Chapter 13: Answering Baxter's Further Objections

Having fully declared not only what was my intention in the expressions so exceedingly mistaken by Mr. Baxter, as has in part already been made manifest, and will instantly more fully appear; I shall now take a view of what is imposed on me as my judgment, and the opposition made thereto, so far as may be needful for the clearing of the one, and removing of the other, at least in what they may really concern what I did deliver in the treatise impugned.

In Page 146 of his Appendix Mr. Baxter endeavors to vindicate a thesis of his from some exceptions, that he was by his friend pointed to, to which it seemed liable and obnoxious.

The thesis he lays down is that no man is actually and absolutely justified upon the mere payment of the debt by Christ, till they become believers.

Against this article (as he calls it) he produces some objections of Maccovius, censuring his assertions to be senseless, his positions strange and abhorred, his arguments weak and ineffectual; with some other expressions to the same purpose.

First, I am now by the providence of God in a condition of separation from my own small library, neither can I here attain the sight of Maccovius's Disputations; so that I shall not at all interpose myself in this contest. I must needs say, I did not formerly account Maccovius to be so senseless and weak a disputant as here he is represented to be.

Second, that for Mr. Baxter's answer to that argument — where the debt is paid, there discharge must follow — by asserting the payment made by Christ to be refusable, and the interest of sinners in that payment to be purely upon the performance of a condition, I have fully before in both parts of it demonstrated to be weak, and inconsistent with itself, and truth. That the interesting of sinners in the payment made by Christ, at such and such a season, is from the sovereignty of God, and his free engagement sub Termino for this end, has been also fully manifested.

But secondly, Mr. Baxter affirms that to these arguments of Maccovius, Mr. Owen adds some in the place against Grotius to which he was referred.

To what end, you will say, does Mr. Owen add these arguments? Why, to prove that men are actually, and absolutely, justified upon the mere payment of the debt by Christ before believing.

But, Fidem tuam! Is there any one argument in my whole book used to any such purpose? Do I labor to prove that which I never affirmed? never thought? never believed?

In what sense I affirmed that by the death of Christ, we are actually, and ipso facto, delivered from death (that is, we have in due time, the time appointed, free and full deliverance thereby, without the intervention of any condition on our part, not absolutely procured for us by his death) I have before declared. How much this comes short of actual and absolute justification, I need not now mention. I shall therefore only so far consider the answers given by Mr. Baxter, as they may seem to impair or entrench upon the main truth I assert, and that in the order by him laid down.

These (says he) Mr. Owen lays down.

First, by death he delivers us from death.

Answer: Not immediately, nor absolutely, nor by his death alone, but by that as a price, supposing other causes on his part, and conditions on ours, to concur before the actual deliverance.

Reply: First, to what end I mention that place of the Apostle was before declared. Second, by the death of Christ we are immediately delivered from death with that immediacy which is proper to the efficiency of causes, which produce their effects by the way of moral procurement: that is certainly, without the intervention of any other cause of the like kind. And third, absolutely, no condition being interposed between the cause and the effect, Christ's death, and our total deliverance, but such as is part of our deliverance, and solely procured by that death: though that death of Christ be not considered as alone, that is separated from his obedience, resurrection, and intercession, when the work of redemption is assigned to it in the Scripture.

Fourth, by the death of Christ as a price: I suppose you understand his purchase, as well as his payment; his merit, as well as his satisfaction; or else this is a false notion of the death of Christ, as the cause of our deliverance.

Fifth, all other causes concurring on the part of Christ for our deliverance are either not of the same kind with his death, or bottomed on his death, and flowing from there; so that summarily all may be resolved therein.

Sixth, the conditions on our part, in the sense intended, are often mentioned, never proved; nor am I persuaded will they ever be. But he adds:

Second, he says the elect are said to die, and rise with Christ.

Answer: First, not in respect of time, as if we died and rose at the same time, either really, or in God's esteem. Second, not that we died in his dying, and rose in his rising. But third, it is spoken of the distant mediate effects of his death, and the immediate effects of his Spirit on us, rising by regeneration to union and communion with Christ.

Reply: First, I pass the first and second exceptions, notwithstanding that of God's not esteeming of us as in Christ upon his performance of the acts of his mediation for us, might admit of some consideration.

Second, the inference here couched — that these things are the immediate effects of Christ's Spirit on us, therefore the distant and mediate effects of his death for us — is very weak and unconcluding. The death of Christ procures these things as a cause moral and impelling; the Spirit works as an efficient, and therefore the same thing may be the immediate effect of them both, according to their several kinds of efficacy. And so indeed they are. Our actual conversion, the efficient whereof is the Spirit, is the immediate procurement of the merit of Christ: see this at large in my treatise opposed. I know not any man that has run out into more wide mistakes about the immediate effects of the death of Christ, than Mr. Baxter, who pretends to so much accurateness in this particular.

Third, he says (adds Mr. Baxter) Christ has redeemed us from the curse, being made a curse for us.

Answer: I explained before how far we are freed by redemption: he has restored us, that is, paid the price, but with no intent that we should by that redemption, be immediately or absolutely freed.

Yet when we are freed, it is to be ascribed to his death as the meritorious cause, but not as the only cause.

Reply: First, a being freed so far, or so far, by redemption, and not wholly, fully, or completely — whatever men may explain — the Scripture is wholly silent of.

2 That Christ in paying a price, had no intent that those he paid it for, should be immediately or absolutely freed, is crudely enough asserted. 1 Of the immediateness of their delivery, I have spoken already. It has as strict an immediation as the nature of such causes and effects will bear. 2 If he intended not that those for whom he died should be absolutely freed, then either he intended not their freedom at all, and so the negation is upon the term freed: or the negation of his intention is only as to the qualification, absolutely, and so his intention to free them is asserted, and the affection of absoluteness in that intention, only denied.

If the first be meant; 1 It is contrary to innumerable express testimonies of Scriptures. 2 It renders the Son of God, dying with no determinate end, or designed purpose at all, in reference to them for whom he died: a thing we would not ascribe to a wise man, in a far more easy undertaking.

If the second: 1 I desire to know, what is this intention here assigned to our Savior? He paid a price, or ransom for us, he bought and purchased us by his blood, to be a peculiar people to himself; he redeemed us from the curse and wrath due to us, that we may be conditionally freed. All things intended under condition, are as to their accomplishment uncertain. The condition may be fulfilled, or it may not be fulfilled; and therefore the thing intended thereon, can have no certainty as to its accomplishment, in the mind of the intender. This then is that which is ascribed to the Lord Jesus: making his soul an offering for sin, laying down his life a ransom for mercy, and tasting death, to free the children given him from death, praying together that those for whom he died, might be partakers of his glory; yet was altogether uncertain whether ever any one of them, should at all partake of the good things, which in his whole undertaking of mediation, he aimed at. Thus is he made a surety of an uncertain covenant, a purchaser of an inheritance perhaps never to be enjoyed, a priest sanctifying none by his sacrifice, &c.

2 Is the accomplishment of this condition, upon which freedom depends in the intention of Christ, certain in his mind, under that intention? I ask then, from where that assurance does accrue? Is it from his foresight of their good using their abilities to fulfil the condition to them prescribed? See then, where you have rolled this stone! The folly, and absurdity of this, has been long since sufficiently discovered.

But is it from hence, because by his death, he purchases for them, the completing of that condition in them? Thus, he pays a price with intention that those for whom he pays it, shall be freed, by enjoying that freedom under such a condition as he procures for them; and thereupon knows, that at the appointed time, it shall be wrought in them. What differs this in the close from absolute freedom?

Further: feign some of them for whom Christ died to fulfil this condition, others not; and it will be more evident, that the greatest uncertainty possible, as to the issues of his death, must be assigned to him in his dying. The pretence of an effectual discriminating purpose of free grace, following the purpose of giving Christ, promiscuously for all, will not salve the contradictions of this assertion.

But the truth is, this whole figment of conditional freedom, is every way unsavory: that very thing which is assigned for the condition of our freedom, being itself the chiefest part of it: the whole indeed as here begun: potential, conditional, not actual, not absolute issues and effects of the death of Christ, have been abundantly disproved already.

That which follows in Mr. Baxter from page 152, to page 155, chap. 19, belongs not to me: being only a declaration of his own judgment about the things in hand: wherein, although many things are not only incommodiously expressed, to suit the un-scriptural method of these mysteries which he has framed in his mind, but also directly opposite to the truth; yet I shall not here meddle with it, referring them who desire satisfaction in this business, to a serious consideration of what I have above written to this purpose.

Page 155, C. 20, he returns to the consideration of my assertion concerning our deliverance ipso facto, by the blood of Christ: and tells you,

I do not understand Mr. Owen his meaning: for he says, that Christ did actually, and ipso facto, deliver us from the curse and obligation; yet we do not instantly apprehend and perceive it, nor yet possess it: but only we have actual right to all the fruits of his death, &c. So he.

Answ. The things of that treatise were written with the pen of a vulgar scribe, that every one might run and read: from where then it should be, that so learned a man should not understand my meaning, unless from his own prejudice, I know not: however, I have now so fully delivered my sense and meaning as to these things, that I hope no place remaineth for discreptation thereabout. But let us look a little into Mr. Baxter's enquiry after that, which he professes not well to understand:

1 (Says he) Whether a man may fitly be said actually and ipso facto to be delivered and discharged, who is not at all delivered, but only has a right to deliverance: I doubt.

Answ. To unriddle this, with most of the following exceptions, and to resolve his doubt so far as I am concerned, as having administered occasion thereunto, I shall transcribe the place from where these difficulties are pretended to arise.

The passage is in Lib. 3, Cap. 7, of that treatise, page 140, 141, as followeth:

That actual freedom from the Obligation does not follow the Satisfaction made by Christ, cannot be granted. For by his Death, he did deliver us from Death: and that actually so far, as that the Elect are said to Die and Rise with him: he did actually or ipso facto deliver us from the Curse, by being made a Curse for us. The hand-writing that was against us, even the whole Obligation was taken out of the way, and nailed to his Cross. It is true, all for whom he did this do not instantly actually apprehend and perceive it: which is impossible. But yet that hinders not; but that they have all the Fruits of his Death in actual right, though not in actual possession: which last they cannot have until at least it be made known to them. As if a man pay a Ransom for a Prisoner detained in a foreign Country; the very day of the Payment and Acceptation of it, the Prisoner has right to his Liberty, though he cannot enjoy it, until such time as tidings of it is brought to him, and a Warrant produced for his Liberty. So that, that Reason is nothing but a begging [illegible]. 2dly, The Satisfaction of Christ by the Payment of the same thing that was in the Obligation, is no way prejudicial to that free gracious condonation of Sin so often mentioned. God's gracious condonation of Sin, comprises the whole dispensation of Grace towards us in Christ: whereof there are Two Parts: 1 The laying of our Sin on Christ; or making him to be Sin for us, which was merely and purely an act of free Grace. 2 The gracious imputation of the Righteousness of Christ to us: or making us the Righteousness of God in him; which is no less of Grace and Mercy: However that Remission, Grace, and Pardon which is in God for Sinners, is not opposed to Christ's Merits, but ours. He pardons all to us, but he spares not his only Son: The freedom then of Pardon has not its Foundation in any defect of the Merit or Satisfaction of Christ, but in Three other things: 1 The Will of God freely appointing this Satisfaction of Christ (John 3:10; Romans 5:8). 2 In a gracious Acceptation of that decreed Satisfaction in our steads, so many, no more. 3 In a free Application of the Death of Christ to us: Remission then excludes not a full Satisfaction by the solution of the very thing in the Obligation, but only the solution or Satisfaction of him to whom Remission is granted, &c.

All that is here affirmed, may be reduced to these heads:

1 Actual freedom from the Obligation is the immediate Fruit of the Death of Christ: understand such an Immediation, as I have often described.

2 Hence, Christ is said actually or ipso facto to deliver us, because our Deliverance which is to be accomplished sub Termino, is the infallible, absolute, immediate Issue and Product of what he did for us. Actual and ipso facto, are opposed to the Intervention of any such thing, as should make our Deliverance to be only Potential, or Conditional.

3 Those for whom Christ does work this Deliverance, are not as to a simultaneity of time actually delivered: They neither enjoy, nor are acquainted with any such Deliverance until the appointed time be come, but have actual right thereunto, to possess it in due Season.

This being the sum and plain Intendment of that place, I suppose there will not need any laborious Endeavour to remove the Objections that are laid against it: And therefore to that before expressed, I say, Christ has actually and ipso facto procured our Deliverance: Hence we have actual right to it, but not actual possession of it: And where the difficulty of this should rest, I know not. Men may as oft as they please create Contradictions in their own minds, and entangle themselves with Doubts in the Knots which themselves have tied. But,

2 (Says he) Knowledge and Possession of a Deliverance are far different things.

Answ. 1 He makes them so, who plainly intimates, That the Reason why it is not apprehended, is, Because it is not possessed: and always speaks disjunctively of them.

2 Besides, This Proposition of the distance of these Two, is not universally true, as I could easily demonstrate.

3 Our Knowledge therefore (he adds) does not give us Possession: so that the Similitude fails: for it is the Creditor's Knowledge and Satisfaction that is requisite to Deliverance: and our Creditor was not in a far and strange Country, but knew immediately, and could either have made us quickly know, or turned us free before we had known the Cause.

Answ. 1 Whether or no, or how far Knowledge gives us Possession, I shall not now Dispute: only considering in what sense Knowledge is here used; and often in the Scripture, the Deliverance also spoken of, being such, as no small part thereof consists in this Knowledge, and without it (in the seed at least) is not, I cannot but say, That such kind of Affirmations in things of this weight, are very slender proofs. Yes further, Whereas the Enjoyment of this Deliverance is either as to the Being of it, or to the Comfort of it; the Latter is given us by this Knowledge merely, the Former consists therein mainly (John 17:3).

2 Similitudes are allowed their Grains to make them Current: But yet, as our Creditor's Knowledge and Satisfaction is required to our Deliverance, so not that only; but ours also, as to our actual Enjoyment of it. It is true, he could have made us quickly know it: but who has been his Counsellor? This is left to his Sovereign and free disposal, our Deliverance being Purchased to be made out in the season thereby appointed. But, That God could have made us free, before we knew the Cause, (supposing his Constitution of the way of Salvation revealed in the Blood of Jesus, which lies at the bottom of all these Disputes) is a most Anti-Evangelical Assertion, and diametrically opposed to the whole way of God's dealing with Sinners. But he adds,

4 Neither can it be understood how God can so long deny us the Possession of Heaven, if we had such actual absolute Right so long ago, which seems to me to express a jus ad rem, and in re.

Answ. 1 I love not to enquire into the Reason of God's actings, which are according to the Counsel of his own Will: and yet think it not very difficult to conceive how a Son is for a season kept as a Servant, though he be Heir of all.

2 He speaks as though this Deliverance lay all in Heaven, whereas it is here fully enjoyed on the Earth though not in all the degrees of the Fruits thereof.

3 If the right wherof we speak were Jus in re, I see not well indeed how God could keep us from the possession of it as Mr Baxter says: a man cannot be kept long from what he has. But says he,

5 If he mean a right to future possession, I do not see how right and possession should stand at so many years distance: To have right to God's favor, and possession of that favor seem to me of nearer kin. Except he should think that possession of favor is nothing but the knowledge or feeling of it: And that faith justifies only in loco Conscientia: but I will not censure so hardly until I know.

Answ. 1 If at so many years distance it may not be allowed, he had done well to express at how many it might. For my part, placing this right upon the purchase of Christ, (as before,) and possession in the actual enjoyment of the fruits of that purchase; then refering the distance between them to the good pleasure of God, who had granted and established that right to an enjoyment sub termino, I see no difficulty, no perplexity in this at all.

2 That no small portion of favor consists in a sense and knowledge of the kindness of God in its actings terminated upon the conscience, I must believe, whatever Mr Baxter be pleased to censure. It is far more facile to give the hardest censures, then to answer the easiest arguments.

3 The place where faith justifies I am not so solicitous about, as the manner how: which of all other ways commonly insisted on, I conceive not to be; as it is our now obedience: yet that in this work, it looks further than the conscience, I easily grant.

The most of what is subjoined to these exceptions, is fully answered in what went before.

As much as possible, I shall avoid all repetitions of the same things: Only whereas he affirms, 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 justification at the day of judgment, is the same with the possession 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 he pretends to great accurateness, censuring others, for not being able to distinguish aright of them, and so to spend abundance of labor in vain, in their discourses thereabout. Particularly here he denies (and calls it a dangerous error to suppose) That actual remission and justification are immediate effects of his death, or any right thereunto, which he attempts to prove by sundry arguments.

Of the effects of the death of Christ, and what relation they all stand in thereunto, I have spoken at large before. Now because actual remission is denied to be an immediate effect of the death of Christ, and so a 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.

Argum. 1 What right soever God gives to men in things supernatural (such as justification, remission, and adoption) he gives it by his written laws. But by these laws he has given no such thing to any unbelievers, such as are the elect before conversion: therefore, &c.

The major is evident: God's decree gives 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.

Answ. 1 Taking the laws of God in the strict and proper sense, and it is so far from being a truth, That what right God gives to any, he gives it by his written laws; that indeed the laws of God give no right to any one, concerning any thing, whether 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 Mr Baxter should bring them in, in the latitude of his single apprehension to be a medium in an argument. Hence,

2 Here is not a sufficient annumeration of causes; the promises of God are to be added, and those either 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, to 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 to righteousness that he should have it? But yet further,

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) but upon two other things.

1 The Covenant of God with Christ about the pardoning, justifying, and saving of those, for whose sin he should make his soul an offering: which covenant 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 wheron the Lord Jesus in the work of redemption rolled himself. Now in this covenant, God engaged himself (as I said before) to make out to those for whom Christ undertook, whatever was the fruit of his purchase, and that was what in his good pleasure was assigned thereunto. And this is the first bottom of this right.

2 The purchase of Christ being completed by the performance of all things by divine constitution thereunto allotted, and himself acquitted and exonerated of the whole debt of their sin for whom he suffered, which was charged on him; he makes demand of the accomplishment of the forementioned engagement made to him, concerning the freedom and deliverance of the persons whose sins were laid on him, and whose bringing to glory he undertook.

On these two, I say it is, that our right to the fruits of the death of Christ, even before believing, does depend: from hence at least it is right and equal, that we do in the time appointed enjoy these things. Yes, to say that we have right upon believing to the fruits of the death of Christ affirmed universally, can only be affirmed of a Jus in re, such a right, as has (at least in part) conjoined actual possession, believing itself being no small portion of these fruits.

This argument then being fallacious, omitting the chief causes in annumeration, concludes not the thing proposed. Besides it is in no small measure faulty, in that the first thing proposed to be confirmed was, that remission of sin, and justification are not the immediate effects of Christ's death, whereof in this argument there is [illegible].

Argum. 2. If God hate all the works of iniquity, and we are all by nature the children of wrath, and without faith it is impossible to please God, and he that believes not is condemned already, then certainly the elect while they are unbelievers, are not actually de facto, no nor in personal right delivered from this hatred, wrath, displeasure, and condemnation: But, Ergo.

Answ. 1 This argument, for what indeed it will prove is handled at large in my treatise of redemption, as also re-urged in the pages foregoing. Against actual justification from eternity, it has its efficacy.

2 It does also conclude, that the elect while unbelievers, are not actually and de facto put in possession of the issues of love, faith being with the first of them. But,

3 That they have not upon the grounds forementioned, a right to these things.

Or,

4 That justification is not the immediate effect of the death of Christ (being the sole things in question) it has the same unhappiness with the former, not once to mention.

Argum. 3. If we are justified only by faith, then certainly not before faith. But we are justified only by faith. Ergo.

Answ. 1 If I mistake not, it is not justification before faith, but a right to the fruits of the death of Christ before faith that is to be proved.

2 That justification is not the immediate effect of the death of Christ to which ends for this argument, Valeat quantum valere potest: to me, it comes not within many miles of the thing in question. So that with the absurd answers supposed thereunto, we pass it by.

The like also I am enforced to say of the two other that follow, being of the same length and breadth with those foregoing, too short and narrow to cover the things in question so that though they may have their strength to their own proper end, yet as to the things proposed to be proved, there is nothing in their genuine conclusions looking that way.

If I might take the liberty of guessing, I should suppose the mistake which lead this author to all this labor in vain, is, that the immediate effects of the death of Christ must be immediately enjoyed by them for whom he died. Which assertion has not indeed the least color of truth. The effects of the death of Christ are not said to be immediate, in reference to others' enjoyment of them, but to their causality by that death. Whatever it be, that in the first place is made out to sinners for the death of Christ, when ever it be done, that is the immediate effect thereof, as to them: as to them I say, for in its first tendency, it has a more immediate object.

If Mr. Baxter go on with his intentions about a tract concerning universal redemption, perhaps we may have these things cleared: and yet we must tell him before hand, that if he draw forth nothing on that subject but what is done by Amiraldus, and like things to them, he will give little satisfaction to learned and stable men, upon the issue of his undertaking.

I shall not presume to take another man's task out of his hand, especially one's who is so every way able to go through with it; else I durst undertake to demonstrate that treatise of Amiraldus, mentioned by Mr. Baxter, to be full of weak and sophistical argumentations, absurd contradictions, vain strife of words; and in sum to be, as birthless a tympanous endeavor, as ever so learned a man was engaged in.

For the present, being by God's providence removed for a season from my native soil, attended with more than ordinary weaknesses and infirmities, separated from my library, burdened with manifold employments, with constant preaching to a numerous multitude, of as thirsting a people after the Gospel, as ever yet I conversed withal; it suffices me, that I have obtained this mercy, briefly and plainly to vindicate the truth from mistakes, and something further to unfold the mystery of our redemption in Christ, all with so facile and placid an endeavor, as is usually upon the spirits of men, in the familiar writings of one friend to another. That it has been my aim to seek after truth, and to keep close to the form of wholesome words delivered to us, will (I hope) appear to them that love truth, and peace.

Dublin-Castle, Decemb. 20. 1649. [illegible].

FINIS.