himself acquitted and exonerated of the whol Debt of their Sin for whom he suffered which was charged on him he makes Demand of the Accomplishment of the forementioned Engagement made to him 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 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 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 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. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 PAg. 5. l. 10. r. have p. 9. l. 23. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} p. 10. l. 8. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} so also in other places l. 9. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} p. 11. l. 10. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} l. 26. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} p. 12. l. 21. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} p. 15. l. 3. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} l. 14. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} p. 16. l. 9. hudled p. 19. l. 10. alius p. 20. l. 4. now p. 22. l. 22. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} p. 24. l. 22. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} l. 4. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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.
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 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 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 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 Vniversality restrain in this To say thus because here is no Condition expressed is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 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
of Christ is a low carnal Conception The Will of God is not moved by any thing without it self k 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 is l 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 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. Heb. 9. 12. 2 How comes the Sinner by Faith if it is the Gift of God 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 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 Vnbelief 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 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 Vnbelief you understand that which would be so notwithstanding all means and remedies 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 1 m 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 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
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 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 CAP. XIII The Removal of sundry Objections to some things formerly taught about the Death of Christ Vpon 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 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 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
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 Law doth threaten every man personally or else it had been no favour to accept it of another It is marvelous to me 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} And thus to set it down is but a Petition {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} 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 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 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 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 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 will by and by appear Whether Mr B. understandeth Me or the Controversie by me handled you shall have now a TRYAL 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
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 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 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. 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 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 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