Of the Death of Christ, Discourse · Chapter 13
CAP. XIII.
The Removal of ſundry Objections to ſome things formerly taught, about the Death of Christ: Ʋpon the Principles now delivered.
HAving fully declared not only what was my Intendment in the Expreſſions ſo exceedingly miſtaken by Mr Baxter, as hath in part already been made manifeſt, and will inſtantly more fully appear; I ſhall now take a view of what is Impoſed on me as my Judgement, and the Oppoſition made thereunto, ſo far as may be needful for the cleering of the One, and removing of the Other, at leaſt in what they may really concern what I did deliver in the Treatiſe impugned.
In Page 146 of his Apendix Mr Baxter endeavours to vindicate a Theſis of his from ſome Exceptions, that he was by his friend pointed to, unto which it ſeemed liable and Obnoxious.
The Theſis he layes down, is, That no man is actually and abſolutly Juſtified upon the meer payment of the debt by Chriſt, till they become beleevers.
Againſt this Article (as he calls it) he produceth ſome Objections of Maccovius, cenſuring his Aſſertions to be ſenſeleſs, his Poſitions ſtrange and abhored, his Arguments weak and ineffectual; with ſome other Expreſſions to the ſame purpoſe.
1, I am now by the Providence of God in a Condition of Separation from my own ſmall Library, neither can I here attain the ſight of Maccovius Diſputations; ſo that I ſhall not at all interpoſe my ſelf in this Conteſt; only I muſt needs ſay. 1 I did not formerly account Maccovius to be ſo ſenſeleſs and weak a Diſputant as here he is repreſented to be.
2, That for Mr Baxters Anſwer to that Argument (where the Debt is paid, there Diſcharge muſt follow; by Aſſerting the Payment made by Chriſt to be refuſable, and the Intereſt of ſinners in that Payment to be purely upon the performance of a Condition. I have fully before in both parts of it Demonſtrated to be weak, and inconſiſtent with it ſelf, and Truth. That the Intereſting of Sinners in the Payment made by Chriſt, at ſuch and ſuch a Seaſon, is from the Sovereignty of God, and his free Engagement ſub Termino for this End; hath been alſo fully manifeſted.
But Secondly, Mr Baxter Affirms, That to theſe Arguments of Maccovius, Mr Owen addes ſome in the place againſt Grotius whereunto he was referred.
To what End, you will ſay, doth Mr Owen adde theſe Arguments? Why to prove that men are actually, and abſolutly, Juſtified upon the meer Payment of the Debt by Chriſt before beleeving.
But, Fidem tuam! Is there any one Argument in my whole Book uſed to any ſuch purpoſe? Do I labour to prove that which I never Affirmed? never thought? never beleeved?
In what Senſe I Affirmed that by the Death of Chriſt, we are actually, and ipſo facto, delivered from Death (that is foreign, we have in due time, the time appointed, free and full Deliverance thereby, without the Intervention of any Condition on our part, not abſolutly procured for us by his Death) I have before declared. How much this comes ſhort of actual and abſolute Juſtification, I need not now mention: I ſhall therefore only ſo far Conſider the Anſwers given by Mr Baxter; as they may ſeem to impair or entrench upon the main Truth I Aſſert, and that in the Order by him laid down.
Theſe (ſaith he) Mr Owen layeth down.
1 By Death he delivereth us from Death.
Anſw. Not immediatly, nor abſolutly, nor by his Death alone, but by that as a Price, ſuppoſing other Cauſes on his part, and Conditions on ours, to concur before the actual Deliverance.
Reply. 1 To what End I mention that place of the Apoſtle was before declared: 2 By the Death of Chriſt we are immediatly delivered from Death with that Immediation which is proper to the Efficiency of Cauſes, which produce their Effects by the way of Moral procurement: that is certainly, without the Intervention of any other Cauſe of the like kind: And, 3 Abſolutly, no Condition being interpoſed between the Cauſe and the Effect, Chriſts Death, and our total Deliverance, but ſuch as is part of our Deliverance, and ſolely procured by that Death: Though that Death of Chriſt be not conſidered as alone, that is ſeparated from his Obedience, Reſurrection, and Interceſſion, when the Work of Redemption is aſſigned to it in the Scripture.
4 By the Death of Chriſt as a Price: I ſuppoſe you underſtand his Purchaſe, as well as his Payment; his Merit, as well as his Satisfaction; or elſe this is a falſe Notion of the Death of CHRIST, as the Cauſe of our Deliverance.
5 All other Cauſes concurring on the Part of Chriſt for our Deliverance, are 1 Either not of the ſame kind with his Death; Or, 2 Bottomed on his Death, and flowing from thence; ſo that ſummarily all may be reſolved therinto.
6 The Conditions on our Part, in the Senſe intended, are often mentioned, never proved; nor I am perſwaded will never be. But he Addes:
2 He ſaith the Elect are ſaid to die, and riſe with Chriſt.
Anſw. 1 Not in reſpect of time, as if we died and roſe at the ſame time, either really, or in Gods eſteem. 2 Not that we died in his Dying, and roſe in his Riſing. But, 3 It is ſpoken of the diſtant mediate Effects of his Death, and the immediate Effects of his Spirit on us, Riſing by Regeneration to Union and Communion with Chriſt. So he.
Reply. 1 I paſs the 1, and 2, Exceptions, notwithſtanding, that of Gods not eſteeming of us as in Chriſt upon his Performance of the Acts of his Mediation for us, might admit of ſome conſideration.
2 The Inference here couched, That theſe things are the immediate Effects of Chriſts Spirit on us, therefore the diſtant and mediate Effects of his death for us, is very weak and unconcluding. The death of Chriſt procureth theſe things as a Cauſe Moral and Impelling: the Spirit worketh as an Efficient, and therefore the ſame thing may be the immediate Effect of them both, according to their ſeveral kinds of Efficacy. And ſo indeed they are. Our actual Converſion, the Efficient whereof is the Spirit, is the immediate procurement of the Merit of Chriſt: ſee this at large in my Treatiſe oppoſed. I know not any man that hath run out into more wide miſtakes about the immediate Effects of the death of Chriſt, than Mr Baxter, who pretends to ſo much Accurateneſs in this Particular.
3 He ſaith (ads Mr Baxter) Chriſt hath redeemed us from the Curſe, being made a Curſe for us.
Anſw. I explained before how far we are freed by Redemption: He hath reſtored us, that is, paid the price, but with no intent that we ſhould by that Redemption, be immediately or abſolutely freed.
Yet when we are freed, it is to be aſcribed to his death as the Meritorious Cauſe, but not as the Only Cauſe.
Reply. 1 A being freed ſo FAR, or ſo far, by Redemption, and not wholly, fully, or compleatly, what ever men may explain, the Scripture is wholly ſilent of.
2 That Chriſt in paying a price, had no intent that thoſe he paid it for, ſhould be immediatly or abſolutely freed, is crudely enough aſſerted. 1 Of the immediateneſs of their Delivery, I have ſpoken already. It hath as ſtrict an Immediation as the Nature of ſuch Cauſes and Effects will bear. 2 If he intended not that thoſe for whom he died ſhould be abſolutly freed, then either he intended not their freedom at all, and ſo the Negation is upon the term freed: or the Negation of his Intention is only as to the qualification, abſolutly, and ſo his Intention to free them is Aſſerted, and the Affection of abſolutneſs in that Intention, only denyed.
If the Firſt be meant; 1 It is contrary to innumerable expreſs Teſtimonies of Scriptures. 2 It renders the Son of God, dying with no determinate End, or deſigned Purpoſe at all, in Reference to them for whom he dyed: A thing we would not aſcribe to a Wiſe man, in a far more eaſie Undertaking.
If the Second: 1 I deſire to know, What is this Intention here aſſigned to our Saviour? He payd a Price, or Ranſom for us, he bought and purchaſed us by his blood, to be a peculiar People to himſelf; he redeemed us from the Curſe and Wrath due to us, that we may be conditionally freed. All things intended under Condition, are as to their Accompliſhment uncertain. The Condition may be fulfilled, or it may not be fulfilled; and therefore the thing intended thereon, can have no certainty as to its Accompliſhment, in the mind of the Intender. This then is That which is aſcribed to the Lord Jeſus: Making his Soul an Offering for ſin, laying down his Life a ranſom for Mercy, and taſting Death, to free the Children given him from Death, praying together that thoſe for whom he died, might be partakers of his Glory; yet was altogether uncertain whether ever any one of them, ſhould at all partake of the Good things, which in his whole undertaking of Mediation, he aimed at. Thus is he made a Surety of an uncertain Covenant, a Purchaſer of an Inheritance perhaps never to be enjoyed, a Prieſt Sanctifying none by his Sacrifice, &c.
2 Is the Accompliſhment of this Condition, upon which freedom depends in the Intention of Chriſt, certain in his mind, under that Intention? I ask then, Whence that Aſſurance doth accrew? Is it from his foreſight of their good uſing their Abilities to fulfil the Condition to them preſcribed? See then, whither you have rolled this ſtone! The Folly, and Abſurdity of this, hath been long ſince ſufficiently diſcovered.
But is it from hence, becauſe by his Death, he Purchaſeth for them, the compleating of that Condition in them? Thus, he payes a Price with Intention that thoſe for whom he payes it, ſhall be freed, by enjoying that freedom under ſuch a Condition as he procures for them; and thereupon knows, That at the appointed time, it ſhall be wrought in them. What differs this in the Cloſe from abſolute freedom?
Further: Feign ſome of them for whom Chriſt died to fulfil this Condition, others not; and it will be more evident, That the greateſt uncertainty poſſible, as to the Iſſues of his Death, muſt be aſſigned to him in his dying. The pretence of an effectual diſcriminating purpoſe of free Grace, following the Purpoſe of giving Chriſt, promiſuouſly for all, will not ſalve the Contradictions of this Aſſertion.
But the Truth is, This whole figment of Conditional freedom, is every way unſavoury: That very thing which is aſſigned for the Condition of our freedom, being it ſelf the chiefeſt part of it: the whole indeed as here begun: Potential, Conditional, not actual, not abſolute Iſſues and Effects of the Death of Chriſt, have been abundantly diſproved already.
That which follows in Mr Baxter from Page 152, unto page 155. Chap. 19. belongs not to me: being only a Declaration of his own Judgement about the things in hand: wherein, although many things are not only incommodiouſly expreſſed, to ſuit the un-Scriptural Method of theſe Myſteris which he hath framed in his mind, but alſo directly oppoſite to the Truth; yet I ſhall not here meddle with it, refering them who deſire Satisfaction in this Buſineſs, to a ſerious Conſideration of what I have abovewritten to this purpoſe.
Page 155. C. 20. he returns to the Conſideration of My Aſſertion concerning our Deliverance ipſo facto, by the bloud of Chriſt: And tells you,
I do not underſtand Mr Owen his meaning: for he ſaith, That Chriſt did actually, and ipſo facto, deliver us from the Curſe and Obligation; yet we do not inſtantly apprehend and perceive it, nor yet poſſeſs it: but only we have actual Right to all the Fruits of his Death. &c. So he.
Anſw. The things of that Treatiſe were written with the Pen of a vulgar Scribe, that every one might run and read: whence then it ſhould be, That ſo learned a man ſhould not underſtand my meaning, unleſs from his own prejudice, I know not: However, I have now ſo fully delivered my Senſe and Meaning as to theſe things, That I hope no place remaineth for Diſcreptation thereabout. But let us look a little into Mr Baxters Enquiry after that, which he profeſſeth not well to underſtand:
1 (Saith he) Whether a man may fitly be ſaid actually and ipſo facto to be delivered and diſcharged, who is not at all delivered, but only hath a Right to deliverance: I doubt.
Anſw. To unriddle this, with moſt of the following Exceptions, and to Reſolve his Doubt ſo far as I am concerned, as having adminiſtred occaſion thereunto, I ſhall tranſcribe the place from whence theſe Difficulties are pretended to ariſe.
The Paſſage is in Lib. 3. Cap. 7. of that Treatiſe, Page 140, 141. as followeth:
That actual freedom from the Obligation doth not follow the Satisfaction made by Chriſt, cannot be granted. For by his Death, he did deliver us from Death: and that actually ſo far, as that the Elect are ſaid to Die and Riſe with him: he did actually or ipſo facto deliver us from the Curſe, by being made a Curſe for us. The hand-writing that was againſt us, even the whole Obligation was taken out of the way, and nailed to his Croſs. It is true, all for whom he did this do not inſtantly actually apprehend and perceive it: which is impoſſible. But yet that hinders not; but that they have all the Fruits of his Death in actual Right, though not in actual Poſſeſſion: which laſt they cannot have until at leaſt it be made known to them. As if a man pay a Ranſom for a Priſoner detained in a forreign Country; the very day of the Payment and Acceptation of it, the Priſoner hath Right to his Liberty, though he cannot enjoy it, until ſuch time as Tydings of it is brought unto him, and a Warrant produced for his Liberty. So that, that Reaſon is nothing but a begging foreign. 2dly, The Satisfaction of Chriſt by the Payment of the ſame thing that was in the Obligation, is no way prejudicial to that free Gracious Condonation of Sin ſo often mentioned. Gods Gracious Condonation of Sin, comprizeth the whole diſpenſation of Grace towards us in Chriſt: whereof there are Two Parts: 1 The laying of our Sin on Chriſt; or making him to be Sin for us, which was meerly and purely an act of free Grace. 2 The Gracious imputation of the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt to us: or making us the Righteouſneſs of God in him; which is no leſs of Grace and Mercy: However that Remiſſion, Grace, and Pardon which is in God for Sinners, is not oppoſed to Chriſts Merits, but ours. He pardoneth all to us, but he ſpareth not his only Son: The freedom then of Pardon hath not its Foundation in any defect of the Merit or Satisfaction of Chriſt, but in Three other things: 1 The Will of God freely appointing this Satisfaction of Chriſt: Joh. 3. 10. Rom. 5. 8. 2 In a Gracious Acceptation of that decreed Satisfaction in our ſteads, ſo many, no more. 3 In a free Application of the Death of Chriſt unto us: Remiſſion then excludes not a full Satisfaction by the ſolution of the very thing in the Obligation, but only the ſolution or Satisfaction of him to whom Remiſſion is granted, &c.
All that is here Affirmed, may be Reduced to theſe Heads:
1 Actual freedom from the Obligation is the immediate Fruit of the Death of Chriſt: underſtand ſuch an Immediation, as I have often deſcribed.
2 Hence, Chriſt is ſaid actually or ipſo facto to deliver us, becauſe our Deliverance which is to be accompliſhed ſub Termino, is the infallible, abſolute, immediate Iſſue and Product of what he did for us. Actual and ipſo facto, are oppoſed to the Intervention of any ſuch thing, as ſhould make our Deliverance to be only Potential, or Conditional.
3 Thoſe for whom Chriſt doth work this Deliverance, are not as to a ſimulty of time actually delivered: They neither enjoy, nor are acquainted with any ſuch Deliverance until the appointed time be come, but have actual right thereunto, to poſſeſs it in due Seaſon.
This being the ſum and plain Intendment of that place, I ſuppoſe there will not need any operous Endeavour to remove the Objections that are laid againſt it: And therefore to that before expreſſed, I ſay, Chriſt hath actually and ipſo facto procured our Deliverance: Hence we have actual right unto it, but not actual poſſeſſion of it: And where the difficulty of this ſhould reſt, I know not. Men may as oft as they pleaſe create Contradictions in their own minds, and entangle themſelves with Doubts in the Knots which themſelves have tyed. But,
2 (Saith he) Knowledge and Poſſeſſion of a Deliverance are far different things.
Anſw. 1 He maketh them ſo, who plainly intimates, That the Reaſon why it is not apprehended, is, Becauſe it is not poſſeſſed: and alwayes ſpeaks disjunctively of them.
2 Beſides, This Propoſition of the diſtance of theſe Two, is not univerſally true, as I could eaſily demonſtrate.
3 Our Knowledge therefore (he ads) doth not give us Poſſeſſion: ſo that the Similitude ſails: for it is the Creditors Knowledge and Satisfaction that is requiſite to Deliverance: and our Creditor was not in a far and ſtrange Country, but knew immediatly, and could either have made us quickly know, or turned us free before we had known the Cauſe.
Anſw. 1 Whether or no, or how far Knowledge gives us Poſſeſſion, I ſhall not now Diſpute: only conſidering in what ſenſe Knowledge is here uſed; and often in the Scripture, the Deliverance alſo ſpoken of, being ſuch, as no ſmall part thereof conſiſts in this Knowledge, and without it (in the ſeed at leaſt) is not, I cannot but ſay, That ſuch kind of Affirmations in things of this weight, are very ſlender proofs: Yea further, Whereas the Enjoyment of this Deliverance is either as to the Being of it, or to the Comfort of it; the Latter is given us by this Knowledge meerly, the Former conſiſts therein mainly, Joh. 17. 3.
2 Similitudes are allowed their Grains to make them Current: But yet, as our Creditors Knowledge and Satisfaction is required to our Deliverance, ſo not that only; but ours alſo, as to our actual Enjoyment of it. It is true, he could have made us quickly know it: but who hath been his Counſellour? this is left to his Sovereign and free diſpoſal, our Deliverance being Purchaſed to be made out in the ſeaſon thereby appointed. But, That God could have made us free, before we knew the Cauſe, (ſuppoſing his Conſtitution of the way of Salvation revealed in the Bloud of Jeſus, which lies at the bottome of all theſe Diſputes) is a moſt Anti-Evangelical Aſſertion, and diametrally oppoſed to the whole way of Gods dealing with Sinners. But he addes,
4 Neither can it be underſtood how God can ſo long deny us the Poſſeſſion of Heaven, if we had ſuch actual abſolute Right ſo long ago, which ſeems to me to expreſs a jus ad rem, and in re.
Anſw. 1 I love not to enquire into the Reaſon of Gods actings,Eph. 1. 11 which are according to the Counſel of his own Will: and yet think it not very difficult to conceive how a Son is for a ſeaſon kept as a Servant,Gal. 4. 1 though he be Heir of all.
2 He ſpeaks as though this Deliverance lay all in Heaven, Joh. 1. 12whereas it is here fully enjoyed on the Earth though not in all the degrees of the Fruits thereof.Rom. 5. 11
3 If the Right wherof we ſpeak were Jus in re, Eph. 1. 11I ſee not well indeed how God could keep us from the Poſſeſſion of it as Mr Baxter ſayes:Col. 1. 12, 13, 14. a man cannot be kept long from what he hath. But ſaith he,
5 If he mean a Right to future Poſſeſſion, I do not ſee how Right and Poſſeſſion ſhould ſtand at ſo many yeers diſtance: To have Right to Gods favour, and Poſſeſſion of that favour ſeem to me of neerer kin. Except he ſhould think that Poſſeſſion of favour is nothing but the Knowledge or feeling of it: And that Faith Juſtifieth only in loco Conſcientia: but I will not Cenſure ſo hardly until I know.
Anſw. 1 If at ſo many yeers diſtance it may not be allowed, he had done well to expreſs at how many it might. For my part, placing this Right upon the Purchaſe of Chriſt, (as before,) and Poſſeſſion in the actual Enjoyment of the Fruits of that Purchaſe; then refering the diſtance between them to the Good pleaſure of God, who had granted and eſtabliſhed that Right to an Enjoyment ſub termino, I ſee no difficulty, no perplexity in this at all.
2 That no ſmall portion of favour conſiſts in a ſenſe and knowledge of the kindneſs of God in its Actings terminated upon the Conſcience,Pſal. 4. 6 I muſt beleeve, whatever Mr Baxter be pleaſed to Cenſure.2 Cor. 4. 6. It is far more facile to give the hardeſt Cenſures, then to Anſwer the eaſieſt Arguments.
3 The place where Faith Juſtifieth I am not ſo ſolicitous about, as the manner how: which of all other wayes commonly inſiſted on, I conceive not to be; as it is our now Obedience: yet that in this Work, it looks further then the Conſcience, I eaſily grant.
The moſt of what is ſubjoyned to theſe Exceptions, is fully Anſwered in what went before.
As much as poſſible, I ſhall avoid all Repetitions of the ſame things: Only whereas he Affirmeth, That to have Right to Juſtification, and to have Poſſeſſion of it, is all one; I muſt needs enter my Diſſent thereunto: which may ſuffice until it be attempted to be put upon the Proof. If he ſhall ſay, That a Right to a future Juſtification at the day of Judgment, is the ſame with the Poſſeſſion of preſent actual Juſtification, it is neither true, nor any thing to the Buſineſs in hand.
In the Cloſe, he ſhuts up this Diſcourſe, and enters into another; giving in his Thoughts about the immediate Effects of the Death of Chriſt: A matter wherein he pretends to great Accurateneſs, foreign.Cenſuring others, for not being able to diſtinguiſh aright of them, and ſo to ſpend abundance of labour in vain, in their Diſcourſes thereabout. Particularly here he denyes (and calls it A dangerous Errour to ſuppoſe) That actual Remiſſion and Juſtification are immediate Effects of his Death, or any Right thereunto, which he attempteth to prove by ſundry Arguments.
Of the Effects of the Death of Chriſt, and what Relation they all ſtand in thereunto, I have ſpoken at large before. Now becauſe actual Remiſſion is denyed to be an immediate Effect of the Death of Chriſt, and ſo a potential Remiſſion not once mentioned in the Book of God is tacitely ſubſtituted in the Room thereof, and this alſo in Oppoſition to what I had Delivered, I ſhall briefly conſider his Arguments, and ſo give an End to this Debate.
Argum. 1 What Right ſoever God giveth unto men in things ſupernatural (ſuch as Juſtification, Remiſſion, and Adoption) he giveth it by his written Laws. But by theſe Laws he hath given no ſuch thing to any unbeleevers, ſuch as are the Elect before Converſion: therfore, &c.
The Major is evident: Gods Decree giveth no man a Perſonal Right to the Mercy intended him. And for the Minor, no man can produce the Scripture giving to unbeleevers ſuch a Right.
Anſw. 1 Taking the Laws of God in the ſtrict and proper ſenſe,Lex aut punit, aut vetat, aut permittit, aut conſulit, aut hortatur: and it is ſo far from being a Truth, That what Right God gives to any, he gives it by his written Laws; that indeed the Laws of God give no Right to any one, concerning any thing, whether ſupernatural or otherwiſe. The End of the Law is not to give Right, but to exact Obedience: and that chiefly if not upon the ſum, ſolely. The uſual proper genuine ſignification of Gods Laws,F. de Leg. 1 Joh. 3. 4. being his revealed Will for our Obedience, I know not why Mr Baxter ſhould bring them in, in the Latitude of his ſingle Apprehenſion to be a Medium in an Argument. Hence,
2 Here is not a ſufficient Annumeration of Cauſes; the Promiſes of God are to be added, and thoſe either made to us, or to any other for our Good. But,
3 That the Decree of God gives to no man a Right to the thing concerning which the Decree is,Decretum nil ponit in eſſe, praedeſtinatio in praedeſtinato Aquin. is ſo far from being a ſufficient proof of the Major, That it is in it ſelf very queſtionable, if not unqueſtionably falſe. That the Decree gives not being and Exiſtence to the things concerning which it is, is an old Rule. That no Right ſhould from it ariſe, unto that thing by vertue thereof, is not yet ſo cleer. Right is but Jus. Jus eſt quod juſtum eſt. If it be juſt or Right, that any one ſhould have ſuch a thing, he is ſaid to have a Right thereunto.Eph. 1. 4. Now, ſuppoſing the Decree of God,2 Pet. 1. 1. that a man ſhall, by ſuch means, have ſuch a thing, is it not Juſt, equitable and Condecent unto Righteouſneſs that he ſhould have it? But yet further,
4 We are not at all ſpeaking of a Right founded on Gods Decrees, Cururceus exit.(which conſidering what was propoſed to be proved by this Argument; I wonder how it found any mention here) but upon Two other things.
1 The Covenant of God with Chriſt about the Pardoning, Juſtifying, and Saving of thoſe, for whoſe ſin he ſhould make his Soul an Offering: which Covenant reſpecting Chriſt as Mediator God and man, is not to be reckoned among the meer Decrees and Purpoſes of God, containing in it ſelf al thoſe Promiſes and Engagements wheron the Lord Jeſus in the Work of Redemption rolled himſelf.Iſa. 50. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Now in this Covenant, God Engaged himſelf (as I ſaid before) to make out to thoſe for whom Chriſt undertook, whatſoever was the Fruit of his Purchaſe, and that was what in his good pleaſure was aſſigned thereunto. And this is the firſt bottome of this Right.
2 The Purchaſe of Chriſt being compleated by the Performance of all things by divine Conſtitution thereunto alotted,Joh. 17. 4. 2 Tim. 3. 16. and himſelf acquitted and exonerated of the whol Debt of their Sin for whom he ſuffered, which was charged on him;Joh. 17. he makes Demand of the Accompliſhment of the forementioned Engagement made to him,Heb. 9. 24. concerning the freedom and deliverance of the Perſons whoſe Sins were laid on him, and whoſe bringing unto Glory he undertook.
On theſe Two, I ſay it is, That our Right to the Fruits of the Death of Chriſt, even before beleeving, doth depend: from hence at leaſt it is right and equal, That we do in the time appointed enjoy theſe things. Yea to ſay, That we have Right upon beleeving to the Fruits of the Death of Chriſt affirmed univerſally, can only be affirmed of a Jus in re, ſuch a Right, as hath (at leaſt in part) conjoyned actual Poſſeſſion, beleeving it ſelf being no ſmal Portion of theſe Fruits.
This Argument then being fallacious, omitting the chief Cauſes in Annumeration, concludes not the thing propoſed. Beſides it is in no ſmall meaſure faulty, in that the firſt thing propoſed to be confirmed was, That Remiſſion of Sin, and Juſtification are not the immediate Effects of Chriſts Death, whereof in this Argument there is foreign.
Argum. 2. If God hate all the Works of Iniquity, and we are all by Nature the Children of Wrath, and without Faith it is impoſſible to pleaſe God, and he that beleeveth not is Condemned already, then certainly the Elect while they are unbeleevers, are not actually de facto, no nor in perſonal Right delivered from this Hatred, Wrath, Diſpleaſure, and Condemnation: But, Ergo.
Anſw. 1 This Argument, for what indeed it will prove is handled at large in my Treatiſe of Redemption, as alſo re-urged in the Pages foregoing. Againſt actual Juſtification from Eternity, it hath its Efficacy.
2 It doth alſo Conclude, That the Elect whileſt unbeleevers, are not actually and de facto put in Poſſeſſion of the Iſſues of Love, Faith being with the firſt of them. But,
3 That they have not upon the Grounds forementioned, a Right to theſe things.
Or,
4 That Juſtification is not the immediate Effect of the Death of Chriſt (being the ſole things in queſtion) it hath the ſame unhappineſs with the former, not once to mention.
Argum. 3. If we are Juſtified only by Faith, then certainly not before Faith. But we are Juſtified only by Faith. Ergo.
Anſw. 1 If I miſtake not, it is not Juſtification before Faith, but a Right to the Fruits of the Death of Chriſt before Faith that is to be proved.
2 That Juſtification is not the immediate Effect of the Death of Chriſt to which Ends for this Argument, Valeat quantum valere poteſt: to me, it comes not within many miles of the thing in Queſtion. So that with the abſurd ANSWERS ſuppoſed thereunto, we paſſe it by.
The like alſo I am enforced to ſay of the Two other that follow, being of the ſame length and breadth with thoſe foregoing, too ſhort & narrow to cover the things in Queſtion ſo that though they may have their ſtrength to their own proper End, yet as to the things propoſed to be proved, there is nothing in their Genuine Concluſions looking that way.
If I might take the Liberty of gheſſing, I ſhould ſuppoſe the Miſtake which lead this Author to all this labor in vain, is, That the immediate Effects of the Death of Chriſt muſt be immediatly enjoyed by them for whom he died. Which Aſſertion hath not indeed the leaſt Colour of Truth. The Effects of the Death of Chriſt are not ſaid to be immediate, in reference to others enjoyment of them, but unto their Cauſality by that Death. Whatever it be, that in the firſt place is made out to Sinners for the Death of Chriſt, when ever it be done, that is the immediate Effect thereof, as to them: As to them I ſay, for in its firſt tendency, it hath a more immediate Object.
If Mr Baxter go on with his Intentions about a tract concerning univerſal Redemption, perhaps we may have theſe things cleered: and yet we muſt tell him before hand, That if he draw forth nothing on that Subject but what is done by Amiraldus, and like things to them, he will give little Satisfaction to learned and ſtable men, upon the Iſſue of his undertaking.
I ſhall not preſume to take another mans Task out of his hand, eſpecially one's who is ſo every way able to go through with it; Elſe I durſt undertake to demonſtrate that Treatiſe of Amiraldus, mentioned by Mr Baxter, to be full of weak and ſophiſtical Argumentations, abſurd Contradictions, vain ſtrife of Words; and in ſum to be, as birthleſs a tympanous Endeavour, as ever ſo learned a man was engaged in.
For the preſent, being by Gods Providence removed for a Seaſon from my Native ſoyl, attended with more then ordinary weakneſſes and infirmities, ſeparated from my Library, burdened with manifold Employments, with conſtant Preaching to a numerous multitude, of as thirſting a People after the Goſpel, as ever yet I converſed withal; it ſufficeth me, That I have obtained this Mercy, Briefly and plainly to Vindicate the Truth from miſtakes, and ſomething further to unfold the Myſtery of our Redemption in Chriſt, all with ſo facile and placid an Endeavour, as is uſually upon the Spirits of men, in the familiar writings of one Friend to another. That it hath been my Aim to ſeek after Truth, and to keep cloſe to the forme of wholeſome words delivered to us, will (I hope) appear to them that love Truth, and Peace.
Dublin-Caſtle, Decemb. 20. 1649. foreign.
FINIS.
ERRATA.
The Author having no opportunity to attend the Preſs, and being abſent many miles during the Printing the moſt part of it, finds the Accenting of ſundry Greek Expreſſions omitted, with other miſtakes, which he deſireth the Reader to Correct as followeth:
PAg. 5. l. 10. r. have. p. 9. l. 23. foreign. p. 10. l. 8. foreign, ſo alſo in other places. l. 9. foreign. p. 11. l. 10. foreign. l. 26. foreign. p. 12. l. 21. foreign. p. 15. l. 3. foreign. l. 14. foreign. p. 16. l. 9. hudled. p. 19. l. 10. alius. p. 20. l. 4. now. p. 22. l. 22. foreign. p. 24. l. 22. foreign. p. 27. l. 12. obſerved. p. 28. l. 24. not all the thing. l. 26. to any. p. 29. l. 4. Now the. p. 30. l. 6. Now he. p. 31. l. 1. foreign. l. 4. foreign. l. 11. preſſures. p. 32. l. ult. Pactional. p. 33. l. 24. Contradiction. p. 34. l. 33. Oblation made. p. 36. l. 22. that ever I. l. 31. feigne. p. 44. l. 8. foreign. p. 47. l. 3. of God, is thus held out. l. 27. Analogie. l. 33. fturition. p. 54. l. ult. actuate their own. p. 76. l. 29. Concluded. p. 78. l. 30. preceed. p. 82. l. 27. foreign. p. 85. l. 28. many. p. 87. l. 20. diſceptation. p. 88. l. 17. foreign. p. 91. l. 20. foro Conſcientiae. p. 95. l. 3. foreign. Pag. 29. in the Margin, foreign.
End of the text · John Owen, Of the Death of Christ (1650)