Chapter 6: The Insufficiency of Natural Theology for Salvation

The sufficiency of natural theology for salvation is examined; it is proved by various arguments to be insufficient — The doctrine of this theology is imperfect, and its disposition likewise — A digression on universal grace and the will of God to save those who lack the word.

I. Such being the knowledge of God, and resting upon those means by which it flourished and still flourishes among sinful men destitute of supernatural revelation, let us examine further whether those who were or are imbued with it could thereby attain their ultimate end, so that it might still seem to deserve the name of true theology. A doctrine's sufficiency, with respect to God and His supreme judgment upon men, can be twofold: the one leading to inexcusability, the other to salvation. The apostle ascribes the former to this knowledge (Romans 1:20), while we assert it to be unequal to the latter. For: — 1. All those ages in which the greater part of mortals lived without heavenly revelation are called "times of ignorance" (Acts 17:30). God, as it were, winked at these, permitting the nations to walk in their own ways (Acts 14:16), not proclaiming to them that they should repent. Through that ignorance they were all without exception alienated from the life of God (Ephesians 4:18), so that, as regards special grace and love, there was no communion between them and God. 2. Furthermore, all the knowledge of which men in that condition could become partakers pertained to the law; but the law itself does not suffice for this, nor can a knowledge of the law suffice — especially one that is imperfect. An imperfect knowledge of a most absolute and perfect law profits not a whit with respect to its end. But the apostle shows at length that the law itself is unequal to this task — namely, that anyone should please God — in Romans 3 and 4. 3. Also, "without faith it is impossible to please Him" (Hebrews 11:6); but "faith is from hearing, and hearing through the word of God" (Romans 10:17). 4. "This is eternal life, that they (men) may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent" (John 17:3). "And there is salvation in no one else" (Acts 4:12). But since the promise of Christ was made only after the fall — in which God's mercy toward the human race first appeared — and all knowledge of God among men apart from special revelation is but that fragment which the first parents possessed in the state of integrity, it is utterly impossible that any knowledge of Christ, whose entire knowledge is from hearing, should flow from it. 5. This entire body of knowledge, however great it may have been, served only the covenant of works; and so, when that covenant was rendered void through sin, it could direct men to no obedience except out of fear of punishment. But, as Augustine aptly says, "whoever keeps a commandment from fear of punishment, not from love of righteousness, does not in his heart do what he does in deed, and is therefore inwardly guilty of sin, however innocent he may appear to himself."

II. There are therefore two elements in the theology of fallen man: 1. The internal light still remaining, which is as it were the faculty of theology, or its power; and 2. The revelation of God through the works of creation and providence, which, considered objectively, is as it were the theology itself, or its doctrine. We do not venture to ascribe to either of these, with respect to the ultimate end, the efficacy of theology to salvation. For we are obliged to convict the first of imperfection both with respect to the doctrine it reveals — which, not exceeding the scope of the law, as we have said, contains nothing akin to the knowledge of Christ — and also with respect to the manner of perceiving divine things, by which its efficacy is circumscribed; since, as the minds of men are thoroughly overshadowed by darkness and blindness, that manner cannot be spiritual. To the other also we ascribe the same defects, since it neither presents the impression of all absolutely necessary doctrine, nor puts forth the efficacy by which saving light can be poured into a blind understanding; for Jesus Christ alone brought life and immortality to light, and that through the gospel (2 Timothy 1:10).

III. Those who maintain that the revelation of the divine mind — and therefore of our obedience — through the works of creation and providence is grounded in a general will to save all men are compelled, beyond being forced to ascribe to God useless desires, imperfect purposes, and an inefficacious intention which He either will not or cannot make efficacious — a mercy that never, nowhere manifests itself — also to employ such distinctions, and to confine their assertion within such limits, that they are obliged to acknowledge that this revelation has never been, and never could be, of any saving use to any mortal. For just as the separation of this revelation from the delusions by which the prince of darkness has in wondrous ways mocked the wretched little men bound to himself — a separation which they themselves contend is necessary — cannot take place without the light of the word, so also that removal of darkness, blindness, and prejudices from the minds of men — without which all revelation must necessarily fall to no effect — cannot be secured without the special operation of the Holy Spirit.

ON UNIVERSAL GRACE, or a Dissertation on the Sufficiency of Natural Theology in the State of Sin for Salvation.

I. Since there is not the same opinion among all on these matters, it pleases me to take them up somewhat more fully, and to submit the opinion of certain very learned men to examination, as it were in passing. That this manifestation of God not only suffices for salvation to sinful men, but also that

The sinners themselves are endowed with a power by which they can so use that manifestation as at length to attain salvation in fact — this the Pelagians formerly maintained, and nearly the entire nation of the Arminians has gone over to their opinion. It is not my present purpose to engage with them. They have enough in the writings of ancient and more recent authors to exercise themselves with for a long time. But a certain part of this controversy has lately begun to be agitated among brethren. The projectile has been pleased to be called "universal grace." It seems, moreover, that the hinge of this dispute turns not on truth alone, but among some also on fraternal charity. Such is the manner of living among Christians unmindful of gentleness — indeed, of human frailty. Neither the nature of evangelical grace, which demands the duty required, nor mercy toward the weak human condition, that we should bear with equanimity those who differ with us in minor points of opinion, advances matters at all. We acknowledge that the best of men know only in part; but we are unwilling to admit that any of the saints have been so perfectly transformed into the light of God through the renewing of the mind as to be overshadowed by no remnants of darkness, subject to no errors. Yet everyone judges that this ought to be said of all others, but not of himself. For when it comes to the matter itself and examination, there is no man who does not conduct himself as if he were so thoroughly a possessor of the best faith and all truth that it would scarcely be fair for anyone who dares to differ from him to enjoy this common light. The difference, however, between the boldness of truth and its power is this: the former only illumines the mind with knowledge of the truth and, as it were, compels it to give assent to evangelical doctrine; the latter, over and above this, also imprints its pattern upon the whole soul and renders the mind itself in all things conformable to it.

That no small time ago certain learned men in Belgium had contentions and quarrels with some of better reputation in France on this matter is known to no learned man who takes care to know the affairs of religion and of the churches of Christ. To narrate the occasions, the origin, and the progress of that controversy as it has been agitated among them for some years now, since through published exercises, observations, apologies, and vindications it has been more than sufficiently spread abroad, would be nothing other than to waste one's labor. For no one can spend his effort more unprofitably than in bringing to light things that are already too well known of themselves, and which it would have been better had they never become known at all. Certainly, weariness of peace or of fraternal charity has not so seized me that I would wish to thrust myself rashly and importunately into the midst of a conflict agitated by various movements of the passions arising from things that are truly of the burden of debt; I have other things to attend to. But if I candidly set forth what I myself think on that part of this controversy which is not other than our present undertaking — indeed so bound up with it that unless the doubt regarding it is resolved, I can scarcely safely proceed on the path I have set — I hope it will be burdensome or troublesome to no one.

I could indeed have wished that those most learned men, with greater mildness, and

with a zeal for Christian meekness, and with less arrogance (pardon the expression) and less self-assertion, to have entered upon this arena. For I fear that before fair

and impartial judges, free from partisan zeal, those excuses which they perhaps intend to offer — as if they could have dispensed with these things without the slightest loss to the opinion they hold to be true, or to their reputation — will suffice. For what? Does it make no difference with what design, or in what disposition of mind, we approach sacred matters

to be handled? Or can we believe that the Holy Spirit — without whose special help and guidance we can begin nothing at all in a godly manner, nor bring anything to a happy conclusion (for that something which we seem to accomplish by our own powers is in reality nothing) — is willing to involve Himself when our souls' affections are inflamed, or our minds are hindered by anger, hatred, revenge, or the desire for fame, by which He is most heavily burdened? Must we not strive with all our might, lest, while we have proclaimed the truth to others, we ourselves become, so far as its heralds are concerned, reprobate? Since it is most certain that no one has ever been able truly to perceive the divine truth as it is in Jesus

except the one who has denied himself from the very depths of his heart, and has set aside, to the best of his ability, all arrogance and all prejudices — how can we expect others to be taught by us that truth whose power we ourselves do not so experience as to be given over to its use? For such is the nature of all gospel doctrine, flooding our minds with its native light, that it makes us meek and humble, and most like its own Author; namely, the wisdom that is from above: "First indeed it is pure, then peaceable, equitable, compliant, full of mercy and good fruits, without disputing, and without hypocrisy" (James 3:17).

IV. But those on the other side who would wish to bring their dissenting brethren into danger of peace or of reputation before their churches — let them do so without me as a rival. To deprive learned and godly men, ministers of churches, and rectors of schools, of the liberty of their own judgment in controversies of this kind, and in the whole exercise of their office to put them under the yoke of prescribed opinions, would be nothing other than to introduce intolerable tyranny into the church of Christ. Nor indeed would I expect from that quarter either any notable progress of truth, or the building up in love of those who profess the truth, where the dispensers of the divine word are compelled, like abject slaves, to be of another's will in all their work. Neither the principle of the institution of the gospel ministry, nor the nature of the gospel itself or of faith, nor the distinctions of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, nor brotherly charity, nor the edification of the church, nor the condition of the light of which we have been made partakers in this life, nor the innumerable divine precepts, nor the guidance of grace which we experience, would bear the imposition of such a burden. But how greatly that opinion of those who seek domination over their brethren — that no divergence of views in matters which do not immediately pertain to the foundation of faith ought to be tolerated — has afflicted the Christian cause almost everywhere for a long time now, is better known than to require our narration.

V. With these premises laid down, let us subject to consideration that thesis which some oppose to our position on the total insufficiency of corrupted natural theology for salvation. It is this: that God wills that adults who lack His word should be saved. Whether those who ponder seriously within themselves what it means to be saved, and what it means to lack the word of God, will readily give assent to that proposition, I very earnestly doubt. Let partisan zeal be set aside for a moment; let consideration of the connection this thesis has with other opinions be set aside; the matter will be plain. Let the disputants take care lest they clash with syllogisms against that communion which they themselves have graciously obtained with God through Jesus Christ in matters of eternal salvation, and perhaps these controversies will be stilled.

VI. Now the will of God concerning the salvation of those to be saved either regards the end and outcome, and is called intention, purpose, or decree; or it regards the means which those must use who would be saved, and is called a precept. But in what sense God wills to be saved those who in fact will never be saved, whom He willingly permits to walk in their own ways — in which it is altogether impossible that they should be saved — whom He does not call to repentance by that means, nor wishes to call, by which alone it is possible for anyone to be called to true repentance: that, I confess, is my dullness, that I cannot understand. For He who grants only those means of salvation which are able to reveal neither who the author of salvation is, nor through whom it is to be obtained, nor what that salvation is, seems rather to be said to be unwilling for the salvation of those to whom He grants those means, than willing. If to those who, instructed with spiritual perception and relying on the help and assistance of all salvific means — even of the Holy Spirit Himself, poured out abundantly through Jesus Christ — know what it is to serve God in the midst of temptations, so that they at last obtain salvation by His ineffable benefit of grace, being placed outside the ropes of contention, this dispute were to be referred for decision, its estimation would prove easy.

VII. Whoever would survey in his mind those parts of the world that are still without the word, and would behold the condition, with respect to eternal salvation, of the miserable people living out their lives in them, will without doubt hang in suspense of mind at that will of God which certain learned men proclaim. They will contend, I know, that the most dreadful condition of those people is to be ascribed solely to their own wickedness; nor do I absolutely deny that this must be so. But I do deny that their wickedness exceeds that of all those with whom, because He wills them to be saved, God has graciously shared His word. In what sense, then, God is to be said to will the salvation of those who will never be saved and to whom He is unwilling to supply the means necessary for salvation, is a matter too entangled and one that resists easy explanation.

VIII. Some assert: "The word can be preached to them, but this does not happen because of our negligence and sloth." That the gospel can indeed be preached even to those to whom it is not preached, no one doubts. For what contradiction would seem to arise from the thing itself? But that it can happen, with respect to the outcome, that which God from eternity willed not to happen — that has not yet been proved. That it is not actually preached to many, nor ever was preached in former times, Scripture ascribes to the will of God (Psalms 147:19, 20; Matthew 11:26; Acts 16:6, 7). It does not appear that this comes to pass from our negligence and sloth. And yet, even if it were so, the difficulty would not be removed. For no one doubts that God could, if He wished, take away that sloth from us. But negligence and sloth have no place except where there is duty; and all our duty depends on the will of God calling us to duty. But how will they teach that we are called by God to the duty of preaching the gospel to those who have hitherto lacked it in various parts of the world? Let us grant to learned men that no ecclesiastical mission is needed to discharge that office. For who is furnished with that universal authority to send others in such a way? But I should like to know what that providence of God is which makes us so certain of His will that we could undertake that work in faith; or who are those equipped with the gifts needed to perform it rightly. I confess that we are all of us far too negligent and slothful in administering that province in the work of the gospel which God has graciously committed to us — and we are all of us guilty of this charge; but that our guilt of sloth extends so far that it must also be imputed to it that the gospel has not been preached to the inhabitants of America, I, at least, who am immune from all the heat of disputes, cannot believe. IX. But it is worth looking more deeply into the opinion of those most learned men. For first they concede that no "Pagan, apart from the preaching of the word, either did or could have made such use of the testimonies of God set before him from nature or from the works of providence, as to repent and obtain salvation." Thus speak certain most celebrated men; and in this matter they show themselves to differ most widely from all Pelagians, from most Arminians, and also from certain insolent revilers here among us. And why indeed could not the whole estimation of this entire dispute be made here? Have we nothing else of greater importance in ourselves than to spend time disputing whether that can happen which never has happened, which will never happen, indeed, which God has purposed within Himself never to happen? But this is another matter, as we shall see.

X. They add, therefore, that "such aids have been given to the Pagans which, in themselves and from themselves, lead to some degree of saving knowledge." So speaks a most learned man of great renown in theology. But every degree of saving knowledge is itself saving. And all saving knowledge consists in the knowledge of the covenant of grace. Unless, therefore, that degree of saving knowledge which can be obtained through those aids is more plainly set forth, I may be permitted to declare that I can neither grasp nor understand that degree. Even the least degree of saving knowledge requires a saving renewal of the mind. That there should be any degree of saving knowledge in a blind mind is impossible. For saving knowledge consists in the renewal of that mind. But where there is renewal of the mind, there is the Spirit

of Holiness, who alone works and produces it. Those aids, therefore, which lead to some degree of saving knowledge also lead to the obtaining of the Holy Spirit, the renewal of the mind, and true faith. But Scripture everywhere teaches that this work is peculiar to the gospel. If, however, by "saving knowledge" only saving doctrine is intended, and not the renewal of the mind, then the meaning of that assertion is that these aids lead sinful men to the doctrine of the gospel, or at least to some degree of it. Whether this is true, we shall examine later.

XI. We are indeed now in such a state that unless we know Jesus Christ, whom God sent, and God in Him reconciling the world to Himself, we are unable to attain eternal life. But all that knowledge of God which sinful men can acquire without the word from the works of creation and providence is only a knowledge of God as creator and governor of all things; concerning redemption there is the deepest silence. But they object: "If these things are correct, they result in this — that even if a man be supposed, by way of an impossible hypothesis, to be well and dutifully occupied in the school of nature, and to bring all his power of understanding to bear on examining and learning what he hears or sees there, he can nevertheless draw from these documents nothing other than this one thing: that God is supremely holy, supremely just, supremely powerful, and supremely wise, who founded and governs this universe; that he himself is a sinner guilty of violating the divine law, and therefore subject to heavenly wrath, most certainly to be afflicted with death and the curse without any hope of pardon; and thus God must set all these things before men with the intent that they learn that they are certainly and infallibly condemned, and that no place is left to them either for salvation or for repentance that might help them." But this argument errs in many ways, and this is what happens when the matter is handled out of partisan zeal rather than with fairness and equity. For if learned men are permitted to assume whatever they please, whether it be possible or impossible, so as to infer from it whatever they wish, no one can prevent them. And if I am unwilling to grant what plainly ought not to be granted, because it tacitly includes a begging of the question, the entire argument immediately collapses. Besides, who ever said that this one thing alone is taught through the works of God? More things can be taught, yet in such a way that Christ is not taught; His works teach that this God is to be supremely loved and worshipped, namely because they teach that He is God. There are also other heads of a corrupt natural theology, as we shall show. Furthermore, those who affirm that God reveals Himself through His works so that men might know Him as creator, ruler, and governor of all things, most powerful, most holy, and most just, do not say — nor, if they wish to be consistent, can they say — that He sets before men all the documents in the works of nature and providence with the intent that they learn that they are certainly condemned. But you will say that, according to their view, sinful men can learn nothing else as regards their eternal salvation — so be it! You will not quickly show that anything harmful arises from this position. For what? Will someone bring suit against God because He is just, and cannot but be just?

Or is an accusation to be brought against Him because men are sinners and cannot be ignorant of His justice — namely, that those who have committed sins are worthy of death? Or because they have wickedly departed from that state in which they could have received saving things from His revelation? But does He not set forth His sparing mercy — which is in the covenant of grace — through the works of creation and providence? What then? Does the very law of God, which contains a far clearer manifestation of God than those other aids and documents of which we are speaking, declare that mercy? Or will any mortal dare to lay this charge against the law of God? Does not the apostle everywhere argue that through the law comes the knowledge of sin, but not of a remedy? Granted, therefore, that a man were rightly and diligently performing his duty in the school of the law, yet he can learn nothing there other than that he is a sinner and is certainly to be condemned. Is the law therefore sin? Or is God unjust who gave it? May it not be so! And yet as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse. XII. But they will say: "God grants this manifestation of Himself to men with the mind and will not that they should despise it, but that they might rightly use it for the knowledge of sin, repentance, and worship of God, in accordance with the nature of these things." That it should ever have entered any mortal's mind, even in a dream, that God sets His documents before men with the mind and will that they should be despised, I very much doubt. But that He sets forth the works of His providence to those who lack the word with the mind and will that they might rightly use them for repentance — which He well knows they will never do, as the learned men with whom we have to do also know — will scarcely gain credence among those who, by the grace of God, do not lack the word. Nor would those very learned men so foolishly arrange their own rules. Furthermore, they do not teach with sufficient accuracy what they understand by the mind and will of God in this matter; but of that later. XIII. Some have asserted that the hinge of this controversy lies in the question of "whether in the works of nature and providence any gentleness and placability of God toward sinful men has been made manifest." But, with their leave, I would say that this matter stands very differently. We acknowledge that some gentleness of God toward sinful men is manifested through the works of providence. "For with much gentleness He bears vessels of wrath fitted for destruction." But that gentleness is not the one which consists in a sparing mercy, the effect of which is the remission of sins. Yet without the knowledge of this mercy it is impossible for anyone to arrive at saving repentance. Furthermore, there is no mention here of the will of God, and it is solely about that will that the question is asked — not about the nature of things themselves, nor about whether any degree of saving knowledge can be obtained from this manifestation; though I am not disinclined to address those matters as well. But I almost marvel that godly and learned men, translated from darkness into the wonderful light of Christ, who have purified their souls by obeying the truth through the Spirit, should be able to speak so meagerly and languidly about saving knowledge of the sparing divine mercy.

But in examining the words of learned men, it is not necessary for me to trouble them further. I know that I have been carried away by no partisan zeal in this cause, and that I am sworn to the words of no master or synod; I will therefore set forth the state of the controversy as faithfully as I can. First, however, I will present those things in which the parties agree; then the disputed points. I will perhaps speak of the whole matter more briefly than so great a subject deserves, but, for our purpose, I hope, clearly enough; for I take no pleasure in speaking copiously and grandly on a matter in which I can think only humbly and modestly.

XIV. It is conceded, therefore:—

1. That there is some natural knowledge of God, or theognōsian, which we have explained above.

2. That through the works of creation and providence a revelation of the eternal power and deity of God as creator and ruler of all things has been made.

3. Whatever men know about God, or are able to know by virtue of the revelation granted to them, they ought to use all of it to this end: that they worship and love Him, that they glorify God, and that they show themselves obedient to Him in all things.

4. That no one among the pagans, on account of their native blindness and malice, and the cunning of the devil ensnaring them on every side with corrupt superstitions and wicked idolatries, has submitted himself to the authority of God, or has complied with it according to the measure of the knowledge of Him which he had or could have had — and that therefore all of them are utterly without excuse.

5. That Christ the Mediator is not revealed through these means — not, at least, to such a degree that He could be savingly apprehended by those who have obtained only these means.

6. That the revelation of Christ the Mediator through the gospel is absolutely necessary for obtaining salvation.

7. That beyond every external revelation of God and His will, of whatever kind and by whatever means it may have been given, there is need of the efficacious power of the Holy Spirit flooding the mind with saving light, so that one may understand spiritual things spiritually, to the glory of God and one's own eternal salvation.

8. That God has not purposed within Himself from eternity that any of those to whom He grants no means of salvation other than the works of nature and providence should be saved. Concerning all these things there is scarcely any question among the orthodox.

XV. The hinge of the entire controversy therefore appears to turn on these two questions; for it is asked,—

First, "Whether that manifestation of God which He grants through the works of nature and providence to sinners destitute of the word contains within itself any degree of truly saving knowledge, under whose guidance they might arrive at true and God-pleasing repentance and attain eternal salvation."

Second, "Whether God grants this manifestation of Himself with such mind and will" (that is, with such purpose and intention) "that those to whom it is

granted" (as it is granted to absolutely all men) "may come to true repentance and such as is pleasing to God, and may thus attain eternal salvation, even though they lack the word." That is: both the sufficiency of the means and the intention of God with respect to the salvation of those who lack the word fall under controversy.

XVI. It seemed fitting to subject briefly to examination certain arguments drawn from the Scriptures that appear in the writings of some in this controversy. The first is derived from the Pauline words we cited earlier, from Acts 17:24-26, to which they add certain passages from ch. 14:16. From these passages, they say, it is established that "God performs all His works in nature and in the governance of nature with the design that sinful men might seek and find Him" — and they affirm that Paul testifies this most explicitly. But this affirmation scarcely touches the state of the controversy, let alone resolves it. It remains for us to see what it is by which they attempt to establish the credibility of their position from these passages, and then how they weave together their proofs.

XVII. First, therefore, after they have established that God administered the aforesaid aids to men destitute of the word with the design that they might seek and find Him, they conclude that all things necessary to be known in order that God might be sought and found are contained in those aids. "To seek God," they say, "is not to investigate whether He exists, but to take refuge in faith in Him, and to seek the aid of His grace. And to find God is to obtain and secure the aid thus sought, and to experience His most holy majesty as propitious and benevolent." In reply: to take refuge in the faith of God is to trust in God; those who do this are blessed (Psalms 2:12); to seek the aid of God's grace includes self-denial and resignation to God's grace, which always produces justification (Luke 18:13, 14). And this is to experience God's most holy majesty as propitious and benevolent — which has never befallen anyone except in the remission of sins. And so by these interpretations of Paul's words they appear to intend saving faith in God, living and efficacious faith to salvation. XVIII. But how enormously they expand the proposed thesis at this point! Perhaps those who argue thus feel that they have advanced beyond their hopes in the argument, so that they cannot restrain themselves enough to remain within the limits of the question as they themselves have commonly stated it. For what follows? Is it to be judged, on the opinion of the most eminent men, that the manifestation of God through the works of providence contains all things necessary to be known, so that sinful men might flee to God with the full trust of their soul, experience Him as propitious, worship Him, and believe in Him? Why, then, do these same learned men deny that those works of providence reveal Christ? Or why do they assert that the knowledge of Christ is necessary for attaining living faith and salvation? Indeed, if the matter stands thus, what need is there of the word? Or in what sense shall we say that Christ brought life and immortality to light through the gospel?

Since the matter has come to this point, let us see how they attempt to establish this position from this passage. The entire force of the argument used by the learned men depends on the construction of the apostolic period and on the sense of the words "seeking and finding" God. They prove the mind and counsel of God from the structure of those words; namely, that Paul used "to seek the Lord" in the sense of "for the purpose of seeking" — in order, that is, to declare the mind of God as He sets forth His works to sinful men — this being, as they affirm, an idiom familiar to the Greeks. And they prove that "to seek God" must be taken in no other sense than the one they have expounded, adducing all the passages of the Old Testament in which seeking and finding God is mentioned.

And so the most learned men conduct their case. But whether they have attained the mind of the Holy Spirit or the force of Paul's argument, a brief exposition of the occasion and sense of the apostle's words will make plain. Paul, being in Athens and provoked in spirit because he saw that city full of idols (Acts 17:16), could not restrain himself from at once — contrary to what he seems at first to have resolved — publicly setting forth and declaring the living God in opposition to all those vain idols, under the religion of which that most superstitious city was held captive. And when this had been proposed to him, he employs an argument most ready and most powerful, drawn from the creation and governance of all things. Moreover, that which would bind the idolaters themselves most closely he teaches: that they are utterly destitute of every excuse for the worship of idols, since those very works of God which were set before them daily clearly pointed to their Author — that God exists, and that He is supreme, good, wise, powerful, and everywhere present — so that it would be nothing less than the height of madness to wish to be ignorant of Him whom they could not be thoroughly ignorant of. Indeed, he says, this living God, the Creator and Ruler of all, sets forth His works of nature and providence before the consideration of all, with the design that they might seek their Author through those aids, if perhaps by groping they might find Him; and so those who, abandoning Him — or casting Him aside into the last place as unknown — who alone both is and can be known, turn themselves in religious devotion to things that either do not exist and never have existed anywhere, or are vain and foolish, cannot but be without excuse and self-condemned.

The apostle therefore proves that the gods of the Gentiles are vain idols, and that He, the true and living God, the one and only Creator and Ruler of this world, had so exposed Himself to them that they could most easily and without difficulty have come to know Him through a careful consideration of His works, which He set before them daily. If, therefore, they had given their minds to this, and had sought — through the aids of knowledge of Him which He supplied to them in abundance — that God whom they could not deny to be what He ought to be recognized as, they would certainly have found Him, since He was not far from them, and they would not have turned to dumb idols and vanities. For the apostle's words are not to be extended beyond the subject matter and the occasion of the discourse.

Let us further consider what those apostolic words mean, as

"they should seek the Lord, if perhaps by groping they might find Him," insofar as

They appear to regard the counsel and will of God. But since the Athenians with whom the apostle had to deal were most superstitious idolaters, it is apparent that the actual outcome is not intended by those words, nor any particular purpose of the divine will with respect to them — since God is not lacking either in power or in wisdom to execute His purposes. It is certain that those words denote the very nature and character of the things themselves; and accordingly, that counsel of the divine mind by which He willed to set those things before all men so that they might be external sufficient means — that is, in their own kind — for attaining that proposed end, namely, that they might seek and find the Creator and Ruler of all. That God therefore, with this mind and will, sets forth the works of nature and providence before men destitute of the word, so that following their guidance they might seek and find their Author and the Ruler of all, having forsaken the false gods and the entire filth of idolatry which the blindness of the human mind and the cunning of the devil had brought into the world — and beyond this, nothing more seems able to be gathered from those passages. Indeed, the apostle in reality says nothing about the will and counsel of God in creating and governing the world. He proves that the Gentiles were able to arrive at that knowledge of Him which we set out above, through the bare consideration of the works set before them. But concerning the placability of God, the remission of sins, the bosom of mercy, invocation and prayers, saving repentance, the pursuit of holy and upright living — which no one can have without faith — and many other things of that kind which certain learned men strive to extract from these passages, there is a profound silence. XXIII. But let us see how the learned men strive to prove their thesis from these words of the apostle. First, therefore, they affirm that Paul said "to seek the Lord" in the sense of "for the purpose of seeking"; but since no necessity or reason compels that interpretation of the apostolic speech, it must be judged to have been said gratuitously. But there is no need at all to raise a dispute about that phrase. Let us therefore concede to the learned men, that they may use their right, in detaching these words from their proper place which they occupy in the apostolic discourse (Acts 17:27), and applying them to other words of the same apostle found in ch. 14:16 — if only they have the right to proceed in this way. Let us also grant that "the seeking" must be taken in the same sense as "to dwell" is used in the preceding verse; and that up to this point it denotes the counsel of God in creating and governing the world, insofar, namely, as this world by its nature is fitted to manifest Him. What then would follow? Namely, that "if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him" must be expounded in the same manner; and so would denote the same intention or will of God. But what of this, I ask? Namely, "if perhaps" and "thus" are taken in the place of "in order that" and "that." But whether this is always the case, or only sometimes — I do not think the learned men will say it is always so, since they are able to produce but a single example where "thus" seems capable of being taken in that way; concerning "if perhaps" they are silent. "If perhaps" perhaps occurs in this one place alone in the New Testament; "if" and "if perhaps" more frequently, as in Acts 7:1, 8:30, 2 Corinthians 5:3, Galatians 1:4, Ephesians 3:2, 4:21, Colossians 1:28, which may serve as examples. Let the reader try whether from any one of those passages he can extract that sense and use of these particles. Concerning "thus" there is no need for us to be anxious, nor need we inquire carefully what Eustathius has set forth about its use, since it is not found in our text. But it is difficult to believe that the apostle, by words that denote the utmost uncertainty, expounded the mind, counsel, and will of God. The meaning of this passage is that God, in creating and governing the world, gave such proofs of His power and divinity that through them men were able to be stirred to seek the Creator of all, as well as to try their strength in finding Him and distinguishing Him from all idols. For God, who is incorporeal and invisible, so left, as it were, His footprints in these works that by cleaving to them He can be found.

XXIV. But some think they have found firmer support for their cause in the sense of the words "seeking and finding." It cannot be denied that those media of the knowledge of God of which we are treating are at least in some respect sufficient for seeking and perhaps finding God in the manner of which the apostle speaks; for otherwise the apostle must be judged unjust in having demanded this from those who had no other media. But they affirm that "to seek God and to find Him is not simply to investigate so that men may know that He exists and what He is" (although those words seem to express nothing else), "but to take refuge in faith in Him, to rest in Him, to worship Him in invocation and prayers, to embrace Him with the full trust of the soul, and to experience Him as propitious; and accordingly that those media supplied to all are sufficient for these ends and were destined by God to be so sufficient" — namely, for men destitute of the word. But since those words, if they are used in no other sense than that in which they are employed in Holy Scripture (nor indeed is it fitting for a theologian to use any words in a sense that departs from the one rule and norm of our thinking and speaking about sacred things), complete the whole work of saving faith, and thus would equal those media with the very word of God, which He "has magnified above all His name," as regards the thing itself — they will no doubt concede that they need the most powerful arguments and proofs to establish that paradox. To confirm their interpretation of these words, therefore, some bring forward all the passages of the Old Testament in which seeking and finding God is mentioned; and they affirm that those words in those passages cannot be taken in any other sense than the one they have expounded. And they assert that the sense of those words in this passage is not to be doubted. That it is not to be doubted is easy to say; but I not only doubt it, I judge it to be plainly most false; nor can I sufficiently marvel how it can come into anyone's mind to assert it.

XXV. For in all those passages holy Scripture speaks of

The covenanted people of God; but this passage speaks only of those who were strangers to the promises of the covenants. In those passages it speaks of those who were actually, or at least by profession, believers; in this one, of idolaters. In those passages it speaks of those who knew God and had rejected idols; in this one, of those to whom He was entirely unknown. In those passages the subject is seeking and finding the favor of a known God through Christ; in this one, it is seeking God through the works of nature and providence so that He might be known. In those passages the subject is a known God who, on account of sin, had for a moment turned away in His outward dispensations, and the promise of finding Him propitious in Christ; in this one, it is seeking an unknown God and distinguishing Him from idols. Are we then to suppose that these words, and others in the same sense, are spoken of the same persons — namely, of those who, being the covenanted people of God, believers, justified in Christ, instructed by the word, resting on the promises of the gospel, had need to seek the face and favor of God — and of those who, destitute of the word and of all revelation of Christ, exiles from the divine covenant, wanderers in the world, had only the works of nature and providence set before them so that they might know that God exists and that their own vain idols were not God? No, far be from every pious mind even the slightest suspicion of this kind.

XXVI. Nor is it said absolutely of those whom the apostle convicts of negligence and sloth for not considering the works of God, that they should seek God, but that they should seek Him in a particular manner — namely, "if haply they might feel after Him and find Him." Whether this can be said of those saints mentioned in the Old Testament who, resting on the most certain promises of God in Christ, were accustomed to draw near to Him, I leave to the reader to judge. It is therefore one thing to seek the favor and grace of God revealed through His word, by virtue of His promises in Christ; it is quite another thing to seek an unknown God in the works of nature and providence, "if haply He might be found by groping."

XXVII. Now since all theologians who follow what they call the new method think that the strongest support of their cause lies in a certain placability of God which they assert is manifest in the works of providence, it will perhaps not be unprofitable if, returning to this matter at somewhat greater depth, I set forth briefly what is to be thought of that placability which in this dispute practically fills every page, and what the nations themselves, destitute of the word, understood concerning it. Moreover, since that placability meets us everywhere in the arguments of these most distinguished men, whatever I say to remove it from its position, doing so concisely, can be counted as gain.

XXVIII. We have already described above the state and condition, with respect to the knowledge of God, of sinful men destitute of the word. We have also shown what natural faculty of knowing God, spontaneously exercising itself in adults, and what common notions they retained in that state. And we have likewise demonstrated at length that those innate notions concerning God can be nurtured, increased, and drawn out through the contemplation of the works of providence. Indeed, this mode of knowing God would have sufficed abundantly for men in the state of integrity to render all due obedience and to obtain the reward of obedience. But by the entrance of sin it was so disturbed that sinners hang suspended in uncertain minds and cannot derive from it any clear rational basis for worshipping God. On the one hand, they could not but apprehend God as good, bountiful, patient, and gentle — a quality also connatural to man. On the other hand, held tightly by the consciousness of sin and by the sense of divine wrath and indignation, that is, of punitive justice, they were distracted by anxious care and various thoughts, and necessarily wavered to and fro in the greatest uncertainty. For if on the one hand some hope ever shone upon them, so that they seemed to themselves to know what they might expect from the goodness and bounty of God, on the other hand a despair mingled with terror immediately rendered all the plans previously undertaken forever uncertain, so that they were utterly consumed by the loss of all hope — convicted by their own hearts — (Hebrews 1:15).

XXIX. Now the works of providence set before them served, as it were, as hostile aid to both these opposing presumptions that warred diametrically in the minds of sinners. For when they weighed the rains and the appointed seasons given from heaven for bringing forth fruits, and other benefits on account of which they solemnly called the divine power most good, they were accustomed to be of confident spirit, to call all things good, to celebrate the author of those benefits, and to adorn Him with wonderful words. But when they also observed the wrath of God against the impiety and unrighteousness of men manifesting itself from heaven, they could not but feel that all the hope with which they had falsely flattered themselves was immediately done away.

XXX. Nor do I speak merely of what is wont to happen in such a state, since it could not have happened otherwise. For that knowledge of God of which we are speaking has regard to His natural attributes, as the apostle everywhere teaches us. The free acts of the divine will do not belong to it, as we shall see. For those attributes are known partly from innate notions and partly from their effects. Of any free act of the divine will there is no natural notion or presumption. Goodness on the one hand, and the punitive justice which goodness necessarily posits on the other, are natural to God. Of these two, there is in all things a certain blending or intermingling. Yet their outward effects are distinct and contrary. All the works of providence seem to be referred respectively to these two sources. There is no one destitute of special revelation who can refer them to any other source. Of those things whose exit is not necessary once their objects are posited, the case is different. But it depends on the most free determination of God that goodness and justice, with respect to their effects, should meet each other and mutually embrace. Unless one should hold that God punishes sin by a necessity of nature, and also remits it by the same necessity. Now it is evident that the placability of which we speak pertains to this; which in God is entirely arbitrary — that is to say, an act of His will.

Of the most free kind, if indeed anything of this sort can be assigned to God — for it properly expresses neither any attribute of the divine nature nor any act of His will. Tossed about, therefore, by these contrary forces like blasts of wind, they were driven to contrary extremes according as the one or the other notion prevailed in their minds.

XXXI. For some, converting the goodness of God into a certain perpetual leniency — which is either a vice or at least situated on the border of vices, and unworthy of the supreme Ruler — utterly cast aside all thoughts of the wrath and severity of God, charging with the most foul crime of superstition those who were touched by any concern or zeal for such thoughts. That very many of the ungodly are of this mind, Scripture testifies (Psalm 50:21), and most of the philosophers pressed along this path, as will be shown later. Meanwhile, others, worn down continually by fear and a certain foreboding of the wrath and vengeance of God, are keenly mocked by Plutarch in his little book on superstition. The sacred page also depicts them (Micah 6:6, 7). There were also those who, resting on ancient traditions, suspected that the idols they worshipped were placable and could be propitiated by sacrifices — though the company of philosophers laughed at them. But that the works of providence suggested to them any such placability of the divine power, there is no ground for even the slightest suspicion to arise. If anyone wishes to suspect this, we cannot prevent him, since suspicion lies within each person's own power; but in this matter it lacks all proof. It is certain that the practice of sacrifice among the nations is to be traced partly to deep-rooted traditions emanating from the ordinances of God, and partly to the pride and cunning of the old serpent, wickedly drawing to himself the worship due to God. For not otherwise did the wisest of the Gentiles account for its origin. We have already taught that the origins of sacrifices are to be assigned solely to the will and most free determination of God; that their knowledge and observance could have flowed to nations destitute of supernatural revelation from any other source than those we have indicated is impossible.

XXXII. There were those who, in order to free themselves from the snares in which they felt themselves entangled by those contradictory notions they had conceived about God and His nature — notions drawn from the various effects enumerated above — invented for themselves two first principles of all things, two gods: one good, the author of all goodness; the other wicked, the ruler of evils and punishments. Even now this inherited persuasion endures among a large part of the common people of the Americas. For this reason the Tlaxcalans sent ambassadors to inquire of Cortés the Spaniard, who was terrifying them with the horror of his weapons of war, which of the two was God — whether He was the good one, who gives fruits, or the evil one, who delights in human blood — so that they might know how he was to be received. Nor is this persuasion of recent origin; on the contrary, it is very ancient. "Labeo, whom they proclaim most learned in matters of this kind, distinguishes good divine powers from evil divine powers by the difference of worship; he asserts that evil gods are propitiated by slaughters and gloomy supplications, but good gods by glad and joyful services," as Augustine has it in De Civitate Dei, book 2, chapter 11.

XXXIII. Nor does it seem unworthy of note that those among the ancient idolaters who appeared to worship the divine power with some greater devotion of soul than other mortals, relying on the deepest persuasion of His wrath and vengeance, always resorted to the horrible method of propitiating the gods — namely, human sacrifice. Let the Carthaginians serve as an example: that they were led among the pagans by the greatest reverence for the divine, Plautus more than sufficiently implies, since he assigns to the character he brings on stage no other speech than one that appears to savor of an unusual sense of religion. Moreover, Punic faith is a proverb of the Romans; and had Hannibal known not only how to conquer but also how to use his victory, the proverb would have had no place — or, on the other side, he would have defiled the very name of Rome with no less disgrace. The abominable sacrifices of these same people are most well known.

XXXIV. And indeed, among the nations, the matter stood thus. For since from the works of nature nothing at all of God's placability toward sinners could be made apparent — inasmuch as those works, completed prior to any consideration of sin, were plainly appointed for a different end altogether — and since the works of providence, whatever goodness or patience they made manifest, counterbalanced with the revelation of wrath and indignation; and since the practice of sacrifices was introduced only from a detestable tradition, because most foully corrupted, or by the cunning of Satan; whatever may be said about that placability, it is evident that the nations, destitute of the word of God, were condemned in the darkness of ignorance of all mercy that spares and leads to saving repentance.

XXXV. Furthermore: every revelation of God pertains to some covenant. Now there are two covenants between God and men — one of works, the other of grace. The means of revelation of which we speak must necessarily belong to one of these. But if they belong to the former, namely that of works, how can they manifest any placability in God? For according to the terms of that covenant, God is not placable. If they are to be referred to the latter, and the works of providence are to be regarded as means of administering the Covenant of Grace, then they ought to declare not a placable God but a God already appeased, reconciled, and reconciling the world to Himself — if, that is, they are to be considered as proclaiming the truth itself. Therefore the revelation of placability in God belongs neither to the covenant of works nor to the Covenant of Grace. That is, there is no such revelation at all. The works of providence can indeed reveal the goodness of God, and His patience and longsuffering — which God exercises toward the vessels of wrath — but His placability, not at all. Let the distinguished men therefore consider in what sense they have so repeatedly attributed this placability to God, which, since it can be said to exist in God under no respect whatever, can certainly be revealed by no means. If once the heat of disputation has cooled, and a pious soul seriously reflects within itself what it is to deal with God in Christ concerning the forgiveness of sins, reasonings of this kind will be found to vanish more quickly than words.

XXXVI. Let us proceed to the consideration of the other passage in the same book, namely Acts 14:16, 17, though we have already transferred all the force it might appear to have in this cause to the preceding argument. The words of the apostles to the Lystrans are as follows: "Men, why do you do these things? We also are men, subject to the same passions as you, announcing that you should turn from these vain things to that living God, who made heaven and earth and the sea and all things that are in them; who in past ages permitted all nations to walk in their own ways. Yet He did not leave Himself without witness, bestowing good things, giving us rain and appointed seasons for the bearing of fruits, filling our hearts with food and gladness." XXXVII. After they had proclaimed the living and true God, the apostles show what His disposition was toward the nations destitute of the word in ages past — that is, throughout all that time in which He left them without His special revelation, before the preaching of the gospel — namely, that "He permitted them to walk in their own ways." Then they set forth the manner and purpose of the divine dispensations toward those nations thus left behind; for He did not leave Himself without witness. From both parts of this apostolic speech the learned men strive to fortify their position, especially from the latter part. For first they contend that God permitted the nations to walk in their own ways only insofar as no preaching of any prophet or apostle intervened to check their corruption; and then they argue that the testimony which the apostles affirm the true and living God bore to Himself in the works of providence testifies not only that He exists, nor only that He is powerful and wise, but also that He is most good, and indeed good toward sinners, by that kind of goodness and benevolence which is called mercy — (Luke 6:35, 36). From this it follows, they say, that by that testimony God bore to Himself, His placability and goodness toward sinful men was also to some extent made known — without which a sinful man cannot be brought to true repentance and true worship of God.

XXXVIII. From what we have on the one hand conceded and on the other hand proved above, a fair reader would easily perceive that unless the opponents were to introduce, by legitimate consequence, some mention of the worship of the true God, of repentance, and of placability, they could extract nothing at all from this passage that might appear to favor their cause. But this manner of arguing from the testimonies of Scripture does not commend itself to us — the drawing of strong arguments from the words considered precisely in themselves, while the occasion of the whole speech and the scope of the passage are left aside. We will consider both briefly. XXXIX. When, therefore, the crowd of the Lystrans was astonished at the miracle of the healing of the man who had been lame from birth and had come to suspect that Paul and Barnabas were gods — namely, Jupiter and Mercury — and had induced the priests to offer sacrifice to them, the apostles, disturbed almost as much by their idolatrous madness as that crowd had been struck by the divine power that accompanied them, "tore their garments and rushed into the crowd, crying out and saying, Men, why do you do these things?"

XL. Now since the crowd was entangled and ensnared in a twofold error, each most pernicious — one being that Jupiter and Mercury were gods with power to work miraculous healings, the other that Paul and Barnabas were that Mercury and Jupiter in disguise — the apostles address both errors. First, to clear their conscience at once, they cry out that they are men, subject to the same passions as the crowd themselves; then they teach that Jupiter and Mercury, and all the worship which the stupefied crowd wished to render them in their names, are vain, fictitious, and impious things; and that they themselves are proclaiming that living God who made heaven and earth. Now it would have been easy for the crowd to object: if such a God exists as you proclaim, and He alone, so that our divine powers have absolutely no place before Him, why is it that we have never heard anything of Him until now, and that He did not see to it that He was proclaimed to us or to our fathers in past ages? In order to meet this deep-rooted prejudice of the whole world of that time — from which the cause of truth, wherever unheard, had been condemned — the apostles teach that this living God, in accordance with the sovereign dominion He holds over all, had in past ages permitted the nations, of whom these Lystrans were a part, to walk in their own ways, that is, in the vanities of idolatry, and had not called them to the knowledge of Himself and to true worship; and they thus allude to the economy of the New Testament (which they knew they would immediately have to contend for even against the Jews), by which, the dividing wall being broken down and every distinction of nations, peoples, and families removed, God calls all without distinction to repentance. But lest they should appear by this speech to have provided the Lystrans with a pretext for excusing themselves — on the ground that they had at least worshiped those idols, since the true God had not been revealed to them, and they could not be obligated to worship one they were entirely ignorant of — the apostles add that correction by which they show that the Lystrans were altogether inexcusable in their idolatry, on account of some revelation of the true God that had been granted to them through His works. For although (they say) it pleased Him to permit the nations to walk in their own ways and not to be called to repentance through His word, yet He always revealed Himself to them through the works of His providence and bore testimony to Himself to this extent: that it was not without grave sin and remarkable folly that they and the other nations, turning away from Him thus revealed, had given themselves over to idols — especially since those very works by which He bore testimony to Himself were of such a kind that from them came all the good things in which the nations participated. XLI. Since, therefore, this is the scope and aim of the apostolic speech — namely, to show that God revealed Himself through the works of providence to this extent in those very times when He permitted the nations to walk in their own ways, so that they had returned to vain idols without any cause and not without the gravest sin — let us see what the learned men attempt to extract from this in support of their cause. They say first, therefore: "These evidences set before the nations testify of God not only that He is wise and powerful, but also that He is most good." Let it be so; from whoever we receive any benefits, we consider him to be good and beneficent; from whom we receive all things, we consider him to be supremely good. Nor have we ever said that all nations were so utterly stupefied as not to acknowledge the supreme giver of benefits as most good. The contrary is attested by the orator: "You, O Capitoline," he says, "whom the Roman people for your benefits named 'Best' …" — Pro Domo Sua, 57.

XLII. But these evidences, they say, prove that God is most good toward sinners; and let this also be granted. How far the nations acknowledged God as adverse to themselves on account of sin is not the place to inquire here. But since the apostle himself would not have known sin "unless the law had said, You shall not covet" (Romans 7:7), it is established that those who were destitute of that law labored under a sufficiently gross ignorance of the nature of sin. Yet let it be granted that the nations knew themselves to be sinners; let us grant that God was good toward those who were convicted of sin — what further seems to follow? Namely, that God is good and gentle and merciful toward sinners. For Christ affirms that this goodness toward sinners is mercy (Luke 6:35, 36); for after saying "the Most High is gracious toward the ungrateful and the evil," He immediately adds, "Be therefore merciful, even as your Father is merciful." God is therefore merciful toward sinners — who denies it? Even toward the ungrateful — who will dispute it? But also toward the perishing — why not? Since we know that He "bears with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction" (Romans 9:22). For though He is provoked by them daily, He does not immediately seize them away, but even heaps upon them many benefits, to be demanded back at the appointed time (Hosea 2:9). Moreover, this benignity of God is called mercy in a broad and improper sense, taken for any disposition to do good; so that He is said to be merciful not only toward men but toward all His works — toward sheep and oxen and the other beasts of the field (Psalms 145:9, 15, 16). But that this mercy or benignity, displaying itself in earthly things — that is, in worldly matters — which are for very many an occasion and enticement to sin, is the foundation of true and saving repentance, neither the apostles say, nor is it true, nor can it be proved from their words by the force of any legitimate consequence. Concerning the special mercy from which the forgiveness of sins flows, not a single word is ever spoken in all of Scripture when the condition of those who are destitute of the word of God is set forth; for that mercy is in Christ alone — but the opponents deny that Christ is revealed through the works of providence.

Since, therefore, only that mercy which Jesus Christ set forth from the bosom of the Father is the foundation of saving faith and repentance, we can concede without the slightest prejudice to our cause that the knowledge of the other mercy was set before men through the works of providence; indeed, since we have no cause other than truth alone, we concede it most willingly. Whatever can be added concerning that apostolic correction, "Although He did not leave Himself without witness," can all be conceded in a sound sense; for God did not permit the nations to walk in their own ways in such a manner as to have cast aside all care and sovereign rule over them. On the contrary, the apostles say, He always bore testimony to Himself through His works to such a degree that it was by no means open to the nations to reject the knowledge of Him and give themselves over to idols.

XLIV. From this point they proceed as follows: "What Paul said about God having previously allowed the nations to walk in their own ways signifies nothing other than this one thing: that God had up to that point not intervened in the corruption of the nations through the preaching of any prophet or apostle; that He had not deemed the nations worthy of any vocal testimony concerning Himself and His matters, with which honor He had deemed the one nation of the Jews worthy." But that one thing is a great matter. All the salutary external means of repentance and salvation are contained exclusively in that one thing of which God did not deem the nations worthy (Psalms 19:4, 9–11; 147:19, 20). It has not yet been proved that any saving knowledge of God, any calling to repentance, or any saving faith can be obtained from any other source than from that one means. But they proceed: "The following things," they say, "altogether signify that God always testified among those same nations, by the daily evidences of His nature and providence, what men ought to think of Him, and by what method they ought both to worship His divine majesty and to order the rest of their lives. By the works of nature, the works of creation are meant." What those works could teach sinners about God that would lead them to repentance — since they teach or can teach nothing other than what was fitted for teaching in the state of integrity — has not yet been established; let us therefore set that aside in this disputation. All hope lies in the works of providence. We acknowledge that these taught the nations what they ought to think of God, insofar namely as God through them disclosed Himself to them. By what reasoning it can be proved that the nations were able to learn from those same teachers the manner in which they should worship His divine majesty and order the rest of their lives — that remains to be shown. Six hundred things of this sort can be asserted without proof. Moreover, even these things are stated far too loosely. Whoever wishes to set forth that method of worshiping God and ordering one's life by which the nations could have drawn near to God in a saving way will be doing something worth the effort. That God exists; that He is the Creator of all things, their Governor, powerful, wise, and a munificent bestower of temporal benefits; and therefore that idols are vain and the worship of all of them is foolish, absurd, and insane — all this the apostles prove by testimony drawn from the works of God; but concerning the true worship of God and the right ordering of life, there is deep silence among them. Some add: "Since the nations passed by all these warnings with deaf ears and with horrible ingratitude cast away all worship and care for their Creator and Governor, who is both supremely good and supremely great," the apostle signifies "that God is now calling them back from their empty and pestilential practices by a sharper and clearer voice through the ministry of His apostles." But in fact the apostles are so far from instituting any comparison between that calling which comes through the gospel and that other calling through the works of providence, that they are utterly silent about the gospel and all its doctrine. Nor indeed is the preaching of the gospel to be placed in the same rank as those evidences which God sets before men from the works of nature, as though it were merely a sharper calling, made with a clearer voice, of the same kind of calling. For that calling which comes through the revelation of that mystery which was hidden from ages and generations, and by which God has made known what are the riches of that glorious mystery, differs immeasurably from that testimony which God bore to Himself as the Governor and munificent bestower of all things through the works of providence. That other calling, however, is to be called a sharper one made with a clearer voice, which indeed is of the same kind and nature as the former, yet differs from it in degree or in manner of presentation. But since the entire foundation of the evangelical calling is laid in the revelation of God the Father and the Son through the Holy Spirit, and since almost all its power consists in the declaration of forgiveness, reconciliation, and the remission of sins through the blood of the God-man Mediator, and in the efficacious dispensation of the Spirit — all of which things, and others of the same kind that accomplish that calling, were utterly hidden in the bosom of God through the ages and generations during which He allowed men to walk in their own ways, as those destitute of His word — these things in no sense can be equated with the works of providence, those evidences set before men; nor are they to be placed in the same series with them. And I am not a little amazed that those who do not know what it is to repent in a saving way, or what it is to believe in God, can speak in such a manner. XLV. They continue, and in their peroration they conclude this argument as follows: "Since, therefore, that testimony of God which resounds throughout the whole earth contains those things that pertain to recalling the nations from their ways, and to leading them from idolatry to the worship of the one true God, and from crimes and vices to justice and uprightness — it is altogether necessary that through that testimony of God there was also to some extent disclosed His willingness to be appeased and His gentleness toward sinful men; without which it cannot come about that a sinful man is brought to true repentance and true worship of God." But this speech errs by a manifold recapitulation of the same points. For among the apostles there is no mention at all of the nations being recalled from their ways through that testimony of God resounding throughout the whole earth; on the contrary, they testify that God permitted them to walk in those ways. That the nations could not be recalled from those ways except through the gospel, the apostle clearly enough suggests in this passage and openly teaches elsewhere (Acts 17:18; Ephesians 1:10; 3:9–11). It is one thing for God not to have left Himself without witness among the nations; it is another for Him to have recalled them from idolatry to the true worship of Himself. Concerning the true worship of the true God, there is not a single word in that widely resounding testimony, because there is nothing about Christ, through whom alone we can draw near to God (Ephesians 2:12–15, 18). Furthermore, from where does it appear that God cannot bear such a testimony to Himself as renders idolaters without excuse, unless He also discloses His willingness to be appeased? XLVI. For what does this willingness to be appeased have to do with convicting idolaters of error, folly, and wickedness? "But from the fact that God bestows all good things on sinners, it appears that He is willing to be appeased, and that through those good things He is showing them that He is willing to be appeased." Since by all those good things only one kind is meant, namely the things pertaining to life, or temporal things, we deny that proposition. God bestows those good things many times on those whom He hates, toward whom He is endowed with an immutable purpose of punishment, whom He has devoted to destruction, and whom He has declared to be destined for destruction and to be tormented with eternal punishments (Psalms 73:4–12, 18–20). But those things from which no one can discern either love or hatred cannot reveal that God is willing to be appeased (Ecclesiastes 9:1, 2). When God heaps His benefits upon ungodly men, so as to make them fat with His own fatness and fattened for the day of slaughter — is He to be regarded as bestowing these things with the purpose of showing that He is willing to be appeased? It is a matter of common acknowledgment that God certainly knew that the nations, destitute of His word, would make the very worst use of these temporal benefits, and that they could not rightly use them to His glory. He also appointed these as witnesses of His patience and wisdom (Job 38:25, 26). And He very frequently employs their accumulation to blind men in their sins. How then will those things show that He is willing to be appeased, especially since mingled together with the administration of those things there are innumerable marks of wrath and most certain tokens of God's righteous judgment against sinners? But let us grant what the apostle does not affirm, and what cannot by any legitimate inference be drawn from his words, namely that the nations could have gathered from the works of God some degree of His willingness to be appeased toward sinners — are we on that account to suppose that they were called to true repentance? For since those same nations acknowledged His law, namely that those who sinned are worthy of death, and since they were unable to understand whether there was any possible way of actually appeasing and reconciling Him on account of that law of His — though they may have suspected Him to be to some limited degree willing to be appeased — how, I ask, are they to be regarded as having been called back to true repentance through that knowledge? Indeed, it is established that saving repentance cannot exist without faith, since repentance is pleasing to God, which cannot happen without faith (Hebrews 11:6). But faith toward God can exist only through Christ. I mean such faith as is the foundation and companion of saving repentance. The works of providence, however, do not reveal Christ. Nor is God revealed in Christ as willing to be appeased, but as already appeased, and reconciling the world to Himself (2 Corinthians 5:19). There is therefore no willingness to be appeased; nor, if there were, could it be revealed through the works of providence; nor, if it were revealed, would it be the foundation for any sinner's faith or repentance.

The nations certainly imagined some of their idols as willing to be appeased. And why would they not imagine that divine power which they themselves had made as readily accommodating and accessible to them? For since man had of his own accord cast away that image of himself which the true God had created, and had thereby stripped himself of all communion with that true God his Creator, he attempted to fabricate and as it were create new, fictitious gods in that corrupted image in which he was constituted through apostasy from the true God. And being himself entangled in vices and given over to pleasures, he daily established in his own mind a divine power fashioned after his own likeness and more in agreement with himself. From this it followed that whatever he experienced in his own nature, he immediately supposed also had its place in those gods whom he had fashioned for himself according to his own fancy. Hence he devised them as wrathful, willing to be appeased, easy-tempered, or sullen — each one according to his own disposition and temperament. But what has this to do with our God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, "whom no one has seen; that only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known to us."

There remains yet another argument, which I have for that reason relegated to this last place, because — had I not discovered that it pleased some learned men who I fear were carried away by partisan zeal — I would have judged it a childish sophism, and unworthy of occupying any place in this cause. It is wrested from the first chapter of Paul's Epistle to the Romans, ver. 21, 22. "Because," say some, "men did not use the knowledge of God as was fitting for them, they became without excuse" — that is, because they defiled themselves with the crime of idolatry, concerning which the apostle deals in that passage, even though God had revealed His eternal power and truth through the works of creation. What then? "If they had used it rightly, they would not have been without excuse; if they had not been without excuse, they would have been excusable; if they had been excusable, they would have been excused." Reply: If indeed it had been equally easy for men destitute of the word both to use the knowledge of God well and to use it badly, this reasoning would have some plausibility. But this is assumed without proof, and it is a begging of the question. Yet upon this the entire argument depends. Because it is most certain that men could use the knowledge of God badly, and the apostle shows that they did so use it, it is therefore supposed — but most falsely — that they could have used it rightly.

Furthermore, if they had used it rightly — that is, that kind of use of which the apostle speaks — to what extent would they have been excused? Would it have been to the extent of being saved? But in the apostle there is nothing at all about their salvation; on the contrary, he demonstrates by deliberate argument that no one could ever have attained salvation through the use of those means which were granted to the nations, apart from the saving grace of God in Christ. They could indeed have abstained from the most foul crime of idolatry to such a degree that it could not have been justly charged against them in the manner in which the apostle has charged it here. Therefore if the inference of this enthymeme — "because they did not make right use of the knowledge of God, they became without excuse; therefore if they had made right use of it, they would have been excused" — is judged to be a legitimate inference (though it is most false, since the same reasoning does not hold for the wrong and the right use of the means of salvation or of saving knowledge of God), then its meaning is nothing other than "they would not have defiled themselves with the crime of idolatry." For those terms, "excusable" and "excused," must necessarily be restricted to the subject matter with which the apostle deals; which is universally true. But they continue to argue: "They would not have been excused," they say, "unless they had fled to the mercy of God; and they would not have fled to Him, unless that manifestation under which they lived taught them that they must flee to it." Reply: They would have been "excused" to the extent that the apostle deals with them in that passage, even had they not fled to the divine mercy. It remains to be proved that they could have made further use of that knowledge.

And these may suffice by way of specimen, at least so that we may see of what kind are the arguments which learned men on every side employ in this cause. To one pressing further there stand in the way both the scope of the present work and the recently published studies of others on this very cause.