The Mystery of the Gospel Vindicated and Socinianism Examined, Appendix

The Mystery of the Gospel Vindicated and Socinianism Examined · Appendix

p. 1Of the Death of Christ, and of Iustification.

The doctrine concerning them formerly delivered Vindicated from the Animadversions of Master R. B.

OF this taske I would complaine if I durst: but I know not how it may be taken; and whither it may not occasion another Apology. So are writings of this nature, as waves that thrust on one another. Bookes (saies one) are like good turnes; They must be new covered, or it will raine through. I was in some hope to have escaped this trouble. But foreign. Sophocles in Aiac: Chrysost: Con: …, foreign. Sucton. in vit. Tib.And Chrysostome tels us, that foreign. I desire to be content with my portion, being better yet then that of Livius Drusius, who complained uni sibi nec puero quidem unquam ferias contigisse; so it be in and about things of reall use, and Advantage to the soules of men I can be content with any paines that I have strength to Answer. But this is an evil, which every one who is not starke blind may see in polemicall writings: almost their constant end, is foreign, whence saith the Apostle foreign. Having through the providence of God (whether on my part necessarily or wisely I know not, (foreign) engaged in publike, for the defence of some truths of the Gospel (as I beleive) I was never so foolish, as to expect an escape without Opposition. He that puts forth a booke, sentences his Reason to the Gantelope; every one will strive to have a lash at it in its course, and he must be content to beare it. It may be said of bookes of this kind, as he said of children, (things often compared) foreign. Anxiety, feare, and Menand:trouble, attend their Authors. For my owne part, as I provoked no man causlesly in any of my writings, defended no other doctrine p. 2professedly but the common faith of the Protestant Churches, of which I found the Saints of God in possession, when I came first acquainted with them; so I have from the beginning resolved, not to persist in any Controversy, as to the publike debate of it, when once it begins to degenerate into a strife of words, and personall reflections: so much the more grievous is it to me, to engage in this now in hand, of the necessity where of I shall give the Reader a breife Account. That as to the matter of the contest between M. B. and my selfe, M. B. is my witness that I gave not the occasion of it, so as to the manner of its handling, that I carryed not on the Provocation, I appeale to all that have read my Treatise, which is now animadverted on. The fame person, & initium dedit, & modum abstulit. Some freedome of Expression, that perhaps I might righteously have made use of, to prevent future exacerbations I designedly forbore. I know that some men must have foreign. Expressions concerning them, had need be foreign; or like foreign.the letters, that men print one of another, which are oftentimes answerable to that of Augustus to Mecoenas; vale mel gemmeum, medulliae ebur ex Hetruria, lasera-rietinum, adamas supernas, Tiberinum margaritum, cilniorum smaragde jaspis figulorum, berille Porsennae, carbunculum Italiae, foreign, &c. I hoped therefore this business had been at an issue; Others also were of the same mind; especially considering that he had almost professed against proceeding farther in this controversy in some other Treatises and Apologies. For my owne part I must profess my thoughts arose only from his long silence. The Reason of this I knew could not be that of him in the Poet, foreign: seeing Sophocles.he could have done it as speedily as have written so much paper. The expressions in his bookes seemed to me, as the fermentation of a spirit, that at one time or other would boyle over. I confess I was something delivered from the feare of it, when not long before the publishing of his Confession and Apology, I met with him, and had occasion of much conference with him at London, even about Justification, and he made not the least mention of this confutation of me, which he hath now published; but foreign. but though this present contest might have been easily prevented, (as the Reader will instantly perceive) yet I presume the booke was then wholy printed, and M. B. was not to loose his pains, nor the world the benefit thereof, nor the printer his inke and paper, for so p. 3sleight a cause, as the preventing of the aspersion of me for an Antinomian.

But jacta est alea, now it is out, we must make the best of it; and I hope the Reader will excuse me in what followes, foreign.

But why must my Arguments be answered, and my selfe confuted? Two Reasons hereof are given. The first by very many Insinuations; namely, that I have delivered dangerous doctrines, such as subvert the foundation of the Gospell, plaine Antinomianisme; and these two positions are laid down to be confuted, viz: first, that the elect are Justified from eternity, or from the death of Christ, before they believe. Secondly, that justification by faith, is but in foro conscientiae, or in our owne feeling, & terminated in conscience, & not in foro dei: further then conscience may be so called: & my Arguments for them are answered, Chap. 8. pag: 189. But what should a man do in this case? I have already published to M. B. and all the world, that I believe neither of these propositions; must I take my oath of it, or get Compurgators, or must we have no end of this quarrell? Let M. B. prove any such thing, out of any thing I have written, and as Nonius saies, out of Naevius, ei dum vivebo, fidelis ero. I am sure this minds me of that passage in the Jewish Liturgy, placeat tibi domine liberare me à lite difficili, & ab adversario difficili, sive is ad foeàus tuum pertineat, sive non pertineat. The following Examination of the particulars excepted against by M. B. will make this evident, whence it will appear, that foreign: yea but.

Secondly, two or three Reverend brethren told him, that to that Menand.part which he hath considered, it was necessary I should be confuted; Who these reverend brethren are I know not; I presume they may M. B. Preface.be of those friends of M. B. that blame him for replying to M. Blake, but say for all the rest with whom he hath dealt (of whom I am forc't to be one) that it is no matter, they deserved no better. Whoever they are, they might have had more mercy then not a little to pitty Preface to the Reader.poore men under the strokes of an heavy hand. Nor do I know what are the Reasons of the brethren, why my name must be brought on this stage; nor perhaps is it meet they should be published. It foreign.may be it is necessary that M. Owen be confuted among Antinomians, and that foreign. But what if it should appeare in the issue, that M. Owen hath deserved better at their hands, and that this advise of theirs might have been spared? But not to complaine p. 4of I know not whom. To those Reverend Advisers I shall only say, foreign; but if it appeare in the issue, that I was charged with that which I never delivered, nor wrote, and that my Arguments to one purpose, are answered in reference to another, and that this is the summe of M. B's. discourse against me, I shall only recommend to them some verses of old Ennius, as I find thē in Aus: Pop:

Nam qui lepide postulat alterum frustrari

Quem frustratur, frustra eum dicit frustra esse,

Nam qui sese frustrari quem frustra sentit.

Qui frustratur is frustra est, si non, ille est frustra.

What then shall I do? I am imposed on to lay the foundation of all Antinomianisme, (as M. Burgesse is also) to maintaine Justificaon from Eternity, or at least in the Crosse of Christ, of all that should believe; and justification by faith to be but the sense of it in our consciences (which last I know better and wiser men then my selfe that do, though I do not) & so reckoned amongst them that overthrow the whole Gospell, and place the Righteousnesse of Christ in the roome of our owne believing and repentance, rendering them uselesse.

Shall I undertake to confute M. B's. booke, at least wherein we differ, & so acquit my selfe both from Antinomianisme & Socinianisme in the business in hand? out (1) The things of this discourse are such, and the manner of handling them of that sort, that M. B. heartily in the close of his booke, begs pardon for them, who have necessitated him to spend so much time to so little purpose; foreign. As I see not yet the necessity of his Pag. 462.paines, so I desire his reverend Advisers may thanke him for this Intercession, for I suppose my selfe (at least) not concerned therein. But this I can say, that I am so farre from engaging into a long operous contest, in a matter of such importance and consequence, as the subject of that booke is represented to be, that I would rather burne my pennes and bookes also, then serve a provocation so farre, as to spend halfe that time therein, which the confutation of it would require from so slow and dull a person as my selfe.

2. He hath in his preface put such terrible Conditions upon those that will Answer him, that I know no man but must needs be affrighted with the thoughts of the attempt. He requires, that whoever undertake this worke, be of a stronger judgment, and a p. 5more discerning head, then he; that he be a better proficient in these studies then he; that he be freer from prejudice then he; that he have more illumination and grace then he: that is! that he be a better, wiser, more holy, and learned man, then M. B. Now if we may take M. B's. character, by what he discourseth of his mortification, and sincerity, his freedome from prejudice, &c: as there is no Reason but that we should; I profess I know not where to find his match, much less any to excell him, with whom I might intercede for his paines in the consideration of this Treatise: for as for my selfe, I am seriously so farre from entertaining any such thoughts in reference to M. B. that I dare not do it in reference to any one godly Minister that I know in the world; yea I am sure that I am not in respect of all the qualifications mentioned, put together, to be preferred before any one of them. If it be said, that it is not requisite that a man should know this of himselfe, but only that he be so indeed; I must needs professe, that being told before hand that such he must be, if he undertake this worke, I am not able to discerne how he should attempt it, and not proclaime himselfe, to have an opinion of his owne qualifications, answerable to that which is required of him.

3. It is of some consideration, that a man that doth not know so much of him as I do, would by his writings take him to be immitis and immisericors, a very Achilles, that will not pardon a man in his grave; but will take him up, and cut him in a thousand peices. I verily beleive, that if a man (who had nothing else to do,) should gather into one heape all the expressions, which in his late bookes, confessions, and Apologies, have a lovely Aspect towards himselfe, as to Ability, Diligence, sincerity, on the one hand, with all those which are full of Reproach and contempt towards others, on the other, the view of them could not but a litle startle a man of so great modesty, & of such eminency in the mortification of pride as M. B. is. B…t

foreign

foreign.

Had I not heard him professe how much he vallued the peace of the Church, and declare what his endeavours for it were; I could not but suppose upon evidences which I am unwilling to repeat together, that an humour of disputing and quarelling was very predominant in the man: however though a profession may passe against all evidences of fact to the contrary whatever; yet I dare say that he lives not at foreign.

p. 6That he hath been able to discerne the positions he opposes in the begining of his eighth chapter to be contained in any writings of mine, as maintained by me, I must impute to such a sharpsightednesse, as was that of Caius Caligula; to whom, when he enquired of Vitellius whether he saw him not embracing the moone, Dio.it was replyd, solis (domine) vobis diis licet invicem videre.

What shall I then doe? shall I put forth a Creed, or an Apologie to make it appeare, that indeed I am not concerned in any of Mr. Baxtor's Contests; but.

1 I dare not look upon my selfe of any such consideration to the world, as to write bookes to give them an account of my selfe, (with whom they very little trouble their thoughts) to tell them my faith and belief, to acquaint them when I am well, and when I am sick, what sinne I have mortified most, what books I have read, how I have studied, how I goe, and walk, and look, what one of my neighbours sayes of me, and what another; how I am praised by some, and dispraised by others, what I doe, and what I would have others doe, what diligence, impartiality, uprightness I use, what I thinke of other men: so dealing unmercifully with perishing paper, and making books by relating to my selfe, worthy deferri in vicum vendentem thus & odores,

Et piper, & quicquid chartis amicitur ineptis; And I should plainely shew my selfe foreign.

2 I know there is no need of any such thing; for all that know me, or care to know me, know ful well, that in and about the doctrine of justification by faith, I have no singular opinion of my own, but embrace the common known doctrine of the Reformed Churches, which by God's good Assistance in due time, I shall further explicate and vindicate from Papists, Socinians, and Arminians; I Apollidorus.cannot complaine, that foreign. I have companions and councellours. And in truth it is very marveilous to some, that this learned Person, who hath manifested so great a tendernesse on his own behalfe, as to call their books monsters, and themselves lyars, who charged his opinion about justification with a Coincidence with that of the Papists, should himselfe so freely impute Antinomianisme to others, an opinion which he esteemes as bad, if not every way worse then that of the Papists about justification; but contenti simus hoc Catone; which is all I shall say, though some would adde;

p. 7Homine imperito nunquam quidquam injustius

Qui nisi quod ipse facit nihil rectum putat.

3 I must adde, if for a defensative of my selfe, I should here transcribe and subscribe some Creed already published, I must profess, it must not be that of M. B. (pag. 12, 13,) which he cals the Worcester-shire profession of faith; and that as for other Reasons, so especially for the way of delivering the Doctrine of the Trinity, which but in one expression at most differs from the knowne confession of the Socinians: & in sundry particulars, gives to great a countenance to their abominations: For instance, the first Article of it, is, I believe that there is one only God, the Father, infinite in being, &c: which being carryed on toward the end, and joyned to the profession of Consent, as it is called, in these words, I doe heartily take this one God, for my only God and chiefest good, and this Jesus Christ for my only Lord Redeemer and Saviour, evidently distinguishes the Lord Jesus Christ our Redeemer, as our Lord, from that one true God; which not only directly answers that Question of M. Biddles, how many Lords of Christians are there in distinction from this one God, but in tearmes falls in with that which the Socinians professe to be the tessera of their Sect, and Churches, as they call them, which is, that they believe in the one true living God the father, and in his only Sonne Jesus Christ our Lord. Nor am I at so great an indifferency in the businesse of the procession of the Holy Ghost, as to those expressions of, from, and by the sonne, as that confession is at; knowing that there is much more depends on these expressions as to the doctrine of the Trinity, then all the Confessionists can readily apprehend. But yet here, that we may not have occasion to say foreign! I doe freely clear the Subscribers of that Confession from any sinister opinion of the Trinity, or the Deity of Jesus Christ, though as to my selfe I suppose my Reasons aboundantly sufficient to detaine me frō a subscription of it. But if this course be not to be insisted on, shall I

3 Runne over all the Confessions of Faith, and Common places which I have, or may have here at Oxford, and manifest my Consent with them in the matter under Question. I confess this were a pretty easy way to make up a great booke: but for many reasons it suits not with my judgment, although I could have the Advantage of giving what they positively deliver in Abundance as their maine Thesis, and foundation, without cutting off discourses p. 8from their Connexion and coherence, to give them a new face and Appearance, which in their own proper place they had not, or to gather up their Concessions to the Adversaries to one purpose, and applying them to another: And therefore I shall wholy wave that way of procedure, although I might by it, perhaps keep up some good reputation with the Orthodox.

To have passed over then this whole business in silence would have seemed to me much the best course, had I not seen a man of so great integrity and impartiality, as Mr. B. (who so much complaines of want of Candour and Truth in others) counting it so necessary to vindicate himselfe from imputations, as to multiply books- and Apologies to that end and purpose, and that under the chaines of very strong importunities, and entreaties to turne the course of his studies and paines to things more useful; wherein his labours, (as he saies) have met with excessive estimation and prayses. And may doubtless well do so, there being (as he informes us) too few divines that are diligently & impartially studious of Truth: and fewer that have strong judgments, that are able to discerne it, though they doe study it. (Pref.) which though Mr. B. arrogates not to himselfe, yet others may doe well to ascribe to him. I hope then he will not be offended, if in this I follow his steps, though haud passibus aequis: and, longo post intervallo. Only in this I shall desire to be excused, if, seeing the things of my selfe are very inconsiderable, and whatever I can write on that Account being like the discourses of men returning è lacu furno{que}, that I multiply not leaves to no purpose. I shall then desire

1. To enter my Protest, that I doe not engage with Mr. B. upon the termes and conditions by him prescribed in his Preface; as though I were wiser, or better, or more learned then he; being fully assured, that a man more unlearned then either of us, and lesse studied, may reprove and convince us of Errours; and that we may deale so with them, who are much more learned then us both.

2 To premise, that I doe not deliver my thoughts and whole judgment in the businesse of the Justification of a sinner: which to doe, I have designed another opportunity, foreign, and shall not now prevent my selfe.

These things being premised, I shall

1. Set downe what I have delivered concerning the 3 heads, wherein it is pretended the difference lyes between us.

p. 92. Pass through the Consideration of the Particular places, where M. B. is pleased to take notice of me and my judgment and Arguments, as to the things of the Contests, wherein he is engaged: And this course I am necessitated unto; because as M. B. states the Controversies he pursues in the beginning of the eighth Chapter, I profess my selfe wholly unconcerned in them.

The things then that I am traduced for maintaining and giving countenance unto, are

1. The justification of the Elect from Eternity.

2. Their Justification at the Death of Christ, as dying and suffering with him.

3. Their Absolution in heaven before their believing.

4. That Justification by Faith, is nothing but a sense of it in the Conscience.

5. That Christ suffered the idem which we should have done; and not only tantundem. Of all which very briefly.

1. For the first, I neither am, nor ever was of that judgment; though, as it may be explained, I know better, wiser, and more learned men then my selfe, that have been, and are. This I once before told M. B. and desired him to beleive me, (Of the Death of Christ pag. 33.) If he will not yet do it, I cannot help it.

2. As to the second, I have also entreated M. B. to believe that it is not my judgment in that very booke on which he animadverts; and hoped I might have obtained Credit with him, he having no evidence to the Contrary: (let the Reader see what I deliver to this Purpose pag. 34. 35) In what sense I maintaine that the Elect dyed and rose with Christ, see pag. 82. 83. 84.

3. The third, or Absolution in heaven before beleiving. What I meane hereby I explaine pag. 77. and 79. (Let it be consulted.)

It was, on I know not what grounds, before by M. B. imposed on me, that I maintained Justification upon the Death of Christ before beleiving: which I did with some earnestness reject, & proved by sundry Arguments, that we are not changed in our state and Condition before we do beleive. Certainly never was man more violently prest to a warfare, then I to this contest.

4. That Justification by Faith is nothing but a sense of it in conscience, I never said, I never wrote, I never endeavoured to prove. What may a man expect from others who is so dealt withall by a man whose writings so praise him, as M. B's. do.

p. 105. For the last thing, what I affirme in it, what I beleive in it, what I have proved, the preceding Treatise will give an account to the Reader. And for my judgment in these things, this little at present may suffice. M. B's. Animadversions, in the Order wherein they lye, shall nextly be considered.

The first express mention that I am honoured withall is towards the end of his Preface, occasioned only by a passage in my briefe Proeme to M. Eyres his booke of Justification. My words as by him transcribed are: For the present I shall only say, that there being too great evidence of a very welcome Entertainment and Acceptation, given by many to an almost pure Socinian Justification, and exposition of the Covenant of Grace &c. To which M. B. subjoynes: But to be almost an errour, is to be a truth. There is but a thre… between Truth and errour, and that which is not neere to that errour, is not Truth, but is liker to be another errour, in the other extreme. For Truth is one strait line, Errour is manifold, even all that swerves from that line in what space or degree soever.

Malum omen! and the worse because of choice; whether this Arist: Rhet: lib. 2. cap. 26.proceed foreign, or whether it be foreign it matters not; but I am sure it is sophisticall. The Doctrine of Justification, which I reflected on; I did not say was neere to Errour, or almost an Errour, but neere to Socinianisme or almost Socinian: If M. B. takes Errour and Socinianisme to be termes convertible, I must crave liberty to dissent. That which is almost errour, is true: but that which is almost Socinianisme may be quite an Errour, though not an errour quite so bad, as that of the Socinians concerning the same matter. He that shall deny the imputation of the Righteousnesse of Christ, and maintaine that our performance of new obedience is the matter of our Justification before God, according to the tenour of the New Covenant, and yet grant the satisfaction of Christ, and assigne it a place (some or other) in the businesse of our Justification, his doctrine is but almost Socinian, and yet in my Judgment is altogether an Errour. And so the heat of this first Conflict is allayed, Pulveris exigui jactu: Its foundation having been only foreign.

But notwithstanding this seeming discharge, perhaps it may be said, that indeed this was not an honest Insinuation; there being no such doctrines abroad amongst us, as hold any blameable correspondency with the Socinian doctrine of justification; And it is not p. 11an ingenious and candid way of proceeding, to seeke to oppresse truths, or at least opinions, that are managed with a faire and learned plea, with names of publique Abomination, with which indeed they have no cōmunion. I confess this is an unworthy course, a path wherein I am not desirous to walke: I shall therefore from their owne writings give the Reader a briefe summary in some few propositions, of the doctrine of the Socinians concerning justification, and then nakedly without deprecating his censure, leave him to judg of the necessity and candor of my forementioned expressions. They say then, that

1. Justifying faith, or that faith whereby we are justifyed, is our receiving of Christ, as our Lord & Saviour, trusting in him, and yeilding obedience to him.

Credere in Jesum Christum, nihil aliud est, quàm Jesu Christo confidere, & idcirco ex ejus praescripto vitam instituere. Socin: Justificat: Synop: 2. p. 17. fides est fiducia per deum in Christum, unde apparet, eam in Christo fidem duo comprehendere: unum, ut non solùm deo, verùm & Christo confidamus: deinde ut deo obtemperemus, &c: Catech: Racov: Cap: 9. de fide: vide Volkel. de verâ religione, lib: 4. Cap: 3. p. 179, 180. Smalc: refut: Thes: Franz: disput: 4. p. 103. & disp: 6. p. 184. Credere in Christum nihil aliud est; quàm illi confidere, hoc est, ipsi, sub spe promissionum, ab eo nobis factarum, obedire &c. Smalc: Refut: Thes. Franz: disp: 7. p 209. sides in Christum, est, fiduciam in eum collocare, & credere illū esse omnibus obtemperantibus sibi aeternae salutis causam. Si propriè & stricte sumatur ab obedientiâ differt. Sed per Metonymiam quandam synechdochicam, saepe tam latè sumitur, ut omnia pietatis & justitiae opera comprehendat: Schlicting: Comment: in Cap: 11. ad Heb: p. 519. Quid est Credere in nomen Christi? Res: eum excipere, ejus dictis fidem habere, ei confidere, ei denique obtemperare: Dialog: Anon: de justifi: p. 4. Ex his quae hactenus dicta sunt, satis intelligi potest, etiamsi verissimum sit, quemadmodum scriptura apertissimè testatur, nos per mortem Christi, perque Sanguinis ejus fusionem servatos esle, nostraque peccata deleta fuisse, non tantùm hoc ipsum credere, esse eam fidem in Christum, quâ, ut Sacrae literae docent, justificamur, id quod multi & olim putarunt, & hodie putant, adeóque similiter credunt: longè enim aliud est, istud credere, & sub spe p. 12vitae aeternae ab ipso consequendae, Christo obedire; quod necessario requiri ad justificationem nostram, antea à nobis demonstratum est. fragment: de justifi: Faust: Socin: Opusc: p. 115. That

2. Faith in justifying is not to be considered as an hand whereby we lay hold on the righteousness of another, or as an instrument, as though Righteousness were provided for us, & tendred unto us, which would overthrow all necessity of being Righteous in our selves.

Patet quàm ineptè Meisnerus fidem vocet causam instrumentalem, quâ justificationem (seu justitiam) apprehendamus, seu recipiamus; patet denique quàm falsò (qui error ex priore Consequitur) fidem, quae virtus aut opus est, justificare neget Quid magis perversum, & Sacris literis adversum dici potuit? parum nobis fuerat, omnes reliquas virtutes, & pia opera, à comparandâ nobis salute excludere, nisi etiam ipsam in deo fidem, virtutum omnium matrem & reginam, de suo solio deturbatam, tam faedâ ignominiâ notasset fidem perverse prorsus intelligitis, non enim tanquam conditionem adipiscendae justificationis consideratis, sed tanquam instrumentum vel manum &c: Jo: Schlicting: disput: pro Faust: Socin: ad Meisner: p. 129. 130, 131. de eo quod homo justitiam accipiat, nihil legitur in sacris literis, & si id explicetur ex mente adversariorum, ridicula est fabula; fides verò non est accuratè loquendo causa instrumentalis, sed causa sine qua non (efficiens) justificationis nostrae: Smal: Refut: Thes: Franz: disp: 4. p. 103.

3. Nor yet doth faith, repentance, or obedience, procure our justification, or is the efficient or meritorious cause thereof.

Ut autem cavendum est, ne ut bodie pleriq, faciunt, vitae fanctimoniam at{que} innocentiam, effectū justificationis nostrae coram deo esse dicamus; sic diligenter cavere debemus, ne ipsā vitae sanctitatē at{que} innocentiam, justificationem nostrá coram deo esse credamus, neve illam nostrae justificationis coram deo causam efficientē, aut impulsivam esse affirmemus. Sed tantummodo &c: Socin: Justifi: Synop: 2. p. 14. fides justificationem non meretur, neque est ejus causa efficiens; non ignoramus fidei nostrae nequaquam esse ea merita, quibus justificatio quâ sempiterna continetur felicitas, tanquam merces debita, sit tribuenda. Hinc porrò consequitur, fidem istam, quamvis obedientiam & pietatem in se comprehendat, nequaquam tamen per se, & principaliter efficere, ut justificationis p. 13beneficium consequamur. Volkel. de verâ Relig. lib. 4. cap. 3. pag. 181. Smal. Refut. Thes. Franz. disput. 4, 5, 7: obedientia nostra quam Christo praestamus, nec efficiens, nec meritoria causa est nostrae justificationis. Socin Thes. de justif. p. 17. vide Anonym. Dialog. de justif. pag. 32.

4 But the true use of our faith (and repentance) as to our justification before God, is, that they are the causa sine quâ non, or the condition whereby according to the appointment of God, we come to be justified: and so is imputed to us:

Diligenter cavere debemus, ne vitae sanctitatem & innocentiam, justificationem nostram coram Deo esse credamus, neve illam nostrae coram Deo justificationis causam efficientem, aut impulsivam esse affirmemus, sed tantummodo causam sine quâ eam justificationem nobis non contingere decrevit Deus. Socin. Synop. justif. 2. p. 14. id à nobis revera exegit, ut in Christum credamus, vitam emendaremus (quam conditionem Salvâ sanctitate & majestate suâ non poterat non exigere) Crel. de Causis mort. Christi. pag. 5. Interim tamen sic habendum est, cum Deus non nisi illis, qui fidem virtutémque pro suâ virili parte colunt, vitam sempiternam designaverit, fiduciam istam ne quidem causam meritoriam, aut principaliter efficientem, sed causam sine quâ non (ut loquuntur) justificationis nostrae esse. Volkel. de verâ Relig. lib. 4. cap. 3 pag. 181. Quod verò ad nos pertinet, non aliter reipsa justi coram Deo habemur, & delictorum nostrorum veniam ab ipso consequimur, quàm si in Jes. Chris. credamus. Socin. Justif. Synop. 2. pag. 11.

Itáque nemo justificatus est coram Deo, nisi priùs Christo confidat, eique obediat. Quae obedientia sunt illa opera ex quibus nos justificari Jacobus Apostolus affirmat. Socin Thes. de justif. pag. 14. Sunt enim opera nostra, id est, ut dictum fuit, obedientia, quam Christo praestamus, licèt nec efficiens nec meritoria, tamen causa (ut vocant) Sine quâ non justificationis coram Deo, atque aeternae salutis nostrae, id. ibid. imputatur nobis a Deo id quod revera in nobis est, non aliquid quod à nobis absit, vel in alio sit, nempe quod firmiter in animo decreverimus nihil dubitantes de Dei promissionibus, neque considerantes nostram infirmitatem nos propositum fidei certamen decurrere velle. Anonym. Dialog. de justifi. pag. 29. (haec vero corrigit Faustus Socin. Notae in Dial. pag. 64. beatitatem & remissionem peccatorum p. 14nobis imputari asserens.) Certum est ex Sacris literis requiri ad hoc, ut quis consequatur apud Deum Remissionem peccatorum, & ita coram Deo justificetur, ut de illo meritò dici possit, quod pactum Dei servet. Fragment de justif. Apparet Paulum absolutè intelligere opera quaecún… tandem illa sunt. Quod tamen non eam vim habet, ut à causâ justificationis nostrae omnium quaecun{que} opera, & quocun{que} modo considerata, excludere velit. Sed sensus ipsius est, nulla esse opera quae tanti sint, ut propter ipsorum meritum justificari possimus. Quando scilicet nemo est, qui perfectissimè & integerrimè per totam vitam, ea opera faciat, quae sub vetere sive sub novo Testamento praescripta sunt, id quod tamen omnino requiritur, sive requiretur ad hoc, ut pro ipsâ operâ tanquam ejus rei aliquo modo meritoria, justificatio contingeret. Diximus autem aliquo modo meri toria, ut ab ipsis operibus excludamus, non modò absolutum & maximè proprium meritum, quod oritur ex ipsâ operum praestantiâ per se consideratâ. Sed etiam illud, quod minùs propriè & respectivè meritum est, quod ex solo Dei promisso oritur ac proficiscitur, adeò ut nemo nec per illud, neque per hoc meritum, suorum operum justificationem, & absolutionem a peccatis suis, adipiscatur, &c. vid. Plu. fragm. de justificat. Faust. Socin. pag. 110. Cum Paulus negat nos ex operibus justificari, considerat opera tanquam meritoria, & sua ipsorum vi hominem justificantia, & consequenter ejusmodi, quibus si ad Dei praeceptum examinentur, nihil prorsus desit; at Jacobus operum nomine eam obedientiam intelligit; sine quâ Deus hominem sibi carum habere non vult; seu mavis opera ejusmodi sine quid bus dici nequeat, ullâ ratione hominem Deo obedire: ex hâc collatione ipsorum duorum Pauli & Jacobi locorum, & sententiarum, manifestum est, quemadmodum ad justificationem nostram non requiritur necessario perfecta obedientia mandatorum Dei, sic ad eandem justificationem omnino requiri, ut Dei mandata ita conservaremus, ut meritò dici possit nos Deo obedientes esse. Fragm. Faust. pag. 122.

5 That our justification, is our Absolution from the guilt of sinne, and freedome from abnoxiousness unto punishment for it, and nothing else. Our Regeneration is the …nudition of our Absolution, and in them both, in several respects, is our Righteousness. p. 15Justificatio est cum nos Deus pro justis habet, quod eâ ratione facit, cum nobis & peccata remittit, & jus vitae donat. Catech. Racov. cap. 11. de Justificat: Justificatio nihil aliud est, quam peccatorum Remissio. Schlcting. contra Trinit. pag. 147. Justificatio nostra coram Deo, ut uno verbo dicam, nihil aliud est quam à Deo pro justis haberi: hoc vero fit per absolutionem peccatorum. Socin. Synop. Justif. 2. pag. 11. Justificatio nihil aliud est, quam pro justo habere, itemque peccata remittere & condonare. id. pag. 13. 14. Quaero primùm quid sit Justificatio? R. peccatorum absolutio Anon. (ni fallor O storod) dial: de Justifi: p. 2. Hic tacitè continetur ea sententia, quam nos supra ab initio attigimus, & non obscurè refutavimus, justificationonē vid: à justo faciendo dici, & à justitiâ ac sanctitate quâ quis sit praeditus; cum tamen certissimum sit, justificationem in Sacris literis aliud nihil significare, quàm justum pronuntiare, sive ut justum tractare. Faust. Socin. notae in Dial. de justif. pag. 60. Sed manifestum est Paulum negare, non modò ex operibus legis, sed simpliciter, ex operibus nos justificari; Itáque aliâ ratione omnino est hic nodus solvendus, & dicendum, Paulum, operum nomine non quae libet opera intelligere, nec quolibet modo accepto, sed quae suâ vi hominem justum coram Deo reddere possunt, cum negat nos ex operibus justificari, qualis est absoluta & perpetua per totum vitae curriculum legis divinae observatio Faust. Socin. notae in Dial. de Justif. pag. 74.

Formalis itáque (ut ita loquar) justificatio nostra coram Deo fuit, & semper erit, propter carnis nostrae infirmitatem, remissio peccatorum nostrorum, non autem impletio divinae legis, quod Paulus operari vocat. Veruntamen nulli re ipsâ conceditur ista remissio, nisi Deo confisus fuerit, seque ipsi regendum & gubernandum tradiderit. Faust. Socin. Epist. ad Virum Clariss. de fide & operibus.

6 That the way whereby we come to obtaine this absolution is this: Jesus Christ the only Son of God, being sent by him to reveal his love and Grace to lost sinful mankind, in that work yeilding obedience unto God even unto death, was for a reward of that obedience, exalted, and had divine authority over them for whom he dyed, committed to him, to pardon and save them, which accordingly he doth, upon the performance of the condition of faith and obedience by him prescribed p. 16to them, at once effecting an universal conditional application of all: actually justifying every individual upon the performance of the Condition.

Ipsi Jesu, tantam in coelo & terrâ, tanquam obedientiae scilicet usque ad mortem crucis insigne praemium, potestatem dedit, ut eis, &c. Socin. Synop. Justific. 1. pag. 4. Interea tamen haudquaquam negamus, Christi mortem, conditionem quandam fuisse remissionis peccatorum nobis concedendae: quatenus conditio fuit Christo imposita, sine quâ potestatem obtinere ex Dei decreto non potuit, peccata nobis remittendi, & nos ab aeterno interitu vindicandi. Crel. de Caus. mort. Christ. pag. 8. (Paulus ea à fide opera removet, quae perpetuam perfectissimámque, per omnem vitae cursum obedientiam continent. Jacobus ergo ea intelligit Volkel. de verâ Relig. lib. 4. cap. 3. pag. 180. ad 461.) vide plura.

Quia nos Christus ab aeternâ morte liberavit, & ut nos liberare posset, mortuus est, jure dicitur eum pro nobis, & pro peccatis nostris mortuum esse, & sanguinem ipsius nos emundare à peccatis: neque enim nos dicimus, Christum ob hoc vel solum vel principale obedivisse, ut nos ad se imitandum extimularet, sed constantissime affirmamus, illum ideò patri suo obedientem, & pro nobis mortuum fuisse, ut potestatem divinam, interveniente morte sua, consecutus, salutem nostram administrare, & tandem reipsâ perficere posset. Smal. Refut. Thes. Fran. disp. 4. pag. 108. Quamvis autem certissimum ac testatissimum sit, Jesum Christum Dei filium sanguinem suum in remissionem peccatorum nostrorum fudisse: Tamen ipsa mors Christi per se sine Resurrectione, &c. Socin. Thes. de justific. Thes. 3. vid. fragm. de justificat. pag. 115.

7. That as to good works, and their place in this business, Paul speaks of the perfect works of the law, and legal manner of justifying, which leave no place for Grace or pardon: James of Gospel works of new obedience, which leave place for both.

Sola fides justificat, at non quatenus sola, praesertim side plenâ & permanente justificatione loquamur, quatenus quibusvis bonis operibus opponitur. Hoc est particula exclusiva sola, non quaevis opera, sed opera de quibus Apostolus loquitur, opera legis, opera plena, ob quae non secundum gratiam justificatio imputatur, p. 17sed secundum debitum tribuitur, excludit. Non excludit autem ullo pacto opera ex fide provenientia, cum Jacobus expertissimè doceat, hominem justificari ex operibus, non ex fide tantùm: Schlichting disput. pro Socin. ad Meisner. pag. 290. 291. In iis locis, ubi Apostolus fidem operibus opponit, de operibus ejusmodi agit, quae & perfectam & perpetuam obedientiam continent, qualem sub lege Deus ab hominibus requirebat: Verùm non de iis operibus, quae obedientiam, quam Deus à nobis qui in Christum credidimus, requirat, comprehendunt. Racov. Catech. cap. 9. de fide. Hinc jam demum intelligo non bona opera, quae Deus ipse praeparavit, sed legis opera à justificatione nostrâ excludi. Anonym. Dial. de Justif. pag. 47.

8 That the denial of our faith and obedience to be the condition of our justification, or the asserting that we are justified by the obedience of Christ imputed to us, is the ready way to overthrow all obedience, and drive all holyness and Righteousness out of the world.

Quod Christus factus sit nobis à Deo justitia. 1 Cor. 1. 3. id minimè eo sensu dici, quasi loco nostri legem impleverit, sic ut nobis deinceps ipsius justitia imputetur, &c. Schlicting ad Meisn. disput. pro Socin. pag. 277. Tertius error est, Deum imputare credentibus innocentiam & justitiam Christi: Non innocentiam, non justitiam Christi Deus imputat credentibus, sed fidem illorum illis imputat pro justitiâ. Smal. refut. Thes. Franz disput. 4. p. 104. alterum est extremum, quod vulgò receptum est, non sine summâ animarum pernicie; Videlicet, ad justificationem nostram nihil prorsus bona opera pertinere, nisi quatenus sunt ipsius justificationis effecta. Ubi qui ita sentiuut &c. idem.

9 That as the beginning, so the continuance of our justification, depends on the condition of our faith, repentance, and obedience, which are not fruits consequent of it; but conditions antecedent to it. Socin. Thes. de justificat. p. 18. Fragmenta de justific. p. 113 and therefore in the first place we are to be sollicitous about what is within us, about our sanctification, before our absolution, or justification. Socin. Epist ad Ch. M N. de fide & operibus. Sic tandem apparet vestigationem nostram circa ea esse debere, quae in nobis invenientur, cum justificati sumus-Quocirca p. 18diligenter primùm vestigare debemus an res istae, sive utráque, five una tantùm, & utra (si modò res diversae sint) ad nos justificandos pertineat, ac deinde quid sint, aut quales esse debeant, ne erremus, nobisque videamur illas habere, cùm tamen longè ab eis absimus. Quod enim ad misericordiam Dei attinet, Christique personam, una cum iis omnibus quae idem Christus pro nobis fecit, & facturus est, quamvis hae sunt verae, & praecipuae causae justificationis nostrae, tamen aut jam illarum sumus, erimúsve participes, antequam intra nos certum aliquid sit, & sic supervacaneum est de illis cogitare, quatenus per ea justificari velimus: aut illarum, nec jam sumus, nec futuri erimus participes, nisi priùs intra nos certum aliquid sit, & sic de hoc accuratè quaerere debemus, id autem nihil est, praeter fidem & opera. Socin.

10 As to the death of Christ, our sinnes were the impulsive cause of it, and it was undergone for the forgiveness of sins, and occasioned by them only, and is in some sence, the condition of our forgeivness.

Causa impulsiva externa sunt peccata nostra, quod itidem apertè Sacrae literae docent, dum aiunt, Christum propter peccata nostra percussum, vulneratum, & traditum esse. Crel. de Caus. mort. Chris. p. 2. What was the procuring cause of Christ's death?

A: He was delivered for offences, Biddles Cat. Chap. 12. p. 69: Though some (not of them) say, that his death was rather occasioned, then merited by sinne; as they speak sometimes. Finis ideo mortis Christi, ut sacrae literae sat apertè docent, est remissio peccatorum nostrorum, & vitae nostrae emendatio, ad quorum finem priorem vel solùm, vel potissimum, illi loquendi modi referendi sunt: Cum dicitur Christum mortuum esse pro peccatis nostris, seu pro nobis. Crel. de caus. mort. Christ. pag. 1.

11 That absolution and pardon of sinne are by no meanes, the immediate effects of the death of Christ.

Cùm Sacrae Scripturae asserunt Christum aut pro peccatis nostris, aut pro nobis esse mortuum, aut sanguinem ejus esse effusum in remissionem peccatorum, & siqua sint his similia, eorum verborum ea vis non est, ut significent omnino effectum illum, qui morti Christi in his locutionibus tribuitur, proximè fuisse p. 19ex eâ consecutos. Crell. de Caus. mort. Christi. p. 35.

And now let the Christian Reader judge, whether I had any just occasion for the expressions above mentioned or no; if he be resolved that those wordes had better been omitted, I shall only profess my selfe in a very great readinesse to passe by such mistakes in others, but leave my selfe to his censure.

And with this touch by the way am I (as farre as I have observed) dismissed to the eighth chapter; where all that I am concerned in will receive an equally speedy dispatch.

In the entrance of that Chapter, M. B. laies downe two propositions that he rejects, and another that he intends to prove.

Those he rejects were before mentioned, and my concernment in them spoken to.

That which he proposes unto confirmation, is:

The Justification by Faith, so called in the Scripture, is not the knowledge or feeling of Justification before given, or a Justification in, and by our own Conscience, or terminated in conscience; but is somewhat that goes before all such Justification as this is, and is indeed a Justification before God.

There is but one Expression in all this Proposition, that I am concerned in; which the Reader may easily discover to be pluckt into the thesis by head and eares! & that is, terminated in conscience. What it is I intend by that Expression, or what inconsistency it hath with that M. B. asserts in pretēded oppositiō unto it, he doth not explain Now I say, that in the sense, wherein I affirme that Justification is terminated in conscience, I may yet also affirme, and that suitably to the utmost intention of mine in that expression, that Justification by Faith is not a knowledge or feeling of Justification before given, nor a justification in, or by our own Consciences, but somewhat that goes before all such justification as this is, and is a justification before God; I am then utterly unconcerned in all M. B'. Arguments ensuing, but only those that prove and evince, that our justification before God is not terminated in our Consciences: which when I can find them out, I will do my endeavour to answer them, or renounce my Opinion. I find indeed in some of his following Conclusions the words mentioned; but I suppose he thought not himselfe that they were any way influenced from his Premises. I know he will not aske, what I meane then by terminated in Conscience; seeing it would not be honourable for him to have answered a matter, p. 20before he understood it. But upon this Expression chiefly is it, that I am enrolled into the troope of Antinomians.

—foreign

foreign.

But that is in the matter of lawes; these are but words. Now though I have just cause to abstain from calling in Associates in my Judgment, least I should bring them under the Suspicion of Antinomianisme; (though not of the ruder sort) (pag. 190.) or at least of laying the foundation of Antinomianisme, which M. Burg. after all his paines against them, is said to do: (Praef:) (but the best is, he does it superficially and without proofe) (Praef:) …nd although I cannot come up to the judgment of the man, whom I shall name; yet being he is deservedly of good esteeme in the judgment of others, and particularly of M. B. for his opposition to the Antinomians, I will for once make use of his Authority for my shield in this businesse; and see if in this storme I can lye safe behind it. It is M. Rutherfurt, who in his learned Exercitations De gratiâ. Exercit: 1. Cap. 2. Tit Quomodo justificamur fide; having treated of the matter of Justification pag. 44. thus proceeds: Dicent ergò Arminiani, nos hic justificationem sumère pro sensu & notitiâ justificationis: ideóque Homines fide justificantur, idem valet, ac Homines tum demum justificantur, quando credunt, hoc est, sentiunt se justificari, cùm anteà essent justificati. Nugae & tricae siculae! nan… justificari est plus quàm sentire se justificari: Nam (1) est Actus dei absolventis terminatus in conscientiâ hominis, citati & tracti ad tribunale tremendi judicis; qui actus ante hoc instans non terminabatur in conscientiâ &c. Now if this man be an Antinomian, I am sure he much mistakes himselfe; and yet he saies justification may be terminated in conscience and, yet not be a sense of an antecedent justification, nor from Eternity.

But how it may fare with him, I cannot guesse; M. Pemble, and D. Twisse, (quanta nomina) are in the next page recounted as the Assertors of the position here opposed by M. B. & indeed as to some part of it they are; by yet, if I durst say it, they were not Antinomians: but M. B. knowes these things better then I.

But what say I to the whole position? pag: 190. One learned man (so am I called, that the sacrifice may not fall without some flowers on it's head; which I professedly shake off, and dare not owne my name amongst them who are, or ought to be so stil'd) saith, that Absolution p. 21solution in heaven, and justification differ as part and whole, and that justification is terminated in conscience, and so makes a longer worke of justification then they, that say it is simul & semel, or then I, whom M. Cr. blames for it; and so that whole begun in eternall Absolution, (or … Christ's death,) and ended in conscience, should contain immanent and transient Acts together, and no small number of our owne, as there described.

Ans. Though I do not perfectly understand the Coherence of these words, yet the intendment of them being more obvious (and being my selfe in great hast) I shall not stay to make any further enquiry thereabout.

What I meane by Absolution in heaven, the Reader if he please may see, chap: 12. pag: 75. 76, 77, 78. of that Treatise, whence M. B. urges these expressions: It is neither eternall Absolution, nor Absolution from Christ's death (if from denote a simulty of time, and not a connexion in respect of causality, in which sense M. B. will not deny that Absolution is from Christs death) but an Absolution at the time of actuall justification, when God gives Christ to us, and with him all things, that I intend.

That by asserting this Absolution in heaven, and justification to differ as part and whole, and justification to be terminated in conscience, I make longer worke of it, then those, who say it is simul & semet, is said; simul & semel, referre unto time, I expresly affirme as M. B. knowes (or ought to have knowne,) that there is in these things an order of Nature only. At the same time wherein God absolves us in heaven, (the terme of the stipulation for our deliverance being accomplished) by reckoning Christ to us, or in making him righteousness to us, He infuses a principle of life into our soules, whereby radically, and virtually the whole is accomplished.

That actuall justification should containe permanent and transient Acts together, and that it is so by me described, is affirmed by a failure of M. B's memory. Having made this entrance and progresse, adding the judgment of some, whom he cals most learned and judicious (as he is perspicax ingeniorum arbiter) He concludes his first section in these words: so that howsoever some by plausible words would put a better face on it, the sense of all seemes to be the same, that Justification by Faith is the revelation of God in, and by the conscience, that we are formerly justified; and so their justification p. 22by faith, is the same that we commonly call the Assurance or knowledg of our Justification, in some degrees at least, I prove the contrary: and so fals he into his Arguments.

That this is my sense, I profess I knew not before; and should be sorry I should dwell so little at home, that M. B. …uld know me, and my mind, better then I do my selfe. I looke upon him as my friend: and

foreign,

foreign.

But yet he may possibly be mistaken; for the present I will make bold to deny this to be my sense, and referre the Reader for Evidence to be given to my negation, unto that chapter of my booke, whence M. B. gathers my sense and meaning. Let them then that are concerned looke to his following Arguments (especially those two whom he affirmes to have more wit then the rest, p: 204.) and wo be to them, if they find as many distinct mediums as there are figures hung up as signes of new Arguments. For my owne part, whatever my thoughts are to the whole businesse pleaded about, I shall not, (be they as mean and base as can be imagined;) cast them away in such a scambling Chase as this. Only whereas pag. 205. speaking to some body, (I know not whom) whom he acknowledges to have some learning and wit, he saies, that the Act of the promise, law, or grant, constituting Right, giving Title, remitting the obligation to punishment, in its selfe, is totally distinct from the Act of declaring this to our selves, which is said to be terminated in conscience, and is before it, and may be without it &c. I shall (if it please him) desire, that it may only with a little alteration be thus rendred; The Act of the promise (not that I approve that expression, but at present it will serve the turne) giving Right &c. is compleat Justification by Faith, and is in its selfe totally distinct from, and in order of time before any act of God justifying terminated in our consciences, and proved with one cleare Testimony or Argument speaking to the termes and sense of the proposition, And I shall confess my selfe, as to what I have as yet published of my judgment about this business, to be concerned in the discourse; and so passing through the pikes of 56 Arguments, I come to the ninth chapter where I am againe called to an account; Three things doth M. B. propose to confirmation in this chapter.

1. That the Elect are not justified from eternity.

p. 232. That they are not justified at Christ's death.

3. Not while they are infidells and impenitent.

Any man living would wonder how I should come to stand in his way in this chapter. But strong currents sometimes passe their bounds in their courses, and bare all before them. Reall, or reputed success gives great thoughts and pretexts for any thing, foreign (Demost: Olymp:) In the very Treatise which M. B. considers in these imputations, I have expresly denyed, (and in particular to M. B.) that I maintaine any one of these; if he should send but his servant, and tell me, that he is not to be found in such an opinion, I would believe him. But quid verba audiat facta cum videat? If I do maintaine them indeed, must I be believed upon my deniall? but, en tabulas! let my booke traduced be consulted. I dispute as well as I can against justification from eternity; and that I cannot do it like M. B. is my unhappinesse, not my Crime; I hope every one must not be sentenced to be of an opinion which he canot confute so learnedly, as another more learned man may. For justification at the death of Christ (though I must assure the Reader, that I have other thoughts of the great Transaction of the business of our salvation in the person of our Representative, then are consistent with M. B's. principles, or then I have yet published, wherein I have the consent of persons as eminently insighted in the mystery of the Gospell, as any I know in the world) I directly affirme, and endeavour to prove that the Elect are not then actually justified; but notwithstanding what is done for them, untill their owne actuall believing, they are obnoxious to the law &c. as at large chap. 12. p. 75. of that Treatise, which includes the last particular also.

But we must proceed, non qua eundum est sed qua itur; in the entrance of his ninth chapter M. B. attempts to prove, that the Elect are not justified from eternity, and concludes his discourse: The words of one that writes this way are these: Here two things may be observed.

1. What we ascribe to the merit of Christ. viz: the accomplishment of the condition, which God required to make way, that the Obligation which he had freely put upon himselfe might be in actuall force: and so much (I leave to himselfe to consider how rightly) doth M. B. assigne to our workes; Thes: 26.

And all know, that a condition as such, is no cause, but an antecedent, p. 24or causa sine qua non. And is not the death of Christ here fairely advanced, and his merits well vindicated? My constant affirmation is, and still was, that mans workes are not in the least degree truly and properly meritorious, and that they are such meer Conditions of our salvation, (not of our first justification) as that they are no causes of any right we have (no not to a bit of bread, much lesse) to heaven. Do not these men well defend the honour of Christs merits then, if they give no more to them, then I do to mans workes? that is, not to be the meritorious cause so much as of an houres temporall mercy; that is, to be properly no merit at all: It seemes to me therefore that they do by their doctrine of eternall justification or pardon, not only destroy justification by Faith, but also all the merits of Christ, and leave nothing for them to do, for the causing of our pardon or justification before God. Nay, whether this learned man can make Christ's sufferings, and obedience, so much as a bare condition, let them consider that read him affirming, that conditions properly must be uncertaine, and nothing is so to God: therefore there can be no condition with God, therefore Christ's death could be no more.

En cor Zenodoti, en jecur Cratetis.

What is most admirable in this discourse I know not.

1. I am suggested to maintaine justification from eternity: I am one that write that way: I am one that that by the doctrine of justification from eternity, overthrow justification by Faith, & the merits of Christ. What I shall say more to this businesse I know not: the Comoedian tels me all that I can say is in vaine.

Ne admittam culpam ego meo sum promus pectori

Suspicio est in pectore alieno sita.

Nam nunc ego te si surripuisse suspicer

Jovi coronam de capite è capitolio

Quod in culmine astat summo; si non id feceris.

Atque id tamen mihi lubeat suspicarier,

Qui tu id prohibere me potes ne suspicer? Plaut.

2. Me thinkes it had been equal, that M. B. who requires (foreign) that men judge not any thing in his Aphorismes, but according as it is interpreted, in this his confession, should have interpreted this passage of mine, by the Analogie of what I have written in the same book about the death of Christ and merit thereof. He would have found (and in these things doth my soule live) that all the Mercy, Grace, or Priviledges p. 25whatever, of what sort soever, that in this Life we are made partakers of, all the Glory, Honour, and Immortality that we are begotten a new to an hope of, is by me every where ascribed to the death of Christ, and the merit thereof, as the sole causa foreign of them all. The making out of this takes up the greatest part of my writings and preaching. I can truly say, that I desire to know nothing but Christ, and him crucified; And I shall labour to make the Honour, Glory, Exaltation, and Triumph of the cross of Christ, the whole of my ayme and businesse in this world. May I be convinced of speaking, uttering, writing any one word to the derogation of the honour, efficacy, power of the death and merits of our dear Lord Jesus, I shall quickly lay my mouth in the dust, and give my selfe to be trampled on by the feet of men, which perhaps on other accounts I am only meet for. It is only that Christ may have the preheminence in all things, that I will voluntarily contend with any living. That as a King, and Priest, and Prophet, he may be only, and all in his Church, is the designe of my contesting.

But is not this expression to the derogation of his merits? I say if it be, I disavow it, condemne it, reject it. If the intendment of the expression be not, that the Lord Jesus Christ, by the performance of what was prescribed to him of his Father, that he might save us to the utmost, according to the compact between Father and Son, did merit, purchase, and procure for us all the grace, mercy, salvation promised in the new Covenant, I desire here to condemne it. But if that be the sense of it (as the words immediately going before, with the whole tenour of the discourse doe undeniably evince) I would desire M. B. a little to reflect upon his dealings with other men, upon their pretended mistakes, in representing him and his judgment to the world. All the Advantage that is given to this Harangue is from the Ambiguity of the word condition. It is evident that I take it here in a large sense for the whole prescription of Obedience unto the Lord Jesus, whereupon the promise of all the good things, that are the fruits of his death, is made to him, which being grounded in voluntary compact, and laid thereby in due proportion, gives rise to merit properly and strictly so called. If the Reader desire farther satsfaction herein, let him but read that very Treatise which M. B. excepts against, where he will find abundantly enough for the clearing of my intendment. Or to him, that looses his time in perusing this Appendix, I shall recommend the p. 26foregoing Treatise, for the same purpose.

3. For what M. B. ascribes to our workes, I shall not (for my part) much trouble my selfe whilst I live, being little or not at all concerned therein: He is not for me to deal with.

foreign. Theog.

If I dispute in print any more, (as I hope I shall not) it shall be with them, that understanding my meaning, will fairely, closely and distinctly debate the thing in difference, and not insisting on words and expressions to no purpose (especially if their own hast allowes them not oftentimes to speak congruously) shall presse and drive the things themselves to their issue.

—Dabitur ignis tamenet si ab inimicis petam.

M. B. proceeds in his second Section to prove, that all the Elect are not justified at the death of Christ: In this passage one expression of mine, about the sense of Rom. 4. 5. is taken notice of; but that relates to a busines of a greater importance then to be now mentioned. Something M. B. discourses about the state and condition of the Elect in reference to the death of Christ: some texts to that purpose he considers; but so jejunely, so much below the majesty of the mystery of Grace in this particular, that I shall not make his discourse an occasion of what may be offered on that account. Something I have spoken in the former Treatise, concerning the transaction of the compact, and Agreement, that was between the Father and Son, about the salvation of the Elect. Of their Interest and concernement therein, with the state of his body, of those that were given him, on that account, God assisting hereafter.

But p. 228. from words of mine, which from several places of my Treatise are put together, he makes sundry inferences, and opposes to them all two conclusions of his own, pag. 229.

This man (sayes he) seems to judge, that the name of compleat justification is proper to that in conscience, and not to be given to any before: He seemes also to judge, that justification hath degrees and parts at many 100 or 1000 years distanced one from another; or else absolution at least hath, which we have hitherto taken for the same thing with justification: For he cals that inconscience compleat justification: so sayth he, absolution in heaven and justification differ as part and whole; so he

Egregie Cordatus homo Catus Eliu' Sextus!

p. 27It seemes M. B, Knowes not what my judgment is, by his repeating, that, it seemes this is his judgment; he might have stayed from his confutation of it, until he had Known it: it is not for his honour that he hath done otherwise.

I deny that it is my judgment, that the name of compleat justification is proper to that in conscience. Nor doe I know of any proper or compleat justification in conscience; I only sayd compleat justification is terminated in conscience: If M. B. know not what I mean thereby, let him stay a little, and I shall explaine my selfe.

It is most false, that I judge justification to have degrees and parts at an 100 or 1000 years distance; unlesse under the name of justification you comprise all the causes and effects of it, and then it reaches from everlasting to everlasting.

That Absolution in Heaven (as I call it) is before our actual believing in order of time, I have no where sayd, but only in order of nature; and that M. B. hath not disproved.

What M. B. thinkes of absolution and justification to be the same, is no rule to us; when he proves it, so it is: but to what I, and others have sayd, M. B. opposes two conclusions, pag. 229. whereof the first is.

1. We did neither really, nor in God's account dye with Christ when he dyed, nor in him satisfie God's justice, nor fulfil the Law. the second.

2 Though Christ was given for the Elect more then for others, yet is he no more given to them then to others; before they are borne, or before they have faith.

The first of these (he saith) (he meanes the first of them before mentioned, which the first of these is set down in opposition unto) is of so great moment, and is the heart and root of so many Errours, yea of the whole body of Antinomianisme, that I had rather write as great a volume as this, &c.

What it is that I intended by dying with Christ, M. Baxter does not know, nor ghesse neer the matter. The consideration of God's giving the Elect to Christ, of his Constitution to be a common person, a Mediatour and surety, of the whole compact, and Covenant between Father and Son, of his Absolution as a common Person, of the Sealing, Confirmation, and the Establishment of the Covenant of grace by his death, of the oeconomy of the Holy Spirit founded therein, of the whole grant made upon his Assention, must precede p. 26duplicate page p. 27duplicate page p. 28the full and clear interpretation of that expression. For the present it may suffice, I have not sayd that we did satisfie God's justice in him, or satisfie the Law in him, so that we should be (personally considered,) the principles of the satisfaction or obedience; nor that we so dyed in him, as to be justified, or absolved actually upon his death, before we are borne; so that I shall not be concerned at all if M. Baxter's thoughts should encline him to write a Volume as bigge as this, about his confession, which is no small content to me.

For the second; that Christ was given to the Elect more then others, I say not; because I say., that he was not given, as a Mediatour, Price, and Ransome for any other at all. When the demonstrations that Christ dyed for all, which M. Baxter hath somewhile talked of, are published, I may perhaps find cause (if I see them) to change my mind: but as yet I doe not suppose that I shall so doe. That he is given to any before they are borne, I have not sayd; though they are given to him before they are borne, or that he is given to them in order of time before they doe believe; but this I say, that faith and forgivenesse of sinne is given them for his sake: which, when M. Baxter disproves, or pretends so to doe, I shall further consider it, as being a matter of importance: with his strife of words (if I can chuse) I shall no more trouble my selfe.

This process being made; Sect. 3. M. Baxter lays downe the conclusion as contrary to them before, which (as he informes me) are maintained by my selfe and others.

No man now living, was justified, pardoned, or absolved actually from the guilt of sinne and obligation to death at the time of Christ's death or undertaking, or from eternity, or at any time before he was borne, or did believe.

After I know not how many Arguments brought forth to confirme this position, my Argrments against it are produced and answered; but what the learned man meanes I professe I know not: Unlesse disputandi prurigine abreptus, he cares not what he sayes, nor against whom, soe he may multiply Arguments and Answers, and put forth books one upon another. In that very book of mine which he animadverts upon, I use sundry of those very Arguments, which here he useth, to prove the same Assertion for the substance of it, as M. Baxter hath here layd down. And this I had assured him, p. 29as to a former mistake of his. My words are pag. 33. as for Evangelical justification, whereby a sinner is compleatly justified, that it should precede believing, I have not only not asserted, but positively denied, and disproved by many Arguments: to be now traduced as a Patron of that opinion, and my Reasons for it publickly answered, seemes to me somewhat uncouth. Further now to acquit my selfe from that, which nothing but selfefulness, oscitancy, and contempt of others can possibly administer any suspicion of, I shall not turne aside.

Yea, but I have said, that the Elect upon the death of Christ, have a right to all the fruit of the death of Christ to be enjoyed in the appointed season: because this is made the occasion of so many outcrys of Antinomianisme, and I know not what, I shall direct the Reader to what I have affirmed in this case, & leave it with some brief Observations to his judgment, having somewhat else to doe, then to engage my selfe in a long wordy contest with M. Baxter: who knowing not of any difference between himselfe and me, would very faigne make one, wherein he may possibly find his labour prevented hereafter, and a real difference stated between us, if any of his rare notions fall in my way.

The discourse is, pag. 69. lin. 23. unto pag. 72. lin 24.

The summe of all is this; upon the death of Christ, that is, on the consideration of the death of Christ; upon his …ndertaking, (for surely I suppose it will be granted, that his death was no less effectual upon his undertaking to them who dyed before his incarnation, then afterwards upon his actual accomplishment of that undertaking,) to be a Mediatour and Redeemer, it becomes just, right, and equal, that all the good things which are the fruits of his death, should be in a due and appointed season made out to them for whom he dyed, in their several generations.

What says M. Baxter to this? 1. Suppose this be so, yet they are not actually absolved, but only have a right to it; Who said they were? doe I offer to make any such conclusions? doe I dispute against M. Baxter's Position, or for justification upon, or at the death of Christ, or his undertaking? homini homo quid interest?

But I say, there being such a right to these good things, they have a right to them. Crimen inauditum Caie Caesar! Did I not also say how I understood that expression? though I used it to make out the thing I intended, yet did I not say directly, that that p. 30right was not subjectively in them: that is, that it was not actionable as I expressed it; that they could not plead it; but it was as above: Yea but then this is no more but non injustum est, this is false as I have shewed. Many Divines think, that this was the estate between God & sinners antecedently to the consideration of the death of Christ, or might have been without it, viz. that it was not unjust with God to pardon and save them; By the death of Christ there is a jus of another nature obtained; even such as I have described in the Treatise M. Baxter opposeth: But then God doth not give those good things to us upon condition; I say he doth not; taking Condition in it's strict & proper sense in respect of God: Though he hath made one thing to be the Condition of another. All Graces are alike absolutely purchased for us; but not alike absolutely received by us: The oeconomy of the Gospel requires another order; The Frst grace, M. Baxter confesseth is bestowed upon us absolutely, & without condition; & this grace is the conditiō of the following priviledges, as to the order of cōmunicatiō: & all the difference between us is about the sense of the word condition in that place. Which when I have nothing else to doe, I will write a Volume as bigge as this is about.

This is that I say; Christ hath purchased all good things for us: these things are actually to be conferred upon us in the time and order by God's Soveraigne will determined and disposed. This order as revealed in the Gospel, is, that we believe and be justified, &c. Faith whereby we believe is bestowed on us absolutely, alwaies without condition, sometimes without outward meanes; This faith by the constitution of God is attended with the priviledges contended about; which are no less purchased for us by Christ, then faith it selfe. Yea the purchase of our justification or Acceptation with God, is, in order of Nature, antecedent in Consideration to the Purchase of faith for us: if M. Baxter hath a mind to oppose any thing of this (which is all that as yet to this businesse I have declared,) Let him doe it when he pleaseth, & if it be tantidem (as he speaketh) I shall give him a further account of my thoughts about it; But he would know what I meane by Christ's undertaking for the Elect; let him consider what I have delivered about the Covenant between the Father and Son in this business, and he will know at least what I intend thereby. He will see how Christ being then only God, did undertake the businesse to doe it, not as God only: and withal the widenes of that exception, that the prophesy of Isaiah was p. 31written a long time after, and could not give any such right as is pretended. A right is given there in respect of manifestation, not constitution. Isaiah in that prophesy speakes of things to come, as past, v. 5. 6. and of things past, and present, as to come; it reveales, not constitutes a Covenant. But he saith, we use to distinguish betweene the undertaking and accomplishment: Divines use to say, that upon mans fall Christ undertooke satisfaction, but it was in the fullnesse 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 undertooke I easily grant. But! how you learned Divines distinguish I know not: This I know, that such poore men as my selfe, do beleive, that as to the efficacy of satisfaction and merit, Christs undertaking was attended with no less then his actuall accomplishment of what he undertooke; or we know not how to grant Salvation to the Saints under the Old-Testament: It was concerning their Efficacy as to merit, not their distinction between themselves that I spake.

These things being premised, M. B. proceeds to answer my Arguments, which were produced to prove, that upon the death of Christ, there was a right obtained for the Elect to all the benefits of his death; this right residing in the justice of God, or in the equalling of these things by divine constitution, (as I fully declared in the place by M. B. opposed) upon the interposing of some expressions in the processe of my discourse, of the grant being made to the elect, and mentioning of their right, which in what sense they were to be taken, I expresly delared, M. B. takes advantage to answer them all with this intendment put upon them, that they aymed to prove a subjective personall right, which at any time they may plead; when the utmost that my words can be extended unto, is, that they have it ex faedere, not realiter; for the subject of it, I place elsewhere. Now if M. B. will send me word, that he supposes he hath answered my Arguments, as they were proposed to my owne purpose, I will promise (if I live) to returne him an answer. In the meane time I shall have no itch to be scribling to no purpose; ego me, tua causa, ne erres, non rupturus sum. yet of the whole he may for the present be pleased to receive the ensuing account, both as to the nature of a Jus, and its application.

For the description of jus, M. B. rely's on Grotius, and something also he mentions out of Sayrus, Grotius in the first chapter p. 32of his booke de jure belli & pacis, in the sections transcribed (in part) by M. B. and some others, expresses (in his way) the distinction given at the beginning both of the Institutions & Digests about jus, and those also which they handle under the head, de statu. So do all men commonly that write of that subject; How exactly this is done by Grotius, those who are learned in the Law will judge; for my part, I am so farre at liberty, as not to be concluded by this bare Affirmation either as to law or Gospell: Yet neither doth he exclude the Right by me intended: He tels us indeed that facultas which the lawyers call sui, is that which properly and strictly he intends to call jus. But the other member of the distinction he termes aptitudo, which though in a naturall sense it respects the subject immediately, yet he tels you, that in the sense of Michael Ephesius, which he contradicts not, it is but foreign, id quod convenit, which respects only the order of things among thēselves. And though out of Aristotle he cals it also foreign, yet that word (as he also afterwards expounds it out of Cicero) is of much a lower signification then many imagine. This foreign, is that which I assert; and Sayrus his definition of jus ad rem, may also be allowed.

But for others; jus, artificially is, ars boni & aequi. Ponz: de lamiis num: 14 Tom: 11. jus Gregor: p: 2. and D. D. cap. 1. Celsus. though some dispute against this definition, as Conanus, Comment: Jur: Civil: lib: 1. cap: 1. That which is aequum is the subject of it. so the Comaedian, quid cum illis agat, qui neque jus, neque bonum, neque aequum sciunt. Terent: Heauton: all termes aequipollent. And in this sense one that is not borne may have a jus, if it be in a thing that is profitable to him; quod dicimus eum qui nasci speratur pro superstite esse, tunc verum est, cum de ipsius jure quaeritur, aliàs non prodest, nisi natus sit. Paulus de verbor: significat: which one interpretation will overbeare with me an hundred moderne exceptioners, if they should deny that a man may be said to have a right unless he himselfe be the immediate subject of the right, as if it were a naturall accident inherent in him; so is it in the case proposed by Cicero, in secundo de inventione. Pater-familias cum liberorum nihil haberet, uxorem autem haberet, in Testamento ita scripsit. Si mihi filius genitus fuerit unus, pluresve, hic mihi haeres esto. The father dies before the sonne is borne: a right accrews to him that is not borne. Such a Right I say there is, although this Right is not immediatly actionable: Gaius tels us, that actio est prosecutio p. 33juris sui. This jus suum, is that which Grotius cais facultas, and is jus propriè & strictè dictum. And this jus suum I did not intend, in that I said it was not actionable; And therefore whereas Conanus saies, that nullum est jus, cui non sit aut à natura, aut à lege data quaedam obligatio, tanquam comes & adjutrix: Comment: juris Civil: lib: 2. cap: 1. which obligation is the foundation of Action; It is evident, that he intends jus propriè & strictè dictum; for Gaius distinguisheth between jus utendi, fruendi, and jus obligationis, D. li: 1. 1. 8. which he could not do, i… all and every right had an Obligation attending it, And such is that Right whereof we speake; If any one thinkes to plead it, he will be like him, whom the Lawyers call, agentem sine actione, of whom they dispute, an liceat eiexperiri, and whether his plea be to be admitted; concerning which the variety of cases and opinions are repeated by Menochites de Arbit: Judic: lib: 1. Qu: 16. 2.

And such a jus as this, ariseth ex contractis innominatis; for as jus ex innominato contractu oritur, quum ex parte debentis, implere id quod convenerat, impletum est, Ludovic: Roman: Consul: 86. pag: 23. so ex contractu innominato, non transeunt actiones sine mandato, as Bartholus tels us; For though the Covenant between Father and Sonne, whence this Right ariseth, be not in it selfe of the nature of a contractus innominatus, do ut des, yet to them it is of that import. Hence the Socinians, who are skil'd in the Law, though they wholly suspend the actuall obtaining of Remission of sinnes upon the fullfilling of the conditions required, do yet grant, that a plenary jus or right of obtaining forgivenesse of sinnes was given to all in the death of Christ; jam vero quidnam mediator foederis, ab una paciscentium parte legatus, & ipsius sponsor constitutus, ac quoddam veluti testamentum ejus nomine constituens, qua talis est, aliud praestat, quam ut jus alteri parti, & jus quidem plenum largiatur, ad foederis hujus, aut testamenti promissa consequenda; obstringit nimirùm atque obligat promissorem qui ipsum obligaverat ad servanda foederum promissa, eáque rata prorsus habenda. Crellius de causis mortis Christi, pag: 9. So in the common speach of the Antients Budaeus tels us, that bonum jus dicere, is as much as that which is now vulgarly expressed, requesta tua rationabilus est: If there be an equity in the thing, there is a jus belonging to the person. Any thing that made it equitable that a man should be regarded, they called his j…: whence is his complaint p. 34in Plautus, finding himselfe every way unworthy: sine modo & modestiâ sum, sine bono jure, atque honore: Bachid: and Paulus, in lib. 3. ff. de servitut: urb: praed: Ne jus sit vicino invitis nobis altiùs aedificare. It were very facile both from Lawyers and most approved Authors to multiply instances of this large Acceptation of the word jus, or right. And whither the grant of the father, and purchase of the mediator before mentioned, be not sufficient to constitute or denominate such a jus or right in them, for whom, and whose profit and benefit the grant is made, I question not. Againe consider that of Paulus. lib. 11. ad, Edict: D D. de verb. signif: Tit: 16. Princeps bona concedendo, videtur etiam obligationem concedere; which adds a propriety to the jus as was shewed before. Yet that it should be presently actionable doth not follow: Actio est jus persequendi in judicio, quod sibi debetur; Institu: lib: 4. de action. Every jus ad rem, is not jus persequendi in judicio: whence is the gloss of Aldobrondinus on that place: nec facias magnam vim ibi: Quia cum multas habeat significationes haec dictio jus, ut ff. de inst: & jus l: p. &, si, hoc est unum de significatis ejus, ut dicatur jus agendi vel persequendi: besides it must be, quod sibi debetur, that is actionable; the obligation whence that debitum arises, being as the Lawyers speak, mater actionis; But yet even, debere, it selfe, is of so larg and various signification in the Law, both in respect to things, and persons, as will not admit of any determinate sense unless otherwise restrained, ff: de verbor: signif. b. pecuniae §. 8. si. Yea and on the other side, sometimes a plea may lye, where there is no debitum; Quaendoque ago etiam ad id quo… mihi non debetur; R. de pact: l. si quo poenam; nam ibi non ago ad id quod est debitum, sed ad id quod ex nudo pacto convenit: that M. B. may know what to do with his schemes of Actions, produced on the account of my assertions.

This for the word, and my use of it; I hope in the things of God, about words, I shall not much contend. I had rather indeed insist on the propriety of words, in the originals, their use in the Law, and amongst men, so all be regulated by the Analogy of faith, then to square the things of God to the termes and Rules of Art and Philosophy, to which without doubt they will not Answer. Let any man living express any Doctrine of the Gospell whatever, in the exactest manner, with Artificial Philosophicall termes, and I will undertake to shew, that in many things the truth is wrested and fettered thereby, and will not beare an exact p. 35correspondence with them; yet hence are many of our Learned strifes, which as they have little of learning in them, so for my part I value them not at a nut shell! properly so called.

This being premis'd, his Answers to my Arguments may very briefly be consider'd.

My first Argument is. It is justum, that they should have the fruites of the death of Christ bestowed on them: therefore they have jus unto them: for, jus est quod justum est.

M. B. denyes the consequence, and saies though it be justum, yet they may not be subjects of this jus; to this I have answered, by shewing what is jus in Generall, & what is their jus, & where fixed.

2. He Questions the Antecedent; for the confirmation whereof, and its vindication from his exceptions, I referre the Reader to what I had written of the Covonant, between the father and the sonne, some good while before I saw M. Bax. Animadversions, or that they were publicke.

My 2d. is, that which is procur'd for any one thereunto he hath a Right; The thing that is obtained, is granted by him, of whom it is obtained, and that to them, for whom it is obtained. To this is answered.

1. In the margent; that I should make great changes in England, If I could make all the Lawyers believe this strange doctrine: but of what the Lawyers believe, or do not believe, M. B. is no competent judg, be it spoken without disparagment, for the Law is not his study. I, who (perhaps) have much lesse skill then himselfe, will be bound at any time to give him twenty cases, out of the Civill and Canon Law, to make good this Assertion; which if he knowes not, that it may be done, he ought not to speake with such confidence of these things. Nay amongst our owne lawyers (whom perhaps he intends) I am sure he may be informed, that if a man intercede with another to settle his land by Conveyance to a third person, giving him that conveyance to keep in trust, untill the time come, that he should by the intention of the conveyer enjoy the Land, though he for whom it is granted, have not the least knowledg of it, yet he hath such a right unto the land thereby created, as cannot be disanul'd.

But 2. he saies! that the fruits of the death of Christ, are procur'd for us, finaliter not subjectivè.

Ans. They are procur'd for us objectivè, are granted, ex ad p. 36aequatione rerum, and may make us subjects of the right, though not of the things themselves, which it regards; may I say, though I do not say it doth. The following similitudes of my horse, and a King, have no correspondency with this business at all; of the Right of horses, there is nothing in the Law: in the latter, there is nothing omitted in the comparison, but merit, and purchase, which is all.

3. All the fruites of the death of Christ are obtained and procur'd by his merit for them for whom he dyed.

M. B. 1. not all, not the same measure of sanctification for one as for another: not faith for all, for whom he dyed, as for his Elect.

2. He procur'd it for us as the finis cui, not subjects of the present Right.

Ans. The substance of the fruits of the death of Christ, and the ultimate end, belongs to his purchase: the measure and degrees of them to the fathers soveraigne disposall, ad ornatum universi.

2. It is most false, that Christ did not purchase faith for all, for whom he dyed.

3. What our Right is, hath been before delivered; the finis cui, & subject of a present Right, are not very accurately opposed.

4. The nature of merit infers an attendant Right: Rom: 4. 4. M. B. If this be your debt, you may say, Lord I have merited salvation in Christ, therefore it is mine of debt; Christ hath of debt the right to pardon you, you have no debt, &c.

Ans. Very good! but I use no formes of prayer of other mens composing; who said, it was our debt? who saies our right is actioble? The whole here intended, is, that Christ meriting pardon of sinnes for the Elect, it is just they should obtaine it in the appointed season: such another prayer as that here mentioned, doth M. B. afterwards compose in a suitablenesse as he supposes to my principles; but what may he not do, or say?

4. He for whom a Ransome is paid, hath a right to his liberty by vertue of that payment.

M. B. All unproved, and by me unbelieved; if you pay a summe to the Turke for a thousand slaves, thereby buying them absolutly into your owne power, I do not believe that they have any more right to freedome, then they had before. If a Prince pay a ransome for some traytors to the King his father, thereby purchasing to himselfe a dominion or a propriety over them, so that they are absolutly his, yet I p. 37thinke it gives them no more right then they had before.

Ans. I suppose it is not yet determined, that this business is to be regulated absolutly according to what M. B. thinkes or believes. For I must needs say, that whether he believes it or no, I am still of the same minde that I was.

He for whom a Ransome is paid, hath a Right to a deliverance; as to him, to whom the Ransome was paid: if M. B. believes not this, let him consult the Civill Lawyers, with whom he is so conversant: Tit: de pact:

2. I say, that the Law of Redemption requir's, that the Redeemed be at the disposall of the Redeemer, where he hath no plea jure postliminii; and it is most certaine, that Christ hath a dominion over his Elect; (for a propriety over them I understand not) yet, that that dominion is the proximate end of the Death of Christ, under the notion of a Ransome, price, or purchase (which yet are of various considerations also,) is the foreign of this discourse.

Having given this specimen of M. B's. answers to my instances, as an addition to the former Explication given of my judgment in this business, I shall not further trouble the Reader with the consideration of what of that same kind ensues.

To tell the whole truth, I expressed the effects of the death of Christ, in the māner above mētioned, to obviate that stating of his satisfactō & the use of it, which I had observed to be insisted on by the Remonstrants in their Apology, and in other writings of theirs, but especially by Episcopius. For some time, I met not with any great opposition made to the expressions of their imaginations in this business, but only what was briefly remarked by the Leyden professors in their specimina. Of late I find Voetius reckoning it among the principall controversies, that we have with the enemies of the crosse of Christ: I shall set downe his words about it, and leave them to the consideration of them who may thinke themselves concerned in them.

His words in his disputation de merito Christi, An. 1650. are: Secunda controversia capitalis, quae Christianismo cum quibus…am heterodoxis (Remonstrantibus scilicet in Belgio, viris, si non Socinianae, saltem dubiae Theologiae) intercedit, est de merito Christi pro nobis, hoc est, vice, & loco nostro, & sic in bonum nostrum actualiter praestito, seu de satisfactione plenâ ac propriè dicta à Christo sponsore, loco nostro justitiae divinae praestita: illi satisfactionem & meritum sic p. 38accipiunt, quasi nihil aliud sit, quam partis offensae talis placatio qua offenso hactenùs satisfit, ut in gratiam redire velit cum eo qui offendit, & per quam Christus Deo Patri jus & voluntatem aquisiverit novum foedus ineundi cum hominibus. so he.

The expression of our dying with Christ is fallen upon againe, p. 226. of which he desires leave to speak as confidently as myselfe; truly I thought he had not been to aske leave for that now: But why may he not use it without leave as well as others? Some perperhaps wil say, mira edepol sunt ni hic in ventrem, sumpsit confidentiam, to consider what he hath written already. But with this leave he fals a conjecturing at what I meane by that expression, to no purpose at all, as may be seen by what I have delivered concerning it. The like I may say to the passage by the way mentioned, of the right which ariseth from the decree of God: It seemes to me, that what God hath decreed to doe for any, that is, or may be a real priviledge to him, it is jus, ex justitia condecentiae, that in the appointed season, he should receive it. If M. Baxter, be otherwise minded I cannot help it; habeo aliquid magis ex memet, & majus, then that I should attend to the disputes thereabout; nor will I stand in his way if I can choose, for he seemes to cry—ad terram dabo, & dentilegos omnes mortales faciam quem{que} offendero.

After this I find not my selfe particularly smitten, until he comes to the close of the chapter to talke of idem and tantidem: Unless it be in his passage pag. 274. That which makes me suspect that I am there intended, is, his former imputation of some such thing unto me; namely that I should say, that the deputation of Christ in our stead, is an act of pardon; But I suppose that I have so fully satisfied him as to that surmize, by shewing that not only my sense, but my exrressions were, not, that the deputation of Christ, was our pardon, but that the freedome of pardon did in part depend thereon, that I will not take my selfe in this place to be concerned; because I cannot doe it and prevent the returnal of a charge of some negligence on this Person, whose writings seem sufficiently to free him from all just suspicion thereof. In the close of this discourse (with the method of a new line) M. Baxter fals upon the consideration of the payment made by Christ in our steed, or the penalty that he underwent for us; and pleads, that it was not the idem that was due to us, but tantundem. Although some say this difference is not tantidem, (as some speake it seemes) yet he is p. 39resolved of the contrary, and that this one Assertion is the bottome of all Antionmianisme. Seing I professe my selfe to be contrary minded, I suppose it will be expected that I should consider what is here to the purpose in hand insisted on by M. B. What I intend by paying the idem, or rather undergoing the idem that we should have done, I have so fully elsewhere expressed; that I shall not stay the Reader with the repetition of it. But sayes M. Baxter this subvertes the substance of Religion: foreign. Now you shall have the proofes of it, the idem (sayth he) is the perfect obedience, or the full punishment of the man himselfe, and in case of personal disobedience, it is personal punishment that the Law requires, that is, suplicium ipsius delinquentis.

A. But: The idem that we would pay, or undergoe, is perfect obedience to the Law, and proportionable punishment by the God's Constitution, for disobedience; This Christ payed, and underwent; that the man himselfe should undergoe it, is the Law originally; but the undergoing or doing of it, by another, is the undergoing of the idem, I think; it is personal punishment that the Law originally requires; but he that undergoes the punishment (though he be not personally disobedient, which the Law judgeth to him that was personally disobedient, undergoes the idem that the Law requires.

The idem is suppliciam delinquenti debitum, by whoever it be undergone, not supplicium ipsius delinquentis only.

He proceeds: the Law never threatned a surety, nor granteth any liberty of substitution: that was an act of God above the Law; therefore Christ did not undergoe the idem. I deny the consequence. Nor is the least shadow of proof made of it: The question is not whether Christ be the sinner, but whether he underwent that which was due to the sinner.

He addes. If therefore the thing due was payd, it was we our selves morally or legally, that suffered: I know not well what is meant by morrally; but however I deny the consequence; the thing it selfe was payd by another for us, and the punishment it selfe was undergone by another, in our stead.

That which followes, fals with that which went before, being built thereon. It could not be our selves Legally (saith he) because it was not our selves naturally. Though for the security of the Hypothesis opposed, there is no need of it, yet I deny his proposition, p. 40also, is taken universally. A man may be accounted to doe a thing Legally by a sponsor, though he doe it not in his own Person.

But he says, if it had been our selves Legally, the strictest justice could not have denyed us a present deliverance ipso facto, being no justice can demand any more then the idem quod debitur. (as M. Baxter's Printer speakes) But 1: it is supposed, that all Legal performance of any thing, by any one, must be done in his own Person.

2. It supposes, that there is such an end as deliverance assigned, or assignable, to the offenders own undergoing of the penalty, which is false.

3. The Reasons and Righteousness of our actual deliverance at the time, and in the manner prescribed by God, and (as to the last) revealed in the Gospel, upon Christ's performance of personal obedience, and undergoing the penalty due to us in our stead; which are founded in the oeconomy of the Trinity, voluntarily ingaged into for the accomplishing the salvation of the Elect, I have elsewhere touched on, and may, if I find it necessary, hereafter handle at large.

That which is feared in this business is, that if the idem be payd, then according to the Law, the Obligation is dissolved, and present deliverance followes. But if by the Law, be meant the Civil Law, whence these termes are borrowed, it is most certain, that any thing in stead of that which is in the Obligation doth according to the Rules of the Law dissolve the Obligation, and that whether it be payd by the principal debtour, or Delinquent, or any for him; The beginning of that Section, quibus modis tollitur obligatio, lib. 3. Instit: will evince this sufficiently. The Title of the Section is, Si solvitur ID quod debetur, vel ALIUD loco illius, consentiente creditore, omnis solvitur Obligatio, tum rei principalis, quam fide-jussoris. The words of the Law it selfe are more full. Tollitur autem omnis obligatio solutione EJUS quod debetur; vel siquis consentiente creditore ALIUD pro ALIO solverit; nec interest quis solverit, utrum IPSE qui debet, an ALIUS pro eo: liberatur enim & alio solvente, sive sciente, sive ignorante debitore, vel invito, eo solutio siat: Si fide-jussor solverit, non enim ipse solus liberatur, sed reus. So that there is no difference in the Law, whether solutio be ejusdem or tantidem; and this is the case in the things that are ex maleficio, aut quasi; as may be seen at large in the Commentatours on that place.

p. 41To caution all men against the poyson of Antimonian Doctrines. now so strenuously opposed by Mr. Baxter, and to deliver students from the unhappy model of Theologie, which the men of the preceding contests have entangled themselves, and others withal, M. B. seriously advises them to keep in their minds, and carefully to distinguish between the will of God's purpose, and his precepts or Law, his determining, and commanding will, in the first place; the ignorance whereof it seemes, confounded the Theologie of Doctour Twisse, Pemble, and others.

Nextly, that they would carefully distinguish between the covenant between the Father and the Son about the work of his mediation, & the covenant of Grace and mercy confirmed to the Elect in his blood.

Now if these two Distinctions, as carefully heeded, and as warily observed as we are able, will prove such an antidote against the infection, for my part (in all probability) I shall be secure, having owned them ever since I learned my Catechisme,

foreign.

And so am I dismissed. This may perhaps be the close of this controversy; if otherwise, I am indifferent; on the one side it will be so: I delight not in these troubled waters. If I must engage againe in the like kind, I shall pray, that he, from whom are all my supplyes, would give me a real humble frame of heart, that I may have no need with many pretences, and a multitude of good words, to make a cloak for a spirit breaking frequently through all with sad discoveryes of pride and passion; and to keep me from all magisterial insolence, Pharisaical supercilious selfe-conceitednesse, contempt of others, and every thing that is contrary to the Rule whereby I ought to walke.

If men be in hast to oppose what I have delivered about this business, let them (if they please, I have no Authority to prescribe them their way) speak directly to the purpose, and oppose that which is affirmed, and answer my reasons in reference to that End only for which by me they are produced and insisted on:

Because I see some men have a desire to be dealing with me, and yet know not well what to fix upon, that I may deliver them from the vanity of contending with their own surmizes, and if it be possible, to prevaile with them to speak closely, clearly, and distinctly to the matter of their contests, & not mixe heterogeneous things in the same discourse, I will briefly shrive my selfe for their satisfaction.

p. 42First then I doe not believe that any man is actually justified from eternity; because of that of the Apostle Rom. 8. 28, 29, 30: but yet what is the state of things, in reference to the oeconomy of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, engaged in from Eternity for the salvation of sinners, with that fountaine union, that is between Christ and his body in their predestination, I shall desire a little more time to delivery my selfe unto.

2 I doe believe that there was a Covenant, compact, or Agreement between father and Son for the salvation of the Elect by his mediation, which, upon sinnes entring into the world, had an efficacy & effect of the very same nature with that, which it hath when he hath actually accomplished what was on his part required for the end proposed to him; & that therefore in the old Testament his death is spoken of sometimes as past, Isa. 53. 4, 5, 6: & that to make this Covenant in it's Constitution to be contemporary to it's revelation, or the promises of it to be then made to Christ, when the Church is acquainted that those promises are made, is a wide mistake.

But under what consideration the Elect lye unto God, upon the transaction of this original Covenant with the Mediatour. I desire liberty for a while as above.

3 I doe not believe that the Elect, that live after the death of Christ, are all actually in their own Persons justified and absolved at his death; because the wrath of God abides on men that believe not, Joh. 3. 36. But yet what to the advantage of the Church is enwrapped in the discharge of their great representative, who dyed in their stead (for that I believe also, and not only for their good) I desire respite for my thoughts as formerly.

4. I doe believe that Christ underwent the very same punishment for us, for the nature and kind of it, which we were obnoxious unto, & should have undergone, had not he undertaken for us, and payd the idem that we should have done, 2 Cor. 5. 12. Gal. 3. 13.

5. I believe that upon the death of Christ, considering what hath been sayd before concerning the compact, and Agreement between God and the Mediatour, about that matter; it became just and righteous, with reference to God's justice, as Supreme Governour and moderatour of the creatures, and all their Concernements, that those for whom he dyed, should all be made partakers of all the good things, which Christ by his death procured for them, in the season p. 43appointed by the soveraigne will of God. But that this right though indissoluble is so actually vested in them, as to be actionable in the Gospel without faith, I believe not.

6. I believe that all spiritual blessings, mercyes, priviledges whatever, are fruites of the death of Christ, and that notwithstanding the order wherein they stand one to another, they all depend immediately on it's causality; though respectu termini they have not a natural immediation.

7. I professe that we are absolved, pardoned, and justified for Christ's sake, & therefore that Christ is reckoned to us, or made rightousnesse to us, in order of nature antecedently to all those things, which for his sake we doe receive, and are made partakers of with and by him, &c.

For a close of all, I must profess, that I will not contend with any man, who discovers in himselfe such a resolution foreign, that if he be pressed, rather then let it go, he will goe backward, and attempt foreign, and to Question common received principles; knowing the multitude of Errours, and Abominations that the Church of God hath been pestered withal by men of this principle and practise. Hence are the beginnings of men modest, but their Endings desperate: hence is Arminianisme ended in Episcopianisme; and Arianisme in Socinianisme, & in many, Socinianisme in Mahumedisme and Atheisme. If I find this resolution and spirit in any man, he shall rather enjoy his own present conceits, then by me be precipitated into worse Abominations. Nor shall I (the Lord assisting) be unmindful of that of the Apostle, 1 Tim. 6. 3, 4, 5. foreign, &c. as also that of the same Apostle, Tit. 3. 2. foreign. If I must contend with any, as I am resolved for the matter foreign, so for the manner of handling it, it shall not be my endeavour to cloud and darken things easy, trite, common in themselves, with new, dark, artificial expressions, but rather to give plainenesse and perspicuity to things hard and difficult, confirming them with the Authority of Scripture, opened by the import of the words insisted on, and designe of the Holy Ghost in p. 44their contexture; Nor will I contend with any, whose motto is that of him in Plautus; dicat quod quis{que} vult, ego de hac sententia non dimovebor: or that hath thoughts of his own notions, like those of him in Naevius, who cryed out, primum quod dicebo recte, secumdum quod dicebo eo melius. And as my ayme is to know Christ, and him crucified, to exalt him, and ascribe to him the preheminence in all things, to discover the whole of our salvation, and glory of God thereby, centred in his Person and mediation, with it's emanation from thence, through the efficacy of the eternal Spirit, and all our obedience to receive life, power, and vigour from thence only, knowing that it is the obedience of faith, and hath it's foundation in blood and water; so I equally abhorre all doctrines that would take selfe out of the dust, make something of that which is worse then nothing, and spin out matter for a web of peace and consolation from our own bowels, by resolving our Acceptation with God into any thing in our selves; and those, that by any meanes would intercept the Efficacy of the death and Crosse of Christ from it's worke of perpetual and constant mortification in the hearts of Believers; or cut off any obligation unto obedience or holinesse, that by the discovery of the will of God, either in the Law, or Gospel, i… put upon the Redeemed ones of the Lord.

foreign,

foreign: 2 Tim. 2. 23.

FINIS

End of the text · John Owen, The Mystery of the Gospel Vindicated and Socinianism Examined (1655)