Sermon 7
Remarks
Upon a Pamphlet, Entitled,
“Some Doctrines in the Superlapsarian
Scheme Impartially Examined by the
Word of God”
Containing a Defense of Several Evangelical
Doctrines Therein Objected To.
Printed for Aaron Ward, at the King’s-Arms in Little-Britain.
I have lately met with a pamphlet, entitled, some
doctrines in the Superlapsarian scheme
impartially examined by the Word of God, which does not bear the name of
its Author: for what reason he chose to conceal his name, I don’t pretend to
determine; only conjecture, it might be to keep clear of a public imputation of
the want of skill in the sublime subjects of which he treats, and of a due
deference to some worthy persons on whom he pours contempt. My firm regard to
religious liberty, and desire of improvement in knowledge, will not permit me to
be offended with any who shall think proper to animadvert [critical comment;
Ed.] upon what I publish to the world; and, if treated with decency and respect,
by such as examine my opinions, I shall esteem it as an additional favor done
me. How much I am indebted to this Author, on this account, the reader will
easily determine. It might be justly thought, from the title this performance
bears, that impartiality and ingenuity, with a steady regard to the Holy
Scripture, run through the whole; but any may readily see, that
fronti nulla fides [no
faith can be placed on appearance; Ed.] is a very proper motto for it.
This writer militates against the Supralapsarian way of stating the Doctrine of
Election; which, he imagines, has run its favorers into many false opinions and
great absurdities.
Here he opposes it under these considerations: As a doctrine
destitute of Scripture support; repugnant to God’s foreknowledge; as it lessens
the grace of God; and is injurious to his justice. The
Supralapsarian opinion, in
itself, doth not labor under the difficulties with which this Author endeavors
to clog it. Those who state the Doctrine of Election in this way, think that the
objects of God’s choice were considered by him in their election to the end,
that is to say, to eternal glory, as in massa pura, or as unfallen; but
that in election to the means tending to that end, they were viewed, as in
massa corrupta, as fallen, guilty creatures. And
therefore it is sufficient, to obviate
the objections he advances against their
sentiments in this point, to give a just account of them. However, I
shall briefly consider his objections: And,
Object. 1. He
charges this opinion with the want of Scripture support.
In answer to this, let it be observed: that the
Supralapsarians think their
opinion receives some evidence from these words, whom
he did foreknow, he also did
predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son: and also from these
words of the same Apostle, “as he hath
chosen us in him,” (Eph. 1:4): which plainly suggest, that Christ is the
object of election, as Mediator. Now he could not be considered but as pure; and
it is reasonable to suppose, that his members were so considered, who were
chosen in him. This Author’s sense of these words is certainly unnatural: he
supposes, God chose us to the enjoyment
of spiritual blessings, in order
to effect our sanctification. Is not sanctification one of those
blessings? How then can it be said, that we are chosen to the enjoyment of
sanctification, in order to effect it? The effecting of a thing is, doubtless,
prior to the enjoyment of it. It is unblameable holiness, or absolute perfection
in heaven, that is intended in these words. And therefore, the
Supralapsarians are not guilty
of a contradiction, when they say, that God chose us that we might be holy and
not because he foresaw we would so be, previous to that his eternal choice, as
he asserts they are: when they thus speak, they design election to the means.
The decree of God to sanctify his elect necessarily supposes,
that they were considered as sinful creatures; but his purpose of their standing
before him in unblameable holiness in heaven does not, which is the holiness
designed in these words. Again, it will be very difficult to prove, that the
elect were ever considered as guilty, sinful creatures, in Christ. Farther,
Christ is laid to be chosen from out of
the people, (Ps. 89:19). Now, as he was considered pure in his election,
to be an Head to the Church, it is not unreasonable to conceive that those, from
among whom he was chosen, were also so considered. Moreover, it is manifest,
that Esau and
Jacob were not considered as
having contracted any guilt in God’s eternal decree; when the latter was chosen
to everlasting life, and an act of preterition was passed upon the former: “For
the children being not yet born,
neither having done any good or evil,
that the purpose of God according to
election might stand, not of
works, but of him that calleth,”
(Rom. 9:11).
Object. 2. This doctrine
of theirs is repugnant to their own opinion of God’s eternal foreknowledge. The
Supralapsarians freely allow the doctrine of God’s eternal prescience; that by
one act of his infinite understanding, he foresaw all the differing scenes the
objects of his election would run through, perfectly consistent with their
opinion of his considering them as pure in their election to the end, but as
fallen in their election to the means tending to that end: and this, without the
supposition of priority, or posteriority [the quality or state of being later or
subsequent; Ed.] in God, whose infinite mind conceived of all things at once;
the end, and the means: Known unto God are all his works, from the beginning,
(Acts 15:18).
Object. 3.
This doctrine tends to lessen the grace and mercy of God in election.
This is a great mistake; for, though God chose his people to eternal glory above
the consideration of the fall, he decreed to permit it in order to render his
free grace eminently glorious in bringing them to happiness.
Object. 4. He
concedes it is contrary to God’s justice. This way
of reasoning fixes the damnation of poor souls on God’s act of preterition; if
they are rejected as creatures only, and not as sinful creatures. In answer, let
it be observed, an act of preterition was passed on the apostate spirits,
considered as unfallen; yet this was not the cause of their damnation, but the
sin which they voluntarily committed: thus, as to the non-elect among men, God’s
act of preterition past upon them, is not the cause of their damnation, but
their own guilt. Besides, pre-damnation, or an ordination to punishment,
supposes the consideration of the fall and guilt contracted by those who are the
objects of this ordination to penalty. The act of preterition, or negative
election, was no other than a determination not to confer such grace upon the
non-elect, which was no way due to them: and pre-damnation, or ordination to
punishment, was only a decree to inflict upon them the demerit of their crimes.
In all which there is not the least injustice.
Our Author proceeds to take notice of the doctrine of eternal justification;
which he ignorantly imagines naturally springs from the Supralapsarian opinion:
whereas this is a
Sublapsarian doctrine, or follows upon the consideration of the
fall, as every judicious reader will easily, observe: for, if we were not
unrighteous in ourselves, we should not stand in need of Christ’s righteousness
to justify us. To that doctrine he objects, that we
nowhere read of being justified before faith. Though we do not
read this syllabically, or in such terms expressly, yet we read that which is
equivalent to it, as will be seen hereafter.
He goes on to observe some dangerous opinions, as he apprehends, that follow
upon the doctrine of eternal justification: such as
these; that we are only to pray for a manifestation of the pardon of sin; and
that sin was imputed to Christ: two other things he mentions; that God was
eternally reconciled to the elect, which I shall presently consider; and that
God loved and delighted in his people while in sin, the defense of which I leave
to Mr. Gill; he being more
particularly concerned in that part of the argument. And therefore, I shall only
consider what he offers on the head of praying for the pardon of sin, the
imputation of it to Christ, and reconciliation.
1st. To begin with, praying for the pardon of sin.
And it will be proper to consider what remission, or the pardon of sin is: which
I take to be this; the will of God, to acquit and discharge us of the guilt that
we contract, or the non-imputation of it; as seems dear from the Apostle’s
words, “Who shall say anything to the
charge of God’s elect? it is God that justifies,” (Rom. 8:33);
i.e. he acquits and discharges
them. Now God eternally willed not to impute sin to his chosen: for, when he
was in Christ reconciling the world
unto himself, i.e.
drawing the plan of their reconciliation, it was thus; “not imputing their trespasses unto them,” (2 Cor. 5:19): And
therefore, their pardon is as ancient as God’s decrees. See this more fully
vindicated in my defense of eternal
justification. If God’s will, not to impute sin to his people, or his
will, not to charge their guilt upon them, is their pardon or real discharge,
which this Author has not thought proper to deny; and this will is eternal in
God, as all the acts of his will most certainly are; then, when we pray for
pardon, it ought not to be with ideas of God’s beginning to will not to impute
that sin to us, which we pray for the remission of; but only an application of
pardon to our souls, through Christ’s blood, can be justly intended by us in our
petitions of this kind. The instances of saints praying for pardon, and the
directions given to us so to do, this Author should have proved intend more than
this, in order to establish what he designed: since he has not, they are of no
service to his cause; nor do they militate with our opinion in this article. I
freely confess, I think myself under obligation humbly to pray to God for
pardon, i.e. a view of it;
although I conceive, if I am so happy as to be of the number of God’s elect, he
has forgiven me all trespasses,
(Col. 2:13), past, present, and to come. Let not our Author start, as one in a
surprise, at complete remission; for it is an evangelical
truth, whatever he may think of it.
2nd. He opposes the doctrine of the imputation of sin to Christ;
in which I wish he had shown more temper and moderation: I
imagine, the reader can’t but think him guilty of intemperate zeal, how knowing
soever he may conceive him to be. I apprehend, this doctrine receives evident
proof from the sacred Scriptures; which declare, that our iniquities
were laid on Christ, (Isa. 53:6); that
he,
who knew no sin,
was made sin for us, (2 Cor.
5:21); and that he bore our sins in his
own body on the tree, (1 Pet. 2:24): which intend a charge, or imputation
of our guilt to Christ, as our Surety, as what was necessary to his suffering
the penalty due to us. Our Author does not fairly represent our opinion, when he
makes us say, it cannot consist with
the justice of God to wound his Son,
if he is not really the sinner;
for we say punish his Son, not merely wound him: an innocent person may suffer,
but he cannot be punished, without manifest injustice, unless some crime is
charged upon him. Since, therefore, Christ
was made a curse, (Gal. 3:13) in
his sufferings, or the punishment due to us was inflicted on him, the imputation
of those crimes to him, that were the meritorious cause of that penalty, is
necessarily supposed.
This writer thinks, that when Christ is said to be made sin,
it is to be taken in a metonymical sense: and in his margin gives us this
account of that trope; A metonomy is a
changing of, or putting one
thing, or more,
for another. I excuse his bad
orthography [study of correct spelling; Ed.]; it ought to be metonymy. It is not
the putting of anything in the room of another, as the putting of one contrary
for another, which he conceives: unbelief is not put for faith in these words,
Lord,
I believe, “help thou
mine unbelief,” (Mark 9:24). The sense of which is not, Lord help my
faith, but assist me against my powerful unbelief. Since Christ’s being made sin
is a scriptural mode of speaking, he ought to have treated it with greater
decency than he has done. It is not designed thereby, that he became impure,
either in his nature, or in any of his actions; but a sinner, is guilty, by way
of imputation only. As the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us works no
change in our nature, from sinful to holy, so the imputation of our sins to him
effected no alteration in his pure and holy nature: that remained untainted,
notwithstanding this imputation of our guilt to him. He imagines,
sin cannot be imputed,
because it
is not substance; by which it appears, he is ignorant of the nature of
imputation. A substance, or body, as stone, may be cast at, or let fall upon a
person, but cannot be imputed to him, or placed to his account. Farther, the
filthiness of our nature was imputed to, and atoned for by Christ; or else it
will prove our destruction: and so also, the perfect holiness of Christ’s nature
is imputed to us; though I do not take this to be our sanctification, but a
branch of our justifying righteousness: the law requiring purity of heart, as
well as conformity in life, in order to our justification. It is true, that
Christ healed distempered persons of their bodily disorders, not by taking them
upon himself; but it doth not thence follow, that he did not bear away sin, by
having it imputed to him, and atoning for it, as this Author suggests. It is no
other than a Socinian gloss he
puts upon the words of the prophet: “the Lord hath laid on him the iniquities of us all,” (Isa. 53:6).
Christ was not in all respects separate
from sinners, except in the
blasphemous accounts of his enemies, as he asserts: For sin was as really
imputed to Christ, as his righteousness is imputed to us for our justification:
but this doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness he seems as averse
to, as to that of the imputation of our sins to him; for he tells us, we
are made saviors thereby. To let
aside which, it is sufficient to observe, that we contribute nothing, either to
the being or value of this righteousness; nor to its imputation: and how,
therefore, the imputation of it to us, in order to our salvation, infers that we
are saviors, will be very difficult for him to demonstrate.
The liberty he takes with Dr.
Crisp is very indecent: let not
this low defamer concede, it will ever be in his power to risk the reputation of
that excellent person, who has been well defended by such as are no way inferior
to him in learning, good sense, and knowledge in divinity; the Doctor’s own son,
Squire Edwards, and Dr.
Chauncy. In the writings of
which learned gentlemen, such arguments are advanced in favor of Christ’s being
made sin by way of imputation, in which sense only Dr.
Crisp understood it, that,
perhaps, he may never dare attempt an answer to. If some particular expressions
have dropped from his pen, that are not so well guarded as might be wished, the
substance of his doctrine is solid, spiritual, and evangelical; infinitely more
valuable than what the performance of this Author can boast. Next he is pleased
to treat the learned and great Mr.
Hussey in a very scurrilous manner; him he calls a
ridiculous writer. It might have
been thought that his great learning, extensive knowledge, and zeal for truth,
would have raised him, at least, above the contempt of this person; who, it will
hardly be allowed, is equal to that learned author in any respect. The charge he
brings against him, of endeavoring to prove that Christ was not only guilty by
way of imputation, but filthy too,
hath no more truth in it, than the Author of the charge has modesty: for he is
so far from suggesting anything like this, that he very cautiously guards
against it. The simile he makes use of, and which this examiner mentions, is a
sufficient vindication of him in this particular: it is this;
suppose, says he,
a drop of ink,
or poison,
falls upon a fiery globe (Mr.
Hussey don’t say here, a globe as big as this earth, as he makes
him to say) could that ink,
or poison,
leave any sullying mark behind it?
Now, though Mr.
Hussey, in his simile, mentions only a drop of ink, or poison, it
was not with a design to extenuate the sin Christ bore, or the greatness of the
filth there is in the sins of the elect: for he calls it,
a deluge of corruption,
and a sea of filthiness to us;
though but as a drop,
in comparison with Christ’s
infinite power to subdue sin:
which, if this writer had observed, it might have prevented his making the first
remark upon the simile, as it effectually answers it. His second is; he
should have mentioned the polluting stuff as poured into the globe,
and not as dropped upon it. I
answer, Mr. Hussey did not design a communication of sin or filthiness to
Christ; but the imputation of sin, with all its filthiness to him, and the quick
sense Christ had of the Father’s charging sin upon him, and of the pollution of
that sin imputed to him; all which was, without his being, in the least, defiled
by it: and therefore, our author is altogether mistaken, in supposing the
doctrine of the imputation of sin to Christ, to be blasphemy, and vile
nonsense. I hope he is one interested in the intercession of Christ, and
shall therefore obtain the pardon of the guilt he may have contracted, by his
too warm and ignorant opposition to the doctrine of the imputation of sin to
Christ; who, when on the cross, prayed thus to the Father, in behalf of those of
his people, who, through ignorance, were concerned in his death, “Father, forgive them;
for they know not what they do,”
(Luke 23:34): which cannot, I think, be urged in his favor, to abate the
greatness of his crime, in charging Mr.
Hussey with making Christ
inherently filthy.
If the evil he has been guilty of in defaming those, who
believe and defend the doctrine of the imputation of sin to Christ, should lie
on his conscience, as what was not imputed to, and atoned for by him, whatever
he may think of the matter, now it will inexpressibly wound him.
Sin, which Christ was
made, stands opposed to righteousness,
which we are made, (2 Cor.
5:19). Now suffering for sin, or the penalty due to it, is not to be opposed to
God’s righteousness, or
faithfulness: but sin, which Christ is said to be made, may very justly be
opposed to that righteousness which we are made; if we understand by sin our
guilt, and by righteousness Christ’s perfect obedience, which is the true sense
of the text: for the Apostle certainly intends two contraries, by sin and
righteousness. Christ’s being made an offering
for sin, (Isa. 53:10), designs his being made sin, or guilt;
when thou shalt make his soul, that is, guilt; which plainly suggests the imputation of sin. The word is
sometimes rendered trespass; and he
shall recompense, his trespass.
It is used to express guiltiness; and
thou be found guilty, (Num. 5:7), Therefore, that it was guilt or sin
that Christ was made, appears from these words.
It is very unaccountable, that he should pronounce this
doctrine as absurd and vile,
if not more vile than
transubstantiation. In his next performance, let him prove it to be so, in a
single instance, if he can; he has done nothing towards it in this. I now
proceed to consider what he offers on the doctrines of Reconciliation,
Justification and Adoption.
3rd. I shall attend to what he delivers on the Article of Reconciliation: and
to prevent mistakes, the reader will please to permit me to state my opinion in
this point; I readily allow, that sin has caused a distance between God and the
elect, as considered in themselves, on God’s part, which I need only consider.
It supposes,
I.
A disapprobation of their persons, as viewed in
themselves: herein I conceive God is to be considered as a Lawgiver.
II.
That God,
by his Law, pronounces a curse against them on account of their transgressions:
so that God’s justice, or infinitely pure nature, and holy law, stand engaged
against them. These two things, I apprehend, are designed, where they are said
to be children of wrath, (Eph.
2:3), and nothing more. A purpose of inflicting any part of the penalty,
demerited by their sins, cannot be intended; for the Apostle says expressly, “…God
hath not appointed us to wrath,
but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,” (1 Thess. 5:9).
Besides, Christ bore the whole punishment due to their crimes; or else he is not
a complete Saviour, which he certainly is; for the Father has made him the
Captain of his peoples salvation,
perfect through sufferings,
(Heb. 2:10), that is to say, a perfect Saviour: and therefore, reconciliation
cannot design either of these two things;
1.
That God did not love his people prior to
reconciliation made. Such a supposition is subversive of the doctrine of God’s
love to the elect, as the cause of the gift of his Son for them; which is a
truth our Saviour himself plainly teaches us, (John 3:16).
2.
It does not intend a change in his thoughts
concerning them. It is not to be imagined, that God entertained a purpose in his
heart to take vengeance on sin in the persons of the elect; but was diverted
from such an intention, by the sufferings and death of his Son; for he is not
liable to any change in his resolutions: “The
council of the Lord standeth for ever,
and the thoughts of his heart to all
generations,” (Ps. 33:11). And therefore all that can be designed by
reconciliation, is the satisfaction of law and justice; that the former might be
magnified, and the glory of the
latter be effectually secured in the salvation of God’s chosen: No alteration in
the affections, or disposition of the divine mind, can be intended.
This Author strenuously opposes eternal reconciliation; and
very justly, if he had designed Christ’s making reconciliation in eternity: but,
since he intends the reconciliation of God, or of divine justice, to the persons
of the elect, he is egregiously mistaken; for the present being of Christ’s
satisfaction is not necessary to reconciliation: divine justice, or God, as a
Law-giver, was reconciled to the elect, upon Christ’s undertaking to suffer and
die for them; although he did not then lay down what justice demanded. Nor can I
apprehend any difficulty to attend this, more than may be thought to attend
God’s punishing of his Son for millions of sins that were not as yet committed:
actual reconciliation doth not necessarily suppose the present being of Christ’s
satisfaction, is evident; for, doubtless, God, or divine justice, was reconciled
to the Old Testament saints, who
were glorified before the time of Christ’s crucifixion. Now, as actual
reconciliation to those of the elect, did not set aside the necessity of his
making satisfaction for their sins, or answering the demands of law and justice
in their behalf; why should it be thought, that actual reconciliation to them,
and all the elect before time, renders Christ’s making satisfaction, or
answering the demands of law and justice unnecessary, and makes what he did and
suffered ineffectual,
yea, needless?
Let our Author show this if he can. But, in order to remove this difficulty,
which expresses his opinion very hard, let him not imagine, that
Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob,
with other believers, were not admitted to heaven till Christ had suffered. When
he shall demonstrate, that actual reconciliation to them, was consistent with
the necessity of Christ’s acting in the mediatorial character, and dying for
their sins, I shall be able to prove, that the Doctrine of Reconciliation to all
the elect, before time, perfectly agrees therewith. If he pleases, I will
acquaint him with my notion in this matter: it is this; reconciliation to the
persons of the elect, is founded upon the federal engagements of Christ; and
therefore, the certainty of his suffering was necessarily supposed. From whence
it follows, that, unless that which supposes the certain, though future being of
a thing, destroys the necessity of its being, this doctrine renders not Christ’s
death, and satisfaction to law and justice, or to God, as a lawgiver,
unnecessary. Thus, all our Author’s reasoning on this subject sinks at once,
which fills up so many pages. Some time since, I published
a defense of the doctrine of eternal justification,
from some exceptions made to it by
Mr. Bragge, and others;
several things in which, this Author has thought proper to take notice of: he
begins with what I have advanced in favor of actual reconciliation before faith.
The words cited by me, as an evident proof of that doctrine, are,
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. The sense of which, I take to be this; that
Paul, and all the elect of God,
were reconciled while enemies by virtue of Christ’s death; and that, in
consequence of this reconciliation, they become reconciled in themselves, or the
enmity of their hearts is slain; and, being thus reconciled, they may be assured
of eternal happiness by Christ’s ever living to intercede for them: so that
reconciliation, in the first branch, intends the satisfaction of justice by the
death of Christ; and reconciliation, in the second, designs the conquering of
our perverse minds by omnipotent grace. Herein the Apostle’s reasoning appears
very clear and strong; which stands thus: if law and justice were satisfied for
our sins by Christ’s death, when we were in open rebellion against God; much
more, since the perverseness of our hearts is subdued, we may steadily expect
everlasting happiness by his life of intercession for us: this doth not make the
Apostle guilty of nonsense,
or bad divinity, as our examiner weakly imagines. It is not a
little observable, that, though this writer militates so much against
reconciliation before faith, he is yet obliged to grant it: when he comes to
give his own sense of the words, it is thus;
God was hereby reconciled to the elect,
by virtue of the price of our
redemption, etc. doth he allow, that God was reconciled by virtue of
Christ’s death! How then could he assert, that reconciliation
is not before faith? Perhaps, he may find it no easy matter to reconcile
petitions so clearly opposite. Unless I am mistaken, he has, in these few words,
overthrown all that he offers against the Doctrine of Reconciliation before
faith: it may be, hereafter, he will write with a better guard, and deny, that
satisfaction is made by Christ’s death, in order to destroy the Doctrine of
Reconciliation before faith; since he is so great an adversary to it. He
conceives, that the
price of pardon, or the
atonement, must be pleaded
either by the believing soul, or
else by his Advocate above for him. But, to what end? Surely, not in
order to satisfaction; for that wholly arises from the infinite dignity of the
Person who suffered: Christ’s intercession with God, in behalf of his people,
adds no efficacy to his death, as a propitiation for their sins; but his
intercession is founded upon the completeness of his satisfaction. Besides, doth
not the elect’s Advocate plead his sufferings in their favor, while in unbelief,
in order to their believing? And can he imagine, that Christ’s urging his death,
in favor of his people, is less prevalent with God, than their pleading it when
they believe? Moreover, faith, in pleading the sufferings of Christ, considers
divine justice as fully satisfied thereby, for the sins of those persons on
whose account he suffered; which the Apostle designs in part, at least, by
receiving the atonement, (Rom.
5:11). And if so, it necessarily follows, that reconciliation has not the least
dependence on faith, but is prior to it, and doth not commence with the being of
that grace.
4th. I go on to answer what he objects to the Doctrine of Justification before
faith. It has been thought, that these words afford
full evidence thereof: but believeth on him,
that justifieth the ungodly. Whereupon he thus delivers himself:
I understand,
that what faith applies to,
and lays hold of, is
intended hereby, and not the act
of faith only. Not the act of faith
only; is faith then, in his account, a part of our justifying
righteousness? This is not sound Protestant doctrine, which teaches that
Christ’s righteousness alone is the matter of a sinner’s justification before
God. Those, who favor the Doctrine of Justification before faith, think it is
strongly maintained in this text; because it is expressly said, that God
justifieth the ungodly: by which they conclude, believers cannot
be designed; nor has this gentleman thought proper to suggest, that they ever
pass under such a character: and if they do not, then unbelievers are the
objects of justification, how unwilling soever he may be to allow it. Why,
therefore, does he affirm, that justification
before faith is a mere human conjecture,
that hath not Scripture to support it?
Unless he can prove, that believers are ungodly persons, this text will remain
an immoveable bar to the truth of what he asserts with such an air of assurance:
he supposes the difficulty may be removed; but it is a very odd method he takes
to do it; not by proving that believers are designed, but charges the Apostle
with down-right contradiction. It is thus: the Apostle, says he, by
a long train of arguments, is
proving that our justification is by faith;
therefore, it is highly,
irrational to suppose,
that he should intend here,
that the believer was pardoned,
or accepted of God,
while be was in unbelief. If
this is not to make the Apostle contradict himself, it will be difficult to
determine what self-contradiction is: he grants, that the Apostle designs
unbelievers, by the term ungodly;
and yet represents him as proving,
by a long train of arguments,
that the believer was not accepted of God, or justified, while in unbelief. He
adds, this would render the Apostle’s
meaning as remote from good sense as possible,
and as ridiculous, as if
he should say, if you believe,
you shall have righteousness imputed to
you for your justification; because that righteousness was imputed to you while you were unbelievers,
or ungodly sinners.
If this is not the native style of
their doctrine (the Supralapsarians) then
will I submit to be censured for an
idiot. He may be assured, I shall never censure him for an idiot; yet, I
cannot think his talent, in disputation, will be much admired; not but he might
have succeeded better, if he had understood the subjects upon which he writes.
In order to clear the Supralapsarians,
as he loves to call those who entertain the Doctrine of Justification before
faith, from supposing the Apostle guilty of such bad sense, I need only observe,
that they think their opinion of the commencement of the imputation of Christ’s
righteousness before faith, is clear from his affirming, God justifieth the
ungodly, and that he only can intend the knowledge of justification, when he
declares it is by faith; and therefore, they are far from imagining it is, as if
he should say, if you believe, you shall have righteousness imputed to you for
your justification: they think, that cannot consist with his declaration of
God’s justifying the elect, while ungodly; but allow, it is agreeable enough to
the Apostle’s sense, that, upon believing, the elect, by faith, apprehend the
righteousness of Christ imputed to them; and are ready still to maintain, that
the Apostle designs nothing more, when he says, we are justified by faith; if
faith is to be taken in a proper sense, and the object of it is not intended.
Again, he farther observes, that sometimes justification is spoken of as future:
by the obedience of one,
shall many be made righteous. I
suppose, by this, he means it cannot be an act which was past upon the elect
before faith; but, if he considers that to be, frequently intends the
manifestation of what is; as for instance, in those words of Christ, “so
shall ye be my disciples,” (John
15:8); i.e. appear to be; I say,
when he shall consider this, perhaps, he may conceive such modes of expression,
he here refers to, make not so much for his opinion as he imagines they do. Next
he informs us, that Mr. Henry
would have the text read, but believeth
on him that justifieth that ungodly one;
meaning Abraham, who was
an idolater.
The words are not thus rendered by any
learned person that I know of; Arias
Montanus, Beza;
Calvin,
Pareus, and Hutter,
in his Hebrew version, all read
as we do, and the Syriac reads
sinners; and, what Mr.
Henry says, will hardly be
thought of greater weight, than the authority of so many learned men; nor is
there any necessity for this reading:
ta jsebh (ta fsebe) is, indeed, in the
singular number, but it is not unusually taken in a collective sense; as in
these words, If the righteous scarcely
be saved, where shall the
ungodly?
o asebhV (o asebes), in the singular
number, as here, yet it designs all the non-elect;
and the sinner appear (1 Pet.
4:18). Besides, if that reading be admitted, unless it is proved that the
Apostle considered Abraham as
ungodly when a believer, the argument loses nothing of its force; if he respects
him as an idolater, and not as a believer, then God justified him prior to his
faith; and, if he thus justified Abraham, he also does every other elect person.
He objects to faith being a manifestation of our
justification, thus: certainly we must
be very uncharitable to the greatest part of exemplary Christians,
if we will not admit any to be true
believers, but such as have the
undoubted manifestation of their being in a justified state. I do not
dissent from him in this: but, I think, he will not be capable of proving, that
the Doctrine of Justification by Faith, in our sense of it, involves such
uncharitableness in it: for, though we understand Justification by Faith to be
the evidence, or perception of justification, we do not assert, that this must
arise to an undoubted manifestation of our interest in Christ’s justifying
righteousness. What we maintain is, that faith acting on the righteousness of
Christ alone, for acceptance with God, is, in itself, a clear evidence of the
imputation of that righteousness to us; inasmuch as it is a branch of the
Spirit’s work to convince us of the necessity of an interest in that
righteousness, in order to our justification; although, through unbelief, we may
be prevented of apprehending this to be such an evidence. We farther maintain,
that hope ever acts in conjunction with faith; when the latter is wholly out of
exercise, it will be difficult to discover any actings of the former. Besides,
the good measure of hope that a believer has of an interest in Christ, and his
justifying righteousness, has some degree of evidence of such an interest, or
else it would be entirely without foundation to support it; although that
evidence is not so strong as to carry him to a full assurance of faith. Thus it
appears, that faith is an evidence of justification by Christ, and that that
evidence is clearer, or less evident, according as that grace is weaker or
stronger: and therefore, this Author mistakes us, if he thinks we assert
justification, by faith, to be our undoubted manifestation of our interest in
that benefit. He tells us, that Ezekiel 16:8 is urged in favor of justification
before faith, but does not acquaint us by whom; perhaps, he met with it in
conversation with some persons upon the subject: which if he did, and thinks it
impertinent, why does he expose it to public view? Can he be ignorant, that, if
everything which is offered in defense of truth in private converse among
Christians should be made public, it would not be much to its advantage?
However, I shall consider his observations on the text; and he thus remarks upon
it, If this verse is to be understood,
as (let it be) so God’s imputing the
righteousness of Christ, when he
is said to spread his skirts over the sinner,
then I presume, that
that day of the sinner’s being born,
refers to the new birth,
or regeneration in the fifth verse. It is not a little strange, that the
allegorical representation of our filthy, miserable, and helpless condition by
nature, should be thought by this Author to refer to our regeneration; for that
is all that is designed in the 4th and 5th verses.
I imagine, every judicious reader will easily see that the birth mentioned
cannot be the new. The 6th and 8th verses
give us an account of our regeneration, as a work that passes upon us
when in the deplorable condition that is set forth in the 4th and 5th verses.
He is very much mistaken in thinking the soul is represented in the 5th verse, as conscious of its own miserable state; that is a plain
account of our natural condition, but not of our apprehension of that state.
Besides, he is as far from the truth, in supposing, that when God says to us,
live, we have such just apprehensions of our natural condition; the true
knowledge of that, follows upon the communication of spiritual life, and doth
not precede it: we are very far from that humility, and self-abasement, which
this Author suggests to be in us, when God says to us, live. Farther, I
apprehend, the justifying righteousness of Christ may be intended in the 8th verse,
and that, by spreading of it over us, respect is had to a ceremony used by the
Jews in their nuptials. But this designs not the commencement of
the imputation of that righteousness, only the discovery of it to our souls for
our consolation and joy; as that phrase, “and thou becamest mine,” does not intend that God’s interest in
us commences upon our believing, but only the manifestation of that interest,
which I shall more particularly consider hereafter. Upon the whole, although
this text doth not furnish us out with a proof of justification before faith, it
contains nothing inconsistent with it, as this Author imagines.
5thly. I shall consider his remarks on what I have offered in favor of adoption
before faith. The Scripture I quoted to support
this was; “…because ye are sons,
God hath sent forth the Spirit of his
Son into your hearts, crying,
Abba,
Father,” (Gal. 4:6). I pass over his insinuating that I am
infatuated with a
blind zeal, as below my notice;
all such insinuations will meet with a contempt from me, equal to that with
which he can possibly deliver them. He observes, the Apostle informed the
Galatians of the medium
of their adoption in these words, “For
ye are all the children of God,
by faith in Christ Jesus,” (Gal. 3:26). How faith is the medium, or mean
of adoption, I am utterly unable to conceive; it is certain, that adoption is
God’s act, or he fixes us in the honorable relation of sons to himself. Now, it
is not to be conceived, that God makes use of faith in this act of his, it
cannot be; for, as we are the subjects of this grace, all the actings of it are
proper to us: unless, therefore, we make ourselves the sons of God by faith, or
believing, adoption itself cannot be by this grace. Whence it follows, that the
Apostle must design by these words, that faith is that grace by which we know
our adoption, and receive the immunities arising from that relation. Faith is
the medium, mean, or instrument, by which we partake of the benefits of
adoption, but it cannot be the medium of adoption itself; the manifest reason of
which is, that is God’s act, and not ours. I cannot tell, whether some of his
readers may not think him chargeable with rash boldness, which he is very
forward to fix upon others, when he says, that
there is not one word in the text that favors the opinion of adoption before
faith. He adds, if it had been
written to suit their scheme, it
must have read in the past tense,
thus;
and because ye were sons, etc. had it been thus wrote,
the bold maintainers of sonship before faith might have made their triumphs with
a better grace. Our Author seems to take a peculiar pleasure in
representing the favorers of the opinions he opposes, as bold, daring, and
insulting persons: how much to the advantage of his argument, it is not
difficult to determine. It is not improbable, but many, at least, may conclude,
that his contemptuous way of writing carries no great force of reasoning in it.
He should have considered, that we apprehend our sonship, or filial relation to
God, is the cause of the mission of the Holy Spirit into our hearts; and that
these words are an evident proof of it, though expressed in the present, and not
in the past tense. We conceive, the design of the Apostle is to show, that the
mission of the Spirit results from this our relation of sons to God, which this
Author has not so much as attempted to disprove; and of consequence, that we
must be sons before the Holy Spirit is sent into our hearts; for the cause is
previous to its effect. Its being expressed in the present tense, is no
objection to this, as may be evinced by this supposition: suppose a father
having a rebellious son, yet continues to confer favors upon him, it should be
observed to the son, that his carriage renders him undeserving of his father’s
paternal affection, notwithstanding such a favor he has bestowed upon you,
because you are his son; would not every one clearly discern that the relation
was the cause of the favor being granted to him, no less than if it had been
said, because you were a son? As easy it is to discover this to be the true
meaning of the Apostle’s words: and, I am persuaded, this Author will never be
able to fix any other upon them; though, through his warm opposition to the
doctrine irrefragably supported by them, he may be induced to stretch his
thoughts to the utmost, in order to it.
I must confess my way of reasoning to be very unhappy, if it
is justly rated by this writer: it is thus; because
the believing Galatians were adopted children of God,
when Paul wrote his Epistle to them;
therefore Paul was in the same state
when he was a persecutor, and an enemy to God. He might well ask, if there
is any good divinity,
or reasoning in this way of arguing?
But, it may be, the impartial reader will acquit me of such a way of disputing,
when he considers, that my design was to argue for adoption before faith, from
the million [sic] and work of the Spirit upon the hearts of the
Galatians, as an effect of their
sonship to God, and so applied it to
Paul, it being no less true of him, than of them; and think him either
ignorant of the force of my argument, or which is worse, highly disingenuous in
hating it. Since the communication of the Holy Spirit follows upon our adoption,
as an effect doth its cause; that observation of mine is true, regeneration doth
not make us sons; but; because we are sons, we are regenerated; although he is
pleased to call it a daring assertion. Nor are these words opposite to it: but
to as many as received him, to them
gave he power to become the sons of
God, (John 1:12, 13): which intend not adoption, but the benefits arising
from it: to believers Christ gives a liberty, power, or right, to claim and
enjoy such privileges as are proper to children. Neither is this text; and
were by nature children of wrath,
even as others. These words
consider the elect as in their natural condition; thus they are under a sentence
of wrath or condemnation by the law, which is not at all inconsistent with their
relation to God by grace; as the descendants of
Adam, they are children of
wrath; as in, and members of Christ, they are the children of God: nor is it any
contradiction to affirm each of these things concerning them at the same time;
because they are considered in a two-fold respect, as what they are by nature,
and what they are by grace, or as they have Christ for their federal Head.
He tells us, that
the act of adoption is the owning us to be children: but he is
greatly mistaken; for, if that is adoption, it is repeated as often as the
divine Spirit witnesses to a believer that he is a child of God, that is, God’s
owning him for a son, and evidencing to his conscience, that he stands in such a
relation to him: but the act of adoption is not reiterated, though the giving
evidence of such a relation is in infinite mercy repeated. Adoption is an act in
God himself towards his people, it is not a transient act upon them; and
therefore is eternal, as all God’s immanent acts are. It is no other than an act
of his will, or a gracious resolution within himself to account them his
children, and to confer such privileges upon them, as are suitable to the nature
of so great a privilege. And therefore, I am very far from being scrupulous to
affirm, that there is no necessity for the change that conversion makes, in
order to prepare us for adoption; nay, farther, that regeneration is so far from
being our meetness for adoption, that it properly springs from it. The elect are
no less heirs of regenerating grace, prior to that work upon their souls, than
they are heirs of all future supplies of grace and glory, by virtue of God’s
eternal will, that they shall be his sons; which act of the divine will
constituted them heirs of God,
and joint heirs with Christ.
I do not except against the account he gives of regeneration,
and the actings of a regenerate person, as consequent upon such a work in his
heart: that he thinks it supposes a
thorough conviction of sin, and of the necessity of a perfect righteousness, and
an apprehension of Christ as the only suitable Saviour, I am glad to
find. But he is guilty of a
great mistake, in thinking adoption to be God’s
acknowledging the newborn soul
to be a son or daughter of his own begetting; that respects the sealing work of
the Spirit upon a believer, and cannot
be adoption itself, as was before observed. The Scriptures which he
mentions, to support his assertion, carry no such meaning in them; the one is,
“For as many as are led by the Spirit
of God, they are the sons of God,”
(Rom. 8:14); that is, says he, they,
and none but they. This is too free [sic] addition of his own words to
the Apostle, (as he understands them), who lays down the leading or instruction
of the Holy Spirit, as a certain evidence of adoption: if therefore, he had
said, that none but such as are led by the Spirit have the evidence of their
adoption, it would have been agreeable to the Apostle’s design. Neither do these
words militate with the Doctrine of Adoption before faith: “Now, if any man hath not
the Spirit of Christ, he is none
of his,” (Rom. 8:9). Can this Author imagine, that Christ has no interest
in the elect, before the time of their believing? When they were given to him by
the Father, he laid down his life for them; they are called his people by the
Father, though unwilling, or in a state of rebellion against him, (Ps. 110:3);
and are also acknowledged by Christ himself to be his, even while in that state:
“Other sheep I have,
which are not of this fold,
them also I must bring,” (John
10:16). Surely, he cannot thus think; these things so clearly evince the elect
to be Christ’s before the time of their regeneration: and therefore, it is not
our interest in him, or his in us, that the Apostle intends, but the evidence of
that interest. The next Scripture which our Author takes notice of, that is
urged in favor of adoption before faith, is; “And
not for that nation only, but
that also he should gather together in one,
the children of God that were scattered
abroad,” (John 11:52). Upon which he thus remarks; if
we should grant for argument’s sake,
that,
by the children of God,
is intended all elect people of God,
whether the uncalled,
or unborn,
as well as them that are called. This he must be obliged to
allow, not merely for argument’s sake, but as the real sense of the words; for
all those, whom Christ gathers together in one, are plainly designed by the
children of God: and therefore, the uncalled, and unborn of the elect, are no
less intended, than those who were living at that time, and called by divine
grace. Yet, says he, I suppose these
men will find no small difficulty,
to engage it on their side;
because this is a prophecy:
and it is well known,
that the nature of prophetic writings
it to speak often of things to come as present, or past,
by calling those things that are not,
as though they were.
As for instance,
we read in the 22nd Psalm,
16th and 18th verses, (Ps.
22:16, 18) of our Saviour’s hands and
feet being pierced, as if past
and over. The force of which reasoning stands thus; since it is usual in
prophecy to speak of facts, that are to be accomplished hereafter, as if they
were already done, we may now conclude, from such prophetic writings, that God,
at the present, stands in relation to the elect; although such characters are
given to them, in those writings, which are expressive of his relation to them.
If this manner of arguing be allowed of, we may deny, that Christ stood in the
capacity of a King to the Old Testament
Church, from his being so called in a prophecy (to which our Author has
reference) that mentions his riding to
Jerusalem on an ass, (Zech. 9:9); which, I presume, he will not think
proper to do. Evangelical prophecies contain doctrines, as well as predictions
of future events. Now, though we are not to conclude, that those events, or
facts, are past and done, because the prophecy is delivered in the present, or
past tense; yet, certainly, we may be allowed to conceive of the doctrines,
those prophecies contain, as present truths: therefore, though this is a
prophecy, in which all the elect are called the children of God, it is not to be
objected to their present adoption anymore than Christ’s being called a, King,
in a prophecy that relates to a future fact, may be improved as an objection to
his present standing that capacity. It is not a little strange, that our Author
should be unable to distinguish between doctrines and facts, as he seems not to
do in his observations here.
What he offers farther, concerning its being
as reasonable to attempt to prove,
that Judas had actually sold Christ in
eternity, etc. as that
the chosen number were actually adopted in eternity,
is altogether impertinent, and
deserves little consideration. If his observations of this kind are just, I
allow, that I am very unhappy in my way of arguing, and must be concluded guilty
of the greatest absurdities: but, he may be pleased to observe, I maintain that
adoption is God’s act, and an act of his will, or within himself, and therefore
must be eternal. Now, it is not a little unaccountable, that any should imagine,
it is as reasonable to suppose the acts of a creature are eternal, as that God’s
immanent acts are so. If this Author shall think proper to reply, I desire he
would either allow justification and adoption to be immanent acts of God, or
else prove them transient acts; or demonstrate, that, though they are immanent
acts, they are not eternal; everything short of this will be nothing to the
purpose. Let him show us, that there is an exertion of divine power, in order to
our adoption, or that a transient act of God is put forth, which gives being to
this benefit, or else freely grant, that it is an act of his will only. He goes
on to observe, that the Doctrine of Adoption before faith, receives no
countenance from these words; This, my Son,
was dead,
but is alive again: He imagines the difficulties attending this
account of the prodigal, taken as a parable, are exceeding great; and also, that
he is able to prove, that, if it is so to be understood, the Doctrine of
Justification before faith is destroyed
by it, (Luke 15:24); which, I should think, might reduce him to take it
in that view, in order to the service of his cause. One of the difficulties he
mentions is this; if they understand by
the younger son, the Gentiles,
and by the elder,
the Jews; how
will this comport with the believing Jews giving glory to God,
for his giving repentance to life unto
the Gentiles? This difficulty as mutely removed by observing, that not
believing Jews are intended, but
pharisaical, self-righteous ones; such as were offended at Christ’s
receiving sinners,
and eating with them. Another is
started by him: it is this; if they
will have it to be a spiritual life that is intended in the text,
then certainly it must refer to one who
was formerly possessed of that life,
and so can only relate to a backslider
returned to his God, and to his
obedience; since the text saith,
that he is alive again;
which supposeth,
that he once,
or before his rambles,
was alive. I answer, a backsliding believer loses not his spiritual life,
though his liveliness and vigor may be abated very much by his backslidings;
therefore, believers cannot be intended. Besides, it may be truly said of
sinners upon their regeneration, that they are alive again, who were once dead
in trespasses and sins; because regeneration is a communication of spiritual
life to them: but it is not necessary to understand, that the life they receive,
is of the same nature with that which they lost; anymore than it is, that the
life which the saints will be possessed of at the resurrection, when they shall
live again, will be of the same kind with that mortal and perishing one they now
live in this world. If he has no greater difficulties to raise against this
being a parable, it may be taken for one, as far as I am able to conceive; and,
since the Prodigal was considered as a son when dead and lost, it has a very
favorable aspect upon the Doctrine of Adoption before faith. Our Author is
pleased to assert, that predestination
is not adoption. True, the act of predestination is not adoption, or our
relation of sons to God; I never met with any who conceived it is. He adds; nor does it make them sons,
but is an appointment to sonship only,
appears plain by Ephesians 1:5, “Having predestinated us to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to
himself,” this is too freely affirmed, and without any proof; adoption is
to be distinguished into the relation of sons, and the benefits proper to that
relation: it is frequently taken for the latter, as in these words, “that
we might receive the adoption of sons,” (Gal. 4:5); so also in these, waiting
for the adoption, to wit,
the redemption of our body,
(Rom. 8:23). The saints are not in expectation of becoming sons to God, though
they are of receiving that eternal glory, which arises from their being sons;
according to the words of the Apostle
John, “Now we are the Sons of
God, and it doth not yet appear
what we shall be; but we know,
that when he shall appear,
we shall be like him;
for we shall see him as he is,”
(1 John 3:2). In predestination we became sons to God; because God’s will, that
we should be his sons, gave being to that relation; although it did not give
present being to us, or to the privileges proper to adoption, and is to be
considered as an ordination, or fore-appointment, of our participation of those
great immunities only. This is so far from militating with eternal adoption,
that it involves it: For predestination to the honor, dignity, and privileges of
children, supposes us to be so considered in that act. That
Romans 8:9 is not inconsistent
with adoption, has been already observed. He asks, if it is
agreeable either to Scripture or reason,
to call any of our sinful race children of God,
before they are either born or begotten
of God? I hope it has been made evident from Scripture, that the elect
part of the sinful race of mankind, are the children of God before regeneration:
but, I think, reason is not to be a judge in evangelical mysteries, which are
above it; though, at the same time, I affirm, that it is beyond the ability of
this Author to prove this doctrine to be contrary to reason.
I have one thing more to take notice of: it is this; can
they be members of Christ, and
yet barren of all good, but
fertile in all evil? Can this be,
when our Lord informs us,
that all fruitless branches are so far
from being respected that his heavenly Father taketh them away? Does he
then think, that the elect, while unregenerate, or unfruitful, have no interest
in divine favor and respect? Or, that God deals with them, as with formal,
barren, and hypocritical professors, who are only in Christ by profession? This
is not impartially to examine our opinions by the Word of God, but plainly to
contradict it; which acquaints us, that, because God
loved his people with an everlasting
love, (Jer. 31:3), therefore he communicates grace to them here, in order
to fruitfulness, and crowns them with glory hereafter, as the certain effect of
the same love.
To conclude, it will be of great advantage to this Author in his writing, if he
replies, closely to consider the true nature of the subjects upon which he shall
treat. The want
of that, in this performance, has occasioned him to be guilty of very
great mistakes, in stating the opinions of those whom he opposes; in drawing
such consequences from them, that are entirely
foreign to their nature;
and in advancing such objections, as do not,
in the least, affect the argument
under consideration: greater blemishes
than which, can hardly be thought to attend a polemical writer.
