attainment of it in vain for his attaining Life after by Christ is nothing against his losing it in the first way Most certainly those that see not the glory of Christs new Administration in the Government of the World in general in Title and so legislation judgment and execution as it differs from the Administration of the former Government they do rob God of a very great part of the glory of the work of Redemption and if they overlook so glorious an effect of this work which should be part of the matter of their weekly solemn Praises on the Lords days in the Church Assemblies for which the day was translated from the seventh which was for the commemoration of the Creation as the cause of our being and ground of the former Government no wonder if they speak and write again Universal Redemption The whole World is now governed by Christ and so by God as he is God Redeemer And it is no small flaw or errour in their Theology that deny the Foundation of the whole Government and then cry out that we make Christ to dye in vain if he bring not all infallibly to Heaven that he dyed for 5. And also he hath in subordination hereto attained this by his death that he hath power to abrogate or alter the Law that was against us And that men before their believing are now his Prisoners and not the Fathers as Rector according to the first Law unremedied and so they are Prisoners of hope and not of despair 6. He giveth them under his hand a Conditional Remission and grant of Salvation If they will have him and Life with him they may For this is the Record which men perish for not believing that God hath given us Eternal Life and this Life is in his Son He that hath the Son hath Life and he that hath not the Son for all that gift hath not Life 1 John 5. 10 11 12. This end Christ attained and therefore dyed not in vain 7. He putteth men in a way towards recovery appointing them some means to be used thereto and giving them sufficient grace or help to that use of those means which he first requireth of them 8. These men do actually partake of a multitude of mercies in this Life besides the forementioned They enjoy a comfortable healthful Life with the supply of their wants being provided for with necessaries and usually with delightful abundance having the service and use of all the Creatures They are kept from all cause of desparation and the self-tormentings of Conscience which are its inseperable concommitants and which those that feel do often call the torments of Hell within them They are not only kept out of Hell it self but as is said have a possibility of everlasting escaping it and if they will not reject it they shall certainly enjoy Eternal Life All the mercies in one word which ever they receive are from the Blood of Christ and therefore as to them he Died not in vain Their Lives indeed might have been continued according to the tenour of the first violated Law but it would only have been as a fit subject of misery It would not have been such a Life of Hope Delights and Abundant Mercies 9. They shall all have their Bodies raised up at the Resurrection Day and that by the power of Christ as the Redeemer 10. They shall all be judged by Christ as their Lord-Redeemer and so acknowledge him before all the World 11. They shall be judged according to the Talents of Mercy which they abused and the Grace which they rejected after the tenour of the Redeemers Law and not according to the unremedied Law of works And so shall be left without all just excuse even at the bar of Grace To their greater shame and the Redeemers greater glory than if they had been judged according to the meer Law of works by God-Creator as the Legislator of that Law 12. Lastly They shall in their just everlasting Damnation bring double Glory to Gods Justice as Belilevers in their Salvation shall bring a double Glory to his Mercy As in our Salvation God will not be honoured only as Creator and Rector according to the first Law but also as Redeemer and Rector according to the New Law So in the Damnation of Unbelievers it is not only the Justice of God as Creator and Rector according to the first Law but it is specially the supereminent Justice of Christ and God as Redeemer and Rector according to the new Law which will be everlastingly glorified on the rejectors of Grace They will then fully acknowledge that Christ died for them and Redeemed them and that in mercy and that for the undervaluing and rejecting of that mercy they do justly suffer So that here will be a more glorious advantage for the demonstration of Gods Justice than ever could have been according to the tenour of the first Law and without Christs satisfaction for the Sinners And I think if Christ attain his own and his Fathers Glory he Dieth not in vain and loseth not the fruits of his Blood-shed He knows how to manage the business so as that he shall be no loser let men prove as ungrateful and obstinate as they please All these ends Christ actually obtains for they are ends fully intended by himself But then the very Salvation of all men is finis prescriptus propositus propounded to man to be intended and Christs satisfaction is made a sufficient means thereto in suo genere and so this may be called the end of Gods Legislative will though he attain it not as is said before Argument the Fifth against Universal Satisfaction 5. All those for whom Christ Died or satisfied have the Gospel Preached to them But all men have not the Gospel Preached to them Therefore Christ Died not for all men The Major is proved thus 1. Christs Dying for men would be in vain if it should never be revealed to them that they might believe But Christ doth not Die for any in vain Ergo c. 2. For whomsoever Christ Died for them did he procure Remission Salvation and all means necessary thereto But the Preaching of the Gospel is a means necessary thereto Ergo c. Proved in that the Preaching of the Gospel is a necessary means to believing and Faith is a necessary means of Remission and Salvation The Minor of the main Argument is proved by experience Answ 1. Let it be observed that this Argument makes nothing against the Redemption of all men that hear the Gospel Elect and Non-Elect but only of those Pagans or others that never hear it And if they grant that Christ satisfied for all that hear the Gospel few will contend much with them about others as judging it partly so far beyond us and partly so little to concern us as not to be worth much contention Yet for my part I think the Argument weak and the Conclusion untrue 2. Davenant in his Dissertation of Universal
in our dispute yet with those that are contentious and will needs insist on the supposed advantage which the state of Indians and other Pagans and their Infants do afford them I shall though unwillingly proceed further rather than prejudice the Truth But the greatest Ambiguity in our Question is in the term For. This proposition here may admit of divers Senses Sometime Christ is said to Die For our Sins Sometimes To Die For us When he is said to Die For our Sins it may be understood 1. Either for our Sins as the pro Meritorious procuring Cause of his Suffering through his own undertaking to bear what they deserved Or if any think it fitter to call them the Occasion than the Meritorious Cause they may And so to Die For our Sins is to Die through the Desert of our Sins 2. Or else he may be said to Die For our Sins Finalitèr as Sin is part of the Evil which he intended through death to free us from And so to Die For Sin is To Die against Sin As when we say This Medicine is good For such a Disease we mean it is good against it When Christ is said to Die For us it may be meant either 1. Subjectivè that he Died Loco nosiro of which more anon 2. Or Finaliter And that two ways 1. Either as we are to be his own in propriety and so 1. To be a means to his own glory 2. Or his Propriety a means to our further good And thus he dyeth For Men by way of purchase as a Man gives a Price For a Slave or Condemned Malefactor for I will not say as we buy a Beast in the Market seeing that is only for our selves and not for the good of the Beast 2. Or else more directly as we are the Finis Cui of those benefits which by his Death he procureth And so Dying For us is either taken generally respecting our selves generally considered as the Objects of his love As one Friend or Lover is said to Die for the sake of another in several Cases as in fighting for him or other way of signifying or testifying Love So generally considered Christ Died nostri gratiâ 2. Or in reference to the special Benefits which by his Death he procured for us Which Benefits might be variously considered either 1. As to be offered or to be enjoyed 2. Either quoad possibilitatem vel quoad futuritionem possessionis 3. Quoad rem ipsam vel quoad Jus ad rem with divers other Considerations which I will pass by lest by needless distinguishing I should rather obscure the point than clear it Only before I can go any farther I must needs lay down a few Distinctions which are of great moment and necessity for the right understanding of this matter 1. And first and above all we must both distinguish between the divers Effects or Ends of Christs Death and rightly consider the Reason and the Order of each of them For to know only in general that Christ dyed for us is so far from being a sufficient knowledge for a Divine that it is not sufficient to denominate a man a Christian seeing it saith no more of Christ than may be said of Stephen Peter Paul or one another For we must if called to it die for one another saith John 1 Epist 3. 16. Yet I confess the right ordering of this whole work in our Conceivings is a matter of great difficulty though of great moment At the present time will permit me only to give you this brief Account of my thoughts herein I Consider 1. What Christ did 2. Why he did it 1. That which he did was 1. In sensu Naturali to Suffer and Die 2. In sensu Legali vel Morali It was 1. In General to be Punished 2. In Special it was A voluntary bearing in the person of a Mediator in the stead of fallen Mankind that punishment in weight which for their Sin the Law of works Obliged them to bear Or to speak in the Scripture phrase which it were well if men had been contented with it is the offering himself a Sacrifice for Sin and so to take them away as a Ransom for Attonement and Propitiation 2. Why Christ did this must be answered from the Efficient and Final Causes In general Gods will is the Principal Efficient and Ultimate Final Cause of this and all things More particularly 1. God was the Author or first Cause in committing this work to his Son and sending him to do it 2. Gods Mercy and Compassion speaking after the manner of Men was the Impulsive Cause 3. Mans misery was the Occasion 4. Mans sin was another occasion as being loco Causae Meritoriae for properly there was no Meritorious Cause 5. The Laws Curse or Obligation was another occasion as being Miseriae Causa removenda 6. Christs Voluntary Sponsion or Consent was the Moral Obliging Cause supplying the place both of a Meritorious and of a Legal Obliging Cause 7. Christ himself was the Voluntary Patient 8. God himself was the Principal moral Efficient so far as it had rationem boni For he cannot be a morally deficient Cause nor an Efficient of Punishment so far as it hath in it rationem veri mali 9. Satan was the Principal Author of it as it was Evil. 10. Wicked men were the Instruments 2. And for the Ends there is two ways of discerning and expressing them The 1. is according to Gods order of Intention The 2. accordding to His Order of Attainment and Execution 1. The former is less fit for our observation both because we are utterly uncertain whether it be fully and wholly revealed seeing God may have End◠which he judgeth not fit to communicate to us and where it is not revealed either 1. By Scripture or 2. By Event it is impossible we should know it 2. And because when we do see Events yet we are so vastly distant from God and exceeding strange to his unconceivable unexpressible Nature that we know not what hath the place of an End and what of a means in the Divine Intention farther than He hath told us Nor know what Gods intention is the term being properly appliable only to Creatures and no term of Human Language in strict propriety appliable to the Nature of God But this much the Scripture Revealeth to us 1. That in the sense as God may be said to have an end Gods proper ultimate end is himself He made all things for himself and can have no lower end than himself But how himself is his end is hard to open If we say his Being as such is his End or that his Essential Glory is his End we do but darken the matter and lose our selves For neither Redemption nor any other work can either cause conserve or add to that Being and Glory If we say His Glory in the Esteem of the Creature is his utmost End we suppose him to have an End Infinitely below himself If you say 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
therefore should be saved Ans The Persons are determined of long ago for whom Christ satisfied Either he hath satisfied for me or he hath not before my Faith If he have not then my Faith will not cause him to satisfie for me either by suffering again or by making that satisfaction to have been paid for me which was not Object But it is a thing that never will be for one to believe for whom Christ did not satisfie And therefore it is a thing not to be supposed Ans 1. Things may and must be supposed in dispute that never will be That the Elect should have the desert of their Sin or be unredeemed or be forsaken of God or deprived of any mercy which God will give them are all things that never will be And yet a Christian may argue on supposition they had been or should be to raise his thankfulness What if God should have denied me his Grace Or his Redemption Or let me perish in my Sin and State of nature What a Case would my Sin have brought me under 2. If it be a thing not to be supposed in dispute that a Man should believe for whom Christ satisfied not then it is because it implieth a contradiction Else it may be supposed But it implieth no contradiction Ergo c. Object It is a contradiction Because Christ purchased Faith for all those for whom he satisfied and therefore for a Man to believe for whom Christ purchased not Faith is a contradiction Ans 1. I shall take it as a groundless fancy till it be proved that Christ purchased Faith to be eventually certainly given to all those for whom he satisfied 2. If he had this argument is not from satisfaction as such but as it is meritorious of Faith 3. still it is no contradiction because it implyeth no contradiction for a man to believe without that Grace which Christ hath purchased though it be a thing that will never be done 4. They that will still affirm the contrary do the more destroy their own Cause For they then assert that all Gods commands by his Laws and Ministers to the unredeemed as they suppose them for believing in Christ do require meer impossibilities and such contradictions as are not to be so much as supposed in dispute which I think few sober men will grant but rather avoid that opinion that is the ground of such an assertion 5. And which is more the same absurdity will follow as to all other means whatsoever as well as Faith which God hath prescribed to such men for pardon and salvation as they are means and so bring this reproach on the whole New Law as made to all such Men. Object But the same may be said against Gods Foreknowledge or Decree For if God Fore-know or Decree that men shall certainly perish then it may as well be said that though they should believe God neither would nor could save them Answ 1. As to the Power of God it is not straitened by his Decree It follows not God will not do such a thing therefore he cannot The same Divines whom I now argue against use to argue thus about Physical Predetermination God 's Determination of his own will destroyeth not his Power or liberty to the contrary act therefore his determination of our wills destroyeth not our Power or Liberty to the contrary acts whereby they grant that God can save those that he decreeth not to save and so can give them Faith c. and that he is still free to do it or not do it Object If he should believe and be saved whom God hath foreknow nor decreed to be condemned for Unbelief then God should be deceived or change But it is impossible for God to be deceived or change therefore it is impossible for him to believe and be saved whom God hath foreknown or decreed to condemn for unbelief Answ It is a vicious Argument There 's more in the conclusion than in the premises No more will follow but this therefore he will not believe and be saved whom God c. not it is impossible for God never foreknew or decreed that it should be impossible for him to believe and be saved but only that he would not eventually believe and be saved 2. When I speak before in the Argument of Gods will it is not of his will of Decree but of his will as he is in the relation of Rector per Leges and so giveth that Salvation as executor of his Laws and Sentence which by his Laws he first gave Right to God as Rector and Legislator neither will nor can give Salvation to any that Christ dyed not for if they should believe But God as Legislator or Rector would give salvation to all that Christ Dyed for if they believe though it were supposed that he had foreknown or decreed that such men would not believe Only it would follow that God was mistaken And therefore such a thing will never come to pass for God will not be mistaken It is God as â—egislator to whom it belongs to be true in making good his promises which is the thing in Question 3. The want of an expiatory sacrifice doth morally necessitate the Damnation of Man though he should believe both in respect of the Law of works as â—hrists Death is Causa necessaria liberationis as want of a Ransome may be said to necessitate a Captives perishing and properly in respect to the new Law whose Penalty is 1. Non-liberation 2. And a sorer punishment For the chief cause of that Non-liberation or Non-salvation must needs be the defect of that which should be the chief cause of Deliverance and Salvation rather than the defect of Faith a subservieâ— cause or condition which ever supposeth thâ— former cause If two men at Christs bar be â—â—â—leaded as lyable to Damnation and it be â—â—â—d to one Thou hast no Right to Salvation for Christ never Dyed for thee and to the other thou hast no right because thou didst not believe is not the former more valid then the latter or as valid But to say Thou hast no right because God did decree the contrary is not right arguing 4. We must not argue a minus notis as the Decrees are as shall be shewed Arg. 8th A Causa pereundi negativè If Christ hath not satisfied for all men then the cause of mens perishing is for want of an expiatory sâ—criâ—iâ—e But the want of an expiatory 〈◊〉 is not the cause of mens 〈◊〉 therefore Christ hath satisfied for all By 〈◊〉 cause I mean not the meritorious cause for that no doubt must be some sin of Man And I suppose that Unbelievers are not condemned according to the first Law of works as standing without Remedy that is not meerly because they did not perfectly obey but at the Redeemers bar because they believed not and would not have Christ to Reign over them or because they improved not their Talents of Grace that is of mercy given contrary
to desert And of those that hear the Gospel this is undenyable and I think it is certainly true of all others So that it is perishing in reference to a Gospel Judgment at the Mediators Bar that we mean and specicially in a comparative sence And by cause I mean the Reason of their perishing to be alledged So that if you ask seeing all are equally condemned by the Law of works and mercy hath found out a Remedy what is the reason that this man is condemned at the Redeemers Bar when that is acquit Or that this Man Judas is not delivered and saved as well as that Peter Is it because Christ Dyed only for one or that one only believed and the other refused Christ Here according to the Doctrine which denyeth Universal Satisfaction it must be said that either the only or the principal reason that men perish when others are saved is for want of an expiatory sacrifice or satisfaction for their Sin i. e. because they had no Redeemer when others had or no Christ to Die for them But this is contrary to the Scripture The consequence is evident that it is more principally the want of a Saviour or satisfaction then the want of Faith that is the reason of their perishing if Christ satisfied not for them 1. Because satisfaction is prerequisite to the efficacy or usefulness of Faith Sed non è contra 2. Satisfaction hath the greatest work to do and is the greatest cause And faith hath a far and a lower work and is a lesser cause or indeed no cause at all but a meer condition 3. God could not fitly save Sinners without satisfaction But he could if he had pleased have saved them for that satisfaction without a personal Faith as he doth Infants and as he saved the Church before Christs Incarnation without that Faith which now justifieth viz. Believing that this Jesus is the Christ and without believing in any Articles of our Creed If two Men be mortally sick and one be healed and the other not because one had a costly Cordial and the other had none prepared for him but only a nonimal offer without the thing though this Man refuse that nominal or feigned offer yet the chief cause why he was not healed was the want of the medicament rather then his refusal And for the Minor its plain through the whole New Testament that the cause of Mens perishing is not for want of an expiatory Sacrifice but for want of Faith to receive the Redeemer and his benefits Mat. 23. 37. How oft would I have gathered thee c. ye would not Isa 5. 4. What could have been done more to my Vineyard c. Mat. 24. 4. 5. Tell them which are bidden behold I have prepared my dinner My Oxen and Fatlings are killed and all things are ready Come unto the Marriage But they made light of it c. verse 8. The Wedding is ready but they which were bidden were not worthy i. e. There is no want on Christs Part his Sacrifice and satisfaction is sufficient But they lost the benefits for want of believing Mat. 25. 1. 2. All the Virgins might have been accepted at the Marriage if their own sloath had not shut out the foolish verse 14. All the Servants had Talents mercies purchased by Christs Death but it was not well using them that condemned one Men treade under Foot the Blood of the Covenant wherewith they were sanctified And deny the Lord that bought them Mens destruction is of themselves But in God through Christ is their help All the Scripture shews this that Men perish for their rejecting a Redeemer and not for want of the Price of Redemption For quoad pretium Christ hath taken away the Sins of the World Arg. 9th A Sufficientià pretii pro omnibus If Christ died for all Men quoad sufficientiam pretii then he hath satisfied for all But he died for all Men quoad sufficientiam pretii Ergo c. The Minor is maintained by the generality of our Ancienter Protestant Divines who use ordinarily this distinction to solve the doubt whether Christ died for all viz. he died for all sufficiently and for the Elect only effectually And indeed this one distinction rightly understood and this answer thence fitted is most full and apt for the resolution of the question The Schoolmen go the same way The consequence of the Major proposition is acknowledged by our late most rigid Anti-Arminians who on that reason do deny the Minor For our new Divines have utterly forsaken the old common opinion and in stead of saying that Christ died for all Men sufficienter They will not so much as say that His Death was sufficiens pretium pro omnibus But only that It is sufficient to have been a price for all For all our former Divines and the most of these times so far as I can discern who acknowledg that Christ died for all Men quoad sufficientiam pretii and for the Elect quoad efficaciam they say the same and as much as I and therefore I need not say much more to them For Christ cannot dye for Men sufficienter and yet not die for them at all or not satisfie for them I may well take up with this one argument If Christs Death be a sufficient price for all then it is a Price for all But Christs Death is by their confession a sufficient Price for all Therefore it is a Price for all Here understand that it is first in order of nature a Sacrifice expiatory or a satisfaction before it is meritorious of further benefits or is a Price for them Had it not been to satisfie Justice God would have been so far from taking his Sons Death for meritorious that he would have been utterly displeased in it For he delighteth not in the Death of him that dieth how much less of the innocent and lest of all of his only Son Note here also in what sence we say Christs Death is sufficient and in what sence it is called effectual There is a double effect of Christs Death and so a double efficacy and so a double sufficiency to those effects The first effect is to be a satisfaction to the offended Justice of God and a demonstration of his legal Justice The sufficiency to this effect was in the dignity of the Person and greatness of the suffering supposing Gods voluntary Acceptation of it instead of the Sinners own suffering The efficacy immediately followed the suffering Yea it went long before it upon the undertaking and the acceptation as in Moral Causes it is not unusual The 2d sort of effects are more remote even the actual good of the Sinner Of these some are general and common as the freeing of all Men from that necessity of perishing which lay on them by the Curse of the first Law as it stood without remedy c. And so Christs Death is sufficient for all and effectual too Some fruits of his Death are
to an Angel not to be Redeemed nor to the Devils not to be partakers of Christ and of Pardon and Salvation by him Now its true the Pardon of the Damned and their Salvation was not actually effected but the meritorious cause was full and perfect in Christs satisfaction and moral causes go long before the effects sometimes and may do all their part and yet the effect not follow through the defect of some other and the effects were conditionally given or produced by the New Covenant and thereby become not only possible and probable but certain if the condition were performed So that here is a proper privation and not a bare Negation Nor is it the meer matter of such effects that men are deprived of but formally as they were effects conditionally granted and were to have been effects actually of the death of Christ They should have been such effects if they had done their part to procure them by performing the condition as Christ did in the Cause for he required not them to effect it as concauses but only suspended the effects of his own full sufficient but Moral cause on their condition which all Lawyers and all that know what a Moral Cause is or what a proper condition is know to be most usual Now if you suppose that Christ died not and satisfied not for these men then the loss of Pardon Adoption Membership of Christ final Absolution Salvation besides all the greater Glory and all the Spirits Graces and Workings in this life cannot possibly be punishments to them for they cannot be Privations For there was never any cause to procure them and therefore they were never possible much less due and Mans Faith was not required by God to be the meritorious cause or to satisfie Gods Justice nor yet to procure Christ or any other to satisfie it nor yet to make that satisfaction to be now for us which was made for others and not for us to none of these ends was Faith required but only to be the condition of our enjoying Christ and the fruits of his satisfaction on performance whereof the Moral Cause which was long before in full being should produce its effect or else not as to us so that satisfaction as the Cause is necessarily supposed to Faith as the condition seeing the office of the condition is that on it the effect of the cause be suspended till that condition be performed And therefore there can be no condition where there is not first the Moral Cause I mean there can neither be condition constituted by Law Testament Deed of Gift or Covenant nor yet condition performed for it cannot have the form of a condition Or if that be disputable as to any other case I am sure it is not in the case in hand No man will say that the non-remission non-salvation of the Devils by the Blood of Christ is a Punishment to them Object That is because it was never offered or conditionally given them by Covenant as it was to the Unbelievers Answ Nor could it have been given so to Unbelievers if Christ had not died for them Could God give them Christ as a Satisfier and Redeemer who never had satisfied for them or redeemed Or could he make over to them effects which had no Cause viz. the effects of his dying for them when he did not dye for them Would the New Covenant serve to pardon men without Christs Sacrifice and Satisfaction Nay is it not beyond all doubt that this which I call the New Covenant or Testament He that believeth shall be saved c. is the Redeemers Law and Testament and presupposeth his Death and Satisfaction in esse Morali at least It is the New Testament in his Blood he first buyeth men to be his own by satisfaction and then dealeth with them as his own by Promise and Legislation Only the Promise of God to give Christ for a Redeemer to the World and his Prophesies of him therein are in order of nature before the Moral being of Christs death but so is not the Law of Grace I know nothing that hath any great shew of Reason that can be said against this Argument which so clearly evinceth the truth of Universal Redemption and for vain objections I will not trouble my self and the Reader with them Arg. 30. A Comparatione doctrinae universalem satisfactionem affirmantis cum doctrinâ— eandem negante If they who assert Universal Redemption quoad satisfactionem pretium have all these forementioned Arguments from Scripture for their cause and a multitude of express Texts and no one ill consequence following their doctrine nor one sound Reason nor one text of Scripture against them And if the deniers of Universal Satisfaction have all the contrary disadvantages then they that affirm Universal Satisfaction are in the right and they that deny it do err But the antecedent is true Ergo. c. Here I will 1. Look over these Arguments again and from thence shew you the face of the consequents of the denial of Universal Satisfaction 2. I will lay you down together the express Texts that are for Universal Satisfaction 3. And also the Texts that are brought against it 4. And then the particular search of those texts on both sides and the answer to all the Arguments that are usually brought against Universal Satisfaction I intend shall follow afterward in their own places more fully The Doctrine which denyeth Universal Satisfaction hath all these inconveniences and absurd consequents following therefore it is not of God nor true 1. It either denieth the Universal Promise or Conditional Gift of Pardon and Life to all men if they will believe and then it overturneth the substance of Christs Law and Gospel promise or else it maketh God to give conditionally to all men a Pardon and Salvation which Christ never purchased and without his dying for men 2. It maketh God either not to offer the effects of Christs satisfaction Pardon and Life to all but only to the Elect or else to offer that which is not and which he cannot give 3. It denieth the direct object of Faith and of Gods offer that is Christum qui satisfecit a Christ that hath satisfied 4. It either denieth the Non-Elects deliverance from that flat necessity of perishing which came on man for sinning against the first Law by its remediless unsuspended obligation and so neither Christ Gospel or Mercy had ever any nature of a remedy to them nor any more done toward their deliverance then towards the deliverance of the Devils Or else it maketh this deliverance and remedy to be without satisfaction by Christ for them 5. It either denieth that God commandeth all to believe but only the Elect Or else maketh God to assign them a deceiving Object for their Faith commanding them to believe in that which never was and to trust that which would deceive them if they did trust it 6. It maketh God either to have appointed and commanded the
in an infallible prevalency to his chosen And that none might perish merely on the old score or be judged meerly by the Old Law but all stand or fall according to their improvement or abuse of recovering Mercy And all this God hath hereupon granted to his Son And so he hath satisfaction for his satisfaction though many that he hath satisfied for do perish 6. Besides consider though men be punished for the same sins that Christ suffered for yet as to God the same do become new sins and so men suffer for them as it were as for new sins For 1. The old Obligation was so far made void or disabled that of it self it could never more bind them to punishment by reason of the addition of a remedying grant 2. God did quantum in se as Legislator of the old Law forgive them all the debt except the sins of non-performance of the Gospel conditions which God still excepted and Christ never suffered for for God hath delivered the obligation out of his own hand as standing in that first Relation of Rector secundum Legem Naturae sâ—lum and given it up into the hand of the Redeemer to give Remission to whom he please He hath also made a free Deed of Gift of an Universal Pardon to all that will accept it So that though men be not actually pardoned yet God may conveniently be said to have pardoned them in that he did his part as Rector secundum Leges As he saith to Israel I have healed thee and thou art not healed When a true Believer is actually Pardoned God doth put forth no new act to Pardon him but doth it by the general Grant or Act of Oblivion whereby he Pardoned All men conditionally as well as them The Law saith a man hath done a thing or given a benefit when he hath done his part though the effect follow not and the Work be yet undone For Moral Causes may do all their part and â—et the effect not follow for want of the performance of conditions in the receiver or because con-causes do not their part And therefore if the effect follow not the Law enquires Who it is long of Whose fault was it if of the Patient or Receiver then the Donor or Agent is said to have done the thing though yet it be not done For as to him moraliter vel Civiliter it is done There being no default on his part If any say that God followeth not the Rules of Humane Laws I answer God is the Fountain of all right Laws and Reason and Justice and I speak not of any unjust or mistaking Laws This is an ill pretence for men to judge their Maker by when they will not allow him that reasonable apology nor make that construction of his ways according to common undeniable equity as they will do of the ways of men Right Reason and the Laws made thereby are a beam of Gods perfect Wisdom and Justice If any say that God doth not Totum quod ad se attinet all his part in making a Deed of Gift of Christ and Pardon and Glory to all that will accept it unless he also give Faith which is the acceptance it self I shall now only say this much till we come to the point by it self that God doth Totum quod ad se attinet ut Legislatorem vel Rectorem juxta Leges all that belongs to him as Rector according to Laws though not all that belongs to him as absolute Lord and Disposer of events and all Creatures And it is in that Respect sub 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rectoris that Christ made satisfaction to him and not in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Relation of an Eternal-Elector or Absolute Proprietary and Disposer of all So that you see now that quoad Deum all men are pardoned all their sins except those excepted in the conditions of the Grant though quoad delinquentis Receptionem they are still unpardoned They may have Christ and Pardon if they will And when they are deprived of the Gift meerly because they will not have it no Reason can say God did not give it or Christ did not procure it or that God is unjust in that they are without it So that it is not now meerly the obligation of the first Law as unremedied that binds them over to punishment nor as it is in the Hands of God as Creator or Rector secundum Legem operum but it is the Obligation of the new Law primarily He that believeth not shall not be forgiven nor be saved and consequently of the Old Law as the obligation is in the Redeemers hands to be charged only on the Rejecters of Grace It is not primarily for sin as sin according to this Law Whosoever sinneth shall dye but it is primarily for Rejecting the Remedy and then that sin by necessary consequence remains unpardoned so that it is not directly because they were guilty of Death by the first Law but propter rejectam Remissionem for despising the Remission of that guilt So that quoad Deum it may be called the return of Sin or Guilt Remitted and so to be more properly ex novd obligatione from the New Obligation of the Law of Christ binding all their sins again upon them though as to them and their reception it is both from the New Obligation and the old And therefore Jude calleth such twice dead and pluckt up by the Roots If an hundred Traytors be condemned and the Prince Ransom them all at a Price agreeing in the payment of it that they shall now be all his own and none of them be delivered for all that who will not thankfully own him and acknowledge his favour Here it is just that all the Refusers of Pardon yet perish And their Death is directly for the refusing of the Remedy and secondarily from their old crime because they would not have it remedied So that though Materialiter they lose but one Life yet it may be said that the Life they now lose Civiliter is not the same that before they lost but it is vitam de novo donatam a Life newly given them for they were dead in Law and the King gave them a new Life Moraliter etsi non Naturaliter And it is the rejecting of the Gift by which they lose their former Natural Life and their New-given Mortal Life And will any man be so ill advised in this case as to say that it is injustice in the King or Prince to punish the same persons that were before Ransomed Yea if it were not by Money but by suffering publick shame that the Prince had Ransomed them Having thus Explained the Case and Answered the Argument I will looking at Edification and not the usual form of Disputing go beyond the task of a meer Respondent and give you two or three Arguments to prove that it is no injustice in God to punish those for whom Christ hath satisfied or for whose sins he was a sacrifice