and were liable to the wrath of God, declaring that satisfaction was now made to him for their sins, and that these could no longer be imputed to them for condemnation, nor for excluding from his saving grace.

VII. We have a further proof of this, Zech. iii. 9. «for behold the stone which I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone shall be seven eyes; behold I will engrave the graving thereof, saith the Lord of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day." The stone here is doubtless the Lord Jesus Christ, as Dan. ii. 34. Psal. cxviii. 22. on which the church is built, on which it is founded, and by which it is supported. It is laid before Joshua and his companions the priests, as architects, to lay it for the foundation of faith, acknowledge it as the corner-stone, and build thereon both themselves, and other believers. This stone is but one: for other foundation can no man lay, than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ, 1 Cor. iii. 11. Upon this stone there are seven eyes, either of God the Father, viewing it with care and pleasure, or of the church universal, looking to it by faith. Its gravings engraved by God, represent those very clear indications or characters, by which he may, and ought to be distinguished, as one given by the Father to be a Saviour: among these characters were those sufferings, by which he was to be made fect. These things being done, to shew that all the signs of the Messiah were in him, God declares, that he would remove the iniquity of all that land, (clearly signifying the whole world, according to the Synecdoche just explained,) in one day, at once, in the last day of Christ's passion: and thus, by Christ's satisfaction we are taught that deliverance from sin, and all the happy effects of that immunity, were purchased at once for all the elect in general.

per

VIII. It is, however, certain, that true saving benefits are bestowed on none of the elect, before effectual calling, and actual union to Christ by a lively faith: nevertheless, Christ did by his satisfaction purchase for all the elect at once, a right to those benefits, that they might have and enjoy them, in their appointed time. Nay, before actual conversion, and the pos session of saving blessings, they are favoured with no contemptible privileges above the reprobrate, in virtue of the right which Christ purchased for them. Such as, 1st. That they are in a state of reconciliation and justification actively consider ed, Christ having made satisfaction for them, as we see from 2 Cor. v. 19. That is, that God considers them as persons

* See the last § of this chapter, where this is further explained.

for whom his Son has satisfied, and purchased a right to eternal life. 2dly. That God loves them with a peculiar love of benevolence, according to the decree of election; which love of benevolence will, at the appointed time, certainly issue in a love of complacency. For, as it was from a love of benevolence, that Christ was given to be their Saviour; so satisfac tion being made, God in consequence of the same love, will form them, so as he may deservedly acquiesce in them, as fit objects of his love of complacency. May we not refer to this, what God says, Jer. xxxi. 3. "I have loved thee with an everlasting love, therefore with loving-kindness have I drawn thee?" 3dly. To this also it is owing, that they have the means of salvation, the preaching of the gospel, &c. with some internal illumination, and some incitement to good, though not yet saving; and yet for this end, that in their appointed time, they may be effectually converted by those means. 4thly. From all this it likewise follows, that God preserves them while living under the means of salvation, from the sin against the Holy Ghost; from which there is no conversion. 5thly, and lastly. They have the Spirit rendering those means effectual, to their actual and complete regeneration, and to unite them to Christ by working faith in them, that they may enjoy benefits truly saving.

IX. As matters stand thus, we may easily gather what judgment we are to form of the notions of Arminius and his followers, on this point. Arminius proposes his sentiments in Examine prædestin. Perkins, p. 75, 76. as follows: "Let us add to all these things, by way of conclusion, the proper and immediate effect of the death and passion of Christ. But it is not an actual removal of sin from this or that particular person, nor actual remission of sins, nor justification, nor the actual redemption of this or that person, which can have without faith and the Spirit of Christ. But the reconciliation of God, the impetration of remission, justification and redemption from God: hence God now may, notwithstanding his justice, which is satisfied, forgive the sins of men, and bestow the Spirit of grace upon them; though he was really inclined before, from his own mercy (for from that he gave Christ to be the Saviour of the world,) to confer these things on sinners, yet his justice prevented the actual communication of them. However, God still has a right to bestow those benefits on whom he pleases, and on what conditions he thinks proper to prescribe. But on the contrary, if we agree to such a method of mediation, as you, Perkins, seem to approve of; namely, that the sins of

1

all the elect were actually removed from them, and laid upon Christ, who having suffered for them, did actually deliver them from punishment; and that obedience was required of him, who accordingly performed it, and thereby merited eternal life, not for himself, but for them; and that just as if we ourselves had appointed this Mediator in our room, and by him had paid our debts to God: nay, we must now likewise believe, that according to the very rigour of God's justice and law, impunity and eternal life are due to the elect, and that they may demand those benefits from God, in right of payment and purchase made, and yet God have no manner of right to demand of them faith in Christ, and conversion to God." But all the absurdities of this opinion cannot easily be expressed. I will confute it only by one argument, but a very cogent one, and taken from the writings of the apostles. The righteousness wrought out by Christ is not ours, as wrought out, but as imputed to us by faith, so that faith itself is said to be imputed to us for righteousness, Rom. iv. 5. Thus far Arminius, whose very words almost we have exhibited, omitting only those which are not to the purpose in hand. His followers have things of the like nature, in their Scripta Synodalia, adding, that the impetration is such, that from the nature of the thing, it may remain entire, and be every way perfect, though there were none to apply it to, or none to enjoy the benefit of it.

4

X. There are many things in this discourse, which are consistent neither with scholastic accuracy, nor with the other tenets of the Remonstrants, nor with theological truth: which we are now to shew in order. 1st. Arminius does not. speak accurately, in saying, that the proper effect of the death and passion of Christ is not the actual remission of sins, nor justification, nor actual redemption of this or that person, &c. but the impetration of remission, justification, and redemption from God. For the members of this distinction are not properly opposed to actual remission, and to actual justification, is not opposed the impetration of remission and of justification; but a possible remission, and a possible justification. And this Arminius ought to have expressed himself, in order to speak accurately and fairly. 2dly. Nor is it an accurate way of speaking, to say, that the effect of the passion and death of Christ is impetration of remission and of justification. He ought to say, it is remission and justification itself, whatever that be. For so Arminius himself hath, taught us to speak with accuracy, p. 72. "A distinction may be made. between the act, by which reconciliation is obtained, and the

effect of that act, which is reconciliation. The act impetrating reconciliation, is the offering which Christ made on the cross: the effect is the reconciliation itself." And so be ought to have said here: in the death and passion of Christ, the impetrating act is that voluntary susception of all kinds of sufferings, which he undertook both from his love to God and men. The effect is remission and justification. The impetrating act is the satisfaction of Christ. The effect is inmunity from debt. In this manner Arminius spoke, before he had degenerated to worse opinions, Disput. privat. xxxv. 87." The effects of the priestly office are reconciliation with God, impetration of eternal redemption, remission of sins, the spirit of grace and eternal life." Sdly. Nor has that expression a just meaning, at least it is not accurate, that by, the passion of Christ, God can forgive sins: as if some new, some greater and more extensive power of God, was the effect of the sufferings of Christ. The power of God is infinite, and altogether incapable of increase. And then what is impetrated from any one, ought previously to be in his power. The Remonstrants have more accurately expressed their sentiments in their Synodalia, in these words:" the effect of reconciliation or propitiation, is the impetration of divine grace, that is, restitution to such a state," &c. So that a change in our state, and not an increase of God's power, is the effect of the satisfaction of Christ.

XI. Besides, Arminius is in this discourse consistent neither with himself, nor with his adherents. Not with himself: for his whole design is to shew, that the proper and immediate effect of the death of Christ, is only a possibility of remission of sins; and yet he asserts, that the proper effect of the death of Christ is the reconciliation of God, and the impetration of remission, justification, &c. But how do those things agree, seeing a possibility of remission of sins my consist with a perpetual enmity between God and man? What kind of reconciliation is that, when an eternal enmity may notwithstanding subsist? What sort of impetration of remission, if nevertheless, it be possible, that sins may never be pardoned? Nor, does Arminius here better agree with the hypothesis of his followers; who expressly deny, that God cannot, on account of his vindictive justice, remit sins without a previous satisfaction. I now omit mentioning the laboured disputation of Vorstius on this head against Sibrandus Lubbertus. Thus the Remonstrants profess, in express terms, in their apology, p. 466. drawn up in the name of all, that "to suppose the vindictive justice of God to be so essen