Vindication of Some Passages, Text (3 of 3)
To make this appear, I shall consider that account which Dr. Owen gives us of the personal Graces and Excellencies of Christ, which in general consist in three things; First, his Fitness to save, from the Grace of Vnion, and the proper and necessary Effects thereof. Secondly, his Fulness to save from the Grace of Communion, or the free Consequences of the Grace of Vnion; and Thirdly, his Excellency to endear, from his compleat suitableness to all the wants of the Souls of men. First, That he is fit to be a Saviour from the Grace of Vnion; and if you will understand what this strange Grace of Vnion is, it is the uniting the Nature of God and Man in one Person, which makes him fit to be a Saviour to the uttermost; He layes his hand upon God, by partaking of his Nature; and he layes his hand on us, by partaking of our Nature; and so becomes a Dayes-man or Vmpire between both. Now though this be a great Truth, that the Vnion of the Divine and Humane Nature in Christ did excellently qualifie him for the Office of a Mediator, yet this is the Vnhappiest man in Expressing and proving it, that I have met with; For what an untoward Representation is this of Christs Mediation, That he came to make Peace, by laying his hands on God and Men, as if he came to part a Fray or Scuffle; and he might as well have named Gen. 1.1. or Matth. 1.1. or any other place of Scripture for the proof of it, as those he mentions.
To what End it is that he cites these Passages out of my Discourse, is somewhat difficult to divine. Himself confesseth that what is asserted, (at least in one of them) is a great Truth, only I am the unhappiest man in expressing and proving it that ever he met with. It is evident enough to me, that he hath not met with many who have treated of this Subject, or hath little understood those he hath met withall; so that there may be yet some behind as unhappy as my self. And seeing he hath so good a Leisure from other Occasions, as to spend his Time in telling the world how unhappy I am in my Proving and Expressing of what himself acknowledgeth to be true, he may be pleased to take notice, that I am now sensible of my own unhappiness also, in having fallen under a Diversion from better Employments by such sad and wofull Impertinencies. But being at once charged with both these misadventures, untowardness in Expression, and weakness in the Proof of a plain Truth, I shall willingly admit of Information to mend my way of writing for the future. And the first Reflection he casts on my Expressions, is my calling the Union of the two Natures in Christ in the same Person, the Grace of Vnion, for so he sayes, If you would understand what this strange Grace of Vnion is. But I crave his Pardon in not complying with his Directions, for my Companyes sake. No man who hath once consulted the Writings of the Ancients on this Subject, can be a stranger unto foreign, and Gratia Vnionis, they so continually occurre in the Writings of all sorts of Divines both Ancient and Modern. Yea but there is yet worse behind; for what an untoward Representation is this of Christs Mediation, that he came to make Peace by laying his hands on God and Men, as if he came to part a fray or scuffle. My words are, the Uniting of the Natures of God and Man in one Person, made him fit to be a Saviour to the uttermost; he layd his hand upon God by partaking of his Nature, Zach. 13.7. And he layes his hand upon us by partaking of our Nature, Heb. 2.14, 16. and so becomes a Dayes-man or Vmpire between both. See what it is to be adventurous. I doubt not but that he thought that I had invented that Expression, or at least that I was the first who ever applyed it unto this Interposition of Christ between God and Man. But as I took the words, and so my warranty for the Expression from the Scripture, Job 9.33. So it hath commonly been applyed by Divines in the same manner, particularly by Bishop Vsher (in his Immanuel, p. 8, 9. as I remember) whose Unhappiness in expressing himself in Divinity, this man needs not much to bewayl. But let my Expressions be what they will, I shall not escape the unhappiness of weakness in my Proofs, for I might, he sayes, as well have quoted Gen. 1.1. and Matth. 1.1. for the Proof of the Unity of the Divine and Humane Nature in the Person of Christ, and his Fitness thence to be a Saviour, as those I named, viz. Zach. 13.7. Heb. 2.14, 16. Say you so; why then I do here undertake to maintain the Personal Vnion, and the fitness of Christ from thence to be a Saviour, from these two Texts, against this Man and all his Fraternity in Design. And at present I cannot but wonder at his Confidence, seeing I am sure be cannot be ignorant that one of these Places at least, namely that of Heb. 2.16. is as much, as frequently, as vehemently pleaded by all sorts of Divines Ancient and Modern, to prove the Assumption of our Humane Nature into Personal subsistence with the Son of God, that so he might be foreign, fit and able to save us, as any one Testimony in the whole Scripture. And the same Truth is as evidently contained and expressed in the former, seeing no man could be the Fellow of the Lord of Hosts, but he that was partaker of the same Nature with him, and no one could have the sword of God upon him to smite him, which was needfull unto our Salvation, but he that was partaker of our Nature, or Man also. And the meer recital of these Testimonies was sufficient unto my purpose in that place, where I designed onelyonly to declare and not dispute the Truth. If he yet think that I cannot prove what I assert from these Testimonies, let him consult my Vindiciae Evangelicae, where according as that work required I have directly pleaded these Scriptures to the same purpose, insisting at large on the Vindication of one of them, and let him answer what I have there pleaded, if he be able. And I shall allow him to make his Advantage unto that purpose, if he please, of whatever Evasions the Socinians have found out to escape the force of that Testimony. For there is none of them of any note, but have attempted by various Artifices to shield their Opinion in denying the Assumption of our Humane Nature into personal Union with the Son of God, and therewithal his Praeexistence unto his Nativity of the blessed Virgin, from the Divine Evidence given against it in that place of Heb. 2.16. which yet (if this Author may be believed) doth make no more against them than Gen. 1.1. Wherefore, this severe Censure, together with the Modesty of the Expression, wherein Christ making Peace between God and Man is compared to the Parting of a Fray or Scuffle, may pass at the same Rate and Value with those which are gone before.
His ensuing Pages are taken up for the most part with the transcription of Passages out of my Discourse, raked together from several Places at his pleasure. I shall not impose the needless Labour on the reader of a third Perusal of them; nor shall I take the pains to restore the several Passages to their proper Place and Coherence, which he hath rent them from, to trye his skill and strength upon them separately and apart. For I see not that they stand in need of using the least of their own circumstantial Evidence in their Vindication. I shall therefore only take notice of his Exceptions against them. And pag. 207. whereas I had said on some Occasion, that in such a supposition we could have supplyes of Grace only in a moral Way, it falls under his Derision in his Parenthesis (and that is a very pitifull way indeed.) But I must yet tell him by the way, that if he allow of no supplies of Grace but in a Moral way, he is a Pelagian, and as such stands condemned by the Catholick Church. And when his Occasions will permit it, I desire he would answer what is written by my self in another Discourse, in the Refutation of this Sole Moral Operation of Grace, and the Assertion of another way of the Communication of it unto us. Leave fooling, and the Vnhappiest man in expressing himself that ever I met with, will not doe it; He must betake himself to another Course, if he intend to engage into the handling of things of this Nature. He addes, whereas I had said, the Grace of the Promises, (of the Person of Christ you mean:) I know well enough what I mean, but the Truth is I know not well what he means; nor whether it be out of ignorance, that he doth indeed fancy an Opposition between Christ and the Promises, that what is ascribed unto the one, must needs be derogated from the other, when the Promise is but the Means and Instrument of conveying the Grace of Christ unto us▪ or whether it proceed from a real Dislike, that the Person of Christ, that is, Jesus Christ himself should be esteemed of any Use or Consideration in Religion, that he talks at this rate. But from whence ever it proceeds, this cavilling Humour is unworthy of any Man of Ingenuity or Learning. By his following Parenthesis (a World of Sin is something) I suppose I have somewhere used that Expression, whence it is reflected on; but he quotes not the place, and I cannot find it. I shall therefore only at present tell him, as (if I remember aright) I have done already, that I will not come to him nor any of his Companions, to learn to Express my self in these things; and moreover, that I despise their Censures. The Discourses he is carping at, in particular in this place, are neither Doctrinal nor Argumentative, but consist in the Application of Truths before proved unto the Minds and Affections of men. And (as I said) I will not come to him nor his Fraternity, to learn how to manage such a subject, much less a Logical and Argumentative way of Reasoning; nor have any inducement thereunto from any thing that as yet I have seen in their Writings. It also troubles him pag. 208. That whereas I know how unsuited the best and most accurate of our Expressions are unto the true Nature and Being of Divine things, as they are in themselves, and what need we have to make use of Allusions, and sometimes less proper Expressions, to convey a sence of them unto the Minds and Affections of men, I had once or twice used that foreign, if I may so say, which yet if he had not known used in other good Authors, treating of things of the same Nature, he knew I could take protection against his severity under the Example of the Apostle using words to the same Purpose, upon an alike Occasion, Heb. 7. But at length he intends to be serious, and from those words of mine, Here is Mercy enough for the greatest, the oldest, the stubbornest Transgressor; he addes, Enough in all Reason this, what a Comfort is it to Sinners to have such a God for their Saviour, whose Grace is boundless and bottomless, and exceeds the largest Dimensions of their Sins, though there be a world of sin in them. But what now if the Divine Nature it self have not such an endless boundless, bottomless Grace and Compassion as the Doctor now talks of? For at other times, when it serves his turn better, we can hear nothing from him but the Naturalness of Gods Vindictive Justice. Though God be rich in Mercy, he never told us, that his Mercy was so boundless and bottomless; he had given a great many Demonstrations of the severity of his Anger against sinners, who could not be much worse than the Greatest, the Oldest and stubbornest Transgressors.
Let the Reader take notice, that I propose no Grace in Christ unto or for such Sinners, but only that which may invite all sorts of them, though under the most discouraging Qualifications, to come unto him for Grace and Mercy by Faith and Repentance. And on supposition that this was my sence, as he cannot deny it to be, I adde only in Answer, that this his prophane scoffing at it, is that which reflects on Christ, and his Gospel, and God himself, and his Word, which must be accounted for. See Isa. 55.7. 2dly, For the Opposition which he childishly frames between Gods Vindictive Justice and his Mercy and Grace, it is answered already. 3dly, It is false, that God hath not told us, that his Grace is boundless and bottomless in the sence wherein I use those words, sufficient to pardon the greatest, the oldest, the stubbornest of sinners; namely, that turn unto him by Faith and Repentance. And he who knowes not how this consists with Severity and Anger against impenitent sinners, is yet to Learn his Catechism. But yet he addes further, pag. 208, 209. Supposing the Divine Nature were such a bottomless Fountain of Grace, how comes this to be a Personal Grace of the Mediator: For a Mediator as Mediator, ought not to be considered as the Fountain, but as the Minister of Grace; God the Father certainly ought to come in for a share at least, in being the Fountain of Grace, though the Doctor is pleased to take no notice of him. But how excellent is the Grace of Christs Person, above the Grace of the Gospel, for that is a bounded and limited thing, a straight Gate and narrow Way, that leadeth unto Life. There is no such Boundless Mercy as all the sins in the World cannot equal its Dimensions, as will save the Greatest, the Oldest, and the stubbornest Transgressors.
I begg the Reader to believe, that I am now so utterly weary with the Repetition of these impertinencies, that I can hardly prevail with my self to fill my Pen once more with Ink about them. And I see no reason now to goe on, but only that I have begun. And on all accounts I shall be as brief as possible. I say then First, I did not consider this boundless Grace in Christ as Mediator, but considered it as in him who is Mediator, and so the Divine Nature with all its Properties are greatly to be considered in him, if the Gospel be true. But 2dly, It is untrue, that Christ as Mediator is only the Minister of Grace, and not the Fountain of it; for he is Mediator as God and Man in one Person. 3dly, To suppose an exemption of the Person of the Father from being the Fountain of Grace absolutely, in the Order of the Divine Subsistence of the Persons in the Trinity, and of their Operations suited thereunto, upon the Ascription of it unto the Son, is a fond Imagination, which could befall no man who understands any thing of things of this Nature. It doth as well follow, that if the Son created the World, the Father did not; if the Son uphold all things by the Word of his Power, the Father doth not; that is, that the Son is not in the Father, nor the Father in the Son. The Acts indeed of Christs Mediation respect the Ministration of Grace, being the procuring and communicating Causes thereof; but the Person of Christ the Mediator is the Fountain of Grace. So they thought who beheld his Glory, the Glory as of the only begotten of the Father full of Grace and Truth. But the especial Relation of Grace unto the Father as sending the Son, unto the Son as sent by him and incarnate, and unto the Holy Spirit as proceeding from and sent by them both, I have elsewhere fully declared, and shall not in this place (which indeed will scarce give Admittance unto any thing of so serious a nature) again insist thereon. 4thly, The Opposition which he would again set between Christ and the Gospel, is impious in it self, and if he thinks to charge it on me openly false. I challenge him and all his Complices, to produce any one word out of any Writing of mine, that from a Plea or pretence of Grace in Christ, should give Countenance unto any in the neglect of the least Precept given, or Duty required in the Gospel. And notwithstanding all that I have said or taught, concerning the Boundless, Bottomless Grace and Mercy of Christ towards believing, humble, penitent Sinners, I doe believe the Way of Gospel Obedience indispensibly required to be walked in by all that will come to the Enjoyment of God, to be so narrow, that no Revilers, nor false Accusers, nor Scoffers, nor Despisers of Gospel Mysteries, continuing so to be, can walk therein. But that there is not Grace and Mercy declared and tendred in the Gospel also, unto all sorts of sinners, under any qualifications whatever, who upon its Invitation will come to God through Christ, by Faith and Repentance, is an impious Imagination.
A Discourse much of the same Nature followes, concerning the Love of Christ, after he hath treated his Person and Grace at his pleasure. And this he takes occasion for, from some Passages in my Book (as formerly) scraped together from several places, so as he thought fit and convenient unto his Purpose. Page 209. Thus the Love of Christ is an Eternal Love, because his Divine Nature is Eternal; and it is an Unchangeable Love because his Divine Nature is Unchangeable; and his Love is Fruitfull, for it being the Love of God, it must be effectual and fruitfull in producing all the things which he willeth unto his Beloved. He loves Life, Grace, Holiness into us, loves us into Covenant, loves us into Heaven. This is an Excellent Love indeed, which doth all for us, and leaves nothing for us to do. We owe this Discovery to an Aquaintance with Christ's Person, or rather with his Divine Nature, for the Gospel is very silent in this matter. All that the Gospel tells us is, that Christ Loveth Sinners so as to die for them, that he Loves Good men who believe and obey his Gospel, so as to save them, that he continues to Love them while they contitinue to be good, but hates them when they return to their old Vices; and therefore I say there is great Reason for Sinners to fetch their Comforts not from the Gospel, but from the Person of Christ, which as far excells the Gospel, as the Gospel excells the Law.
I do suppose the Expressions mentioned are for the substance of them in my Book, and shall therefore only enquire what it is in them which he excepteth against, and for which I am reproachched, as one that hath an Acquaintance with Christ's person, which is now grown so Common and Trite an Expression, that were it not condited unto some Mens Pallats by its Prophaneness, it would argue a great barrenness in this Author's Invention, that can vary no more in the Topick of Reviling. It had been well if his Licenser had accommodated him with some part of his Talent herein. But what is it that is excepted against? Is it, that the love of Christ as he is God is Eternal? or is it that it is Unchangeable? or is it that it is Fruitful or effective of Good things unto the persons Beloved? The Philosopher tells us, that to Love for any one is, foreign. It is this Efficacy of the Love of Christ which must bear all the present Charge. The meaning of my words therefore is, that the Love of Christ is unto us the Cause of Life, Grace, Holiness, and the Reward of Heaven. And because it is in the Nature of Love to be effective, according unto the Ability of the person Loving, of the Good which it wills unto the Object beloved, I expressed it as I thought meet, by Loving these things to us. And I am so far on this occasion, and the severe Reflection on me for an Acquaintance with Christ from altering my thoughts, that I say still with Confidence, he who is otherwise minded, is no Christian. And if this Man knows not how the Love of Christ is the Cause of Grace and Glory, how it is effective of them, and that in a perfect consistency with all other Causes and means of them, and the Necessity of our Obedience, he may do well to abstain a little from Writing, until he is better informed. But, saith he, this is an Excellent Love indeed, which doth all for us, and leaves us nothing to do. But who told him so? who ever said so? Doth he think that if our Life, Grace, Holiness, Glory, be from the Love of Christ Originally, Causally, by vertue of his Divine Gracious operations in us and towards us, that there is no Duty incumbent on them who would be made partakers of them, or use, or improve them unto their proper ends? Shall we then to please him say, that we have neither Life, nor Grace, nor Holiness, nor Glory, from the Love of Christ, but whereas most of them are our own Duties, we have them wholly from our selves? Let them do so who have a mind to renounce Christ and his Gospel; I shall co…e into no Partnership with them. For what he adds, all that the Gospel teaches us, &c. He should have done well to have said, as far as he knows, which is a Limitation with a witness. If this be all the Gospel which the Man knows and Preaches, I pity them whom he hath taken under his Instruction. Doth Christ in his Love do nothing unto the quickning and Conversion of Men? Nothing to the Purification and Sanctification of Believers? Nothing as to their Consolation and Establishment? Nothing as to the Administration of strength against Temptations? Nothing as to Supplies of Grace in the increase of Faith, Love and Obedience, &c. This Ignorance or Prophaneness is greatly to be bewailed, as his ensuing Scoff repeated now usque ad Nauseam, about an opposition between Christ and his Gospel, is to be despised. And if the Lord Christ hath no other Love but what this man will allow, the state of the Church in this world depends on a very slender thread. But attempts of this Nature will fall short enough of prevailing with sober Christians to foregoe their Faith and Perswasion, that it is from the Love of Christ, that Believers are preserved in that condition wherein he doth and will approve of them. Yea, to suppose that this is all the Grace of the Gospel, that whilest me, are good Christ loves them, and when they are bad he hates them, both which are true, and farther that he doth by his Grace neither make them Good, nor preserve them that are so made, is to renounce all that is properly so called.
He yet proceeds, first to evert this Love which I asserted, and then to declare his own Apprehensions concerning the Love of Christ. The first in the ensuing words, Pag. 210. But methinks this is a very odd way of arguing from the Divine Nature; For if the Love of Christ as God be so Infinite, Eternal, Unchangeable, Fruitfull, I would willingly understand how Sin, Death and Misery came into the World. For if this Love be so Eternal and Unchangeable, because the Divine Nature is so, then it was alwayes so; For God alwayes was what he is, and that which is Eternal could never be other than it is now; and why could not this Eternal, and Unchangeable, and Fruitfull Love, as well preserve us from falling into Sin, and Misery, and Death, as love Life and Holiness into us? For it is a little odd, first to love us into Sin and Death, that then he may love us into Life and Holiness; which indeed could not be, if this Love of God were alwayes so unchangeable and Fruitfull as this Author perswades us it is now; For if this Love had alwayes loved Life and and Holiness into us, I cannot conceive how it should happen, that we should sin and dye.
It is well if he know what it is that he aims at in these Words; I am sure what he sayes doth not in the least impeach the Truth which he designs to oppose. The Name and Nature of God are every where in the Scripture proposed unto us, as the Object of and Encouragement unto our Faith, and his Love in particular is therein represented unchangeable, because he himself is so. But it doth not hence follow, that God loveth any one Naturally or Necessarily. His Love is a free Act of his Will, and therefore though it be like himself, such as becomes his Nature, yet it is not necessarily determined on any Object, nor limited as unto the Nature, Degrees and Effects of it. He Loves whom he pleaseth, and as unto what End he pleaseth. Jacob he loved, and Esau he hated; and those Effects which from his Love, or out of it, he will communicate unto them, are various, according to the Councel of his Will. Some he Loves only as to Temporal and Common Mercies, some as to spiritual Grace and Glory, for he hath Mercy on whom he will have Mercy. Wherefore, it is no way contrary unto and inconsistent with the Eternity, the Immutability and Fruitfulness of the Love of God, that he suffered Sin to enter into the World, or that he doth dispense more Grace in Jesus Christ under the New Testament than he did under the Old. God is alwayes the same that he was. Love in God is alwayes of the same Nature that it was; But the Objects, Acts and Effects of this Love, with the Measures and Degrees of them, are the Issues of the Councel or free Purposes of his Will. Want of the understanding hereof, makes this man imagine that if Gods Love in Christ wherewith he loveth us, be Eternal and Fruitfull, then must God necessarily, alwayes, in or out of Christ, under the Old or New Covenant, love all Persons, Elect or not Elect, with the same Love as to the Effects and Fruits of it, which is a wondrous profound Apprehension. The Reader therefore if he please may take notice, that the Love which I intend, and whereunto I ascribe those Properties, is the especial Love of God in Christ unto the Elect. Concerning this himself sayes, that he loves them with an everlasting Love, and therefore drawes them with loving Kindness, Jerem. 31.3. which Love I shall be bold to say, is Eternal and Fruitfull. And hence, as he changeth not, whereon the Sons of Jacob are not consumed, Mal. 3.6. there being with him neither variableness nor shadow of turning, Jam. 1.17. so accordingly he hath in this matter, by his Promise and Oath, declared the Immutability of his Councel, Heb. 6.17, 18. which seems to intimate that his Love is unchangeable. And whereas this Eternal Love is in Christ Jesus as the Way and Means of making it certain in all its Effects, and with respect unto its whole Design, it is fruitfull in all Grace and Glory, Ephes. 1.3, 4, 5. And if he cannot understand how notwithstanding all this, Sin so entred into the World under the Law of Creation and the first Covenant, as to defeat in us all the Benefits thereof, at present I cannot help him. For as I am sure enough he would scorn to learn any thing of me, so I am not at leasure to put it to the trial.
His own Account of the Love of God succeeds, pag. 211. Not that I deny, that the Love of God is Eternal, Unchangeable, Fruitfull; that is, that God was alwayes Good, and alwayes continues Good, and manifesteth his Love and Goodness in such wayes as are suitable to his Nature, which is the Fruitfulness of it. But then the Unchangeableness of Gods Love, doth not consist in being alwayes determined to the same Object, but that he alwayes loves for the same Reason; that is, that he alwayes loves true Vertue and Goodness wherever he sees it, and never ceases to love any Person till he ceases to be Good; and then the Immutability of his Love is the Reason why he loves no longer. For, should he love a Wicked man, the Reason and Nature of his Love would change; and the Fruitfulness of Gods Love with respect to the Methods of his Grace and Providence, doth not consist in producing what he loves by an Omnipotent and Irrisistble Power, for then Sin and Death could never have entred into the World, but he Governs and doth good to his Creatures in such Wayes as are most suitable to their Natures. He governs Reasonable Creatures by Principles of Reason, as he doth the Material World by the necessary Laws of Matter, and Brute Creatures by the Instincts and Propensities of Nature.
This may pass for a Systeme of his Divinity, which how he will reconcile unto the Doctrine of the Church of England in her Articles, she and he may do well to consider. But whatever he means by the Love of God alwayes determined unto the same Object, it were an easie thing to prove beyond the reach of his Contradiction, that Persons are the Objects of Gods Eternal Love as well as Things and Qualifications are of his Approbation, or that he loves some Persons with an Everlasting and Unchangeable Love, so as to preserve them from all ruining Evils, and so as they may be alwayes meet Objects of his approving Love unto his Glory. And whereas these things have been debated and disputed on all hands with much Learning and Diligence, our Author is a very happy man, if with a few such loose Expressions as these repeated, he thinks to determine all the Controversies about Election and Effectual Grace, with Perseverance on the Pelagian side. The Hypothesis here maintained, that because God alwayes, and unchangeably approves of what is Good in any, or of the Obedience of his Creatures, and disapproves or hates sin, condemning it in his Law; that therefore he may love the same Person one day and hate him another, notwithstanding his Pretences that he is constant unto the Reason of his Love, will inevitably fall into one of these Conclusions; ether that God indeed never loveth any Man be he who he will, or that he is changeable in his Love upon outward external Reasons as we are; and let him choose which he will own. In the mean time, such a Love of God towards Believers as shall alwayes effectually preserve them meet Objects of his Love and Approbation, is not to be baffled by such trifling impertinencies. His next Reflection is on the Manner of Gods Operations in the Communication of Grace and Holiness, which he sayes, is not by an omnipotent and Irresistible Power, confirming his Assertion by that Consideration, that then Sin and Death could never have entred into the World, which is resolved into another sweet supposition, That God must needs act the same Power of Grace towards all men, at all times, under each Covenant, whether he will or no. But this it is to be a happy Disputant, all things succeed well with such Persons which they undertake. And as to the Manner of the Operation of Grace, how far Grace it self may be said to be Omnipotent, and in its Operations irresistible, I have fully declared there where he may oppose and refute it if he have any Mind thereunto. His present Attempt against it in those words, that God governs Reasonable Creatures by Principles of Reason, is so weak in this Case and impertinent, that it deserves no Consideration. For all the Operations of Divine Grace are suited unto the Rational Constitution of our Beings; neither was ever man so wild as to fancy any of them such as are inconsistent with, or do offer force unto the Faculties of our Souls in their Operations. Yea that which elevates, aids and assists our Rational Faculties in their Operations on and towards their proper Objects, which is the work of Efficacious Grace, is the principal Preservative of their Power and Liberty, and can be no way to their Prejudice. And we do moreover acknowledge, that those Proposals which are made in the Gospel unto our Reason, are eminently suited to excite and prevail with it unto its proper Use and Exercise, in complyance with them. Hence, although the Habit of Faith or Power of Believing, be wrought in us by the Holy Ghost, yet the Word of the Gospel is the Cause and Means of all its Acts, and the whole Obedience which it produceth. But if by governing Reasonable Creatures by the Principle of Reason, he intends that God deals no otherwise by his Grace with the Souls of men, but only by proposing Objective Arguments and Motives unto a Complyance with his Will, without internal Aids and Assistances of Grace, it is a gross piece of Pe…gianisme, destructive of the Gospel, sufficiently confuted elsewhere; and he may explain himself as he pleaseth.
His proceed is to transcribe some other Passages taken out of my Book, here and there, in whose repetition he inserts some impertinent Exceptions. But the design of the whole is to state a Controversie as he calls it between us and them, or those whom he calleth They and We, whoever they be. And this upon the Occasion of my mentioning the fulness of Grace, Life and Righteousness that is in Christ, he doth in these Words, pag. 215. They say, that these are the Personal Graces of Christ as Mediator, which are inherent in him, and must be derived from his Person; we say, they signifie the Perfection and Excellency of his Religion, as being the most perfect and compleat Declaration of the Will of God, and the most powerfull Method of the Divine Wisdom, for the reforming of the World, as it prescribe… the only Righteousness which is … …ble to God, and directs us in the only way to Life and Immortality.
I shall not absolutely accept of the Terms of this Controversie as to the state of it on our part proposed by him, and yet I shall not much vary from them. We say therefore, that Jesus Christ being full of all Grace, Excellencies and Perfections, he communicates them unto us, in that Degree as is necessary for us, and in proportion unto his abundant Charity and Goodness towards us. And we Christians as his Body or fellow Members of his Humane Nature, receive Grace and Mercy flowing from him to us. This state of the Controversie on our side I suppose he will not refuse, nor the terms of it; but will own them to be ours, though he will not it may be allow some of them to be Proper or Convenient. And that he may know who his They are, who are at this End of the Difference, he may be pleased to take notice, that these words are the whole and intire Paraphrase of Dr. Hammond on Joh. 1.16. the first Testimony he …rtakes to answer. And when this Author hath replyed to Mr. Hooker, Dr. Jackson and Him, and such other Pillars of the Church of England as concurre with them, it will be time enough for me to consider how I shall defend my self against him. Or if he will take the Controversie on our part in Terms more directly Expressive of my Mind, It is the Person of Christ is the Fountain of all Grace to the Church, as he well observes my Judgement to be, and that from him all Grace and Mercy is derived unto us; And then I do maintain, that the They whom he opposeth, are not onelyonly the Church of England, but the whole Catholick Church in all Ages. Who the We are on the other hand, who reject this Assertion, and believe that all the Testimonies concerning the fulness of Grace in Christ, and the Communication thereof unto us, do only declare the Excellency of his Religion, is not easie to be conjectured. For unless it be the People of Racow, I know not who are his Associates. And let him but name three Divines of any Reputation in the Church of England since the Reformation, who have given the least Countenance unto his Assertions, Negative or Positive, and I will acknowledge that he hath better Associates in his Profession, than as yet I believe he hath. But that Jesus Christ himself, God and Man in one Person, the Mediator between God and Man, is not a Fountain of Grace and Mercy to his Church, that there is no real internal Grace communicated by him, or derived from him unto his Mystical Body, that the Fulness which is in him, or said to be in him, of Grace and Truth, of unsearchable Riches of Grace, &c. is nothing but the Doctrine which he taught, as the most compleat and perfect Declaration of the Will of God, are Opinions that cannot be divulged under pretence of Authority, without the most pernicious scandal to the present Church of England. And if this be the Mans Religion, that this is all the Fulness we receive from Christ, A perfect Revelation of the Divine Will concerning the Salvation of Mankind, which contains so many excellent Promises that it may well be called Grace, and prescribes such a plain and simple Religion, so agreeable to the natural Notions of Good and Evil, that it may well be called Truth; that complying with its Doctrine, or yielding Obedience unto its Precepts, and believing the Promises which it gives, in our own strength, without any real Aid, Assistance or Communication of internal saving Grace from the Person of Jesus Christ, is our Righteousness before God, whereon and for which we are Justified, I know as well as he whence it came, and perhaps better than he whither it will go.
The remaining Discourse of this Chapter consisteth of two parts; First an Attempt to disprove any Communication of real internal Grace from the Lord Christ unto Believers for their Sanctification. Secondly, an Endeavour to refute the Imputation of his Righteousness unto us for our Justification. In the first he contends, that all the Fulness of Grace and Truth said to be in Christ, consists either in the Doctrine of the Gospel, or in the Largeness of his Church; In the latter, that Faith in Christ is nothing but Believing the Gospel, and the Authority of Christ who revealed it, and by yielding Obedience whereunto, we are justified before God on the account of an internal inherent Righteousness in our selves. Now these are no small Undertakings; the first of them being expressely contrary to the sence of the Catholick Church in all Ages; For the Pelagians and the Socinians are by common Agreement excluded from an Interest therein; And the latter of them contrary to the plain Confessions of all the Reformed Churches, with the constant Doctrine of this Church of England, and therefore we may justly expect that they should be managed with much strength of Argument, and evident Demonstration. But the Unhappiness of it is, I will not say his, but ours, that these are not things which our Author as yet hath accustomed himself unto; and I cannot but say, that to my knowledge I never read a more weak loose and impertinent Discourse, upon so weighty Subjects, in my whole Life before: He must have little to doe, who can afford to spend his Time in a particular Examination of it, unless it be in the Exposition of those places which are almost Verbatim transcribed out of Schlictingius. Besides, for the first Truth which he opposeth, I have confirmed it in a Discourse which I suppose may be made publick before this come to View, beyond what I expect any sober Reply unto from him. Some Texts of Scripture that mention a Fulness in Christ, he chooseth out to manifest (to speak a Word by the way) that indeed they do not intend any such Fulness in Christ himself. And the first is Joh. 1.16. The Exposition whereof which he gives, is that of Schlictingius, who yet extends the import of the words beyond what he will allow. The Enforcement which he gives unto his Exposition by comparing the 14 and 17 Verses with the 16. is both weak and contradictory of it self. For the words of the 14 Verse, are The Word was made Flesh, and dwelt amongst us, and we beheld his Glory, the Glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of Grace and Truth; It is evident beyond contradiction, that the Expression full of Grace and Truth is Exegetical of his Glory, as the only begotten of the Father, which was the Glory of his Person, and not the Doctrine of the Gospel. And for the opposition that is made between the Law given by Moses, and the Grace and Truth which came by Jesus Christ, I shall yet rather adhere to the sense of the Ancient Church, and the most Eminent Doctors of it, which if he knows not it to be concerning the Effectual Communication of real renewing sanctifying Grace by Jesus Christ, there are …now who can inform him, rather than that woeful gloss upon them, his Doctrine is called Grace, because accompanyed with such Excellent Promises, and may well be called Truth, because so agreeable to the Natural Notions of Good and Evil; which is the Confession of the Pelagian unbelief; but these things are not my present concernment. For the latter part of his Discourse in his opposition unto the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ, as he doth not go about once to state or declare the sense wherein it is pleaded for, nor produceth any one of the Arguments wherewith it is confirmed, and omitteth the mention of most of the particular Testimonies which declare and establish it; so as unto those few which he takes notice of, he expresly founds his Answers unto them in that woful Subterfuge, that if they are capable of another Interpretation, or having another sense given unto them, then nothing can be concluded from them to that purpose, by which the Socinians seek to shelter themselves from all the Testimonies that are given to his Deity and Satisfaction. But I have no concernment, as I said, either in his Opinions or his way of Reasoning, and do know that those who have so, need not desire a better Cause, nor an easier Adversary to deal withall.
In his third Section pag. 279. he enters upon his exceptions unto the Union of Believers unto Jesus Christ, and with great modesty at the entrance of his Discourse, tells us. First, how these men with whom he hath to doe, have fittted the Person of Christ unto all the wants and necessities of the sinner, which yet if he denies God himself to have done, he is openly injurious unto his Wisdom and Grace. The very first Promise that was given concerning him, was that he should save sinners from all their wants, evils and miseries, that might, did, or could befall them by the entrance of sin. But thus it falls out, when men will be talking of what they doe not understand. Again, he adds, how he hath Explained the Scripture Metaphors whereby the Union between Christ and Christians is represented, but that these men in stead of explaining of those Metaphors, turn all Religion into an Allegory. But what if one should now tell him, that his Explanation of these Metaphors, is the most absurd and irrational, and argues the most fulsome ignorance of the Mystery of the Gospel that can be imagined, and that on the other side those whom he traduceth, doe explain them unto the understanding and experience of all that believe, and that in a way suited and directed unto by the Holy Ghost himself, to farther their Faith, Obedience and Consolation; as far as I perceive, he would be at no small loss how to relieve himself under this censure. The first thing he begins withal, and wherein in the first place I fall under his Displeasure, is about the Conjugal Relation between Christ and Believers, which he treats of pag. 280. As for Example (saith he) Christ is called an Husband, the Church his Spouse; and now all the invitations of the Gospel, are Christ's wooing and making love to his Spouse; and what other men call believing the Gospel of Christ, whereby we devote our selves to his Service, these men call that consent and contract which makes up the Marriage betwixt Christ and Believers. Christ takes us for his Spouse, and we take Christ for our Husband, and that with all the Solemnities of Marriage, except the Ring, which is left out as an Antichristian Ceremony; Christ saying thus, This is that we will consent unto, that I will be for thee, and thou shalt be for me and not for another. Christ gives himself to the Soul with all his Excellencies, Righteousness, Preciousness, Graces, and Eminencies, to be its Saviour, Head and Husband, to dwell with it in this Holy Relation; and the Soul likes Christ for his Excellencies, Graces, Suitableness, farr above all other Beloveds whatsoever, and accepts of Christ by the Will, for its Husband, Lord and Saviour. And thus the Marriage is compleated, and this is the Day of Christs Espousals, and of the Gladness of his Heart; and now follow all mutual conjugal Affections, which on Christs part consist in Delight, Valuation, Pity, Compassion, Bounty; on the Saints part, in Delight, Valuation, Chastity, Duty. But I have already corrected this fooling with Scripture Metaphors and Phrases.
It might perhaps not unbecome this Author to be a little more sparing of his Correction, unless his Authority were more then it is, and his skill also in the mannagement of it. For at present those whom he attempts upon, are altogether insensible of any Effects of his severity. But whereas he seems much at a loss how to evidence his own Wisdom, any other way than by calling them Fools with whom he hath to do, it is sufficient to plead his Excuse. But what is it, that he is here so displeased at, as unfit for a Man of his Wisdom to bear withal, and therefore calls it Fooling? Is it that there is a conjugal Relation between Christ and the Church? That he is the Bridegroom and Husband of the Church, and that the Church is his Bride and Spouse? That he becomes so unto it by a voluntarily Gracious Act of his Love, and that the Church enters into that Relation with him by their acceptance of him in that Relation, & voluntarily giving up themselves unto him in Faith, Love, and Obedience suited thereunto? Is it that he loveth his Church and cherisheth it as an Husband? Or that the Church gives up it self in chaste and holy obedience unto him as her Spouse? Or is it my way and manner of expressing these things wherewith he is so provoked? If it be the latter, I desire he would for his own satisfaction take notice, that I contemn his censures, and appeal to the Judgment of those who have more understanding and experience in these things, than for ought I can discern by his Writings, he hath yet attained unto. If it be the former, they are all of them so proved and confirmed from the Scripture in that very Discourse which he excepteth against, as that he is not able to answer or reply one serious word thereunto. Indeed to deny it, is to renounce the Gospel, and the Catholick Faith. It is therefore to no purpose for me here to go over again the Nature of this Relation between Christ and the Church, wherein really and truly it doth consist, what it is the Scripture instructeth us in thereby, what is that Love, Care, & Tenderness of Christ which it would have us thence to Learn, and what is our own duty with, respect thereunto, together with the Consolation thence arising; the whole of this work is already discharged in that discourse which these impertinent Cavils are raised against, and that suitably to the sence of the Church in all Ages, and of all sound Expositors of those very many places of Scripture which I have urged and insisted on to that purpose. Let him if he please a little lay aside the severity of his Corrections, and befooling of Men, and answer any Material passage in the whole discourse if he be able, or discover any thing in it not agreeable to the Analogy of Faith, or the sence of the Ancient Church, if he can. And though he seem both here and in some of his ensuing pages, to have a particular … of what is cited or improved ou… of the Book of Canticles to this purpose; yet if he either deny, that that whole Book doth mystically express the conjugal Relation that is between Christ and his Church, with their mutual affections and delight in each other; or that the places particularly insisted on by me, are not duly applyed unto their proper intention; I can at least confirm them both, by the Authority of such persons as whose Antiquity and Learning will exercise the utmost of his confidence in calling them Fools for their pains.
From hence for sundry Pages he is pleased to give me a little respite, whilest he diverts his severity unto another, unto whose Will and Choyce what to doe in it, I shall leave his peculiar Concern, as knowing full well how easie it is for him to vindicate what he hath written on this Subject from his impertinent Exceptions, if he please. In the mean time, if this Author supposeth to adde unto the Reputation of his Ingenuity and Modesty, by assaulting with a few pitifull Cavils a Book written with so much Learning, Judgement and Moderation, as that is which he excepts against, not daring in the mean time to contend with it in any thing of the Expository, or the Argumentative part of it, but only to discover a malevolent desire to obstruct the use which it hath been of, and may yet further be to the Church of God, I hope he will not find many Rivals in such a Design. For my part, I do suppose it more becoming Christian Modesty and Sobriety, where men have laboured according to their Ability in the Explication of the Mysteries of Christian Religion, and that with an avowed intention to promote Holiness and Gospel Obedience, to accept of what they have attained, wherein we can come unto a Complyance with them, then passing by whatever we cannot but approve of, or are not able to disprove, to make it our Business to cavil at such Expressions as either we do not like, or hope to pervert and abuse to their disadvantage.
Pag. 296. he returns again to my Discourse, and fiercely pursues it for sundry Leafs▪ in such a Manner as becomes him, and is usual with him. That part of my Book which he deals withall, is from pag. 176. unto pag. 187. And if any person of Ingenuity and Judgement will be pleased but to peruse it, and to compare it with this mans Exceptions, I am secure it will need no farther Vindication; but as it is represented in his Cavilling way, it is impossible for any man either to conceive what is the true Design of my Discourse, or what the Arguments wherewith what I assert is confirmed, which he doth most unduely pretend to give an Account of. For he so chops and changes and alters at his pleasure, going backwards and forwards, and that from one thing to another, without any regard unto a Scholastick or Ingenuous Debate of any thing that might be called a Controversie, meerly to seek out an Appearance of Advantage to vent his cavilling Exceptions, as no Judgement can Rationally be made of his whole Discourse, but only that he had a mind to have cast Aspersions on mine if he had known how. But such stuffe as it is, we must now take the Measure of it, and consider of what Use it may be. And first he quotes those words from my Book, That Christ fulfilled all Righteousness as he was Mediator, and that whatever he did as Mediator he did it for them whose Mediator he was, or in whose stead, and for whose Good he executed the Office of a Mediator before God; and hence it is, that his compleat and perfect Obedience to the Law is reckoned to us. He addes, This is well said, if it were as well proved. And because this is a Matter of great consequence, I shall first examine those Reasons the Doctor alleadges to prove that Christ fulfilled all Righteousness as he was Mediator, in their stead whose Mediator he was.
These Assertions are gathered up from several places in my Discourse; though pag. 182. is cited for them all. And if any one find himself concerned in these things, I may demand of him the Labour of their perusal in my Book it self; and for those who shall refuse a Complyance with so reasonable a Request, I do not esteem my self obliged to tender them any farther satisfaction. However I say again, that the Lord Christ fulfilled all Righteousness as Mediator, and that what he did as Mediator, he did it for them whose Mediator he was, or in whose stead and for whose Good he executed the Office of a Mediator before God. He sayes, it is well said, if it were as well proved. I say it is all proved in the Places where it is asserted, and that with such Testimonies and Arguments as he dares not touch upon. And although he pretends to examine the Reasons that I alleadge, to prove that Christ fulfilled all Righteousness as he was Mediator, in their stead whose Mediator he was, yet indeed he doth not do so. For First, I say no such thing as he here feigns me to say, namely, that Christ as Mediator fulfilled all Righteousness in our stead, but only that Christ being the Mediator in our stead, fulfilled all Righteousness for us; which is another thing, though perhaps he understands not the difference. Nor doth he so much as take notice of that Testimony which is immediately subjoyned unto the words he cites, in the Confirmation of them. But he will disprove this Assertion, or at least manifest that it cannot be proved. And this he enters upon pag 297. As for the first, we have some Reason to require good proof of this, since the Notion of a Mediator includes no such thing. A Mediator is one who interposeth between two differing Partyes, to accommodate the Difference; but it was never heard of yet, that it was the Office of a Mediator to perform the Terms and Conditions himself. Moses was the Mediator of the first Covenant, Gal. 3.9. And his Office was to receive the Law from God, to deliver it to the People; to command them to observe those Rights and Sacrifices and Expiations which God had ordained, but he was not to fulfill the Righteousness of the Law for the whole Congregation. Thus Christ is now the Mediator of a better Covenant, and his Office required, that he should preach the Gospel, which contains the Terms of Peace and Reconciliation between God and Men; and since God would not enter into Covenant with Sinners, without the Intervention of a Sacrifice, he dyes too, as a Sacrifice and Propitiation for the sins of the World.
I yet suppose that he observed not the Inconsistencies of this Discourse, and therefore shall a little mind him of them, although I am no way concerned in it or them. For, First he tells us, That a Mediator is one who interposeth between two differing Parties, to accommodate the Difference; and then gives us an Instance in Moses, who is called a Mediator in receiving the Law, but did therein no way interpose himself between differing Parties, to reconcile them. Secondly, from the Nature of the Mediation of Moses, he would describe the Nature of the Mediation of Christ; which Socinian Fiction I could direct him to a sufficient Confutation of; but that, Thirdly, He rejects it himself in his next words, that Christ as a Mediator was to dye as a Sacrifice, and Propitiation for the Sins of the World, which renders his Mediation utterly of another Kind and Nature than that of Moses. The mistake of this Discourse is, that he supposeth that men do argue from the general Nature of the Office of a Mediator and the Work of Mediation in this Matter; when that which they do intend hence to prove, and what he intends to oppose, is from the special Nature of the Mediatory Office and Work of Christ, which is peculiar, and hath sundry things essentially belonging unto it, that belong not unto any other kind of Mediation whatever, whereof himself gives one signal Instance.
In his ensuing pages, he wonderfully perplexeth himself in gathering up sayings backward and forward in my discourse to make some advantage to his purpose, and hopes that he is arrived at no less success than a discovery of I know not what Contradictions in what I have asserted. As I said before, so I say again, that I refer the determination and judgement of this whole matter unto any one who will but once read over the discourse excepted against. But for his part, I greatly pity him, as really supposing him at a loss in the sense of what is yet plainly delivered. And I had rather continue to think so, than to be relieved by supposing him guilty of such gross prevarications, as he must be, if he understands what he treats about. Plainly I have shewed, that there was an especial Law of Mediation which Christ was subject unto, as the Commandment of the Father. That he should be incarnate, that he should be the King, Priest, and Prophet of his Church, that he should bear our Iniquities, make his Soul an offering for sin, and give his life a ransom for many; were the principal parts of this Law. The whole of it I have lately explained in my Exercitations unto the second part of the Exposition on the Epistle to the Hebrews, whereon if he please he may exercise and try his Skill, in a way of opposition. This Law our Lord Jesus Christ did not yield obedience to in our stead, as though we had been obliged originally unto the duties of it, which we neither were nor could be; although what he suffered penally in any of them was in our stead, without which consideration, he could not have righteously suffered in any kind. And the following trivial Exception of this Author about the Obligation on us to lay down our Lives for the Bretheren, is meet for him to put in; seeing we are not obliged so to dye for any one, as Christ dyed for us. Was Paul crucifyed for you? But secondly, Christ our Mediator, and as Mediator was obliged unto all that obedience unto the Moral and all other Laws of God, that the Church was obliged unto; and that which I have asserted hereon is, that the Effects of the former obedience of Christ are communicated unto us, but the latter obedience it self is imputed unto us, and have proved it by those Arguments which this Man does not touch upon. All this is more fully, clearly, and plainly declared in the discourse it self, and I have only represented so much of it here again, that it might be evident unto all how, frivolous are his Exceptions. It is therefore to no purpose for me to transcribe again the Quotations out of my Book, which he filleth up his pages with, seeing it is but little in them which he excepteth against, and whoever pleaseth may consult them at large in the places from whence they are taken. Or, because it is not easie to find them out singly, they are so picked up and down backwards and forwards, curtailed and added to at pleasure, any one may in a very little space of time read over the whole unto his full satisfaction. I shall therefore only consider his exceptions, and hast unto an end of this fruitless trouble wherein I am most unwillingly engaged by this man's unsuspected Disingenuity and Ignorance.
After the Citation of some Passages, he adds pag. 301. This methinks is very strange, that what he did as Mediator, is not imputed unto us, but what he did not as our Mediator; but as a Man subject to the Law that is imputed to us, and reckoned as if we had done it, by reason of his being our Mediator. And it is as strange to the full that Christ should do whatever was required of us, by vertue of any Law when he was neither Husband, nor Wife, nor Father, Merchant, nor Tradesman, Sea-man nor Soldier, Captain or Lieutenant; much less a Temporal Prince and Monarch. And how he should discharge the Duties of these Relations for us, which are required of us by certain Laws, when he never was in any of these Relations, and could not possibly be in all, is an Argument which may Exercise the subtilty of Schoolmen, and to them I leave it.
It were greatly to be desired that he would be a little more heedful, and with attention read the Writings of other Men, that he might understand them before he comes to make such a bluster in his opposition to them. For I had told him plainly, That though there was a peculiar Law of Mediation, whose Acts and Duties we had no obligation unto, yet the Lord Christ even as Mediator was obliged unto, and did personally perform all Duties of Obedience unto the Law of God, whereunto we were subject and obliged, pag. 181. Sec. 14. And it is strange to apprehend how he came to imagine that I said he did it not as our Mediator, but as a Private Man. That which possibly might cast his thoughts into this disorder was, that he knew not that Christ was made a Private Man as Mediator, which yet the Scripture is sufficiently express in. For the following Objections that the Lord Christ was neither Husband nor Wife, Father nor Tradesman, &c. wherein yet possibly he is out in his Account, I have frequently smiled at it when I have met with it in the Socinians, who are perking with it at every turn; but here it ought to be admired. But yet without troubling those Bugbears the School-men, he may be pleased to take notice, that the Grace of Duty and Obedience in all Relations is the same, the Relations administring only an External Occasion unto its Peculiar Exercise. And what our Lord Jesus Christ did in the fulfilling of all Righteousness in the Circumstances and Relations wherein he stood, may be imputed to us for our Righteousness in all our Relations, every Act of Duty and Sin in them respecting the same Law and Principle. And hereon all his following Exceptions for sundry pages, wherein he seems much to have pleased himself, do fall to nothing, as being resolved into his own Mistakes, if he doth not prevaricate against his Science and Conscience. For the summe of them all he gives us in these words, pag. 304. That Christ did those things as Mediator, which did not belong to the Laws of his Mediation; which in what sence he did so, is fully explained in my Discourse. And I am apt to guess, that either he is deceived, or doth design to deceive in expressing it by the Laws of his Mediation, which may comprize all the Laws which as Mediator he was subject unto; and so it is most true, that he did nothing as Mediator, but what belonged unto the Laws of his Mediation. But most false, that I have affirmed that he did. For I did distinguish between that peculiar Law which required the publick Acts of his Mediation, and those other Laws which as Mediator, he was made subject unto. And if he neither doth nor will understand these things when he is told them, and they are proved unto him beyond what he can contradict, I know no reason why I should trouble my self with one that contends with his own Mormoes, though he never so lewdly or loudly call my Name upon them. And whereas I know my self sufficiently subject unto Mistakes and Slips, so when I actually fall into them, as I shall not desire this mans Forgiveness, but leave him to exercise the utmost of his severity, so I despise his ridiculous attempts to represent Contradictions in my Discourse, pag. 306. All pretences whereunto are taken from his own Ignorance or feigned in his Imagination. Of the like Nature are all his ensuing Cavils; I desire no more of any Reader, but to peruse the places in my Discourse which he carpeth at, and if he be a Person of ordinary understanding in these things, I declare that I will stand to his Censure and Judgement, without giving him the least farther Intimation of the sence and Intendment of what I have written, or Vindication of its Truth. Thus whereas I had plainly declared that the way whereby the Lord Christ in his own Person became obnoxious and subject unto the Law of Creation, was by his own voluntary antecedent Choyce, otherwise than it is with those who are inevitably subject unto it by Natural Generation under it, as also that the Hypostatical Union in the first instant whereof the Humane Nature was fitted for Glory, might have exempted him from the Oblgation of any outward Law whatever, whence it appears that his consequential Obedience, though Necessary to himself, when he had submitted himself unto the Law (as Loe I come to doe thy Will O God) was designedly for us, he miserably perplexeth himself, to abuse his credulous Readers with an Apprehension that I had talked like himself, at such a rate of Nonsence as any one in his Wits must needs despise. The meaning and summe of my Discourse he would have to be this. Pag. 308. That Christ had not been bound to live like a man, had he not been a Man; with I know not what futulous Cavils of the like nature; when all that I insisted on, was the Reason why Christ would be a Man, and live like a Man, which was that we might receive the Benefit and Profit of his Obedience as he was our Mediator. So in the close of the same wise Harangue, from my saying, That the Lord Christ by vertue of the Hypostatical Union might be exempted as it were, and lifted above the Law, which yet he willingly submitted unto, and in the same instant wherein he was made of a Woman, was made also under the Law, whence Obedience unto it became Necessary unto him, the man feigns I know not what Contradictions in his Fancy, whereof there is not the least Appearance in the words unto any one who understands the Matter expressed in them. And that the Assumption of the Humane Nature into Union with the Son of God, with submission unto the Law thereon to be performed in that Nature, are distinct parts of the Humiliation of Christ, I shall prove when more serious Occasion is administered unto me.
In like manner he proceeds to put in his Exceptions unto what I discoursed about the Laws that an innocent man is liable unto. For I said, that God never gave any other Law to an Innocent person, but onelyonly the Law of his Creation, with such Symbolical precepts as might be instances of his obedience thereunto. Something he would find fault with, but well knows not what, and therefore turmoiles himself to give countenance unto a putid Cavil. He tells us, That it is a great favour that I acknowledge pag. 310. that God might adde what Symbolls he pleased unto the Law of Creation. But the childishness of these impertinencies is shamefull. To whom I pray is it a favour, or what doth the man intend by such a senseless scoff? Is there any word in my whole discourse intimating that God might not in a state of Innocency give what positive Laws he pleased unto innocent persons, as means and wayes to express that obedience which they owed unto the Law of Creation? The task wherein I am engaged is so fruitless, so barren of any good use in contending with such impertinent effects of malice and ignorance, that I am weary of every word I am forced to add in the pursuit of it, but he will yet have it that an Innocent person such as Christ was absolutely, may be obliged for his own sake to the observation of such Laws and institutions as were introduced by the occasion of sin, and respected all of them the personal sins of them that were obliged by them; which if he can believe he is at Liberty for me to perswade as many as he can to be of his mind, whil'st I may be left unto my own Liberty and Choice, yea to the necessity of my mind in not believing contradictions. And for what he adds that I know those who conceit themselves above all forms of External Worship, I must say to him that at present personally I know none that doe so, but fear that some such there are, as also others who despising not only the ways of External Worship appointed by God himself, but also the Laws of internal Faith and Grace, doe satisfie themselves in a Customary observance of Forms of Worship of their own devising.
In his next attempt he had been singular, and had spoken something which had looked like an Answer to an Argument, had he well laid the Foundation of his procedure. For, that Position which he designeth the Confutation of, is thus laid down by him as mine, There can be no reason assigned of Christ's Obedience unto the Law, but only this, that he did it in our stead; whereas my words are, That the end of the Active Obedience of Christ cannot be assigned to be that he might be fit for his Death and Oblation. And hereon what is afterwards said against this particular End, he interprets as spoken against all other Ends whatever, instancing in such as are every way consistent with the Imputation of his Obedience unto us, which could not be, had the only End of it been for himself to fit him for his Death and Oblation. And this wilful mistake is sufficient to give occasion to combat his own. Imaginations for two or three pages together. pag. 314. He pretends unto the recital of an Argument of mine for the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ with the like pretence of attempting an answer unto it. But his design is not to mannage any controversie with me, or against me, but as he phraseth it, to expose my mistakes. I cannot therefore justly expect from him so much as common Honesty will require, in case the real handling of a Controversie in Religion had been intended. But his way of procedure so far as I know and understand may be best suited unto his design. In this place he doth neither fairly nor truly report my words, nor take the least notice of the Confirmation of my Argument, by the removal of Objections whereunto it seemed liable, nor of the Reasons and Testimonies whereby it is farther proved; but taking out of my Discourse what expressions he pleaseth, putting them together with the same Rule, he thinks he hath sufficiently exposed my mistakes, the thing he aimed at. I have no more concernment in this matter, but to refer both him and the Reader to the places in my Discourse reflected on; Him truly to report and Answer my Arguments if he be able, and the Reader to judge as he pleaseth between us. And I would for this once desire of him, that if he indeed be concerned in these things, he would peruse my Discourse here raved at, and determine in his own Mind, whether I confidently affirm what is in Dispute (that is, what I had then in Dispute; for who could divine so long agoe what a Doughty Disputant this Author would by this time sprout up into) and that this goes for an Argument, or that he impudently affirms me so to do, contrary unto his Science and Conscience, if he had not quite pored out his Eyes before he came to the End of a page or two in my Book. And for the state of the Question here proposed by him, let none expect that upon so slight an occasion I shall divert unto the discussion of it. When this Author or any of his Consorts in design, shall Soberly and Candidly without scoffing or railing, in a way of Argument or Reasoning becoming Divines, and Men of Learning, answer any of those many Writings which are extant against that Socinian Justification which he here approves and contends for, or those written by the Divines of the Church of England on the same subject, in the proof of what he denyes, and confutation of what he affirms, they may deserve to be taken notice of in the same Rank and Order with those with whom they associate themselves. And yet I will not say but that these cavilling Exceptions giving a sufficient Intimation of what some Men would be at, if Ability and Opportunity did occurr, may give occasion also unto a renewed Vindication of the Truths opposed by them, in a way suited unto the Use and Edification of the Church, in due time and Season.
From pag. 185. of my Book, he retires upon his new Triumph unto pag. 176. as hoping to hook something from thence, that might contribute unto the fartherance of his Ingenious Design, although my Discourse in that place have no Concernment in what he treateth about. But let him be heard to what purpose he pleaseth. Thus therefore he proceeds pag. 315. The Dr. makes a great flourish with some Scripture Phrases, that there is almost nothing that Christ hath done, but we are said to do it with him, we are Crucifyed with him, we are Dead with him, Buried with him, Quickned together with him; In the actings of Christ there is by Vertue of the Compact between him as Mediator and the Father, such an assured Foundation laid, that by Communication of the Fruit of these Actings unto those in whose stead he performed them, they are said in the participation of these Fruits to have done the same things with him. But he is quite out in the reason of these Expressions, which is not that we are accounted to do the same things which Christ did; for the things here mentioned belong to the peculiar Office of his Mediation, which he told us before were not reckoned as done by us, but because we do somethings like them; our dying to Sin is a Conformity to the Death of Christ, and our walking in newness of Life, is our Conformity to his Resurrection, and the consideration of the Death and Resurrection of Christ, is very powerful to engage us to dye to Sin, and to rise unto a new Life; and this is the true Reason of these Phrases.
Any man may perceive from what he is pleased here himself to report of my words, that I was not treating about the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ, which he is now inveighing against. And it will be much more evident unto every one that shall cast an eye on that discourse; but the design of this confused rambling I have been forc'd now frequently to give an account of, and shall if it be possible trouble the Reader with it no more. The present difference between us, which he was ambitious to represent, is only this, that whereas it seems he will allow that those expressions of our being crucified with Christ, dead with him, buried with him, quickned with him, doe intend nothing but only our doing of something like unto that which Christ did, I doe adde moreover, that we doe those things by the vertue and efficacy of the Grace which is communicated unto us from what the Lord Christ so did and acted for us, as the Mediator of the New Covenant, whereby alone we partake of their power, communicate in their vertue, and are conformed unto him as our Head; wherein I know I have, as the Testimony of the Scripture, so the Judgement of the Catholick Church of Christ on my side, and am very little concerned in the censure of this person that I am quite out in the reason of those expressions.
For what remains of his Discourse so far as I am concerned in it, it is made up of such Expositions of some Texts of Scripture, as issue for the most part in a direct contradiction to the Text it self, or some express passages of the Context. So doth that of Gal. 4.4, 5. which he first undertakes to speak unto, giving us nothing but what was first invented by Crellius in his Book against Grotius, and is almost translated Verbatim out of the Comment of Schlicting. upon the place; the remainder of them corruptly Socinianising, against the sence of the Church of God. Hereunto are added such pitifull Mistakes, with Reflexions on me for distinguishing between Obeying and Suffering, (which Conceit he most profoundly disproves by shewing that one may Obey in Suffering, and that Christ did so, against him who hath written more about the Obedience of Christ in Dying, or laying down his Life for us, than he seems to have read on the same subject, as also concerning the Ends and Uses of his Death, which I challenge him and all his Companions to answer and disprove if they can) as I cannot satisfie my self in the farther Consideration of, no not with that speed and haste of Writing now used, which nothing could give countenance unto, but the meanness of the Occasion, and unprofitableness of the Argument in hand. Wherefore, this being the manner of the Man, I am not able to give an Account unto my self or the Reader of the mispence of more Time in the Review of such Impertinencies; I shall adde a few things and conclude.
First, I desire to know, whether this Author will abide by what he asserts, as his own Judgement, in opposition unto what he puts in his Exception against in my Discourse, pag. 320. All the Influence which the Sacrifice of Christs Death, and the Righteousness of his Life, that I can find in the Scripture is, that to this we owe the Covenant of Grace; that is, as he afterwards explains himself, That God would for the sake of Christ enter into a New Covenant with Mankind, wherein he promiseth Pardon of Sin and Eternal Life to them that Believe and Obey the Gospel. I leave him herein to his second thoughts, for as he hath now express'd himself, there is no Reconciliation of his Assertion to common sence, or the fundamental Principles of Christian Religion. That God entred into the New Covenant Originally only for the sake of those things whereby that Covenant was ratified and confirmed, and that Christ was so the Mediator of the New Covenant, that he dyed not for the Redemption of Transgressions under the first Covenant, whereby the whole Consideration of his Satisfaction and of Redemption properly so called, is excluded, that there is no Consideration to be had of his Purchase of the Inheritance of Grace and Glory, with many other things of the same importance, and that the Gospel or the Doctrine of the Gospel is the New Covenant, which is only a perspicuous Declaration of it, are things that may become these New Sons of the Church of England, which the Elder Church would not have borne withall.
Secondly, The Reader may take notice, that in some other Discourses of mine now published, which were all of them finished before I had the Advantage to peruse the Friendly and Judicious Animadversions of this Author, he will find most of the Matters which he excepts against, both cleared, proved and vindicated. And that those Principles which he directs his Opposition against, are so established, as that I neither expect nor fear any such Assault upon them from this sort of Men, as becometh a serious Debate on things of this Nature.
Thirdly, That I have confined my self in the Consideration of this Authors Discourse unto what I was Personally concerned in, without looking at or accepting of the Advantages which offered themselves of reflecting upon him, either as unto the Matter of his Discourses, or unto the Manner of Expressing himself in its Delivery. For, (besides that I have no mind, and that for many Reasons, to enter voluntarily into any Contest with this man) the Mistakes which he hath apparently been led unto by Ignorance or Prejudice, his fulsome Errors against the Scripture, the Doctrine of the Ancient Church, and the Church of England, are so multiplyed and scattered throughout the whole, that a Discovery and Confutation of them will scarce deserve the expence of Time that must be wasted therein, untill a more plausible Countenance or strenuous Defence be given unto them. And as for what he aimeth at, I know well enough where to find the whole of it, handled with more Civility and appearance of Reason, and therefore when I am free or resolved to treat concerning them, I shall doe so in the Consideration of what is taught by his Authors and Masters, and not of what he hath borrowed from them.
Fourthly, I shall assure the Reader, that as a Thousand of such trifling Cavillers or Revilers, as I have had some to deal withall, shall neither discourage nor hinder me in the remaining service which I may have yet to fulfill in the Patience of God for the Church of Christ, and Truth of the Gospel; nor it may be occasion me any more to divert in the least unto the Consideration of what they whisper or clamour, unless they are able to betake themselves unto a more sober and Christian way of handling things in Controversie; so if they will not or dare not foregoe this supposed Advantage of Reproaching the Doctrine of Nonconformists, under which Pretence they openly and as yet securely scorn and deride them, when they are all of them the avowed Doctrines of all the Reformed Churches, and of this of England in particular; and if they think it not meet to oppose themselves and Endeavours, unto those Writings which have been composed and published professedly in the Declaration and Defence of the Truth scoffed at and impugned by them, but choose rather to exercise their Skill and Anger on Passages rent out of Practical Discourses, accommodated in the Manner of their Delivery unto the Capacity of the Community of Believers, as it is fit they should be; I doe suppose that at one time or other, from one hand or another, they may meet with some such Discourse concerning Justification, and the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ, as may give them Occasion to be quiet, or to Exercise the best of their Skill and Industry in an Opposition unto it; As many such there are already extant, which they wisely take no Notice of, but only rave against Occasional Passages in Discourses of another Nature; unless they Resolve on no Occasion to foregoe the Shelter they have betaken themselves unto.
FINIS.
End of the text · John Owen, Vindication of Some Passages (1674)