Chapter XXXIV: Preface: Courteous Reader, (24)

But there is one thing more in this description, or rather effect thereof, which I shall also inquire into: and that is your saying, 'As it was the errand of Christ to effect our deliverance out of that sinful state we had brought ourselves into: so to put us again into possession of that holiness which we had lost' (p. 12). The proof of this position is now your next business; that is, if I understand your learning, the remaining part of your book, which consisteth of well nigh 300 pages, is spent for proof thereof; which I doubt not but effectually to confute with less than 300 lines. Only first by the way, I would have my reader to take notice that in this last clause, (to put us again into possession of that holiness which we had lost) is the sum of all this large description of his holiness in the foregoing pages; that is, the holiness and righteousness that Mr. Fowler hath been describing; and adds, that Christ's whole business when he came into the world was, as to effect our deliverance from sin; 'so to put us again in possession of that holiness which we had lost.' The holiness therefore that here he contendeth for, is that, and only that which was in Adam before the fall, which he lost by transgression; and we by transgressing in him. A little therefore to inquire into this, if perhaps his reader and mine may come to a right understanding of things.

First then, Adam before the fall, even in his best and most sinless state, was but a pure natural man, consisting of body and soul; these, to use your own terms, were his pure essentials: (p. 11) in this man's heart, God also did write the law; that is, as you term them, the first principles of morals (p. 8). This then was the state of Adam, he was a pure natural man; made by God sinless; all the faculties of his soul and members of his body were clean. 'God made man upright' (Eccl 7:29). But he made him not then a spiritual man; 'the first Adam was made a living soul,' 'howbeit that was not first which is spiritual; but that which is natural, and afterward that which is spiritual: The first man is of the earth, earthy' (1 Cor 15:45-47). A living soul he was; yet but a natural man, even in his first and best estate; but earthly, when compared with Christ, or with them that believe in Christ. So then, the holiness of Adam in his best estate, even that which he lost, and we in him, it was none other, than that which was natural, even the sinless state of a natural man. This holiness then was not of the nature of that, which hath for its root the Holy Ghost; for of that we read not at all in him, he only was indued with a living soul; his holiness then could not be gospel, nor that which is a branch of the second covenant: his acts of righteousness, were not by the operations of the Spirit of grace, but the dictates of the law in his own natural heart. But the apostle when he treateth of the christian inherent holiness; first excluding that in Adam, as earthly; he tells us, it is such as is in Christ: 'As is the earthy, such are they that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they that are heavenly.' Let then those that are the sons of Adam, in the state of nature as he, though not so pure, and spotless as he, be reckoned to bear his image and similitude: but let them that are the children of Christ, though not so pure as he, bear the image and similitude of Christ: 'for they are conformable to the image of the Son of God' (Rom 8:29). The holiness therefore that was in Adam, being but that which was natural, earthly, and not of the Holy Ghost, cannot be that which Christ came into the world to give us possession of.

Second, Adam in his best, and most sinless state, was but a type or figure: 'The figure of him that was to come' (Rom 5:14). A type in what? A type or figure doubtless, in his sinless and holy estate, a type and figure of the holiness of Christ: But if Christ should come from heaven, to put us in possession of this sinless holiness that was in Adam, or that we lost in him: to what more would his work amount, than to put us into the possession of a natural, figurative, shadowish righteousness or holiness. But this he never intended; therefore it is not the possessing of his people with that holiness, that was the great errand Christ came into the world upon.

Third, The holiness and righteousness that was in, and that we lost by, Adam before the fall; was such as stood in, and was to be managed by his natural perfect compliance with a covenant of works. For, 'Do this sin and die,' were the terms that was from God to Adam. But Christ at his coming brings in another, a better, a blessed covenant of grace; and likewise possesseth his children, with the holiness, and privileges of that covenant; not with Adam's heart nor Adam's mind; but a new heart, a new spirit, a new principle to act by, and walk in a new covenant. Therefore the holiness that was in Adam before, or that we lost in him by the fall, could not be the holiness that Christ at his coming made it his great or only business to put us in possession of.

Fourth, The holiness that was in Adam before, and that we lost in him by the fall, was such as might stand with perfect ignorance of the mediation of Jesus Christ: for Christ was not made known to Adam as a Saviour, before that Adam was a sinner; neither needed he at all to know him to be his Mediator, before he knew he had offended (Gen 3). But Christ did not come into the world to establish us in, or give us possession of such holiness as might stand with perfect ignorance of his Mediatorship. No; the holiness that we believers have, and the righteous acts that we fulfil, they come to us, and are done by us, through the knowledge of the Lord Jesus, and of his being the Messias promised (Eph 4:21,22; 2 Peter 1:3).

Fifth, The holiness that was in Adam, was neither given him through the promise, neither encouraged by the promise. Adam had no promise to possess him with a principle of holiness; it came to him by creation; neither had he any promise to strengthen or encourage him in holiness. All he had was instructions concerning his duty, and death threatened if he did it not (Gen 2:15-17). But Christ came not to give us possession of an holiness or righteousness, that came to us by our creation, without a promise; and that hath no promise to encourage us to continue therein; but of an holiness that comes to us by the best of promises, and that we are encouraged to by the best of promises. Therefore it was not his great errand when he came from heaven to earth, to put us in possession of that promiseless holiness that Adam had before, and that was lost in him by the fall.

Lastly, In a word; the holiness that Adam had before, and that we lost in him by the fall; it was a natural shadowish old covenant, promiseless holiness; such as stood and might be walked in, while he stood perfectly ignorant of the Mediator Christ. Wherefore it is rather the design of your Apollo the devil,[10] whom in p. 101 you bring forth to applaud your righteousness; I say, it is rather his design than Christ's, to put men upon an endeavour after a possession of that: for that which is truly evangelical, is the spiritual, substantial, new covenant promised holiness; that which cometh to us by, and standeth in the Spirit, faith and knowledge of the Son of God, not that which we lost in Adam. Wherefore the song which there you learnt of the devil, is true, in the sense he made it, and in the sense for which you bring it; which is, to beget in men, the highest esteem of their own human nature; and to set up this natural, shadowish, promiseless, ignorant holiness, in opposition to that which is truly Christ's.

To dwell in heaven doth not more please him, than Within the souls of pious mortal men.

This is the song; but you find it not in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, but among the heathens who were his disciples, and who were wont to inquire at his mouth, and learn of him.

Thus have I razed the foundation of your book, even by overthrowing the holiness, and righteousness, which by you is set up, as that which is the only true gospel, and evangelical. Wherefore it remaineth, that the rest of your book, viz. whatever therein is brought, and urged for the proof of this your description of holiness, &c. it is but the abuse of Christ, of scripture, and reason; it is but a wresting and corrupting the word of God, both to your own destruction, and them that believe you.

[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,[11] &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,[12] 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' (Matt 26:39). If what be possible? Why, that sinners should be saved without his blood (Heb 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.[13] 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' (Rom 5:9,10). Yea peace is made by the blood of his cross (Cor 1:20), and God for Christ's sake hath forgiven us (Eph 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' (Rom 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' (Rom 5:8,9). 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 (Rom 5:10).

Believing then, as to the business of my deliverance from the curse before God, is an accepting of (1 Tim 1:15), a trusting to (Eph 1:12,13), 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' (Rev 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 Cor 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 (Gen 4:5). But having first accepted Abel's person, he therefore did accept his offering (Heb 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 rusheth[14] 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 Cor 5:17,18). 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 Cor 5:21; Gal 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[15] 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.

[Fowler's false quotations of scripture.]

You pretend in the beginning of your second chapter, to prove your assertion, viz. 'That the great errand that Christ came upon, was to put us again into possession of that holiness which we had lost' (p. 12). For proof whereof you bring John the Baptist's doctrine (Matt 3:1,2), and the angel's saying to Zacharias (Luke 1:16,17), and the prophet Malachi (3:1-3), in which texts there is as much for your purpose, and no more, than there is in a perfect blank; for which of them speak a word of the righteousness or holiness which we have lost? Or where is it said, either by these mentioned, or by the whole scripture, that we are to be restored to, and put again into possession of that holiness? These are but the dictates of your human nature.

John's ministry was, 'To make ready a people prepared for the Lord Jesus'; not to possess them with themselves and their own, but now lost, holiness. And so the angel told his father, saying, 'Many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God': Not to Adam's innocency, or to the holiness that we lost by him. Neither did the prophet Malachi prophesy that Christ at his coming should put men again in possession of the holiness we had lost. And I say again, as you here fall short of your purpose, so I challenge you to produce but one piece of a text, that in the least looketh to such a thing. The whole tenor of the scripture, that speaks of the errand of Christ Jesus, tells us another lesson, to wit, That he himself came to save us, and that by his own righteousness; not that in Adam, or which we have lost in him, unless you can say and prove that we had once, even before we were converted, the holiness of Christ within us, or the righteousness of Christ upon us.

But you yet get on, and tell us, 'That this was also the prophesy of the angel to Joseph (p. 14) in these words HE [Jesus] shall save his people from their sins.' 'Not [say you] from the punishment of them, although that be a true sense too; but not the primary, but secondary, and implied only, and the consequence of the former salvation' (p. 15).

Answer. Thus Penn the quaker and you run in this, in one and the self same spirit; he affirming that sanctification is antecedent to justification, but not the consequence thereof.

2. But what salvation? Why salvation? say you: First from the filth; for that is the primary and first sense: justification from the guilt, being the never-failing consequence of this. But how then must Jesus Christ, first save us from the filth? You add in p. 16, 'That he shall bring in, instead of the ceremonial observations, a far more noble, viz., An inward substantial righteousness: and by abrogating that [namely of the ceremonies] he shall establish only this inward righteousness.' This is, that holiness, or righteousness you tell us of, in the end of the chapter going before, that you acknowledge we had lost; so that the sum of all that you have said, is, That the way that Christ will take to save his people from their sins, is, first to restore unto them, and give them possession of, the righteousness that they had lost in Adam: and having established this in them, he would acquit them also of guilt. But that this is a shameless error, and blasphemy, is apparent, from which hath already been asserted of the nature of the holiness, or righteousness, that we have lost, viz., That it was only natural of the old covenant, typical: and such as might stand with perfect ignorance of the mediation of Jesus Christ: and now I add, That for Christ to come to establish this righteousness, is alone, as if he should be sent from heaven, to overthrow, and abrogate the eternal purpose of grace, which the Father had purposed should be manifested to the world by Christ. But Christ came not to restore, or to give us possession of that which was once our own holiness, but to make us partakers of that which is in him, 'that we might be made partakers of HIS holiness.' Neither (were it granted that you speak the truth) is it possible for a man to be filled with inward gospel holiness, and righteousness, that yet abideth, as before the face of God, under the curse of the law, or the guilt of his own transgressions (Heb 12). The guilt must therefore, first be taken off, and we set free by faith in that blood, that did it, before we can act upon pure Christian principles. Pray tell me the meaning of this one text; which speaking of Christ, saith, 'Who when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high' (Heb 1:3). Tell me, I say, by this text, whether is here intended the sins of all that shall be saved? If so, what kind of a purging is here meant, seeing thousands, and thousands of thousands, of the persons intended by this act of purging were not then in being, nor their personal sins in act? And note, he saith, he purged them, before he sat down at the right hand of God: purging then, in this place, cannot first, and primarily, respect the purging of the conscience: but the taking, the complete taking of the guilt, and so the curse from before the face of God, according to other scriptures: 'He hath made him to be sin, and accursed of God for us.' Now he being made the sin which we committed, and the curse which we deserved; there is no more sin nor curse; I mean to be charged by the law, to damn them that shall believe, not that their believing takes away the curse, but puts the soul upon trusting to him, that before purged this guilt, and curse: I say, before he sat down on the right hand of God; not to suspend, as you would have it, but to take away the sin of the world. 'The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquities of us all' (Isa 53:6). And he bare them in his own body on the tree (1 Peter 2:24): nor yet that he should often offer himself; for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now, (and that at once,) in the end of the world hath he appeared, to put away sin, by the sacrifice of himself (Heb 9:24-26). Mark, he did put it away by the sacrifice of his body and soul, when he died on the cross: but he could not then put away the inward filth of those, that then remained unconverted; or those that as yet wanted being in the world. The putting away of sin therefore, that the Holy Ghost here intendeth, is, such a putting of it away, as respecteth the guilt, curse, and condemnation thereof, as it stood by the accusations of the law, against all flesh before the face of God; which guilt, curse, and condemnation, Christ himself was made in that day, when he died the death for us. And this is the first and principal intendment of the angel, in that blessed saying to godly Joseph, concerning Christ; 'He shall save his people from their sins'; from the guilt and curse due to them, first: and afterwards from the filth thereof. This is yet manifest, further; because the heart is purified by faith, and hope (Acts 15:9; 1 John 3:3). Now it is not the nature of faith; I mean, of justifying faith, to have any thing for an object; from which it fetcheth peace with God, and holiness before, or besides the Christ of God himself; for he is the way to the Father: and no man can come to the Father, but by him. Come; that is, so as to find acceptance, and peace with him: the reason is, because without his blood, guilt remains (Heb 9:22). He hath made peace by the blood of his cross: so then, faith in the first place seeketh peace. But why peace first? Because till peace is fetched into the soul, by faith's laying hold on the blood of Christ: sin remains in the guilt and curse, though not in the sight of God, yet upon the conscience, through the power of unbelief. 'He that believeth not, stands yet condemned' (John 3:18,19). Now, so long as guilt, and the curse in power remains, there is not purity, but unbelief; not joy, but doubting; not peace, but peevishness; not content, but murmuring, and angering against the Lord himself. 'The law worketh wrath' (Rom 4:15). Wherefore, as yet there can be no purity of heart, because that faith yet wants his object. But having once found peace with God by believing what the blood of Christ hath done; joy followeth; so doth peace, quietness, content, and love; which is also the fulfilling of the law: yet not from such dungish principles as yours, for so the apostle calls them (Phil 3:8). But from the Holy Ghost itself; which God, by faith, hath granted to be received by them that believe in the blood of his Jesus.

But you add, That Christ giveth, first repentance, and then forgiveness of sins (p. 17).

Answer. 1. This makes nothing for the holiness which we lost in Adam: for the proof of which you bring that text (Acts 5:31).

2. But for Christ to take way guilt, and the curse, from before the face of God, is one thing; and to make that discovery, is another.

3. Again, Christ doth not give forgiveness for the sake of that repentance, which hath its rise, originally from the dictates of our own nature, which is the thing you are to prove; for that repentance is called the sorrow of this world, and must be again repented of: but the repentance mentioned in the text, is that which comes from Christ: But,

4. It cannot be for the sake of gospel-repentance, that the forgiveness of sins is manifested, because both are his peculiar gift.

5. Therefore, both faith, and repentance, and forgiveness of sins, are given by Christ; and come to us, for the sake of that blessed offering of his body, once for all. For after he arose from the dead, having led captivity captive, and taken the curse from before the face of God: therefore his Father gave him gifts for men, even all the things that are necessary, and effectual, for our conversion, and preservation in this world, &c. (Eph 4:8).

This text, therefore, with all the rest you bring, falleth short of the least shew of proof, 'That the great errand for which Christ came into the world was--to put us in possession of the holiness that we had lost.'

Your third chapter is as empty of the proof of your design as that through which we have passed: there being not one scripture therein cited, that giveth the least intimation, that ever it entered into the heart of Christ to put us again into possession of that holiness which we had before we were converted: for such was that we lost in Adam.

You tell us the sum of all is, 'that we are commanded to add to our faith, virtue,' &c. (p. 25). I suppose you intend a gospel faith, which if you can prove Adam had before the fall, and that we lost this faith in him; and also that this gospel faith is none other, but that which originally ariseth from, or is the dictates of human nature, I will confess you have scripture, and knowledge beyond me. In the mean time you must suffer me to tell you, you are as far in this from the mind of the Holy Ghost, as if you had yet never in all your days heard whether there be a Holy Ghost or no.

Add to your faith. The apostle here lays a gospel principle, viz., Faith in the Son of God: which faith layeth hold of the forgiveness of sins, alone for the sake of Christ; therefore he is a great way off, of laying the purity of the human nature, the law, as written in the heart of natural man, as the principle of holiness; from whence is produced good works in the soul of the godly.

In your fourth chapter also (p. 28) even in the beginning thereof; even with one text you have overthrown your whole book.

This chapter is to prove, that the only design of the promises, and threatenings of the gospel, is to promote, and put us again in possession of the holiness we had lost. For that the reader must still remember, is the only design of your book (p. 12). Whereas the first text you speak of (2 Peter 1:4), maketh mention of the Divine nature, or of the Spirit of the living God, which is also received by the precious faith of Christ, and the revelation of the knowledge of him; this blessed Spirit, and therefore not the dictates of human nature, is the principle that is laid in the godly: but Adam's holiness had neither the knowledge, or faith, or Spirit of the Lord Jesus, as its foundation, or principle: yea, nature was his foundation, even his own nature was the original, from whence his righteousness and good works arose.

The next scriptures also, viz. 2 Corinthians 7:1; Romans 12:1 overthrow you; for they urge the promises as motives to stir us up to holiness. But Adam had neither the Spirit of Jesus, or faith him in him, as a principle: nor any promises to him as motives: wherefore this was not that to which he, or which we Christians are exhorted to seek the possession of; but that which is operated by that Spirit which we receive by the faith of Jesus, and that which is encouraged by those promises, that God hath since given to them that have closed by faith with Jesus.

The rest also (in p. 29), not one of them doth promise us the possession of the holiness we have lost, or any mercy to them that have it.

You add: 'And whereas the promises of pardon, and of eternal life are very frequently made to believing; there is nothing more evidently declared, than that this faith is such as purifieth the heart, and is productive of good works' (p.30).

Answer. 1. If the promise be made at all to believing, it is not made to us upon the account of the holiness we had lost; for I tell you yet again, that holiness is not of faith, neither was faith the effect thereof. But,

2. The promises of pardon, though they be made to such a faith as is fruitful in good works: yet not to it, as it is fruitful in doing, but in receiving good. Sir, the quality of justifying faith is this, Not to work, but to believe, as to the business of pardon of sin: and that not only, because of the sufficiency that this faith sees in Christ to justify, but also for that it knows those whom God thus pardoneth, he justifieth as ungodly. 'But to him that worketh not, but believeth'; (Mark, here faith and works are opposed) 'But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness' (Rom 4:5).

You add farther, 'That the promises may be reduced to these three heads; that of the Holy Spirit, of remission of sins, and eternal happiness, in the enjoyment of God' (p. 30).

Answer. If you can prove that any of these promises were made to the holiness that we had lost, or that by these promises we are to be possessed with that holiness again; I will even now lay down the bucklers. For albeit, the time will come when the saints shall be absolutely, and perfectly sinless; yet then shall they be also spiritual, immortal, and incorruptible, which you cannot prove Adam was, in the best of his holiness, even that which we lost in him.

The threatenings you speak of[16] are every one made against sin, but not one of them to drive us into a possession of that holiness that we had lost: nay, contrariwise, he that looks to, or seeks after that, is as sure to be damned, and go to hell, as he that transgresseth the law; because that is not the righteousness of God, the righteousness of Christ, the righteousness of faith, nor that to which the promise is made.

And this was manifested to the world betimes, even in that day, when God drove the man and his wife out of Eden, and placed cherubims, and a flaming sword, in the way by which they came out, to the end, that by going back by that way, they might rather be killed and die, than lay hold of the 'tree of life' (Gen 3).

Which the apostle also respects, when he calleth the way of the gospel, the NEW and LIVING way, even that which is made by the blood of Christ (Heb 10:20); concluding by this description of the way that is by blood, that the other is old, and the way of death, even that which is by the moral law, or the dictates of our nature, or by that fond conceit of the goodly holiness of Adam.

[Our Lord's object not merely to restore man's natural holiness, but to impart his own infinite and eternal holiness to those that believe.]

Your fifth chapter tells us, 'That the promoting of holiness was the design of our Saviour's whole life and conversation among men' (p. 36).

Answer. 1. Were this granted, it reacheth nothing at all the design for which you in your way present us with it: For,

2. That which you have asserted is: That the errand about which Christ came, was, as the effecting our deliverance out of that sinful state we had brought ourselves into, so to put us again in possession of that holiness which we had lost; for that, you say, is the business of your book (p. 12). Wherefore you should have told us in the head of this chapter, not so much that our Saviour designed the promoting of holiness in general by his life, but that the whole design of our Saviour's life and conversation, was to put us again into possession of that holiness which we had lost, into a possession of that natural, old covenant, figurative, ignorant holiness. But it seems you count that there is no other than that now lost, but never again to be obtained holiness, that was in Adam.