Whence it follows, that Christ has not merited the bestowing those benefits actually upon any one; for this is the tendency of these words of Arminius. I answer, 1. We deny, that it is left entire to God not to impart those benefits, which Christ has merited, to those for whom he died. God had entire right to appoint the persons for whom Christ was to die: but this appointment being once settled, God is not at liberty not to give that grace and glory, which was purchased by the death of Christ, to those for whom he died. 2. Arminius is further mistaken, when he says, that God had a full right to impart those benefits on what conditions he pleased to prescribe, supposing, that the performance of these conditions, namely, faith and repentance, or the grace necessary to the performance of them, was not among those blessings which Christ had merited for us by his passion. For it was contained in that compact between the Father and the Son, according to which Christ gave himself up to death, that all adult persons should in the way of faith and repentance, arrive at the saving enjoyment of the other blessings of it: nor can any other conditions be now settled by agreement. Besides, it was also fixed, that the Father should, from the consideration of Christ's merit, grant the

Spirit of grace for faith and repentance, to those for

whom Christ had died, as we have seen Arminius. himself orthodoxly reckoning the Spirit of grace among the effects of the sacerdotal office of Christ. For seeing God hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in Christ,* that is, through and for the merits of Christ, and the gift of faith is one of the most excellent of these blessings,† that likewise certainly comes to us on account of his merits. 3. Nor is it agreeable to scripture-language, to say, that faith and repentance are requisite conditions, before any effects of Christ's death are communicated to a person. Certainly, they are not required previous to our regeneEph. i. 3. † Phil. i. 29.

We may

ration and vivification from the death of sin, and our deliverance from this present evil world, which are reckoned among the effects of Christ's death by Paul.* therefore say, if you will, that these are conditions pre-requisite for applying to our consciences that consolation purchased for us by the death of Christ, yet so that from the merit of Christ grace flows, that is powerfully and abundantly effectual to perform those conditions.

XV. Arminius's second argument is this. "If the actual remission of sins, &c. be the effect of Christ's death, we must then allow, that, according to the very rigour of God's justice and law, both an eternal life and an immunity from punishment, are due to the elect, and that therefore they are entitled to ask those benefits of God in right of the payment and purchase made; without God's having any right to require of them faith in Christ and conversion to God." I answer, 1. We are wholly of opinion, that one, who is renewed, may come boldly to the throne of grace and ask for those blessings, at God's hand, in right of the payment and purchase made by Christ. For why should we not venture to ask of God, that he would perform for us what he was pleased to make himself a debtor for to his Son and to his merits? This is the PARRÆSIA, or boldness of our faith, to expect the crown of righteousness from God, as a merciful and gracious giver, in respect of our unworthiness, but as a just judge, in respect to the merits of Christ.† 2. 'Tis an invidious reflection of Arminius, to say, "without God's having any right to require of us faith in Christ, and conversion to himself." For it is impossible, that these things should not be performed by him, who approaches to God, to ask those blessings. For how can any ask those benefits from God in the name of Christ, without faith in God and Christ, and without conversion to the Father and the Son? 3. Let us speak plainly. If we admit of Christ's satisfaction, Eph. ii. 5. and Gal. i. 4. † 2 Tim. iv. 8.

and of the ratification of the covenant of grace, and the New Testament, then God can, by no right, require faith and conversion from the elect, as conditions of the covenant of grace, in the sense of Arminius and the Remonstrants: namely, (1.) As to be performed by us, without grace working them in us supernaturally, effectually, and invincibly. (2.) As, by some gracious appointment of God, coming in the place of that perfect obedience to the law, which the covenant of works required. For in this manner Arminius explains these things; that, instead of perfect obedience, which the covenant of works required, the act of faith succeeds, in the covenant of grace, to be, in God's gracious account, imputed to us for righteousness, that is, to be our claim of right to ask eternal life. But the nature of the covenant of grace admits of no such conditions, however framed, on which to build a right to life eternal, either from the justice, or the gracious estimation of God. And thus far Arminius concludes well, if the Mediator has so satisfied for us, as if we ourselves had by him paid our debts, no condition can, by any right be required of us, which, in any respect, can be reckoned instead of payment. The whole glory of our right to eternal life, ought to be purely ascribed to the alone merit of our Lord; and, on no pretence, be transferred to any one of our acts.

XVI. There is still one argument, which Arminius imagines to be very cogent. "The righteousness," says he, "wrought out by Christ, is not ours, as wrought out, but as imputed to us by faith." I answer, 1. What does Arminius infer from this? Does he conclude, that, besides the satisfaction of Christ, faith is also necessary to salvation? And what then? Therefore Christ did not obtain for us the actual remissions of sins. We deny the consequence. For faith is not considered as impetrating, but as applying the impetrated remission. And as the presupposed object of saving faith is remission, alreday impe

trated for all the elect by Christ, it must certainly be the proper effect of the death of Christ. 2. This righteousness of Christ was really his, as it was wrought out by him; and it is ours, as it was wrought out for us; therefore, in a sound sense, even ours before faith, being the meritorious cause of that grace, which is effectual to produce faith in us. It is ours, I say, in respect of right, because, both in the decree of God the Father, and the purpose of the Son, it was wrought out for us, and in the appointed time to be certainly applied to us: though it was not yet ours by possession, as to our actual translation from a state of wrath to a state of grace, and our acknowledgment and sense of so great a benefit vouchsafed unto us. The distinction between active and passive justification is well known.* The former is that sen tence of God, by which he declares his having received satisfaction from Christ, and pronounces, that all the elect are made free from guilt and obligation to punishment, even before their faith, so far as never to exact of them any payment. The latter is the acknowledgment and sense of that most sweet sentence, intimated to the conscience by the Holy Spirit, and fiducially apprehended by each of the elect. The one precedes faith, at least as to that general article, which we just proposed; the other follows it. And thus we have defended the value and effica cy, of Christ's satisfaction against the cavils of Arminius.

* Others distinguish the justification of the elect, into that which is decretive, virtual, and actual. The first is God's eternal purpofe to justify sinners in time, by the righteousness of Christ; but God's eternal purpose to justify the elect is one thing, and the execution of it another. There was also a virtual justification, upon Christ's having made satisfaction; and justification is actual, when the elect sinner is enabled to believe in the Son of God, and by faith is united to him. See book iii. chap. viii. § 57. &c.

CHAP. VIII.

Of the Necessity of Christ's Satisfaction.

HAVING explained, from scripture, the value

of the satisfaction of our Lord Jesus Christ, to his own glory, and for the consolation of the elect, it will not be unseasonable to treat of the necessity of this satisfaction ; as what we have shewn, § 11. from the apology of the Remonstrants, naturally leads to this. And here we chuse not to state the controversy in the manner, we observe, the otherwise great Chamier has done in his Panstratia; namely, whether God could not, by an act of his absolute power, grant remission of sin, without any satisfaction. We are not willing to enter into any dispute about the absolute power of God; since the consideration of that seems not to suit, this present controversy. For this debate is not to be explained, and finally determined from the attribute of the power of God; but from those of his holiness, justice, and the like. Some, when they consider the power of God alone, affirm every thing about it: not reflecting, that God can do nothing but consistently with his justice, holiness, veracity, wisdom, immutability, in a word, with all his other perfections. The lawyer Papinian* has said well concerning a good man: "that we are to believe, that he neither does nor can do any thing prejudicial to piety, reputation, modesty, and in general, that is contrary to good manners." This certainly ought much more to be affirmed of the great God, that whatever is not a display of, or whatever throws a slur on, any perfection or on the glory of God, cannot be the work of God. Origen has judiciously pleaded this cause against Celsus." According to our opinion, God, indeed, can do all things, consistently with his Deity, wisdom, * ff. lib. xxviii. tit. 7 leg. 15. + lib. iii. p. 154. VOL. I.

q