it It will be expedient for me to premise certain Theological conclusions or principles which all Orthodox Divines unanimously and univocally have acknowledged to be undoubted Truths as Praecognita and Canons to have recourse unto for the decision and determination of any Controversie as need shall require which if they deny to assent unto they are not to be disputed with as the proverb speaks Contra negantem principia non est disputandum There 's no disputation to be held with him that will deny the principles of Art The Principles I think fit to premise are these four 1. That the Canonical Scripture is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is authentical and creditable of it self 2. That there is no contradictions in the Canonical Scripture 3. That the same makes and so by consequence alloweth to be made distinction between things that sometime in Scripture have the same denomination This appears by many instances in Scripture whereof I will name these three Fear Faith and Sorrow First About Fear the Scripture mentioneth a fear which is gracious and godly which the learned have termed Filial and a Fear which is gracelesse which the learned have termed Servile of this we have an example in 2 Kings 17.33 34. where it 's said of the Babylonians in the former verse that they feared God and then in the latter verse that they feared him not Whence it 's evident that a distinction must be made of the fear of God whereof some is a Gracious Fear and some a Gracelesse otherwise there would be a contradiction between the two verses which Scripture admits not Secondly About Faith The Scripture doth distinguish it into these two sorts namely a Faith that hath Works and a Faith that is without works which it also calleth a dead faith James 2.17 Faith if it have no Works is dead being alone Thirdly About Sorrow The Scripture speaks of a godly sorrow for sin and a worldly sorrow in 2 Cor. 7.10 Godly sorrow worketh Repentance to salvation but the sorrow of the World worketh death Hereby it 's clear that a distinction is sometimes to be made betwixt things that have the same denomination The fourth Principle which I shall premise is this That seeming contradictions in Scripture are so to be expounded by help of other Texts either speaking of the same point or otherwise that they may symphonize and accord together Which help the Scripture affords in one place or other If our Adversaries will yield to be tryed about the forementioned Controversies by these old Canons which have been universally received for undoubted truths by all Christian Churches in primitive times when the waters ran clearest from under the Threshold of the Sanctuary I shall adventure to bear the disgrace if I do not convince them of error about each Controversie that I have before named The first Controversie handled About Election THeir first Error that I shall undertake to confute is their assertion That God's election of men unto salvation is grounded upon his foresight of their Faith and Obedience or sanctification and Good Works That is that he electeth such and such men to life and salvation because he foreseeth that they will believe and walk in obedience to his Commandements This Assertion I shall prove to be an error by these four Arguments The first Argument If men shall therefore believe because they are elected and ordained to eternal life then they are not elected and ordained to eternal life because they will believe This consequence cannot be denied by any intelligent man But men shall therefore believe because they are elected and ordained to eternal life and therefore are not elected and ordained to it because they will believe The Assumption I prove out of Acts 13.48 where it 's said That as many as were ordained to eternall life believed Here Faith is made the fruit and effect of election to eternal life and therefore cannot be the cause of it for nothing can be the cause and effect too of one and the same thing My second Argument is this If men be elected or chosen that they may be holy then their election must needs be the ground and cause of their holinesse and sanctification But men are elected that they may be holy so saith the Scripture Ephes 1.4 He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the World that we should be holy and without blame before him in love Therefore Election is the ground and cause of holinesse or sanctification and not holinesse the ground and cause of election The third Argument If the good pleasure of God's will be the ground and first cause of mens election and predestination to salvation then God's fore-sight of their Sanctification and Good Works cannot be the first cause and ground thereof This consequence is undeniable But the good pleasure of God's will is the first cause and ground of mens election and predestination to salvation Therefore God's fore-sight of their sanctification and Good Works cannot be the first cause and ground thereof The A sumption I prove from these two Texts of Scripture passing by many other to the same purpose Rom. 9.11 S. Paul there affirms That the purpose of God according to Election stands not of Works but of him that calleth Where works are denied and Gods will affirmed to be the cause of election And Ephes 1.5 and again verse 11. the good pleasure of God's will is made the ground and cause of mens election to salvation The words in the fift verse are these Having predestinated us to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ unto himself according to the good pleasure of his will And the words in the 11. verse are these In whom also we have obtained an inheritance being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the councel of his own will If the Adversaries answer that Election may be according to the good pleasure of God's will and yet the good pleasure of his will may not be the cause of Election To this I reply That the Apostle makes it plain in the 11. verse that he speaks of the good pleasure of God's will as the cause of Election by the addition of these last words in the verse Who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will For if he worketh all things after the counsel of his own will then Election is necessarily one of those things which he worketh after the councel of his own will and therefore the counsell of his own will must needs be the cause thereof The fourth Argument is this If Good Works be no causes of salvation then neither of election unto salvation this is plain because Election is the cause of Salvation But Good Works are no causes of salvation and therefore no causes of Election The minor Proposition or Assumption is proved by Ephes 2.8 9 verses where the Apostle saith By grace ye are saved through faith and that not of your selves it is the
active and passive is the meritorious cause of salvation and of all the means conducting thereunto So Colos 1.14 We have redemption through his bloud even the forgiveness of sins And 1 John 1.7 The bloud of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin And 1 Pet. 1.18 19. Knowing that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things as silver and gold from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers but with the precious bloud of Christ as of a lamb without blemish and without spot with many such like Texts Thirdly Faith is the instrumental cause that is to say the instrument whereby we receive Christ and apply his merits to us so John 1.12 As many as received him to them he gave power to become the sons of God even to them that believe on his name And Ephes 3.17 The Apostle saith that Christ dwells in our hearts by faith And hence it is our righteousnesse is called both the righteousness of faith Rom. 10.6 And the righteousnesse which is by faith Heb. 11.7 And the righteousnesse which is of God by faith Phil. 3.9 Fourthly and lastly Vocation and Justification and Sanctification and good works and eternal life and salvation are the joynt fruits and effects of the aforenamed causes successively following one another Vocacion Justification and Sanctification and good works are the first fruits and effects of the foresaid causes brought forth here in this life as numerous Texts of Scripture testifie which I need not recite because they are familiarly known and because I have mentioned divers of them formerly And Eternal Life and Salvation is the last fruit the consummation and ultimate end of all as it 's very often taught and testified Rom. 6.22 Being made free from sin and become servants to God ye have your fruit unto heliness and the end everlasting life And 1 Pet. 1.9 Receiving the end of your faith even the salvation of your souls These are the links of the golden chain of salvation and the order of the causes thereof as they are annexed and held forth to us in the word of God And in Rom. 8.30 they are summed up together though in fewer words Whom he did predestinate saith the Apostle them he also called and whom he called them he also justified and whom he justified them he also glorified And hence is Mr. Haggar's grosse error in his concatenation of the causes of salvation detected and confuted In that he makes sanctification and good works causes of salvation which are but fruits and effects of God's election and the merits of Christ apprehended by faith for they go before salvation only as necessary antecedents and as the appointed way to lead us to salvation and as preparatives for Heaven as hath been already declared but not as causes thereof 1. They are Via regnâ— but not causa regnandi So that as the way to any place is not the cause that brings any man to it though he must needs passe through the way to come to that place but the cause of his coming to it is his own will and motion So sanctification and good works though they be necessary antecedents to salvation so that we cannot passe to Heaven but through them yet they are not the causes which brings us thither but the causes thereof are the mercies of God and the merits of Christ apprehended by Faith And so I end this Controversie If now I have not untied the Gordian knots of these long debated Controversies so fully and openly as to give satisfaction to all whose thoughts have been formerly puzzled about them as I believe I shall not yet my labour will not be wholly lost in these regards First Because I have hereby declared my willingnesse to do the Church service to my power by putting my hand to the supportation of the truth of the gospel which these stormy times have so impetuously and vehemently shaken Secondly Because what I have delivered may happily give satisfaction to some and let them loose out of the briers of their hesitation that were doubtful before what opinion to incline to Thirdly Because this Essay may happily be an occasion to invite and induce some more Logical and Learned pen to publish a more Scholastick and plenary solution of them The fifth Controversie About Original sin THat I may the more fully discover and confute this error I will unfold these four points about the sin of our natures the sin wherein we are conceived and born which therefore all Orthodox Divines have fitly and properly called Original Sin First I will render a reason of the epithete why it is called Original Sin Secondly I will give a definition of the Sin what is Thirdly I will alledge some of the evident proofs of Scripture for the justification of it Fourthly I will frame some irrefragable and convincing arguments drawn out of Scripture to prove it by necessary and undeniable consequence The first Point opened THe sinful corruption or corrupt disposition of man's nature from the womb hath many epithetes or names given unto it in Scripture which denote and declare that it hath its original and beginning with man's conception and birth and therefore is fitly and properly termed Original Sin and so ever hath been for above this thousand years by all sound and learned Divines both ancient and modern For though it be not in terminis in these very words so called in Scripture yet hath it divers other epithetes and names there given it which are consignificant and import and imply the same sense and meaning with these words Original Sin amongst which take notice of these Rom. 6.6 It 's called The old man and the body of sin 1 Cor. 5.7 It 's termed The old leaven Rom. 7.17 The sin that dwelleth in us Rom. 7.23 The law in our members Rom. 7.24 The body of death Gal. 5.16 The lusts of the flesh Jam. 1.14 A man 's own lust In which Text in the next words following it is punctually distinguished from all actual sins as being expresly affirmed to be the procreant cause of all actual sin for the cause and the effects cannot be one and the same The second Point opened what original sin is ORiginal sin is a pravity vitiosity or vitious habit or corrupt disposition of man's nature from his first conception as a just punishment of all mens sin in Adam whereby they are born the children of wrath and become subject to death both of body and soul and also become prone to commit all actual sins Or thus Original sin is a pravity of man's nature from his first conception whereby he seems to be prone to all sin as a just punishment of Adam's sin or transgression whereof all men are guilty and for which all men are exposed and subjected to death both corporal and eternal Both these definitions have one and the same sense And from them ye may observe that there be three things in Original Sin or three parts of it The first
of doing them or leaving them undone be understood with this caution so far forth as God shall be pleased to afford both the concurrence of his general and divine providence which enableth all creatures to motion and action and the concurrence of his common restraining grace which in some measure more or lesse he affordeth promiscuously to all sorts of men both regenerate and unregenerate Thus far an unregenerate man is able to move and bend himself toward the work of his conversion by the natural liberty of his will About the second namely How far forth mans will coâ—perates with God in his couversion I will first rehearse the Adversaries assertion amongst which the Papists are chief and leaders to the rest and then the assertion of the Reformed Churches The Papists say That the will of man before regeneration can by the help of the exciting grace of God though not without it as Pelugius said will its own conversion and either accept or reject God's grace of internal vocation and so cooperates with the grace of God in the first act of conversion So teacheth the Councel of Trent and Bellarmine in his book de gratia libero Arbitr lib. 6. cap. 15. This opinion the Reformed Churches disrellish and reject as dissenting from holy Scripture and assert the point thus That the will of man is a meer patient and not agent at all in the first act of conversion and God's grace is the sole efficient cause thereof and the will but subjectum recipiens the subject receiving the grace of conversion But in all other good acts following the first mans will so renewed cooperates with the grace of God And this was the learned S. Augustine his assertion as it 's expressed in the 17. chap. of his book de gratia libero arbit in these words Vt velimus Deus sine nobis operatur quum autem volumus sic volumus ut faciamus nobiscum cooperatur To will God works without us but when we do will and so will that we act God co-works with us That this latter assertion is the truth I shall make it appear by these three Arguments The first Argument AS is a dead man in his Revivification or Restauration to life so is a natural man to his Regeneration or Conversion which is his Restauration to spiritual life But a dead-man can be no cause of his own Revivification or Restauration to life And therefore a natural man can be no cause of his Regeneration or Restauration to spiritual life The assumption no man that hath reason can deny for there is an impossibility that a dead man should cooperate to his own Revivification The major or first Proposition is justified by those many Texts of Scripture where it 's affirmed of men unregenerate that they are dead in sin as Luke 9.60 Let the dead bury their dead id est The dead in sin their bodily dead And Luke 15.24 This my Son was dead id est in sin And Ephes 2.1 You hath he quickned who were dead in trespasses and sins And Col. 2.13 And you being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh hath he quickned together with him having forgiven you all trespasses And this very argument though not in the same words yet to the same purpose and effect Bellarmine useth against the Pelagians in his Lib. 6. cap. 5. De gratta Libero Arb. adding only this clause to the Assumption That a dead man neither doth nor can dispose himself to life unlesse he receives some vital power from him that revives him which it appears he therefore added lest the argument should reflect and so be retorted upon himself who afterwards in the 10. Chapter of the same book attributes power to mans will to work with God in his first conversion the will being but first aided and excited by the preventing grace of God by which he means as it 's there very evident a grace preceding the work of conversion But that the argument which he there useth against Pelagius doth confute himself in that the clause which he hath added to the Assumption doth not turn away the edge of the argument from himself I make it plain thus A dead man can receive no vital power from him that revives him till he have first received soul and life because there can be no vital power but in a living subject it being a proper adjunct of a living subject quarto modo If then he must receive soul and life before he can have any vital power then cannot his vital power cooperate to his revivification but must of necessity be a consequent and an effect of his enlivening And so in like manner the case is the same with a man spiritually dead He must first be revived by God before he can have any vital power in him to work with the grace of God and therefore can be no cause at all of his revivification and conversion in respect of the first act thereof The second Argument IF all the powers of mans soul be so depraved that even the chiefest of them namely his Wisedom a power consisting both in the understanding and will be opposite to the Will of God and the Law of God and so opposite that it cannot be made conformable and subject to the Law of God while it is the wisedom of the flesh that is till it be renewed and changed from fleshly wisedom to spiritual wisedom then can there be no power in mans will whereby to co-work with God in the first act of his conversion But all the power and faculties of mans soul are depraved c. Therefore there can be no power in mans Will to co-work with God in the first act of his Conversion The consequent in the first Proposition is clear to any intelligent person for if the wisedom of the flesh which leads and guides the Will cannot conform and be subject to the Law of God while it is the wisedom of the flesh then cannot the will which is guided by it cooperate with the will of God while it is the will of the flesh and therefore by undeniable consequence must be renewed before it can cooperate with his will And the Assumption is the expresse affirmation of Scripture Gen. 6.5 Every imagination of the thoughts of mans heart is only evill continually And Rom. 8.7 The wisedom of the flesh is enmity against God for it is not subject unto the Law of God neither indeed can be The third Argument MY third Argument shall be the quotation of those many Texts of Scripture where the co-operation of mans Will with God's Grace in the first work of regeneration is clearly excluded and the work attributed to God alone For brevitie sake I will quote but some of the clearest and most convincing proofs and omit the rest which are very numerous John 1.13 The Spirit of God speaking there of regenerate persons affirmeth that they are born not of bloud nor of
books of Scripture and their wonderful humility in conculcating their own glory and confessing their own grosse faults and delinquencies when they have occasion to speak of themselves that they may exhibite and ascribe all glory to God manifesteth the divine authority of their writings for we know it is otherwise in all other Authors The truth hereof appears first from the books which Moses writ wherein he hath reported not only the cruelty of his grandfather Levi to the discredit of his own birth but also openly confesseth his own sin and how much the Lord was offended with him for it several times so as he was therefore debarred the entrance into the Land of (a) Numb 20.12 Canaan This truth also appeareth from the Gospel of S. Mark for there S. Peter's sin in he denial of his Master is more expresly set forth and aggravated then in any of the other Gospels and yet was it penned if not by the dictation of S. Peter as some report yet by his approbation at least as saith (a) Euseb Hist Eccl. lib. 2. cap. 15. Eusebius Lastly the Apostle Paul likewise rips up his own faults and notifies them with aggravation I was saith he a blasphemer a persecutor and an (a) 1 Tim. 1.13 oppressor This argues strongly that these men were set on work by God and guided by him and not by their own fancies and affections in that they were so far from flattery connivance or partiality that they spared not themselves at all nor regarded their own disgrace and infamy so that thereby glory might accrue to God In the eighth and last place Ar ∣ gument 12 the irresistible and supernatural power and efficacy of this word doth mightily declare it to be divine and heavenly which it expresseth not by one or two acts but by various operations and those specifically distinct one from another which ordinarily and frequently issue and proceed from it More especially we may observe these four supernaturl effects of it as demonstrative of its divinity First It 's a searcher of the heart and a discerner of the most secret thoughts and intricate imaginations of it and a revealer of the same this appears from Psalm 14.1 where it speaks thus The fool hath said in his heart there is no God Which affirmation imports that the Inditer of the Psalms was privy to some thoughts in the hearts of fools which none but God himself can discern Nay Scripture reveals some such thoughts as man himself without the light of it would searely ever have espied as that All the thoughts and imaginations of mans heart are only evill (a) Gen. 6.5 continually And that concupiscence is sin which Paul confesseth he had not known if the Law had not said thou shalt not (b) Rom. 7.7 lust And therefore this word which pierceth thus deeply as to the rifling of the very cogitations of mans heart must needs be of God whose alone property it is to search the heart and least through the propensity of mans nature to slight those things which belong unto his peace we should neglect or overslip the observation of this as a note of the divine power of Scripture it self rounds us in the ear in two places if not more and gives us intelligence and notice of it In one place it tells us That the word of God speaking of this written word is lively and mighty in operation and sharper then a two-edged sword dividing between the soul and the spirit and the joynts and marrow and is a disceruer of the thoughts and intents of the (c) Heb. 4.12 heart And in another place it saith That the illiterate unbelieving person having the thoughts of his heart made manifest by prophesie that is by the word preached will fall down on his face and worship God and report that God is in the (a) 2 Cor. 14.25 Preacher Where it gives us to understand that the discovery of mens thoughts by the preaching of the word shall extort from them this open and ingenuous confession that verily God speaks in them and that the word is his which is published by them Secondly the supernatural power of Scripture appears in that it shakes and terrifies the consciences of wicked men even the greatest upon earth of Kings and Princes and that in such a sort as is impossible for the word of any mortal to do That it doth so is clear from these instances in Scripture It 's said of Saul King of Israel that he was so affrighted with the Prophet Samuel his reproof of him for his disobedience to God's word that he confessed his sin to Samuel which he had denied before and sued to Samuel for favour with all (b) Sam. 15.24 submisnesse It 's said also of Felix who was a Vice-roy that he trembled when he heard Paul preach of righteousnesse and the judgement to (c) Acts 24.26 come Now that mans word should be thus formidable to Kings and Princes it cannot be imagined because no man hath coercive or compulsive power over the King and where such power is wanting menacies from thence are no more feared then the crack of a paper gun at least not in that manner and measure that the affrighted consciences of men do fear the thundrings and threatnings of the Law in Scripture And therefore that word which strikes such deep horror and amazement into the hearts of men yea of Kings who fear no mans word because no man hath coercive power over them must needs be more then humane Thirdly It usually prevails against the enemies and haters of it such as all men are by nature to open their eyes and to turn them from darknesse to light and from the power of Satan unto God and to win them to a love and liking of it self which is an effect proper only to divine power That it doth produce this effect I presume no Christians will deny whence it testifieth of it self that it converts (a) Psal 19.7 souls and is the power of God to (b) Rom. 1.16 salvation And that it 's mighty through God to cast down strong holds casting down the imagination and every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of (c) 2 Cor. 10.4 5. Christ This is a supernatural effect and wrought by the power of this word and therefore it necessarily and concludingly follows that it 's not mans word for that cannot work above the strength of nature of or by it self neither can win the affection of him that hates it without a change or variation of it self which yet this word doth If it be objected that it 's not the power of the word but the power of God's spirit that produceth this effect I answer that it 's true indeed that God's Spirit is the principal efficient cause hereof but the word is the instrumental and so the concurrence and cooperation of the Spirit of God
gift of God Not of works lest any man should boast And again Tit. 3.5 Not by works of righteousnesse which we have done but according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost The Advesaries answer That these and such like Texts are spoken of works before regeneration To which I reply that in Tit. 3.5 the Apostle expresly nominates works of righteousnesse and denies them to be any causes of salvation but there be no works of righteousnesse before regeneration for then an evill tree should bring forth good fruit which our Saviour denies Matth. 7.18 And therefore even good works after regeneration are in Scripture denied to be any causes of salvation Hereof I shall have occasion to speak more largely hereafter and therefore will not insist any longer in the illustration of it Before I proceed to the next Controversie I will display the weak argumentation of Mr. Henry Haggar for defence of election from fore-seen sanctification by his straining Scripture from its proper sense and in not comparing it with other Scripture where the genuine and proper sense is clearly explained He toils himself to prove the said point because it 's said in 2 Thes 2.13 that men are chosen to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and therefore thence collects that they are not chosen before they are sanctified by the Spirit which is a very inconsequent collection for it doth not follow that because men are choto salvation through sanctification of the Spirit that therefore sanctification of the Spirit is the cause of their election or that therefore it precedes their election but that therefore sanctification is a necessary antecedent way and means through which they must be brought to salvation whereto they are elected as the way to any place is not the cause of a man his coming thither but only a necessary requisite to be observed of him And thus this Text fitly agrees with other Texts of Scripture as that before mentioned Ephes 1.4 where it 's said That we are chosen that we should be holy which Text he hath waved and never mentioned at all but as Satan alledged the words of the Psalmist leaving out a part as knowing it would disclose his wresting and perverting the true sense of the other Text which he alledged And so he neglects the premised rule of expounding Scripture by Scripture which is of necessity to be observed to find out the true sense and meaning of any Text that is ambiguous or may be variously expounded He alledgeth also the 1 Pet. 1.2 where it 's said That men are elected according to the foreknowledge of God the Father through sanctification of the Spirit Whence he collects that God knows men first before he doth elect them To this I answer First That God's prescience or foreknowledge of men and his election of them are in him together and one and the same act for all his attributes are himself and whatsoever is said to be in him is himself as it hath ever been acknowledged by all learned Divines But in humane apprehension of them his decrees precede his prescience for he doth not decree things to come because he foresees them but foresees them because he hath decreed them as is colligible from S. Paul's speech before named Ephes 4.11 where he affirms that God worketh all things according to the Counsell of his own will whence it 's manifest that his own will is the first cause of all his works and not his prescience though his prescience do concur with his will Secondly I answer That the foreknowledge of God there mentioned is a foreknowledged with approbation for the original word which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies fore knowledgement as all men of learning know which implies a concurence of his election and approbation with his foreknowledge of men and not any precedence of his knowledge before his approbation and election of them And this affords an answer also to that place which is brought by some of the adversaries for defence of election from foreseen faith and holinesse in Rom. 8.29 where it 's said that whom God did foreknow he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son where the Greek verb which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies properly fore-acknowledged which intimates an election either with it or before the foreknowledge and besides the words following lead to this sense in that the Apostle expresseth that the predestination which he mentioneth as a sequell of God's foreknowledge is a predestination to be conformed to the image of his Son that is to be holy as Christ is holy A predestination to holinesse cannot be a predestination for holinesse as was shewed before He alledgeth but one Text of Scripture more about this point which is in the fourth Page of his discourse and which he abuseth very sufficiently as he doth the two former and that is Ephes 1.11 and 12. verses where the Apostle speaketh of himself and others that they were predestinated that they should be to the praise of God's glory who first trusted in Christ Whence he ridiculously collecteth that they did first trust in Christ before they were predestinated Whereas the priority or precedency of their faith there mentioned by the Apostle hath no relation at all to their predestination in Grammatical construction but to the faith of the Ephesians that were Greeks or Gentiles and called to the faith of Christ after Paul and the other Apostles that were Jews as appears evidently by the next verse where the Apostle adds In whom also ye trusted after that ye heard the word of truth As if he should have said In whom we trusted first and then ye afterwards which agrees also with other Scripture as Rom. 1.16 where the Apostle saith that the Gospel is the power of God to salvation to every one that believeth to the Jew first and also to the Greek The second Controversie Of the Vniversality of Christ's Redemption TO decide and determine this controversie I must first state the question aright between us and the adversaries To speak nothing of the word All which sometimes is put for all sorts of men and sometimes for all particular men of all sorts Seeing we acknowledge that Christ died not only for all sorts of men but for all of all sorts that do repent and believe The controversie depends upon these three Quaeries 1. Whether Christ died for unbelievers at all or not 2. Whether he died for them in as full and ample sense as for believers 3. In what sense he died for them and in what sense he died not for them To the first quaery or question I answer affirmatively for my part that Christ died for unbelievers in some sense To the second I answer negatively scil that he died not for unbelievers in as full and ample sense as for believers which I prove from Scripture three ways First Because it 's said sometime in
Augustine in these words Jubet Deus quae non possumus ut noverimus quae ab illo petere debemus God commands us what we cannot do to intimate unto us what we ought to crave of him namely what we cannot do of our selves And hence are those many prayers of several sorts of persons in the Scripture as Psalm 51.10 Create in me a clean heart O Lord and renew a right spirit within me And Jer. 31.18 Convert thou me and I shall be converted And Lament 5.21 Turn thou us unto thee O Lord and we shall be turned Fourthly I answer that God commands us this though we cannot do it of our selves that we may be excited to use such means as are by God's ordinance and appointment conducible and available thereunto and which we have of our selves power to use which are Prayer the Word and the Sacraments for his calling to us to repent and return unto him is a provocation or calling to us to use such means as he hath appointed to produce the same in us Fifthly and lastly I answer That such commands aim not only at our first conversion but at our secondary and subsequent returns to God when after our first conversion we prevaricate and digress from him in which secondary return mans will cooperates with the grace of God as formerly hath beeen said And therefore God's invitation of men to these returns wherein their wills have some ability to cooperate with his grace is not vain or needlesse but very efficacious to allure and induce them thereunto Not to tire the Reader with any further dispute about this controversie I will close it up with the addition of these two reasons to the former Arguments to induce all persons to adhere to this opinion as the safest which I have here asserted First because this opinion makes a clearer reconciliation of those Texts of Scripture which hold forth a seeming contradiction about this point then the other doth for according to the other opinon they are not reconciled without some scruple Secondly because this opinion ascribes most glory to God to whom all glory belongs wherein there is no danger though men detract from themselves For to detract from nature and give to grace is no danger but to detract from grace and give to nature cannot but be dangerous This was the saying of Peter Lumbard and is of all acknowledged and owned for truth The fourth Controversie About the merit of good works THe Papists opinion about this and Mr. Haggar's in affirming good works to be causes of salvation which both they do and he also in the 9. page of his forenamed discourse hath so little appearance of truth that it deserves to be exploded rather then refuted And I have good ground for what I affirm First Because it 's so apparently repugnant to Scripture as to Ephes 2.8.9 where it 's said By grace ye are saved through faith and that not of your selves it is the gift of God not of works lest any should boast And Tit. 3.5 Not by the works of righteousnesse which we have done but according to his mercy he saved us And whereas to salve up the discord between Paul's affirmation and theirs they make a distinction of good works of which some say they go before justification and some follow after it and St. Paul they say speaks of those that go before but they speak of such as follow after and therefore they do not contradict him I have formerly declared namely in my 4th Argument about the first Controversie in page the 20. that the Apostle speaks of the same good works which they speak of namely of good works after justification and regeneration And therefore they are herein contradictors of holy Scripture Another ground for what I affirmed before is this Because I never had conference with any Papist yet and I have conferred with many in my time but they all disclaimed the merit of their own works when upon occasion of discourse I have charged them with this grosse Tenet I have yet a third ground for what I said and that is because I find Bellarmine their Arch champion after his affirmation of the merit of good works and that they are true causes of salvation and that some confidence may be placed in them in his book of Controversies namely Libr. 5. cap. 7. de Justificat to give men counsel within ten lines after to put no confidence in their merits but in the alone mercy and benignity of God as the safest way So that there is no great necessity to confute this opinion of the merit of works seeing themselves do distrust it and after a sort desert it But yet some short confutation of this palpable error I will deliver which I hope shall sufficiently convince it And the first Argument I frame thus Argument 1. IF eternal life or salvation be Gods gfit then it is not merited by man's good works so the Apostle argues Rom. 11.6 If it be of grace it is no more of works But eternal life is God's gift so saith our Saviour Luke 12.32 Fear not little flock for it is your Father's pleasure to give you a Kingdom where note that it 's said to be a gift and from no other motive but from his own good pleasure And John 10.27 My sheep hear my voice and I know them they follow me and I give unto them eternal life And saith S. Paul Rom. 6.23 The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Therefore eternal life is not merited by man's good works Argument 2. IF all the good works which possibly we can do be due debt to Almighty God then can they not merit Heaven at his hand for merit and debt cannot stand together a man cannot be said to merit by paying that which he oweth But they are due debts so our Saviour teacheth Luke 17. â—0 When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you say We are unprofitable servants we have done that which was our duty to do Therefore they cannot merit Argument 3. IF our good works be not properly our own but proceed from the grace of God which worketh them in us and by us then can they not be said to merit from God though they may merit from others because we return no more to God then what we have received from him we give him but a cluster of grapes out of his own Vineyard and water out of his own Fountain If any man discern not the necessity of this consequent it 's for want of perspicacity in his own understanding and not for want of truth in the consequence And Bellarmine doth acknowledge it in Libr. 5. cap. 15. De Grat. Lib. Arb. Good works are not properly our own but proceed from the grace of God which worketh the same in us and by us so it 's said Isa 26.12 Lord thou wilt ordain peace for us for thou also hast wrought all our works in us
death of the body for as the soule gives naturall life to the body so the image of God namely righteousnesse and holinesse gives spirituall life to the soule and without which the soul is spiritually dead as Ephes 2.1 Colos 2.13 and divers other Texts of Scripture witnesse where mention is made of a death in sin You that were dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh hath he quickened c. whence by undeniable consequence it follows that where there is a deprivation of the spiritual life of righteousnesse and holinesse there must needs follow a spiritual death in sin Now if they deny grace righteousnesse and holinesse to be the life of the soul I refer them to the view of these three Texts of Scripture omitting many other where it 's expreslly asserted Prov. 3.21 22. Keep sound wisedom and discretion so shall they be life unto thy soul And Rom. 8.6 To be carnally minded is death but to be spiritually minded is life And Rom. 8.10 The spirit is life because of righteousness that is The soul is alive spiritually because of righteousnesse Argument 3. THey whom Christ came to save are sinners So saith our Saviour himself Matth. 9.13 I came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance And S. Paul Rom. 5.6 Christ died for the ungodly And 1 Tim. 1.15 Christ Jesus came into the World to save sinners And this must needs be so in reason for where there is no sin there is no need of a Saviour But Christ came to save Infants as well as men of years Therefore they are sinners Now that Christ came to save Infants as well as men of years appears by Scripture these two ways 1. Because he died for all men as oft the Scripture affirms 1 Tim. 2.6 He gave himself a ransome for all Heb. 2.9 He tasted death for every man For whether all in these and the like Texts of Scripture be taken for all sorts of men only or for all of all sorts Infants must needs be included amongst them for they are one sort of men 2. Because he invited children to come unto him or to be brought unto him as is said Marke 10.14 which intimates that he came into the world to save them as well as men of years I will add one argument more for proof of this point to which the wit of man though prompted by the cunning suggestion of the old serpent cannot devise a satisfactory answer Argument 4. THey which are by nature children of wrath are by nature sinners But all men are by nature children of wrath so saith the Apostle Ephes 2.3 Therefore all men are by nature sinners and so consequently Infants The first proposition is all that I have to prove for the assumption is S. Paul's own affirmation And I find it the constant doctrine of holy Scripture both in the Old and New Testament which evermore teacheth sin to be the only cause of God's anger and wrath And this in reason must needs be so because all things else were his own works which were all good yea very good as we read in Gen. 1.31 And sin only was the Divel's work the enemy of God and all goodnesse and therefore sin only is said to provoke God's anger and wrath The testimonies of Scripture are so numerous for this that I will name but this one of a thomsand Rom. 1.18 The wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousnesse of men And how oft God is said in Scripture to have been provoked to anger by the sins of the people of Israel none can be ignorant I will add but one thing more about this argument and so I will conclude it The forenamed Text in Eph. 2.3 with what is deducible from it where it is affirmed that we are all by nature the children of wrath puzleth the Anabaptists not a little and puts them to their shifts to frame such an exposition thereof as may not impugn their own false Tenet about original sin This may appear from that exposition which the forementioned Mr. Brown hath made of that Text in the 6. page of his book that I named before where he thus expounds it By nature saith he is understood first the matter and form of our bodies which are good and principally the light that God hath placed in man Now that this is a novel false and irrational interpretation of this Text I thus discover If by nature here be understood nothing but what is good namely the matter and form of our bodies and the light that God hath placed in us then how can it make us the children of wrath as here it 's said of it for nothing that 's good can make us children of wrath It 's sin only which was first brought forth by Satan and nothing else that provokes God's wrath as formerly was proved By nature therefore in this place of necessity must be understood something that is sinful for else it could not make us children of wrath as hath been shewed which can be nothing else but that vitiosity pravity and corrupt disposition which from our first birth and being is propagated into our bodies and souls by natural generation For though it were granted that by nature here be meant the substance of our souls and bodies yet of necessity it must be also granted as hath been now proved that it 's meant of them not as pure and free from any sin but as vitiated and depraved therewith from their first union and conjunction together into one individual It remains therefore a sure and sacred truth inviolable and infringible and not to be contradicted but by obstinacy or impudence it self That children are born in sin The sixth Controversie About Tithes THere is an obsteperous clamour raised against Tithes by the Anabaptistical teachers who yet for the most part lay as heavy a burthen upon their disciples and put them to as great cost and charges as is equivalent to Tithes And this in all probability they have broached and ventilated to get the better morsel for themselves For this they find by experience that the way to insinuate with the common people and to winde themselves into their bosomes is to preach pleasing things unto them and especially such as sound for their profit be it right or wrong To stop their mouths if it may be if not yet to justifie the practise of paying and receiving Tithes I will first make it appear that it stands with equity and justice that Ministers of the Gospel have allowance and recompence for performing their work of the Ministery and such an allowance as may afford them a competent and comfortable livelihood and subsistence Secondly I shall make it appear That it stands with equity and justice that they have Tithes for their allowance 1. The former I shall prove both by Scripture and force of reason By Scripture I shall prove it both in the Old Testament and in the New First