invincible amidst all

difficulties. This inflates us with a foolish, vain, carnal confidence;

relying on which, we become contumacious and proud, in opposition to God

himself, just as though our own powers were sufficient for us without his

grace. This arrogance he cannot better repress, than by proving to us from

experience, not only our great imbecility, but also our extreme frailty.

Therefore he afflicts us with ignominy, or poverty, or loss of relatives,

or disease, or other calamities; to the bearing of which being in

ourselves unequal, we ere long sink under them. Thus being humbled, we

learn to invoke his strength, which alone causes us to stand erect under a

load of afflictions. Moreover, the greatest saints, though sensible that

they stand by the grace of God, not by their own strength, are

nevertheless more secure than they ought to be of their fortitude and

constancy, unless he leads them by the discipline of the cross into a

deeper knowledge of themselves. This presumption insinuated itself even

into David: “In my prosperity I said, I shall never be moved; Lord, by thy

favour thou hast made my mountain to stand strong. Thou didst hide thy

face, and I was troubled.”(1847) For he confesses that his senses were so

stupefied and benumbed by prosperity, that disregarding the grace of God,

on which he ought to have depended, he relied on himself, so as to promise

himself a permanent standing. If this happened to so great a prophet, who

of us should not be fearful and cautious? Though in prosperity, therefore,

they have flattered themselves with the notion of superior constancy and

patience, yet when humbled by adversity, they learn that this was mere

hypocrisy. Admonished by such evidences of their maladies, believers

advance in humility, and, divested of corrupt confidence in the flesh,

betake themselves to the grace of God; and when they have applied to it,

they experience the presence of the Divine strength, in which they find

abundant protection.

III. This is what Paul teaches, that “tribulation worketh patience, and

patience experience.”(1848) For the promise of God to believers, that he

will assist them in tribulations, they experience to be true, when they

patiently stand supported by his power, which they certainly could not do

by their own strength. Patience, therefore, affords a proof to the saints,

that God will really give the assistance he has promised in every time of

need. This also confirms their hope; for it would be too much ingratitude

not to rely on the truth of God for the future, which they have hitherto

experienced to be constant and certain. We see now what a series of

benefits we derive from the cross. For, subverting the opinion which we

have falsely preconceived of our own strength, and detecting our

hypocrisy, with which we are enamoured, it expels pernicious and carnal

confidence; when we are thus humbled, it teaches us to rely upon God

alone, which keeps us from sinking under afflictions. And victory is

followed by hope; inasmuch as the Lord, by the performance of his

promises, establishes his truth for the future. Though these were the only

reasons that could be given, they are sufficient to show the necessity of

the discipline of the cross. For it is no small advantage to be divested

of a blind self‐love, that we may be fully conscious of our imbecility; to

be affected with a sense of our imbecility, that we may learn to be

diffident of ourselves; to be diffident of ourselves, that we may transfer

our confidence to God; to depend with unreserved confidence on God, that,

relying on his assistance, we may persevere unconquered to the end; to

stand in his grace, that we may know his veracity in his promises; to

experience the certainty of his promises, that our hope may thereby be

strengthened.

IV. The Lord has also another end in afflicting his children; to try their

patience, and teach them obedience. Not, indeed, that they can perform any

other obedience to him than that which he has given them; but he is

pleased in this manner, by clear evidences, to exhibit and testify the

graces which he has conferred on his saints, that they may not be

concealed in inactivity within them. Therefore, in giving an open

manifestation of the strength and constancy in suffering, with which he

has furnished his servants, he is said to try their patience. Hence these

expressions, that “God did tempt Abraham,” and prove his piety, from the

circumstance of his not refusing to sacrifice his own and only son.(1849)

Wherefore Peter states, that our faith is tried by tribulations, just as

gold is tried by fire in a furnace.(1850) Now, who can say that it is not

necessary for this most excellent gift of patience, which a believer has

received from his God, to be brought forward into use, that it may be

ascertained and manifested? For otherwise men will never esteem it as it

deserves. But if God himself acts justly, when, to prevent the virtues

which he has conferred on believers from being concealed in obscurity and

remaining useless and perishing, he furnishes an occasion for exciting

them,—there is the best of reasons for the afflictions of the saints,

without which they would have no patience. By the cross they are also, I

say, instructed to obedience; because they are thus taught to live, not

according to their own inclination, but according to the will of God. If

every thing succeeded with them according to their wishes, they would not

know what it is to follow God. But Seneca mentions that this was an

ancient proverb, when they would exhort any one to bear adversity with

patience, “Follow God.” This implied that man submitted to the yoke of

God, only when he resigned himself to his corrections. Now, if it is most

reasonable that we should prove ourselves in all things obedient to our

heavenly Father, we certainly ought not to deny him the use of every

method to accustom us to practise this obedience.

V. Yet we do not perceive how necessary this obedience is to us, unless we

at the same time reflect on the great wantonness of our flesh to shake off

the Divine yoke, as soon as we have been treated with a little tenderness

and indulgence. The case is exactly the same as with refractory horses,

which, after having been pampered for some days in idleness, grow fierce

and untamable, and regard not the rider, to whose management they

previously submitted. And we are perpetual examples of what God complains

of in the people of Israel; when we are “waxen fat,” and are “covered with

fatness,”(1851) we kick against him who has cherished and supported us.

The beneficence of God ought to have allured us to the consideration and

love of his goodness; but since such is our ingratitude, that we are

rather constantly corrupted by his indulgence, it is highly necessary for

us to be restrained by some discipline from breaking out into such

petulance. Therefore, that we may not be made haughty by an excessive

abundance of wealth, that we may not become proud on being distinguished

with honours, that we may not be rendered insolent by being inflated with

other advantages, mental, corporeal, or external, the Lord himself, as he

foresees will be expedient, by the remedy of the cross, opposes,

restrains, and subdues the haughtiness of our flesh; and that by various

methods, adapted to promote the benefit of each individual. For we are not

all equally afflicted with the same diseases, or all in need of an equally

severe method of cure. Hence we see different persons exercised with

different kinds of crosses. But whilst the heavenly Physician, consulting

the health of all his patients, practises a milder treatment towards some,

and cures others with rougher remedies, yet he leaves no one completely

exempted, because he knows we are all diseased, without the exception of a

single individual.