Works of John Bunyan — Complete

by John Bunyan

But how indifferent? Even as indifferent in itself as the blood of a silly sheep, or the ashes of an heifer; for these are his very words. 'SUCH [that is, such ordinances as in themselves are of an indifferent nature] were all the injunctions and prohibitions of the ceremonial law; and some few such we have under the gospel' (p. 7). Then, in p. 9 he tells you what these positive precepts under the gospel, or things indifferent, are: 'THAT of going to God by Christ, is one; and the other two, are the institutions of baptism, and the Lord's supper.' Such therefore as were the ceremonies of the law, such, even such, saith he, is that of going to God by Christ, &c.

Wherefore, he that shall lay no more stress upon the Lord Jesus to come to God by, than this man doth, would lay as much, were the old ceremonies in force, upon a silly sheep, as upon the Christ of God. For these are all alike positive precepts, such as were the ceremonies of the law, things in themselves neither good nor evil, but absolutely considered of an indifferent nature.

So that to come to God by Christ, is reckoned, of itself, by him, a thing of a very indifferent nature, and therefore this man cannot do it, but with a very indifferent heart; his great, and most substantial coming to God, must needs be by some other way (John 10:1). But why should this THIEF love thus to clamber, and seek to go to God by other means; such which he reckoneth of a more indispensable nature, and eternal; seeing Christ only, as indifferent as he is, is the only way to the Father. 'I am the way, [saith he] the truth and the life; no man cometh to the Father but by me.' If he be the only way, then there is none other; if he be thus the truth, then is all other the lie; and if he be here the life, then is all other the death; let him call them indispensable and eternal never so often.

So then, how far off this man's doctrine is, of sinning against the Holy Ghost, let him that is wise consider it. For if coming to God by Christ, be in itself but a thing indifferent, and only made a duty upon the account of certain circumstances; then, to come to God by Christ, is a duty incumbent upon us only by reason of certain circumstances; not that the thing in itself is good, or that the nature of sin, and the justice of God, layeth a necessity on us so to do. But what be these certain circumstances? For it is because of these, if you will believe him, that God the Father, yea, the whole Trinity, did consult in eternity, and consent, that Christ should be the way to life: now, I say, it is partly because by him was the greatest safety, he being naturally the justice, wisdom, and power of God; and partly, because it would, we having sinned, be utterly impossible we should come to God by other means and live. He that will call these circumstances, that is, things over and above besides the substantials of the gospel, will but discover his unbelief and ignorance, &c.

As for your saying, that Calvin, Peter Martyr, Musculus, Zanchy,[12] and others, did not question, but that God could have pardoned sin, without any other satisfaction, than the repentance of the sinner (p. 84). It matters nothing to me, I have neither made my creed out of them, nor other, than the holy scriptures of God.

But if Christ was from before all worlds ordained to be the Saviour, then was he from all eternity so appointed and prepared to be. And if God be, as you say, infinitely (p. 136), and I will add, eternally just; how can he pardon without he be presented with that satisfaction for sin, that to all points of the highest perfection doth answer the demands of this infinite, and eternal justice? Unless you will say, that the repentance of a sinner is sufficient to answer whatever could be justly demanded as a satisfaction thereto; which if you should, you would in consequence say, that man is, or may be in himself, just, that is, equal with God; or that the sin of man was not a transgression of the law that was given, and a procurer of the punishment that is threatened, by that eternal God that gave it. (But let me give you a caution, take heed that you belie not these men) Christ cries, 'If it be possible let this cup pass from me' (Matt 26:39). If what be possible? Why, that sinners should be saved without his blood (Heb 9:22; Luke 24:26; Acts 17:3). 'Ought not Christ to have suffered?' 'Christ must needs have suffered,' not because of some certain circumstances, but because the eternal justice of God, could not consent to the salvation of the sinner, without a satisfaction for the sin committed.[13] Of which, more in the next, if you shall think good to reply.

Now, that my reader may see that I have not abused you in this reply to your sayings, I will repeat your words at large, and leave them upon you to answer it.

You say, 'Actions may become duties or sins these two ways; first, as they are compliances with, or transgressions of, divine positive precepts: These are the declarations of the arbitrary will of God, whereby he restrains our liberty, for great and wise reasons, in things that are of an indifferent nature, and absolutely considered are neither good nor evil; and so makes things not good in themselves [and capable of becoming so only by reason of certain circumstances] duties, and things not evil in themselves, sins. Such were all the injunctions and prohibitions of the ceremonial law, and some few such we have under the gospel' (p. 7). Then p. 9 you tell us, that 'the reasons of the positive laws [that is, concerning things in themselves indifferent] contained in the gospel are declared; of which [say you] I know not above three that are purely so, viz. That of going to God by Christ, and the institutions of baptism, and the Lord's Supper.'

Here now let the reader note, That the positive precepts, declarations of the arbitrary will of God, in things of an indifferent nature, being such, as absolutely considered, are neither good nor evil; some few SUCH, say you, we have under the gospel, namely, that of coming to God by Christ, &c. I am the more punctual in this thing, because you have confounded your weak reader with a crooked parenthesis in the midst of the paragraph, and also by deferring to spit your intended venom at Christ, till again you had puzzled him, with your mathematics and metaphysics, &c., putting in another page, betwixt the beginning and the end of your blasphemy.

Indeed, in the seventh chapter of your book, you make a great noise of the effects and consequences of the death of Christ, as that it was a sacrifice for sin, an expiatory, and propitiatory sacrifice (p. 83). Yet, he that well shall weight you, and compare you with yourself, shall find that words and sense, with you are two things; and also, that you have learned of your brethren of old, to dissemble with words, that thereby your own heart-errors, and the snake that lieth in your bosom, may yet there abide the more undiscovered. For in the conclusion of that very chapter, even in and by a word or two, you take away that glory, that of right belongeth to the death and blood of Christ, and lay it upon other things.