The Covenant Sealed, Section 2
SECT. II. Mans Evangelicall, Perſonall Righteouſneſs, is not here perfect.
THe next in order which you examine is, concerning the inſtrumentality of faith in Juſtification, which is already ſpoke to and inſerted into the body of the Treatiſe: and therefore I paſs to your third, to which you ſpeak, Sect. 28. pag. 41 entituling it, Of Evangelicall, perſonall Righteouſneſs: Where you ſet down words of mine at large; and then ſubjoyn; The third opinion which you riſe againſt, is, that which you take to be mine, as your citing my words doth manifeſt. Where I do not then cite any words which are yours, nor uſe your name, I pray you, let me not hear any ſuch charge. I am loath to cauſe this piece to ſwell with repetition of all my own words. That which I excepted againſt, was,The authors conceſſions vindicated. [That our perſonall inherent righteouſneſs is affirmed to be perfect] and a charge of intolerable ignorance laid upon learned men that ſpeak otherwiſe.] Here, I partly implyed, and partly expreſt ſeveral conceſſions, which you take hold of, and raiſe ſeveral queſtions about them. 1. I yield [a righteouſneſs of this kind inherent in Chriſtians, though I deny ſuch a perfection] as I take to be aſſerted in your Treatiſe. And here you think, I am already caught. For ens and perfectum, are, ſay you, as convertible, as ens and bonum, or ens and verum. And after pains taken out of Scheibler, and Scaliger to correct my ignorance, you tell me, It is a Metaphyſicall, Tranſcendentall perfection that you ſpeak of, which hath no contrary in being, which conſiſteth in the preſence of all things neceſſary to being, &c. And you warn me ſtill to remember, that you take it not, de perfectione accidentali but eſſentiali. And I wiſh that you had told your Reader ſo: I am confident there was not one that did ſo underſtand you in your Aphoriſm…s. When we diſpute, whether ſuch, or ſuch a thing be perfect, or imperfect, we take it for granted, that there is ſuch a poſſible imperfection, of which we diſpute. If I diſpute the truth of this propoſition, Coelum movetur ab intelligentiis, I do not queſtion whether this be truly a propoſition; but whether in the common acceptation, it be logically true; whether the predicate be truly affirm'd of the ſubject. Did not you ſpeak of righteouſneſs, and ſo of holineſs, as it denominateth the ſubject? not as an abſtract, but a concrete, and ſo ſuſceptible of magìs and minùs, (if Qualities do ſuſcipere magìs and minùs,) and ſuch as is ſubject to contrarieties? When learned divines have ſpoke in your hearing, (as you imply that they have done,) of imperfect righteouſneſs, can you think that it was in their heads to take it in that ſenſe, in which a little learning might acquaint them, that there is no poſſible imperfection? 2. I further yielded [a perfection of the ſubject, as oppoſed to hypocriſie, diſſimulation, or doubleneſs, and a perfection of the entireneſs of the object, reſpecting, not one, or only ſome, but all commandments, called a perfection of parts.] This you ſay, you do not underſtand, though I think, few other Readers have been ſo quick, as to diſcern any difficulty. When Divines ſpeak of univerſall obedience grounding their words on ſeverall Scripture-Texts, do not they ordinarily explain themſelves, 1. Of an univerſality of the Subject? when the whole man is brought into obedience, according to that of the Apoſtle, 1 Theſ. 5.23. The very God of peace ſanctifie you [wholly] per omnia perfectos, Vatablus reads it, and puts in the margent, vel totos, according to our reading, wholly: And then adds his comment, The following words declare what that [wholly] is, Vel totos, ſequentia declarant iſtud totos: hoc eſt in ſpiritu & in anima & in corpore.viz. in ſoul, in ſpirit, and body. This is the perfection of the ſubject of which I ſpake, and as I thought, ſufficiently explain'd my ſelf. 2. Of an univerſality of the Object, when not one, but every command is heeded, as Pſal. 119.6, 128. You tell me, you charitably conjecture, that when I ſpeak of a perfection of the object, I mean a perfection of our acts, as they reſpect the object extenſively. And if you pleaſe but to make uſe of your eyes, they will inform you, that nothing elſe can be my meaning, and ſo I ſhall not ſtand in need of your charity in it. And hereupon you fall to diſtinguiſh of objects, I know not why, but that I may know, (which I well knew before) that you can diſtinguiſh. You tell us of objects of abſolute neceſſity, and objects of leſs neceſſity. For anſwer to which, it is enough for me, that there is ſuch an entireneſs in the ſoul, reſpective to all known obliging commandements, that denominates the man in an Evangelical ſenſe, univerſal and entire in his obedience.
After a large diſcourſe to ſhew how our righteouſneſſe is eſſentially perfect, you ſeem thus to ſumme up all, pag. 43. Take up all together then, and you will ſoe, that, 1. Righteouſneſſe is formally a relation, 2. And that not of our actions or diſpoſitions to the meer precept of the Law, determining of duty as ſuch (Commonly called the Morall law) but 1. To the law as determining of the conditition of life or death, 2. To the promiſe and threatning of that Law which are joyned to the condition. But you ſhould conſider, that we are talking of a Rule, without conſideration either of reward or puniſhment, and you runne out into a diſcourſe of a Covenant. The query is, Whether righteouſneſſe be perfect or imperfect: You fall upon it, as a condition of Juſtification, which never was put to queſtion. And you well know, that thoſe learned men whoſe ignorance you thus challenge, never had any ſuch thing in their thoughts, Making the Scripture their ſtudy, and Proteſtants writers their Comment, they find Juſtification by the blood of Chriſt, Rom. 5.9 and intereſt in this blood alone by faith, Rom. 3.25, 28. and works they find again and again excluded. I wiſh you to conſult the Homilies of the Church of England, eſpecially the Homilies of the Salvation of Man-kind by Chriſt our Saviour, pag. 14. Having touched upon divers paſſages of Saint Paul, This is added, In the aforeſaid places the Apoſtle toucheth eſpecially three things which muſt go together in our Juſtifycation, upon Gods part, his great mercy and grace; upon Chriſts part, Juſtice, that is, the ſatisfaction of Gods Juſtice, or the price of our Redemtion, by the offering of his body, & ſhedding of his blood, with the fulfilling of the Law perfectly and throughly; and upon our part, true and lively faith in the merits of Jeſus Chriſt — And therefore Saint Paul declareth here nothing upon the behalf of man, concerning his Juſtification, but only a true and lively faith. And yet that faith doth not ſhut out repentance, hope, love, dread, and the fear of God to be joyned with ſaith in every man that is Juſtified, but it ſhutteth them out from the office of Juſtifying, With much more to the ſame purpoſe. Your Readers that are not ſo much ſeen in the Language of Bellarmine, and Suarez, as they are in the Scriptures, or at leaſt, that do not ſo much heed them, deny all that you take for granted. In which alſo you have phraſes more uncouth to your Readers, then any that I have uttered can be to you; to be righteous ſignifieth, ſay you, quoad legem novam, non obligatus ad poenam, & cui debetur praemium. This ſignification, according to this new law, I think was never found in any of our old and new Dictionaries. Thoſe that are righteous ſhall be thus acquit, and rewarded, we believe, but not upon account of any righteouſneſſe inherent in them, but the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt made theirs by faith: and ſo their faith is accounted to them for righteouſneſſe. You then adde, So that you ſee that your firſt righteouſneſſe [non reatus poenae, vel jus ad impunitatem & ad praemium] as it requires Chriſts perfect ſatisfaction as a medium to it, by which all the charge of the Law works muſt be anſwered; So it requires our performance of the condition of the Law of grace, as an other medium, by which Chriſt and his benefits are made ours. I had thought that our righteouſneſſe had not been non reatus poenae that is not the thing, at beſt, were it as perfect as Adams was, but reather non reatus culpae. If a man be charged with Murther, his righteouſneſſe as to this charge, is, his not-killing, and not his non-obligation to the Gibbet, That follows upon it; non reatus, is not of the eſſence of righteouſneſſe, nor is reatus of the eſſence of ſin, otherwiſe then conſecutive. And that Chriſts righteouſneſſe ſhould be thus called a medium, I do not ſee. I think it is the thing it ſelf, and not a medium to it. And that our righteouſneſſe is any medium to Juſtification as it is inherent, I deny: and that our inherent righteouſneſſe required by the Law of Grace, ſtands in any ſuch ſubordination to the righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, as a neceſſary means to make it ours, I ſee your word for it, but I think (and the reformed Churches are of the ſame mind) that I have the whole current of Scripture againſt it. You cloſe up this diſcourſe thus; And thus I have done what at preſent I thought my duty, that it might be not my fault, that you are in ignorance all over; But I have ſaid the leſſe, becauſe I have lately more exactly opened the nature of our righteouſneſſe, in anſwer to the Animadverſions of an other learned brother. But it is worth inquiry whether this learned Brother have received ſatisfaction from that more exact paines of yours. Perhaps his learning may ſerve to give as exact an anſwer. And if his greater learning be not ſatisfyed, with that which is more exact and elaborate, my leſs learning may well remain as much unſatisfied with leſſe exactneſſe. And your Reader will think you were not ſo well adviſed, to publiſh your ſelf, and conceal your moſt exact opening of this poynt of ſo great concernement. Though you might think, that any thing might ſerve me, yet all your exactneſſe will, I believe, be litte enough in this poynt to give ſatisfaction to many Readers.
Whereas you had ſaid in your Aphoriſmes, pag. 122. Imperfect righteouſneſſe, is not righteouſneſſe, but unrighteouſneſſe. Imperfect righteouſneſſe is no contradiction.It is a contradiction in adjecto, yet there admitting an imperfection in holineſſe, I anſwer'd, [I never took imperfect righteouſneſſe to imply any ſuch contradiction, more then imperfect holineſſe] To this you reply, 1. By a way of conceſſion, that holineſſe is taken, firſt, for the relation of a perſon or thing dedicated to God, So it admits not of magìs and minùs more then righteouſneſſe; 2. That the common uſe of the word, Holineſſe, is for the qualities or actions of a ſpiritually-renewed man, & this is confeſſed to have its tranſcendent perfection, as wel as righteouſneſs. Hitherto we are agreed; but here, ſay you, is the difference, Holineſſe thus taken is a quality, which though it have the truth of being, yet it is intendend and remitted or doth recipere magìs & minùs righteouſnes is a relation which in ſuo formali is not intended or remitted. And is not Righteouſneſſe a quality in like manner, which is intended and remitted? when Zachary ſaies,Righteouſneſs as well as holineſs is intended and remitted. We are delivered out of the hands of all our enemies, to ſerve in righteouſneſse and true holineſſe, Is not the one a qualification by a new work of the Spirit, as well as the other? When the Angel ſaid, Rev. 22. He that is unjuſt, let him be unjuſt ſtill; and he that is filthy, let him be filthy ſtill; and he that is righteous, let him be righteous ſtill; and he that is holy, let him be holy ſtill: As [unjuſt] and [filthy] hold out vicious qualities from the fleſh, ſo [Holy] and [righteous] both ſignifie renewed qualities by the Spirit. It follows, Nay if you will exactly open it, it will appear that the righteouſneſſe in queſtion is a relation founded in a relation. Yea more, that the very ſubjectum proximum hujus relationis nec intenditur, nec remittitur, & this is that I mean by perfection, beſides the aforeſaid tranſcendentall perfection. And how ſhall we know what the righteouſnes in queſtion is? either it muſt be gathered out of your own words, or out of their words, that you cenſure as guilty of ſuch ignorance, as before; Let us look upon your own words, Theſſ. 2.2. which you there comment upon. In this fore-explained ſenſe, it is that men in Scripture, (ſay you) are ſaid to be perſonally righteous: And in this ſenſe it is, that the faith and duties of believers, are ſaid to pleaſe God, viz. as they are related to the covenant of Grace, and not as they are meaſur'd by the Covenant of works. Are not [faith] and [duties] here our perſonall righteouſneſſe? and is not [faith] a branch of holineſſe as well as it is of righteouſneſſe? And hath it not its degrees as well as righteouſneſs? Surely the Apoſtles thought ſo when they prayed, Lord increaſe our faith, Luk. 17.5. And the Lord Chriſt had no other thoughts, when he rebukes his hearers for their little faith, Matth. 6.30. And commends the Woman of Canaan for the greatneſſe of her faith, Matth. 15.28. And as it riſeth and falls, ſo do other duties with it: they are more intenſe, or remiſſe, in like manner. And as for their ſpeeches which you challenge; do you think that their ignorance was in that meaſure intolerable, as to believe the righteouſneſſe of what they ſpake was a meer non-entity, i.e. had nothing of the being of righteouſneſſe in it? They doubtleſſe looked upon righteouſneſſe as a renewed quality, as you do upon holineſſe, and the Apoſtle, both upon holineſſe and righteouſneſſe, Eph. 4.24. The new man is ſo put on that we muſt be ſtill putting it on. It follows, that ſeeing theſe things are exactioris indigationis, underſtand that the reaſon of my aſſertion lyes here: The law as it is the rule of obedience, doth require perfect obedience in degree, and ſo here is an imperfection in our actions in the degree, as being ſhort of what the rule requireth, and it being theſe actions with their habits which we call our holineſſe, therefore we muſt needs ſay, our holineſſe is imperfect. And if our righteouſneſse were to be denominated from this law, commanding perfection, we muſt ſay, not that ſuch righteouſneſſe were imperfect, becauſe the holineſſe or obedience is imperfect, but it is none at all, becauſe they are imperfect. It ſeems you intend here, exactneſſe equall to that in which you appeared to the learned brother before mentioned; and as you did diſtinguiſh before of a metaphyſicall and morall perfection, ſo you ſeem here to diſtinguiſh of righteouſneſſe and holineſſe: either as a duty performed by men in the Covenant of grace according to rule; or elſe as a condition required by the Covenant of works, reſpective to the attainment of life upon terms there required. This ſeems to be your meaning in your laſt words in this Paragraph: Duty ſimply as duty, and holineſs or ſupernaturall grace as ſuch may be more or leſs; But holineſs and duty, as the materia requiſita, vel ſubjectum proximum juſtitiae, conſiſtit in indiviſibili. How duty and holineſs can be the ſubject of it ſelf, I know not; for ſo they are, if they be the ſubjects of righteouſneſs. That righteouſneſs in which we muſt exceed the righteouſneſs of Scribes and Phariſees is our duty, and our holineſs as well as of our righteouſneſs; but if you carry it thence to make it the righteouſneſs of the covenant of works, it is eaſily granted, that the imperfection of it, renders it as no righteouſneſs reſpective to that end of attainment of life by it. A Phariſee might as well be juſtified upon the terms of that covenant, as Noah, Daniel, and Job, Zachary, and Elizabeth, or any other of thoſe, that were moſt perfect and eminent in righteouſneſs. But I think, no Reader could obſerve either in your own words, or theirs that you cenſure, any ſuch meaning.
To aſſert the imperfection of our righteouſneſs I ſaid, [Iſaiah, I am ſure, ſaith, All our righteouſneſſes are as filthy rags, Iſ. 64.6. no greater charge of imperfection can lie againſt the moſt imperfect holineſs, then the Prophet layes upon our righteouſneſs, Interpreting the Prophets words, as I think the ſenſe of them is generally given by interpreters ancient and modern. But ſeeing you go off to ſpeak of righteouſneſs of another kind, I will not contend. I there added, [Neither do I underſtand how holineſs ſhould be imperfect, taken materially, and righteouſneſs perfect, taken formally in reference to a rule.] After ſuch courteous cenſure that you pleaſe to give, you fall to examine what that is, that I underſtand not. In which you take one piece of my ſentence apart, and ſay, [How holineſs ſhould be imperfect, taken materially,] ſure you underſtand that. It is therefore, ſay you, no doubt, the other branch that you mean, How righteouſneſs is perfect taken formally in reference to a rule. If the Reader pleaſe to conſult my words, he may ſee that I put them not diviſim, but conjunctim, giving in my reaſon, why to me it is non-intelligible, telling you that [we may for ought I know, as well make holineſs formall, and refer it to a rule, and righteouſneſs materiall, in an abſolute conſideration, without reference to any rule at all.] This you disjoyn from the reſt, and fall upon my words apart; for what reaſon, is beſt known to your ſelf; And I leave it to the Reader to judge, whether that I may not call holineſs perfect, and righteouſneſs imperfect, as well as you may call righteouſneſs perfect, and holineſs imperfect; and whether there is not a materiality, and formality, (not in the one, or the other)) but in the one, as well as the other: and this was that which I ſpake to. And any man that underſtands no more then I, will (I think) take this to be a material exception againſt that which in your Aphoriſmes was delivered. You ſay, if you, or any man reſolve to uſe holineſs in the ſame ſenſe as righteouſneſs, if I once know your minds, I will not contradict you, for I find no pleaſure in contending about Words, but for my ſelf, I muſt uſe them in the common ſenſe, if I will be underſtood. Righteouſneſs and holineſs in what ſenſe commonly uſed.But you might have done well to let us know that, that is the common ſenſe of the word righteouſneſs, (taken for perſonall inherent righteouſneſs) which you here uſe; till I ſee that made good, I ſhall judge it to be your own peculiar acceptation of it. I would know what interpreter of Zachary's words, Luk. 1.75. of Paul's words, Eph. 4.24. of John's words, Revel. 22.11. do put ſuch a difference as you make between righteouſneſſe, & holineſs, as to make one a renewed quality of the Spirit, the other no ſuch thing, but a relation in eſſe formali, to what you muſt explain your ſelf; I have read ſo much difference indeed made, as to put holineſs for duties of the firſt Table, in immediate reference to God; righteouſneſs for duties of the ſecond Table, in immediate concernment to man: but thus taken, they are both equally new qualities from the Spirit, and have their intenſion and remiſſion, one, as well as the other. And I have read a rule given, that where they are put together (as in the Scriptures quoted) they are to be diſtinguiſhed as before, but where the one is put apart, it is to be underſtood as comprehenſive of both. It were eaſie to ſhew, that writers of moſt eminent name promiſcuouſly uſe theſe terms of righteouſneſs and holineſs. But for your interpretation, for ought I know, you are alone in it, ſpeaking as you do, and entituling your diſcourſe of perſonal inherent righteouſneſs. I added,Moral perfection, or imperfection is in reference to a rule. [And in ſuch conſideration, (viz. without any reference to any rule at all) I do not know how there can be perfection, or imperfection, (either in holineſs, or righteouſneſs: Is is as it they come up to,) or fall ſhort of the rule, that they have the denomination of perfection, or imperfection.] To this you ſay, At the firſt view the ſentence ſeem'd ſo ſtrange to me, that I thought it meeteſt to ſay nothing, becauſe it is ſcarce capable of any apt anſwer, but what will ſeem ſharp, or unmannerly: Now you have found out a way to ſpeak, both mildly and mannerly, you think, (it ſeems) that your words will be more heeded, then at other times. You further ſay, That which I ſay you may conſider, is ſomething, or nothing: if ſomething, and yet not capable of perfection, or imperfection, it is ſuch a ſomething, as the world never heard of till now. I had thought, on the contrary, that there is many a thing in the world, (& I believe ſhall think, when you have ſpoke all that you can againſt it) capable neither of morall perfection, or imperfection, and of ſuch perfection we ſpeak, when we ſpeak of inherent perſonall righteouſneſs, and therefore uncapable either of perfection, or imperfection, becauſe there is no rule by which they are meaſured. The Schoolmen, you know, ſpeak of actions preventing reaſon, which they ſay are actions of men, but deny them properly to be actions humane, as you may ſee in Thom. 1, 2. quaeſt. 1. art. 1, 2. as to move the foot, rub the beard, when a mans thoughts are intent on ſomewhat elſe. Theſe, they uſe to ſay have neither rectitude, nor irrectitude in them, are neither good, nor evil, and therefore neither perfect, nor imperfect. But if all actions of men muſt be alſo humane, and ſuch that reaſon orders, according to rule, or at leaſt ought to order, and are therefore either right or oblique, as ſome in oppoſition to Schoolmen do determine; yet doubtleſs it is not ſo in the actions of brute creatures: Theſe have neither morall perfection, nor imperfection, ſeeing they act by no rule, ſave that of natures inſtinct. And if all rule were taken from man, his actions would be parallel. Where there is no Law, there is no tranſgreſſion, and conſequently no conformity, nor inconformity, no rectitude, nor irrectitude, and ſo neither perfection, nor imperfection. You adde, But upon ſecond thoughts, I find that your words, de juſtitiâ may be born, for it is nothing that you ſpeak of. This I think is ſuch an anſwer, that few will ſee either mildneſs, or manners in it. I ſpeak of mans perſonall righteouſneſs, and ſo do you: This you affirm to be perfect, and charge learned Divines, as before, for charging it with imperfection. And if it be nothing, you might well have kept ſilence, for [nothing] ſuffers nothing by their language. That which follows, muſt at leaſt be repeated: But that holineſs taken for ſprituall habits and acts, can have neither perfection or imperfection; or that, that they are capable of no perfection, or imperfection, in any other ſenſe, but as related; nor yet in relations to God, or the perſon dedicating, ſave only in relation to the Rule; all theſe for the firſt reaſon, ſhall have no anſwer but a recitall. I might ſay of much that is here repeated, Tu male dum repetis, incipit eſſe tuus. And I think that which you now repeat, is not ſuch that you may ſay, magnâ fronte recit-âſſe, eſt refutaſſe. To this ſupercilious reply, I only ſay; that this is the firſt time that ever I heard of holineſs of ſeparation, dedication, or relation, applied to acts, or habits of this nature. And what elſe, but the reference to the rule, can denominate them imperfect, I would you had ſpoke out. They are ſinfull only, according as they tranſgreſs the rule, and righteous as they hold to it, and by conſequence, I think that they are either perfect, or imperfect, on like account.
I added in my Treatiſe; [Pauls Goſpell frame, whether you will call it righteouſneſs, or holineſs, is ſet out I am ſure, Rom. 7. full of imperfection, yet all this as in reference to the rule, as it anſwered, or fell ſhort in conformity to it, v. 22. I delight in the Law of God after the inner man.] Here you begin to q…arrel with the phraſe, and ſay, Is not [righteouſneſs] or [holineſs] as Scripturall, as Logicall, as plain a term, & as fit for diſputants as [Goſpel frame?] I anſwer, yes doubtleſs, when they are uſed Scripturally, or Logically: but when your Reader is confounded with the uſe of theſe terms, making one imperfect, and the other uncapable of any imperfection; making one to ſtand in conformity to a rule, the other without any ſuch conformity at all; taking one Metaphyſically, and not telling us how you take the other: ſometimes telling us that you take holineſs for the qualities, and actions of a ſpiriturally renewed man, elſe-where, that it ſignifies no more then a dedication to God, either by ſeparation onelyonly, or, by qualifying the ſubject; firſt, with an aptitude to it's divine employment, and then ſeparating, or devoting it, I was put upon it, to ſeek a third word, to hold out that which I mean by righteouſneſs, and holineſs; and learned men mean, when they ſpeak of imperfect righteouſneſs, which alſo is the ſame with your qualities, or actions of a ſpiritually renewed man. You further ſay, Till I further know whether by [Goſpel-frame] you mean, Habits, Acts, Relations, (and what Relations) or what elſe, I ſhall paſs it, as uncapable of a better reply. Adding further, Did not I acknowledge expreſly as much imperfection, as you here affirm, of Pauls frame; why then do you intimate by your arguing, as if I did not? Anſw. If you did expreſly make ſuch acknowledgement, ſurely you knew what you meant, when you did expreſly acknowledge it, and how is it then that you are ſo to ſeek in my meaning? you tell me further, There is a twofold rule, or action of the Law; which our habits, and actions do reſpect, as you ſay, you have oft ſaid. The firſt is the precept determining the duty ſimply; this, all our habits, and actions, come ſhort of, and therefore no man hath righteouſneſs conſiſting in this conformity, The ſecond is the promiſe, or that act going along with the promiſe, whereby God determineth of the condition. To this I ſay, If I had ſpoken of [action of Law,] confounded [rule] and [action] together, I ſhould have heard of it. And if you have often ſaid, that there is ſuch a twofold rule, I think no other man, but your ſelf, hath ſaid it, and I neither hear of Scripture, nor reaſon for it. We are ſpeaking of agenda, and not credenda; and that here ſhould be any rule de agendis, but the precept determining of duty, or that the promiſe,There is a righteouſneſs, in an imperfect conformity to the Law. or any act that goes along with the promiſe (which what it means, I cannot imagine) ſhould be any rule of our actions, I never heard, but from your mouth. And for your inference, That all our Actions and Habits, comming ſhort of the precept, determining of duty, no man therefore hath a righteouſneſs conſiſting in this conformity, I ſhould think, all but your ſelf, would take to be a Non ſequitur. There is a righteouſneſs in conformity to the precept, which yet fals ſhort of a full and perfect conformity. Look I pray you upon Zacharie, and Elizabeth; that have this praiſe in the Goſpel, that they were both righteous before God, and by what rule this righteouſneſs had its denomination, let the Text be conſulted. If walking in all the ordinances, and commandements of God blameleſs, give men the denomination of righteouſneſs, then there is a righteouſneſs in conformity to the precept? But walking in all the commandments, and ordinances of God, denominates men righteous; Ergo, doing righteouſneſs denominates righteous; He that doth righteouſneſs, is righteous, 1 John 4.7. And what ſhould be the rule of doing, but the precept, I cannot imagine: If we break the precept when we ſin, the precept is our rule; but we break the precept when we ſin, 1 John 5.4. Abel hath often that Teſtimony to be righteous, and that becauſe his works were righteous, 1 John 3.12. And ſo Lot, in like manner, 2 Pet. 2.8. there is a righteouſneſs then in conformity to the Law of works, though not to the covenant of works. Zachary ſaies, We are redeemed to ſerve without fear, in holineſs and righteouſneſs before God, B. concedimus renatos diligere deum & proximum; ſed imperfectè diligere, & per conſequens imperfectè legem implere.Luk. 1.74, 75. And this righteouſneſs, is not without its rule, and hath no other rule then that which Zacharies righteouſneſs had, in the ſixth verſe of the ſame Chapter. There is an imperfect fulfilling of the Law; and ſo an imperfect righteouſneſs in conformity to it. (b) We grant (ſaith Davenant) that the regenerate love God, and their neighbour, but they love imperfectly, and by conſequence they fulfil the Law imperfectly, de Juſtit. actuali, p. 551. And if you acknowledge an imperfection in Pauls frame, (as you ſay, you do,) you then acknowledge an imperfect fulfilling of the Law, and an imperfect conformity to the Law. It is in reference to the Law, that he had his imperfections, and gradual inconformity. He delights, he ſaies, in the Law, in the inward man, but ſees an oppoſite power, drawing him aſide, and he quotes the precept, and not the promiſe annex'd, Thou ſhalt not covet, to which in ſuch imperfection he conformed.
I added in my Treatiſe, [Whereas a charge of ignorance is laid even upon learned Teachers, that commonly underſtand the word [Righteouſneſs] and [Righteous] as it refers to the old Rule, I profeſs my ſelf to have little of their learning, but I am wholly theirs in this ignorance. I know no other Rule, but the old Rule, the Rule of the Moral Law, that is with me a Rule, a perfect Rule, and the only Rule.] Here you firſt complain of want of candor in me in not repeating all that you ſpoke, and if is but this once, that I know, that I am thus charged: And the ſenſe, I think, is full in thoſe words that I do ſet down. Secondly, you go about to clear your ſelf from ſome aſperſions, concerning harſh ſpeeches uſed by you againſt learned Divines: in which, you ſay, you ſpeak not to me, but to others, ſtanding thus charged by them, and not by me. In which I am well content that you ſhould ſtand as right in your Readers eyes as you can deſire, and ſhall forbear to rake further into that ulcer. Thirdly, you take me to task, and are content to put my name at length, As for Mr. Blake's profeſſion, that he hath little of their learning, but is wholly theirs in this ignorance, I did ſtill think otherwiſe of him, and durſt not to have deſcrib'd him: But yet my acquaintance with him is not ſo great, as that I ſhould pretend to know him, better then he knows himſelf, and I dare not judge, but he ſpeaks as he thinks. Good Sir, ſay it over again, that it may be known from an hand of your eminence; that I ſay, my learning is little; and that I ſpeak it, not more modeſtly, then truly, neither do you know, how much I ſuffer, that it is no more. Yet, leaſt the cauſe in which I appear ſhould ſuffer with me, or rather in me, let me aſſume ſo much boldneſſe, as to tell you, that I yet think, that, that little which through grace I have obtained, may ſerve to ſatisfie thoſe arguments, which this piece of yours holds forth againſt me. I have been often confounded with your multitude, but never perceived my ſelf ſhatter'd by your ſtrength; not that my learning is equall with yours, (I know my ſelf better, then to enter ſuch compariſons) but your cauſe is unequall to mine. Your advantage is not ſo great againſt me in the greatneſſe of your abilities, as mine againſt you in the goodneſſe of the cauſe. It would often go ill with a good cauſe if the moſt able Advocates ſhould not ſometimes be worſted, in the preſence of impartiall Judges. Should you and I make exchange, So that I were to appear in the cauſe that you maintain, and you in that which I defend, a weaker then you, would eaſily do that, which I think you have not yet done. But your willingneſſe is obſervable to take a hint from my mouth, to ſtrip me of all the learning of theſe learned men, charged with intolerable ignorance; and leave their ignorance only with me, as the whole you are willing to allow me. Yet in the next place you engage me to you in your endeavours to help me out of my ignorance in this. Let me be hold to ſhew him, (ſay you) part of that, which he ſayth he is wholly ignorant of: That our perſonall inherent Righteouſneſſe is not denominated from the old Law, or Covenant, as if we were called righteous (beſides our imputed Righteouſneſs) only becauſe our Sanctification, and good works have ſome imperfect agreement to the Law of works. But I were ignorant indeed, if you could ſurprize me with your confounding of theſe terms, [Law] and [Covenant.] Thoſe two I take much to differ. In your Aphoriſms, (where you think you ſpeak moſt full, and here complain, that I omitted ſomewhat of that which you there ſaid) you have the word [Law] and the word [Rule:] But I hear not of the word [Covenant] at all. But here, Law, and Covenant, are confounded, as though every Law were a Covenant, and every Covenant a Law. And I were yet more in ignorance, if I ſhould let your Syllogiſms paſs, as you have laid them down. The firſt of your ſeven is, If no man be called Righteous by the Law of works, but he that perfectly obeyeth, (ſo as never to ſin) then no imperfect obeyer is called Righteous (niſi aequivocè) by that Lawy: But the Antecedent is true; Therefore ſo is the conſequent. Here I would deſire that you would explain your ſelf, in what ſenſe any Law can call any particular man Righteous? The Law laies down generall Rules, and makes not particular application to this, or that perſon. If you mean that no man hath the denomination of a righteous, or juſt perſon, upon his obſervation of the precepts of the Law, you muſt except Zachary, and Elizabeth, and all other which in Scripture have the title of juſt, or righteous. I pray you conſult Calvin on Luke 1.6.(o)Neque enim eſt haec definitio negligenda, juſtos eſſe, qui vitam ſuam formant ad legis praecepta. Dominus, quia illis peccata non imputavit, ſanctam illorum vitam licet imperfectam juſtitiae titulo dignatus eſt. Neither is this definition, ſaith he, to be neglected, that they are juſt that frame their lives according to the precepts of the Law; and afterward adds, Becauſe the Lord doth not impute unto them ſin, he honours their holy life, though imperfect, with the title of righteouſneſs. See alſo Rivet, on Gen. 6.9. Exercit. 5.2.*Perfectio verò inchoata per omnes partes in nobis etſi non abſoluta per gradus, eſt ſincera & foreign ſecundum totam legem obedientia, ſive ſincerum ac ſerium ſtudium obediendi Deo ſecundum omnia ejus praecéta. Perfection begun in us, in all parts, though not compleat in degree, is a ſincere and undiſſembled obedience according to the whole Law, or a ſincere and ſerious endevour of obeying God according to all his Commandments. God in the Covenant of Grace, looks upon and accepts a ſincere endeavour of ordering our converſation according to the precepts of works. All the reſt of the arguments, carry it to a deniall of juſtification by the Law, (which is far from me to go about to aſſert) but touch not upon denomination of [righteous] or [righteouſneſs] upon a ſincere endeavour of conformity to the Law. Who knows not but that the Law curſeth upon the leaſt trangreſſion, were there not a redreſs in the Goſpel? yet men of Goſpel-grace, to whom ſin is not imputed, are denominated righteous upon their ſincere, though weak endevour of conformity to the Law.(p)Poteſt homo in ſe juſtus denominari ab illâ qualitate juſtitiae quae eſt quantumvis imperfecta modo vera: at non poteſt conſtitui juſtificatus coram Deo niſi ab illâ juſtitiâ quae omnes perfectionis numeros comprehendit. A man may, ſaith Davenant, be denominated juſt (q)A man may be denominated juſt from that rule that will not denominate him juſtified.in himſelf, from ſuch quality of righteouſneſs, which is true, though it be imperfect, but he cannot be conſtituted, juſtified before God, but from that righteouſneſs, which comprizeth all kind of perfection in it. Davenant, de Juſt, habit. pag. 342.*Mortui ſumus legi, diverſâ ratione. Nam legi ceremoniali ratione neceſſaria obſervationis, juſtificationis & condemnationis: morali vero non ratione juſtitiae ſeu obſervationis, ſed juſtificationis & condemnationis. We are dead to the Law, ſaith, Gomarus, upon a ſeverall account. To the Ceremoniall Law, as to neceſſary obſervation, juſtification, and condemnation. To the Moral Law, not as to righteouſneſs, and obſervance, but as to juſtification. Gomarus in Galat. 2.19. So that the whole of theſe ſeven Syllogiſms, may be put to the other thirty one, concerning unbaptized perſons, believing in Chriſt Jeſus. There is not one of the Concluſions that touch me. I ſay not that the Law judges righteous, or that men by the Law are judged righteous, but that God in the Covenant of Grace, cals weak conformity to the Law, [righteouſneſs] and men of ſuch conformity [righteous.] Davenants diſtinction of denomination of a juſt man, and a juſtified man, is a ſufficient anſwer to all theſe arguments.