Calvin, Institutes, Vol.3, Part 18
(... continued from part 17)
Chapter 17.
17. The promises of the Law and the Gospel reconciled.
In the following chapter, the arguments of Sophists, who would
destroy or impair the doctrine of Justification by Faith, are
reduced to two classes. The former is general, the latter special,
and contains some arguments peculiar to itself. I. The first class,
which is general, and in a manner contains the foundation of all the
arguments, draws an argument from the promises of the law. This is
considered from sec. 1-3. II. The second class following from the
former, and containing special proofs. An argument drawn from the
history of Cornelius explained, sec. 4, 5. III. A full exposition of
those passages of Scripture which represent God as showing mercy and
favor to the cultivators of righteousness, sec. 6. IV. A third
argument from the passages which distinguish good works by the name
of righteousness, and declare that men are justified by them, sec.
7, 8. V. The adversaries of justification by faith placed in a
dilemma. Their partial righteousness refuted, sec. 9, 10. VI. A
fourth argument, setting the Apostle James in opposition to Paul,
considered, sec. 11, 12. VII. Answer to a fifth argument, that,
according to Paul, not the hearers but the doors of the law are
justified, sec. 13. VIII. Consideration of a sixth argument, drawn
from those passages in which believers boldly submit their
righteousness to the judgment of God, and ask him to decide
according to it, sec. 14. IX. Examination of the last argument,
drawn from passages which ascribe righteousness and life to the ways
of believers, sec. 15.
Sections.
1. Brief summary of Chapters 15 and 16. Why justification is denied
to works. Argument of opponents founded on the promises of the
law. The substance of this argument. Answer. Those who would be
justified before God must be exempted from the power of the
law. How this is done.
2. Confirmation of the answer ab impossibili, and from the testimony
of an Apostle and of David.
3. Answer to the objection, by showing why these promises were
given. Refutation of the sophistical distinction between the
intrinsic value of works, and their value er parts.
4. Argument from the history of Cornelius. Answer, by distinguishing
between two kinds of acceptance. Former kind. Sophistical
objection refuted.
5. Latter kind. Plain from this distinction that Cornelius was
accepted freely before his good works could be accepted.
Similar explanations to be given of the passage in which God is
represented as merciful and propitious to the cultivators of
righteousness.
6. Exposition of these passages. Necessary to observe whether the
promise is legal or evangelical. The legal promise always made
under the condition that we "do," the evangelical under the
condition that we "believe."
7. Argument from the passages which distinguish good works by the
name of righteousness, and declare that man is justified by
them. Answer to the former part of the argument respecting the
name. Why the works of the saints called works of
righteousness. Distinction to be observed.
8. Answer to the second part of the argument, viz., that man is
justified by works. Works of no avail by themselves; we are
justified by faith only. This kind of righteousness defined.
Whence the value set on good works.
9. Answer confirmed and fortified by a dilemma.
10. In what sense the partial imperfect righteousness of believers
accepted. Conclusion of the refutation.
11. Argument founded on the Epistle of James. First answer. One
Apostle cannot be opposed to another. Second answer. Third
answer, from the scope of James. A double paralogism in the
term Faith. In James the faith said not to justify is a mere
empty opinion; in Paul it is the instrument by which we
apprehend Christ our righteousness.
12. Another paralogism on the word justify. Paul speaks of the
cause, James of the effects, of justification. Sum of the
discussion.
13. Argument founded on Rom. 2: 13. Answer, explaining the Apostles
meaning. Another argument, containing a reduction ad
impossibili. Why Paul used the argument.
14. An argument founded on the passages in which believers
confidently appeal to their righteousness. Answer, founded on a
consideration of two circumstances. 1. They refer only to a
special cause. 2. They claim righteousness in comparison with
the wicked.
16. Last argument from those passages which ascribe righteousness
and life to the ways of believers. Answer. This proceeds from
the paternal kindness of God. What meant by the perfection of
saints.
1. Let us now consider the other arguments which Satan by his
satellites invents to destroy or impair the doctrine of
Justification by Faith. I think we have already put it out of the
power of our calumniators to treat us as if we were the enemies of
good works - justification being denied to works not in order that
no good works may be done or that those which are done may be denied
to be good; but only that we may not trust or glory in them, or
ascribe salvation to them. Our only confidence and boasting, our
only anchor of salvation is, that Christ the Son of God is ours, and
that we are in him sons of God and heirs of the heavenly kingdom,
being called, not by our worth, but the kindness of God, to the hope
of eternal blessedness. But since, as has been said, they assail us
with other engines, let us now proceed to demolish them also. First,
they recur to the legal promises which the Lord proclaimed to the
observers of the law, and they ask us whether we hold them to be
null or effectual. Since it were absurd and ridiculous to say they
are null, they take it for granted that they have some efficacy.
Hence they infer that we are not justified by faith only. For the
Lord thus speaks: "Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to
these judgments, and keep and do them, that the Lord thy God shall
keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy
fathers; and he will love thee, and bless thee and multiply thee,"
(Deut. 7: 12, 13.) Again, "If ye thoroughly amend your ways and your
doings; if ye thoroughly execute judgment between a man and his
neighbor; if ye oppress not the stranger, the fatherless, and the
widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place, neither walk after
other gods to your hurt: then will I cause you to dwell in this
place, in the land that I gave to your fathers, for ever and ever,"
(Jer. 7: 5-7.) It were to no purpose to quote a thousand similar
passages, which, as they are not different in meaning, are to be
explained on the same principle. In substance, Moses declares that
in the law is set down "a blessing and a curse," life and death,
(Deut. 11: 26;) and hence they argue, either that that blessing is
become inactive and unfruitful, or that justification is not by
faith only. We have already shown, that if we cleave to the law we
are devoid of every blessing, and have nothing but the curse
denounced on all transgressors. The Lord does not promise any thing
except to the perfect observers of the law; and none such are any
where to be found. The results therefore is that the whole human
race is convicted by the law, and exposed to the wrath and curse of
God: to be saved from this they must escape from the power of the
law, and be as it were brought out of bondage into freedom, - not
that carnal freedom which indisposes us for the observance of the
law, tends to licentiousness, and allows our passions to wanton
unrestrained with loosened reins; but that spiritual freedom which
consoles and raises up the alarmed and smitten conscience,
proclaiming its freedom from the curse and condemnation under which
it was formerly held bound. This freedom from subjection to the law,
this manumission, if I may so express it, we obtain when by faith we
apprehend the mercy of God in Christ, and are thereby assured of the
pardon of sins, with a consciousness of which the law stung and
tortured us.
2. For this reason, the promises offered in the law would all
be null and ineffectual, did not God in his goodness send the gospel
to our aid, since the condition on which they depend, and under
which only they are to be performed, viz., the fulfillment of the
law, will never be accomplished. Still, however the aid which the
Lord gives consists not in leaving part of justification to be
obtained by works, and in supplying part out of his indulgence, but
in giving us Christ as in himself alone the fulfillment of
righteousness. For the Apostle, after premising that he and the
other Jews, aware that "a man is not justified by the works of the
law," had "believed in Jesus Christ," adds as the reason, not that
they might be assisted to make up the sum of righteousness by faith
in Christ, but that they "might be justified by the faith of Christ,
and not by the works of the law," (Gal. 2: 16.) If believers
withdraw from the law to faith, that in the latter they may find the
justification which they see is not in the former, they certainly
disclaim justification by the law. Therefore, whose will, let him
amplify the rewards which are said to await the observer of the law,
provided he at the same time understand, that owing to our
depravity, we derive no benefit from them until we have obtained
another righteousness by faith. Thus David after making mention of
the reward which the Lord has prepared for his servants, (Ps. 25
almost throughout,) immediately descends to an acknowledgment of
sins, by which the reward is made void. In Psalm 19, also, he loudly
extols the benefits of the law; but immediately exclaims, "Who can
understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults," (Ps. 19:
12.) This passage perfectly accords with the former, when, after
saying, "the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth unto such as keep
his covenant and his testimonies," he adds, "For thy name's sake, O
Lord, pardon mine iniquity: for it is great," (Ps. 25: 10, 11.)
Thus, too, we ought to acknowledge that the favor of God is offered
to us in the law, provided by our works we can deserve it; but that
it never actually reaches us through any such desert.
3. What then? Were the promises given that they might vanish
away without fruit? I lately declared that this is not my opinion. I
say, indeed, that their efficacy does not extend to us so long as
they have respect to the merit of works, and, therefore, that,
considered in themselves, they are in some sense abolished. Hence
the Apostle shows, that the celebrated promise, "Ye shall therefore
keep my statutes and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live
in them," (Levit. 18: 5; Ezek. 20: 10,) will, if we stop at it, be
of no avail, and will profit us not a whit more than if it were not
given, being inaccessible even to the holiest servants of God, who
are all far from fulfilling the law, being encompassed with many
infirmities. But when the gospel promises are substituted, promises
which announce the free pardon of sins, the result is not only that
our persons are accepted of God, but his favor also is shown to our
works, and that not only in respect that the Lord is pleased with
them, but also because he visits them with the blessings which were
due by agreement to the observance of his law. I admit, therefore,
that the works of the faithful are rewarded with the promises which
God gave in his law to the cultivators of righteousness and
holiness; but in this reward we should always attend to the cause
which procures favor to works. This cause, then, appears to be
threefold. First, God turning his eye away from the works of his
servants which merit reproach more than praise, embraces them in
Christ, and by the intervention of faith alone reconciles them to
himself without the aid of works. Secondly the works not being
estimated by their own worth, he, by his fatherly kindness and
indulgence, honors so far as to give them some degree of value.
Thirdly, he extends his pardon to them, not imputing the
imperfection by which they are all polluted, and would deserve to be
regarded as vices rather than virtues. Hence it appears how much
Sophists were deluded in thinking they admirably escaped all
absurdities when they said, that works are able to merit salvation,
not from their intrinsic worth, but according to agreement, the Lord
having, in his liberality, set this high value upon them. But,
meanwhile, they observed not how far the works which they insisted
on regarding as meritorious must be from fulfilling the condition of
the promises, were they not preceded by a justification founded on
faith alone, and on forgiveness of sins - a forgiveness necessary to
cleanse even good works from their stains. Accordingly, of the three
causes of divine liberality to which it is owing that good works are
accepted, they attended only to one: the other two, though the
principal causes, they suppressed.
4. They quote the saying of Peter as given by Luke in the Acts,
"Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in
every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is
accepted with him" (Acts 10: 34, 35.) And hence they infer, as a
thing which seems to them beyond a doubt, that if man by right
conduct procures the favor of God, his obtaining salvation is not
entirely the gift of God. Nay, that when God in his mercy assists
the sinner, he is inclined to mercy by works. There is no way of
reconciling the passages of Scripture, unless you observe that man's
acceptance with God is twofold. As man is by nature, God finds
nothing in him which can incline him to mercy, except merely big
wretchedness. If it is clear then that man, when God first
interposes for him, is naked and destitute of all good, and, on the
other hand, loaded and filled with all kinds of evil, - for what
quality, pray, shall we say that he is worthy of the heavenly
kingdom? Where God thus clearly displays free mercy, have done with
that empty imagination of merit. Another passage in the same book,
viz., where Cornelius hears from the lips of an angel, "Thy prayer
and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God," (Acts 10: 4,)
is miserably wrested to prove that man is prepared by the study of
good works to receive the favor of God. Cornelius being endued with
true wisdom, in other words, with the fear of God, must have been
enlightened by the Spirit of wisdom, and being an observer of
righteousness, must have been sanctified by the same Spirit;
righteousness being, as the Apostle testifies, one of the most
certain fruits of the Spirit, (Gal. 5: 5.) Therefore, all those
qualities by which he is said to have pleased God he owed to divine
grace: so far was he from preparing himself by his own strength to
receive it. Indeed, not a syllable of Scripture can be produced
which does not accord with the doctrine, that the only reason why
God receives man into his favor is, because he sees that he is in
every respect lost when left to himself; lost, if he does not
display his mercy in delivering him. We now see that in thus
accepting, God looks not to the righteousness of the individual, but
merely manifests the divine goodness towards miserable sinners, who
are altogether undeserving of this great mercy.
5. But after the Lord has withdrawn the sinner from the abyss
of perdition, and set him apart for himself by means of adoption,
having begotten him again and formed him to newness of life, he
embraces him as a new creature, and bestows the gifts of his Spirit.
This is the acceptance to which Peter refers, and by which believers
after their calling are approved by God even in respect of works;
for the Lord cannot but love and delight in the good qualities which
he produces in them by means of his Spirit. But we must always bear
in mind, that the only way in which men are accepted of God in
respect of works is, that whatever good works he has conferred upon
those whom he admits to favor, he by an increase of liberality
honors with his acceptance. For whence their good works, but just
that the Lord having chosen them as vessels of honor, is pleased to
adorn them with true purity? And how are their actions deemed good
as if there was no deficiency in them, but just that their merciful
Father indulgently pardons the spots and blemishes which adhere to
them? In one word, the only meaning of acceptance in this passage
is, that God accepts and takes pleasure in his children, in whom he
sees the traces and lineaments of his own countenance. We have else
here said, that regeneration is a renewal of the divine image in us.
Since God, therefore, whenever he beholds his own face, justly loves
it and holds it in honor, the life of believers, when formed to
holiness and justice, is said, not without cause, to be pleasing to
him. But because believers, while encompassed with mortal flesh, are
still sinners, and their good works only begun savor of the
corruption of the flesh, God cannot be propitious either to their
persons or their works, unless he embraces them more in Christ than
in themselves. In this way are we to understand the passages in
which God declares that he is clement and merciful to the
cultivators of righteousness. Moses said to the Israelites, "Know,
therefore, that the Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which
keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his
commandments, to a thousand generations." These words afterwards
became a common form of expression among the people. Thus Solomon in
his prayer at the dedication says, "Lord God of Israel, there is no
God like thee, in heaven above, or on earth beneath, who keepest
covenant and mercy with thy servants that walk before thee with all
their heart," (1 Kings 8: 23.) The same words are repeated by
Nehemiah, (Neh. 1: 5.) As the Lord in all covenants of mercy
stipulates on his part for integrity and holiness of life in his
servants, (Deut. 29: 18,) lest his goodness might be held in
derision, or any one, puffed up with exultation in it, might speak
flatteringly to his soul while walking in the depravity of his
heart, so he is pleased that in this way those whom he admits to
communion in the covenant should be kept to their duty. Still,
however, the covenant was gratuitous at first, and such it ever
remains. Accordingly, while David declares, "according to the
cleanness of my hands has he recompensed me," yet does he not omit
the fountain to which I have referred; "he delivered me, because he
delighted in me," (2 Sam. 22: 20, 21.) In commending the goodness of
his cause, he derogates in no respect from the free mercy which
takes precedence of all the gifts of which it is the origin.
6. Here, by the way, it is of importance to observe how those
forms of expression differ from legal promises. By legal promises, I
mean not those which lie scattered in the books of Moses, (for there
many Evangelical promises occur,) but those which properly belong to
the legal dispensation. All such promises, by whatever name they may
be called, are made under the condition that the reward is to be
paid on the things commanded being done. But when it is said that
the Lord keeps a covenant of mercy with those who love him, the
words rather demonstrate what kind of servants those are who have
sincerely entered into the covenant, than express the reason why the
Lord blesses them. The nature of the demonstration is this: As the
end for which God bestows upon us the gift of eternal life is, that
he may be loved, feared, and worshipped by us, so the end of all the
promises of mercy contained in Scripture justly is that we may
reverence and serve their author. Therefore, whenever we hear that
he does good to those that observe his law, let us remember that the
sons of God are designated by the duty which they ought perpetually
to observe, that his reason for adopting us is, that we may
reverence him as a father. Hence, if we would not deprive ourselves
of the privilege of adoption, we must always strive in the direction
of our calling. On the other hand, however, let us remember, that
the completion of the Divine mercy depends not on the works of
believers, but that God himself fulfill the promise of salvation to
those who by right conduct correspond to their calling, because he
recognizes the true badges of sons in those only who are directed to
good by his Spirit. To this we may refer what is said of the members
of the Church, "Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall
dwell in thy holy hill? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh
righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart," &c., (Ps. 15:
1, 2.) Again, in Isaiah, "Who among us shall dwell with the
devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?
He that walketh righteously," &c., (Isa. 33: 14, 15.) For the thing
described is not the strength with which believers can stand before
the Lord, but the manner in which our most merciful Father
introduces them into his fellowship, and defends and confirms them
therein. For as he detests sin and loves righteousness, so those
whom he unites to himself he purifies by his Spirit, that he may
render them conformable to himself and to his kingdom. Therefore, if
it be asked, What is the first cause which gives the saints free
access to the kingdom of God, and a firm and permanent footing in
it? the answer is easy. The Lord in his mercy once adopted and ever
defends them. But if the question relates to the manner, we must
descend to regeneration, and the fruits of it, as enumerated in the
fifteenth Psalm.
7. There seems much more difficulty in those passages which
distinguish good works by the name of righteousness, and declare
that man is justified by them. The passages of the former class are
very numerous, as when the observance of the commandments is termed
justification or righteousness. Of the other classes we have a
description in the words of Moses, "It shall be our righteousness,
if we observe to do all these commandments," (Deut. 6: 25.) But if
you object, that it is a legal promise, which, having an impossible
condition annexed to it, proves nothing, there are other passages to
which the same answer cannot be made; for instance, "If the man be
poor," "thou shalt deliver him the pledge again when the sun goes
down:" "and it shall be righteousness unto thee before the Lord thy
God," (Deut. 24: 13.) Likewise the words of the prophet, "Then stood
up Phinehas, and executed judgment: and so the plague was stayed.
And that was counted unto him for righteousness unto all generations
for evermore," (Psal. 106: 30,, 31.) Accordingly the Pharisees of
our day think they have here full scope for exultation. For, as we
say, that when justification by faith is established, justification
by works falls; they argue on the same principle, If there is a
justification by works, it is false to say that we are justified by
faith only. When I grant that the precepts of the law are termed
righteousness, I do nothing strange: for they are so in reality. I
must, however, inform the reader, that the Hebrew word "chukim" has
been rendered by the Septuagint, not very appropriately,
"dikaiomata", justifications, instead of edicts. But I readily give
up any dispute as to the word. Nor do I deny that the Law of God
contains a perfect righteousness. For although we are debtors to do
all the things which it enjoins, and, therefore, even after a full
obedience, are unprofitable servants; yet, as the Lord has deigned
to give it the name of righteousness, it is not ours to take from it
what he has given. We readily admit, therefore, that the perfect
obedience of the law is righteousness, and the observance of any
precept a part of righteousness, the whole substance of
righteousness being contained in the remaining parts. But we deny
that any such righteousness ever exists. Hence we discard the
righteousness of the law, not as being in itself maimed and
defective, but because of the weakness of our flesh it nowhere
appears. But then Scripture does not merely call the precepts of the
law righteousness, it also gives this name to the works of the
saints: as when it states that Zacharias and his wife "were both
righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances
of the Lord blameless," (Luke 1: 6.) Surely when it thus speaks, it
estimates works more according to the nature of the law than their
own proper character. And here, again, I must repeat the observation
which I lately made, that the law is not to be ascertained from a
careless translation of the Greek interpreter. Still, as Luke chose
not to make any change on the received version, I will not contend
for this. The things contained in the law God enjoined upon man for
righteousness but that righteousness we attain not unless by
observing the whole law: every transgression whatever destroys it.
While, therefore, the law commands nothing but righteousness, if we
look to itself, every one of its precepts is righteousness: if we
look to the men by whom they are performed, being transgressors in
many things, they by no means merit the praise of righteousness for
one work, and that a work which, through the imperfection adhering
to it, is always in some respect vicious.
8. I come to the second class, (sec. 1, 7, ad init.,) in which
the chief difficulty lies. Paul finds nothing stronger to prove
justification by faith than that which is written of Abraham, he
"believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness," (Rom.
4: 3; Gal. 3: 6.) Therefore, when it is said that the achievement of
Phinehas "was counted unto him for righteousness," (Psal. 106: 30,
Al,) we may argue that what Paul contends for respecting faith
applies also to works. Our opponents, accordingly, as if the point
were proved, set it down that though we are not justified without
faith, it is not by faith only; that our justification is completed
by works. Here I beseech believers, as they know that the true
standard of righteousness must be derived from Scripture alone, to
consider with me seriously and religiously, how Scripture can be
fairly reconciled with that view. Paul, knowing that justification
by faith was the refuge of those who wanted righteousness of their
own, confidently infers, that all who are justified by faith are
excluded from the righteousness of works. But as it is clear that
this justification is common to all believers, he with equal
confidence infers that no man is justified by works; nay, more, that
justification is without any help from works. But it is one thing to
determine what power works have in themselves, and another to
determine what place they are to hold after justification by faith
has been established. If a price is to be put upon works according
to their own worth, we hold that they are unfit to appear in the
presence of God: that man, accordingly, has no works in which he can
glory before God, and that hence, deprived of all aid from works, he
is justified by faith alone. Justification, moreover, we thus
define: The sinner being admitted into communion with Christ is, for
his sake, reconciled to God; when purged by his blood he obtains the
remission of sins, and clothed with righteousness, just as if it
were his own, stands secure before the judgment-seat of heaven.
Forgiveness of sins being previously given, the good works which
follow have a value different from their merit, because whatever is
imperfect in them is covered by the perfection of Christ, and all
their blemishes and pollutions are wiped away by his purity, so as
never to come under the cognizance of the divine tribunal. The guilt
of all transgressions, by which men are prevented from offering God
an acceptable service, being thus effaced, and the imperfection
which is wont to sully even good works being buried, the good works
which are done by believers are deemed righteous, or; which is the
same thing, are imputed for righteousness.
9. Now, should any one state this to me as an objection to
justification by faith, I would first ask him, Whether a man is
deemed righteous for one holy work or two, while in all the other
acts of his life lie is a transgressor of the law? This were,
indeed, more than absurd. I would next ask, Whether he is deemed
righteous on account of many good works if he is guilty of
transgression in some one part? Even this he will not venture to
maintain in opposition to the authority of the law, which
pronounces, "Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this
law to do them," (Deut. 27: 26.) I would go still farther and ask,
Whether there be any work which may not justly be convicted of
impurity or imperfection? How, then, will it appear to that eye
before which even the heavens are not clean, and angels are
chargeable with folly? (Job 4: 18.) Thus he will be forced to
confess that no good work exists that is not defiled, both by
contrary transgression and also by its own corruption, so that it
cannot be honored as righteousness. But if it is certainly owing to
justification by faith that works, otherwise impure, unclean,
defective, unworthy of the sight, not to say of the love of God, are
imputed for righteousness, why do they by boasting of this
imputation aim at the destruction of that justification, but for
which the boast were vain? Are they desirous of having a viper's
birth? To this their ungodly language tends. They cannot deny that
justification by faith is the beginning, the foundation, the cause,
the subject, the substance, of works of righteousness, and yet they
conclude that justification is not by faith, because good works are
counted for righteousness. Let us have done then with this
frivolity, and confess the fact as it stands; if any righteousness
which works are supposed to possess depends on justification by
faith, this doctrine is not only not impaired, but on the contrary
confirmed, its power being thereby more brightly displayed. Nor let
us suppose, that after free justification works are commended, as if
they afterwards succeeded to the office of justifying, or shared the
office with faith. For did not justification by faith always remain
entire, the impurity of works would be disclosed. There is nothing
absurd in the doctrine, that though man is justified by faith, he is
himself not only not righteous, but the righteousness attributed to
his works is beyond their own deserts.
10. In this way we can admit not only that there is a partial
righteousness in works, (as our adversaries maintain,) but that they
are approved by God as if they were absolutely perfect. If we
remember on what foundation this is rested, every difficulty will be
solved. The first time when a work begins to be acceptable is when
it is received with pardon. And whence pardon, but just because God
looks upon us and all that belongs to us as in Christ? Therefore, as
we ourselves when ingrafted into Christ appear righteous before God,
because our iniquities are covered with his innocence; so our works
are, and are deemed righteous, because every thing otherwise
defective in them being buried by the purity of Christ is not
imputed. Thus we may justly say, that not only ourselves, but our
works also, are justified by faith alone. Now, if that righteousness
of works, whatever it be, depends on faith and free justification,
and is produced by it, it ought to be included under it and, so to
speak, made subordinate to it, as the effect to its cause; so far is
it from being entitled to be set up to impair or destroy the
doctrine of justification. Thus Paul, to prove that our blessedness
depends not on our works, but on the mercy of God, makes special use
of the words of David, "Blessed is he whose transgression is
forgiven, whose sin is covered;" "Blessed is the man unto whom the
Lord imputeth not iniquity." Should any one here obtrude the
numberless passages in which blessedness seems to be attributed to
works, as, "Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord;" "He that has
mercy on the poor, happy is he;" "Blessed is the man that walketh
not in the counsel of the ungodly," and "that endureth temptation;"
"Blessed are they that keep judgment," that are "pure in heart,"
"meek," "merciful," &c., they cannot make out that Paul's doctrine
is not true. For seeing that the qualities thus extolled never all
so exist in man as to obtain for him the approbation of God, it
follows, that man is always miserable until he is exempted from
misery by the pardon of his sins. Since, then, all the kinds of
blessedness extolled in the Scripture are vain so that man derives
no benefit from them until he obtains blessedness by the forgiveness
of sins, a forgiveness which makes way for them, it follows that
this is not only the chief and highest, but the only blessedness,
unless you are prepared to maintain that it is impaired by things
which owe their entire existence to it. There is much less to
trouble us in the name of righteous which is usually given to
believers. I admit that they are so called from the holiness of
their lives, but as they rather exert themselves in the study of
righteousness than fulfill righteousness itself, any degree of it
which they possess must yield to justification by faith, to which it
is owing that it is what it is.
11. But they say that we have a still more serious business
with James, who in express terms opposes us. For he asks, "Was not
Abraham our father justified by works?" and adds "You see then how
that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only," (James 2:
21, 24.) What then? Will they engage Paul in a quarrel with James?
If they hold James to be a servant of Christ, his sentiments must be
understood as not dissenting from Christ speaking by the mouth of
Paul. By the mouth of Paul the Spirit declares that Abraham obtained
justification by faith, not by works; we also teach that all are
justified by faith without the works of the law. By James the same
Spirit declares that both Abraham's justification and ours consists
of works, and not of faith only. It is certain that the Spirit
cannot be at variance with himself. Where, then, will be the
agreement? It is enough for our opponents, provided they can tear up
that justification by faith which we regard as fixed by the deepest
roots: to restore peace to the conscience is to them a matter of no
great concern. Hence you may see, that though they indeed carp at
the doctrine of justification by faith, they meanwhile point out no
goal of righteousness at which the conscience may rest. Let them
triumph then as they will, so long as the only victory they can
boast of is, that they have deprived righteousness of all its
certainty. This miserable victory they will indeed obtain when the
light of truth is extinguished, and the Lord permits them to darken
it with their lies. But wherever the truth of God stands they cannot
prevail. I deny, then, that the passage of James which they are
constantly holding up before us as if it were the shield of
Achilles, gives them the slightest countenance. To make this plain,
let us first attend to the scope of the Apostle, and then show
wherein their hallucination consists. As at that time (and the evil
has existed in the Church ever since) there were many who, while
they gave manifest proof of their infidelity, by neglecting and
omitting all the works peculiar to believers, ceased not falsely to
glory in the name of faith, James here dissipates their vain
confidence. His intention therefore is, not to derogate in any
degree from the power of true faith, but to show how absurdly these
triflers laid claim only to the empty name, and resting satisfied
with it, felt secure in unrestrained indulgence in vice. This state
of matters being understood, it will be easy to see where the error
of our opponents lies. They fall into a double paralogism, the one
in the term faith, the other in the term justifying. The Apostle, in
giving the name of faith to an empty opinion altogether differing
from true faith, makes a concession which derogates in no respect
from his case. This he demonstrates at the outset by the words,
"What does it profit, my brethren, though a man say he has faith,
and have not works?" (James 2: 14.) He says not, "If a man have
faith without works," but "if he say that he has." This becomes
still clearer when a little after he derides this faith as worse
than that of devils, and at last when he calls it "dead." You may
easily ascertain his meaning by the explanation, "Thou believest
that there is one God." Surely if a11 which is contained in that
faith is a belief in the existence of God, there is no wonder that
it does not justify. The denial of such a power to it cannot be
supposed to derogate in any degree from Christian faith, which is of
a very different description. For how does true faith justify unless
by uniting us to Christ, so that being made one with him, we may be
admitted to a participation in his righteousness? It does not
justify because it forms an idea of the divine existence, but
because it reclines with confidence on the divine mercy.
12. We have not made good our point until we dispose of the
other paralogism: since James places a part of justification in
works. If you would make James consistent with the other Scriptures
and with himself, you must give the word justify, as used by him, a
different meaning from what it has with Paul. In the sense of Paul
we are said to be justified when the remembrance of our
unrighteousness is obliterated and we are counted righteous. Had
James had the same meaning it would have been absurd for him to
quote the words of Moses, "Abraham believed God," &c. The context
runs thus: "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he
had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith
wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the
Scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it
was imputed unto him for righteousness." If it is absurd to say that
the effect was prior to its cause, either Moses falsely declares in
that passage that Abraham's faith was imputed for righteousness or
Abraham, by his obedience in offering up Isaac, did not merit
righteousness. Before the existence of Ishmael, who was a grown
youth at the birth of Isaac, Abraham was justified by his faith. How
thee can we say that he obtained justification by an obedience which
followed long after? Wherefore, either James erroneously inverts the
proper order, (this it were impious to suppose,) or he meant not to
say that he was justified, as if he deserved to be deemed just. What
then? It appears certain that he is speaking of the manifestation,
not of the imputation of righteousness, as if he had said, Those who
are justified by true faith prove their justification by obedience
and good works, not by a bare and imaginary semblance of faith. In
one word, he is not discussing the mode of justification, but
requiring that the justification of believers shall be operative.
And as Paul contends that men are justified without the aid of
works, so James will not allow any to be regarded as justified who
are destitute of good works. Due attention to the scope will thus
disentangle every doubt; for the error of our opponents lies chiefly
in this, that they think James is defining the mode of
justification, whereas his only object is to destroy the depraved
security of those who vainly pretended faith as an excuse for their
contempt of good works. Therefore, let them twist the words of James
as they may, they will never extract out of them more than the two
propositions: That an empty phantom of faith does not justify, and
that the believer, not contented with such an imagination, manifests
his justification by good works.
13. They gain nothing by quoting from Paul to the same effect,
that "not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers
of the law shall be justified," (Rom. 2: 13.) I am unwilling to
evade the difficulty by the solution of Ambrose, that Paul spoke
thus because faith in Christ is the fulfillment of the law. This I
regard as a mere subterfuge, and one too for which there is no
occasion, as the explanation is perfectly obvious. The Apostle's
object is to suppress the absurd confidence of the Jews who gave out
that they alone had a knowledge of the law, though at the very time
they where its greatest despisers. That they might not plume
themselves so much on a bare acquaintance with the law, he reminds
them that when justification is sought by the law, the thing
required is not the knowledge but the observance of it. We certainly
mean not to dispute that the righteousness of the law consists in
works, and not only so, but that justification consists in the
dignity and merits of works. But this proves not that we are
justified by works unless they can produce some one who has
fulfilled the law. That Paul had no other meaning is abundantly
obvious from the context. After charging Jews and Gentiles in common
with unrighteousness, he descends to particulars and says, that "as
many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law,"
referring to the Gentiles, and that "as many as have sinned in the
law shall be judged by the law," referring to the Jews. Moreover, as
they, winking at their transgressions, boasted merely of the law, he
adds most appropriately, that the law was passed with the view of
justifying not those who only heard it, but those only who obeyed
it; as if he had said, Do you seek righteousness in the law? do not
bring forward the mere hearing of it, which is in itself of little
weight, but bring works by which you may show that the law has not
been given to you in vain. Since in these they were all deficient,
it followed that they had no ground of boasting in the law. Paul's
meaning, therefore, rather leads to an opposite argument. The
righteousness of the law consists in the perfection of works; but no
man can boast of fulfilling the law by works, and, therefore, there
is no righteousness by the law.
14. They now retake themselves to those passages in which
believers boldly submit their righteousness to the judgment of God,
and wish to be judged accordingly; as in the following passages:
"Judge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness, and according to
mine integrity that is in me." Again, "Hear the right, O Lord;"
"Thou hast proved mine heart; thou hast visited me in the night;
thou hast tried me, and shalt find nothing." Again "The Lord
regarded me according to my righteousness; according to the
cleanness of my hands has he recompensed me. For I have kept the
ways of the Lord, and have not wickedly departed from my God." "I
was also upright before him, and I kept myself from mine iniquity."
Again, "Judge me, O Lord; for I have walked in mine integrity;" "I
have not sat with vain persons; neither will I go in with
dissemblers;" "Gather not my soul with sinners, nor my life with
bloody men; in whose hands is mischief, and their right hand is full
of bribes. But as for me, I will walk in mine integrity." I have
already spoken of the confidence which the saints seem to derive
simply from works. The passages now quoted will not occasion much
difficulty, if we attend to their "peristasis", their connection, or
(as it is commonly called) special circumstances. These are of two
kinds; for those who use them have no wish that their whole life
should be brought to trial, so that they may be acquitted or
condemned according to its tenor; all they wish is, that a decision
should be given on the particular case; and even here the
righteousness which they claim is not with reference to the divine
perfection, but only by comparison with the wicked and profane. When
the question relates to justification, the thing required is not
that the individual have a good ground of acquittal in regard to
some particular matter, but that his whole life be in accordance
with righteousness. But when the saints implore the divine justice
in vindication of their innocence, they do not present themselves as
free from fault, and in every respect blameless but while placing
their confidence of salvation in the divine goodness only, and
trusting that he will vindicate his poor when they are afflicted
contrary to justice and equity, they truly commit to him the cause
in which the innocent are oppressed. And when they sist themselves
with their adversaries at the tribunal of God, they pretend not to
an innocence corresponding to the divine purity were inquiry
strictly made, but knowing that in comparison of the malice,
dishonesty, craft, and iniquity of their enemies, their sincerity
justice, simplicity, and purity, are ascertained and approved by
God, they dread not to call upon him to judge between them. Thus
when David said to Saul, "The Lord render to every man his
righteousness and his faithfulness," (1 Sam. 26: 23,) he meant not
that the Lord should examine and reward every one according to his
deserts, but he took the Lord to witness how great his innocence was
in comparison of Saul's injustice. Paul, too, when he indulges in
the boast, "Our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience,
that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but
by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and
more abundantly to you-ward," (2 Cor. 1: 12,) means not to call for
the scrutiny of God, but compelled by the calumnies of the wicked he
appeals, in contradiction of all their slanders, to his faith and
probity, which he knew that God had indulgently accepted. For we see
how he elsewhere says, "I know nothing by myself; yet am I not
hereby justified," (1 Cor. 4: 4;) in other words, he was aware that
the divine judgment far transcended the blind estimate of man.
Therefore, however believers may, in defending their integrity
against the hypocrisy of the ungodly, appeal to God as their witness
and judge, still when the question is with God alone, they all with
one mouth exclaim, "If thou, Lord, should mark iniquities, 0 Lord,
who shall stand?" Again, "Enter not into judgment with thy servant;
for in thy sight shall no man living be justified." Distrusting
their own words, they gladly exclaim, "Thy loving-kindness is better
than life," (Ps. 130: 3; 143: 2; 63: 3.)
15. There are other passages not unlike those quoted above, at
which some may still demur. Solomon says, "The just man walketh in
his integrity," (Prov. 20: 7.) Again, "In the way of righteousness
is life; and in the pathway thereof there is no death," (Prov. 12:
28.) For this reason Ezekiel says, He that "has walked in my
statutes, and has kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he
shall surely live," (Ezek. 18: 9, 21; 23: 15.) None of these
declarations do we deny or obscure. But let one of the sons of Adam
come forward with such integrity. If there is none, they must perish
from the presence of God, or retake themselves to the asylum of
mercy. Still we deny not that the integrity of believers, though
partial and imperfect, is a step to immortality. How so, but just
that the works of those whom the Lord has assumed into the covenant
of grace, he tries not by their merit, but embraces with paternal
indulgence. By this we understand not with the Schoolmen, that works
derive their value from accepting grace. For their meaning is, that
works otherwise unfit to obtain salvation in terms of law, are made
fit for such a purpose by the divine acceptance. On the other hand,
I maintain that these works being sullied both by other
transgressions and by their own deficiencies, have no other value
than this, that the Lord indulgently pardons them; in other words,
that the righteousness which he bestows on man is gratuitous. Here
they unseasonably obtrude those passages in which the Apostle prays
for all perfection to believers, "To the end he may establish your
hearts unblamable in holiness before God, even our Father," (1
Thess. 3: 13, and elsewhere.) These words were strongly urged by the
Celestines of old, in maintaining the perfection of holiness in the
present life. To this we deem it sufficient briefly to reply with
Augustine, that the goal to which all the pious ought to aspire is,
to appear in the presence of God without spot and blemish; but as
the course of the present life is at best nothing more than
progress, we shall never reach the goal until we have laid aside the
body of sin, and been completely united to the Lord. If any one
choose to give the name of perfection to the saints, I shall not
obstinately quarrel with him, provided he defines this perfection in
the words of Augustine, "When we speak of the perfect virtue of the
saints, part of this perfection consists in the recognition of our
imperfection both in truth and in humility," (August. ad Bonif. lib.
3, c. 7.)
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 3, Part 18
(continued in part 19...)
----------------------------------------------------
file: /pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-04: cvin3-18.txt
.