SECT. 14. Rom 3.21-25 contains many thunderbolts against Freewill.
These things being so, Paul makes a proclamation with full confidence and authority, saying, “But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the Prophets; the righteousness of God, I say, by faith in Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all those who believe in him. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God has set forth as a propitiation by faith in his blood, ” etc. Here Paul utters nothing but thunderbolts against Freewill.
First thunderbolt.
He says that the righteousness of God without the law is manifested. He separates the righteousness of God from the righteousness of the law, because the righteousness of faith comes by grace, without the law. When he says, “without the law,” he can mean nothing else, than that Christian righteousness is perfectly independent of the works of the law — such that the works of the law have no worth or power to obtain it.
He says soon after, “We determine that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law:” and he has said already, “By the deeds of the law no flesh is justified before him.” From all of this, it is most plain that the endeavour or desire of Freewill is absolutely nothing. For if the righteousness of God consists without the law and without the works of the law, then how will it not much more consist without Freewill? Since it is the highest endeavour of Freewill to be exercised about a moral righteousness, or the works of the law; its blindness and impotency are aided by this. This word ‘without’ clears away works that are morally good; it clears away moral righteousness; it clears away preparations for grace. In short, invent whatever you may as a performance which Freewill is equal to, and Paul will persist in saying, ‘the righteousness of God has nothing to do with this,’
Now, even if I were to grant that Freewill might by its own endeavour make advances somewhere — that is, towards good works, or the righteousness of the civil law, or the moral law —it still advances no way at all towards the righteousness of God, nor does God account its endeavours worthy of any regard towards obtaining his righteousness, when he says that his righteousness avails without the law. If Freewill, then, makes no advances towards the righteousness of God, what would it profit it by advancing through its own performances and endeavours (if this were possible) even to the holiness of angels? These surely are no obscure or ambiguous words; no place is left here for any tropes. Paul manifestly distinguishes two sorts of righteousness. He ascribes one to the law, the other to grace, affirming that grace is freely given without the law and its works; but that the law does not justify or avail anything without grace.
Let me be made to see then, how Freewill can subsist and be defended amidst these objections.
SECT. 15.
Second thunderbolt.
The second thunderbolt is that he says the righteousness of God is manifested, and is in force, to all and upon all who believe in Christ; and that there is no difference.
Again, in the clearest terms, he divides the whole human race into two parts, and gives the righteousness of God to believers, while he takes it away from unbelievers. Is anyone so mad then, as to doubt that the power or endeavour of Free will is something different from faith in Christ? Now, Paul denies that anything which subsists outside the limits of this faith, is righteous before God; and if it is not righteous before God, it must be sin. For with God there is nothing left midway between righteousness and sin, as a sort of neutral substance — neither righteousness nor sin. Otherwise, Paul’s whole argument would fail, which proceeds upon this division of things: namely, that whatever is done and carried on among men, is either righteousness or sin. It is righteousness if it is done in faith; it is sin if it is done without faith. With men, there are actions, it is true, of a middle and neutral character, in which they neither owe nor yield anything to each other mutually. But the ungodly man sins against God, whether he eats or drinks, or whatever he does, because he is perpetually using God’s creations wickedly and ungratefully, without giving glory to God from his heart at any moment. 711
SECT. 16.
Third thunderbolt.
This also is no light thunderbolt, where Paul says, “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God: nor is there any difference.” What could be said more clearly, I ask? Suppose a man acts by his Freewill — tell me whether this man sins in that self-endeavour of his. If he does not sin, why does Paul not except him, and instead involves him among the rest, without any distinction? Assuredly, saying all have sinned excepts none in any place, at any time, for any performance, for any endeavour. If you except a man for any endeavour or work, you make Paul a liar, because this Freewill worker, or endeavourer, is numbered among the all, and in the all; Paul should have revered him, and not numbered him so freely and so generally among the sinners.
Fourth thunderbolt.
So again, it is no light thunderbolt, Paul’s saying that they are devoid of the glory of God. The glory of God may be understood with a difference here: actively and passively. Paul contrives this by his use of the Hebrew idioms, in which he is frequent. Actively, the glory of God is that with which God glories in us. Passively, it is that with which we glory in him. I think it should be understood passively here. The faith of Christ, in the Latin, expresses the faith which Christ has;712 but in the Hebrew, the faith of Christ is understood to mean the faith which we have towards Christ.
So the righteousness of God, in Latin, means the righteousness which God possesses: but by the Hebrews it is understood to mean the righteousness which we have from God, and before God. Thus, I understand the glory of God not Latin-wise, but Hebrew-wise, as denoting the glory which we have in God, and before God, and which may be called glory in God. Someone glories in God, then, who knows for sure, that God has favour towards him, and counts him worthy of a kind regard — so that what he does is pleasing in His sight, or whatever displeases Him is freely forgiven and borne with.
If the endeavours of Freewill are not sin, then, but goodness in the sight of God, assuredly she may boast. And with confidence in that glory, she may say, ‘this pleases God,’ ‘God looks with an eye of favour upon this,’ ‘God ascribes worthiness to this and accepts it, or at least He bears with and forgives it.’ For this is the sort of glory which the faithful have in God; others who do not have it, are instead confounded before him. But Paul denies this glory to all men here. He affirms that they are absolutely devoid of this glory, which experience also proves. Ask the entire party of Freewill endeavourers, without exception, and if you can show me one who seriously, from his heart, can say of any one desire and endeavour of his, ‘I know this is well pleasing to God,’ I will acknowledge that I am conquered, and I will yield the palm to you. But I know that no such man will be found.
Now, if this glory is lacking, so that conscience does not dare to know with certainty, or be confident, that this particular act is pleasing to God, then we may be sure that it does not please God. Because, as the man believes, so it is with him. For he does not believe that he certainly pleases God. However, this is necessary, since this is the very crime of unbelief, to doubt of the favour of God. He would have us believe with the most assured faith that He favours us. Thus we prove by the very testimony of their own conscience, that since Freewill is destitute of the glory of God, she perpetually subjects herself to the charge of unbelief, together with all her powers, desires, and endeavours. 713
Fifth thunderbolt.
But what will the defenders of Freewill say at last to that which follows; “being justified freely by His grace?” What is this “freely?” What is this “by His grace?” How do endeavour and merit square with a gratuitous and freely-given righteousness? Perhaps they will say here, that they ascribe the least thing possible to Freewill — by no means a merit of condignity [i.e., worthiness]. But these are empty words; for the very aim of Freewill is to make room for merit. This has been Diatribe’s perpetual complaint and expostulation. ‘If there is no freedom in the will, what place is there for merit? If there is no place for merit, what place is there for reward? To what will it be imputed, if a man is justified without merit?’
Paul replies here, that there is absolutely no such thing as merit, but that as many as are justified, are all justified freely. And this is not imputed to anything but the grace of God. But with the gift of
