others simply relate to the observation of the law; others enjoin perseverance in the grace of God already received. Let us first speak of them all in general, and then proceed to the particulars. To represent the ability of man as co-extensive with the precepts of the Divine law, has indeed for a long time not been unusual, and has some appearance of plausibility; but it has proceeded from the grossest ignorance of the law. For those who think it an enormous crime to say that the observation of the law is impossible, insist on this very cogent argument, that otherwise the law was given in vain. For they argue just as if Paul had never said any thing concerning the law. But pray what is the meaning of these expressions: "The law was added because of transgressions;" "by the law is the knowledge of sin;" "the law worketh wrath;" "the law entered that the offence might abound?" (w) Do they imply a necessity of its being limited to our ability, that it might not be given in vain? Do they not rather shew that it was placed far beyond our ability, in order to convince us of our impotence? According to the definition of the same apostle, " the end of the commandment is charity." (x) But when he wishes the minds of the Thessalonians to "abound in love," (y) he plainly acknowledges that the law sounds in our ears in vain, unless God inspire the principles of it into our hearts.

VII. Indeed, if the Scripture taught only that the law is the rule of life, to which our conduct ought to be conformed, I would immediately accede to their opinion. But since it carefully and perspicuously states to us various uses of the law, it will be best to consider the operation of the law in man according to that exposition. As far as relates to the present argument, when it has prescribed any thing to be performed by us, it teaches that the power of obedience proceeds from the goodness of God, and therefore invites us to pray that it may be given us. If there were only a commandment, and no promise, there would be a trial of the sufficiency of our strength to obey the commandment; but since the commands are connected with promises, which declare that we must derive not

(w) Gal. iii. 19. Rom. iii. 20. iv. 15. v. 20.
(x) 1 Tim. i. 5.

(y) 1 Thess. iii. 12.

only subsidiary power, but our whole strength from the assistance of Divine grace, they furnish abundant evidence that we are not only unequal to the observation of the law, but altogether incapable of it. Wherefore let them no more urge the proportion of our ability to the precepts of the law, as though the Lord had regulated the standard of righteousness, which he designed to give in the law, according to the measure of our imbecility. It should rather be concluded from the promises, how unprepared we are of ourselves, since we stand in such universal need of his grace. But will it, say they, be credited by any, that the Lord addressed his law to stocks and stones? I reply that no one will attempt to inculcate such a notion. For neither are the impious, stocks or stones, when they are taught by the law the contrariety of their dispositions to God, and are convicted of guilt by the testimony of their own minds; nor the pious, when admonished of their own impotence, they have recourse to the grace of God. To this purpose are the following passages from Augustine: "God gives commands which we cannot perform, that we may know what we ought to request of him. The utility of the precepts is great, if only so much be given to free will, that the grace of God may receive the greater honour. Faith obtains what the law commands; and the law therefore commands, that faith may obtain that which is commanded by the law: moreover God requires faith itself of us, and finds not what he requires, unless he has given what he finds." Again, "Let God give what he enjoins, and let him enjoin what he pleases."

VIII. This will more clearly appear in an examination of the three kinds of precepts which we have already mentioned. The Lord, both in the law and in the prophets, frequently commands us to be converted to him; (2) but the prophet, on the other hand, says, "Turn thou me, and I shall be turned." "After that I was turned, I repented," &c. (a) He commands us to circumcise our hearts; but he announces by Moses, that this circumcision is the work of his own hand. (6) He frequently requires newness of heart; but elsewhere declares that this is his own gift. (c) "What God promises," as Augustine

(2) Joel ii. 12.

(b) Deut. x. 16. and xxx. 6.

(a) Jer. xxxi. 18, 19.
(c) Jer. iv. 4. Ezek. xxxvi. 26.

says, "we do not perform ourselves through free will or nature; but he does it himself by his grace." And this is the observation to which he himself assigns the fifth place in his enumeration of Ticonius's rules of Christian doctrine; that we should make a proper distinction between the law and the promises, or between the commandments and grace. This may suffice, in answer to those who from the precepts infer an ability in man to obey them, that they may destroy the grace of God, by which those very precepts are fulfilled. The precepts of the second class are simple, enjoining on us the worship of God, constant submission to his will, observance of his commands, and adherence to his doctrine. But there are innumerable passages, which prove that the highest degree of righteousness, sanctity, piety, and purity, capable of being attained, is his own gift. Of the third class is that exhortation of Paul and Barnabas to the faithful, mentioned by Luke, "to continue in the grace of God." (d) But whence the grace of perseverance should be sought, the same Apostle informs us, when he says: "Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord." (e) In another place he cautions us to "grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." (ƒ) But because what he there requires could not be performed by men, he prays for the Thessalonians, "that our God would count them worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power." (g) Thus also in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, treating of alms, he frequently commends their benevolent and pious disposition; (h) yet a little after he gives thanks to God for having inclined the heart of Titus to "accept" or undertake "the exhortation." If Titus could not even use his own tongue to exhort others without having been prompted by God, how should others have been inclined to act, unless God himself had directed their hearts?

IX. Our more subtle adversaries cavil at all these testimonies, because there is no impediment, they say, that prevents our exerting our own ability, and God assisting our weak efforts. They adduce also passages from the prophets, where the accomplish(f) Eph. iv. 30.

(d) Acts xiii. 43.
(g) 2 Thess. i. 11.

(e) Eph. vi. 10.
(h) 2 Cor. viii. 1, &c.

ment of our conversion seems to be divided equally between God and us. "Turn ye unto me, and I will turn unto you." (¿) What assistance we receive from the Lord, has already been shewn, and needs not to be repeated here. I wish only this single point to be conceded to me, that it is in vain to infer our possession of ability to fulfil the law from God's command to us to obey it: since it is evident, that for the performance of all the Divine precepts, the grace of the Legislator is both necessary for us, and promised to us; and hence it follows, that at least more is required of us than we are capable of performing. Nor is it possible for any cavils to explain away that passage of Jeremiah, which assures us, that the covenant of God, made with his ancient people, was frustrated because it was merely a literal one; (k) and that it can only be confirmed by the influence of the Spirit, who forms the heart to obedience. Nor does their error derive any support from this passage: "Turn ye unto me, and I will turn unto you." For this denotes, not that turning of God in which he renovates our hearts to repentance, but that in which he declares his benevolence and kindness by external prosperity; as by adversity he sometimes manifests his displeasure. When the people of Israel therefore, after having been harassed with miseries and calamities under various forms, complained that God was departed from them, he replies that his benignity will not fail them, if they return to rectitude of life, to himself who is the standard of righteousness. The passage then is miserably perverted, when it is made to represent the work of conversion as divided between God and men. We have observed the greater brevity on these points, because it will be a more suitable place for this argument when we treat of the Law.

X. The second description of arguments is nearly allied to the first. They allege the promises, in which God covenants with our will: such as, "Seek good, and not evil, that ye may live." "If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." () Again, "If thou wilt put away thine abominations out of my (k) Jer. xxxi. 32. (1) Amos v. 14. Isaiah i. 19, 20

(i) Zech. i. 3.

sight, then shalt thou not remove." "If thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, the Lord thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth:" (m) and other similar passages. They consider it an absurdity and mockery, that the benefits which the Lord offers in the promises are referred to our will, unless it be in our power either to confirm or to frustrate them. And truly it is very easy to amplify this subject with eloquent complaints, that we are cruelly mocked by the Lord, when he announces that his benignity depends on our will, if that will be not in our own power; that this would be egregious liberality in God, to present his benefits to us in such a manner, that we should have no power to enjoy them; and that there must be a strange certainty in his promises, if they depend on a thing impossible, so that they can never be fulfilled. Concerning promises of this ki to which a condition is annexed, we shall speak in another place, and evince that there is no absurdity in the impossibility of their completion. With respect to the present question, I deny that God is cruel or insincere to us, when he invites us to merit his favours, though he knows us to be altogether incapable of doing this. For as the promises are offered equally to the faithful and to the impious, they have their use with them both. As by the precepts God disturbs the consciences of the impious, that they may not enjoy too much pleasure in sin without any recollection of his judgments; so in the promises he calls them to attest how unworthy they are of his kindness. For who can deny that it is most equitable and proper for the Lord to bless those who worship him, and severely to punish the despisers of his majesty? God acts therefore in a right and orderly manner, when, addressing the impious who are bound with the fetters of sin, he adds to the promises this condition, that when they shall have departed from their wickedness, they shall then, and not till then, enjoy his favours; even for this sole reason, that they may know that they are deservedly excluded from those benefits which belong to the worshippers of the true God. On the other hand, since he designs by all