The State of Perfection
they allege the example of the Ninevites and Ahab's fasting, whereby they turned away the judgments of God denounced against them by His prophets. We answer, that God's wrath was appeased towards the Ninevites not by their fasting, but by faith laying hold on God's mercy in Christ, and thereby staying His judgment. Their fasting was only a sign of their repentance—their repentance a fruit and sign of their faith—whereby they believed the preaching of Jonah [Matt.
12:41]. As for Ahab's humiliation, it is nothing to the purpose. If they get anything thereby, let them take it to themselves. To conclude, we for our parts, do not condemn this exercise of fasting, but the abuse of it; and it were to be wished that fasting were more used of all
Christians in all places, considering the Lord daily gives us new and special occasions of public and private fasting.
Of the State of Perfection I. Our Consent Our consent I will set down in two conclusions.
Conclusion 1.
All true believers have a state of true perfection in this life. "Be you perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect" (Matt. 5:48). "Noah was a just and perfect man in his time, and walked with God" (Gen. 6:9).
"Walk before me and be perfect" (Gen. 17:1). And sundry kings of Judah are said to walk uprightly before God with a perfect heart, as David, Josias, Hezekiah, etc. And Paul accounts himself with the rest of the faithful to be perfect, saying, "Let us all that are perfect be thus minded" (Phil. 3:15). Now this perfection has two parts: The first is the imputation of Christ's perfect obedience, which is the ground and fountain of all our perfection whatsoever. "By one offering," that is, by His obedience in His death and passion, "has he consecrated," or
made perfect, "forever them that believe" (Heb. 10:14). The second part of Christian perfection is sincerity, or uprightness, standing in two things: The first is, to acknowledge our imperfection and unworthiness in respect of ourselves. And hereupon, though Paul had said he was perfect, yet he adds further that he "did account of himself not as though he had attained to perfection—but did forget the good things behind and endeavored himself to that which was before" (Phil. 3:13, 15). Here therefore it must be remembered that the perfection whereof I speak may stand with sundry wants and imperfections. It is said of Asa that his "heart was perfect with God all his days" (1 Kings 15:14), and yet "he pulled not down the high places" (2 Chron. 15:17), and being diseased in his feet, "he put his trust in the physicians and not in the Lord" (2 Chron. 16:12). Second, this uprightness stands in a constant purpose, endeavor, and care to keep not some few, but all and every commandment of the law of God, as David says, "Then should I not be confounded, when I have respect to all thy commandments" (Ps. 119:6). And this endeavor is a fruit of perfection, in that it proceeds from a man regenerate. For as all men through Adam's fall have in them by nature the seeds of all sin—none excepted, no not the sin against the Holy Ghost—so by the grace of regeneration, through Christ, all the faithful have in them likewise the seeds of all virtues needful to salvation. And hereupon they both can and do endeavor to yield perfect obedience unto God according to the whole law. And they may be termed perfect, as a child is called a perfect man—though it want perfection of age and stature and reason—yet it has perfection of parts because it has all and every part and faculty both of body and soul that is required to [be] a perfect man.
Conclusion 2.
There be certain works of supererogation—that is, such works as are not only answerable to the law and thereupon deserve life everlasting but go beyond the law and merit more than the law, by itself, can make any man to merit. But where may we find these works? Not in the person of any mere man or angel—nor in all men and angels—but
only in the Person of Christ, God and man, whose works are not only answerable to the perfection of the law, but go far beyond the same.
For first, the obedience of His life considered along by itself, was answerable even to the rigor of the law. And therefore, the sufferings of His death and passion were more than the law could require at His hand, considering it requires no punishment of Him that is a doer of all things contained therein. Second, the very rigor of the law required the obedience only of them that are mere men; but the obedience of Christ was the obedience of a Person that was both God and man. Third, the law requires personal obedience—that is, that every man fulfill the law for himself—and it speaks of no more. Christ obeyed the law for Himself, not because He did by His obedience merit His own glory—but because He was to be a perfect and pure high priest, not only in nature, but also in life. And as He was a creature, He was to be conformable to the law. Now the obedience which Christ performed was not for Himself alone, but it serves also for all the elect. And considering it was the obedience of God, as Paul signified when he said, "feed the church of God, which he purchased with his blood" (Acts 20:28), it was sufficient for many thousand worlds. And by reason, the law requires no obedience of Him that is
God—this obedience, therefore, may truly be termed a work of supererogation. This one we acknowledge, and beside this we dare acknowledge none. And thus far we agree with the Church of Rome in the doctrine of the estate of perfection—and further we dare not go.
II. The Difference The papists hold (as the writings of the learned among them teach) that a man, being in the state of grace, may not only keep all the commandments of the law, and thereby deserve his own salvation, but also go beyond the law, and do works of supererogation which the law requires not—as to perform the vow of single life, and the vow of regular obedience, etc. "And by this means," they say, "men deserve a greater degree of glory than the law can afford." Of perfection they make two kinds: One they call necessary perfection,
which is the fulfilling of the law in every commandment, whereby eternal life is deserved. The second is profitable perfection, when men do not only such things as the law requires, but, over and besides, they make certain vows and perform certain other duties which the law enjoins not—for the doing whereof they shall be rewarded with a greater measure of glory than the law designs. This they make plain by comparison: Two soldiers fight in the field under one and the same captain. The one only keeps his standing and thereby deserves his pay; the other in keeping of his place, also wins the enemies' standard or does some other notable exploit. Now this man—besides his pay—deserves some greater reward. "And thus," say they, "it is with all true Catholics in the state of grace. They that keep the law shall have life eternal; but they that do more than the law, as works of supererogation, shall be crowned with greater glory." This is their doctrine. But we, on the contrary, teach that albeit we are to strive to a perfection as much as we can, yet no man can fulfill the law of God in this life, much less do works of supererogation. For the confirmation whereof, these reasons may be used:
Reason 1.
In the moral law, two things are commanded. First, the love of God and man. Second, the manner of this love. Now the manner of loving
God, is to love Him with all our heart and strength. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy thought, etc." (Luke 10:27). As Bernard said, "the measure of loving God is to love Him without measure," and that is, to love Him with the greatest perfection of love that can befall a creature. Hence it follows, that in loving God, no man can possibly do more than the law requires. And therefore, the performance of all vows whatsoever, and all like duties, comes short of the intention or scope of the law.
Reason 2.
The compass of the law is large and comprehends in it more than the mind of man can at the first conceive; for every commandment has two parts, the negative and the affirmative. In the negative is forbidden not only the capital sin named—as murder, theft, adultery, etc.—but all sins of the same kind with all occasions and provocations thereto. And in the affirmative is commanded not only the contrary virtues—as the love of God, and the love of our neighbor's honor, life, chastity, goods, good name—but the use of all helps and means whereby the said virtues may be preserved, furthered, and practiced. Thus has our Savior Christ Himself expounded the law [Matthew 5, 6]. Upon this plain ground I conclude that all duties pertaining to life and manners come within the list of some moral commandment. And that the papists—making their works of supererogation means to further the love of God and man—must needs bring them under the compass of the law. Under which, if they be, they cannot possibly go beyond the same.
Reason 3.
"When we have done all those things that are commanded us, we are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do"
(Luke 17:10). The papists answer, that we are unprofitable to God but not to ourselves. But this shift of theirs is beside the very intent of the place. For a servant in doing his duty is unprofitable even to himself and does not so much as deserve thanks at his master's hand. As Christ says, "Does he thank that servant?" (v. 9). Second, they answer that we are unprofitable servants in doing things commanded, yet when we do things prescribed in the way of counsel, we may profit ourselves, and merit thereby. But this answer does not stand with reason. For things commanded, in that they are commanded, are more excellent than things left to our liberty, because the will and commandment of God gives excellency and goodness unto them. Again, counsels are thought to be harder than the commandments of the law. And if men cannot profit themselves by obedience of moral precepts, which are more easy, much less shall
they be able to profit themselves by counsels, which are of greater difficulty.
Reason 4.
If it be not in the ability and power of man to keep the law, then much less is he able to do any work that is beyond and above all the law requires. But no man is able to fulfill the law, and therefore no man is able to supererogate. Here the papists deny the proposition,
"For," say they, "though we keep not the law yet we may do things of counsel above the law, and thereby merit." But by their leave, they speak absurdly. For in common reason, if a man fail in the less, he cannot but fail in the greater. Now (as I have said) in popish doctrine, it is easier to obey the moral law than to perform the counsels of perfection.
III. Objections of Papists Objection 1. The Lord says, "Unto eunuchs that keep his Sabbath, and choose the thing that pleases him, will he give a place and name better than the sons and daughters" (Isa. 56:4). "Now," say they, "a eunuch is one that lives a single life and keeps the vow of chastity, and hereupon he is said to deserve a greater measure of glory."
Answer. If the words be well considered, they prove nothing less. For honor is promised to eunuchs, not because they make and perform the vow of single life, but because (as the text says) they observe the Lord's Sabbath, and choose the thing that pleases God, and keep His covenant, which is, to believe the Word of God and to obey the commandments of the moral law.
Objection 2.
Christ says, "There are some which have made themselves chaste for the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:12). Therefore, the vow of single life is warrantable and is a work of special glory in heaven. Answer.
The meaning of this text is that some having received the gift of continence, do willingly content themselves with single estate that
they may with more liberty without distraction further the good estate of the church of God or the kingdom of grace in themselves and others. This is [all] that can be gathered out of this place—hence therefore cannot be gathered the merit of everlasting glory by single life.
Objection 3.
Christ says to the young man, "If thou wilt be perfect, go sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven" (Matt. 19:21). "Therefore," say they, "a man by forsaking all, may merit not only heaven, but also treasure there—that is, an exceeding measure of glory." Answer. This young man, being in likelihood a most strict Pharisee, thought to merit eternal life by the works of the law, as his first question imparts: "Good master, what shall I do to be saved?" And therefore, Christ goes about to discover unto him the secret corruption of his heart. And hereupon the words alleged are a commandment of trial not common to all, but special to him. The like commandment gave the Lord to Abraham, saying,
"Abraham take thine only son Isaac, and offer him upon the mountain which I shall show thee" (Gen. 22:2).
Objection 4.
Paul says, "It is good for [all] to be single as he was" (1 Cor. 7:8). And he says, "It is better for virgins not to marry" (v. 38). And "this he speaks by permission, not by commandment" (v. 25). Answer. Here the single life is not preferred simply, but only in respect of the present necessity, because the church was then under persecution; and because such as live a single life are freed from the cares and distractions of the world.
Objection 5.
[1 Cor. 9:15, 17, 18.] Paul preached the gospel freely, and that was more than he was bound to do—and for so doing he had a reward.
Answer. It was generally in Paul's liberty to preach the gospel freely