Knowledge Prop. IX All this Revelation is some part of the Law of Jesus Christ and so these Truths are discovered and this light sent by him as the Lord Redeemer of the World or as Rector upon his Redemption Title For all things being now delivered into his hands and the whole frame of Government being laid on his shoulders and built on his Redemption even on Christ the head Corner Stone the very moral Law now is his Law and its obligation to obedience is his obligation yea the very Law of Works obligeth to punishment now not as it was at first given and remaineth in the hands of an offended unsatisfied Creator but as it is suspended and delivered up into the hands of the Satisfier or Redeemer to remit wholly or execute only conditionally as men shall receive or reject the grace of Redemption so that as God ruleth among those blindest of Heathens that yet know him not so doth Christ Rule among them that know not him Prop. X. The Ten last Particulars before mentioned which these men may know are properly Gospel Truths for the Law of Works sheweth nothing of Mercy contrary to desert nor of any hope of Recovery Object But how can the meer light of Nature discern Gospel Truths without a supernatural Revelation Answ The Light of Nature is either Reason it self which is the Souls viâ—ive faculty 2. Or the External Light which in the nature of things shines forth 3. Or the Species and Knowledge received by Reason through the mediation of this External Light Also supernatural Revelation is 1. Either the Rectitude of the Soul as a Recipient Power or Faculty which was natural to Adam and may be called supernatural to us because it is not born with us and because it is not wrought but by a supernatural efficient though it be most natural to us as a thing congruous to our Natures welfare as health is to our Bodies 2. Or it is the Objective Extrinsical Revelation by a supernatural way and that either as distinct from that which should have been according to the Tenor of the first Law or from that which is ordinary by common Causes tho' beyond the former 3. Lastly it is taken for the actual efficient impressing of the Species on the Intellect by a supernatural Assisting Power On these distinctions I Answer 1. Natural Reason or the Intellectual faculty is the recipient of all Revelations natural or supernatural 2. There are many Objective Revelations supernatural as being such as according to the first Law of Nature would never have been manifested which yet are not supernatural as Miracles are in opposition to a natural Causality in the way of Revealing And so Rain and Fruitful Seasons Health Wealth Deliverances c. are Mercies that come in a natural way of Causality and yet they may teach a Sinner those Truths which the meer Law of Nature never taught him Mercies and such Mercies given to those that deserve Misery and are obliged to extremity of Punishment by Law do teach us that there is Remission of Sin and a way found out for the Relaxing the obligation that mens deserts do not fall upon them These Providences therefore are so far supernatural as being the clear effects of the Law of Grace which relaxeth the obligation of the Law of Nature Prop. XI It is not proper or fit to say that the Gospel is Preached to these Heathens that never heard of Christ because that the word Gospel most properly signifieth the main heart and substance of it viz The discovery of Christs Incarnation Life Death Resurrection Ascention Dignity Office and the full New Covenant But yet it may truly be said that some Gospel Truths and so some small part of the Gospel is revealed to these men viz. the ten particulars forementioned No doubt Paul Preached part of the Gospel to the Heathens at Lystra Acts 14. 7 15. c. when he mentioned Jesus Christ ver 23. Heb. 4. 2 3. It is said that the Gospel was Preached to the Jews in the Wilderness who yet had little of that which now is the substance of our Creed about Christ Prop. XII That Repentance which God requirerh now of all men even them that never heard the Gospel is not a Hellish Judas-like despairing Repentance such as was due according to the violated Law of works but it is a Repentance that is appointed as means toward recovery and therefore hath a tendency to Salvation Gods mercies lead to Repentance but not to a despairing Repentance for they contradict that All the precepts of Repentance prove this and the course of Gods dealings And indeed else all the remnants of Religion would be banished out of the World For despairing men will not Worship God nor seek to please him nor forbear sinning but will hate God and live like Devils and sin while they may without voluntary restraint All the Sacrifices that the Heathens offered and all their Prayers and Conscience of Sinning shewed that they apprehended God merciful and placable and their case remediable Hope did keep up all that remnant of Religion which all Nations of the World have maintained which else had been extinguished long ago and Earth been like Hell Prop. XIII These Heathens do all of them receive some Grace which was purchased by the Blood of Christ and there is a Natural aptitude in it as in other effects to lead the enquirer to the knowledge of the cause and fountain caeteris concurrentibus Grace is Mercy contrary to Merit Heathens have much Mercy contrary to Merit therefore they have some Grace Now all such Grace is inseparable from some Revelation of Gospel Truths Nay indeed it is a Revelation there of it self Prop. XIV Though Christ giveth not to these Heathens sufficient Grace to believe in his name yet he giveth them sufficient Grace or merciful aid to receive and obey those or some of those Truths fore-mentioned which he doth reveal to them and so to come nearer to Christ than before they were I have before shewed that all men are far from Christ Naturally and that they must be brought divers steps or degrees nearer him before they are brought to the very act of Faith which unites men to him specially Heathens that are at the remotest distance Also I have shewed that there is such a thing as sufficient Grace not effectual as to the event and that both from the example of Adam of the wicked now and fot he Godly themselves I shall therefore now suppose what is already proved I have shewed also that though God thought it not meet to engage himself in Covenant with such nor to make any thing short of true Faith to be the condition of his Promise yet he hath appointed means to others that yet have not Faith which they are bound to use towards the getting of it and he hath given them sufficient encouragement to address themselves cheerfully and vigorously to the use of those means with hope to speed So
nisi virtute satisfactionis plenae Deo anteapro nobis presentatae Neque quidquam per nos facit quod ipsemet antea satis perfecte fecit 3. Per Causas secundas Deus non operatur Creationem ex nihilo sed Satisfactio Redemptio eundem locum habent in ordine Gratiae quem Creatio habet in ordine naturae p. 172. Deus aliquando parcit iis quibus non est propriè reconciliatus c. 2. Sadeel is full this way Adversus humanas Satisfactiones p 211. he saith Aut Christus merito mortis suae delet culpam peccatorum venialium ut vocant aut non delet Si dicant non delere Ergo Christus non pro omnibus peccatis mortuus est sed tantum pro mortalibus O blasphemos homines si quidem id dixerint quid est aliud delere ac remittere culpam ejus peccati quod ex ipsorum sententia poenas temporales promeretur quam nullas exigere poenas temporales propter illud peccatum promeritas Nesciunt profectò isti homines quid sit peccati culpa nec advertunt poenam peccati non posse definiri absque mentione culpae So that sin it self may be said so far to be pardoned as the punishment is remitted and therefore he saith it was only the punishment and not the fault that Christ bore p. 215. At quomodo Christus satisfecit Deo pro peccatis nostris An non id factum est quia Christus peccatorum nostrorum non culpam pertulit sed poenam Sic. p. 228. Nam Chrisius ut nostram non nostris sed Augustini verbis explicemus sententiam suscipiendo poenam non suscipiendo culpam culpam delevit poenam 3. So Chamier at large shews that it is only through Christ's Satisfaction that fault or punishment is remitted and that God cannot remit without satisfaction Tom. 3. l. 23. c. 2. § 22. Itaque in genere concedo non posse Deum impunita peccata dimittere id est nisi puniantur vel in peccatore vel in Mediatore of which Voetius in his Thesis is full and § 31. Nihil ergo rectius quam luisse pro nobis Christum poenas num aliquas tantum an vero omnes c. si non luisset omnes neminem liberant ab omnibus So that he takes the argument to be good a liberatione ad solutionem per Christum and § 27. Remissio opponitur exactioni poenarum Now I have proved that God remitteth much punishment to wicked men not Elect yea even in Scripture phrase the remitting of that punishment is called the Remission of their sin as is shewed before and lest any should say it is but a delay of their punishment till the Life to come I answer 1. Is not punishment due to them both in this Life and that to come And therefore to remit one is true remission 2. No Scripture intimateth that God will lay so much the more on them in Hell meerly because he punished them not more on Earth but for their abuse of Mercy on Earth 3. Doth not Christ himself expresly speak of not forgiving sin in this life or that to come 4. Many have so much remission here as tends to the great abatement of their everlasting torments for Christ gives them that freedom from temptations and such means and common Grace as brings them to be almost Christians and almost Saved and such as the man whom he is said to have loved and said to him thou art not far from the Kingdom of God Whereas doubtless the rigorous execution of the Curse of the Law requires that men be wholly forsaken of God as to any such Grace or Mercy and consequently given up to the prevalency of their own Lusts And it is a doubt whether they that make all this Remission and Mercy to the Non-Elect to befal them without the satisfaction of Christ do not wrong Christ somewhat more than the Papists themselves who in their vile Doctrine of Satisfaction and Indulgence do ascribe all to Christ radically and remotely and to man directly saying that for temporal punishments Christ satisfieth in and by man to whom he hath procured that power by his own immediate satisfaction These give Christ some part of the honour but the other none at all And that a conditional remission of the eternal punishment is given in the Gospel to the Non-Elect under Gods hand is so plain that he that knows it not knows not the plain tenour of the Gospel Besides if it be said that all this can be given to the Non-Elect without Christs satisfying for them then it would follow that it may be given to the Elect also without Christs satisfying for them but all our Divines call that Impious and blasphemous in their disputes against Purgatory Indulgences and humane Satisfactions Nay mark well that the same conditional deed of Gift of Christ and his Benefits which is uneffectual to Unbelievers because they perform not the condition is the same that becomes effectual to the Justification and Adoption of Believers and that without any new additional real act of God Lastly Satisfaction for one man will not serve to the remitting of any part of the Debt of another so that I may conclude that Christ satisfied for All seeing all receive the fruits of that satisfaction The effects cannot be without their cause Arg. 19. A comparatione Legis Gratiae cum Lege operum If Christ Died not for all to whom the Gospel comes then the Law of Grace doth contain far harder terms than the Law of Works But the consequent is false therefore so is the Antecedent The Consequence of the Major Proposition I prove thus The Law of Works as given to man in Innocency required nothing that was Impossible for man in that state to do But if Christ satisfied not for all the Law of Grace should require Impossibilities and condemn men for want of them and so should contain much harder terms than the Law of Works Yea the Law of Works as given to fallen man if so it were contained nothing contradictory and so impossible in it self though man through sin was disabled to perform it But the Law of Grace should if this Doctrine opposed were true If the Law of Grace require men to take him for their Redeemer and rest on him as their Redeemer that never redeemed them it should contain a contradiction If according to this Law men must be everlastingly condemned because they did not receive him as their Lord-Redeemer that never paid for them any price of Redemption and because they did not receive and apply to themselves the effects and benefits of a satisfaction which was never made for them and so could not possibly be a cause of such effects and because they did not rest on Christ to Justifie and Save them by his Blood which was never shed for them these are impossibilities and far harder terms than those of the Law of Works Yea if
And 1. I argue thus If it be no injustice in God to oblige men to punishment for all Christs satisfaction then it is no injustice actually to punish men for all Christs satisfaction But the former is true therefore so is the latter First I will prove the consequence of the Major Proposition thus from the essential offices of the Law 1. The Law is Juris constitutiva vel saltem declarativa It constituteth Right or at least declareth right I put in the latter declareth not as my own sense but to prevent the quarrel of any that may think this or any Right was constituted from Eternity before there was any Law or at least before that which we say obligeth sinners to punishment Though indeed the Law doth constitute before it declare And so the Law is Regula jussitiâ— vel saltem regula justa And if so then to execute such a Law can be no injustice 2. The Law is Norma judicii that 's past question I speak of a Law in force and as to the subjects to whom it is in force And if so then it can be no injustice to execute it But I think few sober men will deny the Major and therefore I leave that And one would think none should doubt of the Minor Whether it be any injustice in God by his Law to oblige to punishment those that Christ Died for But because the Antinomians deny it let us prove it If God do de facto oblige to punishment those for whom Christ Died then it is no injustice so to do But God doth so actually Ergo c. I hope if we prove that God doth it none dare say it is unjust If he be not Just he is not God And that God doth it I prove thus 1. Those that God Hateth and are Children of Wrath and without Hope and without God in the World and Strangers to the Covenant of Promises and Aliens to the Common-Wealth of Israel c. are certainly obliged to punishment But such many have been and still are for whom Christ Died Ergo c. God hateth all the workers of Iniquity and they are all by Nature Children of Wrath c. But many that Christ Died for are before Regeneration workers of Iniquity Ergo c. 2. All that are under the Curse of the Law are obliged to punishment But many that Christ Died for were under the Curse of the Law since his Death undertaken when his satisfaction was in force yea since his actual suffering Ergo. c. Many Scriptures shew both that we were under the Curse of the Law when Christ actually suffered and that all the Elect are under it still as well as others till their conversion I am loth to trouble the Reader in heaping up Testimonies 3. All that are condemned already and the Wrath of God abideth on them are doubtless obliged to punishment But such are many for whom Christ Died even all the Elect as well as others while they are unbelievers John 3. 18. 4. All that are guilty are obliged to punishment Proved Reatus est obligatio ad poenam they are all one thing But some that Christ Died for are Guilty Ergo c. Even all before pardon and that is all before Conversion are guilty 5. All those whose sins Christ doth pardon were first guilty or obliged to punishment But some that Christ Died for have their sins pardoned Ergo c. The Major is proved beyond all doubt from the formal Nature of Pardon which is the Remitting of Guilt or the Dissolving of an Obligation to punishment therefore where is no such obligation there can be no Dissolution of it For that which is not cannot be dissolved And so there is no capacity for pardon no more than a living man can be raised from the Dead or a Man cured of a Disease which he never had The like may be said of Justification also Our Divines have fully proved against the Antinomians that we are unpardoned and unjustified till we believe We are Justified by Faith and therefore were unjustified before Faith 6. If none be obliged to punishment for whom Christ Died then none such may pray for Pardon nor confess that they need any Pardon from Christ For Pardon being the dissolving of an obligation to punishment there can be no pardon where there is no obligation and therefore no need of it nor of prayer for it But the consequent is very wicked We must daily pray Forgive us our Debts and Trespasses Ergo c. The Second Argument is this If God do actually punish those for whom Christ Died then he may justly punish them But God doth actually punish such Ergo c. The Major is unquestionable The Minor is fully proved thus 1. The express words of Scripture shew it Lev. 26. 41 43. Lam. 3 39. and 4. 6 22. Amos 1. 3 6 9 11 13. and 2. 1 4 6. 2 Cor. 2. 6. 1 Pet. 2. 14. Jer. 44. 13. Ezra 9. 13. Hos 4. 9 15. Jer. 9 25. Read the places 2. The execution of that sentence Gen. 3. 16 17 18 19. is certainly punishment I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy Conception in sorrow thou shalt bring forth Children c. Cursed is the ground for thy sake in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy Life c. Dust thou art and to Dust shalt thou return But this sentence is executed on those that Christ Died for Ergo c. 3. Those whom God chastiseth he punisheth But he chastiseth those whom Christ Died for Ergo c. The Major is undeniable to all that know what chastisement and punishment is Punishment is the Genus being a Natural Evil or the privation of a Natural Good inflicted for a Moral Evil the privation of a Moral Good Rigorous vindictive Punishment tending most to the ruine of the Sinner is one species of it Chastisement is another species which by the hurt of a sinner tendeth to his good And though this be called Paternal yet 1. Chastisement is not the proper act of Parents Masters may Chastise Servants and Princes their Subjects 2. It is Metaphorically called Paternal in one respect as God exerciseth it when yet in other respects it is the act of God as Rector per Legâ—s for so all Gods Chastisements are according to his Laws Object All shall work together for good to them that Love God to the Called c. therefore nothing is Punishment Answ 1. The best Interpreters according to the plain truth expound that Text of Affliction only and most of such Affliction as is suffered for Christs cause or at least not for hainous sinning against God And it is unlikely it should be otherwise 1. Because the defect of Love to God seems excepted in limiting it to them that love God But one that Christ Died for may be defective in love to God therefore that is not promised to work for good 2. Every Man dieth in some sin and how that
which is their Master Argument may as well say that God is an imperfect Creator because he maketh not Worms to be Men or that he is an imperfect Conservator because he preserved not man from Mortality Damnation and Antecedent Calamities especially from Sin Or that he is imperfectly Merciful because he permitteth Men to sin and Condemneth them Or that Christ is an Imperfect Redeemer of the Elect because he suffereth them after his Redemption to Sin Suffer and Die Or that the Holy Ghost is an imperfect Sanctifier and Caller because many wicked Men are Sanctifyed and Believe imperfectly so as will not suffice to Salvation and because they resist and quench the Spirit and fall from that Faith and Sanctification which they had Or that the Spirit is an imperfect Comforter because so many Saints Live and Die in such unconformitable sadness Or that Scripture is an imperfect means because the Effect is so imperfect In a word they may as well say that where God doth not overcome mens wicked dispositions he is an imperfect God to them in regard of his Mercies All which beseem not the Tongue of a Christian Prop. LX. That Argument commonly brought against Universal Redemption that where Christ doth the work of a Mediator for any man in one of his Offices he doth it in all is undeniably destructive to the cause it is brought for For it is undeniable that Christ as Prophet and King Teacheth Calleth Illuminateth many Non-elect giveth some Faith some Taste of his word and the powers of the World to come sanctifyeth them by the Blood of the Covenant and washeth them from their former pollutions Mat. 13. Heb. 6. and 10. â—2 Pet. 2. 20. Therefore in his Priestly Office he must at least be as far their Mediator CHAP. IV. The First Proposition Asserted Prop. I. CHRIST in Sufâ—ering did not strictly and properly bear and represent the person of the Sinner so as Civiliter Moraliter Legaliâ—er it might be said that we either satisfied or sufferâ—d in or by Christ Explic. I am not willing to make the meer â—ords here any matter of quarrel If any dislike â—ny term of mine or like his own let him apâ—ly himself to the matter in Question and let â—…e words pass 1. I deny not that Christ Sufâ—ered nostro loco in our place or stead suffering â—…at which we deserved and should else have unâ—voidably suffered 2. I acknowledge and mainâ—â—in that our Sins were the quasi Causa Meritoria 〈…〉 loco causae meritoriae of his sufferings and that 〈…〉 became Sin for us that is a Curse for Sin â—…at is he made himself by his own Sponsion obâ—â—xious to the Curse and Punishment due to us for 〈…〉 Sin And so far Sin was imputed to him But Christ was neither really a Sinner nor eâ—â—eemed of God so to be and in that sence sin â—as not imputed to him 4. All know that 〈…〉 Physico Christ did not bear our persons Some will needs extend the phrase of bearâ—â—g or representing the person of another civiliter so far as if it were applicable to every sponser surety or one that alterius vice loco doth do or suffer any thing And so they say Christ bore our Person But as I think they abuse the phrase by extending it so far so I am content they use their liberty to express themselves as they please only I intreat them that they misunderstand not me but know that my meaning is that the Law doth not look on any Man no not the Elect as having either satisfyed or suffered in or by Christ nor doth the Law-giver and judge so look on him And so Christ did not strictly in Law-Sense bear the person of any Man in suffering so as that person might be said to have in him suffered 6. Some think Christ in suffering the penalty as penalty did strictly bear our persons as Sinners but not as this suffering was a satisfaction to Gods Justice which is the effect of it much less as it was meritorious of further Grace and Salvation The Authors or owners of this opinion of whom Arminiâ—â— himself seems one discerned the inconveniences that would follow the opinion of strict Representation but while they discerned not the right way of avoiding them and feared lest they should swarve by a full denial of it they seem to me to fall into the same place from which they leaped Though I confess that at the first view I began to incline to this opinion as most moderate which now I see to be unsafe The most of my Arguments are drawn from those intollerable consequences of the Doctrine which I oppose as being such as overthrow the very substance of the Gospel Though to the inconsiderate it may seem a small matter 1. Argument That Doctrine which consequentially denyeth all Pardon of Sin is not of God But such is the Doctrine which I here oppose Therefore c. The Minor only requires proof Where the proper debt is discharged or penalty undergone in Law-Sence by the person himself who was obnoxious there is no room for Pardon to such a Person But according to the Doctrine which I oppose the proper debt is discharged or the penalty undergone in Law-Sence by the Person himself who was obnoxious Therefore according to that Doctrine there is no place for Pardon to such The Minor needs no proof it being the express terms of the assertion which I deny that Christ so represented our Persons in suffering or â—atisfying as that Legaliter vel Civiliter we may properly be said to have suffered or satisfied in â—im so that though it was Christs Person naturally yet it was ours Legally Morally or Impuâ—â—tively The major I prove thus He that oweth nothing or to whom no penalty is due can have â—one forgiven him But he that hath paid all the â—ebt or undergone all the punishment that was â—â—e by himself or another that in Law-Sence is himself doth owe nothing or to him no penalty â— due Therefore he can have none forgiven him â—ob Major Remissio est Debiti Remissio Thereâ—â—re where there is no due there can be no reâ—â—ssion Prob. Minor To have paid or suffered all 〈◊〉 to owe some are contradictory and inconstent Therefore he that hath paid all owes noâ—â—ing The Antimonians Answer is this It is true that no punishment is due to the Elect and none is properly forgiven them now since Christs Death But Christs assuming their Persons in satisfying was a Remission to them Or God did in one instant remit it to them and transfer it on Christ Reply 1. Christs assuming our Persons is not remission of Sin 2. If God did remit it to us when he transferred it on Christ and yet we Legaliter suffered in Christ then God did both remit the whole debt to us and receive satisfaction in Law-Sence from us at the same time But that is a contradiction Therefore c. From hence I may therefore further argue 2. Arg. That Doctrine
Father delivered into his Hand Joh. 5. 22. The Father judgeth no Man but hath given all judgment to the Son c. Phil. 2. 7. 8. 9. Rom. 14. 9. 2. That this Right is founded on Redemption is proved by all that is said in the forementioned Arguments and Texts and I think few Christians will deny it Rom. 14. 9. For this end he both died rose and revived that he might be Lord of the dead and of the living If it were the end of his death and resurrection to obtain this Dominion then surely this Dominion is grounded in that Death and Resurrection and belongs to him as a Redeemer Phil. 2. 6 7 8 9 10 11. he became obedient to Death even the Death of the Cross Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him c. 3. And that it is not Christs dying only for the Elect that is the ground of his Dominion and Empire over all I prove thus 1. The Dominion of Christ and his Jus Imperii over the Non-Elect is of the same kind with his Dominion and Jus Imperii over the Elect and therefore hath the same cause It is not such as his Dominion over Devils or Brutes as we shall further shew anon I say not that Christ exerciseth his Imperial power in the same way over all but the relation of Rex or Imperator which Christ hath rightfully over all is the same to all And the relation of Subjects to Christ which all stand in to him quod debitum veljus is the same relation all Men as well as the Elect to whom his Laws are promulgate are bound to acknowledg him their King and Lord in the same sence as the Elect are And are bound to give up themselves to him as his subjects in the same sense as the Elect are and with a subjection of the same kind For the New Law which constituteth the duty is general and distinguisheth not as to this between Elect and Non-Elect 2. It is manifest that Christs Blood cannot be purchasing of Dominion or Empire immediately but only meante virtute satisfactoria as it is a placament or propitiatory Sacrifice to the offended Majesty For were not Christs Blood first necessary to this expiatory use it would be so far from being purchasing or meritorious of any further benefit that it would not be acceptable to God at all For he is not bloodthirsty he takes not pleasure in the Blood of the innocent Nay he is averse from it So that Christs Death must needs be first satisfactory to Justice in order of nature before it purchase Dominion or Empire Now if he may have this right to a peculiar Dominion and Empire over most of the World without satisfying for them then either his right over most is immediate without flowing from satisfaction which is evidently false or else it is founded in his satisfaction for others viz. the Elect And if so then why might not he as well have right of Dominion and Empire over the Elect without satisfying for them as over all others without satisfying for them And if so then he might do all that which now he doth as Lord and Rector without satisfaction Antecedent And if so then he might make his New Law which now he hath made wherein he Repeals the bondage of Ceremonies and provideth a remedy against the curse and whereby he gives pardon and glory to all if they will receive him But this may not be granted 3. It is also proved hence that Christs rule over all Men is founded in his satisfaction of Redeeming of those same Men because when he is offered to them and they commanded to receive him it is in the Relation of Lord Redeemer All are commanded to take him for their Lord Jesus Christ no Man is commanded to take him as Lord and King only and not as Redeemer and Saviour Nay our Divines commonly make the act of justifying Faith to confist only in receiving Christ as Redeemer or satisfieror Saviour as saving us by his Blood from guilt excluding the reception of him as King and Lord from being the justifying Act of Faith wherein yet I am forced as zealouly to contradict them as in almost any one point only they confess it is of absolute necessity that Christ at the same time be received as Lord when he is received as Redeemer Now all Men are bound that hear the Gospel to believe to justification that 's generally granted And if so then all Men are bound to receive Christ as their Lord-Redeemer and not as Lord to them and Redeemer to others And if so then doubtless Christ is their Lord-Redeemer Now Redemption hath two parts the first is the paying of the Price that is satisfaction by dying for us The 2d is applying or conferring the benefits of that satisfaction by actual delivering or Redeeming from the guilt and power of Sin The first is that chief part of Redemption from whence the whole is chiefly denominated Now the first part is past and done whether Men believe or not and is not offered to be done on any condition nor to be done for our Sins Christ doth not say I will pay the price of thy Redemption if thou wilâ— take me for thy Redeemer it is paid already but it is the 2d part of Redemption that is offered on condition The first is general and absolure The second is generally given on condition and special as to the actual Collation by Christ and fruition by Man So that when Christ saith to a Man take me for thy Redeemer it is as much as to say take me for one that hath made satisfaction for thy Sins and if thou wilt receive me I will pardon and save thee thereby now if Christ did not Redeem Men by satisfying and yet require them to take him as their Redeemer then he requires them to take him to be that which he is not and to have done that which he hath not For Christ cannot be a Redeemer to any Man that he hath not paid the paid the price of Redemption for Which if it be not done Faith will not cause it to be done So that it being certain that the Lordship and Empire of Christ which he hath right to over all and which all are commanded to acknowledg and submit to is inseparably conjoyned with his Redemption he being offered to no Man as Lord to whom he is not also offerd as Redeemer it is evident that his Jus novum Dominii imperiii his new right of propriety and Rule over all Men doth presuppose his Redeeming all as to the price and satisfaction Obj. But if that be so then he Redeemed or died for Bruits Devils and good Angels For he hath a Right of Dominion and Rule over these Ans This Objection though otherwise scarce worthy to be taken notice of hath been so entertained yielded to and confidently managed by some that it is become necessary to make a discovery of its vanity 1. Christ hath not a
supposition that Christ bore not Punishment for any mans sins but those whom he intended infallibly to bring to Heaven which they have never yet proved nor ever will do there being no Word of God that promiseth to save all that Christ died for Lay all this together and you will see the truth of these Conclusions 1. That it was not the absence of Faith in Christ the Remedy but the Old Laws Obligation of us to Punishment or the guilt of sin which required Christ's satisfaction to God's Justice 2. That Christ by this satisfaction did not immediately merit Faith it self but only those intermediate causes from whence the Faith of his Elect is produced that is He purchased all men from the Legal necessity of perishing that they were in into his own Power as their Owner and Ruler that so he might make over Reconciliation Remission and Salvation to all if they will believe and might send forth sufficient means and help of Grace to draw all men towards him resolving to draw his Elect Infallibly to him 3. That it is therefore an improper and unfit phrase to say that Christ Died to purchase us Faith though rightly explained it hath truth in it But rather that Faith is an effect or fruit of Christ's Death viz. where Faith is given For the former phrase would intimate as if Faith were the thing that God was to give in requital of Christ for his Bloodshed and that directly and so Faith should be given by God as Legislator of the Old Law For the stipulation supposed to be between the Father and Son was made by the Father on his part not as Redeemer or Legislator of the New Law but as the offended Rector according to the Law of Creation now treating with the Mediator about mans Recovery Though these things spoken after our manner do but signifie Gods Decrees yet they shew us in what Relation God stood towards Man and towards the Redeemer when he required and accepted of Satisfaction Whereas the thing given to Christ was Power of Dominion and Rectorship and so the Redeemed delivered to him not all to one final end nor with a like intent And so Faith is procured by Christ only in this remote sense in that he procured full power to use the fittest means to draw men to him in the season and degrees he please with a full resolution in his own mind to make all this effectual upon his chosen that he might attain the full end of his Blood-shed So that Faith is the effect of that degree of Grace which from his Plenipotency he gives lest his chosen should miss of the intended Salvation and therefore is improperly said to be purchased by Christs Blood though yet it be a remote effect of his Blood to those that have it and none could have had it without the Intervention of his Blood because there would have been no saving use of Faith without that Blood otherwise they might if we look to Faith but as such an act considered without its object given 4. And therefore the Scripture no where useth any such phrase as to say that Christ Died to purchase us Faith But ordinarily that he died to purge or put away sin c. And in controverted cases it is safest to speak in Scripture Language Suppose a man pay 1000 l. to Ransom certain Prisoners that owed that sum and upon the Ransom it is agreed that they shall now be delivered up to him as his Ransomed ones to dispose of at his pleasure yet both parties agree that only those shall be actually delivered into freedom who thankfully accept the favour and the Ransomer as their Lord The Redeemer knows that these are men of such stubborn hearts that they will refuse his offer yet he resolves to send them under his hand a conditional discharge that all shall come forth that will accept him and his offer and to tell them that all the rest shall by him be still detained and as his Prisoners suffer greater misery Yet out of a special love to some of them he resolves to send a friend who is so effectual an Orator as will certainly prevail with them to lay by their obstinacy and yield to his motion Doth it seem a proper phrase in this case to say that this man paid 1000 l. to purchase for these men a yielding Heart or to purchase their consent to accept him and his kindness Rather he did it to purchase their Freedom from Prison which he gives to all as far as belongs to him as Ransomer But he sends this Orator with a resolution to prevail in another superadded relation viz. as one that beareth a special love to those particular men above the rest or as one at least that is resolved to attain infallibly that fruit of his Ransom even the actual deliverance of those men Nor can it therefore be concluded that he paid not the debt of any of the rest because he will not as importunately solicite them to accept of his offer 5. We must therefore distinguish of meer Ransoming or Redemption by Sacrifice and the same Sacrifice or Redemption as it is conjoyned with Election and is subordinate to it Effectual Grace to work Faith infallibly proceeds from Redemption as it is accompanied with Election or with a special absolute resolution of saving those particular persons but it comes not from mere Redemption by Sacrifice as divided from Election and therefore is common to all the Elect but not common to all the Redeemed For God hath means of two different sorts for the accomplishing his Decree of Election as to execution First general means and secondly special means and the general is the Foundation on which he means to build the special Let us again remember Amesius's words that Redemption is to the whole work of Grace viz. both common and special what Creation is to the work of Nature Nay better we may say what Creation was to Gods Governing Administrations under the first Law that is Redemption to Gods Governing Administrations under the Second or New Law For in Creation God did two things 1. He gave man his Being that he might be a Subject fit for Government 2. He gave him his Right Being Real and Relative making him after his Image in his favour and in a state of happiness and in this state he made a Law with him even with all mankind in Adam and Eve promising him further everlasting life on condition of obedience Now here Gods Creation of man in his favour and in rectitude was a common work and so was his giving him that Law But so was not the fulfilling of its Promise which implieth the Intervention of mans performance of the condition Suppose now that man had been multiplied by propagation before the fall of any and then one half of mankind had kept this Law of Works and the other had broke it Had it been fit for any man to say that God did not Create any of those
that did his best in the use of these means and lost his labour So that if all men have not Faith it is their own fault not only as Originally Sinners but as rejecting sufficient Grace to have brought them nearer Christ than they were for which it is that they justly perish as is more fully opened in the Dispute of sufficient Grace I think now I may fafely conclude that there is no proof yet brought that Christ will give Faith to all that he dyed for but the contrary I have proved Argument 3. Against Universal Satisfaction Christ dyed not for those who were in Hell at the time of his Death therefore he dyed not for all Answ I cannot discern any strong appearance of proof that can be brought for the Antecedent however it take with very many as I confess in the time of my ignorance it did with me 1. Jesus Christ satisfied God's Justice 1. Morally at his first undertaking interposing or engagement according to our apprehension presently upon mans fall 2. By that Natural Suffering which he had before undertaken and this was in the fulness of time It is usual for moral effects to go before the natural part of the Cause but the Cause is in esse morali in moral being Many a man upon his word to pay so much money such a day or upon earnest given hath the thing bought delivered to him tho' he pay not the price till long after So may a man redeem Slaves by such an undertaking So did Christ undertake to bear the punishment due to the Sins of all and this undertaking satisfied God not without his suffering but by its respect to his future suffering giving it a moral Being before hand so that when Christs satisfaction was in its first moral being no man of this World was in Heaven or in Hell 2. It was necessary for Christ having undertaken to suffer the punishment due to their sins before they were Condemned to perform his undertaking after they are Condemned If you give earnest for the buying of Beasts or Slaves and take them into your possession and promise such a day to make payment though they dye the while you must pay the price 3. Christ had as much of his ends obtained in those that perished by Rejecting Grace before his death as he hath for those that perish for the same cause since 4. The Wicked that perished before Christ's death had the same benefits by it as those that perish after his death allowing the difference that the clear discovery of the mystery of Salvation now doth cause they had mercy offered them and Remission and Salvation given them on Condition of repenting and believing and sufficient grace to have brought them nearer God than they were which if they had obeyed they had a high probability of having more added 5. All this presupposeth Christ then a sufficient Object for their Faith that is Christ who had satisfied for them as to his Undertaking and must and would do it afterwards in performance was then the Object propounded for them to believe in and therefore their Unbelief was Consequential and not Antecedent to Christ's moral satisfaction and suffering for them even as the Faith of the Godly also was 6. It is as good arguing to say some were in Heaven when Christ dyed therefore he dyed not for them as to say some were in Hell therefore he dyed not for them For it may as wisely be said those in Heaven were past all need of satisfaction as that those in Hell were past all hope and remedy The time was when they had hope from that satisfaction set before them and when it was a sufficient remedy for them and wanted nothing but their own consent to make it fully effectual As the time was when those now in Heaven had need of it and did accept it offered them Abraham saw Christ's day and rejoyced and Moses counted the reproaches of Christ greater Riches than the Treasures of Egypt But the impenitent then refused Christ and his Government and therefore were justly denied his further Mercies 7. Only this much may be concluded by this arguing that Christ at the time of his dying did not intend the Saving of those that were then in Hell and so it is as true that Christ at his death did not intend for the future to give Regeneration the first Reconciliation Pardon Adoption Union with him or Glory to those in Heaven for they had received them all long before as the Damned had lost them all before by their Rejection But it follows not hence that therefore Christ bore not the punishment of all mens sins according to his first undertaking I know great dissimilitudes are pretended between the Cases of the Saved and the Damned when Christ dyed as to this Argument but they are but pretended and none is shewed and I think it needless to strive against meer words But a fore-mentioned Disputer undertaketh to shew that the Answer drawn from the state of them that were Saved when Christ dyed will not hold and why 1. He saith Those that were saved were saved on this ground that Christ should certainly suffer for them in due time which suffering was as effectual in the purpose and promise as in the execution and accomplishment c. Answ 1. And those that were Damned had Pardon and Salvation given them freely if they would have accepted them on God's terms and this was on the same consideration of Christ's future dying for them 2. And consequently they who were then Damned for unbelief were Damned for rejecting a Christ that had undertaken to dye for them and the mercy purchased by his undertaken death 2. This Author produceth such a Simile as I mentioned even now of one that undertaketh the ransom of Prisoners and sendeth to them thereupon to come forth for he that detaineth them taketh his word Now if some come forth and the rest refuse and be dead in Prison and others hear not of that and that according to his appointment and were dead long since when the Ransomer comes to pay the Debt or Ransom doth he intend it for them that dyed obstinately in Prison or only for those that came forth doubtless only for these last Answ 1. To answer as confidently doubtless it is the Debt and Ransom undertaken for all and paid according to the undertaking 2. Bring home the Similitude nearer the case from payment of money to suffering of the punishment which they should have suffered or some other ad fines Rectoris equivalent and doubtless then he suffered Loco omnium instead even of those that are dead in Prison or else he is not a man of his word if his action answer not his undertaking But he did not at his actual suffering intend it for the further good of the dead not in bonum ulterius omnium supposing what good they had before received by it and might have received a full deliverance if they would And to make them
I intend not here to determine or meddle with 3. We anumerate Salvation that is Glorification to these intended effects of Christ's Death for his chosen this being the End of all the former and therefore we imply that Perseverance in Faith and a State of Justification was intended infallibly and certainly to be given them Tenthly Observe that we do not here enquire after the present immediate effects of Christ's Death as a satisfaction to Justice For I doubt not but the sins of the Non-Elect did lye upon him as the pro meritorious Cause of his Suffering as well as the sins of the Elect and consequently that he made Satisfaction for them to God and purchased them by his Blood Eleventh and Lastly Observe that in affirming this Infallible Immutable purpose of God to save his Elect and them only we do not deny his Purpose of giving Pardon and Life in Christ Conditionally to those that are not Elect For that which he hath done in Time he Purposed before Time and so did Christ at his Death But in Time he hath made such a general Conditional Grant or Gift of Christ and Life as is legible in the Gospel beyond all exceptions Ergo c. And therefore according to his Legislative Will antecedently God would have all men to be saved tho' consequently considering many as finally Impenitent Unbelievers he Wills as a Righteous Judge their Damnation Nor will I dispute whether as we ascribe a Volition to God as the cause of his Effectual Grace so we may ascribe a Velleity to him as Lud. Crocius and other of our Divines do as the cause of that Grace which proveth not-effectual in both speaking of him from the manner of man Upon this very cursory explication I proceed to prove the Thesis thus Argum. I. If Christ Died with a Special Intention to bring his chosen Infallibly to Believe and to give them Justification and Glorification on condition of believing then he died with a special Intention of bringing infallibly certain chosen persons to Faith Justification and Salvation But the Antecedent is true therefore so is the consequent That which we have to prove therefore is that he had a Special Intent to give Faith to some Infallibly and then there will be no more question of Justification and Glorification And that I prove thus Whatever Grace Christ giveth absolutely and infallibly that he purposed before to give absolutely and infallibly But Christ giveth the Grace of Faith and Repentance to his chosen and them only absolutely and infallibly Ergo c. By giving in this Argument I mean the actual Causation or Collation of faith it self and not merely a Legal giving a right to it of which anon The Major I think no sober Christian will deny For how can the Omniscient Immutable God be suddenly surprized with a new purpose which never came into his mind before our being Believers The Minor is proved 1. From the visible Event 2. From Scripture 1. We see undâ—niably that some men have Faith and others have not therefore we know that God giveth it absolutely and infallibly to those only Obj God gave it to all alike but the rest refused it Answ I. If that were true of God's Moral Civil way of giving yet it cannot be true of his Physical gift or operation which we now speak of for that giving is ever connexed with receiving As God never giveth a Soul to any Body nor health to any Sick man but those that receive them so he never thus gives Faith Repentance a New-heart to any but those that receive them Obj. He offereth Christ and Grace to believe in him to All and offering is conditional giving and he doth no more to any but on supposition of their Reception or performance of the Condition Answ I. It 's false that he actually offers Christ to all tho' as to the tenour of the Gift he doth which without the Promulgation which extends not to Millions of Heathens is no actual offer II. Much less or as little doth he offer them Faith III. It 's false that he doth no more but offer Faith conditionally to his chosen For he effecteth it absolutely To offer Conditionally is a Civil act and we are speaking of a Physical Causing This objection therefore flatly denieth that God is the Author of any man's Faith We therefore prove it out of Scripture Eph. 2. 8. By Grace ye are saved through Faith and that not of your selves it is the gift of God The Expositors that are most against the Doctrine which I defend do confess that it is Faith and not Salvatiin only that is here called the Gift of God but they say God giveth it by giving the object Christ and the Gospel Answ That is somewhat towards the giving of Faith but that is not the giving of Faith if there be no more Do these men think that the unrenewed faculty hath need of no Grace but an object or perswasion from without to cause it to believe Many have the Gospel that have not Faith therefore God hath not caused such to believe 1 Pet. 1. 5. Who are kept by the Power of God through Faith unto Salvation God's Power is exercised in keeping us in Faith as the means to Salvation the end And he that by his mighty Power keeps us in Faith no doubt did cause it 2 Pet. 1. 3. According as his Divine Power hath given to us all things that pertain to Life and Godliness through the knowledge of him that hath called us to Glory and Virtue If he give us all things pertaining to Life then he gives us Faith Obj. Faith is expresly excepted in the Words through the knowledge of him that hath called us that is through our own believing Answ I. It is distinguished from the rest as a Gift which is a means to the other gifts but not excepted II. Our following acts of Faith seem to be included in the All things here mentioned viz. Through our first believing God giveth us Christ the Spirit and all following Grace And if the following acts of Faith are the gifts of God then no doubt the first was so which was required of us when we were less able of our selves to perform it then when we are Sanctified Heb. 12. 2. Jesus is the Author and Finisher of our Faith Obj. That 's meant of the Doctrine of our belief and Objects of Faith the Christian Religion Answ I. Then to be the Finisher and to be the Author would be all one For as soon as Christ was the Author of Christian Doctrine he was the Finisher but not so about our own Faith II. If it were so yet may it be meant of Faith as it contains both even the whole work of our Christianity and Salvation Phil. 1. 29. For to you it is given on the behalf of Christ not only to believe on him but also to suffer for his sake From this Text Grotius himself confesseth that it is proved that Faith is the