Owen, A Vindication... File 8
(... continued from File 7)
It is well if he know what it is that he aims at in
these words; I am sure what he says does not in the least
impeach the truth which he designs to oppose. The name
and nature of God are everywhere in the Scripture
proposed unto us as the object of, and encouragement
unto, our faith, and his love in particular is therein
represented unchangeable, because he himself is so; but
it does not hence follow that God loveth any one
naturally, or necessarily. His love is a free act of his
will; and therefore, though it be like himself, such as
becomes his nature, yet it is not necessarily determined
on any object, nor limited as unto the nature, degrees,
and effects of it. He loves whom he pleaseth, and as unto
what end he pleaseth. Jacob he loved, and Esau he hated;
and those effects which, from his love or out of it, he
will communicate unto them, are various, according to the
counsel of his will. Some he loves only as to temporal
and common mercies, some as to spiritual grace and glory;
for he has mercy on whom he will have mercy. Wherefore it
is no way contrary unto, and inconsistent with, the
eternity, the immutability, and fruitfulness of the love
of God, that he suffered sin to enter into the world, or
that he does dispense more grace in Jesus Christ under
the New Testament than he did under the Old. God is
always the same that he was; love in God is always of the
same nature that it was; but the objects, acts, and
effects of this love, with the measures and degrees of
them, are the issues of the counsel or free purposes of
his will. Want of the understanding hereof makes this man
imagine, that if God's love in Christ, wherewith he
loveth us, be eternal and fruitful, then must God
necessarily always - in or out of Christ, under the old
or new covenant - love all persons, elect or not elect,
with the same love as to the effects and fruits of it;
which is a wondrous profound apprehension. The reader,
therefore, if he please, may take notice, that the love
which I intend, and whereunto I ascribe those properties,
is the especial love of God in Christ unto the elect.
Concerning this himself says, that he loves them with an
everlasting love, and therefore "draws them with
loving-kindness," Jer. 31: 3; which love, I shall be bold
to say, is eternal and fruitful. And hence, as he
changeth not, whereon the sons of Jacob are not consumed,
Mal. 3: 6, there being with him "neither variableness,
nor shadow of turning," James 1: 17; so accordingly he
has in this matter, by his promise and oath, declared the
immutability of his counsel, Heb. 6: 17, 18, - which
seems to intimate that his love is unchangeable. And
whereas this eternal love is in Christ Jesus as the way
and means of making it certain in all its effects, and
with respect unto its whole design, it is fruitful in all
grace and glory, Eph. 1: 3-5. And if he cannot understand
how, notwithstanding all this, sin so entered into the
world under the law of creation and the first covenant as
to defeat in us all the benefits thereof, at present I
cannot help him; for, as I am sure enough he would scorn
to learn any thing of me, so I am not at leisure to put
it to the trial.
His own account of the love of God succeeds. P. 211,
"Not that I deny that the love of God is eternal,
unchangeable, fruitful; that is, that God was always
good, and always continues good, and manifesteth his love
and goodness in such ways as are suitable to his nature,
which is the fruitfulness of it: but then, the
unchangeableness of God's love does not consist in being
always determined to the same object, but that he always
loves for the same reason; that is, that he always loves
true virtue and goodness, wherever he sees it, and never
ceases to love any person till he ceases to be good: and
then the immutability of his love is the reason why he
loves no longer; for should he love a wicked man, the
reason and nature of his love would change. And the
fruitfulness of God's love, with respect to the methods
of his grace and providence, does not consist in
procuring what he loves by an omnipotent and irresistible
power; for then sin and death could never have entered
into the world: but he governs and does good to his
creatures, in such ways as are most suitable to their
natures. He governs reasonable creatures by principles of
reason, as he does the material world by the necessary
laws of matter, and brute creatures by the instincts and
propensities of nature."
This may pass for a system of his divinity, which
how he will reconcile unto the doctrine of the church of
England in her articles, she and he may do well to
consider. But, whatever he means by the love of God
always determined unto the same object, it were an easy
thing to prove, beyond the reach of his contradiction,
that persons are the objects of God's eternal love, as
well as things and qualifications are of his approbation;
or, that he loves some persons with an everlasting and
unchangeable love, so as to preserve them from all
ruining evils, and so as they may be always meet objects
of his approving love, unto his glory: and whereas these
things have been debated and disputed on all hands with
much learning and diligence, our author is a very happy
man if, with a few such loose expressions as these
repeated, he thinks to determine all the controversies
about election and effectual grace, with perseverance, on
the Pelagian side. The hypothesis here maintained, that
because God always and unchangeably approves of what is
good in any, or of the obedience of his creatures, and
disapproves or hates sin, condemning it in his law, [and]
that therefore he may love the same person one day and
hate him another, notwithstanding his pretences that he
is constant unto the reason of his love, will inevitably
fall into one of these conclusions: - either, that God
indeed never loveth any man, be he who he will; or, that
he is changeable in his love, upon outward, external
reasons, as we are: and let him choose which he will own.
In the meantime, such a love of God towards believers as
shall always effectually preserve them meet objects of
his love and approbation, is not to be baffled by such
trifling impertinencies. His next reflection is on the
manner of God's operations in the communication of grace
and holiness; which, he says, is "not by omnipotent and
irresistible power," - confirming his assertion by that
consideration, that then sin and death could never have
entered into the world; which is resolved into another
sweet supposition, that God must needs act the same power
of grace towards all men, at all times, under each
covenant, whether he will or no. But this it is to be a
happy disputant, - all things succeed well with such
persons which they undertake. And as to the manner of the
operation of grace, how far grace itself may be said to
he omnipotent, and in its operations irresistible, I have
fully declared there; where he may oppose and refute it,
if he have any mind thereunto. His present attempt
against it in those words, that God "governs reasonable
creatures by principles of reason," is so weak in this
case, and impertinent, that it deserves no consideration;
for all the operations of divine grace are suited unto
the rational constitution of our beings, neither was ever
man so wild as to fancy any of them such as are
inconsistent with, or do offer force unto, the faculties
of our souls in their operations. Yea, that which
elevates, aids, and assists our rational faculties in
their operations on and towards their proper objects,
which is the work of efficacious grace, is the principal
preservative of their power and liberty, and can be no
way to their prejudice. And we do, moreover, acknowledge
that those proposals which are made in the gospel unto
our reason, are eminently suited to excite and prevail
with it unto its proper use and exercise in compliance
with them. Hence, although the habit of faith, or power
of believing, be wrought in us by the Holy Ghost, yet the
word of the gospel is the cause and means of all its
acts, and the whole obedience which it produceth. But if
by "governing reasonable creatures by principles of
reason," he intends that God deals no otherwise by his
grace with the souls of men, but only by proposing
objective arguments and motives unto a compliance with
his will, without internal aids and assistance of grace,
it is a gross piece of Pelagianism, destructive of the
gospel, sufficiently confuted elsewhere; and he may
explain himself as he pleaseth.
His proceed is, to transcribe some other passages,
taken out of my book here and there, in whose repetition
he inserts some impertinent exceptions; but the design of
the whole is to "state a controversy," as he calls it,
between us and them, or those whom he calleth "they" and
"we," whoever they be. And this, upon the occasion of my
mentioning the fulness of grace, life, and righteousness
that is in Christ, he does in these words: - P. 215,
"They say that these are the personal graces of Christ as
mediator, which are inherent in him, and must be derived
from his person; we say, they signify the perfection and
excellency of his religion, as being the most perfect and
complete declaration of the will of God, and the most
powerful method of the divine wisdom for the reforming of
the world, as it prescribes the only righteousness which
is acceptable to God, and directs us in the only way to
life and immortality."
I shall not absolutely accept of the terms of this
controversy, as to the state of it on our part, proposed
by him; and yet I shall not much vary from them. We say,
therefore, that "Jesus Christ being full of all grace,
excellencies, and perfections, he communicates them unto
us in that degree as is necessary for us, and in
proportion unto his abundant charity and goodness towards
us; and we Christians, as his body, or fellow-members of
his human nature, receive grace and mercy, flowing from
him to us." This state of the controversy on our side I
suppose he will not refuse, nor the terms of it; but will
own them to be ours, though he will not, it may be, allow
some of them to be proper or convenient. And that he may
know who his "they" are, who are at this end of the
difference, he may be p]eased to take notice that these
words are the whole and entire paraphrase of Dr Hammond
on John 1: 16; the first testimony he undertakes to
answer. And when this author has replied to Mr Hooker, Dr
Jackson, and him, and such other pillars of the church of
England as concur with them, it will be time enough for
me to consider how I shall defend myself against him. Or,
if he will take the controversy on our part in terms more
directly expressive of my mind, it is the person of
Christ is the fountain of all grace to the church (as he
well observes my judgement to be), and that from him all
grace and mercy is derived unto us; and then I do
maintain, that the "they" whom he opposeth, are not only
the church of England, but the whole catholic church in
all ages. Who the "we" are, on the other hand, who reject
this assertion, and believe that all the testimonies
concerning the fulness of grace in Christ, and the
communication thereof unto us, do only declare the
excellency of his religion, is not easy to be
conjectured; - for unless it be the people of Racow, I
know not who are his associates. And let him but name
three divines of any reputation in the church of England
since the Reformation, who have given the least
countenance unto his assertions, negative or positive,
and I will acknowledge that he has better associates in
his profession than as yet I believe he has. But that
Jesus Christ himself, God and man in one person, the
mediator between God and man, is not a fountain of grace
and mercy to his church; that there is no real internal
grace communicated by him, or derived from him unto his
mystical body; that the fulness which is in him, or said
to be in him, of grace and truth, of unsearchable riches
of grace, etc., is nothing but the doctrine which he
taught, as the most complete and perfect declaration of
the will of God, - are opinions that cannot be divulged,
under pretence of authority, without the most pernicious
scandal to the present church of England. And if this be
the man's religion, that this is all the fulness we
receive from Christ, - "a perfect revelation of the
divine will concerning the salvation of mankind; which
contains so many excellent promises that it may well be
called 'grace;' and prescribes such a plain and simple
religion, so agreeable to the natural notions of good and
evil, that it may well be called 'truth;'" - and
complying with its doctrine, or yielding obedience unto
its precepts and believing the promises which it gives,
in our own strength, without any real aid, assistance, or
communication of internal saving grace from the person of
Jesus Christ, is our righteousness before God, whereon
and for which we are justified, - I know as well as he
whence it came, and perhaps better than he whither it
will go.
The remaining discourse of this chapter consisteth
of two parts: - First, An attempt to disprove any
communication of real internal grace from the Lord Christ
unto believers for their sanctification; Secondly, An
endeavour to refute the imputation of his righteousness
unto us for our justification. In the first he contends
that all the fulness of grace and truth said to be in
Christ consists either in the doctrine of the gospel or
in the largeness of his church. In the latter, that faith
in Christ is nothing but believing the gospel, and the
authority of Christ who revealed it; and by yielding
obedience thereunto, we are justified before God, on the
account of an internal inherent righteousness in
ourselves. Now, these are no small undertakings; the
first of them being expressly contrary to the sense of
the catholic church in all ages (for the Pelagians and
the Socinians are by common agreement excluded from an
interest therein); and the latter of them, contrary to
the plain confessions of all the reformed churches, with
the constant doctrine of this church of England: and
therefore we may justly expect that they should be
managed with much strength of argument, and evident
demonstration. But the unhappiness of it is (I will not
say his, but ours), that these are not things which our
author as yet has accustomed himself unto; and I cannot
but say, that to my knowledge I never read a more weak,
loose, and impertinent discourse, upon so weighty
subjects, in my whole life before: he must have little to
do, who can afford to spend his time in a particular
examination of it, unless it be in the exposition of
those places which are almost verbatim transcribed out of
Schlichtingius. Besides, for the first truth which he
opposeth, I have confirmed it in a discourse which I
suppose may be made public before this come to view,
beyond what I expect any sober reply unto from him. Some
texts of Scripture that mention a fulness in Christ he
chooseth out, to manifest (to speak a word by the way)
that indeed they do not intend any such fulness in Christ
himself. And the first is John 1: 16; the exposition
whereof which he gives is that of Schlichtingius, who yet
extends the import of the words beyond what he will
allow. The enforcement which he gives unto his
exposition, by comparing the 14th and 17th verses with
the 16th, is both weak and contradictory of itself; for
the words of the 14th verse are, "The Word was made
flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the
glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of
grace and truth." It is evident beyond contradiction,
that the expression, "full of grace and truth," is
exegetical of his glory as the only begotten of the
Father, which was the glory of his person, and not the
doctrine of the gospel. And for the opposition that is
made between the law given by Moses, and the grace and
truth which came by Jesus Christ, I shall yet rather
adhere to the sense of the ancient church, and the most
eminent doctors of it, which, if he knows not it to be
concerning the effectual communication of real, renewing,
sanctifying grace by Jesus Christ, there are snow who can
inform him; rather than that woeful gloss upon them, -
"His doctrine is called 'grace,' because accompanied with
such excellent promises; and may well be called 'truth,'
because so agreeable to the natural notions of good and
evil," which is the confession of the Pelagian unbelief:
but these things are not my present concernment. For the
latter part of his discourse, in his opposition unto the
imputation of the righteousness of Christ, as he does not
go about once to state or declare the sense wherein it is
pleaded for, nor produceth any one of the arguments
wherewith it is confirmed, and omitteth the mention of
most of the particular testimonies which declare and
establish it; so, as unto those few which he takes notice
of, he expressly founds his answers unto them on that
woeful subterfuge, that if they are capable of another
interpretation, or having another sense given unto them,
then nothing can be concluded from them to that purpose,
- by which the Socinians seek to shelter themselves from
all the testimonies that are given to his Deity and
satisfaction. But I have no concernment, as I said,
either in his opinions or his way of reasoning; and do
know that those who have so, need not desire a better
cause nor an easier adversary to deal withal.
In his third section, p. 279, he enters upon his
exceptions unto the union of believers unto Jesus Christ,
and with great modesty, at the entrance of his discourse,
tells us, first, "how these men," with whom he has to do,
"have fitted the person of Christ unto all the wants and
necessities of the sinner;" which yet, if he denies God
himself to have done, he is openly injurious unto his
wisdom and grace. The very first promise that was given
concerning him was, that he should save sinners from all
their wants, evils, and miseries, that might, did, or
could befall them by the entrance of sin. But thus it
falls out, when men will be talking of what they do not
understand. Again, he adds how he has "explained the
Scripture metaphors whereby the union between Christ and
Christians is represented; but that these men, instead of
explaining of those metaphors, turn all religion into an
allegory." But what if one should now tell him, that his
explanation of these metaphors is the most absurd and
irrational, and argues the most fulsome ignorance of the
mystery of the gospel, that can be imagined; and that, on
the other side, those whom he traduceth do explain them
unto the understanding and experience of all that
believe, and that in a way suited and directed unto by
the Holy Ghost himself, to farther their faith,
obedience, and consolation? As far as I perceive, he
would be at no small loss how to relieve himself under
this censure. The first thing he begins withal, and
wherein, in the first place, I fall under his
displeasure, is about the conjugal relation between
Christ and believers, which he treats of, p. 280. "As for
example," saith he, "Christ is called a husband, the
church his spouse; and now all the invitations of the
gospel are Christ's wooing and making love to his spouse;
- and what other men call believing the gospel of Christ,
whereby we devote ourselves to his service, these men
call that consent and contract, which make up the
marriage betwixt Christ and believers. Christ takes us
for his spouse, and we take Christ for our husband, and
that with all the solemnities of marriage, except the
ring, which is left out as an antichristian ceremony;
Christ saying thus, 'This is that we will consent unto,
that I will be for thee, and thou shalt be for me, and
not for another.' Christ gives himself to the soul with
all his excellencies, righteousness, preciousness,
graces, and eminencies, to be its saviour, head, and
husband, - to dwell with it in this holy relation; and
the soul likes Christ for his excellencies, graces,
suitableness, far above all other beloveds whatsoever,
and accepts of Christ by the will for its husband, Lord,
and saviour. And thus the marriage is completed; and this
is the day of Christ's espousals, and of the gladness of
his heart. And now follow all mutual conjugal affections;
which, on Christ's part, consist in delight, valuation,
pity, compassion, bounty; on the saints' part, in
delight, valuation, chastity, duty. But I have already
corrected this fooling with Scripture metaphors and
phrases."
It might, perhaps, not unbecome this author to be a
little more sparing of his correction, unless his
authority were more than it is, and his skill, also, in
the management of it; for at present those whom he
attempts upon are altogether insensible of any effects of
his severity. But whereas he seems much at a loss how to
evidence his own wisdom any other way than by calling
them fools with whom he has to do, it is sufficient to
plead his excuse. But what is it that he is here so
displeased at, as unfit for a man of his wisdom to bear
withal, and therefore calls it "fooling?" Is it that
there is a conjugal relation between Christ and the
church? - that he is the bridegroom and husband of the
church, and that the church is his bride and spouse? -
that he becomes so unto it by a voluntarily, gracious act
of his love, and that the church enters into that
relation with him by their acceptance of him in that
relation, and voluntarily giving up themselves unto him
in faith, love, and obedience, suited thereunto? Is it
that he loveth his church and cherisheth it as a husband,
or that the church gives up itself in chaste and holy
obedience unto him as her spouse? or is it my way and
manner of expressing these things wherewith he is so
provoked? If it be the latter, I desire he would, for his
own satisfaction, take notice that I condemn his
censures, and appeal to the judgement of those who have
more understanding and experience in these things than,
for aught I can discern by his writings, he has yet
attained unto. If it be the former, they are all of them
so proved and confirmed from the Scripture in that very
discourse which he excepteth against, as that he is not
able to answer or reply one serious word thereunto.
Indeed, to deny it, is to renounce the gospel and the
catholic faith. It is, therefore, to no purpose for me
here to go over again the nature of this relation between
Christ and the church, - wherein really and truly it does
consist; what it is the Scripture instructeth us in
thereby; what is that love, care, and tenderness of
Christ, which it would have us thence to learn; and what
is our own duty with respect thereunto, together with the
consolation thence arising: the whole of this work is
already discharged in that discourse which these
impertinent cavils are raised against, and that suitably
to the sense of the church in all ages, and of all sound
expositors of those very many places of Scripture which I
have urged and insisted on to that purpose. Let him, if
he please, a little lay aside the severity of his
corrections and befouling of men, and answer any material
passage in the whole discourse, if he be able; or
discover any thing in it not agreeable to the analogy of
faith, or the sense of the ancient church, if he can. And
though he seem, both here and in some of his ensuing
pages, to have a particular contempt of what is cited or
improved out of the book of Canticles to this purpose;
yet, if he either deny that that whole book does
mystically express the conjugal relation that is between
Christ and his church, with their mutual affections and
delight in each other, or that the places particularly
insisted on by me are not duly applied unto their proper
intention, I can, at least, confirm them both by the
authority of such persons as whose antiquity and learning
will exercise the utmost of his confidence in calling
them fools for their pains.
From hence for sundry pages he is pleased to give me
a little respite, whilst he diverts his severity unto
another; unto whose will and choice what to do in it I
shall leave his peculiar concern, as knowing full well
how easy it is for him to vindicate what he has written
on this subject from his impertinent exceptions, if he
please. In the meantime, if this author supposeth to add
unto the reputation of his ingenuity and modesty by
assaulting with a few pitiful cavils a book written with
so much learning, judgement, and moderation, as that is
which he excepts against, not daring in the meantime to
contend with it in any thing of the expository or the
argumentative part of it, but only to discover a
malevolent desire to obstruct the use which it has been
of, and may yet farther be, to the church of God, - I
hope he will not find many rivals in such a design. For
my part, I do suppose it more becoming Christian modesty
and sobriety, where men have laboured according to their
ability in the explication of the mysteries of Christian
religion, and that with an avowed intention to promote
holiness and gospel obedience, to accept of what they
have attained, wherein we can come unto a compliance with
them; than, passing by whatever we cannot but approve of,
or are not able to disprove, to make it our business to
cavil at such expressions as either we do not like, or
hope to pervert and abuse to their disadvantage.
P. 296, he returns again to my discourse, and
fiercely pursues it for sundry leaves, in such a manner
as becomes him, and is usual with him. That part of my
book which he deals withal, is from p. 176 unto p. 187;
and if any person of ingenuity and judgement will be
pleased but to peruse it, and to compare it with this
man's exceptions, I am secure it will need no farther
vindication. But as it is represented in his cavilling
way, it is impossible for any man either to conceive what
is the true design of my discourse, or what the arguments
wherewith what I assert is confirmed; which he does most
unduly pretend to give an account of: for he so chops,
and changes, and alters at his pleasure, going backwards
and forwards, and that from one thing to another, without
any regard unto a scholastic or ingenuous debate of any
thing that might be called a controversy, merely to seek
out an appearance of advantage to vent his cavilling
exceptions, as no judgement can rationally be made of his
whole discourse, but only that he had a mind to have cast
aspersions on mine, if he had known how. But such stuff
as it is, we must now take the measure of it, and
consider of what use it may be. And first he quotes those
words from my book, "That Christ fulfilled all
righteousness as he was mediator; and that whatever he
did as mediator, he did it for them whose mediator he
was, or in whose stead and for whose good he executed the
office of a mediator before God: and hence it is that his
complete and perfect obedience to the law is reckoned to
us." He adds, "This is well said, if it were as well
proved. And because this is a matter of great
consequence, I shall first examine those reasons the
doctor alleges to prove that Christ fulfilled all
righteousness, as he was mediator, in their stead whose
mediator he was."
These assertions are gathered up from several places
in my discourse, though p. 182 is cited for them all. And
if any one find himself concerned in these things, I may
demand of him the labour of their perusal in my book
itself; and for those who shall refuse a compliance with
so reasonable a request, I do not esteem myself obliged
to tender them any farther satisfaction. However, I say
again, that the Lord Christ fulfilled all righteousness
as mediator; and that what he did as mediator, he did it
for them whose mediator he was, or in whose stead and for
whose good he executed the office of a mediator before
God. He says, "It is well said, if it were as well
proved." I say, it is all proved in the places where it
is asserted, and that with such testimonies and arguments
as he dares not touch upon. And although he pretends to
examine the reasons that I allege to prove that Christ
fulfilled all righteousness, as he was mediator, in their
stead whose mediator he was, yet indeed he does not do
so. For, first, I say no such thing as he here feigns me
to say, - namely, that "Christ as mediator fulfilled all
righteousness in our stead;" but only, that "Christ being
the mediator, in our stead fulfilled all righteousness:"
which is another thing, though perhaps he understands not
the difference. Nor does he so much as take notice of
that testimony which is immediately subjoined unto the
words he cites in the confirmation of them; but he will
disprove this assertion or at least manifest that it
cannot be proved. And this he enters upon, p 297, "As for
the first, we have some reason to require good proof of
this, since the notion of a mediator includes no such
thing. A mediator is one who interposeth between two
differing parties, to accommodate the difference; but it
was never heard of yet, that it was the office of a
mediator to perform the terms and conditions himself.
Moses was the mediator of the first covenant, Gal. 3: 19;
and his office was to receive the law from God, to
deliver it to the people, to command them to observe
those rites, and sacrifices, and expiations which God had
ordained: but he was not to fulfil the righteousness of
the law for the whose congregation. Thus Christ is now
the mediator of a better covenant; and his office
required that he should preach the gospel, which contains
the terms of peace and reconciliation between God and
men; and since God would not enter into covenant with
sinners without the intervention of a sacrifice, he dies
too, as a sacrifice and propitiation for the sins of the
world."
Owen, A Vindication...
(continued in File 9...)
----------------------------------------------------
file: /pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-09: owvin-08.txt
.
