Of the death of Christ, the price he paid, and the purchase he made. Or, the satisfaction, and merit of the death of Christ cleered, the universality of redemption thereby oppugned: and the doctrine concerning these things formerly delivered in a treatise against universal redemption vindicated from the exceptions, and objections of Mr Baxter. / By J. Owen, minister of the gospel.

Of the death of Christ, the price he paid, and the purchase he made. Or, the satisfaction, and merit of the death of Christ cleered, the universality of redemption thereby oppugned: and the doctrine concerning these things formerly delivered in a treatise against universal redemption vindicated from the exceptions, and objections of Mr Baxter. / By J. Owen, minister of the gospel.

Table of contents

Title page

TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE, OLIVER CROMWEL, Esq Lord Lievtenant of IRELAND, &c.

To the READER.

OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST.

CAP. I. The Occasion of this DISCOƲRSE, with the Intendment of the whole.

CAP. II. An entrance into the whole; Of the Nature of the payment made by CHRIST; VVith the Right stating of the things in Difference.

CAP. III. The Arguments of Grotius, And their Defence by Mr. Baxter, about the Penalty under-gone by CHRIST in making Satisfaction, Considered.

CAP. IV. Further of the matter of the Satisfaction of Christ, wherein is proved, That it was the same that was in the Obligation.

CAP. V. The Second Head about JƲSTIFICATION before Believing.

CAP. VI. Of the Acts of Gods Will towards Sinners, Antecedent and Consequent to the Satisfaction of Christ: Of Grotius Judgment herein.

CAP. VII. In particular of the Will of God towards them for whom Christ died, and their state, and Condition as Considered Antecedanous to the Death of Christ, and all Efficiency thereof.

CAP. VIII. Of the Will of God in Reference to them for whom Christ died immediately upon the Consideration of his Death; and their State, and Condition before actual Believing in Relation thereunto.

CAP. IX. A Degression concerning the Immediate Effect of the Death of Christ.

CAP. X. Of the Merit of Christ, and its immediate Efficacy, what it effecteth in what it resteth, with the state of those for whom Christ died in reference to his Death, & of their Right to the Fruits of his Death before Beleeving.

CAP. XI. More particularly of the State and Right of them for whom Christ died, before Beleeving.

CAP. XII. Of the way whereby they actually attain and enjoy Faith and Grace, who have a Right thereunto by the Death of Christ.

CAP. XIII. The Removal of sundry Objections to some things formerly taught, about the Death of Christ: Ʋpon the Principles now delivered.

ERRATA. The Author having no opportunity to attend the Press, and being absent many miles during the Printing the most part of it, finds the Accenting of sundry Greek Expressions omitted, with other mistakes, which he desireth the Reader to Correct as followeth:

§

§

[Page]

OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST, The PRICE he paid, and the PURCHASE he made. OR, The Satisfaction, and Merit of the Death of CHRIST cleered, the Universality of Redemption thereby oppugned: And The Doctrine Concerning these things formerly delivered in a Treatise against Universal REDEMPTION Vindicated from the Exceptions, and Objections of MR BAXTER.

By J. OWEN, Minister of the Gospel.

LONDON: Printed by Peter Cole, at the sign of the Printing-Press in Cornhil, near the Royal Exchange, 1650.

TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE, OLIVER CROMWEL, Esq Lord Lievtenant of IRELAND, &c.

[Page]

[Page]

TO excuse the Dedication of a Book, which seems not to be like Apples of Gold in Pictures of Silver, in a Time of so much Preparation for War, this is my Apologie: The brief Discourse following, being Composed in Ireland, where through the Presence of God with You, in Your great Employment, I enjoyed Peace and Quietness for a season in the service of my Master, and now stepping into the [⁂] [Page] World, by Providence, upon Your return into this Nation, it seems to crave the Signature of Your Name at the Entrance: Besides, being almost wholly Polemical (for men of Learning also, have their Polemicks, and those, as in the mannagement of some, as pernitious to the Nations professing the Name of Christ, as the Contest of the Sword) it layes a Second Claim therunto, from its Proportion to the present Work whereunto You are called forth.

Perhaps the Differences, about which the Contest here mannaged, is, may appear to some, not to be of so great Weight and Importance, as to deserve that serious and publick Agitation, which is now given to them: especially in these dayes, wherein things of neerer Concernment to the Foundation of Faith, do come continually under Debate. But besides that no one Title, of the Faith once delivered unto the Saints, is to be yeelded unto gain-sayers, the Way wherby Opposition is made unto any Truth, is seriously to be considered. It was said of Caesar, That solus accessit sobrius ad perdendam rempublicam, he alone (amongst many other undertakers) attempted soberly to destroy the Cōmon-wealth, and therefore was the most earnestly to be resisted. In the Broaching of many Opinions, abhorrent from the Truth of the Gospel in these dayes, very few have gone soberly to Work. For the most part, a perverse Spirit of Giddiness hath been mingled with their undertakings, [Page] wherby, though they have made a great Noise in the World, and overthrown the Faith of some, yet their beloved self-Conceptions being full of self-Contradictions, asserted with much Passion and Confidence, little Reason or Judgment, having no determinate End affixed to them, I no way doubt, but that in due Time they will easily sink of themselves.

He, with whom, in some part of this Treatise, I have to do, hath been serious in his undertaking, and being not destitute of Abilities for the carrying on of his Intendment, it is requisite the Truth by him mistaken, should receive a serious Vindication, which I hope also is performed, so far as Occasion, was by his Writing, to me administred.

Neither will the things here Discussed I am perswaded seem light unto you, who have learned to value every Truth of God, at the Rate, whereunto it is stamped from above: especially those which so neerly Concern him, whom Your Soul loveth, as these following wil be found to do.

For my own part, having no kind of Interest in the things now a doing, neither one way, nor other, but only so far, as the great Interest of Christ and the Gospel is concerned, nor any design in my Thoughts, but only to lay hold of every orderly Advantage to Preach the Lord Jesus, and him Crucified, even him alone; and withal, to give Testimony to the whole Counsel [⁂] [Page] of God, as revealed in his Word, in Opposition to the many foolish Delusions, which through the Craft of Satan, and the Vanity of mens darkned minds, have got entrance into the World, continually lamenting the sad mistake of many Ministers of the Gospel immixing themselves so far in Civil Contests, as to make them oftentimes the subject of their publick pains in Preaching and Writing, I hope there is no need of an Apologie, for my labouring in this kind.

As to this Presentation of these few Sheets to You, besides what is above mentioned, my Assurance of Your faithful adherence to the forme of wholsome Words, and pattern of sound Doctrine, that cannot be gain-said, gave Encouragement unto,

June 1. Your Excellencies most humble and obliged Servant, in our dearest Lord,

J. OWEN.

To the READER.

[Page]

OF all the Controversies wherewith the Disciples of Christ, through the Craft of Satan, and their own knowing but in part, have in several Ages been exercised; there have been none of so great Weight and Importance upon all Considerations whatever, as those which imediatly concern the Person and Grace of him, by whose Name they are called.

As his Person was almost the Sole Subject of Contest, (of any moment) for the space of many Ages succeeding his converse in the Flesh with the Sons of men; so in these latter dayes, through the darkness of their own Spirits, and the seducements of the Spirit of darkness, many in an especial manner do draw forth varietie of uncouth thoughts concerning his Grace, and the Dispensation of the Love of God towards mankind in him.

Yet have not these things been so distinctlie mannaged, but that as they of old with their Oppositions to his Person, did also labour to decry and disanul the Work of his Grace, so many of those who of latter dayes have been led away into dangerous misapprehensions of his Grace, both as to the Foundation and Efficacy of it, have also wrested the things concerning his Person to their own destruction.

Of those that have entangled the Spirits of the men of this Generation, turning aside many from the simplicitie of the Gospel, and the Truth as it is in Iesus, none have been obtruded upon the Saints of God, with greater Confidence, nor carried out to a more unhappy Issue, then such, as assisting corrupted Nature to unbend it self from under the Sovereignty of God, and loosening the thoughts of Mens hearts from their Captivity to the Obedience of the Gospel, do suit the Mystery of God in Christ reconciling sinners unto himself, to the fleshly Wisdom and Reasonings of a Man: It was in our hopes and Expectation, not manie yeers ago, That the Lord would graciously have turned back all those bitter streams, which issuing from the Pride, Vnthankfulnesse, and Wisdom of the Carnal mind, had many wayes attempted to overflow the Doctrine of the Grace of God, that bringeth Salvation; but finding now by Experience, That the Day of the Churches rest from Persecution, is the Day of Satan's main work, for Seducing and Temptation, and that not a few are attempting once more, to renew the Contest of sinful, guiltie, defiled, Nature, against the Sovereigntie, [Page]Distinguishing Love, and effectual Grace of God, it cannot but be convenient, yea necessary, That the Faith once delivered to the Saints, be contended for, and asserted from the Word of Truth, in the like publick way, wherein it is opposed.

It hath been the constant practise of all Persons in all Ages, who have made it their Design to beget and propagate a Belief of any Doctrine contrary to the form of wholsome words, to begin with, and insist mainly upon those Parts of their beloved Conception and Off spring, which seem to be most beautiful and taking, for the turning aside of poor weak unlearned and unstable Souls: knowing full well, That their Judgements and Assertions being once engaged, such is the frame of mens Spirits under Delusion, that they will chuse rather to swallow down all that follows, then to discharge themselves of what they have already received.

Upon this Account, those who of late dayes have themselves drank large Draughts of the very dregs of Pelagianisme, do hold out at first, only a desire to be pledged in a taste of the Vniversalitie of the Merit of Christ, for the Redemption (or rather something else, well I wote not what) of all and everie man; finding this rendred plausible from some general Expressions in the Word, seeming to cast an Eye of favour that way in the Light wherin they stand, as also to be a fit subject for them to varnish over, and deck up, with Loose, Ambiguous, Rhetorical Expressions, they attempt with all their might to get entertainment for it, knowing that those who shal receive it, may well call it Gad, being sent before, only to take up Quarters for the Troop that follows.

To obviate this Evil, which being thus planted, and watered through other subtilties and Advantages,Display of Armin. Salus Electorū sanguis Iesu. hath received no small Increase, I have once and again cast in my Mite into the Treasury of that rich Provision, which the Lord hath inabled many men of Eminent Learning and Pietie, to draw forth from the inexhaustible store-house of Divine Truth, and to prepare it for the use of the Saints.

In one of those Treatises,Salus Elect. having at large handled the several Concernments of the Death of Christ, as to the Satisfaction and Merit thereof, in their Nature and tendency, as well as their Object and Extent, and finding some Opposition made to sundry Truths therein delivered, I have attemp [...]ed through the Assistance of Grace, to Vindicate them, from that opposition, in this Ensuing Discourse, as also taken Occasion to hold forth sundry other things of weight and importance, of all which you have an Accoun [...] given, in the first Chapters thereof, whither I remit the Reader.

For the present there are some few things, which (Christian Reader) I desire to acquaint thee withal in particular, which something neerly concern the businesse we have in hand.

Since, not only the compleat finishing of this Treatise under my hand, which is now about 5 Months ago, but also the Printing of some Part of [Page] it, the Two Dissertatious of Dr Davenant, of the Death of Christ, and of Predestination and Reprobation were setforth: in both which, especially the former, there are sundry Assertions, Positions, and Thesis, differing from what is delivered in the ensuing Treatise, and as I suppose repugnant unto Truth it self: The whole of that Perswasion, I confesse, which he endeavoureth in them to maintain, is suited to the Expressions of sundry Learned men, as Austine, Hillary, Fulgentius, Prosper, who in their Generations deserved exceeding well or the Church of God: But that it is free from Opposition to the Scripture, or indeed self-Contradiction, is not so apparant. Yea, through the Patience and Goodnesse of God, I undertake to demonstrate, That the main Foundation of his whole Dissertation about the Death of Christ, with many Inferences from thence, are neither found in, nor founded on the Word, but that the several Parts therof, are mutually Conflicting and destructive of each other, to the great prejudice of the Truth therein contained.

It is a thing of the saddest Consideration possible, That Wise and Learned men, should once suppose, by tempering the Truths of God, so that they may be suited to the self-Indulgency of unsubdued Carnal Affections, to give any Lustre to them,Rom 8. 7. or in the least to remove that Scandal and Offence, which the f [...]eshlie minded doth take continually at those Wayes of God, which are far above out of its sight. That this is the grand design of such undertakings, as that of the Learned Bishop now mentioned, even to force the Mysteries of the Gospel, to a Condescention and sutablnesse unto the unpurged Relicks of the Wisdom of Nature, when all our thoughts ought to be captivated to the obedience thereof, is to me most apparent. Whence else should it proceed, that so many unscriptural Distinctions, of the various Intentions of God in the business of Redemption, with the holding out for the Confirmation of one part of their Opinion, viz. That Christ died for all, and every one, in such a sense, those very Arguments, which the most that own the Truth of their Inferences, do imploy meerly against the latter part of their Opinion, viz In some sense he died only for the Elect, with sundry inextricable Intanglements, should fill up both the Pages of their Discourses. [...]:

It is no way cleer to me, what Glory redoundeth to the Grace of God, what Exaltation is given to the Death of Christ, what Encouragement to sinners in the things of God, by maintaining, That our Saviour in the Intention, and from the Designment of his Father, died for the Redemption of Millions, for whom he purchased not one dram of saving Grace, and concerning whom, it was the Purpose of God from Eternity, not to make out unto them effectually, any of those means for a participation in the fruits of his Death, without which it is impossible but it should be useless and unprofitable unto them:Ignat. ad Phi [...]ad. and yet this is the main Design of that Dissertation concerning the Death of Christ: What in that, and the ensuing [Page] Discourse, is argued and contended for, according to the mind of God, we thankfully accept: and had it not been condited with the unsavory salt of human wisdom, it had been exceeding acceptable, especially at this time. For,

2, That there are some more than ordinary Endeavors for the Supportment and Re-inforcing of the almost conclamated Cause of Arminianisme, [...]. ready to be handed unto publick view, is commonly reported and believed: concerning which also many swelling words (of which there lies great abundance on every side) are daily vented, as of some unparalelled product of Truth and Industry, as though, Nil oriturum alias, nil ortum tale, Homer Iliad. for the most part, by such as are utterly ignorant, how far these Controversies have been sifted, [...] v. and to what Issue they have been driven long ago.

For my part, as I have not as yet of late, heard or read any thing of this kind, either from Publick Disputes, or in Printed Sheets, but only long since exploded Sophismes, inconsequent Consequencies, weak Objections, fully, soundly Answered many a day since, nor by the Taste which I have already received, have I any Reason to expect from the great endeavours which are entring the City of God with Io Triumphs any thing beyond fruitlesse Attempts to varnish over with plausible appearances, formerly decryed Invectives and Reasonings, whose Deformity and Nakedness have been often discovered to the lothing of them by the Saints of God; so I no way doubt, [...]. but that the Lord, whose Truth is precious to him, will continue to powre out, from the rich Provision which he hath made for the use of his Church, and laid it up in the Lord Jesus, sutable Gifts and Abilities, Eph. 4. 11, 12, 13. against all Opposition whereunto by the Craft of Satan it is exposed: I shall say no more, though Occasion be administred to deplore that successe, which the spirit of Seduction that is gone out in this hour of Temptation, Haereses, de quorandam infirmitatibus habēt, quod valent, nihil valētes, si in bene valentem fidem in currant. Tertul. de Praesc. ad Haer. Mat. 24. 24. hath had in prevaising upon them that live in the Earth, to turn away their minds from sound Doctrine and the forme of wholsome words: Only I desire to Commend the Reader unto those two Apostolical Cautions, one, 1 Tim. 1. 18, 19. the other, 1 Tim. 6. 20. and to Commit him to the Grace of God.

May 15th.

J. O.

OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST.

[Page]

CAP. I.
The Occasion of this DISCOƲRSE, with the Intendment of the whole.

A Few words will briefly acquaint the Reader with the Occasion of this Discourse ensuing: It is now about 2 yeers since I Published a Treatise about the Redemption, and Satisfaction that is in the blood of Chrst: My aym was to hold out the whole Work of Redemption, as flowing from the Love of the Father, dispensed in the bloud of the Son, and made effectual by the application of the Spirit of Grace: And because in this whole Dispensation, and in all the Method of Gods proceedings to make us nigh to himself in the bloud of Jesus: There is no one thing so commonly Controverted, as the object of that Redemption in respect of the extent of it: That in the whole, I did specially intend.

[Page] What by the grace of him (who supplieth seed to the Sower) was attained in that undertaking, is left unto the Judgement of men, upon the Issue of his Blessing thereunto; altogether I am not out of hopes, That, that Labor in the Lord was not in vain.

The Universality of Redemption (one thing in that Treatise mainly opposed) having of old, and of late got room in the minds of some men, otherwise furnished with many precious Truths, and eminent Gifts, I was not without expectation of some opposition to be made thereunto: Something also (I have been informed) hath been attempted that way; but I am yet at so much quiet in that regard, as an utter nescience of them, can afford.

Only whereas many other questions are incidently, and by the way handled therein, as about the Satisfaction, and Merit of Christ, &c. It pleased Mr Baxter, a learned Divine, in an Appendix to a Treatise of Justification by him lately Published, to turn aside in the Censure of some of them, and opposition to them.

Indeed most of his Exceptions do lie rather against Words, then Things; Expressions, then Oppinions; wayes of Delivering things, then the Doctrines themselves, as the Reader will perceive; so that of this labour I might ease my self with this just Apology; That I was desired, and pressed to handle the things of that Discourse, in the most popular way they were capable of, and in the best accommodation to vulgar Capacities; so that it is no wonder, if some Expressions therein, may be found to want some grains of Accurateness (though they have not one dram the less of Truth) in a Scholastical ballance:

Notwithstanding, because

1 I am not as yet convinced by any thing in M. Baxters Censure, and Opposition, that there was any such blameable deviation as is pretended, but rather the words of Truth, and Sobriety, cloathing a Doctrine of wholsomeness; and especially, because the things pointed at are in [Page] themselves weighty, and needing some exactness in the delivery, to give a right Apprehension of them: I was willing once more to attempt whether the Grace of God with me, who am less then the least of all Saints, might give any further light into the right understanding of them according to the Truth, to the advantage of any that love the Lord Jesus in sincerity.

The true nature of the satisfaction of Christ, with the kind of Payment of our Debt by him made and accomplished, is doubtless worthy of our most serious enquiry: The right Constitution of the immediate Effects of the Death of Christ, the relation of men to the Election of God, and the Redemption of Christ, with their several states and Conditions in reference unto those Works of Grace, ought to be of no lesse esteem: And that not only for the nature and excellency of the things themselves, but also because a right disposal of them, gives more light into the stating and settling many other Controverted Truths about Faith, Justification, Vocation, and the like: These are the Subjects about which I am called forth in my own, or rather Truths defence.

For the Treatise, and Subject thereof, whose latter part gives Rise to this; I shall say no more, but as there are in it many footsteps of Commendable Learning, Industry, and Diligence; so to my present Apprehension the chief Intendments of it, with very many occasional Expressions of the Authors Judgement in sundry Particulars, are obnoxious to just Opposition from Truth it self.

It is not at all in my thoughts, to engage my self into the chief Controversie there agitated; though I could desire, That some to whom Providence hath given more leasure, and opportunities for such employments, would candidly examine those Aphorismes, for the further advantage of Truth and Light.

But whereas the learned Author hath to make streight the work he had in hand, endeavoured to cast some part [Page] of the Doctrine of the Satisfaction, and Redemption of Christ, as by me delivered, into a crooked Frame, and that with some such passages of Censure, as might have been omitted, without losing the least Grace of his Book, or Stile: I shall with the Lords assistance, endeavour to reinforce what of Truth hath been thereby assaulted in vain, and more especially take occasion from thence further to unfold those Mysteries, which to our apprehension, are wrapped up in no small darkness: there being in them some things difficult, and hard to be understood.

The First thing then, which that learned Divine chose to stand in distance from me in, is concerning the nature of the payment made for sin by the bloud of Christ; Whether it be ejusdem, or tantidem; and of the Sense of those Expresions, is our First Debate: In handling whereof, I hope I shall not only satisfie the Reader as to the Truth of what I had before written; but also further cleer the whole Doctrine of Satisfaction, with especial reference to the kind of the Payment that Christ made, and Punishment which he underwent.

The other Head wrappeth in it self many particulars concerning the immediate Fruit, or Effects of the Death of Christ, the state of Elect Redeemed ones before actual Believing, the nature of Redemption, Reconciliation, the differencing of Persons in Gods eternal Purposes; to the Consideration of all which, and sundry other particulars, I have occasion offered me, in defence of the Truth impugned.

These now and the like, being things in themselves weighty, and the difference about them being for the most part rather as to the way of the delivery, then as to things themselves: In the handling of them, I could not attend meerly to the advantage offered by M. Baxters Discourse, but chuse rather to cast them into another method, which might be distinct, cleer, and accommodate to the things themselves: So that I hope the Reader may (with some [Page] Profit) see the whole dispensation of the Love of God to his Elect through Christ, with the relation of the Elect in several Conditions, unto the several actings of God in that dispensation succinctly laid down.

The Accommodation also of All delivered, to many weighty Controversies, I have added.

If the way of handling these things here used, be blamed by any, I hope the judicious will see, That it is such as the matter it self will bear.

There hath not been many things in my whole enquiry after the Mind of God in his Word, which have more exercised my thoughts, then the right ordering, and distinct disposal of those whereof we treat; If the Lord hath discovered any thing unto me, or made out any thing by me, that may be for the benefit of any of his, I shall rejoyce; it being always in my desire, That all things might fall out to the advantage of the Gospel: and so I address my self to the matter before me.

CAP. II.
An entrance into the whole; Of the Nature of the payment made by CHRIST; VVith the Right stating of the things in Difference.

MR. Baxter having Composed his Aphorismes of Justification, with their Explications: before the publishing of them in Print, he Communicated them (as should appear) to some of his neer acquaintance: Unto some things in them contained, one of his said friends gives in some Exceptions; amongst other things he opposeth unto those Aphorismes, he also points at my contrary [Page] Judgement in one or two particulars, with my Reasons produced for the Confirmation thereof. This provoketh their learned Author (though unwilling) to turn aside to the Consideration of those Reasons. Now the First of those Particulars being about the payment made for sin, in the bloud of Christ, of what sort, and kind it is: I shall willingly carry on the Enquiry to this further Issue, whereunto I am drawn out.

1 He looks upon the Stating of the Question as I professedly laid it down at my entrance into that Disputation, and declares, That it is nothing at all to the Question he hath in hand, nor looking that way.

‘He distinguisheth (saith M. Baxter) betwixt paying the very thing that is in the Obligation, and paying of so much in another kind: Now this is not our Question, nor any thing to it. Append. p. 137.’

If it be so, I know no reason why I was plucked in to the following Dispute, nor why M. Baxter should cast away so many Pages of his Book, upon that which is nothing at all to the business he had in hand.

But though there be nothing to this purpose, Page 137 of my Book, the place he was sent to, yet Page 140 there is: As also something contrary to what is expressed in the former Place, which he intimates in these words;

‘In Page 140, he states the Question far otherwise, (and yet supposeth it the same) viz. Whether Christ paid the idem, or the tantundum? which he interpreteth thus, (that which is not the same, nor equivalent unto it, but only in the Gracious acceptation of the Creditor: Now what he means by (not equivalent) I cannot tell.’

‘1 If he mean (not of equal value) then he fights with a shadow: He wrongeth Grotius (for ought I can find in him) who teacheth no such Doctrine: However I do not so use to English (solutio tantidem.) But if he mean that it is not equivalent, in procuring it's end ipso [Page]facto, delivering the Debtor, without the Intervention of a new Concession or Contract of the Creditor (as solutio ejusdem doth) then I confess Grotius is against him, and so am I.’

‘So also (God's Gracious acceptance) is either in accepting less in value then was due, and so remitting the rest without payment, (this I plead not for) or else it is his accepting a refusable payment, which though equal in value, yet he may chuse to accept according to the tenor of the Obligation: This is Gracious acceptance which Grotius maintaineth: and so do I: and so distinguish betwixt solutio, and satisfactio, payment and satisfaction.’ Thus far he.

Sundry things are here imagined, and asserted: 1 Several Passages are pointed at in my Treatise, and a Contradiction between them intimated. 2 Various Conjectures given at my (plain, very plain) meaning, and divers things objected answerable to those Conjectures, &c. Wherefore to cleer the whole, I shall First give you in the Passages Opposed, and then Vindicate them from mutual Opposition, with what is besides Charged on them.

The First place mentioned in my Treatise is in page 137. where after I had discoursed of the Nature of satisfaction, in reference both unto things Real and Personal, I laid down a distinction in these words:

‘There may be a twofold satisfaction: 1 By a solution or payment of the very thing that is in the Obligation; either, by the Party himself who is bound, or by some other in his stead: As if I owe a man 20 pounds, and my Friend goeth and payeth it, my Creditor is fully satisfied. 2 By a solution or paying of so much although in another kind, not the same that is in the Obligation, which by the Creditors acceptation stands in Lieu of it: upon which also, Freedom followeth from the Obligation, by vertue of an Act of Favour.’

What now sayes M. B. to this? Why? ‘It is nothing to the business he hath in hand.’

[Page] Let then this pass, and look to the next Passage, which is Opposed, and Supposed to stand in Opposition to the other.

Having laid down the former Distinction, passing on to some other things concerning the Nature of Satisfaction, and the establishment of That of Christ from the Scripture, in Page 140, I apply that Distinction laid down before in General, to the kind of satisfaction made by Christ, in these words:

‘Whereas I said that there is a twofold Satisfaction, whereby the Debtor is freed from the Obligation, that is upon him; the one being solutio ejusdem, payment of the same thing that was in the Obligation: The other solutio tantidem, of that which is not the same, nor equivalent unto it, but only in the Gracious acceptation of the Creditor: It is worth our Enquiry, which of these it was that our Saviour did perform.’

And accordingly I refer it to the First.

‘This (saith M. B.) is a stating of the Question far otherwise then before, yet supposing it the same.’

But this I was so far from once mistrusting before, as that being informed of it, I cannot as yet apprehend it to be so.

In Page 137 I lay down a distinction in general about the several kinds of satisfaction, which page 140 I plainly apply to the satisfaction of Christ, without any new, much less changed stating of a Question.

My whole aim in that Enquiry, was to search out that kind of punishment, which Christ underwent in making Satisfaction for sin, viz. ‘Whether it were the same that was threatned to the Transgressors themselves, or whether something else which God accepted in Lieu thereof, relaxing the Law, not only as to the Person suffering, but also as to the Penalty to be undergone?’

The First of these (and that with the concurrent suffrage of far the greatest number of Protestant Divines) I [Page] Assert with sundry Arguments, Page 141, 142, &c. 154, 155, 156. Unto which Assertion, he neither opposeth himself, nor once attempteth to Answer any of the Arguments whereby I proved it.

This being my Intendment, page 137, I intimate that Christ paid the Same Thing that was in the Obligation, as if in Things Real a Friend should pay 20 pounds for him that owed so much, and not any thing in another kind: and Page 140 I Affirm that he paid Idem, that is the same thing that was in the Obligation; and not tantundum, something equivalent thereunto, in another kind.

‘The First of these is Nothing to our purpose (saith M. B.) but the Latter; the Latter crossing the Former.’ So he. But truly (such is my dulness) I cannot as yet be won to his mind herein.

But though I agree with my self, perhaps I do not with the Truth. That description of solutio tantidem, viz. That it is a payment of that which is not the same, nor equivalent unto it, but only in the Gracious Acceptation of the Creditor, is Peculiarly opposed.

To make this Expression obnoxious to an Exception, M. B. divides it, that so it may be entangled with a fallacy, [...]: And First, he asks (as before) What I mean by [not equivalent] and hereunto suppossing two Answers, to the First he opposseth a Shadow, to the Latter Himself.

1 ‘If (saith he) by [not equivalent] you mean not of equal value, you fight with a Shadow, and wrong Grotius: However I do not use so to English solutio tantidem.’

By [not equivalent] I mean that which is not of equal value, Answ. or certainly I mistook the word; and if so, had need enough to have gone to M. B. or some other learned man, to have learned to English solutio tantidem.

But, Do I not then fight with a shadow?

[Page] Truly cut my words thus off in the middle of their Sense, and they will be found fit to Cope with no other Adversary: but take them as they lie, and as intended, and there is scarce any shadow of Opposition to them, cast by M. B. passing by. My words are, (It is not equivalent, but only in the Gracious Acceptation of the Creditor:) Is not the plain meaning of these words, That tantundem in Satisfaction, is not equivalent to idem [...], but only [...]? what is Denied of it absolutly, is Affirmed in some respect. He that sayes, It is not equivalent, but only in Gracious Acceptation, in that sense Affirms it to be equivalent; and that it is in respect of that sense, That the things so called, is said to be tantundem, that is equivalent.

Now what excepts M. B. hereunto? Doth he assert tantundem to be in this matter equivalent unto idem [...]? It is the very thing he opposeth all along, maintaining that solutio tantidem stands in need of Gracious Acceptance, ejusdem of none: and therefore they are not as to their End [...] equivalent.

Or will he deny it to be equivalent in Gods Gracious Acceptance? this he also contendeth for himself. Though refusable, yet equivalent.

What then is my Crime? I wrong Grotius! Wherein? in imposing on him, that he should say, It was not of equal value to the Idem▪ that Christ paid. Not one such word, in any of the places mentioned. I say, Grotius maintains, That the satisfaction of Christ, was solutio tantidem. Will you deny it? Is it not his main endeavour to prove it so? Again, tantundem I say is not in this case equivalent to Idem, [...], but only [...]: doth not M. B. labour to prove the same? Where then is the difference? Were it not for Ignoratio Elenchi in the Bottom, and Fallacia plurium interrogationum at the Top, this Discourse would have been very empty.

2, But he casts my words into another Frame, to give their sense another Appearance; and saith,

[Page] ‘If you mean That it is not equivalent in procuring it's End, ipso facto, delivering the Debtor without the Intervention of a new concession or contract of the Creditor, as solutio ejusdem doth, then I confess Grotius is against you, and so am I.’

Of Grotius I shall speak afterwards:Answ. for the present I apply my self to M. B. and say,

1 If he intend to oppose himself to any thing I handle and assert in the place he considereth, he doth by this Quaerie-plainly [...], and that from a second inadvertency of the Argument in hand; It is of the nature of the Penalty undergon, and not of the Efficacy of the Satisfaction made thereby, that I there Dispute.

2 I conceive that in this Interrogation and Answer, he wholly gives up the Cause, that he pretends to plead, and joyns with me (as he conceives my sense to be) against Grotius and himself.

‘;If (saith he) he mean that it is not equivalent, in procuring it's End ipso facto, without the Intervention of a new Concession or Contract as solutio ejusdem doth, then I am against him.’

Well then: M. B. maintains that solutio tantidem is equivalent with solutio ejusdem in obtaining it's End ipso facto: for saith he, If I say it is not equivalent, he is against me. [...]. But is this his mind indeed? Will his words bear any other sense?

3 Whether tantundem and idem in the way of Satisfaction be equivalent to the obtaining the End ipso facto aimed at, (which he here asserts, though elsewhere constantly denyes couching in this distinction the [...] of a great part of his Discourse) certainly is nothing at all to the Question I there agitated; maintaining, That it was idem and not tantundum that Christ paid, and so the End of it obtained ipso facto, answerable to the kind of the Efficacy and procurement thereof.

[Page] But perhaps I do not conceive his mind aright: peradventure his mind is, That if I do maintain the SATISFACTION OF CHRIST to procure the End aimed at, ipso facto, as solutio ejusdem would have done, then to professe himself my Adversary. But,

1 This is not here expressed, nor intimated.

2 It is nothing at all to me, who place the matter of the Satisfaction of Christ, in solutione ejusdem.

3 About the End of Satisfaction in the place opposed I speak not, but only of the Nature of the Penalty undergone whereby it was made.

4 To the thing it self, I desire to enquire;

1 What M. B. intends by solutio ejusdem in the businesse in hand? Doth he not maintain it to be the Offendors own undergoing the Penalty of the Law? What End I pray doth this obtain ipso facto? Can it be any other but the Glory of Gods Justice in the everlasting destruction of the Creature? How then can it possibly be supposed to attain the End spoken of ipso facto? If this be the only meaning of solutio ejusdem, in this sense, the End of it is distant from the End of Satisfaction [...].

By the laying the Penalty on Christ, that God intended the freedom of those for whom he underwent that Penalty, I suppose cannot be doubted: but in inflicting it on the Offendors themselves, that he hath any such aim, wants an Origen to assert.

2 Whether the Penalty due to One, may not be undergon by Another? and if so, Whether it be not the same Penalty (the idem) or no? In things Real, I gave an Instance before: If a man pay twenty pounds for another who owed it, doth not he pay the idem in the Obligation? And may not this hold in things Personal also?

Of the Satisfaction of Christ procuring it's End ipso facto, (I mean in it's own kind, for the Death of Christ must be considered as Meritorious, as well as Satisfactory if deliverance be attended as the End of it) I shall speak [Page] afterwards in it's proper place. The present Controversie is no more but this;

Whether Christ underwent the Penalty threatned unto us, or some other thing accepted in stead thereof, by a new Constitution? Which is all one, Whether in laying our iniquities upon Christ, the Law of God was relaxed only as to the Persons suffering, or also as to the Penalty suffered? That is, Whether Christ paid the idem in the Obligation, or tantundum? To suppose that the idem of the Obligation is not only the Penalty it self, but also the Offendors own suffering that Penalty, and then to enquire, Whether Christ underwent the idem, is to create an easie Enemy, to triumph in his dejection.

That the Law was relaxed, as to the persons suffering, I positively Assert; but as to the Penalty it self, that is not mentioned. Of these two things alone then must be our Enquiry.

1 Whether Christ in making satisfaction, underwent that Penalty that was threatned to the Offendors themselves?

2 Whether the Penalty though undergone by another, be not the idem of the Obligation?

Of both these after the cleering of the residue of Mr Baxters Exceptions.

Nextly he requireth what I intend by Gracious Acceptance, or rather giveth in his own sense of it, in these words.Pa. 138, 139

‘So also (Gods Gracious Acceptance) is either his accepting lesse in value then was due, and so remitting the rest without payment: this I plead not for: or else it is his accepting of a refuseable Payment, which though equal in value, yet he may chuse to accept according to the tenor of the Obligation. This is Gracious acceptance which Grotius maintaineth: and so do I.’ Thus far, he.

Now neither is this any more to the business [...] have in hand. For,

[Page] 1 The value of any Satisfaction in this Business, ariseth not from the innate worth of the things whereby it is made; but purely from Gods free Constitution of them to such an End. A distinction cānot be allowed of more or less value in the things appointed of God for the same End; All their value ariseth meerly from that appointment: they have so much as he ascribeth to them, and no more: Now neither idem nor tantundum are here satisfactory, but by vertue of divine Constitution: only in tantundem I require a peculiar acceptance to make it equivalent to idem in this business, that is as to satisfaction: or (if you please) an acceptance of that which is not idem, to make it a tantundum. So that this Gracious Acceptance, is not an accepting of that which is less in value then what is in the Obligation, but a free Constitution appointing another thing to the End, which before was not appointed.

2 He supposeth me, (if in so many mistakes of his, I mistake him not) to deny all Gracious Acceptance where the Idem is paid, which (in the present case) is false: I assert it necessary, because not paid per eundem: yea and that other person not procured by the Debtor, but graciously assigned by the Creditor.

3 To make up his Gracious acceptance in his latter sense, he distinguisheth of payments refusable, and not refusable; in the Application of which distinction unto the payment made by Christ, I cannot close with him.

For,

A Payment is refusable either absolutly and in it self, or upon supposal: The Death of Christ considered absolutly and in it self, may be said to be refusable as to be made a Payment; not a refusable payment: and that, not because not refusable, but because not a payment. Nothing can possibly tend to the procurement and compassing of any End by the way of Payment, with the Lord, but what is built upon some free Compact, Promise, or Obligation of his Own. But now consider it as an Issue flowing from divine [Page] Constitution, making it a payment, and so it was no way refusable, as to the compassing of the End appointed. Thus also, as to the Obligation of the Law, for the fulfilling thereof, it was refusable in respect of the person paying, not in respect of the payment made: That former respect being also taken off by divine Constitution, and Relaxation of the Law as to that, it becometh wholly unrefusable: that is, As it was paid it was so; for satisfaction was made thereby upon the former supposals of Constitution and Relaxation.

4 Doth not Mr B. suppose, That in the very Tenure of the Obligation there is required a solution, tending to the same End as satisfaction doth? Nay, Is not that [...] the [...] of this Discourse? Deliverance is the aim of Satisfaction, which receives it's Spring and Being from the Constitution thereof. But is there any such thing as Deliverance once aimed at, or intended in the tenor of the Obligation? I suppose no.

5 Neither is the Distinction of solutio and satisfactio (which Mr B. closeth withal) of any weight in this Business; unless it would hold [...], which it will not, and so is of no use here.

For,

1 There is solutio tantidem, as well as ejusdem, and therein consists satisfaction according to Mr B.

2 Whether Satisfaction be inconsistant with solutio ejusdem, but not per eundem is the [...].

After all this Mr B. ads,

Yet here Mr Owen enters the List with Grotius.

Where I pray?Answ. I might very justly make enquiry from the Beginning to the Ending of this Discourse, to find out what it is, that this word HERE, particularly answereth unto. But to avoid as much as possible all strife of words, I desire the Reader to view the Controversie agitated between Grotius and my self, not as here represented by Mr Baxter, so changed by a new dress, That I [Page] might justly refuse to take any acquaintance with it, but as by my self laid down in the places excepted against; and he will quickly find it to be,

1 Not whether the Law were at all Relaxed, but whether it were relaxed as well in respect of the Penalty to be suffered, as of the Person suffering? That is, Whether God be only a Rector, or a Rector and Creditor also in this Businesse? (which Controversie by the way, is so confusedly Proposed, or rather strangly handled by Mr B. page 145, where he adjudges me in a successeless assault of Grotius, as makes it evident he never once perused it.)

2 Nor Secondly, Whether there be any need of Gods Gracious Acceptance in this businesse, or no; for I Assert it necessary (as before described) in reference to solutio ejusdem, sed non per eundem.

3 Neither Thirdly, Whether the Satisfaction of Christ considered absolutly, and in statu diviso, and materially, be refusable, which I considered not, or be unrefusable, supposing the Divine Constitution, which Grotius (as I take it) delivered not himself in. Nor,

4 About the value of the Payment of Christ in reference to Acceptance; but meerly (as I said before,)

‘Whether the Lord appointing an End of Deliverance, neither intimated nor couched in the Obligation, nor any of it's Attendencies, constituting a way for the attainment of that End, by receiving Satisfaction to the Obligation, did appoint that the thing in the Obligation should be paid though by Another, or else some new thing that (of it self, and by it self) never was in the Obligation, either before or after it's solution: As the Payment made by Christ must be granted such, unlesse it were for substance the same which the LAW required.’

And here (with most Divines) I maintain the First, viz. That the Law was Relaxed in respect of the Person suffering, but Executed in respect of the Penalty suffered: [Page] Relaxation and Execution are not in this businesse opposed [...] but only [...].

He that would see this further affirmed, may consult what I wrote of it in the Place opposed, which is not once moved by any thing here spoken to the contrary.

By the way observe, I speak only of the Penalty of the Law, and the Passive Righteousness of Christ, strictly so called: For his Active Righteousness or Obedience to the Law, (though he did many things we were not oblieged unto, for the manifestation of himself, and Confirmation of the Doctrine of the Gospel) that it was the very idem of us required. I suppose none can doubt.

What place that Active Righteousness of Christ hath, or what is it's use in our Justification, I do not now enquire, being unwilling to immix my self unnecessarily in any Controversie, though I cannot but suppose that M. B. his Discourse hereabouts gives Advantage enough, even Minorum Gentium Theologis, to ordinary Divines (as he calls them) to deal with him in it.

CAP. III.
The Arguments of Grotius, And their Defence by Mr. Baxter, about the Penalty under-gone by CHRIST in making Satisfaction, Considered.

THE State of the Question in hand being as above laid down, let us now see what Mr Baxter his Judgment is of my successe in that undertaking: Concerning which he thus delivereth himself;

Yet here Mr OWEN enters the List with GROTIUS, And,

[Page]

1 He over-looketh his greatest Arguments.

2 He slightly Answereth only Two.

3 And when he hath done, he saith as Grotius doth, and yeeldeth the whole Cause.

These Three things I will make appear in Order. Append. pag. 139.

A most unhappy Issue as can possibly be imagined, made up of Deceit, Weakness. and self-Contradiction. But how is all this proved?

To make the First thing appear, He produceth the Argument over-looked.

‘The chief Argument of Grotius and Vossius (saith he) is drawn from the Tenor of the Obligation, and from the Event. The Obligation chargeth Punishment on the Offendor himself. It saith [In the day thou eatest thou shalt die] And [Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things, &c.] Now if the same in the Obligation be paid, then the Law is Executed, and not Relaxed: and then every Sinner must die himself; for that is the idem, and very thing threatned: So that here, dum alias soluit, simul aliud solvitur. The Law threatned not Christ, but us: (besides that, Christ suffered not the loss of Gods Love, nor his Image and Graces, nor eternity of Torment, of which I have spoken in the Treatise) What saith Mr Owen to any of this?’

Let the Reader observe what it is we have in hand.Answ. It is not the main of the Controversie Debated by Grotius wherein I do oppose him: Neither yet All in that particular whereabout the Opposition is. Now suppose (as he doth) That the punishing of the Person Offending is in the Obligation, yet I cannot but conceive that there be Two distinct things here: 1 The Constitution of the Penalty it self to be undergone. 2 The Terminating of this Penalty upon the Person Offending. For this Latter, I Assert a Relaxation of the Law, which might be done, and yet the Penalty it self in Reference to it's Constitution be [Page] established. In those places then (In the day thou eatest, &c.) there is Death and the Curse appointed for the Penalty, and the Person Offending appointed for the sufferer. That the Law is Relaxed, in the Latter I grant, That the former was Executed on Christ I prove.

Now what sayes this Argument to the Contrary?

If the same in the Obligation be paid, then the Law is Executed, not Relaxed. Then every Sinner must die himself, for that is the idem and very thing threatned. So that here dum alias soluit aliud solvitur.

Answer:

1 The Matter of the Obligation having plainly a double Consideration, as before, it may be both Executed and Relaxed in sundry respects.

2 The Idem and very thing threatned in the Constitution of the Law, is death; The Terminating of that Penalty to the Person Offending, was in the Commination, and had it not been Released, must have been in the Execution: but in the Constitution of the Obligation which respects purely the kind of Penalty, primarily it was not. Death is the reward of Sin, is all that is there.

3 We Enquire not about Payment, but Suffering. To make that suffering a Payment supposeth another Constitution: by vertue whereof Christ suffering the same that was threatned: it became another thing in Payment, then it would have been, if the Person Offending had suffered himself.

4 That the Law threatned not Christ but us, is most true: but the Question is, Whether Christ underwent not the threatning of the Law, not we? A Commutation of Persons is allowed, Christ undergoing the Penalty of the Offence, though he were not the Person Offending, I cannot but still suppose that he paid the Idem of the Obligation.

5 For the Parenthesis about Christ's not suffering the loss of Gods love, &c. and the like Objections, they have been [Page] Answered neer a thousand times already, and that by no ordinary Divines neither; so that I shall not further trouble any therewith.

How this is the Argument, the great chief Argument of Grotius and Vossius, which Mr Baxter affirmes I overlooked.

That I did not Express it, I easily grant: neither will I so wrong the ingenious Reader as to make any long Apology for my Omission of it, considering the state of the matter in difference as before proposed: When Mr B. or any man else, shall be able to draw out any Conclusion from thence, That granting the relaxation of the Law as to the Person suffering, the Lord Christ did not undergo the Penalty constituted therein, or that undergoing the very Penalty appointed, he did not pay the idem in the Obligation, (supposing a new Constitution for the converting of suffering into a satisfactory payment) I shall then give a Reason why I Considered it not.

In the next place Mr B. giveth in the two Arguments wherewith I deal. And for the First, about an Acquitment ipso facto upon the payment of the Idem in the Obligation, with my Answer, refers it to be considered in another place: Which though I receive no small Injury by, as shall be there declared, yet that I may not transgress the Order of Discourse set me, I passe it by also until then.

The Second Argument of Grotius with my Answer, he thus expresseth:

‘To the Second Argument that the payment of the same thing in the Obligation leaveth no room for Pardon, he Answereth thus:’

1 ‘Gods Pardoning compriseth the whole Dispensation of Grace in Christ; As 1 The laying of our Sin on Christ: 2 The imputation of his Righteousness to us, which is no lesse of Grace and Mercy. However God pardoneth all to US, but nothing to CHRIST: [Page] So that the Freedome of Pardon hath it's Foundation.’

1 In Gods Will freely appointing this Satisfaction of Christ.

2 In a Gracious Acceptation of the decreed Satisfaction in our stead.

3 In a free Application of the Death of Christ to us.

‘To which I Answer, &c. ’ So far he.

Though this may appear to be a distinct Expression of my Answer, yet because it seems to me, That the very strength of it as laid down, is omitted; I shall desire the Reader to peruse it as it is there Proposed, and it will give him some light into the thing in hand. I apply my self to what is here Expressed, and Answer:

1 To the Objection proposed from Grotius as above, I gave a Threefold Answer.

1 That Gracious Condonation of sin, which I conceive to be the Sum of the glad tydings of the Gospel, seemeth to comprize those Two Acts before recounted; both which I there prove to be free, because the very Merit and Satisfaction of Christ himself was founded on a free Compact and Covenant, or Constitution.

Now I had Three Reasons (among others) that prevailed with me to make Gracious Condonation of so large extent, which I shall Expresse, and leave them to the thoughts of every Judicious Reader, whether they are enforcing thereunto, or no; being exceedingly indifferent what his Determination is: For the weight of my Answer depends not on it at all.

And they are these:

1, Because that single Act of remission of sins to particular persons, (which is nothing but a disolution of the Obligation of the Law, as unto them, whereby they are bound over to Punishment) as it is commonly restrained, is affirmed by them whom Grotius in that Book opposed (into [Page] whose Tents he was afterwards a Renegado) to be inconsistent with any Satisfaction at all; yea, that which Grotius maintains per tantundem. But now if you extend that Gospel phrase to the Compasse I have mentioned, they have not the least Colour so to do.

2. Whereas the Scripture mentioneth, That through Christ is Preached the forgivenesse of Sin, Act. 13. 38. I do suppose that phrase to be Comprehensive of the whole manifestation of God in the COVENANT of Grace.

3, God expresly saith, That this is his Covenant, That he will be merciful to our unrighteousness, Heb. 8. 12.

By the way I cannot close with Mr B. that this place to the Hebrews, and the other of Jeremiah, 31. 32, 33. do comprize but part of the Covenant, not the whole. God saying expresly, THIS IS MY COVENANT: To say it is not, is not to Interpret the Word, but to Deny it. It is true, it is not said that is the whole Covenant; no more is it that Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life only. As the want of that term of nestriction, doth not enlarge in that, no more doth the want of the note of Ʋ niversality restrain in this. To say thus, because here is no Condition expressed, is [...]. If you mean such a Condition as God requireth of us, and yet worketh in us, it is there punctually expressed, with reference to the nature of the COVENANT, whereof it is a Condition, which is to effect all the Conditions thereof, in the Covenanters. This by the way, having resolvedly tied up my self from a Debate of those Positions which Mr B. dogmatizeth; though a large field, and easie to be walked in, lies open on every hand, for the scattering of many Magisterial Dictates, which with confidence enough are crudily asserted.

This is (to return) my First Answer, to the forementioned Objection, with the Reasons of it, whereunto Mr B. excepteth, as followeth.

1 Pardon implyeth Christs Death as a Cause; but [Page] I would he had shewed the Scripture that makes Pardon so large a thing, as to comprize the whole Dispensation of Grace; or that maketh Christs death to be a part of it, or comprized in it.

2 If such a word were in the Scripture, will he not confesse it to be Figurative, and not proper, and so not fit for this Dispute.

3 Else when he saith, That Christs Death procured our Pardon, he meaneth that it procured it self.

So he.

To all which I say,

1 The death of Christ, as it is a Cause of Pardon, is not once mentioned in any of my Answers: There is a wide Difference (in Consideration) between Gods imputation of Sin to Christ, and the Death of Christ, as the meritorious cause of Pardon. So that this is Pura Ignoratio Elenchi.

2 Take Pardon in the large sense I intimated, and so the Death of Christ is not the meritorious cause of the whole, but only of that particular in it, wherein it is commonly supposed solely to Consist, of which before: But,

In what sense, and upon what grounds, I extended gracious Condonation of sin, unto that Compasse here mentioned, I have now expressed. Let it stand or fall, as it sutes the Judgement of the Reader: the weight of my Answer depends not on it, at all.

My Second Answer to that Objection I gave in these words.

That Remission, Grace, and Pardon which is in God for Sinners, is not oppossed to Christs Merits and Satisfaction, but ours: He pardoneth all to us, but he spared not his only Son, he bated him not one farthing.

To this Mr B, thus expressing it, (But it is of Grace to us, though not to Christ) Answereth: Doth not that cleerly intimate, That Christ was not in the Obligation? That the [Page] Law doth threaten every man personally, or else it had been no favour to accept it of another.

It is marvelous to me,Answ. That a Learned man should voluntarily chuse an Adversary to himself, and yet Consider the very leaves which he undertakes to Confute, with so much Contempt or Oscitancy, as to labour to prove against him, what he possitively Asserts terminis terminantibus. That Christ was not in the Obligation, that he was put in as a Surety by his own Consent, God by his Soveraignty dispensing with the Law as to that, yet as a Creditor exacting of him the due Debt of the Law, is the maine Intendment of the place Mr Baxter here Considereth.

2 Grant All that here is said, how doth it prove that Christ underwent not the very Penalty of the Law? Is it because he was not Primarily in the Obligation? He was put in as a Surety to be the Object of it's Execution. Is it because the Law doth threaten every man Personally? Christ underwent Really, what was threatned to others: as shall be proved: but, it is not then of favour to accept it: but this is the [...]. And thus to set it down, is but a Petition [...].

3 How doth this Elude the force of my Answer? I see it not at all.

After this, I give a Third Answer to the former Objection, manifesting how the FREEDOM of Pardon, may Consist with Christ Satisfaction, in these words:

The Freedom then of Pardon hath not its foundation in any defect of the Merit or Satisfaction of Christ; but in Three other things:

1 The Will of God freely appointing the Satisfaction of Christ: Joh. 3. 16. Rom. 5. 8. 1 Joh. 4. 9.

2 In a Gracious Acceptation of that decreed Satisfaction in our steads, so many, no more.

3 In a free Application of the Death of Christ unto [Page] us. Remission then excludes not a full Satisfaction by the solution of the very thing in the Obligation, but only the Solution or Satisfaction of him to whom Pardon and Remission is granted.

It being the Freedom of Pardon that is denied. Upon the supposals of such a Satisfaction as I Assert, I Demonstrate from whence that Freedom doth accrew unto it, notwithstanding a supposal of such a Satisfaction: not that Pardon consisteth in the Three things there recounted, but that it hath its Freedom from them: That is, Supposing those Three things, notwithstanding the Intervention of Payment made by Christ, it cannot be, but Remission of Sin unto us must be a free and gracious Act.

To all this Mr B. opposeth divers things. For,

1 Imputation of righteousness (saith he) is not any part of Pardon, but a necessary Antecedent.

2 The same may be said of Gods Acceptation.

3 Its Application is a large Phrase, and may be meant of several Acts; but of which here I know not.

In a word this mistake is very great.Answ. I affirm the Freedom of Pardon to depend on those things; he Answereth, That Pardon doth not consist in these things. It is the Freedom of Pardon, whence it is; not the Nature of Pardon, wherein it is, that we have under Consideration.

But (saith he) how can he call it a gracious Acceptation, a gracious Imputation, a free Application, if it were the same thing the Law requireth that was paid?

To pay all according to the full exaction of the Obligation, needeth no favour to procure Acceptance, Imputation, or Application. Can Justice refuse to accept of such a payment? or can it require any more?

Though I know not directly what it is he means by saying (I call it) yet I passe it over.Answ.

2 If all this were done by the Persons themselves, or any one in their stead, procured and appointed by themselves, then were there some difficulty in these Questions; [Page] but this being otherwise, there is none at all, as hath been declared.

3 How the Payment made by Christ was of Grace, yet in respect of the Obligation of the Law needed no favour, nor was refusable by Justice, supposing its free Constitution, shall be afterwards declared. To me the Author seems not to have his wonted cleerness in this whole Section, which might administer occasion of further Enquiry and Exceptions, but I forbear.

And thus much be spoken, for the cleering and vindicating my Answer to the Arguments of Grotius against Christs paying the Idem of the Obligation: The next shall further confirme the Truth.

CAP. IV.
Further of the matter of the Satisfaction of Christ, wherein is proved, That it was the same that was in the Obligation.

IT being supposed not to be sufficient to have shewed the weakness of my Endeavour to Assert and Vindicate from Opposition, what I had undertaken.

Mr Baxter addeth, That I give up the Cause about which I contend, as having indeed not understood him, whom I undertook to Oppose, in these words:

Mr Owen giveth up the Cause at last, and saith as Grotius: (having not understood Grotius his meaning) as appeareth, Pag. 141, 142, 143.

Whether I understand Grotius or no,Answ. will by and by appear. Whether Mr B. understandeth Me, or the Controversie by me handled, you shall have now a TRYAL.

[Page] The Assertion which alone I seek to Maintain, is this;

That the Punishment which our Saviour under-went, was the same that the Law required of us: God relaxing his Law as to the Person suffering, but not as to the Penalty suffered.

Now, if from this I draw back in any of the Concessions following collected from pag. 141, 142, 143. I depracate not the Censure of giving up the Cause I contended for. If otherwise, there is a great mistake in some body of the whole businesse.

Of the things then Observe according to Mr B. his Order, I shall take a brief account.

1 He acknowledgeth (saith he) That the Payment is not made by the Party to whom Remission is granted, (and so saith every man that is a Christian.)

This is a part of the Position it self I maintain,Answ. and so no going back from it: So that as to this, I may passe as a Christian.

2 He saith (ads he) it was a full valuable Compensation (therefore not of the same.

1 This Inference would trouble Mr B. to prove.

Answ.

2 Therefore not made by the same, nor by any of the Debtors appointment, will follow, (perhaps) but no more.

3 ‘That by Reason of the Obligation upon us, we our selves were bound to undergo the punishment. Therefore Christs punishment was not in the Obligation, but only ours, and so the Law was not fully Executed, but Relaxed.’

1 This is my Thesis fully,Answ. the Law was Executed as to its Penalty, relaxed as to the Person suffering.

2 The Punishment that Christ under-went, was in the Obligation, though threatned to us.

[Page] 4 ‘He saith, he meaneth not that Christ bore the same punishment due to us in all Accidents of Duration and the like: but the same in weight and preasure (therfore not the same in the Obligation, because not fully the same Act.’

The Accidents I mention,Answ. follow and attend the Person suffering, and not the Penalty it self. All Evils in any suffering as far as they are sinful, attend the Condition of the Parties that Suffer: Every thing usually recounted by those who make this and the like Exceptions, as far as they are purely penal, were on Christ.

5 ‘He saith God had power so far to relax his own LAW, as to have the name of a Surety put into the Obligation, which before was not there, and then to require the whole debt of that Surety.’

‘And what saith Grotius more then this? If the same things in the Obligation be paid, then the Law is Executed: and if Executed, then not Relaxed. Here he confesseth. That the Sureties name was not in the Obligation, and that God Relaxed the Law to put it in. Now the main businesse that Grotius drives at there, is to prove this Relaxation of the Law, and the non-Execution of it on the Offenders threatned. Thus far Mr Baxter.’

1 All this proves not at all the things intended,Answ. neither doth any Concession here mentioned, in the least take off from the main Assertion I maintain, as is apparent any at first view. 2 Grotius is so far from saying more then I do, that he sayes not so much. 3 This Paralogisme if the Law be Executed, then not Relaxed; and on the contrary, ariseth-meerly from a non-Consideration of the nature of Contradictories: The Opposition fancied here is not [...], as is required of Contradictions: 4 The Observation, that Crown main business is other, discovereth the Bottom of M. B. his mistake. Even a supposal that I should oppose [Page] Grotius in his main Intendment in the place Considered, which was not once in my thoughts. It was meerly about the nature of the Penalty that Christ underwent, that I Discoursed. How the Relaxation of the Law, as to the Commutation of Persons may be Established, whether we affirm, Christ to have paid the Idem or Tantundem. And that Mr B. affirms the same with me, I can prove by twenty Instances. The Reader (if he please) may consult Pag. 18. & 25. 33, 34, 35. 42. 48. and in plain terms Pag. 81. In respect of punishment abstracting from Persons, the Law was not dispensed withal as to Christ? And what said I more?

And so much (if not too much) to Mr Baxters Exceptions, which of what weight and force they are, I leave to others to judge.

That which I maintain as to this Point in Difference, I have also made apparent; It is wholly comprized under these Two Heads:

1 Christ suffered the same Penalty which was in the Obligation.

2 To do so, is to make Payment ejusdem, and not tantidem.

The REASONS of both, I shall briefly subjoyne.

And as to the FIRST, they are these following:

1 The Scripture hath expresly revealed the Translation of Punishment in respect of the Subjects suffering it: but hath not spoken one word of the change of the kind of Punishment, but rather the contrary is affirmed. Rom. 8. 32. He spared not his own SON, but delivered him up for us all.

2 All the Punishment due to us, was contained in the Curse and Sanction of the Law: That is the Penalty of the Obligation whereof we spake; but this was undergon by the Lord Christ. For he hath REDEEMED us [Page]from the Curse of the LAW, being made a Curse for us, Gall. 3. 13.

3 Where God condemneth sin, there he condems it, in that very Punishment which is due unto it in the Sinner, or rather to the Sinner for it. He hath revealed but one Rule of his proceeding in this case. How he condemned sin in the flesh of Christ: or in him, sent in the likenesse of sinful flesh. Rom. 8. 30. God sending his own Son in the likenesse of sinful Flesh, and for Sin condemned sin in the flesh. The condemning of Sin, is the infliction of Punishment due to Sin.

4 The whole Penalty of Sin is Death, Gen. 2. 11. This Christ underwent for us. Heb. 2. 14. He tasted Death. And to die for another, is to undergo that Death which that other should have undergone, 2 Sam. 18. 33. It is true, this Death may be considered either in Respect of its Essence, (if I may be allowed so to speak) which is called the pains of Hell which Christ underwent, Psal. 18. 6. and 22. 1. Luke 22. 44. or of its Attendencies, as Duration and the like, which he could not undergo: Psal. 16. 20. Acts 2. So that whereas Eternal Death may be considered Two wayes, either as such in potentia, and in its own nature, or as actually: So, our Saviour underwent it not in the latter, but first sense, Heb. 2. 9. 14. which by the Dignity of his Person, 1 Pet. 3. 18. Heb. 9. 26. 28. Rom. 5. 9. which raises the Estimation of Punishment, is aequipotent to the other. There is a sameness in Christs sufferings with that in the Obligation in respect of Essence, and equivalency in respect of Attendencies.

5 The meeting of our Iniquities upon Christ, Isa. 53. 6. and his being thereby made sin for us, 2 Cor. 5. 21. lay the very Punishment of our Sin, as to us threatned, upon him.

6 Consider the Scriptural Descriptions you have of his Perpessions, and see if they do not plainly hold out the utmost that ever was threatned to sin. There is the [...] [Page] Isa. 53. 5. Peters [...], 1 Pet. 2. 24. the liver, nibex, wound, stripe, that in our stead was so on him, that thereby we are healed. Those Expressions of the Condition of his Soul in his sufferings, whereby he is said [...], Mat. 26. 34. Mark 14. 33. [...]. Luke 22. 44. Sadness unto death, Mat. 26. 38. That dreadful cry, Why hast thou forsaken me? Those cryes out of the deep, and mighty supplications under his fear, Heb. 5. 7. that were upon him do all make out, That the bitterness of the Death due to Sin was fully upon his Soul. Sum all his outward appearing Preasures, Mocks, Scoffs, Scorns, Cross, Wounds, Death, &c. And what do some of their afflictions, who have suffered for his Name, come short of it? And yet how far were they above those dreadful expressions of anguish, which we find upon the fellow of the Lord of Hosts, the Lyon of the Tribe of Judah, who received not the Spirit by measure, but was anoynted with the Oyle of Gladness above his Fellows? Certainly his un-conceivable sufferings were in an other kind, and such as set no example to any of his, to suffer in after him. It was no less then the weight of the wrath of God, and the whole punishment due to sin, that he wrestled under.

2 The Second Part of my Position is to me confirmed by these, and the like Arguments: That there is a Distinction to be allowed between the Penalty and the Person suffering, is a common apprehension: especially when the nature of the Penalty is only enquired after. If a man that had but one Eye were Censured to have an Eye put out, and a dear Friend pitying his deplorable Condition, knowing, that by undergoing the Punishment decreed, he must be left to utter blindness, should upon the allowance of Commutation (as in Zaleucus case) submit to have one of his own Eyes put out, and so satisfie the Sentence given, though by having two Eyes, he avoid himself the misery that would have attended the others suffering, who had but one. If (I say) in this Case, any should ask, [Page] Whether he underwent the idem the other should have done, or tantundem, I suppose the Answer would be easie. In things Real it is unquestionable; and in things Personally, I shall pursue it no further, lest it should prove a strife of words. And thus far of the suffering of Christ in a way of Controversie: what follows will be more Positive.

CAP. V.
The Second Head about JƲSTIFICATION before Believing.

THE next thing I am called into Question about, is Concerning actual, and absolute Justification before Believing: this Mr Baxter speaks to page 146, and so forwards: and First Answers the Arguments of Maccovius for such Justification, and then page 151 Applyes himself to remove such further Arguments, and places of Scripture, as are by me Produced for the Confirmation of that Assertion.

Here perhaps I could have desired a little more Candor. To have an Opinionion fastened on me, which I never once received, nor intimated the least Thought of, in that whole Treatise, or any other of Mine; and then my Arguments Answered as to such an end, and purpose, as I not once intended to promote by them, is a little to harsh Dealing. It is a facile thing, to Render any mans Reasonings exceedingly weak, and rediculous, if we may impose upon them such, and such things to be proved by them, which their Author never once intended.

For Partional Justification, Evangelical Justification, [Page] whereby a Sinner is compleatly Justified, that it should preceed Believing, I have not only not Asserted, but Positively Denyed, and disproved by many Arguments: To be now traduced as a Patron of that Opinion, and my Reasons for it, Publickly Answered, seems to me something Uncouth: However I am Resolved not to interpose in other mens Disputes, and Differencies, yet lest I should be again, and further mistaken in this, I shall briefly give in my Thoughts to the whole Difficulty: after I have discovered, and discussed the Ground, and Occasion of this mistake.

In an Answer to an Argument of Grotius about the Satisfaction of Christ, denying that by it we are ipso facto delivered from the Penalty due to Sin: I Affirmed that by his Death, Christ did actually, or ipso facto deliver us from the Curse, by being made a Curse for us; and this is that, which gave occasion, to that Imputation before mentioned.

To cleer my mind in this, I must desire the Reader to consider, That my Answer is but a Denial of Grotius his Assertions: In what kind, and respect Grotius doth there deny that we are ipso facto delivered by the Satisfaction of Christ, in that sense, and that only, do I affirm that we are so: otherwise there were no Contradictions between his Assertion, and mine, not speaking ad idem, and eodem respectu.

The truth is, Grotius doth not in that place whence this Argument is taken, fully, or cleerly manifest, what he intends by a deliverance which is not actual, or ipso facto: and therefore I made bold to Interpret his Mind, by the Analogie of that Opinion wherewith he was throughly infected about the Death of Christ. According to that, Christ delivering us by his Satisfaction, not actually, nor ipso facto, is so to make Satisfaction for us, as that we shal have no Benefit by his Death, but upon the performance of a Condition, which himself by that Death of his, did [Page] not absolutely procure. This was that which I opposed and therefore affirmed, That Christ by his Death did actually, or ipso facto, deliver us.

Let the Reader then here Observe:

1 That our Deliverance is to be referred to the Death of Christ, according to its own Causality; that is, as a Cause Meritorious: Now such Causes do actually, and ipso facto produce all those Effects, which immediatly slow from them; not in an immediation of Time, but Causality. Look then what Effects do follow, or what things soever are procured by them, without the interposition of any other Cause in the same kind, they are said to be procured by them actually, or ipso facto.

2 That I have abundantly proved in the Treatise mentioned, That if the Fruits of the Death of Christ, be to be communicated unto us upon Condition, and that Condition to be among those Fruits, and be it self to be absolutely communicated upon no Condition, then all the Fruits of the Death of Christ, are as absolutely procured for them, for whom he Died, as if no Condition had been prescribed; for these things come all to one.

3 I have proved in the same Place, That Faith, which is this Condition, is it self procured by the Death of Christ, for them for whom he Died, to be freely bestowed on them, without the prescription of any such Condition as on whose fulfilling, the Collation of it should depend.

These things being considered (as I hoped they would have been by every one, that should undertake to Censure any thing, as to this Business in that Treatise (they being there all handled at large) it is apparent what I intended by this actual Deliverance: viz. That the Lord Jesus by the Satisfaction & Merit of his Death, & Obligation made for all, & only his Elect, hath actually, & absolutly purchased, & procured for them all Spiritual Blessings of Grace, & Glory to be made out unto them, and bestowed upon them in Gods way,[Page]and Time, without dependance on any CONDITION to be by them performed, not absolutly procured for them thereby: whereby they became to have a Right unto the GOOD THINGS by him Purchased, to be in due time Possessed according to Gods Way, Method, and Appointment.

From a faithful adherence unto this Perswasion, I see nothing as yet of the least Efficacy, or force to disswade me: and am bold to tell these concerned therein, That their Conditional Satisfaction, or their suspending the Fruits of the Death of Christ upon Conditions, as though the Lord should give him to die for us upon Condition of such, and such things, is a vain Figment, contrary to the Scriptures, inconsistent in it self, and destructive of the true value, and vertue of the Death of Christ; which by the Lords Assistance, I shall be ready at any time to Demonstrate.

My Intention in the place Excepted against being cleered, I shall now tender my Thoughts to these Two things: 1 The distinct Consideration of the Acts of the Will of God, before, and after the Satisfaction of Christ: as also before, and after our Believing towards us, as unto Justification. 2 The distinct Estate of the Sinner upon that Consideration: with what is the Right to the Fruits of the Death of Christ which the Elect of God have before Believing.

CAP. VI.
Of the Acts of Gods Will towards Sinners, Antecedent and Consequent to the Satisfaction of Christ: Of Grotius Judgment herein.

THE distinct Consideration of the Acts of Gods Will, in reference to the Satisfaction of Christ, and our believing, (according to the former Proposal) is the First thing to be Considered.

[Page] Grotius, who with many (and in an especial manner with Mr Baxter) is of very great account, (and that in Theologie) distinguisheth (as himself calls them with a School term) 3 Moments, or Instances of the Divine Will.

Distinguenda sunt tria momenta divinae voluntatis. Primum est, ante Christi mortem positam aut re ipsa, aut in decreto Dei, et praescientia. In hoc momento iratus peccatori est Deus, sed ita, ut non aversetur omnes. irae deponendae vias, ac rationes. 1 Before the Death of Christ, either actually accomplished, or in the purpose, and fore-knowledge of God; in this instant (he saith) God is Angry with the Sinner, but so, as that he is not averse from all Wayes of laying down his Anger.

Secundum momentum est, posita jam Christi morte, in quo Deus jam non constituit tantum, sed & promittit iram se depositurum. 2 Upon the Death of Christ, or that being suppos'd, wherein God not only Purposeth, but also Promiseth to lay aside his Anger.

Tertium est, cum homo vera fide in Christum credit, et Christus ex foederis formula credentem Deo commendit. Hic jam Deus deponit iram, hominemque in gratiam recipit. de Satisfact. Christi. Cap. 7. 3 When a man by true Faith believeth in Christ, and Christ according to the Tenure of the Covenant commendeth him to God: here now God layes aside his Anger, and receiveth man into Favour. Thus far he.

Amongst all the attempts of distinguishing the Acts of Gods Will in reference unto Christ, and Sinners, what ever I considered, I never found any more slight Atheological, and discrepant from the Truth, then this of Grotius.

Ps. 50. 21 Exod. 3. 14. 1 Sam. 15. 29 Job 23. 13. Psa. 102. 26, 27. Isa. 14. 27. To measure the Almighty by the Standard of a man, and to frame in the mind a mutable Idol, instead of the Eternal, Unchangeable God, is a Thing that the fleshly Reasonings of dark understandings are prone unto. Feigns the Lord in one Instant Angry, afterwards promising to cease to be so, then in another instant laying down his Anger, and taking up a contrary affection, and you seem to me, to do no less.

What it may be esteemed in Law, which was that Authors faculty, I know not: but suppose in Divinity, that [Page] (notwithstanding the manifold Attempts of some [...] in most heads of Religion)2 King. 19. 6 Isa. 37. 3 1 Tim. 1. 13 the ascribing unto the most holy, things alien, and opposite unto his glorious nature, is by common consent, accounted no less then Quidcun (que) negat aliquid de Deo, quod ei convenit, vel asserit de eo, quod ei non convenit, derogat divinae bonitati, & est blasphemus. Thom. 22. ae. q. 13. a. 1. c. blasphemy: whither this be here don, or no, may easily appear. I hope then without the offence of any, I may be allowed to call those Dictates of Grotius to the Rule, and Measure of Truth.

1 Before the fore-sight of the Death of Christ (saith he) God is angry with Sinners, but not wholly averse from all wayes of laying aside that Anger.

Answ. 1 That God should be conceived angry after the manner of men, or with any such kind of Passion, is grosse Anthropomorphisme; as bad, if not worse, then the assigning of him a bodily shape.Libra voluntas ulciscendae injuriae. The Anger of God is a pure Act of his Will, whereby he will effect▪ and inflict the Effects of Anger. Now what is before the fore-sight of the Death of Christ, is certainly from Eternity. Gods Anger must respect either the purpose of God,Quae dicuntur [...], intelligenda sunt [...]. Amor, et gaudium, & alia ejusmodi, cum attribuuntur Deo, significant simplicem actum voluntatis, cum similitudine effectus, abs (que) passione: Aquin. 12. q. 22. a. 3. or the Effects of it. The latter it cannot be, for they are undoubtedly all temporal. It must be then his purpose from Eternity to inflict punishment,Eph. 1. 11. that is the Effect of Anger. This then is the First thing in the business of Redemption assigned by Grotius, unto the Lord. viz. He purposed from Eternity, to inflict punishment on Sinners: and on what sinners? even those, for whom he gives Christ to die, and afterwards receives into favour, as he expresseth himself. Behold here a Mystery of Vorstian Theology: God changing his eternal purposes.Arm. disp. pub. de natu. Dei. This Arminius at first could not down withal, inferring from hence, That the Will of God differ'd not from his Essence, Thes. 51. that every act thereof, is, [Page] 1 Most Simple: 2 Infinite: 3 Eternal: 4 Immutable: 5 Holy. Reason it self would fain speak in this Cause, but that the Scriptures do so abound, many places are noted in the Margin. Ja. 1. 17. 2 Tim. 2. 19. Ps. 33. 9, 10, 11. Acts. 15. 18. &c. may be added. A mutable god, is of the dunghil.

2 That the Death of Christ is not compriz'd in the first consideration of Gods Mind, and act of his Will towards Sinners to be saved, is assumed gratis.

3 He is not (saith he) averse from all wayes of laying down this Anger. This Schem Grotius placeth (as is evident) in God, as the foundation, and bottom of sending Christ for our Redemption. This he immediatly subjoyns without the least intimation of any further inclination in God towards Sinners, for whom he gives his Son. But,

1 This is a meer negation of inflicting Anger for the present: or a suspension of that affection from working according to its Qualitie; which how it can be ascribed to the pure and activeEp. 1. 11 Will of God, I know not. Yea, it is above disproved.

2 Such a kind of Frame, as it is injurious to God, so to be held out as the fountain of his sending Christ to die for us, is (I am perswaded) an Abhorrency to Christians. And,

3 Whether this Answer that, which the Scripture holds out, as the most intense distinguishing love. Joh. 3. 16. Rom. 5. 8. Chap. 8. 32. 1 Joh. 4. 9, 10. is easily discernable. A natural velleity to the good of the Creature, is the thing here couched, but was never proved.

In the second Instance, God (saith he) the Death of Christ being suppos'd, not only determineth, but also promiseth to lay aside his anger.

1 What terms can be invented to hold out more expresly a Change,Answ. and Alteration in the Unchangable God, then these here used, I know not. 2 That the Will or [Page] Mind of God, is altered from one respect towards us, to another, by the Consideration of the Death of Christ, is a low, carnal Conception. The Will of God is not moved by any thing without it self.Aliud est mutare voluntatem, aliud velle aliquarum rerum mutationem. Alterations are in the things altered, not in the Will of God concerning them. 3 To make this the whole Effect of the Death of Christ, (that God should determine, and promise to lay aside his wrath) isMat. 18. [...] 1 Tim. 1. 15 Ep. 5. 26, 27. Ep. 2. 15, 16. Col. 1. 13. 1 Joh. 1. 7. no Scripture discovery, either as to Name, or Thing. 4 The Purposes of God, which are all Eternal, and the Promises of God, which are all made in time, are very inconveniently ranged in the same Series. 5 That by the Death of Christ, Attonement is made, everlasting Redemption purchased, that God is Reconciled, a Right unto Freedom obtained, for those for whom he died, shall be afterwards declared. 6 If God doth only Purpose, and Promise to lay aside his Anger upon the Death of Christ,&c. but doth it not until our actual believing; then, 1 our Faith is the proper procuring cause of Reconciliation; the Death of Christ, but a Requisite Antecedent, which is not the Scripture Phrase. Rom. 5. 10. 2 Cor. 5. 18. Eph. 2. 16. Col. 1. 20, 21. Dan. 9. 24. Heb. 2. 17. Eph. 1. 7.Eph. 2. 8 Heb. 9. 12. 2 How comes the Sinner by Faith, if it is the Gift of God? Phil. 1. 29 It must be an Issue of Anger, and Enmity, for that Schem only, is actually ascribed to him, before our enjoyment of it; Strange! that God should be so far reconciled, as to give us Faith, that we may be reconciled to him, that thereupon he may be reconciled to us.

3 For the Third Instance, of Gods receiving the sinner into love, and favour upon his beleeving, quite laying aside his anger. I Answer: To wave the Anthropomorphisme, wherwith this Assertion is tainted as the former: If by receiving into favour, he intend absolute, compleat pactional Justification, being an Act of favour, quitting the sinner from the guilt of sin, charged by the Accusation of the Law, terminated on the Conscience of a sinner: I confess it, in order of nature, to follow our beleiving.

[Page] I might Consider further the Attempts of others for the right sttating of this business, but it would draw me beyond my Intention. His failings herein, who is so often mentioned, and so much used, by him, who gives occasion to this rescript, I could not but remark. What are my own Thoughts and Apprehensions of the whole, I shall in the next place briefly impart.

Now to make way hereunto, some things I must suppose: which though some of them otherwhere controverted, yet not at all in reference to the present business: and they are these.

1 That Christ died only for the Elect: or God gave his Son to die only for those, whom he chuseth to life, and salvation for the praise of his glorious Grace.

This is granted by Mr Baxter, where he affirms, That Christ bare not punishment for them, who must bear punishment themselves in eternal fire. Thes. 33. p. 162. And again, Christ died not for final Ʋnbelief. Thes. 32. p. 159. therefore not for them who are finally Unbelievers, as all non-Elected are, and shall be. For what Sinners he died, he died for all their sins, Rom. 5. 6, 7, 8. 2 Cor. 5. 21. 1 Joh. 1. 7.

If any shall say, That as he died not for the final Unbelief of others, so not for the final Unbelief of the Elect, and so not for final Unbelief at all.

I Answer,

First, If by final Unbelief, you mean that which is actually so, Christ satisfied not for it. His satisfaction cannot be extended to those things, whose Existence is prevented by his Merit. The Omission of this in the consideration of the Death Christ,Heb. 9. 12 lies at the bottom of many mistakes. Merit, and Satisfaction, are of equal Extent as to their Objects: both also tend to the same End, but in sundry respects.

Secondly, If by final Ʋnbelief, you understand that which would be so, notwithstanding all means, and remedies, [Page] were it not for the Death of Christ, so he did satisfie for it. It's Existens being prevented by his Merit. So then, if Christ died not for final Unbelief, he died not for the finally Unbeleeving: Though the Satisfaction of his Death hath not paid for it, the Merit of his Death would remove it.

Thirdly, I Suppose, That the Means, as well as the Ends, Grace, as Glory, are the Purchase, and procurement of Jesus Christ: See this proved in my Treatise of Redemption. Lib. 3. Cap. 4. &c.

Fourthly, That God is absolutely immutable, & unchangable in all his Attributes: Neither doth his Will admit of any alteration. This proved above.

Fifthly, That the Will of God is not moved properly by any external Cause whatsoever, unto any of its Acts, whether imminent, or transient. For,

1Cum voluntas sit ejus essentia, non movetur ab alio à se, sed à se tantum, eo modo loquendi, quo intelligere, et velle, dicitur motus, et secundum hoc Plato dixit, primum movins movet seipsum: Aq. p. 1. q. 19. a. 2. a. 3. By a moving Cause, we understand a Cause Morally Efficient; and if any thing were so properly in respect of any Act of Gods Will, then the Act (which is the Will of God Acting) must in some respect, (viz. As it is an Effect) be less worthy, and inferiour to the Cause; for so is every Effect, in respect of it's Cause. And,

2 Every Effect produced, proceedeth from a Passive possibility unto the Effect, which can no way be assigned unto God, besides it must be temporarie; for nothing that is Eternal, can have dependance upon that, whose Rise is in Time: and such are all things external to the Will of God, even the Merit of Christ himself.

3 I cannot imagine how there can be any other Cause, why God Willeth any thing, then why he not Willeth, or Willeth not other things, which for any to Assign, will be found Difficult: Mat. 11. 25. Chap. 20. 15. So then when God Willeth one thing for another, as our Salvation for the Death of Christ, the one is the Cause of the other; neither moveth the Will of God. Hence,

[Page] Sixthly, All Alterations are in the things, concerning which the Acts of the Will of God are, none in the Will of God its self.

These things being premised, what was before proposed, I shall now in order make out; beginning with the Eternal Acts of the Will of God towards us, antecedent to all, or any Consideration of the DEATH of CHRIST.

CAP. VII.
In particular of the Will of God towards them for whom Christ died, and their state, and Condition as Considered Antecedanous to the Death of Christ, and all Efficiency thereof.

FIRST then, the Habitude of God towards man, Antecedent to all fore-sight of the Death of Christ, is an Act of Supream Soveraignty, and Dominion, appointing them, by means suited to the manifestation of his Glorious Properties, according to his Infinitely Wise, and Free Disposal, to Eternal Life, and Salvation, for the praise of his glorious Grace.

That this Salvation was never but one, or of one kind, consisting in the same kind of Happiness, in reference unto Gods appointment, needs not much proving. To think that God appointed one kind of Condition for man if he had continued in Innocency, and another upon his Recovery from the Fall; is to think, That his Praescience is but Conjectural, and his Will alterable.

In this Instant then, we suppose no kind of Affection in [Page]God, properly so called: No Changable Resolution, no Inclinableness, and Propensity of Nature, to the good of the Creature in General, no Frame of being angry, with only a not-averseness to the laying down of his anger, &c. All which, and the like are derogatory to the Infinite Perfection of God.

Nor yet any Act of pitying, and pardoning Mercy, much less any quiting, or cleering of Sinners, whereby they should be justified from Eternity; the Permission of sin it self in the purpose of it, being not presuppos'd, but included in this Habitude of Gods Will towards man, to make it compleat.

Neither any Absolute intention of doing good unto man, without respect unto Christ, and his Merits, they refering to the good to be done, not to his appointment; for by them is this Purpose of his to be accomplished.

Nor Lastly, doth it contain any actual Relaxation, Suspension, or Abrogation of that Law and it's Penalties, by which it is his Will the Creature shall be Regulated, in reference to the Persons concerning whom this Act of his Will is: They standing indeed, in that Relation thereunto, as in the season of their Existence, their several Conditions expose them to, by vertue of the first Constitution of that Law.

But it is such an Act of his Will, as in the Scripture is termed [...], Acts 2. 23. Rom. 8. 29. 1 Pet. 1. 20. [...], Rom. 8. 28. 9. 11. Eph. 3. 11. [...], Mat. 11. 26. Eph. 1. 5. 2 Thess. 1. 11. Luke 12. 32. [...], Eph. 1. 11. [...] 2 Tim. 2 19. [...], Eph. 1. 5. 11. Rom. 8. 29. Ordination, or Appointment unto life, Act. 13. 48. 1 Thess. 5. 5. 9. All which, and divers other expressions, point at the same thing.

Divines commonly in one word call it his Decree of Election, and sometimes according to Scripture, Election it self, Eph. 1. 4. Neither doth the Word hold out any Habitude [Page] of God towards man. Antecedaneous to all Efficiency of the Death of Christ, but only this: I speak of them only in this whole DISCOURSE for whom he died.

That this is an Act of Sovereignty, or Supream Dominion, and not of Mercy (properly so called) hath been by others abundantly proved. And this I place as the Causa [...] of the Satisfaction of Christ, and the whole dispensation of making out Love unto us, through various Acts of Mercy.

This in the Scripture is called the Love of God. Rom. 9. 13. and is set out as the most intense Love, that ever he beareth to any of his Creatures: Joh. 3. 16. Rom. 5. 8. 1 Joh. 4. 9. Being indeed as properly Love, as love can be assigned unto God. His Love is but an act of his Will, whereby, [...]. And in respect of Effects, (in which respect, chiefly Affections are ascribed unto God) it hath the most eminent possible. Now this being discriminating, can no way be reconciled with the common affection before disprov'd.

For the Order, and Series of the Purposes of God, as most natural for our apprehension, and agreeable to his own infinite Wisdome, tending to the compleating of this Love, in all its Issues, and Fruits, as it is more curious (perhaps) in the framing, then necessary to be known, so certainly, it would be too long and intricate a work for me to discuss at present, in reference to this Intendment. Only in general, this must be granted, that all the Thoughts of God, concerning the way of accomplishing this Act of his Will, must be subordinate hereunto, as comprizing the End, and Co-ordinate among themselves, as being concerning the Means.

In Particular, the Constitution, or appointment of the Covenant of free-Grace, for the Recovery, and bringing home unto God of fallen man, hath immediate dependance thereon, I mean in that way of Dependance, which [Page] their order gives unto them. I cannot assent to what Mr Baxter hath asserted in this matter; Thess. 14. Expl. p. 90. The Satisfaction of Christ (saith he) to the Law, goes before the new Covenant, though not in regard of its payment (which was in the fulness of time) yet in undertaking, acceptance, and efficacy; there could be no treating on new terms, until the old Obligation was satisfied, and suspended.

Had he attempted the proof of this Assertion, perhaps he would have found it a more difficult Undertaking, then barely to Affirme it. Some few REASONS to the contrary, that present themselves, I shall briefly set down.

1 Christ himself with his whole Satisfaction, and Merit, is included in the Covenant: therefore his Satisfaction is not antecedent to the COVENANT. The First appeareth, in that all Promises of Pardoning Mercy are in, and of this new Covenant. Heb. 8. 10. 12. but now, in them, as the foundation of that Mercy, is Christ himself with his SATISFACTION comprised, Gen. 3. 15. Esa. 9. 6, 7.

2 He, who in all that he is, as made unto us, was the Mediator of the new Covanant, and whose Merit, and Satisfaction in all that they are, are appointed for the procuring the Mercies of the NEW COVENANT, his Satisfaction is not antecedent to the Covenant, Heb. 7. 22. Chap. 8. 6. &c.

3 The Constitution of the New Covenant, as it is in the Purpose of God, is the Rise, and Fountain of giving Christ with his Satisfaction for us. It is in the Purpose of God to save us through Faith by pardoning mercy: in the pursute of that Design, and for the praise of that glorious Grace, is Christ given. Joh. 3. 16. Rom. 8. 32. Or thus:

4 If the designation of that way of life, and salvation, which is administred by the Gospel, be antecedent to the satisfaction of Christ, then the satisfaction of Christ is [Page] not antecedent to the New Covenant: for nothing can be before, and after the same thing: Understand the designation of the way of life, and the satisfaction of Christ, in the same order of Decree, or Execution. Now the supposal is manifest: The satisfaction of Christ being appointed as the means of accomplishing that way of life.

If Mr Baxter intendeth those latter words (There could be no treating on new terms, before the OLD OBLIGATION was satisfied, or suspended) as a proof of his former Assertion, he will fail in his intendment, as I supose. For,

1 Treating on new terms, denoteth either consilium in eundi foederis, or exequendi: If the First, it is nothing but the Purpose of God to save his Elect by pardoning Mercy, for the praise of his glorious Grace: This is wholly Antecedent to any Efficiency of the death, and Satisfaction of Christ, as being of meer, and absolute Grace, Jer. 31. 3. Hab. 8. 7, 8.

If the Latter be intended, or the actual taking of Sinners into Covenant, by working an acceptance of it upon their Spirits, and obedience to the Condition of it, in their hearts, then though the satisfaction of Christ be antecedent here unto, yet it is not thence, antecedent to the new Covenant: For the new Covenant, and taking into Covenant, are distinct.

This then being assigned unto God after our manner of Apprehension, the next Enquiry is into the State, and Condition of those Persons, who are the peculiar Object of the act of Gods Will before described, in reference thereunto, antecedaneous to all Consideration of the Death of Christ, and all Efficacy thereof.

The Scripture speaking of them in this Condition, saith, That they are beloved: Rom. 9. 13. Rom. 11. 28. Elected: Eph. 14. Ordained unto eternal life: Acts 13. 48. 2 Thess. 2 13. Whether only the Eternal Actings of the Will of [Page] God towards them, or also their own change, either Actual in respect of real State, and Condition; or Relative in reference to the Purpose of GOD, is not certainly evident. Hereunto then, I Propose these Two Things:

1 By the Eternal Love, Purpose, and Act of Gods Will towards them that shall be saved, (who are so from thence) they are not actually changed from that Condition▪ which is common to them, with all the Sons of men after the fall.

2 By vertue of that Love alone, they have not so much as Personal Right unto any of those things which are the proper Effects of that LOVE, and which it produceth in due season, beseemingly to the Wisdome, and Justice of God.

Either of these ASSERTIONS shall be briefly proved.

For the First, it is manifest:

1 From that Act of Gods Will, which to this Love is Contradistinct: What change is wrought in the Loved, or Elected, by the Purpose of God according to Election; an answerable Change must be wrought in the hated, and appointed to condemnation, by the Decree of Reprobation: Now that this should really alter the Condition of men, and actually dispose them under the Consequences of that Purpose, cannot be granted.

2 Anallogie from other Eternal Purposes of God, gives a Demonstration hereof. The Eternal Purposes of the divine Will, for the Creation of the World out of Nothing; left that Nothing, as very nothing as ever, until an Act of Almighty Power gave (in the beginning) Existence, and Being to the things, that are seen. Things have their certain Fructurition, not instant actual Existence from the Eternal Purposes of God, concerning them.

3 The Scripture plainly placeth all men in the same [Page] State and Condition before Conversion, and Reconciliation. We have proved, That Jews, and Gentiles are all under sin, Rom. 3. 9, 10. So every mouth is stopped, and all the World is become guilty before God. verse 19. All being by nature, Children of wrath: Eph. 2. 3. The Condition of all in Ʋnregeneracy, is really one, and the same. Those who think it is a mistaken Apprehension in the Elect to think so, are certainly too much mistaken in that Apprehension. He that believeth not the Son, the wrath of God abideth on him, Joh. 3. 36. If the mis-apprehension be, as as they say it is, Unbelief, it leaves them, in whom it is, under the wrath of God.

He that would see this further cleered, and confirmed, may consult my Treatise of REDEMPTION, Lib. 3. Cap. 8. where it is purposely, and expresly handled at large.

Hence Mr Baxter may have some directions how to dispose of that Censure concerning me, which yet he is pleased to say, That he suspendeth, page 158. viz. That I should affirm Justification to be nothing but the manifestation of Eternal Love, which I have more, then in one place, or two, Expresly opposed. That any one should but here, and there consult a few Lines, or Leaves of my Treatise, I no way blame: In such things we all use our Liberty: but that upon so sleight a view, as cannot possibly represent the Frame, Structure, and Coherence of my Judgment in any particular, to undertake a Confutation, and Censure of it, cannot well be done without some regreet to candid Ingenuity.

For the Second Assertion laid down, which goeth somthing farther, then the former, it is easily deduced from the same Principles therewithal: I shall therefore adde only one ARGUMENT for the Confirmation thereof.

God having appointed that his Eternal Love in the Fruits thereof, should be no otherwayes Communicated [Page] but only in, and by Christ, all right thereunto, must of necessity be of his procurement, and Purchasing. Yea, the End of the Mediation of the Lord Jesus, is, To give Right, Title, and Possession in their several Order, and seasons unto, and in all the Fruits, Issues, and Tendency's of that Love, unto them whose Mediator he is appointed to be.

Thus far then, all is seated in the bosome of the Almighty. All differencing Acts of Grace flowing from hence, being to be made out as seems Good unto him in his Infinite wise Sovereignty; from whence alone is the disposal of all these things, as to that Order which may most conduce to his Glory: And this also writes vanity upon the Objection (insisted on by Mr Baxter, page 157.) that when we have a Right, we must presently have a Possession: All these things being to be moderated according to his free Sovereign disposal.

And this concerneth the FIRST INSTANT proposed.

[Page]

CAP. VIII.
Of the Will of God in Reference to them for whom Christ died immediately upon the Consideration of his Death; and their State, and Condition before actual Believing in Relation thereunto.

THE Second Instant Proposed to be Considered, is, In the immediate Issue of the Death of Christ, as Purposed, and accomplished. Purpose, and Accomplishment are indeed different; but their Effects in respect of God, are the same. In reference to us also▪ the Death of Christ hath the same Efficacy as promised, and as performed. What Acts the Scripture ascribes unto God, antecedent unto any Consideration of the Death of Christ (or at least such as are absolutely free, and of Sovereignty, without any influence of causality from thence) we saw before: (for as for the order of Gods Decrees compared among themselves, I will not with any one Contend) Here we enquire what it holdeth out of him, that being in all its Efficacy supposed.

And we Affirme,

1 That the Will of God is not moved to any thing thereby, nor changed into any other Respect towards those for whom Christ died, then what it had before; This was formerly proved, and must again be touched on. But,

2 The Death of Christ purposed, and accounted effectual (as before) God can agreeable to his infinite Justice, Wisdome, Truth, and appointment, make out unto sinners [Page] for whom Christ died, or was to die, all those good things, which he before purposed, and Willed by such means to them: those things being purchased, and procured, and all hinderances of bestowing them, being removed, by that Satisfaction, and Merit, which by free Compact, he Agreed, and Consented should be in that Death of Christ.

3 That as the making out of all spiritual blessings, first purposed by the Father, then purchased by the Son, that they might be bestowed Condecently to divine Justice; God hath reserved it to his own Sovereign disposal. That it be done, so that they for whom this whole Dispensation is appointed, may really enjoy the Fruits of it, is all, that necessarily is included, either in the Purpose, or Purchase.

Hence it is that the discharge of the Debtor, doth not immediately follow the Payment of the Debt by Christ, not because that Payment is refusable; but because in that very Covenant, and Compact, from whence it is that the Death of Christ, is a Payment; God reserveth to himself this Right, and Liberty, to discharge the Debtor, when, and how he pleaseth. I mean as to Times and Seasons; for otherwise, the means of actual freedom, is procured by that Payment, though not considered meerly as a Payment, which denotes only Satisfaction, but as it had adjoyned Merit also.

Therefore that Principle much used, and rested on by Mr Baxter in the Business of Satisfaction, to obviate this very difficulty, of a not immediate discharge, if Christ paid the Debt, viz. That the Satisfaction of Christ is a refusable Payment; which he presseth Page 149, 150. is neither true in it self, nor accommodate to this difficulty▪

1 Not True: For,

The Suffering of CHRIST may be Considered, either,

1, Absolutely, as in it self, abstracting from the Consideration of any Covenant, or Compact thereabout; and [Page] so it cannot be said to be a refusable Payment: not because not refusable, but because no Payment. That any thing should have any such reference unto God as a Payment, or Satisfaction, whether refusable or otherwise, is not from its self, and its own nature, but from the Constitution of God alone. Between God, and the Creature there is no Equality, not so much as of Proportion. Christ in Respect of his Humane Nature, though United to the Deity, is a Creature, and so could not absolutly satisfie, or merit any thing at the hand of God: I mean with that kind of merit, which ariseth from an absolute Proportion of things. This Merit, can be found only among Creatures: and the Advancement of Christs Humanity takes it not out of that Number. Neither in this sense can any Satisfaction be made to God for sin. The Sinners own undergoing the Penalty neither is Satisfaction in the sense whereof we speak, neither can it properly be said to be so at all; no more then a thing to be done, which is Endlessly in doing.

2 It may be Considered with Reference unto Gods Constitution, and Determinatiou, Predestmating Christ unto that Work, and appointing the Work by him to be accomplished, to be satisfactory, equaling (by that Constitution) the End, and the Means. And thus the Satisfaction of Christ in the Justice of God was not refusable; the Wisdom, Truth, Justice, and suitable Purpose of God, being engaged to the Contrary.

2, This distinction is not accommodate to this difficulty; the sole Reason thereof being what was held out. before, of the Interest of Gods Sovereign Right to the bestowing of Purposed, Purchased, Promised Blessings, as to Times, and Seasons, according to the free Councel of his own Will.

3, Hence then it is, That God in the Scripture upon the Death of Christ is said to be reconciled, to be returned unto Peace with them for whom he so died, the Enmity being[Page]slain, and peace actually made, Ephes. 2. 14, 15, 16. Collos. 1. 20. because he now will, and may, suitablely to his Justice▪ Wisdome, and Appointment, make out unto them? for whom the Atonement was made, all fruits of Love, Peace, and Amity. Heb. 2. 17. Rom. 5. 10, 11. 2 Cor. 5. 19.

The OBJECTION unto this, How then can God deny us the present Possession of Heaven; used by Mr Baxter, Page 157. is not of any force, the whole disposal of these Things, being left to his own pleasure.

And this is the SCHEME, which upon the Death of CHRIST, we assigne unto God: He is atoned, appeased, actually reconciled, at peace with those for whom Christ died, and in due time for his sake will bestow upon them all the Fruits, and Issues of Love, and renewed Friendship.

This possibly may give some light into the immediate Effect of the DEATH of CHRIST; which though I shall not purposely now handle, yet Mr Baxter with much diligence having employed himself in the Investigation thereof, I shall turn aside a little to Consider his ASSERTIONS, in this Particular.

[Page]

CAP. IX.
A Degression concerning the Immediate Effect of the Death of Christ.

‘IT is one of the greatest and noblest Questions in our Controverted Divinity, What are the immediate Effects of Christs Death? He that can rightly Answer this, is a Divine indeed; and by help of this, may expedite most other Controversies about Redemption, and Justification. In a word; The Effects of Redemption undertaken, could not be upon a Subject not yet existent, and so no Subject, though it might be for them. None but Adam and Eve were then Existent: Yet as soon as we do Exist, we receive benefit from it. The suspending of the rigorous execution of the Sentence of the Law, is the most observable immediate Effect of the Death of Christ; which suspension is some kind of Deliverance from it.’ Thus far Mr Baxter. Thess. 9. Explicat. pag. 67.

There are scarce more lines, Answ. then mistakes in this Discourse: Some of them may be touched on.

1 Effects are to be Considered with Respect to their Causes. Causes are Real, or Moral. Real, or Physical Causes, produce their Effects immediately, either Immediatione suppositi, or Virtutis: Unto them the subject must be Existent. I speak not of creating power, where the Act produceth its Object.

Moral Causes do never immediately acting their own [Page] Effects, nor have any immediate influence into them: There is between such Causes, and their Effects, the intervention of some 3d Thing, previous to them both, viz. Proportion, Constitution, Law, Covenant, which takes in the Cause, and lets out the Effect: And this for all Circumstances of where, how, when, suitable to the limitations in them expressed, or implyed: with the Nature of the things themselves.

The Death of Christ is a Moral Cause, in respect of all its Effects: Whether those subjects on which it is to have its Effects, be Existent, or not Existent, at the time of its performance, is nothing at all considerable: If it wrought Physically, and Efficiently, the Existence of the Subjects on which it were to work, were requisite. It is altogether in vain to enquire of the immediate Effects of Christs Death upon an Existent subject: By the way: That Adam and Eve only were Existent, when Christ undertook the work of Redemption, to me is not cleer: no, nor yet the following Assertion, That as soon as we do Exist, we receive Benefit by it: taking benefit, for a benefit actually collated (as Mr Baxter doth) not for a right to a benefit, or the purpose of bestowing one, which will Operate in its due time: This is easily Affirmed; and therefore Eadem Facilitate is Denyed.

I have no fancy to strive to carry the Bell, and to be accounted a Divine indeed, by attempting at this time, a right Stating of, and Answer to this Question Proposed: I am not altogether ignorant of the endeavour of others, even as to this Particular, and have formerly spoken somthing that way my self.

Mr Baxter seems here to understand by this Question, (viz. What is the immediate Effect of the Death of Christ) what is the first benefit, which from the Death of Christ, accreweth unto them for whom he died: Not what is the first thing, that every particular person is actually in his [Page] own Person, in his own time made partaker of: but a Benefit Generally established, and in being, upon the designment of the work of Redemption, which every one for whom Christ died hath a share of: And of this he Positively Affirms, That the suspending of the rigorous execution of the Sentence of the Law, is the most observable, immediate Effect of the Death of Christ: and so deserves the Title of a Divine indeed.

Now truly (though not to contend for the Bell with Mr Baxter, whereof I confess my self utterly unworthy, and willingly for many commendable Parts ascribe it unto him) I cannot close with him, nor Assent unto that Assertion: Very gladly would I see Mr Baxters Arguments for this; but those, (as in most other Controverted things in this Book) he is pleased to Conceal: and therefore though it might suffice me, to give in my Dissent, and so wait for further Proof; yet that it may be apparent, That I do not Deny this meerly because its said, not Proved, (which in things not cleer in themselves is a Provocation so to do) I shall oppose One or Two ARGƲMENTS unto it.

All the Effects of the Death of Christ are peculiar only to the Elect, to some: the suspension of the rigorous execution of the Law, is not so. Ergo.

The Minor is apparent: The Major proved by all the Arguments against Ʋniversal Redemption used in my former Treatise.

2 All the Effects of the Death of Christ are Spiritual, distinguishing, and saving, to the praise of Gods free Grace.

The suspending of the vigorous Execution of the Law, is not so. Ergo,

The Assumption is manifest: 'tis only a not immediate casting into Hell, which is not a spiritual distinguishing Mercy: but in respect to many, tends to the manifestation of Gods Justice. Rom. 9. 22.

[Page] The Proposition is evident. The Promises made unto Christ upon his undertaking this Work, doubtless do hold out all that he Effected by his Death. Of what Nature they are, and what is the main tendance of them I have elsewhere discovered, from the first to the last, they are restrained to distinguishing Mercies: see Isa. 49. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Chap. 53. 10, 11, 12. Isa. 61. 1, 2. and no less is positively affirmed, Eph. 1. 4. Rev. 1. 5, 6.

If Mr Baxter say, that his meaning in this is, That if Christ had not undertaken the Work of Redemption, and Satisfaction, then the Law must have had rigorous Execution upon all, and therefore this being suspended upon his undertaking of it, is the first fruit of the Death of Christ.

Notwithstanding this, Answ. yet that suspension (which in respect of the different Persons towards whom it is actually exercised, hath different ends) is not a Fruit, nor Effect of the Death of Christ, but a free Issue, of the same eternally wise Providence, Sovereignty, and Grace, as the Death of Christ himself is: If then by the rigorous Execution of the Law, you intend the immediate Execution of the Law in all its rigour, and punishments, this if it had been effected, could in your own Judgment have reached Adam, and Eve, and no more; and would have so reached them, as to cut off the Generation of Mankind in that Root: If so, and this be the Fruit of Christs Death, Why do you not reckon the Procreation of humane race, among those Fruits also? for had it not been for this suspension, that also had failed: which is as good a Causative Connection, as that between the Death of Christ, and this Suspension: had not he undertaken the Work of Redemption, it had not been.

If by a rigorous Execution, you intend the Penalty of the Law, inflicted in that way, which hath pleased the Will of the Law-giver by several parts, and degrees, from conception through birth, life, death, to Eternity; the Curse [Page] of it being wholly incumbent in respect of desert, and making out it self, according to Gods appointment, then the suspension thereof is not the immediate Effect of the Death of Christ; which (opposing the first Arguments to the former acceptation) I further prove: If those for whom Christ died do lie under this rigorous Execution of the Law, that is the Curse of it, until some other Effect of Christs Death be wrought upon them, then that is not the first Effect of the Death of Christ: but that supposal is true: Joh. 3. 36. Ephes. 2. 3. therefore so also the Inference.

2 In a word: Take the suspending of the rigorous execution of the Law, for the Purpose of God, and his acting accordingly, not to leave his Elect under the actual Curse of it; so it is no Fruit of the Death of Christ, but an Issue of the same Grace; from whence also the Death of Christ proceeds.

Take it for an actual freeing of their Persons from the Breach of it, and its Curse, and so it differs not from Justification, and is not the immediate effect of Christs Death in Mr Baxters Judgment.

Take it for the not immediately executing of the Law upon the first offence, and I can as well say, Christ died because the Law was suspended; as you, that the Law was suspended because Christ died: had not either been, the other had not been.

Take it for the actual forbearance of God towards all the World, and so it falls under my Two first Arguments.

Take it thus, that God for the Death of Christ, will deal with all men upon a new Law, freeing all from the Guilt of the first broken Law, and Covenant: So it is non Ens.

If you mean by it Gods entring into a New way of Salvation with those for whom Christ died: this on the part of God is antecedaneous to the Consideration of the [Page] Death of Christ, and of the same free Grace with it self.

For the Question it self (as I said before) I shall not here in Terms take it up, the following Discourse will give Light into it: I have also spoken largely to it in another place; and that distinctly.

The Sum is: I conceive that all the intermediate Effects of the Death of Christ, tending to its ultimate Procurement of the Glory of God, are all in respect of his death immediate; that is, with such an immediation as attends Moral Causes: Now these concerning them for whom he died, as they are not immediatly bestowed on them (the ultimate Attingency of the Cause, and the first Rise of the Effect, lying in an intervening Compact) so not simul, at once neither: though simul, and a like procured: the Cause of this, being that Relation, Coherence, and Causality, which the Lord hath appointed between the several Effects (or rather parts of the same Effect) of the death of Christ, in reference to the main, and ultimate End to be thereby attained: as at large I have discused: Lib. 2. Cap. 1. p. 52, 53, &c. In one word, The first Effect of the Death of Christ in this sense, is the first Fruit of Election: For, for the Procuring▪ and Purchasing of the Fruits thereof, and them alone, did Christ die.

If I mistake not, Mr Baxter himself is not setled fully in this Perswasion, that the suspension of the Rigorous Execution of the Law, is the most immediate Effect of the Death of Christ: for pag. 52. these words which he useth [God the Father doth accept the Sufferings and Merits of his Son, as a full satisfaction to his violated Law, and as a valuable Consideration upon which he will wholly acquit and forgive the Offendors themselves, and receive them again into favour, so that they will but receive his Son upon the terms expressed in the Gospel] seems to place the ultimate Efficacy of the Death of Christ in Gods acceptation of it, as to our good, on the Condition of Faith, and Obedience.

[Page] Which, first makes the suspension of the Law to be so far from being the first effect of the Death of Christ: that the last reacheth not so far: And 2dly, the fond absurdity of this Conditional Acceptation I have before declared.

Neither am I clear to which of those Assertions, that of Page 92, (where he affirms, That some benefit by Christ the Condemned did receive) is most accommodate: neither can I easily receive what is here Asserted; if by Benefit you understand that which in respect of them is intentionally so.

For, First, Condemned Persons, as condemned Persons surely receive no Benefit by Christ, for they are Condemned.

Secondly, The delay of the Condemnation of Reprobates, is no part of the Purchase of Christ: The Scripture sayes, Nor more, nor less of any such thing: but peculiarly assigns it to another Cause. Rom. 9.

[Page]

CAP. X.
Of the Merit of Christ, and its immediate Efficacy, what it effecteth in what it resteth, with the state of those for whom Christ died in reference to his Death, & of their Right to the Fruits of his Death before Beleeving.

THAT they for whom Christ died, have a right to the things which he Purchased thereby, (that is an actual Right, for so men may have, to what they have not in actual Possession) is no singular Conception of mineOur Divines freely express themselves to this Purpose.

Even the Commender, and Publisher of Grotius his Book of Satisfaction, learned Vossius himself, Affirmeth, That Christ by his Death Purchased for us a double Right: First, a Right of escaping punishment, and then a Right of obtaining the Reward.

By the way, I cannot close with his Distinction in that place, of some things, That Christ by his Life, and Death, purchased for us, and other, that he daily bestoweth: for the things he daily bestoweth, are of them, which by his Death he purchased.

My Expressions then alone are not subject to the Consequences charged on them, for Asserting a right to Life, and Salvation in them for whom Christ Died, even before beleeving.

[Page] Yea,Omnes illi pro quibus Christus ex intentione Dei satis fecit, sunt Deo reconciliati. i. e. in Favorem saluti ferum aliquo modo restituti. Ames. some have gone farther, and Affirmed, That those for whom Christ died, are in some manner restored into saving favour.

Not to mention some of them, to whose Judgment Mr Baxter seems to accede, who assert Ʋniversal Justification, and Restauration into Grace upon the Death of Christ: but I lay no weight on these things.

To cleer my Thoughts in this Particular, Two things must necessarily be enquired into, and made out.

1 Seeing the Satisfaction, and Merit of Christ, do tend directly for the Good of them for whom he died, and that there is a distance, and space of Time, between that Death, and their Participation of the good things purchased therby,Antisinod. p. 164. wherein lyeth, or in what resteth the Efficacy of that his Death, with the Principle of the certain Futurition, of the spiritual things so procured, which those for whom he died, shall assuredly in due time enjoy.

2 Wherin lies the Obligation unto Death, Hel, & Wrath, which before beleeving the Scripture Affirms to be upon the Elect, seeing Christ hath actually purchased for them freedom from these things: and this, without more a-do, will be cleered in the former.

1 For the first then, upon the Issue of the Death of Christ, something being supposed in God beyond his meer Purpose, of which before, somethings being actually procured, and purchased by it, which yet they for whom they are so purchased, neither do, nor possibly can upon the Purchase immediately possess, and enjoy: It is enquired, Wherein resteth the Efficacy of his Death, which in due Time causeth the making out of all those spiritual Blessings, which by it are so procured.

Now this must be either in those for whom he Died, or in Himself as Mediator, or in his Father who sent him.

1 That it is not in them for whom he Died, is apparent: Upon the Death of Christ, in Purpose, and Promise, [Page] when first its Efficacy took place. they were not: I mean actually Existent: True! They were Potentially in the Purpose of God: but will that make them a meet subject for the Residence of this Right, and Merit whereof we speak? as is the Thing, such are all its Affections, and Adjuncts: but possible, if it be no more. This is something actual whereof we speak.

2 That it is not in Christ as Mediator, is no less evident. He that makes Satisfaction, and he to whom it is made, he who Meriteth any thing, and he at whose hands he Meriteth it, must be distinguished. The second Person under the Notion of performing the work of Mediation, receiveth not Satisfaction.

The Power Christ receiveth of the Father, because he is the Son of Man, to give eternal Life to those given him of his Father, is of latter Consideration to that we have in hand, being a Result, and Consequence thereof.

3 It must therefore be in the Father, or God, as receiving Satisfaction.

Of all the Attributes of God where this may be placed (to speak after the manner of men) one of these Four must needs be the proper seat of it:

1 His Power.

2 His Will.

3 His Justice.

4 His Truth.

1, His Power, and then it must be, not that God hath any addition of Power, for that cannot be to him who is Omnipotent; but that a Way is made for the Exercise of his Power, which before by somewhat from himself was shut up.

And as some suppose it is no otherwise. That whereas the Lord could not make out Grace, and Favour unto [Page] Sinners because of his Justice necessarily enclining him to their punishment, and destruction. Now that Justice being satisfied in Christ, he can collate any spiritual Blessings upon them, as he seeth good.

But this I have Disproved elsewhere, and Manifested.

1 That the foundation of this Apprehension, (being an impossibility in God to forgive sin, without Satisfaction, because of the contrariety of it to the Properties of his nature) is a groundless Assertion. And,

2 The foundation of God, in sending his Son to die for his Elect is oppugned hereby. And it,

3 Is destructive to all the proper Fruits, and Effects of the Death of Christ, &c. Lib. 2. Cap. 2.

2, In the Will of God, it seems that the Merit and Fruits of the Death of Christ, whereof we treat seem better to be treasured: and from hence it is, That he can Will, or Willeth to us the Good things purchased by it. But,

1 That the Will of God should by the Death of Christ be changed into any other Habitude then what it was in before, was before disproved.

2 That now God can Will Good things to us, holds out the enlargement of his Power as to the acting thereof, mentioned above, rather then any thing properly belonging to the Will of God.

3 Gods Willing Good things to us, it cannot consist in: his willing of a thing is operative of it: it is his Efficacious Energetical Will whereof we speak. When he actually willeth Grace, we have Grace: and when he Willeth Glory, we have Glory: but that concerning which we speak, is Antecedent to the actual making out of Grace, and Glory to us, being the procuring cause of them; though not of that Act of the Will of God, whereby they are bestowed.

[Page] His Justice, and Truth only remain. For Justice, that which is Commutative properly, with one Consent is removed from God. Who hath given first unto him, and it shall be rendered unto him again. Si de debitum quaeratur▪ respectu creaturae in Deum cadere non potest: nisi ex aliqua suppositione ipsi Deo voluntaria et libera: quae non potest esse nisi promissio aut pactio aliqua, ex quibus fidelitatis aut justitiae debitum oriri solet: Suares. Relect. de Lib. Div. Volu. Disp. L. Di. Sec. 2. n. 5. Neither is distributive Justice to be supposed in him, antecedent to some free engagement of his own. Where no Obligation is, there cannot be so much as distributive Justice properly. All Obligation from God to the Creature, is from his own free engagement: otherwise he stands in no Relation to it, but of absolute Dominion, and Sovereignty. All the Justice of God then (we consider not the universal Rectitude of his nature, but) in reference to the Creature, is Justitia regiminis. Psal. 33. 4, 5. 1 Joh.Nulla Justitia proprie esse potest, ubi nulla intercedit obligatio: Deus autem nulla obligatione tenetur, antequam ipse fidem suam astringat: Ergo ante promissionem nulla Justitia etiam distributiva in Deo reperitur. Vas. n. 1. q. 21. a. 1. disp. 86. 1. 5. and therefore must suppose some free Constitution of his Will.

This then rightly considered, do I Affirm to be affected with the Merit of Christ: There I place the procuring Efficacy thereof, whence it is, That all the Fruits of it are made out unto us. But this in due order.

The first Thing of immediate Concernment hereunto, is the Covenant of the Father with the Son: the free engagement of God, to do such and such things for Christ, upon the performance of such other things to him appointed. This is the foundation of the Merit of Christ as was before declared. Hence is distributive Justice ascribed to God, as to this thing. It is righteous with him being engaged by his own free Purpose and Promise, to make out those things, which he appointed to be the Fruit and Procurement of the Death of Christ. And from thence it is, that all the things purchased by the Death of Christ, become due to those for whom he died: even from the Equity attending this Justice of God.

[Page] Herein also his Truth hath a share: By his Truth, I understand his Fidelity and Veracity in the performance of all his engagements. This immediately attends every Obligation that by any free Act of his Will, God is pleased in his Wisdom to put upon himself: and is naturally under Consideration before that distributive Justice whereby he is inclined to the Performance it self of them.

This then is that I say;

‘God by free Purpose and Compact, making way for the Merit of Christ, which absolutely could be none, is obliged from the Veracity and Justice, which attends all his Engagements, to make out as in his infinite Wisdom shall seem meet; all those things which he hath set, appointed, and proposed as the Fruit and Purchase of his Death, unto all them for whom he died’. And in This, rests the Merit of Christ.

Here Two things may be observed;

1 What we ascribe to the Merit of Christ: viz. The Accomplishment of that Condition, which God required to make way, that the Obligation which he had freely put upon himself, might be in actual force. And so much, (how rightly, I leave to himself to Consider) doth Mr Baxter assign to our own works: Thes. 26. p. 140.

2 The mistake of those who wind up the MERIT of Christ, as affecting God (if I may so speak) unto a Conditional Engagement, viz. That we shall be made Partakers of the Fruits of it, upon such and such Conditions, to be by us fulfilled. For,

1 All such Conditions (if spiritual Blessings) are part of the Purchase of the Death of Christ: and if not, are no way fit to be Conditions of such an Attainment.

2 It cannot be made apparent how any such Conditional stipulation can be ascribed unto God. That God should engage upon the Death of Christ, to make out Grace and Glory, Liberty and Beauty, unto those for whom he [Page] died, upon CONDITION they do so, or so.

1 Leaves no proper place for the Merit of Christ.

2 Is very improperly ascribed unto God. Lawyers tell us, That all stipulations about things future, are either sub Conditione, or sub Termino. Stipulations or Engagements upon CONDITION. that are properly so, do suppose him that makes the Engagement to be altogether uncertain of the Event thereof.

Stipulations sub Termino, are absolute to make out the things engaged about, at such a Season. Upon the very Instant of such a Stipulation as this, an Obligation follows as to the thing, though no Action be allowed to him to whom it is made, until the Term and Time appointed be come.

In those Stipulations that are under CONDITION, no Obligation ariseth at all from them, it being wholly uncertain whether the Condition will be fulfilled or no. Only in Two Cases doth such an Engagement bring on an immediate Obligation.

1 If the Condition required be in things necessary and unalterable: As if Cajus should engage himself into Tilius to give him an 100. l. for his House on the morrow if the Sun shine: here ariseth an immediate Obligation▪ and it is the same as if it had been conceived only sub Termino, without Condition at all.

2 If by any means, he that makes the Stipulation, knows infallibly, that the Condition will be fulfilled, though he to whom it is made, knows it not. In this Respect also, the Stipulation sub Conditione, introduceth an immediate Obligation, and in that regard, is co-incident with that which is only sub Termino.

Wheither an Engagement upon Condition properly, without the former Respects, that is a Stipulation to an Event dubious and uncertain, can be ascribed unto God, is easie to determine. To Assert it, oppugnes the whole nature of the Deity, and over-throws the Properties thereof, [Page] immediatly and directly. All other Stipulations under Condition are co-incident (as I said before) with that which is sub Termino only, from whence ariseth an immediate Obligation for the performance of the thing stipulated about; though there be not an immediate Action granted him unto whom it is made.

Surely they are wide, (if not very wild) who Affirm, That all the Stipulations on the part of God upon the Death of Christ are upon a Condition, which himself knows to be impossible for them to perform to whom they are made, which amongst wise men are alwayes accounted Nugatory and Null.

This being then so vain, I say that the Merit of Christ flowing from the free purpose and Compact of God, resteth on his Justice thence also arising, fixing thereon an Obligation to make out all the Fruits of it, unto them for whom he died, sub Termino only; whereby a present right is granted them thereunto, though they cannot plead for present Enjoyment.

CAP. XI.
More particularly of the State and Right of them for whom Christ died, before Beleeving.

THE former Assertions about the Merit of Christ, being in some measure cleered, we may hence have light into the State and Condition of those for whom Christ died in their several Generations before Beleeving.

To make this the more fully appear, we must distinguish [Page] between their present State or Possession, and their present right. Their State is not changed, because all the procurements of the Death of Christ, are to be made out unto them by vertue of a Stipulation sub Termino, that Term or Season being not come. So that still in present actual state, I leave them as before, not Justified, not Sanctified, not entred into Covenant.

Right also is twofold:

1 In re, as the Father hath a right to his Estate. And this Jus in re, holds, though the Estate be unjustly, or forcibly detained from him.

2 Ad rem, so the Son hath a Right to the Estate of his Father, being to enjoy it at his Death.

The first right is presently actionable upon any detainment: the latter not so. The first, we do not ascribe to the Elect in this Condition, viz. That which is in re, and instantly actionable; but that which is ad rem, and sub termino.

This being That which I Aimed at, and being by Mr Baxter Opposed, I will further Consider it, that it may appear whether any thing in this Assertion be justly blamable.

I said, That by the Death of Christ, we have actual Right to the good things purchased by that Death: That Right which is not actual (to speak a word to that Term) is not. The Contradistinct Affection hereunto, is Potential. And this is totally destructive to the Nature of a Right. All Right is actual, or not at all.

To evince the main Assertion; I shall,

1, Shew the Nature and Quality of this Right.

2, The Bottome or Foundation of it; And

3, Prove the Thesis.

1 By Right I understand, Jus in general, now jus est, quod justum est: Aug. in Psal. 144. sub. Fon. That is right, which it is just should be. And Quiquid rectum est, justum est: A [...]sel. de verit. Cap. 13. it is just, all that should be, [Page] which hath a Rectitude in it self. Farther; What this justum is, Aquinas tells you, 22. ae. q. 57. a. 1. c. justum est quod respondet secundum aliquam aequalitatem alteri. Then a thing is just when it stands in some aequality unto those things whereunto it relates. And this Aequality or Adaequation of things is Twofold.

1 That which ariseth from the Nature of the Things themselves: As an Eye for an Eye, a Tooth for a Tooth, &c.

2 That which ariseth from a Proportion condescended unto, by Condict, Agreement, Covenant, or Common Consent. Dupliciter est aliquid adaequatum: uno modo ex natura ipsius rei: alio modo cum est Commensuratum ex condicto sive ex commune placito: Aqui.

In the first Sense, as to a Right that should accrew unto the Creatures in respect of God, from the Commensuration of the things themselves, we shewed before that it cannot be. It must be from some grant, Compact, Covenant, or the like, from whence a Right in Reference to the Faithfulnesse or Righteousnesse of God, may arise.

The Right then whereof we speak, which they for whom Christ died, have to the things which by his Death are procured, consists in that Equity, Proportion, and Equality, which upon the free Compact, Constitution, and Consent of God the Father, is, between the Death of Christ and their Enjoyment of the Fruits of that Death. It is just and equal, that they should enjoy the Fruits of his Death in due time. Neither is the Right of any Man, to any Thing, any more, but such a Frame and Order of things, that it is just either from the Nature of the Things themselves, or from common Consent and Agreement, That he should enjoy that thing. This is the Right whereof we speak: which in their sense the very Socinians grant. Christus Jus quoddam ad obtinendam remissionem peccatorum & salutem (morte sua) nobis dedit. Crellius, adu. Groti. Cap. 1.

[Page] 2: For the Foundation of this Right: Seeing that before the Consideration of the Death of Christ (as was declared) it is not, from thence it must needs be, nothing of any likelihood to be such a Foundation being co-incident therewithal.

Now whereas in the Death of Christ Two things are Considered: 1 The Satisfaction; And 2dly the Merit thereof; it may be enquired after, under whether Respect this right relates thereunto.

1 The Satisfaction of Christ tends in all that it is, to the Honor and Reparation of the Justice of God. This then in its utmost extent and Efficacy, cannot give ground to build such a Right upon. The ultimate Effect of Satisfaction, may be accomplished, and yet not the least right to any good thing Communicated to them for whom this Satisfaction is made. The good things attending the Death of Christ may be referred unto two heads: The Amotion of Evil, and the Collation of Good. For the First, The Amotion of Evil, the taking that from us, that it may not grieve us, and subducting us from the Power and Presence thereof, it is immediatly aimed at by Satisfaction. That the Curse of the Law be not executed, That the Wrath to come be not powred out, is the utmost reach of the Death of Christ considered as Satisfactory. Yea in it self, as only such, it proceedeth not so far, as to give us a Right to escape these things, but only presents that to the Justice of God, whereby it may be preserved in all its Glory, Severity, and exact Purity, though these things be not inflicted on us. This I say I conceive to be the utmost Tendency of the Death of Christ as Satisfactory. That Condemnation cannot possibly de facto follow where such Satisfaction hath been made, is immediatly from the Equity of Justice so repaired as above. For Positive good things, in Grace and Glory by Satisfaction alone, they are not at all respected.

2, There is the Merit of the Death of Christ, and that [Page] Principally intendeth the Glory of God in our enjoying those good things whereof it is the Merit or desert. And this is the Foundation of that Right whereof we treat. What Christ hath Merited for us, it is just and equal we should have; that is, We have Right unto it: and this before Beleeving. Faith gives us actual Possession as to some Part, and a new Pactional right, as to the whole; but this Right, or that equalling of things upon divine Constitution (Jus est operatio illa qua sit aequalitas: Pesant. in Tom. 22. ae. q. 57.) whereby it becomes Just and Right that we should obtain the things Purchased by it, is from the Merit of Christ alone. What Christ hath Merited is so far granted, as that they for whom it is so Merited have a Right unto it.

The Sum then of what we have to prove, is,

‘That the Merit of the Death of the Lord Jesus, hath according to the Constitution of the Father, so procured of him the good things aimed at, and intended therby, that it is Just, Right, and Equal, that they for whom they are so procured, should certainly and infallibly enjoy them at the appointed Season; and therefore unto them they have an actual Right even before Beleeving; Faith it self being of the number of those things so procured.’

All which I prove as followeth;

1, The very Terms before mentioned, enforce no less. If it be justum before their Beleeving, that those for whom Christ Died, should enjoy the Fruits of his Death; then have they even before Beleeving, jus, or a right thereunto: for jus est quod justum est: That it is right and equal that they should enjoy those Fruits is manifest. For.

1: It was the Engagement of the Father to the Son upon his undertaking to die for them, that they should so do. Isa. 53. 10, 11, 12.

2: In that Undertaking, he Accomplished all that was of him required. Joh. 17. 4.

[Page] 2; That which is Merited and Procured for any one, thereunto he for whom it is procured, certainly hath a Right. That which is obtained for me is mine in actual right, though not perhaps in actual Possession. The thing that is obtained, is granted by him of whom it is obtained, and that unto them for whom it is obtained. In some sense or other, that is a man's, which is procured for him. In saying it is procured for him, we say no less. If this then be not in Respect of Possession, it must be in Respect of Right. Now all the Fruits of the Death of Christ are obtained and procured by his Merit for them, for whom he died. He OBTAINS for them eternal Redemption. Heb. 9. 12. purchasing them with his own Blood. Act. 20. 28. Heb. 2. 14. 1 Pet. 1. 18. Gal. 1. 4. Rev. 14. 3, 4.

The very Nature of Merit described by the Apostle, Rom. 4. 4. infers no less. Where Merit intercedes, the Effect is reckoned as of debt: That which is my due debt, I have a Right unto. The Fruits of the Death of Christ, are the Issues of Merit, (bottomed on Gods gracious Acceptation) and reckoned as of debt.

He for whom a Ransome is paid, hath a Right unto his Liberty by vertue of that Payment.

3: 2 Pet. 1. 1. The Saints are said to obtain precious Faith through the reghteousness of God. It is a righteous thing with God, to give Faith to them for whom Christ died; because thereby they have a Right unto it: Faith being amongst the most precious Fruits of the Death of Christ, by vertue thereof, becometh their due for whom he died.

4: The Condition of Persons under Merit, and de-Merit, in respect of Good or Evill is alike. The Proportion of things requires it. Now men under de-Merit are under an Obligation unto Punishment: and it is a righteous thing with God, to recompence tribulation unto them: 2 Thess. 1. 6. It being the judgement of God that they who do such things are worthy of death: Rom. 1. 32. They then who are under [Page] Merit, have also a Right unto that whereof it is the Merit. It is not of any force to say, That they are not under that Merit, but only upon Condition. For this is, 1, False: 2, With God this is all one as if there were no Condition at the Season and Term appointed; for the making out the Fruit of that Merit, as hath been declared. Neither yet to Object, That it is not their own Merit, but of another which Respects them: That Other being their Surety, doing that whereby he Merited only on their behalf; yea in their stead, they dying with him: though the same in them could not have been Meritorious: they being at best, meer men; and at worst, very sinful men.

5: A Compact or Covenant being made of giving Life and Salvation upon the Condition of Obedience to certain Persons, that Condition being compleatly fulfilled as it was in the Death of Christ, Claim being made of the Promise, according to the Tenure of the Compact, and the Persons presented for the Enjoyment of it, surely those Persons have an Actual Right unto it: That all this is so, see Isa. 49. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, &c. Psal. 2. 2. 4, 5. Isa. 53. 10, 11, 12. Joh. 17. 3. & 2. 21. Heb. 2.

And so much for this also, concerning the Issue of the Death of Christ, and the Right of the Elect to the Fruits of it before Beleeving.

[Page]

CAP. XII.
Of the way whereby they actually attain and enjoy Faith and Grace, who have a Right thereunto by the Death of Christ.

THE Way and Causes of bestowing Faith on them, who are under the Condition before described, is the next thing to be enquired after.

What are the Thoughts of God from Eternity concerning those for whom Christ was to die, with the State they are left in, in relation to those Thoughts; as also what is the Will of God towards them, immediatly upon the Consideration of the Death of Christ, with the Right which to them accrews thereby, being Considered, it remaineth (I say) that we declare the Way and Method whereby they obtain Faith through the righteousness of God.

And here we must lay down certain POSITIONS. As;

1, Notwithstanding the Right granted them for whom Christ died, upon his Death, to a better State and Condition in due Time, (that is in the Season, suiting the Infinitly-Wise-Sovereignty of God) yet as to their present Condition in point of Enjoyment, they are not actually differenced from others: Their Prayers are an abomination to the Lord, Prov. 28. 9. all Things are to them unclean, Tit. 1. 15. they are under the Power of Satan, Eph. 2. 2. in bondage unto death, Heb. 2. 14. Obnoxious to the Curse, and Condemning power of the Law in the Conscience, Gal. 3. 13. having sin reigning in them, Rom. 6. 17. &c.

[Page] 2, What spiritual Blessings soever are bestowed on any Soul (I mean peculiarly distinguishing Mercies and Graces) they are all bestowed and collated for Christs sake: That is, They are purchased by his Merit, and procured by his Intercession thereupon.

That supernatural Graces cannot be traduced from any natural Faculty, or attained by the utmost Endeavour of Nature, howsoever affected with outward advantages, I now take for granted. These things I looked upon as the free-gifts of Love: So the Scripture, Joh. 15. 5. 2 Cor. 3. 5. Eph. 2. 8. 1 Cor. 4. 7. Eph. 2. 10. Mat. 11. 25, 26. Act. 16. 14. &c.

Now the Dispensation of all these, as it is through Christ, so they are for Christ. On whomsoever they are bestowed it is for Christs sake: For Instance,

Peter and Judas are Unbeleevers. Faith is given (for Faith is given) to Peter, not to Judas. Whence is this difference? Presupposing Gods Sovereign discriminating Purpose, the immediate procuring Cause of Faith for Peter, is the Merit of Christ. To us it is given on the behalf of Christ to beleeve on him: Phil. 1. 20. We are blessed with all spiritual Blessings in him: Eph. 1. 3. Whatsoever is in the Promise of the Covenant is certainly of his procurement; for therefore he is the Surety, Heb. 7. 22. And his Bloud, (the Ransome he paid) is the Bloud of the Covevenant: Mat. 26. 28. Whereby all the Promises thereof, become in him Yea, and in him Amen, 2 Cor. 1. 20. And whether Faith be of the Blessings of the Covenant, and Conclude in the Promise thereof or no; let the Scripture be Judge. Jer. 31. 31, 32. Ezek. 36. 26. Heb. 8. 9, 10, 11.

Furthermore, What we have through him, we have so him. All these things, being made out on this Condition, that he should make his Soul an Offering for sin, Isa. 53. 10

3, That all the procurements of the Death of Christ in the behalf of his, are to be made out by vertue of a Stipulation sub termino: or in respect of their actual collation [Page] and bestowing, they are to be made out in the season limited and appointed by the Will of the Father. Of this before.

4, No Blessing can be given us for Christs sake, unless in Order of Nature, CHRIST be first reckoned unto us.

Here I must do two things;

1 Declare what I mean by reckoning Christ unto us: And then,

2 Prove the Assertion as laid down.

Gods reckoning Christ, in our present sense, is the imputing of Christ unto ungodly unbeleeving Sinners for whom he died, so far, as to account him theirs, to bestow Faith and Grace upon them for his sake.

This then I say, at the Accomplishment of the appointed time, the Lord reckons and accounts and makes out his Son Christ, to such and such Sinners, and for his sake, gives them Faith, &c. Exercising of Love actually in the bestowing of Grace upon any particular soul, in a distinguishing manner, for Christs sake, doth suppose this accounting of Christ to be his, and from thence he is so indeed: which is the present Thesis, and may be proved. For:

1; Why doth the Lord bestow Faith on Peter, not on Judas? Because Christ Dying for Peter, and purchasing for him the Grace of the Covenant, he had a Right unto it, and God according to his Promise bestowed it: With Judas, it was not so.

But then, Why doth the Lord bestow Faith on Peter at the 40th yeer of his Age, and not before, or after? Because then the Term is expired, which upon the Purchase, was by the Counsel of Gods Will prefixed to the giving in, the beginning of the thing Purchased unto him.

What then doth the Lord do, when he thus bestoweth Faith on him? For Christs sake (his Death procuring the Gift, not moving the Will of the Giver) he creates [Page]Faith in him, by the way and means snited to such a work. Eph. 1. 18, 19. Chap. 2. 1, &c.

If then this be done for Christs sake, then is Christ made ours, before we beleeve. Else, Why is Faith given him at this instant for Christs sake, and not to another, for whom also he died? That it is done then, is, because the appointed time is come; that it is done then for Christ, is because Christ is first given to him.

I cannot conceive how any thing should be made out to me for Christ, and Christ himself not be given to me; he being made unto us of God, Righteousness. 1 Cor. 1. 30.

2 The Apostle holds out this very Method of the Dispensation of Grace, Rom. 8. 32. He that spared not his Son, but delivered him up to Death for us all, how shall he not with him freely give us all things?

First Christ is given for us, then to us, then with him (he having the preheminence in all things) all things: and this being, also, for him, (Phil. 1. 29.) he is certainly in the Order of Nature given in the first place. He being made ours, we receive the Atonement by him, Rom. 5. 11.

How Christ is said to be received by Faith, if he be ours before Beleeving, is easily resolved. Christ is ours before and after Beleeving in a different sense. He who is made ours, in an Act of Gods Love, that for him we may have Faith, may be found and made ours in a Promise of Reconciliation by Beleeving.

I offer also, Whether Absolution from the guilt of sin, and obligation unto death, though not as terminated in the Conscience for compleat Iustification, do not proceed our actual Beleeving. For, What is that Love of God which through Christ is effectual to bestow Faith upon the Unbeleeving? And how can so great Love in the actual exercise of it producing the most distinguishing Mercies, consist with any such Act of Gods Will, as at the same instant should bind that Person under the Guilt of sin?

[Page] Perhaps also this may be the Iustification of the ungodly mentioned, Rom. 4. Gods absolving a Sinner in Heaven, by accounting Christ unto him, and then bestowing him, upon him, and for his sake enduing him with Faith to beleeve.

That we should be blessed with all spiritual blessings in Christ, and yet Christ not ours in a peculiar manner before the bestowing of those blessings on us, is somwhat strange. Yea he must be our Christ, before it is given to us for him to beleeve: Why else is it not given to all others so to do. I speak not of the supream distinguishing Cause, Mat. 11. 25, 26. but of the proximate procuring Cause, which is the bloud of Christ.

Neither yet do I hence assert compleat Justification to be before beleeving.

Absolution in Heaven, and Justification differ as part and whole.

Again, Absolution may be considered, either as a pure Act of the Will of God in it self, or as it is received, beleeved, apprehended, in, and by the soul of the Guilty. For Absolution in the first sense, it is evident it must proceed beleeving: as a discharge from the Effects of Anger, naturally proceeds all Collation of any fruits of Love, such as is Faith.

Object. But if God account Christ unto, and bestow him upon a Sinner before Beleeving, and upon that Account, absolve him from the Obligation unto Death and Hell which for sin he lies under, what wants this of compleat Justification?

Answ. Much every way.

1 It wants that Act of pardoning Mercy (on the part of God) which is to be terminated and compleated in the Conscience of the Sinner; this lies in the Promise.

2 It wants the Hearts perswasion concerning the Truth and Goodness, of the Promise, and the Mercy held out in the Promise.

[Page]3 It wants the Souls rolling it self upon Christ, and receiving of Christ, as the Author and Finisher of that Mercy, an Al-sufficient Saviour to them that beleeve.

So that by Faith alone we obtain and receive the forgiveness of sin: for notwithstanding any antecedent Act of God concerning us, in and for Christ, we do not actually receive a compleat Soul-freeing discharge until we beleeve.

And thus the Lord Christ hath the preheminence in all things. He is the Author and finisher of our Faith.

This then is that which here we assign unto the Lord. Upon the Accomplishment of the appointed Season, for the making out the fruits of the Death of Christ unto them for whom he died, he loves them freely, sayes to them, Live, gives them his Son, with, and for him, all things, bringing forth the choicest Issue of his being reconciled in the bloud of Jesus, whilest we are Enemies, and totally alimated from him.

It will not be requisite at all, (as to our purpose in hand) to make particular enquiry into the State and Condition of them towards whom such are the Actings of God as we before described. What it is that gives them the first real alteration of Condition and distinguishment from others, I have now no occasion to handle.

So far as Advantage hath been offered, I have laboured to distinguish aright those things, whose Confusion and mis-apprehension lies at the bottome of very many dangerous Mistakes: How the forgoing Discourse may be accommodated and improved for the Removeal of those Mistakes, I shall leave to the Consideration of others.

[Page]

CAP. XIII.
The Removal of sundry Objections to some things formerly taught, about the Death of Christ: Ʋpon the Principles now delivered.

HAving fully declared not only what was my Intendment in the Expressions so exceedingly mistaken by Mr Baxter, as hath in part already been made manifest, and will instantly more fully appear; I shall now take a view of what is Imposed on me as my Judgement, and the Opposition made thereunto, so far as may be needful for the cleering of the One, and removing of the Other, at least in what they may really concern what I did deliver in the Treatise impugned.

In Page 146 of his Apendix Mr Baxter endeavours to vindicate a Thesis of his from some Exceptions, that he was by his friend pointed to, unto which it seemed liable and Obnoxious.

The Thesis he layes down, is, That no man is actually and absolutly Justified upon the meer payment of the debt by Christ, till they become beleevers.

Against this Article (as he calls it) he produceth some Objections of Maccovius, censuring his Assertions to be senseless, his Positions strange and abhored, his Arguments weak and ineffectual; with some other Expressions to the same purpose.

1, I am now by the Providence of God in a Condition of Separation from my own small Library, neither can I here attain the sight of Maccovius Disputations; so that I shall not at all interpose my self in this Contest; only I [Page] must needs say. 1 I did not formerly account Maccovius to be so senseless and weak a Disputant as here he is represented to be.

2, That for Mr Baxters Answer to that Argument (where the Debt is paid, there Discharge must follow; by Asserting the Payment made by Christ to be refusable, and the Interest of sinners in that Payment to be purely upon the performance of a Condition. I have fully before in both parts of it Demonstrated to be weak, and inconsistent with it self, and Truth. That the Interesting of Sinners in the Payment made by Christ, at such and such a Season, is from the Sovereignty of God, and his free Engagement sub Termino for this End; hath been also fully manifested.

But Secondly, Mr Baxter Affirms, That to these Arguments of Maccovius, Mr Owen addes some in the place against Grotius whereunto he was referred.

To what End, you will say, doth Mr Owen adde these Arguments? Why to prove that men are actually, and absolutly, Justified upon the meer Payment of the Debt by Christ before beleeving.

But, Fidem tuam! Is there any one Argument in my whole Book used to any such purpose? Do I labour to prove that which I never Affirmed? never thought? never beleeved?

In what Sense I Affirmed that by the Death of Christ, we are actually, and ipso facto, delivered from Death (that is [...], we have in due time, the time appointed, free and full Deliverance thereby, without the Intervention of any Condition on our part, not absolutly procured for us by his Death) I have before declared. How much this comes short of actual and absolute Justification, I need not now mention: I shall therefore only so far Consider the Answers given by Mr Baxter; as they may seem to impair or entrench upon the main Truth I Assert, and that in the Order by him laid down.

These (saith he) Mr Owen layeth down.

[Page] 1 By Death he delivereth us from Death.

Answ. Not immediatly, nor absolutly, nor by his Death alone, but by that as a Price, supposing other Causes on his part, and Conditions on ours, to concur before the actual Deliverance.

Reply. 1 To what End I mention that place of the Apostle was before declared: 2 By the Death of Christ we are immediatly delivered from Death with that Immediation which is proper to the Efficiency of Causes, which produce their Effects by the way of Moral procurement: that is certainly, without the Intervention of any other Cause of the like kind: And, 3 Absolutly, no Condition being interposed between the Cause and the Effect, Christs Death, and our total Deliverance, but such as is part of our Deliverance, and solely procured by that Death: Though that Death of Christ be not considered as alone, that is separated from his Obedience, Resurrection, and Intercession, when the Work of Redemption is assigned to it in the Scripture.

4 By the Death of Christ as a Price: I suppose you understand his Purchase, as well as his Payment; his Merit, as well as his Satisfaction; or else this is a false Notion of the Death of CHRIST, as the Cause of our Deliverance.

5 All other Causes concurring on the Part of Christ for our Deliverance, are 1 Either not of the same kind with his Death; Or, 2 Bottomed on his Death, and flowing from thence; so that summarily all may be resolved therinto.

6 The Conditions on our Part, in the Sense intended, are often mentioned, never proved; nor I am perswaded will never be. But he Addes:

2 He saith the Elect are said to die, and rise with Christ.

Answ. 1 Not in respect of time, as if we died and rose at the same time, either really, or in Gods esteem. 2 Not that we died in his Dying, and rose in his Rising. [Page] But, 3 It is spoken of the distant mediate Effects of his Death, and the immediate Effects of his Spirit on us, Rising by Regeneration to Union and Communion with Christ. So he.

Reply. 1 I pass the 1, and 2, Exceptions, notwithstanding, that of Gods not esteeming of us as in Christ upon his Performance of the Acts of his Mediation for us, might admit of some consideration.

2 The Inference here couched, That these things are the immediate Effects of Christs Spirit on us, therefore the distant and mediate Effects of his death for us, is very weak and unconcluding. The death of Christ procureth these things as a Cause Moral and Impelling: the Spirit worketh as an Efficient, and therefore the same thing may be the immediate Effect of them both, according to their several kinds of Efficacy. And so indeed they are. Our actual Conversion, the Efficient whereof is the Spirit, is the immediate procurement of the Merit of Christ: see this at large in my Treatise opposed. I know not any man that hath run out into more wide mistakes about the immediate Effects of the death of Christ, than Mr Baxter, who pretends to so much Accurateness in this Particular.

3 He saith (ads Mr Baxter) Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse, being made a Curse for us.

Answ. I explained before how far we are freed by Redemption: He hath restored us, that is, paid the price, but with no intent that we should by that Redemption, be immediately or absolutely freed.

Yet when we are freed, it is to be ascribed to his death as the Meritorious Cause, but not as the Only Cause.

Reply. 1 A being freed so FAR, or so far, by Redemption, and not wholly, fully, or compleatly, what ever men may explain, the Scripture is wholly silent of.

2 That Christ in paying a price, had no intent that those he paid it for, should be immediatly or absolutely freed, is crudely enough asserted. 1 Of the immediateness of their Delivery, [Page] I have spoken already. It hath as strict an Immediation as the Nature of such Causes and Effects will bear. 2 If he intended not that those for whom he died should be absolutly freed, then either he intended not their freedom at all, and so the Negation is upon the term freed: or the Negation of his Intention is only as to the qualification, absolutly, and so his Intention to free them is Asserted, and the Affection of absolutness in that Intention, only denyed.

If the First be meant; 1 It is contrary to innumerable express Testimonies of Scriptures. 2 It renders the Son of God, dying with no determinate End, or designed Purpose at all, in Reference to them for whom he dyed: A thing we would not ascribe to a Wise man, in a far more easie Undertaking.

If the Second: 1 I desire to know, What is this Intention here assigned to our Saviour? He payd a Price, or Ransom for us, he bought and purchased us by his blood, to be a peculiar People to himself; he redeemed us from the Curse and Wrath due to us, that we may be conditionally freed. All things intended under Condition, are as to their Accomplishment uncertain. The Condition may be fulfilled, or it may not be fulfilled; and therefore the thing intended thereon, can have no certainty as to its Accomplishment, in the mind of the Intender. This then is That which is ascribed to the Lord Jesus: Making his Soul an Offering for sin, laying down his Life a ransom for Mercy, and tasting Death, to free the Children given him from Death, praying together that those for whom he died, might be partakers of his Glory; yet was altogether uncertain whether ever any one of them, should at all partake of the Good things, which in his whole undertaking of Mediation, he aimed at. Thus is he made a Surety of an uncertain Covenant, a Purchaser of an Inheritance perhaps never to be enjoyed, a Priest Sanctifying none by his Sacrifice, &c.

2 Is the Accomplishment of this Condition, upon [Page] which freedom depends in the Intention of Christ, certain in his mind, under that Intention? I ask then, Whence that Assurance doth accrew? Is it from his foresight of their good using their Abilities to fulfil the Condition to them prescribed? See then, whither you have rolled this stone! The Folly, and Absurdity of this, hath been long since sufficiently discovered.

But is it from hence, because by his Death, he Purchaseth for them, the compleating of that Condition in them? Thus, he payes a Price with Intention that those for whom he payes it, shall be freed, by enjoying that freedom under such a Condition as he procures for them; and thereupon knows, That at the appointed time, it shall be wrought in them. What differs this in the Close from absolute freedom?

Further: Feign some of them for whom Christ died to fulfil this Condition, others not; and it will be more evident, That the greatest uncertainty possible, as to the Issues of his Death, must be assigned to him in his dying. The pretence of an effectual discriminating purpose of free Grace, following the Purpose of giving Christ, promisuously for all, will not salve the Contradictions of this Assertion.

But the Truth is, This whole figment of Conditional freedom, is every way unsavoury: That very thing which is assigned for the Condition of our freedom, being it self the chiefest part of it: the whole indeed as here begun: Potential, Conditional, not actual, not absolute Issues and Effects of the Death of Christ, have been abundantly disproved already.

That which follows in Mr Baxter from Page 152, unto page 155. Chap. 19. belongs not to me: being only a Declaration of his own Judgement about the things in hand: wherein, although many things are not only incommodiously expressed, to suit the un-Scriptural Method of these Mysteris which he hath framed in his mind, but also directly [Page] opposite to the Truth; yet I shall not here meddle with it, refering them who desire Satisfaction in this Business, to a serious Consideration of what I have abovewritten to this purpose.

Page 155. C. 20. he returns to the Consideration of My Assertion concerning our Deliverance ipso facto, by the bloud of Christ: And tells you,

‘I do not understand Mr Owen his meaning: for he saith, That Christ did actually, and ipso facto, deliver us from the Curse and Obligation; yet we do not instantly apprehend and perceive it, nor yet possess it: but only we have actual Right to all the Fruits of his Death.’ &c. So he.

Answ. The things of that Treatise were written with the Pen of a vulgar Scribe, that every one might run and read: whence then it should be, That so learned a man should not understand my meaning, unless from his own prejudice, I know not: However, I have now so fully delivered my Sense and Meaning as to these things, That I hope no place remaineth for Discreptation thereabout. But let us look a little into Mr Baxters Enquiry after that, which he professeth not well to understand:

1 (Saith he) ‘Whether a man may fitly be said actually and ipso facto to be delivered and discharged, who is not at all delivered, but only hath a Right to deliverance: I doubt.’

Answ. To unriddle this, with most of the following Exceptions, and to Resolve his Doubt so far as I am concerned, as having administred occasion thereunto, I shall transcribe the place from whence these Difficulties are pretended to arise.

The Passage is in Lib. 3. Cap. 7. of that Treatise, Page 140, 141. as followeth:

‘That actual freedom from the Obligation doth not follow the Satisfaction made by Christ, cannot be granted. For by his Death, he did deliver us from Death: [Page] and that actually so far, as that the Elect are said to Die and Rise with him: he did actually or ipso facto deliver us from the Curse, by being made a Curse for us. The hand-writing that was against us, even the whole Obligation was taken out of the way, and nailed to his Cross. It is true, all for whom he did this do not instantly actually apprehend and perceive it: which is impossible. But yet that hinders not; but that they have all the Fruits of his Death in actual Right, though not in actual Possession: which last they cannot have until at least it be made known to them. As if a man pay a Ransom for a Prisoner detained in a forreign Country; the very day of the Payment and Acceptation of it, the Prisoner hath Right to his Liberty, though he cannot enjoy it, until such time as Tydings of it is brought unto him, and a Warrant produced for his Liberty. So that, that Reason is nothing but a begging [...]. 2dly, The Satisfaction of Christ by the Payment of the same thing that was in the Obligation, is no way prejudicial to that free Gracious Condonation of Sin so often mentioned. Gods Gracious Condonation of Sin, comprizeth the whole dispensation of Grace towards us in Christ: whereof there are Two Parts: 1 The laying of our Sin on Christ; or making him to be Sin for us, which was meerly and purely an act of free Grace. 2 The Gracious imputation of the Righteousness of Christ to us: or making us the Righteousness of God in him; which is no less of Grace and Mercy: However that Remission, Grace, and Pardon which is in God for Sinners, is not opposed to Christs Merits, but ours. He pardoneth all to us, but he spareth not his only Son: The freedom then of Pardon hath not its Foundation in any defect of the Merit or Satisfaction of Christ, but in Three other things: 1 The Will of God freely appointing this Satisfaction of Christ: Joh. 3. 10. Rom. 5. 8. 2 In a Gracious Acceptation of that decreed Satisfaction in our steads, so many, no more. [Page] 3 In a free Application of the Death of Christ unto us: Remission then excludes not a full Satisfaction by the solution of the very thing in the Obligation, but only the solution or Satisfaction of him to whom Remission is granted,’ &c.

All that is here Affirmed, may be Reduced to these Heads:

1 Actual freedom from the Obligation is the immediate Fruit of the Death of Christ: understand such an Immediation, as I have often described.

2 Hence, Christ is said actually or ipso facto to deliver us, because our Deliverance which is to be accomplished sub Termino, is the infallible, absolute, immediate Issue and Product of what he did for us. Actual and ipso facto, are opposed to the Intervention of any such thing, as should make our Deliverance to be only Potential, or Conditional.

3 Those for whom Christ doth work this Deliverance, are not as to a simulty of time actually delivered: They neither enjoy, nor are acquainted with any such Deliverance until the appointed time be come, but have actual right thereunto, to possess it in due Season.

This being the sum and plain Intendment of that place, I suppose there will not need any operous Endeavour to remove the Objections that are laid against it: And therefore to that before expressed, I say, Christ hath actually and ipso facto procured our Deliverance: Hence we have actual right unto it, but not actual possession of it: And where the difficulty of this should rest, I know not. Men may as oft as they please create Contradictions in their own minds, and entangle themselves with Doubts in the Knots which themselves have tyed. But,

2 (Saith he) ‘Knowledge and Possession of a Deliverance are far different things.’

Answ. 1 He maketh them so, who plainly intimates, That the Reason why it is not apprehended, is, Because it is not possessed: and alwayes speaks disjunctively of them.

[Page]

2 Besides, This Proposition of the distance of these Two, is not universally true, as I could easily demonstrate.

3 ‘Our Knowledge therefore (he ads) doth not give us Possession: so that the Similitude sails: for it is the Creditors Knowledge and Satisfaction that is requisite to Deliverance: and our Creditor was not in a far and strange Country, but knew immediatly, and could either have made us quickly know, or turned us free before we had known the Cause.’

Answ. 1 Whether or no, or how far Knowledge gives us Possession, I shall not now Dispute: only considering in what sense Knowledge is here used; and often in the Scripture, the Deliverance also spoken of, being such, as no small part thereof consists in this Knowledge, and without it (in the seed at least) is not, I cannot but say, That such kind of Affirmations in things of this weight, are very slender proofs: Yea further, Whereas the Enjoyment of this Deliverance is either as to the Being of it, or to the Comfort of it; the Latter is given us by this Knowledge meerly, the Former consists therein mainly, Joh. 17. 3.

2 Similitudes are allowed their Grains to make them Current: But yet, as our Creditors Knowledge and Satisfaction is required to our Deliverance, so not that only; but ours also, as to our actual Enjoyment of it. It is true, he could have made us quickly know it: but who hath been his Counsellour? this is left to his Sovereign and free disposal, our Deliverance being Purchased to be made out in the season thereby appointed. But, That God could have made us free, before we knew the Cause, (supposing his Constitution of the way of Salvation revealed in the Bloud of Jesus, which lies at the bottome of all these Disputes) is a most Anti-Evangelical Assertion, and diametrally opposed to the whole way of Gods dealing with Sinners. But he addes,

4 ‘Neither can it be understood how God can so long deny us the Possession of Heaven, if we had such [Page] actual absolute Right so long ago, which seems to me to express a jus ad rem, and in re.’

Answ. 1 I love not to enquire into the Reason of Gods actings,Eph. 1. 11 which are according to the Counsel of his own Will: and yet think it not very difficult to conceive how a Son is for a season kept as a Servant,Gal. 4. 1 though he be Heir of all.

2 He speaks as though this Deliverance lay all in Heaven, Joh. 1. 12 whereas it is here fully enjoyed on the Earth though not in all the degrees of the Fruits thereof.Rom. 5. 11

3 If the Right wherof we speak were Jus in re, Eph. 1. 11 I see not well indeed how God could keep us from the Possession of it as Mr Baxter sayes:Col. 1. 12, 13, 14. a man cannot be kept long from what he hath. But saith he,

5 ‘If he mean a Right to future Possession, I do not see how Right and Possession should stand at so many yeers distance: To have Right to Gods favour, and Possession of that favour seem to me of neerer kin. Except he should think that Possession of favour is nothing but the Knowledge or feeling of it: And that Faith Justifieth only in loco Conscientia: but I will not Censure so hardly until I know.’

Answ. 1 If at so many yeers distance it may not be allowed, he had done well to express at how many it might. For my part, placing this Right upon the Purchase of Christ, (as before,) and Possession in the actual Enjoyment of the Fruits of that Purchase; then refering the distance between them to the Good pleasure of God, who had granted and established that Right to an Enjoyment sub termino, I see no difficulty, no perplexity in this at all.

2 That no small portion of favour consists in a sense and knowledge of the kindness of God in its Actings terminated upon the Conscience,Psal. 4. 6 I must beleeve, whatever Mr Baxter be pleased to Censure.2 Cor. 4. 6. It is far more facile to give the hardest Censures, then to Answer the easiest Arguments.

3 The place where Faith Justifieth I am not so solicitous [Page] about, as the manner how: which of all other wayes commonly insisted on, I conceive not to be; as it is our now Obedience: yet that in this Work, it looks further then the Conscience, I easily grant.

The most of what is subjoyned to these Exceptions, is fully Answered in what went before.

As much as possible, I shall avoid all Repetitions of the same things: Only whereas he Affirmeth, That to have Right to Justification, and to have Possession of it, is all one; I must needs enter my Dissent thereunto: which may suffice until it be attempted to be put upon the Proof. If he shall say, That a Right to a future Justification at the day of Judgment, is the same with the Possession of present actual Justification, it is neither true, nor any thing to the Business in hand.

In the Close, he shuts up this Discourse, and enters into another; giving in his Thoughts about the immediate Effects of the Death of Christ: A matter wherein he pretends to great Accurateness, [...]. Censuring others, for not being able to distinguish aright of them, and so to spend abundance of labour in vain, in their Discourses thereabout. Particularly here he denyes (and calls it A dangerous Errour to suppose) That actual Remission and Justification are immediate Effects of his Death, or any Right thereunto, which he attempteth to prove by sundry Arguments.

Of the Effects of the Death of Christ, and what Relation they all stand in thereunto, I have spoken at large before. Now because actual Remission is denyed to be an immediate Effect of the Death of Christ, and so a potential Remission not once mentioned in the Book of God is tacitely substituted in the Room thereof, and this also in Opposition to what I had Delivered, I shall briefly consider his Arguments, and so give an End to this Debate.

Argum. ‘1 What Right soever God giveth unto men in things supernatural (such as Justification, Remission, [Page] and Adoption) he giveth it by his written Laws. But by these Laws he hath given no such thing to any unbeleevers, such as are the Elect before Conversion: therfore, &c.’

‘The Major is evident: Gods Decree giveth no man a Personal Right to the Mercy intended him. And for the Minor, no man can produce the Scripture giving to unbeleevers such a Right.’

Answ. 1 Taking the Laws of God in the strict and proper sense,Lex aut punit, aut vetat, aut permittit, aut consulit, aut hortatur: and it is so far from being a Truth, That what Right God gives to any, he gives it by his written Laws; that indeed the Laws of God give no Right to any one, concerning any thing, whether supernatural or otherwise. The End of the Law is not to give Right, but to exact Obedience: and that chiefly if not upon the sum, solely. The usual proper genuine signification of Gods Laws,F. de Leg. 1 Joh. 3. 4. being his revealed Will for our Obedience, I know not why Mr Baxter should bring them in, in the Latitude of his single Apprehension to be a Medium in an Argument. Hence,

2 Here is not a sufficient Annumeration of Causes; the Promises of God are to be added, and those either made to us, or to any other for our Good. But,

3 That the Decree of God gives to no man a Right to the thing concerning which the Decree is,Decretum nil ponit in esse, praedestinatio in praedestinato Aquin. is so far from being a sufficient proof of the Major, That it is in it self very questionable, if not unquestionably false. That the Decree gives not being and Existence to the things concerning which it is, is an old Rule. That no Right should from it arise, unto that thing by vertue thereof, is not yet so cleer. Right is but Jus. Jus est quod justum est. If it be just or Right, that any one should have such a thing, he is said to have a Right thereunto.Eph. 1. 4. Now, supposing the Decree of God,2 Pet. 1. 1. that a man shall, by such means, have such a thing, is it not Just, equitable and Condecent unto Righteousness that he should have it? But yet further,

4 We are not at all speaking of a Right founded on Gods [Page]Decrees, Cururceus exit. (which considering what was proposed to be proved by this Argument; I wonder how it found any mention here) but upon Two other things.

1 The Covenant of God with Christ about the Pardoning, Justifying, and Saving of those, for whose sin he should make his Soul an Offering: which Covenant respecting Christ as Mediator God and man, is not to be reckoned among the meer Decrees and Purposes of God, containing in it self al those Promises and Engagements wheron the Lord Jesus in the Work of Redemption rolled himself.Isa. 50. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Now in this Covenant, God Engaged himself (as I said before) to make out to those for whom Christ undertook, whatsoever was the Fruit of his Purchase, and that was what in his good pleasure was assigned thereunto. And this is the first bottome of this Right.

2 The Purchase of Christ being compleated by the Performance of all things by divine Constitution thereunto alotted,Joh. 17. 4. 2 Tim. 3. 16. and himself acquitted and exonerated of the whol Debt of their Sin for whom he suffered, which was charged on him;Joh. 17. he makes Demand of the Accomplishment of the forementioned Engagement made to him,Heb. 9. 24. concerning the freedom and deliverance of the Persons whose Sins were laid on him, and whose bringing unto Glory he undertook.

On these Two, I say it is, That our Right to the Fruits of the Death of Christ, even before beleeving, doth depend: from hence at least it is right and equal, That we do in the time appointed enjoy these things. Yea to say, That we have Right upon beleeving to the Fruits of the Death of Christ affirmed universally, can only be affirmed of a Jus in re, such a Right, as hath (at least in part) conjoyned actual Possession, beleeving it self being no smal Portion of these Fruits.

This Argument then being fallacious, omitting the chief Causes in Annumeration, concludes not the thing proposed. Besides it is in no small measure faulty, in that the [Page] first thing proposed to be confirmed was, That Remission of Sin, and Justification are not the immediate Effects of Christs Death, whereof in this Argument there is [...].

Argum. 2. ‘If God hate all the Works of Iniquity, and we are all by Nature the Children of Wrath, and without Faith it is impossible to please God, and he that beleeveth not is Condemned already, then certainly the Elect while they are unbeleevers, are not actually de facto, no nor in personal Right delivered from this Hatred, Wrath, Displeasure, and Condemnation: But, Ergo.’

Answ. 1 This Argument, for what indeed it will prove is handled at large in my Treatise of Redemption, as also re-urged in the Pages foregoing. Against actual Justification from Eternity, it hath its Efficacy.

2 It doth also Conclude, That the Elect whilest unbeleevers, are not actually and de facto put in Possession of the Issues of Love, Faith being with the first of them. But,

3 That they have not upon the Grounds forementioned, a Right to these things.

Or,

4 That Justification is not the immediate Effect of the Death of Christ (being the sole things in question) it hath the same unhappiness with the former, not once to mention.

Argum. 3. ‘If we are Justified only by Faith, then certainly not before Faith. But we are Justified only by Faith. Ergo.’

Answ. 1 If I mistake not, it is not Justification before Faith, but a Right to the Fruits of the Death of Christ before Faith that is to be proved.

2 That Justification is not the immediate Effect of the Death of Christ to which Ends for this Argument, Valeat quantum valere potest: to me, it comes not within many miles of the thing in Question. So that with the absurd [Page] ANSWERS supposed thereunto, we passe it by.

The like also I am enforced to say of the Two other that follow, being of the same length and breadth with those foregoing, too short & narrow to cover the things in Question so that though they may have their strength to their own proper End, yet as to the things proposed to be proved, there is nothing in their Genuine Conclusions looking that way.

If I might take the Liberty of ghessing, I should suppose the Mistake which lead this Author to all this labor in vain, is, That the immediate Effects of the Death of Christ must be immediatly enjoyed by them for whom he died. Which Assertion hath not indeed the least Colour of Truth. The Effects of the Death of Christ are not said to be immediate, in reference to others enjoyment of them, but unto their Causality by that Death. Whatever it be, that in the first place is made out to Sinners for the Death of Christ, when ever it be done, that is the immediate Effect thereof, as to them: As to them I say, for in its first tendency, it hath a more immediate Object.

If Mr Baxter go on with his Intentions about a tract concerning universal Redemption, perhaps we may have these things cleered: and yet we must tell him before hand, That if he draw forth nothing on that Subject but what is done by Amiraldus, and like things to them, he will give little Satisfaction to learned and stable men, upon the Issue of his undertaking.

I shall not presume to take another mans Task out of his hand, especially one's who is so every way able to go through with it; Else I durst undertake to demonstrate that Treatise of Amiraldus, mentioned by Mr Baxter, to be full of weak and sophistical Argumentations, absurd Contradictions, vain strife of Words; and in sum to be, as birthless a tympanous Endeavour, as ever so learned a man was engaged in.

[Page] For the present, being by Gods Providence removed for a Season from my Native soyl, attended with more then ordinary weaknesses and infirmities, separated from my Library, burdened with manifold Employments, with constant Preaching to a numerous multitude, of as thirsting a People after the Gospel, as ever yet I conversed withal; it sufficeth me, That I have obtained this Mercy, Briefly and plainly to Vindicate the Truth from mistakes, and something further to unfold the Mystery of our Redemption in Christ, all with so facile and placid an Endeavour, as is usually upon the Spirits of men, in the familiar writings of one Friend to another. That it hath been my Aim to seek after Truth, and to keep close to the forme of wholesome words delivered to us, will (I hope) appear to them that love Truth, and Peace.

Dublin-Castle, Decemb. 20. 1649.

[...].

FINIS.

ERRATA.
The Author having no opportunity to attend the Press, and being absent many miles during the Printing the most part of it, finds the Accenting of sundry Greek Expressions omitted, with other mistakes, which he desireth the Reader to Correct as followeth:

[Page]

PAg. 5. l. 10. r. have. p. 9. l. 23. [...]. p. 10. l. 8. [...], so also in other places. l. 9. [...]. p. 11. l. 10. [...]. l. 26. [...]. p. 12. l. 21. [...]. p. 15. l. 3. [...]. l. 14. [...]. p. 16. l. 9. hudled. p. 19. l. 10. alius. p. 20. l. 4. now. p. 22. l. 22. [...]. p. 24. l. 22. [...]. p. 27. l. 12. observed. p. 28. l. 24. not all the thing. l. 26. to any. p. 29. l. 4. Now the. p. 30. l. 6. Now he. p. 31. l. 1. [...]. l. 4. [...]. l. 11. pressures. p. 32. l. ult. Pactional. p. 33. l. 24. Contradiction. p. 34. l. 33. Oblation made. p. 36. l. 22. that ever I. l. 31. feigne. p. 44. l. 8. [...]. p. 47. l. 3. of God, is thus held out. l. 27. Analogie. l. 33. fturition. p. 54. l. ult. actuate their own. p. 76. l. 29. Concluded. p. 78. l. 30. preceed. p. 82. l. 27. [...]. p. 85. l. 28. many. p. 87. l. 20. disceptation. p. 88. l. 17. [...]. p. 91. l. 20. foro Conscientiae. p. 95. l. 3. [...]. Pag. 29. in the Margin, [...].

[Page]

Information about this book

Title statement

Of the death of Christ, the price he paid, and the purchase he made. Or, the satisfaction, and merit of the death of Christ cleered, the universality of redemption thereby oppugned: and the doctrine concerning these things formerly delivered in a treatise against universal redemption vindicated from the exceptions, and objections of Mr Baxter. / By J. Owen, minister of the gospel.

Owen, John, 1616-1683.

Edition statement

1650

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2008-09 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A90278

ID [STC]

Wing O783

ID [STC]

Thomason E614_2

ID [STC]

ESTC R206527

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

99865668

ID [PROQUEST]

99865668

ID [VID]

117916

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A90278)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 117916)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Thomason Tracts ; 94:E614[2])

Source

— Of the death of Christ, the price he paid, and the purchase he made. Or, the satisfaction, and merit of the death of Christ cleered, the universality of redemption thereby oppugned: and the doctrine concerning these things formerly delivered in a treatise against universal redemption vindicated from the exceptions, and objections of Mr Baxter. / By J. Owen, minister of the gospel., Owen, John, 1616-1683..

Extent

[10], 97, [1] p.

Printed by Peter Cole, at the sign of the Printing-Press in Cornhill, near the Royal Exchange,. London :: 1650.. (Annotation on Thomason copy: "4th Oct.".) (Reproduction of the original in the British Library.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.