After I know not how many arguments brought forth to confirm this position, my arguments against it are produced and answered : but what the learned man means I profess I know not, unless " disputandi prurigine abreptus," he cares not what he says, nor against whom, so he may multiply arguments and answers, and put forth books one upon another. In that very book of mine which he animad- verts upon, I use sundry of those very arguments which here he useth, to prove the same assertion, for the substance of it, as Mr B. hath here laid down; and this I had assured him as to a former mistake of his. My words are, p. 33 [p. 449] :—
" As for evangelical justification, whereby a sinner is completely justified, that it should precede believing, I have not only not asserted but positively denied, and dis- proved 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."
Farther now to acquit myself from that which nothing but self-fulness, osci- tancy,and contempt of others, can possibly administer any suspicion of, I shall not turn aside.
Yea, but I have said that " the elect, upon the death of Christ, have a right to all the fruit of the death of Christ, to be enjoyed in the appointed season." Because this is made the occasion of so many outcries of Antinomianism, and I know not what, I shall direct the reader to what I have afiirmed in this case, and leave it with some brief observations to his judgment, having somewhat else to do than to engage myself in a long wordy contest with Mr B., who, knowing not of any difference between himself and me, would very fain make one ; wherein he may possibly find his labour prevented hereafter, and a real difference stated between us, if any of his rare notions fall in my way.
The discourse is, p. 69 line 23, unto p. 72 line 24 [462-468].
The sum of all is this : Upon the death of Christ, that is, on the consideration of the death of Christ, upon his undertaking (for surely I suppose it will be granted that his death was no less effectual upon his undertaking to them who died before his incarnation than afterward upon his actual accomplishment of that undertaking) to be a mediator and redeemer, it becomes just, right, and equal, that all the good things which are the fruits of his death should be in a due and appointed season made out to them for whom he died in their several genera- tions.
What says Mr B. to this? "Suppose this be so, yet they are not actually absolved, but only have a right to it." Who said they were? Do I offer to make any such conclusion ? do I dispute against Mr B.'s position, or for justifica- tion upon or at the death of Christ, or his undertaking? "Homini homo quid interest?"
But I say, there being such a right to these good things, they have a right to them. "Crimen inauditum Caie Cajsar!" Did I not also say how I understood
608 OF THE DEATH OF CHIIIST,
that expression ? Though I used it to make out the thing I intended, yet did I not saj' directly that that right was not subjectively in them; — that is, that it was not actionable, as I expressed it, that they could not plead it ; but it was as above? Yea, " but then this is no more but noninjustuni est." This is false, as I have showed. Many divines think that this was the estate between God and sinners antecedently to the consideration of the death of Christ, or might have been without it, nainely, that it was not unjust with God to pardon and save them. By the death of Christ there is a jus of another nature obtained, even such as I have described in the treatise Mr B. opposeth. But then " God doth not give those good things to us upon condition." I say he doth not, taking condition in its strict and proper sense in respect of God, though he hath made one thing to be the condition of another. All graces are alUce absolutely purchased for us, but not alike absolutely received by us; the economy of the gospel requires another order. The first grace, INIr B. confesseth, is bestowed vipon us absolutely and without condition; and this grace is the condition of the following privileges, as to the order of communi- cation. And all the difference between us is about the sense of the word " condi- tion " in that place ; which, when I have nothing else to do, I will write a volume - as big as this is about.
This is that I say, Christ hath purchased all good things for tis ; these things are actually to be conferred upon us in the time and order by God's sovereign will determined and disposed. This order, as revealed in the gospel, is, that we believe and be justified, etc. Faith, whereby we believe, is bestowed on us absolutely, always without condition, sometimes without outward means. This faith, by the constitution of God, is attended with the privileges contended about; which are no less purchased for us by Christ than fixith itself. Yea, the purchase of our justification or acceptation with God is, in order of nature, antecedent in consider- ation to the purchase of faith for us. If Mr B. hath a mind to oppose any thing of this (which is all that as yet to this business I have declared), let him do it when he pleaseth ; and if it be tantidem, as he speaketh, I shall give him a farther account of my thoughts about it. But he would know what I mean by " Christ's undertaking for the elect." Let him consider what I have delivered about the covenant between the Father and Son in this business, and he will know at least what I intend thereby. He will see how Christ, being then only God, did undertake the business to do it, not as God only ; and withal the wideness of that exception, that the prophecy of Isaiah was written a long time after, and could not give any such right as is pretended. A right is given there in respect of manifestation, not constitution. Isaiah in that prophecy speaks of things to come as past, verses 5, 6, and of things past and present as to come ; it reveals, not constitutes a covenant. But he saith, we use to distinguish between the under- taking and accomplishment. Divines use to say that upon man's fall Christ under- took satisfaction, but it was in the fulness of time that he accomplished it. How, therefore, he accomplished it in the undertaking, I do not well see. But that he did perfectly accomplish what he undertook I easily grant. But how you learned divines distinguish I know not. This I know, that such poor men as myself do believe that, as to the efficacy of satisfiiction and merit, Christ's undertaking was attended with no less than his actual accomplishment of Avhat he undertook, or we know not how to grant salvation to the saints under the old testament. It was concerning their efficacy as to merit, not their distinction between them- selves, that I spake.