Article VI
Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy scripture containeth all things necessary for salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite, or necessary to salvation.
The eternal God, having by the word of his power commanded the stately fabric of the world out of the womb of nothing, and having furnished the upper part of it, heaven, with understanding spirits, and the lower part of it, earth, with inanimate, vegetative, and sensitive bodies, was pleased after all to make one creature that might participate of both natures, a perfect microcosm, or little world, made up of heaven and earth together, having both a rational spirit like to the angels above, and an earthly body like to the creatures below. This person, being inferior to angels because a body as well as spirit, and superior to all other creatures because a spirit as well as body, God was pleased to set under the one and * over the other, as his deputy, or vicegerent, to rule or govern the other creatures he made upon earth, incapable of ruling or governing of themselves. And that he might behave himself aright both towards God his master, and the creatures his servants, he was throughly instructed with the whole will and pleasure of his Master; neither had he only wisdom to know what he ought constantly to do, but also grace to do what he did so perfectly know. And though by sinning afterwards against God he forfeited the grace he had received from him, and so became unable to do his will, yet was God of his infinite wisdom pleased still to instruct [MS. intrust.] him with the knowledge of his will, that so though he could not do what he knew, yet he might know what he ought to do. This his will God was pleased in the infancy of the world to write only upon the table of their hearts, for then men living some hundreds, yea, almost a thousand years upon earth, had opportunities and time enough to hand this the will of their God from one to another, that the children might be throughly instructed by their fathers before the fathers were taken from their children; but afterwards the most high God having appointed man a shorter abode here, it pleased him to write his will upon two tables of stone, that we might not only know his will by hearing it reported by others, but by seeing it recorded by God himself. Of these two tables the one contained our duty towards God, the other our duty towards man; but because the knowledge as well as holiness of man was much impaired by his fall from God, and though he could read, he might not perfectly understand his duty, it pleased his sacred Deity to interpret and explain his own will by several histories of things past and prophecies of things to come, and other holy writings, as himself thought fit; all which we call the holy scriptures; which are commonly divided into two parts, the Old and the New Testament.
The Old Testament he caused long ago to be written in the Hebrew tongue, a language peculiar to his own people that he had chosen out of the rest of the world, to make known his will in a more especial manner to amongst whom he was pleased for a long time to raise up prophets one after another, and to inspire them with his Holy Spirit, the better to preserve this his will amongst themselves, and to explain it unto others. But intending to withdraw this his prophetical Spirit from them, presently after their return from the Babylonian captivity, he caused Ezra, who was also called, as some think,* Malachi, and other prophets and holy men assembled in a * council, called by the Jews the Great Synagogue, besides other things, to number not only the books, but the verses, words, and letters also of this his will, and to leave them on record to posterity, that so, though the spirit of prophecy was taken from them, the whole will of God might be exactly and constantly * preserved amongst them; which work the Jews, and from them the Christians too, call the Masora, whereby it is impossible that a verse, word, or tittle should be altered in the Hebrew text, but it would presently be discovered; and so we may be sure that that Hebrew text which we now have, is the selfsame text that Ezra and the other prophets used so long before our Saviour’s time. After whose coming the great God commanded other books to be written in the Greek language, and to be annexed to the former written in the Hebrew; and these are they which we term the New Testament, which together with the Old are called the holy scripture.
This holy scripture thus written in Hebrew and Greek, in those languages wherein it was written, containeth nothing but the will of God, and the whole will of God; so that there is nothing necessary to be believed concerning God, nor done in obedience unto God by us, but what is here revealed to us; and therefore all traditions of men which are contrary to this word of God are necessarily to be abhorred, and all traditions of men not recorded in this word of God are not necessarily to be believed. What is here written we are bound to believe because it is written; and what is not here written we are not bound to believe because it is not written. I say we are not bound to believe it, but I cannot say we are bound not to believe it; for there be many truths which we may believe, nay, are bound to believe, because truth, which notwithstanding are not recorded in the word of God. But though there be many things we may believe, yet is there nothing we need believe in order to our everlasting happiness which is not here written; so that if we believe all that is here spoken, and do all that is here commanded, we shall certainly be saved, though we do not believe what is not here spoken, nor do what is not here commanded.
And indeed the scripture itself is its own witness in this case: which if it was not, all the arguments in the world could never make this article to be a truth; for that the scripture containeth, all things necessary to salvation is a truth, the belief of which is itself necessary to salvation; and therefore should the scripture contain all other necessary truths, and not contain this one necessary truth, even that it doth contain all necessary truths, it would not contain all things necessary to salvation. But what truth more frequently inculcated and more expressly contained in scripture than this? What words can express any thing more fully than those of St. Paul doth this, when he saith, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for * doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works, 2 Tim. 3:16, 17? Here we see the scriptures are sufficient to make a man, yea a man of God, a minister, 1 Tim. 6:11, one whose duty it is to declare all the counsel of God, Acts 20:27; yet the scriptures are sufficient to make such a man perfect, furnishing him with whatsoever he need acquaint his people with, or his people need to be confirmed in. And in the foregoing verse he tells Timothy, the scriptures are able to make him wise to salvation, 2 Tim. 3:15. But how can that be, unless they contain all things necessary to salvation? What is it to be wise unto salvation, but to know whatsoever is necessary to be known in order to salvation? If the scriptures do not therefore contain all things necessary to be known, how can they make us wise unto salvation?
To this purpose also make those places that forbid any addition to or detraction from the word of God; as, You shall not add unto the word that I command you, neither shall you diminish aught from it, Deut. 4:2; and, Whatsoever I command you, observe to do it; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it, Deut. 12:32. And that this may not be thought to have reference to the Pentateuch or Old Testament only, we have it again repeated in the New, with a curse annexed to it: For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book, Rev. 22:18, 19. In this book, that is, this book of the Revelations in particular, or the * whole book of the holy scriptures in general, of which this is the last book, and these almost the last words. Now in these and the like places it being so expressly forbidden to add any thing to or to take any thing from the holy scriptures, it follows that the holy scriptures do in themselves contain all things necessary to salvation. For otherwise, if there should be any thing necessary to salvation, and yet not contained in the scriptures, certainly it can be no sin, but rather a duty to add it to the scriptures, or to the articles of faith delivered in the scriptures, this being the end and scope of the scriptures, to shew us all things that belong to our eternal salvation. And so if there be any article of faith which God requires assent to from us, that himself hath not revealed in the holy scriptures to us, that article of faith must either be added to the holy scriptures, or we can never be saved; yes, to look after salvation God hath commanded us, but to add any thing to the scriptures he hath forbidden us; and therefore all things requisite to salvation must needs be contained in the scriptures, to which we need to add nothing as an article of faith in order to our salvation.
And hence it is that the apostle saith, But though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8; that is, as the * Fathers interpret it, Whosoever it is that preacheth any thing as gospel which is not written in the gospel, or would thrust any thing upon you as an article of faith which is not revealed as so in the holy scriptures, let him be accursed. Whatsoever articles of faith St. Paul delivered to others by preaching, he hath delivered unto us in writing; and as the Galatians were not to receive any thing as an article of faith but what St. Paul had preached to them, so are we to receive nothing as an article of faith but what is written for us; and therefore whosoever preacheth or believeth any thing to be necessary to salvation which is not written in the holy scriptures, instead of getting salvation by it, he will find the curse here denounced to be entailed upon it.
And lastly, to name no more, that we are to stick to the word of God, and not look among the traditions of men for the articles of our faith, or the behaviour of our life, Christ himself teacheth us in these words, But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, Matt. 15:9. So that whatsoever worship we perform to God, unless it be of God’s commanding, it will never be of God’s accepting; it will be but a vain worship. Nay, it will be so far from God’s accepting, that it will be of his rejecting; for it is so far from being a duty, that it is in plain terms a sin; for so saith our Saviour, Why do you also transgress the commandments of God by your tradition? ver.3; and, Thus have you made the commandments of God of none effect by your traditions, ver. 6. So that to obtrude traditions of men for articles of faith, or to admit them for parts of divine worship necessary to salvation, is so far from having any countenance from the scriptures, that it is expressly forbidden in them. And therefore that it should be necessary to believe any thing merely upon tradition is itself a mere tradition.
And as this truth is grounded upon scripture, so is it agree. able to reason too. So that not only scripture itself saith that all things necessary to be known are contained in itself, but reason saith the same too. For if there be any thing not contained in scripture and yet necessary to be known, then there is something necessary to be known, which, notwithstanding, we can have no certainty of. What I see written I am certain of, because I see it written; but how can I be certain of any thing which is not written? Must I therefore believe it because others do? Or can I therefore be certain of it because others are? Then I must believe and be certain of whatsoever others believe or are certain of, and so that must be a necessary article of my faith which is an article of any man’s faith; and so, unless I believe what every one believes, I can never be saved. But what reason have I to believe one man more than another ? Are they not all men? No; the pope is more than a man, acted with an infallible spirit; and therefore in believing him I do not believe a mere man, but God himself speaking by him. But what ground can I have to believe this? Is it written in the scriptures that the pope is infallible? No, but that all men are liars. And so that the pope is infallible I have no certain ground to believe it, and therefore no certain ground to believe any thing he saith to be true.
But again, I would here ask any gainsayer, for what end were the scriptures written? Were they not therefore written that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing we might have lift through his name? John 20:31. Were they not written that we might know the things that belong to our everlasting peace before they be hid from our eyes? Were they not written that in them we might have life eternal? John 5:59. Yea, were they not written on purpose that we might have surer footing for our faith than mere tradition? But how can the scripture attain these ends, unless it be perfect and sufficient of itself to shew us our way to heaven, and to acquaint us with all necessary truths without the help of human traditions? If tradition would have served the turn still to ground our faith upon, as it was in the beginning of the world, certainly the scriptures were written in vain, and to no purpose. So that if it doth not contain all things, what need was there of its containing any thing that is necessary to salvation? For all the articles of our faith might as well have been delivered to us by tradition as some of them.
But such as say there is any thing that is neither contained in the scriptures, nor may be proved by them, which notwithstanding is requisite and necessary to salvation, let them tell me what these things are; or how came they first into the catalogue of the articles of the Christian faith. Is there any nation in the world that hath not some traditions peculiar to itself? Yea, and are there not many traditions that cross and contradict each other? Now which of all these am I bound to believe in order to my salvation? Or who shall be the judge betwixt traditions that dissent from one another I speak not of such traditions (neither doth this article intend them) that concern only rites and ceremonies left to the disposition of the church, which, not being of divine but only positive and human right, may and do alter in every nation, and are acknowledged by none to be either necessary articles of our faith, or essential parts of God’s worship; but of such traditions as are required of us as articles of faith, without which we can never be saved; for even these do often oppose and thwart each other, yea, and themselves too. There is scarce an age but makes some alteration in every one of the popish traditions, as about the infallibility of the pope, purgatory, and the like, there are new notions continually coining about them; all of which certainly cannot be necessary to salvation, because many of them are contrary to one another. Or which of them is or is not to be believed, how must it be determined but by the scriptures? Surely such as are contrary to the scriptures are therefore to be rejected, because contrary to the scriptures; such as agree with the scriptures are therefore to be believed, because they agree with the scriptures. And if there be any such that are neither contrary to the scriptures, nor can be proved by them, such certainly it is not necessary to reject or believe it is not necessary we should reject them, because no way contrary to the scriptures; nor is it necessary to believe them as articles of our faith, because not contained in the scriptures. And so, though there be many things we may believe, yet there is nothing we must believe or not be saved, unless it be expressly asserted in the scriptures, or may be clearly deduced from them.
Neither is our church singular in this assertion, but we have all or most of the Fathers’ hands for it. Let these few witness for the rest. First, Hippolytus* the martyr, who tells us “there is one God, whom we do not otherwise acknowledge (brethren) but out of the holy scriptures. For as he that would profess the wisdom of this world cannot otherwise attain to it than by reading the opinions of the philosophers; so whosoever of us would exercise piety towards God, we cannot otherwise learn it than out of the holy scriptures.” And * Clemens Alexandrinus plainly; “Let us not simply attend to the words of men, which it is as lawful for us also to gainsay but if it be not enough only to say what we think, but what is said ought to be believed, let us not look for testimony from men, but let us confirm what is questioned by the word of God, which is the certainest of all demonstrations, nay, is itself the only demonstration.” And Tertullian; * “But whether all things were made of any subject matter, I never yet read. Let Hermogenes’s shop show where it is written. If it be not written, let him fear that woe that is appointed to those that put any thing to or take any thing from the word of God.”
Cyril of Hierusalem speaks much so to the purpose: * “For there ought nothing at all to be delivered concerning the divine and holy mysteries of faith without the holy scriptures, nor ought we to be moved at all with probabilities and prepared orations or compositions of speech. Neither do thou believe me that say these things, unless thou takest the demonstrations of the things which are said out of the holy scriptures.” And Athanasius tells us, * “The holy and divinely inspired scriptures are of themselves sufficient for the discovery of the truth.” And St. Augustine, * that “when our Lord Christ had done many things, all of them were not written, as the same holy evangelist testifies, that the Lord Christ had said and done many things that were not written; but those things were chosen out that they might be written, which seemed sufficient for the salvation of believers.” And therefore St. Basil saith, * “That every word and action ought to be confirmed by the testimony of the divinely inspired scriptures, to the full confirmation of the good, and confusion of the evil.” And that “it is an * evident falling from the faith, and an argument of pride, either to take away any thing from those things that are written, or to introduce any thing of those things which are not written.” And Origen; * “But if there remaineth any thing which the holy scriptures doth not determine, no other third scripture ought to be received for the confirmation of knowledge.”
And this is the touchstone that St. Cyprian examines traditions by: * “From whence,” saith he, “is that tradition? Does it descend from divine and evangelical authority? or doth it come from the commands of the apostles, or their epistles? For that those things ought to be done which are written, God himself testifies and propounds, saying to Jesus Nave or Joshua, Let not the book of this law depart from thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate in it night, and day, and thou shalt observe all the things that are written in them to do them. And the Lord also, sending the apostles, commands that all nations should be baptized and taught, that they should observe whatsoever he commanded.” And St. Cyril of Alexandria * too, saying, “That which the holy scripture hath not said, how can we receive it and put it into the catalogue of those things that be true?” This was also St. Hierome’s opinion in the case, * “As we do not deny those things which are written, so we refuse those that are not written. That God was born of a Virgin, we believe it, because we read it; but that Mary was married after she was delivered we do not believe, because we do not read it.” So careful were these Fathers to receive nothing as an article of faith but what is grounded upon the scriptures.
To these we may add Theophilus Alexandrinus, who tells us expressly, * “It is an instinct of the Devil to follow the sophisms of human minds, and to think any thing divine without the authority of the scriptures.” And Cyril of the same place before mentioned: * “All things that are delivered to us by the Law, Prophets, and Apostles, we receive and know and acknowledge, looking for nothing more than these. For it is impossible we should speak, or so much as think any thing of God, besides those things which are divinely told us by the divine oracles both of the Old and New Testament.” And to conclude, Constantine the Great, in his excellent oration to the council of Nice, he minds them how the * evangelical and apostolical books, and the divine oracles of the ancient prophets do clearly teach whatsoever we are to believe concerning God, and therefore in the conclusion saith, * “Let us take the solution of those things that are questioned out of the divinely inspired oracles or holy scriptures.” Certainly accounting nothing as an article of faith but what may be proved from thence. And thus we, having scripture for our ground, reason for our guide, and the Fathers for our companions in it, we may well acknowledge and subscribe to it, That the holy scripture contained all dings necessary to salvation, &c.
Of the Names and Numbers of Canonical Books.
Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers. Deuteronomy. Joshua. Judges. Ruth. The first Book of Samuel. The second Book of Samuel. The first Book of Kings. The second Book of Kings. The first Book of Chronicles. The second Book of Chronicles. The first Book of Esdras. The second Book of Esdras. The Book of Hester. The Book of Job. The Psalms. The Proverbs. Ecclesiastes, or the Preacher. Cantica, or Songs of Solomon. Four Prophets the greater. Twelve Prophets the lesser.
And the other books (as Hierome saith) the church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners, but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine such are these following:
The third Book of Esdras. The fourth Book of Esdras. The Book of Tobias. The Book of Judeth. The rest of the Books of Hester. The Book of Wisdom. Jesus the Son of Syrach. Baruch the Prophet. The Song of the Three Children. The Story of Susanna. Of Bell and the Dragon. The Prayer of Manasses. The first Book of Maccabees. The second Book of Maccabees.
All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive them, and account them canonical.
After Israel’s return from Babylon, * Ezra, with other prophets and holy men, being met in the great council (of which in the foregoing part of this article), after they had gathered together the several books that were written by the inspiration of God, seeing the spirit of prophecy was now to cease, and so no more books after to be added to the canon of the scriptures; they determined the number of them, dividing them into three general parts, Moses, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa or Holy Writings, which division our Saviour himself doth afterwards take notice of, saying to his disciples, That all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, Luke 24:44, where the Psalms, being part of the holy writings, are put for them all. These three general parts were afterwards subdivided into several books. The Law of Moses into five books Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. The Prophets, * as we find in the Talmud, were divided into eight parts; Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Isaiah, and the twelve lesser Prophets, which all made up but one part. The Holy Writings they divided into eleven parts: Ruth, the Book of Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Lamentations, Daniel, Hester, Ezra, and Chronicles. And so in all they reckoned four and twenty books. But afterwards Ruth being added to Judges and the Lamentations of Jeremiah to the Prophecy of Jeremiah their writer, the number was brought back to two and twenty,* the exact number of the Hebrew letters, and thus reckoned: 1. Genesis. 2. Exodus. 3. Leviticus. 4. Numbers. 5. Deuteronomy. 6. Joshua. 7. Judges and Ruth. 8. The first and second Books of Samuel. 9. The first and second Books of Kings. 10. The first and second Books of Chronicles. 11. The first and second Books of Esdras. 12. The Book of Hester. 13. The Book of Job. 14. The Psalms. 15. Proverbs. 16. Ecclesiastes. 17. The Song of Solomon. 18. Isaiah. 19. Jeremiah and Lamentations. 20. Ezechiel. 21. Daniel. 22. The twelve lesser Prophets.
Now, besides these here mentioned, there are other writings which pretend to the same authority, and are received by some into the canon of the scriptures as well as they. Such are, 1. The third and fourth Books of Esdras. 2. The Book of Tobias. 3. The Book of Judith. 4. The rest of the Book of Hester, viz. whatsoever is added to the ten chapters of Hester commonly received both by Jews and Christians, as a continuation of the history therein contained. 5. The Book of Wisdom, ascribed indeed to Solomon by some, but by others to Philo * the Jew, that lived in the apostles’ times. 6. The Book of Jesus the Son of Syrach, or Ecclesiasticus. 7. Baruch the Prophet. 8. The four additions to the Prophecy of Daniel. 1. The Song of the Three Children; 2. The Story of Susanna; 3. Of Bell and the Dragon; 4. The Prayer of Manasseh or Azarias. Lastly, The first and second Books of Maccabees. Now these books, though they do contain many excellent things in them, and therefore may be read for the instruction, of people in their duty, and the stirring of them to piety by the examples of persons and histories therein recorded, yet they are not of the same authority with the others before mentioned, and so no certain and sure foundation to ground any truth upon. So that whatsoever doctrine hath no more Divine authority to establish it than what it picks out of any of these books, is not looked upon as a scripture or Divine truth. And though we be bound to believe whatsoever the scripture saith, whether we be able to comprehend it by reason or no, yet towards the belief of any thing that is revealed in any of these books we are not bound to go any further, or rather we are bound to go no further, than reason guides us.
But though these books last mentioned be not of the same authority with the other, yet there be some that be, viz. certain books written since the Son of God’s becoming man; and they are, I. The history of the Doctrine, Life, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of the Son of God made flesh, written by four several persons, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. II. The history of the Acts of the Apostles written by St. Luke. III. Several Epistles written; (1.) by St. Paul 14; viz. these following, 1. To the Romans, one. 2. To the Corinthians, two. 3. To the Galatians, one. 4. To the Ephesians, one. 5. To the Philippians, one. 6. To the Colossians, one. 7. To the Thessalonians, two. 8. To Timothy, two. 9. To Titus, one. 10. To Philemon, one. 11. To the Hebrews, one. (2.) By St. James, one. (3.) By St. Peter, two. (4.) By St. John, three. (5.) By St. Jude, one. All which Epistles are called General or Catholic Epistles, because not written to particular churches or persons, as St. Paul’s are, but to the catholic church, or to the professors of Christianity in general. IV, The Revelations of St. John. And all these being written by the same Spirit that the Books of the Old Testament before named were, we account them to have the same authority that they have. And though some would obtrude upon us Hermes his Pastor, and Clemens’s Epistle to the Corinthians, as part of the New Testament, as they do the other before mentioned as part of the Old; yet what we said of them we say of these, that though they have good instructions in them, and so may be read, yet they have not the stamp of Divine authority upon them, and therefore may not be received as parts of the holy scriptures. Neither indeed have these additions to the New so many abettors as the apocryphal additions to the Old have. Neither are they mentioned in these Articles, and therefore I need take no notice of them. But the great and only question here is about the number of the books of the Old Testament, viz. whether the apocryphal, as the first and second Books of Esdras, the Book of Tobias, and the rest, be of the same authority with those two and twenty which Ezra gathered together as canonical scripture. And it is here determined in the negative, that they are not; that though they may be read for the instruction of the people, yet they cannot be applied for the confirmation of any doctrine; which appears both from scripture, reason, and Fathers.
First, from the scripture, even from such places wherein the most high God is pleased to acquaint us with what kind of persons he made use of as his amanuenses or scribes to write down his will and pleasure, even such as himself calls prophets. It was by the prophets that God at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past to the Fathers, Heb. 1:1. Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation, for the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, 2 Pet. 1:20, 21; and the apostle Paul tells the Ephesians, they are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Ephes. 2:20; all intimating to us (what the * Jews themselves acknowledge) that all that wrote in old time were prophets, even endowed with a prophetical spirit, and so their writings prophecies. But now it is certain, and granted on all hands, that * Malachi was the last of the prophets, and that after his time the spirit of prophecy ceased among the Jews, and so that no book or books that were written after that time were written by a prophetical spirit, nor therefore can be of Divine authority. And it is as certain that these Apocryphal books were written all after that time. For if they had been written before, and that by the spirit of prophecy, certainly Ezra would have received them with the other into the canon of the scriptures, which it is plain, from what hath been shewn, that he did not. And again, who knoweth not that the History of the Maccabees was long after that time, unless the history of them would have been made before themselves which if it had, it would have been a prophecy, not a history, as really as it is now a history, and not a prophecy. And so for the other books, besides that there is something almost in every one of them which betrays their novelty in respect of the antiquity of the ancient prophets: for if they had been written when the other prophets wrote, they would have been written in the same language that the other prophets wrote in, especially they would never have written in Greek, (as it is plain they did,) when the Greek language then was, like the people, accounted profane, and the Hebrew language themselves used, of all the languages in the world, was only accounted holy, and therefore only fit to write such holy things in.
And if from scripture we pass to reason, one might think this is reason enough to reject the Divine authority of these books, because not delivered to us in the same language that the other are. As it was the Hebrew language that discovered God’s people from all other people, so certainly it is the Hebrew language that may discover God’s scripture from all other scriptures. But again, if these Apocryphal writings be any part of the word of God, they are either part of the Old or New Testament; one of them they must needs be, because these two Testaments contain the whole word of God. But first, they are no part of the New Testament, for then they would discover something of the birth, or life, or death, or doctrine of Christ the Son of God, which it is plain they do not. Neither, secondly, are they any part of the Old Testament, for then the Jews would have used them before our Saviour’s coming, as well as any Christians have done since * but I dare challenge any one whatsoever to shew me any one place in either of the Talmuds, in any of the Targums, or indeed in any of the Jewish writers, where they make mention of any of these books. If they had been any part of the Old Testament, why was there not also a masora made upon them as well as upon the other books? How came it to pass that they were left out and others taken into the number of canonical books by Ezra? Was not he a prophet? Did not he write canonical books himself? And how then should not he be able to discern betwixt canonical and apocryphal books? Neither were the Jews only unacquainted with the books so long ago, but to this day ask any of them, and they will tell you there is nothing scripture, nothing the word of God, nothing of Divine authority, but what is ordinarily read in their synagogues, which I am sure these books never yet were.
But because the judgment of the primitive church may be of the greatest weight in this case, I shall endeavour, in the next place, to discover that our church doth here, as in all other things, tread exactly in the steps of the ancient Fathers. And in showing the judgment of the primitive church, I might first produce, the canons of the apostles (so called) themselves, which, though it be no convincing argument in itself, yet it is to the adversaries unto this truth, who do so confidently affirm the apostles themselves to be the authors of them. For these very canons do number the books of the Old Testament after the same manner that we do, differing in nothing but the three Books of the Maccabees, and leaving out Ezra. But for all the other books which some would now bring in as canonical, they left out as apocryphal. But throwing these into * the margent, let us inquire into the primitive church; and if we here cast our eyes upon Eusebius, in him we shall find Melito writing to Onesimus, who had often desired him to acquaint him with the number and order of the books of the Old Testament, and satisfying his desire after this manner: * “Going therefore,” saith he, “into the East, and being in the place where these things were preached and done; and diligently learning the books of the Old Testament, I have here sent them underwritten to you; the names whereof are these: the five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth, four books of the Kings, two of the Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon or Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, the Prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the twelve lesser Prophets contained in one book, Daniel, Ezechiel, Ezra.” Which enumeration of books we exactly in this article follow, only separating Lamentations from Jeremiah, and Esther from Ezra, which he here joins together.
And thus doth Gregory Nazianzen give us also the catalogue of the canonical books. First, saith he, * “The historical books are, first, Genesis, then Exodus and Leviticus, then Numbers, then Deuteronomy, then Joshua and Judges, Ruth is the eighth, the ninth and the tenth books are the Acts of the Kings and the Chronicles, and in the last place thou hast Esdras or Ezra. The poetical books are five; whereof the first is Job, then David, then the three books of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, the Canticles and Proverbs. And the books written by a prophetical spirit are also five. The twelve lesser Prophets make one book; Hosea, and Amos, and Micah, the third; then Joel, then Jonas, and Abdiah, and Nahum, and Habakuk, and Sophoniah, and Haggai; and then Zachariah and Malachi, and these are one book. The second is Isaiah, then Jeremiah, then Ezechiel, and Daniel.” And these are the only books he saith that are canonical, all the rest apocryphal.
And Epiphanius neither takes one more in, nor leaves one more out of the canon than we do. * “Thus,” saith he, “are the (canonical) books contained in four Pentateuchs, other two remaining behind. So that the canonical books are thus five legislative books, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; that is, the Pentateuch and the giving of the Law. And five poetical books; the Book of Job, then the Psalter, the Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Then another Pentateuch, which is called the Writings, and by some the Holy Writings or Hagiographa; which are thus: the Book of Joshua the son of Nun, of Judges with Ruth, the first of the Chronicles with the second, the first of the Kings with the second, and the third of the Kings with the fourth; that is the third Pentateuch. Another Pentateuch is, the twelve lesser Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, and Daniel; and that is the prophetical Pentateuch. But there remain two more; one is Ezra, which is also reckoned, and another book called Hester: and so the two and twenty books are completed.” And this is the number of canonical books which Amphilochius also gives us, * as we may see in the margent.
But these you will say were particular persons; but was there ever any council or synod before that of ours which ever determined the number of canonical books as ours did? Yes, the Laodicaean council itself, assembled in the third century, after our Saviour’s time, and afterwards approved by the sixth Constantinopolitan synod, which also was confirmed by pope Adrian; and so the Laodicaean council, confirmed by him too, I say this Laodicaean council, gathered together from the several provinces of Asia, did then decree the number of canonical books in the third century, as our Convocation, collected out of the two provinces of England, determined them in the fifteenth century after our Saviour; taking in never a book that is here left out, nor leaving out any book that is here taken in of the Old Testament, nor indeed of the New, but only the Revelations. For this is the whole catalogue of books which they acknowledge to be canonical; saying, * “But the books which ought to be read of the Old Testament. are, 1. Genesis; 2. Exodus; 3. Leviticus; 4. Numbers; 5. Deuteronomy; 6. Joshua; 7. Judges and Ruth; 8. Esther , 9. The first and second of the Kings (which we call the first and second of Samuel); 10. The third and fourth of Kings (which we call the first and second of Kings;) 11. The first and second of Chronicles; 12. The first and second of Ezra; 13. The Book of 150 Psalms; 14. The Proverbs of Solomon; 15. Ecclesiastes; 16. The Song of Songs; 17. Job , 18. The twelve lesser Prophets; 19. Isaiah; 20. Jeremiah and the Lamentations; 21. Ezechiel; 22. Daniel. But the Books of the New Testament are these: four Gospels; according to St. Matthew, according to St. Mark, according to St. Luke, and according to St. John the Acts of the Apostles: the seven General Epistles; of St. James one, of St. Peter two, of St. John three, of St. Jude one. The Epistles of St. Paul the Apostle fourteen: to the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Galatians one, to the Ephesians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to the Thessalonians two, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one.”
Thus we see how careful the Fathers are to bring the canonical books into the scriptures; and truly they are as careful to keep the apocryphal out. They acknowledge them indeed lawful to be read, as we do, but not of the same authority with the former. So Athanasius: * “But besides these, there are other books of the Old Testament not received into the canon of the scriptures, but only read to the catechumens, or such as are to be instructed in the Christian religion; as, the Wisdom of Solomon,” and the rest, which he names in order. And Epiphanius * saith: “They are useful and profitable indeed, but are not brought into the number of canonical books.” And St. Hierome * saith: “As therefore the church reads indeed Judith and Tobit and the books of the Maccabees, but doth not receive them amongst canonical scriptures; so these two books (viz., the Book of Wisdom and Jesus the son of Syrach) the church may read for the edification and instruction of the people, but not to confirm the authority of ecclesiastical doctrines.” Which I suppose is the place intended in this Article, where St. Hierome is quoted. So Lyra: * “But whatsoever is without these, (I speak of the Old Testament,) as St. Hierome saith, is to be put among the Apocrypha; these are the books that are not in the canon, which notwithstanding the church admits as good and useful books, but not as canonical: amongst which are some of greater authority, others of less: for Tobias, Judith, and the books of the Maccabees, the Book of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, are much approved of by all.” And presently, * “But Baruch, and the third and fourth book of Esdras, are of less authority.” I shall conclude this with that excellent passage in Ruffinus, who, having numbered the canonical books both of the Old and New Testament every way as they are here determined, neither taking in one book that is here in this article left out, nor leaving out one book that is here taken in, he adds, * “These are they which the Fathers concluded within the canon, out of which they would have the assertions of our faith to consist. But we must know that there are other books which are not called canonical but ecclesiastical by the ancients, as the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom which is called the Wisdom of the son of Syrach, which book amongst the Latins is called by the general name Ecclesiasticus, by which word not the author of the book but the quality of the writing is surnamed. Of the same order is the Book of Tobit, and Judith, and the books of the Maccabees. But in the New Testament a little book called the Pastor or Hermas, which is named The Two Ways, or the Judgment according to Peter. All which they would have read indeed in the churches, but not produced to confirm the authority of our faith out of them.” And thus we see how clear and express the Fathers are, not only in determining the same number of canonical books that is in this article determined, but also in passing their judgment upon the apocryphal books as this article doth; even that though the church reads them for example of life, and instruction of manners, yet it doth not apply them to establish any doctrine.
Article VII
Of the Old Testament.
The Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only mediator between God and man, being both God and man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises.
The several books of the holy scripture spoken of in the foregoing article, though written at several times, by several persons, in several places, and after several manners, yet do not deliver several, but one and the same doctrine; yea, the Old Testament, that was written so long before the New, doth not deliver any other doctrine than what the New doth, that was written so long after the Old; neither doth the New Testament deliver any other doctrine than what the Old doth, that was written so long before it; Christ being the sum and substance of both; Christ, in prophecy, the sum of the Law; Christ, in history, the sum of the Gospel. And truly the prophecies of the one and the histories of the other do so exactly agree, that the prophecies of the Old Testament seem to be nothing but the histories of the New foretold in prophecy; neither do the histories of the New Testament seem any thing else than the prophecies of the Old recorded in history: so that howsoever they may differ in circumstances, be sure they * agree in the substance.
That there be some circumstances in which they differ, it cannot be denied; for the Old and New Testaments differ, first, in external symbols and sacraments. Though the grace sealed by the different sacraments be the same, yet the sacraments that seal that same grace are different; the sacraments of the Old Testament being Circumcision and the Paschal Lamb; the sacraments of the New, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Secondly, they differ in the external rites and ceremonies annexed to these sacraments: for the sacraments of the Old, in that they are Circumcision and the Paschal Lamb, and not Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, must needs differ in ceremonies from the New: for if the substance differ, the ceremonies cannot be the same, though the ceremonies may differ, and yet the substance be the same. Thirdly, they differ in facility and difficulty of using. It is an easier thing to be baptized under the Gospel, than it was to be circumcised under the Law; and it was a harder thing to eat the Paschal Lamb under the Law, than it is to eat the Lord’s Supper under the Gospel. Fourthly, They differ in the manner of signification. Though the thing signified was the same, yet the manner of its signification differed. The Old Testament signified Christ to come hereafter; the New signifies the same Christ, but as come already. The Law promises only what the Gospel relates, but the Gospel relates also what the Law promises. And so they under the Law saw the Sun of Righteousness drawing towards them, but they under the Gospel saw the Sun of Righteousness risen upon them. And therefore though the same light shone in the Old that shines in the New Testament, yet there it was but as the twilight, * here as the noonday. Fifthly, They differ also in the extent of their objects. * The Old Testament took in the Jews only, and not the Gentiles , the New Testament takes in the Gentiles also as well as Jews. Lastly, They differ likewise in their duration. The Old Testament was but to continue till Christ’s first coming; the New to his second. The Old lasted no longer than Christ’s descending from heaven, for himself to be judged by the sons of men; but the New is to last till his descending from heaven, to have the sons of men judged by himself. In a word, the Law was to last no longer than to the beginning of the Gospel; the Gospel is to last to the end of the world.
And thus we see in how many circumstances the Old and New Testament differ, yet notwithstanding they exactly agree in the substance. So that the one is not contrary to the other; what the one asserts, the other doth not deny; and what the one denies, the other doth not assert. And though the one only promises that Christ shall come, and the other assures us he is come; yet they both promise salvation only upon his account. So that the Fathers of the Old Testament were saved only by Christ, who was born after they were dead, as well as the children of the New Testament are saved by the same Christ, who was dead before they were born. And therefore they are not to be heard, or if they be heard, they are not to be believed, that feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises; which is a clear inference from the premises. For if the overtures of grace and life were made in Christ to them under the Law, as well as to us under the Gospel; it must needs follow, that the same promises that we have made to us under the Gospel were also made to them under the Law: and therefore the promises that we look for being spiritual, and not transitory, the promises that they looked for likewise were not only transitory, but also spiritual. The sum of all is this: Everlasting life and happiness was offered in Christ under the Old as well as under the New Testament. So that the old Fathers did not go one way to heaven and we another, but the same way that we go now they went then, and they had the same promises then that we have now. The truth whereof appeareth from scripture, reason, and Fathers.
And in producing of scripture for this, we may first take notice of the dawning of the gospel light to our first parents in that gracious promise; It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel,* Gen. 3:15. Where, after the Devil’s conquest over man, man is immediately promised a greater conquest over him. And therefore, whether by the seed of the woman the person of Christ in particular, or the posterity of Adam in general is intended, be sure * Christ is promised; for in that it is a promise it must needs be made in him, in whom all the promises are yea and amen, 2 Cor. 1:20; and seeing the promise was made in him, he could not but be implied in the promise. As it was in the first Adam that the Devil conquered us, so it is only by the second Adam that we can conquer him. Which second Adam is here first promised to the first, that so we might all receive the promise of life in him, as we all fell into the threatened death by him. And that this was the promise of life, and so a spiritual promise, is clear, in that it is a promise of conquest over the father of death, the Devil. And that Christ is also promised in these words, appears in that it is he alone of all the seed of the woman that bruised the serpent’s head. Indeed, Christ is so clearly promised in these words, that not only Christians, but the Jews themselves in their * Targum acknowledge and avouch it. And this was the only promise that we read of that the old world and many generations after had to live upon, and the only gospel to believe in, which, notwithstanding, was enough, yea as much as we have now for substance. For the same Christ was promised to them that is given to us, and they had as much cause to believe he would come, as we have to believe he is come. The reason why we so believe Christ is come, is because God hath told us he is so; and they had as much reason to believe he would come, seeing the same God had told them he would do so. And certainly their believing in him that was to come was as effectual to the justification of their persons, as our believing in him that is come; for it is not he as to come hereafter, or as come already, but as God-man, that is the Mediator betwixt God and man.
And this promise or abstract of the Gospel being made to Adam, the head of mankind, all mankind were interested in it, so that none of them that should act faith upon it but might receive life and salvation from it. And thus it continued for above two thousand years together, viz. from Adam to the flood, and from the flood to Abraham; at which time the most high God, seeing mankind in general faithless and unbelieving, was pleased to pick out from amongst them one person to manifest his love more graciously, and his promise or gospel more clearly to; and that was Abraham; who believing in the former promise or gospel made to Adam, and delivered down from Adam unto him, this his faith was accounted unto him for righteousness; and being not yet circumcised, the apostle tells us, it was reckoned to him not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision, Rom. 4:10. But being first accounted righteous by the righteousness of the promised seed by faith applied by him, and through grace imputed to him, God was pleased to renew his covenant he had made in Adam with him, and to give him the seal of this the righteousness he had by faith, even circumcision, as the apostle informs us, saying, And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which, he had yet being uncircumcised, Rom. 4:11. So that circumcision was not imputed to him for righteousness; but it was only * the seal of that righteousness of faith which was before imputed to him. He being accounted righteous by God, because believing in the promised Messiah, God gives him a sacrament or seal to confirm this his faith, even circumcision, which was as real and effectual a sacrament to him * as baptism is to us. For as baptism seals the righteousness of Christ to us, so did circumcision seal the same righteousness of the same Christ to them; only with this difference, that circumcision sealed to him and his posterity the righteousness of Christ, as to come hereafter; baptism seals to us the same righteousness of Christ, but as come already. From whence it clearly appears that Abraham had the same righteousness that we have, and so the same promises that we have, and that it was in Christ that everlasting life was offered to him, as well as it is in Christ that everlasting life is promised to us.
And thus the covenant of grace continued with no more than one seal annexed to it for above four hundred years together, viz. from Abraham till Moses, by whom God was pleased, for the further discovery of his love, and the confirmation of the righteousness of faith to Israel his people, the seed of Abraham, to institute another sacrament, viz. the paschal Lamb, Exod. 12, the more to confirm their faith in Christ, the Lamb of God that should take away the sins of the world, John 1:29, * whom the paschal lamb signified and represented to them, who was also the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, Rev. 13:8, being the substance of Abel’s sacrifice as well as Moses’s. So that all the beasts that were sacrificed from the beginning of the world till Christ’s coming, were but as so many types of that sacrifice which he should offer for us, even himself. That blood should be shed it was necessary, because that without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins, Heb. 10:4; and therefore was all the blood that was shed before our Saviour’s but as so many types and representations of his. For seeing that of the blood of bulls and goats, and the like, was made sin offerings under the law, sanctified to the purification of the flesh, Heb. 9:13, and yet the blood of goats could not expiate sin of itself, it follows, that the force and efficacy of all these sacrifices depended upon the relation they had to Christ: for it was not themselves, that typified the sacrifice of Christ, but it was the sacrifice of Christ, that was typified by them, that thus expiated the sins of the priests and people. And seeing there hath been such typifying sacrifices slain ever since the promise was first made to Adam, Christ is therefore said to be the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, viz. in all the sacrifices that were slain * as types of him. And from hence it is, that before our Saviour’s coming, there was no nation under the sun but had their sacrifices. And the reason was, because the promise being made to Adam first, and in Adam to all mankind, mankind in general hath had some glimmerings of it, and so some confused notions of a sacrifice that must be offered for their sins. And though they perhaps looked no further than the sacrifices themselves offered, yet certainly there is none of their sacrifices but had at first their rise from, and always after, reference and relation to this only expiatory sacrifice of the Lamb of God thus slain from the foundation of the world.
But besides these two sacraments of the Old Testament, circumcision and the paschal lamb, the Jews had also other types of the sacraments under the New Testament for they were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; which was a type of baptism: and they ate of the bread that came down from heaven, and drank of the water of the rock; which was a clear type of the Lord’s Supper. This the apostle himself observes, saying, Moreover, brethren, I would not have you ignorant, how that all our fathers were under a cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ, 1 Cor. 10:1–4. * So that what baptism is to us, the cloud and Red sea was a type of to them and * as we eat the bread that came down from heaven, and drink the blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper; so did they eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink too; for they drank of the Rock, and that Rook was Christ. Which is a clear proof, that the same Christ that is given unto us was also offered to them; and if Christ was offered to them, everlasting life must needs be offered in him, this being the only reason that we have the overture of him, even that we might enjoy everlasting life by him. So clear is the scripture in discovering to us, that even to the old Fathers, or Fathers of the Old Testament, everlasting life was offered, and that it was offered in Christ to them as well as to us, seeing that they had the knowledge of Christ as well as vie; and therefore that they were not only transitory, but spiritual promises, which they did or ought to have looked after.
From express scripture if we proceed to reason, it will also discover this truth to us. For, first, that the Old and New Testament are not contrary to one another is clear, in that they were both written * by the same Spirit, the Spirit of truth, which it is impossible should ever contradict itself. 2dly, That they looked for the same promises that we do is clear, 1. in that they were in the same covenant that we are, viz., in the covenant of grace, which was first made with Adam, and in him with all mankind that should lay hold upon it; and being in the same covenant, they could not but have the same spiritual promises which were all made in that covenant. 2. That they had the same promises made to them that are offered to us is clear, in that the same duties that are commanded us were also enjoined them, even to be holy in all manner of conversation, which holiness, the apostle tells us, hath the promise both of this life, and also of that which is to come, 1 Tim. 4:8; and therefore to deny that they had spiritual as well as temporal promises, is to assert that none of them were holy; for if they were holy, they could not but have spiritual as well as temporal promises, all spiritual duties having spiritual promises annexed to them. 3. That they had not only transitory but spiritual promises appears from the promises themselves, which were spiritual as well as transitory. What more spiritual and excellent promise can we desire from God, or God make to us, than to be our God? Yet, besides many others, they had this promise under the Old as well as under the New Testament for it was first made to Abraham and his seed, And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee, Gen. 17:7. And afterwards, the more to confirm our faith in it, he promises the same thing again; And I will be their God, and they shall be my people, Jer. 31:33. What can we expect more from God, yea, to speak it with reverence, what can the great God himself promise more to us than this? What if the kingdom of heaven be not expressly mentioned in the Old Testament, is it not there said, I will be their God? And what is, if this be not, the kingdom of heaven? Certainly, should God have said, I will give them crowns and scepters, heaven and happiness, such words would have come short of what is promised in these few words, I will be their God. So that should all the angels in heaven, and men on earth, study to eternity to find out a greater promise than this is, it would be impossible. Nay, indeed it is impossible that God himself should find out any thing more than himself to promise to his people. And yet even this the * head of all promises, comprehending all good things whatsoever, was made to them of the Old, as well as to us of the New Testament; and therefore, had they never another promise besides this, they could not but have all spiritual as well as transitory promises in this one.
And as the enjoyment of God, and so everlasting happiness, was promised in the Old as well as in the New Testament, so was it promised then too, as well as now, only in Jesus Christ; there being no other Mediator to reconcile God to us, and us to God, because none but he ever was or ever will be both God and man. And whosoever is God only and not man, or man only and not God, can never * mediate betwixt God and man. For he that is God only cannot suffer for man; and he that is man only cannot make satisfaction to God; and therefore to make a person capable of suffering for man and able to satisfy God, and so to mediate betwixt God and man, by suffering for the sins of the one and satisfying the justice of the other, it is necessary that himself participate of both natures, which being joined together in one Person might so be reconciled to one another. Now seeing there never was nor ever will be any such person in the world besides Christ, and seeing Christ was exactly such a person, perfect God and perfect man, it necessarily follows, that it was he, and he alone, that could be the Mediator betwixt God and man in the Old as well as in the New Testament: and so that whatsoever promises or overtures were made to the old Fathers were made only in him, without whom they could have enjoyed no mercy, nor have partaken any happiness, either in this world or that which is to come.
And this was also the judgment of the primitive Church. * St. Chrysostom tells us, “There is no difference but of names in the two Testaments, no opposition or contrariety; for the Old is called Old from the New; but that is not from any opposition or contrariety, but the difference of the name only.” And St. Ambrose; * “But there is one God in whom the doctrine of the Old and New Testament agreeth.” And elsewhere; * “For our faith ariseth from the two Testaments; neither doth he wrong either that saith there is the like measure of perfect faith in both, when the Lord himself saith, If you believed Moses, you would believe me also, who was the Lord that spike also in Moses.”
And before these Ignatius taught the same doctrine: * “For as the false prophets and false apostles received one and the same evil, deceitful, and seducing spirit, so did the prophets and apostles receive one and the same holy, good, leading, true, and teaching Spirit of God. For there is one God of the Old and New Testament, and one Mediator betwixt God and man, for the workmanship of the sensitive and intelligible creatures, and for the profitable and accommodate Providence over all things, and one Comforter working in Moses and the prophets and apostles. All the saints therefore were saved in Christ, trusting in him, and expecting of him.” So that it was in Christ that the Fathers of the Old Testament received the Spirit of God, and salvation from him, as well as they of the New. So Irenaeus also; * “The law did not forbid them to believe in the Son of God, but admonished them, saying, that men could not any other ways be saved from the wound of the old serpent, unless they believed in him, who, according to the likeness of sinful flesh, is upon the wood of martyrdom lifted up from the earth, and draws all things to himself, and quickens the dead.”
Lactantius hath also delivered his opinion very clearly in this point: * “But all the scripture,” saith he, “is divided into two Testaments. That which was before the coming and passion of our Lord, to wit, the Law and Prophets, is called the Old; but those things that were written after his resurrection are called the New Testament. The Jews use the Old, we the New: but yet they are not diverse, because the New is the fulfilling of the Old, and in both Christ is the same testator, or the same Christ is testator.”
St. Augustine hath also set down his judgment in this case: * “But the Old Testament, to them that rightly understand it, is a prophecy of the New Testament. And therefore in that first people, the holy patriarchs and prophets, who understood what they did, or what was clone by them, had then the hope of eternal salvation in the New Testament: for what they understood and loved belonged unto that, which though it was not yet revealed, even then it was foretold and typified. But those belonged to the Old Testament who desired no more than the temporal promises there thought of, but did not understand the eternal promises that were typified and foretold in them.” So that it was this renowned Father’s opinion, that though there were many temporal promises made in the Old Testament, yet even under them spiritual blessings were promised, which they that understood the scriptures aright were throughly acquainted with, and therefore looked not for transitory promises only, but also spiritual, yea, for eternal salvation in Christ, promised in the Old, though revealed only in the New Testament. And therefore he saith elsewhere, * “Moses ate manna, and Aaron ate manna, and Phineas ate manna, and many that pleased God ate there, and are not dead (spiritually). Why? Because they understood the visible bread spiritually, hungered spiritually, tasted it spiritually, that so they might be satisfied spiritually.”
And that it was only by Christ that the old Fathers were justified and saved, Cyril of Alexandria hath a large discourse upon it, which he begins thus: * “But that the mystery of justification by faith had a more ancient original than circumcision in the law; and that it was foretold to Israel in types and figures, that they could not be saved any other way than by Christ only, that justifieth the ungodly and pardoneth sins; and also that they are the heirs of God, and are reckoned amongst his most legitimate children, who are of the promise made in Isaac to blessed Abraham; go on, let us now speak.” And so he brings many arguments for what himself saith, and we have proved from scripture, reason, and Fathers, even that the Old Testament is not contrary to the New, and that both in the New and Old Testament eternal salvation is offered to mankind only by Christ, &c.
Although the Law given from God by Hoses, as touching ceremonies and rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to he received its any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.
As every law whatsoever is either Divine or human, and every Divine law either published in scripture or implanted in nature; so every law that is published in scripture is either ceremonial, judicial, or moral: which distinction seems to be intimated in these words; * Now these are the commandments, statutes, and the judgments, which the Lord commanded to teach you, Deut. 6:11: where by commandments we may understand the moral, by statutes the ceremonial, and by judgments the judicial law of God. Now what we ought to believe concerning these three laws is here set down in this part of the article.
First, concerning the ceremonial law, it is here said, Although the law given from God by Moses, as touching ceremonies and rites do not bind Christian men, implying, that that law is now of no force and virtue in obliging us to obedience, as it did the Jews: where we may briefly consider, first, what this law was; secondly, how it appears to be now disannulled. As for the first, what this law was, it is plain that it was that law whereby God was pleased to determine the outward circumstances of his own worship, and the outward performances of his people’s lives, containing several precepts: 1st, Concerning their sacraments, viz. circumcision, and the eating of the paschal lamb; to which may be added also the eating of the shew-bread, and their purification from several uncleannesses, as when any one was a leper, had touched a dead body, or the like. Concerning their sacrifices; whether sin offerings, or heave offerings, or burnt offerings; whether offered by the high priest only, by the ordinary priest, by all the people, or private persons; as also whether they were of living creatures, as goats or kids, rams or lambs, heifers or calves, doves or turtles; or inanimate, as broad or wine or oil. 3dly, Concerning their holy things as, first, their holy places; as the tabernacle and temple, the one carried up and down, the other fixed, divided into three parts; the holy of holies, whore the high priest only came, and that but once a year; the sanctuary, where the ordinary priests went continually; and the outward court, where the people stood: secondly, holy times; as their sabbaths, now moons, passover, pentecost, feast of tabernacles, the feast of ingathering, the feast of trumpets, the day of atonement, Lev. 23; the sabbatical year also, and the year of jubilee. 4thly, Concerning outward observances in priests or people; as, not to eat such and such flesh, not to wear such and such clothes, not to plough with an ox and an ass together, and such like. Thus we see what these ceremonies and rites wore. Now, secondly, that they are not obligatory unto us, as they were to the Jews, appears from the determination of that canonical synod holden by the apostles themselves at Hierusalem, Acts 15, where this question being debated, whether circumcision, and so the other ceremonies of the law, should be enjoined the Gentiles, they determined it in the negative, that the Gentiles which were turned to God should not be troubled with these things. Hence it is that we read St. Paul, writing to the Colossians, Let no man therefore judge you either in meat or drink, or in respect of a holy day, new moon, or sabbath days, Col. 2:16; and to the Galatians, If you be circumcised, Christ profiteth you nothing, Gal. 5:2. And he acquaints the Hebrews with the reason of it; For, the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law, Heb. 7:12, viz. the ceremonial law, which being at the first instituted and imposed only until the time of reformation, Heb. 9:10, even until the coming of Christ, who was the substance of those shadows and the truth of those types, there was no need of them when once himself was come, nor indeed any law for them. For seeing the law enjoined them for no longer a time than till Christ was come, and the time in his coming being expired, the law enforcing them must needs be disannulled. So that now we are no ways bound to use any of the aforesaid ceremonies, they being no furtherances now, as they were under the law, but rather * hindrances of our faith in Christ the substance but they are to us Christians as if they had never been imposed at all upon the Jews, even without any binding or obligatory force at all in them, * as the Fathers taught of old.
Secondly, Of the judicial law it is here said, nor the civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth: civil precepts; that is, whatsoever precepts we find in the law of Moses concerning state polity, or the civil government of the Jewish nations; as concerning their magistrates, contracts, distribution of inheritances, witnesses, several punishments of blasphemy, perjury, and the like. These laws, though they could not without sin have been neglected by the Jews, yet it is here said there is no necessity of their being received into other commonwealths; which certainly there is not. For though these laws were made by God, and so were certainly the best that ever were or can be made, yet seeing they were made only for that nation, other nations are not also bound to observe them, especially considering that the temper and condition of other nations may be much different from that; and therefore, though they were the best that could be conceived for them, yet may better be found out for others; better I say, not simply, but by reason of the circumstances of time, place, and conditions, which the other nations may lie under. And further, had God intended these laws for other nations as well as for the Jews, there would have been some particular command in scripture to bind other nations to their observance; which be sure there is not: but we are rather commanded to obey other laws, as St. Paul writes to the Romans, to be subject to the highest powers, Rom. 14:1; wherein, but in obeying their lawful commands, which certainly were much different from the laws established by Moses? And the great God, by St. Peter, commands us to submit to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, 1 Pet. 2:13; in which Epistle St. Peter doth not write to any particular city or people or person, but it is a general epistle directed to all Christians whatsoever so that wheresoever they be, they are still bound, not to the civil precepts of Moses, but the lawful commands of their present superiors, even to every ordinance of man, and that for the Lord’s sake.
But the principal thing here to be treated of is the third, to wit, the moral law, of which it is here said, that although the ceremonial and judicial laws of Moses aforesaid do not bind Christian men or magistrates, yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called Moral; that is, of those commandments that enjoin us our duty towards God and our neighbours, contained in the Decalogue, or Ten Commandments, and repeated and explained in other places of the Bible. Which commands were first written upon the fleshly tables of our hearts; but * because man became a stranger to himself, scarce knowing what he knew, God was pleased solemnly to publish and promulge them in the ears of all his people, Deut. 5:22. And herein they had the preeminence before the ceremonial and civil precepts which God gave to Moses by himself, ver. 31; neither was he pleased only to publish them, but he wrote them also afterwards upon two tables of stone, the better to keep them in their memory, Exod. 32:15, 16. And in this also they had the preeminence above the others, in that these moral commands were written by Jehovah himself, the other from him indeed, but not by him, but only by Moses his servant, Exod. 24:4. And therefore though the other laws were commanded by the same God that these are, and therefore were as obligatory to the Jews for the present; yet seeing these had so much preeminence before the others in their promulgation, they may well be thought to have as much in their obligation. So that though the others have lost their virtue, these still retain their force upon the conscience, so as to bind and oblige not only Jews but Christians, yea, all the world, to obey and act according unto them. Insomuch that no man whatsoever, high or low, rich or poor, is free from performing obedience unto them; but be he what he will, he sins unless he obey them. Though a man may omit the observation of the other laws and not sin, yet he cannot but sin if he omit the observation of these; so that not one person in the world is free from giving obedience to the moral, though all the persons in the world are free from the observation of the ceremonial and judicial laws.
And this appears, first, from scripture. And indeed was there never a place of scripture to prove this truth, yet seeing there is never a place of scripture to prove the contrary, that would be a sufficient proof of it. For that this moral law was once established by God, as well as the ceremonial and judicial, it cannot be denied; and what law is once established by God must needs stand in force until repealed by the same authority that established it; and therefore until God hath repealed this, as he lath done the other laws, it must needs still remain in full force and virtue. And therefore to say the scripture is not against this truth, is as much as to say the scripture is for it; for if the scripture do nowhere express the abrogation and abolishment of this, as it doth of the other laws, it necessarily follows that this law is not abrogated as the others be, but still binds the conscience as the others do not.
But besides that there is no express scripture against this truth, there be many express scriptures for it; yea, our Lord Christ himself, the maker of all the laws, tells us of this the moral law, he did not come to destroy it; Think not that I am come, saith he, to destroy the Law, or the Prophets: am not come to destroy, but to fulfill, * Matt. 5:17. He did not come to take any force from it, but rather to give more unto it; and therefore when one came unto him, saying, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? he answered him, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith, unto him, Which? Christ answered, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, Matt. 19:16–19. Where we may see how the same Christ that requireth faith in his person commandeth obedience to his precepts; whereby, though he doth not confirm but repeal the ceremonial and judicial, he doth not repeal but confirm the moral laws: for in commanding obedience to them in the New Testament, he both continues and confirms the obligatory power he had put into them in the Old: so that we are now so far from being free from them, that we are more bound than before to perform obedience to them. As Peter is said to be bound with two chains, Acts 21:6; so are we now bound to the obligation of the law as it were with a double cord; the one made by God our Maker, the other by God-man our Mediator. Hence it is that the apostle saith, Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law, Rom. 3:81. So that the law is so far from being abolished, that it is established by * faith, even by that faith that justifies a sinner, which the law without faith could never do; and therefore it is established by its attaining that end for which it was at the first enacted, even the justification of such as were subject to it. Nay, and further, the law through Christ is also established, by having perfect obedience performed to it, which without him it could never have had: all other persons in the world that were made under the law were transgressors of it, but only he who was perfectly obedient unto it. And so he did not teach us by precept only, but by example also, to obey the moral law.
Which things being considered, though we cannot deny but that we are redeemed by Christ from the curse of the law, Gal. 3:18, from being justified only by the law, and from the rigour of the law, that it would accept of no obedience but what wash every way perfect and complete; I say, though we may be said to be thus free from the law, yet we are not free from performing obedience unto it. So that we Christians, that believe in a crucified Jesus, are bound to keep the moral law, as well as the Jews that expect a promised Messiah.
But after scripture, reason itself may plead in this case. For, 1, the moral law is that eternal, unchangeable rule of justice and equity, that is infinitely and incomprehensibly in God. Yea, the eternal will of God itself is the fountain of this law, as well as this law is to be the rule of our lives. Nay; the moral law is indeed nothing else but the unchangeable will of God, revealed for the instruction and direction of man so that to say the moral law is abolished, is as much as to say the will of God is changed, which is impossible it should ever do. 2. The moral law was established before Christ was promised; nay, Christ was not promised before that law was transgressed; nay, therefore, because the law was transgressed, therefore I say was Christ promised. So that the reason of Christ’s being promised, and the end of his being incarnate, was not that he might break and disannul, but that he might bind and confirm the law. Again, the ceremonial laws and judicial also began in Moses, and therefore might well end in Christ: but the moral law was implanted * in the soul as soon as the soul was breathed into the body, which our Saviour intimates when he saith, Moses suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so, Matt. 19:8; implying that the moral law was before Moses, even from the beginning; and if it was from the beginning, it will certainly be till the end of the world. For seeing it was from the beginning, it must needs be planted in the soul by the finger of God himself; and that which God the Father planted, be sure God the Son never plucked up. Especially considering, 3, that the moral law was not made only for one particular time or people, as the ceremonial and judicial were, which were made only for the nation of the Jews, and to last no longer than the coming of the promised Messiah but the moral was made for a standing law to all nations, and that to the end of the world. And therefore it is that they that never heard of the law of Moses preached and explained to them, have this law written and engraven in them; so that, will they nill they, their own consciences will force them to acknowledge that God ought to be worshipped, and their neighbours righted; which is the sum of this moral law; insomuch that we need not produce any more arguments to convince any one that they ought to obey this law; for every one hath an unanswerable argument in his own breast, every man’s conscience forcing him to confess what this Article asserts, that he is not free from the obedience of the laws which are called moral.
To scripture and reason we might in the next place add the Fathers. But seeing it is a truth so generally received by all men, though not in their lives, yet in their consciences, I shall pick out some few of them to speak for the rest, not only of the Fathers, but of their fellow creatures. First, Clemens Romanus, who having shewed how it is only by faith in Christ that we are justified before God, lest any one should take occasion from thence to think obedience to the law superfluous, presently adds, * “What therefore shall we do, brethren? Shall we cease from doing good, and forsake charity? The Lord by no means will suffer that to be done by us. Let us haste with diligence and alacrity to perfect every good work.” And afterwards, * “We see how all just persons are adorned with good works, and the Lord himself rejoiceth to adorn himself with works. Having therefore this example, let us diligently obey his will, and with all our strength work the work of righteousness.” Where we may observe, 1, how such as are just do not therefore lay aside good works because justified by Christ; but because justified by Christ they therefore adorn themselves with good works: and, 2, that God himself adorns himself with good works, and therefore certainly we cannot be free from them, who are bound to be like him, 1 Pet. 1:15.
St. Basil also shews how the. same things are commanded in the New Testament that were commanded in the Old, * “That the Lord both in the Old and New Testament hath the same end in his commands, even to meet with the effects of sin, and to out wickedness off in the very first beginning. For as the old law said, Thou shalt not commit adultery; but the Lord Christ, Thou shalt not covet; and that, Thou shalt not steal [kill]; but he, commanding perfecter things, Thou shalt not be angry; so here, the law is content with swearing aright, but he cutteth off the very occasion of perjury.” So that the same law is not only now in force that it was before, but that also in a stricter sense; and therefore he saith elsewhere, “That Christi * came not to destroy the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill them, and to add more perfect things to them.”
And so the same Father again in another place speaks fully to our purpose. “But * because of those things that are in use with us, some are delivered by the command of God in the holy scripture, others passed by in silence concerning these things that are written, there is no power given to any one whatsoever, either to do any thing that is forbidden, or to leave undone any thing that is commanded.”
Irenaeus also speaking of our Saviour’s exposition of the law, Matt. 5, saith, * “For all these things do not contain any contrariety or dissolution of the ancient moral laws, as they that hold with Marcion talk, but their fullness and extension, as himself saith, Unless your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
I shall trouble no more of the Fathers in so clear and undoubted a truth, but only St. Augustine: “For if we * distinguish betwixt the two Testaments, the Old and the New, the sacraments are not the same, nor the promises the same, but the precepts are for the most part the same. For, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Honour thy father and thy mother, Do not bear false witness, Do not covet thy neighbour’s goods, Do not covet thy neighbour’s wife, are commands which are laid also upon us, and whosoever doth not observe them erreth.” And Gregorius Neocaesariensis, or Thaumaturgus, who tells us, “God the Lord and beholder of all things is to be feared in the first place, and his commands are to be observed; and let every one be fully persuaded that all things must hereafter be brought to judgment, and every one shall receive according to the merit of their works, whether they be good or evil.” Concluding this as Olympiodorus doth his comment upon Ecclesiastes “But now * we being so well taught by the Preacher, let us fear God and keep his commandments with all our diligence and study: for all our salvation is laid up in the mercies of the Lord, and the clemency of the Judge, with whom, and by whom, to God the Father and Holy Spirit, be glory now and for evermore. Amen.”
Article VIII
Of the Three Creeds.
The Three Creeds, Nice Creed, Athanasius’s Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought throughly to be received and believed; for they may be proved by most certain warrants of holy scripture.
Our Saviour immediately before his ascension commanded baptism to be administered in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Matt. 28:19; his church * hath therefore in all ages required the profession of faith in these three Persons of all that were to be baptized: and therefore, to prepare her catechumeni for baptism, she hath still instructed them in what they ought to believe concerning each Person, which when they had learned, acknowledged, and professed, either by themselves or their sureties, they were presently received by baptism into the church of Christ.
Now for the better understanding of what they were bound thus to acknowledge, the church used still to give them, in plain and familiar terms, a brief but full explication and description of every Person in whose names they were to be baptized; which explication or description of the Persons in the Holy Trinity was afterwards called the * symbol, creed, or rule of faith, because it contained whatsoever was necessary to be believed and acknowledged in order to baptism. Now the church of Christ being scattered abroad into several nations and countries much distant one from another, and yet each particular church still retaining the same way of fitting her catechumeni and * competentes for baptism, though they all agreed in setting down the three Persons themselves in their Creeds, yet they differed something in the explication of them; some giving it in more, others in fewer terms, but still retaining the same order, first setting down the Father, then the Son, and then the Holy Ghost. And hence it is that there have been so many creeds composed since our Saviour’s time, all differing in some circumstances, though all agreeing in the substance, viz. We believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which is the sum and substance of them all.
Now of all the creeds that were ever made, those that have been of the most esteem and greatest authority in the church of Christ are the Nicene Creed, Athanasius’s Creed, and the creed which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed; of which three creeds this article treats, and asserts them to be all agreeable to the word of God, and may be proved from it. And each of these creeds, by the assistance of the Holy Trinity they speak of, I shall endeavour to give some light unto. And I think I need not do any thing more to prove them agreeable to the word of God, than to discover what they are; for he that doth but know that cannot but acknowledge the other. Of every one of them therefore in their order.
And first of the Nice or Nicene Creed: which that we may rightly understand, we must know that in the fourth century after our Saviour’s incarnation, in the year of our Lord 325, there arising a contention in the church concerning the keeping of Easter, as also concerning the divinity of Christ, which Anus the heretic did most blasphemously oppose; other means failing, it pleased the most high God to put it into the heart of that pious and renowned emperor Constantine the Great, for the composing the contention about Easter, and the suppressing the heresy of Arius, by letters to call together all the bishops of the Christian world to meet at Nice, a city of Bithynia; which was the first general, and therefore the most famous council that ever was celebrated since the apostles’ time; for the emperor’s letters were no sooner divulged, but the bishops and ministers of the church of Christ from * all places of the world do with joy * and triumph meet together in the place appointed, to the number of 318.
Being met, amongst other things they consulted about the settling of one rule of faith over the whole world. For though they all (some heretics excepted) agreed in the fundamentals of religion, and in the substance of the Creed, believing in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, yet coming from such remote places from one another, they differed in the explications thereof, some having received fewer or more explications into their creeds than others; and as many as thought fit presented the creeds themselves were baptized into to the consideration of the council, to be settled and confirmed by it. Amongst the rest Pamphilus Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea Palestina, presents his; which was this:
“We believe * in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things, visible and invisible and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of God, Light of Light, Life of Life, the only-begotten Son, the first begotten of every creature, before all worlds begotten of God the Father, by whom also all things were made; who for our salvation was incarnate, and conversed amongst men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again to judge both the quick and dead and we believe in one Holy Ghost and every one of these to be and exist, the Father truly a Father, the Son truly a Son, the Holy Ghost truly an Holy Ghost.”
This creed Eusebius presented to the council with this preamble; “The faith expounded * by us, and as we have received from the bishops that were before us in our first catechizing, and when we received baptism, as we have learned from the holy scriptures, as we believed and taught in our presbytery, yea, and in our episcopacy too, and believing the same now, we snake known our faith unto you. And this is it, We believe in one God, &c.” From whence we may see that this creed or symbol, and so every part of it, was anciently received in the church before, and therefore that the Nicene council was not the first that called [Christ] “God of God,” and * “Light of Light”.
Eusebius having presented this creed to the council, the emperor, * being present, was much pleased with it, and assented to it, and required the same from the council too. And therefore they made it the groundwork of the creed they intended to confirm. But besides some other alterations that they made in it not so considerable, seeing one end of their meeting was to suppress the Arian heresy that denied the divinity of Christ, they therefore inserted into the creed that the Son was homoousios, or of the same substance with the Father (which was not a word new coined by themselves, but had been used in the like case by the Fathers long before that time): and so they made up their creed after this manner:
The Nicene Creed.
“We believe * in one God the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things, visible and invisible and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, the only begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father; God of God; Light of Light; very God of very God; begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, both that are in heaven and that are upon earth; who for us men and for our salvation descended, was made flesh, and became man: he suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven, and will come again to judge both the quick and the dead: and in the Holy Ghost.”
After the creed they immediately added an anathema, which ran thus: * “But such as say there was a time when he was not, and before he was begotten he was not, and that he was made of nothing; or such as say the Son of God is of another substance or essence, or convertible, or changeable, such the catholic and apostolic church pronounceth accursed.”
This creed, with the anathema annexed to it, the whole council approved and subscribed to, even all the 318 * persons in it, only five of the Arian heretics that excepted against the word consubstantial. And so we see this creed, when first confirmed by this council, went no further than the Holy Ghost. But six and fifty years after, viz. anno Dom. 381, Theodosius the emperor, * for the further confirmation of the Nicene faith, the ordination of a bishop of Constantinople, and for the suppression of the Macedonian heresy that was then broached, denying the divinity of the Holy Ghost; say, for these reasons, the emperor caused another general council to be held at Constantinople, where they being met did unanimously confirm the Nicene Creed, but with several other explications inserted into it. For besides other things, whereas the Nicene Creed ended at these words, “And in the Holy Ghost,” the creed confirmed by this council runs thus, “And in the Holy Ghost, * the Lord and Giver of life, proceeding from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets: and in one catholic and apostolic church: we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins: we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life everlasting.”
With these additions at the end, and other explications (which we shall see presently) inserted into the body of it, did the Constantinopolitan council confirm the Nicene Creed; not as if this council first put these explications into it; for before this council sat, Cyril of Hierusalem, as one well observes, in his explication of the Creed, doth not end where the Nicene doth, at the Holy Ghost, but as the Creed confirmed by this council doth, even at P eternal life. And we find Epiphanius also, who wrote his Anchorate six or seven years before this council, hath in that set down this creed with the same insertions into it wherewith the Constantinopolitan council did afterwards confirm it, and saith, it is the faith * delivered by the apostles and the 318 bishops in the Nicene council. Which gives me ground to think, that though the Nicene council did at the first confirm the Creed with no more in it than we have set down, yet that afterwards they did conclude upon other explications of it, which might be inserted into it. And that which confirms me the more in it is, because I find * Athanasius himself saying, that the writings or acts of the Nicene synod assert, that “the Son is of the same substance with the Father,” and that “the Holy Ghost is to be glorified together with the Father and the Son;” which words are part of the additions that were in the Nicene Creed when the Constantinopolitan council confirmed it. Which makes me think, that were not the Acts of that synod (which he and Gregorius Caesariensis * speak of) lost, we might find most, if not all of the other additions concluded upon then, but not inserted into the Creed, because that there was enough already contained in it to oppose all the heresies that were then abetted.
But howsoever, whether the Nicene Fathers concluded upon these explications whilst sitting in council, or whether any of them when the council was dismissed inserted them into the Creed out of what had been spoken and confirmed before in the synod, or whether some others did afterwards gather these several explications together out of other creeds and put them into this; I say, which way soever of these it was that these insertions came into the Creed, be sure the Constantinopolitan * was the first general council that confirmed the Creed with them in it, and upon that account may well be asserted to have added these explications to it; there being no other oecumenical council, or indeed any other council at all before that, that approved and confirmed the Creed with these explications inserted into it. For though the Nicene council itself should be thought to have approved and confirmed the truth of every explication with their authority, yet it is manifest they did not insert them into their Creed, so many several persons, some whereof were present there, having recorded the Creed as established by that council without any one of these explications in it. And there being no other general council betwixt the Nicene and Constantinopolitan, nor any council at all that we read of which confirmed that Creed with these explications in it before the Constantinopolitan; and seeing the Constantinopolitan did take these several explications, and add them to that Creed which was before confirmed by the Nicene council without them; their insertion into the Creed may upon good grounds be principally ascribed to that council. And though before this council the Nicene Creed did mostly run as we have before described, yet after this council it always ran thus:
The Nicene Creed enlarged by the council of Constantinople.
“We believe * in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate he suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and dead, whose kingdom shall have no end. And (we believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. And (we believe) one catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.”
This Creed thus confirmed now by the second, as it had been before by the first general council, it is presently dispersed and carried about from Constantinople to most Christian churches in the world. Being brought as to others, so in particular to the Western churches, it was presently put (it is thought first by pope * Damasus) into their liturgies, even in the same manner as we have now set it down. But there arising afterwards a controversy amongst them, whether the Spirit proceeded from the Father only, or from the Father and Son both, the Eastern churches generally held, that he proceeded from the Father only, not from the Son, the Western, that he proceedeth both from the Father and the Son. Upon which they had * several disputes about it; but at length the Western or Latin church caused it to be inserted into their Creed. For whereas the Constantinopolitan council had said no more than “who proceedeth from the Father,” they made it, “who proceedeth from the Father and the Son:” which being done without the consent of the Greek or Eastern church, proved one of the causes of the vast schism betwixt the Eastern and Western churches; which though it was often attempted, yet it could never be throughly made up, until the very taking of Constantinople by the Turks, an. Dom. 1453, nor indeed is it to this day perfectly composed.
The Spanish and French churches were the * first that inserted this into their Creed, and not long after them the English too; and so hath the Creed continued ever since in our public liturgies with this truth inserted into it; and so it remaineth to this day as any one may see that pleaseth to cast his eyes upon this Creed as it stands in the order for the administration of the Lord’s Supper.
And this I suppose is the Creed intended in this article, called by the name of the Nice, or Nicene Creed; because though there be several explications in it that were not inserted by the Nicene council, yet there was nothing inserted by the Nicene but what is expressly contained in this; neither is there any thing inserted into this but what is virtually contained in that. And the Nicene council, that first confirmed this Creed, being of greater authority and more renown than any others that afterwards enlarged it, it hath * therefore still retained the name (as well it might) of the Nicene Creed, not only amongst us, but * others too.
Of this Creed it is here said, (as of the others,) that it ought throughly to be received and believed, and that it may be proved by sufficient warrant from scripture; which truly might easily be shewn, was it not proved in other places. But there is scarce any thing in it but what is expressed in other places in these Articles, and there shewn to be consonant, not only to the scriptures, but also to reason and the Fathers too; and therefore I shall not take it into pieces here, but only shew in general what esteem the Fathers of old had of this Creed.
And here I might first shew (but that I have spoken of it before) how there were above 300 Fathers at one time in the council of Nice, that then did unanimously subscribe unto it: amongst the whom Athanasius himself was one, who hath likewise left his own judgment in particular upon it, in his writings, saying, amongst other things, * “Let the things that were confessed by the Nicene council prevail; for they are right, and sufficient to overturn all the most wicked heresies, but especially the Arian, that blasphemeth the Word of God, and so necessarily speaketh evil of the Holy Ghost also.” After this, the next general council confirmed the same faith too; for Sozomen tells us, that “afterwards * Nectarius and the other priests, meeting together in the Constantinopolitan council, determined that the faith of the council should remain firm, and that every heresy should be abolished.” But this council, as I have shewn before, did not only confirm the Nicene Creed itself, but the other explications also of it that are inserted into it. And afterwards the next general council held at Ephesus confirmed what was done by both. For in this council, as Evagrius * saith, “the holy Creed of the council of Nice being read, and the determination also of the hundred and fifty Fathers (at Constantinople), they added, This wise and excellent symbol of the Divine grace is sufficient for the perfect knowledge and establishment of piety.” Nay, and the fourth general council at Chalcedon subscribed to the same Creed too, as the same Evagrius relates. Whence the Fathers say in the Constantinopolitan council, ann. 518, “The holy Creed or symbol * in which we are all baptized, the synod met together by the Holy Spirit at Nice declared, the convent of the holy Fathers at Constantinople established, the holy synod at Ephesus strengthened, and the great and holy synod at Chalcedon also confirmed.” The * same was also acknowledged by an ancient council here in England, ann. 673.
Indeed this Creed, thus established by the first general councils, hath been received by all Christian churches in the world; so that not only we European, but the African Christians also profess and acknowledge it: as we may see in that confession of faith made by Glaudius, king of AEthiopia, an. Dom. 1555, where he saith, * “But we walk in the royal, plain, and true way, and do not turn aside either to the right hand or to the left from the true doctrine of our Fathers, the twelve apostles, and of Paul the fountain of wisdom, and of the seventy-two disciples, and of the 318 orthodox (Fathers) that were gathered together at Nice, and of the 150 at Constantinople, and the 200 at Ephesus.” So that if there be any, this doctrine contained in this Creed must needs be the catholic doctrine of the church of Christ.
And hence it is that Epiphanius, speaking of this Creed, saith, * “Do not ye cease, O faithful and orthodox men, to preserve this the holy with of the catholic church, as the holy and only virgin of God (the church) hath received it from the holy apostles of the Lord, and so to bring your catechumens for the future to the holy baptism.” With this agrees that of St. Basil; * “Both such as have been prepossessed with another confession of faith, and now are willing to be brought over to the unity of the orthodox, and such also as desire now to be instructed in the word of truth, it is necessary they should be taught the faith that was written by the holy Fathers in the council that was gathered together at Nice.”
And hence it is also, that about an. Dom. 512, * “Timothy, patriarch of Constantinople, being desired by his friends (as Theodorus Lector relates) took care that the Nicene Creed should be read every time that the Lord’s Supper was administered, for the reproof of Macedonius that did not receive this symbol; which before was read only once a year, upon the holy eve of the Lord’s passion, at the time when the bishop catechized.” And ever since that time hath that, and the other Greek churches in the East, as well as our Latin ones in the West, used still to read this Creed at the Communion or Lord’s Supper; so that ours is not the first nor the only church that hath commanded it to be read at that time.
And what I have spoken of this Nicene Creed may be applied also to both the other, there being nothing in either of them but what is virtually if not expressly contained in this; so that they that receive this cannot deny them. And therefore, having spoken so much to this, I need speak but little concerning the other, besides the discovery of what those other creeds are, that this article saith ought to be received. And the next in order is Athanasius’s Creed, so called from one Athanasius, once bishop of Alexandria, so famous for his opposing the Arian heresy in the time of the Nicene council, who was the supposed author of this Creed.
Athanasius’s Creed.
*“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep wholly and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this, That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal. As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty and yet they are not three Almighties but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three Gods but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Ghost is Lord; and yet they are not three Lords but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say there be three Gods or three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So that there is one Father not three Fathers, one Son not three Sons, one Holy Ghost not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another, none is greater or less than another; but the whole three Persons are coeternal together and coequal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God of the substance of the Father begotten before the worlds; and man of the substance of his mother born in the world; perfect God and perfect man, of an human soul and flesh subsisting; equal to the Father as touching his Godhead, inferior to the Father as touching his manhood; who though he be God and man yet he is not two but one Christ; one not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God; one altogether, not by confusion of substance but by unity of Person; for as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven; he sitteth on the right of the Father God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge both the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works and they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he can never be saved.”
This incomparable Creed, some think Anastasius, * others Eusebius Vercellensis, * others that some learned Frenchman * made it; but the most and the ancientest ascribe it to Athanasius. And truly though we cannot produce any certain argument from whence to prove it, yet this we know, there is nothing in it (especially in the Greek copies) but what is consonant to his other works; and that it hath been received in the church for above this four hundred,* six hundred, * yea, for above this eight hundred years together. For Hincmarus, that lived an. Dom. 850, commands his presbyters, * “That every one would commit to his memory the words of Athanasius concerning faith, the beginning whereof is, ‘Whosoever will be saved,’ and understand the sense of it, and so be able to pronounce it in common words.”
But howsoever, whether Athanasius be the author of it or no, be sure the Creed before rehearsed is the Creed that goes under his name, and by consequence that which we are to understand in this article by Athanasius’s Creed, it going under that name as in others, so in our liturgy in particular. And it containing nothing but what is somewhere or other in these Articles proved from scripture, reason, and Fathers, the doctrine of it must needs be received as true, and consonant to the word of God.
The next is that which is commonly called “The Apostles’ Creed,” which, as every one knows, runs thus:
The Apostles’ Creed.
“I believe in God * the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried: he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty from thence he shall come to judge both the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, and the life everlasting. Amen.”
Of this Creed it is here said that it is commonly called “the Apostles’ Creed;” and so indeed it is; and that not only at this time and in this place, but it was so called by several of the Fathers themselves, who avouched the apostles themselves for its composers. For so saith St Ambrose; “For the holy faith * is conceived in the Creed of the twelve apostles, who like wise workmen being met together, by their council they forged a key. For I may call the Creed itself a certain key, whereby the darkness of the Devil is opened, and the light of Christ comes in.” And Ruffinus gives us it at large, saying, * “Our ancestors delivered by tradition or report, that after the ascension of the Lord, when by the coming of the Holy Spirit the fiery tongues sat upon all the apostles, that they could speak diverse and various languages, whereby no remote nation, no barbarous language, seemed inaccessible to them, and in the way there being a command given them from the Lord, that they should go and preach the word of God to every nation; being therefore to depart from one another, they appoint one rule of preaching in common amongst them, lest when taken from one another they might expound and deliver diverse things to them that were turned to the faith of Christ. Being therefore all together, and filled with the Holy Ghost, they drew up this short form of their future preaching, as we said, every one giving in what himself thought; and then they appoint that this should be given as the rule of faith to all believers. And this they would have called the Symbol for many and just causes.” And what Ruffinus here delivers is delivered also by * Isidorus Hispalensis, * Venantius Honorius Clementianus, yea, and in the 181st sermon * De Tempore, ascribed to St. Austin: in all which, not only the same sense is expressed, but almost by the same words too, as if not only the same form of faith had been received by tradition, but also the same form of tradition had itself been received by tradition too.
Of this symbol it is also that Leo Magnus saith, * “The short and perfect confession of this catholic symbol, which is made up of the twelve sentences of so many apostles, is so furnished with heavenly munition, that they with their own sword are able to beat all the opinions of the heretics.” And St. Hierome saith, * “That the symbol of our faith and hope which was delivered by the apostles is not written in paper or ink, but in the fleshly tables of the heart.”
But in the sermons De Tempore there is set down also the particular articles that every one of the apostles put in. * “Peter said, I believe in God the Father Almighty; John said, The maker of heaven and earth; James said, I believe in Jesus Christ his only-begotten Son our Lord; Andrew said, Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary; Philip said, He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; Thomas said, He descended into hell, the third day he rose again from the dead; Bartholomew said, He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; Matthew said, From thence he will come to judge both the quick and the dead; James, the son of Alphaeus, I believe also in the Holy Ghost, the holy catholic church; Simon Zelotes, The communion of saints, the remission of sins; Judas, the brother of James, The resurrection of the flesh; Matthias added, The life everlasting.”
And thus we see how commonly this Creed was of old called the Apostles’ Creed; every part whereof is somewhere or other in these Articles proved (as the other are) consonant both to scripture, reason, and Fathers. And therefore we conclude that the three Creeds, Nice Creed, Athanasius’s Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, ought throughly to be received aired believed.
Article IX
Of Original or Birth Sin.
Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagian do vainly talk,) but is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world it deserveth God’s wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated, whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek φρόνημα σαρκος, which some do expound the wisdom, some the sensuality, some the affection, some the desire of the flesh, is not subject to the law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, yet the apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin.
Though there be no such words as original sin to be found in the scripture, yet that there is such a thing as original sin to be found in our own hearts, we have all too woeful experience of it. And therefore supposing the thing so sadly experienced by us all, here we have it described, and that both negatively and positively, both what it is not, and what it is. First, [it here sheweth MS.] “it is here shewed what it is not, or wherein it doth not consist; viz. it doth not consist in the following of Adam, as the Pelagians [So called from one Pelagius, a Welshman, and therefore termed Pelagius Brito. So St. Augustine, Pelagium quem credimus (ut ab alio distingueretur qui Pelagius Tarenti dicitur) Britonem fuisse cognominatum. Aug. Epist. {186. vol. II.} ad Paulinum. This person lived an. Dom. 410 and was the broacher and abettor of many dangerous opinions. Amongst the rest, he held that we are not born sinners, and that Adam’s sin was not imputed to us, nor did it hurt any one but himself. But in the Diospolitan synod in Palestina, for fear of the sentence that should have been passed upon him, he renounced that opinion, and acknowledged that Adam’s sin was prejudicial to his posterity also, and anathematized all such as thought otherwise. But the synod being dissolved, though he would still seem to hold what he there acknowledged, even that Adam by his sin did his posterity hurt, as well as himself, yet then he explained more fully what he meant, viz. that he did hurt his posterity indeed by his sin, but not by propagation of his sin to them, but by giving them so bad an example; as if his sin was not propagated to them {by them MS. to them ed. 1716.}, but they imitated his sin. Hence St. Austin: {quoted Latin} Aug. contra Pelag. et Celest. de peccato originali. {l. ii. 16. vol. X.}] of old held. But, secondly and positively, it is here said to be both the fault and corruption of man’s nature: it is the fault, and therefore we are guilty of it; it is the corruption also, and therefore we are defiled with it. Neither is it the fault and corruption of some, but * all; all that naturally, or according to the common course of nature, proceed from Adam; all have this fountain of sin in their hearts, and all issue forth the streams of sin in their lives; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil. He was made full of righteousness, but that he lost; he was made empty of sin, but that he found: so that he is not only emptied of the righteousness he was before filled with, but also filled with the sin he was before empty of. So that he that before did not only not hate God but love him, now doth not only not love him but hate him; and he that before did not only not love sin but hate it, now doth not only not hate sin but love it, his nature being now averse from good and inclined to evil, as it was before averse to evil and inclined to good; so that the flesh lusteth, contrary to the Spirit, and therefore in every person born into this world it deserveth wrath and damnation. For in that it is a fault, it must needs transgress God’s precepts; and in that it transgresseth his precepts, it must needs incense his person, and so deserve wrath and damnation, and therefore damnation because wrath. For it is the wrath of God that is the damnation and torment of a soul in hell; as his love is the salvation and glory of a saint in heaven. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated. So that though grace in this life may take away the strength, it cannot take away the life of sin. But though a saint may not live in sin, still sin will live in him. His strong sins may every day grow weaker and weaker, and his weak graces may every day grow stronger and stronger; but his weak graces will never be perfectly strengthened, * nor his strong sins perfectly weakened, so long as he is in this life. So that though there shall be no condemnation to them hereafter, yet there are corruptions in them here; the apostle himself confessing lust and concupiscence to be a sin, which no saint but will himself confess to be in him. The sum of all which is this: Adam’s sin is imputed to us, and we are infected with it, and that not only before, but after we are born again, even so long as in this life. All which I shall briefly prove from scripture, reason, and Fathers.
First, the scriptures do plainly shew that Adam’s sin is our guilt as well as his, and that we did as really sin in him as we proceed from him. For so saith the apostle; Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. Rom. 5:12. Where we see the apostle saying, All have sinned before all were born, which could not be unless they had before sinned in him from whom they were born. And so many render the words, * In whom all have sinned; and therefore the same apostle tells us, In Adam all died, 1 Cor. 15:22. Now how could all die in him, unless all sinned in him? For death is the wages of sin only, as well as the only wages of sin. And that we are not only guilty of this sin, but also defiled with it, the Psalmist is plain, saying, * Behold I was shalom in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me, Psalm 51:5. So that sin was in his heart whilst he was in his mother’s womb; for seeing he was conceived in sin, sin must needs be conceived in him: and the apostle, that we were by nature the children of wrath, even as others, Eph. 2:3; and how can we be the children of wrath, unless we be first the parents of sin? Certainly there can be no other way that we can be by nature subject to wrath, the wages of sin, but because we are by nature subject to those sins that deserve this wrath. And so our Saviour tells us, that which is born of the flesh is flesh, John 3:6 that which is born of flesh corrupted with sin must needs be itself flesh corrupted with sin. And that this infection remains even after regeneration the apostle asserts in saying, If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us, 1 John 1:8. So that for any man to say he hath no sin, he commits sin in saying so, for in plain terms he lies. And therefore David saith, Enter not into judgment with thy servant, for in thy sight shall no man living be justified, Psalm 143:2. And certainly there is none perfectly freed from sin, when St. Paul himself saith, Sin dwelleth in me, Rom. 7:17: and, I delight in the law of God after the inward man but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members, ver. 23. And hence it is that the lust of the flesh is not subject to the law of God, Rom. 8:7; and this very lust of the flesh, or concupiscence, is not of the Father, but of the world, 1 John 2:16; nay, and it is expressly forbidden in the tenth commandment, Thaw shalt not covet, or lust, which the apostle takes notice of, saying, I had not known lust, unless the law had said, Thou shalt not covet, Rom. 7:7. And therefore this lust being itself a * sin, and the saints themselves being subject to it, sin must needs remain in them even after they are converted from it.
And if we proceed to reason for its determination of these things, we may briefly argue thus: first, that Adam’s sin is our guilt is plain, in that we were in his loins when he committed it. As Levi paid tithes in Abraham’s loins to Melchisedeck, Heb. 7:9, 10, so did we commit sin in Adam’s loins against God. Though himself was a particular person, yet was the * whole human nature not only represented by him, but contained in him; and therefore was he called not by any particular or proper name, but Adam, that is, man in general. And all mankind thus being in him, whatsoever be did all mankind could not but do with him. If he had stood, all mankind had stood with him; and so he falling, all mankind fell in him. And, secondly, that it is our corruption or infection as well as guilt is plain upon the same ground too. For as we being in him, he sinning we could not but sin in him; so he becoming a sinner, we could not but become sinners in him too: especially considering that this Adam begat Seth, and so all his posterity, in his own likeness, Gen. 5:3; and if in his own likeness, then * sinners like himself. As a wolf begets wolves, not lambs; so he a sinner begat sinners, not saints. If he had begotten his posterity when a saint, he had begotten saints; but begetting them when a sinner, he could not but beget sinners. And hence * a child is a sinner as soon as born, yea as soon as conceived, before it hath any sin committed by it, it hath sin conceived in it. And therefore it was that under the law children were commanded to be circumcised the eighth day, and under the Gospel to be baptized * whilst infants, to shew that even whilst infants they contracted a natural guilt by coming through their parents’ loins, which cannot be washed away but by the blood of Christ. And lastly, that this infection remains, even when the person is born again, so long as in this life, is plain, in that otherwise heaven would be brought down to earth, and earth turned into heaven. For to have sin perfectly subdued under us, and grace perfectly confirmed in us, is certainly the crown of the crown of glory, the very heaven of heaven, which I cannot see how any one can in reason expect, so long as himself is upon earth. But I need not speak any more to this, which is so sadly experienced by all Christians. None that have any grace will say they have no sin; and he that saith he hath no sin, it is an argument to me that he hath no grace. He that doth not find sin warring against his graces, surely hath no grace to war against his sins. And so to heap up arguments to prove this, would be to spend time to prove that which nobody can deny, nay that which if any one doth deny it, his very denying it is a proof of it.
And this hath been the doctrine of the catholic church in all ages. St. Cyprian tells us, * “There were before Christ also famous men, prophets and priests; but being conceived and born in sin, they wanted neither original nor personal guilt.” And elsewhere, * “But if the forgiveness of sins is granted to the greatest offenders, and such as sinned very much against God, when they have believed, and no one is kept back from baptism and grace, how much more ought an infant not to be forbidden it, who being newly born hath committed no sin, but that it being after a carnal manner born of Adam, it hath contracted the contagion of the old death in its first nativity? Who cometh easier to receive remission of sins, in that not its own but another’s sins are pardoned to it; that is, not the sins committed in its own person, but only that which was committed by Adam.”
And Athanasius saith, * “That as Adam sinning, the sin descended to all men; so the Lord conquering, that his conquest at last comes to us.” And Origen, * “Every one that cometh into this world is said to be affected with a certain pollution and therefore the scripture saith, There is none clean from filth, though he be but one day old. Upon this very account therefore, because a man is placed in his mother’s womb, and receiveth the materials of his body from his father’s seed, he may therefore be said to be defiled both in his father and mother.” And hence is that of St. Basil, * “Here is mercy without judgment, for he did not come to judge the world, but to save the world: but there will not be judgment without mercy, because there cannot be a man found that is clear from filth, though it be his birthday.”
St. Ambrose expresseth it elegantly; * “Who is he that lends out sin but the devil? from whom Eve having borrowed sin, by the usury of obnoxious succession she lent it out again to all mankind.”
But who can speak fuller to this purpose than St. Augustine, who hath written many books in the defence of this truth? And he, amongst many other things I might quote, saith expressly, * “For as infants do not imitate Christ, because they cannot, and yet may belong to his spiritual [grace] , so without the imitation of the first man, yet they are bound with the infection of being begotten carnally of him.”
And that this infection remains also after baptism, the same Father is express: * “Let it not be thought that we should say that (lust or concupiscence) is sanctified, with which the regenerate themselves are forced to conflict, in a certain intestine war as with an enemy, and to desire and pray to be healed from that plague.” And elsewhere, * “So long as thou livest here, sin will necessarily be in thy members; but howsoever, let the dominion of it be taken away, let it not be obeyed in what it commands.” And again; * “Is all iniquity blotted out (in baptism)? Doth no infirmity remain? If no infirmity remain, we might live without sin. But who can say this, unless he be proud? unless unworthy of the mercy of the Redeemer? unless he will deceive himself, and be one in whom there is no truth?” And elsewhere; * “Though in that we are born of God we cannot commit sin; yet there is still that in us that we were born of Adam.” I shall conclude this with that of Fulgentius; * “ For the saints themselves see that though through grace they are free from the contagion of evil works, yet that they are held captive by the variety of thoughts. For who can glory that he hath a chaste heart? or who can glory that he is quite cleansed from sin? Let us consider who and how just a person it was that said, In many things we offend all.” And thus we see the Fathers too asserting that original sin standeth, not in the following of Adam, &c.
Article X
Of Freewill.
The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon God: wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable unto God, without the grace of Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.
When man fell from God, great was his fall indeed; for he fell from the Creator to the creature; he fell from heaven to earth; he fell from the height of happiness to the depth of misery, for he fell from holiness into sin. And ever since man first fell from holiness to sin, he hath been unable to rise again from sin to holiness. Ever since he first chose the evil before the good, he hath been unable to choose the good before the evil. I know that as he was * created at the first with freedom of will, he had power so to choose the good as to refuse the evil, and so to refuse the evil as to choose the good. And I know also, that when he fell from God he did * not quite lose that freedom of his will, for he is still a reasonable creature, and * wheresoever there is reason in the understanding there is freedom in the will. But I know withal, that this freedom of will is much corrupted and degenerated now since the fall, from what it was before the fall. Then it was free to choose the good as well as the evil; now it is free to choose the evil but not the good: then it was free from sin to holiness; now it is free from holiness to sin then it could so refuse the evil as to choose the good, and so choose the good as to refuse the evil; but now it can only so refuse the good as to choose the evil, and so choose the evil as to refuse the good. So that though the fall did not destroy it, yet it corrupted it; though the will be still * free, yet not to God, not to grace, not to piety, but only to the world, to sin, and to iniquity. And therefore it is, that as man willingly fell into sin at first, so he willingly lies in it still; and the only reason why he doth not rise again to holiness is, * because he will not: nay, he so will not, that of himself he cannot will it. For his will being itself corrupted, it cannot but choose and delight in corruption; and so it must necessarily refuse what is good and honest which necessity doth not excuse the will, as the will doth not exclude the necessity; for indeed it is a willing necessity. As the angels necessarily love God, and yet they love him willingly; so man willingly loves sin, and yet he loves it necessarily, not from any external but an internal necessity, not forced by others, but allured by himself; his own will being so taken with sin that he cannot but take delight in it, and so averse from holiness that he cannot turn to it.
And this is that which is here said, The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself; by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon God; he cannot repent, he cannot believe, he cannot turn to God, nay, he cannot so much as prepare himself for it; and why cannot he, but because he will not? And certainly if he will not, he cannot; it being impossible he should act any such thing contrary to his will and therefore if he cannot will it, he cannot do it.
Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ * preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have it. In order to the doing of good it is not only necessary the grace of God should turn our wills to it, but assist our wills in it; it is not only necessary that himself sets us on work, but that himself also worketh with us. Without him we cannot begin a good work, without him we cannot carry it on, and without him too we cannot perfect it. And this is a conclusion that necessarily follows upon the premises. For if we cannot turn ourselves to God, we cannot do any thing that is good without the assistance of God himself, for we cannot do any thing that is good until we are first turned unto God. But of that hereafter. In the meanwhile here it may suffice to consider, whether it be true indeed that a man cannot turn himself to God, and prepare himself for God, unless he receive grace and power from him.
And truly if it hath pleased my glorious Maker to entrust me with any understanding of his holy scriptures, this must needs be the purport and meaning of them for what else can we understand by these words, No man can come to me, except the Father which hath, sent me draw him, John 6:44? None can come by faith to God the Son, but he that is drawn by the grace of God the Father. Though God doth not drive us to Christ, yet he draws us to him.* He doth not drive us against our wills, but he draws us with our wills, making us a willing people in the day of his power, Psalm 110:3, and until we be thus made willing by the Father we can never come unto the Son, for no man can come to me except the Father draw him. And certainly this was St. Paul’s opinion also, when he said, Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God, 2 Cor. 3:5. If we be not sufficient of ourselves to think a good thought, how can we be able without God to act true faith? Our sufficiency, saith he, is of God; if we be able to do any thing, it is he that makes us able; if we have any sufficiency, it is he that gives it. And therefore also it is that our Saviour saith, He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth, forth much, fruit: for without me you can do nothing, John 15:5.* He doth not say, there are some things you cannot do without me, or there are many things you cannot do without me, but, without me you can do nothing, nothing good, nothing pleasing and acceptable unto God: whereas if we could either prepare ourselves [to turn,] or turn ourselves when prepared, without him, we should do much. And to put it out of doubt, the same Spirit tells us elsewhere, For it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure, * Philipp. 2:13. It is he that first enables us to will what we ought to do, and then to do what we will. Both the grace we desire, and k our desire of grace, proceeds from him. Without him we could not have any grace we would, and without him we could not will to have any grace at all. So that I am not only bound to thank him for his bestowing grace upon me, but also for my desiring grace of him for it is he that worketh in me both to will and to do, both to will and desire, and also to act and exercise grace; or, as it is here expressed in this article, it is he that prevents us that we may have a good will, and it is he that worketh, with us when we have that good will. And therefore certainly without him we can neither prepare ourselves for conversion, nor convert ourselves after preparation, unless we can prepare ourselves without having a good will, or convert ourselves without acting of it: for it is he alone that giveth this good will to us, and it is he that acteth this good will in us, without whom we could not desire it before we have it, nor act it when we have it.
Neither indeed can I in reason see how man should be able to turn himself from sin to holiness, from evil to good, as considering how he is not of himself able to discern betwixt good and evil, but still takes good for evil, and evil for good, Isa. 5:20, his understanding being so darkened that he can see nothing of God in God, nothing of holiness in holiness, nothing of good in good, nothing of evil in evil, nor any thing of sinfulness in sin. Nay, it is so darkened, that he fancies himself to see good in evil, and evil in good, happiness in sin, and misery in holiness. And therefore the apostle tells us, * The natural man receiveth, not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned, 1 Cor. 2:14. He is so far from looking upon the wisdom of God as wisdom, that he looks upon it as foolishness. Neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. They are above his reach. So that a man may as well read the letter of the scripture without eyes, as receive the mysteries of the scriptures without grace. Now considering that the will always acteth according to the ultimate dictate of the practical understanding, so as to refuse whatsoever the practical understanding brings before it under the ugly dress of evil; and to choose whatsoever it presents to it under the notion of true good; and seeing that the natural understanding presents the will with evil instead of good, and good instead of evil; it must needs follow, that the will of itself cannot refuse but choose what is truly evil, nor choose but refuse what is truly good, unless it should cross the course of nature in choosing what the understanding saith is evil, and refusing what the understanding dictates as good. And therefore so long as a man is in his natural estate, it is impossible that of himself he should so much as look after any other, seeing he accounts his own present sinful condition to be the best, and that if he should change, he should but change for the worse.
Nay further, suppose the understanding should be so far enlightened as to discern the evil from the good, yet, for all that, it would be impossible for the will of itself to prefer the good before the evil. For though it be a constant rule in natural things for the will to follow the last conclusive sentence of the practical understanding, yet it is not so in spirituals. For though the understanding do present God as the chiefest good, and sin as the greatest evil, yet the will cannot of itself embrace the former nor refuse the latter as it ought to do, and that because itself is corrupted as well as the understanding. And therefore should the understanding perform its office aright, it doth not follow the will should be able to perform its aright too; for then all the fault would be in the understanding, and the will remain as perfect after its corruption as it was in its first creation. But seeing it cannot be denied but that the * will is vitiated and depraved as well as the understanding, it must needs be granted that the will is unable to do its duty as well as the understanding. And hence it is that we find in ourselves, that though God is pleased often so far to enlighten our dark understanding as to discover the beauty of holiness and sinfulness of sin to us, yet we cannot but hate and refuse the former, we cannot but receive and love the latter. This is that which St. Paul had the woeful experience of: For that which I do I allow not for that which I would do, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. Rom. 7:15. And if it be so after, how much more is it so before conversion! And therefore it is requisite, in order to our conversion, that the understanding be not only so enlightened as to discern the evil from the good, but that our wills be so rectified as to prefer the good before the evil. By which rectifying, or bringing of the will into its right order again, its liberty is not destroyed * but healed , so that it is free after as well as before conversion; yea, free to God and holiness, as it was before free only to sin and wickedness.
And this was the doctrine of the primitive church. St. Augustine (in whose days * Pelagius first rose up against this truth) hath writ several volumes to this purpose, out of which I shall pick out only some few sentences for the confirmation of this truth. * “Neither,” saith he, “doth a man begin to be converted or changed from evil to good by the beginnings of faith, unless the free and undeserved mercy of God work it in him.” And presently, * “So therefore let the grace of God be accounted of, that from the beginning of his good conversion to the end of his perfection, he that glorieth should glory in the Lord. Because as none can begin a good work without the Lord, so none can perfect it without the Lord.”
And elsewhere the same Father saith, * “That the grace of God by Jesus Christ our Lord (which the true faith and catholic church always holds) translates or converts both small and great from the death of the first man unto the life of the second, not only by blotting out their sins, but also by helping such as can use the liberty of the will not to sin, but to live holily so as that unless he do help, we can have no piety or righteousness in word nor in will; for it is God that worketh in ns both to will and to do of his own good pleasure. For who but he that came to seek and to save that which was lost, can make any one differ from that mass of perdition? Wherefore the apostle asketh the question, saying, For who made thee to differ? Where if any one say, My faith, my will, my good work; it is answered him, For what hast thou that thou hast not received?” And again; * “For it is certain we may keep the commandments of God if we will but because the will is prepared by the Lord, (it seems not by ourselves,) we must ask of him that we may will as much as is sufficient, that willing we might do. It is certain that we do will when we will, but it is lie that makes us that we will what is good.” And presently, * “It is certain that we act when we act, but it is he that maketh us to act, affording most effectual strength unto the will.”
And thus Maxentius tells us, * “We believe that the natural freewill is able to do no more than to discern and desire carnal or worldly things; which not with God, yet perhaps amongst men may seem glorious: but those things which belong to eternal life, it can neither think, nor will, nor desire, nor perform, but only by the infusion and inward working of the Holy Ghost, which is also the Spirit of Christ.”
Fulgentius hath also many things to this purpose, that it is God that both prepares our hearts for grace, and increaseth that grace in our hearts. * “From whence we know,” saith he, “it is from God that we are willing to do good, and that we are able to do good.” And elsewhere, * “We have not therefore received the Spirit of God because we do believe, but that we may believe. For the same manner went before in the flesh of Christ, that we should spiritually acknowledge in our faith. For Christ the Son of God was according to the flesh conceived by the Holy Ghost and born; but that flesh the Virgin could neither conceive nor ever bring forth, unless the Holy Ghost had wrought the rising of the same flesh. And so in the heart of man faith can neither be conceived nor increased, unless the Holy Ghost doth both pour it in and nourish it,” And therefore he tells us in another place, * “He delivers us not by finding faith in any man, but by giving it.” And presently, * “But it is clear because, that a man should begin to believe in God, he receiveth from God repentance unto life; so that he could not believe at all unless he receiveth repentance by the gift of the merciful God. But what is man’s repentance but the changing of the will? God therefore that giveth man repentance doth also change his will.”
The second council of Orange, an. Dom. 529, determined many things to this purpose; amongst the rest they say, * “If any man say that mercy is conferred by God upon us believing, willing, desiring, endeavouring, labouring, watching, studying, asking, seeking, knocking, without the grace of God, but doth not confess that it is only by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Ghost into us that we believe, will, and are able to do all these things as we ought to do, and maketh the help of grace to follow after either man’s humility or obedience, nor will grant that it is the gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he resisteth the apostle, saying, What hast thou that thou hast not received? and, By the grace of God I am what I am.”
And so the African council too * “We determine that the sentence against Pelagius and Coelestius, uttered by the reverend bishop Innocent from the see of the blessed apostle, do remain until they acknowledge by open confession, that the grace of God by Jesus Christ our Lord doth help us by single acts, not only to know, but also to do righteousness; so that without it we can neither have, think, speak, nor do any true and holy piety.” So that we may well conclude this with that of Alcuinus; * “I could defile myself, but I cannot cleanse myself, unless thou, O Lord Jesu, by the sprinkling of thy blood, dost make me clean:” or that of Ambrosius Ansbertus; * “It is by God’s preventing grace that we are saved, and it is by his subsequent grace that we are justified;” so that we cannot turn or prepare ourselves, by our own strength, to faith, and calling upon God: wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with as when we have it.
Article XL
Of the Justification of Man.
We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own good works or deservings: wherefore, that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the homily of Justification.
Original sin (as we saw in the eighth article) being both the fault and corruption of the human nature, and so all of us not only defiled with it, but also guilty of it, man was thereby plunged into such a gulf of misery, that it is impossible for him in his own strength ever to recover himself from it. That he is not able to wash away that filth of sin that is inherent in him hath been proved in the foregoing article; that he is not able of himself to blot out that guilt of sin that lies upon him is asserted in this. There we see we could not be made righteous but by God’s grace implanted in us; here we see we cannot be accounted righteous but by Christ’s merits imputed to us. Where we may likewise observe, how whatsoever we lost in the first we gained in the second Adam. Are we accounted sinners by Adam’s sin imputed to us? we are accounted righteous by Christ’s righteousness laid upon us. Are we made sinners also by Adam’s sin inherent in us? we are made righteous also by Christ’s righteousness imparted to us; his Spirit being ours for the sanctification, as well as Adam’s sin was ours for the corruption of our natures; and his merit ours for the justification, as well as Adam’s transgression is ours for the condemnation of our persons.
By this merit it is that we are accounted righteous before God; where we may take notice by the way, how our being justified is here expressed by our being accounted righteous, and not by our being made righteous for it is not by inhesion of grace in us, but by the imputation of righteousness to us that we are justified; as it is not by the imputation of righteousness to us, but by the inhesion of grace in us that we are sanctified. Thus we find the apostle, speaking of the justification of Abraham, saying, Abraham believed God, * and it was counted to him for righteousness, Rom. 4:3. And again, But to him that worketh not, but believeth, on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness, ver. 5. And if faith is accounted righteousness, we must needs be accounted righteous by faith; and so we are justified by faith that is accounted for righteousness to us, not by grace as a principle of righteousness in us. Which also further appears, in that justification is here said to be of the ungodly, Who justifieth, the ungodly. For so long as a man is ungodly, he cannot be said to be justified by any inward and inherent, but only by an outward and imputed righteousness; so that justification is properly opposed to accusation. So St. Paul plainly, Who will lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died. Rom. 8:33, 34. Who shall accuse or lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? the Devil? their own consciences? But it is God that will justify and account them righteous. How? Because they are righteous in themselves? No; but because Christ’s merits are imputed to them who is therefore said to be made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him, 2 Cor. 5:21. How was Christ made sin for us? Not by our sins inherent in him, that is horrid blasphemy; but by our sins imputed to him, that is true divinity. And as he was made sin for us, not by the inhesion of our sins in him, but by the imputation of our sins to him, so are we made the righteousness of God in him, by the imputation of his righteousness to us, not by the inhesion of his righteousness in us. He was accounted as a sinner, and therefore punished for us, we are accounted as righteous, and therefore glorified in him. * Our sins were laid upon him, and therefore he died for us in time; his righteousness is laid upon us, and therefore we shall live with him to eternity. Thus was the innocent punished as if he was guilty, that the guilty might be rewarded as if they were innocent. And thus are we accounted as righteous in him, as he was accounted as a sinner for us. He was accounted as a sinner for us, and therefore he was condemned; we are accounted as righteous in him, and therefore we are justified. And this is the right notion of justification as distinguished from sanctification. Not as if these two were severed or divided in their subjects; no, every one that is justified is also sanctified, and every one that is sanctified is also justified. But yet the acts of justification and sanctification are two distinct things: for the one denotes the imputation of righteousness to us; the other denotes the implantation of righteousness in us. And therefore, though they be both the acts of God, yet the one is the act of God towards us, and the other is the act of God in us. Our * justification is in God only, not in ourselves; our sanctification is in ourselves only, and not in God. By our sanctification we are made righteous in ourselves, but not accounted righteous by God; by our justification we are accounted righteous by God, but not made righteous in ourselves.
And we are thus justified, or accounted righteous before God, only, for the merit of our Lord Jesus Christ, and not for our own works. As it is not by our own strength that we can be sanctified in ourselves, so it is not by our own works that we can be justified before God. But as it is only by the Spirit of Christ that our natures can be made, so it is only by the merit of Christ that our persons can be accounted righteous. And seeing this merit of Christ is made over unto us by our faith in him, we are therefore said to be justified by faith, not as it is an act in us, but as it applies Christ to us. We are therefore said to be justified by faith in Christ, because we should not be justified by Christ without faith. Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only, is wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the homily Of Justification, whither I refer the reader for more satisfaction in that particular; I in the meanwhile endeavouring to demonstrate, that this doctrine, that we are justified by faith only without works, is not only wholesome and comfortable doctrine, but also consonant both to the scripture, reason, and Fathers.
And first for the scriptures; what mystery do they more clearly open, what truth do they more expressly assert, than this? Let us hear St. Paul’s judgment in the case: Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law, * Rom. 3:28 that a * man, in general any man, high or low, Jew or Gentile, every one that is justified, is justified only by faith in Christ, not by the deeds of the law. And again: Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified, Gal. 2:16. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast, Ephes. 2:8, 9. Hence it is that we find the same apostle saying elsewhere, Yea doubtless, and I account all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do account them but dung, that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith, Phil. 3:8, 9. This doctrine the apostle also confirms in Abraham. That Abraham was accounted righteous we all grant but how, by the works of the law? No; he believed God, and that was accounted to him for righteousness, Gen. 15:6. Rom. 4:3. Now if Abraham, who performed so many good works by faith, and yet was justified by faith, and not by those good works, this (as St. Chrysostom (observes) doth much debase the merits of works and exalt the power of faith. And * St. Augustine takes notice how he here brings in Abraham for an example of our justification by faith, to shew that our being justified by faith, and not by works, should not at all lessen our endeavours after good works, but rather heighten them, seeing that Abraham, who was justified by faith, was also full of good works; though it was not by those good works, but by faith, that he was justified. And so any man, though it be not for his good works he doth that he is justified, yet if he be justified, he will do good works. And in this sense it is that St. James tells us that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only, Jam. 2:24; and faith without works is dead, ver. 26: that is, though it is by faith we are justified, and by faith only, yet not by such a faith as hath no works accompanying of it: no, every such faith is a dead faith; so that faith without works is as unable to justify us, as works without faith. And yet it is not from the works that accompany our faith, but from the faith which is accompanied by our works, that we are justified. And therefore St. Paul and St. James do not contradict each other; * for the one speaks of the works which go before, the other speaks of the works that follow after justification. A man is justified by faith only, and not by works, but a man that is justified cannot but have works also as well as faith. And as his person is justified by faith only before God, so is his faith justified by works only before men and his own conscience. It is by faith only, and not by works, that a man is accounted righteous in heaven; but it is by works only, and not by faith, that a man is esteemed righteous upon earth. So that though a man be justified by his faith that goes before, we do not know that he is justified but only by his works that follow after.
And, indeed, were the scriptures silent in this point, even in shewing that we are justified by faith only, and not by works, my reason would not suffer me to contradict it. For how is it possible that the works of finite creatures, or * any thing but the merits of Christ, should be able to blot out the sins that are committed against an infinite Creator? or that the fig leaves of our own pretended merits should hide our nakedness from the eyes of an all-seeing God? And if we cannot expiate our sins, how can we justify our persons? If we cannot but be accounted sinners for all our works, how can we be accounted as righteous for any of them? especially considering that whatsoever we have or are, is God’s our souls, bodies, estates, time, parts, gifts, all is God’s; and therefore whatsoever we do, we are bound to do it for him, seeing whatsoever we have, we have received from him. What therefore, if I should fast my body into a skeleton, and pray my tongue, and hear my ears, to their very stumps? What though I should water my couch continually with my tears, fasten my knees always to the earth by prayer, and fix my eyes constantly into heaven by meditation? What though I should give every thing I have to my poor distressed neighbours, and spend each moment of my time in the immediate worshipping of my glorious Maker? Would any of this be more than I am bound to do? Should not I still be an unprofitable servant? And * if I can do no more than is my duty unto God, how can I merit any thing by what I do for him? How can he be indebted unto me for my paying of what I owe to him?
But suppose the case for once, though it be a strange, and to me an irrational supposition, that we may merit something from God by our obedience to him; but what? must nothing less than eternal glories be accepted as a just reward for temporal duties? What! nothing less than justification here, and salvation hereafter, merited by a few weak performances? Seriously, I wonder how any one should suffer such a thought to creep into his heart, much more that any one should lodge it there, and then use all his endeavour to defend it. Certainly if any one do, he must either have very high thoughts of his own merits, or very low ones of God’s presence. For my own part, it is a greater happiness I expect when dead, than I am able to deserve whilst I am alive. And I am sure the * Fathers long before me had higher thoughts of the glories of heaven, than to think that they could be merited by duties upon earth.
But that we cannot possibly be justified by good works is also clear, in that it is impossible for us to do any good works before we be justified. Nay, (as we shall see in the next article but one,) works before justification are all sins: and therefore whatsoever we do before justification is so far from justifying, that it will but more condemn us; so far from meriting the least happiness, that it rather deserves the greatest misery. To which we might also consider, how as all we do by our own strength is a sin, so whatsoever we do well, we do by the strength of God; and therefore we are so far from deserving any thing from him, that we are but more bound to him for our good works. Whensoever we do any thing for God, we do not pay him what we owe to him, but he is pleased still to lend more to us. And how can we deserve any thing from God by being more beholden to him? If I sin, I must thank myself for it;* if I do good, I must thank my God for it, being more indebted to him for every good work I do by him; and if I be more indebted to him for my doing of good works, certainly he cannot be indebted to me the rewarding of them. No, it is of God’s grace that we do any thing that is good here, and it is of God’s grace too if we receive any thing that is good hereafter. And as I shall be bound to thank God for the perfection of glory in heaven, so also for the beginning of grace on earth; it being of his own infinite mercy that he fills our hearts with grace in time, and of his own infinite mercy too that he crowns n his own grace with glory to eternity.
And as for the Fathers, what more frequent in their writings than that we are justified by faith only without works? Primasius tells us, * “God justifieth the wicked by faith only, and not by works which he had not: for if according to his works, he should be punished rather than redeemed.” And Sedulias to the same purpose; * “God justifieth a converting sinner by faith only, not by good works which before he had not, otherwise he should be punished for his wicked works.” Whence Ennodius saith, * “If the heavenly Governor should look upon my merit, I should get either little good or great punishments.” And Polycarp tells the Philippians, * “But believing ye shall rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory, into which many desire to enter; knowing that ye are saved by grace, not by works, but by the will of God through Jesus Christ.”
St. Basil also hath delivered the same doctrine: * “But this,” saith he, “is the perfect and only glorying in God, when one is not lifted up with his own righteousness, but acknowledgeth that he wanteth the true righteousness, and that it is by faith only in Christ that he can be justified.” And again; * “Everlasting rest is laid up for them that strive lawfully in this present life, not to be given according to the debt of works, but exhibited according to the grace of the bountiful God to such as hope in him.”
St. Chrysostom also, speaking of Abraham; * “For what did he lose by not being under the law Nothing; for faith alone was sufficient for his justification or righteousness.” With which agreeth that of St. Hierome; * “The faith of Abraham was so great, that both all his old sins should be forgiven, and that should be taught to be accepted for all righteousness.” And elsewhere; * “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness; and so will faith alone suffice you also for righteousness.” And presently; * “But because none is justified by the law, seeing none keeps it, it is therefore said that believers are to be justified by faith only.” And so Claudius the monk saith, * “That Abraham believed, and the consent of his naked faith only is accounted for the full crown of his righteousness and merit.” And OEcumenius; * “Wherefore all that believe in Christ are freely justified, bringing their faith only along with them.” * “Yea it is necessary,” saith Smaragdus, “that believers should be saved only by the faith of Christ.”
St. Ambrose also upon these words, His faith was accounted for righteousness, saith, * “He speaketh this, because without the works of the law to every sinner, that is, to every Gentile that believeth in Christ, his faith is counted to him for righteousness, as it was to Abraham. How therefore can the Jews think to be justified by the works of the law, and yet as Abraham was justified; when they see that Abraham was not justified by the works of the law, but by faith only? There is no need therefore of the law (as to our justification), seeing a sinner is justified before God by faith only.”
And St. Bernard, speaking of Christ; * “Thou art as strong to justify, as much in pardoning of us. Wherefore whosoever, being pricked at the heart for his sins, hungers and thirsteth after righteousness, let him believe in Thee, who justifies the ungodly; and being justified by faith only, he shall have peace with God.” And long before him, Origen upon those words, We conclude, therefore, that a:nan is justified by faith without the works of the law, saith, * “And he saith, that the justification of faith only is sufficient; so that if any one do but only believe, he may be justified, though no good work hath been fulfilled by him.” And then he goes on to prove it by the example of the thief upon the cross, concluding, * “For this thief was justified by faith, without the works of the law; because about this the Lord did not inquire what he had before done, neither did he stay to see what work he would perform after he had believed; but being justified by his confession only, he going into paradise carried him as a companion along with him.”
But before all these, Clemens Romanus himself, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, hath delivered this doctrine fully and clearly, saying, * “Wherefore and we also, being called by the will of God in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, or by our own wisdom, or knowledge, or holiness, or works that we have done in the simplicity of heart, but by faith, by which the Almighty God justified all from the beginning.” So that it is no new doctrine, but hath been the doctrine of the church of Christ in all ages, that we are justified by faith only, and not by works.
Article XII
Of Good Works.
Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith, and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God’s wrath; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith; insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.
Although it hath pleased the great God of his infinite mercy, in the covenant of grace, to entail justification upon our faith in his promises only, and not upon obedience to his precepts; as he had in the covenant of works entailed it upon obedience to his precepts, and not upon faith in his promises only yet it doth not follow that we are freed more from our obedience now than we were before. No; but as when we were to be justified by our works, we were then bound to believe as well as to obey, though we were to be justified by our obedience, not by our faith so now we are to be justified by faith we are still bound to obey as well as to believe, though we are justified by our faith only, and not by our obedience. So that though our justification doth pardon the sins we have committed heretofore, * yet it doth not give us liberty to commit sin hereafter. No; but now we are justified by faith without works, we are bound as much to obey as if we were to be justified by works without faith. And the reason is, because though we be justified by faith only, and not by works, yet we cannot be justified by such a faith as is without works. As works without faith cannot justify us, so neither can faith without works justify us; not because works help to justify us with faith, but because * faith is no justifying faith without works; or rather, because we can have no such true and lively faith as can justify us without works, but we shall necessarily have works also accompanying of our faith. Though still it be not by our works that accompany our faith, but by our faith only that is accompanied by our works that we are accounted righteous before God.
And hence it is, after it is determined in the foregoing article that we are justified by faith only and not by works, it is immediately in this asserted, that works are pleasing and acceptable to God as well as faith; though it be for our faith only, and not for our works that God accepts of us, yet our works as well as faith are acceptable unto God; yea, and that they necessarily spring out from a true and lively faith, so that it is as impossible there should be true faith without good works, as that there should be good works without true faith; for as without faith our works are bad, so without works our faith is dead. And therefore may a true faith be as evidently known by its works, as a tree is clearly discerned by its fruit. If I see fruit growing upon a tree, I know what tree it is upon which such fruit grows. And so if I see how a man lives, I know by that how he believes. If his faith be good, his works cannot but be good too; and if his works be bad, his faith cannot but be bad too. For wheresoever there is a justifying faith there are also good works; and wheresoever there are no good works there is no justifying faith. The sum is this though works do not justify us as well as faith, yet they are pleasing unto God as well as faith, and that wheresoever there is faith there are also good works, as wheresoever there are good works there is also faith. Which doctrine is grounded upon and consonant to both scripture, reason, and Fathers.
As, first, that good works are pleasing unto God, how frequently hath God himself, who best knows what is pleasing to himself, taught us in his holy scripture? for thus saith the Lord of hosts by his apostle Paul: I exhort, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour. 1 Tim. 2:1–3. And again: Children, obey your parents: for this is well pleasing to the Lord. Col. 3:20. And therefore saith St. Paul, But I have all, and abound: am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, will pleasing unto God. Phil. 4:18. Thus hath * Enoch this testimony, that he pleased God, Heb. 11:5. And St. Paul having exhorted the Thessalonians to good works, adds, Furthermore we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus Christ, that as ye have received from us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so you would abound more and more, 1 Thess. 4:1. Thus hath it pleased the Lord to acquaint us how much he is pleased with our obeying him.
And that good works do constantly accompany that faith that justifieth us before God, as well as pleaseth that God that justifies us by faith, is likewise clear from scripture. For St. Paul, speaking of this saving justifying faith, saith, it worketh by love, Gal. 5:6; and the same apostle tells us elsewhere, that love is the fulfilling of the whole law, Rom. 13:10 and if faith worketh by love, and love be the fulfilling of the law, then faith and the fulfilling of the law must needs go together. Thus St. John tells us, Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, 1 John 5:1. And the same apostle tells us in the same Epistle, Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, 1 John 3:9. And if whosoever truly believes is born of God, and whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, then whosoever truly believes doth not commit sin, and he that doth not commit sin must needs perform duty. And therefore St. Paul saith from God, or God by him, But if any one provide not for his own, and especially for them of his own house, he hath, denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel, 1 Tim. 5:8. So that he that neglects his duty denies the faith, and he therefore that keeps his faith must needs perform his duty. He that doth really as well as seemingly believe will provide for his family; and he that doth not provide for his family doth not really but only seemingly believe; for he denies the faith, and is worse than an infidel. For as St. John tells us, And every man that hath this hope in him purifies himself, even as he is pure, 1 John 3:3. So that he that hath a lively hope and saving faith in Christ purifies himself; and whosoever doth not purify himself; hath not that lively hope and saving faith in Christ. I shall name but one place more: For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also, James 2:26. And if faith without works be dead, be sure no saving justifying faith can be without works; for every saving faith is a living faith, yea, therefore living because saving, and therefore saving because living. Now if all faith without works be dead, and all saving faith is alive, it must needs follow that all saving faith hath works necessarily proceeding from it: for if it hath not, it would be a dead, and so no saving faith.
Having grounded these truths upon scripture, we might clear them from reason; but as for the first, it is clear of itself; that good works are pleasing unto God, for it is his will they should be done, and therefore cannot but be his pleasure when done. He hath commanded them to be performed by us, and therefore when performed cannot but accept of them from us. For that which is of his commanding cannot but be of his accepting. And to this we might consider also, how it is he alone who doth not only command good works to be performed by us, but doth himself perform his own commandments in us. So that there is nothing done by us for God, but is done by God in us. We can sin of ourselves, and so be offensive to him; * but we cannot be good of ourselves, unless we be assisted by him. For he * being the chiefest good, there can be no good in any thing or action but what proceeds from him; and seeing he himself is the first mover of all our actions, and the only cause of all the good in them, certainly he cannot but be well pleased with them: for otherwise he would not be well pleased with his own actions, which he cannot but be well pleased with, nothing coming from him but what is infinitely pleasing to him. Nay, in that they are good, himself must needs be in them, and therefore he must needs be pleased with them, himself being all pleasure and happiness to himself.
And that these good works do necessarily spring from faith is as clear, in that faith is an uniting grace, that unites Christ to us and us to Christ; so that by faith we dwell in Christ and Christ dwells in us; as the apostle saith, That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith, Eph. 3:17. Now wheresoever any of Christ is, there all of Christ is; and therefore if Christ dwell in us, the Spirit of Christ must needs dwell in us too; and where the Spirit of Christ is, there is the principle and fountain of all good works, which cannot but issue forth acts of piety towards God and charity towards our neighbour.
But I needed not to have gone so far to have proved, that every one that hath true faith hath the Spirit of God; for a man must have the Spirit of God before he can have true faith. * For the Spirit doth not first work faith in us, and then come itself to us, but it first cometh itself to us, and then worketh faith in us. So that he that believes must needs have the Spirit; for unless he had the Spirit he could not believe. And where the Spirit of God is, there is the spring of goodness, from whence the streams of goodness must needs flow. So that he that saith a man may believe and not do good works, must either say a man may believe and yet not have the Spirit, or that a man may have the Spirit in him and yet good works not be performed by him: which cannot be, for in that it is a Spirit, it is an active principle always doing; and in that it is the Spirit of God, it is a holy principle, and therefore must always be doing good.
Neither were these truths unheard of, or not consented to by the Fathers. Let these few speak for the rest. First, for good works, that they are pleasing unto God, Clemens Romanus having asserted the truth delivered in the former article, that we are justified by faith only (as we may there see him quoted), he presently adds what is asserted in this, saying, * “What therefore shall we do, brethren? Shall we cease from doing good, and leave off love and charity? The Lord will by no means suffer that to be done by us; but let us haste with all diligence and alacrity to perfect every good work: for the Creator himself and Lord of all things rejoiceth in his own works.”
And Irenaeus, having rehearsed the principal articles of the Christian faith, saith, * “This faith they that have believed without learning, as to our language they are barbarous, but as to their judgment, custom, and conversation, by reason of their faith, they are very wise, and please God, having their conversation in righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. So that to have our conversation in righteousness, chastity, and wisdom is to please God.” So Justin tells us, * “They that do such things as are universally, naturally, and eternally good are well-pleasing unto God.”
St. Hilary speaks fully to the purpose: * “But our works,” saith he, “must be lift up unto the holy things of God, that is, in clothing the naked, in feeding the hungry, in giving drink to the thirsty, in comforting the afflicted, in helping the oppressed, in loving all. For these things sanctify us in the frailty of our body; these things please God, and are holy.” And Theophilus Antiochenus saith, “He understandeth all these things who inquireth into the wisdom of God, studying to please him by faith, righteousness, and good works.” But I need not produce any more witnesses for the confirmation of so clear a truth.
And that faith and works always go together the Fathers are also express. As Origen; * “And this faith when it is justified sticks in the ground of the soul as a root that hath received the shower into it, that when it begins to be tilled by the law of God the branches may rise from it that bear the fruit of good works. The root of righteousness therefore doth not grow from works, but the fruit of works from the root of righteousness, to wit, that root of righteousness whereby God accepts of righteousness without works, viz. faith.” And St. Augustine to the same purpose * “Faith is in the soul as a good root, which turns the rain into fruit.” And therefore doth Polycarp tell the Philippians, * “And that the firmness of your faith remaineth from the beginning until now, and bringeth forth fruit in the Lord Jesus Christ.” And Clemens Alexandrinus, * “Charity with love to faith makes believers, but faith is the foundation of charity, bringing forth, welldoing.”
So Proclus, speaking of faith and charity, saith, *q “They both go together; for faith is the glass of charity, and charity is the foundation of faith.” So Prosper: * “Faith, which is the foundation of righteousness, which no good works precede, from which all good works proceed, itself purgeth us from sin, enlightens our minds, reconciles us to God, associates us with all that are partakers of our nature, inspires into us the hope of the future reward, increaseth in us holy virtues, and confirms us in the possession of them.” Who can speak more fully and clearly to the case in hand?
I shall add but two more; viz. Salvian: * “Seeing, as we have said, this is the faith of a Christian, faithfully to keep the commands of Christ; it is so without all doubt, that he hath no faith that is an infidel, neither doth he believe in Christ that tramples upon the commands of Christ; and therefore he that doth believe cannot but obey them.” And St. Chrysostom * “As soon as ever thou believest, thou wilt be adorned also with good works. Not because it is wanting to other works, but because faith is of itself full of good works.” And thus we see how faith is the root of works, and works the fruit of faith; and therefore we cannot but conclude, that faith may be as evidently known by its works as a tree is discerned by the fruit.
Article XIII
Of Works Before Justification.
Works done before the grace of Christ, and the inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not out of faith in Jesu Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the school authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.
As man was created by God, he had power so to continue in the state of integrity * that he had power also to fall down into a state of sin and misery; but as he was corrupted in Adam, he hath power to continue in his state of sin and misery, but no power of himself to rise up again into a state of holiness and integrity. Then his will was free, both to the good and evil; now it is free to the evil, not to the good. Then he could have chosen whether he would have sinned or no; now of himself he cannot choose but sin, or he can choose nothing but sin. After our creation and before our corruption, we had power to do every thing pleasing unto God; but after our corruption and before our regeneration, we have power to do nothing pleasing unto God. Though we have power to do such things as in themselves are pleasing unto God, yet we have not power so to do those things that our doing them should be pleasing unto him. The matter of the actions we do may be accepted, but our manner of doing them is still rejected. Because though we do the thing that God commands of ourselves, yet we can never do it in the way that God commands.
And hence it is here said, that there is nothing that we do before we receive grace can make us meet to receive grace, or, as the schoolmen say, “deserve grace of * congruity;” that is, we can do nothing for which it is so much as meet that God should bestow any thing upon us. As we cannot do any thing which it is just God should reward, and so deserve grace of condignity; so neither can we do any thing which it is fit or meet God should reward, and so deserve grace of congruity. So that God should not do what is unmeet and unfitting to be done, though he never reward any of the works of mere natural men. And the reason is clearly here asserted, Because they have all the nature of sin. And if they have the nature of sin and iniquity, certainly they cannot deserve grace of congruity. So that it cannot be meet that God should reward them, nay, it is rather meet he should not reward them. Nay, it is not only meet he should not reward them, but it is meet and just too that he should punish them; * justice requiring sin to be punished as well as virtue to be rewarded; and therefore if thy works be sins, they cannot in justice be rewarded, but punished.
But the only question here to be determined is, whether they be indeed sins or no. For if they be sins, there is nothing in this article but must be acknowledged for a real truth. For here it is asserted, that works before grace are not pleasing unto God, which if they be sins they surely cannot be; for he can be pleased with nothing but what is conformable to his will and nature; yea, therefore, because any thing is conformable to his will and nature he is pleased with it. But sin is so far from being conformable, that it is flat contrary to both. So that so long as he is God he cannot but hate sin, and to be pleased with sin would be to act contrary to himself. And as if the works of sinners be all sin they cannot be pleasing unto God, so neither can they deserve any thing from him but punishments. For in that they displease him, they must needs deserve his displeasure; and in that they deserve his displeasure, they must needs deserve the greatest of punishments, his displeasure itself being the greatest of punishments. But now that all the works of unregenerate men are indeed sins appears both from scripture, reason, and Fathers.
As for the scripture, it tells us, The plowing of the wicked is sin, Prov. 21:4; yea, The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord, ch. 15:8. And * again, The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination how much more, when he bringeth, it with a wicked mind? ch. 21:27. So that though he should possibly bring it with a good mind, yet, seeing he is a wicked man that brings it, it is an abomination to the Lord. And therefore he saith, I hate, I despise your feast-days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies. Though you offer me burnt offerings, and your meat offerings, I will not accept them neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts. Amos 5:21, 22. He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth, a lamb, as if he cut of a dog’s neck; he that offereth, an oblation, as if he offered swine’s blood; he that burneth, incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth, in their abominations. Isa. 66:3. To what purpose therefore cometh, there to me incense from Shebah? and the sweet cane front a far country? your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me. Jer. 6:20. To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats. When you come to appear before me, who heath required this at your hands, to tread my courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; and the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even your solemn meetings, Isa. 1:11, 12, 13. And the reason is because, As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one there is none that understandeth, none that seeketh, after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are altogether become unprofitable; there is none that doeth, good, no, not one. Rom. 3:10, 11, 12. Not one of those that are bad persons can do any good actions: but the best of their performances, as well as the worst of their iniquities, is an abomination to the Lord.
Neither doth reason itself contradict this truth. For reason itself, as well as scripture, saith, that * a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit, Matt. 7:18; nay, a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit, ver. 17. As the tree is upon which the fruit grows, so will the fruit be that grows upon that tree. If the tree be good, the fruit cannot be bad; and if the tree be bad, the fruit cannot be good. And so if a man’s person be righteous, his actions will be holy; but his actions cannot but be sinful if his person be wicked. For it is the person that doth the actions whom God looks at in the first place, and then at the action that is done by the person. And therefore though the action be in itself good that the person doth, yet if the person be bad that doth the action, the action cannot but be bad too, as well as the person. For though the righteousness of a man’s person can never make a bad action good, yet the wickedness of a man’s person doth always make a good action bad. And therefore though a good man may do a bad act, yet a bad man can never do a good act.
But neither is the person only of a wicked man rejected, but his actions are also deficient; and if they be defective in any one thing, that is enough to denominate them sins. An action cannot be good unless it be perfect in all things; but an action is bad that is defective but in one thing. But now how many things are there that all the actions of wicked men are defective in? There are two things especially they are defective in. And the first is that named in this article, even that they do not spring from faith in Jesus Christ. And the apostle tells us, that without faith it is impossible to please God, Heb. 11:6, For whatsoever is not of faith is sin, Rom. 14:23. Now that a wicked man hath not faith is clear, in that if he had faith he would not be a wicked man. For faith empties the heart of sin, and fills it up with grace. Faith justifies our persons, and sanctifies our natures. By faith we are accounted righteous before God, and made righteous by him. And therefore he that hath true faith can be no wicked man: and therefore also every wicked man can have no faith and if he hath not faith, he cannot but sin against God, as the * Fathers long ago preached. And again, as what a wicked man doth is a sin, because not proceeding from faith, * so it is a sin also in that it is not directed to a right end: for a bad intention always makes even a good action bad, though a good intention can never make a bad action good. Now that all wicked men have wicked ends in all their actions is manifest, in that they are wicked men, men without the true knowledge of God, and men without the sincere love unto God. Now all such as do not truly know and love the God of glory can never sincerely aim at the glory of God in what they do. For what I do not know, I cannot love; what I do not love, I cannot desire; what I do not desire, I can never intend. And therefore if I do not know God, I can never intend his glory in my actions. And if I do not intend his glory in my actions, I sin upon that very account, because I do not intend his glory. For then I transgress the command wherein he enjoins me, that whether I eat or drink, or whatsoever I do, I should do all to his glory, 1 Cor. 10:30.
But I needed not to have gone so far to have proved that a wicked man cannot do a good work. For there is nothing good without the chiefest good; neither can any one please God but by the assistance of God himself. For I cannot see how God can be pleased with any thing but himself considering how he was infinitely pleased with himself before there was any thing else for him to be pleased with but himself; and therefore cannot be more pleased now there are other things made by himself; and by consequence, whatsoever thing he is pleased with, it is not the thing itself, but himself in the thing, he is pleased with. And the more of himself is in any thing, the more is himself pleased with it and so the less of himself is in any thing, the less is that thing pleasing to him. Now it is plain a wicked man is without God in the world, Eph. 2:12, and by consequence God not within him. For if he was in God, and God in him, it would be impossible he should be a wicked man. And seeing there is nothing of God implanted in him, there can be nothing pleasing unto God performed by him. And whatsoever is not pleasing unto God cannot be good, it being impossible for himself not to be pleased with what is truly good, seeing himself is the chiefest good. And therefore every thing that is good must needs proceed from himself, whom he cannot but be infinitely pleased withal. And therefore we cannot but in reason also acknowledge, that a man, before he hath received grace from God, can do nothing pleasing to him, yea, nothing but displeasing to him, nothing but sin.
And this was the doctrine delivered by the primitive church. St. Basil propounds the question, * whether it be possible, and a thing pleasing and acceptable unto God, for one that is the servant of sin to perform righteousness, according to the rule of the saints’ piety; and he determines it from several places of scripture that it is not, concluding thus: * “It is clear that it is altogether impossible, and displeasing unto God, and dangerous to him that dares to do it. Wherefore I exhort, as the Lord teacheth, Let us first make the tree good, and then the fruit good; and let us first make clean the inside of the cup or platter, and then the outside will be wholly clean. And being taught by the apostle, Let us purify ourselves from all the pollutions both of flesh and spirit, and then we shall perfect holiness in the love of Christ, that we may be well-pleasing to God, and acceptable to the Lord, unto the kingdom of heaven.” Clearly shewing that until we first be good we can never do good.
This was the doctrine that St. Augustine defended; * “Be it far from us” (saith he) “to think that true virtue should be in any one, unless he be a righteous man. And let it be as far from us to think that any one is truly just, unless he live by faith, for the just shall live by faith. And who of those who would be accounted Christians, unless it be the Pelagians, and amongst them perhaps thyself, Julian, only, will say that an infidel is just, will say that a wicked man is just, will say that a man enslaved to the Devil is just? Yea, though he were Fabricius, though he were Fabius, though he were Scipio, though he were Regulus, with whose names thou thinkest to terrify me, as if we were talking in the old Roman court.” And elsewhere he tells us, * “All the life of unbelievers is sin, and there is nothing good without the chiefest good: for where the knowledge of the eternal and unchangeable truth is wanting, there is but false virtue even in the best manners.” And again; * “The man is first to be changed, that his works may be changed; for if a man remain in that estate that he is evil, he cannot have good works.”
Hence is that of St. Hierome * “Let us pronounce our sentence against those that do not believe in Christ, and yet think themselves valiant, wise, and temperate, and just, that they may know that there is none can live without Christ, without whom all virtue lies in vice.” And therefore saith St. Bernard, * “What have you philosophers to do with virtues, who are ignorant of Christ the virtue of God?” And St. Gregory, * “If faith be not first begotten in our hearts, all the other things cannot be good, though they may seem good.”
And so Prosper; * “Though there have been some who by their natural understanding have endeavoured to resist vices, yet they have barrenly adorned only the life of this time; but they could not attain to true virtues and everlasting happiness. For without the worship of the true God, even that which seems to be virtue is sin; neither can any one please God without God himself.” And elsewhere: “And so it manifestly appears, that in the minds of wicked men there dwelleth no virtue, but that all their works are unclean and defiled, they having not spiritual but fleshly wisdom, not heavenly but earthly, not Christian but devilish, not from the Father of lights, but from the prince of darkness.” * And therefore we may well conclude, that all the works of such as have not received grace from God to be converted to him are not pleasing unto God, but have the nature of sin.
Article XIV
Of Works of Supererogation.
Voluntary works besides, over and above God’s Commandments, which they call Works of Supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety: for by them men do declare, that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for his sake than of bounden duty is required: whereas Christ saith, plainly, When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, We are unprofitable servants.
Although (as we have seen in the eleventh article) both scripture, reason, and Fathers determine that we cannot merit any thing of ourselves from God, but that we are justified by Christ’s merit imputed to us, not by any works performed by ourselves; yet there are a sort of people in the world that would persuade us, that we may not only merit for ourselves, * but do and suffer more than in justice can be here required of us; and what we thus do or suffer more than we are bound to, though it be superfluous as to ourselves, being abundantly supplied from our other good works, yet it is not superfluous as to others: * but whatsoever any one thus doth and suffereth more and above his duty, it is thrown into the common stock or treasury of the church, out of which such as lack may be supplied. And * out of this common treasury or magazine it is, that their church fetch all their indulgencies, which are indeed nothing else but the distributions * of the several satisfactions made by the supererogatory works of others to such as themselves see fit, viz. to such as will give the most money for them. If I commit a great sin, for which I must do great penance, this penance can by no means be pardoned or remitted to me, unless I make complete satisfaction for the sin committed some other ways. Now seeing there are several in the world (as they pretend) that have performed more works, and suffered more penances and more punishments than were due [to] their own sins, if I will sue out for them, these supererogatory works and sufferings, undergone and performed by them, may be granted out to me; and so I being looked upon as undergoing this penance in others, am freed from it in myself. They have done more than was required, I am loath to do as much as is required; and therefore what they have done more than is required of them, I buy, to satisfy for what I do less than is required of me. And so my defect is cured by their excess.
Now this article is composed to awake us out of these profitable and pleasant but sinful dreams, assuring us, that all such works besides, over and above God’s commands, which they call works of supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety, it being both an arrogant, proud, and impious thing for any one to say he can do more than God commands, and so be able to satisfy for others as well as for himself. So that whosoever saith he can do more than God’s laws require, or suffer more than his own sins deserve, is a proud and a wicked person: it being a great sin and wickedness in any to broach or abet such doctrines as plainly appear to be erroneous both from scripture, reason, and Fathers.
And as for the scriptures, what more pregnant and convincing proof can be alleged by us, or expected by any, than what is expressed in this article itself, even that saying of our Saviour, So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are * unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do? Luke 17:10. If whatsoever commands we perform, it is but still our duty to perform them, how is it possible we should do more than is our duty to do? as considering, that whatsoever we do, it is God’s command we should do it. Do I pray without ceasing? I do no more than what I am commanded, 1 Thess. 5:17. Do I in every thing give thanks? it is no more than what I am commanded, ver. 18. Do I sell all I have, and distribute to the poor? it is no more than what I am commanded, Luke 18:22. Do I deny myself, take up my cross, and follow Christ? it is no more than what I am commanded, Matt. 16:24. Yea, am I faithful unto death? it is no more than what I am commanded, Rev. 2:10. Thus can there no good thing be performed by me but what is commanded by God; and if it be God’s will to command it, it is my duty to perform it. And hence it is, that in the parable of the labourers in the vineyard, he that came in at the last hour had his penny as well as he that came in at the first, Matt. 20:9, 10: plainly sheaving us, that they that had borne the heat of the day, the heat of temptations, the heat of afflictions, the heat of persecutions, yet had not done any more than what it was their duty to do; they were still unprofitable servants, and had deserved no more than they that coming not in till the last hour underwent none of these, and that was nothing at all.
But we need not heap up arguments in so plain a truth: for how is it possible that any one should do more good works than are commanded, when nothing is a good work but what is commanded, nay, and therefore only, because it is commanded, it is a good work? It is God’s command that is the ground of all duty. And what is the ground of. duty to me, is the ground of acceptance with him. And therefore is there nothing that God will accept as good from me, but what himself hath commanded to me. These voluntary works therefore, which they call works of supererogation, are they commanded by God or not? If they be commanded, it is my duty to perform them, and so they are not supererogatory; and I should sin if I do not do them: if they be not commanded, it is my duty not to perform them; and so I should sin if I do them. How then shall I do more good works than it is my duty to do, seeing what it is not my duty to do cannot be any good work? We may see this evidently in the Jews, in their over-multiplied fasts and uncommanded sacrifices, which they might have accounted as so many works of supererogation, wherein they thought they did God good service yet what saith he? Who hath, required these things at your hands? Isa. 1:12. And thus doth he say of all works, besides and above his commands, Who hath required these at your hands? As if he should say, I never commanded these things to you, and therefore will never accept of them from you. And thus are all these works of supererogation not good and accepted, because not commanded works; and therefore it is impossible that any more good works should be performed by us than what is commanded, seeing nothing that is not commanded can be a good work.
But I would willingly know what necessity there is of such works of supererogation? Are they necessary for the satisfaction for their own sins? No; for then they are not works of supererogation: what need therefore is there of them? Are they needful for the satisfying for other men’s sins? I know the great maintainers * of this opinion, being loath to say these works are altogether superfluous, adjudge them necessary for others, though not for themselves who do perform them, * making them copartners with Christ, in making satisfaction for the sins of others. But what is this but blasphemously to debase the merits of Christ to exalt their own, and to make the good works (I might say the sins) of finite creatures to be of the like value with the blood of the Son of God?
But I would wish all such but seriously to consider with themselves, whether they think in their consciences that one mere man may satisfy for another’s sins, or whether at the day of judgment what one man hath done shall be rewarded in another? I am sure the apostle tells us, We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done is his body, according to what he hath done, whether it be good or evil, 2 Cor. 5:10 and, Every man shall bear his own burden, Gal. 6:5: and, Every man shall receive his own reward, according to his own labour, 1 Cor. 3:8: so that the father shall not there be punished for the son’s iniquity, nor the son rewarded for the father’s piety , but every one shall stand upon his own legs; * in the same condition he died before, he must now be judged. And if so, what will become of the works of supererogation? What need is there that any one should perform them, seeing himself stands not in need of them, neither can any one else receive any profit from them, by having satisfaction made for their sins by them? But as he that lives and dies in holiness shall not be prejudiced by other men’s sins so he that lives and dies in sins shall not be any way profited by other men’s holiness. Though there have been many that have done and suffered much for the sake of Christ, yea, unto death itself; yet it is not the torments of their death that can satisfy for the sins of another’s life. No, it is Christ, and Christ * alone, we are to expect this satisfaction from. What he did, he did of merit, not of duty; but what all others do, they do of duty, not of merit. Themselves were bound to it, and therefore they cannot advantage others by it.
And if they will not believe us, let them hearken to the Fathers. St. Basil saith, * “For no man is able to persuade the Devil to let go one out of his power, whom he hath once gotten into it. And he that cannot make satisfaction, or propitiate God for his own sins, how can he do it for another?” The like to which I find in the Commentary upon St. Matthew, ascribed to St. Chrysostom * “If therefore the glory that is prepared for the saints by God be greater than every one of the saints deserve, how can their work suffice others also for their salvation, when it is not sufficient for themselves for the attainment of that glory by just judgment?” Clearly implying that the saints cannot do as much as they ought to do for themselves; and then how can they do any thing for others?
To the same purpose also speaks Leo: * “Though the death of many of his saints be precious in the sight of God, yet the death of any of these innocent persons was not the propitiation of the world. The righteous persons do receive crowns, not give them. And from the courage of the faithful examples of patience do arise, not the gifts of righteousness. For the death of them all were single deaths, neither did any of them pay another man’s debts by his end seeing amongst the children of men there is none but the Lord Jesus Christ only in whom all are crucified, all dead, all buried, all are raised up at the last day.” So that there is no righteousness or satisfaction to be had from the actions and passions of any, but only Christ.
And so St. Augustine: * “Neither is this so spoken, as if we could be equal to the Lord Christ, if we suffer martyrdom for him even unto blood. For he had power to lay down his life, and he had power to take it up again: but we neither live as long as we would, and die although we would not, &c. Lastly, brethren may die for brethren, yet the blood of any martyr is not poured out for the forgiveness and remission of their brethren’s sins as he did for us.” What could be spoken more fully to the purpose? Our adversaries say that many of the saints, especially the martyrs, do and suffer more than they need, and what they do and suffer over and above God’s command (as martyrdom in particular) is set upon others’ scores, and applied to some of their brethren for the remission of their sins. But St. Augustine saith, There is no martyr but Christ suffereth death for the pardon of another’s sins.
In so clear a case it may suffice to produce one more witness, and that is St. Hilary, who, speaking of the Ten Virgins, five wise and five foolish, when the foolish came to the wise to borrow some of their oil; * “To whom,” saith he, “they answered, that they could not give them any, lest by chance there might not be enough for all; to wit, that no one can be helped by another’s works and merits, because it is necessary that every one buy oil for his own lamp;” and therefore can none have any oil, any grace, any works to spare over and above what himself needs, whereby the necessities of others may be supplied. So express are the Fathers in delivering the impossibility of one man’s sins being satisfied for by another’s sufferings, and of one man’s being supplied from another’s merits. And that there is none that do more than is required, the Fathers clearly avouch, in saying, there is none can do so much as is required of him. For they shew how there is none lives without sin. And if they do not live without sin, they do not do as much as is required of them, for they do not avoid sin as they are commanded. And if they do not do as much as is required of them, certainly they cannot be said to do more than is commanded to them. Now that the Fathers do thus say, that there is no mere man without sin, we shall see in the next article: in the meanwhile concluding from the premises, that works of supererogation cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety.
Article XV
Of Christ Alone Without Sin.
Christ in the truth of our nature was made like unto us in all things (sin only excepted) from which he was clearly void, both in his flesh and in his spirit. He came to be a Lamb without spot, who, by sacrifice of himself once made, should take away the sins of the world; and sin, as St. John saith, was not in him. But all we the rest, though baptized and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things; and f we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
When the Son of God became the Son of man, he so became the Son of man as still to remain the Son of God. He did not lay aside his Divine nature to assume the human; but he assumed the human nature into the Divine, not as it was corrupted by sin, but as it was at first created by God. For as it was corrupted by sin, it was corrupted with the worst of evils, and therefore, as such, both unworthy and incapable of being united to God, the best of goods. Who therefore assuming the human nature into the unity of his Divine Person, assumed only what was * worthy and capable of such assumption, to wit, the perfect nature of man as it was in its first creation, not as it was in its sinful corruption. And so he that was perfectly God as well as perfectly man, was a perfect man also as well as a perfect God. Because it was the perfect nature of man which he assumed from his mother in time, as it was the perfect nature of God which he received of his Father from eternity. And therefore as he in the truth of the Divine nature was begotten like unto the Father in all things, his personal properties only excepted; so in the truth of the human nature he was made like unto us in all things, our sinful infirmities only excepted. He was in all things but sin like unto us; but in sin he was altogether unlike us. For we both in flesh and spirit are naturally full of sin, but * he was clearly void of sin both in his flesh and spirit. For he came to be a Lamb without spot, who by sacrifice of himself once made should take away the sins of the world whereas had he been guilty of sin in himself, he could never have taken it away from us. For such a high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; who needed, not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice first for his own sins, and then, for the people’s. Heb. 7:26, 27. And such a one was Christ; for in him, saith St. John, is no sin, 1 John 3:5. Indeed sin doth not reign in the saints his members; but sin did not so much as dwell in him the Head. And as sin did not live in him, so neither did he live in sin; for he did no sin, neither was guile found is his mouth, 1 Pet. 2:22, Isa. 53:9. And therefore doth himself say, Which of you convinceth, me of sin? John 8:46: and thus was he as clear from sin in his human nature as in his divine. As God, he was infinitely contrary unto sin; and as man, he was perfectly void of it: yea he was therefore as man perfectly void of sin, because as God he was infinitely contrary to it; it being impossible that such things as are infinitely contrary to one another should be ever united together.
But though Christ was thus perfectly void of sin, yet there is no other man or * woman that ever did or ever shall live upon the face of earth, but is both defiled with it and guilty of it. Nay, though we be baptized, and our original sin be washed from us, and though born again too, and so our actual sins subdued under us; yet for all this will sin dwell in us, and we shall be guilty of sin. So that there was never any mere man but who was a sinful man. And if any one saith he is no sinner, he sins in saying so; for * if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us, 1 John 1:8; yea, and if we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us, ver. 10.
But besides these, there be several other places of scripture which deliver this truth unto us, that there is sin even in the best of us. For the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe, Gal. 3:22. For we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin, Rom. 3:9. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh, after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are altogether become unprofitable; there is none that doth good, no, not one, ver. 10, 11. Psalm 14:1, 2, 3. For as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned, Rom. 5:12. For there is no man that sinneth not, 1 Kings 8:46, 2 Chron. 6:36. Nay, There is not a just man upon earth, that Both good, and sinneth not, Eccles. 7:20. For in many things we offend all, Jam. 3:2. Who therefore can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from sin? Prov. 20:9. O enter not then into judgment with thy servant, O Lord: for in thy sight shall no man living be justified, Psalm 143:2.
And as the scripture doth thus assert, that all the men and women that ever lived upon the face of the earth (Christ only excepted, who was God as well as man), were sinners; so reason itself, if consulted aright, cannot but determine the same. Which any one may easily perceive that doth but consider how (as we have seen more fully in the ninth article) in Adam the whole human nature was corrupted, all sinning and being made sinners in him: for in him God said to all, In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die the death. What death? Certainly the death of the soul as well as the body spiritual, consisting in the separation of the soul from God, as well as temporal death, that consisteth in the separation of the body from the soul. And so in Adam our souls were made sinful by the loss of God, as our bodies are made mortal by the loss of their souls: * sin passing from that one man into the souls, as well as death into the bodies of all mankind. And therefore it is impossible that any particular person should be excepted from sin, seeing the whole nature is defiled with it: so that he must be no mere man that is no sinner. And therefore it is that our Saviour commanded all his disciples, his apostles, all his followers, to pray daily, * Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us, Luke 11:4: because from the fountain of sin in our hearts the streams of sin are continually flowing out in our lives, which we have need to beg daily of God to pardon, and forgive to us, to all of us.
And to this we may also take notice, how even the best of saints whilst on earth are but imperfect saints, their graces imperfect, their duties imperfect, their love imperfect, their charity imperfect, all imperfect. Which imperfection and defect in all their graces and duties, as it cannot be any more, so it is not any less than * sin, forasmuch as holiness is the exact conformity of the will of man to the will of God, and of the life of man to the laws of God; and how far soever any one lacks of the exactness of that conformity, so much he lacks of holiness; and how much he lacks of holiness, so much he hath of sin. And therefore so far as grace and duty is imperfect in us, so far is sin and iniquity to be acknowledged by us. Now that our graces and duties are imperfect upon earth, is plain, in that to have our graces and duties perfect, is to be in heaven; perfection of grace being itself the crown of glory. And therefore, though there be many that have sin without grace, there is none that hath grace without sin in this world. But as the * Fathers long ago acknowledged, and as we all do daily experience, our graces and duties are all imperfect, and so far as they are imperfect they must needs be sinful; not as if the imperfect graces or duties themselves were sinful graces and duties, but only the imperfections of those graces and duties are all sinful imperfections, which must be through Christ forgiven to us, before any duty can be accepted from us. And therefore, not only the worst of sinners, but even the best of saints must still acknowledge, that whilst on earth he hath sin as well as grace, and must never expect till he comes to heaven to have grace without sin. No, there is none but Christ that ever on earth was so holy as not to be sinful: all others are sinful as well as holy, if not sinful only and not holy.
And if we consult the Fathers, this was their settled judgment too, that all mortals are sinners, except Christ. Justin Martyr calls him, * “That only unreprovable just man.” And Clemens Alexandrinus saith, * “But he (Christ) was altogether free from human passions. And therefore is he alone judge, because he is alone without sin. But we, by what strength we have, strive to avoid the least sins.” And again, * “The Word alone is without sin, for to sin is natural and common to all.” Whence Gregory Nazianzen: * “Not to sin at all, God hath ordained it (as a privilege) above the human nature.” And St. Ambrose, * “In that thou confessest thou offendest, in this thou halt common fellowship with all, for none is without sin; to deny this is sacrilege.” * “For who can glory, saith St. Hilary, “that he hath a chaste heart before God? nay, though he be an infant of one day old, seeing, according to the apostle, both the origin and law of sin remaineth in us.”
Gregory Nyssen also tells us: * “Wherefore to have nothing of what our adversary possesseth is the privilege of the Lord alone, who was partaker with us of his passions, yet without sin.” And Theodorus Abucara: * “But there is none but Christ alone who was ever perfectly and altogether free from tasting of sin. But every sin, be it what it will, brings forth death.”
Cyril of Alexandria to the same purpose: * “Christ was the first and the only man upon earth that did not commit sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.” And Cassianus very sharply: * “This thing therefore, viz. to be without sin, which is singular and proper to Christ alone, he will with the fault of blasphemous pride challenge to himself an equality in, whosoever dare profess himself to be without sin; for then it will follow that he must say, that he hath the likeness of sinful flesh only, and not the truth of sin.”
St. Augustine hath also delivered his opinion in this case very plainly. * “Perhaps,” saith he, “it is not without cause, that when we often find in scripture that men are said to be without complaint, we can find. none said to be without sin, but that one alone of whom it is openly said, him who did not know sin.” And elsewhere he propounds this question, * “Whether not only there is some of the children of men, but whether there could ever have been any heretofore, or can any be hereafter, who never had or never will have any sin at all?” And he answers immediately, “It is most certain there is none, never was, nor ever will be any such at all, besides the one Mediator betwixt God and man, the man Christ Jesus.” And presently: * “If therefore these things be true that we have spoken so largely concerning infants, there neither is among the children of men, nor was, nor will be any without sin, except the one Mediator, in whom propitiation and justification is placed for us, whereby, the enmities of our sins being destroyed, we are reconciled to God.” And to the same purpose doth the same Father begin his book of the Spirit and Letter, with which I shall end this article. * “Having read,” saith he, “the works I sent lately to you, my dearest son Marcelline, concerning the baptism of infants, and the perfection of the righteousness of man, that none in this life ever did or ever will attain unto it, except the one Mediator who suffered human passions in the likeness of sinful flesh, yet without any sin at all.” So clear and full is this with the rest of the Fathers, in determining what is here asserted, that Christ was alone without sin.
Article XVI
Of Sin After Baptism.
Not every deadly sin willingly committed after Baptism is sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable. Wherefore the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after Baptism. After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and by the grace of God (we may) arise again, and amend our lives. And therefore they are to be condemned that say they can no more sin as long as they live here, or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent.
Though it is not so easily determined what the sin against the Holy Ghost is, yet it is easily determined what is not the sin against the Holy Ghost. Be sure every deadly sin, that is, every sin (for every sin is * deadly) willingly committed after baptism, is not the sin against the Holy Ghost. For, as St. Augustine * observes, Our Saviour, speaking of the sin against the Holy Ghost, doth not mention any particular time, but only saith in general, He that speaketh against the Holy Ghost, whether it be before or after baptism, that is not material. And they (the Pharisees) to whom these words were directed were not baptized, and yet our Saviour forewarns them to have a care of that sin; which shews that they, as well as such as are baptized, may fall into it. And it is observable also that at the same time our Saviour saith, The sin against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven, saith also, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, Matt. 12:31. Not all manner of sin before or all manner of sin after baptism only, but all manner of sin whatsoever (except this unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost) shall be forgiven to such as truly repent of them, and believe in him that died for them; nay, all manner of sin against the Holy Ghost except this sin against the Holy Ghost, for certainly every sin against the Holy Ghost is not the sin against the Holy Ghost. The heathens * speak against the Holy Ghost, yet we do not say they are therefore incapable of pardon: nay, there is never a sin committed but is committed against the Holy Ghost as God; yet every sin is not unpardonable, and therefore not the sin against the Holy Ghost. Wherefore the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after baptism. Which is a clear inference from the premises. For if sins after baptism are capable of pardon from God, they cannot without sin be denied the grant of repentance from men. For after we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin, and by the grace of God we may arise again, and amend our lives. A man that hath received strength to rise from sin to grace may fall from grace to sin, and yet may afterwards rise again from sin to grace, so as to repent of his former sins, and reform his future life. And if so, every sin of a regenerate man cannot be the sin against the Holy Ghost, for that shall never be pardoned: and it shall therefore only never be pardoned by God, because never repented of by us. For if it could be repented of by us, it could not but be pardoned by God, the promise of pardon to repentance running in general terms, that if a man do confess his sins to God, God will pardon his sins to him. And therefore, though a regenerate man may fall into sin, yet seeing he may also afterwards rise from it, and repent of it, it may also be pardoned to him; and therefore it is not the sin against the Holy Ghost. And therefore also are they to be condemned that say they can no more sin as long as they are here, or deny the place of forgiveness to such as truly repent. For if after baptism and regeneration we can sin no more, or if we do sin, it is the sin against the Holy Ghost, and so unpardonable; it must needs follow, that repentance is not to be granted to any that sin after baptism, for then it would be granted to the sin against the Holy Ghost, which God himself denies it to.
The sum of all is this: Every sin willingly committed after baptism is not an unpardonable sin, but it may be repented of by us, and therefore pardoned by God.
And this is clear from the case of Simon Magus, who, as St. Augustine * observes, was baptized before he fell into that horrid sin which we from him call simony; and yet St. Peter admonished him, saying, Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thy heart may be forgiven thee, Acts 8:22. Which plainly shews, that though Simon did sin, yea, and against the Holy Ghost, yet Peter did not think he sinned the sin against the Holy Ghost, but that upon his prayer and repentance this his sin, his great sin, might be pardoned; * so that Peter did not deny the grant of repentance to him, but advised him to repent. Yea, and Peter himself after baptism denied his Master; but though lie denied Christ, Christ did not deny the grant of repentance to him.
To which we might also add the many places of scripture where all are commanded to repent; but of what force would that command be, if we might repent and yet not be pardoned? * Certainly to exclude any penitents from pardon is to keep off all sinners from repentance: for it would be in vain to repent of their sins, if they might repent of them and yet not obtain a pardon for them. But what means that place also, A just man falleth seven times, and riseth up again? Prov. 24:16. Doth it not intimate to us that a man may fall from grace given, and yet rise again? If he rise again, it must be by repentance: and therefore a just man may fall, a just man may sin, and yet he may afterwards repent, and if he repents and confesseth his sin, God is just and righteous to forgive him his sin, 1 John 1:9; and if God grants pardon, man cannot deny the grant of repentance to them that fall into sin and rise again.
But I need not insist any longer upon so plain a truth. For I have proved before, article IX that there are remainders of sin in the best of saints, and in the article immediately before this, that the best of saints are guilty of sin; and therefore if after baptism and regeneration every sin were unpardonable, the saints themselves must all be damned, because guilty of sin after baptism and regeneration, and so none could be saved. The unregenerate could not be saved, because not regenerate; the regenerate could not be saved, because they sin after regeneration. Which to assert would inevitably lead us into atheism and blasphemy.
I shall not therefore speak any more to this article, but only to shew its agreement with the doctrine of the primitive church. Gregory Nyssen saith, * “In the choice of evils it is rather to be chosen, that a man having obtained baptism should be again in sin, than that he should end his life void of grace. For sin indeed may perhaps have pardon and mercy, whereof good people have great hope but salvation is altogether forbidden to the other, by a certain and determinate sentence.” And therefore every sin after baptism is not unpardonable. And Theodoret to the same purpose: * “But he that hath attained the gift of baptism calleth God Father, as one that is inserted into the order of the sons of grace. These therefore are commanded to say, Forgive us our debts. The wounds therefore that are made even after baptism are also curable.”
Hence St. Cyprian, in whose days Novatianus, the grand oppugner of this plain truth, arose, saith, * “But I wonder that there are some so obstinate, as not to think repentance ought to be given to such as are fallen, or suppose that pardon should be denied to penitents, when it is written, Remember from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works.” Apoc. 2:5. And afterwards, * “Which reading to wit and holding, we think none ought to be driven away from the fruit of satisfaction and the hope of peace, when we know, according to the faith of the scriptures, God himself being the Author and Exhorter to it, sinners are compelled to act repentance, and pardon and indulgence is not denied to the penitents.” And again: * “But seeing we find none ought to be prohibited from acting repentance, and that to such as deprecate and pray for the mercy of the Lord, according to that wherein he is merciful and holy, peace may be granted by his priests, the sighs of the sorrowful are to be admitted, and the fruit of repentance is not to be denied to such as grieve.” So that after baptism such as do fall into sin are not therefore to be denied the grant of repentance. And this Father’s testimony is to be of the greater value, because it was in his days this truth was first opposed, and so by him the first defended.
St. Augustine hath also many things to this purpose: * “But,” saith he, “if any one think that then the word is spoken against the Holy Ghost when it is spoken by him to whom his sins are forgiven him by baptism, let them consider, that even from such, by the holiness of the church, the place of repentance is not taken away.” And afterwards more sharply: * “For if ignorance only obtains pardon, and ignorance is not accepted but only before a man be baptized, not only if he speak a word against the Holy Ghost after baptism, but also if he speak against the Son of man, yea, and if he defile himself with fornication, homicide, or any other sin or fault after baptism, he cannot be cured by repentance. Which such as hold, they are excluded from the catholic communion, and it is judged that they cannot be partakers of God’s mercy so long as they lie in that cruelty.” I shall conclude these testimonies with that of the same Father: * “But the love of our neighbour, that is, the love of man, even unto the love of our enemy, the Lord himself commendeth to us; and we see how many that are baptized both acknowledge them to be true, and reverence them as the commands of God. But when they undergo the enmities of any one, they are so inflamed with the desire of revenge, that they burn with such flames of hatred, that they cannot be appeased though the Gospel itself be read and recited to them; and the churches are full of such men already baptized: which notwithstanding spiritual men do not cease in a brotherly way to admonish, and with the spirit of meekness they constantly instruct them, that they would be ready to meet and resist such temptations, and that they would love rather to reign in the peace of Christ, than to rejoice in the oppression of the enemy, which would be done in vain if there was no hope of pardon nor cure of repentance left for such sins or sinners.”
But notwithstanding this truth is so clear of itself, and hath had so many to stand up in the defence of it, yet hath it had its opposers too, especially in the primitive church. For Philastrius tells us, that * “in the persecution, because many believers fell, and were received again into repentance by the church, some being angry, or rather led with presumption and pride, endeavoured to sow a vain doctrine, separating themselves from the catholic church, and not agreeing with the goodness and mercy of Christ, and saying there is no place of repentance to be granted to a believer after baptism.” By which words we may see that not only Philastrius himself calls this a vain doctrine, but that the whole church was against it, and that both in their judgment and practice, in that they granted repentance to such as had fallen after baptism. And that the primitive church was wholly against denying repentance to such as had fallen after baptism, appears also in that they so often condemned Novatianus for holding the contrary, as in two councils at Rome, and two at Carthage, and one in Italy, all about an. Dom. 254;* in which councils they also determined what is here asserted, that the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as sin after baptism.
Article XVII
Of Predestination and Election.
Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel, secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour.
Though in the other articles we may make use of reason as well as scripture and Fathers, yet in this we must make use of scripture and Fathers only, and not of reason.* For as the ordinary priests were not to enter into the holy of holies, so neither is carnal reason to venture upon this mystery of mysteries. For it concerns God’s predestination, which must needs be infinitely above man’s apprehension. So that a cockle-fish may as soon crowd the ocean into its narrow shell, as vain man ever comprehend the decrees of God. And hence it is that both in public and private I have still endeavoured to shun discourses of this nature: and now that I am unavoidably fallen upon it, I shall speak as little as possibly I can unto it, especially considering how many other truths are still behind to be insisted upon. And in that little that I shall speak, I shall labour to make use of as few of my own words as by any means I can, speaking nothing concerning this great mystery but what scripture and Fathers have expressly delivered unto me.
So much therefore of this article as I have transcribed contains an excellent description of election, or predestination to life, exactly consonant to the doctrine delivered by St. Paul to the Ephesians, in these words: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we maybe holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath, made us accepted in the beloved. Eph. 1:4, 5, 6. And to Timothy in these words: Who hath, saved us and called us with a holy calling; not according to our works, * but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Jesus Christ before the world began. 2 Tim. 1:9.
And what the apostle did here deliver from God the primitive church learned and taught from him St. Augustine expressly: * “Before he made us he foreknew us, and he chose us in his foreknowledge when he had not as yet made us. By whom could this be done but by him, who calls those things that are not as if they were? For the apostle saith, Who chose us before the foundation of the world. We are made within the world, but we were chosen before the world.” And again: * “Out of those to whom the righteous severity had adjudged punishments, according to the inexpressible mercy of his hidden dispensation, he chose out vessels which he might fit for honour.” And elsewhere: * “Firmly believe, and by no means doubt, that the Trinity, the unchangeable God, the certain foreknower of all things and works, both his own and men’s, before all worlds did know to whom he would give grace by faith. Without which none from the beginning of the world to the end of it can be absolved from the guilt of his sin original and actual; for these whom God foreknew, he did also predestinate to be conformable to the image of his Son.”
And thus Prosper also: * “The predestination of God no catholic person denieth, &c. But the faith of predestination is confirmed from the manifest authorities of the holy scriptures, to which it is not lawful by any means to ascribe those things that are wickedly done by men, who came into that proneness to fall, not from the creation of God, but from the sin or prevarication of the first parent from the punishment whereof none is freed but by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, prepared and predestinated in the eternal council of God before the foundation of the world.”
Fulgentius also hath delivered his opinion very clearly in this case: * “For God,” saith he, “who made man, did himself prepare in his predestination, both the gift of illumination to believe, and the gift of perseverance to profit and persevere, and the gift of glorification to reign, for such to whom he pleased to give it: who also doth not any otherways perform in deed than was ordained by his unchangeable will. The truth of which predestination, whereby the apostle witnesseth we were predestinated in Christ before the foundation of the world, if any one refuse to receive with the belief of the heart, or to utter with the confession of the mouth, if, before the last day of this present life, he lay not aside the obstinacy of his impiety, whereby as a rebel he withstandeth the true and living God, it is manifest that he doth not belong to the number of those which God did before the foundation of the world freely choose in Christ, and predestinated unto the kingdom.” And so I pass to what follows in the article.
Wherefore, they who be endowed with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God’s purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made the sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God’s mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.
After predestination itself described, here we have a description of such as are predestinated, leading them from grace to grace, and at length conducting them into glory. All which is virtually if not expressly contained in that excellent passage of the apostle to this purpose, from whence I suppose this part of the article was taken, where he saith, For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Rom. 8:29, 30. Which words St. Augustine having repeated, concludes: * “Of these who are predestinated none shall perish with the Devil, none of them shall remain under the power of the Devil unto death.” And the same Father again, or, as others think, Fulgentius, to the same purpose: * “Firmly believe, and do not doubt, but that all that God of his bountiful goodness made vessels of mercy were predestinated of God before the foundation of the world unto the adoption of the children of God; and that neither any of them whom God predestinated to the kingdom of heaven can perish, nor any of those whom he did not predestinate unto life can be saved, for that predestination is the preparation of the free gift, whereby the apostle saith we are predestinated unto the adoption of the children of God by Jesus Christ to himself.” And so doth Bradwarden the profound say: * “Predestination is the eternal preparation by the will of God, of final grace in the way, and eternal happiness in the country, for a reasonable creature.” But to proceed:
As the godly consideration of predestination, and our election in Christ, is full of sweet comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: so, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God’s predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchfulness of most unclean living, no less dangerous than desperation. Furthermore, we must receive God’s promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in holy scripture: and, in our doings, that will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the word of God.
In which words there are several things briefly to be considered. First, that to holy and religious persons, the godly consideration of this doctrine of our election in Christ is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort; which we see verified in the example of St. Paul, who, having considered the truth of this mystery, immediately triumphs with joy and comfort, crying out, What shall we say then to these things? If God be with us, who can be against us? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. Rom. 8:31, 33. * Not, who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s people, or of God’s servants, but who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? If God hath elected us, it is in vain for men or devils to accuse: if He be our friend, it is in vain for any one to be our foe.
But, secondly, though the godly consideration of this doctrine is the ground of great consolation to the godly, yet for curious and carnal persons to have it continually before their eyes is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either, first, into desperation, (and so indeed had St. Augustine no sooner explained and confirmed this great doctrine, but Hilarius Arelatensis sends him word, that some * were so moved with it, that they said, desperation was held forth to men by it); or, secondly, into wretchfulness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation a sad example of which St. Augustine relates; for, saith he, * “there was a certain man in our monastery, who being reproved by his brethren why he would do some things which he should not do, and not do some things which he should do, he answered, Whatsoever I am now, I shall be such a one as God foreknew I would be. Who truly (saith the Father) both said true, and yet this truth did not turn to good, but it so turned to evil, that leaving the society of the monastery he became a dog that returned to his vomit , and yet what he may be hereafter, it is uncertain.”
And lastly, it is here very opportunely added, that we must receive God’s promises as they be generally set forth in the holy scripture. Though they are but some that God hath elected, yet his promises are made to all; Come unto me, all ye that are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest, Matt. 11:28: and, Whosoever believeth, in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life, John 3:16. In the application of which and the like promises, we must not have respect to the eternity of God’s purpose, but to the universality of his promise. His promises are made to all, and therefore are all bound to lay hold upon his promises: and as we are to receive his promises, so are we also to obey his precepts as made to all. So that in all our doings the will of God is to be followed as we have it expressly declared to us in his word: not considering whether God elected me from eternity, but whether I obey him in time; if I obey him in time, I may certainly conclude that he elected me from eternity. And thus do I find St. Augustine advising this doctrine to be so published, as that men may not thereby be brought off, but rather spurred on to obedience. * “It is of too much contention therefore,” saith he, “either to deny predestination, or to doubt of predestination: which notwithstanding is not to be so preached to the people, that it may seem amongst the unskillful and dull-sighted multitude to be reprehended in its being preached. As the foreknowledge of God seems to be reprehended, which certainly they cannot deny, if it be said to men, whether you run or sleep, what he that cannot be deceived foreknew you would be, that you will be. But it is the part of a deceitful or unskillful physician to apply a profitable medicine so as that it either do no good, or else harm. But we must say, so run that ye may obtain, and in your very running you shall know that ye were so foreknown that ye would run lawfully; and so if there be any other way that the foreknowledge of God can be preached, whereby the idleness of man may be repelled.” And in the next chapter, * “And that way which we told him that speaks to the people he ought to use in the preaching of predestination, I do not think it sufficient, unless he add this or something like to it, so as to say, You therefore ought to hope for this perseverance in obedience from the Father of lights, from whom cometh every good and perfect gift, and desire it in your daily prayers and in doing this, to trust that you are not strangers from the predestination of his people, because it is He that enabled you to do this. But be it far from you therefore to despair of yourselves, because you are commanded to put your trust in Him, and not in yourselves. For cursed be every man that putteth his trust in man; and it is good to trust in the Lord, rather than to trust in man; because, blessed are they that put their trust in him. And having this hope, do you serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling.” And thus doth this reverend Father annex the same caution to this doctrine of predestination, that after him our reverend convocation did; even that, for all the truth of that doctrine, we are still to hope in God’s promises and obey his precepts; or as it is here expressed, We must receive God’s promises as they be generally set forth in holy scripture, and in our doings that will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the word of God.
Article XVIII
Of Obtaining Eternal Salvation Only By the Name of Christ.
They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, that every man shall be saved by the law or sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law, and the light of nature. For the holy scripture doth set out unto us only the name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.
As there is no nation where there is not some religion or other professed in it, so neither is there any religion but what hath some professors or other that are serious in the profession of it. So that there may be some strict professors in the worst, as well as some loose professors in the best of all religions whatsoever. And though the loose professors of no religion can look for salvation by it, yet the strict professors of all religions expect happiness from that religion they do profess. The Indians hope to be saved as well as the Mahumetans; the Mahumetans hope to be saved as well as the Jews; and the Jews they hope to be saved as well as the Christians; and the Christians they hope to be saved as well as any of them. And yet all these religions being so contrary one to another, it is impossible they should all have happiness entailed upon them. And now the great question is, Which of all these religions a man had best pick out from amongst the rest, to settle himself upon, and to become a professor of; or which religion will be surest to bring salvation to us, if we be serious in our profession of it? Which question I have endeavoured elsewhere to determine; and here we have it decided by a whole council, even that it is the Christian religion that is not only the best, but the only way to true happiness and everlasting salvation; and that they are to be accursed that presume to say that every man shall be saved by the law or sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law, and the light of nature. So that let a man be never so strict a Jew, never so strict a Mahumetan, never so strict in any other religion whatsoever, unless he be a Christian he can never be saved. So that though many Christians may go to hell, yet none but Christians can ever go to heaven; many that profess Christ may not be saved, yet all that deny Christ are certain to be damned: for it is by Christ, and Christ only, that we can be saved.
And this appears very plainly from the word of God; for there doth Christ himself say, * I am the way, the truth, and the life: * none cometh to the Father, but by me. John 14:6. And if none can come to the Father but by Christ, it is by Christ only that we come to happiness: for it is he alone in whom we may be happy, without whom we cannot but be miserable. And as we cannot be happy unless we come to God, so neither can we come to God but only by faith in Christ. And therefore is it said, He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, John 3:18. * So that it is as certain that all that do not believe in him shall be condemned, as that all that do believe in him shall be pardoned it is as certain we shall be damned without him, as it is certain we may be saved by him. And therefore also it is said expressly, Neither is there salvation in any other for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we mast be saved, Acts 4:12. That is, there is no other * thing in the whole world whereby our sins may be pardoned, our persons justified, and our souls saved, but only Jesus Christ the Son of God. It is only by him that we can be saved, as it was only for us that he was condemned: nay, he was therefore condemned only for us, that we might be saved only in him.
And to scripture we might add reason too, but that I have already demonstrated it from reason, not only elsewhere, but even in these Articles themselves, having before proved that all men were born in sin: art. IX that all men have sin living in them; art. XV that man cannot free himself from sin; art. X nor deserve to be freed by any other; yea, and that it is by Christ only that he can be freed; art. XII that it is Christ only, who by the value of his death can take away the guilt of those sins that lie upon him, and it is Christ only, who, by the virtue of his blood, can wash away the filth of those sins that reign over him; and if so, it must needs follow, that it is only by Christ that we can be saved. For if without him we be of what religion we will, we shall still lie in our sins: it is impossible that without him we should attain to happiness, for freedom from sin is the first step to happiness. So that as it is impossible hell should be heaven so long as God is not enjoyed there, so is it impossible a soul should be happy so long as sin reigns there. It is sin that made hell, and there is something of hell in every sin and therefore, until sin be perfectly pardoned to us, we can never be perfectly free from misery; and until sin be subdued under us, we can never be perfectly brought to happiness. Now seeing it is only by Christ our transgressions can be pardoned, and only by Christ our corruptions can be conquered, it must needs be only by Christ our souls can be saved; and if it be only by Christ we can be saved, without him we cannot but be damned. And therefore, let a man be of what religion he please, and as strict in that religion as he can, unless Christ be his, and he be Christ’s, his religion is in vain; he may be strict in his profession of it, but it will never bring any happiness to him. No, it is Christ, and Christ alone, we are to expect salvation from.
The Fathers are also very express in this particular. Ignatius plainly: * “Let no man be deceived; unless he believe that Jesus Christ was conversant in the flesh, and acknowledge his cross and passion, and blood which he shed for the salvation of the world, he cannot attain to everlasting life, whether he be a king or a priest or a prince; whether he be a private man, or a lord or a servant, or a man or a woman.” None saved without Christ. For as Justin Martyr saith, * “In whom is it possible for us sinful and ungodly persons to be justified but only in the Son of God? Oh sweet change! Oh unsearchable contrivance! Oh unexpected benefits! That the sin of many should be hid in one just Person, and the righteousness of one should justify many sinners!”
And hence it is that the Fathers are so peremptory in avouching, that there is no salvation to be had, but only within the pale of the church. * “Let no man therefore,” saith Origen, “ persuade himself, let no man deceive himself; without this house, that is, without the church, there is none saved.” And St. Cyprian, * “Neither can they live without, seeing the house of God is but one, and none can have salvation but only in the church.” And so Gaudentius: * “But it is manifest that all the men of that time perished in the flood, but only such as obtained to be found within the ark, which bore the type of the church. For in like manner now they can by no means be saved that are strangers to the apostolic faith and catholic church.”
And St. Augustine or Fulgentius to the same purpose: * “Firmly believe, and doubt not at all, but that not only all pagans, but also all Jews, heretics, and schismatics, that end this present life without the catholic church, shall go into eternal fire, which is prepared for the Devil and his angels.” For as the same Father, St. Augustine, elsewhere saith, * “Do not believe you can be saved by any other art than by the invocation and cross of Christ.” And to name no more, the fourth council at Lateran also expressly saith, * “But there is one universal church of the faithful, out of which there is none at all saved.” And therefore we may well conclude, it is only by the name of Christ that eternal salvation can be obtained.