The Covenant Sealed, Section 5
SECT. V. Our actions are denominated good or evill, from the Law only.
TO your next Section, in which you complain of unfair dealing at my hands, I have ſpoken ſufficiently: your cloſe only is obſervable. No doubt, ſay you, but that ſincere obedience conſiſteth in a faithfull endeavour to obey the whole preceptive part of Gods Law, both natural, and poſitive; but no man can by it be denominated righteous (niſi aequivocè) but he that perfectly obeyeth in degree. Your conceſſion I accept, but wonder at your aſſertion. Is not doing required in, and by the Law, and did John equivocate when he ſaid, He that doth righteouſneſs is Righteous, 1 John 3.7. And do you equivocate alſo when you put it in your title page of this piece againſt me? Is that an equivocal honour that is given to Zachary, and Elizabeth, to Abel, Lot, Joſeph, Simeon, and divers others in Scriptures? The men of Sodom were denominated wicked upon their breach of Gods Law, being ſinners exceedingly: And Lot is denominated Righteous upon his obſervation of it. I ſaid in my Treatiſe, [A perfection of ſufficiency to attain ths end, I willingly grant, God condeſcending through rich grace to crown our weak obedience; In this ſenſe our imperfection hath its perfectneſs: otherwiſe I muſt ſay, that our inherent Righteouſneſs is an imperfect Righteouſneſs, is an imperfect conformity to the Rule of Righteouſneſs.] Here you are diſpleaſed, with the ambiguity, as you ſay, of the word [otherwiſe] and tell me of a natural perfection, or imperfection, of which actions are capable, without relation to the Rule, which you confeſs is nothing to this buſineſs. And then you adde, Many a School Divine hath written (& Gibieuf at large) that our actions are ſpecified à fine, and denominated good, or evill, and ſo perfect, or imperfect, à fine, more eſpecially à fine then à lege. But this requires more ſbutilty and acurateneſs for the diſciſſion, then you, or I, in theſe looſe diſputes do ſhew our ſelves guilty of. Anſw. If there be no more ſubtlety & acurateneſs in theſe many School-men & Gibieuf, then that which you pleaſe to quote out of them, and particularly out of him; there is no deſpair, but either you, or I, might ſoon render our ſelves guilty of as much ſubtlety and acurateneſs as they: And indeed, [guilty,] is the moſt proper term, I think, that can be given to diſcourſes of this nature. Actions, (ſay they, as you quote them) are denominated good, or evill, and ſo perfect, or imperfect à fine, rather then à lege, Though the Law that commands an action, and the end at which the action aimes, or ought to aime, ſtand in a Diametrical oppoſition, and the end is wholly without the cognizance of the Law. Did not thoſe Jewes in the time of the captivity, tranſgreſs the Law of God, when they faſted and mourned, & did not faſt and mourn at all unto God? Zach. 7.5. And did not the Phariſees break the Law, when they did their almes to be ſeen of men, and pray'd in Synagogues, and Streets, upon that account alſo, that men ſhould obſerve them? The Law, had it been heeded, would have led them hgther, as we may ſee in our Savious words, Mat. 22.37. According to this doctrine, a good meaning, or intention, will ſalve the worſt action. Saul had then performed the Commandment of the Lord, as he ſaid to Samuel, when he ſpared the beſt of the Sheep and Oxen, for ſacrifice to the Lord God; that had been a pious end, if no command had prohibited it. But to give Gibieuf his due, I have examined his diſpute, De fine, and there cannot find that he makes any ſuch compariſon, or puts ſuch oppoſition, nor that he ſo much as mentions the Law, when he ſpeaks ſo much De fine, as you mention. I referred to Dr. Davenant De Juſtit. habit. 349. diſputing againſt Juſtification by inherent Righteouſneſs, upon the account of the imperfection of it. To this is replyyd, Do not you obſerve, that I affirm, that which you call inherent Righteouſneſs to he imperfect, as well as Bp. Davenant. Anſw. Why is it then that you laid ſo high a charge of ignorance on learned Divines calling it imperfect? when you well know, that they had not any ſuch notion of a Metaphyſical entity in their heads, but maintained what they ſpake, (as indeed Reverend Davenant do's) with that which you call a ſimple objection, that as we are called holy, by an imperfect holineſs, ſo we are called Righteous, by an imperfect Righteouſneſs. They never refer their Righteouſneſs to the Law as a Covenant. You can find no way to charge them and acquit him. As to this, They are as learned as he, and he as ignorant as they. You adde, Yea I ſay more, that in reference to the Law of works, our works are no true Righteouſneſs at all: Anſw. If you mean by the Law of works, not a Rule, but a Covenant, I ſay, with you, That they are no ſuch righteouſneſſe as will obtain the grace, or avoid the penalty of it: yet this reference to this Covenant, cannot make imperfect righteouſneſs ſimpliciter no righteouſneſs, though ſecundum quid, or verſus hoc, it is ſuch. If I am bound in ſtrict juſtice, to pay the ſum of a thouſand pound, and bring an hundred inſtead of it, this is money, though it is no full pay, or totall diſcharge. You ſay further, He that ſaith, they are no Righteouſneſs, ſaith as little for them, as he that ſaith they are an imperfect Righteouſneſs. Anſw. The queſtion is not, who ſpeaks more or leſs againſt this righteouſneſs, but who ſpeaks moſt truth. And Righteouſneſs being, as Rollock on Epheſ. 4.24. obſerves, A vertue in man, whereby he wils and do's thoſe things, which agree with the Law of God, and as Gomarus on Mat. 3.15. defines it, An obedience due to God, and ſtill joyn'd with holineſſe, it cannot be nothing, and yet it can be no better then imperfect. You ſay, You ſuppoſe that I know that Bp. Davenant doth not onelyonly ſay as much as you for the intereſt of works in juſtification, but alſo ſpeaks in the very ſame notions as you do, referring me, where I may find it in Davenant. Anſw. 1. The intereſt of works in juſtification, is not to our preſent queſtion, of the perfection, or imperfection of righteouſneſs: & therefore whether he be, therein for you, or againſt you, it is not to this queſtion much materiall. Yet ſeeing you ſpeak ſo confidently here to me, and more fully elſe where, that you have this Reverend Author in that point firm on your part, inſomuch that having q…oted a Century of witneſſes that are (as you ſay) for you, you adde, If the reader would know which of theſe ſpeak moſt my own thoughts; I anſwer, moſt of them, if not all, in a great part, but Davenant moſt fully, Confeſſ. pag. 457. It will be worth our pains to make ſome further enquiry: And at the fi ſt ſight, the thing doubtleſs will appear to all your Readers, that have read as Davenant, as wonderfully ſtrange. If he ſpeak your thoughts ſo fully, how comes it to paſs, that you have ſo many adverſaries as you complain of? when he, for ought I know, amongſt Proteſtant writers, hath none at all; If you ſpeak both the ſame thing, your Adverſaries doubtleſſe would be his; And his work being ſo much more large then yours; he would have found ſo many more Adverſaries then you. His work was publiſhed before yours; and if you intended to publiſh no other doctrine, How could you know, that yours was like to blaſt your reputation with moſt Divines, (as in your Printed Letter, you tell, Mr. Tombs Pag. 409) When his work has m…ch advanc'd and not blaſted his reputation at all? In this Apology you tell me, Pag. 16. of four great errors of the Proteſtant party in the doctrine of J…ſtification; a…quitting Engliſh R…form rs in one of them only, And all (except that one) Davenant is as guilly as any.
The firſt is, That the formall cauſe of our Righteouſneſſe is the formall Righteouſneſſs of Jeſus Chriſt, as ſuffering and perfectly obeying for us. And if this be an error, no man is more chargeable then he with it. He makes this the title of his 28. Chap. de Juſtit. habit. (a)Imputatam Chriſti obedientiam eſſe cauſam formalem Juſtificationis noſtrae probaturThe imputed Righteouſneſſe of Chriſt, is proved to be the formall cauſe of our Juſtification. Making it good in that Chapter, by 11. Arguments, and anſwering contrary objections. Having confirm'd it with Arguments, he proceeds in the next Chapter to back it with Authorities: And quoting Juſtin Martyr in the firſt place, he thus comments upon him.(b)Hic aptrtè doc et Juſtinus Martyr non modo mortem & ſatisfactionem imputati ad poenam delendam; ſed ipſam converſationem ejus, ſeu obedientiam activam imputari nobis ad peccatum obliterandum. Here Juſtin Martyr doth evidently teach, that no… only the death and ſatisfaction of Chriſt, is imputed to us, to take away our puniſhment, but alſo his converſation and active obedience is imputed to us, to take away ſin, Pag. 374. The like we may find Pag. 378. upon occaſion of quotation out of Cyrillus Alexandrinus. The next error charged upon Proteſtants by you is, about the way and manner of our participation of this Righteouſneſse, which the Divines ſay, is by imputation. And ſo Davenant ſays, as we have already heard, aſſerting againſt Bellarmine the greateſt neceſſity (as he ſpeaks) of it, Pag. 32. Quoting againſt him Scriptures for it, explaining Proteſtants meaning in it.(c)Nos vero hâc imputatione juſtificationem ſitam putamus, non eo nomine ſolum quod Chriſtus nos regit juſtitiâ ſuâ, ſed multò magìs quia donat nos juſtitiâ ſuà. Neque dicimus Deum nos pro juſtis habere ſolummodo quia tectos conſpicit juſtitia Redemptoris noſtri ſed quia ex ſua ordinatione omnes credentes, atque in unam perſonam cum Chriſto coaleſcentes, juſtitiae ejus & obedidientiae veré participes factos. We think (ſaith he) that Juſtification is placed in this imputation; not only becauſe Chriſts covers us with his Righteouſneſſe; but much rather, becauſe he freely conferrs his righteouſneſſe upon us. Neither do we ſay, that God accounts us as juſt; only becauſe he ſees us Cloathed with the Righteouſneſſe of our Redeemer; but becauſe he ſees by his own ordination, all believers united into Chriſt as one perſon; made truly partakers of his obedience. But perhaps, you are moſt offended with that, which you put in the cloſe of your Charge of this error upon Reformers, That we are hereby (namely, by imputation of this Righteouſneſſe) eſteemed legaliter, to have fulfilled the Law in Chriſt: Which in your account, is ſo high an error, that with you it is one of the pillars of Antinomianiſme. And q…oting theſe words from a Reverend Brother, whom ſometimes at leaſt you have had in high eſteem, That as in Chriſts ſuffering we were lookt upon by God, as ſuffering in him; So by Chriſts obeying of the Law, we are beheld as fulfilling the Law in him; You appea…e to you… Reader whether it be true, or tolerable. Yo… ſeem to think, that the naming it, is enough to work a deep diſlike, if not deteſtation of it. And if Davenant here be not as blame-worthy as he, I am much miſtaken. See his third Argument for confirmation of his Theſis before mentioned, Pag. 364.(d)Deus ex intuitu obedien … per Chriſtum praeſtitae uſ que ad mortem crucis, nos liberavit à poenâ debitá legis tranſgreſsoribus, imputando nobis hanc alterius ſatisfactionem, perinde ac ſi noſtra fuiſſet: Ergo ex intuitu obedientiae per Chriſtum praeſtitae uſ que ad impletionem legis, nos donabit illis beneficiis quae promittuntur legis obſervatoribus; imputando nimirum, nobis hanc alterius juſtitiam, quaſi etiam noſtra eſſet. God in beholding the obedience performed by Chriſt, even to the death of the Croſſe, delivers us from the puniſhment due to the tranſgreſsors of the Law; imputing this ſatisfaction of another to us, even as though it had been ours. Therefore in beholding the obedience of Chriſt yeelded even to the fulfilling of the Law, he confers theſe benefits upon us which are promiſed to the obſervers of the Law, that is, by imputing to us this righteouſneſſe of another, as though it were ours. And much more to this purpoſe; And afterwards, further explaining himſelf, he ſayth:(e)Quemadmodum iutuitu imputatae ſatisfactionis, Deus nos liberat ab ira & poena, quaſi nos illam ſatisfactionem in propriis perſonis exhibuiſſemus; Sic intuitu legis à Chriſto pro nobis impletae acceptat nos ad vitam & proemium gloriae, quaſi nos noſtrâ perſonali juſtitiâ legem impleviſſemus. As, upon ſight of this imputed ſatisfaction, God doth deliver us from wrath and puniſhment, as though we had made ſatisfaction in our own perſons; So, upon ſight of the Law fulfilled by Chriſt for us, he accepts us unto life and glory, as though with our own perſonall Righteouſneſſe we had fulfilled the Law. The third error which is charged upon Proteſtants is, that, from which Engliſh Reformers are acquitted.
The fourth is, About the formall reaſon of faiths intereſt in Juſtification: Which Proteſtant Reformers ſay, (as you obſerve from them) is, as the inſtrument. This indeed Davenant doth not put to the queſtion, and purpoſely handle, that I know, as he does the former. Yet we find him fully aſſerting it. Anſwering Bellarmines objection, that(f)Inſtrumentalem ſemper agnoſcit, non autem formalem: niſi quatenus ſub nomine fidei includit objectum fide comprehenſum. Quaſi diceret, Chriſti obedientiam fide apprehenſam eſſe cauſam formalem Juſtificationis noſtrae. Luther made faith the formall cauſe of Juſtification, he ſaith, that Luther alwaies acknowledged it the inſtrumentall, but not the formall, unleſſe under the name of faith he include the object apprehended by faith, as though he ſhould ſay, that the obedience of Chriſt apprehended by faith is the formall cauſe of our Juſtification. Where we plainly ſee Davenants mind.
1. That that which apprehends and applies the righteouſneſs of Chriſt for juſtification, is the inſtrumentall cauſe in it. 2. That faith apprehends and applies, this righteouſneſs of Chriſt for juſtification; and conſequently, with him, Faith is the inſtrument. So alſo Determinat. 37. pag. 165.(g)Huic fiduciae in Chriſtum mediatorem tribuimus inſtrumentalem vim juſtificandi, potius quam illi actui hominis peccatoris, Quia conſtat eo modo juſtificari homines, quo gloria divina maximè illuſtretur, & honor ſalutis noſtrae ad ſolum Deum referatur. Atqui ab aliis virtutibus aut operibus ſtatuunt hominem juſtifioari, in juſtificationis negotio gloriam ſalutis humanae non integram Deo relinquunt, ſed merito ſuo aliquâ ex parte adſcribunt.— We attribute, ſaith he, this inſtrumentall power of juſtification to this truſt in Chriſt the Mediator, rather then to any other act of ſinning man; becauſe it is manifeſt, that men are juſtified that way, by which the glory of God may be moſt illuſtrated, and the honour of our ſalvation given to God alone. But they that affirm that man is juſtified by other vertues or works, do not leave the whole glory of man's ſavation, in juſtification, alone to God, but aſcribe ſome part unto themſelves.
You are highly diſpleaſed with all thoſe, that will have no other condition of our juſtification, at the day of judgement, then affiance in Chriſt's righteouſneſs. If you allow faith to begin it, yet you will have works, at any hand, to perfect it. Here he is as full as anywhere againſt you. Quoting two paſſages out of Hilary, Chap. 29. p. 377. Of which we may make uſe anon, he thus expreſſeth himſelf.(h)Solent Jeſuitae juſtificationem fidei aſcribere, ſed non ſolo. Hunc errorem taxat Hilarius, quando dicit, Sola fides juſtificat. Initium etiam juſtificationis fidei tribuunt, ſed non conſummationem: Atille longè aliter, juſtum fides conſummat. Jeſuites are wont to aſcribe juſtification to faith, but not to faith alone: Hilary taxes this error, when he ſaith, Faith alone juſtifies: They attribute, ſaith he, the beginning of juſtification to faith, but not the conſummation: But Hilary far otherwiſe; Faith conſummates the juſt.
We have heard your ſenſe of the danger of that opinion, That faith in Chriſt, as giving himſelf in Satisfaction for us, is alone the juſtifying act: And we ſhall hear how confident you are, that all antiquity is againſt it, as againſt the inſtrumentality of faith in juſtification, and the intereſt of works as conſummate in judgement. If you pleaſe to read Davenants 37. Determinat. You ſhall ſee him as fully againſt you, as Chemnitius, Ameſius, Prideaux, Bernard, Anſelmus, or any other, that you can look upon, as your greateſt adverſaries. My third argument to aſſert this poſition (laid down Sect. 2. of this Poſtſcript) he there makes his firſt, which I ſaw not till I was come hither, elſe I might have made other uſe of it. And ſee how he expreſſes himſelf, pag. 164.(i)Jam quod ſpectat ad pro prium illud & ſpeciale objectum in quod fides reſpicit eo ipſo articulo quo accipit juſtificationem à Deo, certum eſt in hiſtoricâ narratione creationis aut gubernationis non poſſe animam ream invenire hanc peccatorum remiſſionem. Ʋnde Aquinas, In ipſâ juſtificatione peccatoris, non eſt neceſſe ut cogitentur caeteri articuli, ſed ſolum cogitetur Deus peccata remittens. Deinde in mandatis & comminationibus legis multo minùs invenitur hoc ſpeciale objectum: Nam talis conſideratio ex ſe nihil gignit quam terrores &c. Reſtant igitur dulces promiſſiones Evangelicae de favore & gratuitâ peccati remiſſione per & propter. Mediatorem, in quas dum fides reſpicit, peccator fiduciam concipit, in hunc oblatum ſibi Mediatorem recumbit, divinae miſericordiae ſe juſtificandum ſubjicit, atque inde juſtificationis beneficium protinùs conſequitur. Now, as to that ſpeciall, & proper object, at which faith looks, in that very inſtant, in which it receives juſtification from God, it is certain, that the guilty ſoul can not find remiſſion of ſins in the hiſtoricall narrative of creation, or providence. Whence Aquinas, In the juſtification of a ſinner, it is not neceſſary that other articles be thought upon, but that God be thought upon pardoning ſin. And in the commands and threats of the Law this ſpeciall object is much leſs found; For this conſideration begets nothing elſe, but terrors, &c. Therefore the ſweet Evangelicall promiſes of the favour and free pardon of ſin, by, and for the mediatour, onelyonly remain, upon which whil'ſt faith looks, the ſinner conceives hope, relies upon this mediator, offered to him, yields himſelf to divine mercy for juſtification, and thereby attains the benefit of juſtification. And this he backs with three Arguments.
You tell me, Apol. p. 24. It muſt needs be known, that the faith which is the juſtifying condition is terminated on Chriſt himſelf as the object, and not on his Righteouſneſs which he gives in remiſſion. Giving in your reaſons; To which in their due place I have ſpoke: And you may ſee Davenant as full againſt you here, as any where, ca. 23. de Juſtit. habit. p. 317.(k)Accipere autem dicimur hoc donum manu fidei, quae applicat nobis Chriſti juſtitiam, non ut noſtra fiat per modum infuſionis aut inhaeſionis, ſed per modum imputationis. Atque demiror Papiſt as non poſſe intelligere quomodo per fidem Chriſti juſtitia nobis applicetur, qui putant ſe intelligere quo modo per indulgentias Pontificias Chriſti & ſanctorum merita ſive vivis ſive mortuis aſſigentur. We are ſaid to receive this gift by the hand of faith, which applies to us [the righteouſneſs of Chriſt;] not that it ſhould be made ours way of infuſion, or inheſion; but by way of imputation. And I wonder, (ſaith he) that Papiſts cannot underſtand how [the righteouſneſs of Chriſt] is applied to us by faith, who think that they underſtand, how by the Popes indulgencies, the merits of Chriſts, and the Saints, are applied to the quick and dead. As alſo chap. 28. p. 371.(l)Nihil uſitatius quam cauſae applicanti illud tribuere quod propriè & immediatè pertinet ad rem applicatam. Quia igitur fides apprehendit & applicat nobis Chriſti juſtitiam, id fidei ipſi tribuitur quod reipſa Chriſto debetur. There is nothing more uſual, then to aſcribe that to the cauſe applying, which properly and immediately belongs to the thing applyed. Therefore, becauſe faith apprehends and applies [the righteouſneſs of Chriſt] to us, that is attributed to faith, that indeed is due to Chriſt. Where we plainly ſee, that according to him, Faith applies the righteouſneſs of Chriſt, and that it is an applying cauſe, and what cauſe except inſtrumentall, I cannot imagine. Much more might be brought out of this Reverend Author to this purpoſe. But this is enough to let us ſee, that there is not any ſo fair, and full accord between you. And if I ſhould be put to name two writers of note, much differing one from the other in one particular ſubject, I think I ſhould firſt mention Bp. Davenant, and Mr. Richard Br. in the point of juſtification. Your Reader may well judge, that he is amongſt thoſe that you ſay, (Confeſ. pag. 459.) you may ſafely, and boldly adviſe, all thoſe that love the everlaſting happineſs of their ſouls, that they take heed of. Where you warn all ſuch, that they take heed of their doctrine, who make the meer receiving of, that is, affiance in, the righteouſneſs of Chriſt, to be the ſole condition of their firſt juſtification, excluding Repentance, and the reception of Chriſt as a Teacher, and King, and Head, and Husband, from being any condition of it, yea, and will have no other condition of our juſtification at judgement; who call that affiance only by the name of juſtifying, faith, and all other acts by the name of works. And as to that which you here aſſert, that he ſpeaks as much as you, for the intereſt of works in juſtification, you may conceit it, but thoſe that have peruſed him, will hardly be induced to aſſent to it. Why is it then that he admits no other condition in the Covenant, then faith only?(m)In hoc foedere ad obtinendam reconciliationem, juſtificationem, atque aeternam vitam, non alia requiritur conditio, quàm verae & vivae fidei. In this Covenant, (ſaith he, cap. 30. de Juſtit. act. pag. 396) there is no other condition, then that of true faith, required to obtain Reconciliation, Juſtification, and life eternall. And having quoted, Rom. 3.16. Rom. 4.5. Gal. 3.8. he adds, Juſtification therefore, and right to life eternall is ſuſpended upon condition of faith alone: But good works are alſo required of juſtified men, not to conſtitute a ſtate of juſtification, or demerit life eternall; but to yield obedience, and teſtifie thankfulneſs towards God, who juſtified us freely, and hath markt out that way for their walk, whom he hath deſigned for the kingdome of glory. How is it(n)Juſtificatio igitur, & jus ad aeternam vitam ex conditione ſolius fidei ſuſpenditur. Sed ab hominibus jam juſtificatis opera etiam bona exiguntur, non ad conſtituendum ſtatum juſtificationis, aut promerendam vitam aeternam: ſed ad exhibendam obedientiam, & teſtificandum gratitudinem erga Deum, qui nos gratuito juſtificavit, atque ad ambulandum in illâ viâ quam ad regnum gloriae deſignatis ipſe delineavit. then,Haec gratia (ſc. inhaerens) ut ſaepe dictum eſt, eſt appendix five conſequens gratuitae juſtificationis. that again and again (as he ſays) himſelf hath ſaid, that it is but an Appendix or conſequence of Juſtification, pag. 317? If he thus intereſt works in Juſtification, how he will be reconciled to himſelf, where in the paſſage before quoted he ſays, that They that affirme that man is Juſtified by other vertues, or works, do not leave the whole glory of Mans ſalvation, in Juſtification, alone to God; but aſcribe ſome part to themſelves? And in all that you quote out of him, Pag. 319, &c. to Pag. 326. how little is there that looks this way? You think you have juſt cauſe to charge contradictions upon the Reverend Author of the firſt, and ſecond part of Juſtification; Becauſe, having delivered that very doctrine which here is held forth out of Davenant, concerning the imputation of Chriſts active obedience (in which they ſcarce differ in termes) yet afterwards adds, Though holy works do not juſtifie, yet by them a man is continued in a ſtate and condition of Juſtification: So that, did not the Covenant of grace interpoſe, groſſe and wicked waies would cut off our Juſtification, and put us in a ſtate of condemnation. If you can reconcile Davenant to Davenant, which I doubt not may be done, this Author may then be as eaſily reconciled to himſelf. Paſſages of this kind only, you quote out of Davenant, which are as much oppoſite to himſelf, as to the Author now mentioned.