03.06. [FOWLER'S INSIDIOUS ERRORS ROUTED.]
[FOWLER’S INSIDIOUS ERRORS ROUTED.] But to pass this, and to come to some other passages in your book; and first to that in p. 5 where you say,
’The holiness, which is the design of the religion of Christ Jesus, - is not such as is subjected in any thing without us, or is made ours by a mere external application,’ &c.
Answer. 1. These words secretly smite at the justification that comes by the imputation of that most glorious righteousness that alone resideth in the person of the Lord Jesus; and that is made ours by an act of eternal grace, we resting upon it by the faith of Jesus.
2. But if the holiness of which you speak, be not subjected in any thing without us; then it is not of all that fulness which it pleased the Father should dwell in Christ: for the holiness and righteousness, even the inward holiness that is in saints, it is none other than that which dwelleth in the person of the Son of God in heaven: neither doth any man partake of, or enjoy the least measure thereof, but as he is united by faith to this Son of God, the thing is as true in him as in us; in him as the head, and without measure (1 John 2:8); and is originally seated in him, not in us. ’Of his fulness have all we [saints] received, and grace for grace’ (John 1:16). Wherefore the holiness that hath its original from us, from the purity of the human nature (which is the thing you aim at) and that originally, as you term it, is the dictates thereof, is the religion of the Socinians, Quakers, &c., and not the religion of Jesus Christ. And now I will come to your indifferent things, viz., those which you call ’positive precepts’; things, say you, ’of an indifferent nature; and absolutely considered, are neither good, nor evil;--but are capable of becoming so; only by reason of certain circumstances’: of these positive indifferent precepts, you say, you know but three in the gospel; but three, that are purely so, viz., ’That of going to God by Christ, and the institutions of baptism, and the Lord’s Supper.’ This we have in p. 7 and 9.
Answer. These words, as I hinted before, are highly derogatory to the Lord, the King of glory; and trample as much upon the blood of the Son of God, as words can likely do. For,
1. If going to God by Christ, be in itself but an indifferent thing, then, as I also hinted before, it is not of the substance of Christianity; but a man may be truly a Christian without it; may be saved, and go to heaven without it; this is in truth the consequence of your words: for things purely of an indifferent nature, do not in themselves either make or mar the righteousness that justifieth us from the curse before God. Wherefore, by your argument, if a man remain ignorant of that positive precept, of ’coming to God by Christ’; he remaineth ignorant but of an indifferent thing, a thing that in itself is neither good nor evil, and therefore not essentially material to his faith or justifying righteousness.
2. An indifferent thing in itself is next to nothing, neither good nor evil then, but a thing betwixt them both.
Then is the blood of the Lord Jesus, in itself, of no value at all; nor faith in him, of itself, any more than a thing of nought; their virtue and goodness only dependeth upon certain circumstances that make them so. For the indifferency of the thing lieth not simply in coming to God, but in coming to him by Christ: coming otherwise to God, even in this man’s eyes, being the all in all; but in this coming, in coming to him by Christ, there lieth the indifferency. I marvel what injury the Lord Jesus hath done this man, that he should have such indifferent thoughts of coming to God by him? But hath he no better thoughts of his own good deeds, which are by the law? Yes, doubtless, for those (saith he) ’are of an indispensable, and eternal obligation, which were first written in men’s hearts, and originally dictates of human nature’ (p. 8). Mark, not a dictate of human nature, or necessary conclusion or deduction from it, is of an indifferent, but of an indispensable; not of a transient, but of an eternal obligation. It is only going to God by Christ, and two other things that he findeth in the gospel, that of themselves are of an indifferent nature. But how indifferent? Even as indifferent in itself as the blood of a silly sheep, or the ashes of an heifer; for these are his very words. ’SUCH [that is, such ordinances as in themselves are of an indifferent nature] were all the injunctions and prohibitions of the ceremonial law; and some few such we have under the gospel’ (p. 7). Then, in p. 9 he tells you what these positive precepts under the gospel, or things indifferent, are: ’THAT of going to God by Christ, is one; and the other two, are the institutions of baptism, and the Lord’s supper.’ Such therefore as were the ceremonies of the law, such, even such, saith he, is that of going to God by Christ, &c.
Wherefore, he that shall lay no more stress upon the Lord Jesus to come to God by, than this man doth, would lay as much, were the old ceremonies in force, upon a silly sheep, as upon the Christ of God. For these are all alike positive precepts, such as were the ceremonies of the law, things in themselves neither good nor evil, but absolutely considered of an indifferent nature. So that to come to God by Christ, is reckoned, of itself, by him, a thing of a very indifferent nature, and therefore this man cannot do it, but with a very indifferent heart; his great, and most substantial coming to God, must needs be by some other way (John 10:1). But why should this THIEF love thus to clamber, and seek to go to God by other means; such which he reckoneth of a more indispensable nature, and eternal; seeing Christ only, as indifferent as he is, is the only way to the Father. ’I am the way, [saith he] the truth and the life; no man cometh to the Father but by me.’ If he be the only way, then there is none other; if he be thus the truth, then is all other the lie; and if he be here the life, then is all other the death; let him call them indispensable and eternal never so often. So then, how far off this man’s doctrine is, of sinning against the Holy Ghost, let him that is wise consider it. For if coming to God by Christ, be in itself but a thing indifferent, and only made a duty upon the account of certain circumstances; then, to come to God by Christ, is a duty incumbent upon us only by reason of certain circumstances; not that the thing in itself is good, or that the nature of sin, and the justice of God, layeth a necessity on us so to do. But what be these certain circumstances? For it is because of these, if you will believe him, that God the Father, yea, the whole Trinity, did consult in eternity, and consent, that Christ should be the way to life: now, I say, it is partly because by him was the greatest safety, he being naturally the justice, wisdom, and power of God; and partly, because it would, we having sinned, be utterly impossible we should come to God by other means and live. He that will call these circumstances, that is, things over and above besides the substantials of the gospel, will but discover his unbelief and ignorance, &c. As for your saying, that Calvin, Peter Martyr, Musculus, Zanchy, and others, did not question, but that God could have pardoned sin, without any other satisfaction, than the repentance of the sinner (p. 84). It matters nothing to me, I have neither made my creed out of them, nor other, than the holy scriptures of God. But if Christ was from before all worlds ordained to be the Saviour, then was he from all eternity so appointed and prepared to be. And if God be, as you say, infinitely (p. 136), and I will add, eternally just; how can he pardon without he be presented with that satisfaction for sin, that to all points of the highest perfection doth answer the demands of this infinite, and eternal justice? Unless you will say, that the repentance of a sinner is sufficient to answer whatever could be justly demanded as a satisfaction thereto; which if you should, you would in consequence say, that man is, or may be in himself, just, that is, equal with God; or that the sin of man was not a transgression of the law that was given, and a procurer of the punishment that is threatened, by that eternal God that gave it. (But let me give you a caution, take heed that you belie not these men) Christ cries, ’If it be possible let this cup pass from me’ (Matthew 26:39). If what be possible? Why, that sinners should be saved without his blood (Hebrews 9:22; Luke 24:26; Acts 17:3). ’Ought not Christ to have suffered?’ ’Christ must needs have suffered,’ not because of some certain circumstances, but because the eternal justice of God, could not consent to the salvation of the sinner, without a satisfaction for the sin committed. Of which, more in the next, if you shall think good to reply.
Now, that my reader may see that I have not abused you in this reply to your sayings, I will repeat your words at large, and leave them upon you to answer it.
You say, ’Actions may become duties or sins these two ways; first, as they are compliances with, or transgressions of, divine positive precepts: These are the declarations of the arbitrary will of God, whereby he restrains our liberty, for great and wise reasons, in things that are of an indifferent nature, and absolutely considered are neither good nor evil; and so makes things not good in themselves [and capable of becoming so only by reason of certain circumstances] duties, and things not evil in themselves, sins. Such were all the injunctions and prohibitions of the ceremonial law, and some few such we have under the gospel’ (p. 7). Then p. 9 you tell us, that ’the reasons of the positive laws [that is, concerning things in themselves indifferent] contained in the gospel are declared; of which [say you] I know not above three that are purely so, viz. That of going to God by Christ, and the institutions of baptism, and the Lord’s Supper.’
Here now let the reader note, That the positive precepts, declarations of the arbitrary will of God, in things of an indifferent nature, being such, as absolutely considered, are neither good nor evil; some few SUCH, say you, we have under the gospel, namely, that of coming to God by Christ, &c. I am the more punctual in this thing, because you have confounded your weak reader with a crooked parenthesis in the midst of the paragraph, and also by deferring to spit your intended venom at Christ, till again you had puzzled him, with your mathematics and metaphysics, &c., putting in another page, betwixt the beginning and the end of your blasphemy.
Indeed, in the seventh chapter of your book, you make a great noise of the effects and consequences of the death of Christ, as that it was a sacrifice for sin, an expiatory, and propitiatory sacrifice (p. 83). Yet, he that well shall weight you, and compare you with yourself, shall find that words and sense, with you are two things; and also, that you have learned of your brethren of old, to dissemble with words, that thereby your own heart-errors, and the snake that lieth in your bosom, may yet there abide the more undiscovered. For in the conclusion of that very chapter, even in and by a word or two, you take away that glory, that of right belongeth to the death and blood of Christ, and lay it upon other things. For you say, ’The scriptures that frequently affirm, that the end of Christ’s death was the forgiveness of our sins, and the reconciling of us to his Father, we are not so to understand, [those places where this is expressed] as if these blessings were absolutely thereby procured for us any otherwise, than upon condition of our effectual believing’ (p. 91).
I answer, By the death of Christ was the forgiveness of sins effectually obtained for all that shall be saved, and they, even while yet enemies, by that were reconciled unto God. So that, as to forgiveness from God, it is purely upon the account of grace in Christ; ’We are justified by his blood, we are reconciled to God by the death of his Son’ (Romans 5:9,Romans 5:10). Yea peace is made by the blood of his cross (Colossians 1:20), and God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven us (Ephesians 4:32). So then, our effectual believing is not a procuring cause in the sight of God, or a condition of ours foreseen by God, and the motive that prevaileth with him to forgive us our manifold transgressions: Believing being rather that which makes application of that forgiveness, and that possesseth the soul with that peace that already is made for us with God, by the blood of his Son Christ Jesus; ’Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ’ (Romans 5:1). The peace and comfort of it cometh not to the soul, but by believing. Yet the work is finished, pardon procured, justice being satisfied already, or before, by the precious blood of Christ.
Observe, I am commanded to believe, but what should I believe? Or what should be the object of my faith in the matter of my justification with God? Why, I am to believe in Christ, I am to have faith in his blood? But what is it to believe in Christ: and what to have faith in his blood? Verily, To believe that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us, that even then, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son: To believe that there is a righteousness already for us completed.
I had as good give you the apostle’s argument and conclusion in his own language. ’But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him’ (Romans 5:8, Romans 5:9). And note that the word NOW respects the same time with YET that went before. ’For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life,’ or intercession (Romans 5:10).
Believing then, as to the business of my deliverance from the curse before God, is an accepting of (1 Timothy 1:15), a trusting to (Ephesians 1:12, Ephesians 1:13), or a receiving (John 1:12), the benefit that Christ hath already obtained for me; by which act of faith, I see my interest in that peace that is made before with God by the blood of his cross: For if peace be made already by his blood, then is the curse taken away from his sight; if the curse be taken away from his sight, then there is no sin with the curse of it to be charged from God by the law, for so long as sin is charged by the law, with the curse thereto belonging, the curse, and so the wrath of God remaineth.
’But [say you] Christ died to put us into a capacity of pardon’ (p. 91).
Answer. True; but that is not all. He died to put us into the personal possession of pardon: Yea, to put us into a personal possession of it, and that before we know it.
’But [say you] the actual removing of our guilt is not the necessary and immediate result of his death’ (p. 91).
Answer. Yea, but it is from before the face of God, and from the judgment and curse of the law; for before God the guilt is taken away, by the death and blood of his Son, immediately, for all them that shall be saved; else how can it be said we are justified by his blood; he hath made peace by his blood. ’He loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood’ (Revelation 1:5), and that we are reconciled to God by the death of his Son; which can by no means be; if, notwithstanding his death and blood, sin in the guilt, and consequently the curse that is due thereto, should yet remain in the sight of God. But what saith the apostle? ’God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them’ (2 Corinthians 5:19). Those that are but reconciling, are not yet reconciled: I mean, as Paul, not yet come aright over in their own souls by faith; yet to these he imputeth not their trespasses: Wherefore? because they have none: or because he forgiveth them as they believe and work: Neither of both; but because he hath first made his Son to be sin for them, and laid all the guilt and curse of their sin upon him, that they might be made the righteousness of God in him. Therefore even because by him their sin and curse is taken off, from before the law of God; therefore, God for the sake of Christ, seeketh for, and beseecheth the sinner to be reconciled; that is, to believe in, and embrace his majesty.
’No [say you] the actual removing of our guilt, is not the necessary and immediate result of his death; but suspended until such time as the forementioned conditions, by the help of his grace, are performed by us’ (p. 92).
Answer. 1. Then may a man have the grace of God within him; yea, the grace and mercy of the new covenant, viz. Faith, and the like, that yet remaineth under the curse of the law; and so hath yet his sins untaken away from before the face of God; for where the curse is only suspended, it may stand there notwithstanding, in force against the soul. Now, let the soul stand accursed, and his duties must stand accursed: For first the person, and then the offering must be accepted of God. God accepted not the works of Cain, because he had not accepted his person (Genesis 4:5). But having first accepted Abel’s person, he therefore did accept his offering (Hebrews 11:4). And hence it is said, that Abel offered by faith: He believed that his person was accepted of God, for the sake of the promised Messias, and therefore believed also that his offering should be accepted.
2. Faith, as it respecteth justification in the sight of God, must know nothing to rest upon but the mercy of God, through Christ’s blood: But if the curse be not taken away, mercy also hangeth in suspense; yea, lieth as drowned, and hid in the bottom of the sea. This doctrine then of your’s overthroweth faith, and rushed the soul into the works of the law, the moral law; and so quite involveth it in the fear of the wrath of God, maketh the soul forget Christ, taketh from it the object of faith; and if a miracle of mercy prevent not, the soul must die in everlasting desperation.
’But [say you] it is suspended till such time as the forementioned conditions, by the help of his grace, are performed by us’ (p. 92).
Answer. Had you said the manifestation of it is kept from us, it might, with some allowance, have been admitted; but yet the revelation of it in the word, which in some sense may be called a manifestation thereof, is first discovered to us by the word; yea, is seen by us, and also believed as a truth recorded; before the enjoyment thereof be with comfort in our own souls (1 John 5:11). But you proceed and say, ’Therefore was the death of Christ designed to procure our justification from all sins past, that we might be by this means provoked to become new creatures’ (p. 92).
Answer. That the death of Christ is a mighty argument to persuade with the believer, to devote himself to God in Christ, in all things, as becometh one that hath received grace and redemption by his blood, is true; but that it is in our power, as is here insinuated, to become new creatures, is as untrue. The new creature, is of God; yea, immediately of God; man being as incapable to make himself anew, as a child to beget himself (2 Corinthians 5:17, 2 Corinthians 5:18). Neither is our conformity to the revealed will of God, any thing else, if it be right, than the fruit and effect of that. All things are already, or before, become new in the Christian man. But to return:
After all the flourish you have made about the death of Christ, even as he is an expiatory, and propitiatory sacrifice; in conclusion, you terminate the business far short of that for which it was intended of God: for you almost make the effects thereof but a bare suspension of present justice and death for sin; or that which hath delivered us at present from a necessity of dying, that we might live unto God; that is, according as you have stated it. ’That we might from principles of humanity and reason, act towards the first principles of morals, &c. till we put ourselves into a capacity of personal and actual pardon.’
Answer. The sum of your doctrine therefore is, that Christ by his death only holds the point of the sword of justice, not that he received it into his own soul; that he suspends the curse from us, not that himself was made a curse for us, that the guilt might be remitted by our virtues; not that he was made to be our sin: But Paul and the New Testament, giveth us account far otherwise; viz. ’That Christ was made our sin, our curse, and death, that we by him [not by the principles of pure humanity, or our obedience to your first principles of morals, &c.] should be set free from the law of sin and death’ (2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:13).
If any object that Christ hath designed the purifying our hearts and natures; I answer, But he hath not designed to promote, or to perfect that righteousness that is founded on, and floweth from, the purity of our human nature; for then he must design the setting up man’s righteousness, that which is of the law: and then he must design also the setting up of that which is directly in opposition, both to the righteousness, that of God is designed to justify us; and that by which we are inwardly made holy. As I have shewed before.
You have therefore, Sir, in all that you have yet asserted, shewed no other wisdom than a heathen, or of one that is short, even of a novice in the gospel. In the next place, I might trace you chapter by chapter; and at large refute, not only the whole design of your book by a particular replication to them; but also sundry and damnable errors, that like venom drop from your pen. But as before I told you in general, so here I tell you again, That neither the scriptures of God, the promise, or threatenings, the life, or death, resurrection, ascension, or coming again of Christ to judgment; hath the least syllable or tendency in them to set up your heathenish and pagan holiness or righteousness; wherefore your whole discourse is but a mere abuse of, and corrupting the holy scriptures, for the fastening, if it might have been, your errors upon the godly. I conclude then upon the whole, that the gospel hath cast out man’s righteousness to the dogs; and conclude that there is no such thing as a purity of human nature, as a principle in us, thereby to work righteousness withal. Farther, It never thought of returning us again to the holiness we lost in Adam, or to make our perfection to consist in the possession of so natural, and ignorant a principle as that is, in all the things of the holy gospel; but hath declared another and far better way, which you can by no means understand by all the dictates of your humanity.
I will therefore content myself at present with gathering up some few errors, out of those abundance which are in your book; and so leave you to God, who can either pardon these grievous errors, or damn you for your pride and blasphemies.