(3.) The place where faith justifieth I am not so solicitous about, as the man- ner how; which, of all other ways commonly insisted on, I conceive not to be as it is our new obedience : yet that in this work it looks farther than the conscience I easily grant.
The most of what is subjoined to these exceptions is fully answered in \\hat went before.
As much as possible I shall avoid all repetitions of the same things; only, whei'e- as he affirmeth that to have right to justification and to have possession of it is all one, I must needs enter my dissent thereunto ; which may suffice until it be attempted to be put upon the proof. If he shall say, that a right to a future jus- tification at the day of judgment is the same with the po.ssession of present actual •justification, it is neither true nor any thing to the business in hand.
In the close he shuts up this discourse, and enters into another, giving in his thoughts about the immediate effects of the death of Christ ; a matter wherein be pretends to great acciu'atencss, censuring others for not being able to distinguish aright of them, and so to spend abundance of labour in vain in their discourse
1 J:i)1i. i. 11 ; Gal. iv. 1. « .lolin i. 12 : Rom. v. 11 ; Eph. i. 11 ; Col. i. 12-14.
3 rs. i^'. 6, 7; 2 Cor. iv. 6.
SUNDRY OBJECTIONS REMOVED. 477
thereabout. 1 Particularly, here he denies, and calls it a dangerous error to sup- pose, that actual remission and justification are immediate effects of his death, or any right thereunto ; which he attempteth to prove by sundry arguments.
Of the effects of the death of Christ, and what relation they all stand in there- unto, I have spoken at large before. Now, because actual remission is denied to be an immediate effect of the death of Christ, and so potential remission, not once mentioned in the book of God, is tacitly substituted in the room thereof, and this also in opposition to what I had delivered, I shall briefly consider his arguments, and so give an end to this debate : —
1. " What right soever God giveth unto men in things supernatural, such as justification, remission, and adoption, he giveth it by his written laws ; but by these laws he hath given no such thing to any unbelievers, such as are the elect before conversion : therefore, etc.
"The major is evident: God's decree giveth no man a personal right to the mercy intended him. And for the minor, no man can produce the Scripture giving to unbelievers such a right."
(1.) Taking the laws of God in the strict and proper sense, it is so far from being a truth, that what right God gives to any he gives it by his ^^Titten laws, that indeed the laws of G od give no right to any one concerning any thing, whe- ther supernatural or otherwise. The end of the law is not to give right, but to ^exact obedience, and that chiefly, if not, upon the sum, solely. The usual, proper, genuine signification of God's laws being his revealed will for our obedience, I know not why JNIr Baxter should bring them in, in the latitude of his single appre- hension, to be a medium in an argument. Hence, —
(2.) Here is not a sufficient enumeration of causes; the promises of God are to be added, and those eithei' made to us, or to any other for our good. But, —
(3.) That the decree of God gives to no man a right to the thing concerning which the decree is, is so far from being a sufficient proof of the major that it is in itself very questionable, if not unquestionably false. That the decree gives not being and existence to the things concerning which it is, is an old rule. That no right should from it arise unto that thing by virtue thereof, is not yet so clear. Right is but "jus: " "Jus est quod justum est." If it be just or right that any one should have such a thing, he is said to have a right thereunto. Now, supposing the ^decree of God, that a man shall by such means have such a thing, is it not just, equitable, and condecent unto righteousness that he should have it ? But yet farther, —
(4.) We are not at all speaking of a right founded on God's decrees (which considering what was proposed to be proved by this argument, I wonder how it found any mention here),* #ut upon two other things: —
[1.] The covenant of God with Christ about the pardoning, justifying, and saving of those for Avhose sin he should make his soul an offering ; wliich cove- nant, respecting Christ as mediator, God and man, is not to be reckoned among the mere decrees and purposes of God, containing in itself all those promises and engagements whereon the Lord Jesus in the work of redemption rolled himself. NoAV, in this covenant God engaged himself, as I said before, to make out to those for whom Christ undertook whatsoever was the fruit of his purchase ; and that was swhat in his good pleasure was assigned thereunto. And this is the first bottom of this right.