Page images

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 exclud. ing from his saving grace.

VII. We have a further proof of this, Zech. ü. 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. ï. 34. Psal. cxvii, 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. ü. 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 perfect. These things being done, to shew that all the signs of the Messiah were in him, God declares, that he would remode 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.

VIII. It is, however, certain, that true saving benefits arė. 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 considered, 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 s of this chapter, where this is further explained.

[ocr errors]

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 w be their Saviour; 80 satisfaction 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 as 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 suving; 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. Sthly, 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 reinission, 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

[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

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 paya
ment 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 .ex-
pressed. 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. 6. Thus far
Arminius, whose very words almost we have exhibited, omit-
ting oniy those which are not to the purpose in hand. His
followers have things of the like nature, in their Scripta Sya.
nodalia, 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 en-
joy the benefit of it.

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. Ist. 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 pro perly 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. Adly. 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, wbatever 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

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


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 snil men. The effect is remission and justification. The impetrating act is the satisfaction of Christ. The effect is immunity from debt. In this manner Arminius spoke, before he had degenerated to worse opinions, Disput. privat. xxxv. 8 7. “ The effects of the priestly office are reconciliation with God, impetration of eternal redemption, remission of sins, the spirit of grace and eternal life.” 3dly. 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 in petrated from any one, ought previously to be in his power. The Remonstrants bave 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 nei. ther 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

[ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

tial to him, that, in virtue of it, he is bound and necessitated to punish sins, is highly absurd and unworthy of God."

XII. From this also we may, by a very evident consequence, infer, that the death and sufferings of Christ were in van, and without any fruit or effect : which I thus demonstrate: If there'is in God, even before, and exclusive of the satisfaction of Christ, a power of remitting sins, notwithstanding his vindictive justice, Christ has therefore 'done no thing by suffering and dying in order to the existence of such a power in God. But the Remonstrants strenuously de clare and maintain, that God can, without satisfaction, and without the violation of his essential justice, let sins go unpunished, and that the contrary is highly absurd Christ therefore procured nothing by his death. For what he is said to have obtained by it did already exist without it

. « God could have saved us without the satisfaction of Christ : but did not choose to do it," says Corvinus, in his Censura Anatom. Molinæi, p. 486.

XIII. Io a word, this assertion of Arminius is inconsistent with theological truth. For, 1st. The scripture no where declares, that the fruit of Christ's death is a possibility of the remission of sins; nor does Arminius produce any passage of scripture to that purpose. But to speak of the fruit of Christ's death without scripture is untheological. 2dly. Nay, the scripture asserts the contrary, as we have at large shewa & III, IV, V. Sdly. It is also contrary to all reason to say that the proper effect of Christ's most perfect satisfaction was, that God might let the captive go free, yet so that the cap- , tive might always remain in prison and be liable to pay the debl. How absurd ! that God should receive full satisfac. tion by the death of his Son, for the sins of any particular person, and yet, potwithstanding this plenary satisfaction of Christ, that man is to be sent to eternal fire, there to satisfy in his own person, for those very sins which Christ had full satisfied for already ? Athly. Such a bare possibility of remis sion, which, from the nature of the thing, may never become actual, overturns the unchangeable covenant between the Far

the ; wel expressed in his oration de Sacerdominius bimself has “ God required of Christ, that he should make his soul offering for sn, give his flesh for the life of the world, pay the price of redemption for the sins and captivity of mankind and promised, if he did so, that he should see bis seed, and become an eternal priest. The priest accepted thin condition, &c." Christ, relying on this infallible promise, did willingly


[ocr errors]


« PreviousContinue »