154 Zuinglius and Zegerus agreed on this point. XVI. STRIC. the opinion of Zegerus, that is, to my own which you call most absurd, whereas yours is diametrically opposed to it. For 1st, Zuinglius here clearly teaches that faith, to which justification and salvation are attributed in Scripture, (and specially that faith of which St. Paul says that it is counted for righteousness,) is that same confidence which comprehends the three Divine virtues, faith, hope, and love, and which is plainly the same as the whole of Christian piety, 'or the heart joined to God.' 2ndly, he clearly asserts, that unless this view be taken, there must remain many difficulties in Scripture unsolved. Without doubt he was thinking especially of the apparent disagreement of St. Paul and St. James. For he quotes particularly the passage in Rom. iv. where faith is said to be counted to a man for righteousness; affirming that unless faith is there taken in this complex sense, that passage cannot be reconciled with others, in which justification and salvation are attributed to other virtues. He moreover quotes expressly the second chapter of St. James's Epistle, to prove that faith as a single virtue is not by any means sufficient for a man's justification. You see from this that my plan of reconciling the Apostles St. Paul and St. James is by no means new, even if you look to reformed divines: to say nothing of the ancients, whom I well know you hold for naught. STRICTURE XVII. ON II. DISS. vii. In this chapter I examine a question by the way, whether the law of Moses was under any view a law of most perfect and therefore unattainable virtue and righteousness; and whether the arguments of the Apostle, in Rom. iii., and Gal. iii. 10, against justification by that law, are founded on this consideration; and the negative side of the question I support by many arguments. But the whole of my Dissertation is thrown over as wholly irrelevant; thus you write on the margin of p. 106, "With evil purpose and unhallowed pains, and quite irrelevantly, you deny perfection to the law of Moses. For St. Paul is speaking of the law which will be the rule of the last judgment, which no one Gross absurdity of this Stricture. 155 XVII. but a fool would deny is a rule of perfect obedience: see STRIC. the second chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. By the works of this law he denies that any one is justified, chap. iii." ANSWER TO STRICTURE XVII. § 1. I do not remember ever to have seen so many gross mistakes heaped together in so few words. For in the first place, I no more deny perfection to the law of Moses, as you dream, than to the Gospel. For although it is most true, that the law of Moses, compared with the Gospel, is a more imperfect rule of obedience, yet this is not the question here. I deny that the law of Moses was a law of most perfect obedience in the same sense that I also deny that the Gospel is a law of most perfect obedience: in truth, from the drift of the whole of my argument it is clear that by a law of perfect obedience I meant nothing else than such a law as exacts the most perfect and complete virtue from man in every particular, as an indispensably necessary condition of obtaining salvation, while it denounces on him for the least defect of such righteousness eternal death and the dreadful torments of hell. Therefore it is to no purpose at all in the face of the plain state of the question laid down in the beginning of the chapter, in the face of the plain drift of the arguments which I am using to persuade yourself, (as not unfrequently you shut your eyes in the clearest light,) that I am labouring in this passage to prove that "the law of Moses, compared with the Gospel, is an imperfect rule of obedience, and is of less avail towards producing holiness." Observe, these are your own words in the notes on this page. § 2. I cannot sufficiently wonder at your saying that the discussion I have here entered upon, relative to the law of Moses, is nothing to the purpose, and for this reason, that St. Paul is speaking of another law; for I am professedly explaining the argument of the Apostle contained in Rom. iii. and Gal. iii. 10; in both which places it is quite plain that St. Paul is speaking of the law of Moses. Of the passage in Gal. iii. 10, no one in his senses would doubt, since the very words of the law of Moses are cited. It remains to be 156 Law of Moses spoken of in Rom. iii. STRIC. enquired whether the Apostle has the same object in view in XVII. the argument in Rom. iii. I affirm that the Apostle is there speaking of the law of Moses, and I prove it by these arguments. In the first place, it has been observed long ago by far the most learned men, (do not despise their observation,) that in St. Paul's Epistles, as often as the word 'the law' is used absolutely, as in the controverted passage, without any adjunct, it invariably means the law of Moses; the reason of which is plain; for there are three laws altogether, (I am speaking of the laws which belong to fallen man,) the law of nature, of Moses, and of the Gospel. Now it is plain that the Gospel is no where by St. Paul absolutely called 'a law,' vóμos, much less, 'the law,' ó vóμos: as neither is the law of nature, since they who have none but that, are said by him to be 'without law,' xwpis vóμov, Rom. ii. 12, and ‘having not the law,' vóμov μǹ ëxovтes, ver. 14. 2ndly, the context of the clause in question plainly shews that the Apostle's argument there has reference to the Mosaic law. For in the beginning of the chapter St. Paul convicts the Jews of sin (he had done this in reference to the Gentiles chap. ii.), by many quotations from the Old Testament. That the Jews might not allege that these testimonies had no reference to them, St. Paul adds, ver. 19, "but we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law :" where he means by those under the law,' Jews, and proselytes who had taken upon them the whole Jewish law. For these are said to be 'in the law' in the passage just cited, Rom. ii. 12, and 'under the law.' Immediately then the Apostle subjoins, ver. 20, "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified." Who now, but one who is wilfully blind, does not see at once, that the Apostle is here speaking of the law to which the Jews were subject, viz. the law of Moses? Who would deny again that in ver. 20, "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified:" and ver. 28, "we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law," the Apostle spoke of the same law? In the latter passage, that the Apostle was speaking of the law given to the Jews is most evident from the words immediately following, ver. 29: "Is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Last words of the Stricture exposed and refuted. 157 Gentiles also." Where you have, as Beza has observed, an STRIC. argumentum ex absurdo. "If justification depended on the __XVII. law of Moses, God would be a Saviour to the Jews only. Likewise, if He saved the Jews in one way, the Gentiles in another, He would not be like Himself: He will justify both therefore in one and the same way, viz. by the faith of the Gospel." § 3. You speak as if there were some law which would be the rule of judgment for all in the last day, and as though this were clear from Rom. chap. ii., both which things are false. All will not be tried by the rule of the same law in the last judgment; but each by the rule of that law or dispensation under which he has lived, which the Apostle teaches most plainly in the twelfth verse of the chapter quoted. "For as many as have sinned without law, shall also perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law," i. e. the Gentiles, who were without the written law, will be judged by the law of nature; but the Jews by the written law of Moses, as that which was given to them. § 4. He who affirms that the law which will be the rule of the last judgment is a law of perfect obedience, (in the sense in which a law of perfect obedience is taken in my argument,) is not only a fool, but downright mad. For from that affirmation it would follow that the whole race of mankind would utterly perish in the last judgment. § 5. If a law of perfect obedience be taken according to your own meaning, viz. such a law as sets forth and displays most perfect virtue, although it does not enact or demand it at the hazard of our souls; not even thus will it be true that all men will be judged by the rule of a law which is a law of perfect obedience. For all who have been without a positive law, (which is by far the greater part of mankind,) will be judged by the law of nature, as the Apostle teaches most plainly in the passage just quoted, Rom. ii. 12; and whoever says that the mere law of nature is a rule of perfect virtue in all points equal to the Gospel, is fit to go straight to Bedlam. § 6. Lastly, your assertion in the last clause, that St. Paul in Rom. chap. iii. denies that any one is justified by the law 158 What is meant by a law of perfect obedience.' STRIC. which will be the rule of the last judgment, is a step XVII. even beyond madness. This is just the same as if you had said that St. Paul taught that no man would be saved in the last judgment. For whereas there are but two opposite acts of Divine judgments, justification and condemnation, if no one will be justified by the law which will be the rule of the last judgment, it follows of course that all men will be condemned in the last judgment. I am ashamed and grieved, seriously and laboriously to oppose such gross absurdities; and yet you call them Strictures on a book. Cease betimes, my Censurer, if you are wise, to profess criticism in future, after having disgraced yourself so often in this specimen of your art. APPENDIX TO EXAMINATION OF STRICTURE XVII. Although my Censurer has with an exceeding display of ignorance carped at my Dissertation in this chapter on the law of perfect obedience: yet I confess that some learned and pious men have not been pleased with my digression on this head, from reasons that are not without show of truth. I will do my best to satisfy these persons, and if I fail in my attempt, candid readers will remember that in this chapter of the Harmony I have only modestly and with all due deference to better judgment, put forward my opinion: moreover also that the whole of this discourse is a digression, as I said: for if it be passed over, it will take nothing from our principal design, which regards the reconciliation of St. Paul with St. James. § 2. Here to avoid all disputes about words, I will first shew briefly what I mean by a law of perfect obedience.' By a law of perfect obedience I mean no other than a law distinct from and prior to the Gospel, which exacts from fallen man a most perfect virtue or conformity to the eternal law, i. e. perfect not only in all points but also in degree, and that in every particular and circumstance (as they say) such as could have been performed by the first man in a state of integrity and assisted by the aid of the Holy Spirit,-with a promise of heavenly and eternal life, if he performed such righteousness, but with the threat of everlasting death, if he turned even in the least from it. This is what is commonly called |