Confession of His Faith, Chapter 9 · Section 4

Confession of His Faith · Chapter 9 · Section 4

p. 247SECT. IV.

HAving produced these Arguments from the words of Scripture▪ I shall next add some more from the nature of the thing; by which the point in hand shall be evinced.

Argument 1. To Pardon, Absolve and Justifie, are acts of Jesus Christ, as King, and as Judge: By being a sacrifice and Ransom to satisfie Justice, he did not act as King or Judge: therefore by being a sacrifice and Ransom to satisfie Justice, he did not actually p. 248Pardon, Absolve, or Justifie, (but only Merit Pardon, Absolution and Justification, to be given by him as King and Judge.) Two things are in the Major to be proved: The first is that pardon and Justification are Acts of Jesus Christ: And the proof shall answer them, that say, It is enough that it be an Act of God the …ather for the sake of Jesus Christ. To which I say: It would clear much of these matters to mens understandings, if they would consider this great Truth, that, As it was not man that sinned, that did by himself (naturally or legally) satisfie Justice, so it was not thought meet that man himself should receive the immediate fruit of that satisfaction; but as it was a Mediator that suffered for us, so was the world delivered over to the Mediator as Redeemer of them, as being his own, being bought with a price: and so the pardon that was immediately granted by the offended Majesty was into Christs hand…, and not the sinners own that is, A Right of granting out pardon to them as a King-Redeemer, on terms most agreeable to his ends and interest: (with resolution not to do it equally to all, nor with equal success.) So that God as the offended Legislator of the first Law, upon satisfaction made, was reconciled, as far as the Intention of the Satisfier and satisfied did require; that is, so far as to Remit all into the Redeemers hands, and give him Power, Right and Commission to grant Pardon by a new Law, which should not be as the old which was fitted to man in perfection, but a Law of Grace, fitted to man in sin and misery, giving him a Saviour and salvation on condition of meer Acceptance. (Purposing to cause his chosen infallibly to accept him.) So that though the Father as Rector according to the old Law, being satisfied, did give to the Redeemer a Right of pardoning us and delivered all things into his hand, yet the actual pardoning of us must be an act of the Redeemer himself (and the Father in and by him, as God-Redeemer) by a Promise, Covenant or Law of Grace, made as King, after the Moral being of his satisfaction. Now that Christ hath made no Act to pardon man, but the Law of Grace, promising Remission and Justification if we Repent and believe, I shall shew further in due place. The second thing to be proved in the Major, is, that as Remission and Justification are acts (or an act) of Christ, so it is of Christ as King and Judge▪ I will first prove the former that Christ himself hath Received a Right of pardoning. Math. 28. p. 24918, 19, 20. All Power is given to me in heaven and in earth; Go ye therefore and teach all Nations, baptizing them, &c. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. Wher Mark 16. 16. it is, He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved▪ and he that believeth not shall be damned. Where we see first the fulness of his power, and that the Law, or Act of Grace and Pardon granted by that Power. Luk. 5. 24. That ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, &c. Luk. 10. 22. All things are delivered unto me of my Father. Joh. 13. 3. Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands. Joh. 3. 35, 36. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hands. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life, and he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him. Joh. 5. 22. to 30. For the Father Judgeth no man, but hath committed all Judgement unto the Son: that all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. Verily, Verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my Word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting l…fe, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from de…th unto life. Verily, Verily, I say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself. And hath given him Authority to execute Judgement also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this, for the hour is coming in which all that are in the Graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, to the Resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, to the Resurrection of Damnation. Rom. 14. 9. For to this end Christ both Dyed, Rose and Revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. Phil▪ 2. 8, 9, 10. But what should I stand on this for, among Christians that confess Christ as Mediator, to be the King: All those texts that mention his Kingdom, and Kingly Power, prove it. See Psal. 2. All that call him Christ the Anointed, prove it. And yet what stiff perverse arguings have I heard from Learned prejudiced men, (for fear of yielding to any kinde of general Redemption, if they yielded that Christ as Mediator▪ hath a Kingly Power over all) maintaining that this Power he hath as God, and not as Mediator; that is, Christ is not Christ, the King. God would have his Crucifiers affix to his Cross the Title of King. By these Texts mentioned, it is evident that Christ p. 250hath Authority and Right as Mediator to grant Pardon of sin, and that he hath made a Conditional General Act of Pardon hereupon. So that both the parts of the Major are proved together. And the nature of the thing proves it to all men that know what Pardon and Justification is. It is the Pardon of the breach of publike Laws that we are speaking of, and not of private trespasses or damages.

To whomsoever it belongs to make Laws, to him it belongs to Remit offences against those Laws: But to the Supream Power, or Legislator it belongs to make Laws: therefore.

To whomsoever it belongs to Judge men for breach of Laws, to him it belongeth sententially to Justifie him that is Justifiable. But to Christ as Judge it belongeth to Judge men: therefore, &c.

I will recite one text more that containeth all that I have said. Act. 5. 30, 31. The God of our Fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a Tree. Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give Repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins, and we are his witnesses of these things, and so is the holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him. Here we have first his sacrifice, then his Resurrection, then his Exaltation and Kingdom, he is become a Prince and a Saviour, or a King-Saviour, or Lord-Redeemer: Where note, that all his work of saving us was not on the Cross: that prepared for the rest which was to follow. He was exalted to be a Saviour and Prince. And then we have the end or effect of his being exalted to be a Prince and Saviour, which is to give Repentance and Forgiveness of sin. As a Prince he doth this, because it is necessarily a work of Soveraign Power, or of a Ruler or King: As a Saviour he doth it, because the thing wrought in this work is our salvation, to the perfection of which it also tendeth.

Having proved the Major Proposition, I need not say much to the Minor, it being granted, for ought I can understand, by all that I have to do with; that Christ doth not pardon and justifie by satisfying or meriting, directly: For as to satisfying it is past question: And Merit, is a remote cause, moving (to speak after the manner of men, as we must do) the Principal Agent: and so upon Christs Merits, God as Soveraign did deliver up all to his Son, as Saviour and Soveraign, and gave him Power to forgive sins.

p. 251Observe also, that if all this were denyed (that Pardon and Justification are Acts of Christ as King) and if we granted that they are Acts of God the Father, and not of the Mediator, yet we shall confute eternal Justification as an Immanent act, thus Justification, Absolution, Pardon, are acts of God as Rector: God was not Rector from eternity; therefore, Justification and Pardon are not acts that were in God from Eternity. The Major is past question. The Minor is proved thus: A Ruler and Subjects to be ruled, are Relatives, and exist together; one cannot be before or without the other. But God had not subjects from eternity to be Ruled, certainly not man, (unless all creatures co-exist with God, not only in Eternity, but from eternity) therefore, &c.

Argument 2. Where there is no actual guilt, there can be no actual Remission or Justification. But from eternity, or the time of Christ, there was no actual guilt on any that did not then exist (or were not then conceived) therefore from eternity, or from the time of Christs death, there could be no actual Justification or pardon of such.

The Major is proved by the definition of Remission or Justification, which ever contains guilt as the thing destroyed thereby. All Remission or Justification is a Remission of some guilt, or a Justification against or from some guilt, real (in Constitutive Justification) or charged (in sentential Justification) therefore actual Remission must be of actual guilt. Remission is a dissolving the Obligation to punishment. Guilt is the Obligation to punishment: therefore.

For the Minor, that there could be no actual guilt on us from Eternity is past doubt. Nor yet at Christs death, when we were not in being. We were no subjects or Entities, and therefore had no Accidents or Modes.

To this two things are answered; 1. That from eternity our guilt had an Esse cognitum. I Reply, 1. That is not to Be guilt: 2. That esse, if any where, was in God, for there was no other subject of it, But it was not guilt, but knowledge that was in God. 3. There was no esse ab aeterno, but God himself. But God himself was not guilt 4. To be Cognitum, makes a new esse in man▪ (viz. Rationis) where the Object causeth. But it makes no new esse in God, with whom Objects have no Causation: therefore guilt had no true esse ut Cognitus from eternity properly so called; p. 252but a formality at most. 5. Gods knowing, was a foreknowing, (Scripture so calls it): not a knowing that a man then was, or was guilty, but that he would be, or that it was futurum. Therefore man was not guilty: futurum is terminus diminuens, as to existens, and so is prae cognitum. I conclude therefore, that man was not guilty from eternity, and therefore not capable of pardon.

2. It is objected, that at Christs death we were guilty, because we were all guilty in Adam. I Reply; When we exist, we are said first to be in Adam, and so to be guilty in Adam, as we are the progeny of him. But properly, before we exist we were not guilty: He that was not in Adam, was not guilty in Adam: They that now live on earth, were not in Adam at Christs death: therefore they were not guilty in Adam. The Minor is plain; for, He that was not, was not in Adam: But he that now lives on earth, was not at Christs death: therefore he was not in Adam. To be in Adam, supposeth to be. Obj. In Gods account we were in him. Answ. Not so: Gods account is according to truth: therefore he accounts not those in Adam that are not. Obj. All mankinde sinned in Adam: therefore they were in Adam. Answ. Mankind is taken either for the humane nature, or for each Individual person. And sinning in Adam, signifieth either that they personally sinned in Adam, at the time when he sinned, or else that he then committed a sin which shall begin to be theirs, when they shall exist. And so I say, that the humane nature did sin in Adam, and my person as soon as existent is guilty of Adams sin, and so far may be said to have sinned in him; but my person did not as a person really or reputatively sin in him before it did exist, or was a person. Obj. If our guilt or sin were not then Reputatively in Being, how could it be laid on Christ, or Christ bear it Answ. It was not sin it self▪ or guilt in it self, the same with our Individual guilt that Christ bore. But he contracted, as it were, a guilt by his own voluntary sponsion, which he did, not because we then were guilty, but because he foreknew we would be guilty, and by that guilt liable to punishment: and therefore to prevent our punishment (not our guilt) he offered that sacrifice of himself on the Cross, on consideration whereof, our guilt, when it did exist, should be done away: Not that it did then exist, or was then done away.

2. And it must be known that all that then did exist, were actually guilty.

p. 2533. And that Christs sacrifice was for mankind in general, the humane nature being then guilty; though God did know and determine the particular personal application, and intended the pardoning of each individual Elect person by it. But there is more required to the full explication of this, then I may now stand to perform: and I remember I have spoke to it against Lud. Colvinus.

Argument 3. He that is capable of pardon, is capable of punishment. They that are now living here, were not from eternity, or from Christs death capable of punishment (actual and personal) therefore they were not capable of pardon (actual and personal.) The Major is plain, in that guilt is an obligation to punishment: and he that is obliged to it, is capable of it. If it be due, men are capable of it. The Minor is evident, in that a non en…, is not capable of punishment. Punishment hath a subject: a non ens is no subject for it: therefore.

Argument 4. Remission of sin gives Right to Impunity. From Eternity, or at Christs death, we had no Right given us (who are now here living) to Impunity. Therefore from Eternity or Christs death, we had no Remission.

The Major is past doubt. The Minor I prove thus. Non-enti…, non est modus vel Accidens. Non-Entities have neither Mode nor Accident. Right to Impunity is a modus vel Accidens, and we were then non-entia: therefore.

Obj. We were Entia in Law, or in Gods account.

Answ. Not so, for their Judgement is according to truth.

Obj. The children unborn may have such a Reputative Being in Law, and in the estimation of Donors, or Contractors, that they may by Deeds and Conveyances be made the subjects of right or Title.

Answ. Not so, it is no actual Right till they are actually subjects of it. And they cannot be made actual subjects by a mans conceits or suppositions. Nature is supposed in Morality. There is only an Instrument made in such Donations, or Contracts, which shall give Right when the subject is capable; Or a sign by which the will of the Donor is sufficiently signified, that on such a supposition, at such a time, such shall have Right. As in natural motions, a man that shoots an Arrow, may have irrevocably delivered p. 254it out of his own hand, when yet there is a certain space of time before it shall come to the Butt or Mark: So in these civil actions or motions, a Donor that gives a thing in diem, or a Contractor that doth Promise it in diem, may (if the Donation be Absolute) irrevocably quantum in se, part with his right, or emit the Right, or perform such an act which shall give Right quando venit dies: but donec venit dies, till the set time, the Right is not received by the Legatory, Donatory, &c. it comes not to him; and so is not his. And if it be thus in an Absolute Donation, which is in diem, much more in a Conditional, where the Reception is suspended on a Condition, Contingent in it self, and uncertain to the party that is to perform it. And especially where the subject to receive it is not yet in being. Mens Covenants in such cases, do but contain that signification of their will which shall then prove fundamentum Juris, or give Right to the child when it is born, and be intrusted in the mean time in the hands of others for them, if they shall exist.

Obj: But we have before we are in being a Jus ad Rem, though not a Jus in re, because God promised it to Christ for us, or to us in him; and it is just that God make good his Promises, and therefore we have Right to it.

Answ. I shall the rather speak to this Objection, because the late mentioned **Mr. Owen.learned man builds so great a Fabrick on it. 1. The things to which we are said to have Right, is, The good things purchased. Absolution from guilt and so pardon of sin, is one of the good things purchased. If this be so, all is granted that we desire, as to the point in hand. For he that hath but right to a pardon or Absolution (though it were absolutely granted in diem) is not yet pardoned or absolved: There must be the Jus in re, before he can truly and properly be said to be pardoned and absolved. While he hath but a right to be absolved for the future, it is certain that he is not Absolved at the present. Even as he is not sanctified or glorified, that hath not the thing it self, and so a Ius in re, but only a Ius ad rem, a right to be Sanctified and Glorified. Therefore for all this (pretended) Right ad rem, none are Absolved or Pardoned from the time of Christs death, much less from Eternity.

2. But I maintain that we had no actual right ad rem, to future p. 255Remission and Absolution from the time of Christs death, either ipso facto upon his dying or ipso Iure, upon the Promise of the Father to the Son; yea or (which is more) ipso Iure upon the Covenant made by the Father and Son to mankind: But then we must first determine what Ius, Right is. It reacheth not our case to say that Ius est, quod justum est. It may be Just in natura rei, that such a man do such a thing, when yet no man may be said to have right to the action or its effect. At least it is Ius as existent, in some subject, to whom it is communicated, and in whom it doth as it were inhere, that we are to speak of. And we take not justum in so large a sense, as to comprehend non-injustum, as it is just for a man to pardon him that hath wronged him (according to the Law of man;) because it is not unjust, there is nothing against it: But we take it in a stricter sense.

It is one thing to be the Object of that Act which is right and just, and another thing to be the subject of Right. It is one thing to Be Right and Just; and another thing to Have Right. To be Right, as every thing is that is Just, is a Relation of a lower nature then that which we treat of; being scarce more then nomine tenus, a Relation. When you say, Ius est, quod Iustum est; You denominate a Thing just: but when we say, A man hath Right to this or that, we speak of the Person, as the subject (of Adhesion or Inhesion) of that Right. It is only a Person, and not an Inanimate, or a bruit, or a meer Action or Quality, &c. that is the subject of the Right that we are to speak of. Ius est effectum Tituli, vel Relatio à Titulo resultans: Titulus est fundamentum Iuris: He that hath a good Title hath Right, But omne quod Iustum est, is not Relatio resultans à Titulo. The meer Object of a Just act, or the act it self which is just, is not said to Have Right to it self or another thing; as we say, man hath right to things, si jus est, quod justum est; then to set true Landmarks is Ius: But who is it, or what, that is the subject hujus Iuris? The Land hath no Right (civil Right) to the act: The act hath not Right to it self The Agent is the subject of that quality of Justice which causeth him to do Right: but is not said to have Right to his own Act. It is therefore some second person that hath Right to that just act of the Agent: In which words it is plain that the justness or right of the Act is one thing, (a respect by which that act is denominated just) and the Right which the second person hath to that act p. 256and its effect, is another thing (A Right commonly called Civil or Legal, adherent to the person, and founded in his Title.) For an Act or Thing to be Right or Iust; and for a person to Have Right by Title, are in my sense no more the same thing, then for a person himself to be righteous, and to have right to a thing. So that in the sense in question, it is not true that Omne quod Justum est, est Ius. I take Ius, Right in the person, in our case, to be that which answers Debitum in the thing: For me to have Right to the Thing, and for the Thing to be due to me, is all one. I hope I may in this case have your free leave to mention the Judgement of Grotius (and to prize it with the highest) He distinguishing between these two senses of Ius (de Iure Belli, li. 1. §. 3, 4, 5.) saith, Ius hic nihil aliud quam quod Iustum est significat; idque negante magis sensu quam agente; ut Ius sit quod injustum non est—Ab hac Iuris significatione diversa est altera, sed ab hac ipsa veniens, quae ad Personam refertur: quo sensu, Ius est, Qualitas Moralis personae, competens ad aliquid juste habendum vel agendum. Personae competit hoc jus, etiamsi Rem interdum sequatur, ut servitutes praediorum, quae Iura realia dicuntur comparatione facta ad alia mere personalia: non quia non ipsae quoque personae competant. Sed quia non alii competunt quam qui rem certam habeat. Qualitas autem Moralis perfecta, Facultas nobis dicitur, minus perfecta, Aptitudo: quibus respondent in naturalibus, illi quidem actus, huic Potentia. Facultatem Iurisconsulti nomine sui appellant: Nos post hac Jus proprie aut stricte dictum appellabimus. Sub quo continentur Potestas tum in se, quae libertas dicitur, tum in ali…s, ut patria, dominica: Dominium, plenum sive minus pleno, ut usus fructus, jus pignoris: Et Creditum cui ex adverso respondet Debitum.

The like distinction do other Lawyers ordinarily give, and some such Description of the personal right in question, which Grotius calls Jus proprie vel stricte dictum.

Sayrus defines it, Ius est facultas aliquid faciendi, sive obt…uendi, aut in eo instituendi, vel aliquo alio modo se habendi, cui, sine causa Justa, absque injuria contraven…ri nequit. Jus ad Rem dicitur …llud, quod habetur ex aliquovinculo obligationis circa rem nobis Debitam, nondum tamen factam nostram. Ius in re dicitur quod habetur de re quae est nostra & existens: unde ad comperandum Dominium atque adeo jus in re, non satis est rem cujus Dominium sumus comparaturi, existere, sed ulterius requiritur eandem rem esse nostram, id p. 257est, nobis traditam. Sayr. Clav. Reg. li. 9. cap. 3. n. 1, 2.

Some Reasons that perswade me, that we are so far from being pardoned and absolved at Christs death, that we had not so much as Right to be pardoned and absolved for the future absolutely in diem, are these.

1. We were not existent, and so not subjects capable of actual Right: As our selves were only in causa▪ potentia, & esse cognitio, & volito, so only must our Right be. God might, as it were, oblige himself to give us Right when we were, and were capable of it; and so it might be said to be just that he should give it. But we did not receive it till we were, and therefore it was not ours.

2. If God had before given us Absolutely right ad rem, then he would not have after made a Conditional Grant of the same thing to us. But he did after make a Conditional grant of the same thing to us: therefore.

The Major is plain, because it would be a retracting of his former Absolute Grant: For as a flat denyal would have been a total retraction, so to reduce an Absolute Gift to a Conditional, is a partial retraction: This then would seem non-justum, yea injustum, or contrary to the former engagement. I would prove this more fully, but that it is not denyed.

The thing that by the foresaid Learned man is denyed, is the Conditional Grant: He affirmeth that it is Absolute sub termino, and saith it is false that (the Redeemed while Infidels) are but upon Condition under Christs Merit▪ even so far under, as that in respect of Good or Evil their Condition is alike with those under Demerit, in point of Right.

But whether Christ, Peter, Paul hold not that as true which he saith is false, and make not Faith and Repentance (or one at least,) Conditions of Justification or Salvation, I appeal to the frequent express words of the text, and to the whole world of Divines.

3. If God made over to us at Christs death a Jus ad rem, a Right to future pardon Absolutely, then it was, either by some Promise, or signal Grant, or by meer Decree and Purpose. But by neither of these; therefore not at all. There can no other way be imagined rationally that I conceive of, unless they say that ipso facto, by accepting Christs sacrifice, he gave us Ius ad rem, of which we shall speak anon; and now only deny it. That Decree p. 258gives not Right, is granted by most, and all that I know, (except this Learned man) that are worth the disputing with in such a point. The Immanent acts of God do Nihil ponere in objecto. That there is no signal Grant, either Vocal, or written, that gave us such a Right, must be taken for granted, till the affirmers can produce some. If there be any in Scripture, it must be either the Promise to Christ, or the Absolute Promise of the first Grace to the Elect, or the Law of Faith or Grace, giving Life to all, if they will believe. The last is Conditional, and after the Moral being of Christs death, and therefore cannot be it: The second is also in order after the Moral being of Christs death, and therefore if it did give us Right ipso jure, it follows not that we had it on Christs death ipso facto. But indeed we have neither. For it is but a Declaration of Gods Decree towards some in general: the subjects are neither existent, nor determinate, and therefore can receive no Right by it. If a man say, There are some poor men in this City, whom I will give such a Pension or Alms to before I dye. Neither describing, nor naming any, nor determining the number in his words; it is just that this man keep his word: but no man hath received Right to the Pension hereby. Much less if he do but profess his purpose to leave a Legacy to some that shall live 100 years hence, and do not now exist.

But the first is the main ground of our Right alledged, of which (though I purposely avoid the contending with the foresaid learned man, yet because I know not any that hath said so much as he, and therefore it will be to the advantage of truth) let us examine his proofs, which in his words lie thus, after this stating of the case, The sum then of what we have to prove is, that the Merit of the Death of the Lord Iesus, hath according to the Constitution of the Father, so procured of him the good things aimed at, and intended thereby, that it is just, right, and equal, that they for whom they are so procured should certainly and infallibly enjoy them at the appointed season: and therefore unto them they have an Actual Right, even before Believing; Faith it self being of the number of those things so procured. All which I prove as followeth. 1. The very terms before mentioned infer no less. If it be Justum before their believing, that those for whom Christ dyed should enjoy the fruits of his death, then have they even before believing Jus, or a Right thereunto: for Jus est, quod Justum est▪

p. 259Reply. I deny the Consequence. Its reason is invalid. It may be Justum that God do it; and yet you and I, or others, be no subjects of the Ius, as receiving no Right thereby. If Right were received, it was only Christ that received it, to whom the Promise was made, and not we. He might receive a Right to Pardon us, and we receive no Right to Pardon. I desire also some clear proof of the Antecedent.

That it is right and equal that they should enjoy those fruits, is manifest. For 1. It was the engagement of the Father, to the Son, upon his undertaking to die for them, that they should so do. Isa. 53. 10, 11, 12. 2. In that undertaking he accomplished all that was of him required, Joh. 17. 4.

Reply. Though it be the Consequence that I deny, yet I see not the Antecedent well proved: For to the first I say, 1. The undertaking of Christ to dye for them, means either some action of the pure God-head, before the Incarnation, or some Action at or after the Incarnation. If the first, either it was from eternity, or from Adams fall or at the time when that Prophesie Isa. 53. was given out. If the first, then it was 1. before that Prophesie, and therefore that Prophesie did not give Christ his Right upon his undertaking, at least not first. 2. It was nothing but Gods Decree, or some Eternal Immanent act, which is confessed by others to give no Right.

If it were at Adams fall, 1. The Prophesie Isa. 53. was not then in being neither. 2. Christ was not then Incarnate, and God could not make temporal Covenants with himself. 1. It it but spoken improperly, after the manner of men, that God makes a Covenant with God, the Father with the second person in Trinity. 2. This which is so called a Covenant, must on the ground of them whom we oppose, be acknowledged to be from Eternity▪ as being an Immanent Act in God, which cannot oriri de novo. It is therefore nothing but Gods Decree or such Immanent acts that is called the Covenant between the Father and the Son, then in being; and this is confest not to give new Right, (and to us it gives none at all.) 3. The same holdeth, if they take it to begin at the time of that Prophesie, Isa. 53. Christ being then meerly God, and the God-head being uncapable of formal Covenanting, and of receiving any Right thereby. 2. And the words in Isa. 53. 10, 11. Seem rather a Prophesie, and a renewing of the Promise of a p. 260Saviour to the world, then any Promise to Christ giving him a new Right. And as they concern mankind, they can give no actual Right to pardon, to particular persons; though they may give mankind in general a Right to a successful Saviour. The reason is before mentioned.

But I suppose it will be said, that this Promise was not made to Christ as meerly God, but as foreknown to be Incarnate, Godman. To which I say: 1. The foreknowledge of the Incarnation makes not Christ to be man, and God esteems not himself man till he is so: therefore it makes not the second Person the subject of this new Right by this Promise or Covenant, till he be Incarnate indeed. 2. If upon all this it should hold good that Christ himself did not before the Incarnation, by any formal or proper Covenant or Promise receive himself any new Right, it would be much more evident, that no man before the Incarnation received any such Right, by his Reception, and by that same Covenant. Though for my part I think that a new Right did accrue to the pure God-head; but rather on mans fall with Gods Promise to Redeem him by the Son, then from the meer eternal Decree, called a Covenant between the Father and the Son. But this requires a stricter enquiry.

2. To the second proof I say, 1. We use to distinguish between the undertaking and accomplishment. Divines use to say, that upon mans fall, Christ undertook satisfaction, but it was in the fulness of time that he accomplished it. How therefore he accomplished it in the Undertaking, I do not well see. 2. But that he did perfectly accomplish what he undertook, I easily grant, as the ground of my hope: but that proves not a Right thence redounding to the humane nature before it did exist.

Lastly, I desire that none of this may be so understood, as if I denyed that which we commonly call the Covenant between the Father and the Son, or the Right redounding to Christ thereby: Nay I think this Covenant or Law with the Mediator, to deserve a peculiar place in the body of Divinity, as of great moment, as I have elsewhere said: But the main thing I insist on is, that when Christ is a capable subject in his humanity of such Covenantright, yet we are not thereby made the subject of it.

2. That which is merited and procured for any one, thereunto he for whom it is procured, certainly hath a Right. That which is obtained p. 261for me, is mine in actual Right, though not perhaps in actual Possession. The thing that is obtained, is granted by him of whom it is obtained, and that **If you could make the Lawyers all believe this strange Doctrine, you would make a great change in England.unto them for whom it is obtained.

Reply. All this is as easily and confidently denyed as affirmed. A thing is procured For a man, either only finaliter, so as that mans good is the end of the procurement; or subjectively, so as it is procured into that mans hands or possession, as the subject of the Right or thing. In the latter sense, I deny that ever Christ procured pardon for us now living; so as that we should be the subjects of it, or right to it, when he dyed: In the former sense, I yield that Christ did procure it finally for our good, and require some proof, that this makes us the subjects of that right. If a man contract with you, to give your horse so much Provender every day, I do not think that your horse hath any actual Right by it to his Provender: And if a King agree with you to be General of an Army for the reducing of a Country of Rebels, and give you power to grant a general pardon to all that will come in, and secretly agree with you to use such means with certain men named, that they shall infallibly come in and be pardoned; I will not believe without proof, that any one of these men hath a Right to pardon, upon this Contract between you and the King, **No, though you were certain of success.no nor upon the general act of pardon, which is much more.

In some sense or other, that is a mans, which is procured for him: In saying it is procured for him, we say no less. If this then be not in respect of Possession, it must be in respect of Right.

Reply. 1. I confess this is as probable a way to make good your assertion, as you could devise. In some sense or other, is so large a word, that you may say what you will with that Caution. In some sense or other man is God; and that is yours, which indeed is none of yours.

2. But in the sense as custom hath taught men to use these words, I say, that If a thing be meerly For you finaliter, it is never the more yours subjectivè. You may have neither Dominion of, nor right to that good which may be for you. It might easily have been foreseen that somebody in the world would require better proof of this then bare affirmation.

Now all the fruits of Christs death are obtained and procured by his Merit, for them, for whom he dyed. He obtains for them eternal p. 262Redemption. Heb. 9. 12. Purchasing them with his own blood. Acts 20. 28. Heb. 2. 14. 1 Pet. 1 18. Gal. 1. 4. Rev. 14. 3, 4.

Reply. 1. All fruits of his death, are not procured for every man for whom he dyed He procured not the same measure of Grace, Illumination, Sanctification, for me, as for some others: Nor the same freedom from temptations, sickness, malicious enemies, &c. Nor did he peocure Faith infallibly to be given to all for whom he dyed, as he did for his Elect. …. As is said before, he peocured if for us as the finis cui, (though God be the ultimate end) but not for us, as the subjects of present Right, till he should in due time and order convey a Right unto us.

The very nature of Merit described by the Apostle, Rom. 4. 4. infers no less. Where Merit intercede…, the effect is reckoned as of debt. That which is my due debt, I have a Right unto. **You should have assumed The fruits of Christs death are my due Debt; viz. While uncalled, yea unborn. But that is false.The fruits of the death of Christ, are the issues of Merit (bottomed on Gods gracious Acceptation) and reckoned as of debt.

Reply. I confess, he that merited, hath a Right unto the thing merited as of Debt. But we that go on lower Principles then you, dare not say to God, Lord, I have merited salvation in Christ, therefore it is mine of debt. I do not think you are Christ: nor that you were in Christ when he Merited: nor that you merited in him. What then though Christ hath of Debt a Right to Pardon and save you? Will it follow that you have of debt, (and that before you believe, and before you are born) a Right to Pardon and Salvation? I shall think not, till I see better proof.

He for whom a ransom is paid, hath a Right unto his liberty by vertue of that payment.

Reply. All unproved, and by me unbelieved. If you pay a summe to the Turk for a 1000 slaves thereby buying them absolutely into your own power; I do not believe that they have any more Right to freedom then they had before: though you have Right to free them, if you please. They are now your own: you may do with them as you will. Or if you resolve to free them, that gives them no Right. If a Prince pay a ransom for some Traytors to the King his Father, thereby purchasing to himself a Dominion (or Propriety) over them, so that they are absolutely his; though both Father and Son agree that all or some of these shall be so dealt with, as that their deliverance may be certain, yet I think it gives them no more Right to it then they had p. 263before. Negatio juris est injuria. I do not think that any Elect person could say, God did him wrong, if he did not pardon him before he was born, or while he was an Infidel.

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

Reply. 1. May it not be righteous with God, that we obtain it, unless we our selves have Right to it before we obtain it? That should have been proved: Yours, because they have a Right to it, is an addition of your own, having no word that you shew us in Scripture to sustain it, nor any thing in reason that I have yet heard of.

2. Though the Text understood in your sense, be nothing that I see, for your Cause, yet I see no proof nor reason that it should be so understood. I find in Expositors these several Expositions of it besides yours.

1. As Faith is called Pretious, from the excellency of its object, Christ and Glory. So it is said to be by the righteousness of God in the same respect, viz. as precious, and in respecting the object; because God hath Promised Christ and Glory to all Believers▪ and he is true of his Promise.

2. Others say, It is by the righteousness of God in that same promise, as that promise being the object, causeth our Faith: we knowing God to be true of his promise, do believe him.

3. Our new Annotations, and many others, mention a third, making the Righteousness of God to be put for the bounty of God, as oft in Scripture.

4. The words foreign, Many take as not respecting the efficient cause, but the Object: God hath given us a precious Faith in his righteousness: or a Belief in Christs righteousness for salvation. Diodates words only I will repeate, viz. Whose foundation and object is Christs Righteousness; which comprehends all that he hath done and suffered for his: Others expound the word Righteousness for Mercy, and Goodness, or for Loyalty in keeping Promises.

4. The Condition of persons under Merit and Demerit, in respect p. 264of Good and Evil, is alike. **But they must then be alike under Merit and Demerit.The proportion of things requires it. Now men under Demerit, are under an Obligation to Punishment: and it is a Righteous thing with God to recompence tribulation to them. 2 Thes. 1. 6. It being the Judgement of God, that they who do such things are worthy of Death. Rom. 1. 32. They then who are under Merit, have also a Right unto that whereof it is the Merit.

To be under Merit, is a stretching word: but if there must be any force in the Comparison to be under Merit, must signifie to be Really, or Reputatively the Meritors of that good; or that we be the subjects of that Merit, as we are of the Merit of evil here compared to it. But how easie had it been to fore-see that we would deny, either non entia, or Infidels to be so under Merit; yea or any man living▪ though a Believer! And who can find here a word of proof of any of this? For my part I would neither believe it for a world, nor practice according to such principles. I durst not go to the holy God with such a sacrifice, and say, Lord, the proportion of things requires it, that my Condition, while I was a wicked unbeliever, should be alike to Good, as is the Condition of Reprobates to Evil, as to Merit: I deserved salvation while I was an Infidel, as well as they deserve Damnation. Then God should have done as much injury in damning us, as he had shewed mercy in saving them. Then it seems you would not say to God, Thou mightest have justly cut me off in my unbelief, and cast me into hell: but contrarily, Thou couldst not justly have done it. And whether under such perfect Merit you think God doth not wrong you, if he inflict on you the least Castigatory penalty I know not! And may you not as fairly say, Lord, I have merited as well, not to continue a sinner, under any of thine anger, any penal suffering, to dye, to lye in the dust till the Resurrection, (in my body) &c. as the Reprobates deserve to be damned. The Lord save me, and all his Church from such principles. I cannot swallow and digest them, any easier then I can cease to be a Christian. I cannot chose but say clean contrary, Lord, I deserve thy wrath, and am by nature a child of wrath, and thou mightest justly have c…st me into Hell from the womb. 2▪ Nay to this day, should I think that I were under no obligation to punishment, I must needs think I am uncapable of pardon, and so must forbear to beg pardon, or to take my self beholden to God for any renewed pardon▪ nor that I ought to use the means for any. Men united to Christ by Faith, have a better p. 265claim to Christs Merits, then Infidels, though Elect: And yet I thank God I do not use to hear▪ Ministers in prayer (nor any Christians) talk to God in this language, and say, We have by Merit as good right to heaven, as the Reprobate to hell. Nay more, I doubt not to prove, that Christ never communicates his Merit in its formal nature, to any man; but only the effects of it: He gives us his Merit, as a man gives a prisoner 1000. li. which indeed he never shewed him in it self, or gave him, but only gave it the King for his ransom. It was not I that Merited but Christ, and I am no further under it, then to partake of the fruits of it, and that is by Degrees, in what time and measure he seeth meet to give them out to me: which is not all at once, nor all perfectly, till another world.

It is not of any force to say, that they are not under that Merit, but only upon Condition. For this is 1. False. 2. With God this is all one, as if there were no Condition, at the season and term appointed, for the making out the fruit of that Merit, as hath been declared.

I confess it is of small force, till they know what you will mean by under Merit; 1. If you will mean, that we are esteemed the Meritors, I confess it is false. For this is never true, or made out either Conditionally or Absolutely: no more then that you shall be Christ. Yet this seems plainly your meaning; but the proof we want.

2. If you mean it of the effects of Christs Merits, they are of several sorts, and he that shall say, they are all given to us Conditionally, I would say as well as you, it is false.

3. But if it be the special fruit that we have in question, viz. Absolution from guilt, or actual right to it, I say that is given on Condition, or else If is not a Conditional term If thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus▪ and believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Rom. 10. And to say this is false, weighs as much with me▪ as your former reasonings to prove it false, which may not now axamine.

And where you say, With …od this is all one at the season, &c. I Reply. 1. And do you confess it is not all one with him before the season or term? 2. The question is rather what it is with us▪ then with God when we enquire whether we be the subjects of that Merit and Right. 3. It is not true nor proved, that it is all one with God. God seeth things as they are, and therefore seeth not p. 266divers things as one: nor a Conditional Grant as an Absolute. 4. It is true that the Elect shall be as certainly Justified by the Conditional Grant, as if it had been Absolute: but this is so far from making them all one, that it more sets forth the Omniscience and Wisdom of God, that can bring man to his appointed ends, by means most fit to his nature, and as infallibly attain his ends by Contingent means, as by naturally necessary.

Neither yet to Object that it is not their Own Merit, but of another which respects them, that other being their Surety, doing that whereby he Merited on their behalf: Yea in their stead, they dying with him: though the same in them could not have been meritorious, they being at best meer men, and at worst very sinful men.

Reply. Here is the heart of the whole Controversie, and (if I may have leave to speak as confidently as your self,) the Root of many dangerous errors, I think very plainly subverting the Christian Religion. I confess with comfort, that Christ was our Surety, and merited on our behalf, and in our stead in some sense, especially that he satisfied in our stead: But that we dyed with him when he dyed, I deny: I suppose you would by this intimate that he did not only Merit in our stead, but Reputatively so in our person, as that ipso facto his Merit was theirs, for whose sake it was performed, and they reputed to have merited in, by, and with him. This opinion destroyeth the substance of all Religion, as I hope to manifest upon fitter occasion. Though Christ did Merit for us, and suffer in our stead, yet it was not as our Delegate, nor did we do it in him in a Civil and Law sense, any more truly then in a natural. Nor is the sinner reputed to have done all that his voluntary Sponsor doth for him, nor is the benefit of it ipso facto his, but on what terms the Sponsor and the Creditor or Rector shall please to convey it.

5. A Compact or Covenant being made of giving life and salvation upon the Condition of Obedience, to certain persons, that Condidition being compleatly fulfilled, as it was in the death of Christ, claim being made of the Promise according to the tenor of the Compact, and the persons presented for the enjoyment of it, surely those persons have an actual Right unto it.

Reply. If the Covenant had been made with us, and we had performed the Conditions, or another for us, (so be it the Promise had been made to us, upon such performance of another,) p. 267then all this had been true that you say. But a Promise to Christ that he shall have all things delivered into his hands, and have Authority to forgive sin, together with an Agreement whom he shall eventually call and pardon, this gives no man Right. That which is promised to another for our good, is not promised To us, though For us; nor giveth us any Right. For what you say of presenting the persons for the enjoyment of it, I understand not. 1. Did Christ present us to enjoy it before we had a being? 2. Or all the years of our Infidelity? why then did we not enjoy it? Or what was that which you call presenting us? 3. But if it were only when we received Faith that he so presented us for enjoyment, then it seems we are Absolved but in the same moment as we believe. And then our dying with Christ when he dyed, did not Absolve us, nor give us Right. If the person must be so presented for enjoyment first, stay but a moment longer (and that not of time but of nature) and let him believe first, and we are neerer to agreement. Yet do I know of no presentment before Faith▪ that gives us Right, but much to the contrary.

That all this is so, see Isa. 49. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, &c. Psal. 2. 2, 4, 5. Isa. 53. 10, 11, 12. Joh. 17. 3. and 2. 21. Heb. 2.

Reply. Whether any word in any of these texts give the least countenance to your assertion, I am content the Reader judge when he hath perused them. They prove that Christs death shall be successful; but for any word that we have a Right to the benefits before we believe, I mean, to the benefits following Faith, such as are Absolution and Pardon, he must have better or worse eyes then I▪ that can find it. Much less, that we are actually Absolved from guilt of death, and Obligation to Punishment. Blessed are they that do his Commandments, that they may have Right to the Tree of Life, &c. Rev. 22. 14. So much for that Argument.

Argument 5. If we are pardoned or Absolved from guilt from Eternity, because it was Decreed, or at the time of Christs death, because it was then Merited, then all other Relations Decreed or Merited should be from Eternity, or from the time of Christs Merits: But the Consequent is so false, that I need not say any more to manifest it: therefore▪

God Decreed from Eternity that David should be King, and Aron Priest, and both Types of Christ: Yet were they not such from Eternity: Nor yet from the time of Christs undertakeing p. 268to Merit it. If a man that was Decreed to have two or three wives successively, were husband to them all at once; Quaere, Whether the Law will reach him for his life? Yet so it must be, if all his Relations are from eternity, because Decreed from eternity, or from Christs dying, because then Merited. Was Edward the 6th King of England, or Elizabeth Queen from the time of Christs death? Was Mr. O. Mr. E. Mr. C. or any now living, a Pastor of a Church when Christ dyed? I hope none will say that God Decreed not these, or that Christ Merited them not.

The Consequence is plain from the parity of Reason. If it be eo nomine, because Decreed or Merited that one is eternal or from Christs death, then other Relations that are Decreed and Merited must be so too.

I put both together, because I deal with men that somewhat differ. Some do not so openly or plainly own the Eternity of Absolution as others do. The forementioned learned man saith; For the foundation of this Right, seeing that before the Consideration of the death of Christ, it is not, from thence it must needs be: But whether this Consideration of Christs death be not from eternity, and so our Merit and Right from eternity, in his judgement, I am uncertain: By some passages I should hope better: but these words make me doubtful; That the Decree of God gives to no man a Right, to the thing concerning which the Decree is, is so far from being a sufficient proof of the Major, that it is in it self very questionable, if not unquestionably false. That the Dee…ee gives not being and existence to the things concerning which it is, is an old Rule. That no Right should from it arise unto that thing by vertue thereof, is not so clear. Right is but Jus; Jus est, quod Justum est: If it be Just or Right that any one should have such a thing, he is said to have a Right thereunto. Now supposing the Decree of God, that a man shall by such means have such a thing, is it not just, equitable and condecent unto righteousness that he should have it?

Reply. 1. It seems then we had our Jus ad rem from eternity: And then Christ did not Purchase or Merit it: for he is not the cause as Mediator of eternal effects (à parte ante.) And if we had Right from Eternity to Justification and Salvation, and that Absolutely sub Termino, as you speak, to be ours, then when the term comes, we shall have it, as having Right to it before. And what doth Christs death cause by interposing? If you say, that it is p. 269not Decreed to us, or by Decree given us Absolutely, but on condition of Christs Merits; I Answ. 1. Take heed of making conditional Decrees, so as that any thing be a condition of Decreeing. 2. If our Jus ad Rem be but conditional, then actually it is none. 3. If Christs death be no condition of the Decree, it can be no condition of the conjunct effect, which is eternal too, if we have a Right from eternity. 4. Or if you judge that we have a Right to Life from Eternity, without any procurement of Christs Merits, and that it is the Jus in re only that his Merits are the condition of; yet remember these things. 1. That you suppose a condition must tendere ad incertum, and therefore that with God there can be no proper Conditions: How then can Christs death or Merits be a condition? how can God make a grant of such Right to us, on this condition of Obedience, as you before exprest? 2. We hope Christs death was not a meer condition, but a meritorious cause: And how it can be so on your grounds, is past my reach to know. 3. And what need it, or can it cause? The Right to Life we are conceited to have before (by many at least:) the Right in life needs no more but ut veniat dies to cause it, if we had it Absolutely sub termin…. And was this it that Christ dyed for, to procure us a Right to that which we had Right to before? Upon Christs dying it is still but Jus ad Rem, till the term come: and then our first Right would turn to a Jus in re, when we have the thing it self. If you say that God who Decreed the end, Decreed the means, and though he gave us the Right to Life by Decree, yet he Decreed that Christs death should interpose as the means to the Jus in re; I Answ. What means is it? To interpose, is but to comein such an order; but what doth it to the effect? Condition it can be none, if there be no condition with God. …ause it can be none, of that which wants no cause but time to its production. Nor do I see, according to you, how it can cause meritoriously, if it cause not with God from whom it Meriteth. You did therefore more cautelously then satisfactorily take up with a word that will bear many interpretations, saying, It affecteth▪ Gods Justitiam Regiminis, and there you place its procuring efficacy; which words I like well, if they were cleared, and well reconciled with the rest.

But you grant it as an old Rule, That the Decree gives not being and ex…stence to the things concerning which it is. … demand then, p. 270Did God Decree to give us Right to Life, or not? If not, then we have it not as Decreed. If he did, then the Decree caused not the being of it: and then it had no being, for it had no other cause from Eternity.

I speak all this more to the Defence and Confirmation of my Argument, then your confutation: For in doing that I should take another course, and deny the Definition of Jus, in the case in hand; and prove both, that if God should not perform his Decree, it would not be injustice in him, or injury, (which is contrary to Jus, as in our case) but only mutability, (as Durandus imagined also, in case he should not perform his word, which is much more;) and that neither the Purposes of God or man, do convey any Right to another, of the benefit purposed: no nor a bare discovery of that purpose neither, nor that which some call a Pollicitation, as distinct from a Promise; but only such a Promise, Grant, or Law, whose nature and use is to transfer or convey Right.

1. If man hath a Right to all that God hath Decreed to him, then he hath Right to punishment, even to Hell from Eternity, before ever he sinned in himself or in Adam: yea before he was: and this punishment is his due: but that is not true.

2. I know most of those that are against me, will maintain that God Decreed from Eternity, that men should commit all the sins that ever are committed, ipso permittente, & voluntatem ad actum, praemotione immediata efficari praedeterminante: and so sin was due to all sinners from Eternity, when they were no men: or they had then Right to it: but that is not true.

3. No Right is conveyed to another, but by some Transient act, (for it doth make a change on the object, ponendo novam relationem:) But Gods eternal purpose is not such an act; therefore, &c.

4. The Transient act which makes such a Relative change, (in giving Right,) must do it by laying a real foundation, whence that Relation must result: but the eternal purpose layes none such: (But the Promise or Grant of the Law of Grace, is that foundation, Conditione praestita, ubi cond…tionalis est prom…ssio.) That which giveth not Title, gives not Right: but &c. Much more might easily be said to the great dishonor of this new unheard of opinion (till now so far as I know) that men have Right to that p. 271which is Decreed them. In a word, It confounds the nature of purposes and promises, destroyes the main use, if not the Essence of all Laws, Promises and Contracts, and so subverts all Government. Divine and humane; and civil commerce among men. I may be bound to God to perform my purposes (yet not alway) but if hereby I give Right to men to all that I purposed them, all the world is ignorant as well as I.

Argument 6. If we are Pardoned, Justified or Absolved from Guilt, either from Eternity, because it was then Decreed, or from Christs death, because it was then Merited; then would all real effects of Decree, and of Christs death, (as well as the Relative) be from Eternity, or from Christs death: But the Consequent is false: therefore so is the Antecedent. If we are therefore absolved, because our Absolution is Decreed or Merited, then on the same Reason we are Sanctified, raised from the dead, glorified, because these are Decreed and Merited, there being the same cause and reason of both.

Argument 7. If neither from Eternity, nor the time of Christs undertaking, nor any time before we were born, or believed, we were made Heirs of the Promise and Kingdom, then were we not Pardoned, Justified, or Absolved from the guilt of death. But that the Antecedent is true, I prove by these Scriptures following. Heb. 11. 7. By Faith Noah being warned of God of things not seen, as yet moved with fear, prepared an Ark to the saving of his house, by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the Righteousness which is by Faith. Tit. 3. 7. That being Iustified by his Grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal Life. Gal. 3. 26, 29. For ye are all the children of God by Faith in Christ Iesus. And if ye be Christs, then are ye Abrahams seed, and heirs according to the Promise. Gal 1. 7. And if a Son, then an heir of God through Christ. v. 30. The son of the bond-woman shall not be heir, &c. 28. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of Promise. Rom. 4. 11, 12, 13, 14. That he might be the Father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised, that Righteousness might be imputed unto them also. And the Father of Circumcision to them who are not of the Circumcision only, but also walk in the steps of that Faith of our Father Abraham, &c. For the Promise that he should be Heir of the world, was not to Abraham or his seed through the Law, but through the Righteousness of p. 272Faith. For if they which are of the Law be heirs, Faith is made void, and the Promise made of none effect. Rom. 8. 16, 17. And if children, then heirs, heirs of God, and joynt heirs with Christ. Ephes. 3. 6. That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his Promise in Christ by the Gospel. Jam. 2. 5. Hath not God chosen the poor of this world, rich in Faith, Heirs of the Kingdom, which God hath Promised to them that love him?

The Consequence is of apparent verity, seeing the word Heirs expresseth their Right. He therefore that is not Heir of the Promise, or according to the Promise, or heir of the Kingdom, cannot have Right in Remission, Absolution from guilt, or Justification: and therefore cannot be Pardoned, Absolved, Justified.

Argument 8. If the Elect were all Justified or Absolved in Christ as the publike person, or having themselves satisfied orCalvin in Math. 6. 11. Ne{que} enim Remittere dicitur Creditor, qui accepta solutione nihil amplius exigit; sed qui ultro & liberaliter Jure suo cedens absolvit debitorem.Matt 6:11 merited in, and by him (which is the common foundation of the adverse opinion) then they are Justified or Absolved without any Pardon of sin▪ merited by Christ for them: But the Consequent is false, and destructive to the Christian Religion: therefore the Antecedent is not true.

The Consequence (which only needs proof) is thus manifest to be sound.

1. Christ was Justified, or Absolved without pardon: therefore if the Elect were Justified or Absolved in Christ as the publike pers…n, as having themselves satisfied or merited in him, then they are▪ Absolved or Justified without pardon: For the same Absolution cannot toto coelo differ in nature from it self: Christ was declared Just and Absolved without pardoning him one sin, as to the undertaken Punishment

2. They that have either perfectly obeyed, or satisfied, must be Justified or Absolved without pardon (being capable of none, as not needing it) and that in the most rigid Justice. If therefore we have either perfectly obeyed or satisfied in Christ, we must be Absolved or Justified, without pardon, in strictest Justice.

The strictest Justice can require no more then all that is due. Nor can deny an A…quittance or Justification to him that hath paid or perform… …ll that was due.

p. 273Obj. Had we paid or performed it in our own persons, then weSohinus … Exeges. Confess. Aug Art. 4. p. 921. Omnis enim Obligatio tollitur solutione ejus quod debetur sive is solvat qui debet, sive alius pro eo. had needed no pardon, but seeing Christ paid it for us, it must be pardoned to us, though not to him.

Answ. This is very true; and the ordinary Doctrine of Protestants, yea of Scripture. But then observe, that this affirmeth, that we paid it not in our own persons. And this must be true, of a person in a civil sense, or Law sense, as well as a natural: That Debt which a man paies by his servant or other Delegate, he paies himself. It was done by his person in Moral, Civil, or Law▪ sense; though not by his natural person. It being therefore the Action of Laws (or according to Laws) that we have to speak of, it must be a Legal person that we must speak of. If therefore Christ had so Merited, or satisfied in your person, and you in and by his, that Reputatively the Law, or Lawgiver, did judge it the Idem, and not only the Aequivalens, and did esteem the person the same, and judge you to have merited or satisfied in Christ, then no Justice could deny you present Justification or Absolution without further pardon: though the natural person of Christ and …s was not the same.

But indeed it could not be, that Christ paid the Idem, the same that was due in Law: For that was supplicium ipsius Deliquentis, and not of another: Nor could it be that you should merit or satisfie Legally in Christ, he doing it in your person. For though in payment of debts to a Creditor (which is not our case) the Law admitteth payment by a Delegate, and taketh the person as the same, looking only at the Debt (for what a mans Instrument doth, himself doth) yet in case of Obedience and Punishment, the Law determineth of the person, as well as the thing due, and alloweth not a Delegation, or doing or suffering by an Instrument, or in the natural person of another: and therefore dum alius solvit, simul aliud solvitur.

And though God as Rector, supra Legem, as above Law, doth in our case, allow and Accept of a Sponsor, and kind of substitute of punishment, viz. that Christ should suffer in our stead; yet not as in our person, so as we do Morally or Reputatively satisfie or merit in or by him: but in the person of a Mediator; that his Sacrifice, Satisfaction, Merit, may be a valuable Consideration, on which God may pardon our sins, in his time, and on terms agreeable to his honor and ends of Government. I take this to p. 274be the truth, about the nature of our Redemption by Christ, between the two Extreams of the Socinians (who deny satisfaction by Christ) and the Antinomians, (who say, that we satisfied, or obeyed and merited, or both, in and by Christ;) Two Errors of so great moment, subverting the very foundation, and whole frame of Christian Religion, that I confess my soul abhorreth them, though in all tollerable differences I can go far in bearing with dissenters. And I wonder that some Divines do look on this so lightly, as if it were but a verbal or inconsiderable difference.

Obj. But yet, though it be true that God was bound in Justice presently to Absolve and Justifie us without further pardon, when we had paid all the debt (either of Obedience or Penalty) in and by Christ; it followeth not, that we are not pardoned: For God did pardon us by translating the Punishment from us to another: To put another into our person, was Gods pardoning act: He might have inflicted it on our selves, and he laid it on Christ: therefore we are not Justified without pardon of sin.

Answ. This is the answer I confess, of some men, whose parts and worth one would think should promise much better. They yield to, and maintain what I said before; that we did satisfie and merit in and by Christ, and that God could not in Justice deny us present Absolution or Justification without any further pardon, (except in the after Manifestation of this to our consciences.) But then they think this act of Deputation, or change of the person is a sufficient pardon. To which I say.

1. I did not mention the exclusion of all pardon, in my Consequence; but only of all pardon merited by Christs death, or satisfaction, or by any act of obedience, which he is supposed to do in our persons, and we in him. And according to this desperate Doctrine which I gain-say, there can be no pardon merited for us by Christ. For this change of the person, which is mentioned, was both naturally and morally (according to their supposition) antecedent to Christs satisfaction and merits: we are supposed first to be made or reputed one person with Christ, and then to have satisfied and merited in him: That is, to be first pardoned, and then to have satisfied and merited.

2. But I deny that this deputation or change of the person, (if it were true) were any actual pardon of sin. The definition is p. 275not the same: therefore the thing is not the same. Indeed it might presuppose a pardon (according to their grounds) but is not a pardon it self: For it is not a dissolving the obligation to Punishment, nor a Giving us Right to Impunity.

3. Doth not this make Gods punishing of us in Christ to be unjust? For if we were pardoned before, how can it be just that we should pay all the debt after? or suffer what was pardoned? For if it be we in Moral or Law-sense that satisfie, then it is the same person that was pardoned that satisfieth.

4. And if we did satisfie in Christ, then nothing was pardoned to us; if the person were Legally the same.

5. But suppose these two last answers may be put by, (by saying that is a pardon to our natural person, though not our legal; or some such frivolous reply) yet can Christian Religion bear it, or Christian ears endure to hear it, that we have no pardon of sin, which was purchased or merited by Christs death and satisfaction, but was fr…ely given before, by the change of persons? some more I shall say of this in the next.

Argument 9. If we did merit or satisfie (as aforesaid) in Christ, then must our Absolution and Deliverance be ipso facto from that moment so compleated, that no Justice can continue us under the least punishment, or inflict the least upon us: But the Consequent is false, and desperately subverteth Religion, and blasphemeth Gods providence: therefore.

It is easie to argue à facto ad Jus, in all Gods Works he doth it: therefore it is Just▪ is an unquestionable consequence. But that God doth inflict castigatory Punishments on Believers; and then doubtless no less on Infidels and wicked men, though Elect, is a truth so plain, that while Scripture is believed, or providence acknowledged, all the Antinomians on earth shall not prevail against it.

Is it no penalty for God to hate all the Workers of Iniquity? to abominate their Prayers? to deny them all sanctifying Grace? to continue them children of wrath, without hope, without God in the world? Under the power of Satan? yea to be the children of the Divel? 1 Joh. 3. 10. Act. 26. 18. and to be led Captive by him at his will, as his bond-slaves? 2 Tim. 2. 26.

He that can make men believe that these men are under no punishment, may next make them believe that there is no God, or p. 276Providence, or Hell. Yet is it undenyable that the Redeemed undergo all this, and much more (which I have before mentioned and proved at large) so much to the Minor.

For the Consequence of the Major, it is evident in it self. No Justice can either 1. Continue him under Punishment.

2. Or inflict new punishment.

3. Or delay his merited happiness, who hath himself in Lawsense, fully undergone all the Penalty that was due, and hath fully merited that happiness. He that hath paid all, oweth nothing: and he that ows nothing, cannot justly be continued in Prison. He that hath born all the penalty, or is perfectly Justified or pardoned is guilty of nothing. And he that is guilty of no fault, cannot justly be punished with the smallest penalty. As Dr. Twiss truly saith, It may be affliction and torment, but it is no punishment, unless it be for sin and guilt. These men therefore that feign us to have suffered, satisfied and merited in or by Christ, and that for all the sins of our life; and yet that God doth keep us, or suffer us to continue under the power of Satan, and his own wrath; yea, were it but under chastisements, and imperfections, and remnants of sin, and doubts and troubles of conscience, they do lay to his charge, that which they durst not do to the sinful Rulers of the Sons of men, whom they account Just and Honest. Gen. 18. 23, 25. Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked? That be far from thee to do after this manner: to slay the righteous with the wicked, and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: shall not the Judge of all the earth do Right? Rom. 3. 5, 6, 7, 9. But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh Vengeance? (I speak as a man) God forbid: For then how shall God judge the world? &c. Why am I also judged as a sinner? &c. They are all under sin. 19. What the Law saith, it saith to them that are under the Law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

I may well argue therefore from Gods Justice, thus: They who do justly suffer Gods anger▪ and several punishments for sin, did not perfectly obey or satisfie in or by Christ: But the Elect before and after conversion do Justly suffer, &c. therefore, &c. The justness of their sufferings for sin, hath been constantly acknowledged by the Saints of God. Yea Ezra 9. 13. saith, And p. 277after all that is come upon us for our evil deeds, and for our great trespasses, seeing that thou our God hast punished us less then our iniquities deserve, &c. Daniel saith, 9. 7, 11. O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us, Confusion of face, as at this day, &c. Therefore the Curse is poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the Law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him. And he hath confirmed his words which he spake against us, &c.

Yea, I will argue higher yet. They whose damnation to hell were Just if God should execute it, have not perfectly obeyed or satisfied in and by Christ: But the Damnation of many of the Redeemed (at least, of all the unconverted) were Just: therefore.

The Major is plain, if we speak of Damnation in proper sense, as a punishment, and not as a meer Torment; for I will not deny but God might do what he would with his own creature, antecedently to his Rector-ship and Covenants. The Minor is the express confession of all humble Christians that ever I spoke with, or heard pray (that mentioned these matters) that God might justly have damned them before conversion (yea and in some respect, since.) And the Apostle speaking of those that say, Let us do evil that good may come, or that slandered them as so saying, saith of them. Whose damnation is just. Rom. 3. 8. But this is a sin that a Redeemed or Elect man may commit, and the Apostle knew not all the non-Elect from the Elect: therefore the Redeemed may so sin that their Damnation were Just: But that any mans Damnation can be just, that hath either perfectly obeyed, or else made perfect satisfaction for his sins, is past my apprehension. Yea the Doctrine opposed, accuseth and overthroweth all Penal Laws and Executions of Magistrates, and consequently all Government, and all Common-wealths. For if we have made perfect satisfaction in Christ for all sin, then we owe no more punishment: and then God cannot inflict any by himself or his Instruments. All power is of God; and all Legislation and Judgement of men, is by Gods Commission, if just; Magistrates are Gods Officers and …nstruments. If Gods Justice therefore have nothing against us, mans can have nothing: For mans in Gods. He cannot grant a Commission to a Magistrate▪ to punish the innocent, or one that Justice hath nothing against. The Judgement is the Lords. He ruleth p. 278the earth as soveraign, by his Officers. Melan…thon saith, Exam. p. 680. That it is Gods moral Law that obligeth all men, and ordaineth corporal punishments in this life, against those that commit external faults, and that God executeth them by Magistrates. Vide G. Soh. Thes. c. 8. p. 31. So that I must confess, that if this Doctrine of our perfect solution in Christ, and that of the debt it self do not necessarily overthrow all Government, I do not understand it as I thought I had done.

Argument 10. If we are Justified or Absolved by Meriting or Satisfying in Christ at his death, as aforesaid, then God would not have given us the benefits by Conditional Promises, and have added threatnings of damnation to us, if we rebel: But thus God hath done in his Word; therefore, &c.

Or thus: If it be just with God to convey the pardon of sin, and Right to salvation by Conditional Promises, with threatnings annext: then we are not Justified or Absolved by satisfying or meriting in or by Christ: but it is Just with God, &c. therefore, &c.

The reason of the Consequence is, because (as is said) to him that hath satisfied or merited fully, the liberation or benefit is due ipso facto, presently and absolutely: therefore to make a Law which shall impose Conditions for the obtaining it, and keep us without it till those Conditions are performed, and threaten us with damnation if we perform them not, this seems not equitable, when the thing was our own before, or presently and absolutely due.

As for them that say, It is false that these benefits are given upon any Condition. When I have nothing else to do, I will answer them in folio: till then let this suffice; Read the Scriptures.

Argument 11. If we are Justified or Absolved by satisfying perfectly, or meriting in or by Christ, as aforesaid, then we are as righteous while we are …nfidels, as when we are Christians; and while wicked, as when we are Godly. But the consequent is Antinomian: therefore so is the Antecedent.

We speak of Righteous here, without equivocation, in the same sense, viz. as Relative, as opposite to Guilty, and to having no Right to the Reward The reason of the Consequence is evident: No man can be more just then the most perfectly just. He that hath in Christ perfectly merited or satisfied for all his sins, is most perfectly p. 279Just, (in this Relative sense;) therefore no man can be more just: therefore an Elect Infidel or persecutor, being most Just before, can be no more just after.

I suppose they whom I gainsay, will own it all, as they that have read Dr. Crisp, and Town, and Saltmarsh, may soon see. But so will I never do while the Sun of Scripture shines so bright, for the discovery of its evil…; telling us so much of the righteousness of Faith, and which is by Faith, and that Faith is Imputed to us for righteousnes…, with much more, which cryes shame against this opinion: as most of all the texts before cited will bear witness.

Argument 12. If we are Justified or Absolved by satisfying or meriting in or by Christ, as aforesaid, then we are as righteous while Infidels, as Christ himself. (I mean with this Relative righteousness, which consisteth in a not-guiltiness: The Law hath no more against us, nor the Judge, then against him) But the Consequent is Antinomian: therefore so is the Antecedent.

He that dare say that every Redeemed or Elect Infidel, whoremonger, murderer, &c. is Relatively thus, as righteous as Christ, shall not borrow my tongue to pronounce it. Nay, he that will say, the best Saint on earth is as righteous as Christ, or no more guilty or obliged to any punishment, is not of my Religion. I know the Antinomians are not ashamed of this assertion, (and I know how the Papists cavil with all Protestants, as if they said so too:) But 1. Gods Threatnings and holy Laws. 2. And his executions on body and soul in this life. 3. And the witness of mens own consciences. 4. And the Spirits convincing the world of sin and misery, shall shame and suppress this proud assertion in despight of the Father of lyes, and his stoutest Instruments.

Argument 13. If we are Justified, pardoned or absolved from eternity, or from the time of Christs death (on the foresaid grounds, or any other,) then may we not with any …nfidels or wicked men, in preaching or private conference, convince or perswade them of their misery, as being under guilt, or not pardoned or absolved, or as having no Right to salvation. But the Consequent is Antinomian: therefore so is the Antecedent.

No man must preach that which he cannot possibly know whether it be true or false: But no man that should tell any Infidels of the said misery, can tell whether it be true or false: therefore p. 280they may not preach it. I suppose they whom I gainsay will grant all this: And what a preaching then we may expect from Antinomians, and to what advantage to poor hardened sinners, you may judge. They can tell them no more of their misery, but that they are not Justified in conscience, and that it is uncertain whether they are absolved or not. It may be you Infidels have Right to salvation, and it may be not, but assurance, feeling and possession you have not: They cannot say without equivocation, you are shut up under sin, and guilty before God, in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity, having no part nor lot in this matter; your damnation is just, the wrath of God abideth on you, you are condemned already, unrighteous, the children of wrath, &c. This is Legal preaching, though to Infidels! They cannot know the Elect Infidels from the Reprobate, and therefore they cannot say they are miserable. No nor tell them how they may know it themselves neither: Though we could not tell an Hypocrite, that he is miserable, yet we can tell him how himself may know it: but so cannot they, not to the Assemblies of Heathens, nor any one of them; nor of the prophanest men. Only that they want Assurance and Holyness they can tell them: but not that they want Absolution from guilt of death, and from obligation to punishment, or that they want Right to salvation. Have these men learned to difference between the righteous and the wicked, him that serveth God, and him that serveth him not? Are such Preachers as the mouth of God, that difference no more between the pretious and the vile? yea that call the vile pretious? Is such preaching liker to make Saints or Libertines? Make them, did I say? Rather manifest them, and confirm them in Impenitency? I bless God for it, I hear none of this preaching in our Country. I never heard one in the Pulpit tell all the prophane; For ought you or I can tell, you may all be Absolved from the guilt of death, and obligation to Punishment long ago, though not as Terminated in your Consciences. And I hope some men that are of this opinion, use not to preach it, yea use to preach contrary. I have so often heard mistaken Disputers preach soundly and Orthodoxly to the vulgar, that I have loved preaching, (and specially to the vulgar) the better ever since, and disputing comparatively the less: And specially in Prayer to God, I do oft hear the Heterodox pray so Orthodoxly, that I am yet more in love with Prayer, and hope that p. 281many men practise not their ill opinions. If you would hear men speak their hearts, and that which conscience dare own, hear them in Confessions and Prayers to God. Prayers are more generally Orthodox then Sermons, and Sermons ad populum then ad clerum, and both then Disputations, and Controversal writings, among men that are warping the Antinomian way.

Argument 14. If we are Justified, Absolved, or pardoned, and have Right to heaven, from eternity, or from the time of Christs undertaking or suffering, or before our Conversion, then no Jew, Turk, or prophanest man, may lawfully either 1. Believe. 2. Or confess himself miserable, as being not absolved, justified or pardoned, or as having no Right to heaven. 3. Nor may they be humbled for any such misery: (except it be those that have blasphemed the Holy-Ghost▪ if any such know their sin:) But the Consequent is purely Antinomian: therefore so is the Antecedent.

For the Consequence, it is most clear, seeing no man may believe or confess that which he cannot know whether it be true or false: But no whore-monger, persecutor, murderer, can (according to their Doctrine) tell whether it be true or false, that he is not absolved, pardoned, and hath Right to heaven: For they say all the Redeemed are absolved, and have such Right: and all and only the Elect are Redeemed: and what wicked man can know that he is not Elect? And therefore it must needs follow that they cannot be humbled for what they cannot know. I doubt not but the Antinomians will be ready enough to own all this; but for experienced humble converts, I need not perswade them of the evil of it: Nor will I bestow more words against it now, seeing ad populum, so many of our Divines have spoken to it so abundantly. See Shephards Sincere believer, Hookers Souls Preparation, aad Vocation, &c.

Argument 15. If we are pardoned, absolved or have Right to heaven from eternity (by the Decree) or from the time of Christs death, then may no man wicked or Godly pray for any such pardon of sin, absolution, or Right to heaven. But the Consequent is Antinomian: therefore so is the Antecedent.

Though such a man might pray for Justification as terminated in conscience, or the knowledge or sense of Absolution, and for Possession of heaven, and the Jus in re, yet I hope it will not easily p. 282go down with Christians, that no man may pray for the thing it felf, as not having it; or that no man may pray for Right to heaven, the Jus ad rem: Believers themselves are daily to pray, Forgive us our trespasses.

The Consequence of the Major is apparently sound: For if any may pray for such Pardons, Absolution or Right to heaven, it is either the wicked or the Godly, Infidels or Believers: But neither of these may do it if their Doctrine be true. Not Infidels or any wicked men; for they know not but they may be pardoned and have Right to heaven already, and therefore can pray but for Assurance and Continuance (nor for the last neither on their grounds.) Not Believers, for they have the thing already: nay they may not pray for any such pardo or absolution, from any one particular sin which they commit after Faith: Nay they are bound, according to these mens Doctrine, to believe that they were never without such absolution, pardon and Right to heaven, and so may not so much as confess to God, that they were once under this misery while they were Infidels or unregenerate. Thus you see what prayers the Antinomian Doctrine doth require.

Argument 16. If we are Absolved from guilt, pardoned or justified, and have Right to heaven from eternity, or from Christs death, then can no man lawfully either hear the word preached, read it, enquire of others, be baptized, or use any other means for that Remission, Absolution or Right to heaven, nor avoid any sin on that account, lest it should hinder them from receiving the said benefits: But the Consequent is purely Antinomian, viz. against the scope of Gods Law of Grace, for mans Restauration: therefore so is the Antecedent.

The reason of the Consequence being the same with the last, I need not repeat it. By this it may appear what kind of endeavors Antinomianism directeth us to, and what kind of Christians it would make, and of what conversations. What man fearing God dare say to all the Infidels, or enemies to Godliness and civility that he comes neer, You ought not to do any thing for the obtaining of Absolution from guilt, and from the obligation to punishment, or for Right to heaven, or to any benefit of Christs death, for all this is either obtained in and by Christ already, or else is not to be obtained; you are not required to do Christs work: it is but manifestation, and Jus in re that you are to seek for.

p. 283Argument 17. If we are Absolved, Pardoned, Justified, and have Right to heaven from eternity, or from Christs death, or before we believe, then the same man should at the same time be pardoned and unpardoned, absolved and condemned in Law, have Right to heaven, and have no Right: and that in respect of the same sort of pardon, absolution and Right. But the Consequent is false: therefore so is the Antecedent.

The Consequence is proved already: for I have proved fully that Absolution, Pardon, Justification, Right to heaven in Lawtitle, followeth Faith, and that men are in Law condemned, and unpardoned till they have Faith, and that it is not Justification meerly as terminated in conscience, that Scripture calls Justification by Faith: It must therefore be that in Right of Law; for no other can it be before that, as is shewed. And though I have said so much, I will here add this one Argument more.

If it were only knowledge or sense of pardon, absolution or Justification in Conscience, that were meant by Justification by Faith in Scripture, then we might as well be said, 1. To be Elected by Faith. 2. Or Redeemed quoad pretium by Faith. 3. Or created by Faith; because by Faith we come to know that we are Elected, Created and Redeemed (yea much more of the two latter, for that we were Created and Redeemed, are de fide, proper objects of Faith▪ but so is not our Election or Justification-personal:) But no Scripture saith that we are Elected, Created or Redeemed by Faith (much less so frequently and expresly as it saith we are Justified by Faith;) nor may we say so our selves: therefore it is not knowledge or sense of Justification or Absolution that is meant.

Argument 18. If we are Absolved, Pardoned, Justified, and have Right to heaven from eternity, or before Faith, then we have all these before we are in Christ, or joyned or united to Christ, or are made his members. But the Consequent is false: therefore so is the Antecedent.

The Consequence will be denyed, by those that suppose we are in Christ before we believe or are born: But the word of God saith no such matter as they, but much to the contrary. We are made the Sons of God, heirs and coheirs with Christ by Faith: He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son hath not life, and that is they who by not-believing, make God a Lyar. 1 Joh. 5. 12. p. 284Col. 1. 18. Christ is the head of the body, the Church: but Infidels are not of the body, the Church; for the Church is Caetus vocatorum vel fidelium. Col. 2. 19. From Christ the head, all the body by joynts and bands, having nourishment ministred and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. But Infidels are not so knit to Christ▪ nor receive nourishment nor increase. Eph. 4. 15, 16. In him which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joyned together, and compacted by that which every joynt supplyeth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body, to the edifying of it self in love. But none of this is so with Infidels, therefore they are not members, nor joyned to Christ, nor he their head, actually. Eph. 1. 22. Gave him to be Head over all things. To the Church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. But so are not Infidels: For what Communion hath Christ with Belial, or Infidels? Ephes. 5. 23▪ 24. As Christ is the Head of the Church, and he is the Saviour of the body: therefore as the Church is subject unto Christ, so, &c. Where we see, that is the Church which is subject to Christ: but so are not Infidels. 1 Cor. 12. 27. 12. 13. Now ye are the Body of Christ, and Members in particular. And of whom speaks the Apostle? Not of any Infidels, but such as had received the Spirit. For by one Spirit ye are all Baptized into one body: therefore they were not in it before. 1 Cor. 6. 17. He that is joyned to the Lord, is one Spirit. Infidels are not one Spirit with him: therefore they be not joyned to the Lord. So Eph. 5. 30, 31, 32. Eph. 3. 17. Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named. But so are not Infidels: therefore they are not of the family. Joh. 6. 44, 45. No man cometh to me except the Father draw him: Every man that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh to me. Infidels therefore be not come to Christ, and therefore have not Right in him as their head. Joh. 5. 40 Ye will not come to me that ye might have life. Col. 2. 6. As ye have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him. Infidels have not received him, nor are in him. Joh. 15. 1, 2, 6▪ 7. &c. Abide in me, and I in you: If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, &c. Infidels therefore are not in Christ. Do we need more Light in so plain a case?

Yet I deny not but Christ may in some sense be called ours before we believe: That is; All men may truly say, that hear of p. 285him, He is our Saviour, or our Redeemer, in that he is the Saviour or Redeemer of the world: And hath paid a sufficient price for their Ransom, and is offered to them and life with him. The Elect▪ when they come to know that they are Elect, may say, He was our Saviour and Redeemer in a special manner, as absolutely intending our infallible Justification and Salvation. But they can never say till they do believe, Christ is ours in Covenant, or he is our Head, or Husband, yea or that they have any true Right to him or in him, more then the rest of the world have. Though he were specially given for them, he is no more given To them, before they believe, then to other men.

For the Minor (that we have not Absolution, Pardon or Right to heaven, before we have Christ▪ by true Donation, or Covenant-Right) I take it to be so much proved already, so exceeding evident in many more Texts of Scripture, and so generally maintained by all the Orthodox, that it seems but loss of time to prove it.

Argument 19. If we had been pardoned, Absolved, or Justified, and had Right to heaven from eternity, or before we were born, then would Paul or s…me of the Apostles have made use of this, as an Argument against Justification by the works of the Law, or at least, not have pleaded against it, only Justification by Faith, which implyes that we were not before Justified▪ or Absolved: But neiether Paul nor any of the Apostles did ever make use of such an Argument against Justification by the Works of the Law; but contrarily plead only Justification by Faith: therefore, &c.

How easily might Paul have silenced all pretences of the works of the Law to Justification, by proving that we were Justified before there was Law or man or at least before we were born and capable of working? Can he that is not, work to Justification? sure if this had been the way, we should have found the Apostle▪ instead of saying, We are …ustified by Faith▪ and not by the Works of the Law, to have pleaded thus against both, We were Iustified before we were born, and therefore neither by Faith no… Works: these do but procure the sense of it to our consciences: and so both Faith and Works may do.

Argument 20. That Doctrine is not of God, which over…hroweth the Kingly▪ Priestly and Prophetical office of Christ, at p. 286least, as to a very great part of their work. But so doth the forementioned Doctrine which we are opposing: therefore.

The Minor (which only needeth proof) shall be proved thus in its several parts.

1. For the Kingly office of Christ, the exercise of it over his Church consisteth 1. In Legislation. 2. Judgement. 3. Execution of Judgement. 4. In Relaxation of Laws, (or abrogation of them) when he sees cause. 1. In Legislation he 1. determineth what shall be due from man, by his precepts: and 2. what shall be due to man, in his Promises and Threats; and what shall be the Condition of these. 1. The great and eminent use of the Law of Grace, is to be Gods Instrument to make over to us Christ with his benefits, of Pardon, Absolution, Justification, Adoption, Right to Glory, &c. All this is overthrown, by feigning that all these are ours already; and therefore what need we any Promise, Testament, Deed of Gift, Covenant, or Law of Grace, to make them ours? And if we our selves satisfied in Christ Legally, then we must have present Right in all the benefits ipso facto. 2. These Promises and Conveyances God hath made on condition of faith and Repentance. This act of Christ (the Constituting of the Condition) is also made void and vain▪ if not unjust, as being to men that had an Absolute Right before. 3. The Threats of non-Remission, n…n-Salvation, &c. if we believe not, or if we draw back, are also made void and vain, if not accused of flat injustice, as Threatning men with the loss of that which was Absolutely their own before, and the word of the Immutable God engaged for it. 4. And it is a very great doubt whether all Gods precepts be not accused of injustice, or at least▪ the keeping of them of no necessity to salvation; if we our selves have (in sense of Law, or the Law-giver) already perfectly obeyed them all to the death in Christ, or perfectly satisfied for not obeying them.

2. Gods Judgement is according to his Laws, which are the Rule of Judgement. All the Accusations therefore, that fall upon the Laws, must fall upon the Judgement. When men have Absolute Absolution before they were born, and Absolute Right to Heaven, to Judge them a new, upon Conditional Promises, and adjudge that to them as upon that performance of a Condition (of feeding, cloathing, &c. that is, loving and obeying Christ-believed in) this seemeth contradictory to the rules of equity.

p. 2873. The Execution is partly by temporal chastisements in this life (which antecede solemn Judgement) and partly, the eternal Reward and punishment: For the former, I have said enough before. They manifestly accuse all the penal Castigations of the Elect, of injustice: if they had fully obeyed or satisfied in Christ: and if they were perfectly Absolved and pardoned before.

And it is a charging that on God which he abhorreth in his Word, to say that the Reason why the Reprobate were damned, was not for refusing a Redeemer, or for not performing the Conditions prescribed, that they might have had part in that sufficient price of Ransom, but it was meerly for sinning against the unremedied Law of Works, and as the Devils do perish, as having no Remedy, nor any expiatory sacrifice that ever was offered for them.

And that all the Reason of the Adjudging the Elect to heaven, is taken from their being absolutely justified or absolved in Christ, and having a Right to heaven by meer Decree and Purchase, and not upon any Conditional Promise after, nor because they were faithful in a very little. Luk. 19. 17▪ This Doctrine so contradicteth Christs Judgement and Reward (which he giveth to every man, and according to his Works) that both of them cannot be Justified.

4. The other part of Christs Kingly Power, is to be above his own Laws, though not to dispence with them without a valuable consideration (which he will not do) yet to Relax them by Remitting sins, upon a valuable consideration. This Power hath God exercised in Enacting the Law of Grace, or granting the Promise of pardon of all sins against the former Laws, on condition of our accepting Christ and Grace. The foresaid Doctrine denyeth this Conditional Remission, and disableth God from making any such, because the thing is Absolutely our own before.

Thus we see how it would unthrone Christ, feigning him to make all to be ours so absolutely on the Cross, that he cannot give them out to us as Rector on conditional Promises, backt with penalties threatned, that is, on terms, and by wayes that are beseeming a King and Governor of the world, and Judge of all men, nor as may be fitted to promote the ends of Government.

p. 2882. And but little better doth the said Doctrine deal with Christs Priestly office, to which yet it seemeth to give almost all. For whereas Christ is purposely described by the holy Church to be a Priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek▪ it is a doubt whether they deny him not to be a Priest at all: For it was the office of the Priest to act as a middle person on behalf of the people, and for their good, but not in the very person of the sinner, so as that in Law the sinner did what the Priest did; further then as consent or request did make the Priest his Instrument. But these men rather make Christ our Delegate then our Priest; as if he had been one sent by us, to do and suffer in our person and stead.

But suppose that they do honor the exercise of Christs Priesthood on the Cross; do they not deny him the honor of it ever after in heaven? It is the office of Christ, as Priest after the order of Melchizedek, to be still making Intercession for us with God: by which Intercession he procureth us pardon of sin when we believe, and Absolution or Justification, Adoption-Right to heaven; also he procureth us a renewed Pardon for each particular sin afterward; and the Continuation of the first: All this is denyed by these men to his Priestly Intercession with God, and pretended to be done on the Cross before we were born: as if it were nothing but the knowledge or sense of these that Intercession procureth, with sanctification and possession of the glory that we had before a Right to. Heb. 7. 24, 25. He hath an unchangeable Priesthood; Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost, that come to God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make Intercession for them. What man that honoreth Christs Priesthood, and knows the present need we have still of it, dare say, that he needeth not the Intercession of Christ to procure him the Pardon of any one sin with God, (all being done already) but only the sense of this in our consciences.

3. The Prophetical Office of Christ is exercised, by his writings and Ministers without, and his Spirit within; the work of all which is, to teach us his Will or Laws; even all things whatsoever he commanded: Math. 28. 20, 21. This Doctrine therefore which doth, as is aforesaid, subvert the Laws themselves, and the Doctrine which should be taught, doth contradict Christs teaching by Word, Ministry and Spirit. If he teach us the nature of his Covenant, and the Conditions on which we must expect his p. 289blessings, these men deny all, and say, It is false: If he teach us what means we must use to attain Absolution from guilt of death, or Obligation to punishment, and to get Right to heaven, they rise against it, and say, We have all this already: there is therefore no means to be used to obtain it. The like may be said of other particulars.

I hope by this time it appears how little the Lord Redeemer is exalted and honoured by their mistaken way of honouring him: and how much they detract from the honor of his Intercession, Teaching and Kingly Government, his Laws, Judgements, Executions and Remissions, while they mistakingly ascribe all to his Death and Merits. **Yea, I have shewed before how they also destroy his Merits on the Cross, by making Absolution or Pardon to be from eternity.And that all is not an exalting of Christ and free Grace that pretends to be so: And that no way of mans devising is fit to exalt him, but only that way which his wisdom hath determined of.