Justification Without Conditions, Chapter 13
CHAP. XIII. Wherein Mr. Woodbridges Answers to those Scriptures which hold forth [An immediate actual reconciliation of sinners to God, upon the death of Christ, without the intervention of Faith] are examined.
THe Texts which he hath cited, as objected against him, are Matth. 3.17. This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, viz. With sinners. And Rom. 5.10. we were reconciled unto God by the death of his Son. Which places were not once mentioned in the Conference, that I had with him: The former I alledged in the Discourse which I had with Mr. Warren (as hath been shewn before aCap. 1 sect. 8.) to which I had added sundry others, had I not been inte…rupted by the unseasonable (not to say, uncivil) interposing of this Antagonist, who then cast in the Exceptions, which since he hath Printed, with some enlargements.
exception 1 His first Exception against the force of that Scripture, is, That the wel-pleasedness of God, need not to be extended beyond the person of Christ, Who gave himself unto death an Offering and Sacrifice unto God, of a sweet smelling favor, Eph. 5.2. Whereunto I answer,Answ. (1) That he opposeth his single opinion against the judgement of all the Interpreters that I have seen, without one grain of Reason to counter-ballance them, as if he were, foreign *Il. λ., or as David, 2 Sam. 18.3. worth a thousand, such as Calvin, Beza, Paraeus, &c. who do extend it unto all those, for whom Christ exhibited himself a Mediator. It was the opinion of Musculus, Testimonium hoc Patris caelitus terris illatum, declarationem habet voluntatis ejus erga genus humanum bMusculus in …oc. apud Mar…orat., &c. That this testimony of the Father doth manifest the Will of God towards mankinde. God (sayes Calvin cCalv. Harm. …in Mat. 3.17.) by this testimony which he gave to Christ, declares he is a Father unto us all. And a little after, Saint Paul doth best interpret this Text, Eph. 1.6. where he sayes, God hath made us accepted in Jesus Christ. And again, In this clause [in whom I am wel-pleased] he gives us to understand, that his love is so great to Christ, that from him, it overflows upon us all. And Beza dBeza Majores Annot in loc.more expresly, Significat enim Pater Christum, &c. The Father did hereby signifie, that Christ is he alone, whom when the Father beholds, he layes aside all his wrath and indignation, which we deserved; and that he is the onelyonly Mediator and Reconciler. Which (sayes he) will be better understood by comparing this Text with Exod. 28.38. where we read, That Israel was made accepted to God by the High Priests appearing for them in the presence of God; which High Priest was undeniably a type of Christ. The word foreign (saith he) though in the use of Sacred, and other Authors, it hath the signification of the Present tense; yet here it may as fitly be rendered by the time perfectly past. Ut declaret Pater se jam esse in filio hominibus reconciliatum: That the Father might declare that he is already reconciled to men in his own Son; he plainly alludes to Isai. 42.1. Sensus est, &c. (saith Pareus ePareus in loc.) The meaning of the place is, That this is my Son, for whose sake and merit, I do lay aside all my displeasure against mankinde, and do receive them into favor. This voice doth comprise the whole mystery of our Reconciliation with God, by, and for the sake of Christ. To these we might adde the suffrage of one of our own Countreymen fWard on Matth. 3.17.. This voice was uttered in respect of us, because of old God was angry with us for our sins, but now he is reconciled to us by Christ. And honest Ferus gFerus in Matth. 3.(who was more a Protestant in the Doctrine of Justification, then many of ours,) Haec verba nedum Christo dicuntur, sed & nobis, &c. These words were not onelyonly spoken unto Christ, but unto us. Let him that hath leisure look over more hSee Dioda…e on Matth. 3.17..
§. 2. (2) It is against the scope of the words to limit them to the person of Christ, they being a solemn declaration of Christs investiture in the glorious office of a Mediator; in which respect he is said to be a Son given, and born to us, Isa. 9. And therefore this foreign of God to men, was at his birth proclaimed by the holy Angels, Luke 2. All that grace or favor which at any time was manifested to Christ, as a Mediator, was for their sakes whom he represented, and to whom the benefits of his Mediatorship were intended. See John 12.30. That Text Eph. 5.2. which Mr. W. alledgeth for confining of this voice to the person of Christ, proves nothing less, where the Apostle shews the effect of Christs sacrifice towards us, thus, as when Noah offered up his burnt-offerings to God, The Lord smelled a sweet savor, &c. Gen. 8.21. So when Christ offered up himself a sacrifice of atonement, the Lord smelled a savor of rest, and was fully satisfied for the sins of his people. (3) There is no reason can be given, why those words should be terminated to the person of Christ,Joh. 17.24, 2…. seeing that God was never displeased with him, nor had our Saviour any doubt, or suspition of it; and therefore it was altogether needless that God should declare his well-pleasedness to him in his own person. (4) The well-pleasedness of God is to be extended unto them, for whom Christ offered up his sacrifice; but Christ did not offer up his sacrifice for himself, but onelyonly for sinners. Ergo.
§. 3. Well, haec non successit, alia aggrediamur via: his next Exception therefore is, That if we should extend it unto men, the exception 2 words prove no more, then that it is through Christ, that God is well pleased with men, whensoever it be that he is well pleased. So that in his sense I am well pleased, is as much as I will be well pleased with them, when they have performed the terms and conditions required on their part. A gloss which (I dare say) was never dreamed of by any Expositor before himself. Here (1) let the Reader observe how bold he makes with the Holy Ghost; for when God tells us, he is well pleased, to say no, he is not, now, but he will hereafter, is not to interpret, but contradict the Scripture. (2) His gloss contradicts it self, for if our reconciliation with God, doth depend upon terms and conditions performed by us, then it is not through Christ alone, that God is well pleased with men, whensoever it is; and Christ is at most but a partial cause of our reconciliation.
§. 4. But to render his Paraphrase more probable, he hath cited divers other places, where (as he pretends) Verbs and Participles of the Present tense have the signification of the future, Though (says he) the Verb in this place be not the Present tense, but the first Aorist; though it be the Aorist, what is that to the purpose, seeing (as every School-boy knows) the Aorists have the signification of the Preterperfect tense, and not of the Future; and if that enunciation will hold in the Preterperfect tense (as Beza grants) then is it much more true in the Present tense. But to his Allegations I answer, (1) That in most of his instances, there is no necessity to feign a change of Tenses, as John 4.25. Messiah cometh, i. e. The promise of the Messiah draws nigh to be fulfilled. So Chap. 5.25. The hour is coming, and now is, &c. The dead did then hear the voice of the Son of man, both in his own, and in his Disciples Ministery. So 2 Cor. 3.16. the Verbs are most properly rendred in the Present tense, When Israel shall, or doth turn unto the Lord, the vail is taken away; for as Cameron Vid. Camer. My…othe. in 2 Cor. 3.16. & v. 13 & P…ae…ect. in Mat. …9.3.notes their Conversion to God, doth not precede the taking away of the vail, but both are at the same time. Rom. 8.24. By hope we are saved. The enunciation is true and emphatical in the Present tense; for in many other places the Saints are said to be saved, and to have eternal life, whilest they are in the body, John 3.36. & 5.24. & 6.54, 56. Col. 2.10. Eph. 2.5, 8. Tit. 3.5. 1 John 5.11, 12. They have here the beginnings, or first-fruits of that Salvation; the complement and perfection whereof, they as yet do wait for; they have now the joy and comfort of their Salvation, thorough Faith and Hope, because Hope looks upon the promises of God, not as doubtful but as sure and certain, Heb. 11.1, 2. They are now sayed by Hope, or they shall never be saved by Hope, for Hope that is seen, is not Hope; in the world to come they are saved by sight, and not by Faith or Hope: So that Text 1 Cor. 15.57. is most properly rendered, Thanks be unto God that giveth, or hath given us the victory through Jesus Christ. For the Saints have already obtained victory over death, and the grave, in Christ their Head. Rom. 8.37. In all things we are more then conquerors. And John 16.33. Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world. So Heb. 10.35. Your confidence hath a great recompence of reward, to wit, In the present effects which it did produce, as inward peace, joy, &c. according to that of the Psalmist, Psal. 19.11. In keeping thy statutes, there is great reward. But (2) if I should grant, what he desires, that in all these places there were an Heterosis of Tenses, (for I acknowledge this trope is frequent in Scripture) yet this great flourish will amount to nothing, unless he had shewn by the circumstances of the Text, or the nature of the thing, that it must be so expounded here; for if men had liberty to feign Enalloges of Numbers, Cases, and Tenses, at their pleasure, it were easie to elude the meaning of the plainest Texts.
§. 5. (3) Those words, Heb. 11.6. Without Faith it is impossible to please God, do not conclude what he would have them, to wit, That God is not wel-pleased with his Elect in Christ, before they do believe; for the Apostle speaks there of mens works, and actions, and not of their persons. No man can please God without Faith, no not Believers themselves; their Religious Services are not pleasing to God, unless they are done in Faith, for bonum est ex causa integra kDyonis. de div. nom. part. 4. cerca med., Now Faith is a principal ingredient in the Saints obedience; for if it be not done in Faith, it is not done in love, Gal. 5 6. And consequently it is not fruit unto God, Rom 7.4. Gods wel-pleasedness with his Elect, is the immediate effect of the death of Christ, for that which raised a partition wall between God and them, was the breach of the Law; now when the Law was satisfied for their sins, this partition was broken down, his favor had as free a current, as if they had not sinned: And therefore the blotting out of our sin, and our reconciliation with God, is ascribed, solely, and immediately to the death of Christ, as in many other Scriptures, so particularly, Ephes. 1.6, 7. & 2.13, 14. Col. 1.20, 21. & 2.13, 14. 2 Cor. 5.19. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself; he did not onelyonly act towards it, as Mr. W. glossed those words in his Sermon, but (saith the Text) he did not impute their sins unto them; for whom Christ died. The actual blotting out of sin (sayes Mr. Perkins lVol. 1. p. 110. Edit. 1608.) doth inseparably depend upon satisfaction for sins, and satisfaction with God doth necessarily imply the very real and general abolishment of the guilt and punishment of sin. That which makes our persons acceptable to God, is the Righteousnes of Jesus Christ; but now our actions are not pleasing, unless they are conformable to the rule, and all necessary circumstances do concur; the cheif whereof, is Faith in the propitiation and atonement of Jesus Christ, whereby their defects and obliquities are done away mLevit. 17.…. 1 Pet. 2.5..
§. 6. (4) Whereas he addes, That it was a poor answer which I gave to Mr. Good, [That God was well pleased with his Elect, whilest unregenerate, though not with their unregeneracy.] 1. As far as it concerns my self, I shall subscribe to his censure, I am poor, but he is rich, I am empty, but he is full n1 Cor. 4.8.. But 2. he may be pleased to take notice, that a far richer man then himself, in all kinde of learning, both Humane and Divine, hath given the very same answer unto this question. Mr. Pemble oVind. Grat. p. 19.distinguisheth between Gods love to our persons, and Gods love to our qualities and actions: A distinction which (sayes he) parents are well skilled in, who put a difference between the vices, and persons of their children; those they hate, these they love, even when for their vices they do chastise their persons. The case (sayes he) is the same between God and the Elect, his love to their persons, is from everlasting the same; nor doth their sinfulness lessen it, nor their sanctity increase it, because God in loving their persons, never considered them otherwise, then as most perfectly holy, and unblameable in Jesus Christ, &c. It is a strange inference which he draws from my words, That because I said, God is well pleased with the persons of his Elect, whilest unregenerate, that afterwards he is well pleased with their unregeneracy also: He might as well impose this absurdity upon the Prophet, that because he saith, Ezek. 16.8. Thy time (to wit, of unregeneracy) was the time of love. Surely not of their unregeneracy, but of their persons then unregenerate, that therefore the Prophet supposeth, that after their Conversion God did love their unregeneracy, or that corruption of nature, which remained in them. Such quibbles are unbeseeming serious Christians.
§. 7. I shall adde but a word to clear up the difference between the actions of regenerate and unregenerate persons; And first, we say that the best actions of unregenerate men are impure and sinful, which though they are pardoned unto all the Elect for the sake of Christ, yet they are not acceptable to God, but in themselves most abominable and loathsome in his sight, Prov. 5.8. Tit. 1.15. Isai. 1.13, &c. Secondly, Though (as the Orthodox acknowledge) the best works of the best men, have not in them that Inherent purity and holiness, which can stand before God without the mediation of their High Priest pPronuncia… Catholici nulla…dari in hac vita hominis peccatoris sanctificationem tantam uo non habeat admixtum peccatum, & longe absit à perfectione ad quam tendit. Cham. tom. 3. l. 10. c. 3. sect. 9. Vae etiam laudabili vitae hominum, si remota misericordia discutias eam. Aug. Confes. l. 9. c. 13. See Dr. Reynolds on 2 Cor. 7.1: p. 325., yet they may be said to be acceptable and pleasing unto God, not onelyonly comparatively, because they are better then the works of unregenerate men, or then the sinful works of such as are regenerate; but absolutely, and that two ways. 1. Abstractly and in themselves, or as they ought to be done; and thus Faith, Hope, Love, &c. are acceptable to God, for they are that spiritual worship and service which God looks for, and delights in, Joh. 4.23. Micah 6.8. Gal. 5.5, 6. Phil. 3.3. And in this respect, a meek and a quiet spirit, is said to be of great price in the sight of God, 1 Pet. 3.4. 2. Concretely as they are acted by us, or do pass through our hands, and so they are acceptable to God, as they are washed and cleansed in the blood of Christ, 1 Pet. 2.5. Our spiritual sacrifices are made acceptable to God in Jesus Christ, or by his taking away the sin and defilement, that adheres unto them qExod. 28.38. Apoc. 8.3, 4.: Our High Priest doth not procure the acceptance of those works, which in their whole abstract nature, are sinful, such as are all our works before Conversion, and the fruits of the flesh after Conversion, he obtains forgiveness, but not acceptance for them: But now those works which come from the Spirit of God, and are sinful onelyonly through the mixture of our corruptions (as sweet water which passeth through a sink) these he makes acceptable to the Father, by taking away the imperfections and defilements that adhere unto them.
§. 8. The next Scripture which Mr. W. hath brought in, by way of objection against himself, is Rom. 5.10. When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son. To which he answers, That Christs death was the price of our reconciliation, and so it is through the death of Christ that we are reconciled, be it when it will be that we are reconciled. Against this answer of his, I shall offer these Exceptions. (1) It offers a manifest violence to the Text, to say, That we were reconciled, is as much as we shall be reconciled when we have performed the terms and conditions required of us. (2) If our reconciliation to God, did depend upon terms and conditions performed by us, then is it not through the death of Christ that we are reconciled unto God; we should be more the cause, of our reconciliation, then Christ is; for he that performs a condition, to which a benefit is promised, doth more to the procuring of it, then he that makes or obtains that conditional grant; notwithstanding which, he is never awhit the near of the benefit, unless his own act do concur. (3) The Apostle declares, That this reconciliation was made when we were enemies; Ergo, Before our believing, or the fulfilling of any condition on our part: For Believers are not enemies. (4) If his meaning were no more then this, that it is through the death of Christ, that we are reconciled, be it when it will, that we are reconciled; then this clause [when we were enemies] would be superfluous and redundant; whereas the main emphasis of the Text doth lie therein, as is evident from the gradation which the Apostle makes, Vers. 6, 8, 10. (5) The Apostle in 2 Cor. 5.19. affirms, That our Saviour did not onelyonly pay the price of our reconciliation, but that God did so far accept of, or acquiesce therein, that upon the payment of it, he did not impute our sins unto us, i. e. he justified us; for the Apostle, Rom. 4. defines Justification to be the non-imputation of sin. (6) And lastly, That which he grants, yeelds the matter in question, viz. The immediate actual reconciliation of sinners upon the death of Christ; for if Christ by shedding of his blood, paid the total and full price, for our deliverance from the curse of the Law, then were we actually set free from the obligation of it; for when the debt is paid, the debtor is free in Law; it is unjust to implead a person for a debt which is paid.
§. 9. Secondly, To illustrate and confirm his Answer, he makes use of rGrot. de Satis c. 7. p. 154. OxonGrotius his distinction of three moments, or periods of the Will of God; (1) at Enmity, (2) Appeasable, (3) Appeased. 1. Before the consideration of the death of Christ, God (saith he) is at enmity with the sinner, though not averse from all ways and means of reconciliation. 2. After the consideration of the death of Christ; and now is the Lord not onelyonly appeasable, but doth also promise that he will be reconciled with sinners, upon such terms as he himself shall propose. 3. After Intercession on Christs part, and Faith on the sinners part; and now is God actually reconciled, and in friendship with the sinner. This Grotian and Vorstian Divinity is monstrous gross, which renders God as changable as a fickle Creature, and palpably denies his God-like nature, scil. His Simplicity, Eternity, Omnisciency, Immutability, &c. Arminius himself sArmin. disp. pub. de Nat. Dei. Thes 51.was more modest, then to affirm a change in the Will of God; nay, Plato tVid. Aquin. p. 1. q. 19. art. 2. ad 3. & art. 5. in c.was a more Orthodox Divine in this point, who said, That the first mover can be moved of none, but by himself. The Will of God is not inclined or moved by any thing without him, unto any of his acts, whether Immanent or Transient; for that which is the cause of his Will, is the cause of himself; seeing that his Will, is his Essence. The death of Christ doth not cause any alteration in the Will of God uVid. Twiss. V…nd. Grat. l. 1. p. 2. digres. 1, 2, 3.; his Merits are not the cause, why God doth love us, or will to us the blessings of his Covenant, they did not change God, ex nolente in volentem, ex odio h…bente in diligentem xRhaeto…f. Apol. c. 2. n. 16., as Greevenchovius dreamed: And the Reasons are, (1) Because God is unchangable, he neither ceaseth to will what at any time he intended, nor doth he begin to will what he did not always purpose: (2) Because no reason can be given of the Will of God, Aquinas says well, Nullum temporale yAquin. …. p. q. 23. art 5. in c., &c. Nothing that hath its being in time, can be the cause of that which is eternal, for then the effect should be before the cause. Now that I may not actum agere, I shall desire the Reader to consult what Mr. Owen zAnsw. to Bax…er, c. 6. p. 36.hath said in answer to this notion of Gr…tius; whereof, if Mr. W. had vouchsafed to take any notice, he might have seen cause enough to decline from the steps of his admired Grotius.
§. 10. Thirdly, he infers, That because the Apostle saith, Vers. 11. We have now received the atonement, or reconciliation. Ergo, Not before we believed. To which I answer, (1) He might as well reason, that because the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 15.20. Now is Christ risen, Ergo, He was not risen before he writ that Epistle; and from Eph. 2.2. The Spirit that now worketh in the children of unbelief, Ergo, He did not work in them before. (2) If it be referred to our receiving, or apprehension by Faith, it doth not prove, that the reconciliation or atonement was not made before. There is a wide difference between the making or obtaining of reconciliation▪ and our receiving of it; though we cannot receive or apply it to our selves any otherwise then by Faith, yet it follows not, That God did not account it unto us before. The Typical Sacrifices made a present atonement, much more the real, see Heb. 9.14.
§. 11. Fourthly, He gives us his opinion concerning the immediate effect of the death of Christ, Which (saith Mr. Baxter) is one of the greatest and noblest questions in our controverted Divinity; he that can rightly answer this, is a Divine indeed. And no doubt but Mr. W. deserves the Bell in his account. Let us therefore see what a glorious atcheivement he ascribes unto it. It is (saith he) through the death of Christ, that the promise of reconciliation is made, by, and according to which, we are actually reconciled unto God after we do believe; to wit, at the day of judgement, when we have performed that, and all other conditions required of us; which in sum, is, as if he had said, That the death of Christ procured no certain or immediate effect at all: For notwithstanding his death, it is possible that none may be saved; for things obtained under condition, are as to their accomplishment altogether uncertain; for the condition may be fulfilled, or it may not be fulfilled. The utmost which hereby is ascribed to the death of Christ, is, That he hath obta…ned a salvability for sinners, or a way whereby they may become their own saviours; which in the old Popish English is, That Christ hath merited that we might merit Eternal life, or as the Remonstrants have refined the phrase, His death hath made God placabilem, but not placatum. A shift (says Pemble) devised meerly to uphold the liberty of mans will, and universal Redemption. Whereunto the abettors of this notion do hie them apace.
§. 12. But against it, I shall oppose these considerations. (1) The Scripture no where ascribes this effect to the death of Christ, That he died to obtain a conditional grant, that we by performing the condition, might be reconciled to God, but to obtain peace and reconciliation it self. Daniel doth not say that Messiah shall be cut off to obtain a promise, but to make an end of sin, &c. Chap. 9.24. Nor the Apostle, that Christ by the blood of the cross, hath obtained a conditional promise of reconciliation, but that he hath made peace, Col. 1.20. broken down the partition wall, Ephes. 2.14. delivered us from the curse, Gal. 3.13. And our Saviour in that of Matth. 26.28. (which Mr. W. cites) doth not say, That he shed his blood to procure a conditional promise, whereby all men may obtain remission; but for the remission of the sins of many, i. e. of all the Elect. (2) If Christ by his death obtained onelyonly a conditional promise, then was his death no more available to the Elect, then unto Reprobates, no more to Peter, then it was to Judas; whereas the Scripture shews us, That the effects of Christs death are peculiar onelyonly to the Elect. See John 10.15, 16, 26. & 17.9, 20. (3) If Christ by his death obtained but a conditional promise, then do men more for their Salvation, then Christ hath done; for he that performs the condition, doth more to his Salvation, then he that obtained the conditional promise; notwithstanding which, he might have perished. (4) It makes Christ to have died in vain, at least, without any determinate end, in reference unto them, for whom he died; seeing that notwithstanding his death, it was possible, that none at all might be saved. And thus (as Mr. Owen hath noted aAnswer to Baxter, p. 8….) he is made a Surety of an uncertain Covenant, a Purchaser of an Inheritance perhaps never to be enjoyed, a Priest sanctifying none by his Sacrifice; a thing we would not ascribe to a wiseman in a far more easie undertaking. If Mr. W. shall say, that Christ is certain, that the Elect will perform the condition required, we shall demand whether this certainty doth arise from their wills, or his will. If he say from their wills, and his fore-sight of their well using of their natural abilities to fulfil the condition required, he shakes hands with Papists and Arminians, who make our Election and Redemption to be ex praevisa fide: A conceit that hath been confuted over and over; if from his own will, because he hath purchased Faith for them, then he obtained more by his death, then a conditional promise.
§. 13. Fifthly, The ground whereon he builds these Assertions, is a very sandy foundation, to wit, That the death of Christ was not solutio ejusdem, but tantidem; not the payment of that which was in the obligation, but of something equivalent; and therefore it doth not deliver us ipso facto, but according to the compact and agreement between the Father and him. I answer, (1) Whether the death of Christ be solutio ejusdem, or tantidem, as it is a satisfaction or payment of a debt, so the discharge thereby procured, must needs be present and immediate; for that a debt should be paid and satisfied, and yet justly chargeable, implies a contradiction. But (2) Mr. W. might have thought we would expect a better proof then his bare word, That the death of Christ is not solutio ejusdem, seeing the Holy Ghost shews, First, That Christ was held in the same obligation, which we were under, He was made under the Law, not an other, but the very same that we were held in, Gal. 4.3, 4. Ergo, he paid the same debt that we did ow. Secondly, That the Curse, or punishment which we deserved, was inflicted upon him, Gal. 3.13. The whole wages or curse that is due to sin, is Death; and this Christ under-went for us, Heb. 2.9, 14. Isai. 53.4, 5. What is it to die, or to bear chastisement for another, but to undergo that death which the other should have undergone? If it be objected, That the death which we deserved, is Eternal, such as the damned endure; our Divines have answered long ago, That Christs death was such in pondere, though not in specie, in potentia, though not in actu: The dignity of his person raised the price of his temporary sufferings to an equipollency with the other. Mr. Owen bIb. p. 30.says well, That there is a sameness in Christs sufferings with that in the obligation in respect of Essence, and equivalency in respect of the Adjuncts or Attendencies. Thirdly, The laying of our sins upon Christ, Isai. 53.6. subjected him to the same punishment which our sins deserved. Fourthly, If God would have dispenced with the idem in the first obligation, Christ need not have died; for if the justice of God would have been satisfied with less then that penalty threatned in the Law, he might as well have dispenced with the whole: So then his inference, That the death of Christ doth not deliver us ipso facto, (being destitute of this support) will fall to the ground of its own accord.
§. 14. M. W. grants, That if the debtor himself do bring unto the creditor, that which he ows him, it presently dischargeth him, but the payment of a Surety doth not. And why not? Amongst men there is no difference, so the debt be paid, it matters not, whether it be by the Principal, or his Surety, the obligation is voide in respect of both: The case is the very same between Christ and us. Secondly, This Exception makes the payment of Christ, less efficacious for the discharge of our debt, then if it had been made by us, whereas it is infinitely more acceptable to God, then the most perfect righteousness performed by us.
But (sayes he) the payment of a Surety is refusable] Not after that he is admitted by the creditor, and taken into Bond with, or for the principal debtor. It is true, God might have refused to be satisfied for our debt by a Surety; but seeing he ordained his Son to be our Surety, and entered into Covenant with him from everlasting, to accept his payment on our behalf; the debt which he hath fully satisfied, cannot be charged again, either upon the Party, or Surety, without manifest injustice.
But the Father and the Son have agreed between themselves, that none should have actual reconciliation by the death of Christ, till they do believe.] Shew us this agreement, and we will yeeld the cause. As for the Scriptures which he hath mentioned, they speak of no such thing, John 6.40. This is the will of him that sent me, That every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life. This Text, and others like it, do onelyonly shew who have the fruition and enjoyment of the benefits of Christ, to wit, they that believe. The other Text, Gal. 5.2, 4. is palpably abused to serve his turn. The Apostle doth not say, Without Faith Christ shall profit us nothing, but if we joyn any thing with Christ as necessary to attain Salvation, we are not Believers, or true Christians, our profession of Christ shall profit us nothing; and the reason hereof is, because these two principles cannot be mixed cSee Di… ▪ on Gal 5.2.. A mans righteousness before God, is either all by Works, or all by Christ; and therefore, whosoever attributes any part thereof to Works, he wholly renounceth Christ. At the sixth Verse he attributes that to Faith, which he denies unto other Works. In Christ Jesus (saith he) neither circumcision nor uncircumcision availeth any thing, but Faith which worketh by love. But as the Godly learned dVid. Perk. & Calv. in loc.have well observed, the intent of the Apostle here, was not to shew what it is that doth justifie, but what are the Exercises of Divine Worship, in which Christians should be conversant. He doth not say, That Faith working by love, is available to us before God, or in the sight of God, but in Christ, i. e. In the Church eSarcer. apud Marlorat. in loc. & Perkins., or Kingdom of Christ, which consists in Righteousness, Peace, and Joy in the Holy Ghost; though neither Faith, nor Love, are available to justifie us, yet they are available, i. e. Acceptable to God as acts or duties of Spiritual Obedience, they are the onelyonly acceptable service which we can perform to God. The last place he hath mentioned, is as little to the purpose, as the rest, 1 Joh. 5.11. He that hath not the Son, hath not life. True! he doth not say, That all who have not Faith (except final unbelievers) have not the Son, or any benefit by him.
§. 15. But (says Mr. W.) if our Adversaries could prove, That it was either the Will of God in giving his Son, or the Will of Christ in giving himself to the death, that his death should be available to the immediate and actual reconciliation of sinners, without any condition performed on their part, it were something to the purpose; but till this be done (which indeed can never be done) they were as good say nothing. Had not prejudice cast a mist before his eyes, the Scriptures which have been brought already, would be proof sufficient. What clearer Testimony can be desired of the Will of God, and of Christ in this point, then those Sacred Oracles which shew us, First, That Christ by the Will of God, gave himself a Ransom and Sacrifice of a sweet smelling savor unto God, in behalf of all the Elect, Joh. 6.27. Heb. 5.10. & 10.9, 10. Secondly, That this Ransom was alone, and by it self, a full adequate and perfect satisfaction to Divine Justice, for all their sins, Heb. 1.3. & 10.10, 12, 14. 1 Joh. 1.7. Thirdly, That God accepted it, and declared himself well pleased and satisfied therewith, Matth. 3.17. Isa. 42.1. Insomuch, that God hath thereupon covenanted and sworn, that he will never remember their sins, nor be wrath with them any more, Isa. 43.25. & 54.9, 10. Fourthly, That by this Ransom of his, they are freed and delivered from the curse of the Law, Gal. 4.4. & 3.13. Our Adversaries say, That he paid the price for their Redemption, but with no intent that they should be immediately and absolutely freed dBaxters Append. p. 152.; which is often, boldly affirmed, and as slenderly proved. But why not immediately and absolutely? There is (saith Mr. W.) a compact and agreement between the Father and the Son, when he undertook to be our Surety, that his death should not be available for the actual reconciliation of sinners, till they have performed the terms and conditions required on their part. Sed hoc restat probandum; and I am perswaded will, till the worlds end. Let them shew us this Covenant and Agreement, and we are satisfied; till this be done, we shall think our proofs sufficient; and that the force of those Allegations is no whit invalidated by this Crude Assertion. I confess I have heard much talk of this Suspensive Covenant, but hitherto I have not had the hap to meet with that Author, that hath attempted to make it forth; though I might justly be excused from the labor of proving the Negative, seeing that it lies upon our Adversaries to clear it up, That there was such a compact and agreement made between the Father and the Son, that his death should not be available to the immediate reconciliation of sinners, but onelyonly upon conditions performed by them. Yet because I intend not any other Reply, and that Mr. W. may see I do not dissent, because he hath said, and not proved it; which in controverted points, were ground enough; I shall offer him the Reasons, which as yet do sway my Judgement to believe the contrary.