Works of John Bunyan — Volume 02

by John Bunyan

Answer. Though it seemeth an untruth, yet it is most true, that by the works of the law, no heart is made new, no man made new. A man from principle of nature and reason, (which principles are of himself, and as old) may give up himself to the goodness of the law: yet these principles are so far off from being new, that they are as old as Adam in Paradise; and come into the world with all the children of men. To which principles the law, or the first principles of morals, so equally suit, that, as you have said (p. 8), 'they are self-evident, than which there is nothing mankind doth more naturally assent to' (p. 11). Now nature is no new principle, but an old: even our own, and of ourselves. The law is no new principle, but old, and one with ourselves (as also you well have called it) 'first written in men's hearts, and originally dictates of human nature.' Let a man then be as devout, as is possible for the law, and the holiness of the law. Yet if the principles from which he acts, be but the habit of soul, the purity (as he feigns) of his own nature; principles of natural reason, or the dictates of human nature; all this is nothing else but the old gentleman in his holiday clothes: the old heart, the old spirit, the spirit of the man, not the spirit of Christ, is here.

And hence the apostle, when he would shew us a man alive, or made a new man indeed; as he talketh of the Holy Ghost and faith, so he tells us such are dead to the law, to the law, as a law of works; to the law as to principles of nature. 'Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law [the moral law, and the ceremonial law] by the body of Christ, that ye should be married to another [another than the law] even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God' (Rom 7:4).

Ye are become dead to the law. Dead to the law! Why? That you should be married to another. Married to another! Why? 'That you should bring forth fruit unto God.' But doth not a man bring forth fruit unto God, that walketh orderly according to the ten commandments? No, if he do it before faith make this in the spirit of a man, by the dictates of human nature, respecting the law, as that, by the obeying of which, he must obtain acceptance with God. This is bringing forth fruit unto himself; for all that he doth, he doth it as a man, as a creature, from principles natural, and of himself, his own, and for none other than himself; and therefore he serveth in an old spirit, the oldness of the letter, and for himself. But now (that is, ye being dead to the law, and married to Christ) that (the law) being dead; by which (while in ourselves) we were held; now we are delivered from that law, both as to its curse and impositions, as it stands a law of works in the heart of the world; we serve in newness of the spirit, 'and not in the oldness of the letter' (v 6). A man must first then be dead to your principles, both of nature and the law; if he will serve in a new spirit, if he would bring forth fruit unto God.[9] Wherefore your description of the principle of holiness in man, and also the principles by which this holiness is put forth by him into righteous nets; they are such as are altogether void of the true essentials of inward gospel-holiness and righteousness.

[FOWLER'S ASSERTION THAT THE GRAND, THE ONLY AND ULTIMATE DESIGN OF THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST IS TO RE-PRODUCE MAN'S ORIGINAL RIGHTEOUSNESS EXAMINED AND CONFUTED.]

But there is one thing more in this description, or rather effect thereof, which I shall also inquire into: and that is your saying, 'As it was the errand of Christ to effect our deliverance out of that sinful state we had brought ourselves into: so to put us again into possession of that holiness which we had lost' (p. 12). The proof of this position is now your next business; that is, if I understand your learning, the remaining part of your book, which consisteth of well nigh 300 pages, is spent for proof thereof; which I doubt not but effectually to confute with less than 300 lines. Only first by the way, I would have my reader to take notice that in this last clause, (to put us again into possession of that holiness which we had lost) is the sum of all this large description of his holiness in the foregoing pages; that is, the holiness and righteousness that Mr. Fowler hath been describing; and adds, that Christ's whole business when he came into the world was, as to effect our deliverance from sin; 'so to put us again in possession of that holiness which we had lost.' The holiness therefore that here he contendeth for, is that, and only that which was in Adam before the fall, which he lost by transgression; and we by transgressing in him. A little therefore to inquire into this, if perhaps his reader and mine may come to a right understanding of things.

First then, Adam before the fall, even in his best and most sinless state, was but a pure natural man, consisting of body and soul; these, to use your own terms, were his pure essentials: (p. 11) in this man's heart, God also did write the law; that is, as you term them, the first principles of morals (p. 8). This then was the state of Adam, he was a pure natural man; made by God sinless; all the faculties of his soul and members of his body were clean. 'God made man upright' (Eccl 7:29). But he made him not then a spiritual man; 'the first Adam was made a living soul,' 'howbeit that was not first which is spiritual; but that which is natural, and afterward that which is spiritual: The first man is of the earth, earthy' (1 Cor 15:45-47). A living soul he was; yet but a natural man, even in his first and best estate; but earthly, when compared with Christ, or with them that believe in Christ. So then, the holiness of Adam in his best estate, even that which he lost, and we in him, it was none other, than that which was natural, even the sinless state of a natural man. This holiness then was not of the nature of that, which hath for its root the Holy Ghost; for of that we read not at all in him, he only was indued with a living soul; his holiness then could not be gospel, nor that which is a branch of the second covenant: his acts of righteousness, were not by the operations of the Spirit of grace, but the dictates of the law in his own natural heart. But the apostle when he treateth of the christian inherent holiness; first excluding that in Adam, as earthly; he tells us, it is such as is in Christ: 'As is the earthy, such are they that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they that are heavenly.' Let then those that are the sons of Adam, in the state of nature as he, though not so pure, and spotless as he, be reckoned to bear his image and similitude: but let them that are the children of Christ, though not so pure as he, bear the image and similitude of Christ: 'for they are conformable to the image of the Son of God' (Rom 8:29). The holiness therefore that was in Adam, being but that which was natural, earthly, and not of the Holy Ghost, cannot be that which Christ came into the world to give us possession of.

Second, Adam in his best, and most sinless state, was but a type or figure: 'The figure of him that was to come' (Rom 5:14). A type in what? A type or figure doubtless, in his sinless and holy estate, a type and figure of the holiness of Christ: But if Christ should come from heaven, to put us in possession of this sinless holiness that was in Adam, or that we lost in him: to what more would his work amount, than to put us into the possession of a natural, figurative, shadowish righteousness or holiness. But this he never intended; therefore it is not the possessing of his people with that holiness, that was the great errand Christ came into the world upon.

Third, The holiness and righteousness that was in, and that we lost by, Adam before the fall; was such as stood in, and was to be managed by his natural perfect compliance with a covenant of works. For, 'Do this sin and die,' were the terms that was from God to Adam. But Christ at his coming brings in another, a better, a blessed covenant of grace; and likewise possesseth his children, with the holiness, and privileges of that covenant; not with Adam's heart nor Adam's mind; but a new heart, a new spirit, a new principle to act by, and walk in a new covenant. Therefore the holiness that was in Adam before, or that we lost in him by the fall, could not be the holiness that Christ at his coming made it his great or only business to put us in possession of.

Fourth, The holiness that was in Adam before, and that we lost in him by the fall, was such as might stand with perfect ignorance of the mediation of Jesus Christ: for Christ was not made known to Adam as a Saviour, before that Adam was a sinner; neither needed he at all to know him to be his Mediator, before he knew he had offended (Gen 3). But Christ did not come into the world to establish us in, or give us possession of such holiness as might stand with perfect ignorance of his Mediatorship. No; the holiness that we believers have, and the righteous acts that we fulfil, they come to us, and are done by us, through the knowledge of the Lord Jesus, and of his being the Messias promised (Eph 4:21,22; 2 Peter 1:3).

Fifth, The holiness that was in Adam, was neither given him through the promise, neither encouraged by the promise. Adam had no promise to possess him with a principle of holiness; it came to him by creation; neither had he any promise to strengthen or encourage him in holiness. All he had was instructions concerning his duty, and death threatened if he did it not (Gen 2:15-17). But Christ came not to give us possession of an holiness or righteousness, that came to us by our creation, without a promise; and that hath no promise to encourage us to continue therein; but of an holiness that comes to us by the best of promises, and that we are encouraged to by the best of promises. Therefore it was not his great errand when he came from heaven to earth, to put us in possession of that promiseless holiness that Adam had before, and that was lost in him by the fall.