John Owen · 68 of 73

Chapter XVII. A review of passages in scripture adduced to prove the apostasy of saints. · Part 2

6. This being the tenor and importance of the words insisted on, this their tendency, aim, and accommodation to the objection levied against the righteousness of God in dealing with that people, this their rise and end, their spring and fall, it is evident beyond all contradiction, front any thing but prejudice itself, that all the inquiries and disputes about them, — as, whether the declaration of the mind of God in them be hypothetical or absolute, what is meant by the righteous person, what by his turning away, and what by the death threatened (all which expressions of the text are in themselves ambiguous, and must be limited from the circumstances of the place), — are altogether useless and needless, the words utterly refusing any accommodation to the business of our present debate. So that, —

7. This dependence of the words, scope of the context, design of the place, and intendment of God in it, [and] the accommodation of the whole discourse to the removal of the objection and disproving of the proverbial self-justification of a sinful people, — the only directories in the investigation of the true, proper, native, genuine sense and meaning of them, — [having been neither] eyed, weighed, nor considered by Mr Goodwin, who knew how much it was to his advantage to rend away these two verses from the body of the prophet’s discourse, I might well supersede any farther proceedings in the examination of what he has prepared for a reply to the answers commonly given to the argument taken from this place; yet, that all security imaginable may be given to the reader of the inoffensiveness of this place as to the truth we maintain, I shall briefly manifest that Mr Goodwin hath not indeed effectually taken up and off any one answer, or any one parcel of any such, that hath usually been given by our divines unto the objection against the doctrine of perseverance hence levied.

That which naturally first offers itself to our consideration is, the form and tenor of the expressions here used, which is not of an absolute nature, but hypothetical The import of the words is, “If a righteous man turn from his righteousness, and continue [not] therein, he shall die.” “True,” say they who make use of this consideration, “God here proposes the desert of sin, and the connection that is, by his appointment, between apostasy and the punishment thereunto allotted; but this not at all infers that any one who is truly righteous shall or may everlastingly so apostatize. Such comminations as these God maketh use of to caution believers of the evil of apostasy, and thereby to preserve them from it; as their tendency to that end, by the appointment of God, and their efficacy thereunto, hath been declared. So that, because God says, ‘If a righteous man turn from his righteousness, he shall die,’ the whole emphasis lying in the connection that is between such turning away and dying, to conclude (considering what is the proper use and intendment of such threatenings) that a man truly righteous may so fall away, is to build up that which the text contributes not any thing to in the least.”

Against this plea Mr Goodwin riseth up with much contempt and indignation, chap. xii. sect. 9, in these words:—

“But this sanctuary hath also been profaned by some of the chief guardians themselves of that cause for the protection and safety whereof it was built. There needs no more be done (though much more might be done, yea, and hath been done by others) than that learned doctor so lately named hath done himself for the demolishing of it. Having propounded the argument from the place in Ezekiel according to the import of the interpretation asserted by us, ‘Some,’ saith he, ‘answer, that a condition proves nothing in being; which how true soever it may be in respect of such hypotheticals which are made use of only for the amplification of matters, and serve for the aggravating either of the difficulty or indignity of a thing (as, ‘If I should climb up into heaven, thou art there,’ Ps. cxxxix.; it were ridiculous to infer, therefore a man may climb up into heaven), yet such conditional sayings upon which admonitions, promises, or threatenings are built, do at least suppose something in possibility, however, by virtue of their tenor and form, they suppose nothing in being: for no man seriously intending to encourage a student in his way would speak thus to him, ‘If thou wilt get all the books in the university library by heart, thou shalt be doctor this commencements.’ Besides, in the case in hand, he that had a mind to deride the prophet might readily come upon him thus: ‘But a righteous man, according to the judgment of those that are orthodox, cannot turn away from his righteousness; therefore your threatening is in vain.’ Thus we see to how little purpose it is to seek for starting poles in such logic quirks as these.’ Thus far the great assertor of the synod of Dort and the cause which they maintained, to show the vanity of such a sense or construction put upon the words now in debate which shall render them merely conditional, and will not allow them to import so much as a possibility of any thing contained or expressed in them.”

Ans. 1. Doctor Prideaux’s choosing not to lay the weight of this answer to the argument of the Arminians from this place on the hypothetical manner of the expression used therein, is called a “defiling the sanctuary by the guardians of the cause whose protection it undertakes.”

“Crimina rasis Librat in antithetis; doctas posuisse figuras Laudatur?”

What are my thoughts of it I need not express, being unconcerned in the business, as knowing it not at all needful to be insisted on for the purpose for which it is produced, the text looking not at all towards the doctrines under consideration; yet I must needs say, I am not satisfied with the doctor’s attempt for the removal of it, nor with what is farther added by the Remonstrants in the place which we are sent unto by Mr Goodwin’s marginal directions. Though it should be granted that such conditional expressions do suppose, or may (for that they always do is not affirmed, and in some cases it is evident they do not), that there is something in posse, as the doctor speaks, whereunto they do relate, yet they do not infer that the possibility may by no means be hindered from ever being reduced into act. We grant a possibility of desertion in believers, in respect of their own principles of operation, — which is ground sufficient for to give occasion to such hypothetical expressions as contain comminations and threatenings in them, — but yet, notwithstanding that possibility on that account supposed, [on the point whether] the bringing forth of that possibility into an actual accomplishment may not be effectually prevented by the Spirit and grace of God, the doctor says nothing. This, I say, is ground sufficient for such hypothetical comminations, that in respect of them to whom they are made, it is possible to incur the thing threatened by the means therein mentioned, which yet upon other accounts is not possible; that God who says, “If the righteous man turn from his righteousness, he shall die,” and says so on purpose to preserve righteous men from so doing, knowing full well that the thing, in respect of themselves of whom and to whom he speaks, is sufficiently possible to give a clear foundation to that expression. So that if Mr Goodwin hath not something of his own to add, he will find little relief from the conceptions of that learned doctor; wherein yet I should not have translated some phrases and expressions, as Mr Goodwin hath made bold to do.

He adds, therefore, p. 276, “To say that God putteth a case in such solemnity and emphaticalness of words and phrase as are remarkable all along in the carriage of the place in hand, of which there is no possibility that it should ever happen or be exemplified in reality of event, and this in vindication of himself and the equity of his dealings and proceedings with men, is to bring a scandal and reproach of weakness upon that infinite wisdom of his which magnifies itself in all his works; which also is so much the more unworthy and unpardonable when there is a sense commodious, every way worthy as well the infinite wisdom as the goodness of God, pertinent and proper to the occasion he hath in hand, which offers itself plainly and clearly.” So far he.

And this is all, it seems, which Mr Goodwin hath to add. And, indeed, this all is nothing at all, but only the repetition of what was urged before by the doctor, in more swelling and less significant terms. What possibility there is in the thing hath been before manifested. That this possibility should necessarily be exemplified in reality of event, to give significancy to this expression, I suppose is not Mr Goodwin’s own intendment. True believers, according to the doctrine he asserts (as he pretends), are only in such a remote possibility of apostasy as that it can scarce be called danger. Now, doubtless, it is possible that such a remote possibility may never be reduced into act. But now if Mr Goodwin will not be contented with such a possibility as may, but also will have that [which] must be exemplified in reality of event, he has advanced from a possibility in all to a necessity in some to apostatize.

2. Had Mr Goodwin a little more attended to what here drops from him, — namely, “That the words are used for the vindication of the justice of the proceedings of God,” namely, in the particular case formerly opened and cleared, — perhaps he would himself have judged the edge of this weapon to be so far blunted as to render it wholly useless to him in the combat wherein he is engaged. I hope, at least, that by the light of this spark he may apprehend the emphaticalness of all the expressions used in this place to be pointed towards the particular case under consideration, and not in the least to be expressive of the possibility he contends for. God knows what beseems his own infinite wisdom, and hath given us rules to judge thereof, as far as we are called thereto, in his word; and from thence, whether Mr Goodwin will pardon us or no in our so doing, we doubt not to evince that it exceedingly becomes the infinitely wise God emphatically to express that connection that is between one thing and another (sin and punishment, believing and salvation), by his appointment, though some never believe unto salvation, nor some sin to the actual inflicting of punishment on them. And as for Mr Goodwin’s “commodious sense” of this place, we see not any advantage in it for any but those who are engaged into an opposition to the covenant of the grace of God and his faithfulness therein. So that once more, upon the whole matter, this text is discharged from farther attendance in the trial of the truth in hand.

The severals of the text come nextly under consideration, and amongst them, first, the subject spoken of (that we may take the words in some order, Mr Goodwin having roved up and down, backwards and forwards, from one end of the text to the other, without any at all), and this is, “A righteous man;” that is, such an one as is described, verses 5–9, “But if a man,” etc.; that is, such an one as walks up to the judgments, and statutes, and ordinances of God, so far as they were of him required in the covenant of the land of Canaan, and according to the tenor of it, whereby they held their possession therein, and whereby heavenly things were also shadowed out. That this is the person intended, this his righteousness, and this the matter upon which he is here tried, is clear in the contexts beyond all possible contradiction; so that all farther inquiries into what righteousness is intended is altogether needless. What with any colour of probability can be pretended from hence as to the matter in hand arises from the analogy of God’s dealings with men in the tenor of the covenant of grace and the covenant of the land of Israel; which yet are eminently distinguished in the very foundation of them, the one being built upon this bottom, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die,” the other upon a dispensation of another import, as has been declared. We do, then, plainly supererogate as to the cause in hand, by the confutation of the answers which Mr Goodwin farther attempts to remove, and his endeavour therein; which yet shall not be declined.

Sect. 8. One exposition, by some insisted on, of this term “A righteous man,” is thus proposed by Mr Goodwin: “Notwithstanding, some formerly, it seems, in favour of the doctrine, attempted an escape from that sword of Ezekiel lately drawn against it, by pretending that by the ‘righteous man’ mentioned in the passage in hand is not meant a person truly and really righteous, but a kind of formal hypocrite, or outside professor of righteousness.”

Those who insist on this interpretation of the place tell you that in the commands of God there is the mere end of them considerable, and not the manner of their performance, which is as the life and power of the obedience of them, which is acceptable to God; farther, that many persons, wrought upon by the power of conviction from the law of God, and enabled in some measure with common gifts and graces, do go forth in such a way to the performance of the commands of God, as to the substance and matter of them (wherein also they are not hypocritical, in the strict sense of the word, but sincere), and so are called and counted righteous, comparatively so, in respect of those who live in open rebellion against the Lord and his ways. And such as these, they say, as they are oftentimes useful in their generations, and bring glory to God by their profession, so (especially under the old legal dispensation of the covenant) they are rewarded in a plentiful manner of God in this life, in the enjoyment of the abundance of all things in peace and quietness. Of this sort of men, — that is, men upright and righteous in their dealings with men and in the world, conscientious in their trust, yielding professed subjection to the judgments and institutions of God, performing outwardly all known duties of religious men, — they say, that after they have made a profession of some good continuance, having never attained union with God in Christ, nor being built on the rock, many do fall into all manner of spiritual and sensual abominations, exposing themselves to all the judgments and vengeance of God in this life, which also under the old testament generally overtook them, God being (as here he pleads) righteous herein. In this description of the righteous person here intended, there is no occasion in the least administered to Mr Goodwin to relieve himself against it by that which, in the close of this section, he borrows from Dr Prideaux, — namely, “That if the righteous man should turn himself away from his counterfeit and hypocritical righteousness, he should rather live than die;” for they say not that this righteousness is hypocritical or counterfeit, but true and sincere in its kind, only the person himself is supposed not to be partaker of the righteousness of God in Christ and of a principle of life from him, which should alter his obedience, and render it spiritual and acceptable to God in the Son of his love.

What more says Mr Goodwin unto this exposition of the words? With many scornful expressions cast both upon it (as by himself stated and laid down) and the synod of Dort, he tells you it was rejected by the synod. That some in the synod, looking on it perhaps under such a sense and apprehension as Mr Goodwin proposeth it in, did not see cause to close with it, may be true; yet that it was rejected by the synod Mr Goodwin can by no means prove, whatever he is pleased to say, and to insult thereon upon the judgments of very learned men, whom he hath no reason upon any account in the world to despise, the labours of very many of them praising them in the gates of Zion, exceedingly above the cry and clamour of all reproaches whatever mustered to their dishonour. But to let pass those poor, contemptible wretches, let us see how this master in our Israel in his indignation deals with this silly shift, whereby poor men strive to avoid his fury. Says he, then, —

“And indeed the whole series and carriage of the context, from verse 20 to the end of the chapter, demonstratively evinceth that by the ‘righteous man’ all along in meant such a man as was or is truly righteous, and who, had he persevered in that way of righteousness wherein he some time walked, should have worn the crown of righteousness, and received the reward of a righteous man; as by the ‘wicked man,’ all along opposed to him, is meant not a person seemingly wicked, but truly and really so, as is acknowledged on all hands. So that the antithesis or opposition between the righteous and the wicked, running so visibly quite through the body of the discourse, must needs be dissolved, if by the ‘righteous man’ should be meant a person seemingly righteous only, he that is righteous in this sense being truly and really wicked.”

Ans. The main series and context of the chapter, without the least endeavour to give any light or illustration thereunto by the scope, occasion, or dependence of the parts of it one upon another, does more than once stand Mr Goodwin in stead, when nothing else presents itself to his relief. It is true, the whole context of the chapter grants the person spoken of to be righteous in the performance of the duties mentioned in the chapter, in opposition to the wicked man and his intentions and ways described therein, in proportion to the dispensation of the covenant, whose rule and principle is placed in the head of verse 20, which Mr Goodwin directs us unto, namely, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” And as there is nothing in all this contrary to any thing in this exposition by Mr Goodwin opposed, so there is not any thing more proved, nor once attempted to be, here by Mr Goodwin himself, than what is confessed therein.

It is acknowledged that the person spoken of is truly and really righteous, with that kind of righteousness which is intended, and wherein if he continued he was to receive the reward of righteousness then under consideration; and yet though such an one might be truly and really united unto Christ, there is nothing in the text or context enforcing that such an one and none else is intended here. And more in this case Mr Goodwin hath not to add; nor doth he threaten us with any more than he hath delivered, as he did upon the consideration of the tenor of the words, and our inquiry whether they are of an hypothetical or absolute nature and importance.

It is true, he adds that “Calvin, in his exposition on the place, notwithstanding his wariness to manage it so as that the doctrine of perseverance, which he maintained, might suffer no damage” (which perhaps Mr Goodwin was not so wary in expressing, contending so much as he does to manifest that he had thoughts lying another way), “and therefore asserting the person here spoken of to be a person seemingly righteous only, yet lets fall such things as declare nothing to be wanting in this righteous person but perseverance.” But that Calvin grants, in any expression of his, this person, or him concerned herein, to be in such an estate as to want nothing but perseverance to render him everlastingly blessed, is notoriously false; neither does any thing in the expressions cited by Mr Goodwin come from the body of his discourse, [or] in the least look that way, as might easily be manifested, did I judge it meet, in a contest of this nature, to trade in the authorities of men: so that I cannot but wonder with what confidence he is pleased to impose such a sense upon his words. All this while, then, notwithstanding any thing our author hath to say to the contrary, the righteous person here intended may be only such an one as was described in the entrance of this consideration of his; and that it is not requisite, from the text or context, that he should be any other is more evident than that it is to be contended against.

Sect. 7, he deals with another exposition of the words, which hath no small countenance given unto it from the Scriptures; which, for to prevail himself upon an expression or two by-the-by, he sets down in the words of Dr Prideaux, Lect. vi.; and they are these: “There is,” saith he, “a double righteousness; — one inherent, or of works, by which we are sanctified; another imputed, or of faith, whereby we are justified. A righteous man may turn aside from his own righteousness, namely, from his holiness, and fall into very heinous sins; but it doth not follow from hence that therefore he hath wholly shaken off from him (or out of him) the righteousness of Christ.” To this he advances a threefold reply:—

1. “The doctor here presents us with a piece of new divinity, in making sanctification and justification no more intimate friends than that one can live without the company and presence of the other. Doubtless, if a man’s justification may stay behind when his holiness is departed, that assertion of the apostle will hardly stand, ‘Without holiness no man shall see the Lord,’ Heb. xii. 14; and if ‘They that are Christ’s’ (that is, who believe in Christ, and thereby are justified) ‘have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts’ (another assertion of the same apostle), how their relation unto Christ should stand, and yet their holiness sink and fall, I understand not. But I leave his friends to be his enemies in this.”

Ans. How little advantage Mr Goodwin hath obtained by attempting a diversion from the consideration of the matter insisted on (which is all he doth in this paragraph) will quickly appear. From the righteousness of sanctification there is, or may be supposed, a twofold fall; — first, From the exercises of it, in all or any of the fruits thereof, according to the will of God; secondly, From the habit and principle of it, in respect of its root and ground-work in the soul. It is the former that the doctor asserts. “A man,” saith he, “may fall away from the zealous practice of the duties of holiness, and, with or under violence of temptation, as to fruit-bearing, decay in close walking, until the whole seem ready to die, so as, through the righteous judgment of God, to be exposed to calamities, corrections, and punishments in this life, yea, the great death itself, as it fell out in the case of Josiah, who fell by the sword in undertaking against the mind and will of God.” But now for the work and principles of holiness, none who have once received it can ever cast it up and become wholly without it; and between this and the righteousness of justification, there is that strict connection that the one cannot, doth not, consist without the other. If now Mr Goodwin understands not how a justified, sanctified person, may decline from the ways and practice of holiness for a season, so as to provoke the Lord to deal sharply, yea, and sometimes terribly with him, to take vengeance on his inventions, and yet that person not lose his relation to Christ nor his interest in the love and favour of God, I shall not presume to instruct him in the knowledge thereof, but refer him to them who are better able so to do; wherein, upon the account of his aptness to hear as well as teach, I presume their undertaking will not be difficult. He adds, —

2. “He seems, by his word penitus, wholly, throughly, or altogether, to be singular also in another strain of divinity, and to teach magis and minus in justification: for in saying that from a man’s apostatizing from his own righteousness, ‘it doth not follow that therefore he hath wholly or altogether shaken off the imputed righteousness of Christ,’ doth he not imply that a man may shake off some part of the righteousness of Christ from him, and yet keep another part of it upon him? or else, that by sinning he may come to wear the entire garment or clothing of it so loosely that it will be ready to drop or fall off from him every, hour? and, consequently, that the righteousness of Christ sits faster and closer upon some than upon others, yea, upon the same person at one time than another.”

Ans. That this is a second attempt for to lead the reader off from the consideration of the business in hand, and to prepare him by a diversion to an acceptation of what he afterward tenders in way of reply, that he may not perceive how insufficient it is for the purpose by an immediate comparing of it with the answer itself, is evident. Truly, when, in my younger days, I was wont to hear that doctor in his lectures and other exercises, I did not think then I should have afterward found him called in question for want of skill to express himself and the sense of his mind in Latin, he having a readiness and dexterity in that language equal to any that ever I knew; neither yet am I convinced that his word penitus, upon which Mr Goodwin criticiseth (being commonly, as might by innumerable instances be made good, used to increase and make emphatical the import of the word wherewith it is associated), will evince any such meaning in his expression as is there intended by Mr Goodwin. Justification is, and it was so taught by the doctor to be (Lect. de Just.), in respect of all persons that are partakers of it, equal, and equal to every person so partaking of it at all times, though in regard of sense and perception, and the peace and comfort wherewith (when perceived and felt) it is attended, it is no less subject to increases and wanings than sanctification itself. So that this also might be intended by the doctor, without the least “strain of new divinity,” that justified and sanctified persons, though they might so decline from the course of close walking with God as for a season to be like a tree in winter, whose substance is in his roots, his leaves and fruit falling off, ceasing to bring forth the fruits of holiness in such degrees as formerly, and so lose their sense of acceptation with God through Christ, and the peace, with consolation and joy, wherewith it is attended, yet they could not, nor should, wholly be cast out of the favour of God, the nature and essence of their justification being abiding; and what singular strain of divinity there is in the tendency of such a discourse I know not. Besides, that teaching of magis and minus in justification should be any singular thing in Mr Goodwin I do not well understand; for if the matter of our righteousness, or that upon the imputation whereof unto us we are justified, may have its degrees, and receive magis and minus, as certainly our faith may and doth, why our justification may not do so too I see no reason. But he comes at length to the matter, and addeth, —

3. “Lastly; were it granted unto the doctor that from a man’s turning aside from his own holiness, it doth not follow that therefore he hath wholly divested himself of the righteousness of Christ imputed, yet from God’s determination or pronouncing a man to be in an estate of condemnation and of death it follows roundly, that therefore he is divested of the righteousness of Christ imputed (if ever he were invested with it before); because no man with that righteousness upon him can be in such an estate. Now we have, upon several grounds, proved that the ‘righteous man,’ under that apostasy wherein Ezekiel describes and presents him, is pronounced by God a child not of a temporal but eternal death and condemnation. This, indeed, the doctor denies, but gives no reason of his denial, for which I blame him not; only, I must crave leave to say, that the chair weigheth not so much as one good argument with me, much less as many. So that, all this while, He that spake and still speaks unto the world by Ezekiel is no friend to that doctrine which denieth a possibility of a righteous man’s declining even unto death.”

Ans. If this be all that Mr Goodwin hath to say for the removal of this answer, that cuts the throat of his argument if it be not removed, he hath little reason for the confidence wherewith he closeth it, concerning God’s speaking in this place of Ezekiel against that doctrine which, in innumerable places of his word, he hath taught us is a doctrine inwrapping no small portion of that grace which, in a covenant of mercy, he dispenseth to his chosen, redeemed, justified, sanctified ones; neither is there any need to add the weight of the chair (wherein yet that person spoken of behaved himself worthily in his generation, and was in his exercises therein by no means by Mr Goodwin to be despised) [to] be laid upon the reasonings of the doctor in this case, they proving singly of themselves too heavy for Mr Goodwin to bear. In brief, that the substance of the reply in hand is merely a begging of the thing in question, any one that hath but half an eye in a business of this nature may easily discern. That it is supposed that a man truly righteous and justified in the blood of Christ may so fall away as to be pronounced of God to be in a state of damnation, and so fallen really from his former condition, is the thing that Mr Goodwin hath to prove. “Now,” saith he, “this must needs be so, because God here, upon such a supposal, pronounceth such a man to be in the estate of condemnation.” What this is with other men I know not, but to me it is no proof at all, nor should I believe that to be the sense of the place, though, in variety of expressions, he should significantly affirm it a thousand times. The reader also is misinformed that the doctor attempts not any proof that by death, eternal death is not in this place intended; he that shall consult the place will find himself abused. But we must speak more of this anon.