To have an opinion fastened on me, which I never once received nor intimated the least thought of, in that whole treatise or any other of mine; and then my arguments answered as to such an end and purpose, as I not once intended to promote by them, is a little too harsh dealing. It is a facile thing, to render any man's reasonings exceedingly weak and ridiculous, if we may impose upon them such and such things to be proved by them, which their author never once intended. For pactional justification, evangelical justification, whereby a sinner is completely 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 publicly answered, seems to me something uncouth; however I am resolved not to interpose in other men's disputes and differences, yet lest I should be again and farther mistaken in this, I shall briefly give in my thoughts to the whole difficulty; after I have discovered and discussed the ground, and occasion of this mistake. In an answer to an argument of Grotius about the satisfaction of Christ, denying that by it we are ipso facto delivered from the penalty due to sin; I affirmed that by his death, Christ did actually, or ipso facto, deliver us from the curse, by being made a curse for us; and this is that which gave occasion to that imputation before mentioned. To clear my mind in this, I must desire the reader to consider, that my answer is but a denial of Grotius's assertions. In what kind and respect Grotius doth there deny that we are ipso facto delivered by the satisfaction of Christ, in that sense and that only, do I affirm that we are so; otherwise there were no contradictions between his assertion and mine, not speaking ad idem, and eodem respectu. The truth is, Grotius doth not in that place, whence this argument is taken, fully or clearly manifest, what he intends by deliverance which is not actual, or ipso facto; and therefore I made bold to interpret his mind, by the analogy of that opinion wherewith he was thoroughly infected about the death of Christ. According to that, Christ delivering us by his satisfaction, not actually, nor ipso facto, is so to make satisfaction for us, as that we shall have no benefit by his death, but upon the performance of a condition, which himself by that death of his did not absolutely procure. This was that which I opposed, and therefore affirmed, that Christ by his death did actually, or ipso facto, deliver us. Let the reader then here observe; 1. That our deliverance is to be referred to the death of Christ, according to its own causality; that is, as a cause meritorious. Now such causes do actually, and ipso facto produce all those effects, which immediately flow from them; not in an immediation of time but causality. Look then what effects do follow, or what things soever are procured by them, without the interposition of any other cause in the same kind, they are said to be procured by them actually, or ipso facto. 2. That I have abundantly proved in the treatise mentioned, that if the fruits of the death of Christ be to be communicated unto us upon a condition, and that condition to be among those fruits, and be itself to be absolutely communicated upon no condition, then all the fruits of the death of Christ, are as absolutely procured for them for whom he died, as if no condition had been prescribed; for these things come all to one. 3. I have proved in the same place, that faith, which is this condition, is itself procured by the death of Christ, for them for whom he died, to be freely bestowed on them without the prescription of any such condition, as on whose fulfilling the collation of it should depend. These things being considered, as I hoped they would have been by every one, that should undertake to censure any thing, as to this business in that treatise (they being there all handled at large); it is apparent what I intended by this actual deliverance: viz. That the Lord Jesus by the satisfaction and merit of his death and obligation made for all and only his elect, hath actually and absolutely purchased and procured for them all spiritual blessings of grace and glory, to be made out unto them, and bestowed upon them in God's way and time, without dependance on any condition to be by them performed, not absolutely procured for them thereby; whereby they became to have a right unto the good things by him purchased, to be in due time possessed, according to God's way, method, and appointment. From a faithful adherence unto this persuasion, I see nothing as yet of the least efficacy or force to dissuade me; and am bold to tell those concerned therein, that their conditional satisfaction, or their suspending the fruits of the death of Christ upon conditions, as though the Lord should give him to die for us, upon condition of such and such things, is a vain figment, contrary to the Scriptures, inconsistent in itself, and destructive of the true value and virtue of the death of Christ; which, by the Lord's assistance, I shall be ready at any time to demonstrate. My intention in the place excepted against being cleared, I shall now tender my thoughts to these two things: (1.) The distinct consideration of the acts of the will of God, before and after the satisfaction of Christ; as also before and after our believing, towards us, as unto justification. (2.) The distinct estate of the sinner upon that consideration; with what is the right to the fruits of the death of Christ, which the elect of God have before believing. CHAP. VI. Of the acts of God's will towards sinners, antecedent and consequent to the satisfaction of Christ; of Grotius's judgment herein. THE distinct consideration of the acts of God's will, in reference to the satisfaction of Christ, and our believing, according to the former proposal, is the first thing to be considered. Grotius, who with many, and in an especial manner with Mr. Baxter, is of very great account, and that in theology, distinguisheth (as himself calls them with a school term) three moments or instances of the divine will. 1. Before the death of Christ, either actually accomplished, or in the purpose and foreknowledge of God; in this instant, he saith, God is angry with the sinner, but so, as that he is not averse from all ways of laying down his anger.' a Distinguenda sunt tria momenta divinæ voluntatis. Primum est, ante Christi mortem positum aut re ipsa, aut in decreto Dei et præscientia. In hoc momento iratus peccatori est Deus, sed ita, ut non aversetur omnes iræ deponendæ vias, ac rationes. 2. Upon the death of Christ, or that being supposed, wherein God not only purposeth, but also promiseth to lay aside his anger.' 3. When a man by true faith believeth in Christ, and Christ according to the tenor of the covenant commendeth him to God; here now God lays aside his anger, and receiveth man into favour.' Thus far he. Amongst all the attempts of distinguishing the acts of God's will in reference unto Christ, and sinners, whatever I considered, I never found any more slight, atheological, and discrepant from the truth, than this of Grotius. To measure the Almighty by the standard of a man, and to frame in the mind a mutable idol, instead of the eternal unchangeable God, is a thing that the fleshly reasonings of dark understandings are prone unto; feigns the Lord in one instant angry, afterward promising to cease to be so, then in another instant laying down his anger, and taking up a contrary affection; and you seem to me, to do no less. What it may be esteemed in law, which was that author's faculty, I know not; but suppose in divinity, that (notwithstanding the manifold attempts of some ȧkívηta KIVETV in most heads of religion) the ascribing unto the Most Holy things alien, and opposite unto his glorious nature, is by common consent, accounted no less than blasphemy;f whether this be here done, or no, may easily appear. I hope then, without the offence of any, I may be allowed to call those dictates of Grotius to the rule and measure of truth. 1. Before the foresight of the death of Christ,' saith he, 'God is angry with sinners, but not wholly averse from all ways of laying aside that anger.' To which I answer, 1. That God should be conceived angry after the manner of men, or with any such kind of passion is gross anthropomorphism; as bad, if not worse, than the assigning b Secundum momentum est, posita jam Christi morte, in quo Deus jam non constituit tantum, sed et promittit iram se depositurum. e Tertium.est, cum homo vera fide in Christum credit, et Christus ex fœderis formula credentem Deo commendat. Hic jam Deus deponit iram, hominemque in gratiam recipit. De satisfact. Christi, cap. 7. d Psal.l. 21. Exod. iii. 14. 1 Sam. xv. 29. Job xxiii. 13. Psal. cii. 26, 27. Isa. xiv. 27. e 2 Kings xix. 6. Isa. xxxvii. 3. 1 Tim. i. 13. f Quicunque negat aliquid de Deo, quod ei convenit, vel asserit de eo, quod ei non convenit, derogat divinæ bonitati, et est blasphemus. Thom. 22. æ. q. 13. a. 1. c. 8 Quæ dicuntur ἄνθρωφπαθῶς intelligenda sunt θεοπρεπώς. Amor et gaudium, et alia ejusmodi, cum attribuuntur Deo, significant simplicem actum voluntatis, cum similitudine effectus, absque passione. Aquin. 12. q. 22. a. 3. of him a bodily shape. The anger of God is a pure act of his will, whereby he will effect and inflict the effects of anger. Now what is before the foresight of the death of Christ, is certainly from eternity. God's anger must respect either the purpose of God, or the effects of it. The latter it cannot be, for they are undoubtedly all temporal. It must be then his purpose from eternity to inflict punishment, that is the effect of anger. This then is the first thing in the business of redemption, assigned by Grotius, unto the Lord, viz. He purposed from eternity, to inflict punishment on sinners; and on what sinners? Even on those, for whom he gives Christ to die, and afterward receives into favour, as he expresseth himself. Behold here a mystery of Vorstian theology; God changing his eternal purposes! This Arminius at first could not down withal, inferring from hence, that the will of God differed not from his essence, that every act thereof, is, first, Most simple. Secondly, Infinite. Thirdly, Eternal. Fourthly, Immutable. Fifthly, Holy. Reason itself would fain speak in this cause, but that the Scriptures do so abound, many places are noted in the margin; James i. 17. 2 Tim. ii. 19. Psal. xxxiii. 9-11. Acts xv. 18, &c. may be added. A mutable God, is of the dunghill. 2. That the death of Christ is not comprised in the first consideration of God's mind, and act of his will towards sinners to be saved, is assumed gratis. 3. 'He is not,' saith he, 'averse from all ways of laying down this anger.' This scheme Grotius placeth, as is evident, in God, as the foundation and bottom of sending Christ for our redemption. This he immediately subjoins without the least intimation of any farther inclination in God towards sinners, for whom he gives his Son. But, (1.) This is a mere negation of inflicting anger for the present; or a suspension of that affection from working according to its quality; which how it can be ascribed to the pure and active will of God, I know not. Yea, it is above disproved. (2.) Such a kind of frame, as it is injurious to God, so to be held out as the fountain of his sending Christ to die for us, is, I am persuaded, an abhorrency to Christians. And, h Libera voluntas ulciscendæ injuriæ. Epb. i. 11. |