And this was manifested to the world betimes, even in that day, when God drove the man and his wife out of Eden, and placed cherubims, and a flaming sword, in the way by which they came out, to the end, that by going back by that way, they might rather be killed and die, than lay hold of the 'tree of life' (Gen 3).
Which the apostle also respects, when he calleth the way of the gospel, the NEW and LIVING way, even that which is made by the blood of Christ (Heb 10:20); concluding by this description of the way that is by blood, that the other is old, and the way of death, even that which is by the moral law, or the dictates of our nature, or by that fond conceit of the goodly holiness of Adam.
[Our Lord's object not merely to restore man's natural holiness, but to impart his own infinite and eternal holiness to those that believe.]
Your fifth chapter tells us, 'That the promoting of holiness was the design of our Saviour's whole life and conversation among men' (p. 36).
Answer. 1. Were this granted, it reacheth nothing at all the design for which you in your way present us with it: For,
2. That which you have asserted is: That the errand about which Christ came, was, as the effecting our deliverance out of that sinful state we had brought ourselves into, so to put us again in possession of that holiness which we had lost; for that, you say, is the business of your book (p. 12). Wherefore you should have told us in the head of this chapter, not so much that our Saviour designed the promoting of holiness in general by his life, but that the whole design of our Saviour's life and conversation, was to put us again into possession of that holiness which we had lost, into a possession of that natural, old covenant, figurative, ignorant holiness. But it seems you count that there is no other than that now lost, but never again to be obtained holiness, that was in Adam.
3. Farther, you also falter here, as to the stating of the proposition; for in the beginning of your book, you state it thus: That the enduing men with inward real righteousness, or true holiness, was the ultimate end of our Saviour's coming into the world, still meaning the holiness we lost in Adam. You should therefore in this place also, have minded your reader of this your proposition, and made it manifest if you could, 'that the ultimate end of our Saviour's whole life and conversation, was the enduing men with this Adamitish holiness.' But holiness, and that holiness, is alone with you; and to make it his end, and whole end; his business, and the whole business of his life; is but the same with you.
But you must know, that the whole life and conversation of our Saviour, was intended for another purpose, than to drive us back to, or to endue us with, such an holiness and righteousness as I have proved this to be.
You have therefore, in this your discourse, put an insufferable affront upon the Son of God, in making all his life and conversation to centre and terminate in the holiness we had lost: As if the Lord Jesus was sent down from heaven, and the word of God made flesh; that by a perfect life and conversation, he might shew us how holy Adam was before he fell; or what an holiness that our holiness was, which we had before we were converted.
Your discourse therefore, of the life and conversation of the Lord Jesus, is none other than heathenish: For you neither treat of the principle, his Godhead, by which he did his works; neither do you in the least, in one syllable, aver the first, the main and prime reason of this his conversation; only you treat of it so far, as a mean man might have considered it. And indeed it stood not with your design to treat aright with these things; for had you mentioned the first, though but once, your Babel had tumbled about your ears; for if in the holy Jesus did 'dwell the word,' one of the three in heaven; or if the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was truly, essentially, and naturally God; then must the principle from whence his works did proceed, be better than the principle from whence proceeded the goodness in Adam; otherwise Adam must be God and man. Also you do, or may know that the self-same act may be done from several principles: and again, that it is the principle from whence the act is done, and not the bare doing of the act, that makes it better or worse accepted, in the eyes either of God or men.