Owen, A Vindication... File 7
(... continued from File 6)
what is the meaning of these expressions? Does not the
Scripture declare that Christ is God as well as man? Does
it not build all our faith, obedience, and salvation on
that consideration? Are not the properties of the divine
nature everywhere in the Scripture declared and proposed
unto us for the in generating and establishing faith in
us, and to be the object of, and exercise of, all grace
and obedience? And is it now become a crime that any
should seek to declare and instruct others in these
things from the Scripture, and to the same end for which
they are therein revealed? Is this, with any evidence of
sobriety, to be traduced as a "ransacking the boundless
perfections of the divine nature, to dress up the person
of the Mediator"? Is he a Christian, or does he deserve
that name, who condemns or despiseth the consideration of
the properties of the divine nature in the person of
Christ (see Isa. 6: 1-4; John 12: 41; Isa. 9: 6; John 1:
14; Phil. 2: 6, etc.), or shall think that the grace or
excellencies of his person do not principally consist in
them, as the human nature is united thereunto? Fifthly,
"They consider all the glorious effects of his
mediation." All the effects of Christ's mediation, - all
the things that are spoken of the gospel, etc., do all of
them declare the excellency of the person of Christ, as
effects declare their cause, and may and ought to be
considered unto that end, as occasion does require; and
no otherwise are they considered by those whom he does
oppose. Sixthly, But the end of these strange principles
and practices, he tells us, is, "That all our hopes may
be built, not on the gospel covenant, but on the person
of Christ." But I say again, What is it that this man
intends? What is become of a common regard to God and
man? Who do so build their hopes on Christ as to reject
or despise the gospel covenant, as he calls it? - though
I am afraid, should he come to explain himself, he will
be at a loss about the true nature of the gospel
covenant, as I find him to be about the person and grace
of Christ. He telleth us, indeed, that "Not the person of
Christ, but the gospel, is the way." Did we ever say,
"Not the covenant of grace, but the person of Christ is
all we regard?" But whence comes this causeless fear and
jealousy, - or rather, this evil surmise, that if any
endeavour to exalt the person of Christ, immediately the
covenant of the gospel (that is, in truth, the covenant
which is declared in the gospel) must be discarded? Is
there an inconsistency between Christ and the covenant? I
never met with any who was so fearful and jealous lest
too much should be ascribed in the matter of our
salvation to Jesus Christ; and when there is no more so,
but what the Scripture does expressly and in words assign
unto him and affirm of him, instantly we have an outcry
that the gospel and the covenant are rejected, and that a
"dispute lies between the person of Christ and his
gospel." But let him not trouble himself; for as he
cannot, and as he knows he cannot, produce any one word
or one syllable out of any writings of mine, that should
derogate any thing from the excellency, nature,
necessity, or use of the new covenant; so, though it may
be he do not, and does therefore fancy and dream of
disputes between Christ and the gospel, we do know how to
respect both the person of Christ and the covenant, -
both Jesus Christ and the gospel, in their proper places.
And in particular, we do know, that as it is the person
of Christ who is the author of the gospel, and who as
mediator in his work of mediation gives life, and
efficacy, and establishment unto the covenant of grace;
so both the gospel and that covenant do declare the glory
and design the exaltation of Jesus Christ himself.
Speaking, therefore, comparatively, all our hopes are
built on Jesus Christ, who alone fills all things; yet
also we have our hopes in God, through the covenant
declared in the gospel, as the way designing the rule of
our obedience, securing our acceptance and reward. And to
deal as gently as I can warrant myself to do with this
writer, the dispute he mentions between the person of
Christ and the gospel, which shall be the foundation of
our hope, is only in his own fond imagination,
distempered by disingenuity and malevolence. For, if I
should charge what the appearance of his expressions will
well bear, what he says seems to be out of a design,
influenced by ignorance or heresy, to exclude Jesus
Christ, God and man, from being the principal foundation
of the church, and which all its hopes are built upon.
This being the sum of his charge, I hope he will fully
prove it in the quotations from my discourse, which he
now sets himself to produce; assuring him that if he do
not, but come short therein, setting aside his odious and
foppish profane deductions, I do aver them all in plain
terms, that he may, on his next occasion of writing, save
his labour in searching after what he may oppose. Thus,
therefore, he proceeds, p. 205: -
"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
union, 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
union. And, thirdly, His excellency to endear, from his
complete suitableness to all the wants of the souls of
men. First, That he is fit to be a Saviour, from the
grace of union. And if you will understand what this
strange grace of union 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 lays his hand upon God, by
partaking of his nature; and he lays his hand on us, by
partaking of our nature: and so becomes a days-man or
umpire between both. Now, though this be a great truth,
that the union of the divine and human nature in Christ
did excellently qualify him for the office of a mediator,
yet this is the unhappiest man in expressing and proving
it that I have met with. For what an untoward
representation is this of Christ's 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 Matt. 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 has not met with many who
have treated of this subject, or has little understood
those he has met withal; so that there may be yet some
behind as unhappy as myself. And seeing he has 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 woeful
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 union;" for so he says, "If
you would understand what this strange grace of union
is." But I crave his pardon in not complying with his
directions, for my company's sake. No man, who has once
consulted the writings of the ancients on this subject,
can be a stranger unto "charis henoseos", and "gratia
unionis," they so continually occur 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 Christ's 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 laid his
hand upon God, by partaking of his nature, Zech. 13: 7;
and he lays his hand upon us, by partaking of our nature,
Heb 2: 14, 16: and so becomes a days-man or umpire
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
applied 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 has
commonly been applied by divines in the same manner,
particularly by Bishop Usher (in his "Emmanuel," pp. 8,
9, as I remember); whose unhappiness in expressing
himself in divinity this man needs not much to bewail.
But let my expressions be what they will, I shall not
escape the unhappiness and weakness of my proofs; for "I
might," he says, "as well have quoted Gen. 1: 1, and
Matt. 1: 1, for the proof of the unity of the divine and
human nature in the person of Christ, and his fitness
thence to be a Saviour, as those I named," namely, Zech.
13: 7; Heb. 2: 14, 16. Say you so? Why, then, I do here
undertake to maintain the personal union, 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 he 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 human nature into personal subsistence with the
Son of God, that so he might be "hikanos" (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 needful unto our
salvation, but he that was partaker of our nature, or man
also. And the mere recital of these testimonies was
sufficient unto my purpose in that place, where I
designed only 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 "Vindicae 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 human nature into personal union with
the Son of God, and wherewithal his pre-existence 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, does 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 has rent them from, to try 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, p. 207, whereas I had said on some occasion,
that on such a supposition we could have supplies of
grace only in a moral way, it falls under his derision in
his parenthesis; and that is a very pitiful 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 catholic
church. And when his occasions will permit it, I desire
he would answer what is written by myself 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
unhappiest man in expressing himself that ever I met
with" will not do it; he must retake himself to another
course, if he intend to engage into the handling of
things of this nature. He adds, 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 does 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 proceeds 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 alight) I have done already, that
I will not come to him nor any of his companions to learn
to express myself 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 I any
inducement whereunto from any thing that as yet I have
seen in their writings. It also troubles him, p. 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 sense of them unto
the minds and affections of men, I had once or twice used
that "epanortosis", "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 adds, "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
itself 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 God's 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 the 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 sense, as he cannot deny it to be, I add
only, in answer, that this his profane 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. Secondly, For the opposition which he
childishly frames between God's vindictive justice and
his mercy and grace, it is answered already. Thirdly, It
is false that God has not told us that his grace is
boundless and bottomless, in the sense 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 knows not
how this consists with severity and anger against
impenitent sinners, is yet to learn his catechism. But
yet he adds farther, pp. 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 Christ's person above the grace of the gospel; for
that is a bounded and limited thing, a strait 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 beg the reader to believe that I am now so utterly
weary with the repetition of these impertinencies, that I
can hardly prevail with myself to fill my pen once more
with ink about them; and I see no reason now to go 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, secondly,
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. Thirdly, 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 does 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 does not; -
that is, that the Son is not in the Father, nor the
Father in the Son. The acts, indeed, of Christ's
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. Fourthly, The opposition
which he would again set between Christ and the gospel is
impious in itself; and, if he thinks to charge it on me,
openly false. I challenge him and all his accomplices 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 do believe the way of gospel
obedience, indispensably 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 tendered in the gospel also unto all sorts
of sinners, under any qualifications whatever, who upon
its invitation, will come to God through Jesus Christ by
faith and repentance, is an impious imagination.
A discourse much of the same nature follows,
concerning the love of Christ, after he has 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. P. 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 fruitful, for it being the love of God, it must be
effectual and fruitful 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 does all
for us, and leaves nothing for us to do. We owe this
discovery to an acquaintance 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
continue 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
excels the gospel as the gospel excels the law."
I do suppose the expressions mentioned are, for the
substance of them, in my book; and shall, therefore, only
inquire what it is in them which he excepteth against,
and for which I am reproached, as one that has an
acquaintance with Christ's person; which is now grown so
common and trite an expression, that were it not condited
unto some men's palates by its profaneness, it would
argue a great barrenness in this author's invention, that
can vary no more in the topic 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 [have]
love for any one, is, "Boulestai tini ha oietai agata,
kai to kata dunamin praktikon einai touton". 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 [on account of] 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 does all for us, and leaves us nothing to
do." But who told him so? who ever said so? Does he think
that if our life, grace, holiness, glory, be from the
love of Christ originally causally, by virtue 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 ourselves? Let them
do so who have a mind to renounce Christ and his gospel;
I shall come into no partnership with them. [As] for what
he adds "All that the gospel teaches us," etc., 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 has
taken under his instruction. Does Christ in his love do
nothing unto the quickening 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,
etc.? This ignorance or profaneness 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 has no
other love but what this man will allow, the state of the
church in this world depends on every slender thread. But
attempts of this nature will fall short enough of
prevailing with sober Christians to forego their faith
and persuasion, - that it is from the love of Christ that
believers are preserved in that condition wherein he does
and will approve of them. Yea, to suppose that this is
all the grace of the gospel, that whilst men are good
Christ loves them, and when they are bad he hates them
(both which are true); and farther, that he does 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, p. 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, fruitful, 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 always so; for God always 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
fruitful 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
always so unchangeable and fruitful as this author
persuades us it is now; for if this love had always loved
life and holiness into us, I cannot conceive how it
should happen that we should sin and die."
Owen, A Vindication...
(continued in File 8...)
----------------------------------------------------
file: /pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-09: owvin-07.txt
.
