Aphorisms of Justification, Answer · Answer 15
To the fifteenth Objections.
TO your fifteenth Objection I answer, 1. The Apostle in those places dealeth with the Jews, who trusted to works without and against Christ: This is nothing against them that set not up works in opposition nor coordination but onelyonly in subordination to Christ.
2. If I affirmed that works are the least part of that Righteousnesse which the Law requireth, and which must be so pleaded to our justification, then I should offend against the freenesse of grace: But when I affirme, that all our legall Righteousnesse is onelyonly in Christ, then doe I not make the reward to be of debt, or lesse free.
3. The Apostle in the same verse Rom. 4. 5. saith, that his Faith is counted for Righteousnesse; and I have proved before that subjection is a part of Faith.
4. The Apostle plainly speaketh of that Righteousnesse whereby we are formally righteous, and which we must plead that we may be justified from the accusation of the Law; and this is neither in Faith nor works, but in Christ: But he nowhere speaketh against that which is only the condition of our participation of that, and whereby we must escape the condemnation of the Gospell, which is Faith, as I have opened before.
5. If the Apostle should meane otherwise, it were as much against your Doctrine as mine. For is not Faith a work or act of ours? But you will say, That though Faith which is a work do justifie, yet not as a work, but as an instrument. I answer.
1. To be an actuall apprehension of Christ (which you call its instrumentality) is to bee a work; Therefore, if it justifie as it is such an apprehension, it justifieth as a work.
2. So also say I, that subjection and obedience justifie, 1. Not as works simply considered; 2. Nor as legall works; 3. Nor as meritorious works; 4. Nor as Good works which God is pleased with; 5. But as the conditions to which the free Law-giver hath promised justification and life.
Nay, your Doctrine ascribeth farre more of the work to man then mine; for you make justification an effect of your own Faith, and your Faith the instrumentall cause of it, and so make your selfe your owne justifier. And you say your Faith justifieth, as it apprehendeth Christ, which is the most intrinsecall; essentiall consideration of Faith, and so Faith hath much of the honour. But while I affirm that it justifieth onelyonly as a condition, which is an extrinsecall consideration, and aliene from its essence or nature, I give the glory to him that freely giveth me life, and that made so sweet a condition to his Covenant, and that enableth me to performe the said condition.
And thus I have according to my measure of understanding answered your Objections, as fully as necessitated brevity would permit.
And for that question which you propounded about Relaxation, Abrogation, &c. of the Law, which you confesse you doe not well understand; I refer you to Vossius Defens. Grotii de Satisf. cap. 27. where (among other things) hee telleth you that Apud Romanos seu ferenda esset Lex, populus rogabatur an ferrivellet? seu tollendae, rogabatur, an tolli eam placeret? Hinc rogari lex dicebatur, quae ferrebatur, ut dicit Vlp. Tit. 1. Regal. Eâdemque de causâ abrogari dicebatur, cum antiquaretur, &c. And then he explaineth all those phrases to you out of Vlpian. Lex rogatur, id est, fertur; vel abrogatur, idest, prior lex tollitur; vel Derogatur, id est, pars primae tollitur: aut subrogatur, id est adjicitur aliquid primae legi: aut Obrogatur, id est, mutatur aliquid ex primâlege. And so concludeth, that the first Law was not abrogated, but relaxed, dispensed with, and obrogate.
How farre it was executed, I have shewed you in the Treatise.
But the last task you set me, is of all the rest most ungratefull, endlesse, and (in my judgement) unnecessary, viz. [To answer what other men have written against some doctrines which I have here asserted.]
1. It is a work ungratefull to search into other mens weaknesse and mistakes; to handle the truth in a way of contention or to speak in way of derogation of the labours of the learned and godly.
2. And should I fall upon a confutation of every man that hath written contrary to any thing in my Book, the task would be endlesse, and I might stuffe a great deale of paper with words against words, and perhaps adde little matter to what is already written; which is a work unfit me for to undertake who have so much better work to doe, and am like to have so short a time to doe it in.
3. And it seemes to me a needlesse task; partly because from the cleering and confirmation of the positive truth, you may be enabled to answer opposers your selfe.
2. The Authors which you mention doe so easily and effectually assault the doctrines mentioned, that I should think no judicious man can thereby be staggered.
But at your request I will briefly consider them particularly.
The Authors which you refer me to, are two, D. Maccovius, and Mr. Owen. The points which they contradict are three.
1. That our legall Righteousnesse which we have in Christ, consisteth not formally in obedience to the Precept of the first Covenant, but onelyonly in satisfaction for our Disobedience. This Maccovius opposeth in Colleg. Theol. par 1 Disp. 10. & par. 4. Disp. 9.
2. [That Christ payed not the same debt which was in the first obligation, but the value; and so the Law was not properly and fully executed, but relaxed.] This, you say, Mr. Owen confuteth in Grotius, in his late Treatise of Vniversall Redemption, lib. 3 cap. 7. p. 140.
3. [That no man is actually and absolutely justified (no not so much as in point of Right) either from eternity, or upon the meere payment of the bebt by Christ, till themselves doe beleeve.] This, you say, is confuted by both of them, Maccov. par. 3. Disp. 16. & par. 1. Disp. 17. Et owen ubi supra.
If mens names did not more take with you then their Arguments, you might have spared me this labour. But briefly to the first of these I answer.
1. Most passages in Maccovius doe affirm but that Christ obeyed for us, as well as suffered for us; and who denyeth that?
2. Of those passages which yet goe further, there is few of them that say any more then this, that Christs active Righteousnesse did merit for us that life and glory which is given by the New Covenant, more then we lost by breaking the Old: But this is nothing to our Question which is onelyonly about justification. For I have cleared to you before, that Justification is (properly and strictly taken) one of those acts whereby we are recovered from the condemnation of the Law, and set in statu quo prius; and not one of those acts which give us that additionall glory which is Adoption, Union, Glorification.
3. Those few Arguments which yet doe drive higher then this, are so fully answered already by Mr. Gataker against Lucius, Gomarrus,, &c. and Mr. Goodwin (notwithstanding Mr. Roboroughs Answer) and divers others, that I am resolved not to lose so much time and labour, as to doe that which is better done already, then can be expected from me.
4. OnelyOnly one argument more then usuall I finde in part 1 Disput. 10. And which I confesse deserveth a speciall consideration, And that is this. [If Christ onelyonly suffered for us, then the righteousnesse of Adam, had hee continued in innocency, would have been more excellent then the righteousnesse of Christ: For the law requireth obedience principally and suffering but per accidens. But the consequence is false, because else Christ hath not set us in as good a state as we fell from.]
To this I answer. 1. This righteousnesse may be termed excellent in severall respects. 1 In reference to its Rule: 2. Or in reference to its Ends. The 1. denominateth it Good in it self: The second denominateth it good to us. Now the Rules to measure it by, are two: 1. The neerest inferiour Rule; which is the Law: 2. The remote superiour Rule; which is the good pleasure and will of the Law-maker.
2. The ends which may denominate our righteousnesse more excellent, are: 1 The glory of Gods justice and mercy: 2. The glory of the Mediatours love, and the setting up of his kingdom: 3 And the good of the creature: Or rather all these in one.
Now these things thus standing, I answer thus. 1 I acknowledge that the Law made for mankinde doth primarily require obedience, and but secondarily suffering, and upon supposition of disobedience.
2. But you must distinguish betwixt what the law requireth of us, and what of the Mediatour: the law to the creature, and the law to the Mediatour, are in severall things different: The will of his Father which he came to doe, consisted in many things which were never required of us: such are all the works proper to the office of Mediatourship. Now though the Law required of us meer creatures primarily Obedience active; Yet that which was principally imposed upon the Mediatour and undertaken by him, was to satisfie for our disobedience: And so the principall part of his works was passive obedience, and that in him was as excellent or more then Active obedience; though in us it would not have been so; because the law did not require it of us in the first place, as it did of Christ.
3. If you call that most excellent which is best pleasing to God the Law-maker; then certainly the satisfaction of Christ did please him better, then Adams perseverance in innocencie would have done. This needeth no proof but the consideration of the event.
4. And for the ends of righteousnesse, let us consider them distinctly; and see whether Christs satisfaction do not attain them all more eminently and fully then Adams perseverance would have done.
1. The glory of Gods justice would not have been manifested so, if Adam had stood, as it was by Christs sufferings: 2 Nor the glory of his mercy and free grace. 3 Nor the Mediatours love: 4 Nor would the Kingdom of the Mediatour have been set up, nor his honour so advanced. 5. Nor the saints advanced to so high a dignity and happinesse, as now they are and shall be by Christ.
So that in what respect is our righteousnesse lesse excellent? or who is the looser? Not the Father; Not the Mediatour: All the question is of our selves: But that is onelyonly in point of our honour: It is acknowledged, that to the creature it would have been more honourable to have kept his innocency, then to have his disobedience satisfied for by another. But here consider these things, 1 Gods honour is to be preferred to ours. 2 And the Mediatours advancement before our advancement. 3 It was the very design of God in the Gospell way of our salvation to take down our honour, that the creature might not glory in it self, but all might be acknowledged to free grace: And shall we think it a wrong, if we have not a righteousnesse as honourable to our selves as that which we lost? 4 Our happinesse will be greater though our honour will be lesse: For we shall have a far greater glory. And that is better then meer honour. 5 Yea we shall have more honour then we lost: A reall honour of being the sons of God, and members of Christ, and heirs of glory: And this is greater then the honour of our perseverance would have been. OnelyOnly this being all freely given redoundeth to the giver: but still the reall honour and happinesse we enjoy therefore is it the everlasting work of Saints, to praise the Lamb who hath redeemed them out of a…l nations, and made them Kings and Priests to God; which implyeth an acknowledgement of their former disobedience and misery, (and so taking dishonour to themselves) and yet the greater glory to Christ, and happinesse to them.
6. Moreover we have now besides the righteousnesse of Christs satisfaction a personall evangelicall righteousnesse, consisting in the fulfilling of the conditions of the law of grace.
So that our little losse of the honour of self-performance you see is in these 6. respects abundantly recompensed.
So that to our selves a righteousnesse of tisfaction, is better then a righteousnes of personall obedience. And as it is found in Christ, it is also in it self more excellent.
Yet further; that it is not derogatory to Christ, doth thus appear. 1 He had in himself both sorts of righteousnesse; viz. Of obedience to the Precept, and of satisfaction to the threatning. Though both could not be ours, retaining their forms as such: because the (law requireth but one sort of righteousnes of one person for himself: so that we derogate nothing from Christs righteousnesse or perfection.
2. Both these sorts in Christ, viz. his active and passive (as I conceive) doe concurre to make up that one sort of righteousnesse necessary for us, viz. Or satisfaction to the threatning: and so both conjunct are our righteousnesse, though not as two sorts of righteousnesse, but as one. Yet I know that this is somewhat dark and doubtfull, because Obedience is a thing commanded and not threatened: But yet seeing Christ payed not the Idem, but the Tantundem; not the very same debt mentioned in the threatning, but the value. I think therefore that his obedience as such may goe in to his satisfaction.
3. I also freely acknowledge, that the additionall happinesse which we have by Christ, more then we lost in Adam, contained in our Adoption, Union with Christ and Glorificacation, are procured by Christs active obedience as such, as well as by his satisfaction in suffering.
If yet besides all this, any will maintain that we fulfilled the precepts of the law in Christ; or that his fulfilling of them as such, is our righteousnesse, let them shew me solidly what neede we have of Christs sufferings, and let them answer what is said to the contrary by the formentioned Authors; and I shall quickly yeeld.
To conclude, that God accepteth this righteousnesse of satisfaction as being equivalent to that of obedience (though obedience be first in the law, and the precept the principall part) and so that he is as well pleased with us as if we had obeyed: may appear from the end & nature of satisfactory punishment. For the penalty of a perfect just law is supposed to be such, that it will make a perfect compensation or satisfaction for all the wrong we have done, to the law-maker or the publique: so that being paid or suffered, we must needs in point of innocency be in statu quo prius. I know some object thus, If a theef be burnt in the hand and so the law satisfied, yet he hath lost his credit, and will not be taken or trusted for an honest man.
Answ. You must distinguish 1. betwixt his breach of mans law, and his breach of Gods law.
2. Betwixt his actuall fault, and his habituall pravity. And then you will see, that his burning in the hand was for the breach of mans law; but the perpetuall infamy is a part of the penalty inflicted by God for the breach of his law, by the same fact. 2 That his suffering was onelyonly for his actuall fault: But our distrust and contempt of him is also for the pravity of his heart by that fact discovered, of which mans Law taketh not notice.
But if you instance in the breach of a meer penall law (as for keeping Artillery, for forbearing to eat flesh in Lent, &c.) You will see that the meer suffering or paiment, doth put the offendour in as good a condition as he was before.
But the Disputant in Maccovius thinketh to strike all dead, with this case. In 1 Sam. 11. 7. the penalty for them that would not go out with Saul to battell, was, that their oxen should be hewed in pieces; yet (saith he) they should besides this have lost their part in the prey or spoils. To which I answer.
1. Then the losse of the spoil was implyed as part of the penalty. 2 He all along runneth upon a false supposition; viz, That Adam besides the continuance of the happinesse which at first was freely given him, should moreover by his obedience have merited or procured some further reward: Now (saith he) this reward must be procured us by Christs active righteousnesse, though his satisfaction put us into the state we fell from.
But all this is a meer fiction. For where doth the scripture talk of Adams meriting any more, or where doth it promise him any more then the continuance of that happinesse which he then had?
So I have done with the first Question.
Your 2. is [whether Christ paid the same debt which was in the first obligation?] And here you send me to Mr. Owen.
Answ. 1. I had farre rather you had objected your self. For I cannot well understand Mr. Owens minde. in pag. 137. He distinguisheth betwixt paying the very thing that is in the obligation; and paying of so much in another kinde. Now this is not our question, nor any thing to it; for we affirm that Christs suffering was of the same kinde of punishment, (at least in the main;) but yet not the very same in the obligation.
In pag. 140. He states the question far otherwise, (and yet supposeth it the same) viz, whether Christ paid the Idem, or the Tantundem? which he interpreteth thus; that which is not the same, nor equivalent to it, but onelyonly in the graous acceptance of the Creditour. Now what he means by not equivalent I cannot tell.
1. If he mean not of equall value, then he fighteth with a shadow; he wrongeth Grotius, (for ought I can finde in him (who teacheth no such doctrine: How-ever, I do not so use to English solutio Tantidem. But if he mean that it is not equivalent in procuring its ends, ipso facto, delivering the debtour, without the intervention of a new confession or contract of the creditor, (as solutio ejusdem doth,) then I confesse Grotius is against him; and so am I.
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 els it is his accepting of a refuseable payment, which though equall in value yet he may chuse to accept according to the tenour of the Obligation. This is gracious acceptance, which Grotius maintaineth? and so doe I; and so distinguish betwixt solutio & satisfactio, payment: and satisfaction.
Yet here Mr. Owen entereth the lists with Grotius; And.
1. He overlooketh his greatest Arguments.
2. He slightly answereth onelyonly two.
And 3. when he hath done, he saith as Grotius doth, and yeeldeth the whole cause.
These three things I will make appeare in order.
1. The chiefe Argument of Grotius and Vossius is drawne from the tenor of the Obligation, and from the event: The Obligation chargeth punishment on the offendor himselfe. It saith In the day thou eatest, thou shalt dye. 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 dye himself, for that is the Idem, and very thing threatned: So that here, Dum alius solvit, simul aliud solvitur. The Law threatned not Christ, but us. (Besides, that Christ suffered not the losse of Gods love, nor his image and graces, nor eternity of torment, of which I have spoke in the Treatise.) What saith Mr. Owen to any of this?
2. The two Arguments he dealeth with, are these.
1. The payment of the very debt, doth ipso facto, free the debtor To which he answereth, that Christs death doct actually or ipso facto, free us. This Answer I shall consider under your last question whereto it belongeth.
To the second Argument that the payment of the same thing in the Obligation, leaveth no roome for pardon he answereth thus:
1. Gods pardoning comprizeth the whole dispensation of Grace in Christ: As 1. The laying of our sinne on Christ. 2. The imputation of his Righteousnesse 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 its foundation.
1. In Gods will freely appointing this satisfaction of Christ.
2. In a gracious acceptation of that decreed satisfaction in our stead.
3. In a free application of the death of Christ to us, &c. so farre Mr. Owen.
To which I answer: 1. Pardon implieth Christs death as a cause; but I would he had shewed the Scripture, that maketh pardon so large a thing, as to comprize the whole dispensation of Grace; or that maketh Christs death to be part of it, or comprized in it.
2. If such a word were in 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.
2. Neither is imputation of Righteousnesse any part of pardon but a necessary antecedent; so that here is no part of pardon yet in all this.
3. The same may be said of Gods Acceptation.
4. Its Application is a large phrase, and may be meant of severall acts; but of which here, I know not.
5. How can he call it, A gracious Acceptation, a gracious imputation, a free Application, if it were the same thing which the Law required 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?
Object. But it is of grace to us, though not to Christ.
Answ. Doth not that clearely 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 from another.
3. That Mr. Owen giveth up the cause at last, and saith as Grotius (having it seemeth not understood Grotius his meaning) appeareth p. 141, 142, 143.
For 1. he acknowledgeth that the payment is not made by the party to whom remission is granted, (and so saith every man that is a Christian.)
2. He saith, It was a full valuable compensation, (therefore not of the same.)
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, & so the Law was not fully executed, but relaxed.)
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 pressure, (therefore not the same in the Obligation, because not fully the same: Not the same numerically; nor perhaps specifically in all respects, if the losse of Gods Love and Image, and incurring his hatred, the corruption of the body, the losse of right to, and use of all the creatures and the losse of all comforts corporall or spirituall, &c. were any part of the curse.) yet that it was in the greatest respects of the same kinde, I doubt not.
5. He saith, God had power so farre to relax his owne 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 thing in the Obligation be paid, then the Law is executed; and if executed (properly and fully) 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 maine businesse that Grotius there drives at, is but to prove this relaxation of the Law, and the non-execution of it on the offenders threatned.
I Iudge that Mr. Owen hath no better successe in his next assault of Grotius, on that question, [whether God manage this work of relaxing the Law, punishing Christ for us, &c. as a Creditor, or as an absolute Master, or as a Judge under Lawes, or as the supreme Rector? the last of which Grotius maintaineth? He that readeth Grotius and Vossius own words, doth need no further defensative against the force of Mr. Owens Answers.
But this is nothing to me.
OnelyOnly I would not have any truth to fare the worse for Grotius his defection. It was himself that deserved the discredit, and not the Truth of God.
The third and last contradicted Article is, That no man is actually and absolutely justified upon the meer payment of the debt by Christ, till they become Beleevers.
Against this, you send me to both the forementioned Authors.
Answ. 1. When I first cast my eye upon the two fore-cited Disputations in Maccowski, I had thought he had spoke onelyonly of the universall conditionall Justification of men, when he saith, that active Iustification was at the begining of the first promise; But my charitable thoughts I soon saw were mistaken.
But I find, as his Doctrine is very strange, so are his proofs as slender, as any mans you could have sent me to.
1. Is it not strange that Active justification should be perfected 5000. yeares before Passive justification is in being? I thought Passive justification had been the mediate effect of the Active; And that God had justified no man, who is not thereby justified.
2. And as strange and abhorred to me, is the other part of his doctrine, viz. That Faith onelyonly taketh knowledge of justification formerly wrought.
And his Arguments are as weak as the doctrine erroneous.
1. The first is Because the Object must needs go before the Act.
Answ. But is it not pity that so excellent a Doctor should think that justification (& that not only in offer, but in actuall being) should be the object of justifying Faith? I am ashamed to confute so sencelesse an assertion. Sure it is Christ, and not actuall justification that is the object. When the Scripture saith, that Whosoever beleeveth shall be justified is it a learned Exposition which thus interpreteth it? [You that are elect, are already justified, and if you will beleeve it, you shall know it;]
2. He citeth Paraeus, saying, that Faith doth not effect justification, but accept it.
Answ. 1. They that say, Faith is the instrumentall cause of justification, must needs say, that Faith effectth it.
2. Faith accepteth Christ for justification.
3. It accepteth not justification as being actually and absolutely our owne before the acceptance: But it accepteth a conditionall justification offered to me, that by the acceptance it may become absolutely mine.
His citing of Tossanus words is nothing for him: For when hee saith, that All the Elect are justified in Christ, in respect of the merit thereof it is no more then to say that Christ hath merited their justification: which who denyeth?
But the great Argument which he and all of his judgement do trust to, is this: If the surety so undertake or discharge the debt, that the creditor rest satisfied with that undertaking or discharge; then is the debtor free from the debt. But Christ hath so undertaken and discharged the particular debts of the Elect; therefore the Elect are freed.
Answ. 1. Payment is refusable, or not refusable: That payment which is of the same thing in the Obligation, either by our selves or our Delegate, is not by the Creditor refusable; so that if we had paid it, or Christ had been our Delegate, appointed by us to pay the same that was due, then God could not have refused to take that payment: But Christ being appointed to this by the Father, and not by us; and also paying not the very same, but the value, God might have refused the payment.
2. Where the payment is not refusable, there the discharge of the debtor is not refusable, but doth follow ipse facto: But where the payment is refusable, (as here it was) the Creditor may accept it upon what termes he pleases, and chuse to give the Debtor an absolute discharge; so that it being the full agreement and pleasure both of the Creditor and the Surety, the father and the sonne, that the Debtor should have no discharge by the payment but upon a certaine condition by him to be performed, no doubt he shall have none till he have performed it.
3. So that Gods accepting the payment and being satisfied with it, may be understood.
1. In respect to the Surety, and the value of his payment; and so God was well pleased and fully satisfied in Christs payment, as bein the full value that his justice did require, and beyond which he expected no more at his hands.
2. Or it may be spoken in reference to the debtor, the sinner, and the effecting of his freedome: And so God was not immediately upon Christs payment, so satisfied or well pleased with the particular offenders, as to deliver and discharge them without requiring any thing at their hands.
1. For he will first have them perform the imposed condition of taking Christ who hath bought them, for their only Saviour, Husband, and Lord.
To these of Maccovius, Mr. Owen in the place (against Grotius) which you referre me to, addeth some more.
As 1. By death he deliver us from death:
Answ. Not immediately nor absolutely, nor by his Death alone; but by that as the price, supposing other causes on his part, and conditions on ours to concurre before the actuall deliverance.
2. He saith The Elect are said to dye and rise with him.
Answ. Not in respect of time, as if we dyed & rose at the same time, either really or in Gods esteem: Nor that we dyed in his dying, & rose in his rising. But it is spoken of the distant mediate effects of his death, & the immediate effects of his Spirit on us, rising by regeneration to union and Communion with Christ.
3. He saith, Christ hath redeemed us from the curse, being made a curse for us, Gal. 3. 13.
Answ. I explained before how farre we are freed by Redemption; He hath redeemed 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 onelyonly cause.
4. He saith The hand-writing that was against us, even the whole obligation is taken out of the way and nailed to his Crosse.
Answ. 1. By the hand-writing of Ordinances, is especially meant the Law of Ceremonies.
2. If it be meant also of the curse of the Old Covenant, then it cannot be so understood, as if the Covenant it self were abrogate for the reasons I have before given in the Treatise.
3. Nor yet that any are absolutely discharged from the curse, till they perform the condition required for their discharge.
4. But thus farre the Law is taken down, that our Redeemer hath bought us from that necessity of perishing that lay upon us for our transgressing that Law; so that no man is now condemned for the meer violation of that first Covenant; and so he hath taken the Law into his owne hands, to charge only upon those that break the conditions of the New Covenant.
5. And so he hath taken downe the condemning power of the Law as it standeth by it selfe, and not as it is under the Covenant of grace: And hee hath freed us from the curse conditionally, and the condition is easie and reasonable.
6. So that quoad meritum, the work is done. All the satisfaction is made, and price paid; and therefore in Heb. 1. 3. it is said to be done. If a man where a 1000 l. in debt, and had tryed all meanes, and had no hope left to procure his discharge: And if a stranger to him goe to the Creditor, and buy the Debtor who is in prison into his owne hands, by paying all the debt, yet resolving, that if he refuse his kindnesse, hee shall have no benefit by it, but lye and rot there; May it not be fitly said, that the debtor is delivered? because the great difficulty which hindered, is removed; and the condition of his freedome is so reasonable, that common reason supposeth he will not stick at it; and if he doe, it is utterly against reason and humanity, for hee may be freed if he will.
Therefore it is no unfit phrase, to say the man is freed as soon as his debt is payed: But yet he is not absolutely freed, nor actually neither in point of personall right, nor of possession. And for his humane refusall of the kindnesse of his Redeemer, may lye and perish there, and be never the better, but the worse for all this.
7. Yet it being the absolute purpose both of the Father and Mediator, to cause all the Elect to perform this condition of their discharge; therefore Redemption is a cause of their certaine future discharge, and a linke in the inviolable chaine of the causes of their salvation: But to the rest of the world it is not so.
But I doe not well understand the meaning of the Author you referre me to: 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 possesse it; but only we have actuall right to all the fruits of his death: As a prisoner in a farre Countrey who is ransomed, but knoweth it not, nor can enjoy liberty till a Warrant be produced, &c.
But 1. Whether a man may fitly be said actually, and ipso facto, to be delivered and discharged, who is not at all delivered, but onelyonly hath right to deliverance, I doubt.
2. Knowledge and posiession of a deliverance are farre different things: A man may have possession and no knowledge in some cases; or if he have both, yet the procuring of knowledge is a small matter, in comparison of possession.
3. Our knowledge therefore doth not give us possession; so that the similitude failes, for it is the Creditors knowledge and satisfaction that is requisite to deliverance. And our Creditour was not in a farre and strange countrey, but knew immediately, and could either have made us quickly know, or turned us free before we had knowne the cause.
4. Nor can it easily be understood, how God can so long deny us the possession of Heaven, if wee had such absolute actuall Right (as he speaketh) so long ago; which seemeth to expresse a jus ad rem & in re.
If it be said, wee are yet in our minority, and not fit for present possession.
I answer, That this fitnesse and our maturity is part of the deliverance, or benefit (which he saith, de facto, we had right to:) And so we should have had that also in present possession.
4. But if he doe meane onelyonly a right to future possession (for such there is,) yet I confesse it is beyond my conceiving, how in regard of the relative part of our deliverance, that right and the possession should stand at so many yeeres distance. To have right to Gods favour and acceptance, and to have possession of that favour; to have right to the remission of sinne, and adoption, & to have possession of these, do seeme to me to be of neerer kin. Except he should think that possession of favour is nothing but the knowledge or feeling of it; and that possession of pardon is the like; & that Faith justifieth us but in foro conscientiae: But I will not censure so hardly till I know it.
Indeed there is a justification by publike declaration at the great judgement, which much differeth from a meer Right. But our justification by faith here is but a justifying in the sence of the Law, or giving us right to that full justification: So that To have right to it, and to have possession of it in point of Law or Right; is to me all one: For what doth Faith give us possession of in its justifying Act, but this legall right?
5. And indeed, it seemeth to me a full definition of all pardon and justification which is here to bee expected, which he layeth downe; Hee saith, Christ did deliver us from the curse, and take away the Obligation which was against us ipso facto. And I think to be justified, is but to be freed from the curse or condemnation; and to be pardoned, is nothing else but to be freed from the obligation to punishment. And is remission and justification the immediate effect of Christs death?
What ever this Writer thinketh in this, is nothing to us: But because I would not have you so palpably and dangerously erre, let mee say a little more against this mistake. You may remember I have oft told you, of how great moment it is in Divinity, to be able soundly to distinguish betwixt immediate & Mediate Effects of Christs Death. (I think Tho. Moore meant the Immediate and Mediate Effects, which he calleth Ends which hath caused a great many pages about the Ends of Christs Death, to be written by his Antagonists to little purpose.) Now I would have you know, that this actuall Remission and Justification, are no Immediate, but Mediate effects of Christs Death; no, nor a personall right thereto if there be any such thing distinct from actuall freedome.
And to this end I pray you weigh these Arguments.
1. What Right soever God giveth to men to things supernaturall such as justification, remission, adoption) he giveth by his written Lawes. But by these Lawes hee hath given no such thing to any Beleever, (such as are the Elect before conversion, (therefore, &c.
The major is evident: Gods Decree giveth no man a personall right to the mercy intended him. And for the minor, no man can produce any Scripture giving to unbeleevers such a right.
2. If God hate all the workers 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 personall Right, delivered from this hatred, wrath, displeasure and condemnation. But the major is the very words of Scripture; therefore, &c.
3. If we are justified onelyonly by Faith, then certainly not before Faith: But we are justified onelyonly by Faith; therefore, &c.
I doe in charity suppose that you will not answer so groslely, as to say, we are justified in foro Dei, before Faith, and onelyonly in foro conscientiae, by Faith, till you can finde one word in Scripture which saith, that an unbeleever is justified, If I thought you were of this opinion, I should think it an easie task to manifest its falshood.
And if you say that we are justified in Gods Decree before Faith:
I answer, 1. It is no justification; shew me the Scripture that calleth it so.
2. Nay, it clearely, implyeth the contrary. For Decreeing is a term of Diminution, as to justifying. He that saith he is purposed to free you from prison, &c. implyeth that as yet it is not done. To be justified or saved in Decree, is no more but that God decreeth to justifie and save us; and therefore sure it is yet undone.
4. If we are exhorted while we are unbeleevers, to be reconciled to God, and to beleeve for remissions of sins; then sure we are not yet reconciled nor remitted; But the former is evident in Scripture; therefore, &c.
5. No man dare affirm, that we are immediatly upon Christs death, delivered actually, and ipso facto, from the power or presence of sin, nor from afflictions and death, which are the fruits of it; nor yet that we are freed from the distance and separation from God which sin procured. And why then should we think that we were immediately delivered from the guilt and condemnation?
I know the common answer is, that justification is an immanent act, and therefore from eternity; but Sanctification is a transient act. But I have disproved this in the Treatise, and cleared to you, that justification is also a transient Act: Otherwise Socinianisme were the soundest doctrine, that Christ never needed to satisfie, if we were justified from eternity. Yet (to confesse the truth) I was long deceived with this Argument my self, taking it upon trust from Dr. Twisse and Mr. Pemble, (whom I valued above most other men; and so continued of that same judgement with these Authors you alledge, and remained long in the borders of Antinomianisme, which I very narrowly escaped: And it grieveth me to see many of our Divines to fight against Jesuites and Arminians with the Antinomian weapons, as if our cause afforded no better; and so they run into the far worse extream.
I undertake to manifest to you, that this Doctrine of Christs immediate Actuall delivering us from guilt, wrath, and condemnation,] is the very pillar and foundation of the whole frame and fabrick of Antinomianisme.
But these things which you draw out of me here unseasonably; I am handling in a fitter place, (in a small Tract of Vniversall Redemption:) But the last week I have received Amiraldus against Spanhemius exercitations, who hath opened my very heart, almost in my own words; and hath so fully said the very same things which I intended, for the greater part, that I am now unresolved whether to hold my hand, or to proceed.
The Lord give you to search after the truth in love, with a humble, unbyassed, submissive soul; neither losing it through negligence and undervaluing, nor yet diverted from it by inferiour controversies, nor preverted by self-confidence, nor forestalled by prejudice, nor blinded by passion, nor lost in contentions, nor subverted by the now-ruling spirit of giddinesse and levity, nor yet obscured by the confounding of things that differ; that so by the conduct of the Word and Spirit, you may attaine the sight of amiable naked truth, and your understanding may be enlightned, and your soul beautified by the reflexion and participation of her light and beauty, that your heart being ravished with the sense of her goodnesse, and awed by her Authority, you may live here in the constant embracements of her, and cordiall obedience to her, till you are taken up to the prime eternall Truth and Goodnesse.
Rom. 14. 9.
For to this end Christ both dyed, and rose, and revived, that he might bee Lord both of the dead and living.
Ephes. 1. 22.
And (God) hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the Church.
Heb. 5. 9.
And being made perfect, hee became the Author of eternall salvation to all them that obey him.
Revel. 20. 14.
Blessed are they that doe his commandements, that they may have right to the Tree of Life, and may enter in by the gate into the City.