Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

belongs to his consort or his cook ;-I mean the glory of bearing fine children, and of making good sauces.

Again: there is no medium between some degree of trust, and the utmost degree of distrust. Now if the scripture which you produce absolutely forbids every degree of inferior trust in man or things, it follows that the more full we are of distrust and diabolical suspicions, the more godly we are. And thus, for fear of putting any degree of secondary trust in man or in things, we must mistrust all our wives as adulteresses, all our friends as traitors, all our neighbours as incendiaries, all our servants as murderers, and all our food as poison. But if this fair consequence of your doctrine stand, what becomes of charity, which "thinketh no evil, but hopeth all things?" And if the words of Jeremiah are to be understood in your narrow sense, what becomes of Christ himself, who reposed a degree of trust in man-yea, in Judas, while he counted him faithful? That expression of Job, therefore, "He [the Lord] putteth no trust [that is, no absolute trust] in his saints," is to be understood so as not to contradict the words of St. Paul, "He [the Lord] counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;" or the prophetic words of David concerning Christ and Judas, " Yea, mine own familiar friend in whom I trusted, who did eat of my [multiplied] bread, hath lifted up his heel against me."

To conclude: if England smiles yet at the imbecility of the king, who durst not venture over London bridge, and wondered at those who trusted that fabric as a solid bridge; shall we admire Zelotes' wisdom, who wonders at our having a Scriptural, inferior trust in the graces which form the Christian character? And shall we not count it an honour to be suspected of heresy, for "having a sure trust and confidence," that true repentance, and nothing else, will answer for us the end of repentance? That true faith, and nothing else, will answer for us the end of faith? That evangelical obedience, and not an imputed righteousness, will answer for us the end of evangelical obedience? And that final perseverance, and not whims about "finished salvation," will answer for us the end of final perseverance?

Having thus answered Zelotes' objections against the declaration which guards the second Gospel axiom, I shall now present him with some observations upon the importance of that axiom :

(1.) The first axiom, or the doctrine of grace, holds forth chiefly what Christ has done; and the second axiom, or the doctrine of obedience, holds forth chiefly what we are to do. Now any unprejudiced person must own that it is as important for us to know our own work, as to know the work of another. (2.) In the day of judgment we shall not be judged according to Christ's works and experiences, but according to our own. (3.) Thousands of righteous heathens, it is to be hoped, have been saved without knowing any thing of Christ's external work; but none of them were ever saved without knowing and doing their own work, that is, without working out their salvation with fear and trembling, according to their light. (4.) Most of the Jews that have been saved have gone to heaven without any explicit, particular acquaintance with Christ's merits; (see Equal Check, vol. i, p. 456;) but none of them

ever saved without "fearing God and working righteousness." (5.) To this day, those that are saved, three parts of the world over,

are in general saved by the gracious light that directly flows from the second Gospel axiom, through Christ's merits; although they never heard of his name. (6.) England and Scotland, where the redeeming work of Christ is gloriously preached, swarm nevertheless with practical Antinomians; that is, with men who practically separate works from faith, and the decalogue from the creed. Now all these Gnostics follow the foolish virgins, and the unprofitable servant into hell, crying, Lord! Lord! and forgetting to do what Christ commands. (7.) We can never be too thankful for the light of both axioms; but, were I obliged to separate them, I had much rather obey with Obadiah, Plato, and Cor. nelius, than believe with Simon Magus, Nicolas, and "Mr. Fulsome." These, and the like observations appeared so weighty to judicious Mr. Baxter, that, in the preface to his Confession of Faith, p. 29, he says, "The great objection is, that I ascribe too much to works. I shall now only say, &c, that I see many well-meaning, zealous men dividing our religion, [which is made up of the two Gospel axioms,] and running into two desperate extremes. One sort [at the head of whom is Zelotes] by the heat of opposition to popery do seem to have forgotten that faith and Christ himself are but means, and a way for the revolting soul to come home to God by; and thereupon place all the essence of their religion in bare believing; so making that THE WHOLE, which is but the door, or MEANS to better, even to a conformity of the soul to the image and will of God. Others [at the head of whom is Honestus] observing this error, flee so far from it as to make faith itself, and Christ, to be scarce necessary. So a man have God's image, say they, upon his soul, what matter is it which way he comes by it? Whether by Christ, or by other means! And so they take all the history of Christ to be a mere accident to our necessary belief; and the precepts only of holiness to be of absolute necessity. The former contemn God under pretence of extolling Christ. The latter contemn Christ under pretence of extolling God alone. He that pretending to extol Christ or faith, degrades godliness, thereby so far rejects God; and he that on pretence of extolling godliness, degrades faith, so far rejects Christ, &c. I therefore detest both these extremes-[that of Zelotes and that of Honestus.] But yet it being the former which I take to be the greater, and which too many men of better repute give too much countenance to, in their inconsiderate disputes against works in justification, I thought I had a call to speak in so great a cause."

It appears, from this excellent quotation, that judicious Mr. Baxter gave the preference to the second Gospel axiom, and thought the doctrine of Honestus less dangerous than that of Zelotes. For my part, though Zelotes thinks me partial, I keep my Scales even: and according to the weights of the sanctuary which I have produced, I find that Zelotes and Honestus are equally wanting. I thank them both for embracing one axiom; I check them both for neglecting the other; and if Zelotes deserves superior praise for maintaining the first axiom, I will cheerfully give him the first place in my esteem. I confess, however, that I am still in doubt about it, for two reasons: (1.) Zelotes preaches indeed the first Gospel axiom, for he preaches Christ and free grace: but, after all, for whom does he preach them? For every creature, ac. cording to the Gospel charter? No: but only for the little flock of the

rewardable elect. If you believe his gospel, there never was a single dram of free, saving grace in the heart of God; or one single drop of precious, atoning blood in the veins of Christ, for the immense herd of the reprobates. Before the beginning of the world they were all per. sonally appointed necessarily to sin and be damned. Thus, according to Zelotes' doctrine, free grace and the first Gospel axiom are not only mere chimeras, with respect to a majority of mankind, but free wrath lords it with sovereign caprice over countless myriads of men, to whom Christ may, with the greatest propriety, be preached as a reprobating damner, rather than as a gracious Redeemer. (2.) I could better bear with Zelotes' inconsistencies, if he only diminished the genuine cordial of free grace, and adulterated it with his bitter tincture of free wrath. But alas! he openly or secretly attacks the doctrine of sincere obe. dience he calls them "poor creatures," who zealously plead for it: he unguardedly intimates that they are out of the way of salvation: and (O! tell it not among the heathens!) he sometimes gives you deadly hints about the excellence of disobedience; sin, he intimates, "works for our good: it keeps us humble: it makes Christ more precious: it endears the doctrines of sovereign, rich, distinguishing grace: it will make us sing louder in heaven."

"You wrong me," says Zelotes," you are a slanderer of God's people, and a calumniator of Gospel ministers. I, for one, frequently enforce the ten commandments upon believers." True, sir; but how do you do this? Is it not by insinuating more or less, sooner or later, as your moral audience and your pious heart can bear it, that the decalogue is not now a rule to be judged by, but only "a rule of life," the breach of which will answer all the above-mentioned excellent ends in believers? And what is this but preaching Protestant indulgences, as I said before? When you do this, do you not exceed the popish distinction between venial and mortal sins? Yea, do you not make all the crimes of fallen believers venial? Nay, more, do you not indirectly represent their grievous falls as profitable? And to seal up the delusion, do you not persuade the simple, wherever you go, that our works have nothing to do with our eternal justification before God? That our everlasting sal. vation is finished by Christ alone; and that whoever believes fallen believers will be condemned by their bad works, is an enemy to the Gospel, an Arminian, a Pelagian, a Papist, a heretic?

If this character of Zelotes be just, and if Honestus be a conscientious good man, who preaches Christ every sacrament day, and who enforces spiritual, sincere obedience, (i. e. true repentance, true faith, true hope, and true love to God and man, in all their branches ;) and who does it with sincerity, assiduity, and warmth, I cannot but think as favourably of him as I do of his antagonist.

I must however do Zelotes the justice to say, that an appearance of truth betrays him into his favourite error. If he do not lay a Scriptural stress upon the indispensableness of obedience, it is chiefly for fear of "legalizing the Gospel," and robbing God's children of their comforts. See that fond mother, who prides herself in the tenderness she has for her children. She will not suffer the wind to blow upon them; the sun must never shine on their delicate faces; no downy bed is soft enough, no sweetmeats are sweet enough for them; lest they should know weari.

ness, they must always ride in the easiest of carriages; their tutor must be turned out of doors, if he venture to give them proper correction; all the day long they must be told what an immense estate they are born to, and how their father has put it out of his own power to cut off the entail. Above all, nobody must mention to them the duty they owe to him. Duty-that bad word duty must not abridge their privileges, and stamp their obedience with legal and servile meanness. In a word, by her injudicious, though well-meant kindness, she unnerves their constitutions, spoils their tender minds, and brings deadly disorders upon them. Her fondness for her children is the very picture of Zelotes' tender regard for believers. No duty must be pressed upon them as duty: no command insisted upon, no self denial ordered, lest the dear people should lose the sweetness of their Gospel liberty. And if at any time "Mr. Fulsome's' humours call aloud for physic, it is given with so much honey, that the remedy sometimes feeds the mortal disease.

Honestus sees, and justly dreads the error of Zelotes: and to avoid it, he is so sparing of Gospel encouragements, that he deals chiefly (if not wholly) in severe precepts and hard duties. You may compare him to a stern father, who, under pretence of making his children hardy, and keeping them in proper subjection, makes them carry as heavy burdens as if they were drudging slaves, and threatens to disown them for every impropriety of behaviour.

Not so a Gospel minister, who reconciles both extremes. He knows how to use sweets and bitters, promises and threatenings, indulgence and severity. He is like a wise and kind father, who does not spare the rod when his children want it; but nevertheless wins them by love as much as possible;-who does not disinherit them for every fault, and yet does not put it out of his power to do it, if they take to a vicious course of life, and obstinately trample his paternal love under foot. Reader, who of the three is in the right, Zelotes, Honestus, or the reconciler?

SECTION V.

The doctrines of free grace and free will are farther maintained against Honestus and Zelotes by a variety of Scripture arguments.

I FLATTER myself that the harmonious opposition of the scriptures, produced in the preceding sections, demonstrates the truth of the Gospel axioms. But lest prejudice hinder Honestus and Zelotes from yielding to conviction, I present them with some Scriptural arguments, which, like so many buttresses, will, I hope, support the doctrines of free grace and free will, and render them as firm as their solid basis,-REASON and REVELATION. I begin with the doctrine of free grace.

1. How gladly would Honestus stoop to, and triumph in free grace, if he considered the force of such scriptures! "Without me you can do nothing. What hast thou which thou hast not received," in a remote or immediate manner? "We are not sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God. Who hath first given him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, &c, are all things."

2. We cannot do an action that is truly good without faith and love; and the least degree of true faith and genuine love springs first from free grace; for "faith is the gift of God, love is the fruit of his Spirit:" and when the apostle wishes charity to his converts, he wishes it to them "from God the Father, who is the author of every good and perfect gift." Now if our every good thought, word, and work, spring from faith and love; and if faith and love spring from God; is it not evident that he is the first cause of our genuine righteousness, as well as of our existence?

3. When God says, "Ask and you shall have," does he not show himself the original of all that we want for body and soul, for time and eternity? And if God owes us nothing, if "the help, that is done upon earth, the Lord originally does it himself," is it not the height of ingratitude and pride to restrain from God, and arrogate to ourselves, the glory due to him and his infinite perfections?

4. We are commanded" in every thing to give thanks." But if grace be not the source of all the good we do or receive, does it not follow, that in some things the original glory belongs to us, and therefore we deserve thanks before God himself? And is not this the horrid sin of antichrist, who "sitteth as God in the temple of God," and there receives Divine honours " as if he were God?"

5. Does not reason dictate that God will not give his glory to another, and that even "the man who is his fellow," must pay him homage? Is it not the Almighty's incommunicable glory to be the first cause of all good, agreeably to those words of our Lord, "There is none good [i. e. self good, and truly self righteous] but God," from whom goodness and righteousness flow, as light and heat do from the sun? How dangerous then, how dreadful is the error of the self righteous, who are above stooping to Divine goodness, and giving it its due! If robbing a Church of its ornaments is sacrilege, how sacrilegious is the pride of a Pharisee, who, by claiming original goodness, robs God's grace of its indisputable honours, and God himself of his incommunicable glory!

6. To show Christians how ridiculous and satanic the pride of the self righteous is, I need only remind them that Christ himself" Christ the righteous" (as the Son of David) declined all self righteousness. Did he not call his works "the works that I do in my Father's name,' or by my Father's grace? And did he not, as it were, annihilate himself, when he said, "Why callest thou me GOOD," without any refer. ence to the Godhead, of which I am the living temple? "I can do nothing of myself. I speak not of myself, but the Father that dwelleth in me, he does the works. Learn of me to be lowly in heart?" What real Christían can read such scriptures without learning to disclaim all self righteousness, and to abhor Pharisaic dotages? If Honestus be a reasonable Christian I need say no more to reconcile him to free grace.

I know not which of the two extremes is the most abominable, that of the Pharisee, who, by slighting free grace, will not allow God to be the first cause of all our good works; or that of the Antinomian, who, by exploding free will, indirectly represents the Parent of good as the first cause of all our wickedness. This last error is that of Zelotes, to whom I recommend the following arguments :

« AnteriorContinuar »