works. This Paul very clearly demonstrates on various occasions; and particularly in two passages in his Epistle to the Romans, contrasting the law and the gospel, he says; "Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, that the man which doeth those things shall live by them. But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." (0) Do we perceive how he thus discriminates between the law and the gospel, that the former attributes righteousness to works, but the latter bestows it freely without the assistance of works? It is a remarkable passage, and may serve to extricate us from a multitude of difficulties, if we understand that the righteousness which is given us by the gospel is free from all legal conditions. This is the reason why he more than once strongly opposes the promise to the law. "If the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise;" (p) and more in the same chapter to the same purpose. It is certain that the law also has its promises. Wherefore, unless we will confess the comparison to be improper, there must be something distinct and different in the promises of the gospel. Now what can that be, but that they are gratuitous and solely dependent on the Divine mercy, whilst the promises of the law depend on the condition of works? Nor let any one object, that it is only the righteousness which men would obtrude on God from their own natural powers and free-will that is rejected: since Paul teaches it as a universal truth, that the precepts of the law are unprofitable, because, not only among the vulgar, but even among the very best of men, there is not one who can fulfil them. (9) Love is certainly the principal branch of the law: when the Spirit of God forms us to it, why does it not constitute any part of our righteousness, but because even in the saints it is imperfect, and therefore of itself deserves no reward?

XVIII. The other passage is as follows: "That no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident; for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith; but, The

(0) Rom. x. 5, 6, 9. VOL. II.

(p) Gal. iii. 18.
2 F

(9) Rom. iii. 10, &c.

man that doeth them shall live in them."(r) How could this argument be supported, unless it were certain that works do not come into the account of faith, but are to be entirely separated from it? The law, he says, differs from faith. Why? Because works are required to the righteousness of the law. It follows, therefore, that works are not required to the righteousness of faith. From this statement it appears, that they who are justified by faith, are justified without the merit of works, and beyond the merit of works: for faith receives that righteousness which the gospel bestows; and the gospel differs from the law in this aespect, that it does not confine righteousness to works, but rests it entirely on the mercy of God. He argues in a similar manner to the Romans, that " Abraham had not whereof to glory; for he believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness:"(s) and by way of confirmation he subjoins, that then there is room for the righteousness of faith when there are no works which merit any reward. He tells us, that where there are works they receive a reward "of debt," but that what is given to faith is "of grace;" for this is the clear import of the language which he there uses. When he adds a little after, "Therefore it is of faith" that we obtain the inheritance, in order "that it might be by grace," (t) he infers that the inheritance is gratuitous, because it is received by faith: and why is this, but because faith, without any assistance of works, depends wholly on the Divine mercy? And in the same sense undoubtedly he elsewhere teaches us, that "the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and prophets:"(u) because, by excluding the law, he denies that righteousness is assisted by works, or that we obtain it by working, but asserts that we come empty in order to receive it.

XIX. The reader will now discover, with what justice the sophists of the present day cavil at our doctrine, when we say that a man is justified by faith only. That a man is justified by faith, they do not deny, because the Scripture so often declares it; but since it is no where expressly said to be by faith only, they cannot bear this addition to be made. But what reply will they give to these words of Paul, where he contends that

(~) Gal. iii. 11, 12. (s) Rom. iv. 2, 3. (†) Rom. iv. 16. (u) Rom. iii. 21.

"righteousness is not of faith unless it be gratuitous?" (w) How can any thing gratuitous consist with works? And by what cavils will they elude what he asserts in another place, that in the gospel " is the righteousness of God revealed?” (x) If righteousness is revealed in the gospel, it is certainly not a mutilated and partial, but a complete and perfect one. The law, therefore, has no concern in it. And respecting this exclusive particle, only, they rest on an evasion which is not only false, but glaringly ridiculous. For does not he most completely attribute every thing to faith alone, who denies every thing to works? What is the meaning of these expressions of Paul? "Righteousness is manifested without the law," "justified freely by his grace," "justified without the deeds of the law." (y) Here they have an ingenious subterfuge, which, though it is not of their own invention, but borrowed from Origen and some of the ancients, is nevertheless very absurd. They pretend that the works excluded are the ceremonial works of the law, not the moral works. They have made such a proficiency by their perpetual disputations, that they have forgotten the first elements of logic. Do they suppose the apostle to have been insane, when he adduced these passages in proof of his doctrine?" The man that doeth them shall live in them;" and "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." (z) If they be in their sober senses, they will not assert that life was promised to the observers of ceremonies and the curse denounced merely on the transgressors of them. If these places are to be understood of the moral law, it is beyond a doubt, that moral works likewise are excluded from the power to justify. To the same purpose are these arguments which he uses; "For by the law is the knowledge of sin," consequently not righteousness." Because the law worketh wrath," (a) therefore not righteousness. Since the law cannot assure our consciences, neither can it confer righteousness. Since faith is counted for righteousness, consequently righteousness is not a reward of works, but is gratuitously bestowed. Since we are justified by faith, boasting is

(w) Rom. iv. 2.
(=) Gal. iii. 10, 12.

(x) Rom. i. 17. (y) Rom. iii. 21, 24, 28.
(a) Rom. iii. 20. iv. 15.

precluded. "If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe." (b) Let them idly pretend, if they dare, that these are applicable to ceremonies, not to morals: but even children would explode such consummate impudence. We may therefore be assured, that when the power of justifying is denied to the law, the whole law is included.

XX. If any one should wonder why the apostle does not content himself with simply mentioning works, but says works of the law, the reason is obvious. For though works are so greatly esteemed, they derive their value from the Divine approbation rather than from any intrinsic excellence. For who can dare to boast to God of any righteousness of works, but what he hath approved? Who can dare to claim any reward as due to them, but what he hath promised? It is owing therefore to the Divine favour, that they are accounted worthy both of the title and of the reward of righteousness; and so they are valuable, only when they are intended as acts of obedience to God. Wherefore the apostle in another place, in order to prove that Abraham could not be justified by works, alleges, that "the law was four hundred and thirty years after the covenant was confirmed." (c) Ignorant persons would ridicule such an argument, because there might have been righteous works before the promulgation of the law; but knowing that works have no such intrinsic worth, independently of the testimony and esteem of God, he has taken it for granted that, antecedently to the law, they had no power to justify. We know why he expressly mentions "the works of the law," when he means to deny justification by works; it is because they alone can furnish any occasion of controversy. However, he likewise excludes all works, without any limitation, as when he says, " David describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works." (d) They cannot, therefore, by any subtilties prevent us from retaining this general exclusive particle. It is in vain also, that they catch at another frivolous subtilty, alleging that (c) Gal. iii. 17. (d) Rom. iv. 6.

(6) Gal. iii. 21, 22.

we are justified only by that "faith which worketh by love;" (e) with a view to represent righteousness as depending on love. We acknowledge indeed with Paul, that no other faith justifies, except that" which worketh by love;" but it does not derive its power to justify from the efficacy of that love. It justifies, in no other way than as it introduces us into a participation of the righteousness of Christ. Otherwise there would be no force in the argument so strenuously urged by the apostle. "To him that worketh," says he, "is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (ƒ) Was it possible for him to speak more plainly than by thus asserting, that there is no righteousness of faith, except where there are no works intitled to any reward; and that faith is imputed for righteousness, only when righteousness is conferred through unmerited grace?

XXI. Now let us examine the truth of what has been asserted in the definition, that the righteousness of faith is a reconciliation with God, which consists solely in remission of sins.(g) We must always return to this axiom, That the Divine wrath remains on all men, as long as they continue to be sinners. This Isaiah has elegantly expressed in the following words; "The Lord's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither is his ear heavy, that it cannot hear: but your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear."(h) We are informed, that sin makes a division between man and God, and turns the Divine countenance away from the sinner. Nor can it be otherwise; because it is incompatible with his righteousness to have any commerce with sin. Hence the apostle teaches, that man is an enemy to God, till he be reconciled to him by Christ. (i) Whom therefore the Lord receives into fellowship with him, him he is said to justify; because he cannot receive any one into favour or into fellowship with himself, without making him from a sinner to be a righteous person. This, we add, is accomplished by the remission of sins. For if they, whom the Lord hath reconciled to himself, be judged according to their (g) Sect. II.

(e) Gal. v. 6.
(h) Isaiah lix. 1, 2.

(f) Rom. iv. 4, 5. (i) Rom. v. 8-10.