ed, a living faith, faith as a principle of renoyation; faith, which receives the decision of Jesus Christ, embraces his promises, and enables us to devote ourselves to his service. This is the sense in which we understand the proposition in the text, "the just shall live by his faith." It is not sufficient to explain the propositions, we must prove, and establish it against erroneous divines, and loose casuists. This is our second article.

II. We oppose our system, first against that of some erroneous divines. We have a controversy on this subject, not only with those enemies of our mysteries, who consider Jesus Christ only as a legislator, distinguished from other moralists only by the clearness of his moral principles, and the power of his motives: but we have also a famous dispute with the divines of the church of Rome on this head, and we attack that part of their doctrine which we call the merit of good works.

that are not performed by our power, works, that proceed from grace, works, which owe their design and execution to God, who "worketh to will, and to do," as St. Paul expresses it, Phil. ii. 13, can these attain, do these deserve a "weight of glory" for us? Does not the whole that we possess come from God? If we know the doctrines of revelation, is it not because "the Father of glory hath enlightened the eyes of our understanding?" Eph. i. 17, 18. If we believe his decisions, is it not because he gave us faith? If we suffer for his gospel, is it not because "he gives us strength to suffer?" Phil. i. 29. What! works, that are of themselves inseparably connected with our stations, and therefore duties, indispensable engagements, debts, and debts, alas! which we discharge so badly, can these merit a reward? God forbid we should entertain such an opinion! Even Cardinal Bellarmine, after he had endea voured more than any other writer to establish the merit of good works, with one stroke of his pen effaced all his arguments, for, said he, on account of the precariousness of our own righteousness, and the danger of vain glory, the safest method is to have recourse to the mercy of God, and to trust in his mercy alone.*

1. It is contradictory in terms. A work, that derives its value from the mercy of God is called meritorious. What an association of terms! Merit, mercy. If it be of mercy, how is it meritorious? If it be meritorious, how is it of mercy? "If by grace, then is it no more of works: but if it be of works then is it no more grace," Rom. xi. 6. You know the language of St. Paul.

In order to understand this controversy clearly, we must observe, that the members of the church of Rome are divided into two classes on this article. In the first class we place those divines, who without any restrictions or qualifications, maintain this unwarrantable thesis, good works merit heaven, as But we oppose also the other opinion, that bad ones deserve hell. The second affirm, we have mentioned. For, although it may that good works do, indeed merit heaven: but seem to be purified from that venom, which in virtue of the mercy of God, and of the new we have remarked in the first, yet it is atcovenant, that he has made with mankind.—tended with two inconveniences. When we dispute against the errors of the church of Rome we should carefully distinguish these opinions. It must be granted, protestants have not always done so. We speak as if the church of Rome as a body held this thesis, good works merit heaven, as bad ones deserve hell: whereas this is an opinion peculiar to only some of their divines; it has been consured and condemned by a bull of Pius V. and Gregory XIII. as one of our most celebrated divines has proved, whom, although his | pious design of conciliating our disputes may have made him rather exceed his evidence in some of his affirmations, we cannot contradict on this article, because he proves it by incontestable evidence.* But the second opinion is professedly that of the whole church of Rome. This canon, which I am going to repeat to you, is the decision of the council of Trent. "Eternal life is to be proposed to the children of God both as a gift mercifully offered to them through Jesus Christ, and as a promised ward equitably rendered to their merits and good works in virtue of this promise."t

2. This opinion furnishes a pretext to human pride, and whether this be not sufficiently evident, let experience judge. Do we not often see people, who not being capable of entering into these theological distinctions, which are contained in the writings of their teachers, think by their good works, and often by their superstitions, so to merit eternal felicity, that God cannot deprive them of it without subverting the laws of justice? Has not the church of Rome other doctrines, which lead to this error? Is not supererogation of this kind? Acre-cording to this a man may not only fully perform all his engagements, but he may even exceed them. Is not the doctrine, that excludes merit, considered by many of the Roman comdi-munity as a mark of heresy? If we believe an anecdote in the life of Charles V. it was principally for having written on the walls of his room several passages of Scripture excluding the merit of works, that he was suspected of adhering to our doctrines, and that the inquisition deliberated on punishing him after bis death as a heretic. The inquisitors would certainly have proceeded against him, had not Philip II. been given to understand that the son of a heretic was incapable of succeeding to the crown of Spain.

We oppose our system against both these opinions. To say, with the first of these vines, that good works merit heaven, as bad works deserve hell, is to affirm a proposition, which Rome itself denies. What! works that bear no proportion to objects of our hope, a few meditations, a few prayers, a few almsdeeds! What! would the sacrifice of our whole selves merit that "eternal weight of glory," which is to be revealed in us? What! can works,

* See the Thesis of M. Louis Le Blanc.

Proponenda est vita eterna, et tanquam Gratiæ filiis dei per Christum Jesum, misericorditer promissa et tanquam mercies ex ipsius Dei promissione, bonis ipsorum operibus et meritis fideliter reddendar. Concil. Trid. Sess. vi. c. 16

*Card. Bell. Controvers. T. iv. De Justificatione Lib. 1. L'Abbe de S. Real, Histoire de Don Carlos.

quently the faith that gives life is a faith containing, at least in principle, all virtues.

2. Justifying faith must assort with the genius of the covenant to which it belongs. Had the gospel no other design than that of pardoning our sins, without subduing them, faith might then consist in a bare act of the mind accepting this part of the gospel: but if the gospel proposes both to pardon sin, and to

do with this covenant of grace, must needs involve both these articles. Now, who will pretend to say, the gospel has not both these blessings in view? And consequently, who can deny, that faith consists both in trusting the grace, and in obeying all the laws of the gospel?

Against this system we oppose that which we have established. We consider Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ alone, as the meritorious cause of our justification. If faith justifies us, it is as an instrument, that of itself can merit nothing, and which contributes to our justification only as it capacitates us for participating the benefits of the death of Christ. These were the ideas of the ancient church. The divines of primitive times taught that men were righte-enable us to renounce it, faith, which has to ous, who acknowledged their guilt, and that they had nothing of their own but sin, and who, although they were saints, yet attributed nothing to their own merit. On those principles, we find, in an ancient work attributed to Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, the sick were comforted in this manner. Dost thou trust in the merit of Jesus Christ alone for salvation?" The sick person replied, I do. The assistant then added, "Praise God to the last moment of your life; place all your confidence in him; and, when the Supreme Judge of the world calls you to his tribunal, say to him, Lord! I interpose between thy righteous judgment and myself the death of thy Son, and I ascribe no merit to any good work of my own." Thus we oppose the merit of works. But it is dangerous for those, who preach to people prone to one extreme, to express themselves so as to seem to favour the opposite extreme. Al-him shall have eternal life," John iii. 15. I though all our divines unanimously connect faith and holiness together, yet there is great reason to fear, our people carry their aversion against the doctrine of merit so far that they lose sight of this union of faith and obedience. A man, whose great labours in the church prevent our mentioning his name, while we reprove his error, has affirmed these propositions-the gospel consists of promises onlyJesus Christ gave no precepts-we are under no other obligations than those of gratitude to obey the laws of religion—our souls are in no danger if we neglect them.

Against these ideas we again oppose our system of justification. We affirm, that justifying faith is a general principle of virtue and holiness; and that such a recourse to the mercy of God, as wicked Christians imagine, does not justify in any sense. It does not justify as the meritorious cause of our salvation; for to affirm this is to maintain a heresy. We have said Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ alone, is the foundation of our salvation, and our most ardent desire to participate the benefits of it is incapable of deserving them. It does not justify as a condition. To affirm, that to have recourse to the grace of Jesus Christ is the only condition that the gospel requires, is to mutilate the gospel, apparently to widen beyond all Scriptural bounds the way to heaven, and really to open a large and spacious road to eternal perdition.

If there be one in this assembly so unacquainted with Christianity as to suppose that he may be justified before God by a fruitless desire of being saved, and by a barren recourse to the death of Christ, let him attend to the following reflections.

1. Justifying faith is lively faith, a believer cannot live by a dead faith: but "faith without works is dead," James ii. 20. Conse

3. Justifying faith must include all the virtues, to which the Scripture attributes justification and salvation. Now, if you consult the oracles of God, you will perceive Scripture speaks a language that will not comport with the doctrine of fruitless faith. Sometimes salvation is attributed to love, "Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom, for I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat,' Matt. xxv. 34. Sometimes it is attributed to hope, "Hope maketh not ashamed," Rom. v. 5. Sometimes to faith, "Whosoever believeth in

ask now, to which virtue, strictly speaking, does salvation belong? to love, to hope, or to faith? Or rather, is it not clear, that, when Scripture attributes salvation to one of these virtues, it does not consider it separately, as subsisting in a distinct subject, but it considers it as flowing from that general principle, which acquiesces in the whole gospel.

4. Justifying faith must merit all the praises which are given to it in Scripture. What encomiums are bestowed on faith! It unites us to Jesus Christ. It crucifies us as it were, "with him, it raiseth us up together," and makes us "sit together with him in heavenly places," in a word, it makes us "one with him as he is one with the Father," Gal. ii. 20; Eph. ii. 6, and John xvii. 20. But the bare desire of salvation by Jesus Christ devoid of obedience to him, is this to be crucified with Jesus Christ? Is this to be risen with him? Is this to sit in heavenly places with him?

5. Justifying faith must enter into the spirit of the mystery, that acquires justification for us; I mean the mystery of the satisfaction of Jesus Christ. What is the system of our churches on the mystery of satisfaction?Some divines among us have ventured to affirm, that God was entirely free either to exact the punishment due to sin, or to release mankind from all obligation to suffer it. He rcquired a satisfaction, say they, because of its greater fitness to express to the whole universe his just abhorrence of sin.

But the generally received doctrine among us, is, that although God was entirely free when he punished sin, yet he was necessarily inclined to do it, by the perfection of his nature; and that, as being a uniform Spirit, it was "impossible for him to lie," Heb. vi. 18, and contradict himself, so, being a just and holy Spirit, it was impossible for him to pardon

sinners without punishing sin on some victim substituted in their stead.

We will not now compare these systems, nor allege the motives of our embracing one in preference to the other; but this we affirm, choose which you will, either affords a demonstration in favour of our thesis.

In regard to the first, it may be justly said, What! has God, think ye, so much love for holiness, and so much hatred of sin, that although he was not inclined to exact a satisfaction by necessity of nature, yet he chose rather to do so than to let sin pass unpunished? Has God, think you, sacrificed his Son, on account of the fitness of his sufferings, to remove every shadow of tolerating sin! Do you believe this, and can you imagine, that a God, to whom sin is so extremely odious, can approve of a faith that is compatible with sin, and which never gives vice its death-wound.

The demonstration is equally clear in regard to those who embrace the general system of our churches. How can a man persuade himself, that the love of order is so essential to God, that he cannot without contradicting himself pardon the sinner, and not punish the sin; how, I say, can such a man persuade himseil that such a faith as we have exploded can enable us to participate the pardoning benefits of the death of Christ?

of this sort. Some have been more struck with the necessity of believing the truths of speculation, than with that of performing tho duties which belong to these truths. Others have been more affected with the necessity of performing the duties of religion, than with that of adhering to the speculative truths of it. Some, having lived among people believing the merit of works, have turned all their attention against the doctrine of merit, and have expressed themselves perhaps without design, in a manner, that seemed to enervate the necessity of good works. Others on the contrary having lived among libertines, who did not believe, or who affected not to believe the necessity of good works, have turned all the point of their genius against this pernicious doctrine, and in their turn have expressed themselves, perhaps without design, in a manner that seemed to favour the notion of merit. Nothing is so rare as a genius comprehending at once the whole of any subject. As nothing in the military art is so rare as that self-possession, which enables a general to pervade a whole army, and to be present, so to speak, in every part of the field of battle; so in the sciences, nothing is so uncommon as that kind of comprehensive attention, which enables a man always to think and speak in perfect harmony with himself, and so to avoid destroying one part of his thesis, while he establishes another part of it. But, after all, there is no real difference among your ministers on this article. Whatever method they take, they all agree, that no man can be a true Christian, who does not receive Jesus Christ as his prophet, priest, and king; that as faith unites us to Jesus Christ, it is impossible for the members of a head so holy to continue in sin. Now does not all this amount to a demonstration that

Is it not evident, that these two suppositions make a God contradictory to himself, and represent his attributes as clashing with each other? In the first supposition, a God is conceived, to whom sin is infinitely odious; in the second a God is imagined, to whom sin is perfectly tolerable. In the first a God is conceived, who naturally and necessarily requires a satisfaction; in the second a God is imagined, who by a pliable facility of nature esteems a sinner although he derives from the satisfac-saving faith transforms the heart? tion no motives to renounce his sin. In the first, God is conceived as placing the strongest barriers against sin, and as sacrificing the noblest victim to express his insuperable aversion to vice; in the second, God is imagined as removing all obstacles to sin, and protecting men in the practice of it, nothing contributing more to confirm wicked men in sin than the vain opinion, that, carry vice to what pitch they will, they may be reconciled to God by the mediation of Jesus Christ, whenever they wish for the benefits of his sacrifice.

To all these considerations, add one more on the unanimous opinion of all your ministers. In vain do you attempt to seek pretexts for sin in those scholastic disputes, and in those different methods which divines have struck out in establishing the doctrines of faith, and justification. Your divines, I grant, have used expressions capable of very different meanings, on these articles. They are men, their geniuses, like those of the rest of mankind, are finite, and they have discovered in the far greater part of all their systems the narrow limits of their minds. Intelligences, confined like ours, are necessarily stricken with a first truth more than with another truth, no less important and clear than the first. Every science, every course of study, afford proofs of the truth of this remark; but the present subject of our inquiry abounds with evidence

Let us examine the objections which are made against this doctrine.

Is it pretended, that the design of excluding holiness from the essence of faith is to elevate the merit of the death of Christ? But, O vain man! Do not we enervate the merit of the death of Christ, we, who place it in our system as the only foundation; the alone cause of the salvation of man, excluding works entirely, however holy they may be?

Dost thou say, thy design is to humble man? But, O vain man! What can be more proper to humble man than our system, which shows him that those works are nothing, which do not proceed from the assistance of God; and that if God condescends to accept them, he does so through mere mercy, and not on account of their merit?

Dost thou add, that our system is contrary to experience, and dost thou allege the examples of many, who have been justified without performing one good work, and by the bare desire of being saved by Jesus Christ, as the converted thief, and many others, who have turned to God on a death-bed? But O rain man! What have we been establishing? Have we said, that a faith, which had not produced good works, was not a true faith? No, we have only affirmed, that a true faith must necessarily be a principle of good works. It may happen, that a man may have this principle,

and may not have any opportunity of expressing it by practice, and of bringing it into action; he has it, however, in intention. In this sense we admit the maxims of St. Augustine, and if he did not understand it in our sense, it ought to be understood so; "Good works," says he, "do not accompany justification; but they follow it." The thief, in one sense, strictly speaking, did no good work: but in another sense, he did all good works. We say of him, as we say of Abraham, he did all in heart, in intention. Abraham, from the first moment of his vocation, was accounted to have abandoned his country, sacrificed his son Isaac, and wrought all those heroical actions of Christian faith, which made him a model for the whole church. In like manner, the converted thief visited all the sick, clothed all the naked, fed all the hungry, comforted all the afflicted, and was accounted to have done all the pious actions, of which faith is the principle, because he would infallibly have done them, had God afforded him opportunity.

Dost thou say, our justification and salvation flow from a decree made before the foundation of the world, and not from our embracing the gospel in time? But, O vain man! Do we deny the decree by showing the manner of the accomplishment of it? Do we destroy the end by establishing the means? If your side can prove, without injuring the doctrine of decrees, that man is justified by a bare desire of being justified, can we injure the same doctrine by asserting, that this desire must proceed from the heart, and must needs aim to please God, as well as to be reconciled to him, and to share his love?

mutilate the covenant of grace, to render salvation the easiest thing in the world, to abound in flattering ourselves with hopes of salvation, although we live without love, without humility, without labouring to be saved; these are the rocks against which we split; these are the dangers from which we would free you; this is the monster that we would never cease to attack, till we have given it its death-wound.

I would then abhor myself, deplore my frailty, blush at the remembrance of iny best duties, cast myself into the arms of divine mercy, and own all my felicity derivable from grace. I would own, it is grace that elects; grace which calls; grace that justifies; grace which sanctifies; grace that accepts a sanctification always frail and imperfect: but at the same time, I would watch over myself, I would arouse myself to duty, I would "work out my salvation with fear and trembling," Phil. ii. 12, and, while I acknowledge grace does all, and my works merit nothing, I would act as if I might expect every thing from my own efforts.

Verily, Christians! these are the two dispositions, which, above all others, we wish to excite in your minds and hearts. These are the two conclusions that you ought to draw from this discourse; a conclusion of humility and a conclusion of vigilance: a conclusion of humility, for behold the abyss into which sin had plunged you, and see the expense at which you were recovered from it. Man had originally a clear judgment, he knew his Creator, and the obedience that was due to him from his creatures. The path of happiness was open to him, and he was in full possession of power to walk in it. All on a sudden he sins, his privileges vanish, his knowledge is beclouded, and he is deprived of all his freedom. Man, man, who held the noblest dominion in nature, falls into the most abject of all kinds of slavery. Instantly the heavens "reveal his iniquity, the earth rises up against him," Job xx. 27, lightnings flash in his eyes, thunders roll in his and universal nature announces his final ruin. In order to rescue him from it, it was necessary for the mercy and justice of God to "shake heaven and earth," Heb. xii. 26. God must "take upon him the form of a servant," Phil. ii. 7, the most excellent of all intelligent beings must die in order to save him from eternal death.

ears,

Dost thou still object, that, although our system is true in the main, yet it is always dangerous to publish it; because man has always an inclination to "sacrifice unto his own net, and burn incense unto his own drag," Hab. i. 16, that by pressing the necessity of works, occasion is insensibly given to the doctrine of merit? But, allow me to ask, Is there no danger in the opposite system? If ours seem to favour one vice, does not the opposite system favour all vices? If ours seem to favour pride, does not the opposite system favour that, and with that all other vices, revenge, calumny, adultery, and incest? And, after all, should the abuse of a holy doctrine, prevent the use of it? Where, pray, are the men among us, who think to merit heaven by their good works? This is not all. Even since Jesus Christ has For our parts, we protest, my brethren, that said to us, this is the path to paradise; that is having examined a great number of con- the broad way to destruction; a fatal charm sciences, we find the general inclination the still fascinates our eyes, a dreadful propensity other way; people are in general more inclined to misery yet carries us away. Here again to a careless reliance on a kind of general the nature and fitness of things require the asgrace than to an industrious purchase of hap-sistance of Heaven. Grace, that revealed salpiness by good works. What is it, after all, that decoys thousands before our eyes into the broad way of destruction? Is it an opinion, after they have been very charitable, that they merit by charity? Is it an opinion, after they have been very humble, that they merit by humility? Ah! my brethren! the greatest part of you have so fully proved by your indisposition to piety, that you have no idea of the merit of good works, that there is no fear of ever establishing this doctrine among you. But, to form loose actions of obedience, to

vation, must dispose us to accept it, and must save us, if I may be allowed to speak so, in spite of our own unhappy disposition to vice and misery. After so many crimes, amidst so many errors, in spite of so many frailties, who, who dare lift up his head? Who can presume to trust himself? Who can imagine himself the author of his own salvation, and expect to derive it from his own merit?

Hide, hide thyself in the dust, miserable man! smite thy breast, fix thine eyes on the ashes, from which thou wast taken. Lift up thy

voice in these penitential cries, " If thou, Lord! | "pant after him, as the hart panteth after tho shouldst mark iniquities: O Lord! who shall water-brooks?" Ps. xlii. 1, 2. stand?" Ps. cxxx. 3. "O Lord! righteousness belongeth unto thee; but unto us confusion of face," Dan. 9. 7. "God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ," Gal. vi. 14. Lay thy pretensions, thy virtues, thy merits, at the foot of this cross. Divest thyself of thyself, and tear from thy heart, if possible, the last fibre of that pride, which would obstruct thy salvation, and ensure thy destruction.