Additions to the Saints Everlasting Rest, Section 6 – Section 7
§ 6 SECT. VI.
Prop 5 Propos. 5. THere is a three-fold Truth to be enquired after in Examination: 1. The Truth of the Act or Habit. 2. The Moral Truth of it as a Grace or Duty. 3. The Moral Truth of it as a Saving or Justifying Grace or Duty: or as the Condition of Justification and Salvation. It is the last of these three only that the great business in Self-examination lieth on, and which we are now Lege Aquin. sum. de Veritate. c. 1. & 2, &c. accuratissimè de Veri & Veritatis definitione.searching after: The two first being presupposed as more easily discernable, and less controvertible.
I will not here trouble plain Readers, for whose sakes I write, with any Scholastick Enquires into the nature of Truth, but only look into so much as is of flat necessity to a right managing of the work of Self-examination. For it is unconceivable how a man should rationally judge of his own Condition, when he knows not what to enquire after: or that he should clearly know his sincerity, who knows not what sincerity is. Yet I doubt not but by an internal feeling a strong sound Christian who hath his Faith and Love, and other Graces in Action, may comfortably perceive the sincerity of his Graces, though he be so ignorant, as not clearly and distinctly to know the Nature of sincerity, or to give any just Description of it: Even as an unlearned man that is of a sound and healthful body, may feel what Health is, when he cannot describe it, nor tell distinctly wherein it doth consist. But yet as he hath a general Knowledge of it, so hath this ignorant sincere Christian of the Nature of sincerity. And withal, this is a more dangerous ground to stand on, because our sense is so uncertain in this case more then in the welfare of the body; and the Assurance of such a soul will be more defective and imperfect, and very unconstant, who goes by meer Feeling without knowing the nature of what he feeleth. Even as the forementioned unlearned man in case of bodily health, if he have no knowledge, but meer feeling of the nature of health; He will be cast down with a Tooth-ake, or some harmless disease if it be painful, as if he should presently die, when a knowing man could tell that there is no danger, and he would make light of a Hectick, or other Mortal disease till it be uncurable, because he feels no great pain in it. It is therefore a matter of Necessity to open most clearly and distinctly the Nature of sincerity or Truth, so far as concerns the case in hand. I told you before that there is a Metaphysical Truth of Being, and a Moral. I now adde further, that here are three things to be enquired after: 1. The Truth of the Act. 2. The Truth of the Virtuousness or Goodness of the Act. 3. The Truth of the Justifying or savingness of the Act. The first is of Natural consideration: The two last of Moral Consideration. As for example: If you be trying the sinceritie of your Love to God: You must first know that you do love him indeed without dissembling: 2. That this Love be such as is a Dutie or Good, which God requireth. 3. That this Love be such as will certainly prove you in a state of Salvation. The first of these (whether you Believe and Love Christ or not) must needs be first known. And this must be known by internalLege Rivet. Disput. de Certitud. salutis •§. 33. pag. 248, 249. Even Learned Testardus is thus mistaken. De Natura & Grat. pag. 142. Thes. 180. whose words I will give you that you may see what way others go, in him. If any man feel that he Believeth, (for fe…t it is, and that most certainly of him that believeth) and be perswaded of the Veracity of God & Christ, that man cannot choose but certainly conclude with himself that his sins are pardoned, and life eternal shall be given him. He therefore that professeth himself uncertain of the pardon of his sins, and of his Salvation, doth in vain boast that he is a Believer. Certainly he that is not certain of the pardon of his sins, and of his Salvation, which is the Conclusion of the Syllogism of Faith, is either ignorant of what is contained in the major; or else doth not take it for certain (which yet is the word of God and Christ:) or else it must needs be that he doth not feel that he Believes: And how then can he be called a Believer? Thus Testardus erreth with too many more. Feeling joined with a consideration of the Effects of Real Love. And to this end many Marks may be useful, though indeed inward feeling must do almost all: No man else can tell me whether I Believe and Love, if I cannot tell my self. It is no hard matter to a solid knowing Christian to discern this ordinarily. But when they do know this, they are far enough from true▪ Assurance, except they go to the rest. A man may be a True Man, and not an Image, or a shadow, or a corps: and yet be a false Thief, or a Liar, and no True Man in a Moral sense. This I lay down to these uses:
First, That you take heed when you hear or read Marks of Grace, how you receive and apply them: and enquire whether it be not onelyonly the Truth of the Being of the Act or Habit that those Marks discover, rather then the virtuous, or the saving Being or Force.
Secondly, That you take heed in Examination of taking up at this first step, as if when you have found that you Believe, and Love, and Repent, you had found all: when yet you have not found that you do it Savingly.
Thirdly, To take heed of the Doctrine of many called Orthodox great Divines, in this: who tell you, That, Every man that hath Faith, knows he hath it: and it is impossible to Believe, and not to know we Believe. This may ordinarily (but not alway) be true about this first Truth, of the meer Being of the Act. But is it not a wonder that these great learned Divines should not consider, that this is but a presupposed matter, and not the great thing that we have to enquire after in point of sinceritie? and that they may know they Believe long enough, and yet not know their Faith to be Saving? It is our beyond-Sea Divines that so mistake in this Point: Our English Divines are sounder in it, then any in the world generally: I think, because they are more practical, and have had more wounded tender consciences under cure, and less empty speculation and dispute. The second Truth to be enquired after, is, That this Act is Truly Good or a Virtue or Grace. For every Act is not a Virtue. Nor every Act that may seem so. I will not stand here curiously to open to you, wherein the Goodness of an Action doth consist. Somewhat will be said in the following Propositions opened. Only this much at the present. To denominate an Action properly and fully Good, it must be fully agreeable to Gods Will of Precept, both in the Matter, End, Measure, and all Circumstances. But improperly and imperfectly it may be called Good or Virtuous, though there be Evil mixt, if the Good be most eminent: as if the substance of the Action be Good, though the Circumstances be Evil: and thus we ordinarily call Actions Good: But if the Evil be so predominant, as that the Good lie only in Ends or Circumstances, and the substance (as it were) of the Action be forbidden, then we may not call it a Good Action, or a Grace or Duty. So that it is not perfect proper Goodness, that I here speak of: but the second, that is, imperfect: when the Action is commanded and Good in it self, and the Good more eminent then the Evil: Yet it may not be saving for all that.
For there is a common Grace which is not saving, yet Real and so True and Good, and so True Grace: as well as a special Grace, which is saving: and there are common Duties commanded by God, as Alms-deeds, Fasting, Prayer, &c. which though they are necessary, yet Salvation doth not certainly accompany them or follow them. A man that findes any Moral Virtue to be in himself Truly, and to be Truly a Virtue; cannot thence conclude that he shall be saved: Nor a man that Truly doth a Duty Truly Good in it self. Many did that which was Good in the sight of the Lord, but not with an upright heart: And even an Ahabs Humiliation may have some Moral Goodness, and so some Acceptance with God, and bring some benefit to himself, and yet not be Saving nor Justifying.
And some Actions again may be so depraved by the End and Manner, that they deserve not the name of Good, or Duty. As to Repent of a sinfull Attempt, is in it self considered a Duty and Good: But if a man Repent of it only, because it did not succeed, or because he mist of the Gain, or Pleasure, or Honour which he expected by it: Thus he makes it a greater sin: And if he Repent but because his pleasure is gone, or because he is brought to poverty or disgrace by his sin, this is but a Natural thing, and deserves not the name of a Virtue. So to love God is in it self Good, and the highest Duty: But if any man Love God as one that he thinks hath prospered him in his sinne, and helped and succeeded him in his Revenge, unjust Bloud-shed, Robbery, sinfull Rising and Thriving, thanking God and loving him for his Pleasure in Lust, Drunkenness, Gluttony, or the like, as most men that Idolize their Flesh-pleasure do: when they have Ease, and Honour, and all at Will, that they may offer a full Sacrifice to their Flesh, and say, Soul take thy ease: Then they Thank God for it, and may Really Love him under this notion.foreign sancti dicuntur, & quodammodo sunt, sed fine Radice & Soliditate, ut Rivet. disp. de Persev. sanct. §. 3. p. 203. This is to make God a Pandor or Servant to our Flesh, and so to Love him for serving and humouring it. And this is so far from being a Virtue, that it is one of the greatest of all sins. And if another man Love God in a better notion a little, and Love his Lusts more, this is no saving Love (as I shall more fully shew you.) So that you see a man hath more to look after then the meer Honesty, Virtue, or Moral Goodness of his Action: Or else all Actions that are virtuous would be saving.
The third thing to be enquired after, is the Sincerity of Grace considered as Saving. This is much more then the two former: And indeed is the great matter in Self-examination to be looked after: Here is the Work: Here is the difficulty: Here it is that we are now enquiring, how far Marks may be multiplied? how far they may be usefull? and wherein this sincerity doth consist. The two former will not denominate a man a sincere Christian, nor prove him Justified, and in a state of Salvation without this. Wherein this consisteth, I shall shew you in the following Propositions: Now I have first shewed you what it is that you must enquire after. (And I hope no wise Christian will judge me too curious and exact here, seeing it is a work that neerly concerns us, and is not fit to be done in the dark: Our cause must be throughly sifted at Judgment, and our game then must be plaied above-board, and therefore it is desperate to juggle and cheat our selves now.) Only before I proceed, let me tell you, that according to this three-fold Truth or Sincerity, so there is a three-fold Self-delusion or Hypocrisie. (Taking Hypocrisie for a seeming to be what we are not, either to our selves, or others: though perhaps we have no direct dissembling intent.) 1. To take on us to Repent, Believe, Love Christ, &c. when we do not at all, this is the grossest kinde of Hypocrisie, as wanting the very naturall Truth of the Act.
2. To seem to Believe, Repent, Love God, &c. virtuously (according to the former Description) and yet to do it but in subserviency to our Lusts and wicked Ends, this is another sort of gross Hypocrisie: Yea to do it in meer respect to fleshly prosperity (as, to Repent because sin hath brought us to sicknes and poverty; to Love God, meerly because he keeps us our fleshes prosperity, &c.) this still is gross Hypocrisie.
It may be a great Question which of these is the greater sinne; To Repent and Love God in subserviency to our sin; or not to do it at all?
Answ, It is not much worth the thinking on, they are both so desperately wicked: Therefore I will not trouble the Reader with a curious resolution of this Question: Only thus: Though to denie Gods Being, be a Blasphemous denial of his Natural Excellencie, and so of his Attributes which are the first platform of that which we call Morality in the Creature; yet to denie these his Attributes, and withall to ascribe sin and positive wickedness to the Blessed Holy God, seems to me the greater sinne: Sicut esse Diabolum est pejus (quoad ipsum) quam non esse.
3. The next kinde of Hypocrisie, and the most Common is, when men want the sincerity of Grace, as saving only, but have both the Truth of it as an Act or Habit, and as a Virtue. When men have some *Ita sincere, tam Resipiscentiam quam fidem, Conditionem ad salutem adipiscēdam prorsus necessariam statuimus. F…igland. de Grat. p. 997.Repentance, Faith, Hope, Love, &c. which is undissembled, and hath good Ends; but yet is not saving. This is the unsoundness which most among us in the Church perish by, that do perish; and which every Christian should look most to his heart in. This I think is discerned by few that are guiltie of it: Though they might all discern it, if they were Willing and Diligent.
§ 7 SECT. VII.
Prop 6 Propos. 6. As it is only the Precepts of Christ, that can assure us that one Action is virtuous, or a Duty more then another: So it is only the tenour of the Covenant of Grace bestowing Justification or Salvation upon any Act, which makes that Act (or Grace) Justifying or Saving; and can assure us that it is so.
By the Precepts I mean any Divine Determination concerning our Dutie, what we Ought to Do or Avoid. It is the same sacred Instrument, which is called Gods Testament, his Covenant and his New Law, the several names being taken from several respects, (as I have opened elswhere, and cannot now stand to prove.) This Law of God hath two parts: The Precept and the Sanction. The Precept may be considered, either as by it self [Do this or that] and so it maketh Duty: This constitutes the Virtue of Actions; (Regulating them) And so the second kind of sincerity, [Wh…ther an Action be good or bad] must be tried by the Precepts, as Precepts. What God requireth is a Virtue: what he forbiddeth is a Vice: What he neither Requireth nor Forbiddeth, is Indifferent, as being not of Moral Consideration. (For the Popish Doctrine of Divine Counsels is vain.)
2. And then, these Precepts must be considered, not onelyonly as they stand by themselves, and constitute Duty simply, saying, [Do this:] but also as they stand in conjunction with the Sanction, and say, [Do this or that, and be saved, or else Perish] as [Believe and be saved, else not.] And in this respect and sense they constitute the Conditions of the Covenant: and so they are the only Rule by which to know what is saving Grace, and what not. And only in this respect it is that they Justifie or Condemn men: They may Justifie or Condemn the Action, as bare Precepts and Prohibitions: But they Justifie not, nor Condemn the Person himself, but as Precepts conjoined with the Sanction: that is, with the Promise or Threatning.
So that it is hence evident that no humane conjecture can gather what is a saving Grace or Duty, and what not, either from a bare Precept considered disjunct from the Promise; or from any thing in the meer nature and use of the gracious Act it self. The nature of the Act is but its Aptitude to its Office: But the Consequents (for I will not call them Effects) Justification and Salvation, proceed from or upon them only as Conditions on which the free Promise bestoweth those benefits, directly. Those therefore which make the Formal reason of Faiths Justifying, to lie in its Apprehension, which they call its Instrumentality, being indeed the very Nature and Being of the Act, do little know what they say, nor how derogatory to Christ, and arrogating to themselves their doctrine is, as I have elsewhere manifested.
I conclude then, that It is only the Scripture that can tell you what is Justifying or Saving Grace, by promising and annexing Salvation thereto.